Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11.06.2019 Complete City Council Meeting Packet Posted 11/1/2019 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, November 6, 2019 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the October 15, 2019 Council Open House B. Minutes of the October 15, 2019 Regular Council Meeting C. Minutes of the October 22, 2019 Special Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Cooperative Agreement for Hickory Drive Stormwater Improvements B. Approve LMCIT Liability Insurance Renewal Waiver C. Approve Brockton Lane Engineering Design Amendment D. Resolution Extending the Approval of a Site Plan Review for Wealshire, LLC to Construct Phase II of Its Memory Care Facility at 4555 Mohawk Drive VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study B. Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) – Weston Woods – E. of Mohawk Dr., N. of Hwy 55 and 1952 Chippewa Road – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan C. Request for Rezoning 3672 and 3692 Pinto Drive D. Open Systems International (OSI) – Temporary Parking Agreement and Petition and Waiver Amendment VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XI. CLOSED SESSION: Attorney-Client Privileged Discussion on Litigation Matter Specifically WW Farm and George Wessin v. City of Medina, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) XII. CLOSED SESSION: City Administrator Annual Performance Review, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(a) XIII. ADJOURN Meeting Rules of Conduct:  Fill out and turn in white comment card  Give name and address  Indicate if representing a group  Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: November 1, 2019 DATE OF MEETING: November 6, 2019 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve Cooperative Agreement for Hickory Drive Stormwater Improvements – The grant agreement is with the Elm Creek Watershed to provide $76,823 for the Hickory Drive Stormwater improvement project. Staff recommends approval. See attached agreement. B. Approve LMCIT Liability Insurance Renewal Waiver – The City is required to approve the LMCIT form each year. Staff recommends approval. See attached waiver. C. Approve Brockton Lane Engineering Design Amendment – Attached you will find an explanation of the proposed cost amendment for the design and construction inspection portions of the Brockton Lane project. The design portion was approved by the City Council in July. This is a combination of the two totals. The breakdown is in Bolton & Menk’s proposal letter. The cost for design was broken down between Medina and Plymouth’s responsibility according to the agreed upon terms. The breakdown of the split is as follows; Medina’s total is $12,640.14 and Plymouth’s is $17,359.86 on the design portion. A 50 percent split is on the construction inspection portion with Plymouth at $17,750 and Medina at $17,750. Staff recommends approval. See attached memo and cost amendment. D. Resolution Extending the Approval of a Site Plan Review for Wealshire, LLC to Construct Phase II of Its Memory Care Facility at 4555 Mohawk Drive – The owner (Wealshire LLC) has requested an additional year to commence construction on Phase II of their project. The attached time extension resolution is valid until November 6, 2020. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study – A final report memorandum was completed as a part of the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive visioning process by WSB. The intent of the final report is to memorialize the process and development of the City’s  2 vision and to consider what the next steps may be. City Engineer Jim Stremel will provide a recap of the study and possible next steps. See attached report. Recommended Action: Provide any final input on the report and direction on the next steps. B. Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) – Weston Woods – E. of Mohawk Dr., N. of Hwy 55 and 1952 Chippewa Road – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan – Mark Smith has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review for a proposed development of two properties north of Highway 55 and east of Mohawk Drive. The concept plan proposes: 76 twinhomes on the northern property (referred to as “Roy property”) and a Combination of uses on the southern property (referred to as “Cavanaugh property”): 41 single-family lots, 33 townhomes, and 5.5 acres park/open space. See attached report. Potential Motions: 1) Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment subject to the conditions and comments noted in the staff report and provided by the Commission. OR 2) Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. C. Request for Rezoning 3672 and 3692 Pinto Drive – Woodbury REI, LLC (the Applicant) owns two adjacent properties located at 3672 and 3692 Pinto Drive and has requested to rezone both lots from Commercial-Highway (CH) to Commercial-General (CG). The Applicant is making this request in order to develop a self-storage facility on these two lots. The Applicant would need to request a lot combination and site plan review in the future before construction could begin. Self-storage is not permitted in the CH zoning district, so the Applicant has requested the rezoning separately to determine if the City supports the rezoning before investing in surveying, civil, and architectural plans for their project. See attached report. Potential Motions: 1) Move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance rezoning to the Commercial-General zoning district. OR 2) Move to direct staff to prepare documentation denying the requested rezoning. D. Open Systems International (OSI) – Temporary Parking Agreement and Petition and Waiver Amendment – Last year, the City approved a site plan review for Open Systems International (OSI) to construct a new building north of their facility at 4101 Arrowhead Drive. OSI did not proceed with construction of this building, and is currently considering instead to construct an addition onto their existing building. If OSI proceeds with the  3 addition, it would occupy some of their existing parking. OSI has requested to construct a temporary parking lot on adjacent property this fall so that they can begin construction on the addition in the spring and still accommodate their existing employees. Additional parking would then be constructed while the building is under construction, including converting the temporary parking to permeant parking. The attached agreement accommodates this temporary parking while ensuring its removal if the addition does not move ahead on the schedule anticipated. The agreement also proposes amendments to the Petition and Waiver which was entered into by the City and OSI nine years ago when OSI developed the site. The agreement relates to OSI’s responsibility to make improvements to Arrowhead Drive to improve access to/from their site. The Petition and Waiver is set to expire next year, and the City has identified the need for improvements to serve the driveway. The amendment to the agreement is intended to provide more time so that the improvements to Arrowhead can be incorporated with improvements on site for the addition. See attached report. Recommended Motion: Approve Temporary Parking Agreement and Petition and Waiver Amendment. X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005273E-005296E for $92,066.08 and order check numbers 049447-049511 for $268,689.81 and payroll EFT 0509773-0509828 for $106,175.34. XI. CLOSED SESSION: Attorney-Client Privileged Discussion on Litigation Matter Specifically WW Farm and George Wessin v. City of Medina, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) XII. CLOSED SESSION: City Administrator Annual Performance Review, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(a) INFORMATION PACKET:  Planning Department Update  Police Department Update  Public Works Department Update  Claims List  Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1 April 17, 2019 SPECIAL MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2019 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special session on October 15, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. to conduct an open house for the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive visioning study. I. ROLL CALL Members present: Albers, Anderson, Pederson, Martin and DesLauriers Members absent: Also present: City Engineer Jim Stremel, WSB Engineer Chuck Rickart, City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Planning Director Dusty Finke, Sgt. Jason Nelson and Public Safety Director Ed Belland. II. Open House: Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study City Council, staff, and consultants met and discussed the visioning study with Residents and gathered input. III. ADJOURN Adjourned the Open House at 6:45 p.m. __________________________________ Kathy Martin, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 October 15, 2019 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2019 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on October 15, 2019 at 5 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 I. ROLL CALL 8 9 Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, and Pederson. 10 11 Members absent: None. 12 13 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi 14 Gallup, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty 15 Finke, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief of 16 Police Ed Belland. 17 18 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 19 20 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:00 p.m.) 21 Johnson requested to add an item to the agenda under Presentations titled Elm Creek 22 Watershed Update. 23 24 The agenda was approved as amended. 25 26 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:00 p.m.) 27 28 A. Approval of the October 1, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 29 Martin noted that Anderson submitted suggested corrections to be incorporated into the 30 minutes. 31 32 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the October 1, 2019 regular 33 City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 34 35 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:01 p.m.) 36 37 A. Approve Tornado Siren Maintenance Contract Renewal with Embedded 38 Systems, Inc. 39 B. Approve MAP Agreement and Addendum with Marco Technologies LLC 40 C. Schedule a Special Meeting on October 22, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. 41 D. Resolution No. 2019-65 to Enter into a Grant Agreement between the City of 42 Medina and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for the 43 Improvement of Publicly Owned Infrastructure 44 E. Resolution No. 2019-66 Certifying Delinquent City Charges for Services to 45 the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2020 46 F. Resolution No. 2019-67 Certifying Delinquent Storm Water Utility Charges 47 to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2020 48 G. Resolution No. 2019-68 Certifying Delinquent Utility Charges to the 49 Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2020 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 October 15, 2019 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 1 passed unanimously. 2 3 VI. COMMENTS (7:02 p.m.) 4 5 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 6 There were none. 7 8 B. Park Commission 9 Scherer reported that the Park Commission will meet the following night to review the 10 Mark of Excellence concept and Weston Woods. He stated that public works has been 11 working to complete mowing and begin winterizing. 12 13 C. Planning Commission 14 Planning Commissioner Reid reported that the Planning Commission met the previous 15 week to consider the Mark of Excellence concept which included a Comprehensive Plan 16 amendment for a residential development with a mix of housing products. She noted 17 that the applicant would be funding the required watermain and Chippewa Road 18 extension, which are both identified in the City’s future plans. She noted that five acres 19 of park land would also be dedicated. She noted that residents from Bridgewater spoke 20 with concern of additional traffic. She noted that the Commission was split on its opinion 21 as the project would make good use of the property, the developer would be funding 22 needed infrastructure, the southern portion would be more appropriate for residential 23 compared to business, and it would be beneficial to develop both properties jointly. She 24 noted that most of the Commissioners did not feel it appropriate to request a 25 Comprehensive Plan amendment this soon as the most recent plan was recently 26 approved. She stated that those Commissioners felt that the developer’s offer to finance 27 the infrastructure was not sufficient in return for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 28 She stated that the Commission did also express concern with the additional traffic on 29 Arrowhead. She noted that the Commission recommended denial of the 30 Comprehensive Plan amendment with two Commissioners dissenting. She stated that 31 the second request before the Commission was a zoning change from Commercial-32 Highway to Commercial-General. She noted that one nearby business owner spoke in 33 objection of the zoning change. She stated that the Commission concluded that this was 34 a minor zoning change and recommended approval of the request. 35 36 VII. PRESENTATIONS 37 38 A. Orono School District Referendum (7:07 p.m.) 39 Martha Van de Ven stated that in August the School Board voted unanimously in support 40 of the technology referendum. She stated that Minnesota does not provide categorical 41 aid for technology and therefore the School must request that funding from the voters or 42 through the normal educational budget. She stated that the last referendum was passed 43 in 2002, with a renewal but no increase in 2011. She explained that this year they will 44 be requesting an increase in that referendum. She highlighted some of the technology 45 elements that were implemented most recently. She stated that the District is behind the 46 average of the area communities on the technology funds per pupil. She noted that the 47 median home would pay an additional eight dollars per month for the technology 48 referendum. She invited people to find additional information on the School District 49 websites. She provided information on voting locations, noting that absentee voting is 50 accepted at this time. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 October 15, 2019 1 Martin thanked Ms. Van de Ven for her contributions to the community throughout the 2 year. 3 4 B. Elm Creek Watershed Update (7:16 p.m.) 5 Commissioner Liz Weir stated that there are some upcoming changes. She noted that 6 Medina is one of seven cities in the Elm Creek Watershed. She stated that the 7 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has set TMDL goals and development 8 standards within the 3rd Generation Plan. She stated that Hennepin County 9 Environmental Services had previously been reviewing development requests, but that 10 arrangement will be terminated at the end of the year. She stated that the Commission 11 completed an RFP process and Barr Engineering was chosen for a two-year contract. 12 She noted that City dues will increase to support the additional review costs. She 13 explained that cities are encouraged to thoroughly review development requests before 14 passing them to the Watershed Commission for review in an attempt to lower review 15 costs. She was unsure what the rate increase will be but wanted the City to be aware. 16 17 Johnson stated that the same process is ongoing with Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed, 18 transitioning from the County review to a private engineering firm. 19 20 Commissioner Weir provided additional information on the improvement projects 21 completed by the Watershed Commission, or partially funded by the grants from the 22 Watershed. She provided details on the educational program of the Watershed. She 23 reported that the Fish Lake alum treatment was completed on time. 24 25 Pederson asked how many taxpayers will be sharing the costs for the projects. 26 27 Weir commented that the taxpayers within the Watershed would share that cost. She 28 explained that the City is split between three different watersheds. 29 30 VIII. NEW BUSINESS 31 32 A. Martha and Andrew Van de Ven; Mark and Sara Welch – Lot 33 Combination/Rearrangement (7:23 p.m.) 34 Finke provided aerial photographs showing the three existing lots noting that the 35 proposed rearrangement would create two lots, one fronting on Medina Road and the 36 other onto County Road 24. He noted that both lots would exceed minimum lot 37 standards and would eliminate access concerns for the eastern lot. He stated that staff 38 recommends adoption of the request as submitted. 39 40 1. Resolution No. 2019-69 Approving a Lot Rearrangement/Combination of 41 1765 Medina Road and 1752 County Road 24 with Land Located to the 42 East 43 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to adopt Resolution No. 2019-69 44 Approving a Lot Rearrangement/Combination of 1765 Medina Road and 1752 County 45 Road 24 with Land Located to the East. Motion passed unanimously. 46 47 IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (7:26 p.m.) 48 Johnson stated that the business tours will take place at 1 p.m. on November 5th with the 49 City Council meeting on November 6th due to the conflict with the School Board election. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 October 15, 2019 Gallup provided an update on the interview process for the Public Safety Director which 1 will take place at 5:30 p.m. next Tuesday night. 2 3 X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (7:28 p.m.) 4 Anderson reported that he visited the Loretto Fire Department open house the previous 5 weekend, noting that the event was well attended. 6 7 Martin stated that she also attended the Loretto open house along with the Long Lake 8 Fire open house. She stated that discussions with the Hamel Fire Department have also 9 continued. 10 11 Pederson stated that he also attended the Loretto Fire open house. 12 13 Martin encouraged members of the Council to alert staff of upcoming vacations to 14 ensure that a quorum would be present at upcoming meetings. 15 16 XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (7:30 p.m.) 17 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to approve the bills, EFT 005253E-18 005272E for $71,530.19 and order check numbers 049372-049446 for $423,673.76 and 19 payroll EFT 0509741-0509772 for $54,122.73. Motion passed unanimously. 20 21 XII. CLOSED SESSION: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED DISCUSSION ON 22 LITIGATION MATTER SPECIFICALLY WW FARM AND GEORGE WESSIN V. 23 CITY OF MEDINA, PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. SEC. 13D.05, SUBD.3(B) 24 Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to adjourn the meeting to closed session at 7:31 25 p.m. to discuss client-privilege litigation matter specifically WW Farm and George 26 Wessin v. City of Medina. Motion passed unanimously. 27 28 The meeting reconvened to open session at 8:00 p.m. 29 30 XIII. ADJOURN 31 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 p.m. 32 Motion passed unanimously. 33 34 35 36 37 __________________________________ 38 Kathy Martin, Mayor 39 Attest: 40 41 ____________________________________ 42 Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 43 Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1 October 22, 2019 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2019 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special session on October 22, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the Medina City Hall, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN. I. Call to Order Members present: Martin, Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Pederson Members absent: Also present: Hopkins Police Chief Brent Johnson, City Administrator Scott Johnson, Police Officer Dave Hall, Sergeant Jason Nelson, Public Safety Director Ed Belland, Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup, and Rowdy Dorweiler Farmers State Bank of Hamel II. Public Safety Director Interviews Two panels conducted interviews of the candidates for the Public Safety Director position. The two candidates interviewed were Police Officer Dave Hall and Police Sergeant Jason Nelson. The City Council and interview panel members discussed the candidates qualifications, skills, knowledge, and abilities as they related to the Public Safety Director position. Both candidates were impressive and brought leadership skills and value to the Medina Police Department. The City Council and interview panel decided the best candidate for the Public Safety Director position was Sergeant Jason Nelson because of his supervisory experience. Staff was directed to work with Sergeant Nelson on a contingent job offer to be approved by the City Council. III. Adjournment Martin closed the meeting at 7:48 p.m. _________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ____________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 1 of 3 C:\Users\NicoleJacobson\Desktop\1 PACKET NOV 6\5A - Cooperative agreement Hickory Drive Improvement_rev-WDeletion.docx COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR 2019-04 HICKORY DRIVE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT This Agreement is made as of this ___ day of ______________, 2019, by and between the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, a joint powers watershed management organization (hereinafter the “Commission”), and the City of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter the “City”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted the Elm Creek Watershed Management Plan as amended on May 8, 2019 (the “Plan”), a watershed management plan within the meaning of Minn. Stat., § 103B.231; and WHEREAS, the Plan includes a capital improvement program (“CIP”) that lists a number of water quality project capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the water quality projects identified in the CIP include the Hickory Drive Stormwater Improvement Project more fully described in Attachment One to this Agreement, which is hereby made a part hereof (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Plan specifies that projects in the CIP may be partially funded by a County tax levy under Minn. Stat., § 103B.251; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2019, the Commission adopted a resolution ordering the Project, directing that it be constructed by the City, and that the Commission’s share of the Project costs be certified to Hennepin County for payment in accordance with Minn. Stat., § 103B.251; and WHEREAS, it is expected that Hennepin County will levy taxes throughout the watershed for the Project, for collection and settlement in 2020; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to construct the Project on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE PREMISES AND MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Project will consist of improvements in the City as more fully described on Attachment One. 2. The City will design the Project and prepare plans and specifications for construction of the Project. Plans and specifications are subject to approval by the Commission’s consulting engineer and the City of Medina City Engineer. 3. The City will advertise for bids and award contracts in accordance with the requirements of law. The City will award the contract and supervise and administer the construction of the Project to assure that it is completed in accordance with plans and specifications. The City will Agenda Item # 5A 2 of 3 C:\Users\NicoleJacobson\Desktop\1 PACKET NOV 6\5A - Cooperative agreement Hickory Drive Improvement_rev-WDeletion.docx require the contractor to provide all payment and performance bonds required by law. The City will supervise the work of the contractor. However, the Commission may observe and review the work of the Project until it is completed. 4. The City will pay the contractor and all other expenses related to the construction of the Project and keep and maintain complete records of such costs incurred. 5. The Commission will secure payment from the County in accordance with Minn. Stat., § 103B.251 in the amount of seventy-six thousand eight hundred twenty-three dollars ($76,823). It is understood that tax settlement from the County is not expected to occur until 2020. Out-of-pocket costs related to the Project, incurred and paid by the Commission for publication of notices, securing County tax levy, preparation of contracts, review of proposed contract documents and administration of this contract shall be repaid from funds received in the tax settlement from Hennepin County. Amounts received from the County, up to $76,823, less reimbursement to the Commission of such expenses are available for reimbursement to the City for costs incurred by the City in the design and construction of the Project. Reimbursement to the City will be made on completion of the project and submittal of as-builts. Reimbursement to the City will be made as soon as funds are available provided a request for payment has been received from the City providing such detailed information as may be requested by the Commission to substantiate costs and expenses. 6. Reimbursement to the City will not exceed the amount received from the County, up to $76,823, for the Project less any amounts retained by the Commission for Commission expenses. All costs of the Project incurred by the City in excess of such reimbursement, including all costs incurred in excess of estimated project costs due to unforeseen conditions or any other cause, shall be borne by the City or secured by the City from other sources. 7. All City books, records, documents, and accounting procedures related to the Project are subject to examination by the Commission. 8. The City will secure all necessary local, state, or federal permits required for the construction of the Project. 9. The project will be constructed on land owned or easements held by the City. 10. The City will have ownership of the associated improvements, and will maintain them in good operating condition in perpetuity or until such time as they are replaced with like improvements. 11. The City agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Commission and the County, their agents, officers, and employees, from all claims or actions arising from performance of the work of the Project conducted by the City or its contractor, or maintenance 3 of 3 C:\Users\NicoleJacobson\Desktop\1 PACKET NOV 6\5A - Cooperative agreement Hickory Drive Improvement_rev-WDeletion.docx of the Project, including environmental claims. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of the limitations of liability in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers on behalf of the parties as of the day and date first above written. ELM CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION By:__________________________________ Its Chair And by:______________________________ Its Administrator CITY OF MEDINA By: _________________________________ Its Mayor And by: ______________________________ Its Administrator LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Agenda Item # 5B CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 LIABILITY COVERAGE — WAIVER FORM Members who obtain liability coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the member's effective date of coverage. Return completed form to your underwriter or email to pstechAlmc.org. The decision to waive or not waive the statutory tort limits must be made annually by the member's governing body, in consultation with its attorney if necessary. Members who obtain liability coverage from LMCIT must decide whether to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision has the following effects: • If the member does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant could recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether the member purchases the optional LMCIT excess liability coverage. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single claimant could recover up to $2,000,000 for a single occurrence (under the waive option, the tort cap liability limits are only waived to the extent of the member's liability coverage limits, and the LMCIT per occurrence limit i s $2,000,000). The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $2,000,000, regardless of the number of claimants. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. LMCIT Member Name: City of Medina Check one: ❑✓ The member DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. 466.04. The member WAIVES the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of member's goj bo eetin: November 6, 2019 Signature: Position: Finance Director 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAX (651) 281-1299 ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: October 31, 2019 MEETING: November 6, 2019 SUBJECT: Brockton Lane Engineering Design Amendment Background Attached you will find an explanation of the proposed cost amendment for the design and construction inspection portions of the Brockton Lane project. The design portion was approved by the City Council in July. This is a combination of the two totals. The breakdown is in Bolton & Menk proposal letter. The cost for design was broken down between Medina and Plymouth’s responsibility according to the agreed upon terms. The breakdown of the split is as follows; Medina’s total is $12,640.14 and Plymouth’s is $17,359.86 on the design portion. A 50 percent split is on the construction inspection portion with Plymouth at $17,750 and Medina at $17,750. The reason this is not a change order is because the engineering contract is with Plymouth, not Medina. Our agreement with Plymouth states they must receive approval from Medina prior to any changes made. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of this amendment. Agenda Item # 5C SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 1. MASTER AGREEMENT. The parties have previously entered into a Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services which is incorporated herein by reference. In the event of a conflict between the Master Agreement and this Supplemental Agreement the Supplemental Agreement shall control with respect to the project for which it applies. 2. BACKGROUND. A. Date of Supplemental Agreement: October 5, 2019. B. Owner: City of Plymouth, City of Medina C. Engineer: Bcton & Menk, Inc. D. Project: Brockton Lane Reconstruction Project City Project No. ST190005. 3. SERVICES. The Engineer shall perform the following services for the Owner as per the Agreement for Engineering Services dated August 30, 2018 and the Scope Amendment dated May 13, 2019 and October 5, 2019 (attached). 4. PAYMENT. The Owner shall pay the Engineer for services rendered under the Supplemental Agreement as follows: Lump sum of: $ Standard hourly rate pursuant to rate schedule on file with the City as of the date of this Supplemental Agreement. H.WLYM\C 15117272\0_Brockton Lane Reconstruction Project\A_Project Management\Fee Amendrnent1Bolton Sc Menk Supplemental A reementdocn X Standard hourly rate pursuant to rate schedule included in the proposal with a not to exceed of $376,227.00, including reimbursable expenses. Agreement for Engineering Services: $108,320 Task 1.0 — Feasibility Study - $48,922 Task 2.0 — Engineering Design Services - $99,804 Task 3.0 — Construction Services - $141,181 Optional Services: • Task 4.1 — Watermain & Utility Design & Staking - $5,448 • Task 4.2 — Right -Of -Way Acquisition - $6,025 • Task 4.3 — Wetland Permitting - $4,848 • Task 4.4 — GIS Submittal for Structure, Construction Records - $4,498 Supplemental Agreement (9/9/19, 10/5/19): • Design Amendment: $30,000.00 • Inspection Amendment: $35,501.00 Total, not to exceed: $376,227.00 5. COMPLETION DATE. Services performed by Engineer pursuant to this Supplemental Agreement must be completed on or before October 31, 2020. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Dated: , 2019. Dated: I 0-- , 2019 Dated: OA ?V, 2019. ENGINEER: BY: 2 FL\PLYM\C 15117272\O_Brockton Lane Reconstruction Protect \A_Project Management\Fee Amendment\Bolton & Menk Supplemental Agreement docx 01,\\ BOLTON MENK Real People. Real Solutions. May 13, 2019 Mr. Michael Thompson, P.E., Public Works Director City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Fee Amendment for Brockton Lane Improvements Project Dear Mr. Thompson: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: (952) 448-8838 Fax: (952) 448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com We have completed various tasks, as part of the design phase of the above referenced project, that have contributed to an overrun of our design task budget. Below is a summary of the tasks that contributed to our budge overrun. We respectfully request a scope amendment to our budget for work necessary to complete these tasks. Tasks outside of original scope: • Stormwater treatment, beyond rule requirements, added to the plan. • Pervious trail design. Additional design and specification effort needed to implement that element. • Increased effort with Medina related to 429 and State Aid process. • RRFB design and State Aid justification letter submittal. • Extra coordination and meetings with Xcel Energy to facilitate relocation of all poles along the corridor. • Private utility relocation / coordination plan was developed due to the extent of relocation needs along the corridor. • Last minute watermain design change by Medina. Project Budget Overview : Our current budget is $310,726. Our engineer's estimates show soft costs at 20%. Based on the low bid submitted by New Look Contracting, 20% = $437,573. Project cost estimates for each city are as follows: • Plymouth: o $1,541,982 (Prebid Budget Estimate) o $1,474,260 (Post Bid) • Medina: o $1,335,023 (Prebid Budget Estimate) o $1,151,183 (Post Bid) *Post bid includes $437,573 engineering costs Based on the items listed above we are requesting an amendment of $30,000 for additional services. If an amendment of $30,000 is granted, the engineering budget for the project would equal $340,726 or 15.6% of construction which is well within the normal range for delivery of a project from preliminary design through construction, including 429 and State Aid process. Thank you for your consideration of this amendment to cover additional tasks which were necessary to complete the project as intended. Please feel free to call with any questions you may have regarding this amendment. Respectfully Submitted, BOLTON & IVIENK, INC. ' " tom 4111 - Mark D. Kasma, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Cc: Daniel Lonnes, Principal Engineer ee i` endment Detail. a lent: Cities of Plymouth and Medina, MN Bolton, ttoijectYBrockton'Ana Reconstruction Project Engineer Design Engineer Task No. Work Task Description v m C `II 1 W a v O v cc •� v "' m C cv v .0 c _c m F w Totals Total Labor Costs 2.+ Engine riir ,si:n3=uric s"--A� ltl�n,lServw s 2.1 Stormwater Treatment - Design & Plan Preparation 2 10 16 8 36 $4,928 2.2 Pervious Trail - Design, Plan Prep & Watershed Coordination 2 20 18 10 10 60 $8,172 2.3 429 & State Aid Process - Additional Work 10 15 25 $4,000 2.4 RRFB Design & State Aid Justification Letter 2 22 16 16 56 $7,728 2.5 Xcel Energy Coordination 2 24 26 $3,824 2.6 Private Utility Relocation Plan 2 8 10 16 36 $4,944 $3,296 2.7 Utility Design Change _ 2 4 10 ITOT 54 8 24 Total Hours - Task 2 22 26 58 263 . ibh Total Labor Cost $36,892 BOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. October 5, 2019 Mr. Michael Thompson, P.E., Public Works Director City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Fee Amendment for Brockton Lane Improvements Project — ST190005 - Construction Inspection Dear Mr. Thompson: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: (952) 448-8838 Fax: (952)448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Full -service construction services have been provided for the duration of the construction effort to date. Construction began on May 13, 2019 and is ongoing to date. Based on standard assumptions during the proposal process we based our construction administration fee, which includes administration, inspection, staking, and testing on a 16 -week construction duration. Specifically, 5 hrs/week for administration and 40 hrs/week for inspection. Our fee proposal predates the construction contract and was based on estimated information about the construction activities. To date, based on a start date of May 13, the construction duration has totaled 21 weeks. Based on remaining work we anticipate major construction activities to continue for approximately 3 additional weeks bringing the total construction duration to 24 weeks. The Contractor's original construction schedule was within approximately 4 weeks of our estimated duration. However, weather and other factors resulted in slower production for the construction and extended the working days needed in the field for supervision and inspection. Estimated Hour Impact Due To Construction Duration: • 8 week expected project duration overrun o Administration • 8 weeks @ 5 hrs/wk = 40hrs o Inspection • 8 weeks @ 40 hrs/wk = 320hrs Project Budget Overview: Based on rates within our proposal and the estimated construction duration overrun the budget impact is as follows: ➢ Administration = $5,500.00 Inspection = $35,501.00 ➢ Total = $41,001.00 Based on the items listed above and, in an effort, to share in the construction duration overrun we will waive the administration portion and are requesting an amendment of $35,501.00 to cover the additional inspection time necessary to align with the final contractors schedule and working days in the field. If an amendment of $35,501.00 is granted, the engineering budget for the project would equal $376,227.00. That is $61,346.94 below the post bid estimated project soft costs indicating that final project budgets will remain basically unchanged. Thank you for your consideration of this amendment to cover additional tasks which were necessary to complete the project as intended. Please feel free to call with any questions you may have regarding this amendment. Respectfully Submitted, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Mark D. Kasma, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Cc: Daniel Lonnes, Principal Engineer Fee Amendment Detail Client Cities ofPlyrnauth,;and ;Niedlna;.MN. Project: Brockton Lane Reconstruction, Task No. Work Task Description 3.0 Construction:Sennces AdaSeruices 3.1 Construction Administration (Avg 5 hrs/wk @ 8 weeks) 40 3.2 Construction Inspection (Ave 40 hrs/wk @ 8 weeks) Bolton & Menk, Int. u v •O Project Engineer Design Engineer cc cc Totals Total Labor Costs Total Hours - Task 3 320 40 320 $5,500 $35,501 0 4 0 320 360 Total Labor Cost $41,001 Resolution No. 2019-## DATE Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-## RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR WEALSHIRE, LLC TO CONSTRUCT PHASE II OF ITS MEMORY CARE FACILITY AT 4555 MOHAWK DRIVE WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Wealshire, LLC (the “Owner”), owns property at 4555 Mohawk Drive (the “Property”), which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016, the City adopted Resolution No. 2016-34, granting approval to the Owner of a Site Plan Review for construction of an approximately 163,000 square foot building in which to operate a memory care facility on the Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and conditions of Resolution No. 2016-34, the site plan review approval was valid for one calendar year for Phase I and three calendar years for Phase II; and WHEREAS, construction on Phase I commenced within one year but the Owner has requested an additional year to commence construction on Phase II; and WHEREAS, the Owner has also requested to alter the building orientation and footprint of Phase II by a small amount; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate to extend the site plan review approval for an additional year and allow a small deviation in the orientation and footprint of Phase II. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota hereby amends the terms and conditions of the site plan review approval granted in Resolution 2016-34, as follows: 1) The approval for Phase II of the project shall be valid until November 6, 2020. The Owner may request a permit to construct Phase II within this time frame without obtaining Site Plan Review approval. 2) The building orientation and footprint of Phase II may deviate from the approved plans if City staff determines that the plans are substantially similar to those approved and the square footage of the entire building does not increase by more than two percent. Agenda Item # 5D Resolution No. 2019-## 2 DATE 3) The Owner shall enter into a development agreement regarding the Phase II improvements in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney and provide necessary finalize securities if the City Attorney determines it necessary to do so to ensure completion of required site improvements and compliance with City requirements. 4) Except as explicitly noted above, all other terms and conditions of Resolution No. 2016- 34 are hereby reaffirmed and remain in full force and effect. Dated: November 6, 2019. By: ______________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: By: ___________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2019-## 3 DATE EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property AND MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Jim Stremel, City Engineer DATE: October 31, 2019 MEETING: November 6, 2019 SUBJECT: Chippewa Rd & Arrowhead Dr Visioning Study – Final Report Background: A final report memorandum was completed as a part of the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive visioning process. The intent of the final report is to memorialize the process and development of the City’s vision and to consider what the next steps may be. The Council may want to provide further input and comments on the findings of the final visioning study report and related content and the report or other materials can still be revised if the Council sees fit. Next Steps: A significant driving factor for the Chippewa Road extension and the re-alignment of Meander and/or the OSI driveway is the adjacent development. Development proposals have been submitted to the City in 2019. Final design and construction of the street projects may occur in conjunction with these developments or portions could be developed into City led projects. Until development proposals and plans are approved by the City it is unknown when these projects will proceed. With that in mind, the next steps for the City to consider in the meantime are the following: 1. Obtain additional survey topography within the northerly OHW area to confirm surrounding elevations 2. Update the floodplain elevation determination analysis with Atlas 14 and obtain approval from the respective governing bodies, 3. Consider drafting a discretionary EAW for the proposed improvements within the Chippewa Road corridor 4. Consider additional traffic counts (video and counters) in and around the OSI driveway and at TH 55 to provide the data needed to proceed with approval from MnDOT for the dual turn lane option. City Council Action Requested: Provide any final input on the report and direction on the next steps. Agenda Item # 7A K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Final Report Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jim Stremel, PE, City Engineer Date: October 31, 2019 Re: Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study WSB Project No. R-014434-000 Background The Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study was initiated to develop a cohesive plan to guide the transportation needs, right-of-way, public utilities, and other parameters within these corridors, while meeting the needs of the property owners, developers, and other stakeholders within the area. The intent of this final report memorandum is to memorialize the process and development of the City’s vision and to consider what the next steps may be. The Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive area was most recently identified in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the capacity and operations needs for Trunk Highway (TH) 55. The plan indicates that, “MnDOT and the City of Medina should work cooperatively, as redevelopment occurs, to close existing direct access driveways onto TH 55 and relocate direct access to a frontage/backage road system, consistent with the 2007 TH 55 design concept vision.” That concept vision included the idea of connecting Chippewa Road from Arrowhead Drive to Mohawk Drive, completing the roadway network (frontage/backage road system) in the area. The Chippewa Road extension was also identified in previous Comprehensive Plans dating back to the year 2000. Information and materials used in the preparation of this report were collected from the City of Medina, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and other impacted agencies. This data included: · Existing and historic traffic volume data · Updated crash history · Proposed and anticipated development plans (Mark of Excellence, OSI) · As-built roadway and utility plans · Survey/topographic data previously obtained or readily available · Wetland and floodplain locations from available mapping or other sources (proposed development plans) · OSI Traffic Study, other available studies. Additional traffic counts were not conducted. Existing Conditions Currently, there is no connection between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive, but a prescriptive easement exists for the existing unmaintained roadway. This proposed roadway corridor is a combination of wooded areas, agricultural land, floodplains, and wetlands with jurisdictions from both the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The existing Mohawk Drive is currently a 26-foot-wide, bituminous paved rural section; no pedestrian facilities exist along this section of roadway. There is currently no storm sewer within Mohawk Drive at the intersection, but there are culverts for drainage conveyance. Mohawk Drive is currently served by both watermain and sanitary sewer systems with stubs at Chippewa Road that could serve future extension east; the utilities within Mohawk Drive are not proposed for replacement with future development on the adjacent properties. Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 2 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx Arrowhead Drive is currently a 26-foot-wide, bituminous paved rural section, with an 8-foot-wide, bituminous trail on the east side extending from Bridgewater Road south to the Meander Road intersection. There is currently no storm sewer within Arrowhead Drive, but there are culverts for drainage conveyance. Arrowhead Drive is currently served by both watermain and sanitary sewer systems, which are also not proposed to be replaced with future development on the adjacent properties. The existing OSI driveway is a 24-foot-wide, bituminous paved section. Meander Road is a 26- foot-wide, bituminous paved rural section. Both roadways intersect at Arrowhead Drive within 500 feet of the TH 55 intersection. Significant traffic backups from TH 55 during evening rush hour have been observed by area property owners and the City. Much of the traffic contributing to the evening peak appears to originate from OSI. There is no storm sewer in this area, but drainage is conveyed via culverts that cross Arrowhead Drive and Meander Road. The OSI property does have water and sanitary lines for the building within the driveway, and a City watermain line runs on the north side of Meander Road. The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes in the corridor are based on traffic counts conducted in 2018 and 2019. Existing peak hour turning movement counts (2018) on Arrowhead Drive at Meander Road and TH 55 were completed with the Mark of Excellence proposed development plan. The existing ADT traffic counts for the corridor are shown in Table 1 below. Traffic Forecasting Analysis 2040 ADT traffic forecasts were developed for Chippewa Road, Arrowhead Drive, and each of the primary intersections within the corridors based on rates for similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The future area development traffic was determined based on the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and adjacent development Traffic Studies for the areas between TH 55 to north of Chippewa Road from Willow Drive to Arrowhead, and; west of Arrowhead Drive north of Meander Road. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan shows that this area will include: business, low-density residential, and rural residential uses. For the areas where development plans have not been proposed, it was assumed that the business use would have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2, the low-density residential use would have a density of 2.5 units/acre and the rural residential use would have a density of 1.0 unit/acre. The estimated existing and projected 2040 traffic volumes are shown below in Table 1. Table 1: Existing and Projected ADT Traffic Volumes Location Existing 2019 ADT Projected 2040 ADT Arrowhead Drive Meander Road to Chippewa Road 1050 7100 Arrowhead Drive North of Chippewa Road 1050 1320 Chippewa Road Arrowhead Drive to Mohawk Drive NA 5800 Chippewa Road West of Mohawk Drive 690 3900 Mohawk Drive TH 55 to Chippewa Road 375 1800 Mohawk Drive North of Chippewa Road 100 900 Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 3 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx Traffic Operations Analysis The traffic analysis was completed evaluating the existing and projected traffic operations for the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive corridors, including the intersections of Chippewa Road at Mohawk Drive, Chippewa Road at Arrowhead Drive, Arrowhead Drive at Meander Road (including the OSI driveway), and Arrowhead Drive at TH 55. The traffic operations were evaluated using Synchro/SimTraffic software for the traffic signal and stop sign control analysis and RODEL software for the roundabout analysis. The analysis documented the corridor operation and possible intersection control and lane configuration improvements at each intersection. The results of the operations analysis assuming the future projected 2040 traffic conditions provided the following conclusions: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive: · The southbound Arrowhead Drive left turn to TH 55 requires 200 feet of vehicle queue storage for the average peak hour condition. However, it has been documented that during the AM/PM peak traffic, significant backups occur past Meander Road and the existing OSI driveway. · The average peak hour condition assumes that traffic is distributed over an entire hour. With the OSI facility, the evening shift change introduces a peak event during the average peak hour that has been documented by residents and City staff. Based on analysis the existing peaking condition would need approximately 400 feet of queue storage. · With the two traditional intersection concepts (OSI driveway in existing location in Figure 2 or relocated to the existing Meander Road in Figure 1), the full 200 feet of average vehicle queue storage to TH 55 can be provided. However, there would still be backups during the peaking conditions. · With the roundabout option (Figure 3) at the existing Meander Road intersection, 190 feet of the required 200 feet vehicle queue storage to TH 55 could be provided for the average condition. Backups for the peaking condition would be accommodated through the roundabout with the driveway from OSI waiting for the through traffic on Arrowhead Drive. Arrowhead Drive at Meander Road/OSI Driveway: · The northbound Arrowhead Drive left turn into the OSI driveway requires 100 feet of vehicle queue storage for the average condition. · With the traditional intersection option (Figure 1) of relocating the OSI driveway to line up with Meander Road, the following was concluded: o Only 25 feet of northbound left turn vehicle queue storage can be provided for the OSI driveway. The analysis also indicates that in the short term with the potential OSI expansion and moderate traffic southbound traffic on Arrowhead Drive, this configuration would be adequate for the average condition during the AM peak. o A double left turn configuration at the TH 55 intersection is feasible and would provide a longer queue length for the left turn lane into OSI (the double left turn lanes at TH 55 would be shorter in length) and provide a reduced queue length for traffic turning left onto TH 55 during the PM peak. Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 4 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx · With the traditional intersection option (Figure 2) of relocating Meander Road to line up with the existing OSI driveway the following was concluded: o 120 feet of northbound left turn vehicle queue storage can be provided for the OSI driveway. o The Meander Road approach can be designed with 30 MPH curves to lessen the impacts to the wetland north of Meander Road. o The intersection could be shifted 20 feet south to lessen the impacts to the wetland north of Meander Road. o As in Figure 1, a double left turn configuration at the TH 55 intersection is feasible and would provide a longer queue length for the left turn lane into OSI (the double left turn lanes at TH 55 would be shorter in length) and provide a reduced queue length for traffic turning left onto TH 55 during the PM peak. · With the roundabout option (Figure 3) at the existing Meander Road the left turn volume and queueing into OSI driveway can be accommodated. Backups for the peaking condition would be accommodated through the roundabout with the driveway from OSI waiting for the through traffic on Arrowhead Drive. Arrowhead Drive at future Chippewa Road: · With the alignment option (Figure 1) that provides a curve on Chippewa Road to Arrowhead Drive with a traditional “T” intersection, the following improvement needs were identified: o Chippewa Road curve designed for a 35 MPH design speed advisory curve o Northbound Arrowhead Drive right turn lane o Eastbound Chippewa Road right turn lane o Side street stop control, stopping southbound Arrowhead Drive · With the alignment option (Figure 2) that provides a traditional four-legged intersection, the following improvement needs were identified: o Chippewa Road curve designed for a 40 MPH design speed o Northbound Arrowhead Drive right turn lane o Eastbound Chippewa Road right turn lane o All-way stop control · With the roundabout concept (Figure 3) all approaches only require a single lane. Chippewa Road at Mohawk Drive: · With the alignment option (Figures 1 and 2) that provides a traditional four-legged intersection, the following improvement needs were identified: o Northbound Mohawk Drive right turn lane o Side street stop control, stopping northbound and southbound on Mohawk Drive · With the roundabout concept (Figure 3) all approaches only require a single lane. Concept Plans The initial concepts for the corridor visioning study were provided to the City Council at the August 20th work session; these included several alignment options, graphical configurations of the traffic operations at each intersection, and the anticipated 2040 ADT. At the work session, the Council provided direction to staff on the preferred options at the three main intersections. Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 5 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx Initial Concept Plans Considered: Based on the traffic forecasting and analysis, three horizontal geometric concept plans were developed based on a 40 MPH design speed (35 MPH advisory speed along the proposed Chippewa Road curve) that included the recommended geometric improvements, preliminary intersection control design (stop condition or roundabout), and right-of-way needs. The street section considered for each of the concepts was a 32’ wide urban section with an 8’ wide bituminous trail. Where the roadway alignment extends through the wetland, the trail was assumed to be at back of curb with a 10’ width. Figures have been attached to this memo for reference. · Option 1 (Figure 1) is comprised of a “T” intersection at the Arrowhead Drive and Chippewa Road point of intersection with traditional intersections at Mohawk Drive and Meander Road. o Chippewa Road/Mohawk Drive Intersection: Provides area access for existing and future development. o Chippewa Road/Arrowhead Drive Intersection: Encourages traffic to follow Arrowhead Drive to Chippewa Road and discourages traffic north on Arrowhead Drive towards the Bridgewater development. Additional cost and right-of-way required to provide the curved alignment than a traditional intersection. o Arrowhead Drive/Meander Road Intersection (Realign OSI Dwy): Does not impact wetland on the north side of the existing Meander Road. Does not provide sufficient vehicle queue storage for the northbound left turn into the OSI driveway for future 2040 traffic condition. o Arrowhead Drive/TH 55 Intersection: Provides the required vehicle queue storage for the southbound left turn to TH 55 assuming the average peak hour condition. However, as documented by residents and City staff, vehicles are queuing past the OSI driveway as a result of the peaking condition from those exiting the OSI driveway in the evening. The dual left turn lane concept would provide adequate left turn queuing for the peaking condition. · Option 2 (Figure 2) is comprised of traditional intersections at Mohawk Drive, Arrowhead Drive, and Meander Road. o Chippewa Road/Mohawk Drive Intersection: Provides area access for existing and future development. o Chippewa Road/Arrowhead Drive Intersection: Does not encourage traffic to follow Chippewa Road. Less cost and right-of-way required than Option 1. o Arrowhead Drive/Meander Road Intersection (Realign Meander Road): Impacts the wetland on the north side of the existing Meander Road. Provides sufficient vehicle queue storage for the northbound left turn into the OSI driveway for future 2040 traffic condition. o Arrowhead Drive/TH 55 Intersection: Provides the required vehicle queue storage for the southbound left turn to TH 55 assuming the average peak hour condition. However, as documented by residents and City staff, vehicles are queuing past the OSI driveway as a result of the peaking condition from those exiting the OSI driveway in the evening. The dual left turn lane concept would provide adequate left turn queuing for the peaking condition. · Option 3 (Figure 3) is comprised of roundabout intersections at Mohawk Drive, Arrowhead Drive, and Meander Road. o Chippewa/Mohawk Intersection: Provides area access for existing and future development. Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 6 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx Higher cost than a traditional intersection. Additional right-of-way needed from adjacent properties to the west. o Chippewa/Arrowhead Intersection: Higher cost than a traditional intersection. Additional right-of-way needed from surrounding properties. Reduced speed through the intersection with Arrowhead Drive to the north. Depending on adjacent development access, may provide better traffic operations than Option 1 or Option 2. o Arrowhead/Meander Intersection: Provides better traffic operations than Option 1 or Option 2. Higher cost than a traditional intersection and may require a retaining wall to accommodate grading on the west side. No (or minimal) impact to the wetland on the north side of Meander Road. Additional right-of-way needed on the OSI property. o Arrowhead/TH 55 Intersection: Does not provide the required vehicle queue storage for the southbound left turn to TH 55 assuming the average peak hour condition. However, as documented, vehicles are queuing past the OSI driveway as a result of the peaking condition from vehicles exiting OSI driveway. The dual left turn lane concept would provide adequate left turn queuing for the peaking condition. TH 55 Turn Lane/OSI Driveway/Meander Road Concepts: As discussed above, there is a need for additional capacity, specifically for the southbound Arrowhead Drive (left turn) to eastbound TH 55 and northbound left turn into the OSI driveway. A meeting with MnDOT was held to discuss the TH 55 turn lane configuration options. Initially, MnDOT’s preferred option was to relocate the existing OSI driveway north beyond the Meander intersection, to eliminate any conflicts between intersections. After discussing realignment options, MnDOT was also receptive to configuring the intersection at TH 55 with dual left turn lanes to allow for the left turn lane into OSI to be lengthened without realigning Meander Road. Based on the response from MnDOT, significant changes to the signal system are not anticipated at TH 55 with the dual left turn lane option. In order to provide the additional capacity dual left turn lane, concepts were developed for four alternative OSI driveway locations. · Alternative 1 – The driveway lined up with Meander Road provides approximately 150 feet of left turn storage (300 feet total) at TH 55 and approximately 25 feet of left turn storage into the OSI driveway. · Alternative 2 – The existing driveway location with Meander Road realigned provides approximately 200 feet of left turn storage (400 feet total) and approximately 120 feet of left turn storage into the OSI driveway. · Alternative 3 – OSI driveway shifted to the north with Meander Road realigned provides approximately 250 feet of left turn storage (500 feet total) and approximately 150 feet of left turn storage into the OSI driveway and 150 feet southbound into Meander Road. · Alternative 4 – Move the OSI driveway significantly north from the existing OSI driveway. This alternative provides approximately 150 feet of northbound left turn storage into OSI and approximately 100 feet of left turn storage for southbound traffic turning left onto Meander Road. Figure 5 provides an illustration of the proposed dual left turn lane. Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 7 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx Final Concept Plan: The final concept plan and alternatives analysis was based upon input from City Council, City staff, comments made at the open house, and the engineering team. The fourth concept shifting the OSI driveway further north was included as a result of the meeting with MnDOT and has been presented as the preferred option. The project cost estimates included with this report are for the preferred options. Figure 4 illustrates the final concept plan with the preferred alternatives and includes the option of moving the OSI driveway farther north. Figure 5 illustrates what the dual left turn lanes at TH 55 could look like with the most constrained condition where the OSI driveway is aligned with Meander Road. Public Utility Planning: Utility extensions on the new Chippewa Road, including storm sewer and new watermain, are proposed to be a part of the final alignment option(s). The engineering work done in conjunction with the recent 2040 Comprehensive Plan update identified the need for a 12-inch watermain. The watermain is intended to provide a looping connection between Arrowhead Drive and Mohawk Road to improve fire flows and provide a secondary link in case the existing watermain loop to the south along H 55 is out of service. The existing watermain to the south has had breaks causing the watermain to be out of service; the emergency repairs have been a costly maintenance component for the City. The watermain loop is also intended to serve adjacent development, but additional stubs or extensions for future development were not considered with this study or the cost estimates. Storm sewer improvements will likely include a storm piping system sized to convey runoff from an urban street section to meet State Aid design criteria, stormwater treatment areas to capture and retain storm sewer in accordance with City and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC), and culverts to facilitate upstream flow to the floodplains on north side of the Chippewa Road extension. Additional discussion of the stormwater management improvements are included in the section below. At this time, sanitary sewer extensions from either Mohawk Road or Arrowhead Drive were not considered with the visioning study. A review of sanitary sewer capacity was completed with the recent 2040 Comprehensive Plan update and it was found that the existing sewer main-line along both Mohawk Road and Arrowhead Drive have adequate capacity to serve the existing and future development. At which time adjacent development is planned, it is anticipated that the developers of those properties will extend sanitary sewer and connect to the existing system as needed to serve the lots. Right-of-Way Considerations: The final roadway improvements on Mohawk Drive and the southern portion of Arrowhead Drive near OSI (preferred alternative) are proposed to remain within the existing right-of-way. Further refinement of the design will be needed to determine if right-of-way will be required for ditching adjacent to the roadway. Additional right-of-way will need to be acquired for the extension of Chippewa Road and the northern realignment of Arrowhead Drive and the surrounding intersection with Chippewa Road. The proposed right-of-way needs have been compiled electronically with the CAD work completed with this visioning study and can be provided upon request. Permitting Considerations Stormwater Management & Floodplain Impacts: The preferred concept plan exceeds the 5,000 square foot threshold requiring a City of Medina Stormwater Management Plan for any new impervious surfaces. The total disturbance within the Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 8 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx project area is approximately 436,000 square feet (10 acres). The stormwater management plan must include at a minimum: · Volume Control – Design calculations of a BMP to capture and retain onsite 1.1 inches of runoff from the net new impervious surface. · Rate Control – Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to show that post development discharge rates are less than existing discharge rates. · Storm Sewer Sizing – Storm sewer sizing to meet State Aid design criteria. The proposed improvements are located within the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC). A permit will be required from ECWMC because the proposed improvements disturb more than 1 acre. Since this is a linear project, the net new impervious surface must meet ECWMC’s runoff rate restrictions, volume control requirements, and water quality requirements listed below: · Runoff rates for post development must be less than existing discharge rates. · Stormwater runoff volume must be abstracted onsite to meet 1.1 inches of runoff from the net new impervious surface. · No net increase in total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) from the existing conditions. The City of Medina’s standards are more stringent that ECWMC’s for stormwater management for this project. NPDES permitting will be required for construction activity; Based on the amount of impervious cover proposed the NPDES permitting requirements for treatment and volume control do apply, but are satisfied through the City and ECWMC permitting. There are two separate floodplains that the corridor crosses. Both floodplains are defined by FEMA as Zone A. Zone A floodplain does not have a defined floodplain elevation. A hydraulic/hydrologic analysis was completed in 2014 using TP 40 rainfall events (current standard is Atlas 14) to determine the approximate floodplain elevation, for each separate floodplain. It is important to note that this is a different Zone A floodplain than the Chippewa Road floodplain and will therefore require a separate analysis to determine the floodplain elevation. The next step is to update the floodplain analysis using Atlas 14 and obtain approval from the DNR and ECWMC for these elevations prior to further refining the floodplain impacts. The analysis completed in 2014 has been include in Appendix D. Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive both will result in significant floodplain impacts, approximately 4,500 cubic yards with the preferred concept plan. The floodplain impacts will require permits from the City of Medina, ECWMC, and the DNR. ECWMC requires compensatory storage at a ratio of 1:1 for any floodplain filled as part of this Floodplain Alteration permit. Proposed BMPs, if hydraulically connected and at a similar elevation, can be utilized for floodplain compensatory storage. It is likely that additional area will need to be identified within the adjacent development (Mark of Excellence) for floodplain mitigation based on the road alignment and wetland proximity. If the impacts cause an increase in the floodplain elevation greater than 1 foot, then a FEMA LOMR will be required. ECWMC permitting typically takes 4-6 months and FEMA LOMR applications typically require between 6-12 months to receive approval depending on the complexity of the impacts and if additional modelling is requested. It will be necessary to determine culvert elevations and sizes under the proposed Chippewa Road to allow for flow from the upstream wetland complex to the north. The existing gravel road (no longer maintained) forms a berm that results in over a 2-foot difference in the OHW of the two wetland complexes. The culverts will need to be sized balancing the need to maintain the existing floodplain elevation and to maintain the existing OHWs of the wetlands. A weir structure is an option that can be considered to further aid in the control of flow. Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 9 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx Arrowhead Drive also bisects FEMA Zone A floodplain at the intersection with Meander Road. The proposed intersection alternatives each introduce a different level of floodplain impacts. Compensatory storage for the floodplain impacts for Meander Road/Arrowhead Drive needs to be provided separate from the Chippewa Road mitigation. The existing culvert that conveys the wetland complex on the south side of Meander Drive to the north will need to be extended or modified depending on the intersection alternative that is selected. Similar permitting will be required for wetland impacts and stormwater treatment if regulatory thresholds are exceeded. Environmental: Wetland impacts will occur as a result of any of the three alignment options. Approximately 2.2 acres of wetland impacts are anticipated (Figure 6). Some of those impacts may be within DNR Public Waters (impacts below OHW elevation). Options to minimize wetland impacts will need to be evaluated during final design. The project will require permits from the DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), WCA (via City of Medina), and ECWMC. Given the number of impacts, we expect it will take 9-12 months to prepare documents/plans and obtain permits from all agencies. There are two OHW elevations present within the Chippewa Road corridor due to the presence of the existing roadbed between Mohawk Road and Arrowhead Drive. The OHW elevations (978.3 to the north, 980.6 to the south) were determined based on field observations of elevations and predominant vegetation. Appendix D includes a graphical representation of the dividing line between the two OHW elevations (south edge of existing road) and a response from the DNR stating that these elevations are to be used for determining impacts and mitigation needs. Mitigation for WCA regulated wetland impacts will be required at a 2:1 ratio and it is anticipated to be provided through the purchase of wetland credits from an USACOE approved wetland bank or through onsite mitigation. Wetland banks are available in Hennepin County at a cost of approximately $2.50-$3.00/square foot (2019 dollars). Options for onsite mitigation will also be reviewed and would require 5 years of monitoring following construction to ensure success. The State’s existing and proposed Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) rules were reviewed. The mandatory EAW rules are being revised and proposed mandatory EAW rules, which are expected to replace the existing rules in February 2020, will require an EAW for projects that impact over 1 acre of wetland within a shoreland overlay district or for projects that impact over 1 acre of DNR Public Waters. The current wetland impact estimate is 2.2 acres, but impacts are not within a shoreland overlay district and DNR Public Water impacts are not expected to exceed 1 acre. The project would not trigger an EAW based on the mandatory thresholds. However, if there is a perception that this project will cause significant environmental impact a discretionary EAW is appropriate. A discretionary EAW can help the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) identify the adverse environmental impacts of a project and their severity. As such, we recommend that a discretionary EAW be completed for the project. It will take approximately 6-9 months to prepare an EAW and make a determination on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The City would be the RGU for the EAW. Project Cost Estimates Opinion of Probable Cost: A detailed opinion of cost for the project can be found in Appendix A of this report. The opinion of cost incorporates estimated 2020 construction costs and includes a 10% construction contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 28% of the construction cost and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. The table below provides a summary of the opinion of probable cost for the options under consideration. Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 10 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx Table 2: Estimated Project Cost Summary Description Total Estimated Project Cost Chippewa Road (Mohawk to "T" Intersection at Arrowhead Dr) $2,727,000 Arrowhead Dr (South of "T" Intersection with Chippewa Rd) $327,000 Arrowhead Dr (North) & Private Drive (East) $215,000 Storm Sewer & Stormwater Management $1,096,000 Wetland Mitigation Credits $575,000 Total for Chippewa Road Extension $4,940,000 Total for Watermain Extension $459,000 Total for Mohawk Drive (South Turn Lane) $214,000 Total for OSI/Meander Area Realignment $866,000 The above costs in Table 2 are estimated costs for roadway, storm sewer, stormwater improvements, and watermain as indicated for the preferred alternative. The cost to construct dual turn lanes on Arrowhead Drive at TH 55 were not included with this study. The cost to obtain right of way for the proposed improvements was not included with the project estimates; it has been assumed that adjacent property owners would provide the necessary right of way with proposed development. The cost to mitigate disturbed wetland areas were also included where pertinent; it was assumed the purchase of wetland credits and not onsite mitigation. No contingency or overhead were included with the cost of the wetland credits. Onsite mitigation for the wetland disturbance is a feasible alternative and may be more cost effective due to the large area required, but there is no upland available immediately adjacent to Chippewa Road; the onsite mitigation area would need to be identified in the adjacent development proposed by Mark of Excellence. Onsite mitigation of the floodplain impacts will be required, but costs were not included in this study. It is assumed that an onsite floodplain mitigation area would be identified in conjunction with an onsite wetland mitigation area within the adjacent development proposed by Mark of Excellence. The cost to mitigate both the wetland and floodplain onsite would likely be less than purchasing wetland credits alone. Excavation quantities were estimated based on available soil information (NRCS) and known wetland locations; soil borings or a geotechnical analysis were not completed with the visioning study. The actual depth and composition of peat or other poor soils within the project area could affect the cost of the project significantly. Soil borings and a geotechnical analysis are recommended if further refinement of the design is intended. Community Engagement & Agency Coordination Meeting with MnDOT Signals Group: City engineering staff met with MnDOT to discuss the turn lane configuration options on Arrowhead Drive at TH 55 and OSI driveway. Initially, MnDOT’s preferred option was to relocate the existing OSI driveway north beyond the Meander intersection, to eliminate any conflicts between intersections. After discussing realignment options, MnDOT was also receptive to configuring the intersection at TH 55 with dual left turn lanes to allow for the left turn lane into OSI to be lengthened without realigning Meander Road. Based on the response from MnDOT, significant changes to the signal system are not anticipated with the dual left turn lane option. Neighborhood Open House: A Neighborhood Open House meeting for adjacent property owners was held on October 15, 2019. Preliminary information was available to property owners regarding the concept plans and impacts associated with the project. Approximately ten residents were in attendance, as well as Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 11 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx the full City Council, several City staff, and WSB engineering representatives. The primary feedback was: · Concerns with traffic back-ups at TH 55 and Arrowhead during evening rush hour (primarily from traffic coming from OSI) · Vehicle speeds along the existing Arrowhead Drive corridor · The additional traffic volume proposed due to adjacent development and extension of Chippewa Road · Vehicle speeds along the proposed Chippewa Road extension, especially at the intersection with Arrowhead Drive to the north Comment cards were made available to attendees at the meeting; one response has been received in the mail and is included in Appendix B. Conclusion The Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive area was included in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan with the intent that, “MnDOT and the City of Medina should work cooperatively, as redevelopment occurs, to close existing direct access driveways onto TH 55 and relocate direct access to a frontage/backage road system, consistent with the 2007 TH 55 design concept vision.” That concept vision included the idea of connecting Chippewa Road from Arrowhead Drive to Mohawk Drive, completing the roadway network in the area. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan shows that this area has been planned for a combination of business, low-density residential, and rural residential land uses. Based on recent development proposals submitted to the City, primarily from the Mark of Excellence and OSI, all or a significant portion of the project areas will likely be constructed in conjunction with these adjacent developments, if approved. In general, the City may consider the benefit that adjacent properties receive due to the roadway and utility connections, which are needed for development in this area. To accommodate the roadway extension of Chippewa Road, the northern realignment of Arrowhead Drive, and the realignment of Meander Road intersections, additional right-of-way will be needed. The roadway improvements on Mohawk Drive and the southern portion of Arrowhead Drive are proposed to remain within the existing right-of-way and closely match the existing roadway locations. Further refinement of the right-of-way needs will be needed as development is proposed or as projects proceed into final design. A more immediate finding of the visioning process is the need to consider additional southbound left turn capacity on Arrowhead Drive at TH 55. Based on field observations and a more conservative and specific traffic analysis for OSI operations, the vehicles exiting OSI in the evening rush hour are causing operational issues and back-ups along Arrowhead Drive. A dual left turn configuration at TH 55 will allow for greater stacking capacity during peak operational conditions, with any of the OSI Driveway and Meander Road alternatives. A significant driving factor for the Chippewa Road extension and the re-alignment of Meander and/or the OSI driveway is the adjacent development. Development proposals have been submitted to the City in 2019. Final design and construction of the street projects may occur in conjunction with these developments or portions could be development into City led projects. Until development proposals and plans are approved by the City it is unknown when these projects will proceed. With that in mind, the next steps for the City to consider in the meantime are the following: 1. Obtain additional survey topography within the northerly OHW area to confirm surrounding elevations Final Report Memorandum City of Medina Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study October 31, 2019 Page 12 K:\014434-000\Admin\Docs\Final Report\1. Chippewa & Arrowhead Visioning Study - Final Report- Final Draft.docx 2. Update the floodplain elevation determination analysis with Atlas 14 and obtain approval from the respective governing bodies, 3. Consider drafting a discretionary EAW for the proposed improvements within the Chippewa Road corridor 4. Consider additional traffic counts (video and counters) in and around the OSI driveway and at TH 55 to provide the data needed to proceed with approval from MnDOT for the dual turn lane option. The Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study was initiated to develop a cohesive plan to guide the transportation needs, right-of-way, public utilities, and other parameters within these corridors, while meeting the needs of the property owners, developers, and other stakeholders within the area. This project has been planned by the City for some time, and at this point, it is a matter of when, not if, the project will occur. The final concept plan and alternatives analysis is based upon input from City Council, City staff, MnDOT staff, comments made at the open house, and the City’s engineering team. This represents the City’s vision for this corridor. List of Figures and Appendices Figure 1 – Option 1 “T” Intersection Figure 2 – Option 2 Traditional Intersections Figure 3 – Option 3 Roundabout Intersections Figure 4 – Final Alternatives Analysis & Preferred Options Figure 5 – TH 55 & Arrowhead Drive Dual Left Configuration Figure 6 – Anticipated Wetland and Floodplain Impacts Appendix A – Opinion of Project Costs – Detailed Estimates Appendix B – Open House Documents and Comment Card Appendix C – Meeting Minutes with MnDOT and DNR Appendix D – OHW Determination & 2014 Floodplain Analysis W S B F il e n a m e : D a t e : P r in t e d : 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 9 K: \ 0 1 4 4 3 4 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ E x h ib it s \ P r e l i m in a r y A li g n m e n t s \ O p t i o n 1 T In t e r s e c t i o n s . d g n City of Medina Chippewa Road & Arrowhead Drive Corridor Visioning Study 2' LC TRAIL 8' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/W R/W BLVD 6' CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CHIPPEWA ROAD 2' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/WR/W CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE TRAIL 10.67' ARROWHEAD DRIVE LC N 0 SCALE IN FEET 150 300 Figure 1 MINNESOTA 55 Meander Road A r r o w h e a d D r i v e M o h a w k D r i v e Chippewa Road T Intersection OHW = 980.6 DNR Jurisdictional Wetlands WCA Wetlands OHW: 978.3 OHW: 980.6 OHW Separation Average Daily Traffic XXX EXISTING ADT PROJECT 2040 ADT(XXX) Queue Analysis SB LEFT NB LEFT 200 25 AVAILABLE 200 100 REQUIRED 1050 (5800) 1 0 3 0 ( 1 3 2 0 ) 0 (7100) 1 0 0 ( 9 0 0 ) 690 (3900) 3 7 5 ( 1 8 0 0 ) S T O P STOP S T OP STOP STOP W S B F il e n a m e : D a t e : P r in t e d : 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 9 K: \ 0 1 4 4 3 4 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ E x h ib it s \ P r e l i m in a r y A li g n m e n t s \ O p t i o n 2 T r a d it i o n a l In t e r s e c t i o n s . d g n City of Medina Chippewa Road & Arrowhead Drive Corridor Visioning Study 2' LC TRAIL 8' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/W R/W BLVD 6' CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CHIPPEWA ROAD 2' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/WR/W CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE TRAIL 10.67' ARROWHEAD DRIVE LC N 0 SCALE IN FEET 150 300 Figure 2 Traditional Intersection MINNESOTA 55 Meander Road A r r o w h e a d D r i v e M o h a w k D r i v e Chippewa Road WCA Wetlands OHW = 980.6 DNR Jurisdictional Wetlands OHW: 978.3 OHW: 980.6 OHW Separation 3 7 5 ( 1 8 0 0 ) 690 (3900) 0 (7100) 1 0 3 0 ( 1 3 2 0 ) 1050 (5800) Average Daily Traffic XXX EXISTING ADT PROJECT 2040 ADT(XXX) Queue Analysis SB LEFT NB LEFT 200 100 REQUIRED 200 120 AVAILABLE STOP 1 0 0 ( 9 0 0 ) S T O P S T OP S T O PSTOP S T OP STOP W S B F il e n a m e : D a t e : P r in t e d : 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 9 K: \ 0 1 4 4 3 4 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ E x h ib it s \ P r e l i m in a r y A li g n m e n t s \ O p t i o n 3 R o u n d a b o u t In t e r s e c t i o n s . d g n City of Medina Chippewa Road & Arrowhead Drive Corridor Visioning Study 2' LC TRAIL 8' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/W R/W BLVD 6' CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CHIPPEWA ROAD 2' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/WR/W CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE TRAIL 10.67' ARROWHEAD DRIVE LC N 0 SCALE IN FEET 150 300 Figure 3 Roundabout Intersection MINNESOTA 55 Meander Road A r r o w h e a d D r i v e M o h a w k D r i v e Chippewa Road OHW = 980.6 DNR Jurisdictional Wetlands WCA Wetlands OHW: 978.3 OHW Separation OHW: 980.6 Queue Analysis SB LEFT NB LEFT 190 NA AVAILABLE Average Daily Traffic XXX EXISTING ADT PROJECT 2040 ADT(XXX) 1050 (5800) 1 0 3 0 ( 1 3 2 0 ) 0 (7100) 3 7 5 ( 1 8 0 0 ) 1 0 0 ( 9 0 0 ) 690 (3900) 200 NA REQUIRED W S B F il e n a m e : D a t e : P r in t e d : 1 1 / 1 / 2 0 1 9 K: \ 0 1 4 4 3 4 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ E x h ib it s \ P r e f e r r e d A li g n m e n t \ A lt e r n a t i v e A n a ly s is - F i n a l. d g n City of Medina Chippewa Road & Arrowhead Drive Corridor Visioning Study 2' LC TRAIL 8' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/W R/W BLVD 6' CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CHIPPEWA ROAD 2' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/WR/W CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE TRAIL 10.67' ARROWHEAD DRIVE LC N 0 SCALE IN FEET 150 300 Figure 4 MINNESOTA 55 Meander Road A r r o w h e a d D r i v e M o h a w k D r i v e Chippewa Road OHW = 980.6 DNR Jurisdictional Wetlands WCA Wetlands OHW: 978.3 OHW: 980.6 OHW Separation Average Daily Traffic XXX EXISTING ADT (XXX) Queue Analysis SB LEFT NB LEFT 200 100 REQUIRED 1050 (7100) 1 0 3 0 ( 1 3 2 0 ) 0 (5800) 1 0 0 ( 9 0 0 ) 690 (3900) 3 7 5 ( 1 8 0 0 ) S T O P S T OP S T OP STOP STOP 200 120 AVAILABLE PROJECTED 2040 ADT Alternatives Analysis - Final S T O P S T OP - Realign OSI Driveway Alternative Layout C - Traditional Intersection Alternative Layout B - Roundabout Intersection Alternative Layout A 100 Year Floodplain Boundary - Roundabout Intersection Alternative Layout A - Realign Meander Alternative Layout B S T OP S T O P November 2019 WSB Filename:Date: Printed:11/1/2019 K:\014434-000\Cad\Exhibits\Preferred Alignment\TH55-ArrowheadDr Dual Left.dgn Ci t y o f M e d i n a Ch i p p e w a R o a d & A r r o w h e a d D r i v e C o r r i d o r V i s i o n i n g S t u d y AREA = 1 5 S Q ' REM = 4 8 S Q ' PERIM E T E R = 3 0 ' AREA = 1 5 S Q ' REM = 4 8 S Q ' PERIME T E R = 3 0 ' PERIMET E R 3 0 F T PERIME T E R 3 0 F T PERIMETE R 3 0 F T PERIME T E R 3 0 F T AREA = 1 5 S Q ' REM = 4 8 S Q ' PERIME T E R = 3 0 ' AREA = 1 5 S Q ' REM = 4 8 S Q ' PERIME T E R = 3 0 ' PERIMET E R 3 0 F T PERIMETE R 3 0 F T PERIMET E R 3 0 F T AREA = 15 SQ'REM = 48 SQ 'PERIMETER = 30 ' AREA = 15 SQ'REM = 48 SQ 'PERIMETER = 30 ' AREA = 1 5 S Q ' REM = 4 8 S Q ' PERIM E T E R = 3 0 ' AREA = 1 5 S Q ' REM = 4 8 S Q ' PERIME T E R = 3 0 ' N MI N N E S O T A 55 STOP S T OP TH 5 5 a n d A r r o w h e a d D r i v e D u a l L e f t s 0 SC A L E I N F E E T 50 10 0 No v e m b e r 2 0 1 9 Fi g u r e 5 W S B F il e n a m e : D a t e : P r in t e d : 1 0 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 K: \ 0 1 4 4 3 4 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ E x h ib it s \ W e t la n d Im p a c t s . d g n City of Medina Chippewa Road & Arrowhead Drive Corridor Visioning Study 2' LC TRAIL 8' URBAN SECTION WITH TRAIL THRU LANE 16' THRU LANE 16' 80'R/W R/W BLVD 6' CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETE CHIPPEWA ROAD 30 31 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 1 3 0 1 3 1 132 133 134 1 3 5 1 3 6 1 3 7 1 3 8 1 3 9 1 4 0 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 4 3 1 4 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 40 41424344 CL 982.21 CHIPPEWA.CHIPPEWA 128+00.00 R1 1:3.0 1.5%2.0%2.0%4.0%1: 3. 0 80 SF CL 982.01 CHIPPEWA.CHIPPEWA 128+50.00 R1 1:3.0 1.5%2.0%2.0%4.0% 1: 3. 0 134 SF 1:4 SLOPE 1:4 S LO PE 0.26 ACRES 0.05 ACRES 0.01 ACRES Chippewa Road A r r o w h e a d D r i v e M o h a w k D r i v e 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 N Figure 6 November 2019 Potential Wetland & Floodplain Impacts 1.81 ACRES Cross Section Excerpts Legend Potential Wetland Impacts Potential Floodplain Impacts 2.13 AC 4,500 CF 100 Year Floodplain Boundary WCA Wetlands OHW = 980.6 DNR Jurisdictional Wetlands WSB Project:Chippewa Road & Arrowhead Drive Corridor Design By:LME Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS City Project No.: WSB Project No:14434-000 Date:11/1/2019 Item No. MnDOT Specification No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 93,000.00$ 93,000.00$ 2 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.5 4,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.5 4,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 4 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 17500 2.50$ 43,750.00$ 5 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 11734 16.00$ 187,744.00$ 6 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 8031 9.00$ 72,279.00$ 7 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 7880 9.00$ 70,920.00$ 8 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 7570 16.00$ 121,120.00$ 9 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 19991 24.00$ 479,784.00$ 10 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 25 300.00$ 7,500.00$ 11 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 50 175.00$ 8,750.00$ 12 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 5316 30.00$ 159,480.00$ 13 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 4630 1.25$ 5,787.50$ 14 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1088 5.00$ 5,440.00$ 15 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 1203 75.00$ 90,225.00$ 16 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 2405 72.00$ 173,160.00$ 17 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 5166 30.00$ 154,980.00$ 18 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 2500 15.00$ 37,500.00$ 19 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 10 550.00$ 5,500.00$ 20 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION LS 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 21 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 4630 16.00$ 74,080.00$ 22 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 160 10.00$ 1,600.00$ 23 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 32 50.00$ 1,600.00$ 24 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 25 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 26 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 27 60.00$ 1,620.00$ 27 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 28 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 29 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 3500 2.50$ 8,750.00$ 30 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 3500 2.50$ 8,750.00$ 31 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 1500 8.00$ 12,000.00$ 32 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 1052 30.00$ 31,560.00$ 33 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 9801 2.50$ 24,502.50$ 34 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 9801 1.25$ 12,251.25$ 35 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 330 5.00$ 1,650.00$ 36 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 3 4,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 37 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 4630 1.00$ 4,630.00$ 38 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 4500 1.00$ 4,500.00$ 39 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE PAINT L F 2320 1.00$ 2,320.00$ 40 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 36 4.00$ 144.00$ 41 2582.518 CROSSWALK PAINT S F 320 4.00$ 1,280.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 1,936,807.25$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)193,680.73$ SUBTOTAL 2,130,487.98$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 596,536.63$ TOTAL 2,727,000.00$ WETLAND MITIGATION COST 575,000.00$ 42 2106.507 EXCAVATION - POND (LARGE)C Y 5255 16.00$ 84,080.00$ 43 2106.507 EXCAVATION - POND (SMALL)C Y 3411 16.00$ 54,576.00$ 44 2106.507 FILTRATION MEDIA (LARGE, FILTRATION BASIN) C Y 923 40.00$ 36,920.00$ 45 2106.507 FILTRATION MEDIA (SMALL, FILTRATION BASIN) C Y 512 40.00$ 20,480.00$ 46 2412.503 8X3 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT L F 200 900.00$ 180,000.00$ 47 2412.503 8X3 PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT END SECTION EACH 4 2,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 48 2452.601 SHEET PILING CAP L S 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 49 2452.618 STEEL SHEET PILING (PERMANENT)S F 1800 50.00$ 90,000.00$ 50 2502.541 6" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 250 15.00$ 3,750.00$ 51 2502.602 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 6 550.00$ 3,300.00$ 52 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 2 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 53 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 576 50.00$ 28,800.00$ 54 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 500 55.00$ 27,500.00$ 55 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 1500 70.00$ 105,000.00$ 56 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 18 750.00$ 13,500.00$ 57 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 108 450.00$ 48,600.00$ 58 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 18 2,500.00$ 45,000.00$ 59 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DES SPEC 2 (CONTROL STRUCTURE) EACH 2 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 778,506.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)77,850.60$ SUBTOTAL 856,356.60$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 239,779.85$ TOTAL 1,096,000.00$ 60 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 61 2105-601 DEWATERING LS 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ OPINION OF PROBABLE COST A. Chippewa Road (Mohawk to "T" Intersection at Arrowhead Dr) C. Chippewa Road Watermain Looping B. Chippewa Road Storm Sewer 62 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 2 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 63 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 3 5,500.00$ 16,500.00$ 64 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 3 1,800.00$ 5,400.00$ 65 2504.602 12" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 4 4,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 66 2504.603 6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52 L F 175 65.00$ 11,375.00$ 67 2504.603 12" WATERMAIN PVC C900 (DIRECTIONAL DRILLED) L F 2575 95.00$ 244,625.00$ 68 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 550 8.00$ 4,400.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 326,300.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)32,630.00$ SUBTOTAL 358,930.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 100,500.40$ TOTAL 459,000.00$ 69 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 70 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 71 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 72 2104.503 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)L F 118 8.00$ 944.00$ 73 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 5836 3.00$ 17,508.00$ 74 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 1450 2.50$ 3,625.00$ 75 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 2200 16.00$ 35,200.00$ 76 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 570 18.00$ 10,260.00$ 77 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 590 12.00$ 7,080.00$ 78 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 618 24.00$ 14,832.00$ 46 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 4 300.00$ 1,200.00$ 47 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 10 175.00$ 1,750.00$ 48 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 754 30.00$ 22,620.00$ 49 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 89 5.00$ 445.00$ 50 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 163 75.00$ 12,225.00$ 51 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 331 72.00$ 23,832.00$ 52 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 376 30.00$ 11,280.00$ 53 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 54 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 783 18.00$ 14,094.00$ 55 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S Y 160 60.00$ 9,600.00$ 56 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 32 50.00$ 1,600.00$ 57 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 58 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 1 300.00$ 300.00$ 59 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 9 60.00$ 540.00$ 60 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 61 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 3 250.00$ 750.00$ 62 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 63 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 64 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 200 8.00$ 1,600.00$ 65 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 195 30.00$ 5,850.00$ 66 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 1089 2.50$ 2,722.50$ 67 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1089 1.25$ 1,361.25$ 68 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 36 5.00$ 180.00$ 69 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 70 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 783 1.00$ 783.00$ 71 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 700 1.00$ 700.00$ 72 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE PAINT L F 392 1.00$ 392.00$ 73 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 36 4.00$ 144.00$ 74 2582.518 CROSSWALK PAINT S F 320 4.00$ 1,280.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 231,997.75$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)23,199.78$ SUBTOTAL 255,197.53$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%)71,455.31$ TOTAL 327,000.00$ 75 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 76 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 77 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 78 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 167 3.00$ 501.00$ 79 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 1080 2.50$ 2,700.00$ 80 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 2046 16.00$ 32,736.00$ 81 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 61 18.00$ 1,098.00$ 82 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 381 12.00$ 4,572.00$ 83 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 399 24.00$ 9,576.00$ 84 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 85 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 5 175.00$ 875.00$ 86 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 445 30.00$ 13,350.00$ 87 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 52 5.00$ 260.00$ 88 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 104 75.00$ 7,800.00$ 89 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 210 72.00$ 15,120.00$ 90 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 91 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 546 35.00$ 19,110.00$ 92 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S Y 160 60.00$ 9,600.00$ 93 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 32 50.00$ 1,600.00$ 94 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 95 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 1 300.00$ 300.00$ 96 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 9 60.00$ 540.00$ 97 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 98 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 3 250.00$ 750.00$ 99 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 250 2.50$ 625.00$ 100 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 250 2.50$ 625.00$ 101 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 100 8.00$ 800.00$ D. Arrowhead Dr (South of "T" Intersection with Chippewa Rd) E. Arrowhead Dr (North) & Private Drive (East) 102 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 111 30.00$ 3,330.00$ 103 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 363 2.50$ 907.50$ 104 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 363 1.25$ 453.75$ 105 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 12 5.00$ 60.00$ 106 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 107 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 546 1.00$ 546.00$ 108 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 500 1.00$ 500.00$ 109 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE PAINT L F 273 1.00$ 273.00$ 110 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 36 4.00$ 144.00$ 111 2582.518 CROSSWALK PAINT S F 320 4.00$ 1,280.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 152,732.25$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (0%)15,273.23$ SUBTOTAL 168,005.48$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (0%)47,041.53$ TOTAL 215,000.00$ F. Mohawk Drive (Turn Lane & Widening) 112 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 113 2104.503 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)L F 52 8.00$ 416.00$ 114 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 554 3.00$ 1,662.00$ 115 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 1015 2.50$ 2,537.50$ 116 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 372 18.00$ 6,696.00$ 117 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 55 20.00$ 1,100.00$ 118 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 711 14.00$ 9,954.00$ 119 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 744 28.00$ 20,832.00$ 120 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 4 300.00$ 1,200.00$ 121 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 10 175.00$ 1,750.00$ 122 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 821 35.00$ 28,735.00$ 123 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 685 5.00$ 3,425.00$ 124 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 121 85.00$ 10,285.00$ 125 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 241 83.00$ 20,003.00$ 126 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 127 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 450 25.00$ 11,250.00$ 128 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 129 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 2 300.00$ 600.00$ 130 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 18 60.00$ 1,080.00$ 131 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 132 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 133 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 134 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 135 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 200 8.00$ 1,600.00$ 136 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 39 30.00$ 1,170.00$ 137 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 231 2.50$ 577.50$ 138 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 231 1.25$ 288.75$ 139 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 6 5.00$ 30.00$ 140 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 141 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 830 1.00$ 830.00$ 142 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 450 1.00$ 450.00$ 143 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE PAINT L F 450 1.00$ 450.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 151,671.75$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)15,167.18$ SUBTOTAL 166,838.93$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 46,714.90$ TOTAL 214,000.00$ G. OSI/Meander - Preferred Alternate (Move OSI Intersection) 144 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 145 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 146 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 147 2104.503 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)L F 76 8.00$ 608.00$ 148 2104.503 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER L F 400 4.00$ 1,600.00$ 149 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 294 10.00$ 2,940.00$ 150 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 3089 3.50$ 10,811.50$ 151 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 4550 2.50$ 11,375.00$ 152 2105.618 WETLAND IMPACTS S F 19400 3.00$ 58,200.00$ 153 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 1419 10.00$ 14,190.00$ 154 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 8511 10.00$ 85,110.00$ 155 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1354 16.00$ 21,664.00$ 156 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 6161 24.00$ 147,864.00$ 157 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$ 158 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 10 175.00$ 1,750.00$ 159 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 738 35.00$ 25,830.00$ 160 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 238 5.00$ 1,190.00$ 161 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 114 84.00$ 9,576.00$ 162 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C)TON 152 82.00$ 12,464.00$ 163 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 779 30.00$ 23,370.00$ 164 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 165 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 300 48.00$ 14,400.00$ 166 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 250 58.00$ 14,500.00$ 167 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 50 72.00$ 3,600.00$ 168 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 2 750.00$ 1,500.00$ 169 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 16 450.00$ 7,200.00$ 170 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 8 2,500.00$ 20,000.00$ 171 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 172 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 2160 18.00$ 38,880.00$ 173 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 174 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 4 300.00$ 1,200.00$ 175 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 36 60.00$ 2,160.00$ 176 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 177 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 2 250.00$ 500.00$ 178 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1500 2.50$ 3,750.00$ 179 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1500 2.50$ 3,750.00$ 180 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$ 181 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 379 30.00$ 11,370.00$ 182 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 1815 2.50$ 4,537.50$ 183 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1815 1.25$ 2,268.75$ 184 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 60 5.00$ 300.00$ 185 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 186 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1760 1.00$ 1,760.00$ 187 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1000 1.00$ 1,000.00$ 188 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE PAINT L F 880 1.00$ 880.