Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-09-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL June 5, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of May 12, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes. 6. PJ Norman, LLC – 345 Clydesdale Trail – Planned Unit Development General Plan and Site Plan Review for construction of an approximately 9,000 square foot Goddard School. 7. Discussion pertaining to Site Plan Review procedures 8. Council Meeting Schedule 9. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 June 2, 2015 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: May 28, 2015 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates June 2, 2015 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Medina Country Club Site Plan – The Medina Country Club has requested a site plan review for construction of a new maintenance facility to replace the existing barn which will be demolished as part of the Villas project. The applicant also proposes to construct small restroom facilities on the course. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their April 14 meeting and recommended approval. The Council reviewed on May 5 and May 19 and tabled, requesting more information related to the proposed metal exterior. B) Aldi Site Plan and Variance – 3522 Sioux Drive – Aldi has requested approval to construct a 18,000 square foot grocery store at the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Sioux Drive. The applicant has also requested a variance to exceed the maximum 25% hardcover limitation in the shoreland overlay district of Elm Creek. The Planning Commission reviewed at their April 14 and May 12 meetings and recommended denial because the applicant did not meet the criteria for granting variances. The applicant is considering means to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and staff intends to present that application to the City Council on June 2. C) Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels – WH has requested a conditional use permit for the installation of a solar garden approximately an acre in area at their substation on Willow Drive, south of Highway 55. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at their May 12 meeting. Following the hearing the Commission recommended approval of the request. Staff intends to present to the City Council on June 2. D) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has requested a site plan review for construction of an 173,000 square feet memory care facility. The request also includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park and an Interim Use Permit to permit continued agricultural use of the portion of the property not proposed to be developed. The Met Council has also approved of the previous Comp Plan amendment. The Planning Commission meeting reviewed the rezoning, site plan review and interim use permit at the February 10 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the May 19 meeting and directed staff to prepare approval documents. These will be presented at the June 16 meeting. E) Goddard School Site Plan Review – PJ Norman LLC has requested Site Plan Review approval to construct a new building to house a Goddard School at 345 Clydesdale Trail (next to Caribou Coffee). The matter is scheduled for a public hearing at the June 9 Planning Commission meeting. F) Stonegate Conservation Design Subdivision – west of Deerhill, East of Homestead. The applicant has requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a conservation design subdivision of 42 lots on 170 gross acres. Staff is conducting a preliminary review, and the matter is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting. G) Buehler Plat – Robert Buehler has requested approval of a plat to separate 2782 Willow Drive from adjacent property. The parcels were a single lot and a previous owner sold portions of the lot to two separate buyers. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property to create a buildable lot, and the other portion of the property would be platted as an outlot. Staff is conducting a preliminary review, and the application will be scheduled for a Hearing when deemed complete, potentially at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 June 2, 2015 City Council Meeting H) Villas at Medina Country Club Final Plat – East of CR116, south of Shawnee Woods Road – Rachel Contracting has requested final approval of a subdivision to include 43 single family homes along the west and north of the Medina Golf and Country Club. The Council granted final plat approval at the May 5 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant on the conditions of approval. I) Enclave at Brockton 5th Addition – Lennar has requested final plat approval for the next phase of the Enclave at Brockton project. This phase is proposed to include 38 lots in the south and west portion of the site. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at the March 17 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant on the conditions of approval. J) Wakefield Valley Farm – 3385 County Road 24 – The applicant has requested final plat approval. City Council granted preliminary plat approval during the fall of last year. The City Council granted final plat approval at the March 3 meeting. Staff will work with applicant on conditions of approval. K) Dominium Affordable Rental Townhomes, Soiney Right-of-way Vacation, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery, Hamel Place –The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. L) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– these preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application M) Woodland Hill Preserve, Enclave at Brockton 4th, Hamel Haven, Morrison lot split, Three Rivers/Reimer Rearrangement subdivision – These subdivisions have all received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction begins. N) Monger Animal Structure Setback Variance – 1272 Homestead Trail – Todd and Katie Monger have requested a variance to reduce the required setback for an animal structure from 150 feet to 75 feet. The Planning Commission reviewed at their April 14 meeting and recommended approval. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at the May 19 meeting, and the application will now be closed. Other Projects A) Cable Buildout Analysis – staff met with Mediacom’s construction department related to the City’s preferred buildout in 2015. They informed staff that the existing system could not support buildout as desired by the City, but has to proceed in more of a linear fashion. Mediacom submitted their proposed buildout for 2015. Staff has requested the 2015 and 2016 proposed buildout map. Mediacom has agreed to allow the City until the June 16th meeting to review the buildout map. B) Site Plan Review, Administrative Review – following the feedback at the Business Forum, staff intends to present an ordinance for Planning Commission and City Council review which would allow staff to administratively approve certain improvements on commercial property (parking lot expansions, additions, small accessory structures) without needing to go through formal hearings with the Planning Commission and Council. Staff intends to present the ordinance at the June 9th Planning Commission meeting. C) CR116/Highway 55 – staff will meet with representatives from McDonalds on Friday to discuss Hennepin County’s plans for the intersection. D) Council Chambers Electronics – Staff took part in a meeting related to the AV equipment upgrade for the City Council chambers 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday May 12, 2015 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Charles Nolan, 8 Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Kent Williams. 9 10 Absent: None. 11 12 Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Planning 13 Assistant Debra Peterson. 14 15 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 16 17 There were none. 18 19 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20 21 Anderson reported that at the last City Council meeting the Council approved the 2015 22 budget and the 2014 audit results were presented. He stated that the Council also repealed 23 Section 1306, which deals with sprinkling of existing structures, in attempt to bring in new 24 business in the Uptown Hamel area. He stated that the Council approved the Final Plat for the 25 Fields of Medina and tabled the request from the Media Golf Course as the Council would 26 like to see samples of the proposed building materials. He stated that the Council also 27 approved the setback variance for an animal structure, which the Commission also 28 recommended for approval. He stated that the Council tabled a request of support for a grant 29 application from InCity Farms. 30 31 Nolan questioned if the Medina requirements had been more stringent than the Fire Code. 32 33 Finke explained that Section 1306 is an optional provision of the Code and each municipality 34 has the decision whether or not to opt in or out. He noted that many other municipalities have 35 chosen not to opt in or have repealed that item. 36 37 4. Planning Department Report 38 39 Finke provided an update. 40 41 5. Approval of the April 14, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 42 43 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the April 14, 2015, Planning 44 Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 45 46 6. Aldi – 3522 Sioux Drive – Variance Request to the Impervious Surface 47 Requirements and Site Plan Review to Construct an Aldi Grocery Store 48 49 Finke stated that the Commission reviewed this item at their April meeting, noting that the 50 request includes a variance and Site Plan review. He stated that there had been concern 51 regarding the proposed tree removal along Elm Creek and advised that the applicant has 52 2 composed a new tree removal and landscaping plan to preserve additional trees. He stated 53 that the tree removal rate had been reduced and there had been a discussion with the 54 Watershed and staff asking that the poor quality trees be considered exempt as part of the 55 proposed streambank restoration. He stated that as proposed only 15 healthy trees would be 56 removed from the shoreline area, as the poor quality trees would be exempt. He clarified that 57 12 trees had been considered poor quality in the shoreline area. He clarified that the applicant 58 is asking that the poor quality trees be exempt and in that case replacement would not be 59 required. He acknowledged that the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant is over 60 planted, noting that it appears the applicant will still replace in excess of what would be 61 required if the exemption is gained. He stated that there was also discussion at the last 62 meeting regarding the access to the site as the neighbor to the east had expressed concern 63 with an alternate access. 64 65 Reid questioned if there would be an issue with the amount of hardcover if the property were 66 not in the shoreline district. 67 68 Finke confirmed that the site would not exceed the limitations in another district. 69 70 Nolan referenced the proposed access road and questioned if that would be striped or whether 71 that would be more like a parking lot apron. 72 73 Finke stated that discussion has not yet occurred. 74 75 Williams referenced the issue of overplanting and questioned if the overplanting was specific 76 to shrubs. 77 78 Finke stated that it was both shrubs and trees. 79 80 Reid questioned if this would be considered a part of Uptown Hamel. 81 82 Finke stated that the property would be considered Commercial Highway/Railroad and would 83 not be considered Uptown Hamel. 84 85 Reid stated that it may be more attractive to have the parking in the back of the building 86 rather than in front. 