Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
05-12-2015
POSTED IN CITY HALL May 8, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of April 14, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes. 6. Aldi – 3522 Sioux Drive – Variance request to the impervious surface requirements and Site Plan Review to construct an Aldi grocery store. 7. Public Hearing – Wright-Hennepin Cooperative – 4315 Willow Drive – Conditional Use Permit request to install ground mounted solar arrays. 8. Council Meeting Schedule 9. Adjourn 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday April 14, 2015 4 5 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Janet White, and 8 Kent Williams. 9 10 Absent: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan and Victoria Reid. 11 12 Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, City Planner Dusty Finke, and City 13 Councilmember John Anderson 14 15 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 16 17 There were none. 18 19 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20 21 Councilmember Anderson reported that the City Council approved two Conditional Use 22 Permit (CUP) requests, from PupTown and Jeff Varney, which the Commission had 23 previously recommended for approval. 24 25 4. Planning Department Report 26 27 Finke provided an update. 28 29 5. Approval of Minutes 30 31 A. Approval of the March 10, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 32 33 Motion by Foote, seconded by Albers, to approve the March 10, 2015, Planning 34 Commission minutes with the suggested changes. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 35 Nolan and Reid) 36 37 B. Approval of the March 17, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Special Meeting 38 Minutes. 39 40 Motion by Albers, seconded by Foote, to approve the March 17, 2015, Planning 41 Commission Special Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 42 Nolan and Reid) 43 44 6. Aldi – 3522 Sioux Drive – Variance Request to the Impervious Surface Requirements 45 and Site Plan Review to Construct an Aldi Grocery Store 46 47 Finke presented a request from Aldi Grocery Store. He stated that the first request would be 48 for a variance regarding the impervious surface allowed within the shoreline overlay district. 49 He noted that an adjacent site was allowed to go to a similar amount of hardcover. He stated 50 that the second request would be a Site Plan review but noted that the variance would be 51 necessary to consider the Site Plan. He reviewed the zoning of the property and adjacent 52 2 properties, explaining what would be allowed on each site. He presented the proposed Site 53 Plan, identifying the proposed parking and access drive. He stated that retail uses are allowed 54 within this zoning district and noted that the request would meet the requirements of the 55 district with the exception of the hardcover requirement. He stated that the regulations of the 56 shoreline district were discussed in the packet, noting that the application meets most of the 57 requirements with the exception of the hardcover limit. He reviewed the tree removal and 58 replacement plan proposed by the applicant and noted that in addition to the required 59 planting, additional landscaping measures would be necessary. He reviewed the 60 recommendations of the City Engineer in regard to traffic and a proposed left turn lane. He 61 summarized the criteria that must be met in order to approve a variance and recommended 62 that the Commission consider the variance prior to the Site Plan, as the Site Plan cannot be 63 approved without receipt of the variance. He stated that staff feels that the proposed tree 64 removal is too high and that additional storm water and stream bank restoration efforts should 65 be made. He stated that staff would recommend approval, subject to the additional conditions 66 proposed by staff. 67 68 Albers questioned if there was a transportation study in regard to the amount of traffic that 69 would be generated. 70 71 Finke confirmed that the applicant completed a traffic analysis done by the applicant and 72 reviewed by the City Engineer, which led to his recommendation regarding the left turn lane. 73 74 White referenced the intersection at the top of the hill, which can be dangerous and 75 questioned why that is not a three way stop. 76 77 Finke stated that he is unsure but explained that the intent is most likely to keep traffic 78 moving on the hill. He noted that during winter months stopped cars could begin to roll 79 backward. 80 81 White questioned how improvement could be made at that intersection. 82 83 Finke stated that opportunities could be investigated but advised that would be separate of 84 this application. 85 86 Williams questioned the feedback the applicant received from the Elm Creek Watershed. 87 88 Finke stated that the applicant can address that response as the City has not yet received a 89 response. He stated that there seems to be an openness from the Watershed to completing a 90 more holistic approach to stream bank restoration. He stated that ultimately the applicant 91 would need to meet the conditions of the City and the Watershed. 92 93 Williams questioned the amount of context the Commission can take into consideration for 94 the variance request. 95 96 Finke stated that all aspects of the Site Plan review can be considered when reviewing the 97 variance, as the circumstances for the variance should be considered. He explained that the 98 City can condition the variance upon conditions. 99 100 Williams confirmed that the variance could be conditioned. He questioned if it would be 101 possible to grant a variance upon the condition that the applicant must show that all 102 conditions have been met. 103 104 Finke confirmed that could be done. 105 3 106 Williams questioned if the request could then be tabled requesting additional information be 107 brought back. 108 109 Finke confirmed that there would be sufficient time within the review period to table the 110 request. He noted that another option would be to make the conditions and forward the 111 ultimate decision to the City Council. 112 113 Williams stated that it seems the 50 percent hardcover requirement is being triggered by the 114 need to meet parking requirements. He questioned if there would be a way that the applicant 115 could comply with the parking requirements without needing a variance. 116 117 Finke confirmed that the parking requirement could not be met with a building this size 118 without triggering a variance request. 119 120 Andy Brandel, ISG, stated that he is present on behalf of the applicant Aldi to request that the 121 Commission approve the variance and Site Plan requests. He stated that they have been 122 working closely with Finke and the Elm Creek Watershed. He stated that this site is difficult 123 because of the shoreline district. He noted that the landscape buffer and requirements have 124 been difficult. He stated that they did attend the Watershed Board meeting the previous week 125 and had a lengthy discussion regarding their new regulations and what could be done to meet 126 the visibility requirements, develop the site, and provide benefits to the Watershed. He stated 127 that the Board did make a motion to consider a variance from their standards to allow 128 additional tree removal upon the condition that the applicant work to develop a plan they 129 could approve which would include creek bank restorations and intensive native plantings 130 along the creek. He stated that the landscape plan included in this application is not what 131 they will be moving forward with. He stated that they will be working with Watershed staff 132 to draft a plan, which could be approved at the May Watershed meeting. He was confident 133 that they could work with the Watershed and City staff in order to develop a landscape plan 134 that could be approved by both parties. 135 136 Murrin asked for additional information as to the trees proposed from removal along Elm 137 Creek, as to whether that would be for parking or for sign location. 138 139 Brandel stated that the trees proposed for removal are for visibility of the site as well as for 140 general grading and development purposes. 141 142 Murrin asked for additional information regarding the proposed access. 143 144 Brandel provided additional clarification regarding the proposed access and location of the 145 loading dock. 146 147 Murrin asked for the proposed store hours. 148 149 Brandel reported that the hours would be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He noted that the traffic 150 study did take into account the peak morning hours, even though the store is not open during 151 that timeframe. He advised that truck deliveries are made during non-operating hours. 152 153 Williams questioned if the size proposed is similar to other Aldi stores. 154 155 Brandel confirmed that this is an average sized store, noting that this design is a little 156 different in order to meet the requirements. 157 158 4 Williams questioned if the applicant would have a problem with the Commission tabling the 159 request to ensure that Watershed approval of the variance is obtained. 160 161 Brandel stated that their preference would be to obtain approval from the Commission 162 tonight, noting restrictions with seller and timeline. He stated that they would work with City 163 and Watershed staff in order to present a new landscaping plan to the City Council. 164 165 Williams questioned the timing of approvals. 166 167 Brandel stated that they would obtain Watershed approval prior to presenting the request to 168 the City Council. 169 170 Wayne Elam, Commercial Real Estate Solution, spoke in representation of the property 171 owner. He discussed the unique situation of this lot because of the MnDOT requirements, for 172 which the applicant is not being reimbursed for. 173 174 Williams opened the public hearing. 175 176 Jim Tiller, owner of the property to the east, noted that the property actually is composed of 177 two parcels, one lying within Medina and one within Plymouth. He believed that those 178 parcels are zoned commercial and have been for some time. He referenced the existing 179 entrance, which provides access to both parcels as well as the residential properties. He 180 referenced the infiltration basin as proposed and stated that if that were to overflow that 181 would come onto his property. He suggested that be repositioned to drain north to prevent 182 the incident that the basin overflow onto his property. He stated that he is not opposed to this 183 applicant and hopes that it will work. He did have concern over the access agreement. He 184 stated that he would love to see the involvement of the Highway Department in the creation 185 of the access. He stated that he would like to see a right entrance into the property from 186 Highway 55 with an entry/exit point onto Sioux Drive. He stated that people driving on 187 Highway 55 would not be aware of how to access the property if the entrance from Highway 188 55 is removed. He stated that he would be willing to enter into an agreement with the 189 applicant to ensure that undesirable uses not be placed on either site, such as adult 190 entertainment. He did have concern that people would not know how to access the site 191 without proper access and/or signage. He believed the ability to have a right in access from 192 Highway 55 would be the best solution. 193 194 Murrin asked for additional information regarding the intent of Tiller’s property. 195 196 Tiller responded that it is hard to say what will be developed in that location but confirmed 197 that he would like to sell the property for redevelopment sooner rather than later. 198 199 Williams closed the public hearing. 200 201 Williams questioned if there has ever been discussion regarding closing the driveway access, 202 specifically whether that access would be closed when the property is sold. 203 204 Finke stated that there has not been that discussion but noted that this recommendation would 205 allow for flexibility. He stated that the access easement is seen as benefitting the property but 206 provided additional information regarding previous discussions with MnDOT. 207 208 White stated that she would be in favor of the variance request so long as the landscaping 209 plans are altered to the satisfaction of City and Watershed staff. 210 211 5 Williams stated that he would also be in agreement with that but noted that he does not like 212 the idea of approving the request now without seeing the landscaping plan. He confirmed 213 that Commission would not meet again before the applicant presents to the Watershed. 214 215 Finke explained that the applicant would have the amended plan with staff comments from 216 the Watershed by the next Commission meeting but would not have met with the Watershed 217 prior to that meeting. He stated that if approved by the Commission at the May meeting, staff 218 could have that information prepared to go before the City Council at their second meeting in 219 May. He stated that if the applicant is going back to the Watershed before the City Council, 220 the Commission could review the application again at the next meeting without affecting the 221 timeline. 222 223 Murrin stated that she would like to see the amended landscape plan approved by the 224 Watershed before a decision is made, meaning the request would come back to the 225 Commission in June. She stated that she has an issue with removing a significant amount of 226 trees simply to increase visibility, and noted that a sign could provide that needed visibility. 227 228 Albers stated that he would also prefer to wait and see what is said by the Watershed. 229 230 Williams stated that he also shared the concern regarding tree removal simply for increasing 231 visibility. 232 233 Finke stated that pushing the decision to June would not leave much time in the review 234 period. He explained that while approval is needed from both entities, the Watershed 235 approval is not needed for City approval. 236 237 White stated that the applicant could bring back an amended landscaping plan in May, as the 238 Watershed approval is not needed for City approval. 239 240 Finke agreed that it would be reasonable for the Commission to table the request to the May 241 meeting, noting that the City approval will be important and he would not want to delay that 242 until the June meeting. 243 244 Williams stated that he thinks this is a good project that he would like to see move forward 245 and confirmed that he would like to see additional input on the engineering comments and the 246 updated landscaping plan. 247 248 Murrin expressed concern with the traffic that would be added to Sioux Drive. She stated 249 that she would be concerned with only one access point from Sioux Drive. She stated that 250 perhaps additional trees could be left with a sign installed identifying the business. She also 251 expressed concern with the easement to the neighboring property and believed ultimately a 252 sign would need to be place near that location to identify that this access would be for Aldi as 253 well. 254 255 Finke stated that it is likely that staff could support a right turn lane to the property from 256 Highway 55, if it could be done safely. He noted that MnDOT could be a factor in that as 257 well. He stated that it is not the decision of the City or the adjacent property owner to 258 determine where the applicant chooses to put their sign. 259 260 Williams agreed that while those are potential concerns, the Commission can only decide 261 what is within their scope of decision. 262 263 6 Motion by Foote, seconded by Albers, to table the variance request to the May 12th 264 Planning Commission meeting in order to receive an updated landscaping plan. Motion 265 approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Reid) 266 267 7. Public Hearing – Medina Golf and Country Club – 400 Evergreen Road – Planned Unit 268 Development General Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review to Construct 269 Three Accessory Structures on the Golf Course 270 271 Murrin recused herself from the discussion. 272 273 Sparks presented requests from Medina Golf and Country Club to construct three buildings 274 on the property, a maintenance building and two restroom buildings. He stated that the site 275 was recently approved by a PUD to allow residential as well as the golf course operations. 276 He identified the proposed locations for the three buildings. He stated that as proposed the 277 three buildings meet the technical setbacks identified by Code. He stated that the comments 278 of the City Engineer were included regarding storm water treatment. He displayed a sketch 279 of the proposed maintenance building as well as the existing maintenance facility for 280 comparison purposes. He also displayed a sketch of the proposed restroom buildings and 281 reviewed the proposed materials. He stated that there are concerns with the proposed 282 building materials because of the view from the south. He noted that if the proposed 283 materials are allowed, additional landscaping could be suggested to mitigate. 284 285 Albers questioned how the storm water concerns would be addressed. 286 287 Sparks stated that there are different measures the applicant could choose to meet the 288 requirements. 289 290 Erin McManus, Golf Course Superintendent, referenced tree removal and stated that they will 291 actually be replanting more trees than are being removed. He stated that if the City 292 recommends additional screening they will gladly comply. He stated that the neighbors to the 293 south are commercial buildings. 294 295 Albers asked for additional information on the cold storage maintenance building. 296 297 McManus explained that between the two maintenance buildings there would be cold storage 298 as well as office space for the employees, break room, and mechanics bay. He stated that the 299 existing maintenance building would have a new roof installed as well. He stated that they do 300 not want the maintenance buildings to match the clubhouse but they do want the aesthetics to 301 be complimentary. 302 303 Gary Gulowit, Treasurer and Chair of the Finance Committee, stated that the closest 304 neighboring building is the City’s building which is made of cinder blocks. He stated that 305 cinder blocks are no longer used and the comparable material would be too costly. He stated 306 that they believe this is the best avenue to investing and improving the current facilities. He 307 confirmed that they would be in agreement with additional screening, should that be 308 suggested. He stated that the maintenance building is not intended for public use and will 309 only be used by employees. 310 311 Williams opened the public hearing. 312 313 No comments made. 314 315 Williams closed the public hearing. 316 7 317 Albers stated that he would like to see additional screening for the folks to the south. 318 319 White echoed the comments regarding screening. 320 321 Williams stated that originally he had concerns with the metal skin but noted that his 322 concerned have been resolved with the additional screening and comments from the 323 applicant. He asked for additional information regarding storm water management. 324 325 Sparks stated that a condition could be made that the applicant address the comments of the 326 City Engineer. 327 328 Motion by White, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit 329 Development General Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review to construct three 330 accessory structures on the golf course subject to the conditions noted in the staff report and 331 with the additional condition of additional landscape screening for the maintenance building. 332 Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Reid; Recused: Murrin) 333 334 Murrin rejoined the Commission. 335 336 8. Todd Monger – 1272 Homestead Trail – Variance from 150 Foot Setback Requirements 337 for an Animal Structure on Rural Residential Zoned Property 338 339 Finke presented a request from Todd Monger for a variance from the 150 foot setback 340 requirement for an animal structure on rural residential zoned property. He stated that the 341 family would like to have miniature goats and potentially chickens. He stated that there is no 342 area on the site that would meet the required setback because of the shape and topography of 343 the site. He stated that as setup by Code, a lot of this size would be allowed to have animals 344 but would not be able to have anywhere to house them. He stated that an additional condition 345 could be made limiting the number of animals allowed. He identified the proposed location 346 for the animal structure. He stated that the triangular shape of the lot is unique when 347 considering this request. He stated that there is another zoning district area within the City 348 where the setback for animal structures was reduced to 75 feet, with a limitation on the 349 number on allowed animals. He stated that perhaps the Commission should also discuss the 350 inconsistency within the Code, which would allow animals but not animal structures on lots 351 of this size. He stated that staff finds this variance request reasonable. 352 353 Williams confirmed that notice was sent to the neighboring land owners. 354 355 Todd Monger, 1272 Homestead Trail, stated that his family moved to Medina a few years ago 356 and love the rural community. He stated that his family read an article where goats are used 357 in buckthorn removal and are interested in trying that. He stated that his neighbors are also in 358 support of the request as they have buckthorn they would like removed as well. 359 360 Albers questioned whether the goats would be left to roam the property. 361 362 Monger stated that there would be a penned area near the structure. He stated that when 363 using the goats for buckthorn removal they would be tethered or penned. 