The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-04-28 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 28, 2020 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a meeting of a public body may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or declared emergency. The Mendota Heights City Council has declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a part of this action and until further notice, all City Council and city commission meetings will be held by telephone or through other electronic means, with social distancing measures to remain in place. All public meetings will continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Individuals wishing to submit a comment related to the planning request item noticed herein, must mail them directly to City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, Attn: Tim Benetti; or email to CD Director Tim Benetti at timb@mendota-heights.com. Comments must be received by no later than 6:00 p.m. CDT on the day of the meeting, April 28, 2020. All comments received in a timely manner will be read into the public record at the appropriate point in the meeting. Please note, to comply fully with the Governor’s Executive Order No. 20-20 and stay-at-home guidelines, the Council Chambers will not be open to the public during the planning commission meeting. Interested individuals may access the meeting in real time or later by viewing the meeting replay from Town Square Television (www.townsquare.tv\webstreaming) or the City’s website, or by using the join-by-phone dial-in number below. If the dial-in option is used, the line will be muted, so no outside comments or noise will be recorded. Note that long-distance telephone charges may apply. Because of technological limitations, the number of participants using dial-in cannot exceed 100 callers. As a result, web-stream participation is strongly encouraged. Dial-In / Join by Phone Number: 1-312-535-8110 Access Code: 280 086 017 (followed by #) _________________________________________________________________________________ 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Adopt Agenda 3.Approve the March 24, 2020 regular meeting minutes 4.Public Hearings a.Case No. 2020-06: Variance to allow a 38-ft., wide driveway/access opening on a public street in the R-1 One Family Residential District, located at Friendly Hill Middle School, 701 Mendota Heights Road. Anderson-Johnson Assoc. Inc. (acting on behalf of ISD #197) - Applicant b.Case No. 2020-07: Lot Line Adjustment to allow the re-establishment of three (3) original platted lots in the in the R-1 One Family Residential District, located at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road. Matt Gustafson - Applicant/Owner c.Case No. 2020-08: Variances to allow the construction of a new Press Box/Bleacher Structure and Light Pole Towers for the existing varsity baseball field at St. Thomas Academy, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road. Anderson-Johnson Assoc. Inc. (acting on behalf of St. Thomas Academy) - Applicant 5.Adjourn Meeting 1 March 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 5 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 24, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioners John Mazzitello and Litton Field. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 27, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2020 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings A)PLANNING CASE 2020-04 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, 2121 DODD ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Mendota Heights Fire Department is seeking a conditional use permit to provide a new freestanding electronic (LED) message display sign, located on the fire station property at 2121 Dodd Road. The property is generally located at the NW corner of Dodd Road and Mendakota Drive. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Katz asked if there would be electric run underground to power the sign and whether there has been consideration of solar power. 2 March 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 5 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the fire station has solar panels on the roof already which make the building self-sufficient in terms of energy needs. Commissioner Toth stated that it appears the sign would be setback 40 feet from Dodd Road and wanted to ensure that the lighting for the sign would not be distracting to drivers. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the ordinance has a brightness threshold for signs and the City would ensure that it meets the Code requirements. He noted that if there are any complaints, the City could easily make the necessary adjustments. He provided additional details on the messaging that would be posted on the sign. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, WHICH ALLOWS THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW FREESTANDING (MONUMENT) ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGN AT THE FIRE STATION PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 2121 DODD ROAD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THE NEW FREESTANDING MESSAGE SIGN SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STANDARD UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 12-1D-15: SIGNS: SUBSECTION h. SIGNS IN R DISTRICTS, SUBPAR. 7. 2.THE FINAL LANDSCAPED PLANS FOR THE NEW SIGN AREA SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE MASTER GARDENERS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY. ANY PLANTINGS OR REVISIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE MASTER GARDENERS WILL BE INCORPORATED (AS BEST ASS POSSIBLE) BY THE CITY’S CONTRACTOR. 3.A NEW SIGN PERMIT FOR THE ELECTRONIC SIGN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND CITY STAFF PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON THE SIGN. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 7, 2020 meeting. 3 March 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 5 B) PLANNING CASE 2020-05 SEAN HOFFMAN AND JEFF WIELAND, 2030 DODD ROAD – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Sean Hoffman and Jeff Wieland, manager and owner of Mendota Heights BP-Amoco Station, are requesting consideration of a variance to the provisions of City Code Section 12-1D-1 related to nonconforming uses, structures and lands. This variance would allow the owners to expand a legal nonconforming structure and use at this location. The property is located at 2030 Dodd Road. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett asked where the findings of fact could be found. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided clarification on where those details can be found in the staff report. Commissioner Katz referenced the project scope plan, noting that it appears an existing service bay would be converted to a carwash. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that is an outdated plan (old survey from 1966) that is not a part of this plan. Commissioner Katz stated that the existing cashier and convenience store area are being turned into a service bay and asked if the pumps would need to be relocated. Chair Magnuson asked what the Commission is being asked to vary. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the variance is the expansion of a nonconforming structure that does not meet setbacks. He stated that the main goal with an expansion is not to increase any nonconforming elements. He stated that the established footprint would not be expanded as the expansion would be filling in a notched area with more building. Chair Magnuson stated that if the setback requirements for today were imposed on the site, there could not be a gas station at that location. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that to be true. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. 4 March 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 5 Sean Hoffman, 2030 Dodd Road, stated that they want to expand into a third bay, under the existing roofline, to increase flexibility in scheduling. He stated that the pumps are not going to be moved, but the first pump nearest the garage doors may be eliminated if it becomes nonviable. Commissioner Toth stated that it appears the storage area will become part of the convenience store and asked where the storage would occur. Mr. Hoffman provided details on the storage that would occur, noting that they follow a similar model at another location. Commissioner Toth asked for input on the statement in the applicant’s narrative that there is demand for an additional service bay. Mr. Hoffman replied that they have had an increase in business as the residential areas in the community continue to grow. He stated that he has had to delay appointments because of scheduling, which sometimes causes customers to go to another business. Commissioner Toth commented that the parking space is condensed onsite. Mr. Hoffman noted that they also rent parking spaces from the adjacent mall. Commissioner Toth commended the business for keeping a clean site. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF SAID VARIANCE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 7, 2020 meeting. 5 March 24, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 5 Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The City is still in the midst of changing conditions due to COVID-19 and staff will advise the Commission if conditions change. Chair Magnuson stated that she would be concerned that people would be concerned with attending to provide public comments. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff continues to communicate to the public to encourage residents to reach out via telephone or email. He explained that residents can submit comments via telephone or email that could then be presented to the Commission. Chair Magnuson stated that comments sent directly to the Commission members are read and encouraged residents to use that method as well. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:36 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 6 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 1 Planning Staff Report DATE: April 28, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-06 Variance for Driveway-Access Width APPLICANT: ISD #197 – Friendly Hills Middle School PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / S-School (Institutional) ACTION DEADLINE: May 17, 2020 (60-Day Review Period) INTRODUCTION ISD #197 is seeking to widen its main entrance driveway access off Mendota Heights Road, from its current width of approximately 28-ft. to a proposed 38-ft. in width. This legal notice of this public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all properties within approx. 500-feet from the outer perimeters of the school boundary lines. The city received one email letter of objection on this item (attached), and no other comments or objections. BACKGROUND The property is located in the R-1 One Family Residential zone, but guided for S-School (Institutional) use. The subject parcel consists of approximately 30 acres in area, and contains a 90,000 sq. ft. school facility, with parking and various play fields (see aerial image – right). The school is accessed by two openings off Mendota Heights Road (see red circled images –below). The westerly entrance is approx. 30- ft. in width with a circular turn-around at its end, and is for bus service only. The second entrance is approx. 28-ft. in width and is a two- way driveway located across from Lockwood Drive, and provides dual access to the delivery area on the east side of the school, and leads to the main surface parking lot for staff, visitors and parent drop-offs in front of the school. 7 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 2 On May 21, 1996, when the city was considering the approval of the building permit for new Friendly Hills Middle School at this site, a question arose on the proposed widths of the two access drives onto Mendota Heights Road. The concern was if the two access points designed at 30-feet in width would be wide enough to accommodate busses. The school’s architect indicated the design for these two access points was originally for 24 to 26 foot in width, but city staff recommended to widen to 30-feet instead. Then Public Works Dir. Jim Danielson further stated “…that a 30-foot curb cut is the maximum allowed by ordinance and a variance would be necessary for a wider cut.” The council eventually approved the permit, but with the following added condition: “…if it is determined by the school district traffic engineer that width of the entrances from Mendota Heights Road should be increased for safety reasons, that a variance from the 30- foot curb cut requirement of the zoning ordinance is granted to 36-feet.” Apparently this added driveway width was not needed in 1996, as the two driveways today measure 30-ft. and 28-ft., respectively. (note: the meeting minutes from the May 21, 1996 council meeting are attached for reference). Recently on March 5, 2019, the City Council adopted Res. No. 2019-78, approving a separate variance to build the new gymnasium addition on the back side of the school. As part of this request, the school district provided an overall Site Improvement Plan, which include a proposal to join the two existing driveway accesses off Mendota Heights Road into one singular, restricted access for busses and delivery vehicles, and a proposal to install a new driveway access out on to Huber Drive (east of the school) for staff/parents/visitor traffic only (see plan image – below). 8 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 3 Staff recommended this proposed access/ driveway onto Huber Drive needed more study and analysis; and the city council agreed to allow the school district more time to prepare a study or present their findings later to the council, in which they stated they would make a final determination on the requested opening. This access to Huber Drive was not approved under the 2019 variance decision-making. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST At this time, the school district has decided to forgo adding the new driveway/access onto Huber Drive, and has instead elected to only widen the easterly access off Mendota Heights Road. The existing two-way access is approximately 28-feet in width, and the school is requesting to add 10-feet of extra driveway to include a new turn lane, which will widen the access/drive to 38-ft. in width (see plan image-below). There are no changes being made to the westerly bus driveway access. ANALYSIS of VARIANCE Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-16, Subpart E.1 (below): Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide an adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Said driveway access shall not be more than twenty-five feet (25') in width at the property line in residential districts and no more than thirty feet (30') in width at the property line in all other districts, and shall be so located as to cause the least interference with traffic movement. Since this school is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District, driveways are normally limited to only 25-ft. in width. However, as noted in the previous discussion and approvals from 1996, the city stated that “that a 30-foot curb cut is the maximum allowed by ordinance…” which may have been made on the belief or assumption the school was not part of a residential district or was considered a use other than residential (possibly institutional?), and therefore allotted the extra 30-ft. width access. 9 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 4 In any event, the wider access to 38-feet is wider than both the 25-ft. and 30-ft. allowances, and therefore a variance to approve this added driveway width is in order. City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted in the application letter-narrative from AJA, dated April 2, 2020 (included in the attachments and noted below in italic text). 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property. The current width of the driveway allows for two lanes- 1 in and 1 out. The proposed variance would allow for widening of the driveway from 2 lanes to 3 lanes: 1 inbound lane, 2 outbound lanes which we feel is reasonable. The variance request (and proposed driveway widening) is not based on economic considerations. Staff’s Response: The proposed use of the property as a public school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a school, even with the proposed access driveway improvements can be viewed as reasonable request, especially when better traffic safety measures for the users and visitors of the school site are called for or warranted. The widening of this driveway with one inbound lane plus two outbound (turning lanes) should help alleviate some of the traffic congestions and tie-ups regularly seen or experienced at this school during peak [demand] periods. The variance requested in this case should therefore be considered a reasonable request and an appropriate means to allowing the continued and successful use of this property. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. 10 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 5 Applicant’s Response: Existing grades, drive alignment with the opposing street (Lockwood Drive) and maintaining safe visibility for incoming and outgoing cars, buses, and service trucks all combine as unique circumstances which were not created by the property owner. Staff’s Response: To the contrary, these existing access points and driveways for this middle school were actually designed and installed by the property owners (the school district) in 1996, thus creating a unique situation (i.e. impacts to safe traffic movements in and out of the site) that exist today. The owners however, are now taking the proactive approach and responsible action to resolve and alleviate some of these ongoing traffic issues caused by the school use by means of this variance. The wider driveway will hopefully provide better turning movements for the large number of parents’ and visitors’ vehicles that enter/exit this site during daily peak operational hours on regular school days. It is unclear why the school and/or city in 1996 did not press forward with making the driveways wider at the suggested 36-ft. width at time of their building permit review. It is now apparent from review by traffic engineering professionals and school officials, along with long time observations by public works and public safety staff, plus the growing number of local resident complaints, that the traffic in and out of this school site during peak hours can be frustrating and difficult to deal with and manage. The school and their consultants however, anticipate and believe this wider, 3-lane access driveway will help minimize congestion and back-up issues s in and around this main access point to the school and along this busy collector roadway system. Therefore, city staff believes there are certain circumstances unique to this property that lend support to granting this variance. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: The general character and use of the facility will remain as is and will not alter the essential character of the area nor will it be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity. If granted, the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties. Staff’s Response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general expectation that any access improvement can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, safety, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. Staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by the granting of this variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. This variance for wider access is being requested to provide better traffic safety for the users and visitors to this school site. Staff agrees this request is not being based on any economic factors alone, and therefore this request appears to meet this variance test restriction. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the requested access improvement plans for the subject property as requested by the Applicant, are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of school [or institutional] uses in the R-1 One Family Residential District. 11 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 6 The subject property is designated S-School in the current 2030 Comp Plan and scheduled for P/S Public/Semi-Public Use in the proposed 2040 Comp Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below (note: LUG= Land Use Goal; LUP = Land Use Policy): • 2030 LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community • 2030 LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • 2040 LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • 2040 LUP #2.2.5: Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be a source of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow. • 2040 LUP #3.1.5: Developers will be required to provide the transportation facilities within and adjacent to new subdivisions, including rights-of-way, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities necessary to support their development. These, and other guiding principles in both comprehensive plans provide for supporting school improvements, development and innovative solutions in the community. The requested variance appears to meet these goals and policy statements established under the comprehensive plans for the community; and will provide an opportunity for substantial investment to the existing school use, and will enhance the overall traffic safety needs for the school property. The proposed addition poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new wider driveway access and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variance to allow a reconstructed driveway and access to be 38-feet in width along Mendota Heights Road, based on the following findings-of-fact that support the granting of said variances, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to City Code Section 12-1D-16, Subpart E.1, as it relates to a driveway access exceeding the twenty-five foot (25') width standard for uses in a residential district, specifically for the easterly main access driveway located at Friendly Hills Middle School, 701 Mendota Heights Road, and with the following supporting findings-of-facts: i.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use functions more like an institutional use rather than a typical single-family use in the underlying 12 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 7 R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants increased, but reasonable allowances for granting a wider driveway access on to a public roadway system. ii.) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is an accepted expectation that this improved wider driveway access can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall safety, benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. iii.) The general limitedness, scale and scope of this variance needed to approve this wider driveway access for this school site, can be considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented herein. iv.) The Applicant has proven a reasonable justification and demonstrated a practical difficulty in this case for granting of the variance presented herein. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance noted herein are for Friendly Hills Middle School/ISD #197 (701 Mendota heights Road) only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020- 06, dated and presented April 28, 2020, on file with the City of Mendota Heights, is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The Applicant shall not deviate from the site plan under this application review; nor increase the width of this driveway access (or other access) beyond the approved 38-ft. measurement without first seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable improvements to be made without any special application review process. ii.) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. i.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved, the Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for construction of the proposed access improvements within one-year from said approval date. If after one year no work has commenced, the Applicant may request an additional extension (to be determined by the City Council) if needed. 13 Planning Case #2020-06 (FHMS-Variance) Page 8 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the variance to allow the wider (38-ft.) driveway access in this R-1 District. These proposed access improvements do not appear to be essential or critical to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact remains this driveway access can remain in place and continue to function as it has since 1996, even without the need of this variance, which may be contrary to the general spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the Variance to allow the wider (38-ft.) driveway access on to Mendota Heights Road, with findings-of- facts to support this recommendation, along with the conditions as noted herein. The commission has the authority to revise or modify these findings, and provide additional but reasonable conditions if necessary. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Applicant/Consultant Narrative Letter of Request 3. Site Plans – AJA Assoc. 4. Council Meeting Minutes (05/21/1996) 14 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone I 651.452 .8940 fax www.mendota -heights.com • ,< CITY OF 1 n 1 MENOOT A HEIGHTS VARIANCE APPLICATION -CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case#: ---------- App Ii cant: ________ _ Address: ---------- The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. • Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: D Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. D Completed Application Form(s). D Letter of Intent. D Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): D Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. D Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of4 2020-08 AJA Assoc. Inc. / ISD #197 701 Mendota Heights Rd. 15 D Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') 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 the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. D If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. D 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 public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: ''practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). ~ YES D NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property. The current width of the driveway allows for two lanes-1 in and 1 out. The proposed variance would allow for widening of the driveway from 2 lanes to 3 lanes: 1 inbound lane, 2 outbound lanes which we feel is reasonable. The variance request (and proposed driveway widening) is not based on economic considerations. Variance Application (2019) Page 2of4 16 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? IXI YES ONO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: Existing grades, drive alignment with the opposing street (Lockwood Drive) and maintaining safe visibility for incoming and outgoing cars, buses, and service trucks all combine as unique circumstances which were not created by the property owner. 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 0 YES ~ NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood. The general character and use of the facility will remain as is and will not alter the essential character of the area nor will it be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity. If granted, the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties. The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied. Variance Application (2019) Page 3of4 17 From:Mary & Jim Dietz To:Tim Benetti Subject:IDS #197 Date:Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:05:34 PM Regarding the request for variance to exceed the maximum access width. We are NOT in favor of allowing that drive to be made bigger as the traffic out of there is always a problem in the afternoon. By adding a left turn lane it will most likely cause accidents and then the next thing will be a round about! Please consider making it a right turn only IN and OUT of that driveway. It would be for the safety of the children. Jim and Mary Dietz 2530 Wilshire Ct MH, MN 55120 18 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 MIDDLE SCHOOL PageNo. 6 May 21, 1996 Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that the back of the property is not on the bluff line and the proposed construction will not affect he bluff at all. She stated that there is a drive behind the Fleming home and another house between it and the bluff line. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to approve the modified critical area site plan to allow construction of a fourteen by sixteen foot screen porch addition at 1902 Glen Hill Road, along with waiver of the critical area application fee. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo from Administrative Intern Hollister regarding an application for building permit from Independent School District 197 for a new middle school to be located on Mendota Heights Road at Huber Drive and for a tree removal permit. Council also acknowledged a letter from Mr. Chuck Stroebel, Environmental Scientist with the Minnesota Department of Health, to Mr. Thomas Smith regarding EMF concerns and letters of support from eleven residents. School Superintendent Dr. Robert Monson and the project architect, Todd Wichman, were present for the discussion. Dr. Monson informed Council that the school district is requesting approval of a building permit for the $12 million middle school and a tree removal permit relative to the construction. He also submitted the current schematic design for the project. Mayor Mertensotto noted that there are two traffic cuts into Mendota Heights Road, one for buses and one for general traffic, but was concerned that the cuts are only 30 feet wide. He felt that the width is very narrow for buses. Mr. Wichman responded that the plans had originally shown 24 to 26 foot curb cuts at each entrance to the site but they were widened to 30 feet at the request of city staff. He stated that the curb cuts could be widened if Council desires, and although he is comfortable with the thirty foot width, the question could be referred to a transportation specialist for review. He explained that the buses will be one way traffic movement in and out and that there are wide turning radiuses. Public Works Director Danielson informed Council that a 30 foot curb cut is the maximum allowed by ordinance and a variance would be necessary for a wider cut. 19 PageNo. 7 May 21, 1996 Mayor Mertensotto stated that costs would be minimal to widen the cuts now. Dr. Monson responded that he would discuss the matter with the district's transportation staff. He explained that the plan is to have the buses come in at one time and then they will go to the traffic circle and come back out again in single file in and out. Councilmember Smith stated that the turn radius is important and that she would like to have a transportation specialist review the plan. Mr. Wichman stated that the district does not want to put itself into the position where a variance would be needed and has worked very hard to avoid variances or conditional use permits. He stated that the basis of the design was the safety of the students, and that all of the buses must come in at the same time and wait until all are ready to leave. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the issue is one of safety and practical limitations and now is the time to look at widening the cuts, as the philosophy on what is needed may change in the future. He stated that if a variance is needed, he would think there is very good reason for granting one. He pointed out that there is a notation on the construction drawing that the driveway cuts are by city code, and stated that he does not want the district to come back in the future and say that the cuts are too small because of the city's requirement and changing it would be very costly. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she understood that the exterior of the structure would have more of a residential look. Dr. Monson reviewed the concept design, stating that the building will be presented with the most residential feeling possible, and that it is the intent to keep the deciduous trees on the perimeter of the property as must as possible. He explained that there will be minimal view of the building from the road. Mr. Wichman stated that he wanted to bring down the scale of the building as much as possible, and put in several jogs in the building. He stated that for long-term maintenance, the exterior will be brick. He explained that there is striping on the building to bring down the scale and there is a lot of texture in the brick on the lower level and different brick colors. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there has been any discussion about the roof line. 20 \ ) PageNo. 