The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016.02.25 PC PacketAGENDA HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016 HUGO CITY HALL 7:00 p.m. A. ROLL CALL (Arcand, Kleissler, Knauss, Lessard, McRoberts, Patzner, Rosenquist) B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 14, 2016 D. PUBLIC HEARING E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Amcon Construction Company, LLC. on behalf of Growing Generations Daycare — Site Plan 2. Schedule Active Shooter Training in April F. OLD BUSINESS 1. Appointment to Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) 2. Discussion on 2016 Goals G. ADJOURNMENT If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or riuba(&ci.hugo.mn.us, thank you. Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 2016 Chair, Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Kleissler, Knauss, Lessard, McRoberts, Rosenquist ABSENT: Arcand, Patzner. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Planner Bryan Bear, Administrator Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 17, 2015 Commissioner Knauss made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lessard, to approve minutes for the meeting of December 17, 2015. All Ayes. Motion carried. LaValle Fields Apartments — Concept Plan Juba described that a concept plan application was submitted for informal comments for apartments located west of Lions Park and north of the Keystone Senior Living site. She stated that the applicant would like to receive feedback on the general layout, building orientation and placement, and building architecture. Juba stated that in 2014, the City approved the PUD General Plan for LaValle Fields. The plan included the senior housing project and the three apartment buildings for a total of 295 units. 130 units were allocated for the senior housing project, while 165 were allocated to the apartment buildings. Within these plans, the apartments showed two three story buildings, along the wetlands to the west, and a two story building along Finale. The PUD General Plan showed a phasing plan of when the surrounding roads would be constructed, land that was dedicated for park dedication for the projects, a trail that would connect off the CR8 trail through the senior living project and apartments to Lions Park, and an access into the site coming off upper 146th Street. The Planning Commission and City Council did have some concerns on the PUD General Plan relating to architecture and building material, building placement and location, apartment management and parking. These concerns were addressed in the conditions of approval for the apartments, which included: on site management, revised building orientation or footprint to reduce the building mass, recessions and projections to break up the long expansions of the buildings, breaks and variations in building material, and a higher percent of stone or brick on buildings. Juba then began describing the concept plan that was submitted for comments. She stated that building A, the building along the west side of the property, is proposed to be a three story building with a total of 97 units. She described that the building is generally long and linear with a small bend in the middle and is approximately 800 ft. long. This building has a combination of above ground and below ground parking. Building B, the building along Finale, is a two story building with a total of 73 units and a combination of both underground and above ground parking. Juba stated that building B has a more compact design and with some revisions could help reduce the mass of the building. These two buildings show a total of 170 units, where 165 units were approved in the PUD. The applicant has stated that the building would be completed in phases where building A would be constructed in phase one and building B in phase two. The applicant has also stated that the lot would be split, but it remains unclear of where those property lines would be and what portions of the plan would be completed with each phase. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 2 Juba explained that the long, linear building would not seem to meet the PUD condition requiring the reducing of the massing of the two buildings originally proposed on the west side. Juba stated that Staff had talked to the applicant about the long design and stated that a building that wraps around itself could reduce the massing of the building. She made the Planning Commission aware that there is a piece of land within the concept plan that is not owned by the applicant, but instead the senior living site. Juba stated that staff is comfortable showing this on the plan, but the applicant should resolve this within the first phase to ensure there's proper planning between each building. Staff has also recommended that the applicant revise the parking lot and take into consideration traffic flow and dead end aisles. Juba next pointed out that the PUD required a trail to connect to Lions Park through this site, which is not shown on the plan. Within the applicant's narrative, it's stated his client is AHMC properties. They have stated that there will be amenities for this project including: on site management, underground parking, spa/exercise room, community room, attached deck, and a dog park. The applicant has also proposed some common open space including a gazebo and a half -court basketball court, which has been indicated to staff as being completed in phase two. The applicant has proposed building elevations for building A but not for building B. For building A, there is proposed to be a combination of stone and cement board siding. There is a pitched roof with dormers and gables periodically along the walls and entrances in between. Juba stated that the colors are generally good but should be reduced and comprised of compatible earth tones. She described that the applicant is showing different projections with the decks, but that the other overhangs could be more dramatic. The applicant did not submit any calculations for the amount of stone or brick compared to other building materials, but it does appear that stone or brick would need to be added to meet the 50% ratio per the performance standards. Juba then showed the 3D renderings of the building to the Commission. Juba stated that although there are some good elements in the architecture of the building, it does not eliminate the look of a very long building. She described that building B could help break up the massing of building A, but there is an unknown if building B will be constructed, at this time. Juba stated that it is in staff's opinion that the concept plan has lost important elements from the PUD including the relationship between buildings, cohesiveness, massing of the building, development phasing, trail connections, shared common space, and amenities. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission provide feedback on the concept plan to the applicant. Feedback would include comments on the following: general layout of the concept plan, development phasing, building orientation and placement, massing of the buildings compared to the approved PUD, architecture and building material, trail connections, common outdoor spaces, and amenities. Juba stated that the applicant was in the audience if the Planning Commission wanted to address him at any time. Commissioner McRoberts stated that he was concerned about access. He stated that access off of Upper 146th Street means that there would be an increase in traffic. He asked if access could be considered off of 147th, on the north end of the property. Juba stated that the applicant had proposed an access at that point, but after talking to the City Engineer, it was stated that there may be a congestion issue and the access to Finale Avenue would be close to the intersection. Chair Kleissler invited the applicant to speak. Bill Lentsch, the applicant, approached the podium. He stated that the original PUD was used to set the stage for the senior living facility, but the City encouraged the owner to plan the entire site. Lentsch described that an amenity for the apartments would also be the reconstruction of Lions Park along with the basketball court and gazebo. Lentsch also stated that he was asked to show how the entire site could be developed in the future, and therefore placed the buildings where they are shown in the PUD General Plan. He said that in reality now, with Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 3 the shape of the lot, the density required, and 2-3 