Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-10-2014MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, June 10, 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 May 13, 2014 Draft Planning Commission minutes 6. Amend April 8, 2014 Planning Commission minutes 7. Public Hearing — Buell — 3574 Pinto Drive — Conditional Use Permit to construct 150' wireless communications monopole. 8. Public Hearing Princeton Capital 1575 Hamel Road Preliminary Plat to subdivide one lot into four single family residential lots. 9. Public Hearing — Greg Smith — 4635 Pine Street — Variances to the rear yard setback (east) requirement and the maximum impervious surface coverage requirements for a garage addition to home. 10. Public Hearing — Charles Cudd De Novo, LLC — Concept plan review for residential subdivision — East of CR116, South of Hackamore Road 11. Public Hearing Wakefield Family Trust 3385 Co. Rd. 2'1 Preliminary Plat to subdivide a parcel into 3 Single Family parcels. 12. Council Meeting Schedule 13. Adjourn POSTED IN CITY HALL June MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Weir and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: May 29, 2014 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates June 3, 2014 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Reviews A) Loram — 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 Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the May 13 meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance to allow additional loading dock area. The Commission recommended denial of the variance and approval of the site plan if the City Council adopts an ordinance amendment. Allowing additional loading dock area. The Council approved such an ordinance amendment at the May 20 meeting and will review the site plan at the June 3 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 is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Council on June 3. C) Verizon Telecommunication Tower CUP — 3574 Pinto Drive — Verizon has requested a CUP to replace an existing telecommunication tower located on top of the City water tower with a stand-alone 159 foot tall monopole tower in the same location. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the June 10 Planning Commission meeting. D) Woodland Hill Preserve Concept Plan — East of County Road 116, North of Lilium Trail — Charles Cudd De Novo has requested review of a concept plan to develop the property north of the Reserve of Medina. A portion of the site was previously granted preliminary plat approval as Fawn Meadows, but the applicant desires to change the subdivision layout and to include the property to the east. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the June 10 Planning Commission meeting. E) Greg Smith Variances — 4635 Pine Street — The property owner has requested variances to allow construction of a garage addition. The variances relate to the rear (eastern) setback and maximum hardcover allowed in the shoreland overlay district. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the June 10 Planning Commission meeting. F) Capital Knoll Subdivision — south of Hamel Road, north of Blackfoot Trail, east of Arrowhead Drive — Princeton Capital — the applicant has requested a subdivision of the existing 30 acres into four rural lots — the property fronts on both Hamel Road and Blackfoot Trail - The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the June 10 Planning Commission meeting. G) 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. H) 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 Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 June 3, 2014 City Council Meeting 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. I) 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. J) 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 R1 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. K) 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. L) 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. M) 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 adopted a resolution granting final plat approval on May 6. Staff will work with the application to complete the conditions of approval. N) 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. 0) 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. P) 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 June 3, 2014 City Council Meeting 1 CITY OF MEDINA 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 4 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5 6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7 8 Present: Planning Commissioners Robin Reid, Kent Williams, Randy Foote, Robert 9 Mitchell, Victoria Reid, and Janet White. 10 11 Absent: Commissioner Nolan 12 13 Also Present: Mayor Liz Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Planning Assistant Debra 14 Peterson 15 16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 17 No public comments. 18 19 20 3. Update from City Council proceedings 21 Weir updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council. 22 23 24 4. Planning Department Report 25 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects for June. 26 27 Mitchell asked about Villas at Medina Country Club and what the next step would be for 28 them. 29 30 5. Approval of the April 8, 2014 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes. 31 32 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Foote, to approve the April 8, 2014, Planning Commission 33 minutes as written. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Nolan). 34 35 36 6. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Loading Dock Regulations in the Industrial 37 Park zoning district 38 39 Finke presented the application explaining the recommended changes to the code. He said in 40 2009 the Business, Business Park and Industrial Park standards were updated to allow for an 41 applicant to be able to apply for additional loading docks if "it deems it practically 42 necessary." In 2009 the Industrial Park Zoning District, IP was not amended and staff feels 43 this was an oversight. PC and Council should discuss if such an exception is appropriate in 44 IP as well. The amendment proposed would add exception similar to B and BP districts for 45 loading docks. Also, the amendment clarifies the definition of loading dock to include docks 46 under 12 feet in width. 47 48 Williams questioned the language "if deems it practically necessary." He said to whom? 49 Finke said to the City Council. Williams felt it may cause more trouble than it would be 1 50 worth. He recommended replacing it with "in its sole discretion." Mitchell agreed. R. Reid 51 asked if the ordinance was approved, would Loram need the Variance. Finke said if the 52 Council adopted the amendment they would not need a Variance. R. Reid asked who would 53 be making the decision to allow more docks. Finke said almost every significant building 54 requires a Site Plan Review, so it would be the Planning Commission and Council. R. Reid 55 asked if the city was already built out in industrial. Finke said it impacts five existing 56 buildings, and the vacant parcels immediately adjacent to Loram. Foote asked where the 57 20% came from. Finke said it's not all that common to have limitations in other City Codes, 58 so it is hard to find comparables. Finke discussed the visual look and why the code was 59 written the way it was. He said the thought behind it was to require more of a courtyard 60 design so they docks are screened by buildings. Mitchell said the Supervalue in Hopkins is 61 an example. Foote said he suspects more than 20% are loading docks. A distribution center 62 would have many more loading docks Mitchell said. Finke asked if the Commission had 63 visited the new Police/Public Works building. It's around 20%, certainly higher than 10%. 64 Mitchell said if it's not broke don't fix it. Mitchell said the architectural improvements 65 within the ordinance are good. He suggested that requiring owners to plant vines to the 66 outside of their buildings would be an improvement. 67 68 Williams suggested the language was too vague, but it could be changed to state "upon a 69 showing of a practical necessity." If going for flexibility, then they would say, "The City 70 may allow." 71 72 Public Hearing opened at 7:40 73 Public Hearing closed at 7:41 p.m. 74 75 Motion by Mitchell, seconded by R. Reid, to approve the ordinance amendment. 76 77 Williams suggested changing it from 10% to 20%. Mitchell said he likes making the 78 applicant work for it. So between those percentages they need to spell it out and provide 79 justification as to why they need it. Finke provides a sketch for visual aide showing 100 foot 80 courtyard. 81 82 Williams proposed a friendly Amendment to Mitchell's motion, seconded by Mitchell, to 83 recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment subject to striking "if it deems practically 84 necessary" and replacing it with "at the City's sole discretion." Motion carried 85 unanimously. (Absent: Nolan). 86 87 88 7. Public Hearing — Loram — 3900 Arrowhead Drive — Variance to exceed the 89 area of loading docks permitted on a structure; Site Plan Review for 90 accessory structure and parking lot expansion 91 92 Finke presented the application and explained a Site Plan Review was necessary for 93 construction of a 4000 square foot storage building and adding 23 parking stalls to their 94 existing parking lot. Stucco was being proposed by the applicant as an exterior material. The 95 building does not provide any elements of modulation. Stucco is an acceptable exterior 96 material and the three loading dock doors would exceed the 10 percent allowed by Code. 97 Staff feels the application meets the necessary requirements, if extra docks would be allowed 98 by the Council adopting the ordinance amendment previously discussed. If not, he stated that 99 staff does not believe the criteria for a variance were met, and would recommend denial. 100 2 101 Public Hearing opened at 7:47 p.m. 102 103 Tim Heisel, Facilities Manager for Loram, said the concern for the loading dock doors is that 104 they will be used as a storage building and they need a 14 foot in height door for use of their 105 forklifts. If they didn't put in the proposed number of loading dock doors they would have 106 one section of the building spanning 55 feet in width without a loading dock door. He said it 107 would make everything in the central portion of the building unusable. They intend to rack 108 the entire building because the current CEO is pushing to have everything inside. They have 109 things sitting outside such as large stairways, hydraulic filtering stations, plow trucks, and 110 utility trucks would be stored inside and having three doors would allow for the access they 111 need for the entire building and improved efficiency. 112 113 Foote said the building is 80 feet wide and Loram proposes three — fourteen foot doors. The 114 accessory building would be 75 feet away from their main building. V. Reid said what 115 would be seen from the highway would not be loading docks. Heisel said because of the 116 railroad tracks and berms they may not see anything from Hwy 55. Williams asked the 117 applicant what Loram would do if their application wasn't approved. Heisel said the CEO 118 said "why build it if it doesn't work." They would continue with what they are doing he said. 119 Heisel said the building will be fairly expensive and if it can't meet their needs then why 120 build it. He said the CEO regularly goes around and asks questions of what is really needed 121 and how often are the things/equipment used. He said all doors are invisible to all except 122 themselves. 123 124 Public Hearing closed at 7:54 p.m. 125 126 R. Reid said she agrees with staff that the Loram application does not meet the Variance 127 requirements. Finke suggested language to the Commission as it related to the Ordinance 128 Amendment and Variance being requested. Finke said if the Council adopts the Ordinance 129 Amendment previously heard for the IP district, staff recommends approval of Loram's 130 request. If Council doesn't approve the Ordinance Amendment, staff recommends denial of 131 their request. 132 133 Weir said she thought the district was more of an oversight and reason for ordinance 134 amendment. She said she is only one of the five on the Council, but she is in favor of the 135 request. She asked if the dumpster along Hamel Road would be removed as part of the 136 proposed building. Heisel said the existing dumpster was only intended for getting rid of old 137 furniture and not intended to be permanent. 138 139 Heisel asked if they knew where the old propane tank used to be, since that is where the 140 building is being proposed. 141 142 Mitchell said outside storage is an issue to him and appreciates Loram working on cleaning 143 up the area. He also said modulation of the building design is also an issue for him. The 144 building dimensions are 50 x 80 and asked that the applicant modulate the new building. 145 146 Heisel said Finke suggested a patio on the outside of the building facing Arrowhead Road for 147 curb appeal. The patio could be constructed with pervious pavers. 148 149 R. Reid commended the applicant on the existing principal building and the proposed 150 building and said it wasn't a concern for her. R. Reid said she was fine with the application 151 and hadn't ever considered the height and size compared to the principal building. Foote 3 152 asked the building height and Heisel said 20 feet, but he is not sure of pitch at this point since 153 they are still working on it. 154 155 Williams said the application didn't qualify for a variance and their application was 156 conditioned upon the City Council approving an ordinance that allows Loram's building 157 proposal. 158 159 R. Reid asked if hardy board was more durable than stucco. Weir said maybe it's a material 160 the City should consider. Finke said staff would support it. It was suggested staff research 161 hardy board and allow it as an exterior material in the Business and Industrial districts. 162 163 Motion by Mitchell, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review 164 contingent on the City Council adopting an ordinance which would cause the proposed 165 loading docks to be in compliance. Further move that such approval be subject to the 166 conditions noted in the staff report, with the following modifications: 167 1) amend condition number 3 to state "additional architectural elements are strongly 168 recommended to be provided on the storage building," 169 2) add condition 7 to state "Review outside storage and bring into compliance for the Loram 170 property at the NE corner of Hamel Road and Arrowhead Drive," 171 Further move that, if the loading dock ordinance amendment is not adopted, the Commission 172 does not support a Variance for this application. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: 173 Nolan). 174 175 8. Council Meeting Schedule 176 Williams agreed to attend and present at the May 20, 2014 Council meeting. 177 178 9. Adiourn 179 Motion by White, seconded by Williams, to adjourn at 8:15p.m. Motion carried 180 unanimously. (Absent: Nolan). 181 182 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 6, 2014 MEETING: June 10, 2014 SUBJ: Request to Amend April 8, 2014 Meeting Minutes Background During the Public Hearing on the Concept Plan for the Villas at Medina Country Club back on April 8, Chair Nolan referenced an email submitted from Mark Czech and asked that it be added to the record. This statement was inadvertently not added to the minutes. Mr. Czech has requested that the minutes be updated to reference his email. Staff has suggested an amendment (attached) which would add the reference. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following motion: Motion to amend the meeting minutes of April 8, 2014 to add the underlined text to the top of page 3 as shown in the document attached to the staff report. Attachments 1. DRAFT Amendment to April 8, 2014 meeting minutes 2. Email from Mark Czech dated April 6, 2014 Request to Amend April 8, 2014 Page 1 of 1 June 6, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Randy Foote, Robert Mitchell, Victoria Reid, and Janet White. Absent: Commissioner Kent Williams. Also Present: Councilmember Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Planning Consultant Nate Sparks. 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda No public comments. 3. Update from City Council proceedings Martin updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council. 4. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects. 5. Approval of the February 11, 2014 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes. Motion by Mitchell, seconded by R. Reid, to approve the February 11, 2014, Planning Commission minutes with the changes directed by Chair Nolan and Commissioner Foote. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Williams). 