8 May 21, 1996 Dr. Monson responded that the district tried to come up with something that would give a residential appearance but could not do so within the economics of the project. He explained that the cost for a different type of roof from the flat roof proposed was absolutely prohibitive. He further stated that the structure is approximately 129,000 square feet in size. Dr. Monson informed Council that the neighbors have been involved at several points in the planning process and that representatives of the district have met with neighborhood groups. He stated that the neighbors' concerns over drainage and retention of trees, etc., have been dealt with. He explained that along the pond is a very steep hill, and moving down towards Huber Drive where the building will be. He stated that he believes that the residents on the west side of the pond will have minimal siting of the building, and the plan maximizes the existing characteristics of the land and retention of the forested areas. Mr. Wichman informed Council that there will be a six foot fence along the soccer area to keep balls off of Huber, and larger trees which must be moved from other areas of the site will be relocated to the end of the field also. He stated that the district would prefer to locate trees as closely as possible to each other to screen the field and keep balls on the site while avoiding high fencing. He informed Council that the soccer parents had recommended trees. He stated that the district will do as much as possible to relocate trees along Huber and to the north of the property, and as many of the trees to the north side that can be left will be left. He stated that grading will be done so as to keep water from draining to the north, and the soccer field was located as far south as possible so as to provide a significant amount of green space to the north. He informed Council that the district had intended to provide a track to the west of the site but right now the plan does not show the track. He stated that he believes the grades have been worked out to loop a path outside the perimeters of the exercise area, and the path will hook up to the city trail. Responding to a question about the neighborhood's opportunity to respond to the exterior, Dr. Monson stated that the district has been very sensitive to the neighbors concerns and input and that he believes when the building is built everyone will be very pleased with the exterior of the building as well as to the total development of the site. Councilmember Smith asked Mr. Wichman to provide copies of the color slides of the computer image of the proposed building as well as a color board to give an accurate representation of the colors. 21 ) ( PageNo. 9 May 21, 1996 She stated that the architect has done a very good job of breaking up a very large building and asked if this treatment was more costly than a simple design. Mr. Wichman responded that the main reason for the building is the students, and the district set up parameters, one of which was that every classroom must have a window. Given that value, he stated that the building begins to take on a certain shape and it has been his experience in designing school buildings that extra comers and other things that break up a building do not add significant cost. Councilmember Smith stated that there are areas of ingress and egress that could be affected by the screening in terms of sight line and safety at the site entrance. Mr. Wichman responded that the vegetation has been held back so that there can be sight lines on the road, and the only concern is the east edge of the bus area where there is a slight height variation that helps the sight line. He stated that this entrance will be signed for buses only. Councilmember Smith informed Mr. Wichman that the comer of Dodd and Mendota Heights Road is a focal comer for this part of the city, and that the city is developing a park across the street. She stated that she hopes that the school district will make that comer as attractive as possible. She asked Mr. Wichman to look at cleaning out the underbrush and cleaning up the comer. Responding to a comment from Mayor Mertensotto that the boxelder and cottonwood trees should not be relocated, Mr. Wichman responded that most of the trees that will be relocated are ash trees, as they have the best chance of survival. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that silt fences must be put in place during construction and that the wetlands must be protected. He asked if there are any easements around the ponds or if the ponds will be brought into the city's drainage system. He also stated that he would like to see an additional three feet of width on each side of each of the entry drives. With respect to the drive width, Dr. Monson stated that he will talk to the transportation staff, and that as long as the city is willing to work with the school district on the variance he would look into widening. 22 PageNo. 10 May 21, 1996 Councilmember Smith stated that she would like a traffic engineer's report on the issue, and she asked ifbusses would be allowed to use the other entrance. Dr. Monson responded that it is possible ifthere were a large event at the school that the other entrance may be needed, but that would be the extreme. He informed Council that he will meet with the transportation staff and if they think wider curb cuts are needed he will come back for a variance. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would not want the district to go through any extra hoops and would want Council to grant approval for wider curb cuts tonight if the district feels wider cuts are needed. He pointed that there is a problem at Lake Drive, and the buses going into St. Thomas have problems getting in and out. He informed Dr. Monson that the city staff must review the building and drainage plans and wetlands requirements and determine if there is a need for the city to reserve easements. Mr. Wichman stated that it would help him considerably, if the whole building is being reviewed for ordinance requirements, if Council would grant footing and foundation and site work permits so that he can state at an earlier time if there is any delay for consideration of easements. Mr. Thomas Smith, who was present for the discussion, reiterated concerns he had expressed to Council at past discussions. He stated that he had expressed that the bus entrance and exit is located in the worst place on Mendota Heights Road for visibility and drivers will be unable to see buses turning in or out. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council has received requests to change the speed limit along Mendota Heights Road and tried to reduce the limit to 30 mph, but the Commissioner of Highways only approved a reduction to 35 mph. He felt that once traffic increases and the school is running, the state will allow the 30 mph limit, which will improve traffic conditions. He did not feel that the grade change is significant and pointed out that there will be a cleared area between the road right-of-way and the tree line. Mr. Smith again expressed his concern over the proximity of the school to the high voltage power lines that traverse the site. He stated that he has provided the city with copies of much communication on the issue, and he reviewed articles from scientific journals on the risks of EMF exposure. He also responded to the letter from Mr. Stroebel, stating that based on the evidence available, 23 Page No. 11 May 21, 1996 he believes the site is a cancer risk zone. He also reviewed and responded to a letter to the editor published in the Sun Newspaper. He stated that in his opinion it is just plain dumb to build a school near power lines, and that the Council has a responsibility to address the risk if the school district is unwilling or unprepared to do so. He explained that there are simple steps the school district could take - they could collect readings by an independent body on the footprint of the building itself. He stated that none of the NSP readings were taken on the footprint, and that the readings should be taken after the power lines have been raised. He further stated that it is likely that EMF exposure will be reduced when the power lines are raised, but readings should be taken. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council is being asked to approve a building permit within Council's level of authority, and that Council did ask the district to address the EMF issue. He explained that Council told the school district to use an independent firm for readings rather than NSP, but the most Council could do is to adopt an ordinance directed to the power company saying that it cannot increase the potential EMF of any transmission line within the city without Council approval. He stated that in response to Mr. Smith's concern, the school district raised the power lines, and that while there should perhaps be on-going monitoring, Council does not run the school district. He felt that an independent report on the milligauss readings would possibly be a comfort to parents, and may determine that the poles need to be raised higher. He stated that Mr. Smith's concerns are legitimate, but that the Council meeting is not the appropriate forum for the debate. Ms. Mary Lemons, a resident on Apache Lane, expressed concern about the amount of noise that will be absorbed by the site from 1- 494. She stated that with the development of this site, the noise generated by the freeway will increase to the north when some of the berms and topography change and trees are removed. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the most likely result will be that it will be quieter, as the building will block the noise. Councilmember Huber moved to approve the issuance of a building permit and tree removal permit subject to staff review of all code requirements including Building Code, drainage easements needed for any ponds brought into the city's drainage system, and if there are any delays for easement preparation, plan review, etc., staffis authorized to issue a footing and foundation permit; and, if it is determined by the school district traffic engineer that width of the entrances from Mendota Heights Road should be increased for 24 Vote on Amendment: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Vote on Original Motion: Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TREE RESTORATION PageNo. 12 May 21, 1996 safety reasons, that a variance from the 30 foot curb cut requirement of the zoning ordinance is granted to 3 6 feet. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that the school district contact the MAC for decibel levels over the site. Councilmember Smith stated that the school is something the community has been waiting for and wants, and for those reasons, she is excited as well, but there has been an issue raised over whether the city should issue a permit because of the power lines. She stated that people do not have a choice where they send their children for school, and there have been studies which have recommended a maximum EF level of two milligauss. She felt that while the information is inconclusive, it would be prudent to pay attention to the concerns. She expressed concern over the health of the community's children, and stated that her concern could be considerably reduced by simple testing. She stated that she is also concerned about the increasing regulatory nature of government, but the potential huge cost to the school district should be considered if in the future the school does not meet the guidelines. She stated that there are suggested standards that can be followed and the issue could be put to rest if there were additional monitoring. Mayor Mertensotto recommended that the school district investigate the economic feasibility of testing annually for milligauss readings for the safety of those who will use the facility. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to amend the original motion to recommend to the school district that it investigate the feasibility of monitoring the milligauss affect of the transmission lines traversing the property. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion Council acknowledged a letter from Mr. James Losleben and Mr. Bill Simek requesting the city's assistance in acquiring and planting nine Linden or Ash trees along Pagel Road and Keokuk to enhance the landscaping on a parcel of Mn/DOT right-of-way. Council also acknowledged a memo from Civil Engineer Mogan. Mr. Losleben and Mr. Simek were present for the discussion. 25 26 FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL04/04/201727 EXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELDSOFT PLAYAREAREPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKSHARD-SURFACEPLAY/EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDNORTHPARKINGLOT (100 + 4 HCSTALLS)PARKING /DROP-OFF(22 + 1 HC STALLS)PROPOSEDBUILDINGADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSFOR LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS36 35138 SERVICEPARKING(8 STALLS)EVENTPARKING(~39 STALLS)QUEUE LANEQUEUE LANE DROP OFFDROP OFFONE WAYONE WAY 22+1 HC 16+4 HC ADD TURN LANE(WIDEN ~10')ADD BUSPARKING(2 STALLS)ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C1.00JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05SITEREFERENCEPLANBID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOLNOTES:1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.3. SIGNAGE SHALL GENERALLY BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED.5. WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING TURF, EXISTING TURF EDGE SHALL BE CUT TO ALLOW FORA CONSISTENT, UNIFORM STRAIGHT EDGE. JAGGED OR UNEVEN EDGES WILL NOT BEACCEPTABLE. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT JOINT BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW AS REQUIRED TOALLOW NEW SOD SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING.6. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD OR RE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS,AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.Friendly Hills Middle School701 Mendota Heights Rd,Mendota Heights, MN 55120West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan School District - ISD #197THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 - One Family ResidentialEXISTING PARKING:135 + 5 HC STALLSPARKING REQUIREMENT:ONE (1) SPACE FOR EACH FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE (70 staff): 70 SPACES REQ'DPROPOSED PARKING COUNTS:STAFF, VISITOR, PUBLIC/ VOLUNTEER PARKING = 130 + 5 HC STALLSEVENT PARKING (in bus corral, after hours)= ~ 38 STALLSBUS PARKING = 14 Large/ 5 SPED/ 3 Vans NeededSITE STATISTICS:020 40LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABPROPOSED LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENT (HEAVY-DUTY)PROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENT (MEDIUM-DUTY)PROPOSED PLAY AREAPROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNSIGNAGE KEY NOTEPAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOLPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TOARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINEA1C2.118C2.1210C2.123C2.1216C2.1217C2.1220C2.1212C2.1221C2.1214C2.1215C2.127C2.1211C2.1215C2.1210C2.119C2.1121C2.1103.04.2020Site Reconfiguration03.12.2020City Variance App28 R11R11R11R11R11R11R8R8R5R5R13R14R11R19R17R18R18R3R3R3R3R3R3R4R4R4R4R4R4R4R4R4R4R4R4P6P4P1P1R1R1R11R11R11R1R1R2R2R2R6R6R1R1R2R2R4R4R4R4R4R4R4R4R6R2X1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R2R2R2X1R3R2R2REPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKSR1R1X1P8P8P9P8P6P4P1P1R2R2R18R2REMOVE/ REPLACE CONCRETEAPRON PER CITY REQUIREMENTSR11R11R11R11ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C1.11JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05SITEREMOVALSPLANBID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL020 40NOTES:LEGENDCONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVALSCONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALSBITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVALSBITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAIMGRAVEL SURFACE REMOVALSMASS TREE REMOVALSFENCING REMOVALSRETAINING WALL REMOVALSUTILITY REMOVALSTREE REMOVALSSAWCUTREMOVALS KEY NOTEPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42 = GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FORGENERAL NOTES.2. MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SITE AND PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION ANDSITE FEATURES (CURBS, WALKS, PAVEMENTS, OVERHEAD ANDUNDERGROUND UTILITIES, SIGNAGE, FENCING, ROADWAYS, ETC.) WHICHARE TO REMAIN.3. REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING PROPERTY AND SITE FEATURES, INCLUDINGGRASS AND VEGETATION, WHICH IS TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED BY THEWORK, TO OWNER'S SATISFACTION AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THEOWNER.4. VISIT THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING; BE FAMILIAR WITH ACTUAL CONDITIONSIN THE FIELD. EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FORCONDITIONS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED OR ANTICIPATED BYEXAMINATION OF THE SITE, THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND THEINFORMATION AVAILABLE PERTAINING TO EXISTING SOILS, UTILITIES ANDOTHER SITE CHARACTERISTICS.