87 88 Andy Brandel, ISG, spoke in representation of the applicant. He stated that there has been a 89 lot of discussion following the last meeting. He stated that the applicant’s certified arborist 90 visited the site and the landscaping plan has been amended in order to better meet the 91 regulations of the City and Elm Creek Watershed District. He stated that he spoke with 92 watershed staff and they believed that the Board could support the application as amended. 93 He stated that the tree removal has been reduced and almost 500 feet of shoreline 94 improvement and storm water features have been added. 95 96 Reid referenced the parking and noted that the parking proposed exceeds the requirements of 97 the City. She stated that this is an entrance into Uptown Hamel and did not believe that fit 98 the aesthetic. 99 100 Brandel stated that as proposed there are 80 stalls, which is the minimum number of stalls 101 they desire for their sites. 102 103 3 Reid stated that the appearance has a lot of asphalt and suggested placing the building in front 104 and the parking in the back in order to improve the aesthetic and not make it so suburban 105 looking. She also believed that this would improve the visibility of the store. 106 107 Brandel stated that they did discuss that option with Aldi following the last meeting and noted 108 that multiple layouts were considered during this process. He stated that from a function 109 standpoint they did not believe that would be an appropriate layout. He noted that they have 110 considered and built layouts such as that in the past and will in the future but that layout 111 would not fit with this specific site. 112 113 Williams referenced the issue of overplanting and questioned why the shrubs are needed in 114 that abundance. 115 116 Brandel stated that since the last review of the Commission the arborist visited the site and 117 identified hazard trees. He explained that in order to provide the necessary replacement, the 118 plan became too dense. He stated that the newest version of the landscaping plan includes 119 less removal and therefore less of a need for replacement, which has allowed better spacing. 120 121 Williams confirmed that the overplanting was in attempt to replace the level needed and was 122 not an ornamental desire. 123 124 Nolan questioned if the plan submitted better balances the desires of the City or whether that 125 plan was still overplanted. 126 127 Finke stated that staff has not received the newest version of the plan. 128 129 Nolan noted that there is an option to pay into an environmental fund, should replacement not 130 be an option. 131 132 Brandel stated that would be something that they would consider but the direction had been to 133 amend the landscaping plan, which is what they attempt to do. He noted that the new plan 134 had been submitted to staff today but there was not sufficient time for a thorough review. 135 136 Albers questioned if the replacement trees could be planted on another site. 137 138 Finke confirmed that is an option but noted that previous developments have fulfilled the 139 needs of the City. 140 141 Nolan questioned if there would be an opportunity breakup the asphalt aesthetic of the site 142 with landscaping islands. 143 144 Brandel reported that the site is pretty tight as is with the required Metropolitan Council 145 easement and access easement for the property to the east. He explained that there is not 146 much space left to meet the needs of the users and the requirements of the City. 147 148 Reid questioned how the size of this store compares to other Aldi stores. 149 150 Brandel stated that this is the new standard for the Aldi stores, noting that sizes have ranged 151 during the past nine years. He confirmed that all new stores would be this size. 152 153 Reid stated that it appears the size of the building and lot is too large for the parcel. She 154 believed that a smaller store would better fit the parcel. 155 156 4 Nolan opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 157 158 James Tiller spoke in representation of Arnt Hamel LLC, which is the property to the east. 159 He stated that he also spoke at the review of this item at the last meeting. He stated that Arnt 160 property is not opposed to this development but does oppose the driveway easement as the 161 only access to their site. He stated that if Arnt Property agrees to an inadequate agreement 162 that would limit their future access to Highway 55. He presented the access that they would 163 prefer to see and believed the City should obtain the best possible access they can from Aldi. 164 He did not believe that an easement would be adequate as the only access into the property. 165 He stated that there are a lot of potential problems for development of the Arnt property, 166 noting that the Highway 55 access has been in existence for the past 50 years. He hoped that 167 the Highway Department would work with Arnt when that time comes. 168 169 Nolan questioned if there is an existing easement across the Aldi property. 170 171 Tiller confirmed that there is not currently an easement in place and there is only the access 172 from Highway 55. He believed that the best possible access from the neighboring property 173 would be a City street but had been told that would not be an option. 174 175 Nolan referenced striping. 176 177 Tiller stated that issue would not be discussed until the Arnt property is sold in the future but 178 believed that striping would be a part of that discussion. 179 180 Nolan stated that now is the time to consider alternatives. 181 182 Tiller stated that he would like to have Aldi provide an easement for a sign and for the City to 183 provide a variance for a sign. 184 185 Nolan stated that he is speaking specifically in regard to the easement across the Aldi 186 property. 187 188 Tiller stated that he would like to see an in/out easement for the property. He recognized the 189 constraints on Aldi as well and noted that he does not have engineering experience. He stated 190 that he has been told that this is the best they can do. 191 192 Nolan closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. 193 194 Murrin questioned if it would be possible to have an in/out access to Highway 55 from the 195 Aldi property or whether that would only be possible through the Arnt property. 196 197 Finke confirmed that the Aldi property does not have frontage on Highway 55 because of the 198 creek location and therefore there can only be access to Highway 55 through the Arnt 199 property. He explained that there are two action items before the Commission and noted that 200 the Site Plan is contingent upon receipt of the variance. 201 202 Nolan asked for clarification in regard to the easement for the property owner to the east. 203 204 Finke explained that staff has requested that the applicant lay out an easement for the 205 property to the east to provide the best option for that property to be able to develop. He 206 stated that Aldi has stated that they will provide an easement. 207 208 5 Murrin questioned if the thought of the property owner to the east is that if an easement is 209 provided that when his property is sold, MnDOT could close the Highway 55 access. 210 211 Finke stated that is not the City’s position and noted that the City could support a right-in to 212 that site if a right turn lane could be provided along Highway 55 but noted that ultimately that 213 decision would be MnDOT’s and would come into play when that parcel actually develops. 214 He stated that if there is not alternate access, MnDOT could not close the Highway 55 access 215 for the Arnt property. 216 217 Murrin stated that perhaps that easement area could remain grass at this time. 218 219 Finke stated that would not be logical as the access will be used for truck deliveries and will 220 not actually increase the greenspace by that much. 221 222 Williams questioned if the easement could be made more like a City street, suggesting even 223 labeling. 224 225 Finke stated that an option could be to label the driveway as a private street but confirmed 226 that the drive lane would be narrower than a typical street. 227 228 Nolan questioned if quality of trees has ever resulted in an exemption. 229 230 Finke replied that the tree preservation ordinance specifically allows for exemption and stated 231 that the City has done that in other instances but noted that those were waivers rather than 232 exemptions. 233 234 Nolan stated that clearly there is a preference to increase their visibility to eastbound traffic 235 and therefore the planting is proposed for the northeast portion of the site. He questioned if 236 that would mean planting trees that would be removed in the future to increase the visibility 237 of the adjacent site. 238 239 Finke noted that there would be a buffer. 240 241 Nolan referenced the variance request and asked for input. 242 243 Murrin confirmed that a smaller store would result in less impervious surface. She agreed 244 with Reid that this will be the gateway going into Hamel and also believed that a larger store 245 would result in more traffic concerns. She referenced eight or nine parking stalls that could 246 be removed as well. 247 248 Nolan stated that in a standard commercial district there is 70 to 75 percent hardcover 249 allowed. He questioned the percentage of lot the building would occupy. 250 251 Finke stated that the site is constrained because of the buffer and easement areas and street 252 location. 253 254 Nolan stated that he would prefer to see some landscaping islands to break up the asphalt a 255 bit. 256 257 Williams stated that the applicant did state that 80 parking spots would be the minimum 258 number of stalls that they would want. 259 260 6 Nolan stated that they would not want to create a parking problem either, noting that it is rare 261 that someone requests additional parking and he would not want to create a shortage. 262 263 Reid stated that she likes Aldi but believes the building would be more attractive on the other 264 side. 265 266 Motion by Williams, seconded by Reid, to recommend denial of the Aldi impervious 267 surface variance request as the application has found to be excessive and does not meet the 268 criteria. Motion carries 6-1 (Nolan opposed). 269 270 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to recommend denial of the Aldi Site Plan based 271 upon the same findings of fact. Motion carries unanimously. 272 273 7. Wright-Hennepin Cooperative – 4315 Willow Drive – Conditional Use Permit Request 274 to Install Ground Mounted Solar Arrays 275 276 Finke stated that the Commission discussed this topic in a general sense a few months prior 277 when the zoning ordinance was amended to include ground mounted solar panels. He stated 278 that the applicant is proposing a 2,100 square foot footprint for the solar array at their 279 substation on Willow Drive. He reviewed the adjacent development and stated that the 280 applicant is proposing dual faced solar panels. He reviewed the general standards and 281 specific standards for solar equipment that the Commission would consider when reviewing 282 this request. He stated that the landscaping as exists today is nonconforming and advised that 283 full compliance may be too high of a bar to set given the use. He stated that staff would 284 support some additional landscaping. He noted that in addition to the general standards, 285 ground mounted solar can require additional screening if deemed necessary. He stated that 286 staff recommends approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. 287 288 Nolan questioned if it was true that the panels would not reflect light. 289 290 Finke stated that panels have evolved over time and noted that the sites staff visited did not 291 have an issue with glare. 292 293 Nolan questioned if this would be an accessory use to the substation. He questioned if other 294 activities could go on the site in the future, such as an office building for the applicant. 295 296 Finke stated that he would not have an opinion either way but recognized that the solar panels 297 would most likely be considered an accessory use. He stated that any use allowed in the 298 district could be proposed in the future, given that the necessary conditions could be met. 299 300 Albers questioned the percentage of the lot the solar panels would occupy. 