Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-04-2017
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Lucas Wynne Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY APPOINTED MEMBER – JOHN ALSTAD 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes – March 7th, 2017 b. Special Meeting Minutes – March 7th, 2017 C. Citizen Comments D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair – Minor, and Accessory Office and Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District Applicant: FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report B. Planned Unit Development Discussion 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment Special Joint Meeting Mississippi Room - 5:00 PM Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Multi-Lot Industrial Development Applicant: Ken Spaeth 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Lucas Wynne Absent: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued 1. General Business A. Call to Order Brad Fyle called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes – February 7th, 2017 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 7TH, 2017. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. It was noted that Lucas Wynne joined the meeting. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing - Consideration of request for Variance to front yard setback for an attached accessory use garage in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) District. Applicant: Kim and Jeff O’Neill Brad Fyle stated the applicants had withdrawn their request at this time. B. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Pre-K – 12 Educational Use in an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District Applicant: Wold Architects & Engineers Special Meeting Mississippi Room - 6:45 PM Planning Commission Vacancy Interviews 2 Steve Grittman explained that the Planning Commission looked at Phase I Improvements to the Monticello Middle School last year. These improvements provided additional building and parking space. The applicant is proposing a Phase II of projects at the Monticello Middle School. Improvements include the relocation of the east tennis courts to the west portion of the site. The existing courts would be converted into a new parking lot. The applicant also proposed paving the gravel parking lot in the southwest corner of the lot and providing additional drainage to accompany the improvements. The only change to the middle school building would be a small loading dock on the south side. Grittman noted that all of the proposed improvements are consistent with the code requirements, except for the proposed parking lot in the southwest corner, which appears to cross property lines. Verification of school property would need to occur prior to the paving of the parking lot. Grittman stated the parking lot is not required for city code requirements. Grittman noted the site plan demonstrated replacing the four tennis courts with four to six new tennis courts on the southwest corner. The applicant provided a site plan with both alternatives. Staff recommended approval of the staff report. Brad Fyle asked if the wording in Exhibit Z could be changed to say “up to six tennis courts”. Grittman stated the applicant had received engineering support for either of the two plans. It was the intent to approve either four or six tennis courts based on the received site plans. Eric Linner, Wold Architects stated that the school awarded the contractor with six courts and they would be building six. Fyle asked if the track was located south of the proposed parking lot where the tennis courts are currently located. Grittman confirmed and stated a retaining wall would be between the track and parking lot. Marc Simpson asked if the elevation was the same for the two areas. Grittman stated the parking lot was going to be the same elevation as the existing parking lot. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Fyle asked the applicant about the loading dock and asked if there were problems with trucks turning around on site. Linner stated that trucks currently back into the dock. The proposal was to construct a four foot high dock with a dock leveler to better facilitate the unloading of semis. Simpson asked how many semis arrive per day. Linner stated about one to two per day. He also added that an area for the dumpsters would be screened near the dock area. Fyle asked if City Staff had any traffic concerns in that area. Schumann stated that she had not received nor had the Streets Superintendent mentioned any concerns. 3 Fyle asked the applicant if they were in accordance with the Exhibit Z comments. Linner confirmed. Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the public hearing. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2017-007, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT WITH CHANGE TO EXHIBIT Z NUMBER 1 (APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGES THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX TENNIS COURTS UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSIST WITH THAT DEPICTED UPON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN DATED JANUARY 27, 2017) FOR A SCHOOL IN AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditional Use Permit Amendment for School in R-1 District 800 Broadway Street East Monticello Middle School 1. Approval of the conditional use permit amendment acknowledges the possible construction of six tennis courts upon the subject property consist with that depicted upon the submitted site plan dated January 27, 2017. 2. Brick utilized on exterior of the loading dock building addition shall match the color of the brick utilized on the existing building. 3. Ownership status and eligibility for use of area outside of Middle School plat for the proposed western parking lot improvement to be verified by the applicant, or the parking lot is reconfigured to address this condition. 4. Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer’s review recommendations, including those for stormwater management. 5. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Director’s Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director’s Report and asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Brad Fyle commented that Moon Motorsports had begun construction on their expansion project. He asked about the storage facility occurring across from the Gould Chevrolet building. Schumann explained that the activity on that site is related to tree removal, which is permitted under the code. Depending on the type 4 of development of the site, a land use application may come before the Planning Commission at a future date. Self-storage is permitted in a B-3, but depending on the configuration of buildings, it may require a land use application. Marc Simpson asked if the Dahlheimer Distribution facility expansion was completed. Schumann commented that construction has went very well. John Rued stated that the final inspection is scheduled for Thursday, March 9th and he expects them to have their final Certificate of Occupancy and have full use of the facility following. Brad Fyle mentioned that he has saw several residential lots filling up. Schumann stated that the last time the residential inventory map was updated, the City had 74 remaining lots. Schumann stated that the Building Department said they have already received 10 new construction applications for 2017. The City has not received any final plats for existing plats or any new residential plats. Marc Simpson asked if any commercial projects have been received. Schumann confirmed and stated they would be presented at the April Planning Commission meeting. She added that commercial and industrial inquiries are still strong. Schumann asked Commissioner Simpson if he wanted to provide any updates regarding the Small Area Study. Simpson stated the Steering Committee would meet a couple more times to develop a revitalization plan. Brad Fyle asked if somebody was hired to complete the plan. Schumann stated Cuningham Group and Tangible Consulting Solutions were the firms selected to complete the study. An open house for progress on the Small Area Study would occur on March 30th at 4 pm. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to comment on the plan before approval. 4. Added Items None. 5. Adjournment MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:22 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____ Approved: April 4, 2017 Attest: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 1 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 - 6:45 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Lucas Wynne Absent: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Jacob Thunander 1. Call to Order Brad Fyle called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:45 p.m. 2. Interview of Planning Commissioner Candidates and Recommendation of Candidate The Planning Commission interviewed three candidates for the open position. The candidates included: Gayle Borchert, Katie Peterson, and John Alstad. It was reminded that the Planning Commission could offer their recommendation to City Council of a candidate during the special meeting. The applicants interviewed individually in the following order: Gayle Borchert, Katie Peterson, and John Alstad. Each candidate answered questions posed by the Planning Commission and City Staff by explaining their qualifications and desire to serve on the board. The Planning Commission discussed each candidate’s answers to the interview questions and their qualifications. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND KATIE PETERSON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DUE TO A LACK OF A SECOND, MOTION FAILED. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND JOHN ALSTAD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. LUCAS WYNNE SECONDED. MOTION FAILED 2-2 DUE TO A LACK OF MAJORITY VOTE, WITH BRAD FYLE AND MARC SIMPSON VOTING AGAINST. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND KATIE PETERSON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION FAILED 2-2 DUE TO A LACK OF MAJORITY VOTE, WITH LUCAS WYNNE AND SAM MURDOFF VOTING AGAINST. MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND JOHN ALSTAD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. LUCAS WYNNE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH BRAD FYLE VOTING AGAINST. 3. Adjourn MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:04 P.M. LUCAS WYNNE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2 Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____ Approved: April 4, 2017 Attest: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 1 2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair – Minor, and Accessory Office and Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC (NAC) Property: Legal: Lot 1, Block 1 Maas Addition, together with Lot 1, Block 1 Camping World First Addition PID: 155225001010, 155243001010 Planning Case Number: 2017 - 011 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Development Stage PUD Rezoning to PUD District Deadline for Decision: May 9th, 2017 Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: B-3, Highway Business District The purpose of the B-3 district is to provide for limited commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District Current Site Use: Vehicle Service and Vehicle Sales/Display Surrounding Land Uses: North: I-94 East: Multi-tenant Commercial South: Vacant Commercial Land West: Motorsports Dealership Project Description: The applicant, Camping World, currently occupies the westerly of the two properties under a Conditional Use Permit granted in 2016. As a part of that permit, Camping World replatted the 8.85-acre main site at 3801 Chelsea Road and did some site and building improvements to accommodate the transition of the former automobile dealership site. Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 2 While the initial CUP was being reviewed and constructed, the applicant acquired the 6-acre property to the east, which was occupied by Bedrock Motors. Bedrock had received a series of zoning approvals to occupy the existing property and two older buildings. The site and buildings were nonconforming in a variety of ways, but were eligible for use in their then-existing condition without expansion of the buildings or expansion of the sales/display area onto the extensive green space on the property. In its current condition, the green space consumes nearly half (2.8 acres +) of the subject property. Camping World could potentially occupy the Bedrock site under the permit conditions as applied under the Bedrock permits. However, Camping World expects to integrate the current site activities (primarily sales, display, and some service and retail uses) with activities on the Bedrock site (primarily detailing and vehicle preparation) in the buildings, and a greatly expanded sales/display area over the full extent of the property, including the current green space. This aspect of the project raises a potential conflict with the building size- to-lot size ratio applicable to vehicle sales. Other elements of the project include a freestanding sign in excess of the sign ordinance height regulations, and a flagpole in excess of the typical maximum height limitations. Finally, the applicant’s site plans propose no curbing either for the existing or new paved bituminous sales and parking area. ANALYSIS As noted above, the applicant is seeking a PUD approval to accommodate the expansion of their current recreational Vehicle Sales/Display and Auto Repair and service operation from its current extent at 3801 Chelsea Road, about 8.85 acres, by adding the Bedrock Motors site, about 6 acres in area. The two adjoining properties would function cooperatively, with the Bedrock site serving more in support of the main sales facility at 3801 Chelsea. Also as noted above, the applicant proposes to include the following elements in the project: Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 3 2.8 acres (approximately) of additional paved sales/display area on the Bedrock site; A 70 foot tall freestanding sign with 250 square feet of sign area in NW corner of Bedrock site. Re-facing of existing monument signage on Bedrock site. A 130 foot tall flagpole in NE corner of Bedrock site. Site lighting utilizing re-purposed light fixtures from 3801 Chelsea. Additional street tree planting. No changes to the two existing Bedrock site buildings, which total approximately 10,500 square feet in area. No changes to the existing bituminous area on the Bedrock site. No additional curbing proposed on the Bedrock site. Manually operated gates at the two eastern-most of the three curb cuts on the Bedrock site. A paved connection between the two properties near the north end of the common boundary. Because many of these elements are outside of the commonly applicable zoning requirements, and because the applicant is seeking consideration of a single business entity over two separate parcels which can be separately conveyed, a PUD request has been made to allow the City to consider flexibility in the application of its zoning ordinance standards. An alternative to the PUD approach would be a request for variances to the various standards that are not being met by the proposal. The standard of review is different for PUD consideration and variance consideration. For PUD, the City is charged to find that the flexibility granted from the standard zoning requirements is offset by the design of the project, and elements included in the project design that result in a project that is superior to that of regular zoning in achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the zoning ordinance. For variance, the City is required to find that there are unique conditions of the property that result in practical difficulties that interfere with putting the property to what the City would otherwise consider to be a reasonable use. Variance considerations most often deal with unique topography or existing conditions that impact the property in a way that makes it difficult to use it according to the expectations of the zoning district or its neighboring properties. Those conditions do not appear to be present on this parcel, given its large size and relative flat and open condition. Thus, the applicant is seeking the PUD approval, and the City will need to weigh the areas of flexibility against factors that are proposed beyond the requirements of standard zoning. Characteristics of other PUDs may be relevant to this analysis, but most PUD reviews are unique due to the specifics of the project. Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 4 Existing Improvements and Permits. In 2012, the City approved a series of amendments and Conditional Use Permits to accommodate the proposal of Bedrock Motors to occupy the 6 acre site in question. Those approvals permitted Bedrock to move a motor vehicle sales facility, including major and minor auto repair, onto the property in its existing condition, which is as the site sits now. The applicant was granted permits for sales, and a sales lot on the existing paved area, including the driveway aisle that extends to the north portion of the site abutting I-94. The permits prohibited sales lot use of the grassy 2.8 acres between the building area and the north boundary. In addition, the applicant was able to conduct truck sales and service on the site pursuant to a zoning amendment to the B-3 District. Included in the approvals were variances to defer landscaping and screening requirements that would have applied to the use. Finally, the applicant was required to make only minimal interior changes to the buildings – building code related – without the need to meet the commercial building standards. The current applicants – Camping World – would be permitted to occupy the site in its existing condition, and under the same requirements, as those applied to Bedrock Motors without further zoning approvals. With the proposed expansion of the paved areas for sales/display, the freestanding sign and flagpole requests, and the proposal to eliminate curbing around the paved areas, the applicant is seeking a PUD approval to occupy the site and make the improvements requested. Summary of Flexibility requested under PUD zoning. The proposal seeks the following areas of flexibility from the requirements of the zoning ordinance: 1. Curbing. Waiver of curb requirements around the paved parking, display, and vehicle storage areas. The zoning ordinance requires this improvement for all such areas. 2. Building Area. Waiver of the required minimum building size ratio for vehicle sales. The zoning ordinance allows vehicle sales lots by Conditional Use Permit, with a requirement that no less than 15% of parcels of more than 4 acres are covered by building area. For a 6-acre site such as the subject property, the minimum building area should be approximately 39,100 square feet. The existing buildings are approximately 10,500 square in total floor area, about 4% of the lot area. 3. Freestanding Sign. The applicants propose a freestanding sign of 70 feet in height, and 250 square feet in area. The proposed setback for the sign is not dimensioned, but appears to be approximately 8 feet from the I-94 right of way. Finally, the applicants propose to construct the sign on a painted pylon. The zoning ordinance in the Freeway Bonus Sign Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 5 Overlay District allows maximum sign height of 32 feet, and 200 square feet. In addition, the ordinance requires a setback of 15 feet from public right of way, and architectural treatment of the pylon with commercial building materials such as stone, stucco, or similar treatment. 4. Flagpole. The applicants propose a flagpole in the northeast corner of the site with a height of 130 feet. The zoning ordinance creates an exception for the zoning district’s height of flagpoles, permitted them to be 25 feet higher than the requirements of the zoning district. In the B-3, the maximum building height is 30 feet, thus allowing flagpoles to be a maximum of 55 feet in height. 5. Driveway connection. The applicants proposed to connect the two sales lots with a driveway connection near the north end of the common boundary line. The zoning ordinance requires paving and curblines to meet a 6 foot setback from the property lines, with an exception for shared driveways and access by Conditional Use Permit. 6. Building materials. The applicants propose to use the existing metal-clad buildings as they exist, with no changes to the façade or materials. The zoning ordinance requires commercial buildings to meet architectural standards including exterior materials of masonry and glass. 7. Landscaping. The applicants propose to make no additional landscaping improvements to the site, with the exception of street trees along Chelsea Road. The zoning ordinance requires commercial properties to plant landscaped areas with a minimum quantity of trees and shrubs as specified in the ordinance based on site and building size. Purpose and analysis of PUD approvals. The zoning ordinance identifies the purpose of PUD as follows: The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re-apply under the standard applicable zoning district. As such, it is important that the City identifies elements, and makes findings, related to how the proposed PUD project meets these objectives. The ability to identify Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 6 specific aspects supporting the purpose of PUD is critical to ensuring that it is not used to merely avoid zoning regulations, and to ensure that zoning regulations are applied evenly and fairly between different properties and property owners. Optional project improvements for PUD consideration. To accomplish the PUD purpose, as stated above, staff has identified a series of recommendations for the site as a legitimate use of PUD, or which have been utilized in similar situations to support PUD zoning. For some of the flexibility elements proposed by the applicant, it is staff’s opinion that the basic zoning requirements should be applied, regardless of the PUD request. These include the following: Freestanding sign size. The City has been rigorous in applying the sign regulations in the Business Districts. The City has acknowledged the importance of exposure to interstate traffic, and adopted the Freeway Bonus Sign District to accommodate expanded sign size along the freeway corridor. Thus, freestanding sign height is allowed to be 32 feet, rather than the common 22 feet in other commercial areas, with up to 200 square feet of sign area, rather than the common 100 square feet. Because this regulation has been applied to so many other property owners, staff believes that the larger freeway sign is not justified in this case. The only recent larger signs approved beyond this allowance were under the Shopping Center exception, which limited freestanding signage in exchange for a single larger identification sign. Specifically, this allowance was granted to Union Crossings (Target/Home Depot) and Mills Fleet Farm. As such, staff does not recommend the larger sign size under the PUD. Replacing and/or refacing the existing signs with signage meeting the code allowances is recommended. This would mean a 32 foot tall, 200 square foot pylon sign along the freeway, refacing of the existing Bedrock monument sign along Chelsea Road, and relocation of the Camping World monument sign at 3801 Chelsea Road to move out of the right of way, as required under the previous Conditional Use Permit for the main Camping World site. Paving and Curbing. The applicant’s plan shows an extensive area of existing paving from the Bedrock permits, and a further extensive area of new paving for the expansion of Camping World’s sales/display/storage use. None of these areas are curbed, as required by the zoning ordinance. As with the sign regulations, the City has uniformly required paved areas to include curb for purposes of traffic containment, stormwater management, pavement maintenance, and green space protection, among other reasons. The only exceptions to this requirement have been where future expansions have suggested that limited areas of curbing were to be deferred to a later date. That is not the case with the application. While occupancy of the property in its current condition by a new business that was not expanding or Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 7 changing any of the site use could occur without these improvements, the PUD and sales lot paving expansions require the addition of curb as part of this permit approval. As such, staff recommends that curbing be required surrounding the paved areas (both existing and new) on the “Bedrock” site as required by the zoning ordinance. Flagpole height. The zoning ordinance provides an exception to the height limitations in each zoning district by accommodating flagpoles to be 25 feet taller than the zoning district building height limitation. Staff is unaware of any exceptions granted to this allowance, whether through PUD or variance. As such staff recommends that the applicant adhere to the maximum flagpole height allowance – in this case 55 feet – applicable to all properties in this zoning district. Site landscaping. The applicants are proposing little or no additional landscaping on the property. The zoning ordinance identifies specific landscape quantities that are required for any new development. Those requirements have been carefully applied in a variety of recent projects, even those with much larger landscaping impacts. As discussed below, if the third building alternative (screen wall) is chosen, additional landscaping outside the wall would support this intent, and would likely serve to meet most of the landscaping requirement. As such, staff recommends application of the landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. Site access. The applicants have indicated that the “Bedrock” site will be used in support of the main facility, and will likely have little, if any, customer traffic in and out of the property. Currently, the property has three separate curb cuts from Chelsea Road. Reducing this access would improve safety and minimize confusion for drivers seeking to access the Camping World business. As such, staff recommends closing two of the three access points. The western-most access should be closed by replacing the curb openings entirely. This is the one most likely to interfere with turning movements in and out of the nearby 3801 main access. The middle access point can be closed either by replacing the curb opening, or extending a manual gate across the access point. This would leave the eastern-most access open, which is served by the existing monument sign. With these improvements, visitors to the site will be able to identify the primary access point with the least amount of confusion. Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 8 In addition to the above elements, the issue of the building to lot size ratio and building materials remain. For these items, staff offers the following analysis. Building area and architecture/materials. The applicant is proposing to occupy the existing buildings without change in either materials, floor area, or other improvements. As noted above, this raises a conflict with the zoning ordinance’s regulation of vehicle sales lots, in which such uses are required to have a building that is at least 15% of the lot size as the principal use, supporting the vehicle sales lot as an accessory activity. The existing buildings cover just 4% of the site, well below the threshold. The purpose of the coverage regulation was to ensure that in exchange for devoting significant acreage of prime freeway frontage to large vehicle sales lots, the property owner would also provide a principal building which supported larger numbers of employees and created a tax base commensurate with the value of freeway exposure. As the area along Chelsea Road and I-94 developed, the subject property remained in its previous condition, with the expectation that some property owner would eventually develop it in a manner similar to those common in this corridor. Such a development would, presumably, include replacement of these non-conforming metal pole buildings with a larger, contemporary building and more intense use – intense in terms of both value and employment. The Camping World proposal – while understandable in the context of the nature of their business – does not meet those goals. To consider a PUD approval that increases sales lot area without other improvements raises a conflict with the intent of both the underlying zoning, and the intent of PUD zoning regulations. To address this conflict staff is suggesting one of three alternatives in regard to the buildings on the site. 1. The first would be replacement with a larger contemporary building as envisioned by the underlying zoning. Although the applicant may be uninterested in this alternative due the potential cost and scope, it is offered as the most direct way of meeting the intent of the zoning. 