HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-12-2011MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2011
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 June 14, 2011 draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing — Wallace Marx — 2500, 2700, 2702, 2900
Parkview Drive — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Plan for a Conservation Design subdivision of four contiguous
parcels totaling 109.58 acres — proposing ten Single Family
Home sites and 57.5 acres into a conservation easement.
7. Public Hearing - Pemtom Land Company — Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat and Mixed Use Stage II Plan to subdivide 65
single family homes sites on 32.2 acres to be known as "Fields of
Medina" (PID #02-118-23-43-0002 & #02-118-23-44-0054) and
Variance to the Right-of-way width.
8. Site Plan Review — Loram Inc. — Request for a 14,785 gross
square foot expansion of parking lot at 3900 Arrowhead Drive
(PID# 11-118-23-22-0002).
9. Right-of-way Width Regulations within Subdivision Ordinance
10. City Council Meeting Schedule
11. Adjourn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Chad Adams
DATE: June 16, 2011
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates June 21, 2011 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Stormwater/LID Ordinance — Planning staff have been working with Engineering on this
project. The ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission at their May and June
meetings, and they recommended approval of the ordinance with a number of changes.
Staff intends to present the ordinance to the City Council at the July 5 meeting.
B) Animal Regulations — the City Council reviewed the ordinance related to limitations on
keeping pets and private kennel licenses and requested a number of changes. Staff intends
to present the ordinance for Council review again at the July 5 meeting.
C) Parking Regulations — Planning staff is conducting research on parking regulations and will
be preparing a draft ordinance with a number of recommended changes. Staff has
tentatively scheduled the ordinance for a Public Hearing at the August Planning
Commission meeting.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Pemtom Stage I Plan — N of Highway 55 and W of CR 116 — The City Council adopted a
resolution of approval for the Stage I plan at the May 17 City Council meeting. The
applicant has applied for Stage II and preliminary plat approval for the single-family portion
of the development. Staff is conducted a preliminary review and will schedule for a Public
Hearing as soon as the application is complete, potentially at the July Planning Commission
meeting.
B) Marx Conservation Design Subdivision — 2700 and 2900 Parkview Drive — Wally Marx
has requested review of a CD-PUD Concept Plan for a subdivision which would allow a
density bonus (10 lots) and flexibility to lot size and setback requirements and place a
portion of their property into Conservation Easements. Staff has provided preliminary
comments and the applicant is currently considering these comments. Staff will schedule
the request for a Public Hearing when the applicant is prepared to move forward.
C) J. Cavanaugh Plat — 805 Hamel Road — Joe Cavanaugh has requested subdivision of his
property into three single-family lots at the southwest corner of Hamel Road and Pinto
Drive. The Planning Commission tabled the Public Hearing at their January 11 meeting,
requesting more information related to drainage and stormwater management. The appl
D) Enclave of Medina Subdivision — 3212 Hunter Drive — The City Council approved the final
plat and development agreement at the May 17 meeting and staff is working with the
applicant to meet all of the requirements of the development agreement so that work can
begin. Letters of Credit have been provided and a preconstruction meeting scheduled for
June 16.
E) Hunter Ridge Farm Plat — 1382 Hunter Drive — the Council approved the final plat at the
April 5 meeting, and staff will assist the property owner with finalizing the project.
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 June 21, 2011
City Council Meeting
F) Fortuna Farms Plat — 1425 Tamarack Drive — the Council approved the preliminary plat
resolution on November 22, 2010, and staff awaits an application for final plat approval.
G) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved the Site Plan Review and CUP at the
April 19 meeting, and staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval.
H) Wrangler's Restaurant— 32 Hamel Road — the Council approved resolutions on July 21,
2009. The City Council granted until August 10, 2011 for the applicant to final the plat.
Additional Projects
A) Private Dog Kennels — staff has been assisting the City Clerk and Police with the
coordination of two requests for private dog kennel licenses. One is a request for 7 dogs in
a home at 1822 Morgan Road and the other is a request for 12 small dogs in a home at 25
Hamel Road.
B) Water Resource Services RFP — staff has been coordinating the review of the proposals and
interviews of the top firms. The interview committee is finalizing its review and will likely
recommend that the City Council enter into a contract with one of the firms at the June 21
meeting.
C) Housing Policy — Staff is scheduled to meet with CommonBond Communities in July to
discuss the most common grant opportunities related to workforce housing.
D) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — An ecologist with Bonestroo has
reviewed the plantings which were substituted from the approved plans and has
recommended a few changes. A site visit will be conducted to identify some supplemental
plantings which the ecologist believes will address the objectives that the approved plan was
intended to address.
E) Zoning Enforcement (manure management inspections) — Staff has been inspecting both
commercial horse facilities and private horse facilities currently under a CUP requiring
manure management. Staff conducted significantly more inspections on older CUPs for
private barns.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 June 21, 2011
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, June 14, 2011
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Victoria Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners John Anderson, Kathleen Martin, Beth Nielsen,
9 Victoria Reid and Kent Williams.
10
11 Absent: Charles Nolan and Robin Reid
12
13 Also Present: City Council member Elizabeth Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, and
14 Dan Edgerton of Bonestroo.
15
16
17 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
18
19 No public comments.
20
21
22 3. Update from City Council proceedings
23
24 Council member Elizabeth Weir presented a report of recent activities and decisions
25 by the City Council.
26
27
28 4. Planning Department Report
29
30 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
31
32
33 5. Approval of the May 10, 2011 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
34
35 Motion by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the May 10, 2011 minutes
36 with the recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent Nolan and R.
37 Reid)
38
39 6. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 8 of the Medina
40 Zoning Code to codify the City's stormwater management regulations.
41 Edgerton presented the staff report. He stated that new definitions had been added for
42 "Major" and "Minor" Expansion projects and the applicability was adjusted as
43 discussed by the Commission last month. Edgerton noted that standards were added
44 related to improvements on single family residential property so that a homeowner
45 would not need to complete an expensive engineering study in order to design a
46 raingarden. Edgerton showed graphic examples of how the applicability would work.
1
1
2 Williams inquired about Section 828.33. Subd. 18 Appeals. He asked if the Appeals
3 was new since the previous meeting. Edgerton said it was not new. Williams asked
4 if an applicant wanted to appeal a decision what would the process entail. Finke
5 clarified the question by stating the request would initially be reviewed by City staff
6 and then if the applicant chose to Appeal staff's decision then it would be brought to
7 the City Council for review. Finke explained the Appeals process would typically be
8 related to situations that would fall under a "stop work order".
9
10 Martin asked if the 45 day period to review an Appeal on page 9 of the draft
11 ordinance was too long of a time period. Finke explained he needed time to review
12 the Appeal request to determine if it was complete and would treat it like a land use
13 application which requires 15 business days to determine completeness. V. Reid
14 asked Finke if the number of days were shortened if it would be a problem. Finke
15 said he'd need at least 15 days. The Commission concluded that 15 business days
16 would be a sufficient amount of time for staff to make a decision.
17
18 Public Hearing opened at 7:36 p.m.
19
20 Anderson recommended additional language be added as it relates to single family
21 homes and volume control. Martin suggested placing exceptions for single family
22 homes throughout the ordinance so that a homeowner could easily understand what
23 applies to them and what wouldn't apply.
24
25 Martin commented that the sentence "portions of the design manual are hereby
26 incorporated and applicable to certain developments as stated in this ordinance"
27 would need to be more clear as to what projects it is referring to within the ordinance.
28
29 V. Reid prefers language that references the design manual and the design manual
30 references the ordinance. Martin said she prefers terminology between the design
31 manual and ordinance to be consistent. The ordinance is internally consistent but the
32 design manual is not and has terminology within it that is not used within the
33 ordinance. She asked that definitions from the ordinance such as stop work order,
34 land disturbance activity and others be incorporated into the design manual.
35
36 Edgerton asked if the Commission wanted the definition of "Single Family
37 Residential Property" and the Commission concurred.
38
39 Martin asked to strike the last sentence on page three of the ordinance (Subd.4.
40 Applicability).
41
42 Martin recommended Subd. 4. D. is broken down into four components.
43
44 Council member Pederson noted the ordinance could make redevelopment very
45 difficult and properties wouldn't be improved.
46
47 Finke explained a new development under one acre is exempt under the draft
48 ordinance and said it didn't have to be that way.
2
1
2 Martin said a stormwater management plan is designed by a professional engineer but
3 assumes single family homes wouldn't be required to follow the same requirements.
4
5 Finke inquired about the requirement that "New Development" requires disturbance
6 of an acre and then further reviewed minor, major expansion projects and single
7 family residential projects.
8
9 Finke said a Minor expansion wouldn't have the acre disturbance requirement. If a
10 project added 1000 square feet of hardcover the contractor would have to show the
11 modeling. Finke asked if the ordinance should have a lower threshold depending on
12 what is being done. V. Reid asked if another category would need to be added and
13 the Commission agreed. The Commission questioned how many parking spaces
14 would trigger the modeling requirement.
15
16 Edgerton stated a one acre parking lot would require two raingardens.
17
18 Conclusion of discussion is that an 8-10,000 square foot area for parking would
19 require a raingarden (approximate 800 square foot raingarden) in a commercial area,
20 and a larger project should trigger the full requirements of the ordinance.
21
22 Martin asked about b) at the bottom of page six. She asked for clarification and Finke
23 said it should read "Inspection of Stormwater Facilities in the Maintenance
24 Agreement" rather than "Inspection of Stormwater Facilities". Martin also suggested
25 replacing "may" with "shall" within the same paragraph.
26
27 The Commission discussed the impact of requiring a Performance Bond/Security and
28 if the percentage of estimated construction cost was too high for single family homes
29 as written on page seven. The Commission concluded to lower the amount and cash
30 would be acceptable.
31
32 Martin asked Edgerton the cost of a rain garden. Edgerton said it could cost
33 anywhere between $2,000.00 -$3,000.00 and Finke agreed to have a lower threshold
34 for a Performance Bond/Security.
35
36 Martin suggested the "as built" plans required for any stormwater treatment practices
37 be modified under Subd. 14. of page eight. She said that requiring an "as built" plan
38 could be quite expensive and as an alternative the contractor could red line the plans
39 on -site noting the changes.
40
41 Edgerton stated the emergency overflow for the raingarden would have to be verified.
42 The Commission said an inspection would have to be done by the City. Staff and the
43 Commission concluded that the language should be loosened as it relates to
44 raingardens on single family home lots so the language on page eight stating "written
45 certification by a registered professional engineer that the stormwater treatment
46 practice has been installed in accordance with the approved plan and other applicable
47 provisions of the ordinance" would have to be rewritten.
48
3
1 Martin suggested under (d) on page nine that the cost be "certified" and Finke thought
2 it was possible based on how the language was written.
3
4 Martin said the date of approval would need to be changed to July rather than May
5 2011 on the last page of the ordinance for adoption.
6
7 Public Hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m.
8
9 Motion by Anderson, seconded Martin to recommend approval of the ordinance
10 (Section 838.33) pertaining to stormwater management per the recommendation
11 solutions offered at the Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried
12 unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and R. Reid)
13
14
15 7. Discussion — Off -premise signage and "Directional" signage
16
17 Finke informed the Commission that he had spoken to two different businesses with
18 two different requests related to off -premise signage. He said one request related to
19 allowing permanent off -premise signage advertising a business on a different property
20 from where the sign would be located. The sign would provide direction to another
21 business (ex: placing signage on a commercial corner lot for a business down the road
22 within an existing monument or pylon sign). The other request would be to allow
23 permanent directional signs in the City right-of-way that would guide drivers to a
24 local business that may not be at an intersection but rather not as visible to locate (ex:
25 small blue highway signs that provide guidance to business location to drivers).
26
27 Finke explained that the Target development has multiple businesses within that area
28 that advertise on different lots. He said if it hadn't been a PUD it wouldn't be
29 allowed under the current sign ordinance.
30
31 Anderson asked if the ordinance would be something that would be brought up later
32 in the year as the Commission reviewed the sign ordinance. Finke said the plan to
33 review the sign ordinance later in the year wouldn't have addressed this type of
34 change since the focus was going to be related to the rezoning changes. V. Reid said
35 she finds it difficult to understand how it is difficult to find a business with MapQuest
36 availability. Martin said she has a hard time being sympathetic to delivery drivers
37 since they usually have a GPS system. She further said that when a person buys a
38 business and is aware of its location and lack of visibility it is difficult to understand
39 the need.
40
41 Anderson asked if this type of signage would cause any public safety issues or
42 concern. Finke said that there has not been a record of incidents, but in one of the
43 business situations if a driver passes the business the driver is stuck on a gravel road
44 and it's difficult to turn around.
45
46 Nielsen asked what the business names were that had issues. Finke said Dairy Queen
47 is thinking of moving down on Hwy 12 and County Road 29, in the strip center next
4
1 to Subway and Anytime Fitness. Weir asked if DQ used to be there and Finke said
2 yes. Williams asked if the DQ wanted a directional sign or an advertising sign. Finke
3 said an advertising sign. The Commission asked where they would want to advertise
4 and Finke said at the Holiday Gas Station store on the corner. The Commission
5 voiced their concerns and Weir said that previous to Finke the same request was made
6 and the Council decided it was a visual clutter to advertise on the corner.
7
8 Council Pederson asked if City signage in the right-of-way such as the Uptown
9 Hamel sign along Sioux Drive would be in jeopardy if the City didn't change the
10 ordinance. He further commented that when the County Road 116 interchange
11 happens with a frontage road he would anticipate a lot of requests.
12
13 Williams said he would rather allow on a case by case basis, but not specifically
14 advertising. He didn't think billboards should be allowed. Finke asked if there was
15 support for off -premise signage done through a coordinated effort so that there would
16 not be an increase in the number of signs on -site and that all of the businesses
17 advertise on one sign rather than more than one. The Commission concurred that
18 they would be acceptant of that situation.
19
20 Weir asked if the Holiday Station store were maximized on their signage currently
21 and the other businesses wanted to advertise on the Holiday site would the Holiday
22 site get more square footage of advertising or would they have to work within what
23 the allowable square footage they have and have to reduce existing signage on -site.
24 Finke said he didn't know, but it would have to be part of the discussion. Finke said
25 the regulations could be written in a way that either allows square footage to be
26 transferred from another property or which limits each property to the standard
27 maximum as if they only did their own advertising.
28
29 V. Reid offered the idea of allowing additional signage to encourage shared signage.
30 Martin said she would agree with the suggestion. Martin said what is more important
31 to her is the quality and aesthetics of the sign.
32
33 Williams said the consensus of the Commission is that shared signage would be
34 acceptable and Finke added that assumes it is one shared sign.
35
36 V. Reid said she is fine with directional signage. The balance of the Commissioners
37 agreed with the directional signage.
38
39
40 8. City Council Meeting Schedule
41 June 21, 2011 — Anderson
42 July 5, 2011 — Williams
43
44
45 9. Adjourn
46 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Williams, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
47 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and R. Reid)
5
G, T V O F
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: O ,1 ,C` k\S}'
(please print)
Address:
Telephone (optional):
Representing: e lr`()+aiv
Agenda Item (list number and letter): ` 7
Comments: PP ) C A -
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 corner.
• 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
G x T Y O A
Comment Card ` x
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: II/ C1 i J,rl�
Public Forum
Agenda Item
Address: . ?/,.5_-- (please print)
l5 �c� n //~,
Telephone (optional): •/'Z _ 7 ,3 -. 20
7.0
Representing: ,sci
7/‘✓WL�
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
/7".4 /
Comments: 7-K, '--77,---‘e.„4„:4...
7 /��4
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 podiunl 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
G, T Y O F
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: t () "A 0 L'C2---
;�� (please print)
_ Dc>
Address: tk-6-3 `3Z? ''2.�f' C
Telephone (optional): ,1 2) 4--ig 9 dJ (
Representing: ti- ( 'D i N -
Agenda Item (list number and letter): - - )a k -t -l) M
Comments:
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 corner.
• 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
` T Y o
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: Cl
(please print)
Address: 510 Y 3
Telephone (optional):
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number and letter): !U CA-' .- I l 7 MBA c X
Comments:
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 corner.
• 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
G, T V o A
. . .k. Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: / ( C//A i NA ' r 4'f'�7 4rD
Address: (Please print) le.„:: 4-ty _i) I.''' r7iii .6//1.)
Telephone (optional): 7 3 q 75 - /7Y 77
Representing: 5: L /-
i i .. r'�/
Agenda Item (list number and letter): �-
Comments: 674't' -:' t' C »t;S / c c::/-171 ::71-'7S f C GN C = /i2S`
_
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 corner.
• 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
G, T Y o f
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of % Speaker: L./ C� `% p ,
Public Forum
Agenda Item
1
U\ /I(`
lease print)
Address: 30 < Q C
Telephone (optional):
Representing: `-7Ij-
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: Sl`3 t�
� PPoac I th pod". m to speak eak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• 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
G , T Y o
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: /3 0 lj e v" n u
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(please print)
Address: 2c.// D a --r L v/ -e-ti) b r
Telephone (optional): / 2) % % / - 9 3 z y
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number and letter): P4'<_44
Comments: /-;v e k2 e 4/ `/ a /6 / 21 /
e / a s.L2 azeti Gce,,c s e
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 corner.
• 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
G, T Y 0,
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
CName of Speaker: (�j C
l
�� pp ��
Address: Limo c- uu t ���
as pit) .----
tn O a
aA_VYk rj
Telephone (optional):
n
Representing: cl_ (Q vc
Agenda Item (list number and letter): CD
Comments: `--1- J-- ,"`- tom-
iC11;4
u C "k B-rTh
-Y-4-1, a% tc-0
Dt)se_d__ avkA x
\DO v i s_lq)-- ---1-- 17
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 corner.
• 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
L ‘ T Y 0.
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: /4' /2'1 L—. /e= J `-=- tl %.
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(please print)
Address: " , `./.21 : ._-_- C /.n C' Li:
Telephone (optional): /7� -f' —74-7 - 74 ' 3
Representing: = ,' /= - L -
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
MRX
(_ c:; 7- ''-IL, /V T
Comments: ;(•: 0/z-- 5 r -/c: rte% . /-- r:= - %<_` V 4--
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 corner.
• 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: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 7, 2011
MEETING: July 12, 2011 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Wally Marx — Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan —
2500-2900 Parkview Drive — Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: May 13, 2011
120 -day Review Deadline: September 10, 2011
Summary of Request
Wally Marx has requested approval of a PUD Concept Plan for a Conservation Design
subdivision at his property at 2500-2900 Parkview Drive. The applicant proposes to divide the
110 acres into 10 single-family residential lots and proposes to place 57.5 acres (9.65 acres
buildable) into conservation easements.
The Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) district is an overlay district
which allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations in order to
encourage property owners to protect natural resources and open space with permanent
conservation easements. Flexibility can include density bonuses, reduced setbacks and lot size
requirements, and flexibility to park dedication or septic regulations. Flexibility can also be
considered for upland buffer and tree preservation regulations on specific lots in the interests of
protecting natural resources more broadly on the site. The CD-PUD district was adopted in 2010
and this is the first request to be reviewed under the ordinance. The ordinance is attached to this
report for reference.
The current request is for a PUD Concept Plan Review. A PUD is a three -step process:
1) Concept Plan; 2) General Plan/Preliminary Plat; and 3) Final Plan/Final Plat. A PUD Concept
Plan is more formal than other concept plans reviewed by the City, and requires that the City
Council approve (or approve with conditions) or deny the request.
The subject properties are located on Parkview Drive, east of the Baker National Golf Course
and southwest of School Lake. A significant portion of the property (52 acres) is either wetlands
or located under the high water level of School Lake. Approximately 18 acres are within School
Lake or the adjacent wetland, along with 34 acres of wetland throughout the remaining property.
An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the next page, and is also shown on one of the
applicant's concept plan drawings.
Wally Marx Page 1 of 8 July 12, 2011
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Designating Conservation Areas/Site Design Process
As mentioned above, the CD-PUD process allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying
zoning regulations as an incentive to permanently conserve natural resources and open space.
The City needs to determine how much flexibility to grant based on how the proposal meets the
primary and secondary conservation objectives of the City over and above that which would be
achievable under conventional development.
The primary conservation objectives identified in the ordinance are:
i. The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g.
Maple -Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands.
ii. The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological
resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the
Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time.
iii. The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in
order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement
corridors.
The secondary conservation objectives are as follows:
i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as
"Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from
time to time.
Wally Marx Page 2 of 8 July 12, 2011
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
4
ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create
connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and
Open Space Plan.
iii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to
achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property includes remnants of Maple -Basswood forest which were ranked as
moderate quality in the City's natural resources inventory, a deep swamp adjacent to the lake in
the southeast corner of the property which ranked as good quality, and also portions of Tamarack
Swamp which ranked as moderate. These areas are identified within the Composite map of the
City's Open Space report. The City's environmental scientist reviewed the plans and prepared
comments which are attached for reference. Protecting these areas would be consistent with the
first two conservation objectives.
The CD-PUD ordinance describes a four -step "Site Design Process" which is supposed to
influence the site plan. The process is described within the ordinance, but is summarized as
follows:
Step 1 — Identify Conservation Areas. This step includes first identifying "unbuildable areas"
(shown in green, white, dark blue, and light blue in the applicant's plans) and then identifying
Conservation Areas which are buildable (shown in yellow in the applicant's plans). The
remaining land is potentially buildable land area (shown in grey in the applicant's plans)
Step 2 — Locate Housing Sites. Sites should be located in relation to views and buildable land
areas. The sites are shown as boxes with an "X" on the applicant's plans.
Step 3 — Align streets and trails. Streets are shown in brown on the applicant's plans. No
trails are shown at this time.
Step 4 — Draw lot lines.
Staff went through the Site Design Process as part of the review, the results of which are attached
to this report.
General Performance Standards
Minimum Size of Subdivision
A CD-PUD subdivision within the Rural Residential zoning district is required to be a minimum
of 40 acres in size. The proposed subdivision is approximately 110 acres.
Required Conservation Area
A minimum of 30% of the total Buildable Land Area, or higher depending on the land and
opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives, is required to be included in the
Conservation Area. Although a total of 57.5 gross acres are proposed in the conservation area,
most of this area consists of wetlands and wetland buffers. A relatively small amount (9.65
acres) is considered buildable. This accounts for approximately 29.3% of the buildable land
area. Staff recommends more buildable land area within the conservation area.
Wally Marx Page 3 of 8 July 12, 2011
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Perimeter Setbacks
The CD-PUD ordinance requires that structures meet the standard minimum setbacks from the
perimeter of the subdivision. Staff recommends that the house pads shown on Lots 1 and 2 be
moved so that they are a minimum of 50 feet from the exterior of the site.
Density and Design Flexibility
The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant flexibility from standard City requirements. It
appears that flexibility is being requested from the following City regulations:
Density/Lot Size/Width
The applicant proposes 10 residential lots; existing rural residential regulations would not allow
further subdivision of the existing four parcels. The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant
additional density as an incentive, up to a
maximum of 200% of the base density.
The base density is determined by the
standard underlying zoning designation (in
this case, 5 -acres of contiguous suitable
soils per lot). According to Hennepin
County Soils data, it appears that there is a
six acre contiguous area of suitable soils in
the northwest corner of the site and a
twelve acre contiguous area of suitable
soils in the center of the property (see insert
at right).
This results in a base density of three over
the northern three parcels, and 200% of the
base density would be six lots. The
southern parcel does not include enough
suitable soils to add to the base density, but
includes some of the highest quality
portions of wetlands and also a portion of
the Maple -Basswood Forest. As such, staff
would support adding an additional lot to
the maximum density. This would be a maximum of seven lots, with the amount of bonus
decided by the Planning Commission and City Council based on how well the subdivision would
achieve the City's conservation objectives.
1011623320002
16
11823310002
1611623330001
0.47
Primary/Alternate septic sites on each lot
Standard City regulations require a primary and alternate septic site within each lot. The
applicant has identified two septic sites for each lot, but a number of them are not located within
the lots, and some are quite distant. The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant flexibility
to its. standard septic regulations, although it does require that at least the primary septic site be
located within each lot. The secondary site may be located in an outlot, and even in a
conservation area, so long as the construction of the septic site would not be inconsistent with the
conservation objectives of the ordinance. The City Building Official has expressed concern
Wally Marx Page 4 of 8 July 12, 2011
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
about the distance of the septic sites from the homesites, and strongly recommends that each
primary septic site be located within the lot it serves. Staff has also noted that a number of the
proposed septic locations are within the wooded area of the lot (in fact, some are within the
9.65 buildable acres proposed to be conserved) and are concerned about tree removal and impact
on connectivity of the open space. Staff conducted a site visit and located the proposed septic
locations. These areas do appear to have limited numbers of significant trees (over 8" in
diameter), although would require removing a large number of smaller trees. Staff believes that
the potential construction of septic systems within wooded conservation areas is not consistent
with the conservation objectives and believes there are opportunities to locate some of these sites
in areas that have been previously altered.
Shoreland setbacks
The building pads identified for Lots 5 and 6 do not meet the 150' setback requirement from the
ordinary high water level of the lake. Staff recommends that these buildings either meet setback
requirements or that stormwater management practices be implemented which mitigate runoff
from the sites.
Shoreland lot width
Lots 1-3 do not meet the minimum 200' lot width adjacent to the lake. Staff also noted the large
number of lots which are proposed to have frontage on the lake (Lots 1-6). Staff believes that
limiting lots with lake frontage would better serve the City's conservation objectives. This could
be accomplished perhaps by having one shared outlot along the lake for all lots and the
remaining frontage be within a conservation area.
Septic setbacks from wetlands
The septic sites for Lots 6, 7, and 10 do not meet the required 75' setback from wetlands. The
secondary sites on Lots 6 and 10 are approximately 60 feet from wetlands (and the absorption
area will likely be more), and the secondary site for Lot 7 is approximately 30 feet. Depending
on the density determined appropriate by the Council, it may be possible to shift some of these
sites.