364 365 Murrin questioned the number of animals on the property currently. 366 367 Monger replied that they have six chickens and two cats. He stated that the chickens are kept 368 in a chicken tractor, which moves around the yard for fertilization. He stated that his family 369 8 has moved to a more organic process since moving to Medina. He confirmed that the goats 370 would be strictly used as pets and for buckthorn removal, with potential for 4H. 371 372 Williams opened the public hearing. 373 374 No comments made. 375 376 Williams closed the public hearing. 377 378 White commented that a limit should be placed on the number of animals. 379 380 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the variance based upon 381 the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the conditions recommended by staff, with 382 the requirements that the animal limit be set to .3. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: 383 Nolan and Reid) 384 385 White stated that she believed the animal ordinance should be considered in the future. 386 387 Williams also agreed that the use of metal for accessory structures should be discussed by the 388 Commission in the future. 389 390 9. Council Meeting Schedule 391 392 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday, April 21st. 393 394 Murrin stated that she could attend the meeting. 395 396 10. Adjourn 397 398 Motion by Murrin, seconded by White, to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Motion carried 399 unanimously. 400 P�R�O�P�O�S�E�D� �A�L�D�I�,� I�N�C�.� �L�O�C�A�T�I�O�N� T 1 . 1 1 T I T L E S H E E T - A L D I , I N C . R E T A I L F A C I L I T Y M E D I N A M I N N E S O T A 1 6 4 0 8 T I T L E D E H D E H A T B 1 4 - 1 6 4 0 8 0 4 / 2 8 / 1 5 T�r�u�n�k� �H�i�g�h�w� a� y� � 5� 5� R E T A I L F A C I L I T Y A L D I , I N C . P R O J E C T I N D E X : P L A N S F O R : P R O J E C T G E N E R A L N O T E S O W N E R : A l d i , I n c . O W N E R C O N T A C T : A n d r e w M a c k 4 2 0 1 B a g l e y A v e n u e N o r t h F a r i b a u l t , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 0 2 1 P H : 5 0 7 - 3 3 3 - 9 4 6 0 x 1 2 3 F a x : 5 0 7 - 3 3 3 - 9 4 7 5 P R O J E C T A D D R E S S : 3 5 2 2 S i o u x D r i v e H a m e l , M N 5 5 3 4 0 S : 1 2 , T : 1 1 8 , R : 2 3 H a m e l , H e n n e p i n , M i n n e s o t a M A N A G I N G O F F I C E : P R O J E C T M A N A G E R : A n d y B r a n d e l E m a i l : A n d y . B r a n d e l @ i s - g r p . c o m 1 4 1 5 T o w n S q u a r e L a n e F a r i b a u l t , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 0 2 1 P h : 5 0 7 - 3 3 1 - 1 5 0 0 F a x : 5 0 7 - 3 3 1 - 1 5 0 1 F a r i b a u l t , M i n n e s o t a O F F I C E 1 " = 5 0 0 ' L O C A T I O N M A P M E D I N A , M I N N E S O T A I S G P R O J E C T # 1 4 - 1 6 4 0 8 T I T L E C L I E N T P R O J E C T N O . S H E E T T I T L E S H E E T T H I S D O C U M E N T I S T H E P R O P E R T Y O F I S G A N D M A Y N O T B E U S E D , C O P I E D O R D U P L I C A T E D W I T H O U T P R I O R W R I T T E N C O N S E N T . P R O J E C T P R O J E C T N O . F I L E N A M E D E S I G N E D B Y D R A W N B Y I S S U E D A T E R E V I E W E D B Y R E V I S I O N S C H E D U L E N O D A T E D E S C R I P T I O N Z O N I N G V A R I A N C E / S I T E P L A N R E V I E W A R C H I T E C T : A P D E n g i n e e r i n g & A r c h i t e c t u r e , P L L S . A R C H I T E C T C O N T A C T : B r i a n G r i n n e l l 6 1 5 F i s h e r s R u n V i c t o r , N e w Y o r k 1 4 5 6 4 P h : 5 8 5 - 7 2 4 - 2 2 2 2 F a x : 5 8 5 - 9 2 4 - 4 9 1 4 C�i�t�y� M�e�d�i�n�a�,� �M�i�n�n�e�s�o�t�a�o�f� I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S D O C U M E N T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N A N D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D P R O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . K E Y P L A N L I C . N O . D A T E I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S D O C U M E N T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N A N D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . L I C . N O . D A T E A n d r e w T . B r a n d e l 4 7 0 7 8 4 2 0 1 B a g l e y A v e . N F a r i b a u l t , M N 5 5 0 2 1 T e l : 5 0 7 / 3 3 3 - 9 4 6 0 F a x : 5 0 7 / 3 3 3 - 9 4 8 5 B . M . E L E V A T I O N = 9 7 6 . 3 0 H�a�m�e�l� � R� o� a� d�S�i�o�u�x� �D�r�i�v�e�H�u�n�t�e�r� �D�r�i�v�e�B�r�o�c�k�t�o�n� �L�a�n�e� �N�o�r�t�h�C�a�n�a�d�i� a� n� � P� a� c� i� f� i� c� � R� a� i� l� r� o� a� d� C�a�n�a�d�i�a�n� �P�a�c�i�f�i�c� �R�a�i�l�r�o�a�d� O� l� d� � M� e� m� o� r� i� a� l� � H� i� g� h� w� a� y� (�t� r� u� n� k� � H� i� g� h� w� a� y� � 5� 5� )�C�o�u�n�t�y� �R�o�a�d� �1�0�1�E�v�e�r�g�r�e�e�n� �R�o�a�d� 1 . A L L W O R K S H A L L C O N F O R M T O T H E C O N T R A C T D O C U M E N T S , W H I C H I N C L U D E S , B U T A R E N O T L I M I T E D T O , T H E O W N E R - C O N T R A C T O R A G R E E M E N T , T H E P R O J E C T M A N U A L ( W H I C H I N C L U D E S G E N E R A L S U P P L E M E N T A R Y C O N D I T I O N S A N D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S ) , D R A W I N G S O F A L L D I S C I P L I N E S , A N D A L L A D D E N D A , M O D I F I C A T I O N S A N D C L A R I F I C A T I O N S I S S U E D B Y T H E A R C H I T E C T / E N G I N E E R . 2 . C O N T R A C T D O C U M E N T S S H A L L B E I S S U E D T O A L L S U B C O N T R A C T O R S B Y T H E G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R I N C O M P L E T E S E T S I N O R D E R T O A C H I E V E T H E F U L L E X T E N T A N D C O M P L E T E C O O R D I N A T I O N O F A L L W O R K . 3 . W R I T T E N D I M E N S I O N S T A K E P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D D I M E N S I O N S . N O T I F Y A R C H I T E C T / E N G I N E E R O F A N Y D I S C R E P A N C I E S O R C O N D I T I O N S R E Q U I R I N G I N F O R M A T I O N O R C L A R I F I C A T I O N B E F O R E P R O C E E D I N G W I T H T H E W O R K . 4 . F I E L D V E R I F Y A L L E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S A N D D I M E N S I O N S . N O T I F Y A R C H I T E C T / E N G I N E E R O F A N Y D I S C R E P A N C I E S O R C O N D I T I O N S R E Q U I R I N G I N F O R M A T I O N O R C L A R I F I C A T I O N B E F O R E P R O C E E D I N G W I T H T H E W O R K . 5 . D E T A I L S S H O W N A R E I N T E N D E D T O B E I N D I C A T I V E O F T H E P R O F I L E S A N D T Y P E O F D E T A I L I N G R E Q U I R E D T H R O U G H O U T T H E W O R K . D E T A I L S N O T S H O W N A R E S I M I L A R I N C H A R A C T E R T O D E T A I L S S H O W N . W H E R E S P E C I F I C D I M E N S I O N S , D E T A I L S O R D E S I G N I N T E N T C A N N O T B E D E T E R M I N E D , N O T I F Y A R C H I T E C T / E N G I N E E R B E F O R E P R O C E E D I N G W I T H T H E W O R K . 6 . A L L M A N U F A C T U R E D A R T I C L E S , M A T E R I A L S A N D E Q U I P M E N T S H A L L B E A P P L I E D , I N S T A L L E D , C O N N E C T E D , E R E C T E D , C L E A N E D A N D C O N D I T I O N E D A C C O R D I N G T O M A N U F A C T U R E R S ' I N S T R U C T I O N S . I N C A S E O F D I S C R E P A N C I E S B E T W E E N M A N U F A C T U R E R S ' I N S T R U C T I O N S A N D T H E C O N T R A C T D O C U M E N T S , N O T I F Y A R C H I T E C T / E N G I N E E R B E F O R E P R O C E E D I N G W I T H T H E W O R K . 7 . A L L D I S S I M I L A R M E T A L S S H A L L B E E F F E C T I V E L Y I S O L A T E D F R O M E A C H O T H E R T O A V O I D G A L V A N I C C O R R O S I O N . 8 . T H E L O C A T I O N A N D T Y P E O F A L L I N P L A C E U T I L I T I E S S H O W N O N T H E P L A N S A R E F O R G E N E R A L I N F O R M A T I O N O N L Y A N D A R E A C C U R A T E A N D C O M P L E T E T O T H E B E S T O F T H E K N O W L E D G E O F I S G . N O W A R R A N T Y O R G U A R A N T E E I S I M P L I E D . T H E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y T H E S I Z E S , L O C A T I O N S A N D E L E V A T I O N S O F A L L I N P L A C E U T I L I T I E S P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L I M M E D I A T E L Y N O T I F Y E N G I N E E R O F A N Y D I S C R E P A N C I E S O R V A R I A T I O N S F R O M P L A N . 9 . T H E C O N T R A C T O R I S T O C O N T A C T " G O P H E R S T A T E O N E C A L L " F O R U T I L I T Y L O C A T I O N S , 4 8 H O U R S P R I O R T O E X C A V A T I O N / C O N S T R U C T I O N ( 1 - 8 0 0 - 2 5 2 - 1 1 6 6 ) . S H E E T I N D E X S h e e t N u m b e r S h e e t T i t l e T 1 . 1 1 T I T L E S H E E T C 1 . 1 1 E X I S T I N G S I T E & R E M O V A L P L A N C 2 . 1 1 S I T E P L A N C 2 . 1 2 S I T E U T I L I T Y P L A N C 3 . 1 1 S I T E G R A D I N G P L A N C 4 . 1 1 E X I S T I N G S T O R M W A T E R P O L L U T I O N P R E V E N T I O N P L A N C 4 . 1 2 P R O P O S E D S T O R M W A T E R P O L L U T I O N P R E V E N T I O N P L A N C 4 . 1 3 S T O R M W A T E R P O L L U T I O N P R E V E N T I O N P L A N N O T E S C 5 . 1 1 S I T E D E T A I L S C 5 . 1 2 S I T E D E T A I L S C 5 . 1 3 S I T E D E T A I L S C 5 . 1 4 S I T E D E T A I L S C 5 . 1 5 P R O P O S E D B A S I N S T Y P I C A L D E T A I L S C 5 . 1 6 S I T E D E T A I L S C 5 . 1 7 S I T E D E T A I L S C 5 . 1 8 S I T E D E T A I L S C 6 . 1 1 S I T E L I G H T I N G P L A N L 1 . 1 1 L A N D S C A P E P L A N L 1 . 1 2 L A N D S C A P E N O T E S & P L A N T L I S T L 2 . 1 1 T R E E R E M O V A L P L A N L 3 . 1 1 E L M C R E E K B A N K R E S T O R A T I O N P L A N 1 O F 1 A L T A / A C S M L A N D T I T L E S U R V E Y A - 1 3 1 O P E R A T I O N S P L A N E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N C1.11EXISTING SITE &REMOVAL PLAN-ALDI, INC.RETAIL FACILITYMEDINAMINNESOTADEHDEHATB14-1640804/28/15THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAYNOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT.PROJECTPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYTITLEISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.SHEET16408 C1-EXISTINGREVIEWED BYTITLESHEETREVISION SCHEDULENO DATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.KEY PLANLIC. NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.LIC. NO.DATEAndrew T. Brandel470784201 Bagley Ave. NFaribault, MN 55021Tel: 507/333-9460Fax: 507/333-9485B.M. ELEVATION=976.30 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY TITLE ISSUE DATE CLIENT PROJECT NO. SHEET 16408 C2-SITE REVIEWED BY TITLE SHEET REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION C2.11 SITE PLAN - ALDI, INC. RETAIL FACILITY MEDINA MINNESOTA DEH DEH ATB 14-16408 04/28/15 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. KEY PLAN LIC. NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LIC. NO.DATE Andrew T. Brandel 47078 4201 Bagley Ave. N Faribault, MN 55021 Tel: 507/333-9460 Fax: 507/333-9485 B.M. ELEVATION=976.30 CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #2 (HATCH) TOP = 974.50' OUTLET = 971.50' BASE = 970.00' SITE AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA EXISTING OPEN AREA TOTAL SITE AREA = = = = = = = 17,896 sf 124,304 sf 142,200 sf 0.41 ac 2.85 ac 3.26 ac 12.6% 87.4% 100% * 71,100 sf 74,242 sf 67,958 sf 142,200 sf * 1.63 ac 1.70 ac 1.56 ac 3.26 ac * 50% 52.2% 47.8% 100% * 25% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA ALLOWED PER SHORELAND OVERLAY. IMPERVIOUS AREA UP TO 50% REQUIRES VARIANCE EXISTING SITE * REQUIRED OPEN AREA PROPOSED OPEN AREA PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA TOTAL SITE AREA PROPOSED SITE SITE SETBACK DATA 25' 15' 25' 50' PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT CH-RR: COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY-RAILROAD DISTRICT WITH SHORELAND OVERLAY SETBACKS PARKING:BUILDING: 25' 10' 10' 50' FRONT SIDE REAR ELM CREEK CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #1 (HATCH) TOP = 975.50' 100YR =974.27 OUTLET = 973.50' BASE = 972.00' CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENT BASIN #1 (HATCH) TOP = 975.50' NWL = 973.50' BASE = 971.00' THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAYNOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT.PROJECTPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYTITLEISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.SHEET16408 C2-SITEREVIEWED BYTITLESHEETREVISION SCHEDULENO DATE DESCRIPTIONC2.12SITE UTILITYPLAN-ALDI, INC.RETAIL FACILITYMEDINAMINNESOTADEHDEHATB14-1640804/28/15I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.KEY PLANLIC. NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.LIC. NO.DATEAndrew T. Brandel470784201 Bagley Ave. NFaribault, MN 55021Tel: 507/333-9460Fax: 507/333-9485B.M. ELEVATION=976.30CONSTRUCT FILTRATIONBASIN #2 (HATCH)TOP = 974.50'OUTLET = 971.50'BASE = 970.00'NOTES:xALL UTILITIES THAT ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTEDTO 5' OUTSIDE OF BUILDING ARE TO BE CONNECTTO BUILDING BY MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR.xENSURE 18" VERTICAL BETWEEN ALL PROPOSED& EXISTING WATER, STORM, & SANITARY.CONSTRUCT FILTRATIONBASIN #1 (HATCH)TOP = 975.50'100YR =974.27OUTLET = 973.50'BASE = 972.00'CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENTBASIN #1 (HATCH)TOP = 975.50'NWL = 973.50'BASE = 971.00' C3.11 SITE GRADING PLAN - ALDI, INC. RETAIL FACILITY MEDINA MINNESOTA DEH DEH ATB 14-16408 04/28/15 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY TITLE ISSUE DATE CLIENT PROJECT NO. SHEET 16408 C3-GRADE REVIEWED BY TITLE SHEET REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. KEY PLAN LIC. NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LIC. NO.DATE Andrew T. Brandel 47078 4201 Bagley Ave. N Faribault, MN 55021 Tel: 507/333-9460 Fax: 507/333-9485 B.M. ELEVATION=976.30 CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #2 (HATCH) TOP = 974.50' 100YR = 972.45 OUTLET = 971.50' BASE = 970.00' CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #1 (HATCH) TOP = 975.50' 100YR =974.27 OUTLET = 973.50' BASE = 972.00' CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENT BASIN (HATCH) TOP = 975.50' NWL = 973.50' BASE = 971.00' THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAYNOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT.PROJECTPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYTITLEISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.SHEET16408 C4-SWPPPREVIEWED BYTITLESHEETREVISION SCHEDULENO DATE DESCRIPTIONC4.11EXISTINGSTORMWATERPOLLUTIONPREVENTIONPLAN-ALDI, INC.RETAIL FACILITYMEDINAMINNESOTADEHDEHATB14-1640804/28/15I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.KEY PLANLIC. NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.LIC. NO.DATEAndrew T. Brandel470784201 Bagley Ave. NFaribault, MN 55021Tel: 507/333-9460Fax: 507/333-9485B.M. ELEVATION=976.30 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY TITLE ISSUE DATE CLIENT PROJECT NO. SHEET 16408 C4-SWPPP REVIEWED BY TITLE SHEET REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION C4.12 PROPOSED STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - ALDI, INC. RETAIL FACILITY MEDINA MINNESOTA DEH DEH ATB 14-16408 04/28/15 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. KEY PLAN LIC. NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LIC. NO.DATE Andrew T. Brandel 47078 4201 Bagley Ave. N Faribault, MN 55021 Tel: 507/333-9460 Fax: 507/333-9485 B.M. ELEVATION=976.30 PROPOSED INLET PROTECTION PROPOSED SWPPP LEGEND PROPOSED SODDING PROPOSED BASIN SEEDING PROPOSED SILT FENCE PROPOSED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED DRAINAGE ARROW PROPOSED ROCK MULCH PROPOSED BIOROLL CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #2 TOP = 974.50' OUTLET = 971.50' BASE = 970.00' CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #1 TOP = 975.50' OUTLET = 973.50' BASE = 972.00' CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENT BASIN TOP = 975.50' MWL = 973.50' BASE = 971.00' C5.13SITE DETAILS-ALDI, INC.RETAIL FACILITYMEDINAMINNESOTADEHDEHATB14-1640804/28/15THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAYNOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT.PROJECTPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYTITLEISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.SHEET16408 C5-DETAILSREVIEWED BYTITLESHEETREVISION SCHEDULENO DATE DESCRIPTIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.KEY PLANLIC. NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.LIC. NO.DATEAndrew T. Brandel470784201 Bagley Ave. NFaribault, MN 55021Tel: 507/333-9460Fax: 507/333-9485'A''A'1"=5'1"=5' C6.11 SITE LIGHTING PLAN - ALDI, INC. RETAIL FACILITY MEDINA MINNESOTA KDM KDM MDN 14-16408 04/15/15 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY TITLE ISSUE DATE CLIENT PROJECT NO. SHEET 16408 C6-LIGHT REVIEWED BY TITLE SHEET REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. KEY PLAN LIC. NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LIC. NO.DATE Andrew T. Brandel 47078 4201 Bagley Ave. N Faribault, MN 55021 Tel: 507/333-9460 Fax: 507/333-9485 N.T.S.1 MANUFACTURER/MODEL NUMBER LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE STYLETYPE LAMPS REMARKS Provide light fixtures as shown on Fixture Schedule. Substitutions shall have prior approval by the Project Engineer before bid date. Being listed as an acceptable Manufacturer in no way relieves the Contractors obligation to provide all equipment and features in accordance with these specifications. FOOTCANDLE LEGEND ALTA/ACSMLAND TITLESURVEYKEY PLANI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATELIC. NO.43110DANIEL L. STUEBERALDI INC.RETAIL FACILITY 1OF116408 ALTAKH14-16408--/--/--TITLECLIENT PROJECT NO.SHEETTITLESHEETTHIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I S GROUP, INC.AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATEDWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.PROJECTPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYISSUE DATEREVIEWED BYREVISION SCHEDULENO DATE DESCRIPTION EQEQ GRADE LINE - SEE CIVIL DWGS. 16'-9 1/2" A.F.F. T.O. STUD 24'-6" A.F.F. T.O. TOWER OUTRIGGER STUD 12'-0" A.F.F. B.O. PANELS 11'-0" A.F.F. T.O. CANOPYSTEEL 0'-0" FIN. FLOOR 7'-11 5/8" SIGN OPNG. TYP.20'-6" A.F.F. T.O. TOWER OUTRIGGER STUD EQEQEQEQ EQEQ9'-6"SIGNOPNG.C1 A504 @ CART WALL @ BUILDING WALL 16'-9 1/2" A.F.F. T.O. STUD 0'-0" FIN. FLOOR TYP. GRADE LINE - SEE CIVIL DWGS. EQEQ 16'-9 1/2" A.F.F. T.O. STUD 0'-0" FIN. FLOOR 24'-6" A.F.F. T.O. TOWER OUTRIGGER STUD 12'-0" A.F.F. B.O. PANEL 11'-0" A.F.F. T.O. CANOPYSTEEL @ CART WALL @ BUILDING WALL 7'-11 5/8" SIGN OPNG. TYP. GRADE LINE - SEE CIVIL DWGS. TYP.20'-6" A.F.F. T.O. TOWER OUTRIGGER STUD EQEQEQEQ EQEQ9'-6"SIGNOPNG.C1 A504 OPP. HAND @ CART WALL @ BUILDING WALL IVIL DWGS. 16'-9 1/2" A.F.F. T.O. STUD 0'-0" FIN. FLOOR GRADE LINE - SEE CIVIL DWGS. TYP.TYP. TYP. 16'-9 1/2" A.F.F. T.O. STUD 0'-0" FIN. FLOOR SIGNAGE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY SQ. FT. PER SIGN TOTALS TOWER SIGN 2 74.9 149.8 FOOD MARKET SIGN 2 21.3 42.6 TOTAL SIGNAGE 192.4 SIGNAGE IS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHALL BE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT SUBMITTAL VIL DWGS.. EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE KEY MATERIAL / MFG. COLOR / NO.NOTES EDGE METAL BY FIRESTONE A1 - SLATE GRAY A1a - SILVER METALLIC MODULAR BRICK FIELD COLOR - SEE SPEC FIELD AND TRANSOM WINDOW SILLS MODULAR BRICK ACCENT COLOR - SEE SPEC PILASTERS STOREFRONT ANODIZED ALUM. RE: DWG. A602 METAL WALL PANELS SLATE GRAY METAL SOFFIT PANELS SOLID PANELS - SEE SPEC RE: DWG. A301-A304 EXTERIOR PAINT BY SHERWIN-WILLIAMS PT-10 / CL-5 RE: DWG. A603 ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL A9 - BRIGHT SILVER A9a - SLATE GRAY PROVIDE PANEL JOINTS AS SHOWN - AT ALDI LOGO SIGN FIELD AND FOOD MARKET SIGN FIELD, PROVIDE ONE PIECE TIGHT FIT EXTRUDED MOLDING INSTALLATION SYSTEM WITH CENTER REVEAL TRIM BETWEEN PANELS AND J TRIM AT PANEL EDGES. AT CANOPY FASCIA, PROVIDE 'CLIP AND CAULK' INSTALLATION SYSTEM. SPLIT-FACE CMU SEE SPEC WATER TABLE FIELD BLRD-2 PT-10 / CL-4 RE: DWG A603 BLRD-4 FACTORY FINISH - CHARCOAL RE: DWG A603 GUARD RAIL TYPE "A"PT-11 / CL-5 RE: DWG A3/A503, A603 GUARD RAIL TYPE "B"PT-11 / CL-5 RE: DWG A3/A503, A603 CART RAIL & STARTER POST GALVANIZED DOCK LEVELER / SEAL AND BUMPERS LEVELER - FACTORY FINISH / SEAL AND BUMPERS - FACTORY FINISH - BLACK PROVIDE BRICK BEHIND DOCK SEAL IN LIEU OF CAST STONE SILL CONTROL JOINT MAX 30' OC RE: DWG. A504 OVERFLOW SCUPPER PT-10 / CL-5 RE: DWG C3/A503 FOOD MARKET SIGNAGE BY SIGN VENDOR 14'-2 3/4"w. x 1'-6"h. ALDI TOWER SIGN BY SIGN VENDOR 7'-11 1/8" w. x 9'-5 1/2" h. SEE DETAIL D1/A504; VERIFY SIGN SIZE PRIOR TO FRAMING OPENING CRTB NATURAL RE: DWG A603 - SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS CAST STONE SILL SEE SPEC WATER TABLE TRIM PREFABRICATED SUN SHADE SILVER POWDER COAT MANUFACTURED BY C. R. LAURENCE; RE: DWGS A306, A505 ROOF SCREENS SLATE GRAY SEE SPEC EXIT DISCHARGE LIGHT FACTORY FINISH MOUNT @ 8'-0" A.F.F. WALL SCONCE FACTORY FINISH MOUNT @ 7'-6" A.F.F. EXTERNAL SIREN FACTORY FINISH MOUNT @ 12'-0" A.F.F. UTILITY METERING & C.T. FACTORY FINISH SEE ELECTRICAL DWGS EXTERIOR WALL PACK FACTORY FINISH MOUNT @ 12'-0" A.F.F. EXTERIOR DUPLEX RECEPTACLE FACTORY FINISH MOUNT @ 1'-6" A.F.F. FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION FACTORY FINISH SEE FIRE PROTECTION DWGS MOTOR GONG FACTORY FINISH SEE FIRE PROTECTION DWGS HOSE BIB FACTORY FINISH SEE PLUMBING DWGS STOREFRONT KEY ANODIZED ALUMINUM RE: DWG A602 NOT USED 1 Rear Elevation SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 Front Elevation SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 Side Elevation SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 Side Elevation SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" ALDI - MEDINA, MN EXTERIOR ELEVATION COPYRIGHT © 2015 APD ENGINEERING & ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 615 Fishers Run Victor, NY 14564 585.742.2222 585.924.4914.fax www.apd.com Inc. Please note that the colors shown here are a