Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-05 PACKET 08.C.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION PREPARED BY COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM 11 DATE 9/5/12 i? Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT John M. Burbank STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider approving the following applications for the proposed Walmart project at 9338 E. Pt. Douglas Rd.: 1. Zoning Amendment — Rezone approximately 23.55 acres of land from Low Density Residential (R -4) to Retail Business (B -2) 2. Preliminary and Final Plats — Plat a 23.55 -acre parcel from a 51.68 -acre taxing parcel 3. Site Plan Review of a 177,808 square foot multi- tenant retail store 4. Conditional Use Permit for a pharmacy drive -up window 5. Conditional Use Permit for an accessory recycling collection point/exterior storage area STAFF RECOMMENDATION Action One (requires 4 /5ths vote): Adopt the ordinance approving the zoning amendment from R -4 to B -2 and a summary resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance amendment by title and summary. Action Two (requires 3 /5ths vote): Adopt the resolution jointly approving the preliminary plat and final plat. Action Three (requires 3 /5ths vote): Adopt the resolution approving the site plan review Action Four (requires 3 /5ths vote): Adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit for the pharmacy drive -up window. Action Five (requires 3 /5ths vote) Adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit for an accessory recycling collection point/exterior storage area ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from John M. Burbank dated 8/30/12 ® RESOLUTION: Drafts: Site Plan, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, CUP for drive -up window, CUP for recycling collection /exterior storage ® ORDINANCE: Draft: Zoning amendment ® OTHER: Excerpt from 7/23/12 and 8/27/12 Planning Commission minutes ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS I WityAd Date ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: []APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 8/27/12 ❑ ® ❑ ® PUBLIC SAFETY 8/21/12 ❑ ® ❑ ® PUBLIC WORKS 8/13/12 ❑ ® ❑ ® PARKS AND RECREATION 8/8/12 ❑ ® ❑ ® ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY 8/14/12 ❑ ® ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from John M. Burbank dated 8/30/12 ® RESOLUTION: Drafts: Site Plan, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, CUP for drive -up window, CUP for recycling collection /exterior storage ® ORDINANCE: Draft: Zoning amendment ® OTHER: Excerpt from 7/23/12 and 8/27/12 Planning Commission minutes ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS I WityAd Date ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: []APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner DATE: August 30, 2012 RE: Cottage Grove Walmart Store # 2448 -00 Introduction Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has filed the following planning applications: • Zoning Amendment — Rezone approximately 23.55 acres of land from Low Density Residential (R -4) to Retail Business (B -2) • Preliminary Plat — Plat a 23.55 -acre parcel from a 51.68 -acre taxing parcel • Final Plat • Site Plan Review — Walmart Store Store #2448 -00 Development Plan (Plan version 8- 10 -12) • Conditional Use Permit for a drive -up window and exterior storage of recycling materials The applicant proposes to construct a 177,808 gross square foot retail building on a 23.55 -acre parcel lo- cated at 9338 East Point Douglas Road. Other retail businesses inside the proposed Walmart Store will include a pharmacy and ancillary commercial uses like food, optometry, and /or banking services. On -site stormwater management facilities and 859 parking spaces are proposed with the development plan. �e ' . ® ONffi it da m Mv {� I ERInR ` MR x.751 `S lillllill • ;:;'•:,'9.•,r•`.:,�w ?�,� •�: � � }� iii: �•'•••••,•s,r �y::.,��Ys Site Location man Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 2 of 9 Council Action Request That the City Council take five separate actions to conditionally approve the applications The specific actions that are recommended are: Action One Approve a Zoning Amendment from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business. Action Two Approve a preliminary plat and final plat. Action Three Approve a site plan for a 177,808 square foot multi- tenant retail store. Action Four Approve a conditional use for the pharmacy drive -up window. Action Five Approve the conditional use for an accessory recycling collection point /exterior storage structure. Commission Action Planning Commission At their regular meeting on August 27, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed the planning staff report detailing the noted application requests. The 56 -page report and supporting exhibits were published on August 23, 2012, and included the following major review sections. 1. Planning Staff Report 8 -23 -12 2. Proposal Page 1 3. Planning Commission Role Page 2 4. Application Review Process Page 3 5. Background Page 4 6. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Page 6 7. Zoning Page 7 8. Subdivision Page 9 9. Site Plan - Development Standards Page 12 10. Site Plan - Grading Page 14 11. Site Plan — Setback Analysis Page 15 12. Site Plan - Berming Page 17 13. Site Plan - Landscaping Page 19 14. Site Plan - Buffering Page 20 15. Site Plan - Noise Page 24 16. Site Plan - Lighting Page 28 17. Site Plan - Transportation Page 28 18. Site Plan - Utilities Page 40 19. Site Plan - Surface Water Management Page 41 20. Site Plan - Tree Mitigation Page 43 21. Site Plan - Architecture Page 44 22. Site Plan - Signage Page 46 23. Site Plan - Parking Page 47 24. Conditional Use Page 48 25. Commission Comments Page 51 26. Recommendation Page 52 Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 3 of 9 At the meeting, the Commission held a public hearing and received testimony from the Applicant and four interested individuals. They also received supporting information from pertinent City Staff and consultants. The minutes from the July 23 Planning Commission meeting also included public testimony that was re- ceived at that meeting on the proposed applications. The Commission's discussion had several points of focus. Summaries of these topics are included below: Berming /Screening The proposed store has been noted to have setbacks in excess of any existing commercial to residential relationship in the community. At the July Commission meeting, screening of the proposed use was a point of concern with the adjacent residents. Since that meeting, Staff has worked with the Applicant, the Metropolitan Council, and the City's consulting engineers to create a definitive berm that is heavily landscaped. The proposed berm is 20 feet higher at its highest point from the current grade at that point and 14 feet higher at the ends. As a part of the tree mitigation plan for the project, the height of the planted materials will be increased above ordinance criteria and additional trees will be planted in the City deeded outlots. This buffer area will contain a future City recreational trail that is funded by this project. The rendered berming detail included below was shared at the last neighborhood meeting and at the Planning Commission meeting, and based on testimony and discussion received, appears to be of sufficient design to address berming and screening concerns. R mm A City of Cottage Grove (Future) �a#k'' + N I D ,T, r C - ZM City of Cottage Grove (Future) ti I = _Et 1, t Berm Landscaping Detail The berming detail, which was revised subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, details an in- creased berm height south of the Metropolitan Council regional sanitary sewer odor reducing station and is included below. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Y1 Revised Berm Grading Detail Noise In response to concerns voiced at the July Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant had a thorough noise study completed by the professional noise consulting firm David Braslau Associates, Inc. This report was shared with the Planning Commission and discussed at length. The noise standards for the state of Minnesota and the City's standards are included below. Minnesota State Noise Standards ,l r. m Noise Area L10 C m L10 L50 Classification NAC -1 65 e 55 50 (residential) � NAC -? � 65 f 1 F 1 ' f NAC -3 Y1 Revised Berm Grading Detail Noise In response to concerns voiced at the July Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant had a thorough noise study completed by the professional noise consulting firm David Braslau Associates, Inc. This report was shared with the Planning Commission and discussed at length. The noise standards for the state of Minnesota and the City's standards are included below. Minnesota State Noise Standards These are land use "receiving" standards and are not tied to zoning. The L10 is the sound level exceeded for 10% or 6 minutes of an hour. The L50 is the sound level exceeded for 50% or 30 minutes of an hour. It should be noted that the report included with this agenda packet item is very conservative as the review was based on the worst case scenario. This conservative scenario measured the site noise as if it all rooftop units were running, there was full truck dock activity, and the trash compactor was in operation, all at the same time. The study identifies that the proposed use with a projected 30 to 40 decibel range read- ing would be compliant with the applicable noise and time of day standards. The continuous overall back- ground ambient noise or L90 at the measurement site from uses such as Highway 61, kids playing, Daytime (7 am to 10 pm) Nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) Noise Area L10 L50 L10 L50 Classification NAC -1 65 60 55 50 (residential) NAC -? 70 65 70 65 (commercial) NAC -3 80 75 80 75 (industrial) These are land use "receiving" standards and are not tied to zoning. The L10 is the sound level exceeded for 10% or 6 minutes of an hour. The L50 is the sound level exceeded for 50% or 30 minutes of an hour. It should be noted that the report included with this agenda packet item is very conservative as the review was based on the worst case scenario. This conservative scenario measured the site noise as if it all rooftop units were running, there was full truck dock activity, and the trash compactor was in operation, all at the same time. The study identifies that the proposed use with a projected 30 to 40 decibel range read- ing would be compliant with the applicable noise and time of day standards. The continuous overall back- ground ambient noise or L90 at the measurement site from uses such as Highway 61, kids playing, Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 5 of 9 lawnmowers, etc. was calculated to be 44 to 45 dba. The table below is from the sound report and identi- fies sound levels of common sources. This table provides some examples of sound levels and associated sources or conditions Level (dBA) Examples 0 Threshold of hearin 10 BWCA in winter 20 Natural areas - no trees 30 Quiet library, soft whisper 40 Living room, quiet office 50 T pica) urban ambient (daytime) 60 Speech at 3 ft, air conditioner at 20 ft 70 Freeway at 200 ft 80 Typical home stereo level, facto 90 Noise appliances, lawn mower 100 Subway, chain saw, stereo headphone 110 Discote ue, diesel generator room 120 20 ft from rock bandspeakers 130 Jet aircraft workers on tarmac 140 1 Gunshot at 30 feet, jet takeoff 200 ft 150 Loud trumpet at 5 inches 160 Gunshot at shooter ear 170 Artillery at shooter ear 180 Rocket launching pad Based upon the noise analysis of rooftop equipment, truck movements, and the compactor, this noise assessment report concluded that the state and City noise standards at the homes adjacent to the proposed site would not be exceeded. Pollution Another point of concern raised during the public hearing was the effect of truck exhaust emissions on the adjacent residential areas. The Applicant has indicated that idling restrictions will be in effect for the pro- posed site. A condition of approval recommended in the staff report and approved by the Planning Com- mission limits idling on the site to a maximum of five minutes. The City does not have policies or ordinance criteria that regulate emissions from land uses within the community. The proposed berming, landscaping, and site setbacks are in excess of current commercial developments in the community that have similar truck and vehicle use. Pollution control and air quality are under the guidance of the State, and the City has not pre- viously scrutinized any other commercially guided development proposal on either of these topics. Based on this fact, and in the absence of ordinance criteria or policies, it is not recommended that Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 6 of 9 the City take any action on this topic other than limiting idling time on the site as proposed by the Applicant and recommended by the Planning Commission. Lighting There was testimony at the public hearing on the lighting of the proposed project and the impact it would have on the night sky. The response from the Applicant was that the foot candle reading at the residential property lines is proposed at 0.00, which is below the ordinance criteria maximum of .5 foot candles; that the lighting package includes fixture cut -offs, and that that City does not have a dark sky ordinance. The lighting of the proposed use meets or is below the City's Commercial lighting requirements. Architecture The architecture of similar sized Walmart stores that have been or are being constructed in the region was reviewed. These stores included face brick finishes that are consistent with the newer commercial build- ings that have been constructed in Cottage Grove along East Point Douglas Road. The proposed store in Cottage Grove does not include "face brick" in the current proposed design. After a request by the Mayor, a meeting was set up with the Applicant and their architect to discuss the building finish material prior to the item going to Council. The results of that meeting on the proposed architecture finishes will be shared at the Council Meeting. - �...: Transportation The most significant point of discussion at the commission meeting regarded the transportation impacts on East Point Douglas Road from Jamaica Avenue to Keats Avenue. The City's Consulting engineer provided additional information on the general terminology and concepts on traffic level of service and explained the different proposed road improvements. The supporting information relating to traffic can be found in the attached planning staff report (pages 28 -39) and traffic study. Phase I Roadway Improvements will be required as part of the Project. Traffic volumes generated by the proposed use will be handled by the construction of the improvements. The costs of said improvements will be allocated between the City and the applicant. Details of this cost allocation are still in negotiation and will be finalized with the development agreement. Phase II and Phase II roadway improvements will be triggered by additional development activity occurring on the remainder of the Parcell. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 7 of 9 The findings of the traffic analysis indicate and subsequent discussions indicate that with the phased roadway and intersection control improvements that have been identified, the proposed use will not cause a negative impact on the City's transportation network. Economic Impact The economic impact of the proposed use on the community was raised during the public hearing. At the direction of the Commission Chair it was noted that this topic was not within the purview of the Commis- sion and no additional discussion occurred. In preparation for the Council meeting, the following information relating to economic development impacts of the project were prepared. Anytime a large retailer enters a market, it can be anticipated that there will be economic impacts to the area it is locating to. In anticipation of this, the Economic Development Authority evaluated the possible economic impacts of the proposed Walmart, which are discussed below: Business Growth: In 2009 the City hired the analytics firm McComb Group to conduct a Cottage Grove Demographic Characteristics and Retail Sales Potential Study. The 2009 study shows areas that appear to have the greatest potential for additional retail establishments to meet our trade area needs, indicating an opportunity to expand merchandising offerings across a broad range of shopping goods, convenience goods, food service, and services. It is noteworthy that many of these are goods provided by Walmart and include the following: • Health and Beauty • Hobby and Novelty • Athletic & Family Shoe Stores • Sporting Goods • Electronics • Hardware • Warehouse and Discount Clubs • Jewelry • Pharmacy • Restaurants • Home Furnishing • Family and Women's Clothing • Fitness Centers The 2009 study also calls out the fact that Cottage Grove has many positive economic attributes, such as a trade area population and the upper income households that can provide support for expanded retail stores, restaurants and services. However, it appears that while this potential exists, we continue to strug- gle with significant "slippage" in relation to Cottage Grove Citizens leaving our area and spending their money at retail locations in adjacent communities. It is believed that a major contributing factor to this is that people appreciate the convenience of going to one general location and having all their shopping needs met. For example, we have heard feedback from citizens that they commonly choose to go to Walmart or other large retail establishments in adjacent communities and while they're there, they also spend additional money on meals and entertainment. A supporting indicator of this is the Retail Sales Per Capita data reflected by the U.S. Census. The income of Cottage Grove residents is approximately 40 percent greater than the median Minnesota household income, which would lead one to believe that retail sales per capita would be relatively consistent with that. However, in reality, it is far less than the Minnesota average. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 8 of 9 Median 2010 Family Income (CG): $89,152; Mean 2010 Family Income (CG): $95,929 (Provided by: U.S. Census) Tax Base: As the Council is aware, anytime there is an increase in the commercial tax base, it allows for a reduction in the proportionate share of the tax base that needs to be supported by residential properties. In the case of the proposed Walmart site, it's anticipated that the property has the potential of providing an additional $300,000 in estimated property taxes each year (based upon a roughly $8 million market value), of which $105,000 would go to the City. This would allow for the further diversification of taxes, which has long been encouraged by the Council. Further Capture of Commercial Base: When talking to possible businesses that the City would like to attract to Cottage Grove, we have heard that we "underperform" for the size of our community /trade area. This is not surprising, knowing what we do about our "slippage." This "slippage" makes it difficult to grow our commercial tax base. It's anticipated that the Walmart development would likely help grow our com- mercial tax base by reducing that "slippage." Furthermore, since the Walmart proposal has become public information, we have also heard from some prospective retailers that they are interested in the potential of locating in the vicinity of the proposed Walmart development. It's not uncommon for retailers to monitor the movements of Walmart stores and aggressively work to locate in close proximity to them, due to the number and types of patrons that Walmart attracts. It's also noteworthy that existing businesses may be impacted by the increased competitive environment they will likely find themselves in if Walmart and other additional commercial and service providers choose to locate in Cottage Grove. This likely competition among our existing corporate businesses will encour- age them to put pricing in place that is in line with other corporate stores in adjacent municipalities. This could impact the commercial tax base as well. Existing businesses will likely benefit from working to fill niches in the market and provide service levels that exceed those of the competition and increase customer loyalty. Jobs: It's anticipated that Walmart will bring as many as 300 full and part time jobs. It's noteworthy that a portion of these jobs are likely to be filled by workers that are currently within the segment of our popula- tion with the highest unemployment rates. It's also anticipated that this segment of the workforce would be able to increase their retail spending within the City of Cottage Grove. The proposal positively reflects the goals of the City's Economic Development Authority. Summary The City's Advisory Commissions all recommended approval of the applications. The proposed applications meet or exceed the City ordinance criteria related to subdivision and site development. The Council should take favorable action on the requests. Recommendation That Council take the five actions listed below to allow for the construction of a 177,808 gross square foot retail building on a 23.55 -acre platted lot of record located at 9338 East Point Douglas Road. Cottacie Grove MN Retail sales per capita: $6,871 $13,751 Median household income $80,830 $57,243 Persons below poverty (2606-2010) $4.50% 10.60% Home ownership rate 2006 -2010 90.40% 74.20% Persons 65 and over 2010 8.30% 12.90% Persons under 18 (2010 ) 29% 24.20% Median 2010 Family Income (CG): $89,152; Mean 2010 Family Income (CG): $95,929 (Provided by: U.S. Census) Tax Base: As the Council is aware, anytime there is an increase in the commercial tax base, it allows for a reduction in the proportionate share of the tax base that needs to be supported by residential properties. In the case of the proposed Walmart site, it's anticipated that the property has the potential of providing an additional $300,000 in estimated property taxes each year (based upon a roughly $8 million market value), of which $105,000 would go to the City. This would allow for the further diversification of taxes, which has long been encouraged by the Council. Further Capture of Commercial Base: When talking to possible businesses that the City would like to attract to Cottage Grove, we have heard that we "underperform" for the size of our community /trade area. This is not surprising, knowing what we do about our "slippage." This "slippage" makes it difficult to grow our commercial tax base. It's anticipated that the Walmart development would likely help grow our com- mercial tax base by reducing that "slippage." Furthermore, since the Walmart proposal has become public information, we have also heard from some prospective retailers that they are interested in the potential of locating in the vicinity of the proposed Walmart development. It's not uncommon for retailers to monitor the movements of Walmart stores and aggressively work to locate in close proximity to them, due to the number and types of patrons that Walmart attracts. It's also noteworthy that existing businesses may be impacted by the increased competitive environment they will likely find themselves in if Walmart and other additional commercial and service providers choose to locate in Cottage Grove. This likely competition among our existing corporate businesses will encour- age them to put pricing in place that is in line with other corporate stores in adjacent municipalities. This could impact the commercial tax base as well. Existing businesses will likely benefit from working to fill niches in the market and provide service levels that exceed those of the competition and increase customer loyalty. Jobs: It's anticipated that Walmart will bring as many as 300 full and part time jobs. It's noteworthy that a portion of these jobs are likely to be filled by workers that are currently within the segment of our popula- tion with the highest unemployment rates. It's also anticipated that this segment of the workforce would be able to increase their retail spending within the City of Cottage Grove. The proposal positively reflects the goals of the City's Economic Development Authority. Summary The City's Advisory Commissions all recommended approval of the applications. The proposed applications meet or exceed the City ordinance criteria related to subdivision and site development. The Council should take favorable action on the requests. Recommendation That Council take the five actions listed below to allow for the construction of a 177,808 gross square foot retail building on a 23.55 -acre platted lot of record located at 9338 East Point Douglas Road. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Walmart August 31, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Action One (Requires 4 /5ths Vote) Adopt an ordinance approving a Zoning Amendment from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business. Action TWO (Requires 3 /5ths Vote) Adopt a resolution jointly approving a preliminary and final plat. Action Three (Requires 3 /5ths Vote) Adopt a resolution approving a site plan for a 177,808 square foot multi- tenant retail store. Action Four (Requires 3 /5ths Vote) Adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for the pharmacy drive -up window. Action Five (Requires 3 /5ths Vote) Adopt a resolution approving the conditional use permit for an accessory recycling collection point /exterior storage structure and use. Attachments • Revised Site Drawings — 8/31/12 • Revised Preliminary Plat — 8/31/12 • Planning Commission Staff Report — 8/27/12 • Transportation Review Report (Bolton & Menk, Inc.) — 8/30/12 • Noise Study (David Braslau Associates, Inc.) — 8/23/12 a. ••.. �:. :::• • •.... ZIG M 10 1,11 • 3 1 A RI k yj V * Z 111 fAl • The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. The City of Cottage Grove's Official Zoning Map as refer- enced in Section 11 -1 -6 of the "Code of the City of Cottage Grove," County of Washington, State of Minnesota, shall be amended by rezoning a portion of certain property from Low Density Residential (R -4) to Retail Business (B -2). Said property is legally described below: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 22, Range 21, lying Northeasterly of the most Northerly line of US Highway No.'s 10 and 61; EXCEPT the Westerly 960 feet thereof; and also except that part thereof described as: Beginning at a point in the Eastern boundary line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 27, Range 21, said point being the intersection of said Eastern boundary line with the middle line of the St Paul and Point Douglas public highway, said point also being 9.5 Chains North from the quarter corner between Section 22 and Section 27, and running thence North 61 degrees 10 minutes West along the middle line of said road 8.31 Chains; thence North parallel with said Eastern line 4.66 Chains; thence East 7.33 Chains to the aforesaid Eastern Boundary line; thence South along said Eastern Boundary line 8.90 chains to the place of beginning EXCEPT all that part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 27 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter; thence West, along the north line of the said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1013.22 feet to the Westerly right of way line of Jeffrey Avenue; thence South, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, along the Southerly extension of said Westerly right of way line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the point on the Southerly line of the Enron easement, Document #422118, the point of beginning; thence continue South, along said Westerly right of way line extension, a distance of 125.00 feet; thence West, parallel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 125.00 feet; thence North, parallel with the southerly right of way extended for Jeffrey Avenue, a distance of 125.00 feet to a point on the Southerly line of the Enron easement; thence East, along said easement line and parallel with the North line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 125.00 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Ordinance No. XXX Page 2 of 3 AND EXCEPT all that part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 27 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commence at the Northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter; thence West, along the North line of the said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1013.22 feet to the Westerly right of way line of Jeffrey Avenue; thence South, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, along the Southerly extension of said Westerly right of way line, a distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the Southerly line of the Enron easement, Document #422118, the point of beginning; thence West along said easement line and parallel with the North line of said southwest Quarter a distance of 125 feet; thence North parallel with the extension of the Westerly right of way line of Jeffrey Avenue, 50 feet to the North line of said Southwest Quarter; thence East 125 feet along the North line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT all that part lying east of a line described as beginning at the intersection of the North line of said Southwest Quarter and the east line of the west 1828.50 feet of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 41 seconds West, along said east line of the west 1828.50 feet, a distance of 1099.83 feet; thence South 58 degrees 48 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 264.89 feet; thence South 31 degrees 11 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 302.72 feet to said most Northerly line of US Highway No.'s 10 and 61, and said line there terminating. Commonly known as 9338 East Point Douglas Road South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. SECTION 2. REZONING. The Official Zoning Map shall be amended by changing the zoning classification of the property legally described above from Low Density Residential (R- 4) to Retail Business (B -2), based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below: Findings of Fact A. Zoning is compliant with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. B. State Statutes require zoning and land use be consistent. C. The proposed zoning and site plan are cohesive with this land use and planning area. Conditions of Approval 1. The rezoning of the property from R -4, Low Density Residential to B -2, General Business, is only for the 23.55 -acre portion of property identified in the planning staff report as the development site. 2. The Final Plat for a 23.55 -acre parcel is approved and recorded with Washington County. Ordinance No. XXX Page 3 of 3 SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance amendment shall be in full force and effective from and after adoption and publication according to law. Passed this 5th day of September 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove adopted Ordinance No. XXX, which amends City Code Title 11 -1 -6, Zoning Map, to rezone a portion of the property located at 9338 East Point Douglas Road from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subd. 