bedroom units, the building has to be large and in its current alignment. He described that at the time building B is constructed, it will be a two story building with a smaller number of units, which will help break up building A. He also stated that the senior living facility has expressed gratitude for keeping building B two stories so their residents can see over the top of it. Lentsch stated that his team has tried to look at horseshoe and L shaped building designs, but they don't fit on the lot. He stated that there is a section shown on their plan that is a pond and is owned by Keystone. He described that buying this pond from Keystone may not even be possible, which would make the site even smaller. Lentsch stated that his team is unsure they can even fit 165 units on this lot, as is, which is why it doesn't make sense to build both buildings at one time. He reminded the Commission that Keystone phased their building, constructing 100 units first and having a future addition planned, which could increase the building up to 130 units. Lentsch then drew the Planning Commission's attention to the building's architecture. He stated that the basement shows how the building jogs in sections and that the jogs are 10 feet. The other views show the balconies and other items that help break up the massing of the building. Lentsch described that a four story building was discussed, but no matter if it's a three or four story, both buildings will be large because of the size of the units. Lentsch stated that the colors can be toned down. He described that if you're looking at the building from the center of the site, the building isn't as big and if you are at one end of the building, you cannot see the other wing. Commissioner Rosenquist asked the applicant why they don't show the building B layout. Lentsch stated it was because they haven't built it yet. Commissioner Rosenquist told the applicant that it is difficult to review a plan when they don't know the layout of the entire site. Cary Osborne, a representative of AHMC Properties, approached the podium. He stated that AHMC wants to see how phase one goes and how the market responds, especially related to only having two and three bedroom units. He stated that they would like to have flexibility in phase two to meet the market needs if they change. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that this concept plan is a surprise from how the original PUD General Plan was laid out. He stated that not planning building B, currently, means that the Commission could be faced with another surprise after phase one, when they are planning building B. Cary Osborne stated that he does not want building B to be a surprise, but if the demand shifts from two to three bedroom apartments to one bedrooms or studios they want to have flexibility in planning building B. Commissioner Rosenquist asked why the applicant was applying for a concept plan when none of the future planning, including lot lines and the design of building B, has been completed. Lentsch stated that staff directed him to submit a concept plan and he wanted to ensure that his team was even on the right track. Commissioner Knauss asked what the purpose was of separating the lots. She stated that the applicant could still do phasing without having to separate the lots. Lentsch stated that buying the entire property puts a large burden on phase one because they then have to build all the roads. He stated that splitting the properties helps save money. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Knauss asked then if there is a possibility that the applicant does not purchase that lot and another developer can develop on that site. Lentsch stated that there is always that possibility. Commissioner Knauss asked what factors have changes since February of 2014, since the PUD General Plan was approved, that made this site plan change so much. Lentsch stated that the buildings that were proposed in the PUD General Plan were not to scale. He stated that a 97 unit building would be the size of building A. Commissioner Knauss asked the applicant how many units would fit within the two originally proposed buildings within the PUD General Plan. Lentsch stated that 30-40 units could fit within each of the two originally proposed buildings. Commissioner Knauss stated that she has concerns about the long linear building. She stated that if she was standing in front of it, she would be looking at a building the length of a football field and a quarter on each side, which is extremely long to her. She told the applicant that she understands that they have tried to design different breaks in the architecture, but that those pieces wouldn't be noticeable from the front. Lentsch asked Commissioner Knauss what the alternative would be. Commissioner Knauss stated that it was her opinion that there has got to be a better design instead of the long linear building. Lentsch urged the Planning Commission to look at the lot design. He stated that the configuration of the lot is what limited them to have this building design. He also reminded the Commission that this facility is planned to have underground parking and having a building that wraps around itself can create other issues. Commissioner McRoberts stated that 97 units may not be feasible on the site. Lentsch stated that if they cannot get to 165 units, he doesn't believe that they can build the apartments because it wouldn't be economically feasible. Commissioner McRoberts stated that the Commission can understand that a developer would like to get a financial return on a project, but their financial return isn't necessarily the Commission's priority for this project. Lentsch urged the Commission to let him know what they can do to make this concept work. Commissioner Knauss stated that they would need a better design. Lentsch stated that the believed the proposed building was gorgeous and its large scale fits in with other apartment buildings that offer this many units. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that the applicant should take a hard look at the originally approved PUD General Plan and work with staff. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 5 Juba stated that the Commission had some concerns with the originally approved PUD General Plan. She stated that there were comments that the two separate buildings seemed large and more architectural design was needed to break those buildings up. The Council had similar concerns, which is where the resolutions were drafted and approved. Commissioner McRoberts asked for clarification. He asked if the Planning Commission originally thought the two proposed buildings on the PUD General Plan were too long and now they are reviewing an even longer building. Juba stated that was correct. Lentsch asked the Commission why he was originally approved for that number of units if they cannot fit on the site. He stated that there was a huge financial investment into this site and he now doesn't know what to do. Bear stated that the best the Commission can do at this time is provide feedback to the applicant. He stated that the Commission is in a difficult position because the applicant is saying he presented a plan originally that cannot be built. He showed buildings with units within them that are not reflective of reality and the plans that were originally proposed weren't real. Bear also stated that the applicant has presented the Commission with plans that have a piece of property built on that they do not own. He recommended that the Planning Commission provide feedback from the presented plans the best they can. Commissioner McRoberts stated that none of the Commissioners seem enthusiastic about the long building. He said that even with the architectural components, the building seems very busy and he would like to see cleaner and shorter lines. Commissioner Knauss stated that she was disappointed to learn that the applicant submitted inaccurate information. Lentsch stated that was not true and if the Commission wants, they can build the two separate buildings, but would need to have four stories with a flat roof. He did say that this makes planning the amenities more difficult and expensive as they would most likely need to be in both buildings. Commissioner Knauss stated that it was Lentsch, himself, who said that the buildings in the previous approval weren't to scale. She said that the Commission had reviewed, commented, and made recommendations on such plans and to now learn that the buildings weren't to scale puts doubt in the Commissions mind that the currently proposed plans are accurate. She stated that her overall comments are that she doesn't like the long building and thinks it should look more like the originally approved plans. She stated if that plan wasn't feasible that the applicant should have looked into that plan more before purchasing the property or seeking approval. Lentsch stated that he originally didn't want to put an apartment design or density on the remaining parcel, but that the City required him to do so because they wanted the density and apartments in the future. Commissioner McRoberts asked how many units were available in the City of Hugo and if 170 units was even feasible and could be filled within the City. Bear stated that may be a question for the applicant if they've done a market study. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 6 Lentsch stated that they have done a market study and Hugo has no apartments and there are plenty of people looking. Commissioner McRoberts asked to clarify if the statement relating to the City wanting the higher density of 165 units within this location was the case or if it was proposed and approved through the PUD. Bear stated that the original downtown plan concept shows a new urbanist village with single family lots at a much lower density. When the property was planned, it was planned in a mixed use district, which does allow for a higher density. He stated that this is an area of the City where a higher density would be acceptable. Commissioner McRoberts asked if it was required, though. Bear stated that it was not required. He stated it was something the City was willing to look at but was not a directive of the City. He described that a lower density on the site would be fine and even a higher amount of units, if the site was planned properly. Chair Kleissler stated that the Commission should give the applicant some more general recommendations if there are no further questions. Commissioner Knauss commented saying that she did not believe it was the Commissions job to design the project, but that it's their job to provide comments. She stated that she believes it's the applicant's job to propose something for the Commission to review. Lentsch asked if they went back to the two originally proposed buildings that were 50 feet tall and had a flat roof, if that would be acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner McRoberts stated that it would depend on how the buildings looked. Chair Kleissler stated that Commission approved a Planned Unit Development as a unit and they would like to see the whole site planned together, especially since there was flexibility granted on a number of things. She said the second biggest piece to this was the concern for the building's scale. Lentsch asked what the Commission would think about the buildings being four stories. Commissioner McRoberts told Lentsch to show them what it would look like. Lentsch provided the Commission with a concept plan. Cary Osbourne stated that the plan that was just handed to them is a concept plan that is being worked on in Eau Claire, WI currently. He stated it was a concept of what a building with a flat roof could look like. This building has 51 units with a mix of one and two bedroom units. Chair Kleissler asked what the height was of the building. Lentsch stated it was only a three story building. Chair Kleissler stated that she still thought there was a lot of building mass. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Rosenquist agreed and stated that it looks like a large massing of wall. Commissioner McRoberts added that the building looks very busy and everything looks very packed into the space. Lentsch asked staff if his application was still going to be on the next City Council agenda. Bear stated that his concept plan is still on the agenda for the next City Council meeting, but if he wanted to change that, it could be discussed at a later time. He stated that the applicant had gotten feedback from the Commission and if he wanted to bring back a revised concept plan to the Planning Commission again before going to the City Council that would be fine. Juba suggested that the Planning Commission give the applicant feedback on phasing, especially related to construction of amenities. Commissioner Knauss stated that she understands that the some amenities are proposed to be installed with building B, but she suggests that the installation/construction of the amenities are split with each phase. She believes that residents shouldn't have to wait for all of the buildings to be built to get amenities and should have access to some immediately. Lentsch stated that he may be able to go back to the original plan and decrease the density if he could negotiate the terms of the PUD, including the construction of roads, with the City. Juba stated that she believes that the site would allow for different building designs and with some work and creativity, the applicant could get to a point where the site meets the PUD. Appointment to Board of Zoning Juba stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission asked for staff to provide them with the section of the code related to the Board of Zoning. She reminded the Commission that there is a vacancy on the Board of Zoning. She stated she had talked with Commissioner Patzner and Commissioner Lessard after the last meeting and they both agreed that they would be willing to volunteer. Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Knauss amended, Commissioner McRoberts agreed to the amendment, Commissioner Rosenquist seconded, to recommend Commissioner Patzner as the new Board of Zoning member if she is interested. If Commission Patzner states she is no longer interested, the Commission recommends Commissioner Lessard. All Ayes. Motion carried. Appointment to Ordinance Review Committee Juba stated that there is also an opening for a Planning Commission member to be added to the Ordinance Review Committee. The Commission directed staff talk to Commissioner Arcand to see if he would be interested in this role. Planning Commission January 14, 2016 Page 8 Commissioner McRoberts motioned, Rosenquist seconded, to table the recommendation of a Planning Commission member to the Ordinance Review Committee until the next meeting. All Ayes. Motion carried. Adiournment Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Knauss seconded, to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Agenda Number: E1 CITY OF HUGO PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Bryan Bear, City Administrator FROM: Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant SUBJECT: Amcon Construction Company, LLC. Request for Site Plan for a 9,301 square foot commercial building for Growing Generations Daycare on property located north of Frenchman Road (CSAH 8) and west of Everton Avenue North. DATE: February 16, 2016 for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 25, 2016 ZONING: General Business (C-2) 60 -DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: April 9, 2016 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for a 9,301 square foot commercial building for a daycare facility. The applicant is also requesting a final plat for a subdivision known as "Frenchman Place" for the creation of one lot. The name of the Final Plat will be known as "Frenchman Place 31 Addition". Lot 1, Block 1 will be a 1.89 acre lot for the commercial building. The applicant is not proposing to revise the preliminary plat layout or any conditions of approval. The final plat only requires approval from the City Council. 