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 615,398.75$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)61,539.88$ SUBTOTAL 676,938.63$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 189,542.82$ TOTAL 866,000.00$ Background Planned improvement identified in City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan • Roadway system connectivity • Alte rnative ro utes to access TH 55 • Deve lopment acce ss • Identified need in previous Comprehensive Plans dating back to 2000 • Consistent with MnDOT's TH 55 capacity and operations plan Vis ioning Study • Develo p cohesiv e plan fo r Chippewa/Arrowhe ad co rrido rs • Provide traffic projectio ns and operation analysis • Refine roadway and intersection geometrics • Identify right-of-way needs • Allow right-of-way to be secured and construct improvements with future development Open House Tuesday, October 15, 2019 - 5:00 PM Attendance List Chippewa Road & Arrowhead Drive Corridor Visioning WSB Project No. 14434-000 Name Address Telephone Email C i rick' /Us- fri Z(Colo 6IuehW Tr_ / -. (st).--70-- ?ac is cookcook@ Gc>/kkl rQhoe- 00 41L1/ 1,93-00661 V ke. 000k- q(°( /rrc'-`-;" c- PileU ,ho -- (N6 'S-5-3(40 '763 -L(0(4 - -(V1 e\ L u(c-1 o l c_ e_ D . -C c,~. &-----,, Z.. ), ,--i-D -�-13 �� a.,t,a_Q_A_ l 5�, ci rj , _ov\ 2 e c"(\,a �� , w r i C ., H. etz vE k , f --12S-6 ,�►�- a 7-a— -L I, G�'�vA l .e v Zo ! ( E �J t ce - L_(- i., \-3 14 '��UJ coin(� s) -s---7 Y 1 -- ri . vii(rz't �v, C . ...-- 42di kePy es LiLi Tr [ �, k ohr�s0 c ,tom � 317 A N 1 on -c -Ara- '-(-48-‘4 6 L v6s c&L. 6(7__ _ -75�- bra uNd r, l6vsPh,- L K:,014434-000Wdmi n:Meed ng12019-1 0.15 Open lionse\Sign-in 57ieeldnc Open H ouse Tuesday, October 15, 2019 — 5:00 PM Attendance List Chippewa R oad & Arr owhead Drive C orridor Visioning WSB Project No. 14434-000 Name Address Telephone Email ' % 4-1-4(Atr4 4210 -bra Dr. 7(' ,g6' cowl 4n Q -}cCbic, ��n wsk€16s6a4k g 04 o . an r 4 A: ,010-430--OOOWdm, nWee„ ng2019-10-15 ope n umse,s,g,d n 57,ee, .Aoc PLEASE C OMMENT ON ANY ISSUES THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN DESIGNING OR CONSTRUCTING THIS PROJECT? c1,-, (2,-, ,-,)(;\ 1 (,,,,O ---( o-7 TvpC) -- Avt-e ( y 0 0 M 0 )1- crda4 .4..„ vi/o43.„(1,,, __________ 4- S c , CDS al / rt4 .e -7,43e------ 0--e7 fis0 -, 1)c{ c (C LT S C- -1)--eic(fs / '-./C)c\j Cc( u se. VW-- ot. :: (rQ SLAw 7h -) ,/ina )1 ( 17/404-0,-( . sig - tic_3 0 CC.)k.„4-7--) Op -) -c).0 vte ,, iO4'1/1 -)44e,r+ Your Name - Address1 Phone 6-- ) 4-( ( (C -' k`/P t T V 0 MEDINA 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Agenda: MnDOT Signals Coordination Meeting - Minutes Project: City of Medina – Chippewa Rd & Arrowhead Dr Visioning Study Date: September 25, 2019 Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 14434-000 Attendees: See Sign-In Sheet 1. Introductions 2. Project Background a. A cohesive plan is not available for the Chippewa Rd and Arrowhead Dr corridors; this project is intended to incorporate the City’s vision and provide concept plans, traffic analysis, and preliminary cost estimates b. Identification of ROW needed for adjacent developments along Chippewa Rd and Arrowhead Dr. c. OSI (Arrowhead Dr & TH 55) petition and waiver due within one year, review future site expansion and access considerations 3. Design & Geometrics (Proposed QZ South Side of TH 55) a. Improvements (South Side of TH55) i. Raised median design ii. Widen Arrowhead Drive to the west b. Pedestrian Improvements i. New crossing surface. ii. Construct the bituminous trail section within the railroad ROW with this project. iii. No changes proposed to ped crossings at TH 55 c. Signal System (South side of TH 55) i. Generally, little if no impact to signal operations ii. If the lanes are shifted at the intersection with TH 55, the loop detectors will need to be relocated. iii. There is currently no detection of vehicles on the south side of the tracks. Stop bars or signs would be required b. Level 2 Layout: Will be required as a part of the submittal for the quiet zone plan set and can be included at the same time. Review opposing left turning movements, will require a 14’ clearance between vehicles. 4. Design & Geometrics (Turn Lanes North Side of TH 55) a. OSI Expansion i. City considering improvements at Meander/OSI driveway with petition and waiver agreement ii. Multiple options, consideration of least impact to wetlands and potential permitting implications iii. With expansion, City may have some leverage in layout iv. MnDOT suggested considering moving OSI driveway further to the north from its existing location to avoid interaction with Meander altogether. This options provides the most flexibility with extending the existing left turn lane north (from TH 55) or adding the second left turn lane and provide City of Medina – Chippewa Rd & Arrowhead Dr Visioning Study – MnDOT Signals Coordination Meeting September 25, 2019 Page 2 additional stacking for future conditions. Sight distances will need to be reviewed to make sure this will not be an issue if driveway of moved further north. b. Turn Lanes i. OSI expansion will increase traffic levels, consider left turn lane into site ii. Option with least impact to wetlands leaves Meander at existing location, but moves OSI driveway iii. Consider potential of future double left turn lanes at Arrowhead to maximize OSI left turn lanes c. Impacts to Signal at TH 55 i. There may be a potential need to split the phase of opposing left turning movements impact each other if the southbound dual left turn lane configuration is considered. ii. MnDOT suggested moving the north bound thru-lane on Arrowhead (south side of TH 55) as far to the east as possible; the distance may only be a few feet but could reduce impacts on the north side of the intersection. The thru-lanes lanes between the north and south sides of the intersection must line up. 5. Funding Sources a. OSI Petition and Waiver b. City c. MnDOT (no funding available at this point) 6. Permits, Agency Approvals, Agreements a. Wetland (WCA/DNR) b. NPDES c. MnDOT 7. Preliminary Schedule (Chippewa/Arrowhead Visioning Study) Project Kickoff Meeting with City Staff ....................................................... Week of July 8, 2019 Draft Analysis and Preliminary Concept Plan ...................................................... August 6, 2019 City Council Work Session ................................................................................ August 20, 2019 Meeting with City Staff ........................................................................ Week of August 26, 2019 Update with City Council ................................................................................... October 1, 2019 Public Information Meeting .............................................................................. October 15, 2019 Meeting with City Staff ....................................................................... Week of October 21, 2019 City Council Meeting to Review Final Analysis and Concept Plan................ November 5, 2019 8. Next Steps, Questions, Clarifications, Other Action Items (WSB) - Contact Kevin Schwartz on timing of signals. Action Items (MnDOT) 9. Adjourn wsb H CHIPPEWA RD & ARROWHEAD DR VISIONING STUDY CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA WSB PROJECT NO . 014434-000 MNDOT COORDINATION MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 - 2:00 PM Name Representing Phone (Include Area Code) Cell/Pager (Include Area Code) E-mail Address J i Y-. St -r. .,1 (Z St' G i 10 i - /s i 4) a -1 g:I L- / / js*( ov .aS �e ,,o Cbk,rv- P-t.di-avi u 12 (01,2.-N400 -1;143 G - . 6 (-SO N-)U,NfV I✓ i��FFi( ,15 C"jl C.A 1 I"'15 1 c., C54. 4 ..I Mn.6 I �I-1 VOMOVAM ilitA T W6� le -D (q5' 1 - 23�---167.0 I / -jhi JO0,0V vn& 1,tedc . Mil • US 7169906W 'W 4u-74-Y/r /''i"l MSiT 6s-/- Z3cf- 7,63 .9 .4.440-i • 4detr Q J4r-e, - 0.7,7 .14_,S* City of Medina Chippewa Rd & Arrowhead Dr Visioning Study September 25, 2019 Page 2 Name Representing Ph one (Include Area C ode) Cell/Pager (Include Area Code) E-mail Address 6Gio Ee-tC4SoN ivit' JUG Cob 1- �3`c--7XoG C(d�ta,Cr'2 1 L 14s v n.�!i(tlZz Gvt.ti .vS K:\014434-000Wdmin\Meeting\2019-09-25 M tg with MnDOT Traffic & Signals\2019-09-25 Medina Chippewa Visioning Project - Sign In.docx 1 Jim Stremel From:Jim Stremel Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:34 AM To:dusty.finke@medinamn.gov Cc:aharwood@wsbeng.com Subject:OHW determination for 1952 Chippewa Rd, Medina - DNR Wetland extent request Attachments:WaterResourceDelineation.pdf; RE_ OHW determination for 1952 Chippewa Rd, Medina - DNR Wetland__ extent request.eml Dusty, See attached for an exhibit showing the separation of the two OHW’s along the future Chippewa Road corridor for your files along with the email from the DNR. Jim (763) 287-8532 From: Spiegel, Jason (DNR) [mailto:jason.spiegel@state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 12:24 PM To: Alison Harwood <aharwood@wsbeng.com> Cc: Jim Stremel <JStremel@wsbeng.com> Subject: RE: OHW determination for 1952 Chippewa Rd, Medina - DNR Wetland extent request Hi Alison, Sorry for the delay on this! I meant to talk to Kate about this area before responding and just dropped the ball on doing so. Yes, you can use the area located on the .pdf you attached as the area of separation between the two basins. Sincerely, Jason Spiegel North Metro Area Hydrologist Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5822 Email: jason.spiegel@state.mn.us mndnr.gov 1414 MEDINA N orthern Basin OHW: 978.3 Ft. Southern Basin OHW: 980 .6 Ft . Future Chippewa Ro ad Ex tensio n — DNR OHW Designatio ns Medina, MN A irehippewa 2017 Parcel Boundary OHW Separatio n 2017 Wetla nd Deli neati on — Pe ndi ng Appro val P ote ntial Road Alignm ent P ote ntial Road Alignm ent 0 200 Feet 1 inch = 200 feet WS engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 St. Cloud  Minneapolis  St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02712-000\Admin\Permits\ECWMC Floodplain\2712-000_Floodplain ECWMC.doc Memorandum To: Jim Kujawa From: Earth Evans, PE Date: 6.9.14 Re: DNR Wetland 27-493 Floodplain Elevation WSB Project No. 2712-000 This memo summarizes our analysis of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain elevation for Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wetland number 27-493 located in the City of Medina. As shown on the attached Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 27053C0165E for Hennepin County the DNR wetland is covered by Zone A floodplain. The City of Medina is preparing preliminary plans for extension of Chippewa Road between Arrowhead Drive and Mohawk Drive which prompted the floodplain review. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to estimate increases in flood levels. As a Zone A floodplain, no study has been completed to determine a floodplain elevation. We are seeking approval of the estimated floodplain elevation in order to move forward with estimating floodplain impacts due to the proposed road. Chippewa Road extension follows an old farm road and bisects DNR wetland 27-493. The DNR completed an ordinary high water level (OHW) determination in 2013.  The OHW for the wetland south of proposed Chippewa Road is 980.6.  The OHW for the wetland north of Chippewa Road is 978.3. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECMWC) requires 1:1 mitigation for floodplain impacts. Floodplain mitigation due to the Chippewa Road extension will require land purchase and therefore an accurate representation of the floodplain elevation is critical. Hydrologic/Hydraulic Model Wetland 27-493 is tributary to Rush Creek. Stormwater runoff from south of Trunk Highway 55 discharges north into the wetland through an existing culvert. Stormwater flows from south to north through the wetland. Refer to attached Drainage Map and Topographic Map. Jim Kujawa 6.9.14 Page 2 K:\02712-000\Admin\Permits\ECWMC Floodplain\2712-000_Floodplain ECWMC.doc The hydrologic/hydraulic model was developed using HydroCAD modeling software (see attached). The 6.0-inch, 24-hour, 100-year rainfall event was used for estimating the floodplain elevation. The wetland was bisected into two cells with proposed Chippewa Road forming the boundary. The reason for bisecting the wetland was to mimic the DNR OHW determination and account for the gradient in the wetland high water level. The modeled floodplain elevations are listed below:  South DNR 27-493 = 980.7  North DNR 27-493 = 978.7 These elevations generally coincide with the DNR OHWs for the wetland. Refer to attached HydroCAD modeling printouts for detailed results. As noted previously, we are requesting approval of the floodplain elevations noted above in order to proceed with design of the plans and permitting for Chippewa Road. If you have any questions regarding the analysis, please contact me (763) 231-4877 or eevans@wsbeng.com. 2730000 FT 001184x SOO LINE RAILROAD JOINS PANEL 0154 PAWNEE RD. ZONE X CHIPPEWA RD. 2735000 FT 001185 ZONE X ZONE X Q01186 93° 33' 45 " 45°03' 45" 4990000 M ZONE X ZONE X ZONE X HAMEL ZONE X ARROWHEAD ZONE X 4989000 M JOINS PANEL 0166 4988000 M MAP SCALE 1" = 1000' 500 0 1000 L r , rrf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o NM' 70 PANEL 0165E FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (ALL JURISDICTIONS) PANEL 165 OF 479 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX MEDINA, CITY OF 270171 0165 ORON0 CITY OF 270178 0165 Notice to User: The Map Number shown below should be used when placing map orders; the Community Number shown above should be used on insurance applications for the subject community. MAP NUMBER 27053C0165E EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 Federal Emergency Management Agency This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title Mock. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www. msc.fema. gov 0 HIGHWAY 55 0 0000 M O H AW K State Highway 55 W il l o w D r i ve Chippewa Road HIGHWAY 55 HAMEL RD ARR OWH EA D D R 27-118-23-02-004-A 27-118-23-10-013-A 27-118-23-03-041-A 27-118-23-11-007-A27-118-23-09-009-A 27-118-23-04-031-A 27-118-23-02-027-A 27-118-23-09-013-A 27-118-23-11-040-A 27-118-23-10-012-A 27-118-23-11-040-A 27-118-23-10-020-A 27-118-23-11-014-A 27-118-23-11-024-A 27-118-23-04-012-A 27-118-23-02-025-A 27-118-23-02-012-A 27-118-23-11-010-A 27-118-23-09-010-A 27-118-23-10-028-A 27-118-23-11-021-A 27-118-23-04-007-A 27-118-23-10-019-A 27-118-23-03-027-A 27-118-23-11-016-A 27-118-23-11-019-A 27-118-23-10-002-A 27-118-23-11-039-A 27-118-23-02-018-A 27-118-23-11-008-A 27-118-23-11-001-A 27-118-23-02-019-A 27-118-23-10-026-A 27-118-23-11-028-A 27-118-23-10-017-A 27-118-23-02-013-A 27-118-23-10-021-A 27-118-23-11-018-A 27-118-23-02-017-A 27-118-23-10-023-A 27-118-23-02-028-A 27-118-23-02-014-A 27-118-23-09-002-A ¹1 inch = 1,5 00 feet DNR 27-493 Regulatory Floodplain Drainage Map Documen t Path: K :\027 12-000\GIS\Ma ps\Chippew a Rd Drainage.mxd Drainage Boundary DNR 27-493 DNR 27-493 Proposed Chippew a Road HIGHWAY 55 MOH AW K MOH AWK DR A R R O W H E A D D R HIGHWAY 55 KATRINKA RD CHIPPEWA RD BLUEBELL TRL N B L U E BE L L T RL S TRILLIUM DR N 1010 1 0 0 0 990 980 1000 990 990 990 980 9 8 0 1 0 0 0 990 1 0 0 0 990 1000 980 1000 980 990 980 980 1010 990 9 8 0 980 980 980 1010 1 0 0 0 990 1000 9 8 0 1 0 0 0 9 8 0 980 980 9 8 0 9 8 0 9 8 0 990 980 9 8 0 9 8 0 990 1 0 0 0 9 8 0 980 980 9 8 0 1010 990 980 1000 990 9 8 0 9 8 0 990 1 0 1 0 980 1000 1000 980 990 1 0 1 0 1000 990 990 980 9 8 0 1000 990 980 9 9 0 990 1000 27-118-23-03-029-A 27-118-23-03-030-A 27-118-23-02-004-A 27-118-23-03-032-A 27-118-23-03-031-A 27-118-23-03-027-A 27-118-23-03-005-A 27-118-23-04-032-A 27-118-23-03-014-A 27-118-23-03-015-A 27-118-23-02-031-A 27-118-23-03-012-A 27-118-23-03-019-A 27-118-23-03-013-A 27-118-23-03-008-A 27-118-23-03-010-A 1000 1020 1 0 2 0 9 8 0 100 0 980 980 1 0 1 0 9 9 0 980 1000 9 8 098 0 980 1000 990 9 8 0 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 9 8 0 1000 980 980980 980 980 1 0 1 0 980 1 0 1 0 1000 980 1010 1000 980 980 9 8 0 980 980 9 8 0 980 ¹1 inch = 500 fee t DNR 27-493 Regulatory Floodplain Topographic Map Documen t Path: K :\027 12-000\GIS\Ma ps\Chippew a Rd Drainage.mxd DNR 27-493 DNR 27-493 1S 5S S of 55 6S 2P wetland south of TH55 3P South DNR 27-493 4P North DNR 27-493 Routing Diagram for Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Prepared by HP, Printed 6/9/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 334.000 72 (6S) 31.000 83 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG C (6S) 0.400 56 Brush, Fair, HSG B (1S) 3.500 70 Brush, Fair, HSG C (1S) 8.500 77 Brush, Fair, HSG D (1S) 1.100 90 Fallow, crop residue, Good, HSG D (1S) 17.700 98 Impervious (1S) 37.400 85 Marsh (1S) 11.900 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B (1S) 24.100 79 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG C (1S) 23.500 84 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG D (1S) 237.000 82 Row crops, SR + CR, Good, HSG C (5S) 9.500 75 Row crops, contoured, Good, HSG B (1S) 4.700 82 Row crops, contoured, Good, HSG C (1S) 17.800 86 Row crops, contoured, Good, HSG D (1S) 29.700 80 Veg (1S) 13.000 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B (1S) 8.100 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C (1S) 17.200 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D (1S) 20.000 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (5S) 15.000 98 impervious (5S, 6S) 195.000 85 wetland (6S) 75.000 85 wetland area HSG D (5S) 1,135.100 80 TOTAL AREA Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=1.00-200.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 19901 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=228.100 ac 7.76% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.84"Subcatchment 1S: Flow Length=4,800' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=41.7 min CN=79/98 Runoff=603.12 cfs 73.015 af Runoff Area=342.000 ac 2.92% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.04"Subcatchment 5S: S of 55 Flow Length=4,100' Slope=0.0890 '/' Tc=30.9 min CN=82/98 Runoff=1,168.14 cfs 115.112 af Runoff Area=565.000 ac 2.97% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.55"Subcatchment 6S: Flow Length=8,448' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=271.4 min CN=77/98 Runoff=335.67 cfs 166.998 af Peak Elev=986.07' Storage=93.284 af Inflow=1,168.14 cfs 115.112 afPond 2P: wetland south of TH55 26.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=175.0' S=0.0029 '/' Outflow=21.94 cfs 114.761 af Peak Elev=980.74' Storage=19.470 af Inflow=621.04 cfs 187.776 afPond 3P: South DNR 27-493 Outflow=363.81 cfs 187.773 af Peak Elev=978.73' Storage=253.137 af Inflow=421.96 cfs 354.772 afPond 4P: North DNR 27-493 Primary=17.92 cfs 246.435 af Secondary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=17.92 cfs 246.435 af Total Runoff Area = 1,135.100 ac Runoff Volume = 355.125 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.75" 96.08% Pervious = 1,090.620 ac 3.92% Impervious = 44.480 ac Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Runoff = 603.12 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 73.015 af, Depth= 3.84" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 1.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 17.200 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 8.100 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 13.000 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B * 29.700 80 Veg 17.800 86 Row crops, contoured, Good, HSG D 9.500 75 Row crops, contoured, Good, HSG B 4.700 82 Row crops, contoured, Good, HSG C 23.500 84 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG D 24.100 79 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG C 11.900 69 Pasture/grassland/range, Fair, HSG B * 37.400 85 Marsh 1.100 90 Fallow, crop residue, Good, HSG D 8.500 77 Brush, Fair, HSG D 3.500 70 Brush, Fair, HSG C 0.400 56 Brush, Fair, HSG B * 17.700 98 Impervious 228.100 81 Weighted Average 210.400 79 92.24% Pervious Area 17.700 98 7.76% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 41.7 4,800 0.0670 1.92 Lag/CN Method, Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment 1S: Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 200190180170160150140130120110100908070605040302010 Fl o w ( c f s ) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Runoff Area=228.100 ac Runoff Volume=73.015 af Runoff Depth=3.84" Flow Length=4,800' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=41.7 min CN=79/98 603.12 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: S of 55 Runoff = 1,168.14 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 115.112 af, Depth= 4.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 1.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 237.000 82 Row crops, SR + CR, Good, HSG C * 75.000 85 wetland area HSG D 20.000 70 Woods, Good, HSG C * 10.000 98 impervious 342.000 82 Weighted Average 332.000 82 97.08% Pervious Area 10.000 98 2.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.9 4,100 0.0890 2.21 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 5S: S of 55 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 200190180170160150140130120110100908070605040302010 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1,300 1,250 1,200 1,150 1,100 1,050 1,000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Runoff Area=342.000 ac Runoff Volume=115.112 af Runoff Depth=4.04" Flow Length=4,100' Slope=0.0890 '/' Tc=30.9 min CN=82/98 1,168.14 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Runoff = 335.67 cfs @ 15.38 hrs, Volume= 166.998 af, Depth= 3.55" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 1.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description * 334.000 72 * 195.000 85 wetland * 5.000 98 impervious 31.000 83 1/4 acre lots, 38% imp, HSG C 565.000 77 Weighted Average 548.220 77 97.03% Pervious Area 16.780 98 2.97% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 271.4 8,448 0.0050 0.52 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 6S: Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 200190180170160150140130120110100908070605040302010 Fl o w ( c f s ) 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Runoff Area=565.000 ac Runoff Volume=166.998 af Runoff Depth=3.55" Flow Length=8,448' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=271.4 min CN=77/98 335.67 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: wetland south of TH55 Inflow Area = 342.000 ac, 2.92% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.04" for 100 yr event Inflow = 1,168.14 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 115.112 af Outflow = 21.94 cfs @ 23.45 hrs, Volume= 114.761 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 672.0 min Primary = 21.94 cfs @ 23.45 hrs, Volume= 114.761 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 982.50' Surf.Area= 3.500 ac Storage= 1.625 af Peak Elev= 986.07' @ 23.45 hrs Surf.Area= 75.666 ac Storage= 93.284 af (91.659 af above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 2,037.8 min calculated for 113.136 af (98% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,996.1 min ( 2,822.3 - 826.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 982.00' 464.000 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 982.00 3.000 0.000 0.000 984.00 5.000 8.000 8.000 986.00 75.000 80.000 88.000 990.00 113.000 376.000 464.000 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 982.50'26.0" Round Culvert L= 175.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 982.50' / 982.00' S= 0.0029 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 3.69 sf Primary OutFlow Max=21.94 cfs @ 23.45 hrs HW=986.07' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 21.94 cfs @ 5.95 fps) Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: wetland south of TH55 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 200190180170160150140130120110100908070605040302010 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Inflow Area=342.000 ac Peak Elev=986.07' Storage=93.284 af 26.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=175.0' S=0.0029 '/' 1,168.14 cfs 21.94 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: South DNR 27-493 Inflow Area = 570.100 ac, 4.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.95" for 100 yr event Inflow = 621.04 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 187.776 af Outflow = 363.81 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 187.773 af, Atten= 41%, Lag= 22.3 min Primary = 363.81 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 187.773 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 980.74' @ 12.75 hrs Surf.Area= 19.846 ac Storage= 19.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= 42.0 min calculated for 187.773 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 41.8 min ( 2,092.7 - 2,050.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 979.50' 99.500 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 979.50 4.000 0.000 0.000 980.00 18.000 5.500 5.500 982.00 23.000 41.000 46.500 984.00 30.000 53.000 99.500 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 979.50'100.0' long x 20.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=363.74 cfs @ 12.75 hrs HW=980.74' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 363.74 cfs @ 2.94 fps) Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 3P: South DNR 27-493 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 200190180170160150140130120110100908070605040302010 Fl o w ( c f s ) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Inflow Area=570.100 ac Peak Elev=980.74' Storage=19.470 af 621.04 cfs 363.81 cfs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 4P: North DNR 27-493 Inflow Area = 1,135.100 ac, 3.92% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.75" for 100 yr event Inflow = 421.96 cfs @ 12.82 hrs, Volume= 354.772 af Outflow = 17.92 cfs @ 56.07 hrs, Volume= 246.435 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 2,595.1 min Primary = 17.92 cfs @ 56.07 hrs, Volume= 246.435 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 978.73' @ 56.07 hrs Surf.Area= 165.531 ac Storage= 253.137 af Plug-Flow detention time= 5,092.6 min calculated for 246.423 af (69% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 4,462.6 min ( 6,068.8 - 1,606.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 976.00' 971.800 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 976.00 3.000 0.000 0.000 978.00 139.000 142.000 142.000 980.00 211.700 350.700 492.700 982.00 267.400 479.100 971.800 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 976.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 75.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 976.00' / 975.50' S= 0.0067 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Secondary 979.00'150.0' long x 24.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=17.92 cfs @ 56.07 hrs HW=978.73' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 17.92 cfs @ 5.70 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=976.