HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-13-2014MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, May 13, 2014
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 8, 2014 Draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Loading Dock
Regulations in the Industrial Park zoning district
7. Public Hearing — Loram — 3900 Arrowhead Drive —
Variance to exceed the area of loading docks permitted on
a structure; Site Plan Review for accessory structure and
parking lot expansion
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL May 9, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Weir and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: April 30, 2014
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates May 6, 2014 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Hamel Haven Final Plat — 805 Hamel Road — JJC Hamel LLC has requested final plat approval
for a proposed lot split. The Council granted preliminary approval back in 2011. The Council
will review at the May 6 meeting.
B) Dominium PUD General Plan and Plat — 510 Clydesdale Trail — Dominium has requested
approval of a PUD General Plan and a replat of the property for the development of 32
affordable rental townhomes on 4 acres at 510 Clydesdale Trail. The Planning Commission
held a Public Hearing at the April 8 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The
application will be presented to the Council in June.
C) Loram — Text Amendment, Variance, Site Plan Review — 3900 Arrowhead — Loram has
requested approval of a Site Plan Review to construct a 4000 sq. ft. storage building and to
expand their parking lot. The storage building includes more loading dock area than permitted
by the Industrial Park zoning district. The applicant has requested that the City consider
amending the IP code to allow the same amount of loading dock area as other districts. The
applicant has also requested a variance to allow the additional loading dock. The requests are
scheduled for a Public Hearing at the May 13 Planning Commission meeting.
D) Wakefield Subdivision — 3385 County Road 24 — The Wakefield Family Partnership has
requested approval of a rural subdivision of 74 acres at the southeast corner of Homestead Trail
and County Road 24. The applicant has submitted additional information for review, and a
Public Hearing will be scheduled when it is deemed complete.
E) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery CUP — St. Peter and Paul church intends to expand their cemetery
at the southeast corner of County Road 19 and Hamel Road. Improvements include new access
drives, landscaping, stormwater improvements and additional grave sites. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing at the July 9 meeting and recommended approval. The
applicant requested that the Council delay review until they could work through some of the
conditions.
F) Property Resources Development Co. (PRDC) Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan —
West of Willow Drive, southwest of Deerhill Road — PRDC has requested a Comp Plan
Amendment to reguide 90 acres from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential (2-3.49
units/acre) and also a PUD Concept Plan for a 99 lot subdivision. The PUD Concept Plan is
incomplete at this time and will be scheduled for review when complete information is
submitted. The Comp Plan Amendment Public Hearing was delayed indefinitely at the request
of the applicant.
G) Kirsten Chapman Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP — 1910 Iroquois — the property owner has
requested approval of a CUP to convert an existing accessory structure into an accessory
dwelling unit. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the March 11 meeting and
recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the April 1 meeting and directed staff to
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 May 6, 2014
City Council Meeting
prepare a resolution of approval. The Council approved a resolution on April 15. The project
will now be closed.
H) Villas at Medina Country Club — PUD Concept Plan — Rachel Development has requested
review of a PUD Concept Plan for the construction of 53 "villas" (detached townhomes) along
the northern and western perimeter of the Medina Golf and Country Club east of County Road
116 and south of Shawnee Woods Road. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
the concept plan at the April 8 meeting, and the Council reviewed on April 15. The project will
be closed.
I) Enclave at Brockton 4th Addn — Lennar has requested approval of the next phase of the Enclave
at Brockton, to include 18 single family homes. The City Council approved at the April 15
meeting, and staff will work with the applicant on the conditions of approval.
J) Hartray Lot Combination — 4035 Apache Drive — the property owner has requested approval of
a lot combination of two lots which do not meet minimum lot size standards in order to create a
lot which is less non -conforming. The combination will also allow the construction of a new
septic system, because the only potential location lies across the common lot line. The City
Council approved at the April 15 meeting, and staff will work with the applicant on the
conditions of approval.
K) Woods of Medina Preliminary Plat — Jeff Pederson has requested preliminary plat and rezoning
to subdivide 9.5 acres (8.8 net acres) at the intersection of CR116 and Shawnee Woods Road
into 16 RI single family lots. The request includes a vacation of a portion of Shawnee Woods
Trail and a partial waiver from tree preservation requirements. The City Council adopted
documents approving the requests at the January 7 meeting. Staff will await a final plat
application.
L) Fawn Meadows subdivision — east of CR 116, north of Medina Lake Drive — Money Tree, LLC
has requested a preliminary plat and rezoning for the development of 11 lots on the 10 acres
(5.72 net acres) immediately north of the Toll Brothers Reserve of Medina project. The City
Council granted preliminary approval at the January 21 meeting. Staff will now await final plat
application.
M) Three Rivers Park/Reimer Lot Rearrangement — the property owners have requested a lot
rearrangement to allow a "land swap" of property which the Reimers own on the west side of
Homestead Trail and which Three Rivers owns on the east side of Homestead Trail. The City
Council reviewed at the August 7 meeting and adopted a resolution of approval at the August 20
meeting. Staff will work with the owners to finalize the conditions of approval.
N) Morrison Lot Split and Variance — Truxtun and Adrienne Morrison have requested to
subdivide their 18 acres at 1525 Hunter Drive into two lots. The City Council approved of the
division at the June 4 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize the terms and
conditions of the approval.
0) D.R. Horton Stage I Plan — D.R. Horton has requested Stage Plan I approval for development
of Mixed Use property west of Arrowhead, east of Mohawk and north of Highway 55. The
entire property is approximately 84 acres in area (approximately 59 acres upland) and the
applicant proposes 85 single family lots, a 54 unit apartment building and 5 acres of commercial
development. The City Council granted Stage I approval at the January 21 meeting.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 May 6, 2014
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday, April 8, 2014
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Randy Foote, Robert Mitchell,
9 Victoria Reid, and Janet White.
10
11 Absent: Commissioner Kent Williams.
12
13 Also Present: Councilmember Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Planning
14 Consultant Nate Sparks.
15
16
17 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
18 No public comments.
19
20
21 3. Update from City Council proceedings
22 Martin updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council.
23
24
25 4. Planning Department Report
26 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
27
28
29 5. Approval of the February 11, 2014 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
30
31 Motion by Mitchell, seconded by R. Reid, to approve the February 11, 2014, Planning
32 Commission minutes with the changes directed by Chair Nolan and Commissioner Foote.
33 Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Williams).
34
35
36 6. Villas at Medina GCC.
37 Sparks presented the application and staff report.
38
39 R. Reid inquired where the driveways would be located, since it was not clear from the plans.
40 Sparks stated that they are side -loaded, with the driveway immediately on one of the side
41 property lines.
42
43 R. Reid inquired if the streets would be public. Sparks confirmed they would be.
44
45 V. Reid inquired about the access point at Meander. She stated that cars back up past this point in
46 the morning and stated that cars would find it very difficult to get out and turn left when traffic
47 was backed -up.
48
1
49 V. Reid inquired about parks. Sparks stated that it has been previously discussed for the area, but
50 none are proposed here.
51
52 V. Reid inquired about tree removal and replacement. She stated that it seems like the whole
53 northern portion was treed. Sparks confirmed that there would be large areas clear-cut for home
54 sites and stated that he believes the applicant has a conceptual idea of replacement needs.
55
56 Nolan inquired about staff's recommendation for a 30 foot road surface. Sparks stated that this
57 was the recommendation of the Public Works to allow two full lanes and a parking lane. He
58 stated this is important because the road would provide access to County Road 116 for
59 surrounding development.
60
61 Chuck Alcon (representing the applicant) introduced the development team. He stated that
62 Charles Cudd was the perspective builder. He stated that the location on the north and west of the
63 course was chosen for marketability and also so that it would not interfere with golf course
64 operations. This application would allow for the golf course to be secure for the forseeable
65 future. He stated that they would briefly address some of staff's comments. With regards to
66 double frontage lots, he stated that it is important to note that each site has to be developed based
67 on its characteristics, and they believe this is a necessity here to provide the road connection
68 requested by staff. With regards to staff's recommendation for shared drives, he stated that the
69 proposed units are privately owned and need privacy. He stated that shared drives are absolutely
70 not workable for this product. Alcon noted that tree preservation will be addressed at preliminary
71 plat. In terms of park dedication, they propose cash, with some credit for trail construction
72 instead of a park. A park and the adjoining golf course are not compatible.
