HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-08-2013MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2013
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 December 11, 2012 Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing — Daniel and Jill Johnson — Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Agriculture and a
Rezoning from Rural Residential to Agricultural Preserve for the
three properties located at 2505 Willow Drive (PID 16-118-23-
42-0007, 16-118-23-31-0001, and 16-118-23-42-0006).
7. Public Hearing — City of Medina — Conditional Use Permit and
Site Plan Review for the use of a Public Building within the
Industrial Park zoning district at 600 Clydesdale Trail.
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL January 4, 2013
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: December 27, 2012
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates January 3, 2013 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Standards for Private Roads and premature subdivision — The City Council adopted the
ordinance at their December 18 meeting. The ordinance has been published and is now in
effect.
B) Lot Frontage, Flag Lots, Driveway Regulations — staff intends to begin work on an
ordinance related to these subjects, which originally was a 2012 goal, but was deferred as
other ordinances were determined to be of higher priority. Staff intends to present the
ordinance for public hearing at the February 12 Planning Commission meeting.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Moser Variance — Jacob Moser has requested variances in order to construct a home on an
existing vacant parcel in the Independence Beach Area (east of Ardmore Ave at the intersection
of Balsam St. Requested variances are from the setback requirements from the ordinary high
water level of Lake Ardmore, the front property line, and from an unused right-of-way. The
Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the October 24 Planning Commission meeting,
recommended that the applicant alter their plans to reduce the size of the home/garage and
tabled the application to allow them to update plans. The applicant has submitted updated plans,
the Commission reviewed at the December 11 meeting, and voted (4-1) to recommend approval
of the variances. The City Council reviewed at their December 18 meeting and asked for
additional information, which will be presented at the January 3 meeting.
B) Public Works and Police Facility — 600 Clydesdale Trail — The City of Medina has requested
approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to operate its Public Works and
Police functions at 600 Clydesdale Trail. The project includes a change of use on the property,
construction of a salt shed structure, some site modifications, and substantial interior
renovations. The matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing at the January 8 Planning
Commission meeting.
C) Johnson Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning — 2505 Willow Drive — Dan and Jill Johnson
have requested a CPA to change the future land use of three parcels of land from Rural
Residential to Agriculture and a rezoning of the property from Rural Residential to Agricultural
Preserve. This change would make the property eligible to be enrolled in the Metropolitan
Agricultural Preserve program. The matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing at the
January 8 Planning Commission meeting.
D) Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat — Property Resources Development Co. has submitted a
preliminary plat for an eight lot rural subdivision on approximately 80 gross acres northwest of
the existing Deerhill Road between Willow Drive and Homestead. The applicant is contesting
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 January 3, 2013
City Council Meeting
the suitable soils map as part of the application. The application is incomplete for review at this
time, and will be scheduled for a Public Hearing when determined to be complete for review.
E) Fields of Medina West — north of Highway 55, east of Arrowhead — Mattamy Homes has
applied for a preliminary plat for 65 single-family homes located on the 20 acres west of the
Fields of Medina project currently under construction. The City Council adopted an ordinance
approving the rezoning and a resolution granting preliminary plat approval at the December 18
meeting. Staff will await an application for final plat approval.
F) Buckley Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) CUP — 1582 Homestead Trail — Hanna
Buckley has applied for a CUP to construct a 189 -foot wind turbine on their property. The
application is incomplete for review at this time, and staff intends to contact the applicant to see
if they intend to amend their application in light of the amended city regulations related to
WECS.
G) Woods of Medina Concept Plan, Toll Brothers — Toll Brothers have submitted a concept plan
for review for a 125 -lot single-family subdivision on the Gorman Farm property east of County
Road 116 and south of Hackamore. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the
October 9 meeting and provided comments. The City Council reviewed and provided comment
at the October 16 meeting. Staff will await an application for preliminary plat.
Additional Projects
A) Planning Commission Interviews — staff is coordinating interviews for the four applicants
which expressed interest in filling the three vacancies on the Planning Commission.
Interviews will be held next week by Chair Nolan, Councilmember and myself, and we hope
to have a recommendation for appointment at the January 3 City Council meeting.
B) Zoning Enforcement — staff has sent a request to a property owner along the Hunter Drive
trail to remove their fence from the right-of-way. It has been placed directly on the edge of
the trail, leaving no room for maintenance, signage, and other public purposes. The
property owner stated they would move the fence, but it has not occurred. Staff intends to
begin formal enforcement action.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 January 3, 2013
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday, December 11, 2012
5
6
7 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Robin Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
8
9 Present: Planning Commissioners Robin Reid, Kathleen Martin, V. Reid, John
10 Anderson, Kent Williams and Randy Foote
11
12 Absent: Charles Nolan
13
14 Also Present: City Councilmember Elizabeth Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, and
15 Nate Sparks of NAC
16
17 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
18
19 No public comments.
20
21 3. Update from City Council proceedings
22
23 Weir updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council.
24
25 4. Planning Department Report
26
27 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
28
29 5. Approval of the November 13, 2012 Draft Planning Commission meeting
30 minutes.
31
32 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Martin, to approve the November 13, 2012
33 minutes with the changes noted. Motion carried unanimously. Absent: Nolan
34
35 6. Continued Public Hearing — Jacob Moser — Requests Variances to construct a
36 new home in the Urban Residential (UR) zoning district along Ardmore Avenue
37 (PID 18-118-23-24-0154).
38
39 Commissioner R. Reid recused herself from the discussion.
40
41 Commissioner V. Reid chaired this portion of the meeting.
42
43 Sparks presented the updated request. He stated that the updated plan is a one-story
44 walkout, as opposed to the two-story walkout reviewed in October. The plan has
45 been updated with a two -car garage rather than three -car. The footprint of the home
1
1 is approximately 10% larger in order to provide additional living space with the
2 reduction of a story of the home. The driveway is proposed off of Ardmore instead of
3 utilizing the Palm Street right-of-way. The home was also pushed back further in the
4 lot, increasing the front setback, but decreasing the setback to the lake and the upland
5 buffer.
6
7 Variances required include: 1) Front setback (30 feet to 22 feet); 2) Palm Street right -
8 of -way (30 feet to 15 feet); 3) Setback from ordinary high water level of Lake
9 Ardmore (75 feet to 48 feet); 4) Setback from upland buffer (15 feet to 2 feet); 5) lot
10 size (20,000 square feet to 18,520 square feet).
11
12 Sparks summarized the criteria by which the City reviews variances.
13
14 V. Reid inquired about the buffer variance. Sparks stated that the upland buffer
15 proposed by the applicant meets ordinance standards. However, the ordinance also
16 requires a 15 -foot setback from the buffer to provide some yard for homes adjacent to
17 buffers, which the applicant has requested a variance for.
18
19 Foote inquired about the signage requirement. Finke replied that the sign is an 8x10
20 sign on a 4x4 post. The minimum requirement is one sign per 200 feet, but the
21 Commission could add a condition for extra signage since a variance is being
22 requested for the setback from the buffer.
23
24 Public Hearing opened at 7:39 p.m.
25
26 Brian McCool (on behalf of Stacy and Don Brown of 2935 Ardmore) stated that his
27 clients appreciate the improvements in the plan but unfortunately are still opposed.
28 He stated that they had provided a written letter, but summarized the points as
29 follows: 1) House is too large for the lot, extra garage in the rear; 2) Impact on Lake
30 Ardmore and the wetland; Setback variance is very significant (from 15 feet to 2).
31 The averaging of the buffer is also problematic. The area adjacent to the hardcover
32 has a buffer of 25 feet instead of the average 35 feet. 3) Fill and grading/drainage
33 impacts.
34
35 Ann Brader (2942 Ardmore) stated that they preferred the new proposal to the old
36 one. She stated that their main concern is the proximity to the lake, and they want to
37 make sure that treatment is provided for extra hardcover.
38
39 James Leviton (2945 Ardmore) presented a powerpoint presentation. He stated that
40 they were opposed to the request for variances. The updated plan requires the same
41 or even greater variances and increases threats to Lake Ardmore. The house is not
42 much smaller; it is just rearranged and still requires 250 square feet of fill to create a
43 walkout. He stated this is a standard house on a substandard lot. The lake setbacks
44 and buffers were determined by the DNR and City as the minimum distance for
45 development. He stated this would set an unfortunate precedent. He stated that he
46 believed it is still a three car garage. He noted that the changes proposed have
2
1 increased the variance requirements and that the variances are unusually large, since
2 variances are usually under 10 feet. He stated the comparisons in the report are not
3 valid because none of the other lots have wetlands within their boundaries and all of
4 the other houses pre -date the wetland buffer ordinance. The lot was known to be
5 problematic and was purchased for a small amount as a result. With reasonable
6 variances, a small home could be constructed. He stated that the proposal is contrary
7 to the Comp Plan objectives of protecting water resources and that it does not meet
8 the criteria for variances because the need for the variances was created by the
9 property owner's desire to have too large of a house for the lot.
