Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-07 P&ZCH COLUMBIA - HEIGHTS Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 7, 2017 7:00pm Columbia Heights City Hall 590 40 Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 1. Introduction and swearing in of newly appointed Planning and Zoning Commissioner. a. Michael Novitsky 2. Call to Order and Roll Call. a. Approval of January 4, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 3. Public Hearing a. Case # 2017 -0201, Site Plan Review 4707 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Venture Pass Partners, LLC b. Case # 2017 -0202, Preliminary Plat 4707 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Venture Pass Partners, LLC 4. Adjourn 02 -07 -17 MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING JANUARY 4, 2017 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Szurek. Commission Members present- Fiorendino, Hoium, and Szurek Commission Member absent- Schill It was noted that Buesgens resigned from the Commission since she was elected to the City Council. The City Council will need to appoint a new member to fill the vacancy. Also present were Elizabeth Holmbeck (Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary) along with Council Liaison, John Murzyn. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium, to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 6, 2016 All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2017 -0101 APPLICANT: Aisling Fitness LLC LOCATION: Vacant property on 51" Court REQUEST: Site Plan Approval Holmbeck told members that on behalf of Planet Fitness, Aisling Fitness, LLC has applied for Site Plan Approval per Code Section 9.104 (N), for the vacant site located behind La Casita and White Castle. The site is currently comprised of three vacant lots, which do not have assigned addresses: (Property Identification Numbers (PIN): 25- 30 -24 -23 -0018, 25- 30 -24 -23 -0017, and 25- 30- 24- 22- 0066). The applicant is proposing to construct a fitness facility on the 2.1 acre site. The proposed site plan accommodates a 20,094 square foot one story fitness facility building. The applicant is proposing to construct the building on the south end of the site and have parking on the north end of the site. The proposal includes 146 parking stalls, with landscaped islands and a number of landscaping improvements throughout the site. Overall the proposal meets the City's Zoning Code and Design Guideline Standards. A narrative provided by the applicant, was given to members to review. Hohnbeck explained that since the submittal, Aisling Fitness LLC has also purchased the parcel to the north of this one that is located in the City of Fridley. This will provide additional parking and another access point to the property. This will increase the parking approximately 48 spaces for a total of 194. Aisling is working with the City of Fridley to get their approval on the coordinated plan and will submit separate storm water plans to them for that additional piece. ZONING ORDINANCE The site is currently comprised of three properties which are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. The properties to the north are located in the City of Fridley. The properties to the east are located in the One and Two Family, and Built as Duplexes Residential Zoning District. The properties to the south and west are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. P & Z Minutes Page 2 January 4, 2017 X61u 1 1 s1.k 3U322X"L The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial land use. Commercial development on the longstanding vacant commercial property is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. DESIGN GUIDELINES The subject property is located within the Design Guideline Overlay District, and is governed by the "Highway District" standards within the Design Guidelines. The intent of the Design Guidelines is to make the City more aesthetically appealing, by requiring a set of minimum standards for new construction along Central Avenue and 40' Avenue. The minimum standards were created by a task force of City Officials, business owners and residents, and adopted into the City Code by the City Council. In general, the proposed building meets the spirit of the Design Guidelines for the Highway District. Signage will be addressed when the applicant or tenant applies for a Sign Permit. Signage must be consistent with Design Guidelines and with City Code. The following components are requirements of the Design Guidelines Highway District and how the applicant has attempted to meet the guidelines: • Buildings maybe setback a maximum of 85 feet from the sidewalk, in order to allow for two rows of parking and drive aisles plus landscaped frontage. Due to the fact that the site is narrow the proposed building is to be situated on the south end of the property, with parking to the north. There isn't currently a sidewalk located on 51 Court NE. The City will be working with adjacent businesses to connect current sidewalks to the businesses along 51 Court NE. Planet Fitness is required to ensure pedestrian connections are provided from the buildings rear fire exit and main front entrance sidewalk to the street where future connections will be in place. There will be a landscaped frontage on 51 Court NE. • The primary facade(s) of buildings of 40 feet or more in width should be articulated into smaller increments through the techniques such as using of different textures or contrasting, but compatible, materials; dividing storefronts with separate display windows and entrances or incorporating arcades, awnings, window bays, balconies or similar ornamental features. The proposed primary facade of the building will be articulated into smaller increments with different vertical and horizontal panels, and windows. • Building height shall be a minimum of 22 feet. The proposed building will be 24' tall. • Where commercial or office uses are found on the ground floor, at least 20 percent of the ground floor facade fronting Central Avenue and 15 percent of any two side or rear facades shall consist of window and door openings. The proposed plan meets this guideline on the front and west side of the building, however there are no windows on the rear side or east side of the building. • The building should have a well - defined front facade with primary entrances facing the street. P & Z Minutes Page 3 Jan 4, 2017 The proposed building will have a well - defined front and side fagade. Due to the narrowness of the lot, the primary entrance is facing north towards the parking lot rather than 51 Court NE. • Building colors should accent, blend with, or complement surroundings. The colors that are proposed are neutral, and the accenting bolder colors coincide with the company's recognizable brand. Overall, the colors presented should complement the surrounding area. • No more than two principal colors maybe used on a f igade or individual storefront. Bright or primary colors should be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent of building facades, except when used in a mural or other public art. The proposed building will consist of two primary colors: purple and yellow. • All buildings should be constructed of high- quality materials, including the following: Brick, Natural Stone, Stucco Precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that surfaces are molded, serrated or treated with a textured material in order to give the wall surface a three dimensional character. Jumbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any fapade, provided that it is used only on the lower third of the building wall. The proposal meets this guideline. The building will be constructed with precast concrete wall panels with a painted finish to meet this guideline. • Architectural details such as ornamental cornices, arched windows and warm -toned brick with bands of contrasting color are encouraged in new construction. The proposal generally meets the intent of this guideline. • Parking areas adjacent to public streets or sidewalks shall be screened with a combination of landscape material and decorative fencing or walls sufficient to screen parked cars on a year-round basis while providing adequate visibility for pedestrians. The proposed landscape plan includes a variety of trees and shrubs to be planted around the perimeter of the site, which should provide adequate screening. SITE PLAN 1. Parking The proposed plan identifies 146 parking stalls for the fitness facility. Staff believes this number is adequate. Planet Fitness has done previous studies to determine the amount of parking that is necessary. The number of stalls proposed for this site is based on previous fitness facility usage and takes into account peak times of the year, such as after the holidays. P & Z Minutes Page 4 Jan 4, 2017 2. Access The site will be primarily served by two access points off Central Avenue onto 51 Court. The property itself will be served by one access off 51 Court and 52 Ave. NE. Since submitting the site plan documents, the applicant has purchased the property directly due north for additional parking and to provide an additional access point to the site. This property is in the City of Fridley and the applicant is currently working with Fridley to obtain the necessary permits to do site work. With the applicant acquiring this additional property, there will be an additional access point off of 52 Ave. NE. to the property, which will provide more flexibility for exiting and entering the site, alleviating some of the traffic on 51 Court and on Central Avenue. 3. Landscape The proposed landscaping materials are shown on the attached Landscape Plan. The applicant is proposing to plant trees and shrubs which will complement the layout of the development. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (N) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four findings of fact that must be met in order for the City to approve a Site Plan. They are as follows: a. The Site Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. The applicable Zoning Code requirements are achieved. b. The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial development. The proposed Site Plan for the property is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. c. The Site Plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no area plan for this parcel. d. The Site Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right - of -way. The proposed Site Plan meets all the minimum setback requirements and general development standards outlined in the Zoning Code. Therefore, the properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development should not be adversely impacted. Ouestions from members: Szurek asked what type of barrier would be used between the Planet Fitness building and the residential area to the east. Holmbeck stated that they will be installing a white vinyl fence with trees and shrubs on both sides. Szurek then stated she didn't think the building met the Design Guidelines with the Purple and Yellow color scheme. Holmbeck said the primary exterior is a neutral color and they are allowed to use two primary colors for accent, but understands these are not the typical colors used throughout the City where the guidelines are in effect. P & Z Minutes Page 5 Jan 4, 2017 Hoium asked about the 2 sidewalks and where they will run. Holmbeck reviewed the plan detailing the route of the sidewalks. She then told members that Public Works is working with White Castle to extend sidewalks . from 5l" Court out to Central Avenue which will provide pedestrian access since there are several bus stops in the immediate area. She noted that stop signs will also be added to the LaCasita exit point and to the Planet Fitness exit point to minimize traffic problems. Hoium asked if the 146 planned parking spaces meet our requirements for this type of business. Holmbeck stated that our Code does not address the number of parking spaces needed for this type of use. She said this plan was provided by Planet Fitness based on their other locations and what is needed at the peak times of the year, such as right after New Years, when people seem to use these facilities more. She reminded members that there will be 194 spaces once the Fridley parcel is added. Hoium asked if all the storm water plans were reviewed and approved by Public Works. Hohnbeck told members that Public Works was satisfied with the plan and that very detailed information was provided regarding this issue. Fiorendino asked if staff felt there is adequate parking. Holmbeck stated they did. Fiorendino asked what she meant when she said that most of the Design Guidelines were met. Holmbeck explained she knew the colors used as accent (purple and yellow) may be an issue for members, and that some of the architectural requirements regarding windows and minor detailing don't exactly meet requirements. However, staff took into account that some of these items weren't appropriate for this building use. For example, eliminating windows along the back side of the building where the locker /shower rooms will be located. Staff considered these small deviations. Public Hearine Onened Larry Larson is the owner of a duplex to the east of this property. He wanted to know the distance from the fence to the lot line. He was happy to hear there would be some screening between the business and the residences. Holmbeck told him there is approximately 19 -20 ft from the building to the lot line where the fence will be placed. Larson's major concern is drainage since his lot is the lowest in the area. He was worried that all the storm water from the area would flow to his lot especially after the Planet Fitness lot is paved. Holmbeck told him that the plans indicate that all the storm water from this site will be taken care of on site, it cannot be diverted to his property. She encouraged him to communicate with Kevin Hansen in Public Works regarding this matter for a more in depth explanation. Representatives present from Aisling Fitness were Ed Farr and Don Anderson, Architects, and Dan Hill from Aisling Fitness. Farr spoke to several of the issues discussed. He said all the storm water will go to an underground holding area and that it may actually help relieve some of the problems he has experienced in the past. He went on to tell members that the fencing along the east property line will be 6 ft in height and will be staggered back and forth along the entire property line with shrubs on one side and trees on the other to provide an aesthetic barrier. He said that will leave about 20 feet of green space between the building and the barrier. Farr said the color scheme used is their national branding colors and that they limited the use of it as they were mindful of the City's Design Guidelines and tried to come to a compromise from what they normally use. Fiorendino asked what the hours of operation would be. Farr said they are open 24 hours a day /7 days a week. Fiorendino asked about the lighting plan so as not to have a negative impact on the residential properties. Farr told members that they will have poles in the parking lot that will have downcast lighting, but there will be no lighting on the back side of the building. He said the fencing will prevent any headlights from vehicles shining into the residences behind the site. P & Z Minutes Page 6 Jan 4, 2017 Fiorendino asked Farr if there would be a large impact on their plan if Fridley does not approve their plans for the northern piece. He said it would not. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2017 -PZ01, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium, to adopt Resolution No. 2017 -PZ01, being a resolution approving a Site Plan, for the proposed Planet Fitness subject to the following conditions: 1. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 2. Trash and/or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. 3. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties and from public streets and adjacent residential properties. 4. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached report from the Public Works Director /City Engineer, dated December 21, 2016 5. The applicant will be responsible for installing two new stop signs to calm traffic exiting /entering the Planet Fitness property and the La Casita property. 6 The sidewalk currently shown wrapping around the south west side of the building will be continued and connect with the front (north) sidewalk, which will empty onto 51' Court NE. 7. All City Storm Water Management requirements shall be achieved for this property. 8. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated December S, 2016 shall become part of this approval. 9. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. RESOLUTION NO. 2017 — PZ01 A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission approving a Site Plan for the construction of a Fitness Center on the Three (3) vacant lots located at 51" Court NE within the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota. Whereas, a proposal (Case #2017 - 010 1) has been submitted by Aisling Fitness, LLC, on behalf of Planet Fitness, to the Planning and Zoning Commission, requesting Site Plan Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS Three (3) vacant lots located at 51" Court NE (Property Identification Numbers (PIN): 25- 30 -24 -23 -0018, 25- 30 -24 -23 -0017, and 25- 30- 24 -22- 0066). LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT Site Plan approval for the construction of a Planet Fitness Center located on the three (3) vacant lots located at 51"Court NE (Property Identification Numbers (PIN): 25-30-24-23 - 0018, 25-30-24-23-0017, and 25- 30- 24 -22- 0066). P & Z Minutes Page 7 Jan 4, 2017 Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on January 4, 2017; Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of City staff regarding the effect of the proposed Site Plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; Now, therefore, be it resolved, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. Further, be it resolved, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. 1. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 2. Trash and/or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. 3. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and/or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties and from public streets and adjacent residential properties. 4. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached report from the Public Works Director /City Engineer, dated December 21, 2016. 5. The applicant will be responsible for installing two new stop signs to calm traffic exiting/entering the Planet Fitness property and the La Casita property. 6. The sidewalk currently shown wrapping around the south west side of the building will be continued and connect with the front (north) sidewalk, which will empty onto 51" Court NE. 7. All City Storm Water Management requirements shall be achieved for this property. 8. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, dated December 5, 2016 shall become part of this approval. 9. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times. Passed this 0 day of January, 2017 Offered: Fiorendino Seconded: Hoium Roll Call: All ayes Marlaine Szurek, Chair Shelley Hanson, Secretary P & Z Minutes Page 8 Jan 4, 2017 CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: 2017 -0102 Aisling Fitness LLC Vacant property on 51 Court Preliminary Plat Holmbeck explained this request goes hand in hand with the previous request, and again on behalf of Planet Fitness, Aisling Fitness, LLC has requested Preliminary Plat Approval per Code Section 9.104 (L), for the vacant site located behind La Casita and White Castle. The site is currently comprised of three vacant lots, which do not have assigned addresses: Property Identification Numbers (PIN): 25- 30 -24 -23 -0018, 25- 30- 24 -23- 0017, and 25- 30 -24 -22 -0066. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing lot lines, and re -plat the property to allow for a fitness facility to be constructed on the south end of the site. State Building Code prevents constructing a new building over a property line. Furthermore, in order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the property, the lot lines must be removed. ZONING ORDINANCE The site is currently comprised of three properties which are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. The properties to the north are located in the City of Fridley. The properties to the east are located in the One and Two Family, and Built as Duplexes Residential Zoning District. The properties to the south and west are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for commercial land use. Commercial development on the longstanding vacant commercial property is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (L) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines three conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Preliminary Plat. They are as follows: (a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.115. This is correct. (b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This is correct. (c) The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. This is correct. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat request made by Aisling Fitness, LLC on behalf of Planet Fitness for the properties located on 51" Court NE., (PIN: 25- 30 -24 -23 -0018, 25- 30 -24 -23 -0017, and 25- 30- 24 -22- 0066). P & Z Minutes Page 9 Jan 4, 2017 Questions /comments from members: There were no questions. Public Hearing Opened. No one wished to speak on this matter. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Hoium, seconded by Fiorendino, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2017 -03, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. Motion by Hoium, seconded by Fiorendino, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the three vacant properties located on 51 Court NE., (PIN.•25- 30 -24- 23 -0018, 25- 30 -24 -23 -0017, and 25- 30- 24 -22- 0066), subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the City Council approval. In the event that a Final Plat is not submitted within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will become void. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. The following Resolution will go to the City Council January 9, 2016. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-03 A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Preliminary Plat for Aisling Fitness, LLC for the Three (3) vacant lots located at 51" Court NE. Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2017 -0102) has been submitted by Aisling Fitness, LLC to the City Council requesting Preliminary Plat Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS: Three (3) vacant lots located at 51 Court NE (Property Identification Numbers (PIN): 25- 30 -24 -23 -0018, 25- 30 -24 -23 -0017, and 25- 30- 24 -22- 0066). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Preliminary Plat Approval per Code Section 9.104 (L). P & Z Minutes Page 10 Jan 4, 2017 Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on January 4, 2017; Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed Preliminary Plat upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (L) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Preliminary Plat. They are as follows: (a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.115. (b) The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (c) The proposed Subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this Preliminary Plat; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the Plat shall become null and void if a Final Plat is not submitted to the City Council within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal. CONDITIONS 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the City Council approval In the event that a Final Plat is not submitted to the City Council within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will become void. CASE NUMBER: 2017 -0103 APPLICANT: Mulata Associates LLC LOCATION: 820 40 Avenue REQUEST: Zoning Amendment (Rezoning) Holmbeck said Mulata Associates, LLC has petitioned the City of Columbia Heights to change the zoning designation of the property located at 820 40 Ave. NE. from `Public and Open Space' to `Central Business'. This change would accommodate the relocation of an adult daycare to the site. Mulata Associates, LLC operates an adult daycare in St. Paul which has outgrown the current space. The applicant is planning to purchase the City's former Library building to allow for the daycare to operate in the building. In addition to the daycare, the applicant is proposing to use the building as a community center, when it is not being used as a daycare facility. P & Z Minutes Page 11 Jan 4, 2017 In terms of the Rezoning request, rezoning the property to Central Business is in the best interest of the public and the future of the property. Right now the property can only be used for a `public use' such as a government building or a non - profit. Allowing the property to be rezoned provides opportunities for a variety of commercial uses to operate on the parcel in the future. Due to the property's close proximity to the Central Business corridor, and from a long term planning perspective, approving the rezoning will provide a viable commercial property for the future. A list of the current permitted uses in the Public and Open Space and the Central Business District was given to members. It is important to note that there are some conflicts regarding the specific types of uses that are being proposed for the building. The proposed uses do not meet the Specific Development Requirements that are called out in the City's Zoning Code for an Adult Daycare and Community Center. The Specific Development Requirements are a list of requirements for certain types of commercial, residential, and industrial uses. For example, a `use' such as a daycare may be permitted in the zoning classification, but will also need to meet the Specific Development Requirements guided for that type of `use'. The applicant has been made aware that the uses which are currently proposed would not be allowed under the City's current code due to the fact that the Specific Development Standards are not met and that staff does not have the authority to waive these requirements. Holmbeck told members that they have met with the applicant to explain this conflict; however the applicant decided to proceed with the Zoning request. Hohnbeck said they would have to appeal the Specific Development Standards at a later time to the Board of Appeals if they choose to move ahead with their proposed plan for the building. The Specific Development Requirements for an Adult daycare and a Community Center are attached for your review. The issue in this particular case is that the proposed uses do not meet the following standards: 1. For a Community Center, the parcel upon which the use is located shall have a lot area no less than four times the area of the building footprint. 2. For an Adult Day Care Center, at least 150 square feet of outdoor area for seating or exercise shall be provided for each adult under care. ZONING ORDINANCE The property is located in the Public and Open Space Zoning District. The properties located to the north and south are located in the Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. The properties to the west are located in the Limited Business Zoning District, and the properties to the east are located in the Central Business Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Institutional Uses. It was unknown that a new library facility would be built, at the time the Comprehensive Plan was completed. Now that the new library facility is in operation, the former library is vacant and the City has no immediate public use for the property. The City should look for ways to make the property viable long term. Staff believes the rezoning request achieves this goal. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104(F) (5) requires four findings of fact to be made when a zoning amendment petition is made. The findings of fact are as follows: P & Z Minutes Page 12 Jan 4, 2017 (a) The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan identifies and guides the property for Institutional Uses. However, staff believes that due to the fact the surrounding area is guidedfor transitional development and commercial development, and fom a land -use perspective, the proposal makes sense for the long term viability of the parcel. (b) The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The property is currently vacant, and has been vandalized in the past few months. It is in the public interest that the property is being used for the highest and best possible use. Unfortunately, because the parcel is zoned for Public and Open Space, the types of uses that can operate on the site are strictly limited. Allowing a variety of commercial uses to operate on the site is in the public's interest. (C) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. The surrounding properties are a mix of commercial, residential, and institutional. Staff believes that overall the zoning classification of the property within the general area of the property is compatible with the proposed zoning classification. (d) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in its current zoning classification. The parcel's current zoning classification reflects the City's planned land -use goals at the time the Comprehensive Plan Update was last updated. Since 2008, the City has built a new library facility, and now operates at a different location. Due to the subject property's proximity to Central Avenue and a growing trend in commercial development throughout the Twin Cities Metro, it is a smart long term strategy to rezone the parcel to meet the growing commercial property demand. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning of the property located at 820 40th Avenue, based on the aforementioned findings of fact. Questions from members: Fiorendino asked if there had been any consideration to re- zoning this parcel to Limited Business (LB) instead of CBD. Hohnbeck said that option was discussed, however the applicant made the decision to request the change to CBD as it allows more choices of permitted uses. She again made it clear to the Commission members and the applicant, that if the re- zoning is approved, and the use of the building is determined to be a permitted use, they still must meet the other Specific Development Standards depending on the proposed use. Hoium asked what other permitted uses are in this District. Holmbeck said the members were given a list in their packets. Hoium and Fiorendino both felt it made sense to change the zoning from "Public Use" to " CBD" as it allows more uses for any future owner and will help to achieve the best use of the building in that area. P & Z Minutes Page 13 Jan 4, 2017 Hoium wanted confirmation that if they approved the re- zoning to "CBD" that the applicant would not be able to use the facility as an Adult Daycare or Community Center without appealing the section of our Code for Specific Development Standards to the Board of Appeals. Holmbeck said that is correct. The Board of Appeals could grant an exception, but if they decided to uphold the Code as it is written, then the Applicant could appeal to the City Council as a last resort. Public Hearine Opened Steve Smith of 3813 Lincoln Street is a Trustee of hmmaculate Conception Church. He wanted to make sure that any changes to the zoning of this site, and the lack of parking on site, would not impact Immaculate Conception Church in any way. Szurek assured him it would not. Any future business going into this building would not be able to use the Church's parking lots without permission. Chantelle Henning of 3975 Jackson Street thinks parking will be an issue for the proposed use. She doesn't feel there is adequate parking in the lot or on the side streets for a community center. She doesn't think that people will use the parking ramp and walk to this site which is 2 blocks away. Most of those needing the Adult Daycare probably would not be able to navigate that far. She is concerned that it will increase the street parking in the neighborhood. Fiorendino said we don't know what the actual use will be at this point, but said that most businesses will probably use the lot parking first and some street parking just like the Library did in the past, so this should not be a dramatic impact on the neighborhood. As far as use as a community center, that is why there are standards in place to ensure a certain amount of parking is provided on site, so as not to inconvenience the surrounding area. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2017 -04, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2017 -04, rezoning the property located at 820 40th Avenue NE from Public and Open Space' to `Central Business'. The following Resolution will go to the City Council January 9`h. P & Z Minutes Page 14 Jan 4, 2017 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-04 A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Zoning Amendment for the property located at 820 40'" Avenue NE. Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2017 -0103) has been submitted by Mulata Associates, LLC to the City Council requesting a Zoning Amendment from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS: 820 40 Avenue NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. REQUEST: Zoning Amendment (Rezoning). Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City's Zoning Code on January 4, 2017; P & Z Minutes Page 16 Jan 4, 2017 Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed Rezoning upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT (a) The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (b) The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. (c) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. (d) Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in its current zoning classification. Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights hereby rezones the property at 820 40` Avenue NE to "Central Business ". P & Z Minutes Page 15 Jan 4, 2017 CASE NUMBER: 2017 -0104 APPLICANT: Scenic Sign Corp/New Perspectives Sr. Living LOCATION: 3801 Hart Blvd REQUEST: Variance Holmbeck said that Scenic Sign Corporation representing New Perspectives Senior Living is requesting a Variance to allow for the installation of a new monument sign for the property located at 3801 Hart Blvd. NE. The senior apartment complex, formerly known as the Lighthouse Apartments, has recently rebranded to be known as New Perspective Senior Living. The applicant is proposing to remove the old sign and replace the existing monument sign on the property to reflect the new name of the building. The applicant is requesting a Variance to City Code to allow for a monument sign that exceeds the maximum allowed 16 square feet. The applicant submitted plans for the packets for a proposal that calls for the sign face to be 52.25 square feet, with 10.4 square feet concrete pillars on either side of the sign face. The proposed sign is avvroximately 86 square feet in total. The Variance request is to allow the monument sign to exceed the dimensional requirements by 70 square feet. The existing monument sign is located on the west side of the property as you enter the parking lot and is 72 square feet in size. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the sign closer to the street (Hart Blvd.). According to the City's Zoning Code, monument signs for this zoning classification have a maximum permitted height of 8 ft. The proposed sign would meet this requirement, as it would be just over 6 ft. tall. A rendering of the existing sign and proposed sign, which includes dimensions and placement, is attached for consideration. Before the meeting, Scenic Sign submitted a second plan showing a different sized sign which Holmbeck passed out to members just prior to the meeting. Then at the meeting, a representative from New Perspectives, Holly Osters, passed out yet another plan showing different sizes again. All of the requesti exceeded the allowed size. ZONING ORDINANCE The property is located in the R -3 Multiple Family Residential Zoning District, as are the properties to the north. The properties to the west are zoned Public and Open Space. The properties to the south and east are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates this zoning district for high density residential. DESIGN GUIDELINES The subject property is not located within the Design Guideline Overlay District IL1011Ik2CCMi7 111TOi 1 Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five conditions that must be met in order for the City Council to grant Variances. They are as follows: P & Z Minutes Page 16 Jan 4, 2017 a) Because of the particular physical sunqundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The application provided does not identify specific difficulties in conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. The property does not appear to have topographical or other unique conditions that pose apractical difficulty in conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. b) The conditions upon which the variances are based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. This parcel does not appear to have unique conditions as compared to the surrounding parcels. c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The application provided does not appear to identify a practical difficulty. d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address signage for multiple family residential uses. e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed sign does not appear to be detrimental to the public welfare, use and development, or value of properties in the vicinity. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the Variance request for the proposed monument sign for the property located at 3801 Hart Blvd. The applicant has not submitted a reasonable request based on the Findings of Fact outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance, which are required by the City Council in order to approve a Variance. Based on the application and renderings received for review, it is not evident there is a practical difficulty present in order to grant the Variance. While there appears to be no issue with the request to move the sign closer to the street (Hart Blvd) for visibility, no justification has been provided that demonstrates the need for such a large sign on the residentially zoned property. The commercially zoned properties to the south and east are only allowed up to 50 square feet of signage. For this reason, and because the Findings of Fact have not been met, the request is not justifiable. A sample resolution was provided, should the Planning and Zoning Commission decide to recommend approval. Ouestions from members: Holly Osters from New Perspectives said the building was constructed in 2008. During the past year the company has created a new name and they have rebranded. The sign that is presently there is not a conventional one used at any of their other locations. Their wish is to replace the sign in a better location that will be consistent with all of the buildings they own. She told members that the existing sign is not visible to traffic coming from the north or south on Hart Blvd. therefore, guests, volunteers, & perspective residents have P & Z Minutes Page 17 Jan 4, 2017 trouble finding the facility. She said the current sign is 34.8 sq ft in size (which exceeds the allowable size, and is therefore non - conforming). Staff has researched this and there was never a permit issued for that sign and it was never approved as part of the Site Plan or any other action approved by the P & Z Commission. There was a discussion to try and clarify which plan of the three submitted is their actual request. That lead to discussion about whether to make a decision on just the sign itself or whether the pillars or other supports should be included in the total sq ft. Members wanted to concentrate on the size of the actual signage not the surrounding supports. But it was still unclear what size they wanted a variance for. Hoium stated he was not in favor of expanding a non - conforming use. He was ok with moving and replacing it with the same size, but no bigger. Fiorendino said he needed a good reason to allow the variance. More visibility, or to attract more business is not good enough reasons in his opinion. He said they must go by what is established in the Code. He said the Commission doesn't have the authority to approve this without a hardship. Holly Osters stated that they are trying to provide consistency at all their buildings. Szurek said every city has different code requirements and we can't be expected to make decisions on other cities. She also said she can't justify the variance unless there is a hardship. Osters said they can't reface the current sign as it is made from limestone and it will crack if changes are made to it. The only option they have is to construct a new one. Osters went on to say that the Liquor Store to the south is larger than it should be. Holmbeck said the Liquor Store is in a commercially zoned area which has different requirements. The discussion continued about varying sizes of the new sign and whether the members would be willing to grant a variance on any specific size. At this point, the members were very confused about what the actual request was, and since they could see no hardship they were not in favor of granting a variance at this time. The members suggested Osters go to the City Council meeting and provide them with one proposal with precise measurements for the smallest size they think they could live with, and see if the City Council would approve it. Szurek said too many options were discussed at this meeting and it is hard to approve something that hasn't been submitted correctly. Public Hearing Opened. No further discussion. Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Hoium, to close the public hearing and recommend that the City Council deny the Variance request for a monument sign for the property located 3801 Hart Blvd., due to the Findings of Fact not being met. P & Z Minutes Page 18 Jan 4, 2017 OTHER BUSINESS No other new business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary CH COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2017 -0201 DATE: February l' 2017 TO: Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission APPLICANT: Venture Pass Partners, LLC DEVELOPMENT: Hy -Vee Convenience Store LOCATION: 4707 Central Avenue NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421 REQUEST: Site Plan Review PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Holmbeck, City Planner INTRODUCTION On behalf of Hy -Vee, Inc., Venture Pass Partners, LLC has applied for Site Plan Review, for the vacant parcel located at 4707 Central Avenue NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421. The applicant will be re- platting the property to allow for a convenience store to be built on the south parcel and a future restaurant on the north parcel. The proposal includes a 4,500 square foot convenience store with gasoline sales and a coffee shop with a drive -up. There will be 12 gasoline dispenser positions on the site. Additionally, a number of exterior site improvements are proposed including a retaining wall along the east side of the parcel boundary and landscape improvements throughout the site. The applicant is currently searching for a tenant for the north end of the vacant property to be redeveloped at a later date. As of now, the applicant is looking at potential tenants that would be considered fast food or fast casual dining. Site plans for the northern end of the site will be brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission once a tenant is secured and formal elevations and site plan documents can be drawn up. A narrative provided by the applicant, is attached for your review. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 4707 Central Avenue NE., is located in the Mixed Use Zoning District, as are the properties to the east. The properties to the north are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. The properties to the south are located in the Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. 4707 Central Avenue NE., Columbia Heights, MN 55421 City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2017 Planning Report Page 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use development (commercial, residential and institutional uses), and specifically transit oriented development. Developing the vacant parcel to include commercial uses which complement the existing residential development is consistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates areas that are next to public transit to be used for mixed use development with convenient pedestrian access. The proposed development will enhance the pedestrian connection from Central Avenue to the neighborhoods to the east. There are existing transit stops located on both sides of the street on the corner of 47 and Central Avenue. To the north, the pedestrian bridge spans across Central Avenue at 49 Avenue connecting Central Avenue to the City's main education facilities. The proposed commercial development will help to calm the vehicular traffic in the area by providing a more close up, street presence. The City recently secured a grant to fund a pedestrian safety improvement project along the Central Avenue Corridor from 47 Avenue to the City's northern boundary at 51 Avenue. This grant will include funding for landscaping, street lighting and sidewalk improvements. The proposed commercial development in combination with the City's grant initiative along this stretch of the corridor will help to provide a welcoming pedestrian accessible environment and reduce pedestrians crossing at inappropriate locations. DESIGN GUIDELINES The subject property is located within the Design Guideline Overlay District, and is governed by the "Highway District" standards within the Design Guidelines. The intent of the Design Guidelines is to make the City more aesthetically appealing, by requiring a set of minimum standards for new construction along Central Avenue and 40 Avenue. The minimum standards were created by a task force of City Officials, business owners and residents, and adopted into the City Code by the City Council. The following components are requirements of the Design Guidelines Highway District and how the applicant has attempted to meet the guidelines: • Buildings may be set back a maximum of 85 feet from the sidewalk, in order to allow for two rows of parking and drive aisles plus landscaped frontage. The proposed building does not meet this guideline as it is located 130' feet from the property line along Central Avenue. The Design Guidelines do allow for exceptions in the cases where topography or other physical conditions would prevent parking areas from being located to the rear of the building. In this case due to the proposed use being a gas station where the primary function is the fuel station, the pumps are located right off Central Avenue. In addition, there is City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2017 Planning Report Page 3 a drive -up for the proposed attached coffee shop which needed to be located along the rear of the building. The primary facade(s) of buildings of 40 feet or more in width should be articulated into smaller increments through the techniques such as using of different textures or contrasting, but compatible, materials; dividing storefronts with separate display windows and entrances or incorporating arcades, awnings, window bays, balconies or similar ornamental features. The proposed building meets this guideline. The building is articulated into smaller increments which define the different elements of the store (coffee shop and gas station). • Building height shall be a minimum of 22 feet. The proposed building meets this guideline with elevations which are staggered. The building will be 20' at the lowest fagade, 22' at the medium fagade height and 24'8" at the highest fagade. Where commercial or office uses are found on the ground floor, at least 20 percent of the ground floor facade fronting Central Avenue and 15 percent of any two side or rear facades shall consist of window and door openings. The proposed plan meets this guideline on the front and sides of the building, however there is only one window shown on the rear side of the building. This window is for the coffee shop drive thru. The building should have a well - defined front facade with primary entrances facing the street. The proposed building will have a well- defined front fagade, with the primary entrance facing Central Avenue. • Building colors should accent, blend with, or complement surroundings. The colors that are proposed are neutral, coincide with the company's recognizable grocery and coffee shop brand, and should complement the surrounding area. No more than two principal colors may be used on a fagade or individual storefront. Bright or primary colors should be used only as accents, occupying a maximum of 15 percent of building facades, except when used in a mural or other public art. The proposed building will consist of ivory (beige) and Kansas (red) colored brick. There will be grey aluminum storefront framing, throughout the entire building. Starbucks will have a dark Grey and brown fagade. The plan also shows an accent owning /window covering to be green. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2017 Planning Report Page 4 All buildings should be constructed of high - quality materials, including the following: Brick, Natural Stone, Stucco Precast concrete units and concrete block, provided that surfaces are molded, serrated or treated with a textured material in order to give the wall surface a three dimensional character. Jumbo brick may be used on up to 30 percent of any fa4ade, provided that it is used only on the lower third of the building wall. The proposal meets this guideline. The building will be constructed primarily of brick. Architectural details such as ornamental cornices, arched windows and warm -toned brick with bands of contrasting color are encouraged in new construction. The proposal meets the intent of this guideline. The proposal includes ornamental cornices, warm toned brick, and contrasting warm neutral tones of colored brick. Parking areas adjacent to public streets or sidewalks shall be screened with a combination of landscape material and decorative fencing or walls sufficient to screen parked cars on a year -round basis while providing adequate visibility for pedestrians. The proposed landscape plan includes a variety of canopy and understory trees, shrubs, and perennials and grasses to be planted around the perimeter of the site, which meets the City's Landscaping requirements and will provide adequate screening. The larger, taller trees will be planted along the south and east side of the property to screen the building and parking areas from the adjacent residential uses. SITE PLAN 1. Parking The proposed plan identifies 29 parking stalls for the gas station and coffee shop part of the site. Staff believes this number is adequate, as it meets the minimum zoning requirement. For convenience facilities, the Zoning Code requires 6 spaces plus 1 parking space per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area (total of 21). The proposal identifies future proposed parking for the north property which will be subject to parking requirements once a tenant is established. 2. Access The site will be served by two access points off Central Avenue. One entrance currently exists, off Central Avenue on the north end of the site, and the second is onto 47 Avenue servicing the south end of the site. MNDOT has received the plans and a review is pending. 3. Landscape The proposed landscaping materials are shown on the attached Landscape Plan. The applicant is proposing to plant trees and shrubs which will complement the layout of the development. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2017 Planning Report Page 5 There will be canopy and understory trees, shrubs, and perennials and grasses to be planted around the perimeter of the site, which meets the City's Landscaping requirements and will provide adequate screening. 4. Lot Dimension, Height and Setback Requirements The proposed plan does not have specific requirements called out in the ordinance, as the property is Zoned Mixed Use. Properties with this zoning designation do not have specific setback or dimensional requirements. This is in order to remain flexible for development proposals. Staff believes the proposal does show reasonable setback, height and dimensional information. 5. Other The proposal includes a preliminary rendering for a monument sign, and wall signage. However, signage will be addressed when the property owner or tenant applies for a Sign Permit at a later date. Signage must be consistent with Design Guidelines and with City Code. Unless a Conditional Use Permit is required, the sign permit process is handled administratively by Community Development Staff. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (N) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four findings of fact that must be met in order for the City to approve a Site Plan. They are as follows: a. The Site Plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. The applicable Zoning Code requirements are achieved. b. The Site Plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Cit%/s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Mixed Use Development. Staff believes the proposed Site Plan for the property is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. C. The Site Plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. There is no area plan for this parcel. d. The Site Plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. The proposed Site Plan for meets all the general development standards outlined in the Zoning Code and achieves the majority of the Design Guidelines outlines previously. Therefore, the City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2017 Planning Report Page 6 properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development should not be adversely impacted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Site Plan for the Hy -Vee Convenience Store to be located at 4707 Central Avenue NE. Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2017 -PZ02, there being ample copies available to the public. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2017- PZ02, being a resolution approving a Site Plan, for the proposed Hy -Vee Convenience Store, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 2. The proposed building requires a fire suppression system. A permit will need to be submitted to the Building Official prior to construction. 3. The applicant will be responsible for installing two new stop signs at each of the driveway exits (47`" Avenue and Central Avenue). 4. Trash and /or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. 5. There shall be no deliveries, loading or unloading of goods and materials between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. 6. All exterior lighting shall be downcast as not to adversely impact neighboring residential properties. The applicant must submit a detailed lighting plan for review by the Building Official, prior to construction. 7. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and /or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent residential properties and from public streets. Recognizing that the property has a significant grade change, any rooftop equipment will need to be adequately screened from the adjacent residential to the east. Plans detailing how any rooftop units are to be screened must be submitted with the building permit. 8. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached report from the Public Works Director /City Engineer, dated January 25 2017. 9. All City Storm Water Management requirements and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization requirements shall be achieved for this property. 10. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, shall become part of this approval. 11. Any requirements outlined by the Minnesota Department of Transportation must be met ( MNDOT review pending). Any comments from MNDOT will be forwarded over to the applicant and will become part of this approval. 12. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met at all times. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2017 Planning Report Page 7 ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017 -PZ02 Location Map Application Applicant's Narrative Public Works Report Storm Water Report Site Plans RESOLUTION NO. 2017 — PZ02 A resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission approving a Site Plan for the construction of a Convenience Store on the vacant parcel located at 4707 Central Avenue �X. Whereas, a proposal (Case #2017 -0201) has been submitted by Venture Pass Partners, LLC on behalf of Hy -Vee, Inc. to the Planning and Zoning Commission, requesting Site Plan Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS 4707 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421. LEGAL DESCRIPTION On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING PERMIT Site Plan approval for the construction of a Convenience Store with gasoline sales, and a Coffee Shop with drive up service on the vacant parcel located at 4707 Central Avenue NE. Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required bythe City Zoning Code on February 7, 2017; Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the advice and recommendations of City staff regarding the effect of the proposed Site Plan upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; Now, therefore, be it resolved, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Columbia Heights after reviewing the proposal, accepts and adopts the following findings: 1. The site plan conforms to all applicable requirements of this article. 2. The site plan is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The site plan is consistent with any applicable area plan. 4. The site plan minimizes any adverse impacts on property in the immediate vicinity and the public right -of -way. Further, be it resolved, that the attached conditions, maps, and other information shall become part of this permit and approval; and in granting this permit the city and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. CONDITIONS: Resolution No. 2017 -PZ02 Page 2 1. The building and site shall be meet all requirements found in the Fire Code and the Building Code. 2. The proposed building requires a fire suppression system. A permit will need to be submitted to the Building Official prior to construction. 3. The applicant will be responsible for installing two new stop signs at each of the driveway exits (47 Avenue and Central Avenue). 4. Trash and /or recycling collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three sides by an opaque screening wall or fence no less than six feet in height. The open side of the enclosure shall not face any public street or the front yard of any adjacent property. 5. There shall be no deliveries, loading or unloading of goods and materials between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. 6. All exterior lighting shall be downcast as not to adversely impact neighboring residential properties. The applicant must submit a detailed lighting plan for review by the Building Official, prior to construction. 7. Mechanical equipment shall be placed and /or screened so as to minimize the visual impact on adjacent residential properties and from public streets. Recognizing that the property has a significant grade change, any rooftop equipment will need to be adequately screened from the adjacent residential to the east. Plans detailing how any rooftop units are to be screened must be submitted with the building permit. 8. The applicant shall meet the requirements outlined in the attached report from the Public Works Director /City Engineer, dated January 25 2017. 9. All City Storm Water Management requirements and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization requirements shall be achieved for this property. 10. Site and elevation plans included in this submittal, shall become part of this approval. 11. Any requirements outlined by the Minnesota Department of Transportation must be met ( MNDOT review pending). Any comments from MNDOT will be forwarded over to the applicant and will become part of this approval. 12. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirem shall be met at all times. Passed this 7th day of February, 2017 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Ayes: Abstain: Marlaine Szurek, Chair Hanson, c o ^fflGl� X4 707 Central Ave uj �4 t E 4rini Frmo 61mm� &nmE cr :u •v To be filled out by City. CASE NO.: APPLICABLE ORDINANCE NO.: 9 -104 (M) PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: DATE RECEIVED: DATE OF LETTER OF COMPLETION: APPROVAL DATE PER STATUTE: REVIEW PERIOD EXTENDED: To be filled ant by Applicant- PROPOSED NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: Central Avenue Ventures PROJECT ADDRESS&OCATION: _ 4707 Central Avenue NE Columbia Heights MIST LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED (attach separate page If necessary): Outlot C, Grand Central Lofts, Anoka County MN PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Vacant PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: Convenience store with fuel sales, coffee shop with drive up service & fast food/fast casual restaurant with drive up service. REASON FOR REQUEST (please attach a written narrative describing your proposal, the intended use of the property, and jus0ration for your request) APPLICANT Venture Pass Partners, LLC PHONE 612.801.4313 FAX E -MAIL rrauwerdink @ venturepas s. ne t PAGER CELL # ADDRESS 19620 Waterford Court CITY Shorewood FEE OWNER OF PROPERTY ADDRESS 1600 Utica Avenue S #400 STATE MN ZIP 55331 Anc B ank, National Association PHONE &65't) 7 -t9rY FAX CITY St. Louis Park STATE MN Page 1 of 2 ZIP f y`I> 7Zu -b of 55416 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY PLANNER AND REVIEW OF APPLICATION AND NECESSARY MATERIALS BEING SUBMITTED. ENGINEERING APPROVAL MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AND MUST MEET ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR CONTAINED IN THE CITY CODE. ITEMS TO BE GIVEN TO APPLICANT WITH APPLICATION A. Application Checklist B. Schedule of Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings ITEMS TO ACCOMPANY SITE PLAN APPLICATION A. Site Plan submittals as required in the attached application check8st, showing what is proposed for the property. APPLICATION FEES: A. $250.00 Site Plan Review Fee TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED 250.00 250.00 CITY RECEIPT NUMBER - to L'h _� S DATE RECEIVED 1 1 , S 11 - 1 Acknowledgement: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done In accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Columbia Heights arpte State of Minnesota: Sigq H., I Sign Here tAR.ab& n %Lr"►)ecV_ 4., P� rLny\o r 1 1 311 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF MEMBER AND TITLE DATE Revised 2005 Approved by the Columbia Heights Planning Commission on Approved by the Columbia Heights City Council on Page 2 of 2 UqVooa BAROM OW FD December 28, 2016 Elizabeth Holmbeck City Planner, City of Columbia Heights Community Development Department 590 40` Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 RE: Site Plan Submittal Narrative for Central Avenue Ventures Development Dear Ms. Holmbeck: Hy -Vee, Inc. and Venture Pass Partners, LLC are proposing to plat and develop the vacant property located at 4707 Central Avenue NE into a convenience store with gasoline sales, a coffee shop with drive up, and restaurant. The 4,500 square foot convenience store will be considered to be a part of the Hy -Vee grocery store planned for 4300 Central Avenue. The coffee shop is proposed to be attached to the convenience store and have a drive up for customers to order and pick up coffee and a limited food menu from their vehicles. Twelve dispenser positions will be provided for fueling vehicles. The future restaurant on the north half of the property is anticipated to be a fast food or fast casual operation of approximately 3,000 square feet with a drive through window. The site plan allows for adequate vehicle stacking and a bypass lane. Parking meets City requirements and is laid out to allow for safe and convenient vehicle circulation. Access to the site is proposed to be a three - quarter access off Central Avenue, and a full access from 47` Avenue NE. The site topography changes significantly from Central Avenue to Grand Avenue, and will require retaining walls to make the site work from a grading standpoint. It is our understanding that this property is already zoned correctly for the uses proposed, but needs to be platted and the site plan approved. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information for the review process. We look forward to working with the City on this project! john Brehm, ASLA LEED AP Director, Site Planning Cc: Hy -Vee, Inc. Venture Pass Partners, LLC Hy -Vee, Inc. 5820 Westown Parkway, West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Phone: (515) 267 -2800 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Public Works Department TO: ELIZABETH HOLMBECK CITY PLANNER FROM: KEVIN HANSEN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR /CITY ENGINEER DATE: January 25, 2017 SUBJECT: HyVee Convenience Store Plan Review I have reviewed the final plan submittal packet dated 1/5/17, and have the following requirements /comments for final approval by Engineering: General / Plat • Please provide the City with easements over any storm water BMP. • The City shall require a pre - construction conference prior to any land alteration activities beginning. • Comments herein are based on preliminary plans. Additional comments /requirements may occur from the final plan set. Gradine • The grading plan indicates mass grading of the entire site which includes a future development on Lot 1, and also depicts future utilities. Please indicate the restoration of the future pad area including erosion control. • Please provide an erosion control plan for review. • Please provide a project SWPPP for review. • Please provide the City with a copy of Site NPDES Construction Permit. • Will a concrete vehicle washout(s) will be provided on -site? All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washouts operations must be contained in a leak -proof containment facility or impermeable liner. The MNPCA guidance document wq- strm2- 24, provides recommendations for washout operations. • Perimeter and entrance erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the Engineering department prior to site grading activities beginning. Coordinate erosion control measures with the Engineering department if building construction is initiated prior general site grading. • Site access during construction shall be limited to 47 Avenue. • All slopes greater than 3:1 shall be provided erosion control blanket. • Catch basin inlet protection, such as Wimco's or equivalent shall be provided on catch basins until restoration is completed. The low point CB's immediately adjacent to the Development (47` and Central) shall also be protected. ROW / Utilities ® All utilities serving the Development shall be privately owned and maintained. The maintenance of the storm sewer BMP's shall be defined in a separate planning document and will require an easement. • All utilities (water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer), shall meet the City of Columbia Heights specifications for materials and installation. • Site /Civil work shall be inspected by the City Engineering Department (connection to existing utility system). 24 -hour advance notice of an inspection is required. • Storm Water Management: How was the infiltration rate of 0.8 in /hr for systems 15 & 25 determined? The Storm Water Plan generally meets the requirements of the City. • Provide and record an easement over the storm water BMP's in the parking lot. • Due to an adjacent City Project in design on Central Avenue, the City has become aware of MnDOT's modification requirements to provide a 90 degree driveway access on Central Avenue, eliminating the separate NW drive approach. • Due to the heights of the retaining wall, plans must be signed and submitted by a registered engineer in the State of MN. • The City's record drawings show a storm water treatment BMB (Stormceptor) within the utility easement adjacent to Grand Avenue. This will need to be verified for potential grading and final grade impacts. • Adjust any City utilities to proposed development grades. • Please add 'stop' signs at the development driveway exit(s). • Provide a set of as -built drawings meeting City requirements at the completion of site /civil construction in both hardcopy and electronic (pdf) format. • Please provide one full size and one 11x17 set of Civil Plans to the Engineering department prior to construction. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at (763) 706 -3705. C: Kathy Young, Assistant City Engineer Lauren Letsche, Storm Water Specialist KH:kh G: \Users \Public Works \plan reviews \2017 \HyVee Convenience Prelim_01252017.doc Westwood Stormwater Report for Hy -Vee — Columbia Heights Prepared for: Hy -Vee, Inc. 5820 Westown Parkway West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Project Number: 0010993.00 Date: 114/2017 Prepared by: Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 937 -5150 Multi- Disciplined Surveying & Engineering westwoodps.com Hy -Vee Columbia Heights ATTACHMENTS January 3, 2017 Attachment 1: Existing Conditions Drainage Area Map Attachment 2: Proposed Conditions Drainage Area Map Attachment 3: Existing Conditions HydroCAD Report Attachment 4: Proposed Conditions HydroCAD Report Attachment 5: Detail Drawings of BMPs Attachment 6: University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center Performance Evaluation Report of the Stormtech Isolator Row Treatment Unit Westwood Hy -Vee Columbia Heights INTRODUCTION January 3, 2017 This stormwater report summarizes stormwater analysis for the proposed Hy -Vee convenience store and gas station in Columbia Heights, MN at the northeast corner of the 47th Ave NE and Central Ave NE intersection. The 2.10 acre site is currently grassed with a low spot. Existing and proposed drainage area maps are attached (Attachments 1 and 2). The site was modeled in HydroCAD to analyze existing and proposed conditions (Attachments 3 and 4). REGULATIONS The project site is under the regulatory authority of the City of Columbia Heights (Stormwater Management Standards) and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. Rate Control The watershed requires that proposed conditions peak run -off rates not exceed existing conditions rates in the 2 -, 10 -, and 100 -year 24 -hour storm events for all points where stormwater discharges from the property. Volume Control The watershed requires that a volume equal to 1.1 inches over the impervious area be infiltrated. The City requires that proposed conditions discharge volumes not exceed existing conditions. The proposed project involves fueling, so infiltration is restricted. Only those areas that are clearly grade- separated from the fueling area are allowed to drain to an infiltration BMP. Water Quality The city requires compliance with MIDS for the removal Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently the site is an open field (Table 1). Most of the existing site overland drains to the north to an existing depression that outlets to the storm sewer under Central Ave NE. The remainder of the site drains offsite to the west. Table 1: Existing Conditions Cover Cover Area ac Pervious 2.10 Total 2.10 Westwood Hy -Vee Columbia Heights PROPOSED CONDITIONS January 3, 2017 The proposed project includes a convenience store with parking lot and gas station pumps on the south side of the site. A future Fast Food Restaurant is planned for the northern portion of the site. Table 2 shows land cover for the proposed conditions. Table 2: Proposed Conditions Cover Cover Area [ac] Impervious 1.53 Pervious 0.57 Total 2.10 The site was split into 3 drainage basins. 1 S drains to a proposed underground infiltration system and contains the northern portion of the site. 2S drains to a proposed underground infiltration system and contains the southeast portion of the site. 3S drains to a proposed Rinker oil /water separator before it enters the proposed underground filtration system in case of gas leaks or spills. The north system (1 S) drains to an existing manhole near Central Avenue NE. The two southern underground systems (2S and 3S) drain to the existing storm sewer running through the center of the site (east to west). HydroCAD modeling (Attachments 3 and 4) was conducted to show that the stormwater management systems meet City and Watershed requirements. WATER QUALITY In areas with fueling stations, infiltration is not allowed per the MPCA. An underground system with filtration and a liner underneath has been designed for the drainage area containing the gas pumps (3S). For the remainder of the site, 2 underground systems with infiltration are proposed (1 S and 2S). All three systems will have an isolator row to remove TP and TSS. ADS /StormTech has provided 3rd Party research which shows the isolator row achieves removal efficiencies similar to those of sand filters. The MPCA has written that sand filters achieve 85% removal of TSS and 85% of particulate phosphorus (Attachment 6). The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center performed analysis of the isolator row for three years. Median TSS removal efficiency was 83 %. Table 3 shows the preliminary elevations for the underground systems. Table 3: Underground Storage Design System Type Bottom of Rock Bottom of Vault Top of Vault Top of Rock Surface Outlet is MC -4500 927.92 928.67 933.67 934.67 937.00 933.00 2S MC -4500 930.67 931.42 936.42 937.42 940.25 935.75 3S MC -3500 931.0 931.75 935.50 936.50 937.50 934.80 Westwood Hy -Vee Columbia Heights VOLUME CONTROL Januar 3, 2017 The watershed requires that 1.1 inch of runoff from all new impervious surfaces be infiltrated where plausible. In areas with fueling stations, infiltration is not allowed so filtration has been proposed for the fueling area of the site. There will be an impermeable liner around the system and no infiltration /filtration from the system. Underground infiltration systems are proposed for the rest of the site that provide sufficient infiltration for all proposed impervious surfaces on the site. Table 4 shows that the proposed treatment methods exceed the requirements set by the NDPES Permit for water quality. Table 4: Volume Control Results Total impervious ac 1.53 Required Volume 1.1 inches ac -ft 0.14 Provided Volume North Chambers ac -ft 0.34 RATE CONTROL The City and Watershed require that proposed discharge rates for the 2 -, 10 -, and 100 - year, 24 -hour storms do not exceed existing conditions discharge rates. The proposed underground infiltration systems and underground filtration system control the rates leaving the site. The proposed design meets the requirement for the City and Watershed (Table 5). Table 5: Peak Discharge Rates from Project Site [cfs] Storm Existing Proposed 2-year 0.00 0.00 10-year 0.10 0.00 100-year 0.85 0.82 CONCLUSIONS The stormwater management plan for the proposed Hy -Vee in Columbia Heights meets City, Watershed, and NPDES requirements. The requirement to infiltrate 1.1 inch of runoff from new impervious surfaces is met through the use of 2 underground infiltration systems and an underground filtration system for the fueling area, where infiltration is not allowed. Discharge rates for the site in proposed conditions are less than or equal to discharge rates in existing conditions. The water quality practices meet the TP removal and TSS removal requirements for both drainage areas. Westwood Attachment 1: Existing Conditions Drainage Area Map Hy -Vee, Inc — m Hy -Vee Columbia Heights V Attachment 2: Proposed Conditions Drainage Area Map CENTRAL AVENUE NE Westwood Hy -Vee, Inc Hy -Vee Columbia Heights V Attachment 3: Existing Conditions HydroCAD Report 1R� 2P Existin Pond 1S West Subca Reach and Link 2S East 16- 12 -22- Existing Conditions Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Printed 1/3/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 @2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 2 Area Listing (selected nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment- numbers) 2.087 49 50 -75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A (1S, 2S) 16- 12 -22- Existing Conditions MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Printed 1/3/2017 HydroCADO 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 3 Summary for Subcatchment IS: West Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 13.25 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Depth= 0.05" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85" Area (sf) CN Description 11.803 49 50 -75% Grass cover. Fair. HSG A 11,803 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f /ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: East Runoff = 0.02 cfs @ 13.28 hrs, Volume= 0.008 af, Depth= 0.05" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85" Area (sf) CN Description 79,099 49 50 -75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 79,099 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1 R: Total Inflow Area = 2.087 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.01" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 13.25 hrs, Volume= 0.001 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 13.25 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 2P: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 1.816 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.05" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.02 cfs @ 13.28 hrs, Volume= 0.008 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 A Atten= 100 %, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 932.49'@ 24.60 hrs Surf.Area= 985 sf Storage = 348 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) 16- 12 -22- Existing Conditions MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall = 2.85" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Printed 1/3/2017 HydrOCADO 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 4 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 932.00' 28,314 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic-feet) 932.00 446 0 0 933.00 1,555 1,001 1,001 934.00 4,141 2,848 3,849 935.00 6,705 5,423 9,272 936.00 9,440 8,073 17,344 937.00 12,500 10,970 28,314 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 935.80' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 53.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 935.80'/931.00' S= 0.0906'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 932.00' (Free Discharge) t1xulvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 16- 12 -22- Existing Conditions MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Printed 1/3/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 02015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 5 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: West Runoff = 0.10 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af, Depth= 0.38" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 11,803 49 50 -75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 11,803 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: East Runoff = 0.50 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Depth= 0.38" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Area (sf) CN 79,099 49 50 -75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 79,099 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1 R: Total Inflow Area = 2.087 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.05" for 10 yr event Inflow = 0.10 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.009 of Outflow = 0.10 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 2P: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 1.816 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.38" for 10 yr event Inflow = 0.50 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.057 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100 %, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 933.63'@ 24.60 hrs Surf.Area= 3,177 sf Storage= 2,484 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) 16- 12 -22- Existing Conditions MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Printed 1/3/2017 HydrOCAD®10.00 -14 s/n 03363 @2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 932.00' 28,314 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic-feet) 932.00 446 0 0 933.00 1,555 1,001 1,001 934.00 4,141 2,848 3,849 935.00 6,705 5,423 9,272 936.00 9,440 8,073 17,344 937.00 12,500 10,970 28,314 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 935.80' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 53.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 935.80'/931.00' S= 0.0906'f Cc= 0.900 n=0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 932.00' (Free Discharge) 'Lixulvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 16- 12 -22- Existing Conditions MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall = 7.38" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Printed 1/3/2017 HydroCAD ®10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 1 S: West Runoff = 0.85 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.040 af, Depth= 1.79" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall= 7.38" Area (sf) CN 11,803 49 50 -75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 11,803 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: East Runoff = 4.55 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af, Depth= 1.79" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall= 7.38" Area (sf) CN Description 79,099 49 50 -75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG A 79,099 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1 R: Total Inflow Area = 2.087 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.23" for 100 yr event Inflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.040 of Outflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.040 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 2P: Existing Pond Inflow Area = 1.816 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.79" for 100 yr event Inflow = 4.55 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.270 of Outflow = 0.00 cis @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100 %, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cis @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 935.35'@ 24.60 hrs Surf.Area= 7,660 sf Storage= 11,781 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) 16- 12 -22- Existing Conditions MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall = 7.38" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Printed 1/3/2017 HydroCADO 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 8 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 932.00' 28,314 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 932.00 446 0 0 933.00 1,555 1,001 1,001 934.00 4,141 2,848 3,849 935.00 6,705 5,423 9,272 936.00 9,440 8,073 17,344 937.00 12,500 10,970 28,314 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 935.80' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 53.