73
74 Marty Campion (project engineer) stated that the PUD would provide design flexibility and also
75 provides a neighborhood feel. He stated that the entrance monument was very important, despite
76 public works' concerns. He stated that turning movements could be accommodated.
77
78 Finke inquired about geotechnical information and water table. He noted that previous potential
79 developers stated that basements would be extremely difficult and had proposed slab -on -grade.
80 Campion replied that they had two geotech firms take a look and believed basements would be
81 protected with foundation drain tiles.
82
83 Nolan inquired about price points. Jeff Holmers (applicant's marketing consultant) replied that
84 they would be $750,000-$1,000,000. The units shown were 3400 square feet (main level +
85 basement).
86
87 Rick Denman (Charles Cudd) said that they build a lot of detached villas. Their buyers tend to be
88 empty nesters, with all living facilities on the main level. The basements tend to be used for
89 entertaining and storage.
90
91 Foote stated that the pitch of the roof looked too steep and was over exaggerated.
92
93 V. Reid inquired how the applicant would feel about 'no left turn' out of Meander. Alcon stated
94 that it will help that this is marketed towards empty nesters, which should help with a.m. rush
95 hour.
96
97 V. Reid inquired what the developer would do if the City pushed back on the northern lots
98 because of the trees. Alcon noted that they would try to relocate as many trees as possible and
99 noted the treed area on the east of the golf course being preserved.
2
100
101 Foote inquired if sufficient right-of-way was provided for four -lane. Finke stated that it is an
102 absolute requirement if the project moved forward.
103
104 Steve Theesfeld — 600 Shawnee Woods Road — stated that he heard from the developer that Jeff
105 Holmers was a true professional and a very kind man. He stated that he has less of a problem
106 with the developer and more of an issue with how the City is treating this. The Commission is
107 being asked to move the high density from the southeast corner of the golf course and relocating
108 it here. He stated that 15 years ago, before they bought, they did their due diligence. The houses
109 were in disrepair and they have spent a lot of money restoring them. The proposed townhomes in
110 the northeast corner of the course is out of character with the investment made in the area. He
111 stated that he has asked City Planners throughout the metro what would happen if someone
112 wanted to develop high density townhomes across the street from five acres lots...and they just
113 laughed. He said that the neighbors were not naive, they understand that development occurs.
114 However, they have watched Wild Meadows come in. They were told there would be no
115 drainage issues. There were. They were told for the Reserve that there would be no drainage
116 issues. He asked the Commissioners to go look at that site and it is obvious there will be
117 problems. He stated that while there are only four other houses, everyone should be treated
118 equally. If you had a couple of owners from Wild Meadows who lost money in the stock market,
119 and they asked the City to allow townhomes in the middle of Wild Meadows...the City would
120 never do it. He suggested more density on the west and preserving the north. Theesfeld noted
121 that the property south of the driving surface of Shawnee Woods Road is owned by the property
122 owners to the north. He urged the Commission to relocate the road to the south of the easement.
123 He stated that the road easement states that it is for access from CR 101 to CR116 and that there
124 is an argument to be made that when the City cut off the road with Wild Meadows and the Woods
125 that the easement is no longer valid. He noted that there are alternatives for the cul-de-sac, such
126 as a hammerhead. He stated that the City shouldn't take cash instead of preserving trees and
127 providing parks. He said that instead of putting homes on the east end, the area could be a park
128 because it is heavily wooded and kids need a place to live. He stated that traffic on CR116 is
129 horrible and this would vastly increase traffic...and pointing it through Toll's development. He
130 told the Commission they didn't have to rubber stamp everything the golf course asks for. He
131 invited everyone out to look at the woods and said they can talk about the easements.
132
133 Eric Voltin - 690 Shawnee Woods — stated that the density is too much. It might be convenient
134 for the golf course, but no other options have been provided. The woods across from them are
135 awesome. The proposal is disrespectful. It is not thoughtful of anyone except the golf course's
136 interests. He stated that Theesfeld is right about the easement; you can't put driveways over it.
137 He stated that they don't want to, but they will litigate if the plan isn't improved.
138
139 Jim Peterson — 812 Meander Road — stated he is a 29 year resident. The traffic is a huge problem
140 because there is a rise in the road to the south and it is guaranteed that there will be an accident.
141 He told the Commission not to forget about all of the other houses already approved to the west
142 of County Road 116 on Meander.
143
144 Scott Peterson — President of Medina Golf and Country Club — stated that the Club does not own
145 the property. Rachel and Hendry have an option. He stated that with regards to the trail along the
146 east, there is safety and liability concerns of flying golf balls, along with security and vandalism.
147
148 Finke clarified that Fairways of Rolling Green owns the property, and there are various cross
149 interests with Medina County Club, and that the Club is, therefore, very much involved.
150
3
151 Martin stated that when this goes to the Council, she would like a diagram showing the portion of
152 the site that the developer has an option to buy.
153
154 Public Hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
155
156 Mitchell stated that golf courses all over are developing in their entirety. With regards to the
157 water table, a parched water table is a concern and needs to be explored. Mitchell stated that the
158 City had apparently weighed in on the Comprehensive Plan to allow for some residential, but
159 maybe not as much as some people thought would be allowed. He said he was sympathetic to the
160 needs for a park. County Road 116 seems like County Road 101 in Plymouth when it ultimately
161 developed. Trails along major roads require maintenance. The PUD has to include all of the
162 property so that everyone is entwined in the web that is weaved.
163
164 V. Reid stated she is very concerned about the tree removal. She is also concerned with legal
165 issues regarding the easement and traffic on CR 116, as well as water table issues and drainage.
166 She'll reiterate that parks are important in the area. She said if the golf course did go under at
167 some point, the proposed configuration would be odd to work with and should consider some
168 other options.
169
170 Nolan stated that he was involved in previous plans and he had always thought some residential
171 around the golf course made sense. He acknowledged the site was challenging because of the
172 roads coming in, property shape, trees, and water and thinks that a PUD makes sense. It is not
173 fair to say that the Country Club is not involved. If the development can go outside of the bounds
174 of this property it seems like a lot of these problems could be resolved. He thinks tying the two
175 roads together isn't a good idea. Perhaps two cul-de-sacs could be put in the NW corner, but it
176 may cause other problems. He asked what our density expectation is in the NE corner. He has a
177 lot of the same concerns the neighbors have concerning removal of trees and cul-de-sac location,
178 but likes the idea of a park. He said he would rather see more density along the west and south
179 rather than the north. This would be a better solution than pouring a development into an
180 environmentally sensitive area. This area has been identified for higher density for a long time.
181 He acknowledged that the neighbors had concern with the inconsistency of development, but
182 when he looks at the product they are proposing, which is a high quality builder and the homes
183 would range from $750k — $1 million, he said it might be better than smaller townhomes. He said
184 it would be good to find a way to appease the neighbors by increasing the lot sizes and maybe
185 possibly saving some of the trees. He suggested the City look into the easement issue.
186
187 R. Reid said she can't envision how this interfaces with the Woods of Medina development and
188 she needs to look closer at how they tie together. She would like a plan that shows The Woods of
189 Medina and this proposal shown together so she can see how they work together. There are way
190 too many houses on the north end, which greatly contributes to all of the problems. She does not
191 see taking down all the trees. She suggested making the NE corner a nature area since there
192 seems to be several issues in that area. The City keeps saying that it's not fair to penalize each
193 developer for the County Road 116 problems, but something has to be done at some point. She
194 doesn't like funneling all of the traffic through other developments and it doesn't seem like it
195 meets any of the objectives of a PUD. The legal issues need to be resolved before the applicant
196 comes back.
197
198 Foote stated that everything he wanted to say has been said. He sees a PUD as taking a difficult
199 property and making it better. He said he's not sure how to get around 116, but they should look
200 at alternate options. Double frontage lots are a poor way to do things. He also said that he
201 couldn't go along with clear cutting the trees in the northeast corner.