Analysis
Following is a summary of the proposed lots in the subdivision:
Lot Area
Upland Area
Suitable Soils
RR Standard
5 acres suitable
N/A
5 acres
Lot 1
4.28 acres
2.9 acres
2.3 acres
Lot 2
4.20 acres
2.3 acres
1.5 acres
Lot 3
3.02 acres
1.5 acres
0.3 acres
Lot 4
3.91 acres
1.8 acres
1.6 acres
Lot 5
8.17 acres
1.2 acres
0.25 acres
Lot 6
10.43 acres
1.2 acres
0.0 acres
Lot 7
9.60 acres
9.27 acres
2.2 acres
Lot 8
2.97 acres
2.97 acres
1.0 acres
Lot 9
1.79 acres
1.79 acres
0.0 acres
Lot 10
2.78 acres
2.3 acres
0.0 acres
Wally Marx
CD-PUD Concept Plan
Page 5 of 8
July 12, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting
The CD-PUD process allows the City a good deal of discretion with the amount of flexibility
which may be granted based on how well a proposal meets the City's conservation objectives.
The quality of the natural resources and connectivity of corridors, as well as the quantity of
conservation area should guide the decision on the flexibility, which also needs to be incentive
enough for the property owner to choose to proceed with conservation design.
The applicant proposes 57.5 acres within the conservation area. Most of this area is wetland or
would be within wetland buffers required to be protected by easement under a standard
development. 9.65 acres of buildable area (29.3% of the total buildable area on the property) is
proposed within the conservation areas. Of the buildable conservation area, 1.62 acres are
located within the 50 foot required structure setbacks around the perimeter of the site, and
0.8 acres are proposed to be impacted with septic systems.
Staff believes that the following changes to the design would better serve the conservation
objectives of the City:
• Conserve area proposed for construction of Lot 9
• Reduce impacts of the road serving Lots 4-6 — this could perhaps be accommodated by
shared drives for each pair of homes
• Relocate the septic sites serving Lots 3-6 — previous submittals identified more septic
sites in the existing disturbed areas on the east side of the property.
• Reduce wetland impacts for driveway — it appears that the primary reason for this impact
is to increase the size of Lot 4
Timing, Ag Preserve Covenant
The northeastern 42 acre parcel is currently guided Agriculture and zoned Agricultural Preserve.
This designation requires that the density not exceed one unit per 40 acres. Obviously, the
proposed subdivision would not be consistent with this requirement. As such, a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and rezoning of the property would be required before the property could be
platted under CD-PUD process. The property owner has enrolled this property within the
Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve program, which prevents more dwelling units from being
created within the northeastern 42 acres until February 28, 2016. Approvals at the various stages
of the PUD process expire in 180 days, so the timelines are not consistent. The applicant has
stated that they intend to request that the City Council extend the approvals until after the
property comes out of Ag Preserve in 2016.
Floodplain Amendment
FEMA floodplain maps identify large portions of this site as "A," or having more than a 1%
chance of flooding. However, Zone "A" does not have a flood elevation established, and are
based on national -level data which are commonly inaccurate upon further investigation. The
topography of this site suggests that large portions would likely not be in the floodplain if studied
further. Staff recommends that the applicant obtain a map amendment from FEMA to clarify the
location of any floodplains on the property.
Wally Marx Page 6 of 8 July 12, 2011
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Engineering and Building Official Comments
Comments from the Building Official and City Engineer are attached. The primary engineering
comments involved providing stormwater management improvements and attempting to
minimize the slope on the private roads. The building official comments requested more
information on the septic sites, and the building official also urged staff to support the primary
septic sites being located within each lot.
Conservation Area Protection, Ownership, and Maintenance
The applicant has provided very little information with regards to who will own the Conservation
Area and who will hold the conservation easement. It appears likely that an HOA will own the
property, and the applicant has stated that they are in discussion with various conservation
groups related to holding the easement. Staff recommends that the ownership of the
conservation area as well as the party who will hold the easement be decided prior to the general
plan of development and preliminary plat. A restoration and maintenance plan should also be
prepared at the general plan and preliminary plat stage.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the conservation objectives of the City
in relation to the requested zoning flexibility in the proposed CD-PUD concept plan. The
Commission should provide a recommendation of changes to the concept plan. The following is
a list of potential changes and conditions identified by staff in this report.
1. Additional density shall be determined by the City Council based on the conservation
objectives, the quality of natural resources protected and the quantity of property
conserved, and consistent with the CD-PUD ordinance.
2. Septic systems shall not be located within wooded conservation areas, and primary sites
shall be located within the lot served.
3. Plans should be updated to reduce construction within the wooded areas of the site and to
increase connectivity between the wetlands on the southern end of the property and the
lake.
4. All homesites shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the exterior property lines of the
subdivision. Setbacks between lots within the subdivision shall be determined during the
review of the General Plan of development.
5. The number of lots with frontage on the lake shall be reduced, potentially by utilizing a
shared outlot/access.
6. Homesites shall meet setbacks from the ordinary high water level of the lake, or
stormwater improvements shall be integrated into the design to treat water from the
residential lots.
7. All comments from the City Engineer and Building Official shall be addressed upon
submission of a General Plan of Development.
8. The applicant shall obtain a map amendment in order to accurately locate floodplains on
the property.
9. The General Plan of Development shall identify plans for ownership and management of
the conservation area, as well as restoration/maintenance plans acceptable to the proposed
easement holder.
Wally Marx
Page 7 of 8 July 12, 2011
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Attachments
1. Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance
2. Comments from City Engineer dated 5/25/2011
3. Comments from City Ecologist dated 6/13/2011
4. Comments from City Fire Marshal dated 5/13/2011
5. Site Design Process exhibit conducted by Staff
6. Applicant's Narratives
7. Concept Plan/Site Design dated May 13, 2011
8. DVD of Wally's Gardens
Wally Marx Page 8 of 8 July 12, 2011
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Medina City Code
ATTACHMENT 1: Conservation Design ordinance (11 pages)
CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT (CD)
Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose.
The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's ecological resources, wildlife corridors,
scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the
goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated
from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to:
1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and
wetlands.
2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas.
3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other
protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas.
4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments.
5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources.
6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space
resources.
Section 827.53 Applicability.
Subd. 1. Conservation design is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider
as an alternative to Conventional Development, as defined herein. The City will give
heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation
objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional development.
Conservation design may be considered on qualifying parcels lying in the Rural
Residential District and all sewered residential districts.
Section 827.55 Intent.
Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by
approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation
objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide density and design flexibility and to
encourage development review through a Collaborative Process.
Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in
the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the
PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and
intent of this District as part of the final PUD documents.
Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless
specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the
subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The
permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be
those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and
agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless
exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 30 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Section 827.57. Definitions.
Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel
in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and
Subdivision Codes.
Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design
Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands,
required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain.
Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a
development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in
exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the
Zoning and Subdivision Codes.
Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the standard minimum
requirements of the City's ordinances regulating development.
Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A
nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative
obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -
space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational,
or open -space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water
quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of
real property.
Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates
the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units.
Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision
that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A
Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the
Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for
preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture,
hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses.
Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or
corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the
purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other
commonly owned facilities and Open Space.
Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for
parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City,
homeowner's association or other entity.
Subd. 10. Viewshed. The landscape or topography visible from a geographic point,
especially that having aesthetic value.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 31 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Subd. 11. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that
could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district
and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets,
rights -of -way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout
shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be
implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and
existing easements.
Section 827.59. General Performance Standards.
Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision.
(a) The minimum land area required for development shall be:
(1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District
(2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts
(b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than
40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD,
and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated
by existing topography, existing vegetation, and/or acceptable vegetative buffers.
Subd 2. Required Conservation Area. The minimum required Conservation Area within
the CD development shall be:
(a) At least 30% of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or
higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation
objectives.
(b) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential districts, or
higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation
objectives.
Subd. 3. Designating Conservation Areas.
(a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to
maximize achievement of the City's conservation objectives. Opportunities for
achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific
qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to
achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above
that achievable under conventional development:
(1) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation
objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance
standards.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 32 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
i. The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native
hardwood forests (e.g. Maple -Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and
wetlands.
ii. The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality
ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources
identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space
Report as updated from time to time.
iii. The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial
ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological
resources suitable for habitat movement corridors.
(2) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation
objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards:
i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from
roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open
Space Report as updated from time to time.
ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order
to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the
current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan.
iii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space
in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 4. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision
shall be the same as the existing zoning district.
Section 827.60 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an
applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data
contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present
an appeal to the city.
Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described
by the City's Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their
appeal.
Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical
consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may
include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and
other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty
days of receipt of a complete appeal application.
Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staffs decision to the city council. The appeal must
be filed within thirty days of staff's determination.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 33 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the
appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City.
Section 827.61. Density and Design Flexibility .
Flexibility from the requirements of the existing zoning district or other requirements of this
code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering such flexibility, the
City will evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above
that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation
area protected.
Subd. 1. Additional Density.
(a) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City
Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be
calculated as a percentage of Base Density. The Base Density shall be that established
by regulations in the relevant existing zoning district.
(1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating
the number of 5 -acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage
disposal system that are located on the subject property.
(2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base
Density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use
regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan.
(b) The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the
density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be:
(1) Up to 200% of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District.
(2) Up to 120% of calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts.
Subd. 2. Other areas of flexibility
(a) In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include:
(1) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the
following minimums:
i. Setback from local streets: 35 feet.
ii. Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet.
iii. Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet.
(2) Housing type.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 34 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
(3) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of
these regulations are met for the site as a whole.
(4) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when
calculating park dedication requirements.
(5)
Variations to City regulations regarding septic systems.
(b) In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include:
(1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks.
(2) Housing type.
(3) Landscaping.
(4) Screening.
(5) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of
these regulations are met for the site as a whole.
(6) Buffer yard.
(7) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when
calculating park dedication requirements.
Section 827.63. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership.
Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD
shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines:
(a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots.
(b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a
permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter
84C.01-05) running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with
the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney.
(1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the
entities defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the
holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the
underlying fee.
(2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County
and must specify:
i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 35 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is
permanent, and the conservation values of the property.
iii. The legal description of the land under the easement.
iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development.
(3)
v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through
reference to an approved land stewardship plan.
vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area.
Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel,
may be held by any combination of the following entities:
i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD
District.
ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent
Conservation Easement.
iii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and
stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as
qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
iv. A government agency (e.g. park and/or natural resource agency or
division).
v. The City of Medina, in rare situations when there are no other viable
options.
(c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City's conservation objectives may be
established under a homeowner's association without protection by a Conservation
Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District.
Section 827.65. Land Stewardship Plan.
Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan
for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas,
may be required. The plan shall:
(a) Define ownership and methods of land protection.
(b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities.
(c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated
with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going
basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 36 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be
estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder.
(d) Meet the requirements of the future conservation easement holder.
Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a
narrative describing:
(a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the
landscape;
(b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including:
(1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area.
(2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition,
including:
i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as
erosion and intrusion of invasive plant species.
ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable).
iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types.
A maintenance plan, including:
(3)
i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including
mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting
schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules.
ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and
maintenance costs.
Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the
applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation
costs of Conservation Areas for up to four years depending on restoration measures.
Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas,
common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly
maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in
coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such fee
holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid
common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required
and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the
time specified, the fee holder , or any successor organization, shall be considered in
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 37 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the
premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City
shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common
areas and facilities.
Section 827.67. Conservation Area Design Standards.
The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the
CD-PUD:
Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a
continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should
coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent
tracts.
Subd. 2. Incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned
regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan.
Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned
by the City.
Subd. 4. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be
minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional
landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas
wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops.
Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and
labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or
other measures approved by the city.
Subd. 7. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation
areas.
Subd. 8. Existing land in row -cropping use shall be converted to a use that supports the
achievement of the City's conservation objectives.
Section 827.69. Landscape Design Standards.
Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing
through common Conservation Areas or Open Space.
Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance
that regular spacing may invoke.
Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types
identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 38 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance
privacy and a rural appearance between lots.
Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined
with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural
landscape.
Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize
erosion.
Subd. 7. Grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and
stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water
infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction
activities negatively impact soil permeability.
Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall
be used to design sites and meet the performance standards.
Section 827.71. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities.
Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to
accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required
drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary
drainfield/mount system located on the lot and secondary drainfields/mound system
located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space.
Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the current performance standards of
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at the
time of installation. Except in instances where flexibility has been explicitly granted by
the City, septic systems shall also conform to relevant City regulations, including the
requirement to identify a primary and secondary drainfield site.
Subd. 3. The City may consider shared sewage treatment systems which are consistent
with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and relevant City
ordinances, provided adequate agreements are in place related to monitoring and
maintenance procedures and replacement of the system in case of a failure.
Subd. 4. Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated
Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that:
(a) They are located within a limited distance of the lots they serve.
(b) Construction of drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of
ecological resources.
(c) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system
is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non -Conservation
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 39 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all
property owners in the subdivision is mandatory.
(d) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the
drainfield/mound system.
(e) The ground cover over the drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the
Land Stewardship Plan.
(f) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields/mound systems.
(g) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the
location of individual drainfields/mound systems.
Section 827.73. Site Design Process.
At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that
the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan.
Subd. 1. Step 1 —Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps.
First identify "unbuildable" areas which include: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands,
wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify
Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section
827.59 Subd. 3.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land
Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable,
Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area.
Subd. 2. Step 2 —Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual
houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas.
Subd. 3. Step 3 —Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots.
New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create
internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and
trails.
Subd. 4. Step 4 —Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines.
Section 827.75. CD-PUD Application Processing.
The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve
CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to
engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of
this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of
regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land.
The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land
owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, the potential future
Conservation Easement holder, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process
is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project
concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to
achieve the objectives.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 40 of 41
"
A T T A C H M E N T 2 : C i t y E n g i n e e r C o m m e n t s ( 3 p a g e s )
M a y 2 5 , 2 0 1 0
D u s t y F i n k e
P l a n n e r
C i t y o f M e d i n a
2 0 5 2 C o u n t y R o a d 2 4
M e d i n a , M N 5 5 3 4 0 - 9 7 9 0
R e : L - 1 0 - 0 6 2
M a r x P r o p e r t y C o n c e p t P l a n
C i t y o f M e d i n a
B o n e s t r o o F i l e N o . : 0 0 0 1 9 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 - 1
D e a r D u s t y ,
T e l 6 5 1 - 6 3 6 - 4 6 0 0
F a x 6 5 1 - 6 3 6 - 1 3 1 1
w w w . b o n e s t r o o . c o m
B o n e s t r o o
W e h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e c o n c e p t p l a n s d a t e d 5 - 1 1 - 1 1 f o r t h e p r o p o s e d l o t s u b d i v i s i o n a t 2 7 0 0
P a r k v i e w D r i v e . W e h a v e t h e f o l l o w i n g c o m m e n t s w i t h r e g a r d s t o e n g i n e e r i n g m a t t e r s .
" 5 ' I n t e r i o r l o t l i n e a n d 1 0 ' p e r i m e t e r d r a i n a g e a n d u t i l i t y e a s e m e n t s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d a l o n g
l o t l i n e s .
" A l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t , i n c l u d i n g h o m e s i t e s , i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n
F E M A f l o o d z o n e s A a n d X . F u r t h e r s t u d y a n d d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e b a s e f l o o d e l e v a t i o n
a l o n g w i t h a F E M A m a p r e v i s i o n m a y b e n e c e s s a r y w i t h t h i s p r o j e c t .
" T h i s p r o j e c t w i l l n e e d t o c o m p l y w i t h M e d i n a ' s L o c a l S u r f a c e W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t P l a n .
D e s i g n a n d c a l c u l a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l n e e d t o b e s u b m i t t e d f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g .
o S t o r m w a t e r p e a k r u n o f f r a t e s f o r t h e 2 , 1 0 , a n d 1 0 0 y e a r s t o r m e v e n t s .
o S t o r m w a t e r r u n o f f v o l u m e s m u s t n o t b e i n c r e a s e d - t y p i c a l l y a 1 . 1 - i n c h r a i n f a l l
e v e n t i s u s e d a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s .
o P h o s p h o r u s l o a d i n g s m u s t b e r e d u c e d 2 0 % o v e r t h e e x i s t i n g l o a d i n g .
" T h e p l a n s s h o u l d b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e f i r e m a r s h a l f o r r e v i e w o f t h e m i n i m u m a l l o w a b l e
r o a d w i d t h , c u l - d e - s a c r a d i u s , a n d d e a d - e n d r o a d l e n g t h .
" T h e p r o p o s e d r o a d i n O u t l o t D i s l o c a t e d i n a n a r e a o f s t e e p g r a d e s . A t t e m p t s s h o u l d b e
m a d e t o l i m i t t h e m a x i m u m s t r e e t g r a d e t o 8 t o 1 0 % .
" T h e a p p l i c a n t w i l l n e e d t o f o l l o w t h e C i t y C o d e 8 2 8 . 4 3 f o r W e t l a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n . T h i s
C o d e i n c l u d e s p l a n s u b m i t t a l r e q u i r e m e n t s , w e t l a n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , b u f f e r a n d s e t b a c k
w i d t h r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d b u f f e r l a n d s c a p e r e q u i r e m e n t s . J o h n S m y t h ' s m e m o d a t e d 5 -
2 5 - 1 1 f u r t h e r e x p l a i n s t h e w e t l a n d a n d b u f f e r r e q u i r e m e n t s .
I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t m e a t ( 6 5 1 ) 6 0 4 - 4 8 9 4 .
S i n c e r e l y ,
B O N E S T R O O
D a r r e n A m u n d s e n
C c : T o m K e l l o g g
Memorandum 4 Bonestroo
To: Dusty Finke
Project Wallace Marx
Date: 5/25/2011
From: John Smyth
Client City or Medina
Re: Wetland Conservation Act and Medina Wetland Code Review
File No: 190-11-000
Remarks:
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT REVIEW
Wetland Delineations have been completed and were reviewed in November of 2010.
They were formally approved after modifications were provided on December 14,
2010. As proposed there are wetland impacts from a proposed private road. Wetland
impacts should be hatched and impacts areas provided on future submittals so City
staff and governmental official understand the wetland impacts with the proposed
development layout. If wetlands are impacted they will require Wetland Conservation
Act Permit Approval from the City.
MEDINA WETLAND CODE REVIEW
The proposed site improvements trigger the requirements of Section 828.43.
(Wetlands Conservation) of the City Code. This Section of the code should be
reviewed by the applicant to confirm compliance and provide the appropriate
submittals.
This memo provides a summary of requirements from the Medina Wetland
Conservation code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to review the code and
meet all of its requirements. There are seven wetlands located on the property.
Below is a summary of the wetland classification with comments that should be
addressed for each wetland.
Wetland
ID
Classification
Buffer
width
Required
Comments
1
Protect
35'
Shows 30 ft buffer on the plan. It will
require a minimum of 35 ft and 50 ft if within
a DNR mapped area. This needs to be
confirmed.
2
Protect
35'
May require a 50 ft buffer if within DNR
mapped area. This needs to be confirmed.
3
Manage 1
30'
4
Manage 1
30'
Show and label buffer on plan
5
Protect
35'
May require a 50 ft buffer if within DNR
mapped area. This needs to be confirmed.
6
Manage 1
30'
7
Manage 1
30'
Show and label buffer on plan
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651.636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
1
Buffer Condition and Requirements
Currently some of the upland buffer areas have vegetative conditions that are not
acceptable per Subd. 8 of the City Wetland Code and have turf or contain greater then
25% weeds. According to Subpd.8. the wetland buffer will need to be converted to
native vegetation.
The applicant will need to provide a Management/Landscaping plan that at minimum
includes the following:
1. Method of site preparation for establishing native vegetation in
upland buffer area. (MN BWSR Web Site — Publication:
"Restoring & Managing Native Wetland and Upland Vegetation"
source for options).
2. Species proposed to be seeded or planted in the upland buffer.
According to the wetland code the seed mix or plant layout must
have a minimum of four species of native grasses and five species
of native forbs and a cover crop. The seed mix shall consist of at
least fifteen pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre and the
cover crop shall be at least twenty pounds per acre. If planting is
proposed, spacing between plants shall not exceed three feet
unless otherwise approved by the city engineer.
3. Detailed specifications that describe sequencing, scheduling,
materials installation and maintenance execution for the removal
of weeds from the upland buffer.
4. Cost estimate for buffer landscaping to determine escrow.
Wetland and Upland Buffer Zone Mitigation
As proposed the project will have impacts to both wetlands and their buffers. Per
Subp. 10 of the City Wetland Conservation Code both the wetlands and upland buffers
will need to be replaced if impacted. Replacement of upland buffers on -site by
expansion of existing buffers is preferred. Future submittals should show were upland
buffer mitigation is to be located.
Survey and Conservation Easement Requirements
The upland buffer location is required to be shown on the site plan or certificate of
survey. A legal description for the upslope edge of the buffer will need to be
submitted with a conservation easement granted to the city by the applicant in a form
provided by the city. This does not need to be done at the concept phase of the
project.
Upland Buffer Markers
The applicant must place markers at the upslope edge of the upland buffer at least
one per lot or every two hundred fifty feet which ever is closer. The applicant must
show the location of the signage on a plan (landscape or grading) for City approval.
The applicant is responsible for the cost of obtaining and installing markers. The City
will provide sign dimensions, specifications, verbiage, and artwork.
Page 2 all
ATTACHMENT 3: City Ecologist Comments (2 pages)
Memorandum •' Bonestroo
To: Dusty Finke
Project: Wallace Marx,
2700 Parkview Drive
Date: 6.13.11
From: Paul Bockenstedt,
Ecologist
Client: City of Medina
Re: Natural Resources Review of 5.11.11 Concept Plan
File No.: 190-11001-0
Dusty,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the ecological aspects of the proposed
development at 2700 Parkview Drive in Medina, MN. I have conducted an
independent review of the proposed development in the context of the on -file
natural resources information and am providing a summary below of that effort.
Background
General
The proposed development at 2700 Parkview Drive is shown in the Concept Plan
(Gronberg & Associates, Inc.) plotted drawings dated 5.11.11 to have a total of 9
lots, including 5 lots on the south side of school lake (Lots 1-6, and 9) and two lots
toward the southeast end of the property (Lots 7 & 8).
Natural Resources
In preparation for the comments provided below, I reviewed the existing available
natural resources data and reports against the Gronberg Concept Plan, including:
• Medina Natural Resource Inventory/MLCCS (Hennepin Conservation District
- HCD)
• MN DNR County Biological Survey
• National Wetlands Inventory
• Medina Wetland Inventory and Classification (HCD)
• Cross River Consulting Natural Resources Evaluation map (9.15.10)
• Others
Based on this review, it is my opinion that the most ecologically important resources
at this site include:
• Maple -basswood forest (as mapped by HCD using MLCCS methodology, and
also ranked as High Quality in Cross River Consulting evaluation)
• Wetlands and other water resource features, including buffer areas as
defined in the Medina Wetland Code (summarized in a 5.25.11 memo from
John Smyth to Duste Finke)
• Natural Resource/Open Space Corridors (Figure 8 Medina NRI/MLCCS by
HCD)
Summary of Review
After reviewing the information above, I have the following comments related to
conservation of natural resources at the Wallace Marx site:
I am pleased that the proposed Concept Plan includes protection for Wetland 2
(shown as Outlot C), as well as Wetlands 4 and 6 shown as Outlot B. This helps
maintain some core areas of natural areas and some connectivity of natural
resource corridors within the proposed development site and connecting to
surrounding areas.
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
C:\Documents and Settings \dustyfiinke\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files \Content.0utlook\SXHMU275\Marx Property -2700 Parkview Drive_Concept Plan Natural Resources Evaluation_Bonestroo-PJB_6-13-
11.docx [TNS 06-2010] Page 1 of 2
it
However, I do have concern with several areas shown in the Concept Plan that
fragment existing quality upland and wetland habitats. I have the following
comments about those areas with recommended modifications to the Concept Plan
that minimize impacts to sensitive resources at this site:
• Reposition Lots 3 & 9 from the northwest area (potentially to the area of
Lots 7 & 8 with somewhat reduced lot sizes) to preserve the high quality
maple -basswood forest that occurs on the northwest portion of the site.
This area is identified as an important Natural Resource/Open Space
Corridor by Hennepin Conservation District.
• Outlot G (Private Drive) — To maintain ecologically connectivity of Wetland 6
with Wetland 5 (between Lots 4 &5), I recommend that the portion of
Outlot G (Private Drive) proposed to cross/impact these wetlands be
removed. From an ecological perspective, accessing Lots 5 & 6 from the
south, across the disturbed upland woodland that occurs between Wetland
4 and Wetland 6 would be preferable.
• While the Concept Plan does not specifically show lake access by lot
owners, developments on lakes are often proposed to allow access to lake
through docks from individual lots. This approach typically results in an
overall greater amount of impact compared to a preferred approach that
would allow one shared/common access point to the lake for all lot owners.
This common access point approach would result in the least impact to the
lake buffer vegetation, lake water quality, and overall wildlife habitat.
• I understand that a Conservation Easement is being considered for a
portion of the natural areas at this site. From a long-term perspective,
maintaining the remaining natural areas at this site would be well -served
through establishing a Conservation Easement for these areas, along with a
long-term management fund.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information
from me. Thank you for the opportunity to assist with review of this project.
Best regards,
Paul Bockenstedt
Ecologist
651.604.4812
C:\Documents and Settings \dustyrinke\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\SXHMU275\Marx Property -2700 Parkview Drive_Concept Plan Natural Resources Evaluation_Bonestroo-PJB_6-13-
11.docx [TNS 06-2010] Page 2 of 2
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres.
May 17, 2011
ATTACHMENT 4: City Fire Marshal Comments (1 page)
TO: Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Planning Assistant
FROM: Loren Kohnen
RE: Wallace Marx
2700 Parkview Drive
Medina, Minnesota
CONCEPT PLAN
F!tA1. t (OD) 4 /'J-.7uyu
Mtrowst76@ao1. com
I have reviewed the concept plan provided by Mr. Marx. This is the
2nd concept plan I have reviewed. This plan addresses some of my
concerns from the 1st plan.
This plan does a fine job protecting wetlands and environmentally
sensitive sites.