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE THE SERVICES OF A UTILITY LOCATORCOMPANY TO LOCATE ALL PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES THAT MAY BEDISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.6. TREE PROTECTION: INSTALL 4' HIGH ORANGE SNOW FENCE AT THE DRIPLINE OF ALL TREES TO BE PROTECTED. MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT DURATIONOF CONSTRUCTION.KEY NOTE LEGENDPROTECT CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROTECT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER / VALLEY GUTTERPROTECT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROTECT FENCING (INCLUDING FOOTINGS AND GATES)PROTECT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN AND POSTPROTECT GRAVEL SURFACEPROTECT RETAINING WALLPROTECT STORM SEWERPROTECT STORM SEWER STRUCTUREPROTECT TREE - REFER TO NOTE 6 ABOVEPROTECT LANDSCAPING (MULCH, SHRUBS, ETC.)PROTECT WATERMAINPROTECT GATE VALVEPROTECT SANITARY SEWERPROTECT SANITARY SEWER STRUCTUREPROTECT FIRE HYDRANTPROTECT UNDERGROUND UTILITYR1R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9R10R11R12R13R14R15R16R17P1P2P3P4P5P6P7P8P9P10P11P12P13P14P15X1REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT, WHERE APPLICABLE, TO NEAREST JOINTREMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER / VALLEY GUTTERREMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTRECLAIM/ MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT- REFER TO DETAIL 11/C2.12REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCING (INCLUDING FOOTINGS AND GATES)REMOVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN AND POSTREMOVE GRAVEL SURFACEREMOVE RETAINING WALLREMOVE STORM SEWERREMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTUREREMOVE TREE INCLUDING STUMPREMOVE LANDSCAPING (MULCH, SHRUBS, ETC.)REMOVE, AND SALVAGE FOR RE-USE, RUBBER LANDSCAPE TIMBERS PLAY CURBREMOVE PLAYGROUND STRUCTURE / EQUIPMENTREMOVE PLAYGROUND MATERIAL (MULCH, EDGING, ETC.)REMOVE BASKETBALL HOOPREMOVE HYDRANT, GATE VALVE AND PIPE LEADSAWCUTREMOVE WATERMAINREFER TO SHEET C1.51 - UTILITY PLANS FOR TREATMENTR18R19P16P1702.19.2019Addendum 307.02.2019PR 1003.12.2020City Variance App29 EXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELD24.00'24.00'R4 . 0 0 'R5.00'35.91'R30.00'R145.00'R129.00'R100.00'R50.00'R25.00'R20.00'16.00'R13.00'80.00'48.64'14.76'25.01'R 1 9 . 8 8 '10.00'SOFT PLAYAREAHARD-SURFACEPLAY/EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDNORTH PARKING LOT (100 + 4 HC STALLS)PARKING / DROP-OFF(22 + 1 HC STALLS)PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS434.00'27.41'VERIFYR43.05'R4.00'16' WALK5C2.11R3.00 'R5.00'R20.00 'R5.00 '118.00'R6.00 'R6.00'R20.00 'R12.00'R3.00'R1 0 . 0 0 'R18.00'R20.00'R50.00'R5 0 . 0 0 ' R 1 2 . 0 0 'R5.00'R4 . 0 0 'R5.00'R5.00 'R3.50'R4.00'R 5 . 0 0 '12.65'24.00'10.04'64.34'13.00'182.06'106.50'40.00'35.64'162.00'9.00'18.00'MATCH LINEMATCH LINEProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C1.21JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05SITE LAYOUTPLAN (NORTH)BID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL015 30NOTES:LEGENDBASELINE FOR DIMENSIONSBUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. ALL APPLICABLE DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB, EDGE OF PAVEMENT OR PROPERTYLINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.4. SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT.BASIS FOR DIMENSIONS = NORTHEAST PROPERTYCORNER AND NORTH PROPERTY LINE. ALLDIMENSIONS SHALL BE PARALLEL ORPERPENDICULAR TO NORTH PROPERTY LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.02.015.2019Addendum 203.12.2020City Variance App30 24.00'24.00'R4 . 0 0 'R5.00'R30.00'R 1 9 . 8 8 'REPAIRED BUS CORRAL &WALKS16' WALKR8.00'R43.05'16' WALKR4.00'16' WALKR20.00'R4.00'R8.00'R8.00'R45.00'R8.00'MATCHEXISTINGMATCHEXISTING61.01'56.99'8.36'WALKBIG BLOCK RETAININGWALL WITH 4' CHAINLINK FENCESERVICE PARKING(8 STALLS)EVENT PARKING(~39 STALLS)ADD TURN LANE (WIDEN ~10')ADD BUS PARKING (2 STALLS)R20.00'R5.00'R50.00'R 3 5 . 0 0 'R20.00'R156.32'R45.43'R3.00 'R5.00'R20.00 'R5.00 '118.00'R20.00 'R12.00'R4.00'R 5 . 0 0 '12.65'106.50'40.00'35.64'18.00'80.48 '38.00'42.51'ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C1.22JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05SITE LAYOUTPLAN (SOUTH)BID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL015 30NOTES:LEGENDBASELINE FOR DIMENSIONSBUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. ALL APPLICABLE DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB, EDGE OF PAVEMENT OR PROPERTYLINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.4. SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT.MATCH LINEMATCH LINE03.12.2020City Variance App31 EXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELDSOFT PLAYAREA4" WIDE SINGLEWHITE PAINT STRIPE20C2.12PAINTED ACCESSIBLESYMBOL (TYP)4" WIDE SINGLEWHITE PAINT STRIPE4" WIDE WHITE PAINT STRIPE@ 3' O.C. (TYPICAL)PAINTEDACCESSIBLESYMBOL (TYP)4" WIDE WHITEPAINT STRIPE@ 3' O.C.(TYPICAL)20C2.129C2.129C2.1215C2.1216C2.1216C2.1215C2.1216C2.1216C2.127C2.127C2.127C2.127C2.121C2.121C2.121C2.1217C2.1217C2.1212C2.1219C2.1219C2.128C2.1214C2.128C2.12HARD-SURFACEPLAY/EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDNORTH PARKING LOT (100 + 4 HC STALLS)PARKING / DROP-OFF(22 + 1 HC STALLS)PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONSPROVIDE PLAYAREA STRIPING:-THREE 4-SQUARE- FOUR HOPSCOTCH22C2.1223C2.1284.00'50.00'16C2.1216C2.12EC2.1221CC2.1221BC2.12215C2.111C2.121515C2.1236 3513 QUEUE LANEQUEUE LANE DROP OFFDROP OFFONE WAYONE WAY 22+1 HC 16+4 HC 1C2.127C2.124C2.12MATCH LINEMATCH LINEProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C1.31JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05SITEFINISHINGPLAN (NORTH)BID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL015 30NOTES:1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.3. SIGNAGE SHALL GENERALLY BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL.LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABPROPOSED LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENT (HEAVY-DUTY)PROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENT (MEDIUM-DUTY)PROPOSED PLAY AREAPROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNSIGNAGE KEY NOTEPAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOLPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TOARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINEA1C2.118C2.1210C2.123C2.1216C2.1217C2.1220C2.1212C2.1221C2.1214C2.1215C2.127C2.1211C2.1215C2.1210C2.119C2.1121C2.1102.015.2019Addendum 205.13.2019PR NO. 4203.12.2020City Variance App32 PAINTED ACCESSIBLESYMBOL (TYP)20C2.129C2.129C2.1217C2.1215C2.1215C2.1215C2.1215C2.1215C2.128C2.128C2.128C2.129C2.129C2.1215C2.12PROVIDE UNIT PRICE FORREMOVAL AND REPLACEMENTOF B-612 CURB AND GUTTER.BASE BID TO INCLUDE 450LINEAR FEET.16C2.127C2.127C2.121C2.12REPAIRED BUS CORRAL &WALKS8C2.1216C2.121C2.129C2.12BC2.122117C2.121C2.1215C2.1215C2.1215C2.1215C2.1211C2.1211C2.128C2.1217C2.118C2.12138 SERVICE PARKING(8 STALLS)EVENT PARKING(~39 STALLS)DROP OFFADD TURN LANE (WIDEN ~10')ADD BUS PARKING (2 STALLS)1C2.121C2.1215C2.123C2.129C2.1217C2.1217C2.12AC2.12211C2.12ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C1.32JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05SITEFINISHINGPLAN (SOUTH)BID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL015 30NOTES:1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.3. SIGNAGE SHALL GENERALLY BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL.MATCH LINEMATCH LINELEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABPROPOSED LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENT (HEAVY-DUTY)PROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENT (MEDIUM-DUTY)PROPOSED PLAY AREAPROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNSIGNAGE KEY NOTEPAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOLPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TOARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINEA1C2.118C2.1210C2.123C2.1216C2.1217C2.1220C2.1212C2.1221C2.1214C2.1215C2.127C2.1211C2.1215C2.1210C2.119C2.1121C2.1102.015.2019Addendum 203.12.2020City Variance App33 M.E.(79.3)M.E. (79.0)78.878.386.478.578.277.578.578.3REPAIRED BUS CORRAL &WALKS78.376.078.278.077.578.979.779.779.879.079.378.979.280.478.078.078.378.678.579.879.587988087987977.878.478.0M.E.(79.9)879M.E.(83.6)886887M.E.(88.6)87.0TW=85.5BW=83.5TW=87.5BW=82.5TW=88.8BW=85.0SERVICE PARKING(8 STALLS)EVENT PARKING(~39 STALLS)ADD TURN LANE (WIDEN ~10')ADD BUS PARKING (2 STALLS)79.087877.878.379.378.879.479.6879 80.1ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129C1.42JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05GRADING ANDDRAINAGEPLAN (SOUTH)BID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL015 30GENERAL NOTES1. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES.2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL PAY FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING / LAYOUT.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL RELATED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, INCLUDING THE NPDESPERMIT FROM THE MPCA. SUBMIT A COPY OF ALL PERMITS TO THE CITY.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE (CONSTRUCTION ZONES)NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. ALL SIGNAGE LAYOUTS MUST BE DESIGNED BY THECONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.5. INSTALL CONTROL FENCING AND BARRICADING AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.6. INSPECT SITE AND REVIEW SOIL BORINGS TO DETERMINE EXTENT OF WORK AND NATURE OF MATERIALS TO BEHANDLED.7. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEWATERING REQUIREMENTS.8. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.9. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR BUILDING AND STOOP DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT.10. REFER TO THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) NARRATIVE, PART OF SECTION 01 89 13,FOR EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 31 00 00 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE SWPPP.11. MAINTAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS CLEAN FROM CONSTRUCTION CAUSED DIRT AND DEBRISON A DAILY BASIS. PROTECT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM SEDIMENTATION AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTIONRELATED DIRT AND DEBRIS.12. MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS.13. ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MPCA AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.14. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SITE AND PROTECT EXISTING SITE FEATURES (INCLUDING TURFAND VEGETATION) WHICH ARE TO REMAIN.15. PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO FINISH GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.16. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN TYPICALLY AS 10.1 OR 10 SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN 910.1 OR 910.17. SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN PARKING LOTS, DRIVES AND ROADS INDICATE GUTTER GRADES, UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. SPOT ELEVATIONS WITH LABELS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PERIMETER INDICATE PROPOSED GRADESOUTSIDE THE BUILDING. SPOT ELEVATIONS WITH LABELS INSIDE THE BUILDING PERIMETER INDICATE PROPOSEDFINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS.18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING QUANTITIES OF CUT, FILL AND WASTEMATERIALS TO BE HANDLED, AND FOR AMOUNT OF GRADING TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY PERFORM$//:25.,1',&$7('217+('5$:,1*6,0325768,7$%/(0$7(5,$/$1'(;32578168,7$%/((;&(66:$67(0$7(5,$/$65(48,5('$//&2676$662&,$7(':,7+,03257,1*$1'(;3257,1*0$7(5,$/66+$//BE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT.19. NO FINISHED SLOPES SHALL EXCEED 3' HORIZONTAL TO 1' VERTICAL (3:1), UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.20. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED SHALL RECEIVEAT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL.21. ANY MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, DRAINTILE OR OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCE FORCONTAMINATION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY WATERMAIN PERMINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE. THIS ISOLATION DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THEPIPE TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE (OUTER EDGE OF STRUCTURES OR PIPING ORSIMILAR).22. LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES.VERIFY LOCATIONS, SIZES AND ELEVATIONS OF SAME BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.23. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN DRAINAGE FROM EXISTING BUILDING AT ALL TIMES. PROVIDE TEMPORARYSTORM SEWER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CATCH BASINS, MANHOLES, PIPING, ETC.) AS REQUIRED.EXISTING STORM SEWER SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STORM SEWER ISINSTALLED AND FUNCTIONAL. COORDINATE ALL REMOVALS WITH APPROPRIATE TRADES (SITE UTILITYCONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, ETC.) AS REQUIRED.LEGEND1.)TOP OF TOP NUT OF FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CEDAR LAKE ROAD, 225FEET +/- SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SCHOOL.ELEVATION = 943.65 FEET2.)TOP OF TOP NUT OF FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED 68 FEET +/- SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTCORNER OF THE SCHOOL.ELEVATION = 944.55 FEETBENCHMARKS (FIELD VERIFY BEFORE USING)MATCH LINEMATCH LINEREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONME = MATCH EXISTINGEOF = EMERGENCY OVERFLOWAPPROXIMATE SOIL BORING / TEST PIT LOCATIONPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE95554.61C2.1110C2.119C2.1121C2.1103.12.2020City Variance App34 868866865870875873873870879 878 8778778784CO3CO1TC1TCSEED AND BLANKETSEED AND BLANKETSEED ANDBLANKETSEED ANDBLANKETSEED AND MULCH883880 874878876879880879879SEED ANDMULCHSEED ANDMULCH875879886887879877 8768758758748778781TC879 ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateRevision DescriptionKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision,and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.Printed Name:Signature:Date:License #:Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc.These drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenpermission of LSE Architects, Inc. ©LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERINGANDERSON - JOHNSONASSOCIATES,INC.7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129L1.11JRPJRPFebruary 1, 201918.1007.05LANDSCAPEPLANBID DOCUMENTS02/01/201923543Jay R. Pomeroy1701 Mendota Heights Rd.Mendota Heights, MN 55120FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL020 40NOTES:LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREEPROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREEPROPOSED MINERAL SOD (FILTRATION AREA)PROPOSED SEED MIX AND BLANKETPROPOSED SHRUB / MULCH BEDPLANT KEY (REFER TO PLANT SCHEDULEABOVE)TOP = QUANTITYBOTTOM = PLANT SYMBOLPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. REFER TO SWPPP NARRATIVE FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING AND EROSION CONTROLREQUIREMENTS.3. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST INSPECT AND APPROVE FINISH GRADING BEFORE CONTRACTORPROCEEDS WITH SEEDING.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED OR RECEIVE AGLIME SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDEDOR SODDED.5. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD OR RE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS,AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.6. BEGIN TURF ESTABLISHMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SODDING AND SEEDING, REFER TOSPECIFICATION FOR PROCEDURE.7. ALL TREES TO BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED.8. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL RECEIVE 4" DEPTH OF CLEAN SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.9. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE NO. 1 QUALITY, NURSERY GROWN AND SPECIMENS MUST BEMATCHED. ALL OVERSTORY TREES ADJACENT TO DRIVE AND IN PARKING LOT SHALL BEGINBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'.1L1.11CONIFEROUS TREE6"1'-0"MIN1'-0"MIN2.5 X BALL DIA. MIN.GENERAL NOTES:·TREES SHALL BE ALIGNED AND PLUMB AFTERWATERING AND SETTLING·PRUNE TREES AS REQUIRED AND AS DIRECTED BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER·CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THREE STEEL POSTSWITH THREE HORIZONTALLY OPPOSED REINFORCEDRUBBER HOSE SECTIONS WITH A DOUBLE STRAND OF#11 WIRE AND FLAGGING. WRAP THE WIRE A MINIMUMOF TWO TIMES AROUND EACH POST.3'-0" (MIN.) 4'-0" (MIN.)SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH (4" MIN. DEPTH)PLANTING SOIL (MIN. DIMENSIONSHOWN)SOIL SAUCER: USED PREPAREDSOIL (4" MIN.)ROPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALLBE CUT. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OFBURLAP. NON-BIODEGRADABLEMATERIAL SHALL BE TOTALLYREMOVED.PREPARED SUBSOIL TO FORMPEDESTAL TO PREVENT SETTLING.RUBBER HOSE AT BARK2L1.111'-0"MIN1'-0"MIN2.5 X BALL DIA. MIN.DECIDUOUS TREEGENERAL NOTES:·TREES SHALL BE ALIGNED AND PLUMBAFTER WATERING AND SETTLING·PRUNE TREES AS REQUIRED AND ASDIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT/ENGINEER·CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THREESTEEL POSTS WITH THREEHORIZONTALLY OPPOSEDREINFORCED RUBBER HOSE SECTIONSWITH A DOUBLE STRAND OF #11 WIREAND FLAGGING. WRAP THE WIRE AMINIMUM OF TWO TIMES AROUND EACHPOST.3'-0" (MIN.) 4'-0" (MAX.)RUBBER HOSE AT BARKSET TREE AT ORIGINAL GRADESHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH(4" MIN. DEPTH)PLANTING SOIL (MIN. DIMENSIONSHOWN)SOIL SAUCER: USED PREPAREDSOIL (3" MIN.)PREPARED SUBSOIL TO FORMPEDESTAL TO PREVENT SETTLING.FLAGGINGL1.111SHRUB BED EDGING6" MIN. 4" MIN.FINISH GRADETOPSOILEDGINGFINISH GRADEMULCH BEDCOMPACTED SUBGRADEGEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER -WRAP SIDES, TYPICAL3L1.111L1.112L1.113L1.115QB07.02.2019PR 1003.12.2020City Variance App35 Planning Staff Report DATE: April 28, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-07 Lot Line Adjustment APPLICANT: Matt Gustafson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1865 & 1883 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential ACTION DEADLINE: July 31, 2020 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Mr. Matt Gustafson is requesting consideration of a lot line adjustment between two properties located at 1865 & 1883 Dodd Road. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city has not received any comments or objections on this item. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Gustafson owns both properties at 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road, which are generally located on the west side of Dodd Road between Willow Lane to the north and Hilltop Road to the south (see GIS Map aerial image – right). The 1865 Dodd Road (north parcel) is legally described or consists of the original platted Lot 37 and the North-Half of Lot 36, Somerset Hills addition. This parcel is 44,458-sf. (1.04 ac.) in size, and contains an 1,862-sf. single story rambler built in 1957. Front setback is indicated at 83.9-ft. with side-yard setback of 74.17 ft. and 15.3 ft. 1883 Dodd Road (south parcel) is legally described as Lot 35 and the South-Half of Lot 36 Somerset Hills addition. The parcel is 48,456-sf. (1.11 ac.) in size, and contains an 1,855-sf., 1-1/2 story dwelling built in 1950. 36 Planning Report: Case #2020-07 Page 2 Front setback is noted at 94.4-ft. with a side-yard setback at 71.65-ft. and 14.8-ft. These existing homes are intended to remain in place. ANALYSIS The two subject properties were created from three (3) original platted lots under the original Somerset Hills subdivision (refer to Somerset Hills plat map – attached). Mr. Gustafson has indicated he wants to return to the three platted lot set-up, and provide for another “buildable” lot between both residential properties. With the line adjustment, Lot 37 will reduce and return to its original platted shape and area of 29,095 sf. (0.67 acres) with 102-ft. of roadway frontage; Lot 36 (shown in yellow highlight – image below) become 31,350-sf. (0.72 acres) of area with 103.5-ft. of frontage; and Lot 35 will reduce back to 31,970-sf. (0.73 acres) in area with 100-ft. of frontage. New side-yard setbacks for the existing 1865 Dodd Rd. dwelling are indicated at 22.7 and 23.3 ft. from the adjusted line (north line of Lot 36); while the setbacks for 1883 Dodd Rd. are indicated at 19 – 19.2-ft. from the adjusted line (south line of Lot 36). These setbacks easily meet the 10-ft. setbacks required for R-1 District properties. Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided the following standards are met: Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance. 37 Planning Report: Case #2020-07 Page 3 The lot line adjustment being proposed under this application is not requesting any divisible tract of land to be added to another abutting lot or parcel. Moreover, the Applicant is simply adjusting the shared parcel line back to their respective and “original” legally platted locations, which essentially re-establishes the lots as they were originally platted. More importantly, the resulting lot line adjustment does not cause the other remaining lots to be in violation of the zoning ordinance for minimum lot size/area and required street frontage (15,000-sq. ft. min. lot size and 100-ft. min. lot frontage for R-1 District properties). The Owner/Applicant has indicated his desire to build a new home for his family on the re-established middle Lot 36, and has also provided a proposed site plan/survey map illustrating the location of a possible new dwelling pad on the lot. This plan is for information only, and is not intended to be the final or approved location of the future dwelling pad. It does however, provide an example of how any new dwelling will comply with the “string-line” rule (refer to graphic – below) for new homes matching the existing front- yard setbacks established by adjacent dwellings, which in this case is 1865 and 1883 Dodd Road. Proposed side-yard setbacks of 15-ft. +/- will meet setbacks for a typical two-story dwelling in the R-1 Zone. As Dodd Road is also State Hwy. No. 149, the new driveway coming off Dodd Road will have to be reviewed, approved and permitted by MnDOT. Driveways and parking pads must be setback at least 5-ft. from property lines. The survey/site plan indicates the existing asphalt driveway/parking apron located on the north side of 1885 Dodd will encroach slightly over the new lot line (see image below – left); and there appears to be a separate and existing driveway encroachment issue on the north side of 1865 Dodd with neighboring property of 1857 Dodd Rd. (see image below-right). 38 Planning Report: Case #2020-07 Page 4 With the re-establishment of the shared line between Lot 35 and Lot 36 under this request, and because the Applicant is the controlling owner of all affected properties, it is recommended the Applicant either saw- cuts and removes that part of the driveway/apron that encroaches over the line to attain the minimum 5-ft. setback from the this line; or prepare an written agreement between neighboring properties that acknowledges the driveway encroachment issue exists between both properties, and that any future owners of these properties fully understands or accepts the encroachment issue between both parcels. Any agreement must be recorded with Dakota County, As for the existing driveway on 1865 Dodd Road that encroaches into the 1857 Dodd Road property, this too appears to be a long-term encroachment situation, and should be viewed as a civil matter between both property owners. Since the adjustment does not affect this shared lot line, the city will not require the Owner/Applicant to adjust or partially remove this encroaching driveway. It is highly recommended however, the Applicant address this issue immediately and directly with the owners of 1857 Dodd Road in order to avoid any potential legal, civil or title claim actions in the future. The existing fence for 1883 Dodd Road must be removed and relocated to the newly established lot line boundary between Lots 35 and 36. The city attorney was consulted on the applicability of this lot line adjustment in this case, and it was opined that the Owner/Applicant could request and proceed with a lot line adjustment application to the planning commission and city council, based on his opinion noted below: The definition of “subdivision” in Section 11-1-4 is as follows: SUBDIVISION: A described tract of land which is to be or has been divided into two (2) or more lots or parcels for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development or, if a new street is involved, any division of a parcel of land. The term includes resubdivision and, where it is appropriate to the context, relates either to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided. But the land in question has already been divided into lots, in this case three lots. For whatever reason, the land was developed into two single-family housing lots, not three. Per Section 11-1-5C of City Code, a “subdivision” request will have to go through the Planning Commission and City Council, per the preliminary and final plat process, if two exceptions enumerated in that section are met. The exceptions essentially have to do with (i) dividing a platted lot such as to add a portion of land to an abutting lot, and (ii) dividing a platted lot to add two new lots. That process does cover most subdivisions. However, here there is no division of a platted lot; the platted lot already exists, so there is nothing to change. The boundary lines may simply go back to the original platted lines, as shown on the survey you attached. The only real change I can see is requiring the County to assign a new PID, have the new property lines shown on the GIS, etc. 39 Planning Report: Case #2020-07 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the findings of fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a negative impact on surrounding properties; or 1. Table the request; request additional information if required, and extend the application review period if necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings of fact supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows: 1) The Applicant shall be responsible for recording with Dakota County any city resolution of approval and any and all necessary transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment requested herein. 2) Applicant shall either saw-cut and remove that part of the driveway/apron that encroaches over the shared lot lie between Lots 35 and 36 to meet the 5-ft. setback required for driveway; or must prepare a written agreement that acknowledges and accepts the driveway encroachment issue between both properties, and such agreement shall be recorded with Dakota County. 3) The Applicant shall remove the privacy fence for 1883 Dodd Road and relocated/re-install along the shared lot line boundary between Lots 35 and 36. 4) No development activities, including grading/filling work, landscaping, tree removals, retaining walls, fencing, stairway or walkways, or any structure requiring a zoning and/or building permit will be allowed unless authorized under a separate critical area permit application. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment for 1865 & 1883 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements, except for the driveway encroachment issues as identified and noted in this report, which issues should not preclude the approval of this lot line adjustment. 40 41 1865 & 1883 DODD ROAD Property Information April 17, 2020 0 450 900225 ft 0 130 26065 m 1:4,800 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 42 1865 & 1883 DODD ROAD Property Information April 17, 2020 0 110 22055 ft 0 30 6015 m 1:1,200 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 43 44 45 46 47 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 1 Planning Staff Report DATE: April 28, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-08 Variances for Baseball Field Press Box/Bleachers & Light Towers APPLICANT: Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. (St. Thomas Academy) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 949 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/PS-Private School ACTION DEADLINE: July 2, 2020 (60-Day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc., acting on behalf of Saint Thomas Academy (STA) is requesting certain variance approvals in order to construct new baseball field improvements at STA’s campus, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road. The variances would allow a new multi-purpose press box/covered bleacher structure to exceed the maximum height standard and have reduced setbacks needed for accessory structures; and allow for new light towers to exceed maximum height standards for structures in the R-1 One Family Residential District. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to property owners within 1,200 - 2,250 feet from the school campus property. As of the completion of this report, the city has not received any comments or objections on this item. BACKGROUND The school campus property consists of eight separate parcels, totaling 88.5 +/- acres (according to Dakota County/GIS records). The campus is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is considered a permitted use under said district. The Convent of the Visitation sits directly to the east across Lake Drive, and Rogers Lake to the north provides ample buffers to nearby residential areas. I-494 lies to the south, with Patterson Dental offices to the immediate west of the campus and baseball field. Major and indirect access and traffic to the campus comes from Dodd Road to the east and Highway 55 to the west; with direct access and local traffic from Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive to the south and east sides of the campus, respectively. 48 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 2 In 1994, the city adopted Res. No. 94-22, approving a conditional use permit (CUP) and variances for the press box and stadium bleacher structure improvements at the football field facility, which also included four (4) new light towers. The CUP/variance allowed the press box (atop the bleachers section) not to exceed 16-feet in height, and the four light towers not to exceed 70-feet in overall height. Later that same year STA received approval of another CUP (Res. No. 94-42) to construct a main entrance ticket booth and concessions building, a small ticket booth along MH Road, and a screening structure for outdoor facilities. There also appears to be two additional accessory structures located on the south side of the football field. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The existing baseball field sits near the southwest corner of the main campus site, and is sandwiched between Patterson Dental to the west, Mendota Heights Road to the south, and STA Cadets Football Field to the east (see image- below). The baseball facility is currently un-lit or without any overhead light standards, and contains temporary bleachers set-up along the north and west sides of the back-stop/fencing, with player dug-outs on each end, and a large batting cage area next to the field (see close-up image-below). The existing stands and concrete underneath will be removed, along with the batting cage, some fencing and landscaping materials (See Plan Sheet C1.1 in the attachments). STA is proposing to replace and build a new multi-purpose covered bleachers/grandstand structure, with an upper level press box next to the existing baseball field. The improvements also include adding new 49 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 3 baseball field light towers, as well as relocation of the batting cages and bull pen, and upgrades to the existing dugouts (see new improvements image – below and Plan Sheet C1.2 in the attachments). The plans call for two bleacher/seating options: Option #1 with 234 seats in a larger “wrap-around” arrangement with access ramps and landings located directly behind the home-plate back-stop; and Option #2 with 118 seats in a smaller squared-shape arrangement with access ramps/landings (see seating option images – below). Both arrangements call for the placement of an 8’ x 18’ (144-sf.) press-box on the top, back-side of the bleacher stands, with an angled, overhead canopy to protect the spectators. The top of the press box measures 18’-1” (from grade) and the upper reach of the canopy measures 24’-4” from grade. 