4
202
203 White stated that she agrees that tree preservation is extremely important. Traffic is a problem,
204 but she is especially concerned with the density on both the north and west sides. There are just
205 too many lots and if the number of lots is decreased it will provide more options for a park.
206
207
208 7. Dominium PUD General Plan and Plat
209 Finke presented the request. He noted that the Planning Commission and Council had provided
210 comments during February on a concept plant review. Property is guided Mixed Use Business,
211 zoned Mixed Use. Seeking a rezoning to PUD for setback flexibility. Net density is 8.65 units
212 per acre which meets the density requirements for the designation of 7-40 units per acre. Internal
213 setback flexibility and to private drives sought. Preliminary Plat application which will also
214 combine property with old City well site. Finke stated that the City had raised questions about
215 distance to road from garage at concept review. One building setback increased, but most
216 remained configured at 22 feet. He noted a few additional guest parking were provided and that
217 the landscaping plan was improved.
218
219 Finke stated that the plan proposed 32 townhomes units within nine buildings. The common
220 districts for townhomes require 30 feet between buildings, but the applicant requests 20 through
221 the PUD. He noted that 25 foot setback from private drive is generally required, but the applicant
222 requests 22 feet through the PUD. Guest parking restricted to guest use only. Stormwater
223 management proposed through a series of rain gardens to pond on property to east.
224
225 Mitchell asked if this were low income housing. Finke stated that it is certainly meets the
226 affordable standards of the Met Council. He stated that the project is to be funded through the
227 Low Income Tax Credit program, which mandates income and rent restrictions for a minimum of
228 15 years. Mitchell stated that it was his understanding that many cities are seeking to have old
229 wells discontinued. Finke stated that the City has been permitting wells to supplement irrigation
230 water reuse out of stormwater ponds.
231
232 Nolan asked for clarification on the northwestern unit access. Finke said a hammerhead or a
233 bump -out could help achieve better circulation.
234
235 Nick Anderson from Dominum said they have taken into consideration the comments from the
236 Concept Plan. They have added windows to garage doors, additional cedar shake shingles on the
237 front, as well as two guest parking stalls. Housing is income restricted based on housing size to a
238 maximum of 60% of AMI with rent restrictions based on Section 42 program. Rent is not
239 directly subsidized as in Section 8.
240
241 Nolan asked if adding additional pavement and landscaping in the northwest corner would be a
242 problem. Anderson said no.
243
244 R. Reid asked if Dominum intends to maintain ownership. Anderson said they are committed for
245 15 years.
246
247 Nolan opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Hearing no comment, public hearing closed at
248 10:01 p.m.
249
250 Mayor Weir said four units would be dedicated for the long term homeless. Anderson said four
251 townhomes are set aside for persons who have lacked permanent housing for more than a year as
252 part of to the tax credit program. He noted that this definition includes people who have been
5
253 "couch hopping" and living with others. In their Albertville project such units are usually
254 occupied by single mothers with children. He noted that they will be working with Interfaith
255 Outreach and Community Partners to assist in managing this.
256
257 Nolan asked if there is an application process to get the four dedicated units. Anderson said they
258 have a process where they do criminal and credit background checks on all units.
259
260 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Mitchell to recommend approval with the conditions noted in
261 the staff report. Motion carried unanimously.
262
263
264 8. Council Meeting Schedule
265 Mitchell agreed to attend and present at the April 15, 2014 Council meeting.
266
267
268 9. Adjourn
269 Motion by V Reid, seconded by Foote, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried
270 unanimously.
6
AGENDA ITEM: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: May 7, 2014
MEETING: May 13, 2014 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment — Loading Docks in Industrial Park district
Public Hearing
Background
The development standards of the commercial/business/industrial zoning districts include
various regulations related to loading dock areas. The requirements call for screening, additional
setbacks from residential areas, etc. Additionally, the Business (B), Business Park (BP), and
Industrial Park (IP) district standards limit the proportion of the total building perimeter which
can be occupied by loading docks.
The IP district limits loading docks to 10% of the building perimeter. The B and BP districts
also limit the loading docks to 10%, but state that "If it deems it practically necessary, the city
may allow additional loading dock area outside of courtyards, but not in an amount to exceed 20
percent of the building perimeter." The allowance for additional loading docks was added in
2009 at the suggestion of property owners in order to support commercial/industrial
development.
The language maintains 10% as the general standard, but provides the City with discretion to
allow more without requiring an applicant to have a practical difficulty and justify a variance.
Staff believes the discussion in 2009 supported being more permissive of loading docks,
provided they are located and screened appropriately. The IP district was not being discussed at
that time, so the more permissive language was not added. Staff does not believe it was the
City's intent to be more restrictive in the IP district.
Additional loading docks are permitted in the IP, B, and BP district if they are located within a
"courtyard." Essentially, a courtyard is an area between buildings where the loading docks
would not be as visible from surrounding properties. Current regulations in the IP district require
that access points in the courtyard do not exceed 40 feet in width. The B and BP districts allow
100 feet between buildings.
Loram (3900 Arrowhead Drive) is currently proposing to construct a 4000 square foot storage
building to the northeast of their facility. The applicant proposes three 14' doors, which is
16.15% of the total building perimeter. The applicant has requested that the City consider
adding the same flexibility to the IP zoning district.
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 May 13, 2014
Loading Docks in IP District Planning Commission Meeting
Potential Ordinance Amendment
The attached ordinance would largely mirror the language of the B and BP zoning district, if the
Planning Commission and Council believe it is appropriate to do so.
The same language would be added "If it deems it practically necessary, the city may allow
additional loading dock area outside of courtyards, but not in an amount to exceed 20 percent of
the building perimeter."
Additionally, the ordinance would allow a larger 100 -foot gap in the "courtyard" for access.
Staff also suggests an alteration to the language which defines a loading dock. Currently, the
definition states that "a loading dock is defined as an area measuring at least 12 feet wide..."
Staff believes that in many cases, loading dock doors are narrower than 12 feet and would
inadvertently be left out of the definition. Staff recommends reducing the width to 8 feet.
Attachment
DRAFT ordinance amendment
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 May 13, 2014
Loading Docks in IP District Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING LOADING DOCK REGULATIONS
IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT;
AMENDING SECTION 833 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 833.07 Subd. 1(s) of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is
amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows:
(s) Loading Docks — For purposes of this section a loading dock is defined as an area measuring
at least 44 eight feet wide which provides a portal for a truck through the outside wall of a
building. The portal could be through a door, which allows the truck to either enter into the
building or which allows the truck to the edge of the building or to a dock at the building with a
portal into the building. A loading dock also includes an area, measuring 80 feet long by 12 feet
wide perpendicular from the portal. Storage of trucks and/or trailers, against or adjacent to the
building shall be counted as loading dock even if access into the building is not provided.
Loading docks shall not be located within 300 feet of a residential or residential planned unit
development zone. Loading docks located within 300 feet and 720 feet of a residential zone or
residential planned unit development shall be screened to the fullest extent possible.
Measurements shall be from the lot line of the Industrial Park property.
Loading docks shall be screened from adjacent property and streets to the fullest extent
practicable using any, but not limited to, one of these techniques: landscaping, wing -walls (no
longer than 80 feet), berms, roofs or other similar overhangs, trenches allowing trucks below the
ground, or innovative architecture such as a saw -tooth configuration or a courtyard.
Loading docks not located within a courtyard shall not exceed 10 percent of the perimeter of the
building. If it deems it practically necessary, the city may allow additional loading dock area
outside of courtyards but not in an amount to exceed 20 percent of the buildingperimeter As
used in this section, a courtyard must be formed by at least 70 percent of the principal building;
the remainder may be a wing -wall architecturally integrated into the building. The courtyard
shall have no more than two openings with each opening not to exceed a width of 40100 feet
providing access for truck and vehicle traffic. The open ends of the courtyards shall be oriented
away from property zoned residential if the courtyard is located within 720 feet of the lot line of
property zoned residential. For any site adjacent to or within 720 feet of a residential zone or
planned residential development, loading docks shall be planned so that the building is located
between the residential zone and the loading dock.