I have not been able. to review any plans for proposed septic sites.
I will need soil borings and topographical information. All sites
must be fenced with approved materials before any work begins; site,
roads, or driveways.
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 have very long access drives. A meetingwith Mr. Marx
and his engineer must be set up to discuss these long drives. Concerns
are access and turn -a -rounds for emergency vehicles.
I have visited and walked the property with Mr. Marx.
LK:jg
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 53357
Marx Pr operty - Site Design
Step 1 - Identify Conservation Areas Step 3 - Align Streets and Trails c ' T Y 0
(11)4Ste • 2 - Locate Housin• Sites Ste • 4 - Draw Lot Lines /
Legend
Steep Slopes
Floodplain and Lake
Wetlands
Wetland Buffers
MEDINA
Priority Conservation Ar eas (upland)
• Potential Homesites
Potential Streets
Potential Trail Corridor
Potential Lot Lines
N
A
0 100 200 300 400 500
1,000
Feet
The Wallace Nature Sanctuary
2700 Parkview Drive Medina, Minnesota
To: Honorable Mayor Crosby and Members of the Medina City Council March 13, 2011
It's easy to like Medina. And after actually living here, even easier to love it! Allow me to
digress.
On a Summer day over a dozen years ago, looking for a `place in the country,' our real estate
agent gave us the address: 2700 Parkview Drive. For the first time ever, we drove West on
County Road 24. A mile West of #55 we were enveloped by the atmospheric surroundings --a
place like no other.
Mown pastures bordered by white fences with their horses. Long driveways leading to spacious
homes. Large spaces. Traditional character furnished by smaller, original homes and barns
closer to the road. And split rail fences around the horse pastures on the roads going North.
We turned right on Parkview and drove past Baker Golf Course on the left a half mile to 2700.
Another right into the long serpentine driveway, through the century -old oaks and along the
sprawling marsh and were surprised by a gliding red tail hawk. After 300-400 yards, we
stopped, looked around in marvel at the maple, basswood, ironwood, aspen. Turned to each
other and said at the same time, "This is it!"
The twenty -year -old weathered redwood house, built by DesLauriers of Hamel, was solid and
well done. Two hours later, after touring the house and walking the land, we signed the purchase
agreement.
There is an old adage that says, when you treasure something, you should leave it better than you
found it. That became our theme.
(And ultimately a reason we concluded the land should be conserved for the future.)
First, though, the house needed remodeling. This was done by the guys who built it. Donny and
Billy and Danny DesLauriers of Hamel, building materials from Kurt Bowley of Hamel Lumber,
Ronny and Butch Fortin of Hamel Electric. Jim Ditter Heating/AC of Hamel, plumbing by Ivan
of Medina, carpet laying by Mark's Carpets of Hamel, landscaping by (Steve Leuer's) Designing
Nature of Hamel, mortared stonework by Kurt Dalbec's company of Medina.
Other work by Dobezinski and Herb Koch of Loretto. Irrigation by Bergerson Caswell of Maple
Plain. Natural stone from Hedberg's of Plymouth. Occasional lunches at Peg's, Fritz & Joyce's,
or catered by Bobby Scherer. As much local help as there was to find. In hindsight, a smart
policy.
Then the land. During the Summer of 1998, two straight-line wind storms came from the West
and ravaged the woodlands. Hundreds of trees were downed, including one or two dozen old
oaks and elms with 24" — 40" trunks. To this day, ash and elm in our driveway are still bent
from the storm.
Not wanting to take a chance of feeding a possible fire, Tall Timber worked hundreds of hours
cleaning up the fallen wood, chipping it and hauling it away. (Now that the extreme fire danger
is passed, we leave fallen trees to decompose and feed the ecosystem.)
During that time and after, we also groomed the more mammoth trees in the "Big Woods." My
daughter told me of meeting somebody who was a polo friend of Bradley and who had ridden
through the property. He told her, unbelievably, "There's some guy in Medina who even trims
his oaks and maples within the woods nobody can see." She replied casually, "Yes, that's my
dad!"
We still try to remove some deadwood to inhibit infection of the trees from fungus, bacteria and
bugs. One Winter we spent over five hundred hours removing buckthorn. And we still do it
during summers, spraying the raw trunks with Round Up. But it is frustrating, because most
neighbors don't know what buckthorn is or the consequences of its invasiveness. Three Rivers
appears to do nothing. (As long as there are birds to carry buckthorn seeds, to our land, it's a
battle that we will never really win --but we can moderate the invasion to give our new maple and
basswood and oak saplings a fighting chance.)
We've removed somewhere between seventy-five and a hundred diseased elms. Again, this does
not stop the Dutch Elm infestation, but it slows it (hoping the resistant trees will survive).
About two years after we moved in, I added the Ganglehoff farm to the North as a buffer. Those
around School Lake can tell you what a mess it was. With four hundred pigs contaminating the
lake and land and with periodic burning of hides and bones, it was not a good neighbor.
With advice from Tom Crosby, we spent about $90,000 cleaning up the forty-two acre parcel.
The old house and ramshackle barns and sheds were torn down. Mink cages and debris were
trucked out. Dumping spots for everything, including a kitchen sink, were put to right. Butch
Newman smoothed it out with his hoe.
The lowland adjoining School Lake was a tragedy. The farmer had fed his pigs with expired
packaged produce and dairy products from grocery stores and food warehouses. One Saturday,
we got a dozen guys from the Plymouth car wash, paid them double their hourly wage, lunched
each with two Big Macs and fries, to pick things up. I estimated they picked up over a hundred
thousand plastic bags and dairy containers, even oyster shells —everything that could be seen.
Then I got Ron Bowen from Prairie Restorations to come out. We designed a seven acre area to
plant with native prairie grasses (with seed mixes varied by the three microclimates), sowed
twenty-four varieties of native prairie flowers, and planted 7,500 plugs of more prairie flowers.
Now, the prairie is well established.
To nurture the prairie, we have periodic `burns,' simulating nature's way of getting rid of excess
thatch and killing some annual weeds. The last two burns were conducted by the Loretto Fire
Department, along with the departments of Hanover, Hamel and Long Lake. In the process, they
benefited from grass fire training, learning to use new equipment and practicing inter -department
communications with their new wireless systems.
The year after cleaning up the lowland property, resident Glen Jeffery said School Lake had
never been so clean. You can actually see through the clear water. It attracts birds and
migratory waterfowl such as wood ducks, mallards, teal, white-cheeked pintail, canvasback,
merganser and others. During the Autumn about five years ago, we had two dozen trumpeter
swans take up residence for over two months. Now each Spring, a pair stakes out the lake,
nesting near Nolan's end of the Lake.
Moving up to the top 6-7 acres of this parcel bordering Parkview (the `delta'), we landscaped it
well to be a major element of our formal gardens. The driveway was architected with a 125'
circle about 50 yards from Parkview, with the entire drive lined on both sides with Japanese
Lilac trees which bloom beautifully white in June.
From Hamel, between the properties of Steve Leuer and his neighbor, Bill, we dug 40 blue
Colorado spruces and transplanted planted them on the delta. South of the driveway we planted
weeping trees and shrubs such as weeping pine, spruce, pussy willow, Niobe willow, Tollesons
Juniper, Johnsons birch, and Uncle Fogey pine. North of the driveway we planted blue-green
conifers such as Medora junipers, pines and spruces. In between, slow -grow fescue holds the
soil and is mowed only two or three times during the year.
In the 100' center circle were planted 1,000 shrubs: 500 Ninebark Dart's Gold (chartreuse) and
500 Ninebark Diabolo (purple) in a Yin -Yang symbol.
Then a bit to the East of this, we planted an apple orchard within a 200' diameter circle. Rather
than looking like a typical farm, the eight rows (80 trees) of Honeycrisp and Honeygold `swirl'
out from the center like a vortex. The fruit is outstanding. To date, all has been given to
charities such as Sharing and Caring Hands, Hanover Food Shelf, and neighbors.
Through the property is a trail used by walkers and riders around School Lake. It leads over the
East hill to Dan and Jill Johnson's property to accommodate horses and The Hunt. Following
the natural deer trails, we have also cut in another two miles of trails through the woods and the
peat bog with tamaracks. With minimal impact, the trails are still frequented winter and summer
by all the woodland animals.
Near our home, I made a garden —a fun (though major) project. `Made' means designing,
general contracting, selecting building materials and plant materials and garden ornaments, etc.
Designing Nature from Hamel did an excellent job with the building work and has been
maintaining the garden for a decade. Other local craftsmen who worked on the house also
contributed their expertise to the garden.
Though the garden, "Wallace Gardens," has been private like other backyard gardens, it has been
recognized to be one of the finest and most significant private formal gardens in the world, not
just the United States. The international book, "1001 Gardens You Must See Before You Die,"
selected only 60 gardens from the United States.
Fully 59 are supported by municipalities (e.g., Central Park, Mellenium Park) or foundations
(e.g., Biltmore Estate, Taliesin, Winterthur). Only one of the sixty is privately supported. That
one is in Medina. Wallace Gardens. You have a DVD that shows the garden when it was
featured on "Jason Davis On The Road" and pictures of the garden in bloom throughout the year.
In summary, during the past dozen years, we have upgraded the property each and every year in
order to enhance its natural features, serve as a friendly natural habitat, and as an enjoyable place
to be.
That brings us to now.
We've grown into our Medina land and our Medina land has grown into us.
The land is a treasure and something that should be conserved. That's why we wish to put about
three-quarters of our 110 acres into a conservation easement. To conserve it. Forever.
This thinking coincided with a call from City Hall last March to attend a meeting to hear about
an innovative idea for the City to develop a new ordinance to stimulate land conservation. Of the
dozen attending the meeting, I was the only person interested. Six months later, the idea was
transformed into a new ordinance, CD PUD. We wish to be the first residents to use it for the
benefit of both the City of Medina and us.
As Medina residents, not `developers,' we desire to be the first to use Medina's new
conservation ordinance to put over seventy acres under conservation easement, forever.
The City's CD PUD ordinance provides for the granting of additional building sites in exchange
for our putting land (including 30% of `buildable' land) under an easement. In other words, the
four currently allowed building sites on our 4 PIDs would be increased. For this, we ask your
concurrence.
In putting over 70 acres out of our total 110 acres under a conservation easement, we will be left
with only about 23 `buildable' acres. Only 23.
However, because the total land we are giving up is extremely large, we ask the Council to grant
us a total of six additional sites. We ask the City to refer to the phrase in the ordinance, "unless
otherwise approved by the Council," to be as generous to us as we hope to be to the City of
Medina.
Buildings on all of these additional sites will be primarily clustered within the North end of the
property and should not stand out. None should be visible from the Parkview Drive viewshed.
These sites would then comprise a homeowners association to live within, police, and nurture the
treasured areas under easement.
We ask that you take into consideration that we are residents, not developers, and wish to be
treated as your fellow residents. Residents being the first to volunteer to use this new ordinance
for the purpose you intended. The first residents to commit a huge acreage to the program.
Thank you,
Wally and Bridget Marx
PS If you would like to view and/or walk through the property and gardens, please contact me:
wally@wallymarx.com
763 249 1200
JAMES S. LANE - ATTORNEY AT LAW
125 Lake Street West, Suite 208
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391-1572
952/473-2241— jameslane@gwestoffice.net
TO: City of Medina
FROM: James S. Lane 9f<
DATE: May 13, 2011
RE: The Wallace Nature Sanctuary
2011
Mr. and Mrs. Wallace A. Marx have submitted an application for concept plan approval of a
110A. Conservation Design — Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) of their Wallace Nature
Sanctuary in Medina. You have received site plans and maps developed by their consultants.
This narrative memorandum supplements Mr. and Mrs. Marx' application in accordance with
City of Medina Code Section 827.33. We understand that the application will be referred to the
Planning Commission for public hearing when it has been determined complete for review. We
request that the application also be submitted to the Park Commission for its review and
comment prior to the public hearing.
MR. AND MRS. MARX' PROPOSAL OFFERS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR
PRIVATE -PUBLIC COLLABORATION TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE
IMPORTANT NATURAL AREAS IN MEDINA. WE URGE THE CITY TO SEIZE THE
OPPORTUNITY.
Before testing technical aspects of the Marx application for Code compliance, please remind
yourselves that the policy context for review of this application is the entire fabric of City
policies that seek preservation of natural resources and rural character, which are two of the
City's most prized attributes. Mr. and Mrs. Marx' application seeks development of their
homestead property for residential use, balanced with protection of several unique open space
and natural areas, including their formal gardens, valuable remnants of the Big Woods, an
ecologically significant tamarack bog, lakes and wetlands that include extensive shoreland on
School Lake and Miller Lake, and rich wildlife habitat.
-2 -
Medina is blessed with an unusual mix of open space and natural areas, dotted with abundant
lakes and creeks, marshes, and wetlands. As noted repeatedly in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
large amounts of open space (35% of total city area) are protected from development by
expansive areas of water and wetlands. But the abundance of water and wetlands, like School
Lake and Miller Lake on the Marx property, also heightens the importance of leveraging larger
acreages to preserve adjacent open spaces and to prevent deterioration of lakes and wetlands and
important natural areas. Those protections can be achieved through use of permanent
conservation easements and restoration and management plans.
On a scale of intensity of use, examples of existing open space and protected natural areas within
the City range from Baker Park Reserve and its relatively intense recreational and sporting
amenities to Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area. In between those extremes are many
city parks, roadside and cross-country trails, and athletic fields. But all are public open space
and natural areas. All reflect set asides of public resources with public responsibility for
maintenance and repair. The 2008 Medina Natural Resources Inventory noted that valuable
natural areas often have multiple owners, and permanent protection often requires active
management and private -public collaboration. Only the recent development of Wild Meadows
reflects a private approach to sustained conservation and protection of open space and natural
areas within a large -lot residential development in Medina.
This proposal for CD-PUD development of the Marx property offers another significant
opportunity for private conservation and protection of open space and valuable natural
features within a residential development in the rural heart of Medina. Significantly, it
also will be the first to be guided by the city's new CD-PUD ordinance. It also is
intentionally aligned with one of the fundamental goals or strategies in the City's 2010-2030
Comprehensive Plan that calls for "better" or "more creative" residential development.
Residential density standards measure allowable intensity of land use. The Marx property is
zoned rural residential (RR), where residential density in Medina is determined by reference to a
suitable soils standard. The customary tensions or tradeoffs that arise among policy makers, city
officials, and land owners require balancing of owners' desires to optimize economic value by
the highest and best use of their land with, in this case, the public's interest in maintaining
desired rural atmosphere and protecting important natural areas that, if developed, would be lost
forever. This application seeks to balance those interests by application of a progressive
Conservation Design Planned Unit Development.
-3 -
The Marx property contains man-made as well as natural features that afford the City a unique
opportunity to guide creative residential development while protecting valuable natural features.
In fact, an important portion of the property is identified as an ecologically significant natural
area in the City of Medina Natural Resources Inventory (2008), namely (1) a maple -basswood
forest remnant and (2) tamarack swamp complex near Miller Lake. Both are in Parcel #4, the
19.8A. parcel described at page 7 below as "the guesthouse parcel" in the West half of the
Southwest quarter of Section 16.
Other unique attributes of the Marx property include —
• The Wallace Gardens. The most unique feature of the Marx property is man-made
and requires seeing to believing. It is a formal garden, or series of gardens covering
26 acres, carefully designed by Mr. Marx and built by local labor and craftsmen. The
focal point is a 7A. formal garden in Parcel #2, east of the principal residence and
designed on classic principles, including the Victorian rose garden, Monet color
garden, patterned after Claude Monet's garden in France, a contemporary ornamental
grasses garden, and a Roman sculpture garden with a half-size statue of
Michelangelo's "David." A best-selling book, "1001 Gardens You Must See Before
You Die," describes The Wallace Gardens as "quintessentially English, perhaps. On
this vast scale and beneath wide skies, though, it looks and feels thoroughly
American." Other features of The Wallace Gardens are a restored prairie, landscaped
delta off Parkview Drive on Parcel #3 on an East facing slope overlooking School
Lake, and a unique vortex apple orchard. The CD-PUD application contemplates
permanent protection and maintenance of the gardens by homeowners, using
appropriate planning tools like a homeowners' association and restrictive covenants
to ensure their long term protection and preservation.
• Tamarack bog. A consultant's report to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
("MCWD") noted that the southern portion of the Marx property includes "a large
wetland complex and adjoining upland forest communities. Although...variable in
quality, it (also) contains a diverse mosaic of wetland communities... Wetland
complexes with this diversity of wetland communities are no longer common in
Hennepin County and thus have a high natural resource value."
-4 -
The City's Natural Resources Inventory (2008) noted that there are only seven (7)
tamarack swamps in Medina and that "these remnants are somewhat rare and unique
to the region... (and) should also be considered for acquisition and/or cooperative
management with land owners. The tamarack complexes associated with Thies Lake,
Hidden Lake (West of the Marx property across County Road 19), and Miller Lake
(subject property) are unique and sensitive wetland resources (emphasis added)."
• Remnants of Big Woods hardwood forests. The same MCWD consultant's report
that is cited above notes that several forest types occur in the north central portion of
the Marx property, "including maple -basswood, mesic oak, oak woodland, and
disturbed deciduous woodland. The dominant forest type... is maple -basswood. The
forest canopy within the maple -basswood forest is characterized by scattered sugar
maple, basswood, and oak species. The oak and sugar maple are very large, with
many exceeding 40 inches in diameter. The sub -canopy is dominated by young sugar
maple, American elm, butternut hickory, and black cherry."
Because less than 20% of Medina land cover is forested, preserving important
remnants of the "Big Woods," such as this portion of the Marx property, takes on
added significance. As the 2008 Medina Natural Resources Inventory noted,
"Undisturbed stands of the maple -basswood forest are rare. The soils on which the
forest grows are suitable for cultivation so much of the community has been cleared
for cropland...From an ecological perspective, the larger maple -basswood and mesic
oak forest remnants remaining on private lands within the city are likely the highest
priority sites to consider for acquisition and protection in the near future... (emphasis
added)".
• Valuable lakeshore and wetlands, including wildlife habitat and corridors, in the
School Lake and Miller Lake (formerly School Lake) drainages. School Lake is a
shallow, natural environmental lake, bordered by three tiers of wetlands: cattail marsh
bordering open water, reed canary grass in the middle tier, and lowland hardwood and
disturbed deciduous woodlands in the outer tier. Both School Lake and Miller Lake
provide abundant habitat for very diverse wildlife populations, including songbirds
and migratory waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, trumpeter swans, herons, and egrets,
and migrating loons and pelicans. Also pheasants and wild turkeys and a wide
variety of grey and red squirrels, rabbits, mink, muskrats, groundhogs/woodchucks,
possum, skunks, foxes, coyotes, and whitetail deer.
-5 -
The proposed CD-PUD seeks to optimize preservation and permanent protection of
habitat for these valuable wildlife assets. At the risk of parochial overstatement, the
School Lake drainage basin in Section 16 is considered Medina's Serengeti by
residents who are aware of its abundant natural resources and ecological diversity.
The following portions of this memorandum reflect requirements of City of Medina Code Sec.
827.33, et seq.
(a) General information:
(1) Landowners' names and address and interest in the property.
Wallace A. Marx and Bridget A. Marx
2700 Parkview Drive
Medina, Minnesota 55340.
Mr. and Mrs. Marx are fee owners/taxpayers of four (4)
separate parcels that are the subject of this application.
(2) Applicant's name and address, if different from landowner. N/A.
(3) Names and addresses of professional consultants.
Land surveyor/civil engineer: Mark Gronberg, Gronberg & Associates, Inc., 445
North Willow Drive, Long Lake, Minnesota 55356.
Telephone: 952/473-4141. E-mail:
Legal: James S. Lane, Attorney at Law, 125 Lake Street West, Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391-1572. Telephone: 952/473-2241. E-mail:
jameslane@qwestoffice.net.
Natural resources evaluation: City of Medina, Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, and Minnesota Land Trust.
Land use planning: Rose A. Lorsung, Pulse Land Group, Inc. P.O. Box 964,
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391-0964. Telephone: 952/457-7641 (cell). E-mail:
rlorsun2 i pulseland< roup.com.
-6 -
Soils and percolation testing and sewage treatment system location: Rusty
Olson's Soil and Percolation Testing, 11481 Riverview Road NE, Hanover,
Minnesota 55341. Telephone: 763/498-8779. E-mail:
Terrain and contours mapping and slopes analyses: Aero-Metric, 13400 -68th
Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311. Telephone: 763/420-9606.
Wetland delineation: Svoboda Ecological Resources, 25580 Nelsine Drive, Suite
100, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331. Attention: Brian Burgner. Telephone:
952/471-1100. E-mail: brianb@gpsinnovations.com
(4) Evidence of applicant's control over the property. Updated abstracts of title or, if
acceptable, owner and encumbrance (O&E) reports for each of four (4) parcels will
be furnished at an appropriate future date. The applicants are fee owners of all
parcels.
(b) Present status: This application proposes conservation design development (CD-PUD) of
four (4) separate but contiguous parcels of property east of Parkview Drive (Hennepin
County Road No. 201) in the City of Medina (Section 16, Township 118, Range 23). The
aggregate acreage of the four parcels is 109.58 acres. All four parcels are abstract
property. The entire property is hereinafter referred to as "the Property," and the four (4)
individual parcels are referred to, respectively, as "Parcel #1," "Parcel 2," etc.
#1. PID 16 118 23 32 0002 37.42 acres. Acquired in 1998.
Parcel address: 2700 Parkview Drive, Medina, Minnesota 55340
Legal description: see Exhibit A.
Existing zoning classification: Rural Residential. Homestead.
Present use: residence.
-7-
#2. PID 16 118 23 31 0002. 9.41 acres. Acquired in 1998.
Parcel address: 2702 Parkview Drive, Medina, Minnesota 55340.
Legal description: see Exhibit A.
Existing zoning classification: Rural Residential. Homestead.
Present use: garden site east of residence.
#3. PID 16 118 23 23 0005 42.97 acres. Acquired in 1999.
Parcel address: 2900 Parkview Drive, Medina, Minnesota 55340
Legal description: see Exhibit A.
Existing zoning classification: Agricultural Preserve. Non -homestead.
Present use: agricultural. Prior to acquisition by applicant in 1999, Parcel #3 had
been subjected to intensive use for animal agriculture. In the intervening years
this parcel has been extensively reclaimed and restored to its natural state,
including prairie grasses and wildflowers.
#4. PID 16 118 23 33 0001 19.78 acres. Acquired in 1998.
Parcel address: 2500 Parkview Drive, Medina, Minnesota 55340.
Legal description: see Exhibit A.
Existing zoning classification: Rural Residential. Non -homestead.
Present use: guest house. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has recommended
inclusion of Parcel # 4 in conservation area owing to quality maple -basswood and
oak forestation and function as a buffer between an adjoining tamarack bog and
Miller Lake.
The maps prepared by Gronberg & Associates depict existing development of
Parcels #1, #2, #3 and #4, including locations of existing residences and accessory
buildings, fences, driveway and roads, and other site improvements and natural
features.
-8-
(c) Description of proposed CD-PUD. The proposed CD-PUD contemplates ten (10)
clustered single family residential lots or home sites, some clustered, on limited Buildable
Land Area within the Property and protection of the remainder of the Property, including
woodlands and valuable native hardwood forests; a tamarack bog, other wetlands,
seasonal streams, and lakeshore; steep slopes; wildlife habitat and corridors; and
viewsheds.
(d) Site conditions. Existing site conditions and natural features are reflected in maps and
drawing prepared by our surveyor and land planner, Gronberg & Associates.
(e) Schematic drawings of proposed development. Proposed development of the residential
lots or home sites, their linkage to natural features, and access also are reflected in
drawings prepared by Gronberg & Associates.
(f) Estimated total number of dwelling units. Ten (10), including existing residence on
Parcel #1 and guesthouse on Parcel #4.
(g) Schedule for development. Proposed development is long term but not yet defined.
Current estimate is 3-5 years, perhaps longer.
(h) Provision for care and maintenance of public or common open space. Applicant has
consulted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Land Trust, and City of
Medina but has not yet made decisions or reached binding agreements concerning
conservation easements or other measures for long term protection of open space. It is
clearly understood that arrangements that are mutually acceptable to the applicant/land
owners and City of Medina are cornerstones of the proposed CD-PUD.
(i) Restrictive covenants. Appropriate covenants will be prepared when CD-PUD design
and implementation are planned to guide development of residential home sites and
access and protection and maintenance of natural features and open space.
(j) Schematic utilities plans. Preliminary septic design plans and optional system locations
have been prepared by Rusty Olson's Soil and Percolation Testing and submitted to the
City.
-9 -
We look forward to receiving the city's Project Guidance Report (Code Sec. 827.75) prior to
public hearing before the Planning Commission and shall be prepared to supplement this
narrative memorandum with additional information that you may require prior to your
finalization of that Report. We also shall welcome an opportunity to meet with the Development
Review Committee at an appropriate future time if deemed desirable by the City.
-10 -
Legal Descriptions
Parcel # 1. 2700 Parkview Drive. Marx residence. PID 16 118 23 32 0002.
Commencing at the NE corner of the NW '/4 of the SW '/4, thence South to the SE corner thereof,
thence West to the SW corner thereof, thence North to the SW corner of Priscilla's Addition,
thence easterly along the southerly line of said Addition to the SE corner thereof, thence North to
the NE corner thereof, thence East to the beginning, except road. Section 16, Township 118
Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel # 2. 2702 Parkview Drive. Garden site east of Marx residence. PID 16 118 23 31
0002. The South 500 feet of that part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 lying West of the East 520 feet
thereof, Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Parcel # 3. 2900 Parkview Drive. Former Ganglehoff farm. PID 16 118 23 23 0005.
That part of the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 lying south of the North 845 feet thereof, except the West
417.42 feet of the North 208.71 feet of the South 213.71 feet thereof; also that part of the NE 1/4
of the SW 1/4 lying West of the East 520 feet thereof and North of the South 500 feet thereof,
except road. Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Parcel #4. 2500 Parkview Drive. Former Daniels guesthouse. PID 16 118 23 33 0001.