50 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 4 The closest point of the press box structure to the property line is 9.44 ft., while the edge of the new bleacher structure is setback only 1.36-ft. from the adjacent property line (see plan image – below). New overhead (over-height) lighting is a key component of this baseball field improvement project. These improvements include six (6) new light tower standards (similar to the ones depicted in the image below), with four of these at 70-ft. and two at 80-ft. in height. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1I-7: Glare and Heat: “Any use requiring an operation producing an intense heat or light transmission shall be performed with the necessary shielding to prevent such heat or light from being detectable at the lot line of the site on which the use is located. Lighting in all instances shall be diffused or directed away from R districts and public streets.” The Applicants submitted a detailed lighting and photometric plan for this project. All new fixtures will be energy-saving LED lights, with different wattage and lumen levels depending on their placement or specified direction of display. The plan shows that most of the lighting (intensity) will be focused on the infield, with lesser or reduced amounts in the outfields. The goal or widely acceptable standard is to have a zero (0) light level at the property line or street line, especially near residential zoned areas. The plan shows minimal light spillage out towards Mendota Heights Road; and the closest single family residence (at 2371 Swan Drive) - when measured on a straight line from the nearest light pole - is approx. 2,112-feet (0.4 miles) away. Due to the fact the school is surrounded by a large commercial business to the west, a large open lake to the north, another school campus to the east, and the school’s own ice arena/open field space to the south (and the I-494 and I35E interstate systems), all help reduce the potential negative impacts these lights will have on surrounding properties. This is especially true for the neighboring residential uses (off Swan Drive, Rogers Avenue and Kressin Avenue), most of which are situated a great distance away from this field and are physically buffered and shielded by the STA’s school building. 51 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 5 ANALYSIS of VARIANCE City Code requires structures in the R-1 One Family District must not exceed 25-ft. in measured height. Accessory structures however, are limited to a height of 15-ft., and must be setback at least 5-ft. or -10-ft. from property lines, and are limited to certain numbers and size(s), depending on the area of the property. For parcels 4+ acres, a property can have up to three (3) accessory structures not to exceed 425-sq. ft. of total structure area, and no single structure an exceed 225-sf. in size. The press box is noted as an 8’ x 18’ (144-sf.) enclosed structure; however, the overall footprint of the larger “wrap-around” style bleacher structure measures out approximately 1,275 sq. ft. in area; the canopy extends over the bleachers with a 24’-4” in height; and the press box/bleacher structure is shown with a 1.36-ft. setback off the nearby property line. The overall size, height and setback of this structure requires a variance. Since City Code does not precisely define or give allowances for tall light standards such as the ones being proposed by STA, the city has generally applied the “25-ft. maximum structure height” standard to these types of structures in a residential zoned area. Since the proposed light towers are 70-ft. and 80 ft. in overall height, a variance is in order. City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted in the application letter-narrative from AJA, dated April 2, 2020 (included in the attachments and noted below in italic text). 52 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 6 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: St. Thomas Academy proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances and the comprehensive plan. Staff’s Response: The use of the property as a private (parochial) school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a school, even with the proposed field improvements can be viewed as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in other planning application requests made with other local school sites, the City of Mendota Heights has approved similar variances for bleacher/press box structures and very tall light towers, due to the general acceptance that a school site such as STA (and others) function more like an institutional/campus use, rather than a typical “single-family residential” use in this R-1 District. Many high school athletic fields are lit by tall structures and it would be common practice to install that type of lighting for St. Thomas Academy. Modern and advanced lighting (such as LED) of stadiums has grown more popular throughout the metro cities and nation, especially in order to provide for more available hours for athletic events and games on these fields. At the same time the technology has improved the ability to shield the lights and focus the light pattern directly on to the fields, thereby minimizing spillage beyond the immediate baseball field area. With the limited number of baseball games played each year, the negative effects of the lighting should have a minimal overall impact on the adjacent single-family neighborhood and community. The positive impacts would be the comraderie and school spirit that is generated in athletic events held at times when athletes, parents and the community can attend games in later, after-work or evening hours. With reasonable standards applied to the lights, the issue of height is comparable to other similar (taller) light structures approved throughout the community, and these same lights should not be detrimental to the surrounding uses. STA’s desire to reconstruct and make these field improvements for the overall use and enjoyment of its student athletes and spectators appears very reasonable. This new press box/bleacher seating improvements, along with the new lighting will be nice improvements to the existing high school baseball field facilities, and the fact these additions are still within or near the height limits already established by the school’s football field facility today, makes the requested variance for heights justifiable and even reasonable in this case. The variances requested in this case should therefore be considered a reasonable request and an appropriate means to allowing the continued and successful use of this property 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The field lighting and bleacher/ press box will provide the school the ability to continue to use the facility safely and consistent with other on-campus uses as well as other neighboring schools. These unique circumstances were not created by the [school]. Staff’s Response: The plight of the landowner (STA) and restrictions on certain structure heights is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District. Due to the long-term location of the school at this site, its limited effect on the surrounding uses, and its overall function as an institutional use in a residential zoning district, gives added weight to creating or supporting this practical difficulty argument on the unique situation of the property. Site and development standards reserved for typical single–family uses do not compare or should necessarily apply to such larger, school [institutional] uses. Staff believes there are circumstances unique that lend support to granting this variance. 53 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 7 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: The property, and more specifically the varsity baseball field, has supported St. Thomas Academy’s baseball needs for decades- the proposed improvements will maintain the general character and use of the facility. The field lighting and bleacher/ press box will provide the school the ability to continue to use the facility safely and consistent with other on-campus uses as well as other neighboring schools. Staff’s Response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community. There is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. Staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by the granting of this variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicants have indicated “the proposed improvements are not based on economic consideration.” When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations into account alone should not be the sole reason for either denying – or approving a variance. In this particular case, STA is simply providing an added benefit for the use and enjoyment of its student athletes, parents, spectators, and visitors to the field; and these improvements are likely to be an expensive project. These improvements are not meant serve as a means of generating added revenue (i.e. ticket sales), but a desire to expand playing time/hours on the field, and increase its standing and reputation with other local/metro schools. The Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and reasonable justifications for requesting this variance. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the requested improvement plans for the subject property as requested by the Applicant, are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of school [or institutional] uses in the R-1 One Family Residential District. The subject property is designated PS-Private School in the current 2030 Comp Plan and scheduled for P/S Public/Semi-Public Use in the proposed 2040 Comp Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below (note: LUG= Land Use Goal; LUP = Land Use Policy): • 2030 LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community • 2030 LUP #4 Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially incompatible land uses. • 2030 LUP #5 Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • 2040 LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • 2040 LUP #2.2.5: Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be a source of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow. 54 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 8 The guiding principles in both comprehensive plans provide for supporting school improvements and development in the community. The requested variance appears to meet these goals and policy statements established under the comprehensive plans for the community; and will provide an opportunity for substantial investment to the existing school use, and will enhance the overall use and enjoyment by the school and its student athletes. The proposed improvements should pose no threat or any adverse effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. These new field improvements and requested variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variances to allow an additional and over-sized multi-purpose accessory structure consisting of a press box and bleacher stand approximately 1,275 sq. ft. in footprint area, 24’-4” in overall height, and located 1.36-ft. from the adjacent property line; along with variances for four (4) light towers at 70-ft. and two (2) light towers at 80-ft. in height, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of said variances, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to City Code Section 12-1D-1, as it relates to allowing an additional over-sized accessory structure with reduced setbacks, plus the over-sized (tall) light towers in the R-1 One Family Residential District, located on the St. Thomas Academy baseball facility and campus at 949 Mendota Heights Road, by the following supporting findings-of-facts: i.) The City Code’s accessory structure standards for residential districts causes a practical difficulty for a school use in this district, due to the overall size, scale and historical nature of the school at the subject location. ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use functions more like an institutional use rather than a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants the approval or granting of these variances. iii.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that similar athletic field improvements and related accessory structures can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. iv.) The scale and scope of the variances needed to approve the number, sizes and heights of the proposed accessory structures, including the new press-box and bleacher stands, and over- height light poles on this large high school campus, are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented herein. 55 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 9 v.) The Applicant has proven a reasonable justification and demonstrated a practical difficulty in this case for granting of these variances presented herein. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variances on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variances noted herein are for Saint Thomas Academy (949 Mendota heights Road) only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020- 08, dated and presented April 28, 2020, on file with the City of Mendota Heights, is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for all new structures identified herein, including any fence or electrical permits for the new light towers as necessary. ii.) Should the new tower lights, after installation, create any complaints or poses any issue of excessive light spillage, brightness or glare on the nearby Mendota Heights Road system or any other properties, the Applicant and/or lighting consultant shall immediately remediate and realign any light standards or fixtures (if needed) upon official notice from the City of Mendota Heights. iii.) Any public addressing/speaker system used on this baseball field must be centered or focused directly on to the baseball field or the bleacher/spectator stands. No speakers or noise shall be directed towards the neighboring businesses or residential uses to the north and east of the school. iv.) The Applicant shall not deviate from the site plan under this application review; nor increase any accessory structure numbers, area (footprint), light towers or height without first seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable improvements to be made without any special application review process. v.) Any and all grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. i.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variances are approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for construction of the proposed improvements within one-year from said approval date. If after one year no work has commenced, the Applicant may request an additional extension (to be determined by the City Council) if needed. 56 Planning Report: Case #2020-08 (STA Variances) Page 10 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the variance to allow an additional and over-sized accessory structure or over-sized light towers in the R-1 District. These proposed improvements do not appear to be essential or critical to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact remains these improvements can only be allowed by means of a variance, which is contrary to the general spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the variances, with findings-of-facts to support this recommendation, along with the conditions as noted herein. The commission has the authority to revise or modify these findings, and provide additional but reasonable conditions if necessary. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Applicant/Consultant Narrative Letter of Request 3. Site Plans – AJA Assoc. 4. Lighting Plan – Musco Lighting 57 April 2, 2020 Mr. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 email:timb@mendota-heights.com Re:Planning Application - Variance St. Thomas Academy Baseball Field 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Benetti, We are please to provide the enclosed information related to the Baseball Field Improvements (Phase 2) proposed at St. Thomas Academy. We are submitting the Planning Application today in hopes of appearing in front of the April Planning Commission. The work proposed at St. Thomas Academy, specifically related to the requested VARIANCE(S) includes adding field lighting as well as the replacement of the existing bleachers with a new covered grandstand with press box at the existing athletic facilities. Proposed work also includes relocation of the batting cages and north bull pen, and upgrades to the existing dugouts (e.g. painting, new cubbies). The use and general character of the property will not change. We have included plans with this cover letter and application to iilsutarte and detail the height and character of the field lighting and bleacher/ press box structure. We provide the following findings related to the variances required for the field lighting and bleacher/ press box structure. • The property, and more specifically the varsity baseball field, has supported St. Thomas Academy’s baseball needs for decades- the proposed improvements will maintain the general character and use of the facility. • The field lighting and bleacher/ press box will provide the school the ability to continue to use the facility safely and consistent with other on-campus uses as well as other neighboring schools. • These unique circumstances were not created by the School District. • The proposed improvements are not based on economic considerations. • St. Thomas Academy proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances and the comprehensive plan. 58 • The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. • If granted, the proposed variances will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties. St. Thomas Academy intends to construct the improvements later this Summer, 2020. Construction would begin in midJuly and be complete by late-October. Tim, we trust the above and enclosed information is clear and comprehensive and satisfies your needs. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. Jay R. Pomeroy, Landscape Architect attachments cc: Pam Kunkel - Thomas Academy Andy Faulkner - ICS 59 St. Thomas Academy - Campus Property Information April 22, 2020 0 450 900225 ft 0 130 26065 m 1:4,800 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 60 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129 BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 TITLE SHEET 19125 03/31/2020 JRP JRPC1.0 8CITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALPRELIMINARY DRAFTVICINITY MAPDRAWING INDEXGENERAL NOTESBASEBALL FIELDIMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 2St. Thomas Academy949 Mendota Heights RoadMendota Heights, MN 55120St. Thomas Academy1. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES.2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL PAY FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING / LAYOUT.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL RELATED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. SUBMIT A COPY OF ALL PERMITS TO THESCHOOL DISTRICT, ENGINEER AND CITY.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE (CONSTRUCTION ZONES) NECESSARY TOCONSTRUCT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. ALL SIGNAGE LAYOUTS MUST BE DESIGNED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BYLOCAL AUTHORITIES.5. INSTALL CONTROL FENCING AND BARRICADING AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.6. VISIT AND INSPECT SITE TO DETERMINE EXTENT OF WORK AND NATURE OF MATERIALS TO BE HANDLED.7. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEWATERING REQUIREMENTS.8. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.9. MAINTAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS CLEAN FROM CONSTRUCTION CAUSED DIRT AND DEBRIS ON A DAILY BASIS.PROTECT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM SEDIMENTATION AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED DIRT AND DEBRIS.10. MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS.11. ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MPCA AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.12. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SITE AND PROTECT EXISTING SITE FEATURES (INCLUDING TURF ANDVEGETATION) WHICH ARE TO REMAIN.13. PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO FINISH GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.14. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN TYPICALLY AS 83.1 OR 83 SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN 883.1 OR 883.15. SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN INDICATE SURFACE FINISH GRADES, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING QUANTITIES OF CUT, FILL AND WASTE MATERIALS TO BEHANDLED, AND FOR AMOUNT OF GRADING TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY PERFORM ALL WORK INDICATED ON THEDRAWINGS. IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL AND EXPORT UNSUITABLE / EXCESS / WASTE MATERIAL AS REQUIRED. ALL COSTSASSOCIATED WITH IMPORTING AND EXPORTING MATERIALS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT.17. NO FINISHED SLOPES SHALL EXCEED 4' HORIZONTAL TO 1' VERTICAL (4:1), UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.18. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED OR TO RECEIVE SYNTHETIC TURF SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6"OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SODDED.19. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTORSHALL RE-SOD ALL APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.20. LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. VERIFY LOCATIONS,SIZES AND ELEVATIONS OF SAME BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.C1.0 TITLE SHEETC1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE REMOVALS PLANC1.2 SITE LAYOUT AND FINISHING PLANC1.3 GRADING AND DRAINAGE and RETAINING WALL PLANSC2.1 SITE DETAILSB1.1 BLEACHER PLAN AND SECTIONB1.2 PRESS BOX PLAN, SECTION AND DETAILSEXH 1 LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHIC and UTILITY SURVEY(Sunde Land Surveying, 5/28/2019)E1.1ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN (Not Included)E2.1ELECTRICAL DETAILS (Not Included)SEE MUSCO PLANS61 1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE 1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE 1" X 12" FLAT TILE 1" X 12" FLAT TILE 1" X 12" FLAT TILE 1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE 1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE 1" X 12" FLAT TILE REMOVE WOOD WALLREMOVE FENCE, INCLUDING FOOTINGSREMOVE FENCE INLCUDING CONCRETEMAINTENANCE STRIP. PROTECTADJACENT SYNTHETIC TURF.REMOVE FENCE, INCLUDING FOOTINGSREMOVE CONCRETEREMOVE BATTING CAGE INCLUDINGFENCE AND FOOTINGS, AND SURFACEREMOVE ARBORVITAESINCUDING STUMPSPROTECT BACKSTOP AND ADJACENTCONCRETE WALK. REMOVE/ REPLACECONCRETE AS NEEDED TO ALLOW FORBLEACHER FOOTINGS.PROTECT SYNTEHTIC TURF INFIELD- NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFICUNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCESEXPOSE EXISTING TURF FIELD DRAINTILE TO ALLOW FOR NEW DRAIN TILECONNECTION- REFER TO SHEET C1.3LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129 BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 EXISTNG CONDITIONS AND SITE REMOVALS PLAN 19125 03/31/2020 JRP JRPC1.1 8CITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALPRELIMINARY DRAFT015 30NOTES:LEGENDGRAVEL SURFACE REMOVALSCONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVALSCONCRETE CURB/ STRIP REMOVALSFENCING REMOVALSTREE REMOVALSPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.0 - TITLE SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SITE AND PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION AND SITE FEATURES(CURBS, WALKS, PAVEMENTS, OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, SIGNAGE, FENCING,ROADWAYS, ETC.) WHICH ARE TO REMAIN.3. REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING PROPERTY AND SITE FEATURES, INCLUDING GRASS ANDVEGETATION, WHICH IS TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED BY THE WORK, TO OWNER'SSATISFACTION AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.4. VISIT THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING; BE FAMILIAR WITH ACTUAL CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD.EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR CONDITIONS WHICH COULD HAVE BEENDETERMINED OR ANTICIPATED BY EXAMINATION OF THE SITE, THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS ANDTHE INFORMATION AVAILABLE PERTAINING TO EXISTING SOILS, UTILITIES AND OTHER SITECHARACTERISTICS.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE THE SERVICES OF A UTILITY LOCATOR COMPANY TO LOCATEALL PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES THAT MAY BE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONSAND SHALL PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY PROTECTION, REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF PRIVATEUTILITY LINES INCLUDING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE PAIDTO THE CONTRACTOR FOR UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR WHICH OTHERWISE MAYHAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION.6. TREE PROTECTION: INSTALL 4' HIGH ORANGE SNOW FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE OF ALL TREESTO BE PROTECTED. MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.7. ALL ITEMS DESIGNATED TO BE REMOVED OR IN THE PATH OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BECOMEPROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND REMOVED FROM THE SITE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.62 NEW BLEACHER AND PRESS BOX,MIDDLE SECTION TO BE COVEREDWITH ROOF.REFER TO SHEETS B1.1 AND B1.2.PROPOSED BULL PEN (SYNTHETIC TURF)PROPOSED BATTING CAGES (2)W/ SYNTHETIC TURFPROPOSED RETAINING WALL(REFER TO SHEET C1.3)EXISTING (NEW, PHASE 1)NETTED BACKSTOP ANDSYNTHETIC TURF INFIELDPROPOSED FIELD LIGHTING (6 POLES, TYPICAL)PROPOSED FIELD LIGHTING(6 POLES, TYPICAL)PROPOSED DUGOUTIMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)PROPOSED DUGOUTIMPROVEMENTS (BY OTHERS)MATCH EXISTING SYNTHETICTURF. TURF BY OTHERS.PROPOSED SOFT TOSSNETTING (~56 L.F. X 2)5C1.49C1.45C1.44C1.410C1.47C1.46C1.45C1.48' HIGH CHAIN LINKSIDELINE FENCE8C1.410C1.4C1.410C1.48PROPOSEDCONCRETE WALK/PLAZA (~4,200 S.F.)7C1.41.36'9.44'7.64' TOPROP. LINE3.53' TOPROP LINE152.70' TO PROPERTY LINE40.90' TOPROP. LINE75.00'75.00'17.2 0 ' 15.00'7.00'60.50'LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129 BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 SITE LAYOUT AND FINISHING PLAN 19125 03/31/2020 JRP JRPC1.2 8CITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALPRELIMINARY DRAFT015 30NOTES:1. REFER TO SHEET C1/0 - TITLE SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. ALL APPLICABLE DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF FENCE OR EDGE OF CURB UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.3. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SODDED.5. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD ALL APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NOADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED CONCRETE WALK / PLAZAPROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCING / MAINTENANCE STRIPPROPOSED SYNTHETIC TURFPROPOSED LIGHT POLEPROPOSED RETAINING WALL WITH 4' HIGH FENCEPROPERTY LINE1C1.44C1.410C1.45C1.44C1.410C1.463 83.583.082.883.883.883.883.883.483.683.483.283.183.183.583.683.48" COLLECTOR DRAININV = 878.538" COLLECTOR DRAININV = 880.0294' - 8" COLLECTORDRAIN @ 0.50%283' - 8" COLLECTORDRAIN @ 0.52%33' - 8" COLLECTORDRAIN @ 1.61%TC= 81.783.383.683.1TC= 82.183.4.883PROPOSED RETAING WALL(0-~7' HIGH) WITH FENCING83.483.383.383.282.482.3TW=82.5BW=82.4TW=90.5BW=82.7TW=89.0BW=83.0TW=83.5BW=83.3TW=89.5BW=82.683.182.982.682.483.3TW=87.0BW=83.3TW=90.5BW=83.1TW=91.5BW=83.0TW=87.5BW=82.5M.E.83.583.082.883.483.483.283.183.183.58" COLLECTOR DRAININV = 880.0PROPOSED RETAING WALL(0-~7' HIGH) WITH FENCING83.483.383.383.282.482.3TW=82.5BW=82.4TW=90.5BW=82.7TW=89.0BW=83.0TW=83.5BW=83.3TW=89.5BW=82.683.182.982.682.483.3TW=87.0BW=83.3TW=90.5BW=83.1TW=91.5BW=83.0TW=87.5BW=82.5LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129 BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 19125 03/31/2020 JRP JRPC1.3 8CITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALPRELIMIINARY DRAFT010 20LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONME = MATCH EXISTINGTW = TOP OF WALLBW = BOTTOM OF WALL (EXPOSED)SILT FENCEROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEPROPOSED SYNTHETIC TURFPROPOSED LIGHT POLEPROPOSED 6" DRAIN TILEPROPOSED RETAINING WALL WITH 4' HIGH FENCEPROPERTY LINE86666.61C1.41. REFER TO SHEET C1.0 - TITLE SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. MAINTAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS CLEAN FROM CONSTRUCTION CAUSEDDIRT AND DEBRIS ON A DAILY BASIS. PROTECT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM SEDIMENTATION ASA RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED DIRT AND DEBRIS.3. MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS.4. ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MPCA AND OTHER LOCALREGULATIONS.5. IF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TAKEN ARE NOT ADEQUATE AND RESULT INDOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING OUTDOWNSTREAM STORM SEWERS AS NECESSARY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESTORATION.6. SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLETS. AT THE INLETS TO ALL STORM SEWERSTRUCTURES, PROVIDE A PRODUCT FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCTS:A.WIMCO TOP SLAB™ MODEL RD 27.B.INFRASAFE® SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER, DISTRIBUTED BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTALSYSTEMS, INC. SCB'S SHALL BE SIZED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE STRUCTURE AND CASTINGSPECIFIED. SCB'S SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH FRAME AND PERFORATED SHROUD ANDSHALL BE WRAPPED ON THE OUTSIDE, COVERING THE PERFORATED WALL ONLY, WITH AGEOTEXTILE SOCK.C.DANDY BAG® OR DANDY BAG II® DISTRIBUTED BY BROCK WHITE COMPANY, ST. PAUL, MN(615) 647-0950. DANDY BAG SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR CURB INLETS AFTER PAVEMENT(BINDER COURSE OR WEAR COURSE) IS INSTALLED OR AT EXISTING PAVED AREAS.D.INFRASAFE® DEBRIS COLLECTION DEVICE BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.,DISTRIBUTED BY ESS BROTHERS, 9350 COUNTY ROAD 19, CORCORAN, MN 55357 DCD'SSHALL BE SIZED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE STRUCTURE AND CASTING SPECIFIED. PROVIDEFILTER BAGS AND TIES FOR COMPLETE INSTALLATION.E. OR APPROVED EQUAL.7. PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL DEVICES (SILT FENCE, ROCK ENTRANCE, INLET PROTECTION,ETC.) INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY LANDDISTURBING ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE 24 HOUR NOTICE TO THE CITY FORINSPECTION.NOTES3C1.41C1.3GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"2C1.3RETAINING WALL PLANSCALE: 1" = 10'-0"2C1.45C1.44C1.410C1.45C1.4RETAINING WALL AND FENCE NOTES:1. 