Loading docks shall use quality materials and have a "finished" appearance.
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this day of , 2014.
Elizabeth Weir, Mayor
Attest:
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News on the day of , 2014.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
AGENDA ITEM: 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: May 8, 2014
MEETING: May 13, 2014 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Loram — Site Plan Review and Variance — 3900 Arrowhead Drive
Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: April 29, 2014
60 -day Review Deadline: June 28, 2014
Overview of Request
Loram Maintenance of Way has requested approval of a Site Plan Review for the construction of
a 4000 square foot storage building and adding 23 parking stalls to their existing parking lot at
3900 Arrowhead Drive. The applicant has also requested a variance to allow a higher proportion
of the storage building to be loading dock than would be permitted in the Industrial Park zoning
district.
An aerial of the subject site can be found below. The proposed building and parking expansion
are adjacent to other improvements already located on the property.
Analysis
Manufacturing of railroad rolling stock is an allowed conditional use in the zoning district. The
applicant received an amended conditional use permit for the facility in 2006. The proposed
storage building is accessory to the use. Off-street parking is a permitted accessory use.
Setbacks / Hardcover
The following table summarizes the lot requirements of the IP district in comparison to the
proposed site plan.
IP District
Requirement
Proposed
Storage Building and
Parking Expansion
Structure Setbacks
50 feet
240 feet (north)
505 feet (east)
Parking Setbacks
25 feet
103 feet (west)
72 feet (south)
Impervious Surfaces
70%
51.5%
Building Height
35 feet
24 feet
The proposed storage building and parking meet the dimensional standards.
Wetlands/Floodplains
There are wetlands located on the east portion of the site. The eastern edge of the storage
building is approximately 88 feet from the wetland. The IP zoning district requires a buffer of 50
feet adjacent to the wetland. It appears that the buffer could use some maintenance. Staff
recommends a condition that this buffer be brought up to the standards of the City's wetland
ordinance.
No floodplains are within the vicinity of proposed improvements.
Building Materials and Design
The proposed structure is essentially a pole structure with applied stucco exterior. The table
below summarizes the building material requirements of the IP district in comparison to the
proposed building plans. The proposed plans abide by the district standards. The applicant had
originally proposed to use fiber cement siding (commonly called hardi-board) panels. These
panels are not lap siding as commonly seen in residential settings, but are fashioned after other
building materials (stucco, stone, etc.). Current code requirements only permit 20% of a
structure to include fiber cement siding.
CH -RR District Requirement
Proposed
Brick, stone, glass, stucco
Min 20%
74%
Decorative Concrete
Max 80%
0%
Metal, wood, fiber cement
Max 20%
11.5%
The IP zoning district includes the following requirement for building modulation: to minimize
the apparent scale and dimension of structures. Modulation means harmonious changes or
variations of the massing and facade of a structure. Modulation is intended to achieve high
quality architecture which is aesthetically pleasing and functional. Modulation may be achieved
Loram
Site Plan Review and Variance
Page 2 of 5
May 13, 2014
Planning Commission Meeting
by variations in the form, mass, bulk and height of structures and shall be combined with
architectural features to achieve a high standard of design. The following shall be used as
guidelines:
(1) Building design should avoid blank walls and large unbroken expanses of walls
exposed to the outside.
(2) Building design should mitigate the visual impacts of a large building mass through
offsets, projections, and recesses in the facade.
(3) The appearance of massive roofs should be avoided by variations in the rooflines and
height. Dormers, deep eaves, overhangs and cornices may help create visual interest.
(4) Decorative roof elements should be incorporated into other roof or wall elements to
avoid looking "tacked on."
(5) Building elevations should be articulated to provide a reasonable amount of visual
interest by varying the shape or pattern of windows, building materials, textures, and
colors.
The proposed storage building is essentially a rectangle without differentiation in building design
or materials. The structure is small in comparison to the principal structure on the property. The
Planning Commission and City Council can discuss if additional modulation is necessary. For
the sake of comparison, buildings in the commercial districts are required to be modulated once
per 50 feet of building frontage.
The Fire Marshal has noted that the building will be required to be sprinkled as a result of the
City adopting Rule 1306 and that an additional hydrant will be required to serve the building.
Stormwater and LID Review
The applicant proposes to add 10,951 square feet of additional hardcover for the parking and
storage building. The applicant proposes to install a rain garden in the area between the parking
additions to provide additional water quality improvement on the site. Comments from the City
Engineer are attached requesting some technical changes to the rain garden, but generally the
proposed improvement is consistent with stormwater regulations.
The applicant proposes to grade a swale around the proposed storage building to direct runoff
area from the adjacent wetland and towards the stormwater pond for treatment.
The applicant is also proposing to construct an employee gathering area to the east of the main
building. The applicant proposes pervious pavers in this area to reduce additional hardcover.
Access/Driveway/Parking
The proposed building location does not impact existing circulation or fire access. The addition
of the 4000 square foot storage building increases the required parking by two spaces, but far
more spaces are proposed for the parking expansion. The site includes more parking than is
required by the City's zoning regulations, but the existing parking is insufficient for the
applicant's current operations.
Landscaping/Tree Preservation
No tree removal is proposed for the improvements.
Loram Page 3 of 5 May 13, 2014
Site Plan Review and Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Substantial landscaping has been installed on the property during previous building expansions.
The location of the proposed storage building is screened from adjoining property. The
property includes required amount of street trees.
Five percent of parking areas are required to be landscaped. 13.3% of the proposed new parking
areas are proposed to be landscaped.
Lighting
The applicant proposes no additional lighting. If the applicant changes their mind and desires to
install lighting, it will be reviewed for conformance with City regulations.
Loading Docks
The applicant proposes three 14'x18' garage doors to allow vehicles to access the storage
building. These doors qualify as loading docks under the IP zoning district.
The district limits loading docks to 10% of the building perimeter. The proposed doors occupy
16% of the building perimeter. The applicant has requested a variance to permit the additional
garage doors. The applicant has also requested that the City consider amending the IP zoning
district standards to allow additional loading docks, similar to other districts. The ordinance
amendment will be discussed before this application.
In terms of the variance, Subd. 2 of Section 825.45establishes the criteria by which the City
reviews variance requests. This information is copied below for reference:
(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 difficulty 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 has described their rationale for the variance in their attached narrative. Staff
believes one could reasonably find that the plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances
unique to the property and that the variance request is not consistent with the intent of the zoning
code to limit loading docks.
Loram Page 4 of 5 May 13, 2014
Site Plan Review and Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Outside Storage
In 2006, the applicant received approval for 50,000 square feet of outdoor storage to the
southeast of the principal structure on the property. It appears that outdoor storage may be
expanding outside of this area. Additionally, members of the City Council have brought up
concerns related to outside storage on property owned by Loram to the south, at the corner of
Arrowhead Drive and Hamel Road. Staff believes the construction of the storage building
should help alleviate this storage, and will work with the applicant to ensure outside storage is in
compliance with previous approvals.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed
construction for consistency with City regulations. 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 criteria for variances are described above. As noted above, staff believes one could
reasonably find that the criteria have not been met.
Staff believes, with the exception of the proposed loading dock, the proposed storage building
and parking expansion is consistent with City regulations, subject to a number of conditions
noted below.
Unless the loading dock ordinance amendment is adopted, the Planning Commission and City
Council support the requested variance, or the applicant reduces the proportion of loading dock
on the storage building, staff would recommend denial of the site plan review.
On the other hand, if the proportion of loading dock were to meet ordinance standards, staff
would recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
1) Except as modified herein, construction shall be consistent with the plans received by the
City on April 17, 2013.
2) The applicant shall abide by the recommendations of the City Engineer dated 5/7/2014 and
the Fire Marshal dated 4/18/2014.
3) Additional architectural elements shall be provided on the storage building if determined
appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council.
4) The applicant shall conduct vegetative maintenance on the vegetative buffer adjacent to the
wetland as recommended by the City Engineer.
5) No exterior lighting is approved. If any lighting is desired, specifications and photometrics
shall be submitted for review by City staff for compliance with relevant requirements.