graphical representation to show contrast in materials only. Due to the nature of electronic media, colors may vary depending on computer or printer used. For review of actual colors, a material sample board should be created on a project specific basis. LOCKERSCOATCLOSETELECTRIC SWITCHGEAR& BOLLARDSNO PARKINGNO PARKING40'-0"6'-8"±36'-0"6'-8"±3'-0"11'-1"96'-0"McCUESECURITY RAILTUBE STEEL(5) SPOTMERCHANDISERS15'-0"56'-11 3/8" CLEARWATER &FIRE RISERSCHECK LANE49'-3"REF.DRINKINGFOUNTAINS15 DOOR FREEZER19'-0" x 41'-0"17 DOOR COOLER24'-0" x 65'-7"TRASHCAN6" DIA. COVERED STEELPIPE BOLLARD (TYP. OF 7)41'-0"19'-0"1'-1 1/2" TYP.EXTERIORWALLTHICKNESSDUMPSTERROOFLEADER7'-4"22'-1 1/2"147'-4"22'-8"118'-0"140'-8"106'-6 1/2"PALLET JACK3'-0"7'-10 3/4"7'-0"7'-0"8'-0"7'-0"8'-0"7'-0"10'-5 3/4"3'-0"3'-0"(73) MODEL 563WCART STORAGE(38) MODEL 563WCART STORAGE10'-0"FLOOR DRAINPROTOCOL UNITMcCUE GUARDRAIL6'-0"4'-11"9'-1"5'-0"4'-11"10'-5"65'-7"24'-0"11'-4"11'-11"2'-0"6'-0"HUBDRAIN10'-6"CLEARTUBE STEELBACKROOM110WOMENS104BREAKROOM107OFFICE108HALL105MENS106SALES103ENTRY101EXIT1027'-6"10'-5 3/4"6'-9 3/4"5'-9 1/2"CLEAR3'-0"3'-0"36'-0"3'-0"FREESTANDINGSACKINGCOUNTER12'-0"ALDI FINDS12' D6XULEPDELI12' C6XLEPFRESH MEAT7'-0"8'-0"7'-0"HUB DRAIN(CAPPED @F.F. FOR FUTURE USE)3'-0"72'-0"MCCUEBUMPER4'-8"4'-8"3'-0"4'-8"3'-0"4'-8"3'-0"18'-9 7/8"72'-11"145'-1"14'-0"34'-0"6'-8" ±48'-0"ALDI FINDS12'-0"56'-8 3/8" MULTI-DECK UNITS15'-3 3/4" CLEAR8'-2"5'-0"RACKING6'-0"RACKING6'-0"RACKINGWALK OFF MATFLOORSCRUBBER8'-1"MEATCOOLER8' C6XLEPFRESH MEAT3'-0"3'-0"NOTES:1. THIS DRAWING IS FORGENERAL FIXTURINGLAYOUT AND REFERENCE TOEQUIPMENT ONLY. ALLINFORMATION IS FOR ALDIOPERATIONAL USE ONLYAND SHALL NOT BE USEDFOR CONSTRCUTION ORBIDDING PURPOSES.2. ALL DIMENSIONS TO WALLSARE TO FACE OF STUD.CHARGER SHELFSTACKERMANAGERORGANIZATIONDESKREMOTE RECEIVER8'-0"8'-2" CLEARHUBDRAINHUBDRAINHUBDRAINHUBDRAINHUBDRAIN12' D6XULEPDELI12' D6XULEPDELI7'-6"HUBDRAINBALER3'-0"McCUESECURITY RAILTUBE STEELPALLET JACK6'-0"11'-7"12'-0"8'-0"8'-0"4'-8"40'-0"3'-0"ROOFLADDER6'-8 1/2"PRODUCE3'-0"(1) SPOTMERCHANDISER2'-0"2'-0"4'-0"7'-0"3'-0"HUBDRAINHUBDRAINHUBDRAINHUBDRAIN18'-8"6'-0"REAR DOCK AREA SUMMARY OCCUPANCY USE ROOM NAMESQUARE FOOTAGE MERCANTILE SALES / ENTRY / EXIT10,597 OFFICE 215 BREAK ROOM 294 MEN'S ROOM 86 WOMEN'S ROOM 85 HALL 180 SUBTOTAL (MERCANTILE)11,457 STORAGE / STOCK BACKROOM3,229 COOLER1,470 FREEZER 730 SUBTOTAL (STORAGE / STOCK)5,429 SUBTOTAL (OCCUPANCIES)16,886 EXTERIOR /INTERIOR WALLS / UNOCCUPIED SPACE939 BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE17,825 EXTERIOR CANOPY 714 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE (INCLUDING CANOPY)18,539REAR DOCK OPERATIONS DATA ITEM V6.0 PROTOTYPE ALDI MEDINA PLAN LINEAR FOOTAGE OF BASE(PRODUCE INCLUDED)842'-0" 842'-0" ASSUMED PALLET STORAGE 70 70 BUILDING DIMENSIONS 118'-0" x 147'-4" 118'-0" x 147'-4" SALES FLOOR DIMENSIONS 72'-11" x 145'-1" 72'-11" x 145'-1" LENGTH OF MULTI-DECK 56' 56' COOLER MILK DOORS 5 5 COOLER GENERAL DOORS12 12 FREEZER ICE CREAM DOORS 6 6 FREEZER GENERAL DOORS 9 9 SPOT MERCHANDISERS 6 6 CART STORAGE(101) MODEL 563W (101) MODEL 563WPLANNORTHDrawing No.Scale:Project No.Type:Date:Drawn By:Date:AIssued:Project Name & Location:Drawing Name:PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER DATEPROJECT LEADDATESeal SealDATEPROJECT DESIGNERBCD1234Date:Revisions:54514-0173AALDI Inc.ALDI Medina, MN3522 Sioux Dr.Hamel, MN 55340Hennepin County03/06/15RHSD-V6As NotedStore #: XXIssued for Use/Reference 03/30/15Inc.DO NOT SCALE PLANSCopying, Printing, Software and other processes required to producethese prints can stretch or shrink the actual paper or layout.Therefore, scaling of this drawing may be inaccurate. Contact APDEngineering with any need for additional dimensions or clarifications.585.742.2222585.924.4914.fax615 Fishers RunVictor, NY 14564615 Fishers RunVictor, NY 14564585.742.2222585.924.4914.faxDrawing AlterationIt is a violation of law for any person, unless acting under thedirection of licensed Architect, Professional Engineer, LandscapeArchitect, or Land Surveyor to alter any item on this document inany way. Any licensee who alters this document is required by lawto affix his or her seal and to add the notation "Altered By" followedby his or her signature and the specific description of the alterationor revision.APD Engineering & Architecture, PLLCwww.apd.comCAPD Engineering &Architecture, PLLCwww.apd.comCopyright 2015PLOTTED: 3/30/2015 4:12 PM1Operations PlanSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"Operations PlanSRSA-131 TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55 0 20 —CRE ANK IMPROVEMENT: ADD-PLAI\] NGSASDETAILEDIN ------------- GREEK BA�fMPROVEMENTPLN-------------- -- =(SEE—SHEE 1_)jSHADED�CREA) — — — REMOVElQO1V=NATIVE Si-R{3BS : INFIL�RAiIi7N1AA31N-- ----_ UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING UTILITIES ON -SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. I7- M \1-1-'4,1-1--- _ — /_ DIN •• \- -� _� �\ \ \ \ -- � /• DIN �— N\ l i N, X\ I \ , v M W W � \ \N \�---------- — — eV -1:: --_ — -- , '-- .1 ii. \ � \ P \ \ \\`` -.>, I�ii i __ —970 — — il ��_—I = — T T I� —970 -975— —____-_-___._<=-=__-----7 _ � < ` _=__-- _ — =975 97J — g6k 40 60 Scale: \ 9gg- — v F VICTIM!: 121111 nua1P_ II VERSION 6.0 PROTOTY~'E LEFT HAND ENTRY, MODIFIED D 18,539 SQ FT (INCLUDING CLNO BUILDING SQ FT: 17,825 CANOPY SQ FT: 714 FFE = 981.25 / \\ \ \ X985 / / PLANT SYMBOL KEY 0 0 DECIDUOUS TREES EVERGREEN TREES DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN WITH TREE # /81 // // / /y . / 7/ /// / / / // / / // / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r (C111:01%.1.(. ® �" _979 — \�\\� �— — — = —980- __ _982 — N — —981— — ISG Architecwrc Engineering fnvlronmenral Plann hi! I+S GROUP 4201 Bagley Ave. N Faribault, MN 55021 Tel: 507/333-9460 Fax: 507/333-9485 KEY PLAN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE LIC NO I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CORY W. TAUER Czrtel�/ r�Iviar DATE 5-5-15 LIC NO 42181 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I+S GROUP, INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT ALDI, INC. RETAIL FACILITY MEDINA MINNESOTA REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 14-16408 FILE NAME 16408 LEASE DRAWN BY CWT DESIGNED BY CWT REVIEWED BY CWT ISSUE DATE 05/05/15 CLIENT PROJECT NO. - TITLE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L1.11 TREE REM OVALS AND REQUIRED C ALIPER I NC HES THA T NEED TO BE REPLACE D TA BLE GENERA L NOTES: - LA ND SCAPE WORK TO BE COMPLETED AFTER COMPLETIO N OF FINISH G RADING. FINISH GRADING BY O THERS. - LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WILL VISIT SITE BEFORE S UBM ITTING A BID. THIS WILL A LLO W FO RA MORE FULL UNDER STA ND ING OF SITE CONDITIONS. - IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS OR AREAS INDICATED ON THE PLANT LIST OR NOTES AND THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE NUMBERS OR A REAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN WILL BE C ORRECT. - A LL PLANTS AND MA TERIA LS SHALL COM PLY WITH THE LATEST EDITIO N OF THE AM ERICAN STANDARD FO R NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYM EN. - ALL DECIDUOUS TREES MEASUR ED BY CALIPER S HALL BE MEASUR ED AT A POINT 6" UP FRO M THE TRUNKS ROOT COLLAR. - ALL TREE TRUNKS SHALL BE SURROUNDED BY A MINIMUM 2 FOO T R ADIUS BED WITH 3 INCH DEPT H S HR EDDED HARDWOOD MU LCH. - CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS WILL HAVE BEEN PLANTED IN THE CONTAINER FOR A M INIMUM OF SIX M ONTHS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ON -SITE. - ALL PLANTS WILL BE GUARA NT EED FOR FULL REPLA CEMENT A MINIMUM OF AT LEA ST ONE FULL YEAR (365 DA YS) A FTER INSTA LLATION ON SITE. - IF THE CONTRACTOR FEELS THERE MAY BE AN ERROR , THEY AR E REQUIRED TO CO NTA CT THE LANDSCA PE ARCHITECT. - PLANT SYM BOLS SHO WN A RE FOR LOCATING THE POSITIONS FO R PLANTING. SIZES SHOWN DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE TRUE PLANT SIZE EITHER AT TIME OF INSTALLATION OR WHEN FULL GROWN. - LAND SCAPE CONTR ACTOR WILL REPAIR A LL DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY FROM INSTALLA TION ACTIVITIES AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. LAN DSCAPE NOTES: 1. 0 Gene ral: 1.01 Landscape work includes, but is not limited to , removal of weeds, to p soil installa tion, soil preparation, installation of edging, installatio n of irrigatio n system, planting of tre es, shrubs, and groundco ver, final gra ding, installation of ero sion co ntrol fabric, mulching, weed control, clean-up, and regular maintenance during co nstructio n and the esta blishment period. 1.02 No pad of this work s ha ll be pe rfo rme d or installed in any location or manner, which may endanger the hea lth, safety, or welfare of the public now, or in the future. Construction means, methods, te chniques, sequencing, etc., a re the sole responsibility of the Contra ctor. 1. 03 The Co ntra ctor agrees that he/she shall assume so le and co mplete responsibility fo r jo b site conditions during the co urs e of construction of this pro ject, including safety of all perso ns and property; that this requirement shall apply co ntinuously and not be limite d to normal working ho urs; and that the co ntractor shall defe nd, indemnify, and hold the Owner and Landscape Archite ct harmless from a ny and a ll lia bility, real or alleged, in connection with the pe rfo rmance of wo rk on the project, ex ceptin g for lia bility a rising from the sole ne gligence of the Owner or Landscape Architect. 1.04 The Contractor shall comply with all applica ble rules, re gulations, laws, a nd ordinance s imposed by Authoritie s having Jurisdiction ov er this pro ject site. 1. 05 Co ntractor shall immediately give written notice to the Landscape Archite ct of conflict In any part of plans, note s, or specifications. Request clarification from INS Group as appropriate. 1.06 Con tra ctor sha ll field -verify ex isting condition s. 1.06. 1 " Existin g co nditions" for the work as specified herein are base d on the work described in the INS Grou p drawings, and on the assumption that the work described in these drawings will be comple ted as described. 1. 06.2 Imme diately ra yon discre panc ies or v ariance s between the exis ting conditio ns and the INS Group drawings in writing to the owner's repre sentative. If the Co ntractor begins work specified herein withou t the notification to IN S Group, the C ontractor thereby ackno wledge s acce ptance of the site "As -Is" and shall perform the work show n on the drawings and specified herein in accordance with the acce pted base bid. 1.07 Prior to construction, the Contacto r shall be re sponsible for locating all underground utilities. 1.07. 1 Exis ting utility line s to be re mo ved which ma y not be shown on construction dra wings are presumed to be present within the Site. Contractor shall no t pro ceed with such utility line s removal. Contracto r shall contact INS Group immediately upon discovery of an unidentified underground utility piping. INS Group will then direct the Contractor as to the appro priate action to be taken. 1.08 Co ntractor shall avoid damage to utilitie s, structures, site a ppurtenances, etc., which occur as a result of the lan dsca pe construction. 1. 09 The Landscape Contractor is re sponsible for verifying all quantities shown on these plans before pricing the work. Any differe nce in quantities shall be bro ught to the atte ntion of INS Group for clarification. 1.10 All substitutions shall be requested in writing and shall be approved by the INS Group landscape architecture department, 507-387-6651. 1.11 If any are as which appe ar to need landscape installa tion, but are not PLANT LIST QTY KEY COMM ON NAM E 1 La tin n ame SIZE ROOT NOTE SHA DE TREE S 11 AE ACCO LADE ELM Ulmus 'M orton' 2" CAL. B.B. 13 BW BLACK WILLOW Salix nigr a 2" CAL. B.B. 12 CW SIOU)ILAND CO TTO NWO OD Po pulus delfoides 2" CAL. B.B. 6 HB HAC KBERRY Celfis occidentalis 2" CAL. B.B. 9 RM RED M APLE Ace r ru brum 2" CAL. B.B. 2 SK SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST Gledifsia tdacanthoo inermis 'Skyline' 2" CAL. B.B. 10 SO SWAMP WHITE OAK Que rc us bico lor 2" C AL. B. B. EVERGR EEN TR EES 4 CA COM PACT AUSTR IAN PINE Pinu s nigra 'Compa cts,' 6' HT B.B. OR NA MEN TA L TR EES 11 AU AUTU MN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier x grandiflo ra Autumn Brilliance' 1.1/2^ CA L. B. B. wh. Spring flowers red fall leave s 4 FH THO RNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN Crataegus crusga/li 1-1/2" CAL. B.B. white spring flo wers re d fru it 3 RB RIVER BIRCH (CLUM P) Betula nigra 2-1/2" CAL. B. B. Multi -stem DECIDUOUS SHRUBS 6 ALC ALPINE CURRANT R ibe s alpin um 24" HT. CONT. 60 CNB COMM ON NINEBARK Physocarpus opulifolus LIVE CUTTINGS see sheet L3.11 for planting details 8 DIN DIABOLO NINEBARK Physo carpus o pulifo lu s 24" HT. CONT. 17 FDD FIREDANCE DOGWOOD Comus sericea 'Bailadeline' 24" HT. CONT. compact form, red branches 30 GMS G OLDMO UND SPIREA Spiraea x bu malda go ldmoun d' 16" HT. CONT. yello w foliage pink flowers 17 RTD RED TWIGGED DOGWO OD Comus sehcea 'baileyi' 24" HT. CONT. 60 PWW PUSSY WILLO W Salix discolor LIVE STAKE see sheet L3.11 for planting details 60 RID RED TWIGGED DOGWOOD Comus se ricea LIVE STAKE see sheet L3.11 for planting details 8 RWV REDWING VIBURNUM Viburnum tdlobum J.N. Select' 24" HT. CONT. dark foliage, persistent red berries 60 SWW SILKY WILLOW Salic se du ce LIVE STAKE see sheet L3.11 for pla ntin g de ta ils E VERGR EEN SHR UBS 15 JLC JAPANESE UPRIGHT YEW Taxu s cuspidate 'Capitate' 24" HT. CONT. slow growing, pyramidal 22 SEJ SEA GREEN JUNIPER Juniperns chinensis 'Sea Green' 16" HT. CONT. sho wn as landscaped on the plans, notify INS G ro up landscape architecture departme nt Immediately. 1.12 All registe red chemicals used on this pro ject shall be han dled and applied in accordance with a ll applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 1.13 Cle an-up the site at comple tion of this wo rk, leave the site in an attractive condition. 1.14 Upon completion of installation the contractor shall issue a Certificate of Completion statin g the pro ject na me and the following: "I, (state license d co ntra ctor's na me) he re by ce dify, under penalty of perju ry, that the installation of landscape and irrigation fo r the above proje ct is complete a nd co nforms with the city and owner approved plans and specifications, with the exception of the following de viations (list a ppro ved deviations, and who approved them)." The certificate sha ll be signed by the Contractors license holder. 1. 15 Prio r to starting in stalla tion the con tactor shall co nfirm that the co nstruction set of plans are signed or stamped fo r approval by the city. Notify the landsca pe architec t immediately if a city appro va l sta mp or signature is no t v isible on the dra wings. 2.0 Site a nd So il Pre paration: 2.01 The to p 8 inche s of soil shall be free of rocks. co ncrete, and foreign mate rials la rge r than 2 Inche s in diameter. Roa d base mate rial shall not be prese nt in the top 24 inches of soil. Any soil miced with road base sha ll be removed and disposed of o ff -site. 2.02 Final grades shall be smooth and e ven, providing an attrac tive appea rance. Co ncentrated flo ws of water sha ll not drain over wa lks. Conta ct la ndsca pe a rc hitect if this a ppears unavo idable. Landscape materials shall not block or interfere with the free flow of drainage water. 2.03 Planting areas shall slope at 2% min imum a way from buildin g foundations and foo tings. Positive drainage shall be provided in all planting areas. No sta nding water shall be permitted. A maximum grade difference of 1/2 inch shall be a llowe d betwee n sidewalks or curbs and the finish surface in planters. 2.04 The planting soil mix ture specified fo r plan ters sha ll be free of clay and is to be co mposed of to pso il a nd a dditio na l amendme nts and backfilled to a depth of 24". Amen d the top 8 in ches of to psoil in all planted areas with the following materials. Quantities are minimums per 1000 square fee t. 2.04. 1 [3] cubic yards of nitrolize d co mpost. Compo st shall have a 1/2 inch maximum particle size, a ph of 6.5 or higher, shall be cured for 60 days or mo re a fte r c omposting, shall meet all EPA guidelines, and shall be weed and pa thoge n fre e. 2.04. 2 [10] Ibs of agricultural gypsum. 2. 04.3 [26] Ibs of 16-16-16 fertilizer. 2.05 All plantin g are as, including areas to be sodded, shall receiv e the following soil prepara tion prior to planting: a minimum of 8 inches of lightly co mpacted topsoil shall be installed over the subsoil if topsoil has be en removed or is not pre sent. If topsoil filters down into the subsoil, additional topso il sha ll be applied until a stable 8 inch deep laye r of topsoil is maintained. The to p 8 inche s of topso il in the planters shall be machine -tilled to aerate the soil an d alleviate any surface compaction . 2.06 The burden of proof of so il amendment installatio n re sts with the Con tac tor. So il tests may be required at the C ontractors expense in order to confirm amendment installation. 3.0 Planting: 3.01 R ough grading shall be co mple te d prior to the start of planting in any given are a of the project site. 3.03 Plants shall be well branched and bushy with goo d color, plant siz e should be in proportion to the pot as describe d by the American Sta ndard for Nursery Stock. Plan ts de live red to the site that are ye llow, sparse, bumed, or barren will be rejected. Plant pots shall have so il to within 1 inch of the rim and the plants sha ll be fully rooted In the container. Plant material with cracked or broken root - balls shall be remove d fro m the site. All plants shall be high quality with a securely attached id tag, have nor mal growth and should be free from disease, in sects, or insect e ggs. Plants shall co nform with the minimu m standards of ANSI z 60 - the American Standard for Nursery Stock. Trees may not hav e been toppe d (upright branches at top of may no t be cut or pruned). 3. 14 Plants shall e xceed the minimum sae at planting re quirements no ted on the plans, regardless of the size of the containe r. No exceptions. Prepare bids based on the plant size, not the containe r size. A larger co ntainer size plant may be required to mee t the pla nt siz e minimums. No cost adjustments will be allowed fo r use of larger co ntainer plants. Measure ments sha ll be made with the plant in a na tural, unsuppo rte d position. 3. 05 Plants speeded as " gallon," " container," or " box" on the plans shall conform to the ANSI z60, A merican Standard for Nursery Stock requirements for Ace s with equiv alent numbers (#1, 05, 015, 824, e tc. J as if specified as such on the plans. Thus a plan t labele d as "5 gallo n" size on the plans must be equivalent to e 45 co nta iner size plant as de scribed in the American Stan dard fo r Nurs ery Stoc k. 3.06 Tree calipers shall be me asured 6 inc hes abov e the rootball per ANSI z60, American Sta nda rd fo r Nursery Stock. Tree heights shall be measure d fro m top of roo tba ll to top of highest branc h. 3.07 T rees shall be planted 4'0" or mo re fro m hardscape s, such as sidewalks, foundatio ns, curbs, patios, e tc. when possible. 3.08 Trees shall not be planted within 4'0" of burled utility lines, re locate trees slightly, if not possible no tify la ndsca pe architect. 3.09 A vertical cle ara nce of 114 inches is required a bo ve all disabled acce ssible parking space s, a v ertical clearance of 80 inc hes is re quired above all wa lkways. Trim trees to remove a ll limbs within these areas for ADA compliance. 3.10 Turf areas shall be sloped as required to prov ide positive drainage to the perimete r, or to dra in inle ts. Turf shall be installed flush with the top of surrounding curbs and walks so as to prevent water from puddling at the turf edges, import top soil if necessary to comply with this require ment. 3.11 A ll sod turf shall be rolled with a weighted roller after insta llation. 4.0 Mulc h: 4.01 When rock mulch is indicated, in stall a 3" dee p layer of 1"-2" dia. ro ck. 4. 02 When rock mulch is indicated, pla ce mulch onto a water permeable filter fabric. Such fabric shall be of substantial quality and include a manufacturer warranty of a minimum of 10 years. 4.03 When wood mulch is indicated, install pre mium shre dded hardwoo d SITE NOT ES: IRRIGATION REQUIRED - IRRIGATE ALL TREES, SODDED AREAS, AND PLANTING BEDS SOUTH OF THE CREEK ZONES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROV IDING THE IRRI GATION DESIGN. PLANT BED EDGER - USE POLY EDGER PLANTING BEDS - SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 3" DEPTH HARDWOOD MULCH. DO NOT USE AN UNDERLAYM ENT. NO PLASTIC OR FILTER F ABRIC . SEE SHEET L3.11 FOR CREEK REST ORATION PLANS SOD/SEED - REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR LOCATIONS AND TYPE. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: LANDSCAPE REQUIRED FOR PERI METER OF 1710 LF: 34 SHADE TREES (1710 LF/50) 17 ORNAMENTAL TREES (1710 LF/100) 57 SHRUBS (1710 LF/30) WITH 255 C ALIPER INCHES OF TREE MITIGATION. LANDSCAPE PROPOSED: 83 TOTAL SHADE TREES (305 CAL. INCHES) 67 PROP OSED SHADE TREES (134 CAL. INCHES) 16 REMAINING EXISTING TREES (171 CAL. INCHES) 18 PRO POSED ORNA MENT AL TREES 363 PROPOSED SHRUBS 320 LF PROP OSED CREEK BANK IMPROVE MENT 145 LF PROPOSED SL OPE INFILTRATION BASIN REMOVAL OF NON-N ATVE SHRUBS REM OVAL OF UNSAFE/UNHEALTHY TREES PRUNING OF EXISTING RE MAINING TREES mulch to a minimum depth of 3 i nches. All mulch ed ar eas shall als o incorporate a granular pre -emergent herbicide, such as Preen, to aid In w eed a batement. No permeable filter fabric should be used unless called for on th e plan. 5.0 Slopes: 5.01 Se e grading plans for sl opes locations and gradients 5.02 Notify the la ndscape architect prior to starting work if any area on this site is found to hav e a slop e exceeding 3:1. 7.0 Landscape Main tenance: 7. 