The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About02-12-2013MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 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 January 8, 2013 Planning Commission minutes. 6. Public Hearing — Property Resources Development Co. — Preliminary Plat for an 8 lot rural Subdivision located west of Willow Dr. /Deerhill Rd. and east of Homestead Tr. (PIDs 21- 118-23-31-0001, 21-118-23-34-0002, and 21-118-23-34-0003). 7. Council Meeting Schedule 8. Adjourn POSTED IN CITY HALL February 8, 2013 T V Comment MEDINA Name of Speaker: Mat ' J (,l Card Public Forum Agenda Item (please print Address: WOO P oriiika..,_ Or. 700c) Telephone (optional): Representing: fkb C. (/y't T-a,r,. ��% 0 Agenda Item (list number and letter): 10 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 f G, T Y 0 A Comment Card Public Forum Agenda Item MEDINA Name of Speaker: i ) I1 A.C1 CUa_ 1 ti..___- Lk,' )C (please print) Address: 17 � 2 yy , G s 'm ' Z C� J Telephone (optional): 7(_,..,'",: -- 47 -- v e-!' O`er Representing: --Pc/ r"' L... C_c0,---oi a ") \ c, l0kJ Agenda Item (list number and letter): _U- h , L "4�sS Comments: j �� . �r� �� rr�/ `� !U.� C[.,i l� �� /L.'', t? i i ----n_Q `-i))0 ()., -) j,---2 Coo -wry k i o.'? •---#40-4,,,_t2.„ till►-' 1/12 (6)� if -)7L r-2/ , - 610/i)CYic// Lr 5z4CLG to-,il i cs (t•- a 6:� - /?, r,,,-,7/ i,(17c—t,''z/ r7Y`�2„ `772 �'�r- P142/1i �-r-RA1/ —� Approach the podium to speak FpArr f} T%f1i,2 f ..„')f3w 'A ot.' ricLiS A _i f1.5 /3 CO,wiv Ci20) Esc rcc)ssA) _CAM c e_ 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' 1 Y O F Comment Card Public Forum Agenda Item MEDINA Name of Speaker: V ja Pe 1 M P'^' � ,/ (please print) Address: 56 i�Y di , -0i_ Telephone (optional): (� Representing: J -) 0 e ' V)01 h V1 a V c IC-- it/ vJ Agenda Item (list number and letter): Comments: (p d,-S: I ' n.}�n, 6" I-- -(j eCV cii / p ! 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 G' T V o A Comment Card MEDINA Name of Speaker: 1 i l,r .-,+ 6� Public Forum Agenda Item print 1 (p easel P ) Address: l; GI l f J r.1 (...._NI-1, I Telephone (optional): Representing: Agenda Item (list number and letter): 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 Comment Card Public Forum may- Agenda Item MEDINA Name of Speaker: 'r E RMf `11 Address: (55.(p3" 5 5 ( �/'V/r%t ( S //,(rd Telephone (optional): 4(a 33...) . ( n Representing: � `el2 fl u -ii/{ Agenda Item (list number and letter): Comments: L 4 awl aittta re 14OPtt4I,ei'� E?eVI .rrr 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 pn 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 Comment Card Public Forum Agenda Item X MEDINA Name of Speaker: $tL tr-. A v i (please print) Address: -2-1'Zc '0 f. -G 2j{ILL.. sc2c 19 Telephone (optional): i h 3- Li 7_ S -` 9 I ' -I Representing: MI Sb-Lf- 4 3,4.1 wi va4:ts Agenda Item (list number and letter): : 1, -- T'Nrn t( 'RA W, E� Comments: vi'13t7tui StoiL,.- 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 1 T Y C. Comment Card Public Forum Agenda Item r� MEDINA + Name of Speaker: _ t '` �_ l t L ((pl a e print) i� ---- Address: : i' o.. C I r, tz,-, ci,.,,, ,A `i- C :,-L.N v1 Telephone (optional): 1 i Representing: 1,....__C' V ---t7 _,. .. _..... .. _ _�, Lk..., La. c..C..," Agenda Item (list number and letter): Comments: k - L.1_A.LA c. ...C,.. Vtwu_.._..::: �' ‘ t-k...L.t 5 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 Comment Card MEDINA Name of Speaker: L _ /2 A V Jam' i J fJ �� Public Forum Agenda Item O 1 Address: l 5 )4 ( leasep -n j U)( t) U TW Telephone (optional): 7 ' [ &I-74 -2:7 t--/' Representing: "6/ Yr—' 1 111-(1-' 4,6 I 0' b —f" 6e if Agenda Item (list number and Comments: letter)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 % T Y 6 GR Comment Card MEDINA --1—.-` Name of Speaker: , // I I.4/;, -z L- Public Forum Agenda Item -- ak,c).(. ,, (please print) r Address: ! , Li i (ful Ct e e'vC Nil . Telephone (optional): 76 .3 "- ri 7 3 "_ O V 2 f— Representing: j'-.' I Agenda Item (list number and letter): 'ZVI,L Comments: t/Vc( A,t-1 lit c'u'..!1-�' 4<-1u.,bl 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: January 31, 2013 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates February 5, 2013 City Council Meeting Ordinance Updates A) 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) 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 Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the January 8 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The application was presented for Council review at the January 15 meeting, and the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. The resolution will be presented at the February 5 meeting. B) 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 Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the January 8 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The application will be presented for Council review at the February 5 meeting. C) 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 the suitable soils map as part of the application. The application will be scheduled for a Public Hearing when determined to be complete for review, likely at the February 12 meeting unless the applicant submits an updated plan and new application. D) The Enclave at Medina 3'd Addition and 4th Addition — Lennar has requested approval of the final phase of single-family homes and also to plat the remaining townhomes on the Enclave at Medina (Hunter side). The applicant proposes to plat the remaining 36 single-family lots 36 townhomes and to install the remaining improvements. The applications are under preliminary review and will be presented to the Council when complete, potentially at the March 5 meeting. E) The Reserve of Medina Preliminary Plat — Toll Brothers have submitted a preliminary plat for a 126 -lot single-family subdivision on the Gorman Farm property east of County Road 116 and south of Hackamore. The Commissions and Council had provided comments during a concept Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2013 City Council Meeting plan review last fall. The application is under preliminary review and will be scheduled for a Public Hearing when complete for review, potentially at the March 12 Commission meeting. F) 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 City Council adopted a resolution approved of the variance at the January 15 meeting, and the project will now be closed. G) Fields of Medina West — north of Highway 55, east of Arrowhead — Mattamy Homes 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. H) 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 has contacted the applicant to inquire how they wish to proceed in light of the amended city regulations related to WECS. The applicant has indicated that they wish to withdraw their application, and staff will await such a withdrawal. Additional Projects A) Wellhead Protection Planning — staff assisted Public Works with maps and analysis for the wellhead protection plan. B) Connection Fee Analysis — staff met with administration and public works staff to being work on analyzing the City's connection fee and utility fund financing. Staff has begun collecting information requested in this meeting to put together the financial analysis. C) Trails Plan — staff has been assisting with the Park Commission's Parks/Trails Master Plan. The Commission is now evaluating the Trails Plan and staff intends to assist with updated maps and financial information. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2013 City Council Meeting 1 CITY OF MEDINA 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 4 Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5 6 7 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 8 9 Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, V. Reid, Kent 10 Williams, Mark Osmanski and Randy Foote. 11 12 Absent: Martin 13 14 Also Present: City Councilmember Elizabeth Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, and 15 Planning Assistant Debra Peterson 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 December 11, 2012 Draft Planning Commission meeting 30 minutes. 31 32 Motion by Foote, seconded by V. Reid, to approve the December 11, 2012 minutes 33 with the changes noted. Motion carried unanimously. Absent: Martin 34 35 6. Public Hearing — Daniel and Jill Johnson — Request a Comprehensive Plan 36 Amendment from Rural Residential to Agriculture and a Rezoning from RR, 37 Rural Residential to AP, and Agricultural Preserve for the three properties 38 located at 2505 Willow Drive (PID 16-118-23-42-0007, 16-118-23-31-0001, and 39 16-118-23-42-0006). 40 41 Finke presented the application. 42 43 Nolan said he understood the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Agricultural 44 Preserve and Rural Residential. He said it appears to be reactionary since it's already 45 been decided. 1 46 Foote asked why the applicant would want to apply for the change. Finke said the 47 applicant would explain his reasons. Nolan asked about requirements of agricultural 48 production. Finke said there weren't any requirements. Williams concurred the 49 property wouldn't have to produce anything and asked how many buildable lots 50 existed on the Johnson lots. Finke said the minimum was around three lots, but he 51 would have to review title paperwork to verify. 52 53 Daniel Johnson, the applicant, stated he purchased two of the three parcels ten years 54 ago from the Piper family. He said they just acquired the third parcel last May of 55 2012 and wants to preserve the land. He said he feels fortunate to live where he lives 56 and wants to do organic farming. He said he has no hidden agenda but wants to 57 preserve the openness of the land, though he felt the land could be further subdivided 58 in the future. 59 60 Williams asked Johnson if they were aware of the conditions placed in the report by 61 planning staff and he said he hadn't read them yet. Williams proceeded to go down 62 the conditions list and Johnson said he was ok with the conditions. He said he paid 63 rural residential pricing rather than agriculture pricing. He said when he sat on the 64 City Council he felt they approved other properties similar to his request and felt his 65 application was consistent with the Metropolitan Council guiding and Greenway. He 66 said he desires a less intense use at this time. 67 68 V. Reid asked how much of the land they were planning to use. Johnson said they 69 will produce hay, plant apple trees, raise chickens, and possibly sheep and alpacas. 70 He said the 9.6 acre parcel would be for organic farming which requires special 71 preparation since it can't have chemicals on it for at least seven years. 72 73 V. Reid said under the application there really weren't any terms or requirements to 74 do anything with the land. Finke stated that was correct. 75 76 Finke clarified cutting of trees and that the subject properties would not exempt them 77 from the City's regulations for tree removal. They would be required to follow the 78 City regulations. 79 80 Public Hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. 81 82 Public Hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. 83 84 Foote asked if the applicant could reapply to put the property back into the RR zoning 85 and if so would it likely be granted. Finke said the property will have restrictive 86 covenants recorded on the property to remain in the agricultural district. He further 87 said Statute allows either party to pull it out of the district after eight years from 88 giving the County notice of pulling it out of the Agricultural district. 89 2 90 Finke said if the owner wanted to remove the restrictive convenants it doesn't mean 91 the land use changes unless it's approved by the City. Nolan said this was the same 92 issue with the Wally Marx application. 93 94 V. Reid asked Finke if he knew the reduction of tax dollars if the classification 95 changed. Finke said it would be around $6,000.00 less to the City's portion of the tax 96 levy. 97 98 Williams said he was in favor of the change since it met the City's Rural Residential 99 character vision. 100 101 Williams moved to approve the Comp Plan Amendt from RR to Agriculture and 102 zoning map amendment with two conditions in the staff report. 103 104 V. Reid said she wanted to back up to discuss it further. She asked if the application 105 was approved would there be policy implications or is it a case by case basis. She 106 said she didn't want the applicant to be exempted from clear cutting the property. 107 108 Foote asked how much of the property was covered by trees. Johnson reviewed the 109 aerials and said it did have "Big Woods" which are around 200-250 year old maples. 110 He said more than half of the 16 acre parcel was hardwood trees. He said some 111 portions were agriculture and farmed at one time and the property also has a nice trail 112 that goes around the lake. Foote asked if other property owners could start asking for 113 Agriculture Preserve and Finke said yes they could, but they have to be 40 acres or 114 greater in size to qualify. 115 116 Foote asked about the revenue loss. Nolan said it's an economic shift. He said the 117 City has had a lot of subdivisions approved in the last 24 months and we should find a 118 way to slow it down, though it is a larger policy decision. He said with the low 119 volume of requests to put property into Agricultural Preserve, he suggested we 120 welcome it. 121 122 Liz Weir said the Commission could suggest the City Council discuss making a 123 policy decision on these types of applications. 124 125 Foote Amended Williams Motion to see if there should be a Policy decision. 126 Williams said he has only seen one similar application in the past three years while 127 being on the Commission. He said the City should encourage and that it's rare a 128 property owner is willing to lock up their property for a minimum of eight years. 129 130 Finke said the City has approximately 35 parcels that are at least 40 acres in size that 131 could quality for the Ag Preserve zoning. He said the current application is not part 132 of the 35 parcels since the applicant has three lots totaling over 40 acres which will be 133 combined if approved. 134 3 135 Osmanski said he mirrors what Williams said and is fine with exchanging 136 preservation of land over the tax revenue. He said he doesn't take this decision 137 lightly. 138 139 R. Reid, V. Reid, and Nolan said they agreed with Williams 140 141 Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid, to recommend approval of the 142 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of three properties, with the note that 143 the City Council considers making a Policy Decision on these types of applications. 144 Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Martin). 145 146 147 7. Public Hearing — City of Medina — Requests a Conditional Use Permit and Site 148 Plan Review for the use of a Public Building within the Industrial Park zoning 149 district at 600 Clydesdale Trail (PID 12-118-23-23-0059). 150 151 Finke presented the application. He said it's a 7.1 acre site with 10,500 square feet in 152 office space and 58,500 square feet in warehouse/shop. He said they are proposing 153 some minor exterior changes along with constructing an outside detached salt/sand 154 storage building. He said the proposed project does not trigger stormwater 155 improvements, though staff suggested possibly making some improvements. 156 157 Finke explained the salt/sand storage building would be 25 feet in height and the 158 existing principal structure is 32 feet in height which would screen the building from 159 certain angles. He said the principal building is nonconforming as it relates to the 160 dock doors. The City plans to reduce the nonconformity but will not be bringing it 161 into 100% compliance at this time. V. Reid asked what percentage we were over, but 162 Finke said he wasn't sure of the exact percentage. 163 164 Pam Anderson, 292DesignGroup, said she is the architect working on the building for 165 the City. She said some of the dock doors on the building didn't function for the 166 PW/Police use but they need a drive-thru area for their trucks. She said the office 167 area is a really good fit for the Police Department. V. Reid asked if all dock doors 168 were needed and Anderson said that they weren't all needed but it came down to 169 expense. Scott Johnson said just two windows were $6500.00 which would be 170 needed to fill in one of the dock door areas. Anderson added infilling the dock door 171 openings often times doesn't match. 172 173 V. Reid asked what kind of landscaping would be going around the salt/sand 174 building. Anderson said a number of coniferous trees would be placed on the berms 175 and at full growth they would screen year round. She said that no specific quantities 176 have been discussed at this time. V. Reid said when they approved allowing salt/sand 177 buildings for Public buildings the Planning Commission asked for good screening. 178 Finke said an opacity level wasn't required, but could be required for this project. 179 4 180 Nolan said he felt the application was consistent with what we'd require of any other 181 applicant. 182 183 Osmanski commented that the sand/salt building and new facility is really needed, 184 especially in its location. 185 186 Johnson said the current salt/sand building at 2052 County Road 24 is recalled. He 187 said it's not up to code and was recalled a few years ago. There is a deficiency in the 188 structure. He said they originally talked about moving the building to the new 189 location, but since it isn't to code and has a recall it wasn't an option. 190 191 Osmanski asked about fuel and if the new location would supply it there or would 192 they use the current location. Finke said the existing pump area at City Hall would 193 continue to be utilized and the City staff would also use local motor fuel stations. 194 195 Public Hearing opened at 8:04 p.m. 196 197 Public Hearing closed at 8:05 p.m. 198 199 R. Reid said she doesn't see any real issues with the proposal. She supported the 200 project and supports the screening requirement. 201 202 Williams said he liked how Planning staff was aggressive on wearing their Planning 203 hats. 204 205 V. Reid asked if staff knew how much more intense our use would be compared to 206 the previous users in the building. Finke said he wasn't sure. 207 208 Police Chief Edgar Belland added there are currently five loading docks and two 209 would be removed. He said they have a plan for a generator and if it's not inside it 210 would be screened. He said the building would be used for an emergency center and 211 would need the generator to operate. Finke said it would be rare that all three loading 212 docks would be open at the same time. 213 214 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Osmanski, to recommend approval of the CUP 215 and Site Plan Review with all recommended conditions by staff, including language 216 specifying opacity of screening of the salt/sand building. Motion carries unanimously 217 (Absent: Martin). 218 219 220 8. Election of the 2013 Planning Commission Chair 221 222 Williams nominated Nolan as Chair. 223 224 Nolan was chosen as Chair by unanimous consent of the Commission. 225 5 1 226 9. Election of the 2013 Planning Commission Vice Chair 227 228 V. Reid nominated R. Reid as the Vice Chair. 229 230 R. Reid was chosen as Vice Chair by unanimous consent of the Commission. 231 232 233 10. Council Meeting Schedule 234 235 Commissioner V. Reid agreed to attend the Council meeting on January 15, 2013. 236 237 238 11. Adjourn 239 240 Motion by Osmanski, seconded by Williams, to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Motion 241 carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin) 6 N.ORT.H,WEST A;SS.O.C;I,ATED CONSULTANT$,, I>NC.. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, M N 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.corr PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina City Council Scott Johnson, City Administrator FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner DATE: February 7, 2013 RE: Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat FILE NO: L-12-089 Review Deadline: March 6, 2013 Summary of Request The applicant proposes to subdivide three existing parcels, totaling 80 gross acres, into 8 lots. As part of the request, the applicant is also contesting the Hennepin County Soils Map, which is how the City regulates lot size in the Rural Residential zoning district. The subject site is three parcels located at the western terminus of Deer Hill Road west of Willow Drive. The applicant requests that the City of Medina construct Deer Hill Road from their western property line to Homestead Trail, but states that the City may attempt to assess a portion of the cost of this project to their property to the extent that their property is benefitted. A number of outstanding issues exist with the Preliminary Plat which staff had requested that the applicant resolve prior to review by the Planning Commission and City Council. However, statutory deadlines for the City to take action on the application are approaching and the applicant has not been willing to grant an extension in order to allow time to resolve the issues. As a result, in order to meet review deadlines, the Planning Commission will need to make a recommendation in February so that the City Council can take action. Property Description Two of the existing parcels are approximately 20 acres in size and one is 40 acres for a total of about 80 acres. The three subject parcels are under common ownership with the property to the south, all of which was a single 170 acre parcel until divided via an exempted division filed at Hennepin County without review by the City of Medina in 2008. The northern approximately 30 acres of the subject properties are wetlands and the remaining 50 acres are currently farmed. An aerial of the site can be found below, on which the soils which are suitable according to the Hennepin County Soils map are highlighted and the contiguous acreage of each area of suitable soil is also displayed. Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 1 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site as "Rural Residential". It is found in the post - 2030 Met Council Long Term Sanitary Sewer Area. The site is zoned Rural Residential. The Comprehensive Plan allows for rural residential development at l unit per 10 acres, which is implemented through the City's 5 -acre contiguous suitable soil requirements. All surrounding properties is similarly zoned and guided. Lot Standards The following dimensional standards are required within the Rural Residential zoning district: Minimum Lot Size 5 acres contiguous suitable soils Minimum Lot Width 300 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 2 The proposed parcels appear to meet minimum lot width and depth requirements, although two of the lots are proposed as flag lots to the private cul-de-sac with a "flagpole" width of only 20 - feet. The gross acreage of the lots range from 5.03 acres to 24.80 acres. According to the City's Subdivision Ordinance, for the sake of meeting minimum lot size requirements, the applicant is required to identify "soils designations for the areas within the plat as set forth by the most current Hennepin County Soils Survey." However, the Subdivision Ordinance does allow an applicant to contest the Soils map as is being proposed in this case. The ordinance states that: "In the event that the owner or subdivider is of the opinion that the soils types designated by the most current Hennepin County Soils Survey are inaccurate by type or location, he or she shall include information with respect to the inaccuracies in the submittal. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to accept or deny the results of the soil borings. Based on the information submitted and any other relevant information, the Zoning Administrator shall calculate the final acreage amount of contiguous suitable soils for each lot." The soils identified on the Hennepin County Soils Map are to be used unless the applicant provides adequate information accepted by the City to deviate from the Map. In this case, the applicant is contesting that almost all of the soils on the site should be considered suitable with the exception of the wetlands (and small areas adjacent to the wetland) and the steepest portions of the site which are over 12% slope. The City contracted with a Professional Soil Scientist to review the applicant's information. A detailed review by the City's Soil Scientist is attached, but generally the conclusion is that the applicant did not submit adequate information to re-classify the soils as proposed. In fact, in some cases, the City's Soil Scientist concluded that the applicant's information was more supportive of the designation in the Hennepin County Soil Map (L36A) than the designation purported by the applicant. These areas are identified on map at the top of the following page. While the City's Soil Scientist did note locations in which the data do not appear to match the Hennepin County Soils Map, the submitted data does not support the proposed reclassification of soils shown by the applicant on map EX2. It may very well be the case that the applicant could submit acceptable information to support the reclassification of some areas. However, since sufficient information has not been submitted, staff recommends that the Hennepin County Soils be used to determine suitable soils. As such, a number of the proposed lots do not meet 5 -acre contiguous suitable soils minimum lot size requirements as shown below: Lot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acres Contiguous 5.04 5.03 2.78 4.63 4.05 5.59 2.41 5.81 Suitable Soils The subdivision ordinance and the requirements of the Rural Residential zoning district require that proposed lots identify a primary and secondary septic location which meets all relevant codes of state rules and city ordinance. The Building Official has noted that some aspects of the proposed septic systems would need to be adjusted. Staff has also noted that the proposed Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 3 0 �i•• 1 0 5 s., 0 U 0 ID 5 • (n i^^-1 O cts a) • 4 U 0 4. 0 0 aID "Ci -0 • N O • 3 U N re QttYSf•�f. A.1. 67�1t!'Y.'�. n 7.fl 'Wlautesol>u..rrae:•MILO .ro wn: .wr r.row .w•� v Y -min' Wit. 1.'. i WI. e '.. W wr rr�Ir.Y1i lY' w r•a'tl. tpw AN w.;.x.1,.-yr. , m t ....r .e .1* vr� wort 110at rt . ..w�.. .. rJuni +.,-..ems Y.»+. .... � +. . .ta r.+ .w.-. i.• rvw...Y .a rwtww Wu1. vai4w.i..e:un[:�..c«r rain.>nl ...Darn •u rw......,..o. ...�,..4 r-+w . ... .. .,,. .....M ...erMG.•. nl..a.fwti•'\,I M.,F MO¢ti.i .[. M' I ... .�..w...y .ry w..�rr�.w» n. +a Y�e+ J{I y .q rw.k. a•wi rL s..e�w.w.. ;:1AL'i"a.G 4b L,••. k., •;.r:A 14. +.v.Lr •.wain Z M..Y v.,.,a i.......+S a P. ..y yy fr^^+s•? w. w•n. • =s - '1- (6)) coc d a) IT U CO L 03 co The applicant proposes to construct a private street terminating in a cul-de-sac off of Deer Hill Road to serve the development. This private street is shown as 22 -feet in width (although text submitted by the applicant claim it is 24 feet in width) and to be located within the proposed lots which, presumably, easements granted over all of the lots for the benefit of the other lots. Section 820.29 Subd. 2(m) of the City Code requires that private streets be located within an Outlot. As mentioned previously, two parcels (Lots 4 and 5) are depicted with long, 20 foot wide "flags" that reach down to the terminus of the cul-de-sac with a shared driveway along the property line. The City's Building Official has noted that the length of these driveways is of such a great length that a "pull -over" for emergency vehicles may be necessary. It is questionable if the width of the "flagpoles" is sufficient to allow a driveway with adequate circulation, even if centered between both lots. The "flagpoles" on the parcels serve no real purpose except to provide a modicum of frontage, as at their width an independent driveway for each parcel is not possible. The Planning Commission may wish to consider if lots with only 20 feet of actual frontage is acceptable. Section 820.29 Subdivision 2 (g) states that lot lines for parcels abutting cul-de-sacs shall be radial. The proposed plat has lot lines that do not emanate from the centrum of the cul-de-sac. Streets and Access The applicant is proposing to access the site via a new segment of Deer Hill Road to Homestead Trail to the west, and is requesting that the City construct this roadway. The applicant has indicated that the City may assess a portion of the cost of this construction to their property, to the extent the property is benefitted. The applicant proposes to construct the street through their property to also connect with the existing segment of Deer Hill Road to the east of the site. Deer Hill Road is depicted by the applicant as being located in an existing 33 foot wide right-of-way, except for south of the subject properties, where the applicant proposes to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-wa DEER HILL ROAD RIGHT OF WAY Subject Site Undeveloped portion of j • • I ► \V Developed portion of - Deer Hill Road ROW Section 820.28 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all new subdivisions have adequate 'access in order to be approved. Streets providing access to a subdivision resulting in a net increase of three or more lots shall, at a minimum, meet the design standards of Subd. 820.29 Subd 2. and the engineering standards of the City. These standards require, at a minimum, a paved road 24 -feet in width located within a 60 foot right-of-way. If streets need construction or improvement, the Subdivision Ordinance requires the subdivider to make and/or fund such improvements. The City shall deem the subdivision to be premature if the subdivider does not agree to provide for the construction or funding of any improvements determined to be necessary by the City in order to meet these requirements. City staff does not believe that the Deer Hill Road right-of-way is 33 -feet in width to the east and west of the site as purported by the applicant based upon circumstances surrounding the City's acquisition of the right-of-way. The attached memo from the City Attorney describes this fact more in-depth. Nonetheless, even if 33 -feet of right-of-way existed to the west of the site, this width is insufficient to construct a street meeting City standards, as City Code requires a minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way and as illustrated by the fact that the "conceptual grading" shown by the applicant for Deer Hill Road west of the site extends outside of the 33 -feet. Various opportunities exist for the property owner to obtain adequate access to the property to be subdivided. This would include acquiring right-of-way from properties to the east or west of the site, or perhaps invoking the cartway statute if their property is eligible. Additionally, it should be noted that the larger 170 -acre parcel had access to two adequate public streets prior to the current property owner dividing the property via an exempt division in 2008 without review of the City. As mentioned above, within the subdivision, the applicant proposes to construct a private interior street to serve the lots. In the past the City has approved private streets rural subdivisions in cases where private maintenance of roadways is preferable. The Planning Commission may wish to consider whether a public or private road is more appropriate. The applicant is proposing the private street within a 60 foot wide easement. This easement and road surface is counted towards the lot area and suitable soils for each adjacent parcel. The road surface is shown as 22 feet wide. The private street is proposed to terminate in a cul-de-sac approximately 750 feet into the property. The cul-de-sac is proposed with a surface radius of 60 feet and an easement radius of 64 feet. Section 820.29 Subdivision 2 (m) states that private Streets shall be located within an outlot and shall be subject to a private road agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City. The outlot shall be of the same width as the right-of-way which would be required if the Street were intended to be dedicated to the City. Private streets shall be built to the standard required for streets which are to be dedicated to the City. In order for the preliminary plat to be approved in this case, the private street would need to be placed in a private right-of-way outlot, constructed to a 24 foot width, and meet all other City standards. A private road agreement would need to be provided, as well. Wetlands Protection / Floodplains / Stormwater Management The subject site has significant amounts of wetlands on the site. The wetlands were delineated in September of 2011. Two areas are classified as "Preserve" and one as "Manage 2". The Upland Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 6 Buffer Zone is required to be an average of 50 feet (minimum 30) surrounding the Preserve classified wetlands and an average of 25 feet (minimum 20) to the Manage 2 wetland. Much of the upland buffer adjacent to the Preserve wetland is less than 50 feet in width so calculations will need to be submitted by the applicant to establish that the average buffer requirements are met. All aspects of the wetland protection ordinance will need to be met including setbacks from the buffer zones, signage, plantings, and easement requirements. The applicant is proposing to fill a 2.6 foot wide area of wetland to link the island found in the wetland to the remainder of the parcel. The applicant proposes to fill this wetland subject to an de minimus exception from the Wetland Conservation Act. It appears that the applicant's intention in doing so was to create a link for suitable soils continuity. However, the City's Soil Scientist has stated that the fill would not create contiguous suitable soils to the island. Therefore, if this were the intended purpose, it would be preferable to leave this in its natural condition unless some other purpose is being served. Although the City of Medina has no choice but to approve of the de minimus fill, prior to any fill, the applicant should confirm that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does not have any additional jurisdiction. The applicant has identified a floodplain on the plans at an elevation of 989.2 feet. This elevation was determined by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and staff does not believe it has been approved by FEMA. The applicant shall submit documentation confirming this elevation before the plat is" approved. If this is the correct location of the floodplain, it is entirely within the wetland boundary. The applicant is proposing to construct one storm water pond on the site. The City Engineer's Office has reviewed the storm water management plan and has requested some revisions. Tree Preservation There are many trees within the subject property, especially within and adjacent to the wetland on the north end of the site. City staff believed it was not necessary to survey and inventory all of the lots within the wetland if they were not to be disturbed. The applicant has stated that there are no significant trees within the area that initial site development is proposed. Therefore, no significant trees may be removed during initial site development. Upon the construction of individual lots, tree preservation plans will need to be submitted and tree removal will be limited to "other activities" as described in the tree preservation ordinance. Parks, Trails and Open Space The applicant does not identify park or trail improvements as part of the proposed subdivision. The Park Plan calls for a "Natural Park" study area in this immediate area. There are also proposed trails along the Deer Hill Road right-of-way corridor connecting Willow Drive to Homestead Trail. Another trail segment is proposed to travel southeast -northwest through the subject site. The Open Space Plan Study identifies this area as a "high quality natural resource" area to provide a corridor linkage. Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 7 The Park Commission will need to review the plat and make recommendations regarding parks and trails. The City may wish to acquire land for such facilities, cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication or a combination of the two. The cash -in -lieu amount is based on 8% of the value of the land with the minimum cash contribution being $3,500 per dwelling unit and the maximum at $8,000 per dwelling unit. In this case, it is very likely that the value would max out and the fee would be $8,000 per lot. Review Criteria/Findings In the case of all subdivisions, the City shall deny approval of a preliminary plat if one or a more of the following findings are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (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 Medina 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. (0 That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way. Staff has identified various changes necessary to the preliminary plat and improvements to be constructed in order for the plat to be consistent with City policies and regulations. The applicant may desire to grant an extension of the review deadline in order to address these matters in order for a preliminary plat to be approved. Until such time, staff has identified the following potential findings with regards to the preliminary plat as proposed: 1. Four of the proposed lots within the preliminary plat do not meet minimum lot size requirements in terms of contiguous area of suitable soils. 2. The subdivision is premature as defined by Section 820.28 of the City Code because the area to be subdivided does not have adequate access and the subdivider does not propose to provide for the construction or funding of necessary improvements as required by City Code. Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 8 3. The proposed preliminary plat is in conflict with City regulations requiring private streets to be constructed within an outlot, and platting of the required outlot would cause two additional lots proposed on the preliminary plat to fall below the minimum lot size requirements of the rural residential zoning district. 4. The proposed secondary septic site for proposed lot 7 does not meet minimum setback requirements for septic systems from wetlands. Attachments: 1. City Attorney's Comments 2. City's Soils Consultant Comments 3. City Engineer's Comments 4. Building Official's Comments 5. Applicant's Narrative 6. Applicant's Plan Set 7. Public Comments Received to date Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 9 CHARTERED Ronald H. Batty 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9262 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax rbatty@kennedy-graven.com http:Uwww.kennedv-graven.com MEMORANDUM To: Medina Planning Commission From: Ron Batty, city attorney Date: February 7, 2013 Re: Tamarack Ridge The purpose of this memorandum is to address several access issues raised by the applicant for the preliminary plat of Tamarack Ridge. I. 1969 Village Council Resolution. On March 4, 1969, the council of the then village of Medina adopted a resolution which declared that the city had obtained right-of-way 33 feet in width from Willow Drive to Homestead Trail along the line between sections 21 and 28. This is the alignment of current Deer Hill Road from Willow Drive, exiended westward across the subject property to Homestead Trail. Citing Minnesota Statutes, section 160.05, the village asserted that it had "used and kept in repair and worked" a roadway in that area continuously for at least six years prior to that date. In 1975, the supreme court of Minnesota decided the case of Barfnecht v. Town Board of Hollywood Township. The issue in that case was how much right-of-way had the township acquired under statutory user. The court determined that the township was not authorized to widen a road acquired by adverse public use beyond that width actually acquired by such adverse use, i.e. beyond what had actually been used for roadway purposes. The area actually used for road purposes includes not only the traveled roadway but the ditches, areas used for storage of snow and other areas utilized by the public. Thus, it is a question of fact to be determined in each case and the area acquired typically varies in width along the roadway. The court's decision was later codified in the statute. 418023 RHB ME230-535 1 The result is that the 1969 resolution cannot be taken at face value. The village did not automatically acquire 33 feet of right-of-way from Willow Drive to Homestead Trail. It acquired only that which it had actually used and maintained for at least six years sometime prior to 1969. The resolution asserts dedication of 33 feet but provides no hint of what had actually been used. It is clear •from historical records and contemporary evidence that there was a roadway from the eastern boundary of the property to Willow Drive. That right-of-way currently varies in width from about 30 feet at Willow Drive to about 19 feet at the eastern boundary of the property. The city has acquired right-of-way in this area through statutory user. . What the city acquired through the applicant's property is not relevant since the applicant will be expected to provide the required 60 feet of right-of-way by plat or otherwise regardless of statutory user. There is no road today from the western boundary of the property to Homestead Trail along or near the alignment described in the 1969 village resolution. The question becomes what had been in existence and used and kept in repair and worked for six years prior to 1969? Aerial photographs from 1937, 1962, 1967 and 1971 suggest there was no road west of the property. Anecdotal evidence from a former resident of that property also indicates there was no road. There are no public records of the city having worked and maintained any road in the area. Despite assertions by the applicant that it has evidence of such a road, it has not produced any. Thus, available evidence suggests that the city acquired little, if any, right-of-way west of the property despite the 1969 resolution or in the years since. II. City's Obligation to Provide Access to Property. The applicant has stated that it is the city's obligation to provide access to the property. This is true only in limited circumstances. Medina code section 820.28 was enacted to codify the city's practice of limiting development to those properties for which adequate infrastructure is currently available. The intent of the provision is to prohibit development of land remote from such infrastructure unless the developer is willing to bear the expense of the necessary extension. The ordinance specifically requires that land to be subdivided be served by a public street meeting minimum standards, which standards are higher if, as here, there will be a net increase of at least three lots. It should be remembered that the applicant's property previously had adequate street access. The 80 acres subject to this application was part of a larger 170 -acre tract which had extensive frontage on Homestead Trail. In 2008, the fee owner subdivided the larger tract to create the two 20 -acre and one 40 -acre parcels now the subject of the application. Because of the size of the new parcels, that subdivision was exempt from city control by state law and proceeded without city review and approval. While the city could not prevent the subdivision, the resulting lots are not necessarily buildable. They still must meet all city ordinance requirements, including those related to adequate access. The 418023 RHB ME230-535 2 property being platted is owned in fee by the same party who owns the remaining 90 acres fronting on Homestead Trail. Any problem with access to the property today is self- created. There is a limited class of properties to which the city does have a legal obligation to provide adequate access. Minnesota Statutes, section 435.37, subd. 1(a) provides as follows: Upon petition presented to the city council by the owner of a tract of land containing at least five acres, who has no access thereto except over a navigable waterway or over the lands of others, or whose access thereto is less than two rods in width, the city council by resolution shall establish a cartway at least two rods wide connecting the petitioner's land with a public road. This is the cartway statute, which was expanded in 2006 to apply to cities. Under this statute, a city is required to provide such access upon request although it is free to choose a different alignment or width than requested by the petitioner. All costs associated with establishing the cartway, including compensation paid to the owners of adjacent properties whose land is acquired for access, must be paid by the petitioning landowner. Thus, in a qualifying case, the city is required to provide access to a property, albeit at the petitioner's expense. The city has not received a petition from the applicant to establish a cartway in this case. RHB:peb 418023 RHB ME230-535 3 Wenck Engineers • Scientists Business Professionals TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dusty Finke, City of Medina FROM: Peter G. Miller P.S.S., Wenck Associates, Inc. DATE: February 7, 2013 SUBJECT: Tamarack Ridge 15t Addition Plat Submittal Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 800-472-2232 (763) 479-4200 Fax (763) 479-4242 wenckmp@wenck.com www.wenck.com Per your request this memorandum addresses the adjustment of the Hennepin County Soil Survey boundary on the subject property. We were asked to evaluate soil boring data provided in the project documents for areas where changes in the Hennepin County Soil Survey have been proposed We have been provided with previously collected information for the project including: • Preliminary Plat Plan Set; Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.; Last Revised 1-14-2013 • Wetland Delineation Report; Arrowhead Environmental Consulting; 1-12-2012 • Soil Classification Summary; Haugo Geotechnical Services; 9-5-2012 • Preliminary Plat Narrative; Property Resources Development Co.; 8-3-2012 • Soil Testing and Septic System Suitability; Miller's Sewage Treatment Solutions; 7-3-2012 For the purpose of this memorandum, we were to determine if the proposed amendments to the boundaries of the soil map unit L36A Hamel are supported by the data provided in the documents listed above, specifically the geotechnical borings as presented in the Preliminary Plat and the hand auger borings from the Soil Testing and Septic System Suitability reports. We have highlighted four Investigation Areas (Figure 1) within this memorandum to help draw conclusions for the purpose. There is a difference between a soils series and a soil map unit. A soil series, such as "Hamel" is a taxonomic description of a specific type of soil. It is analogous to "species" in biological taxonomy. A soil map unit, such as "136A Hamel" is a generalized description of the expected soil types in a specifically mapped area, and is named after the dominant soil series expected within that mapped area. Other soil types will occur within the map unit, but the dominant condition is the soil series for which the map unit is named. Soils and topography both play into the map unit concept. The map unit is based on both soil profile description as well as location -specific landscape data: landscape position, slope, and the other soils types within the map unit'. A given soil series may have several different map units named after it, depending on landscape and associated soils. For example, in Hennepin County, more than a dozen different map units are named after the Lester soil series. Medina City Code Chapter 8 uses soil map units as the basis for the list of suitable soils, so an amendment to the existing soil survey must indicate not only if the soils appear to match the series description, but also if the other requirements for that Map Unit naming conventions indicate slope requirements with capital letters immediately following the map unit number (ex:L36A Hamel). An "A" means 0-2% slopes, "B" is 2-6% slopes, "C" is 6-12% slopes, "D" is 12-18%, etc... Technical Memo Dusty Finke, City of Medina February 7, 2013 specific map unit are met. The primary tool to make this determination is topography. Each map unit has specific slope and landscape position criteria, and this information was assessed by Wenck for each Investigation Area. The data reviewed was collected by the developer to support amending the Hennepin County Soil Survey boundary for L36A Hamel. Wenck has not completed our own field study. The proposed Amended Soil Survey, submitted with the Preliminary Plat, intends to change the boundaries of the L36A Hamel soil map unit to reduce the total area of soils not meeting the City of Medina Suitable Soils requirements. Our goal was to examine the soil boring data from those areas which the amended soil survey claims should not be mapped as L36A Hamel, but which are currently mapped as such on the Hennepin County Soil Survey. The soil profile data was assessed against the official Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) descriptions of the L36A Hamel map unit to determine if the results of the amended soil survey are valid. The geotechnical soil borings submitted with the Preliminary Plat do not provide soils data sufficient for a detailed comparison to the NRCS descriptions of L36A Hamel because the geotechnical soil boring descriptions are represented in a different nomenclature. Geotechnical soil boring descriptions use methods, standards, and terminology that are not compatible with soil survey level classification. Data critical for a detailed soil survey analysis such as horizon colors/depths, soil texture, soil chemistry, and morphological evidence of the seasonal water table are not collected by geotechnical boring methods. It is analogous to comparing apples to oranges. That said we did review the geotechnical boring logs to determine if some relevant information could be gleaned when assessing for a soil survey. For the reasons above, the Investigation Areas are centered primarily on the hand auger soil boring data collected for the Soil Testing and Septic System Suitability report (Septic Report). It should be noted that the borings in this report were collected by Miller Sewage Treatment Solutions for the purpose of siting septic system soil treatment areas, and not for the purpose of conducting a soil survey. The data provided in the Septic Report borings are inadequate for proper soil classification, however they can offer some preliminary indications as to whether or not amending the current Hennepin County Soil Survey may be justified. These borings were submitted as supporting evidence along with the Amended Soil Survey. It should be noted that the author of the Septic Report is not a Professional Soil Scientist or Professional Engineer. The Haugo report references these soil borings and as such appears to certify the results of the Septic Report as justification for the amended soil survey, based on their licenses as Professional Engineers. As identified by the City, three sets of soil borings from the Septic Report were taken within an area that is mapped as L36A Hamel by the Hennepin County Soil Survey, but has been changed by the proposed Amended Soil Survey to map units that are on the City's list of soils suitable for building. This area is highlighted in Figure 1, and the boring locations are labeled as they appeared in the Septic Report. No Septic Report borings were available in Investigation Area 1; the only available non-geotechnical boring comes from the Wetland Delineation Report submitted by Arrowhead Environmental. Again, the purpose of our analysis was to determine if these borings support changing the existing L36A Hamel classification as submitted in the proposed Amended Soil Survey. Detailed technical standards for the 2 .44A- Wenck Technical Memo Dusty Finke, City of Medina February 7, 2013 L36A Hamel map unit and for the Hamel soil series are included as Attachment 2. Soil borings are discussed in sets, as each set represents a clustered grouping of four borings meant to identify suitable sites for septic systems. Each set is labeled in Figure 1. Also, data for all 12 Septic Report investigated borings suggest that each of the following areas do have suitable soils for a mound septic system. Investigation Area 1 Soils: Wenck was originally asked by the City to review this area. A memorandum dated January 21, 2013 was prepared by Wenck and details the information available and conclusion drawn regarding amending the soil survey in Investigation Area 1. Landscape: Additional landscape data has been assessed for this area, further questioning the proposed Amended Soil Survey. Where this area was reclassified as L37B Angus loam, the <2% slope does not meet the slope requirements for this map unit. Investigation Area 2 (Borings 9-12) Soil: The partial description for soils borings 10, 11, and 12 fall within the acceptable Range in Characteristics of Hamel soils as described in the Hamel Official Series Description (OSD). These characteristics include parent material, slope, soil textures, soil colors, and depth to the seasonally high water table. The data for boring 9 indicate soil colors significantly outside the Range of Characteristics for Hamel soils or the L36A Hamel map unit. The color change between the first and second horizons is greater than is typically observed in a native soil profile, and this drastic color difference was not observed in the other three borings in this set. Given the close proximity of the borings to one another, boring 9 may represent an anomalous soil condition at that specific point. Other than color, characteristics for boring 9 are consistent with borings 10, 11, and 12. Also, the map unit concept allows for minor inclusions of other soil types. Observing non -Hamel soils within the map unit does not invalidate the soil survey map unit. Given that the dominant soil profile descriptions do not contradict the Hamel series description or the L36A map unit description, the septic boring data from Investigation Area 2 do not offer conclusive justification for amending the existing Hennepin County Soil Survey. If additional information was provided and the breadth of the investigation expanded further into the proposed amended map unit, some of this area could qualify for other soil series. Landscape: According to the two foot topographic contours included with the plan set, as well as review of available LIDAR data, the borings were taken on a 12% or greater side slope. Both the existing L36A Hamel and the proposed L25A Le Sueur map units have a 1-3% slope requirement, indicating that the mapping in both Hennepin County Soil Survey and the Proposed Amended Soil Survey is inaccurate. Investigation Area 3 (Borings 17-20) Soils: One Septic Report boring (boring 17) from Investigation Area 3 is located within the area the Amended Soil Survey. Borings 18-20 were taken within a map unit not proposed for any amendments. Much of the data from boring 17 is consistent with the Hamel series description and the L36A Hamel map unit description, but there are discrepancies between the soil colors observed in horizons three and four and the official Hamel diagnostic description. The boring was taken very close to the currently mapped boundary of the L36A Hamel map unit, and may represent a transition zone. Soil series in the 3 Wenck Technical Memo Dusty Finke, City of Medina February 7, 2013 landscape do not have discreet boundaries; they gradually change from one soil type to another. However, as described above in the discussion for Investigation Area 2, the L36A Hamel map unit concept allows for inclusions of other soils within the mapped boundaries. Although the data from boring 17 suggests the possibility of a non -Hamel soil in this location, more data would be required to support amending the current Hennepin County Soil Survey. Landscape: Boring 17 was taken on a 5-8% side slope, which does not contradict the amended L4OB Angus -Kilkenny Complex map unit, but does contradict the current Hennepin County Soil Survey L36A Hamel map unit. The depth to seasonally high water table in the boring was 20", which is comparable to the expectations of both the L36A Hamel and the Kilkenny portion of L4OB Angus -Kilkenny Complex. However, a portion of amended L4OB Angus -Kilkenny map unit extends into the delineated wetland boundary, which has very little slope and has already been determined to contain hydric soils (see Area 3a, Figure 1). This map unit is rarely within a wetland. Investigation Area 4 (Borings 25-28) Soils: The data from these four soil borings are largely inconsistent with the official diagnostic Hamel series description and the L36A Hamel map unit description. The colors and textures described in the profile descriptions for borings 25, 26, and 27 are significantly different than what would be expected in a Hamel soil. Boring 28 does match up better with the official Hamel series and map unit descriptions than the other borings. As stated earlier in this report, the boring data from the Septic Report are inadequate for the purpose of classifying soil, yet the borings for Investigation Area 4 do suggest the possibility that L36A Hamel may not be the correct classification for all of this specific area. Landscape: The amended soil survey proposes amending this area to L70C2 Lester-Malardi Complex, which describes well drained soils on 6-12% slopes. The slopes in this area of the septic borings are approximately 2-4%. Also, the proposed amended map unit soils will not have a seasonally high water table within five feet of the surface. The borings at this location clearly indicate a seasonally high water table within 20 inches of the surface. Due to slope and drainage definitions of the L70C2 Lester-Malardi Complex, the amended soil survey is incorrect in the Investigation Area. In addition, an adjacent area of delineated wetland has been remapped as L41C2 Lester -Kilkenny Complex (Area 4a, Figure 1).This map unit is rarely within a wetland. Conclusion Soil boring data is only one part of creating a valid soil survey. Like all scientific studies, the work must be performed by qualified professionals utilizing accepted methodologies and field protocols. Results should be reported with a detailed description of those methods as well as a thorough analysis of the data that supports the results. No amount of soil profile data is sufficient to justify an amended soil survey without such a report. The data available for the subject property does not contain such a report so it leaves this reviewer challenged to interpret results. What can be inferred from the data submitted for the plat is there are inconsistencies in the Amended Soil Survey. Wetlands being re-classified as suitable soil is one example, map units not conforming to slope and landscape data is another. It calls into question the validity of the Amended Soil Survey, and it is recommended that any soil survey level 4 1� Wenck Technical Memo Dusty Finke, City of Medina February 7, 2013 investigation would be created using the same methodology that created the Hennepin County Soil Survey as referenced in the Medina City Code. 5 Wenck " alh' L:\0079\04\mxd\Soil Review.mxd late' 2/812013 Time: 3:00:58 PM User: Suer MT0498 Engineers - Scientists Business Professionals www. wenck.com Legend Areas of Investigation � Septic System Suitability Report Soil Borings - Hennepin County Soil Survey Hamel Series as Amended " Suitable Soil as Amended Approximate Project Boundary Wenck 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429 1-800-472-2232 Map Unit Description Hennepin County, Minnesota L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 1 to 4 percent slopes Setting Mean annual precipitation: 23 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period: 124 to 200 days Composition Hamel, overwash, and similar soils: 50 percent Hamel and similar soils: 43 percent Minor components: 7 percent Description of Hamel, overwash Setting Landform: Drainageways on moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Colluvium over till Properties and Qualities Slope: 1 to 4 percent Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate maximum: 20 percent Gypsum maximum: 1 percent Available water capacity: High (about 11.8 inches) Interpretive Groups Land capability (non irrigated): 2w Typical Profile 0 to 13 inches: loam 13 to 29 inches: clay loam 29 to 50 inches: clay loam 50 to 80 inches: loam Description of Hamel Setting Landform: Drainageways on moraines Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Colluvium over till Properties and Qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 6 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate maximum: 20 percent Gypsum maximum: 1 percent Available water capacity: High (about 11.6 inches) Interpretive Groups Land capability (non irrigated): 2w Typical Profile 0 to 24 inches: loam 24 to 46 inches: clay loam 46 to 80 inches: loam USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Tabular Data Version: 6 Tabular Data Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description Hennepin County, Minnesota Minor Components Terril soils Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hills on moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Linear Glencoe soils Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions on moraines Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Concave USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Tabular Data Version: 6 Tabular Data Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 2 of 3 Official Series Description - HAMEL Series Page 1 of 3 LOCATION HAMEL MN Established Series Rev. AGG-TCJ 09/2001 HAMEL SERIES The Hamel series consists of very deep, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in slope colluvium and glacial till on moraines. These soils have moderately slow permeability. Their slopes range from 1 to 4 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 28 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 47 degrees F. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Argiaquolls TYPICAL PEDON: Hamel loam with a 2 percent concave slope on a glacial moraine in a cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.) Ap--0 to 10 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loam, very dark brown (10YR 2/2) dry; weak very fine subangular blocky structure; friable; common very fine roots; about 1 percent gravel; neutral; abrupt smooth boundary. A--10 to 16 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loam, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) dry; weak very fine subangular blocky structure; friable; common very fine roots; about 4 percent gravel; neutral; gradual smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of A horizon is 14 to 30 inches.) AB --16 to 24 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) clay loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) dry; many fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) Fe concentrations; moderate fine angular blocky structure; friable; common very fine roots; about 4 percent gravel; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick.) Btgl--24 to 40 inches; very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) clay loam, grayish brown (10YR 5/2) dry; many fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) Fe concentrations; moderate medium prismatic structure; friable; few black (10YR 2/1) clay films on faces of peds; about 5 percent gravel; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. Btg2--40 to 46 inches; dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) clay loam; many coarse prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) Fe concentrations; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few black (10YR 2/1) clay films on faces of peds; about 4 percent gravel; neutral; clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of Btg horizons is 12 to 30 inches.) Cg1--46 to 55 inches; olive gray (5Y 5/2) loam; many medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) Fe concentrations; massive; friable; about 3 percent gravel; slightly effervescent; slightly alkaline; gradual wavy boundary. Cg2--55 to 80 inches; olive gray (5Y 5/2) loam; many medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) Fe concentrations; massive; friable; about 4 percent gravel; slightly effervescent; slightly alkaline. TYPE LOCATION: Wright County, Minnesota; about 1.5 miles southwest of Silver Creek, 1200 feet https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HAMEL.html 2/8/2013 Official Series Description - HAMEL Series Page 2 of 3 south and 2300 feet west of the northeast corner of Sec. 18, T.121 N., R.26 W., USGS Annandale quadrangle; lat. 45 degrees 17 minutes 34 seconds N.; long. 94 degrees 00 minutes 13 seconds W., NAD27 RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Depth to free carbonates range from 30 to 65 inches. The mollic epipedon thickness ranges from 24 to 60 inches. Typically the upper colluvim contains less than 2 percent gravel by volume and the lower part contains 2 to 6 percent gravel by volume of mixed lithology. The A horizons have hue of l OYR or is neutral, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 0 to 2. Typically it is loam or clay loam, but silt loam or silty clay loam are within the range. It has coatings of clean sand and silt particles in the lower part of the A horizon in some pedons. It is moderately acid to neutral. The Btg horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, or 5Y, value of 2 to 4, and chroma of 1 or 2. It is clay loam, silty clay loam high in sand, or loam. It has between 25 and 35 percent clay and 15 to 35 percent fine sand and coarser. It has B/A clay ratios of 1.2 to 1.4. It has few to many, faint to prominent clay films. It is moderately acid to neutral. The C horizon has hue of a 2.5Y or 5Y, value of 4 to 6, chroma of 1 or 2. It is loam or clay loam. It is slightly alkaline or moderately alkaline. The clay content ranges from 18 to 32 percent and the total sand content ranges from 25 to 45 percent. COMPETING SERIES: These are the Alvada, Barry, Berville, Brookston, Buntingville, Clackamas, Cordova, Forestcity, Jameston, Marengo, Millszrove, Navan, Nosoni, Rensselaer, and Westland soils. The Alvada series (Tentative - OH) is not in the OSD file at this time. The Barry, Berville, Brookston, Cordova, Marengo, Millgrove, Navan, Rensselaer, and Westland soils have a mollic epipedon that is less than 24 inches thick. The Buntingville soils have carbonates at depths of less than 20 inches. The Clackamas and Nosoni soils lack free carbonates in the series control section. The Forestcity soils have 45 to 65 percent sand and 10 to 18 percent clay in the underlying material. The Jamestown soils formed in a firm and very firm till associated with the Iowan Erosional surface. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Hamel soils have concave slopes in swales, rims of closed depressions, foot and toe slopes, and upper drainageways below sloping to very steep slopes. Slope gradients are 1 to 4 percent. Hamel soils formed in slope colluvium and glacial till of Late Wisconsinan Age. Mean annual air temperature is about 45 to 48 degrees F. Mean annual precipitation is about 25 to 30 inches. Frost free days range from 125 to 165. Elevation above sea level ranges from 700 to 1600 feet. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are principally the Hayden and Lester soils. These soils are well drained and are on the higher lying, gently sloping to very steep slopes. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained. Surface runoff is low or moderately low. Permeability is moderately slow. The apparent seasonal high water table is at .5 to 1.5 feet for the poorly drained phase and 1.5 to 2.5 feet for the somewhat poorly drained phase during spring in normal years. USE AND VEGETATION: Most of this soil is cropped to corn, hay, soybeans, and small grains. However, significant areas are in pasture and forest. Native vegetation is mixed wet prairie grasses and deciduous forest. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Primarily in the southeast one -quarter of Minnesota in the timbered, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HAMEL.html 2/8/2013 Official Series Description - HAMEL Series Page 3 of 3 hilly, "gray" till region. Moderately extensive. MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul, Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Hennepin County, Minnesota, 1969. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: mollic epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of 40 inches (Ap, A, AB and Btgl); argillic horizon - the zone from 24 to 46 inches (Btgl, Btg2,). Type location moved from Hennepin County, Mn. to Wright County, Mn., 11/96 to better exemplify the series concept. A somewhat poorly drained overwash phase is recognized that has 8 to 20 inches of colluvium over the original dark colored surface. ADDITIONAL DATA: Refer to MAES Central File Code No. 785 for results of some laboratory analysis of this series. National Cooperative Soil Survey U.S.A. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSDDocs/H/HAMEL.html 2/8/2013 Wenck Engineers • Scientists Business Professionals TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Dusty Finke, City of Medina FROM: Peter G. Miller P.S.S., Wenck Associates, Inc. DATE: January 21, 2013 SUBJECT: Tamarack Ridge 1st Addition Plat Submittal Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 800-472-2232 (763) 479-4200 Fax (763) 479-4242 wenckmp@wenck.com www.wenck.com Per your request this memorandum addresses the adjustment of the Hennepin County Soil Survey boundary on the subject property. Specifically we were asked to evaluate an area of delineated wetland around an upland island where the current Soil Survey Boundary is proposed to be expanded, See Attachment 1. For this memorandum we will identify this as the "Area of Investigation." We have been provided with previously collected information for the project including: • Preliminary Plat Plan Set; Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.; Last Revised 1-14-2013 • Wetland Delineation Report; Arrowhead Environmental Consulting; 1-12-2012 • Soil Classification Summary; Haugo Geotechnical Services; 9-5-2012 • Preliminary Plat Narrative; Property Resources Development Co.; 8-3-2012 For the purpose of this memorandum, we wereto determine if the expansion of the L37B Angus Series Soil Boundary around the upland island is supported by the available information and Soil Science principles. Two soil borings were reviewed that aided in our review. One boring is found in the Wetland Delineation Report (1-1/1A-1 Wet) and the other is found in the Boring Logs completed for the Soil Classification Summary (B16). Both borings are mapped in the respective documents as being on or near the location of the proposed 2.6' x 38' fill "bridge" and within the Area of Investigation. These soil borings were selected for review as they are the primary field data collected in the Area of Investigation to potentially support amending the Soil Survey Boundary. The Hennepin County Soil Survey identified the Area of Investigation as a L36A Hamel Series. The proposed Amended Soil Survey, submitted with the Preliminary Plat, intends to change a portion of the Hamel Series boundary to a L37B Angus Series. The Angus Series is on the City's list of suitable building soils, whereas the Hamel Series is not on the list. The Official Series Descriptions for Hamel and Angus are included as Attachment 2. The key diagnostic difference between Hamel and Angus soils at this location is depth to groundwater. Hamel soils are poorly drained, hydric (i.e. wetland soils), and will have evidence of a seasonally high water table at or near the surface. Angus soils are well drained, and the seasonally high water table will be found at three feet or greater below the surface. It is presumed that depth to groundwater is the Technical Memo Dusty Finke, City of Medina January 21, 2013 primary reason Hamel soils are not considered suitable for building on the City's list, while Angus soils are considered suitable. Below are the results from the two soil borings provided in the Area of Investigation. Both borings indicate the presence of a seasonally high water table at or near the surface: Boring from the Wetland Delineation Report (1-1/1A-1 Wet): 0-6" 10YR 2/1 (black), clay, 2% 10YR 3/3 (dark brown) iron concentrations 6-15" N 2.5/0 (neutral black), clay, 5% 10YR 3/3 (dark brown) iron concentrations 15-22" 2.5Y 4/1 (dark grey), clay, 5% 7.5YR 5/8 (strong brown) iron concentrations Boring from Soil Classification Summary (B-16): 0-1.5' silty clay, very organic, black, wet 1.5-3.5' lean clay, with sand, dark brown, wet 3.5-5.0' silty clay trace gravel, grey brown, wet The boring from the Wetland Delineation Report was conducted using United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) protocols and terminology, the same system used for the Hennepin County Soil Survey. The profile contains hydric soil indicators, and was classified as hydric in the Wetland Delineation Report as submitted to and approved by the City of Medina. Field notes from the Wetland Delineation Report also discuss observed wetland hydrology and observed soil saturation near the surface on the day of sampling. The boring from the Soil Classification Summary was conducted using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) protocols and terminology, which is typically used for soil engineering. Hydric soil indicators are based in the USDA system, and cannot be directly inferred from the Unified classification. However, the profile as described is a dark, clayey soil that is saturated at or near the surface and is very high in organic matter content. This description also supports a hydric soil classification. "Wet" in the USCS system is synonymous with "saturated". Neither profile description shown above is thorough or deep enough to classify this soil to the series level. However, there is enough data to exclude specific series from consideration. The hydric status of the soil has already been classified positively by the Wetland Delineation Report. According to the Official Series Description for the Angus series, Angus soils are not hydric and will not have a water table within 36 inches from the surface. Therefore, the soil described by the two above borings could not be classified as Angus. Further, the information provided does not support moving the Angus soil boundary into any portion of the delineated wetland. 2 Wenck ATTACHMENT 1 . T T T T T T T T 4% T T' T T T T `T T T T T T 4' T \ 4% T T T T //4' T, . 4//4. 4' T T T 4% 4. T T.-'4... �_4\ iT 4,,_.)-4,.i T T 4' T T T T T 4• 4' T T T %.... 4, T' T T T T 4' T T 4• T 4. 4. T \4. 4• 4• T R. 4. T 4' 4. 4' ?. T T T T T 4VV T 4• 4. 4, .�. ,t, 4, 4. T T T T T Official Series Description - HAMEL Series Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 2 LOCATION HAMEL MN Established Series Rev. AGG-TCJ 09/2001 HAMEL SERIES The Hamel series consists of very deep, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in slope colluvium and glacial till on moraines. These soils have moderately slow permeability. Their slopes range from 1 to 4 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 28 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 47 degrees F. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Argiaquolls TYPICAL PEDON: Hamel loam with a 2 percent concave slope on a glacial moraine in a cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.) Ap--0 to 10 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loam, very dark brown (10YR 2/2) dry; weak very fine subangular blocky structure; friable; common very fine roots; about 1 percent gravel; neutral; abrupt smooth boundary. A--10 to 16 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loam, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) dry; weak very fine subangular blocky structure; friable; common very fine roots; about 4 percent gravel; neutral; gradual smooth boundary. (Combined thickness of A horizon is 14 to 30 inches.) AB --16 to 24 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) clay loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) dry; many fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) Fe concentrations; moderate fine angular blocky structure; friable; common very fine roots; about 4 percent gravel; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 10 inches thick.) Btgl--24 to 40 inches; very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) clay loam, grayish brown (10YR 5/2) dry; many fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) Fe concentrations; moderate medium prismatic structure; friable; few black (10YR 2/1) clay films on faces of peds; about 5 percent gravel; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. Btg2--40 to 46 inches; dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) clay loam; many coarse prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) Fe concentrations; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few black (10YR 2/1) clay films on faces of peds; about 4 percent gravel; neutral; clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of Btg horizons is 12 to 30 inches.) Cg1--46 to 55 inches; olive gray (5Y 5/2) loam; many medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) Fe concentrations; massive; friable; about 3 percent gravel; slightly effervescent; slightly alkaline; gradual wavy boundary. Cg2--55 to 80 inches; olive gray (5Y 5/2) loam; many medium prominent yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) Fe concentrations; massive; friable; about 4 percent gravel; slightly effervescent; slightly alkaline. TYPE LOCATION: Wright County, Minnesota; about 1.5 miles southwest of Silver Creek, 1200 feet https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD Docs/H/HAMEL.html 1/17/2013 Official Series Description - HAMEL Series Page 2 of 3 south and 2300 feet west of the northeast corner of Sec. 18, T.121 N., R.26 W., USGS Annandale quadrangle; lat. 45 degrees 17 minutes 34 seconds N.; long. 94 degrees 00 minutes 13 seconds W., NAD27 RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Depth to free carbonates range from 30 to 65 inches. The mollic epipedon thickness ranges from 24 to 60 inches. Typically the upper colluvim contains less than 2 percent gravel by volume and the lower part contains 2 to 6 percent gravel by volume of mixed lithology. The A horizons have hue of 10YR or is neutral, value of 2 or 3, and chroma of 0 to 2. Typically it is loam or clay loam, but silt loam or silty clay loam are within the range. It has coatings of clean sand and silt particles in the lower part of the A horizon in some pedons. It is moderately acid to neutral. The Btg horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, or 5Y, value of 2 to 4, and chroma of 1 or 2. It is clay loam, silty clay loam high in sand, or loam. It has between 25 and 35 percent clay and 15 to 35 percent fine sand and coarser. It has B/A clay ratios of 1.2 to 1.4. It has few to many, faint to prominent clay films. It is moderately acid to neutral. The C horizon has hue of a 2.5Y or 5Y, value of 4 to 6, chroma of 1 or 2. It is loam or clay loam. It is slightly alkaline or moderately alkaline. The clay content ranges from 18 to 32 percent and the total sand content ranges from 25 to 45 percent. COMPETING SERIES: These are the Alvada, Barry, Berville, Brookston, Buntingville, Clackamas, Cordova, Forestcity, Jameston, Mareng,o, Millgrove, Navan, Nosoni, Rensselaer, and Westland soils. The Alvada series (Tentative - OH) is not in the OSD file at this time. The Barry, Berville, Brookston, Cordova, Marengo, Millgrove, Navan, Rensselaer, and Westland soils have a mollic epipedon that is less than 24 inches thick. The Buntingville soils have carbonates at depths of less than 20 inches. The Clackamas and Nosoni soils lack free carbonates in the series control section. The Forestcity soils have 45 to 65 percent sand and 10 to 18 percent clay in the underlying material. The Jamestown soils formed in a firm and very firm till associated with the Iowan Erosional surface. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Hamel soils have concave slopes in swales, rims of closed depressions, foot and toe slopes, and upper drainageways below sloping to very steep slopes. Slope gradients are 1 to 4 percent. Hamel soils formed in slope colluvium and glacial till of Late Wisconsinan Age. Mean annual air temperature is about 45 to 48 degrees F. Mean annual precipitation is about 25 to 30 inches. Frost free days range from 125 to 165. Elevation above sea level ranges from 700 to 1600 feet. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are principally the Hayden and Lester soils. These soils are well drained and are on the higher lying, gently sloping to very steep slopes. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained. Surface runoff is low or moderately low. Permeability is moderately slow. The apparent seasonal high water table is at .5 to 1.5 feet for the poorly drained phase and 1.5 to 2.5 feet for the somewhat poorly drained phase during spring in normal years. USE AND VEGETATION: Most of this soil is cropped to corn, hay, soybeans, and small grains. However, significant areas are in pasture and forest. Native vegetation is mixed wet prairie grasses and deciduous forest. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Primarily in the southeast one -quarter of Minnesota in the timbered, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HAMEL.html 1/17/2013 Official Series Description - HAMEL Series Page 3 of 3 hilly, "gray" till region. Moderately extensive. MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul, Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Hennepin County, Minnesota, 1969. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: mollic epipedon - the zone from the surface to a depth of 40 inches (Ap, A, AB and Btgl); argillic horizon - the zone from 24 to 46 inches (Btgl, Btg2,). Type location moved from Hennepin County, Mn. to Wright County, Mn., 11/96 to better exemplify the series concept. A somewhat poorly drained overwash phase is recognized that has 8 to 20 inches of colluvium over the original dark colored surface. ADDITIONAL DATA: Refer to MAES Central File Code No. 785 for results of some laboratory analysis of this series. National Cooperative Soil Survey U.S.A. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD Docs/H/HAMEL.html 1/17/2013 Official Series Description - ANGUS Series Page 1 of 3 LOCATION ANGUS MN+IA Established Series Rev. TCJ-AGG-KDS 01/2011 ANGUS SERIES The Angus series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on moraines and till plains. Permeability is moderate. Slopes range from 2 to 9 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 28 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 46 degrees F. TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Mollie Hapludalfs TYPICAL PEDON: Angus loam with a convex slope of about 5 percent on a ground moraine in a cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.) Ap--0 to 8 inches; black (10YR 2/1) loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) dry; weak fine granular structure; friable; many very fine roots; about 2 percent gravel; neutral; abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 10 inches thick) Bt1--8 to 23 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) clay loam; moderate medium angular blocky structure; firm; common faint brown (10YR 4/3) clay films on ped interiors; many very fine roots; about 3 percent gravel; slightly acid; gradual wavy boundary. Bt2--23 to 35 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) clay loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; firm; common faint very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clay films on faces of peds and root channels; common very fine roots; about 5 percent gravel; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bt horizons is 15 to 40 inches) BC --35 to 40 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few faint brown (10YR 4/3) clay films in root channels; about 4 percent gravel; slightly effervescent; slightly alkaline; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 12 inches thick) C--40 to 80 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) loam; massive; friable; common fine distinct grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Fe depletion and common medium distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) Fe concentrations; about 7 percent gravel; strongly effervescent; slightly alkaline. TYPE LOCATION: Wright County, Minnesota; about 1 mile south of Montrose, 2,000 feet north and 80 feet east of the southwest corner of sec. 1, T. 118 N., R. 26 W.; USGS Waverly quadrangle; lat. 45 degrees 03 minutes 20 seconds N.; long. 93 degrees 54 minutes 38 seconds W., NAD27. RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Depth to free calcium carbonates ranges from 24 to 54 inches. Rock fragments of mixed lithology comprise 2 to 8 percent of the volume throughout. Soil saturation occurs in the lower third of the series control section for periods of one month or more. These soils are dry for more than 60 days in the soil moisture control section during the 120 days following the summer solstice. The clay content ranges from 22 to 30 percent and the sand content ranges from 30 to 45 percent throughout. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ANGUS.html 1/21/2013 Official Series Description - ANGUS Series Page 2 of 3 The A or Ap horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 2 or 3 and chroma of 1 to 3. It is typically loam or clay loam, but silt loam, sandy loam and fine sandy loam are within the range. The reaction is moderately acid to neutral. Some pedons have a E horizon with hue of 10YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 1 to 3. It is loam, sandy loam or fine sandy loam. The reaction is moderately acid to neutral. The Bt horizon has hue of 10YR or 2.5Y, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 3 or 4. It is clay loam, loam, or sandy clay loam. Redoximorphic features are present in the lower part of the Bt horizon in some pedons. The B/A clay ratios range from 1.2 to 1.4 . It is strongly acid to slightly acid in the upper part and moderately acid to neutral in the lower part. A Bk horizon is present in some pedons. The BC horizon has soil color and textures similar to the Bt and C horizon respectively. Clay films are on ped faces or root channels. The reaction is slightly acid to slightly alkaline. The C horizon has hue of 2.5Y or 10YR, value of 4 to 6 and chroma of 3 to 5. It is loam or clay loam. It is slightly alkaline or moderately alkaline. Redox depletions with chroma of 2 or less are in this horizon. COMPETING SERIES: These are the Argyle, Baltimore, Bassett, Blooming, Caleb, Dowagiac, Dunbrid2e, Gara, Koronis, Lauramie, Lester, Longlois, Lydick, Mohawk, Neda, Newcomer, Oneco, Orwood, Racine, Razort, Sebbo, Taopi, Waucoma, and Winneshiek soils. The Argyle, Baltimore, Blooming, Gara Koronis, Lester, Lydick, Mohawk, Razort and Taopi soils do not have soil saturation in the lower third of the series control section for more than 1 consecutive month. The Bassett, Caleb, Orwood, and Sebbo soils do not have free carbonates above a depth of 48 inches. Dowagiac soils have sandy outwash sediments with less than 10 percent clay in the lower third of the series control section. Dunbridge and Winneshiek soils have sola terminated by limestone bedrock at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Lauramie soils are dry in some parts of the soil moisture control section for less than 60 days during the 120 days following the summer solstice. Longlois soils have 15 to 60 percent rock fragments in the lower half of the series control section. Neda and Racine soils have less than 30 percent sand in the upper one fourth of the series control section. Newcomer, Oneco and Waucoma soils have sola terminated by a lithic contact at depths of 40 to 60 inches. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: These soils have convex slopes on moraines or till plains. Slopes range from 2 to 9 percent. They formed in calcareous, loamy glacial till of late Wisconsin Age. Mean annual air temperature ranges from 45 to 50 degrees F. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 25 to 32 inches. Frost -free days range from 125 to 165. Elevation above sea level ranges from 700 to 1600 feet. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These includes the Cordova, Dundas, Glencoe, I-lamel, Houghton, Klossner, and Le Sueur soils which formed in similar parent materials. Poorly drained Cordova and Dundas soils are on flats and upper drainageways. Very poorly drained Glencoe soils are in depressions and drainage channels. Poorly drained Hamel soils are on footslopes or toeslopes. Very poorly drained Houghton and Klossner soils are organic and are in depressions. Moderately well drained Le Sueur soils are on slightly elevated flats and less sloping area. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained. Permeability is moderate. Runoff is low. A seasonal high apparent water table is at 3.5 to 6 feet during March to June in most years. USE AND VEGETATION: Mostly cropped to corn and soybeans. Native vegetation is mixed prairie grasses and deciduous forest. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD Docs/A/ANGUS.html 1/21/2013 Official Series Description - ANGUS Series Page 3 of 3 DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: South-central and east -central Minnesota and possibly northeastern Iowa. Moderate extent. MLRA-103. MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul, Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Meeker County, Minnesota, 1995. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: mollic subgroup - the zone from the surface to a depth of 8 inches (Ap horizon); argillic horizon - the zone from 8 to 35 inches (Bt horizons); This soil was previously included in the Lester series. However, due to more investigations, it was concluded that Lester soils on a slope of 2 to 5 percent have seasonal high water table between 3.5 and 6 feet rather than 6 feet or greater. 1/19/2011 -TYPE LOCATION error was corrected. ADDITIONAL DATA: Soil Interpretation Record number MN0830. National Cooperative Soil Survey U.S.A. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSDDocs/A/ANGUS.html 1/21/2013 WSB &Assoc Engineering • Planning leEnvironmental r Construction November 18, 2012 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: Tamarack Ridge Subdivision, L-12-085 WSB Project No. 2065-180 Dear Dusty: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the revised plans dated November 2, 2012, for the Tamarack Ridge 1St Addition subdivision. The plans propose to construct an 8 -lot single family home subdivision. Our original comments from our August 21, 2012 letter are shown below followed by responses to the revised plan set: 1. The narrative says that the subdivision is proposed to be accessed by the existing Deer Hill Road right-of-way easement with the primary entrance from Homestead Trail. It appears there is only a 33' half right of way easement in place on Deer Hill Road between Willow Drive and Homestead Trail. This does not meet City minimum right-of-way standards for collector roadways. The preliminary plat should be revised to show 66 -feet of dedicated right-of-way for Deer Hill Road to meet the minimum City standards. Response: The revised plans did not address this issue. 2. The proposed cul-de-sac scales 92' in diameter and does not meet the City minimum standard of 120' as shown in City Standard Detail Plate STR-07. The preliminary plat should be revised to show 60 -feet of dedicated right-of-way for the roadway portion of Tamarack Ridge with a 128 - foot diameter right-of-way for the cul-de-sac to meet the City minimum standards as shown in City Standard Detail Plate STR-07. Response: The revised plans show the proposed cul-de-sac meeting the minimum standards of City Standard Detail Plate STR-0t7.. The proposed right-of-way for Tamarack Ridge Road still scales 50 feet wide and should be revised to scale 60 feet to meet minimum City standards. 3. The applicant should provide clarification that the 40' electrical easement shown overlapping the Deer Hill Road right-of-way easement does not impede their ability to construct the proposed improvements. Response: The applicant has not provided verification that this easement does not impact their ability to construct the proposed improvements. Minneapolis • St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer K:V12065-18UUdmiR.[ mALTR-J f ,kc-Tam mckRi,I ? li,MhmRvn (111812)tloc Tamarack Ridge November 18, 2012 Page 2 4. The typical rural street half section shown in the plan set cannot be constructed in the existing right-of-way easement and does not meet the minimum City design standards. The plans should replace the proposed street section shown with City Standard Detail Plate STR-05. Response: The detail included with the plan set on Sheet 1 of 3 is still incorrect. The detail should show the full width street section with correct cross slope, street width, draintile, and all other changes necessary to meet the minimum rural section road design as shown on the attached City Standard Detail Plate STR-05. In addition, the plans should be revised to show the correct roadway widths. The revised plans show a roadway footprint that scales 22 feet which does not meet City minimum standards. Also, the scale shown on Sheet 2 of 3 is incorrect and should be changed to show a 50 scale. 5. The proposed 10% grades shown on both Deer Hill Road and Tamarack Ridge Road are excessively steep for local roadways and attempts should be made to reduce the proposed maximum street grades to 8% or less. Response: The grades on Tamarack Ridge Road have been reduced to a maximum of 8% however the proposed maximum grades on Deer Hill Road are still shown at 10% and should be reduced to a maximum of 8%. 6. The proposed Deer Hill Road connection to Homestead Trail should be reviewed with Hennepin County and a sight distance evaluation completed to verify the proposed connection provides adequate sight distances. Response: The applicant submitted a letter from Hennepin County with an attachment that was not legible. A legible attachment should be submitted to verify the proposed access is acceptable to Hennepin County. 7. In part A of plan sheet 3 of 3 there is a note stating "conceptual grading plan final grading plan by others". What does this note mean and what are the limits of the proposed improvements? If the access to Homestead Trail is not part of this project the plans should identify emergency turnaround locations and designs. Response: The revised plans did not address this issue and should be revised. 8. The proposed street construction and associated grading shown on plan sheet 3 of 3 cannot be completed within the existing right-of-way/easement. The applicant should provide evidence they have the ability to complete the proposed improvements. Response: The applicant has not satisfactorily addressed this issue. Revised drawings should clearly show the ability to construct the proposed improvements. 9. The grading plan for Tamarack Ridge Road should be revised to provide a minimum 50' landing area at a maximum 2% grade at the intersection with Deer Hill Road. Response: The revised plans do not satisfy this concern. Currently the landing area provided north of the stop bar for the south bound traffic on Tamarack Ridge Road is less than 50 feet and exceeds a 5% grade. The plans should be revised to address this issue. KA020G'-180lAdminWocsil.TRd fink,-TnnmrxckRirlgcPrdimII,nRnv (I I IA I2)dx Tamarack Ridge November 18, 2012 Page 3 10. The plans should identify how access to Lots 4 and 5 will be provided. Any proposed accesses to these lots should be outside of perimeter drainage and utility easements. Response: The plans have been revised to show an access to Lots 4 and 5. The City should review the proposed access to determine if it is acceptable. 11. Primary and secondary septic sites should be shown on the plans. Response: The septic sites have been added to the plan set and should be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. 12. The narrative talks about custom lot grading. At a minimum a conceptual grading plan for the site should be provided to insure the lots can be graded in a way so as to not adversely impact neighboring properties. Response: The revised plans have not addressed this issue and should be included in the next grading plan submittal. 13. Preliminary stormwater comments are attached to this review. Response: As noted in Rich Hibbard's latest review memo (attached) the previous stormwater comments have not yet been addressed Please contact me at 763-231-4865 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. /v7 Tom Kellogg Attachments K102065-1RO Admin1DocALTI2•J finkc-TaumfackRiJgcPrelimPlanlivw (1111112) Jac WSB Infrastructure ■ Engineering • Planning • Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South &Associates, lac. Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer City of Medina From: Rich Hibbard, P.E. Water Resources Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: November 16, 2012 Re: Tamarack Ridge Development Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan Review WSB Project No. 2065-180 We have completed a review of the revised plans for Tamarack Ridge development in Medina, MN with respect to stormwater management. Documents provided for review included the following: • Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Set (3 sheets) prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, dated August 3, 2012 and revised November 2, 2012 (in AutoCAD format). • Letter to Dusty Finke and Nate Sparks from Matthew S. Duffy dated November 6, 2012 regarding Tamarack Ride Preliminary Plat/City of Medina. The preliminary grading, drainage, and erosion control plan does not appear to have addressed our August 10, 2012 comments related to stormwater management. Proposed stormwater management facilities appear to be unchanged in the plan and no updated stormwater management plan narrative was provided to us. The applicant should refer to the City's Stormwater Design Manual for guidance on meeting the. City's requirements for stormwater management plan submittals. Stormwater calculations including computer model printouts should be provided along with an updated narrative describing quantitatively how the development will meet the City's storm water management requirements. The applicant also should address stormwater management for the entire site in its final developed condition, not solely the street portion of the site. We would be happy to discuss the City's stormwater management requirements with the applicant directly to clarify any questions or concerns. WSB &Associates, Inc. Infrastructure in Engineering • Planning • Construction Memorandum To: Torn Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer City of Medina From: Rich Hibbard, P.E. Water Resources Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: August 10, 2012 Re: Tamarack Ridge Development Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan Review WSB Project No. 2065-180 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 56416 Tel: 763 541-4500 Fax: 763 641-1700 We have completed a preliminary review of the stormwater management plan for Tamarack Ridge development in Medina, MN. Documents provided for review include the following: • Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, dated August 3, 2012 • Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Set (3 sheets) prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, dated August 3, 2012 These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina's Stormwater Design Manual and general engineering practices for stormwater management. Based on this review, we offer the following comments: 1. The applicant is proposing to provide stormwater management for runoff from the proposed roadway only and not for the 8 lots that will be developed in the future. The City should require this development to provide regional stormwater management for the entire development including the future developed condition of the lots to localize maintenance. 2. A NURP pond is proposed as the primary stormwater management practice. This practice may be used only if the site precludes the use of volume control practices, such as infiltration or filtration practices. This site should meet the volume control requirements of the City of Medina's Stormwater Design Manual if possible. Otherwise, calculations should be provided to demonstrate compliance with the City's water quality control requirement of 20% reduction in phosphorus load. A PondNet model should be used to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. NURP calculations are not a requirement of the design manual. 3. The applicant should provide calculations to demonstrate compliance with the City's rate control requirements. Calculation methods should be consistent with NRCS TR-55 Tamarack Ridge Stormwater Management Review City of Medina Page 2 of 2 methodology and existing conditions curve numbers should be chosen based on the appropriate agricultural land use. Conformance with wetland bounce limitations and freeboard requirements should also be provided. 4. The applicant should submit a revised stormwater management plan based on the above comments and remaining requirements outlined in the City's Stormwater Design Manual. The checklist in the manual should be used to prepare future submittals. NOTE: R 25' R 25' 4 15' 15' 12' 12' 6" CROWN (0.02% MIN) 12" 30' 2' MIN. 4' DITCH BOTTOM - 1 1/2" - SPWEB240B WEAR COURSE 2"-SPNWB230B BASE COURSE 10" -CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE, 100% CRUSHED LIMEROCK OR RECYCLED AGG. (MNDOT 3138.) SUBGRADE STABILIZATION FABRIC - 8 OZ./SY NON -WOVEN COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE AS CONDITIONS REQUIRE LOW VOUME BITUMINOUS STREET Ct- 30' R 15' TO BACK 15' TO BACK D-428 MOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB 6" CROWN /(0.02% MIN) 1/4" / FOOT 12" A 1/2:1 /4" PERFORATED DRAINTILE DRAINTILE IN FILTER SOCK BEDDED IN PEE ROCK 1 1/2" - SPWEB240B WEAR COURSE 2"- SPNWB203B BASE COURSE 10" -CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE, 100% CRUSHED LIMEROCK, OR RECYCLED AGG. (MNDOT 3138.) SUBGRADE STABILIZATION FABRIC - 8 OZ./SY NON -WOVEN COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE AS CONDITIONS REQUIRE LOW VOLUME BITUMINOUS STREET WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 1. ALL ORGANIC OR OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM BENEATH THE ROADWAY. 2. DRAINTILE SHALL BE INSTALLED BEHIND CURB AT LOW POINTS, 50' IN EACH DIRECTION.DRAINTILE TO BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY DRAIN ALL LOW AREAS. LOW VOLUME RURAL AND URBAN STREET TYPICAL SECTION LAST REVISION; JAN. 2011 PLATE NO. STR-05 METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. Loren Kohnen, Pres. November 13, 2012 TO: Debra Peterson Planning Assistant City of Medina FROM: Loren Kohnen RE: Rural Residential Zoning West of Deerhill Rd & E. of Homestead Tr. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 8 LOT SUBDIVISION (763) 4794720 FAX (763) 479-3090 Mtrowst76@aol;com Following items noted: 1) Septic sites shown on plan for parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 will not work. They do not meet the requirements of MPCA Rule 7080. 2) Were soil borings done? If so, provide. 3) Was person doing borings certified and companylicensed by MPCA? 4) Lots 4 & 5 have very long driveways; provisions for a pull -over for emergency vehicles must be made., 5) Scale shown does not appear to be the one used for roadway and cul-de-sac. 6) Tom Kellogg to review road width and comment. Roadway should be more than wide enough'_for two (2) trucks to pass. LK:jg Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat Submitted to: City of Medina Submitted by: Property Resources Development Co. August 3, 2012 01. Narrative PROJECT SNAPSHOT Proposal: Application for Preliminary Plat PID #0 53-2111823310001, 053-2111823340002, 053- 2111823340003 Acres: +/- 80 8 Lots, Rural Residential Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) Land Use (Comp Plan): Rural Residential INTRODUCTION The proposed subdivision is approximately 80 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the community, and is owned by Stonegate Farm, Inc. The site has beautiful vistas, topogra- phy and natural features that make it a perfect location for a large -lot rural residential subdivision that is in character with the surrounding neighborhoods. The site is bordered on the north by the Tamarack, west/northwest by rural residential properties, to the east a rural subdivision, and to the south ag- ricultural lands owned and operated by Stonegate Farm, Inc. Today, Stonegate Farm, Inc. is the owner of the property and manages agricultural activities on approximately 192 acres, which includes the proposed 80 -acre subdivision. It is the in- tent of Property Resources Development Corporation (PRDC) to purchase the north 80 acres from Stonegate Farm to de- velop a large -lot rural residential subdivision. Stonegate Farm will retain the remaining 110+/- acres of the property and continue to farm it for the foreseeable future. Throughout the past several decades the site has been primarily used for agricultural production and has changed hands several times, with Stonegate Farm owning and operating the farm since the mid -1990s. PRDC intends to develop a subdivision that is consistent with the City's ordinances for Rural Residential neighborhoods, and to be consistent with the intent of both the existing and fu- ture land use designations as described by the Comprehensive Plan. The objective is to create an exceptional neighborhood that is compatible with adjacent uses, is accessible to the re- gional amenities and supports the goals and aspirations of the community. We believe Tamarack Ridge will be a high -quality neighborhood, with exceptional access to natural resources, key transportation corridors and community facilities. CHARACTER / DESIGN The proposed subdivision is centrally located to open space, facilities and key transportation corridors which make it a desirable location for people to live and recreate. The area is primarily developed with single-family rural residential neighborhoods, large tracts of land with estate homes and parkland. The site is connected by key roads such as County Road 6, Homestead Trail and Deerhill Road which make this site a perfect location for residential development — its access, proximity to facilities and natural areas will all contribute to a neighborhood with a sense of sustainahility and place. The proposed subdivision will be consistent and follow exist- ing development trends of surrounding parcels and neighbor- hoods. The subdivision proposes 8 lots, ranging in size from 5 acres to just shy of 25 acres. The subdivision is proposed to be accessed by the existing Deerhill Road right-of-way with the primary entrance from Homestead Trail. The lots will be accessed from a cul-de-sac, with the primary objective of creat- ing serene and peaceful entrance into the subdivision. PRDC intends to work with the City to re-establish the Deerhill Road connection, as it is City right-of-way per dedication docu- ments. In 1969 Deerhill Road was dedicated to the City of Median as an access to the property and the dedication document is attached to this narrative for your review and information. In good faith, PRDC has performed a general wetland boundary determination for the area within the City's Deerhill Road ROW and also completed a tree survey in this area. However, since it is the City's ROW, PRDC believes that the city should work collaboratively with us to determine an appropriate approach, including roles and responsibilities, to re-establish this roadway. PRDC believes that this access is the safest and most direct to the property at this time. Re-establishing the full east -west connection of Deerhill Road also has the added benefit of in- creasing safety for existing neighbors, and for future residents of Tamarack Ridge by providing an outlet. A landscape plan has been developed for the primary entrance and for the cul-de-sac which further supports the rural, but deliberate, entrance into the neighborhood. As you enter Tamarack Ridge you will be greeted with natural vegetation in the common areas, but once at individual lots you will sense that each home is custom designed and each landscaping and grading plan was carefully completed and designed to estab- lish a sense of place within the neighborhood. It is PRDC's intent that these lots will be custom graded and landscaped based upon the eventual home design for each lot. This will add to the rural and unique qualities of the neighborhood, en- suring that each lot, home and landscaping plan is carefully in- tegrated on the site and with the surrounding neighborhood. 02. Engineering Submittal The Engineering Submittal was prepared by Sathre-Sergquist and includes the follow: Survey Existing Conditions & Preliminary Plat Stormwater Management All stormwater is managed on -site and meets the city's ordi- nances and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards. The post -development conditions will he a vast improvement upon current conditions because today the land is in agricul- tural production. As a rural residential subdivision the land use will be far less intense than current conditions. 1oI1ivayns 6uuaaui6u3 'ZO 03. Landscaping Plan Tamarack Ridge will provide custom lots to those wishing to purchase, and as such a landscaping plan for each lot is not provided. All of the homes will be custom designed, and will be required to be sited within a certain envelope to ensure preservation of viewsheds and other natural characteristics. At time of individual lot development, a full landscaping plan for the individual lot shall be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval. As for the area within the 'common' realm such as the en- trance, roads, and stormwater areas a landscaping plan has been provided. We understand that the tree ordinance re- quires all significant trees (not including invasive) to be inven- toried and a replacement plan provided. We have completed this requirement for the 'common' areas, and there are no significant trees on the site. As discussed in the narrative, there are significant trees within the Deerhill Road ROW. At this time we have not established a plan for the trees within this area as it is the City's ROW. Other than the ROW, there are no significant trees proposed for removal. The significant tree inventory is provided within the engineering submittal. The landscaping plan establishes a planting plan for the buf- fer areas adjacent to wetland areas consistent with the Min- nehaha Creek Watershed District Standards. The Landscape Plan was prepared by Terramark 04. Soils and Septic Information The purpose of this section is to appropriately identify proper locations for a primary and secondary septic site on each lot in the proposed Tamarack Ridge First Addition. The City of Medina requires 5 -acres of contiguous suitable soils, where suitable soils is defined by city ordinance. The source data to determine the soil classifications is the Hennepin County Soil Survey. Per the City's ordinance, if an applicant would like to contest the soil classification on a property then a geotechnical engi- neer shall perform the appropriate tests to determine what soil designation is more accurate. PRDC hired Haugo Geotechnical Services, LC to obtain sev- eral soil samples and perform a full review of the soils within the Hamel soil classification on site as defined in the Hennepin County Soil Survey (HCSS). (See figure 4-2 for soil locations, and the location of the Hamel series). Based upon the test- ing performed once the results were referenced to the HCSS manual it revealed that the majority of the Hamel soils on the site meet the standards for Cordova or Angus-kilkenny. This was further validated by our wetland specialist who performed the wetland delineation on site. Based upon the input of the wetland specialist and the geotechnical engineer, it was concluded that the soil bor- ing technical results for the majority of the boring locations was most similar to the Cordova soil profile, and a couple the Angus-kilkenny. To determine the Hamel soil areas to be included within the reclassified Cordova and Angus-kilkenny series, topography was used to establish boundaries. Based upon expertise of the wetland specialist and the geotechnical engineer it was clear that soils for example on up -slopes from boring locations with a Cordova profile would extend up a hill and would not take on Hamel characteristics. Once the boundaries were established, the newly classified Cordova se- ries soils were included in the suitable soil calculations. (See Figure 4.3) The full geotechnical profiles for each boring location are included within this section. The suitable soils calculation is directly related to the suitabil- ity for installation of an individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) on each lot. PRDC hired Miller's Sewage Treatment Solutions to perform percolation tests on each lot to deter- mine an area suitable for a primary and secondary drainfield on each lot. The full report is attached for review. The report clearly demonstrates that each lot has adequate soils and up- land area to support a safe and functioning system on each lot that will meet the City's ordinance. Hennepin County Soil Survey Gross Lot Area HC Soil Survey L23A ,,., L22C2 i I I L41 G2 ?_.. L41 D2 1 L25A L40B -^ J L37B I 1 L36A ;- - L22D2 ?