North 40 rods of the South 80 rods of the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4, except road, Section 16, Township
118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Note: All four (4) parcels are abstract property.
S 89°09'10" E 417.43;
10-346
RC I
OUTL
-967
L & KA l H.! EE lb' A BEF'NO
tiTREET�`
OUTLOT C
x 995 0
89°1'6'25" E 2681 .97
/OAKS ,
/ AREA
' I
AD OL 4500 S F
BUFFER TO MITIGATE
FOF OUTLOT E
CRO SI G
S 89°03.53' E
CONCEPT PLAN
LLCE A
NORTH DETAIL
11111
x
S OU TH LINE OF reiCIRT 41 45 FT
OF S t12, NW V4 SEC 16-1 38-23
47?
?96 3
l000-v 7
ft ID
ILI
Z in -
(3Z3
Z M
—0.
co c
LLJgw�
I—
<
0 <
0> O
CO
(1) w ,g -
4C 2 >
og_Jon
CC
CD
zwz0
0 It)
t9
N 89°09'10" W 520.01
x
v
O
POSSIBLE HOUSE SITE
I POSSIBLE
SEPTIC SITE
s
SLOPE>18%
r 1 BUILDABLE AREA
L —J WITHIN LOTS
BC
30% BUILDABLE AREA IN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ADDITIONAL
CONSERVATION AREAS
SCHOOL LAKE
BELOW 998 0 H W
WETLAND 5 AND
ADDITIONAL BUFFERS
0 100 200 400
0411411110*
SCALE IN FEET
101 9.
1.5
,'023C
C
< 985.4
S 88°58'34" E 1339.11
1
985 4
0
-_\ x 984. E
r
JAMES !T HALE &
SHARON HAL E
#2472
CONCEPT PLAN
WALLACE MARX
SOUTH DETAIL
r 9836
/
AREAS IN 30% BUILDABLE AREA -YELLOW
AREAS IN ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION AREA -GREEN
AREAS
PROPERTY TOTAL
TOTAL EXCLUSIVE OF PARKVIEW DRIVE R.O.W.
STEEP SLOPE TOTAL
WETLAND AND BUFFER TOTAL
APPROX. FLOODPLAIN OUTSIDE OF BUFFERS
883 6
110.98 +- ACRES
109.57+- ACRES
9.13+- ACRES
67.26+- ACRES
0.22 +- ACRES
/
1
1079,4 1030'// �//
1�/ 11
AREA UNDER BUFFER OR STEEP SLOPE 9.13 + 67.26 + 0.22 = 76.61 +- ACRES
BUILDABLE AREA 32 .96 +- ACRES
WETLAND 1
L F L EJEU'VE &
Y L E JE/]/ <'F70
r i BUILDABLE AREA
WITHIN LOTS
x
POSSIBLE HOUSE SITE
POSSIBLE
SEPTIC SITE
s l SLOPE > 18 %
L-1
0 100 200
ortsioomasz
400
SCALE IN FEET
wI
J M
aZh
U°z 2c74
gog
O>0
(� s J
u W ;
.6-0
ea
Ore Ceti
W Z J Oa
mZ§z
zwio
O>.a
aU4
0
46
z
O
cnt
10146 w THD Era,..z, :,
10-346
ti
AGENDA ITEM: 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 7, 2011
MEETING: July 12, 2011 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Pemtom—Preliminary Plat, Stage II Plan, Rezoning and ROW width variance
65 lot subdivision —1182 Hwy 55 (north of Hwy 55, west of CR116)
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: June 28, 2011
120 -day Review Deadline: October 26, 2011
Summary of Request
Pemtom Land Company has requested approval of a Preliminary Plat and a Stage II Plan to
develop 65 single-family residential lots on the Jubert property and Rolling Green property north
of Highway 55 and west of County Road 116. Mattamy Homes proposes to build the homes
within the development. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the Stage I Plan
for this mixed use property in the late spring, and the applicant proposes to now develop
approximately 26 acres of the property, six acres of which will be dedicated for a City park. The
net density of the proposed residential development is 3.3 units/acre.
The Jubert property is currently guided Mixed Use and zoned Rural Residential -Urban Reserve
(RR-UR). The property is approximately 70 acres in size and is currently farmed. A wetland is
located in the southern portion of the property, outside of the single-family area. The Rolling
Green property is currently guided Mixed Use -Business and zoned Mixed Use (MU). The
eastern half of this property is wetland, and the property is currently vacant. An aerial of the
sites can be found at the top of the following page. The applicant has requested to rezone the
property being developed to the MU zoning district.
The applicant has requested a variance from the subdivision regulations in order to plat a 50 -foot
wide right-of-way for the interior streets rather than the 60 -foot required. Most of the Jubert
property (45.6 acres) is proposed to be platted into an outlot at this time, and will need to be
replatted when developed in the future.
Stage I Plan
A Stage IT Plan, and the plat which accompanies it, are required to be consistent with the Stage I
Plan approved for a mixed use property. The Stage I Plan approved by the City Council on May
17, 2011 showed single-family development at this density in this location and also showed the
park as proposed. The Stage I Plan is attached for reference. The Stage I Plan included a
number of conditions, most of which are not relevant to the single-family portion of the property.
A summary of the conditions and a brief update on each is attached for review.
Pemtom Land Company
Page 1 of 8 July 12, 2011
Preliminary Plat and Stage II Plan Planning Commission Meeting
"
C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n
C o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n i s r e v i e w e d i n d e p t h d u r i n g S t a g e I r e v i e w . T h e
p r o p e r t y i s g u i d e d f o r M i x e d U s e d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h r e q u i r e s a m i n i m u m o f 5 0 % o f t h e
b u i l d a b l e p r o p e r t y t o b e r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d r e q u i r e s a n e t d e n s i t y o f 3 . 5 - 7 . 0 u n i t s / a c r e .
T h e a p p r o v e d S t a g e I p l a n p r o p o s e d r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o v e r 6 5 % o f t h e b u i l d a b l e p r o p e r t y
w i t h a n o v e r a l l n e t d e n s i t y o f 5 . 0 u n i t s / a c r e . A d h e r e n c e t o t h e u s e s a n d d e n s i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e
S t a g e I P l a n d u r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e r e m a i n i n g p r o p e r t y s h o u l d m a i n t a i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e
C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n .
P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t / L o t S t a n d a r d s
T h e p r o p o s e d p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t i n c l u d e s 6 5 s i n g l e f a m i l y l o t s , s e v e n o u t l o t s a n d t h e d e d i c a t i o n o f
r i g h t - o f - w a y . T h e l o t s r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m 8 , 1 2 5 s q u a r e f e e t t o 1 7 , 9 0 4 s q u a r e f e e t , w i t h t h e
m a j o r i t y b e i n g b e t w e e n l e s s t h a n 1 2 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t . F i v e o f t h e o u t l o t s c o n t a i n w e t l a n d s a n d
s t o r m w a t e r i m p r o v e m e n t s , w h i l e O u t l o t A ( 6 . 4 2 a c r e s ) i s t o b e d e d i c a t e d f o r t h e C i t y p a r k a n d
O u t l o t E ( 4 5 . 6 a c r e s ) i n c l u d e s t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e J u b e r t p r o p e r t y w h i c h i s n o t p r o p o s e d t o b e
d e v e l o p e d a t t h i s t i m e .
T h e f o l l o w i n g d i m e n s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s a p p l y t o s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s w i t h i n t h e M i x e d U s e
z o n i n g d i s t r i c t . T h e t a b l e a t t h e t o p o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e a l s o r e f e r e n c e s t h e s m a l l e s t a n d l a r g e s t
o f e a c h m e a s u r e m e n t :
P e m t o m L a n d C o m p a n y
P a g e 2 o f 8 J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 1 1
P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t a n d S t a g e 1 1 P l a n P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g
MU Requirement
Smallest
Largest
Minimum Lot Size
8,000 sq. ft.
8,125 sq. ft.
17,904 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
60 feet
65 feet
180 feet
Minimum Lot Depth
90 feet
121 feet
188 feet
Front Yard Setback
25 feet
Front Yard Setback (garage)
30 feet
Side Yard Setback (combined)
15 feet (10 & 5)
Side Yard (corner)
25 feet
Rear Yard Setback
25 feet
Max. Hardcover
50%
As referenced earlier in the report, the applicant requests a variance to allow 50 -foot wide right-
of-way for the interior street (rather than the 60 -foot required). This will be discussed further
later in the report.
The subdivision ordinance also limits Blocks to 1300 feet in length. The longer blocks in the
proposed subdivision are approximately 750 feet in length, consistent with ordinance.
With the exception of the right-of-way width variance requested, it appears that the proposed
preliminary plat is consistent with the dimensional standards of the subdivision ordinance and
the MU zoning district.
Wetlands/Floodplains
The eastern side of the proposed neighborhood backs up on a wetland. The applicant has
proposed an upland buffer consistent with City regulations. The applicant proposes grading
within the buffer and the grading and re -vegetation of this area shall be completed consistent
with the Wetland Protection ordinance. The construction of the Meander Road roadbed
previously resulted in approximately 4,100 square feet of wetland fill. The applicant is
proposing to mitigate wetland impacts from the construction of Meander Road by purchasing
credits from a wetland bank. Staff recommends a condition that Wetland Replacement Plan
approval be obtained prior to final plat approval.
The wetland on the east side of the site includes a floodplain at an elevation determined by the
Elm Creek Watershed to be 980.4. The applicant is proposing to increase the floodplain volume
in order to mitigate any impacts from the installation of Meander Road.
Streets/Meander Road/Traffic Study
The applicant proposes to construct Meander Road westerly from where it currently terminates.
Meander is proposed to be extended across the entire length of the single family development
and the park. From this point, it would connect with future improvements on property to the
west and south. From a traffic perspective, this single access point for the 65 single-family
homes has been determined satisfactory by a traffic study and confirmed by the City and County
Engineers. The City Fire Marshal has expressed concerns about this single access point from an
emergency access perspective during the short-term if the single-family development is fully
built -out prior to adjacent development occurring. Ultimately, this concern will be alleviated at
the time of surrounding development.
Pemtom Land Company
Page 3 of 8 July 12, 2011
Preliminary Plat and Stage II Plan Planning Commission Meeting
4
The Fire Marshal also voiced concern related to the single entrance to the development off of
Meander Road. The City has previously allowed a similar entrance for 105 homes in the
Bridgewater development.
Public Works staff recommends that the landscaping island in the entrance road be eliminated
because these tend to increase the time required to snowplow a neighborhood and also because
of tendencies for maintenance of the landscaping to wane over time.
Sewer/Water
The applicant proposes to extend sewer and water mains along with the construction of Meander
Road. The sewer would be stubbed for development to occur further to the south, and a stub has
also been provided for the City park. The watermain is proposed to be stubbed twice to the south
and also at the west end of Meander Road. The applicant has proposed to loop the watermain to
the system in Foxberry Farms, which is an important link as well. The City Engineer
recommends an additional connection from the west, which staff believes will be accommodated
by development of the property to the west.
The City Engineer, Public Works Superintendent and Building Official all recommend that the
applicant design a system to handle footing draintiles/sump pumps so that neighbors do not
discharge water at each other or illegally dump water in the sanitary sewer system.
Stormwater/LID Review
This application will be required to meet the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP),
including a reduction of phosphorus by 20% and rate control. The development will also be
required to provide additional filtration of stormwater run-off because it does not appear that it
will be practical to infiltrate an amount necessary to provide volume control.
In order to achieve the objectives of the SWMP, the applicant proposes to utilize vegetative
filtration swales on the north end of the development and in the center of the development. The
applicant proposes to construct raingardens along each side of the entrance road which will filter
some of the road run-off as well. The design of these improvements will need to be approved by
the City Engineer, including excavating and installing filtering materials in the swales and
vegetation. Staff also recommends that the filtration swales be delineated clearly so that future
homeowners have the expectation that they will not remain dry and usable backyard.
The swales and raingardens will be supplemented by stormwater ponds at the northeast,
southeast, and southwest corners of the site. The southwestern pond is partially located within
the proposed City park, and would also be utilized by the City as part of the improvements in the
park. Staff recommends that the portion of the pond that is located in the park be adjusted in
order to be equivalent to the amount of hardcover draining to the pond from the park.
Tree Preservation
The single family portion of the site is currently farmed and has very few trees. There is a small
treeline along the east of the Jubert property, in which three significant trees are located. Two of
these trees, along with three 6 inch trees, are proposed to be removed. The Tree Preservation
ordinance exempts removal of two or fewer significant trees, so no tree replacement is required.
Staff recommends that the remaining significant tree be protected during construction.
Pemtom Land Company
Page 4 of 8 July 12, 2011
Preliminary Plat and Stage II Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Buffer Yards
The MU ordinance requires bufferyards as a way to ease transitions between uses in a mixed use
development. In this case a bufferyard with an opacity of 0.1 is required along Meander Road.
Staff recommended that the applicant also include a bufferyard along the rear of the homes
abutting the park, and the applicant proposes plantings which exceed a 0.1 opacity in this
location as well.
Landscaping
The MU ordinance requires two trees to be planted on each single family lot, one of which is
required to be located in the front yard. The landscaping plan exceeds these minimum
requirements. Seventeen additional trees are proposed on the berm on the north end of the
property, six additional trees are proposed on the east end of the project, and thirteen additional
trees are proposed in the backyards which abut in the center of the project.
Lawn and Landscape Irrigation
Lawn and landscape irrigation systems are not permitted to be connected to the City water
supply in new development. The applicant has stated that they will install a community
irrigation system which utilizes water from the stormwater ponds on the east side of the project,
supplemented by private wells. The design of this system will need to be approved by the City
Engineer, and staff recommends a condition that the HOA submit annual well pumping records
to the City.
Park Dedication
The applicant and property owner propose to dedicate 6.42 acres for a City park on the east side
of the single-family neighborhood in order account for the required park dedication for the entire
property. The applicant also proposes to construct a trail within the right-of-way of Meander
Road. The Park Commission and City Council reviewed this proposal at the Stage I Plan and
were supportive, and staff will consult again at this Stage.
The City's Parks and Trail plan identifies a "Park Study Area" in the vicinity of this property, of
which a park study was completed last fall. The study determined the need for a recreational
park approximately 10 acres in size in this area. Staff believes the proposed park is consistent
with the study and would allow additional property to be dedicated from surrounding parcels to
assemble the property desired. The City's trail plan also identifies a moderately -high priority
trail along Meander Road, which is being proposed as part of the improvements.
Pedestrian Circulation
The applicant proposes a sidewalk on one side of the interior streets for pedestrian circulation.
This sidewalk connects to the trail along Meander at the entrance driveway, and would also
connect with the park at the southwest corner of the property. From here, the pedestrians could
walk to cross at Meander/Tamarack in order to walk to the future commercial development
planned to the south.
During Stage I review, Commissioners expressed an interest in a pedestrian connection between
this neighborhood and Foxberry Farms. Ultimately, there will be the opportunity to provide this
connection on the west end of Foxberry, which could easily connect to the park. To make an
Pemtom Land Company
Page 5 of 8 July 12, 2011
Preliminary Plat and Stage II Plan Planning Commission Meeting
additional connection is difficult because of the existing berm and also because the Foxberry
Farms Homeowners Association own a 100 foot wide strip of property between the berm and
Shorewood Drive.
Rezoning
The applicant proposes to rezone the property within the single-family neighborhood to the
Mixed Use (MU) zoning district. This is consistent with the requirements of the Stage I Plan and
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning code states that zoning
"amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect
changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in
conditions in the City."
Right -of -Way Width Variance
The City approved the same variance in the Enclave project, and approved a 50 -foot right-of-
way in Bridgewater and Hamel Station.
The subdivision ordinance describes the criteria which the applicant must demonstrate are met in
order for the City to grant a variance:
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the
specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result if the
strict letter of this ordinance were carried out.
(b) The conditions upon which the application for the variance is based are unique to the
parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not common to other properties
within the City.
(c) The hardship is related to the requirements of these regulations and has not been created
by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land.
(d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
The applicant has provided a narrative justifying their variance request, which is attached.
Essentially, the applicant request the 50 -foot right-of-way in order to support the urban feel of
the design and also to reduce hardcover. While staff is not opposed to a 50 -foot right-of-way in
this case, staff does not believe the physical characteristics are unique to this property nor create
a hardship.
Staff's impression is that the recent approvals of narrower right-of-ways have been more of a
change in policy than related to hardships in each particular case. If this is the case, staff
believes the wiser course of action would be to build flexibility into the subdivision ordinance
rather than granting variances. Staff has prepared such an amendment for Commission review
later in the meeting if the Commission concurs.
Review Criteria/City Discretion
The subdivision regulations state that the Planning Commission and City Council shall deny
approval of a plat based on one or a combination of the following findings:
Pemtom Land Company Page 6 of 8 July 12, 2011
Preliminary Plat and Stage II Plan Planning Commission Meeting
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such
that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not
meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
If the City does not make these findings, and the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, City ordinances, and other City policies, the preliminary plat should be approved. On the
other hand, the City has a good deal of discretion with regards to the variance, which should only
be approved if the City determines the criteria referenced in the section above are met.
Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on July 6 at the Hamel Community Building.
Staff attended to observe. Five people attended the meeting, and were generally inquisitive
about the project.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Stage II Plan with the
conditions noted below. With regards to the right-of-way width variance, staff seeks direction
from the Planning Commission. The Commission should either provide findings of a hardship in
order to grant the variance, direct staff to amend the subdivision ordinance in a way which may
allow a 50 -foot right-of-way, or add a condition that requires the applicant to update the plat to
dedicate a 60 -foot right-of-way.
Staff's recommended conditions:
(1) Approval of the preliminary plat shall be contingent upon the property being rezoned to the
Mixed Use (MU) zoning district.
(2) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include
the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
(3) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans received by the City on
June 28, 2011. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to commencing construction.
(4) The Applicant shall provide a letter of credit prior to any site construction in an amount
recommended by the City Engineer to ensure completion of the improvements identified in
the approved plans.
(5) Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide detailed construction plans for
review by the City Engineer.
(6) The Applicant shall dedicate land to the City for park purposes in an amount determined by
the City Council following recommendation by the Park Commission. The area of the
Pemtom Land Company
Page 7 of 8 July 12, 2011
Preliminary Plat and Stage II Plan Planning Commission Meeting
stormwater pond within the park shall only be equivalent to the amount of runoff
contributed by hardcover within the park.
(7) No lawn or landscape irrigation systems shall be permitted to be connect to the City water
system. The Applicant shall provide details of alternative measures prior to final plat
approval. If the Applicant proposes to drill a well in order to provide water for lawn
irrigation, annual pumping records shall be provided to the City.
(8) The landscaping island proposed in the entrance drive shall be removed or an alternative
design approved by the Public Works Superintendent.
(9) The Applicant shall provide a design for the discharge of water from footing
draintiles/sump pumps which prevents water from impacting neighboring properties and
which is acceptable to the Public Works Superintendent.
(10) All driveways shall be allowed to be setback a minimum of five feet from one of the side
property lines, provided the driveway is setback a minimum of 10 feet from the other side
property line and is consistent with width regulations.
(11) All comments of the City Engineer shall be addressed.
(12) All comments of the City Attorney shall be addressed, and the Applicant shall abide by the
City Attorney's recommendations related to title issues and recording procedures.
(13) The Applicant shall provide Homeowner's Association documents for City review. This
document shall describe responsibilities for maintenance of stormwater improvements,
buffer yards, and lawn irrigation systems. The documents shall also include covenants
limiting the use of the property to single-family residential units.
(14) The biofiltration swale shall be designed in a way to be clearly delineated from the adjacent
private yards and shall be maintained by the HOA.
(15) The Applicant shall obtain Wetland Replacement Plan approval prior to final plat approval.
(16) The Applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Elm Creek
Watershed, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota
Department of Health, the Metropolitan Council, and other relevant agencies.
(17) The application for final plat shall be submitted to the City within 180 days of preliminary
approval or the preliminary plat shall be considered void, unless a written request for time
extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
(18) 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, Stage II Plan, construction plans, and other
relevant documents.
Attachments:
1. Approved Stage I Plan
2. Summary of conditions of Stage I approval and progress update
3. Comments from City Engineer dated 7/6/2011
4. Comments from City Fire Marshal/Building Official dated 6/15/2011
5. Comments from Elm Creek Watershed dated 6/27/2011
6. Comments from Hennepin County transportation dated 6/15/2011
7. Applicant narrative re: variance request
8. Applicant narrative re: staff recommendations
9. Potential house elevations and floor plans
10. Plans and Preliminary Plat received by the City on 6/28/2011
Pemtom Land Company
Page 8 of 8 July 12, 2011
Preliminary Plat and Stage I[ Plan Planning Commission Meeting
SITE DATA
JUBER TTDLLING G REENS LLC PRO PERTY
C URR ENT ZO NING: BUSINESS PAR K
GU IDED F02N UffD U SEAUSNE.
A LBER T PROPER TY
GR OSS AR EA 935 .
WETLAN DS : 14.0 AC
WERI ND SUFFER S 28 AC
NET A REA: 58. 0.
DIITLOT C-RIXLNG GREENS LLC PROPERTY
ON O .4 AFE,. 93.
WETLA ND S: MAC
NT WE TLA ND SUFFERS : 0.8 AO
P.A., 3.3 AC
OF.. AREA: 105
WETLA ND S: 7.7
30 .11.0 BUFFERS: V AC
N ET AREA DI.
REOVIRED DENS.
3.512.109 - 8 .99 WAC M. FOR 50%OF NET AR EA
T OT AL N ET ARE A 5.0 .3.3• 21.5 912 • 29.7 AC
MN . REG .: 29.7 IL 3.5= 104 UNIT S
MAX ALLOWED 29 .1 X UN 2O MRS
PROPOSED DE NS. '
PHA SE I - SI NGLE FA NNY LOTS.. UNITS
2.2.911 Y • 3.1 WAC
PHASEN MF T OW NNO NEB•110 UN.
TOTAL RESIDENTI AL UN. .1116 UNITS
FUTURE CO MMERCIAL
CYFI CE
R ANK
CONV ENIENCE STORE
FULL SERVIC E FAMIL Y
COFFEE CE MIRESTAURA NTS R)
PARK DEDICA 1104 REQUIRE MENT
JUBTNT P ROPE RTY . OUR OT C-R OUJN O GREE NS LLC
PROPERTY
ALBERT NET ARE A C UR OTC ET A RE •T
NI.
T OTAL • 80.7 AC O 10 %•8 .1 AC RED. PARK DEDIC ATION
TYPICAL SF LOTS
89 00 SF . I NN .
36 COLL ECT OR
W ARIER.
26 MIN.
26 HOUSE
30 GARAGE
00 M N., W rcw NFPG
X
GRAPHIC SCAL E
W FT MIN.
L IB FEET
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING
950 VNN,VW R ..A NM IN
Mon I NMEA Wm.. SON
Phone: 94419@5
Fv: WM e02O
www.NFwyNv
R evi ew Pl ans
April 27, 2011
PROJECT
Jubert & Rolling
Green LLC
Property
LOCATION
Medina, MN
SH EET
OVERALL SITE
PLANSTAGEI
N DA TE REVISION
04/27/11 RENE W
DR AWN RV CM0 00fl BY
PRF DN
DATE PROJECT B
04 .27 .2011 2011-001.1
SHEET NUM BER
C1.01
ATTACHMENT 2 - Summary of Stage 1 Conditions
Summary of Stage I Plan Conditions of Approval
1. This Stage I Plan approval does not confer any development rights.
Update: Informational, no action necessary.
2. All properties in the subject site must be rezoned to Mixed Use. Any rezoning request will
be reviewed and analyzed by the City Council at the time of request.
Update: The applicant has requested a rezoning along with the Stage II and Preliminary
Plat.
3. A traffic study shall be completed prior to the Mixed Use Stage II Plan review of any
portion of the property at the scope recommended by the City Engineer which shall include
assumptions for the entire property included in the Stage I Plan. This study shall include
review of the traffic signal, traffic impacts on County Road 116, and the timing of
construction for Tamarack Drive.
Update: The applicant provided a traffic study, which has been reviewed and deemed
appropriate by the City Engineer.
4. Roads, traffic devices, and other improvements deemed necessary by the City to serve this
development shall be installed by the developer at the phase deemed necessary by the City.
Update: The applicant proposes to construct Meander Road from its current point of
termination across the entire length of the subdivision and City park, proposes
sewer/water stubs for the property to the south and west, and also proposes to link the
water system with the mains in Foxberry Farms.
5. Any future development shall obtain Stage II and Stage III approval prior to any
construction and these plans shall be consistent with the general layout, land uses, and
densities depicted on the approved Stage I plan, except as modified in this resolution. This
documentation shall be recorded against the property in the subject site.
Update: The applicant has requested Stage II approval.
6. All building, setback, lot, and development standards found in the Mixed Use District shall
be strictly followed and shall be reviewed in detail upon review of any Stage II Plan for any
portion of the property.
Update: This condition will be reviewed during this process.
7. The layout and traffic circulation pattern of the townhome development shall be reviewed
upon request for a Stage II Plan.
Update: Not relevant for single-family portion of site.
8. Guest parking shall be provided in the townhome area.
Update: Not relevant for single-family portion of site.
9. Pedestrian pathways and trails shall be provided connecting the residential areas to the
commercial area, park, and Meander Road trail.
Update: This condition will be reviewed during this process with regards to the single-
family portion of the site.
10. Landscaping areas in parking lots should be designed to receive storm water run-off.
Update: Not relevant for single-family portion of site.
11. Parking lot stalls shall be 9' by 20' in dimension and drive widths a minimum of 22' wide.
Update: Not relevant for single-family portion of site.
12. Tree preservation plans shall be submitted with each phase.
Update: This condition will be reviewed during this process.
13. Parkland, trails, and pedestrian corridors shall be provided as recommended by the Parks
Commission.
Update: This condition will be reviewed during this process.
14. All utilities shall be placed underground.
Update: Utilities are proposed underground
15. Development shall be subject to regulations related to lawn and landscape irrigations
systems which shall not be allowed to be connected to the public water supply.
Update: The applicant proposes to irrigate from the stormwater ponds, supplemented
with a private well, similar to Bridgewater.