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 935.80'/ 931.00' S= 0.0906'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 932.00' (Free Discharge) t- 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Attachment 4: Proposed Conditions HydroCAD Report 1S � 1P North 2S � Southeast 3S � Southwest MC -3500 3R Total Subca Reach and Link 17 -1-3- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall = 2.85" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 02015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 2 Time span =0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt =0.05 hrs, 961 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method - Pond routing by Stor -Ind method Subcatchment 1S: North Runoff Area = 48.346 sf 72.12 % Impervious Runoff Depth= 1.26" Tc =10.0 min CN =82 Runoff =2.12 cfs 0.117 of Subcatchment 2S: Southeast Runoff Area = 15.772 sf 61.15% Impervious Runoff Depth = 0.86" Tc =10.0 min CN =75 Runoff =0.46 cfs 0.026 of Subcatchment 3S: Southwest Runoff Area = 26.784 sf 82.77 % Impervious Runoff Depth = 1.69" Tc =10.0 min CN =88 Runoff =1.56 cfs 0.086 of Reach 3R: Total Irdlow =0.22 cfs 0.086 of Outflow--0.22 cfs 0.086 of Pond 1P: MC -4500 Peak Elev= 929.34' Storage =3,263 cf Inflow =2.12 cfs 0.117 of Discarded =0.07 cfs 0.117 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow =0.07 cfs 0.117 of Pond 2P: MC4500 Peak Elev= 931.68' Storage =637 cf Inflow =0.46 cfs 0.026 of Discarded =0.02 cfs 0.026 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow =0.02 cfs 0.026 of Pond 3P: MC -3500 Peak Elev= 932.04' Storage =0.036 of Inflow--1.56 cfs 0.086 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Secondary=0.22 cfs 0.086 of Outflow =0.22 cfs 0.086 of Total Runoff Area = 2.087 ac Runoff Volume = 0.229 of Average Runoff Depth =1.32" 26.65% Pervious = 0.556 ac 73.35% Impervious =1.531 ac 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCAD910.00 -14 s/n 03363 @2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 3 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: North Runoff = 2.12 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.117 af, Depth= 1.26" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85' Area (sf) CN Description 13,479 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 34.867 98 Paved Darkina. HSG A 48,346 82 Weighted Average 13,479 27.88% Pervious Area 34,867 72.12% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Southeast Runoff = 0.46 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.026 af, Depth= 0.86" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85' Area (sf) CN Description 6,128 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 9.644 98 Paved Darkina. HSG A 15,772 75 Weighted Average 6,128 38.85% Pervious Area 9,644 61.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Capacity Description 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Southwest Runoff = 1.56 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Depth= 1.69" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall = 2.85" Area (sf) CN Description 4,616 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 22,168 98 Paved parking, HSG A 26,784 88 Weighted Average 4,616 17.23% Pervious Area 22,168 82.77% Impervious Area 17 -1-3- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall = 2.85" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCADS 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 3R: Total Inflow Area = 2.087 ac, 73.35% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.22 cfs @ 12.68 hrs, Volume= 0.086 of Outflow = 0.22 cfs @ 12.68 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 1 P: MC -4500 Inflow Area = 1.110 ac, 72.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth= 1.26" for 2 yr event Inflow = 2.12 cis @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.117 of Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 11.80 hrs, Volume= 0.117 af, Atten= 97 %, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.07 cfs @ 11.80 hrs, Volume= 0.117 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 929.34'@ 15.10 hrs Surf.Area= 3,747 sf Storage= 3,263 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 480.8 min calculated for 0.117 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 480.9 min ( 1,298.4 - 817.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 927.92' 6,083 cf 37.58'W x 99.691 x 6.75'H Field A 25,291 cf Overall - 10,083 cf Embedded = 15,208 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 928.67' 10,083 cf ADS_StormTech MC 4500 +Cap x 92 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4 "W x 60.0 "H => 26.46 sf x 4.031 = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0 "W x 60.0 "H x 4.331 with 0.31' Overlap 4 Rows of 23 Chambers Cap Storage= +35.7 cf x 2 x 4 rows = 285.6 cf 16,166 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 933.00' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 47.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 933.00'/ 933.00' S= 0.0000'f Cc= 0.900 n=0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Discarded 927.92' 0.800 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max =0.07 cfs @ 11.80 hrs HW= 928.00' (Free Discharge) t2= Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 927.92' (Free Discharge) tl=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 17 -1 -3- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCADO 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Pond 2P: MC -4500 Inflow Area = 0.362 ac, 61.15% Impervious, Inflow = 0.46 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume Discarded = 0.02 cfs 12.00 hrs, Volume Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume Inflow Depth= 0.86" = 0.026 of = 0.026 A 0.026 of = 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 931.68'@ 13.86 hrs Surf.Area= 1,235 sf Storage= 637 cf for 2 yr event Plug -Flow detention time= 292.3 min calculated for 0.026 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 292.1 min ( 1,127.2 - 835.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 930.67' 2,099 cf 28.50'W x 433M x 6.75'H Field A 8,338 cf Overall - 3,089 cf Embedded = 5,248 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 931.42' 3,089 cf ADS_StormTech MC 4500 +Cap x 27 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4 "W x 60.0 "H => 26.46 sf x 4.021 = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0 "W x 60.0 "H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap 3 Rows of 9 Chambers Cap Storage= +35.7 cf x 2 x 3 rows = 214.2 cf 5,189 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 935.75' 8.0" .Round Culvert L=43.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 935.75'/ 934.89' S= 0.0200'P Cc= 0.900 n=0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Discarded 930.67' 0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max =0.02 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW= 930.74' (Free Discharge) t2= Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 930.67' (Free Discharge) tlxulvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 3P: MC 3500 Inflow Area = 0.615 ac, Inflow = 1.56 cfs @ Outflow = 0.22 cfs @ Primary = 0.00 cfs @ Secondary = 0.22 cfs @ 82.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.69" 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.086 of 12.68 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of 12.68 hrs, Volume= 0.086 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 932.04'@ 12.68 hrs Surf.Area= 0.066 ac Storage= 0.036 of for 2 yr event Plug -Flow detention time= 62.6 min calculated for 0.086 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 62.5 min ( 864.4 - 801.9 ) Atten= 95 %, Lag= 0.0 min Atten= 86 %, Lag= 30.1 min 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 =3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 2 yr Rainfall= 2.85" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCAD®10.00 -14 s/n 03363 @2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storaqe Description #1A 931.00' 0.093 of 37.08'W x 77.401 x 5.50'H Field A 0.362 of Overall - 0.130 of Embedded = 0.233 of x 40.0% Voids #2A 931.75' 0.130 of ADS _StormTech MG-3500 d +Cap x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size= 70.4 "W x 45.0 "H => 15.33 sf x 7.17'L = 110.0 cf Overall Size= 77.0 "W x 45.0 "H x 7.50'L with 0.33' Overlap 5 Rows of 10 Chambers Cap Storage= +14.9 cf x 2 x 5 rows = 149.0 cf 0.223 of Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 934.80' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 19.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 934.80'/934.42' S= 0.0200'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Secondary 930.66' 4.0" Round Draintile L= 50.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 930.66'/930.00' S= 0.0132'/ Cc= 0.900 n=0.020 Corrugated PE, corrugated interior, Flow Area= 0.09 sf Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 931.00' (Free Discharge) t1xulvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max =0.22 cfs @ 12.68 hrs HW= 932.04' (Free Discharge) t2= Draintile (Barrel Controls 0.22 cfs @ 2.49 fps) 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc35O0 MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall = 4.26" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HvdroCAD® 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 @2015 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 7 Time span =0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt =0.05 hrs, 961 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method - Pond routing by Stor -Ind method Subcatchment 1S: North Runoff Area = 48.346 sf 72.12% Impervious Runoff Depth= 2.43" Tc =10.0 min CN =82 Runoff =4.07 cfs 0.224 of Subcatchment 2S: Southeast Runoff Area= 15.772 sf 61.15% Impervious Runoff Depth= 1.86" Tc =10.0 min CN =75 Runoff =1.02 cfs 0.056 of Subcatchment 3S: Southwest Runoff Area = 26.784 sf 82.77% Impervious Runoff Depth= 2.97" Tc =10.0 min CN =88 Runoff =2.71 cfs 0.152 of Reach 3R: Total Inflow --0.26 cfs 0.152 of Outflow =0.26 cfs 0.152 of Pond 1P: MC -4500 Peak EIev= 930.60' Storage =7,171 of Inflow =4.07 cfs 0.224 of Discarded =0.07 ds 0.214 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow =0.07 cfs 0.214 of Pond 2P: MC -4500 Peak EIev= 932.75' Storage =1,704 of Inflow =1.02 cfs 0.056 of Discarded =0.02 cfs 0.056 of Primary=0.00 ds 0.000 of Outflow =0.02 cfs 0.056 of Pond 3P: MC -3500 Peak Elev= 932.72' Storage =0.073 of Inflow--2.71 cfs 0.152 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Secondary=0.26 cfs 0.152 of Outflow =0.26 cfs 0.152 of Total Runoff Area = 2.087 ac Runoff Volume = 0.433 of Average Runoff Depth = 2.49" 26.65 Pervious = 0.556 ac 73.35% Impervious = 1.531 ac 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 8 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: North Runoff = 4.07 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.224 af, Depth= 2.43" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Area (sf) CN Descriotion 13,479 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 34,867 98 Paved parking HSG A 48,346 82 Weighted Average 13,479 27.88% Pervious Area 34,867 72.12% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Southeast Runoff = 1.02 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, Depth= 1.86" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 6,128 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 9,644 98 Paved parking HSG A 15,772 75 Weighted Average 6,128 38.85% Pervious Area 9,644 61.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Southwest Runoff = 2.71 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.152 af, Depth= 2.97' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall= 4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 4,616 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 22,168 98 Paved parking, HSG A 26,784 88 Weighted Average 4,616 17.23% Pervious Area 22,168 82.77% Impervious Area 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall = 4.26" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCAD®10.00 -14 s/n 03363 @2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 9 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 3R: Total Inflow Area = 2.087 ac, 73.35% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.88" for 10 yr event Inflow = 0.26 cfs @ 12.95 hrs, Volume= 0.152 of Outflow = 0.26 cfs @ 12.95 hrs, Volume= 0.152 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 1 P: MC -4500 Inflow Area = 1.110 ac, 72.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.43" for 10 yr event Inflow = 4.07 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.224 of Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 11.20 hrs, Volume= 0.214 af, Atten= 98 %, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.07 cfs tai 11.20 hrs, Volume= 0.214 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.0048.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 930.60'@ 16.81 hrs Surf.Area= 3,747 sf Storage= 7,171 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 978.4 min calculated for 0.214 of (96% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 955.5 min ( 1,759.6 - 804.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storaae Storage Description #1A 927.92' 6,083 cf 37.58'W x 99.691 x 6.76H Field A 25,291 cf Overall - 10,083 cf Embedded = 15,208 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 928.67' 10,083 cf ADS_StormTech MC4M0 +Cap x 92 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4 "W x 60.0 "H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0 "W x 60.0 "H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap 4 Rows of 23 Chambers Cap Storage= +35.7 cf x 2 x 4 rows = 285.6 cf 16,166 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 933.00' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 47.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 933.00'/ 933.00' S= 0.0000'P Cc= 0.900 n=0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Discarded 927.92' 0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max =0.07 cfs @ 11.20 hrs HW= 927.99' (Free Discharge) 'L2= Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 927.92' (Free Discharge) L1= Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall = 4.26" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCADS 10 00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 10 Inflow Area = 0.362 ac, Inflow = 1.02 cfs @ Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ Primary = 0.00 cfs @ Summary for Pond 2P: MC-4500 61.15% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 136" 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.056 of 11.70 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, 11.70 hrs, Volume= 0.056 of 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of for 10 yr event Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 932.75'@ 15.41 hrs Surf.Area= 1,235 sf Storage= 1,704 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 756.1 min calculated for 0.056 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 756.5 min ( 1,574.6 - 818.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 930.67' 2,099 cf 28.50'W x 43.34'L x 6.76H Field A 8,338 cf Overall - 3,089 cf Embedded = 5,248 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 931.42' 3,089 cf ADS_StormTech MC -4500 +Cap x 27 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4 "W x 60.0 "H => 26.46 sf x 4.02'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0 "W x 60.0 "H x 4.331 with 0.31' Overlap 3 Rows of 9 Chambers Cap Storage= +35.7 cf x 2 x 3 rows = 214.2 cf 5,189 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 935.75' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 43.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 935.75'/ 934.89' S= 0.0200'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Discarded 930.67' 0.800 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max =0.02 cfs @ 11.70 hrs HW= 930.75' (Free Discharge) 'L2=Exfltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 930.67' (Free Discharge) tlxulvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 3P: MC3500 Inflow Area = 0.615 ac, Inflow = 2.71 cfs @ Outflow = 0.26 cfs @ Primary = 0.00 cfs @ Secondary = 0.26 cfs @ 82.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.97" 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.152 of 12.95 hrs, Volume= 0.152 af, 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of 12.95 hrs, Volume= 0.152 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 932.72'@ 12.95 hrs Surf.Area= 0.066 ac Storage= 0.073 of for 10 yr event Plug -Flow detention time= 115.3 min calculated for 0.152 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 115.2 min ( 905.8 - 790.6 ) Atten= 98 %, Lag= 0.0 min Atten= 91 %, Lag= 46.6 min 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 10 yr Rainfall = 4.26" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCADO 10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storaqe Description #tA 931.00' 0.093 of 37.08'W x 77.401 x 5.50'H Field A 0.362 of Overall - 0.130 of Embedded = 0.233 of x 40.0% Voids #2A 931.75' 0.130 of ADS _StormTech MC -3500 d +Cap x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size= 70.4 "W x 45.0 "H => 15.33 sf x 7.17'L = 110.0 cf Overall Size= 77.0 "W x 45.0 "H x 7.50'L with 0.33' Overlap 5 Rows of 10 Chambers Cap Storage= +14.9 cf x 2 x 5 rows = 149.0 cf 0.223 of Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 934.80' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 19.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 934.80'/ 934.42' S= 0.0200'f Cc= 0.900 n=0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Secondary 930.66' 4.0" Round Draintile L=50.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 930.66'/ 930.00' S= 0.0132'f Cc= 0.900 n=0.020 Corrugated PE, corrugated interior, Flow Area= 0.09 sf Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 931.00' (Free Discharge) tlxulvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Ni cfs @ 12.95 hrs HW= 932.72' (Free Discharge) t2= Draintile (Barrel Controls 0.26 cfs @ 2.94 fps) 17 -1-3- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc35O0 MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall= 7.38" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HvdroCADS 10.00 -14 sin O3363 02015 HydroCAD Software Solutio LLC Page 12 Time span = 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt =0.05 hrs, 961 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN Reach routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method - Pond routing by Stor -Ind method Subcatchment 1S: North Runoff Area = 48.346 sf 72.12% Impervious Runoff Depth = 5.27" Tc =10.0 min CN =82 Runoff =8.64 cfs 0.488 of Subcatchment 2S: Southeast Runoff Area= 15,772 sf 61.15% Impervious Runoff Depth= 4.49" Tc =10.0 min CN =75 Runoff =2.44 cfs 0.135 of Subcatchment 3S: Southwest Runoff Area = 26.784 sf 82.77% Impervious Runoff Depth = 5.96" Tc =10.0 min CN =88 Runoff =5.24 cfs 0.306 of Reach 3R: Total Inflow--0.82 cfs 0.409 of Outflow--0.82 cfs 0.409 of Pond 1P: MC -4500 Peak Elev= 933.64' Storage= 14.616 cf Inflow =8.64 cfs 0.488 of Discarded =0.07 cfs 0.225 of Primary=0.48 cfs 0.091 of Outflow =0.55 cfs 0.316 of Pond 2P: MC -4500 Peak EIev= 935.88' Storage =4,398 cf Inflow =2.44 cfs 0.135 of Discarded =0.02 cfs 0.072 of Primary=0.06 cfs 0.012 of Outflow =0.08 cfs 0.084 of Pond 3P: MC3500 Peak EIev = 934.70' Storage =0.170 of Inflow =5.24 cfs 0.306 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Secondary=0.35 cfs 0.306 of Outflow =0.35 cfs 0.306 of Total Runoff Area = 2.087 ac Runoff Volume = 0.929 of Average Runoff Depth = 5.34" 26.65% Pervious = 0.556 ac 73.35% Impervious = 1.531 ac 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall= 7.38" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCAD®10.00 -14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: North Runoff = 8.64 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.488 af, Depth= 5.27" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall= 7.38" Area (sf) CN Description 13,479 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 34,867 98 Paved parking HSG A 48,346 82 Weighted Average 13,479 27.88% Pervious Area 34,867 72.12% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Southeast Runoff = 2.44 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.135 af, Depth= 4.49" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall= 7.38" Area (sf) CN Descriotion 6,128 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 9,644 98 Paved parking HSG A 15,772 75 Weighted Average 6,128 38.85% Pervious Area 9,644 61.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Southwest Runoff = 5.24 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.306 af, Depth= 5.96" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall= 7.38" Area (sf) CN Description 4,616 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 22,168 98 Paved parking HSG A 26,784 88 Weighted Average 4,616 17.23% Pervious Area 22,168 82.77% Impervious Area 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall = 7.38" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/412017 HydroCADO 10.00-14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Tc Length 10.0 Description Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 3R: Total Inflow Area = 2.087 ac, 73.35% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.35" for 100 yr event Inflow = 0.82 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.409 of Outflow = 0.82 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.409 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond 1 P: MC-4500 Inflow Area = 1.110 ac, 72.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.27" for 100 yr event Inflow = 8.64 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.488 of Outflow = 0.55 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.316 af, Atten= 94 %, Lag= 74.7 min Discarded = 0.07 cfs @ 9.75 hrs, Volume= 0.225 of Primary = 0.48 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.091 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 933.64'@ 13.42 hrs Surf.Area= 3,747 sf Storage= 14,616 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 757.4 min calculated for 0.316 of (65% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 686.0 min ( 1,474.6 - 788.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 927.92' 6,083 cf 37.58'W x 99.69'L x 6.76H Field A 25,291 cf Overall - 10,083 cf Embedded = 15,208 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 928.67' 10,083 cf ADS_StormTech MC-4500 +Cap x 92 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4 "W x 60.0 "H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0 "W x 60.0 "H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap 4 Rows of 23 Chambers Cap Storage= +35.7 cf x 2 x 4 rows = 285.6 cf 16,166 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 933.00' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 47.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 933.00'/ 933.00' S= 0.0000T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Discarded 927.92' 0.800 inlhr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max =0.07 cfs @ 9.75 hrs HW= 927.99' (Free Discharge) t- 2= Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.07 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max =0.48 cfs @ 13.42 hrs HW= 933.64' (Free Discharge) t- lxulvert (Barrel Controls 0.48 cfs @ 1.79 fps) 17 -1-3- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall = 7.38" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCADO 10.00-14 s/n 03363 @ 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 15 Summary for Pond 2P: MC -4500 Inflow Area = 0.362 ac, 61.15% Impervious Inflow = 2.44 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume Outflow = 0.08 cfs @ 14.77 hrs, Volume Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 10.75 hrs, Volume Primary = 0.06 cfs @ 14.77 hrs, Volume Inflow Depth = 4.49" 0.135 of = 0.084 af, = 0.072 of = 0.012 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 935.88'@ 14.77 hrs Surf.Area= 1,235 sf Storage= 4,398 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 909.8 min calculated for 0.084 of (62% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 832.2 min ( 1,632.4 - 800.2 ) for 100 yr event Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1A 930.67' 2,099 cf 28.50'W x 43.341 x 6.76H Field A Primary = 8,338 cf Overall - 3,089 cf Embedded = 5,248 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 931.42' 3,089 cf ADS_StormTech MC -4500 +Cap x 27 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4 "W x 60.0 "H => 26.46 sf x 4.02'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0 "W x 60.0 "H x 4.331 with 0.31' Overlap 3 Rows of 9 Chambers Cap Storage= +35.7 cf x 2 x 3 rows = 214.2 cf 5,189 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 935.75' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 43.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 935.75'/934.89' S= 0.0200'P Cc= 0.900 n=0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Discarded 930.67' 0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max =0.02 cfs @ 10.75 hrs HW= 930.74' (Free Discharge) t- 2= Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max =0.06 cfs @ 14.77 hrs HW= 935.88' (Free Discharge) t- 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.06 cfs @ 1.21 fps) Summary for Pond 3P: MC3500 Inflow Area = 0.615 ac, Inflow = 5.24 cfs @ Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ Primary = 0.00 cfs @ Secondary = 0.35 cfs @ 82.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.96" 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.306 of 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.306 af, 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.306 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 934.70'@ 13.33 hrs Surf.Area= 0.066 ac Storage= 0.170 of for 100 yr event Plug -Flow detention time= 218.1 min calculated for 0.306 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 218.0 min ( 994.9 - 776.8 ) Atten= 97 %, Lag= 155.7 min Atten= 93 %, Lag= 69.3 min 17 -13- Proposed Conditions -vault 3 mc3500 MSE 24 -hr 3 100 yr Rainfall = 7.38" Prepared by Westwood Professional Services Printed 1/4/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-14 s/n 03363 © 2015 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 931.00' 0.093 of 37.08 x 77.401 x 5.50'H Field A 0.362 of Overall - 0.130 of Embedded = 0.233 of x 40.0% Voids #2A 931.75' 0.130 of ADS _StormTech MC3500 d +Cap x 50 Inside #1 Effective Size= 70.4 "W x 45.0 "H => 15.33 sf x 7.17'L = 110.0 cf Overall Size= 77.0 "W x 45.0 "H x 7.50'L with 0.33' Overlap 5 Rows of 10 Chambers Cap Storage= +14.9 cf x 2 x 5 rows = 149.0 cf 0.223 of Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 934.80' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 19.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 934.80'/934.42' S= 0.0200 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #2 Secondary 930.66' 4.0" Round Draintile L= 50.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 930.66'/ 930.00' S= 0.0132'P Cc= 0.900 n=0.020 Corrugated PE, corrugated interior, Flow Area= 0.09 sf Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 931.00' (Free Discharge) t- 1=cuivert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max =0.35 cfs @ 13.33 hrs HW= 934.70' (Free Discharge) t-2= Draintile (Barrel Controls 0.35 cfs @ 3.98 fps) Attachment 5: Detail Drawings of BMPs ONE LAMER OF NON -WOMEN FILTER FABRIC STORM VAULT DETAIL (1S) MARKO OVER TOP OF SYSTEM. 4 ROWS / 23 CHAMBERS PER ROW ENOCAPS AT EITHER END OF EACH ROW EL.e93].Op3' PAVEMENT T(P OF PAVEMENT EL= 934.67 2 ROCK VARIES (MINIMUM 24') LOVER I VARIES (MAXIMUM 8') TOP OF ROCK W- EL 83364' EL-11W.6Y N'-Y CLEAN CRUSH D ROCK TOP OF VAULT IV 60' 0' OUTLET "LET EL- 833.00' EL +933. GO MC -4500 MC -6500 MC -4500 9' ROCK BASE BOTTOM OF VAULT U.=928.67' BOT TO Of M ROCK R.�92782' 1 T. LAYERS Of WOMEN EATON FABRIC AT BASE IMPERMEABLE FABRIC ALONG BOTTOM ANO OF CHAMBERS, ABOVE ROCK, PLACED UNDER UP SIDES TO PREVENT INFILTRATION OF ISOLATOR ROW AND AT CHAMBER INLETS. STORM WATER FROM GAS PUMP AREA O�lweeFl STORM TECH MC -4500 CHAMBERS - TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE ONE LAYER OF NON -ADMEN FLOOR FABRIC STORM VAULT DETAIL (2S) WRAPPED OVER TOP OF SYSTEM. 3 ROWS / 9 CHAMRFAS PER ROW ENOCAPS AT FRIER END OF EACH ROW EL.