6. Villas at Medina GCC. Sparks presented the application and staff report. R. Reid inquired where the driveways would be located, since it was not clear from the plans. Sparks stated that they are side -loaded, with the driveway immediately on one of the side property lines. R. Reid inquired if the streets would be public. Sparks confirmed they would be. V. Reid inquired about the access point at Meander. She stated that cars back up past this point in the morning and stated that cars would find it very difficult to get out and turn left when traffic was backed -up. 1 V. Reid inquired about parks. Sparks stated that it has been previously discussed for the area, but none are proposed here. V. Reid inquired about tree removal and replacement. She stated that it seems like the whole northern portion was treed. Sparks confirmed that there would be large areas clear-cut for home sites and stated that he believes the applicant has a conceptual idea of replacement needs. Nolan inquired about staff's recommendation for a 30 foot road surface. Sparks stated that this was the recommendation of the Public Works to allow two full lanes and a parking lane. He stated this is important because the road would provide access to County Road 116 for surrounding development. Chuck Alcon (representing the applicant) introduced the development team. He stated that Charles Cudd was the perspective builder. He stated that the location on the north and west of the course was chosen for marketability and also so that it would not interfere with golf course operations. This application would allow for the golf course to be secure for the forseeable future. He stated that they would briefly address some of staff's comments. With regards to double frontage lots, he stated that it is important to note that each site has to be developed based on its characteristics, and they believe this is a necessity here to provide the road connection requested by staff. With regards to staffs recommendation for shared drives, he stated that the proposed units are privately owned and need privacy. He stated that shared drives are absolutely not workable for this product. Alcon noted that tree preservation will be addressed at preliminary plat. In terms of park dedication, they propose cash, with some credit for trail construction instead of a park. A park and the adjoining golf course are not compatible. Marty Campion (project engineer) stated that the PUD would provide design flexibility and also provides a neighborhood feel. He stated that the entrance monument was very important, despite public works' concerns. He stated that turning movements could be accommodated. Finke inquired about geotechnical information and water table. He noted that previous potential developers stated that basements would be extremely difficult and had proposed slab -on -grade. Campion replied that they had two geotech firms take a look and believed basements would be protected with foundation drain tiles. Nolan inquired about price points. Jeff Holmers (applicant's marketing consultant) replied that they would be $750,000-$1,000,000. The units shown were 3400 square feet (main level + basement). Rick Denman (Charles Cudd) said that they build a lot of detached villas. Their buyers tend to be empty nesters, with all living facilities on the main level. The basements tend to be used for entertaining and storage. Foote stated that the pitch of the roof looked too steep and was over exaggerated. V. Reid inquired how the applicant would feel about 'no left turn' out of Meander. Alcon stated that it will help that this is marketed towards empty nesters, which should help with a.m. rush hour. V. Reid inquired what the developer would do if the City pushed back on the northern lots because of the trees. Alcon noted that they would try to relocate as many trees as possible and noted the treed area on the east of the golf course being preserved. 2 Foote inquired if sufficient right-of-way was provided for four -lane. Finke stated that it is an absolute requirement if the project moved forward. Chair Nolan noted that an email from Mark Czech dated April 6, 2014 had been sent to Commissioners and placed on the table for review. He noted that this email will be added to the record. Steve Theesfeld — 600 Shawnee Woods Road — stated that he heard from the developer that Jeff Holmers was a true professional and a very kind man. He stated that he has less of a problem with the developer and more of an issue with how the City is treating this. The Commission is being asked to move the high density from the southeast corner of the golf course and relocating it here. He stated that 15 years ago, before they bought, they did their due diligence. The houses were in disrepair and they have spent a lot of money restoring them. The proposed townhomes in the northeast corner of the course is out of character with the investment made in the area. He stated that he has asked City Planners throughout the metro what would happen if someone wanted to develop high density townhomes across the street from five acres lots...and they just laughed. He said that the neighbors were not naive, they understand that development occurs. However, they have watched Wild Meadows come in. They were told there would be no drainage issues. There were. They were told for the Reserve that there would be no drainage issues. He asked the Commissioners to go look at that site and it is obvious there will be problems. He stated that while there are only four other houses, everyone should be treated equally. If you had a couple of owners from Wild Meadows who lost money in the stock market, and they asked the City to allow townhomes in the middle of Wild Meadows...the City would never do it. He suggested more density on the west and preserving the north. Theesfeld noted that the property south of the driving surface of Shawnee Woods Road is owned by the property owners to the north. He urged the Commission to relocate the road to the south of the easement. He stated that the road easement states that it is for access from CR 101 to CR116 and that there is an argument to be made that when the City cut off the road with Wild Meadows and the Woods that the easement is no longer valid. He noted that there are alternatives for the cul-de-sac, such as a hammerhead. He stated that the City shouldn't take cash instead of preserving trees and providing parks. He said that instead of putting homes on the east end, the area could be a park because it is heavily wooded and kids need a place to live. He stated that traffic on CR116 is horrible and this would vastly increase traffic...and pointing it through Toll's development. He told the Commission they didn't have to rubber stamp everything the golf course asks for. He invited everyone out to look at the woods and said they can talk about the easements. Eric Voltin - 690 Shawnee Woods — stated that the density is too much. It might be convenient for the golf course, but no other options have been provided. The woods across from them are awesome. The proposal is disrespectful. It is not thoughtful of anyone except the golf course's interests. He stated that Theesfeld is right about the easement; you can't put driveways over it. He stated that they don't want to, but they will litigate if the plan isn't improved. Jim Peterson — 812 Meander Road — stated he is a 29 year resident. The traffic is a huge problem because there is a rise in the road to the south and it is guaranteed that there will be an accident. He told the Commission not to forget about all of the other houses already approved to the west of County Road 116 on Meander. 3 Scott Peterson — President of Medina Golf and Country Club — stated that the Club does not own the property. Rachel and Hendry have an option. He stated that with regards to the trail along the east, there is safety and liability concerns of flying golf balls, along with security and vandalism. Finke clarified that Fairways of Rolling Green owns the property, and there are various cross interests with Medina County Club, and that the Club is, therefore, very much involved. Martin stated that when this goes to the Council, she would like a diagram showing the portion of the site that the developer has an option to buy. Public Hearing closed at 9:10 p.m. Mitchell stated that golf courses all over are developing in their entirety. With regards to the water table, a parched water table is a concern and needs to be explored. Mitchell stated that the City had apparently weighed in on the Comprehensive Plan to allow for some residential, but maybe not as much as some people thought would be allowed. He said he was sympathetic to the needs for a park. County Road 116 seems like County Road 101 in Plymouth when it ultimately developed. Trails along major roads require maintenance. The PUD has to include all of the property so that everyone is entwined in the web that is weaved. V. Reid stated she is very concerned about the tree removal. She is also concerned with legal issues regarding the easement and traffic on CR 116, as well as water table issues and drainage. She'll reiterate that parks are important in the area. She said if the golf course did go under at some point, the proposed configuration would be odd to work with and should consider some other options. Nolan stated that he was involved in previous plans and he had always thought some residential around the golf course made sense. He acknowledged the site was challenging because of the roads coming in, property shape, trees, and water and thinks that a PUD makes sense. It is not fair to say that the Country Club is not involved. If the development can go outside of the bounds of this property it seems like a lot of these problems could be resolved. He thinks tying the two roads together isn't a good idea. Perhaps two cul-de-sacs could be put in the NW corner, but it may cause other problems. He asked what our density expectation is in the NE corner. He has a lot of the same concerns the neighbors have concerning removal of trees and cul-de-sac location, but likes the idea of a park. He said he would rather see more density along the west and south rather than the north. This would be a better solution than pouring a development into an environmentally sensitive area. This area has been identified for higher density for a long time. He acknowledged that the neighbors had concern with the inconsistency of development, but when he looks at the product they are proposing, which is a high quality builder and the homes would range from $750k — $1 million, he said it might be better than smaller townhomes. He said it would be good to find a way to appease the neighbors by increasing the lot sizes and maybe possibly saving some of the trees. He suggested the City look into the easement issue. R. Reid said she can't envision how this interfaces with the Woods of Medina development and she needs to look closer at how they tie together. She would like a plan that shows The Woods of Medina and this proposal shown together so she can see how they work together. There are way too many houses on the north end, which greatly contributes to all of the problems. She does not see taking down all the trees. She suggested making the NE corner a nature area since there seems to be several issues in that area. The City keeps saying that it's not fair to penalize each developer for the County Road 116 problems, but something has to be done at some point. She doesn't like funneling all of the traffic through other developments and it doesn't seem like it 4 meets any of the objectives of a PUD. The legal issues need to be resolved before the applicant comes back. Foote stated that everything he wanted to say has been said. He sees a PUD as taking a difficult property and making it better. He said he's not sure how to get around 116, but they should look at alternate options. Double frontage lots are a poor way to do things. He also said that he couldn't go along with clear cutting the trees in the northeast corner. White stated that she agrees that tree preservation is extremely important. Traffic is a problem, but she is especially concerned with the density on both the north and west sides. There are just too many lots and if the number of lots is decreased it will provide more options for a park. 7. Dominium PUD General Plan and Plat Finke presented the request. He noted that the Planning Commission and Council had provided comments during February on a concept plant review. Property is guided Mixed Use Business, zoned Mixed Use. Seeking a rezoning to PUD for setback flexibility. Net density is 8.65 units per acre which meets the density requirements for the designation of 7-40 units per acre. Internal setback flexibility and to private drives sought. Preliminary Plat application which will also combine property with old City well site. Finke stated that the City had raised questions about distance to road from garage at concept review. One building setback increased, but most remained configured at 22 feet. He noted a few additional guest parking were provided and that the landscaping plan was improved. Finke stated that the plan proposed 32 townhomes units within nine buildings. The common districts for townhomes require 30 feet between buildings, but the applicant requests 20 through the PUD. He noted that 25 foot setback from private drive is generally required, but the applicant requests 22 feet through the PUD. Guest parking restricted to guest use only. Stormwater management proposed through a series of rain gardens to pond on property to east. Mitchell asked if this were low income housing. Finke stated that it is certainly meets the affordable standards of the Met Council. He stated that the project is to be funded through the Low Income Tax Credit program, which mandates income and rent restrictions for a minimum of 15 years. Mitchell stated that it was his understanding that many cities are seeking to have old wells discontinued. Finke stated that the City has been permitting wells to supplement irrigation water reuse out of stormwater ponds. Nolan asked for clarification on the northwestern unit access. Finke said a hammerhead or a bump -out could help achieve better circulation. Nick Anderson from Dominum said they have taken into consideration the comments from the Concept Plan. They have added windows to garage doors, additional cedar shake shingles on the front, as well as two guest parking stalls. Housing is income restricted based on housing size to a maximum of 60% of AMI with rent restrictions based on Section 42 program. Rent is not directly subsidized as in Section 8. Nolan asked if adding additional pavement and landscaping in the northwest corner would be a problem. Anderson said no. R. Reid asked if Dominum intends to maintain ownership. Anderson said they are committed for 15 years. 5 Nolan opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Hearing no comment, public hearing closed at 10:01 p.m. Mayor Weir said four units would be dedicated for the long term homeless. Anderson said four townhomes are set aside for persons who have lacked permanent housing for more than a year as part of to the tax credit program. He noted that this definition includes people who have been "couch hopping" and living with others. In their Albertville project such units are usually occupied by single mothers with children. He noted that they will be working with Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners to assist in managing this. Nolan asked if there is an application process to get the four dedicated units. Anderson said they have a process where they do criminal and credit background checks on all units. Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Mitchell to recommend approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Council Meeting Schedule Mitchell agreed to attend and present at the April 15, 2014 Council meeting. 9. Adiourn Motion by V Reid, seconded by Foote, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 6 1 Dusty Finke From: Mark Czech <czechtpt@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 8:28 AM To: Dusty Finke; classcert@aol.com; janet.white3@mchsi.com; vreid7@gmail.com; truspect@aol.com; cnolan@nolan-company.com Cc: jphwy55@gmail.com; Erin Janssens; jillvoltin@yahoo.com; ericvoltin@yahoo.com; Jo Janssens; Steve Theesfeld; Elizabeth Theesfeld (etheesfeld@gmail.com) Subject: April 8th Planning Commission Meeting Re: Villas at Medina CC To: City of Medina City Planner and Planning Commission Re: The Proposed Villas at Medina Date: April 7th 2014 Greetings, Due to prior commitments my wife and I will not be able to attend the April 8th Planning Commission Meeting and would like the following read into the public record regarding the proposed Villas at Medina CC. 1. Request - Move Shawnee Woods Road as far south as the current easement will allow. City Planner Dusty Fink has a better working knowledge of this concern and will probably be able to provide the Planning Committee a better understanding of our request. Currently the property corners of several of the homes on the north side of Shawnee Woods Road extend across Shawnee Woods Road to the south. (this arrangement is unusual in terms of property lines and easements) To be short about it, if the Villas at Medina CC plan is approved as is, residence on the north side of Shawnee Woods would own part of the front lawn of our new neighbors to the south. (awkward to say the least) We request as a minimum action that any additional widening and perhaps actual movement of Shawnee Woods Road take place on the southern most portion of the road. In addition we would request that the City of Medina look into easements and how they function within the city. In our research we have found that most easements on properties extend only to the middle of a road. (many only 10' into a homeowners property). As it stands now the entire 66' easement is the burdened of the Northern property owners. If this is the case, and the developer of The Villas at Medina by virtue of his/her proposal is providing the City of Medina with the opportunity to rectify this unbalanced distribution of easement we would request that the City of Medina consider moving Shawnee Woods Road completely to reflect fair and equitable distribution of said easement for property owners on both the North and South sides of Shawnee Woods Rd. Also I believe as the easement stands now the developer would not be able to remove any trees on the south side of Shawnee Woods Road on what would be considered to be "our property". As a result the developer would have to consider the purchase of our property/easement in order to proceed with the project. 