16. Landscaping plans and berm details shall be provided meeting all ordinance standards with
any Phase II Plan.
Update: This condition will be reviewed during this process.
17. All comments by the City Engineer's Office in the letter dated March 16, 2011 shall be
satisfied.
Update: The City Engineer has provided updated comments on the Stage II Plan
18. All comments by the Elm Creek WMC shall be satisfied.
Update: The applicant has submitted for Elm Creek Watershed approval, and staff
recommends a condition that this be obtained.
19. All comments by the City Attorney related to title issues and recording procedures shall be
addressed. This includes recording the approved Phase I Plan and comments against the
property as specified in Section 842.1.04 Subd. 4 (b).
Update: Staff recommends that this condition be carried forward
20. All fees incurred by the City regarding the processing and review of this application shall
be paid by the Applicant.
Update: Invoices are up-to-date, and staff will recommend a similar condition on Stage
II approval.
ATTACHMENT 3 - City Engineer Comments (7 pages)
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
July 6, 2011
Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: L-11-075 Fields of Medina
Bonestroo File No.: 000190-11000-1
Dear Dusty,
Bonestroo
We have reviewed the Plans for the proposed Fields of Medina Development located along a new
section of Meander Road east County Road 116. The plans are dated June 28, 2011. We have
the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
Grading Plan
1. Storm water filtration trenches appear to be proposed in two project locations. The
locations are in the back yards of Lots 6 to 20, Block 1 and along the common back lot
lines of lots 1-11 and 17-26, Block 2. These areas will require amended soils to provide
filtration, native plantings, and wood mulch. These areas would not be traditionally
maintained lawn areas and easements would be required. Other restrictions such as the
placement of sheds or other structures should be planned. Access to and the type of
ground cover allowed in the 15-20 feet north of the filtration trench in Block 1 should be
considered. Filtration trench construction timing and maintenance responsibility should
be addressed in a development agreement. Future plan submittals should show the
exact location of these filtration trenches.
2. Consideration should be given to the installation of storm sewer within the drainage
swale along the west development property line. (lots 1, 22-26) The addition of storm
sewer and catch basins at select lot lines would provide for "drier" backyards.
3. Two feet of separation must be provided between emergency overflows and lowest
home openings. Home elevations should be revised for Lots 1,2,6, and 7 on Block 3.
4. It is our understanding that the side lot grades shown represents the interim grading
condition prior to home construction. These steep grades will be modified to a maximum
of 3:1 grades with the individual lot grading. Front and back yard grades will remain
unchanged.
5. It appears that on -site wetland impacts will be replaced with the purchase of wetland
bank credits. Information regarding the bank purchase should be provided prior to
preliminary plat approval or grading permits.
Utilities
6. The sanitary sewer provides a deep sewer main stub to the south at the Fields of Medina
entrance road for the future mixed use development. The sanitary sewer does not
provide for future gravity service area west of the park. This is consistent with the
Medina Comprehensive sewer plan and development west of the park and future
Tamarack Drive would be served from Arrowhead Drive.
7. We recommend keeping sanitary sewer manholes in the boulevards but moving the
manholes off the lot lines. The sanitary sewer alignments should be adjusted to reduce
the overall number of manholes.
8. The proposed water main plans are generally consistent with the city's water plan. An
additional 8 -inch water main looping connection to Foxberry would be recommended at
the west end of the single family home area to the end of Fox Tail Drive. Water main
stubs are provided for future development south of Meander Road.
9. A preliminary design for the irrigation should be included in the plans.
10. The materials note number 3 on sheet C501 should note that PVC water main pipe is DR
14.
11. The HDPE storm sewer shown on sheet C503 should be changed to concrete pipe.
12. Medina's standard skimming outlet control structure should be used in the ponds.
13. The inlet and outlet locations in ponds 1 and 3 should be modified to minimize short-
circuiting.
14. A catch basin should be added at the northwest corner of the development entrance
road.
15. The project will discharge stormwater to the county ditch systems that require
coordination and possibly permits from Hennepin County.
16. Since no new stormwater calculations were submitted, please see the attached memo
dated 6-15-11 from Jennifer Edison for additional comments.
17. The city requires that all home footing drains be connected to a gravity drainage system.
This system must be located within easements or right of way.
Streets and Trail
18. We support minimizing additional wetland impacts by moving the trail to the back of curb
from Meander Road stations 4+00 to 11+00.
19. The Meander Road (near station 11+00) trail should transition from the no boulevard
section to a 5 foot boulevard section as quickly as possible to minimize the length of a
narrow green space.
20. Although not ideal, we support the construction of a trail on the south side of the existing
Meander Road from stations 0+50 to 4+00 with a trail crossing west of the business park
entrance. We would anticipate a future trail along the north side of Meander Road to
County Road 116 when additional right of way becomes available. There would be the
longer term possibility of a trail along the south side of Meander Road.
21. We recommend further analysis and calculations be performed to determine the ultimate
road section needed for Meander Road. The pavement section design should assume
that Meander Road, Tamarack Drive, and the surrounding area is fully developed and
connected. We recommend the removal of soils identified as topsoil from the road
embankment. These soils range from a depth of 0 to 6 feet in the 6-27-11 geotechnical
report. The replacement of the topsoil material with suitable, non -organic, onsite sandy
clay is acceptable. We recommend that the street section be a 10 -ton design. This will
ideally leave the city with a road that will not need a full reconstruction for the
foreseeable future.
22. The Jubert Trail entrance median should be shortened to not conflict with the trail
crossing and allow easier turning movements for larger vehicles and snow plows.
23. Future submittals should contain a street profile plan sheet.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894 or email at
darren.amundserObonestroo.com.
Sincerely,
BON ESTROO
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
Memorandum #Bonestroo
To: Darren Amundsen Project: Fields of Medina
Date: 06/15/11
From: Jennifer Edison Client: City of Medina
Re: Stormwater Review
File No:190-11000-1
This memo summarizes review of the stormwater calculations submitted for Fields of Medina.
The submittal was reviewed for compliance with the policies of the City of Medina Stormwater
Design Manual. This site will need to comply with the flood prevention, nutrient and sediment
loading, and volume control policies of the Design Manual.
The following materials were reviewed as a part of the submittal:
• Stormwater Narrative
• Site Plans
• HydroCAD Calculations for Existing and Proposed Conditions
• PONDNET Calculations for water quality
Volume Control
1. Volume control measures are required on projects to meet the water quality criteria of the
City of Medina's Stormwater Design Guide. When calculating the Volume calculation for
Filtration Practice (VCfil), the City of Medina requires infiltration of 1.1" as opposed to 1".
Using 1.1" would result in a volume of 1.44 ac -ft.
2. The Stormwater Design Guide requires that the applicant reduce the phosphorous load by
20% from existing conditions. If the applicant demonstrates that they meet the
infiltration/filtration criteria, the water quality component shall be considered satisfied.
Rate Control
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
1. Post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions discharge
rates for the 1 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year NRCS Type II, 24 -hour storm event. The
applicant shall modify the Hydrocad Model based on the comments below and the rates will
be reexamined.
2. When calculating the curve number for existing conditions, the "CN normal peak growth"
value was not calculated first. This would result in a curve number of 88 instead of 93.
Additionally, the curve number used for existing conditions in the Hydrocad Model is not
consistent with the curve number calculated.
3. Please include details, with elevations, of the storm sewer devices used in the Hydrocad
model.
4. An infiltration rate of 3 in/hr is used in the Hydrocad model. The Minnesota Stormwater
Manual recommends using a rate of 0.25 in/hr for filter media. This value takes into account
clogging associated with accumulated sediment. (See attached page 386 out of Chapter 12-6
Bioretention)
5. Please demonstrate how the infiltration volumes in the rain gardens and ponds were
obtained.
6. Please refer to the attached rain garden detail for design guidance.
7. For the Irrigation Volume Calculation, equation (8), the value (2.6 inches) is incorrect.
8. For irrigation to be included in the calculations, the applicant must demonstrate that a
particular volume of water does not leave the pond during the rain event, but is instead held
in the pond to be used for irrigation some time after the rainfall.
9. Information has been submitted justifying the location of the park pond or pond 2. It
currently shows the location of the pond based on the relative areas draining to the pond.
We recommend using the pond's critical design criteria (run off rates or water quality
volumes) to determine the portion of the pond within the park property.
10. The applicant will need to address the potential erosion issues within the filtration trench.
There is concern for potential erosion to occur along the swale during large rain events and
under frozen conditions.
Page 2 oft
Go to Table of Contents
CHAPTER 12-6. BIORETENTION 386
It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that soils meet the design criteria outlined later in
this section, and contain less than 5% clay by volume. Elevations must be carefully
worked out to ensure that the desired runoff flow enters the facility with no more than the
maximum design depth. The bioretention area should be sized based on the principles of
Darcy's Law.
Af = (Vwq) (df) / [(k) (hf + df) (tf)]
Where:
Af = surface area of device2
df = filter bed depth
k = coefficient of permeability of filter media (k = 0.5 ft/day is
appropriate to characterize the planting medium / filter media
soil. This value is conservative to account for clogging
associated with accumulated sediment (Claytor and Schueler,
1996)).
hf= average height of water above filter bed (ft) (Typically 1/2
hmax, where hmax is the maximum head on the filter media
and is typically <6 feet)
tf = design filter bed drain time (days)
It is REQUIRED that the design permeability rate through the planting soil bed be high enough
to fully drain the stormwater quality design storm runoff volume within 48 hrs. It is HIGHLY
RECOMMENDED that this permeability rate be determined by field testing.
When using bioretention to treat PSHs, particularly in sensitive watersheds, it is HIGHLY
RECOMMENDED that additional practices be incorporated as a treatment train for at least lim-
ited treatment during the winter when the bioretention area may be frozen.
Landscaping
It is REQUIRED that impervious area construction is completed and pervious areas estab-
lished with dense and healthy vegetation prior to introduction of stormwater into a bioretention
practice. Landscaping is critical to the performance and function of bioretention areas. Therefore,
a landscaping plan is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for bioretention areas. RECOMMENDED
planting guidelines for bioretention facilities are as follows:
• Vegetation should be selected based on a specified zone of hydric tolerance. Plants for
Stormwater Design by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is a good resource.
• Native plant species should be specified over non-native species. Hardy native species that
thrive in our ecosystem without chemical fertilizers and pesticides are the best choices.
• Many bioretention facilities feature wild flowers and grasses as well as shrubs and some
trees.
• Woody vegetation should not be specified at inflow locations.
• Trees should not be planted directly overtop of under -drains and may be best located along
the perimeter of the practice.
• Salt resistant vegetation should be used in locations with probable adjacent salt applica-
22
00
DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE SEEDED,
FERTILIZED AND COVERED WIIH
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT. 00.
MAX 1:3 SLOPE
LAWN EDGING - 5" BLACK POLYETHYLENE
LAWN EDGING, USE ONLY NON-METALLIC
STAKES TO SECURE EDGING. INSTALL PER
MANUFACTURERS DIRECTIONS.
DESIGN NOTES:
1. THE PLANTING MEDIA SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3
FEET IN DEPTH TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT
OF DRAINAGE MATERIAL AND SOIL AMENDMENTS
TO ENSURE THE RAIN GARDEN FUNCTIONS
PROPERLY. THE BOTTOM OF THE FEATURE SHOULD
BE RIPPED TO A DEPTH OF 15 INCHES.
2. THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA SHALL NOT
EXCEED 0.5 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
3. A DRAWDOWN TEST WILL BE REQUIRED TO
DETERMINE IF A DRAINTILE WILL BE NECESSARY.
THE DRAWDOWN TEST WILL INCLUDE EXCAVATING
A TEST HOLE THAT IS 1.5 FEET DEEP AND A
MINIMUM 2 FEET IN DIAMETER, FILLING IT WITH
WATER, AND TIMING THE DRAWDOWN TO VERIFY
THAT IT OCCURS WITHIN 48 HOURS OR LESS.
4. DRAINTILE WILL NEED TO OUTLET TO STORM
SEWER OR AN OVERLAND DRAINAGE SWALE.
SLOPES VARY BASED
ON SOIL TYPE
EDGING PLACEMENT VARIES AT EACH
FEATURE LOCATION. THIS MEANS THAT
TOPSOIL COVERAGE VERSUS MULCH
COVERAGE ALSO VARIES AT EACH
_. _. FEATURE LOCATION
PEA ROCK
70% CLEAN SAND, FREE OF DELETERIOUS
MATERIAL MN/DOT 3127.28 FA -1
30% ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST
MN/DOT 3890.8 GRADE 2
PLANTING MEDIA
THIS MEDIA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS
FOLLOWS BASED ON VOLUME:
MULCH
DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF MN/DOT
3882.2 TYPE 6
PROVIDE A 6" MULCH BUFFER ZONE FROM THE
LAWN EDGING INWARD. KEEP THIS AREA FREE
FROM PLANTINGS (INCLUDING PLANTS AT
MATURE SIZE).
GRADING GRADE
3' MINIMUM
R
PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW
MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF MN/DOT
3877.2C
TYPICAL RAIN GARDEN SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
VARIES
FINISH GRADE
MAX 1:35
6" PERFORATED DRAINTILE WITH SOCK
IF REQUIRED (SEE DESIGN NOTES)
VARIES
8
R,
1:10 SLOPE
yfOtQO�00000000000
APPROPRIATE STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL
BE PROVIDED AT THE CURB CUT. THIS MAY
INCLUDE SOD, TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT, ETC.
ROUND TRANSITION
BETWEEN SLOPES
DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE SEEDED,
FERTILIZED AND COVERED WITH
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT. 3.
TYPICAL RAIN GARDEN DETAIL
TYPICAL SECTION
WITH DRAINTILE
LAST REVISION:
MAY 2011
PLATE NO.
RG-02
ATTACHMENT 4 - City Fire Marshal Comments (1 page)
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres.
June 15, 2011
TO: Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Planning Assistant
FROM: Loren Kohnen
Fire Marshal
RE: Jubert Property
Stage 1
RE -ZONING $ PRELIMINARY PLAT
(763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
Mtrowst76@aol.com
I have reviewed the proposed plat. The proposed plat consists of 65
single family lots with lots being approximately 65' in width; the
following items were noted:
1) The 28' roadway will not allow parking on both sides. No
parking signs must be provided or street widened.
2) Fire hydrants are spaced to far apart. There is a hydrant shown
in the middle of Meander Road at the very West end. This must
be moved. All hydrants must be double steamers.
3) With the very small lots (65' wide), foundation drainage is a
concern. Water could very likely be pumped onto neighboring
properties or into the sanitary sewer. A separate line should
be provided in the street for each home to hook up to. This is
similar to the system in Medina Morningside.
4) The island shown at the entry to the subdivision should be
shortened. When it is this long, people tend to turn to soon
and are driving the wrong way.
5) The last and important issue is there is only one way in and out.
With 65 homes this has the potential of possible serious problems.
If for any reason Meander Road would be blocked, the people in the
65 lots could not leave in an emergency and emergency vehicles
could not enter or reach the people.
Meander should be extended West or to State Highway 55. The
larger circle drive, Jubert Trail, should have a 2nd exit in
the Southwest corner.
I would suggest a meeting with the developer and the project
engineer.
LK:jg
IMAM= .104.491MIIIIMMOMUIRO WIRM,MM0WWI.MWOMMWMUNAIDIWASMIMMI.00,0.1=01 0UMWSOOMONWMMIGIMICil l......WW.UMMIR
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
ATTACHMENT 5 - Elm Creek Watershed Comments (3 pages)
elm creek
Watershed Management Commission
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
3235 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
PH: 763.553.1144
FAX: 763.553.9326
Email: judie@jass.biz
Project Review
Fields of Medina
Medina, 2011-014
TECHNICAL OFFICE
Hennepin County DES
417 North 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55401-1397
PH: 612.596.1171
FAX: 612.348.8532
Email: ali.durgunoglu@co.hennepin.mn.us
Project Overview: The project is located on the north side of T.H. 55 and west of Pinto Drive. The
entire site is 78 acres. A branch of Elm Creek (a.k.a. County Ditch #26) which is discharging Lake
Medina runs through the northeast portion of the site. This phase of the project will develop only
the north 34 acres of the site, which is located north of the western extension of Meander Road. The
southern approximately 44 acres of the site will be developed in the future, and will be reviewed
separately. This phase of the project will disturb about 34 acres and create about 10.5 acres of new
impervious surfaces. As a result of this development, 65 new residential units will be developed
and Meander Road will be paved and extended about 2,700 feet towards west. Western 6.42 acres
of the proposed development site will remain as an undisturbed Outlot A (except for the
construction of a stormwater pond).
The city had built a crossing over Elm Creek at or around 2003, without a Commission
approval. That crossing and the resulting 130 cubic yards of fill will be mitigated by this project.
No other floodplain impacts are proposed.
Stormwater runoff will be treated by three proposed ponds within the site, before being released
into Elm Creek and the existing wetlands. One of the ponds will be within Outlot A, whereas the
remaining two ponds will be located within private properties.
There will be about 4,136 square feet of wetland impacts and these impacts will be mitigated
on site.
The plan will be reviewed for compliance with the Commission's stormwater management,
erosion & sediment control, and floodplain management standards.
Applicant: Margaret C. Buell, Treasures, The Pemtom Land Company. 7697 Anagram Dr., Eden
Prairie, MN 55344. Phone: 952-937-0716, Fax: 952-937-8635. Email: danherbst@pemtom.com.
Engineer/Agent: Dave Nash, EVS. 10250 Valley View Rd., Suite 123, Eden Prairie, MN 55344.
Phone: 952-646-0236, Fax: 952-646-0290. Email:dnash@evs-eng.com.
Exhibits:
1) ECWMC Request for Plan Review and Approval received June 7, 2011.
2) Project application fee of $3,900 received June 7, 2011.
3) Project narrative and Stormwater Management Plan, from the Engineer, dated June 06, 2011.
CHAMPLIN • CORCORAN • DAYTON • HASSAN • MAPLE GROVE • MEDINA • PLYMOUTH • ROGERS
Fields of Medina (2011-014)
June 30, 2011
Page 2
4) WCA Notice of Application and Decision for wetland boundary type determination.
5) WCA Permit Application to the City of Medina.
6) Plan set (dated June 6, 2011 and unsigned).
C100 Title Sheet
C101 Existing Conditions/Tree Preservation Plan
C201 Preliminary Site Plan & Phasing Plan
C301 Preliminary Plat
C401 Preliminary Grading Plan
C402 Preliminary Grading Plan
C501 Preliminary Utility Plan
C502 Preliminary Utility Profile
C503 Preliminary Storm Plan
C504 Preliminary Storm Profile
C505 Preliminary Storm Profile
L101 Preliminary Landscape Plan
L102 Preliminary Landscape details
Findings:
1) General
a) A complete set of plans was received on June 7, 2011. The initial 60 -day, MN Statute 15.99
deadline is August 6, 2011.
b) The proposed trail project will disturb about 34 acres and add about 10.5 acres of new
impervious area.
c) There are 100 -year floodplains established by Elm Creek Watershed and FEMA.
2) Wetlands
a) The City of Medina is the LGU in charge of administering the MN Wetland Conservation
Act. The project will impact 4,136 square feet of wetlands. Replacement will be done onsite
at 4:1 ratio. The Commission has not received a copy of the wetland replacement plan or the
City's decision for the replacement plan. A copy of the replacement plan and the decision
must be submitted.
3) Storm Water Management Plan
a) Staff commented on the preliminary stormwater management plan by a memo on June 20,
2011, and requested revisions.
4) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
a) The submitted plan set did not include an Erosion & Sediment Control Plan.
b) A complete erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and approval.
The plan must address the temporary erosion and sediment control during the construction
Fields of Medina (2011-014)
June 30, 2011
Page 3
phases, along with a complete final erosion and sediment control plan that details how the
site will be stabilized permanently.
c) A copy of the SWPPP must be submitted.
d) Plans must be signed by a professional engineer.
5) Floodplain Management.
a) The submitted plan indicates that the floodplain impacts done during the Meander Road
crossing over Elm Creek around 2003 will be mitigated at the proposed wetland mitigation
sites. The exact location and mitigation volumes of each site must be shown on the plan.
Recommendations:
1. No recommendations can be made at this time. Items #2, 3, 4 and 5, must be submitted
for review before any recommendations can be made.
Hennepin County Environmental Services
Advisor to the Commission
Ali Durgunoglu, P.E., Ph.D.
June 27, 2011
Date
ATTACHMENT 6 - Hennepin County Transportation Comments
Original Message
From: Robert.Byers@co.hennepin.mn.us[mailto:Robert.Byers@co.hennepin.mn.usj
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:50 PM
To: Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Cc: tod.sherman@dot.state.mn.us
Subject: Pemtom /Jubert & Rolling Green LLC Property
To: Debra Peterson -Dufresne, Planning Assistant
Deb:
We took a look at the preliminary plat and site plan during our Plat Review Committee yesterday
morning.
As you know, this development is not adjacent to a county roadway, so we have no official review
authority.
Although this development would utilize Meander Road which connects to County Road 116, we do not
believe the additional traffic will cause significant impacts to the county road operations. The
intersection of CR-116 / Meander Road already has a southbound right turn lane and a northbound
bypass lane which should continue to function adequately.
The ultimate development could lead to an expanded street entrance at TH-55. If the city hasn't
already, we would suggest forwarding this information to Mn/DOT who also has review authority and is
monitoring this corridor on behalf of the Trunk Highway 55 Coalition.
Thanks!
- Bob
(Embedded image moved to file: pic21528.jpg)Disclaimer: Information in this message or an attachment
may be government data and thereby subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may be subject to attorney -client or work product privilege, may be
confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise protected, and the unauthorized review, copying,
retransmission, or other use or disclosure of the information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and
then promptly delete this message from your computer system.
ATTACHMENT 7 - Applicant Variance Narrative
ENGINEERING I SURVEYING I ENVIRONMENTAL 1 PLANNING
Variance Request — Fields of Medina
I I I i JUN 2 2 2011
iP1:i�.-...�_.�...�.-. _�.....�._
On behalf of Pemtom Land Company and Mattamy Homes, please accept
this request for a variance related to the proposed development — Fields of
Medina. The variance request is related to the width of the proposed R -O -W
within the development. Per City Code 820.29, Subd.2 — the standard width
for local street R -O -W is 60 feet. The preliminary plat and site plan for the
Fields of Medina is proposed to be 50 feet wide. This is consistent with past
subdivisions in recent years including Bridgewater at Lake Medina and The
Enclave.
The purpose for the variance request is related to the front setback for the
homes and the type of neighborhood proposed on this site. The front setback
for the homes at the garage is 30 feet. Based on City code — with a 60 foot
R -O -W, the minimum distant between homes across the street from each
other is 120 feet. Because this development is proposed on smaller lots (65
feet wide), the desired feel for the neighborhood is more urban, and
reduction of separation between homes is desired. The reduced R -O -W to 50
feet would provide a more urban feel to the site. The second purpose for the
variance request is to reduce the length of driveways and thus reduce the
amount of hard scape for the site.
We appreciate the Planning Commission and City Council consideration of
this request and will provide any additional information requested.
Dave Nash, PE
EVS, Inc. 1 Director of Residential Development
Direct: (952) 646-0253 1 Cell: (612) 242-0530
dnash@evs-eng.com
sys 1 10250 Valley View Rd., Suite 123 1 Eden Prairie, MN 55344-35341 Phone: 952.646.0236 1 Fax: 952.646.02901 www.evs-eng.com
ATTACHMENT 8 - Applicant response to staff comments
ENGINEERING I SURVEYING I ENVIRONMENTAL 1 PLANNING
Fields of Medina
Staff Report comments for Planning Commission Meeting
We received the preliminary staff comments for our Stage II — Preliminary Plat approval for Fields of
Medina. This memo addresses three of the comments in detail:
1. "Public Works staff recommends removal of the landscape island at entrance" — Mat tamy
Homes has designed the center island to provide a grand entrance in the development. This
same center island design has been utilized in other developments throughout the City.
Mattamy Homes believes this entrance design is important to give the site a feeling of high
quality and help instill pride in the neighborhood. An added benefit to the center island design is
it provides a two way access into the site, a safety benefit in case one side of the access is
blocked by stalled car or accident. Essentially the island provides two access points for the site.
For these reasons, we request the center island be allowed to stay as planned.
2. "The City requires that all footing drains be connected to a gravity drainage system" — We
believe all lots will be connected to a gravity drainage system — via overland drainage through
the yards. The site has been designed to provide minimum 2% slope in all green areas to provide
appropriate drainage for all yards. In many cases the overland slope is greater than 2%. In a city
that prides itself on green development, we do not believe it makes sense to direct clean sump
pump water directly into the drainage system. The homes can instead use this flow to water
their lawns and keep the water within their lot — this is a common occurrence in Bridgewater at
Lake Medina — where I believe the City has not received any complaints due to sump pump
discharge. Discharging the sump pump runoff into the storm system will direct the water to the
drainage ponds, and ultimately into the adjacent wetlands — thus leaving the site. We
understand the City has had problems in the past with resident complaints related to sump
pump discharge. One factor to keep in mind for Fields of Medina — Mattamy Homes will be
building every house in the development — so they will have to address the drainage for all
homes — new and existing. Usually developments that have drainage problems occur when
several builders are in the development, and one lot is final graded with little or no concern for
the drainage for the adjacent lots. This will not be the case for Fields of Medina — simple based
on the fact the Mattamy Homes will be responsible for the drainage of every lot, and the
grading plan has been designed to provide positive drainage for every lot.