+9b.253' PAVEMENT TOP OF PAVEMENT � FL-9J)42' VARIES ( MINMUM 24 12' flOCN VAME9 (MAXIMUM B') TOP OF RO[It LOVER W. EL 935.88' EL-9M.42' ' k " - CLAN CRUSHED ROCK T OP OF VAULT 60' 8' OUTLET WET EL--035.76 EL--035.76 E L +935.]5' MC -I MC -4500 MC -4500 A 9' ROCK B BASE BOTTOM Of VAULT EL- 93142' BOTTOM OF ROCK EL +930.87' 1 TWO LAYERS OF WOMEN FORK FABRIC AT BASE IMPERMEABLE TABBED ALONG BOTTOM AND OF CHAMBERS, ABOVE ROCK, PULED UNDER UP SIDES TO M OME N T MFlLTRAI OF G AR ISOLATOR ROW AND AT CHASER INLETS STORM WATER IRON CAS PUMP AREA- y STORM TECH MC -4500 CHAMBERS — TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE STORM VAULT DETAIL (3S) ONE LAYER OF NON -RAVEN nLRA FABRIC 5 ROWS / 10 CHAMBERS PER NOW WRAPPED OVER TOP OF SYSTEM. ENOCPPS AT EITHER END OF EACH ROW WRAPPED IN FABRC (SIDES AND STERNA) EL= 937.503' � PAVEMENT TOP OF PAVEMENT 13-.936.51Y 12' ROCK VARIES (MINIMUM 2P) COVER VARIES (MAXIMUM 6') TOP OF ROL.K EL.- 935.50 $ -2" CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK TOP OF VAULT \\ 8' WRET MET M- 234.00' +9N.80' ` EL MC -350. NC -3500 MC -3500 HW1 EL 93!.70' 9' ROCK BASE BOTTOM OF VAULT EL+ 931.75' BOTTOM OF RCDx E +9310 4' PERFORATED TOUT LAYERS OF WOMEN FILLER fPHRIC AT BASE IMPERMEABLE FABRIC ALON OTTOM AND O VERT. 9 6 CHAMBERS, ABOVE ROCK, PLACED UNDER UP SIDES PREVENT I OF INVENT: 930.06' ISOLATOR ROW ANp AT CHAMBER INLETS STORM WATER R MGM CAS S PUMP AREA. pp� STORM TECH MC -3500 CHAMBERS - TYPICAL SECTION NOT 10 SCALE Attachment 6: University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center Performance Evaluation Report of the Stormtech Isolator Row Treatment Unit Sand Filter A Sand Filter does not reduce stormwater volume. While this BMP does not provide stormwater volume reduction toward the performance goal or on an annual basis, it does provide annual pollutant load reductions. MIDS calculator user inputs for sand filter For the sand filter BMP, BMP watershed areas is the only required design parameter. Watershed tab o BMP Name: this cell is auto - filled but can be changed by the user. o Routing /downstream BMP: if this BMP is part of a treatment train and water is being routed from this BMP to another BMP, the user selects the name of the BMP from the dropdown box to which water is being routed. All water must be routed to a single downstream BMP. Note that the user must include the BMP receiving the routed water in the Schematic or the BMP will not appear in the dropdown box. o BMP Watershed Area: BMP watershed areas are the areas draining directly to the BMP. Values can be added for four soil types (Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG) A, B, C, D) and for three Land Cover types (Forest /Open Space, Managed Turf and impervious). The surface area of the BMP should be included as a managed turf land cover under the hydrologic soils group of the native soils located under the BMP. Units are in acres. • BMP Summary Tab: The BMP Summary tab summarizes the volume and pollutant reductions provided by the specific BMP. It details the performance goal volume reductions and annual average volume, dissolved P, particulate P, and TSS load reductions. Included in the summary are the total volume and pollutant loads received by the BMP from its direct watershed, from upstream BMPs and a combined value of the two. Also included in the summary, are the volume and pollutant load reductions provided by the BMP, in addition to the volume and pollutant loads that exit the BMP through the outflow. This outflow load and volume is what is routed to the downstream BMP if one is defined in the Watershed tab. Finally, percent reductions are provided for the percent of the performance goal achieved, percent annual runoff volume retained, total percent annual particulate phosphorus reduction, total percent annual dissolved phosphorus reduction, total percent annual TIP reduction, and total percent annual TSS reduction. Methodology Required Treatment Volume The required treatment volume, or the volume of stormwater runoff delivered to the BMP, equals the performance goal (1.1 inches or user - specified performance goal) times the impervious area draining to the BMP. This stormwater is delivered to the BMP instantaneously following the Kerplunk method Volume Reduction This BMP does not provide volume reduction towards the performance goal. Pollutant Reduction Pollutant load reductions are calculated on an annual basis. A sand filter does not provide annual volume reduction. Fixed removal rates of 85 percent total suspended solids (TSS), 85 percent particulate phosphorus, and 0 percent dissolved phosphorus are applied to stormwater that travels through the sand filter. NOTE: The user can modify event mean concentrations (EMCs) on the Site Information tab in the calculator. Default concentrations are 54.5 milligrams per liter for total suspended solids (TSS) and 0.3 milligrams per liter for total phosphorus (particulate plus dissolved). The calculator will notify the user if the default is changed. Changing the default EMC will result in changes to the total pounds of pollutant reduced. Routing A sand filter can be routed to any other BMP, except for a green roof and a swale side slope or any BMP in a stormwater treatment sequence that would cause stormwater to be rerouted back to the sand filter already in the sequence. All BMPs can be routed to a sand filter except for a swale side slope. Assumptions for sand filter The following general assumption applies in calculating the credits for a sand filter. If this assumption is not followed, the pollutant reduction credits cannot be applied. The sand filter has been properly designed constructed and will be properly maintained according to specifications for filtration systems. On the watershed tab, the following warning is given: "The calculator does not require sizing inputs for non- volume reducing BMPs. This BMP should be sized according to the guidelines in the MN stormwater manual." Design and construction criteria can be found at this link STORMWATER CENTER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT OF THE STORMTECH ISOLATOR ROW TREATMENT UNIT Submitted to STORMTECH LLC September 2010 Prepared by Timothy A. Puls, EIT Site Facility Manager Phone: 603-343-6672 timothy. ouls @unh.edu James J. Houle, CPSWQ Program Manager, Outreach Coordinator Phone: 603-767-7091 iames.houle@unh.edu Thomas P. Ballestero, PE, PhD Senior Scientist, Principal Investigator Phone: 603 - 862 -4024 tom.ballestero@unh.edu University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center ( UNHSC( Gregg Hall • 35 Colovos Road • Durham, New Hampshire 03824 -3534 • htto: / /"www.unh.edu /unhsc/ Robert M. Roseen, PE., PhD. Director, UNHSC Phone: 603-862-4024 robert.roseen @unh.edu FINAL REPORT ON FIELD VERIFICATION TESTING OF THE STORMTECH ISOLATOR ROW® TREATMENT UNIT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STORMWATER CENTER Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION 5 3.0 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION 6 2.1 System Configuration and Sizing 7 2.2 Reference TSS Information 8 3.0 INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASURING TECHNIQUES 10 3.1 Flow 10 3.2 Other Measurements 10 3.3 Water Quality Analysis 11 4.0 TEST PROCEDURES 11 4.1 Rainfall Collection and Measurement 11 4.2 Field Sampling Procedures 11 5.0 DATA EVALUATION 12 6.0 RESULTS 13 6.1 Event Mean Concentrations (EMC) and Removal Efficiencies (RE) and Statistics 13 6.2 Particle Size Distributions (PSD) & Sediment Accumulation 27 6.4 Analysis of Water Level Drain Down 29 6.5 INDIVIDUAL STORM REPORTS 32 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 32 APPENDIX A: DRAIN DOWN AND FILTER CAPACITY PLOTS FOR 11 MONITORED STORM rIMUTC 35 APPENDIX B: MANUFACTURERS PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS, GENERAL NOTES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 41 StormTech Isolator Row® Testing Report 2 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Plan: Plan view of the University of New Hampshire field research facility Figure 2: Installation of Isolator Row September 2009; (a, top left) HDPE liner installation to monitor full treated effluent; (b, top right) Crushed stone subbase 12" thick installation; (c, bottom left) Installation of Isolator Row chambers on top of double layer of woven geotextile fabric (bottom) non -woven geotextile fabric (sides) and stone subbase; (d, bottom right) Installation of hydraulic inlet structure, chamber entrance (left), influent source (top right), and high flow bypass weir bottom right. 8 Figure 3: System Drawings for Isolator Row (top, plan view; bottom, cross - section) Figure 4: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for varied land uses and at the UNH Stormwater Center 10 Figure 5: Total Suspended Solids Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent locations and Removal Efficiencies for 23 storm events of the Isolator Row®. 17 Figure 6: Suspended Sediment Concentration Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 6 storm events of the Isolator RowO. 18 Figure 7: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel Range Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 13 storm events of the Isolator Row®. 19 Figure 8: Total Zinc Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent locations and Removal Efficiencies for 21 storm events of the Isolator Row 20 Figure 9: Nitrate Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 18 storm events of the Isolator Row®. 21 Figure 10: Total Phosphorus Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 23 storm events of the Isolator Row 22 Figure 11: Effluent EMC box and whisker plot comparisons for the range of contaminants for the Isolator Row ® . 23 Figure 12: Exceedance probabilities for influent and effluent EMCs for TSS, SSC, TPH -D, TZn, DIN, TP _ 24 Figure 13: Influent particle size distributions by auto - sampler and laser diffraction for 4 storms 27 Figure 14: PSD of sediment grab samples taken at 2 feet and 30 feet from the inlet to the Isolator Row. 28 Figure 15: Record of sediment depth inside the StromTech Isolator Row at 1 and 2 year monitoring intervals. 29 Figure 16: Plot of the stage- discharge and maximum water level measured for 12 monitored storm events. 31 Figure 17: Plot of the stage- discharge and maximum water level measured for 7 monitored storm 01 StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Laboratory analytical methods and detection limits for each analyze. 11 Table 2: Rainfall -Runoff event characteristics for 23 storm events. 14 Table 3 Influent and effluent Event Mean Concentrations Removal Efficiencies for TSS, SSC and TPH -D for 23 storm events of the Isolator Row® 15 Table 4Influent and effluent Event Mean Concentrations Removal Efficiencies for DIN, Un and TP for 23 storm events of the Isolator Row® 16 Table 5: Simple statistics for influent and effluent event mean concentrations. 25 Table 6: Tabular values for in- system hydraulic conductivity calculations 30 StormTech Isolator Row* Testing Report The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 FINAL REPORT ON FIELD VERIFICATION TESTING OF THE STORMTECH ISOLATOR ROW® TREATMENT UNIT May, 2010 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The StormTech Isolator Row' was monitored from December 2006 through September 2009 in Durham, NH at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center test facility. The system was installed in September 2006. The Isolator Row system was designed and sized by Stormtech LLC for a 1 cubic foot per second water quality flow and a corresponding water quality volume equivalent to runoff from 1" of runoff from an impervious area or 3300 cubic feet. This system was comprised of 5 chambers wrapped in a combination of filter fabric and geotextile. The hydraulic configuration included a high flow bypass weir structure located at the entrance to the chambers. Bypass flows were not monitored for water quality, only for occurrence. The Isolator Row® was monitored for performance for six major water quality contaminants, hydrologic performance, sediment capture, and sediment accumulation as it relates to hydraulic efficiency of the filter bed. The water quality results are based on treated flows only. After 3 years of operation, sediment (TSS and SSC) performance and effluent EMCs reveal strong performance and low effluent concentrations that do not vary significantly across fluxuations in loading concentration, seasons, or time. A median performance was observed for TSS >80% removal for both years, and SSC >90% for the end of year 2. Five of the seven events with poor performance were attributed to events exceeding the water quality design flow (WQF =1 cfs). Metals performance as measured by TZn increased from 53% for year 1 to 81% removal by the end of year 2. TPH and TP removal efficiencies and effluent EMCs demonstrate strong performance that was enhanced over the course of the study. As would be expected for non - vegetated filtration systems, dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN = NO3, NO2, NH4) removal efficiencies and effluent EMCs reveal poor performance and high effluent concentrations relative to influent values. Sediment depths over the 3 year installation and monitoring period (September 2006 September 2009) had accumulated to 1.2 in, nearly half of the manufacturers recommended depth for maintenance (3 inches). By this measure, it would take another 3 years of operation before maintenance would be required, or a total of 6 years of operation. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Under an agreement from STORMTECH LLC, field verification testing of a StormTech Isolator Row® stormwater treatment unit was conducted at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, Durham NH. Testing consisted of determining the water quality performance for a range of parameters including sediments, metals, nutrients, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Performance tests were conducted under normalized conditions across a range of seasons, rainfall conditions, and pollutant concentrations; all important variables reflective of natural StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 5 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 1: Site Plan: PI an view of the University of New Hampshire field research facility field performance conditions. This report reflects analyses performed from September 2007 through July 2009. This included monitoring of 23 rainfall runoff events in total. The Isolator Row® treatment unit is one of 10 devices that are currently configured and tested in parallel, with a single influent source providing uniform loading to all devices. All treatment strategies were uniformly sized to target either a water quality volume (WQV), or a water quality flow (WQF). Under the parallel and uniformly sized configuration, a normalized performance evaluation is possible because different treatment strategies of the same scale receive runoff from events of the same duration, intensity, peak flow, volume, antecedent dry period, and pollutant loading. Primary funding for the Center program has been provided by the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).The UNH Stormwater Center is housed within the Environmental Research Group (ERG) of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire. 3.0 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION The UNH Stormwater Center studies stormwater - related water quality and quantity issues. The Stormwater Center's field facility is designed to evaluate and verify the performance of stormwater management devices and technologies in a parallel, event normalized setting. Ten different management systems are currently undergoing side -by -side comparison testing under strictly monitored natural conditions (Figure 1). The site was designed to function as a field testing site for numerous, uniformly sized, isolated, parallel treatment systems. Rainfall -runoff is evenly divided at the head of the facility in a distribution box, designed with the floor slightly higher than the outlet invert elevations to allow for particulate scour into the pipe network. Effluent from all systems is piped into a StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 A t0.8 +- Il1FNT IIDUT rFCI NAT IfIt � - A- StormTech Isolator Row_ a1• E - 5t0ace Said RW =' L'rlbon Fond ✓i. retenhon Unit t ;,a Svrd and Atua Filter Systems '� b , tn Drain MaNgle Retrofit yet Wetlandurd — e ...1plaled Swale tnbutmn bo, \ - ampling l3allery field performance conditions. This report reflects analyses performed from September 2007 through July 2009. This included monitoring of 23 rainfall runoff events in total. The Isolator Row® treatment unit is one of 10 devices that are currently configured and tested in parallel, with a single influent source providing uniform loading to all devices. All treatment strategies were uniformly sized to target either a water quality volume (WQV), or a water quality flow (WQF). Under the parallel and uniformly sized configuration, a normalized performance evaluation is possible because different treatment strategies of the same scale receive runoff from events of the same duration, intensity, peak flow, volume, antecedent dry period, and pollutant loading. Primary funding for the Center program has been provided by the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).The UNH Stormwater Center is housed within the Environmental Research Group (ERG) of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire. 3.0 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION The UNH Stormwater Center studies stormwater - related water quality and quantity issues. The Stormwater Center's field facility is designed to evaluate and verify the performance of stormwater management devices and technologies in a parallel, event normalized setting. Ten different management systems are currently undergoing side -by -side comparison testing under strictly monitored natural conditions (Figure 1). The site was designed to function as a field testing site for numerous, uniformly sized, isolated, parallel treatment systems. Rainfall -runoff is evenly divided at the head of the facility in a distribution box, designed with the floor slightly higher than the outlet invert elevations to allow for particulate scour into the pipe network. Effluent from all systems is piped into a StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 central sampling gallery, where system sampling and flow monitoring occurs. The parallel configuration normalizes the treatment processes for event and watershed - loading variations. The testing facility is located on the perimeter of a 9 acre commuter parking lot at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. The parking lot is standard dense mix asphalt that was installed in 1996, and is used to near capacity throughout the academic year. The sub - catchment area is large enough to generate substantial runoff, which is gravity fed to the parallel treatment processes. The lot is curbed and entirely impervious. Activity is a combination of passenger vehicles and routine bus traffic. The runoff time of concentration for the lot is 22 minutes, with slopes ranging from 1.5 -2.5 %. The area is subject to frequent plowing, salting, and sanding during the winter months. Literature reviews indicate that contaminant concentrations are above or equal to national norms for commercial parking lot runoff. The climatology of the area is characterized as a coastal, cool temperate forest. Average annual precipitation is 48 inches uniformly distributed throughout the year, with average monthly precipitation of 4.02 in +/- 0.5. The mean annual temperature is 487, with the average low in January at 15.8 °F, and the average high in July at 82 °F. 2.1 System Configuration and Sizing A 5 chambered Isolator Row® system was tested in an off line configuration. A 6 foot diameter manhole with a 4 foot sump was installed upstream of the Isolator Row ®. The manhole was connected to the Isolator Row® with a short length of 24 inch diameter HDPE pipe. Within the manhole a high -flow bypass was constructed using a broad - crested weir. A 12" bypass pipe routes bypass flows around the Isolator Row® to discharge downstream. The bypass and treated effluent are monitored separately. The crest of the overflow weir was set 0.2 feet below the top of the Isolator Row chamber, this allows stormwater in excess of the Isolator Row's storage capacity to bypass in an offline configuration without routing through the system and avoids any potential for pressurized flow through the underlying geotextile. Each chamber of the Isolator Row is 51" in width, 30" in height, and 85.4" in length. 5 chambers are connected. The system has a design peak flow rate of 1 cfs (cubic feet per second). The system is lined with HDPE liner and effluent is collected by a 6" perforated underdrain that is continuously monitored. As mentioned, non - design flow (flow rates > 1 cfs) bypass the treatment system and are monitored for occurrence only. Figures 2 and 3 show system installation and construction drawings. The system was installed in late September 2006. System monitoring began in early 2007 to allow for system flushing and to prevent influences that may be construction associated. StormTech Isolator Rowe Testing Report T The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 2: Installation of Isolator Row September 2006; (a, top left) HDPE liner installation to monitor full treated effluent; (b, top right) Crushed stone subbase 12" thick installation; (c, bottom left) Installation of Isolator Row chambers on top of double layer of woven geotextile fabric (bottom) non -woven geotextile fabric (sides) and stone subbase; (d, bottom right) Installation of hydraulic inlet structure, chamber entrance (left), influent source (top right), and high flow bypass weir bottom right. 2.2 Reference TSS Information Comparisons of the TSS concentrations for varied land uses are presented in Figure 4. Urban highway pollutant concentrations tend to be twice the mean concentration measured for parking lots and residential uses. The data collected from the UNH facility is within the national norm for commercial parking lots and is within the range of typical concentrations observed for a range of land uses. Occasional storms are monitored that have exceptionally high solids concentrations. StormTech Isolator Row' Testing Report The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 3: System Drawings for Isolator Row (top, plan view; bottom, cross- section) 1 CFS 30" NYLOPLAST ` WEIR CREST EL. 103.30 8" HDPE TIGHT JOINT 43'+/- A A 37.2' 1 8" PERF INV = 100.0 8" TIGHT JOINT INV = 102.0 r 30" NYLOPLAST 6.75' StormTech' Isolator Row® Testing Report 9 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 4: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for varied land uses and at the UNH Stormwater Center (UNHSC); (Source: National Stormwater Quality Database, 2005 UNHSC, 2007 2) _ 1000 E E 100 w y H 10 3.0 INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASURING TECHNIQUES 3.1 Flow Influent flows were monitored using Teledyne Isco 6712 Automated samplers accompanied by Teledyne Isco 750 Area Velocity probes. The influent depths were also secondarily monitored using Teledyne Isco 730 Bubbler Flow Modules and flows generated from a stage vs discharge rating curve for redundancy. Effluent flow depths were measured using Teledyne Isco 6712 Automated samplers accompanied by Teledyne Isco 730 Bubbler Flow Modules in combination with Thelmar compound weirs with laboratory developed rating curves to yield flows. 3.2 Other Measurements Temperature, pH, Specific Conductivity, and Dissolved Oxygen, are collected by YSI 600XL multi - parameter sondes. These parameters are monitored real -time for the influent and effluent flows but are not included under this contract. I Pitt, R. E., Maestre, A., and Center for Watershed Protection. (2005) "The National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD, version I.I )." USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C. UNHSC, Roseen, R., T. Ballestero, and Houle, J. (2007). "UNH Stormwater Center 2007 Annual Report." University of New Hampshire, Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology, Durham, NH. StormTech' Isolator Row° Testing Report 10 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 m a, yz ay � gQ �0 J2 3.3 Water Quality Analysis Samples were processed and analyzed by an EPA and National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certified laboratory using the standard methodologies outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Laboratory analytical methods and detection limits for each analyte. Analyte Analytical Method Sample Detection Method Detection Limit Nitrate /Nitrite in water EPA 300.OA 0.1 0.008 Total Suspended Solids SM 2540 D Variable, 1 -10 0.4 Suspended Sediment ASTM D -3977 Variable, 1 -2 1 Concentration Total Phosphorus EPA 365.3 0.01 0.008 Zinc in water EPA 200.7 0.05 0.001 -0.05 Total Petroleum SW 35300 80156 Variable <_ 3.5 0.1 -3.0 Hydrocarbons — Diesel Range 'Method detection limit is different than sample detection limit which will be often be higher as they are based on sample volume available for analyses. 4.0 TEST PROCEDURES 4.1 Rainfall Collection and Measurement A rainfall collection system consisting of 6 "diameter 2 foot high anodized aluminum housing, HDPE funnel, debris screen, and tipping bucket mechanism is installed at a controlled site within the research complex and used rainfall measurement to 0.01 "depth resolution. Specified components are the ISCO Model 674 Tipping Bucket Rain Sensor with Rain Gauge. The precipitation event data is stored in the ISCO 6712 and the accumulated rainfall is retrieved and stored through a FlowLink 4.21 database via a desktop computer located on -site. 4.2 Field Sampling Procedures Composite samples were taken for influent and effluent waters by automated samplers. Automatic samplers are programmed to sample 100 ml aliquots at flow weighted intervals into 24 x 1L containers. The sampling program is designed to ensure adequate coverage of the storm event and adjusted to accommodate seasonal fluctuations in rainfall patterns. Rejection criteria included minimum rainfall depth of 0.1 inches, 10 aliquots per event, and minimum 70% sampling coverage of the storm event. Influent time of concentration is approximately 22 minutes. Effluent time of concentrations vary for each device depending on conveyance lengths and treatment strategies. All samples are stored in thermostatically controlled conditions at 39 °F until processed. One Liter disposable LDPE sample bags are used to assure clean, non - contaminated sample containers. Full storm composites are generated using a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Dekaport Cone Sample Splitter. Composite samples are then sealed and labeled with a StormTech Isolator Rowe Testing Report The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 unique, water proof, adhesive bar code that corresponds with a field identification number containing information relating to the stormwater treatment unit and date of sampling. Records are kept that correlate sample bar code with sample time, date, flow, and other real time water quality parameters. Detailed written and electronic records are kept identifying the date, time, and unique bar code and field identification numbers. This begins the chain -of- custody record that accompanies each sample to track handling and transportation throughout the sampling process. All analyses and procedures comply with the Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership (TARP), and the Technology Acceptance Protocol — Ecology (TAPE) guidelines to the maximum extent possible. We operate under a detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) which is available on request. 