301 302 Finke reported that the solar panels would occupy 8.4 percent of the lot. 303 304 Wayne Bauernschmitt, Wright-Hennepin Electric, stated that he was present to answer any 305 questions the Commission may have. He stated that this is a community solar project funded 306 solely by the members that want to buy solar capacity to pay for their own system. He 307 thanked the City for developing a solar ordinance that would work with this request. He 308 asked that the number of plantings be kept down as too many plantings would cause the 309 panels to be overshadowed. 310 311 Reid referenced the number of over story trees proposed by staff and questioned if that would 312 interfere with the solar panels. 313 7 314 Bauernschmitt stated that he believes that would be a workable project but noted that if the 315 landscaping had to be in full compliance he did not feel that the project could be successful. 316 317 Albers questioned the amount of energy that would be generated. 318 319 Bauernschmitt stated that 147kw would be generated and noted that a typical home would use 320 approximately three to 3.5kw. 321 322 Albers questioned if the other side of the substation had been considered for the solar array. 323 324 Bauernschmitt stated that location would not be practical because it is a north facing slope. 325 326 Murrin questioned if a transformer would have to be moved. 327 328 Bauernschmitt stated that the lines leaving the substation are underground and advised that a 329 transformer would be installed during this process. He stated that they are very small and 330 there would be three used for the larger developments in Medina. 331 332 Albers questioned the type of fencing that would be installed around the array. 333 334 Bauernschmitt stated that fencing is not proposed at this time. He noted that other sites were 335 visited by staff and the Council and advised that there is not fencing at those locations. He 336 stated that there is a 24 hour security and cameras at the Rockford location and noted that 337 something similar would be proposed for this location. 338 339 Reid questioned if those participating would have a higher or lower rate. 340 341 Bauernschmitt reported that there would be a slightly higher rate but explained that those 342 consumers would be making an investment in their future rates. He provided additional 343 information regarding the solar array and measures that eliminate glare. 344 345 Nolan opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. 346 347 No comments made. 348 349 Nolan closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. 350 351 Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use 352 Permit based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the conditions 353 recommended by staff, including the scaled down landscaping. Motion approved 354 unanimously. 355 356 8. Council Meeting Schedule 357 358 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following week. 359 360 Murrin volunteered to represent the Commission at the meeting. 361 362 Finke stated that he has received comments regarding the length of land use application 363 process and noted that perhaps the Commission would want to further discuss that item. He 364 noted that some items could possibly be approved by administrative review and advised that 365 another option could be to hold two Planning Commission meetings per month. 366 8 367 9. Adjourn 368 369 Motion by Williams, seconded by White, to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Motion 370 carried unanimously. 371 Ad ministrative Site Plan Review Page 1 of 2 June 9, 2015 Discussion Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2015 MEETING: June 9, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Administrative Site Plan Review - Discussion Background Current City regulations require a Site Plan Review process, including Planning Commission review and City Council resolution, for almost all construction activity on commercial and multi- family residential property. This includes review of new construction, additions over 1000 square feet in size, parking lot expansions in excess of 10,000 square feet, and re-siding of structures if the wall surface is greater than 10,000 square feet. Many of these reviews have very little discretion, and there was fairly little to discuss during the public process in some recent examples. Local businesses have also complained that the process is burdensome when they are attempting to improve their property or operations. Discussion Staff reviewed the Site Plan Review ordinance to identify opportunities to make the review process more efficient, but also to maintain a public process for larger projects. The attached ordinance provides some of staff’s recommendations. The ordinance would make the following construction subject to administrative review instead of a public process: 1) Changes of use 2) Re-siding buildings 3) Parking lot expansions 4) Lighting changes 5) Grading (up to 1000 cubic yards) The ordinance would also increase the size of building expansions which can be approved through administrative review. Currently, an expansion up to 1000 square feet can be administratively reviewed, regardless of the size of the building onto which it is constructed. The proposed amendment would allow expansions up to 10% of the existing floor area to be administrative reviewed. Staff believes it may be worth discussing even a higher threshold. The ordinance would also make review of accessory structures an administrative review, but only up to 5000 square feet, or 20% of the existing building (whichever is less). The Planning Commission can discuss whether they are comfortable with this, or would rather all new construction be reviewed through a public process. Ad ministrative Site Plan Review Page 2 of 2 June 9, 2015 Discussion Planning Commission Meeting Staff believes it is most important to have flexibility on building expansions, rather than new accessory buildings. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission provide feedback on the attached ordinance. Staff intends to present the ordinance based on this discussion for a public hearing at the July meeting. Attachment Draft ordinance Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESSES; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 825.55, et.seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 825.55. Site Plan Review – Application. Subd. 1. All new commercial, business, and multiple family residential uses and developments shall require site plan review under this section prior to the issuance of any permits. In addition, all changes, additions and expansions of existing commercial, business, and multiple family residential uses and developments shall require site plan review prior to the issuance of any permits unless the change, addition or expansion qualifies for review by city staff as a minor change pursuant to Subd. 4 of this Section. Changes occurring after the effective date of this ordinance shall require site plan review if the change, when combined with all other changes made since the effective date of this ordinance, would no longer qualify as a minor change under the applicable district regulations. Subd. 2. The owner or developer shall submit an application for site plan review to the zoning administrator. The application shall be accompanied by the following information and documentation to the extent it is not otherwise required by another land use application made by the owner or developer for the same site at the same time: (a) legal description of the property; (b) identification of developer and owner, if different; (c) survey showing property boundaries; existing improvements, including utilities, drainage tiles and wells; topography of the site and area within 100 feet of the property boundaries with contours at 2-foot intervals; significant trees and existing vegetation which would meet ordinance landscaping requirements; easements of record, including the dimensions thereof; and wetlands; (d) site plan of proposed improvements showing all buildings, including details of loading docks; parking areas; driveways; access points; berms; easements; and adjacent public or private streets; (e) floor plans and building elevations, including list of building materials, showing a Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE sketch or computer-generated image of proposed buildings as viewed from surrounding uses; (f) site plan of existing uses on property in non-residential zones adjacent to the site and on property in residential zones within 720 feet of the site, measured at the closest point, showing buildings, including loading docks, entrances and other significant features and illustrating sight lines to proposed uses; (g) proposed grading plan with contours at 2-foot intervals; (h) soils map; (i) tree preservation plan; (j) landscaping plan, including species and sizes; (k) drainage and storm water plan; (l) utility plan; (m) sign plan; (n) lighting plan; (o) table of all proposed uses by type and square footage, including estimated water and sanitary sewer usage; (p) schedule of staging or timing of development; and (q) application fee. Upon receipt of an application for site plan review, the zoning administrator may determine that, due to the nature or scale of the development, not all of the above information must be submitted or that additional information must be submitted in order to allow reasonable review of the development. Subd. 3. Upon receipt of an application for site plan review, the zoning administrator shall determine whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, the zoning administrator shall notify the applicant in writing that the application is not complete and shall specify the additional documentation or information that the applicant will be required to submit before the application will be considered complete. When the application is complete, the zoning administrator shall refer the matter to the planning commission for review. Subd. 4. Minor changes: The following changes can be reviewed and approved by City staff upon a written finding and filing the report in the property file that the proposal Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE meets the requirements of the district. 1. Change in the use of the property if the use is less intense and a more restrictive use meets relevant ordinance standards. 2. Expansion of an existing building by less than 1,000 square feet of floor area which does not exceed the greater of the following amounts in a single year: (a) 10% of the existing floor area, or (b) 1,000 square feet of floor area. 3. Changes of less than 10,000 square feet to the exterior walls or surface of the building, if the proposed exterior surface meets relevant ordinance standards. 4. Expansion of the an existing parking lot by less than 10 spaces or less than 10,000 square feet, whichever is less. 5. Outdoor lighting changes involving 2 or fewer light poles without changing the type of lighting provided the new lighting does not exceed maximum output or photometric requirements. 6. Changes to the topography involving less than 1 foot in elevation 1000 cubic yards of disturbance or less than 24,000 square feet of lot area. 7. An addition to exposed rooftop equipment if the addition is less than 64 cubic feet. 8. Construction of an accessory structure meeting relevant ordinance standards and which does not exceed the lesser of the following: (a) 20% of the floor area of the principal structure; or (b) 5,000 square feet of floor area. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the staff under this subdivision may appeal to the city council. Appeals must be submitted in writing and must be received by the staff within 30 days of the date the staff’s written report is filed. The city council shall decide an appeal within 60 days of the date of receipt of the appeal. Section 825.56. Site Plan Review - Planning Commission Review. Subd. 1. The planning commission shall review the proposed site plan on the basis of the information and documentation submitted by the applicant and any other information available to it. The review may occur separately or in conjunction with any other city hearing or review required under state statute, this ordinance or other applicable law regarding the same property or development and occurring at the same time. Subd. 2. The planning commission shall review the proposed site plan to determine whether it is consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, including the applicable development standards and the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE located. Following the review, the planning commission shall recommend that the site plan be approved, approved with conditions or denied. The planning commission shall forward its recommendation to the city council. Section 825.59. Site Plan Review - City Council Review. Subd. 1. The city council shall consider the recommendation of the planning commission after receipt of its report and may consider any additional information or conduct such additional review, if any, as it determines would serve the public interest. The city council shall make its decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the site plan. The city council may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located. Subd. 2. Any site plan approval granted by the city council shall be valid for a period of one year following final action by the city council or such longer period, not to exceed one additional year, as the council may specify. After the expiration of that period, the approval granted by the city council shall be null and void and no permits may be issued pursuant to the approval. Prior to the expiration of the period, the city council may grant an extension for good cause upon Medina City Code written request by the applicant. Subd. 3. An application to amend an approved site plan shall be reviewed under this section in the same manner as an initial application for a site plan review except that any change, addition or expansion which qualifies as a minor change as specified in the standards applicable for the district in which the property is located shall be subject to an administrative site plan review by the zoning administrator. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _____________, 2015. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the _____ day of _________, 2015. Goddard School Page 1 of 6 June 9, 2015 PUD General Plan/Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 4, 2015 MEETING: June 9, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Goddard School – PUD General Plan and Site Plan Review 345 Clydesdale Trail – Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: May 8, 2015 Review Deadline: September 5, 2015 Summary of Request PJ Norman, LLC proposes to construct a 9,300 square foot early childhood facility at 345 Clydesdale Trail. The operators of the facility are Medina residents, who currently operate a Goddard School in Plymouth. The development would require the following land use approvals in order to permit the construction proposed by the applicant: 1) PUD General Plan – the subject site is part of the Clydesdale Marketplace PUD, and the proposed construction differs from that approved, requiring an amendment to the PUD. 2) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building. Although this staff report will generally not examine the requests separately, the Site Plan Review is technically contingent upon amendment of the PUD. The subject site is a vacant commercial pad within the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace development. Highway 55 is located south of the site. Commercial uses surround the site, and the nearest residential property is Cherry Hill, over 450 feet to the north. The subject site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). The standards of the PUD are attached for reference and will be summarized throughout this report. An aerial of the subject site and surrounding area is attached for reference. PUD/Site Plan Review Proposed Use The approved PUD identified a restaurant use on the subject site. A daycare facility is listed as a permitted conditional use within the underlying Urban Commercial (UC) zoning district. No property is currently zoned UC, and it only serves as the underlying district for this PUD. Approved PUD The approved PUD identified a 5,600 square foot restaurant with 85 parking spaces. The building was to be located close to the trail along Clydesdale and the shared access drive to the east. Parking was proposed to the south and west of the building. The proposed structure is 2/3 larger than the restaurant, but generally oriented similarly upon the lot. Goddard School Page 2 of 6 June 9, 2015 PUD General Plan/Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Setbacks/Lot Dimensions The following table summarizes the proposed construction compared to the requirements of the UC zoning district and the PUD standards, if applicable. The subject site was previously platted as depicted in the PUD, so the lot size, width, and depth are consistent. Urban Commercial Requirement PUD Requirement Proposed Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet Zero 15.8 feet Setback from Hwy 55 ROW 50 feet 80 feet Minimum Interior Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet from shared access 20 feet from shared access Setback from Residential 75 feet 475 feet Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard Rear/Interior Side Yards Residential 25 feet 5 feet 75 feet 25 feet 5 feet 490 feet Maximum Impervious Surface 60% 75% 65% Building Materials The applicant proposes fiber cement panels with brick/stone accents. The roof is proposed to be pitched with asphalt shingles. The fiber cement panels are proposed with a stucco appearance to mimic the stucco on other buildings in the development. The PUD requires all materials to be durable and noncombustible. The PUD also requires 30% (and 35% of street facing) of the exterior to be brick, stone, stucco, and glass. Fiber cement panels are not explicitly permitted in the underlying zoning district or within the design guidelines of the PUD. The City could permit the material with an amendment to the PUD, if the Commission and Council find is appropriate. The proposed structure is approximately 40% brick/stone/glass and 60% fiber cement board. The western elevation includes a bit more brick and the eastern elevation a bit more fiber cement board. Staff recommends a condition that materials and colors coordinate with other properties within the PUD. Material samples and color rendering will be available at the meeting. Staff spoke with the Building Official, who did not have much experience with fiber cement panels in a commercial setting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and Council discuss whether an alternative material should be utilized. Stucco was a common material on other buildings in the development. Goddard School Page 3 of 6 June 9, 2015 PUD General Plan/Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Building Modulation/Fenestration/Multi-sided Architecture General commercial zoning regulations would require a minimum of one aspect of modulation every 40 feet. The proposed structure provides modulation predominantly through changes in roof pitch. If this is an acceptable means of modulation, it would exceed the required number on all elevations. The PUD requires that substantial window/door coverage facing streets in the development to support a more pedestrian friendly appearance. The proposed structure includes approximately 33% of the frontage along Clydesdale as windows and doors. This appears similar to Wells Fargo, but less than the building to the east. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss if this is sufficient. The PUD requires structures to include four-sided architecture. The eastern elevation appears to provide less glass than the other sides, but does provide more horizontal modulation. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss if this is sufficient. Tree Preservation/Landscaping No significant trees are located on this site. The approved PUD plan identified 14 overstory and 5 ornamental trees in addition to a complement of shrubs. The applicant is concerned with planting trees in the playground areas because of fear of climbing and the fact it breaks up the play area. The applicant proposes 12 trees, with none located in the playground area. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether the landscaping plan is sufficient. Transportation The applicant proposes to utilize the planned curb cut on the west side of the lot as a primary access. The applicant also proposes an “exit only” on the southeast corner of the site which would connect to the parking lot to the east where Caribou Coffee is located. The approved PUD showed cross-access between these two properties. The applicant states that they want to prohibit traffic from the Caribou property from going through their parking lot out of safety concerns for children. Currently, the Caribou property only has one exit. The shared access drive between the sites is one-way to the south in order to serve the Caribou Coffee drive-thru. Staff believes this was approved under the assumption that the Caribou lot would be permitted to exit through the subject site. Staff supports discouraging the drive-thru traffic from Caribou from exiting through the Goddard site, although it appears possible to do this without prohibiting parking lot traffic as well. The Planning Commission and Council should discuss whether prohibiting all access from the Caribou lot is appropriate. Even if the City supports limiting access, it may be preferable to construct the full width in case of changes in use in the future. The access could remain signed as “exit only.” The City Engineer did not identify any necessary improvement for existing streets. Goddard School Page 4 of 6 June 9, 2015 PUD General Plan/Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Off-Street Parking The applicant proposes 41 parking spaces. City regulations do not include specific requirements for daycare facilities. The site will need enough to parking for staff and parent drop-off/pick-up. The applicant operates a similar sized facility in Plymouth with 38 parking spaces, at which parking concerns have not been noted. Staff is aware of a similar sized facility in Corcoran with 30 spaces, which does appear to be under-parked. The applicant has stated that the maximum staffing on the site would be 21 at full capacity of 140 students. This would leave 20 spaces for pick-up/drop-off, meaning 1 out of 7 parents can be dropping off at once. There is some space for a few spaces of proof-of-parking to the north and southeast of the proposed parking lot. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to determine if identifying these spaces should be required. The approved PUD identified 85 parking spaces for the restaurant on the site. Such a restaurant would likely have been 200 seats, requiring 67 parking spaces. Staff investigated whether it was likely that there was supposed to have been shared parking on this site. The property to the east appears adequately parked. The 60 seat coffee shop and 4000 square feet retail would require 36 parking spaces and are provided. A massive parking lot is also available across Clydesdale for infrequent larger events, so staff does not believe excess parking on the subject site is necessary. The City Engineer recommends that the drive aisle be 24 feet in width. Stormwater/LID The applicant proposes to discharge stormwater to the system installed to serve the development. The improvements do not meet current stormwater regulations, but the City’s stormwater management ordinance permits a waiver when improvements are in place. The proposed development includes less impervious surface than was included on the original PUD and for which the stormwater system was designed. This reduction of hardcover would provide stormwater benefits above what was planned for the site. Wetlands/Floodplain There are no wetlands or floodplains on the subject site. Sewer/Water Utilities were stubbed to the site during the initial development. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant relocates the hydrant on the site in order to meet hydrant spacing requirements. The applicant has submitted information related to expected water usage at the facility. The Metropolitan Council’s determination for the sake of their sewer availability charges is significantly higher than the applicant expects to use. The primary difference is likely that the applicant does not propose a full kitchen with dish washing, but rather to cater lunches in. Staff intends to charge City sewer and water fees on usage information provided, but with a caveat that the City can charge up to the full fee if actual usage is higher than projected. Goddard School Page 5 of 6 June 9, 2015 PUD General Plan/Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Loading Dock No loading dock is proposed. Any loading will occur from the parking lot. Utilities/Mechanical Equipment/Trash and Recycling The applicant proposes to place HVAC equipment on the roof within a pit below the top of the roofline. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant identifies the transformer location and provides screening details. The applicant proposes to store trash/recycling facility within an extension of the building on the eastern side of the structure. The PUD requires that all trash/recycling storage be located inside of the principal structure. The applicant proposes a storage area attached to the building which incorporates the same architectural design. This portion of the building is not accessible from inside the building and may appear to be appended to it. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss if this is consistent with the PUD requirement. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council review the requests in the following order: 1) General Plan of Development for PUD Amendment; 2) Site Plan Review. Planned Unit Development The purpose of the PUD ordinance is described below, and provides guidance for when it is appropriate to establish a PUD district. It is important to note that the subject site is part of a broader PUD which was previously established, so deviations within a single site may have been mitigated by higher standards in another site and there may have been purposefully higher standards set for this site to fit into the overall PUD. As such, it may be helpful to not only compare any requested deviations to the general city requirements in addition to the approved PUD requirements. Staff has attached the objectives of the commercial land use from the Comprehensive Plan as well, as these are referenced in the PUD purpose. According to the PUD ordinance: “The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: Subd. 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design. Subd. 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. Subd. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. Subd. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. Goddard School Page 6 of 6 June 9, 2015 PUD General Plan/Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Subd. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.” Site Plan Review The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed construction for consistency with City regulations. The City “may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located.” Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the General Plan of Development to amend the PUD and the Site Plan Review, subject to the following conditions: 1) The Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD is hereby amended to permit a child care facility as a permitted use upon the subject property and to approve the site layout and development as depicted on the plans received by the City on 5/28/2015, except as modified herein. 2) The applicant shall construct the improvements as displayed on the plans received by the City on 5/28/2015, except as modified herein. 3) Exterior materials and colors shall complement those throughout Medina Clydesdale Marketplace. 4) The applicant shall identify the transformer location and provide screening details acceptable to staff. 5) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer, and shall update the location of the relocated hydrant to a location specified by staff in order to meet spacing requirements. 6) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals, including but not limited to Elm Creek Watershed, the Minnesota Department of Health, and other relevant agencies. 7) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the site plan and other relevant documents. Attachments 1) List of documents submitted 2) Comp Plan objectives for Commercial property 3) Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD information 4) City Engineer Comments 5) Applicant Narrative 6) Fence/Playground Specs 7) Plans received by the City 5/28/2015 Project:  LR‐15‐161 – Goddard PUD General Plan and Site Plan Review The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 5/8/2015 5/8/2015 3 Application Y Amended 5/22/2015 Fee 5/8/2015 5/8/2015 1 Fee Y $5000 Mailing Labels 5/8/2015 5/8/2015 5 Labels Y  Narrative 5/8/2015 5/8/2015 2 Narrative Y  Narrative – Updated 5/28/2015  Narrative – 5‐28‐2015 Y  Plan Set 5/8/2015 5/8/2015 9 Plans Y Arch plans dated 5/6/2015 Plan Set – Updated 5/28/20155/28/201511 Plans‐5‐28‐2015 Y Civil dated 5/27/2015 Landscape Plan – Updated 6/5/2015 5/28/20151 Landscaping Plan – 6‐5‐2015 N  Lighting specs 5/8/2015  4 Lighting Specs Y  Fence Details 5/8/2015  1 Fence Details Y  Playground Details 5/8/2015  2 Playground  Y  Fiber Cement Specs 6/5/2015  23 Fiber Cement Specs N   Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 5/20/2015 1 EngComments – 5‐20‐2015  Legal Notice 5/29/2015           Public Comments  Document Date # of pages Electronic       Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 17 Amended May 21, 2013 (CPA2030-4) Commercial Uses The previous objectives outlined referred to urban land uses with a residential component. The following objectives refer to commercial and industrial land uses that are connected to or planned for urban services. The Urban Commercial area is along the TH 55 corridor and will support businesses to benefit the residential areas to the north and south and commuters who travel on TH 55. Businesses will provide a variety of retail products and services mixed with light industrial/warehouses and smaller offices. Objectives: 1. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City residents. 2. Avoid multiple access points to collector and arterial roads. 3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access to a regional highway or frontage road. 5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact on residential areas. 6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor. 8. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features. 9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access TH 55 corridor. 10. Require developments to provide frontage roads as shown conceptually in the transportation plan. 11. Require conditional use permits for manufacturing, processing, cleaning, storage, maintenance and testing of goods and products in order to prevent adverse affects to the City and its residents. 12. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy. Resolution No. 2005-55 September 20, 2005 Member Weir introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2005-55 APPROVING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN FOR RYAN COMPANIES FOR MEDINA CLYDESDALE MARKETPLACE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF STATE HIGHWAY 55 AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 101 WHEREAS, Ryan Companies US, Inc., (the “Applicant”) has requested approval of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) for a retail project to be known as Medina Clydesdale Marketplace (the “Development”) on property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the PUD plan has previously been reviewed by the city council of the city of Medina (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has now requested approval of the final plan for the PUD, which final plan has been reviewed by the City for conformance with the land use regulations of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the PUD final plan for the Applicant for Medina Clydesdale Marketplace, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD final plan is approved to allow the creation of the Development in accordance with the plans received by the City on September 9, 2005, except as amended by this resolution and stamped final approval by the City. The final PUD plan applies to the Property. 2. Approval of the PUD final plan is contingent upon completion of the rezoning of the Property from UC (Urban Commercial) to PUD-UC (Planned Unit Development- Urban Commercial). 3. Approval of the PUD final plan is contingent upon City approval of the final plat of Medina Clydesdale Marketplace. 4. A development agreement acceptable in form and substance to the City must be executed by the Applicant and the City and must be filed with the County at the time of final plat. The terms and conditions of the development agreement are incorporated herein. Terms used herein are given the same meaning as in the development agreement unless otherwise defined herein. Resolution No. 2005-55 September 20, 2005 2 5. The only drive-through use permitted within the Development shall be for the proposed bank located on Lot 3, Block 1. No other drive-through use shall be allowed. 6. The Applicant must submit a complete wetland application identifying wetland impacts and impact mitigation. 7. The Applicant must secure agreements with the appropriate parties to utilize the parking spaces proposed on the existing Clydesdale Trail right-of-way or the Applicant shall submit a replat of the Target property consistent with the original plat as depicted on Exhibit K of the development agreement to establish an alternate alignment for Clydesdale Trail around the Valvoline site. 8. Restaurants which include table service are a permitted use within the Development. Restaurants must utilize air filtration systems to eliminate odors. The air filtration systems shall be shown and included in the plans. 9. Coffee shops which include counter service are a permitted use within the Development. 10. The City’s lighting ordinance, including curfew limitations, applies to parking lot lights within the Development except for security lights for employees. 11. No construction work of any kind may take place within the Development except Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 12. Separate permits for site grading and utility construction shall be required if the utility construction is part of the Subdivision Improvements as specified in the development agreement. 13. Construction traffic will not be allowed on local roads and must utilize specific haul routes approved by the City. 14. All lots within Medina Clydesdale Marketplace are subject to the PUD final plan. Development of any of the lots within Medina Clydesdale Marketplace, except the Target lot, shall also require additional site plan approval in accordance with the City’s site plan ordinance before construction of any improvements thereon. 15. Any change in use on any of the lots within Medina Clydesdale Marketplace from that which the Developer has previously proposed shall require an amendment to the PUD final plan. The following conditions be met prior to issuance of grading permits: Resolution No. 2005-55 September 20, 2005 3 16. All Development plans must be revised to comply with all conditions in the city engineer’s memos dated August 15, 2005, August 25, 2005 and August 26, 2005. 17. All Development plans shall meet the conditions of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s memos dated May 13, 2005, June 2, 2005 and July 1, 2005. 