2. CONTEXT: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The property to the south, across CSAH 8, is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is part of the Victor Gardens development (Victor Gardens Commons). The property is occupied by commercial buildings. The property to the west is zoned General Business (C-2) and is occupied by Health Partners and Children's Hospital Clinic. The property to the north and east is a vacant parcel, part of the Frenchman Place development, that is zoned General Business (C-2). These parcels are planned for future commercial buildings and includes a stormwater pond. Growing Generations Daycare - Site Plan Frenchman Place 3rd Addition Page 2 B. Existing Site Characteristics The 1.89 acre site is currently vacant. The site is generally flat and contains two wetlands, one of which is proposed to be filled, within the current site plan. 4. BACKGROUND: In 2008, the City Council approved a rezoning, preliminary plat, site plan, variance, and final plat for a phased mixed-use development on 54.1 acres. This initial plat was for "Frenchman Place 1St Addition". This allowed construction of the medical building located at the northwest corner of CSAH 8 (Frenchman Road) and Everton Avenue. In 2012, the City Council approved a site plan and final plat for a 12,381 square foot medical building, for Children's Hospital and Clinics. This plat was entitled "Frenchman Place 2nd Addition." The final plat included the lot for the medical building, two outlots for future development, and construction of a new private drive connecting CSAH 8 to the Victor Gardens North Village (Festival Foods/Blue Heron Grill) private drive. The subject property was part of the two remaining outlots that was created in Frenchman Place 2nd Addition. No approvals were granted for the commercial lots, therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for the development of a new daycare building. 5. ANALYSIS: A. Level of City Discretion in Decision -Making The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. Site Plan Proposed Development The applicant is proposing to construct a 9,301 square foot commercial building on a 1.89 acre parcel. Development of this parcel requires a final plat to be known as Frenchman Place 3rd Addition. Building Materials/Elevations The applicant has provided building renderings and elevations of the daycare facility. The building appears to have attractive four-sided architecture, with significant glass on all elevations. Staff believes the architecture of this building is particularly important as the south elevation abuts CSAH 8 and will be highly visible. The applicant has worked on the architecture on the south elevation and staff is comfortable with the design. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the amount of cultured stone on the north (front) of the building to match the south (back) Growing Generations Daycare - Site Plan Frenchman Place 3rd Addition Page 3 elevation. Within the commercial/industrial design guidelines, it states each building, regardless of size, shall have a clearly defined, highly visible entrance. Staff believes this could be done by bringing the stone higher and enclosing the two front pillars with cultured stone, which would help make the entrance a primary focal point. The applicant has indicated that the building material for the daycare facility will be a combination of cultured stone and Hardieboard or LP Smart Side siding, including trim and shingles. The renderings show a pitched roof with gables and the building with a variation of projections, materials, and windows. The rendering and material sample board show good use of color and building material variation. There are good design features that include overhangs with architectural elements at the corners. It is staff's opinion that the finished building will be attractive and exude quality as illustrated in the renderings. Staff believes the proposed building will integrate well within the Frenchman Place development, as well as Victor Gardens to the south, and the proposed architecture meets the intent of the commercial and industrial design guidelines. Trash Enclosures The applicant has shown a location for a trash enclosure for the building located on the west side of the parking lot. The trash enclosure will be constructed of materials to match the daycare facility. The applicant has proposed building materials that include cultured stone and Hardieboard or LP Smart Side siding with a hinged gate. Mechanical Equipment Screening The applicant is showing the mechanical equipment being located on the northwest corner of building. The applicant has stated that this mechanical equipment are fairly small units. They have proposed using three Black Hill Spruce and one Northwood Red Maple to help screen these units. Staff is unclear of the size of the mechanical equipment and may recommend more landscaping around these units. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on ensuring that mechanical equipment is adequately screened from view. This is listed as a condition of approval and revised plans may be needed. Lighting Section 90-239 of the City's lighting ordinance required that no light source cast a light on any adjacent property exceeding 0.5 -foot candles as measured at the property line, or 1 -foot candle on any public street measured at the street centerline. The lighting plan for the site includes an analysis of the proposed parking lot lights, which are proposed to be downcast cutoff fixtures. The applicant has shown a lighting plan with lights that abide by the City requirements. A condition has been added that if the daycare facility adds lights on the building, the location and style of the fixtures will be reviewed and approved by staff prior to installation. Growing Generations Daycare - Site Plan Frenchman Place 3rd Addition Page 4 Signage The applicant is proposing signage at the main entrance of the building (north) and the back side of the building (south). The signage proposed generally meets the ordinance standards in regards to placement, type, and size. A monument sign has also been proposed located on the northwest corner of the property. No specifications have been shown for the proposed monument sign. A sign permit, reviewed and approved by the City, shall be issued for each sign on the building and the monument sign prior to installation. A condition has been added that the monument sign shall use the same building material as the building and shall meet City code. Parking The City ordinance does not have specific parking standards for a daycare facility. This facility would fall under the requirements needed for a retail space, which requires eight parking spaces plus one space per 200 square feet of retail space. The total number of parking spaces required for this daycare facility is 54 stalls. The plans show 54 parking spaces adjacent to the main building entry, on the north side of the site. This complies with ordinance requirements. The proposed parking lot, as drawn in the plans, shows it constructed over an existing wetland. The applicant has submitted an application to the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), which if approved, would allow the applicant to fill the wetland due to excess mitigation credits produced in past projects within Frenchman Place. Staff has been working with the applicant and engineers on this process and believes this proposal will be approved. Staff added a condition that the applicant must have approval of the TEP prior to the issuance of a building permit. Setbacks The proposed building complies with the 30 foot perimeter structure setback from the exterior lot lines and the 5 foot parking setback from all lot lines. Landscaping Section 90-181 of the Zoning Ordinance provides landscaping requirements for commercial development. The landscape plan includes the planting of 18 overstory deciduous trees, 6 coniferous trees, 14 ornamental trees and 38 shrubs. Staff believes the landscaping plan is good and the proposed landscaping exceeds ordinance requirements. Drainage/Grading Stormwater management for the proposed development was planned as part of the Frenchman Place development plan. Staff is working with the applicant on a few technical issues and anticipate approval of the plan based on our recommendation. Growing Generations Daycare - Site Plan Frenchman Place 3rd Addition Page 5 Utilities Sanitary sewer service is available for the proposed building from an existing 8 inch service stub located north of the property. The depth and size of this stub is adequate to service the building. An existing 8 inch water service is also available at this location. Additional hydrants have been added to the site to accommodate the proposed building. These hydrants locations have been reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. Streets A private drive connecting CSAH 8 to the Victor Gardens North Village private drive was constructed as part of Frenchman Place 2nd Addition and from that an access easement was created over the road for maintenance purposes. This private road will be the primary access to this site, as the driveway into the site is located to the on the north side of the property. The applicant must be added to the Frenchman Place Road Owners Association, Inc. to share responsibility of maintenance along the private road, as intended in the Frenchman Place Road Declaration of Covenants and Easements document. Staff recommends the applicant to submit documentation for City review and approval and then record the document at Washington County. Staff has included this as a condition of approval. Sidewalks/Trails A trail has been constructed on the north side of CSAH 8. The applicant has provided a sidewalk connection through the site to connect to the CSAH 8 trail. The trail goes through the enclosed fenced area of the property, which will allow the daycare to have access to the trail. Park Dedication Commercial/Industrial property is exempt from park dedication. 