1
EVS 110250 Valley View Rd., Suite 123 1 Eden Prairie, MN 55344.3534 I Phone: 952.646.0236 I Fax: 952.646.02901 www.evs-eng.com
3. "Meander should be extended west or to State Highway 55" — This question was asked
immediately by Pemtom at the first two staff meetings with the City Administrator and City
Consultant planner. Pemtom notes from both meetings indicate we were told that the single
family project could stand alone and no additional accesses would be required by the City. The
cost to extend Meander Road to the west or south to STH 55 is prohibitive and makes the
project unfeasible to develop. Meander Road will be extended to the west as part of the
adjacent Cavanaugh property development, which will probable occur in the next couple of
years. With this understanding Pemtom and Mattamy Homes preceded with the Stage I
applications. Even the cost for a temporary gravel road down to STH 55 would be cost
prohibitive. Below are the typical sections for Meander Road entering our site. The sections
show a minimum drive area of 41 feet including the required bituminous trail on one side of the
road and a 3 foot boulevard on the other side in the area of the wetland crossing ( Stat 4+00 to
11+00). The width is increased to 49 feet for the majority of Meander Road. This width is
sufficient to pass an emergency vehicle even with an accident blocking a travel lane.
W1R CD,ICX141
41,1111101 Cl.,1/101
bl
TYPICAL MEANDER ROAD SECTION
C302
114/
r
(ADJACENT TO WETLANDS)
STATION 4+00 TO 11+00
cS
t
is
TYPICAL MEANDER ROAD SECTION
,3-;:s.'aWx117
7
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
Mattamy Homes and Pemtom Development would appreciate an opportunity to discuss these items at
the planning commission meeting and have them removed from the conditions of approval for the
Fields of Medina Stage II resolution.
2
"
T h e Y o r k s h i r e " 4 - 5 B e d r o o m " 2 . 5 - 3 . 5 . B a t h r o o m " 3 C a r G a r a g e
M A T T A M Y
F A M I L Y R O O M
1 6 ' 5 " x 1 2 ' 1 1 "
H A L F W A L L
C O i r E R r . D L E I , 1 N G 1
D P
- - L - P A T I O D O O R
L L L L L L w i L J L J
_ L _ L _ L _ L _ L _ L L L L _ L _ L o , ; _
L - L D I N E T T E L s A N L _ L i L
- ; ^ R 1 L L
- L L L L L _ L ' K I T C H E N L _ L I L R O O M L
L L L L L L 9 L 6 ` ��3 6 " L L I i _ L L L
��
L 1 N . I . C . 1
I I - _ _ J
��. . t _ . . I _ _ _ L L
L _ L _ L L .
_ L L L L _ 4
L I V I N G R O O M _ L _ L _ L . L _ _ L i a o
1 0 ' 9 " x 1 0 ' 3 ` _ L F O Y E R L _ $
_ L L L L L i i
L L
P A N T R Y
L . L "
, L L
L L F U p N L I N E R $ - L '
����L : r N 4 E ` I f&
L _ L _
P O R C H
2 , 1 9 5 S q . F t . - 3 , 0 8 4 S q . F t .
G A R A G E
2 9 ' 8 " x 2 1 ' 0 "
F i r s t F l o o r P l a n
C e - i x i g
M A S T E R B A T H
I L . . L . f . L
0 0
r
W . I . C .
B E D R O O M 4
1 0 ' 1 1 " x 1 2 ' 5 "
\
( O 1 3 ' 5 x L O 1 2 ' P T . F 5 ' T \
M A S T E R B E D R O O M
1 4 ' 4 � x 1 3 ' 1 "
F U R N I T U R E N I C I I E D R O P P E D
L I N E r i D
H A L L
F U R N I T U R E
N I C H E
T L L
L B A T H L
L L L
L A
S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n
B a s e m e n t P l a n
w / O p t . F i n i s h e d L a y o u t
( A p p r o x . A d d i t i o n a l 8 8 9 s q . f t . )
I L I
B E D R O O M 2
1 0 ' 9 " x 1 1 ' 2 "
B E D R O O M 3
1 0 ' 1 1 " x 1 1 ' 5 "
L E D G E L E D G E
I N D O W B E A T 1 1 . [ H I L
M a t t a n y H o m e s r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o c h a n g e e l e v a t i o n s , s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , m a t e r i a l s , c o l o r s a n d p r i c i n g w i t h o u t p r i o r n o t i c e . V a r , a t i o u s w i t h i n t h e f l o o r p l a n a n d e l e v a t i o n s d u e x i s t . S q u a r e f o . I t a g e a a r e a p p r o x i m a t e . a n d w i l l v a r y . T h e h , I l e s d e p i . " t e d a r e a r t i s t r e n d i t i o n s a n d t h e
_ a ' a c t u a l h o m e , I a n d a . a p i n g , l o t e , > e , f l o o r p l a n a n d m a t e r i a l s m a y v a r y . H m a y s h o w u p g r a d e d o p t i o n s . S e e N e w H o e n e C o u n s e l o r f o r d e t a i l s . M N B u i l d e r # 2 0 3 7 5 ' 1 8 6
Chydg
theBRIDGEWATER
2,46() Sq.Ft. - 3J34 Sc .Ft.
The Bridgewater • 4-5 Bedroom + Loft • 2.5-3.5 Bathroom • 3 Car Garage
C1i=.= II
L__
">„D I___ LDDD"- — -
L L_. L_ L_ L L_ L__ l__ L L_ L_ 1 _ Ci
- L LDINETTEL LLLL L L 1
- L- L -11'0"x14' 11 "- L- EL^"° LL
FAMILY ROOM
16'3"x14'11' L._.. L__. L__ L_ L.__ L__. 1_.. SN>«a>R L 1__. L __4_ tDE"`"
MAT,TAIYIY
_LLLLLLL LLLL_,_,L_LL
_LLLLLLL1o6x4E1N11" II
AIL -MUD -
L_ L_ L.___ L- L L. LLLLL_ L _ LROOM__
�L L_ L L_ L L h — LNL L
HALF WALL 4 L L L lj I I I _• SHELVES
_LLLLLL
L_LLLLZ
LLL
LLLLL
l L._1 1
__LLLL
_LLL
FOYER LE=I
L L-
PORCH low__
LIVING ROOM
11'5"x10'3"
ANIMi llE111111=1Mt
GARAGE
29'7"x21'4"
First Floor Plan
2,460 Sq.Ft. - 3,434 Sq.Ft.
�i
[ lL U
BATH
Chyaig
unEXCAYATE
BEDROOM 3
10'5"x12'9"
Ord
BEDROOM 2
10'3"x10'1"
HALL
LOFT
8'3"x12'10"
BEDROOM 4
10'8"x12'9"
_LL1,
LU w l
LAUND i
_L °
L_ _1
Second Floor Plan
OPT. RECREATIONAL ROOM
UNFINISHED BASEMENT
OPT BEDROOM
UNEAGVATED
C`') 0
LMASTER
L BATH
L L_ ; L L I_ \
1.1}_ r l__L_�t
MASTER BEDROOM
13'4"x15'5"
WINDOW LEDGE
lll
Basement Plan
w/Opt. Finished Layout
(Approx. Additional 975 sq. {t.)
tit? Mattamy Home. reserves the right to change elevation., specifications. materials, ardor, and pricing without prior notice. Variation. within the floor plan and elevation* do exist. Square footage. are approximate and will vary. The hoves depleted are artist rendition. and the
actual 6 land .aping, iot ai.n, floor plan and matn,;.11. n.ay vary. Home may show upgraded options. See New Home Conmel"r for detail.. MN Builder # 20375986
The Weston • 4-5 Bedroom • 2.5-3.5 Bathroom • 3 Car Garage
MAT,TAMY
mil —Sul_— LL—
_LL L-LLI
1 1 1 I I KITCHEN I I —LLLLLLLI?1'0'x14'11"LxI^
L.._ L DINETTE _ -..._ I. „u„° _ I..
I. 10'9 1312 1
LLLLLLLE.. i__LLL'+'_L
— LLLLLLLL_LLL . LL,;MUDI
— LLLLLLLL1r_ '.ROOM
L_ 1_L L I
FAMILY ROOM
19'5'x13'2"
LIVING ROOM
12'3'x14'2'
PORCH
.177r ! LLLL
----
t_, 1 1_l
—CELL
LL
LL
L_l
-CELL
FOYER L ,
L' LL�
GARAGE
29'6'x21'7'
L I' 0 °
BATH' t r r
L LAUNDRY
_LL _ LLL
I- L I
L
CLO
LLj
First Floor Plan
2,663 Sq.Ft. - 3,792 Sq.Ft.
BEDROOM 2
12'3'x11'11'
r
W.I.C.
NON
BEDROOM 3
12'3'x11'11'
LOFT
9'0"x10'1'
WAL/ WA
(BATH
LLL0
_Lf
MASTER
—
BATH
L L_°
LLL.-,
I I
HALL
C./6, -AM
\/
BEDROOM 4
12'4"x11'3'
MASTER BEDROOM
15'1'x14'11"
W.I.C.
Second Floor Plan
OPT. RECREATIONAL ROOM
UNFINISHED BASEMENT
OPT. mit
OPT. BEDROOM
UNEECAVATED
Basement
121rI<laltalny Home., reserve" the right t.. ci.amgr elevation•, spec ifiratinns, material's, colors and pricing with t prior nulire. Variations within the floor plan and elevson. do exist. :Square foutages are approximate and will vary. The h.....r. depieted are artist rendit.ons and 11.0
m:— actual honor, lan,lso,lpin., lot ai.r, floor plan and material., may vary. Home may ,how upgraded .pt' . See New Hon... Cmm.,elor for detail.. MN Builder # 20375986
'l'he Brighton • 4-5 Bedroom + Loft • 2.5-3.5 Bathroom • 3 Car Garage
MA1 TAMP
L'LLLLLL
S�LLLLLL
LI_ DINETTE _L
L LI0'10"x13'10" L
LLLLLLL
LLLLLL_LL
1_1 -I I__I _I_ 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 I. 1 1 1 11
L_LLL_LLL' LL L; l
LLLi ¶LL �A;`i E L -
I_ LA _' [MUD00M/LAUNDRY
L LL
L_L_ _LL
2 STORY
GREAT ROOM
17'6"x15'3'
SLOPED POOL.
�' x1 LLL`''q
L L L- C
L L_L-U
L1KIT xHEN.—�
1-
DEN/SUNROOM
13'8'x11'3"
1
1
L
GARAGE
18'2'x20'10"(26'7")
PORCH
-�
e.rr errs
rrroro-
DINING
10'11"x12'7'
U -
First Floor Plan
2,742 Sq.Ft. - 3,980 Sq.Ft.
---
THIRD CAR
GARAGE
11'6'x22'9"
Chyaig
OPE. BELOW
Second Floor Plan
Basement Plan
w/Opt. Finished Layout
(Approx. Additional 1,238 sq. {t.)
MASTER BEDROOM
14'10"x15'3'
!MASTER BATH
b;_(�_
W.I.C.
J
L L ,.
1• 1 1 1
BATH -
L_
HALL
BEDROOM 4
10'11'x11'10'
BEDROOM 2
12'5'00'10"
BEDROOM 3
13'8"x10'2"
0.9
Mattauw Homes revervra Ow right to elwuge elevations, spe.. ficalimrs, materials, culora and pricing without prior notice. \lariat- within the flair plan and elevations du exist. Square (outages are approximate and will vary. The homes depicted are arlist renditions and the
nt, .,.anal home, landscaping, lot aria flour plan and materials may v,.rv. }i.,me may show upgrade) options. See New Home Counselor for details. MN Builder # 20375186
2,802 Sq.Ft. - 3,791 Sq.Ft.
The Benton • 4-5 Bedroom + Loft • 2.5-3.5 Bathroom • 3 Car Garage
fir/!-. "-rrIND 11C _ l i T..,�o coor< ---
r.- LLLLLLL
l ' ' L I LI_ I I I L.
L KITCHEN I L L L L L L L STUDY
„� L116x1' 6' LLL I I I I -L 10'6"x10'6'
GREAT ROOM ��-_,_L'_ LL DINETTE L
16'2"x16'2" _� nw L L��2� �L�
.ePCNTOaee"., I LL LLLLLLL , FRENCH
t._L..I _LL ._ -. l _L_▪ .- L_l_L_L__Ll_LL_.L!
?4 L-._L_.L.i� 1 1_LLLLLL
1 ," o.ro L. L
L _ L L t.1_ L__r_ ../.4
al
MALL
DINING ROOM
12'0'x15'5'
_LLLL
1 ! 1 1 1 13
LFOYER L I
L HI L L_I
LL_LLI
L Lfi►
PORCH
DOOR
-LL ' LMQR
GARAGE
29'2"x21'7"(24'8")
First Floor Plan
2,802 Sq.Ft. - 3,791 Sq.Ft.
OPT R•IELDCOFFLALD
W.I.C.
Cz
L_L_L_L_.
MASTER BEDROOM 1 L L_ L L
16'0"x14'8" ' LMASTER
OPT
LINEA
Chydg
9'24x114T10''
BEDROOM 4
12'0`x12'6'
Second Floor Plan
w7
LBATH_
'l l LL_
_LL
10'6)(13'6115'0") ED OM3
r
i
RAISED CEILING �
A
.L._L
2 .
)L. L
OPT. BEDROOM 5
UNFINISHED STORAGE
UNEX
OPT. REC. ROOM
H7
TED
UNEX.
Basement Plan
w/Opt. Finished Layout
(Approx. Additional 989 sq. ft.)
1 BEDROOM 2
\lath nn- H ea reserve" the right to cl,nlee elevations, specifications. materials, .-Mora and pricing without prior notice. Variations withi❑ the floor plan and elevations do exist. Square footages are approximate and will vary. The homes depicted are artist rendition', anti lhr
�� avtoal h,nne, IanJacaprng. 1.,1 men, floor plan and materials. n , vary. Hone .n..y',hew upgraded options. See New Home Connaelor 6,r detail.. MN Builder # 20375386
STAGE 11 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PLANS
FOR
FIELDS OF MEDINA
Medina, MN
Presented By:
THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY
ARE A MAP
SHEET INDEX
SHEET
DESCRIPTION
C100
TITLE SHEET
C101
EXISTING CONDITIONS / TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
C201
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN & PHASING PLAN
C301
PRELIMINARY PLAT
C401
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C402
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C501
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C502
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PROFILE
C503
PRELIMINARY STORM PLAN
C504
PRELIM INARY STORM PRO FILE
C505
PRELIMINARY STORM PROFILE
L101
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
L102
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE DETAILS
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
ENVIR ON MENT AL
PLANNING
EVS, INC.
10250 Valley Vi ew R oad, S uit e 123
Eden P rairie, Minnes ot a 55366
Ph one: 952446-0236
Fax: 952-646-0290
www.e vs-eng .com
Prelim . Plans
June 06, 2011
P ROJE CT
Fields of
Medina
LOC ATION
Medina, MN
SHE ET
TITLE SHEET
# DATE REVISION
1 06/28/11 PER CTY COMM .
I H EREB Y CERTIFY T HAT THIS
PLAN, SPECI FI CA TION, OR
PROJECT CONTACT LIST REPORT WAS PREP ARED BY ME
OR UND ER MY DIREC T
DEVEL OPER BUILDER SUPERVISION AND THA T I AM A
THE PEMTO M L AND COMPAN Y MATTAMY HOMES - MINNEAPOLIS DIVISION DUL Y LICENSED PR OFESSIONAL
7697 ANAGRA M DRIVE 2100 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42 EN GINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BURNSVILLE , MN 55337 THE S TATE OF MINNES OTA.
TEL: (612) 308-4573 TEL: (952) 898-2100
F AX (952) 937-8635 CONT ACT: CLIFF NELSON
CONTACT: DAN HERBST E MAIL: CIif.Nelson@matlamyhomes.n om
EMAIL: d anh erbst@p emlom. com David Nash
L ANDSCAPING DATE 06/28/2011
CIVIL ENGINEER EVS. IN C. REGIS TR ATION NUMBER 21.836
EVS, INC. 10250 VALLEY VIEW ROAD
10250 VALLEY VIEW ROAD SUITE 123
SUITE 123 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 TEL: (952) 646-0236 DRAW N BY CHEC KE D BY
TEL: (952)646-0236 F AX: (952) 646-0290
FAX: (952)646-0290 CONTACT: KATHY O'CONNELL PRF DN
CONTACT: DAVE N ASH EMAIL: koc onnel@ evs-eng.c om
EMAIL: d na sh@ evs-eng.com
D ATE P ROJE CT it
LAND SURVEY OR
EVS, IN C. 06.28 .2011 2011-001.1
10250 VALLEY VIEW ROAD
SUITE 123
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
TEL: (952)646-0236 SHEET NUMBER
F AX: (952)646-0290
CONTACT: HENRY NELSON
EMAI L hnels on@ evs- eng.mm C 1 0 0
Eri
S 1/4 CORNER
SEC 2, TWP
118, RNG 23
697. 31
/ / N
/ ..
/ / /
FN . FLine Of The SW 1/4 Of Th e"; 1/4
Of Sec. 2, two. 118, Rge . 23/ N89'33'00"E 1354 .20 + 464.81
- 35' Bum Easement
OUTLOT A
AREA=6.42 AC
-- Fou nd
Mon ume nt
5138-11N4
GRAPH IC SCALE
100 0 50 100
200
SCALE IN FEET
TRAIL
S 23
• 141 251S
125 :s
8 s usss7
6 20
20' Uliily.:
Easement
MEANDER RO AD
SHOREWOOD
JUBERT TRAIL_
OUTLOT E
AREA = 45.6 AC
-5. Lin e Of The SW 1/4 Of The SE 1/4
Of Sec. 2, Twp. 118, Rge . 23
FD
\
F=
F- 1 1 X F< F= F! Fl Y F! I\/I
35' B ean E a, enl I
Per Doc.
.
Dau - -
' i emenl Per Plat
9 � O/fi Gree ns
/ / + 81 g Center
t -
l
�F
—20• D 0U
Eas eme nt
OUTLO
4.0 AI 'I
OUTLOT G � I 1
I. p. AREA=0.55 AC, \ ° •
.S-41578 - — --_
MEANDER ROAD N89 66-30"E----- 647 29
—65335
I
1
1
5'
5'
5
10'
5'
10'
ou nd Iro n Pipe
S 17255
, ,_ 15' Sanllory Sewer
E asement Per Plat 01
Boling Greene Business Ce nter
NOTE, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT 1.0' ABO VE HWL
OVER ALL STORM PONDS
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
'
F -I I X 04 1 -F ; F; •
Y'
F 56 IFe . 011
I
:8
Fo und I ron Pipe
RLS 41578
_L = J
MEANDER ROAD
F ound Iron Pipe
RLS 41578
DESCRIPTION - PARCEL A
V _
Cy
DESCRIPTION - PARCEL B
SINGLE FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
ENGINEERIN G
SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING
GROSS SITE _
LESS MEANDER R .O .W.
LESS WETLANDS =
LESS PARK LAND DEDICATI ON =
LESS O UTL OT E =
LESS 30' WETLAND BUFFER =
NET SITE AREA =
DENSITY =-
LOT SUMMARY
77.8 AC
2 .0 AC
3.2 AC
6.4 AC
45.6 AC
0.8 AC
198 AC
3.3 U/ AC
MINI MUM LOT SIZE 8000 SF
MINI MUM LOT WIDTH 65 FT T YP. , 90 FT COR NER L OTS
MINIMUM L OT DEPTH 125 FT
MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 50% OF TOT AL LOT AREA
MINI MUM FR OM COLLECTOR ROADWAY 35 FT
NUMBER OF L OTS 65 UNITS
DENSITY 3.0 UNITS/AC
SETBACKS
MEANDER RO AD
FRONT YARD
SIDE YARD
REAR YARD
MINIMUM WETL AND SETBACK
MINI MUM WETLAND BUFFER
ZONING
35 FT
25 FT
15 FT TOTAL ( ONE SIDE 10 FT)
25 FT
15 FT
30 FT
EXISTING ZONING RURAL RESI DE NTIAL -URBA N RESER VE -MIXED USE
PROPOSED ZONING MIXE D USE
P ARK DEDICATION CAL CULATION
GR OSS SITE = 77 .8 AC
LESS WETLANDS = 14 .4 AC
NET SITE AREA = 63.4 AC
10 % PARK DEDICATION REQUIRE MENT 63.4/10= 6.34 AC
EVS, INC .
10250 Vall ey View R oad, S uite 123
Ed en Prairie, Minnes ota 55344
Phon e: 952-646-0236
Fax: : -046-0290
- eng .c om
Prelim. Plans
June 06, 2011
PROJE CT
Fields of
Medina
LO CA TI ON
Medina, MN
SH EE T
PRELIMIN ARY
PLAT
# DATE REVISION
1 06/28/11 PER CTY CO MM.
1 HEREB Y CERTIFY THAT TI -1i5
PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR
R EPOR T W AS PREP ARE D BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUP ERVISION AND TH AT 1 AM A
DUL Y LICENSE D P ROF ESSIONAL
ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINN ESOTA.
David Nash
DATE 06 / 26/ 2011
REGISTRA TION N UMBER 21635
DR AWN BY CH ECK ED BY
PRF DN
DATE PR OJEC T #
06.28.2011 2011-001 .1
SHEET NUMBE R
C301
EASEMENT -TYPICAL
WETLAND MITIGATION
IM PACT
(PER BO NESTROO)
R EQUIRED MITIGATION 16,544 SF (41 RATIO)
MITIGATION PRO VIDED 16.544 SF
(FROM BANKING)
5
C302
6
C302
FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION
4,136 SF - NON -PERMITT ED FILL FILL
(PER ELM CREEK M EMO DA TED 4/2212003)
PROV IDE VOLUM E
(WETLAND M ITIGATION AREA
ELEV: 980.0 - 980. 4)
NOTE: PLACE TACK COAT (MNDOT
2357) BETWEEN LIFTS
7. 5" TYPE WEARING COURSE MIXTURE
(SPWEB230C)
2.0" TYPE NON -WEARING COURSE
MIXTURE (SPNW823GC)
12" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
BIT. PAVEMENT - RESID. PAVING
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: PLACE TACK COAT (MNDOT
2357) BETWEEN LIFTS
2.0" TYPE WEARING COURSE MIXTURE
(SPWEB230C)
2. 0" TYPE NON -WEARING COURSE
MIXTURE (SPNWB230C)
12" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
130 CY
134 CY
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT - MEANDER
SEE p�AN„ ,
17' (MIN.)
(VARIES)
2%)MIN.)
or
0
NOT TO SCALE
30 25
;
O•
9
-/'
�0/ �.i7,
1 / II I/I '
WEEETILAN(Ed,/ �'
/ 'IAi� ..1 / - -
�=f
/ /
(1(7/ i r ` •
d� / > /
BASEMENT FLOOR
/.
25' FRONT ROW
f
DELINEATED
- WETLAND
0
14'
rn
GARAGE FLOOR
FINISHED GRADE AFTER
FINISHED GRADE FOR
y�i,fr SUITABLE BEARINGSOIL
WALK-OUT (WO)
17' (MIN.)
(VARIES)
25( 19.)
SEE p1J,N.: a r
17' (MIN.)
(VARIES)
3
2
f. LOOK -OUT OPENING
0. 5' TO TOPSOIL
BASEMENT FLOOR
GARAGE FLOOR
HOUSE
PAD
ENGINEERED FILL
IF REQUIRED (TYP.)
25' FRONT
SUITABLE BEARING SOIL (TYP.)
ROW
JUBERT TRAIL
NOT TO SCALE
r
FE JUBERT TRAIL
FINISHED GRADE AFTER
FINISHED GRADE FOR
SUITABLE BEARING SOIL (TYP.)
SINGLE-FAMILY LOOK -OUT (LO)
5
IN
30'
25' 3'
HOUSE
PAD
ENGINEERED FILL
IF REQUIRED (TYP.) 'v
SUITABLE BEARING SOIL (TYP. )
25' FRONT ROW 10'
NOT TO SCALE
14'
R/W
RIP —RAP OVERFLOW
ELEV=9822 -.8-•.
Te115- BERM=982.5
980-�
NWL=9�Q
HWL=982.
.gJ4 URP V OL=0. AC/FT
' 9E�TORAGE=0. 3 AC/FT
—994= f�
1
/
PROPOSED
10' W T. TRAIL
4<,
GRAVEL
SHLDR
2.0%
0 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
TYPICAL MEANDER ROAD SECTION
0+00
R/W
(ADJACENT TO WETLANDS)
STATION 4+00 TO 11 +00
30
30
NOT TO SCALE
R/W
M
2
5'
BOULEVARD
2.0%
14'
8618 CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER
2_ .__0%
2.0%
5'
10'
BOULEVARD
2 .0%
87T. TRAIL
2_0%
TYPICAL MEANDER ROAD SECTION
C302
CE JUBERT TRAIL R/ W
GARAGE FLOOR
BASEMENT FLOOR
FINISHED GRADE AFTER HOUSE
FINISHED GRA DE FOR PAD
STABLE BEARING SOIL (TYP.) SINGLE-FAMILY RAM BLER (R)
ENGINEERED FILL
IF REQUIRED (TYR.
X -
SUITABLE BEARING SOIL (TYP .)
NOT TO SCALE
25'
25'
NOT TO SCALE
R/W
6'
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
2 .0%
2.0%
14'
14'
r I
MOUNT ABLE CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER
2 .07 .
2 .0%
2.00
I
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING
EVS, IN C.
10250 Valley View Road, Suite 123
Eden Prairie, Min nesota 55344
Ph one: 952-649-0236
Fex: evs-046-0290
w . eng .c om
Prelim. Plans
June 06, 2011
PROJECT
Fields of
Medina
LOC ATI ON
Medina, MN
SHEE T
GRADING PLAN
# DA TE REVISION
1 06/28/11 PER CTY COMM .
1 HER EB Y CE RTIFY TH AT THIS
PLAN, SPECIFICATIO N, OR
REPOR T WAS P REPAR ED BY ME
OR UNDER MY DIREC T
SU PER VISI ON AN D TH AT I AM A
DUL Y LICENSE D PROF ESSI ONAL
ENGINE ER UNDER THE LAWS OF
T HE ST ATE OF NIINNESO TA.
Da vid Nash
D ATE 0 6 1 261 201;1
REGISTR ATION N UMBER 21836
DRAWN BY CHEC KE D BY
PRF DN
D ATE P ROJ EC T #
06.28 .2011 2011-001.1
S HEET NUMBER
C402
r
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
7-
/
/
7/ /
/
/y
\\
\\ I
\
7-
/
/
TEM ORARY
Z TRAIL
998
r _3006-
/ .A
0 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
8FENCE9 e,,
GRA DING NO TES
normo witom
•
f
0,
\
wary. \`\ - ^.