5.0 DATA EVALUATION Exploratory data analyses are presented to examine influent and effluent conditions. These data are presented along with simple statistical analyses to examine performance trends. Data analyses included a range of approaches: • evaluation of storm characteristics • time series scatter plots for evaluation of event mean concentrations • time series scatter plots for evaluation of removal efficiencies • quartile distributions with notched box and whisker plots • influent and effluent cumulative distribution functions • simple statistics summary • particle size distribution (PSD) analysis • residual solid accumulation measurements Storm characteristics such as total depth of rainfall, peak intensity, total storm volume, antecedent dry period, among others are presented for each storm event. Results for all storms sampled are presented in Table 2. Event mean concentrations (EMC's) are presented in time series scatter plots along with removal efficiencies across a range of seasons. EMC's are a parameter used to represent the flow - proportional average concentration of a given parameter during a storm event. It is defined as the total constituent mass divided by the total runoff volume. When combined with flow measurement data, the EMC can be used to estimate the pollutant loading from a given storm or an annual basis. Most of the EMC data collected during this study were based upon direct measurement from flow- weighted composite samples. Due to the variability of precipitation events and resultant runoff conditions sample trigger conditions and flow - weighted sample pacing were variable and adjusted on a storm by storm basis according to the most up -to -date precipitation forecasts. Interquartile distributions are presented as notched box and whisker plots for the range of StormTech' Isolator Row° Testing Report 12 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 201D contaminants for influent and effluent. Analysis of quartile distributions helps characterize trends in terms of range, and maximum and minimum, and median. The cumulative probability distributions of observed concentrations are presented for both influent and effluent conditions. The cumulative distributions illustrate the probability of observed EMCs for both influent runoff conditions and the Stormtech Isolator Row treatment. EMCs are compared for each pollutant parameter using simple statistics over multiple years of observations. The data provides a basis to evaluate the primary study question; i.e., to discern whether stormwater treatment unit BMP's have served to produce observable improvement in quality and reduction in volume of stormwater runoff. Calculation of medians is used because it is a measure that is more robust in the presence of outlier values than is the mean (average). Particle size distribution (PSD) information for 4 influent events was determined by composite samples obtained with an auto - sampler and analyzed by laser diffraction. Auto - sampler PSD is reflective of the particle size range pulled by a sampler using a 3 /8th ID sampling line and a peristaltic pump. The quantity of the solids captured by the system were assessed on an annual basis and consisted of residual solids depth measurements throughout the lateral and longitudinal profile of the system. Particle size distributions were performed for captured solids. 6.0 RESULTS Results presented below for the Isolator Row® represent data collected from the period of monitoring from December 2006 through September 2009 conducted at the UNHSC field facility. The data set reflects rainfall across all four seasons and covers a wide range of rainfall characteristics. Table 2 displays rainfall event characteristics for the 23 monitored storm events. Storms ranged in size from low intensity to high intensity, small volume to large volume. The design flow rate for the Isolator Row is 1 cfs, or 448.8 gpm. 6.1 Event Mean Concentrations (EMC) and Removal Efficiencies (RE) and Statistics Influent and effluent EMC and system performance values are presented for each storm for the 5 contaminants across all monitored storm events in both tabular format in tables 4 -5 and graphical format in Figures 5 -50. The tables display discrete storm event data including influent and effluent EMCs and event based removal efficiencies. The graphical time series plots show performance for individual storm events as well as seasonal and annual trends with a 6 -month cold season, or winter period displayed in blue. When EMC results are below detection limit (BDL) a value of zero is used and plotted as a unique time series and represented as a green triangle on the plots. No clear methodology for representing BDL values in stormwater treatment system effluent currently exists especially with respect to systems that detain a large volume of runoff and exhibit a longer effluent hydrograph than influent waters. Where detection limits are low enough ( < 1 mg/L for TSS) the conventional statistical approach of using 0.5 X DL would be adequate however, where detection limits are higher ( ? 10 mg /L for TSS) 0.5 x DL may add artificial mass and obscure overall system performance. Influent and 3 Helsel, D. R., and Hirsch, R. M. (2002). Statistical Methods in Water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey. StormTech Isolator Row- Testing Report 13 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Table 2: Rainfall -Runoff event characteristics for 23 storm events. Rainfall Event Peak Intensity (in/hr) Storm Duration (min) Total Depth (in) Peak Flow (gpm) Volume al (gal) Anticedent Dry Period (days) Season 3/11/2007 0.12 430 0.28 85 23,323 7.0 Winter 4/12/2007 0.12 590 0.37 115 30,421 6.0 Spring 4/27/2007 0.24 450 0.54 146 31,005 7.5 Spring 5/11/2007 0.60 115 0.26 488 13,150 8.5 Spring 7/4/2007 0.48 235 0.45 260 23,976 13.0 Summer 9/9/2007 1.32 345 0.48 923 19,228 21.0 Summer 12/24/2007 1.08 305 0.33 499 21,608 2.5 Winter 12/29/2007 0.36 655 0.42 114 29,399 1.5 Winter 1/11/2008 0.72 690 0.68 233 47,832 1.5 Winter 1/18/2008 0.48 250 0.59 146 14,423 3.5 Winter 2/1/2008 0.12 620 1.23 187 39,921 1.5 Winter 3/7/2008 0.24 365 0.34 139 27,390 1.0 Winter 5/31/2008 0.72 80 0.11 344 6,807 3.5 Spring 6/4/2008 0.24 665 0.40 158 43,908 3.5 Spring 6/20/2008 1.08 165 0.20 718 16,016 2.0 Summer 7/23/2008 0.96 745 0.86 619 63,145 1.5 Summer 10/21/2008 0.36 290 0.24 183 1 18,154 4.5 Fall 11/13/2008 0.60 3,875 1.17 180 147,896 3.5 Fall 12/10/2008 0.36 435 0.60 221 39,504 0.5 Winter 4/3/2009 1.32 580 0.79 153 44,928 0.5 Spring 4/21/2009 0.36 685 0.64 1,342 509,189 2.5 Spring 5/5/2009 0.36 1,345 0.72 521 54,180 3.5 Spring 6/18/20091 1.08 1,295 1.46 590 42,092 3.5 Spring effluent EMC quartile distributions are presented in Figure 11 as box and whisker plots that displays the minimum, 25 percentile, median, 75 percentile and maximum values for the range of storms monitored and the range of contaminants measured. The range of effluent concentrations are useful in discerning overall performance trends and in comparing UNHSC results to other datasets that may exist for the treatment technology. Figure 12 displays the same range of data for EMC displayed as exceedance probabilities. The cumulative distributions of the entire dataset is ranked with influent and effluent values plotted against the percent of recurrence or exceedance. The cumulative distributions are useful as it demonstrates the probability that a given concentration has been observed, and presumably will occur. StormTech' Isolator Row Testing Report 14 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 e 0 0 0 0 0 P - $ - h� T P O !V 0 0 0 o c o o d o c oo 0 0 0 o c o c mnm nonarvrvory nrv ... a io< o v o 0 o e e o a c o e o 0 0 6 0 0 0 o e o 0 0< w, e a m � �irc P3' ml�" V ry n J O O O O J O O J ` O O V log, 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o m o 0 0 6 g o m o p c o 0 0 o c o o c c 6 0 0 0 o e c o 0 0 0< e o o c o 0 o e e o 0 o d o 0 0 0 N E v a v H `u c v v m 3 o E a o s c v w L � 6 ® E o = z 3 v oz m 0 o r • u v d F- C E � o v L N 1- Figure 5: Total Suspended Solids Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent locations and Removal Efficiencies for 23 storm events of the Isolator Row A 6 -month winter period (Nov - April) is displayed in blue. Influent and Effluent EMC Values TSS 300 - • 250 - - - - 200 ! E 150 • • • • U 100 • 50 ■ • ■ f �• • • ■ • 0- ■ ■ 111812007 4/28/2007 6/srz007 11114/2007 2/2212008 611/2008 111912008 12/18/2008 32812009 7/6/2009 Date • Influent ■ Effluent ♦ BDL — System Inspection Removal Efficlency TSS 100% 0 ° - 7o% - s0i° - i z 40% 50 °r° 30 °/u - -- - - -- - - - 20% 1 00Z 0% 1/182007 412812007 816/2007 11/14/2007 212212008 611/2008 9512008 12/18/2008 3/28/2009 702009 Date Figure 6: Suspended Sediment Concentration Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 6 storm events of the Isolator Row®. A 6 -month winter period (NOV- April( is displayed in blue. StormTech Isolator Row® Testing Report 19 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Influent and Effluent EMC Values SSC 500 " - -- -- 450 - 400 — : 350 — E 300 � 250 c 200 t) 150 100 50 0 1/1812007 4/2812007 81612007 1111412007 2122/2008 611/2008 9/9/2008 12/1812008 3128/2009 71612009 Date • Influent ■ E ffl u ent ♦ BDL — System Inspection Removal Efficiency SSC 100% 90% 80% - - - — - 70% 60% W a' 50% v 40% — — 30% 10% 1/18/2007 412812007 &6/2007 11/1412007 2122/2008 6/1/2008 9/9/2008 1211812008 3/2812009 716/2009 Data StormTech Isolator Row® Testing Report 19 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 7: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel Range Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 13 storm events of the Isolator Row A 6 -month winter period (Nov - April) is displayed in blue. Influent and Effluent EMC Values TPH-D 3500 3000 3 2500 a E 2000 c 1500 0 V 1000 500 0 1118/2007 4/28/2007 8812007 11n412007 2/22/2008 611/2008 9/9/2008 12/18/2008 328/2009 7/612009 Date • Influent ■ Effluent ♦ BDL — System Inspection Removal Efficiency TPH -D W K e 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1/18/2007 4/282007 &6/2007 11/1412007 2122/2008 811/2008 Date StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 19 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 919/21108 12/1812008 3/2812009 7/82009 Figure 8: Total Zinc Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent locations and Removal Efficiencies for 21 storm events of the Isolator Row®. A 6 -month winter period (Nov- April) is displayed in blue. StormTech Isolator Row® Testing Report 20 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Influent and Effluent EMC Values Zinc 0.160 - - - 0.140 • „- .0.120 J 'o1Q100 - - -- - - -- - -. . E ■ • 0.080 • • 0 00.060 - -- - - - -- - 0.040 —� -• • — • -. 0.020 ■ 1 ■ 0.000 11182007 4128/2007 8/6/2007 11/14/2007 2/2212008 6/12008 919/2008 12/18/2008 312812009 716/2009 Date • Influent ■ Eff ♦ BDL — System Inspeclion Rernoval Efficiency Zinc 100% + 90% 80% 70% – – 60% w Ix 50% A 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1/182007 428/2007 81612007 11/14/2007 2/22/2008 611/2008 9/9/2008 12/18/2008 31282009 7/6/2009 Date StormTech Isolator Row® Testing Report 20 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 9: Nitrate Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 18 storm events of the Isolator Row ® . A 6 -month winter period (Nov- April) is displayed in blue. Influent and Effluent EMC Values DIN 1.4 1.2 ■ J 1 E 0.6 _.. — ■ c 0.6 ■ • • 0 N • • 0.4 . ■ ■ ■ • ■ 0.2 • 0 1/18/2007 4/282007 81612007 1111412007 2/22/2008 6/1/2008 91912008 12118/2008 328/2009 7/6/2009 Data f • Influent ■ Effluent ♦ BDL — System Inspection Removal Efficiency DIN 50% 0% -50% -100% ♦ .. .... Z W � - 150% e -200 °h ♦ - -250% -- -- - 300 % - --- --— -350% 1/18/2007 4/2812007 8/6/2007 11/14/2007 2/22/2008 6/1/2008 9/9/2008 12/182008 32812009 7/6/2009 Date StormTech Isolator Row® Testing Report 21 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 10: Total Phosphorus Event Mean Concentrations at influent and effluent points and Removal Efficiencies for 23 storm events of the Isolator Row°'. A 6 -month winter period (Nov - April) is displayed in blue. StormTech' Isolator Row° Testing Report 22 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Influent and Effluent EMC Values Total Phosphorus 0.35 • 0.30 0.25 'or 9:0 20 - - - --- - - - - - -- ------ - - - - - -- c 0.15 0.10 0.05 - -�-� - ■ ■ :•■ , 0.00 1/18/2007 4/28/2007 8/6/2007 11114/1007 212212008 61112008 9/9/2008 12/18/2008 3/28/2009 716/2009 Date • Influent ■ Effl uent ♦ BDL — System Inspection Removal Efficiency Total Phosphorus 100 % - 80% 60% 40 °k .. ♦ m 0% 1z e -20% -40% - -60% -80% - --' - — -100 °k ... -.. _ °� 120 1118/2007 4/28/2007 8/6/2007 11/14/1007 2/22/2008 611/2008 9/9/2008 12/1812008 31282009 7162009 Date StormTech' Isolator Row° Testing Report 22 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 11: Effluent EMC box and whisker plot comparisons for the range of contaminants for the Isolator Row® . Box reflects the 25 and 75` percentile, the line reflects the median and the whiskers reflect minimum and maximum values of the entire dataset. 350 250 300 200 250 b 150 £ 200 V) 100 U 150 X (A 100 F 50 50 0 — 0 Influent Effluent Influent Effluent 3500 0.20 3000 2500 0.15 2000 b) 0.10 O 1500 011 1000 H 0.05 500 0 � 0.00 Influent Effluent Influent Effluent 125 0.35 00 0.30 0.25 .4 0.75 ` -1 0.20 E 0.50 T 0.15 0.10 Q 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 Influent Effluent Influent Effluent StormTech Isolator Row° Testing Report 23 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Figure 12: Exceedance probabilities for influent and effluent EMCs for TSS, SSC, TPH-D, TZn, DIN, TP so �.M a 4'. a 4W, U "N'.0 W L i- CL W 10 W '0" 0 l.r 10s 40 341, Oi 0, 100 0 so I" Iso to. M 3so Iso 4DO SSC EMC (mg/L) loos So, 'V' $0 411 d 1O IQ lm 5" IW JW 2000 2500 3000 IWO TPH-D EMC (ug/L) IIOunO 101 DW 010 010 nW ago I Do 12Q 1 60 DIN EMC (mg/L) soo: 90, d toe n. 000 005 010 015 020 015 03.. 015 TP EMC (mg/L) —l'oh—, I M.".0 StormTech' Isolator Row- Testing Report 24 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center-September 2010 1" 150 2" M TSS EMC (mg/L) 4) 4W, L 105. as 0000 VON O040 ofto "OHO .100 Oslo 0140 0160 Un EMC (mg/L) soo: 90, d toe n. 000 005 010 015 020 015 03.. 015 TP EMC (mg/L) —l'oh—, I M.".0 StormTech' Isolator Row- Testing Report 24 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center-September 2010 1" 150 2" M TSS EMC (mg/L) Table 5: Simple statistics for influent and effluent event mean concentrations. System/ Pollutant Statistic Influent year 1 StormTech Effluent year 1 Influent year 2 StormTech Effluent year 2 Influent overall I StormTech Effluent overall mean 64 16 81 13 73 J 14 ER 76% 84% 81% AVG RE 66% 73% 69% TSS (mg /1) Median RE 83% 83% 83% n 11 12 23 SD 45 14 98 15 76 14 Cv 0.709 0.867 1.213 1.207 1.049 1.012 mean 1081 269 503 BDL 903.3 186 ER 75% 99% 79% AVG RE 73% 99% 81% TPH-D (ug /1) Median RE 71% 99% 91% n 9 4 13 SD 885 197 242 NIA 783 206 Cv 0.818 0.734 0.482 NIA 0.867 1.109 mean 0.23 0.45 0.37 0.59 0.30 0.52 ER -97% -61% -74% AVG RE -129% 52% 1 -97% DIN (mg/1) Median RE -97% -58% -80% n 8 9 17 SD 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.34 0.16 0.27 Cv 0.696 0.345 0.386 0.585 0.535 0.521 mean 0.063 0.030 0.046 0.012 0.055 0.021 ER 53% 74% 61% AVG RE 50% 72% 60% TZn (mg /1) Median RE 53% 81% 1 57% n 11 10 21 SD 0.036 0.023 0.037 0.012 0.037 0.020 Cv 0.575 0.770 0.795 1.024 0.665 0.954 mean 0.12 0.06 1 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.04 ER 51% 56% 53% AVG RE 42% 17% 29% TP (mg11) Median RE 50% 13% 33% n 11 12 23 S0 O.D6 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.03 Cv 0.491 0.456 1.221 0.618 0.826 0.579 mean No Data 1 166.70 1 9.60 166.70 9.60 ER 94% 94% AVG RE 93% 93% SSC (mgA) Median RE 91% 91% n 5 5 SD 132.87 7.92 132.87 7.92 Cv 0.797 6.825 0.797 0.825 Note: ER = average efficiency ratio; AVG RE = average removal efficiency; median RE= median removal efficiency; n = number of storms; SD = standard deviation; Cv= coefficient of variation StormTech' Isolator Row• Testing Report 25 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 The statistical analyses presented reveal a range of performance trends. Efficiency Ratio (ER) analysis was performed on the final dataset (Table 3). For many stormwater treatment system datasets, ER is a stable estimation of overall treatment performance as it minimizes the impact of low concentration values, or relatively clean storms with low influent EMC concentrations. Where Removal Efficiencies (RE) reflect treatment unit performance on a storm by storm basis, ERs weight all storms equally and reflect overall influent and effluent averages across the entire data set. For this reason they are often discouraged as a performance measure. REs are presented as both an average and median of aggregate storm values. In general, aggregate median RE values are more reliable in highly variable, non - normally distributed datasets such as those experienced in stormwater treatment unit performance studies. A review of REs on a per event basis, ERs for the entire period of monitoring, and EMCs per event and probabilistically over the entire period of monitoring will reveal the measured performance variations attributable to season, flow, concentration, and other factors. Sediment (TSS and SSC) performance and effluent EMCs reveal strong performance and low effluent concentrations that do not vary significantly across fluxuations in loading concentration, seasons, or time. There is little variation in performance for sediments with respect to influent concentration as can be observed in Figure 10. Mean effluent concentrations were xTss= 14.0 mg/I +/ -14.0 and xssc =9.6 +/- 7.9. Median TSS performance was >80% removal for both years, and SSC was >90% for a limited duration of monitoring for the end of year 2. Five of the seven events with poor performance can be attributable to storm events exceeding the water quality design flow (WQF =1 cfS)". There were 3 other events that exceed the WQF that averaged above 80% removal. Total zinc appears to be improving over time presumably with development of the filter cake within the chambers. TZn performance increased from 53% for year 1 to 81% removal by the end of year 2. TPH removal efficiencies and effluent EMCs demonstrate strong performance that was enhanced over the course of the study. TP removal was moderate at 33% over the course of the study. Performance was higher and effluent EMC's lower as the study progressed. While TPH removals did not indicate seasonal variability, TP results seemed to be influenced by seasonal changes and maintenance intervals although clear trends were unable to be established in this study. The enhancement of treatment over time of these analytes is of interest and seems to be associated with the development of an organic filter cake over the fabric. As the filter cake develops treatment of TPH and Phosphorus is improved. DIN removal efficiencies and effluent EMCs reveal poor performance and high effluent concentrations relative to influent values indicating that this system offers no identifiable treatment for dissolved inorganic nitrogen. 4 Five of the seven events exceeding the water quality design flow had poor performance: 9/9/2007,12/24/2007, 6-_'0/2008, 7/23/2008,4/21/2009 StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 26 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 6.2 Particle Size Distributions (PSD) & Sediment Accumulation Particle size information for 4 influent events was determined by composite samples obtained with an auto - sampler and analyzed by laser diffraction. Particle size ranges in the influent range from 0.01 mm to 0.12 mm, with the median particle size around 0.038 mm (Figure 12). Influent and effluent PSD characterization are created using the same sampling methods. The d15, d50, and d85 runoff particle sizes are 0.015mm, 0.044mm, and 0.130mm respectively. These values represent the mean runoff values for 2006 — 2008. Influent Particle Size Analyses by Auto - Sampler and Laser Difraction (n = 4) t zr 3 `w u- 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0.01 0.10 Particle size (mm) Figure 13: Influent particle size distributions by auto - sampler and laser diffraction for 4 storms Sediments captured by the Isolator Row® were sampled and analyzed by dry sieve and 1.00 hydrometer PSD analysis. Grab samples taken at 1 and 2 year monitoring intervals, along the longitudinal centerline at 2 foot and 30 foot locations from the inlet were weighed, dried, and put into a sieve set and shaker. The sieves used were 2mm, 850µm, 425 µm, 250 µm, 150 µm, and 75 µm. Figure 13 presents PSD and hydrometer test results of these sediment samples. StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 27 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 4/12/2007 4/27/2007 5/11/2007 — 9111 /2007 l i 0.01 0.10 Particle size (mm) Figure 13: Influent particle size distributions by auto - sampler and laser diffraction for 4 storms Sediments captured by the Isolator Row® were sampled and analyzed by dry sieve and 1.00 hydrometer PSD analysis. Grab samples taken at 1 and 2 year monitoring intervals, along the longitudinal centerline at 2 foot and 30 foot locations from the inlet were weighed, dried, and put into a sieve set and shaker. The sieves used were 2mm, 850µm, 425 µm, 250 µm, 150 µm, and 75 µm. Figure 13 presents PSD and hydrometer test results of these sediment samples. StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 27 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 . • • 2 ft 7115/08 °30 ft 7/15108 2 ft 9/17/09 ®30 ft 9117/09 100 all L 70 > 60 s `w 50 c LL 40 0 9 20 10 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 Particle size (min) Figure 14: PSD of sediment grab samples taken at 2 feet and 30 feet from the inlet to the Isolator Row. Depth of sediment accumulation was measured at the same time the sediment grab samples were taken. Comparison of the PSD results taken at the influent by the auto - sampler and by grab sample at 2 feet from the inlet to the chamber show that the sediments filtered out by the system are approximately a magnitude larger at the d50. The data also illustrates a longitudinal differentiation in particle settling in the chamber with larger diameter particles settling toward the front of the system and smaller diameter particles settling toward the back. Figure 15 shows depth of sediment across the longitudinal profile of the system from 2 feet to 30 feet from the inlet. The chart shows a consistent sediment depth over the 2 year monitoring period except at the 30 foot mark. An increase in depth at the 10 foot mark represents consistent sediment deposition due to flow dissipation. At the 30 foot mark there is an increase in sediment depth from 0.25 in to 1.17 in. This is likely due to sediment being pushed towards the back of the system as it experiences more intense events. The total sediment accumulation of 1.2 inches from September 2006 September 2009, is nearly half of the manufacturers recommended depth for maintenance (3 inches). By this measure, it StormTech Isolator Row® Testing Report 28 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Sediment Accumulation 1.4 1.2 1.0 0 0.8 c 0.6 d E 0.4 a 0.2 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance from Inlet (ft) — X7/15/2008 19/17/2009 Figure 15: Record of sediment depth inside the stromTech Isolator Row at 1 and 2 year monitoring intervals. would take another 3 years of operation before maintenance would be required, or a total of 6 years of operation. 6.4 Analysis of Water Level Drain Down The rate of water level drain down in the Isolator Row system is a function of depth of water (driving head) and the hydraulic conductivity of the confining layer. Initially the confining layer is the geotextile, and then becomes controlled by the development of a filter cake on top of the geotextile. The maximum specific discharge (or hydraulic conductivity) reported here (qma.) is calculated as discharge per square foot of filter area value (gpm /ft for 12 of the monitored storms and is plotted in Figure 16. The bypass weir elevation as measured from the bottom of the chamber (27.7 in), the top of Isolator Row chamber (30.0 in), and a sandy soil (8 in /hr or 0.08 gpm /ft are plotted for reference. The plot indicates reduction in filter capacity over time. Figure 17 plots gmax along with the recorded maximum water depth within the Isolator Row chamber for each of the 12 storms. Drain down for 12 storms are attached as Appendix A. These drain down plot the effluent flows along the left y -axis and water level and stage - discharge along the right y -axis versus time. Note, the stage- discharge values have been scaled up by a factor of 10 in order to display clearly. Rate and trend of clogging was examined by monitoring of drain down for events at or near the maximum treatment flow rate. The maximum treatment flow rate for the system was calculated for seven events when in- system depths were at or near the maximum depth as regulated by the bypass (27.7 inches). Figure 16 illustrates the seven events of maximum treatment flow rate versus gmax, and a linear regression trendline. Examination of the linear regression shows a relatively weak correlation (r 0.337) due largely to the limited number of StormTech' Isolator Row• Testing Report 29 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 Table 6: Tabular values for in- system hydraulic conductivity calculations Storm Date Effluent Peak Flow (gpm ) q max max depth (in) q max / max depth Season Antecedent Dry Period (days) 7/4/2007 60.8 0.53 20.88 0.31 Summer 13.0 12124/2007 110.4 0.73 27.48 0.35 Winter 2.5 12129/2007 26.0 0.17 18.00 0.12 Winter 1.5 5/31/2008 7.0 0.05 21.36 0.04 Spring 3.5 11/13/2008 23.5 0.16 18.96 0.12 Fall 3.5 12110/2008 64.4 0.43 24.72 0.25 Winter 0.5 4/3/2009 73.8 0.49 29.52 0.22 Spring 0.5 5/5/2009 56.8 0.38 28.80 0.20 Spring 3.5 5/27/2009 32.5 0.21 27.96 0.12 Spring 9.0 619/2009 13.9 0.09 13.08 0.19 Spring 7.5 6111/2009 82.2 0.54 29.76 0.28 Spring 1.5 6118/2009 91.9 0.61 30.84 0.33 Spring 3.5 events where maximum depth at or near bypass was observed (seven of twelve). The regression was only applied to these seven events were driving head would all be nearly equivalent. Hydraulic conductivity is dependent on driving head and therefore needs to be constant. For comparative purposes, the linear regression was solved for a condition where the filter efficiency would be equal to a sandy soil reference condition. Given the current trendline, the filter will have reduced to the reference condition (sandy soil) by September 2010, 4 years after installation (September 2006). This point does not necessarily indicate the need for maintenance, but does indicate an 89% reduction in filter efficiency by September 2010. This maintenance requirement point could be determined by monitoring of water quality and occurrence of bypass. This is not the same as a reduction in initial maximum treatment flow rate. That point is not known for the starting condition, but was determined from 12/2007- 6/2009. StormTech' Isolator Row° Testing Report 30 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 Figure 16: Plot of the stage -discharge and maximum water level measured for 12 monitored storm events. Also plotted are the hydraulic conductivity of an HSG A soil and relative elevations of the bypass weir wall and the top of the Isolator Row chamber all as horizontal lines. q max vs max depth y=- 0.0005x + 20.289 0.80 R' = 0.3369 35 0.70 30 070 • 30 060 0.60 25 c 050 0 • 25 c 0.50 20 040 20 = y 15 CL 0.30 040 10 R E 020 • v 15 5 0 10 MORE 0 0.00 F I —� 10 E ' ` /. NOL,. 