6. CONCLUSION: Staff has reviewed the site plan for consistency with ordinance standards and the City's commercial and industrial design guidelines. Staff finds the application is consistent with the standards subject to the recommended conditions mentioned in the attached resolution. 7. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for the commercial building, subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolutions. Growing Generations Daycare - Site Plan Frenchman Place 3rd Addition Page 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Engineers memo dated February 18, 2016 3. Washington County letter dated February 10, 2016 4. Resolutions 5. Applicants narrative received January 7, 2016 6. Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines 7. Civil plans received February 9, 2016 8. Architectural plans received February 9, 2016 9. Building renderings received February 9, 2016 Site Map 1 inch = 200 feet Frenchman 3rd Addition "' Growing Generations Daycare s k S. � rt Site '�)Ail.-I _ V i� •�l�q .• � 1 � F��4,i13. a .7r 'j L Building a legacy—your legacy. February 18, 2016 Ms. Rachel Juba City Planner City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Site Plan and Final Plat Review Growing Generations Daycare — Frenchman Place 3rd Addition WSB Project No. 1904-86 Dear Ms. Juba: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have completed our review for the Growing Generations Daycare Site Plan and Final Plat Review. The following information was received for review: ■ Growing Generations Site Improvement Plans, dated February 9, 2016 ■ Growing Generations Stormwater Management Plan Letter and Plan, dated February 9, 2016 ■ Frenchman Place 3rd Addition Final Plat, dated January 7, 2016 Based on the review of the site plan, we offer the following comments related to the application: Plat 1. The plat is consistent with the preliminary plat. 2. There are two wetlands on the site, one of which is proposed to be filled. A drainage and utility easement will be necessary over the remaining wetland. Roadway/Utilities 1. Access to the property will be from the existing private roadway constructed with the Frenchman Place 2nd Addition. The location of the driveway, as shown, is reasonable. 2. Utility services will be connected to the public sanitary sewer and water located within a utility easement in the private roadway. Stormwater Management 1. The pond receiving the stormwater from the site was constructed with the Frenchman Place 2nd Addition, and was sized to accommodate drainage from the site. We are working with the applicant's engineer on remaining design elements before issuing a stormwater permit. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com Ms. Rachel Juba February 18, 2016 Page 2 Wetlands 1. One of the wetlands on site is proposed to be filled as part of the project. The applicant is working with the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to finalize the use of credits previously developed during the Frenchman Place 2nd Addition. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-287-7192. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. nedy, PE t ngineer cc: Scott Anderson, Public Works Director Steve Duff, Senior Engineering Technician Katy Thompson, Water Resource Engineer (email only) Lydia Larson, Engineer (email only) Washington oomftftmoo County Rachel Leitz Community Development Assistant City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 February 10, 2016 RE: Growing Generations, City of Hugo Dear Rachel, Public Works Department Donald J. Theisen, P.E. Director Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer Washington County staff have reviewed the Growing Generations site plan along Frenchman Road (CSAH 8) in the City of Hugo. The trail connection to the CSAH 8 Regional is reasonable and consistent with other trail connections in the City of Hugo. A Washington County access permit will be required for the trail connection to the Regional Trail as shown. Washington County does not allow any increase in the volume and rate of stormwater run-off onto the county right-of-way. Since the site is nearly level, there is concern that in larger storm events, water will drain and pool directly into county right-of-way and will not infiltrate for an extended period of time. Please verify with the city engineer/drainage plan and provide us with comments. It appears that there will be no grading into county right-of-way as part of this project; however, any installation of utilities, water or sewer services in the right-of-way does require a right-of-way permit. Thank you for your request to comment on this project. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me at 651-430-4362 or at ann.pung-terwedo(&.co.washington.mn.us. The applicant should contact Carol Hanson at carol. hansonOco.washington.mn.us for the right-of- way and access permit applications. Re ards, D � Ann Pung-Terwedo Senior Planner Cc: Carol Hanson, Office Specialist 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-9573 Phone: 651-430-4300 • Fax: 651-430-4350 • TTY: 651-430-6246 www.co.washington.mn.us Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action CITY OF HUGO RESOLUTION 2016 - APPROVING A SITE PLAN FOR A DAYCARE BUILDING ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, FRENCHMAN PLACE 3rd ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF FRENCHMAN ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 8) AND WEST OF EVERTON AVENUE WHEREAS, Amcon Construction Company, LLC. has requested approval of a site plan to allow construction of a daycare on the property legally described as follows: Outlot A, Frenchman Place 2nd Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the site at a duly called Public Meeting and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Amcon Construction Company, LLC. for a Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site plan is approved to allow the construction of a 9,301 square foot daycare building on Lot 1, Block 1, Frenchman Place 3rd Addition, in accordance with the architectural and civil plans received on January 7, 2016 and revised on February 9, 2016, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The site plan approval is contingent upon approval of the final plat for Frenchman Place 3rd Addition. 3. Prior to building permit approval, the developer must comply with the following conditions: a. All development fees shall be paid. b. The final plat shall be recorded at Washington County. Architecture c. Final building elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. d. The applicant shall revise architecture, on the north (the front) elevation of the building. e. If used, downspouts or gutters shall be shown on the plans and designed to match the architecture of the building. Resolution 2016 - Page 2 Signage f. The applicant shall submit a sign permit application to the City for review and approval prior to installing any signage, including the monument sign. g. The monument sign shall use the same building material as the building. Parks and Trails h. The developer will be required to repair or replace any trail areas disturbed during construction. The applicant has shown a private sidewalk constructed connecting the parking lot to the CSAH 8 public trail. Construction details shall be submitted for City review and approval prior to installation. Streets, Access and Parking The applicant shall join the Frenchman Place Road Owners Association for cross access and maintenance agreements between properties. This shall be recorded with the final plat for the shared private road. k. The applicant must have approval from the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for the filling of a wetland for construction of the parking lot. Landscaping and Open Space 1. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated. The developer shall submit an irrigation plan for review and approval by the City. in. The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping and irrigation systems on the property. n. The landscaping around the mechanical equipment shall be revised and reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation to ensure adequate screening. o. If the facility adds wall lights on the building, the location and style of lights shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation. Miscellaneous p. The developer must comply with all conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo dated February 18, 2016. ADOPTED by the City Council this 7th day of February 2016. Resolution 2016 - Page 3 Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: Michele Lindau, City Clerk AMCON DESIGN/BUILDS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT I GENERAL CONTRACTING Project Narrative Project: Growing Generations Daycare Address: 14689 Victor Hugo Boulevard, Hugo MN This project is a proposed new single story daycare building. The children attending the daycare range from infants to school age. There will be approximately 125 children attending the daycare at capacity. The building is 9301 square feet (footprint). The construction will be wood frame with a concrete slab on grade. The roof configuration will be a combination of hips and gables with asphalt shingles. Exterior materials for the building include cultured stone, lap siding and shingle siding (fiber cement). The windows will be operable, double hung type windows. Site work associated with the building will include grading and the typical utilities. The parking lot will be bituminous with concrete curb and gutter with a capacity of 54 cars including three handicap accessible stalls. The site will also include a trash enclosure along the west side of the site and a fenced outdoor play area east and south of the building. From the play area, there will be a pedestrian connection to the public trail along Frenchman Road. 5565 Blaine Avenue, Suite 250 1 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076-1207 1 Tel: 651.379.9090 1 Fax: 651.379.9091 Email: custsery@amconconstruction.com I Website: www.amconconstruction.com iHUgO City of Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines Approved: August 1, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Intent of Design Guidelines 2.0 Four -Sided Design 3.0 Building Materials and Design 4.0 Building Colors 5.0 Building Entrances 6.0 Signage 7.0 Screening 8.0 Lighting 9.0 Gutters and Downspouts 10.0 Industrial Zoning Districts 11.0 Exceptions 1.0 INTENT OF DESIGN G"DLEINES 1.1 These guidelines apply to all commercial and industrial zoning districts. 1.2 The City of Hugo has adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which contains specific imple- mentation items related to improving the downtown and creating design guidelines to ensure quality architecture in commercial and industrial buildings. 1.3 The general intent of these design guidelines is improve the overall quality of development, to encourage unified development, and to ensure the compatibility of development with sur- rounding land uses. 1.4 The purpose of the guidelines is to provide further direction and clarification of the desired character for commercial and industrial development through pictures, graphics, and illustra- tions. 2.0 FOUR- SIDED DESIGN 2.1 Buildings shall not look like they have a fake fagade applied to the front of them. Buildings shall be designed to ensure they look like the same building on all sides. Consistent building details and proportions shall be used on all sides to ensure a four-sided architectural quality of buildings. Building architecture shall look as if the building has no unfinished or inconsistent back side. 2.2 The design of the building shall provide consistent architectural details and avoid repetitive building massing and design. Architectural details and colors shall be consistent on all build- ing walls. Don't Do This: This building has no detailing on one wall. Do This: This building has continued design elements to create a four sided design. This building does not use four-sided design. The architecture does not wrap around the building. This is a back side of a retail building. The architectural features are used on all sides to ensure the back side looks like the front of the building. 3.0 BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN 3.1 Buildings shall be attractive and durable. To ensure this, buildings shall be constructed of high quality materials that require minimal maintenance. 3.2 There shall be variation of building materials and accent materials integrated with the archi- tectural design of the building. 3.3 Allowed Materials. Exterior building materials shall substantially utilize, but are not limited to the following: • Stone • Stucco • Cast Stone • EIFS • Brick . High Quality Wood • Integrally -Colored Split -Face • Metal as an accent Rock • Glass 3.4 Prohibited Materials. The following materials shall not be used: • Vinyl Siding • Metal Siding • Smooth -Faced Gray or Stained Concrete Block. • Painted Concrete Block or Brick • Tip -up Concrete Panels, except as allow under section 10.5 3.5 Proper detailing on the corners allows a building to be more pleasing to the eye because the corners appear to be structurally supported. 3.6 Stone and brick used on exterior walls shall not terminate at exterior corners. Interior Corner Exterior Corner 3.7 Where possible, vertical change of materials from stone or brick to another material shall oc- cur at an interior corner. Alternatively, the material shall wrap around the exterior corner of the building and terminate a distance from the corner determined by the size and scale of the building. 3.8 Horizontal change of materials from stone or brick to another material shall include a stone cap or brick sill; the cap or sill shall project from the face of the building. 3.0 BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN 3.10 Long, large buildings can be uninteresting if they contain large or long sections of surface area with no detailing, recesses or projections in building walls to help subdivide the massing of large buildings. This shall be avoided .Buildings shall include at least one change in both wall planes and roof lines, such as recessions and projections that provide depth. 3.11 Columns, pilasters, or vertical changes in the wall plane or texture shall be considered. 3.12 There shall be significant window coverage on each front that faces a street, commercial building or residential building. Windows shall be vertically proportioned, this allows the win- dow opening to appear to be structurally supported. Don't Do This: This large building has a long wall with no detail or windows. Do This: These buildings have broken up the large building walls with projections, details, and windows. There is signifi- cant window coverage on each side of the building. These buildings also use variations in materials and projections to create interest to the design. 4.0 BUILDING COLORS 4.1 To help create a sense of place, buildings within a development shall use colors that are com- patible. 4.2 Color schemes shall tie building elements together, relate separate buildings within the same development, and enhance the architectural form of a building. 4.3 Preferred colors are earth tones. Gray colors shall be avoided. 4.4 All building accessories, including but not limited to, meters, vents, gutters, and utilities shall match or compliment the color of the surface which they are located. Don't Do This: M '. F'1 IH Although this building is broken up by windows, there is no variation in color. The color is grayscale and painted concrete Do This: These buildings have variation in color and provide colors that relate to each other. The compatible color scheme ties the building together. This building has no variation in color. The color is grayscale and painted concrete Industrial buildings can have the tendency to use gray tip -up panels, whether flat or with an architectural finish. This building uses the tip up panels, but chose an earth tone color that can enhance the look of the building in a simple way. 5.0 BUILDING ENTRANCES 5.1 Customer and public entrances shall ensure accessibility to the public and create a primary focal point for pedestrian entry 5.2 Each building, regardless of size, shall have a clearly defined, highly visible entrance and may feature the following details: • Overhangs • Recesses/projections • Arcades • Raised cornice or parapet over the door • Peaked roof forms • Arches Don't Do This: This building does not have an articulated entrance and does not create a focal point at the entrance. Do This: Both of these buildings have a clearly defined entrances. The entrances are the focal point of the building and are highly visible to the public. 