Loading...
2016-11-08 PC Agenda Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA 2. MINUTES September 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting (pages 1-4) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Public Hearing to Consider a Zoning Text Amendment Repealing Section 1000.4.B.5, Design Standards/Covenants and Amending Section 1000.4.H to Add Review Criteria to the Conditional Use Standards for Oversized Accessory Buildings (pages 5-14) 4. OTHER BUSINESS a. Accorde Orthodontists – Site and Building Plan Review (pages 15-27) 5. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 ALBERTVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 DRAFT MINUTES ALBERTVILLE CITY HALL 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA Chair Klecker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Becker conducted roll call. Present: Chair Klecker and Commissioners Dominick, Barthel, Brempell, Wegner and Council Liaison Hudson. Absent: Commissioners Edgren. Others Present: City Planner Alan Brixius, and Building Permit Technician Maeghan Becker, David Pattberg with Centra Homes, Jeff Hampton, Tom Dwinnell, and Kathleen Strehlow. Motioned by Barthel, seconded by Brempell, to approve the agenda as presented. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Barthel, Brempell, Wegner, and Hudson. Nays: None. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. 2. MINUTES Motioned by Brempell, seconded by Klecker, to approve the August 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Barthel, Brempell, Wegner, and Hudson. Nays: None. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Centra Homes LLC to amend Karston Cove CUP/PUD, and Consider Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat entitled Karston Cove 4th Addition Brixius presented to the commissioners that Centra North LLC (the parent company of Centra Homes) has submitted an application for an amended CUP/PUD, a preliminary plat, and final plat for property located along the south side of 64th Street NE. The proposed plat includes the removal of 29 townhome lots from the Karston Cove 3rd Addition and re-platting the site into one outlot. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 Regular Meeting of September 13, 2016 This Plat was originally approved in 2004, with a CUP/PUD and included the 14 lots to the North. The site is zoned R-5, Medium Density Multi Family, and allows townhomes of this nature. When the recession hit in 2008, the property went back to the bank and has been purchased by Centra Homes LLC. They are not inclined to build the attached townhomes that were approved with the original approval. They are asking for a return on their security on the property, which is due this November, 2016. The applicants’ intent is to vacate the current plat, obtain their security, and eventually develop this area with a more desirable product within the residential market. With the proposed 4th Addition, the 14 lots to the north would be re-platted as an outlot. If it goes to an outlot, it is treated as vacant land, and per code, we will not issue a building permit to an outlot. Any future development will have to come through the subdivision process to create lots for a building permit. Brixius brought up the issue of the size of the association once the original developer left the scene. If we approve this outlot, there will need to be a new development contract recorded with the property, and we want to leave the option for the City to require any future development on Outlot A to be members of this association. This would help with association costs being spread over more property owners. Other key issues are drainage and utility easements, curb cut access and sidewalk. The applicants are not proposing any changes to the zoning map as part of the current request. Albertville is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The city retains the option to require the future development on the outlot on the south side of 64th Street NE to join with the existing neighborhood association on the north side through a revised PUD development agreement. 2. The City vacates the easements over Karston Cove 3rd Addition provided the 4th Addition final plat is revised to dedicate the original 1st Addition easements over the wetlands, ponds, and drainage ways. Said easements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to recording the final plat. 3. The applicants enter into a development contract with the city that includes the aforementioned conditions of approval. Hudson asked for the rational on why we want the future development to join the existing homeowners association, what is the Cities interest in having the development join the association. Brixius explained that if the associations are good and healthy (financially stable), than they do not come and ask the City for expenses that they cannot afford. Dominick expressed concerns about new residents coming into the association. He mentioned that the old part of the association is going on 7 years of wear and tear and most of the money from the new homeowners is being spent on the upkeep of older parts of the association. Brixius explained that since there has been a decline in attached townhomes, there may be a different product that goes into this development, but by taking it to an outlot gives this a blank slate and leaves options open. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 Regular Meeting of September 13, 2016 Motioned by Barthel, seconded by Dominick, to open the Public Hearing. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Barthel, Brempell, Wegner, and Hudson. Nays: None. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. Jeff Hampton presented major concerns about this addition being approved. They are struggling with having only 14 units currently in their association. With the association being minimal, the association fees per unit are higher which the members have a hard time affording. Originally, the development was supposed to have 43 units, and they only have 14 units. They are having a very difficult time staffing the association. There are also issues that may arise with the ponds/wetlands that are on the north and west of the current development. The association is responsible for maintaining this area. After research conducted by the association, the general maintenance of these ponds can become quite expensive. The association is concerned that if the plat is vacated, and a new development were to go up and not be included in their association but drain into their retention ponds, the costs would become unbearable. The association believes that vacating the plat would not be in the best interest of the association or the City due to future risks of only having 14 units in the development and operating costs than need to be higher with so few units. If the plat is to be vacated, the association would like the improvements listed in the PUD to be done now rather than later. They would also like that any new approved development plan that is not to be included in the association would require the builder construct a new retention pond area for their run off somewhere on their building site. Barthel and Brixius commented that they believe it is possible for the association to combine with another association to help financially and with the issues of people being on the board. Brixius expressed that there is a deadline on the development contract that we need to make a decision on with the escrow. Hudson wanted the homeowners association to clarify where they stand on the application being presented. They informed that they oppose, unless there is a way to tie the two developments together into being one association. Hudson asked what would be ideal for the association. Jeffrey responded that they would like to see what plans Centra Homes has for the area. Dominick is wondering the worth of the townhomes, the taxes and the HOA monthly fee. Jeffrey responded with $170K, taxes are between $1500-$1600, and the HOA fee is $209 currently and going to raise it to $225 per month just for regular maintenance and upkeep during the seasons. Dominick asked if there was anything submitted by Centra Homes to date and Brixius explained that there were none. David Pattberg with Centra Homes presented his view points. He gave a small history of the lot on what had happened with the developer that went bankrupt. Centra Homes has owned the land since 2011. Dominick asked David with Centra Homes if there has been any plans yet to build or what they plan on doing with this property. David responded that the original building plans are not going to work anymore due to attached townhomes becoming less popular. He believes that the market here is not quite ready and strong enough for something that is more creative than single family. That is why they do not have plans to date with anything. They are still waiting for Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 Regular Meeting of September 13, 2016 the market to return, and that is when they will begin to submit plans. They want to vacate what is here to buy some more time. Motioned by Barthel, seconded by Dominick, to close the Public Hearing. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Barthel, Brempell, Wegner, and Hudson. Nays: None. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. Dominick believes that we should leave this as is for now and wait for Centra Homes to come back with a plan and to show us what they are planning. Barthel motioned to approve staff recommendation, no second. Motioned by Dominick, seconded by Wegner, to continue the item until an additional concept is submitted from the developer. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Brempell, Wegner and Hudson. Nays: Barthel. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. None. 5. ADJOURNMENT Motioned by Dominick, seconded by Barthel, to adjourn the meeting at 8:07p.m. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Brempell, Wegner, and Hudson. Nays: None. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Maeghan M. Becker, Building Permit Technician NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Adam Nafstad FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: November 3, 2016 RE: Albertville – Accessory Buildings / Deed Covenants FILE NO: 163.05 – 16.18 Section 1000.4, Accessory Buildings and Equipment, Provision B.5 reads as follows: “5. Design Standards/Covenants: These accessory building performance standards are applicable for all single-family lots in the city, provided, however that these standards shall not be permitted where these design standards will supersede design standards or covenants that have been established as part of an approved residential planned unit development. Property owners shall demonstrate compliance with approved covenants/design standards with the submission of a building permit for an accessory building.” This provision is unique to Albertville in that most communities do not enforce deed restrictions or covenants. This provision was adopted in response to controlling accessory buildings in planned unit developments where neighborhood restrictions of the number and size of accessory buildings were integral to the plat design and appearance (i.e., Cedar Creek along the golf course, Towne Lakes, etc.). In the past, the City was receiving outbuilding requests that were contrary to the established architectural restrictions, putting the homeowners association or individual property owners at odds with the City. The homeowners association or property owner would seek enforcement through civil legal means. In 2015, we had a request from the property owner at 4924 Kassel to construct a second outbuilding. This lot is within the Albert Villas 6th Addition which has covenants that limit lots to one outbuilding that may not exceed 120 square feet in area. The property lot is 27,321 square feet in area and abuts Swamp Lake. While the proposed building may have met City zoning standards, the building was prohibited based on Section 1000.4.B.5 above. 