Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-14-2020 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL July 10, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2020 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/electronically pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 Call-in Information: 612-517-3122 (Conference ID 628 273 477#) Electronic access (via Microsoft Teams): link available at https://medinamn.us/pc 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Public Hearing – Lennar (US Home Corporation) – north of Hwy 55, south of Meander Rd, ¼ mile west of CR 116 (11-118-23-12-0004) – Preliminary Plat and Rezoning for development of 125 townhomes on approximately 20 net acres 6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code related to setback and other requirements for residential accessory structures 7. Approval of June 9, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes 8. Council Meeting Schedule 9. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 July 7, 2020 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: July 1, 2020 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – July 7, 2020 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A)Meadow View Townhomes– north of Highway 55, west of CR116 – Lennar has applied for a preliminary plat to develop 125 townhomes on approximately 20 net acres. Staff has conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The request will be presented at a public hearing when complete, potentially at the July 14 Planning Commission meeting. B)Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials. C)Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 12 and recommended approval. The City Council granted preliminary plat approval on June 16. Staff will await an application for final plat. D)OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested final plat approval for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addn. The City Council granted final plat approval on June 16. The applicant has begun site work and applied for a building permit. Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval to allow issuance of the permit. E)Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single- family, and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Council adopted a resolution granting conditional approval and authorizing submission to the Met Council. The Met Council has authorized the City to put the amendment into effect. Staff will await a preliminary plat application. F)Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the November 12 and March 10 meetings and recommended approval. The City Council adopted approval documents on March 17. G)Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. H)Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 July 7, 2020 City Council Meeting Other Projects A)Tamarack Drive study – The Council reviewed public engagement and the draft concepts at the May 19 council meeting and directed staff to finalize the report. Staff has prepared a draft of the report and provided it to affected property owners and has had discussions with many of them. Staff is considering adjustments to the report based on these discussions and intends to present to the Council on July 21. B)Hackamore Road Preliminary Design – The City Councils of Corcoran and Medina have both directed WSB to proceed with 75% design. Staff has talked through the comments on the preferred design and is reviewing options related to accommodating bicyclists along the corridor as discussed by the Councils. WSB has also prepared a letter requesting funding from Hennepin County for costs related to the CR101 and CR116 intersections. C)Commercial Exterior Building Materials – Staff has been in discussions with a property owner hoping to install LP siding over portions of an existing concrete building which has had water issues. Staff presented an ordinance amendment for discussion at the June 9 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance, and recommended that the flexibility be expanded for any retrofit, even if the building is not having water issues. Staff intends to present the ordinance at the July 7 meeting. D)City Hall Septic – staff anticipates that Rusty Olson will soon provide a design for the new septic system for City Hall. Staff intends to solicit bids for the construction this fall. E)Planning Commission interviews – Council member Albers, Chair Reid, and I met with applicants to fill the Planning Commission vacancy. The panel will make a recommendation for appointment at the July 7 meeting. TO: City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: July 2, 2020 RE: Department Updates We have opened our front lobby to allow citizens to walk in and report crimes in person and to deal with day-to-day things through our front window. It has been nice to allow the general public back into our department. We are still being mindful of COVID and will continue to do some things online. The police department continues to get an outpouring of support from our community members. Individuals and groups are dropping off cards and goodies for the officers on a weekly basis. While this not necessary it is very much appreciated. On June 18 we conducted interviews of our Community Service Officers for an internal promotion for police officer. Kaylen Boeddeker has been chosen to move forward in the process and will undergo a thorough background by Sergeant Boecker. If she passes the background, then a conditional offer will be given pending the passing of a physiological and physical. I will keep the council updated of the status, but we would like to have the position filled by August 1, 2020. The front office and investigator continue to process an unprecedented number of permits to acquire handgun applications. We are now on pace to have a 100 percent increase from 2019. Officer Hall along with the Hamel Fire Department and North Paramedics assisted in delivering a baby girl. Both mom and baby are doing fine. Patrol: Patrol Updates 06/10/2020 through 06/30/2020 Patrol Activities – Between the dates of June 10, 2020 through June 30, 2020 our officers issued 53 citations and 101 warnings for various traffic violations along with two DWI’s. There were 5 property damage accidents reported, 15 medicals, 5 business alarms, 3 domestics, 10 residential alarms, 12 suspicious calls, and 19 assists to other agencies. MEMORANDUM On 06/10/2020 Officer responded to a reported appliance fire in the 4500 block of Willow Drive. Upon arrival it was determined that an air conditioning unit on the roof had caught on fire. The Loretto, Maple Plain, and Hamel Fire Departments responded, and the fire was extinguished in a short period of time. On 06/10/2020 Officer stopped a speeding vehicle that had passed numerous other cars including a fully marked Medina squad car at speeds around 90 mph. The driver was issued a citation for speeding. As the vehicle merged back into traffic it had pulled out in front of another Medina squad car. The driver was then seen passing numerous other cars and was clocked on radar going more than 100 mph. The driver was stopped by the second officer and through further contact the officer developed suspicions that the driver was under the influence of alcohol. The driver was arrested for suspicion of DWI and later refused to submit to the breath test. On 06/15/2020 Officer took report of a resident being scammed out of $2000 by someone who convinced him to purchase four $500 Target gift cards and provided someone over the phone the card and PIN numbers of the cards. On 06/16/2020 Officer responded to Holiday store to take a theft report. Victim reported she met someone at Holiday to sell an iPhone. After making the sale the victim realized she had been paid with all counterfeit currency. On 06/18/2020 a female suspect from the above case was taken into custody in the city of Delano. Also taken into custody was her boyfriend who was driving a vehicle which was also purchased using some counterfeit currency. The boyfriend was taken into custody by Wright County Sheriff’s Office. A search warrant was then executed at their apartment in Delano. A large amount of counterfeit currency was recovered inside the apartment. On 06/22/2020 Officers took a burglary/vandalism report in the city of Loretto. Concession stands at the ballfields were broken into and some property was stolen. Light fixtures on the buildings were also intentionally damaged. On 06/23/2020 Officers were dispatched to a suspected DWI that had just left Holiday located at 1300 Baker Park Road. Officers were able to locate the vehicle a short time later at a residence in Medina. The driver was identified and found to be under the influence of alcohol and was arrested for DWI. On 06/25/2020 Officer was dispatched to a female in labor in the 3400 block of Sioux Drive. Officer was assisted by Hamel Fire Rescue and North Ambulance. A baby girl was delivered at the residence. The mother and baby were then transported to Maple Grove Hospital. On 06/28/2020 Officers were dispatched to a report of several shots heard in the 3200 block of Pioneer Trail. In checking the area, Officers were able to determine that a neighbor had been target shooting on his property with a shotgun which was not in violation of City Ordinance. Investigations: Investigating a forgery complaint that occurred in the parking lot of a gas station. The victim sold an iPhone to the suspect who paid with counterfeit currency. Through the course of the investigation, I learned the vehicle the suspect was driving was also purchased with counterfeit currency in another city. A search warrant was executed at an apartment in Delano where approximately $7,000 worth of counterfeit currency, a printer and other electronic devices were located. Two parties were arrested for various charges. I am currently in the process of obtaining search warrants for electronic devices that were found at the apartment. Investigation is ongoing. Investigated a theft of sod from a business. A suspect was located and will be charged for theft and using a false name to a police office. Report will be sent to the city attorney’s office for charging. Received a report of a forgery through a Craigslist ad. The victim attempted to rent a cabin in northern Minnesota. The victim paid for the rental through a Venmo account and later learned the ad was a fake. Attempts are being made to determine who created the Craigslist ad. Received a report of a fraud through Instagram. The victim purchased shoes through an Instagram account. The money was sent through a verified bank account. The victim never received the product. I will be sending an administrative subpoena to Instagram to determine the owner of the account. Received a call of a harassment complaint. The victim said they received information that a former employer had taken a picture of them when they were partially undressed. The picture was then sent to other parties via Snapchat. An administrative subpoena will be sent to Snapchat to obtain additional information. Investigating a forgery complaint from a company in Loretto. The company mistakenly wire transferred over $35,000 to the wrong company. It was later learned the company’s email was hacked. I am in the process of writing a search warrant to determine where the money was sent. There are currently (14) cases assigned to investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: June 30, 2020 MEETING: July 7, 2020 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS •Public Works has been active with asphalt patching and installing the asphalt in the recently replaced culverts on both Ardmore Avenue and Deerhill Road. •WSB and the committee have been working together to get the plans to the 75% stage for the Hackamore Road project. •Public Works has been mowing the roadsides with the ditch mower where the ROW is not maintained by the residents. This allows for much better visibility and establishes statutory use for the places we do not have actual ROW. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER •Public Works has completed work identified in our meter audit. Utilizing the software equipment available in our system, several meters were discovered to be reading incorrectly. These meters have been repaired. •Inflow and infiltration meters have been installed and are currently being monitored in the trunk line running from Highway 55 up to the Foxberry and Toll additions. Now that we have had a few good rainfalls, we can see if abnormal amounts of water is entering into the system in these areas. •A weekly progress meeting was held with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and their construction partners. The project along County Road 19 is complete. They are now installing the meter at the Independence lift station so they will be metered separately which will help with inflow and infiltration charges in the future. PARKS/TRAILS •The Lakeshore Park shoreline project is complete, looks good, and the shoreline erosion has been stopped. •We will be contracting with Designing Nature to go through our gardens and planters to clean them up and add plants where needed. PERSONNEL •We have received over 120 applications for the administrative assistant vacancy for planning and public works. Interviews are potentially scheduled for the week of July 6th. •At this point we are just going to wait on the open Public Works Maintenance position. If someone interesting becomes available we may change that. We are hoping Ivan will help again this winter and we may try to find a part time person to also help with snow removal. ORDER CHECKS JUNE 16, 2020 – JULY 7, 2020 050346 AMIC, LISA/AARON .................................................................... $43.93 050347 AYIKA, CHRISTOPHER & CHI-CHI ........................................ $1,050.00 050348 CHETTIAR, MOHAN ............................................................... $1,500.00 050349 HAGESTUEN, MOE/ERIK ......................................................... $700.00 050350 JOHNSON, CURTIS/ANNA ......................................................... $69.84 050351 REGENSCHEID INVESTMENTS, INC. ................................. $10,000.00 050352 SCHMIDT ROOFING ................................................................. $101.00 050353 WALLACE, MICHAEL/LORI ......................................................... $47.52 050354 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY LLC ............................................ $87.52 050355 FRIEDMAN, NATALIE ............................................................... $700.00 050356 HASAN, SYED/SAMIA ............................................................... $350.00 050357 KALE, MOHIT ............................................................................ $700.00 050358 KARP, JEFF .............................................................................. $250.00 050359 LUEDTKE, JOY/JASON ............................................................. $790.00 050360 RESERVE OF MEDINA HOA .................................................... $350.00 050361 A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC ......................................................... $1.99 050362 ASPEN MILLS INC ...................................................................... $18.85 050363 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $2,172.09 050364 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. ............................................... $1,105.63 050365 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES ........................................................ $24.48 050366 CORE & MAIN LP ...................................................................... $456.29 050367 DPC INDUSTRIES INC ........................................................... $1,226.71 050368 EARL F ANDERSEN INC ....................................................... $3,870.39 050369 ECM PUBLISHERS INC .............................................................. $63.33 050370 ENGEL WATER TESTING INC.................................................. $450.00 050371 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC ............................................. $417.15 050372 GRAINGER................................................................................ $287.25 050373 GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVI .................................... $178.95 050374 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I ............................. $1,000.00 050375 HANTHO FARMS LLC .......................................................... $21,969.00 050376 HENN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES .................................. $706.55 050377 HIGHWAY 55 RENTAL .............................................................. $223.29 050378 KD & COMPANY RECYCLING INC ............................................. $56.97 050379 KELLYS WRECKER SERVICE INC ............................................. $80.65 050380 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED .................................... $9,338.75 050381 LORETTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT IN............................... $22,538.53 050382 MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $795.61 050383 MET COUNCIL (SAC) ............................................................. $2,460.15 050384 METRO WEST INSPECTION ............................................... $11,928.16 050385 MN DVS ....................................................................................... $14.25 050386 MOTLEY AUTO SERVICE LLC ................................................. $619.00 050387 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $64.14 050388 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR .................................. $1,145.00 050389 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC ............................................. $104,183.74 050390 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $156.21 050391 PREMIUM WATERS INC ............................................................. $21.09 050392 QUALITY FRAME & ALIGNMENT INC ...................................... $250.00 050393 RANDYS SANITATION INC ......................................................... $80.00 050394 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,096.14 050395 SAFETY SIGNS LLC ................................................................. $900.00 050396 SAMS LAWN & LANDSCAPE ............................................... $13,750.00 050397 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.......................................................... $495.68 050398 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY ........................................... $1,289.26 050399 STREICHERS INC ..................................................................... $252.90 050400 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC ..................................... $1,209.56 050401 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................ $1,331.91 050402 TEGRETE (CARLSON BLDG) ................................................ $1,355.00 050403 TIME SAVER OFFSITE SEC SVCS IN ...................................... $402.50 050404 US SOLAR BUSINESS - 1 ...................................................... $4,431.45 050405 US SOLAR BUSINESS - 3 ...................................................... $6,588.23 050406 WEALSHIRE, THE ................................................................ $34,174.00 050407 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE ................................................ $218.00 050408 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.................................................... $46,111.00 Total Checks $325,249.64 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS JUNE 16, 2020 – JULY 7, 2020 005560E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC ....................................... $941.84 005561E PR PERA .............................................................................. $16,684.93 005562E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $16,953.43 005563E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,790.00 005564E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,804.79 005565E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $20.00 005566E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,574.07 005567E MINNESOTA, STATE OF .......................................................... $584.00 005568E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,235.75 005569E CITY OF PLYMOUTH ............................................................. $1,024.88 005570E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES ................................................ $157.39 005571E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,155.17 005572E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $150.00 Total Electronic Checks $48,076.25 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT JUNE 24, 2020 0510320 BOEDDEKER, KAYLEN ............................................................ $628.35 0510321 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $633.53 0510322 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,521.00 0510323 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,514.01 0510324 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,657.81 0510325 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $3,932.12 0510326 DINGMANN, IVAN W ................................................................. $214.88 0510327 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $1,930.48 0510328 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $1,924.22 0510329 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,650.70 0510330 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $2,119.19 0510331 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $1,883.95 0510332 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $1,950.75 0510333 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,039.87 0510334 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,059.23 0510335 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $876.77 0510336 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,508.71 0510337 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,286.95 0510338 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,427.40 0510339 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,142.75 0510340 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,505.35 0510341 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,157.64 0510342 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,531.60 0510343 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $1,977.10 0510344 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,087.84 0510345 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,441.96 0510346 SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN .......................................................... $859.20 0510347 DINGMANN, NATHAN ............................................................ $1,056.26 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $52,519.62 Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 1 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: July 8, 2020 MEETING: July 14, 2020 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – US Home Corp. (Lennar) – Meadow View Townhomes – N of Hwy 55 – S of Meander Rd., W of CR116 – Rezoning and Pre Plat Review Deadline Application Received: Review Deadline: September 15, 2020 (rezoning); October 20, 2020 (preliminary plat) Summary of Request Lennar (US Home Corporation) has requested a rezoning and preliminary plat for a proposed 125-unit townhome development south of Meander Road, west of CR116 and north of Hwy 55. An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found below. The aerial shows existing land uses and describes planned land uses as follows: • Subject property is approximately 20 net acres and is currently farmed • The Fields of Medina neighborhood is located to the north and zoned R2 • Property to the south and west is guided for future Commercial development • 125 townhomes • 27 buildings • 20 net acres Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 2 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting The site includes a large wetland to the east and south of the existing field. There are also areas in the field which have been designated as wetland. The application includes the following land use requests: 1) Rezoning of the residential development site to R3- Mid-Density Residential 2) Preliminary Plat Staff recommends that the rezoning request be considered first, because the plat is designed to meet the requirements of the R-3 zoning district. Comprehensive Plan The subject site is a portion of a larger property which extends to Highway 55. The larger property is guided for commercial development nearer Highway 55 and Medium Density Residential (MDR) in this location. MDR is planned for development at a net density of 5-7 units/acre. The applicant’s concept proposes to occupy the MDR portion of the site, leaving the commercial property to be split off for future development. The property is staged for development at this time. The subject site was part of a larger tract from which the Fields of Medina neighborhood was developed in 2012. A townhome development at this approximate density was contemplated within the “Stage I Master Plan” when the property was subdivided at that time. When the City updated its Comprehensive Plan between 2017-2018, this portion of the property was guided MDR consistent with previous planning. PUD Concept Plan The City reviewed a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan of this development in April. The previous concept had included 138 townhome units of two styles. The feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council generally found that the flexibility being proposed within the PUD did not result in a more desirable development than would result in developing under the R3 zoning district standards. Generally, the PUD Concept Plan had proposed the following flexibility: • Density consideration – during the concept plan, the applicant had proposed development at 7 units/acre, requesting that the site amenities proposed within the PUD (additional open space and buffering, public trails) justified the density. The current proposal has been reduced from 138 units to 125 units. • Garage size – during the concept plan, the applicant had proposed units with 380 square foot garages rather than 400 square feet required by code. Comments from Planning Commission and Council generally were not supportive of this flexibility. The applicant has updated architectural plans to provide 400 square feet. • Reduced front setback to garages – during the concept plan, the applicant had proposed units a few feet closer to the private roads in the development, to allow more green space behind the units. The applicant has pushed the units back to the minimum front setback of the R3 district. • Land Use: Medium Density Residential • Allowed Density: 5-7 units/net acre • Proposed Density: 6.25 units/net acre • Staging: Current Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 3 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting Rezoning Request The subject site is zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The RR-UR is an interim zoning utilized by the City for property which is currently rural, but which is planned for development. The applicant has requested a rezoning for northern portion of the site which is guided MDR. The applicant has requested rezoning to the R3 (Mid Density Residential) zoning district, which is the district intended to implement development in the MDR land use. A rezoning to R3 would be anticipated at the time of development. The City has a high level of discretion when considering rezoning requests, provided such discretion is used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. According to Section 825.35 of the City Code: “amendments [to the zoning map] shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.” In this case, the purpose of the R3 district is specific to implementing the MDR land use. There is a relatively small amount of MDR land use within the City, so there are no alternative zoning districts which were created for such land. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to the R3 zoning district. The review of the preliminary plat is based upon approval to R3. Preliminary Plat/ Site Plan The applicant proposes 125 “rowhome” style townhomes amongst 27 buildings. The proposed buildings contain 3-6 units, with most building containing 4 or 5 units. The R3 districts permits townhome buildings with up to six units. Access is proposed to Meander Road at the intersection with Jubert Drive and a second entrance is proposed to future Tamarack Drive. The following compares the proposed to the R3 district requirements. It appears that the proposed development meets the dimensional requirements of the district. R3 Requirement Proposed Townhomes Minimum Net Area per Unit 6,222 s.f. 6,970 s.f. Maximum Net Area per Unit 8,700 s.f. 6,970 s.f. Minimum Setback from Perimeter 20 feet 40 feet Local Road Setback (Meander and Tamarack) 40 feet 40 feet Private Road Setback 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 30 feet 30 feet Max. Hardcover – total 50% 34% (36% of upland) The applicant proposes 125 units, which equates to 6,970 square feet of net area per units. This is equivalent to a density of 6.25 units/acre. The R3 district permits townhome development on a range from 5-7 units/acre. Density up to 5.5 units/acre is allowed by default, and “bonus density” is allowed up to a maximum of 7 units/acre if the following features are provided: • Sound suppression between units (+0.5 unit/acre) • Open space and recreational facilities (+0.25 units/acre) • Existing Zoning: RR-UR • Proposed Zoning: R3 Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 4 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting • Affordable housing (up to +1.5 units/acre) • Low Impact Development/LEED certification (up to + 1 unit/acre) • Oversized garages (+0.25 units/acre) The applicant has proposed to include additional sound suppression between units (+0.5) and provide private trails throughout the neighborhood, a public trail along the east side of Tamarack Drive (+0.25). While the Park at the Fields of Medina is located just north of Meander Road, staff recommends that some recreational opportunity, such as an open play area that is graded to be usable, be provided for the additional density. The applicant proposes a lot under each townhome unit. Each lot extends a few feet behind each unit and to the outside of end units. The plat proposes 32 outlots: • Outlot A is proposed to include the large wetland and the future commercial development property to the south. • Outlots B, O and U are proposed to include most of the common areas in the development • Outlot C contains the private roads throughout the neighborhood. • Remaining outlots surround each of the 27 proposed buildings. Outlot A contains the existing farmstead and various farm buildings. Outlot A was reviewed to ensure that the remaining land met the dimensional standards of the RR-UR zoning district. RR-UR Requirement Outlot A Minimum Gross Area 20 acres 33.17 acres Minimum Lot Size 5-acre contiguous suitable 5.14 acres Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 1448 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 697 feet Minimum Front Setback 50 feet 72 feet Minimum Rear Setback 50 feet >300 feet Minimum Side Setback 50 feet 135 feet (west) >1000 feet (east) Maximum Impervious Surface 20% < 2% Architectural Design Proposed building elevations of the proposed are attached. Lennar has indicated that architectural design is similar to the townhome in the Enclave neighborhood. Colors will vary upon different buildings. The minimum standards of the R3 district include: • Accent materials – minimum of 20% of any façade facing a street shall be accent material • Garage door elements – if garage doors occupy more than 50% of horizontal façade, additional elements are required • Building modulation – buildings are required to be modulated at least once per 50 feet. This may include varying building height, building setback, building orientation, roof pitch, roof design, or significant differences in building materials/design. It appears that the proposed elevations meet the garage door and modulation requirements noted above. The front façade of each building incorporate shakes within the gables and brick or stone Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 5 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting wainscoting and appear to meet the accent material requirements. The rear façade of certain buildings face Meander Road or Tamarack Drive. Staff recommends a condition requiring accent materials to be incorporated into these facades. Tree Preservation, Buffer Yard and Landscaping The subject site is almost entirely farmed and contains six trees along the western portion of the field which are proposed to be removed. Replacement of 53 inches is required. A bufferyard with an opacity of 0.2 is required along Meander Road because the property to the north is a less-intensive district. The minimum landscaping requirements of the R3 district are based on the perimeter of the development site and requires a minimum of 99 overstory trees, 49 ornamental trees, and 148 shrubs, plus additional trees for replacement. The proposed landscaping plan meets these minimum requirements. Wetlands and Floodplain A large wetland is located east and south of the subject site. Narrow “fingers” of this wetland extend north into swales in the farmed portion of the property as well. The concept plan shows approximately 4,860 square feet of wetland impacts. These impacts are proposed on the ends of the comparatively lower quality narrow wetlands which extend into the farmed portion of the site. The applicant proposes to mitigate these impacts by purchasing wetland credits. The replacement plan is under review, and staff recommends any action be conditioned upon approval of the replacement plan. The large wetland is classified as a Manage 1 wetland, requiring an average buffer 30 feet in width. The applicant has provided a 35-foot wide buffer to meet Elm Creek Watershed rules. The wetland in the middle of the site is a manage 2 wetland, requiring a buffer of 25 feet. Staff recommends a condition requiring implementation of these buffers. A floodplain is located within and adjacent to the large wetland to the east and south of the subject property. Elm Creek Watershed has modeled this floodplain at an elevation of 980.4. It does not appear that the development would impact any floodplain areas. Transportation The applicant proposes two entrances to the neighborhood. One entrance is proposed on Meander Road, at the existing intersection with Jubert Drive. A second entrance is proposed on the west of the site to future Tamarack Drive. The applicant proposes all private streets throughout the development. The City’s past practice has been to encourage private roadways in the interior of townhome developments. Street maintenance, especially snow plowing, is a challenge on streets with a lot of townhome driveways. Depending on the scale and layout of a development, staff believes there may be some situations in which a main roadway through a development should be public, connecting other private roads which provide access to individual units. In this case, staff find it appropriate for all streets to be private as proposed. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 6 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting The City is currently completing a transportation study for area for the future construction of Tamarack Drive, which is planned to extend north and south of Highway 55 to serve the subject site and other development property in the vicinity. The study will be presented to the Council on July 21. Because there are multiple owners and land uses along this corridor, the study anticipates that construction of Tamarack Drive will likely be phased and constructed in pieces along with adjacent development. The study examined how much traffic would be necessary to warrant the traffic signal on Highway 55 and how the existing transportation improvements in the area would be impacted. The study concludes that the full access (traffic signal) at Tamarack and Highway 55 would be justified at a volume of 3100 trips/day on Meander Road, and that the existing system could accommodate that volume of trips. Over this amount, improvements would be necessary. Existing traffic volumes (900 trips/day) plus the additional traffic from this residential development (1010 trips/day) is projected to be below this threshold. The current application proposes to subdivide the property east of Tamarack Drive. In additional to development of the northern portion of the site, the southern portion is proposed to be platted as a separate outlot and would need to be re-platted for future commercial development. Staff recommends that, at the very least, the following be required as a condition of this subdivision: 1. Dedication of all necessary right-of-way from the subject property, from Meander Road all the way to Highway 55. 2. Tamarack be constructed adjacent to the portion of this site currently be developed with townhomes, subject to provision of right-of-way by the property owner west of Tamarack. Right-of-way is not in place for the western portion of Tamarack. Staff recommends construction adjacent to the residential development if the owner provides the right-of-way. 3. Financial obligations towards the traffic signal and turn lanes at Highway 55 be secured from the residential development. Sewer/Water/Easements The applicant proposes to extend an existing sewer main from the northeast of the site which will serve the site. The sewer is constructed as flat and shallow in some locations as is advisable to avoid the need for a lift station for the site. It does not appear to be possible to extend sewer service to the west or south because of topography. An existing sewermain further west provides alternative access for adjacent sites. The applicant proposes to extend water from the northeast and northwest corners of the site and to stub a large watermain to the south. The City Engineer has provided technical review comments and staff recommends that addressing these comments be a condition of approval. The City generally requiring drainage and utility easements over all public utilities, stormwater improvements, emergency overflows, drainageways, wetlands and around the perimeters of lots. Staff recommends a condition that these easements be provided upon the plat. Easements will not be required between units, but rather between buildings as necessary. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 7 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting Stormwater/Grading Review The subject site generally slopes from north to south and the proposed construction generally follows this same pattern. Small berms approximately two feet in height are proposed along Meander Road with plantings on top of the berms. The applicant proposes to meet City and Elm Creek Watershed requirements for water quality by utilizing biofiltration basins. One of these basins is proposed to be enhanced with iron filings, which improves the water quality benefits of the basin and provides more credit. Park Dedication Park dedication for the entire property was required when the portion which now contains the Fields of Medina neighborhood was platted. 10% of the buildable portion of the entire property was deeded to the City for the Park at the Fields of Medina. The applicant proposes a system of private trails through the neighborhood and a public trail along the eastern side of future Tamarack Drive. These trails are intended to be amenities to provide additional density as described by the R3 zoning district. The applicant originally offered to construct the trail along the south side of Tamarack Drive to Jubert Drive and dedicate it to the City as a public trail as well. Feedback from the Park Commission during the Concept Plan Review was that this trail would mostly serve residents of the townhome neighborhood and should remain private. Since the trail is going to be private, the applicant relocated it more central to the neighborhood. The proposed private trails are located partially within required wetland buffers. Staff recommends a condition that these locations be updated. Averaging the width of the wetland buffer may also be an option. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation The applicant has requested approval of the following requests: 1) Rezoning of the residential development site to R3- Mid-Density Residential 2) Preliminary Plat Rezoning Staff recommends that the rezoning be considered first, because review of the plat is contingent upon the zoning. The rezoning was discussed beginning at the bottom of page 2 of this report. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the medium density residential portion of the site, to be effective upon recording of the plat. Preliminary Plat The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions, the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following findings are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 8 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way. The City has a relatively low amount of discretion while reviewing a plat request. If the plat meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it should be approved. Subject to the conditions noted below, staff believes that the proposed preliminary plat would meet relevant requirements and would not trigger the findings for denial. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of the plat shall be contingent upon rezoning approval of the residential portion of the site to the R3 zoning district. If such rezoning is approved, it shall become effective upon the recording of the plat. 2) Preliminary plat approval is conditioned upon approval of a wetland replacement plan for proposed wetland impacts. 3) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy. 4) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated 6/22/2020 except as may be modified herein. Final plans shall be provided at the time of final plat and shall address the comments of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Elm Creek Watershed, other relevant staff and agencies and the conditions noted herein. Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5) The Applicant shall update plans to provide for the construction of Tamarack Drive adjacent to the residential development. If the City is not able to obtain right-of-way from the property owner to the west for such construction, the Applicant shall construct a second access on the west of the site which shall, to the extent practical, be constructed to be best utilized as a portion of the permanent improvement and shall enter into an agreement agreeable to the City related to the future construction of the permanent roadway. 6) The plat shall provide all necessary right-of-way and easements for construction of Tamarack Drive from Meander Road to Highway 55 which will be located within the property being platted as recommended by the City Engineer 7) The owner(s) of the property being platted shall provide enter into an agreement agreeable to the City related to financial contributions towards the future construction of improvements at Highway 55 and Tamarack Drive including traffic signals and construction of the street approach and turn lanes. 8) The plat shall provide drainage and utility easements over all utilities, stormwater improvements, wetlands, and drainageways as recommended by the City Engineer. The plat shall also provide easements along the perimeter of the site and between buildings as recommended by the City Engineer. 9) The grading plan shall be updated to provide space for recreational activities within the open space. 10) Trails shall be located outside of upland buffers. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 9 of 9 July 14, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting 11) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance upon the residential development site, including provision of easements, planting of vegetation and installation of signage. 12) A minimum of 20% of any façade facing a public or private street shall be accent materials such as shakes, brick, stone, face brick, decorative concrete, or others approved by the city. Compliance with this requirement shall be subject to review and approval by City staff at the time of building permit for each structure. 13) The Applicant shall implement the following design features which they have elected to incorporate to qualify for the density proposed upon the plat: a. Buildings and walls between dwellings shall meet Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 55. b. Open space and recreational amenities shall be provided as described in the plans. 14) A site plan review of each building within the development site shall not be required as described in Section 825.55 of City Code. However, each building shall be subject to administrative review by City staff for consistency with the site plan which accompanies the plat, relevant requirements of City Code, and the conditions noted herein. 15) The development shall be subject to the City’s lawn and landscaping irrigation regulations. No lawn or landscape irrigation systems shall be permitted to be connected to the City water system. The Applicant shall provide a description of any proposed irrigation system at the time of final plat application. 16) The Applicant shall submit HOA documents for City review and approval which shall describe provisions for maintenance of elements such as the private streets, trails, stormwater improvements, lawn irrigation, upland buffers, and bufferyard landscaping. 17) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site improvements to ensure completion. 18) The request shall be subject to review and approval of Elm Creek Watershed, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health, Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council and any other relevant agencies. 19) Outlot A shall be required to be platted and shall be subject to relevant requirements of subdivision and zoning ordinance at such time prior to its development. 20) The Applicant shall provide title documentation at the time of final plat application and abide by the recommendation of the City Attorney with regard to title matters and recording instructions. 21) The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council. 22) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Engineering Comments 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Townhome info and photos 5. Plans and Plat        7/10/2020 Project:  LR‐20‐270 – Meadow View Townhome Rezoning and Preliminary Plat The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant Document Received Document Date Pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 3 Yes Yes 5 pages w/ Rolling Green email Deposit 5/15/2020 4/6/2020 1 Yes Yes Check for $20,000, $9000 refunded Plans and PrePlat 5/15/2020 5/14/2020 30 Yes Yes  Plans and PrePlat 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 32 Yes Yes  Narrative 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 2 Yes Yes  Narrative 5/18/2020 5/18/2020 2 Yes    Narrative          Building Plans 5/15/2020 10/31/2019 25 Yes Yes  Building Plans 6/30/2020 May 2020 19 Yes No  Townhome Pamphlets 5/15/2020 Na 4 Yes    Stormwater Management Report 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 122 Yes Yes  Stormwater Management Report 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 105 Yes No  Plan review response 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 8 Yes Yes  Plan review response‐Planning 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 3 Yes No  Plan review response‐Eng 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 11 Yes    Wetland Delineation – Jubert 5/15/2020 10/8/2019 79 Yes Yes  Wetland Delineation – RG 5/15/2020 5/12/2020 29 Yes Yes  Soils Exhibit 6/22/2020 NA 1 Yes    Townhome Photos 6/22/2020 NA 6 Yes     <OVER>          7/10/2020 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes City Engineer comments 6/8/2020 7 Y  City Engineer comments 7/8/2020 8 Y 15 pages w/ plan notes Fire/Building comments 5/19/2020 1 Y  Legal comments 5/20/2020 1 Y  Elm Creek Comments 6/9/2020 8 Y  Notice 7/2/2020 11 Y 15 pages w/ affidavit, list and map Preliminary Comments 6/8/2020 3 Y 10 pages w/ attachment Planning Commission Report 7/10/2020 9 Y    Public Comments  Document Date Electronic Notes                           K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM July 8, 2020 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-20-265 WSB Project No. 015744-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat submittal dated June 22, 2020. The plans propose to construct 125 multi-family units (townhomes) on 22 acres over two parcels known as the “Jubert Property” and “Rolling Green Property”. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Streets 1. Add typical street section(s) details to the plans meeting the City’s standard, at minimum. The final street section shall be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site. Complete. 2. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures and required turn around space as required by the Fire Marshall. Provided, To be verified by the Fire Marshall. 3. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design speed, at minimum. Applicant to demonstrate with street plan and profiles of Final Plans. 4. The developer is proposing private roadways through the development. If the City requires public streets, wider right-of-way will be required. Complete, applicant is currently proposing private roadways. 5. Show the existing roads to the north side of Meander Road more clearly on the plans with at least the first 100’ visible. Complete. 6. Provide a grading plan with future submittals. Complete. 7. Additional right of way and/or easements will need to encompass the proposed trail areas. Complete. 8. Minimize the number of street crossings with the proposed trail. Complete. 9. Additional right of way will be required at the intersections to facilitate future improvements and/or turn lanes. Additional right of way may also be required along the Tamarack Drive corridor adjacent to the westerly property line upon conclusion of the City’s visioning study. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 2 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx The applicant shall design the full width of the Tamarack Drive street section, see the undivided urban typical section provided. In the design, also include the westbound left turn lane on Meander Road and related roadway modifications. Complete, but the design of Tamarack Drive and associated turn lanes will be further evaluated as the City’s corridor study plan is finalized. 10. The proposed bituminous trail along Meander road appears be located within the development property (private property) and now within the Meander Road public right of way. The City does prefer this trail to be privately owned and maintained; the 6’ width is also acceptable as a privately owned and maintained trail. The trail along the Tamarack Drive extension is expected to be publicly owned and maintained within public right of way and so an 8’ width will be required. Complete, the applicant responded that the proposed trail is located outside of the right-of-way and will be considered a private trail as an amenity for the development. The trail has been expanded to provide additional connectivity to an open space area and to the existing trail on the north side of Meander Road. 11. With final construction plans, provide plan and profile view of proposed street and utility improvements. 12. See additional comments provided on submitted plan sheets. Water/Sewer Utilities 13. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. o Uniform 15’ easement provided adjacent to roadway right-of-way. Complete. o Utility pipe and structures vary in location within easement throughout development (see comments on submitted plan sheets).  Several structures and adjacent pipe are not a minimum of 10’ from the outside edge of the easement and/or do not meet 1:1 requirements (e.g. S-3, 16.2’ deep and ~4’ from edge of easement; S-5, 14.1’ and 5’; etc.)  Additional easement provided. Some locations still do not have a minimum of 10’ from the outside edge of the easement and/or do not meet 1:1 requirement. See redline comments.  Storm sewer and structure A-8B in or near Block 1 (2)  Storm sewer in or near Block 11,12 (2)  Storm sewer in or near Block 17 (2)  Storm sewer in or near Blocks 19, 20  Storm sewer in or near Block 23 (2)  Sanitary sewer in or near Block 1  Sanitary sewer structure S-3  Sanitary sewer and structure S-10 in or near Blocks 22, 23  Hydrants at the south ends of Blocks 19 and 21 City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 3 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx o Provide additional easement for the utilities (and road) serving Block 7.  The property and easement lines for Block 7 do not match from the utility plans to the preliminary plat. Overall plat does not match enlarged plat.  Adjacent sanitary sewer and hydrant do not have 10’ of easement o Provide additional easement for the watermain loop north of Blocks 25 & 26. Complete. 14. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future phases or other adjacent developments will be required and reviewed with future submittals. In- progress, extend watermain south adjacent to Blocks 19 and 20 to southerly property line. 15. The City will require a 16-inch main along the Tamarack Drive from the southwest of the site looped to the existing watermain connection on Meander Road. The applicant only noted a 12” watermain. After further discussion with the City, a 12-inch watermain here will be adequate, revert back to the 12-inch on the plans. 16. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water. Applicant requests information from the City for available hydrant flow data and existing pressures to help determine adequate water pressure. 17. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ radius is required to serve the immediate residential areas. Figure provided, minor areas for Lot 4 Block 14 and Lot 1 Block 12 outside of coverage area; the City Fire Marshall will provide the final determination. 18. With future submittals show the proposed gate valve locations. Provide additional gate valves at each leg of intersections at the dead-end streets. Gate valves shall be placed such that, at a minimum, there is one less gate valve than there are watermain legs at the intersection. Complete, but with additional comments: o Gate valves added o Add gate valve to south leg of intersection adjacent to Blocks 9 and 17. o Shift the gate valve for the intersection serving Block 7 from the north leg to the east leg (limits the number of houses shut off with a repair to the east) o Add gate valve at connection with Jubert Trail and Meander Road. o Remove valve on south leg at Blocks 5 and 11. 19. With future submittals, show proposed sanitary sewer service lines and invert elevations on plans; the City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations. Minimum depth requirement note added to the plans. In-progress, applicant indicated inverts will be provided with future plans 20. Hatching on the plan is covering up some of the existing utility linework, please re-order the layers so all is visible. Complete. 21. Please use green for the line color of the sanitary sewer as opposed to the red; the red can be used for the storm sewer. Complete. 22. The sanitary sewer system and manholes were reconfigured from the previous submittal. The shallowest location appears to be S-13 with ~6.2’ of cover. Other locations with less than 7.5’ of cover include S-10, S-14, S-15, S-16. Applicant indicated that the shallow sanitary sewer depth (less than City standard) is necessary to avoid needing a lift station. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 4 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx Comment is unchanged, applicant still indicating that the shallow sanitary sewer depth (less than City standard) is necessary to avoid needing a lift station. This is acceptable to the City to avoid the need for a lift station, but depths less than 7’ within roadway areas should include insulation. 23. There is the potential for several utility conflicts between the sanitary sewer main/services and the water main/services in the western portion of the development where the sanitary sewer is 7-8’ deep. Verify minimum 18” vertical separation at the crossings. Show offsetting the watermain/services and insulate as necessary. o Applicant added a note to the General Utility Notes stating that a minimum 18” vertical separation would be required at all water and sanitary crossings. o Applicant indicated that specific crossings would be addressed with future plans o Modify note to read that a minimum of 24 inches of vertical clearance, or 18 inches of vertical clearance with 4 inches of insulation, when crossing sanitary or storm sewer lines or services is required 24. The storm sewer crosses the watermain at too shallow of an angle near Blocks 11 and 12. Adjust the crossing such that it is at a 45-degree angle or greater. Verify minimum 18” vertical separation at the crossings based on the 7.5’ depth of nearby storm structure A-1. Show offsetting the watermain and insulate as necessary. Complete. 25. Add general notes to the plans to the effect: o The City of Medina shall not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that are associated with variations in the utility as-built elevations. All utility connections shall be verified in the field. o All watermain and sanitary sewer testing shall be done in accordance with the City of Medina standards and specifications. Copies of all test results shall be submitted to the City (Public Works Director, City Engineer), the Owner, and the Engineer of Record. o The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The Owner and Engineer of Record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. o Completed – paraphrased versions of the notes have been added 26. Provide curb stop locations with final plans. Traffic & Access 27. Based on review of the future traffic conditions right or left turn lanes would not be needed at the Jubert Drive entrance on Meander Road assuming a connection to Tamarack Drive from the site and Tamarack Drive at TH 55 will be improved to a full movement signalized intersection. Due to the possibility that a full movement access at Hwy 55 and the Tamarack Drive may not be constructed, an eastbound/westbound left turn and westbound right turn lane on Meander Road at the Jubert Drive entrance should be constructed with the project as proposed. At a minimum, provide 250’ of additional right of way (minimum of 10’ wide) along Meander Road in each direction of Jubert Drive to accommodate the future turn lanes. In-progress. Turn lanes are shown in the Site Plan for both access locations on future Tamarack Drive and Meander Road. See notes on submitted plan sheets. Additional changes may be needed once final Tamarack Corridor Study is approved by City. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 5 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx 28. More details should be provided for the design of the Jubert Drive entrance to Meander Road. Some of the concerns include: the lanes should line up with the Jubert Trail; the width of the lanes, and; the taper past the median island. Complete. 29. Right of way should be provided to accommodate the Tamarack Drive and intersection improvements at Meander Road including a westbound left turn lane on Meander with the City’s preferred design alternative of a traditional intersection. With that said, a possible future roundabout is a viable alternative; also provide the necessary right of way for this intersection design. In the “Site Plan & Street” section above, a comment was made about the design and improvement of Tamarack Drive at Meander Road. The full intersection layout should be designed with the project as proposed. If the full width of Tamarack adjacent to the townhome development is not constructed along with the turn lanes on Meander, provide an interim plan for this intersection as well. Extend the right of way for the roundabout another 50’ in each direction (total of 300’). At which time the remaining development occurs and the roundabout is constructed, the right of way not needed will be vacated. In-progress. Additional changes may be needed once final Tamarack Corridor Study is approved by City. 30. Based on the site plan access is proposed from the east/west private street to the Tamarack Drive. This intersection would be located approximately 350 ft from Meander Road which does not correspond to the guidance in the Tamarack Drive corridor visioning study concept plan for a full movement intersection. The preferred access would be further south and connect directly with a future frontage road extending east from the future roundabout. Ideally, the proposed access to the Tamarack Drive would be considered temporary until the preferred access further south (to the frontage road) is viable once the remaining commercial development to the south proceeds. At that time, the original access location to Tamarack would be closed. At minimum, provide the necessary right of way to extend the easterly access/road to the south to the extents of the proposed property line. Alternatively, if the access to the townhomes from Tamarack Drive will be a permanent full movement intersection, a southbound left turn lane on Tamarack would be required. Complete, access to future Tamarack Drive is proposed. 31. The pedestrian crossings of Meander Road at the Main Site Entrance/Jubert Trail and the Tamarack Drive should line up with the pedestrian facilities on the north side of Meander Road, including ADA pedestrian curb ramps. Completed Stormwater 32. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. Complete. 33. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface. By satisfying the volume requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. Follow the City’s Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirement if infiltration is not feasible. a. The submittal indicates that 7.64 acres of impervious is being added. This equates to a volume of 0.68 acre/ft. The proposed BMP provides biofiltration for a water quality volume between the elevations 981-982.5 based on the stage storage of the pond this equate to a WQ volume of 0.83 ac-ft. Medina allows for 50% credit for using City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 6 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx standard filtration or 0.41 ac-ft. The table in the narrative differs from these numbers, please clarify. Additionally, although there are restricted soils onsite, it is feasible to construct BMPs to count towards remaining volume control credit. The City of Medina Stormwater Design Manual provides additional credits and options for BMPs to meet the volume control requirement. Complete. 34. The applicant may want to consider using the stormwater ponds for irrigation. Credits for volume control can be given for stormwater reuse. 35. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions discharge rates. Complete. 36. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access to all ponding facilities. a. Clearly label the EOF for each basin. Not Completed b. There are several EOFs for drain inlets that do not meet the city’s freeboard requirements. Please review and clarify. Not Complete. Specifically, Block 7. 37. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and the applicant shall submit for the required permits. 38. Storm sewer pipes should be in drainage and utility easements, please verify that pipes adjacent to Block 10 and Block 6 are within drainage and utility easements. Complete. 39. With final design, provide storm sewer calculations using the rational method. 40. The HWLs indicated on the plan sheet for the basins differ from the hydrocad model. Please clarify. Complete. 41. Provide details for the biofiltration basin to clarify how the water quality volume was calculated. Complete. 42. Provide pretreatment for the direct storm sewer outfalls to the biofiltration basin. Complete. 43. Stormwater management onsite will need to be sized to include any portion of Tamarack road that is constructed with this development. Not Completed. 44. Show clean outs at the ends of each draintile section within pond area. Grading and Erosion Control 45. Provide EOFs for all low points inside and outside the roadway. Complete. 46. Provide spot elevations at the high points between the lots. Complete. 47. Maintain all surface grades within the minimum 2% and maximum 33% slopes. A few limited locations are still greater than 33% slopes and less than 2%. Will review with final plans. 48. With final construction plans, the City will require draintile or other connections for sump pump discharges. A separate foundation pipe system in addition to the sump discharge system should be considered. Complete, the applicant indicated that all units will be slab on grade and not require sump pumps. 49. Provide detail on how the grades for the western biofiltration basin are tying into the existing grades to the south. Completed – additional note provided. 50. Show storm sewer pipes on the grading plan. Complete. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 7 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx 51. Provide proposed driveway grades. Complete. 52. Provide rim elevations of all storm structures. Complete. 53. Provide top and bottom of wall elevations for all proposed retaining walls. Provide fencing. Note retaining walls greater than 4’ shall be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer. All retaining walls shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 54. Provide how drainage swales flow across the retaining walls (overtops) SWPPP 55. An NPDES permit must be submitted to the City prior to start of construction. 56. Show energy dissipation at all pipe outlets. Complete. 57. An owner contact person should be provided in the SWPPP narrative (the operator contact person will be added at a later date via a SWPPP amendment). Complete. 58. Address potential need for temporary sedimentation basins, where 5+ acres of exposed soils will be draining to a common location. Please show these locations and/or reference the need for placement in your SWPPP Amendment table. Complete. 59. Estimated quantities of BMPs are required. This is referenced in the SWPPP narrative, but numbers are not listed out anywhere. Complete. 60. The SWPPP narrative references a “SWPPP Map.” Where is this located? Information that is needed includes: stormwater discharge points and receiving waters within 1 mile of the site. All other requirements are satisfied in the various plan sheets. Complete. 61. Please clarify that stockpiles will require temporary stabilization measures immediately and within 7 days of inactivity. Complete. 62. Please add “Stockpile Location(s),” “Equipment/Materials Staging Area(s),” and “Fueling Location(s)” to your SWPPP Amendments table or show them on your “Proposed SWPPP (overall)” sheet. Complete, added to the SWPPP Amendments table. 63. Clarify the timeframe for repairing/replacing nonfunctional BMPs (by the end of the next business day). Complete. 64. Permanent turf establishment shows seed type and location that will be used. Please also show what type of stabilization measures will be used (IE: ECB, hydro mulch types, straw mulch, etc.) and fertilizer type and quantities that will be used with each seed mix. Additionally, how will individual lots be temporarily and permanently stabilized? Complete. 65. Drainage arrows are shown in the “Proposed SWPPP (Overall)” sheet’s legend but are not drawn in on the plan. Drainage arrows (pre and post construction) are required. Complete. 66. Make note that the biofiltration basin is to be constructed last unless rigorous erosion and sediment controls are in place to prevent sediment from damaging the system. Complete. Wetlands 67. The wetland delineation for this site was reviewed and boundary adjustments were made to Wetland 3. The site plan appears to be using the old boundary and must be updated. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 8 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx The developer responded that the wetland delineation depicted is based on the previously submitted wetland delineation report for the Jubert Property. This is true, but updates were made to the boundary of Wetland 3 following the initial submittal that are reflected in the Notice of Decision for the project. The approved boundary must be used. 68. The site plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland replacement plan approval is required prior to any wetland impact. 69. The plans must show the upland buffers widths, structure setbacks, and where the buffer markers will be placed. The wetland south and east of the project is classified as a Manage 1 and requires an average 30-foot buffer (minimum 20 feet). The existing buffer shown is an average of 20 feet. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The other wetlands on the site have not been evaluated for quality. A management classification should be proposed. The developer responded that management classifications were approved based on the wetland delineation report approval. The Wetland Conservation Act does not regulate wetland buffers or quality. The Notice of Decision was for boundary and type and does not include an approval of quality or management classification. However, they are proposing a 35-foot buffer (25-foot minimum) to meet the watershed district requirements which will inherently meet the City’s buffer requirements for a Manage 1 wetland. Complete. 70. The plans show a 6-foot bituminous trail located within the buffer of Wetland 2. Total disturbance (permanent and temporary) must not exceed 8 feet in width and must be located outside of the minimum width of the required upland buffer zone. In order to calculate a letter of credit and construction engineering escrow amounts for the final development agreement, an engineer’s estimate (in Excel format) of the proposed utility improvements and a schedule for completion of construction will be required. The estimate should also include the cost of landscaping items. We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer May 15, 2020 Dusty Finke, AICP Planning Director, City of Medina RE: Meadow View Townhomes Preliminary Plat Dear Dusty, Please consider this narrative our update to Meadow View based on input and information received from the Planning Commission, Parks Commission, City Council, and City staff. An engineering response from ISG is incorporated behind this cover letter to address previous staff comments that apply to the enclosed site plan. While the overall intent of the project remains to construct townhomes on the subject property, several elements of the previous proposal are now being changed. A description of these items is below: 1. PUD Request - Based on input and concerns voiced at the 4/14/2020 Planning Commission Meeting and 4/21/2020 Council meeting, we hereby withdraw our request for a PUD. The community is being designed in accordance with R3 zoning standards. All R3 minimums are being adhered to and we are requesting a Rezoning to R3 for the entire project. 2. Land Use & Density – Per the 4/14/2020 Planning Commission Staff report, the newly proposed density and unit count is 6.25 units per acre and 125 townhomes, respectively. This should alleviate some of the density concerns voiced by City officials and neighboring residents. 3. Open Space & Trail - The open space corridor and trail has been shifted to the south side of Meander Road, and will be designated as a public trail for public use and maintenance. Screening is being shown in the form of additional landscaping and some berming along Meander road, per the requests of City officials and residents of The Fields of Medina. Overall green space in the community is 13.79 acres, meaning that over 66% of the site is now greens pace. It was also confirmed that open space obligations have been satisfied for this area. As such, no additional open space features are proposed. 4. Architecture – By eliminating the PUD request, Lennar can move forward with our standard architecture designs, colors, and materials. Primary exterior materials consist of vinyl with LP trim around windows. Stone accents are proposed on the fronts of the homes with decorative gables and dormers for some articulation. Additionally, all garages are being modified to bring the fronts out by 2 feet to get to the 400’ garage minimum square footage prescribed by ordinance. 5. Traffic – Traffic was a concern that was brought up by City staff, City officials, and neighboring residents. Based on ITE Trip Generation Rates, we believe that a townhome community with a total of 125 dwelling units will generate approximately 70 new trips in the morning, 84 new trips in the evening, and 904 Average Daily Trips (ADT). It should be noted that MnDOT’s thresholds for requiring a traffic study is is based on the following trip counts: • 250 new trips in the morning • 250 new trips in the evening • 2,500 new trips throughout the day Many cities and counties refer to it when deciding when to require a traffic impact study. A townhome community of 125 dwelling units is well below MnDOT’s thresholds for requiring a traffic impact study. Typically using this criteria, a traffic study should be considered for multi-family housing development of 340 or more dwelling units. We hope the City will acknowledge that Lenna used input from City Staff, Planning and Parks Commissions, and City Council and incorporated it into what we feel will be a great townhome neighborhood in the City of Medina. We had great success with our townhomes at the Enclave and recognize a market need that we believe we can contribute to fulfilling. Please contact me with questions as we continue moving forward with Meadow View. Regards, Paul J. Tabone Land Entitlement Mgr Lennar Minnesota LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Madison Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2017 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2019 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S.Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – Lennar Sales Corp. Seller’s broker. U.S. Home Corporation, BC001413 Construction License. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. Seller’s broker. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. BC736565, BC700385 Construction Licenses. (10067) 02/07/19 PATIO 2 CAR GARAGE GREAT ROOM DINING ROOM KITCHEN FOYER PORCH 18' x 20' 13' x 14'8' x 15' 9' x 14' UP PANTRYDW OPTFIREPLACEREF.PWDRCOATS BEDROOM 2 LOFT BEDROOM 3LAUNDRY/MECH12' x 12' 12' x 14' W.I.C. W.I.C. 13' x 11' 13' x 12' BATH OPT.W OPT.D WH RETURN FURN LINENDN OWNER'S SUITE OWNER'S BATH Main Level Upper Level 1,804 sq. ft. •2 Stories •3 Bedrooms •3 Bathrooms •2 Car Garage LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Madison Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 C D 2 Stories | 3 Bedrooms | 3 Bathrooms | 2 Car Garage 1,804 sq. ft. LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Jefferson Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2017 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2019 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S.Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – Lennar Sales Corp. Seller’s broker. U.S. Home Corporation, BC001413 Construction License. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. Seller’s broker. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. BC736565, BC700385 Construction Licenses. (10150) 03/29/19 Main Level Upper Level 1,906 Sq. Ft. •2 Stories •3 Bedrooms •3 Bathrooms •2 Car Garage LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Jefferson Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 C D 2 Stories | 3 Bedrooms | 3 Bathrooms | 2 Car Garage 1,906 Sq. Ft.   23860 1-TITLEDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYMEADOW VIEW MASTER PLANMEDINA, MINNESOTA PROJECT INDEX: LEGEND EXISTINGWWETXXXXUT><IIIOEUEUTVGFBOPROPOSED<IIIIOEUEUTVG>>>>>>>>OWNER:LENNAR16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MN 554466PROJECTADDRESS / LOCATION:SEC 2 & 11 / TWP 118 / RNG 23HENNEPIN COUNTYMEDINA, MINNESOTANSWELENNAR HOMESISG PROJECT # 20-23860PROJECTLOCATIONB.M. ELEVATION=1006.16TNFH LOCATED APPOXIMATELY 180 FEETWEST OF THE NORTH WEST PROPERTYCORNER.MANAGING OFFICE:6. ALL MANUFACTURED ARTICLES, MATERIALS ANDEQUIPMENT SHALL BE APPLIED, INSTALLED, CONNECTED,ERECTED, CLEANED AND CONDITIONED ACCORDING TOMANUFACTURERS' INSTRUCTIONS. IN CASE OFDISCREPANCIES BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS' INSTRUCTIONSAND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, NOTIFYARCHITECT/ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THEWORK.7. ALL DISSIMILAR METALS SHALL BE EFFECTIVELYISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER TO AVOID GALVANICCORROSION.8. THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF ALL INPLACE UTILITIESSHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE FOR GENERAL INFORMATIONONLY AND ARE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OFTHE KNOWLEDGE OF I & S GROUP, INC. (ISG). NO WARRANTYOR GUARANTEE IS IMPLIED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYTHE SIZES, LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL INPLACEUTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALLIMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES ORVARIATIONS FROM PLAN.9. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO CONTACT "GOPHER STATEONE CALL" FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, MINIMUM 2 BUSINESSDAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION / CONSTRUCTION(1-800-252-1166).1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CONTRACTDOCUMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THEOWNER - CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT, THE PROJECT MANUAL(WHICH INCLUDES GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONSAND SPECIFICATIONS), DRAWINGS OF ALL DISCIPLINES ANDALL ADDENDA, MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ISSUEDBY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER.2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ISSUED TO ALLSUBCONTRACTORS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR INCOMPLETE SETS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE FULL EXTENTAND COMPLETE COORDINATION OF ALL WORK.3. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVERSCALED DIMENSIONS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF ANYDISCREPANCIES OR CONDITIONS REQUIRING INFORMATIONOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.4. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS ANDDIMENSIONS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF ANYDISCREPANCIES OR CONDITIONS REQUIRING INFORMATIONOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.5. DETAILS SHOWN ARE INTENDED TO BE INDICATIVE OFTHE PROFILES AND TYPE OF DETAILING REQUIREDTHROUGHOUT THE WORK. DETAILS NOT SHOWN ARE SIMILARIN CHARACTER TO DETAILS SHOWN. WHERE SPECIFICDIMENSIONS, DETAILS OR DESIGN INTENT CANNOT BEDETERMINED, NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER BEFOREPROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. SPECIFICATIONS REFERENCEALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF MEDINAREQUIREMENTS AND MnDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FORCONSTRUCTION, 2018 EDITION, AND THE STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAIN ANDWATERMAIN AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ENGINEERSASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA 2013, UNLESS DIRECTEDOTHERWISE. PROJECT DATUMHORIZONTAL COORDINATES HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TO THENORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83), 1996 ADJUSTMENT(NAD83(1996)) ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATESYSTEM, IN U.S. SURVEY FEET.ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TO THE NORTHAMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88).RTK GPS METHODS WERE USED TO ESTABLISH HORIZONTALAND VERTICAL COORDINATES FOR THIS PROJECT. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYTHIS PROJECT'S TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONSISTSOF DATA COLLECTED IN JANUARY 2020 BY ISG.PROJECT GENERAL NOTESLOCATION MAP0SCALE IN FEETOHLOF-TTKTTKJDF05/15/202020-238601 TITLE SHEET GENERAL INFORMATION ---- ---- 11PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL7900 INTERNATIONAL DRIVESUITE 550MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55425PHONE: 952.426.0699BLOOMINGTON OFFICETITLE SHEETGENERALINFORMATION>LIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTSSHEET INDEXSHEET INDEX >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIWETWETWETWETWETWE T WETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWE T WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWET >EX 12" TREEEX 13" TREEEX 16" TREEEX 16" TREEEX 8" TREEEX 9" TREEEX 20" TREE23860 EXISTDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386010 EXISTING SITE PLAN (OVERALL) ---- ---- 10MEDINA MINNESOTAEXISTING SITEPLAN (OVERALL)0SCALE IN FEET100 200JRSJRSJDFLIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS WETWETWETWETWETWE T WETWETWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWE T WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETEASTBIOFILTRATIONBASINBOTTOM=984.00HWL=985.94EAST BASINFOREBAYBOTTOM=980.00NWL=954HWL=985.94WEST BASINFOREBAYSBOTTOM=980.00NWL=984.00HWL=986.16WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.16WETWETWETWETWETWE T WE T WET WETWETWET WETWE T WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET WET WET35' AVGERAGEWETLAND BUFFER15' WETLANDSETBACK25' AVERAGEWETLAND BUFFER15' WETLANDSETBACK35' AVERAGEWETLAND BUFFER15' WETLANDSETBACKWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ETTTETETTTTETETEEETETTTETETTEEEEEEEEETTTTWETWETWEWWWWWWEWWWWWWWWE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WWWWE T WE T WE T WWWEWE T WWE T WWWWWWWEEETEEEEET WEWEWEWWEWWWEWEWEWWWEWE WEWEWEWETEWEWEWEEWWEWWWEWEEEWWWWWEWE T WE T WE T WWEWWE T WEWWEWEWWE T WWWEWEWEWEWEEWEWE T WE T WEEEWWEWWWWWWE T WWEWWEWEWEETEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWEWEWWWWWWWWEWEWWEWWWWWWWWWWEWE WWWWWWWWWETETETETTETEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWE T WWEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WETEWETWETWETWEWETWETTWETTETWETWETTTTWETTETWEEEWEWEWWWETWETWETTWWETETWETWETETWETWTTWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEWEEEEEEETEEETEETEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWE T WEWEEET WEWEWEWEWEWEEEWEWEWEWE TETEETEEEEETEETET WEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEE WEWWWWEWWWWWWWWWWWWWEWWWEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEWEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEE WWWWWWWWWWW WE TWE TWE TWE TWE T E TWWEWE TWE TWE TWE TWWWE TWEWWEWE TWE TWWWEWWEWWWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWE TWEEWE T E T E T E T EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWE T E T E T E T E T E T EE T E T E T E T EWEWEWWWEWWEWEWWWWWWWW 35' WETLANDBUFFER15' WETLANDSETBACK23860 SITEDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386016 OVERALL SITE PLAN ---- ---- 16MEDINA MINNESOTAOVERALL SITEPLAN0SCALE IN FEET100 200JRSJRSJDFLIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTSTYPICAL PRIVATE STREET LAYOUT1" =20'SITE SUMMARYEXISTING ZONING:PROPOSED ZONING:GROSS AREA:WETLAND AREA (ONSITE):WETLAND IMPACTS:WETLAND BUFFER AREA (ONSITE):NET AREA:PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT:PERVIOUS AREA:IMPERVIOUS AREA:PRODUCT TYPEPARKING REQUIREMENTSSETBACKS WETWE T WET WE T W E T WETWETWETWETWETWET WET WET WETWETWET WET WE T WETWETWETWETWET WET WET WET WETWETWETWET S88°54'57"E 650.77S00°07'49"W 697.32N00°28'25"E 522.56Δ=30°32'34"L=143.93R=270.00Δ=29°08'29"L=198.36R=390.00S89°33'00"E254.41Δ=24°15'19"L=139.70R=330.00N66°11'42"E226.47Δ=24°15'19"L=114.30R=270.00Δ=33°55'28"L=195.39R=330.00Δ=33°32'09"L=128.77R=220.00N00°12'02"E 1167.15S69°59'33"E 1448.63S89°33'00"E16.57S89°02'37"W1.5011126131415167215438910171819202122232425262723860 PRELIMDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386012 PRELIMINARY PLAT (OVERALL) ---- ---- 12MEDINA MINNESOTAPRELIMINARYPLAT (OVERALL)0SCALE IN FEET100 200MASMASOUTLOT AREAS:OUTLOT A = 1,445,018 SQ. FT. = 33.17 ACRESOUTLOT B = 211,839 SQ. FT. = 4.86 ACRESOUTLOT C = 95,454 SQ. FT. = 2.19 ACRESOUTLOT D = 8,315 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT E = 6,908 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT F = 8,199 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT G = 7,908 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRESOUTLOT H = 5,730 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT I = 6,073 SQ. FT. = 0.14 ACRESOUTLOT J = 5,492 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT K = 14,434 SQ. FT. = 0.33 ACRESOUTLOT L = 4,224 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRESOUTLOT M = 11,253 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRESOUTLOT N = 9,364 SQ, FT. = 0.21 ACRESOUTLOT O = 1,504 SQ. FT. = 0.03 ACRESOUTLOT P = 4,573 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRESOUTLOT Q = 7,073 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT R = 3,771 SQ. FT. = 0.09 ACRESOUTLOT S = 10,695 SQ. FT. = 0.25 ACRESOUTLOT T = 9,355 SQ. FT. = 0.21 ACRESOUTLOT U = 159,970 SQ. FT. = 3.67 ACRESOUTLOT V = 3,519 SQ. FT. = 0.08 ACRESOUTLOT W = 7,788 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRESOUTLOT X = 6,518 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT Y = 7,168 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT Z = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT AA = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT BB = 8,336 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT CC = 11,292 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRESOUTLOT DD = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT EE = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT FF = 8,399 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESLEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT PURPOSES:Outlot E, FIELDS OF MEDINA, Hennepin County, Minnesota.ANDOutlot A, ROLLING GREEN BUSINESS CENTER, Hennepin County, Minnesota.DATELIC. NO.5-15-2020 45817Mark A. SchwanzDrainage and Utility Easements are shown thus:Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, being 10 feet inwidth and adjoining rear lot lines and being 15 feet andadjoining right - of - way lines, unless otherwise indicated onthe plat. WETWET WET WET WET WET WET WE T W E T WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WET WETWETS88°54'57"E 650.7740.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.00S38°42'08"W 176.00N38°42'08"E 176.00S13°11'48"W 176.00N13°11'48"E 176.00N74°25'32"E 208.00S74°25'32"W 208.00S74°25'32"W 176.00N74°25'32"E 176.00N68°39'13"W 176.00S68°39'13"E 176.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0040.0032.0032.0032.0040.0040.0032.0032.0032.0040.0040.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3332.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.33 40.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.33 40.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.33 40.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3340.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 40.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0032.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0059.3332.0059.3332.0059.3340.0059.33 59.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 N00°00'00"E 176.00S00°00'00"E 176.00N23°20'22"E 176.00S23°20'22"W 176.00S84°27'25"W 144.00N84°27'25"E 144.00N73°31'50"E 176.00S73°31'50"W 176.00S81°39'19"W 176.00N81°39'19"E 176.00S73°31'50"W 144.00N73°31'50"E 144.00S16°28'10"E 208.00 N16°28'1 0 " W 2 0 8 . 0 0 Δ=24°15'19"L=139.70R=330.00N66°11'42"E226.47Δ=24°15'19"L=114.30R=270.00Δ=33°55'28"L=195.39R=330.00Δ=33°32'09"L=128.77R=220.00S89°33'00"E16.5759.3311128131415167216514817734112 4489511484 79 8094271344 8933 40.0059.3359.3340.0040.0040.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 40.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0040.0059.3359.33S74°25'32"W 176.00N74°25'32"E 176.00N43°22'52"W 144.00S43°22'52"E 144.00N00°19'32"E 176.00S00°19'32"W 176.00N04°41'30"W 112.00S04°41'30"E 112.0052 36 86 87 124831540.0040.0059.33333340.0032.0040.00333340.0040.0059.33S00°19'32"W 112.00403491023860 PRELIMDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386013 PRELIMINARY PLAT (EAST) ---- ---- 13MEDINA MINNESOTAPRELIMINARYPLAT (EAST)0SCALE IN FEET40 80MAS_MASDATELIC. NO.5-15-2020 45817Mark A. SchwanzDrainage and Utility Easements are shown thus:Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, being 10 feet inwidth and adjoining rear lot lines and being 15 feet andadjoining right - of - way lines, unless otherwise indicated onthe plat.OUTLOT AREAS:OUTLOT A = 1,445,018 SQ. FT. = 33.17 ACRESOUTLOT B = 211,839 SQ. FT. = 4.86 ACRESOUTLOT C = 95,454 SQ. FT. = 2.19 ACRESOUTLOT D = 8,315 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT E = 6,908 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT F = 8,199 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT G = 7,908 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRESOUTLOT H = 5,730 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT I = 6,073 SQ. FT. = 0.14 ACRESOUTLOT J = 5,492 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT K = 14,434 SQ. FT. = 0.33 ACRESOUTLOT L = 4,224 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRESOUTLOT M = 11,253 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRESOUTLOT N = 9,364 SQ, FT. = 0.21 ACRESOUTLOT O = 1,504 SQ. FT. = 0.03 ACRESOUTLOT P = 4,573 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRESOUTLOT Q = 7,073 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT R = 3,771 SQ. FT. = 0.09 ACRESOUTLOT S = 10,695 SQ. FT. = 0.25 ACRESOUTLOT T = 9,355 SQ. FT. = 0.21 ACRESOUTLOT U = 159,970 SQ. FT. = 3.67 ACRESOUTLOT V = 3,519 SQ. FT. = 0.08 ACRESOUTLOT W = 7,788 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRESOUTLOT X = 6,518 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT Y = 7,168 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT Z = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT AA = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT BB = 8,336 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT CC = 11,292 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRESOUTLOT DD = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT EE = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT FF = 8,399 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES WETWETWETWETWET WET WET WET WET WET WETWETNS68°39'13"E 1732.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0059.3359.3359.33N00°28'25"E 522.56Δ=30°32'34"L=143.93R=270.00Δ=29°08'29"L=198.36R=390.00S89°33'00"E254.41Δ=24°15'19"L=139.70R=330.004432.0040.0059.3340.0059.3359.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.33N43°22'52"W 144.00N00°19'32"E 176.008359.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0059.3332.0059.3332.0059.3332.0059.3340.0059.3340.0032.0032.0040.0032.0059.3340.0059.3332.0059.3332.0059.3332.0059.3340.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0040.0059.3359.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0059.3332.0040.0040.0032.0032.0040.0059.3359.3359.3359.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0059.3332.0059.3332.0059.3340.0059.3340.0032.0032.0040.0059.3340.0059.3332.0059.3332.0059.3340.00S00°28'25"W 144.00N00°28'25"E 144.00S00°28'25"W 144.00N00°28'25"E 144.00S00°28'25"W 144.00N00°28'25"E 144.00S00°28'25"W 144.00N00°28'25"E 144.00S00°28'25"W 208.00N00°28'25"E 208.00S00°28'25"W 176.00N00°28'25"E 176.00S00°28'25"W 176.00N00°28'25"E 176.00S00°28'25"W 176.00N00°28'25"E 176.00S00°19'32"W 112.00N00°19'32"E 112.00N89°31'35"W 144.00S89°31'35"E 144.00N89°31'35"W 144.00S89°31'35"E 144.0016110222410522767614144010171819202122232425262723860 PRELIMDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386014 PRELIMINARY PLAT (WEST) ---- ---- 14MEDINA MINNESOTAPRELIMINARYPLAT (WEST)0SCALE IN FEET30 60MASMASDATELIC. NO.5-15-2020 45817Mark A. SchwanzDrainage and Utility Easements are shown thus:Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, being 10 feet inwidth and adjoining rear lot lines and being 15 feet andadjoining right - of - way lines, unless otherwise indicated onthe plat.OUTLOT AREAS:OUTLOT A = 1,445,018 SQ. FT. = 33.17 ACRESOUTLOT B = 211,839 SQ. FT. = 4.86 ACRESOUTLOT C = 95,454 SQ. FT. = 2.19 ACRESOUTLOT D = 8,315 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT E = 6,908 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT F = 8,199 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT G = 7,908 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRESOUTLOT H = 5,730 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT I = 6,073 SQ. FT. = 0.14 ACRESOUTLOT J = 5,492 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT K = 14,434 SQ. FT. = 0.33 ACRESOUTLOT L = 4,224 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRESOUTLOT M = 11,253 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRESOUTLOT N = 9,364 SQ, FT. = 0.21 ACRESOUTLOT O = 1,504 SQ. FT. = 0.03 ACRESOUTLOT P = 4,573 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRESOUTLOT Q = 7,073 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT R = 3,771 SQ. FT. = 0.09 ACRESOUTLOT S = 10,695 SQ. FT. = 0.25 ACRESOUTLOT T = 9,355 SQ. FT. = 0.21 ACRESOUTLOT U = 159,970 SQ. FT. = 3.67 ACRESOUTLOT V = 3,519 SQ. FT. = 0.08 ACRESOUTLOT W = 7,788 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRESOUTLOT X = 6,518 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT Y = 7,168 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRESOUTLOT Z = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT AA = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRESOUTLOT BB = 8,336 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRESOUTLOT CC = 11,292 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRESOUTLOT DD = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT EE = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRESOUTLOT FF = 8,399 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES 2224271718202125261910916158141312117654321EASTBIOFILTRATIONBASINBOTTOM=984.00HWL=985.94EAST BASINFOREBAYBOTTOM=980.00NWL=954HWL=985.94WEST BASINFOREBAYSBOTTOM=980.00NWL=984.00HWL=986.16WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.16>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EX CBT/C=996.33INVERT N=991.30 12"RCPEX CBT/C=996.48INVERT S=990.22 12"RCPINVERT E=989.75 21"RCPINVERT NW=989.63 18"RCPEX CBT/C=996.38INVERT S=989.96 12"RCPINVERT N=989.74 15"RCPINVERT W=988.56 21"RCPINVERT E=988.48 24"RCPEX CBT/C=996.37INVERT N=991.05 12"RCPEX CBT/C=996.33INVERT S=991.32 12"RCPINVERT N=990.15 15"RCPINVERT W=987.83 24"RCPINVERT E=987.82 24"RCPEX CBT/C=996.43INVERT N=992.27 12"RCPEX CBT/C=997.14INVERT NW=991.29 12"RCPINVERT E=986.97 24"RCPINVERT W=986.92 24"RCPEX CBT/C=996.44INVERT NE=990.25 12"RCPINVERT SE=990.19 12"RCPINVERT W=986.68 24"RCPINVERT E=986.58 24"RCPEX CBT/C=994.90INVERT W=986.07 24"RCPINVERT E=986.00 24"RCPEX SAN MHR=995.78INVERT S=976.56INVERT NW=976.47INVERT E=976.47EX CBT/C=996.44I=990.97 12"RCPEX CBT/C=989.83INVERT S=985.77 12"RCPINVERT W=985.22 24"RCPINVERT N=985.07 24"RCPEX CBT/C=989.94INVERT N=986.06 12"RCPERININI=985.10EX DROP INTAKER=996.14I=>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWETWETWETWET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET WET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I I I I I I I I I I III I I I III I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I II >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIII995.00993.25994.25994.40994.40994.75995.25998.50997.50998.00999.00999.75999.751000.50994.00996.50997.50998.00998.50995.75 995.25 995.00992.25992.75992.75993.00993.75994.10994.50994.50995.50996.75994.00995.00995.50994.50994.00994.00994.50995.50993.00994.00994.50995.50994.00994.50995.50I>I>>I>I>I>IIIIIII>I>I>I>I>IIIII>I>I>IIIII>I>I>I>IIIIIIII>I>I>I>IIIII>I>I>I>I>>I> >I>>I>I>I >I >I >I >I II IIIIIIIIII> I >I> I >I> IIIIII>I>>I>>I>>I>>II>IIIIIIIIII I III IIII I >>I>I>I>I>I>I>I>I>I I I I > I I I>>II>>III23860 UTILITYDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386019 SITE UTILITY PLAN (OVERALL) ---- ---- 19MEDINA MINNESOTASITE UTILITY PLAN(OVERALL)0SCALE IN FEET60 120JRSJRSJDFLIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTSUTILITY LEGENDEXISTINGPROPOSED>>>>>><II<IIII >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWETWETWET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET WET>2224271718202125261910916158141312117654321EASTBIOFILTRATIONBASINBOTTOM=984.00HWL=985.94EAST BASINFOREBAYBOTTOM=980.00NWL=954HWL=985.94WEST BASINFOREBAYSBOTTOM=980.00NWL=984.00HWL=986.16WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.16>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>995.00993.25994.25994.40994.40994.75995.25998.50997.50998.00999.00999.75999.751000.50994.00996.50997.50998.00998.50995.75 995.25 995.00992.25992.75992.75993.00993.75994.10994.50994.50995.50996.75994.00995.00995.50994.50994.00994.00994.50995.50993.00994.00994.50995.50994.00994.50995.50>>>>>> > > >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>23860 GRADEDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386024 OVERALL GRADING PLAN ---- ---- 24MEDINA MINNESOTAOVERALLGRADING PLAN0SCALE IN FEET60 120JRSJRSJDFLIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWET WETWET WET>>>22241718251910916158141312117654321EASTBIOFILTRATIONBASINBOTTOM=984.00HWL=985.94EAST BASINFOREBAYBOTTOM=980.00NWL=954HWL=985.94WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.16>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>995.00993.25994.25994.40994.40994.75995.25998.50997.50998.00999.00999.75999.751000.50994.00996.50997.50998.00998.50995.75 995.25 995.00992.25992.75992.75993.00994.00994.00994.50995.50993.00994.00994.50995.50994.00994.50995.50>>>>>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>23860 GRADEDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386025 GRADING PLAN (EAST) ---- ---- 25MEDINA MINNESOTAGRADING PLAN(EAST)0SCALE IN FEET50 100JRSJRSJDFLIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWET WETWETWET WET2224 271718202125261910916158147432WEST BASINFOREBAYSBOTTOM=980.00NWL=984.00HWL=986.16WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.16>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>995.00993.25994.25994.40998.5999.0999.75999.751000.50994.00996.50997.50998.00998.50995.00992.25992.75992.75993.00993.75994.10994.50994.50995.50996.75994.00995.00995.50994.50994.00994.00994.50995.50993.00994.00994.50995.50994.00994.50995.50> > >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>23860 GRADEDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386026 GRADING PLAN (WEST) ---- ---- 26MEDINA MINNESOTAGRADING PLAN(WEST)0SCALE IN FEET50 100JRSJRSJDFLIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWETWETWET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET WET>WETWETWETTWETWETWEEEWWWWETWEWETWWEEEEET TTTWETWETWWWETWETWETWETEWWEWWETWWWETETWETWETWETETTTETEWEWWWETWEWETWEWETWETWEWEWETWEWWEWEEWEWEWEEWEWEWWWWWWETWETWETWETWETWETWEWWETWWETWEWWWWWETWWETWETWETWWETWETWETWEWEETEETTT WETWETWEWETWETWETWEWEWETWETWWETWWEETEETTTTTTT WETTTTTEEWEWWWWWWWWWWWWEWEWEWEWEWEEEWEEWWETWETWETWEWEEWEWEWEWEWETWETWETWETETWETWETWETWETETWEWETWEWETWETWETETTWETWETWWETWETWETET TTTTTTTTTTTTWETWETWWETWETETWETWEWETWETWETWETWEWETWETWWETWETWETT ETETETEEETTTTTTWETWEWEWWEWWWWETWWWETWEEETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETEWETWEWETWTWEWETETETETTTTTTTTTTWETWETETWETWETWETWETWETWETWEWETWETWETWETWETWETWWET WETWETWETWETWETWET TWEWETWEWETWETWWETWWWETWETWETWEWETWEWWETWWETWEWETWWETWETWEWEEETETETTWETWETWETWETWETWETWEWWETWEWWETWWETWWETWEWWETETTTTWETWETWETWETWETWETETWEWWETWTWETWETWETWETWETWETETWEWWETWTTWEWETWETWETWETWETWWWWETWETWETETWETWETWETWEWEWETETTT22 24271718202125261910916158141312117654321EASTBIOFILTRATIONBASINBOTTOM=984.00HWL=985.94EAST BASINFOREBAYBOTTOM=980.00NWL=954HWL=985.94WEST BASINFOREBAYSBOTTOM=980.00NWL=984.00HWL=986.16WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.1635' WETLANDBUFFER15' WETLANDSETBACK25' WETLANDBUFFER15' WETLANDSETBACK23860 WETLANDDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386027 WETLAND BUFFER PLAN ---- ---- 27MEDINA MINNESOTAWETLAND BUFFERPLAN0SCALE IN FEET60 120JRSJRSJDFLIC. NO.DATEJERREMY D. FOSSXX/XX/XXXX55871NOTE:THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPENDUPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOESNOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT ANORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT INMISINTERPRETATION.06/22/2020REVISED PER CITY COMMENTSWETLAND LEGEND >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWET>>>22710916158141312117654321EASTBIOFILTRATIONBASINBOTTOM=984.00HWL=985.94EAST BASINFOREBAYBOTTOM=980.00NWL=954HWL=985.94> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>23860 LANDDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386028 SITE RESTORATION PLAN (EAST) ---- ---- 28MEDINA MINNESOTASITERESTORATIONPLAN (EAST)0SCALE IN FEET50 100AETDPPDPPLIC. NO.DATEDANYELLE P. PIERQUET49121XX/XX/XXXXSITE RESTORATION REQUIREMENTSTURF RESTORATION QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE37,046 sf MnDOT 34-271 Wet Meadow South & WestNative SeedSEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRESEED41,944 sf MnDOT 35-641 Mesic Prairie SoutheastNative SeedSEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRESEED92,210 sf MnDOT 33-261 Stormwater South & WestNative SeedSEEDING RATE: 35 LBS/ACRESEED624,283 sf MnDOT 25-131 Low Maintenance TurfTurf SeedSEEDING RATE: 220 LBS/ACRESEEDSITE SEEDING SCHEDULE >>>>>>>>IIIIIITWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET WET2224 2717182021252619WEST BASINFOREBAYSBOTTOM=980.00NWL=984.00HWL=986.16WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.16>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>23860 LANDDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386029 SITE RESTORATION PLAN (WEST) ---- ---- 29MEDINA MINNESOTASITERESTORATIONPLAN (WEST)0SCALE IN FEET50 100AETDPPDPPLIC. NO.DATEDANYELLE P. PIERQUET49121XX/XX/XXXXSITE RESTORATION REQUIREMENTSTURF RESTORATION QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE37,046 sf MnDOT 34-271 Wet Meadow South & WestNative SeedSEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRESEED41,944 sf MnDOT 35-641 Mesic Prairie SoutheastNative SeedSEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRESEED92,210 sf MnDOT 33-261 Stormwater South & WestNative SeedSEEDING RATE: 35 LBS/ACRESEED624,283 sf MnDOT 25-131 Low Maintenance TurfTurf SeedSEEDING RATE: 220 LBS/ACRESEEDSITE SEEDING SCHEDULE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIWETWETWET WETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWET>> >22710916158141312117654321EASTBIOFILTRATIONBASINBOTTOM=984.00HWL=985.94EAST BASINFOREBAYBOTTOM=980.00NWL=954HWL=985.94> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) TI(3) TI(3) TI(3) TI(4) TI(3) TI(4) TI(1) RG23860 LANDDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386030 LANDSCAPE PLAN (EAST) ---- ---- 30MEDINA MINNESOTALANDSCAPE PLAN(EAST)0SCALE IN FEET50 100AETDPPDPPTREESCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEAM Green Mountain Sugar MapleAcer saccharum `Green Mountain` TMAP Emerald Lustre MapleAcer platanoides `Pond` TMAS Red Sunset MapleAcer rubrum `Red Sunset`GI Imperial HoneylocustGleditsia triacanthos inermis `Impcole` TMQB Swamp White OakQuercus bicolorTM Sentry LindenTilia americana `McKSentry`UV American ElmUlmus americana `Valley Forge`DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEMS Pink Spires Crab AppleMalus x `Pink Spires`MS2 Snowdrift Crab AppleMalus x `Snowdrift`SR Japanese Tree LilacSyringa reticulataEVERGREEN TREECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEAB Balsam FirAbies balsameaPA Norway SprucePicea abiesPB Black Hills SprucePicea glauca densataPW White PinePinus strobusTT Techny ArborvitaeThuja occidentalis `Techny`DECIDUOUS SHRUBSCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEFF Northern Sun ForsythiaForsythia x `Northern Sun`RG Gro-Low Fragrant SumacRhus aromatica `Gro-Low`SA Common White LilacSyringa vulgaris `Alba`SV Common LilacSyringa vulgarisVA American CranberrybushViburnum trilobumEVERGREEN SHRUBSCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMETI Green Giant ArborvitaeThuja x `Green Giant`PLANT SCHEDULELIC. NO.DATEDANYELLE P. PIERQUET49121XX/XX/XXXX >>>>>>>>>>IIIIIWETWET WEWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWETWET WETWETWET WET2224 271718202125261910916WEST BASINFOREBAYSBOTTOM=980.00NWL=984.00HWL=986.16WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASINBOTTOM =984.00HWL=986.16>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>(14) TI(13) TI(3) TI(3) TI(3) TI(3) TI23860 LANDDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386031 LANDSCAPE PLAN (WEST) ---- ---- 31MEDINA MINNESOTALANDSCAPE PLAN(WEST)0SCALE IN FEET50 100AETDPPDPPTREESCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEAM Green Mountain Sugar MapleAcer saccharum `Green Mountain` TMAP Emerald Lustre MapleAcer platanoides `Pond` TMAS Red Sunset MapleAcer rubrum `Red Sunset`GI Imperial HoneylocustGleditsia triacanthos inermis `Impcole` TMQB Swamp White OakQuercus bicolorTM Sentry LindenTilia americana `McKSentry`UV American ElmUlmus americana `Valley Forge`DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEMS Pink Spires Crab AppleMalus x `Pink Spires`MS2 Snowdrift Crab AppleMalus x `Snowdrift`SR Japanese Tree LilacSyringa reticulataEVERGREEN TREECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEAB Balsam FirAbies balsameaPA Norway SprucePicea abiesPB Black Hills SprucePicea glauca densataPW White PinePinus strobusTT Techny ArborvitaeThuja occidentalis `Techny`DECIDUOUS SHRUBSCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMEFF Northern Sun ForsythiaForsythia x `Northern Sun`RG Gro-Low Fragrant SumacRhus aromatica `Gro-Low`SA Common White LilacSyringa vulgaris `Alba`SV Common LilacSyringa vulgarisVA American CranberrybushViburnum trilobumEVERGREEN SHRUBSCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMETI Green Giant ArborvitaeThuja x `Green Giant`PLANT SCHEDULELIC. NO.DATEDANYELLE P. PIERQUET49121XX/XX/XXXX 23860 LANDDATEREVISION SCHEDULEDESCRIPTION BYSHEETTITLEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,PROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYOF-05/15/202020-2386030 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS ---- ---- 30MEDINA MINNESOTALANDSCAPENOTES & DETAILSAETDPPDPPGENERAL PLANTING NOTESDECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"ROOTBALL DIA2X ROOTBALL DIADEPTH OFROOTBALLCONIFER / EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"ROOTBALL DIA1.5 X ROOTBALL DIADEPTH OFROOTBALLCITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTSLIC. NO.DATEDANYELLE P. PIERQUET49121XX/XX/XXXXSHRUB PLANTING DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"ROOTBALL DIA2X ROOTBALL DIADEPTH OFROOTBALLCONTAINER DIA2X CONTAINER DIASEEDING ESTABLISHMENT & MAINTENANCETREESQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTNOTEAM 3 Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2" CAL B & BAcer saccharum `Green Mountain` TMAP 8 Emerald Lustre Maple 2" CAL B & BAcer platanoides `Pond` TMAS 13 Red Sunset Maple 2" CAL B & BAcer rubrum `Red Sunset`GI 21 Imperial Honeylocust 2" CAL B & BGleditsia triacanthos inermis `Impcole` TMQB 3 Swamp White Oak 2" CAL B & BQuercus bicolorTM 28 Sentry Linden 2" CAL B & BTilia americana `McKSentry`UV 14 American Elm 2" CAL B & BUlmus americana `Valley Forge`EVERGREEN TREEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTNOTEAB 11 Balsam Fir 6` HT MINAbies balsameaPA 12 Norway Spruce 6` HT MIN B & BPicea abiesPB 2 Black Hills Spruce 6` HT MIN B & BPicea glauca densataPW 6 White Pine 6` HT MIN B & BPinus strobusTT 5 Techny Arborvitae 6` HT MIN B & BThuja occidentalis `Techny`ORNAMENTAL TREEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTNOTEMS 14 Pink Spires Crab Apple 1.5" CAL B & B BRACE / STAKEMalus x `Pink Spires`MS2 8 Snowdrift Crab Apple 1.5" CAL B & BMalus x `Snowdrift`SR 27 Japanese Tree Lilac 1.5" CAL B & BSyringa reticulataDECIDUOUS SHRUBSQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTNOTEFF 24 Northern Sun Forsythia 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MINForsythia x `Northern Sun`RG 1 Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MINRhus aromatica `Gro-Low`SA 20 Common White Lilac 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MINSyringa vulgaris `Alba`SV 35 Common Lilac 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MINSyringa vulgarisVA 17 American Cranberrybush 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MINViburnum trilobumEVERGREEN SHRUBSQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTNOTETI 51 Green Giant Arborvitae 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MINThuja x `Green Giant`PLANT SCHEDULETURF RESTORATION QTY COMMON NAME SIZE37,046 sf MnDOT 34-271 Wet Meadow South & West SEED41,944 sf MnDOT 35-641 Mesic Prairie Southeast SEED92,210 sf MnDOT 33-261 Stormwater South & West SEED624,283 sf MnDOT 25-131 Low Maintenance Turf SEEDPLANT SCHEDULE Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 4 July 14, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: July 10, 2020 MEETING: July 14, 2020 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Shed setbacks Background The Planning Commission reviewed regulations pertaining to accessory structures and sheds back in May. Current regulations exempt sheds 120 square feet or smaller from the general setback requirements of each district, instead requiring a reduced setback of 5 feet from rear and side lot lines. The amendment recommended by the Planning Commission would have changed this exception to apply to sheds 200 square feet and less. The City Council discussed at their June 2 meeting. The Council raised general concerns about the impacts of accessory structures on views and discussed potential architectural requirements. Number and Size of Accessory Structures Current City regulations allow varying sizes of accessory buildings on residential lots based upon the size of the lot based upon the following table: Lot Size Bldg. Size* No. Permitted 10,000 sq. ft. or less 1,000 sq. ft. one 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. one 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. one more than one and up to three acres 2,000 sq. ft. one more than three and up to five acres 4,000 sq. ft. two more than 5 acres 5,000 sq. ft. Two In addition, all lots are permitted an additional shed up to 120 square feet (12’x10’). Staff is not aware of complaints related to number or size of accessory structures on properties. It is important to note that detached garages, although not overly common in Medina, would be considered accessory structures. If the Planning Commission and City Council were to discuss any reduction in allowed size, this fact should be remembered. Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 4 July 14, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting Architectural Requirements The code includes general architectural language as follows: “All accessory buildings in residential and agricultural districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other buildings on the property. Accessory buildings should be designed to reflect the rural design and character of the city. The visual impact of the accessory building upon neighboring properties shall be minimized by the building’s design and siting and by providing screening or additional landscaping, which shall be approved by the zoning administrator.” Staff believes architectural requirements are appropriate as part of review of larger accessory structures, but does not recommend more specific architectural language for smaller accessory structures. Setback for Smaller Accessory Structures Accessory structures are currently required to meet the same setbacks as the home on the lot, with the exception of sheds under 120 square feet, which are only required to be set back 5 feet from side and rear lot lines. The discussion related to accessory structures originally arose because a property owner in Foxberry Farms recently inquired about building a 14’x12’ (168 square feet) shed. To meet the full setbacks of the Suburban Residential district, the shed would need to be located 15 feet from side lot lines and 40 feet from the rear lot line. This would place the shed in the middle of the back yard on this owner’s lot, as would be the case in most residential lots served by sewer and water. Many smaller lots do not have sufficient room in the rear yard to construct any size accessory structure which would be able to meet structure setback requirements. This means that sewered lots are mostly limited to sheds under 120 square feet. The Building Code exempts sheds 200 square feet and less from needing a building permit. This exception was previously 120 square feet, and staff believes is probably part of the reason the shed exceptions were for 120 square feet and under. Staff believed it was appropriate to review the requirements for small accessory structures following the discussions with the property owner and the fact that sheds 200 square feet and under are exempt from building code. Staff reviewed the regulations of a number of nearby and similar communities for context. Most communities, except Minnetrista, allow reductions of side and rear setbacks for accessory structures. Most communities require setbacks of 5-10 feet, regardless of size. Accessory Structure Setback (rear and side) Full Principal Setback Req. Medina (existing)5 ft 120 s.f. Victoria 5 ft 100 s.f. Maple Grove 5 ft None Brooklyn Park 5 ft None Plymouth 6 ft None Eagan 5 or 10 ft None Corcoran (sewered lots)10 ft None Corcoran (rural lots)20 ft None Orono (1 acre)10 ft 1000 s.f. Orono (rural)20 ft 1000 s.f. Minnetrista Same as Principal All Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 4 July 14, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting Proposed Amendments Size of Accessory Structures Allowed Reduced Setbacks The Planning Commission recommended an amendment to change the exemptions in the zoning code to 200 square feet, matching the exemption under building code. This would allow sheds up to 10’x20’ to be located within 5 feet of property lines, whereas current regulations would allow the reduction for sheds up to 10’x12’. This change is highlighted in grey. Any larger accessory structure would still need to meet the full setback requirements. In discussions related to garage size and other subjects, comments from the Planning Commission and Council continually referenced an interest in having items stored inside of a garage. Staff believes additional flexibility for sheds may be consistent with this goal. If the Planning Commission and City Council are concerned with increasing the size of sheds which can be located within 5 feet of the lot lines, but are still open to some reduction of setbacks for accessory structures, an alternative may be a sort of “sliding scale” setback. For example, a shed 120 square feet could be allowed 5 feet from property lines and a shed 200 square feet and under could be allowed 10 feet away. Add height limitation for sheds at reduced setback The Planning Commission had recommended that any accessory structure which is allowed a reduced setback should be limited to 12 feet in height. This language is included within the attached ordinance (highlighted in yellow). Limitation of one accessory structure with reduced setback Current regulations would allow any accessory structures 120 square feet or less to be located within 5 feet of the rear and side property line. Staff has suggested language that limits this reduced setback to a single small structure (see subd. 5 of the ordinance, highlighted in green). Increase Size for “additional shed” The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission also increased the size of the “additional shed” which is allowed on any lot above and beyond those described in the table. This language is in Subd. 5 of the ordinance (highlighted in blue). The amendment would have increased this additional shed from 120 square feet to 200 square feet. If the Planning Commission and City Council are concerned with the number and size of accessory structures, perhaps this change could be reevaluated. This language could be updated to allow larger “additional sheds” on larger properties and limit the size to 120 square feet on smaller lots. Potential Action The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. After the Commission completes review, it could consider the following action: Move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending regulations pertaining to accessory structures. Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 4 July 14, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting Attachments 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Excerpt from draft 5/12/2020 Planning Commission 3. Excerpt from 6/2/2020 City Council Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 825.19 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Section 825.19. Accessory Buildings. Subd. 1. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Subd. 2. No accessory building shall exceed 30 feet in height, with the exception of buildings where agricultural use or farming is at the discretion of the City the primary use of the property. Building projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not exceed 35 feet in height are permitted in residential districts. Accessory building height shall be measured as set forth in section 825.07, subdivision 12 of the city code. Subd. 3. In residential districts, accessory buildings shall not be attached to, or erected, altered, or moved within 10 feet of the principal building. Accessory buildings in residential districts shall be governed by the following regulations: Lot Size Bldg. Size* No. Permitted 10,000 sq. ft. or less 1,000 sq. ft. one 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. one 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. one more than one and up to three acres 2,000 sq. ft. one more than three and up to five acres 4,000 sq. ft. two more than 5 acres 5,000 sq. ft. two * Building size shall be calculated by determining the footprint of the building. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE Subd. 4. On residential properties more than five acres in area, the city council may grant a conditional use permit to allow accessory buildings which exceed an aggregate of 5,000 square feet in size or two in number. Conditional use permits shall be reviewed in accordance with the requirements of sections 825.39, et seq. of the city code and shall be subject to the additional accessory building standards set forth in section 826.98, subdivision 2 (o) of the city code. Subd. 5. (a) One additional accessory building that has a footprint of 120 200 square feet or less and a height less than 12 feet, such as a shed, chicken coop, or similar type of building, is permitted. The footprint of this type of accessory building shall not count towards the maximum accessory building size allowance for the property as required above. (b) In residential and agricultural districts, onea detached accessory building of less than 120 200 square feet or less and a height of less than 12 feet may be located within the required side and rear yard setback, provided such structure is set back a minimum of five feet of from the rear or and side lot lines., with the exception of aAnimal structures and chicken coops, which shall abide by the specific setback requirements in respective district. All detached accessory buildings 120 larger than 200 square feet or largeror a height greater than 12 feet must meet the setbacks required for principal buildings in the district. Subd. 6 In commercial and industrial districts, all accessory buildings shall meet the same front, side, and rear yard setback requirements as the principal building. Subd. 7. The exterior materials and design features of accessory buildings in commercial or industrial districts must be compatible with the materials and features of the principal building. Subd. 8. All accessory buildings in residential and agricultural districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other buildings on the property. Accessory buildings should be designed to reflect the rural design and character of the city. The visual impact of the accessory building upon neighboring properties shall be minimized by the building’s design and siting and by providing screening or additional landscaping, which shall be approved by the zoning administrator. Subd. 9. The following residential improvements shall be excluded from the maximum allowed building sizes noted under Subd. 3 of this section: (a) unenclosed playhouses; (b) gazebos up to 120 sq. ft. in size and a maximum 12 feet in overall height; (c) outdoor swimming pools; (d) detached decks up to 120 sq. ft. in size; (e) patios; (f) tennis courts; and (g) loafing sheds used exclusively for horses and which are up to 300 square feet in size and meet setbacks for structures used to house, exercise or accommodate animals for the zoning district in which they are located. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this th day of , 2020. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the _____day of __________, 2020. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 5/12/2020 Meeting Minutes 1 Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setback and Other Requirements for Residential Accessory Structures Finke explained that this arose from discussions with a property owner within the Foxberry Farms development. He explained that the current regulations require accessory structures to meet the same setback as the primary structure. He stated that there is an exception for sheds of 120 square feet or less. He stated that for smaller lots, the only allowed placement would be in the middle of the backyard near the rear of the home. He stated that staff reviewed the regulations of other cities and it is common to have reduced setbacks for accessory structures. He stated that State building code has also changed and any accessory structure under 200 square feet does not require a building permit. He explained that staff believes that perhaps it would make sense to use that same standard in Medina. He stated that a draft ordinance was included in the Commission packet with the proposed amended language. He stated that currently the ordinance is set to require a CUP for an accessory structure over 5,000 square feet. He noted that there are additional standards for buildings of that size and the review could be done in that manner by staff or could continue to go through the CUP process. Reid asked the height recommendation. Finke stated that he suggested 12 feet, but the language could go to 15 feet. He explained that the height is measured at the middle of the roof rather than the peak. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. No comments made. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Amic stated that he is in favor of increasing the regulation to 200 square feet. He stated that he does not have a preference on the height as most sheds would be under 12 or 15 feet in height. He did not have an opinion on the CUP issue. Nester commented that she believes that there should at minimum be a height restriction as she did not like allowing bigger structures closer to the property lines. She stated that she would not be in favor of loosening the restrictions. She did not feel strongly on the CUP discussion. Nielsen stated that she is fine with increasing the limitation to 200 square feet. She believed that there should be a height limitation. Galzki agreed with the comments thus far. He stated that his only concern would be with the different sizes of properties. He stated that a 120 square foot shed would be sufficient on a quarter acre lot, but a larger shed on a larger property would make sense. He agreed that a height limitation should be placed on the structure. He stated that for the CUP issue, the Commission typically reviewed maid quarters or beautiful barns. He commented that it is nice to have the public hearing to allow adjacent landowners to provide comments. He noted that perhaps specific uses do not need to go through the CUP process, as that process adds cost and time to a project. Piper asked if these kinds of structure could be used to house animals or horses. Finke replied that the animal structure setbacks would explicitly still apply. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 5/12/2020 Meeting Minutes 2 Piper stated that she would assume that most of these structures have a floor but cannot be mounted on a footing. Finke replied that they could be in theory, but that would be rare. He stated that the structure could be a pole structure without a floor. Grajczyk stated that he agrees with the staff recommendations. He stated that he would agree that a height restriction should be included. He stated that related to the CUP, he would not have any opinions to add. Reid stated that she would favor a height limitation and asked the desired height limit. Finke stated that he would believe that 12 feet would be sufficient. Amic agreed that 12 foot would be plenty. Reid stated that she would prefer to keep the CUP in place for now as there have been some odd requests in the past and would not want to see something the City is not expecting. She stated that perhaps that could be discussed in the future in an attempt to reduce the time and/or cost for that process. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amendment related to residential accessory structures with the height limitation of 12 feet. A roll call vote was performed: Amic aye Nester aye Nielsen aye Galzki aye Piper aye Grajcyk aye Reid aye Motion carries unanimously. Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/2/2020 Meeting Minutes 1 Ordinance Amending Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Structures; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code (7:36 p.m.) Finke stated that the proposed amendment would increase the allowed size of sheds that are allowed as exemptions to the full structure setback. He stated that currently the size is 120 square feet in Medina and the amendment would increase that size to 200 square feet. He stated that the Planning Commission discussed adding a height limitation for the structures allowed exempt from the full setback and recommended a height limitation. He referenced the current requirement that requires a rural residential property to request a CUP for accessory structures over 5,000 square feet. He noted that process adds cost and length to the project, and typically little or no feedback is provided during the process. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended leaving that requirement in place. He stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendment as proposed. Pederson asked if the façade is required to match the home. Finke replied that the ordinance includes general language about complimenting the principle structure on the property for any accessory structure, noting that is fairly subjective language. He stated that structures over 5,000 square feet have more explicit architectural details. He stated that the ordinance amendment as proposed would not change the requirements in terms of architecture for any sheds or outbuildings. DesLauriers stated that he supports the four measures as identified by staff including the height limitation. Albers confirmed his consensus of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Martin stated that she is a little concerned with the size of the sheds, noting that on some of the smaller lots it could be obtrusive to have a structure of that size in that proximity to the property line. She stated that she also recognizes that many of the neighborhoods have HOA’s which have their own covenants that would protect against those measures. She stated that her concern would be that the City is permitting these types of structures close to neighboring property lines. She recognized that there were no public comments at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. She noted that she would be willing to support the recommendation of the Commission if the other Council members support the action as well. Albers stated that Martin makes a persuasive argument to not approving the amendment. He asked if the language related to the structure being compatible to the principle structure should be strengthened. Martin provided some grammatical suggestions that could be added to strengthen the language but noted that those elements could make it cost prohibitive to have these structures. She stated that she is in the rural area of Medina and would still not want to see a prefabricated shed on her neighbor’s property. DesLauriers stated that he would rather have the items stored in a shed rather than outdoors. He noted that some garage sizes are smaller, and residents need additional storage space. Martin stated that a shed of this size could store a snowmobile or boat and believes that residents should pay for offsite storage of those items if needed. She read aloud language from the staff report related to small residential lots and asked if she interpreted the language correct Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/2/2020 Meeting Minutes 2 to allow an outbuilding of up to 1,000 square feet in addition to the small shed being discussed tonight. Finke confirmed that language to be true but noted that it would be unlikely that the smallest lots in Medina could accommodate an accessory structure of any size because of the required setbacks, which was the reason the exempt allowance came about. He explained that the exemption allows the smaller lots to have a small shed. He stated that the Council could still make the change from 120 square feet to 200 square feet for exempt sheds, without changing the size of the shed allowed as additional to the accessory structure language. Martin stated that she would support this item going back to the Planning Commission for additional discussion. Pederson stated that the points brought forward by Martin are valid, noting that he would not want to see the sheds destroying the views of others. Albers and DesLauriers agreed that this should go back to the Planning Commission. Moved by Anderson, seconded by Martin, to direct the Planning Commission to again review the proposed ordinance amending regulations pertaining to accessory structures as discussed by the Council. Further discussion: Martin suggested that the City Attorney provide a memorandum to the Planning Commission related to the expiration of HOA covenants after 30 years. A roll call vote was performed: Pederson aye Anderson aye DesLauriers aye Albers aye Martin aye Motion passed unanimously. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday June 9, 2020 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Peter Galzki, Ron Grajczyk (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Beth 8 Nielsen, Kerby Nester, Cindy Piper, and Robin Reid. 9 10 Absent: None. 11 12 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke. 13 14 2. Election of Planning Commission Vice Chair 15 16 Reid nominated Nielsen for the position of Vice Chair. 17 18 Nielsen nominated Nester for the position of Vice Chair. 19 20 Nester confirmed that she would accept the nomination. 21 22 With a vote of 4 – 1, Beth Nielsen was appointed to the position of Vice Chair of the 23 Planning Commission. 24 25 3. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 26 27 No comments made. 28 29 4. Update from City Council Proceedings 30 31 Albers reported that the Council met recently to consider a Preliminary Plat for the Roehl 32 Estate, noting that the Council unanimously approved that request. He stated that the Council 33 considered an ordinance amendment related to accessory structures and advised that there 34 was a more in-depth discussion related to concerns with increasing the allowed size to 200 35 square feet. He reviewed some of the concerns related to building materials and impacts to 36 views. He advised that the Council directed staff to bring the topic back to the Planning 37 Commission for additional review and discussion. 38 39 5. Planning Department Report 40 41 Finke provided an update. 42 43 6. Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Exterior 44 Building Materials in Commercial and Business Districts 45 46 Finke provided details on the primary materials allowed within the commercial and business 47 districts along with the accent materials allowed. He stated that the City added an exemption 48 to the material standards within the commercial zoning districts and only in the case of 49 rehabbing existing concrete buildings that are experiencing water issues (leaking through 50 concrete) which was in response to a request from a building owner. He noted that a very 51 2 specific exemption was made to allow fiber cement architectural panels 5/8 inch or greater 52 only on concrete buildings experiencing water problems. He stated that the City has had 53 recent contact with another property owner experiencing water issues that was hoping to use 54 metal or LP engineered wood siding for the repair work. He stated that the draft ordinance 55 would allow the engineered wood siding but would not allow metal siding. He provided 56 details on both fiber cement panels and the engineered wood panels. He stated that the draft 57 ordinance would add engineered wood in addition to the fiber cement architectural panels to 58 the exemption for the commercial district and business district. He stated that while a certain 59 amount of rehabbing would be allowed with the materials allowed through the exemption, 60 there would be a trigger that would require class one materials to be incorporated if more than 61 50 percent of the building is being rehabbed. He noted that additional flexibility could be 62 allowed as well, outside of only allowing the flexibility when there are water issues. He 63 noted that the building materials could also be discussed more broadly for new construction if 64 desired as well. 65 66 Reid opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 67 68 Finke summarized the comments received via email from a commercial property owner 69 which states that the panelized product would be too expensive for the rehab project and 70 would prefer metal siding to be allowed at a rate of 30 percent. 71 72 Reid closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 73 74 Nester commented that she would be fine expanding the fiber cement to other uses within the 75 districts. She stated that she is not a fan of lap siding or the metal siding option. 76 77 Nielsen stated that she would agree with extended to the other buildings, not just for water 78 issues. She stated that she would be hesitant to increase from 20 percent to 30 percent for the 79 accent materials. 80 81 Galzki agreed that the flexibility should be expanded to the business and industrial districts. 82 He also believed that the materials should be allowed for new construction. He stated that he 83 does not like lap siding as that has more of a residential look. He stated that he does not see a 84 reason to expand the accent materials to 30 percent and would prefer to keep that ratio at 20 85 percent. 86 87 Piper stated that she feels comfortable with the materials, even in the business district. She 88 stated that she would not want to increase the ratio for accent materials above 20 percent. 89 90 Grajczyk stated that the LP brand engineered wood product would not seem to be the best 91 answer for a building with water problems but noted that there are some better engineered 92 wood products out there. He did not believe that lap siding would be a good material for 93 commercial buildings. He stated that he would support the 30 percent ratio for accent 94 materials. He stated that he agrees with the fiber board and would support expanding that 95 use, along with engineered wood. He referenced the metal materials, noting that some of 96 those products could be identical to some of the examples staff displayed. He noted that the 97 metal materials would have a great lifespan. He noted that architects and engineers have 98 begun to use plastic wall panels and shingle roofing systems as well. He stated that he would 99 support the three materials being discussed tonight for the uses proposed. 100 101 Reid stated that she would want to make it as easy as possible to encourage rehabilitation but 102 would not want to see the expanded use for new construction. She did not believe the 103 exemption should only be allowed for water intrusion. She stated that she would support 104 3 expanding the exemption to commercial, business, and industrial. She noted that she does not 105 like the inclusion of metal. She stated that she would like to include the requirement for the 106 materials to all be one color. 107 108 Piper agreed with that comment. 109 110 Nielsen stated that while she agrees, she also sees the benefit in allowing colors in the same 111 shade family to enhance modulation. 112 113 Finke provided additional input, noting that something could be included to limit to neutral 114 earth tones, but noted that could unintentionally prohibit some businesses. 115 116 Nielsen stated that crafting color limitations could prevent some businesses from coming to 117 Medina and cautioned the Commission to be careful. 118 119 Reid agreed that it would be difficult to specify color limitations. 120 121 Grajczyk commented that perhaps something could be added that would allow a builder to 122 come to the Commission with alternate color requests outside of the neutral earth tones. 123 124 Finke stated that it seemed that there were some members that were interested in opening the 125 fiber cement panels more broadly and not just the case of rehabilitation, and not just for 126 rehabilitation for water intrusion. 127 128 Reid commented that rehabbing should be encouraged and therefore water intrusion should 129 not be the criteria. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission. She confirmed the 130 consensus of the Commission to not increase the ratio of accent materials (including metal) 131 above 20 percent. 132 133 Motion by Galzki, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment related to exterior 134 building materials as follows: 1) that the flexibility be expanded to industrial and business 135 districts, 2) to allow engineered wood for not just water rehabilitation but rehabilitation in 136 general and new construction, 3) to not allow LP siding and limit to architectural panels 137 only, 4) and to not increase the allowance in metal siding from 20 percent to 30 percent. 138 Motion died for lack of second. 139 140 There was further discussion as to how wood and engineered wood are currently allowed and 141 whether the material should be allowed for new construction. It was the consensus that 142 because wood/engineered wood would be allowed as an accent material, it would not need to 143 be specified as a use for new construction. The Commission attempted to gain clarity on the 144 consensus on the different elements. 145 146 Motion by Piper, seconded by Galzki, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment 147 related to exterior building materials in commercial and business districts with the following 148 changes: 1) allow for any rehabilitation, not just water issues, and 2) prohibit lap siding. 149 150 A roll call vote was performed: 151 152 Nester aye 153 Nielsen aye 154 Galzki aye 155 Piper aye 156 Grajczyk aye 157 4 Reid aye 158 159 Motion carries unanimously. 160 161 7. Approval of the May 12, 2020 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 162 163 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki, to approve the May 12, 2020, Planning 164 Commission minutes with the noted correction. Motion carries unanimously. 165 166 8. Council Meeting Schedule 167 168 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered 169 to attend in representation of the Commission. 170 171 9. Adjourn 172 173 Motion by Galzki, seconded by Nielsen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Motion carried 174 unanimously. 175