6.0 SIGNAGE 6.1 Signage shall be integrated into the overall design of the building. Signs shall be located to complement the architectural features of a building such as above the entrances, storefront opening, or other similar features. Signs shall not be located on non -articulated areas of a building. 6.2 Please refer to the sign ordinance, Chapter 90 Section 90-295, of the City Code. 6.3 Shopping Centers shall have development sign criteria to ensure unified signage for all the buildings. Don't Do This: This building has not planned for signage. The signs on the building are to unified. Do This: tot %�a �iian�in "0d�ye This building has the location of the sign for each tenant integrated into the overall design of the building. This building has architecture that included a location of a sign integrated into the overall design of the build- ing. 7.0 SCREENING 7.1 The view of all roof top mechanical equipment and related utilities on buildings shall be screened from view of adjacent properties. Screening may include parapet walls or other ar- chitecturally integrated elements. Wood fencing or chain link with or without slats shall not be used for screening. A cross-sectional drawing shall be provided that illustrates the sight lines from the ground level and the elevation shall illustrate how the roof top mechanical equipment will be screened. 7.2 Ground mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent properties by landscaping or a screen wall shall be provided that is compatible with the architectural design of the principal building. There shall be a mix of landscaping and it should be at a height to adequately screen the equipment. 7.3 All exterior storage of material and equipment related to, located on, and used by any busi- ness shall be stored within a building or fully screened from view of adjacent properties 7.4 Chain link fencing with or without slats is prohibited for any screening purposes. Don't Do This: Do This: This building has not screened the roof top mechanical equipment. The parapet could have been raised to en- sure the equipment would be screened. FvPrnrPPn --,nt Deciduous Shrubs This buildings parapet has been raised to screen the roof top mechanical equipment from view from any property line. Illustration of a mix of landscaping for an aerial view and an eye -level view to screen mechanical equipment on the ground 7.0 SCREENING 7.5 Trash enclosures are encouraged to be located inside a building or attached to the building. All trash enclosures shall be screened from view of adjacent properties. Trash enclosures shall be constructed of the same material as the principal building. 7.6 External loading and service docks shall also be screened from view when located adjacent to residential development. This screening can be fencing, landscaping, or a combination of both. Don't Do This: This dumpster has not been screened from view Do This: This building has an interior trash enclosure. There is no method of screening for the air conditioners for this building. Both of these building have used architectural materials for screen the dumpsters. These enclosures match the building they serve. 8.0 LIGHTING 8.1 In addition to the light ordinance Section 90-239, all lighting for a development or building shall be architecturally compatible with the development or building. 8.2 Lighting within parking lot shall include cut-off fixtures with the bulb recessed within the fix- ture. An example is a shoe -box style lighting fixture. The light pole and fixture shall not be ad- justable 8.3 Wall mounted lighting shall be used on building fronts to a illuminate entry points and archi- tectural features. Don't Do This: This light pole has an adjustable head and is not a downcast fixture. Do This: This light pole is a downcast shoebox fixture with a re- cessed bulb. This is a good example of parking lot lighting. This light is wall mounted and is not a downcast fixture with a recessed bulb. Both of these lights are good examples of wall mounted fixtures. 9.0 GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS 9.1 Building devices used to control rainwater shall be compatible with the roofing system and shall not dominate the fagade of the building. Internal roof drains are encouraged. 9.2 The gutters and downspouts shall be shown on the architectural plans. 9.3 The design shall be integrated with the design of the building. 9.4 Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of high quality, commercial materials. 9.5 Gutters shall not be allowed on flat roofs 9.6 Downspouts shall only be allowed at interior corners. If there are no interior corners, then downspouts will be allowed on the exterior corners. Downspouts shall not run down the middle of the building. 9.7 Parapets and cornices shall be continuous above a scupper. Don't Do This: Do This: The design of the gutters and downspouts run down the middle of the buildings. The design has not been integrated with the design of the building. The downspouts are on the exterior corners. The colors match the building and have been integrated with the overall design of the building. 10.0 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 10.1 Industrial development shall be consistent with all design standards set in this guideline. Ex- cept that Industrial development will be allowed to deviate from some of the design guidelines as specified below. 10.2 The strict intent of four sided design is not applicable to all industrial buildings. The sides of the buildings that are used for loading docks will be allowed some flexibility on architecture. Buildings that do not have loading and service docks will also be allowed flexibility on archi- tecture on the back side of the building. 10.3 External loading and service docks shall be screened from view when located adjacent to residential development. This screening can be fencing, landscaping, or a combination of both. Chain link fencing with or without slats is prohibited for any screening purposes. 10.4 Although unique building design is encouraged, industrial buildings are allowed some flexibil- ity on recessions and projections in building planes and height. 10.5 Industrial development will be allowed to use integrally colored tip up panels. These panels will not be allowed to be painted and are encouraged to have an architectural detail, rather than a flat design. This site plan and building elevation includes the minimum standards for industrial buildings as outlined in the guidelines. M n 11.0 EXCEPTIONS 11.1 Properties that are used for commercial or industrial purposes without being served by mu- nicipal sewer and water are exempt from these guidelines. Property owners may expand ex- isting buildings without adhering to these design guidelines, provided that all other provisions of the code can be met. 11.2 The City is aware of existing commercial and industrial uses in the City that do not have ac- cess to City sewer and water. These areas have high potential to be redeveloped when City sewer and water is available. The City would like to see these areas redeveloped in the fu- ture. 11.2 The strict enforcement of the guidelines may hinder redevelopment of the properties in the future. The construction of the existing buildings in these locations in most cases do not meet these guidelines or the commercial and industrial construction standards. Requiring the prop- erties to meet the guidelines and standards may reduce the probability of redevelopment. 11.3 The costs associated with meeting the guidelines and construction standards may not be within reason until public sewer and water is available to the site. This can cause hardship on the land owner because it would require the construction of a permanent building that would likely be demolished at the time that sewer and water is extended to the property. 11.4 Any redevelopment of these properties that occurs in conjunction with municipal sewer and water services shall comply with the design guidelines. 11.5 Additions to buildings shall be allowed to incorporate existing materials in the overall design of the addition. Likewise, the existing building may be required to incorporate the allowed ma- terials outlined in the guidelines. The goal is to blend the addition with the existing building to ensure the architecture looks seamless and that the addition matches the building. An addi- tion may include prohibited materials as long as the existing building contains those materials. ADDRESS: 14689 VICTOR HUGO BLVD, HUGO, MN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OUTLOT A, FRENCHMAN PLACE, 2ND ADDITION, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN PARCEL AREA: 82,437 S.F. (1.89 AC) CURRENT USE: VACANT PROPOSED USE: CHILD DAYCARE BUILDING CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT: C-2 -GENERAL BUSINESS SITE PLA N 0 10' 30' 60' PRELIMINARY/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT/BID SET CONSTRUCTION SET AS -BUILT SET NOT TO SCALE (D Z U Q H Z O U � J o 0 rn � rn W L M Z Lr) W O m wo Z ❑ Z W W Z 5 W Z— W Q U z ZZz = Z m W rn O= CDw rn ULo M � O � O i w U Z Z O ❑ d J_ 00 Z U U W REVISIONS A A 0 A 0 0 0 A A 0 ii 12 A A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DATE 09 FEB 2016 A1.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 Q O U (>L)a> Jraw a�Qow o z _z 0 O W ~w + UZHzaU Q Q�cczVw 0�_'zoZ) 0 =) 00 �nF-a< ED _U oza }� w �o ww Q O zom>w v'z '1'� a z�n� V U D W z Q j Ld ;�n-�VJ I ( l w V aQ (n J w w W _ .0 W W d w V J~ = m0 W cdy d W D - of i H o a LL o � o REVISIONS A A 0 A 0 0 0 A A 0 ii 12 A A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DATE 09 FEB 2016 A1.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 O U (>L)a> Z U O W W W �m i H N l W U 0 Ln Z N F0p1zo3 a Or�pw WO z0a-z00 + UZHzaU } O Z 0�_'zoZ) p U =) 00 �nF-a< ED Z O REVISIONS A A 0 A 0 0 0 A A 0 ii 12 A A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DATE 09 FEB 2016 A1.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 5Z L 0 V)) r O > qlll _ .0 � m0 W cdy p LL = 0 Z 0 70 0 ®® U O � Q 0 00 _ r REVISIONS A A 0 A 0 0 0 A A 0 ii 12 A A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DATE 09 FEB 2016 A1.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 FLOOR PLAN q.t. = quarry tile -�- toilet room walls: frp panels to 4'-0" VESTIBULE lighting: 2x2 fluor. w/ acrylic lens 82 s.f. exterior windows: double hung CA. (residential style) 42'-0" 30'-0" III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 2 4 8 16 C Z U H Z O U J O Q0 C� r- M W O M W O m z Dw Q w ZZ LL g w— W ¢� Q Z Z MCD o = �W UIn E m I— C7 In U) Z w 6i OU Z Z 0 a. J_ m Z U) W 0 Q Z }mow J Q Q O .- O z _z O O =�wQ'LLj Q �W v TO LET RM oOQ-o �o �W O �o}n Lj Q Q w�m�cwn�'� 0 W r LL = f 1 �W U< J w `J J01_011 �cnD UJj = Lj 10'-7" 57 s.f. TOILE M 0 / / Z C O 0 CA 50 s.f. 42'-7" 00O L I c.t. 5C,HOOL AGE ROOM i PRESCHOOL ROOM 2 568\f. open floor "� \ 6L0. - ` T:22s.f. / 720 s.f. open floor / v. p. V. p. n --- - / - - - COTS TODDLER ROOM 2 - O v full lit. 641 s.f. open floor 0 v.p. - ENCLOSED 34'-7"GYM �I 433 s.f. - PRESCHOOL ROOM 1 v•p C4 703 s.f. open floor N a walls:impact resistar t vp fri Q gyp. bd. to 4'-0" a.f.f'. ?� u a > ceiling: gyp. bd. _j 04 > 36'-7" TOILET Q x Q x 53 s.f. 0 CHANGING \ \ / ° \ full llte BYOWNERK \ / H j TOILE M ABLENw/lSWK full lite = N LU C4 ° 50 s.f. 0 TOILET RM BY OWNER %\ GATE GATE full lite / - - - Q FO CA. 53 s.f. CA.- O �- 0 C TODDLER ROM 1 � TOILET50 506 s.f. open floor 16'-0" J C4 sfRM V. p. PRESCHOOL ROM 3 ° c' ' 34 -7" j N 644s.f. open floor I LARGE MUSCLE N _ �I p INA lite AREA 361 s.f. A N cpt. 36'-7" COTS x z yyW / \ QJO UG [0 Q 34'-7" PICKET FENCE pt PICKET ENCE full lite Mi v.P. HALLWAY it INFANT ROOM 2 420 s.f. open floor a full IKe � 147 s.f. v. p. � �r I`ur CAR / a% STA F LAUN7DRY SEATS cont. U i � x � WOM „ 12 -3 3 - v Y46 s.f. vfull 8'ceiling 9'ceiling lite o U O c't' KITCHENLOBBY 0 Q IX O 243 s.f. o MECHANICAL 4' wall INFANT ROOM 1 `� 487 s.f. floor: q.t. I 162 s.f. 464 s.f. open floor I v p F' STAFF walls: frp `e "`conc. 34'-7" MEN ceiling: washable act o no s.f. 18'-2" I pct 11'-0 8'.ceiling A. oven re freezer �, a . ' n.i.c. n.i. n.i.c. / REF n r Y CLOSET STOR. LOUNGE OFFICE 82 s.f. GENERAL NOTES 38 s.f. 107 s.f. 91 s.f. conc. ceilings: 2x2 A.C.T. unless noted conc. cpt. cpt. floors: v.p. = vinyl plank cpt = carpet c.t. = ceramic tile FLOOR PLAN q.t. = quarry tile -�- toilet room walls: frp panels to 4'-0" VESTIBULE lighting: 2x2 fluor. w/ acrylic lens 82 s.f. exterior windows: double hung CA. (residential style) 42'-0" 30'-0" III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 2 4 8 16 C Z U H Z O U J O Q0 C� r- M W O M W O m z Dw Q w ZZ LL g w— W ¢� Q Z Z MCD o = �W UIn E m I— C7 In U) Z w 6i OU Z Z 0 a. J_ m Z U) W 0 REVISIONS 0 0 4 0 0 0 A 11 12 0 0 PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN ❑PRELIMINARY/NOT FOR DATE X CONSTRUCTION 09 FEB 2016 PERMIT/BID SET CONSTRUCTION SET A201 AS—BUILT SET PROJECT NO. NOT TO SCALE 15029 Q Z }mow J Q Q O .- O z _z O O =�wQ'LLj Q �W v oOQ-o �o �W O �o}n Lj Q Q w�m�cwn�'� 0 W r LL = f 1 �W U< J w `J �cnD UJj = Lj Cd LL IL WD _ IY O i H o Q 0 REVISIONS 0 0 4 0 0 0 A 11 12 0 0 PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN ❑PRELIMINARY/NOT FOR DATE X CONSTRUCTION 09 FEB 2016 PERMIT/BID SET CONSTRUCTION SET A201 AS—BUILT SET PROJECT NO. NOT TO SCALE 15029 cZ L O i(( O Ql CdL i 0 ++ /O0 W Cd LL O Z O 0 > aL 00O L I REVISIONS 0 0 4 0 0 0 A 11 12 0 0 PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN ❑PRELIMINARY/NOT FOR DATE X CONSTRUCTION 09 FEB 2016 PERMIT/BID SET CONSTRUCTION SET A201 AS—BUILT SET PROJECT NO. NOT TO SCALE 15029 TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS SOUTH ELEV. SOUTH ELEV. IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 2 4 8 16 EAST ELEV. EAST ELEV. NORTH ELEVATION IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 2 4 8 16 EAST ELEVATION IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 2 4 8 16 WEST ELEVATION 3 ) (B SOUTH ELEVATION child IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 2 4 8 16 ski E IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 2 4 8 16 KEY NOTES A. "SHAKE STYLE" ASPHALT SHINGLES B. LAP SIDING (HARDIE OR LP SMART SIDE) C. TRIM (HARDIE OR LP SMART SIDE) D. SHINGLE SIDING (HARDIE OR LP SMART SIDE) E. CULTURED STONE F. ALUMINUM WINDOWS/DOORS G. CAST STONE WATER TABLE H. SIGNAGE BY OWNER I. TRASH DOORS - COMPOSITE DECKING RIDGE ELEV = 134'-0" EA VE ELEV = 11 l' -O" FLOOR LEVEL ELEV = 100'-0" c� z 2 U a z O U J O Q CD O Ir r- m W O) M Z L W O 0 W cn X W Z Z Q Z LL 7> W - W > Z Z = Q J Z m W rn CC) W rn LO > o� D M (n W' CO Z W W OU z Z 0 2 d. J_ D m Z U) W 0 PRELIMINARY/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Z }mow J Q Q O PERMIT/BID SET z CONSTRUCTION SET o AS -BUILT SET Not�Z03E NOT TO SCALE c� z 2 U a z O U J O Q CD O Ir r- m W O) M Z L W O 0 W cn X W Z Z Q Z LL 7> W - W > Z Z = Q J Z m W rn CC) W rn LO > o� D M (n W' CO Z W W OU z Z 0 2 d. J_ D m Z U) W 0 0 A A 4 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 REVISIONS PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS DATE 09 FEB 2016 A3.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 Q O Z }mow J Q Q O O z _ _z �� a o oU,�w!F-w Not�Z03E =��=w� � 0 F - w0 --Z. aow Q LLJo z O O U w = 1 O Q a= OZ rn 0�,,Zo�U Z 0 c Z)- cnm no zr o0 Wim>w�z Q a SNZaOvIH ~?<o UQowz'>� 0 l u m U Q n J W d m cd LL L K U J ~ _ Li a-w� _ Of Y 0 o o 0 A A 4 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 REVISIONS PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS DATE 09 FEB 2016 A3.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 O W Z Z a U O w W W U> >�mo� 0 Cc) Not�Z03E U') Z� w0 --Z. aow O O Dw�zo�CL J OZ rn 0�,,Zo�U m c Z)- cnm no z 3 Q Q SNZaOvIH ~?<o Q 0 0 A A 4 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 REVISIONS PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS DATE 09 FEB 2016 A3.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 cZ L 0 IJ 2 J L U� Ili i(I 1 L > �1 0 0 m cd LL r' 0 uDi 0 �M. 00 0 L r 0 A A 4 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 REVISIONS PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS DATE 09 FEB 2016 A3.1 PROJECT NO. 15029 f OX � II Growing Generations Child Development Center - Hugo, MN = ft M- - -0 On- ft XAAMCON r7 t I .a, I I. 999=r iiiiii� s IA.IA�i � - _ I II yyMM 2016 Goals Planning Commission Approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting ri LJ Review Met Council's Policy Plans Review Sections of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations for changes and improvements. • Schedule regular Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings • Evaluate and revise the parking, landscaping, subdivision, and PUD sections of the City Code • Discussion on City Hall Security • Participate in Active Shooter Training • Schedule Planning Commission Meeting Procedures and Land Use Training