2. Stub Utilities to all lots on the North side. We would also request that the City consider stubbing in all utilities to the Northern properties. In all likelihood future development of this land will occur at some point in time and this would save any party the expense of having to re -do the new infrastructure. Stub location could be negotiated with the homeowners and the city. 3.Provide additional screening for the properties to the North. As part of the Villas at Medina CC and City Ordinance the developer is required to replace a percentage of trees removed during the course of the project. We would like to request that a percentage of those trees needing to be returned be used to provide additional 1 f screening for the properties on the north side of Shawnee Woods Rd. According to the proposed plan the entire woods on the south side of Shawnee Woods Road adjacent the existing homes will be removed,significantly reducing our "curb appeal" and potentially impacting the future sale of our homes. Please keep in mind when thinking about this request that the proposed Villas at Medina are the absolute antithesis of why many of us move here. Thank you for the consideration of the above mentioned requests. We would ask that preliminary approval for the Villas at Medina NOT be granted until these matters are resolved in a manner satisfactory to all parties involved. Should any of you wish to meet onsite we would be more than happy to show you our concerns. Thanks also for serving our community! Respectfully Mark & Heather Czech 660 Shawnee Woods Rd. Medina, MN. 55340 #612-270-5627 2 AGENDA ITEM: 7 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.corr PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Nate Sparks MEETING DATE: June 10, 2014 DATE: June 4, 2014 RE: Verizon Wireless CUP CITY FILE: LR-14-133 BACKGROUND Buell (on behalf of Verizon Wireless) has made an application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 150' tall monopole on City property located at 3574 Pinto Drive. This tower is intended to house the equipment currently located on the water tower which is being removed. PROJECT SITE The site is located at the southeastern corner of Tower Drive and Pinto Drive south of Highway 55. The property is guided for a Commercial land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is zoned CG, Commercial -General. Property to the north is zoned CH, Commercial -Highway otherwise all other properties in the general vicinity are zoned CG, Commercial -General. The property is Outlot A of the Medina Industrial Addition. The general area is a mix of general commercial and light industrial uses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Currently on this parcel there is a well house, a cell tower, and the City's water tower. The Verizon equipment is currently located on the water tower. The water tower is being decommissioned and is being removed from the site. The proposed monopole is intended to replace the water tower as the structure housing the cell tower equipment. The applicant analyzed placing the equipment from the water tower onto the existing cell tower on site. The applicant contends that the existing tower is at 85% capacity and the additional equipment would not be structurally supported by the tower without significant upgrades. The existing cell tower currently on site is about 180 feet in height. The proposed new tower would be smaller at about 150 feet, approximately the same height as the exisiting equipment on top of the watertower CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW As stated in Section 828.79 in the Zoning Ordinance, telecommunication towers are only permitted when in receipt of a Conditional Use Permit. Standards related to telecommunication towers are found in Sections 828.75 to 828.83. Co -location Capabilities The ordinance requires that all new towers have the capability of co -locating additional carriers. The proposed tower is initially designed for two additional carriers. The proposed area for ground equipment only accommodates the Verizon equipment. It may be ideal to have this area expanded to account for the two additional carriers at this time to not necessitate further amendments to the CUP, if approved. The tower must also be able to accommodate any limited public safety or service needs for necessary governmental use. Tower Setbacks The ordinance requires towers to be setback a distance to the nearest property line equal to the height of the tower, unless an engineer certifies in writing that the tower will collapse within a lesser distance. In no instance may the tower setback be less than 50% of the height of the tower. The center of the tower is proposed to be 81.125 feet from the rear property line. The ordinance measures setback from the edge of the base. Deducting the 3.5 feet for the side of the base of the tower, the structure setback would be 77.625 feet. This allows for a tower height of 155.25 feet. The proposed total tower height is 159 feet including the 9 foot tall lightning rod. Therefore, the lightning rod would need to be shortened 3.75 feet, the tower moved forward towards Pinto Drive the same distance, or a combination of the two. Initial engineering reports have been provided that state the tower will collapse within this lesser distance. Full engineering will need to be done with the final design of the tower. Lighting Lighting on towers is only allowed when required by the FCC to satisfy FAA requirements. In this case, the tower height does not appear to trigger this requirement. Exterior Finish The tower is proposed to have a galvanized metal look similar to the other tower on the site. In some instances cities require the camoflauging of towers by requiring a sky blue or tan colored appearance when in high visibility areas. Landscaping Landscaping to right-of-ways is required. There are some trees on the property, especially to the north. However, screening is required between the ground equipment areas and the Pinto Drive right-of-way. A landscaping plan with a 20 foot planting buffer in this area should be provided prior to the issuance of any permits. Accessory buildings The ordinance allows for one accessory building for every tower up to 2000 square feet in size. There is currently a 12' x 30' building associated with this tower housing Verizon's equipment. It is common for each co -locator to have their own similarly sized building for their equipment and generator. Future users will need to add on to this existing building for housing their equipment. Fencing The area around the tower and ground equipment area is required to be fenced and posted to protect against trespass. The applicant is proposing fencing, which should be suitably posted with signs. Parking Area Each tower is required to have one paved parking stall. The plan should identify the location of this stall. Tower Removal If the use of a tower is discontinued, the tower owner must provide written notice to the city of its intent to discontinued use and the date when the use will be discontinued. Any tower not removed within six months of discontinuation of use is deemed a public nuisance and may be removed by the City at the owner's expense. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW Conditional uses may be approved by the City, provided the use meets the review criteria found in Section 825.39 of the Zoning Ordinance: 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. 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. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. 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. 9' 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. 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. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Any recommendation of approval should be done with the following conditions: 1. The fenced ground equipment area should be expanded to accommodate future co - locators. 2. A detailed engineering report certifying the collapse pattern of the tower shall be provided. 3. The tower location or height shall be adjusted to meet the 50% setback requirement. 4. A landscaping plan shall be provided with screening to right-of-ways. 5. A parking plan shall be provided. 6. The applicant shall enter into a lease agreement with the City for use of the site. 7. If the use of the tower is discontinues, it shall be removed by the owner within six months of discontinuation or the City may remove the tower at the owner's expense. 8. All comments of the City Engineer shall be addressed. 9. All comments of the City Attorney shall be addressed, and the Applicant shall abide by the City Attorney's recommendations related to the lease agreement and recording procedures. 10. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Attachments: Aerial Photo Structural Engineer Letter Applicant's Plan Set Sabre lndustriEsM Towers and Poles April 21, 2014 Mr. Brian Schriener Design 1 of Eden Prairie 9973 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Proposed 150 ft Sabre Monopole for MINC Hamel, MN Dear Mr. Schriener, Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply the above referenced Sabre monopole for a Basic Wind Speed of 90 mph with no ice and 30 mph with 3/4" ice, Structure Class II, Exposure Category C, and Topographic Category 1, in accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association Standard ANSI/TIA- 222-G, "Structural Standard for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas". When designed according to this standard, the wind pressures and steel strength capacities include several safety factors, resulting in an overall minimum safety factor of 25%. Therefore, It Is highly unlikely that the monopole will fail structurally in a wind event where the design wind speed is exceeded within the range of the built-in safety factors, Should the wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built-in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements, the most likely location of the failure would be within one of the monopole shaft sections. This would result in a buckling failure mode, where the steel shaft would bend beyond its elastic limit (beyond the point where the shaft would return to its original shape upon removal of the wind load). Therefore, the overall effect of an extreme wind event would be localized buckling of the monopole shaft. Assuming that the wind pressure profile is similar to that used to design the monopole, the shaft will buckle at the location of the highest combined stress ratio in the upper portion of the monopole. This would result in the portion of the monopole above "folding over" onto the portion below, essentially collapsing upon itself. Please note that this letter only applies to a monopole designed and manufactured by Sabre Towers & Poles. In the unlikely event of total separation, this, in turn, would result in collapse of that portion to the ground within a radius of 50% of the structure height. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I hereby certify that this plan, specification, Sincerely, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Robert E. Beacom, P,E.Licensed Professional Engineer under the Design Engineer II Laws of the State of Minnesota. Print Name Robert/�ereac'om/ Signature-�� ��/v Date License #49156 Sabre Towers and Poles • 2.101 Murray Street • PO. Box 658 • Sioux City, IA 51:102-0658 P: 712-258-6690 F: 712-279-08:1.4 W: wwrr.SabreTowersandPoles corn AREA MAP VICINITY MAP 3 0 1- z a ISITE vss �ACKAMORE ocKFO VE ROCKFO 94 NORTH DIRECTIONS FROM BLOOMINGTON RNC: TAKE 169 N. 3.7 MILES AND EXIT ONTO -494 W/MN-5. GO 12.1 MILES AND TAKE EXIT 22 FOR MN -55. TURN LEFT ONTO MN -55 AND GO 5 MILES, TURN LEFT ONTO PINTO DRIVE. DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE LEFT. EVERGREEN ROAD CHER GENERAL NOTES 1. In the event that Special Inspections are not performed in compliance with the contract terms, bid specifications and/or specified form, the General Contractor will be liable for all damages, construction performance, failures, and corrective actions related to the same. 2. The following general notes shall apply to drawings and govem unless otherwise noted or specified. 3. The work delineated in these drawings and described in the specifications shall conform to codes, standards and regulations that have jurisdiction in the state of MINNESOTA , and the city of MEDINA 4. Requirements and regulations pertaining to R.F. safety codes and practices must be incorporated in the work even though they may not be listed individually and separately in either the drawings or the specifications. 5. Compare field conditions with architectural and engineering drawings. Any discrepancies shall be directed to the Architect for clarification prior to fabrication and/or construction. Submit necessary shop drawings prior to fabrication for approval by the Architect. No information or details on these sheets may be used without the permission of the owner, or the architect. 6. Do not scale drawings! 11" x 17" drawings to scale 24" x 36" drawings scale multiply by 2 7. Unless otherwise shown or noted, typical details shall be used where applicable. 8. Details shall be considered typical at similar conditions. 9. Safety measures: The contractor shall be solely and completely responsible for the conditions of the job site, including safety of the persons and property and for independent engineering reviews of these conditions. The Architect's or Engineers' job site review is not intended to include review of the adequacy of the contractor's safety measures. 10. Within these plans and specifications, "Owner" Implies VERIZON WIRELESS. 11. The work is the responsibility of the general contractor unless noted otherwise. 12. The terms "contractor" and "g.c." refer to the owner's general contractor and the general contractor's sub -contractors. It is the general contractor's responsibility to determine the division of work among sub -contractors. 13. The general contractor is responsible in obtaining necessary public and private underground utility locate services prior to start of excavating / construction. 14. General Contractor to assemble/erect/construct tower per manufacturers drawings not included in this package. VERIZON WIRELESS DEPARTMENTAL APPROVALS NAME DATE RF ENGINEER NITHYA S. JAIPURIYAR 10-17-13 OPERATIONS MANAGER CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER RON REITER 10-28-13 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER REAL ESTATE MANAGER LESSOR / LICENSOR APPROVAL SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME DATE LESSOR / LICENSOR: PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX BELOW 0 NO CHANGES. 0 CHANGES NEEDED. SEE COMMENTS ON PLANS. PROJECT INFORMATION SITE NAME: MINC HAMEL PROJECT NUMBER: 20130918106 SITE ADDRESS: PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 COUNTY: HENNEPIN LATITUDE: N 45° 02' 39.5" (NAD 1983) LONGITUDE: W 93°32' 30.8" (NAD 1983) GROUND ELEVATION: 1014.0' AMSL (NAVD 1988) ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT: 1164.0 AMSL - 150' AGL 1162.0 AMSL - 148' AGL ANTENNA CENTERLINE HEIGHT: 1160.0' AMSL - 146' AGL TOWER HEIGHT: 1164.0' AMSL - 150' AGL OVERALL STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 1173.0' AMSL - 159' AGL DRAWING BASED ON SITE DATA FORM DATED: 04-08-14 SITE AREA 1,876 S.F. PARKING: PROVIDED ESTIMATED COAX RUN: "X" COAX RUN =(4)1-5/8"LINES ©190'EA "Y" COAX RUN = (4) 1-5/8" LINES © 190' EA "Z" COAX RUN = (4)1-5/8" LINES @ 190' EA 6RRU 'HYBRID CABLE" = (1) LINE © 200' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INSTALL THE PROPOSED MONOPOLE TOWER, ANTENNAS, RRUS, COAX, DIPLEXERS TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNICATION SERVICE IN THE MEDINA, MN AREA SHEET INDEX SHEET SHEET DESCRIPTION T-1 PROJECT INFORMATION, MAPS, DIRECTIONS, AND SHEET INDEX A-1 SITE PLAN A-2 — ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-3 TOWER ELEVATION, COAX AND ANTENNA KEY, NOTES, AND DETAILS A-4 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS A-5 OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS G-1 GROUNDING NOTES AND DETAILS G-2 GROUNDING PLAN AND NOTE KEY G-3 EXTERIOR GROUNDING DETAILS SURVEY ISSUE SUMMARY REV. DESCRIPTION SHEET OR DETAIL A ISSUED FOR REVIEW 10-15-13 ALL B ISSUED FOR OWNER APPROVAL 11-11-13 ALL C ISSUED FOR OWNER APPROVAL 04-09-14 ALL LiUEDFOROWNERPROV 14 L CONTACTS LESSOR / LICENSOR: CITY OF MEDINA 2052 COUNTRY ROAD 24 MEDINA, MN 55340 (763) 743-8846 DUSTY FINKE (PLANNER) LESSEE: VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 MIKE COGAR (612) 720-0030 POWER UTILITY N/A COMPANY CONTACT: TELCO UTILITY N/A COMPANY CONTACT: ARCHITECT: DESIGN 1 OF EDEN PRAIRIE, LLC. 9973 VALLEY VIEW ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952)903-9299 SURVEYOR: SUNDE LAND SURVEYING 9001 E. BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY, SUITE 118 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 (952) 881-2455 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: T.B.D GEOTECHNICAL T.B.D ENGINEER: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20130918106 MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: CONTACTS ISSUE SUMMARY SHEET INDEX DEPARTMENTAL APPROVALS LESSOR APPROVAL PROJECT INFORMATION AREA & VICINITY MAPS GENERAL NOTES DRAWN BY: B. ERICKSON DATE: 10-12-13 CHECKED BY: REV. A 10-15-13 REV. B 11-11-13 REV. C 04-09-14 REV. D 04-09-14 T-1 / UGF❑ UGE UGE - UGE UGC UGC ---___ UGC EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING- BITUMINOUS EXISTING - BITUMINOUS JGFO JVF� PROPOSED 5' WIDE UTILITY R.O.W. r EXISTING SHRUBS 3n TO BE REMOVED ttt inn `�� , 'I EXISTING WATER TANK TO i BE REMOVED BY OTHERS EXISTI GENERAT EXISTING EQUIPMENT SHELTER BY OTHERS 39n o x UGFU �_..'� . . i x UGC UGC UGC 1 \ N \ v� I PROPOSED 20' WIDE ACCESS R.O.W. T't ITOWER 81'-1 1/2" o TO EXISTING PROPERLY UNE PROPOSED MONOPOLE TOWER (SEE A-3) EXISTING SELF-SUPPORT TOWER BY OTHERS EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING TREES (TYP.) \ PROPOSED 1,876 SO FT \ VZW LAND SPACE (SEE A-2) \ REMOVE EXISTING NORTH \ FACING FENCE do GATE \ I REMOVE EXISTING CABLE BRIDGE I I EXISTING VZW EQUIPMENT SHELTER TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL & GEOTEXTILE (APPROX. 1.275 S.F.) � I \ 'C I0 II c E cc \ I n I nnn EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 1 EXISTING BUILDING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20130918106 MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 GRAPHIC SCALE 6 NORTH ' ,b 2Y OSITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" SHEET CONTENTS: SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: B. ERICKSON DATE: CHECKED BY: 10-12-13 REV. A 10-15-13 11-11-13 REV. B REV. C REV. D 04-09-14 04-09-14 A-1 EXISTING EASEMENT BY OTHERS EXISTING / BITUMINOUS 1 0 39n 39n EXISTING CONC. (>/-- FOUNDATION PROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCE (APPROX. 166 LF.) (SEE A-5) / EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL LINE EXISTING CONC. FOUNDATION EXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINE • UGFo --�i UG▪ FO UGFO PROPOSED 5' WIDE UIILTIY R.O.W. EXISTING GRASS x X x x STING EQUIPM ER BY OT UGC EXISTING SELF-SUPPORT TOWER BY OTHERS PROPOSED 5' WIDE UTILITY R.O.W. 3Dn 1'-4 3/4" igl t 2'-6 1/2' LAND SPACE EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL LINE '7 1/4• 1-10 3/4" LAND SPACE 9'-0 1/• 4"•, —PROPOSED•Ct.EN4 ROCK- • • OVER GEOTEXTILE . • . • 0050 .'1;390. 1;390 s.F). . 9'-5 1/2' LAND SPACE ..EXISTING VZW.•. GENERATOR EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE x---x� o O an ti 20'-0' ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED MONOPOLE TOWER (SEE A-3) REMOVE EXISTING NORTH FACING FENCE Sc GATE EXISTING CABLE PORT PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE (SEE A-4) EXISTING 12' X 30' VZW EQUIPMENT SHELTER LAND SPACE ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3'-11 1/4" NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY LOCATES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION START. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND THE VZW CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY OF ANY UTILITY UNE ISSUES. NOTE: ALL EXISTING GEOTEXTILE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH NEW GEOTEXTILE PLUS 3" MIN. CLEAN ROCK uMITS OF PROPOSED CLEAN ROCK & GEOTEXTILE EXISTING LANDSCAPE TIMBER'` EXISTING GRASS PROPOSED 1,876 S.F. LAND SPACE I , F-3 I I 0 EXISTING GRASS NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 4• NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20130918106 MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: ENLARGED SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: B. ERICKSON DATE: 10-12-13 CHECKED BY: REV. A 10-15-13 REV. B 11-11-13 REV. C 04-09-14 REV. D 04-09-14 A-2 ANTENNA KEY COAX KEY TTA KEY AZIMUTH POSITION FUNCTION DIY MANUFACTURER MODEL TMYOD PE ANTENNA LENGTH ANTENNA ANTENNA CENTER ELEC DOWNTILT MECH DOWNTILT DIY COAX TYPE MANUFACTURER MODEL DIELECTRIC DIAMETER CH) RUN (FEET) QTY MODEL 344' 1.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE LNX-6515DS-A1M 800_+_45 150' 4' 0' 1 MAIN ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 1-5L8" 190' - - 344'_ 1.2 TX/RX1 - - _ 2ND PORT LTE 700 -45 _96.4" - - _146'_ - - - 1 MAIN ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 1-5/8" 190' 1 COMMSCOPE E15R05P19_ 344'_ 2.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE HBX-6516DS-A1M PCS +45 148' 2' 0' 1 DIPLEXE_D COMMSCOPE E15S09P49 DIPLEXED WITH 850 - BUILT IN W/ DIPLEXER ")(" _ 344' 2.2 TX/RX1 - - _ 2ND PORT LTE-AWS -45 _51.4" - - _146'_ - - - 1 RRU ERICSSON RRUS-12 (1) ROSENBERGER HJ-712015 FIBER _ - SECTOR 3_ 3.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE HBX-6516DS-A1M LTE-AWS +45_51.4" 148' 2' 0' FEED TAIL DIST. BOX TO RRU _44' 344' 3.2 TX/RX1 - - _ 2ND PORT PCS -45 - - _146'_ - - - - DIPLEXED COMMSCOPE E15S09P49 DIPLEXED WITH 850 - COMMSCOPE E15R05P19_ 344' 4.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE LNX-6515DS-A1M LTE 700 +45 96.4" 150' 4' 0' 1 MAIN_ ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 1-5L8" 190' - BUILT IN W/ DIPLEXER 344' 4.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT 800 -45 _ - - _146'_ - - - 1 MAIN _ ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM _ _ 1-5/8" 190' - - 104' 1.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE LNX-6515DS-A1M 800 +45 150' 4' 1' 1 MAIN_ ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 190' - - _ 104' 1.2 TX/RX1 - - _ 2ND PORT LTE 700 -45 _96.4" - - - _1_46'_ - - _ - 1 MAIN _ ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM _1-5t8" _ 1-5/8" 190' 1 COMMSCOPE E15R05P19 2.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE HBX-6516DS-A1M PCS +45 148' 1_46'_ 3' 0' 1 DIPLEXE_D COMMSCOPE E15S09P49 DIPLEXED WITH 850 - BUILT IN W/ DIPLEXER y 104' _104' _ 2.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT LTE-AWS -45 _51.4" - - - - 1 RRU ERICSSON RRUS-12 (1) ROSENBERGER HJ-712015 FIBER _ - SECTOR 3.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE HBX-6516DS-A1M LTE-AWS +45 51.4" 148' _ _146'_ 3' 0' _ _ FEED TAIL DIST. BOX TO RRU - COMMSCOPE E15R05P19 __104' _ 104' 3.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT PCS -45 - - - - - - DIPLEXED COMMSCOPE E15S09P49 DIPLEXED WITH 850 104' 4.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE LNX-651505-A1M LTE 700 +45 150' 4' 1' 1 ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 190' - BUILT IN W/ DIPLEXER 104 4.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT 800 -45 _96.4" - _ - _1_46'_ - - - __M_AIN 1 MAIN _ ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM _1-5t8"_ 1-5/8" 190' - - 224' 1.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE LNX-6515DS-AIM 800 +45 150' 3' 0' 1 ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 1-5L8" 190' - - 224' 1.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT LTE 700 -45 _96.4" - - - _146'_ - - _ - - 1 _M_AIN_ MAIN ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM _ _ 1-5/8" 190' 1 COMMSCOPE E15R05P19 224'_ 2.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE HBX-6516DS-A1M PCS +45 148' 2' 0' 1 DIPLEXE_D COMMSCOPE E15S09P49 DIPLEXED WITH 850 - BUILT IN W/ DIPLEXER "z" _ 424' 2.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT LTE-AWS -45 _51.4" - _146'_ - - _ - 1 RRU ERICSSON RRUS-12 (1) ROSENBERGER HJ-712015 FIBER _ - SECTOR 224' 3.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE H8X-6516DS-A1 M LTE-AWS +45 51.4" 148' 2' 0' FEED TAIL DIST. BOX TO RRU 224' 3.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT PCS -45 _ - - _146' _ - - - - DIPLEXED COMMSCOPE E15S09P49 DIPLEXED WITH 850 - COMMSCOPE E15R05P19 224' 4.1 TX/RXO 1 COMMSCOPE LNX-6515DS-A1M LTE 700 +45 150' 146'_ 3' 0' 1 ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 1-5L8" 190' - BUILT IN W/ DIPLEXER _ 224' 4.2 TX/RX1 - - 2ND PORT 800 -45 _96.4" - - - - - - 1 _M_AIN_ MAIN - ANDREW AVA7-50 FOAM 1-5/8" 190' - - NOTE: 2) DISTRIBUTION BOX MODEL #: RxxDC-3315-PF-48 (1 ON "TOWER") 8 JUMPER ANDREW LDF4-50A FOAM 1/2" 10' PER SECTOR 1) COMMSCOPE 6RRU "HYBRID CABLE" MODEL#: HL -9612-200 n ANTENNA KEY n COAX KEY CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE (3) 2.5" X 6' LONG SCHEDULE 40 GALVANIZED MOUNTING PIPES PROPOSED COLLAR MOUNT PROPOSED FLUSH MOUNT ADAPTER KIT PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION BOX OPROPOSED COLLAR MOUNT DETAIL NOTE: T -FRAME MAKE AND MODEL T.B.D. SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" +45 ti 1 45 1)1.2 lit ,p0 NORTH • esOo `p xps s +per eF`7 ,elF 'C's s `p 'CS •"<" gsx 'y4 1 ps xYs 5 O ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: NONE GRAPHIC SCALE 0.l� +45 R 344 Fa\MPp S }45 64 4 ,45 ,, SECS45 3,1 0.-1,116 j PCS ,45 21 PC P ,453.2. 2' 4' PROPOSED DISTRIBUTIO MOUNTED ABOVE T -FR GRAPHIC SCALE I I "X" SECTOR Y" SECTOR "Z" SECTOR SUAL1 : NUNI_ #1.1 800 #1.2 LTE-700 #4.1 LTE-700 #4.2 800 O 0 0 0 0 #1.1 800 #1.2 LTE-700 #4.1 LTE-700 #4.2 800 O 0 0 0 0 #1.1 800 #1.2 LTE-700 #4.1 LTE-700 #4.2 800 O O 0 RRU TRUNK CABLE © 0 0 OCOAX ENTRY DETAIL (VIEW FROM INSIDE) SCALE: NONE AWS ANTENNAS rrra rrra rrn 0 (1) 1/2" HOLE PORT BOOT FOR CPS COAX JUMPER (MAX. LENGTH OF 15') ERICSSON RRUS 12 FIBER FEED TAIL RRU TO 6 OVP (MAX. LENGTH OF 15') TOP DISTRIBUTION BOX W/ 6 OVPs (ON TOWER) 6 RRU TRUNK CABLE BOTTOM DISTRIBUTION BOX W/ 6 OVPs (INSIDE EXISTING SHELTER) NOTE: CABLE HANGERS: COMMSCOPE 42396A-1 HOIST GRIPS: COMMSCOPE 192568 NOTE: OVERALL LENGTH OF POWER CABLES NOT TO EXCEED 367' FROM POWER SUPPLY TO REMOTE RADIO UNIT OAWS ONE -LINE DIAGRAM SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" GRAPHIC SCALE 51_4" NOTE: 1.) TOWER TO BE ERECTED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TOWER MANUFACTURER'S DRAWINGS NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PACKAGE. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN TOWER DRAWINGS AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS TO BE REPORTED TO VERIZON WIRELESS AND THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. 2.) TOWER FOUNDATION TO BE EXCAVATED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PACKAGE. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE REPORT AND THE OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO VERIZON WIRELESS AND THE ARCHITECT. 3) CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE TIP OF ANTENNAS DO NOT EXCEED TOWER HEIGHT. OVERALL STRUCTURE HEIGHT 1173.0' AMSL / 159' AGL ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT 1164.0' AMSL / 150' AGL ANTENNA TIP HEIGHT 1162.0' AMSL / 148' AGL elp ANTENNA CENTERUNE HEIGHT 1160.0' AMSL / 146' AGL (12) PROPOSED PANEL ANTENNAS (TYPICAL 4 PER SECTOR) (3) PROPOSED T -FRAMES FUTURE PROVIDER 1132.0' AMSL / 118' AGL FUTURE PROVIDER 1104.0' AMSL / 90' AGL PROPOSED 150' TALL MONOPOLE TOWER PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE EXISTING VZW EQUIPMENT SHELTER TO REMAIN GRADE 0 TOWER 1014.0' AMSL sew II 9' UGHTNING ROD NOTE: FENCE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY ONORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 20' GRAPHIC SCALE 20. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20130918106 MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: TOWER ELEVATION COAX & ANTENNA KEY GPS DETAIL & ELEVATION ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL COAX ENTRY DETAIL DRAWN BY: B. ERICKSON DATE: 10-12-13 CHECKED BY: REV. A REV. B 10-15-13 11-11-13 REV. C 04-09-14 04-09-14 REV. D A-3 GPS ANTENNA ATTACHED TO CABLE BRIDGE CABLE BRIDGE BOLTED BENEATH GALV STEEL ANGLE, PROVIDED w/ BUILDING BOLT TO BLDG w/ 3/8" DIA 2" LONG EXPANSION BOLTS 18" DIA CONC PIER 6" MIN OCABLE BRIDGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1-0" 2"x2"x 3f6" clszt \ eRiI F %"0 HOLES Y GALV STEEL WELDED ANGLE FRAME BOLT TO CABLE BRIDGE CHANNEL 0 RELEASE #2 STRANDED 'GREEN' CU STRAP w/ LUG 0 EACH END TO STOP MAST FALL AT HORIZONTAL 1"0 HOLES ON BOTH FLATS T%11%4 BOLT TOWER BASE SEE TOWER MFG SPECS FOR TOWER FOUNDATION GRAPHIC SCALE i• ADAPTER OPTIONS: REDUCER, 1"0 > 3"e COUPLER, r0 > 1"0 ENLARGER, 1"0 > t%"0 ADD NIPPLE FOR HEIGHT THREADED REFER TO ANTENNA & 1"0 x 3'-6" GALV STL PIPE MAST, UPRIGHT OGPS MOUNTING DETAIL SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" END TO ACCEPT ADAPTER S.D.F. FOR TYPE OF GPS REQUIRED ADAPTER TYPE PIPE MAST, RECLINED GRAPHIC SCALE 0 I OCABLE BRIDGE PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTE: CABLE BRIDGE SUPPORTS ARE REQUIRED AT MEINALS NOT TO EXCEED 6'-O" WITH OVERHANG EXTENSIONS NOT TO EXCEED 1"-6" GRAPHIC SCALE I -H r 0 O ROCK SHALL MATCH EXISTING MATERIAL GALV. STEEL POST CAP 3"x 5"x 1/4" GALV. STL ANGLE 2'-6" LONG w/ 5/8" DIA. U -BOLTS TO POST GALV. STL 'GRIP -STRUT' 24"x MIN. 12 GA. CHANNEL w/ 1/2" DIA. BOLTS TO SUPPORT BRACKET ASTM A325 GALV STEEL 1/2"0 x 6" LONG (FULL THREAD W/ WASHER AND LOCK WASHER BOTH SIDES) INSTALLED BELOW THE ICE BRIDGE IN 5/8" DIAMETER HOLE DRILLED IN SUPPORT PIPE, (COLD GALV DRILLED HOLE). GALV. STL 'SNAP -IN' BARS 3'-0" 0.C. SUSP. w/ 3/8" DIA. GALV AU. THREAD ROD 3 1/2" 0.D. SCH. 40 GALV STEEL PIPE 3" DEEP CLEAN ROCK OVER WOVEN POLYETHYLENE GEOTEXTILE 18" DIA. PIER FOOTING. (4) #4 GR. 60 REBAR W/12"0 CIRCLE TIES 0 12" 0.C. CONC. TO BE 4000 PSI 0 28 DAYS W/ 6%(±1X) ENTRAINED AIR CABLE BRIDGE SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 I 10 • NOTE: ALL FENCE MATERIALS SHALL BE GALVANIZED ANGLE BRACKET CANTED i.( OUTWARD AT EACH POST FOR (3) STRANDS OF BARBED WIRE 1 5/8" 0.D. SCHEDULE 40 GALV. STEEL PIPE TOP RAIL COMMERCIAL GRADE FENCE POSTS 2 7/8" 0.D. SCH. 40 CORNERS & GATES, 2 3/8" 0.D. SCH. 40 LINE POSTS ..../ 9 GA. x 2" CHAIN LINK FABRIC ........... 7 GA. TENSION WIRE WITHIN 1" OF FINISHED GRADE OFENCE SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3" DEEP CLEAN ROCK OVER WOVEN POLYETHYLENE GEOTEXTILE A MINIMUM OF 24" AROUND COMPOUND GRAPHIC SCALE 0 I 1, 4' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, ALA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952)903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (812) 720-0030 PROJECT 20130918106 MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: FENCE SECTION CABLE BRIDGE SECTION DRIVEWAY SECTION MISC. DETAILS DRAWN BY: B. ERICKSON DATE: 10-12-13 CHECKED BY: REV. A REV. B REV. C 10-15-13 11-11-13 04-09-14 04-09-14 REV. D ONOT USED SCALE: NONE A-4 GENERAL CONDITIONS 00 0001 PERMITS Construction Permit shall be acquired by, or in the name of, Verizon Wireless, to be hereinafter referred to as the OWNER. Other permits shall be acquired by the Contractor. 00 0002 SURVEY FEES Survey shall be fumished by the Architect. Layout Staking shall be coordinated with the Surveyor per "Request For Quote", (RFQ). 01 0010 INSURANCE & BONDS Contractor is to furnish Insurance certificates for themselves and subcontractors. Controctor will provide any required Bonding. Contractor agrees to warranty the project for (1) one year after completion. 01 0400 SUPERVISION & COORDINATION Contractor shall provide supervision throughout the Project, coordinating the work of the Subcontractors, and delivery & installation of Owner —furnished items. Contractor's responsibilities include arranging & conducting of Underground Utilities Locates. Contractor shall comply with municipal, county, state and/or federal codes, including OSHA 01 0600 TESTING Contractor is responsible for providing Agencies with sufficient notice to arrange for Test Samples (i.e.: Concrete Cylinders), and for Special Inspections. 01 2000 MEETINGS Contractor shall make themselves aware of, and attend, meetings with the Owner and/or Architect. Contractor is to attend a Pre —Construction Meeting of all parties involved, prior to the start of construction. 01 5100 TEMPORARY UTIUTIES Contractor shall maintain the job site in a clean and orderly fashion, providing temporary sanitary facilities, waste disposal, and security (fence area or trailer module). 01 5300 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Contractor shall fumish equipment necessary to expedite work. 01 5900 FIELD OFFICES & SHEDS Contractor shall provide security (fence area or trailer module) for tools and materials that remain ovemight on site. 01 7000 CLEAN UP & CLOSE OUT Contractor shall clean up the Site to the satisfaction of Owner. Contractor shall complete the items listed on the Owner's Punch List, and shall sign and return the List to the Owner. Contractor shall maintain a set of drawings during the job, on which changes shall be noted in red ink. A full set of redlined drawings (As —Guilts) are to be given to the Architect at Job completion and submit 'construction work complete memo' to Construction Engineer. 01 8000 TRUCKS & MILEAGE Contractor shall provide transportation for their own personnel. 01 8300 TRAVEL TIME & PER DIEM Contractor shall provide room and board for their own personnel, and reasonable time for traveling to & from job site. 01 9200 TAXES Contractor shall pay sales and/or use tax on materials and taxable services. SITEWORK 02 1000 SITE PREPARATION & DEMOLITION Contractor is to mobilize within 7 calendar days of the Owner issuing a 'START' document. Contractor will immediately report to Architect if any environmental considerations arise. Site shall be scraped to a depth of 3" minimum to remove vegetative matter, and scrapings shall be stockpiled on site. Excess material to be disposed of in accordance with RFQ. 02 1100 ROAD IMPROVEMENT & CONSTRUCTION N/A 02 2000 EARTHWORK & EXCAVATION Excavation material shall be used for surface grading as necessary; excess to be stockpiled on site. Excess material to be disposed of in accordance with RFQ. For dewatering excavated areas, contractor shall utilize sock or sediment filter for filtering of water discharge. 02 5000 PAVING & SURFACING N/A 02 7800 POWER TO SITE N/A 02 7900 TELCO TO SITE Contractor shall provide 2" schedule 40 PVC conduit, (schedule 80 PVC under roads and drives) with 'large sweep' elbows & pull string for TELCO service as noted on plans. Cable to be (2) DB12P22—GO-39-5K—GCC. Trenches shall be as in 02 7800. 02 8000 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Areas bounded by fence and/or timber edging shall receive polyethylene geotechnical fabric, 200 mesh woven, topped with 3" deep 3/4" to 1 1/2" clean rock (no fines), raked smooth and edged by well —anchored treated landscape timbers. Tops of timbers shall be flush with gravel surfacing. Treated landscaped timbers shall be used at outside of fence and at gravel/grass edges, unless otherwise directed by Owner. 02 8001 FENCING All fence materials and fittings shall be galvanized steel. Fence shall be 6'-0" high x 9 ga. X 2" chain link fabric, w/ 7 ga. bottom tension wire. Comer and Gate posts shall be 2 7/8" O.D. sch 40 steel pipe, driven 60" below grade. Line posts shall be 2 3/8" 0.D. sch 40 steel pipe. Top Rails shall be 1 5/8" 0.D. steel pipe. Gate frames shall be 1 5/8" O.D. welded pipe. Fence top shall be three (3) strands barbed wire to 7'-0" above grade, canted outward. Bracing shall be 3/8" truss rods and 1 5/8" 0.D. pipe mid —rails at corners. Gate latch shall be commercial grade, "Cargo" or equal. Fabric shall extend to within 1" of finish grade, and shall NOT be fastened to landscape timbers. Fence enclosures shall be completed within 7 days of tower erecting. Existing fences shall be protected against damage during this work, and any damage that may occur shall be repaired or replaced to equal existing preconstruction condition. WOOD & PLASTICS 06 1000 ROUGH CARPENTRY N/A 06 2000 FINISH CARPENTRY N/A THERMAL & MOISTURE 07 2000 INSULATION N/A 07 2500 FIREPROOFING N/A 07 3000 SHINGLES AND ROOFING TILES 07 5000 MEMBRANE ROOFING 07 6000 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL N/A N/A N/A DOORS AND HARDWARE 02 8500 IRRIGATION SYSTEMS Contractor shall add to/re—route existing irrigation system as necessary for new 08 0000 DOORS AND HARDWARE construction. Contractor shall provide temporary irrigation of new trees, shrubs, and sod, to Door is fumished and installed by Prefab Manufacturer be maintained so it survives 1 year after planting. with 'Construction' key core. 02 9000 LANDSCAPING Contractor shall protect existing landscape elements that are not in the Scope of Work. Reasonable precautions shall be taken to assure the health of existing trees and shrubbery. If conflicts arise regarding the location of root systems, branch lines, etc., the Architect must be contacted prior to performing Work that may cause damage. Damage resulting from disregard of this Article shall be compensated by the Responsible Party and at a cost to be determined by the Property Owner, Architect, and Owner. Contractor shall furnish and install new trees, shrubs, and sod, watering per 02 8500. CONCRETE 03 1000 CONCRETE FORMWORK Concrete forms shall be dimension lumber, modular, or steel. 03 6000 GROUT Contractor shall grout baseplates according to Tower Manufacturer drawings. 03 8000 TOWER FOUNDATION N/A 03 8001 CATHODIC PROTECTION Contractor shall install Owner—fumished Cathodic Protection Devices per the Manufacturer's instructions. 03 8050 ANTENNA MOUNTS Contractor to install antenna mount(s) and handholes. Contractor shall ensure the existence of a 3/8" cable safety climb (DBI/Sala or equal) on the Tower. Contractor shall provide for operation of FM required lighting per RFQ, and temporary security fence at base of Tower. 03 9000 SHELTER FOUNDATION Contractor shall fumish & install materials for Shelter foundation. Concrete shall be 6% ±1% air entrained, and 4,000 psi at 28 days. All reinforcing steel is to be Grade 60 (ASTM 615). Anchor bolts are fumished by Contractor. Contractor shall comply with the Owner's Standard CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS MINIMUM CONCRETE STANDARDS. 03 9050 TRANSPORT AND SET SHELTER Contractor shall provide crane(s) and/or truck for setting shelter per RFQ. Contractor shall install items shipped loose within shelter, including but not limited to: generator connector, exterior light and sensor, vent hoods, and buss bars. MASONRY 04 0000 MASONRY N/A METALS 05 0000 METALS Contractor will furnish and install structural and fabricated steel items not specifically furnished by Owner, and install Owner —furnished items. Structural steel shall be fabricated and erected per AISC specifications. Welding shall conform to AWS standards. Field welding shall be as shown on Shop Drawings, performed by AWS Certified Welders, and inspected as prescribed by the Structural Engineer. Steel shall be ASTM A992 OR A36, and 3/4" field bolts shall be A325. Temporary erecting bolts, clip hangers, and bracing shall be furnished by Contractor. Fabrications shall be shop welded if possible, and galvanized before delivery to site. Structural steel, and miscellaneous iron and steel, shall be hot dipped galvanized per ASTM A123 thickness grade 55. Fabricated iron and steel hardware shall be hot dipped galvanized per ASTM A153. Repair of damaged or uncoated galvanized surfaces shall be per ASTM A780. Contractor shall ensure the existence of a 3/8" cable safety climb system (DBI/SALA or equal) on tower. FINISHES 09 2600 DRYWALL N/A 09 5700 FLOOR COVERING N/A 09 9000 PAINTING Contractor shall ensure that Tower is marked if so described in the RFQ. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 13 1250 WAVE GUIDE, (Coaxial Cables) LDF4 = 1/2" nominal, .63 in. actual diameter, 5" min. bending radius; .15 Ibs/ft AVAS-50 = 7/8" nominal, 1.102 in. actual dia.; 10" min. bending radius; .30 Ibs/ft AVA7-50 = 1 5/8" nominal, 1.98 in. actual dia.; 15" min. bending radius; .72 Ibs/ft 13 1260 CABLE BRIDGE Cable bridge to be 24 inch wide, 12 gauge, 'grip strut' supported no more than 6'-0" on center by 3 1/2" steel pipe and 3" x 5" x 1/4" x 30" long angle. Cable bridge overhang extensions not to exceed 1'-6". Steel to be hot dipped galvanized. 13 1400 ANTENNA INSTALL Contractor shall coordinate installation of Owners antennas and feed lines during erecting. Contractor shall sweep coax lines for continuity and copies of results to be left in equipment room before leaving site. MECHANICAL 15 4000 PLUMBING N/A 15 5000 HVAC PREFAB: Shelter is factory —equipped with two through —wall package units of 5 —ton and 10 KW capacity. ELECTRIC 16 5000 LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL Contractor shall perform work as described on the Electrical Plans. Contractor shall provide labor and materials as necessary to complete the installation of any tower lighting system described in the RFQ. Contractor shall furnish and install Owner —compatible generator connector and transfer switch, and provide all other materials necessary to complete the work shown on plans. If service is sub —metered from an existing service, sub —meter shall be 10x or 16x type. In cable vaults, Contractor will provide a LITTLE GIANT eliminator effluent pump, model #10E—C1A—RFS, automatic, 511300. Alternates shall be approved by Architect. 16 6000 GROUNDING Contractor shall make themselves familiar with and follow the current GROUNDING STANDARDS of VERIZON WIRELESS. Contractor shall perform work as shown on Grounding Plans. My site —specific grounding issues not covered by the GROUNDING STANDARD are to be addressed by the Contractor to the Owner. OWNER —FURNISHED EQUIPMENT & FEES MONOPOLE TOWER, T —FRAMES COAXIAL CABLES, COAX CONNECTORS, PORT BOOTS, GROUND KITS, HOIST GRIPS ETC. ANTENNAS AND DOWNTILT BRACKETS 1ST 10' OF CABLE BRIDGE BUILDING PERMIT FEE MATERIALS TESTING FEES SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FEES CONTRACTOR —FURNISHED EQUIPMENT POWER TO SITE, TELCO TO SITE. H —FRAME CABLE BRIDGE (BEYOND 10'; IF APPLICABLE) SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MATERIALS, LABOR, TOOLS, TRANSPORTATION, SUPERVISION, ETC. TO FULLY EXECUTE WORK. WORK REQUIREMENTS ARE DETAILED ON THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: SITE PREPARATION SITE WORK TOWER FOUNDATIONS SITE GROUNDING ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES ERECT TOWER INSTALL ANTENNAS & CABLES CABLE BRIDGE GRAVEL SURFACING AND FENCING H —FRAME CONSTRUCTION Contractor to compare drawings against Owners 'Request for Quote, (RFQ). If discrepancies arise, Controctor stall verify with Owner that the RFQ supersedes the drawings. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT 20130918106 MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS DRAWN BY: B. ERICKSON DATE: 10-12-13 CHECKED BY: REV. A REV. B REV. C 10-15-13, 11-11-13 04-09-14 REV. D 04-09-14 A-5 GENERAL GROUNDING NOTES: An external buried ground ring (Lead 1) shall be established around the equipment shelter and tower foundations. Lead 1 shall be kept 24" from foundations; if foundations are less than 48" apart, keep Lead 1 centered between them. If the tower base is over 20'-0" from the equipment shelter, a separate Lead 1 shall be established around each foundation, and the two Lead 1s shall be bonded with two parallel leads at least 6 feet apart horizontally. Connections between the two Lead 1s shall be bi—directional. All subgrade connections shall be by exothermic weld, brazed weld, or gas —tight UL467—listed compression fittings pre —filled with anti —oxidant compound. Subgrade connections shall n j be 'cold galvanize' coated. Lead 1 shall be #2 solid bare tin —clad (SBTC) copper wire buried at local frost depth. Lead 1 bends shall be minimum 24" radius. 'Whip' lead bends may be of 12" radius. Ground rods shall be galvanized steel, 5/8"0, spaced ten feet apart, or as shown. Rods shall be kept min. 24 inches from foundations. Ground rods are required to be installed at their full specified length. Depth shall be as shown in Detail 1/01. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR GROUND RODS: When ground rods are not specified to be backfilled w/ Bentonite Slurry: If boulders, bedrock, or other obstructions prevent driving of ground rods, the Contractor will need to have drilling equipment bore a hole for ground rod placement. Hole to be backfilled w/ Bentonite Slurry. When specified with slurried Bentonite encasement, drilling equipment wit be need to be used to be bore a hole for ground rod placement. Slurry shall be made from pelletized material ("Grounding Gravel"); powdered Bentonite is not allowed. If boulders, bedrock, or other obstructions are found, Contractor shall drill to the specified depth and provide Bentonite encasements. Above —grade connections shall be by lugs w/ two —hole tongues unless noted otherwise, joined to solid leads by welding (T&B 54856BE "BROWN"), self —threading (RECOGNIZED, EM 2522DH.75.312), or 10,000psi crimping (BURNDY YA3C 2TC 14E2). Surfaces that are galvanized or coated shall have coating(s) removed prior to bolting. Bolts shall be stainless steel with flat washers on each side of the connection and a lock washer beneath the fastening nut. Star —tooth washers shall be used between lug & dissimilar metal (copper —to —steel, etc) but are not required between tin —clad CU lugs & tin —clad CU bus bars. Lug tongues shall be coated with anti —oxidant compound, and excess compound wiped clean after bolting. The connection shall then be coated with cold —galvanizing compound, or with color —matching paint. Ground bars exposed to weather shall be tin —clad copper, and shall be clean of any oxidation prior to lug bolting. Galvanized items shall have zinc removed within 1" of weld area, and below lug surface contact orea. After welding or bolting, the joint shall be coated with cold galvanizing compound. Ground Bar leads Ground bars are isolated electrically from tower bottoms and equipment shelters by their standoff mounts. Leads from each ground bar to the ground ring shall be a pair of #2 SBTC, each connected to Lead 1 bi—directionally with #2 SBTC 'jumpers'. Pairs of #2 SBTC may be required between ground bars. Leads shall be routed to ground bars as follows: * The Main Ground Bar (MGB), typically mounted inside on the equipment shelter 'back' wall. • The Entry Cable Port Ground Bars (ECPGB), mounted inside and outside on the equipment shelter walls beneath the transmission line port. Note: Transmission line grounds also attach to the ECPGBs. * The Transmission Line Ground Bar (TGB) mounted at the base of the tower to which the transmission line grounds are attached. Transmission line grounds also attach to the TGBs. NOTE: Contractor shall confirm that TGBs exist at 75 —foot vertical intervals on any guyed or self—support tower, and that transmission lines are grounded to each TGB. Only the bottom —most TGB is isolated from the tower steel frame; upper TGBs may use the tower steel frame as common ground, requiring no copper leads between TGBs. 1/2 SBTC Whip leads "Whip" leads shall connect the buried external ground ring to the following items: Monopole Towers: * Three whips to flanges on the monopole base, at least 90' apart. If none are provided, attach to the baseplate or consult tower manufacturer. Self —Support Towers: * Two whips to flange(s) on each tower leg base. If none are provided, attach to the baseplate or consult tower manufacturer. Guyed Towers: * Two whips to flange(s) on the tower base. If none are provided, attach to the baseplate or consult tower manufacturer. * Establish a Lead 1 within the fence enclosure of each guy anchor, at least 40 foot perimeter and having 4 ground rods. * #2 SBTC leads shall extend up, and be clamped (bronze clamshell or equal), to any two guy wires. NEVER weld leads to the guy wires. The lead to the guy anchor 'hand' plate may be welded. Fences: Metallic fence within 25 feet of tower Lead 1, or within 6 feet of shelter lead 1, shall have whip leads as follows: * Each corner post. * Each pair of gate posts. * Any line post over 20'-0" from a grounded post. * Each gate leaf to its respective gatepost using braided strap (3/4", tin —clad copper w/ lug ends). * Fences around guy anchors shall be grounded in similar fashion. Fuel tanks: NEVER WELD to any fuel enclosure. NEVER penetrate the fuel containment. Metal tanks shall have one whip lead attached. Use an approved clamp or two —hole lug on an available flange. Equipment Shelter and Other General Requirements: * Extend new Lead 21B up to shelter halo, remaking two—way connections as needed. Generator —equipped shelters have 6 such connections. Connections within the shelter shall be by compression; NEVER weld inside the shelter. * Each vertical support pipe of the exterior cable bridge. Bridge end shall be kept at least 6" from the tower structure. The cable bridge shall be jumpered to the vertical support pipes with #2 SBTC at each vertical support pipe. • Opposite corners of the roof shield over the equipment shelter. * Each I-IVAC unit shield, if separate (may be 'jumpered' to main roof shield). * Each HVAC package unit. * Commercial electric meter box. * Generator receptacle, if present. * Steel building skid, if shelter is metal frame. • Each air intake or exhaust fan vent louver. * Each generator vent hood or louver. • Generator exhaust stack, external. • Opposite corners of generator support frame, if separate from shelter. * Generator fuel tank, if separate from generator unit. * Host building rain gutter, downspouts, and roof fleshings within 25 feet. * Telco MPOP (Main Point of Presence), if external to equipment shelter. * Within cable vaults, one each to the ladder and to the manhole rim. Note: The door frame is connected to the interior ground halo, and need no separate connection to the external ground ring. Inspection & Testing Test lead #1 and ground rods after installation but before backfilling or connecting to any other grounding, using the 3 —point fall of potential method. Contractor to notify Verizon Wireless senior construction engineer at least 48 hours prior to testing. Document installation and test results with photographs. SYMBOL AND NOTE LEGEND _Q • #2 SBTC AROUND SHELTER, TOWER, OR GUY ANCHOR 5/8" X 10'-0" GALVANIZED STEEL GROUND ROD TEST WELL PREFERRED LOCATION #2 SBTC 'WHIP' LEAD © (2) #2 SBTC FROM MGB, PGB, OR TGB TO LEAD 1 © AC © AP BC © BO © CBS • FAN © FP Q GP © GUY © HL © HB © EM ® EL © MU © RBR © SP © TEL © TWR © VP HVAC UNIT APPLETON PLUG BUILDING CORNER BOLLARD CABLE BRIDGE SUPPORT POST GUY ANCHOR PLATE FENCE POST GATE POST, 3/4" BRAID STRAP TO LEAF GUY WIRE, MECH. CLAMP ONLY — NO WELDS HOOD OR LOWER OUTSIDE OF HOFFMAN BOX COMMERCIAL ELECTRICAL METER ELECTRICAL SERVICE GROUND GENERATOR MUFFLER FOUNDATION REINFORCING STEEL POST HOFFMAN BOX TOWER BASE DIESEL FUEL VENT PIPE Note: Contractor to provide #2 solid bare tin —clad (SBTC) copper wire lead from #1 ground ring to air conditioner & ice shield if provided by VZW. 0 0 GROUND BUSS BAR S.� TOP VIEW THREADED END CAP THREADED FITTING ADAPTER #2 SBTC LOOP 8"0 PVC PIPE EXTENDING DOWN TO LEAD #1 CUT SLOTS FOR LEAD #1 GROUND ROD 11 TEST WELL DETAIL SCALE: NONE UJ 0 ce 0 CADWELD (TYPE GT) LEAD 1, RING #2 SBTC GALVANIZED STEEL GROUND ROD, 5/8'0 SPACED 10' APART OR PER PLAN. OGROUND RING & ROD DETAIL SCALE: NONE ALL BUSS BARS SHALL BE TIN -CLAD COPPER GROUND BUSS BAR w/ WALL BRACKETS GROUND BUSS BAR w/ ANGLE ADAPTERS OGROUND BUSS BAR DETAILS SCALE: NONE NOTE: REMOVE GALVANIZING FROM FENCE POSTS IN AREAS LUGS WILL BE INSTALLED. LIGHTLY COAT THE UNDERSIDE OF THE LUGS W/ ANTI —OX COMPOUND BEFORE ATTACHING TO POSTS. Fn rrm SIDE VIEW TWO —HOLE 10,000 PSI COMPRESSION FITTING UL 9498 LISTED TYPE RJ WELDED, NOT CRIMPED TYPE RR REINF. BAR TYPE VS ROUND SURFACE BURNDY YA6C 2TC 14 CRIMP LUG BELDEN 1/273 I.D. TUBULAR BRAIDED STRAP GATE BONDED TO FENCE POST (2) TWO —HOLE 10,000 PSI COMPRESSION FITTING w/ 3/4" BRAIDED TINNED COPPER JUMPER STRAP HYTAP CONNECTOR 10,000 PSI COMPRESSION FITTING FITTING MUST BE UL467 LISTED ACCEPTABLE FOR DIRECT BURIAL O COMPRESSION CONNECTOR DETAILS SCALE: NONE WELD: THOMAS & BETTS, 54856BE BROWN33" CRIMP: BURNDY, YA3C 2TC 14E2, 10,000 PSI SCREW: RECOGNIZED, EM 25220H.75.312 TYPE VS FLAT SURFACE O EXOTHERMIC WELD DETAILS SCALE: NONE TYPE HS TYPE GT TYPE PT TYPE GL LUG NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: GENERAL NOTES GROUND RING & ROD DETAIL BUSS BAR DETAILS CONNECTOR DETAILS EXOTHERMIC WELD DETAILS TEST WELL DETAIL DRAWN BY: APS DATE: CHECKED BY: 09-26-13 CDB REV. A REV. B REV. C 10-15-13 11-11-13 04-09-14 REV. D 04-09-14 G-1 " EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE REMOVED FP EXISTING WATER TANK TO BE REMOVED N PREFERRED TEST WELL LOCATION ------------ OGROUNDING PLAN SCALE: NONE XISTING GENERATOR NORTH GP de de de de de " TWO \ \ WAY TWO ��I WAY s��o ASSUMED EXISTING GROUND RING (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY) EXISTING VZW PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT EACH WHIP IS ROUTED TO LEAD 1 BY THE SHORTEST PATH, AND BENDS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 12" RADIUS RODS, ISOLATED FROM LEAD 11 5 RING TO GROUND BAR 6 RING TO EXT MTL OBJECT 7 DEEP ANODE TO MGB 8 AC PANEL TO WATER METER 9 EXT WATER TO INT WATER PIPES 10 INT WATER PIPE TO MGB 11-12 NOT USED 13 AC PANEL TO MGB NSTD33-9 14 MGB/FGB TO BLDG STL FRAME 12/0 I-STR 14C MGB/FGB TO ROOF/WALL MTL PNL 11/0 I-STR 15 MGB/FGB TO FGB-HE SAME FLOOR #2/0 I-STR 16 NOT USED 16A ECPGB TO CABLE ENTRY RACK 11/0 I-STR 17 MGB TO CABLE SHIELDING 16 I-STR 17A ECPGB TO CABLE SHIELDING 16 I-STR 17B MGB/FGB TO F-0 SPLICE SHELF #1 I-STR 18 LOWEST MGB/FGB TO HIGHEST FGB 12/0 I-STR 19 LEAD 18 TO OTHER FGBs, <6' 12/0 I-STR 20 MGB/FGB TO BRANCH AC PNL 16 I-STR 20A NEAREST GRND TO DISCONNECT PNL NEC 250.66 20B GWB TO AC DISTR PNL 16 I-STR 21 MGB/FGB TO INT HALO #2 I-STR 21A INTERIOR 'GREEN' HALO 12 I-STR 21B INT HALO TO EXT RING #2 SBTC 21C INT HALO TO EQUIPMENT MTL 16 I-STR 22 ROOF TOWER RING TO ROOF GRND NFPA 780 23 MGB/FGB TO ECPGB, SAME FLOOR #1 I-STR 23A MGB/FGB TO CXR-HF UNR PROT 16 I-STR 24 ECPGB TO EACH PROTECTOR ASSEMBLY 16 I-STR 24A LOWER PROT ASSY TO UPPER #6 I-STR LEAD IDEN11F1CA11ON & DESCRIP11ON: 1 RING, EXTERNAL BURIED w/ RODS #2 SBTC 1A RING, CONCRETE ENCASED #2 SBTC 2 DEEP ANODE (TO IMPROVE OHMS) ROD OR PIPE 3 RING TO BLDG STL FRAME #2 SBTC 4 MAN AC PANEL NEUTRAL BUS TO (2) GROUND NEC 250.66 (2) 12 SBTC 12 SBTC NSTD33-9 NEC 250.66 NSTD33-9 NSTD33-9 25 RING TO NEAREST LIGHTNING ROD #2 SBTC 26 LGHTNG ROD SYS TO NEARBY MTL NFPA 780 27 RING TO TOWER RING (2) 12 SBTC 28 RING TO SHELTER RING (2) #2 SBTC 29 BRANCH AC PNL TO BTTY CHG FRM NSTD33-11 30 BRANCH AC PNL TO OUTLETS NSTD33-11 31 MGB/FGB TO PWR, BTTY FRAMES 12/0 I-STR 32 131 TO BATTERY CHARGER FRAME 16 I-STR 33 131 TO BATTERY RACK FRAME 16 I-STR 34 131 TO PCU FRAME 16 I-STR 35 131 TO DSU FRAME #6 I-STR 36 131 TO PDU FRAME 16 I-STR 37 MGB/FGB TO BTTY RETURN NSTD33-14.5 37A MGB/FGB TO RTN TERM CARR SUPP #6 I-STR 38 FGB TO PDU GB #750MCM I-STR 38A FGB TO PDU GB CARRIER SUPPLY 12/0 I-STR 39 DC BUS DUCT TO NEXT SECTION 16 I-STR 40 DC BUS DUCT TO MGB/FGB #6 I-STR 41A MGB/FGB TO 158 12/0 I-STR 42-44 NOT USED 45 MAIN AC PNL TO BRANCH AC PNL NSTD33-11 46 BRANCH AC PNL TO DED OUTLET NSTD33-11 47 FGB TO INTEG FRM #2 I-STR 48 LEAD 131 TO INTEG FRM #6 I-STR 49 INTEG FRM TO EQUIP SHELF BY FASTENERS 50 PDU BTTY RET TO 151 51 150 TO TRANS FRM ISO DC PWR 52 TRANS FRM FUSE TO FRM OR BAR 53A mce/FGB TO PDF/BDFB 54 MGB/FGB TO STATIC DEVICES 55 MGB/FGB TO CABLE AT ENTRY 56 MGB/FGB TO AC PWR RADIO XMTTR 57A MGB/FGB TO CBL GRID/RUNWAY 58A #41A TO AISLE FRAME 59A #58A TO EACH SGL FRAME GRND 60-89 NOT USED 90 GENERATOR FRAME TO EXT RING #2/0 I-STR 16 I-STR 18 I-STR NSTD33-22 #6 I-STR #6 I-STR #6 I-STR 12/0 I-STR 12 I-STR 16 I-STR 12 SBTC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT .1 DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 .