10
11 Pat Wulff (2865 Lakeshore, LICA member) stated that the project would impact the
12 runoff and drainage into Lake Ardmore. The City is devoted and a partner for the
13 protection of wetlands and the Lake. Once a house is built, a property owner is
14 guaranteed access to the lake and they can forge a 15 wide path down to the Lake.
15 Other variances have been issued in the neighborhood, many of which have been bad
16 for the Lake and the neighborhood and were costly mistakes.
17
18 Dave Raskob (2864 Ardmore) noted that most of the points made were different than
19 the City staff made in the staff report. He stated that be believed that the house
20 should be built and that there is a lot of good that can come out of it. He stated that a
21 few things have been said by neighbors that are incorrect. He noted that there are
22 other walkouts along Lake Ardmore and that the garage is a two -car garage with an
23 extra 10x12 area. The house is as small as they could accomplish and still make for a
24 reasonable sized house. If you look up the street it is the same distance from the lake
25 and the same distance from the street. All of the runoff will be directed to the widest
26 parts of the buffer by rain gutter. He stated that there are select few who oppose any
27 concessions and, although they don't say it, do not want any house there period.
28
29 Stacy Brown (2945 Ardmore) stated that the applicant is asking for many variances
30 while other neighbors have struggled to get even one variance for a small addition.
31 She stated that if this is granted, it is clearly a special privilege. She said that the
32 applicant made a careless investment by buying a substandard lot and now they are
33 trying to get the City to bail them out.
34
35 Randy Schlecht (2992 Ardmore) stated that his house is the one which received all of
36 the similar variances and was compared to down the street. He noted that, unlike
37 what other people had stated at the meeting, their house is a walkout, which improved
38 drainage and actually required less fill. He stated that about 10 years ago, they went
39 through the variance process, everything worked out well, they built a nice house,
40 everyone got along and welcomed them as neighbors, and he doesn't see why it
41 shouldn't be the same for this applicant.
42
43 Public Hearing closed at 8:08.
44
45 Williams noted that there were also a number lot emails and letters to enter into the
46 record. V. Reid stated that they were so entered.
3
1
2 Martin stated that she appreciates the concessions which were made. She feels that
3 the applicant has tried to follow the direction of the Commission and the
4 neighborhood. She stated that she would be open to recommending approval to the
5 Council with two additional conditions: 1) extra buffer signage left to discretion of
6 staff; and 2) gutters required to be pointed towards the widest portion of the buffer.
7
8 Foote inquired about the letter requesting an environmental impact statement, and
9 what the threshold for that would be. Finke stated that he didn't know the exact
10 numbers, but that he believed an EAW would be optional for the City for a 100 lot
11 subdivision which requires a comp plan amendment. Foote stated that while the
12 house still seems large for the lot, there is no allowable size of house that could fit
13 within the setbacks, which leaves no reasonable use without variances.
14
15 Williams stated that he is concerned with the northeast corner of the house and the
16 proximity to the wetland and lake. He stated that he would not recommend approval
17 in its current form. He would recommend shaving off some of the width in order to
18 increase the setback from the lake and wetland, although he stated he wouldn't
19 require that the full setback be met.
20
21 Anderson asked staff about the off -site runoff. Finke responded that the proposed
22 grading does significantly change the drainage coming down Balsam. He also noted
23 that staff has discussed working with the applicant on options to treat the off -site
24 drainage similar to the Janet White variance. Anderson stated that after looking at the
25 floorplans and the size of the rooms in the home, this really is not a large home and
26 that he would echo the comments made by Commissioners Martin and Foote.
27
28 V. Reid stated that she believes the larger footprint is a result of the Commission's
29 direction to reduce the height. She stated that she concurred with the majority of the
30 Commissioners.
31
32 Motion by Martin, seconded by Foote to recommend approval of the requested
33 variances upon a finding that the requested variances meet the criteria for granting of
34 variances and to recommend that approval be subject to the conditions described in
35 the staff report plus the additional conditions that extra signs be installed along the
36 buffer at direction of staff and that rain gutters be directed towards the wider portions
37 of the buffer. Motion carries (Opposed: Williams; Abstained: R. Reid; Absent:
38 Nolan).
39
40 Anderson stated that even though this is a contentious hearing, he hopes everyone in
41 the neighborhood can get together following the decision by the City Council.
42
43
44
45 7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code
46 relating to the Subdivision Regulations.
4
1
2 Finke introduced the topic, stating that it was a sneak peek into the subdivision
3 ordinance, which will be reviewed in depth by the Commission at a future date
4 because it was written in 1980, and the development process has changed
5 significantly since that time. However, staff believed that some matters in the
6 ordinance required earlier action before the City was prepared to review the ordinance
7 in its entirety.
8
9 Finke stated that one of the proposed amendments makes explicit the requirement that
10 private roads be located within outlots. This merely codifies a City practice which
11 has been followed for the past few decades. He noted that having private roads in
12 outlots affect contiguous soils calculations in rural subdivisions because this area
13 would not count towards required areas.
14
15 Finke described the proposed section related to Premature Subdivisions. Subdivision
16 ordinances commonly include this type clause, which are usually crafted in one of
17 two ways. If a subdivision is premature because of inadequate streets, roads, utilities,
18 or other infrastructure, cities either state that they can deny a subdivision, or that they
19 can require the subdivider to provide the infrastructure. As drafted, the ordinance
20 establishes requires the construction of off -site infrastructure to some minimum
21 standard. If the subdivider is unwilling or unable to provide the improvements, the
22 ordinance allows the City to deny a subdivision. For example, the ordinance requires
23 that any subdivision, including a lot split, needs to provide a road at least equivalent
24 to a "fire lane" sufficient for emergency vehicle access. Three or more lots require a
25 street built to city standards.
26
27 Foote inquired about the minimum private street width of 20 feet, and stated that he
28 would rather see 24 foot wide for townhomes. Finke replied that staff tried to make
29 the ordinance flexible, in case there would be a scenario that the City would like to
30 allow 20 feet in width, perhaps in a 4-plex or a one-way street. The ordinance allows
31 a range and allows the City to make the determination on required width.
32
33 Martin stated that the street types mentioned in the table should all have definitions
34 and be consistent with the chart. Williams agreed.
35
36 Williams noted that the definition of outlot was poorly constructed, and stated that the
37 language "may contain common elements..." did not seem appropriate for a
38 definition. Finke stated that the City commonly requires outlots for common
39 improvements, which is not the practice by all cities.
40
41 Williams suggested removing the clause in the private street definition regarding the
42 private road agreement.
43
44 Williams mentioned that in Subdivision 10 something should be reworded regarding
45 how the Planning Commission and City Council are required to deny subdivisions.
46 Martin noted that it should say the City instead.
5
1
2 Martin stated that the requirement for publicly opened and dedicated should read just
3 opened, because not all streets are dedicated on a plat. She also questioned whether
4 the required standard for streets should be limited to emergency vehicles, or if it
5 should consider garbage trucks, school buses, and the like. Finke stated that the
6 language was limited to emergency vehicles because this the City provides this
7 service. Martin questioned why "Adequate water supply" doesn't mention wells for
8 subdivisions not on city water. Finke stated that the City does not have substantial
9 jurisdiction over well water for individual residences. Martin questioned if the
10 language in the "Adequate wastewater" should allow for shared septics.
11
12 Williams asked if "premature subdivision" clauses could lead to sprawl, because the
13 city would allow people to develop so long as they installed improvements. Finke
14 stated this would be covered by a reference to the Comprehensive Plan.
15
16 V. Reid questioned the clause that discourages through traffic on minor streets. She
17 wondered if this could lead to more traffic congestion. Sparks stated that this is
18 common language in rural/suburban subdivision ordinances from the 1980's. Finke
19 stated that the language is not supportive of urban -form development and should be
20 considered when the City reviews the entire subdivision ordinance. Williams
21 suggested that, in the meantime, maybe the text could be amended to say it is
22 discouraged "when appropriate."
23
24 Public Hearing Opened at 8:59 by R. Reid. Closed at 9:00.
25
26 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Martin to recommend approval of the ordinance
27 by Council as amended by Commission discussion. Motion carries unanimously
28 (Absent: Nolan).
29
30
31 8. Council Meeting Schedule
32 Commissioner Anderson agreed to attend the Council meeting on December 18, 2012.
33
34
35 9. Adjourn
36 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Martin, to adjourn at 9:02 p.m. Motion carried
37 unanimously. (Absent: Nolan)
6
AGENDA ITEM: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: January 3, 2013
MEETING: January 8, 2013 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Dan and Jill Johnson — 2505 Willow Drive — Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the future land use from Rural Residential to Agriculture;
Zoning Map Amendment from Rural Residential to Agricultural Preserve.
Background
Dan and Jill Johnson have requested a Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use of three
properties to Agriculture (currently guided Rural Residential) and a zoning map amendment to
rezone the properties to Agricultural Preserve (currently zoned Rural Residential).
The properties are located at and adjacent to 2505 Willow Drive, which is west of Willow Drive
and north of County Road 24. Surrounding land uses are predominantly rural residential,
although 40 acres of Agricultural property are located immediately to the northwest. The
property is south and east of an unnamed lake (often called School Lake).