� ; L50A HC Suitable Soils L ot Gross Lot Size (AC) HC Suitabl e Soils ( AC(* 1 5.04 5 .04 2 5.38 5.03 3 6.32 2 .78 4 7 .67 4 .63Suit able 5 15 .22 4 .05 6 24.80 5.59 7 7 .11 2.41 8 8 .07 5.81 T ot al 79 .6 35.34 *Suitable soils as defined by City of Medina Ordinance 7/12/2012 Pr elimi nary Plat Submittal Prepar ed by: SHC,LLC: Sathre-Bergquist GIS Data Sourc e: MnDNR, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County Hennepin County Soil Survey Soil Boring Septic Test Location S oils & Test Locations Soil Type Soil Boring L23A L41C2 �—i L25A •j L37B L22D2 L22C2 L41 D2 L4OB j L36A L50A * Geotech Hole o Septic Test T esting l ocations wer e determined based upon recomm endati on of the geotechnical engineer and the wetland speci alist based up on site conditio ns. The full g eot echnical report pr epared by Haug o is attached to the submittal . 7/12/2012 Preliminary Plat Submittal Prepar ed by: SHC LLC; Satl1re.Bergquist GIS Data Source: MnDNR. Metropolitan Council. Hennepin County Figure 4_3 d4 � 9L \ •• CL��Vr, i , * 41%611937*o 03 * o O 5.03382 5 V L. F o l jI /f b # �� • r � �"o o �'' 7` ' xr, a: akc. , 5017 0 0: 0 o1� ;jt�,' 313 1-7-----------L-N o 1 71 o 0 LL HC Soil Survey & Final Suitable Calculation Soils & Test Locations Soil Type <_ .a. L23A -�' L41 C2 Li L25A L37B 77 L22D2 L22C2 L41 D2 L4OB 7-1 L36A L50A Soil Boring * Geotech Hole • Septic Test Lot Area Suitable ' Suitable Soils Lot Suit able Area - R evised ( AC)* HC Suitable S oils (AC) 1 5.01 5 .04 2 5.03 5.03 3 5 .12 2 .78 4 5.02 4.63 5 5 .26 4.05 6 5 .08 5.59 7 5.01 2.41 8 5.79 5.81 Total 41 .32 35.34 , 7/12/2012 Pr eliminary Plat Submittal Prepared by: SHC,LLC: Sathre-Bergquist Soil Testing by: Haugo Geotechnical Services, LLC ant Miller's Sewag e Tr eatment Solutions GIS Data S ourc e: MnDNR, Metrop olit an Council, H ennepin County Preliminary Plat Suitable Soil Area S oils & Test L ocati ons S oil Boring * Geotech Hole o Septic Test Lot Area Suitable Suitable Soils 7/12/2012 Preliminary Plat Submittal Pr epared by: SHC,ILC; Sathre-Bergquist Soil Testing by: Haugo Geotechnical S ervices, LLC and Mill er's Sewage Treatment Solutions GIS Data Source. MnDNR, Metropolitan C ouncil . Henn epin County GEOTECHNICAL Report I Haugo Geotechnical Services, LLC Particle Size Distribution Report. PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 C :• d N g \ M a N it 45 0 4t 0 Tt 0 45 I I I I 1 I 1 v I I I I I I ICI I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 01 0.01 0.001 %+3•• % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 2.4 8.7 31.0 56.1 TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass' (X=Fail) #4 #10 #40 #200 98.2 95.8 87.1 56.1 (no specification provided) Location: B-13 Sample Number: • _F S' Silty Clay, Grey PL= 18 Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) LL= 30 PI= 12 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= A-6(4) Coefficients D90= 0.5705 D85= 0.3585 D60= 0.0901 050= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo Client: Property Resources Development Co. GeoTechnical Services Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Maple Grove, Minnesota Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution 0 Report 000 O 0V0 100 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 I I, I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 90 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I i 1 I 1 I I 1 a a 1 1 1 a 80 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 11 11 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 II I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 70 W w 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 i 1 I 1 II I II 1 I I I 1 I I I II I I i I I I 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I z 60 U- F— I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 z 50 L1.1 0 I I i I 1 1 1 I I 1 l 1 1 II 1 I 1 1 1 I II 1 I 1 I 1 I I I. I I I I I I I a 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 a 1 1 L I 1 a 1 fy lL 40 tLl CI_ 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I t a i l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 a I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I a i 1 1 1 1 a a I a I 1 a 30 I I I 1 I I I 11 la a 1 I 1 II a la 1 I i , 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I a I I I I I I I I 1 a a a 1 I I I a I 20 I I I I i I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I a I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I 10 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 100 10 1 GRAIN 0 1 SIZE - mm. 0.01 0.001 +3" % Coarse % Gravel % Sand % Fines Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 4.4 13.5 81.1 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) Silty Clay, Brown #4 #10 99.0 94.6 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) #40 81.1 PL= 23 LL= 32 PI= 9 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL -ML AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 1.0926 D85= 0.6348 060= D50= D30= D15= D10= C�= Cc= Remarks I Date Received: Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: (no specification provided) Location: B-14 Sample Number: 33 Depth: 4.5-6.5' Date Sampled: 4/18/12 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Maple Grove, Minnesota Client: Property Resources Development Co. Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a 0 C1 0 to 0 0 0 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I a 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 01 0.01 0.001 +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 5.8 16.5 72.5 TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) #4 #10 #40 94.8 89.0 72.5 (no specification provided) Location: B-9 Sample Number: 26 Depth: 2-4' Material Description Silty Clay with sand, light brown PL= 19 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) LL= 30 P1= 11 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL -ML AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 2.2752 D85= 1.2882 060= D50= D30= 015= 010= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Date Sampled: 4/18/12 Haugo Client: Property Resources Development Co. GeoTechnical Services Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Maple Grove, Minnesota Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report __ 0 000 0 0�0 CO to N n M # # it # # # # it 100 1 I I I 11 11 11 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 90 1 1 11 If 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 11 11 I 11 11 80 I II II II I 11 11 1 1 11 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 11 11 11 1 1 1 70 CL W I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I r i I 1 i 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 11 1 1 Z 60 Lt.. H 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 i 1 t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 50 W 0 1 1 1 I II 11 11 1 1 II 11 11 1 1 I 1 11 11 1 11 11 CC 40 W p., 1 It 1 1 I 1 11 1 I I 11 I 1 11 1 I 1 30 1 I 1 1 I 11 1 11 II 14 I 11 11 II 11 1 1 I I 1 1 11 1 11 11 1 20 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 11 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 11 1 1 10 0 I I I I I 1 I II 11 I I 1 II 11 1 1 1 1 "16 I I I I I I L I 11 11 I 1 1' 1 1 100 10 1 0 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.01 0.001 °/, +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 6.1 14.3 79.1 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) Lean Clay, Brown #4 #10 99.5 93.4 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) #40 79.1 • PL= 21 LL= 33 PI= 12 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 1.3375 D85= 0.7786 D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: (no specification provided) Location: B-4 Sample Number: 12 Depth: 4.5-6.5' Date Sampled: 4/18/12 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Maple Grove, Minnesota Client: Property Resources Development Co. Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Project No: 12-060 Figure PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CO Particle Size Distribution Report lV r n \ 5 a .1 CI1 O 0 0 0 # # # _00.0 CO O V N # it It # 1 I. I 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 01 0.01 0.001 %+3.. % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 1.3 8.1 26.8 62.2 TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) #4 #10 #40 #200 98.4 97.1 89.0 62.2 (no specification provided) Location: B-2 Sample Number: 4 Depth: 0-1.5' Material Description Lean Clay, Dark Brown PL= 23 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) LL= 39 PI= 16 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= A-6(8) Coefficients D90= 0.4712 D85= 0.3027 D50= D30= D10= Cu= Remarks D60= D15= Cc= Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo Client: Property Resources Development Co. GeoTechnical Services Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Maple Grove, Minnesota Project No: 12-060 Figure f BORING NUMBER B-01 A,JI;O Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 ^' 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 -�- CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 996.08 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING — o DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER vi 0 6. GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - SS 7 *-'%' g • I/.'; ; 4*.'- Lean Clay with Sand, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) 1.5 994.6 CL / / (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 4.5 991.6 - - SS 8 5 SS 9 CL - ML (CL -ML) Silty Clay, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 6.5 989.6 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. i 9 GENERAL BH / TP / WELL - GINT STD US LAB.GDT -4/17/12 10:55 - C:\USERS\PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS\BENTLEY\GINT\PROJECTS\12-060 SOIL LOGS.GPJ augo A 0 13570 Geoe Drive, Services, LLC 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 BORING NUMBER B-02 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 1005.69 ft (MSL)HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES AFTER DRILLING — F= -- a 0 0 W J2 a� Cr/ CN (/) 0 0 n. O 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6 CL - ML Lean Clay with Sand, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) 1.5 1004.2 (CL -ML) Silty Clay, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 6.5 999.2 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY NOTES BORING NUMBER B-03 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN GROUND ELEVATION 1007.99 ft (MSL)HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING -- AFTER DRILLING -- 0 vi 0 0 J J_ 0 0 4 N N U W 0 a z CD w -J H z W N 0 2 W 0 0 O 0 J a. a. rn w N 0 N to O_ N n 0 Q1 F - z 3 J J W a r x m H n.� 0 w F-� w a 2z 0 ui 0 20 0.0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 SS 1 SS 2 ,, I; 1.5 Sandy Silt, black, moist (Topsoil) 1006.5 SS 3 SM 6.5 (SM) Silty Sand, fine to coarse grained, with gravel, brown, moist 1001.5 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. A GO L.' Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC BORING NUMBER B-04 13570 Grove Drive, #278 PAGE 1 OF 1 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing CLIENT PROJECT DATE DRILLING DRILLING LOGGED NOTES STARTED Property NUMBER CONTRACTOR METHOD BY 4/9/12 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 1006.69 ft (MSL)HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches JLW Hollow HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING — o DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER vi 0 D GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ' _ SS 10 1 '�` r,.1 1,..,;_a. 2.0 Lean Clay with Sand, dark brown to black, moist (Topsoil) 1004.7 _ S1 CL 4.5 (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace gravel, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 1002.2 5 1 S2 CL j 6.5 (CL) Lean Clay, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 1000.2 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. i-{ A GO ' BORING NUMBER B-05 Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing CLIENT PROJECT DATE DRILLING DRILLING LOGGED NOTES Property STARTED NUMBER CONTRACTOR METHOD BY 4/9/12 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 1002.08 ft (MSL)HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches JLW HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING -- Not Encountered CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING — AFTER DRILLING — 0 DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER 6. 0 cli GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - SS 13 ��" '' `` i, ' i, /'• `i 1.5 Lean Clay with Sand, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) 1000.6 CL 4.5 (CL) Lean Clay, brown, moist (Glacial Till) 997.6 _ - SS 14 5 SS 15 CL . 6.5 • (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 995.6 i Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. O 0i 0. co 0 F J W i O N 0 0 ai CO 0 cn 5 J W 3, C9 A GO Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC BORING NUMBER B-06 y 13570 Grove Drive, #278 PAGE 1 OF 1 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 998.87 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING — DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER 6. U vi D GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - - SS 16 ta' • ` ;�, 1 .,; Lean Clay, organic, black, moist (Topsoil) 2.0 996.9 - - - 17 CL - ML �/� iylli (CL -ML) Silty Clay, trace gravel, grey and brown, wet (Glacial Till) 6.5 992.4 5 SS 18 - Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. BORING NUMBER B-07 } I9 13570 Geoe Driv cal Services, LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 ��ii 13570 Grove Drive, #278 fD rn `` Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 996.57 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES AFTER DRILLING — o DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER 6. (? 6. D GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - \ SS 4 .Liz.... ' /, 04, '4'...1.5 Sandy Lean Clay, trace organic fibers, black, moist (Topsoil) 995.1 CL r (CL) %' j . Sandy Lean Clay, trace gravel, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 4.5 992.1 - - 5 SS 5 SS 6 CL - ML (CL -ML) Silty Clay, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 6.5 990.1 - - Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. . 0. 0 0 -J J 0 VI 0 co U W O cc zz 0 0 O o_ a ce rn co 0 rm a CO GO Haugo13570 GeoTechnicaleDrive, Services, LLC apitit 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY NOTES BORING NUMBER B-08 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN GROUND ELEVATION 994.71 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING — AFTER DRILLING — H a 0 0 w o}_ F-: w 2 2z N N U 0 = C7 a0 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 SS 22 SS 23 .+ .Si i ..�. ie' ;, i, .51 3.5 Sandy Lean Clay, organic, black, moist to wet (Topsoil) 991.2 1)( SS 24 CL (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace gravel, grey, wet (Glacial Till) 6.5 988.2 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. BORING NUMBER B-09 A O Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 °I 13570 Grove Drive, #278 r�I�T"G"�t4jr '1117 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 994.06 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING --- NOTES AFTER DRILLING — o DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER 6. C? (6. GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - SS 25 Sandy Lean Clay, organic, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) 1.5 992.6 CL - ML j (CL -ML) Silty Clay, with sand, light brown, wet (Glacial Till) 4.5 989.6 - _ _ SS 26 5 27 CL % (CL) Lean Clay, with sand, trace gravel, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 46.5 987.6 - Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. vi O -J N c co 0 J 1(') i O 9 J m co CJ r m co CO CO A GO ` ..,ali'�LI!i'J� Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC BORING NUMBER B-10 PAGE 1 OF 1 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing CLIENT PROJECT DATE DRILLING DRILLING LOGGED NOTES STARTED Property NUMBER CONTRACTOR METHOD BY 4/9/12 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 995.78 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches JLW Hollow HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING — AFTER DRILLING — DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER vi 0 D GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SS 28 ' ' '' '' .i 2.0 Silt, organic, black, moist (Topsoil) 993.8 _ - SS 29 CL 4.5 (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace gravel, brown, moist (Glacial Till) 991.3 5 SS 30 CL j j j 6.5 (CL) Lean Clay, brownish grey, wet (Glacial Till) 989.3 - Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. L LOGS.GPJ BORING NUMBER B-11 H Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 � 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 1002.9 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING -- Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES AFTER DRILLING — 0 DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER vi o rn D GRAPHIC LOG I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - SS 43 .g :J)>. i 4. '-t' ' om Silt, organic, black, moist (Topsoil) 2.0 1000.9 _ - SS 44 CI -- ML '/%/// /44.5 (CL -ML) Silty Clay, with sand seams, trace gravel, grey, wet (Slopewash) 998.4 5 SS 45 ML (ML) Sandy Silt, fine grained, grey, wet (Glacial Till) 6.5 996.4 - - Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. 1 ) ) ) ) ) C U5 cD 0 0 0 ('1 W O zz 2 rn BLIC\DOCUME 0 W N 0 t U, 0 N_ n F- O l5 Ib In a N z Z_ 0 HA GO Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 BORING NUMBER B-12 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 1004.96 ft (MSL)HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING -- Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES AFTER DRILLING — wv- w a aM 2z N C) vi U_ 2C) ao 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS 37 SS 38 Sandy Lean Clay, organic, black, moist (Topsoil) 3.5 1001.5 SS 39 CL - ML (CL -ML) Silty Clay, trace gravel, brown, wet (Glacial Till) 6.5 998.5 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. W W BORING NUMBER B-13 HA GO Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 1C,- 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 1006.38 ft (MSL)HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING — DEPTH o (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER vi 0 6 GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - SS 34 '—`% .S, ' •"a , ..st /,. 0 Sandy Silt, organic, black, moist (Topsoil) 1.5 1004.9 CL �/ (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, brown, moist (Glacial Till) 1001.9 _ _ S SS 35 SS 36 CL- ML /4.5 (CL -ML) Silty Clay, grey, wet (Glacial Till) f 6.5 999.9 - - Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. I i J 9 d i 0 3 5 J J Li L 0 u 7 L 9 q vi 0 0 J J w CO N EY\GINTPROJ \PUBLIC\DOCUMENTS \BEN 4/17/12 10:55 - C:\U or; U) D 0 I- z z C7 m J iimisit GO Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 BORING NUMBER B-14 PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 GROUND ELEVATION 1007.78 ft (MSL)HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES AFTER DRILLING — I-Lu — o_� 0 �LU w J2 a� 2 co C) x0 0 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS 31 SS 32 SS 33 CL - ML Sandy Lean Clay, organic, black, moist (Topsoil) 1.0 1006.8 (CL -ML) Silty Clay, trace gravel, brown, moist to wet (Glacial Till) !/7 /! 6.5 1001.3 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. w z W A GO Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC e 13570 Grove Drive, #278 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 DATE STARTED 4/9/12 COMPLETED 4/9/12 DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon BORING NUMBER B-15 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN GROUND ELEVATION 1010 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3 1/4" inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF DRILLING — Not Encountered LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING — 5 w 0 �w W Lu 00 Z U_ 0 J 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SS 40 Lean Clay with fine grained sand, dark brown, moist (Topsoil) 1.0 (CL) Lean Clay with fine grained sand, brown, moist (Glacial Till) 1009.0 SS 41 SS 42 CL SM 3.5 1006.5 (SM) Silty Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist 6.5 1003.5 Bottom of borehole at 6.5 feet. A . GO Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC BORING NUMBER B-16 PAGE 1 OF 1 13570 Grove Drive, #278 E'VICES Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN DATE STARTED 4/11/12 COMPLETED 4/11/12 GROUND ELEVATION 990.47 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3" inches DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger Probe AT TIME OF DRILLING 4.00 ft / Elev 986.47 ft LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING — DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER 1 ui U m GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - AU 46 •'� '."•'�` /,,,,./,. :,i ' 1-1..g' Silty Clay, very organic, black, wet (Topsoil) 1.5 989.0 _ _� CL j (CL) Lean Clay, with sand, dark brown, wet (Slopewash) 3.5 987.0 AU 47 CL- ML j 2 (CL -ML) Silty Clay, trace gravel, greyish brown, wet (Slopewash) 5.0 985.5 ^ 5 AU 48 Bottom of borehole at 5.0 feet. }-{ 13570 GeoTechnicaleDrie, Services, LLC �i 13570 Grove Drive, #278 `' Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 CLIENT Property Resources Development Co. PROJECT NUMBER 12-060 DATE STARTED 4/11/12 COMPLETED 4/11/12 DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger Probe BORING NUMBER B-17 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Deer Hill Road Soil Testing PROJECT LOCATION Medina, MN GROUND ELEVATION 990 ft (MSL) HOLE SIZE 3" inches GROUND WATER LEVELS: Q AT TIME OF DRILLING 3.00 ft / Elev 987.00 ft LOGGED BY JLW CHECKED BY AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES Elevation approximated from B-16 AFTER DRILLING — 0 w 0 �w W 0 w0 a: Qz co U_ x0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AU 49 1.5 Lean Clay, organic, black, wet (Topsoil) 988.5 i 5 AU 50 51 CL (CL) Lean Clay, trace gravel, grey, wet (Slopewash) Q 5.0 985.0 Bottom of borehole at 5.0 feet. Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 << Co N r r n \ M 0 0 0 CD it o o 0 Cr 0 0 it N 1 T —r 1 I I r i I I I I I I I I I I I 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 01 0.01 0.001 +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 3.1 10.4 84.5 TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) #4 #10 #40 98.0 94.9 84.5 (no specification provided) Location: B-10 Sample Number: 30 Depth: 4.5-6.5' Material Description Lean Clay, Brownish Grey PL= 13 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) LL= 35 P1= 22 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 0.8892 D85= 0.4540 D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo Client: Property Resources Development Co. GeoTechnical Services Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Maple Grove, Minnesota Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 C C N . � r r O 0 0 0 ik it ik it # St 0 4 N ik # 100 10 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0 1 0.01 0.001 %+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 2.4 8.7 87.1 TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) #4 #10 #40 98.2 95.8 87.1 (no specification provided) Location: B-13 Sample Number: 36 Depth: 4.5-6.5' Haugo. GeoTechnical Services Maple Grove, Minnesota Silty Clay, Grey PL= 18 Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 43181 LL= 30 P1= 12 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 0.6648 D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Client: Property Resources Development Co. Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Project No: 12-060 Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 O c - t0 0 N X \ (7 0 0 0 00 O 0 1 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 01 0.01 0.001 ova +3.. % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt 1.2 8.9 89.3 Clay TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fall) #4 #10 #40 99.4 98.2 89.3 (no specification provided) Location: B-12 SamDle Number: •- 51 Material Description Sandy Lean Clay, Black(Topsoil) PL= 23 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) LL= 37 PI= 14 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 0.4689 D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo Client: Property Resources Development Co. GeoTechnical Services Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Maple Grove, Minnesota Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution c- <. <05<h o CO CO N 1- ,- n \ # Report 000 000 o oa0 CV CO •ct CD _ # # # # # # # 100 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 90 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 f f I I I I I I i I 1 I I I 1 1 80 I I I I I I I f I I 1 I I f I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 70 w 1 I I t I 1 I I I I I f I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Z 60 LL I I 1 I I 1 I t 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I Z 50 w U I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 40 CC 40 w IZ 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 20 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 10 0 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 100 10 GRAIN 1 0 1 0.01 0.001 SIZE - mm. ^/,+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 3.2 11.2 82.0 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) Silty Clay, Trace Gravel, Greyish Brown #4 #10 96.4 93.2 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) #40 82.0 PL= 20 LL= 33 PI= 13 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 1.1719 D85= 0.6084 D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: (no specification provided) Location: B-16 Sample Number: 48 Depth: 3.5-5' Date Sampled: 4/11/12 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Maple Grove, Minnesota Client: Property Resources Development Co. Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 __ a� N \ n \ (s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Co ik 7k # S.; CJ CO Xk ik # I I I I I 1 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 01 0.01 0.001 %+3- % Gravel %Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 1.3 8.1 89.0 TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) #4 #10 #40 98.4 97.1 89.0 (no specification provided) Location: B-2 Sample Number: 4 Depth: 0-1.5' Material Description Lean Clay, Dark Brown PL= 23 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) LL= 39 P1= 16 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 0.4973 D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo Client: Property Resources Development Co. GeoTechnical Services Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Maple Grove, Minnesota Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 0 000 0 _oao 40 CO N .- n \ M .1 # # it g # it it it 100 fi I I I I 90 ''' \i1 I I I I 80 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 70 CC t.t.l I I I I I i I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1LI I I I z 60 I I 1 I I 1 1 l I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 z 50 LLI U I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 40 tL I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 30 I I + I I 1 I 1 I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 0 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm. o/, +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 3.2 9.8 84.6 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) Sandy Lean Clay, Brown #4 #10 97.6 94.4 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) #40 84.6 PL= 18 LL= 33 PI= 15 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 0.9213 D85= 0.4469 D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: (no specification provided) Location: B-1 Sample Number: 8 Depth: 2-4' Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Maple Grove, Minnesota Client: Property Resources Development Co. Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 C, N Co 0 0 ik 0 I I f a 100 10 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 01 0.01 0.001 % +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 3.0 7.0 89.2 TEST RESULTS Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) #4 #10 #40 99.2 96.2 89.2 (no specification provided) Location: B-5 Sample Number: 14 Depth: 2-4' Lean Clay, Brown PL= 21 Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) LL= 37 PI= 16 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 0.5011 D85= D60= D50= D30= 015= 010= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Tested: Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo Client: Property Resources Development Co. GeoTechnical Services Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Maple Grove, Minnesota Project No: 12-060 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report a 0 t+) N .- n \ M # # # it # # # # 100 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 ( I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 80 I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 70 W U_I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I t 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _z 60 a: I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I z 50 1 W U I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 40 u.i I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 t 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 4 1 1 1 1 30 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 20 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 10 0 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 t I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 100 10 1 0 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.01 0.001 %+3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 2.8 10.5 83.9 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Size Percent Finer Spec.* (Percent) Pass? (X=Fail) Silty Clay, Brown #4 #10 97.2 94.4 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) #40 83.9 PL= 19 LL= 34 PI= 15 Classification USCS (D 2487)= CL AASHTO (M 145)= Coefficients D90= 0.9458 D85= 0.4886 D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks Date Received: Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: (no specification provided) Location: B-7 Sample Number: 21 Depth: 4.5-6.5' Date Sampled: 4/9/12 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Maple Grove, Minnesota Client: Property Resources Development Co. Project: Deer Hill Road Soil Classification Project No: 12-060 Figure SEPTIC TESTS I Miller's Sewage Treatment Solutions Soil Testing & Septic System Suitability Site Location: Stonegate 1st Addition Section 21, Township 118, Range 23, Medina, Minnesota Prepared For: Susan Seeland Prepared By: Miller's Sewage Treatment Solutions 9075 155th Street Kimball, MN 55353 July 3, 2012 MSTS A DIVISION OF WRM SERVICES INC. July 3, 2012 Susan Seeland Property Resource Group 6851 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 9075 155TH STREET. KIMBALL, MN 55353 (320) 398-2705 RE: Soil Testing & Septic System Suitability for the Proposed Plat of Stonegate, Medina, Minnesota. Dear Susan, As per your request, each of the 8 proposed lots were evaluated for the potential of supporting two standard septic sites. Our evaluation included staking both a primary and future septic site on each lot, completing two soil borings and two percolation tests per septic site (4 soil borings & 4 perc tests per lot). Based on our evaluation, each of the 8 lots will support both a primary and future septic site sized for at least a 5 bedroom home. Please find the attached soil boring and percolation test results as well as an approximate map that depicts the location of the soil testing and septic sites. If you any questions regarding this report please feel free to contact me at (320) 398-2705 or (320) 980- 1737. Sincerely, Miller's Sewage Treatment Solutions Bernie Miller FND JL ‘-STA: 10+61.05 L ot D OSnro 33' (2 ROD WAY EASEMENT ROAD PER FENN . CO. PLAT BOOK) STA. 17+13.57 1323017 889°08'06"E Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner / project: Susan Seeland Property Address / PM: Lot 1, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Date 6/12/2012 Parent matl's: landscape position: soil survey map units: Till ❑ Summit L22C2 Soil Survey Information D refer to attached soil survey ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium 0 Organic ❑Bedrock ❑Shoulder Side slope ID Toe slope slope 6 to 12 % direction- downhill Soil Log #1 0 Boring ❑ Pit Depth (in) Texture fragment % 0-8 Silt Loam <35 Elevation matrix color loyr 2/2 Depth to SHWT 20" redox color consistence grade shape 8 to 15 15-20 20-36 Clay Loam Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 <35 2.5y 5/3 Clay Loam <35 2.5y 5/3 10yr 6/6 & 6/2 Lot 1, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Q Boring ❑ Pit Depth (in) Texture fragment % 0-10 Silt Loam <35 Soil Log #2 Elevation matrix color 10yr 2/2 Depth to SHWT 22" redox color consistence grade shape 10 to 22 22-36 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr6/6&6/1 Lot 1, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Boring 0 Pit Depth (in) Texture fragment % 0-10 10 to 18 Clay Loam <35 Soil Log #3 Elevation Depth to SHWT 18" matrix color redox color consistence 10yr 2/2 grade shape Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 18-32 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 32-36 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 Lot 1,131k 1, Stonegate 1st Addition D Boring ❑ Pit Depth (in) Texture fragment % 0-10 lO to 18 Clay Loam <35 Soil Log #4 Elevation Depth to SHWT 18" matrix color redox color consistence 10yr 2/2 grade shape Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 18-32 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 32-36 I her tifdliiis wo Designer Signature Silty Clay Lpam was completed in accordance with AM 7080 and any locate q's. /1"K:- <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 Company /1=7- J=_ License # Percolation Data Sheet I1. Contact Information Property Owner: Site Address: Susan Seeland Lot 1, Block 1, Stonegate 1st Addition 12. General Percolation Information Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewall: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 Nail Yes 12:25pm * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: 7:40 PM 4 hrs of soak Method to maintain 12 in of water during soaklautomatic siphon 3. Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #1 6/13/12 11:07 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-8 Silt Loam 8.12 Clay, Loam Location: Elevation: Depth**: )Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds Et at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches & beds Reading I Start Time 1 End Time II Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1_— —�....... — 2 3 11:OZ 11:37 8.00 6.63 - 21.9 - NA NA ...- 4.7 —.. .. HA. NA _ Yes — — -ess 11:38 j 11:58 8.00 7.13 23.0 23.0 �i _ 23.0 —. j— 11:59 l 12:19 8.00 7.13 —7.13— 4 . -- _ 12:40. —...8.00 CO — — Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #1 Additional percolation test data may be included on attached pages Design Percolation Rate (maximum of all tests) _ 23.0 29.10 mpi mpi Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #2 6/13/2012 I 11:09 Location: Elevation: Depth**: (Lot 1, Block 1, Primary 12 Depth (in) 0-10 10-12 Soil Texture Silt Loam Silt Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds £t at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time 2 3 4 5 11:09 11:41 12:02 12:23 12:45 End Time Start Reading (in) 11:39 ! 8.00 12:01 1 8.00 12:21 8.00 12:44 8.00 13:05 8.00 End Reading (in) 6.18 6.80 6.93 6.81 6.90 Perc rate % Difference , (mpi) Last 3 Rates 16.5 NA 16.7 NA 17.8 7.2 17.7 ._-..6.1 18.2._. -... 2.7 Pass NA NA Yes Yes ..-. Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 I 18.2 mpi 'Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: Depth (in) 0-12 Sandy Clay Loam/ Loam Reading #3 6/13/2012 I I 13:10 Location: Elevation: Depth**: I Lot 1, Block 1, Future 12 Soil Texture Start Time I End Time inches ** 12 in_ for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Start Reading ! End Reading Perc rate (in) (in) (mpi) 13:10 1 13:35 8.00 6.88 22.2 NA j NA - - - 13:37 13:57 8.00 7.13 22.9 NA NA NA -- -, -_. ..- - - - 13:58 1 14:18 8.00 7.13 23.0 3.3 - Yes - s -._- -- -.. .. _ ... 4 14:19 14:39 8.00 7.19 24.6 7.1 Yes .-._ 7 1 5 14:40 15:00 8.00 7.19 24.6 - - i Yes .. � % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 24.6 I mpi Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #4 6/13/2012 13:11 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 1, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-10 10-12 Clay Loam Sandy Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 2 3 4 5 13:11 13:39 - 14:00 14:21 _ 14:42 13:38 13:59 14:20 14:41 15:02 8.00 800 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.06 28.8 7.31 29.1 7.31 7.31 7.31 NA NA 29.1 1.0 29.1 0.0 29.1 0.0 NA NA Yes Yes Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #4 29.1 mpi Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner / project: Property Address / P1D: Susan Seeland Date 6/12/2012 Lot 2, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: landscape position: soil survey map units: ❑ Outwash ❑ tacustrine ❑ Shoulder ❑ Organic Bedrock i Till it Alluvium 4 ❑ Summit L37B ❑ Side slope slope 2 to 6 South J Toe slope % direction- Soil Log #5 Depth (in) ❑Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 22" shape 151 Boring Texture redox color grade 0-18 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 18-22 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/4 22-28 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/4 10yr 6/8 & 4/2 28-32 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/8 & 4/2 Comments: Standing water @ 20" Lot 2, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #6 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 28" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-18 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 18 to 28 Silt Loam <35 10yr 3/2 28-39 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/6 & 6/2 Standing water @ 33" Lot 2, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #7 ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 22" shape redox color grade 0-12 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/i 12 to 16 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 4/4 16-22 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 22-30 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/3 10yr 6/6 & 6/2 Lot 2, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #8 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 22" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-18 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 18-22 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/4 (Hit Rocks) I her cert. p�/ J Vim) ti J Designer Signature Company Kis wo ivas completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local red's. 1C .2 License # .. _ 5 .. _...._. 