01 The Co ntra ctor shall maintain the landscape & irrigati on throughout construction and up to opening dat e. 7.02 The Co ntra ctor shall be responsible for m aintaining a regular watering schedule for all so dded areas for a minimum of 30 days after installation to ensure proper establishment 7. 03 The Co ntra ctor shall take all reasonable precauti ons required to prot ect plants throughout the maintenance p eriod from abnormal t emperatures. 8.0 Observations: 8.01 The Co ntractor shall req uest a final obs ervation by the own er's re pre sentative upon completion of installation. 8.02 Obse rva tion mu st be request ed 7 days in advance of the anticipated da te of the observation. 8.03 Prior to requesting the final observati on it is the contract or's responsibility to assure that the work is finished and complies with all clearly stated re quireme nts of the plans, i ncludi ng plant si zes and q uantiti es . Subs ta ntial n on -compliance will res ult in the assessm ent of p enalties against the Contracto r, to be not less than th e cost of th e observation. Any of the fo llowing shall be considered proof of substantial non-complianc e: 8.03.1 Installed quantity of any item is less than 95% of that specified. 8.03.2 More than 3% of any plant variety are undersiz e. 8.03.3 More than 3% of any plant variety am dead or dying. Dying is d efined as wilting or lo ss of mo re than 30 % of leaves (decid uous l eaf drop exc epted.) 9.0 Guarantee : 9.01 The Landscape Contractor shall guarantee all landscape work for a period of time , beginning at the st art of the maintenance period, as foll ows: 9.01.1 Trees - two growing seasons. 9. 01. 2 Shru bs, lawn and groundcover - tw o gr owing seasons. 9.01.3 Irrigation system - one year. 9.02 Theft, vandalism, and death due to acts of God are excluded from this warranty. UNDISTURBED SOIL 00 NOT STA KE THROUGH ROOT BALL FINISHED GRADE not dead DBH in. DBH in. tree unit total -13 units count remo ved no replace DBH in . need to replace Tree Number Species DBH i nches Condition Recommendati on 1 Gree n Ash 12 H ealthy Remove 1 12 12 2 Green Ash 13 H ealthy Remove 2 13 13 3 B oxelder 9 Healthy Prun e 3 4 Green Ash 9 Poor Remove 4 9 9 5 Boxelder 9 Healthy Remove 5 9 9 6 Green Ash 12 Poor Remove 6 12 12 7 Boxelder 16 H ealthy Remove 7 16 16 8 Boxelder 12 Poor Remove 8 12 12 9 Boxelder 9 Healthy Prune 9 10 B oxelder 8 De ad R em ov e 11 Boxelder 14 H ealthy Remove 10 14 14 12 Boxelder 8 Poor Remove 11 8 8 13 Boxelder 9 H ealthy Prune 12 14 Boxelder 9 H ealthy Prune 13 15 Boxelder 11 Poor Remove 14 11 11 16 Boxelder 12 Healthy Prune 15 17 B oxelder 17 Healthy Prun e 16 17 17 18 Boxelder 10 H ealthy Remove 17 19 Boxelder 27 Healthy Remove 18 20 Boxelder 10 H ealthy Remove 19 10 10 21 Boxelder 10 H ealthy Prune 20 10 10 22 Boxelder 15 H ealthy Remove 21 15 15 23 Boxelder 12 Healthy Remove 22 12 12 24 B oxelder 11 P oor R em ov e 23 11 11 25 Boxelder 12 H ealthy Prune 24 26 Boxelder 8 Healthy Prune 25 27 American Elm 9 Dead Remove R em ov e 28 Am eri ca n Elm 12 De ad 29 Red Cedar 9 H ealthy Good 26 30 Boxelder 9 Healthy Prune 27 31 Eastern Cott onw ood 4 H ealthy Good 28 32 Boxelder 10 Poor Remove 29 10 10 33 Green Ash 9 Poor Remove 30 9 9 34 Boxelder 10 H ealthy Prune 31 35 Green Ash 9 Healthy R em ov e 32 9 9 36 Eastern Cottonwood 9 Healthy Good 33 37 Green Ash 8 Poor Remove 34 8 8 38 Eastern Cottonwood 9 H ealthy G ood 35 39 Eastern Cottonwood 16 H ealthy Good 36 40 Green Ash 10 H ealthy Remove NIP NIP NIP 41 Eastern Cotto nwood 18 Healthy Good 42 Eastern C ott onw ood 12 Healthy Prun e 43 Boxelder 12 H ealthy Prune 37 44 Boxelder 14 Poor Remove 38 14 14 45 American Elm 25 H ealthy Remove 39 25 25 46 Boxelder 13 Poor Remove 40 13 13 47 American Elm 9 Poor Remove 41 9 ^ I 48 America n Elm 9 Healthy Prune 42 49 Am eri ca n Elm 16 Healthy Prune * 43 16 16 50 Boxelder 21 H ealthy Remove 44 21 21 51 American Elm 21 Healthy Remo ve 45 21 21 52 Boxelder 10 Poor Remove 46 10 10 53 Green Ash 18 Healthy R em ov e 47 18 18 54 Boxelder 10 Poor Remove 48 30 30 55 Colorado Blue Spruce 10 Healthy Good* 49 10 10 56 B oxelder 19 Healthy R em ov e 50 19 19 57 Boxelder 10 H ealthy Prune * 51 10 10 58 Boxelder 13 Healthy Prune* 52 13 13 59 American Elm 4 Dead Remove 60 B oxelder 10 Healthy Prune* 53 10 10 61 Eastern Cottonwood 17 H ealthy Prune* 54 17 17 ROW 1 American Elm Not Taken Healthy Remove NIP NIP NIP NIP NIP NIP NIP ROW2 Green Ash Not Taken H ealthy Remove ROW3 Eastern Cottonwood Not Taken H ealthy Prune ROW4 Boxelder Not Taken Poor Remove ROWS Boxelder Not Taken H ealthy Prune ROW6 B oxelder N ot Tak en Healthy R em ov e R OW7 Boxelder Not Taken H ealthy Prune 54 trees on -site that are not dead 5 trees allowed to be removed without replacement for initial site development 8 trees allowed to be removed without replacement for remaining site de velopment NIP = not in property * remove due to construction grading Es Il_I=11 IF AN EVE RG REEN: -NEVER CUT LEADER DANE ONLY TO RE MOVE MAGED BRANCHES STAKING IS DISCOURAGED. HOWEVER. IF NEEDED, USE 2" WIDE WEBBING ST RAPS WITH HEAVY GAUGE WIRE . WIRE SHOULD STICK STRAIGHT OUT AS SHOWN, BUT NOT TIGHT . RE MOVE AFTER ONE YEAR. RO OT C OLL AR SHALL BE SET 1' ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 3" DEEP HARD WOOD MULCH. OVER P RE -E MER GENT WEED CONTROL GRANULES . KEEP MULCH 6' BA CK FR OM TRUN K. BACKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL. I W ATERATE AIR. THAVUITTLYT O NN OT T AMP. SNROOT BALSFOT RN cDISTURBED SOIL. RE MO VE OR ur TOP AND FOLD DOWN WIRE BAS KET AN D BURLAP . RE MOVE ALL P OLY TIES TREE PL ANTI NG DETAIL EDGER FINAL GRADE =1 N=F IA I UNDI S EDII111 I7MII, pl �i m s ou T OTAL 255 2' MIN. TO PAVED SU RF ACE MULCH AS SPECIFIED ON PLAN OVER PRE-ENERGENT WEED C ONTR OL GR ANULES SIDEWALK/CU. (TY R) BACKFILL WITH PLANTIN G MI X. 6" AT SIDES AND ALL SPACE BETWEEN PL AN TS TO FULL DEPT H. ISG Architecture E ngi neeri ng E nvironm ental I+S GROUP ww�w.is .yry.- ALAI KEY PLAN 4201 Bagley Ave . N Farib ault, MN 55021 Tel: 507/333-9460 F ax: 507/333-9485 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS D OCUMENT WAS PREPA RED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DUL Y LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOT A. DATE LIC NO I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOC UMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISI ON AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE AR CHI TECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOT A. COR Y W. TAUER /oozes - DATE 5-5-15 5-5-15 LIC NO 42181 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HS GR OUP, INC. AND MAY N OT BE USED, C OPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT . PROJECT ALDI, INC. RET AIL F ACILITY MEDINA MINNESOT A REVISI ON SCHED ULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION P ROJECT NO . 14-16408 FILE NAME 16408 LBASE DRAWN BY CWT DESIGNED BY CN/T REVIEWED BY CWT ISSUE DATE 05/05/15 CLIENT PROJECT N O. - TITLE L ANDSC APE NOTES & PLANT LIST SHEET SHRUB PL ANTIN G DETAIL L1.12 L2.11 TREE REMOVAL PLAN - ALDI, INC. RETAIL FACILITY MEDINA MINNESOTA DEH DEH ATB 14-16408 05/05/15 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY TITLE ISSUE DATE CLIENT PROJECT NO. SHEET 16408 TREE REMOVAL REVIEWED BY TITLE SHEET REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. KEY PLAN LIC. NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. LIC. NO.DATE Andrew T. Brandel 5/05/15 47,078 4201 Bagley Ave. N Faribault, MN 55021 Tel: 507/333-9460 Fax: 507/333-9485 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAYNOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT.PROJECTPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYTITLEISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.SHEET16408 CREEK IMPROVEMENTREVIEWED BYTITLESHEETREVISION SCHEDULENO DATE DESCRIPTIONL3.11ELM CREEK BANKIMPROVEMENTPLAN-ALDI, INC.RETAIL FACILITYMEDINAMINNESOTADEHDEHATB14-1640805/05/15I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.KEY PLANLIC. NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.LIC. NO.DATEAndrew T. Brandel5/05/1547,0784201 Bagley Ave. NFaribault, MN 55021Tel: 507/333-9460Fax: 507/333-9485ACREEK BANK RESTORATION NOTESxNO WORK OR ACCESS WITHIN OR THROUGH THE BED OF DNRPUBLIC WATER SHALL OCCUR WITHIN MARCH 15TH TO JUNE15TH OR DURING FLOODING EVENTSxCONTRACTOR IS ENCOURAGED TO PERFORM BANKSTABILIZATION DURING TIME FRAMES OF LOW CREEK FLOWS.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSTALL AND MAINTAINALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AS CO-PERMITTEEUNDER THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER PERMIT.ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 50 FEET OF ELM CREEK SHALLHAVE REDUNDANT BMP'S INSTALLED AND FUNCTIONALPRIOR TO THE END OF EACH WORK DAY.xHORIZONTAL EXTENTS ARE SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS OFCUT/FILL AND RIPRAP PRIOR TO PLACEMENT WITH PROJECTENGINEER.xNATURAL STONE RIPRAP SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 3FEET HORIZONTAL INTO THE BED OF ELM CREEK.xALL DISTURBED WOODED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED WITHSEED MIXTURE 36-211 AND IMMEDIATELY OVERLAID WITHSTAPLED CATEGORY 4 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET(NATURAL NET ONLY) OR OTHER TEMPORARY EROSIONCONTROL AS APPROVED BY PROJECT ENGINEER.NOTE: SEE L1.12 - LANDSCAPE NOTES & PLANTLIST FOR PLANT LIST & PLANTING DETAILSAAELM CREEK BANK IMPROVEMENT TYPICAL GRADING PLANAELM CREEK BANK IMPROVEMENT TYPICAL SITE PLANCreek bank and surrounding areas shall be seeded with MnDOT seed mixtures34-261 (Seed 1) & 36-211 (Seed 2) and comply with MnDOT 2575 & 3876.Mulch shall be MnDOT Category 3 wood fiber blanket, natural net and complywith MnDOT 2575 & 3885. Fertilizer shall be MnDOT Type 4, 18-1-18 (NPK)and comply with MnDOT 2575 & 3881. Mulch and fertilizer shall be appliedincidental to seeding.xSEEDING - Seed 1 shall be placed between the two rows of biorolls at arate of 31.5 lbs/acre and fertilized at 120 lbs/acre. Seed 2 shall be placedin all other disturbed areas at 34.5 lbs/ac and fertilized at 100 lbs/ac.xMULCHING - All disturbed areas shall be mulched.ELM CREEK BANK SEEDINGBBN.T.S.N.T.S. Aldi Page 1 of 5 May 12, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: May 7, 2015 MEETING: May 12, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Aldi – Site Plan Review and Hardcover Variance – 3522 Sioux Drive Review Deadline Complete Application Received: March 13, 2015 Review Deadline: July 11, 2015 Background Aldi, Inc. proposes to construct a 17,825 square foot grocery store at the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Sioux Drive. The development would require the following land use approvals in order to permit the construction proposed by the applicant: 1) Variance – the applicant requests a variance to exceed the maximum of 25% impervious surface permitted in the Shoreland Overlay district of Elm Creek. 2) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the April meeting and tabled the matter until the May meeting. Commissioners expressed concern related to the extent of tree removal along Elm Creek. The applicant has stated that they were working with the Elm Creek Watershed District on an amended plan and wanted to present to the Commission. The applicant has submitted updated plans, including an updated tree removal plan, landscaping plan, and streambank plan. This report will summarize the updated tree removal plan, landscaping plan, and streambank plan. The staff report from the April meeting is attached for reference, and discusses the remaining facets of the review. Tree Preservation/Landscaping The updated tree removal plan would preserve 18 of the 50 trees along Elm Creek while the old plan preserved 9 of the trees. The tree preservation ordinance would allow 15% of the trees on the site to be removed for “initial site development” and an additional 15% for remaining site development. There are 57 live significant trees on the site, of which the applicant proposes to remove 36 (63%). It appears that 5 of the trees are removed for initial site development, which would be under the 15% allowance. The applicant could remove an additional 8 of the trees without replacement. The applicant proposes to remove 63% of the trees on the site, which would require a total of 238 inches of replacement trees. Aldi Page 2 of 5 May 12, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting As noted during last month’s discussions, in addition to the City’s general tree preservation regulations, the shoreland overlay district includes the following regulations: “Shoreland Alteration - Alteration of vegetation or topography shall be regulated to prevent soil erosion, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic sites, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and individual sewage treatment systems or for the construction of roads and parking areas shall be exempt from the vegetation alteration standards of this subdivision. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses, is allowed, subject to the following standards: o Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone shall not allowed. o In the shore impact zone, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees shall be allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of permitted accessory structures or facilities, provided that: (1) the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (2) along tributary streams, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and (3) the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards.” The Planning Commission and Council will need to determine whether the updated plan is intensive removal and, therefore, not permitted. The applicant’s arborist provided a report suggesting that the removal of the ash trees should not be considered part of the inventory because of the likelihood of the Emerald Ash Borer infecting the trees in the future. Their arborist also states that the Boxelder trees are not preferred species and many are in poor health. Eight of the proposed trees removed along Elm Creek were Boxelders rated in Poor health and 10 addition Boxelders which were in good health are proposed to be removed. The City’s tree preservation ordinance does exempt “removal …and the control of pioneering Tree species such as box elder when needed to manage other ecosystems and where the removal will not cause erosion or damage to riparian areas.” A report from the City Engineer’s staff responded to the applicant’s report and plan is attached. While Emerald Ash Borer is a threat at some time in the future, it is hopefully some time off. Leaving some of these trees and some of the healthier Boxelder in place will allow the new vegetation to establish. He does concur that it would be reasonable to exempt the removal of 11 of the trees in poor health. If the poor health trees were exempt as suggested, the number of remaining trees would reduce to 42, meaning 11 of the trees can be removed without replacement. This would require 103 inches of replacement trees, in addition to other required plantings. Staff had discussion with staff at Elm Creek Watershed and staff believes the plan is closer to being able to be approved by the Commission. Aldi Page 3 of 5 May 12, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting In addition to any required tree replacement, the following landscaping requirements exist based upon the lot perimeter, including: 1) 1 overstory tree per 50 feet of perimeter 2) 1 ornamental tree per 100 feet of perimeter 3) 1 shrub per 30 feet of perimeter The subject site is approximately 1710 feet in perimeter, requiring 34 overstory trees, 17 ornamental trees, and 57 shrubs. The applicant is proposing 66 of the 238 inches (or 103 if unhealthy trees are exempted) of required replacement tree. However, the applicant is proposing 363 shrubs, substantially more than required by code. Both the City and Elm Creek Watershed recommend that the applicant reduce the density of plantings. This could be accomplished by reducing the amount of removal (thus reducing required replacement) or by a payment to the environment fund in-lieu of planting on-site. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council review the requests in the following order: 1) Hardcover Variance; 2) Site Plan Review. Variance According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the following criteria when reviewing a variance request: “Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances. (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The applicant argues that the location of a commercial property along Elm Creek and at a major intersection in the City is unique and justifies a variance. The City did approve a variance for 50% hardcover on the site to the west of Sioux Drive, but the previous approval does not create precedent, as each variance is to be reviewed on its own. The proposed commercial use is Aldi Page 4 of 5 May 12, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting permitted in the district and even a variance to 50% is significantly below the amount of hardcover which is permitted on other commercial property. Staff believes the development would be similar to the development to the west of Sioux Drive, thus not altering the essential character of the locality. If the City approves the variance, staff would recommend a condition that additional stormwater treatment or streambank restoration is provided. Staff believes the proposed vegetation removal is an important consideration when considering the variance. With a more reasonable trimming and removal plan and enhanced stormwater and streambank restoration, staff believes it is reasonable to argue that the variance criteria are met. Site Plan Review The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed construction for consistency with City regulations. Obviously, in this case, the proposed construction exceeds hardcover requirements. If the City Council does not grant approval of the variance, the Site Plan Review cannot be approved. If the Council approves the variance, it appears that other relevant regulations would be met. The City “may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located.” The City has a fair amount of discretion when reviewing requests for variances. In fact, a variance should only be granted if the City finds that the criteria have been met. Generally, the City has a low level of discretion when reviewing on site plan applications. Staff Recommendation Staff believes the outstanding question remains whether the proposed tree removal adjacent to Elm Creek constitutes ‘intensive vegetation removal’ and is therefore not consistent with the Shoreland Overlay District (and undercuts whether the proposed use is “reasonable” for the sake of the variance). Staff recommends that the applicant again adjust the landscaping plan to preserve some of the Ash Trees and healthiest Boxelder trees. With that adjustment, and if the Planning Commission and Council afterward find that the variance criteria are met, staff would recommend that the following conditions be considered: 1) The applicant shall construct the improvements as displayed on the plans received by the City 4/28/2015, except as modified herein. 2) The applicant shall update tree removal and landscaping plans as follows: a. The landscaping plan shall be updated to preserve the Ash trees and some of the healthiest Boxelder trees. b. The applicant shall also meet the other recommendations of the City’s landscape architect. c. Landscaping shall be provided to screen the proposed transformer location. 3) The applicant shall update plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to provide stormwater management and/or streambank stabilization in excess of minimum City standards in order to mitigate for the hardcover permitted in excess of 25% allowed in the Shoreland Overlay District. Aldi Page 5 of 5 May 12, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 4) The applicant shall construct a left turn lane into the access drive or enter into a petition and waiver to pay for the cost of the City to construct such improvements in connection with other improvements to Sioux Drive. 5) The applicant shall update plans consistent with the comments of the City’s transportation engineer to improve truck turning movements and to ensure the lanes of the proposed access drive line up with the lanes of Westfalen Trail. 6) Upland buffers shall be established fully around all wetland areas, including required vegetation, signage and easements. 7) Plans shall be updated so that stormwater improvements are not located in the right-of-way. 8) Proposed concrete masonry units shall be decorative in nature consistent with the standards of Commercial Zoning Districts. 9) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer dated 4/6/2015. 10) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals, including but not limited to Elm Creek Watershed, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Health, and other relevant agencies. 11) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the site plan and other relevant documents. Attachments 1) List of documents submitted 2) City Engineer Comments dated 5/4/2015 and 5/7/2015 3) Staff report from 4/14/2015 Commission meeting 4) Applicant letter re: tree removal 5) Applicant Narratives 6) Plans received by the City 4/28/2015 Project: LR‐15‐157 – Aldi Site Plan and Variance The following documents constitute the complete 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 Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 3/13/2015 3/13/20153 Application Y Fee 3/13/2015 3/10/20151 Fee Y $7000 Mailing Labels 3/13/2015 3/2/2015 7 Labels Y Variance Narrative 3/13/2015 3/12/20152 Variance Narrative Y Site Plan Narrative 3/13/2015 3/12/20152 Site Plan Narrative Y Plans 3/13/2015 3/13/201515 Plans Y Updated Landscape Plan 3/25/2015 3/24/20151 Landscape Plan 3‐25‐2015 Y Traffic Report 3/13/2015 3/13/2015105 Traffic Report Y Site Plan Checklist 3/13/2015 3 Site Plan Checklist Y Variance Checklist 3/13/2015 4 Variance Checklist Y Stormwater Management Plan 3/13/2015 3/12/2015310 Stormwater Y Plans – Updated 3‐31‐2015 3/31/2015 3/31/201520 Plans – 3‐31‐2015 N Plans – Updated 4/28/2015 4/28/2015 4/28/201524 Plans – 4‐28‐2015 N landscaping update 5/5/2015 Geotech information 3/31/2015 3/20/201550 Geotech N Engineer Response 3/30/2015 3/30/20159 Eng Response – 3‐30‐2015 N Mech Screening /Light Specs 3/30/2015 11 MechScreenLightSpecs N Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Elm Creek Comments 3/18/2015 4 Elm Creek – 3‐18‐2015 Elm Creek Comments 4/6/2015 5 Elm Creek – 4‐6‐2015 Engineering Comments 3/26/2015 8 Engineering – 03‐26‐2015 Includes stormwater, ESC, traffic Engineer Comments 4/6/2015 8 Engineering – 04‐06‐2015 Includes storm, ESC, traffic (4/9/2015) Engineer Comments 5/4/2015 3 Engineering – 5‐4‐2015 Includes stormwater comments Police Comments None Fire Marshal/Building Official Comments 3/23/2015 1 Fire Marshal – 3‐23‐2015 Legal Comments 3/23/2015 1 Legal – 3‐23‐2015 Prelim Comments ‐ 120 day letter 3/27/2015 3 Prelim‐120day‐3‐27‐2015 Landscape Plan Comments 4/1/2015 2 Landscape – 4‐1‐2015 Landscape Plan Comments 5/7/2015 2 Landscape – 5‐7‐2015 Staff Report 4/9/2015 8 Staff Report – 4‐14‐2015 PC 27 pages with attachments (w/o plans) Public Comments Document Date # of pages Electronic Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes 4/14/2015 engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com C:\Users\jfeulner\Desktop\Aldi Landscape Review_050715.doc Memorandum To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer City of Medina From: Jeff Feulner, R.L.A. Landscape Architect WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: 5.7.15 Re: Aldi Landscape Plan Review City Project No. LR-15-157 WSB Project No. 02712-37 We have completed a review of the Landscape Plan for the Aldi development in Medina, MN, dated 5-5-15. The site is located east of Sioux Drive adjacent to Elm Creek. Documents provided for review include the following: Tree Inventory and Condition Assessment Report dated 5.4.15 Landscape Plan (L1.11) dated 5.5.15 Landscape Notes & Plant List (L1.12) dated 5.5.15 Tree Removal Plan (L2.11) dated 5.5.15 Elm Creek Bank Improvement Plan (L3.11) dated 5.5.15 These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s Tree Preservation and Replacement Ordinance. 1. Tree protection measures are not shown on plans for the existing trees to remain. 2. Tree inventory report identifies numerous healthy trees to be removed. Report states potential disease and pest issues for recommending removal. Replacement trees should be placed in similar locations throughout stream corridor to replicate the natural environment that is being replaced. 3. Removal of all Ash and Boxelder will cause adverse impacts to the property and Elm Creek. While there are valid disease and pest concerns with the existing species, the trees are currently healthy and provide habitat for animals, shade for the creek, soil stabilization by the root systems and stormwater capturing capabilities within the established tree canopy. A more responsible removal approach would be to phase the removals over a number of years, allowing the replacement species to become established and begin to provide similar site benefits prior to the removal of existing trees. Aldi 5.7.15 Page 2 C:\Users\jfeulner\Desktop\Aldi Landscape Review_050715.doc 4. Plant warranty noted on L1.12 in the General Notes is 1 year. City ordinance requires warranty for 2 growing seasons for all replacement trees. 5. Four of the proposed removals are within Mn/DOT ROW. Has this plan been reviewed by Mn/DOT officials regarding the removals? 6. Creek bank restoration should include a variety of species and sizes – including overstory trees. Creek bank improvement area includes primarily large shrubs. Plantings should be clustered in natural groupings, not just lined up along the stream edges. 7. Proposed replacement trees are placed very close together. Trees should be given adequate space to grow to maturity. Plant symbols should reflect mature trees sizes to ensure proper spacing. 8. Siouxland Cottonwood and Accolade Elm are non-native and not on the approved list of replacement trees in the ordinance. Natives or native cultivars must be used for replacement trees. engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 May 4, 2015 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: LR-15-157 ALDI Site Plan Review WSB Project No. 2712-370 Dear Dusty: We have reviewed the site plans dated April 28, 2015, for the proposed ALDI store located at 3522 Sioux Drive. The plans propose to construct utility and site improvements to serve a 17,825 square foot retail store. We have the following preliminary comments with regards to engineering matters. 1. The plans should specify cutting an 8” tee into the existing watermain rather than a wet tap. An 8” gate valve should be added just east of the tee. 2. The plans have addressed our previous comments dated April 6, 2015. 3. When final plans are submitted the applicant should provide a cost estimate (Excel format) for the site improvements, a landscaping cost estimate and an estimated cost for the irrigation system so that we can calculate the financial guarantee required. 4. Stormwater comments are attached. Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Tom Kellogg Attachment St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Memorandum To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer City of Medina From: Earth Evans, P.E. Water Resources Project Manager WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: 5.1.15 Re: Aldi Stormwater Management Plan Review City Project No. LR-15-157 WSB Project No. 2712-37 We have completed a preliminary review of the stormwater management plan for the Aldi development in Medina, MN. The site was previously reviewed on 4.6.15. The site is located east of Sioux Drive adjacent to Elm Creek. Documents provided for review include the following: • Stormwater Report dated 4.28.15 • Response to City comments • Grading and Utility Plans dated 4.28.15 These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual and general engineering practices for stormwater management. 1. A permit will be required from the DNR for work below the OHW of Elm Creek. 2. The east pipe P-16 directs concentrated flow to the adjacent property to the east. The EOF for filtration basin #2 is also routed through the adjacent property to the east. Routing concentrated flow and/or changing drainage conditions to adjacent property is not acceptable without receiving approval from the adjacent property owner or appropriate easements. 3. Pretreatment basin #1 volume should not be quantified as filtration volume towards meeting the City’s filtration requirement. St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02712-370\Admin\Docs\Aldi_Stormwater Comments 050115.doc Aldi 5.1.15 Page 2 4. The 42” perforated pipe pretreatment system upstream of basin #2 should not be quantified as filtration volume towards meeting the City’s filtration requirement as it is being utilized as pretreatment. 5. We recommend providing a 2’ sump below the invert of the proposed 42” CMP pipe. 6. There are concerns with maintenance of the 42” CMP pretreatment pipe. The roof runoff tributary to the pipe is fairly clean. However, the parking lot runoff and runoff from the adjacent property to the south are also tributary to the system. No pretreatment is provided upstream, which will tend to lead to clogging of the perforations in the pipe and rock bedding material. Vacuuming or jetting the system will likely lead to issues with the rock bed washing out. We recommend providing a different type of pretreatment upstream of filtration basin #2 due to these maintenance issues. 7. Grading on the property to the south will require a temporary easement. Future submittals should indicate how grading will be completed to allow for a proposed swale to the east (as noted on plan sheet C3.11) without impacting the adjacent property. 8. Runoff to Sioux Drive from the property should be incorporated into the model and must be less than or equal to existing conditions. We recommend 2 catch basins at the end radii of the entry road to take the site runoff into filtration basin #1. 9. The offsite parking lot and building to the south discharge to the site by sheet draining over the proposed loading dock access road before being collected in structure A-3. There are concerns with this design due to the potential for significant flow over the access road. We recommend adding storm structure(s) in the green space to the south of the access road to collect the offsite runoff. K:\02712-370\Admin\Docs\Aldi_Stormwater Comments 050115.doc Aldi Page 1 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: April 9, 2015 MEETING: April 14, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Aldi – Site Plan Review and Hardcover Variance – 3522 Sioux Drive Review Deadline Complete Application Received: March 13, 2015 Review Deadline: July 11, 2015 Summary of Request Aldi, Inc. proposes to construct a 17,825 square foot grocery store at the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Sioux Drive. The developed would require the following land use approvals in order to permit the construction proposed by the applicant: 1) Variance – the applicant requests a variance to exceed the maximum of 25% impervious surface permitted in the Shoreland Overlay district of Elm Creek. 2) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building. Although this staff report will generally describe the site plan review first for the sake of context, staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the variance request first, since the site plan review would be contingent upon the variance. The subject site currently contains the 2,670 square foot office building of Hedtke, Inc., a 1,765 square foot storage building, and a small parking lot. Much of the site is currently maintained as lawn. Elm Creek flows through the property from west to east, with many trees located on the steep slopes down to the creek. Highway 55 is located north of Elm Creek, railroad right-of-way is located to the south, and the Hamel Station commercial development is located to the west of Sioux Drive. An existing single-family home is located to the east, but the property is planned for commercial redevelopment. Uptown Hamel is located up Sioux Drive to the south. The subject site is zoned Commercial Highway-Railroad (CH-RR), the same as the property to the west of Sioux Drive. The City rezoned the property from Uptown Hamel-2 to CH-RR in 2013 at the request of the property owner. The property to the east is zoned Uptown Hamel-2. An aerial of the subject site and surrounding area can be found at the top of the following page. Site Plan Review Section 825.55 requires Site Plan Review approval prior to issuance of permits for new commercial developments to determine whether it is consistent with relevant requirements. Proposed Use Retail uses are listed as a permitted use in the CH-RR zoning district. Aldi Page 2 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Setbacks/Lot Dimensions Following is a summary of the proposed construction compared to the requirements of the CH-RR zoning district and shoreland overlay district: CH-RR Requirement Proposed Minimum Lot Area 1 acre 3.26 acres Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 380 feet Minimum Lot Depth 120 feet 380 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 165 feet Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 15 feet 45 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 33 feet Street Setback (collector) 35 feet 165 feet Railroad Setback Zero, except as necessary for safety, fire access, or utilities Zero Setback from Residential 50 feet N/A Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard Rear/Interior Side Yards Residential 25 feet 10 feet 40 feet 25 feet 10 feet N/A Maximum Impervious Surface 25% (Shoreland Overlay) 50% Aldi Page 3 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Wetlands/Floodplain/Shoreland Elm Creek flows through the northern portion of the subject property, which has implications for the City’s wetland, floodplain and shoreland regulations. A wetland on the adjacent property to the east also extends into the southeastern corner of this site. The applicant has requested a de minimus exemption to fill 195 square feet of this wetland. This request is under review and is exempt from replacement requirements if it meets certain requirements of state rules. Elm Creek Watershed requires a vegetative buffer along Elm Creek. Their standards exceed the City’s wetland buffer requirements along the Creek. The floodplain along Elm Creek extends to elevation 962, and is located within Elm Creek’s buffer, so there are no impacts. The improvements on the site are located around elevation 978. The Shoreland Overlay District requires the following standards for property within 300 feet of streams: • 50 foot structure and parking setback: The structure is setback 105 feet from the stream and parking is proposed to be setback 50 feet. • 25% impervious surface maximum. The applicant has requested a variance to allow up to 50% of the site to contain impervious surfaces. This will be discussed more in-depth later in the report. • Lowest level of the building shall be three feet above the ordinary high water level. The proposed structure is over 10 feet above the high water level. • “Shoreland Alteration - Alteration of vegetation or topography shall be regulated to prevent soil erosion, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic sites, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and individual sewage treatment systems or for the construction of roads and parking areas shall be exempt from the vegetation alteration standards of this subdivision. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses, is allowed, subject to the following standards: o Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone shall not allowed. o In the shore impact zone, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees shall be allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of permitted accessory structures or facilities, provided that: (1) the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (2) along tributary streams, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and (3) the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards.” The applicant proposes to remove almost every tree along Elm Creek and replace them with shrubs and lower understory trees. The applicant seeks to maximize visibility for their proposed building. Staff believes the removal of every tree is clearly “intensive vegetation clearing,” which is explicitly prohibited by the ordinance. Even a very exhaustive replacement plan could meet the shading and erosion control benefits of all of the existing trees. The fact that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit more hardcover on the site further supports the importance of maintaining the integrity of the streambank. Aldi Page 4 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Staff understands the applicant’s desire to have visibility for the store, and does not oppose limited and strategic trimming and removal, but staff believes what is proposed is clearly intensive and not consistent with code. Staff believes options could be discussed with signage (perhaps a variance to allow a taller sign which could extend above the vegetation), limited removal, and streambank restoration Stormwater/LID The applicant proposes two filtration basins to meet the City’s and Elm Creek’s stormwater requirements. The City Engineer has provided comments which the applicant will need to address. Building Materials The proposed structure is largely modular brick and split-face concrete masonry units. Commercial districts require a minimum of 30% of the exterior materials to be brick, stone, stucco, or glass. The code allows a maximum of 20% to be wood, metal, or hardiboard siding and a maximum of 70% “decorative concrete...color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and…patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.” The proposed materials are 50% modular brick, 4% glass, 16% metal, 2% doors and 28% concrete. Provided the proposed concrete meets the decorative standards of the ordinance, the materials would be consistent with requirements. The applicant will provide material samples at the Commission meeting. Building Modulation/Fenestration/Multi-sided Architecture Commercial districts require that “buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet of building perimeter to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building materials/design.” The building is approximately 147’x140’, requiring 4 aspects of modulation on each frontage. The northern and western elevations provide more vertical and material differentiation. The loading dock provides horizontal modulation to the northern, southern, and eastern elevations. The southern and eastern elevations alternate between brick and concrete, but vertical modulation is provided only by mechanical screens on the roof and the rear of the parapet. Commercial districts require that “building elevations which face a public street shall include generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the city when windows are not practical.” Commercial districts require that “any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street, an interior access drive for the development, or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s) shall be compatible with the front building elevation.” In this case, the northern and eastern elevations face streets. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether the modulation, fenestration, and multi-sided architecture is sufficient. Aldi Page 5 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Tree Preservation/Landscaping As noted above, the applicant proposes to remove almost every tree along Elm Creek. In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the trees that are located to the east of the proposed building. The tree preservation ordinance would allow 15% of the trees on the site to be removed for “initial site development” and an additional 15% for remaining site development. There are 57 live significant trees on the site. It appears that 5 of the trees are removed for initial site development, which would be under the 15% allowance. The applicant could remove an additional 8 of the trees without replacement. The applicant proposes to remove 79% of the trees on the site, which would require a total of 334 inches of replacement trees. Landscaping requirements are based upon the lot perimeter, including: 1) 1 overstory tree per 50 feet of perimeter 2) 1 ornamental tree per 100 feet of perimeter 3) 1 shrub per 30 feet of perimeter The subject site is approximately 1710 feet in perimeter, requiring 34 overstory trees, 17 ornamental trees, and 57 shrubs. It appears that the shrub requirement would be met, but not the tree planting requirement. Existing preserved trees can be counted as landscaping, so staff recommends that the applicant reevaluate the landscaping plan after reducing the intensive removal of trees along Elm Creek. Commercial district standards require landscaping to occupy a minimum of 8% of the parking lot and loading dock area. Staff calculates that 8.3% of the proposed parking lot and loading dock area is landscaping. Comments from a landscape architect in the City Engineer’s office raised a number of concerns with the proposed landscaping plan. Staff recommends that these be addressed in the updated tree removal/landscaping plan as well. Transportation The applicant proposes an access drive onto Sioux Drive, roughly across from existing Westfalen Trail. The access includes a single lane into the site and two lanes exiting the site. The City Engineer has recommended a number of improvements to this access drive. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis which has been reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicant concludes that no improvements are necessary to Sioux Drive to support the proposed development, but the City Engineer disagrees. The City Engineer recommends a left turn lane on Sioux Drive into the site so that traffic entering the site can do so safely, especially if traffic is backed up at the Highway 55 stop light. Staff recommends that construction of this turn lane be included as a condition of approval. The development to the west of Sioux Drive entered into a petition and waiver for construction of a left-turn lane onto Westfalen Trail. The most efficient means of construction is most likely for Aldi to also enter into a petition and waiver and for the City to construct both turn lanes as a single project. The applicant’s site design provides an access drive to the eastern property line. The applicant has stated that they are open to providing an easement to the property owner to the east to provide to Sioux Drive. Staff believes that this easement would provide flexibility to access the Aldi Page 6 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting eastern site for west bound traffic, since there is a median in Highway 55. It would also provide an opportunity to discuss access upon the ultimate redevelopment of the eastern property, with the possibility of benefitting Highway 55 by removing a direct access to the highway for the future use. It should be noted that extending this access to the eastern property would require some wetland impacts, as there is a wetland immediately to the east of the Aldi site. Off-Street Parking The City would require a minimum of 72 parking spaces (1 per 250 gross square feet of retail space). The applicant proposes 80 parking stalls. Sewer/Water The applicant proposes to connect to the utilities to existing improvements in Sioux Drive. The applicant proposes to extend a watermain to the property to the east to support that ultimate redevelopment. Loading Dock Commercial districts regulations state that “no loading dock shall encroach into the required setbacks for the front yard or a side yard adjacent to a street. Loading docks shall be located, and landscaping shall be utilized so as to minimize visibility from streets,” and that “no loading dock shall be visible, to the fullest extent possible, from any residential zoning district.” Staff believes the location of the proposed loading dock on the east of the building meets this requirement very well. Utilities/Mechanical Equipment/Trash and Recycling Commercial districts require that utilities be located under ground and that transformers by screened. The applicant proposes to relocate existing electrical lines underground. Staff recommends a condition improving the landscaping adjacent to the proposed transformer. The applicant proposes rooftop mechanical equipment to be screened with metal wall units. An example of these screens is included with the applicant’s narrative. Commercial districts require “equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials which are compatible with the overall design of the building.” Staff calculated the metal walls as part of the overall exterior materials. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to discuss if the proposed screening is compatible with the overall design. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council review the requests in the following order: 1) Hardcover Variance; 2) Site Plan Review. Variance According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the following criteria when reviewing a variance request: “Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances. (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Aldi Page 7 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The applicant argues that the location of a commercial property along Elm Creek and at a major intersection in the City is unique and justifies a variance. The City did approve a variance for 50% hardcover on the site to the west of Sioux Drive, but the previous approval does not create precedent, as each variance is to be reviewed on its own. The proposed commercial use is permitted in the district and even a variance to 50% is significantly below the amount of hardcover which is permitted on other commercial property. Staff believes the development would be similar to the development to the west of Sioux Drive, thus not altering the essential character of the locality. If the City approves the variance, staff would recommend a condition that additional stormwater treatment or streambank restoration is provided. Staff believes the intensive vegetation removal proposed by the applicant severely undercuts the justification for the variance. With a more reasonable trimming and removal plan and enhanced stormwater and streambank restoration, staff believes it is reasonable to argue that the variance criteria are met. Site Plan Review The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed construction for consistency with City regulations. Obviously, in this case, the proposed construction exceeds hardcover requirements. If the City Council does not grant approval of the variance, the Site Plan Review cannot be approved. If the Council approves the variance, it appears that other relevant regulations would be met. The City “may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located.” The City has a fair amount of discretion when reviewing requests for variances. In fact, a variance should only be granted if the City finds that the criteria have been met. Generally, the City has a low level of discretion when reviewing on site plan applications. If the request is consistent with City regulations, it should be approved. In this case, the parking addition does not meet setback requirements without a variance. Therefore, if the variance is not granted, the Site Plan Review should not be approved. Aldi Page 8 of 8 April 14, 2015 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation As noted above, staff believes the intensive removal of vegetation along Elm Creek is inconsistent with the Shoreland Overlay District standards and shows that the applicant does not propose to put the property to a reasonable use. If the applicant does not update the landscaping plan to preserve much of the vegetation, staff would not recommend approval of the variance and, therefore, also the Site Plan Review. If the applicant updates their plans consistent with Shoreland Overlay District standards and the Planning Commission and Council afterward find that the variance criteria are met, staff would recommend that the following conditions be considered: 1) The applicant shall construct the improvements as displayed on the plans received by the City 3/30/2015, except as modified herein. 2) The applicant shall update tree removal and landscaping plans as follows: a. Vegetation removal proposed in the shore impact zone shall be significantly decreased. b. Tree replacement plans shall provide for overstory replacement trees rather than the ornamental species proposed. c. The applicant shall also meet the other recommendations of the City’s landscape architect. d. Landscaping shall be provided to screen the proposed transformer location. 3) The applicant shall update plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to provide stormwater management and/or streambank stabilization in excess of minimum City standards in order to mitigate for the hardcover permitted in excess of 25% allowed in the Shoreland Overlay District. 4) The applicant shall construct a left turn lane into the access drive or enter into a petition and waiver to pay for the cost of the City to construct such improvements in connection with other improvements to Sioux Drive. 5) The applicant shall update plans consistent with the comments of the City’s transportation engineer to improve truck turning movements and to ensure the lanes of the proposed access drive line up with the lanes of Westfalen Trail. 6) Upland buffers shall be established fully around all wetland areas, including required vegetation, signage and easements. 7) Plans shall be updated so that stormwater improvements are not located in the right-of-way. 8) Proposed concrete masonry units shall be decorative in nature consistent with the standards of Commercial Zoning Districts. 9) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer dated 4/6/2015. 10) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals, including but not limited to Elm Creek Watershed, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Health, and other relevant agencies. 11) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the site plan and other relevant documents. Attachments 1) List of documents submitted 2) City Engineer Comments dated 4/6/2015, 3/31/2015 and 4/9/2015 3) Applicant Narratives 4) Equipment Screening Details 5) Plans received by the City 3/30/2015 May 4, 2015 Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission 3235 Fernbrook Lane N. Plymouth, MN 55447 Re: Tree Inventory and Condition Assessment at Future Aldi Location, City of Medina Commissioners: On behalf of Aldi Inc., a tree inventory and assessment of tree conditions was conducted on the proposed Aldi site in Medina, MN to provide recommendations for removal and preservation. The site was visited on February 2nd and April 23rd, 2015 to inventory and visually inspect and assess all trees on the parcel for health and condition. Methods The Medina City Code defines a "Significant Tree" as a healthy, deciduous Tree, measuring eight (8) inches in diameter or greater, or a healthy coniferous Tree, measuring four (4) inches or greater in Diameter. Each significant tree species was identified, size documented, condition assessed, and location GPS’d. Visual conditions of cracking, bark peeling, excess woodpecker damage, dead large branches, root girdling/exposure, rot, fungus, included bark, and considerable irregular symmetry was documented. Two or more of these conditions classified the individual tree as poor condition. Findings The riparian area of Elm Creek located on the northern edge of the property consisted primarily of green ash and boxelder trees. The shrub understory consists of buckthorn, honeysuckle and gooseberry species. A total of 68 significant trees were documented on the parcel. See enclosed Table 1. Tree Inventory and Assessment for more details. Recommendation 39 trees are recommended for removal, 22 are recommended to be pruned and 7 are in good condition. This recommendation is based on removing those trees that are in poor condition and/or pose a potential hazard. Due to the presence of emerald ash borer in Hennepin County, all ash trees on site could be removed in anticipation for the spread and expected destruction of ash trees. Boxelder trees are known for being short lived, with poor form and having brittle branches. The species are also susceptible to a wide range of diseases and insect pests making it an undesirable species for urban settings. Many of the boxelder on site have co-dominant stems and included bark, which make them structurally weak and susceptible for failure. Many are also growing from the toe of the stream bank and have exposed roots due to bank erosion. These trees were recommended for removal due to expected failure and to allow for establishment of species that will aid in the stability of the creek bank. Please feel free to contact me at 507.387.6651 or bridgett.winkels@is-grp.com if you need further clarification or additional information. Regards, Bridgett M. Winkels, Environmental Scientist ISA Certified Arborist® MN-4595A Table 1. Tree Inventory and Assessment. Tree Tag Number DBH (inches)Condition Recommendation Assessment Notes 1 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12 Healthy Remove Good in general - needs pruning if kept 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 13 Healthy Remove Slight lean toward creek and road - Good in general - needs pruning if kept 3 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune Remove dead branches and prune out poor branches 4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 Poor Remove Poor quality 5 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Remove Growing from bank, many dead branches 6 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12 Poor Remove Poor quality 7 Boxelder Acer negundo 16 Healthy Remove Growing from bank, co-dominant stem 8 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Poor Remove Poor quality, bank eroding exposed roots, river grape in area 9 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune Good quality, prune out many damaged branches 10 Boxelder Acer negundo 8 Dead Remove Dead 11 Boxelder Acer negundo 14 Healthy Remove Growing from bank, strong lean, co-dominant stems - potential for issues 12 Boxelder Acer negundo 8 Poor Remove Poor quality, Growing from bank 13 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune Heavy pruning needed to remove dead branches 14 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune Heavy pruning needed to remove dead branches 15 Boxelder Acer negundo 11 Poor Remove Large canker from previous damage, dead tree fallen onto, river grape taking over 16 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Prune 17 Boxelder Acer negundo 17 Healthy Prune Strong lean toward south hill 18 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Remove Needs heavy pruning if kept 19 Boxelder Acer negundo 27 Healthy Remove Co-dominant stems with possible included bark - potential for failure 20 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Remove Strong lean toward creek (North). Heavily prune needed if kept 21 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune Leaning toward south hill. Needs lots of pruning 22 Boxelder Acer negundo 15 Healthy Remove Co-dominant stems with possible included bark - potential for failure 23 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Remove Co-dominant stems with possible included bark - potential for failure 24 Boxelder Acer negundo 11 Poor Remove Rot and heavy woodpecker activity 25 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Prune Co-dominant stems with possible included bark - potential for failure 26 Boxelder Acer negundo 8 Healthy Prune Remove dead branches and prune out poor branches 27 American Elm Ulmus americana 9 Dead Remove Dead 28 American Elm Ulmus americana 12 Dead Remove Dead 29 Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana 9 Healthy Good Inspect further after dead trees are removed 30 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune Co-dominant stems with possible included bark - potential for failure 31 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 4 Healthy Good Prune as needed 32 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Poor Remove Poor quality 33 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 Poor Remove Poor quality 34 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune 35 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 Healthy Remove Good form but could be removed due to EAB threat 36 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 9 Healthy Good Possibly some pruning 37 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 Poor Remove Ash - poor condition 38 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 9 Healthy Good Possibly some pruning 39 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 16 Healthy Good Co-dominant stems - potential for failure in future 40 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Healthy Remove Ash, growing out of bank 41 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 18 Healthy Good Prune if needed 42 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 12 Healthy Prune Prune, near ROW 43 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Prune Second trunk could fail 44 Boxelder Acer negundo 14 Poor Remove Cracks in trunk and other dead branches 45 American Elm Ulmus americana 25 Healthy Remove Co-dominant stem, included bark - potential failure 46 Boxelder Acer negundo 13 Poor Remove Major branch dead 47 American Elm Ulmus americana 9 Poor Remove Poor condition 48 American Elm Ulmus americana 9 Healthy Prune Investigate further after leaf out to determine condition 49 American Elm Ulmus americana 16 Healthy Prune Prune out dead branched 50 Boxelder Acer negundo 21 Healthy Remove Included bark, heavy woodpecker activity 51 American Elm Ulmus americana 21 Healthy Remove Potential for future failure, co-dominant stems, prune if kept Species Table 1. Tree Inventory and Assessment. Tree Tag Number DBH (inches)Condition Recommendation Assessment Notes 52 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Poor Remove Multiple stems with some rot 53 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18 Healthy Remove Near bank, lots of river grape covering tree 54 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Poor Remove Dead or poor health 55 Colorado Blue Spruce Picea pungens 10 Healthy Good Near sign in grassed area 56 Boxelder Acer negundo 19 Healthy Remove Prune if kept 57 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune Co-dominant stems 58 Boxelder Acer negundo 13 Healthy Prune 59 American Elm Ulmus americana 4 Dead Remove Dead 60 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune 61 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 17 Healthy Prune ROW 1 American Elm Ulmus americana Not Taken Healthy Remove Elm leaning toward road removal ROW 2 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Not Taken Healthy Remove Ash removal ROW 3 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Not Taken Healthy Prune Cottonwood trim possible included bark ROW 4 Boxelder Acer negundo Not Taken Poor Remove Boxelder w/rot removal ROW 5 Boxelder Acer negundo Not Taken Healthy Prune Boxelder prune ROW 6 Boxelder Acer negundo Not Taken Healthy Remove 8 smaller boxelder in bank ROW 7 Boxelder Acer negundo Not Taken Healthy Prune Boxelder heavy trim needed Species !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 12 9 876 5 4 3 2 1 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 3938 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 2322 21 201918 17 1615 14 13 11 10 ROW 7ROW 6 ROW 5 ROW 4 ROW 3 ROW 2 ROW 1 Souix DrßߪATOSENNIM55 ßߪATOSENNIM55 Future ALDITree Assessment MapScale: Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota PN: 14-16408Source: 2013 Orthophotograph 0 60Feet F1 inch = 60 feet Legend:DATE: 4/29/2015 Z:\16000 PROJ\16400-16499\16408 ALDI - Medina MN\16408 NR\Medina Tree Inventory\Tree Hazard Assessment\16408 Tree Assessment Map.mxdTree Assessment !(Good !(Prune !(Remove Investigation Boundary Tree Tag Number DBH inches Condition Recommendation 1 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12 Healthy Remove 2 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 13 Healthy Remove 3 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune 4 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 Poor Remove 5 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Remove 6 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12 Poor Remove 7 Boxelder Acer negundo 16 Healthy Remove 8 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Poor Remove 9 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune 10 Boxelder Acer negundo 8 Dead Remove 11 Boxelder Acer negundo 14 Healthy Remove 12 Boxelder Acer negundo 8 Poor Remove 13 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune 14 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune 15 Boxelder Acer negundo 11 Poor Remove 16 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Prune 17 Boxelder Acer negundo 17 Healthy Prune 18 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Remove 19 Boxelder Acer negundo 27 Healthy Remove 20 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Remove 21 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune 22 Boxelder Acer negundo 15 Healthy Remove 23 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Remove 24 Boxelder Acer negundo 11 Poor Remove 25 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Prune 26 Boxelder Acer negundo 8 Healthy Prune 27 American Elm Ulmus americana 9 Dead Remove 28 American Elm Ulmus americana 12 Dead Remove 29 Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana 9 Healthy Good 30 Boxelder Acer negundo 9 Healthy Prune 31 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 4 Healthy Good 32 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Poor Remove 33 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 Poor Remove 34 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune 35 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 Healthy Remove 36 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 9 Healthy Good 37 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 Poor Remove 38 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 9 Healthy Good 39 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 16 Healthy Good 40 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Healthy Remove 41 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 18 Healthy Good 42 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 12 Healthy Prune 43 Boxelder Acer negundo 12 Healthy Prune 44 Boxelder Acer negundo 14 Poor Remove 45 American Elm Ulmus americana 25 Healthy Remove 46 Boxelder Acer negundo 13 Poor Remove 47 American Elm Ulmus americana 9 Poor Remove 48 American Elm Ulmus americana 9 Healthy Prune 49 American Elm Ulmus americana 16 Healthy Prune 50 Boxelder Acer negundo 21 Healthy Remove 51 American Elm Ulmus americana 21 Healthy Remove 52 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Poor Remove 53 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18 Healthy Remove 54 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Poor Remove 55 Colorado Blue Spruce Picea pungens 10 Healthy Good 56 Boxelder Acer negundo 19 Healthy Remove 57 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune 58 Boxelder Acer negundo 13 Healthy Prune 59 American Elm Ulmus americana 4 Dead Remove 60 Boxelder Acer negundo 10 Healthy Prune 61 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 17 Healthy Prune ROW 1 American Elm Ulmus americana ----Healthy Remove ROW 2 Gree n Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica ----Healthy Remove ROW 3 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides ----Healthy Prune ROW 4 Boxelder Acer negundo ----Poor Remove ROW 5 Boxelder Acer negundo ----Healthy Prune ROW 6 Boxelder Acer negundo ----Healthy Remove ROW 7 Boxelder Acer negundo ----Healthy Prune Species March 12, 2015 Dusty Finke City Planner Planning Department City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE:ALDI, Inc. Project Description and Zoning Variance Application Narrative Medina, Minnesota Dusty: Please consider the following project description narrative during the review process for the attached Zoning Variance Application. All supplemental information required for the zoning variance review process has also been attached to provide a comprehensive review. The zoning variance application and supplemental information are being submitted as part of a request to allow redevelopment of an existing commercial site to accommodate a new 17,825 square foot ALDI Grocery Store as well as associated parking lot, drive aisles, stormwater facilities, and utilities. The proposed facility will also include a 714 square foot canopy at the front of the building (east side) as well as a loading dock to accept delivery of goods at the rear (west side) of the building. The proposed project is located at 3522 Sioux Drive in Medina, Minnesota. The site is described as Section 12 T118N R23W (PID 1211823410069) and is comprised of approximately 3.264 acres. The site is bordered by Elm Creek to the northeast and a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railroad