Please see the aerial photograph of the surrounding area below and the Future Land Use map on
the back of this page for more information.
r. I ;. ►,
Dan and Jill Johnson — 2505 Willow Drive Page 1 of 4
Comp Plan Amendment; Rezoning
January 8, 2013
Planning Commission Meeting
I m nn
Map 5-2 MEDI NA
Future Land Use Plan
Guide Plan
i t
.'.ch,:;'s:::1 17, 2r: ..,
41'4 aY","ti a S r:1 '_1.��'; u+Y [=,: Y!
Property Description
The applicant has requested the re -guiding and re -zoning of three properties. The main parcel,
2505 Willow Drive, is approximately 36.5 acres in size. In addition to the home, there are three
accessory structures (approximately 3250 s.f., 2880 s.f. and 400 s.f. in size) located on the site
along with various animal -related activities (riding rings, paddocks, pasture). There are wetlands
located throughout the property which occupy approximately `/ of the property.
The property to the west (PID 16-118-23-31-0001) is 15.78 acres in size and is currently vacant.
Approximately 2/3 of the property is wooded and the northern two acres is within School Lake
or the wetland adjacent to the lake.
The property to the east (PID 16-118-23-340006) is 9.25 acres in size and is also currently
vacant. The southern 2/5 of this parcel is wetland and the remaining parcel is fenced for pasture.
Under existing regulations (requiring 5 acres contiguous suitable soil per lot), it does not appear
that there would be additional potential for subdivision beyond the three existing lots.
The three properties total approximately 61.5 acres. The comprehensive plan and zoning code
require a maximum density of one unit per 40 acres (and a minimum lot size of 40 acres).
Therefore, if the Commission and Council are favorable towards this request, staff would
recommend a condition that any approval be contingent upon the parcels being legally combined
to meet these density standards.
Comparison of Agricultural and Rural Residential Land Uses
The Comprehensive Plan defines the Agricultural and Rural Residential land uses as follows:
Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are part of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves
Program and are reserved for agricultural uses as a long-term land use. This area is not planned
to be served by urban services and allows no more than one lot per forty acres.
Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low -intensity uses, such as rural residential, rural
commercial, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural
resources and passive recreation. This area is not planned to be served by urban services during
the timeframe covered by this Plan and requires each lot to have five contiguous acres of soils
suitable for septic systems.
Summary of Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program
Chapter 473H of Minnesota Statutes establishes the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves
Program with the purpose of "encourage[ing] the use and improvement of its agricultural lands
for the production of food and other agricultural products." The Statute allows the City to certify
which lands, if any, are eligible for designation as agricultural preserves. Currently five
properties have been identified by the City as eligible, and all five of these parcels are part of the
program. The City identifies property as eligible for Ag Preserve by guiding property as
Agricultural in its Comprehensive Plan, as shown by the definition above, and by zoning the
property Agricultural Preserve.
Dan and Jill Johnson — 2505 Willow Drive Page 3 of 4 January 8, 2013
Comp Plan Amendment; Rezoning Planning Commission Meeting
The following summary describes some of the implications of the Ag Preserve program:
■ Restricts property to agricultural use via a covenant (minimum of 8 years)
■ Covenant lasts until rescinded by property owner (property then remains in Ag Preserve
until 8 years following the owner's request to rescind the covenant)
• City identifies eligible parcels
• Eligibility Requirements:
o 40 acres
o Identified by the City for "long-term agricultural use...with a maximum
residential density of one house per forty acres"
■ No more than one residence per 40 acres
• Productive and non-productive agricultural land is eligible
• Market value calculation is reduced similar to Green Acres (except for Ag Preserves does
not attribute a higher value to non-productive acreage as does the new Green Acre law).
This can reduce the amount of tax paid by the property owner to the City, school, county
and other jurisdictions by approximately 75%. Levy amounts are then made up by other
properties in the jurisdictions.
• No "pay -back" for tax differences (Green Acre parcels pay back current year +2 previous
years of deferred taxes when coming out of Green Acres)
• Exempt from many types of special assessments
• Prohibits local government from enforcing regulations which would "unreasonably
restrict or regulate normal farm structures or farm practices"
Conclusion
Deciding to re -guide the properties to Agricultural is a policy decision at the full discretion of the
Commission and Council to decide. The City should balance the benefits of supporting
agriculture and maintaining a maximum density of 1 per 40 acres against the fiscal and
regulatory implications.
The Metropolitan Council has the authority to approve or deny amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. If the City approves an amendment, the Met Council needs to sign off on
it before the City can adopt the amendment and place it into effect. Therefore, staff would
recommend that any approval be contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval. As noted
above, staff would also recommend that any approval be contingent upon the lots being
combined.
Attachment
1. Applicant Narrative
Dan and Jill Johnson — 2505 Willow Drive Page 4 of 4 January 8, 2013
Comp Plan Amendment; Rezoning Planning Commission Meeting
December 27, 2012
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
C/O Dusty Finke
City Planner
Dear Mayor Crosby, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members, and Mr. Finke
Our family has a tradition we celebrate the Holiday season. We consider the many people and events
that have been a part of our lives over the past year and reflect on all that we are thankful for. This year
marks the start of our tenth year in Medina, and every year we are very thankful and grateful for the
City we live in. Our daughters return from college and remind us of its beautiful rural character and the
fact that we sometimes take the City we call home for granted. Thank you for everything you have done
at the City to help preserve the nature of Medina. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
It is with the shared goal of preserving Medina's rural character that we are applying for a rezoning of
our property and what we understand will be the necessary modification of the comprehensive plan.
Over the past nine years we have invested time, energy, and resources in enhancing the rural character
of our property. We have planted over 1000 native trees, restored habitat, and fought diligently to
remove invasive species from our meadows and woodlands. We have farmed hay, restored over -grazed
pasture areas, and carefully managed run off. We have made those enhancements with the goal of
restoring and preserving the rural farming character of our home and surrounding land. It is our hope to
stay in our home for many years surrounded by farm pastures, natural meadows, and native woodlands.
We also would like to increase the farm use of our land with organic farming of apples, and other
selected crops. It is with that goal that we recently purchased an additional 9.6 acres of contiguous land,
which brings our total to approximately 63 acres held in three separate parcels.
Our request is that the City re -zone our property from Rural Residential to Agricultural use zoning. We
understand this will result in the combination of our current lots. In addition to preserving the rural
character of our property, this re -zoning will help facilitate our efforts to diversify and increase the
agricultural use of our property. We are confident it will help maintain the rural character of our
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. We are happy to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Dan and Jill Johnson
2505 Willow Drive
Medina, MN 55340
AGENDA ITEM: 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: January 3, 2013
MEETING: January 8, 2013 Planning Commission
SUBJ: City of Medina Public Works and Police — 600 Clydesdale Trail
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review — Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: December 17, 2012
60 -day Review Deadline: February 15, 2013
Summary of Request
The City of Medina has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review in
order to operate a Public Building in the existing building at 600 Clydesdale Trail. The applicant
proposes to undertake substantial renovations to portions of the interior of the existing building.
In terms of exterior changes, the applicant proposes to construct a 2000 square foot salt/sand
storage structure in the northeast corner of the site and to add three additional large overhead
doors and install pavement to access these doors.
Public Buildings are a conditional use within the Industrial Park zoning district, so a CUP will be
required before operation at the property. Following is an aerial of the site:
City of Medina Public Works/Police Page 1 of 7
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review
January 8, 2013
Planning Commission Meeting
The property is approximately 7.1 acres in area. A wetland is located between Clydesdale Trail
and the existing structure and other improvements. An existing berm is located to the north and
east of the structure. Surrounding land uses include Private Recreation (golf course) to the north
and northeast, industrial/office uses to the west and southeast, and existing residential (planned
for commercial) to the south.
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Analysis
The proposed renovation would result in approximately 10,500 square feet of office space and
58,500 square feet of warehouse, vehicle parking, and shop functions. As described above, the
main alteration proposed to the exterior site is to construct a 2000 square foot canvas covered
salt/sand structure. On the west side of the structure, three new overhead doors are proposed to
be installed, one overhead door is proposed to be enlarged, and two overhead doors are proposed
to be removed. On the east side of the building, one overhead door is proposed to be enlarged
and one door removed. The applicant proposes to install access drives to the new overhead
doors and to remove some of the existing pavement leading to doors which are being removed.
Proposed Salt Shed
The applicant proposes to install a salt/sand storage structure very similar to the structure
currently located behind City Hall. The structure is metal frame covered with a canvas material.
The Industrial Park (IP) zoning district allows Public Buildings to install an accessory structure
which does not meet the building material standards of the district. Generally, buildings are
required to be materials such as brick, stone, and decorative concrete, but the exception exists for
accessory structure which are used to store "materials used in the construction or maintenance of
roads, trails and other public infrastructure." These accessory structures have additional
requirements, which are described below, along with a narrative describing if the proposed
project is in compliance:
(i) The structure shall only be used to store sand, road salt, gravel, fill materials, dirt, and other
materials used in the construction or maintenance of roads, trails and other public
infrastructure.