6 . Percolation Data Sheet (1. Contact Information l Property Owner: Site Address: Stonegate 1st Addition Lot 2, Block 1 12. General Percolation Information Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewall: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 !Nail Yes 12:25pm * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: Method to maintain 12 in of water during soak 7:40 PM 4 hrs of soak automatic siphon 3. Percolation Test Data Test hole: #5 Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: Depth (in) 0-12 6/13/12 I 11:15 Soil Texture Silt Loam Location: Elevation: Depth**: Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches Er beds Reading I Start Time I 11:15..- 2 11:36 3 I 11:57 _ 12:18 _ 12:39 13:00 End Time Start Reading (in) 11:35 8.00 11:56 12:17 12:38 12:59 13:20 End Reading (in) 7.69 7.75 Perc rate % Difference (mpi) Last 3 Rates 64.5 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 NA NA 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pass NA NA_... No. Yes Yes " -----Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #1 Additional percolation test data may be included on attached pages Design Percolation Rate (maximum of all tests) = jmpi 80.0 mpi Additional Percolation Data !Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #6 6/13/2012 11:15 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 2, Block 1, Primary 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-12 Silt Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds Et at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) 1% Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 1 11:17 11:37 11:58 8.00 7.06 21.3 NA NA 2 11:38 8.00 7.13 22.9 NA 13.1 NA No 3 4 5 6 11:59 12:20 12:19 12:40 8.00 8.00 7.19 24.5 7.19 24.6 7.1 8.0 Yes Yes 12:41 13:01 8.00 7.25 7.25 26.7 13:00 13:20 8.00 26.7 Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 26.7 mpi Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #7 6/13/2012 13:10 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 2, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 01.2 Sandy Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds Et at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate % Difference (mpi) Last 3 Rates Pass 3 4 5 13:13 13:55 14:16 14:37 13:33 13:54 14:15 14:36 14:57 8.00 6.06 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 6.19 6.25 6.31 6.31 11.9 10.3 J NA 11.0 NA 11.4 9.7 11.9 -11.9 mpi 6.9 6.9 NA NA Yes Yes Yes Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #8 6/13/2012 13:20 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 2, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-12 Silt Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate % Difference! Pass (mpi) :Last 3 Rates 1 13:20 13:40 8.00 6.94 18.8 NA NA 2 13:41 14:01 8.00 7.06 21.3 22.9 NA NA 17.6 No 3 14:02 14:22 8.00 8.00 7.13 4 5 14:23 14:43 7.13 22.9 6.7 Yes 15:03 15:23 8.00 7.13 22.9 0.0 Yes 6 15:24 15:44 8.00 7.19 24.6 7.1 Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #4 I 24.6 I mpi Lt7°LC9� W L I•000S Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner Property Address / project: Susan Seeland Date 6/12/2012 / PND: Lot 3, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: 0 Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine landscape position: ❑ Summit ❑ Shoulder soil survey map units: L25A & L4OB ❑ Alluvium ❑ Side slope slope 0-6 ❑ Varies Bedrock Ili Organic ❑ Toe slope % direction- Soil Log #9 Depth (in) Elevation matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 20" shape J Boring • Pit Texture fragment % redox color grade 0-13 Silt Loam <35 10yr 3/1 13-20 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 20-38 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/6 & 6/2 Lot 3, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #10 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 26" shape redox color grade 0-26 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 26-30 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 30-36 Silty Clay Loam <35 2.5y 5/3 10yr 6/6 & 6/1 Lot 3, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #11 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SH WT consistence 26" shape 0 Boring Texture redox color grade 0-12 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/3 12 to 16 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 16-20 Silt Loam <35 10yr 3/3 20-26 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 26-30 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 Lot 3, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #12 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 22" shape redox color grade 0-18 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 18-22 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 22-30 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/3 10yr 6/6 & 6/1 I hereby cert fy thO.work wa completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reg s. � _r l esigner Sign'aaturd' Company • lr License # Percolation Data Sheet 1. Contact Information Property Owner: Site Address: Stonegate 1st Addition Lot 3, Block 1 2. General Percolation Information Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewall: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 Nail Yes 12:25pm * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: 7:40 PM 4 hrs of soak Method to maintain 12 in of water during soak automatic siphon 3. Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: Depth (in) 0-12 #9 6/13/12 13:50 Soil Texture Silt Loam Location: Elevation: Depth**: Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches & beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate I % Difference (mpi) Last 3 Rates Pass 13:50 14:10 2 14:11 14:31 3 14:32 .. .. 14_52 4_ 14:53 1. ..-15:13 15:14_ 15:34 15:35 15:55 _-r 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.13 ._...22.9 _ i.- NA 7.25 26.7 NA 7.31 29.1 21.4 7.31 29.1 _ 8.3 7.31 29.1 0.0 7.31 29.1 0.0 29.1 NA NA No Yes Yes Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #1 Additional percolation test data may be included on attached pages Design Percolation Rate (maximum of all tests) = mpi mpi Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #10 6/13/2012 13:55 I Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 3, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-12 Silt Loam 1 inches ** 12 in. for mounds a at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 2 13:55 1 14:15 8.00 8.00 6.88 6.94 i 17.8 18.8 NA NA NA NA 14:16 I 14.36 • 5.6 Yes Yes _ _ Yes 3 14:37 i 14:57 8.00 6.94 18.8 18.8 4 14:58 15:19 ! 15:18 8.00 6.94 0.0 5 r- 15:39 8.00 6.94 18.8 0.0 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 18.8 mpi !Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #11 6/13/2012 14:00 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 3, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-12 iSandy Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading End Reading (in) (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference • Last 3 Rates Pass 4 5 14:00 14:20 14:21 14:41 14:42 j 15:02 14:16 14:36 14:37 14:57 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 6.56 6.63 6.63 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 6.63 6.63 14.5 mpi 13.9 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 NA NA 4.3 0.0 0.0 NA NA Yes Yes Yes Additional Percolation Data (Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #12 6/13/2012 14:05 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 3, Block 1, Primary 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-12 Silt Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 14:05 14:25 i 14:46 8.00 7.06 21.3 NA NA NA 2 3 14:26 8.00 7.13 22.9 NA 14:47 15:07 8.00 7.13 22.9 6.7 Yes 4 14:23 14:43 8.00 7.13 22.9 0.0 Yes Yes 5 15:03 15:23 8.00 7.13 22.9 0.0 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #4 22.9 mpi a a a a a ► a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a + a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 3 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a r a a a a a a a a a a r a a a a a► a a a a a a a a a r a a a a a a A a a a a a+ a a a a a a a a* \. k. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a `,3 a a a + * Iota a a a a a;: - a a ► a a a a a a a a a Na a a a a a a a a a a a t. . \♦. ► a a a a a a a •* a a a fa a a a i a ++ + Spt4218'E ✓ a a a a a a a t • • ®. 7723% a a a a a a a a a a a a a i a a a r. a a a a a ♦13014 a a a a Cpl a a \ a a a a a a a a a\ ., a a a+ a a a a a ♦ a a ` fa a a a a + a a a a a a Y a * a a a a a a a a a a\\ A a a a a r a a ♦ a a a a �. 4 a ► a a a a +.1. a a a a a a aN--,--'a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ♦ • ♦ ♦ a ♦ . A a a a a +� a a a a r L£9Z M. W,L l000S Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.1 Owner Information Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Susan Seeland Date 6/25/2012 Lot 4, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent mall's: landscape position: soil survey map units: ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ West Bedrock ✓ Till • Organic ❑ Summit L4OB 10 Shoulder Side slope e Toe slope slope 2 to 6 % direction- Soil Log #13 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 16" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-9 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/1 9 to 16 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/6 16-24 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/6 24--36 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 Lot 4, Bik 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #14 a Boring _ ❑ Pit Elevation Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 20" shape redox color grade 0-11 Silt Loam <35 11 to 20 Sandy clay Loam <35 20-28 Sandy clay Loam <35 28-36 Silty Clay Loam <35 Lot 4, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #15 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 18" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-10 Silt Loam . <35 10yr 2/2 10 to 13 Silt Loam <35 10yr 3/2 13-18 Sandy clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 18-28 Sandy clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 28-36 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/8 & 4/1 Lot 4, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Log #16 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 12" shape !0 Boring Texture redox color grade 0-10 Loam <35 10yr 3/1 10 to 12 Silty clay loam <35 2.5y 4/4 12 to 28 Silty clay loam <35 2.5y 4/3 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 28-38 Silt Loam <35 2.5y 5/3 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 I hereby fert fy this work vas completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local req's. Company Designer Signature f License # Percolation Data Sheet E1. Contact Information Property Owner: Site Address: Stonegate 1st Addition Lot 4, Block 1 12. General Percolation Information I Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewall: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 'Nail Yes 1 12:25pm * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: Method to maintain 12 in of water during soak 7:40 PM 4 hrs of soak automatic siphon 3. Percolation Test Data Test hole: #13 Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture descri.tion: f 6/13/12 1 14:10 Sandy Loam Sandy Clay Loam Location: Elevation: Depth**: Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches & beds Reading ' Start Time End Time Start Reading I End Reading (in) (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass . ....94:10 .1___14:30 14_32._... '.. ..._-. 14:54 I 14:52.._ 8.00 - 8.00 — 6.88 17.8 NA._... NA — 1 2 6.94 18.8 —NA -- 5.6 _ NA _ _ Yes es 3 _ 15:14 8.00 6.94 18.8 15:16 15:36 8.00 6.94 18.8 0.0 `i 5 15:3$...__ _..... . 15.58 8.00. —._.....6.94 18.8_.... .. ... Yes .- ... __.. Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #1 Additional percolation test data may be included on attached pages Design Percolation Rate (maximum of alt tests) = 18.8 22.90 1 mpi mpi Start Time Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #14 6/13/2012 ( 14:15 Depth (in) Location: Elevation: Depth`*: Lot 4, Block 1, Primary 12 Soil Texture 0-11 Silt Loam 11-12 Sandy Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds ft at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading i Start Time End Time Start Reading I End Reading (in) (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates 1 Pass 1 14:15 14:37 1,4:59 14:35 14:57 8.00 7.06 7.13 7.13 21.3 NA NA 2 1 8.00 8.00 22.9 NA NA 3 15:19 22.9 6.7 Yes 4 I 15:21 15:41 8.00 8.00 7.13 7.13 22.9 0.0 Yes 5 15:43 _ 16:03 22.9 0.0 Yes 1 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 22.9 mpi Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #15 6/13/2012 14:20 Location: Elevation: Depth": Lot 4, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture :Silt Loam Silt Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading End Time Start Reading End Reading (in) (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates I Pass 1 14:20 i 14:40 8.00 2 14:42 3 15:04 4 15:26 15:48 15:02 8.00 15:24 8.00 15:46 8.00 6.94 16:08 8.00 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 20.0 mpi 18.8 20.0 20.0 5.9 Yes 20.0 0.0 NA NA NA 20.0 0.0 NA Yes Yes Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #16 6/13/2012 14:25 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 4, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-10 10-12 Loam Silty Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds £t at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading I Perc rate (in) I (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 14:25 14:45 j 8.00 7.06 21.3 NA NA 2 14:47 15:07 1 8, 00 8.00 7.13 22.9 NA NA 6.7 Yes 3 15:09 15:29 7.13 22.9 4 15:41 16:03 16:01 16:23 8.00 7.13 22.9 Yes 5 8.00 ! 7.13 i 22.9 Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #4 22.9 mpi [Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: #5 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Depth (in) Soil Texture inches ** 12 in. for mounds ft at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading 3 Start Time End Time Start Reading I End Reading (in) (in) Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #5 Perc rate (mpi) moi % Difference Last 3 Rates ; Pass NA NA NA I NA �% " f& " 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 f& 3 * 4 3 f& " 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 f& 43 3 �% 3 " " 3 4 " 4 4 3434 4 3 3 4 3 �% �% 3 3 4 4 f& 4 f& 3 3 3 3 3 " 3 3 4 4 3 �% " 3 4 3 3 " �% 3 3 4 4 f& " f& 4 f& 3 " " 3 " 4 " 3 3 f& " 3 �% " f& 3 " f& 3 f& 3 4 " 3 4 3 4 3 �% 4 4 3 " " 3 3 4 f& 3 .' . f& " " f& a a a " 4 " " " �% a a f& " " �% 3 3 �% ' " f& 3 " f& f& " i + 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 " i " 4 3 i 3 4 3 3 �% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 f& 3 3 3 " 3 3 3 3 " 3 4 3 3 " 3 f& 3 " �% a 3 3 f& a 3 " f& �% 4 " �% " 3 f& 3 " " �% " " * 3 3 f& 4 f& 4 3 4 �% 4 3 " 4 " 4 3 f& " " " �% " , r�.L*9121 o 3 4 3 3 4 �% " 4 f& 4 3 4 " 4 " 4 " 3 4 4 " " 4 " 3 _ `r 'OG��aS11 5�25' �% a a * " " f& 3 " " 3 3 f& 3 4 " 4 " 4 3 " 3 , �2tf * " f& 3 " 4 3 " 3 " 3 " 3 f& " " " . 3 \ 243 .1 �% " " # i " " " 4 �% 3 3 " �% " 4 i 3 I a 3 3 a 4 3 " 4 a �% a a �% " 3 �% 4 3 3 3 3 " " 4 4 3 f& �% �% 4 f& " 4 a �% " " �% " f& " 3 " 3 f& 3 a 4 �% " 3 3 3 " 3 " 3 a 3 a 3 3 " " " " " 3 " " A 3 3 4 " 4 4* 3 3 i `. 4 3 �% 4 a 3 * .4_ 3. 4 3 4 4 �% 3 3 3 a " v '\�% " a " " \4 i a A " �% 3 3 i " 3) " 52Oi " " \\ " . a + " " \` ;='1 �% + " " % .�� i '1 3 3 " " " 4' .." ;"a3 �% 3 a a s�� " ,. .. ,. .. /.3' a a " 4 3 4 3 iN._.--��" 4 " 4 B + �% 3 a it a 0 0 a 4 $O1�47'15'E 77251 Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner Property Address / project: Susan Seeland Date 6/25/2012 / P1D: Lot 5, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent mall's: ❑' Till ❑ landscape position: ❑ Summit soil survey map units: L4OB ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Toe slope % direction- ❑ East Bedrock Outwash I Lacustrine ❑ Shoulder ' Side slope slope 2 to 6 Soil Log #17 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT 18" shape El Boring Texture redox color consistence grade 0-10 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 10 to 12 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/1 12 to 18 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 18-36 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 i� I Boring L1 a+r Soil Log #18 Elevation matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 18" shape Depth (in) Texture fragment % redox color grade 0-12 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 12 to 18 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 18-28 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/6 & 6/2 28-36 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/2 Soil Log #19 Elevation matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 14" shape Depth (in) Texture fragment % redox color grade 0-9 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 9 to 14 Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 14-20 Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 4/2 20-36 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/3 10yr 6/8 & 4/2 Soil Log #20 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 16" shape 19 Boring Texture redox color grade 0-10 Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/1 10 to 16 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 2/2 16-36 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/8 & 4/2 I herebycert. is worn t was completed in accordance with MN 70/W and any local req s. /7'Y Company i? f License # Percolation Data Sheet 1. Contact Information Property Owner: Site Address: Stonegate 1st Addition Lot 5, Block 1 2. General Percolation Information Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewalt: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 Nail Yes 12:25pm * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: 7:40 PM 4 hrs of soak Method to maintain 12 in of water during soaklautomatic siphon 3. Percolation Test Data Test hole: 17 Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: I Depth (in) 0-10 (Silt Loam 10-12 ._!Sandy Ctay Loam 6/13/12 16:47 Soil Texture Location: Elevation: Depth**: !Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches ft beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 16:47 17:07 8.00 7.06 -._._ 21.3 . . . -._ NA _.. NA 17:09 1.729 8.00 _ 7.13 . ._ 22.9..... NA —r- 2 NA — __. 3 17:31 17:51 —... 8.00 — 7.13...- 23.0 7.2..__. Yes 4 17:53 .. .. 18:13 j 8.00 7.13 23.0 0.6 Yes 5 ---18:15 ....--18 35 _..I. 8.00 0.0 Yes 7.13 I__. 210 . [i Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #1 Additional percolation test data may be included on attached pages Design Percolation Rate (maximum of alt tests) 23.0 45.50 I mpi mpi Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 18 16/13/2012 16:49 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 5, BIk 1, Primary 12 Depth (in) 0-12 Soil Texture Silt Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate % Difference Pass (mpi) Last 3 Rates 1 16:49 17:10 17:09 17:27 17:50 8.00 7.13 7.25 23.0 NA i NA NA - 2 8.00 8.00 1 22.7 NA 3 4 5 17:28 7.06 23.4 7.13 21.8 3.2 6.7 Yes - es 17:51 18:10 8.00 8.00 I - 1 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 23.4 mpi [Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 19 6/13/2012 16:50 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 5, Block 1, Primary 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-10 10-12 Silt Loam Sandy Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading ( Start Time 2 16:50 17:11.. • 3 17:32 4 17:53 5 End Time 17:10 17:31 17:52 18:13 Start Reading End Reading Perc rate (in) (in) (mpi) 8.00 8.00 .. . .... ... 8.00 8.00 8.00 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 7.25 7.31 7.31 7.31 29.0 mpi % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 26.7 NA NA 29.0 NA 29.0 1 29.0 8.0 NA Yes Yes Additional Percolation Data I Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 20 6/13/2012 16:52 Location: Elevation: Depth**: 'Lot 5, BIk 1, Future 12 Depth (in) 0-9 iSitt Loam Soil Texture 9-12 lClay Loam I inches ** 12 in. for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate ! % Difference (mpi) 1 Last 3 Rates Pass 1 16:52 17:12 4 8.00 8.00 6.88 17.9 NA NA -- 2 17:13 17:33 7.00 20.0 20.0 20.0 NA 10.7 NA No 3 4 17:34 17:54 i 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 17:55 18:15 ; 0.0 Yes 5 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #t4 20.0 mpi 4 #* 4 4 4 ► 4 4 ♦ ♦ 4 t 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 * 8 4 4 4 4 4 ► 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4' 4 a 4 4 4 4 a 4 ► 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 a a 4 a 4 ► 4 • 4 4 a 4 a 4 4 3 ► 4 4 4 4 04 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ► a 4 ► 4 4 ► 4 4 4 408 a 3 4 r 4 a 4 4 a 4 r a ► 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 ♦ 4 4 4 ♦ 4 4 a a 4 r 4 4 4 a ► 4 • 4 4 ♦ 4 4 ♦ ♦ ► ► 4 4 4 ♦ 4 ♦ 4 a a ► t 4 4 ► 4 4 4 ► ► ♦ 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 a 4 4 ♦ 4 • ► 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ► 4 4 3 a 4. a ♦ 4 ► ♦ ► ► 4 4 i 4 4 4 a 4 ► ► 4 4 4 4 p a ► 4 a ♦ ♦ 4 4 4 4 ► 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 by 4 4 ► ♦ ♦ ► r • 4 ♦ 4 a 4 ► ► 4 4 4 • • a ♦-4 4 4 4 • 4 ♦ 4 4 ♦ 4 4 ► 4 t 4 i ♦ I ♦ 4 ►, 4 9 4 ► 9 4 4 t 4 4 ► • 4 ♦ 4 4 a ♦c:,* 4 *♦ 9 9 *♦ 4 4 4 I 4 4 4 4 ►�;k 9 4 4 ♦ r * 4 4 4 4 ► 4 a a ► 4 4 ► • 003 4 ► ► ♦ 4 ► a 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 8 t a 4 4 a 4 * 0 4 ► 4 4 ♦ 4 4 4 ► 4 4 4 4 • a a ♦ 4 4 ► 4 a ♦ 4 4 4 a * 9 • 4♦ 4 4♦ t 4 4 4 4 4 a a 4 4 4 • ► 4 4 r ♦ 4 4 4 ► ♦ 4 ► 4 ► a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 a 4 4 4 3 a 4 4 4 a 4 ► 4 a 439 4 4 4 4 t 4 4 ► ► a 4 4 t �4 4 i 4 4 f 4 4 4 a ♦ 4 4 • 4 ► 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a a *4 4 a 4 4 ► 4 ► 40 4 4 8' 4 4 4 a a 4 4 4 ► 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 ► 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 ► a 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 9 mac_ 0 oeIN)i.n .O$.C4o0 gr ea -ii 4 Designer Signature Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Susan Seeland Date 6/25/2012 Lot 6, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: landscape position: soil survey map units: Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Shoulder ❑ Alluvium ❑ Toe % direction- Bedrock Till ❑ Organic ill ❑ Summit L4OB slope North ✓ Side slope slope 2 to 6 Soil Log #21 Depth (in) Elevation matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 19" shape Boring ill Pit Texture fragment % redox color grade 0-9 Silt Loam <35 10yr 2/2 9 to 14 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/1 14-19 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 19-36 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 Soil Log #22 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 18" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-I 1 Silt Loam <35 10yr 3/1 1 l to 18 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 18-28 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/6 & 6/2 Soil Log #23 Depth (in) 0 Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 18" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-6 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/2 6 to 18 Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 18-36 Clay Loam <35 10yr 513 10yr 6/8 & 4/2 Soil Log #24 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 16" shape 0 Boring Texture redox color grade 0-8 Loam <35 10yr 3/2 8 to 12 Sandy Clay Loam <35 2.5y 4/4 12 to 16 Loam <35 2.5y 4/4 16-36 Loam <35 2.5y 6/4 10yr 6/8 I hereby c ert f' this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local req's. Company (-74? License # Percolation Data Sheet 1. Contact information Property Owner: Site Address: Stonegate 1st Addition 1Lot 6, Block 1 12. General Percolation Information Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewall: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 'Nail Yes 9:45 AM * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: 2:00 PM 4 hrs of soak Method to maintain 12 in of water during soaklautomatic siphon 13 . Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: Depth (in) 21 6/13/12 1 10:14 Soil Texture 0-9 Silt Loam 9-12 Sandy Clay Loam ( Start Reading Reading Start Time End Time 1 3 4 10:14 10:34 10:35 10:55. 10:56 -__x_....11:16 11:17 11:37 (in) 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches & beds End Reading Perc rate 1% Difference Pass (in) (mpi) Last 3 Rates 7.38 32.3 _____ NA ! NA i 7.50 -- -----...40.0 NA ---...... . ._ .. ... . 7.50 40.0 1 19.4 No 7.50 40.0 0.0 L Yes ---�--- Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #11 40.0 Impi Additional Percolation Data Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 22 6/13/2012 10:16 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 6, BIk 1, Primary 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-11 Silt Loam 11-12 Sandy Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds a at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading End Reading (in) l (in) ! Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 10:16 10:36 8.00 1 7.00 I 20.0 NA NA 2 10:37 10:57 8.00 I 7.13 23.0 NA NA 3 10:58 11:18 8.00 7.13 23.0 13.0 No 4 11:19 11:39 8.00 j 7.13 23.0 0.0 _ Yes 5 8.00 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 23.0 mpi Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 23 6/13/2012 10:18 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 6, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-6 Sandy Loam 6-12 Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds 6t at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) 10:18 10:38 8.00 7.00 2 10:39 3 11:00 10:59 8.00 7.00 11:20 I 8.00 7.00 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 20.0 mpi Additional Percolation Data Perc rate ! % Difference (mpi) Last 3 Rates 20.0 NA 20.0 I- NA 20.0 0.0 Pass NA NA... Yes Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 24 6/13/2012 10:20 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 6, Bik 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-8 8-12 Loam Sandy Clay Loam inches ** /2 in. for mounds Et at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading End Reading (in) (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Pass Last 3 Rates 1 10:20 10:40 8.00 7.00 20.0 NA I NA 2 10:41 11:01 8.00 T 7.13 23.0 NA NA 3 11:02 11:22 8.00 I 7.13 23.0 13.0 No 4 11:23 11:43 8.00 j _ 7.13 23.0 0.0 Yes 5 _ .. . —. Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #4 23.0 mpi acres N.90 626.62 g64.. , 5.38 acres d • • • W I! • • • i ` • ♦ 4, ii * • • v V' • i/ I! v r * { v� v • w v 4. • • • V j� F. Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner Property Address / project: Susan Seeland Date 6/25/2012 / PID: Lot 7, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: landscape position: soil survey map units: ❑ Alluvium ❑ South Bedrock El -nil ❑ Outwash II Lacustrine Organic ❑ Summit L4OB & 13 ❑ Shoulder ❑ Toe slope % direction- EI Side slope slope 1 to 6 Soil Log #25 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 20" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-14 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 2/2 14 to 16 Fine Sandy Loam <35 10yr 4/3 16-20 Fine Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/6 20-36 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 Soil Log #26 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 20" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-13 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/1 ' 1.3 to 20 Loam <35 10yr 3/6 20-32 Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/6 & 4/2 Soil Log #27 Depth (in) Elevation matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 20" shape si Boring iii Pit Texture • fragment % redox color grade 0-14 Fine Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/2 14 to 20 Loam <35 10yr 3/6 20-27 Sandy Clay Loam__ <35 10yr 3/6 10yr 6/6 Soil Log #28 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 14" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-10 Loam <35 10yr 2/2 10 to 14 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 3/2 14 to 32 Loam <35 10yr 3/4 l 1 hereby cert this work was co npleted in accordance with MN 7080 and any locareq`r. ('2/ License # Percolation Data Sheet 1. Contact Information Property Owner: Site Address: Stonegate 1st Addition Lot 7, Block 1 2. General Percolation Information Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewall: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 Nail Yes 9:15 AM * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: 2:00 PM 4 hrs of soak Method to maintain 12 in of water during soaklautomatic siphon 3. Percolation Test Data Test hole: 25 Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: Death (in) I I 6/13/12 10:32 Soil Texture 0-12 !Sandy Loam L. Location: Elevation: Depth**: Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches & beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) I End Reading Perc rate (in) (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass -- ..10:32__.. ..._ 10:53 0:52 1..._.- 8.00 6.38 12.3 NA _ NA _1. ..-- -- 11:13 8.00 6.63 14.6 14.6 NA 15.4 ... NA No _2 3 11:14 11:34 8.00 — _ 6.63 - 4 '--r--..._.11:35- 1.1:55. 8.00 14.6 0.0_._.... . Yes _ ... _...6.63...._ Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #1 Additional Percolation Data 14.6 mpi Percolation Test Data ��_. ._ 6-12 Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 26 6/13/2012 10:34 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 7, Blk 1, Primary 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-12 sandy Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds ft at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading T Perc rate (in) (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 10:34 10:54 8.00 6.50 6.50 13.3 NA NA 2 10:55 11:15 8.00 j 13.3 NA NA 3 11:16 11:36 8.00 I 6.50 I 13.3 0.0 Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 13.3 mpi Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 27 6/13/2012 10:35 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 7, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-6 Fine Sandy Loam Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds ft at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time 10:35 2 3 10:56 11:17 End Time 10:55 11:16 11:37 Start Reading . End Reading i Perc rate (in) (in) ! (mpi) 8.00 6.75 16.0 8.00 6.75 j 16.0 8.00 6.75 16.0 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 16.0 Additional Percolation Data mpi % Difference Last 3 Rates NA NA 0.0 Pass NA NA Yes i Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 28 6/13/2012 10:36 Location: Elevation: Depth**:. Lot 7, Blk 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-10 ;Loam 10-12 Sandy Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds Et at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 10:36 10:56 8.00 7.06 21.3 NA NA NA NA 2 10:57 11:17 8.00 7.06 21.3 3 11:18 11:38 8.00 7.06 21.3 0.0 Yes 4 - .. 5 - —..-....._ Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #4 21.3 mpi 5.38 acres 5.03 acres 627.77. �.- EXIS11NO 33' i • W AY EASEMENT (2 Rap • » . ROAD PER HENN. CO. PLAT BOOK) 9 0 as O Ic .579,0cL.r. * • w vtri r 45 w V% W W W 4r W * w w w r w W K ' 8.07 acres 563Z J es0 Pc, i -y---�tel5629 STA: 17+13.57 1323.17 r.h r.n. .., VI W { r DEER HILL RO AD \--SOUTH QUARTER CORNER, evn n. •-ev.r+ �. w Soil Observation Log www.Septicltesource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Susan Seeland Date 6/25/2012 Lot 8, Blk 1, Stonegate 1st Addition Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: landscape position: soil survey map units: ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Shoulder ❑ Alluvium [] Side slope slope 6 to 12 Ell Organic ❑ Toe slope % direction- ❑ North Bedrock 4 Till ❑ Summit L22C2 Soil Log #29 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 20" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-10 Silt Loam <35 10yr 3/2 10 to 12 Sandy Loam <35 10yr 3/3 12 to 20 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/4 20-28 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/6 & 6/1 28-36 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 Soil Log #30 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 30" shape Boring Texture redox color grade 0-18 Loam <35 10yr 2/1 18-26 Loam <35 10yr 3/4 26-30 Loam <35 2.5y 4/4 30-36 Clay Loam <35 10yr 4/3 10yr 6/8 Soil Log #31 Depth (in) ❑ Pit Elevation fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 17" shape El Boring Texture redox color grade 0-10 Loam <35 10yr 2/1 10 to 17 Fine Sandy Loam <35 2.5y 4/4 17-24 Fine Sandy Loam <35 2.5y 4/4 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 _ _ Soil Log #32 • • Elevation Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color Depth to SHWT consistence 15" shape redox color grade 0-8 Loam <35 10yr 3/1 8 to 15 Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/4 15-22 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr 514 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 22-30 Silty Clay Loam <35 10yr 5/3 10yr 6/8 & 6/1 I hereb erti this work w completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local req's. 1/7 Designer Signature Company ri License # Percolation Data Sheet I1. Contact Information Property Owner: Site Address: Stonegate 1st Addition Lot 8, Block 1 12. General Percolation Information Diameter 8 in Method of scratching sidewall: Is pre-soak requiried*? Soak* start time: Date prepared and/or soaked: 6/12/12 Nail Yes 9:00 AM * Not required in sandy soils Soak* end time: 2:00 PM 4 hrs of soak Method to maintain 12 in of water during soaklautomatic siphon 3. Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: Depth (in) r 29 6/13/12 9:45 Soil Texture 0-10 ;Silt Loam 10-12 'Sandy Loam Reading 1 3 Start Time 10:06 10:26 10:27 10:47 10:48 11:08 End Time Start Reading (in) 9:45 10:05 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Primary 12 inches ** 12 inches for mounds & at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches a beds End Reading Perc rate I % Difference (in) (mpi) Last 3 Rates 7.38 32.3 NA. 7.50 -I 40.0 NA 7.50 40.0 -..._ 19.4 7.50 40.0 0.0 Pass NA NA No Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #1 Additional Percolation Data 40.0 mpi Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 30 6/13/2012 9:46 Depth (in) Location: Elevation: Depth": Lot 8, BIk 1, Primary 12 Soil Texture 0-12 Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds £t at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 9:46 10:06 8.00 6.75 16.0 NA NA 2 10:07 10:27 8.00 7.00 I 20.0 NA NA No — 3 10:28 10:48 8.00 7.00 20.0 20.0 4 10:49 11:09 8.00 7.00 r 20.0 20.0 Yes Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #2 20.0 mpi 'Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 31 6/13/2012 9:48 Location: Elevation: Depth**: Lot 8, Block 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-10 10-12 Loam Fine sandy Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds Et at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate 1% Difference (mpi) Last 3 Rates Pass 2 9:48 10:08 10:08 10:29 10:50 10:28 8.00 8.00 10:49 8.00 11:10 8.00 1 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #3 6.88 7.00 7.00 7.00 17.9 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Additional Percolation Data mpi NA NA 10.7 NA NA No Yes Percolation Test Data Test hole: Date reading taken: Starting time: Soil texture description: 32 6/13/2012 9:49 Location: Elevation: Depth": Lot 8, Bik 1, Future 12 Depth (in) Soil Texture 0-8 Loam 8-12 Clay Loam inches ** 12 in. for mounds £t at -grades, depth of absorption area for trenches and beds Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading (in) End Reading (in) Perc rate (mpi) % Difference Last 3 Rates Pass 1 9:49 10:09 8.00 7.25 26.7 NA NA 2 10:10 10:30 8.00 7.38 32.3 NA NA 3 10:31 10:51 8.00 7.38 32.3 17.3 No 4 10:52 11:12 8.00 7.38 32.3 Yes 5 Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hole #4 32.3 mpi 05. Wetland Delineation The wetland delineation report was prepared and submitted in the Fall of 2011. The report was prepared by Arrowhead Environmental Consulting. The City approved the report in the early spring of 2012. R.G. MITCHELL, JR. 1745 North Willow Drive Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 February 7, 2013 Medina Planning Commission Re: Property Resources Development Co. Ladies and Gentlemen: While our street address is 1745 Willow Drive, we own about 25 acres on the north side of Deerhill Road. The applicant's proposal is to develop part of the 192 -acre parcel east of Homestead Trail and north of County Road 6, previously called the VoTech land. The 192 -acre parcel is large, and when developed will have many houses. Road access has always been off Homestead and County Road 6 for those reasons. You have the old VoTech proposals in the City's files. The applicant should have before you a ghost or preliminary plat of all 192 acres with road access off Homestead and County Road 6 for future and present planning purposes. Deerhill Road is an old neighborhood almost fully developed. Everyone knows that Deerhill Road has only been used and repaired to the west end of the woods. There is land for only a few more houses. Any widening of Deerhill Road would reduce our land's potential because of Thies Lake and marsh to the north, the slopes and the 75' wide power line easement which cuts through our land. We do not want Deerhill Road widened for the above reasons, and because we do not want 192 acres of development to burden our narrow road. The 192 acres have always been planned to be accessed via Homestead Trail and County Road 6 for those reasons. Very truly yours, Bob and Lucy Mitchell 9523120v1 7 STONEGATE FARM 40 ACRES TIMOTHY & DARCY HAISLET STONEGATE • F/1RM - 19.8 ACRES 19.7 ACRES CLAIR & PAUUNE NADEAU STONEGATE • FARM 89.8 ACRES ST4IEGATE FIARM 191.8 TOTAL ACRES vtir- 14 22.5 ACRES STONEGATE FARM .