----'-''.7 GREEN' HALO 21A WITHIN SHELTER SHELTER FLOOR CONC FDTN` EXTEND NEW LEAD 21B UP TO SHELTER HALO REPLACE CONNECTIONS LEAD 21B SHALL BE UNSPLICED BETWEEN ATTACHMENTS TO LEADS 1 & 21A, APPX 15 FEET 12 "GREEN" WIRE SHELTER WALL PVC SLEEVE FURN. w/ SHELTER GRADE CONNECTION TO LEAD 1 SHELTER CORNER TREATMENT OSHELTER HALO SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" CONCRETE PIER CONNECTION GRADE 12 SBTC UNDER THE RIM FORM VERTICAL REBAR GROUNDING RING TOWER FOUNDATION TOWER FOUNDATION GROUNDING SECTION OREBAR GROUNDING SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAKE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: GROUNDING PLAN LEAD IDENTIFICATION SHELTER CORNER DETAIL FOUNDATION LEADS DRAWN BY: APS DATE: 09-26-13 CHECKED BY: CDB REV. A 10-15-13 REV. B 11-11-13 REV. C 04-09-14 REV. D 04-09-14 G-2 NOTE: IF NO FLANGES ARE PROVIDED, USE BASE PLATE. OR CONTACT TOWER MANUFACTURER. TOWER WALL / LEG LEAD 6 CONNECTION APPLY COLD-GALV COATING #2 SOLID CU, TIN -CLAD DOWN TO LEAD 1 ONOT USED SCALE: NONE ONOT USED SCALE: NONE GROUNDING OBJECT TWO -HOLE LUG SEATED IN ANTI -OXIDANT COMPOUND APPLY COLD-GALV COATING #2 SOLID CU, TIN -CLAD Y4"0 PVC PIPE, GRAY (ELECTRICAL GRADE) PVC HALF -STRAP w/ FASTENERS (NAIL -IN OR TAPCON) TO CONC. WALL GRADE OCONDUIT DETAIL SCALE: NONE ONOT USED SCALE: NONE ONOT USED SCALE: NONE ONOT USED SCALE: NONE SHELTER CABLE PORT THROUGH TOWER 12 GA LEAD w/ VINYL JACKET UNUSED CABLE [ IN SEAL717E" CONDUIT PORT PORT TOWER BUSS BAR LOOP DETECTION LEAD THRU ALL BUSS BARS WITHIN REACH OF GRADE OANTI -THEFT MEASURE SCALE: NONE SHELTER BUSS BAR NON-METALLIC SLEEVE EMBED END BELOW GRADE GRADE OTYPICAL TOWER GROUNDING SCALE: NONE 24 GA PAIR TO TELCO BOARD UL 497A SPD /6 GROUND LEAD GPS ANTENNA SHELTER CABLE PORT SHELTER EXTERIOR BUSS BAR KEEP WELDS 8" MIN APART GROUND FRIN TYPICAL 'JUMPER': j2 SOLID w/ LUG ENDS AT END POSTS AND BETWEEN CHANNELS TYPE VS WELD TO BRIDGE POSTS BRIDGE POST PIERS TOWER CABLE PORT TOWER GROUND BAR BRING TOWER BAR LEAD 5 TO NEAREST LEAD 1 RING LATERALS MAY BE LESS THAN FROST DEPTH (12" MIN) ALWAYS POINT LEAD 6 WHIP TO NEAREST GROUND ROD OTYPICAL CABLE BRIDGE SCALE: NONE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN ROBERT J DAVIS, AIA ARCHITECT 9973 VALLEY VIEW RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (952) 903-9299 VERIZON WIRELESS 10801 BUSH LAID= ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 (612) 720-0030 PROJECT MINC HAMEL PINTO DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 SHEET CONTENTS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CONDUIT, STOOP, ANTI- THEFT, BRIDGE, TOWER BASE DETAILS DRAWN BY: APS DATE: 09-26-13 CHECKED BY: CDB REV. A 10-15-13 REV. B 11-11-13 REV. C 04-09-14 REV. D 04-09-14 G-3 PROPOSED LAND SPACE DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED a IOOa.4 o°/ 0 00].5 10014 / / •'fa39 004.3 e615.3 tc 008.5 BTc 1aa.4 arc CMS 0 e011.9 7c • 0011.4 10120 011.7 sEa i% i.cuis. z1 BENCH MARKS (BM) 1°0].3 \ 1003.9 121 7aP-loos.° 049-100185 10 1003.1 '498% OTC. 100 4.3 \ 3 B1C 10113.1 no I.) Top nut of fire hydrant south side of Tower Drive, 1st hydrant east of Pinto Drive. Elevation = 1008.24 feet (NAVD 1988) 2.) Top nut of fire hydrant 12'/- feet west of water tower Elevation = 1014.78 feet (NAVD 1988) MINC HAME/ HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA 3'40"E /44.93 A ,/ r-rl /A / r1 /V/L_L/// V/ -I rover-wc „m1,. _1012-' 1 1oi�.9 A J r-rl A/ A /V/L_LJII V/-1 VICINITY MAP SCALE SEC 12. TWP 118. RGE 23 /A/rl/ /^T1--) /A / / 1 V LJ IJ'-! / / \ •1°05.4 BITUMINOUS BM If 1005.2 1005.1 as .5 BTC us --s1 ewe NB7 10'30 Er 9 N86520 E 200.00 ioae.z X,99 laae_e • r--1 / -//1A/ ,I LJ LJ/ / / LJ/ V 1 STORY STUCCO BULGING 244 / to 41013.2 1013_ 1011.1 err CIAO T W4M aNx fENi CNN FNLE 0119 Ao o CONCRETE •. ceox(TYP.) C809 10115 CONCRETEI 0115 1914.1 000080 000 10133 01 ,r 10113 °10115 METAL WALxWAY �1006- S87 23 24 ra �TOae.l� L�;.&Ia0E9 •10065 •1009.8 }°nom 1o1as III PROPOSED -�. AND SPACE AREA=1,878 sq. ft. `.10115 010.1 II iao4.8 N°v° 11 .a •1°04.7 roev=laoai 1Mv_10011 p0 N ri1a'Asx \008 loOze $w .10412 0 0432.'4A61051u2 �. X I6/ 4 - -1012 yr Mow 04040 UNNPEP FENCE 0 550153. E EASr03� P00 TIE PLAT • MEo1NA 15014TBIK 4010000 009.8 'BAs • 10129 • 1013.0 2, 00111'4..6 t 2 woos li'ASN BT1C le „x rsice�nlrOn" 200.00 7`10' 'W) BITUMINOUS [58 .141 J arc I, /A r/ / l^TL) / i1 / 1 // VIL J J.) / / \ //-1 L_ 1012.6 tar EX/STING SURGING / L7 0 1. 0 /i /1 Coordinates of position designated hereon as such 0 per NAD 83 coordinate conversion are as follows: LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE PROPOSED MONOPOLE Latitude = N 45° 02' 39.5" Longitude = W 93° 32' 30.8" 051 CAIM Mx ra10E • 1010.1 .1011.6 9 T J 1004. 80°45 O'c" BTC reo v1 rl rl / T / /1 A / /-I L./ / / / LJ / V LEGEND AC AGP AIS BAS BE BM BOX BTC CB CBOX CBX CMH CMP CRAB EB EM FOL FOLHH 0314 Cj LIJ t � Denotes air conditioner Denotes above ground pipe(s) Denotes advertisement/information sign Denotes Basswood tree Denotes building entrance Denotes benchmark Denotes Boxelder tree Denotes top of bituminous curb Denotes catch basin Denotes control box Denotes communication box Denotes communication monhole Denotes corrugated metal pipe Denotes Crabapple tree Denotes electric box Denotes electric meter Denotes fiber optic line Denotes fiber optic hand hole That part of Outlot A, Medina Industrial Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 12, Township 118, Range 23; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds East, along the west line of said Section 12, a distance of 237.77 feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds East 144.93 feet to the point of beginning of the land spoce to be described; thence North 02 degrees 36 minutes 36 seconds West 47.56 feet; thence North 87 degrees 23 minutes 24 seconds East 37.93 feet; thence South 02 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds East 50.11 feet; thence South 87 degrees 23 minutes 24 seconds West 28.53 feet; thence North 02 degrees 18 minutes 29 seconds West 2.50 feet; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 31 seconds West 9.45 feet to the point of beginning. PROPOSED ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIPTION A 20.00 foot wide access right of way over and across port of Outlot A, Medina Industrial Addition, according to the recorded Minnesota. The centerline of said 20.00 foot wide access right of way is described as commencing thereof, Hennepin County, g y at the west quarter corner of Section 12, Township 118, Range 23; thence on on assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds Eost, along the west line of said Section 12, o distance of 237.77 feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds East 144.93 feet; thence North 02 degrees 36 minutes 36 seconds West 47.56 feet; thence North 87 degrees 23 minutes 24 seconds East 27.92 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence on o bearing of North 30.90 feet; thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 44 seconds West 125.22 feet to the easterly line of Pinto Drive and said centerline there terminating. PROPOSED 631 sa. ft. UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIPTION A 5.00 foot wide utility right of way over, under and across part of Outlet A, Medina Industrial Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The centerline of said 5.00 foot wide utility right of way is described as commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 12, Township 118, Range 23; thence on an assumed beoring of North 00 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds East, along the west line of said Section 12, a distance of 237.77 feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds East 144.93 feet; thence North 02 degrees 36 minutes 36 seconds West 47.56 feet; thence North 87 degrees 23 minutes 24 seconds East 17.00 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence North 58 degrees 12 minutes 37 seconds West 12.77 feet; thence North 71 degrees 50 minutes 08 seconds West 55.09 feet; thence North 61 degrees 02 minutes 43 seconds West 58.37 feet to the east line of Pinto Drive and there said centerline terminating. The sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at a line bearing North 87 degrees 23 minutes 24 seconds East from the point of beginning and its westerly extension and at said east line of Pinto Drive. PROPOSED 655 sq. ft. UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIPTION A 5.00 foot wide utility right of way over, under and across part of Outlot A, Medina Industrial Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The centerline of said 5.00 foot wide utility right of way is described as commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 12, Township 1 18, Range 23; thence on on assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds Eost, along the west line of said Section 12, a distance of 237.77 feet; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds East 144.93 feet; thence North 02 degrees 36 minutes 36 seconds West 29.10 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence South 87 degrees 23 minutes 24 seconds East 4.23 feet; thence South 69 degrees 33 minutes 17 seconds West 82.58 feet; thence South 43 degrees26 minutes 30 seconds West 21.72 feet to a line 47.50 feet east of and parallel with the west line of said Sectionl2; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds West, along said parallel line, 7.95 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 40 seconds West 9.38 feet; thence South 65 degrees 09 minutes 36 seconds West 5.65 feet to a line 33 feet east of and parollel with the west line of said Section 12 and there said centerline terminating. (Per US Title Solutions Report of Title File No. 44309-MN1307-5030, report date July 09, 2013) Outlot A, Block 2, as shown on the Plat of Medina Industrial Addition recorded 10/29/1969 in book 183 at page 11 as Instrument No. 3801512. Less and Except that portion of the property conveyed to the State of Minnesota dated 11/12/1986 and recorded 12/8/1986 as Instrument No. 5195680. TITLE REPORT US Title Solutions Report of Title File No. 44309-MN1307-5030, report date July 09, 2013, was relied upon as to matters of record. SCHEDULE B (Per US Title Solutions Report of Title File No. 44309-MN1307-5030, report dote July 09, 2013) OExceptions are indicated on survey with circled numbers where applicable. DETAIL OF ACCESS AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAYS G GEN GM GP HHC HHE HYD INV MC MPL OHE PINR PPLP PPU SAN SAN 5 SPCG ST S TRANS 45 1' 0 bi EL I IN 45- �y B n1 N "I o RIOII t'89° 340 E 1_144.93 1 tt5.��45.7 TUM I N OU'S \C\ \ J PROPOSED UTILITY - RIGHT OF WAY \lx 655 sq. ft. T'7% / STORY STUCCO BUILDING //,‘,// _1589°56'44.'2(i i` \1_125.22 Is OPOSED UTILITY I \C.y RIGHT OF WAY 631 sq. ft. 08 I mob/ / 70.0 00°16'20°W J 1" 7.95 SCALE 1"=20' 18 CONCRETE 8ASE B CONCRETE a(TYP.) CONCRETE 0 rrJCONCRETE UGC UGE W WV Denotes underground communication line Denotes underground electric line Denotes water line Denotes water valve PROPOSED ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY 3,123 sq. ft. �i 10 l4 10 \�'KBA� 132 E 7.93 $yAE00nu 5neooc ryas. a 01444410 ,( T1) 0 �- unuTY 9.80 or /1 p-- PLAT aMm Denotes gutter Denotes generator Denotes gas meter Denotes guard post Denotes communication hand hole Denotes electric hand hole Denotes fire hydrant Denotes structure invert Denotes metal cover Denotes Maple tree Denotes overhead electric line Denotes Red Pine tree Denotes power pole and light pole Denotes power pole with underground utility Denotes sanitary manhole Denotes sanitary sewer Denotes Colorado Green Spruce tree Denotes storm sewer Denotes transformer box 20 0 20 8. Plot of Medina Industrial Addition recorded 10/29/1969 lin book 183 page II in Instrument No. 3801512 9. Memorandum of Agreement between City of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation and APT Minneapolis, Inc., a Delaware corporation dated 5/20/1997 recorded 6/3/1997 in Instrument No. 6740980. 10. Memorandum of Agreement between City of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation and OneComm Corp., N.A., a Delaware corporation dba Nextel Communications doted 3/20/1997 recorded 6/16/1998 in Instrument No. 6914601. 1 1. Memorandum of Amendment No. 2 to Amended Antenna Site Lease Agreement between City of Medina, o Minnesota municipal corporation and Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless dated 11/27/2006 recorded 12/7/2006 in Instrument No. 8903882. 12. Assignment and Assumption of Ground Lease between Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation and Towerco Assets, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation dated 9/23/2008 recorded 1/2/2009 in Instrument No. A9305162. 13. Memorandum of Agreement between City of Medina and Towerco Assets, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation dated 3/16/2009 recorded 4/7/2009 in Instrument No. A9344416. GENERAL NOTES 1.) Survey coordinate and bearing basis: Hennepin County Coordinate 2.) This Deed Survey Is bosed upon reference informational Report of Title No. 44309 -MN 1307-5030 prepared by U.S. Title Solutions. Easements, appurtenances, and encumbrances may exist in addition to those shown hereon. No search for record documents or monumentation In the ground has been performed. This Deed Survey was prepared without the benefit of a current title insurance commitment and is subject to revision upon receipt of a current title insurance commitment or attorney's title opinion. UTILITY NOTES 1.) Utility information from pions and markings was combined with observed evidence of utilities to develop a view of the underground utilities shown hereon. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, excavation may be necessary. 2.) Other underground utilities of which we are unaware may exist. Verify all utilities critical to construction or design. 3.) Some underground utility locations are shown as marked onsite by those utility companies whose locators responded to our Gopher State One Call, ticket number 131773764. 4.) Contact GOPHER STATE ONE CALL at 651-454-0002 (800-252-1166) for precise onsite location of utilities prior to any excavation. 40 SCALE IN FEET 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 8th day of November, 2013 SUNDE/LAND SURVEYING, LLC. By. Leonard F. Carlson, P.L.S. Minn. Lic. No. 44890 / Revise land space. CWJ 03/20/2014 04 Add features inside fence. New 1(A) location. CWJ 03/19/2014 © Revise land space and utility ROW's. CWJ 02/06/2014 A Add two Utility ROW and Access ROW. CWJ 11/08/2013 A3 New land space. CWJ 10/14/2013 Ree0000 _1-8Y_I Dore (Original doted 09//6/20/3 I WO Drawing Tit/e: SURVEY FOR: DESIGN 1 M/NC HAMEL JJSUNDENG LAND SURVEYI 9001 East Bloomington F mess (3581. 5018 118 Bloomington. Minnesota 55420-3435 952-881-2455 (Foe: 952-888-9526) www.eunde.aoen Proect:20/3-/34 80/49:664/72 Towne* 118 Range 2J Section: /2 Fee: 20/3/3400/R3.OWG Dote: ///08/20/3 Sneer: 1 of 1 ° Date: G , f Y Comment Card MEDINA 4 1 Name of Speaker: li to �X k S Public Forum Agenda Item 5 5 `� Address: 7�a Orpleaselyint) Telephone (optional): q --5O ' .3 53 - q 5 CM --- Representing: 5)-_,V Agenda Item (list number and letter): " 6J 1" \ Comments: 4 evil "--a Q C teko,J [ed f 4- iit y ttaS t T Jt 5Jf r4 C3' A ( - re(100 a4/.--, Approach the podium to speak Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand comer. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes AGENDA ITEM: 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2014 MEETING: June 10, 2014 Planning Commission SUBJ: Greg Smith — Variance — 4635 Pine Street — Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: May 21, 2014 60 -day Review Deadline: July 20, 2014 Overview of Request Greg Smith has requested approval of variances to allow construction of an addition on the rear of his existing garage. The requested variances are: 1) Reduce rear (eastern) setback from 30 feet to 12.9 feet in order to construct garage in line with existing garage. 2) Increase permitted hardcover within the shoreland overlay district from 25% to 29.3%. As noted above, the existing home is located closer to the eastern lot line of the site, currently a distance of 12.9 feet. Technically, this property line is the rear lot line, requiring a 30 foot setback. Either as a result of different lot line definitions or oversight when the structure was constructed in the 1970's, it was located as if the eastern property line was a side lot line. As your drive down Pine Street, the eastern property line does "feel like" a side lot line. However, the existing home is also located within 12 feet of southern lot line. The location of the garage addition is within a deeper portion of the property, and is proposed to be setback 19 feet from the southern property line. This would meet the side setback requirement, although it would not "feel like" a rear yard. The applicant proposes to access the garage addition through the existing garage, although a garage door is proposed on the west side of the addition in order to navigate a lawn mower and make gardening equipment more accessible. Although a hardcover variance would be necessary, it should be noted that this property has one of the lowest hardcover percentages in the area. Most other lots are smaller with much higher percentage of hardcover. The property is relatively flat in the area proposed for the garage addition, but the property slopes across the lawn and gardens to the west down to Lakeshore Avenue. An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the following page. Smith — 4635 Pine Street Page 1 of 4 June 10, 2014 Variance Planning Commission Meeting Analysis The following table summarizes the dimensional standards of the Urban Residential zoning district and the Shoreland Overlay district in comparison to the proposed addition: Required Subject Site Front Yard Setback (west) 30 feet 190 feet Rear Yard Setback (east) 30 feet 11.7 feet (existing garage) 12.9 feet (proposed garage addition) Street Setback (north) 30 feet 20.8 feet (existing, not proposed to be changed by addition) Side Yard Setback (south) 10 feet 12 feet (existing house) 19 feet (proposed garage addition) Impervious surfaces 60% (UR); 25% (Shoreland Overlay) 29.3% There are a fair amount of trees along the eastern and southeastern portion of the site, which would mitigate visual impacts of the garage addition. The proposed addition should not impact any existing trees on the property. Smith — 4635 Pine Street Page 2 of 4 Variance June 10, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Drainage from the location of the garage addition travels along the common property line between the subject property and the parcel to the south. Staff recommends a condition that requires gutters and grading in order to direct run-off from the garage addition onto the subject site so that it does not negatively impact neighboring property. When considering variances for hardcover in the shoreland overlay district, the City's practice is to require mitigation either through reductions of other hardcover or installation of stormwater improvements. As noted above, it is important to note that this site has a low amount of hardcover in comparison with other properties in the Independence Beach area. With the addition of the garage, staff believes it is worth considering the removal of the concrete parking pad to the east of the garage, and perhaps some of the width of the existing driveway along the eastern property line. This driveway and parking area do not meet relevant setbacks (10 feet required), and their removal could off -set the additional hardcover proposed by the garage addition. In terms of alternatives, staff looked at the possibility of constructing a 20 foot wide addition which was located 30 feet from the eastern property line and 10 feet from the southwestern property line. This alignment would mean that less than 8 feet of common wall would be shared between the existing garage and the garage addition. This would make accessing the garage addition through the existing garage difficult, most likely lead to the need for more hardcover in order to access. Alternatively, a separate garage/storage building could be constructed on the west of the home. In the same way, additional hardcover would be necessary in order to access a garage in this location. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45, the City shall consider the following criteria when reviewing requests for 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. Smith — 4635 Pine Street Page 3 of 4 June 10, 2014 Variance Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation Staff believes that, subject to the conditions below, it could be reasonably argued that the proposed variances would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Taking into consideration the location of the existing structure, it could also be argued that the variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Staff believes the fact that the home was built as if the eastern lot line was a side property line is unique, and that the plight was not created by the property owner. The property owner proposes to expand the footprint of the structure which is non -conforming with regards to the setback from the eastern property line, but the setback of the addition is actually larger than the existing structure. The parcel has one of the lower proportions of hardcover in the neighborhood, and staff recommends removing some of the existing hardcover as a condition of approval. As a result, staff believes the variances would not alter the essential character of the locality nor would they confer upon the applicant any special privileges. If the Planning Commission finds that the criteria for granting variances have been met, a motion to recommend approval would be in order. In such case, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall grade the property and install improvements which ensure that stormwater from the addition does not negatively impact neighboring property owners. The applicant shall provide updated plans for approval by the City Engineer and shall provide such documentation required by the engineer after construction is complete to verify that the improvements and grading were completed consistent with this condition. 2) The applicant shall remove the concrete to the east of the existing garage and, if deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council, a portion of the existing driveway. 3) The applicant shall abide by the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the variance request and other relevant documents. Attachments 1. Engineer Comments 2. Letter of support signed by neighbors (provided by applicant) 3. Proposed building plans 4. Photos of site 5. Survey Smith — 4635 Pine Street Page 4 of 4 June 10, 2014 Variance Planning Commission Meeting WSB AMINIEW a Associates. Inc. engineering• planning. environmental • construction May 22, 2014 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: Smith Variances WSB Project No. 2065-980 Dear Dusty: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the variance application for the proposed garage addition at 4635 Pine Street. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters. 1. The proposed garage addition will increase hardcover on this site and will generate more runoff. The plans submitted show drainage arrows directing some of this water onto the neighboring property to the south. The plans show only spot elevations and no contours. The plans should be revised to show existing and proposed contours and any necessary swales so that no stormwater is directed onto the neighboring properties. All drainage from this site should be directed across the subject property onto either Pine Street or Lake Shore Avenue. 2. The revised plans should show proposed down spout discharge locations. 3. The revised plans should show how the garage will be accessed. This should include any additional proposed hardcover. Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. f31 Tom Kellogg z:Ltri,:-/_7_0(A4 .235- otrA 6%1 e.,55 rcr;ildvv Jodi and JeF lr+ham:. -2 5 )2' . mihu %39 rn of -, MAY 132014 a -7, (9, 1�- X(oX/Lf e.. J " fl-' .:y -77 GO a> BIG Pro Garage Design"' 3D View MAY J32O4 1,47 Warning and Importantlnstructions: This is not a final design plan or estimate. EDGENET, INC. assumes no responsibility for the correct use or output of this program. All information contained on this page Is subject to the terms in the disclaimer located at the end of this document. Advertencia e instrcciones Importantes: Esto no es un plan ni una estimaci6n final del dIsetio. EDGENET, INC. no asume ninguna responsibilidad del use o de la sallda correcto de este programa.Toda la informacion contenida en esta pagina esta conforme a Ios t6rminos en la negaci6n, situada en el extremo de este documento. Copyright ® 1989-2014 Edgenet, Inc. Page 2 of 24 Doc ID 3364fc33-46eb-46a9-ae71-a2f0032196df BIG Pro Garage Design' MAY a32014 Plan View Warning and Important Instructions: This is not a final design plan or estimate. EDGENET, INC. assumes no responsibility for the correct use or output of this program. All information contained on this page is subject to the terms in the disclaimer located at the end of this document. Advertencia e Instrcclones Importantes: Esto no es un plan ni una estimaclan final del disei o, EDGENET, INC. no asume ninguna responsibllidad del use a de la salida correcto de este programa.Toda la inforrnaclon contenida en esta pagina esta conforms a los tarminos en la negacibn, situada en el extrema de este documento. Copyright © 1989-2014 Edgenet, Inc. Page 3 of 16 Doc ID d39e7237-4de8-4ce3-a6bc.4c9c257611a4 Pro Garage DesignTM 3D View MAY 18 2014 Warning and Important Instructions; This is not a final design plan or estimate. EDGENET, INC. assumes no responsibility for the correct use or output of this program. All information contained on this page is subject to the terms in the disclaimer located at the end of this document. Advertencia e instrcclones importantes: Esto no es un plan ni una estimacibn final del diseifo. EDGENET, INC. no asume ninguna responsibilidad del use o de la salida correcto de este programa.Toda la information contenida en esta pa3gIna esta conforme a los terminos en la negacibn, situada en el extremo de este documento. Copyright ®1989-2014 Edgenet, Inc. Page 2 of 16 Doo ID d39a7237-4deB-4ce3-aBbc-4c9a257611a4 Building Permit Survey 978.'x \ * 91.5 -Water Valve _112 e & Hydrant ----- �1 �e E' 977.9/- S 51 j/R 0 TNH=983.1- I x 979.3 0 • O \_1 x 981.7 x 983.6 .c 1 .0 1 O q / x 984.4 x 983.7 92 959' 80.9 x 989.2 1 0x984.6 x 989.5 Prepared for: Greg Smith ----Centerline (as traveled) ' a 84.6 _ - _Edge of Bituminous 991. x 991.5 - ------- 9928 • x 991.6 x 989.0 131.03 (meas.) S87'13'03"W 990/ 141.04 x 990.9 x Existing House Surveyor's Note: No documentotion was obtained regarding the vacated roadway along the' westerly side of Lot 1. The vacated Lake Shore Avenue shown above is approximated based on the Hennepin County half section map. The lot areas shown on this survey are also based on that approximation. I suggest that further research be done to determine the boundary of the vacated portion of the roadway in the area of the subject property. LA SCHOBORG D SERVICES INC. 763-972-3221 8997 Co. Rd. 13 SE www.SchoborgLond.com Delano, MN 55328 9873 x co ,__Retaining N' '9.93 __Stone Wall N87'00'38 "E 100.00 990.7 x <t x 992.2 - 30.0 ---- 999 2 96 81 991.0 x 9g� Existing House '3 N hrz -- 22.0 x Proposed Garage Addition 24x24 GFE= 993.5 N OO 0) 0), x 992.9 ��.. (993.2) 992.9 30.05(meas.) 9921 N87'00'38 "E 60.00 x 993.8 x 992.3 1 hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Land Survey r`7i nder, r aws of the State of Minnesota. Paul B. Schobor Date: /7'1_2` / G Registration No. 14700 Job Number: 7771 Book/Page: 78/18 Survey Dote: 5/7/14 Drawing Name: smith.dwq Drown by. DMS Re visions: x 991.0 x 992.9 99, - 11.7 • 99k x 0 Legend ® Found Iron Monument O Set Iron Monument (LS 14700) x 000.0 Existing Elevation (000.0) Proposed Elevation �- Drainage Existing Hardcover House Concrete Stone Wall Retaining Walls Pavers Lot (square feet) 2,080 1,873 31 333 154 4,471 17,045 Total Hardcover 26.2% Proposed Hardcover Proposed Addition House Concrete Stone Wall Retaining Walls Pavers (square feet) 576 2,080 1,817 31 333 154 4,991 Lot 17,045 Total Hardcover 29:3% Description (supplied by client) Lot 1; including adjacent 10 feet of vacated street and Lot 3 of Block 20, INDEPENDENCE BEACH, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 20 IMEl -MI AM SCALE 10 20 1 inch = 20 feet 40 Bearings based on assumed datum. Ben chm ark: Bross disc in SE abutment of outlet bridge located at SW corner of Lake Independence on Independence Rd. Elevation = 961.46 (per Mn/DNR) Existing & Proposed Elevations: Garage Floor =993.5 First Floor = 994.6 vt, Debra Peterson From: Victoria Reid <vreid7@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:04 PM To: Dusty Finke Cc: Debra Peterson Subject: My comments from last night Attachments: medina city development.docx As Kathleen suggested, here is a summary of my comments from last night. This may be more than you were expecting. I did send a copy to Kathleen to see if she would prefer that I send this information as a separate letter. I'll let you know if she has any recommendations. But in the meantime, here it is. Vicki ps. Dusty, when you have a chance to figure out the exact number of buildings that are occupied by Mattamy, please let me know. 1 V. Reid urged the commission to consider the larger implications of the developments the city has approved in the northeast portion of the city over the last few years. North of Highway 55, the city has approved 284 housing units -126 for Toll brothers, 130 for Mattamy, 16 for the Woods of Medina, and 12 for Fawn Meadows —all of which will mainly use Highway 116 to access Highway 55. So far, just 30 of these dwellings(confirm number with Dusty) have been occupied, so the effect of these developments on Highway 116 traffic is not known. Currently traffic on 116 headed south to Highway 55 backs up for more than a mile during the early morning commute. Accessing 116 during the evening commute can also be difficult for people living in the adjoining neighborhoods.. V. Reid also pointed out that the addition of so many homes in one school district has led to increases in property taxes and an expansion of the Wayzata High School building. Last fall, voters in the Wayzata school district approved a $109 million bond referendum to construct an eighth elementary school north of Highway 55 and to add on to the high school. Building capacity will now increase from 3200 to 3900 students. Currently, Wayzata is the third largest high school in the state and is expected to become the largest after the addition is completed. Many Wayzata district residents would have preferred to build a second, smaller high school, but this was not possible because the second high school needed to have roughly equivalent facilities which financially was not feasible. In comparison, enrollment at each of the other three high schools which Medina residents attend is: 809 at Orono, 766 at Delano and 1879 at Rockford. While Wayzata is over -capacity, Orono accepts open -enrolled students. A major reason the additional buildings are needed, according to the Wayzata District website, is new housing that has been approved and that is anticipated to be approved in the next few years. According to the website, about 300 new dwellings have been added within the district each year for the past few years and 400 new homes are expected for each of the next few years. Already. Medina has contributed more than one full year of this increase in housing within the Wayzata school district. Besides the 284 units near Highway 116 noted above, Medina has approved 136 units for Lennar's Enclave for a total of 420 units within the Wayzata district. In addition, the city has granted Stage I approval to D.R. Horton for 85 single lots and a 54 unit apartment that are within the Wayzata school district. A proposal for townhomes along Highway 116 is also pending. Targeting one area of the city for rapid development is not only creating traffic problems and school capacity issues today, but neglects our long-term interests. Soon northeast Medina will have the look and feel of traditional, planned suburbia with little connection to the rest of the city. Moreover, north of 55 may be booming now but it will age together, too. And the school additions we build today may at some point not be needed. The city of Edina once had two high schools, but now has just one because of declining enrollment. Good public policy strives to smooth out booms and busts, not create them. V. Reid therefore urged the commission to explore ways to slow development in the northeast portion of the city, including considering a moratorium on building. AGENDA ITEM: 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 5, 2014 MEETING: June 10, 2014 Planning Commission SUBJ: Charles Cudd De Novo — Woodhill Preserve — Concept Plan Review — S of Hackamore, East of CR 116 — Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: May 12, 2014 60 -day Review Deadline: July 11, 2014 Summary of Request Charles Cudd DeNovo, LLC has requested review of a concept plan for the development of property located north of the Reserve of Medina development site. A portion of the site was included in the approved preliminary plat called "Fawn Meadows" that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council last year. The applicant has submitted two conceptual layouts. One layout is similar to the ghost plats which were displayed during review of the Reserve of Medina and Fawn Meadows, showing a looped roadway with homes on each side. The alternative layout would include two cul-de-sacs and preserve a wooded area approximately an acre in area between the two cul-de-sacs. The applicant requests review of the concept plan to see which layout the City prefers so that full engineering is not conducted on a plan that would not be met with City support. An aerial of the two parcels included in the concept is at the top of the following page. The two parcels include approximately 7.8 net acres. The upland portion of the western parcel is entirely wooded. The eastern lot is open grass because almost all of the trees, with the exception of those along the perimeter, were removed prior to the City adopting the tree preservation ordinance. The properties include a fair amount of topographical changes, with fairly steep slopes to the north, northeast, and northwest. Additionally, the site side -slopes to a drainage -way located in the middle of the woods. Comprehensive Plan Both parcels are guided Low Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan defines LDR as follows: Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.49 units per acre which are served or are intended to be served by urban services. The primary use in this area is single-family residential development. The areas designated for low density residential uses are located near existing low density residential uses, natural resources and provide a transition between higher density residential districts and the permanent rural areas of the community. Cudd DeNovo — Woodhill Preserve Page 1 of 6 June 10, 2014 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Proposed Site Layouts The cul-de-sac design proposes 15 lots, and the through -road design proposes 17 lots. Because the property includes 7.8 net acres, a minimum of 16 lots would be required to meet the density requirements of the LDR land use. The Comprehensive Plan does allow for flexibility in density in order to preserve natural features: '`Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district" [page 5-14 of the Comp Plan]. The Lots proposed in both concept plans appear consistent with the R1 zoning district standards and the applicant has stated that they intend to meet these standards. The lots all appear to Cudd DeNovo — Woodhill Preserve Page 2 of 6 June 10, 2014 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting exceed 95 feet in width and 11,000 square feet in area. Following is a summary of the requirements of the R1 zoning district: R1 Requirement Minimum Lot Size 11,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 90 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet Front Yard Setback 25 feet Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet Side Yard Setback (combined) 25 feet (15 & 10) Side Yard (corner) 25 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet Max. Hardcover 40% Tree Preservation, Buffer Yards and Landscaping As noted above, the western parcel included in the concept plan is vacant and entirely wooded. A substantial number of trees will need to be removed in order to develop either conceptual layout. Staff believes that in order to develop the western parcel with 2 units/acre as required by the City's Comprehensive Plan, substantial tree removal is necessary for any site layout. The applicant has stated that they submitted the cul-de-sac alignment in order to reduce grading and to preserve trees. The applicant has staked the wooded area which would be preserved in the cul-de-sac concept plan (but not the through -street) and Commissioners and Council members are encouraged to walk the site (make sure to wear bug spray). The preservation area in the cul- de-sac layout includes the drainage -way and a small area to each side, and then a larger area to the northwest of the drainage -way. Staff believes that wooded areas which are proposed to be removed in either concept nearer the top of the knoll are of higher quality than the area proposed to be preserved along the natural drainage -way. Nonetheless, there are a number of large trees within the proposed preserved area between the cul-de-sacs. The City's arborist is scheduled to visit the site before the Commission meeting, and more information will be available at the meeting. It should be noted that the proposed preservation area would be located within the rear yards of the homes, and would not be publicly accessible. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to implement permanent erosion control measures along the drainage -way if it is preserved, because the increased adjacent hardcover is likely to cause issues without them. The preliminary plat will be subject to the City's tree preservation ordinance, which requires replacement if more than 15% of the significant trees are removed. The applicant has indicated that they will likely request a partial waiver from the tree replacement requirements for either layout. As noted above, staff believes that in order to develop the western parcel with 2 units/acre as required by the City's Comprehensive Plan, substantial tree removal is necessary with any site layout. Cudd DeNovo — Woodhill Preserve Page 3 of 6 June 10, 2014 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The concept plan submittal did not include substantial information related to landscaping. Standard City ordinances would require two trees per single-family lot and would not require buffer yards in this case, as the surrounding properties are all of similar land use. Wetlands There is a large wetland located north of the site. Upland buffers will be required adjacent to the wetlands on the property. FEMA floodplain maps show a potential 500 -year floodplain over the large wetland on the property. As a result of the steep topography upwards from the wetland, staff does not anticipate any concerns. Staff recommends that the applicant provide additional information to better establish whether there are concerns related to grading. Streets The site is proposed to be accessed through Daisy Circle, which is stubbed on the east and west ends of the properties from the Reserve of Medina project. The ghost plat of that subdivision had shown the street looping through these properties. One of the conceptual layouts is consistent with this alignment. The western stub of Daisy Circle is actually located west of the subject sites, and its continuation would occur upon the development of the property to the west. The alternative concept plan proposes a cul-de-sac off each end of Daisy Circle (one of which would then need to be re -named). The subdivision ordinance limits cul-de-sacs to 750 feet in length. The eastern cul-de-sac is approximately 850 feet in length. Staff recommends that the layout be updated to be consistent with the standard, or the applicant would need to justify a deviation. As noted above, Daisy Circle (west) is aligned to be located on property to the west of this site. The application does not include this property, so the applicant could not construct the western cul-de-sac without purchasing additional property. This results in the western lot on the cul-de- sac concept plan lacking frontage and access. As such, the lot could not be platted and constructed until Daisy Circle (west) would be platted and constructed to provide access. Both the Public Works Director and City Engineer recommend the layout with the through -road instead of two cul-de-sacs. They balanced the long-term maintenance reductions of the through - street against additional tree preservation when coming to this recommendation. The impact of the development on the broader transportation system was contemplated in the County Road 116/Hackamore Road study conducted at the time of the Reserve of Medina. Sewer/Water The concept plan shows sewer connecting to the main line which was installed on the north end of the properties along the wetland which serves the Reserve of Medina project. On the cul-de- sac concept, the western lot would be served off the end of the sewer line in the Reserve of Medina. Both concepts show looping of the watermain through the site and connecting to the Reserve of Medina on the east and west. The applicant proposes to bore the water line on the cul-de-sac concept in order to avoid an open cut trench so that trees can be preserved. Cudd DeNovo — Woodhill Preserve Page 4 of 6 June 10, 2014 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review The applicant has not submitted conceptual grading plan, but has identified retaining walls which will be necessary as a result of the various slopes on the site. The cul-de-sac concept would require significantly less grading. In order to construct the through -street, the drainage -way in the woods would need to be filled, and the top of the knoll would be cut to accommodate it. Because this is a concept plan, the applicant has not submitted drainage calculations. The plan identifies conceptual stormwater pond locations, but does not identify improvements which would meet the City's volume control requirements. Future development plans should include calculations to show that proposed improvements are consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan and Stormwater Management ordinance and meets volume control and rate control standards. Public Works and the City Engineer strongly recommend that the City require a separate pipe system into which foundation drain tiles can discharge. Park Dedication The buildable area of the site for the purposes of park dedication is approximately 8.72 acres. The City's subdivision regulations requires up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated for park purposes, or 0.872 acres. The City may also choose to accept cash in -lieu of all or a portion of this land dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre -developed market value. Staff approximates this around $100,000, but it will be determined more precisely during the preliminary plat review. The City required cash -in -lieu of land dedication during the review of Fawn Meadows. Purpose of Concept Plan Review According to Section 825.63 and Section 825.71 of the City Code: "Concept plan review serves as the basis for informal conceptual discussion between the City and the applicant regarding a specific land use proposal. It is designed to assist the applicant in preparing a formal land use application for the City's consideration. The purpose of the concept plan review is to identify significant issues, suggest design considerations and discuss requirements of the City's official controls. Concept plan review is optional, not mandatory, for qualified applicants. Concept plan review is for the purpose of discussion and comment only. Any opinions, comments or observations provided to the applicant by the city staff, planning commission or city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the proposed project. The applicant may not infer any future approval of a formally submitted land use application based upon the concept plan review and no vested rights shall accrue as a result thereof." Staff Comments Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the two conceptual layouts and provide comments to the applicant. In addition to determining the preferred layout, staff provided a number of comments throughout this report, and the main points are summarized below for convenience: 1) Future plats shall meet relevant requirements of City Code. Cudd DeNovo — Woodhill Preserve Page 5 of 6 June 10, 2014 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 2) The applicant shall abide by the tree preservation plan and submit a tree preservation and replacement plan. 3) If a partial tree replacement waiver is considered in the future, signage and deed restrictions shall be considered in order to prevent any saved trees from being removed. 4) Future development shall be reviewed for compliance with the City's surface water management plan and stormwater management ordinance. 5) No automatic lawn irrigation systems shall be connected to the municipal water supply system. If irrigation systems are desired, the applicant shall provide alternative means to supply such systems for review by the City. 6) Relevant information shall be provided in order to confirm that no floodplain impacts will occur. Attachments 1. Engineering Comments 2. Fire Marshal Comments 3. Narrative 4. Concept Plans Cudd DeNovo — Woodhill Preserve Page 6 of 6 June 10, 2014 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting WSB A,,,x� engineering• planning- environmental • construction May 22, 2014 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: Woodland Hill Preserve Concept Plan WSB Project No. 2065-990 Dear Dusty: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541.4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the concept plan application for the Woodland Hill Preserve site. The plan expands the previously approved preliminary plat for Fawn Meadows and adds the property immediately to the west. Two concepts have been submitted, one with 16 lots and a second with 17 lots. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters. 1. Both concept plans show extending the easterly Daisy Circle through the site and terminating at a cul-de-sac. Concept A proposes a permanent cul-de-sac while Concept B proposes a temporary cul-de-sac. The westerly Daisy Circle is in place just west of the southwest corner of this application. Concept B could provide for the future extension of the proposed roadway through the site and connect to the westerly Daisy Circle creating a through street with no permanent cul-de-sac. If at all possible permanent cul-de-sacs are not planned for or platted and therefore from a public works and engineering perspective Concept B is preferred. 2. The concept grading plan shows an extensive retaining wall system near the south boundary of the site. To the extent possible retaining walls, particularly crossing property lines, are discouraged and should be eliminated or at least minimized. 3. The concept utility plan shows a proposed storm water collection system in the rear yards of the southerly lots. Future grading plans should eliminate the need for a rear yard storm water collection system. 4. It does not appear the cul-de-sac configuration north of the westerly Daisy Circle is sized to accommodate emergency vehicles. The Fire Marshal should review and comment on this configuration. 5. Both Concepts will require easements from the property owner(s) to the west in order to accommodate improvements shown north of the westerly Daisy Circle. Woodland Hill Preserve Concept Plan May 22, 2014 Page 2 Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. 7;4 Tom Kellogg K.102065-990'AdminlDocs,Woodland Hill Preserve Concept Plan Comment Alamo 052219.doc METRO W S Loren Kohnen, Pres. May 15, 2014 INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. TO: Debra Peterson Planning Assistant FROM: Loren Kohnen RE: Woodland Hill Preserve Preliminary Plat E.of 115/N. of "The Reserve of Medina" (763) 479-1720 FAX (763) 479-3090 Mtrowst76@aol.com T have reviewed the proposed plat and find that no fire hydrants are shown. No parking in the cul-de-sacs can be permitted. The streets are narrow (28'); parking must be on one side only. LK:jg ell 0 A.t -e -t„ 640 4 AA -,..„2,- Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 Woodland Hill Preserve, Medina Mn. Charles Cudd/ De Novo LLC is submitting a new neighborhood concept that incorporates and revises the current approved Fawn Meadows preliminary plat with 11 lots by adding the adjoining 3.8 acre wooded property to the west in one new neighborhood concept named Woodland Hill Preserve. The current zoning on the adjoining 3.8 acre of land is rural residential so rezoning to R-1 will be required. The minimum density per the R-1 zoning district is 2 units per acre. The minimum number of lots allowed on this site is 16. We have two very viable ways of developing the site. Concept A plat with lots is designed with an upper cul de sac and keeps the greatest number of trees on the adjoining wooded property to the west of Fawn Meadows by maintaining the natural topography and natural drainage pathways on the wooded site. Concept B plat with the 17 lots shows a temporary cul de sac and a future road that may run through to Daisy lane in the future. Both new Woodland Hill Preserve plats allow for 70 foot building pads instead of the 65 foot building pads shown on the original Fawn Meadows plat, which will allow for a more architecturally principled exterior elevation with less garage impact. Either of the new concept Woodland Hills Preserve plats if approved would eliminate the interior flag lot on the current approved Fawn Meadows preliminary plat. The entire site overlooks a beautiful natural wetland to the north and the western portion of the site is wooded with large deciduous trees. Our goal is to create as beautiful a neighborhood as possible while still meeting the cities density requirement. Due to the constraints of the site on both concepts A & B plats we are asking for a 25' front setback for both the garage and the house and we agree to use all architectural overlay garage doors on every home. This will save more trees and create better back yards. In order to best work with the natural lay of the land and save the greatest number of trees we request a favorable directive from the city to pursue Concept A even though we will lose a lot. Concept A requires allowing a 70' turnaround off of Daisy lane and the agreement of the adjoining landowner. Also, because of the careful tree sensitive design, we ask that you 'approve with no additional tree replacement or consideration. If we are directed to proceed with Concept B we would ask for some relief from the current tree ordinance because there is no possible way to mitigate the tree loss because of; the very small acreage involved, the significant changes in topography, and the dimensional constraints of the site. We would like to start development this fall. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your comments to help us proceed smoothly through the approval process. Sincerely, Rick Denman, Charles Cudd De Novo 1 LEGEND ® PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION » PROPOSED ST ORM PR OPOSED SANITARY PROP OSED WATERMAIN 0 50 100 SCALE ON FEET ENGINEERING SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING EVS, INC. 10210 Vall ey View Reed, SuYe 123 Ede n Prairie, YYuneaota SON PA en e: 00 4414270 F ..:15 2 4 4 4 4210 aww..eva.anl .c am Pr eliminary CLIENT Charles Cudd De Novo PROJECT Woodl and Hill Preserve L OCATION Medina, MN SHE ET Concept Grading and Utility Plan N DAT E REVISI ON I HEREBY CERTIFY TH AT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR U NDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO N AND THAT 1 AM A DULY LICE NSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEE R UN DER THE LAWS OF THE ST ATE OF MINNESOTA . David Nash DATE Si1L 2014 REGISTRATION NUMBER 2153 DRAWN BY CHECEED BY DMS DJN DATE PR OJECT 5,12.2014 pXX S HEET NUMBER C1 LOT NUMBER 10 SIDE YARD SETBACK 12S NUN DEPTH SUGGESTED GARAGE LOCATION GARAGE ELEV. IF STEPS REOUIRED FINISHED GROUND ELEVATION EXISTING 33' ROADWAY EASEMENT MN,100 WIDTH TYPICAL LOT 25' REAR YARD SETBACK (TYP.) 15' SIDE YARD SETBACK GROUND ELEVATIOOOR EENVy STTRRUCSTTURE TYPE (SEE BELOW) BUILDING PAD NO.OFSTEPS (IF REQUIRED) GRADE AT FRONT OF HOUSE 25' FROM' YARD SETBACK (30 FOR GARAGES) R %RAMBLER GRADED FORM OFFEP0SEFROM THE BASE44ENt FLOOR ELAWATION 10 FRONT -OWE ELEVA1011A10ARAGE, W A RKLEA90JENT LOORd4I. SCE LOOKOUT GRADED FOR 5t OF OFFEREN0E FROM THE LOOKOUT ORAOEELEVATION 10 FRONT GRADE ELEVATOR At GARAG6.. WO: FULL BASEMENT WALKOUT. GRADED FORS' OF OdFERENCE FQCN THE 805114445 FLOOR ELEVATOR 10 20010 OWN ELEVATOR AT SWAGE, {1)% 131501057 W FPp10A0ARE FLOOR ELIVARCA1T0FRS1 FLOOR ELEVATION, F0{N DARAOE FLOOR ELEVA,KA, WARP FLOOR EL60600R, TE NOTES TEMP GUI'.) a RASA ET LiGHTI ROA L___ / r ---1r IdK 2 B��I 12 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ROUNDED 00 THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE BACK OF CURS TO BACK OF CURB UNLESS 140TE0 OTHERWISE. SACK OF CURB IS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY MY. 3. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL SY THE CITY. 4 DRAINAGE AND UT(,ITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED 459 REOUIRED. ORNNAGE AN0 UTKJTY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO ONE (1) FOOT ABOVE THE 111011 WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS. 5' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 5' OUTLOT B UCTURE TRACK WETLAND SUFFER 4' 4' 4' 5 �4 4' 5' PAVEMEHx `r��"��-REMWK UMIT9 OUTLOT-A---L DELINEATED WETLAND (BY CITY) SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY LEGEND GROSS SITE• LESS WETLAND • LESS 30 SUFFER NET SITE AREA • DENSITY • RE0 DENSITY • 9.95 AC LOT SUMMARY 4.74 AC 059 AC MINIMUM LOT SIZE MINIMUM LOT 1440TH 4,65 AC 810411,11/51 LOT DEPTH MAXIMUM AAPERVKRJS COVERAGE 2.37 WAG NUMBER OF LOTS 2.3,49 MC SETBACKS FRONT YARD 503E YARD REAR YARD AVERAGE WETLAND BUFFER MINIMUM WETLAND BUFFER MINIMUM WETLAND SETBACK EXISTB*O 2044940 PROPOSED ZONING 11,000 SF 90 FT 123 FT 404 OF TOTAL LOT AREA 11 UNITS 25 FT (30 FT FOR GARAGE) 25 FT TOTAL IMIN 10 FT EACH SIDE) 30 FT 30 FT 20 FT 15E0 RURAL RESIDENTIAL (URBAN RESERVE) SINGLE FAMILY RESK)ENTLAL R-1 0 STREETLIGHT 'WE11AN0 BUFFER' SIGN ENGINEERING SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING EV9, INC. 10250Valley View Read, Solis 123 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Phone: 9524454236 Fax: 9524400290 www.*M•lp.com C L T Y O A MEDINA City of Medina, MN 2052 County Road 24 Medina, Minnesota 55340 Phony. 7634734643 Fax: 1634)34359 www cIotedimAinAss PRELIMINARY PLAT P14OJECT FAWN MEADOWS LOCATION MEDINA, MN SHEET SITE PLAN 5 DATE REVISION A 1'15113 CITY COMMENTS B 11458403 CITY COMMENTS O 11/2513 CITY COMNIENTS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT 505550154074 AND THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. David Rash DATE 511232013 REGISTRATION NUMBER 21030 DRAWN HY CHECKED DV DMS DJN DATE. PROJECT# 11.25.2013 2013-016.1 SHEET NUAIBER C201 " " CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS 01-1^M Ltf CU DD + D e. N OVO AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN / BUILD FIRM Rick Denman 612.889.6980 charlescudd.com