6) 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. Applicant Narrative
2. City Engineer comments dated 5/7/2014
3. Fire Marshal comments dated 4/18/2014
4. Plans received by the City 4/17/2014
Loram Page 5 of 5 May 13, 2014
Site Plan Review and Variance Planning Commission Meeting
i�H
LORAM
3900 Arrowhead Drive
Harrel, Minnesota 55340 USA
Phone: (763)478-6014 • Far.• (753) 478-6915 • www.lorarn.com
Loram is applying for a variance for a proposed storage building on our property.
The building dimensions would be 80 feet by 50 feet, and we want to have three
garage doors on an 80 foot wall, each of them being 14 feet wide: Current
regulations would only allow one 14 foot and one 12 foot door.
The building we are proposing will be divided into 2 sections inside; a 25 foot
wide section served by one door, and a 55 foot section served by the other two,
spaced to allow the best access to all areas, and to allow racking, including down
the middle of the wide space. The 14 foot door width is to accommodate the
large equipment that we store, as well as the large outdoor forklifts we use to
move things around. These are not extremely maneuverable and are 10 feet
wide, and we would not be able to get to the space along the wall with only one
door on it without leaving a large open spot in the middle of the room, wasting
much available storage area. The doors will face west, towards the east wall of
the existing shop, and will not be visible from off the property.
Currently we have 6 rented cargo containers in the yard we are using to store our
miscellaneous equipment we use on our construction projects, and our plan is to
be able to replace these with a building that will look neater and be more
efficient.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tim Heisel
Facilities Manager
Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc.
763-478-2279
A
WSB
.E Ivst i,Ile'r. lrtr.
South
55cf16
engineering' planning' environmental- construction
Memorandum
To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer
City of Medina
701 Xenia Avenue
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN
Tel: 763-5'f7-11800
Fax: 763-5q1-1700
From: Earth Evans, P.E. Jim Stremel, P.E.
Water Resources Project Manager Municipal Project Manager
WSB & Associates, Inc. WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: May 7, 2014
Re: Loram Parking Addition
Stormwater Management Plan Review
City Project No. LR-14-132
WSB Project No. 2065-94
We have completed a review of the site and stormwater management plans for Loram Parking
Lot Addition. The development is an expansion of the existing Loram property. Documents
provided for review by Sunde Engineering include the following:
• Grading/Drainge/Site Layout (C1) and Notes/Details (C2) dated 4.22.14
• Stormwater Calculations dated 5.18.14
These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina's Stormwater
Design Manual and general engineering practices for stormwater management.
Comments/Recommendations
1. If filtration is required in lieu of infiltration due to poor soils, the City requires 1.5" off
new impervious to be retained. The volume required is 1.5" * 10,730 sf * 1/12 = 1,341
cf. The proposed rain garden should be expanded to meet the City's requirement.
2. The development proposes to route existing parking lot impervious to the proposed rain
garden to compensate for not providing filtration adjacent to the proposed building. This
design meets the intent of the City's requirement.
St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng•com
C:`.Users 'dustytinke'AppData`. Local ' Microsoft' Windows Temporary Internet Files ContentOutlook AZR6O6ZD Loram Review 050614.doc
Loram Parking Lot Addition Review
5.7.14
Page 2
3. The calculations indicate the proposed impervious to the east pond increases from 60,053
sf to 127,836 sf. However, the calculations also indicate that the increase in impervious
surfaces is only 10,730 sf. Please confirm which calculation is accurate.
4. Infiltration should not be included in the modeling due to the poor soils.
5. The high water level of the east pond only provides 0.1 -feet of separation to the EOF.
Addressing the impervious calculation in comment #3 may address the lack of separation
to the EOF. A minimum of 0.5 -feet of separation is recommended. However, the east
pond EOF is routed to an existing wetland. Therefore the concern over separation to the
EOF is not as critical as when overtopping would occur onto a road or structure.
6. Submit the Landscaping Plan for review. The grading plan does not show how the
disturbed areas will be restored.
7. Show additional erosion/sediment control BNP's to keep sediments from washing onto
proposed rain garden during and after construction is complete.
C,Usecs'AustytinkwAppData\Local VMicrosoft \ Windows \Temporary Internet Fla\Content.0utlook,AZR606ZD.Loram Review 050614.doc
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres.
April 18, 2014
TO:
Debra Peterson
Planning Assistant
City of Medina
FROM: Loren Kohnen
RE: Additional Parking Area
4,000 sq. ft. Storage Building
3900 Arrowhead Drive
Medina, Minnesota
(763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
Mtrowst76@aol.com
Items noted:
1) The additional parking may require one (1) additional Handicap
Parking stall. Will need to see architect's code compliance
letter.
2) The proposed 4,000 sq. ft. storage building will have to be
fire sprinklered.
3) An additional fire hydrant will have to be provided on West side
of the building near fire road.
4) There are no dimensions on the building at this time.
LK:jg
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
S OG aft
fN W
?pit? 15)5.5104 141
1511 !Ma fwrcbr
N CC4*C 5W
410 SAX 54
��. 1.14 Coat 5e)
J
N
Ifen
COVin
F
HOLLOW
METAL
WINDOW 1
4'-0"x4'-0"
�HOLLOW METAL
WINDOW II
4'_0„x4,.0„ ,
HOLLOW
METAL
WINDOW
4'-0"x4,_0„
HOLLOW
METAL
WINDOW
\i_fl
�3,_0„ X 7,_0,. 0" X
�,_0„
HOLLOW OVERHEAD
METAL i DO OR AND DOOR
I FRAME
._.... _25,:0••___... ,. .._------
: =r:::— __
FLOO R PLA N
— 6" METAL
STUD WALL
WITH BATT
INSULA TION
3'-0" X 7,-0"
HOLLOW
METAL
DOOR AND
FRAM E
HOLLOW METAL
WINDOW
80,_0„
. 0„ X 3,_0„ X T_0,.
16'-0" HOLLOW
OVERHEAD METAL
DOOR DOOR AND
FRAME
-0 " X
16'-0"
OVERHEAD
DOOR
F OR CONSTRUCTION
E31EaRT
0
}
i
ECER iS/ E
APR 1 7 2014
CALL BEFCI E YOU
N
aC
novN1aC 1p .BTOW ,
` Call � ( h,f, oreyou�dig�
subsurfaceIll s utility mlormano n n in Via P n\ aurry�'
uoliL ev el 0. Thi s q uality le vel, . eteFwkwd card, to
guidelines of Cl/41 ]e-o2,: Mi6t y talda eGuide'g e
a Collectio n an pePictior � E xist. §rgsurf pt
ta- n 11 a to
1190 r� 9:55 I
1 i 997 4 . 1C
Tc
\ II
997.9 OC
/
\ci
999 99>
lum 9,�997G
998 yy7i9 TC
99
IC
9 A.3
9.75 ; 8
\ BITUMINOUS
TV -3-9 __
2' I 'R CP
1 N
1 \ \ /
99S 5
1,01 t, -0014
fp0
EXIS TINE BUILDING
3900 ARROWHEAD D RIVE
998,
198
gag- %
C,. J BPI
- :998
FEn`v
999.1
INV-991 .
- qA t1 -:, 1_°A111,
0. 3 j00L0
C fC _SC 'tOBI6y,,
10011 ._ __ ,m � I990 9 --4002N. 1002. 5 K<
1001. 1 1001.3 1000.7 1001.] 0//S 8T 002,1 `002.0
1001.1 . 1001. 4 . i 001 i Y T002 I
TG 10'.
1 039
-
999.2 o 992
NEW PARIGH�e'" 'A�DITIONS/" 890R ii 0
00,
?/P ARKING STALLS ADDED SOUTH LOT- 28
--PARKING STALLS ADDED NORTH LOT - 8
TOTAL PARKING STALLS ADDED - 36
TC 90/ NORTH LO T IMPERVIOUS - 2,010 SF
;oo2s i m-_ _SOUTH LOT IMPERVIOUS 7.080 SF
lof,2. 00 2. 8 1G' o -EMPLOYEE GATHERING AREA IMPERVIOUS >. 0 SF
loc".2 rG ' .0024 1002. 4, Tc TC t0ThST PROPOSED BUILDING IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.861 SF
1002.2
-r1/^07- " �7 l 0TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA - 10,951 SF
" 1001 B '. 001.8 iT I-; UO
/D;; REQUIRED SURFACE AREA OF RAIN GARDEN - 803 SF
SURFACE AREA PROVIDED - 850 SF
-9B01.A- " :nn' 5 �a� c / 991
/ RAIN GARDEN VOLUME - 1,246 CU. FT.