—,rue zd tiE.AV-EY @L i1F9 { 7 <s� n MITCHELL ti ROBERT MITCHELL 4 i r........ SAN A x—^• c I orla co 2 twag,tar4 -----("_ L.) REBECCA DEE HELD _ 1 130.0 `ztr•L Y••'. -"'WILLOW DRf\ STEPHEN R. PFLAUM SUITE 2300 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 February 7, 2013 City of Medina Planning Commission 2052 County Road 24 Medina, Minnesota 55340 Re: Tamarack Ridge First Addition Dear Planning Commission Members: My wife and I have, for the past 43 years, lived at 2725 Deerhill Road. While we are not opposed to the proposed subdivision development called "Tamarack Ridge First Addition" to be located on the Stonebridge Farm property immediately to the west of our property, we are strongly opposed to any upgrading and, in particular, any widening of Deerhill Road to accommodate such a subdivision. We know from past discussions we have had with all of the other homeowners who access Deerhill Road that virtually all are similarly opposed, and will be joining in a letter to the Planning Commission and Council in the near future. Our concern is to preserve the unique rural character of Deerhill Road in its current condition, and in particular, the magnificent forest of trees through which the western half of Deerhill Road runs. A substantial number of these trees would need to be cut down to meet City ordinance standards should any upgrading of the road be determined by the City, dramatically adversely impacting on this old town road. Because any widening of Deerhill Road raises significant legal issues, we have engaged Stuart Alger of my law firm to review and communicate with you the same. Stuart will be submitting his own letter to the Planning Commission along with this letter. Regards, Steph n� p . Pflaum 9525442v1 LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD February 7, 2013 Scott Johnson, City Administrator City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 2300 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 612-335-1500 MAIN 612-335-1657 FAX STUART T. ALGER 612-335-1873 DIRECT STUART. ALGER@LEONARD. COM Re: Reconstruction of Deerhill Road, Medina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Johnson: We represent Steven R. Pflaum, who, along with his spouse, owns the property at 2725 Deerhill Road in Medina. Mr. Pflaum engaged us concerning the potential reconstruction and construction of Deerhill Road to accommodate a proposed Tamarack Ridge 1 S` Addition development ("Development") that you will consider at your meeting on February 12, 2013. Mr. Pflaum has specifically asked us to address the issue of the City of Medina's legal liability relating to the construction of the additional physical roadway. In our opinion, the City is exposed to significant financial liability, because it will likely have to condemn private property if it approves the upgrades to Deerhill Road proposed in connection with the Development. Property Resources Development Company has submitted an application for preliminary plat approval of the Tamarack Ridge 1 St Addition ("Preliminary Plat"). According to the Preliminary Plat, Deerhill Road would extended on a new 60 -foot right-of-way from Homestead Trail to the current terminus of Deerhill Road. The City would also widen existing Deerhill Road between the current terminus of Deerhill Road and Willow Drive to create a 60 -foot -wide right-of-way and a 33 -foot -wide physical roadway where a much narrower roadway existed before. In 2008, when Stonegate Farm, Inc. proposed a development that included the same area under consideration here, Mr. Pflaum provided the City with a memorandum on the law relating to the legal basis for the Deerhill Road right-of-way. Attached to this letter is a copy of that memorandum by Hugh M. Maynard, Esq. (Legal and Factual Research Memorandum), for your reference. In short, Mr. Maynard concluded that the 1969 Notice of Declaration that purported to create Deerhill Road did not create a valid right-of-way where Deerhill Road did not physically exist in 1969, and created a valid right-of-way in Deerhill Road only to extent that the physical roadway existed in 1969 and had been maintained for the previous 6 years. The conclusion Mr. Maynard reached in 2008 is valid today. A Professional Association LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS • MANRATO • ST. CLOUD • BISMARCK • WASHINGTON, D.C. 94�y1V4W IL5EOINARD.COM Scott Johnson, City Administrator City of Medina February 7, 2013 Page 2 In 1969 (and incidentally still today) the physical roadway. of Deerhill Road, worked and maintained by the City, was a roadway 30 feet wide beginning at Willow Drive, narrowing to 19 feet about a quarter of a mile west of Willow Drive, and continuing at a width of 19 feet to the road's terminus about one-half mile west of Willow Drive. No physical public road existed or exists west of the current terminus of Deerhill Road. Attached to this letter as is an aerial map from Hennepin County, marked as Map 1, that we have annotated to show the dimensions of Deerhill Road and the parcels adjacent to Deerhill Road. Accordingly, the right-of-way of Deerhill Road today is 19-30 feet in width, beginning at Willow Drive and terminating at the current terminus of Deerhill Road. If the City approves the Development and the widening of Deerhill Road from Willow Drive to the Development, the City must acquire additional right-of-way. As most of the owners of the land adjacent to Deerhill Road would likely oppose the widening and extension of Deerhill Road, the City will likely have to condemn most of the additional right of way. Taking the private land for Deerhill Road would be expensive for the City, because the City must not only pay the owners just compensation for the land and temporary construction easements that it condemns, but the City must also pay compensation for what are known as severance damages to the remainder of the owners' properties injured by the road -widening project. The City can also reasonably expect that the partial destruction of the woods to widen Deerhill Road will come at a significant and immediate cost to the City. The road widening project will destroy many mature hardwood trees that provide aesthetic and screening value to our client's and other owners' properties. The loss of these trees is compensable, possibly on a per -tree basis. Attached to this letter are photographs of the trees on Deerhill Road adjacent to Mr. Pflaum's property, as well as photographs of the tree -lined road. And, legal and expert fees would be significant. In addition to its own legal and expert fees, the City may also have to reimburse the owners their reasonable attorney and expert fees. The Preliminary Plat proposes an extension of Deerhill Road to Homestead Trail to serve as the "primary entrance" to the Development. Such an extension may be necessary in fact to prevent making Deerhill Road a cul-de-sac street in excess of 750 feet in length, which would put Deerhill Road out of compliance with City Code Subdivision design standards. (See Section 820.29, subd. 2(g)). (The current cul-de-sac is likely grandfathered-in.) The developer's Preliminary Plat narrative states incorrectly that the City's 1969 Declaration created City right- of-way for Deerhill Road west of the Development area to Homestead Trail. On the contrary, the City will have to acquire new right-of-way over the property to the west of the Development from owners who are likely to be hostile to the new road. The costs incurred to acquire the new right-of-way for an extended Deerhill Road would be substantial. If the City proceeds with the Deerhill Road reconstruction and construction without acquiring the necessary right-of-way, the affected owners may seek an injunction to stop the work until the City commences a condemnation action to ensure that the owners receive just compensation. 2 9524615v1 STA/ds Enclosure Scott Johnson, City Administrator City of Medina February 7, 2013 Page 3 Such litigation if necessary would be an unfortunate departure from the City's collaborative practice of upgrading city streets upon agreement with abutting landowners to share the costs of the upgrade. In the end, the costs and uncertainties associated with expanding Deerhill Road are unnecessary, because adequate access is possible via Homestead Trail or County Road 6 through property that is likely controlled by the developer. For example, Old Crystal Bay North Road south of County Road 6 could be extended north from County Road 6 to the Development. This road can be constructed on Stonegate Farm property, which property is likely controlled by the developer. Similarly, access can be gained from Homestead Trail over Stonegate Farm property. The orderly development of the remaining 110 acres of Stonegate Farm, in fact, may entail an access from County Road 6 (or perhaps Homestead Trail), and an extension of Old Crystal Bay North Road seems probable as part of that orderly development. Attached to this letter are Map 2 and Map 3, which maps show the entire Stonegate Farm property and the major roads providing access to it. As the City considers the Preliminary Plat and the attendant plans to reconstruct and construct a new Deerhill Road, the City should consider the likelihood that it will need to condemn private property to carry out the work. Even if there is sufficient public purpose in condemning private property to serve a private development with 8 new parcels, where as here there is suitable alternative access to the Development that would not require condemnation of private property, would not saddle the City with the costs of condemnation, and would not impose on long-term property owners the hardship of condemnation, such alternative access would seem to be preferred. Very tr . yours, LE '1 N RD,ST AND DEINARD signal zation 9524615v1 3 LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD LEGAL AND FACTUAL RESEARCH MEMORANDUM January 17, 2008 To: Stephen R. Pflaum, Esq. From: ugh M. Maynard, Esq. Client: Stephen and Ann Pflaum Matter: Stonegate Farm File No.: 16183-00009 Subject: Deer Hill Road Right -of -Way Between Willow Drive and Homestead Trail 1. INTRODUCTION TO RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES 1.1. Street Layout of Proposed Development. Stonegate Farm, Inc. (Mike and Susan Seeland) have proposed to develop their farm land adjacent to your homestead as depicted in the April 7, 2007 Conceptual Plan attached hereto as Exhibit F. Any proposed development of the Stonegate Parcel raises serious legal issues about the existence, length, width and adequacy of the east -west right-of-way of Deer Hill Road between Willow Drive and Homestead Trail. There are right-of-way issues inside the Stonegate Parcel, east of it, and west of it. This memo addresses the legal principles, title documents, maps, and historic aerial photos bearing upon these right-of-way issues. 1.2. Right -of -Way vs. Physical Road. In this memo, a road right-of-way means a strip of land within which someone has the legal right to build and maintain a physical road, and the special term "Mapped Right -of -Way" means the right-of-way of Deer Hill Road as shown on the Hennepin County Surveyor's half section map attached as Exhibit A. Exhibit B is an April 2006 aerial photo with an overlay of the half section map. We have annotated Exhibits A and B to label the tax parcels and features mentioned in this memo. This memo answers the question: "How much of the Mapped Right -of -Way is a valid public road right-of-way?" 1.3. Discrepancy in Length Between Mapped Right -of -Way and Physical Road. 1.3.1 According to the Hennepin County Surveyor's half section maps, Hennepin County GIS maps of individual tax parcels1, and the Village of Medina's 1969 Notice of Dedication2, the Deer Hill Road right-of-way runs westward from Willow Drive to Homestead Trail -- about one mile. 1.3.2 According to USGS topographic maps3, City of Medina road maps4, and historic aerial photos5, the Deer Hill Road physical road extends only about one-half mile 1 GIS maps of individual tax parcels are available online at http://www16.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/. 2 See § 4.1 below. 3 USGS 7.5 minute series topographic map "Hamel, MN" quadrangle dated 1981 and revised 1993. 4 Maps entitled "2006 PavedfUnpaved Roads" and "2006 Road Jurisdiction" obtained from the city's website. 5 See § 5 below entitled Photographic Evidence of Roads in the Mapped Right -of -Way. Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 1 of 15 V west from Willow Drive to a cul-de-sac turn -around located a short distance inside the Stonegate Parcel ("Turn -Around"). The physical public road does not - extend further west to Homestead Trail. 1.4. Discrepancy in Width Between Mapped Right -of -Way and Physical Road. 1.4.1 The mile -long Mapped -Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road is 1+1 = 2 rods wide, except along the subdivision named GASPAR ADDITION, where it is 2+1=3 rods wide. The online municipal road maps I reviewed do not indicate the width of the right-of-way of Deer Hill Road, but the City of Medina probably has other maps indicating the width of the right-of-way. 1.4.2 The Deer Hill Road physical road is: (a) about 30 feet wide from Willow Drive west to the woods; (b) about 19 feet wide in the woods east of the Turn -Around; (c) wider than 19 feet inside the Turn -Around; and (d) nonexistent west of the Turn -Around. West of the Turn -Around, on the Stonegate Parcel, inside the Mapped Right -of -Way, there is or was a narrow, private, east -west field road, closed to the public. Further west, there has never been an east -west physical road of any size or type along the Koch/Haislet boundary between the Stonegate Parcel and Homestead Trail. 2. CONCLUSIONS 2.1. Legal Principles. Unilateral governmental maps, plats, notices and claims of road right of way do not establish any legal rights to use the roads and rights -of -way. The government or the public must obtain those legal rights through a recognized statutory or common law procedure. In 1969, the Village of Medina filed a Notice of Dedication in which it claimed to have acquired a pubic road right of way one mile long and 33 feet wide by using the method known as statutory user. Similar methods of acquiring public road rights -of -way are prescriptive easements and common law dedication. The essential elements of these three legal procedures are as follows: Legal Procedure Public Use Public Maintenance Duration Land Owner Intent Width of the Public Right- of -way Acquired by the Method Compen- sation to Land Owner Statutory User public use of a physical road coupled with for at least six continuous years land owner permission or intent is irrelevant actual width of the physical road none road maintenance by a public road authority Prescriptive Easement public use of a physical road with or without for at least fifteen continuous years without permission of land owner actual width of the physical road none road maintenance by a public road authority Common Law Dedication public use of a physical road or road maintenance by a public road authority for any period of time coupled with land owner's intent to dedicate the road to the public actual width of the physical road none Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 2 of 15 2.2. West of the Stonegate Parcel - - Along the Koch/Haislet Boundary. There is a major dispute about the validity of the Mapped Right -of -Way west of the Stonegate Parcel -- along the boundary between the Koch Parcel and the Haislet Parcel. Stonegate's Conceptual Plan shows an entrance road along this boundary and it is the only access road to Areas A and B of Stonegate's proposed development, other than emergency vehicle accesses. Historic aerial photos clearly prove there has never been any public or private east -west road along the Koch/Haislet boundary. Therefore: (a) statutory user, prescriptive easement and common law dedication of an east -west public road did not occur along that boundary; (b) the Koch/Haislet segment of the Mapped Right -of -Way is not a valid public road right-of-way; and (c) Stonegate has no right to use that segment as access to its development. Moreover, the Mapped Right -of -Way is only 33 feet wide along the Koch/Haislet boundary, while the Medina Subdivision Ordinance requires at least 60 feet of right-of-way for new roads. Stonegate will have to persuade the City to condemn the right-of-way it needs for its only access road to Areas A and B. 2.3. East of the Stonegate Parcel - - Between Willow Drive and the Turn -Around. Everyone agrees that Deer Hill Road is a public road extending west from Willow Drive for 2850 ± feet (about one-half mile) to and including the Turn -Around located a short distance inside the Stonegate Parcel. Everyone agrees this segment of Deer Hill Road is a public road, but there are disputes over the width of the right-of-way and its adequacy to support development of the Stonegate Parcel. Whether this public right-of-way was established via statutory user, prescriptive easement or common law dedication, this right-of-way is limited to the actual width of the road surface plus its shoulders and ditches. The actual width of the Deer Hill Road physical road ranges from about 30 feet near Willow Drive to about 19 feet in the woods. Therefore: (a) the width of the public right-of-way ranges from about 30 feet to about 19 feet; (b) the road and right-of—way widths are too narrow for subdivision development under Medina's subdivision ordinance, which requires at least 24 feet of physical road within at least 60 feet of right-of-way; (c) Stonegate has no right to use the Deer Hill Road physical road as access to its development; and (d) the City has no right to widen the physical road without paying just compensation to the adjoining land owners. 2.4. Inside the Stonegate Parcel. If the Mapped Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road were a valid east -west public road right-of-way through the middle of the Stonegate Parcel, then Stonegate might try to persuade the Medina City Council that Stonegate has a "grandfathered" right of access to Willow Drive via Deer Hill Road, even though the Deer Hill Road physical road is too narrow for subdivision development under the Medina subdivision ordinance. To the contrary, (1) historic aerial photos prove that the only east - west roads inside the Mapped Right -of -Way inside the Stonegate Parcel have been private field roads and the public road Turn -Around at the west end of Deer Hill Road; (2) municipal road maintenance records will surely show that municipal crews have maintained Deer Hill Road from Willow Drive to the Turn -Around but not west of the Turn -Around; (3) fencing of the Turn -Around by Stonegate and its predecessors has prevented vehicular access to the Stonegate Parcel from Deer Hill Road; and (4) there is probably no evidence of public vehicular use of the Mapped Right -of -Way west of the Turn -Around. Therefore (a) the Mapped Right -of -Way inside the Stonegate Parcel is invalid, except for the Turn -Around; (b) the Stonegate Parcel has not historically used Deer Hill Road as access to Willow Drive; and (c) Stonegate has no "grandfathered right" to connect its street system to Willow Drive via Deer Hill Road. However, the City has the Printed 1/17/2008 10.34:45 AM Page 3 of 15 4300466v5 right to allow emergency vehicles access between the Stonegate development and Willow Drive via the existing Deer Hill Road physical road.6 3. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 3.1. Terminology of Roads and Rights -of -Way. 3.1.1 Usually the term right-of-way means a strip of land within which someone has the legal right to build and maintain a road, pipeline or other linear structure. Sometimes the term right-of-way means the legal right to use a strip of land as a way, which is a passage for people, animals, vehicles or utilities. In this memo, I use the term right-of-way to mean a strip of land rather than the legal right to use a strip of land. 3.1.2 A valid right-of-way is a strip of land that someone has the valid right to use as a way; and an invalid right-of-way is a strip of land which someone invalidly claims to have the right to use as a way. A paper right-of-way is a right-of-way (valid or invalid) in which there is no physical road. 3.1.3 A road right-of-way is a strip of land that contains or is designed to contain a physical road. A physical road may be paved, gravel, or simply two dirt ruts. Each physical road includes a driving surface and subsurfaces plus any bridges, culverts, might include shoulders and ditches. A physical road might occupy the entire width of its right-of-way, but that is rare. 3.1.4 The right to use a right-of-way might be the right of the fee simple owner to use his own strip of land or it might be the right of an easement holder to use a strip of land owned in fee simple by someone else. A public road right-of-way is a strip of land in which a unit of government has the right to build and maintain a public road. Sometimes the strip of land is owned in fee simple by the government, but more often the strip of land is owned by a private landowner and the government holds an easement for road purposes. 3.1.5 In Minnesota, the term cartway usually means a narrow right-of-way established pursuant to MSA § 164.08. This statute creates a procedure for the private owner of a land -locked parcel to establish a cartway over his neighbor's land by petitioning the township and having it condemn a road easement at the expense of the landlocked owner. The width of a statutory cartway is usually 2 rods. All of the references to cartways in the County Assessor's tax parcel legal descriptions for unplatted parcels along the Mapped Right -of -Way almost certainly refer to the right-of-way 2 rods wide claimed by the Village in its 1969 Notice of Dedication. 3.2. Legal Significance of Official Road Maps. Official road and right-of-way maps are prepared by a variety of governmental agencies. It is well established that unilateral governmental maps (as opposed to subdivision plats signed by land owners and government officials) do not change title to parcels of land or road rights -of -way. 6 Emergency vehicle access is indicated by the abbreviation "EVA" on the Conceptual Plat attached as Exhibit F. Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 4 of 15 Unilateral governmental maps and plats delineate parcels the government might acquire or claims to have acquired already. 3.2.1 Half Section Maps. For at least ten years, all half section maps prepared by the Hennepin County Surveyor have contained this cautionary legend: "THIS IS NOT A LEGALLY RECORDED MAP. IT REPRESENTS A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION AND DATA FROM CITY, COUNTY AND STATE ROAD AUTHORITIES AND OTHER SOURCES." The Hennepin County Surveyor's staff tells the public that half section maps are not designed to be used for surveying or creating legal descriptions and they do not create any legal rights. This is consistent with the various Minnesota Statutes authorizing the recordation of governmental right-of-way maps and plats, which are discussed in § 3.2.3 through § 3.2.5 below. 3.2.2 Maps of Individual Tax Parcels. With modern computer technology, the GIS Division of Hennepin County Taxpayer Services is able to generate online maps of each and every tax parcel in the county. These GIS maps are based upon the County Surveyor's half section maps; and they have no legal authority, just as - half section maps prepared by the County Surveyor have no legal authority. In fact, whenever a GIS map of a tax parcel is printed, it automatically prints the following disclaimer: The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of the material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. 3.2.3 Section 164.35 Township Road Maps. MSA § 164.35 authorizes townships to record maps showing the rights -of -way of township roads. Under an earlier version of the statute, the rights -of -way became public to a width of 66 feet without payment of any compensation to the landowner. This was ruled unconstitutional in Alton v. Wabedo Township, 524 N.W. 2d 278 (Minn. App. 1994) and the statute was changed to require just compensation. See MSA § 164.35, Subd. 4(g). 3.2.4 Chapter 160 Right -of -Way Maps. MSA § 160.085 allows state and county highway departments to file official right-of-way maps and plats for proposed road acquisitions, but it states: Subd. 2. Effect of recording map or plat. Maps or plats filed for record under this section shall not operate of themselves to transfer title to the property described and designated by appropriate parcel number but such map or plats shall be for delineation purposes. 3.2.5 Chapter 505 Right -of -Way Maps. MSA § 505.1792 allows local units of government to file official right-of-way maps or plats of streets, roads and highways, but it states: Subd. 2. Not a title transfer. Maps or plats filed for record under this section shall not operate of themselves to transfer title to the property described but such maps or plats shall Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM Page 5 of 15 4300466v5 be for descriptive purposes and shall be notice that the municipality claims an interest in said lands. (7) (8) 3.3. Recognized Methods of Acquiring Public Rights -of -Way. Governmental units in Minnesota may acquire rights -of -way (fee simple parcels and easement parcels) for public roads in a variety of ways, including the following methods: (1) negotiation of the acquisition, such as purchase of the right-of-way by the government or exaction of the right-of-way as a condition of governmental approval of private development; (2) condemnation of the right-of-way by using the government's power of eminent domain and paying fair market value, as required by the federal and state constitutions; (3) plat dedication by land owners via voluntary subdivision plats filed under MSA Chapter 505; (4) cart -way establishment under MSA § 164.08 et seq. which requires payments of damages to affected land owners; (5) township road establishment under MSA § 164.07, which requires payments of damages to affected land owners; (6) statutory user under MSA § 160.05, which occurs when there has been public use and public maintenance of a road for at least six years [see § 3.4 of this memo]; prescriptive easements, which are acquired through continuous public use for at least fifteen years [see § 3.4.5 of this memo]; and common law dedication, which occurs when the land owner intends to make a dedication to the public and the public accepts the dedication by using or maintaining the road [see § 3.6 of this memo]. Methods (1) through (5) always leave a paper trail in the county land title records. Methods (6) through (8) sometimes do and sometimes don't leave a paper trail in the county land title records; but all three methods require a physical road to be actually used by the public for some period of time. 3.4. Acquisition of Right -of -Way By Statutory User. 3.4.1 Old Statute. From 1959 to 1982, MSA § 160.05, Subdivision 1 reads as follows: When any road or portion thereof shall have been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway, the same shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of two rods on each side of the center line thereof and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether the same has ever been established as a public highway or not; provided, that nothing herein contained shall impair the right, title, or interest of the water department of any city of the first class secured under Special Laws 1885, Chapter 110. This subdivision shall apply to roads and streets except platted streets within cities. [emphasis added] 3.4.2 Barfnecht v. Hollywood Township. This statute was significantly altered by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the 1975 case of Barfnecht v. Hollywood Township, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. The case held that when statutory user occurs, the government acquires a right-of-way that is only as wide as the actual 7 Barfnecht v. Hollywood Township, 232 NW 2d 420, 304 Minn. 505 (1975). Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 6 of 15 road surface and any shoulders and ditches, rather than the fixed width of 2 rods + 2 rods = 4 rods stated in the statute. The heart of the decision reads as follows - [304 Minn. 505 at 508]: A dedication resulting from adverse public use arises from the fact that such use serves to give the owner notice that, if he means to dispute the rightfulness of the public use, he must assert his right within a statutory period by physical action or suit. The statute [MSA § 160105, Subd. 1] provides a statute of limitations, the running of which estops an owner from denying the existence of a public easement. Public use cannot be said to apply to lands not actually used. There is no reason that an owner should know that he is required to dispute the rightfulness of a nonexistent user. A property owner thus receives no notice as to a public claim on any property in excess of that which has actually been used. Thus, a dedication by public use cannot constitutionally exceed the amount of actual dedication. The Barfnecht holding was enshrined by an amendment to the statute in 1982 and the Barfnecht holding was followed in many subsequent judicial decisions.8 3.4.3 1982 Statute. In response to Barfnecht v. Hollywood Township, the state legislature amended the statutory user statute in 1982 as follows: When any road or portion thereof shall have of asoad has been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway, it shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of two rods on each side of the center line thereof to the width of the actual use and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether the came it has ever been established as a public highway or not,. ; provided that Nothing herein contained in this subdivision shall impair the right, title, or interest of the water department of any city of the first class secured under Special Laws 1885, chapter 110. This subdivision shall apply to roads and streets except platted streets within cities. 3.4.4 Current Statute. In 1984, the statute was amended as follows: When any road or portion of a road has been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway by a road authority, it shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of the actual use and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether it has ever been established as a public highway or not. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall impair the right, title, or interest of the water department of any city of the first class secured under Special Laws 1885, chapter 110. This subdivision shall apply to roads and streets except platted streets within cities. The 1984 amendment codified the common law requirement that to, qualify for statutory user, the road maintenance must have been performed by a public road authority, such as the state highway department, county highway department or municipal public works department. MSA § 160.05, Subd. 1 has not changed since 1984. 3.4.5 Duration of Easement Acguired by Statutory User. MSA § 160.05, Subd. 1 states that a road dedicated under the statute shall "remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway". This is consistent with judicial decisions that establish that once a road has become public by any recognized legal method, it remains a public $ Barfzecht was discussed and followed in Rivers v. Hennepin County, 1990 WL 105926 (Minn. App.); Alton v. Wabedo Township, 524 W.W. 2d 278 (Minn. App. 1994); and Town of Crooked Lake v. Pfaff, 2005 WL 3469644 (Minn. App.). Barfnecht has been cited eight other decisions. Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM Page 7 of 15 4300466v5 road until it is vacated by a formal resolution of the appropriate governmental unit, which is usually the city council. Non-use of a public easement means nothing. Abandonment of a public easement is virtually impossible. 3.5. Acquisition of Right -Of -Way by Prescriptive Easement. To establish an easement by prescription, a party must prove use of the easement area on the burdened parcel for at least 15 years and the use must have been hostile (without permission), actual, open, continuous and exclusive.9 Aside from some inherent differences, the same rules which apply to adverse possession also apply to cases of prescriptive easements, including the rules that Torrens land and government land are exempt from adverse possession.10 The public, as well as private parties, may acquire easements by prescription." When a township acquires a road easement by prescription, the width of the easement is the width of the actual physical road rather than the wider width claimed by the township in a map of township roads filed pursuant to MSA § 164.35.12 3.6. Acquisition of Right -of -Way by Common Law Dedication 3.6.1 Common Law Dedication Generally. The vast majority of common law dedication cases in Minnesota deal with public highways, streets, roads, alleys and driveways. The elements of common law dedication are: (1) the intent of the landowner to dedicate the easement to the public for public use; and (2) public acceptance of the dedication.13 Once these two elements are present the dedication is complete and the landowner cannot revoke it.14 3.6.2 Landowner's Intent to Dedicate. Minnesota case law has alternated between principles that favor landowners and principles that favor the public. On the one hand, the landowner's intent must be "unequivocally manifested, and clearly and satisfactorily appeari1s; and the "requisite intent *** may be implied from acts and conduct of the owner which are unequivocally and convincingly indicative of a dedication and upon which the public has a right to and does rely.i16 On the other hand, acquiescence, without objection, in the public use for a long time, is sufficient conduct to prove and indicate to the public an intention to dedicate.'? The intent to dedicate need not be conscious intent but may be inferred from owner's unequivocal conduct.'$ Such intent need not be expressed, and in fact need not actually exist in the owner's mind, but may be implied from acts and conduct of the owner which are unequivocally and convincingly indicative of a dedication and upon which the public has a right to and does rely.'9 9 Nordin v. Kuno, 287 N.W.2d 923, (Minn. 1980) 10 Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 17914 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944). I1 Rice v. Miller, 238 N.W.2d 609, 306 Minn. 523, (Minn. 1976) 12 Alton v. Wabedo Township, 524 N.W.2d 278 (Minn. App., 1995) 13 14 Flynn v. Beisel, 257 Minn. 531, 540 102 N.W.2d 284 at 291 (Minn. 1960). Flynn v. Beisel, 257 Minn. 531, 542, 102 N.W.2d 284 at 292. 15 41 N.W. 1045, 40, Minn. 284, Village of White Bear v. Stewart, (Minn. 1889) 16 Flynn v. Beisel, 257 Minn. 531, 540, 102 N.W.2d 284, 291 (1960). 17 Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381, 385, 53 N.W. 703, 704 (1892); Dickinson v. Ruble, 211 Minn. 373, 375, 1 N.W.2d 373, 374 (1941). 18 480 N.W.2d 377, Sackett v. Storm, (Minn.App. 1992) 19 Daugherty, 243 Minn. at 574-75, 68 N.W.2d at 868 Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 8 of 15 3.6.3 Acceptance by the Public. Acceptance by the public is less problematic. Regular use of the road by the public and road improvements and maintenance done by - public officers are sufficient acts showing acceptance by the public of the dedication.2° In one case, a long pattern of public use of a roadway to gain access to lake property, use by tourists to visit a resort, and use by utility companies, local retail stores, local governmental officials, and postal carriers established public acceptance of a roadway.21 In another case, a long pattern of public use of a bank's parking lot and driveway as a shortcut to an adjoining shopping center did not establish public acceptance of the dedication.22 3.7. Importance of Actual Road Width. These three methods of acquiring public road right of way (statutory user, prescriptive easement and common law dedication) have these elements in common: (a) each method requires there to be a physical road in regular use by the public; and (b) each method limits the width of the acquired right-of-way to the width of the physical road actually used by the public, rather than a fixed width set by statute or claimed by the public road authority. 3.8. County Assessor Tax Parcel Legal Descriptions. 3.8.1 All parcels along Deer Hill Road are unplatted land, except the Gaspar Parcel and Schafer Parcel, which are platted lots in the subdivision named GASPAR ADDITION. The County Assessor's legal descriptions for all unplatted tax parcels along Deer Hill Road between Willow Drive and the Turn -Around exclude roads and cartways, which are not identified by name or width. This is normal and makes sense to the County Assessor, because he is not supposed to tax private land owners for public road easements on their land. Therefore, public road rights of -way should be excluded from (a) acreage calculations for tax purposes, (b) GIS maps of individual tax parcels, and (c) legal descriptions for tax purposes. 