Staff recommends a condition limiting the use of the structure to these purposes and requiring its
removal if the property is used for a different purpose.
(ii) The footprint of the structure shall not exceed 4,000 square feet.
The proposed structure is 2000 square feet in area.
(iii) The height of the structure shall not exceed the greater of the following: 25 feet; or the
height of the principal structure.
The proposed structure is 25 feet in height. The existing structure is 32 feet in height.
(iv) The structure shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines, 200 feet from
public right-of-ways, and 200 feet from residential property.
The structure is proposed to be 50 feet from the private recreational property to the north and
east. The structure is proposed to be over 600 feet from the Clydesdale Trail right-of-way
and over 650 feet from the residential property south of Clydesdale (although this property
City of Medina Public Works/Police Page 2 of 7 January 8, 2013
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
is planned for commercial development). The property two parcels to the east is guided for
mixed use development, but the structure is 350 feet from this property as well.
(v) The accessory structure shall be screened from neighboring properties and public right-of-
way to the extent practical. The City shall require screening through appropriate means such
conditioning where the structure may be located on the property and additional requirements
for berming, landscaping, fencing and other screening techniques.
The proposed structure is built partially into the existing berm on the north and east of the
property and there are some existing trees on the berm, although the peak of the shed will
sit approximately 15 feet above the berm. The principal structure screens the proposed
shed from view from the southwest, and there is existing vegetation south of the yard which
provides screening. Staff recommends a condition that additional plantings be incorporated
along the berm to reduce the visual impact of the structure. Staff also recommends a
condition that requires the color of the canvas to be chosen so as to limit visibility.
(vi) The accessory structure shall not be considered outside storage as regulated within this
chapter.
The structure will not be calculated as outside storage.
Setbacks and Hardcover
The existing improvements meet the dimensional standards of the IP zoning district:
IP District Standard
Existing
Proposed
Front Setback
50 feet
285 feet
Unchanged
Side Setback (west)
50 feet
82 feet
Unchanged
Side Setback (east)
50 feet
113 feet
Unchanged
Rear Setback
50 feet
91 feet
Unchanged
Parking Setback
25 feet
50 feet
Unchanged
Impervious Coverage
70%
49.2%
50.3%
Stormwater and LID review
The applicant proposes to construct no stormwater improvements along with the project.
Existing stormwater ponds were installed when the property was developed in the 1990's, but
these would not meet the nutrient removal requirements of the City's current stormwater
management ordinance. Although impervious surfaces cover approximately 50% of the gross
area of the lot, it is closer to 70% of the upland area.
The stormwater management ordinance would require stormwater improvements if more than
5000 square feet of hardcover were being proposed. The applicant proposes to add 6675 square
feet of hardcover, but to remove 3358 square feet of existing pavement for a net increase of 3317
square feet.
Although the proposed additional hardcover would not trigger ordinance requirements for
additional stormwater improvements, the applicant may wish to consider optional stormwater
improvements or look for ways to further reduce hardcover so that there would be no increase.
Additionally, staff is recommending altering the proposed grading around the salt shed so that
City of Medina Public Works/Police Page 3 of 7
January 8, 2013
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
much of the runoff from the roof of the structure is directed through vegetation to the stormwater
pond rather than flowing onto the bituminous surface and then into the pond.
Access/Driveway
An existing driveway serves the site along the western property line and loops along the west and
north of the structure. On the east side of the building is a large paved area that will be used for
Public Works yard space. A gravel fire lane connects along the southeast corner of the building
to the front parking lot. The applicant proposes to circulate police vehicles around this southeast
corner. Gravel is not permitted for access drives, so staff recommends a condition that this
access lane be paved or otherwise of an acceptable surface. The IP zoning district requires
access drives to be a minimum of 22 feet in width. However, the City Engineer and staff believe
that for the short distance around the southeast corner of the site, the access drive should be a
minimum of 20 feet in width.
Lighting
The applicant proposes to replace the existing wall pack lights, and to install two additional
building mounted lights. The applicant proposes to install one additional pole -mounted light
adjacent to the salt shed.
All lighting is required to be fully shielded per code and light trespass cannot exceed 0.3
footcandles at property lines. Adjacent to residential property, the requirement is 0.0
footcandles, and this is met on the southern property line.
The plans call for a 40 foot tall pole for the new light, but the lighting ordinance limits this to 30
feet. Staff recommends a condition requiring a shorter pole and otherwise requiring that lighting
is consistent with City Code.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
The applicant proposes to remove an 8" tree on the west side of the existing structure in order to
install an access drive to a new overhead door. This tree was almost certainly installed during
initial development of the property. The IP zoning district requires inch:inch replacement of any
significant tree. Therefore, a minimum of 8" of new trees shall be required to be planted.
The applicant proposes no landscaping improvements. As mentioned above, staff recommends a
condition to add additional landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the salt shed structure.
Trash and Recycling Facilities/Mechanical Equipment
The IP district requires that all trash and recycling be stored within the principal building or in an
enclosed area adjacent to the building which is composed of materials similar to the principal
structure. The applicant has indicated that these facilities would be stored internally, and staff
recommends a condition requiring that the plans be updated to identify the proposed storage
area.
The IP zoning district requires that "transformers and similar equipment... should be located
inside a building or shall be fully screened from view." Staff recommends this as a condition for
the generator proposed at the southeast corner of the building. Such screening shall be of similar
materials to the principal structure.
City of Medina Public Works/Police Page 4 of 7 January 8, 2013
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Loading Dock/Outside Storage of Service Vehicles
The IP zoning district includes a number of limitations related to loading docks, including a
setback of 300 feet from residential and requiring that loading docks within 720 feet of
residential property be located so that the building is between the dock and the residential
property. The IP district also limits loading docks to 10% of the perimeter of a structure (unless
a loading dock "courtyard" is created between buildings). Almost 25% of the existing building
perimeter is made up of loading docks, so the property is non -conforming. Staff recommends a
condition that additional loading dock doors be removed so that the perimeter of the structure
occupied by loading docks does not increase.
Outdoor Storage
The IP zoning district allows outdoor storage to be a maximum of 20% of the area of the
building footprint. This results in 12,474 square feet maximum outdoor storage. The applicant
proposes to use the area adjacent to the salt shed and also the area immediately north of the
structure as outdoor storage areas. These areas total 10,050 square feet.
The IP district requires that outdoor storage areas do not exceed 10 feet in height and that they
are screened from view. The existing berm will screen the storage areas from the north and east,
and the building will largely do so from the west. Additional plantings to the southeast of the
building will serve to screen both the salt shed and the outdoor storage. If the Commission and
Council are interested, a wall or fence could be placed to the south of the storage area as well.
Parking
There are currently 53 parking spaces to the south of the structure. As part of the renovations,
some interior spaces are changing uses and the parking requirement for the new use is as follows:
Use
Requirement
Proposed S.F.
# required
Office
1 per 250 square feet
10,300 square feet
41.2 stalls
Industrial/Warehouse
1 per 2000 square feet or one per
employee, whichever is greater
58,300 square feet
29.15 stalls
Total
70.35 stalls
There are large areas of existing pavement which will likely not be utilized by the existing uses
on the site. Staff recommends a condition designating some of this space as "proof of parking"
which could be striped with parking stalls in the future if necessary.
Review Criteria/Findings of Fact
The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed
construction for consistency with City regulations. The City "may condition its approval in any
manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to
achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which
the property is located." Staff has suggested such conditions in the next section.
According to Section 825.39 of the City Code, in reviewing a Conditional Use Permit, the City
should consider the "effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of occupants or surrounding lands." Among other things, the City shall consider:
City of Medina Public Works/Police Page 5 of 7
January 8, 2013
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially
diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
Staff believes the proposed use is consistent with City land use plans, and has reconunended
conditions to reduce potential impacts on property in the immediate vicinity.
Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff believes the proposed use is consistent with City development plans and should not impede
orderly development.
Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
Staff suggested that the Commission and Council may want to discuss optional stormwater
improvements, but otherwise believes the utilities and access are adequate.
Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street
parking and loading space to serve the proposed use.
Staff recommends a condition delineating proof -of -parking spaces on the plans, which can be
accommodated within the existing hardcover. Staff has recommended a condition limiting the
loading dock doors to the amount existing.
Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive
odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result.
Staff believes the proposed use would have low potential for odor, fumes, dust, noise and
vibration. Proposed lighting and signage will be required to meet relevant codes.
Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall
needs of the City and to the existing land use.
Staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the needs of the City as identified in the Future
Land Use Plan and zoning map.
Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the
zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
Staff believes the use is consistent with the zoning code and regulations of the IP district.
Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff believes the use is consistent with Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe the change in use will cause traffic concerns.
Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise,
glare or general unsightliness.
Staff believes the proposed site plan is consistent with industrial development in the area.
City of Medina Public Works/Police Page 6 of 7 January 8, 2013
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant proposes to begin construction during the spring of 2013 and to occupy thc'
building in the fall.
Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning
Officer.
The City of Medina purchased the property in December 2012.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review with the
following conditions:
1) Except as modified herein, construction shall be consistent with the plans received by the
City on January 3, 2013.
2) The applicant shall abide by the recommendations of the City Engineer dated December
27, 2012.
3) The canvas -covered shed shall only be used to store sand, road salt, gravel, fill materials,
dirt, and other materials used in the construction or maintenance of roads, trails and other
public infrastructure. The shed shall be removed from the property when it is no longer
being utilized for these purposes.
4) The color of canvas for the salt/sand shed shall be chosen to minimize visual impacts.
5) Additional landscaping shall be installed to reduce the visual impact of the canvas -
covered shed and also to screen the outdoor storage area from the south.
6) The applicant shall update the grading plan so that runoff from the salt/sand shed shall be
directed, to the extent possible, across pervious surfaces and into the stormwater pond.
7) The access drive around the southeast corner of the structure shall be of an acceptable
improved surface and shall be constructed a minimum of 20 -feet in width. If grading is
necessary for additional hardcover is proposed for this drive, the applicant shall identify
the adjacent wetland boundary and submit a grading plan for this area.
8) No new lightpole shall exceed 30 feet in height.
9) The applicant shall submit specifications for all new lighting which are consistent with
City Code. All fixtures shall be downcast and fully shield.
10) The applicant shall install a minimum of 8 inches of replacement trees.
11) Any generator shall be screened from view with materials which are similar to the
principal structure.
12) The perimeter of the structure which includes loading dock doors shall not be increased.
If new doors are to be installed or existing doors expanded, existing dock doors shall be
removed and replaced with building materials consistent with the standards of the
Industrial Park zoning district.
13) The proof -of -parking areas shown on the plans shall be striped for parking if determined
necessary by the City.
Attachments
1) City Engineer Comments
2) Applicant's Narrative
3) Plans
City of Medina Public Works/Police Page 7 of 7
January 8, 2013
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
WSB
Engineering • Planning • Environmental • Construction
ec ,I,<Fu<miev. 'lc
December 28, 2012
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: Medina Public Works and Police Site Plan, LR-12-094
WSB Project No. 2065-340
Dear Dusty:
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
We have reviewed the site plan submittal dated December 14, 2012 for the Medina Public Works and
Police Site Plan. The site is currently developed with a parking lot, building and storm sewer
improvements. The plans primarily deal with building improvements to better fit the intended use but also
include some minor site revisions. The site improvements include some removals, installation of a salt
enclosure, and some minor parking lot improvements. We have the following comments with regards to
engineering matters.
1. The area shown southeast of the existing building needs clarification. It appears there are
contour lines crossing each other and it is difficult to determine what is going on in this part
of the site. The plans should be clarified so contours do not cross each other and line types
differentiated to that it is clear what road edges and contours are.
2. It is our understanding that the area southeast of the existing building should be improved to
provide vehicular access between the paved area east of the building and the parking lot south
of the building. This vehicular connection should be paved, a minimum of 20 -feet wide and
constructed to city standards. The Fire Marshal should be consulted as to the final street
design to meet fire standards.
3. The proposed walls adjacent to the salt storage area exceed 9 -feet in height and will require
engineered design.
4. The proposed swales shown north and east of the salt storage area are likely to create erosion
concerns. Revised plans should include details of how the swales will be armored to protect
against erosion. In addition, the swale along the east side of the salt storage area is directing
water onto the parking lot. It appears that some additional grading of this swale could direct
the water to the existing water body south of the salt storage area and east of the parking lot.
5. It is unclear how the paved area east of the building drains. The plans should show any
existing or proposed storm sewer that will provide drainage for this area.
Minneapolis • St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
C: Ustrs\dustyfinkeAppData\Local2Vliaowft\ Windows\Temporary Internet Files' Content.Outlook:AZR606ZD Publ ice Works and Police Site Plan Review (12
Public Works and Police Site Plan
December 28, 2012
Page 2
6. The existing storm sewer shown west of the building includes two catch basins and a pipe
between them. The plans should show where the storm water goes downstream from the
southerly catch basin.
7. The plans should accurately show the existing sanitary sewer and water mains including
valves and hydrants. Pipe sizes, pipe types and manhole sizes should be included with the
revised plans.
8. All storm sewer pipes and structures should include size and pipe types.
9. The rock construction entrance is shown in a location that will provide benefits only if
construction traffic is allowed to enter and exit the site across it. If construction traffic is
allowed to also use the southerly parking area then the rock construction entrance should be
relocated or enlarged to provide benefits to both accesses.
10. All pertinent City Standard Details should also be included in the final plan set.
Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tom Kellogg
C:1Usc s`dustyfinkcAppDatalocal Microsoft .Windons`Temporary Internet Files' Contmt.Outkwk'AZR6O6ZD'Publice Works and Police Site Plan Review (12
292DesignGroup
December 16, 2012
City of Medina
Medina City Hall
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Planning and Zoning Submittal for
City of Medina Renovations for Public Works and Police Facilities at 600 Clydesdale Trail
To Whom it May Concern:
On behalf of the City of Medina, 292 Design Group is submitting the attached Application for
Planning Consideration for modifications to an existing property at 600 Clydesdale Trail in Medina.
The City is currently in the process of acquiring the property for use as a Public Services facility. The
facility will provide needed space for both Public Works and Police operations.
The total site area is 308,979 square feet (7.09 acres) and includes existing entry, drives and parking.
Changes to the site will be limited to replacement of the existing monument sign with a new sign to
match the current Medina City Hall sign and the addition of a new salt/sand structure in the
northeast corner of the site. Plans include a future drive for connection of the front parking lot with
the police garage entries. Net increase to impervious areas total is 3,317 square feet. The review
threshold for Watershed District review is disturbance of over one acre and/or over one-half acre of
additional impervious; we are well under this threshold.
The existing building consists of a 57,957 square foot warehouse and 13,018 square foot office
facility; total building is 70,975 gsf. Warehouse areas will be modified for use by the Public Works
department for materials storage, vehicle garage and vehicle maintenance areas. The existing office
area will be renovated for use as offices for the Public Works department and for use as the Police
facility. Modifications to the building exterior will be limited to infill and relocation of two overhead
doors for the drive -through vehicle garage and installation of three additional overhead doors for
access to a materials storage warehouse and the vehicle maintenance garage areas.
The existing warehouse portion of the building is constructed of ribbed precast concrete panels with
a painted stripe. The office portion of the building is constructed of rockface and stacked bond
concrete block with a painted finish and painted stripe to match the warehouse. Proposed
improvements include repainting of the stripe to better coordinate with the adjacent finishes and
removal of prefinished metal roofs over the main building entry and loading dock doors. New
finishes will be added to the main entry along with the addition of building signage on the front of
the building and at entrances to the police and public works entries for identification.
Sincerely,
292DesignGroup
Pam Anderson, AIA, LEED AP
Partner
763.533.3813 9100 49TH AVE N. MPLS, MN 55428
0
0
Medina Public Works and Police Facility
Design Development 292 Design Group 12.12.12
SMALLVEICLE GARAGE
1 r
0
LUSE
ROW
PMTS
ROCS
VEX.
MAIM.
OFFICE
VEHIQ E MAINTENANCE
MATERIALS STORAGE
0
L
1 1
0
0
L__
1
0 - y
\ mmr
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ J 1 11111
\
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ r
10
1
L_
\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ • \ " \ \ " \
\ \ \ \ \ \
\ •
` )• \ \ \ \ \
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
L
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
✓ v v v v
LARGE VEHICLE GARAGE
r -1 1- 1 1 1- T T -1
1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 ▪ 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
1, 1 1 11 1 r
POLICE
SHARED OFF
.1
Si RIM IN
N. •
POLICE ADMINISTRATION
O
EVIDENCE STORN3E
VAULT
--
EVIDENCE OAAASE
SAD -SPORT
L
O
Medina Public Works and Police Facility
Design Development 292 Design Group 12.12.12
OPEN TO BELOW
STORAGE MEIIN4EIE
OPEN TO BELOW
EGuPMEtrtISEEZuRAI
OPEN TO BELOW
MIN
OPEN TO BELOW
1111
STORAGE MEaswNE
711111171111 -=7"7-
OPEN TO
BELOW
SUSPENDED
CEILING BELOW
Medina Public Works and Police Facility
Design Development 292 Design Group 12.12.12
Medina Public Works and Police Facility
Design Development 292 Design Group 12.12.12
O
0
O
0
O
0
1111
El -
Medina Public Works and Police Facility
Design Development 292 Design Group 12.12.12
i
M EDINA
Police Department
Public'1VJri' .3 0
Medina Public Works and Police Facility
Design Development 292 Design Group 12.12.12
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
10
^Ory
tr
♦•
EGr alloro je aaWrz ryeaa - 2010 12126135- R edone Pu b. WO $ 6 Polity De MIC. Deu dn\Dmvino FIN$ \12126135 CI, dwy
♦
� 1
S 90\
� S�
J�
9j99\
S\ N
sI
N N
N
N \♦�
\e�0 , water
� __/ \
tee
edge% c //
•
♦
CONCRETE
N00°09'39" E` 253.85
minimum butlding setbock line
S00 "48'26 •E 368 .05
SYMBOL LEGEND
REMO VE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTIO N
REMO VE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING
CO NCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION
DEMOLITION NOTES
0 SAWCUT, REMO VE, AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING CO NCRETE.
0 REMO VE AND DISPO SE OF EXISTING BITM UNINOUS PAVEMENT.
0 REM OV E AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING TREE.
NORTH
0 15 30 60
ALL EXISTING ITEMS AND C ONDITIONS SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE C ONSTRUCTION
J
z
LUW�
co Win
1
■
S
z
o g
WN
N �
1-
Z
W
2}
a< -1W0
0 L
U. 7J Ce
00
Q-1
Z
wm
600 CLYDESDALE TRAIL
DEMOLITION PLAN
1
0 292 designg10+G (2011)
LEGEND
GRADING NOTES
IVJ
■
eo f
MATCH
EXISTING
•
•
J
\Bd� of w=
R OCK
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
MATCH
EXISTING
•
•
\
CONCRETE
WASHOUT
950
949
0 0 0 0
ROCK SACK/
BIOLOG
•
•
MATCH
/EXISTING
E `CM A Projed aP,ojede • 201D1212813, R eclin e Pub. Woke 8 Police Dep.. DesioreDmvinO Files\1212013503 dwg
EXISTING C ONTOURS
PROP OSED C ONTOURS - MAJOR INTERVAL
PROPOSED CONTOURS - MINOR INTERVAL
GRADE BREAK LINE
GRADE SLOPE
SILT FENCE
RIP -RAP / R OCK CONST. ENTRANCE
NEW SOD
N00 °09'39"E 253.85
INLET
PROTECTION,
TYP.
005 40 FFF
1003.5 TW
1002. 5 BW
S00° 48'26"E 368.05.
NEW SOD
(TYP.)
0
L�r.�1
950.00 TC
949.50 GL
MATCH
EXISTING
INLET PR OTECTION
CONCRETE WASHOUT STATION
SPOT ABBREVIATI ONS:
TC - TOP OF CURB
GL - GUTTER LINE
B - BITUMUNOUS
C - CONCRETE
EO- E MERGENCY OVERFL OW
TW - TOP OF WALL
BW - B OTTOM OF WALL (F/ G)
( °) - EXISTING TO BE VERIFIED
002.9SW,
1012.1 TW
1002.66W
1. Tree protection consisting of snow fence or safety fence install ed at the
drip line shall be in place prior to beginning any grading or dem oliti on
work at the site .
2. All elevations with an asterisk (') shall be fi eld verified . If ele vati ons
v ary significantly, notify the Engin eer f or further instr ucti ons.
3. Grades sh own in paved areas repres ent finish ele vation.
4. Rest ore all disturbed areas with 6' of go od quality sod.
5. All co nstr ucti on shall be p erformed in acc ord an ce with state and loc al
st and ard specific ati ons f or constr ucti on.
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
1. Install temporary erosion contr ol measures (inlet prote ction, silt fence, and rock constructi on
entrances) prior to beginning any excavati on or dem olition work at the site .
2. Er osion co ntrol m easur es show n on th e ero si on contr ol plan ar e th e ab solut e minimum . The
c ontractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or basins, additi onal siltati on fencing,
and/or disk the soil parallel to the contours as deemed nec essary to further c ontr ol er osion.
3. All construction site entrances shall be surfaced with crushed r ock across the entire width of the
entrance and from the entrance to a point 50' into the construction zone.
4. The toe of the silt fence shall be trenched in a minim um of 6 ". Th e trench backfill shall be
compact ed with a vibratory plate compactor.
5. All gradi ng op er ati ons shall be cond uct ed in a m anner to minimi ze the p ot enti al f or site er osio n.
Sedim ent control practices must be est ablished on all d own gradient perimeters b efor e any up
gradient land disturbing activities begin.
6. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible to limit soil erosion but in no case
later than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has t empor arily or
permanently ceased. Temporary stockpiles with out significant silt, clay or organic compon ents
(e.g., clean aggregate stockpil es, demolition concrete stockpiles, sand stockpiles) and the
constructed base components of roads, parking l ots and similar surfa ces ar e exempt from thi s
requir em ent.
7. In areas where c oncentrat ed flows occur (su ch as swales and ar eas in front of storm catch basins
and intak es) th e erosion control facilities shall be backed by stabilization structure to protect th ose
facilities fr om the concentrat ed flows.
8. Inspect the constr uction site once e very s even d ays d uring active construction and within 24 h ours
after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours.
9. All BMPs must be r ep air ed, r epl ac ed, or supplem ented when th ey b ecome nonf uncti on al or th e
s edim ent r ea ch es 1/3 of the height of th e B MP. Th ese r ep air s m ust be m ade withi n 24 h ours of
discovery, or as soon as fi eld conditions all ow access . All r epairs shall be recorded in the SWPPP.
10. If sediment escap es the c onstruction site, off -site accumulati ons of sediment must be removed in a
manner and at a frequency suffici ent to minimize off -site impacts .
11. All soils tracked ont o pavement shall be r em oved daily.
12. T empor ary soil stockpile s m ust h ave silt f enc e or oth er eff ectiv e s edim ent contr ols, and cann ot be
plac ed in surfac e w aters, in cl uding st onnwat er convey anc es such as curb and gutt er syst ems, or
c onduits and ditches unless there is a bypass in place for th e st onnwater .
13 . C ollected s ediment, asphalt and concrete millings, Boating d ebris, paper, plastic, fabric,
c onstruction and demolition d ebris and other wastes must be disposed of pr op erty and must comply
with MPCA disposal requir ements .
14 . Oil gasoline, paint and any hazardous substances must be properly st ored, including secondary
containment, to pr event spills, leaks or other discharge. Restricted access to st orag e areas must
be provided to prevent vandalism. Storage a nd disposal of hazardous waste must be in
c omplian ce with MPCA r egul ations .
15 External washing of trucks and oth er constructi on vehicles must be limited to a defined area of the
sit e. Run off must be contain ed and waste properly disposed of . No engi ne degr easing is allowed
onsite.
16. All liquid and solid wastes generated by concrete washout op erations must be contained in a
leak -proof containment facility or impermeabl e liner. A compacted clay liner that does not all ow
wash out liquids to enter ground water is considered an imperm eabl e liner. The liq uid and s olid
wastes must not c ontact the ground, and th er e mu st n ot be r unoff from th e c oncr ete wash out
op erati ons or ar eas. Liq uid and solid w ast es must be dispos ed of pr operly and in compli ance with
MPCA reg ul ati ons. A sign must be inst alled adjacent to each wash out facility to inf orm concrete
equipment operat ors to utilize the pr oper facilities.
17. Up on completi on of the project and stabilization of all grad ed areas, all temporary erosion c ontrol
facilities (silt fences, hay bal es, etc) shall be rem oved from the site .
18 . Contract or shall submit Notic e of T ermin ation f or MP CA-NPDES permit within 30 d ays after Final
Stabilization.
NORTH
0 15 30
N
I
m
m
re -
n
CO
ut
z
ag
Oz
a'f
wz
ZW
� Q
;A=
Wk-
Ng
01
m
1-
z
ww
}
cc
a.1 -
WV
a u.
Urt
00
a�
<0
Z_
m
w
Ea
600 CLYDESDALE TRAIL
GRADING AND
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN
60 C3
0 292 despn group (2011)
ALL EXISTING ITEMS AND CONDITI ONS SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR BEF ORE CONSTRUCTION
N
1•N
N \
N
\ /
edge Of \
w� _� \
N.
Proof - of -P arking
(15 spa ces)
edge% Dte//
AREA CA LCULATIONS
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS =
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS =
DEMOLISHED IMPERVIOUS =
PROPOSED IM PERVIOUS=
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS=
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS =
TOTAL SITE A REA =
Proof -of -Parking
(2 spac es)
S00 °48'26'E 368.05
95,359 SF (SITE)
63,375 SF (BUILDING)
3,358 SF (SITE)
6,675 SF (SITE)
98,818 SF (SITE O NLY)
158,374 SF (SITE & BUILDING )
308,979 SF
(7.09 AC)
N00°09'39" E 253. 85
,
SEGMENTAL BLOCK
RETAINING WALL
10'X190'
OUTDOOR
ST ORAGE
POURED CONCRETE
RETAINING WALL
(SEE ARCH./STRL)
SYMBOL LEGEND
NEW 6" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT OVER
NEW 8" CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE
SEE DETAIL 1/C4
NEW CONCRETE PAVEM ENT
SEE DETAIL 2/C 4
WHERE APPLICABLE, DIMENSIONS ARE FROM
BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB OR BACK OF
CURB TO END OF STALL LINE.