IS
s
9G
RELOCATE EXISTING
GRAVEL DRIVE
w 997.7 2 PC
i5„iREE
C997 1
2"$PCG / r` -
- 597.E
990 C' ,,,MMMtT2 "SPCG
997.7 G98 .rf�J-
- 9 597N1 r --\---_T /'
/
997.9 9
\994.4
95 .7 l99_ 9
994.2
9
995\
x'904 .4 \* 999-6
\ v 997 .4 \ w 994.5 .994.1 /
\ 99 .1 /
\ ` 993\3
92 \
7
/
/ \ BITUMINOUS
]NV
INV=991.11
KEYNOTES ARE DENOTED BY:
NSfALL SILTSAC, OR APPROVED EQUAL, EROSION
��-_CONTROL SILT TRAP INSIDE CATCHBASIN . REMOVE; -
-- 7.- --SILT AND RE -USE BILTSAC AS REQUIRE? .
994 .4
\ 9s , 52 A93.9
` 9 �T/ / .094
9 n4 gy A
\ 15 "P .
994.6
99-
RRT
w 994/ Y`
• S93, 7
1
992.0
9 \
\\,\\
\\\'51,993 ,9
N .\
w 994 .8
RIOT
95.9
' 993 .0
UP 97 .6
INV 99I.4(NE) /
INV-991.5(S, W,NW){
996-6 I
r
SCALE
N 99
N
N
N
IN
FEET
1141101Y
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
10830 NESBITT AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNES OTA 55437
(952)881-3344 TELEPH ONE
(W2) 881-1913 FAX
.s undecivil .com
PARKING LOT
ADDITION 2014
MEDINA, MN
DATE REVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL EN GINEER UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE ST ATE F MINNESOTA.
Brian Mundstock
DATE: 4/11/2014 G. NO.: 23468
INFORMATION,
PROJECT NO .: 05-705
DRAWN BY: MVJT
CHECKED BY: BHM
APPROVED BY: BHM
SCALE'. GRAPHIC
DATE: 4/11/2014
DESCRIPTION:
GRADING, DRAINAGE,
SITE LAYOUT, AND
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
SHEET N O:
Cl
1 082
805-705
T.
R. S.
DRAWING: \\ SERVER \ Pro jec ts \2005\#05-705 Lo ram Me din a \2014 -04 -08\05705010 -lull build o ptien 2.dwg LAYOUT: C1 XREF: su rv ey: XREF: siteplan 4
SITE GRADING:
GENERAL;
1. Vsit the s ite. Be come familia r with the site and existing site con ditio ns inclu ding a va ilable so il re po rts. Ex amine all
local con ditions at the site, an d assume re sponsibility os to the grades, contours, and the char acter of the earth,
e xistin g conditio ns, and o ther itemsthat may be enc oun tered during excav ation wo rk a bo ve or be lo w the e xis tin g
grades. Review the drawings and specific ations c overing this wo rk and become familiar with the anticipa ted s ite
co ndition s.
Unle ss otherwise n oted, all propos ed gra des shown or e finis he d gra de s. Fin is hed grades at po ints between spot
e leva tion s or con tou rs o re determined by u niform slopes between the giv en grades. All proposed spot elevations
sho wn at cu rbline s ore to bottom of curb (gu tterline) unless otherw ise indica ted.
3. At loca tio ns where n ew work conne cts to existing wo rk. field ve rify existin g e levation s an d grades prior to beginning
the new wo rk. Match existin g grades at construction limits.
4. Remove oll uns uita ble ma terial (orga nic soils , u ontro lled fill, debris, a nd natu ra l or artificial obstructions) in the
zone from 1 m (3.26 feet) be low the finished subgra de to finished subgrade in the propose d paveme nt areas.
5. Compac t all fill ploced in pavement areas in occo rdo nce with MNDOT Standa rd Spec ification 2105.3. F1 (Spe cified
Density Metho d). Co mpa ct all fill pla cedunder buildings in acco rdance with the recomme nda tions of the Ge otec hnic al
Engin eer.
6. Comply with the requirements of O.S.H.A. 29 CFR, Port 1926, Subport P, 'Excav ations and Tre nches.'
(www .osha. gov )
7. Con stru ct all proposed sideslopes w ith gra des not excee ding 3:1 (3 ho rizon ta l to 1 ve rtic al), unle ss otherwise
indic ate d.
8. Test roll the building and pave ment area sin the pre sence of the Geotechn ical Enginee r. Perfo rm ba se pre para tio n
and test rolling prior to curb an d gutte r con stru ction , pla cing o/ gra vel base, sa nd/gro vel su b -base , bituminous
stabilized ho se , or pla nt mixe d bitu minous bas e on a ll street a nd pave me nt areas. Test roll the are a between 300
mm (12 inches) o utside of the back of the cu rbs on eithe r side of the pav eas Us e a hea vy pneumatic -tire d
roller, towed by suitable trac tive e quipment, with two wheels spaced not less than 1,800 mm (71 inche s) a pa rt
(tran sversely ce nte r to center). tire s ize equal to 18x24 or 18x 25 (18' wide) inflated to a pres sure of 650 kPa (94
psi), and a gro ss moss of the r ollerno t le ss than 13.5 me tric tons (14. 9 ton s) an d n ot more than 13.7 metric
tons (15.1 ton e). Test roll the above specified are a in a manner m such that each part of the oreo cornea in
ontact with o of the tires of le ast on ce. Ope ra te the hea vy ro lle r of a spee d of not less than 4okm/h (2.5
mph) a nd no t mo re than 8 km/h (5 mph). The su bgra de shall be considered unstable if, at the time that the
hea vy ro ller po sse s ove r the subgrade . the su rface shows yielding or rutting of more than 50 mm (2 inches).
measure d from the o rigin al surface to the bo ttom of the rut. Corr ect an y so ft spots or displac emen ts which
appear during the te st rolling by scorifying, aerating or wa te rin g, an d rc ompa cting as required to o btain stability; or
by < va ting to so lid material and backfilling with mote rial suitable fo r base c nslru ctio n. Remove ma terial such as
v egetation, rubbis h, lorge sto nes, pe at, and wet c lay. Retest the are a otte r correction .
9. Perform so il correc tion pro ce dures and co mpaction in a ccordon ce with the so ils report.
10. Con duct all gra ding ope ratio ns in o manner that min imizes the po ten tial fo r site e rosio n.
11. Grode the site to the finished elevations sho wn on the plan . Import emban kment mate rio l, or an d dispo se
of a e xcava tion mate rial as re quired. Pro vide waste a reas or dis po sal site s fo r < material inc luding, bu t
excess e xc orate
nothilimited to,ec excavated De termination
ma terial o rm bro ken co ncrete text is not de fies istto be iheo res ponsid intoily the wo rk involved
on this ojtc o ne tnni l of material import a nd export quantities solely the res ponsibility of the Contra cto r
and me co st of ma terial import and export is inciden ta l to the con tract.
12. Tole rant s. The co mpleted subgrade unde r sla bs and pave men t a rea s shall be comocte d, free from irregular
su rfa ce changes , a nd fine -graded n ot more than 16 mm (0.05 feet)abov e or below the specified subgrade
elev ation . The comple ted subgrade in other ore as sha ll be compacted. fre e fro m ir regulor aurto ce chan ges, a nd
line -graded no t more tha n 31 mm (0. 10 fe et) above or be lo w the specified su bgrade elev ation. The co mpleted top
of topso il sha ll be co mpacted, free fro m irre gula r surface chan ge s, and fine -grade d no t more than 16 mm (0. 05
fee t) above or below the spe cified finished grade ele vation .