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. XXX to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove has adopted Ordinance No. XXX. The ordinance amends City Code Title 11 -1 -6, Zoning Map. This amendment rezones a portion of the property at 9338 East Point Douglas Road South from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2 Retail Business, to allow for a Walmart store. The entire text of Ordinance No. XXX is available for inspection at Cottage Grove City Hall during regular business hours and is posted at the Washington County Park Grove Library. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a complete copy of the ordinance is kept in the City Clerk's office at City Hall for public inspection and a copy of the ordinance will be posted on the Public Notice Bulletin Board at City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Passed this 5th day of September 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk IN **s] ' 10111 us] I'll 10 [63W1411 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAI - COTTAGE VIEW ADDITION WHEREAS, the Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has applied for a preliminary plat and a final plat for "Cottage View Addition," which creates a 23.55 -acre commercial lot and two outlots. This subdivision is located on property legally described as: {Legal Description} Commonly known as 9338 East Point Douglas Road South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Applicant has also applied for a zoning amendment to rezone the property from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business; a site plan review of a 177,808 square foot retail store; and conditional use permits to allow a drive -up pharmacy window and accessory recycling collection point/exterior storage area; and WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed development site and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this preliminary application on July 23, 2012, and August 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public comment. Testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on a 9 -to -0 vote, recommended approval of the preliminary plat for Cottage View Addition, subject to certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the preliminary plat and final plat applications for Cottage View Addition, which creates one commercial lot and two outlots located on property legally described above, based on the following findings: A. The proposed plat is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. B. The Plat creates lots with minimum public frontage. C. The plat creates additional outlots for the benefit of the general public. D. The plat creates additional drainage and utility easements for the benefit of the general public. Resolution No. 2012 -XXX Page 2 of 3 E. The plat creates additional right -of -way for the benefit of the general public. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the approval of this preliminary plat is subject to the following conditions: 1. The property is zoned B -2. 2. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdivision, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 3. Dedication of public right -of -way as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Dedication of public drainage and utility easements as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 5. Park dedication requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved development agreement for this subdivision. 6. Area charge requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved development agreement for this subdivision. 7. The preliminary plat shall follow the City's standard street naming policy. 8. The proposed Outlot C shall not be platted as an Outlot. 9. The area proposed as Outlot C shall be identified on the plat as a public drainage and utility easement. 10. The new road right -of -way north of East Point Douglas Road shall be increased from 80 feet to 100 feet. 11. The connections to public utilities shall be coordinated with the City Public Works Department. 12. The development of this project must comply with the grading and erosion control plans as approved by the City Engineer. 13. All emergency overflow swales must be identified on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan. 14. The subdivider must furnish the City with an electronic copy, a reproducible copy and four (4) prints of the recorded plat. 15. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Resolution No. 2012 -XXX Page 3 of 3 Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10 -5 -8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 16. Upon completing site grading, four hard copies and an electronic copy of an "As- Built" survey for the site grade elevations and utilities must be submitted to the City. 17. Prior to recording the final plat at Washington County, proof of cross access easement and parking documentation must be provided to the City. Passed this 5th day of September 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk 17 *I011ilutr•1ki 1TCi +�Zi►Di.i1 r • s . , • / • I - • • WHEREAS, Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc. applied for a site plan review of a 177,808 square foot multi- tenant retail store to be located on property legally described as: {Legal Description} Commonly known as 9338 East Point Douglas Road South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Applicant also applied for a zoning amendment to rezone the property from R-4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business; preliminary and final plats to create one 23.55 -acre commercial lot; and conditional use permits to allow a drive -up pharmacy window and accessory recycling collection point/exterior storage area. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the application request, was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on this application on July 23, 2012, and August 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on a 9 -to -0 vote recommended approval of the application, subject to certain conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota hereby approves the site plan review of a 177,808 square foot multi- tenant retail store, on the property legally described above, based on the following findings: A. The site schematic and design is consistent with the City's site development standards. B. The proposed site plan meets or exceeds the buffering and landscaping requirements between adjacent land uses. Resolution 08 -XXX Page 2 of 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the approval of this site plan is subject to the following conditions: The preliminary plat is approved. 2. All site, utility, landscaping and building plans must be revised prior to submittal of the application to the City Council. 3. Final drainage plans must be submitted to the South Washington Watershed District for review. 4. All revisions to utility and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 5. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, etc.) must be issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 6. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for the additional required plantings and increased buffering vegetation sizes along the northern portion of the property. 7. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking lot. The irrigation system shall consist of an underground sprinkling system that is designed by a professional irrigation installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. 8. Concrete aprons for all private access drives shall be constructed per City requirements. 9. All site lighting must meet City Code requirements. All light fixtures must be downward directed with cut -offs. The specifications of all light fixtures must be provided with the application for a building permit. 10. Final architectural plans, lighting details, and exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES II Permit requirements. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10 -5 -8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 12. Permanent or temporary construction easements are required on any area Resolution 08 -XXX Page 3 of 3 included in the site grading and surface water management component of the project. 13. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring that all required temporary construction easements, storm water and access cross easement documentation are completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. The applicant must provide the City with an as -built survey of all private utilities prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehensive sign package to the City for review and approval. 16. Bicycle parking shall meet City design standard policies. 17. All fencing must be constructed of a wrought iron designed materials Consistent with the City's commercial fencing standards. No portion of any retaining wall or fence shall encroach within any public right -of -way or upon any parcel that is not owned by Walmart. 18. Tree mitigation plan shall be identified in the development agreement. 19. A certified arborist meeting the City's approval is required as a component of the project. Passed this 5th day of September 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron Stransky, City Clerk - • WHEREAS, Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a drive -up pharmacy window, on property legally described as: {Legal Description) WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on July 23, 2012, and August 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the application request was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on a 9 -to -0 vote recommended approval of the application, subject to certain conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the conditional use permit to allow a drive -up pharmacy window at Walmart, located on the property legally described above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan is approved. 2. The drive -up window shall not cause negative traffic impacts. 3. External customer communication systems shall not be audible from the property line. Passed this 5th day of September 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk •- - • '• WHEREAS, Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has applied for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory recycling collection point and exterior storage area at Walmart, on property legally described as: {Legal Description} WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on July 23, 2012, and August 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the application request was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on a 9 -to -0 vote recommended approval of the application, subject to certain conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the conditional use permit to allow an accessory recycling collection point and exterior storage at Walmart, located on the property legally described above, subject to the following conditions: The site plan is approved. 2. The recycled materials stored on site shall be enclosed at all times. 3. The approved storage area is limited to the accessory exterior storage structure detailed in the approved site plan. 4. All mechanical equipment screening and trash enclosures must include a combination of block and brick, consistent with the principal building. All mechanical equipment must be screened in accordance of City Code Title 11, Chapter 6, Section 3. Trash enclosures and the accessory recycling structure must be constructed of masonry materials that are consistent with the principal structure. 5. The accessory recycling structure shall be maintained at all times and not cause odors or other public nuisances. Resolution No. 2012 -XXX Page 2 of 2 6. No idling of delivery trucks after five minutes on site. 7. Bollards are required in front of the structure. Passed this 5th day of September 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk .. �..� 0 ■ • • • 1 Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has applied to rezone the property at 9338 East Point Douglas Road South from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business; preliminary and final plats to create one 22.5 -acre commercial lot; a site plan review of a 180,000 square foot retail store; and conditional use permits to allow a drive - up pharmacy window and recycling collection point/exterior storage. Burbank summarized the staff report. He explained that the project was publicly noticed as a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD). However, as staff reviewed the applications, it was determined that the project met the criteria for the B -2, Retail Business zoning district, and the PUD overlay was not needed. He recommended approval of all applications, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Wehrle asked where the recycling area would be located. Burbank pointed it out on the site plan, noting that is will be a masonry structure with rock -face block. Eric Miller, MFRA, a local civil engineering consultant representing Walmart, introduced Jim Gallager, PB2 Architecture, who will address architectural questions, and Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, a local land use attorney. He stated that they will answer any questions from the Commission and public. Rostad opened the public hearing. Sharon Fortunak, 7120 Ivystone Avenue South, stated that from a sociology perspective she opposes the Walmart project. She noted that the fagade on the proposed building should be enhanced. Katie Stachowiak, 9499 Jasmine Avenue South, stated her biggest concern is noise issues, and that there is not enough buffering between the residential area and Walmart. She asked if there could be some type of sound wall instead of just trees. Until this meeting, she did not know that the recycling center would be facing their house. She went to the Walmarts in Lakeville, Apple Valley, and Inver Grove Heights, and none have the loading docks, com- pactor, and recycling center directly facing residential areas. At one of the meetings she at- tended, she heard that Walmart proposed delivery hours seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and asked if those hours could be changed to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Matt Fluegel, 9480 Jergen Place South, stated that he is speaking on behalf of the residents that live on top of the hill with backyards and decks facing the drive -in theater. He had asked Mr. Gallagher at the April meeting at the ice arena to provide elevation detail site plans from that neighborhood's perspective because their properties look down at the site and they want to ensure that the heating and air conditioning units, the top and sides of the building, and the truck loading docks are screened. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart— Cases ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP 12,019 July 23, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Rob Thomas, 9497 Jeffery Avenue South, stated he understands that there will be a com- mercial use on that property, but the truck delivery area will be 220 feet from the back of his home. He noted that the mock elevation details they were given are not accurate. Thomas asked about the elevation of the lift station. Burbank responded 808. Thomas expressed concern about the lack of buffering, noting that at the meeting they heard there would be an eight -foot berm but that is not on this plan. He asked for more detail on what the end of Jeffery Avenue would look like. Sherry Holtmeyer, 8996 Jewel Avenue South, asked for more information on how the traffic on the bridge, which is one lane each way, will be addressed. Tracy Hamilton, 9484 Jasmine Avenue South, stated that her home will be within 200 feet of the proposed site. Her biggest concern is her family's privacy. She asked to see the mea- surements from the back of the store to her home. This store is proposed for 24 -hour opera- tion, and the increased traffic and noise would impact her family. She said that the neighbors did not ask for a berm, and would rather have a wall to mitigate safety concerns and for pri- vacy reasons. She is concerned about noise due to the location of the recycling storage area and asked why it has to be at the back of the building. She was told at the meeting in May that the trash compactor runs every 20 minutes and would be audible in neighboring homes. She asked about either a retaining wall with trees or a sound fence. She then asked what a dry pond is and displayed a picture from the Lakeville site, which she hopes it will not look like. She displayed other photos from Lakeville showing the recycling center on the side of the building, noting that it is adjacent to commercial property on the side by the road. She noted that the parking lot is large and suggested moving the building forward to provide more privacy for the neighborhood. Rediske asked City Engineer Levitt if the photograph Hamilton presented shows a dry pond. Levitt responded that without seeing the plans it is hard to know if that was a wet or dry basin or for what kind of filtration system it was designed. Rob Stachowiak, 9499 Jasmine Avenue South, stated that he has multiple issues with this plan, including safety. He noted the Woodbury store is not open 24 hours a day anymore due to safety issues. He is also concerned about traffic. He spoke with the Mayor at the meeting and was told that the traffic issues would be addressed in the future. He stated that the neighborhood asked for a berm. He does not want the recycling center backing up to his property with no buffering. He asked for a 16 -foot tall wood sound wall to help with noise is- sues and truck lights and to keep people out of the backyards. He then expressed concern about drainage from the parking areas, noting that there are already drainage issues in that area. He asked that the plan be revised to take into consideration traffic, noise, light, and drainage issues. Michelle Oliveros, 9488 Jeffery Avenue South, stated that her house is within 200 feet of the proposed Walmart and questioned if a berm was proposed along the residential properties. Burbank responded that the current plans do not include a definitive berm, but that one of the recommended requirements is that prior to going to the City Council, the landscape plan will be revised to show that trees and shrubs along the northern buffering area will be increased in size to further accommodate screening. Rod Gustafson, 9246 East Point Douglas Lane, stated he is concerned about what happens if Walmart decides to vacate the property, which they have done throughout the country, in- Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart — Cases ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12,019 July 23, 2012 Page 3 of 7 cluding in Hastings. There are already many buildings that have been vacant for years. He then stated that when this was first discussed six years ago, it was his understanding that the corporate officials at Walmart said there were not enough roof tops in the area. Jill Korppi, 9250 East Point Douglas Lane, expressed concern about traffic. Currently, there are problems with people running through the stop arms on school buses, and she is con- cerned an increase in traffic would bring more safety issues. Heurung explained that he is a school bus driver for ISD #833, and it is District policy that they cannot go onto private property and down cul -de -sacs. Linda Van Guilder, 9229 East Point Douglas Lane, stated her concern is also about traffic. She does not believe the intersection of Keats Avenue and East Point Douglas Road could accommodate the semi trucks that will deliver to Walmart, so they will probably exit at Jamaica Avenue and drive past the Park Pointe Townhome development. That road is re- duced to one lane in each direction near those properties. She concurred about the school bus safety concerns, noting the East Point Douglas Lane is a private road. She also agrees with Gustafson about Walmart vacating properties. She then stated that in her conversations with Cottage Grove residents at various events, she has only heard two people support this proposal. Brad Conner, 9454 Jeffery Avenue South, stated he is concerned about the inaccuracies on the plan. He stated that these are the same pictures and elevations that the neighborhood was shown at earlier meetings and were told would be revised. His biggest concern is de- creasing property values. He then expressed concern about traffic and the noise from the trash compactor. He has also heard multiple times that there would be an eight -foot berm with eight to ten -foot trees on it. Kathy Lenahan, 6630 90th Street South, expressed her support for this project, noting that most people who agree with a proposal aren't as vocal as those opposed. She stated that the issue regarding school bus safety should be addressed with the school district and the City. She believes Walmart goes out of their way to adapt to the community, and provides jobs and convenience for people in the area. She stated that she goes to the West St. Paul Walmart and then uses other businesses there, but she would rather shop in Cottage Grove. She thanked the City for bringing these types of businesses to Cottage Grove. She thinks it is important to look at the overall benefit to the City. She then stated that the property owners in the adjacent neighborhoods do not own the land where the drive -in is located and should have no expectation that that land would never be developed. Katherine Garringer, 906 Hastings Avenue, St. Paul Park, stated that she transports seniors to grocery and department stores including the Walmart in Woodbury but it would be more convenient to take them to Cottage Grove. She also stated that Walmart will bring thousands of jobs to the area. Asha Sobaskowitz Gardner, Hastings, stated that she grew up in Cottage Grove and her parents live on Langly Avenue. She responded to the comment about future development in the area by noting that the drive -in theater property is zoned residential. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart —Cases ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12,019 July 23, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Alicia Severson, 9470 Jasmine Avenue South, asked for a sound -proof wall to help with the noise, which is her main concern as it will be a 24 -hour store. Mark Grossklaus, 7795 68th Street Court South, explained that the City went through a planning process for the East Ravine, which spanned several years and included many meetings and citizen input. He stated that rezoning to PUD just benefits the developer and not the City, and as the first development in the East Ravine, this would set a precedent. Roland clarified that at the beginning of the meeting it was reported that although this was advertised as being rezoned to a PUD, the developer requested that it be rezoned to B -2 and the City will be following the specific tenets of that district. She stated that staff spoke with the City Attorney, who stated that the City can hold the public hearing this evening with the understanding that the project is consistent with the B -2 district regulations, and that subsequent to the public hearing and prior to the City Council meeting, it will be re- adver- tised and re- noticed for rezoning to B -2 a full ten days prior notice to the City Council meet- ing. Grossklaus asked if this area was residential or commercial in the East Ravine Master Plan. Roland responded that this area was commercial in the East Ravine Master Plan, and it was also guided for commercial in the City's comprehensive plans since 1994. Rostad closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. for a short recess. Rostad called the meeting to order at 9:05 p.m. Jim Gallagher, P132 Architecture and Engineering, 710 West Roselawn, Rogers, Arkansas, addressed store operations. The biggest concerns for the residents behind the proposed store are noise and activity. He explained that there is not a lot of activity at the back of the store. Trucks will access the loading docks but there will not be a constant stream of ve- hicles. The recycling area is where bales of recycled material and empty pallets will be stored. It is an exterior storage use, which requires a conditional use permit. There is a bal- ing machine inside the store. A forklift brings the pallets of material to the storage area. The material is stored there until picked up by a truck every few days. The area is enclosed with three walls and is open to the back of the store. The rear wall is 12 feet high and will match the exterior materials of the building. Everything must be stored below the level of the wall. The truck docks will have a 14 -foot high wall screening them from the back with a four -foot deep pit. He explained that Walmart policy is that trucks cannot idle behind the store. The compactor is also at the back of the building, but he does not believe that it would be used every 20 minutes 24 hours a day. He explained that the 220 feet is from the back of the building to the north edge of the easement, and the houses will be about 300 feet from the building. Rob Stachowiak stated that he would like a sound barrier. He asked where the trucks come in. Gallagher pointed out the truck route on the site plan. Stachowiak pointed out that his house is at the turn - around point for the trucks. He noted that he was told that Walmart had deliveries seven days a week with an average of six trucks a day. He again expressed con- cern about noise issues from idling trucks, the compactor, and the forklift. Gallagher explained that they did not survey areas that were outside of their property. He stated that after the ice arena meeting, they rechecked their data. He pointed out elevations of various areas between the residential properties and the proposed building. The neigh- Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart —Cases ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12,019 July 23, 2012 Page 5 of 7 bors stated that the rendering did not portray the elevations correctly. Gallagher stated that the rendering shows what the area will look like on the final plan. Rostad stated that clarifica- tion is needed prior to going to the City Council. Burbank stated that staff may be able to get some of the missing survey data from when construction was done for the sanitary sewer easements. Ventura asked for data on decibel levels for the trash compactor. Burbank responded that no information was submitted on decibel levels for the trash compactor but staff would research that. Rostad asked if the trash compactor is inside or outside the store. Gallagher stated that the compactor is outside the building but there is a masonry wall higher than the unit enclosing it. Ventura noted that there is no roof structure on it. Rediske asked if the gas pipeline is the reason there cannot be a berm in the easement area. Burbank responded that there are cut and fill restrictions and vegetation management requirements in the gas pipeline area. There is some ability for landscaping on the regional sanitary sewer easement. Rediske asked if the landscaping would be for noise reduction. Burbank explained that the landscaping would be for a variety of purposes within the areas that the City owns, including noise screening, park and recreation amenities, and wildlife habitat. Rediske then asked how many parking spaces there would be and what the mini- mum number is. Burbank stated 859 spaces are proposed and 830 spaces is the minimum required. Rediske asked if it would be possible to remove some of the parking spaces and move the building closer to the road to create a more area for landscaping to help mitigate noise issues. Burbank stated that there would be many facets involved in shifting the site forward to add buffering, including roadway widths, truck turnarounds, ingress /egress points, and location of utilities. Rostad noted that all that may be gained in the back is the width of a parking space based on how the parking lot is laid out. Ventura asked if a sound wall is not feasible due to elevation differences between the site and residences. Burbank responded that is one component. Heurung stated one of his concerns is the effect Walmart would have on existing businesses in the community. He noted that in the past Walmart itself said that there were not enough rooftops in this area. There are Walmarts in Hastings, Woodbury, and West St. Paul, so this Walmart would mainly be dependent on the population of Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park, and Newport, and he does not see how this area could support another business of this size after several other large retailers closed. Reese asked about the traffic flow for the pharmacy drive -up. Burbank pointed out the traffic pattern for the pharmacy drive - through on the site plan. Reese asked about the dimensions of the ingress /egress from East Point Douglas Road. Gallagher responded it is 36 feet wide. Reese expressed concern about traffic in the area, noting that currently during the afternoon rush hour traffic accessing businesses in the area backs up onto Jamaica; the Highway 61 bridge is inadequate; and East Point Douglas Road has two lanes where the proposed Walmart will be. He asked why the roadway improvements are being done in phases instead of at one time. Burbank stated that the Phase I roadway improvements that are part of this project would handle the traffic from this proposed use. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart— Cases ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12,019 July 23, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Reese asked why the Public Safety Commission did not review the plan before the Planning Commission. Roland stated that the plans were submitted to the Public Safety Commission for their review but their meeting was canceled. The Public Safety Department has reviewed the plan, and their comments were incorporated into the initial site revision. Reese asked what improvements will be done for Phase I. Miller stated that they worked with City staff and Washington County on the traffic study. They anticipate 15 percent of the traf- fic to come from north on County Road 19, 20 percent to come south on Highway 61, 25 percent to come from the north on Highway 61, 35 percent to come west on East Point Douglas Road, and 5 percent to come from the south on County Road 19. With the proposed improvements, all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service. Levitt explained that Washington County, who has jurisdiction over CSAH 19, has indicated that they will only be requiring a right turn lane on East Point Douglas Road. The County does not want all -way stops at the intersections of East Point Douglas Road and the off -ramps from Highway 61. They feel that in its current condition, traffic will flow appropriately, but they will monitor the traffic patterns. A future signal may be warranted depending on traffic movements. Reese asked if there any concerns about queuing of traffic off Highway 61 onto County Road 19, which is currently an issue and how vehicle trips will increase per day. Miller responded that the new store will generate approximately 8,000 trips per day. He reiterated that the traf- fic plan has been reviewed by City staff and consultants along with Washington County. The County provided a letter supporting the operating conditions of the intersections with the proposed improvements as recommended and will evaluate if future traffic control measures will be needed. Miller then provided an explanation of the traffic study and the levels of ser- vice during peak hours on Highway 61 and CSAH 19. Reese asked what they expect the traffic levels to be during the PM hours off the Highway 61 /Jamaica Avenue exit. Miller re- sponded that the scope of their analysis was specific to Highway 61, CSAH 19, and East Point Douglas Road; they did not evaluate the level of service on Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica and Highway 61, or Jamaica and East Point Douglas Road. Reese expressed concern that traffic impacts on that area were not looked at due to the current heavy traffic load. Levitt re- sponded that the Jamaica roundabouts were designed based on current and future land uses along East and West Point Douglas Roads. She also stated that the intersections in the area will be able to function appropriately with the increased traffic for Walmart. Burbank clarified the Phase I and Phase II road improvements. The Phase II improvements will be done when the other properties that will benefit from that roadway construction project are developed. If Phase II was done now, the current benefiting property owners would be assessed for those improvements. The applicant will fund the Phase I road construction costs attributable to their development. Peter Coyle, Land Use Counsel for Walmart, stated that a lot of good comments and feed- back were heard this evening. The biggest concern from the residents relates to the rear view of the building. He asked the Planning Commission to lay these applications over to give them a chance to review the rear perspective to see if they can identify ways the screening issue can be addressed that is acceptable to the City and the residents. Rostad stated that the two issues brought up were traffic concerns and buffering between the rear of the store and the residential neighborhood. Ventura added that the buffering also Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart — Cases ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP 12,019 July 23, 2012 Page 7 of 7 involves noise issues, not just the view. She asked for clarification as to what noises are generated at what decibels during what hours. Reese asked how much land Walmart purchased and how much is being used on this project. Miller responded that the total development tract is 23.55 acres, and that Outlots A, B, and C would be dedicated to the City for public use, including as park /open space, storm - water ponding, and roadway easements. Reese asked if the amount of parking was driven by the City's ordinance or by the store's needs. Miller responded that they are complying with the City's B -2 ordinance for parking stalls, which requires 830 stalls. In addition, their client's base minimum for a store is a 4.5 parking ratio and they are within a few stalls of their base minimum parking ratio as well. This proposal meets both the needs of the City and their client. Heurung made a motion to table the application for further review of traffic issues and buffering. Ventura seconded. Reese asked if the motion could be amended to add Public Safety Commission review of the application. Heurung and Ventura agreed to the amendment. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). . 1 III I I F I IF 1 1 1 `: 1 • -• NOW I I III lllliliiiill Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has applied to rezone the property at 9338 East Point Douglas Road South from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business; preliminary and final plats to create one 23.55 -acre commercial lot; a site plan review of a 177,808 square foot retail store; and conditional use permits to allow a drive - up pharmacy window and recycling collection pointlexterior storage. Burbank summarized the staff report. He recommended approval of all applications, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Roland thanked the Metropolitan Council and Mayor Bailey for their assistance in the crea- tion of the proposed berming and buffering area between the residential and commercial properties, which is in excess of the City's ordinance requirements and exceeds other buffers in the City. She noted that at the July Planning Commission meeting, staff conveyed inaccurate information regarding the berm and buffer area. (Reese arrived at 7:23 p.m.) Eric Miller, MFRA, the Civil Engineering Consultant for Wal -Mart Stores, 14800 28th Avenue North, Suite 140, Plymouth, Minnesota, stated that an issue brought up at the July meeting was the credibility of the perspectives for Jeffery and Jasmine Avenues. He stated that they re- evaluated those perspectives and enhanced them. He displayed the perspectives of the current conditions and the proposed project. He explained that they worked closely with the Met Council on what could be done within the interceptor easement. The Met Council will allow landscaping within 10 feet of the interceptor sewer. He displayed the landscape plan for that area, which includes a lot of coniferous trees and larger deciduous trees to help screen the baling and organic recycling areas along with general screening of the activity behind the building. Miller then reported that they did a noise assessment to analyze how to mitigate noise concerns and introduced their acoustical consultant. David Braslau, President of David Braslau Associates, 6603 Queen Avenue South, Suite N, Richfield, Minnesota, explained that they looked at the noise emanating from rooftop mechanical units, truck movements in the dock area, and the compactor at the back of the building. They utilized State noise standards, which supersede local ordinances. He provided a presentation on the existing noise levels in the area and the noise levels that could be expected from the proposed Walmart project. In conclusion, the study shows the project will not exceed the noise standards, and the proposed mitigation features appear to be functional. Miller provided information on lighting levels. They are proposing LED lighting, which would be downcast with full cut -off in accordance with City regulations. Light spillage at the front and side property lines is in accordance with City regulations. Along the back property line, there will be no light spillage. Kevin Kielb, Bolton & Menk, 2035 County Road B East, Suite B, Maplewood, Minnesota, provided a presentation regarding traffic impacts from the proposed project. The presenta- Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 2 of 11 tion covered East Point Douglas Road, the intersection of Jamaica Avenue and East Point Douglas Road, and the intersection of Highway 61, CSAH 19, and East Point Douglas Road, which included current conditions and the proposed Phase I and Phase II roadway improve- ments. He concluded that the intersection level of service would improve with the proposed project. Heurung asked what the oval on East Point Douglas Road depicted. Kielb responded that is the intersection with the future Ravine Parkway extension and is shown on the drawing to depict how the roadway network and traffic stacking in the area would perform. Brittain stated in the Public Safety notes there was a discussion about a right -in /right -out for the intersection between Cub and Yo- Joe's. Burbank responded that the Public Safety Commission recommended doing the improvements with further study on that intersection. Heurung asked if there would eventually be a traffic signal at CSAH 19 and Highway 61. Kielb responded that Washington County, who has jurisdiction of that road, wants to keep it as is and monitor the traffic patterns. They have considered the possibility that a temporary signal could be warranted at that location as the area continues to grow. Once the full County reconstruction of CSAH 19 and the Highway 61 interchange occurs, there will most likely be signals at those locations. Heurung expressed concern about traffic backing up at those intersections, particularly when 3M has shift changes. Mike Boex, Bolton & Menk, explained that with the proposed Walmart development, the ex- tension of both Jeffery and Jasmine Avenues will no longer be necessary; the temporary turnarounds will be converted into permanent turnarounds. He provided drawings showing how the Jeffery and Jasmine Avenue cul -de -sacs will look. Boex then discussed the public and private utilities that will be necessary for this project and displayed the utility plans. Brad Schleeter, Stantec Consulting, 2335 West Highway 36, St. Paul, Minnesota, provided information on the stormwater elements on the site and how that fits within the regional con- text of Drainage District ERA9. The Walmart property will make up about 24 acres of the total area of 125 acres. Burbank discussed tree mitigation for the site and displayed an orthophoto from 2009 showing the existing vegetation. He also provided the tree inventory for that site, and stated that the City Forester evaluated the trees. The vegetation on the northern portion of the property will not be disturbed by the proposed project. The vegetation south of the easement area would be disturbed during grading activity. The City has a tree mitigation ordinance that addresses tree removal as part of development. He stated that based on the amount of trees to be removed, tree mitigation would be required. Jim Gallagher, PB2 Architecture and Engineering, 710 West Roselawn, Rogers, Arkansas, stated that they have not changed the building but have provided more detailed information on what it will look like. He displayed renderings of the building elevations and signage. He explained that they are requesting a deviation from the maximum wall signage allowed, which is 200 feet per wall with a maximum of 300 feet total; they are asking for 690 feet. The signs on the building are of two different characters; the first type identifies the building as Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 3 of 11 Walmart and is in the middle, and the others are directional signs showing customers what part of the building they will likely find the merchandise they are looking for. Rediske asked what makes this store a Super Walmart. Gallagher responded that is a dis- tinction that Walmart is doing away with. Some stores only have general merchandise and maybe a garden center or a tire and lube express but limited or no groceries. All the stores Walmart is currently building meet the Super Walmart category so they are dropping the term. Rediske asked if there will be an auto center at this Walmart. Gallagher responded no. Heurung asked if this was a 24 -hour store, noting that was what he thought Super Walmart meant. Gallagher responded yes, and that is another distinction. Roland clarified that the Planning Commission is not being asked to comment on the sign package; that is one of the conditions for the City Council to review. Miller provided information on the site features, including the remote pharmacy facility; sus - tainability features from their recycling programs; and their pallet, bale, and organic recycling area. Burbank summarized the discussions and recommendations from the Public Works Com- mission; Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission; Public Safety, Health and Welfare Commission; and the Economic Development Authority. Roland clarified for the record that the Planning Commission's responsibility to review residential, commercial, and industrial development proposals and determine whether site plans for developments con- form to the principals and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and City ordinances. Harter asked if the City is confident that the intersection by Cub will be safe as the traffic in- creases. Burbank stated that is the area identified by the Public Safety Commission for addi- tional review in the future. Brittain asked if the 100 -foot right -of -way should be added to the conditions. Burbank re- sponded yes. Brittain asked when the proposed sidewalk on the north side of East Point Douglas Road would connect with the sidewalk in front of Menards. Burbank stated with the Phase I development. Ventura stated that at the July meeting concern was expressed by the townhouse residents about school bus pickup safety and asked if that had been looked at. Burbank responded that he has not contacted the School District regarding that issue, but their standard policies related to bus stops along major arterials or collector roads would be followed. Heurung stated that he is a school bus driver for ISD #833 and there is a large turn around in the middle of the complex that is adequate for a bus stop. Rostad explained that there are four areas that the Planning Commission is being asked to take action on: zoning change, preliminary plat, site plan, and conditional use permits. The comments and questions to the Commission should address only those issues. He stated that during the public testimony, staff will take notes on the questions and issues raised and responses will be given after everyone has spoken. Rostad opened the public hearing. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 4 of 11 Tracy Hamilton, 9484 Jasmine Avenue South, asked if the existing noise in the area is fig- ured into the final results or is that in addition to the highway noise already there. She asked if there would be room for a fence on top of the berm to take away some of the sound. She does appreciate the proposed improvements but is still concerned about noise issues. She also asked for clarification about diesel fumes. Glen Peper, 9415 Jeffery Avenue South, asked if there will be an assessment for the two cul -de -sacs. He also asked what times construction would take place. Dan Koneczny, 9230 East Point Douglas Lane South, asked if there has been any study rel- ative to light levels impacting the view of the night sky. He is also concerned about the in- crease of traffic because the only egress point from their subdivision is onto East Point Douglas Road. He asked if the economic impact on existing businesses has been looked at. Rostad stated that this Commission is primarily charged with the zoning, platting, and site plan of the Walmart proposal and does not have jurisdiction regarding economic impacts. Burbank reported that a retail study was completed in 2009 that addresses the commercial vitality of the community now and in the future. Brad Conner, 9454 Jeffery Avenue South, asked for clarification on how the drainage in the area by depression behind the store will be handled. He also asked for more detail on the proposed berming and screening. He is not completely clear on the elevations and what is being proposed. Rostad closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. for a short recess. Rostad called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. Miller responded to the question regarding the noise study. He explained that the noise study analyzed two different components, the ambient condition and the proposed condition. The ambient condition decibel readings were between 30 and 50, depending on time of day and highway traffic. The proposed condition ranged from 42 to 47, dependent on what source is looked at. The models used were for the worst case scenario, with every rooftop unit run- ning, trash compactor running, all truck docks being used, and trucks entering and exiting. They believe they are in compliance with the tightest threshold the required by the state with the worst possible scenario. Miller then responded about adding a fence to the berm stated that the mitigation measures as proposed adequately screen noise, light, and pollution in ac- cordance with regulations. He explained that the trees and berming will help mitigate issues with diesel fumes, along with Walmart's strict no idling in the bay policy. Regarding the ef- fects of the lighting on the night sky view, Miller reported that Walmart is at the industry fore- front in reducing sky pollution from lighting in accordance with the Dark Sky Association standards. All their lights will LED, downcast, and have full cutoff which directs the lighting where they want it to go. Ventura asked how the diesel fumes in one of those bays would compare with the fumes from a truck passing a child on a street corner. Miller responded that it was not reviewed to that level. Brittain suggested that more research could be done on diesel fumes prior to City Council review. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 5 of 11 Roland responded to the question regarding assessing for the cul -de -sacs that the recon- struction of those cul -de -sacs will not be assessed to those homeowners. However, they could be assessed for future scheduled pavement management projects. McCool stated regarding hours of construction, City ordinances allow for grading operations to occur from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., but once they have the shell of the building constructed, they can work on the inside anytime. Kielb stated that as part of their analysis they do traffic counts to find out how much traffic is currently using the roadway and use projections to determine how many vehicles per day would use it in the future. The initial projections were performed by Walmart and verified by Washington County and the City of Cottage Grove. He provided more details on the traffic study and future projections. Schleeter responded to the question regarding drainage on the north side of the berm north of the building. He clarified that there is an existing dry stormwater pond north of the property into which drainage from Jeffery and Jasmine is directed. The outlet for that basin goes to the north and that system is remaining in place. The depression area is where flows come in and drain over land to the south. With the proposed berm, drainage to the south will be blocked, so a storm pipe will be put in to take the drainage and route it around the site. Burbank provided details on the increased elevations of the new berm. He gave further in- formation on the landscape plan, noting that it meets ordinance requirements. Any additional mitigation and increase in size or densities in that area would be identified and negotiated through this process and will be included in the final development agreement. A commitment was also made to the neighbors to review with them if any changes need to be made after the two landscaping phases are completed. McCool noted that Jeffery Avenue is at a higher elevation, and due to location of the Metropolitan Council's odor reduction station there, it is a little more open with less landscaping. Staff will visit with the Met Council to see if addi- tional berming and plantings could be added on the south side of their property. Reese asked when Jeffery and Jasmine Avenues are scheduled for pavement management improvements. Roland responded within the next five years dependent on the re- evaluation of the City's pavement management program. Reese asked how the height of the light poles compares to other businesses. McCool responded staff would have to check those plans but City ordinance does not establish any height limitations for parking lot lights. Reese then asked if there was going to be any outdoor storage on the site, such as storing garden center items in the parking lot. McCool responded they would need to apply for an interim condi- tional use permit for a seasonal garden center; however, they do have an attached garden center on the southwest corner of the building. Exterior storage beyond what was approved would require another conditional use permit. Reese asked about if flooding onto Jeffery Avenue during heavy rainfalls could occur due to the berm. Burbank responded that was looked at during the planning process. Reese asked if the traffic modeling addressed week- end traffic, which includes a lot of out of town traffic to Menards. He also noted that the Public Safety Commission believes most of the traffic will come from East Point Douglas and Jamaica and not from CSAH 19 and Highway 61. He would prefer to deal with traffic issues before the store opens instead of waiting to see how it flows and frustrating people. He would like to have the traffic study show the reality of the traffic at that intersection on a daily Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 6 of 11 basis instead of the average. Roland responded that Phase I of the road expansion will handle the flow of traffic from the Menards area. Burbank responded that Public Safety Commission made assumptions based on their personal experiences. The turn land is Washington County's jurisdiction. The City is putting in the turn lane. Walmart will provide funding in escrow for stop signs or temporary signals as part of this application. Rostad asked about the time frame for taking action if there are traffic issues. Reese asked again about the intersection of Highway 61 and CSAH 19. Kielb responded that the County's explanation for this proposal is that it would be counterintuitive to have a four -way stop ahead of the ramps. Also if a four -way stop on CSAH 19 would require all vehicles heading north on CSAH 19 to stop, which would cause traffic to back up into the interchange area. Washington County wants the intersection to stay in its current condition but is ready to react fairly quickly to put in an all -way stop at that point. He stated that the traffic study does look at the peak hours. Harter asked what the worst case scenario is for East Point Douglas Road and Jamaica Avenue for the amount of traffic in that area. Burbank provided traffic count number for that area. Harter asked if Walmart will provide funding to handle potential problems at that inter- section. Roland responded that the proposals in the packet regarding the East Point Douglas Road /Jamaica Avenue intersection were studied as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and the changes suggested will be implemented with the Phase I roadway improvements. Those costs are included in the plan. Rediske asked if roundabouts had been discussed for the CSAH 19 /Highway 61 /East Point Douglas Road intersections. Kielb responded that an intersection control analysis was done to determine the best means of traffic control at that location. Based on that analysis, a tem- porary traffic signal would be the best option at the East Point Douglas Road and CSAH 19 intersection, but a complete study needs to be done before any changes are made. Burbank stated that the Southwest Transportation Study looked at the realignment of that intersection. Rostad asked if there was any further discussion on the zoning amendment. Reese made a motion to approve the zoning amendment from R -4, Low Density Resi- dential, to B -2, Retail Business, based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. Findings for Approval — Zonin_g Amendment: A. Zoning is compliant with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. B. State Statutes require zoning and land use be consistent. C. The proposed zoning and site plan are cohesive with this land use and planning area. Conditions of Approval — onin_g Amendment: 1. The rezoning of the property from R -4, Low Density Residential ,to B -2, General Business, is only for the 23.55 -acre portion of property identified in the planning staff report as the development site. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 7 of 11 2. The Final Plat for a 23.55-acre parcel is approved and recorded with Washin C Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was any further discussion on the preliminary plat application. Burbank recommended adding a condition regarding the 100 -foot right -of -way as part of the motion. Ventura made a motion to approve the preliminary plat, based on the findings for ap- proval and subject to the conditions listed below, with a change requiring a 100 -foot right-of-way. Rediske seconded. Findings for Approval — Preliminary Plat. A. The proposed plat is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. B. The Plat creates lots with minimum public frontage. C. The plat creates additional outlots for the benefit of the general public. D. The plat creates additional drainage and utility easements for the benefit of the general public. E. The plat creates additional right -of -way for the benefit of the general public. Conditions of Approval — Preliminary Plat. 1. The Property is zoned B -2. 2. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdi- vision, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 3. Dedication of public right -of -way as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Dedication of public drainage and utility easements as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 5. Park dedication requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved development agreement for this subdivision. 6. Area charge requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved develop- ment agreement for this subdivision. 7. The preliminary plat shall follow the City's standard street naming policy. 8. The proposed Outlot C shall not be platted as an Outlot. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 8 of 11 9. The area proposed as Outlot C shall be identified on the plat as a public drainage and utility easement. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was further discussion regarding the site plan review. Reese asked about the tail hook in the access drive coming from the west. Miller responded that is a best management practice to get that access to align 90 degrees with the primary roadway. Reese asked if all the landscaping going into the berm has taken away from landscaping in the parking areas. Burbank responded that the landscape plan meets the ordinance criteria; any additional landscaping on future public open space would be as a part of the tree mitiga- tion plan. They will fund that account, and the City will plant under contract. Brittain asked along with the landscaping in the parking lot, if staff's recommendation to in- crease the landscaping closer to the building was captured in the conditions. Burbank stated it is part of the condition requiring the islands in the front and staff has had discussions with the applicant about landscaping and sizing. Miller stated that they will work with staff on it. They are not allowed to put landscape islands in certain ADA areas, where there is a vertical change in elevation, and could become an impediment or hazard. Rostad asked who de- cides what types of trees are planted. Burbank responded the City Forester is part of the landscaping review process. Also, the City is requiring that they contract with a certified arborist. Reese made a motion to approve the site plan for a 177,808 square foot retail store, based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. Findings for Approval — Site Plan: A. The site schematic and design is consistent with the City's site development standards. B. The proposed site plan meets or exceeds the buffering and landscaping requirements between adjacent land uses. Conditions of Approval — Site Plan: 1. The preliminary plat is approved. 2. All site, utility, landscaping and building plans must be revised prior to submit- tal of the application to the City Council. 3. Final drainage plans must be submitted to the South Washington Watershed District for review. 4. All revisions to utility and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 9 of 11 5. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, etc.) must be issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. Detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 6. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for the additional required plantings and increased buffering vegetation sizes along the northern portion of the property. 7. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking lot, The irrigation system shall consist of an underground sprinkling system that is designed by a professional irrigation installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. 8. Concrete aprons for all private access drives shall be constructed per City requirements. 9. All site lighting must meet City Code requirements. All light fixtures must be downward directed with cut -offs. The specifications of all light fixtures must be provided with the application for a building permit. 10. Final architectural plans, lighting details, and exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES 11 Permit requirements. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to com- mencement of any grading activity. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10 -5 -8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 12. Permanent or temporary construction easements are required on any area in- cluded in the site grading and surface water management component of the project. 13. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring that all required temporary con- struction easements, storm water and access cross easement documentation are completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. The applicant must provide the City with an as -built survey of all private utilities prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a compre- hensive sign package to the City for review and approval. 16. Bicycle parking shall meet City design standard policies. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 10 of 11 17. All fencing must be constructed of a wrought iron designed materials Consis- tent with the City's commercial fencing standards. No portion of any retaining wall or fence shall encroach within any public right -of -way or upon any parcel that is not owned by Walmart. 18. Tree mitigation plan shall be identified in the development agreement. 19. A certified arborist meeting the City's approval is required as a component of the project. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was further discussion on the conditional use permit for the pharmacy drive -up window. Reese made a motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing a drive -up pharmacy, subject to the conditions listed below. Ventura seconded. 1. The site plan is approved. 2. The drive -up window shall not cause negative traffic impacts. 3. External customer communication systems shall not be audible from the property line. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Rostad asked if there was further discussion on the conditional use permit for the accessory recycling collection point/exterior storage. Wehrle made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the recycling collec- tion pointlexterior storage, subject to the conditions listed below. Pearson seconded. 1. The site plan is approved. 2. The recycled materials stored on site shall be enclosed at all times. 3. The approved storage area is limited to the accessory exterior storage structure detailed in the approved site plan. 4. All mechanical equipment screening and trash enclosures must include a com- bination of block and brick, consistent with the principal building. All mechani- cal equipment must be screened in accordance of City Code Title 11, Chapter 6, Section 3. Trash enclosures and the accessory recycling structure must be constructed of masonry materials that are consistent with the principal structure. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Walmart: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Page 11 of 11 5. The accessory recycling structure shall be maintained at all times and not cause odors or other public nuisances. 6. No idling of delivery trucks after five minutes on site. 7. Bollards are required in front of the structure. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Burbank announced that the applications for the proposed Walmart will be on the agenda for the September 5, 2012, City Council meeting. Staff will provide additional information to the Council as part of the approvals from this meeting. The Council report will be available for viewing Friday afternoon, August 31. Roland thanked the Planning Commission, residents, and applicant for their patience during the presentation this evening. STAFF REPORT CASES: ZAl2 -015, PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018, CUP12 -019 ITEM: 6.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 8/27/12 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 915/12 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc. REQUEST: Rezoning from R -4, Low Density Residential to B -2, Retail Business; preliminary and final plats to create one 23.55 -acre commercial lot; site plan review of a 177,808 square foot retail store; and conditional use permits to allow a drive -up pharmacy window and recycling collection point/exterior storage. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: 9338 East Point Douglas Road South R -4, Low Density Residential NORTH: Residential EAST: Fallow Agricultural SOUTH: Highway 61 WEST: Commercial SIZE: 177,808 square foot building on 23.55 acres DENSITY: N/A RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION Planning Staff Contact: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner, 651 - 458 -2825 j b urban k(aD- cotta q e -g rove. o rq GACITYFILES \12 CITYFILES \015ZA Walmart\Planning\ZAl2 -015 Walmart SR cover 7- 23- 12.docx Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart Planning Cases ZAl2 -015, Case PP12 -016, FP12 -017, SP12 -018 and CUP12 -019 August 27, 2012 Proposal Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., has filed the following planning appli- cations: • Zoning Amendment — Rezone approximately 23.55 acres of land from Low Density Resi- dential (R -4) to Retail Business (B -2) • Preliminary Plat — Plat a 23.55 -acre parcel from a 51.68 -acre taxing parcel • Final Plat • Site Plan Review — Walmart Store Development Plan • Conditional Use Permit for a drive -up window and exterior storage of recycling materials Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc., proposes to construct a 177,808 gross square foot retail building on a 23.55 -acre parcel located at 9338 East Point Douglas Road. Other retail businesses inside the proposed Walmart Store will include a pharmacy and ancillary commercial uses like food, optometry, and /or banking services. On -site stormwater manage- ment facilities and 859 parking spaces are proposed with the development plan. lu r. Location Map In addition to the graphic details included in this report, larger copies of plans and graphic renderings are included at the end of the report. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 2 of 56 1 t \ *, '. I '.✓'� I .'�e .may. r v R Wt i� Proposed Site Development Planning Considerations Planning Considerations — Planning Commission Role and Planning Review Process The Planning Commission is a nine - member advisory commission appointed by the City Council. The following Minnesota Statutes convey the authority for Cities to establish planning com- missions: • For cities, MS § 462.354 — Organization for planning • For local government units within the seven county metropolitan area, MS § 473.858 — Comprehensive plans; local governmental units The actions of the Planning Commission must be consistent with MS § 462.351 to 463.364 (Municipal Planning Act). Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 3 of 56 In accordance with the Statutes, City Code Title 2, Chapter 4 establishes the Planning Com- mission. In summary, the responsibilities that the Cottage Grove Planning Commission in their advisory role to the City Council and in accordance with the Municipal Land Planning Act has historically been tasked with the following: • Conduct public hearings when required by state and municipal law and listen to testimony from citizens and other interested parties. • Prepare and keep current a comprehensive general plan for meeting present and future needs as may be foreseen, based on demographic and statistical trends and data available (Future Vision 2030); • Review residential, commercial, and industrial development proposals; • Determine whether Site Plans for developments conform to the principles and require- ments for the comprehensive plan and city ordinances; • Review proposed amendments to the zoning, subdivision, and sign ordinances; • Review application requests for rezoning, zoning appeals, variances, interim conditional use permits, and conditional use permits; • Review the City Capital Improvements Program; • Participate in the creation of other plan - related implementation tools of the City; • Keep the public informed and advised as to all planning and development matters; The role of the current Planning Commission is consistent with the stated Commission Tasks. Planning Considerations — Planning Application Review Process All parties interested in subdividing and developing property must complete a planning applica- tion and submit the application and supporting documents to the City's Planning Division. City staff reviews the applications for completeness. After determining if the proposal meets the re- quirements for use of the land, the developer makes a formal application to the City. Staff mem- bers from multiple departments, including Planning, Building, Engineering, Public Works, and Public Safety, review the application to assure consistency with the City's ordinances and long- term plans, good site design, and planning principles. The application is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission. Certain applications, such as preliminary plats, conditional use permits, rezoning, and comprehensive plan amendments, require a public hearing at a Planning Commission meeting. Prior to a public hearing, notice is published in the South Washington County Bulletin and mailed to surrounding property owners that are within 500 feet of the project site. State Law requires a 300 -foot notification distance. The public hearing is an opportunity for citizens to obtain information about the applications, ask questions, and provide input to the Planning Commission members. The Commissioners con- sider the legal rights of property owners to develop their property, public input, and staff com- ments. Based on their findings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. Planning Considerations — City Council Application Review Process The City Council considers the Planning Commission's recommendation, public testimony, and all other background reports to make a final decision. It is important to remember that the City Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 4 of 56 must approve an application from a landowner if it conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and City ordinances. If Council approves the proposal, the developer can begin to obtain permits for grading and construction. State law allows a maximum of 120 days for the City to act on the de- velopment application after it is accepted for processing, unless extended by the applicant. The review period for this project has been extended to September 20 at the request of the appli- cant's legal counsel. Planning Considerations — Background The property is currently used commercially as the site of the Cottage View Drive -In. The unde- veloped areas of this site consist of grasses, shrubs, fallow farmland, and trees in a variety of species and maturity. The site lies in the Cottage View Planning District located in Neighborhood 1 South of the East Ravine Master Plan. This application is the first commercial development proposed for the East Ravine. East Ravine Neighborhood 1 South Detail Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 5 of 56 Neighborhood ? South (Cottage View) � •if ,} '�`.' �i Cottage View Area Detail Since the submittal of the project's applications, several meetings were held with the property owners within this planning district, the City, and Washington County to begin project coordina- tion. A sketch plan addressing the conceptual details of future grading, transportation, and access was prepared by one of the owners and used for discussion by the assembled group. In addition to detailing the routing of the planned Phase I and Phase II road improvement align- ments, the sketch also identified the extension of a future public local service road that would serve the remaining undeveloped property in this Planning District. The planning exercise was productive in assuring that all the important development compo- nents of the area will work when future development occurs. This coordination of development concepts was a premise and key component of the East Ravine Master Planning process. Commercial design elements and layout for this area were incorporated into the proposed Walmart project. Results from these meetings are not binding nor approved by the owners or City. ��a. \�`� , ( j '•} �� Il - C-ndec6.ped Pmprrn `\ a al \R inter.cclinn RI S C'.. Rd 19 �\ ! C'altaga• Gmec \IS Wd Ir\ _ l `.�,�, ` �; •,/ lie lYrtY,%er l'.mP.nM Conceptual Relationship Sketch Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 6 of 56 Comprehensive Plan Review Comprehensive Plan — Land Use The Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2011. The Future Land Use 2030 map (Figure 2 -6 of the Comprehensive Plan) shows a com- mercial land use for the property proposed for the Walmart project. The vast majority of the land use designations for this property and other properties in its vicinity have been designated for commercial land uses since the adoption of the East Ravine Master Plan in 2005. The northern portion of the application site includes an area adjacent to the existing residential area that is guided as Park and Private Open Space in the 2030 Plan, which is for lands designated for pre- servation as open space. This designation area coincides with the areas of the parcel that are encumbered with existing gas line and regional sanitary sewer easements. The 2030 Future Parks and Open Space plan (Figure 5 -2) details this open space area, and the 2030 Future Trailway Plan (Figure 5 -7) identifies a future recreation trail in the designated open space. The proposed Walmart project is consistent with the approved 2030 Comprehensive Plan and no changes are requested or required to the Comprehensive Plan. The online link to the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive plan is: http: / /www.cottage- grove.orq /images /planning /cq comp plan 2030.pdf The Future Land Use 2030 map from the current Comprehensive Plan is shown below. 2030 Future Land Use Plan a 1W ������i� 1'r ■ y W �VL�1�� ' 1 z tt ♦ ! *Rll�i ■■■ MEN All! ��i lit 'T Rlt t=•7i� - M >•�!■■D f � 2030 Future Land Use Plan Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 7 of 56 Comprehensive Plan — Urban Services An additional component of the comprehensive planning process is the establishment of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) for the community and region and related develop- ment staging of those serviced areas. The site is located in the 2020 MUSA and has the ability to be serviced with public utilities from adjacent contiguous developed properties. The detail below is an excerpt from the Metropolitan Council's MUSA map for the City of Cottage Grove. Metropolitan council MUSA map — cottage urove uetan One of the purposes of establishing the MUSA, is to ensure that local and regional sanitary sewer infrastructure and treatment capacities are not compromised by new development. The average sewer load for this prototype store is 4,584 gallons per day based upon 90 percent of the average domestic water demand which equates to an annual sewer load of approximately 1,673,000 gallons. This sewer use estimate equates to a 0.2 percent increase in the City's daily sanitary sewer flowage and will not negatively impact local or regional urban sanitary services. The projected timeframe for the development of the application property is consistent with the City's adopted 2030 Development Staging Plan (Figure 2 -7 Future Vision 2030). Zoning Review Zoning — Existing and Proposed The current zoning for both sites is R -4, Low Density Residential. During the 2030 and previous Comprehensive Planning processes, the City identified that this property and surrounding prop- erties would need to be rezoned to commercial as State Statutes require that the zoning be consistent with the adopted land use plan. The City has historically not rezoned commercial properties to be synchronized with the land use plan without a specific development project as- sociated with the zoning change. This course of action allows the City additional control over the development process for the major land use areas in the community. The proposed zoning for the developing portion of the site is B -2, Retail Business. The retail, pharmacy, liquor, and other uses proposed for this project are allowed as permitted or condi- tioned uses within the B -2 district. The ordinance criteria for all commercial zoning districts t bleo-opek*s Sewer system Lo g Sews. system 1 i Ch = 1.098692 Mies _ 2010 MUSA UM- ignited MUSA 20f0 MVSA No AIVSA Intersta'e Highway o — — .. Malmo Mghh Y ..ra.e- ..— .... :... -� .e.�v.,...,.— ,.n— �,.— ...... .v ��' .._....- ....�- ...... ...— ........ 2020 MUSA Undeeignst d MUSA 2020 MUSA. Private System Com uniy Boundary Reserve County Bamdary 20'A A!USA �� MUSA Metropolitan Council u _ Metropolitan council MUSA map — cottage urove uetan One of the purposes of establishing the MUSA, is to ensure that local and regional sanitary sewer infrastructure and treatment capacities are not compromised by new development. The average sewer load for this prototype store is 4,584 gallons per day based upon 90 percent of the average domestic water demand which equates to an annual sewer load of approximately 1,673,000 gallons. This sewer use estimate equates to a 0.2 percent increase in the City's daily sanitary sewer flowage and will not negatively impact local or regional urban sanitary services. The projected timeframe for the development of the application property is consistent with the City's adopted 2030 Development Staging Plan (Figure 2 -7 Future Vision 2030). Zoning Review Zoning — Existing and Proposed The current zoning for both sites is R -4, Low Density Residential. During the 2030 and previous Comprehensive Planning processes, the City identified that this property and surrounding prop- erties would need to be rezoned to commercial as State Statutes require that the zoning be consistent with the adopted land use plan. The City has historically not rezoned commercial properties to be synchronized with the land use plan without a specific development project as- sociated with the zoning change. This course of action allows the City additional control over the development process for the major land use areas in the community. The proposed zoning for the developing portion of the site is B -2, Retail Business. The retail, pharmacy, liquor, and other uses proposed for this project are allowed as permitted or condi- tioned uses within the B -2 district. The ordinance criteria for all commercial zoning districts Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 8 of 56 within the City including development standards and all permitted and conditional uses can be found in City Code in Title 11, Chapter 10, Articles A through D. The online link to the City Code is: http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebook/index.php ?book id =500 This development has been determined to be appropriate for classification as B -2, Retail Busi- ness. The balance of the parent parcel will remain within the R -4, Low Density residential dis- trict, until such time that rezoning and associated development applications are submitted to the City. The details below highlight the existing and proposed zoning boundaries: The proposed commercial zoning classification is consistent with the underlying commercial land use designation. An ordinance amendment is required for rezoning of property. Zoning Detail Existing Zoning Detail Proposed Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 9 of 56 Subdivision Review Subdivision — Preliminary and Final Plat City Code Title 10 regulates subdivision of land within the City of Cottage Grove: http:// www. sterlingcodifiers .com /codebook/index.php ?book id =500 This project has two applications being processed in accordance with the criteria established in this section of the code. Those applications are preliminary and final plats. The Planning Commission is requested to review the preliminary plat for conformance to the City's subdivision criteria and determine if the standards have been met. A favorable recommendation of approval for the preliminary plat to the City Council would allow the Council to approve the final plat application if it is substan- tially in conformance with the preliminary plat and contains all modifications required as a part of the preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat would create one lot of record, three outlots, and the required right -of -way and easements associated with the project on 23.55 -acres of land. The 28.13 -acre remainder of the parent parcel would be an exception to the plat and remain with a metes and bounds legal description. Outlots A (1.39 acres) and B (0.49 acres) are encumbered with permanent utility easements for gas pipelines and the Metropolitan Council regional sanitary trunk sewer. These easements are shown on the plat. The plat also includes the dedication of public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements. _ _�l— _._•_. _.______ _. _ �— � __,�t._.__� • f • r "4 A °e, "`•�. �[s�lF � -.EH Eh i. �' _ •, � ,. ^ : ° �.$t'i�.:.7' I I � c _ I I r i' .1 ' �` —., •� � I f f r� ^tom t O C II I i � � °4 i ! • P` �l ' k I � r I t� l i I •� �,� t r / r I I wir n.r. –. -.. � • I r[rx.•.rY�t.•' I ♦ : a =ir ,...�.0 . ' > +� �/ Preliminary Plat Detail It is recommended that one condition of the final plat approval is that the applicant enters into a development agreement with the City. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 10 of 56 Subdivision — Easements The latest revision to the preliminary plat details the City Engineer's comments on easements. Prior to the applications being presented to the City Council. Any additional easements required by the City Engineer shall be shown on the plat. Subdivision — Right -of -way The proposed preliminary plat includes the dedication of an 80 -foot wide public right -of -way ad- jacent to the southeast corner of the site. This new roadway will service vehicular access to Walmart and the adjacent undeveloped areas. A detail of the right -of -way area and planned roadway within that right -of -way is shown below. The City Engineer reports that the roadway design meets City standards and provides for adequate vehicle stacking room, and that the right -of -way width should be 100 feet. The City's Technical Review Committee discussed this topic and concurred with the City Engineer's recommendation based on private utility locations, safety, and maintenance considerations. The naming of the new roadway on the plat should be consistent with the City's street naming standards. The balance of the public right -of -way and construction of this road would occur with subsequent development of the Planning District. Fi- nal geometry and design feasibility of the roadway and stormwater management planning would be completed at that time. 1q. 7 o NaarH ru:z a� r�cr Right -of Way and Roadway Detail It is recommended that the width of the new public right -of -way should be increased to 100 feet. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 11 of 56 Subdivision — Park Dedication As with all subdivisions and commercial developments, the developer must meet park dedica- tion requirements. In this case, a combination of land and cash dedication is recommended. Outlots A and B are proposed to be dedicated to the City. The acreage of these areas is ex- cluded from the calculation formula utilized in the cash dedication determination and no park dedication reduction credits will be given for these outlots. i € A k p r � �- - aM +�x(GHl talttiiss* L..1X �8w�Mn �ccYfHetaaRB�ix'aE:a B Ifa 4 I I s i 1 7 i I f ��:rs +s �szircc E l S - R L O F I $ L O C K t ti e -_ nerb� 77 7 K1HSn i m m 1 7 Proposed Public Outlot Detail The cash amount for park dedication for this project will be required at the time of recording of the final plat or as detailed in the required development agreement. The Parks Commission reviewed the applications and unanimously recommended that the City Council accept the dedi- cations of Outlots A and B for park and open space use including buffering, ponding, and trail - way purposes to be consistent with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and to further accept the dedication of cash park dedication fees in accordance with ordinance criteria. The Parks Commission recommended that the final information detailing the park dedica- tion and maintenance items be included in the required development agreement. Subdivision — Area Charges In addition to park dedication land and fees, subdividing this property requires payment of water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater area charges. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 12 of 56 Final information detailing the area charges will be included in the required development agreement. As proposed, the preliminary plat meets the ordinance criteria established in Title 10 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Site Plan Review Site Plan — Development Standards Title 11, Chapter 2, Subsection 4 of the City Code details the procedures for site plan review. The purpose of the review is to assure that new development conforms to the City's develop- ment standards and ordinances and to provide the most appropriate and compatible site design for the area. The proposed site layout is assessed for conformance to the development stan- dards that are applicable in each zoning district. The following table identifies the required and proposed development standards for the B -2 zoning district: EAST *V' • BAST i J . EtIkHVACY DR! I / iii' • ti WINDOW 1� L'�3A7Rb�C ' I " � '• � ��• , l �f t. !llrrrVVVrr'��. rr' ��r••, Y & tl ! n �J,, °7 SN`• I < <,,�,• l - w 1Nahrwrt �'• i � 1<�� u � � J � I 1 1 � N I 1 I I � I 1 I I I ITT � � � J J .t:�` r + + +� O I , I ' aalw�lr,wtr 1 �tt 1 rrtwax I tf f y ��` Z EPEE- WEST Site Plan Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 13 of 56 B -2 Development Standards Comparative Chart Development Standards B -2 Proposed Lot area Minimum lot width Screening Maximum building height i Conformance Minimum of 10,000 sq. ft., unless the land is adjacent to ! 23.55 Acres Exceeds Standard an existing commercial area 100 ft. 868.5t. Exceeds Standard Whenever a B -2 retail business district abuts an R district, a screen not less The proposed heavily planted o 1 screening includes spruce than 50% opaque nor less ; trees of sufficient quantity and than 6 ft. in height shall be density as to surpass the 50% erected and maintained opacity requirement. The Exceeds Standard along the side or rear ro osed berm will be 20 feet property line that abuts the ; proposed from existing grade at its residential district, except ;Center, and 14 feet high on adjacent to a street, where it the east and west ends. shall be not less than 3 nor more than 4 ft. in height 35 ft., except buildings over 35 ft. shall be subject to 31.4 ft. receiving a CUP. Minimum front yard ft. — [25 ft. Minimum side yard, interior lot line ( [30 10 ft. —� West Side = 75 ft. East Side = 172 ft. Minimum side yard interior lot line 30 ft. [N/A adjacent to a residential district Min. side yard adjacent to street �30 ft. N/A Minimum rear yard 35 ft. 220 ft. Minimum rear yard, abutting a 7ft 220 ft. residential district Minimum rear yard, abutting a � 10 ft. [ N/A railroad track right of way Maximum building coverage No Maximum N/A Parking 5/1000 gross Sq Ft = 830 Sp 1859 Spaces Parking Setback Front 30 ft 30 ft. Parking setback Rear 10 ft. 175 ft. Parking setback Rear- adjacent to f 30 ft. ft. residential (175 Parking setback Side ! 10 ft. i West Side = 25 ft. East Side - 10 ft. Meets standard i I j Exceeds Standard i Exceeds Standard N/A N/A Exceeds Standard Exceeds Standard N/A N/A I Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard j Exceeds Standard Meets and exceeds standard Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 14 of 56 The proposed site conforms to or exceeds the performance standards related to the loca- tion of the building and parking areas on the site. Site Plan — Existing Topography and Proposed Changes The existing contours on the site range from 809 feet above mean sea level to 862 feet above mean sea level. The proposed grading on the site will bring the proposed first floor elevation of the store to 830 feet. The planned site grading includes earthwork on the parent parcel located to the east as the balance of material on the site is manipulated. All necessary temporary con- struction easements and financial sureties for restoration will be required to be in place prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant continues to work with the City Engineer to en- sure proper grading on the site. The development agreement will specify that the maintenance of any retaining walls located within a dedicated public right -of -way or outlot is the responsibility of the property owner. Prior to the applications being presented to the City Council, all engineering comments related to site grading must be addressed. ;Drive =ln Theater Safe W.0 �7 040 0 •� , 14 JE RYA� I i I 862~.Q 4 o caruT 820.0 4+ •�� of =, STATION + +. + + + 813.E PROPOSED �. C1 81 .0 WALMARTSIfE (0 �1. 4!p / I 82'.,; ; + + 823.5 + + + +,', / JA W vE. 814.6 82.1 -. 824.0 ` 809.5,- Q` VFW Existing Contour Elevation Detail Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 15 of 56 The proposed site grading is in conformance with city requirements and the resulting grades on the developed an undeveloped portions of the graded site are of sufficient grades to minimize erosion and direct surface water. Site Plan — Building Setback Analysis The setback standards established in the ordinance are from the proposed building to the near- est property line. During the site plan review, an analysis was completed on what the setback relationships were between other existing residential and commercial areas in Cottage Grove. The review identified that the existing setback relationships of those properties are significantly closer than what is proposed with this application. The table below identifies the setback dis- tances from the buildings of the existing commercial uses to the property line of the adjacent residential properties in comparison to setback of the proposed retail use. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 16 of 56 Existing Commercial Menards Cub Foods Home Depot Cottage Grove Plaza - Norris Square G -Will Center 833 Service Center Country Inn Suites 833 Program Center Office Max Fifth Street Ventures (Snap Fitness) Closest Setback to Walmart Closest Setback to Residential Residential Property Line Property Line F1 feet 220 feet 130 feet 220 feet [ 95 feet 220 feet 142 feet (220 feet 60 feet 220 feet 20 feet 220 feet 75 feet 220 feet 110 feet 220 feet -- F160 feet - -- --------- ----- - - �20 feet ^ [75 F 45 feet 220 feet feet 220 feet Commercial Building Setback Analysis An additional review was completed in preparation of this report that examined the closest set- backs between the proposed commercial building and the existing residential structures to the north. The detail below includes the measured distances. RESIDENTIAL o f� a� r Lff F! � -i The setback to residential uses for this project exceeds existing commercial to residen- tial location relationships in the community. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 17 of 56 Site Plan — Berming Based on screening concerns that were raised at an on -site neighborhood meeting hosted by the Mayor and at the public hearing on July 23, the revised grading plan modifies the proposed contours along the north side of the site to include a substantial earth berm. This berm was pur- posefully designed at the direction of the City as a component of the buffering /screening design package. The majority of the planned bermed area is located in Outlot A. A portion of the area under the regional sanitary sewer easement will be impacted by the construction of the proposed berm. rr n 00 00 PH 00 NORT ".; :w = [_ ems? _ 1 hern CasPipetiges. - _ r— - - . Met' 1 n '164dl Sanitary I n 00 } ' �.Rt 4 i i tJ i l U1 Berm Contour Detail The average height of the top of the berm is 834 feet. At its center, the berm will be 20 feet high from the existing grades, and fourteen feet high on the east and west ends. I 14 Ft 20 Ft 14 Ft 10 Ft Height Height Height Height Increase Increase Increase Increase Berm Height Increase Detail The next detail includes cross sections of the bermed area from the locations of the five closest adjacent residences: Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 18 of 56 R A -A 860-- _ - -- - -- -,- 840-- _ - - - - t 820 � • -�__ "` _ - — _ 800 - I RESIOENTIAL 1,07 OUfLOTA �T� LANOSCARE BERM RECEIYI GAREA BUII U:NIi Q B -B 860-- - _ - 840-- - 820 �-- 800 • • • i BERM R - RESIDENTIAL LOT i ♦ 1 • . ll I Given the existing topography conditions, the proposed building elevations, and the ex- isting residential housing elevations, the proposed berming that was revised since the last review was significantly increased in height and provides a good foundation for vegetative screening and meets the City's screening requirement. ra I RESIDLNTIALLOT - '� OUTLOTA �+- LANDSCAPE -ri- RECEIVING AREA -�{�+- BUILDING Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 19 of 56 Site Plan — Rooftop Mechanical Screening The proposed rooftop mechanicals are to be painted white to match the white roof construction of the store. Existing residences with elevations higher than the proposed building may have some views of the painted rooftop mechanicals. The ordinance requirements related to rooftop mechanical screening will be met. Site Plan — Landscaping The submitted landscape plan meets the requirements of the ordinance criteria. The following table compares the required and proposed quantities. Required Landscaping B2 Zoning District Required Proposed Overstory Trees 125 125 Boulevard Trees — Overstory (2 trees per 1001f) 21 21 Understory Trees 94 94 Coniferous Trees 206 206 Boulevard Trees - Coniferous (2 trees per 1001f) 21 21 Large Shrubs 426 426 Small Shrubs 1426 1426 Landscaping Detail The proposed landscaping is in conformance with the ordinance criteria. c' '4E3,t2 O O {:s � � s p •� ! q d E N o Et e ,far; _ 4 o Landscaping Detail The proposed landscaping is in conformance with the ordinance criteria. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 20 of 56 Site Plan — Buffering One of the purposes of requiring landscaping is to provide buffering between adjacent land uses. As a part of the proposed landscaping the applicant has provided a significant vegetative buffer area along the north side of the building adjacent to the residential development. As a component of the landscape plan revisions, it is recommended that the size of some materials in the buffer area be increased. The northern portion of the site has existing vegetation. The quality and health of the trees were reviewed by the City Forester (see the tree preservation section of this report). This vegetation will not be disturbed as a part of the development of this site with the exception of the cul -de -sac improvement areas, nor as a part of the vegetated earthen buffering berm. The trees and vege- tation in this area could be subject to removal in the gas pipeline easement at some point in the future by the pipeline company as allowed under their existing easement documentation. These trees would not be required to be replaced. The photos below detail the existing vegetation: Existing Vegetation Detail Jasmine Avenue — East Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 21 of 56 Existing Vegetation Detail Jasmine Avenue — West Existing Vegetation Detail Jeffery Avenue Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 22 of 56 As a component of the review, the applicant prepared scaled perspective renderings of what the view would be from Jasmine and Jeffery Avenues. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the accuracy of the details was questioned. Since that meeting, the mock elevations were re- vised to be based off of geo- referenced photo images that were combined with proposed site elevation information. The revised details are shown below: Existing Vegetation Detail Jeffery Avenue Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 23 of 56 1 Existing t 1 Proposed F Note: Refe—e drt IaWs pa pLn for lands p ndetails Jeffery Avenue Detail Jasmine Avenue Detail As evidenced by the revised elevation buffering information, which includes the grading profile cross sections, the mock view graphics, the proposed berming, the existing landscaping and the proposed landscaping, the visual impact to the adjacent residences will be minimal to non - existent. 2 � f��� � LLL r I 2 Satellite YnagedEsdsttny Site r 2 Existing _ sli III li ���, 1 rr — i R " J l E 2 Proposed Proposed Slte Plan Walmart NOW We— dl IaM Vo pLn for landuaptg detals Jasmine Avenue Detail As evidenced by the revised elevation buffering information, which includes the grading profile cross sections, the mock view graphics, the proposed berming, the existing landscaping and the proposed landscaping, the visual impact to the adjacent residences will be minimal to non - existent. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 24 of 56 Site Plan — Noise At the July 23 Planning Commission meeting, concerns were expressed about noise from truck deliveries and the trash compactor. The increase of the berm height to 834 is one step that was taken to address the noise issue. As an additional step, the City is working with the Metropolitan Council on a plan for the installation of additional vegetation in the easement areas within the outlots adjacent to the residents. A detail of the planted berming area is shown below: n RESIDENf1Al m T m anti _ z^ law ,ty of Cottage Grove (Future) tidy City of Cottage Grove (Future) 3 ` r t + �►.;; ti r t O X. m: f Recycling Area Detail In response to the operational concerns that were raised about noise, the Applicant has com- pleted a noise analysis of the mechanical equipment on the site. The Applicant has reported that the noise analysis will show that the noises produced by the proposed use of the site will be in compliance with ordinance criteria. The results of this study will be provided at the Planning Commission Meeting. Site Plan — City Noise Level Standards Two factors in the measurement of sound are duration and proximity from noise source. The following table is from the City Code. Sound reading measurements are taken at the property line. Duration Less than 10 min Between 10 min and 2 hours In excess of 2 hours 7:00 A.M. To 10:00 P.M. (Residential Districts) And 7:00 A.M. To 6:00 P.M. All Other Districts 75 db 70 db 60 db 10:00 P.M. To 7:00 A.M. (Residential Districts �.._ 60 db F 50 db 50 db 6:00 P.M. To 7:00 A.M. (All Other Districts) 70 db 60 db 50 db Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 25 of 56 Site Plan — City Noise Level Comparison To assist in the relevancy of the noise data analysis that will be presented, the following table has been included. Environmental Noise Weakest sound heard ;OdB Whisper Quiet Library at 6' 130dB � Normal conversation at 3' 1160-650 iTelephone dial tone i B 'City Traffic (inside car) 185dB ITrain whistle at 500', Truck Traffic ;9OdB (Jackhammer at 50 I95dB Subway train at 200' ,95dB Level at which sustained exposure _.__.. may result in !90 - 95dB ,hearing loss (Hand Drill 1168dB Snowmobile, Motorcycle 1 100dB ,Power saw at 3' o110dB Sandblasting, Loud Rock Concert j115dB Pain begins Pneumatic riveter at 4' 1125dB 125dB Even short term exposure can cause permanent damage - Loudest recommended exposure WITH j140dB hearing protection Jet engine at 100' 12 Gauge Shotgun Blast Death of hearing tissue Loudest sound possible Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart Trash Compactor A fully enclosed trash compactor will be located to the north of the building and is screened by a masonry wall that matches the building material. The trash compactor is used daily. Its contents will generally be picked -up two or three times per month, as necessary. Forklifts Electric or propane propelled forklifts are used at the rear of the building to move pallets, card- board bales, and other items. Forklifts are operated on an as- needed basis. Truck Deliveries This store will average 20 to 28 Walmart trucks per week, dependent on sales volume. These trucks will deliver general merchandise, frozen /dairy/deli merchandise, dry grocery merchan- dise, meat and produce merchandise, seasonal merchandise, and some direct delivery merchandise. Additional vendor truck activity occurs daily on site in addition to these trucks. The Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 26 of 56 majority of these deliveries are generally made in advance of the third shift (midnight), as that is when the unloading of the trucks and stocking of the merchandise primarily occurs. The City Ordinance does not specify restrictions to truck delivery timing. As reported at the July 23 Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant has a "no idling policy" for delivery trucks and limited windows of delivery time, and the loading dock areas are each screened by a 14 -foot high masonry wall. At the building dock door location, the depth from the top of the wall to the drive surface is 18 feet. The applicant requires the delivery trucks to use the southeast access drive from East Point Douglas Road and the drive aisle along the east side of Walmart's property. Precast wall ppanel to match Metal arapet coping painted Precast wall ppanel to match "Red Bryan" by Fabcon "Meadowlark' SW 7522 'Red Bryan' by Fabcon Sprd face CMU painted Metal door painted Truck Dock Screening =lark* cMU ppaainted "Meadowlark" SW 7522 "Meadowlark" SW 7522 'Meadowlark" sW 7522 Truck Dock Detail Rear View Precast wall ppaanel to match "Red Bryan" by Fabcon I T.O.P. dk i 28' -8 Precast wall panel to match "Red Bryan" by Fabcon T.O.P. 28'-8" — Left Elevation (West) Truck Dock Detail East Side View Truck Dock Detail East Side View Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 27 of 56 At the last Planning Commission meeting, residents of adjacent properties suggested the in- stallation of a sound wall to address their noise concerns. The feasibility, aesthetics, proposed berming and landscaping screening and practicality of this proposal were reviewed by staff. During the discussions on sound walls, the applicant indicated that they would be willing to in- clude a six foot fence as a component of the project, but that action would involve the equivalent reduction in the berm height and landscaping in the area of the fence. It is not recommended that a noise wall or fencing be required as a component of this project. Berm height as proposed is beyond that required by City Code. Based on the available information, it appears that the proposed principal and accessory uses on the site are consistent with permitted uses within a commercially zoned district, and that the use will be in of compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Site Plan — Outdoor Lighting Outdoor lighting fixtures will consist of wall units on the building's exterior walls and the parking lot lights on poles that are 42 feet in height. The light luminaire will be LED lighting. The level of lighting will meet the needs for security and safety and will not detract from the aesthetics of the development. Outdoor light fixtures are designed and mounted to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. City ordinance limits the amount of light that can be emitted from commercial prop- Truck Docking Area Lakeville Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 28 of 56 erty. When commercial property abuts residential properties, this limitation must not exceed a 0.5 candlepower. Commercial development adjoining other commercial properties has a 1.0 candlepower limitation. Measuring this light source is taken at the property boundary line. A photometric plan showing the calculated candlepower throughout the site is shown below. The yellow marking along the north property line represents a 0.0 candlepower illumination from the light fixtures along the rear of Walmart's building and delivery areas. Ambient light from the resi- dential properties and street lights at the end of the Jasmine and Jeffery Avenue cul -de -sacs were not included in determining the zero candlepower along this common boundary line. The bold black color line represents a 0.5 candlepower, red is 1.0, green is 2.0, and purple is a 3.0 candlepower. This proposed lighting plan complies with City ordinance regulations. CANDLEPOWER FUTURE COMMERICAL PROPERTY . i r .,� ;.• :6�- s • _fir - Walmart3' ,. - tFf. R Q OP Z 30 ly J s ii " VFW r W Photometric Plan When the light fixtures are activated during low -light atmospheric conditions, a person looking directly at the light fixtures from other properties surrounding the Walmart site will still see light from that fixture. Illumination from that light fixture will not cast a glare that exceeds the maxi- mum candlepower measured at the property line. The lighting package, as proposed, meets the ordinance criteria. Site Plan — Transportation Impacts Transportation was one of the major focal points of the review for this project. In addition to the transportation study that was submitted by the applicant for the proposed site, the City's con- sulting engineers completed a traffic study reviewing the entire 169 -acre Cottage View Area. At the Planning Commission meeting, additional information was requested relating to existing and anticipated levels of service in the traffic study area plus the expansion of the review to include the intersections of Jamaica and East Point Douglas Road and East Point Douglas Road and the Cub Foods /Cottage Grove Plaza intersection. This study was completed by Bolton & Menk, and the findings are provided below. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 29 of 56 Transportation — Bolton & Menk Study The following is a summary of the traffic impacts related to development of the Cottage View area. This summary focuses on intersection Level of Service (LOS) and roadway volumes/ capacities for the subject area. Several analyses have been prepared for the area including: • Wal -Mart analysis dated March 23, 2012 • SEH analysis dated May 30, 2012 • Bolton & Menk analysis dated June 11, 2012 • Bolton & Menk analysis dated August 7, 2012 Also incorporated by reference are the Cottage Grove Transportation Plan and the Washington County Transportation Plan. Transportation — Geometric and Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements will be required over the next 20 years as the Cottage View area continues to develop. A summary of the timing of the improvements is provided below: Present Day Modifications to the existing traffic signals at Jamaica Avenue and East Point Douglas Road and East Point Douglas Road and Cottage Grove Plaza are required and are currently being imple- mented by the City. The improvements include coordinating the signal systems, revising signal timing, and adjusting protected /permissive left turning movements for both northbound and southbound Jamaica Avenue. OA AS P M Y l ,. 5 "' , � I NE UTTER EUG CUfl E4N ♦siW ` FIGURE 1a ADDITIONAL GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS \�H JAMAICA AVENUE 6 EAST POINT DOUGLAS ROAD INTERSECTION EVALUATION Present Day Improvement Detail - East Point Douglas Road Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 30 of 56 2015 (Wal -Mart Opening) Phase I The Phase 1 roadway improvements will need to be implemented, including extending a three - lane roadway section from west of the VFW site to east of the Wal -Mart site. A right tern lane will also be required on East Point Douglas Road at CSAH 19. Geometric changes could also be made near Jamaica Avenue along East Point Douglas Road to improve traffic flow in the area. These revisions include revising the lane designations for westbound traffic and removing portions of a median near the intersection. Transportation — Phase I Road Improvements 2015 - 2030 Present Day Improvement Detail 9k?Yi f C[ lM: RwY - UE , F AP YP# � � .jj WAIMART OPhEM MA9t u. e$ J( N gr CRY OF COTTAGE GRM,.R�`IESOTA F/R K1R C:hA3A. Transportation — Phase I Road Improvements 2015 - 2030 Present Day Improvement Detail Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 31 of 56 I I I i i i VFW N FUTURE ! DRIVE IN WALMART THEATER y� G � � syrcy� ! .u.l Phase I — Detail COLOR LEGEND ROADWAY _ RAISED CONCRETE ISLANDS, CURB & GUTTER RAISED GREEN ISLANDS _ SIDEWALK & TRAILS EXISTING ROW — PROPERTY LEWES PROPOSED ROW PROPOSED EASEMENTS 2015 to 2030 — Phase 11 As the Cottage View area continues to develop, upgrades will be required to both the internal roadway system and supporting roadway network, including CSAH 19 TH 61. The Phase II im- provements will need to be implemented to allow for future development within the Cottage View area. Shortly after the Phase II improvements are made, all -way stops will likely be implemented at the East Point Douglas Road and CSAH 19 intersection, as well as at the CSAH 19 and east- bound TH 61 ramp intersection. When 20 to 30 percent of the remaining Cottage View area is developed, temporary lane improvements and temporary signal systems will be required along Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 32 of 56 CSAH 19. The temporary signals will be required at East Point Douglas Road and the TH 61 eastbound ramps. Site Plan - Phase II Road Improvements ZU15 - ZU:tU / �` t ` o I DRIVE IN THEATER I I I I '�o• Phase 11 — Detail I , � waw co�cxrz nvnos, cuaa t amca cACr rswms �wwx ism qxw y2 � s �j �S2yj -- DvsING wa - GMFEaiY V.Es i PAOPOS ZZLLL vfw FMRE onn�x wALYA T MTM BO �. M .NK iNO. CrrY OF COTTAGE GROVE. MINNESOTA E-T IY M Y'rvxNC�f Site Plan - Phase II Road Improvements ZU15 - ZU:tU / �` t ` o I DRIVE IN THEATER I I I I '�o• Phase 11 — Detail Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 33 of 56 Site Plan — Phase I & II Road Improvements uomnined I — -�1 0 00 - = - - - -- - - -- - - L /per wAUw„ _ MW I VFW I l l FUTURE I WALMART DRIVEW �/ THEATER 1360 as ; 4�tiA rf -m "$M G,_rcTE M. 0.83 A GTR, R4M WF1 RA`DS - _ 3lXMIX a 1NM., \\ - fSRTl1O HN - P�ETIt tPFS r,crum rauvnr � � ' g 41000 C CN:]C CrCre 9p�roN a ML -NIC, iNG. CITY OF COTTAGE GROW, MINNESOTA � a"� °r W�"'t � �^wr EIST `Y:hT WIX.VS N.'l4J ••L tt�t r ^6 n . Site Plan — Phase I & II Road Improvements uomnined I TIT - I L _ I VFW I l l FUTURE I WALMART DRIVEW �/ THEATER i 4P as ; Combined Phase I & II - Detail Proposed roadways in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 concept designs have been pre- pared in consideration of the project traffic volumes through the year 2030. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 34 of 56 Phase /// Further development (more than 20 to 30 percent) will cause significant congestion along CSAH 19 and TH 61 during the AM and PM peak hours. Significant improvements will be required to both CSAH 19 and the TH 61 interchange to relieve congestion on the area roadways. The County's Southwest Transportation Study identifies the majority of the roadway improve- ments that would be involved with the Phase III road improvements. The preferred alignment option is below: t 7 1 { { v I l 71 iX" V K ,1 s' 5 I � _l- V' r 16 ev i % e a, . 'a Figure 3 eor.AGec,RVre !J Was Preferred Highway 61 /CSAH 19 SEH ty Interchange Concept Southi< Cottage Grove Transportation Study Report Phase III Detail for Washington County Southwest Transportation Plan The existing roadways within the study area will all be under capacity through 2030 with the ex- ception of CSAH 19. Preliminary layouts have been prepared for the CSAH 19 corridor, includ- ing the interchange at TH 61. A future project with these improvements will most likely be a cooperative venture between MnDOT, Washington County, and Cottage Grove. Similar to the Jamaica Avenue roundabouts project, federal funding may also be a potential funding source for those improvements. }.I Re F el l r y l � I t9 . t nge i t..( I i ` •41, 1 tL�. ± FS t/ Y t VST kkVINr rrv` C,: y. - -1 ''� � l : i '! fit tt 1L iLR 10 }I .Y Y y t t.;,#{ 1 {L1E�1-SuutD. 3 ( ` FN , tw t _tee 7. �• Ru •S • ` l 40 mph dY�t'r2:i r Q. 6� �:' � •0.035 F� { •� i ` \ I C I , I •�' - ti fl SOMINVEST COITAGE GROVE 6' TRANSPORTATION STUDY Al4nsti. )�Fl �1 'p � 109�W18Jru St eN Southi< Cottage Grove Transportation Study Report Phase III Detail for Washington County Southwest Transportation Plan The existing roadways within the study area will all be under capacity through 2030 with the ex- ception of CSAH 19. Preliminary layouts have been prepared for the CSAH 19 corridor, includ- ing the interchange at TH 61. A future project with these improvements will most likely be a cooperative venture between MnDOT, Washington County, and Cottage Grove. Similar to the Jamaica Avenue roundabouts project, federal funding may also be a potential funding source for those improvements. }.I Re F el l r y l � I t9 . t nge i t..