2. The second alternative is a lesser approach, but one which leans in the direction of the code – improve the existing buildings through architectural and materials enhancements that promote the intent, if not the letter, of the City’s commercial building standards. While this alternative would not meet the coverage requirement, it would at least address the architectural objectives of the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 9 giving the City some measure of return on the PUD flexibility being proposed. 3. The third alternative accommodates the existing buildings as they are, but refocuses the views of the site to the main (3801) property by incorporating a screen wall along the Chelsea Road frontage of the Bedrock site, as well as the east boundary line that the site shares with the Quarry Church property. With such a wall, views of the property would be directed to the main facility, and the visual impact of the property to passing local traffic would be minimized. To implement this alternative, an aesthetically pleasing wall would be recommended, such as a solid masonry wall, or a series of masonry posts supporting a solid fence, such as vinyl or wood. With landscaping in front of the wall, this site could be made to be visually appealing, and more clearly identify it as an accessory yard supporting the main site where the primary use is located. City Engineer’s Comments The City Engineer has provided the following comments regarding the application, along with the attached the stormwater plan review checklist for the Camping World site, for which compliance is required. 1. SWPPP must be provided showing all required forms of erosion and sediment control. 2. Stormwater management plan should include all modeling scenarios for existing and proposed conditions using the correct composite curve numbers and correct rainfall distribution. 3. Pretreatment must be provided for the proposed infiltration basin. 4. EOF needs to be shown for the basin. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-008, recommending approval of the Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, as recommended by staff with the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-008, recommending approval of the Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, as proposed by the applicant, per materials in the original application, and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting this recommendation for the record. 3. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-008, recommending approval of the Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning to Planned Unit Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 10 Development, as recommended by staff in Exhibit Z, but with the amended conditions as specified by the Planning Commission at the public hearing. 4. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2017-008, recommending denial of the Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning, based on findings to be stated at the public hearing. 5. Motion to table action on Resolution No.PC- 2017-008, subject to additional information to be submitted by the applicant and/or staff. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is not supportive of the use of PUD for the project as proposed by the applicant given the significant changes proposed for the site outside of the required standards of the zoning ordinance. Without balancing improvements to the requested flexibility, the proposal does not meet the intent for PUD consideration. Staff has identified some areas of change to the project which could be enhanced that would help the City consider this as a legitimate use of PUD zoning. These elements are identified above, and listed in Exhibit Z to this report. To summarize, those changes are as follows: 1. Adhere to the maximum freestanding sign size in the Freeway Bonus District of 32 feet in height, 200 square feet in sign area, and 15 foot setback. 2. Meet the architectural materials requirements of the pylon sign standards. 3. Enforce the requirements for monument sign relocation at 3810 Chelsea Road, by removing the sign out of the right of way. 4. Provide curbing around the entire paved area, consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 5. Adhere to the maximum flagpole height of 55 feet. 6. Add site landscaping to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 7. Close two access points to the “Bedrock” site, and include gate access, with the gate constructed of decorative materials such as simulated wrought iron. 8. a. Remove and replace the existing buildings with a building of conforming size and design to the standards for vehicle sales lots; or b. Upgrade the existing buildings with exterior architectural treatments to meet/exceed the requirements for commercial buildings; or Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 11 c. Construct a screenwall around the east and south boundaries of the Bedrock site with masonry materials, or masonry posts and vinyl components, with landscaping to create an attractive visual screen, and which focuses traffic and attention to the main property (3801 Chelsea). Should Planning Commission motion to approve the PUD with this condition, the Commission should provide direction within their motion as to which alternative (6 a, b or c) is preferred. As discussed in this report, these improvements could be viewed as qualifying for PUD consideration by improving the visual appeal to the property – considering the retention of the older buildings – and focus attention on the compliant site. As the applicants note in their materials, little or no customer traffic is expected to use the “Bedrock” property, so improvements to a high-profile commercial site should either meet the requirements of the code, or at the least, direct views to those properties that do. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution No. PC-2017-008 B. Draft Ordinance No. 663 C. Aerial Site Image D. Applicant Narrative E. Certificate of Survey F. Existing Topography G. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan H. Details I. Site Plan J. Photometric Plan K. Sign & Flag Plan L. Pylon Sign Detail M. Monument Sign Detail N. Stormwater and Geotechnical Analysis (digital only) O. Stormwater Checklist Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda – 04/04/2017 12 EXHIBIT Z Camping World PUD 3801, 3887 Chelsea Road Lot 1, Block 1 Camping World First Addition Lot 1, Block 1, Maas Addition 1. Adhere to the maximum freestanding sign size in the Freeway Bonus District of 32 feet in height, 200 square feet in sign area, and 15 foot setback. 2. Meet the architectural materials requirements of the pylon sign standards. 3. Enforce the requirements for monument sign relocation at 3810 Chelsea Road, by removing the sign out of the right of way. 4. Provide curbing around the entire paved area, consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 5. Adhere to the maximum flagpole height of 55 feet. 6. Add site landscaping to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 7. Close two access points to the “Bedrock” site, and include gate access, with the gate constructed of decorative materials such as simulated wrought iron. 8. a. Remove and replace the existing buildings with a building of conforming size to the standards for vehicle sales lots; or b. Upgrade the existing buildings with exterior architectural treatments to meet/exceed the requirements for commercial buildings; or c. Construct a screenwall around the east and south boundaries of the Bedrock site with masonry materials, or masonry posts and vinyl components, with landscaping to create an attractive visual screen, and which focuses traffic and attention to the main property (3801 Chelsea). 9. Comply with the comments of the City Engineer per the report of April 4th, 2017 and accompanying checklist. 10. Applicant shall enter into a development agreement for the proposed planned unit development. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-008 1 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CAMPING WORLD FIRST ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MAAS ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to rezone its property along Chelsea Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 Camping World First Addition, together with Lot 1, Block 1 Maas Addition, from B-3, Highway Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development District; and WHEREAS, the applicant concurrently proposes to develop the property for retail recreational vehicle sales and service and related accessory uses; and WHEREAS, the site is guided for commercial uses under the label “Places to Shop” in the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed PUD is consistent with the long-term use and development of the property for commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 4, 2017 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The PUD provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the site. 2. The use of the site for retail vehicle sales, display and service is consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan for “Places to Shop”. 3. The plan, through PUD, results in a project that more closely achieves the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan than would the application of the standard zoning regulations. 4. The plan results in development that is compatible and consistent with the existing surrounding land uses in the area. 5. The improvements proposed for the site under the Development Stage PUD are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. 6. The improvements will have impacts on public services, including sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to serve the property for the development as proposed. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-008 2 7. The PUD flexibility for the project, including site coverage, building materials, display, and signage, are consistent with the intent of the City’s economic development objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Rezoning and Development Stage PUD, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows: 1. Adhere to the maximum freestanding sign size in the Freeway Bonus District of 32 feet in height, 200 square feet in sign area, and 15 foot setback. 2. Meet the architectural materials requirements of the pylon sign standards. 3. Enforce the requirements for monument sign relocation at 3810 Chelsea Road, by removing the sign out of the right of way. 4. Provide curbing around the entire paved area, consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 5. Adhere to the maximum flagpole height of 55 feet. 6. Add site landscaping to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 7. Close two access points to the “Bedrock” site, and include gate access, with the gate constructed of decorative materials such as simulated wrought iron. 8. a. Remove and replace the existing buildings with a building of conforming size to the standards for vehicle sales lots; or b. Upgrade the existing buildings with exterior architectural treatments to meet/exceed the requirements for commercial buildings; or c. Construct a screenwall around the east and south boundaries of the Bedrock site with masonry materials, or masonry posts and vinyl components, with landscaping to create an attractive visual screen, and which focuses traffic and attention to the main property (3801 Chelsea). 9. Comply with the comments of the City Engineer per the report of April 4th, 2017 and accompanying checklist. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-008 3 10. Applicant shall enter into a development agreement for the proposed planned unit development. ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 2017, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 663 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING THE CAMPING WORLD PUD AS A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, AND REZONING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY FROM B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO CAMPING WORLD PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CAMPING WORLD FIRST ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MAAS ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2.4(P) – Planned Unit Developments, Title 10 – Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following: (XX) Camping World PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Camping World PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for vehicle sales, service, and display commercial land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Camping World PUD District shall be vehicle sales, display, and vehicle service and repair – minor and major, as found in the B-3, Highway Business District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated _____, and development agreement dated ____, 2017, as may be amended. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to retail uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. Accessory buildings on the site may be utilized for indoor uses for enterprises of commercial tenants which are identified as permitted principal uses in the B-3, Highway Business District. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Camping World PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, then the regulations of the B-3, Highway Business District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner ORDINANCE NO. 663 2 of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (P)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amendment to rezoned the following described parcels from B-3, Highway Business District to Camping World PUD, Planned Unit Development District: Lot 1, Block 1, Camping World First Addition, and Lot 1, Block 1, Maas Addition. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this ___ day of ____, 2017. __________________________________ Brian Stumpf, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jeff O’Neill, Administrator AYES: NAYS: FR HP Lincolnsh ire, LL C. - R equ est for R ezo ning to Pla nn ed Unit D evelo p ment (PUD) & D evelo p Sta ge PUD Lt 1, Blk 1 M aas Addn; Lt 1, Blk 1 Camping World First Addn | PID 155-225-001010; 155-243-001010 C reated by : C ity of Monticello 385 ft March 17, 2017 Ms. Angela Schumann Community Development Director 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Camping World – PUD Application Narrative – Lot 1, Block 1 Maas Addition, PID 155-225-001010 | Lot 1, Block 1 Camping World First Addition, PID 155-243-001010 Camping World has purchased the Bedrock Motors site on the south side of the freeway at 3887 Chelsea Road in Monticello, MN. The applicant has applied for this PUD to clarify the use of the property and to seek approval of various elements necessary to their business that either exceed or vary from the current zoning regulations. They desire to increase the paved area, install additional storm water infrastructure, install additional site lighting to match the existing on the site, install new graphics to an existing monument sign at Chelsea Road, install a new 130’ flag pole and install a new 70’ tall 250 sq ft pylon sign. They also intend to add new chain link fencing to surround the entire site, including gates at all existing entrances, and add an access across the property line to their adjacent property at the NW corner of the parcel. They have submitted a land use application. The paving plan exceeds the current allowable impervious area. This deviation is necessary for the applicant to increase their ability to have more inventory available for sale. Increased inventory will directly impact the applicant’s ability and need to add additional jobs in the community. The grading plan for the site illustrates the new storm water infrastructure proposed for the parcel. There are no changes planned or anticipated for the exterior of the existing buildings on the parcel at 3887 Chelsea Road (former Bedrock Motors). There are no changes to the previously provided Landscape Plan. The applicant does not anticipate any platting associated with this application. It is their intention to maintain these as separate parcels. The existing buildings at 3887 Chelsea Road (former Bedrock Motors) are being used for pre-delivery inspections and for detailing; little customer traffic is anticipated in this area. The existing building at 3801 Chelsea Road will continue to be the primary customer destination. There is no screening for trash containers planned or anticipated on the parcel at 3887 Chelsea Road (former Bedrock Motors). All trash generated at this location is deposited in containers at the main location on the adjacent property. The signs proposed for the site vary from the code as follows: Section (H)(20)(b) of the sign ordinance indicates that exposed pole structures for pylon signs must be wrapped or faced. The proposed pylon sign pole is to be painted with black enamel paint. Section (J)(2)(i) of the sign ordinance indicates that one freestanding sign is allowed per lot with a square footage not to exceed 100 sq ft and height not to exceed 22 ft. The applicant is proposing two freestanding signs, one pylon sign and one existing monument sign. The pylon sign is proposed to be 250 sq ft with a height of 70 ft, and the existing monument sign is 32 sq ft. The applicant wishes to install a flag pole on the parcel with a total height of 130 ft. and an American Flag approx. 60 ft wide by 30 ft high. Several items that are within the Project Narrative requirements do not apply to this project as it is not a development project. Those items include: (1) whether the applicant will be the builder or if the land will be sold to other builders (2) Phasing (3) Plans or documents for Homeowner’s Association (4) Possible negative impacts to surrounding property and mitigation measures, and (5) A statement of the proposed use of the lots, stating type of residential buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry to reveal the effect of development on traffic, fire hazards, etc. We acknowledge that there may be additional fees from the City of Monticello such as trunk charges, landscape security deposits, sign permits, etc. Contacts for this project are as follows: Owner: Camping World and Good Sam Melissa Nance Director of RE and Development 250 Parkway Drive, Suite 270 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 847-229-6755 Local Representative: Kinghorn Company 21830 Industrial Court Rogers, MN 55374 763-428-8088 Civil Engineer: Hakanson Anderson Charles Christopherson 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN 55303 763-427-5860 3801 Chelsea Rd. W.CHELSEA RD. W.INTERSTATE 9490th. ST. N.E.114555 3801 Chelsea Rd. W.0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.71.21.31.10.90.60.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.50.50.40.50.50.30.20.20.20.30.71.52.33.26.111.111.16.42.51.00.60.30.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.81.11.11.31.40.70.80.60.60.81.85.827.133.464.010538.611.93.71.60.70.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.51.32.12.73.95.62.94.04.13.93.39.653.297.373.765.549.525.19.44.52.41.10.50.20.30.30.40.30.30.20.20.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.41.02.74.26.512.323.025.950.147.915.37.212.827.937.327.129.732.727.113.66.53.71.70.60.30.20.10.10.20.60.91.21.21.20.80.60.50.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.50.91.73.56.510.914.031.183.659.274.635.711.64.95.610.817.319.641.355.048.717.97.74.11.60.60.20.10.10.10.20.50.91.32.13.33.63.22.11.30.90.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.41.12.03.813.632.360.834.720.840.111231.016.613.88.34.64.77.311.214.835.749.442.814.86.33.51.30.40.20.10.10.10.20.61.32.23.67.27.17.13.52.11.30.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.41.21.74.215.240.159.175.466.128.618.530.663.318.110.28.66.04.44.35.87.28.913.716.315.47.84.12.41.00.30.10.10.10.10.30.82.23.78.119.721.319.17.63.52.10.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.81.84.717.628.498.480.138.826.320.619.015.821.836.412.37.36.24.63.73.74.55.78.79.99.06.53.82.71.60.70.30.20.10.10.20.31.13.26.616.956.368.654.915.56.43.11.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.81.73.39.542.710151.043.125.619.116.115.015.917.329.358.018.46.66.45.85.25.57.011.720.722.814.06.74.22.71.40.70.40.30.20.20.20.41.23.46.616.564.566.163.415.76.43.21.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.81.33.28.632.448.363.749.322.017.115.212.611.612.313.516.134.596.626.57.58.68.87.68.010.520.350.853.031.99.56.44.12.41.30.91.23.16.114.345.056.443.613.45.72.91.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.61.53.27.521.384.081.140.121.817.013.911.510.69.68.09.112.015.228.765.720.311.213.814.211.49.512.422.347.149.929.511.49.57.75.13.52.66.212.713.812.35.83.01.80.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.20.51.32.46.130.481.148.842.729.316.813.310.89.78.97.26.29.215.418.616.821.437.220.233.464.949.620.011.315.320.727.123.215.111.011.410.67.65.04.73.74.26.36.45.93.22.01.30.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.40.30.40.40.20.20.52.05.825.940.467.064.827.715.514.711.69.17.95.54.75.07.318.344.647.627.730.252.519.521.056.461.325.517.434.171.260.724.213.214.516.615.611.76.86.89.26.75.85.55.44.73.42.11.30.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.50.80.80.80.90.50.51.812.866.484.744.427.317.415.110.99.48.65.83.72.72.94.47.022.260.264.131.638.698.923.44.34.54.74.16.517.440.254.024.716.831.769.165.223.411.312.517.815.911.37.47.210.08.86.15.56.46.75.53.61.91.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.81.61.82.13.31.51.25.118.740.233.116.014.212.010.58.97.65.64.42.52.02.53.45.913.730.833.524.233.174.016.33.41.71.91.71.62.44.15.44.66.115.731.445.923.313.826.262.972.831.813.313.621.218.012.17.86.99.39.67.94.42.31.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.41.43.04.16.012.15.51.63.16.69.713.110.99.19.17.36.38.910.49.74.62.82.62.32.85.710.413.012.717.029.511.66.32.72.01.71.01.21.83.14.14.54.04.04.22.63.110.625.937.024.614.225.862.075.137.514.212.519.316.911.66.12.51.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.31.12.55.68.515.438.715.42.01.73.25.27.07.25.85.25.47.421.532.127.610.64.93.31.91.52.24.16.58.012.125.521.116.55.53.52.31.10.91.84.16.86.85.12.41.51.00.91.32.43.32.73.08.223.929.021.613.723.357.675.238.311.33.11.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.61.43.48.212.013.522.978.427.62.81.92.83.94.53.32.83.44.77.633.448.144.713.25.33.51.50.91.22.54.86.711.942.442.235.27.94.73.01.31.23.18.621.322.410.74.11.40.70.60.81.12.02.42.72.62.92.92.32.37.423.431.323.99.52.90.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.61.21.95.629.861.124.815.822.964.124.43.22.73.84.23.72.41.82.53.76.419.830.626.410.24.82.91.30.60.92.04.25.911.134.835.230.07.04.73.01.31.43.913.248.653.219.25.51.70.70.50.71.22.23.74.23.21.81.20.80.71.01.82.51.81.10.50.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.51.32.55.214.642.778.755.620.513.716.431.812.72.93.25.35.65.02.61.61.92.13.06.99.08.84.22.51.80.90.50.71.73.54.77.215.915.113.45.63.82.91.41.54.315.048.652.819.65.81.80.80.60.71.53.66.27.35.52.51.00.50.30.30.30.40.40.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.41.22.04.126.271.249.130.928.818.217.114.417.937.015.33.24.911.414.911.14.41.71.31.21.32.12.42.51.51.21.00.70.50.71.83.65.18.318.217.014.66.24.22.91.51.73.69.518.819.911.84.51.80.90.71.02.68.224.832.114.55.51.60.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.71.75.022.633.561.170.732.013.513.412.814.715.824.173.326.84.69.727.846.427.29.12.51.10.80.70.80.80.80.70.70.70.70.60.92.04.26.011.939.841.632.97.85.03.21.51.53.06.510.410.67.83.61.60.80.71.13.211.438.046.923.86.82.00.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.91.72.89.842.410551.528.917.315.710.78.29.511.613.423.972.626.84.49.832.949.632.49.42.50.90.60.50.60.60.60.50.50.70.81.11.42.54.86.311.838.640.732.17.75.03.31.61.53.06.911.912.18.43.51.70.90.81.33.712.133.843.921.37.32.20.80.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.93.517.630.335.047.345.018.515.912.510.98.56.35.78.210.516.837.115.83.57.119.432.018.86.62.00.80.60.60.70.70.60.60.71.32.13.13.63.95.36.28.317.316.314.06.14.13.01.51.64.312.936.839.617.05.62.01.00.91.42.87.014.315.911.14.51.90.90.40.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.73.121.010369.027.416.216.013.311.59.97.85.43.84.07.19.814.435.816.02.73.36.57.36.42.91.20.50.40.71.20.90.91.11.42.56.510.411.47.07.27.18.016.215.313.65.94.03.11.51.53.812.134.237.715.25.11.90.90.81.32.65.59.810.28.54.11.90.90.50.40.40.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.910.528.141.922.814.910.810.011.010.37.96.35.54.34.17.510.718.670.127.93.12.33.54.23.31.80.90.50.40.92.11.91.51.82.44.315.128.337.515.59.28.712.136.836.931.67.55.03.41.61.74.212.133.937.915.45.62.01.01.01.42.97.214.616.311.44.82.31.61.41.11.00.80.50.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.31.44.423.220.015.113.811.18.58.68.710.313.314.310.56.35.57.510.319.070.626.93.01.92.32.71.81.30.12.15.43.22.62.93.66.922.158.454.823.79.88.412.640.941.635.78.25.23.51.61.52.96.610.211.07.53.51.71.01.01.43.912.534.544.922.28.44.03.33.83.42.11.10.50.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.52.225.769.427.114.010.99.16.05.58.815.143.254.520.310.85.96.27.412.430.413.51.91.42.03.47.07.24.44.83.34.25.811.729.318.412.86.86.89.520.619.516.76.54.63.11.51.53.06.710.811.07.93.71.81.21.21.74.212.940.849.726.910.57.27.27.55.63.21.60.60.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.83.849.474.919.313.810.26.74.44.49.233.484.178.454.114.35.34.44.55.29.84.11.31.22.37.321.79.04.24.94.54.55.28.37.65.65.05.47.817.116.214.26.24.23.31.61.84.210.525.326.612.75.72.92.52.73.35.512.530.538.520.310.58.411.113.610.35.82.71.00.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.85.235.831.518.613.310.37.05.14.59.628.964.384.341.012.35.13.52.82.63.11.81.21.42.64.710.78.211.04.54.13.12.62.52.62.94.56.011.334.936.330.67.45.13.51.81.84.614.348.852.420.17.55.05.56.15.65.99.615.517.715.69.59.520.839.341.217.05.11.30.40.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.51.14.513.313.217.421.517.410.46.96.07.511.828.833.015.08.34.93.52.11.92.22.01.71.62.23.23.62.96.23.82.71.61.21.32.04.26.011.041.642.236.18.65.54.02.12.25.316.449.053.622.19.77.59.09.58.27.110.418.527.527.115.215.940.910355.210.92.30.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.51.02.14.87.212.924.063.953.318.79.65.25.57.29.69.18.56.14.53.42.72.74.74.44.42.52.42.63.33.73.15.92.72.51.71.11.01.93.95.69.222.822.418.97.45.94.83.53.65.712.422.123.615.78.910.014.515.414.211.117.748.381.163.021.810.913.411.75.22.52.20.50.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.41.44.19.76.76.114.451.283.894.840.810.34.43.74.34.04.55.35.75.04.74.55.813.413.013.35.43.73.34.08.69.10.11.31.91.60.80.81.83.75.28.518.617.915.28.78.28.46.45.05.910.316.718.816.19.915.440.571.645.419.212.220.228.216.85.02.61.73.62.21.122.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.21.25.133.127.69.76.812.733.472.465.427.39.93.82.72.62.73.45.36.76.86.76.38.436.934.236.87.94.83.63.813.434.42.83.72.80.80.91.94.16.313.337.042.229.410.711.511.910.17.16.311.927.640.432.117.320.747.954.223.77.22.52.53.62.12.16.80.40.70.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.52.927.983.232.111.78.09.513.827.626.311.66.94.32.72.22.63.98.415.015.610.97.18.637.134.736.97.74.62.91.88.51.81.01.02.14.46.414.244.047.534.312.615.018.019.113.19.519.154.610559.015.06.24.65.02.72.82.50.910.20.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.76.945.444.215.210.28.07.37.78.18.06.85.24.44.03.63.45.715.243.845.817.97.96.313.613.213.55.53.10.00.90.80.70.92.14.46.511.223.423.416.014.031.072.865.727.49.58.014.411.55.13.31.81.46.30.70.50.60.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.96.313.110.510.28.16.35.65.14.03.53.73.95.15.55.54.25.714.946.748.117.26.23.54.74.75.24.27.80.10.10.10.40.50.82.24.86.911.122.812.78.210.523.737.326.611.23.21.52.24.41.83.81.40.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.82.33.24.96.06.45.75.86.44.33.12.63.88.712.712.06.55.310.026.126.910.84.72.11.92.02.75.817.50.10.10.20.41.02.86.610.721.450.819.03.82.72.94.43.51.75.21.80.41.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.50.91.42.45.79.910.911.28.97.34.23.47.120.042.433.812.35.05.27.27.25.12.41.31.11.22.03.59.06.50.10.20.30.71.84.28.813.728.683.227.23.13.31.52.615.00.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.40.71.43.720.843.421.313.48.76.65.27.722.146.038.812.14.53.44.24.13.01.71.10.80.81.21.82.40.81.42.44.17.311.815.424.954.818.62.424.40.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.50.81.415.393.166.418.310.77.88.08.615.632.726.28.93.62.52.22.21.81.20.80.70.70.82.24.66.26.49.213.517.516.922.17.81.40.50.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.92.723.856.226.415.213.310.39.38.48.66.84.11.81.10.90.80.70.60.50.60.70.41.08.69.49.812.017.936.636.218.85.31.10.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.21.02.49.930.949.421.514.310.19.47.35.22.81.50.80.50.40.40.40.50.81.01.92.81.33.85.66.79.013.415.218.922.449.795.156.610.31.80.50.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.71.918.199.363.217.111.99.79.05.33.11.40.80.50.40.40.40.50.71.64.715.46.89.311.212.512.027.063.455.428.122.023.45.61.90.60.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.21.03.024.655.826.215.213.910.27.53.81.70.80.50.40.40.50.50.82.04.612.913.17.29.613.619.330.826.543.477.927.65.42.41.81.20.60.