SILT FENCE
I �'
11111111111Mtealillgilr -.
',----'''.-1.'1441T-
`4 m m / a / A e,/ , �- ,� I
/ / /
/ MILAN . ,, / /1 / / i 1,.3/4,
1 , , , 7 , ,,,,, .. ..,..
) /
. 4.,_, .
,,,, : ,
I / ; / // (/ //tip!:
I, 1w �,/ /., -..
1 I \ (i 1 I�J o
/ \ I I I 1 ICI { / -
< 1 I I oil �' / Q:
1 �. I II I 1 ,,ii. / .e.1 -
ENGINEERIN G
SURVEYING
ENVIR ON MENTAL
PLANNING
EVS, INC .
10250 Valley View R oad, S uite 123
Eden Prairi e, Minn es ota 55344
Phone: 952 446-0236
Fax:
www.
e vs-e ng .c om
DE Prelim. Plans
- June 06, 2011
1. PROPOSED CO NTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATI ON. SP OT
ELEV AT IONS ALON G PRO POSED CURB DENOTE FLOWLINE GRADE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AV OID
PROPERTY DAMA GE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION
PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CON TR ACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FO R ANY DAM AGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING
DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF T HIS PROJECT.
3. THE CO NTRACTOR SHA LL CO MPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER . ALL
SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COO RDINATING ALL R EQUIRED SOIL
TESTS AN D INSPECTIO NS WITH TH E SO ILS ENGINEER.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPON SIBLE FOR PRO VIDING AND MAINTA INING
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARR ICA DES, WAR NING SIGN S,
DIRECTIO NA L SIGN S, FLAGM EN AND LIGHTS TO CONTRO L THE MOVEMENT OF
TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRA FFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO
APPROPRIATE MINNESO TA DEPA RTMENT OF TRANSPO RTATION STANDARDS.
5. THE TR EES A ND O THER NA TURAL VEGETATIO N WITHIN THE PRO JECT AND/OR
ADJACEN T TO THE PR OJECT AR E OF PRIM E CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTORS
OPERATIONS AND SHALL BE A RESTRICTED AR EA. HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO
PRO TECT THE TREES WHICH ARE TO BE SA VED TO 8E SURE THAT THE
EQUIPMENT IS NOT NE EDLESSLY OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES AND SHALL
EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTIO N IN WORKING ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY
PORTION OF THE TREE BRAN CHES REQ UIRE REMOVAL TO PERM IT OPERATIO N OF
THE CONTRACTORS EQUIPM ENT, HE SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A
P ROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMM ING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIO R TO THE
BEGIN NING OF OPER ATION. SHO ULD THE CONTRACTORS OPERA TIONS RESULT IN
THE BREAKING OF A NY LIM BS, THE BROK EN LIMBS SHOULD BE REMO VED
IM MEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PR OPERLY PROTECTED TO M INIMIZE ANY
LASTING DAMAGE TO THE TREE. NO TREES SHALL BE REMO VED WITHOUT
AU THO RIZATION BY TH E ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIM MING SERVICES SHALL BE
CO NSIDERED INCID ENTA L TO TH E CON STRUCTION AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT
WILL BE MADE.
REST RICTED AREAS SHALL INCLUDE ALL DESIGNATED TREED AREAS OUTSIDE OF
T HE DESIGNATED C ONSTRU CTI ON ZO NE . ALL VE GE TATI ON WITHIN THE
RESTRICTED AREAS SHALL REM AIN.
CONTRA CTOR SHALL RESTRICT ALL GR ADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
TO AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE PL ANS. ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION
MAY BE RESTRICTED TO A N ARR OWER WIDTH IN T HE FIEL D TO SA VE ADDITION AL
TREES AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER.
ACTI VITIES PROHIBITED O UTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTI ON B OUNDARIES WOULD
INCLUDE. BUT NOT 8E LI MITED TO: SOIL A ND O THER MATERI AL STOCKPILING,
EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY STOR AGE , DRIVING OF ANY VEHICLE, LEAKAGE OR
SPILLAGE OF A NY WAS HOUT' OR OTHER TOXIC MATERIAL. THE COLLECTION OF
OTHER DEBRIS AND SOIL ST OCKPILING WILL BE IN AN AREA DETERMINED ON -SITE
BY THE ENGINEER.
ALL REST RICTED AREAS SHALL BE FENCED OFF WITH BRIGHT ORANGE
POLYETHYLENE SAFETY NE TTING AND STEEL STAKES AS SHOWN ON THE TREE
PROTECTION DET AIL. AT NO TI ME SHALL THIS FENCIN G BE RE MOVED OR
ACTIVITY OF ANY KIND TAKE PL ACE WITHIN IT . FINAL PLACEMENT OF PROTECTIVE
FENCING SHALL BE COMPLETE BEFORE ANY W ORK COMMENCES ON -SITE.
BEFORE COMMENCI NG WITH ANY EXC AVATI ON THE CONTRACT OR SHALL
COMPLETE ALL PREPARATORY WORK REGARDING TREE REMOVAL, ROOT
PRUNING, TREE PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL TO THE S ATISFACTION OF THE
OWNER.
PREPARATORY WORK SH ALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AND SHALL BE
COM PLETED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE OWNERS
REPRESENTATIV E:
5. 1. TREE REMO VAL: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FELL THE T REES. AT NO TIME
SHALL TR EES BE BULLDOZED OUT . BUT SHALL BE CUT DOWN AND STU MPS
REMOVED SEPARATELY. PRIOR TO THE FELLI
NG OF ALL T REES, PROPER
REMOVAL OF A PORTION OR ALL OF THE CANOPY SHALL BE CO MPLETED SO
THAT TREES IN THE RESTRICTED AREAS SHALL N OT BE INJURED IN THE
PROCESS.
5 .2 . R OOT PRUNING: BEFORE ANY STUMPS A RE TO BE R EM OVED. ALL ROOTS
SH ALL BE SEVERED FROM ROOTS IN THE RESTRICTED AREAS BY SAW
CUTTING WITH A VERMEER DESIGNED FOR ROOT PRUNING, BY HA ND, OR
WITH A CHAINSAW. T REE ROOTS PROJECTING INTO THE CONSTRUCTION
ZONE SHALL BE EXPOSED PRIOR TO ROOT PRUNI NG WITH SMALL
MACHINE RY, I .E. BOBCAT.
5 .3. STUMP REMOVAL: AT SUCH TIME THAT ROOTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY
SEVE RED . STUMPS MAY BE RE MOVED. W HERE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN
STUMPS COULD CAUSE DAMAGE TO EXISTING PROTECTED TREES, TREE
STUMPS SHALL BE GROUND OUT. ALL STU MP REM OVAL SHALL BE U NDER
THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE .
5.4. TREE PRU NING: PRO PER PRUNING OF TREES IN T HE RESTRICTED ZONE
SHALL BE DIRECTED BY AND SUPERVISI ON AT ALL TIMES BY THE OWNERS
REPRESE NTA TIVE .
AN OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE
PREPARATORY AND CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
MULCH R ATHER THAN SEE D OR SOD WILL BE USED AT THE B ASE OF QUALIT Y
TREES TO A PERIMETER DETERMINED BY THE OWNERS RE PRESENT ATI VE.
AREAS TO BE SEEDED FOR EROSION CONTR OL PURP OSES WITHIN THE
CONS TRUCTI ON ZONE ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE OWNERS
REPRESENT ATIVE . NATU RAL GROUND COVER WILL BE MAINT AINED WHEREVER
POSSIBLE.
T HE USE OF RETAINING WALLS NEAR TREES, IN ADDITION TO THOSE REQUIRED
ON THE PLANS, SHALL BE DETER MINED IN T HE FIELD BASED ON TREE LOCATIONS
AND T OPO GRAPHY.
6. IF T HE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE , HE OR SHE
SHALL N OTIFY THE EN GINEER WITH THE LOC ATION, SIZE. INVERT AND IF THE TILE
LINE S ACTIVE . I A . NO ACTIVE TILE SHALL BE BAC KFILLED WITHOUT REVIEW.
E
DISCUSSI ON AND APPROVAL FRO M THE PR OJECT ENGINEER.
7. CON CRETE SUPPLIERS SERVING THE SITE ARE REQUIRED TO HAUL ALL
CONCRETE WASTE AND WASH OFF SITE .
8 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 AND GREATER.
PR OJECT
Fields of
Medina
LO CATI ON
Medina, MN
SHE ET
GR ADING PLAN
# DA TE RE VISION
1 06/28/11 PER CTY COMM.
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAN, SPECIFIC ATION, OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME
OR UN DER AI Y DIRE CT
S UPERVISI ON AND TH AT I AM A
DULY LICENSE D PROFESSIONAL
EN GIN EER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE S TATE OF MINNES OTA.
David Nash
DATE 06/28/2011
REGIS TRATION NUMBER 21836
DRAWN BY CHECKE D B1 '
PRF DN
DAT E PR OJ ECT
06 .28.2011 2011-001.1
SHEET N UMBE R
C401
1 (24)
R=1013. 91
10-1003.90 (8") E
. 1.915
1010
;1005
1990
995 •
990
:995::
999
75
1 (23)
R-1011. 55
1=1002. 20 (8) W
10-1002.122(8") E
R)
=1007. 90
1=998.30 (8" ) W
10-998.20 (8") E
LF 8"
1.56%
128
SAN
1 (21)
R=1005.40
I=997. 10 (8' ).. W .. ..
10=997,00 (8") E
1 (20)
R=1003. 54
1=994.10 (8") W
10-994.00 (8") E
.40
LF. 8. SAN 0 .g6%8•- 243 IF• 8' 5414
0:2.85% :' .. 124 LF 8"
1 (19)
R=1000.08
1-991. 30 (8) W
10=991.70 _ (8." ) S.E
•
•
0 L71%
•
SAN O 2.66%
113 LF 8'. SAN00.63%
1 (18)
R-998.72 1 (25)
1=987.90 (8 ) NW R=996. 09
10-987.80 (8') S 1-986.62 (8") N
10=986.52 (8') SW
1 (16)
R;r 996. 12..... .1010
1=986. 20. 18') NE .
10=988. 10 (8" ):1010
•
93 LF 8' -SAN 0 0.40%
81: LF 8'. SAN 0 0.400-
1 (17)
R=997.16
1=987:09 (8') 'N
10=986.99 (8") s
•
s
Q
8
100 IF 8" SAN O 0.400
•
1905;
8g
1000;
990
995
980
975
0+00
,1, 015
.1010
;1045
:1090.
000 18J �. 8 s \•
ST1
• 995 • .. 145. 1F.9" . SAN. 0 2.@7X
. 82 LF 8" SAN 0 0.49% _
990:
y$5
1+00
1 (12)
R=1014. 12
10=1004. 50 (8' ) S
2+00
3+00
1 (11)
R=1010.52
1=1000.50 (8" ) N
10=1000.40 (8') 5
4+00
5+00
1 (10)
R=1006.47
1=995. 50 (8") N
1=995. 50 (8') W
10=995. 40 (8') S
6+ 00
7+00
1 (9) 1 (8)
R=1005.44 .. .• • • ••R=1006. 14 . ... . .. ... .
.. . ' 1=995.00 (8") N . 1=994.43 (8") NW
10=994. 90(8) SE :10=994. 33 (8") NE
• 980•
975
•
254 LF 8" SANTO 0.40
-117 LF. 8" SAN 0. 0.400•
147 LF 8' SAN 0 0.40%
�78
6+00
9+00
10+00 11+ 00 12+ 00 13+00 13+45
1 (7)
R-1005.96
1=993.31 (8") SW 1 (6)
10=993.21 (8) E R1= =1002.86
B" ) W
10-992.52 (8" ) E
1 (5)
R=996.96,
1=985.70'(8 ) W
1=985.70 -(8") E
10=985. 60 (8) SE
1 (5)
R-996.96
1=985.70 (8 ) W
1-985.70 (8" ) E
10=985. 60 (8") SE
1 (4)
R=995. 84. •••• •..
=976.66. (8 ) NW..:
1=978.66 (8 )
10=978. 56 (8) E •
1. 015•
1010
•
1005
1 (3) : 1000
' - CONNECT T O'EX' H
R=984. 4
- X.1 975.13 (8') W 995
EX a_975. 0Y(8") E -
REMO Q. WEST .STUB ,
990
2.45X
120 LF; 8" SqN 0 7:47%
STM
- 985
' 358 1F 8" SAN:0 0.40%
980
975
0+00
,1005
000
995
1 (26) 990
R=980. 47.
10=976.78 (8" ) N
980
30 LF 8" SAN 0 0.40%
975
1+ 00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00
1005,
95
995
975
0+ 00
0+77
1 (4)
R=995. 84
1=976.66 (8) NW
1=976.66 (8" ) S
10=976.56 (8") E
1010
1005 •
1000
995
990
1 (10)
R=1006. 47
1=995.50 (8" ) N
1 (27) 1=995.50 (8" ) W
R=1000.02 10=995. 40 (8') 5
10=996.00 (8" E
1010
995
125 LF 8" SAN 0 0. 400
990
985 985
0+00
1+ 00 1+ 50
9+ 00 10 +00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15 +00 16+00 17+00 17+50
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PL ANNING
E VS, IN C.
10250 Valley View R oad, S uit e 123
Ede n Pr airie, Mi nn es ota 55344
Ph one: 952-646-0236
Fax: 952-646-0290
www. evs-eng .e om
Prelim . Plans
June 06, 2011
P ROJECT
Fields of
Medina
LOCATI ON
Medina, MN
SHEET
PRELIMINARY
UTILITY PROFILE
# DA TE R EVISI ON
1 06/28/11 PER CTY COMM.
I HEREB Y CERTIFY TH AT THIS
PLAN, SPE CIFICA TION, OR
REP ORT WAS PREPARED BY ME
OR UND ER MY DIR ECT
SUP ER VISI ON AN D THAT 1 AM A
D ULY LIC ENSED P ROFESSI ONAL
E NGI NEER UNDE R TH E LAWS OF
THE ST ATE OF MINNESO TA.
D avid Nash
DATE 06 1 28/ 2011
R EGISTRA TION NUSIBER 21836
DRAW N BY CH EC KED BY
PRF DN
D ATE PROJ ECT #
06.28.2011 2011-001.1
SH EET NUMBER
r
C502
b
7
UTILITY NOTES
r
x
1 (10)
12" PLUG)
x
x
G 1015.3
ROAD --
1006 .2
G 1012 .5
1004 .0
1003,5
16
1004.9
1002.3
15
14
1003.7
1001.1
1
1002 .4
G 1 26. I
L1005.0_ 1
1 (20)
G 1005 .6
_ _ r -TI 01006 .6 G1004.0 ,.5
G 1006.6
T -1 7 1 �t006.fi IC 1006.6 ■ Wp 1 I WO , LO , LO 1 cemarmG 1003.5
G 1010 8 1 1 G 10100 3 G 10007.1 WO I I WO LO
II 998.1 1 1 998.1 , 995.5 , 995.0
996.1 997.6 996.1 97.6 995.0
998.1 997.6 1, 997,6 I , ,
1002.3 I 1 1
1 1000.8 998.6 997.6
1001 8 1 1 1000.3 998.1 1 1 1 6 15 J L 4 13 I� ___l L'_
■ 19 11 8 JL� �
11 1 10 IL -J- ����22� JL ■ �26 /
J
1 (22)
_ 23 24 25
21 11 998.6 , 998 .5 I 1 1001 .} • 100.3
- 20 \ \ 09g0 11 996 .0 , 995.7 1 992.8 , 991.8 11'
LO , p0 1 R 1 R
\ 9B W II
\ 2 0 1004 .5 G 1004.2 G 1001.3 X�10. .
1003.0 e ri •�.a
�10
\r, 1•,.oeg � ��.� .. , ;. .::.,-.,,.. . 216LF 12' VA
1. THE CONTRA CTOR IS SPECIFICA LLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LO CATION AND/OR
ELEVA TION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS I5 BASED ON
RECORDS OF THE VARIO US UTILITY COM PANIES AN D. WHER E POSSIBLE,
MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN TH E FIELD. THE INFORM ATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED
ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTO R MUST CALL THE
APPROPR IATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATIO N
TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHA LL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CON TRACTO R TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES
WHICH CO NFLICT WITH THE PROPO SED IMPROV EM ENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
THE LOCAT IONS OF SMALL UTILITIE S SHA LL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTO R,
BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE C ALL AT (651) 454-0002.
2. SAFETY NOTICE TO CO NTRA CTORS: IN ACCO RDANCE WITH GENERALLY
ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTIC ES, THE CONTRACTOR SILL BE SOLELY AND
COM PLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JO B SITE, INCLUDING
SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFOR MANCE OF THE WO RK.
THIS REQUIR EMENT WILL A PPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIM ITED TO
NORM AL WO RKING HOUR S. THE DUTY OF THE ENG INEER OR THE DEVELO PER TO
CONDUCT CONSTR UCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMA NCE IS
NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUAC Y OF THE CONTRACTOR 'S
SAFETY MEASURES IN , ON OR NEAR THE CO NSTRUCTION SITE.
3 ALL AREAS OU TSIDE TH E P RO PERTY BOUNDARIES THAT ARE DISTURBED BY
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED IN KIND. SODDED AR EAS SHALL BE
RESTORED WITH 6 INCHES OF TOPSO IL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD.
ALL MA TERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICA TIO NS EXCEPT AS
MODIFIED HERIN.
1. ALL MA TERIALS SHALL COM PLY WITH THE REQUIREM ENTS OF THE CITY.
2. ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR-35, UNLESS NO TED OTHERWISE.
3. ALL WATERMAIN TO BE PVC SOR -26, WITH 7.5 FEET M INIMUM C OVER.
4. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WITH R-4
JOINTS AND RUBBER GASKETS, UNLESS NOTED O THERWISE.
5. RIP -RAP SHALL BE MNDOT CLASS 3.
6. ALL WATER MAIN SERVICES SHALL BE I INCH HOPE.
7. ALL SANITA RY SEWER SERVICES TO BE PVC SCHEDULE 40.
8. 4' PERFORATED DRAINTILE TO BE INSTALLED100' EACH SIDE OF ALL LO W
POINTS
9. IRRIG ATION SYSTEM TO BE CON NECTED TO STO RM PONDS. FINAL DESIG N
TO BE COM PLETED BY IR RIGATIO N CONTRACTOR.
T [ - 278LF 8" SAN
1003.8
17 +00
G 1001 .8
1 (26)
CONNECT TO EXISTING
8' WATERMAIN
100LF 8" SAN
1286 REDUCER
4916-8' MI
1 (18)
113LF 8" SA
IRRIGATION WELL
LEGEND
LL-
1 (3)
CONNECT TO EX MH
CONNECT TO EXISTING
12' WATERMAIN
r
0
0 60 120
SCALE (N -EET
DEN OTES WATERMAIN
DENOTES
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENT AL
PLANNING
EVS, INC .
10250 Vall ey View Road, Suite 123
Eden Prairi e, Minnes ota 55344
Ph one: 952-646-0236
79,: 952-644-0290 952 -eng.eo ni
Prelim. Plans
June 06, 2011
PROJ EC T
Fields of
Medina
L OCATI ON
Medina, MN
SH EE T
PRELIMINARY
UTILITY PLAN
8 DA TE REVISI ON
1 06/28/11 PER CTY COMM.
I HERE BY CERTIFY T HAT THIS
PLAN, SPECI FI CATION, OR
R EPORT W AS PREPARED BY ME
OR UN DER MY DIRECT
S UPER VISI ON A ND THA T I A.M A
D ULY LIC ENSED PR OF ESSIO NAL
ENGINEE R UNDER THE L AWS OF
THE S TATE OF MINNES OTA.
David Nash
DATE 06 /281 2011
R EGIS TRA TION NUMBER 21836
DRAWN BY CHEC KED BY
PRF DN
DAT E PR OJEC T tt
06.28.2011 2011-001 .1
SHEET NUMBER
C501
LANDSCAPE LEGEN D
KEY BOTANX:LL NAME CONMON Si ROOT QTY. RE
DE0 00WS TREES
Ace r X fre emanii 'Sienna'
Sie nna Glen Ma ple
2. 5
BB
26
Iv
Acer soccharum 'Gre en Mou ntain'
Sugar Ma ple & cultiva rs
2.5
BB
22
,yLG �•y`'
l.M�
Acer platcncides 'Green Moun tain'
GREEN MOUNTAIN 5UGAIR MAPLE
2.5"
88
7
Retina nigra
RIVER BIRCH
681
BB
12
CLUMP FORM
Cleditsia triacanth os 'Skyline'
54y100 Honryloc usl
2.5"
BB
-
js
Celtis o ccide nlolis
Hackberry
2.5'
BB
10
Tilia amen cana
Americ an Linden
2.5"
B8
19
7R{0
Tina americana 'Redmond.
Redmon d Linde n
2. 5'
BB
6
-441
%'\`_
Quercus rubra
NORTHERN RED OAK
2. 5"
8B
17
pl.:
Oue rcus bicolor
Swa mp W hite Oak
2.5"
BB
7
CONIFEROUS TREES
Picec 5clsomea
Balsam Fir
6'
4'
HT.
9
3
OPicec
glou co cte0scla
Black /611 Spruce
6'
HT.
29
Picea gla uc a densc to
Blac k Hill Spruce
4'
HT.
27
Pinus ponderosa
Red Pine
6
HT,
1
Pinus ponderosa
0
Red Pin e
4
HT.
8
ORNAMENTA L TREES
0
MCIus 'Donald Wyman"
Donald Wyman Crab
1 5"
BB
9
4
Mcl66 'Prairifire'
Pra iriefire Crab
1.5
BB
9
Amelanchier o gran difloro
Autumn Brilliance Serv ic eberry
6'ht
69
9
CLUMP FORM
1, SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE
PRIOR TO PLANTING
2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND W EAK
AND/DR DEFORM ED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A
LEADER. DO NOT PAINT CUTS.
3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL
OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTEO BACKFILL SOIL.
INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE I5 AT
OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE.
4. PLACE PLA NT IN PLA NTING HOLE W ITH
BURLAP AND W IRE BASKET, (18 USED), INTACT.
BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE
TOP OF ROOTBALL, WATER PLA NT. REMOVE
TOP 1/3
OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO
HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
IR1E}M OOV FE A LL
BURLAP gA ND NAILS FROM TOP
5� f'IUMBH FNUA tlACKFILL WRH LL TW INE.
BACKFILL SOIL.
6. WATER TO SETTLE PLA NTS AND
FILL VO IDS.
7. WATER WITH IN TWO HOURS OF
INSTA LLATION. WATERING MUST BE
SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY
SATURA TE IRR[OOT BALL AND
8. V LACE HU LLH WITHIN 48
HOURS OF TH E SECOND
WATERING UNLESS SOIL
MO ISTUR E IS EXCESSIVE.
X DENOTES TREES EXCEEDING MIN REQ.
X4 DENOTES 4' EVERGREEN EXCEEDING MIN REQ
4 DENOTES 4' EVERGREEN
NOTE' GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL
BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING
TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR
THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE
P LMOU
GUY ASSEMBLY- 16"
P OLYP ROPYLENE OR P OLYETHYLEN E
40 MIL) 1-1/2' WIDE STRAP
TY P) DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA.
WIRE, 2-7" ROLLED STEEL POSTS
(M nDOT 34 0c1)Rp0 l180' O.C. (SEE
STAKIN- DIAGRA 4A1 0104TE
STAKIN G TO
INSURE UNIFORM
ORIENTATION OF
UY LINES AND
/EKES
STAKING DIA GRAM
'GUY W IRE WITH
WEBBING FLAGGING-
$N6FSHREROEO BARK
2 e iR24" W OOD STA KE SET
GATTqq �T ANGLE- STAKE TOP BELOW
E%IS40 GRADE
gMgINIIMUM I/O W IDTH OF ROOT
cPca La Acl,tI•T�ING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE
1 ONo5 URGED OR STABILIZED
SUBSOILS
OCONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
NO SCAL E
CU T BACK SLOPE
TO PROVIDE
A FLAT SURFACE
FOR PLA NTING
PLAN
B" Z PLY RUBBER HOSE
1 - DOUBLE STRAND 12 GAUGE W.
\�- I VERED W /2 -PLY RUBBER NOSE
AIN 1[p FIUORESLENi ORgNLf
vmITE RAGGING (1YP.)
TREE *RAP
2
UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL
4 INCHES M ULCH
4 INCH DEEP SAUCER STEEL TEE POST- 3 RE000ED AT 120'
BACKFILL MIX
NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES FOR THE TYP E Or M ULCH M ATERIAL TO USE.
OTREE PLANTING ON SLOPE
NO SCALE
RREMOV£ BURLAP & ROPE
OM i0P 1/3 OF THE BALL
OLANDSCAPE BER M PLANTING DETAIL
N0 SCALE
PLANTING NOTES
1. ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEA LTHY, 0GOR0U5 M ATERIAL, FREE OF
PESTS AND DISEASE AND BE CONTAINER GROWN OR BA LLED AND
BURLAPPED AS INDICATED IN THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND.
2. ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED AND FULL HEADED AND
MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED.
3 THE LANDSCAP E A RCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT
ANY PLANTS W HICH ARE DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY BEFORE,
DURING, OR AFTER INSTALLATION.
4 NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT M ATERIAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED
UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
5. ALL PLA NTIN G STOCK SHALL CONFORM TO THE "AM ERICAN
STA NDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK," ANSI -260, LATEST EDITION, OF
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. INC. AND SHA LL
CONSTITUTE MINIM UM QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT
MATERIALS.
6. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED
TO THE DRIP LINE FROM ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, STORAGE OF
MATERIALS ETC. WITH 4' HT. ORANGE PLASTIC SAFETY FENCING
ADEQUA TELY SU PPORTED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS 6' 0. 0. MAXIM UM
SPACING.