13. Choo se equipmen t and wo rk proce du re s that will n ot dis turb the su bgra de soils. Route cons truction traffic awa y
from foundation soils and areas of pave me nts and sla bs in o rde r tom soil distu rbance. If the construction
equipment c ruttin g or ol pumping, then switch to other types o fn equipme nt or metho ds. The Contractor is
solely re sponsible for the proper selec tion of con struc tion equipme nt in o rder to avoid disturbing so ils on the site.
14. It is typical to a bbreviate spot ele vations. Ele vations shown as 12.8 or 12. 1 a re unde rs tood to non 912.8 or
912.1 respe ctively.
RAIN GARDEN AREA:
Pro te ct the rain ga rden orea from compaction and disturban ce of existing soils.
Schedu le the constru ction so that exc ava tio n of the rain ga rden system to final grade occurs after the
e contributing drain age a reas have been co nstructe d andfully s ta bilize d. Exc000 te the in filtration a reas to
within on e foo t of fina l gode initially. De lay finalex cavation of the basin floor until all disturbed areas
x tributary to the basin a re s tabilize d. Utilize trac ked is c avation equ ip ment that has rela tively light
bearing press ures . No heavy equipment is allowed on the infiltro tian a reas be fo re or afte r c onstru ction.
3. Delineate the location of the ran garden areas (e.g. with flags, sta kes, sign s, silt fence, e tc.) before
wo rk be gin s so tha t heavy construction equipmen t will no t co mpac t the soil in the propose d in filtration
sys te m.
4. Use rigorou s e n pev enlion and sediment con trols (e .g. diver sion be rms) during the c nslruction of
the sys tem in o rde r to keep se diment and runoff co mpletely a wa y fro m the inliltrolion area.
5. Inspec t a ll in filtration a rea s s order to a tha t no se diment fro m ongoin g co nstructio n activity is
reaching the infiltration a an d tha t the sea reas ore protected from co mpactio n due to constru ction
u ipmert driv ing a cross the in filtr atio n area s.
6. Coa rse filter o ggre go te sha ll be o free draining mineral product, exc luding c rus he d carbonate quarry
rock, limestone , crushed concrete. and salvage d bituminous mixture.
After fin al grading, till the flo or of the rain ga rde n area to a de pth of at least 12 inches in order to
provide a well ae ra te d, po ro us surface tex tu re . Till in 6 inc hes of co mpost ma teria l if the so ils be come
co mpacted.
8. Place all e xcava te d rain ma te rie ls down stream an d away from the garden a rea during an d afte r
exca vation.
9. Sta bilize the bo ttom and sideslo pe s of the ram gorden area immediately follo win g con struc tio n of the
basin.
10. Use Do tlyp se ed mixture equivalen t to MNDOT No. 310. Apply se ed mixture at a rate of 94.7 kg per
hectare (84.5 lbs pe r ac re) in acco rda nce with MNDOT Sta ndard Spec. 2575. Inc orpo rate a Type 3
fertilizer (slow relea se type w ith 10 wee k residuo l) con sisting of 22-5-10 (AN -P -K) in to the soil at an
a pplica tion rate of 392 kg per he cta re (350 lbs perocre) by disking prior to se edin g.
11. Establish na tive seed mix in cordan ce with MNDOT Stan dard Spec. 2575. 3. Use a Truax type, or
equal interseeder drill withat eas t two see d boxes: ama ll/fine seed box and a la rge /fluffy see d bo x.
Drill large/fluffy seeds to a lino! depth of 10 mm (1/2 inch) to 25 mm (I inch) deep Iro n
the la rge/fluffy see d box. Split the drill rates in ho lf an d make two posse s over the site in o rde r to
de crease co mpe tition in drill r Sc alie r small/fine seeds over the so il su rface by dro p -seeding from
the s ma ll/fine see d box, or broadca st. Coordina te with the see d vendo r to keep the lorge/fluffy seeds
s eparate from the small/fine seeds so tha t they ma y be insta lled from se parate se ed boxe s. Lightly
harrow or r ake the s ite fo llowing the se eding o pera tion. Pack the site follo wing harrow ing in order to
en sure afirm seed -bed.
12. Co mply with the requirements of M NDOT Stan dard Spec. Table 2575-1 for se
ed
of pla ntin g nat.nat.eed
mixture s. The a ppropriote dates for spr ing seeding are from April IS through July 20. Fall seedin g
da te s are fro m September 20 to October 20. Dormant seeding dates are fro m October 20 to
November 15. Do rmant see din g will only be allo wed if them soil te mperature at a depth of 25
mm (1 inch) does no t exceed 10 degrees C (50 de gree s F) ins orr to prev ent ger mination. Whe n the
dates in the s of plan ting pro hibit seeding of the pe rman en t se ed mixture. apply temporary seeding
an d mulch in order to c omply with the re qu ire ments of the GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION ACTNITY an d then apply pe rmane nt seeding at a la te r da te.
13. Main tain Areas Planted With Relive Seeds: To reduce wee d establis hment, mo w 2 to 3 times (30 da ys
opart) durin g the first yea r with the mower de ck about 6" - 6' off the groun d. Mo w o ne time du rin g
the 2nd yea r before wee ds s et the ir se eds. M ow on ce ve ry 3 to 5 yea rs followin g the in itial 2 years
of maintenan ce in order to remov e dead plant material a nd stimula te new see d.
1. Co mply with the wo rk sa fe ty prac tice s spec ified by the Occu pa tional Safety and He alth Adminis tra tion
(OSHA). Comply with a ll a pplica ble local, sta te , a nd fe de ra l sa fe ty re gu lations. OSHA prohibits en try in to
'co nfin ed spaces ,- suc h as anho les a nd inlets (see 29 CFR Section 1910. 146), without u ndert aking
certa in specific prac tice s a nd pro cedures. Construction safe ty is solely the responsibility of the Contracto r,
who is also solely respon sible for the means. methods , and sequenc ing of the c on struc tio n o perations.
2. Existing boundary, location, topographic , on d u tility informatio n shown on this plan is from a field su rve y
by Sunde Lan d Surv eyin g, LLC. doted 07/09/2010 and from previo us phase constru ction do cumen ts. The
Bose info rmation shown is not a sur vey. All existing conditions must be field verified prior to cons truc tion.
3. Per fo rm a ll constru ction work in accordance with State an d Local requ irements.
4. A licen se d surveyo r sha ll perfo rm constr uction sto king. The Contra cto r s ha ll provide and be responsible fo r
the sta king. Verify all plan and de ta il dimensio n, prior to constru ction staking. Stake the limits of
wo lkwa y, ond c urbing prior to v alve.,ma intenance ho le, and co tchba sin installatio n. Adjus t valv ebox an d
mainte nance hole locotions in o rder to avo id con flicts with curb an d gu tte r. Adjust catchbasin location s in
order to align property with curb and gutte r.
5. Provide temporary fences. borricades, cov erings, an d o ther protectio ns in o rde r to preserve ex isting items
to remain , and to pre ven t injury or dama ge to per so n or property.
6. Pe rfo rm trenc h ex cava tions for all u tilities in acco rda nce with the requirements of 0. S.H. A 29 CFR, Port
1926, Su bpa rt P, "Ex cav ations a nd Tren ches. Slopin g or benching for excavations grea te r than 20 fee t
de ep mu st be appro ve d by o r egistered profess io nal enginee r. (ww rr. osha.gov)
7. The subsurface u tility infornalion sho wn on this plan is utility Qua lity Lev el D. This qu ality le vel was
de te rmine d a cco rding to the gu idelines of Cl/ASCE 38-02. en titled ' Standard Guideline for the Collection
on d De pictio n of Existin g Subsu rfa ce Utility Da ta.'
8. The locations of ex is tin g utilities sho wn on this pion ore from re cord informa tio n. The En gineer does not
guarantee that all existing utilities are shown or. if shown , exist in the loca tio ns in dica ted on the pla n. It
the Controctor's responsibility to asc ertain the fina l vertica l and horizo nta l lo catio n of all existing utilitie s
(including water and sewer lines and appurte nance s). No tify the Enginee r of any discrepanc ies.