18. The site shall be subject to an Operation and Easement Agreement in form and substance acceptable to the City and which must be recorded with Hennepin County. 19. The Applicant shall provide to the City a digital copy of the approved Development plans. 20. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the plan and related documents. 21. Any retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must include additional design to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. 22. The Development plans shall be revised to remove the trail segment between Clydesdale Trail and Outlot B. 23. The Development plans shall be revised to dimension the required wetland buffer setbacks of ten feet. The wetland buffer shall consist of a natural area and shall not be mowed, fertilized or altered in any way without prior approval from the City. 24. All Development plans are subject to the review and approval by the Elm Creek Watershed District. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval from the watershed district. 25. The manholes within the Development, except for numbers 6, 7 and 8, shall be located within the boulevard. 26. The Applicant must submit a revised drainage plan for the well house and driveway area. 27. The Applicant must apply for and receive a drainage permit from MnDOT for the Site Improvements and the Subdivision Improvements. 28. Wetland mitigation and plans shall be approved by City staff. The following condition be met prior to issuance of any utility permits for the Subdivision Improvements: Resolution No. 2005-55 September 20, 2005 4 29. The plans shall be revised to meet the recommendations of the Fire Marshall in the memo dated August 17, 2005. The following conditions be met prior to issuance of building permits: 30. The Developer shall submit all plans and specifications and other information required as a precondition to an agreement between the City and MnDOT regarding the new signal at Trunk Highway 55 and Clydesdale Trail. The Developer also agrees to pay $23,400 for the cost of MnDOT supplied materials for which MnDOT will require reimbursement. 31. The Applicant shall pay all park dedication fees and sanitary sewer and water connection charges, on a lot-by-lot basis, prior to issuance of building permits. All fees shall be paid according to the fee structure specified in the development agreement. 32. Park Dedication fees for Lot 1, Block 3; Lot 2, Block 3; and Outlot C, Medina Clydesdale Marketplace, must be paid upon development of the Property, a change in use of the property, or an amendment to the PUD final plan. Park Dedication fees for these parcels will be those in effect at that time. Architectural and Design standards 33. The Applicant must submit a development guideline for the entire Development in a three-ring binder for use by future developers within the project area. No revisions of the development guideline shall be permitted without the approval of the City staff. 34. The development guideline must require use of only such building materials as permitted by the City code of ordinances. 35. No building within the Development may exceed 35 feet in height if sprinkled or 30 feet in height if not sprinkled. 36. The Developer must submit a sight line study regarding the views of the Target rooftop mechanical equipment from the perspectives required by City staff. Rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with a screening plan approved by City staff. 37. The materials utilized for the drive through on the bank site shall be the same materials as used the remainder of the principal building on that site. 38. The four stand-alone buildings shall consist of four-sided architecture and shall be of similar architectural quality and materials as the Target building and in-line retail space. Resolution No. 2005-55 September 20, 2005 5 39. Wing wall details for the west wall of the Target building shall be submitted for staff review and approval. 40. All trash and recycling enclosures must be located inside the principal buildings. Streets, Parking and Access 41. The Development is subject to the review and approval by Hennepin County, including but not limited to the August 31, 2005 memo. The Applicant shall comply with any conditions of approval by the County. 42. The Development is subject to the review and approval by MnDOT, including but not limited to the permits dated September 1, 2005, and September 15, 2005 The Applicant shall comply with any conditions of approval from MnDOT. Landscaping 43. The Applicant must revise the landscaping plan to replace the Greenspire Littleleaf Linden, with a Redmond Linden, the Fallgold Ash street tree with a Common Hackberry and the Amur Maple with a Serviceberry, or Redbud (northern clump- Minnesota strain). 44. The Applicant must revise the tree preservation plan to meet City requirements. The following condition be met prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy: 45. The Applicant must receive a No Action determination from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Development on its behalf and that of the City prior to receiving certificates of occupancy from the City for any buildings within the Development. The City will not accept any Subdivision Improvements until this determination has been received. The following conditions be met prior to issuance of signage permits: 46. All signs shall be in compliance with the signage plan received by the City on June 20, 2005. Any revisions must be approved by City staff. 47. The Development plans shall be revised so that the marked crosswalk areas are signed. 48. The Development plans shall be revised to identify that the handicap signs state $200 fine. Resolution No. 2005-55 September 20, 2005 6 Dated: September 20, 2005 ______________________________ Bruce D. Workman, Mayor Attest: _______________________________ Chad M. Adams, City Administrator - Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Cavanaugh upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Brinkman, Weir, Workman, Cavanaugh, Smith And the following voted against same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Overview As a gateway to the City of Medina this development blends retail and hospitality uses. The project maintains some features of the natural site and seeks to create new, attractive design and landscape features that will complement the City of Medina. · Nature o Color palette drawn from the Autumn season. o Provide opportunities for walking paths. throughout the site. o Create places to relax and gather. o Utilize wetlands and stormwater as an amenity with ponds and water features. · Preservation o Maintain some of the significant trees and wetland area. · Community o Provide a pedestrian scale development that reinforces a downtown “commercial node” experience. o Create a hierarchy of spaces for commuters and shoppers, and residents that slows the pace of traffic and experience as you travel through the site. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Introduction This retail development in Medina, MN is proposed by Ryan Companies US, Inc. This document is created to help direct design solutions and define character for this project. It is also intended to provide concepts for future development. Purpose The primary purpose of Development Guidelines is to set basic parameters, describe preferences and illustrate design intent. These guidelines serve as a framework within which creative design can and should occur. There is no one prescribed solution, but many options that can meet the basic requirements and intent of this document. Application The format and content of these guidelines are specifically tailored for use as a reference workbook for both the retail center and outlot development. It outlines issues and recommendations that apply to the entire project area as well as highlights specific guidelines that apply to each parcel. Implied Responsibility All participants in the development of this project area must recognize the local and community impacts of this project and the various systems that play an important role. Each building must fit within the context of the entire plan. Individual projects must complement, not compete with, adjacent development in terms of public space, walk and trail connections, stormwater management solutions, street layout, parking strategies, land use mix and building design. Development Guidelines Overall Guidelines There are a number of guidelines that apply to the entire project including recommendations for stormwater management, streets, land use, parking, and other development components. Many of these overall project guidelines overlap, or are integrated with one another. For ease of discussion they are categorized according to a list of layers, similar to those on a master plan map: · Context – local, city, regional. · Water Management – surface water features, stormwater management. · Green Structure – trails and open space. · Land Use Mix – preferred uses, horizontal mixed use. · Streets and Blocks – access and circulation. · Architecture – built form, character of development. · Parking Strategies – quantity, location, type. · Transit – automobile, bus, other options. The proposed and future design solutions for development within the project area, must demonstrate an understanding of the interplay between these layers. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Context Although unique to Medina, the project is not intended to be a stand alone district within the City; instead, will be a part of, and connect with a variety of local, city-wide and regional systems. Guideline Recommendations To ensure that the Project takes full advantage of local and regional systems, development should: · Provide safe, easily recognized connections to city, and county trail corridors. · Make provisions for city and regional transit service and amenities and encourage their use. · Integrate with and complement the existing (and future) street framework. · Become an integral part of the city and county drainage/ stormwater management plan. Examples Open space will be easily accessible to all residents and people who work or visit the area. · Bikeways and pedestrian routes in the project must be designed for safety and ease of access. · Overall project design (and all future development within the project area) should accommodate stormwater within each new project, and highlight stormwater as an amenity. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Water features and drainage systems are essential components of the project. The potential mix of ponds, wetlands, fountains will provide focal amenities within the framework of an environmentally responsible, visually pleasing strategy to manage stormwater. Water elements are not intended to be separate stand alone features, but instead should be integrated with the variety of green spaces, trails, public open space, and gathering areas. Guideline Recommendations Water Management guidelines not only define the overall role and character of public space, but also encourage each development parcel to address the following: Water Management · Create signature water features (ponds, fountains, wetlands, etc.) as major visual amenities. · Promote high quality, creative and appealing aesthetics for all components of the water systems. · Integrate stormwater management components (meeting both water quality and quantity requirements). Example Integration of water and landscape, design creativity, use of quality materials and safety concerns are the critical objectives to be met. Water feature design should include both natural and informal forms (such as ponds) and should explore creative ways to integrate wetland/ rain garden landscapes with active urban spaces. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  The overall design framework of the project creates a system of links between open spaces and wetlands via pedestrian trails. Of equal importance is the contribution from each use and each element of the development to this network of connections and green space throughout the project. Guideline Recommendations Green Structure guidelines encourage the following: · Work with the City to create an integrated system that links with existing city and county trails and open space networks. · Encourage the development of inviting, innovative and usable green space as integral parts of overall development. · Integrate stormwater management components (meeting water quality and quantity requirements) within the development. Together, the system of public and semi-public green space will result in a welcoming public realm throughout the new development. Green Structure Examples Based on the Concept Plan for the project, a variety of green spaces is proposed including: · Elements such as green areas, plazas, and seating areas characterize a pedestrian- oriented environment. · Green space should connect with other open space elements, providing a focal point for activity and a sense of place. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  The Concept Plan identifies the proposed mix and the approximate location of the various land use types for the project. Together with the Zoning Code, these guidelines focus on the following overall objectives: · Promote an interesting mix of building styles, scales and massing over the different parts of the project. · Support creative, innovative, high-quality design solutions as the benchmark for success. · Integrate pedestrian connections through out the project. · Provide a variety of commercial types of development. Examples · Buffer and transition different parcels by use of landscape features. · Create areas for large-scale, auto-related uses, separate from smaller scale formats to provide varied user experiences. · Utilize the existing topography and landscape features to the best extent possible. · Uses shall promote pedestrian friendly streets, and configurations to control vehicular traffic. Land Use Mix Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Streetscape Entrances to the project must balance a high level of service for the automobile with attractive and inviting amenities for the pedestrian including: · Provide gracious sidewalk width to invite pedestrian traffic. · Install street trees within tree grates in sidewalks and pedestrian plazas to frame and provide shade. · Provide street lighting that meets all safety standards and design criteria, while maintain the unique character for the project. · Provide bollards for pedestrian safety and building security, where appropriate at street corners, building entries, and other sensitive locations. Lighting may be integrated in to the street corner bollards to provide additional safety and as a night time visual element. Streets & Blocks The Concept Plan defines a specific strategy for the layout of the retail center and the outlets. The size, type and configuration of this street hierarchy is based on a combination of projected traffic volume, existing and future road connections, level of service at intersections, adjacent land use and desired aesthetic character. The project encourages a mix of large and small floor plates, accommodating auto-oriented uses. This suggests even greater attention be paid to public realm and streetscape improvements that not only accommodate vehicles, but also invite bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Surface parking areas provided through out the project with convenient access to storefronts, but present an additional challenge to the overall visual character and aesthetic appeal of this area. While green space is identified in the project, focus on gathering spaces and wide sidewalks are necessary. A consistent and attractive streetscape is also essential. Public realm and streetscape guidelines include the following. Public Realm Public Spaces should: · Focus on pedestrian connections and small gathering areas. · Encourage a balance of hardscape with landscape; a mix of pavements with plantings. · Provide small urban plaza integrated with building entries or taking advantage of shared space between buildings and outlots. · Promote safety and security in all design solutions, including landscape lighting, views into the site and accessibility. · Provide seasonal interest and color; promote quality materials and finishes. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Buildings make a significant contribution to the first impression of the project. Buildings form gateways at the major entries into the site, architectural elements and choice of materials convey a certain character and the scale or massing of structures begins to define the feel or experience of this place. The overall design and specific details of the buildings should make the project unique, inviting and memorable. Architecture guidelines include the following: Building Design, Character and Expression · Provide a variety of building types and styles expressed both in large scale (overall building) and small scale (design details). · Promote interesting, animated architectural features without being thematic or artificial – faux decorative elements are discouraged. · Promote 4-sided architecture at the outlot avoiding large, unarticulated side and rear elevations. · Emphasize important nodes by placing distinctive architectural elements or interesting facades at these prominent locations. Scale, Proportion and Building Height · Provide a variety of building heights, perhaps related to changes in use or at demising walls – retail buildings should express 12 to 14 foot floor heights. · Articulate front façades with projections and recesses. Street Presence · Emphasize pedestrian experience with architectural features at street level – canopies, material details, decorative light fixtures. · Encourage a variety of color, texture and materials to complement other streetscape elements and buildings within the project. · Conceal service entries, loading facilities and mechanical services from view. Architecture Windows and Doors · Optimize glass openings for ground level front facades in the village. · Provided recessed entries. · Use lightly tinted glass for all windows and doors where reasonable – mirrored, reflective glass or highly tinted glazing is not allowed. Materials · Provide a diverse mix of materials, applied in a variety of proportions, exposures, and detailing within a block or along a street. · Encourage durable, high-quality materials – local sources if available. · Main building facade and the sides facing internal streets shall use a minimum of 35% Class I building materials. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Architecture Guideline Recommendations Of all the layers that combine to form the project Concept Plan, architecture will typically be the most prominent component. Both visually and physically, architecture plays a major role in defining the overall design character and mix of uses. It is crucial that the design and location of buildings address these architectural guidelines with specific emphasis on the following: · Promote a variety of building types, including a range of height, scale and proportion, that supports an integrated mix of shopping destinations, food venues, service businesses, and other proposed uses. · Provisions for handicapped accessible facilities shall be provided as required by Minnesota state law. · Exterior materials and finishes shall be durable, non-combustible, and should convey a sense of consistency between adjacent buildings. All sides of buildings that face streets and driveways should have the same level of architectural detail. Material changes should not occur at interior or reverse corners or external corners. The exterior finish of buildings should be shall have at least 30% of the following materials: • brick • natural stone • granite • glass • metal panels • specialty concrete • opaque panels • masonry stucco • decorative concrete, precast concrete panels, and architectural rock face CMU may be used, provided the panels do not exceed 70% of exterior materials* • up to 20% may be wood, anodized aluminum or similar ornamental metals and my be used as an accent material if appropriately integrated into the overall building design * Decorative concrete includes concrete that is: 1) burnished to create a terrazzo appearance, 2) professionally colored and patterned ti create a high quality earth tone brick appearance, 30 professionally colored and patterned to create a high quality white earth tone or stucco appearance (not EFIS), 4) professionally colored and patterned to create a high quality travertine appearance. · Storefronts will be aluminum framing and glass as required by code. Tenant’s frontage will include storefront expanses in accordance with the City approved PUD design guidelines. At least 60% of the linear length of street-facing facades must contain windows and doors. · Minimize the impact of all mechanical equipment as viewed from ground level. Mechanical equipment located on the roof or around the perimeter of a structure shall be screened by a raised parapet, by comparable and compatible exterior building materials, or painted to complement the building materials in order to diminish its impact. · The site shall have asphalt paving at parking areas and driveways. The periphery of parking and driveways shall have poured in place concrete curbing. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines 0 · Site lighting shall be dark skies compliant and in accordance with current ordinances. The rear facades of buildings shall have lighting at entrances only to help minmize the impact to neighbors. Light fixtures shall be downcast, cut off type units, concealing the light source from view and preventing glare. Uniformed ornamental street lighting shall be used to integrate the Clydesdale Marketplace with the downtown Hamel lighting. Minimum light levels shall be .9 foot candle at general parking and pedestrian areas, as well as, 1.0 foot candle at vehicular use areas. · All exterior loading and service areas must be completely screened from ground level view from adjacent streets, except at driveway access points. The trash area adjacent to the premises shall consist of a concrete slab and screening that is integral with the building. · All areas of land other than occupied by building, parking, or driveways shall be landscaped with sod, mulch, and/or rock material in planting beds. Provide understory trees, shrubs, flowers, and ground covers deemed appropriate for a complete quality landscape treatment of the site to comply with City ordinances · No sign, symbol, or advertisement shall be placed or maintained on the exterior walls of, or above, the premises except signs complying with the City’s PUD sign ordinance. All signs shall have individual back illuminated letters unless otherwise approved. Color to be selected by the tenant. Internally illuminated, individual channel letters shall mounted directly to the facade or to a raceway that matches the building sign band color. Balancing the realities of car-related necessities (streets, parking and so on) with potential for future transit service, along with the desired character of the project is a significant challenge. The goal is to provide adequate parking; both quantity and Architecture Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Parking location, while promoting creative strategies that support the overall needs of the project and the community. Guideline Recommendations Parking guidelines encourage the following: · Utilize a combination of landscaping and landform to screen parking areas from major streets and important views (Highway 55) · Create strategies for shared parking between adjacent uses, taking advantage of peak and off-peak cycles, business hours, night time activities, special events and other needs · Provide locations for bicycle storage throughout the project area at appropriate locations · Explore various landscape approaches to soften parking area edges, provide shade, integrate native plantings, offset islands and other ideas to reduce the visual impact of parking areas The project is designed to be transit ready in a way that provides a walkable public realm and a connected street system. The Concept Plan recognizes the importance of providing transit options other than the typical car. Clydesdale Marketplace Development Guidelines  Transit Guideline Recommendations Transit is an important component to the overall plan, with expectations for car trips to increase. It is a goal of the developer to promote transit use, based on the following guidelines: · Understand and take advantage of opportunities to use existing and proposed transit components. · Provide facilities specifically linked to uses and character including signage and lighting for way- finding and bicycle amenities. · Provide for future connections for bus and transit links. Overview The Master Plan identifies four distinct, but connected 9111111111 1N:2, 72+00 40+00f - ar= 72+19.75 — N co i 6' WIDE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN (TY OUTLQT B FLOATING FOUNTAIII SEE UTIUTY PLAN SOUTH 19.23 POND FUTURE MONUMENT SIGN FLOATING FOUNTAIN CONTROLS AT MONUMENT SIGN. SEE UTILITY PLAN. 1 VP- e82+00 Rs G3 Rzo' 42+00 RETAINING WALL _ WITH 42" H7. ORNAMENE irA I FEN _ -'! REST 4- _ ,75,600 SF DUTERE DEVELOPMENT 1-7 // 1 —INTERSECTION SPECIAL. PAVt-ME r 1 ) F(CLYDESDALE TRAIL PROJECT} 8J ` !' II -BLOCK 2 RETAIL -7LOT terr �' ��4 6,300 SF 7 ,, RETAINING WALL �� j L --- '' WITH 42" HT. ORNAMENTAL FENCE u I /77 f !! I �!