NORTH
0 15 30
60
v�
O
(NI
c3)
—J
aWf
LLI
W co
W N)
O O
N
e
N
K
O
H
z
cW
aJ
�u-
DeC
UY
00
d
Q
Z
W m
600 CLYDESDALE TRAIL
PAVING AND
DIMENSION PL AN
C2
E COWro Kc¢`P ro lecls -201212126131 Me dine Pu blic Wo rks a Palace D ep`G. De sipn0a wirg Fib s\12126135 C2.2ry
ALL EXISTIN G ITE MS AND CONDITI ONS SH OULD BE VERIFIED BY T HE CONTR ACTO R BEFO RE CO NSTR UCTION
0 292 design group 12011)
v�
ENGINEERING FABRIC
NEW 6" BITU MINOUS PAVE MENT
PLACED IN 2 LIFTS
EXISTING SUBGRADE S OIL
HEAVY-DUTY BITUMINOUS
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
1111 i=,,
NOT TO SCALE
NEW 6" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
EXISTING SUBGRADE SO IL
MEDIUM -DUTY CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
BACKFILL 18111 NEW
GOOD OUAUTY
TCPSOII AND SEED
6"
NOT TO SCALE
12"
e-'
SLO PE
Y4" PER FT
8" NEW BASE
AGGREGATE
NEW 6" BASE
AGGREGATE
NEW B TUM INO US
PAVEM ENT
NEW BASE
AGGREGATE
EXISTING SUBGRADE SOIL
B612 CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
E'.\C MMro, s rged s - X112.12126135 Medina P ublk Warks 8 Police Dept\C. DwgmDmeinp File .\12125135 C4 Tvp
SPECI 1CA710N5 AID STANOA1mS
NSC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSIRUC110N 9111 EDITION.
AMR STRUCTURAL %EL CNC CODE - S1EE1 • D1.1-94 .
29 aft 1929 - (79U SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
DESNIN LOADS
ALLOWABLE AXLE %EIGHT LOAD
SAFETY FACTOR
WATER FLO W RATE
(THROUGH POLYESTER SLEEVE)
MAXI/UM OVERFLOW RATE
n/a
n/0
0.476 cfi 0 3' hood
2 .14 cb 0 16' hood
STREET CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL AFTER CURB
& GUTTER IS INSTALLED. MAINTAIN UNTIL STE
IN STABILIZED .
ROAD DRAM
CC -23
NII/CO. CURB
INLET PROTEC110N
SILT FENCE INLET
SEDIMENT FILTER
NOT TO SCALE
1"-2" WASHED RO CK
GEOTEXTI LE FABRIC
6" MINIM UM
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NOT TO SCALE
METAL, WO OD POST, OR STAKE.
8' MAX . SPACIN G, 2' INTO GROUND.
FABRIC ANCHORAGE
TRENCH. BACKFILL WITH
TAMPED NATURAL SOIL
DI RECTION
OF RUNOFF
NOTE: DEPENDIN G UP ON CONFI GURATION, ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MESH
WITH HO G RINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH WIRES, OR WOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES.
SILT FENCE
INSTALLATION DETAIL
MODULAR BL OCK
UNITS PE R
MANUFACTURER
NEW BITU MIN OUS
PAVE MENT
NOT TO SCALE
12" I MPERVI OUS FILL
EXISTIN G S OILS
4" DIA. DRAIN TILE
ELEV. VARIES
S OIL SEPARATION FABRIC
(OVERLAP GE OGRID 12" MIN .)
6" THICK MIN.
GRANULAR REINFORCED BACKFILL
CO MPACTED 95 % OF MAXI MUM
STANDARD PROCT OR DENSITY
GEO GRID REINFORCEMENT
SOIL SEPARATI ON
FABRIC
APPR OXI MATE
EXCAVATION LINE
EXISTING SUBGRADE
S OIL
RETAINING WALL DETAIL
m
NOT TO SCALE
ALL EXISTING ITE MS AND C ONDITIONS SH OULD BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACT OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTI ON
ti)
all) ro
rn
rn
in
m
0 co
R
H
9,
W
Cali z•
a
aJ
C\fl1
Z <
aW�
W U)
(n K CO
1
z
w
I ->-
cc
Q
a0
wQ
Cu_
wQ
UY
JQ'
00
<0
Z_
Offl
W �
EQ ..
600 CLYDESDALE TRAIL
DETAILS
C4
a 292 design group (2011(
J:\2012\12064\08-CAD\12064E0.1.DWG Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:31:02 PM
GENERAL NOTES:
A. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING POLE FIXTURE WATTAGES AND
DISTRIBUTION. FIXTURES TO REMAIN AS INSTALLED.
B. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING BUILDING MOUNTED WALL PACK
FIXTURE WATTAGES, CONTROL AND WIRING. FIXTURES WILL
BE REPLACED ON A ONE FOR ONE BASIS WITH NEW FIXTURES.
KEY NOTES:
0
0
0
0
0
0
REPLACE EXISTING BUILDING MOUNTED GLASS WALL PACK
FIXTURES WITH NEW TYPE S2 FIXTURES AS SHOWN. VERIFY
EXISTING CONTROLS, CIRCUITING, WIRE SIZES, ETC. AS
REQUIRED TO POW ER AND CONTROL NEW FIXTURES.
PROVIDE A NEW TYPE S1 FIXTURE ON 40'-0" POLE AT THIS
LOCATION. PROVIDE A 24' RAISED CONCRETE BASE. SEE
DETAIL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. PROVIDE CONTROL
RELAY AND SLAVE TO BUILDING EXTERIOR LIGHTING
CONTROLS.
PROVIDE NEW TYPE S3 FIXTURES ON MOUNT SUSPENDED IN
SALT SHED BUILDING. SEE DETAILS.
PROVIDE NEW TYPE S2 FIXTURES AS SHOWN. VERIFY EXISTING
CONTROLS, AND PROVIDE NEW BOXES, CIRCUITING, ETC. AS
REQUIRED TO POW ER AND CONTROL NEW FIXTURES.
EXISTING POLE MOUNTED SITE LIGHTING FIXTURES, MARKED
'X1' TO REMAIN IN SERVICE. REFURBISH AND RELAMP
FIXTURES, CLEAN AND INSPECT GASKETING. REPLACE WORN
COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED.
EXISTING FLAGPOLE LIGHTING FIXTURES MOUNTEDON
BUILDING , MARKED 'X2' TO REMAIN IN SERVICE.
LIGHT
FIXTURE SCHEDULE
TYPE
MANUFACTURER
CATALOG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
LA MwAI�MA MEPNSwLs[SIANT
MOUNTING
COMM ENTS
lnv7,
S
MAICN Lx1 NE on SITE
Si
2WW MN OVE. I✓WALL M ID We WA
(1119 1 'NM I WILL., PUISE S AN r
WW1• I.2UD
RELA2E% ISIrw WALL1014 8, 01. 044 IN OA,
Si
2518190.,00 0 LEAD -SALI SNEU
11250 WM I MN LLEut PUt52 51A NI
SUWENOEu
W. E. MOUS HSU uEIM TMSSN EEi
2%1S,130. 4,.50)0 0 OPER -VENI,Y
11400' *A,MN CLUJ( YOLS[S, S DI
A NN M I U49 PULE
EXISTING POLL M OU NTED H %IUNE
X2
[XIS., ETA ,, PULE FLOOD
VERIF TA W NM .4146
9J60INT, M OUS IEu
ExISNN4 FIXTURE TO REWON IN USE
POLE ANO FIXTURE BY DIVISION 16
HAND HOLE.
P4 BARE COPPER
VERIFY BASE PLATE
WITH FIXTURE DRAWING.
LEVEL IN/WAS HER AND NUT.
GROUT UNDER BASE PLATE.
24' DIA CONCRETE BASE
3500 PSI W 15% ENTRANED
AIR.
0103IDS FOUR (4)1' 3 30'X
UNCHOR BOLTS (12' 0,C)
N 2 NUTS 2 WASHERS. 1
LOCK WASHER. PROJECT
4-' 1' ABOVE BASE.
CONDUIT WITH BUSHING
24' BELOW GRADE
BEND UP AS RE011100.
6 05X78'XIB' DIA.
VERTICAL BARS W/03
TIES AT 12' O. C.
5/8-X10' GROUND ROD
UNISTRUT SUPPORT FROM
ROOF
45TH READED RO D
FIXTURE TYPE 53 -TYPICAL
PARKING LOT STANDARD MOUNTING 2/21/02
3 \SALT SHACK LIGHT HANGER DETAIL
\OJ NO SCALE D1653-02
.1 NO SCALE
'oA
0,0
0.0
0.0 00
' 00 0.0
0o R. •0.0
o.o '0.a 0.0 c. 0
0o to R. to •0. 0 17.3 0. 0
17. 0 •0.0 130 00 0.0 0. 0 '0.0
'0. 0 %. o to ' 0.0 0. 0 00 '00
'00
o.o '0.0
0.o b.o
b.o Oo
x, 'o.o
b.o 0,0
R. R.
b.o R.
0.o R.
to R.
to R.
R. R,
0.0
0,0
0,
b.1
b.,
0.0 R. , 02
o. o b.o '0,o 0,o R., 02
0.0 b. 0 0o 01 '.I 0.3
00 0.0 b. o 'o.o c. , 0.
0.o b. 0 0o •0a R. 1 ba
00 •0.0 0. o b.o R.,
0. 0 00 00 0. o , 02
'0.0 b.o 0. o b. , '1.., • 0.
b.0 %. o '0,0 0., 0., 0.