9. Contact utility compa nie s fo r lo cations of all public and private u tilities w ithin the w ork area prio r to
be ginning con structio n. Contact GOPHER STATE ONE CALL at (651) 454-0002 in the Minn eapo lis /St. Paul
me tro are, or 1-800-252-1166 elsewhe re in M innesoto for exa ct lo ca tion s of ex isting utilities at lea st 48
wo rking ho urs (no t includin g wee kends a nd holidays) be for e beginning any con stru ction in accordance with
Minneso ta Sta tute 2160. Obtain ticke t nu mbe r an d mee t w ith repre sentatives of the v in utilities at the
site . Pro vide the Own er with the tic ket number in formation. Gopher Sta le One Coll is v arious
free s serv ic e that
locates municipal an d u tility company lines, bu t do es no t lo cate priva te utility lines. Use an independent
locato r service or other means in order to obtain loc atio ns of private utility lin es inc luding, bu t not limited
to. un derground e le ctric cables , telephone, N, and loan spr inkle r lin es.
10. Pothole to ve rify the pos itio ns of exis tin g undergro un d fa cilities at a su fficient number of lo cation s in o rder
to assure tha t no co nflic t with the pro pos ed wo rk e xists an d tha t su fficie nt cle orance is a vaila ble.
11. W he re e xisting ga s. electric, cable, or telephon e utilities con flict with the Work, coo rdin ate the aban donment,
relor ation, offset, o support of the existing utilities w ith the a ppropriote local utility c mponies.
Co ordinate new gasmeter and gas line installation , electric meter and e lectric se rvice in sta llotion , c able
se rv ice. and te le phon e servic e installation with the loc al u tility cowponie s.
12. Arra nge for and sec ure su itable dis posal a a off -Ate . Dis pose of all exce ss s oil, wa ste mate ria l, debris,
and all materials not designated for salvage oWaste material an d debris includes tree s, stumps, pipe ,
rconc rete. as pholtic conc rete, c other wa ste mate ria l from the con structio n operations. Obtain the
ights to any w aste area fo r dis posal of unsuita ble or su rplus moterial either sho wn or not show n on the
plans . MI work in dispos in g of su ch ma terial sha ll be considered in cidental to the work, All dispos al must
con fo rm to applica ble solid was te dis posa l permit regulatio ns. O btain all nec esso ry permits of no co st to
the OWNER.
13. Stra ight line so w -cu t e xisting bituminou s or co ncre te surfa cing at the perimeter of pa vement remo val
Use sows that prov ide water to the bla de. Tack, an d ma tch a ll conn ec tio ns to e xisting bitu min ou s
pav eme nt.
14. Reloca te o verhead powe r, te le phon e, and cable lines as require d. Aban don and report e xisting on -site
wells a nd septic syste ms in accor dance with Minnes ota Departme nt of H ealth (MDH) requiremen ts.
15. Pro tec t sub grade s fro m da mage by surface water runoff.
16. Full design strength is not available in bituminous pave ment a rea suntil the fina l lift of o spholt is
compacted in to place. Protect pav emen t areas fro m overloading by deliv ery tru cks , c onstruc tion equipmen t,
and o ther vehicles.
17. When sa wing or drilling concrete or ma
s on ry, s on ry, use saws that prov ide wate r to the blade . Do n ot a llow the
slurry produced by this process to be tra cked outside of the imme dia te work a rea or disc ha rge d into the
se wer syste m,
18. Adjust all cu rb stops, va lve boxe s, maintena nc e ho le ca stin gs, catchbasin castings, c lean out cove rs, a nd
simila r items to finis hed gra de.
19. Obta in a nd pay fo r a ll permits , tes ts. in spec tio ns, etc. re quired by agenc ies that ha ve jurisdiction ov er the
pro ject. The Contractor is respo nsible for all bonds, letters of credit, or ash su reties related to the w ork.
Execu te and inspect wo rk in ac co rdance with all lo ca l an d stale codes. rule s, o rdin ance s, or regu lations
pertaining to the pa rticu lar type of work invo lve d.
20. Re fe r to the geotechnical report by the Soils Enginee r for deco te ring requ iremen ts.
21. Install de tecta ble undergroun d ma rking tope directly a bo ve all pve, po lye thylen e, an d o the r non -metallic
Ones at a de pth of 457 mm (18 inche s) be low fin ished grade, unless o therwise indic ate d. Brin g the tape
to the su rtoe at v eno us lo cations in o rde r to provide co nnec tio n po ints fo r stating un de rground utilities.
22. The En ginee r is no t respo nsible for me ans , methods, s afe ty, an d sequenc ing.
W 01 10 SC ALE
OWOISO 6
w . fY
CORMS
gg
LK fr.
Cli SO
e r 13 1/2.
NIx 0.0474
x1. 7
B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
ICS 1,61 0:0 1,01111.
0.00-444-311311 MINE
110 1-111 -3074 "'fix
Im,TIMOUL r
NORM
I.
USE 0.17SOAPS LMWISSICS
AL DEM. OR
=MUM rid Rio (a
M0/ Mt,155@d Mwa0 W WT ISTRIOW ID I ARMfse.
IE C1,6011.4. USE RECO INCULAR
Mt)U UMW KEIS
aM WO OR ROUND
12
ROSOMENORDOWS
CATCHBASIN INLET PROTECTION
aeon. svmG
i ... Te m iws:
P.61,10 106
oeze naeM sic .....
mot ass
rrr evl
Nnmaw aremu aMs7wuwa Pa
0 6OR LA SION 1,00O5 W ARD
ce
ONO BE Los MIES AR Ros. OR
f (
M EDINA
SILT FENCE
MACHINE SLICED
1 .mu
MARIO
ER0-01
SECTION A -A
NEW BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT IN LIGHT TRAFFIC AREAS
TYllvl =TIM
MUM= w 116/60 6 MU M 1eWr AIR. i lea.
WPM VIM we M asan Was COW
1.7s. 111160704 110 1-10,6016. MON M6 i lea.
111w>OpY (a
Sr SO OT a- 3136 CVO 6 A 1wYM. MC DOOR
eon we wan are law)
- wa wa as
(v v ery
�160 06;; 3.110. 4-a swam!swam!e a r a* ma ma
wf��n.+ a 161:6 l& ygl ye110a ewssee el W. e,wFre ve awes
PAVEMENT
CURB AND GUTTER
B ACK OF CURB?
A
CURB BREW
IN15H CURB
VARIES
B
PLAN VIEW
FINiSHED GRADE
� SNDOT SID . SPEC. 3601
CL III PoPRA➢
9' ['EMIT --
FILTER
NSW- TWO LAVERS
OF TYPE N GEOTEMILE
FABRIC (SHOOT 3733)
BENEATH THE
GRANULAR FILTER
MATERSL A ND EXTEND
THE FABRIC UNDER T HE
CURB.
SECTION B -B
18' DEPTH RIPRAP
MNDOT STD. SPEC. 3601
CL III AGGRE GATE FILTER
A
CURB CUT
MEAN. fares
VICa .lm MEAN OM COR M ewe . OR WO
RMS)
rt
E GU HN.
a. USE WW1 IRON OEOIMIM FILTER FABRIC . OR APPROVED
EWIL
RAIN GARDEN
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
10830 NESBITT AVENUE S OUTH
BLOO MINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437
(952) 881-3344 TELEPHONE
(952) 881-1913 FAX
www.sundecivil.om
PARKING LOT
ADDITION 2014
MEDINA, MN
DATE
RE VISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REP ORT W AS PREPARE D
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE STATE OF. MINNES OTA .
ll.)
lo
Boon Mundsto ck
DATE. 4/11/2014 R G. NO .. 23468
INFORMATION:
PROJECT NO.: 05-705
DRAWN BY MWT
CHECKED BY: OHM
APPROVED BY', BHM
SCALE:
DATE:
GRAPHI C
4/1112014
DESCRIPTION:
NOTES
AND
DETAILS
SHEET NO:
C2
#05-705 DRAW ING: \\ SERV ER \ Pro jects \2005\#05-705 Loro m Medino\2014-04-08\05705C10-full build o plion2. dwg LAYOUT: C2
%REF: survey; %REF: siteplo n4
2 oft