0> F Nb. Md , AU . ABC. I fdr J4 4, O % Y 9 -09 09 09 07 0> 08 08 08 Og 0.10 • q max —HSG A Soil • system max depth 5 —Top Weir Wall —Top of Chamber Figure 16: Plot of the stage -discharge and maximum water level measured for 12 monitored storm events. Also plotted are the hydraulic conductivity of an HSG A soil and relative elevations of the bypass weir wall and the top of the Isolator Row chamber all as horizontal lines. Figure 17: Plot of the stage- discharge and maximum water level measured for 7 monitored storm events with equal system depths (elevation of weir wall crest +/- 3 in.). A trendline showing gradual decline in q max is plotted with its regression equation. StormTech' Isolator Row- Testing Report 31 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCenter September 2010 q max vs full system depth y=- 0.0005x + 20.289 R' = 0.3369 0.80 35 070 • 30 0.60 • • 25 c 0.50 20 = y • 040 • v 15 CL 0.30 10 E 020 0.10 5 0 000 — ./11401> NaL- ' F eb. O8 Mdy 08 1&,9_08 Oec 08 Mdr_ &1? O ct,0 9 • q max —HSG ASoil • system max depth —Top Weir Wall —Top of Chamber — Linear (q max) Figure 17: Plot of the stage- discharge and maximum water level measured for 7 monitored storm events with equal system depths (elevation of weir wall crest +/- 3 in.). A trendline showing gradual decline in q max is plotted with its regression equation. StormTech' Isolator Row- Testing Report 31 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCenter September 2010 31 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCenter September 2010 6.5 INDIVIDUAL STORM REPORTS Individual storm reports (ISR) are presented for two storms, May 5, 2009 and June 18, 2009. The ISR's illustrate performance, with respect to storm characteristics, and provide detailed information on storm coverage and sampling. Both storms exceeded the design flow rate of 448 gpm. The MayS, 2009 storm was a relatively clean storm with influent TSS =23 mg /I, good removal performance was observed at 78 %, and an effluent concentration of 5 mg /I. This is quite good considering both the high flow and low concentration. The June 18 storm had a high influent concentration TSS =260 mg /I, a 97% removal performance, and 9 mg/I effluent concentration was observed. Both events were less than 10 mg /I, commonly considered to be the lowest reasonable treatment threshold, sometimes referred to as irreducible concentration S. 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A five chamber configuration of the StormTech Isolator Row® showed strong water quality treatment performance for the three year installation. Sediment (TSS and SSC) performance and effluent EMCs reveal strong performance and low effluent concentrations that do not vary significantly across fluxuations in loading concentration, seasons, or time. The influent sediment concentrations for the period of monitoring were TSS median =32.0 mg /I, an average of 73.0 mg /I ±76.0, and for SSC a median =160.0 mg /l, and an average of 166.7 mg/I ±132.9 was observed. A median effluent concentration of TSS =12.0 mg /I, an average of 14.0 mg /I ±14.0, and a median removal efficiency of 83% was observed. A median effluent concentration of SSC =8.0 mg /I, an average of 9.6 mg /I ±7.9, and a median removal efficiency of 91% was observed. Five of the seven events with poor performance were attributed to events exceeding the water quality design flow (WQF =1 cfs). Metals performance as measured by TZn increased from 53% for year 1 to 81% removal by the end of year 2. TPH performance was very strong at 91% removal and TP removal was modest at 33 %. As would be expected for non - vegetated filtration systems, dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN = NO3, NO2, NH4) removal efficiencies and effluent EMCs reveal poor performance and high effluent concentrations relative to influent values. After 3 years of installation, sediment depths had accumulated to 1.2 in, only half of the manufacturers recommended depth for maintenance (3 inches). Presumably treatment performance will continue to improve with increase filter cake development, as will incident of bypass. Schueler, T. (2000). 'National Pollutant Removal Database: for Stormwater Treatment Practices." Center for Watershed Protection. StormTech Isolator Row° Testing Report 32 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 General Information Site: System Description: Event Date: Date of Last Maintenance: Antecedent Conditions: Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): Peak Flow, (gpm): Total Runoff Volume (gal): SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10 %): Event Hydrograph University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, Durham, NH 5 x 40 Stormtech Infiltation Chamber 5/5/2010 Never been maintained. Installed September 2006 3.5 days Influent Effluent Bypass 0.72 521 57 246 54,180 36,139 15,281 99.9% 100.0% Analytical Number of Aliquots Influent: 200 Effluent: 129 Parameter TSS (mg/L May 5, 2009 IRDL 21 jEffluent 5 — Influent - - - - -- Effluent x IN Sample + EFFSample — Precipitation 800 310 0 700 330 0.01 DIN (mg/L 0.40 0.1 0.60 600 -50% TZn (mg/L 0.02 c 0.05 LO 0.05 BDL E 500 0.04 0.01 0.03 n O 400 25% m— 0.04 m E E 3 = u o , 300 0.05 200 0 m stQ o f 100 0.07 0 0.0S 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 Time Analytical Number of Aliquots Influent: 200 Effluent: 129 Parameter TSS (mg/L Influent 23 IRDL 21 jEffluent 5 RDL 1 I RE% 78% TPH-D u /L 310 290 4 330 330 99% DIN (mg/L 0.40 0.1 0.60 0.1 -50% TZn (mg/L < 0.05 0.05 LO 0.05 BDL TP (m Q1) 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 25% StormTech Isolator Rows Testing Report 33 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 General Information Site: System Description: Event Date: Date of Last Maintenance: Antecedent Conditions: Hydrology Total Precipitation (In): Peak Flow, (gpm): Total Runoff Volume (gal): SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10 %): Event Hydrograph University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, Durham, NH 5 z 40 Stormtech Infiltation Chamber 6/18/2009 Never been maintained. Installed September 2006 3.5 days Influent Effluent Bypass 1.46 590 92 100 42,092 38,295 1,398 94.2% 100.0% 100.0% 600 600 E °— 400 3 0 LL 200 June 18, 2009 — Influent - - -- -Effluent x IN Sample + EFF Sample — Precipitation ,0 ++ ++ + + + + + + + + .. 0 9:36 21:36 9:36 21:36 9:36 21:36 Time (date hh:mm) 0.05 0.1 y y c Z E 0.15 A C A 0.2 Analytical Number of Aliquots Influent: 240 Effluent: 150 Parameter TSS (m /L Influent 260 IRDL 1 jEffluent 9 RDL 1 RE% 97% TPH -D (u /L <400 400 <300 300 BDL DIN (mg/L 0030 0.1 020 0.1 33% TZn m L 0.020 0.011 BDL 0.01 99% TP (mg/L 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0% StormTech Isolator Rows Testing Report 34 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 APPENDIX A: DRAIN DOWN AND FILTER CAPACITY PLOTS FOR 12 MONITORED STORM EVENTS. StormTech' Isolator Row* Testing Report 35 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 July 4, 2007 Effluent Effluent — Bypass — — M- System Depth — - -q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber -q ou Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 90 32 80 28 c 100 28 24 :E E BO 70 a 60 24 in 16 E ° om ' t� E 60 'N. c 20- 82 > 20 r 4 E 50 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 16 a Time E W 40 12 m g M 30 o 8 c 20 7 4 10 — o 0 19:12 21:36 0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 Time StormTech' Isolator Row* Testing Report 35 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 December 24, 2007 Effluent Bypass — — In- System Depth — - -q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 120 32 28 c 100 24 :E E BO 20 a x a 60 in 16 E ° om ' r` 40 'N. c 82 > 20 r 4 E 0 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 Time StormTech' Isolator Row* Testing Report 35 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 December 29, 2007 StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 36 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 Effluent . Bypass — — "ystsm Depth — - _q out Top Weir Wafl Top of Chamber 30 — . –q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 32 g 28 25 24LN 7 28 20 24 20 w rn 15 L ,r 20 16 Ern m° 16 a 12 'o q 10 / \ IN E 12 8 t? tr 3 5 1 .. _ , _ N 8 4 2 ^ vj c 4 c 0 1 0 4 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 0 Time 0 StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 36 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 May 31, 2008 Effluent -Bypass — — InSysfem Dep — . –q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber g 32 7 28 24 E 6 5 L ,r 20 m° 16 a q / \ IN E 12 3 1 N 8 2 ^ vj c 4 c 1 0 0 12:00 13:12 14:24 15:36 16:48 18:00 19:12 20:24 Time StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 36 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 November 13, 2008 StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 37 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCenter September 2010 Effluent - Bypass — — In-System Depth I i — . -q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber — - -q out T Weir Wall Top of Chamber 25 32 32 70 60 26 c 28S 20 24 t r E 50- r 20 m fl E 15 o 16 E 16 E 80 'g 10 0 3U 12 w g 12 a M 8 Cr 5 2U 8 4 - 0 0 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 r P -1- •,..,.. Time 4 - StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 37 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCenter September 2010 December 10, 2008 I i Effluent - -- Bypass — — "ystem Depth i — - -q out T Weir Wall Top of Chamber 32 70 60 26 c 24 L N E 50- r 20 m fl 40 16 E 0 3U .� 12 a M 2U \ 8 c 10 r P -1- •,..,.. 4 - 0 0 6:00 8:24 10:48 13:12 15:36 18:00 20:24 Time StormTech Isolator Row• Testing Report 37 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCenter September 2010 I i i 37 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCenter September 2010 StormTech Isolator Row° Testing Report 38 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 May 5, 2009 April 3, 2009 1 Effluent - -- Bypass Effluent Bypass — — In-System Depth — - - q out Top Weir Watl Top of Chamber - –q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 80 32 28 70 50 – – 28 24 ° r L 24 r N 60 a 40 20 m il� m 20 16 50 30 c E LL 20 a c 16 40 c E 4 5 129 0 30 0 o 20 8 Q 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 Time 4 S 10 "^ — 0 0 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 Time StormTech Isolator Row° Testing Report 38 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 May 5, 2009 1 Effluent - -- Bypass — — In- System Depth — - - q out Top Weir Watl Top of Chamber 60 3 2 28 50 24 ° r L a 40 20 m il� m 16 3 30 E m 12 2 " LL 20 a c c 10 4 5 0 0 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00 Time StormTech Isolator Row° Testing Report 38 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center - September 2010 1 w May 27, 2009 June 9, 2009 Effluent Bypass — — InSystem Depth - q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 16 32 14 28 F 12 24 a M 10 20 p 8 16Em Y 8 12 0, o 4 ^ _ 8 2 — — 4 0 — — -- — 0 7:12 8:24 9:36 10:48 12:00 13:12 14:24 Time Effluent Bypass — — In-System Depth rl — - -q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 35 32 28 30 25 24 20 m 16 E m 15 12 2 . 10 i 8 Q 5 4 0 0 2:24 9:36 16:48 0:00 7:12 14:24 21:36 Time June 9, 2009 Effluent Bypass — — InSystem Depth - q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 16 32 14 28 F 12 24 a M 10 20 p 8 16Em Y 8 12 0, o 4 ^ _ 8 2 — — 4 0 — — -- — 0 7:12 8:24 9:36 10:48 12:00 13:12 14:24 Time StormTech Isolator Row* Testing Report 39 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCemer- September 2010 rl 39 The University of New Hampshire StormwaterCemer- September 2010 June 11, 2009 6 m 0 Effluent Bypass — — In- System Depth - —q out Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 32 28 c' 24tN 20 ¢ 16 E rn 12 :' 8 % o N Q 4 0 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 Time June 18, 2009 Effluent Bypass — — In- System Depth - –q out — Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 100 80 60 40 20 0 12:00 16:48 21:36 2:24 Time 32 28 c' 24 r w w S 20 c E 16 E 12 0 8 i o N Q 4 - 0 7:12 12:00 16:48 StormTech' Isolator Row* Testing Report 40 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 80 – —r - --► 70 0 5 50 ' , \ j 40 30 I f 20 A _ 10 J• '�.. �.�— �.— — 0 32 28 c' 24tN 20 ¢ 16 E rn 12 :' 8 % o N Q 4 0 19:12 0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 Time June 18, 2009 Effluent Bypass — — In- System Depth - –q out — Top Weir Wall Top of Chamber 100 80 60 40 20 0 12:00 16:48 21:36 2:24 Time 32 28 c' 24 r w w S 20 c E 16 E 12 0 8 i o N Q 4 - 0 7:12 12:00 16:48 StormTech' Isolator Row* Testing Report 40 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center- September 2010 40 0 - 1 0 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 February 2, 2016 Elizabeth Holmbeck Associate City Planner City of Columbia Heights 590 40a' Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 SUBJECT: Hy -Vee Gas Station and Starbucks MnDOT Review # P 17-004 NE quad MN65 and 47th Ave Columbia Heights, Anoka County Control Section 0207 Dear Ms. Holmbeck: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat for the proposed HyVee Gas station and Starbucks development in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before further development, please address the following issues: Traffic: Remove the in place skewed northbound entrance to TH 65 and replace with a 32 foot wide driveway, which will serve both ingress and egress from TH 65. Please direct questions regarding this comment to Gayle Gedstad in MnDOT's Traffic section, at Gayle.Gedstad@.state mn.us or 651- 234 -7815. Design: Please use the new MaDOT Standard Plan 5- 297.254, sheets 1 -4, Driveway and Sidewalk Details to integrate the new driveway with the sidewalk. They are available at https: / /standardplans dot.state mn us /StdPlan aspx Please direct questions regarding these comments to Nancy Jacobson, Metro Design, at nancv_l.jacobsonQstate mn.us or 651- 234 -7647. Permits: Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit Permit forms are available fi•om MnDOT's utility website at hftp://www,dot.state.mii,us/metrolmainteiiaiice/ponnits.htm t Please include one to one set of plans formatted to 11X17 with each permit application. Please submit/send all permit applications and 11X17plan sets to: metronermitaons.dotla state.mn us . Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651- 234 -7911) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: I. One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot(7state mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT— Metro District PIanning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftv: / /fto2. dot. state. mn. us / nub /incoming(WroWatersEdee /Planning Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.inn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at (651) 234 -7784 Sincerely, 1811 Karen Scheffmg Principal Planner Copy sent via E -Mail: Paul Jung, Area Engineer Ashley Roup, Right -of -way Gayle Gedstad, Traffic Clare Lackey, Traffic Brian Kelly, Water Resources Nancy Jacobson, Design Buck Craig, Permits Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council CIVIL ENGINEER WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. 7699 ANAGRAM DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA (952) 937 -5150 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BRAUNINTERTEC 1826 BUERKLE ROAD ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA (651) 487 -7026 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. 7699 ANAGRAM DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA (952) 9373150 LAND SURVEYOR WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. 7699 ANAGRAM DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA (952) 9373150 UTILITY CONTACTS MINNESOTA ONE CALL: 811 OR CALL 811.COM GAS: CENTERPOINT ENERGY (800) 778 -9140 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS (763) 706 -3700 ELECTRIC: XCEL (800)848 -7558 TELEPHONE: CENTURY LINK (855) 7425062 CABLE: COMCAST (612)5225141 WATER: PUBLIC WORKS (763)706.3700 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GAS 47 07 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA OWNED FOOD STORES OWNER /DEVELOPER HY -VEE, INC. 5820 WESTOWN PARKWAY WEST DES MOINES, IOWA (515)267.2800 VICINITY MAP —_ SITE ' e �Oa+1+42sa � 4p!ca COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: JOE HOGEBOOM (763) 706 -3670 CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS: KEVIN HANSEN (763) 706 -3705 FIRE CHIEF: GARY GORMAN (763) 706-8152 POLICE CHIEF: SCOTT NADEAU (763) 706 -8100 INDEX IF SHEETS C0.0 COVER SHEET C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY C2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT C3.0 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C4.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C5.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C6.0 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN C7.0 PRELIMINARY LIGHTING PLAN PREUMINARY SITE PLAN DRAWINGS 01W17 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DRAWINGS RESUBMITTAL 09102117 A N 4 O Q Lu NE Z _Z d! t7 W Z M Q W .. MW F .. I L 1fr r„ .n I CJ is i ry Fc O g 1 ay , 1 I a Westwood i i i I r , I f� y � I i =m 15 biE i an a ro`m: a� ° r v.: iro .. I7M A� AE I I s LEG4 i I �7AL AF07ES ) tm=rom..r an ✓.= ® ,!!`/ / �wse�FNFN.rp 4�n. nmb N eb.,v s Tm 4 am MmM ✓,.m'2 rn e .Ya iwn /ba /r•/ pro. ewro ma a art xsr..a. m, r 1,... n.. q 'T ,JSeXa vrwr, nnr-. ww.v,on.am m.. Irmo Arr.n .l CERMCAMV nx. r —.s w - .. ma y w...°be•°�..tl•MM Fm-d ..µr Yi.b .d AaM awns w.nry (ryf. q.n rI) rrl M. x+re M.r u•m e. �- d y.... -e, nr.yr. ae -sue v.nur. w �m fine w *.......r. - �....e... A�.+... o.r...,.w.... ° w..... mow.. r°....•....a ';wa�'°ur�.o,N•e:.� -.a..m ;. »°an°m:C°.ra".Sw a« rr� n . w....,. ,w r....... a I I fl I I I I I 1 I J i .. ... - a u m .®s- ..e.... rr... r, ar -N- ..amt: CtlI ,O Ma.c pelda pggMg' en Or f.O@�).COrf1 LEQgIp TL "OUOT C V II p agi\ fs srw aysor © mnw>r ..•,tar e ,mw r...me I 4v� t 9p x 6il ••g �. U.sw en.•(o�a +: -., i °-.4 � Yrro ertY e.m. F rb ve war a 3 � trot amv �� ro.w °r»rw° F] l � ..e— wrx rxggro;.° - I F f 1 d � �a II I I \ I ] I I7M A� AE I I s LEG4 i I �7AL AF07ES ) tm=rom..r an ✓.= ® ,!!`/ / �wse�FNFN.rp 4�n. nmb N eb.,v s Tm 4 am MmM ✓,.m'2 rn e .Ya iwn /ba /r•/ pro. ewro ma a art xsr..a. m, r 1,... n.. q 'T ,JSeXa vrwr, nnr-. ww.v,on.am m.. Irmo Arr.n .l CERMCAMV nx. r —.s w - .. ma y w...°be•°�..tl•MM Fm-d ..µr Yi.b .d AaM awns w.nry (ryf. q.n rI) rrl M. x+re M.r u•m e. �- d y.... -e, nr.yr. ae -sue v.nur. w �m fine w *.......r. - �....e... A�.+... o.r...,.w.... ° w..... mow.. r°....•....a ';wa�'°ur�.o,N•e:.� -.a..m ;. »°an°m:C°.ra".Sw a« rr� n . w....,. ,w r....... a I I fl I I I I I 1 I J i .. ... - a u m .®s- ..e.... rr... r, ar -N- ..amt: Hy -Vee Columbia °r` ' °`m' a Hy -Vee, Inc Heights C -Store ALTA/NSPS Lend Title Survey "."m: �` C1.0 CtlI ,O Ma.c pelda pggMg' en Or f.O@�).COrf1 LEQgIp 0 ee:ur.wue � mmArr e,.r fs srw aysor © mnw>r ..•,tar e ,mw r...me a ea. r.wx rb ve war „- car e � trot amv �� ro.w °r»rw° F] ava sm aw � ..e— wrx rxggro;.° ae err -e Ams sates 6 .wr°u'a na sv war - �rur mncru � aawnr ar,.¢ v O[KCr C1 arwvors 9R�4 e a �r Mw. rw r..r —r s.wr�wrro Nf:YJ YMAP Hy -Vee Columbia °r` ' °`m' a Hy -Vee, Inc Heights C -Store ALTA/NSPS Lend Title Survey "."m: �` C1.0 Semaa. Ins. C 1 " Xovs Oe,ae p ,. all or eallall.mm cwwn - wa MI.- _ — •> P.opety e.:<.�tq� carm.,,wl von�e,e ra< uc f✓eNumec 50618 usl Swalalamnld Cwnvnny M"a' 4 V. .0 Al <CrIS, anoq Gbun ty, wnnerolo 50sboet Plo y AWm IJ Lal A— ,ol r. Bwa I m .s.xuea a w r,osa 7.M7 on eerc, lnl2 BM[k1 awmII.561 sp 2 ar 1.015 as Bw,eeo aw m So.aoz eq. a o, ro1 <, VEE COLUMBIA HEIG ' ADDITION — — — — — — — r STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY' NO. 65 --------- --------------------------— --- CENTRAL A *'NUE NE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TF �i j W Q r — — — — — — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION o , 1 - I I �> I —�1 I I €�� Y a�a8 a W w >� j Z C7 U' J: M: 9 ¢g gi Fn J J ' 00 I I Preliminary Plat � ,-mm• mig1. �C e O Ldl AB ..- e.A- .." 811 w edi811.DOm C—n PmnJ MIOrce CEN'T'RAL AVENUE NE MP 9 town !!!``1�� PFN SpP it }DIG -0]3 REMOSE 0.V0 flFSTCRE yu� E1,ArW6 fT1 1£ CVRB sWT7, A. - \ YxWT SPECIRCAIIOVS / ✓ R15' BU.EG GAS ..N R IS' T Min uo � RxD. .: • B I SAs NY - • •. • ° (inJ I a I EST . . `° I RT I f m L_____p_ < 1 41 4u. I I 1 �Im I i i \ O 0 0 I •N L1 ____ .•.ate' -su: FFE =904.5 HYNEE GAS C' 4,500 SF tT STALLS ALONG "TORE FMTI 12 STALLS UNDER CANOPY L �p 29 STALLS TOTAL Le, t � m J \ II I / Rx5' ME ol Site Legend - -_— � - -� PROPERrc VIE _ OT UM SEIBI.IX USE EASA4NT UK Generai Site Notes I. BAMMMIX1 IWMMAngI FOR M5 PMUSC, PROYDEO BY MESIRON "W" S9R14 SER... INC. ECER MNME. MNMSOTA z LOGnpIS Aft EI WKAIS R EXSnNG rCPOGRA%l AW UTNnES M 9bMN LN MI5 A ME N9ROXW A LpIniA INL F1EI0 HRT 91E .1 DTIgK 4b ES IR ARE FMK. 15 EAS i0 IXA SIMIU O BE K`Il UCnOX. N ANY OLYAEDIMgES ARE fCUND, nlE ENGIVEER ¢IWLD BE NOTF1Ep DBwnumLx ]. REFER M BWNOARY suRrEY Rp LOT OEAMNOS. DRWJKI S ME AREAS 4, ALL MARN9D15 AM M FACE W CURB W EXTERIOR FAEE Cf RNIDIXG UMESS OMERNL4 ROME. S REER TO ARCNIMCNRAL ft S IM EXACT SWIDWG SWARMS AND L.SRRIS CF Eq.. RAMPS ARE) 1RUM DOCKS G. ALL MRS RADI 91ALL BE 4.0 MT (i0 BAIX Ef NRB) UNIESS OMERMSE Nor z. ILL MRS ARO ILTRx 91AIl BE SGrz UR. OTIERwSE NOln1. 6. nY CCN... R1NL BE RE.9RE FDt PAOMONG WO WJxruxwc WMIC M"RR CEMES SUCx AS BARBICMES. WAR,VIxG EI(MS, aMCnD1u SIGNS FUCC£RS 41D UWR m CV.VR x ME AI.WWNT Cf TRIERC SKIS M655WY PIAMAENT W n16F W MS SHALL BE AWROYED BY 1M Ott .WD ENWIFfR PPom r0 PIACFMEVI. RARIC CO4mm DENfE 5114 S L CCHFCRY r0 APPRMRIAm M.T STANDARDS. MNRACXR TO 511RAl M4 a MAIM. I'. IO .d . COLWTY. S S INWS PAS£YL4r WO WXOFIF Sf"MS TO M W AMIIRDA EE wR RE REMUNEOAn..R a RE GMWM.ICLL EU NEER 1O MARAC,CR 91Ill HARM NLL ACCESS TO ADY✓ENT PRCIPERR3 DURING CWSIRUCMD WD r4IE AU. PRE4UIIMS NECdSWY M MRO PROPERTY WAGE TO A DDJALdT I`A PEAMEL it. yen U.. SHOW ON RAN IS FD, REL 'I. 0I 1.. REFER TO U..G PI NI PAFPMEO BY N. FOR 97 SASK oEM. AW M ,TAI MCS Y - MiB ARE) Wr¢R cB (GfNFRAL au9xESS SEW,, TIP WT CURB ARO MTT,I - RETAWIXC WAL, O i PAC NEAW DUTY PA1.FMdi Q MA CREIE CdV 50EW AU( l H DU I $PAYE IIdi ® N WRE Wtt a Pa¢N1NC sTULs mNG 5. AFPLY pgWi Al LCLATg1i gMEN9g15, 4q SpM91G SNOW DX TIE plµS S`, ® SITE LICJITN6 I R K i I POW R PO ME • Bp1AR0 / 1`06T L � � Sign Leend I II I i I �I'E 9S Psa�vAnw Generai Site Notes I. BAMMMIX1 IWMMAngI FOR M5 PMUSC, PROYDEO BY MESIRON "W" S9R14 SER... INC. ECER MNME. MNMSOTA z LOGnpIS Aft EI WKAIS R EXSnNG rCPOGRA%l AW UTNnES M 9bMN LN MI5 A ME N9ROXW A LpIniA INL F1EI0 HRT 91E .1 DTIgK 4b ES IR ARE FMK. 15 EAS i0 IXA SIMIU O BE K`Il UCnOX. N ANY OLYAEDIMgES ARE fCUND, nlE ENGIVEER ¢IWLD BE NOTF1Ep DBwnumLx ]. REFER M BWNOARY suRrEY Rp LOT OEAMNOS. DRWJKI S ME AREAS 4, ALL MARN9D15 AM M FACE W CURB W EXTERIOR FAEE Cf RNIDIXG UMESS OMERNL4 ROME. S REER TO ARCNIMCNRAL ft S IM EXACT SWIDWG SWARMS AND L.SRRIS CF Eq.. RAMPS ARE) 1RUM DOCKS G. ALL MRS RADI 91ALL BE 4.0 MT (i0 BAIX Ef NRB) UNIESS OMERMSE Nor z. ILL MRS ARO ILTRx 91AIl BE SGrz UR. OTIERwSE NOln1. 6. nY CCN... R1NL BE RE.9RE FDt PAOMONG WO WJxruxwc WMIC M"RR CEMES SUCx AS BARBICMES. WAR,VIxG EI(MS, aMCnD1u SIGNS FUCC£RS 41D UWR m CV.VR x ME AI.WWNT Cf TRIERC SKIS M655WY PIAMAENT W n16F W MS SHALL BE AWROYED BY 1M Ott .WD ENWIFfR PPom r0 PIACFMEVI. RARIC CO4mm DENfE 5114 S L CCHFCRY r0 APPRMRIAm M.T STANDARDS. MNRACXR TO 511RAl M4 a MAIM. I'. IO .d . COLWTY. S S INWS PAS£YL4r WO WXOFIF Sf"MS TO M W AMIIRDA EE wR RE REMUNEOAn..R a RE GMWM.ICLL EU NEER 1O MARAC,CR 91Ill HARM NLL ACCESS TO ADY✓ENT PRCIPERR3 DURING CWSIRUCMD WD r4IE AU. PRE4UIIMS NECdSWY M MRO PROPERTY WAGE TO A DDJALdT I`A PEAMEL it. yen U.. SHOW ON RAN IS FD, REL 'I. 0I 1.. REFER TO U..G PI NI PAFPMEO BY N. FOR 97 SASK oEM. AW M ,TAI MCS Y - E wrnx • c zawxc MVIRA cB (GfNFRAL au9xESS SEW,, • Z.Ew, S10 ) ' m WAY AISIE: I j i t I w -1 MS p' IFNGTN, IG W/G EBA,:) I it ED- uF .. BEEg1E aP%IGnOU Cf PAN[ PNNr &c 4JISAQ M15T BE DRY .WJ rRfE rr M., AI w pNX npEMY T6 aRFA ip PMi1C0 BY SWD.. ,. A.K. N PFSi I 5. AFPLY pgWi Al LCLATg1i gMEN9g15, 4q SpM91G SNOW DX TIE plµS BIIYWps F 000 I i RESiAVRPNi I II I I I i I it LOT 1 I e ' i I II I i I I I it II II I II 1 II I I I 11 Monummt sign Site Developm Summary E wrnx • c zawxc MVIRA cB (GfNFRAL au9xESS SEW,, • Z.Ew, M (GENERAL BU9NM D,S T) • PARRWG $ Am./DRIVE Yy1S IOTN IDAftE WNMCEP. m WAY AISIE: xf (MW) BG° P.. STAt w -1 MS p' IFNGTN, IG W/G EBA,:) EITY PAANMG RATIO REWIRE411, ALTW WI(E CMYTNIEHQ fi 5>ACFS . I S.ACE /JW S. (aSA.M) FACNSY (Asm 4 /=, - IS SPACES) NY -VFF CJR IOiK SPACES r6:W1R®: __ 31 IAQS PAR✓JNC• P B Y=. Sy O O xr -MF Gns Ldl6 C -=T xr - w n SPCL£5 (Ja/IIXV) IOTN IDAftE WNMCEP. xD 1A65 ( &{/1.0t) Site Notm O A .• OgIRE YELLOW LAM siRPE (TIP.) B 1" SREE WIM uRE siRPE C r YELLOB MA4L - MAC sWRE D uAXIi E%SBNQ CURB k I., 01 YATCM CURB k "'ES M Cd YR L AYE I4PROYEMdl pPA¢LL E AIAWC EBCWIG PANLdr " MAA PAY T PER C YRAL AW. WPMOVEMENr PROECr r MATCH EIIIMG M,,A, E (RAU, m OWYE) M QM TRAMSI. TO .1 RARm AREA R PASO P KIKIK"'T SWN O LOMWG nax5 R Etl". """AETE WRB S EXISTING COMCMiE PAWKY, T EnrnMO LIONT U ELrnNC E.A., v .1 LGUnax w FOc LOLAR0. r METAMp. wau AA CRwR BOARD AS CLEV.. BM AL gryK BWU MMOOw AD S, URW Uwn AE I. dCLO511RE (BY ORNd) AF maSN /ASH MCF➢r CIE I. ..,, Site Details o 1 BB12 .8 a EU`WA x WrE4AAC CURB S.. ] RUA1 Cg EtE mEWAM( B PAVEMENT • CONWEW DRIVEWAY APIg 5 CCNCREU Otp55 .1WR a PF1M31RIM' CARS RAMP z ACCE59RLE PEOESWIaM RAW (.m MURCAM13 DWES) e Aq SUE pAAXWG LOGO. $IRTING. a SI.. B CA. R. SWSR G (PAMIED XN,W BiN 9(ICa) I. g l Z AR, 11 P.= SrCB BAR n PAICAIENT MAPoOMGS J mom"YE 8IX 1. DARE WW WNMRWS PAMMEMT v HEAVY WTY 9WLARROUS PAYEYdr 1G MWAEW 54W." n CIXlCRE1E MAw Wtt 1AYSUSK fa N. MRS k gRTd IT #k 1€ A sea 533 2 9Rgf $6j €t2 3 CCD O w w S Z gg„ z ^� mA 0 0 a s I Q ¢ a O It 2 2 a HY VISES Parking lot Painting Spectieaiione 0 1. r - AILLDgMLRW ARMYN$ PNKIMG siRIPCS. axD NA191LIP sYlpgS Sy O O 1RArMC 3 2.. F. SHALL EE 1LL0IR6 WA1dRPWF WaRIL a19 MdWAY YAq]NG PYIi U41Y. YELOW A$ NANUfAC14$D BY gAYgq p(.q PAINTS W EMIYALpr. ]. I.m fWNSRI'Am SYIG $AVD MAr .. A W /SD GRABM 54A . Z WT,, aCC0101NG iG ASIY L -Id6. ei�,y .. BEEg1E aP%IGnOU Cf PAN[ PNNr &c 4JISAQ M15T BE DRY .WJ rRfE rr M., AI w pNX npEMY T6 aRFA ip PMi1C0 BY SWD.. ,. A.K. rSEfri/LUIL� 5. AFPLY pgWi Al LCLATg1i gMEN9g15, 4q SpM91G SNOW DX TIE plµS 6. WX IARi IN AM w i YANWACIUIER'S MSIRUCMON$ A, NRY Ai K RAZE R 115 S`/SA.WA. nw AGDTIM OF RRAYBER NqL A. $ P9rylilm. ]. AWLY AULA SWD Ai MR$ /O41CN Cf PPINI YNE014lELY 4lEA YK IppUCAREN Cf PAR'T TA EAR $WO rIt PAIp2 W WE MIRE PAINT wWR ro 1V1u CCEPTWCE g` vandr. Preliminary e. PRGrzn Au AARgxa MW D.S, .l PAW, 5 SA, Sile Plan mw O iv +• -m Pzrvu NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �C3.0 4' y {' -13:• S . yad .. � I �__ I�E15• _ __ _ ea r -nv' x3' mvz onz WI eb xw 0... OR," 811 TW mllatt.rnm Lunmm bwnE AM— CENTRAL AVENUE NE W1 sb wo I � 4 N t s GRAND AVENUE NE a Grading Legend - REVISION wrPr�w.yw Z10312 n 693n ---- - - a< 7 -;; !: - u _ -yg0 PROPL%T UXE OfmcEO i p! BE NMgE THE S N O P RBOR T pf MESE DENCES SXAll BE AP9ROYFO BY ME EtlIFFR PRIOR( (I PIACFYdT. � -ag —� MIER COM,okm wrzRVK LaNiWw M 9 DN Vp11IT 2 CWIIVIIMS AVD UiWTT RMEER S Ia B E 10 OC .SR EMLAVATdI /Cd15iR{ICTh]II. ME ENbHFEA 91.41 BE NOtNYD S LOMR0. MNCFS 9fA11 LdlfdM m APPRg^gAIE YNDOT S CURB AMO LIITEIt gY AX MpFaplpd'i pEOR'dMCK dtilYDl dCPYATW !di ME PURPp� OR RFIgNNp UNSiAR pR UNIVIipBIL SMI$ BIYm41FLY i IMY p5C1✓(PAXOES ARE IdMD. ROME NCRYK WRTR L2KL POLLUTANT OISp1AR({ EINIMATpI 515Tq (MPCd) PERMIT REWIREMFNIS AT SXALL % CCMG{flFp AS RWlpm By ME fEDTECx1ELK FNdNEER. ME CCNRpLTp 91All SLT PENCE G All ROPES $ A, BE GRACED i0 11 OR INTER. IAVUCSS DMERNISI: MNCAT9 OR M6 91EEI. ev _� u u . �y y.• NOTS LOG.11CN5 ANp WEWSICN$ d" f¢511BIN[. 9.(pFO PAKWp'f. Elli PORLMES. "ARM —� STEW SEWR ddMEF(t. 1RUd pIXi{5. PRECISE ..I. OMdAdI$ BRACT BUYDINC UMIIY ENTRANCE LOLAIIdi$ AND EXACT LCCATOIE AHp MIYMR nMm END META! (MM RR'.) gpllX6 91ALL % pCG1MPU91m By YAYMG MNYUY 6 3 R= MM NLLY- V PLLR LOARD TAxL{y -ALE pWP TRUIX. OR WATBR YAW 9DPE5 BETS Ell FONTS YMERE EI ".. ARE SNOYN M BtIYEEN SUW MOMS AND ME. GRADES. APPPOYEO EWK. W fApl D4' 2 PFMdOCULAR ORELTCNS MME UNDER SANITARY SESS.R a ALL ER.v.TW PT.41 BE W ACCORDANCE MM ME OMPdi W. • srA1DARD '�'® RETAMN6 WAu CF 9'EOEICATMS FM ThfNCN "CA0T04 AND SDOS T E AIYI RECMPACTED AS 9EOTIm NEREM. RI PIF L1XE WrTER ROY/ ME UMESS OTMERRS NO1FD. PROPOSED CMTWR$ ARE TO FWI FACE MASE ° ° G A. NL DISTIR2EO MARKED AREA$ ME iD R[Lf1LE FAN MMES CF 9. RE SWv flEPORi IdT PAYF}Idi MKKIff4E5 AHD x01D DOYMS =7YRS - RN' CW @I1CTW d}RpNd TORM L AND SW M REFS. MESE AREAS 9ALL BE WATERED UNTL A IKKMY STANO OF (BASS IS CBTAMEO. SEE IAHDS P FM ERMEM C.TROL aLA ET REWIREM OF ME CEOI W . ® N AWORCEREMi MAT Ep515 AFTpI ME SEE LRApN6 Alb NNIY NN51MIC11M S LOVLFIEO ME CONTRA.. 