3.8.2 From the point of view of the County Assessor, private tax parcels end at the nearest right-of-way line of each adjoining public road; but from the point of view of a title examiner, platted parcels extend to the right-of-way line of the adjoining platted roads, but unplatted parcels usually extend to the centerlines of the adjoining roads, because road centerlines are usually section lines, quarter section lines or sixteenth section lines and the right to have a road is usually a public easement over private land. 3.8.3 County Assessor legal descriptions of tax parcels are unreliable and carry no weight in a court of law. They are created by the County Assessor for his convenience. They include abbreviations and shortcuts, such as excluding road rights -of -way (whether they are fee simple or easement rights -of -way) and consolidating subparcels. The County Assessor's legal description of a parcel often conflicts with the true legal description of the parcel, which is established by deeds and other title documents filed with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. 20 Keiter v. Berge, 219 Minn. 374, 378, 18 N.W.2d 35, 37 (Minn. 1945). 21 480 N.W.2d 377, Sackett v. Storm, (Minn.App. 1992) 22 Add citation. Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 9of15 3.9. Statute of Limitations. 3.9.1 When the Village of Medina unilaterally filed its 1969 Notice of Dedication as required by § 117.19, did that filing start the running of a statute of limitations and require aggrieved land owners to complain within a limited number of years after the filing? The answer is "no." 3.9.2 MSA § 117.19 was repealed in 1971 and the only reported case I could find about the statute was Leeper v. Hampton Hills, Inc., 290 Minn. 143, 187 NW 2d 765 (1971). In Leeper one party claimed that the dedication of Juneau Lane in Plymouth by statutory user was invalid, because the City of Plymouth failed to file the notice required by MSA § 117.19. The court rejected that argument, because (a) MSA § 160.05, Subd. 1 states that a public road dedicated by statutory user remains a public road until lawfully vacated; (b) in order vacate a public road, it is necessary for the city to follow the statutory procedure in MSA § 161.16; and (c) to strike down the road dedication because the city failed to file the notice required by § 117.19 would be an unlawful vacation of the road without following the procedure in MSA § 161.16. Following the logic of the - Leeper case further, because the filing of a notice under § 117.19 does not affect the validity of statutory uses, the Village of Medina's unilateral 1969 Notice of Dedication under § 117.19 is irrelevant to the validity of the alleged dedication claimed by the city and the landowners had no obligation to respond to it. 3.9.3 In Barfnecht v. Hollywood Township, the Minnesota Supreme Court based its holding upon MSA § 160.05, Subd. 1, being essentially a statute of limitations as follows [304 Minn. 505 at 508]: A dedication resulting from adverse public use arises from the fact that such use serves to give the owner notice that, if he means to dispute the rightfulness of the public use, he must assert his right within a statutory period by physical action or suit. The statute [MSA § 160.05, Subd. 1] provides a statute of limitations, the running of which estops an owner from denying the existence of a public easement. Public use cannot be said to apply to lands not actually used. There is no reason that an owner should know that he is required to dispute the rightfulness of a nonexistent user. A property owner thus receives no notice as to a public claim on any property in excess of that which has actually been used. Thus, a dedication by public use cannot constitutionally exceed the amount of actual dedication. 3.9.4 Leeper and Barfnecht demonstrate that the statute of limitations for statutory user is MSA § 160.05, Subd. 1 itself and the statute of limitations clock begins running when (a) a physical road is installed, (b) the public begins to use it, and (c) the city begins to maintain it; rather than the date the municipality makes a claim that statutory user has occurred, such as by filing a Notice of Dedication under MSA § 117.19. The statute of limitations clock has not started with reference to the various segments of the Mapped Right -of -Way in which there is no physical road at all. Likewise, the statute of limitations clock has not started with reference to land inside the Mapped Right -of -Way but outside the existing physical road of Deer Hill Road. 4. TITLE EXAMINATION. We do not have access to the abstracts of title and title insurance policies for all tax parcels involved in this dispute, so I asked our real estate paralegal Jan Aalbers Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM Page 10 of 15 4300466v5 to go to the offices of the Hennepin County Recorder and Registrar of Titles, perform a limited review of title to all tax parcels along both sides of the Mapped Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road - from Willow Drive to Homestead Trail. For abstract parcels, Jan reviewed the County Recorder's paper tract index, the computer index, and the deeds vesting title into the current land owners. For Torrens parcels, Jan reviewed each current Certificate of Title. For all parcels, Jan obtained the County Assessor's tax parcel legal description. Jan looked for documents relating to the Mapped Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road; and she found the following: 4.1. 1969 Notice of Dedication. Jan found a document entitled "Notice of Dedication by the 'Village of Medina Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 117.19", dated March 4, 1969 and filed June 2, 1969 as County Recorder Document No. 3777442 ("1969 Notice of Dedication"). A copy of the notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 4.1.1 This document states/claims that a public road 2 rods wide was established along the entire one -mile boundary between Sections 21 and 28 of T118N, R23 W, by virtue of at least 6 years of statutory user under MSA § 160.05, Subdivision 1. The legally described one -mile long right-of-way extended from Willow Drive westward along the boundary between Sections 21 and 28 to Homestead Trail and even further west — an additional 440 ± feet along the centerline of Homestead Trail to the section corner. The Village should have claimed only a half -mile right-of-way extending from Willow Drive to the Turn -Around, where the public road actually ended. 4.1.2 The discrepancy between the statute number in the title of the document and the statute number in the text of the document is harmless. 4.1.3 The Village of Medina claimed a right-of-way width of 1+1 = 2 rods rather than the statutory 2 + 2 = 4 rods . This discrepancy is harmless. 4.1.4 Jan found no recorded document that vacated, terminated or amended the public right-of-way that the Village claimed in its 1969 Notice of Dedication.23 4.1.5 The 1969 Notice of Dedication was duly indexed in the County Recorder's Tract Index as affecting or purporting to affect all abstract land in the south tier of quarter -quarters (40 -acre parcels) in Section 21 and the north tier of quarter - quarters in Section 28. However, filing a title document with the County Recorder and having it properly indexed does not make the document valid and fully effective. Successfully recording a title document is merely notice to the world of the existence and content of the document. 4.1.6 For reasons unknown to us, the 1969 Notice of Dedication has not been memorialized upon any of the Certificates of Title for Torrens parcels along the Mapped Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road. 4.2. Stonegate Parcel. 4.2.1 Stonegate Farm, Inc. ("Stonegate") owns Tax Parcel 28-118-23-21-0003 ("Stonegate Parcel"). It contains 169.49 acres per the County Assessor and has 23 Likewise, Nancy Weeks found no such document in the files at Medina City Hall and other people have been unsuccessful in finding such a document at City Hall. Printed 1/17/2008 11:08:01 AM 4300466v5 Page 11 of 15 no street address assigned. Susan Seeland asked Hennepin County to split the Stonegate Parcel into several separate tax parcels, each containing at least 20 - acres. The County is processing the request at this time; and we are investigating it. In any event, the land is covered by Torrens Certificate of Title No. 862516, which was issued to Stonegate on 11/20/97. The title certificate does not mention any specific road or road document. However, it contains the following standard clause required by the Torrens statute to be in each and every title certificate: "[Subject to] all rights in public highways upon the land." This clause does not create any such rights, but it preserves any such rights that existed at the time the land was registered. The land was originally registered in two separate Torrens proceedings in 1973 and 1977. The 1973 proceeding registered title to the Stonegate land relevant to our inquiry. Jan reviewed the District Court's archived records of the 1973 Torrens proceeding and she found: (a) (b) Deer Hill Road was not mentioned in the Application to Register Title by the land owner, which was Hennepin County Area Vocational Technical School; The Application to Register Title identified the Village of Medina and the County of Hennepin as the owners of some adjoining land, but they were not named as defendants and they were not served with the Land Title Summons, so their rights (if any) were not adjudicated; (c) Deer Hill Road was not mentioned in the Report of Examiner, the County Surveyor's Report of Survey and of Inspection of Premises or in the Order and Decree of Registration; (d) The boundaries were registered, so there was a Judicial Landmark Survey and it should show Deer Hill Road if it existed in 1973, but we have not yet obtained a copy of the JLM survey; and (e) The court's file contains a copy of the abstract entry for the Village of Medina's 1969 Notice of Dedication, but that notice and Deer Hill Road were not mentioned anywhere else in the court's file, which surprised us. 4.3. Parcels West of the Stonegate Parcel. There are two relevant tax parcels between the Stonegate Parcel and Homestead Trail. 4.3.1 The "Koch Parcel" is Tax Parcel No. 21-118-23-33-0001 at 1582 Homestead Trail. It is owned by David A. Koch and B. G. Koch as Trustees. The Koch Parcel is abstract. The County Assessor's tax parcel legal description is "THAT PART OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING N OF S 570 FT THOF ALSO THAT PART OF S 570 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LYING E OF W 460 FT." The 1992 deed vesting title in Koch includes the following in the list of permitted encumbrances: "Rights of the public in the South 16.5 feet pursuant to Notice of Dedication by the Village of Medina recorded June 2, 1969, as Document No. 3777442". Under Minnesota case law, such language presupposes an existing right but does not create any rights. Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 12 of 15 4.3.2 The "Haislet Parcel" is Tax Parcel No. 28-118-23-22-0004 at 1562 Homestead Trail. It is owned by Timothy and Darcy Haislet. The County Assessor's tax - parcel legal description is "THAT PART OF N 580 FT OF NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 LYING ELY OF ROAD EX ROAD." The 2000 deed vesting title in Haislet is silent about Deer Hill Road. 4.3.3 I assume that Koch and Haislet generally oppose the proposed residential development of the Stonegate Parcel and vehemently oppose Stonegate's proposed installation of a primary access road in the Mapped Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road along the Koch/Haislet boundary as shown in Exhibit F. If the Mapped Right -of -Way along the Koch/Haislet boundary were a valid public right- of-way, then Stonegate might be able to use that right-of-way to provide access to its proposed development. However, the Mapped Right -of -Way is only 33 feet wide, which is too narrow under the Medina Subdivision Ordinance, as discussed in § 6 below. It is possible that Stonegate might purchase the Haislet Parcel, so it can be included in the proposed development. It is inconceivable that Koch would sell any land to Stonegate. 4.4. Parcels East of the Stonegate Parcel. 4.4.1 The County Assessor's tax parcel legal descriptions for all unpiatted parcels along Deer Hill Road east of the Stonegate include exceptions such as "except cartway" and "except road". The tax parcel legal descriptions for the two platted lots (Schafer and Gaspar) are silent about cartways and roads, which is normal for platted lots adjacent to platted road rights -of -way. 4.4.2 None of the title documents Jan reviewed mention the 1969 Notice of Dedication. Roads and cartways are not mentioned in most of the title documents that Jan reviewed. The exceptions are as discussed in § 4.4.3 through § 4.4.5 below. 4.4.3 Rebecca Dee Held owns three tax parcels and they are covered by two Torrens certificates of title. Both certificates include the standard statutory exception: "[Subject to] All rights in public highways upon the land". The legal descriptions in both certificates contain "subject to" clauses stating that the parcels are subject to easements for road purposes over the North 33 feet pursuant to three old deeds, which we copied and reviewed. Those deeds did purport to convey title subject to an easement for road purposes over the North 33 feet [rather than the North 16.5 feet per the 1969 Notice of Dedication] of each parcel. However, such deed language presupposes an existing easement, but does not create a new easement. 4.4.4 Schafer and Gaspar own platted parcels that are Torrens. Both Torrens certificates include the standard statutory exception: "[Subject to] All rights in public highways upon the land." Otherwise the Torrens certificates and deeds are silent about roads and cartways. 4.4.5 Bob and Lucy Mitchell own three abstract parcels. The vesting deeds for two parcels are "subject to the rights of the public to the use of the public roads thereon." The vesting deed for the third parcel contains, in the legal description, the phrase "except road", which was probably an error. I doubt the grantor Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM 4300466v5 Page 13 of 15 intended to retain fee simple title to the adjoining segment of Deer Hill Road. All three vesting deeds are silent about the width of the road. 5. EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL ROADS 1N THE MAPPED RIGHT-OF-WAY. In the 1969 Notice of Dedication, the Village of Medina claimed that Deer Hill Road had been used and maintained as a public road for at least six continuous years prior to 1969. Therefore, Jan Aalbers and I obtained, enlarged and scrutinized the following historic aerial photographs of the Mapped Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road: vertical aerial photos shot in 1960, 1962, 1967, 1969, 1971 and 1975; and oblique aerial photos shot in April 2006. The aerial photos show the following features along the Mapped Right -of -Way of Deer Hill Road: 5.1. East of the Stonegate Parcel - - Between Willow Drive and the Turn -Around. There certainly was a road (Deer Hill Road) but it is impossible to determine the width of the road from the aerial photos, because the woods are too thick. Our paralegal Nancy Weeks used a tape measure to measure the width of the road. She found it is about 30 feet wide between Willow Drive and the woods and about 19 feet wide in the woods. After the snow melts this spring, a surveyor could precisely measure the width of the physical road. 5.2. West of the Stonegate Parcel - - Along the Koch/Haislet Boundary. The historic aerial photos clearly show no east -west road of any size or type along this boundary. In most years the boundary area was marsh and along the boundary line there was a fence rather than a physical road. The only road visible in this segment is a north -south private driveway serving the Koch Parcel and connecting to Homestead Trail. 5.3. Inside the Stonegate Parcel. For decades there has been an east -west row of trees inside the Stonegate Parcel (the "Tree Line") along or near the boundary between Sections 21 and 28, which is the centerline of the Mapped Right -of -Way. 24 The Tree Line serves as a landmark in reviewing the historic aerial photos. It is clear from the photos that the Turn - Around on the Stonegate Parcel is south of the Tree Line and the imaginary extension of the traveled portion of Deer Hill Road is also south of the Tree Line. North of the Tree Line there has been a field road and/or bridle path, but that geographic feature located north of the Tree Line does not prove the existence of a public road located south of the Tree Line. Some aerial photos show a field road adjacent to and south of the Tree Line, but (a) this field road does not look like a public road in the aerial photos, (b) municipal road maintenance records will almost certainly be devoid of evidence of municipal maintenance of this field road; and (c) the equestrian public has used the field road north of the Tree -Line rather than the field road south of the Tree -Line. Depending upon the type of survey, a survey might show the locations of the field road and the Tree -Line relative to the centerline of the Mapped Right -of -Way, but Stonegate has not yet submitted any surveys to the City of Medina. 6. ME lINA ROAD WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. The Medina Subdivision Ordinance establishes minimum right-of-way widths and minimum roadway (physical road) widths for different classes of roads. The narrowest roads permissible are 24 feet of physical road within 60 feet of right-of- way for the following four classes of roads: Local Roads, Local Rural Service Area Roads, Marginal Access Roads, and Cul-de-sac Streets. A copy of the ordinance page containing these 24 The developer has probably submitted to the City surveys that show the precise boundaries of the Stonegate Parcel, the Tree Line and other existing conditions. As soon as possible, we should obtain copies of those surveys and Stonegate's proposed plan of development. Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM Page 14 of 15 4300466v5 requirements is attached hereto as Exhibit E. These minimum road width requirements should apply to all roads leading into a new subdivision as well as the new roads inside the development. - However, the Medina City Council has the power to grant variances from these and other dimensional requirements of the City's subdivision ordinance. 7. CONCLUSIONS. See § 2 above. LIST OF EXHIBITS TO THIS MEMO A. Half Section Tax Parcel Map of North 1/2 of Section 28-118-23. B. Half Section Aerial Photo with Tax Parcel Overlay of North /2 of Section 28-118-23. C. Notice of Dedication by the Village of Medina Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 117.19, dated March 4, 1969 and filed June 2, 1969 as HCR Doc. No. 3777442. D. Barfnecht v. Hollywood Township, 232 NW 2d 420, 304 Minn. 505 (1975). E. Right -of -Way Width and Roadway Width Requirements from Medina Subdivision Ordinance. F. Conceptual Plan: Seeland Property, April 2007. Printed 1/17/2008 10:34:45 AM Page 15 of 15 4300466v5 3777442 ST- EC mum OPFZOIMA PEERSUUTTOMIEEMSOU Sa'h $ 11708'9 TO: Om Register of Deeds and the County Auditor of the County of Bens mi. Pr ASS MKT NOTICE, `ibat the Village of Medina, a Minnesota FAanicipal Corporation, located in the County of ensnepin, State of Minnesota, has received by dedication the following described land within the Village of Medina: A certain tract of land iabich is 2 nods wide, the center line of said tract being described as follows, to wit: Coemencing at the section corner of Sections 21, 22, 27 and 28, Tam ship 118, Range 23, thence running due West on the section line which is South section line of Section 21, Township /18, Range 23, and the North section line of 'Section 28, Township 188, Range 23, and terminating at the section corner of Sections 29;;'210 28 and 29; and ali lands adjacent thereto are affected by said dedication and that said dedication is By virtue of mannesota Statutes 5/69.95, Subdivision 1, it being detereined by a council reso- lution that said road has been used and kept in repair and worked for at least 6 years continuously prior to the dad, of /,4%X/1 -.CA , 1969, which is the date of the resolu- tion, es a public highway of the lvillage of •:-dinae `Priscilla Arens Medina Village Clerk Westla. 232 N.W.2d 420 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420 (Cite as: 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420) C Supreme Court of Minnesota. Walter BARFNECHT, et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF HOLLYWOOD TOWNSHIP, CARVER COUNTY, Minnesota, Respondent. No. 44546. July 18, 1975. Owners of land abutting gravel road instituted action against township, which had resolved to rebuild and improve the road, for injunctive relief or damages on ground that the road was initially established as a two -rod road and that defendants were taking their land to widen the road. The District Court, Carver County, Arlo E. Haering, J., found that the road was statutorily dedicated to width of four rods and plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court, Peterson, J., held that statute providing that when any road or portion thereof shall have been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as public highway, it shall be deemed dedicated to public to width of two rods on each side of center line thereof, if construed to extend public dedication of road by public use to widths greater than that of actual public use, results in unconstitutional taking of property without due process of law, but that width of prescriptive easement acquired by public use of road is not limited to portion of road actually traveled and may include shoulders and ditches that are needed and have actually been used to support and maintain the traveled portion. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes al Constitutional Law 4105(2) 92k4105(2) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k292, 92k278(1)) Ea Dedication 2 119k2 Most Cited Cases Statute providing that when any road or portion thereof shall have been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as public highway, it shall be deemed dedicated to public to width of two rods on each side of center line thereof, if construed to extend public dedication of road by public use to widths greater than that of actual public Page 1 use, results in unconstitutional taking of property without due process of law. M.S.A. § 160.05; M.S.A.Const. art. 1, § 2; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. f ]. Highways C=2 200k2 Most Cited Cases Privately owned land cannot become public road by adverse use beyond portion so used merely by a statutory pronouncement to that effect. M.S.A. § § 160.05, 160.05, subd. 1; M.S.A.Const. art. 1, § 2; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. u Dedication C=20(1) 119k20(1) Most Cited Cases Dedication resulting from adverse public use of road arises from fact that the use gives owner notice that, if he means to dispute the rightfulness of public use, he must assert his right within a statutory period by physical action or suit. M.S.A. § 160.05. ill Dedication € 20(1) 119k20(1) Most Cited Cases Statute providing that when any road shall have been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as public highway, it shall be deemed dedicated to public provides a statute of limitations, the running of which estops an owner from denying existence of a public easement. M.S.A. § § 160.05, 160.05. subd. 1. J51 Dedication €=50 119k50 Most Cited Cases Dedication by public use cannot constitutionally exceed the amount of actual dedication. M.S.A. § § 160.05, 160.05 subd. 1. J Dedication 6 50 119k50 Most Cited Cases Statute relating to dedication of road by public use can operate to dedicate a road only to extent of actual use over the statutory period. M.S.A. § 160.05. u Highways X14 200k14 Most Cited Cases ' Boundary of public highway acquired by public use is question of fact to be determined by fact finder. M.S.A. S 160.05. © 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. " 232 N.W.2d 420 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420 (Cite as: 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420) f�� Highways 14 200k14 Most Cited Cases Width of prescriptive easement acquired by public use of road is not limited to portion of road actually traveled and may include shoulders and ditches that are needed and have actually been used to support and maintain the traveled portion. M.S.A. 160.05. **421 Syllabus by the Court Minn.St. 160.05. subd. 1, if construed to extend public dedication of a road by public use to a width greater than that of actual public use, results in an unconstitutional taking of private property without due process of law. **422 *505 Schroeppel & Lilja and Thomas P. Lilja, Buffalo, Fahlgren & Anderson and James W. Fahlgren, St. Paul, for appellant. Robert A. Nicklaus and Dwight J. Leatham, Chaska, for respondent. Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., John R. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, arnicus curiae, for State of Minn., favoring affirmance. Robert W. Johnson and John R. Krouss, St. Paul, amicus curiae, for County Attys. Council, favoring affirmance. Mullin & Millhollin, Corning, Iowa, and Lee Sinclair, Potomac, Md., amicus curiae, for National Farmers Org., favoring reversal. Considered and decided by the court en bane. PETERSON, Justice. The constitutional question presented by this appeal is whether Minn.St. 160.05, if construed to extend public dedication of a road to a width of 4 rods and not simply to the extent of actual use, results in a taking of private property without due process of law. As a substitute for the common-law creation of highways by prescription or adverse use,[FN11 the statute provides the following method for acquisition of highways by adverse public use (Minn.St. 160.05, subd. 1): FN1. See, Casner, American Law of Property, Vol. II, s 9.50. 'When any road or portion thereof shall have been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway, the same Page 2 shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of two rods on each side of the center line thereof and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether the same has ever been established as a public highway or not; provided, that nothing herein contained shall impair the right, title, or interest of the water department of any city of the first class secured under Special Laws 1885, Chapter 110. This subdivision shall apply to roads and streets except platted streets within cities.' The facts giving rise to the question of the constitutionality of this statute are not complex. Plaintiffs, Mathias S. Schaust and Walter Barfnecht, both own tracts of land in Carver County. Their land abuts a gravel road which has been maintained as a public road for a considerable number of years. The township established its public character pursuant to s 160.05 by proving use and maintenance of the road for the statutory period of 6 years. In April 1970 the Town Board of Hollywood Township, defendant, resolved to rebuild and improve the road in question. Bids were received for upgrading and sloping about 1 1/2 miles of township road. Easements for backsloping were sought from plaintiffs as adjoining landowners, but both plaintiffs ultimately *507 refused to give such easements. Road construction began in May 1970. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs instituted this action for injunctive relief or damages. Plaintiffs sought to show at trial that the road was initially established as a 2 -rod road and that defendant was now taking their land to widen the road.jFN21 The trial court made no distinct fording on the width of either the improved road or the road before 1970. The trial court, relying on s 160.05, found that the road, acquired by public use, was statutorily dedicated to a width of 4 rods. Since the road improvement 'remained within the area of two rods on each side of the center line of the road as it existed before the improvement,' the trial court concluded that the land used by defendant was already part of the public **423 highway. It is this statutory basis of decision that frames the constitutional issue.fFN3) FN2. Plaintiffs also argued on a motion for a new trial that the contractor had trespassed on their property by engaging in construction more than 2 rods beyond the centerline of the existing roadway. The trial court granted plaintiff Schaust a new trial on the question of damages for any such construction. � 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 232 N.W.2d 420 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420 (Cite as: 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420) Page 3 FN3. The present appeal is not the first occasion this case has been before the court. In Schaust v. Town Board of Hollywood Township. 295 Minn. 571, 204 N.W.2d 646 (1973), we dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds and did not reach the constitutional issue. Judgment in favor of defendant town board, upholding the constitutionality of the statute and vacating a temporary injunction, was subsequently entered by the district court. Plaintiffs now appeal from that judgment. The constitutional issue, having been properly raised by this appeal, was first argued before a three judge panel of this court. Because of the importance of the issues raised, the appeal was subsequently reargued before the full court. At that time, amicus curiae briefs were filed by the National Farmers Organization in favor of plaintiffs and by the County Attorneys Council and the State of Minnesota in favor of defendant. Defendant contends, and the trial court agreed, that s 160.05 constitutionally provides that any road dedicated by adverse public use is dedicated to a width of 4 rods, regardless of the width of actual usage. Plaintiffs, however, assert that s 160.05 is unconstitutional because no notice is provided when a width greater *508 than that of actual use is taken and that, as a result, they have been denied property without the due process of law. U.S.Const. Amend. XIV; Minn.Const. art. 1, s 2; Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 78 S.Ct. 240. 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957). This is the first time that the 4 -rod provision of s 160.05 has been challenged as being unconstitutional. f 11 [21 As a result of the constitutional provisions cited above, we hold that Minn.St. 160.05 does not authorize a township to widen a road acquired by adverse public use beyond that width actually acquired by such adverse use. Privately owned land cannot become public road by adverse use beyond the portion so used merely by a statutory pronouncement to that effect. [31f41 A dedication resulting from adverse public use arises from the fact that such use serves to give the owner notice that, if he means to dispute the rightfulness of the public use, he must assert his right within a statutory period by physical action or suit.FFN41 The statute provides a statute of limitations, the running of which estops an owner from denying the existence of a public easement. FN4. We neither express nor imply an opinion as to whether the dedication -by -use statute (Minn.St. 160.05) requires actual notice as contrasted with constructive notice. See, generally, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306. 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956). There is no contention in the instant case that plaintiffs lacked actual notice of the adverse use to the actual extent of such use. j51 Public use cannot be said to apply to lands not actually used. There is no reason that an owner should know that he is required to dispute the rightfulness of a nonexistent user. A property owner thus receives no notice as to a public claim on any property in excess of that which has actually been used. Thus, a dedication by public use cannot constitutionally exceed the amount of actual dedication. Accord, Eager v. Mackie, 367 Mich. 148, 136 N.W.2d 16 (1965); *509Yonker v. Oceana County Road Comm., 17 Mich.App. 436, 169 N.W.2d 669 (1969); State v. Portmann, 149 Mont. 91, 423 P.2d 56 (1967). f61f7]f81 As a result, s 160.05 may operate to dedicate a road by public use only to the extent of actual use over the statutory period. The boundary of a public highway acquired by public use is a question of fact to be determined by the appropriate finder of fact. Arndt v. Thomas, 93 Minn. 1, 100 N.W. 378 (1904); Schrack v. County of Hennepin, 146 Minn. 171, 178 N.W. 484 (1920). The width of the prescriptive easement, however, is not limited to that portion of the road actually traveled; it may include the shoulders and ditches that are needed and have actually been used to support and maintain the traveled portion. Grenell v. Scott, 134 So.2d 866 (Fla.App.1961); **424Whitehead v. Mississippi State Highway Comm., 254 So.2d 357 (Miss.1971); Platt v. Ingham County Road Comm., 40 Mich.App. 438, 198 N.W.2d 893 (1972). While our decision today will limit the dedication of public roads by adverse public use to the actual extent of such use, it will not prevent governmental bodies from upgrading, widening, or improving public ways. A governmental body may always accomplish such goals by the process of eminent domain. Eminent domain proceedings, however, effectively provide private landowners with notice, due process of law, and the opportunity to secure just and fair compensation in return for the property © 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. '232 N.W.2d 420 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420 (Cite as: 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420) Page 4 taken. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed and this matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. 304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420 END OF DOCUMENT © 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Medina City Code 820. Subdivision Regulations Section 820.29. Subdivision Design Standards. The following design standards shall be maintained. Subd. 1. General Requirements. The Planning Commission, in its review of the preliminary plat, will take into consideration the requirements of the community and the best use of the land being subdivided. The subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and sewage disposal code. County, metropolitan, state, and special district plans shall also be considered. (a) The arrangement, character, extent, width, and location of all streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to reasonable circulation of traffic, to topographic conditions, to runoff of stormwater, to public convenience and safety, and in relation to the proposed uses of the land to be served by such streets. Wherever possible, the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall provide for the continuation of existing streets in adjoining areas. Where adjoining unsubdivided areas may be subdivided, the arrangement of streets in a new subdivision shall make - provision for the proper projection of streets into adjoining areas by carrying the new streets to the boundaries of the new subdivision at appropriate locations. Subd. 2. Streets. Streets shall conform to the following design: (a) Widths. Streets shall conform to the following minimum dimensions: Street Type Right -of -Way Width Roadway Width Major Arterial 250 feet Minor Arterial 150 feet Collectors 70 feet 40 feet Local 60 feet 24 feet Local Rural Service Area 60 feet 24 feet Marginal Access Roads 60 feet 24 feet Cul-de-sac Streets 60 feet 24 feet Cul-de-sac Turnaround Diameter 125 feet 50 feet Commercial/Industrial Local 60 feet 36 feet (b) Street Intersections. Insofar as practical, streets shall intersect at right angles. In no case shall the angle formed by the intersection of two streets be less than 80 degrees, with 90 degree intersections preferred. Intersections having more than four corners shall be prohibited. Adequate land for future intersection and interchange construction needs shall be dedicated. (c) Tangents. A tangent of at least three hundred (300) feet shall be introduced between reverse curves on arterial and collector streets. 820. Subdivision Regulations Page 16 of 28 1B1 EL .emsSEEtANit, mama' SOMMANY AlzzA A ipCOTS... , A te, ► 7 Lots 1.0 . G5 cta 1°,12e.k C 16-Lor5 5.5 u/a KOCH PARCEL HAISLET PARCEL HOMESTEAD TRAIL RED ANNOTATIONS ARE BY LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD 01/16/08 CITY OF MEDINA CITY OF ORONO Hart Rotuetivn, Pia hclerffi I ORONO PART OF STONEGATE FARMS etA DEER HILL ROAD ® PHYSICAL ROAD PFLA UM PARCEL CITY LIMITS F HOM ESTEAD TRAIL TFEy A � o Fit A 0 zoo THIS IS NOTA LEGALLY RECORDED MAP. IT REPRESENTS A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION AND DATA FROM CITY, COUNTY AND STATE ROAD AUTHORITIES AND OTHER SOURCES (d) h (AISLE T PARCEL. a 0 zoo aoa 21 N 1/2 SEC. 28 T.118 R. 23 12 STONEGATE NORTH PARCEL STONEGATE TREE LINE _TUnioROUPlD STONEGATE ISJUTH PARCEL 4 (t) a. P,^ RCEL LEGEND STORM SE WER DISTRICT BOUNDARY - — • SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARY .L_ ORONO - 38 MEDINA - 80 (31 MUD �u/ F� 1 ;,COX po 11 SOTHL HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT SURVEY DIVISION SCHLE IN FEET INCREMENT BOUNDARY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ik n I10 At NI STONEGATE FARM 40 ACRES l,1 8 a x TIMOTHY & DARCY HAISLET STONEGATE FARM 19.8 ACRES 19.7 ACRES a z co ~ I— 5 up 0 cr 0 z m J CLAIR & PAULINE NADEAU 1,1 411 (21 (,0) (0) LUCY MITCHELL F) J 0 w w O I, (0) STdIEGATE F1gRM 191.8 TOTAL ACRES STONEGATE FARM 89.8 ACRES (0) P) ORES ,.w 4) ADDN, ey 1'9) ,u C cl O v (,) CO, OF MEO,RA 7): COY OF ORONO to . n,) S A LEV SLU(FS ln) 22.5 ACRES STONEGATE 01 FARM (91 w >- w 0 to uJ w a FRHII) Rh' a Qua C9 6s- w w w 0 (2) la) (0) 7H ' -• AVENUE NOR H—AUE —1HCLAttG; PLAT3i _ �1-- ' SIXTH a. to .--Iwe.• .►'.