0
0 .0 b.+ c.
' 0.0 '0.0 b, 0 b. '0
0.0 0. 0 ' o. 0 00 0.1 0
O. o 0.0 0.0 OA Ttt o
0.0 0. 0 0.o t .o .01 0
0.0 0. 0 '0. 0 0.1 02
00 %0
0.0 130 u, ba •02 R
0.o b, R. R. •02 •
0a 'd4
00 •0. 0 '0 o .00 ' 0. + .01
0.0 b.t "0,
•0, b. , b2
•0. , •02 '0
' 02 0.
b.2 0.
b. 0.] ' a 3.o 3. , • ,.o • z2 ' z.3 2.4 '3.6 k5 '05 3. 7 07 3.4 • 2. 5 3A
,, 0 '3. 0 •6.7 5. 2 4. ' S0 01 5 •a.9 b. 0 •d.0 '5.] ' e ,e 5. 3
] ;. 0 to a
092 002
o.o 0,0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.o o. 0 0. 0 0.0 on 0.o o0 00 to 0o b.o to no b,0 %. 0
'01, 0. o 00 b+ 0.,
0.0 01 0. , 0., oe 0. , 0.2 0a •0+ ,o,t o. , 0.z 0.t oe %.z b., 0., b., 0. , 0,
0.0
b. ,
%A %.o to to to ._ _
o., %.l o.o b.o oA o. 0 00
b, %A 0. , a. ,
0.a 0.2 02 ba •03 •0. 3 •+3 ba bA b.2 0. 2 •03 'oa ba 0a ba •. az b.+ 'on o.1 oz
1140
06 b.7 b. ] b.] b.7 0.6 's 0A 0.7 07 0,7 0.7 •a 6 3 .0.3•0A •0.2
'0.6 '0.8
0. 1 o •1,5 .1.2 x•10-4-4 2 •1.3 • •.3 •1,3.• 5 •I •1.3 •1.1 '1.5 1.0 •,. 2 •n a n '•. 3. . 0.. • •of 4, .I 0. 1 0.1
•%/ ♦. a Jt.3 •(s 19 '2.3 3. a .2.1'. .1..5 la 1. X13 0.1 %A '2.2 1.] 1. 5 .1 '12 •z. 0 ,a 0. 8 0.] 0.6 n. 6 '06 0.]
ffi 3 '2. 1 � 0
6 ,.6 '2. 3 50
.4 '03
22 22 11 .52
0 e 52
' 2A 5. 0
2. 3 4,7 520
3.0 '40
3.,
'z.e 3A ,. 5 to '22 33 b.+ ' z., 4.3 •1.s •
'2.6 '3. ] ' 23 3.3 ' 22 0e '2, 0 '1. 8
•4.0 %A 5.2 •a2 4. e 5. 9 '6.0 '2. 8
O52 3_ 4. 3 3A
2. 5.3 4o
0e. '4e 3. e
520
09 ' 13 t °''' '1 22? 17 '28 '4.3 5.8 8.1 ' 7.] •] .6 56 3 t �3 X10 , - \
2 �2 • •• .t.e 1Y •tI
3- 5, 2e
62
0 e 5.0 Sz
fi • 5a • 18
O-
uts 'S,,
te ton e to9.D9.a6. 0n o t oDo too.n
0o to '0 o to 0. 0 0.0 0.o o. 0 00 0A 0. o 0. 0 0o 13o to
131 R. '0 , 0. 1 13.1 o.0 to '0 0 o. 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 %.o '00 00
0.1 0A 0, b.t b., 0.1 •0.1 0, 'o,1 0. , o,, 0.0 0 0.0 '0 0
.01 •0.2 •0a •03 •0. z 02 0.1 0, b., b., '0. 1 b., '0.1 " k.+ 00
.08 ' 0. 6
'2.6 24 1.
'04 Ss 'as 3A 32
ss ea se 3s 32
S. 2 '6.5 03 '24 25
62
@SW6s'3.9 3,3.1
0 .4, a,3 A232.8
•L7 '3.8
0.16.0 '36
'20 '23 •,
IA
l3 3.a a SA 4A 'ao 3A 3D 10
38 42 29 37 to '4.2 5a '4.4 '3.8 3.7 3.l 9
•
0.l
Ol ] '02 '02 •0 2 0.1
X13
: 6•
"0 o 20
' 29 zz 1,11...... 1/ •o
•2 2 ' 2.5 21. t.
z, 2.a .1
R.1
R.1
0.3 0.2 b2 '02
0a 0a ba b2 b.2
.03 '0.2
: b.,
b2 R. 01
o.e b.s 0.3 02 0, 01
' 09
07
0.a
• 3.8 '22 • , '1 .0 02'o.l •0.! •0.1
:,-, ,_)'°
bs 0.7 3 . 0 .3 'cs '03 0a b. •0 2
0 .] 00 �8 'a: Oa '02 b.2 '02
'0,6 M1," OA o.. 02 02 0 .2 02 01 0 .1
.00
'0.d to 0 .z o ., 0 .1 o .t a1 co
ti A oa o o. '0 .t o.1 a .1 oe 0 .0
Oa 0 .1 0 .l 0.1 0 .1 0.1 •0.1 'o .o •0 .0133 0 .0
0.1 0.1 OA OA 0 .0 •OL 0 .0 0.0 OA 130' OA
0.2 0.1 %A %.0
▪ 0 0A to
0.3 o ., 0.t 0.0 b .0
.5'0 ,3 '0.1 0,0 0.0 'or to 0.0 to
2 '0.2 •0 .1 0 .A
04 0 .2 0.1 OA 0.0 *O A ' 00
130 '0.o ' X0 '0.o
b .o 0A 00 0A 0.0 00t 0 .o to
00 0 .0 0.0 00 0 .0 •0.0 •0 .0 0.0 '0.0
• 'OA 0 .0
•0.0
077 bd 'o a 0.: 0.1 0.o R. 0.o 0.0 R. 00 0.0
"4.2 '5 .9 39 32. 3. 4: • X61,5// :.1 .T.1 to ' 08 '07 to "� 69 �• o�• 5 7/" 05 '02 '02 •0., •0 .t 0.0 •0 .0 OA
3.9 'A9 ' '2,2 X 1.1 /' .D "0 ' �•- �` * 'W 'OS 03 '0 2 0 ., 0.1 OA 0a 0A OA
0o no 0.0 n.n or 0 no . oc n, RI 02 02 D3 4 .3 b •3 •oa b 'n/a .0
3 o.z o .z nz of
DO c.o ., ,. , 0.o 03 00 cc ,, .0 c.c ,.c D0 jA .o ;.o ,.o • DO 0o a0 0 .0 0n D0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.o DO 0.0 •D A 3. , •,,,o ..o o,, ,,.0 3 .0 10 a .0 0o
0. 0 0.0 0.0 to to ' n. 0 11. 00 0,0 0.0 0.0 to n.0 •n.0 0.0 0.0 36 to o.0 u.0 to to 0.0 0.0 .o.o o.o Oa 0 .0 •0.0 OA 0 .0 0 .0 o. n 0o R. to O.r o. n o.o on . o.o ,..0 �n
' 0 03 1.0 to 03 ••0.0 '00 00 0.o OD 0D 0n R. to •O A 9 .0 02 R. X40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.o 0.0 0, 00 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .n 0.0 ' 00 00 n .n to 0.0 0A 00
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 •0 .0 0.0 0.a Os 0 .0 0.0 0,0 90 'n .o to 0.0 0.0 0.o 0o 00 to to to to to 'o.o '0.0 to 0.0 0 .o to to.o o .0 0.o o ., S.o '0.0 0.0 b.o o.o O .o
0. 0 0.0 0D 0.o 0.0 0.0 to s 0 .0 0.0 0u •0A 0.0 00 '0A •0A 00 0 ,0'00 00 0. .0 4.0 00 0.0 0.0 0 .0 '0 0 '0 A '0.0 00 to to OD 0A 0A 0.0 0 .0
•0 .0
•0.0
ELECTRICAL SITE LIGHTING PLAN
1"=30'-0 '
iR
c3
DZ
OZ
D
eel
ZZ
W.0
N
N$
I hereby certify this plan, specificatio n
or rep ort was prepared by me or und er
my direct supervision and that I am a
duly Licensed Engineer under the laws
of the state of Minnesota .
Data: o/oblo
oe. N o. 1167f
NA
Nels on -MA W 8 As sodates , In c.
Str uctural . Me452000 l - Elzb1cal
Co nsulting Engines
9100 46111 Ave. Nat,
Minneapolis, MN 55428
Tel: (763)367-7600
Fax: (763)357-]601
W
0
• 0,7
• Q
5
5 W
O K
50 % D.D. PACKAGE
r
Z
CW
Q�
00
W
UY
00
<0
cl co
LU
1.1.
600 CLYDESDALE TRAIL
ELECTRICAL SITE LIGHTING
Z
Q
3-
E0.1
D COPYRGH7 011- NEl50NNUDIES ASSOC_ INC.