6 A second request this June was for a second garage for property located at 10141 49th Street NE. This lot is in Albert Villas 4th Addition. Review of this subdivision reveals that the developer of the 4th Addition did not place the same building restrictions on the 4th Addition as they did in the 6th Addition. This lot is 1.99 acres in size and is eligible for an oversized second accessory building by administrative permit. This issue was taken to the City Council for direction on September 13, 2016. The City Council indicated that they did not want to enforce deed covenants, but felt some protections should be in place to protect the golf course from oversized accessory buildings. Additionally, subdivisions approved by PUD for flexibility to reduce lot sizes, lot widths, or setbacks may not have the lot area to support a second oversized accessory building. To address both concerns, staff is suggesting the attached Zoning Ordinance amendment. Section 1 repeals Section 1000.4.B.5 in its entirety. Section 2 beefs up the criteria for considering conditional use permits for oversized accessory buildings. Currently, property owners need a conditional use permit for buildings larger than the size restriction in Section 1004. The additional conditional use permit criteria attempts to establish standards that protect single family neighborhoods. c: Kim Olson Maeghan Becker Paul Heins Mike Couri 7 8 9 10 11 Homeowner’s Association Research Association Review Process Notes Towne Lakes 1st (appears to cover all Towne Lake subdivisions) Master ARC Reviews all buildings, restrictions on outbuildings Hunters Pass Design Guidelines – Design Review Committee Reviews all buildings, restrictions on outbuildings Cedar Creek 1st Addition Architecture Control Committee. (Not active)* Allows accessory buildings on lots, but not on lots abutting the golf course Parkside 3rd Addition No Covenants Parkside 1st Addition Architectural Representative approval Reviews all buildings Center Oaks (all Additions) Needs architecture approval (Not Active)* Allows accessory buildings on lots not on golf course Albert Villas 1st Addition None No restrictions on accessory buildings Albert Villas 2nd Addition Must match principal structure One accessory structure up to 120 sq. ft. Albert Villas 3rd Addition Must match principal structure One accessory structure up to 120 sq. ft. Albert Villas 4th Addition No Covenants Albert Villas 6th Addition Must match principal structure One accessory structure up to 120 sq. ft. * We have been told that neither Cedar Creek nor Center Oaks have an active Architectural Review Committee. ** We have reviewed the Development contracts and Planned Unit Development approval resolutions of Cedar Creek, Towne Lakes, Hunters Pass and Albert Villas. While their approvals required review of the Homeowners Association documents by the City Attorney, the covenants/ architectural standards were not adopted as City enforced zoning standards. EXHIBIT F12 13 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2016 – _____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE APPENDIX A, ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 1000.4 RELATING TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT IN THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1000.4, Accessory Buildings, Structures and Equipment, Provision B.5, Design Standards/Covenants is repealed in its entirety as follows: 5. Design Standards/Covenants: These accessory building performance standards are applicable for all single-family lots in the city, provided, however that these standards shall not be permitted where these design standards will supersede design standards or covenants that have been established as part of an approved residential planned unit development. Property owners shall demonstrate compliance with approved covenants/design standards with the submission of a building permit for an accessory building. SECTION 2. Section 1000.4.H, Conditional Use Permits, is hereby amended as follows: H. Conditional Use Permits: Application for a conditional use permit under this section shall be regulated by chapter 400 of this ordinance. Such a conditional use permit may be granted; provided the following are met: 1. There is a demonstrated need and potential for a continued use of the structure and the purpose stated. 2. The building has an evident reuse or function related to the principal use. 3. Accessory building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent residential uses and does not present a hazard to public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. For conditional uses for accessory buildings exceeding one thousand (1,000) square feet in floor area in the R-1A, R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 Zoning Districts, the accessory building shall not exceed the area footprint of the principal building or ten (10) percent of the minimum lot area of the respective zoning district. 5. For conditional uses for a second accessory building exceeding one hundred fifty (150) square feet in floor area in the R-1A, R-2, R-2, R-3, or R-4 Zoning Districts, the City of Albertville Ordinance No. _________ Planning Commission Page _____ 14 accessory building shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard and/or the cumulative floor area of all accessory buildings on the lot and shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the minimum lot area standard of the respective district. 6. For conditional uses exceeding the maximum accumulative floor area of one thousand one hundred fifty (1,150) square feet for accessory buildings in the R1A, R-2, R-3, or R-4 Zoning Districts, the accumulative accessory floor area shall be capped at ten (10) percent of the minimum lot area requirement of the respective district. 7. For conditional uses for accessory buildings that exceed the size requirements of Section 1000.4 of this Ordinance shall not be granted if the lot meets the following conditions: a. The lot shares a rear or side lot line with Cedar Creek Golf Course. b. The lot is part of a subdivision approved as a planned unit development and granted flexibility for a reduced lot size. c. Any substandard residential lot that falls below the minimum lot area standard of its respective zoning district. 8. Any accessory buildings must meet the required accessory building setbacks. 94. The provisions of Section 400.2.F of this Ordinance shall be considered and a determination made that the proposed activities are in compliance with such criteria. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION. Approved by the Albertville City Council this _________ day of _________________ 2016. ___________________________________ Jillian Hendrickson, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kimberly A. Olson, City Clerk NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com 15 PLANNING REPORT TO: Adam Nafstad FROM: Alan Brixius / Ryan Grittman DATE: November 3, 2016 RE: Albertville - Accorde Orthodontists – Site and Building Plan Review FILE NO: 163.06 – 16.07 BACKGROUND Accorde Orthodontist has submitted an application for a building and site plan review for property located at 10963 Jason Avenue NE. The proposed site plan is for a standalone orthodontist office building. The parcel is part of the larger Albertville St. Michael Medical Clinic campus, which created the subject property as part of a CUP/PUD approved in 2006. The construction of the clinic is consistent with the approved 2006 PUD concept plan. The site is zoned B-2, Limited Business. Under the B-2 Zoning District, clinical office businesses are an allowed use. The site is currently a vacant lot with approximately 1.03 usable acres. The site is accessed from a private drive shared with the Albertville St. Michael Clinic. The site will utilize existing parking with the clinic to the east, while expanding the parking around the proposed building. The site is adjacent to R-1A zoning to the west, B-2 zoning to the north and east, and A- 1 zoning to the south. The applicant seeks to build a 4,370 square foot orthodontist clinic on the site. By code, a project of this scale requires a building and site plan review. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Site Location/Existing Conditions Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Landscape Plan Exhibit D: Grading Plan Exhibit E: Utility Plan Exhibit F: Floor Plan Exhibit G: Building Elevations Exhibit H: Lighting Plan 16 ISSUES ANALYSIS Zoning. The subject site is zoned B-2, Limited Business. Within the B-2 District, clinical offices are an allowed use. The proposed orthodontist office is an allowed use within the B-2 Zoning District. Setbacks. The following table illustrates that the proposed building will meet the required setbacks: Required Proposed Compliant Front Yard (south) 35 feet 38 feet (approx.) Yes Side Yard (east) 10 feet 19 feet (approx.) Yes Side Yard (west - from property line) 10 feet 120 feet (approx.) Yes Side Yard (west - from private road) 10 feet 85 feet (approx.) Yes Rear Yard (north) 20 feet 84 feet (approx.) Yes Lot Area, Width, and Depth. The subject site is approximately 1.03 acres in area and has a lot width of approximately 264 feet. This exceeds the standards for the B-2 District. Easements. The site plan shows a private easement on the west side of the property that serves the private drive. In addition, the site shows drainage and utility easements around the remainder of the parcel. The easements are an existing condition and appear compliant with the City’s requirements. Maximum Site Coverage. Within the B-2 District, the total impervious surface is limited to 80%. The total lot area is 1.03 acres. The proposed building footprint is 4,370 square feet. The site shows a parking lot and private drive that covers approximately 17,088 square feet. The site coverage will be well below the 80% limit. Maximum Building Height. The maximum building height in the B-2 District is 35 feet. The submitted plans show a building height of less than 35 feet. Building Type and Design. The applicant’s submitted plans shows the design of the building and building materials. The building will be finished with EFIS, concrete masonry units, and asphalt shingles. These materials are compliant with the City’s code. The building elevations show an attractive building. Site Lighting. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan. The light plan shows three existing street light fixtures along the private drive. In addition, the applicant is proposing four additional fixtures to service the parking lot area. The applicant shall submit cut sheets that show the light fixtures are a 90-degree cut-off. In addition, the plan shows that there is no lighting proposed to be attached to the building. The applicant shall clarify that this is correct. 17 Trash Enclosure. The site plan does not show an outdoor trash enclosure. Based on review of the site plan and building plan, it appears that the trash enclosure will be stored indoors at the southwest corner of the building. This area has limited maneuvering for trucks. The applicant shall illustrate how garbage trucks will access, service, and egress the site. Loading Berths. By code, a building under 10,000 square feet is required to have one loading berth. The building plan shows one overhead door on the west side of the building. Based on the proposed clinic use, no additional large truck loading areas will be required. The applicant must describe how site deliveries will be handled. Parking. By code, a medical facility is required to have one parking stall per 200 square feet of building square feet, plus three spaces. The site plan shows 3,933 square feet of building space. Therefore, 23 parking spaces are required for this project. The site plan shows 26 parking stalls as well as two disability parking stalls, which is appropriate for a project of this size. The parking lot design is properly dimensioned with 9 foot by 20 foot parking stalls and drive aisles 24 feet wide. The proposal meets the requirements of the City’s code. The parking lot will be paved and have concrete perimeter curbing. By code, the curb setback for the side yard is five feet. The curb cut is at least eight feet from each property line. The area to the east of the proposed building is currently open space with deferred parking for the existing medical building. To better serve the parking lot in the future, staff recommends that a curb cut be added to the eastern side of the parking lot to connect to future parking. Curb Cut Access. The applicant is proposing one curb cut. The curb cut is 24 feet in width and is connected to a private drive. The curb cut meets the City’s requirements. Landscaping. The City Ordinance requires a landscape plan for all commercial properties. The plan shows some existing shade trees and sod that will remain on the west side of the property. These trees were part of the original landscaping plan that was approved in 2006. The proposed landscape plan for the clinic is generally adequate except for the following items: 1. The landscaping along the west side of the parking lot consists of Chinese Silver Grass. The City requires the screening of parking lots from residential properties. The grasses will not provide year round screening. These grasses must be replaced with shrubs. 2. The landscape plan proposes that the south and east sides of the site will be seeded with native grasses and wildflowers. The introduction of this ground cover is out of character with the original 2006 landscape plan and the more manicured lawns around the medical clinic and the west side of the site. Staff is 18 recommending that the site ground cover consist of sod and the site be maintained in a manicured manner consistent with the adjoining sites. In addition, staff seeks clarity from the applicant if an irrigation system is intended for this site. Grading and Drainage Plan. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan that directs hard surface stormwater to the west central area of the site. This is subject to further review by the City Engineer. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant has also submitted a SWPPP. The plan is subject to review by the City Engineer. Utility Connections. The utility connections are all located along the private drive to the north. The building will connect to the utilities toward the north side of the building. This is subject to further review by the City Engineer. Fire Connection. The site plan shows an existing fire hydrant along Jason Avenue NE, and the private drive along the north side of the property. The proposed access also indicates that a large truck can access the parking lot. The site plan also shows a fire sprinkler connection on the north side of the building indicating that the building will be fire sprinkled. Snow Storage. The applicant’s site plan shows a snow storage area to the south and east of the proposed parking. The snow storage plan does not use any required parking stalls and does not interfere with the landscaping plan. The snow storage plan appears to meet the City’s requirements. Signs. The Albertville Zoning Ordinance limits wall signs within the B-2 District to two wall signs per public street frontage. Additional signs may be allowed with the approval of a comprehensive sign plan. The applicant has requested a comprehensive sign plan for this site to allow a third sign on the east building wall. In review of the proposed sign plan, we offer the following comments: 1. The total wall sign area shall not exceed 15% of the building wall fronting on a public street. The building’s south wall fronts Jason Avenue. This wall has a wall façade of 1,356 square feet, allowing a maximum total wall sign area of 203 square feet. The accumulative area of all the wall signs is 189 square feet (north wall 52 square feet; south wall 52 square feet; and east wall 85 square feet). This falls within the B-2 District standard. 2. No wall sign shall exceed 15% of the wall on which it is placed. The east side of the building has the smallest wall façade (896 square feet) and largest sign (85 square feet). The sign covers only 9.4% of the wall. 19 3. The freestanding signs shall be limited to one freestanding monument at the southwest corner of the lot not to exceed 53 square feet in sign area or four feet in height. The comprehensive sign plan does not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the building; it does allow for the extra wall sign. With limited freestanding sign allotment, staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan for Accorde Orthodontists allowing the third wall sign. RECOMMENDATION Based on our review of the plan set submitted by Accorde Orthodontists dated October 11, 2016, we recommend approval of site and building and comprehensive sign plans with the following conditions: 1. The applicant describe truck turn movements for garbage collection and provide a description of type of deliveries received by the clinic with regard to truck type, size and frequency. 2. The landscape plan be revised to address the following: a. Replace grasses with shrubs along the west side of the parking lot to screen the cars and headlights. b. Replace native grass with sod to maintain continuity with the existing medical clinic site. 3. Subject to City Engineer comments related to grading, drainage, SWPPP Plan, and utilities. 4. The applicant provide cut sheets illustrating all exterior light fixtures, both freestanding and wall mounted. All fixtures shall provide a 90 degree cut off with a shielded light source. Parking lot light fixtures must match the existing clinic fixtures. 5. Approval of the comprehensive sign plan to allow three wall signs per the building elevations. The applicant shall be required to obtain a sign permit at time of installation. c: Kim Olson Maeghan Becker Paul Heins Mike Couri DH2 Properties LLC, 6220 109th Avenue N, Champlin, MN 55316 Karkela Construction Inc., 4806 Park Glen Road, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 EXHIBIT A20 EXHIBIT B21 EXHIBIT C22 EXHIBIT D23 EXHIBIT E24 EXHIBIT F25 EXHIBIT G26 EXHIBIT H27