-rte 2.1,E ' / r FUTURE! r ��' 1 1 1 - DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 2____ -tii, Lil Li L 0 T --------:--ii—LL 6--fi li Ng. IDENTITY TOWER (nn n I fIc.TFI Pi 1SE 2 [ [\ EI OP�AENIT / /SEED LUN[) )ELOPED Arh\\ \ OU T L'JTS 4VtTt TURF 1�`\SEED MI?: 1t9,6` • y 1 Dusty Finke From:Chuck Rickart <CRickart@wsbeng.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:43 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Tom Kellogg Subject:Goddard School Site Plan Dusty,  Tom ask that I look at the site plan. The only comments I have are:    1. The two way access to Clydesdale Trail shows a 23’ back of curb to back of curb. This appears to be narrow.  Typically 24’ face to face is used.  2. The exit only lane to Outlet Drive should include a “Stop Sign”.     Let me know if you have any questions.    Chuck    Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Senior Project Manager, Principal d: 763-287-7183 | c: 612-360-1283 WSB & Associates, Inc. | 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. WSB & Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.         To Whom it may concern    We are requesting a permit to build an approximately 9,000 sq foot building at 345 Clydesdale Trail,  Medina, MN, 55340.  On this site, we plan to build an early childhood learning center which will operate  as a dba The Goddard School.  It will be licensed to provide teaching and care to a maximum licensed  capacity of 140 children.  This site will be approximately 10% larger than the Plymouth, MN Goddard  School.  The Goddard School is a franchise that is licensed by Goddard Systems, Inc., whose only  business is the establishment of Goddard School franchises, and is headquartered in King of Prussia,  Pennsylvania. Goddard Systems currently has 427 franchised schools in operation.  They have been  franchising Goddard Schools for 27 years. The Goddard School is a high‐quality preschool, offering the  convenience of child care hours.  Goddard Schools offer a variety of programs to families needing  professional childcare and preschool.  The Goddard School’s mission is to provide dual career families  with a distinctive alternative to daycare through the implementation of a quality preschool curriculum,  which emphasizes early learning and developmental skills, and to deliver this service at a competitive  market price.  The owner of the building will be Pam Miller, under the incorporated name of PJ Norman LLC.  The  tenants of the building will be Lisa and Aaron Amic, owners of Itty Bitty Inc, dba The Goddard School  (entity to be registered).  Lisa and Aaron are also on site owner operators of the Goddard School  franchise in Plymouth.  Aaron and Lisa reside in Medina.  Invoices from the city of Plymouth have been included to show the water usage expected at Medina.   While the building will be somewhat larger in Medina, the maximum capacity of children will be only 2%  higher than the Plymouth location.  The school will have 9 classrooms with bathrooms in seven of them.  There will be a small catering  kitchen.  There will be drinking fountains in the hallway and on the playgrounds.  There will also be a  men’s and women’s bathroom in the hallway.  It is expected that the usage will be extremely similar to  the Plymouth location which used 16,720 gallons of water from 2/16/15 to 3/15/15 and 18,430 gallons  of water between 1/16/15 and 2/15/15.  The permit request asks us to chart and breakdown the  amount of water used by type and occupancy.    Below is our best guess per use.  It is expected that the total amount will be approximately 17,000  Gallons per month.  Classrooms  – 12,000 Gallons monthly, mostly handwashing, toileting, and cleaning  Kitchen – 500 Gallons monthly.  All food is catered.  Only minimal dishwashing is needed.  Adult Bathrooms – 4,000 Gallons monthly, handwashing and toilet usage.  Water Fountains – 500 Gallons monthly, drinking.       Varies With He'ght Standard Heights 3', 3%s', 4', 5', 6' 0 I �o 8' O.C. Nom. 1 DOUBLE RING Adornment option - — I%2" MONTAGE PLUS"' Rail J (See Cross- Section Below) uuuu1111M HUHU 2" Nom. 36" Min, Footing Depth 3t%6' TYPICAL NOTES: 1.) Post size depends on fence height and wind loads. See MONTAGE PLUSTM specifications for post sizing chart. 2.) Third rail required for Double Rings. 3.) Available in 3" air space and/or Flush Bottom on most heights. RAKING DIRECTIONAL ARROW Welded panel can be raked 30" over 8' with arrow pointing down grade. MONTAGE PLUS' RAIL 17% " E -COAT COATING SYSTEM Base Material Uniform Zinc Coating (Hot Dip) Zinc Phosphate Coatinb Epoxy Primer Acrylic T pcoat COMMERCIAL STRENGTH WELDED STEEL PANEL PRE -ASSEMBLED rMum: ONTAGE PLUS MAJESTIC 2/3 -RAIL PROFUSION"WELDING PROCESS — No exposed welds, Good Neighbor profile - Same appearance on both sides ---Post 2%")Z' x I6ga %a"JZ' 18ga Picket Bnasket-Qption 0 [E, EWE O MAY - 8 1015 MONTAGE PLUS"'RAIL Specially formed high streng h architectural shape. LINE BOULEVARD UNIVERSAL BOULEVARD FLAT MOUNT BRACKET BRACKET BRACKET ax1I4 Bx1 @II I7 BX l it Values shown are nominal and not to be used for installation purposes. See product specification for installation requirements. IRMISo DR: Cl CIC: ME SH . I of 1 I SCALE: DO NOT SCALE Date 6128110 REV: e I1►ni!ji AMERISTAR® 1555 N. Mingo Tulsa, OK 74116 1-888-333-3422 www.anseristarfenee.com MAY - 8 z�15 - 2015 Date Reg. No. laws of the State of Minnesota. was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report Name Signature EXINGTON 6 5 1 - 4 9 0 - 5 4 5 4 C U N D Y, SA N T I N E A S S O C I A T E S AR C H I T E C T S 3434 L VENUE MN 55126AHOREVIEW,SN www.cs-architects.com ORTH & Building Construction: Exterior Walls - Wood / Fiber Cement / Brick / Cast Stone Floor Structure - Concrete Slab On-Grade Roof Structure - Wood Trusses Automatic Sprinkler System Occupancy Classification: Child Care Center - Type E Occupant Load: Child Care Center = 20 Net The Goddard School Medina, Minnesota 9,295 Gross Square Feet 8,890 Net Square Feet BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES BUILDING INFORMATION For Early Childhood Development OWNER: PJ Norman LLC 4982 Comstock Lane N., Plymouth, MN 55446 Contact: Pamela Miller CONTRACTOR: Watson-Forsberg Construction 6465 Wayzata Blvd., Mpls, MN 55426 952 -544 - 7761 Contact: Robert Timperley ARCHITECT: Cundy, Santine & Associates Architects 3434 Lexington Avenue N., Shoreview, MN 55126 651 -490 - 5454 Contact: Shelley A. Santine PROJECT INFORMATION SOUTH ELEVATION (NORTH ELEVATION SIMILAR) WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Date Reg. No. laws of the State of Minnesota. was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report Name Signature EXINGTON 6 5 1 - 4 9 0 - 5 4 5 4 C U N D Y, SA N T I N E A S S O C I A T E S AR C H I T E C T S 3434 L VENUE MN 55126AHOREVIEW,SN www.cs-architects.com ORTH & MAIN FLOOR PLAN www.visionairelighting.comPHOTOMETRIC STUDY1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8109ABCDEFGDRAWING NUMBER :Illuminance at Grade (Footcandles), unless otherwise specified.POINT-BY-POINT CALCULATIONPhone: (310) 512-6480 Fax: (310) 512-648619645 Rancho Way-Rancho Domiguez, CA. 90220COPYRIGHT © 2014 - VISIONAIRE LIGHTING LLC. THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGN CONCEPTS INCORPORATED HEREIN CANNOT BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR THIS OR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF VISIONAIRE LIGHTING.BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, ALL DIMENSIONS AND LUMINAIRE LOCATIONS SHOWN REPRESENT RECOMMENDED POSITIONS. THE PROJECT ENGINEER AND/OR ARCHITECT MUST DETERMINE APPLICABILITY OF THE LAYOUT TO EXISTING OR FUTURE FIELD CONDITIONS. THE LIGHTING DATAREPRESENTS ILLUMINATION LEVELS TAKEN FROM A LABORATORY SETTING UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ILLUMINATING ENGINEERING SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA (IESNA) APPROVED METHODS. ACTUAL PERFORMANCE MAY VARY DUE TO VARIATIONS IN ELECTRICALVOLTAGE, INSTALLATION, TOLERANCE LEVELS, BUILDINGS, OTHER LIGHTING, AND OTHER VARIABLES THAT WERE NOT CONSIDERED WHEN THIS PHOTOMETRIC REPORT WAS CREATED. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OR PROJECT ENGINEER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF ALL STANDARDS INEFFECT. THIS PHOTOMETRIC LAYOUT IS THE PROPERTY OF VISIONAIRE LIGHTING AND IT CANNOT BE USED FOR INSTALLATION OF PRODUCTS OTHER THAN SPECIFIED.***DISCLAIMER***LAYOUT DESIGNER :DESIGNER EMAIL :PROJECT DATE :REVISION DATE :-REP :-NOTE/S:MG050715TSR-GODDARD SCHOOL MEDINA-01MGmgonzales@visionairelighting.com05/08/15TSR2BLOCK 1OUTLOT BSDHYDFHYDS00°41'56"W232.16S89°18'18"E22.53S09°33'14"W154.35N85°11'22"W96.00S66°33'50"ETGVGVGVGVEINV:982.2210551010535.7456.76DRAINAGE ANDUTILITY EASEMENTDRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT20N83°08'38"W108.07N00°22'20"EN 3 5 °0 8 '3 2 "W 4 0 .2 3 1010DRAINAGE ANDUTILITY EASEMENTOUTLOT DRIVEDDAPPROXIMATELOCATION, NOTFIELD LOCATEDEX. 8" PVC SANEX. 6" PVC SANEX. 8" PVC WTREX. 3 6 " R C P EX. 15" RCPEX. 36" RCPEX. 8" PVC WTREX. 8" PVC WTREX. 36" RCPMECHROOMPROPOSED BUILDINGFFE=888.50HYD98898865'- 6" DRAINTILEIE 885.94.0%%%2.89%%%0.5%%%4.6%%%2.5%%%5 .0 %%% 5 .0 %%%1.94%%%0.5%%%0.5%%%6" PVC WATER0.8 1.53.2 7.0 6.5 3.9 2.40.6 1.1 2.3 4.4 9.3 9.0 7.2 3.6 2.2 1.8 0.70.7 3.3 2.7 2.7 3.4 3.6 2.9 4.0 5.7 5.3 4.2 4.3 2.51.3 3.0 7.2 9.2 9.9 4.9 2.9 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.6 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.4 2.83.0 4.6 7.7 6.9 5.0 3.7 2.3 2.4 1.6 1.6 2.9 3.7 3.2 3.5 2.3 1.32.8 3.2 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.5 3.2 1.4 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.73.6 4.1 3.4 4.6 3.9 3.2 3.4 2.6 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.63.2 2.9 4.3 3.7 3.3 2.0 1.30.9 4.1 3.9 2.71.1 9.3 6.6 4.39.2 6.5 5.59.0 6.1 4.14.8 4.6 4.03.3 3.3 2.64.8 4.9 2.83.6 3.3 2.83.8 4.08.0 6.89.6 7.37.9 6.74.4 4.72.8 2.72.2 2.40.1 1.0 1.10.00.00.10.40.30.40.50.30.30.20.20.40.30.40.50.30.40.30.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.10.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.50.50.40.1PARKING STALLSPARKING STALLS_1Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementTotal Lamp LumensLLFDescriptionBUG Rating Lum. WattsCalculation SummaryLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/MinCALC AREAIlluminanceFc3.729.90.137.2099.00PROPERTY LINEIlluminanceFc0.120.50.0N.A.N.A.PARKING STALLSIlluminanceFc4.519.90.67.5216.504ASINGLE440000.950PARKING STALLS_1IlluminanceFc3.735.5VISIONAIRE AME-2-400PS-T3-ILS-SINGLE@18'MTG.HT. W/5'ARMB2-U0-G44522.61.432.12