7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, SHA PES OF BEDS AND
LOCA TIONS SH OWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE COVERAGE OE ALL PLAN TING BEDS AT
SPACING SHOW N AND ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO THE EXACT
000001090 OF THE SITE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL
APPROVE THE STAKING LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS PRIOR
TO INSTALLATION.
8. ALL TREES MUST BE PLANTED. MULCHED, AN D STAKED A5
SHOW N IN THE DETAILS.
9..ALL PLANTING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS
F O.E C MULCH: SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, CLEAN AND FREE OF
NOXIOUS WEEDS OR OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL, IN ALL MASS
PLANTING BEDS AND FOR TREES, UNLESS INDICATED AS ROCK
MULCH ON DRAW INGS. SUBM IT SAM PLE TO LANDSCA PE ARCHITECT
PR1OR TO DELIVERY ON -SITE FOR APPROVAL. DELIVER MULCH ON
DAY OF INSTALLATION. USE 4" FOR TREES. SHRUB BEDS, AND 3"
FOR PERENNIAL/GROUND COVER BEDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE
11. THE P LAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LA NDSCAP E LEG EN D
IF DSCREPANC1ES EXIST. THE SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE
OV ER TH E PLA NTING NOTES AND GENERAL NOTES.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES
AND PLANTING 506 QUANTITIES TO COMPLETE THE WORK SH OWN ON
THE PLAN. VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE LANDSCA PE
LEGEND
13 LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MA TERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON -SITE
K ILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP PAVEMENTS, PLANTERS AND
BUILDINGS CLEAN AND UNSTAINED. ALL PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE
ACCESS TO BE 681019NED TH ROU GHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
ALL W ASTES SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE. ANY
PLANT STOCK NOT PLANTED ON DAY OF OELVERY SH ALL BE HEELED
IN AND WATERED UNTIL INSTALLATION. PLANTS NOT MA INTAINED IN
THIS MANNER WIEL BE REJECTED ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING
FACILITIES SHALL BE 676000D AT THE CONTRACTOR' S EXPENSE.
15. TH E CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESP ONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING
WTH ALL APPLICABLE CODES. REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS
GOVERNING THE W ORK.
16. LOCATE A ND VERIFY ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION LINES,
WITH THE 0VMER FOR PROPRIETARY UTILITIES AND GOPHER STATE
ONE CALL AT 454-0002 (TW IN CITIES METRO AREA) OR
800-252-1166 (GREATER MINNESOTA) 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING.
CON TRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND
REPA IR OF A NY DAM AGES TO SAME. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OF AN Y CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE PLANT RELOCATION.
17. USE ANTI -DESICCANT (WLTPRUF 0R APPROVED EQUAL) ON
DECIDUOUS PLANTS MOVED IN LEAF AND FOR EVERGREENS MOVED
ANYTIME. APPLY AS PER M ANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION. ALL
EVERGREENS SHALL BE SPRAYED IN THE LATE FALL FOR WINTER
PROTECTION DURING WARRANTY PERIOD.
18. PLANTING 501E FOR TREES, SH RUBS AND GROUND COVERS:
FERTILE FRIABLE LOA M CONTAINING A LIBERAL AM OUNT OF HUMUS
AND CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING •1GORO US PLAN T GROWTH. IT SHALL
COMPLY W ITH MN/DOT 58000 CATION 3877 TYPE B SELECT TOPSOIL.
MIXTURE SHALL BE FREE FROM 966080CK SUBSOIL, STONES.
CH EM ICALS. NOXIOUS WEEDS, ETC. 501L M IXTURE SHALL HAVE A PH
BETWEEN 6.1 AND 7.5 AND 1D-10-10 FERTILIZER AT THE RATE OF 3
POUNDS PER CUBIC YARD. IN PLANTING BEDS INCORPORATE THIS
MIXTURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BED BY 6000010LING INTO THE
TOP 12" OF 501L.
19. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR TWO COMPLETE
GROWING SEASON (APRIL 1 - NOVEMBER 1), UNLESS OTHERWISE
SP ECIFIED. THE GUARANTEE SHALL COVER THE FULL COST OF
REPLACEMENT INCLUDING LABOR AND PLANTS .
20. CONTRACTOR SHA L0 N OTIFY THE L ANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT
LEAST 3 DAYS PRIOR TO PLANNED 000(40RY. T HE CONTRACTOR
SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LE AST 24 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF BEGINNING PLANT INSTALLATION.
21. SEASONS/TIME OF PLANTING. NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR MAY
ELECT TO PLANT IN OFF-SEASONS ENTIRELY AT HIS/HER RISK.
DECIDUOUS POTTED PLANTS:
APRIL 1 -JUNE 11 AUG. 21-900. 1
DECIDUOUS B&B:
A PRIL 1 -JUNE 11 AUG. 21-NOV . 1
EVERGREEN POTTED PLANTS:
APRIL 1 -JUNE 1, AUG. 21-OCT. 1
EVERGREEN B&B,
APRIL 1 -MAY 15, AUG. 21-SEPT. 15
22 . MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN I MMEDIATELY AFTER E ACH PORTION
OF THE WORK I5 IN PLACE . PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED
AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTS 15
CO MPLETE. INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE, AND PLANTINGS ARE
ACCEPTED EXCLUSIVE OF THE GUARANTEE. MAINTENANCE SHALL
IN CL UDE W ATERING, CULTI VATING , MULCHING . REMOVAL OF DE AD
MATERIALS, RE -SETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADE AND KEEPING
PLANTS IN A PLUMB POSITION . AFTER ACCEPTANCE, THE OW NER
SHALL ASSUME MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. HO WEVER , THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE
TREES PLU MB 7 60:10HOUT THE GUARANTEE PER100 .
23. ANY PLANT MATERIAL WHICH DIES , TURNS BROWN, OR DEFOLIATES
(P RIOR TO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF T HE WORK) SHALL BE PRO MPTLY
REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED 0000 MATERIAL OF THE SAME
SPECIES, QUANTITY, AND SIZE AND MEETING ALL LANDSCAPE LEGEND
SPECIFICATIONS.
24. WATERING: MAI NT AI N A WATERING SC HEDULE WHIC H WILL
THOROUGHLY WATER ALL PLANTS ONCE A WEEK . IN EXTRE MELY HOT.
DRY WEATHER, WATER MORE OFTEN AS RE QUIRED BY INDIC/P09S OF
HEAT STRESS SUCH AS WILTING LEAVES. CHECK MOISTURE UNDER
MULCH PRIOR TO WATERING TO DETERMINE NEED . CONTRACTOR SHALL
MAKE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR WATER.
25 CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING. A FINAL ACCEPTANCE
INSPECTION.
26 . PLANTINGS TO UTILIZE PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM .
27. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, ARE TO RECEIVE 4" TOP
501L, SEED, MULCH , AND WATER UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS I5
OBTAINED
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING
EVS, INC .
10250 Valley Vi ew R oad , Suite 123
Ed en Pr airie, Minnes ot a 55344
Pho ne:952-646-0236
Fax: 952-646-0290
W W W. ORS-eng.0 0m
PR OJ EC T
LOC ATIO N
SHE ET
PRELIMINARY
LANDSC APE PLAN
8 DATE REVISION
1 06/28/11 PER CTY COMM.
I HEREBY CER TIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFIC ATI ON , OR REPORT WAS
PREPARE D BY ME OR UNDE R MY
DIRE CT S UPERVISIO N AND THAT 1
AM A DULY LICENSED LANDS CAP E
A RCHIT ECT UNDER TH E LAWS OF
THE S TAT E OF MINNESOTA
Kathleen O'Conell
DATE 06 / 06 / 2011
REGIS TRA TI ON NUMBER 20862
DRAWN BY CHEC KE D BY
KO
KO
D ATE P ROJ EC T #
06.06 .2011 2011-001 .1
SHEET NUMB ER
L102
/
n 1 \ 1111
.,\�- 1015 \- —
—
_--- - — __--—
------------
=1010
\ —
----
=1010= — - —- --------- --- -- —
______
1--- - -- --7 - -
1
1
/ v�/
/ /
'/ /5 7?-/ 3 '/ 1 i�v i
// /
/ //
o°h //-- aII-
// - - r
y, //% A4 // i. 7
/i .. /
/
/' / xa0
/ /
/ / /
// / xan
/
006 i
I
/
//
/
/ /
/ _991"-
/ /
/
/ // 0 96_
LANDSCAPE REQUIREM ENTS/CALCULA TIONS
l�IEANDERROAb\
/
LANDSCAPE R EQUIREM ENTS
TREES PER SF LOT 2 X 65=130
M EANDER RD BUFFER YARD 14. 2 X 62= 881 PTS
(1420 LF/100)
REQUIRED TREE REPLAC EMENT 17'
ADDITION AL LANDSCAP ING EXCEEDS 17" REQ.
PROPOSED TREES PER CITY CO DE
TREES PER SF LOT
BUFFER YARD P OINTS REQ
8- 6' EVERGREENS FOR 50 PTS EA
14- 4' EVERG REENS FOR 20 PTS EA
7 - OVERSTORY TREES FOR 50 PTS EA
TOTAL BUFFER YARD PTS
BUFFER YARD PTS EXCEEDING REQ
130
881
400
280
350
1030
149
ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING EXCEEDING CITY CODE RE0
FOXBERRY FARMS BERM
EVERGREENS 0
ORNAMENTAL 18
OVERSTORY 0
INTERIOR BLVD TREES 6
ENTRY TREES
OVERSTORY 6
ORNAMENTAL 3
ADDITIONAL BACKYARD TREES
EVERGREENS 23
ORNAMENTAL 6
OVERSTORY 3
T� X4 \\ 1. _
.6 � P A 111
1 99s 7.992,
I' 1
c Iil'I T Ili z \
oO
c 30
E 351
I-
GOO
/ I
/ /
/v v I
9
II
100/0 ,;i5.5
99
/
\
/ 1
1 1
\ \ 1 / I
, 1
\ \\ \\ ------ II — 11
9 \ 11. 11\
hi
MC r A fl/ —.
\ ill:
T ! 7 r/' 7_,:_ =— 986—
III / /I/ / // / ' ',/
II1/ll I I/ Il1I 1/1 /1/1 ///////
/l/// ///////' ///////_
11/1
iii /1 j l l ////////
ll/l ,ll� / / / //�/ Fly/ 1 �/ , '// 11
I/0r///,/////// / /i III /1'214; /- _/
a /�/// / /m/ / / / I//
1/ // //// / / 17/
/ / / ( s
(//8-/// /1/ 1 1 {$II 77
rn l / / / l I II W / a
1//m / //'
1 II 1/\ (((III / / f /
,It
1 \`\/ I I / 1 // I le/it
1 \ \\1 \/ 11 \ 11111 /1 I\ 1 l I ,:y/4:4',/
.'., / l J
\1,11,1 l a/ /'t1
991.
s.
- 0
CA
bill
\\ \ V
\kt "/ '
J
V \
If{ `
I// , \ 1
\-3 1
I
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
LEY
BOT/NICAL NUP E
CO-EKw IEM E
KEY
EOTNOL N NE
CaWON WC
I aY
SMARM RYE
COWIN NOME
DECIDUOUS TREES
DECIDUOUS INF ES
COMfEI✓DUS 7PFE5
Acer X /rsem°n0 'Sienna'
Sienna Glen Maple
(
\\�+/
1160 amerisana
Ameri can Linde n
Ilk
Ficea bolsamea
B alsam Fir
O
Picea glauca de nse.°
Black Hill Spline
Fur soccharum 'Gr een Mountain' Su gar Maple & cultiwrs
4 am ercana 'Red mo nd'
R edmond Linden
0
Pinus ponderos a
Red Fine
O
Pin us sylestrie
Austrian Pura
A:ar plato noidee 'Green Mountain'
Green Mo untain Sugar Maple
lbuercus Nbra
NORTHERN RED OAK
OWErkE908- 10629
0
Maki. 'Don ald Wy man
D onald Wyman Gob
Betula nigro
Rmr Birch
(W arms bicolor
Swamp White Oak
Nalus 'Proirifr e'
Proiria6re Crab
Ce8is occidenta l's
Hackberry
Ane 5nchier x grandif oro
Autumn Bnllionce Seniceb erry
X DENOTES TREES EXCEEDING MIN REQ.
X4 DENOTES 4' EVERGREEN EXCEEDING MIN REQ
4 DENOTES 4' EVERGEEN
0
0 60 _ 120
SCA1_E N EEL
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
ENVIRON MENTAL
PLANNING
EVS, INC.
10250 Valley Vi ew R oad, S uite 123
Ed en Pr airie, Mi nnes ota 55344
Ph one: 952-646-0236
Fax: 952-646-0290
www .OVS-eng .c om
PROJECT
LOC ATI ON
SHEET
PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN
5 D ATE REVISION
1 06/28/11 PER CTY COMM.
I HEREBY CE RTIFY THAT THIS PL AN
SPE CIFICA TI ON, OR R EPOR T WAS
PREP ARE D BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRE CT S UPE RVISI ON AN D THA T 1
AM A DULY LI CENSED LAN DSCAPE
ARCHI TEC T UN DER THE LAWS OF
THE S TA TE OF MINN ESO TA.
Kathleen O'C onell
DATE 06 1 06 1 2011
R EGISTRATION NUM BE R 20862
DRAWN BY
KO
DA TE
06 .06.2011
CH EC KE D BY
KO
PROJECT 5
2011-001.1
S HE ET N UMB ER
L101
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Dale Cooney, Associate Planner
DATE: July 7, 2011
MEETING: July 12, Planning Commission
SUBJ: Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. — 3900 Arrowhead Dr.
(PID 11-118-23-22-0002) — Site Plan Review to add 13,887 square foot
parking lot expansion.
Review Deadline
Original Application Received: June 17, 2011
Complete Application Received: June 17, 2011
60 -day Review Deadline: August 16, 2011
Overview of Request
Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. is proposing to expand their surface parking an additional
13,887 square feet. The expansion of an existing parking lot by 10,000 sq/ft or more triggers the
City's Site Plan Review process.
The property is zoned Industrial Park which allows for up to 50 percent of the site to be
impervious surfaces, including building, pavement, and gravel. The proposed expansion would
potentially bring the Loram property slightly over this 50 percent impervious coverage limit.
In addition to this Site Plan Review application, Loram has applied for a text amendment to the
zoning code to expand the allowable impervious surface areas within the Industrial Park zoning
district from 50% to 60%. As of this writing, that application is incomplete. Staff expects that text
amendment application to come before the Planning Commission at the August 9, 2011 meeting.
Property Description
The 25.07 acre property is located in the SE corner of the intersection of Arrowhead Drive and
Highway 55. The north property line abuts the Canadian Pacific railroad right of way. The
property to the west is the Hennepin County Public Works facility. Loram owns the Rural
Residential properties (guided Industrial) immediately to the east and south.
The property's two main parking lots are located off of Arrowhead drive. The aerial photo on the
next page shows the approximate location of proposed expansion to the north parking lot.
Impervious Coverage
The parking lot expansion is proposed to expand the existing property hardcover by 13,887 net
square feet (14,785 gross square feet minus areas allocated to landscape islands). While a
relatively minor expansion in comparison to the size of the overall property, the proposal will
likely cause the property to exceed its 50 percent limit for impervious surfaces.
Loram Parking Lot Expansion
Page 1 of 4 Medina Planning Commission
Site Plan Review July 12, 2011
PHOTO 1: A recent aerial image of3900 Arrowhead Drive with potential parking expansion highlighted.
When calculating impervious surfaces, the building footprint, paved areas and gravel coverage
must be taken into account. The building footprint and the paved areas are relatively easy to
account for, but, due to their informal nature, the gravel hardcover areas are more difficult to
quantify. Because the property is near its impervious surface limit, the only way to determine the
extent the property may exceed this limit is to field verify the gravel hardcover areas.
Both staff and the applicant suspect that, contrary to existing site plans, a certain amount of
degradation may have occurred on designated landscaped areas, gradually converting them to
gravel hardcover. Due to the heavy industrial nature of Loram's business, a certain amount of
this type of deterioration is not surprising. Loram representatives have expressed willingness to
re -landscape these areas in order to allow for the parking expansion while also keeping the
impervious surface coverage on the property below the fifty percent limit. Staff estimates that,
once field verified, the overage caused by the parking expansion is likely to be less than one half
of one percent (approximately 5,000 square feet) above the fifty percent hardcover limit.
Parking Lot Design Standards
To provide adequate drainage and maneuverability of vehicles, parking lots are required to have a
grade of not less than .5 percent and not more than 4 percent. Additionally, at least five percent of
Loram Parking Lot Expansion
Page 2 of 4 Medina Planning Commission
Site Plan Review July 12, 2011
the interiors of all surface parking areas must be landscaped, with the landscape breaks occurring
approximately every 20 spaces. The proposed parking lot expansion meets these standards.
Outdoor Lighting
The Industrial Park outdoor lighting standards require no more than 0.0 foot candles (FC) of light at
the property line where residential zoning abuts and 0.3 FC of light where other zoning abuts. The
proposed lighting plan is in compliance with these standards, as well as the standards outlined in the
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Section 829) of the Medina City Code.
Stormwater
Stormwater runoff volumes were calculated for the proposed impervious surface areas for 2, 10,
and 100 year rain events. The City Engineer has reviewed these calculations and determined that
the excess capacity in the existing stormwater ponds are adequate and that the runoff rate will
still be lower than prior to when Loram expanded their building in 2007.
The City Engineer also requested that the parking lot addition include a catch basin, and that the
silt fence posts conform to the City of Medina standards. The City Engineer's comments are
enclosed as an attachment to this report.
Tree Removal
Five Oak trees of 2 caliper inches each are proposed to be removed. According to Section 828.41
of the Medina City Code, these five trees do not meet the size or quantity that would trigger the
City's Tree Preservation and Replacement ordinance.
Three trees of 2.5 caliper inches each are proposed to be planted within the parking lot landscape
breaks. All proposed tree species comply with the native species requirements outlined in
Medina City Code Section 828.41, Subdivision 10.
Other Considerations
The City is currently in the process of creating a Stormwater Management Ordinance in order to
implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan which was part of the 2010-2030
Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission
at their June 14, 2011 meeting and is scheduled to be presented to the Medina City Council at
their July 19, 2011 regular meeting.
Under the proposed Stormwater Management Ordinance, an expansion of impervious surface
area of the size Loram is proposing would trigger the need to provide water quality and volume
control improvements for the impacted area. As of the date of this report, those rules are not
applicable to this Site Plan Review. However, a delay in approval of this application could
potentially require Loram to comply with the updated Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
applicants have requested that the City not apply updated regulations to their request if the
ordinance is adopted first.
Review Criteria/Findings of Fact
Section 825.55 of the City Code describes the criteria for reviewing a subdivision and states that
the Planning Commission "shall review the proposed site plan to determine whether it is
Loram Parking Lot Expansion
Page 3 of 4 Medina Planning Commission
Site Plan Review July 12, 2011
r
consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, including the applicable development
standards and the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located. Following the
review, the planning commission shall recommend that the site plan be approved, approved with
conditions or denied. The planning commission shall forward its recommendation to the city
council."
Staff Recommendation
Due to the small size of the potential impervious surface overage in question, staff recommends
proceeding with the parking lot expansion as proposed with the following conditions:
(a) In order to bring the Loram property into compliance with existing impervious surface
regulations, the applicant will return portions of the existing gravel surfaces to pervious
surfaces in an amount greater than or equal to the pervious surface overage.
(b) Upon completion of the parking lot expansion, applicant will provide a survey of
impervious surface coverage in order to identify the quantity and location of those areas
required to be converted to pervious surfaces.
Attachments
1. City Engineer comments dated June 29, 2011.
2. Proposed parking expansion plan dated 6/17/11.
Loram Parking Lot Expansion
Page 4 of 4 Medina Planning Commission
Site Plan Review July 12, 2011
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo,com
June 29, 2011
Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: L-11-076 Loram Parking Addition
Bonestroo File No.: 000190-11000-1
Dear Dusty,
We have reviewed the plan for the proposed Loram parking lot expansion located on Arrowhead
Road just south of TH 55. The plans are dated June 17, 2011 and the storm water calculations
are dated October 22, 2009. We have the following comments with regards to engineering
matters.
Bonestroo
1. Storm water calculations should be submitted for the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year storm events
showing the pre and post project runoff rates,
2. We recommend that a catch basin be placed near the proposed curb bump -out corner
with the elevation label of 94.67.
3. The details should conform to City of Medina standard details. The silt fence posts must
be steel T -posts.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894 or email at
darren,amundsen(a bonestroo.com.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
r
Dale Cooney
From: Darren Amundsen <Darren.Amundsen@bonestroo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 20112:20 PM
To: Dusty Finke
Cc: Dale Cooney
Subject: RE: Loram updated storm calcs 6-29-11
The stormwater calcs look good. The other two comments should be easy to address as well.
Darren Amundsen, PE
Associate
Direct 651-604-4894
Cell 651-775-5623
darren.amundsenabonestroo.com
4#" 8p11E5tCp0
From: Dusty Finke fmailto: Dusty.Finke@ci.mediria.mn.usl
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:38 PM
To: Darren Amundsen
Cc: Dale Cooney
Subject: DF_DTA^FW: Loram
Dusty Finke
City Planner
Ph: (763) 473-4643
Fax: (763) 473.9359
From: Megan Tasca fmailto:mtas csundecivil.coml
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:59 PM
To: Dusty Finke
Cc: Dale Cooney; 'Steven C. Irwin'; Timothy.L.Heisel@loram.com
Subject: Loram
Here are the calculations for Loram with the additional storm events as requested. Please let me know if you need
anything else.
Megan Tasca, PE, LEED AP
Sunde Engineering
10830 Nesbitt Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55417-3100
Direct Dial (952)229-8679
General (952)881-3344
Fax (952)881-1913
•1
N.B9D1'T>"E
7 /20
1
_J_
- j
/
0
CO,n.1DN NA
SCIENTIFIC NA ME
V£
EMT
COM MENTS
DECID UOUS TRESS
65751 NE HO NE YLO CUST
WINTE OAN
BUR 0AK
01,0°,/ 5/7/ r'
0,5r. ss Alga
P er t' r mac�uwa a
9 5• CAI
2 5' CAL
25' CAI
8147
B &B
858
518 81(:51I 741155
SIRAIGNTLEA OFR
STRAIGHT 178055
1
LAWN AREA (LANDSC APED/ ONE',
`.J VR OvroF D
DECUI HTI$ TREES
.. -, --- `--• ROCK MULCH
PLAN LEGEND 1111111111MIMINIMI PLA NTING SCHEDULE
9q"490'4,0
No
00400441_
20' 40'
POPE ASSOCIATES IN C
ass ENERGY PARK DRIVE
ST . PAUL, MN 99108 slls
P14.100 442-920 0
FAX (6906414101
G:140 5 004245100 .1 0504p9
PARKING LOT
ADDITION 2011
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
REVIEW SET
CIT Y SUBMITTAL
6/14111
6/11111
Ca lais 4
68.1,
6414.
45655-11065
LS
SHEET
L2
1•111111111TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
SCALE:
NORTH
L J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 7, 2011
MEETING: July 12, 2011 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Right-of-way Width Requirements in Subdivision Ordinance
Background
During review of most of the suburban -style subdivisions within the past few years, applicants
have been requesting 50 -foot right-of-way widths rather than the 60 foot required in the City's
subdivision regulations. The City has approved of such requests for the Bridgewater at Lake
Medina and Enclave of Medina single-family projects and also for the Hamel Station
commercial project.
The 60 foot right-of-way requirement for local streets is an explicit requirement of the
subdivision ordinance, which requires either a variance or a PUD to deviate from. In order to
approve a variance, a hardship needs to be proven, which should require some unique
characteristic of the property in order to justify.
Staff's impression is that the City has been supportive of the reduced right-of-way width as much
to reduce hardcover and as a design tool rather than because of a hardship on a particular
property. If this is the case, staff believes it would be better practice to build flexibility into the
subdivision regulations rather than trying to justify variances.
Staff conducted research in various suburban communities and found that a 50 -foot right-of-way
for local residential streets is quite common.
Analysis
The City has previously expressed support to reduce the width of right-of-way because it tends to
shorten driveways in single-family neighborhoods which reduces overall hardcover (on average
by 130 square feet per lot). This also will tend to result in homes being approximately 5 feet
closer to the street.
The potential downside of establishing 50 -feet as the standard is that this complicates fitting all
utilities and sidewalks within the right-of-way. Public Works has been encouraging developers
to place manholes off of the street so that they do not heave and sink with the seasons. As such,
staff would prefer to maintain for wider right-of-way depending on the circumstances.
Existing Regulations
Section 820.29 describes the required design standards for subdivisions within the City. Many of
these standards have not been amended since 1984 when the code was adopted, and are largely
Right-of-way Width
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1 of 2 July 12, 2011
supplemented by Engineering Details. However, there are specific regulations for right-of-way
widths in Subd. 2(a) as follows:
(a) Widths. Streets shall conform to the following minimum dimensions:
Street Type
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collectors
Local
Local Rural Service Area
Marginal Access Roads
Cul-de-sac Streets
Cul-de-sac Turnaround
Commercial/Industrial Local
Right -of -Way Width
250 feet
150 feet
70 feet
60 feet
60 feet
60 feet
60 feet
125 feet
60 feet
Roadway Width
40 feet
24 feet
24 feet
24 feet
24 feet
50 feet
36 feet
Potential Change
If the Planning Commission is in favor of building flexibility into the Subdivision regulations,
staff could recommend language similar to as follows to the City Council.
(a) Widths. Streets shall conform to the following minimum dimensions: unless a narrower
or wider dimension is determined to be appropriate by the City Council in order to
accommodate the expected traffic, parking, pedestrian ways, and utilities:
Street Type
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collectors
Local
Local Rural Service Area
Marginal Access Roads
Cul-de-sac Streets
Cul-de-sac Turnaround
Commercial/Industrial Local
Right -of -Way Width
250 feet
150 feet
70 feet
50-60 feet
60 feet
60 feet
60 feet
125 feet
60 feet
Roadway Width
40 feet
24 feet
24 feet
24 feet
24 feet
50 feet
28-36 feet
Right-of-way Width
Ordinance
Page 2 of 2 July 12, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting