Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
07-2007 Special Meeting Packet
��/ C , C I T Y O F E D I N A S a n i t a r y S e w e r 2 0 3 0 S y s t e m M a p D R A F T F i g u r e 1 E x i s t i n g M C E S L i f t S t a t i o n P r o p o s e d L i f t S t a t i o n O M e t C o u n c i l M e t e r i n g S t a t i o n " N o d e " M a n h o l e / " , , E x i s t i n g M C E S I n t e r c e p t o r " / E x i s t i n g L a t e r a l P i p e s " / E x i s t i n g T r u n k S e w e r " / P r o p o s e d T r u n k S e w e r ^ / P r o p o s e d F o r c e M a i n �% F l o w D i r e c t i o n A r r o w a C i t y B o u n d a r y S e w e r D i s t r i c t s 3 , 0 0 0 A 0 3 , 0 0 0 F e e t A u g u s t 2 0 0 7 B o n e s t r o o i s \ 1 9 0 \ 1 9 0 0 7 0 1 4 \ C a d \ G i s \ p r o j e c t s \ S e w e r M a p . m x d MEDINA - COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Executive Summary BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (amended 1995) requires local governments to prepare comprehensive plans and submit them to the Metropolitan Coundl to detemine their consistency with metropolitan system plans. The local Comprehensive Plan is to indude a sanitary sewer element covering the collection and disposal of wastewater generated by the community. Similarly, the Metropolitan Sewer Act requires local governments to submit a Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP) which describes the current and future service needs required from MCES. This section of the Medina Comprehensive Plan surrrrrarizes a separate, more detailed Medina CSP. In March, 2005 the Metropolitan Council adopted a revised Water Resources Management Policy Plan (WRI\/PP). The 2030 WRMPP includes the metropolitan wastewater system plan with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This section and the separate Medina CSP update previous sewer planning efforts and describe in detail the expansion of the Citys sanitary sewer system to serve urban development, particularly along the Trunk Highway 55 corridor. Medina's growth plan creates increased sewage flow into the Metropolitan Disposal System or IVDS. Metropolitan Council will use these projected increases to plan expansions and upgrades to the MDS as needed. MCES also ukes this information to detemine whether capadty upgrades will be needed at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Blue Lake VWVfP. Medina's Elm Creek system discharges to the Elm Creek Interceptor at multiple locations, though the primary point of connection is node 236 from figure 1, best ,,con in the inset view. The Elm Creek Interceptor travels north through Maple Grove before heading east through Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park. Utirretely sewage flowing in the Elm Creek Interceptor arrives at the Metropolitan VWVTP in St. Paul. According to Metropolitan Council, The Om Creek Interceptor, kno i as interceptor 900420, currently has a capacity of 1.85 million gallons per day (mgd) to provide for Medina's long term needs. This available capacity is sufficient for a portion of Medina's projected growth in the Elm Creek service area. Medina's 2030 capacity requirements may not be r r el by this allotment. The projected Medina 2030 service area for the Elm Creek Interceptor is designated by the "EC' prefix in figure 1. Small service areas on the west border of Medina discharge to MCES Interceptor 8352, sho i as the yellow line on figure 1. Medina's discharge to 8352 occurs via MCES lift station L63 in Maple Plain. Sewage in Interceptor 8352 is pumped to Mnnetonka via a series of lift stations and forcernains and ultir r etely arrives at the Blue Lake VWVfPwithin Shakopee. Metropolitan Council has proposed an interceptor irrprovement project Ivedina Page 1 Carprehensive Sever Flan to rehabilitate L63 and a project to add a second forcemain. This project is scheduled for the 2011 to 2020 time Period The County Highway 19 system between MP-1 node 134 and the MCES system at L63 do not have capacity for additional flow outside current allocations, so growth in this system's service area triggers significant investrrent in new infrastructure. This is not at all unusual but the replacement cost combined with the remoteness of the County highway 19 system to Medina's growth area makes it more practical to serve all future urban areas via the Om Creek Interoeptor and Medina's TH 55 trunk. A neighborhood on the southern Medina border (M-1) discharges Interceptor 8352 via Crono's system FORECASTS Table 2 from the separate Medina CSP presents projections of severed population, households, and employees for the City of Medina, as prepared by Metropolitan Council and presented in its 2030 WRMPP. TABLE 2 - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROJECTIONS FOR SEWERED AREAS1 Year Sewered PopulationSewered Households Sewered Employment 20073 1,989 971 4,826 2010 3,200 1,118 5,500 20152 4,850 1,679 6,100 2020 6,500 2,240 6,700 20252 8,000 2,745 7,300 2030 9,500 3,250 7,900 Metropolitan Ca nal Water Resources Management Policy Plan, May, 2005 Projections indi rie both the Metropolitan WWTP and Blue Lake VWUTP totals 2Values Interpolated 3Values interpolated for errployment and households. Sevvered population based on City records of water connections. The City of Medina accepts the Metropolitan growth projections as an accurate depiction of growth within the City. It should be noted that all projected growth in sewer population occurs in the Elm Creek Interceptor service area. It should also be noted that Medina proposes serving development in Corcoran through Medina's Trunk Highway 55 system but Corcoran growth is not included in the projection above. Table 3 presents projected sewer flows for the service area represented in figure 1. Both Medina and Metropolitan Council Projections are provided. It is assumed that Metropolitan Council projections pertain to Medina only. In contrast Medina's projections indude service and service options to the following Oly of Medina Conprehensive Sevier Flan # Bonestroo Page 2 oommunities: Corcoran (EC-12), Loretto (within EC-11), Greenfield (through node 134) and Independence (through node 134). Medina, Greenfield and Independence are parties to the Tri-City Agreement on sewer service. The Medina CSP provides Loretto sewer service only as a means of ensuring that adequate capacity is planned in the Trunk Highway 55 system if ever Loretto's VWVTP were decomrissioned. To reflect the uncertainty of this occurrence, the Loretto flow is added to projected flow in 2030. Corcoran's projected flow is based on their draft phasing plan which calls for 40%of the district to develop by 2010 and the balance to develop by 2020. Table 4 prescnts more detail by organizing projected sewer flows by interoeptor as required by Metropolitan Council. Since Medina projects all its growth in the Elm Creek Interceptor's tributary area, the progression of Medina's flow into that interceptor follows directly from the sewered population projections of table 2. Medina has based average flow projections by assigning 75 gallons per day to each additional person and 25 gallons per day to each employee. The 2007 Elm Creek flow is based on 2006 metering at M242. The Loretto average flow is based on an estimate of that Gib's 2007 discharge with no allowance for growth. Wthin the interceptor 8352 service area 2007 flows are based on MCES' 2006 metering at M434 subtracted from metering at M433, which measures Maple Plain flow. Otherwise projected flows are based on approximately 220 units of growth applied in the near term No estimate of growth beyond the 220 units is provided, since Greenfield's and Independence's future growth plans are unknom. TABLE 3 - WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Y ear MC ES Projected Average Flow (MGD)' CSP Estimated Average Flow (MGD) 2007 0.30 2010 0.55 0.50 2015 — 0.71 2020 0.82 0.94 2025 — 1.1 2030 1.07 1.2 1Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan (May 2005). Oly of Medina Page 3 Conprehensive Sewer Ran ��~ Bonestroo TABLE 4 - WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS BY INTERCEPTOR Year Om Creek Interceptor Flaws (MGD) Interceptor 8352 Flaws (MGD) Medna Corcoran Loretto Total Medina lndependenc e & Greenfield Total 2007 0.22 0.0 0.0 0.22 0.020 0.061 0.081 2010 0.27 0.10 0.0 0.47 0.056 0.073 0.13 2015 0.40 0.18 0.0 0.58 0.056 0.073 0.13 2020 0.55 0.26 0.0 0.81 0.056 0.073 0.13 2025 0.67 0.26 0.0 0.93 0.056 0.073 0.13 2030 0.80 0.26 0.04 1.2 0.056 0.073 0.13 Oily of Madina Comprehensive SevterPllan 40. Bonestroo Page 4 SANITARY SEWER DESIGN CRITERIA The land Ise plan for the City of Medina (served as the basis for the development of the sanitary sewer flow projections and analysis of the trunk system Using the land use plan, the area of each land Ise was determined for each sewershed. Existing land USCS used in this plan indude low density, r► diumdensity, and high density residential, corrrrercial, general busing, industrial business, public/serri-public, and parks. Detailed descriptions of the various land wes are found in earlier in this Conprehensive Plan. Municipal wastewater is made up of a rrixture of domestic sewage, oommerdal and industrial wastes, groundwater infiltration, and surface water inflows. Wth proper design and oonstruction, groundwater infiltration and surface water inflows, often called infiltration/inflow (1/1), can be minimized. The flows due to 1/1 are accounted for in the analysis and design of the trunk sewer- system The antis paled average wastewater flows from the various sewersheds were detemined by applying unit flow rates to each of the land use categories. The "system design" unit flow rates are presorted in Table 5. The average wastewater flows for each sewershed are presented in the Medina CSP, Appendix B. For all land ukes unit rates/acre were used to generate average flow projections. The units per acre assumptions for Low, Medium, and High Density Residential, Nixed Use, Commercial and Permanent Rural were based in part on information from the City Planning staff regarding projected number of units for each land ruse. Open Space, Private Recreation, Permanent Rural, Rural Residential and Right -of -Way were all assumed to not generate any sewer flows. TABLE 5 - SYSTEM DESIGN WASTEWATER UNIT FLOW RATES Land Use Type Persons/Unit Units/Acre Gal/Acre/Day Low Density Residential 2.5 2.5 750 Medium Density Residential 2.5 3.5 1,050 High Density Residential 2.5 7.0 2,100 General Business — — 1,200 Com erdal/Industrial — — 1,200 Nixed Use 2.5 5.0 1,500 Nixed Use —Business 2.5 15 4,500 Public/Semi-public — — 50 Medina's "system design" flow projections originate from land r Ise statistics based directly on the 2030 land Ise plan. Certain reductions in land use area are made to account for wetlands, steep slopes etc. and a net developable acreage for each land r se category is thus created. The net acreage is multiplied by standard unit Qry of Medina Page 5 CarprehensiveSewer Ran ��~ Bonestroo flow rates to obtain an average flow for each sewershed. The Medina CSP Appendix B provides these average flows and totals them for all the districts within the Medina CSP. The appendix B total of 2.9 MGD average flow exceeds the table 3 projected flow of 1.2 MGD by a factor of 2.4 to 1. The purpose of the Medina CSP appendix spreadsheets is to conservatively estir r er e demand at the munid pal level so that no City trunk is undersized for its projected senershed. The unit flow rates used in CSP appendix B to generate average flows in part represcnt the "dd eoonony where commercial and industrial land use meant rronufac Luring and thus the potential for high sewage flows. In the "new eeonor of commercial and industrial land use means mail, offioes and warehousing which generate very little sewage compared to the old industrial facilities. Nonethelcm, typical land Ise categories allow for a wide range of u.,cs and the chance remains that localized heavy users of sanitary sewer capacity might locate in Medina. To cover this possibility, Medina continues to Ise the high design rates shown in table 5 above. SANITARY SEWER TRUNK SYSTEM The trunk sewer system layout for the Qty of Medina is presented on figure 1. This map shows the main sanitary sewersheds, existing and proposed trunk sanitary sewers, and existing and proposed lift stations and forcemains. The modeling of the sanitary sewer system was based on a variety of parameters, such as: land use, population density, standard wastewater generation rates, topography, and future land use plans. Based on the topography of the undeveloped areas, the sewersheds were created and the most cost-effective locations for future trunk line facilities were determined. The location of smaller sewer laterals and service lines are dependent upon future land development plats and cannot be accurately located from a study of this type. Both the existing and proposed pipe systems were evaluated and broken up into design segments. Each end of a design segment has a node assigned to it. The nodes were designated for the following reasons: 1. Flow from a sewershed entering the pipe network. 2. Significant grade change has occurred. 3. Change in pipe size. 4. Two or more trunks connect. 5. Manmade elements (roads, railroads, etc.) affecting location and installation costs for the trunk system or lateral service of the subdistricts. The proposed alignments shown on figure 1 generally follow the natural drainage of the land to minimize the use of lift stations and consequently provide the City with the most economical ultimate design sanitary sewer system Ni nor adjustments in the routing and size of the trunk facilities will take place as determined by the specific land use and development conditions at the time of final design. Any such adjustments are expected to deviate minimally from this plan. Each sewershed contains at Irnrt one oollec Lion point where the sewershed's sewage is defined to enter the pipe network. Upstream of that collection print, a lateral network of 8' gravity lines can serve unservioed aroay. Oly of Medina Page 6 CarprehensiveSewer Ran ��~ Bonestroo Lift stations and force mains will be required to service certain areas. All existing lift stations will remain as is. Portions of the cities of Greenfield and Independence are currently sending sewage flow across the Medina city limits into the Independence Beach line. A meter station was proposed to be constructed at the border of Independence with Medina to determine the intercom unity flows from this area. The City of Corooran has requested to send sewage flow from approxirrutely 764 acres of existing and proposed residential and oommercial property into Medina in the future. A summary of the estimated average and peak sewer flow generated by Corcoran at the border with Medina is presented in Table 6. Table 6 — Intercorrrrunity Flows Community Sewer District Average Design Flow (MGD) Peak Design Flow (MGD) Corcoran to Medina (future) EC-12 0.561 1.91 Greenfield/IndependencetoNA 0.062 0.14 Medina (existing) Medina to Orono (existing) M-1 0.051 0.21 Medina to Plymouth PL-1 0.0051 0.02 i Reprrrynts a higher "system design' flow used for designing municipal trunks. 2Based on current connections but not future growth. Table 7 is excerpted from the appendices of the full Medina CSP and represents capacities of the existing and proposed trunk pipes shown on figure 1. cry of Medina Page 7 Conprehensive Sewer Flan �~ Bonestroo From To Pant Pant Elm Creek Interceptor Design Flow (MGD) Table 7 - Pipe Capacities Pipe Parallel Upstream Downstrm 1/1 Flow Exist) Size pipe Size Pipe Length Elev. Elev. MGD Proposed (in) (in) Material (ft) (ft) (ft) Slope (%) CAPACITY Capacity/ Inlet Control Outlet Control Capacity Design (cfs) (MGD) (cfs) (MGD) (MGD) Flow 276 271 1.91 Proposed 12' FM PVC 5200 965 979.83 - - - - - - - 274 271 2.57 Exist. 8 PVC 299 979.83 978.66 0.39 1.4 0.90 0.8 0.49 0.49 0.19 271 267 2.57 Exist. 10 15 PVC 970 978.66 975.75 0.30 1.7 1.10 1.2 0.78 0.78 0.30 267 257 3.74 Exist. 15 18 PVC '1621 975.59 969.30 0.17 4.1 2.65 2.7 1.74 1.74 0.47 257 250 4.56 Exist. 21 18 RCP 2848 969.30 966.30 0.11 9.1 5.88 5.2 3.33 3.33 0.73 250 238 5.15 &st. 24 RCP 4256 966.30 961.26 0.12 13.0 8.40 7.8 5.04 5.04 0.98 238 237 5.41 Exist. 24 RCP 3923 961.26 954.82 0.16 13.0 8.40 9.2 5.93 5.93 1.10 256 257 0.51 Exist. 10 PVC 1576 975.87 969.33 0.41 1.7 1.10 1.4 0.91 0.91 1.78 275 267 1.58 Proposed 12" FM PVC 104.00 940 975.59 - - - - - - - 251 252 0.12 Exdst. 10 PVC 205 978.44 977.27 0.57 1.7 1.10 1.7 1.07 1.07 8.90 252 250 0.12 Exist. 10 PVC 3477 969.30 966.50 0.08 1.7 1.10 0.6 0.40 0.40 3.34 220 773 0.04 Exist. 12 PVC 379 976.84 967.16 2.55 2.2 1.42 5.7 3.69 1.42 36.77 223 226 0.68 Exist. 12 PVC 616 967.16 960.24 1.12 2.2 1.42 3.8 2.44 1.42 2.10 226 235 0.73 Exist. 12 PVC 200 960.24 954.50 2.87 2.2 1.42 6.0 3.91 1.42 1.94 239 237 0.36 Exist. 12 PVC 3691 968.77 960.35 0.23 2.2 1.42 1.7 1.10 1.10 3.07 237 236 6.22 Exist. 24 PVC 2497 968.04 958.39 0.39 13.0 8.40 14.1 9.10 8.40 1.35 236 235 6.32 Exist. 27 PVC 4200 955.63 942.43 0.31 17.7 11.43 17.4 11.24 11.24 1.78 215 234 7.36 Exist. 27 PVC 3400 942.43 933.27 0.31 17.7 11.43 17.3 11.16 11.16 1.52 Momingsid e 322 Crono 0.21 Exist. 8 PVC 1130 1039.54 1034.80 0.42 1.4 0.90 0.8 0.51 0.51 2.38 Lake Independen ce 134 123 0.11 Exist. 8 PVC 8163 1035.40 1012.42 0.28 1.4 0.90 0.6 0.42 0.42 3.66 123 112 0.15 Exist. 10 PVC 3940 1012.42 980.34 0.81 1.7 1.10 2.0 1.28 1.10 7.41 112 108 0.27 Exist. 15 PVC 655 980.34 979.06 0.20 4.1 2.65 2.9 1.85 1.85 6.77 N�dina Corprehensive Senor Flan Bonestroo There are currently about 700 Individual Sewege Treatment Systems (ISTS) in Medina. Most are located on larger rural residential lots. The City of Medina is committed to the proper design, location, installation, and ongoing maintenance of ISTS. Section 720 of the Medina Code requires that all new systems be installed according to Ninnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) rule 7080 permit requirements. Groundwater conditions, sal borings, distance to surface water, percolation tests, and design and type of selected ISTS are further factors induded in the developer's site evaluation. There are two locations with known problems with existing ISTS. 1. YMCA Camp — The YMCA camp area located on the western border of Medina, north of Lake Independence has had problems with their ISTS. The City of Independence indicates that these problems have been resolved. 2. Shawnee Woods Road —There are roughly 50 lots north of the Rolling Green Country Club's Golf Course. Residents have voiced concerns regarding their ISTS. This area is proposed to be served by the ultimate TH-55 district and these lots have been accounted for in the sewage flow assumptions. There are two publicly owned on -site treatment systems. One serves the City of Loretto and the other serves Hennepin County Public Works Facility. For 2030 conditions it was assumed that the City of Loretto would be connected to the TH-55 Medina system via a lift station and forcernain. INFILTRATION AND INFLOW Currently, Medina generates dry weather flow of approximately 105 gallons of wastewater per capita per day (gcd). A typical annual flow is approximately 112 gcd. Recent metering does not show much variability around these values indicating limited infiltration and inflow even in the spring. Based on the forecasts of future employment and population per capita flow is expected to decrease of 90 gcd. This results from a land I se plan that emphasizes commerdal development along the Trunk Highway 55 corridor. The majority of the sanitary sewer system in the City is above the water table. Wclina's system, consisting of approximately 27 miles of pipe and 8 lift stations, was almost entirely built during the last 40 years. All pipe is located in drained urban areas. In addition, the Oty has a proactive program directed at identifying and correcting I/I, induding the following: • In preparation for street reconstruction projects, all affected sewer systems are televised with identified problem areas corrected as previously referenced. Manhole structures are also repaired, grouted, and sealed. All new manholes from 2000 on require chimney seals. • As part of the C itVs annual sewer system maintenance activities, selected segments are televised to potentially locate service connections with continuous flows. These are then further investigated for possible illegal (City Code Chapter 3.40, &bd. 5G) sump pump or roof leader oonnections. Appropriate corrective action is then initiated with the affected property owner. Ivbdina Carprehensive Sevier Policy Plan # Bonestroo In 2006, after concerns with 1/1 from the Independence District the city inspected all the basements in this area to identify and remove any direct sump pump connections. The city continues to follow up on this program In 2006 the City contracted to televise the entire collection system tributary to meter station 434 during a high groundwater condition. Atotal of 19,050 lineal feet of sewer was deaned and intemally inspected. Ongoing annual review of flows and discussions with consulting engineers to develop the next stage of improvement plans. The construction of the Elm Creek Interceptor within Medina resulted in the replacement of several problem areas in the Hamel area and a significant I/1 reduction. Since Medina prepared its 2000 Comp Flan, Metropolitan Council instituted its Inflow/Infiltration Surcharge Program The fundamental policy statement summarizing this program is that Metropolitan Council `will not provide additional capacity within its interceptor system to serve excessive inflow and infiltration." The Council establishes inflow and infiltration thresholds for each of the corrrrunities that use its system Communities that exceed this threshold are required to elirrinate this excess flow within a reasonable tip frarre. Metropolitan Coundl identified Medina as a community with observed excess 1/1 on its original list, but they have since spent an adequate amount to be removed from the current list. In the fall of 2006 the City completed an I/I study and is oontinuing to work to reduce and determine its I/I sources. The costs expended to date by the cities of Medina, Independence and Greenfield toward identifying and rehabilitating 1/1 sources are surruarized as fdlovvs: • I/I analysis completed by Independence in May of 2004: $120,000 • Removal of 54 leaking septic tanks at an average cost of $5,000/tank from May of 2004 through August of 2008: $270,000 • Inspection of 19,050 lineal feet of sewer in April of 2006: $30,000 • Engineering assistance for 1/1 reduction program from March of 2006 through August of 2006: $6,000 • Staff expense for sump pump inspection of 194 buildings at $75 each in the summer of 2006: $14,550 The total expenditure from 2004-2006 is $440,550. Future costs indude rehabilitation in the Independence Beach Area and continued replacement of septic tanks. These future costs total approximately ±$67,400. The City of Medina will continue to proactively work to identify 1/1 sources and take corrective actions. The rehabilitation that has been completed to date has resulted in a reduction of the 1/1 flow rate, but the remaining I/I continues to be a ooncem and is being addressed. The community has expended funds well in exoxs of the proposed MCES 1/1 surcharge amount, however in consideration of the remaining 1/1 problem, additional expenditures will be required and will continue in a similar path as listed above. Oly of Medina Page 10 CarprehensiveSewer Flan �~ Bonestroo CITY OF MED 1 NA GREENFIELD n r; . - I �1 i y 11 " CORCORArN MAPLE -, ////`� ELM_8 ; �^ J�,/ 1" ,,,,r.Ityst, . :rr‘ a —" _ ;.'ri• u GROVE ,.: .n f Surface Water Management Plan Figure 2.1 Drainage Area/ Stormwater C System M a p I PS-1 I c PS-3 - --- ----------------------- -19 S-1 '2 r--PS_----2 -- ---------- -- -- - ELM 9, ♦ ,.' PS-5`. \ 1ff — i iltAllii -��� 0 t� ) `' `�'. 1 e1��s rl -- �I �.. `_..�' AtitillVer-as� __ -------------- --- -------------- ELM-6 i tt (pC".�vr ELM_8 S-181 PS-4 -w._ 4.1 _ - PS-1711.�11\ - a - •,� i.-� ^ eIJs,`F{ ,1 - 7_ ELM 7. - 7. _� �� Ge�cao _�, � 'p E �S 1E3: A s E v 1 �� ° 0. 1." �/ !�1 �4 Z? W ... _ PS-6 t ,RRRR �S?� PS-10 8,°� '�':' ate. ELM_4 a �r .,.. , •^A r " n i {' . _igi— . i°A t .c - �� ;. �., ELM_5 � Potential Regional Pond Locations Potential Regional Pond Outlets ,> .. -- - • ' a PS-9 PS-8 LLC .< ' .�: MEDIN/M % LLC-1 " — ; , 2.E .,. �I •me LCG aa� _L� ® EEff• Ennimos.P � tali ®��® ��■PiIRMO?74 irh Win 114,4 .�W, II _ —®� �®®il' �■0 � at ��LP ' ®® ,. �!>.Io9 ®® tw,4 ; ®w®�'19 AELM . 3a 4 r i iger. is 111- �� •-$ � Minnehaha Creek Watershed Pioneer -Sarah Watershed Elm Creek Watershed Landlocked Basin _Municipal Boundaries ,-_, .1' �'` '' Pc-3 9 �r y . ' H, f - a • LLC-7 LLC-4 � ,� \P�, '•: 4,000 0 4,000 ------� ---� ,.`� I_____, L---J `'' - ... e I� PC-5.. _. �� .,. • �� w -. ..� : , i �;ly; '� ., r• �. .- PC-6 � � - '---J PC-9 PC-1 -, - JO - ®0�t . _ Ewa, PC-4 ��.�°^�i��iom�,j •_ .I• ` J' �. ., LLC-9 LLC-5 -, At."' .; y: .'. LLC 6 LLC-12 -. ..... .auks.... @ �� °Nae°^ y 5eck1 4,�� ., a w t. .:C-13 -1' ; 1 -- ----- -- ----- LLC-14 LLC-17 LLC-16 . III \ * �T^ — \ \,\ , - -; t - ,. a - , •® -� . _ • �� L�#f LLC-18 -. LLC- ---- -- LLC-19 1 LLc-22 I I. ., E (,,, \, (�`S is 1 ,.. �•i r 5. 1.. ,a F • r� �. r I r' • Ar y `^ + t ! x'� • ? i .,y+' n .i 'fir` xt I, _y` ark {i{ F; ' . �_ - - Feet lr July 2007 Bonestroo ,:\190\19007013\Cad\GIs\projects\sub_watersheds_map.mxd MEDINA - LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Executive Summary BACKGROUND The City is currently completing its first Local Surface VVater Management Plan (LSVUVP). The plan will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City in conserving, protecting and managing its surface water resources. The plan has been developed to r T eet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410, to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Council's VVater Resources Management Policy Plan, and the goals and policies of the three watershed management organizations that have jurisdiction within the City: Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission. The plan will be adopted by the City as an element of this Comprehensive Plan. The LSWIVP indudes a detailed description of the Citys natural resources, including water resources, past studies and inventories, and current surface water management. An assessment of the existing and potential water resource and storrrwater related concerns within the City and associated corrective actions are provided. The LSVMVP also indudes goals and policies to address the long-term surface water management needs in the City, and outlines the regulations, standards, practices, projects and funding that will be needed to implement the goals and policies. LAND AND WATER RESOURCES INVENTORY The LSWIVP provides an inventory of land and water resources within the city including a description of the physical setting, available and pertinent water resources data, regulatory setting and past studies and agreements related to surface water resources. The LSWVP sure n rarized the Citys and other agencies' respective regulatory controls related to surface water management and protection (Table 1). Ivbdina Local Suface Water IvIanagerrent Ran # Bonestroo TABLE 1- REGULATORY CONTROL Official Corgrol Responsibili Erosion and Sediment Control City, Water Management Organization (VUVIO) Chapter 8, Section 828.29 of City Code, Zoning — Performance Standards and Enforcement, Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Ordinance Shoreland City, VVMO, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Chapter 8, Section 827 of Oty Code, Zoning — Zoning Districts, Shoreland Cveriay District Roodplain City, MO, DNR Chapter 8, Section 826 of City Code, Zoning — District Provisions, Roodplain District, Roodplain Management Ordinance Wetlands DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and Technical Advisory public Waters Rules (DNR). Section 404 of the Clean VVater Act (USACE). VVCA ( I EP Members). Chapter 8, Section 828.43 of City Code, Zoning — Performance Standards and Enforcement, VVetland Conservation. A new Wetland Protection Ordinance will be adopted pending completion of the Oty's Wetland Inventory and Assessment Panel (TEP) Merrtxrs: Oty as Local Covering Unit (LGU), Hennepain Conseravation District (HCD), & State Board of Sal and VVater Resoures (BVVSR) Illicit Discharge City S APPP BIVP #3-2 states that the City will adopt an Illicit discharge, detection, and elimination ordinance Grading and Drainage City' MO Chapter 8, Section 820 of City Code, Land and Building Regulations. Chapter 8, Section 825.55 of City Code, Land and Building Regulations, Site Plan Review — application of the requirements of this LSVVMP Preparation of the LSWVP also included development of a hydrologic model for the Citys surface water system not already modeled by IVinnehaha Creek Watershed District. The model was developed to facilitate future planning and for esti railing runoff volumes and rates. The assessment performed in preparation to complete hydrologic model revealed that because much of the Oty is to remain undeveloped and the natural surface water system provides adequate conveyance, much of the surface water management in the City will occur on a localized, development -by -development basis. The MPCA has designated the Oty of Medina as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community (MN Rules 7090). The City has recently completed its NPDES Phase II Perrrit Application and Storrrwater Pollution Prevention Plan The LSVVMP notes that implementation of the SVVPPP has and will be a comerstone of the OtWs efforts to control pollution from surface water runoff, manage its stormwater system, and educate its residents and developers on these issues. Medina's most recent application for NPDES ooverage was submitted in 2006 The pemit application outlined Medina's Storrrwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SV\PPP) to address six minimum control measures: 1. Public education 2. Public involvement 3. Illidt discharge detection and elimination 4. Construction site runoff control 5. Post -construction runoff control 6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The LSVM/P provides an assessment of the existing and potential water resource and stomwater related ooncems within the City and associated oorective actions. The identified problems and possible con edive actions are organized into the fdlowing categories: 1. Water quality 2. Flooding and storrrwater rate contrd 3. Erosion and sedimentation 4. Impact of land use and development on water resources SURFACE WATER SYSTEM GOALS AND POLICIES The LSV AVP notes that the City has a strong interest in protecting and managing its valuable water and natural resources, recognizing the relationships between resource protection, land use management, development, redevelopment, and fiscal responsibility. The key, overall goals of the LSV\IVP include the fdlowing: Goal 1: Manage land disturbance and increased impervious surfaces to prevent flooding and adverse impacts to water resources. Goal 2: Protect the Citys wetlands, lakes, streams and groundwater to preserve the functions and values of these resources for future generations. Goal 3: Manage the Otys floodplains, shorelands and natural areas to preserve the functions and values of these resources for future generations. Goal 4: Manage water resources and drainage systems on a citywide scale. Goal 5 Coordinate local surface water rrranagement with the work of watershed management organizations and state agencies. The plan identifies a variety of policies that the City will use to achieve its goals for surface water management. These include using existing provisions of the City Code, or updating some provisions to achieve goals for surface water management, protection of wetlands, shorelands and floodplains, and oontrdling erosion and sedimentation. The plan also notes that the completion of several plans or efforts that are recently completed or currently in process that will influence future management of surface waters in the City. These include the Elm Creek Channel Study and IVPCA efforts to complete TIVDL studies induding the recently completed Lake Independence TIVDL. The City has and will continue to incorporate the results of these efforts in the LSMVP and its goals and strategies as they are completed. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The LSVUVP includes a list of surface water management related activities that the City needs to continue or commence implementation of and their related costs (Table 2). TABLE 2 - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES mr ism Activity # irpr Activity Description Current Annual Budget 2010 Impact' 2015 1 Annual NPDES Permit and SV\PPP Updates $4,100 2 Updates and Modifications to Ordinance and Official Controls $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 3 Regular SV\PPP Driven Maintenance and Inspection Activities $7,800 $8,300 $9,100 $10,000 4 NPDES Permit Compliance (Special Maintenance and Capital Projects) $19,500 $20,700 $22,800 $25,000 5 Special Studies or Support for Special Studies Conducted by Others. Eye!rples: Long Lake/ Painter Creek Local Subwatershed P-Reduction Plan, Local Flooding Issues, Local Sediment and Erosion Control Issues $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 6a2Sewer, General Maintenance of Ponds, Storm and Culverts (All Existing Development and Future Residential Development) $48,600 $551,700 $57,100 $62,500 6b3 General Maintenance of Ponds, Storm Sewer, and Culverts (Future Commercial Development) $0 $9,300 $25,500 $41,700 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $96,600 $105,100 $130,100 $155, 200 Increase Versus Previous Time Period - 8% 240/0 19% rChsts given in 2007 dollars; not adjusted for irtation. Current and projected casts for Items 1, 3, 4, and 6a are based on estimated household counts. Cast per household for each activity is based on guidance provided by EPA and other state and federal regulatory agencies. 21tem 6a quantifies an estimate of existing obligations for current development plus increases due to future residential development. 31tem 6b quantifies an estimate of future obligations due to future corrrercial development. TRANSPORTATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan looks at the roadway network as a base for the transportation system. The plan provides a hierarchy of roads that are based on functional classification and serves the City of Medina. The transportation plan is developed to reflect current trends in the evolution of the City. Future year traffic projections are provided and the plan is developed so as to accommodate those volumes. The major arterial providing access to/from the City, TH 55, has undergone considerable access planning in the recent past. The preferred access concept is presented in this report. This updated transportation plan will aid the decision - makers in the mission of providing efficient transportation service for the citizens of Medina. Growth and Transportation Demand The City of Medina is projected to grow to a population of 9,500 by the year 2030. This is a growth of 5,495 persons from the year 2000 population of 4,005. This growth, in conjunction with regional growth, will increase traffic volumes on the primary area roadways within Medina. Estimates of 2030 volumes provided in the transportation plan indicate that Minnesota Trunk Highway 55 and the Hennepin County road system will continue to accommodate the majority of the traffic in and thru Medina. The greatest demand will occur on Trunk Highway 55. Long range planning, access management and the TH 55 concept improvement plan is of primary importance to the City of Medina. Existing Facilities Medina doesn't have any regular route transit service for the City. The majority of the roadways are two- lane facilities. Existing traffic congestion is prevalent along TH 55 and at the CSAH 101 and County Road 116 intersections with TH 55. This congestion occurs during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods of the day. Functional/Classification of Roadways The City of Medina contains roadways under the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the City of Medina. There are also some private local roadways in Medina. Roadway systems are classified according to function and include the following: Principal Arterials A Minor Arterials B Minor Arterials Major Collectors Minor Collectors Local Streets The only Principal Arterial in Medina is U.S. Highway 12 that touches the southwest corner of the City. The A minor arterials include TH 55, and County Roads 101, 24,19 and 11. County Highway 116 is classified as a B Minor Arterial. Major collectors include County Highway 115 and County Road 201. These are a series of minor collectors in the areas along TH 55. The functional classification system for Medina utilizes the State and County system to accommodate the vast majority of the thru traffic. The commercial -retail area along TH 55 does include some collectors to carry traffic to/from the arterials and to provide accessibility to the higher density land uses. Access Management Each governmental unit having roadway jurisdiction also controls access to these roadways. The plan provides the access guidelines of MnDOT, Hennepin County and the City of Medina for the various functionally classified roadway types. Access management is extremely important in protecting the capacity and safety of a roadway. Very simply, the higher the number of driveways along an arterial or collector, the capacity of the roadway is decreased and the crash accidents increase. Access management is to be a shared function of each governmental unit. Transit Medina does not have any regular route transit service as it is outside the transit service area of the Metropolitan Council. The City will continue to work with the Metropolitan Council to determine the need and timing for peak hour service along TH 55 along with the establishment of a park and ride lot. TH 55 Improvement The TH 55 corridor coalition has prepared a concept improvement plan for TH 55 thru the City of Medina. This plan proposes the provision of an improved facility with the potential of interchanges at CSAH 101 and CSAH 116. The plan proposes TH 55 to be a six -lane divided roadway from the east City border to CSAH 116 and then a four -lane divided highway from CSAH 116 to the west border at Townline Road. The City will continue to work with the coalition in order to further the improvement process and to ultimately see this project constructed. I. Goals and Policies The City of Medina provides a transportation system which, in conjunction with State and County facilities, allows the movement of people and goods through and within the city. The identification of goals and policies assists in providing direction in the development of an integrated multi -modal transportation system that will serve the anticipated growth within Medina. The goals of the Transportation Plan that will guide further development of the City's transportation system are as follows: 1. Transportation in the City of Medina shall facilitate movement of its citizens and goods within and through the city. 2. Provide a transportation system that is integrated with land use and development plans and conserves and enhances environmental resources and features. 3. The transportation plan shall establish a safe, convenient, coordinated and affordable network of routes and modes of transportation within and through the city. The City of Medina has developed a set of policies that relates directly to the City. These policies are provided below. 1. The transportation system will consist of routes coordinated with Medina's Land Use Plan. 2. The local transportation system will provide safe access to the regional roadways and will complement the traffic -carrying capability of regional roadways. Frontage roads, combined access points, and similar measures will be used, as dictated by the situation. 3. The local transportation system will inter -connect various land use districts, provide safe access to major activity areas, and will provide safe, efficient routes for emergency and public safety vehicles. 4. Where conditions permit, roadways will have adequate landscaping to maintain the natural appearance of the community and reduce the impact of traffic on abutting private property. Such landscaping may include prairie grasses, shrubs, wild flowers or other plants that match the natural flora. 5. Access to private property abutting major and minor arterial and collector streets will be controlled to maintain the proper traffic movement. 6. Acquisition of right-of-ways and construction will be designed for flexibility beyond the 20-year scope of the planning period to allow for changing transportation technology and to shape the growth pattern. 7. The City supports the upgrading of TH's 55 and 12 to four lanes to improve both capacity and safety. 8. In general, streets will intersect at right angles; offset or "jogged" intersections will be discouraged. 9. The design and character of all transportation routes will reflect the intended use. 10. Local neighborhood streets will be designed not only to provide access to home sites, but also to retain topography, terrain, wetlands, woodlands, and other natural features. 11. The City recognizes the distinction between the transportation needs of urban development areas and rural districts. It supports the concept of different construction and maintenance standards for roadways within each area. 12. A wider right-of-way, or offset roadway will provide space for recreational uses, trails, and alternate modes of transportation. 13. Design of access points to the roadway system and traffic controls will be compatible with the roadway's function and traffic speed. 14. The spacing of minor arterials, collectors and minor collector streets will be consistent with the development intensity. 15. All private residential streets will be subject to such public rights as may be required by the City. The roadways shall be within outlots provided for street purposes and shall be constructed in conformance with City standards. All such roadways shall be privately maintained. 16. The City has the discretion to require public roads as needed within subdivisions as determined by study. Private versus public road determination for rural residential subdivision shall be on a case by case basis. 17. Minor City collectors and local roadways will be designed to minimize the speed and impact of roadways on residential areas and pedestrians. Traffic calming techniques will be encountered to help achieve this policy. 18. The City has the ability to require right of way needs as required by the TH 55 official map. II. Existing Roadway System The existing roadway system in Medina consists of facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the City of Medina. There are also numerous private streets in Medina. Figure 1 illustrates the jurisdiction of roadways in the City of Medina. The roadway system consists, predominately, of two-lane facilities. There are some roadways that contain four lanes for short segments. These are located on TH 55 and CSAH 101. Not all of the public roadways in Medina are paved. Figure 2 provides a graphic that shows the paved/unpaved roads in Medina as of the year 2007. III. Traffic Assignment Zones Forecasts The traffic assignment zones (TAZ) for Medina have been provided by the Metropolitan Council. These TAZ's are shown on Figure 3. The comprehensive plan update is required to show forecasts for the population, households and employment for the years 2010, 2020 and 2030. These values are derived from the land use plan data. Table 1 provides the Metropolitan Council forecast data for Medina. The following forecasts are part of the Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework (adopted January 14, 2004 and updated on August 24, 2005). They are used by the Metropolitan Council to plan for its regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts. However, give the nature of long-range forecasting, the Metropolitan Council will maintain an on -going dialogue with communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems. TABLE 1 SOCIO - ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS 1990 2000 Revised Development Framework 2010 2020 2030 Population 3,096 4,005 5,800 9,200 12,700 Households 1,007 1,309 2,100 3,240 4,450 Employment 2,155 2,928 5,500 6,700 7,900 The Metropolitan Council forecasts growth at appropriate densities for communities in order to protect the efficiency of wastewater, transportation and other regional system investments, and to help ensure the metropolitan area can accommodate its projected growth by the year 2030. IV. Traffic Volume Data The most recent traffic volume data has been obtained from the 2006 MnDOT Traffic Flow Map. The data provides the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes. The volumes on the state controlled system are year 2006 volumes. The volumes on the County and municipal streets are year 2005 volumes. The AADT volumes are shown on Figure 4. Traffic volumes for the year 2030 have been estimated for this plan. The estimates consider 2030 estimates from the Metropolitan Council and 2020 estimates from Hennepin County. The 2030 estimates for Hennepin County roadways will be provided by the County in the future but at the present time the County won't have those estimates until late in the year 2008. The County roadway estimates for this document utilize an average annual growth rate of approximately 2 percent per year. The estimates are shown on Figure 5. V. Functional Classification The functional classification of roadways provides guidelines for safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the City. Roads are categorized based upon the level of access and/or mobility provided. Functional classification of a roadway system involves determining what function each roadway will be performing with regard to travel within and through the City. The intent of a functional classification system is the creation of a roadway hierarchy that collects and distributes traffic from local roadways and collectors to arterials in a safe and efficient manner. Such classification aids in determining appropriate roadway widths, speed limits, intersection control, design features, accessibility and maintenance priorities. Functional classification helps to ensure that non -transportation factors, such as land use and development, are taken into account in planning and design of the roadway system. A balanced system is desired, yet not always attainable due to existing conditions and characteristics. The criteria of the functional classification system are intended to be guidelines and are to be applied when plans are developed for the construction or reconstruction of a given classified route. It can and does occur that different roadways with very similar design characteristics may have different functional classifications. Some roadways, for a short segment, may carry higher volumes than a roadway with a higher classification. Spacing guidelines may not follow recommendations for a variety of reasons such as topography, land use type and density, and environmental concerns. The two major considerations in the classification of roadway networks are access and mobility. Mobility is of primary importance on arterials, thus limitation of access is a necessity. The primary function of a local roadway, however, is the provision of access, which in turn limits mobility. The extent and degree of access control is a very important factor in the function of a roadway facility. The functional classification types utilized are dependent upon one another in order to provide a complete system of streets and highways. The relationship of functional classification with regard to traffic mobility and land access is shown on Figure 6. A complete functional design system provides a series of distinct travel movements. Most trips exhibit six recognizable stages. These stages are as follows: • Main movement • Transition • Distribution • Collection Access Termination As an example, Figure 7 depicts this hierarchy of movement by illustrating a hypothetical trip using a freeway, which comprises the main movement. When the vehicle leaves the freeway, the transition is the use of the freeway ramp at a reduced speed. The vehicle then enters the moderate speed arterial, the distribution function, to travel toward a neighborhood. From the arterial the vehicle enters a collection road. Then a local access road that provides direct approach to the residence or termination point. Each of the six stages of the trip is handled by a facility designed specifically for that function. Speeds and volumes normally decrease as one travels through the six stages of movement. It must be recognized that all intermediate facilities are not always needed for various trip types. The character of movement or service that is provided has a function, and these functions do not act independently. Thus, the travel categories, more movements, become consistent with function and the classification of that function. The functional classification of roadways is shown on Figure 8. This system is based upon the regional system developed by the Metropolitan Council and the system developed by Hennepin County. General characteristics of the system are described below and the metropolitan system characteristics, as developed by the Metropolitan Council, are shown in Appendix A. Principal Arterials (Including Federal Interstates) Principal arterial roadways serve major activity centers, higher traffic volumes, longer trips and carry a higher proportion of total urbanized travel on a minimum of mileage. Along these facilities, access needs to be limited in order to preserve the ability of the roadway to accommodate the volumes and to maximize safety. Spacing varies from 2-3 miles for a fully developed area to 3-6 miles for a developing area. The management criteria require that a 40 mph average speed be achieved during peak traffic periods. Also, little or no direct land access will be allowed within an urban area. Grade separated intersections are required for freeways and highly desired for other principal arterial roadways. The only Principal Arterial in Medina is a short segment of Highway 12 that touches the southwest corner of the City. Minor Arterials Minor arterial roadways connect the urban service area to cities and towns inside and outside the region and generally service medium to short trips. Minor arterials may also provide an alternate route for congested principal arterial roadways. Minor arterials connect principal arterials, minor arterials, and collectors. The spacing ranges from 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile in metro centers to 1-2 miles in a developing area. The desired minimum average speed during peak traffic periods is 20 mph in fully developed areas and 30 mph in developing areas. The metropolitan highway system contains two classifications of minor arterials. These are "A" minor arterials and "B" minor arterials. The emphasis for minor arterial roadways is on mobility rather than on land access. In urban areas, direct land access is generally restricted to concentrations of commercial/industrial land uses. Minor arterial roadways in the City are as follows: "A" Minor Arterials County Highway 101 County Highway 24 Trunk Highway 55 County Highway 19 County Highway 11 "B" Minor Arterials County Highway 116 Collector Streets Collector streets provide more land access than arterials and provide connections to arterials, although not in all cases. As is the case with any roadway system, there will always be exceptions to the planning guidelines that are used to classify a roadway system. Collectors serve a dual function of accommodating traffic and provision of more access to adjacent properties. Mobility and land access are equally important and direct land access should predominately be to development concentrations. Collector road spacing ranges from to 3/4 miles in a fully developed area to'h to 1 miles in a developing area. Collectors are broken down further into major and minor collectors. Major Collectors Major collectors generally connect to minor arterials and serve shorter trips within the City. These roads supplement the arterial system in that mobility is slightly emphasized over access. Minor Collectors Minor collectors provide the connection between neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas and the major collector/minor arterial system. Access is slightly emphasized over mobility in minor collectors. Local Streets The lowest classification of roadways is the local roadway where access is provided with much less concern for control but land service is paramount. Spacing for local streets is as needed to access land uses. Local roadways generally have lower speed limits in urban areas and normally serve short trips. Local streets will connect with some minor arterials but generally connect to collectors and other local streets. The development of local streets will be guided by the location of the existing and proposed minor arterials and collectors as well as by development and the expansion of local utilities. VI. Roadway Capacity/Right-of-Way Needs The roadway system in the City of Medina will not experience any segmental capacity problems with the potential exception of TH 55. Utilizing planning level capacities of 2-lane and 4-lane roadways the year 2030 volumes have been analyzed with respect to the roadway capacities. The majority of the roadway segments in Medina will generally be sufficient as 2-lane facilities when considering the year 2030 volume projections. Some segments of the county system have the potential of becoming a capacity issue in 2030. The northerly segments of CR 19, and County Road 116 north of TH 55 could exceed capacity of a two - lane roadway. The TH 55 concept plan should provide sufficient capacity when considering 2030 volume estimates. VII. Access Management The management of thoroughfare access along roadway systems, particularly arterial and collector roadways is a very important component of maximizing the capacity and decreasing the crash potential along those roadway facilities. As mentioned in a previous section, arterial roadways have a function of accommodating larger volumes of traffic and often at higher speeds. Therefore, access to such facilities must be limited in order to protect the integrity of the arterial function. Collector roadways provide a link from local streets to arterial roadways and are designed to provide more access to local land uses since the volumes and speeds are often lesser than arterial roadways. MnDOT studies have shown that as the density of access increases, whether public or private, the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway decreases and the vehicular crash rate increases'. Businesses suffer financially on roadways with poorly designed access, while well -designed access to commercial properties supports long-term economic vitality. As with many transportation related decisions, land use activity and planning is an integral part of creation of a safe and efficient roadway system. Land use decisions have a major impact on the access conditions along the roadway system. Every land use plan amendment, subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit, or site plan involves access and creates potential impact to the efficiency of the transportation system. Properties have access rights and good design will minimize the deleterious effect upon the roadway system. Access management is a combination of good land use planning and effective design of access to property. The granting of access in Medina is shared by the State, the County and the City, with each having the permitting process responsibility over roadways under their control. The traveling public benefits from access spacing, whether using grade -separated crossings, frontage roads, right turn only entrances/exits, or other limited access treatments. MnDOT has developed guidelines for access management based upon their goals of safety, mobility, and statewide economic growth. As a part of their guidelines, three new categories were developed as an addition to the functional classification system: High Priority Interregional Corridors (IRC) — for example Interstate 35 Medium Priority IRC — for example US Highway 169 High Priority Regional Corridors — for example US Highway 12 1 "Toward An Access Classification System and Spacing Guidelines", Technical Study No. 4, MnDOT, February 1999. These types of roadways link the state's primary trade centers and the Twin Cities Metro area to one another. MnDOT has further divided the primary categories into sub -categories based upon the specific facilities and land use patterns surrounding the roadway. Trunk Highway 55 and US Highway 12 are both designated as a High Priority Regional Corridor. Table 2 provides a summary of access categories and sub- categories along with the functional classification and statewide strategic importance. The roads found in the City that fall under each category are also provided. It is important to note that some roads may be listed in several categories since the adjacent land use and facilities changes along the roadway length. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF MNDUTACCESS CATEGORIES Category Area Type Functional Classification Roadways within Medina 1 High Priority Interregional Corridors 1 F All Areas Interstate Highways None 1A-F All Areas Principal Arterials None 1A All Areas Principal Arterials None 2 Medium Priority Interregional Corridors 2A-F All Areas Principal Arterials None 2A Rural, ExUrban, & By -Pass Principal Arterials None 2B Urban & Urbanizing Principal Arterials None 2C Urban Core Principal Arterials None 3 High Priority Regional Corridors 3A-F All Areas Principal & Minor Arterials USH 12, MNH 55 3A Rural, ExUrban, & By -Pass Principal & Minor Arterials USH 12, MNH 55 3B Urban & Urbanizing Principal & Minor Arterials USH 12, MNH 55 3C Urban Core Principal & Minor Arterials 4 Principal Arterials in Metro Area and Primary Trade Centers 4A-F All Areas Principal Arterials Rural, ExUrban, & By -Pass Principal Arterials Urban & Urbanizing Principal Arterials Urban Core Principal Arterials 5 Minor Arterials on All Systems 5A Rural, ExUrban, & By -Pass Minor Arterials CSAH 24, CSAH 19, CSAH 101, CSAH 29, CR 116 5B Urban & Urbanizing Minor Arterials CSAH 24, CSAH 19, CSAH 101, CSAH 29, CR 116 5C Urban Core Minor Arterials Recommended spacing guidelines have been developed for each access category, including public intersections and private driveways and entrances. Table 3 shows a summary of MnDOT access spacing guidelines for the access categories presented in Table 2. These MnDOT guidelines should be followed for the state roads. More information about these guidelines and the IRC system, in general, is available on their website at http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/irc.html. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF MNDOT RECOMMENDED ACCESS SPACING Category Area or Facility Type Typical Functional Classification Intersection Spacing Signal Spacing Private Access Primary Full Movement Intersection Conditional Secondary Movement 1 F Freeway Principal Arterials Interchange Access Only Not Allowed Not Allowed 1 A-F Full Grade Separation Interchange Access Only Not Allowed Not Allowed 1A Rural, ExUrban, & By- Pass 1 mile 1/2 mile Interim Only By Deviation Only By Deviation Only 2A-F Full Grade Separation Principal Arterials Interchange Access Only Not Allowed Not Allowed 2A Rural, ExUrban, & By- Pass 1 mile 1/2 mile Strongly Discouraged By Deviation Only By Exception or Deviation Only 2B Urban & Urbanizing 'h mile '/4 mile 2C Urban Core 300-660 feet dependent upon block length '/4 mile Permitted Subject to Conditions 3A-F Full Grade Separation Principal & Minor Arterials Interchange Access Only Not Allowed Not Allowed 3A Rural, ExUrban, & By- Pass 1 mile 'h mile 1 mile Permitted Subject to Conditions 3B Urban & Urbanizing 1/2 mile '/4 mile 1/2 mile By Exception or Deviation Only 3C Urban Core 300-660 feet dependant upon block length '/4 mile Permitted Subject to Conditions 4A-F Full Grade Separation Principal Arterials Interchange Access Only Not Allowed Not Allowed 4A Rural, ExUrban, & By- Pass 1 mile 1/2 mile 1 mile By Deviation Only 4B Urban & Urbanizing 'h mile '/4 mile 1/2 mile By Exception or Deviation Only 4C Urban Core 300-660 feet dependent upon block length '/4 mile Permitted Subject to Conditions 5A Rural, ExUrban, & By- Pass Minor Arterials 'h mile Y4 mile 1/2 mile Permitted Subject to Conditions 5B Urban & Urbanizing IA mile 1/8 mile 'A mile By Exception or Deviation Only 5C Urban Core 300-600 feet dependent upon block length '/4 mile Permitted Subject to Conditions HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCESS SPACING GUIDELINES2 Hennepin County access spacing guidelines were developed for both urban and rural settings. The urban classification is defined as being within the 20 year Metropolitan Service Area (MUSA) boundary. The access spacing guidelines, are just that, guidelines. Existing constraints and pre-existing conditions may limit full compliance with the guidelines. Special considerations will be taken into account on a case -by -case basis. The guidelines developed for Hennepin County are based on 20 year future forecasted average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for minor arterial roadways. This allows for the spacing to balance the mobility and access based on operations. This also allows the roadway's function to change based on growth expected in the community. The Hennepin County access spacing guidelines are shown in Table 4 for urban areas and Table 5 for rural areas. TABLE 4 HENNEPIN COUNTYACCESS SPACING GUIDELINES - URBAN Access Spacing Criteria on County Roadway Facilities Requesting Access to County Roadways Type of Access Minor Arterial Roadways Collector Street Undivided Divided Non -Public — Low Volume (<1,000 ADT) Residential Driveways Low Trip Generating Commercial Full Movement Access 0 0 1/8 Mile (660 ft) Partial Access Mil 1(/8 /8 it e Mile 1/ 16 M 16 Local Public Streets • Local Residential Streets • Local Minor Collector Streets Full Movement Access 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660) Partial Access NA 1/8 Mile (660 ft) NA Non -Public — High Volume (>1,000 ADT) • Shopping Center Entrances • Large Apt. Complexes • Large Industries, Industrial Park Entrances Full Movement '/4 Mile (1,320 ft) '/4 Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft) Partial Access NA 1/8 Mile (660 ft) NA Arterial and Major Collector Roadways • Principal Arterials (state highways) • Minor Arterials and Major Collector Roads Full Movement Access 1/4 Mile (1,320 ft) '/4 Mile (1,320 ft) '/4 Mile (1,320 ft) Partial Access NA Full Access Allowed NA -Access via alternative facility required -Further changes considered under hardship conditions Notes: based on being within the Year 2000 Metropolitan boundary (MUSA) (ADT) volumes are based on 20-year forecasts spacing are taken to next access (driveway or street) on side for divided minor arterials spacing are taken to next access on either side of road arterials not be broken (even if the above guidelines would is allowed) reviewed such as sight distance, speeds, traffic elements (vehicle types, land use activity, etc.) 1. Urban definition is Urban Service Area 2. Average Daily Traffic 3. Measurements for the same roadway 4. Measurements for for undivided minor 5. Existing medians will suggest full access 6. Other criteria are also volumes and other 2 Includes excerpts from the Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan (HC-TSP), Chapter 7 — Access Management. TABLE 5 HENNEPIN COUNTYACCESS SPACING GUIDELINES - RURAL Access Spacing Criteria on County Roadway Facilities Requesting Access to County Roadway Type of Access Minor Arterial Roadways Undivided Collector Streets Greater Than 7,500 ADT* Less Than 7,500 ADT* Non -Public — Low Volume (<1,000 ADT) • Residential Driveways • Low Trip Generating Commercial Full Movement Access '/a Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft) Local Public Streets • Local Residential Streets • Local Minor Collector Streets Full Movement Access IA Mile (1,320 ft) IA Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft) Non -Public — High Volume (>1,000 ADT) • Shopping center entrances • Large Apt. Complexes • Large Industries, Industrial Park Entrances Full Movement Access IA Mile (1,320 ft) '/a Mile (1,320 ft) 1/8 Mile (660 ft) Arterial and Major Collector Roadways • Principal Arterials (state highways) • Minor Arterials and Major Collector Roads Full Movement Access 1/2 Mile (2,640 ft) IA Mile (1,320 ft) '/a Mile (1,320 ft) Notes: taken to next access (driveway or street) on the same roadway side for divided minor arterials taken to next access on either side of road for undivided minor arterials roadway are undivided such as sight distance, speeds, traffic volumes and other elements (vehicle types, land use activity, etc.) outside the Year 2000 Metropolitan Service Area (MUSA) as defined by the Metropolitan Council 1. Measurements for spacing are 2. Measurements for spacing are 3. Chart assumes all rural County 4. Other criteria are also reviewed 5. Rural area is defined as being Hennepin County access spacing guidelines are being incorporated into the County's review process. Review of new plat proposals will include the monitoring and managing of the access spacing such as: • Orientating access to adjacent collector streets or interior local streets rather than to the county road. • Consolidating driveway access where possible to reduce conflicts. • Suggesting modifications to internal site circulation designs to reduce and relocate proposed access points, and minimize the impact on the county road. • Limiting access to partial movements through channelization to reduce vehicular conflicts. MEDINA ACCESS SPACING GUIDELINES For other roads within the City, a set of access spacing guidelines has been prepared which is intended for use in the access permitting process. The guidelines are presented for functionally classified arterial and collector roadways without reference to the jurisdiction over these roadways. The basic references for the spacing guidelines is that document previously referenced in this section as well as guidelines used in other Minnesota counties and cities. The access guidelines are presented in Table 6, which follows. The stated values are meant to be "minimum" values. Some existing connections, both public and private, may not meet these guidelines. It is also recognized that, due to various circumstances, access may need to be granted that cannot adhere to these guidelines. TABLE 6 CITY ACCESS SPACING GUIDELINES Functional Class Median Treatment Existing & Proposed Land Use Typical Posted Speed (mph) Full Median Opening Spacing (miles) Minimum Signal Spacing (miles) Minor Divided Rural 55 'h '/z Arterial Urban >40 1/2 '/z Urban Core <40 '/4 '/4 Undivided Rural 55 NA '/z Urban >40 NA '/z Urban Core <40 NA '/4 Collector Divided Urban >40 1/4 '/4 Urban Core <40 1/8 1/8 Undivided Rural 55 NA '/z Urban >40 NA '/4 Urban Core <40 NA 1/8 Other Undivided Rural >40 NA '/z County Urban <40 NA '/4 Roads NA — Not Applicable ' Distances are based upon spacing between connections (major roads, local public streets, and private driveways). Distances are minimum and greater spacing is beneficial. VIII. Transit Medina is outside the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. Therefore, there is no regular route transit service existing or planned in the near future for the City. Medina is in Market Area IV. A graphic illustrating the market areas is shown on Figure 9. Service options for Market Area IV include dial -a -ride, volunteer driver programs, and ridesharing. Dial -a -ride service for senior and transit dependent persons is available via Delano Dial -A -Ride. The Minnesota Rideshare Program provides service to employers, communities and individuals in the metropolitan area. Car pool matching services is available for interested individuals. Medina will continue to monitor available transit services and may wish to investigate a park and pool area for carpool efforts. The city will also stay in contact with the Metropolitan Council for the potential of express bus service along TH55 and a park and ride lot along that corridor. IX. Aviation All metropolitan area cities are required to include an airspace protection element in their comprehensive plans. There are no existing or planned aviation facilities within Medina. The airspace protection is for potential hazards to air navigation including electronic interference. City ordinances need to require proper notification to Federal and State agencies about activities that could potentially interfere with air navigation, including height of structures. Flying in the metro region involves all types of aircraft including amphibian and float -equipped planes. MnDOT has authorized that Lake Independence is available for sea -plane use. X. TH 55 Corridor Coalition TH 55 is a primary transportation corridor linking the western communities in Wright County and Hennepin County to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area. In 2006 the corridor had an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 9,400 in Annandale,17,600 ADT in Buffalo, 21,600 ADT in Rockford, 30,500 ADT in Medina and 55,000 ADT in Plymouth. The increasing traffic and capacity needs are a growing concern to the communities along the corridor. Direct access to TH 55 and accidents along the corridor have raised the concern for the safety of everyone who uses the highway. MnDOT is currently faced with growing transportation needs throughout the state and decreasing transportation funding. The need to plan for the future of TH 55 became prevalent in the early 2000's when the formation of the TH 55 Corridor Coalition took place. The Coalition includes communities, businesses and individuals that have an interest in the corridor from Annandale to the connection with 1-494 in Plymouth. The TH 55 Corridor Coalition's primary mission is to secure right of way and related infrastructure improvements to: - Increase safety - Add capacity, including additional lanes, access control and transit service where appropriate In 2003 the Coalition received its first significant contribution to the corridor when Congressman Mark Kennedy captured $1.5 million in federal funding. This funding was to be used for studies along the corridor and right of way acquisition. When congress passed the SAFETEA-LU legislation in 2005, an additional $4 million was secured for the corridor. This amount was later reduced to $3.4 million. In 2006 the coalition solicited candidate projects from the cities along the corridor. The requests were evaluated and funding was provided to specific projects. The City of Medina received funding for the reconstruction of the TH 55/CR 116 intersection. Funding was allocated as follows: $680,000 in 2007 $130,000 in 2008 $430,000 in 2009 Total federal funding is $1,240,000. MnDOT has also programmed $500,000 for safety improvements associated with the TH 55/CR 116 intersection reconstruction in the year 2010. It is anticipated that additional funding will be required to complete the project. This may include funding from other federal and state programs as well as county and city funds. The City of Medina is leading the effort to move the TH 55/CR 116 intersection reconstruction project forward. A layout is being prepared that addresses the existing safety and capacity issues through the intersection. This concept is being developed to determine construction limits and ultimately the right of way requirements for the project. Upon completion of the layout, the intent is to begin using the federal funding to secure the required right of way. It is anticipated that the actual construction of the project will take place in 2009 to 2010. In addition to the TH 55/CR 116 intersection, the City is also reviewing the intersection of TH 55 at CSAH 101 and TH 55 at CSAH 19. A concept was developed for the CSAH 101 intersection to provide a pedestrian overpass over TH 55 and another one over CSAH 101. The City concluded that the cost of these concepts made them unfeasible as independent projects. The City decided that it is likely that a future roadway overpass may be provided over TH 55 at which time a pedestrian walkway would be provided along with the roadway bridge. A concept for future reconstruction at CSAH 19 is still in development and it is anticipated that the concept will simply provide a general idea of what may be provided at CSAH 19 in the future. No funding is currently allocated for work at the CSAH 101 or CSAH 19 intersections. In 2006 the TH 55 Corridor Coalition also began working on the corridor to look at an overall geometric concept and environmental assessment (EA) from the Crow River in Rockford to 1-494 in Plymouth. This project will help define the future right of way needs for the corridor and allow the cities to preserve the necessary right of way as development occurs. A corridor concept is nearly complete with an official public hearing scheduled for fall of 2007. The EA and geometric layout are scheduled for final approval in early 2008. The TH 55 Corridor Coalition concept plan includes the following improvements to TH 55 through Medina. The concept plan is shown on Figure 10. - Four -lane divided highway with drainage carried in ditches from Townline Road to the existing four -lane section east of Arrowhead Drive. - Six -lane divided highway with drainage carried in storm sewer from CR 116 to the east City border. - Direct access to TH 55 removed where alternative access can be provided to frontage roads and other local roadways. - Potential areas adjacent to the corridor for future water quality ponds to capture additional runoff from the expanded roadway surface. - Unsignalized full access intersection at Townline Road with the realignment of Townhall Drive in Greenfield to the north leg of Townline Road. - Existing Traffic signal at TH 55 and CSAH 19 with left and right turn lanes on TH 55. - Unsignalized intersection at Pioneer Trail - Right -in -right -out access at Rolling Hills Road to the north and south (center median closed) - Right -in -right -out access at Wichita Trail to the south (center median closed) - Existing Traffic signal at TH 55 and Willow Drive with left and right turn lanes on TH 55. - Right -in -right -out access at Mohawk Drive to the north (center median closed) - Existing Traffic signal at TH 55 and Arrowhead Drive with left and right turn lanes on TH 55. - Potential future at -grade intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive - Compressed diamond interchange at TH 55 at CR 116 - Compressed diamond interchange at TH 55 and CSAH 101 The concepts developed within this corridor plan are a guide to help preserve future right of way along the corridor. Funding does not exist to construct any of the recommended improvements at this time. The funding for the CR 116 intersection is anticipated to provide improvement to the intersection to increase safety and add capacity. The initial project scheduled for construction in 2009 or 2010 will not include the compressed diamond interchange as shown on the TH 55 Corridor Coalition concept layout. Instead it will widen CR 116 to provide additional turn lanes to accommodate the high volume of traffic turning at this intersection during morning and afternoon peak commuting timeframes. APPENDIX Functional Classification System Characteristics for Principal Arterials Principal Arterial Characteristics Freeway Other Principal Arterial Urban Suggested limits for Interstate and other principal arterials at 5- 10% of system. Suggested limits for interstate and other principal arterials at 40-65% of system. Rural Suggested limits for Interstate and other principal arterials at 2- 4% of system. Suggested limits for interstate and other principal arterials at 30-55% of system. Urban See "Freeway." See "Freeway." Rural See "Freeway." See "Freeway." System Mileage Percent of Vehicle Mites Traveled intersections Grade separated. Grade separated. Grade separated desirable. At a minimum, high -capacity controlled at -grade intersections. Grade separated desirable. At a minimum, high -capacity controlled at -grade intersections. Parking None. None. None. None. Large Trucks No restrictions. No restrictions: No restrictions. No restrictions. Management Tools Ramp metering, preferential treatment for transit, interchange spacing. Interchange spacing. Ramp metering, preferential treatment for transit, access control, median harriers, traffic signal progression, staging of reconstruction, intersection spacing. Interchange spacing, access control, intersection spacing. Vehicles Carried 25,000-200,000 5,000-50,000 15,000-100,000 2,500 - 25,000 Posted Speed Limit 45-55 mph 55-65 mph 40-50 mph Legal limit Right -of -Way 300 feet 300 feet 100 - 300 feet 100 - 300 Feet Transit Accommodations Priority access and movement for transit in peak periods where None. Priority access and movement for transit in peak periods where possible and needed. None. Functional Classification System Criteria for Minor Arterials Criterion Minor Arterial ("A" or "B") Urban Rural Place Connections Spacing System Connections Trip -Making Service Management Mobility vs. Land Access* Provide supplementary connections to metro centers and regional business concentrations within the MUSA. Provide interconnection of major traffic generators within the metro centers and regional business concentrations. Metro centers and regional business concentrations: 114-3/4 mile. Fully developed area: 1/2-1 mile. Developing area: 1-2 miles. To most Interstate freeways and other principal arterials, other minor arterials and collectors and some local streets. Medium -to -short trips (2-8 miles depending on development density) at moderate speeds. Longer trips accessing the principal arterial network. Local and ilmited-stop transit trips. Maintain the following minimum average speed during peak -traffic periods: Metro centers and regional business concentrations - 15 mph. Fully developed area - 20 mph. Developing area - 30 mph. Emphasis on mobility rather than on land access. Direct land access within the MUSA restricted to concentrations of commercial/industrial land uses. "The key objective is stated under "Management" heading in this table. Connect the MUSA with cities and towns in Minnesota outside the Twin Cites region. Interconnect rural growth centers inside the Twin Cities region and comparable places near the Twin Cities region. Permanent Rural and Agricultural Areas: As needed, in conjunction with the major collectors, provide adequate interconnection of places identified in "Place Connections" criterion. To most interstate freeways and other principal arterials, other minor arterials and collectors, and some local streets. Retain ability to meet urban speed objective if and when area urbanizes. Emphasis on mobility rather than on land access. Functional Classification System Characteristics for Minor Arterials Minor Arterial ("A" or "B") Characteristics Urban Rural System Mileage Suggested limits for principal arterials and minor arterials at 15-25% of system. Suggested limits for principal arterials and minor arterials at 6- 12% of system Percent of Vehicle Mites Traveled Suggested limits for principal arterials and minor arterials at 65-80% of system. Suggested limits for principal arterials and minor arterials at 45-75% of system. Intersections Traffic signals and cross -street stops. Cross -street stops. Parking Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary. Large Trucks Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary. Traffic signal progression and spacing, land -access management/control, preferential treatment for transit. Land -access management/control. Management Tools, Vehicles Carried Daily 5,000-30,000 1,000-10,000 Posted Speed Limit 35-45 mph Legal limit Right -of -Way 60-150 feet 60-150 feet Transit Accommodations Preferential treatment where needed. None. Functional Classification System Characteristics for Collectors and Local Streets Collector Local Criterion Urban Rural Urban Rural Place Connections Interconnect neighborhoods and minor business concentrations within the MUSA, Provide supplementary interconnection of major generators within the metro centers and regional Provide supplementary interconnection among rural growth centers inside the Twin Cities region and comparable places near the Twin Cities region. interconnect blocks within residential neighborhoods and land parcels within commercial/industrial . developments. Spacing Metro centers and regional business concentrations: 1/8 - 1/2 mile. Fully developed are: 1/4 - 3/4 mile. Developing area: 1/2 -1 mile Permanent Rural and Agricultural Areas: As needed in conjunction with minor arterials, to provide adequate interconnection of places identified in "Place Connections" criterion. In addition, minor collectors should be designated at an average spacing of not less than 4 miles. As needed to access land uses. As needed to access land uses. System Connections Sometimes to interstate freeways and other principal arterials. To minor arterials, To minor arterials, other collectors and local streets. To a few minor arterials. To collectors and other local streets. To a few minor arterials.. To collectors and local reads. Trip -Making Service Short trips (1-4 miles depending on development density) at low- to -moderate speeds. Longer trips accessing the arterial network. Local transit trips. Short trips (under 2 miles) at low speeds. Longer trips accessing the collector or collector and arterial network. Mobility vs. Land Access Equal emphasis on mobility and land access. Direct land access predominantly to development concentrations. Emphasis on land access, not on mobility. Direct land access predominantly to residential land uses. Emphasis on land access, not on mobility. Direct land access predominantly to agricultural land uses. Functional Classification System Characteristics for Collectors and Local Streets Collector Local Criterion Urban Rural Urban Rural System Mileage Suggested federal limitations: 5- 10%. Suggested federal limitations: 20-25%. Suggested federal limitations: 65-80%. Suggested federal limitations: 63-75% Percent of Vehicle Miles Traveled Suggested federal limitations: 5- 10%. Suggested federal limitations: 20-35%. Suggested federal limitations: 10-30%. Suggested federal limitations: 5- 20%. Intersections Pour -way stops and some traffic signals. Local street traffic should be required to stop. As required. As required. Parking Restricted as necessary. Unrestricted. Permitted as necessary. Permitted as necessary. Large Trucks Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary. Permitted as necessary. Permitted as necessary. Management Tools . Number of lanes, traffic signal timing, land -access management. Land -access management. Intersection control, cul-de-sacs, diverters. Vehicles Carried Daily 1,000-15,000 250-2,500 Less than 1,000 Less than 1,000 Posted Speed Limit 30-40 mph 35-45 mph Maximum 30 mph Maximum 30 mph Right -of -Way 60-100 feet 60-100 feet 50-80 feet 50-80 feet Transit Accommodations Cross -sections and geometrics designed for use by regular- route buses. None. Normally used as bus routes only in nonresidential areas. None. Characteristics of "A" Minor Arterials "A" Minor Arterial Categories Characteristics Relievers Augmenters Expanders Connectors Use Provide direct relief for traffic on Metropolitan Highway Principal Arterials Augment the PA within the Beltway Provide connection between developing areas outside the beltway, connect principal arterials Provide connection between rural town centers in the urban reserve and rural area Location Developed and developing areas within the MUSA and 2040 Urban Reserve Within the 1-494 / 1- 694 Beltway Outside the 1-494 I I- 694 Beltway with the 2020 MUSA or 2040 Urban Reserve In or near the seven county area, one end may be in the urban area Trip Length Medium length Trips less than 8 miles Medium to long trips Medium to long trips Medium to long trips Problem Addressed Relief of parallel congested Principal Arterials Serve Principal Arterial function where PAs don't exist Accommodate added urban development Improve the safety and directness of routes without continuous lane adds Existing System 400 miles 200 miles 650 miles 680 miles Existing Signal E WY 55 Unsignalized Intersection HORSESHOE Future Limited Access Right in/Right out Right in/Right out Access to Mohawk Drive Potential at Grade Access - No Signal Existing Signal - Future Interchange , EVERGREEN RD Existing Signal - Future Interchange 11= Existing S Closed in I 111111. CHEYE N: r 11■11 ■ DWI1.1 I a, auap v 4,04 a, I ZL ZL HEM mum ■gin! ■I■■■(111 � Mom -rale MI Or Ian■ 1 NI °WE no mom limmipi `1" mallithil ifruP5Villilta; 11111411111111 %Rol CITY OF NA - Trunk Highway 55 Concept Plan DRAFT Figure 10 • Existing Traffic Signal City Boundary Parcels Lakes TH55 6 Lane Divided Highway from CR 116 to East City Border. 4 Lane Divided Highway from Existing 4 Lanes at Arrowhead Drive to Townline Road. 3,000 N A 0 Feet September 2007 3,000 Bonestroo is \190\19007012\Cad\Gis\projects\Fig 10_TH 55Concept. mxd NAM 01 �� l boa 'VP' a ������ �; Atil.01Is v.. iisimon iiii �P � �� CHEYE N Mit 614 of;D �h -1.1 vrkz 0, kw* tic m 1 6 ,„,,.... MUM CITY OF _M,ED I NA_ Functional Classification of Roadways DRAFT Figure 8 A/ Principal Arterial A Minor Arterial - Connector A Minor Arterial - Expander B Minor Arterial Major Collector Future Major Collector Minor Collector Future Minor Collector Local Road ••i Future Local Road Q City Boundary Parcels Lakes 3,000 N A 0 Feet November 2007 3,000 Ai, Bonestroo is \190\19007012\Cad\Gis\projects\Fig8_Fu nctiona (Classification. mxd CITY JF _Mr.DmA WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION PLAN Executive Sur r n nary Medina, IVN November 2007 Project Number: 190-07011-0 7r Bonestroo CITY OF MEDINA - WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION PLAN Executive Summary INTRODUCTION This report represents a Comprehensive Water Supply and Distribution Plan of a water system which will meet both the near -term and long-range needs of the City of Medina. The attached Water Distribution Map identifies the anticipated water facilities and infrastructure proposed to serve Medina through the ultimate system GROWTH AND WATER DEMAND Medina has maintained a steady population over the years to a total 2006 population of 4,811. Water needs will increase slightly with an estimated 2030 served population of 9,500. The ultimate saturation population to be served by Medina water is estimated to be about 11,039. From this point forward, all population estimates stated are for populations served by Medina's water system Water use has increased steadily as population has grown. Medina currently pumps an average of 400,000 gallons each day. Over the past 10 years, the maximum day occurred in 2006, with 1.3 million gallons being pumped on one day. The projected water demand for 2030 is a daily average of 2.2 MG with an estirr rated daily maximum of 5.7 MG. The projected ultimate demand is a daily average of 2.2 MG and projected maximum daily demand of 5.8 MG. Projected water demands were based on the land use designations from the 2008 Medina Comprehensive Plan, and include service Independence Beach and to a portion of southwestern Corcoran. EXISTING FACILITIES The existing water supply and distribution system has served Medina's needs well. Previous studies have identified and quantified cost-effective and timely improvements for the system The existing distribution system is prevented on the Water Distribution Map at the back of this report. The Citys topography is rolling and the existing system operates all under one pressure zone. The high water level for this pressure zone is 1165. The City of Medina contains three (3) separate and isolated water distribution systems. The three systems are: the Hamel Area system in northeast Medina; the Independence Beach system in western Medina; and the Momingside system in southern Medina. The Hamel Area system is by far the largest of the three systems. The Hamel Area system presently obtains its raw water supply from 4 groundwater wells consisting of VVells 2, 3, 4, and 5. Well 6 is currently being constructed and is expected to be in operation in the Fall of 2007. VVells 3 and 4 supply raw water to the water treatment plant located along Tower Drive just east of Pinto Drive. VVell 2 and VVell 5 supply raw water directly to the Hamel Area distribution system VVell 2 is a reserve well. VVell 2 supplies a total capacity of 150 gpm directly to the distribution system Well 3 supplies a total capacity of 150 gpm to the Treatment Facility. VVelI 4 supplies a total capacity of 800 gpm to the Treatment Facility. VVell 5 supplies a total capacity of 300 gpm directly to the distribution system VVell 6 will supply a total capacity of 400 gpm to City of Medina Water supply and Distribution Plan BOnestrno Page I Project No: 190-07-011 the Treatment Fadlity. The firm capacity of the Oty of Medina's existing well fields, induding Well 6, is 1,000 gpm. Firm capacity is defined as the amount supplied with the largest well out of service. One 400,000 gallon elevated storage fadlity stabilizes pressures during peak water demands and also serve as a source of water during fires or power outages. The Water Treatment Facility has an additional 200,000 gallons of dearwell storage. There is a total existing usable storage volume of 400,000 gallons. Water from Wells 3 and 4 is pumped to the Treatment Fadlity where the radium, iron and manganese is removed. Chlorine and fluoride are added to disinfect and prevent tooth decay. After treatment, the water is stored in the 200,000 gallon dearwell. The high service pumps supply water from the dearwell to the distribution system as needed, based on signals from the elevated storage tanks. The Independence Beach and Momingside systems are small hydro -pneumatic systems that provide only short term storage and pressure to their respective distribution systems. COMPUTER MODEL A hydraulic analysis of Medina's ultimate water supply and trunk distribution system was conducted using computer modeling software, simulating the system's response to average and peak demands, tank refill, and fire fighting scenarios. Each condition creates different responses in the water system. The modeling and its results help to identify, gauge and respond to conditions that could result in poor water system 'performance. ULTIMATE DESIGN WATER SYSTEM The ultimate system, shovvn on the map at the bads of this report, consists of the following improvements: • 5 new supply wells with 2 backup wells; • Expand the existing 2.0 MGD Treatment Plant to 3.0 MGD; • Install 3.0 MGD Treatment Plant to serve future high pressure zone and future portions of the existing pressure zone; • Install an additional 1.5 million gallons of elevated storage; and • Install 20 miles of trunk water distribution mains The improvement program for Medina's ultimate trunk water supply and distribution system is estimated to cost $30,849,633. This cost is broken down into supply, storage, and distribution as follows: City of Medina Distribution $7,100,000 Supply $5,390,000 Treatment $6,400,000 Storage $3,960,000 Total $22,850,000 Contingency (35%) $8,000,000 Total $30,850,000 Water Supply and Distribution Plan BOnestrno Page II Project No: 190-07-011 PHASING OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The existing wells, water treatment plant, and elevated storage do not have sufficient capacity to serve all of the proposed additional development. Therefore, additional supply, treatment, and storage are required to serve existing and future service areas. Furthermore, a new high pressure zone (HWL =1195) will be needed to provide water service to northwest portions of Medina and southwestern portions of Corcoran as development progresses to higher ground elevations. Near term recur r r T vended improvements indude the following: 1. Drill VVells 7, 8 and 9 in the existing well field. This phased installation of new wells will provide an adequate supply to the Hamel Area System until 2020. The potential for utilizing the existing Independence Beach wells to supply the Hamel system should be investigated. 2. Construct an additional water tower in the existing service area vvith a high water level of 1165. This water tower will provide pressure, storage, and fire flows for portions of northwest Medina and Independence Beach. The tower should be a minimum of 0.75 MG to provide some level of fire protection to the proposed residential and commercial development. This water tower is projected to provide adequate storage and pressure to the Hamel Area System until 2020. Long term future recommended improvements indude the following: 1. Establish a future VVestem VVell Feld and drill Wells 10 and 11 and two backup wells. 2. Provide a 1.0 MGD expansion to the existing Water Treatment Facility that currently has a capacity of 2.0 MGD. 3. Construct the future Westem Water Treatment Facility. The most favorable location for the future Westem Water Treatment Fadlity is in the future high pressure zone near the future Westem VVell Field. 4. Construct an additional water tower in the future western service area with a high water level of 1195. This water tower will provide pressure, storage, and fire flows for the western portion of the existing city limits induding southwest Corcoran. The tower should be a minimum of 0.75 MG to provide some level of fire protection to the proposed residential and commercial development. Current plans are for both the northwest Medina and southwest Corcoran areas to expand concurrently with service extended to southwest Corcoran. Building additional wells, treatment, and storage in both the high pressure zone and the low pressure zone and southwest service will be necessary as demand increases. Also, phasing of water storage tanks must be done carefully, to avoid freezing problems in the winter due to low use when the tank is first placed into service. The following disd ssion attempts to balance all of these factors into a phasing plan. City of Medina VVater supply and Distribution Plan BOnestr00 Page III Project No: 190-07-011 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS This report rinds that the City maintain the current system of using area charges and connection charges to finance the proposed Capital Improvement Plan. Area charges are proposed to pay for 100%of distribution system costs and 25%of supply and storage costs. Connection charges per residential equivalent oonnection are proposed to pay for 75% of supply and storage costs. The City should review the Capital Improvement Program annually and modify the program to better serve community development needs. The entire water supply and distribution plan should be revised every 5 to 7 years. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results and analysis of this study, the following are recommendations for the City of Medina and the Medina City Council. 1. Adopt this study and the Capital Improvement Plan as a guide for the orderly expansion of the Citys water system 2. Adopt the Emergency Preparedness and Conservation Plans included in this report (Appendix A) and submit them to the Metropolitan Council and Department of Natural Resources for their approval. 3. Annually review the Capital Improvement Program and water system service charges to serve community development. 4. Plan for acquisition of a site for additional elevated tank storage in westem Medina, and any easements required to connect these sites to the water system and to prevent conflicts with surrounding development. City of Medina Water Supply and Distribution Plan BOnestrn0 Page IV Project No: 190-07-011 Potential Future 0.75 MG Elev Tank Site HWL: 1195 ire � aa7e •����::�.Illi4lt':-.w r. 111 � 4 111111111r7 1111 - 114; Medina Independence Beach Water System �•�-111 ��■�� Potential Future Wells in Existing Well Field MI 1111sivrissimowl now7pir-A.,11-iti'' = .•'e.....a dY La mi �V ■�1 0 to , ► i, • IW;5 IF; .17 �!� 1 . IIIIIIIIIIII Q •(��I�11�ll` 4/1111 �� IG711 �� i/Inn ren.�::illl regia mimimilummi=v4IFA aellW 11151 ti Served b , : �",��li�. ��lllllllllllllll. .,,�;':��Innn,l:/�. a ovhi Medina MorningSide �,*. '+�' -�_ Water S stem O�'y'�'�-�� � ■ � 14r'1: ��, � omnl,I Y► • � � � ,�� � ��-�� it �s �"'� ter`'_ -a _ Served b R "Iff ?r�'r-ITT fir poi CITY OF A,ED 1 NA Ultimate Trunk Water System Map DRAFT • Existing Wells /N/ Existing System "/ Ultimate System 0 Potential Elevated Storage Tank Site Potential Water Treatment Facility Site Potential Well Field Site Study Area Areas Served by Others QCity Boundary Future Pressure Zone Boundary Parcels Lakes 3,000 0 3,000 Feet September 2007 Ag, Bonestroo is \190\19007011\Cad\Gis\projects \ water_system.mxd MEMO NDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING: SUBJ: Chair Verbick and Members of the Planning Commission Dusty Finke, Assistant to Planning; through Planning Director Benetti November 21, 2007 November 27, 2007 Special Planning Commission Meeting DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Update. Public Hearing The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Panel has worked diligently over the past year on preparing a DRAFT update to Medina's Comprehensive Plan as required by statute. Jennifer Haskamp, the consultant who helped guide the Advisory Panel through the process, will present the DRAFT briefly and City staff and consultants will be available for questions. The Planning Commission should then open the meeting for public comment on the DRAFT plan. Staff will record verbal comments received during this time. These comments, along with any written correspondence in the following weeks, will be recorded and presented to the Commission at its December 11, 2007 meeting to officially be entered into the public record. The Public Hearing will be continued at this December 11 meeting in order to solicit additional public comment. Following the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission shall deliberate and deliver a recommendation to the City Council on the DRAFT Comprehensive Plan update. Included in the packet are three pieces of information clipped together separately. The first is the DRAFT text of the Comprehensive Plan (seven sections). The second group of documents is the infrastructure appendices prepared by the City Engineer (four plans). The third group of docnunents is the written correspondence received by the City prior to the packet being sent. Document Summary: First Bundle — DRAFT Comp Plan Section 1 — Executive Summary Section 2 — Goals and Strategies Section 3 — Community Background Section 4 — Housing and Neighborhoods Section 5 — Land Use and Growth Section 6 — Parks, Trails, and Open Space Section 7 — Implementation Second Bundle— DRAFT Infrastructure Plans Transportation Plan Water Supply and Distribution Plan Sewer Plan Surface Water Management Plan Third Bundle — Correspondence Comments from Open Houses Typed comment from Open House Petition regarding Hwy 55 Concept Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? X Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you ost comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? -%aavet- THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? VYes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? J� �( ( Cl-fy Sal ic. it ✓e S d('-- ( .�L 6L4.- -r.Si rec (e a-qs 1!� J'c?e n.� 4fly.( l y ��c�,il� 7�'� 6fn.✓" C.-. i y. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? • 1i ck,._ 41c GC✓a.0 Ot/t, L it Ty la f Ark4---- Gvc� r.ci 1I "75 to "Vc✓ 14e s cAr.1e aDS +-1 01- p N14 wtd C%,./re (y E ¢eL Ady pate ( f licks e err—. l^ . taiga,T pia. i e i LCt�T�✓ �_ L✓� Via 1g e t,- 6: to_ p c j `v-N-9 e-- 6 -- oE/oi Soy kcc oast L (,1.e �fl cd f � Ls�.-�--�---�-�-��j /'^ Mc--ah'-^_} ajt-.e— tvay.Sv ee , L et 'j" y 4Y' h—�e rf , %'� ,^-5 , e^eJ S e S rf,S � N vim--. %O/'i/e c� %q✓P 1 L �T(li VLC'g r0r-- o 6.- C. , 5f Lt,�/ .6✓ i i e,Ty "rU �i'JE j �� - e cCGS`, %^g Urilc1( g, e S 2�S Lc' � S �a.) rt... <Le ��c.e� ��E G%�( O%l^^EC%i )veGf�s I� At Ow (.4-t^.o) 0<m^ il 1 o Skit i � ' f 14✓61. i-ta ez C 1-47c.0 hce t,„„) 0 �^'t.�v5 ! r4 -1�5 �S C 11`c-yf S o`-re `j t i t>. wo,--Ld fort,4 ( s( 4 ex,/ e,7e- dicT%y yAL(ht ''r(tte. (tr.) a Cfre-C) THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? v tl 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? dcsi C/te'4-cks4.0 .42oo- aL.,7 Pattot,. 4,1 ,/ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! A4'4r k{r k. at-L4 ay; _ rim Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you mod comfortable`�about?L p n l n 1 �� (A Y U h a 1 �42oSS,_ What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? 1 71- 1(004A Mop?— v Uira��Q�` :11/4Reci cue THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! a.'at 1i171h'•- Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? fi-Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3., What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? /r 1. C' L2,4/ r yr THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? r9 Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? ) p r�rho, YR i 1%1�� th0 G yd Is p91-n/vaz 7Y,Y f m910 4tOr,/ Ge��: ✓�5sn2vs T 94 What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? s a /h Ng J EA- Cr 6-)72g*S tr C 0,.t., G� A}le. ._. flJ14Rk . i�=, YG' So�> (5) t.J,4}J,:, Na, Lg,�lr 19-C4,7005, l40-,y S - Y=pz --Ili T y Lir-,-.? , THA_ YOU OR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? VYes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you mosst_,ccoomfo able about?, 6 51alcicrs Fm12ity ‘41i4LL LOT A What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? Da �i5 5/iv6v1/21 F itl 1444 6: -rite 2otvtnl4h Fog_ Ths 4 Pi oPOS6 A 72-itA) Sitouth Bi HDeu Dgm5t-r i 2.0 - 5.44 Nay- rinEDiu.n1 #DES 3.s-/Dmg r-Mo c6 t:rt. hind-aimetew (5 r /VDT A ctEP T A-8/ You RRIgo` P ro bE41-R011 ouR Are-16W BoRitoA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! te(Le_ g45F (f/t,t, s/N4tC E5 boo C zoithN6. Questions (Please Answer after You have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? IA Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? L" a �, ,ne-,— ej (..La1� d rh_ �y� Lv--e—c)`— s What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? c THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! 473V y7 rb Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open Houser 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? ❑ Yes No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? Z • � fr/.64.0to a e`T11,4lA74— 72,i.v.t CJe • 3., What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? l,,.dcir eve i iitonici trrasJ cie ,areas /0.. 7—ittAlt k�� yap mates tbar ieo sae,, i.e. etztar.J; age, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! ��e S Q u e s t i o n s ( P l e a s e A n s w e r a f t e r y o u h a v e v i s i t e d t h e s t a t i o n s a t t h e O p e n H o u s e ) ; 1 . W o u l d y o u l i k e y o u r r e s p o n s e s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s e n t e r e d i n t o t h e f o r m a l p u b l i c r e c o r d a t t h e P u b l i c H e a r i n g o n N o v e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 ? j A I J Y e s E l N o 2 . W h a t d i d y o u l i k e b e s t a b o u t w h a t y o u s a w o r h e a r d t o n i g h t ? W h a t w e r e y o u m o s t c o m f o r t a b l e a b o u t ? 1 i 6 �� / l e d i h a ! S i d 9 w h f i j ��7 '�� C t e t r W h a t w e r e y o u m o s t c o n c e r n e d a b o u t w h a t y o u s a w o r h e a r d t o n i g h t ? W h a t n e e d s f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n ? k T h o / c 8 4 7 4 '' �� e ���� ��S �� G S i ��. d N O / / 2 " L c % D i v - ( T u r a . / �� L ��c �� / . 6 , f b f i f 7 ` ' a f t / - a L ; - k o r a y ( - A / h . / / t , i u r u a s a 'a 4 / ? p ��, / P S I n P p , S e a / i f / n c a W a l F C t r J , / - a T H A N K Y O U F O R Y O U R T I M E A N D P A R T I C I P A T I O N ! Ptkap C�edri���i r A) . 57Qt iM.�,N� M Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? N Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? C rl A \ rl -I YAirl 1 A- wk (: A/ Am- 64- r. 0 1' ! V 1 3 gm 10 to 6) k..1_ tieri s t k M on n 5 S (.-ama 0,6-- Los . 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? nn i' o i'e,N 'i� �l C�� r S i ti 0,4 EA-J 4- t-bo 1 (VI Ri -E I) (Lt ✓G . _ Fu �!-u it its-, d v 1 e /14, fir' show .r no he, 1 A-J A- YcC� 1-Prwr1 1,46, it, I cro.1 ad .r P%' ,? tr h-rne 1� r l� A- p� p � rp-1 �ti h, ylee-4/ (14,4J � THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? LL THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPZT/ONI ttithr rnrn;� Questions (Please Answer after You have visited the stations at the Open House): 7. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most.comfortable about?1/4.7an %�L y ou r� 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? F 99 c.5 C9, V-,2� ,1 - alt)--a-Lia -e-P (2-00-49 4o., I it C y-4/1s4 °LC, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! I taje-as yr. _e� e s5 / U rt ?�v 19,,_1(04_ %9-0 ( G lye Liati= s 4e of �= ..25L nib WQ ar 0 � _ rt Q ! e-r--ry '�`-- it(2—e IW:5 4(-7/' i--._ Z,-(„), ire �0� y f—e' d Vs , r n� a �` ejja, Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? es ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! t 3 4 lc/ * 141 d`1. f Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? KYes ❑ No What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? c�1 UZN. At `a YN {��j:��� �r1ati a— 14-4 ��i j kn cu\r" 5 Ct u u � d 1� t 7vv�( J voto b (niter i (�� 11( `"a(% E !� Gr N'�o Cvc' �I ru-1 p c,� twr rf� f- 14' ("tot;/ THANK YOU FOR YOUIME AND PARTIC/PATION!�� 1`r Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? X,Yes C No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you mosfmcomfortable about? Gtii //i "Td T1"4- Ce ;r4GCr✓t C Ser c v eS .e• cs 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What -fnfeeeds further uurher clarification? .,t.}��--�-_ _ / /IYFnJYcT /vra� //Ur �1I c. ine 5 (fart 4.0i'7c-nS I JTT5 6o,CA �l-hn»lSr..r %6`,(,a,t+.✓ � � i !7�serr-r di crzS �,; a Tn �� 6;143,, O rvTh �. 14 PS �N.t 12lr,'�w `f ter' OJr6>1? %!ter-.r S ! /� ems/ //. Lc e r-t_ Act .trir -7z) 1 THANK YOU FOR /YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! (t)Gs--L., 41.5 /�v� �o S 6iv .� �OQ h S p/L(in-$ —e S-c�c.! �v / v,— 67uinc_/ / rne--er -y� le.'!/.�-- % d : /1-5-n 0-n-det 11 cr.S �ba� 1-)dv�/5 4Jl— e-) 7 577, S51-6.2 S ea— 4 rrtim I (Roc7-/ Jun 54, ede ea) Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? ,7>4es ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? e 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? �n On r, ��e yn4 1 vS C ma) — inn Gvrtr rocik iockto n a;nnr- c_o to r a t i 11 ILA 1� jrk 0r112 s4-a U 4- W 6c-1, 14.1 v� c� —V V T-T ` -v-4 1 } o ' t 2 � n s i v r? c�� 2m ev- I (i 1 ! -1-a -f-f� r5- c, ` -�-0 1i l) r r- 1 n-1-0 Y O c% THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! &9- ---r -f—p rnt4 /-.e ct !1‘e -O �� ��,,,z_e:g/ FA -rite d et_ rLo 5 Uh Flows -12-ea J � 6� C. 'el 3 �-- r f S r121 G r /.� in C-C-, 0--r°,e Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you m • t comfort- I2le ab • t? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? ithv fria THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! s ci ' f� r. a Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? 711 Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? _L ra r-A. Co Vir .2 Sth,Pg- J r ift/A, • .., iJ S aT.p c� >1( wc� ( C1itb ek(1� 'hi 'y./4( b 2 P��e S ,� a•+iln� tiat P�k_, � Ao,t,•41P4f c3% LOc�.eA- r ' yz mr pp_ /els i 5 J . AA- ,^2-1- 'e...e) 1 ....-(•� �,. nxn—_ -.,�% t.� i.n (n.nn. ,. a ^.-'r'®, �rµ.t{J,Ji.:. E,;i1ln (` I ,w.....� rpam_-. p� e u.......� �... etc\-zoS _ U t.peiwf�, ire '' �rre fct uk �1 i�� c� -1-45 p_ c itch THANKV6t1 FOR 61.114 TIME fik PARi1` 6130 All 4, Sf �icocb w (ice /b akC' ty ,� g)% ��e � � l� j 2� f=6�es S�aacii� w0.Tnr i(n2(L tat— 71i%L l/C�.-F 2_ »ice4 j w('i�ux mij-i . _fig: cta& Rebirttea tAL e . itY 5 Luicfr7 fir¢- r,)- otku Vie. &utl-1a4cli Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? ,s� ,a,�il+�n��('�� �1/�ieCi e.v,c-�,v7r,�.R.z�p (4 t � . t:4# ca d_8?IWP7i�Ir teri(.(.'}r�l?�f i1 Prn-Le c G tea4 e d)4,,aeerrnmei- dweerneitt 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! of -ma �. ��s 171-€44--A -r�- Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable aboutt_ 1 / 3., What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What (�// a needs further clarification? ] /' I V A sewn. �1�7// 31•41 fu t...p� Covcoq 1.3 Lityh 1(1 Cr f� Ol �r�rK`P ✓I4S ��'' ///''--- Lys/I (,+f S• 6;11,.,J 0ti 007 mink p,_ �? v L, l ) t /'� �=iM'I �f Y`i L`�/I��Cr .s l�,i W/�� 3 A/r �'I%LS �L1/-kI CN4 �i� 14,�./ a-k dr(:7{%Cc�'i„ prts,�6.,„t �:/ CouLiYS P9 o1-S �5 ao,rl. ✓i� ko,U.S' /7o,. %7 v.c� fr%O✓t A. tat niiG ± 7u,. 57400 frail C. nf� tic 3 .:1—yt4 G-ri�F;u,r LorJoivhr-c•—F.iv.:vr �s 740 S41s-airc.. e 7� rr(. r ��,,Jfi ;�w5�a r—a451 �� �; (c, 44,-n fG( rrsY �(� ,v,s/ irwc�a4Gv4ti � „,Oro, s ❑0 7.1 1_ Mi41 Look, /T 1/ TI t IIIL A (�� LI 74 7' 1j1o1 cy "7T1� / loitit lit l i3m• \ r� 1 Pi- r' y r §i 1 'f/ W y £ -I , / • r}y 1,j+yfil 61'1 ,4 ail oK,n u c rt'� 1RA1( Yol•IC jlvyi. G+,„� (�J 1 1_ Ofr1� I"j V4 IYj 4.1 I '//� /+[� /( /��r. f to tJ I loci {eV �j-t`CO- 4IIr A b4i IMry C�Oiiy I ) r;� �I wl,r�C �� i S o4 ev"�4•r g,, ow Gl•T y d, �jolhJ o ✓Y,StS �Y 'v� !'i'i4y �N,7'1/V/C�Sr7 /1£kC / c r: t ,� �'to���lit hJ04��Jt+� / it s C.0.4c l i THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): t. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Dis Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? t.` G Gtee-t k-w! Gz -,z—Ou.Ed FrGf Gc.L -1 iGe-D-,-t 5/ THANK YOU FOR / J YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! GGe Ly/ 5,f3 iZ Questions (Please Answer after You have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? --'Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? L<'Ye /4 Gdh P.v PeoD,//2 ,a5� r 1 u� Ja 7' Like JT GrJ/�()-ter/ in -Le %L2-,/ What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? Tin �„az�-recf `1'/-+_e (41- s( r. /s ki tL, Cif Ma R. 0A) 5 00 Areij eig) :7317 C'oN her , ed ,4-/3 u L Wit Lr4 e <- ciye l412771 fk"1-- 9e-15 ry Gyl/7� i-✓4- - - / 1 lP ¢ 'T�? ✓ 2gc/L Sh a ,40/ G a Th ✓e), :N» Cor-,Cer-v-ce 72 /; 4 hoe- v cJh eo - o%¢.ss/ 1/ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? XY-es ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! l% OQQ 0 G� (IC Nof,7 10 Nee au �„ 1 Na Neel- 6,.(14- Nave C.o.ke. ri �r 4 ?ter* ,j� �yh L�-2L r J 1 �ao h tat4-Y la�A Rocks s � Lose{-� �5�� s . Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? gf Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 776 /4::fps' ,end A Al G /le 4.9 7¢, vv1aLmoat, ovn. 6.046xg tpiens aesc.vd'iece 6VL What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? o$ "uigGk 1a t 5 u F-9-G.e t)-76 /107, 9 ee+$ 77.65 4w:,6665Pn"..+-C INOte ,..ytntiv ,,r, 2) .BC i Jt `rs T7-70'1G6 'Pz--Aar Fj2a.44-, S.Not i 4c5S iC3 ffrr 1544,0-e scr--+sr /sr ,A9 weep `PO.d't' is Few 1/0-4.az jt7tf.eJetbv.4 422- A l/.tJ 54 Cod tr'/N MGNtiatG oa., o r e CIE G Tr-7 � 7.) ciza'widl Ev61� /�E 1 /d.�a• 71 € ui:�-vs 0/.2 r ,rtA . �45-� 7 %. r• ckzet®razz. a y - L L THANK YOU FOR YOU TIME AN Av PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? �t>Gv. 2616' yv�/��i �. evc 6,eeetom l SS�SJ vwv` d d� 6 b 56 L � � -“g 0 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION, `21 %or0ter l S 7 kA-77.o /eV ("a &e/ �� s, `71 C 5 a //Y/ 5 lice_� grr 4./K-eri /re N� d ��� l` S GY/`� , _ �( GC •v %` was G0�tt/'� �� e .s SLAP u snort ]j`, T:`ilw:; Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? aYes O No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable abRu ? 2 ke. Wait)/e a/ fife-02taco Apol- -7qi i/re_ Pages, What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? p `=' 0011 CC07-efi v51 .1"h-e zv frene �'G/ %e ) /J�L�C k %dirTit , l (Ike Twa i/ c - THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! 1 C I A 1 5c611�1 V l oto,ijl (O o ±Y P ) /1) Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 1'c C1\51Y4 i L \ 01 /1rU� gar inn 11.1 Mr" I 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs furtkro clarification? Ur(( 4 h ( ,I<v` 1; 0yr0Vii (hyiliitIli?) fl-i di4i:41 b,A�Ii in WI) ��G•(lt In��c,SJ ��`l G1G�)vGI ,fitKi G i7.iv4\ �j ) dly 5)a%e f-b Ilh I AuGAP'%ur1 pi/ 5 y,AiV-S iiik/t THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! hi,: , r,1 i.v I A» 1 t 1 v pi, Iv \,., 7 1).-\_, t 7., IN4r by ill./ I 4,,,1ivs1vi/4 t1 I (vei-l� fibne frdv�zv-S,{Ur )- fii�g411G� 1��; G �"'� J �� (ry �VviS )91/i�iV - CtnkirNe iiAr-twl- IA" i 1d ; d � ]/vb`v//�v\y�,VvttiiV; >11( u) ��c 1�+7'v� � U\ .-;IV �,��I �v\f i�F l )4. II 4 try ,7�v o ; r) (lit(� 0i � t �' {, ) t f15 -fib -0`' L I I''' )1( )O V i da(1,f, U)`-\, _ 1 i I .)� L'• •.., .n. p/ 1x tk 11 V\ ) 1 If / r Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? fp�027 (r ill/ Z r_ G/ qd %/1e.,r 40.0//r/ 15 , �-� 7�,� THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! �e�, y fz � are /tom'ceir-7u/ a/g� t)/l`%De-- What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? gc-t°'aftiete/- // i dizec- te.--,fa� Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 4- (-t k e' -n-v TiRA K rA i26pic ' Tint o Teo cc S S —F6 �6ARNtS+t�6— P,-“Sci )�C15trt+a�tS, —t BC- f9OTS �il ERE fl 6da t> riDEA 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? P 5-jj pre �o t �l A-« l Y2 6 erst1 i o W ,o Ctn S 0.0 � [ a rJ k Est r2 +� (s- i� ( v Anti w r1 N -5d1/t f2 Etto LA-ril) u ciA-TT 1"-Ur- L. 12Aitido5ES A 5kttNt— u5570 �a2 `[RS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! c \reii A L-L (l l C c (1 `j' t S a ,,J cv ,4 s To jJ 0- ES- [51 V&- v u (l ---- k i c c TAT I ai"% S Di -WA to-0tO taiG- 1 l � 1Z��� � utF� t_+ 1/ b FT L) T-R t C oo P O ra 1 t vi LA-vk)6 u S t� UL)0�Lr\ 1--}ISrt0RIcA LY .r-lr✓ rvie 07\60t OA, --ZYPIPI Lt --t- Va °sue Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? jR(Yes No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3., What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? v v Lja, `Z� lGl U e_ YY�6%2 0-C4-CO OQ c 1rosr1 G.UI.VYl- c-� �.���\.i I r� -Pi -ee -t'I P Yno-de-k �t t itrir r` c-s� �J 1� i C U � I D cic� c7R 0, v , � ins -t`-e� r`wS o� l a , ,69,_� p re Ata_ l\ 6-1-- 41 ��1'� w 'c_ i9-� I` I l l'✓l SS l a-4,2- n O ---\&cucLe,_ o_ G THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Merct vaL etyvikot VMiLe 4_e_S w 4-qt CinicueLck 'o-yy\ 5 -D c (4 , vey)1 a— 904Aud- ; Achtac<Lf—r Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? El Yes ❑ No What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? Ti ANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION!. oily._� tfas; kcu. �v.�' Nc LN,..�. aSu t `aA. LS. A.S.L�� (..^ Ni Ghc) \ • !J cc_ -'� Comes 1 t1 C3 GK S Rsz rt ICi Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? n-‘ e- J16 of it_ properly THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification?? //i'� l__rli? �G Y1CYlrn_ _ S� 6� _ 6� 41 t H-uuL cottune � j'rv) rrk p P i � i� s V ouk t -be � f r1Prt 1-14- �up -Fr) fry-) e eie k. Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 9. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3., What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? ,c(. r� �r, Cc- c jcz� uc�pt-�d.-n� fs., (/��� PL.LL t7)-:;74diG[�..P V C L2_0-ce v, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION!_ AA- .— roc. -4 Au° s-ra cc__c-Czke,c-c CR_ (LA Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? ,16, Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you rt ost comfortable about? 1-lith s" %Seem +0 he- imoui\r\cpahead can Wheal.0. l E9 ct / (cr t` C_cv d 773 ln� P_ et- � h ecx v Antic-1- e660e-irVIS 6vP (Wk_-e . What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? 1 t -typ l/ �/rtf 1- p n1Q.,P c.l cc>PS/c / r • THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? rOijn, K� What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? bu✓i` %e-c-ty y-tocYJ OP_1/40 s in Permeavf jeeseN2 b,4:vh 41"uk AjLe- gYUurAdh 0E- b(i SinGSS 4,kur2.S .n (lne�lin� THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? E Yes O No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? d Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? rlurl,oy, -tltco n« (, What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? .0 Snr s r r fir/, ,_n.katwti Lijd hsAv12 tio Si1�ekb te��� ra DFsr2ov Ha C N.74P-4iA THANK YOUFUR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION!A S 6 et� i--1-AvEAt aupota C. iss (Coin L y S C cc- Q(2-/At 6- "r C {-d_ tri A£ 00 n n s-A--L C (0 w N ,�' scs,,,` vvNc "tAL,k an-e,�L-12,0 2cs 2 �¢Spj . Questions (Please Answer after You have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? gYes I No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? +CAA 1pok,s 9r-egt- kt� nPa� 5fq,re> What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? Co ne k c u a Q be .A 4-aij (..-vpr/s rc. -c,;o1"via Iey 0.1"e f) S - c l t��a �u Qtf .rtt stir : a_rr n rpce,I. `-On Lrl l 444 S.:✓rn/ dins. ly 1, it.� —a1/r lt� It 7J�+%f3 Q-cyJ a -e_.� r� Elm(rfltE' l�wl�Pl n tk-e-, •-•nd feibt dt,cu 71teae �.4 LorG,n6as ry rl( Clea,Iraya,21 300.1 0-0 I elDet`r11 194-3.^rr 505 feq cLe,JiI,per b.ix? 6Lr(1a, MJiF; �7kn.;iebta in 5 J•.n ((� -rk ne-Tc GLO f/. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME ANb PARTICIPATION! r i, pa ' 1,0C,Li d0: A- 9 40 Prd �feiL n e :5111asr G,o0d3 c3e d©. r ((opet_c (J: t( tad to a% I �ia� V Pr �:e,� . fn d rura 25Fua�''SII-✓�f IouolocierR� -e ci MJII1-Jera Y u--)/ r7 o r ; i m n b e 1,,J Alto 4:nl` i tPer/11- lItJt9II 4trrN eb Ha f�nnOLtd ebJ �c iv-Q% ljo.��', adm.oid.lil• "-znne_d S olo p t {- ion olt4 541 M Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? XYes L No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? C✓I P (Jan (1 (p� C7 l/n� gp Y � �1 e'/4, (�Q S�d��I R✓IS 1/L rJV�� al re l� h eadect o,,,),� —gyro a pa. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? - w Tf ;56 VY�i ��le'✓✓ �evl(517z ?,c I1 orth/ �✓✓F }_G afr/etnea v✓' '1Y C -67'7t rvt y 10 jb �t THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? THANK YOU FOR YOUR T E AND PARTICIPATION! Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? ®. Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? y r e-0/non R.n4)--I'nfi-4' k 4.e. Nn0. k t M J Y ci4n 4; i l r}1 i x.ed i n creH 55c) -4-0 4ppre, w fCt iU 0fnp-er" cr-ffr-Lc>re . Plzns� What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? i'n•Mvnur: 0 f- nf2�'�s.-.pq -f-o h, � 4.1,' y k 1— .1-lue k; a5.'� p( 4n.,..�"_`� 1 r; "rP La 5 4-1-n:r Lure_ 'Fe it oz,.r-r) cidtd —t� 5 a-- a 6- uS Cr‘Gh�,(/�i -rap(.4 �rCy,�0 JS p(e THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! i Gras h'n- -Htt -C a/A zn Aug °ic Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? I� Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? -�- Y� �� v-e � What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? Like— O Atte-X.4 Soc-2-- THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! l Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? 0 Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? �^, 44577.1i", tr6i � �1 Ca4net -9,;12-OW 41�5 ram- Q.,/,-66 »1On�/ A.7 S oatc; ?' ; � (" 4/4' 741-�"t" 0�IP Pi S /�a.2dct life aft- Z 0 / / THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Nov 07 07 11:42a Jerry 612-522-6562 P.1 /air 6. 5 ~ ; ;i(., 4 fT1/:-,;' ' /% 5 a/1 •' /mot . f. //C,- f--% Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): 1. Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about?, -/ ='' d 11� % I / / . ./^ na ,/ ,/.7 . 5 i, %r; /T+%' ��/'/ i � 7;/!,' : �FM»./.,.7h1+»71? 3 I '///t/ 7 // P 7 �!Y' /� _v .. C< .:�Y�!'u / 1 Y /Ay. L No • 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? 47• err et ,/ , / THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! , Questions (Please Answer after you have visited the stations at the Open House): Would you like your responses to the following questions entered into the formal public record at the Public Hearing on November 27, 2007? JJ Yes ❑ No 2. What did you like best about what you saw or heard tonight? What were you most comfortable about? ' e# 3. What were you most concerned about what you saw or heard tonight? What needs further clarification? _ ,, �`%wC t D H of to Ol cerin--untur1) Wear o U c vwV44 � /can,c-�/� t't a -^ r THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! ATTACHMENT Question 2. We were most pleased to have heard that the City is working with Hennepin County to create a safe pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 between Highway 55 and Evergreen Road. Question 3. We have a concern regarding traffic on Highway 101. The intersection with Evergreen Road is very dangerous because of the speed of the traffic coming from the north and the curve in the road, which creates visibility problems for traffic turning off of Evergreen. In addition there is often "stuff' parked or stored on the northeast corner of the intersection that further hampers visibility. We are aware of plans for potential development in Plymouth east of Highway 101 between Highway 55 and County Road 47. First, there is the planned residential development of the Elm Creek Golf Course (see attached copy of letter dated October 26, 2007, from the City of Plymouth). We are concerned that the developer will expect Medina to provide access to any such development on Medina city streets, such as Evergreen or Clydesdale, which would exacerbate the existing and worsening traffic issues at the intersections of those roads with Highway 101. Second, there is the planned construction of Speak The Word Church (which is known as a "megachurch") north of Evergreen, across Highway 101 from Wild Meadows. This has the potential to create traffic issues on days when Church events are held, particularly Sunday mornings. We have an additional concern about the prospect of the City taking over County roads for the sole purpose of restricting truck traffic on those roads in order to placate residents who live along those roads. Our concern relates to the fact that this would result in a tax increase for all residents of Medina, only a tiny fraction of whom would benefit from this change. .s-- . Addiny, Quality to Life October 26, 2007 SUBJECT: PRE -APPLICATION SKETCH REVIEW FOR ERICKSON RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC. (2007104) Dear Property Owner: Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a request by Ericicson Retirement Conununities, LLC., under File No. 20071(14, for a pre - application sketch review for a proposed senior retirement community on the property of the Elm Creek Golf Course, located north of State Hithway 55 and east of County Road 101 North. The sketch indicates roughly 1,500-1,600 dwelling units on the roughly 107-acre site. While a formal Public Hearing is not required, it is the City's policy to inform adjacent property owners of such sketch proposals. Hennepin County records indicate your property is within 750 feet of the site of this proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a Public Meeting to be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, in the Council Chambers at the Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the Community Development Information Counter (lower level), on Mondays and Wednesday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except holidays. If you have any questions about the specifics of the Sketch, please contact the City Planning Department at (763) 509-5450. Sincerely, 17C,lriti., Barbara G. Senness. AIC'P Planning Manager 2007104propnotice 3400 Plymouth Blvd = Plymouth, Minnesota 554-17-1482 > Tel: 763-509-5000 = www.ci.plymouth.mn.us PETITION Date: November 1, 2007 To: The Medina City Council and Planning Commission We, the undersigned, wish to request that the City of Medina not sign off on, or give its approval to MnDot with regard to its proposed Concept Plan for upgrades to the Highway 55 corridor suggested by MnDot. This Plan calls for the closing of all current signaled intersections and other access points between the eastern edge of Medina and through the County Road 116 intersection on the west. We request that this petition become part of the public record at both the November 20'1' and November 27'h meetings regarding the proposed MnDot Concept Plan for Highway 55. It is our belief that lack of the access to Highway 55 that we currently enjoy will drastically and dramatically hamper all businesses in the district's ability to attract enough customers to remain in business and/or attain a sufficient profit to want to. In addition, the prospect of selling a piece of property in this corridor becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, with the black cloud of loss of access looming. It is our belief that concerns over commute times from residents of Rockford and areas west or Corcoran and areas north should not have a priority over we, the local businesses of Medina. While we understand that the City of Medina does not have final power over MnDot, we respectfully request that our City representatives utilize their influence to protect the business district of Medina which is essential to the continued prosperity of our community. Business Name Representative's (Individual's) Printed Name / S /3kfieithr.4• e74 lets L`Xes 05.5 Sew Ajo Nor S ParNt atit e v gApp 4 /I'lAye, c.« t ACehi" :Lrf Met Z te,“ko0 Signature Business Name PETITION - Continued Representative's (Individual's) Signa}ure Printed Name A- tat- 19Arcsko b li.�c s ads \N txes-Ftites e_.u.rawpf 4,1 MAp.fdater-- Abi smc T� S t ��=►,dry tti AT if 6C[ntiC�tJ m ,,YL/=) la pesi—nuk;e'its. ijoi2v4 ri-o-t ezc (4,v J ( (7(ineO' „i-f1/4 66:k rne.- L Akii6--� 31, Do. j r1m(-s-, F 9z-la fra/ PETITION - Continued Business Name Representative's (Individual's) Printed Name f.r (-C-) r» r-w e 4 UL tel arn690 L-FY/S .Cgif/-KA ,Oryon Cara 055 Signature PETITION Date: November 1, 2007 To: The Medina City Council and Planning Commission We, the undersigned, wish to request that the City of Medina not sign off on, or give its approval to MnDot with regard to its proposed Concept Plan for upgrades to the Highway 55 corridor suggested by MnDot. This Plan calls for the closing of all current signaled intersections and other access points between the eastern edge of Medina and through the County Road 116 intersection on the west. We request that this petition become part of the public record at both the November 20'h and November 27h meetings regarding the proposed MnDot Concept Plan for Highway 55. It is our belief that lack of the access to Highway 55 that we currently enjoy will drastically and dramatically hamper all businesses in the district's ability to attract enough customers to remain in business and/or attain a sufficient profit to want to. In addition, the prospect of selling a piece of property in this corridor becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, with the black cloud of loss of access looming. It is our belief that concerns over commute times from residents of Rockford and areas west or Corcoran and areas north should not have a priority over we, the local businesses of Medina. While we understand that the City of Medina does not have final power over MnDot, we respectfully request that our City representatives utilize their influence to protect the business district of Medina which is essential to the continued prosperity of our community. Business Name Representative's Undividual's) �1 "�/ Printed Name 1- /6�/Gc4,7 5S is�� / f � 47. riZC - ,:--g-e� `lady-y (pufk Signature 1�1t, lomobt,ithy. Since 1975 P.O. Box 255 3522 Sioux Drive ® Hamel, Minnesota 55340 (763) 478-2120 • Fax (763) 478-6194 e-mail: main@hedtkeinc.com • www.hedtkeinc.com Date: November 13, 2007 To: Medina City Council & Planning Commission From: Dennis Hedtke/Hedtke, Inc. RE: Concept Plan on Access Closing & Changes to Hwy 55 Corridor from MnDot I have been a Hamel -located business owner for 30 years. In that time, my organization has contributed many hundreds of dollars to upgrade and benefit a variety of area community projects. Hundreds of thousands of Hedtke, Inc. tax dollars have found their way into city resources. I find it very distressing that my business and land development plans and those of other local businesses would be arbitrarily thrown over in favor of the current MnDot hwy 55 expansion proposal. Everyone here understands the need for changes and improvements to hwy 55. My appeal is that the City Council truly considers the serious financial impact that this present proposal would create for the very people who have worked to keep the Hamel/Medina area a functional neighborhood. Should the access closures and changes be put through as they stand, Hamel and Medina would become a `pass -over and through' zone with eventual closing of most of the businesses now located here. Please think long and hard about what decisions are made. They will effect not just the future of the standing businesses but the very history of the Hamel/Medina community. Sincerely, Jed- 0, Dennis Hedtke President Engineered Products for the OEM Market Date: November 1, 2007 To: Medina City Council and Planning Commission From: Reg Pederson/Highway 55 Rental and Sales Re: Concept Plan from MnDot on Access Closing and Changes to Future 55 Corridor Please enter my concems in the public record at the November 20th and 27`s meetings on this issue. I believe the current Concept Plan from MnDot regarding the future of the Highway 55 corridor will eliminate my ability to sustain my business at anywhere close to its current levels of revenue due to the difficulties my customers will encounter in getting to and from our locations at 225 and 265, Highway 55. Our business requires large trucks and trailers to negotiate to and from our location and the current plan calls for only one way in and the same way out through a likely very busy access onto Sioux Drive with sharp corners and high volumes of traffic. I suspect that in your own shopping experiences, when given a choice, you don't do business with a place that is the most difficult to access. Since we're not the only rental operation around, it is my belief that losing the customers who can't get to us easily will force us out of business. I further believe all businesses in Medina's business district with access difficulty (because of these proposed changes) are likely to suffer in the same manner. Given the fact that these changes are likely, many years into the future, the immediate affects are not loss of current business, but rather a loss of our future. I have two sons who may decide to come into our business. With this potential MnDot plan, bow could I justify building a new and modem facility on our location that would allow for the expansion that would be required to have them join us? Who do you think is going to offer anywhere near the same amount of money to purchase our property with almost no access that they would pay with the current access. In effect, your support of this proposed concept plan from MnDot puts them one step closer to taking away our future. I can't even imagine explaining to the taxpayers of Medina that we, as a City, gave up the use $550,000 of taxpayer's money by using TIF to build the signal lights and south frontage road for the Target development and that we gave them both back to MnDot without even trying to keep either of them.. Please give the same consideration to the well-being of Medina businesses that you are giving to a few homeowners in the south part of the City who don't like truck traffic. It's only fair and won't cost our taxpayers a dime. The argument that commuters from the north and west need a more efficient way to get through our City certainly is a subject to consider; however, is it the City of Medina's responsibility to put these outside citizens' needs above our own? It's my understanding that, as elected/ appointed City officials, it is your fast duty to serve and protect OUR community. As such, I hope you'll agree that the current business district along Highway 55 is essential to the best interests of the Medina citizens and that you'll oppose MnDot as strongly as possible in not approving their current Concept Plan. rel RePederson Co -Owner, Highway 55 Rental