( I i ` •41, 1 tL�. ± FS t/ Y t VST kkVINr rrv` C,: y. - -1 ''� � l : i '! fit tt 1L iLR 10 }I .Y Y y t t.;,#{ 1 {L1E�1-SuutD. 3 ( ` FN , tw t _tee 7. �• Ru •S • ` l 40 mph dY�t'r2:i r Q. 6� �:' � •0.035 F� { •� i ` \ I C I , I •�' - ti Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 35 of 56 Transportation - Traffic Volumes and Roadway Capacity Roadway volumes throughout the area will increase as development occurs within the Cottage View area. The following table summarizes the growth in traffic for the study area roadways. Traffic Volumes (AADT) Projected Projected Roadway Segment Existing 2015 2030 Jamaica Avenue South of East Point Douglas Road 18,800 20,200 21,000 East Point Douglas Road West of Jamaica Avenue 10,900 11,800 13,300 East Point Douglas Road East of Jamaica Avenue 12,900 15,200 16,600 TH 61 West of CSAH 19 26,000 30,500 46,000 TH 61 East of CSAH 19 31,000 35,400 41,000 CSAH 19 South of TH 61 2,700 2,700 3,500 CSAH 19 North of TH 61 6,700 14,700 38,500 CSAH 19 North of East Point Douglas Road 6,700 8,000 13,800 East Point Douglas Road West of Wal -Mart Entrances 2,800 3,100 4,800 East Point Douglas Road East of Wal -Mart Entrances 2,800 10,100 22,400 East Point Douglas Road East -West Connection to CSAH 19 NA NA 33,700 Ravine Parkway North of East Point Douglas I Road I NA I NA 1 5,300 The projections from the table are mapped below the table: The estimates from this traffic analysis are consistent with the projections included in the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan, which can be accessed on -line at. http: / /www. cottage- grove.org /images /planning /cq comp plan 2030.pdf Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 36 of 56 •ri 1I . r irr � � -• ■ 1�1 WE X11► ►`�►�. _ Traffic Count Map Jamaica area Traffic Count Map Keats Area Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 37 of 56 Transportation — Road Design At the last Planning Commission meeting, some questions were asked about the roadway de- sign for Phase I and Phase II. The graphic below details the typical cross section for the planned roadway improvements. As a part of Phase I, the existing three -lane road section in front of Menards and the townhomes is being extended to the easterly Walmart entrance (now the public road stub). At that point, Phase I construction will then transition the road back to a two - lane roadway and tie into the existing East Point Douglas alignment. Phase II will remove that transition piece, and it will become a four -lane roadway from the new public road stub heading easterly and realign East Point Douglas to the new location at CSAH 19. r 1W � LK Mu Lwt Ilti� WP �6 M Tat s � ar� Y cu% ��- I�rRet Qui:i wxtri {eWE/Y.fl �i 6k INSET ( WPICALSeanoN � PNASE t Y T$ Y 4 ' 2t' wow+ xt � nL� r IBU 4K 1fA Itt TAr Wt6 BR:II/.+5 14 K kt MM i' ^„stTg 9v{ , Oa' cs�.nep INSET I.CS 2tM _ P"G I p �) r IPift � tt5tT N +a � 0.h'Y A¢ c.�IBi CM /el 7YPICA{.SEC71ON �J PHASE 2 s awls a t�.x vte rmz caste a 2� KRY © TYPICAL SE=N LEMUFNd LANES ^ WPIMSEcn `J WoHTTURNLANES © INSET INSET Road Section Detail - Phase I and Phase II The Phase I and II road designs will be consistent with the City's standard roadway designs for commercial areas. Transportation — Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Intersections and each intersection approach are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS A through D is generally perceived to be acceptable to drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersec- tion is operating at, or very near, its capacity and that drivers experience considerable delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity and drivers experience sub- stantial delays. The analyses completed review the AM and PM peak hours for intersections. During off -peak hours, intersections will typically perform at a much higher level. Also, the LOS is a representation of the entire intersection. Even though an intersection has an acceptable LOS, individual movements can still fail. The following table provides data for the key intersec- tions in the study area: Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 38 of 56 Intersection Anal 2 7 Intersection Exist 2015 2030 Failing Movements Control Signal E Point Douqlas Rd at W Wal -Mart INA A/A EBT, WBL/WBT, Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd C/D TH 61 EB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/B NBL, SBL Signal 1 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd B/B WBL/WBT Signal 1 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd B/C 3 EBT, WBL/WBT Signal 2 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd B/C Stop EBT Signal 2 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd Ego B/C EBT Signal 2 7 E Pt Douglas Rd at Cott Grove P I B/B 1 0- B/B B/B Signal E Point Douqlas Rd at W Wal -Mart INA A/A w A/A Side St( E Point Douglas Rd at E Wal -Mart I NA (A/A I A/A Side X/X = AM /PM Peak Hour EBT = Eastbound Through; WBL/WBT = Westbound Left/West Bound Through; NBL = Northbound Left; SBL = South Bound Left; EBL = Eastbound Left TABLE NOTES: 1 Includes Intersection Improvements Recommended in SEH analysis. - Coordinated signals - Signal timing changes - NBL & SBL Jamaica Avenue (Protected /Permissive) 2 Includes note 1 changes plus geometric changes - Separate WB thru and WB left lanes on EPDR - Trim median on EPDR 3 All way stop signs may be required at this intersection in 2015. Washington County will monitor. 4 Traffic signals and capacity improvements to CSAH 19 will be required. E P oint D ouglas Rd at Ravine Pkwy NA NA B/C 3 -Way Stop TH 61 EB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/B A/F EBL Side Stop All Way 3 TH 61 EB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/C Stop 4 TH 61 EB Ramp at CSAH 19 B/B Signal TH 61 WB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/A A/A Side Stop 4 TH 61 WB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/B Signal E Point Douglas Rd at CSAH 19 A/B A/C EBL Side Stop 4 E Point Douglas Rd at CSAH 19 B/B Signal X/X = AM /PM Peak Hour EBT = Eastbound Through; WBL/WBT = Westbound Left/West Bound Through; NBL = Northbound Left; SBL = South Bound Left; EBL = Eastbound Left TABLE NOTES: 1 Includes Intersection Improvements Recommended in SEH analysis. - Coordinated signals - Signal timing changes - NBL & SBL Jamaica Avenue (Protected /Permissive) 2 Includes note 1 changes plus geometric changes - Separate WB thru and WB left lanes on EPDR - Trim median on EPDR 3 All way stop signs may be required at this intersection in 2015. Washington County will monitor. 4 Traffic signals and capacity improvements to CSAH 19 will be required. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 39 of 56 improvements. The levels of service table indicates that with a progressive introduction of intersection improvements, the level of service in the study area functions with no problems with the proposed project, and actually gets better than current conditions with the recommended Transportation — Cul -De -Sac Design Detail As a result of the site design impacting the further extension of Jasmine and Jeffery Avenues, a permanent cul -de -sac design option was prepared by the City's Consulting Engineer. The cul- de -sacs will be reconstructed within existing right -of -way. This plan would involve the installation of street lights at the end of Jeffery Avenue; the street lights will continue to exist at the end of the Jasmine Avenue. A preliminary detail of that design is included below. Details of this design and associated costs will be finalized prior to approval by Council. Cul -de -sac Design The planned design project limits for the cul -de -sac improvement projects were identified in the field at the Jasmine Avenue Neighborhood Meeting and the residents indicated favorable support for what was proposed. Transportation — Access The access drive in the southwest corner of the Walmart site will have a grade a little over five percent. The retaining walls are six to seven feet in height along each side of access drive. Fencing is proposed on top of the retaining walls. The applicant has indicated that truck traffic will be required to utilize the eastern access point based on their policies related to access grade. Access Detail Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 40 of 56 Based on the traffic studies that were completed, and the phased road and traffic control improvements that are proposed in those reports, the proposed applications will not negatively impact the City's existing or future transportation network. Site Plan — Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service are available to the site. The Public Works Commission did not identify any issues with the on -site or off -site public or private utility design. Prior to the ap- plications being presented to the City Council, all engineering comments related to utility design and construction must be addressed. Public Watermain JEFFE'Ei�LA�YE.' Z Yr J 1A E. SIGItN1J; J r w.r wwn ` • 1 Private Water Service SanitarySewer Interceptor Private Sanitary Sewer - - -- PrivateStoLm,,�ni% EAST —.r -- - - ---_ —T-t —= t2 :,rte �• �,.e„ , ws � � * 1 ' rin $I Fun + _ 6 I � t c:s wrfranyr �r Q' o u�.e. ME f — w Ica Iz • �. — + GAR • E(V 71 T WEST Utility Detail The applicant is proposing to connect to the regional sanitary sewer interceptor pipe. In confor- mance with the City's Water Management Plan, there will be a public water main extension from Jeffery Avenue to East Point Douglas Road. The looping of the water utility connection will improve water quality in the developed areas to the north and west of the project area. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 41 of 56 The planned public utilities that would be installed with the Phase I and Phase II road improve- ment projects are detailed below. Phase I & Phase II Pupuc utility txtensrons Site Plan — Surface Water Management This site is identified in the City's surface water management plan as being located in the East Ravine subdrainage district ER -9. Based on this, the surface water management review for this project was site specific and also encompassed the review of the sub drainage district. PROPOSED WATFRMAN(TYP.) i .Q7�. \ �`• VFN OHNEW � t `�• TIEATER ER-P9 PW I f; � `• .. � � vrsv ` 9101, PPDPONDSTGRY BrAw C".) '405 Sort A . 4 CO�IaOC' V(OVO I11 a'+�I W ! aew.n� CRY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA FA OY.6'4SE� �JRIM PI.IV XG V r/M Phase I & Phase II Pupuc utility txtensrons Site Plan — Surface Water Management This site is identified in the City's surface water management plan as being located in the East Ravine subdrainage district ER -9. Based on this, the surface water management review for this project was site specific and also encompassed the review of the sub drainage district. Sub Drainage District Detail i ER -A9 � y ER-P9 I f; '405 Sort A . Sub Drainage District Detail Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 42 of 56 During the initial review of the applications, it was noted that given the geologic characteristics in the area, even though the site in not currently located in a Wellhead Protection (WHP) Area, it likely will be when the current WHP Areas are expanded in the City's WHP Plan update occur- ring in a few years. In anticipation of the site being incorporated into a WHP Area, the City is requiring additional measures onsite to address wellhead protection. The additional design measures have been provided by the Applicant to address this condition. The City's consulting engineer reports that the stormwater conveyance and ponding sys- tem that is proposed for the project meets the City's stormwater quantity and quality requirements for the Walmart site. However, the City is working with the applicant to address final modifications. As additional Development occurs in this planning district, and based on the City's Sur- face water management plan, downstream trunk stormwater improvement projects will continue to be planned for and coordinated with future road and utility projects to address sub - regional drainage. The final construction drawings and development agreement shall reflect all modifica- tions required by the City engineer. Site Plan — Tree Preservation Inventory In accordance with ordinance criteria, a tree inventory was completed. The detail below identi- fies the location of the inventoried trees: =i r L45F•£BAtlFNUE I L f' yr t I Tree Inventory 3 a u +@ ® wl C o .a Sf o i ,r. =i r L45F•£BAtlFNUE I L f' yr t I Tree Inventory Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 43 of 56 Steve Bowe, the City Forester, reviewed the inventory and inspected the health, vigor, and quality of the trees on the site, specifically in the area that is not proposed to be impacted by de- velopment. Mr. Bowe reported that the majority of the trees are of the nature of first succession trees species (Boxelder, Cottonwood, Siberian Elm, and Green Ash) that are fast growing trees, easily seeded in, and grow in a wide variety of soils. He reported further that the overall health is good, with minimal dead and diseased trees. For the trees that will remain on the site in the buffer area, with this area being a natural area, no maintenance is needed to improve the health of the trees and surrounding area. Bowe further reported the portion of the site where tree removal is proposed looks healthy, but is loaded with invasive species, including buckthorn and honeysuckle, which limit new under story growth. Site Plan — Tree Removal With the exception of the existing trees located in the easement areas along the north portion of the site, the balance of the trees are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the grading activities. The tally of trees proposed to be removed is included in the mitigation table below. The tree removal proposed for the site is in excess of the allowable removal amount, and will require tree mitigation. A certified arborist meeting the City's approval will be re- quired as a component of the project. Site -Plan — Tree Mitigation The City ordinance allows for a percentage of tree removal being required. The removal threshold for this application is of that triggers tree mitigation requirements. prior to replacement or mitigation 30 percent. Any removal in excess Mitigation for excessive tree removal includes three options: Plant the replacement trees meeting the quired landscaping. Plant trees on adjacent on public property Pay a cash dedication fee in lieu of Initiative/Tree Mitigation fund. replacement schedule on site in addition to re- replacement to the City's Public Landscape The cash replacement rate is per the City's project engineering estimates at the time of removal. Currently a Category B tree is priced at $275.00. The following table details information on the tree removal beyond 30 percent and the required mitigation for the project: Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 44 of 56 Tree Mitigation Detail Table: Tree Type Removed> 30% Required Mitigation Category B Cost Per Tree Category B Mitigation Value Hardwood 6" to 20" dbh 50 100 $275 $27,500 Hardwood 20 "< 30" dbh 0 0 $275 -- Softwood 12" to 24" dbh 220 440 $275 $121,000 Softwood > 24'dbh 10 40 $275 $11,000 Coniferous 12'to -24' 21 42 $275 $11,550 Coniferous > 24' 0 0 $275 -- Specimen Tree 8 48 $275 $13,200 Total 309 670 -- $184,250 The tree mitigation fee equates to $184,250. Tree mitigation plan shall be identified in the development agreement. Site Plan — Architecture The proposed building will have a variety of exterior construction materials including rock faced block, Fabcon panels, and Trespa Maton panels. The type and variety of material was based on the ordinance criteria requirements. The elevation package is similar in design to other Walmart stores that are being constructed in the region. I 71v 1� 7,' =��- e F,� -- 3:. _: Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 45 of 56 RNr EMvatlon IHmtM1 _ rmc�c aw�wv�ei eak+ Irtv_.t ar N+r nnl fi Flom '(IXF JRaPX A}erm -- YaM4Bay�' BiTpua+ed IaH perl rV�a1N 'CcElie In +n SJI S � n hl bmH 5latdgXim Ma(i�lfrx� rFtcml Uax Vaal A '�xla�ar'Vrralra� I V.i1kC'ttn lyla)r.n ui (Ra.a>t waV O>�' nXk I'P.L WSn'MrJ .ro I I m �'Akad®.ma'Mri27 A W M:1'I Aa �wedaln'y daNaiAixsar SW frte frMlw.Aw 'Veudewl�X'AY JAI 5�aaicw r�,�J n«aa.aev� itedwle/'Sp Tll T trPnMid�m aucy'a'+mewn xar...<wN 'MR4 m'h'raMsa Tatd6:Pwa'SW4g0 aw" VW19. (Eartl_ —__ EmntE MtI QA091AN -r.�a r awmRx+n 'wde, r..w.+,x m .aa. su4F Irttatwl �lldev+r lyi�DmA memiVSSarcafxr9la%�aX I'F4aa.a,+'srcnn Mnaw 1N'Krra }aF IvcanXS,'hrx.m r.wllla.A {walmnu <F AeW wti nunF laarw.+rco•hrmro.. `'w M+�'br r,tw. .?— °P—Ar RNr EMvatlon IHmtM1 _ bmH 5latdgXim Ma(i�lfrx� rFtcml Uax Vaal A PewtmrFW brwuF At<rn HnAyrp1v9r9 veTed (Ra.a>t waV O>�' nXk I'P.L WSn'MrJ .ro m �'Akad®.ma'Mri27 A W M:1'I - - �wedaln'y ra�a..eo.+dmaaun F4�x Maa.i PROPOSED SIOHAOE SCHEDULE aw" VW19. (Eartl_ —__ -r.�a r awmRx+n 'wde, r..w.+,x m .aa. su4F �r rw;�mme r w.a�+w� wa4x hrae. rY� - xw •iw a��N� 'm.' - _ - _ .� �Frea r w yr.+.rn I _(en LOO E1M0 WASfi n„ dWN4nK. Building Exterior Details Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 46 of 56 Site Plan — Signage The pylon sign is in compliance with the ordinance criteria. The wall signage is in excess of the standard ordinance criteria but is proportionate to the scale of the building. In order to address the additional square footage of wall signage that is proposed, it is recommended that a site specific signage package be approved for this project. This course of action for multi- tenant buildings is allowed by Council action. A final sign package will be required to be submitted with construction documents. Requirements I Required Propose Status Monument Sign Height j 21 feet 21 feet i Meets i Standards Monument sign Copy area 100 feet 95 square feet ! Meets Standards Wall signage 200 square feet/Wall 690 Square Feet Total Exceeds 300 square feet Total Standards Requires Sign Package Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 47 of 56 1 i Wall Signage Detail Monument Sign Detail Council approval of a multi- tenant site sign package is required for the project signage. Site Plan — Parking The site plan details 859 parking stalls, with 16 of those being handicapped accessible and four van accessible. Of these spaces, 32 are identified as cart corral parking. The total required parking based on the ordinance is 830 spaces. It is recommended that additional curbed and landscaped islands be provided along the front of the store. These areas are currently shown as striped. Yellow curb painting will be required in some portions of the development as designated by the Fire Marshal. The site is compliant with the ordinance criteria relating to parking. Site Plan — Pedestrian Accesses The site includes numerous internal sidewalks linking the building to the planned sidewalk along East Point Douglas. Pedestrian ramps are required as per City specifications. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 48 of 56 The Comprehensive Plan identifies a recreational trail along the northern portion of the property in the outlot areas. It is recommended that the applicant deposit funds with the City for the in- stallation of this required trailway. The details of this shall be included in the development agreement. The future recreational trailway will not be constructed with this project, but will be con- structed sometime in the future when additional development of the remnant Apache parcel occurs. Site — Bicycle Parking The City recently adopted a bicycle parking standard policy for new and redeveloping commer- cial properties within the community. It is recommended that the conditions of approval include that these standards be met. Site Plan — Fencing The applicant is proposing a six -foot tall chain link fence along the top edge of the retaining walls generally located along the east and west sides of the access drive in the southwest cor- ner of the site and around the retaining wall perimeter of the stormwater basins. The City is re- quiring that the fences, including the garden center fence, must be a wrought iron design that is black in color consistent with the City's commercial fencing architectural details. The develop- ment agreement will specify that the maintenance of any fencing located within a dedicated public right -of -ways or outlot is the responsibility of the property owner. Conditional Use The Conditional Use Permit application for the project includes requests for a drive -up window for the pharmacy and an accessory structure for exterior recycling storage. Conditional Use — Pharmacy Drive -up Window The proposed use is internal to the site and will not negatively impact traffic flows on public roadways. Based on comments received at the last Planning Commission meeting, the circula- tion routing of the customer traffic in this area was clarified on the revised site plan. Similar drive -up- windows operate efficiently within the community, and this use does not appear to be different. The City's Technical Review Committee did not identify any issues. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 49 of 56 Drive -up Window Detail It is recommended that a condition of approval be that any external customer communi- cation systems not be audible from the property line. Conditional Use — Recycling Storage Area Based on comments received at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding the operation logistics and noise impacts, the Applicant has provided the following narrative: " Pallet/Bale and Organic Recycling Area As part of Walmart's business practice, Walmart implements a commitment to environ- mental stewardship by incorporating an area specifically devoted to the storage and col- lection of delivery pallets, cardboard bales, and un- purchased organic materials. This facility will be located to the north of the building within an enclosed 12 -foot by120 -foot area and screened with masonry block to match building material. Delivery pallets will be stacked in this designated area to await return to the distribution centers via an empty delivery truck. Pick -up is completed on an on -going basis. Cardboard bales will be stacked in this designated area to await pick -up by our partnering companies (3rd party vendor) who recycle and reuse the materials for a wide variety of purposes. Cardboard bales are generally picked up two times per week. Three sealed organic dumpsters will ensure unused organic materials from the store do not generate unpleasant odors while the material awaits pick -up to be used for fertilizer and other appropriate uses. The organic dumpster is generally picked -up on an every other week basis." Other on -site recycling includes used batteries which are picked -up on an every other week basis. A detail of the accessory structure for the recycling storage area is included below. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 50 of 56 q �..a .+�,.� T 3 ;, .5� PmNsxd Site Plan Recycling Elevation Detail N I 0 is 30 RECYCLING AREA IRJFEE`I Recycling Plan View Detail Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 51 of 56 Public Hearing Notices The public hearing notice for the July 23 Planning Commission meeting was published in the South Washington County Bulletin and mailed to the adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the proposed project on July 12, 2012. The public hearing notice for the August 27 Planning Commission meeting was published in the August 8 South Washington County Bulletin news- paper and notices were mailed to surrounding property owners on August 13. The location map at the beginning of this report identifies the notification area. The Planning Commission staff re- port will be published online the afternoon of August 23. A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the Applicant early in the process, and two additional neighborhood meetings were hosted by the Mayor. Advisory Commissions: Comments and Recommendations Public Works Commission — August 13, 2012 Meeting The Public Works Commission reviewed the revised application documents that the City re- ceived on August 10, 2012, at their regular meeting on August 13, 2012.The Commission reviewed site information related to public and private utilities, right -of -way, traffic, and storm - water. The Public Works Commission did not identify any issues with the plan and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the plans as presented. Public Safety Commission — August 21, 2012 Meeting The Public Safety Commission reviewed the reported traffic impacts and recommended phased infrastructure and traffic control improvements related to the applications. They did not identify any negative public safety impacts of the proposed project. They did recommend that as addi- tional review of intersection operation is completed, east of Jamaica Avenue on East Point Outdoor Recycling Enclosure Area Lakeville Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 52 of 56 Douglas Road, that right -in /right out only requirements be explored as a component of that review. Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission — August 8, 2012 Meeting The Parks Commission recommendation is noted above. Economic Development Authority — August 14, 2012 Meeting • The proposed Wal -Mart project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan which desig- nates the parcel for commercial use. Further, in that the City is charged with bringing zoning in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan it is appropriate for the City to positively consider a zoning request for a commercial use. • The proposed Wal -Mart project responds positively to the findings of the 2009 McComb Retail Sales Potential Study and would be anticipated to fill voids in identified retail sales categories. • The proposed Wal -Mart project provides an opportunity to positively react to existing retail sales per capita in Cottage Grove which is currently significantly below expected levels given the population and income levels of the community. • The proposed Wal -Mart project will provide an enhancement in the tax base by way of con- verting property with modest taxable market value to one with significantly greater market value. • The proposed Wal -Mart project site has been designed in general conformance with the East Ravine Master Plan and project planners have conducted off site development and trans- portation planning to allow for future contiguous development to be reasonably integrated with the proposed Wal -Mart project. • That the Council closely review the architectural standards of the site to ensure that it con- forms with policy and practice of the adopted Gateway standards which have been used as a guideline for recent commercial developments within the community. • That the Applicant provide an enhanced buffer on the north side of the project from that pre- sented at the July Planning Commission Meeting. That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take five separate actions to conditionally approve the applications by Walmart Real Estate Business Trust, c/o MFRA, Inc. for a commercial development located on a 23.55 -acre parcel located at 9338 East Point Douglas Road to include a 177,808 gross square foot Walmart multi- tenant retail store. The specific actions that are recommended are: Action One Approve the Zoning Amendment from R -4, Low Density Residential, to B -2, Retail Business. The recommended findings for approval of Action One are: Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 53 of 56 A. Zoning is compliant with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. B. State Statutes require zoning and land use be consistent. C. The proposed zoning and site plan are cohesive with this land use and planning area. The recommended conditions of approval for Action One are: 1. The rezoning of the property from R -4, Low Density Residential to B -2, General Business, is only for the 23.55 -acre portion of property identified in the planning staff report as the devel- opment site. 2. The Final Plat for a 23.55 -acre parcel is approved and recorded with Washington County Action Two Approve the Preliminary Plat. The recommended findings for approval of Action Two are: A. The proposed plat is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. B. The Plat creates lots with minimum public frontage. C. The plat creates additional outlots for the benefit of the general public. D. The plat creates additional drainage and utility easements for the benefit of the general public. E. The plat creates additional right -of -way for the benefit of the general public. The recommended conditions of approval for Action Two are: 1. The Property is zoned B -2. 2. The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Cottage Grove for the installation of and payment for all public improvements in the subdivision, pursuant to Title 10 of the City Code. 3. Dedication of public right -of -way as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Dedication of public drainage and utility easements as per the recommendations of the City Engineer. 5. Park dedication requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved develop- ment agreement for this subdivision. 6. Area charge requirements shall be satisfied as stipulated in the approved development agreement for this subdivision. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 54 of 56 7. The preliminary plat shall follow the City's standard street naming policy. 8. The proposed outlot C shall not be platted as an Outlot. 9. The area proposed as outlot C shall be identified on the plat as a public drainage and utility easement. Action Three Approve the site plan for a 177,808 square foot multi- tenant retail store. The recommended findings for approval for Action Three are: A. The site schematic and design is consistent with the City's site development standards. B. The proposed site plan meets or exceeds the buffering and landscaping requirements between adjacent land uses. The recommended conditions of approval for Action Three are: 1. The preliminary plat is approved. 2. All site, utility, landscaping and building plans must be revised prior to submittal of the application to the City Council. 3. Final drainage plans must be submitted to the South Washington Watershed District for review. 4. All revisions to utility and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 5. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, etc.) must be issued by the City prior to any work or construction taking place. Detailed construction plans shall be re- viewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 6. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide for the additional required plantings and increased buffering vegetation sizes along the northern portion of the property. 7. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and landscaped areas, including the curbed landscaped island interior to the parking lot. The irrigation system shall consist of an un- derground sprinkling system that is designed by a professional irrigation installer to meet the water requirements of the site's specific vegetation. The system shall be detailed on the landscape plan. 8. Concrete aprons for all private access drives shall be constructed per City requirements. 9. All site lighting must meet City Code requirements. All light fixtures must be downward directed with cut -offs. The specifications of all light fixtures must be provided with the ap- plication for a building permit. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 55 of 56 10. Final architectural plans, lighting details, and exterior construction materials and colors must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES II Permit re- quirements. Erosion control devices must be installed prior to commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook" and the conditions stipulated in Title 10 -5 -8, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 12. Permanent or temporary construction easements are required on any area included in the site grading and surface water management component of the project. 13. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring that all required temporary construction easements, storm water and access cross easement documentation are completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. The applicant must provide the City with an as -built survey of all private utilities prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a comprehensive sign package to the City for review and approval. 16. Bicycle parking shall meet City design standard policies. 17. All fencing must be constructed of a wrought iron designed materials Consistent with the City's commercial fencing standards. No portion of any retaining wall or fence shall en- croach within any public right -of -way or upon any parcel that is not owned by Walmart. 18. Tree mitigation plan shall be identified in the development agreement. 19. A certified arborist meeting the City's approval is required as a component of the project. Action Four Approve the conditional use for the pharmacy drive -up window. The recommended findings for approval for Action Four are: A. The proposed use satisfied the established criteria for issuing a conditional use permit. The recommended conditions of approval for Action Four are: The site plan is approved. 2. The drive -up window shall not cause negative traffic impacts. 3. External customer communication systems shall not be audible from the property line. Supplemental Planning Staff Report Walmart August 27, 2012 Page 56 of 56 Action Five Approve the conditional use for an accessory recycling collection point/exterior storage structure. -. A. The proposed use satisfied the established criteria for issuing a conditional use permit. The recommended conditions of approval for Action Five are: 1. The site plan is approved. 2. The recycled materials stored on site shall be enclosed at all times. 3. The approved storage area is limited to the accessory exterior storage structure detailed in the approved site plan. 4. All mechanical equipment screening and trash enclosures must include a combination of block and brick, consistent with the principal building. All mechanical equipment must be screened in accordance of City Code Title 11, Chapter 6, Section 3. Trash enclosures and the accessory recycling structure must be constructed of masonry materials that are consistent with the principal structure. 5. The accessory recycling structure shall be maintained at all times and not cause odors or other public nuisances. 6. No idling of delivery trucks after five minutes on site. 7. Bollards are required in front of the structure. Prepared by: John M. Burbank, AICP Senior Planner D ®�m 3 =� x(07 sm a.�e z , j aiaz M N (4 CD n�oA o, n c�oZ 3 � a »a _ a 0 3 2a N n f r'F am � 0 ro 0$ a- N a NJ a o - c � = a 33 o� a^ 00 n 0 CD 0 rD z 4# N -P - P 00 0 p C rn o rn ti < o .Z7 IV rn 0 W W, fD 0) CD to fD n 3 2 ) fmr I I q= 1 ➢ ®s ue atidN IQ _ dI �m � -o° oZ ID n � aa= QC N -- o a Z o " '�O ti C � O ti D Tz � c3 3 � o O = N a - C) a� N 3 o - as 33 n 0 Gl 0 rD z N -P 00 n O C M C 0 0 Q —, y o G7 ti < G) o ITI DTI 2 0 Q 3 te m n rD 1 I � �3 CN D ®zm a °xm Z + , o di 'soZ mm D DE a�aZ Eg N (C) (D 31pJ 2 - »n � Tz »D � o � 3 o 0 3 a 1 ' ^ �l�J 3 N 03: 0 N 3 a 33 o� n 0 cQ rD 0 r� z N -P 00 n D ;u O C M n 0 0 pp� O 0 =1 G) P--:) < O m CC 00 11�1 C Q, rD m Z) r+ n, Z5 n rD I� X11 l7 j 1 "d Dm�m 3Q= C�Dn x m O 0 a o O "o �oz � N A _ 5-. K a rn y z •C CD - �s (Q °m. w 3 z -�o 2 z c o n O y �O s z »D - ° 3 LO 3 C o � o O y r= C) 3 a D -- N a Z z O A m 33 p' o ➢ O m 1 O rf rf G) O rD z NJ 00 n O D 0 C m C = D m Iv °® G) o W X1..1 m_ 1 ^ C n O 3 e r m m m C O m H rh In O O 7 fl! rD Q r- o C 7 W ° V n W S � 7 T� � O v Q N � W � I W W:? rD rD W H I I, Dl F 1 i; o-•o �c v T rD Q „ ° ° -3 3 n S rD M cru W ; T � O O 3 3 n S W C n 11I o rD rr JJ p v * III�L. 6I _� rD o n 0a � v ��I a K N O �a LqQ rQ N i 7 iD CL I� I fig I A I - p O m S m C O m N rD !D Q n W� �E D d N O O °3 v v v 0Q v O F v U, Ul V O N 1 O -1 'O O x m O 0 a ° 9 A _ °m. w 3 z o C o D O p = K o O y r= 3 D Z z O A m _ A C ➢ O m L m y ur A c Z O c w � � o m O a mD (R 00000 RR'RRB _ � m O o aoa =- z cn . o v > - - 96999 - -- - cn 82 b, b b. 8. b. b 8, - 0 m = v z z z z z z 3 C m N �i - N N � � O O N d CL a - n9 I eD N S v 3 m rD ° T CA � C r05 O v N � ° 0 ° a- rD TO �3 O f 7 T on a -1 co d TrD v m Q .+ 0 0 3 3 v n d O/ oa v of a F ri) O a LnO N N •O v rD a I rD b n W� d � � d n m cr O O 3 �O n W p S m m m C LI Z ' S fD d � O_ �n r) d C N- N O- Q� v O2 �a _ v L� �CD V O- N 0 ° Ln n CD �-c ID tL � Q n an � v N O N O_ A p I o� I' I, t :1. r m n W T 7 — 7 n0 O I d i J �1 rD d d a – K 0 m I rD to n V U O I N lO N � 7 !D o. 1 v rD a rD im 3 a d L1 FI T � 6 0 Q O 'a S i T� W C rD � v Z .r p d rD oa 3 v cr S O Qw O � rD CD a W d 7 N � DJ v � O O �3 n 0 m C O O c S r n W d n D (D O_ �E'O ID Q � n � a � N N ( D O- v �n N a r) F C N. O `2v �ID N °- A rD l Q n E' W v K C �v 7 R v T � N � O 7 W 7 c � O d O � �= 7 T ° �3 o ° 7 n S O� O Q D n W rD r o n �c �a to v 0 CL co N I N ID D Q n W � d � 7 �! d T � Da rD IS ti O O �3 D/ S MT C n Z K O d O 0 i > j �(D T � ili O v O ^ S coa W a) rD 7 rD i I lD 'IF o m O 3 7 On T to rD � W N oa N O\ • o i•1 W rD M d n co ° d 7 N a d 7 rD 0— O ° 3 3 D, T rD N v a O a a I to n o� �o - a � 7 N-o N-O rD N O. > a Z I Q N , H, T "O OZ D , 2 0 Z ID aaz (C)(N 1y j N a_ 0 o 3 z ti ti � C u O ti j � O TZ �D 2 c3 n m m 3a = N a a.a Q < a 3 33 0 0 n O (D O rD z 4# 00 C) O C M n o 0 o m rl-D < G) 0 �� Ill Q (D G r n n, cQ 3 ror • �� ° a�. F, 1y j N rF n m n v Q N n • �� ° a�. 1y 4� f t, m_ o 7 ati�Z m° ,� 0 ecef 00'OE8 =3dd SH ago3Z �C dS 808'ca =dS SSM Q„ o z (/1 2c 5 00.817bZ# UMS _� D a �> urr�r ' c3 — LQ o om o m � o C) oT v N a� 3 a A� d n o v n . ^.a n O Co CD Gl O fD z N -P 00 C D O C m 0 c� n' CD n QQ m n O rD CD N n CD ll' ` ......I'. I of I M�I �IIIIIIIIIIIIIh � .. re► .; k 11111111 I-U' nnnnJ► ,IIIIIIIIIIII ��� �. 1 _ _I_ I e � I II I I I I I I I I — T—I ' .n ome —� �F an .............. I , I , w of l aa I /� I I a i ll''::I:�• I I I `,'1�1 � 'bi�uexe - I I I I I I I w I I I I :L, f I w..�ua.xuun I L' I I A; I T I I I I I I .om. +�. on.�.�mmo ,r I I I i•j� r + I c�Fn�S'sCI� InnJi:� n n u r T , I 3nN3AV kN3dd3r — - -- — - - - - -- AM+' nn .� , hA �P I I I I I 0 ecef 00'OE8 =3dd dS 808'ca =dS SSM Q„ ON - 3 (/1 5 00.817bZ# UMS - ;�; aaewleM urr�r ,IIIIIIIIIIII ��� �. 1 _ _I_ I e � I II I I I I I I I I — T—I ' .n ome —� �F an .............. I , I , w of l aa I /� I I a i ll''::I:�• I I I `,'1�1 � 'bi�uexe - I I I I I I I w I I I I :L, f I w..�ua.xuun I L' I I A; I T I I I I I I .om. +�. on.�.�mmo ,r I I I i•j� r + I c�Fn�S'sCI� InnJi:� n n u r T , I 3nN3AV kN3dd3r — - -- — - - - - -- AM+' nn .� , hA �P I I I I I PRINTED: 7/10/2012 12:19 PM BY: Duty Copp,, IAST SAVED: 7/10/2012 12:18 PM BY: Ou,tyC,pp,, ,:\b,l, pnd p,llcl d,1,1l,.dw9 b N N m N 4 „ °m 4cn F 7 1 °;:u ° D ° m D r m P s -.1 US o' m F7 N s2 r u M p an$o° - 5N M V) N r < IB O 24 —SP2.1 —2p °Z N 21 —SP2.1 O 2m 12•_8” �i �� N m•� �� i�' �'TYP rl ;z riEF D Z sac C, Fri s , _� m F9 i im =A -0 -- � N $ N m g �t �= D REF 8 Z STRUC M — m� n Z zy m m r xCA w a�� IA H 12' - 8" 5 A o° 21 —BP2.1 OH � � 9 C1 O Z Z U) 0 ;O T 00 O z C) O C 0 0 G-) o M o � Il:�sooiil � STIPULATION FOR REUSE i II z m my� z m 0§ 0 pro �m =D y iv 1®IMIR 5 5 N N °' a t 8 R( Ms$ a d CD H r�o r�o n gs ° N. 3 ® Faa m �' O � ° 9 1 z p4 E �3 4 0 3 C,7 IV m G) S 0 ^� m II T. m 1 Z v X �^ o z M �a Lm G1 7 A G m K -i m D OC o m pz8DW. � � zp /S�11 -12_!t .�i sy Z �i+ti.NmyD w v�M�j Wbm�O C r�N .�+0^ $aurnA �i 25a zi —rl z N000r o y -I '"3 9"3^ nWo�° Hmo�g b T w iyn� a PS x ' � 34'T x "' O1 �• a �z z im z � � °nm m`NOam N 3 0 o m A m a o S g 0 o D fD T - 3 A rr � n ' o 3 ow Nip aq v p V N I (D t= O N o p ( D < OL -p rD D 000 I 0 " �• °o ♦I 3 3 fD m 0 C+ -� 1®IMIR 5 5 N N °' a t 8 R( Ms$ a d CD H r�o r�o n gs ° N. 3 ® Faa m �' O � ° 9 1 z p4 E �3 4 0 3 C,7 IV m G) S 0 ^� m II T. m 1 Z v X �^ o z M �a Lm G1 7 A G m K -i m D OC o m pz8DW. � � zp /S�11 -12_!t .�i sy Z �i+ti.NmyD w v�M�j Wbm�O C r�N .�+0^ $aurnA �i 25a zi —rl z N000r o y -I '"3 9"3^ nWo�° Hmo�g b T w iyn� a PS x ' � 34'T x "' O1 �• a �z z im z � � °nm m`NOam N 3 0 o m A m a o S g 0 o D fD T - 3 A rr � n ' k $ z M m I n s a I S `" '" • • • •: I it fzFl I } — — — — — — Wu R/W IINf OF JEFFFAT AYE - -- - - - --t I------ - - - - -- " I Z I n = .ROADWAY FA44FNT —NAOE 8 UTM ff 549.87 z m n I p EISFJI— PFA 000. N0. x1. - I' ^, lo, " m »-on T v-q» L1NE PARALLEL WITH 1HE N. , m I u-m.-aa. -em. S89 � !✓' �M >Nen -n -um. b0 40w "n em�e LINE OF THE SWI /4. SEC. 22 ^ vowr aF eEpNxlNC �'1 m rn go lw eime I ' e 40'08'E -.+ ^' _ _ S89'40'08'E 193.63 -� ti — — — — i •t M-1 y 17800 91871 Sey40YNF 10 — sev� ' N. LINE OF THE SWI /4. SEC. 22 +`. w EwsvA ' a + i o�� pyl \ 1! IS' FM FOR E0.5 IJNE WI0'04S PFA UOC N0. 1]TIB -^ i d� j 8 NS IO.00 FEET _ ______________ __ __ _1__ I A I $ ME OF S 80.00 FEET W TIE N. 110A0 `- d0' EASdENT F SWITART PURP09'S M DK Na N14EO0 $ g � $ SCC� - 1 �--=---------------- - - - - -- 1 -1- � m $ --- i------ - - - -�� y .. T --- ----- -- -------- -- - - 8 ' UNE OF TIE N. 110.00 FEET SAN C 7 O N P w l4b. 569e40'O8"E y 9 °1 3 4 caW 11 9 125.00 c y� LINE PAR ALLE7. MIX W N gg 7HE K LINE OF 7NE SM /4. SEC. 22 g a m g3 z§ -8s as g$�F O I m rn � 83 IZcLi m g ffl I 1 x g lam& R q uu $ S$y A 3 S s d= 0 � I P Z $ x . -- P�9�$i3 RAg I I I m 0Z O ga a �2'HFL -"e 4 ti ad..B a'gd_ N N w A En V I O z 00 �s ea .F N87'38'40T 484.18 (483]8- 7.JJC r - - 11 ~ � l0 l �� SI 3 P IS N II �r v I Y O s \ �pq INI T Y 10 0 X. Aj Lit ! = - - � X 7 0 � (2 O 10 \ \ y m 00 n 1 8 3 "a Vf v1 °' c 70 3 9 R N A w 3 11 M w m m C y z 8 V1 G n S 7' 9 N 3 ' 1 O A' N fD ID Z C Z V1 N D ee m �- s $ A 'p = � Z = (DD s r v3•N 3 o O D�z C7 ���3 a� /7 / O mo 0m u 3 N� H D > z -GZ D o co ') s a9 9 m p prr $� n�_� OT 1A N ti7 7� < ° �� o � 3 ^ ' ' s w m _ m c, o G7 0 M pI♦ 3 s� O rAr N N w A En V I O z 00 �s ea .F N87'38'40T 484.18 (483]8- 7.JJC r - - 11 ~ � l0 l �� SI 3 P IS N II �r v I Y O s \ �pq INI T Y 10 0 X. Aj Lit ! = - - � X 7 0 � (2 O 10 \ \ y m 00 n 1 8 3 "a Vf v1 °' c 70 3 9 R N A w 3 11 M w m m C y z 8 V1 G n S 7' 9 N 3 ' 1 O A' N fD ID Z C Z V1 N D ee m �- s $ A 'p = � Z = (DD s r v3•N 3 o O D�z C7 ���3 a� /7 / O mo 0m u 3 N� H D > z -GZ D o co ') s a9 9 m p prr $� n�_� OT 1A N ti7 7� < ° �� o � 3 ^ ' ' s w m _ m c, o G7 0 M pI♦ 3 s� O rAr N II �r v I Y O s \ �pq INI T Y 10 0 X. Aj Lit ! = - - � X 7 0 � (2 O 10 \ \ y m 00 n 1 8 3 "a Vf v1 °' c 70 3 9 R N A w 3 11 M w m m C y z 8 V1 G n S 7' 9 N 3 ' 1 O A' N fD ID Z C Z V1 N D ee m �- s $ A 'p = � Z = (DD s r v3•N 3 o O D�z C7 ���3 a� /7 / O mo 0m u 3 N� H D > z -GZ D o co ') s a9 9 m p prr $� n�_� OT 1A N ti7 7� < ° �� o � 3 ^ ' ' s w m _ m c, o G7 0 M pI♦ 3 s� O rAr z � ®E1 II Z O PE*OPOOPpm0T #® II s�o a � r m c Illlbb�bb� MM SE ' €= it � 2 2 Firm °nwr� °x�' ^3aean" 3 0 1 T 1 m - - - - -- ------ -- -- -� °m p !•� w D ` 1 1 r 1 ~ I ihilIiiiIitititj1lIIii ° I III I Illl \�= ��i++�iii� / '; I I 7' IIII \I \\ \\��� \. 0 M \�\\ nom. )\ \ uR Sr�noN \ \\\\ \\ J \ —\\ - -- \ 1 \ C --- x`3� iroiPm.xa : - -;\ �' / / I'1 I r \ I /ii i /�� � / /��I I ✓' � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \� T / � \ \ \ \ \ III )��I//(r�11 111111+1��cr////// \\ \ ltd 1 1 1 II 11 ) � I l l ll 1�1 +I II�IIII��/ �.I l• 1 I I �, � ,` \ II \ \ t / `\ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ I i I il�` \ \ \ I � / � I I " • r I � I /')\ "�rlfl } I luyhl 11 11 11 1111l1III \rm \ l it IIII 1 1111 I I • d . I 1. / II � I l l lj 1 II I � � � / � y I' I : , I � f � / \ \ \ \ �\1111j1111111111 IIIIIIIIIjIIII\ I^ l I 1 // // i � % ' \`• ` li 1 1 � .$��' I�11II &uh1���+ \\\ \ \1` \ \ \ \I + \ \ \ \�\\ \ \� \ \'Zo' \ \ Ili \ \ \`�\\\ \ �� + \l \ 1 11 11 11 1111 \11� � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ oo i t Pu \ a \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ + \ \ I + \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\�\\�� \�� ����\\\ \\ b\ \ z z!�z\\\\� \\\ \ \� \ " \ \ <, �'�,� \ \�\� �\ \\./ / "° / 1 \ \ + + 1 \•� \ 11\1 + 111 \ \ II Z O g�s z � w ss x 3 ^ i Sk y �� "a� va g4v @3: �3 e x' Z �' O N n a c0 "� F R $;s s s 7 L®_ � _ I \ S 1 \ \\ IA a ' w �6 m �00?� r D - 3 d 8 3 ^ 4 z � 3 O >m 30 0 4 Co c og -iD / 1� N z 0 rt V � m � 3 v G Y •* s a s �� m 9 a ' z m m D O •"O � n ^ e 7 L®_ � _ I \ S 1 \ \\ IA a ' w �6 o m �00?� r D � gg� c A >m 30 0 4 Co c og -iD / 1� N z 0 rt V o m �00?� r D � gg� c A >m 30 0 4 Co c og -iD 1� z 0 rt C7 •* s a s �� m 9 a ' z m m D O •"O m O 0 Z ��� a O /�/ ° 3 ND Pa D N O Nd N"-1 f�D M Z 0 ° �O o 7 �O A 00 $ A� 3 a� /� au O 7 0 IV G O 8°9Mp [® N CO C ■ r II � C & m O m A K 2�ga r " Ft r $ - -. � PER OOG NO 411/18 ` , , S S2Y [/NE ENRRY E40WEV 1^ I s5 ":n a sa g � i = Q ------------------ - - - - -- 01 O .0• I --------- - -'"'{ g a v i = $ ' ' $ OUTLOT BP P P W m I n 60' EA$YENT F SANITARY PVRPRSE5' PER DOR Na 54/4866 _ • ,S' $ •. I ; C• I Y R/W L INE -- - J " 1 I I- - — — — — — WG OF y�FFERY AI'E — "HI z I • ° I'`'+ ^ N 1 -7 $ I 10 Na 411178-. ROADWAY EASEMENT k DRAINAGE k URL/TY -� `• I •• .- N I °�' I N 60 I EA5EJIENT PER OX NR 5414896 ONE PARALLEL 817H THE N. 11NE OF 7HE SWI /4. SEG 22 --.. I S89'40'08'E 549.87 - _ •'� n I I ' . TD V S89 193.63 `• •- 9mv Z ° i }a" -- N. LINE OF THE SWI /4, SEC. 22 '- SO'EAS7/ENT FOR VS UNE PURPOSES �. $ Tn ` f 10 s92 av9z r°rau ' 2�ga r " Ft r $ - -. � PER OOG NO 411/18 ` , , S S2Y [/NE ENRRY E40WEV 1^ I s5 ":n a sa g � i = Q ------------------ - - - - -- O W g a v i = $ ' ' $ OUTLOT BP P P W 2� i 60' EA$YENT F SANITARY PVRPRSE5' PER DOR Na 54/4866 _ • ,S' $ $ $ 60 EASEMENT FOR GAS P P $ £ a 0 N 1 -7 $ I 10 Na 411178-. ° j _____ -__ iexu �10 Z Z ° °rte �, •�i____' ______s�� � � r _____ ______________________ _________ ♦ ♦ ♦ s ml \ ♦,� moo, •c;, I I° N N A A $ ° 3F _ _ 5 5894000'E - $� m cI g - U -I, $ 8 "� ^ Q a x x •960- I I C �'g ' C /I I I L Im �g I Iv �k rn s IM I n X I aP� 444 a 5 s� KI r y e %�M l m 8 I `$ as $N�3 '^ v � � y �.L °` ~ \\ ♦ asp j �� ° 990 \ a \ I g I 21 g I t ` a Z g I � I I N8T5O'40'E 48A18 L I (4BJ76- T.SJGJ to $ I N I 'z M, sN m 3 �, n pa mm }N ° z e 3. I m " ` fir % -- •� \ \\ I ♦ ♦ 4 N \ I " d 3 a a a^ o? �. a ♦\ ♦` � 1 ♦ z V <0 1 ° . N ° ;• g. • r% \ L: , ' 58937'39'E 386.25 �€ I �: I I \ A - I �. a0 ry \ \ ''C. ?• 5747935, �,�� j 5 x �89 O `\ , to 8 IN \ \ \o \ JJ p, T �'�ia`'„Liie�, �f °`v ,� BG 414111 T \= pa d \ \ m " 190/ \ ` � n m \ Iw IA t �m I4 I00 n O S m N f Z 0 0 a w a e rn rn o 0 M s ;a 0) (D D � c7 0 D ju m C m n � C) IV \ m ci D fl°9 C Iv Il'I p H i8 H n ¢e - rt my Z 0 it 0) � 3 F o' rt m r A oo NO m c 2,9 S9 9 o �� n p � n - .- o m 00 6 -1,r s �� c C O IITI 1 � n m \ Iw IA t �m I4 I00 n O S m N f Z 0 0 a w a e rn rn o 0 M s ;a 0) (D D � c7 0 D ju m C m n � C) IV \ m ci D fl°9 C Iv Il'I p H i8 H n ¢e - rt my Z 0 it 0) � 3 F o' rt m r A oo NO m c 2,9 S9 9 o �� n p � n - .- o m 00 6 -1,r s �� c C O IITI 1 Iw IA t �m I4 I00 n O S m N f Z 0 0 a w a e rn rn o 0 M s ;a 0) (D D � c7 0 D ju m C m n � C) IV \ m ci D fl°9 C Iv Il'I p H i8 H n ¢e - rt my Z 0 it 0) � 3 F o' rt m r A oo NO m c 2,9 S9 9 o �� n p � n - .- o m 00 6 -1,r s �� c C O IITI 1 IITI 1 0 'C �—I� No r70AA �90� 3 S<n A o5 A ID ow �m �A O n —I N CO F; N _ H m i n °' '* O� m ID Z Q Z 1 �f 88 a �/ .* oo v O 7 m *C ii Ln z o�oo� ME I C m 3= F z° D logo I m i 8���� 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 Z 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 iii 0 0 8�_ o O I� o 8 8 8 8 8 8 D o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o M Q N - 3 � �m 3 0 3 0 3 9 0 9 3 33 9 3 3 3 9 9 9 3 a e 3 3 a 3 o a A 3 3 3 3 a a a a a a a 3 g a s a a a a a D 3 3 o a a 3 a a a a a$ a �e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z 11 HOUR 1111111 Bull I s ti O 2 s ti O 2 to 'C �—I� No r70AA �90� 3 S<n A o5 A ID ow �m �A O n —I N CO F; N _ H °' '* O� m ID Z Q Z 1 �f 88 a �/ .* oo v O 7 m *C ii Ln z o�oo� C m 3= F z° D m i 8���� 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 Z 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 iii 0 0 8�_ o O I� o 8 8 8 8 8 8 D o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o M Q N - 3 � �m 3 o� O D fD gg;; 3 _ H 1 1 v %�0000�oo ii o�oo� o= ■i m i 8���� 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8�_ o m 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 G - 3 � 3 0 3 0 3 9 0 9 3 33 9 3 3 3 9 9 9 3 a e 3 3 a 3 o a A 3 3 3 3 a a a a a a a 3 g a s a a a a a D 3 3 o a a 3 a a a a a$ a �e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z I s ti O 2 o� O D fD gg;; 3 _ H 1 v %�0000�oo ii o�oo� o= ■i m i 8���� 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8�_ o m 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 G - 3 � 3 0 3 0 3 9 0 9 3 33 9 3 3 3 9 9 9 3 a e 3 3 a 3 o a A 3 3 3 3 a a a a a a a 3 g a s a a a a a D 3 3 o a a 3 a a a a a$ a �e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z o� O D fD gg;; 3 H 1 v %�0000�oo o�oo� o= m 8���� 8 8 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8�_ o m 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 G - 3 � 3 0 3 0 3 9 0 9 3 33 9 3 3 3 9 9 9 3 a e 3 3 a 3 o a A 3 3 3 3 a a a a a a a 3 g a s a a a a a D 3 3 o a a 3 a a a a a$ a �e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z I s ti O 2 o� O D fD gg;; 3 H 1 v %�0000�oo o�oo� o= m 8���� 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 G - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 99 3 3 3 3 3 g 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 99 34 D 3 3 o a a a a a a a a$ a �e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z I o� O D fD gg;; 3 H v %�0000�oo o�oo� o= m 8���� 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 G - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 99 3 3 3 3 3 g 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 99 34 D 3 3 o a a a a a a a a$ a �e a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z s ti O 2 o� O D fD gg;; 3 H v %�0000�oo o�oo� o= m 8���� 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 G - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 99 3 3 3 3 3 g 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 99 34 D 3 3 o a a a a a a a a$ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z s ti O 2 o� O D fD gg;; 3 H D v 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 G - 3 3 s 0 o� O D fD gg;; 3 z I K I r I I I I I -1 1 m 1 0 1 Cl 17 , , J_ z / ca Jill 1111 - -- -- -- — — — — — ...... ...... L 1 7 z ter— 4!L� "S- 7 '7 z M R 4 /1 1 , , G" 5f Ito t x * 0 Y. Ii --------- On --i e W' " 0- 0 z 0 z P Eli WA �7 -- T z AA 9 . .......... III 10 ;H �2 0. z I > 00 r F s m IrD 171) z EE o Ym ' i p e4 TO ap Z 0 z z z 21 /Y O 4h rr 9 f A @ I llJ CA) z m 0 17 m 0 > m O -7 a, z r) 2j G G) X Ail, g L4 Fi O z ;H �2 0. z I > 00 r F 0 0 O as SP gS I � 41 I � I � co .2. CD m IrD 171) z EE o Ym ' i p e4 TO m m Z 0 z z z 21 O 4h rr 9 f A @ I llJ CA) z m 0 17 m 0 > m z a, > G) 2j G G) 0 0 O as SP gS I � 41 I � I � co .2. CD m IrD 171) z EE o Ym ' i p e4 TO m m Z 0 C z z 21 mo 0 4h rr 9 f . "r @ I llJ CA) z m 0 17 > m z a, > G) G G) X 17D M G) 0 o (n z m m m 0 m G) cl mo 0 4h rr 9 r) a u rn I llJ u p =i � 5 e � ' I z I F. I I I I I I I T I m co I D Y . I Q � �'�y,„ 0, ►w s� .ter vi�:±� € �_L _ s w 14��' � `� � " / .'-,rte'- f/�f,L \ y gag n s - R X - � ag P ��g $ � g 3 � \ as ^ ^a ^a 3 s `. r I ......... — G m o A "s < r � c D D Z O N D O I O W K S D T - s O z N N s � 4 D � a m � z Z 0 C T mrn o W N N ^ N p J 7 A V W O O O r O - - - -- III 9"•� p " y S 2 d \ �\0c Z 0 gg � � n q v m q a" s Nov^ nc o�cH w nwunFnoex naw uoTCx Y . I Q � �'�y,„ 0, ►w s� .ter vi�:±� € �_L _ s w 14��' � `� � " / .'-,rte'- f/�f,L \ y gag n s - R X - � ag P ��g $ � g 3 � \ as ^ ^a ^a 3 s `. r I ......... — G m o A "s < r � c D D Z O N D O I O W K S D T - s O z N N s � 4 D � a m � z Z 0 C T mrn o W N N ^ N p J 7 A V W O O O r O - - - -- III 9"•� p " y S 2 d \ � n� \S I I I I � 00 L�r +� VII �hl►� y � #I'� r Z4 I ��' FI IY_ Ilo-� h'C4i sae0 E..�I. Oe, qq 'o r r D s ae = o s - =a 3 ��as rt �W O ,°, o ag m �D m r D C7 ee c ^ °g mm Z O m O D v K CD z z r m W � o f �!- =! °- z "• ;a m s r^ g s Z 0 H �_ —I � O m .. m : Y 8 C :i a Z o C .�a M n 6.r;o a 2_� g D70 A r f�e $ Ol VI 1 <_ 8 � O 7 �_ m s g g : w a m Cli 0 O�5 G) C= C O ~� C Z z z m Z �w 0 s z z m Z --I D Z m a z -i o A "s o "c ii pm o� pX 5� Z Z z D Z m m D 1 m I m \ f W p I n m D T0 "s z m Z 1 D Z m m m 1 WW G N N O Z m Z . D Z m m N 1 w l / t / t t / t / t � t t r� 11 N w .a rn v Oo lD r O F+ F+ N / co 3 3 ga a A g w A C N O m N S A s y S 9om -� . 8 c m m c7 EE c q 3� "a .� cm Z v O $m O D el z z r N 0� yea �° �/ o N G1 7 " m � S o N Q cn A '; O C /�i __ 4�' /j, rr o p m Aa 'p } .b 8 2 3 zc a Z gE m ♦/ N� s �� �Q m F, S rn 0 if 0 3 m N v J = g O s S . G o 0 9 a z 0 pp pp 55 pp qq Qg pp qq QQ a Z Z z D Z m m D 1 m I m \ f W p I n m D T0 "s z m Z 1 D Z m m m 1 WW G N N O Z m Z . D Z m m N 1 w l / t / t t / t / t � t t r� 11 N w .a rn v Oo lD r O F+ F+ N / co 3 3 ga a A g w A C N O m N S A s y S 9om -� . 8 c m m c7 EE c q 3� "a .� cm Z v O $m O D el z z r N 0� yea �° �/ o N G1 7 " m � S o N Q cn A '; O C /�i __ 4�' /j, rr o p m Aa 'p } .b 8 2 3 zc a Z gE m ♦/ N� s �� �Q m F, S rn 0 if 0 3 m N v J = g O s S . G o 0 9 1 � 3 's c� sa ^ e ' < 'm f� G "i� -on `.��• ��� FA :t ie". - o� �o��•, �' - .., p� ' k . � a c P IS A `�� .�; � l\` `_, : `: k C CGCCCCCksCv t C C G C c " C "s - 33 � e �aaxa�aax osi FF -N F S W ! ,H � = e e: s t s d :: d t c e e e e e: e e e e c t: c pJ. ° A "\ \„', v�a S °SBg�N���� "off g 47 ti r p 2 3 O i cyT \\ g p� 1 F P P 4 P P c \ �T $ s � 4 I z a a g g a 3 •7 N g P i 9 mmmm o P P o 'o F a P w do c P w P 3 a000muoov °pNOaea 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 y Y= z 3 F msa a 3 3 R R n& R n n g c� sa ^ e ' < 'm f� G "i� -on `.��• ��� FA :t ie". - o� �o��•, �' - .., p� ' k . � a c P IS A `�� .�; � l\` `_, : `: k C CGCCCCCksCv t C C G C c " C "s - 33 •I�C�� " VII N osi FF -N F S W ! ,H � = e e: s t s d :: d t c e e e e e: e e e e c t: c pJ. ° A "\ \„', v�a S °SBg�N���� "off g 47 ti 3 O i cyT \\ g p� 1 \\ O c \ �T $ s � 4 \ 3 3 3 •7 N 9 mmmm o P P o P P P w do c P w P 3 a000muoov °pNOaea 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 y Y= z 3 msa a c� sa ^ e ' < 'm f� G "i� -on `.��• ��� FA :t ie". - o� �o��•, �' - .., p� ' k . � a c P IS A `�� .�; � l\` `_, Ck ". k k C: G C `: k C CGCCCCCksCv t C C G C c " C "s - C G k�$ •I�C�� " VII N gS 8 �.��. '•�., \,�.;G(� ° e y ' � � 1�4 �l 5� I �i4 vll F S ° °``�'•�.''•� \'•.9p � = e e: s t s d :: d t c e e e e e: e e e e c t: c pJ. ° A "\ \„', v�a - De:ee e'e ees 47 ti O i cyT \\ p� 1 \\ O \ �T s \ 3 _C I W A ma � o 1V - 0 ID 0 N W A m V cn v-o-o H off ��y oW 3 ^ r cn m$ H* n S sc�D Aar CD D O S ,�� n A — M 8 W � .O� _ m Z � °_� O� 5� O � = a I� m -q D o o o Ea 9 m� p 4:k CD c� N O G z I F. 00 00 00 00 to W N A 0) 00 O N 000000 0 S� � n 3 n s m O m w H N {A Z 0 V1 D m m O � O 3 rn m e. r 7C D 00 00 00 00 O N A 0) b M -S a1 0000 m Ta 51 � 'A. € > 3 p = p 0 H Z o m =_a� 3 _I N �G D ° o k s rn ^ O n �;$ 0 IV E { 00 00 00 00 O N A 0) 0000 00 00 00 00 O N A M O O O O 59 tm- 07 F o� D$ I a $ S M19 _ LS 'M 00 00 00 00 O N A 01 O O O O 00 00 00 00 O N .0. 01 O O O O T m If 'It1 UNVW07 .A v n W a AW # r 3nN3AV 3NIWSbf N r - V N 1 z . III _r) CD 'EIS �i�• \` § •\y, 't _ - +• � rho 3 8 rn CI p N., n m D b M -S a1 � O Om C m S� � 'A. € > 3 p = p 0 H Z o m =_a� 3 _I N D ° o k rn ^ O 5 0 IV ` - 3nN3AV 1 AUIHN `r o aW W �y � _ ry W TI 1 f+ P � 0 iz Ln �D D z � — . m k o~o ow p m -_ n�M o W fp1 S= r 4 0 m m m oS or st AA N D E� z`c' �m N •v� �� V I l r DJ 00 00 00 00 w l0 N 4�- Ol 00 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 co 0000 O N A 0) 0000 00 00 00 W O N A M 0000 O D m G) O m 0 C= C n � O o N m o c: y O N m 1 o W J ■�m Z II m c ^ o rnl N 0 Z 0 x MID LS 'M R! RESIDENTIAL ! < �.q x Z m qC ° , E t r`d� S t ry r d a s � EN 1 22 �I ♦� 4 4 -7 - -� 1 . I w �+ /\ V r a0 �S n O1 O O o r7' D € czi n GWY�� 1 8 s i3 S to - n; Viz $ a��F S,o z c c ' r� Z o. cu + O 4 1 'sp Al iF ax YR ak rjr O � O n • F T, c a T ... r • T O 10 IN Y. �� •���; n� 3� '��� I I q NON O, � l' .Y >, � v"i !I r' 9 • � do s Z I N N o ff g ffi N C y8 N f_1 CA z m Z 2 -� 1 n N; d o m m rn m = r1r rn H T n n o F 0 7 m ° o .: Qj D o G7 o m ^' v yR - � [:_' N f I I I 3 / �5 / 1 &�� I I i / I _ _ JAREAU AVENUE SOUTH MIN NO SOlJTI,d - I ' I I I , C I I I I % I ' I { I I I < ; I m I I V_ \ / I I I I / I I I I I _ _ _.._L� JMEN UE SOUTH I I I I I I I I I I I I � O / 1 1 z I m � __ \ C Z 0 �0 \\ K -4 � - //i i Ir^ 2 O; i�2 O 2 8 N rn cn D � o Z � c a m Z N 0 o A D I z— n Cj) �D .......... ...... m _ r � f,` �� U7 . . .. . . ................ E 0 . . .. . . ......... . ...... ... to m co �� rn Y z c v I 2 - U — T OV -.NjUEj U" Ali z F Z - GO cn c co M JAISMINE E H Iii a � j ; c m ca m co m ii m 0 m R E v u SOP H KC ,.I o r 3k 0 z rn z 40 = Z� Ff C cn . CM . . :� �. Z zh, �j � 5 X z Z ur, 0 -T i O 40 X _0 z a I m 0 0 000 E3 0 z (nm (1) ;U . �� . . ........ 