'BIG BLOCK' RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITHMANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS AND WALL DESIGN ENGINEER'SREQUIREMENTS.2. USE "RETAINING" WALL BLOCKS FOR THE BASE OF THE WALL AND WHEREONE-SIDE OF THE WALL IS EXPOSED. USE "FREESTANDING" BLOCKS AND "CAP"UNITS FOR TOP PORTION OF WALL AND WHERE BLOCK/ TEXTURED SURFACE ISEXPOSED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL.3.PROVIDE 9" (TYPICAL) ‘STEPS’ OF WALL HEIGHT IN ORDER TO MATCH GRADE OFCONCRETE WALK AND DECORATIVEFENCE. USE 9" “STEPDOWN” BLOCK (2-SIDED AND 3-SIDED) AS REQUIRED.4. SECURE STEPDOWN AND CAP BLOCKS TO FREESTANDING BLOCK WITHPOLYURETHANE SEALANT.5. CORE DRILL CAP AND UNDERLYING BLOCK TO RECEIVE FENCE POST. GROUTPOST IN-PLACE PER DETAIL.64 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129 BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 SITE DETAILS 19125 03/31/2020 JRP JRPC1.4 8CITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALPRELIMINARY DRAFTROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCEEXISTING PAVEMENT TO REMAIN2" TO 3" WASHED ROCKGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(Mn/DOT CLASS V)NOTE: PROVIDE WHERE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFICENTERS OR EXITS THE CONSTRUCTION SITE6" MINIMUM THICKNESSPROPERTY/R.O.W. LINE50' MINIMUMAS REQUIRED3C1.4SOFT TOSS (POSTS &NETTING)8' HEIGHT 1 5/8" O.D. TOP RAILCHAIN LINK FENCECONCRETE MAINTENANCE STRIPCONCRETE FOOTING 12" x 48"FOR END, CORNER, GATE ANDPULL POSTSNOTES:1. ALL POSTS SHALL BE 3" O.D.2. POST SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 10'O.C.53 BOTTOM RAIL SHALL BE PLACED NOMORE THAN 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.6"336 NETTING2' LONG 1-5/8" EXTENSION WELDEDTO POST. PROVIDE NETTING, PULLEYSYSTEM, EYE BOLTS AND MISC. HARDWAREFOR COMPLETE SYSTEM.GALVANIZED THREADED EYE BOLT THROUGH POST9C1.48C1.4SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGFLOW24" MIN.2' O.C.MAX.FLOWFLOWSTAKE DETAILINSTALLATION DETAILSEDIMENT CONTROL LOGSTAKE TO BE PLACED AT TOEOF SLOPE, BOTH SIDESWOOD STAKEBOTTOM OF SWALEWOOD STAKE TOPENETRATE NETTINGMATERIAL ONLYSEDIMENT CONTROL LOG2C1.4BULLPEN PITCHERS MOUND5'-2"28"6"10'-0"6"6"22"ELEVATIONSLOPE @ 1" PER FOOTUNIFORMSLOPE1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1"2"3"4"5"6"7"8"9"10"10"TO HOMEPLATE4" THICK CONCRETE SLABOVER POROUS AGGREGATE3'-6"UNIFORM SLOPEUNIFORMSLOPE15'-0"MOUND TABLELEVEL WITHPITCHER'S RUBBER7'-6"3'-6"MOUNDTABLE LIMITSDIRECTION OF THROWPITCHER'S RUBBER22"18"CLAY(OVERPOROUSAGGREGATE)4" THICK CONCRETE BASESLAB TO BE COVERED WITHSYNTHETIC TURF (BY OTHERS)UNIFORMSLOPELEVELAREA6"LEVELAREA20'-0"13'-9"6C1.4DOUBLE SWING GATE LATCHNOTE: PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN GATE POST AND GATE SUCHTHAT GATE IS IN LINE WITH FENCING WHEN FULLY CLOSED AND LATCHED.1 1/2" LONG HANDLE(ONE ON EACH SIDEOF LATCH)LATCH RECEIVER(ONE EACH SIDEOF LATCH)LATCH ARM (ONE ONEACH SIDE OF GATE)LATCH HINGESECURE LATCH TO GATEPROVIDE MECHANISM TO ALLOWGATE TO BE SECURED WITHPAD LOCKSECURE LATCHRECEIVER TOGATE12C1.4SINGLE SWING GATE LATCHNOTE: PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN GATEPOST AND GATE SUCH THAT GATE IS IN LINE WITHFENCING WHEN FULLY CLOSED AND LATCHED.GATE LATCHCLAMP SECUREDTO GATE POSTLIFT HANDLELATCHLIFT HANDLE RECEIVERPROVIDE HOLE THROUGH LIFTHANDLE AND RECEIVER TOACCOMMODATE PAD LOCK(PAD LOCK BY OWNER)LIFT HANDLERECEIVER CLAMPSECURED TO GATEPOST11C1.4CONCRETE WALK1"2" MIN.4" (MIN) CONCRETE WALK4" SAND SUB-BASETYPICAL AT GRASS,LANDSCAPING,AND SOD AREASCOMPACTED SUBGRADEC1.47RETAINING WALL (BIG BLOCK)CRUSHED STONELEVELING PAD(AS SPECIFIED)DRAINTILE - DAYLIGHTTHROUGH WALLBOTTOM BLOCKAASHTO NO. 57 STONE TO EXTENDAT LEAST 12" BEHIND WALLMOVE BLOCKSFORWARD DURINGINSTALLATION TOENGAGE SHEARKNOBS (TYPICAL)EXPOSED WALL- HEIGHT VARIES 4' HIGH FENCE, WHEREAPPLICABLEGRADE TO DRAIN SURFACEWATER AWAY FROM WALL -REFER TO GRADING PLANSLOPE VARIESBURY DEPTH FIELD CORE INTO 2nd COURSEBLOCK, GROUT FENCE POSTIN-PLACEEXPOSED WALL-HEIGHT VARIES4C1.4DRAINAGE FABRIC(MIRAFI #180N)BATTING CAGE AND BULL PEN -SECTIONPREPAREDSUBGRADE6" (MIN.) GRANITE (POROUSAGGREGATE)2" TRAP ROCK(POROUS AGGREGATE)TURF CARPET WITH IN-FILL(BY OTHERS)2"X6" P.T. TIMBER FASTENED TOWALL BLOCKS OR CONCRETEMAINTENANCE STRIP6"24" SAND SUB-BASESLOPETO DRAIN0.5% SLOPE TO DRAINNEW 8" COLLECTOR DRAINTILE - REFER TO PLANFOR LOCATION AND INVERTELEVATIONS.TURF (BY OTHERS)FASTENED TO TOP OF CURB4" DIA. BATTING CAGE POST(13' HIGH) IN GROUND SLEEVE5C1.4CONCRETE MAINTENANCESTRIP1'-3"4"3"2"PLANSECTION1/2" RADIUS(TYPICAL)FINISH GRADE OF MAINTENANCE STRIP SHALLBE 1" ABOVE SOD AND FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT(2) #4 REBAR1" DEPTH CONSTRUCTION JOINTGRASSCOMPACTED SUBGRADECONSTRUCTION JOINT SHALL BE CUT TO 1"DEPTH AND SHALL OCCUR AT EACH POSTAND AT MIDPOINT BETWEEN POSTSPOST(2) #4 REBAR8C1.4SILT FENCENORMAL USEPOSTS:(IF USED WITHOUTSUPPORT FENCE) WOOD2" SQ. (MIN)@ 4' (MAX)SPACING METAL0.95 lbs/lf (MIN.) @ 6'(MAX) SPACINGDIRECTION OFRUNOFF FLOWNOTE: DEPENDING UPON CONFIGURATION, ATTACH TO WIRE MESH WITHHOG RINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH TIE WIRES, OR WOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES5' MIN. LENGTH POST (METAL)4' MIN. LENGTH POST (WOOD)SILT FENCE FABRICOVERLAP FABRIC 6" ANDFASTEN @ 2' INTERVALSEXTEND WIRE MESH INTO TRENCHFABRIC ANCHORAGETRENCH BACKFILL WITHTAMPED NATURAL SOIL6" MIN.6" MIN.NATURAL SOIL24" MIN. BURY DEPTH (METAL)18" MIN BURY DEPTH (WOOD)30" MIN.METAL STAKE ORWOOD POSTOPTIONAL SUPPORTFENCE (WIRE MESH)C1.41CHAIN LINK FENCEHEIGHT VARIES REFER TO PLAN NOTES:1. END, CORNER, AND PULL POSTS SHALL BE 3".LINE POSTS SHALL BE 2 1/2".2. ALL FENCING SHALL RECEIVE 2" x 2" #9GAUGE FABRIC UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.3. LINE POSTS MAY BE AIR DRIVEN.4. POST SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 10' O.C.5. BOTTOM RAIL SHALL BE PLACED NO MORETHAN 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.6"1 5/8" TOP RAILCHAIN LINK FENCE1 5/8" BOTTOM RAILFINISH GRADECONCRETE MAINTENANCE STRIPCONCRETE FOOTING 12" x 48"FOR END, CORNER, GATE ANDPULL POSTS10C1.48C1.465 1234567SEATING LAYOUT - BASEBALL OPT #11234567SEATING LAYOUT - BASEBALL OPT #2SECTION VIEW - BASEBALLLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129 BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 BLEACHER PLAN AND SECTION 19125 03/31/2020 JRP JRPB1.1 8CITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALPRELIMINARY DRAFTALL SHOP AND/OR FABRICATION DRAWINGS FOR STRUCTURALCOMPONENTS OF THE GRANDSTAND SYSTEMS, INCLUDING FOOTINGSAND FOUNDATIONS, SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CERTIFIED BY AREGISTERED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CURRENTLY LICENSED TOPRACTICE IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. COMPLETE CERTIFIEDSTRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHALL ACCOMPANY SUBMISSION OFSHOP DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS SHALL CLEARLYNOTE ALL DESIGN LOADS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTASTATE BUILDING CODE.This drawing is for reference only and for competitive bidding purposes. Bleacher manufacturer shall provide engineered drawings as noted on this Plan and in the specification.66 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDERSON - JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427 FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129 BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE 2 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 PRESS BOX PLAN, DETAILS AND SECTIONS 19125 03/31/2020 JRP JRPB1.2 8CITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALPRELIMINARY DRAFTThe completed Press Box shall have a posted IBC label pursuant to Minnesota Building Code #1360.All shop and/or fabrication drawings for architectural and structural components of the press boxsystems shall be designed and certified by a registered architect and/ or structural engineercurrently licensed to practice in the state of Minnesota.The existing support structure shall be reviewed and certified by the press box contractor/fabricator. Complete certified structural calculations related to the existing support structure andpress box components shall accompany submission of shop drawings. Drawings and calculationsshall clearly note all design loads in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code.This drawing is for reference only and for competitive bidding purposes. Press box manufacturer shall provide engineered drawings as noted on this Plan and in the specification.67 68 PROJECT SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2020 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Joe Seda • File #199895B • 27-Feb-20 St. Thomas Academy Baseball Mendota Heights, MN LighƟng System Pole / Fixture Summary Pole ID Pole Height Mtg Height Fixture Qty Luminaire Type Load Circuit A1 70'70'4 TLC-LED-1200 4.68 kW A 16'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW A A2 70'70'5 TLC-LED-1200 5.85 kW A 16'1 TLC-BT-575 0.58 kW A B1-B2 80'80'7 TLC-LED-1500 10.01 kW A 16'2 TLC-BT-575 1.15 kW A C1, C3 70'70'5 TLC-LED-1500 7.15 kW A 16'2 TLC-BT-575 1.15 kW A 6 43 50.60 kW Circuit Summary Circuit Description Load Fixture Qty A Baseball 50.6 kW 43 Fixture Type Summary Type Source Wattage Lumens L90 L80 L70 Quantity TLC-LED-1200 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 1170W 136,000 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 9 TLC-LED-1500 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 1430W 160,000 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 24 TLC-BT-575 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 575W 52,000 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 10 Light Level Summary Calculation Grid Summary IlluminationGrid Name Calculation Metric Ave Min Max Max/Min Ave/Min Circuits Fixture Qty Baseball (Infield)Horizontal Illuminance 50.4 36 69 1.89 1.40 A 43 Baseball (Outfield)Horizontal Illuminance 30.3 20 47 2.33 1.51 A 43 Bullpen Horizontal 35.8 20 47 2.33 1.79 A 43 Road Spill Horizontal 0.08 0 0.41 0.00 A 43 Road Spill Max Candela (by Fixture)2832 0.88 10469 11924.86 3218.64 A 43 Road Spill Max Vertical Illuminance Metric 0.15 0 0.65 0.00 A 43 69 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2020 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Joe Seda • File #199895B • 27-Feb-20 C1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C3 39 52 53 42 42 37 34 26 29 3345676954454641333036 3147646456474237323033334253615343353131333433 294643484536292526293232284647453830262425282931204046433528252526293231283835322725262628323227323030272627262628263035343128272927252225343529272730292323272726282421 21 23 21 45'61'335'131'45'50'200'46'132'360'42'207'SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80 0'80'160' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A170'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 4 1 4 0 0 1 A2 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 5 1 5 0 0 2 B1-B2 80'-15.5' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 7 2 7 0 0 2 C1, C3 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 5 2 5 0 0 6 TOTALS 43 43 0 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) St. Thomas Academy Baseball Mendota Heights, MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Baseball Size: Irregular 288' / 375' / 330' Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES InĮeld Ouƞield Guaranteed Average:50 30 Scan Average:50.35 30.26 Maximum:69 47 Minimum:36 20 Avg / Min:1.38 1.49 Guaranteed Max / Min:2 2.5 Max / Min:1.89 2.33 UG (adjacent pts):1.50 1.52 CU:0.75 No. of Points:25 105 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 136,000 / 160,000 / 52,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 43 Total Load: 50.6 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-LED-1200 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1500 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. 70 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2020 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Joe Seda • File #199895B • 27-Feb-20 B2 42 47 42 47 38 44 35 41 33 38 29 35 25 31 20 26 42'207'SCALE IN FEET 1 : 20 0'20'40' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A170'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 4 1 4 0 0 1 A2 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 5 1 5 0 0 2 B1-B2 80'-15.5' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 7 2 7 0 0 2 C1, C3 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 5 2 5 0 0 6 TOTALS 43 43 0 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) St. Thomas Academy Baseball Mendota Heights, MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Bullpen Size: Irregular 288' / 375' / 330' Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:35.79 Maximum:47 Minimum:20 Avg / Min:1.77 Max / Min:2.33 UG (adjacent pts):1.29 CU:0.01 No. of Points:16 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 136,000 / 160,000 / 52,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 43 Total Load: 50.6 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-LED-1200 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1500 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. 71 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2020 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Joe Seda • File #199895B • 27-Feb-20 C1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.23 0.35 0.41 0.28 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80 0'80'160' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A170'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 4 1 4 0 0 1 A2 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 5 1 5 0 0 2 B1-B2 80'-15.5' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 7 2 7 0 0 2 C1, C3 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 5 2 5 0 0 6 TOTALS 43 43 0 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) St. Thomas Academy Baseball Mendota Heights, MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Road Spill Spacing: 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:0.0773 Maximum:0.41 Minimum:0.00 No. of Points:28 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 136,000 / 160,000 / 52,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 43 Total Load: 50.6 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-LED-1200 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1500 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. 72 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2020 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Joe Seda • File #199895B • 27-Feb-20 C1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C3 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.14 0.30 0.49 0.65 0.65 0.40 0.05 0.03 0.22 0.32 0.36 0.31 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80 0'80'160' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A170'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 4 1 4 0 0 1 A2 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 5 1 5 0 0 2 B1-B2 80'-15.5' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 7 2 7 0 0 2 C1, C3 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 5 2 5 0 0 6 TOTALS 43 43 0 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) St. Thomas Academy Baseball Mendota Heights, MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Road Spill Spacing: 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAX VERTICAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:0.1505 Maximum:0.65 Minimum:0.00 No. of Points:28 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 136,000 / 160,000 / 52,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 43 Total Load: 50.6 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-LED-1200 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1500 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. 73 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2020 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Joe Seda • File #199895B • 27-Feb-20 C1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C3 61 279 531 2233 5191 8473 10469 9976 7193 3321 1458 1444 2216 4313 6541 7754 4388 2084 960 324 69 12 7 2 1 2 4 3 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80 0'80'160' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS1A170'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 4 1 4 0 0 1 A2 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 5 1 5 0 0 2 B1-B2 80'-15.5' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 7 2 7 0 0 2 C1, C3 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 5 2 5 0 0 6 TOTALS 43 43 0 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) St. Thomas Academy Baseball Mendota Heights, MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Road Spill Spacing: 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY CANDELA (PER FIXTURE) EnƟre Grid Scan Average:2832.4041 Maximum:10468.79 Minimum:0.88 No. of Points:28 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 136,000 / 160,000 / 52,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 43 Total Load: 50.6 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-LED-1200 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1500 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. 74 EQUIPMENT LAYOUT Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2020 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Joe Seda • File #199895B • 27-Feb-20 Baseball Irregular C1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C3 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80 0'80'160' Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) St. Thomas Academy Baseball Mendota Heights, MN EQUIPMENT LAYOUT INCLUDES: · Baseball Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE 1 A1 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 4 1 A2 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1200 1 5 2 B1-B2 80'-15.5' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 7 2 C1, C3 70'-15.5' 70' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-1500 2 5 6 TOTALS 43 SINGLE LUMINAIRE AMPERAGE DRAW CHART Ballast SpeciĮcaƟons (.90 min power factor) Line Amperage Per Luminaire (max draw) Single Phase Voltage 208 (60) 220 (60) 240 (60) 277 (60) 347 (60) 380 (60) 480 (60) TLC-LED-1200 7.0 6.6 6.1 5.2 4.2 4.0 3.0 TLC-LED-1500 8.5 8.1 7.4 6.4 5.1 4.7 3.7 TLC-BT-575 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.5 75