to the south. The site is served by an existing access and utilities from Sioux Drive, which borders the west side of the site. The property is currently zoned as CH-RR: Commercial Highway-Railroad District with Shoreland Overlay. Grocery stores are provided as a permitted use within this district. While no zoning modifications will be required to facilitate the proposed project, a variance is being requested based on the proposed increase of impervious surface necessary to facilitate redevelopment of this site. Based on the Shoreland Overlay restrictions, impervious surfacing is limited to 25% of the total site area. A variance is required to increase the allowable impervious to 50% in order to accommodate the proposed site redevelopment and make productive and appealing use of a currently underutilized commercial lot. The variance requested is the minimum application required to alleviate the adverse development condition. Site area calculations performed as part of the site design process confirmed an increase of approximately 1.22 acres of impervious surface to accommodate the proposed site redevelopment. The existing impervious area totals 0.41 acres which equates to 12.6% of the existing site. The proposed increase will result in a total of 1.56 impervious acres or 47.8% of the existing site. This increase is necessary in order to accommodate the proposed loading dock, which is vital for delivery of goods and produce to the grocery store, and to facilitate adequate parking in accordance with City of Medina ordinances. The proposed open area is still well within the requirements at 1.70 acres or 52.2% of the total site. To mitigate any potential impacts created by adding impervious surfacing, two new infiltration basins are also proposed to manage stormwater runoff created by the development of the ALDI site. These infiltration basins will be constructed on the northwest and southeast sides of the site as illustrated by the attached supplemental information. Stormwater from the west portion of the site will be directed to the corresponding northwest basin and stormwater from the east portion will drain toward the southeast basin. Stormwater will be treated by the respective infiltration basins and eventually overflow into the adjacent ditchway and into Elm Creek. ALDI, Inc. Project Description and Zoning Variance Application Narrative Medina, Minnesota March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 2 ALDI is also proposing to construct two retaining walls on the property to mitigate impacts of a proposed increase in imperious surfacing to the site. One retaining wall is proposed on the north side of the site, running parallel with Elm Creek. A second retaining wall would be constructed on the northeast side of the site to control and appropriately direct drainage in the vicinity of the new loading dock. Other adjacent properties have been granted variances to mitigate similar conditions and allow performance of ordinary operations afforded to other similarly situated tenants of like businesses. This request would allow application of the same ordinary opportunities to the subject parcel. Further, the site conditions present are not related to any actions of the applicant. Rather they are existing adverse geographic and topographic elements to the property that would be considered limiting to nearly any potential tenant. Particularly limiting factors include the proximity of Elm Creek and the associated buffer setback from Elm Creek as well as the Met Council Sanitary Sewer Easement which runs along the north and east sides of the property. The variance will not be materially or otherwise detrimental to the purposes of the Medina Zoning Ordinance or to other properties within the same zone. The proposed project will not create any negative impacts to the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or the general public. Due to the traffic already generated by neighboring commercial properties, traffic volume within the area is not anticipated to increase dramatically due to the development of the ALDI site. In addition, the redeveloped lot will provide adequate parking per City of Medina requirements; therefore, no negative impacts are anticipated. No pollution, negative impacts to the environment, or effects on existing waterways or the capacity of flood plains are anticipated as a result of this project. It should be noted that in addition to this Zoning Variance Application, a request has also been submitted to the Elm Creek Watershed District for approval of the proposed site redevelopment and associated new site plan. No special privileges will be result from approval of the variance. Instead, granting the requested variance will only afford this property the same rights and opportunities enjoyed by other similarly situated neighboring properties. Approval of this project will provide a complementary use and an added amenity to the area within an existing development district. It is consistent with pertinent orderly development guidelines, and all applicable local ordinances and regulations affecting redevelopment of this property have been considered and adhered to during the design process. This project is an appropriate land use within the district and meets adequate setbacks and parking requirements for the proposed use. These considerations along with the supplemental information provided within this submittal support approval the attached Zoning Variance Application. Please contact me at 507.331.1500 if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this request on behalf of ALDI, Inc. Respectfully Submitted, Andrew T. Brandel, PE Associate Principal, Engineer Civil Engineering Group ATB/saw March 12, 2015 Dusty Finke City Planner Planning Department City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE:ALDI, Inc. Project Description and Site Application Narrative Medina, Minnesota Dusty: Please consider the following project description narrative during the review process for the attached Site Plan Application. All supplemental information required for the site plan review process has also been attached to provide a comprehensive review. The site plan review application and supplemental information are being submitted as part of a request to allow redevelopment of an existing commercial site to accommodate a new 17,825 square foot ALDI Grocery Store as well as associated parking lot, drive aisles, stormwater facilities, and utilities. The proposed facility will also include a 714 square foot canopy at the front of the building (east side) as well as a loading dock to accept delivery of goods at the rear (west side) of the building. The proposed project is located at 3522 Sioux Drive in Medina, Minnesota. The site is described as Section 12 T118N R23W (PID 1211823410069) and is comprised of approximately 3.264 acres. The property is currently zoned as CH-RR: Commercial Highway-Railroad District with Shoreland Overlay. Grocery stores are provided as a permitted use within this district, and no zoning modifications will be required to facilitate the proposed project. The site is bordered by Elm Creek to the northeast and a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railroad to the south. The site is served by an existing access and utilities from Sioux Drive, which borders the west side of the site. The following figures describe the anticipated public utility usage generated by the redeveloped site, including estimated water and sanitary sewer usage: PROPOSED SITE USAGES PROPOSED SITE UTILITY USAGES TYPE SF % OF SITE TYPE MONTHLY YEARLY RETAIL 18,539 13.0%DOMESTIC WATER 4,500 GALLONS 54,000 GALLONS PARKING/ACCESS 49,419 34.8%SANITARY 4,500 GALLONS 54,000 GALLONS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 8,240 5.8% LANDSCAPING/OPEN SPACE 66,002 46.4% TOTAL SITE 142,200 100.0% Site work for this project will include (but not be limited to) grading, paving, landscaping, lighting, and extension of existing curb and gutter, water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer as well as other general site work as needed to complete construction. Demolition and removal of two underutilized and outdated, existing buildings will also be required. In addition, the proposed project will construct a retaining wall on the north side of the site, running parallel with Elm Creek, as well as the northeast side of the site to control and appropriately direct drainage in the vicinity of the new loading dock. ALDI, Inc. Project Description and Site Plan Application Narrative Medina, Minnesota March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Two new infiltration basins are also proposed to manage stormwater runoff created by the development of the ALDI site. These infiltration basins will be constructed on the northwest and southeast sides of the site as illustrated by the attached supplemental information. Stormwater from the west portion of the site will be directed to the corresponding northwest basin and stormwater from the east portion will drain toward the southeast basin. Stormwater will be treated by the respective infiltration basins and eventually overflow into the adjacent ditchway and into Elm Creek. In addition to this Site Plan Review Application, a request has also been submitted to the Elm Creek Watershed District for approval of the proposed site redevelopment and associated new site plan. Approval of this project will provide a complementary use and an added amenity to the area within an existing development district. It is consistent with pertinent orderly development guidelines, and all applicable local ordinances and regulations affecting development of this property have been considered and adhered to during the design process. This project is an appropriate land use within the district and meets adequate setbacks and parking requirements for the proposed use. These considerations along with the supplemental information provided within this submittal support approval the attached Site Plan Application. Please contact me at 507.331.1500 if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this request on behalf of ALDI, Inc. Respectfully Submitted, Andrew T. Brandel, PE Associate Principal, Engineer Civil Engineering Group ATB/saw Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative Page 1 of 5 May 12, 2015 Ground mounted solar CUP Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: May 4, 2015 MEETING: May 12, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Wright-Hennepin–CUP for Solar Panels–4315 Willow Dr. – Public Hearing Review Deadline Application Received: April 10, 2015 60-day Review Deadline: June 9, 2015 Overview of Request Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative has requested a Conditional Use Permit to construct a ground mounted solar array at its property at 4315 Willow Drive. The subject property contains an existing electric substation and accessory uses including backup generators. Business development exists to the north and east. The remaining surrounding property is currently farmed but planned for future Business development. An aerial of the site can be found below. Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative Page 2 of 5 May 12, 2015 Ground mounted solar CUP Planning Commission Meeting The City recently updated its zoning ordinance “Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure” as a conditional use in the Business District and established standards by which to review requests. The footprint of the proposed solar array is 21,200 square feet and is proposed in the eastern portion of the site. The applicant has an existing conditional use permit for the existing improvements on the site. This document is attached for reference. Staff intends to replace the 2004 CUP with an updated CUP if the solar array is approved for the sake of clarity. Analysis The following table summarizes the proposed solar panel array in comparison to the general minimum standards of the district. Solar equipment has additional standards which will be discussed below the table. District Standard Proposed Front Setback 40 feet 120 feet Rear Setback 25 feet 640 feet (solar panels) Side Setback 25 feet 25 feet (south) 108 feet (north) Residential Setback 100 feet 1450 feet Railroad Setback Zero 108 feet Impervious Surfaces 70% 25% Solar Equipment Standards The following standards were established for Solar Equipment, if not affixed to a structure. Staff has briefly described whether the proposal complies with each requirement in italics. (a) Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure shall only be permitted in the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts and only following Conditional Use Permit approval. Applicant has requested conditional use permit approval. (b) Solar Equipment shall be a minimum of 300 feet from residential property. Proposed equipment is 1450 feet from residentially zoned property, and almost 1200 feet from the nearest property containing a residence (which is guided for future business development). (c) Solar Equipment shall meet all setback requirements for principal structures in the zoning district where located. Setbacks are summarized above and the proposed array meets the minimum requirements. (d) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall be considered lot coverage and impervious surface for the purpose of calculating such standards. The footprint shall include all space between pieces of Solar Equipment, unless the pieces are separated by more than 25 feet. The footprint containing all the solar equipment is 21,200 s.f. in area and was included in the impervious surface calculations above. Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative Page 3 of 5 May 12, 2015 Ground mounted solar CUP Planning Commission Meeting (e) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 20% of the lot. The proposed solar equipment occupies 8.4% of the lot. (f) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 20 feet. The proposed equipment is 10 feet in height. (g) The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual impacts of the mounting devices of the Solar Equipment. Landscaping will be described more in depth below. (h) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes. These matters will be reviewed upon building permit application if the CUP is approved. (i) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co-generation of energy. The applicant has indicated that they will comply with relevant regulations, although this condition is less relevant because they are a utility. (j) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views. The proposed panels are double sided with no reflectors. Their purpose is to absorb the sunlight rather than reflect so should cause little glare. (k) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss if further conditions are warranted. Landscaping The district standards would require a minimum planting of 47 overstory trees, 23 ornamental trees, and 77 shrubs upon new development in the district. In addition, the requirements for ground mounted solar equipment allow the City to require additional screening. The site was developed prior to current standards and the landscaping consists of 28 trees and is currently non-conforming with regards to landscaping. Staff believes that, because an additional use is being added to the site, it would be reasonable to require full compliance with the landscaping requirements if the Planning Commission and Council found it preferable. However, the bringing the site into full compliance with current standards would be substantial in comparison to the cost of the panels. Staff recommends, as a minimum, additional landscaping around the proposed solar array. Staff believes that bringing the property into full compliance may be overly burdensome for the addition of an accessory use. Stormwater Regulations From a stormwater perspective, the solar panels are essentially the same as roofs, even though there is ground beneath them. Water will shed off of the panels and not fall naturally to the Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative Page 4 of 5 May 12, 2015 Ground mounted solar CUP Planning Commission Meeting ground. Adding more than 5,000 square feet of hardcover triggers stormwater improvements. Existing improvements may provide rate control, but water quality improvements will need to be provided. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval. The site certainly contains enough area to accommodate an improvement. Review Criteria Section 825.39 of the City Code establishes the general criteria that the City considers when reviewing a conditional use permit request. These criteria are copied below, with a potential finding provided by staff for each. In addition to these general criteria, the specific standards described above are required to be met. Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Staff does not believe the proposed panels would cause these concerns. Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Staff does not believe the proposed panels would cause these concerns. Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff recommends a condition that stormwater management ordinance is met and that utility lines are underground. Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Staff does not believe the proposed panels would cause these concerns. Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Staff does not believe the proposed panels would cause these concerns. Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is permitted in the district and the Planning Commission and Council discussed the use specifically and determined that it was appropriate to add as an allowed use. Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The use is permitted in the district and the Planning Commission and Council discussed the use specifically and determined that it was appropriate to add as an allowed use. Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative Page 5 of 5 May 12, 2015 Ground mounted solar CUP Planning Commission Meeting Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. The proposed use is permitted in the district and staff believes the applicant has shown general compliance with relevant regulations and policies. Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the proposed panels would cause these concerns. Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. As noted above, staff recommends additional landscaping around the solar array. Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant desires to complete construction over the summer. Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. Hennepin County records state that Wright-Hennepin owns the property. Review of a conditional use permit is a quasi-judicial process with a relatively low level of discretion for the City (as opposed to PUDs, variances, rezonings, etc.). The City can, however, apply conditions to a conditional use in order to protect the health safety and welfare. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1) This CUP shall supersede the approval granted by Resolution 04-23, the releveant findings and conditions having been incorporated herein. 2) The landscaping plan shall be updated to include additional plantings to the east, north, and south of the solar equipment. 3) All exterior lighting must be designed and installed to be downcast only, with a maximum of 0.2 foot candles at the property line and the light poles may be a maximum of 30’ in height; 4) The applicant shall design improvements necessary to meet the City’s stormwater management ordinance. 5) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the Conditional Use Permit application. Potential Motion If the Commission concurs with staff’s findings, the following motion would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to conditions recommended by staff. Attachments 1. List of Documents 2. Engineering Comments dated 4/22/2015 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Plans received by City 4/10/2015 Project: LR‐15‐158 – Wright‐Hennepin Solar Panel CUP The following documents constitute the complete 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 Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 4/10/20154/10/20154 Application Y Fee 4/10/20154/9/2015 1 Fee Y $2000 Mailing Labels 4/10/20154/3/2015 5 Labels Y Narrative 4/10/2015N/A 9 Narrative Y Plan Set 4/10/2015N/A/ 4 Plans Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineer Comments 4/22/2015 1 EngComments Public Comments Document Date # of pages Electronic Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association Willow Community Solar Array Medina Minnesota Wright-Hennepin Willow Community Solar Array 1.0 Service Area Description Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association (WH), an RUS financed rural electric utility, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, WH Solar, design, build, and operate community solar arrays throughout our electric serving area which covers the rural areas of Wright County, Western Hennepin County, and small portions Stearns, Sherburne, Meeker, and McCleod Counties. W-H is headquartered in Rockford, Minnesota. 