- irr.r . V „1;;TOSY (0) 0) to to 01. (0) (0) (,0) (0) (0) (0) (,) (0) 9 10 2 111, 1 Rr ► A .e T.A. CV° (0) (2) (0) 101 (91 ROBERT MITCHELL (0) REBECCA DEE HELD (+1 (0) (91 44 (,9 (0) zl 9 P+1 (0) id I (2) (0 del I/ (h) (0) r. w a 0 a (HCSAH6. PUT SrxY M_m o-nrv» nra Arun (101 ".' SH4g1'00 'a (++) WOLF: (00) R1hG 4t O N -r- a- -J NCO' 2n'14"r. 2622.1„ ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • 6610 • 091 E65 , LOY,2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •r-3 t • • • • • ►.' • • • • • • • • • + • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ► • • 3 0 s ♦ • • • • : • \. • • • • • ♦ • • ♦ • • + • • • • • f ♦ • ♦ • • f • • • • ♦ • • • ♦ • E N 1 • • • f 4 ^ ' • `\ • f f • • • ♦ • • • • ♦ • ♦ f • • • ♦ • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • • ♦ • f f '1 o F • • s • a • • • yl• • • • • f • ♦ • • ♦ • • • f • • ♦ • • • • f • • ♦ • • • • f •ifl1 j a ` • • • • ff • ``\N. • • ft • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • ♦ ft • • • • • ft • • • • • • • COI • ♦ • • /♦ •W1 ` • •• •• • • • • • + . • • • • • • • •• ••• ••••••► •• • ••f ; •• •• .,♦ • • • + • • • • ••••• •• • • • • • • • • ••• • • • •+ • • • 5f • • • a• • • A • • 4y1 • • • • • • • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ 4 • ♦ • • • • ♦ • • • • • ► • • •• • • • • f • • • • • + ♦ • + • • ♦ ► ♦ • ♦ ► ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ *it • • • ► • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • f ♦ • • + • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • s • • ♦ • ♦ • • • s • f s • + + ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ • ► ♦ • • • • • • • s • ♦ • • ♦ • • • ♦ • s ► • f ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f • • • • - • ,•• • • ♦ • • • • • • \ • • ♦ ♦ • • • f • • • • • ♦ • • • ♦ • f • ♦ 4 •v f • ► • • s f • • s i s ► ♦ • • • f • • • • • s • ♦ s • • • ♦ • • fL) b4 • • • • • • • ♦ • ►1 • • • • ♦ • • ♦ • • + • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • •e�4 n1 • ► • • •__a_ s• • _.r' • • ► • • • ♦ s f s • s ► ♦ • • ♦ s • • • • • ♦ • • • • • ♦ ► ♦ ,4 s ♦ • ♦ • • ► ► • + • • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • 9-----Zptr a{ • • s • s • • • • • • s • • • ♦ s • • • • • • ► • • • • s • • 10 I ♦ • • ► • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • • • ♦ • • • f • • f1 + + • • • ♦ • • • • ♦ • s • • • • f • • ► •/ ♦ 8 • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • •1331.18 • s • • • • ,/ f• • • • f s • • s • ► ♦ • ► • s • • • • • • • • • • f • • • /• s •• ♦ + f ♦ • • • ♦ • • ► ♦ • • • ► f • • • • • • ► • f • • of • ► • f • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • • s • • • • • • ♦ S• ` ♦ ► ;• • j, ► • • • • s ♦ • • • • • • • ♦ • ,4 0 r0 o• s • • _• • • ♦ s • • ► ► • • • ► • a %0 • • • • • •s • • • • . . • • • • f • r • • • • f f • • • • ► • f • - • • • • f �4' • f f ♦ ► ' • ^ • • • • --, ►, • • 1 .. ,s • ;4 •`` .r H- .•.•.♦.♦.•.•�;•••••• SEE DETAIL • 3 • • ♦ ► • • • ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ f • f • • ♦ • • s ♦ ♦ • 605179• ► • -- , , , In • • • • • • • • s • \ • • • • • • • • ♦ • • •� - • • ♦ ft • • • ♦\•� • • ft • . • • ♦ • • • • •�• • lit • • • • • • • • • • • ql• • ♦ • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • S7 1R , ` DRA INA GE A ND UTILITY EASEMENTS A RE SHOWN THU S: 100 of 1 NOT TO SCA LE Being 5 font in width and adjo in ing lo t lines, unless otherwise in dicated, and 10 fa in width and adjo ining right of way lines and rear lo s Iwos, u nless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plan. C DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPE.1NTY T he East Half of the So uthwest Qu arter of Sectio n 21, To wnship 118, Ran ge 23, accordin g to the Govemment Surv ey thereof. The bo undary lines of the la nd herin described are marked by Judical Landma rks set pursuant to To rrent Case No. 17158. 6E. SORTITTOi PROPOSED ZONING D ISTRICT - RURAL RESID EN TIAL LO T WIDTH - 300 FEET LO T DEPTH - 200 FEET .NIP LID SIDE YA RD SETBACKS- 50 FEET FRONT YARD SETBACKS -50 FEET REAR Y ARD -50 FEET A4E4 AREA - 5 A CRE MIN WITH SOILS REQUIREMENTS EXISTING UTILITIES SHO WN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIM ATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERM INE THE EXACT LOCA TIO N OF ANY AN D A LL EX ISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COM MENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AR ISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXA CTLY LO CATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. R M 501 2'15'6 720.51 Gross Area 7.94 acres Suit. Soils Area 5. 14 acres Suit. Soils Area 5. 30 acres / 47 / / / il J S / , 8 /11 8 / / p>v8 • / 63 / o / / / / S00 17'31"W NOTES 2637.41 Con tact GOPH ER STATE ONE CALL at 651.454-0002 for precise on site lo ca tion of utilities prior to any excavatio n. This exhibits purports to be a boundary survey o nly. See existin g condition s for topographic info rmation . Survey coordin ate and b earing basis : Hennepin County No modification s to this sunny or sketch may be perfo rmed by any person Other than the surveyor sign ing this certifica tio n or persons un der his direct supervisio n. Wetla nds ha ve been located by Arro whead En vironmental Co nsulting. A tills o pinio n was not fu rnished to the surveyo r. Areas: Lot A rea - 80. 14 acres Area above a NWL =0 -49 acres The NWL is unknown. II was assumed to be 990.0 f or area calculati ons. 2.6' X 38' U PLAN D AREA (DE MINIM'S WETLAND EXCEPTION) No mo difica tions to this sunny or sketch may be performed by any perso n other than the survey or signing this cenification or perso ns under his direct supervision. 100 50 0 50 100 200 SCALE IN FEET flv, \\ \ $° -`\ 1 4' \\ '`�\ `` , \ 7 \ \ ; Gross Area 7. 17 acres4.„ \ � ,31 yi. - Sult. Soils Areo 5.01 acre \\ \x4 ` \ G \ \ \. \ Gross Area 24. 80 acres \ Suit. Sots Area 5.08 ocres \\ \ `x HaB5a,4a -- _ -.1 .7;600°407;11 1502. 0R50]12]. 1�7E1 ` \\\ \\ \\ $ \5°\%---`, I • i ,Q, 5 •. -------'-----230. 06 ♦ d♦� NO3°2512'6 31 -C T --- - - _----------1 e ara---------Q( I s° 1 5 Gross Area 14.92 acres �?� � 3 Gross Area 6. 18 acres Suit. Soils Area 5.02 acret 1 I ' 1 9 59S k DETAIL a �n ftSt 1 Ii 1 I 1) 10 1 if I I III I i 1 1 _---------- `>_, 50 i �_- 154 49 ' 11-i- 1... .5�51I TYr 8 Gross Area 8.07 acres Suit. Soils Area 5.56 acres -1 F S 0 N - R P 3i Gross Area 5.03 acres j Suit. Soils Area 5 .03 acres et LTC r M¢ U 1^'6d it Pi d St: PLANNER PREPARED BY PREPARED FOR SH n4rIPrnd ens Pla ning 1 Markel Sod I M arket Research I Design SrI P•J, MN Phone: (6511341-4193 nw n,,,,ns,,,,,,,,)„,,,,,, C ONTA CTS: HASKAM P 1S 50S.BRASWA15'.IN`. WA ZATA , 5SOY WAYZATA , MN 55391 PHONE: (9 52) 076-6000 FAX: (952)475-0104 CON TACTS: DANIEL L. SCHMIDT 2s),(0NY' .10000oo- .`t,arri .e v. 6855 Fen r : lasd Drive Ede n Prairie, MN 55344 Ede n Flying Cloud 550 PHONE: (612)991 .1823 CONTACT:JE NNIFER Susa n H. seel and I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATI ON WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE L AWS OF THE ST ATE OF MINNES OTA. N-4 •rLW 11„ai DATE OB-03-2012 REG NO 26147 f REVISIONS BY ADDED UPLAND PTS 9-2E-2012 ADDRESSED CITY CO MMENTS -02-2]7 ADDRESSED CITY COMM ENTS 1-14-2012 DLS DLS DLS J z U) 0 0 cc co 150 SOUTH BR OADWAY W AYZAT A, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 PRELI MINARY TA MARACK RIDGE 1ST ADDITION MEDINA, MN DRAWN DLS CHECK ED RSM CATS B-03-12 SCALE AS SHOWN JOE N O. 7282-009 W:\7282-009\DW G\BASE.D WG SHEET PP1 PP1 SIN-E-SJ I 21 DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PRO PERTY The Earl Half of the Soudn t est Quarter of Sectio n 21, To wnship 118, Range 23, according to the Gov ern men t Surre y thereof. The bou nda ry lines of the land herb described are marked by ludical Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17158. NO0° 24'14"E 2629.18 cO• O t of o N U M Z ► • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ 4 0 • • 4 ► • • • • 00408680 • 004440116464 • • • • 4114116 • ♦ • • • • • • ► • • • • • • s • • • ♦ • ► 80580 • • ► • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 ► • • • • • • • • • • + • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • 0 4 • • ♦ 4 • I 4 4 • • ♦ • • ♦ • • Ott • • • • • • • • • • 4 • ♦ • • • • • ♦ • 4 44004 40111100 • 4 • . • • . • . • • • 4 • • • ► s ► • • • • ♦ • ► • • ► • • • • • • • • ► • • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • ► • 4 ► ► • ► • • •• ♦ • • • ► • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • 94060000 ► • • • • • • • • • • + • . . • 4 60440484 • ► • • • 8 • • • • ♦ • ♦ • • • ► • • • • • • 01144 ► • • ♦ ♦ • I ► 414 • 4 • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • ► • • • • • • • • •• • • • ► 4 ♦ • • ► • • • • • • • h- PJ /A • • • • • • • • • •• • 104• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • ► ♦ ♦ • 4 ♦ • 60000 0118114 ► ♦ • ► • • • ♦ • • • • ♦ 46114 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ► • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • ► + • • r • • • • • ♦ • • 46444 O 010404 • • 4 4 • 411604 + a4 • ► • • • ► +:-, • • • • • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • /, • • • • • ► r : •'. • • • • • • ' • • • ♦ • 4 ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • .'• • • • • 1\•• • • • ♦ .s P. . • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • , -v' • - '' r -� • • • • . • • ► • • a :0'1" s i • • • ► • ♦ ► ► • 8 • • . • /♦ ♦ •• • • ♦ • • / • • • , • • 1 :, �' -'^'C'}':,.' �t • :i • • • s • • • • • . • ',7 • r• . 4 • • ♦ ► ►,4 • • ► • • ► • • ♦ 4 • ♦ ♦ • • • • •, • • • • • • • • .• • •••••••••-% ' • • • • ► ♦ ♦ • f •♦ • • • • • • • ♦.. • • 1' • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • \ • • • • • • • • •\ • •� • • • + • • ♦ • • •v + • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • - •. t • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 411 • • • • • • • ♦ • ► • •• • • ♦• ► • • • • • • • • ••• •• • • • • • • • ••• ••• • • •• • DRAINAGE A ND UTILITY EASEMENTS A RE SHOWN THUS: 10 10 N OT TO SCALE Being 5 feet in width and a djoinin g lot line s, unless otherwise indicated, and 10 feet in width and adjoining nght of sta y lines and mar lot lines, unless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat. EXISTING UTILITIES SHO WN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WA Y ONLY. THE The 7 W floodplain elevation i5 989.2. It was ' dad by M innehaha Cre ek Wate rshed CONTRACTO R SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING year p prov ided . UTILITIES BEFO RE COM MENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN Y District. AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LO CATE AND PRESERVE ANY No modifications to this surv ey sketch may be formed by any n other tha n the AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. or per perso n surveyor signing this certification or persons tinder his direct supervision. • 8 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO • ,♦ • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • s • + ♦ •._tom! ♦ ♦ • • ♦ , .Y; ' • • • • • • • 4000044 ♦ s } • 0 ♦ • • P • • • ♦ • • • • • ► + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ► r • ► • ♦ +a'a/- • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • ► • ♦ ► g t • II ► 8, ,' ♦ • ♦ • • 4 • • ♦ • • ♦ ► ► ♦ ► ► • • • • , ♦♦ • • • • • • • ♦ • • III • • ► • ► • '• ►;'♦'-ii• • • • • • • • ► • ► • s ► • • • 2t• , • •:; • ♦ • • • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • • l (t 4 ► • ; �j • • • • • ► • • • • ► • ► ► • + f- •' 4 • • • • ♦ • r • I. r ► • • • • • • ?V r'i• I' r = • • + • ♦ ► ► ► • ► • • ► • • ► .. • ►,1►% • • • • • + • • • ► • • • • • • 1 • '' • ► • r r • • • • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ • ♦ • • ► r • • ' • • { pit, • ► • • • • ► • • • • 4 441118 . ♦ ♦ rtr • • • • • 4 • 4 • • • ♦ • s • 4/0 0 ► ' • • ♦ • • • • ► r • • ♦ . • ► •'' + • � ► 'P' • • • r ► ► • + • • • • ► ► ♦' • • • ♦ 2 ♦ • • • . • 0114000 4 • A ♦ • ♦ • • • • • r 8 •—♦ ► ► • ♦ • , ♦ ♦ • ✓ ♦.; • • • • • • • ri • + • ♦ •,"O ♦ • • •' ♦ ;►a/ • • • • • • • L5 ;♦ • • • • • • • ► ♦ t'J l • • • • • • • i;4 ♦µ-� • r 5 • •_--,k. "--•---- - c -=_ c- al 4 4 4 • • ► ♦ �'♦+ � _• • 4 • ,+T'♦•_. • • 1 ./ • ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ -te •" • •' s .42 • 0'_�It • -- -, °,-r • • • ♦ • • • • • • / • •' , • , _._ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 11111040 41400 # 41140600404 • ► • • ♦ + ► • • 4 ♦ • + 4 • • ♦ ►- • ♦ • • ♦ • • • • •,i • • • • 4 • • I • • ,' 0/ • t • ► • • • • • • •- •. '• %• 7' • • • • • • ♦ . i, • • • ,4 •' • • • • • • ♦• • 4 7' •;• • • • • • ', - ♦ •,-d -3' _..' "4 • • . • • •1,},, .t '• r' • ..„,/ • • `, • • • • • 4,--.-"'-, __•.. .-4---• • ♦ ,- • • i'' •:'5, • +- . L4OB..' OOOOOit . r it SOO°-77'31"W', , 12637.41 Contact GOPHER STATE O NE C ALL at 651-454-0002 for pre cise onsite location of utilities prior to any excavation . This exhibiu purports to be a bo un dary survey on ly. See existin g conditions for to pographic information . Sunny coordinate and bearing basis : Hennepin County No modifications to this surrey or sketch may be performed by any person other than the surv eyo r signing this cenification or persons unde r his direct su pe rvisio n. Wetlan ds have been located by A rrowhead Environ mental Consulting. A title opinion was no t furn ishe d to the su rveyo r. A reas Lo t Arca = 80.14 acres Arca above NWT.. =+ 49 acres 2D2 L'2?C2; 5Civ.E I' - 301 • • •, 14♦4 • i ► • • ♦• ♦ ► 7• r • 0 ►— t f - f€ R• NO TES 5oll'lupe L2262 1.2292 L25A L36A L378 L4t0f3 L4162 L50A 9escripLin Lester loam, marahlc, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Lester lo an, morainic, 12 tole percent slopes, eroded Lesuer Loa m, I to 3 percent slopes Hanel, over wash-Hamel Complex, I to 4 percent slopes Angus lo am, morainic, 2 to 5 perce nt slopes Araes-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slop es Lester Kilkenny ceenples, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Hoaghton and Muskeop soils, depresslonal, 0 to 1 perc ent slopes 100 50 0 50 100 200 j, St SCALE IN FEET I HEREBY CERTIF Y THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISI ON AND TH AT I AM A DULY REGISTERED P ROFESSION AL ENGINEER UNDER T HE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Lf / 14.„;d6 DATE 08-03-2012 REG NO 26147 I - REVISIONS BY ADDED UPLAND PTS 9-26-2012 ADDRESSED CITY COM MENTS 11-112-2012 ADDRESSED CITY COM MENTS 1-14--2012 DLS DLS DLS J TAMARACK RIDGE 1ST ADDITION MEDINA, MN w Z W U Q Il CC 2 O 0 U W I— � W CC O W 0- • W D<F'AS DLS CHECKED RSM DATE 08-03-2012 AS SHOWN E NC . 7282-009 W:\7282-009\DWG\BAS E.DW G SHEET EX1 EX2 Y H_ETJ DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY The Ea st Half of the Southwest Quaner of Section 21, Township 118, Range 23, according to the Go ternment Suney thereo f. The boundary lines of the la nd berth described are marked by ludical Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No . 17158. c VOO°24'14 E 2529.18 L.7Ml Cd N 0 02 z • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ • ► ♦ ♦ • • • • • ♦ s • • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ s ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ • • ♦ • • • • • • • • s • • • iz y ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • -• • • • • • ♦ • • • • • ► • • ♦ ♦ • • ►{ o • • ► • •n<1! • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • • • ♦ ♦ • eV • • • • ✓1W • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • s • • ♦ ♦ ► • • • • • • •,$ g • •• • • '!/ • • • • ♦ • • ♦ • • • ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • 4 • • • • • • • • dp • ► • ♦ ,f'•� • • • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P • • ► . i.','! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • ♦ s • ♦ • - �� >< • s • • • ♦ • • , • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • • • ♦ • • ♦ • • • • • s 816 / • • * 1' • ► • ♦ • • • • i • • ♦ • • • ♦ • • • • ♦ • • • • ♦ • ♦ • ► • ► ' • • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • {• i ♦ • • %le • • • • ♦ • • • • '• • • • • ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ • • •a'• • • ;fi • ♦ • • • • ♦ • • • • {� (•0 r1 ♦ • • • • • ► ► s • • ► • ♦ ► / • •/f/- • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • ♦ `i of • • • • • s • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • ► ► •., ► • • ;6' ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • s • ♦ • ft ► s • ♦ ♦ s • • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • s -•' • • • • • s ♦ • • • • ♦ • • • `♦ • • • • • ♦ ♦ • • • — • • • • ♦ s "• • • • ✓ s • • s • ♦ • • • • • ♦ • ♦ s • • • • ♦ • • i • 1., . • • • ► <. • ♦ s • •fir • , ✓- ♦ s s s • s • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • 1,01 ; s • •- • • • • s • 4, 1/•• • • ♦ ► • ♦ • • • • • • '• • • • • • • • • • dyyt� r; s • ✓ • •-s="• s...t ► • • • • • • • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • • • • • ♦ • • ♦ j ,♦ ♦ • a=•� " a__ • •_ .I • • • • • • s • • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ • • • • ♦ • s • ♦ • • • S - •" ♦ • • ,. 4 •' • ♦ ----- • ,. V • ♦ ♦ • s • • s • so • • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • • I • • • • • r • •j .' f • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • I • • s • • • • • s • • • s • •'1r • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • • • • N • • • • • ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ • • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • ♦ •' s ► s • • ♦ • • • • • ♦ s s • • • • • — ♦ - • • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • •.4 ;'‘f 1 r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' •," ♦ / • a. 1 • ♦ • • ♦ • ► • • ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ • • • ♦ • ♦ • • ► ► , • • _♦ .4 • : • s ► • s • • s • ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • • • i- •• ♦; -' `-3e- "• ---F- • • ► • • • • • s • • • • • • • • s • • • • ♦- • • yt--•: _• ••' • • `, ♦ • • • • • ► • • • ♦ • • • • s • • • ♦ • • • • .-r'�• • - - - ,.. Yy± • • 4 • • • • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • ♦ • • • ♦- • • .► • • • ♦ • ► ft • • ♦ • • • ♦ • • • ,! , • •• • p/. • • •• . • ♦ •• •• •• •• • • ,f, • • • ► V • • • ♦ •' • • • • • • • • • s ♦ • • • • ,• ♦ `•'s. ' ft 'ft s r� s • • • • • • fie • • • • • ► • s ♦ ♦ ♦ • • • • • • f s • ♦ • • • 1 i • • R • • ♦' ♦ s • • • ,• • • • • • • • • • s • . • • • • • • •N5• ♦ s • • • ♦ ► • •t\ ♦A /• R Ii � • ♦ r" ♦ ► • • • • • • s • ♦ • -sy • • • • • "Y • • • • • • ♦ ► • • �I• ♦ • • • • • '• • • • • • • • • • • s • • s • • • • • ♦ • ♦ • ♦ • • ♦ • • s ♦ • ♦ ` • • • ft \ 0 DRAINAG E AND UTILITY EASEMEN TS A RE SHOWN THUS: 10 10 N OT TO SCALE --r --- Being 5 feet in width an d adjoining lot lines, unless otherwise indicated, an d 10 feet in u idth and a djoining right of way lines and rear lo t lines, unless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat. EXISTING UTILITIES SHO WN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WA Y ONLY. THE The 100 floo dplain elevation is 989. 2. It u ;u provided by Minnchaha C reek Watershed CONTRACTOR SH ALL D ETERM INE TH E EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING year ppear. UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPON SIBLE FOR ANY District. AND ALL DAMAGES AR ISING OUT OF HIS FAILUR E TO EXA CTLY LO CATE AN D PR ESERVE ANY No modificatio ns to this sanesketch performed by any other the surveyor AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. y ormay be per perso n signing this ce rtification or person s un der his dire ct supervisio n. This exhibits purports to be a boundary su rrey on ly. See existing conditions for topographic info rmatio n. Su nny coo rdinate and be aring basis : Henne pin County. No mo difications to this sun ey or sketch may he pe rformed by any person o the r than the su neyor signing this certifica tion or pe rs on s un de r his direct supe rvision. Wetlands have been located by Arrowhead Enviro nmen tal Consulting. A title opinion was nu t furnished to the su rve yo r. Areas Lot A rca = 80.14 acres Area aboi e N WT. = +-49 ac re s SO0? 17'31 ".7 2637.41 • t• •c • 0• • 5 •. • • • • • is 3► •l • • ► "'• • •. t • 6 I. ntAl1. SCALD I' h NOTES Contact GOPHER STATE ONE CA LL at 651-454-0002 for pre cise onsite lo cation of utilities prior to any ex cavation. 5011 Lope I%escriTtiai L22C2 L22122 L25A L36A LAOi3 L4162 L50A Lester loa m, morainic, 6 to 12 percent slopes, e -cried Lester ban, morainic, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded Lesuer Loan, I to 3 perc ent slopes Hanel, overwasll-H amel Complex, I to 4 perc ent slopes Ae cps loam, morainic, 2 to 5 percent slopes Arges-Kd'Semq canplex, 2 to 6 percent slopes Lester Kikenn4 canples. 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Hocgllten and Muskeg° soils , depressicral , 0 to 1 percent slopes 121 100 50 0 50 100 200 ISNE SCALE IN FEET I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TH AT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA . Y -041/J -S 1 Lab DATE 08-03-2012 REG. NO 26147 REVISIONS BY ADDED UPLAND PTS 9-20-2012 ADDRESSED CITY COMMENTS 11-02-2012 DLS ADDR ESSED CITY COMMEN TS 1-14-2012 DLS CLS 150 SOUTH BR OADWA Y WAYZAT A, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 } Z5 wQ Off) Q CL I— I— OO J 0 Z Z Z • > w CLO- Q Y WO U: = O Ow w• I- Q W W a 0 n TAM) DR AW 5 DLS Crr-LINED RS M DA?e 08-03-2012 AS SHOWN 2 06 NO. 7282-009 W: 7282-009rDWG\BASE .DWG SHEET EX2 if EX2 SHEETS CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. INSTALL SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON PLAN. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF MEDINA. M INNEHAH A CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. THE WATER QUALITY PON D MUST BE EXCAVATED AT TH E BEG INNING OF GRADING OPERATORS TO PROV IDE TEM PORARY STORM WATER DETEN TIO N DURNG CO NSTR UCTIO N. SAND.C LAYS. AND SILTS MUST BE REMO VED FRO M TH E PO ND AS NECESSARY DUR ING CO NSTRUCTION AND AT THE COM PLETIO N OF TH E PROJECT. REFER TO SECTIO N 2.2 OF THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLA N. 3. BEGIN GRADING, INSTALL PERFORATED RISER PIPE IN PONDS WHEN PO ND GRADING IS COM PLETE. TEM PO RARY DRAINAG E PIPE SHALL BE USED FO R INTERM EDIATE DRAINAGE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AS NECESSARY AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. THE TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PIPES SHALL BE INCIDENTIAL TO THE GRAD ING OPERA TION S. IN STALL SILT FENC E AR OUND EX CAVA TED P OND , AFTER THE ASAUILT ELEVA TION S HAVE BEEN V ERIFIED BY TH E EN GINEER . 4. INSPECT POND. SILT FENCE, AND ROCK ENTRANCE BERM AFTER ALL RAINFALL EVENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE NPDES PERM IT. 5. LINE ALL PONDS WITH A MINIMUM 3' ORGANIC SOILS & SEED SLOPES BETWEEN NOTE AND 100 YR HW l W ITH A WATER TOLERAN T MIX. OR AS NOTED) 6. REMOVE PERFO RATED RISER PIPE WHEN STORM SEWER AND O UTLET STRUCTURE FO R PO NDS ARE INSTALLED (INCIDENTAL). 7. POND - 10:1 BENCH (1 FO OT) THEN 4:1 M AX 8. LO d WO PADS 3:1 M AX. ALL OTHER SLOPES 4:1 M AX (UNLESS NOTED) 9. RESTORATION -33.0 ACR ES PLUS WETLAND RESTO RATION AREAS A. RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH 4. TO6. OF TO PSOIL. OR EXISTING ON -S ITE ORGANIC MTRL. B. SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH MNDO T MIXTURE 0250 AT A RATE OF 100 LBS./ACRE AND FERTILIZE WITH 20.0.10 AT 100 LBSJACRE. (UNLESS OTHERWISE N OTED) WETLAND R ESTORA TION - BWSR SEED MIX FOR WETLA ND S (A S NO TED IN THE WETLAN D R EPLACE MENT P LA N APPLICA TION ) C. O NLY PHOSPHO ROUS FREE FERTILIZER IS TO BE USED ON SITE. D. MULCH WITH TYPE 1 AT A RATE OF 2 TONS/ACRE AND DISC ANCHOR IMM EDIATELY AFTER PL ACEMENT. USE WOODFIBER BLANKET ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 (FT) OR GREATER E. PLA CE A PPROVED STORM SEWER IN LET PROTECTION IN OR AROUND ALL STORM SEWER INLETS AN D MA INTA IN UNIX STREET CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. F. M AINTAIN ALL SILT FENCE UNTIL TURF H AS BEEN ESTABLISHED. G. RESTORATION WORK WILL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 72 HOURS OF GRADING COMPLETION. I0. SILT FENCE, BEFORE GRA DING . 5, 500 LF AFTER GRADING- 500 LF 12. W OODFIBER BLANKET -0 SY ON -SITE BM PS - (For more dela0ed In formation See SWPPP) 1. REDUCE IMPERVIOUS AREA- RURAL SECTION ROADWAY 2. NURP POND -RUMP POND WILL BE UTILIZED TO M EET OR EXCEED QUALITY MID RATE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 3. SKIMM ERS - THE POND OUTLET STRUCTURE INCLUDES A SUBMERGED INLET PIPE TO ALLOW SKIMM ING.(Ullly Contractor) 4. RIP RAP - RIP RAP WILL BE UTILIZED AT ALL APRONS FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION AND PROVIDE SEDIM ENT CO NTRO L- (UIRy Co ntracto r) 5. INLET PRO TECTION - INLET PROTECTIO N WILL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAIN ED IN ALL CATCH BA SIN S REA R YA RD STRUCTURES. 5NIMCO'S OR EAIMHUBNy Camxw r) 6. SLOPE STABILIZATIO N - SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED ALON G DOWN G RADIENT G RADING LIMITS AND WOODFIBER BLANKET WILL BE UTILIZED ON ALL SLO PES k1 OR GREATER TO PRO VIDE ADEQUATE SLOPE STABILIZATION. (Grading Contractor) 7. BOROLLS- BIO ROLLS WILL BE INSTALLED EVERY 50 FEET IN DITCH TO REDUCE ERO ISON BEFORE VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. B. INFILTRATION AREAS - INFILTRATION AREAS WILL BE UTILIZED TO REDUCE THE AM OUNT OF RUNOFF FROM THE INCREASED HAROSURFACE. (Gradin g CDT RSUO r) 9. STREET SW EEPING -STREET SWEEPING WILL BE DO NE A M INIM UM OF O NCE PER WEEK OR AS NEEDED TO MINIMIZE DUST CONTROL AND VEHICLE TRACKING.(Gra dIn g an d LIMN Contraclw) 10. PHOSPHOROUS FREE FERTILIZER - PHOSPHOROUS FREE FERTILIZER WILL ALSO BE USED ON SITE. - 11. A LL CON CRETE WASH OUT WASTE PRO DUCED SHA LL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. (WIN Co TIN d or) 25' R. 25 IS IS 1Z 12. 6. CROWN (0.02% MIN) 2 MIN. 4;1 S.'.1 IL:, Imo- 4' DITC H BOTTOM 1 1/2. - SPWEBB40B WEAR WARS! 2' -SPNW BLMB BASE COURSE 1 5 AGGREGATE BASE, IRO% CRISER U MEROCK OR R RECYCLED AGG. (MNDOT 313E ) SUBGRADE STABILIZATION FABRIC - B OZ./SY NON -WOVEN COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE AS CONDITIONS REQUIRE LOW VOUME BITUMINOUS STREET i 30 G. 3v It IS TO BACK IS TO IMO( D420 CONCRETE MOUNT :LE CURB 6' CROWN (0.02% MIN) 1/4. I FOOT 10 : 1 13, ! 4' PERFORATED DRAINTIIE DRAINTILE IN FILTER SOCK BEDDED IN PEE ROO( 11/2' - SPWEB2406 WEAR COUR SE T- SPNW02038 BASE COURSE 10'BASS 5 AGGREGATE BA SE, 100% CRUS HED U MEROCK, OR RECYCLED AGG. (MNDOT 313E) SUBG RADE STABILIZATION FABRIC - 8 OZ./SY N ON -WOVEN COMPACT ED AGGREGATE BASE AS CONDITIONS REQUIRE LOW VOLUME BITUMINOUS STREET WITH CONCRETE CURB AND G UTTER NOTE: 1. ALL ORGANIC OR OTHER ULSURASLE MATERIEL S HALL BE REMOVED FROM BENEATH THE ROADW AY. L DMINTILE SHALL BE INSTALLS) BEHIND CURB AT LOW POINTS, 50' IN EACH DIRECTION. DRAINTILE TO BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY 13 IN ALL LOW A REAS. LOW VOLUM E RURAL AND URBAN STREET LIST MWs a1: 2011 MEDINA TYPICAL SEC TION Mn MO. STR-05 EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTO R SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LO CATION OF AN Y A ND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING O UT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. GENERAL NOTES' 1. THE GRADING CONTRA CTO R IS RESPONSIBLE FO R ALL STO RM WATER INSPECTION S A CCORDING TO THE M PCA STO RM WATER PERM IT. THIS INCLUDES BOTH WEEKLY INSPECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS DONE AFTER A 0. 5' RA IN EVENT. A CO PY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT MUST BE EMAILED TO THE ENGINEER AND DEVELO PER ON A WEEKLY BASIS. 2. THE CON TR ACTO R SHALL PLAC E IN LET PROTECTION DEVICES FOR ALL STO RM SEWER INLETS)EX ISTIN G AND PRO POSED ) A ND MA IN TAIN TH EM AS AN EFFEC TIVE SILT C ON TRO L D EV ICE. INLET PRO TECTION SH ALL BE REMOV ED WR EN R ESTORA TION HA S BEEN ESTABLISHED. 3. ALL RETAINING W ALLS WILL REQUIRE A STRUCTURAL DESIGN . A BUILDING PERMR 8 A FINAL INSPECTION REPO RT.(IF APPLICABLE) 4. A 1- -T CRUSHED ROCK ENTRANCE BERM SHALL BE PLACED AT TH E SITE ENTRANCE, TO REPLACE SILT FENCE, AND M INIM IZE ERO SION ON TO TH E STREETS. TH E RO CK BERMS SHALL BE THE WIDTH OF THE ENTRANCE AND 2 FEET HIGH WITH 4:1 SLOPES. (SEE DETA IL) 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUEDNG PAD AND STREET AREAS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ATTEM PT TO PREVENT SOIL MATERIALS FROM LEAV ING THE SITE BY EROSION AND VEHICLE WHEEL TRACKING. HE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING OF STR EET. BOULEVA RD A ND UTILITY FA CILITIES TAUT R ECEIVE AN Y ERODED OR TRACKED SOIL MA TER IAL OR OTHER CO NSTRUCTIO N DEBR IS OR MA TER IAL. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE STREET SWEEPING ON HUNTER DRIVE DURING THE GRADIN G O PERTONS. IF REQUIRED. T. EXISTING UTILITIES SHO WN ARE SHO WN IN AN APPRO XIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LO CATION OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF IRS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND A LL EX ISTING UT ILITIES. 8. ALL PADS ARE TO BE CUSTOM GRADED. EACH HO USE WILL DO THE FOLLOWING AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: 1. INDIVIDUAL G RADING DRAINAG E AND EROSION CO NTROL PLAN 2. INDIVIDUAL TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 3. INDIV IDUAL STO RM WATER DESIG N USING LO W IM PACT DEVELOPMEN T RO CK ENTRANCE BERM SILT FENCE BIO-ROLL CONCRETE WASHOUT INLET PROTECTION WOODFIBER BLANKET ® WETLAND BUFFER M ON. NORTH 200 100 0 100 200 400 SCALE IN FEET r-i17AlTV Irti iitlii. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION A ND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIO NAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOT A U--ENCEK Nl ff DATE 06-03-2012 REG. NO 26147 C REVISIONS BY ADDED UPLAND PTS 9-26. 2012 DLS ADDRESSED CITY COMM ENTS 11.02-2012 ADDRESSED CITY COMM ENTS 1.14.2012 DLS DLS J 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 0 yn 0 rr , AMARACK RIDGE 1ST ADDITION MEDINA, MN W W Z � CC 0 O V w I- W 0- w0 n. J 0 \/W LL a. W 0 DLS CF.EC AED RSM DATE 08-03-12 ASS SHOWN OE NO. 7282-009 -1LE: W:0 282-009\0 W GIBASE.DWG 3 " \\\ SWIM NtA11QN/ \\ ML-1kAf ON'\. 6AS)N " \ 1 " " _i 1040 ----------- EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SHO WN IN AN APPROXIMA TE WAY ONLY. THE CO NTRA CTOR SHA LL DETER MINE THE EXA CT LOCATIO N OF A NY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COM MENCING WORK. HE A GREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAM AGES A RISING OUT OF HIS FAILUR E TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. U.1. 2 acres - B3 40 5-06 5-25 W zy. E1,21 W W t W W W 44e, _Y E*5-16 W \ 400 1 ---------- " 1 --_ 40 FOOT ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENTiPER- D�C. 7�� _' " NO. ?95 OQF t F< 1449 OF -DEEDS PAGE 29 1 .77477, 144, . A 7-11-3.57 1/ L.-- --1. 50 25 0 25 50 100 SC ALE IN FEET I HEREBY CERTIFY THA T THIS PL AN OR SPECIFICATI ON WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DUL Y REGISTERED PR OFESSI ONAL ENGINEE R UN DER THE LAWS OF THE ST ATE OF MINNES OTA. , DATE 08-03-2012 REG NO 26147 REVISIONS BY ADDED UPLAND PTS 9-26-2012 ADDRESSED CITY COMMENTS 11-02-2'312 ADDRESSED CITY COMM ENTS 1-14-2012 DLS CLS DLS PRELI MINARY GR ADING. DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL PLAN z TAMARACK RIDGE 1ST ADDITION MEDINA, MN w z O O U w l CCz LAj rx a�� O > �� W 0 DRAM, DLS CM5ChE 0 RSM D4'E 08-03-12 S��4LE AS SHOWN J OS N O. 7282-009 ICE. W 07282-0091D W G\ BAS E .D W G SHEET 2 OF ROCK ENTRANCE BERM 8 i.:AD TR AIL CONCEPTUAL GRA DING PLAN FINA L GRADIN G PLAN \ BY OTHERS TIMQTHY AND DARCY HAISLET 1562 HOMESTEAD TRAIL N \ I \ \ \ I \ ' v • I 3EGEMENTA ON ' BASIN 1 r i +61. 05` SGIMrNTAIIO!\ 6A5IN / / 10N 1 -1040- -------- I,. i EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIM ATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRAC TO R SHALL D ETERMINE THE EXA CT LOCATIO N OF A NY AN D ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COM MENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FO R ANY AND ALL DAM AGES AR ISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PR ESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. -1 I SEGIMEN- TA110N 'I 40 -FOOT ELECTRIC_ UTILITY EASEMENT P€R-ER--- T = r,-,'.74.:, I' I /1 —'2r' -- PFD. -1956. Q95; 9K 1449 OF -DEEDS—PAGE 29 t �- ..: I� _ - -- i L - --- - a _ dg __ -._. 1.,___ ,_-- HI RP 7EER LL RD �� / I / \ / \ / '7 / o s"N -,..-/ GIN(ENTATION� 6A51N 50 25 0 25 50 100 SCALE IN FEET I HEREBY CERTIF Y THAT THIS PL AN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPA RE D BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISI ON AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE L AWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. & 1 DATE 06 -03-2012 REG . NO 26147 REVISIONS BY ADDED UPLAND PTS 9-26-2012 DLS A DDRESSED CITY COMM ENTS 11.02.2012 ADDRESSED CITY COM MENTS 1. 14-2012 DLS DLS TAMARACK RIDGE 1ST ADDITION MEDINA, MN �} w z U a CC D 0 o O U � z Da cC 0 • i a. I II 0 DLS CHECKED RS M DATE 08-03.12 SCALE AS SHOWN JOE NO . 7282-009 W:\7282-009\DW G\BASE.DW G SHEET 3 3 . ...EE? J N0.0° 2414 E 2629.1E to '3 Cf. CO v 0 rl a) — co z a • a a ► a a ► • • a a • • • a a • • a a • ♦ ♦ a • ♦ • a ♦ ► • ♦ 41� ► • a a .• a • • • ▪ • a ► • ♦ • a •••••11 ••a••. • • ♦ a • • • • •/f • • • a a • a • a • a • a • ♦ • • • ► • • a • a • a • • a ► ► a • • •� • a a • • a • ♦ a a • • • . • • • • a _ a • ♦ ♦ a • • ► a a • • • ► • ♦ • • ► • • • a a ♦ 9 • • • • • a a a a • a a a a • a a • • a ♦ a • a a a • a_s_6 • ♦ a a • ►,/ • i '"t4 ♦ • a • • a a a a ♦ ♦ a a a ♦ • • a a ♦ ♦ a • ♦ • a • • a • z • a • a • a;• •• a• a a• a a a a a a a♦ a• a a a a♦• a a a a• a♦ c ♦ a••• ,• • • • a a a • a • • a a a ► • • ♦ • ► ► ► ♦ ♦ a • • • ♦ a ♦ N r • a ► •♦ •♦ A1i • a a. a a a•• a a• a a a♦► a a a a♦ a a•• a a•► $ • a a• R' • • a a ♦ a a a ♦ a • a • a a ► • a a ♦ a a ♦ a • ► • • a a 12m ► a ► ♦ •,' • a a • • a • a a • f a • a • • a • a a • a • ♦ • a • ♦ ► ♦ ♦ q a • • ♦ / a •( a • a a a a a • • a a a a a • • • • • • • a a • a a a • ♦ • ► P< a a • y i..4) \ • a • • • a a a a ♦ a a • • a a a • a ♦ • • ♦ a • a ♦ a a 10. 0A ♦ • ► a, / \ \\ N • a • • • • • a oaf a • a a • • a • • a a a a • • • a a at a • s a • \ \ u i,,,,,_, • • a • a • • • • a • a a r • • a • ♦ ♦ • • • a • a • • a • a ♦ a a t ' \ \ • • • a a a • a a a • a a • a • a • • a • • a ♦ • ♦ • s • ♦ • a a ♦ •; / /\ S, \ a • • • • a a ♦ • a • a a a ♦ a a • a a ♦ • • a • ♦ • a • ♦ ► a a '• /\ . .\. .. ♦ a a • • • a • ♦ a • • • f a a a a a • a • • a a a a • ♦ a ♦ a ♦ ,a / \\ .. ` \or • • • ► a a a a • • f a a • ► a ► • a • a a • • • a a • a ♦ a a •#11 ► \ a a f♦•►• a a a a a• a a a a a a a••— a .a a• a a•••♦•• / \ \\ • a • a a a a a a a • a • a • a a • ♦ ► • • i •'qL,{ a • a • ♦ • • • a • ••' \ • a a • • • a • • a • a a a • • a a a • a • • •V' • • ► • • • • • • •a • / • • • a • • a • • a ♦ • • • • • • • ♦ • • a • � y�,t♦ • • • • ♦ a • • a •-"•/ a • a ► • a ♦ a a a a a • a a a ♦ a a a • a • a •� -' ♦ • a • •--_a __ r a ,.r' ► ♦ a ♦ • a • a a ► • • • a ♦ a a ► a • • ♦ a . ► • a / ♦HY a a • • .l" • • '4"--♦ a /� •• a a► a a••• a a a► a•• a• a•• a a a a• a•► r S• a 16 a ♦ • • ♦ a • • a a • f a • • a • • • a a • a a a a • • • . a i • /'' • a ♦ a ► • a • • a ♦ a • a a ♦ a • a a a • a a a • • • • • • I • 4'---Rp=r, a a a ♦ ► ► • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ • s ► ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ ► ♦ a a ♦ ♦ ► • ► I m, a••► a a a a•♦► a a• a♦ a a a a• a•♦••• a♦ a ♦1 ► • ♦ a • ♦ • • a • a a • a a a • • • • a a • a ♦ a ♦ a • • a P - a a • • • • a • a ♦ a • a a a • a ► • • • ► a • • • a a; ► i+ K= r a a ♦ • a • ► a a • a ► • • • a a • a ♦ a • • Y : a a ,6,4. 0 •Ea • • • a a • a • ♦ • a • F 6<Iz . ♦ • ► • • • • •,% a • ♦ < ----- `p \ -- --__ 5031 ♦ • • • • • ► • ♦ • a a •1731,99 ♦ ♦ • ► • • • • a • • • • f a • a • • a a a • • a • a ♦ • a a ► • a • a • a ► • ♦ a a ♦ • ♦ • ► /• a a • --r--- —'e )0'4471r —, 1 ► ♦ a • a • f a a a a • a ► a • a ► • • • ♦ % ♦ a a -_ R1.16002 R °25' 12•EI wa s ♦ • ♦ • ♦ a a • • ► f • • ► ♦ ♦ ► • ► • ► • .-'r • • ► • S�> 3: 53.w _'--____---27 47 J �C 274.7:. ----_-__ a i r5 ek�00------- 5,, • • ► • • ► ♦ • ► • • • • a • •,% • • • ; 69 - -------------230. 06 • • • • ♦ • • ♦ • a ► ♦ • • a' • 3rti7 -0- --- fie' ------..---No3 2s',z_w, a ♦ • • • a • a • ♦ • a ♦ a I £ • a li-_------ ` — I a • a a a a a a a • • • • ,H -owlg' ► a • • a a a a ♦ ► ► • , •� / ,to`I. ' I a • ♦ a • • • • a • • • ,a i t� / /' e•' ',` 1 • • • • ♦ • • • • • a,a • • • • • • a a ♦ a ♦ a /° - • • . a j O'I' % a ' % I /► . . . . - a •; ;v ♦ ♦ + ♦ -n, • '• ,o J E I j '- F I I • • • • • •'•, Y 'v.- . g / I • �' ►' • SEE DETAIL a .,' Hot°42')09 / / I �'•'►'.•♦ •w 0� 720.51 Q, i • 1x19'w b lo If B 5. . , • , •�• / / I 1 • • ► ♦ ( �. • • • • J S0 j % b0 L J ► • • • • ► . • ♦ • s j 1 R 9' 699 S 1 NO • • • a a r • ♦ a •' 614 a a a ♦ a •, a Willa 4 I I n '9th '• • ♦ ♦ • a• a • + ♦ a• • a a a • ► a a + • ♦ ,40 a ♦ at • ♦ w ♦ X3 9 4 •4 ,. • a C� 4 • ♦ a • ♦ ♦ Y1 ♦ f 5 • • • 41.11 r:k I I I 1 7 50 I S0 1 , I T 1 I j 1 I f I 1 f I 109 2 50 a 8 I I' I I' I I I I 409 _ J1 �-- T��S�RACti _RIDGG .D 15 II - L_: 61 )♦O.Yt° l �• . L.zsz.ze I33��1 :75;1003 2.3 2::.j -7373 190 1---1 E Is = 11 L e et 003 S 50 i .\ Tree Surv ey N ote: All significant trees in the pro posed right-of-way are shown. Additional trees located within the proposed lo ts are no t to be impacted during initial site development and are not shown EX ISTING UTILITIES SHO WN AR E SHOWN IN AN APPRO XIMA TE WAY ON LY . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LO CATIO N OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE CO MM ENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND A LL DAM AGES ARISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXA CTLY LOCATE A ND PRESERV E A NY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. S00° 1731 2637..1 100 50 0 50 100 200 SCALE IN FEET DETAIL 0 PLANNER PREPARED BY PREPARED FOR O Hnese.id etC Owner/Presid ent Markel Plan ni ng I Market Research !Desig n Ss Pau! MN Phum: 1651,341-019"6 ou ePHONE: .s s. u,am..v: ,t.uk.1,T)p.LC,T. CONTACTS: JENNIFER HASHAMP INC SA150 S. BROADWAY A 563 WAYZATA, MN 55091 PHONE: (952)476-6000 F AX: (952) 076-0104 C ONTACTS: DANIEL L. SCHMIDT COMPANI35, ...,v, o tiVIM x=.;rist[5 6'F Nin9 NT 6851 P,.: s ,Mud 5Drive Fden Prairie, MN 55344 5344 (6]21991 .1923 CONT ACT: S usan H. 5eeland I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY RE GISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEE R UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Lid14,0‘det DATE 58-03-2012 REG . NO 26147 REVISIONS aY1 ADDED UPLAND OLS PTS 9-25-2012 ADDRESSED CITY CL5 COMMENTS 11.02-2012 ADDR ESSED CITY CO MMENTS 1-14-2012 OL5 TREE SURVEY TAMARACK RIDGE 1ST ADDITION MEDINA, MN CRAW.. DLS C H-CH SD RSM CA'e 8-03-12 SCALE AS SHOWN JOB 50 7282-009 ILF W:57 282 -0091D W G\BAS E. D W G S HEET T1 T1 SHEE1SJ I L "4.' •. ..... a yu,. ,�. �.a ?' },61•