91A.LL OSPME IY ALL p%L55 5dL 15 dB.WHMFNi YAIERIK HOT P1A ®MME mLLONO PAD, STREETS OT 5Rd O-S.To, S 111E CMIRAROR 9TNL BE RSPM9BLE f04 PROMpHC AND MATERIK M A .. ACCEPTA ID THE ONN. AAT TIE ROW URECT(w M.VNFAMM0 .0 CM1RS, WNEES SUM AS WRICACCS. WARNING .S. WREC.A... F Wd AMO UERE i0 CMTB. ME i0P CID B W CE RETAlM16 WALL ) t b Og EMERCEXCYOYERROW F 0 o a -n ML .=NC LOCATOR O IMET RE"OWN CE p9 VOOY OOCC � 1EMPdiMY RMN CNECN OW 9 3 4 v v H p EnE H( Fi!8 3 GndhLg Notes - I. OCATOMR, ARE, 5 a D RRA TOPoLTAP TO MN n ES AS MI5 PLA4 ARE AF9R DX 91ALL ila0 OfmcEO i p! BE NMgE THE S N O P RBOR T pf MESE DENCES SXAll BE AP9ROYFO BY ME EtlIFFR PRIOR( (I PIACFYdT. (ERTfYD BY A U(LISEp PRDfES9WK dCMFOI. 16 ALL SOLS ANp YAifPIRLq T31Wg p1ALL BE LpYPLEim M 9 DN Vp11IT 2 CWIIVIIMS AVD UiWTT RMEER S Ia B E 10 OC .SR EMLAVATdI /Cd15iR{ICTh]II. ME ENbHFEA 91.41 BE NOtNYD S LOMR0. MNCFS 9fA11 LdlfdM m APPRg^gAIE YNDOT S 12 NL Ld151RUCTW $NKL fpXidlN ry LCCM- SfpTE ANp "I rllE NAT gY AX MpFaplpd'i pEOR'dMCK dtilYDl dCPYATW !di ME PURPp� OR RFIgNNp UNSiAR pR UNIVIipBIL SMI$ BIYm41FLY i IMY p5C1✓(PAXOES ARE IdMD. POLLUTANT OISp1AR({ EINIMATpI 515Tq (MPCd) PERMIT REWIREMFNIS AT SXALL % CCMG{flFp AS RWlpm By ME fEDTECx1ELK FNdNEER. ME CCNRpLTp 91All 3 C . pIMAETORS 4U.LL Rf�EA iO ARd11TECMRK PLANS FORT EXACT G All ROPES $ A, BE GRACED i0 11 OR INTER. IAVUCSS DMERNISI: MNCAT9 OR M6 91EEI. . iJ. RESPW9hF ! 0.p COdgWATMp ALL Rfp1Al1FD adLS T315 ARD Mb ET:S MM ME RED iEdMILK LOG.11CN5 ANp WEWSICN$ d" f¢511BIN[. 9.(pFO PAKWp'f. Elli PORLMES. "ARM Mldt TO PIACFMdi p ANY $TNL11M[ OR PAYFYdI. A PRp f gOLL. Ar MINNIW. MLL BE REWINm dV ME $UBGApE PRODP ddMEF(t. 1RUd pIXi{5. PRECISE ..I. OMdAdI$ BRACT BUYDINC UMIIY ENTRANCE LOLAIIdi$ AND EXACT LCCATOIE AHp MIYMR T. CONTRACTOR SXALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS MRTN LLen CF OibRRI AND PROWS A 91WM F EO SURFACE WM UNTORY gpllX6 91ALL % pCG1MPU91m By YAYMG MNYUY 6 3 R= MM NLLY- V PLLR LOARD TAxL{y -ALE pWP TRUIX. OR CF OONHRPWTS, 9DPE5 BETS Ell FONTS YMERE EI ".. ARE SNOYN M BtIYEEN SUW MOMS AND ME. GRADES. APPPOYEO EWK. W fApl D4' 2 PFMdOCULAR ORELTCNS MME UNDER a ALL ER.v.TW PT.41 BE W ACCORDANCE MM ME OMPdi W. • srA1DARD 51PERN1. 41D DMECTM CF Mt IxC6dOdr 161wc L.APORATOR, AREAS Cf ENCORE SMA, SE ESOA.= CF 9'EOEICATMS FM ThfNCN "CA0T04 AND a WOO f1EVATMS 9101M IxdCRTt EST, PA`hMEXr M.TCNS A AIYI RECMPACTED AS 9EOTIm NEREM. BAC%FlLL/9MFACE REET.ATOS' AS MICPARX, BY ME CITY ddHFFPS ASRWAT. G( MMYESOTA WrTER ROY/ ME UMESS OTMERRS NO1FD. PROPOSED CMTWR$ ARE TO FWI FACE MASE . EY f1BANMAEM YAIERIK MACm BFNEAM BVIIDWOS AHD STREET OR ILL aACTEO A. NL DISTIR2EO MARKED AREA$ ME iD R[Lf1LE FAN MMES CF 9. RE SWv flEPORi IdT PAYF}Idi MKKIff4E5 AHD x01D DOYMS A ARCS BE W A RUINGS F MM MF REA BTERTEp CdSlry MEMOp AS WIIMm Ix YIWDi ]TDS]FI AND MF W Rl . TORM L AND SW M REFS. MESE AREAS 9ALL BE WATERED UNTL A IKKMY STANO OF (BASS IS CBTAMEO. SEE IAHDS P FM 10. CONTRACTOR 91y1 DISP65E LY ANY EROE9 SOL WTEMK TAl REWIREM OF ME CEOI W . PLARONG AND TURF ESTASUS4Mdi. Ep515 AFTpI ME SEE LRApN6 Alb NNIY NN51MIC11M S LOVLFIEO ME CONTRA.. 91A.LL OSPME IY ALL p%L55 5dL 15 dB.WHMFNi YAIERIK HOT P1A ®MME mLLONO PAD, STREETS OT S 111E CMIRAROR 9TNL BE RSPM9BLE f04 PROMpHC AND MATERIK M A .. ACCEPTA ID THE ONN. AAT TIE PARIIINO AREA 91 A11 BE CdIPACTED IN ACMBDA MM PEWIPFMd15 R TE ORpINMY GVIIPAC MS A14M A5 .."ED M.VNFAMM0 .0 CM1RS, WNEES SUM AS WRICACCS. WARNING .S. WREC.A... F Wd AMO UERE i0 CMTB. ME REWLA1Mp AOdCBS YHppi 310.5,X2 IN It. CMMACTCR 9W1 PROML'PD A STIUCTMK gETAMUW WALL pE961 a - 0 ® NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �� gg W CID WZ $ } ? HE . 2 9IN C7 C7 X a mm mm � �JJ O O Y Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan C4.0 Ctll .8 Xwa Oslwe x99^9' all a cw1811.eum Canmm Gwn bnu z z F General Utility Notes CWNER I WIC iO EX. C CENTRAL AVENUE NE MG CAM VoILW � ,, W!M NEf i GRAND AVENUE NE AOOITWN Q]IlER4 A[£ I�pgOK1YEN3 BY OT(FA6 HCY I6�I6fi OCA.)IEPI 1 III II II: II I� II If III II I � uN-iW I S wjs wur `TsepSdr• Y.ua.CIO e. °Le°..e mm. sws CWMECi TO EM. I / W W N WET TAP / 0 CPtt PLK V� I, I II I I I, I� I i1 I Utility Leg ®d E atintic a ® ®Y Ym YOIU. M o+ml m amml a ¢ TM wnur sv m�n..r n n .. zY¢r,sa..u.51O°'wc rt f wrsu uuw ..0 ¢,ffi O. ..r " _ ,nru .. uas 9uu ¢..ne.a r..Yis a.Rmxwc .... M oPlYmw+ln ra onR.cla .YU me. ra.ewsu.. N's..rt ..,a Yry r ua nwI ss Y m.W. Y . ¢ �aAP6 M M axvRD Yn a qsY �m 'uoaor�eaaoo. zl.noYlww..naevwua, .m. .�'`¢a ®.m,°`ISO.Iro,°O�'ie a"'¢ m,ml 51W CYN wx wmira am.c awe. wu x,emrn I` w nYn z. x�w a zn v s. ' s a.,w ��ora r e` uwir wsti .?r aw�a"wc w -w muR, Im..vumwa' .IY M Yw. a uMmm mlome orE fa.. s Ia ..Iw, .mramis a.s,Y. � r.®m.ICp el.. aW 6vm ®Y -WRIRM , 00eMWC M1YeE M➢IR. M 9Y�i M uI[RY�ONBAFfu a un IEpNp ,¢,n¢ � � Oa.R MIWp¢mt [w FL, un WEa�MtQ1M ZCIiw15 Y�.�ix ,x�.91a��sYp py ra Y.0 �p M oI. w AS aa, .vmw� p m _ e.Y' +,w Yus au[ ¢ - IP [arvypT�rmwc ��Im urt vEClwa w i�u�.w�zia �M min.c�im pM� mRra aix,aiu, Yw InI[II¢ n zCw u[ Mamu2 wmwu lam¢ H� Y6 �I¢iY tR.p MS,� S6Fi ei .d rt'm (a [vev.Ya,l taa�xuTP 6 0R[,6. M •YIM.CM 91.LL ao.tE M 9WL Mla ®M m �O.Em ms s. M �.Y90q a T I(fY .n wS �, RpJOwY,L,Y W6TbcAM M.; -aui �.q fE IwY IfKnI RW.eS e14'.w¢S p M O.AwN 9E0lw5eB mm4T 4YppN WMC, MTA YUI 9MLL r.IdIRC. rT. YY. CP.nMmIX �ma[®IP piYP .IlIxW.q.x Mx pOnwx'ImpMI Y(vPIa.64eMm. AOOITWN Q]IlER4 A[£ I�pgOK1YEN3 BY OT(FA6 HCY I6�I6fi OCA.)IEPI 1 III II II: II I� II If III II I � uN-iW I S wjs wur `TsepSdr• Y.ua.CIO e. °Le°..e mm. sws CWMECi TO EM. I / W W N WET TAP / 0 CPtt PLK V� I, I II I I I, I� I i1 I Utility Leg ®d E atintic f MOpt1.1gE GNpn YK — Y. —y 51W CYN �w� pg yPgaO.pc , YFVM.F —r— N— T.PUE 1®I raa .�— M.x WL (f IX WL IN f� �gE Q W W R Z g- HF5 LULU Cr1 C7 SS 0 m� J J 00� p e� sxc ¢ Preliminary Utility Plan x O' 7 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C5.0 m", 811 or cdlall.,00m Fbnting Notes CENTRAL AVENUE NE w wR .D Mw - _. [ pxw�c,p,Sx,Y,a4h,xar➢uRY.unINaS x °Na.UMW.rAxu..S . wmtAk°weFxfl w,wafxMMi M rc[ pllDNxEaRVn .LLRetMxRYW6MMxl.WUUBIFme4 NCUNI�MS.eNptteM°5 i - - u ux U LUE ut — 'DE" am,Awxl Yx.. Saf.o:.x °roL.NDrow°wxxN.weD..SSss. mx,e.F,°.wus4 f N D D..,P w MroIW erom w Mro M �j�: spa � � - M.IEexsse:xM�o"If'm 111 °'••• sYINln Fmw .pn.. �D - _ I aurwx.Mw.FUwnwpr ruxrxmwF °wMw,rofxlaMDSlhmxwxuB. 1 WNW I I - • � /� �xawlLLn xnuYa umlW°MUw xlD6Y3,elrt,nx M5Mex0gYhD x,NFwuF➢uh I _ ___ ------- ----------- ✓ I M Dlgrt V _ =w ` - - -- --- -- --- -- - - --- -- --- '- - - - -'_• - �axAx, �MxFww. SYFNl 1°E D Pwou .wF,MxorY °.,xFxxP.MRU WE w.Y - : ►� -0 � r -.- � r � - - - -- m �4�, Mwwro,DM,.Px,.R.a,ERxx«,M °�,�ol" 7 i I I _._ I ,MU°exhawl RMmexaNS.«D MMa,svm.,xFPe°wuww „a I —,/ , I DNRiw °Ifaru 1 ! I I 1 I __ _ — �flM* wffuuwonDErale+. wl¢ m, ufwrtM .,uwuwewDmxrlErzevwvwswDlsWAI=. �I ' 1 I }\ �,.. \ N 5., NEB. a,; Mw, Fearr% iw° Xw'”` iFM. v` w° fsm., wixs °S'fwf�au.°laar°M1nm°rwwY°ma" V80 u,. w,rx.M'1'QMFirw,lwxlw°x.mNPSMI. x.n,°xsmu r.YMlfnSmxxPlvlal . w �, ry,l Rp I .tif � - Ni N0.'u°ePM MMwwhE lfWxro,mu uanMR[f lNf IL _ _ @I YYY00° 1 i 1 S 1xoA'� MvuN°rwFwex°mfnfueFOM°MP'1hew DlmFSnxFPm4.wwn". 1 I _ Z I J p /�]`, I i I I I I /{ ' � _. 1 w %W� °SVSW Cpttu, pw�WrynµiuxmfMmrwvlel '[xLLfpmrylye,�°A6wuv muYSxpp ^ 1 L w1M roM ,neNUx PUfwwwxxuumvsoa 'y�m,.xpgMm,wwnrygDxl I I II � 6, "� ro fE°W YF.WD BLOCK 1 I MP ,D P . M„x a Dm ,Dwwfl LOT 1 suv { I _ , 4. euwnuefsxrowhoswwwmwE •. v 5x w m,".nD w;u1°OI.+"w5°`x. o: ulvvM °SU'WOP.s.w%�nia;`m,uaN°sxuoor muL I I I RMR _ � N• d • _ I 1 \ I i I xDUP'IS. sMYm D. wlro. xxMY �D wx D .SD.fI.m,Dnsxw°.FfMa P„�MF HV -VEE GAS I I —_ —� \ i ss 'rws°ammfx.Aa°r° Few. x.m...cro.flNC.swwn,mw�wl� WWMM E]axe (J I I 1 I ` 1 C• •. - \C i I ,c. uexn. weP,Nr, arm. FinauFMFxrul °mamrtmmmmnx+wNFMOUewswnxrwmi CC�� rsF li I I , aI :. ,� '� �� e-Ew ji I i I Y.+ Ih° n. ,x Fw lla mc w • aF. �� . cwx. , Mmallwfm. PF°xFNamFSx,l..axuFm. xna - � � � � I i 1 I � V •. � _. -_.. :� I II .Y R �YwSYTRgm °A i e n.LLN'O14 VxRMYYS. - •°' � '. 1 I � �_ .. ... I I o,Mfeaxf axwaMNMm. i�n. Mlmaro YMnuxss � \ flQIXMYUN _ ...I63W -.. �' -. � I ... - _ • ( u 1MMRw4um,l==a nsffellmu5Pxu 5 , µa , MPUxnNDMenvy. � '' - 1 I I xRx« xxwM, Fl. fuMF, xw». ew „.,roF.ew.F...xhF.x,,..m,xroFffiMV '� �.. - - -- -- l� I / -- / Po ia� �GfNb.lVVhu „MEMa1mY Wxw,0.M U.cUtm „1N[,waf MFaWfoS� —. � wF��FmxYMe�NDaxA , INMmmY.MRW,qu.wx 1 -- - �—..__ •_.{_,.__ ___� � � ___I _ i xFRRMYY�MeaD. MY�.. I"" ro”` esr ,a xfaFFm . ww:sfw.wwweM.rfM , fDss __ -- - afwro.afwM„Dx.e . — - •. ” -_ - .. \ `��� i I ». w MfmP , mlxa.cve , ws . fmwrrr . x°.a„DM..uwF....m m. ssa 9Ae `\ .' 1 .w NUrouvPFaxF„wxmW DFMnrorsm — GRAND AVENUE NE �` '� I ���°.nDg�� �a •�.�r11MF.,Mxa~FnFx5Y4�IFamY.. �„µ°m PF�NDax. SxN wx. �aF. w a. � we ,Ml.wxa,.N.M.5ero1 =aFW„Ia,all RENMY65MnaFMIxW1 wNm M aM^� „ . M P wa x Fwx w wM „r MMa aNmNmex„Exm xDM,NFYNDFewMaa Mnxn,,,w,afl.,f�NafDYAw�wFina,Yn fuwmiwR ° Pliant 8a6edule IaENleoepe Requ¢emmb Oronodoover Sohodulo W_ FawaroeFmxxFw. laxw. uuYwwelnal. snx.laeFDllwwie.rruaePU.°maF.., wwMhD rMivalwsx. ueE. Y® wNl, sMwlx° Mn5,Y1DnrsDwmxnuPlasx°awiSe,Mx, roarMmlmwnNMSafw x M.n..wmEwll MpwNYrowuoN wmnmauuRE vnmmw Dn w raMMpxfuME wrullw N,NE YR NE,IaD wGxr wmlll vuwc mmosm Mw b.n..n'APeluef m na nm mw n spMF roxer� exadle�.nlx..,. J ,XFFS nm rx Mwaw UNpFRSfppY IRFF l; M /.uY.mftTYex SN.N?hM .RUllm MIMe1 A emleN eF ,n✓EVIV PENwu NrEaR.0 ,q RUEfEUa2E �_-• R ®A � 1 roEE m Rx YI_NfgiB¢pEDfAFw &w. gMllpgEx loY,fNKn{pUC.Vaa laKyJWDRFfTfp ,aN senxB SxxnoaxPY Mw swoMZmw sl. gvRV remttl=Fx,i.PRIG,IMq,E,Nl Wlvnnio,d2gFPU°giofVCllwsap. w rm Ym MMDW� ypEwnNMaln WmX,M.ua82x R+EaµF°cp. FPwm ,° In D. °�, m OF[NUf=US SIMUBF - N xuaNxnssMffl paxmRxAC Do I fromw. xoa f.R KM .� 8e LCw Landscape - Dw,SmR. DREES: - MEExsroRr *REFS Is m m Rwemwnx l..wu xassxu,rNSoD.s RD °xN:oM,xERNPwMExlw n ca MawNUM,IMxvIMm..n ,vlwxll..Mwllm PEDUnEafIFDMRUNMM M. RR Mgam.m, ao.n M.w..PEDRM,mw rs ra• W44Eb v a.x w..neMnwmnaxM wxNUaanx EVERGREEN SXRUM rwM.11r.. lem.xxm, 7,umm� 2 u s fit gg 5s5 )i Q r W W a§ Z g 22 :5:5 55 W 00 ENYED FEET $1R 1 £ n 1 M RT W iPntTdl RIFRELE. T1C TREES S4NL aE v1INlF11 M1NI 1xE fRMi rMD. -- 1]RE2s ; : n° IIFrbYSWStlmRSm _. -. -.- cw,l M1SxM4°M19WGUmw, roeE P u�= SrNS�� ($x of M.1 ADC) sYMr.mnrtMRwn • 1 uY8w1Y pf fax 1RE{s .. wxFn oNeel..xw°,e Marl, xl.x ssuaE D�wmYwmm s h Ltl4hMGrIMY sxf.V. IN6 eE RIHIED fCA EYCPr WF gCRE a LDT eREA CDVERFD BY BIUtD P.VWIxE 4RGS IORpND J ,XFFS EAL al°' 4 w°EMaI% 6 lon P.Sm ...- AREA S. S1tl ANp OTIER IYPERNWS SU Fx(11A w�4^='MC M t 9 44 MEA$ (lpTP1E 9958] $, IMFERNDUS. 33.991 Y . ]a.9N IMPERNMS) ,M ream •Rq I,gaad A emleN eF ,n✓EVIV PENwu NrEaR.0 ,q RUEfEUa2E �_-• R ®A • ,RFA$ SHALL NAVE., -1-1-U- SPUME RE, OF 1 roEE m Rx YI_NfgiB¢pEDfAFw &w. gMllpgEx loY,fNKn{pUC.Vaa laKyJWDRFfTfp ,aN . 1GD mg UNDSCMF Mp ME D..1 1REE fM EAM SD SPI S CES OR, fRPC,IM 'MEREDF. 1ME PfMPINDER Si IANpCME 4RG $NHL SE ED (111 WIWi RFI UNpEgS,DPI,REE O sl. gvRV remttl=Fx,i.PRIG,IMq,E,Nl Wlvnnio,d2gFPU°giofVCllwsap. R VMIMS PERNDV$ LRd1Np CDVERS (t] P.,RKINL SPp15) MMDW� ypEwnNMaln WmX,M.ua82x R+EaµF°cp. FPwm ,° In D. °�, m Preliminary xuaNxnssMffl paxmRxAC Do I fromw. xoa f.R KM .� 8e LCw Landscape - Dw,SmR. DREES: - MEExsroRr *REFS Is m m Rwemwnx l..wu xassxu,rNSoD.s RD °xN:oM,xERNPwMExlw Plan -.9s: PEDUnEafIFDMRUNMM M. RR Mgam.m, ao.n M.w..PEDRM,mw s3 SxAUw W44Eb NOT FOR CONSTRUCITON C6.0 WM4[NYUIRm w45eF0YIno WxuNR °,mvaYWNryMpupµyu(tY,iaTYHrt PFIIFMMNIS$GMSSES -a9 NJGnu Ltl4hMGrIMY MemeemYUYNlbh ary p ,w+ ...- D PD b' 6p' NOT FOR CONSTRUCITON C6.0 cmi b N.un e.m.e avexv 817 ar eo11871.com cem,noo awm nines.. CENTRAL AVENUE NE 1 d Q� W Co s8 Z g�R„ S =pg f2 C 6 S22 22 QQ J J 3 00= Lmvbnaire Schedule s .1 Qty Label Arrangement Total Lamp Lumens LLF Descri ti on 2 PFAS-230L- ]00- NW -Gl -5W SINGLE N.A. 1.000 PFAS 23CL- ]OD- NW -Gl -5W 1 PFAS- 921- ]00- NW -G1 -3 SINGLE N.A. 1.000 PFAS - 921- ]00- NW -G1 -3 19 CA03 - ES- LED -B9- 450 -CW -UE IEE SINGL£ N.A. 1.000 CR03 - ES - LED -E4- 450 -CW -gE 12 CA03 -FO- LED- 30- 55 -CW -UE SINGLE N.A. 1.000 CAG3 -FO- LED- 30- SS -CW -UE 4 CRS - AC - LED - 128- HO -CW -G£ SINGLE N.A. 1.000 CRS -AC- LED - 128- HO -CW -0E 6 LFW32-0 SINGLE N.A. 1.000 LPW32 -] NOT FOR CONBTRur -mm `ZZr o��.s.w 4ob Preliminary Lighting Plan C7.0 MASONRY UNITS: O IGN545 BRICK k MILE : UIMY SIZE ISM FUSH FACE BET TIN BRICK COURSING: 1/3 RUNNING BOND O CLOUD CERkNM. ULM SIZE UGM NM TNN OR" COURSING: I/M RUNNING BONG ® CLOUD CENMICS: UDIIIY S¢E LOW N THIN BRICK COURSNG: SOLD" Y V$45 BRICK k La: 444112' =IM SIZE Q 05X1 FLASH FkCE SET COUR . I/3 RUNNING BOND © CLOUD CERNACS: 4x418" UDLRY SIZE UGHT NOM COURSING: SOLDIER O ENDCOR: 412 - 21348" MODUUR SIZE WANGANESE IRONSPoI COURSING: I/] RUNNING SOHO GROUT: SANDED WEB MY E90Yf E.I.F.S. COLORS: (D COLOR 01 LICK COLOR - SENERGY T -01 -M -421 -1 PAREx USA - 55169 O COLOR 12 W COLOR - SENOWN T -01- 0209 -421 -2 PARER USA = 5500 O] COLOR /] MY - 11FB GMY WMRPUR E USE ESPAV9ON JON1S: SANE L=PON O MASONRY JOIM or AS NOTED ON DRAWMGS GLASS & GLAZING: O j NS'JN GVSS: 1' CLEAR ANNEV INSLMM GIASS. LM -E 12 SURFACE 1A MON GLASS: 1" CIFM IEllP']i 20 INBIIUIFD GLASS. LOW-E 12 SURFACE <�> SPAYpYL GV55: I MINFNEL INSULATED GLASS. SPANDREL PAM /4 SURFACE - YyOFY COLON W/ MCHIIECT O BMNO.REL GLASS: t' IFLPERED INSULATED GLASS. SPANDREL PW /4 S1MFME - YFRIN COLON 'Y/ MCI6IECT O j WSKCN OASS: 5/8' CLEAR TEMPERED w TED GLASS, LOW -E /2 SURFACE METAL PANELS AND TRIM: O STANDNL SEAM METAL ROOF wN SNHIry GUARDS COIDR: FIRESTONE "UMCUD' SHERY/PCO CREEK SR O PREDNISHED MET& W M MATCH CARR E65 COLOR: FIRESTONE'S1.WCLAD' 9ERM AN SR O .TEN FACED DO~DUR TO BE PREFWISHED MEI& TO MICH DARK ENS COLOR'. FIRESTONE 'LMUCVD" S ERRA TAN SR ® (6) .040 & WWM SIRFSTONE A O PANE k (1) 040 ILUW.U. VRISCO RED fp & ❑ 5 PRM SHED MET& w COLOR: FIRESTONE 1WY. ' CW1N.'6LL GMY CANOPYIENTRY. Q 1 &UMINUM G STRUCTURE Of CNSION 8' COLOR: M A &UILOWN GNOPY SIRUCNML CYYUMN BY 'DM90N 8' COLOR 0 Q RESMA - 'CP120612" HORIZOW& CUMMINS COLOR : 'SOUL' Q REEMA - 3' CUD DING CORNER MIN LOR: SOUR' GENERAL NOTES: Ill GLASS TO BE LPN E CLEAR AS STATED: • U- FACTOR - 0.23 HGC S - DJ6 SHADING CO F CIENT z 0.42 • ASIDE UGM TNANSWMABCE 619 PARKING STRIPING TO BE PARKING LT YELLOW v/ GLASS HSMS. PALM CM PIPNIC TO WTH AWACEM SUI.ONG WALL COLORS z Fi, 1 -71 3.0 3 I I FRONT ELEVATION C 4 RIGHT ELEVATION � LL O ' / V� VJ O y Y n qW f— H u�+o W P•Q/� � w W p w J 0 0� SON NORrN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I UNB 5/01/2015 __J scN4 owmA A3.0 Y6" NIGH 1MiE' CHANNEL LERERS. RED FK . RFD rANS NT YM1E EDLE 1Rw. 2'0' HIGH *CM I I L _ ____ ___ _ _ ____ __ ____ ____ _ _ — _ __ —__ 2 REAR ELEVATION a.o 3 LEFT ELEVATION MASONRY UNITS: WNSAS SEX c R am SEE /sW N F&E SET MIN NICK COURSING: to RAW BOND O CLWD CBMMICS: am SRE LG1Rf A9fi MIN BHIIX CCaSiNG: 1/3 RAKING B]p ® EMS CENNICS: MUTT ALE ZKT NARY THIN SIGN COURSING: SOLDER NAW'AS FRIG( a TIIF. 4W,12' am NZE Q /S10 NA41 FACE SET CWRSING: 1/3 RUNNNG BWU © CLWD CERNBCS: 111'.12' 0m 512E UGArt M1ORt COURSING SOIAER O ENGCM. 412- 2/316• MGOJ t SIZE 1�E IRONWOT YFLOI COURSING: 1/2 RUNNING BEND GROUT: SWOEO MID GRAY Pon E.I.F.S. COLORS: O CGDR 11 LNRR COLOR - SN&RGY T- 01- 806-421 -1 PARER USA = MIN O WIDP 12 GINNCOM - SENERW T- 1-0709-Cl-2 vARE% DS4 - wilo O3 COLOR /3 CMY - S WX FY WILE UWCLID LX TO COWL (WBUrt sAw1E To ARCNOECT To LERM1' rnDR) E.MA.FS. "PANNW JDBRS: ME LDCATIDN 0 WSWRt JOINT P. AS N= W DRAMINGS GLASS 8 GLAZING: O MSON G µS: 1' CIFIA ANNFFIID 65U41FD GLASS. LOW -E l2 SWr 1A MON GLASS: 1' CLEUt TELBEREO WSULATW GLASS. L -E J2 SLWFACE O SIRMOREL CIAO: 1• ANK&ID IN TEO GRASS. SPANDREL PAINT f4 NMBUL - NE2FY COOK W/ RRCHOECT ® SRMDREL G0S$: t' T REED 06MCM GLASS. SP&IDIE1 PAINT 14 SURFACE - NFATY OOUM M/ OACXOEGT O NNW GU 5/8 CLLR TE?INRED INSIUM GLlRS. LOW -E J2 SURFACE METAL PANELS AND TRIM: ❑j STANDING SEW MET& ROOF WIN 5 -51 - BAR STYLE $NOW S,RGS COLOR: FiRE529F VWLVO' SHENSI GREEN SR ❑ T PREFiNISHM MET& CAD M WTCX WW( EIFS COLOR: MIESTGNE • NMCU SERP.1 T. SR O OPEN FACED ODW115POUT5 TO BE PREANWEO NEI& TO WATCH G IX E1FS COM: FIRESI LW * SU3W TAN SR. PROMOS SIR . 211 OPENING IN FACE OF CGUECION HEM WRX PREi NEHE0 REWIND DOES. O (6) .040 &UNMAN 11RESTONE AIYG61 PANELS k (1) A &UWNUM Y/R6C0' RFD PANEL. O RREFINISHEO YET& w COLOR: FIRESTONE %KA:W' CHAVA& GUY CANOPY/ENTRY: Q l AWMRWM CANOPY SIRUCNBE BY 'GM50N B' CWOk. WTCH FIRESTONE VWGPD' CHARCOAL MY Q &UMW CNIDPY SIRUGNR& CGIIYN IN'MON S' CCXM: NOON FIRESTONE 1WLIAI' GMRCWI, . Q RESSTA - •0120812' HORYOW& CIAGDING C : 'SIW' Q RFSSTA - 3' CI,aMG CORNER NN LOIDR: 'NAY' GENERAL NOTES: ALL SAM TO BE LOW L GEM AS STATED: A-FACNR . 039 SHOO . D.36 SHADING COEFFiCEM . D.13 MNBIE LIGHT TIMSMI6ANCE . 61% M51BLE UGM REFIECTR fix TOTAL SOLAR MANSMI6AVCE = AWMINW 40REFROM S151ETJ5 TO RE: POE SERIES 461(T) 2 1/Y THERM STOREFRONT W/ SERIES OM0 DOGS SYSTEM WWNEER OR MSTA A M mNENFS FtgNTER • 55161 TO PROMDE Oa➢Mll S'5EEN U- FACTOR DF D.36 AND WOR ASSEMN.Y U-FALTW OF 0.77 DESK CLEAR NIOOM AELMINUM PAINT CAS PMG TO WON ADIMFM SANG IOU cOwn 1 -1/2• x T 461 HPAW Gm ANGLE SNIP NAY u X N.O. 12 CAB WBE STFFZ FR4SE 1 /z' m- STENGIx ME NROW BELT 7 GATE LATCH DETAIL 5 2'.4' FUSE SEEL i,INF . RINTH HED MET& CLOSURE WNSFNED Fg4EWR META PAXEi � 1- I Y11WLp101E AYGIF 6 GATE PANEL DETAIL B' EMNISIOX JOINT SNEWMA /GRAAE WSWRY RfRWORGNG O 16' O.C. - (3) S.S. WTOGf NICNDR BELTS NOR NODFl 850 NWGE M "RIM.AL BEWNLT SNOM NRU WA11 FLl99NG PRENNISHEO MN& CLOSURE W/ WEEPS • 2P ox, C \ EE-- - / WARREN \ \ AK NFIXMT� WSE coonED CELL W/ 2 -/5 BARS COWL TRASH ENCLOSURE WALL S CTION 9 GATE HINGE DETAIL 10 CA OPY COLUMN SECTION d� Ea E ej R )!i R 01 1 a �.nunn' �••. P� yy W i O S log W�Sn Ea r 'N X � _ �oo W b D i O NORTH EXTERIOR CANOPY ELEVATIONS -R Jam. 2017 FRONT CANOPY ELEVATION (REAR SIMILARI � sew — I�r Ta 2 LEFT CANOPY ELEVATION 3 RIGHT CANOPY ELEVATION b-HEIGHTS- COLUMBIA CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2017 -0202 DATE: February 1, 2017 TO: Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission APPLICANT: Venture Pass Partners, LLC DEVELOPMENT: Hy -Vee Convenience Store & Future Development LOCATION: 4707 Central Avenue NE., Columbia heights, MN 55421 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat Approval PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Holmbeck, City Planner INTRODUCTION On behalf of Hy -Vee, Inc., Venture Pass Partners, LLC has applied for Preliminary Plat Approval for the vacant parcel located at 4707 Central Avenue NE. The site is currently one lot of record and the applicant is requesting to re -plat the property to create two separate lots. The plat would allow for two separate developments to occur on the property; a convenience store to be built on the south end in conjunction with the future Hy -Vee Grocery Store, and a future fast casual restaurant on the north end. State Building Code prevents constructing a new building over a property line. Furthermore, in order to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the property, the lot lines must be removed. ZONING ORDINANC The property located at 4707 Central Avenue NE., is located in the Mixed Use Zoning District, as are the properties to the east. The properties to the north are located in the General Business Commercial Zoning District. The properties to the south are located in the Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use development (commercial, residential and institutional uses), and specifically transit oriented development. Developing the vacant parcel to include commercial uses which complement the existing residential development is consistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2017 Planning Report Page 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (L) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines three conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Preliminary Plat. They are as follows: (a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.115. This is correct. (b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This is correct. (c) The proposed subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. This is correct. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat request made by Venture Pass Partners, LLC on behalf of Hy -Vee, Inc. for the property located at 4707 Central Avenue NE. Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2017 -15, there being ample copies available to the public. Motion: That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the property located at 4707 Central Avenue NE., subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the City Council approval. In the event that a Final Plat is not submitted within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will become void. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017 -15 Application Preliminary Plat RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -15 A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Preliminary Plat for Venture Pass Partners, LLC. Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2017 -0202) has been submitted by Venture Pass Partners, LLC on behalf of Hy- Vee, Inc. to the City Council requesting Preliminary Plat Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS: 4707 Central Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Preliminary Plat Approval per Code Section 9.104 (L). Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on February 7, 2017; Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed Preliminary Plat upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (L) (6) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Preliminary Plat. They are as follows: (a) The proposed Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of City Code Section 9.115. (b) The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (c) The proposed Subdivision contains parcel and land subdivision layout that is consistent with good planning and site engineering design principles. Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this Preliminary Plat; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the Plat shall become null and void if a Final Plat is not submitted to the City Council within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal. CONDITIONS 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder's Office. 3. An approved Preliminary Plat shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the City Council City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2 approval. In the event that a Final Plat is not submitted to the City Council within this time period, the Preliminary Plat will become void. ORDER OF COUNCIL Passed this 13 day of February, 2017 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Donna Schmitt, Mayor Attest: Katie Bruno, City Clerk /Council Secretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY / FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPLICATION To be filled out by City: CASE NO.: DATE RECEIVED: APPLIC. ORD.: 9.104(K) 9.104(L), 9.114(A)- 9.114(D) DATE LETTER OF COMPLETION. PRESENT ZONING: APPROVAL DATE PER STATUTE: PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: REVIEW PERIOD EXTENDED: PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT To be filled out by Applicant: PROPOSED NAME OF PLAT. Central Avenue Ventures PROJECT ADDRESS /LOCATION: _ 4707 Central Avenue NE Columbia Heights MN LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED (attach separate page if necessary): _ Outiot C Grand Central Lofts, Anoka County, MN PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY. Vacant PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: Convenience store with fuel sales, coffee shop with drive up service & fast food/fast casual restaurant with drive up service. REASON FOR REQUEST (please attach a wrilten narrative describing your request and Just cation for approval. The narrative must fully describe the proposal to insure its compatibility with surrounding uses and Its consistency with Zoning requirements and the Comprehensive Plan.) APPLICANT V .. &n= Pa_ ss partn= L 1( PHONE 611801.4313 FAX E -MAIL rrauwerdmk()venturepass.net PAGER CELL # ADDRESS 19620 Waterford Court CITY Shorewood STATE MN ZIP 55331 FEE OWNER OF PROPERTY Anchor Bank, National Association ADDRESS 1600 Utica Avenue S#400 PHONE FAX ! 697277,0-61BY3 CITY St. Louis Park STATE MN ZIP 55416 Page 1 of CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY / FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPLICATION THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY PLANNER AND REVIEW OF APPLICATION AND NECESSARY MATERIALS BEING SUBMITTED. ENGINEERING APPROVAL MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AND MUST MEET ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR CONTAINED IN THE CITY CODE. ITEMS TO BE GIVEN TO APPLICANT WITH APPLICATION A. Procedures Manual B. Application Checklist C. Schedule of Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings ITEMS TO ACCOMPANY PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION A. Plat submittals as required in the attached application checklist, showing how the property is to be subdivided. B. Two copies of a list of property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. ITEMS TO ACCOMPANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION A. Plat submittals as required in the attached application checklist, showing how the property is to be subdivided. APPLICATION FEES: A. $500.00 Preliminary Plat Fee + escrow B. $100.00 Final Plat Fee C. Park Dedication Fee D. City Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) E. City Water Availability Charge (WAC) F. Other $ 500.00 $ 100.00 $ TBD $ TBD $ TBD TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED $ 6300-, 6c000 CITY RECEIPT NUMBER t 4� � DATE RECEIVED Acknowledgement: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Columbia Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that sA work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Columbia Heights gfttijl the State of Minnesota: I Sign Here Slgn Hm. 1 13 11 Revised: 2005 Approved by the Columbia Heights Planning Commission on Approved by the Columbia Heights City Council on Page 2 of 2 e 201 Weal rooa Frorea -ml Ilia... no. a „oIra bewa 4,,mq HY VEE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ADDITION 811 or cc11811.com C o_m Grountl Allian _ — — — — Pl'O(Mlt)e �PBQlptl0111 I -- - —i— — — — L I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I Property Oeecripl /an per Cam clal Porfnera Title LLC ;3 Z a m 2 0Ew ae A9e j CFicaq° Me lnsurwce C°myanY -NW Or 22 w C7 C7 File Numbe 50648 Fkaf Supplemental �� 22 QQ �w OUttal C. GRAND CENWAL LOFTS Anoka Count, ktunmoto � � w R J Ab.t.t Pmpert, L Not= -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II Lot Areo LOf /. B /ock I weo 48,JJ5 sq. /L w ID 4 ocrea LaF Id ey a , °r °° _ 90,9U ". N w L° °w" BaupCdy area 90,90? ". /L. or I. goes STATE TRUNK HIGHWA K NO. 65 I CENTRAL AVENUE NE ,����__ -- Nooaoo9a•w a2s.3z o Oiemvgv vo0 [sl _ _ -- Fes -meat -- _ ' — _ _ _ _ _ T - -, �- utafy Eot —lea b- No. 1 -la? - -` - _________________ to I j i _ k - -" ._'- G'onege me UfilY Emtinm( - — .� - J 7 —J — i J I I I' - BLOCK J— r e^e mnrz Eeaemenl I I j / ;'1 `- 3 1 I o IY v v i L_ v r I 1 wawa, a.e ureAy evmmene J 3 I LOT 2 Z I I LOT 1 L� 1e1 ,.— • „551 ,<n.dla„ae.,, -- - —i— — — — L I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I Q w 11 _ ml , aee = en re w Intl .,... I I ape` a -1 11.1 £aaemml I I r t I I I i I I I b.o-o s,.a uwn ee,.mem I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - I GRAND A VENUE w -- pno-. a mu oal cm.m.nl -I--- --- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 2 0 40 50 I ; ; n REVISION if iss fil 3 Paz M1m. �e4ary QeIO N. Mme / / yi- e.. wasro � „, uoa Preliminary Plat C2.0 wZ ;3 Z a m 2 0Ew -NW Or 22 w C7 C7 �� 22 QQ �w co lb � � w R J J 9 O Q M1m. �e4ary QeIO N. Mme / / yi- e.. wasro � „, uoa Preliminary Plat C2.0