2.0 Project Need and Goal WH is proposing to construct a community solar array on a small portion of the land acquired for WH’s Willow Electric Substation. The Willow Community Solar Array will produce approximately 280,000 kWh of electricity per year for the next 20 years. The energy will be solar to WH Electric customers in increments of 900 kWh. The community solar members will be able to purchase from one panel-unit (900 kWh/yr) of energy up to 100% of their annual load. The proposed array will be WH’s third community solar array, and WH will be building more as the demand for solar continues. WH’s goal is to spread the community solar arrays throughout the serving. The first two arrays are located on our headquarters land in Rockford. The Willow Substation/City of Medina location was chosen because of the available land and the fact that it is centrally located in our serving area. The solar array will consist of approximately 700 solar panels rated at 400 DC Watts each. The total area of the array will be slightly less than 20,000 square feet. The attached drawings illustrate the planned location of the array as we as the location of the shrubbery. The panels will be anchored to the ground and supported by helical screw anchors as shown in the attached drawing. At no point will the total height of the array exceed 10 feet above the ground. Depth of the anchors will be determined by soil boring analysis, and the final design will be stamped by a professional engineer. The underside of the array will be natural grasses that will grow in the shade of the array and should not have to be mowed. The proposed schedule will proceed upon completion of the conditional use permitting from the City of Medina. We have tentatively scheduled to energize the array in early summer. 9231 Penn Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55431 simply more energy S:\Sales\Drawings, Quotes, Etc\141800-141899\141817 - WHE 3 - Rockford MN\141817-06\Layout - 141817-06 - WHE 3 - Rockford MN.dwg30'60'0 Community Solar #3 Willow Substation Rockford, MN 55340 Project ID: 141817-06 Drawn by: MD 3/23/2015 Rev 06 System Summary kW DC 280.00 kW AC 147.00 System DUO Module tenKsolar XT-A 400W Quantity 700 Tilt Inverter Bus tenKsolar 8.4 kW Quantity 17 Inverter Bus tenKsolar 4.2 kW Quantity 1 System Azimuth CONCEPT Not For Construction N tenKsolar 9231 Penn Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55431 High Energy Output per Roof Two tenK Modules are installed in tandem, providing complete PV coverage of any space to maximize energy output. The Complete System Modules, racking, and inversion are combined into one completely integrated product, driving performance up by eliminating compatibility issues of traditional panel solutions. Reliable Architecture The DUO System ystem incorporates a parallel architecture from cells through inversion. The components are completely redundant, resulting in more energy production and significantly lower maintenance costs. Solar’s Best Warranty. Power warranted for 92.2% of max after 25 years, guaranteeing the best return on your investment. PRODUCT DATA SHEETDUO PV System Shading Tolerant Cell-Independence minimizes impact of partial module coverage Storage Ready Integrated charge controller supports battery storage options Best Financial Return Paired modules yield consistent energy production any time of day Better Safety Low voltage prevents risk of electrical arcs and lethal shock The Best Energy Density System produces up to 60% more kWh/ft2 than legacy solar arrays Toll free: 877-432-1010 www.tenKsolar.com info@tenKsolar.com @tenKsolar 51 10 15 20 25 100 96 92 88 Years% of Max PowerCompetitor’s Best tenK The Industry’s Best Power Warranty Simply More Energy DUO PV System Patents Pending © tenKsolar, Inc. 2015 All rights reserved TKS MKT 40203.02 Specifications and design are subject to change without notice. Read operating instructions carefully before using this product. Warranties and Certifications Module Certifications UL 1703/UL 1741 IEC 61215 EN 61730 Warranty 12 Year Limited Product Warranty, 25 Year Linear Power Warranty: 3% Power Degradation First Year, 0.2% Linear Degradation per year after First Year System Performance Tilt Configuration 25°/-15° Module Model tenK XT-A 410WP Peak Watts/Area 15.24 Wp /ft2 Array Weight (without ballast)2.83 lb/ft2 Wind Resistance Up to 120 mph (193 km/h) Specifications (Preliminary) Module Assembled Dimensions 99.61” (253.00 cm) North-South x 77.95” (198.00 cm) East-West Front & Back Row Dimensions 103.54” (263.00 cm) North-South x 77.95” (198.00 cm) East-West System Weight Module (x2):142 lb (64.4 kg) Rail & Assoc. Hardware:11 lb (5.0 kg) Application Flat roof (max slope: 5 degrees) Installation Speed <0.85 man hours/kW Racking Materials High strength structural-grade aluminum alloys Conductor #2 USE-2 90C Rated (included) 103.54”(263.00 cm)Exterior Rail 99.61”(253.00 cm)Interior Rail 103.54”(263.00 cm)Exterior Rail 96.46”245.00 cmFin Pin Spacing 99.61”(253.00 cm)Wavelet Pitch 99.61”(253.00 cm)Wavelet Pitch 25.03°25.03°15.09°25.03°25.03°15.09° 78.09”(198.35 cm)78.09”(198.35 cm)78.09”(198.35 cm)29.29”(74.40 cm)South System Wave Dimensions Front View Side View Module Dimensions XT-A Module 400W Patents Pending © tenKsolar, Inc. 2015 All rights reserved TKS MKT 40006.01 Specifications Power Output at STC (Pmax)400WP Power Tolerance +/− 3% Cell Type Polycrystalline Silicon Number of Cells 192 Half Cells Glass 3.2 mm Tempered Glass Max Current Output 7.5A Rated DC Voltage 35V Minimum / 57V Maximum Operating DC Voltage 51V – 55V Ground Fault Detect Integrated (Compatible w/Inverter GFDI) Internal Ground Fault Limit 500 mA Frame Size 77.40 in × 54.90 in (196.60 cm × 139.50 cm) Frame / Background Silver / White Backsheet Material PET Covered Aluminum Bypass Diodes None Operating Temperature Range ⁻40°F to 185°F (⁻40°C to 85°C) Module Nominal Operating Cell Temperature 109°F (43°C) Temperature Coefficient ⁻0.46% / °C Static Load Capacity 50 PSF / 2400 Pa Hail Resistance Direct 1" impact at 52 mph (84 km/h) Weight 71 lbs (32.2 kgs) Certifications UL 1703/UL 1741 IEC 61215 EN 61730 Product Warranty 12-Year Limited Power Warranty 3% First Year LID; 0.2% Linear Degradation per year after; 92.2% minimum at 25 years. Specifications and design are subject to change without notice. Read operating instructions carefully before using this product. Shipping Information Max Quantity per Pallet 25 Pallet Dimensions 83.69" × 58.44" (212.57 cm × 148.44 cm) Fully Loaded Pallet Weight 1775 lbs (805 kg) 77.40"(196.60 cm)54.90"(139.50 cm)54.90"(139.50 cm)1.86" (4.73 cm)1.63"(4.14 cm)9.00"(22.86 cm)21.50"(54.61 cm)Side1.66" (4.22 cm)Landscape 0.5 HSS 2.875 OD 0.203 WALL 12 DIA HELIX W ITH SHARPENED LEADING EDG 0.81 DIA HOLE 45 ' TYP 2.94 DIA 8 DIA BOLT CIRCLE 0.25 120 HUBBELL POW ER SYSTEMS/CHANCE CATALOG NUMBER: T1071613 -NOTES- 1, FINISH: HOT DIP GALVANIZE PER ASTM-A123j COATING GRADE 75. APPEARANCE PER SECTION 6.4, EXCEPT NO RACK MARKS, 2. BASEPLATE MATERIAL: HOT ROLLED STEEL PER ASTM A572 GRADE 507 1/2' THICK. 3, HELIX MATERIAL: HOT ROLLED STEEL PER ASTM A572 GRADE 50) 3/8' THICK. 4. SHAFT MATERIAL: STEEL ROUND HSS PER ASTM A500 GRADE B/C, MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH 50 KSI, 5. MANUFACTURER TO HAVE IN EFFECT INDUSTRY RECOGNIZED WRITTEN QUALITY CONTROL FOR ALL MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, 6. ALL WELDING TO BE DONE BY WELDERS CERTIFIED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE AWS CODE Dl. 1. 7, BASEPLATE TO BE PERPENDICULAR TO SHAFT AXIS (±1'). 8. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL AND IN INCHES, 9, THE HELICAL PILE SHALL BE ENGAGED AND ADVANCED INTO THE SOIL IN A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS MANNER AT A RATE OF ROTATION OF 5 TO 15 RPMS AND AT A CONSTANT ROTATION SPEED, SUFFICIENT DOWN PRESSURE (CROWD) SHALL BE APPLIED TO UNIFORMLY ADVANCE THE HELICAL PILE INTO THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF 80% OF THE DISTANCE EQUAL TO THE PITCH OF THE HELIX PLATE (3 INCHES) PER REVOLUTION, MIN INSTALLED UPLIFT/COMPRESSION EXPOSURE MINIMUM LATERAL SERVICE TORQUE (FT-LBS) ULT . LIMIT STRENGTH HEIGHT MAX EMBEDMENT LOAD AT TOP MIN MAX (KIP) (IN) (FT) (LB) 500 6000 42 24 8 325 CHANCE TOLERANCE CHART CORFlOEMML ' TR S ORAWWIG AND ITS POlARE DDNPURVL NET THE FOUNDATION 10 K S O LA R POWE R SI STERS . NO PUEILI YO�ION, DWITHOUT 111E STRIOUWN DR C al C MA Y TE EE WADE Son No . CAT / PART / ASSY NO. RE VS ENT OF RUSSELL ESISTER B SA7071613-10K T1071613 -- HUIREIL POWER SENT DIG uNRAWEAIEA COPYRIGHT TAW' S 1HE DDRRAINNOE CNN BI JWH DATE 3/3/14 'SHEET 1 OF 1 0410 TITLE • UBBELLW POWER SYSTEMS SOLAR PANEL ALL RIGHTS RESERYID UNDER Tiff co r Lin h ti HUBBELL POWER SYSTEMS/CHANCE CATALOG NUMBER: C3031663 w -NDTES- 2. BOLT DRIVESS 8'S X18 ' XB1/2'CTHICK BASEPLATEHWITHACENTER HOLE FOR RS2875 PIPE . CHANCE �`H A VM EL - 'OAR SYSTEMS TREE DR I VE TOOL CONFIDENTIAL: 1X15 DRA WING MD ITS CONTENTS ARE CONFIDENRA LHUBBELL AND TIE IXCPOW SNE SYSIEDPE NO PU HUBBELL POWER OR. O ESBURY E DISTRIBUTIONTHUTHWT COPIES NAY BE WADE 5w DWG NO HUB BELL THE ERx7EN CONSENT' OF HUBBELL POWER MIENS. SB SA3031663 HUBBELL POWER SYSTEMS UNPUBJSIVTI, COPYR IGHT LAWS.HTS RUNDER THE DO NOT wl F 11-11S DRA WING DRN BY J WH DATE 11/5/13 SHE ET 1/1 8. 0" SQ. BASEPLATE RE V I I 1 I// / I 1\\\\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\ \ I I \\\\\\\\ \ \ 1?` r / o / I I \\\\ \ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ /)1\/ /II I/ / / I \I1 \ \ I \\ \>ri / / / 1 I // i/ 1\I II I I / 1 / / 1 I 1/ I/ 1111 I I I I I� 1 I (/ / l I l //////////, 1 // / \ III i // / l / 1 1 1/1/1I111 II I I I I \ \\ i l �Il\ I '• /////// / //// ////III I 1 1 / / /////////7/////////// / / / l / / 1 I NiN n I \ / / / / / //// /(// / // 1/1/ I I / / // / / �\ \ I \\ / / / I 1 \I II ///////I/III// l / I /// \ I/ / I I I , l 1 \a \al\ ////fill/ ( \\\\�N ��// 1 \1\1\\III j 1 j I I I I II I l�1 L0 / 14 /\ 1 1I // /////I�III� 1 1 1 1/ 1 I /__- —�- N `.i�� �\\\\\1\\ I -----II IJ / ///II / // 1111 / 1 I 1 \ 1 \ _ I \ \ :\\\ 1 \\\\\\\\\\ ((/-------- / N— / // / 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 / I \ \ 1111 \\ \\ \ �°°°/� 1 ( /I I I I I\ \ 1 1 I I I I I / / N \ ��\I\\I1\\\\\\� `L��\ \� / \1 11 \\ \ I I \ I 1 \ I I \�_�/ \ \\ '1\ \\\\ N1—r\\\\-- \\\B—_ , \\\\\� \ I \ \ 1 I I 1 I \ \ III\\\�\\) `\L.NN `°—\ \\ \ \\ \ I\\\ I 1 \ I \ —\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ I L J \ \. _'jam /XT �'.t- I \ \ -..-..-..-.. soo - - --‚It---.- - —___=_--,,_-"-i---",°_,_---- -.=- a- =. _z_-. • -=-7.._...=:-...-=-.==.- -,......---, ...--- •-r--- -----, -- .=, .-.------- -=',\---T- ....- ___ 7._______-- .,./.....,,/___ ...7 - —� I" l I WETLAND /' ///// � --,N1, �:' ..:.� �\ \ \ 111 \\\ // //////� j� ��1�I ) /) 11 \ EDGE OF WETLAND----- %/� / i//�---_-_------- -=--. 1,1 1 -- Gam / / � �1\ . _ \\ \ \\\\ \ — �_ // l rr // //�/ /// / \�—�.� \ — — \ \ \ \\1/4,--\\ ------_-- ::7-)i\\\ \\\ // f ////// //// _ ��� \\\\\11 \ \ \\-\ l 0/ ////II/((01/1/(1//7/) / —,,�\\\\\\\vim N \- ��, \\\ \ \\ 1 /� �.��� I (I III1�/� 1111 1 / / / �— \�\�����`�`---�.�y`'� \\\I\ )\'/// 7/1; I I I 1 I I/////////////1/////c:-,--... / i lliil//// c-' \ \,-- i.4 \ \ ///// �/ //~$ \\ 1(11 ( ( /( / �° �7\ \ \ \\\ \\\ \ � i/ III � \ \ I I ////// // (l1 \\\\�\\\\III\ I III�/ / �-, ���� \\\\\ %�/ • I I I I�I�// ` - + I I \\\\ \\\\\\I \I\I\\\\\\\ \\ \ \ \\\\\ j ,j II 11 1 / e I / /11)1111111/))////))///// / \\ \\:::;\ \ �/ I( I I / / /// I 1 1 1 // // / / �� X}��\\\ \\ \\N\ \\1\2: // I'4:1' \\' 2/ \\\\IIIII(( I I / 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I ,L_, / S '11'' ' I —\�\I \ `\ \\\\ \\\ \\ \\\�\\\\\\\\ \ \\ ` I ') -/ // \/ I / ' 1 I/ '/' I / /I \\\\\\ \\ \\ \ 11 / 11 1 I I ) \ I \ \ \\ \ \`i ��f / I / I///// // 1 \ /,/,/-, / )\\\ \\\\ \ \ — L / // \ 1 1 \ \\ \ \ \ \\\\ \` \_\ I \I\-,, ////////� \�\\ / \ \ \\\ \� \\\\\?\\\N \\ \I '--- ////j// j/ `o- -- — —/ONE — /. I \� ` / \ \� \\\ l )) -� \� / \REV/ le .� .. L I / , . —' 4 , r REM 0 inow MAW MU SAwl raoamr nc SWIM ME 1 --EDGE OF WETLAND----- • YI(N\ •ll A ePo.'— / /�`J (/:I//1 \\\ '-- EDGE OF WERAND F 0, ti � / I — \ WETLAND /. I I /r % (—EWE OF\� • 1111II(( 11 1 ( \ \ 1 \\ N\\ L \: � \\\ l Il I I 111II1I I I I I I \ \\\ \\ � )1\\\�:/ \> 1 0 40 80 120 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET DATE 8/15/03-1/22/04 MISC. REVISIONS °5 REVISIONS PER CLIENT 0024/717_1°°61406 RENSIONS PER CLI 06 RENSED PAD AREA AND NOTES BY DRG DLS NRN NRN I hereby certifinGthat this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly / tensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the _% ate of Minnesota. MEYER-ROHLIN, INC. ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS avK 7/28/03 DRAWN BY DRG RECORD PLANS 047E° BOOK PAGE: DESIGNED BY DRG HORIZONTAL SCALE I — 40 feet VERTICAL SCALE I krch — N/A feet CHECKED BY TPM elf sheet is other than 22x34, use barscale. WILLOW SUBSTATION WRIGHT-HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Medina, Minnesota FILE NO. 02500 SNEET 1 o SHEETS Signs Date More P. Meyer 4/19/06 Reg '0 6218 1111 Hwy. 25N., Buffalo, MN 55313 Ph. (763) 682-1781 Fax (763) 682-9492 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN - - - - - - - - - - - - S K I M M E R W C L A S S G E O I E X T I F I I A B R I O . T O P O F I R I P - R A P W I S T R U C T U R E R O C K E L E V A T I O N = 9 8 7 . 5 2 . / / a J / \ ��_ ' N \ I ) / / / / r �� \ \ N ) ) ) 1 / / / / / ' , / , / / / / / / / / / / / / / / - - - - - N \ s R a O o o / / / / / / / / / / / / / / \ / / / / / / / / ��/ ( 6 ` ) / / / / , / / / / / / / / / / r / / / / / - - - - , \ / / / ��' / / / / / / / / / / / / / / - - - - / / / / / / / / / , ��i �� / / / / / / / / / ��i �� / / / j / / / / / / / 7 / , _ _ - - - - �� / / / / / % / / / / ��/ , - - _ , N N / / / / / / / i / / - , \ N �� / j ) ) / / / / / N \ N I / / / / / \ N / / 1 / / N \ / / / / / / ����/ \ 0 / / ^ N / / / / / E R O S I O N C O N T R O L S I L T - F E N C E E O M S T R E W T H F I L T E R F I R M : I S N O H O W V A R N I S H S U P P O R T S I L L T - P O S T w A C I M E S L I C E D W I T H S T E E L T - P O S T m o w m o w 1 0 F T M E N S P A C N O O S O W I R E S I R P 5 N T F e a t a F T H A T S S P A C I N G W R I D U T W E E S U P P O R T F E N C E P Q D S D M . ��R T E R F A B R I C A T T A a 1 S A T I A B L Y T O U P R I S E N , S C E O F P O S T . R U N O F F W I P W I T H C O M P A C T E D H A I O u S T A N D A R D D E T A I L M I C R E N N O T E w a n t S E T N O T O S 1 , I N S P E C T M D R F P M I F E N C E A F T E R F I O I S D a , B E N T A N D R E M O V E S E D I M E N T W H E N 2 . R I M E D R E D R E W S H O A L S E D E P O S I T E D T O I , A R E A T H A T E L L N O T C O N T R I B U T E S E N O R O F F - S I T E M I D C A N E E P E R M A N E N T L Y S T N E O E O 3 . S U F E N C E S H A L L E E P L A C E D O N S L O P E C O N T O U R S T O M O O R E P O O N O e i M E a N . R E V I S I O N S 9 9 6 . 7 5 9 9 0 X 0 0 0 . 0 X 0 0 0 . 0 L O T L I N E S I L T F E N C E P R O P O S E D C O N T O U R E X I S T I N G I N T E R M E D I A T E C O N T O U R E X I S T I N G I N D E X C O N T O U R P R O P O S E D S P O T E L E V A T I O N E X I S T I N G S P O T E L E V A T I O N D R A I N A G E A R R O W P R O P O S E D G R A V E L P R O P O S E D B I T U M I N O U S P R O P O S E D W O O D F I B E R B L A N K E T 0 0 E X I S T I N G F E N C E O H E O N E O V E R H E A D E L E C T R I C L I N E E R O S I O N C O N T R O L B A L E C H E C K S L E G E N D 1 0 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 G R A P H I C S C A L E I N F E E T L A N D S C A P E P L A N P O S S I B I L I T I E S : D B L A C K H I L L S S P R U C E P O N D E R O R A P I N E S C O T C H P I N E V I C I N I T Y M A P M E D I N A , M N 1 " = 2 0 0 0 " 1 a D 4 1 E R E M 8 / 1 5 / 0 3 - 1 / 2 2 / 0 4 M I S C . R E V I S I O N S 1 0 0 6 O S R E V I S I O N S P E R C L I E N T C 1 / 1 1 / . _ 0 _ 6 R E V I S I O N S P E R C L I E N T 0 4 0 6 R E V I S E D P A D A R E A A N D N O T E S B y D R G D L S N R N N R N I h e r e b y c e r t i f i n G t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n , o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e , % a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . M E Y E R R O H L I N , I N C , E N G I N E E R S - L A N D S U R V E Y O R S - O p 0 4 7 E 7 / 2 8 / 0 3 D R A W N B Y D R G R E C O R D P L A N S D A T E . � B O O K P A G E : D E S I G N E D B Y D R G H O R I Z O N T A L S C A L E I T h c h = 4 0 P o s t V E R T I C A L S C A L E I n l c h N / A f a s t C H E C K E D B y T P M r y f s h e e t i s o t h e r t h a n 2 2 x 3 4 , u s e b a r s c a l . W I L L O W S U B S T A T I O N W R I G H T - H E N N E P I N E L E C T R I C M e d i n a , M i n n e s o t a F I L E N O . 0 2 5 0 0 S H E E T 1 O F S H E E T S S i g n a D a t e m o r e P . M e y e r 4 / 1 9 / 0 6 R e g I o 6 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 H w y . 2 5 N . , B u f f a l o , M N 5 5 3 1 3 P h . ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 1 7 8 1 F a x ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 9 4 9 2 G R A D I N G & E R O S I O N C O N T R O L P L A N NN/ _, f //`// --- \v\ 1\1 �rr� 11I ° `���.____-,.� )I\N y �z /// lI i \ \ \ so •t_ .91II- - // / 99 4591 1 ( ( !� \ \ �C LL) \ _ to �/ //tea ), �. \ /� 9e q BARN 1 W M g�q /ice/ %— ;oaf --z- t \ r q � //-- ° N. ../ . \A¢gam Ns I\I(/II//-�1,\\ 1,A\� I} I1iI� \A�__ ti ' / �. 0, \ ,I \\ v (��,.7, \\\\\\\v\\ v ) i I I j�\/ \\\\\\\\ E\ X C P/I/I/ 0 /GV/ l if i \ \\ \\ \ --s2 a / \ \\\\\\N\---_— i / 4%. / / \� VA\\\ -._. i // / \\\\\\� // / �/ \\\�\\\ —///i / \\ \ V A A -- --- ! / / / \ \ ) 2.___ r. ' \ / / V A 1y ,I N 3s l N \ \ N N \ 1 NN N ( SOO VICINITY MAP ME DINA, MN LINE RAILROAD FF SITE CHIPPEWA ROAD LIJ 0 r L e. / / / //// / /� / / / / /7(///i / / / / / / / / \\ / / ) ',0 0" \ I I I/ //% / If 1 1 / 97 %—� / I WATT To" \\ \\,‘,\I \ II ( I 1 � \ �(\ /\r\ / I % I \ \ \ \I j \ I I i d1X/STINIG IWATER TOWER EASEMENT - V / / I I I) I I I 1 1 I rj'EIR �Dp U�IEN NO. /6738793 N // 1/ i (Ili I / I I 1 I I\ I / - _--- -�1 4/ . �/ / /I III,\ v \ k \ 1 I I / \ ~ 7 I I o I I \ \\ \ \ \\\\\ \I EXLSTING ING� S Q� k N \ \\\\\\\ \\ M W� I r W;WI waw 1 tD1 01 NI I` \-- \ N990 `" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +o \ \ ;.__\\ A\ \ V A V A\ 1\ V A \ N \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \\ \` N \ \\\\\\ \\\ \ ) % \ \ 1 \ \ \ \\\O \\ \ N \ \\\\ RA NAGE �N -- ZONING 1P N ��\r�)\ \ SHIR E RD % 1 Li t — � 04-118-23 31 0001-- S00 LIN E RAILROAD ( 0i2 5 Y REAL ESTATE DEPT. , SUJE_�4i-9 �- - S -0- - 55302 SOO 501 M ARQUE- — -- — — CST .— `= ? HN WEAP �F7 WETLAND DRAINAGE AND \ • UTILITY EASEMENT - \\� / / (/ I I I 1 / / \\\:\. \ \� , I I I \ IX 4E-E_AI® -- �� �� /11 I / / \ \�\�\`)/\1////l 1/7/1 // /vvvw���w�\v� a V\\\\\\' IiI1I�1I� �����vvvv'0\vvvv— ) \ \\,\\\\\iI, `I ! c \ r \ \\\\\\ \\\\;/�� I i \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ ` N N\ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I vvvvv v vvvvvvv v N /\\\\\; \\\\\ \\ \\ \ ) \ \\� / 1 II III 1/) I ) / vv\vl�'a' I / / / / i 1111111 1 " //// / / / v / / // I III 11111///1/1/7i / I / // I, it/II/II/IJI1I l{ I 4\ a / / / /// //////111/ I 11 I k I \ \ /////////// i/ / / I I /// y///.•%. V � I / /i/112")) 1 / I ( \ V A !__fict002 N t}!� zi`ROOKFO \M553�73LE\TR / l / ! JI� r /1///71/47/(//777( / C�\\ \ \ v v N \ ////iIIII (1 III I / / // vvvvvvy\\�00NN \ t \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ I \ I I PER -DO -GU -MEW \\ \ \\\\ \ N N N I i ) \ \\ \ \ /� / \V vv\1\) I. ii 1/ I -� \VAA"III I / , 0 //z \) \ \ \ \\ ?R \ E \ / / / / / / \\ LK\IbIT / \ L \ A�EMEY�IT�� tir = / / / / / \ \\ \ \\\ \\\ \ A A \ \A \ \\ VAAvN -_ \�\ \ \ \\ \i \ N \ \N \\\\ \ \ \ 0\ \ \ \ \ ~N \N \ \ \\ti°� ��>\> 7) ) \ \) �\ 1 v 1010 I - 7 ( \ �qVA V \ \ \\\ N \\ 1\\\ \ \\ % \\\\\\\N \ \\\\ \\ ~ / \ V \\. \\, elk / j%7///// \\\ A \VA A\ ND EGRESSN\EAS�EME�1T ; \ \ \� NO. 6738793 �\ \\ I kJ - i I/ I N / --i H N N \ \ \\\‘\\\ \\ \\ 0 / 1020 T RATh 09-118-23 2715 PIONEER RAIL 1000-"/ DOUGLAS SON / ZONING1RR 2625 PION 4-118-23 41 0002 W ILLOW.. P01NWT-LL£'` 4352 WILLOW DR \ HAMEL, MN 55340 J11) 1\7, 1)1/\\ 61/2 7 eNH\ 1)1 -23141 0003 Lir, HAMEL, MN W40 100 200 300 ) GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET N / DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY MEDINA PARKS 2nd ADD GROSS AREA OUTLOT A AND OUTLOT 8: WETIA ND AREA: 3,864,671.0 sf 88.72 acres 1,271171.0 sf 29.18 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE: Business / Office Park EXISTING ZONING: BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING: BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: Height Property Setback Fro nt Side Rear 30' 35' (bldg with sprinkler system) 50' Setba ck From Residential 100' ( witho ut berm W etlan d Setba ck Wetla nd Setbac k (less tha n 1ac .) 25' Wetla nd Setback (greater than lac.) 50' Pa rking Setback From a Co mmerc ia l Zone From a Residential Zone 25' 50' 7- • AREA=35 .53 AC . ZO NING BP \ DRAINAGE AND N'\\ ----------1,/-,i) \/ ct 011A -N , , , _____ -------_____ i / /, ? \, N i / c, — y ------ -i ) \ N, / 7— y __,\ / ,,,,yi/ , _, N \,, , ____.„......_,_____ , , ----,. “,-- o., .„., __,„. „...„ ,- ,<, /;, , , 7. _______ ____,_..,z-__, / 7 — \RD 1 A - - : / z - / - - - --:::-----:- - - -- - - - -7.--' '' - :--t NA ____G -..; • 4 • 1 co \ /\<--UTILITY\I F\ EASEMElT)- 7, 0 N A:Ks.; ‘:\j/ /1 (////gt— Th - \ -- 1: -- -- -- - ::-: ' .‘ - - - - i i iii,gistlyli/i//,::,, -1—__:,\\.\\\T\\\\\f-N_N______J— __,_ z arrici 74 III I \ 1 N at A,OP 451LII:AV"TtN-Th N \ i ) 1 \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ : JAMES J. RENIER, TRUSTEE HAMEL, MN 55340 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot A and Outl ot B, MEDINA PARKS SECOND ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin C ounty, Minnesota . N ZONING BP Part of Sect. 4, Twsp. 118, Rng. 23 H enn epin C ounty, Minn esota ZONING BP F - o LO In ILI CO C NI DEVELOPER: MEDIN A WILLOW BUSINESS PARK, LL O 1522 Medina R oad Medina, Mn 55340 Mich ael J. Leuer (763) 286-1441 MEDINA PARKS SECOND ADDITION MEDINA, MINNESOTA E xisting Conditions 13 C ICI • aN it2 ti ce PREPARED BY: tu act RECORD PLA NS DATE: (33 o to 2 II DATE 01/15/09 ea DESIG NED BY CHECKED BY 00274 SHEET 1 OF ait SHEETS CC cis us 0 cO, J (D ti .73 • Y ' us us ti.• 0,6 0 LU' a m co • • simply more energy 9231 Penn Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55431 Community Solar #3 Willow Substation Rockford, MN 55340 Project ID: 141817-06 Drawn by: MD 3/23/2015 Rev 06 System Summary kW DC 280.00 kW AC 147.00 System DUO Module tenKsolar XT -A 400W Quantity 700 Tilt 25°, 15° Inverter Bus tenKsolar 8.4 kW Quantity 17 Inverter Bus tenKsolar 4.2kW Quantity System Azimuth 180°, 0° CONCEPT N.t For Construction 0 30' 60'