0 K: m z p a 6 ' nn N � � mm V ' O �V wm � am oc D >m oho n _0: \ =N o�� N o m z �= Z T z A l Z N 4 o Il 11 80' O � / N 9 / C En 0 l) m0D G7 � A M \\ r ApC;u - \\ C3 0 rn mNrn \ Z D� o oz z T M 0 0 D L -T -il.. __. . - :I 0 1'1 � z v m o z � O � / N 9 / C En 0 l) m0D G7 � A M \\ r ApC;u - \\ C3 0 rn mNrn \ Z D� o oz z T M 0 0 D L -T -il.. __. . - :I 1'1 M v m o 0 0 2 Z D 0 0 0 R* m z t*1 D O� Z M V) 1 O N M 7 r N Z U) in _0 V� C n Z C N 277 W c: c M A r a�(1 o � ,D O a c4 0 cn _ —_w. Ac-r t I P� I J REAU AVENUE SOUTH I JA MINE AVENUE SOUTH D � X m f 1A T I � � .l m z I w AVENUE SOUTH t "A , I � � F `iN�DO i 0,�s Ro / a q� C O S� a Q • ,- -�I O or D D 0 0 v ta �ta rn m m o 0 F � Z ;. C 1 v o c T � � .. szs Z n /u m (7 / N � A \i N 0 f / 4,9 z C) m x >s I D n fl m N 'm i pO� Z1 2 V1 <00 Z (AM o Z n Z m N A m O Z D m m V) cn _ —_w. Ac-r t I P� I J REAU AVENUE SOUTH I JA MINE AVENUE SOUTH D � X m f 1A T I � � .l m z I w AVENUE SOUTH t "A , I � � F `iN�DO i 0,�s Ro / a q� C O S� a Q • ,- -�I D D 0 0 v D m m m o 0 0 O O - �i D v o c z m O v O � C) 0 { O m z z z m O Km I D n fl m v ti z Z1 2 V1 N n r C z m V) m R * C) .Z1 i a 6 nn " D N p 11 0 Z c J 7EAAU AVE _ NUE SOUTH � JA h INE AVENUE SO UTfi � c I m - 80 0 m ry � Z t 1 JER AVENUE SOUTH i. A, I A F 00 &1 Rd / % II�1111 O� \ o m L<<° N o 0 -� 0 0^ m y v v D I� m 0 s O ti � o Mod 7 �\\ ho c p. ° o c� M o m .Z7 V) U1 Z T m U) m 0 a V -10 O � 0 \ _� p z o� m l I Z Ii Z �I Z c J 7EAAU AVE _ NUE SOUTH � JA h INE AVENUE SO UTfi � c I m - 80 0 m ry � Z t 1 JER AVENUE SOUTH i. A, I A F 00 &1 Rd / % II�1111 O� \ o m L<<° N o 0 -� 0 0^ m y v v D I� m 0 s O ti � o Mod 7 �\\ ho c p. ° o c� M o m .Z7 V) U1 Z T m U) m 0 a V a O a o cQ (D C) O CD m 0 on=o i s • =a Paz s I I Z n / N i o / , N O � f � I A _ I JIAREAU AVENUE S. I � JASMINE AVENUE S. m I �i •I m 0 �0 j m �°, ch O m y / � m 0 1 � 79 cnzo v —i m � i I o zm F ED Z Z c m m O o D S T] 'O AA C m 0 cn INTERMEDIATE z PRESSURE ZONE I A �B,Nr600G o;i� I JERGEN AVENUE SOUTH � 0 HIGH �— PRESSURE ZONE J m I �i •I m 0 �0 j m �°, ch O m y / � m 0 79 cnzo v —i m � i I o zm F ED Z Z c m m O o D m I �i •I m 0 �0 j m �°, ch O m y / � m r $ n �n- �o IQ o m C O CD NNOVATION ROAD 3,500 I I Ill O m m m 0 � � 0 � �L� 2 O 0 0 Z D 0 0 0 0 m o Fl -- Irn m o 0 n m z 000 cci ;;u O .� m inM K D N m z r m z in moZ N z m O m o D o cn C C7 z c m m W 0 I m m �Q �c QO 5� A ro., / o �111111111�� 0 Dc c m �m r W O � O �m Tb c �� Csgy 8y 1 19 i �Q �z fP � Ya .. 00 g 02,1 Z 0 his a' � 0 N O 00 O N 0� TI W �L� O 0 A my Zc Fl -- Irn 0 000 cci ;;u O inM o m 0 - -- -- - -- - moZ En Z C) rn m O o D / OD Q � o 0 �3 (1 0 0 a z z I y ,I- _ AVENUE. SOUTH ra RUM > oo u q a cc t LD .2 V Lm z o E w 0 cc cc f r4 S v) 2 J 4-J 0 Ln E �2, CL O . o 2 00 > Q) 0 N 4-1 CA 0 4- > 0 c E O Gj CL) 0 4-J CU ca f6 JL 4-J 0 6 � 3 8S8 1 1 - U O Hi - — < II 11 J 4-J 0 Ln E CL O . 00 > Q) 0 N 4-1 CA 0 4- > 0 c E O Gj CL) 0 4-J CU ca f6 JL 4-J 0 U oso Oa o %10 a o --9 Pf ON 00 L 3 16. F gU - -AMR V j O C; z 0 E : w m F uz z < z 0 E 00 U co 0 0 + 41 / 1 4 1 0 0., 2 lov, jag gig o > HIM P N ml p - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- — - - ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- 3 3 e 5 YE 4i ---- ------ --1_T ________________________ -------------- ------ .8 - 15 1 _ T _______________________ 1 -------------- OTU X.P.- / =din - — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — - - -- — — — — — -- — — — — — - Ll! - — — — — — — — — — — — - RZ 1 in H — — — — — — — I 134 ON! HN H — e"d e 0 ooaoo j! H i i Q N N v k NA f: A g\w KN 1) 1 \00\\\\�\ \N \ V w \N V x IN H o zt A my Ok O"Ak V Po I t n A jl � 11 I ! 11111 v 'I I L I r • � I � ,� ivll��� \ \ \ \ \ \\'( /r' I l ( 'i \ \ \ \ 1 � \\ r 1 \ 1 � \ ` i � `k '� � _j Hijl-�j 8 1 4 MHJUH Az 1 4 1 4- 7 - - - - - - - - - - H i T" 1— 4 1 1( - 7 0 - H H 5a - — -- — — — — — — — - �.�—�z �' i i ldbbbbbill I z W - - 4444 co > V) m :5 Z 0 z 0. c Q c C tD z z o z c 2 5 0 0 < Z t: E E a z z t; 0 0 ki e"d e 0 ooaoo j! H i i Q N N v k NA f: A g\w KN 1) 1 \00\\\\�\ \N \ V w \N V x IN H o zt A my Ok O"Ak V Po I t n A jl � 11 I ! 11111 v 'I I L I r • � I � ,� ivll��� \ \ \ \ \ \\'( /r' I l ( 'i \ \ \ \ 1 � \\ r 1 \ 1 � \ ` i � `k '� � _j Hijl-�j 8 1 4 MHJUH Az 1 4 1 4- 7 - - - - - - - - - - H i T" 1— 4 1 1( - 7 0 - H H 5a - — -- — — — — — — — - �.�—�z �' i i ldbbbbbill I z W - - 4444 ro mg its ----------------------- N, IF ---- - -zt" gag% en blrobi 1 1 n 0 ----------------------------------- 9 imino ---------------------------- Al j! v - - - - - - - - - - - o . IN IN goo. HIM ae A p son ME ©■ 0 0 ----------------------- N, IF ---- - -zt" ,^ en blrobi 1 1 n 0 ----------------------------------- 9 imino ---------------------------- j! v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HUI jl�' sill IF ME ©■ 0 0 ----------------------- ---- - -zt" ,^ en blrobi 1 1 n 0 9 imino ---------------------------- j! v ME ©■ 0 0 ----------------------- ---- - -zt" Jn ------------------------------ 1 1 n 0 9 imino ---------------------------- ME ©■ 0 0 m HP all Y U Ix ---- - -zt" Jn ------------------------------ 1 1 n 0 9 imino ---------------------------- j! v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m HP all Y U Ix �!2)r wo d ) <\ d }'0 § f N \ 2 2» g2 ■ o \/§ G eU•!!? ! ® «2� \\ §R »§ ! ■( )83/ �tm \m 2ol aE, «) & U «2 <� \�\ - \d4 t ) H � [§ /§§ /; m III m%( G \| a \ _ . � } ,� a z � � = / ( ( � ® \ / \ ® s : ( / m III � \ \ a \ w . � } ,� a z � � = / (\ � ® - \ 1 1 4 p ���e� E a ar ��7 � f OS t M H W Hum u a bi lk : ZZ-4- A 1 1 A 23� -M H i 1 1 m A "M mm mm RA L ---------- — I:�s.�� �'- { i < I - I u I - I - I — 1 0 1 - I — I — I - At n 4j ot oo b. Rl tg VIER E 0 X y W w- 0 .2 zA Ln w w w cc cc 1 1 4 p ���e� E a ar ��7 � f OS t M H W Hum u a bi lk : ZZ-4- A 1 1 A 23� -M H i 1 1 m A "M mm mm RA L ---------- — I:�s.�� �'- { i < I - I u I - I - I — 1 0 1 - I — I — I - At n 4j 00 W 1 --9 00 0 � E: LD .0 E 3.1 .may ��\ b� � LLL a a 6 77 'IE fl �A E 1 ------------ ----------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- A t m a E --- ---------------- --- ------ o e � �� n. `.w.A �t �3 - �+ z ��� w 1 � .may ��\ b� � LLL a a 77 --------------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- --- ---------------- --- ------ o e � �� n. `.w.A �t �3 - �+ z ��� w MEMEMEMEME 1 1111111111 77 --------------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- --- ---------------- --- ------ �4 � e � �� n. `.w.A �t �3 - �+ z ��� w 1111111111 MEMEMEMEME MMIRM. Mue I 7 II h' i I i Far. 9- -eg l o 9 Woo Z cc to I D 'iE C z o 0 RiA o MEN ME Ma \ �i _ a - "t— = � { �— �' *rte° '� b 1 A=f O pg i9 tl Ell 11 11 A. 00 00 09 Cd cg: Z CL '1 5 ql 0. D as z ri z z aga k I\ �� ®®®® a rrEq 1 8� 0 - No MEN 0 IM on 1010MISMEOM0 �� ®®®® a ®© 0 - No MEN 0 IM • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ............ ... I ®®®® ®© 0 - No MEN 0 IM on 1010MISMEOM0 won ME IMMEMENEM man BE I ME ©■ ©E PAN7 u �_a �x PI- mik wl Z O 0 119 4 110111111111 111111 'H % co > C Z E 1H tn 0 0 wu z; z a' - 5 < 1 ME ©■ ©E PAN7 u �_a �x PI- mik wl Z O 0 119 4 ie 110111111111 111111 ie Consulting Engineers & Surveyors fi 12224 Nicollet Avenue - Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone • 890-0509 • 890-8065 www. bolton-menk . co m MEMORANDUM Date: August 10, 2012 To: City of Cottage Grove, MN From: Mike Boex, PE Kevin Kielb, PE Subject: Traffic and Geometric Analysis Summary - Cottage View Area City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota The following is a summary of the traffic impacts related to development of the Cottage View area. This summary focuses on intersection Level of Service (LOS) and roadway volumes /capacities for the subject area. Several analyses have been prepared for the area including: • Wal -Mart analysis dated March 23, 2012 • SEH analysis dated May 30, 2012 • Bolton & Menk analysis dated June 11, 2012 • Bolton & Menk analysis dated August 7, 2012 Also incorporated by reference are the Cottage Grove Transportation Plan and the Washington County Transportation Plan. Geometric and Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements will be required over the next 20 years as the Cottage View area continues to develop. A summary of the timing of the improvements is provided below: Present Day Modifications to the existing traffic signals at Jamaica Avenue and East Point Douglas Road and East Point Douglas Road and Cottage Grove Plaza are required and being implemented by the City. The improvements include coordinating the signal systems, revising signal timing and adjusting protected /permissive left turning movements for both northbound and southbound Jamaica Avenue. 2015 (Wal -Mart Openin The Phase 1 roadway improvements will need to be implemented, including extending a 3 -lane roadway section from west of the VFW site to east of the Wal -Mart site. A right turn lane will also be required on East Point Douglas Road at CSAH 19. Geometric changes could also be made near Jamaica Avenue along East Point Douglas Road to improve traffic flow in the area. These revisions include revising the lane designations for westbound traffic and removing portions of a median near the intersection. DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer 2015 to 2030 As the Cottage View area continues to develop, upgrades will be required to both the internal roadway system and supporting roadway network, including CSAH 19 TH 61. The Phase 2 improvements will need to be implemented to allow for future development within the Cottage View area. Shortly after the Phase 2 improvements are made, all way stops will likely be implemented at the East Point Douglas Road and CSAH 19 intersection, as well as at the CSAH 19 and eastbound TH 61 ramp intersection. When 20 to 30 percent of the remaining Cottage View area is developed, temporary lane improvements and temporary signal systems will be required along CSAH 19. The temporary signals will be required at East Point Douglas Road and the TH 61 eastbound ramps. Further development (more than 20 to 30 percent) will cause significant congestion along CSAH 19 and TH 61 during the AM and PM peak hours. Significant improvements will be required to both CSAH 19 and the TH 61 interchange to relieve congestion on the area roadways. Traffic Volumes and Roadway Capacity Roadway volumes throughout the area will increase as development occurs within the Cottage View area. The following table summarizes the growth in traffic for the study area roadways: Traffic Volumes (AADT) Projected Projected Roadway Segment Existing 2015 2030 Jamaica Avenue South of East Point Douglas Road 18,800 20,200 21,000 East Point Douglas Road West of Jamaica Avenue 10,900 11,800 13,300 East Point Douglas Road East of Jamaica Avenue 12,900 15,200 16,600 TH 61 West of CSAH 19 26,000 30,500 46,000 TH 61 East of CSAH 19 31,000 35,400 41,000 CSAH 19 South of TH 61 2,700 2,700 3,500 CSAH 19 North of TH 61 6,700 14,700 38,500 CSAH 19 North of East Point Douglas Road 6,700 8,000 13,800 East Point Douglas Road West of Wal -Mart Entrances 2,800 3,100 4,800 East Point Douglas Road East of Wal -Mart Entrances 2,800 10,100 22,400 East Point Douglas Road East -West Connection to CSAH 19 NA NA 33,700 Ravine Parkway North of East Point Douglas Road NA NA 5,300 The existing roadways within the study area will all be under capacity through the year 2030 with the exception of CSAH 19. Preliminary layouts have been prepared for the CSAH 19 corridor, including the interchange at TH 61. Our understanding is that funding has not been made available for those improvements; however, a future project will most likely be a cooperative venture between MnDOT, Washington County and Cottage Grove. Similar to the Jamaica Avenue roundabouts project, federal funding may also be a potential funding source for those improvements. DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW/ Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. Q Z Proposed roadways in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 concept designs have been prepared in consideration of the project traffic volumes through the year 2030. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Intersections and each intersection approach are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS A through D is generally perceived to be acceptable to drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating at, or very near, its capacity and that drivers experience considerable delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity and drivers experience substantial delays. The analyses completed review the AM and PM peak hours for intersections. During off -peak hours, intersections will typically perform at a much higher level. Also, the LOS is a representation of the entire intersection. Even though an intersection has an acceptable LOS, individual movements can still fail. The following table provides data for the key intersections in the study area: Intersection An 2 Intersection Exist 2015 2030 Failing Movements Control Signal Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd C/D EBT, WBL /WBT, NBL, SBL Signal 1 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd B/B WBL /WBT Signal 1 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd B/C Douglas Rd at W Wal -Mart EBT, WBL /WBT Signal 2 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd B/C EBT Signal 121 Jamaica Ave at E Point Douglas Rd B/C EBT Signal 2 E Point Douglas Rd at Cott Grove PI BB I BB BB Signal Douglas Rd at W Wal -Mart NA A/A A/A Side Stop EEPoi Douglas Rd at E Wal -Mart NA A/A A/A Side Stop E Point Douglas Rd at Ravine Pkwv INA INA B/C 3 -Wav Ston TH 61 EB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/B A/F EBL Side Stop 3 TH 61 EB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/C All Way Stop 4 TH 61 EB Ramn at CSAH 19 1 B/B Signal TH 61 WB Ramp at CSAH 19 A/A A/A I I I Side Stop 4 1 TH 61 WB Ramn at CSAH 19 1 A/B I I Signal E Point Douglas Rd at CSAH 19 A/B A/C I I EBL Side Stop 4 1 E Point Douglas Rd at CSAH 19 1 B/B I I Signal X/X = AM /PM Peak Hour EBT = Eastbound Through, WBL /WBT = Westbound Left/West Bound Through, NBL = Northbound Left, SBL = South Bound Left, EBL = Eastbound Left DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. TABLE NOTES: 1 Includes Intersection Improvements Recommended in SEH analysis. - Coordinated signals - Signal timing changes - NBL & SBL Jamaica Avenue (Protected/Pennissive) 2 Includes note 1 changes plus geometric changes - Separate WB thru and WB left lanes on EPDR - Trim median on EPDR 3 All way stop signs may be required at this intersection in 2015. Washington County will monitor. 4 Traffic signals and capacity improvements to CSAH 19 will be required. 40' ° .i ., �. • � . fit 'F � � �� ! t'[s a` '� �� ' r. _ .•• ire '? t b t. rr � Rip L LEGEND - EDGE OF PAVEMENT /t+ ... �. _'a•S CURB 6 GUTTER °- LANE LINE t._, _ 1 — a - FIGURE 3: ADDITIONAL GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS JAMAICA AVENUE & EAST POINT DOUGLAS ROAD INTERSECTION EVALUATION DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. � y 4S �- ` MITWINI _- .- U < - S --••� _ D fLNGiGTC ISIAVDS. CURD 8 GJrtER � PND fF[C DS M% .. E%'SIIVC RDA` - FROPERIY ll+ES -.... PROPOSED ROY PW- "POSED F/SEPPTS ��` fib. vFtiv �I FUT WALTRT DRIVE 11 THEATER J, I , G ° ! 4 1, - .� C f Grove BOLTON 6 MBNK LNO. W n CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA G pu �M v[uan� n M8IARDS .. ` \;� - •� - RN�lD CGtiCRCiC 9A U5, GVRD t CUI2R RAM GR I DS 5IOER1 K t TRA s PPVAM NR YS E.S`RW ROh - PROPERtt LhES PROFOSEO RCY NNIOSED EASEWDR5 VFW FUTURE MEIN WAL URE T / I THEATER I G, NK iNc.1 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA PR POM TrQGLAS ROAD DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. m�x •.R • i - _ I NN WAj)lART nFAIN L _ _._— ---- - - - - -- - -- /. O�Oo °° o ° `136p0 o F F7?3 BOG ; WAIAMRr q o,° S", i O _ _ MCP' r ROAOiAY {� RMSfa CL�QIEIE RW:OSy CI:RB 8 Q11ffR RY541 GPEER ISLLYGS ® SIGWA�t trTRy$ - TX1 WRG RON - PROFERY MES ` '` \ - `� \ - - FROW.ISEO ROR � .., PROFOSEO FASEME415 g 0 0 0 _ € rcLrtR kpaDlAV _ RN•..RO CGAO¢ie ISWAS. CLN9 ! GVRCR RMSLG GRERII IS'1 9] S 1 pFAO( ! TR+is []61810 RON - MO EF LPE5 f En � , A Y__ C �� ( \ ��SLS CXOVC N IND. BO� TON 6 MEK +�v •F~� • uww ..m,.."'L'•``.:,d ^ CIT Y OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA FAST PC1R DC —A+ RW un vRalc:cG mrsFk wu�cs A„R wu DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. I u I ` i ! w " FVFUFA OWN o F F7?3 BOG ; WAIAMRr q o,° S", i O t �4k ' . � 4 \ LFCE1n rcLrtR kpaDlAV _ RN•..RO CGAO¢ie ISWAS. CLN9 ! GVRCR RMSLG GRERII IS'1 9] S 1 pFAO( ! TR+is []61810 RON - MO EF LPE5 \ \ I - PROFSSEO 408 \ EASELESTS �\\ Y �\ g 00 0 j C GY = � CP LAOVE BO`TON 2' EN INO. / N [ Wti M M+wwa K, I f w �u CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA GT POW OCA"A5 R 1 2— FR6 v. T4filC NyLKi DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. iia • 4 • • Ali El �. i (3 cz N . 0 0 U) U) cz Q m tz 0 O N C/) MA • • • c) N LO LO z a) U To N r N Q co N MI CD (D (n 0) 0 cz F - E 0 cz 0 0 cn 0 % 2 \ 7 0 cn cz -� U) 0- cz U) E E a) V) cz cz E -0 (n cz 0 0 ui (n (D co _lz 0 0- (D 0 . . cn (D E a) 0 a 0 _0 cz U) 0 0 E 0 0 QL 0 — cz cz co 0 x 0- 0 CZ _0 0) c 0 cz cn 0 -C E cz 0 E Q- E - 0 - 0 (n o Z 0 (n 0 CZ c 70 (D C7 a) co 0 0 0 n 0 C� m 0 a- m . 0 + C� E U) co z 0 > 0 a) cz cz (n 0 CO 0 (n > 0) 0 E U) >1 (D Li) " Q) o (n E E (n 70 \ 0 (Z > o 0 < E c: 0 0 E cz 0 Q) cn Z (D cn (n CL (D cz 0 C Z 0) 0- (n U) 0 a) cn — CZ >, 0 (n r— 0 0 (D E o a) co (D F- > a) E 70 0 E 0 - F w " 0) -C < z 2! 0 C) " (D 6 0 0 0 a 0 m c O cz U O J U N O n c� N N IM IM, 2 C15 70 C N O z O (z CO C� O O N C C 9 i O) O C O C (Lf O O p O N t� N O O O O O O t0 CO O O o td O ` O N i L O O co N (Lf "O N N N X X O N � > N - 0 - 0 O O O O En U) N N tB (d O O a) J J O O N r- 00 bA Z Cl� O O 00 Q .• � 'O ZU z� z° z� i O) O C O C (Lf O O p O N t� N O O O O O O t0 CO O O o td O ` O N i L O O co N (Lf "O N N N X X O N � > N - 0 - 0 O O O O En U) N N tB (d O O a) J J m E 0 q 0 0 � _ 7 ./ $ m _0 § � > � _0 0 U) 0 2 � E @ § 0 E 0 U) % - a > 0 a c -0 3 @ � LO \ \ 7 \ . c ± � \ E 0 \ G \ % + ® > ® & m m = ± a) \ \ 2 = m = _ % @ / ° 2 E S / \ g \ k \ ( \ \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ / b °= a a = & « » o b o r_ $ = o 5 9 § \ a_ / / / ( f m \ y 0\ 2 /(§ 7 / ° E\ E 2/ 2 \ \ 7 k a 7 2 2 \ ± @ e / / / » $ \ ® \ $ - ¥ / [ ( 2 \ \ \ \ / \ 7 \ w / / @ 2 ± @ / / 3 \ o \ O < _ < co ° \ i % % / 3 2 \ / ? / ? F CD ° \ / \ \ ± LO \ \ 7 \ . c Ice co _r_ y U) 0 0 E 0 E c e ) 0 66 o Z_ a) a) -C w C: 0 0 > w 0 > 0 C/) 0 o (D 0 cz cn C\j 0 - 0 cz 0 75 F a) C:) a) C\J _0 CY) U) :3 �: a) 0 a) 0) co 0 cz U) cz _0 0 c (n Q) cn 0) 0 0 (n 0 > E cz (n < 0) CZ o a) 0- (D cz C/) 0 -0 - 0 U) U) 0 (Z a) 0 a) a) a) 0 cn R - E 0 < (Z CZ 0 U) > — - . ® -0 - 0 0 a; — a) CZ E -0 U) c a) .1 .= a) 0 a) 0 - 0 (D r- E a) 0 cz E c (D e 0 a) o (D a) U) a co 0 0 @ > cm E 0 E (0 0 0 � C) < o - O C 0 E - ID E 0 C = 0 CZ — CZ 0 C) -0 U) Z3 -F E a) 0 0 (n a - � C\' - a M 0 0- 0 >, U) 7 a) a) 0 a) o — + > 0 1E r- > C: " . s a) 0 a) 0 U) 0 U) R 0 " 0 n > a) 0 (D E a) Z3 a) -C > a) E a) U) 0) Z3 ( — 0 0 - 0 0 ® 0 :3 i n (n E 0 0 0 CZ '— c (D 0 a) U) 0 U- 5; 0 - 0 E ' .- 70 0 o - 0 -i-- (' a) - a c a) :3 — = o — Q) = u < c 0 S LL Q" co cz P U) c P p Ice co _r_ y I I, it W A r r r- N i d C N rn �a C � O � m � o� ^ � a W � J � L O LL O N V t4 N x c0 E o ° � m E J J J J J J 00 r� C4 LO O� N (vap) xx Mel OO:Z 1 OE: 11 00:11 0£:0 00:01 0£:6 00:6 OE:8 00:8 OE:L OO:L 0£:9 00:9 OE:9 00:9 00: ti 00:4 ME 00:6 O£:Z 00: Z OE:1 00:1 06:0 00:0 0£:EZ 00: £Z 0£:zz oo:zz OE: 1Z 00: 1 Z OE:OZ O K 0 x x J U X 00 O z • f �r • • u • • 00 r� C4 LO O� N (vap) xx Mel OO:Z 1 OE: 11 00:11 0£:0 00:01 0£:6 00:6 OE:8 00:8 OE:L OO:L 0£:9 00:9 OE:9 00:9 00: ti 00:4 ME 00:6 O£:Z 00: Z OE:1 00:1 06:0 00:0 0£:EZ 00: £Z 0£:zz oo:zz OE: 1Z 00: 1 Z OE:OZ O K 0 x x J U X 00 O z L- 0 (n 2 d E F— N CJ `S 4) O CL T U? O E N Q = O CO) M Cfl O 2 C W N =_= N N N N= = LO o o S 2 2 2 y d7 M N LO O 1 Y s' 1 CO CO N LO N d' 00 r i D ■ ❑ ❑ ■ 0 ■ ❑ ■ O O N � U O N Q) -Se U_ N L L > (8p) IOAO punoS cz m U X r O Z N 00 n J CD CD Q) E (z N N > (z ( N `V C O co '^ v/ W E C'7 (z O O � Q 0 0 o O o O O O f-I (O LO �t C7 N (8p) lanai punog co m N r- 00 N N if ) co N N Cl) N N C) N N N O N 00 n v d r v co r N r O O m co 00 ro LO d' co N r T T co i O N U N Q x CJ O Z It N co 0 J N= l��f == N N N N= _ LO O O = = _ = W r N r 0 0 o O o O O O f-I (O LO �t C7 N (8p) lanai punog co m N r- 00 N N if ) co N N Cl) N N C) N N N O N 00 n v d r v co r N r O O m co 00 ro LO d' co N r T T co i O N U N Q x CJ O Z It N co 0 J 7 7 l��f ice• 0 0 o O o O O O f-I (O LO �t C7 N (8p) lanai punog co m N r- 00 N N if ) co N N Cl) N N C) N N N O N 00 n v d r v co r N r O O m co 00 ro LO d' co N r T T co i O N U N Q x CJ O Z It N co 0 J re .D x P 0 a) 0 0 z 70 10— C i 0 LO (1) 0 0 00 cz > (1) < (j) 0) w - FD LL -0 C\1 cz " C rl- -0 0- 0) . 0 0 >1 > m cz C� > cz - C) 0) _0 (D E -0 a) cz IL o 0 0 0 0 E c CL 0 o > CL CL (D 0 0 (D • a) CL 0 CD 00 D L a) 0 C) m (n CZ C) (n N o a) L - U) Z3 > Fn Q 0 E 0 (z U) CZ :3 0) (n - - . 0 cn cn cz CL >, — CD f R % CZ U) C: > 00 (D 0 0 E LU @ cm 7 — C: W -C . 0 F) 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 Z3 > -C- 0 0 -c- o a) c Q 0 C) > cz a) a) Q a) E + (D Z -6 0 0 0 a) E cr a) 0 > o E > -0 (Z 0 +C� 0 0 S 0 _0 — 0 (n a o = .— : S u) c -6 0 k co o o co A a) > 0) a) E co E E — 0 c6 0- 0 Q) C: 0 0 a) . 0 = 0 "0 S cz , 2 =3 =3 0- Q) 0 u -0 o a) >1 CD 0 T tm — o a) 3: U) 0 ) (Z cz m C\J m L 'n c 0 -0 0 > (D e - C 0 0 - 75 0 0 0 0 E o 0 E o Z3 cz -0 0 0 < 0 U) " (z 0 H �o cz n m C- - c u) re .D x P 0 a) 0 0 z 70 10— � cz 'Z3 LU o O a oC o` a z� � ak 0 e ee., • ---� , � 0 0 N T a LL U M O U) a r� a� �o � 0 0 N T a LL U M O U) O J C E Q s �Lf O O O cc O 0 co O O L2 0 0 0 O co 0 0 N O O O O O 0 � 2 H D O O O 00 CD O r- • CD O O O M 0 O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N r O O CO I� O LO It co N r M X i U E O N U N 0 z i U L U N 1SV3 M � Q � Q n Q Q c ♦ M � Q f N i N Q N + m 2 N . 2 M Q N m � W o m m ol LLJ U m Q O 0 co O O L2 0 0 0 O co 0 0 N O O O O O 0 � 2 H D O O O 00 CD O r- • CD O O O M 0 O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N r O O CO I� O LO It co N r M X i U E O N U N 0 z i U L U N 1SV3 LO O 0 0 -C U) (1) (Z 0 E O O O Q) rr M E 0 N 0 0 z — 1 cz W .r- 0 N W— a) (D 0) E 0 0 0 0 00 < 0 C) LO O7 -o cz U - ) 0 C) CL E — FZ U) —J (D 0 a) +� co 0) E N U) 0 E Q) U) E x L6 Q) > (D m CL 0 0 0 < C) m co _0 co Q) > cn - 0 o +5 - En N E N o '0 U) ) 0 X (1) cz 0 0 0 (3) > > E O .— -T 1 0 E -C Q) c E > CZ M C) M cz M c- > C) a) CZ L- 0 a- - 6 0 > - E 0 _0 > + 0 0 CZ E cz _0 0 -C C) cz > E (D 0 Q - a cz g U) 0 C) 0- Q) CZ (z Q) - 0 a) o - M E 0 N 0 0 z — 1 cz W .r- 0 N W— 71. J . C O O a O O O a (D 4. _U m O L. CL w C c O m U U O J d E O 2 .. a LO T O c0 CO It N O c0 CO It N O LO 't d' It It It co M Cl) co co (b8P) lanai punoS I CO N 0 Z O L J N _ U � I w C c O m U U O J d E O 2 .. a LO T O c0 CO It N O c0 CO It N O LO 't d' It It It co M Cl) co co (b8P) lanai punoS • • • 9 0 W ics O Z �l L) s a) i t ,, >, 0 (1) > E 7 o o -E cz 0 U) a) E 0 > cz - 0 - 0 0 CZ O 0) (n (D 0 E a) cn > U) -0 C: -�e C) E E (D a) = 0 A .r- 70 -0 w o w C Z " E cz .- 0 o 0 — -0 0 (n U) 0 a) > -�:' a) cz CZ (n a) to E 'CZ '( 0 -'e (n 0 cz 0 D o C-) C: 0 - 0 U) cn c a) M 0 -0 0 = (n cz CZ cz S 0 (n 0) 0) E cn cz 0 cz CL (n V N 0 :3 -0 cn a) _0 -�e C m a) > 0 >O CZ - U) 0)70 o - 0 CZ E - 2 a) CZ 0 U) E o ­0 w -0 a) 7Z 0 a) CZ — cz _0 a) cz -0 > -0 cn " 0 CZ U) a) -r 0 " 0 as CZ 0 - 0 < (D Q CL (D 0 C 0 =3 cz + - 0 Cll 0 U 0 cz 0 E E a) T) 0 75 M U) 0 E cz C: (D 0 a) U) c z 0 C: - " (D CZ (D 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 o (D -0 E T, 0) "0 ' 0 2 c - : -0 t:� 0 E - 0 a) 0) C -0 W E 0 C: U) c ( Z > C: C: .— cz 70 U cz C 0 0 -9 o a) o 0 0- -C 0 16 E E (n C: CZ 0) — Cj - (D 0 " - E : C: 5 0) - 0 0— - 5 U -- �-: 0 0 -0 0 0 0 " -0 0 C 0 E = c -a E o CZ 0) CO C) cz (D 0 a) 0 j o = 0 U) 0 E 0 + = a) 0 - 0 E E 0 m 0) 0 0 0 I- 0 (n � C: 0 m D- o o 0-0 -c- c �: 0 co CZ - o) U) o I a) -0 0) C15 ( 8 ) 0 0 U) - , z - 0 > (D 0 a) U) = -�d C: o " 0 0 C) (Z a) Z3 (n 0 Q) cz E a) E 0- 0 o a) 0) m 0 E M - 0 0 0 U) E ?: E U) - 0 cn L2 E a) > 0 0 " a " = I L) a) Q) :3 0 C: 0 a) " 0 Z3 0- -E c 0 X (n CCS co E h (n -0 cz U- _0 =3 CO o F- = F--- 0) 9 0 W ics O Z �l L) s W V F- 0 N d f O O CD CD LO CD C) 0 O (2 0 CD N O O O O O O O M s 0 O cA 0 00 O O r 0 0 0 O O LO O O O 0 co O O N O O 0 O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O O O C2 N O m 00 1� O m 't M N - lss3 T U (SS Y U O > 01 U X U Y U H �o z �I U 7 U [o Q O O CD CD LO CD C) 0 O (2 0 CD N O O O O O O O M s 0 O cA 0 00 O O r 0 0 0 O O LO O O O 0 co O O N O O 0 O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O O O C2 N O m 00 1� O m 't M N - lss3 T U (SS Y U O > 01 U X U Y U H �o z �I U 7 N Y U i H U O N W O 0 0 0 O LO O O 0 0 c2 0 0 N O O 0 O O O O m 0 O o 0 O r- C) 0 m O O LO 0 0 O 0 co 0 O N O 0 O O o 0 0 0 o O o O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d' C2 N r O 0 w to u) d C7 N r W U f� L) U O cz W U ti X N L 76 W Y U H M 0 Z Y I U O i � I i O 0 0 0 O LO O O 0 0 c2 0 0 N O O 0 O O O O m 0 O o 0 O r- C) 0 m O O LO 0 0 O 0 co 0 O N O 0 O O o 0 0 0 o O o O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d' C2 N r O 0 w to u) d C7 N r W U f� L) U O cz W U ti X N L 76 W Y U H M 0 Z Y I U O i % D I � * 3 � _ Q � 0 � _ i / CL 2 n � � 0 E 0 k E � 0 2 0 k E 0 � 0 _ QL E m m 2 % 2 2 0 @ 2 ® ! _0 D / o n C-) / as 7 D� (> 2 / 0 /2 �z Z3 k 2 k I $ f 2 3 v 2 o y @ 0 0 0 o > _ v £ 2 ¢ o « n ® > > D o m E /7� � 0 �7 Z E � 7 0 e % \ _ �� > \ $ Z� 3 o o 0 0) 0- o o g 7 c® m m 0 ƒ E E Z3 ( _0 / � 2 2 � I c - _ 0 Z3 / / o -0 §/ o 22 e e 2270 M 0 o� / 7 n % �� c 2 2 — 2 2 0 m z \ / m Z k/ E � 0) � 0) 0)� a% ' / 2c 22 2 \ > m E IL2k ��2�IL 2 D I \ E \ 9 \ 4 \ \ \ \ R \ ƒ % � a C 0 � o l � y O I I O O O a C c� c U O H N w a w 2 O 0 N as o c4 y E H 0 O N O O O O O O O O I- Cfl Lo C') N r (Vep) lana punoS 15 O E 0 2 U X (U J U 7 N x X X J 11f1f 0 0 r n. 0 r- C O C Y V O 0 N d O O O O O O r- CD LO O O O O O O O O (`dap) lana punog IN v m o � LO d N 0 It 0 co O m 0 2 N Q N E O U CD N x a� m J U 7 O O O O J If{ ff C) T O O N O O T Y / O /1 u � ' u V O V/ W O O O O O O O O O O O O i� O LO C7 N V O N c I_ r a! (Vap) lanai punoS O CD 15 CD O N > N a aD E 0 C) = N U N X N U J U 7 O O O � O O X T X J (Vap) lanai punoS co N 1 5 O c m m E 0 U X N U J U i X X J �i�ni �nni inn inn nnn inn �n��i a�u co N 1 5 O c m m E 0 U X N U J U i X X J F L O U) 70 C O U N U O CO ce) O O C co C cz O O E N cz O E N O c� (SS C cz O J N L N O U X O O L O L c� C O U N U O O co L O O C O C'7 C O O E U) U) C E N N c� co C c� Ln J N L . O O U X O O E O C� E O C N C cz U U L O U O N C Q1 .Q U O Q U) N ' F N c N N O E co w LL �5 m E w M E = �: 2 Lu o 0 0 o c o c o 0 N � � O O O �_ O Q .i o .E o 0 0 0 0 LL LL LL LL m Y E O � O C T o W m 0 C O m O � L LO U C C Q > i O O Z3 L N _' U 0 Q O Q E-o O cd 5 f- O Q E m X 0 _ - o O N O LO N r L(•) L E 0 0 > -0 O U - �O U > L 0 O Q i O cn N > , 7 O C O - U O U O N cn U O U O Co i C a n O C p OU Q 70 v L O U - -0 O O C (� CO XX v C C N N L > Q O O N C ,= O O 0) c) � E 2: I m k � Lo 2 \� v ° = �o U) o C) cz C/) ® 9 . 2 � §2 %a q \ E »t 760 20 $ 2D �\ C) 2 �� � 2 2 7 / E / %n \ E >1 m 0-0 D/ �� / � Ek 2 E 3 � m q/ 2 0 ¢§ 2. R £ o -0 C 7 2 \ /2 xc � m \ 0 2 m \o 2 ® cl R 2 ° D 20 g E to cz § _\ k� / CL O > 0) \ w 2m R g - 0 § »_� t I\ Dm @� 2 % �� � \ / � § § 2 o § E 2 CL 22E E 2� I \q \o E 7 ® § G � I 2 / S : / - / cz n =E k� �§ 7 �2 %^ % / £ 2 E E J ® \ £� 7 2 = £o 3 2� 75 \� \ b � ƒ ® k / < a/ 0 2 2cz q �k c/ E o ° P:.2 .ep E� » 0 75; E / � o / o= o: @ m E = E' 2 g 3 T o % 2 ( \ 7 / �: 2 \ \ E 0 > oCf) k 3 .§ Q A.g o f CL _ 2 \ 23 o 2 \\ a) n - 22 2 _� f 0 0- \ \�2 U 2 2q 0 < « 3 LiA EK C10 y1,� •• �IXX�3��CY�C�CH` �- 71]V6135'JNgrtltld A6 L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - ----- - - - w 0 xx — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 341 P. 'N 33 IM 10 S TYM 13 TO :I - S 'xCM - 71 U 0 a) E 0 1) 0 ( O Q. 0 C) cz 0- E 0 0 b z C10 y1,� •• �IXX�3��CY�C�CH` �- 71]V6135'JNgrtltld A6 L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - ----- - - - w 0 xx — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 341 P. 'N 33 IM 10 S TYM 13 TO :I - S 'xCM - 71 U 0 a) E 0 1) 0 ( O Q. 0 C) cz 0- E 0 p- N 9 a+ C d Y E V Q Q C c C L ; W � O CL y o M U m � z Q� V 3 i m CL a E O U a� F- < O O O O O O C L M O O (8p) lanai punog s O N Y 00 N Y d' N Y N N ..Y N O LO W U CL N �2 = O LO ro N Q E O U N U 2 � LO X N N M N 00 O N fn 2 Cl) 7 O cn N N Q N :3 = O N 0 O co L17 O 4 i U Z 0 7 E 0 E 0 cz 0 _0 0- 0 cz Ln U) E 0 E E n o 0 - 0 a) +C� z (D Q 0) > (n a) > a) Q) a) _0 a) a x i7 o 0 c C: a) m cn (D (n cz E cz cz 0 C: a) 0 > c 0 E a) 0 cz 0 :3 Q- E cz (D 0 E 0 0 E U) _0 0 CIO (D 0 C c cz E " cz 0- U) (D a) E 0 " CL = > _0 Co Co crj (z - 0 0 >, E 75 w ® 7FD 0 0- E LU (n C: 0 0- R o E 0 0 c a) J: Z > a) $ H— (D 0- - Z3 (n CZ Q- Q) - C: 0 a) R L - CZ E 0 cr (z J: P E: 2 m o CY) 7a > _ � e .0 2 _0 _ � E 0 U 0 (D 0 a_ � E � .CT e � 0 0 0 e � @ m @ 0 E 0 0 3 0 � � 0 / ? 0 0 / 0 % @ 0 2:N 0 _ £ 2 0 / c-2 � 2 x 0 0 CL o £ .c \ § 2 7 q $ 0 m « a E / Lo _0 R 0— 0 m y Q (D 2 0 = R I ® _ e m : 0 7 E 0 £ 0 k \ 0 7 0 g £ 0 o .§ �¢ _0 �_ $ U) § 0 0 2 f � 2 ® ® - 0 / /: § �0 /� : E 0 n E 0 m cz + 2 e a 0 \ @ o _/ 2 / 0 � 0 �: > (D = ° U) S J k y n -0 E m m 0 / 7 CZ 2 £ \ �# C\j = m '\ k 9 2 ° E (D � 2 0 0 % t .a m = •\ e © c E D 0) U) 3 o 2 \ \ 2 0 \ / Z § g F- - I -0 N (Y) $ c : m � Q c 0 U m E 0 cn 2tl ® D- o \ \ 7 3 0 £ £ E . ¢� 2 G oe / / E — c 2 2 \ E �\ 2 �_ �% < / ¢ � 0 c n .ER �� 2 C: ® 2 E 6 c 2\ C) 0 ± E E� 2 @ @ � 3 E e cz CZ \ 0 \0 . 2 '\ E / CL (D a) 3 om k 0� 2 k 2 y 2@ §2 cz v� 22 o C 2 2 ƒ -0 0- m k 5 � % k � ® £ o 0- § ¢ Z £ 0 ¢ Q 7 t o « E I 0 2 q E 2 a) �� 0 / (D 0) E \ z � 2 E cz E 2 CL p m = » U) \ @ h : = : I 2 2 2 ® E 0 (D % k 2 — ° m v 2 / _@ e 0 § § \: E� (D § q i 0 E �.§ \ 2 2 2 k 7a) 0- 0 k Q 0— E e 2 � £ 2 J '/ 0 2 \ m _% 0 = m n Q o CZ � m _0 c @