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.21.12.611.940.253.320.913.78.06.13.61.80.80.50.40.50.50.81.53.04.13.09.712.712.115.029.174.084.830.112.75.32.81.30.60.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.30.72.221.410460.216.510.07.86.93.61.80.70.50.40.50.81.32.13.23.51.99.19.812.630.150.333.931.736.324.54.01.51.10.60.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.21.03.022.843.025.816.613.99.67.03.51.50.70.60.81.32.23.86.07.27.310.013.814.218.026.967.585.020.75.13.11.71.00.40.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.21.02.18.936.458.323.313.98.16.23.41.81.52.13.25.17.19.410.511.313.031.861.841.724.019.56.42.81.00.70.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.71.919.393.360.716.710.78.26.94.03.75.06.66.79.515.016.623.426.558.674.923.04.01.81.30.60.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.92.620.941.127.417.914.19.88.17.18.410.111.212.732.972.658.925.716.56.32.61.00.40.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.21.02.19.644.263.422.713.37.98.513.616.426.725.849.457.924.93.51.71.20.50.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.72.122.393.652.012.86.87.723.866.371.529.010.24.52.21.10.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.21.02.718.429.011.54.88.827.356.327.44.71.41.00.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.91.54.64.93.14.16.03.72.31.20.50.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.40.61.01.00.80.70.70.50.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.20.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0sheet numberscale:drawn by:checked by:project no:date:2017.___.00__/__/17sheet titleThis Sheet may be aReduced Copy.The bar above is 1" long on a Full Size Sheet.Drawing Scales apply to Full Size Sheets.This document may be an electronic file or may beprinted from an electronic file provided to the user. Itis the sole responsibility of the user to ensure that thecontent and quality is consistent with the content andquality of the paper documents on file at LKPBAS NOTED__/__/17TVBAVTALLEN V. THEISENDATE:RENEWAL DATE:REG. No.:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA06/30/1823791NOT FO R CON S T RU C T ION ISSUE FOR PERMIT__/__/17NOISSUEDATEproject contact:DONOVAN GESKE(donovan.geske@lkpb.com)P RELIMINARYNOTFORCONSTRU C TION2017 March 03DRAWING HISTORY: 09|09|16 DRBy 09|19|16 DRBy 0|0|16 AABy 0|0|16 0|0|16 0|0|16 AA AA AA By By By Approved by: Date: APPROVED AS SHOWN APPROVED AS NOTED CORRECT & RESUBMIT CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 1077 West Blue Heron Blvd., Riviera Beach, FLA 33404 Phone: (561)863-6659 / (800)772-7932 Fax: (561)863-4294 NORTHEAST DIVISION 707 Commerce Dr., Concord, NC 28025 Phone: (704)788-3733 / (800)772-7932 Fax: (704)788-3843 www.atlassignindustries.us Proposed High Rise Pylon Sign3887 Chelsea Rd W, Monticello, MN This design / engineering is to remain Atlas Sign Industries exclusive property until approved and accepted thru purchase by client named on drawing. No part of design and or specifications may be duplicated without written authorization of Atlas Sign Industries. Date Path PM Drawn By Scale 70860 Camping World|MN|Monticello S. Hunt D. Rodgers As Shown 001 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Revision 4 Revision 5 Revision 6 S.O. No. Sheet No. Copyright 2017 03|02|2017 Monticello, M N ® ® SQUARE FOOTAGE: Proposed = 10.0' x 25.0' = 250 Total SF SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Manufacture new pylon cabinet as shown and described. 2. Manufacture new steel support structure as per engineering to support new pylon cabinet. 3. Dig new foundation as per engineering for new steel support structure. 4. Embed new steel structure in below grade concrete footer and allow recommended time for concrete to cure. 5. Install new pylon cabinet to steel support structure. 6. Connect to electrical primary provided by clients certified electrician. 7. Confirm proper illumination prior to departing site. DESCRIPTION: 1. Cabinet is double face extruded aluminum with retainer system. 2. Cabinet is internally illuminated with LED power strips. 3. Faces are flexible vinyl with digitally printed graphics. 4. Steel support structure will be as specified by engineering. 5. Steel structure will be embedded in below grade footer as per engineering. PYLON CABINET ELEVATIONS | 1/4" = 1'-0"70'-0" FULL VIEW | 1/8" = 1'-0" COLOR SCHEDULE: GE LED Power Strips White 3M Panagraphics III Vinyl Substrate Pantone 2945-C | As Per Art To Be Provided Gloss Black Enamel Paint 25'-0" 242" 99 3/8"10'-0" 09|09|16 DRBy 09|19|16 DRBy 0|0|16 AABy 0|0|16 0|0|16 0|0|16 AA AA AA By By By Approved by: Date: APPROVED AS SHOWN APPROVED AS NOTED CORRECT & RESUBMIT CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 1077 West Blue Heron Blvd., Riviera Beach, FLA 33404 Phone: (561)863-6659 / (800)772-7932 Fax: (561)863-4294 NORTHEAST DIVISION 707 Commerce Dr., Concord, NC 28025 Phone: (704)788-3733 / (800)772-7932 Fax: (704)788-3843 www.atlassignindustries.us Proposed Monument Faces3887 Chelsea Rd, Monticello, MN This design / engineering is to remain Atlas Sign Industries exclusive property until approved and accepted thru purchase by client named on drawing. No part of design and or specifications may be duplicated without written authorization of Atlas Sign Industries. Date Path PM Drawn By Scale 70860 Camping World|MN|Monticello S. Hunt C. Barbato As Shown 2 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Revision 4 Revision 5 Revision 6 S.O. No. Sheet No. Copyright 2017 3|3|2017 Monticello, M N PROPOSED FACE REPLACEMENTS | 3/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED COMPOSITE | NTSEXISTING CONDITIONS | NTS Manufacture and install replacement faces in existing monument sign as shown. NOTE: Verify all dimensions in field prior to production. SCOPE OF WORK: 7328 LD white acrylic with exterior surface applied vinyl graphics. DESCRIPTION: SQUARE FOOTAGE: Proposed = 4.0'H x 8.0'L = 32.0 SF COLOR SCHEDULE: 7328 White 3M 3630-167 Bright Blue Vinyl 1'-6"1'-2 3/4"3'-11 3/8" Cut Size (VIF)7'-11 3/8" Cut Size (VIF)3'-8" V.O. (VIF)7'-8"V.O. (VIF) REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW Camping World East Parking Lot Addition 3801 Chelsea Road Monticello, Minnesota Report No. 26-01211R Date: March 2, 2017 Prepared for: Kinghorn Company 21830 Industrial Court Rogers, MN 55374 www.amengtest.com CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS FORENSICS Page i March 2, 2017 Kinghorn Company 21830 Industrial Court Rogers, MN 55374 Attn: Mr. Kinghorn RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition 3801 Chelsea Road Monticello, Minnesota Report No. 26-01211R Dear Mr. Kinghorn: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our supplemental subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for the proposed parking lot addition at Camping World in Monticello, Minnesota. We are submitting one (1) electronic copy to you. Additional copies can be sent, if requested. Please contact us if you have questions about the report. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Garrett Deick, EIT Engineer in Training Phone: (612) 968-7181 gdeick@amengtest.com 550 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651-659-9001 Toll Free 800-972-6364 Fax 651-659-1379 www.amengtest.com AA/EEO This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc. CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS FORENSICS Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 1 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................................................ 2 4.1 Field Exploration Program .................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Laboratory Testing of Soils ................................................................................................... 2 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 2 5.1 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................................ 2 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology...................................................................................................... 2 5.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 3 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ 3 6.1 Pavements .............................................................................................................................. 3 6.2 Stormwater Infiltration Design .............................................................................................. 6 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 8 7.1 Excavation Backsloping ........................................................................................................ 8 7.2 Observation and Testing ........................................................................................................ 8 8.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 STANDARD SHEETS Bituminous Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Design APPENDIX A – Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 – Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Gradation Curves APPENDIX B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 1 of 9 1.0 INTRODUCTION Camping World is proposing a construction of an on-grade parking lot and infiltration pond to the north-east of their existing parking lot at 3801 Chelsea Road in Monticello, Minnesota. To assist in planning and design, American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) was authorized to conduct an additional subsurface exploration program at the site and perform a geotechnical engineering review for this project. This report presents the results of the above services and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The approved scope of services for the east parking lot addition and infiltration pond was presented in our February 13, 2017 proposal. Our scope of services for the east parking lot addition consisted of the following: • Drilling 4 flight auger borings sampled continuously: two to a depth of 5 feet each and two to a depth of 10 feet each. The 10-foot deep borings were sampled using a Geoprobe® for sample collection from the depth of 2 feet to 10 feet. • Performing geotechnical laboratory tests on selected soil samples. • Conducting an engineering analysis based on the obtained data, and preparing this geotechnical engineering report. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Previously AET performed a geotechnical investigation for the Camping World/Quality RV site for a proposed expansion of the parking lot to the southwest of the existing parking lot. The results of that investigation were presented in our Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, dated November 30, 2016. (AET Report No. 26-01211). We understand, in addition to the area previously planned for expansion of the bituminous paving, Camping World is proposing to expand the bituminous parking lot to the east. The area of proposed expansion is shown on the attached Figure 1. We further understand the area of the proposed parking lot addition will be used to store campers and RVs and will have a stormwater pond. The new parking lot is planned to be constructed with bituminous pavement and site Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 2 of 9 grades will remain similar to existing grades (moderate changes +/- 1 foot). We understand the majority of traffic using the parking lots will be automobiles and RVs with maximum weights of 25 tons. The information stated represents our current understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program Our subsurface exploration program consisted of four (4) flight auger / Geoprobe® borings, drilled on February 16, 2017. The logs of these borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 1. 4.2 Laboratory Testing of Soils During laboratory classification, several water content tests and sieve analysis tests were performed. The test results appear in the “WC” and “%-200” columns on the individual boring logs, opposite the samples on which they were performed. The sieve analysis test results are also shown graphically, on the Gradation Curves in Appendix A. 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Surface Conditions The borings performed on February 16, 2017 were conducted in a relatively flat field located on the north side of Chelsea Road, northeast of the existing Camping World Building and parking lot. 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology The site geology defined by our borings typically consists of about 2 feet of fill (or possible topsoil) overlying water deposited alluvial soils. Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 3 of 9 5.2.1 Fill Fill was found at the surface of each boring to about 2 feet. The fill consists of clayey sands and silty sands. The fill, especially in the upper 1 foot, also contains organics and roots. These soils are judged to be moderately slow to slow draining and moderately to highly frost susceptible. 5.2.2 Coarse Alluvium Water deposited coarse alluvial soils are the predominant soil type below the fill. The coarse alluvial soils consist of mostly sand with silt along with some silty sand. The soils classified as sand and sand with silt are fast draining and have low susceptibility to freeze-thaw movements. The soils classified as silty sand are judged to be moderately slow draining and moderately frost susceptible. 5.2.3 Mixed Alluvium Mixed alluvial soils exist below the fill in Boring 8. The mixed alluvial soils consist of mostly clayey sands. A small layer of clayey sand was encountered at a depth of 5 feet in Boring 8. The clayey sands are judged to be moderately slow to slow draining and moderately frost susceptible. 5.3 Groundwater Water levels did not develop within the boreholes, to the depths drilled. Because free draining sands exist at the bottoms of the borings, it is our judgment that the hydrostatic water level was not present within the depths explored by the borings. Trapped groundwater conditions may develop due to “perched” conditions that are a result of layered soil profiles or because the water becomes trapped above slow draining soils. Fluctuations of water levels can be expected on a seasonal and annual basis associated with precipitation patterns and amounts. 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Pavements 6.1.1 Discussion The near surface soils generally consist of silty or clayey sand. The soils have marginal drainage Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 4 of 9 properties and moderately high to high frost susceptibility. These conditions can result in accelerated subgrade and aggregate base weakening, which causes alligator cracking, frost distortion, and pop outs. Based on this, we are including the option of constructing the new pavement with a 12-inch thick sand subbase layer as the upper subgrade below the new aggregate base layer. 6.1.2 Subgrade Preparation To prepare the pavement subgrade, we recommend stripping the existing near surface soils containing organics. If a 12-inch sand subbase is not included in the pavement section, we further recommend excavation be performed to a depth of 12 inches below the future Class 5 aggregate base layer. The soils at this depth should be surface compacted and observed. Any soft/wet or unsuitable soils should be scarified, blended, and moisture conditioned. After moisture conditioning and blending, the subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 100% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D698) Fill placed below the Class 5 and the 12-inch thick sand subbase layer can consist of on-site non- organic sand, clayey sands, and silty sands. The fill should be free of rubble and debris. Frozen soils should not be placed as fill, and fill should not be placed over frozen soils. All fill should be placed and compacted per the requirements of MnDOT Specification 2105.3F1 (Specified Density Method). This specification requires soils placed within the upper 3 feet of the subgrade be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D698), at water contents of 65% to 102% of their respective optimum water content as determined by the Standard Proctor test. The compaction level can be reduced to 95% below the upper 3 feet of the subgrade. Refer to the standard sheet entitled “Bituminous Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Design” at the end of this report for further details. 6.1.3 Subgrade Stability and Test Roll Stability of the subgrade soils is critical and should be evaluated using the test roll procedure before the placement of the sand subbase and/or aggregate base layers. Before placing the sand subbase layer, we recommend the silty sand and clayey sand subgrade soils be test rolled using heavy rubber-tired equipment, such as a loaded tandem-axle dump truck in general accordance Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 5 of 9 with MnDOT Specification 2111 to evaluate the pavement subgrade stability. The test roll will help to delineate any unstable soils that will not be acceptable as pavement subgrade soils. These unstable soils should be removed and replaced; or they could be aerated, dried and recompacted back into place. The test roll should be observed by AET geotechnical personnel. 6.1.4 Sand Subbase Layer The sand subbase fill, placed as the upper 12 inches below the Class 5 aggregate base layer, should consist of Select Granular Borrow meeting MnDOT Specification 3149.2B2. On-site soils classified as sand or sand with silt would be suitable. All fill should be free of organics and debris. 6.1.5 Bituminous Pavement Designs Assuming the pavement subgrade is prepared as previously recommended, and consist of stable sands, silty sands, and clayey sands, it is our opinion that the pavements can be designed using an estimated R-value of 20. If the 12-inch sand subbase is placed, we estimate an R-value of 40. Based on this, we recommend the pavement designs shown in Table 6.1.5 below, for heavy-duty and light-duty traffic areas. Light-duty pavements refer to automobile parking stalls only. Heavy-duty pavements refer to drive lanes and truck and RV traffic areas. Table 6.1.5 Recommended Pavement Thickness Designs Sand Subbase Alternative With No Sand Subbase Pavement Course Light Duty (Automobile Traffic Only) Heavy Duty Areas Light Duty (Automobile Traffic Only) Heavy Duty Areas Bituminous Wear 3" (2 lifts) 4" (2 lifts) 3" (2 lifts) 4" (2 lifts) Class 5 Aggregate Base (Mn/DOT 3138), 100% crushed 5" 6" 8" 10" Select Granular Borrow (Mn/DOT 3149.2B2) 12" 12" No No Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 6 of 9 6.1.6 Pavement Maintenance Even if placed and compacted properly on stable subgrade conditions, bituminous pavements will still experience cracking in 1 to 3 years, primarily due to temperature-related expansion and shrinkage. We recommend that regularly scheduled maintenance be performed. 6.2 Stormwater Infiltration Design Based on our observations and sieve analysis (gradation only) testing of soil samples from the borings, the existing coarse alluvial soils are judged to have variable permeability and ability to infiltrate water. Silty sands and clayey sands will infiltrate at slower rates than the sands and sands with silt. The sieve analysis tests we performed on soil samples from Borings 7 and 8 show the percentage of particles passing various sieves (see Gradation Curves in Appendix A). According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Minnesota Stormwater Manual (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_infiltration_rates revised August 22, 2016), the recommended design infiltration rates, based on soil classification, will range from 0.06 inches per hour (in/hr) for the clayey sands to 0.8 inches per hour (in/hr) for sands. These infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and are not meant to exhibit the capacity of the soils in their natural state. These values also assume a minimum separation of 3 feet between the bottom of the infiltration practice and the seasonably high ground water table. MPCA recommends that infiltration practices not be used in existing fill soils (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_criteria_for_Infiltration_basin) due to the potentially variability in these materials. To provide information regarding the permeability and infiltration characteristics of the sampled soils, we have calculated the hydraulic conductivity values of selected soil samples, based on the results of the sieve analysis tests. These conductivity values were calculated using the Kozeny- Carman equation. Please note that we have not included any correction or safety factors to these estimated values, nor have we addressed infiltration reduction due to time and the formation of silt at the bottom of the treatment area. Table 6.2 below summarizes the estimated infiltration data. Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 7 of 9 Table 6.2 – Estimated Infiltration Properties Boring Depth (ft) USCS Classification MSM Design Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Kozeny-Carman Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity, k* (in/hr) B-7 4.5 - 6.5 SP 0.80 16.9 B-7 6.5 - 6.8 SM 0.45 1.6 B-8 5.0 - 5.5 SC 0.06 1.6 B-8 5.5 – 8.0 SP-SM 0.45 17.1 B-8 8.0 - 9.5 SP-SM 0.45 14.6 B-8 9.5-10.0 SM 0.45 6.4 *These estimates do not include correction or safety factors. Design rates are often based, in part or in whole, on the least permeable soil horizon within the first 4 to 5 feet below the bottom of the infiltration device. The clayey sand and silty sand fill located in the upper part of the soil stratum have much lower infiltration rates than the underlying sands and sands with silt. As shown in Table 6.2 above, the estimated hydraulic conductivity of the on-site clayey sands, silty sands, and sands may be much higher than the design values given in the MSM, based on the Kozeny-Carman equation. We recommend performing in-situ infiltration testing of the soils using the double-ring infiltrometer (DRI) method to obtain more accurate infiltration rates for the onsite soils. The testing should be performed at or just below the bottom elevations of the proposed infiltration structures/devices. This testing should be used to document that the infiltration rates used by the design engineer are comparable with the in-place soils. It should be noted that layers of slower infiltrating soils, such as lenses of lean clay and sandy lean clay found within the coarse alluvial sands, may be encountered depending on final grades. Different states, watershed districts, and local governing units may have different criteria for assigning design rates based on actual measured rates and/or soil types. Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Page 8 of 9 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Excavation Backsloping Where excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” (can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce side-slope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. The responsibility for excavation face maintenance in accordance with OSHA requirements should lie with the contractor, and we recommend the construction documents be prepared as such. 7.2 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at the boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observations by AET geotechnical personnel during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Sieve analysis tests should be performed on engineered fill placed in the parking lot subgrade to document that materials used meet the intended gradation specifications. Soil density and Proctor testing should be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, we endeavored to provide our services according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled “Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND DESIGN GENERAL Bituminous pavements are considered layered “flexible” systems. Dynamic wheel loads transmit high local stresses through the bituminous/base onto the subgrade. Because of this, the upper portion of the subgrade requires high strength/stability to reduce deflection and fatigue of the bituminous/base system. The wheel load intensity dissipates through the subgrade such that the high level of soil stability is usually not needed below about 2 feet to 4 feet (depending on the anticipated traffic and underlying soil conditions). This is the primary reason for specifying a higher level of compaction within the upper subgrade zone versus the lower portion. Moderate compaction is usually desired below the upper critical zone, primarily to avoid settlements/sags of the roadway. However, if the soils present below the upper 3 feet subgrade zone are unstable, attempts to properly compact the upper 3 feet zone to the 100% level may be difficult or not possible. Therefore, control of moisture just below the 3 feet level may be needed to provide a non-yielding base upon which to compact the upper subgrade soils. Long-term pavement performance is dependent on the soil subgrade drainage and frost characteristics. Poor to moderate draining soils tend to be susceptible to frost heave and subsequent weakening upon thaw. This condition can result in irregular frost movements and “pop-outs,” as well as an accelerated softening of the subgrade. Frost problems become more pronounced when the subgrade is layered with soils of varying permeability. In this situation, the free-draining soils provide a pathway and reservoir for water infiltration which exaggerates the movements. The placement of a well-drained sand subbase layer as the top of subgrade can minimize trapped water, smooth frost movements and significantly reduce subgrade softening. In wet, layered and/or poor drainage situations, the long-term performance gain should be significant. If a sand subbase is placed, we recommend it be a “Select Granular Borrow” which meets Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2B2. PREPARATION Subgrade preparation should include stripping surficial vegetation and organic soils; where the exposed soils are within the upper “critical” subgrade zone (generally 2 feet deep for “auto only” areas and 3 feet deep for “heavy duty” areas), they should be evaluated for stability. Excavation equipment may make such areas obvious due to deflection and rutting patterns. Final evaluation of soils within the critical subgrade zone should be done by test rolling with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck. Soils which rut or deflect 1" or more under the test roll should be corrected by either subcutting or replacement; or by scarification, drying, and recompaction. Reworked soils and new fill should be compacted per the “Specified Density Method” outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F1 (a minimum of 100% of Standard Proctor density in the upper 3 feet subgrade zone, and a minimum of 95% below this). Subgrade preparation scheduling can be an important consideration. Fall and Spring seasons usually have unfavorable weather for soil drying. Stabilizing non-sand subgrades during these seasons may be difficult, and attempts often result in compromising the pavement quality. Where construction scheduling requires subgrade preparation during these times, the use of a sand subbase becomes even more beneficial for constructability reasons. SUBGRADE DRAINAGE If a sand subbase layer is used, it should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent water build-up. This can be in the form of draintile lines which dispose into storm sewer systems, or outlets into ditches. Where sand subbase layers include sufficient sloping and water can migrate to lower areas, draintile lines can be limited to finger drains at the catch basins. Even if a sand layer is not placed, strategically placed draintile lines can aid in improving pavement performance. This would be most important in areas where adjacent non-paved areas slope towards the pavement. Perimeter edge drains can aid in intercepting water which may infiltrate below the pavement. 01REP016 (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 – Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Gradation Curves Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 26-01211R A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at were explored by drilling 2 flight auger borings, and 2 flight auger/Geoprobe® borings. The test locations appear on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SOIL BORING SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up (SU) Sample types described as “DS” or “SU” on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.2 Direct Push Samples (DP) Sample types described as “DP’ on the boring logs are continuous core samples collected by the direct push method. The method consists of a 2.125 OD outer casing with an inner 1.5 inch ID plastic tube driven continuously into the ground. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of “topsoil” layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 SOIL BORING CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS is described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USCS, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 26-01211R A.4 SOIL BORING WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under “Water Level Measurements” on the logs: • Date and Time of measurement • Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement • Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted in general accordance with ASTM:D2216. A.5.2 Sieve Analysis of Soils (thru #200 Sieve) Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-040, which is performed in general conformance with ASTM: D6913, Method A. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. BORING LOG NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definition Symbol Definition AR: Sample of material obtained from cuttings blown out the top of the borehole during air rotary procedure. B, H, N: Size of flush-joint casing CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches COT: Clean-out tube DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry DR: Driller (initials) DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights DP: Direct push drilling; a 2.125 inch OD outer casing with an inner 1½ inch ID plastic tube is driven continuously into the ground. FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches LG: Field logger (initials) MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the ground water level symbols N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in blows per foot (see notes) NQ: NQ wireline core barrel PQ: PQ wireline core barrel RDA: Rotary drilling with compressed air and roller or drag bit. RDF: Rotary drilling with drilling fluid and roller or drag bit REC: In split-spoon (see notes), direct push and thin-walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered. SS: Standard split-spoon sampler (steel; 1.5" is inside diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated otherwise SU Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole after “falling” through drilling fluid WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and hammer WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel ▼: Water level directly measured in boring : Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test DEN: Dry density, pcf DST: Direct shear test E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf HYD: Hydrometer analysis LL: Liquid Limit, % LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf OC: Organic Content, % PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; L - Laboratory PL: Plastic Limit, % q p : Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) q c : Static cone bearing pressure, tsf q u : Unconfined compressive strength, psf R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cms RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of total core run) SA: Sieve analysis TRX: Triaxial compression test VSR: Vane shear strength, remolded (field), psf VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight %-200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES (Calibrated Hammer Weight) The standard penetration test consists of driving a split-spoon sampler with a drop hammer (calibrated weight varies to provide N 60 values) and counting the number of blows applied in each of three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM: D1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1' below the slash. The length of sample recovered, as shown on the “REC” column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is because the N-value is recorded below the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM: D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18"). 01REP052C (7/11) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Notes ABased on the material passing the 3-in (75-mm) sieve. BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name. CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay (D 30 )2 ECu = D 60 /D10, Cc = D 10 x D 60 FIf soil contains >15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. HIf fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. JIf Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL-ML silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. NPl>4 and plots on or above “A” line. OPl<4 or plots below “A” line. PPl plots on or above “A” line. QPl plots below “A” line. RFiber Content description shown below. Group Symbol Group NameB Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels More than 50% coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels Less than 5% finesC Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3E GW Well graded gravelF Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E GP Poorly graded gravelF Gravels with Fines more than 12% fines C Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF.G.H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF.G.H Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3E SW Well-graded sandI Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3E SP Poorly-graded sandI Sands with Fines more than 12% fines D Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG.H.I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG.H.I Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve (see Plasticity Chart below) Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ CL Lean clayK.L.M PI<4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK.L.M organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75 Liquid limit – not dried OL Organic clayK.L.M.N Organic siltK.L.M.O Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK.L.M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltK.L.M organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75 Liquid limit – not dried OH Organic clayK.L.M.P Organic siltK.L.M.Q Highly organic soil Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic in odor PT PeatR 3 2 ½1 ¾4 10 20 40 60 140 200100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 81 Sieve NumberScreen Opening (in.) 50 10 5 1.0 0.10.5 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SIEVE ANALYSIS PERCENT PASSINGPERCENT RETAINEDD60 = 15mm D30 = 2.5mm D10 = 0.075mm Cu = = = 200D60 D10 15 0.075 Cc = = = 5.6(D30) D10 x D60 2.5 0.075 x 15 2 2 CL-ML For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils. Equation of "A"-lineHorizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5. then PI = 0.73 (LL-20) Equation of "U"-lineVertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7. then PI = 0.9 (LL-8)"A" LINE"U" LINECL OR OLCH OR OH10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 16 7 4PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Plasticity Chart ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION Grain Size Term Particle Size Boulders Over 12" Cobbles 3" to 12" Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve Gravel Percentages Term Percent A Little Gravel 3% - 14% With Gravel 15% - 29% Gravelly 30% - 50% Consistency of Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF Very Soft less than 2 Soft 2 - 4 Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15 Very Stiff 16 - 30 Hard Greater than 30 Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5 - 10 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50 Very Dense Greater than 50 Moisture/Frost Condition (MC Column) D (Dry): Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch. M (Moist): Damp, although free water not visible. Soil may still have a high water content (over “optimum”). W (Wet/ Free water visible intended to Waterbearing): describe non-plastic soils. Waterbearing usually relates to sands and sand with silt. F (Frozen): Soil frozen Layering Notes Laminations: Layers less than ½" thick of differing material or color. Lenses: Pockets or layers greater than ½" thick of differing material or color. Peat Description Fiber Content Term (Visual Estimate) Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% Hemic Peat: 33 – 67% Sapric Peat: Less than 33% Organic Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat and is judged to have sufficient organic fines content to influence the Liquid Limit properties. Slightly organic used for borderline cases. Root Inclusions With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity of roots to influence the soil properties. Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged to be in sufficient quantity to significantly affect soil properties. ML OR OL MH OR OH 01CLS021 (07/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. PROJECT Camping World Parking Lot Addition Monticello, MN AET NO. 26-01211R SUBJECT Soil Boring Locations DATE March 2, 2017 SCALE None PREPARED BY GAD CHECKED BY JB FIGURE 1 N 7 8 9 10 FILL, mostly clayey sand, slightly organic, a little silty sand, trace roots, dark brown, frozen FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, frozen to 14" SAND WITH SILT, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist (SP-SM) SAND, a little gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown, moist (SP) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist (SM) SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist (SP) END OF BORING 6 12 F F/M M M M M M FILL COARSE ALLUVIUM COARSE ALLUVIUM 5 26 DS DS DP DP DP DP DP DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATESAMPLEDDEPTH0-2' 2-10'None TK 4" FA DP DEPTH: TIME 2/16/17 WATERLEVEL LG:26R DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH 955.1 2/16/17 CAVE-INDEPTH WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DR: BORINGCOMPLETED: TK Rig: Surface Elevation 26-01211R Camping World; Monticello, MN SAMPLETYPE DEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN.GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS PLMCWCN 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET No: Project: 7 (p. 1 of 1) SUBSURFACE BORING LOG Log of Boring No.AET_CORP 26-01211 CAMPING WORLD.GPJ AET+CPT+WELL.GDT 3/2/17 FILL, mostly clayey sand, slightly organic, trace roots, dark brown, frozen FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, frozen to 14" CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, grayish brown (SC) SILTY SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist (SM) CLAYEY SAND, grayish brown (SC) SAND WITH SILT, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist (SP-SM) SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, grayish brown, moist (SM) END OF BORING 28 11 13 24 F F/M M M M M M FILL MIXED ALLUVIUM OR FILL COARSE ALLUVIUM MIXED ALLUVIUM COARSE ALLUVIUM 22 6 6 12 DS DS DP DP DP DP DP DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATESAMPLEDDEPTH0-2' 2-10'None TK 4" FA DP DEPTH: TIME 2/16/17 WATERLEVEL LG:26R DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH 955.1 2/16/17 CAVE-INDEPTH WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DR: BORINGCOMPLETED: TK Rig: Surface Elevation 26-01211R Camping World; Monticello, MN SAMPLETYPE DEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN.GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS PLMCWCN 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET No: Project: 8 (p. 1 of 1) SUBSURFACE BORING LOG Log of Boring No.AET_CORP 26-01211 CAMPING WORLD.GPJ AET+CPT+WELL.GDT 3/2/17 FILL, mostly clayey sand, slightly organic, trace roots, dark brown, frozen (SC) FILL, mostly clayey sand, brown, a little dark brown, frozen to 16" SILTY SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, grayish brown, moist, (SM) SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, grayish brown, moist (SP) END OF BORING F F/M M M FILL COARSE ALLUVIUM DS DS DS DS DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATESAMPLEDDEPTH0-5' None TK 4" FA DEPTH: TIME 2/16/17 WATERLEVEL LG:26R DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH 956.3 2/16/17 CAVE-INDEPTH WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DR: BORINGCOMPLETED: TK Rig: Surface Elevation 26-01211R Camping World; Monticello, MN SAMPLETYPE DEN 1 2 3 4 5 %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN.GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS PLMCWCN 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET No: Project: 9 (p. 1 of 1) SUBSURFACE BORING LOG Log of Boring No.AET_CORP 26-01211 CAMPING WORLD.GPJ AET+CPT+WELL.GDT 3/2/17 FILL, mostly clayey sand, slightly organic, trace roots, dark brown, frozen FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel and clayey sand, brown, frozen to 14" SILTY SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, brown, moist (SM) SAND WITH SILT, GRAVEL, fine to medium grained, brown, moist (SP-SM) END OF BORING F F/M M M FILL COARSE ALLUVIUM DS DS DS DS DRILLINGFLUID LEVELDATESAMPLEDDEPTH0-5' None TK 4" FA DEPTH: TIME 2/16/17 WATERLEVEL LG:26R DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH 956.4 2/16/17 CAVE-INDEPTH WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DR: BORINGCOMPLETED: TK Rig: Surface Elevation 26-01211R Camping World; Monticello, MN SAMPLETYPE DEN 1 2 3 4 5 %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN.GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS PLMCWCN 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET No: Project: 10 (p. 1 of 1) SUBSURFACE BORING LOG Log of Boring No.AET_CORP 26-01211 CAMPING WORLD.GPJ AET+CPT+WELL.GDT 3/2/17 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 D10 coarse 4 14081.5 6 200100 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Specimen Identification Specimen Identification MC% 3/4 30 medium LL PL PI Cc SILT OR CLAY GRADATION CURVES 1.2 %Sand %Silt %Clay 94.0 %Gravel SAND 40 fine D30 1 D60 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 20161410 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER 3.60.93 23 7 6.3' 6.3' 7 1/2 6 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T 3 SAND (SP) 3/8 9.50 0.67 0.341 Classification Cu D100 6 70504 GRAVEL fineCOBBLES coarse 0.1875 4.7 2/16/17 Camping World; Monticello, MNPROJECT AET JOB NO. DATE 26-01211 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 D10 coarse 4 14081.5 6 200100 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Specimen Identification Specimen Identification MC% 3/4 30 medium LL PL PI Cc SILT OR CLAY GRADATION CURVES 3.9 %Sand %Silt %Clay 70.0 %Gravel SAND 40 fine D30 1 D60 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 20161410 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER 23 7 6.7' 6.7' 7 1/2 12 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T 3 SILTY SAND (SM) 3/8 12.50 0.40 0.128 Classification Cu D100 6 70504 GRAVEL fineCOBBLES coarse 26.2 2/16/17 Camping World; Monticello, MNPROJECT AET JOB NO. DATE 26-01211 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 D10 coarse 4 14081.5 6 200100 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Specimen Identification Specimen Identification MC% 3/4 30 medium LL PL PI Cc SILT OR CLAY GRADATION CURVES 0.1 %Sand %Silt %Clay 77.4 %Gravel SAND 40 fine D30 1 D60 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 20161410 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER 23 8 5.2' 5.2' 8 1/2 28 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T 3 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 3/8 9.50 0.29 0.161 Classification Cu D100 6 70504 GRAVEL fineCOBBLES coarse 22.5 2/16/17 Camping World; Monticello, MNPROJECT AET JOB NO. DATE 26-01211 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 D10 coarse 4 14081.5 6 200100 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Specimen Identification Specimen Identification MC% 3/4 30 medium LL PL PI Cc SILT OR CLAY GRADATION CURVES 10.1 %Sand %Silt %Clay 83.5 %Gravel SAND 40 fine D30 1 D60 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 20161410 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER 5.60.96 23 8 7.3' 7.3' 8 1/2 11 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T 3 SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) 3/8 19.00 0.89 0.368 Classification Cu D100 6 70504 GRAVEL fineCOBBLES coarse 0.1590 6.4 2/16/17 Camping World; Monticello, MNPROJECT AET JOB NO. DATE 26-01211 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 D10 coarse 4 14081.5 6 200100 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Specimen Identification Specimen Identification MC% 3/4 30 medium LL PL PI Cc SILT OR CLAY GRADATION CURVES 3.9 %Sand %Silt %Clay 89.8 %Gravel SAND 40 fine D30 1 D60 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 20161410 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER 4.70.95 23 8 9.0' 9.0' 8 1/2 13 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T 3 SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) 3/8 9.50 0.71 0.320 Classification Cu D100 6 70504 GRAVEL fineCOBBLES coarse 0.1520 6.3 2/16/17 Camping World; Monticello, MNPROJECT AET JOB NO. DATE 26-01211 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 D10 coarse 4 14081.5 6 200100 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Specimen Identification Specimen Identification MC% 3/4 30 medium LL PL PI Cc SILT OR CLAY GRADATION CURVES 1.6 %Sand %Silt %Clay 86.1 %Gravel SAND 40 fine D30 1 D60 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 20161410 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER 6.61.69 23 8 9.5' 9.5' 8 1/2 24 P E R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T 3 SILTY SAND (SM) 3/8 9.50 0.40 0.201 Classification Cu D100 6 70504 GRAVEL fineCOBBLES coarse 12.3 2/16/17 Camping World; Monticello, MNPROJECT AET JOB NO. DATE 26-01211 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Revised Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Camping World East Parking Lot Addition; Monticello, MN AMERICAN March 2, 2017 ENGINEERING Report No. 26-01211R TESTING, INC. Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Appendix B Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 26-01211R Appendix B – Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. B.1 REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE1, of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. 1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 : www.asfe.org Appendix B Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 26-01211R Appendix B – Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. B.2.6 A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need to prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. B.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. October 2016 City of Monticello – Stormwater Site Plan Review A Stormwater Management Plan is required for: - Any land disturbing activity that may ultimately result in the addition of one acre or greater of impervious surfaces, including smaller individual sites that are part of a common plan of development that may be constructed at different times. - The construction of any new public or private road; or - Any land disturbance activity, regardless of size, that the City determines is likely to cause an adverse impact to an environmentally sensitive area or other property. Submittals Received Date Document Author 3-6-17 Stormwater Management Plan Hakanson Anderson 3-6-17 Plan Set Hakanson Anderson 3-2-17 Geotechnical Report American Engineering Testing, Inc. General Site Plan Yes No 1. Scale of Survey. Minimum scale 1” = 50’. Maximum size plan sheet 24” x 36” ☒ ☐ 2. Survey signed by a registered survey with elevations in NGVD-1929 datum for the following locations: Each lot corner ☒ ☐ Grade elevation at the foundation and elevation of top of foundation of structures on adjacent lots ☒ ☐ Grade elevation at the foundation, elevation of top of foundation and garage floor of proposed new construction ☒ ☐ Lowest point of entry (i.e. door sill or top of window well) of pro posed and existing construction ☒ ☐ Lowest floor of proposed and existing construction ☒ ☐ 3. Any proposed retaining wall must have a top and bottom elevation and bottom elevation would be finish grade. Also, no retaining wall is allowed to be built on private property ☒ ☐ 4. Retaining walls greater than 4.0 feet in height have been designed and certified by a licensed professional engineer and a building permit has been acquired ☒ ☐ 5. All drainage and utility easements are shown? ☐ ☒ Address: Between 3801 and 3936 Chelsea Road West Permit No: PID: Date Approved: Date Received: Signature: Site Size (acres): 5.33 Area of Disturbance(acres): 3.13 Existing Impervious (acres): 1.62 Proposed Impervious (acres): 3.45 (1.83 new impervious) October 2016 6. Easements are clear of any encroachments? ☐ ☒ 7. New curb cuts proposed? ☒ ☒ 8. If new curb cut is proposed, stamp all survey maps with the curb cut stamp. Also, write a note on the Residential Plan & Routing Approval form reminding the builder that a curb cut permit is required if the driveway is moved or a new driveway is added ☐ ☒ 9. Low floor a minimum of 4.25’ (feet) above the sanitary sewer invert elevation ☒ ☐ Comments: -Drainage and utility easements not shown on the plans. Erosion/Sediment Control Plan Yes No 1. SWPPP notes provided on the plan ☐ ☒ 2. Temporary stabilization measures provided ☐ ☒ 3. Erosion control blankets provided on all slopes greater than 3:1 ☐ ☒ 4. Perimeter Control i.e., Silt Fence, Filter Log, etc. ☐ ☒ 5. Phasing for sites that are ≥ 1 acre ☐ ☒ 6. CB Inlet Protection ☐ ☒ 7. Dewatering ☐ ☒ 8. Sediment control ☒ ☐ 9. Waste control ☐ ☒ 10. Concrete washout ☐ ☒ 11. Rock entrance ☒ ☐ 12. Street sweeping schedule ☐ ☒ 13. Permanent restoration plan ☐ ☒ 14. Erosion protection at all outlet pipes ☐ ☒ 15. SWPPP includes an erosion and sediment control inspection schedule and per son responsible for maintenance ☐ ☒ Comments: -SWPPP not provided. When submitted, include missing erosion and sediment control requirements as demonstrated above and follow the SWPPP checklist that the City provided for your use. Stormwater Management Plan Yes No 1. Delineation maps for existing and proposed conditions ☐ ☒ 2. Modeling calculations for existing and proposed conditions using Atlas 14 storm events with an MSE3 type distribution. 2 year 24 hr. (2.84”), 10 year 24 hr. (4.22”), 100 (6.87”), 10-day snowmelt (7.2”) ☐ ☒ Modeled direct connected impervious separate ☒ ☐ 3. Off-site drainage included ☒ ☐ 4. Wetlands shown on plans and wetland permitting completed ☒ ☐ 5. Pretreatment ☐ ☒ 6. Skimmer structures provided on the outlets of all ponds. ☐ ☒ 7. Soil borings ☒ ☐ 8. Design Infiltration Rate Determination – Geotechnical Report or Infiltration Testing provided ☒ ☐ 9. Seasonal High Water Elevation ☐ ☒ 10. Open channel flow calculations ☐ ☒ October 2016 11. Storm sewer calculations – 10 year event ☐ ☒ 12. Narrative describing the following: a. Existing Conditions: Existing conditions consist of open fields, an existing parking lot, and two existing buildings. Drainage flows to the north part of the lot. b. Proposed Conditions: Proposed conditions include the addition of a large parking lot and infiltration basin. The outlet for the basin will connect into the existing storm sewer system to the south. c. Stormwater Management for Proposed Site: Stormwater management includes the addition of an infiltration basin to meet volume reduction requirements. A downstream regional pond provides rate control and water quality for the site. Pretreatment is not currently being proposed prior to the infiltration basin and must be included. Comments: -Delineation map should be provided for existing conditions. -The HydroCAD model should include existing conditions, 10-day snowmelt event, and modeled using the MSE3 type distribution. -The downstream rate control pond was designed for this site to have a composite curve number of 87. The submitted HydroCAD model shows a value of 90 for a portion of the site only. A composite curve number should be calculated for the entire proposed site. This must be revised to meet the approved conditions of the downstream pond. -Pretreatment was not provided for drainage prior to the infiltration basin. Water Quality and Volume Reduction “The City of Monticello has adopted MPCA Minimal Impact Design Standards in Chapter 4 of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10. MIDs Infiltration design criteria as described in the MPCA Stormwater Manual shall be followed for the proposed project.” Yes No 1. Volume control provided as per the City’s Engineering Design Standards and MIDS (1.1” over new impervious surface) ☒ ☐ 2. Impervious area equal to or greater than the net increase in impervious surface is routed through infiltration BMP ☒ ☐ 3. Sequencing provided for alternatives where infiltration is infeasible ☐ ☒ 4. Required Volume Reduction: 7323 cu. Ft. 5. Provided Volume Reduction: 7563 cu. Ft. 6. Separation to groundwater and/or bedrock is a minimum of 3 feet from bottom of infiltration BMP ☒ ☐ 7. Drawdown time for infiltration BMP is within 48 hours ☒ ☐ 8. Proposed ponds meet or exceed NURP design criteria ☒ ☐ 9. If infiltration of 1.1” is not feasible, water quality goals are met with NURP pond on site? ☒ ☐ Comments: -Volume reduction and water quality standards are met with the proposed infiltration basin. Rate Control Yes No 1. Peak Proposed Discharge Rates < Existing ☐ ☒ 2. Existing infrastructure can accommodate peak discharge rates for 10 year storm? ☒ ☐ 3. Existing infrastructure and EOF for proposed 100 year peak discharge rate? ☐ ☒ October 2016 4. Proposed flow patterns do not create flooding impacts for structures adjacent to the property? ☒ ☐ Comments: -Existing discharge rates were not provided. -A defined EOF for the pond and any low lying areas on site must be clearly labeled with spot elevations and flow arrows. This needs to be added to the plans. Freeboard Yes No 1. Building Opening: 2’ above the critical 100-yr HWL of local basins, wetlands, & infiltration basins ☒ ☐ 2’ above EOF of local basins, wetlands, & infiltration basins ☐ ☒ 2’ above the 100-yr flow elevation of a swale or channel at the point where the swale channel is closest to the building ☐ ☐ 2. Low Floor Elevation: 2’ above the critical 100-yr HWL of major basins ☒ ☐ 2’ above EOF of major basins ☐ ☐ For landlocked basins: 2’ above the HWL from back to back 100-yr rainfalls or 2’ above the HWL from the 100-yr 10-day snowmelt, whichever is higher. Starting elevation of the basin/waterbody prior to runoff is one of the following: o Existing Ordinary High Water level established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ☐ ☐ o Annual water balance calculation approved by the City ☐ ☐ o Local observation well records, as approved by the City ☐ ☐ o Mottled soil ☐ ☐ Planning Commission Agenda: 04/04/17 1 3A. Community Development Director’s Report. 1. Planning Commission Recommendations The City Council took the following action at its meeting of March 14th as related to items on the February agenda of the Planning Commission: Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Pre-K – 12 Educational Use in an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District City Council approved the amendment to conditional use permit unanimously as part of the consent agenda. 2. Downtown Small Area Study Update The City’s project consultants, the Cuningham Group and Tangible Consulting, are working through conceptual land use scenarios for the downtown small area which focus on the following goals: 1. Shift the center of downtown to Broadway & Walnut (away from where it appears to be today at Pine and 75) 2. Engage the river; connect downtown and community to the resource 3. Improve the Pine Street experience 4. Focus on lots of small and some medium projects and investments within the downtown The Steering Committee had the chance to evaluate various broad-brush land use concepts and provide feedback. The community open house will be held Thursday, March 30th and will include a review of the goals that have come out of the work to-date (above), community and Steering Committee feedback, narrowing in on a selected concept, and next steps. Again, this is primarily a land use study and the transportation analysis completed with the Embracing Downtown plan is and will be used as a reference to inform the land use concept. 1 Jacob Thunander From:Jacob Thunander Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:55 AM To:Jacob Thunander Subject:FW: Don't Miss A Special 3-Part Land Use Training Series! From: GTS Educational Events [mailto:events@mngts.org] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:04 PM To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us> Subject: Don't Miss A Special 3-Part Land Use Training Series! Register today! Having trouble viewing this email? Click here GTS EDUCATIONAL EVENTS PRESENTS 2017 Land Use Training & Education Program DON'T MISS THIS SPECIAL THREE-PART TRAINING SERIES Register today! Tuesday, April 18, 2:30- 5:30p.m. A Practical Guide to Variances in the Lower St. Croix Riverway Tuesday, April 25, 3-6:30p.m. Basics of Planning & Zoning 2 Join us for a special 3-part Land Use training series, sponsored by the St. Croix River Association. Register in advance to save! All sessions will take place at: Brines Bar & Restaurant 219 Main St. S, 3rd Floor, Stillwater, MN 55082 Cost of attendance: $65/session, or $75 at the door Snacks will be provided at each session. Tuesday, May 2, 3-6:30p.m. Beyond the Basics of Planning & Zoning: Variances & More! REGISTER HERE! Forward this email Copyright © 2017. All Rights Reserved. GTS Educational Events, 1380 Energy Lane, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55108 SafeUnsubscribe™ angela.schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by events@mngts.org in collaboration with Try it free today