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00"Proposed_Road_55_Chippewa_03-19-2014 Printed 6/9/2014Prepared by HP Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00883 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 4P: North DNR 27-493 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 200190180170160150140130120110100908070605040302010 Fl o w ( c f s ) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Inflow Area=1,135.100 ac Peak Elev=978.73' Storage=253.137 af 421.96 cfs 17.92 cfs17.92 cfs 0.00 cfs Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 1 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Johnson DATE: October 31, 2019 MEETING: November 6, 2019 City Council SUBJ: Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) – Weston Woods E. of Mohawk Dr., N. of Hwy 55 and 1952 Chippewa Road – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan Review Deadline Application Received: August 8, 2019 Review Deadline: Extended by applicant to allow jurisdictional review Summary of Request Mark Smith has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review for a proposed development of two properties north of Highway 55 and east of Mohawk Drive. The concept plan proposes: • 76 twinhomes on the northern property (referred to as “Roy property”) • Combination of uses on the southern property (referred to as “Cavanaugh property”): o 41 single-family lots o 33 townhomes o 5.5 acres park/open space. An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found at the top of the following page. The aerial shows existing land uses and describes planned land uses as follows: • The Roy property is 80 acres in area but is over ½ wetland, with approximately 28 net acres after deducting wetland and required wetland buffer. Almost all of the upland property is tilled farmland. There is an existing home and farm buildings in the southwest corner of the site. • The Cavanaugh property is 55 acres in size, with approximately 28.5 net acres after deducting wetlands and required wetland buffers. A large wetland is located along the east end of the site and drainageways divide the site into three areas (south, northwest, and northeast). In addition, there are approximately 13 acres of woods which bisect the site along the ridge. These woods abut the large wetland in the southern portion of the site and bisect the northern portion of the site. There are two 4-acre farmed areas along Mohawk Drive and approximately 6.5 acres of vacant grassland on the northeast of the site. • Polaris and The Wealshire are located to the west of the site. OSI is southeast of the large wetland, along with additional future Business property to the north of OSI. The Bridgewater neighborhood is located across the large wetland to the east of the site. Homes on rural lots are located north and northwest of the site. These lots are zoned Rural-Residential-Urban Reserve, but included in the Future Development Area designation and may be considered for addition to the municipal sewer and water system in future Comprehensive Plan processes. Agenda Item # 7B Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 2 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting The Roy property is approximately 28 net acres, guided for Low Density Residential development (2-3 units/net acre) within the 2025 staging period. The Cavanaugh property is approximately 28.5 net acres guided for Business development within the 2020 staging period. The concept is similar to that submitted by the applicant two years ago, when the City was near the end of the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes from the Council’s discussion are attached for reference. The applicant had requested at that time that the City incorporate these land uses and staging timeframes into the Comprehensive Plan update. Much of the public participation had been completed for the Plan and the draft was well underway. The Planning Commission and City Council feedback on the concept at that time was varied, and was further complicated by the interplay between the timing of the request, changes between the previous and (at that time) draft Comprehensive Plan, and differences in land use/staging between the two parcels. Ultimately, the City did not incorporate the changes requested by the applicant in the Comprehensive Plan when it was adopted. PUD Concept Plan The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal application. Generally, the Planning Commission and City Council do not take any formal Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 3 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting action and the feedback is purely advisory. In this case, the City will need to act on the Comprehensive Plan which has been requested and is being reviewed concurrently. The PUD would effectively be contingent upon the land use changes requested in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Purpose of a Planned Unit Development According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 2. Higher standards of site and building design. 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be generally described as: • Change of land use of 17 net acres of the Cavanaugh property from Business to Low Density Residential (2-3 units/net acre) • Change of land use of 4.75 net acres of the Cavanaugh property from Business to Medium Density Residential (5-7 units/net acre) • Change of land use for approximately 5.5 net acres of the Cavanaugh property from Business to public park and open space • Change of Staging of the Roy property (approximately 28 acres) to allow development after 2019 instead of after 2025 When considering requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision and Community Goals (Chapter 2) provide general guidance. When amendments to land use are requested, the “Future Land Use Plan Principles” (pages 5-4 and 5-5 of the Land Use Plan) provide Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 4 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting guidance. Similarly, principles which inform the Staging Plan are described on page 5-18 of the Land Use Plan. Chapters 2 and 5 of the Plan are attached for reference. Proposed Site Layout On the Cavanaugh property, the applicant proposes 41 single-family lots between 9,000-12,000 square feet in size, 33 townhomes and 5.5 acre for public parks and open space. The concept plan is not required to be fully designed, so adjustments may be necessary if the project proceeds to full design. Staff has provided a general review to help inform the design if it moves ahead and to compare the flexibility which the applicant is requesting from the expected development standards of the underlying zoning districts. As noted above, a PUD allows “deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards” to serve the purposes described in the PUD ordinance. To analyze whether to approve a rezoning to PUD, the City compares the request to the expectations of the underlying zoning designation. Single-Family Lots The R1 zoning district is generally utilized by the City to implement the LDR land use. The R2 zoning district is available “as an alternative to the R1 district, not to substantially increase density of development, but rather to allow the clustering of smaller lots to support: (1) The protection and enhancement of natural areas through the preservation of wooded areas, the provision of additional buffering for lakes, streams, and wetlands, or the creation of ecological connections with other protected lands. (2) The preservation of open spaces, provision of additional buffering from adjacent streets and uses, or the creation of additional recreational opportunities. The City Council, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, shall have full discretion to determine in what cases zoning property R2 rather than the standard R1 district meets these purposes. If the City Council determines an R2 zoning does not meet these purposes, the property shall be zoned R1.” The following summarizes the single family lots proposed on the Cavanaugh property compared to the R1 and R2 district requirements. The proposed lots in the PUD fall in between the R1 and R2 standards, which could be formalized through the flexibility of a PUD. R1 R2 Proposed Single Family Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 8,000 s.f. 9,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 60 feet 70 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet 130 feet Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Side Yard Setback (combined) 25 feet (15 & 10) 15 feet (10 & 5) 20 feet (10 & 10) Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet Max. Hardcover 40% 50% Not specified Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 5 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Townhomes The R3 zoning district is utilized by the City to implement the MDR land use, which is the proposed land use for the townhome portion of this project. The R3 district permits townhome development up to 7 units/acre, provided design elements such as sound suppression between units, oversized garages, and community amenities are provided. It appears that the townhome area of the concept plan is approximately 7 units/acres. The following summarizes the townhomes proposed on the Cavanaugh property compared to the R3 district requirements. It appears that the applicant seeks flexibility to reduce the setback between townhome buildings as part of the PUD request. R3 Requirement Proposed Townhomes Minimum Net Area per Unit 6,222 s.f. 6,222 s.f. Maximum Net Area per Unit 12,500 s.f. 6,222 s.f. Minimum Setback from Perimeter 20 feet 45 feet Front Yard Setback 25 feet 45 feet Local Road Setback 40 feet 45 feet Private Road Setback 25 feet 25 feet to curb Minimum Distance Between Buildings 30 feet 15 feet Max. Hardcover 50% Not indicated Twinhome Lots On the Roy property, the applicant proposes 76 twinhome units. The applicant’s concept shows small lots under the twinhomes with Association owned open space between each pad. For the sake of comparison to lot standards, staff has calculated the open space between the lots as part of the adjacent lots. As noted above, the R2 zoning district can be used to implement the LDR land use in certain circumstances. Staff believes that the Roy property may likely be a reasonable use of the R2 district because of the narrow areas of upland amongst the wetland on the site. The following table summarizes the twinhome layout compared to the R2 district. The layout would seek flexibility to reduce the front setback to the private roadway as part of the PUD request. R2 Proposed Twinhomes Minimum Lot Size (Two-family) 5,000 s.f. per unit 5,000 s.f. including open space between lots Minimum Lot Width (two-family) 50 feet 50 feet Minimum Lot Depth 90 feet 95 feet Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet to curb (equiv. to 13 foot to right-of-way) Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 25 feet to curb (equiv. to 13 foot to right-of-way) Side Yard Setback (two-family) 10 feet 30 feet between buildings Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 30 feet Max. Hardcover 50% Not specified Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 6 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Tree Preservation and Buffer Yards The Cavanaugh site includes a wooded area approximately 13 acres in area. The northern 3- acres of the woods is designated as a moderate quality oak forest in the City’s land cover classification system. Approximately 1-2 acres of the southern wooded area is designated as a moderate quality maple-basswood forest. The remaining area is an altered deciduous woodland. Few trees are located on the Roy property. The applicant’s concept proposes to preserve approximately 5 acres of the woods through dedication of the property to the City for park dedication. The applicant proposes to preserve an additional ½ acre of wooded area in the eastern portion of the site. The request would be subject to the City’s tree preservation ordinance, which would require expansive replacement for all removal in excess of 15% of the significant trees on the site. The City’s natural resource specialist provided observations on the woodlands during review two years ago, which are attached for review. The southern portion of the wooded area, especially located on the knoll which is proposed to be dedicated to the City, was well varied in terms of tree age and species, and had comparatively low levels of buckthorn intrusion. This portion of the woods appeared to be a long-term sustainable natural area of a comparatively good quality within Medina. The dedication of the property to the City would provide the opportunity to conserve the highest quality portion of the woodlands. The applicant argues that the comprehensive plan amendment and PUD allow for the preservation of this wooded area in a way which would likely not be achievable if the sites were developed at different times by separate parties. Wetlands and Floodplain The large wetland to the east of the proposed development is a Preserve wetland which is mapped as a Site of Biodiversity Significance. This type of wetland requires an average buffer of 50 feet in width. Most of the other wetlands on the sites are Preserve wetlands, requiring an average buffer of 35 feet. The wetland area in the center of the development on the Roy property is a Manage 3 wetland, requiring a buffer with an average width of 20 feet. The City’s wetland protection ordinance also requires homes to be set back an additional 15 feet from these required buffers. It appears that the applicant is identifying appropriate buffers on the concept plan, but this will need to be verified if there is a future formal application. FEMA maps identified a Zone A floodplain within the location of the large wetland. The floodplain does not have a Base Flood Elevation established, so the applicant will need to provide information on which to establish an elevation in order to verify that there will be no impacts. Transportation The concept plan identifies a single access to the twinhome neighborhood off of Mohawk Drive, across from the driveway of The Wealshire. The single family area is proposed to have access Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 7 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting on Mohawk Drive and new Chippewa Road, and the townhomes are proposed to be accessed off of Mohawk Drive. Staff would recommend that the southern cul-de-sac be eliminated. Pedestrian connections should also be provided throughout the neighborhoods to the open space areas. Mohawk Drive has limited right-in/right-out access to the south of the site. As a result, eastbound traffic would currently be required to travel west on Chippewa Road to Willow Drive in order to turn left onto Highway 55. This would add approximately 1.3 miles to each east- bound trip. The City has identified a future connection of Chippewa Road east of Mohawk Drive to connect with Arrowhead Drive. Staff believes this connection is important to support development of the subject site and others in the area of Chippewa Road/Mohawk Drive. This connection is important for public safety purposes as well, providing better emergency access to the area and also providing an alternative route in case of an emergency on Highway 55. The applicant has proposed to construct the Chippewa Road extension from Mohawk Drive to Arrowhead Drive in connection with development of the property. The City would be responsible for permitting and wetland mitigation for the project. The applicant has emphasized that the requested comprehensive plan allows for a common developer between the two sites and allows the opportunity for the roadway to be constructed by the developer. If the sites on either side of Chippewa Road are developed at different times or by different types of developers (residential vs. business), it will be much more difficult to coordinate the funding and construction of the roadway with one or the other development. Sewer/Water Existing sewer and water mains are located within Mohawk Drive, which the applicant proposes to extend throughout the site. The applicant has indicated that the subject site could be served through gravity sewer lines to the existing system, but this would need to be confirmed. Currently, the subject property and other sites in the area are served by a single water main along Highway 55 (to Mohawk) without any looping. The City Engineer and Public Works emphasize that having a second means to route water to this neighborhood and other properties in the area is extremely important. The City’s water plan identifies a water main along new Chippewa Road from Mohawk Drive east to Arrowhead Drive. This water main connection is not yet in place and staff believes that it is important that provisions are made for construction of this connection before additional property develops west of Arrowhead Drive. The applicant has indicated that they would construct this watermain extension from Arrowhead Drive along with construction of either this project, or the project to the north. Providing this connection would be an important benefit for the City, because Public Works and Engineering are currently beginning the planning process for potential construction in the next few years. If it is constructed in connection with a development, it would relieve the City of completing this project. Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 8 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review The Concept Plan includes conceptual grading plans, but not in-depth stormwater plans. Any development proposal would ultimately be subject to relevant stormwater standards. Park Dedication Ordinance Requirements City’s subdivision regulations require up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated for park purposes. The City may also choose to accept cash in-lieu of all or a portion of this land dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre-developed market value, with a minimum of $3500 and a maximum of $8000 per home. In this case, there are approximately 75 upland acres, for a potential 7.5 acres of park land. If the City determines that land should not be required in this case, staff believes the fee would be in the mid of the range, potentially around $600,000-$800,000. However, this value will be determined more precisely during the preliminary plat review if the applicant proceeds with a formal application. Park dedication would be required for any development upon the two parcels, even without a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development. Part of the applicant’s narrative states that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD allows them to better meet the City’s goals and objectives. This would suggest that the park, trail, and open space amenities provided with the development should exceed the park dedication requirements. Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan The City’s park plan identifies the need for a neighborhood park in this area. The Park Commission has discussed potentially requiring land either at this subject site or at the other planned residential property west on Chippewa Road, depending on which project would move forward first. The trail plan identifies an east-west connection between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive which would need to be accommodated within this project. The Plan also shows a north-south connection through the Roy property to the north. Portions of the wooded area on the Cavanaugh property and portions of the wetlands to the east of both sites are identified as priority areas and moderate quality natural areas in the City’s Open Space Plan. Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space The concept plan proposes the following: 1) Preservation of 5.5 acres of the wooded area in the southeast portion of the site. Concept plan shows the potential for a small active park 2) Construction of a parking area/trailhead for the preserved area. 3) Trail connections throughout the neighborhood. Because one of the primary arguments for the PUD is the preservation of open space, staff would expect the provision of parks, trails, and open space to exceed the standard park dedication requirements of the City. Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 9 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Park, Trail, and Open Space Discussion Staff recommends that the Park Commission and Council discuss its vision for active parks in the area, assuming the Comp Plan Amendment is approved. Here are some factors to consider: • The Amendment would result in an additional 78 homes on the Cavanaugh property, rather than business development. Staff believes this would increase park needs. • The Comp Plan projects an additional 65-80 homes along Chippewa Road west of the Wealshire within the next 10 years. • In addition, the property to the north is included the long-term plan for potential development, potentially 20+ years in the future. Staff believes it may make sense to plan for a park along the northern portion of the subject properties and potentially along the north of the properties west of the Wealshire. This would allow additional land to be added to the parks if the properties to the north are planned for development in the future. If the Park Commission and Council concurs with this vision, it may be advisable to obtain land on the Roy property which could be used for an active park. As noted above, there are trail connections to the east and north in the City’s Plan. Staff would recommend that these be added to the plans and constructed as a minimum. If these amenities are provided as part of the Comp Plan Amendment and PUD, the City would ultimately need to determine how much of a park dedication fee should be required in-lieu of land dedication. Park Commission Review The Park Commission provided comments on the concept at the October 16 meeting. Generally, the Commission supported the preservation of wooded area as part of meeting the objectives for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD, not as park dedication. The Commission also supported construction of trail connections with the improvements as shown on the Trail Plan. The Park Commission did not recommend locating active park amenities in the middle of the subject properties. They suggested instead either requiring land on the exterior of the site that could be combined with land dedicated from adjacent projects. Alternatively, the City could maximize cash-in-lieu of land dedication and look to obtain, perhaps purchase, land in the vicinity to serve the future residential development on the subject site and others. Review Criteria The City has the highest level of discretion when considering requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan. As noted at the beginning of this report, the Vision and Community Goals (Chapter 2) and Land Use and Staging Principles (Chapter 5) should provide guidance. The purpose of the PUD Concept Plan is to provide purely advisory comments to the applicant for their consideration whether and how to continue with a formal application. The City has a great deal of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is a legislative action. A PUD should only be approved if it achieves the purposes of the PUD district (described on page 3), the Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies. The Planning Commission and Council should provide comments based upon this information. Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 10 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Public Comments Staff has received three comments from nearby property owners after the public hearing notice was sent. These comments are in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and are attached for the record. Staff Comments Under the Comprehensive Plan today, the Cavanaugh property can be developed at any time with Business uses. The Roy property could be developed at similar density after 2025. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, at its basic level, requests to: • Develop the Roy property in 2019 rather than after 2025 • Develop the Cavanaugh property with a mix of single-family and townhomes instead of Business When considering the Amendments, it is important to compare the requested amendment to the planned staging and future land use contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, not the fact that the sites are currently undeveloped. The applicant points out that the proposed amendments allow the opportunity for the sites to be developed together by a single party, which is very unlikely under the current Comprehensive Plan. Under the currently Plan, it is very likely the parcels will be developed at separate times and by different developers. The applicant states that their proposed coordinated development would be more consistent with various goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and PUD ordinance than would be likely with separate developments. The Staging Plan is primarily intended to plan for adequate infrastructure and services for the expected development. In terms of City infrastructure, the applicant proposes to address by constructing improvements called for in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Other matters include regional transportation systems and school district. The proposed staging plan change is in Rockford Schools, which has not raised concerns with pace of residential growth. The demographics likely to purchase the twinhomes will likely result in fewer children per home than other types of housing. The Staging Plan also more generally provides growth management for non-infrastructure objectives of the City. One of the goals of the Comp Plan is: “to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals.” This goal seems relevant when considering the proposed change of Land Use on the Cavanaugh property from Business to Residential. The proposed change would reduce land for Business development in the City by approximately 28 net acres (or 23 net acres, if the City would be interested in requiring the dedication of the wooded area at the time of future Business development). It would increase the planned residential growth in the City by 74 units, or approximately 7%. The City Engineer has projected that the change in land use from Business to Residential would not have substantially different impacts on the City’s transportation, sewer, water, or surface water systems. Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 11 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting The applicant states that the change of land use provides the opportunity to better the following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan: • Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. – the proposed project includes a mix of single-family, twinhomes and townhomes. • Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. - The coordinated residential development provides the opportunity to preserve 5 acres of the woodlands along the southeastern portion of the development, which may not be achievable in a business development. The construction of Chippewa Road and the watermain connection are consistent with the City’s infrastructure plans and staff recognizes the benefits of securing these improvements in connection with the coordinated development adjacent on both sides. Constructing and funding the projects in the future if the properties develop and different times is likely to be much more difficult. Staff has provided comments throughout the report to be incorporated into any future formal application. These comments are summarized below: 1) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not become effective until reviewed and authorized by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statues 462 and 473, the final plat is approved, and a development agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City has been executed. 2) Any future application shall be subject to all relevant City regulations and policies. 3) The applicant shall provide information to determine a base flood elevation and to verify no floodplain impacts will occur. 4) The applicant shall provide a wetland delineation and meet all requirements of the wetland protection ordinance. 5) Access locations and circulations shall be improved as recommended by City staff. 6) Additional trail connections shall be provided. 7) Park dedication shall be provided as required by the City Council after recommendation by the Park Commission. 8) The street and watermain connection between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive shall be constructed in connection with the development. 9) Architectural standards for all residential structures shall be submitted for City review and approval. Minimum design standards shall be established to ensure high quality design and construction contemplated by the purpose of the PUD district. 10) A substantial buffer shall be provided from adjacent rural property. The buffer shall include an appropriate combination of distance, berming, vegetation and potentially fencing. 11) Provisions shall be incorporated into the design to maintain the natural drainageways through the site. 12) Townhome layout shall be adjusted to provide adequate outlot width for boulevards adjacent to the private roadway. 13) The applicant shall provide information requested by the City Engineer to determine whether street improvements are necessary to support the development. Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 12 of 12 November 6, 2019 Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at their October 8 meeting. The draft minutes from the discussion are attached for reference. Two residents spoke at the public hearing, one opposing the changes to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and the other raising concerns about traffic on Arrowhead Drive. Written comments were also entered into the record and are attached. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The majority of the Commission did not believe the proposed amendment better served the goals and objectives of the City than the existing plan. Two Commissioners felt that the benefits which were proposed through the amendment by developing residential on both sites at the same time met the goals and objectives and supported the amendment. Staff recommends review of the minutes, because it is difficult to summarize the discussion from the public and Commissioners. Potential Action If, following review, the Council finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is appropriate based upon Vision, Community Goals, and Principles of the Comprehensive Plan, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment subject to the conditions and comments noted in the staff report and provided by the Commission. If, on the other hand, the Council finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment does not align with the Vision, Community Goals, and Principles of the Comprehensive Plan, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals 3. Comprehensive Play Chapter 5 – Land Use (w/ proposed changes to Maps 5-3 and 5-5) 4. Natural Resource Specialist comments dated 10/21/2019 5. Engineering Comments 6. Excerpt from 12/19/2017 City Council minutes 7. Excerpt from 10/8/2019 Planning Commission minutes 8. Excerpt from 10/15/2019 Park Commission minutes 9. Public Comments received 10. Applicant Narrative 11. Concept Plan        10/31/2019  Project:  LR‐19‐256 – Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan  The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are  only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.  Documents Submitted by Applicant  Document Received  Date  Document  Date  # of  pages  Electronic Paper  Copy?  Notes  Application 8/8/2019 8/8/2019 3 Yes Yes   Application‐Updated 10/1/2019 10/1/2019 2 Yes Yes Rezoning removed  Deposit 8/8/2019 8/7/2019 1 Yes  $5000  Timeline Extension‐CPA 10/1/2019 NA 1 Yes Yes Deadline waived until revoked  Narrative 8/8/2019 8/8/2019 5 Yes Yes   Narrative‐updated 9/18/2019 9/18/2019 5 Yes Yes   Narrative‐updated 9/25/2019 9/25/2019         Traffic Analysis  2/24/2019 42 Yes    Overall Concept 8/8/2019 7/22/2019 2 Yes Yes 1 black/white, 1 color  Concept Plans 8/8/2019 7/25/2019 9 Yes Yes   Overall Concept‐Updated 9/18/2019 9/18/2019 2 Yes Yes 1 black/white, 1 color  Concept Plans‐Updated 9/18/2019 9/18/2019 10 Yes Yes   Overall Concept‐Updated 10/2/2019 9/30/2019 1 Yes  Black/white only  Concept Plans‐Updated 10/2/2019 9/30/2019 9 Yes Yes              <OVER>               10/31/2019    Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies  Document Document  Date  # of  pages  Electronic Notes  City Engineer comments 8/29/2019 3 Yes   City Engineer comments 9/27/2019 4 Yes         Notice 9/27/2019 7  13 pages w/ affidavit and list  Preliminary Comments 8/30/2019 2 Yes 8 pages w/ attachments  Review Extension 9/30/2019 2 Yes 6 pages w/ attachments  Planning Commission Report 10/3/2019       Park Commission Report 10/10/2019 4     City Council Report 10/31/2019 12         Public Comments   Document Date Electronic Notes  Mackey Email 10/1/2019 Y   Hofstede Email 10/2/2019 Y   Dennis Email 10/3/2019 Y   Norhe email 10/4/2019 Y   Thiessen email 10/7/2019 Y   Woodrum email 10/7/2019 Y   Planning Commission minutes 10/8/2019 Y   Park Commission minutes 10/16/2019 Y     Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 1 Adopted October 2, 2018 Chapter 2: VISION & COMMUNITY GOALS _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The Vision and Community Goals chapter is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan and provides the foundation from which City officials make consistent and supporting land use decisions. This chapter includes a set of general community goals that guided the creation of this Plan. The concepts in this chapter are some of the few static elements of the Comprehensive Plan. If land uses change or other infrastructure varies from the Plan, decisions will be founded in the goals set forth below. The Vision and Goals were created with the involvement of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the “Steering Committee”), City officials, and residents of Medina and are broadly supported. Land use designations are subject to strong social and economic pressures to change. Accordingly, it is appropriate that such systems be periodically evaluated in light of changing social and economic conditions. As development evolves, the Vision and Goals will provide the guidance for accomplishing the vision for the future of the community even when changes are necessary to the land use plan. Detailed objectives and recommendations are contained within each of the subject chapters of this plan. Creating the Vision and Goals The residents, the Steering Committee, City officials and staff participated in the planning process for the Plan. A series of public participation meetings were conducted to introduce and solicit information from the residents of Medina. The Steering Committee held work sessions that focused on integrating the concerns and desires of the community together with accommodating growth and regional impacts. An online forum provided additional opportunity for residents to impact the Vision and Community Goals as they were formulated. In addition to land use and growth planning, the City implemented open space, natural resources, and infrastructure planning. The goals which guided this process are integrated into this chapter. Each element of this plan was developed with assistance from city officials and a diverse group of community stakeholders producing a truly representative plan. The City made a conscious decision to emphasize natural resources and open space conservation. Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 2 Adopted October 2, 2018 Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. • Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. • Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. • Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. • Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. • Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. • Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. • Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. • Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. • Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. • Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments. • Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 1 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 1 CChhaapptteerr 55:: LLAANNDD UUSSEE && GGRROOWWTTHH _______________________________________________________________________________________________ IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn Medina has significant natural resources, high-quality neighborhoods and areas for commercial and retail development. The City’s extensive wetlands and limited infrastructure availability, together with past community planning, have contributed to its rural character. The metropolitan area is a high growth area. Medina’s rural charm makes it an attractive alternative to the more intensely populated areas found closer to Minneapolis and St. Paul. This chapter discusses existing and future land use patterns in the City. 22001166 EExxiissttiinngg LLaanndd UUsseess TABLE 5-1 EXISTING LAND USES (2016) Land Use Acres Percent Agricultural 3,208.3 18.7% Golf Course 532.5 3.1% Industrial and Utility 278.6 1.6% Institutional 194.2 1.1% Major Highway 83.1 0.5% Mixed Use Residential 6.8 0.0% Multifamily 17.5 0.1% Office 38.9 0.2% Open Water 1,174.5 6.9% Park, Recreational, or Preserve 1,836.2 10.7% Railway 77.0 0.4% Retail and Other Commercial 186.6 1.1% Rural Residential 4,447.1 26.0% Single Family Attached 44.1 0.3% Single Family Detached 916.1 5.4% Undeveloped 119.0 0.7% Wetlands 3,960.0 23.1% Total 17,120.5 100% Agricultural Use includes farms and other parcels greater than five acres in size used primarily for agricultural, pasture and rural purposes. A large percentage of the City is designated as agricultural. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 2 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 2 Residential Use is divided into four designations: Rural Residential consists of larger tracts of land and homesteads, including hobby farms, on parcels without City sewer and water service. The Rural Residential land use also includes rural property which is currently vacant and is not planned for urban services. Single Family Detached includes detached single-family residential properties which are served with urban services. Single Family Attached includes attached single-family residential properties such as twin homes, duplexes, townhomes and rowhomes. Multifamily includes residential properties such as apartment buildings and condominiums. Mixed Use Residential Use identifies properties which include residential units upon the same property as a commercial use. Most of these uses are buildings in the Uptown Hamel area which include apartments above commercial or office space. Industrial and Utility Use is primarily in the TH 55 corridor and includes light industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing facilities. The use also includes utility uses throughout the community such as electric substations, water treatment facilities and the like. Office Use is primarily in the TH 55 corridor and includes a number of the City’s largest employers. Retail and Other Commercial Use is primarily in the TH 12 and Highway 55 corridors and in the Uptown Hamel area. Park, Recreational or Preserve Use includes parks and public recreational and protected open space. Baker Park Reserve has a significant impact on planning due to its size and regional attraction, as well as its effect on the City’s tax base and use. Golf Course Use includes existing golf courses. Institutional Use includes City, county, or state owned property, religious institutions, nursing homes, cemeteries, and other similar uses. Major Highway and Railway Uses identify land occupied by federal or state highways and railroad improvements. Undeveloped Use identifies areas that are currently vacant but have been subdivided in anticipation of a new development. Much of this land may currently be on the market. Sites which are actively in development are excluded from this use and designated as their approved land use. Wetlands, Lakes and Open Water Wetlands and lakes play an important role in the City because together they affect 30.2% of the City land and significantly impact the City’s land use patterns. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 3 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 3 NNaattuurraall FFeeaattuurreess aanndd AArreeaass The City contains many ecologically significant natural resource areas that provide value to all residents by providing natural beauty and wildlife habitat, improving water quality and adding to land values. These natural areas are described in further detail in the Open Space Report but merit discussion from a land use and development perspective. The City has an extensive network of wetlands and lakes that significantly impact the developable areas in the City. Woodland areas are located throughout the community, including a number of remnants of the Big Woods along with many other significant stands. The community has made conscious choices to preserve and protect the natural areas and to improve their quality. Because 35.4% of the land area in Medina is comprised of lakes and wetlands and many of these areas are under private ownership, it is critical for the City to educate residents about the importance of maintaining healthy wetlands, woodlands and lakes. These natural features comprise the City’s green infrastructure system: the City’s natural support system that promotes healthy sustainability of the community. As the City grows, the natural areas will be a critical element of every decision-making process. The City undertook an extensive natural resource and open space planning effort that will be the foundation for land use decisions. The Open Space Report indicates the ecologically significant areas that require protection and the areas that will be maintained as a part of the City’s conservation network. SSoollaarr AAcccceessss PPrrootteeccttiioonn Medina is committed to encouraging and promoting solar energy as a clean, alternative form of energy production and reducing carbon-based emissions through the following policies and strategies: • Protect access to solar resources by permitting solar equipment to be attached to structures for self-generation, subject to appropriate limitations related to community character. • Protect access to solar resources by permitting ground mounted solar equipment for self- generation within rural, agricultural, and business uses, subject to appropriate limitations related to scale, mitigation of impacts on neighboring properties, and community character. The Metropolitan Council has estimated the City’s solar potential as follows: Gross Potential (Mwh/yr) Rooftop Potential (Mwh/yr) Gross Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)2 Rooftop Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)2 40,619,888 532,719 4,061,988 53,271 Map 5-1 displays the City’s Solar Suitability Analysis Map. Protecting solar access means protecting solar collectors (or the location of future collectors) from shading by adjacent structures or vegetation. Existing structures and buildings in the City generally do not present significant shading problems for solar energy systems. Most single- family attached and detached homes are one or two stories and most multi-family, commercial, and industrial buildings are two stories or less. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 4 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 4 While these ordinance standards help protect solar access, it is not possible for every part of a building or lot to obtain unobstructed solar access. Mature trees, topography, and the location of structures can limit solar access. However, on most properties the rooftop of the principal building would be free of shading by adjacent structures. Therefore, the majority of property owners in the City could utilize solar energy systems, if they so desired, as a supplement or alternative to conventional fuels. HHiissttoorriicc PPrreesseerrvvaattiioonn The City of Medina currently does not have any sites or structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Medina has a strong interest in preserving representative portions of its history. The City previously worked with the West Hennepin Pioneer Museum to restore the Wolsfeld Family cabin which was originally built in 1856. It is thought to be one of the original homes in Medina. The City further commits to providing the following general guidelines related to historical preservation: • Partner with organizations that want to preserve historically significant areas, landmarks, and buildings in Medina; • Modify zoning regulations as necessary to help preserve areas that may be historically significant. FFuuttuurree GGeenneerraall LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliiccyy DDiirreeccttiioonn As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form • Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces. • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks. • Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. • Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods. • Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 5 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 5 • Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. • Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability. • Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns • Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes. • Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth areas. • Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi- modal transportation choices. • Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources • Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas. • Preserve open spaces and natural resources. • Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary. • Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas • Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors. • Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed-use areas. • Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. • Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather. • Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 6 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 6 TThhee GGuuiiddee PPllaann Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-3, maintains Medina’s rural character and protects the City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is consistent with the City’s Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles. Table 5-2 below demonstrates the expected 2040 land uses in the community. TABLE 5-2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Future Land Use (2040) Gross Acreage % Net Acreage % Rural Residential 8,402.2 49.1% 6,015.3 35.1% Agriculture 222.7 1.3% 174.5 1.0% Future Development Area 671.9 3.9% 547.9 3.2% Low Density Residential 1172.5 6.8% 865.7 5.1% Medium Density Residential 58.5 0.3% 46.2 0.3% High Density Residential 29.6 0.2% 25.7 0.2% Mixed Residential 137.1 0.8% 94.1 0.6% Uptown Hamel 45.0 0.3% 41.2 0.2% Commercial 254.2 1.5% 197.6 1.2% Business 704.6 4.1% 471.9 2.8% Rural Commercial 67.5 0.4% 47.6 0.3% Institutional 270.2 1.6% 194.0 1.1% Parks, Recreation, Open Space 2,771.5 16.2% 1,971.2 11.5% Private Recreation 343.1 2.0% 297.5 1.7% Closed Sanitary Landfill 192.2 1.1% 124.7 0.7% Right-of-Way 673.1 3.9% 616.9 3.6% Total Acres 16,015.9 11,732.0 Lakes and Open Water* 1,104.6 6.5% 1,104.6 6.5% Wetlands and Floodplain 4,283.9 25.0% Total City 17,120.5 17,120.5 * Lakes and Open Water amounts include areas adjacent to lakes which are not included in Hennepin County parcel data and exclude un-meandered lakes. The Growth and Development Map (Map 5-4) highlights areas within the City in which a change of land use is contemplated by the Future Land Use plan. The map also highlights wetland areas within Medina which significantly affect land planning, development, and infrastructure decisions. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 7 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 7 Future Land Use Designations Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this Plan. Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are planned for long-term agricultural uses. Density within the land use can be no more than one lot per 40 acres which will not be served by urban services. Property within this land use is eligible to be part of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program. Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity. Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development. Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 5.0 and 7.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single-family residential, twin homes, town homes, row homes, and small multiple family buildings. High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park. Mixed Residential (MR) identifies residential land uses that may be developed with a variety of housing styles at an overall average density between 3.5 and 4.0 units per net acre, within which a minimum of the units equivalent to 1.0 unit per acre are required to be developed at higher densities above 8.0 units per acre. Uses within the MR land use are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The land use provides flexibility for the type of housing to be developed, including detached single family, twin homes, townhomes and multiple family buildings. The MR land use will allow for different types of housing to be developed in coordination with each other or independently, provided the objectives related to overall density and minimum number of higher density housing units can be achieved within a defined area. Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The Uptown Hamel area is served by urban services. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 8 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 8 Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial corridors and are served or will be served by urban services. Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse, and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services. Rural Commercial (RC) identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services, but rather by individual wells and septic systems. The scale of development in this land use shall be limited to protect water resources. Institutional (INST) identifies existing public, semi-public, and non-profit uses such as governmental, cemeteries, religious, educational and utilities. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) identifies publicly owned or permanently conserved land which is used for park, recreational, or open space purposes. Private Recreation (PREC) identifies areas that are currently used for outdoor recreational uses which are held under private ownership but are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of residential uses may be included or have previously been developed within this land use designation, accounting for no more than 10% of the land area. Density within the residential portion of the use shall be between 2.0 and 3.0 units per net acre where urban services are available and one unit per 10 acres where services are not available. The City does not anticipate additional residential development within the land use. Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) identifies an existing closed sanitary landfill. The Woodlake Landfill is owned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as part of Minnesota’s Closed Landfill Program. The MPCA has jurisdiction over land use regulations of the landfill and has made available a description of the types, locations, and potential movement of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases related to the facility in its Closed Landfill Plan. The City hereby incorporates such information and the City will provide such information as required by law. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 9 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 9 AAvveerraaggee NNeett RReessiiddeennttiiaall DDeennssiittyy The Metropolitan Council has designated the portion of the City within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as Emerging Suburban Edge. Residential development within the Emerging Suburban Edge designation is required to be planned for new development and redevelopment at average net density of at least 3-5 units per acre. The average net density for planned residential development in Medina is 3.17 units per acre as described in Table 5-3. TABLE 5-3 NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Future Land Use Planned Net Acreage Minimum Density Minimum Number of Units Low Density Residential 186.4 2.0 372.8 Medium Density Residential 24.5 5.0 122.5 High Density Residential 16.1 12.0 193.2 Mixed Residential 94.1 3.5 329.4 Total Planned Residential 321.1 1,017.9 Average Net Residential Density 3.17 The Metropolitan Council requires communities to assume development at the minimum density of each land use when projecting net residential density. In reality, development will occur within the allowed range, higher than the minimum. This will result in density being higher than calculated above. Redevelopment is anticipated within the Uptown Hamel area and is likely to include additional residential units. The intent of the Uptown Hamel land use is to permit flexibility in the amount of residential and commercial development and is therefore not projected in Table 5-3. However, residential development within Uptown Hamel is required to exceed 4 units per net acre, which would further comply with Metropolitan Council minimum net density requirements. EEmmppllooyymmeenntt IInntteennssiittyy FFoorreeccaassttss The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a measurement of forecasted employment. Acceptable measures include floor area ratios, building footprint percentages or impervious surface percentages. Medina anticipates that new development in the Commercial and Business land uses will tend to result in 50-65% impervious surface coverage. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 10 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 10 LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliicciieess bbyy AArreeaa The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the Community Goals and Land Use Principles. These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and designations identified in this section. The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed-uses will be available and will be supported through zoning. RRuurraall DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area. A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these designations is to provide low-intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the timeframe covered by this Plan. A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The City recognizes that such low-density, development will continue to be a desired housing alternative. The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement. The Metropolitan Council has identified a significant portion of Medina’s rural area in the Long-term Sewer Service Area (LTSSA) for the Blue Lake wastewater facility. The Metropolitan Council designates the LTSSA for the possibility of extension of urban services in the long-term, beyond 25 years in the future. Medina is required to identify the LTSSA in its Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA is identified in Map 5-5. The Metropolitan Council states that the LTSSA is intended to provide opportunities to efficiently extend urban services to accommodate long-term growth. The City believes that much of this area does not support efficient extension of urban services and the City seeks opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA. The following factors affect the efficiency of providing future urban services and are displayed on Map 5-6: • Wetlands, Topography, Regional Parks and Scientific Areas Wetlands occupy a significant portion of the area identified by the Metropolitan Council within the LTSSA, accounting for approximately 40% of the area. This fact, along with topographical conditions, would make the provision of wastewater service inefficient. In Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 11 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 11 addition, Baker Park and the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area occupy large portions of Medina’s rural area, further separating any developable areas. • Historical development patterns Much of the LTSSA was developed with large-lot residential neighborhoods prior to the Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA designation. These properties tend to include large homes with comparatively high home values, making the likelihood of redevelopment with urban services costly. The Metropolitan Council seeks density lower than 1 unit per 10 acres for efficient extension of wastewater service. As evidenced on Map 5-6, the vast majority of the LTSSA within Medina has been previously developed in a pattern that is denser than 1 unit per 10 buildable acres. As a result, much of the LTSSA does not provide opportunity for efficient extension of wastewater service by the Metropolitan Council’s policy. • Distance between regional infrastructure and City infrastructure The Metropolitan Council would need to extend wastewater service into the southern area of Medina if development were to occur in the future. The City’s primary municipal water system is in the northern portion of Medina. One of these services would need to be extended a great distance in order to be provided in connection with the other, or the City would need to establish a separate water system. Either alternative would be costly and would not be efficient. In discussions with Metropolitan Council staff, the City has identified approximately 730 acres to be removed from the LTSSA in the southern portion of the City, because a similar acreage in the northwest corner of the City was added to the Blue Lake wastewater facility service area. The City will continue to seek opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA because of the factors noted above. The City’s Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City’s natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres per unit. Medina’s wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low-density rural housing. Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to replace failing systems. Objectives: 1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources in the rural areas. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 12 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 12 3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site sewage disposal systems. 4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with rural service area development. 5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential development. 6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. 7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural land use. 8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural Residential and Future Development Area land use. 9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. Within the Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (reference Map 5-5), these exceptions will be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross acres if consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Flexible Residential Development Guidelines. 10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future Development Area land uses during this planning cycle. 11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant natural characteristics. 12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's on-site septic system requirements. 13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised. 14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff. 15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation of significant natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 13 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 13 UUrrbbaann SSeerrvviiccee DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services. Residential Uses Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the maximum density requirement of the relevant land use. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area. 5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards. 6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies. 7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. 13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 14 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 14 ecologically significant natural resources. 14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations. 15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space. 18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. 19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 15 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 15 UUppttoowwnn HHaammeell The Uptown Hamel land use allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses to create a vibrant, walkable, and attractive place; a place to shop, work and live. Objectives: 1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co-exist on adjacent parcels as well as within the same structure or on the same parcel. Uptown Hamel is intended to provide flexibility in terms of residential and commercial uses. As a result, it is difficult to project future uses in the area, but it is estimated that approximately 40% of the land will be utilized for residential purposes, 40% for commercial uses, and 20% for office uses. 2. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of buildings, shared parking, on-street, underground, or ramp parking. 3. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and traditional small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, and overhangs over the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. Establishment of design guidelines to support this objective. 4. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning of these areas. 5. Create master plans for mixed-use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness to adjacent land uses. 6. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 7. Encourage underground or structured parking through flexibility to standards, including increased residential density up to 20 units per acre. 8. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 9. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 10. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 16 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 16 Commercial Uses The following objectives refer to commercial land uses which will provide a variety of retail products and services mixed with smaller offices. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City residents. 3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access to a regional highway or frontage road. 5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact on residential areas. 6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 8. Establish standards for the commercial area north of TH 55 at Tamarack Drive which results in a high quality, walkable and appropriately scaled development which complements nearby residential neighborhoods, emphasizes goods and services for local residents over highway users and provides gathering opportunities for the community. 9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access to arterial and collector roadways. 10. Limit the scale of commercial development where urban services are not available to protect water resources and to integrate such uses with surrounding rural lands. 11. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy. 12. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 13. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 14. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 17 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 17 Business Uses The following objectives refer to business land uses that are connected to or planned for urban services. Businesses in this use generally include office complexes, business park development, warehouse and light industrial opportunities. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 3. Consider permitting uses such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities where suitable, subject to appropriate requirements related to density, ensuring compatibility between uses, and preventing the use from being predominantly independent-living residential in nature. These uses are expected to occupy a very small proportion of Business land. Residential density is estimated to be between 5-20 units per net acre, but flexibility will be considered based upon the mix of nursing home, assisted living, memory care, independent living units, and other uses proposed within a development. 4. Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas. 5. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 6. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 7. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features. 8. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access points to collector and arterial roadways. 9. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy. 10. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 11. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 12. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 18 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 18 Staging Plan The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation, to ensure that growth and development are commensurate with services necessary to support new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The staging plan, Map 5-5, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles: • Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business areas for development throughout the planning period. The staging plan also is intended to reduce concentration of development within a location during a particular timeframe. • The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5-year periods and provides some flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a maximum of two years prior to the existing staging period, and will be tied to an incentive based points system. Such flexibility will not be permitted for new high- density residential development to finalize prior to 2021 as deemed necessary by the Metropolitan Council to ensure sufficient land is available at higher densities from 2021- 2030. Table 5-5 describes the net acreage of the various land uses by Staging Period. The following table describes the corresponding number of residential units which could be developed upon property within each Staging Period. The numbers below do not include several lots that have been approved for development, but are not yet constructed, which is why the capacity noted below differs slightly from the forecasts noted in Chapter 3. Although most of the property staged for development is available in earlier timeframes, the City anticipates that actual growth will be more linear as described in the forecasts in Chapter 3. TABLE 5-4 STAGING PLAN – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY Time Period Total Residential Units High Density Residential Units 2018-2021 345 32 2021-2025 161 161 2025-2030 464 94 2030-2035 0 2035-2040 47 Total 1,017 287 Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 19 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 19 TABLE 5-5 STAGING PLAN – NET ACRES Future Land Use Existing 2017 Change 2018-2021 2021 Change 2021-2025 2025 Change 2025-2030 2030 Change 2030-2035 2035 Change 2035-2040 2040 Rural Residential 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 Agriculture 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 Future Develop. Area 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 Future Staged Growth* 666.1 -467.7 198.4 -13.4 185.0 -161.5 23.5 0.0 23.5 -23.5 0.0 Low Density Resid. 679.3 95.5 774.8 0.0 774.8 67.4 842.2 0.0 842.2 23.5 865.7 Medium Density Res. 21.5 24.7 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 High Density Resid. 9.6 2.7 12.3 13.4 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7 Mixed Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.1 94.1 0.0 94.1 0.0 94.1 Uptown Hamel 33.2 8.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 Commercial 135.9 61.7 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 Business 196.8 275.1 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 Rural Commercial 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 Institutional 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 Parks, Rec, Open Space 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 Private Recreation 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 Closed Sanitary Landfill 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 Right-of-Way 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 • Future Staged Growth represents the acreage which is included in a future Staging Period. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 20 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 20 (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-5Staging and Growth 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 The Staging and Growth Plan allows potential flexibility for urban services up to two years prior to the indicated staging period. Such flexiblity will be considered through a evaluation system based on the extent to which a proposal exceeds general City standards. The Future Development Area identifies areas which may potentially be planned for urban services in the future beyond the term of this plan (post-2040). The Long-term Sewer Service Area is a long-term planning designation of the Metropolitan Council. It identifies areas which may be considered for potential sanitary sewer service in the future beyond the term of this Plan. Legend Urban Services Phasing Plan Developed 2018 2020 2021 2025 2035 FDA LTSSA 1 Dusty Finke From:Tony Havranek <THavranek@wsbeng.com> Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 8:49 AM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Steve Scherer; Jodi Gallup; Jim Stremel Subject:Mark of Excellence_woodlots Attachments:MAP_MarkofExcellence_woodlots.pdf Dusty,     This email summarizes our site visit to the Mark of Excellence site on October 16, 2019 to review the woodlot  composition/quality of the parcels.  This visit was a follow up to our initial survey completed on October 6, 2017.     Attached is a map of the different forest stands that we observed.  I labeled them 1‐5.     Stand 1 is similar to what we observed on our 2017 site visit:      “The northeastern portion of the woodland, north of the ditch, is correctly classified by the Hennepin County Nat Res  layer as a mesic oak woodland. Both white oak and red oak occur in this portion of the forest. All oak would be  classified as large to very large trees (DBH > 21”). The oak component would be classified as even age, meaning that  these are all mature trees. No oak regeneration was observed (sapling/seedling size class). The number of individual  trees is small compared to other species (ash), but the size of the trees causes them to be the dominant species in terms  of canopy coverage and basal area.  It should be noted that there were a small number of very large sugar maple as well.  The understory in this location was dominated by buckthorn, with some ironwood. Without management, this area  would more than likely transition to buckthorn/elm/basswood/ash due to oak mortality due to wind events, disease,  and old age.” (From 2017 summary)     It appears that buckthorn is more common in the understory compared to the 2017 visit.        Stand 2 is also similar to the 2017 visit except, similar to stand 1, buckthorn is more common:      “The area between the knoll and south of the ditch, maintains an oak component similar to the one described above,  but  ash becomes more prevalent (pole to medium tree size 5‐10” DBH). The buckthorn is much smaller here (seedlings) and  is not as dense.” (From 2017 summary).     Stand 3, the top of the knoll, is still in state of regeneration (mostly maple) with some buckthorn occurring under canopy  openings.  One thing that was different from our 2017 visit is that we observed oak (white/bur) seedlings on the forest  floor in a few areas.  These may continue to grow under shady conditions along with the maple.  Below is the 2017  summary:     “The knoll consists of a uneven‐age sugar maple stand with some large ‐very large white oak. This portion of the forest  would more than likely be sustainable for the long term since the seedling/sapling/pole size class will succeed the  mature trees as they die. Very little to no buckthorn is found here. This area is typed as a basswood/sugar maple by the  Hennepin County Nat Res inventory. The basswood component is present, but somewhat minor when compared to the  sugar maple component.”     2 Stand 4 was not walked in 2017, but general comments were provided:      “The southern portion of the forest is similar to what was observed in the northeast portion described in the first  Paragraph (stand 1).”     We did walk this site during the 2019 visit.  This stand consisted of various age classes and species.  Oak appeared to  dominate the canopy, but many poletimber sized ash and maple were found within the stand, with some regeneration,  but not as much as was observed in stand 3..  Buckthorn was also present.     Stand 5 was not surveyed in 2017, but was surveyed during our 2019 site visit.  Buckthorn (mature, sapling, and  seedling) dominated the understory and was the only tree/shrub species present along the periphery.  Oak, ash, and  willow were also found within this stand, with oak being the most dominant tree species.  However, the number of  individual oaks was small and no oak regen was observed.     Overall, stand 3 provides the highest quality woodlot as it contains the least amount of buckthorn, and supports uneven  age tree species, while also supporting quality mature seed trees.     Take care,                                                        Tony Havranek Senior Ecologist 651.286.8473 (o) | 612.246.9346 (m) WSB | wsbeng.com This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy. 1 2 3 4 5 1 inch = 288 f eet Document Path: K:\014630-000\G IS\Maps\MAP_M arkofExcellence_woodlots.mxd Date Saved: 10/21/2019 8:29:47 AM Mark of ExcellenceCity of Medina Figure 1- Woodlot Survey ¯ K:\014630-000\Admin\Docs\2019-09-19 Submittal\_2019-09-27 Mark of Excellence Concept PUD - WSB Comments.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M September 27, 2019 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Mark of Excellence PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-19-255 WSB Project No. 014630-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed Mark of Excellence Concept PUD plan submittal dated September 18, 2019. The plans propose to construct 41 single family units and 32 row townhome units on the 22.5 acre “Cavanaugh Parcel” and 76 twin homes on the 27.2 acre “Roy Parcel”. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Streets 1. Add typical street section(s) to plans that meet the City’s standard. Typical sections were added, but it is not clear which streets each section is intended for. Add the street names to the typical section(s). 2. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures and required turn around space (cul-de-sac, hammerhead, etc.) as required by the Fire Marshall. 3. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design speed for local/private streets, at minimum. The geometrics of the new Chippewa Road extension (classified as a collector roadway) should be based on a 40 MPH design speed. 4. An 8’ wide trail will be required along the new Chippewa Road extension. The preferred location is on the north side. 5. The City may require that a trail corridor is established through the property to connect to future developments to the north. Consider a trail connection to the upland area to the northeast of the proposed lots. 6. The developer is proposing private roadways through the development. If the City requires public streets, wider right-of-way will be required. 7. Show the Wealshire access on the plans. The access shown to Mohawk Drive will need to align with that of the Wealshire site on the west side. Complete. 8. Add parking at the location of the proposed playground. Complete. 9. With final construction plans, include the applicable City standard detail plates. City of Medina – Mark of Excellence Concept PUD – Engineering Review September 27, 2019 Page 2 K:\014630-000\Admin\Docs\2019-09-19 Submittal\_2019-09-27 Mark of Excellence Concept PUD - WSB Comments.docx Water/Sewer Utilities 10. The utilities proposed for the development (residential) are generally consistent with what would be needed for the existing land use (business). Based on the narrative, the developer is proposing to construct the watermain looping connection between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive. 11. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. 12. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain sections. The City will require a 12-inch watermain loop between Mohawk Road and Arrowhead Drive. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future connections will be required and reviewed with future submittals. 13. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water. 14. The watermain alignment and connection along the proposed Chippewa Road alignment will be reviewed by the City in further detail with future submittals. The City’s preference for watermain materials is PVC C900. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ radius is required to serve the immediate residential areas. 15. The City’s preference is to utilize the existing utility crossings on Mohawk Road to minimize the need to disturb the street. This may require removing the existing service stubs from the casings and extending larger mains to the existing north/south trunk line on Mohawk. Show proposed watermain valve locations. 16. City design standards require 10.5’ sanitary sewer manhole builds; at no point shall build depths be less than 8’. With final construction plans, show sanitary sewer service lines and invert elevations on plans; the City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations. 17. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten States Standards) guidance does not allow oversizing of mains to achieved full-flow velocities at flatter grades. Confirm capacity and need for larger main, if shown. 18. Describe and label all connections to existing utilities. Traffic & Access 19. The City is currently working on a Visioning Study for the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Road corridors adjacent to the site. It is anticipated that the developer will coordinate with the City on the location for the future extension of Chippewa Road, intersection improvements on Chippewa Road at Arrowhead Drive and Mohawk Drive, and right-of- way needs. 20. Based on the narrative provided with the submittal, the applicant is proposing to construct the Chippewa Road extension between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive with the proposed development. 21. A “draft” traffic analysis dated 2/24/19 was provided by the applicant that included a traffic analysis of a previous proposed development plan that included and office park. The analysis needs to be updated and to include the following: City of Medina – Mark of Excellence Concept PUD – Engineering Review September 27, 2019 Page 3 K:\014630-000\Admin\Docs\2019-09-19 Submittal\_2019-09-27 Mark of Excellence Concept PUD - WSB Comments.docx o Traffic generation comparison from the previous development plan (with office park) and the current site plan (all residential). The previous site development estimated a traffic generation of 2258 daily trips, 227 AM peak hour trips and 253 PM peak hour trips. The current proposed development would have an estimated traffic generation of 1347 daily trips, 103 AM peak hour trips and 135 PM peak hour trips. o Provide an analysis of the impact that the site traffic will have with the operation at the three proposed site driveways on Mohawk Road and the two site driveways on Chippewa Road, including the impact on adjacent intersections and need for turn lanes. o Safety (sight line) analysis at the site driveways on Chippewa Road and Mohawk Drive. o Additional comments may follow upon receipt of future plans and final traffic study as a result of the City’s Visioning Study. Stormwater 22. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access to all ponding facilities. 23. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement. The provided narrative indicates stormwater ponds will be constructed for water reuse. A water reuse design submittal must at a minimum include the following: o An analysis using the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Stormwater Reuse Calculator. o Documentation demonstrating adequacy of soils, storage system, and delivery system. o Operations and maintenance plan. 24. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and submit for the required permits. 25. Drainage from properties to the west of Mohawk Drive are conveyed through the southeasterly portion of the Weston Woods property via the existing creek into the wetland(s). The stormwater modeling and storm sewer design will need to accommodate this flow and conveyance. Grading and Erosion Control 26. Provide EOFs for all low points inside and outside the roadway. 27. Provide spot elevations at the high points between the lots. 28. Maintain all surface grades within the minimum 2% and maximum 33% slopes. 29. With final construction plans, the City will require draintile or other connections for sump pump discharges. A separate foundation pipe system in addition to the sump discharge system should be considered. City of Medina – Mark of Excellence Concept PUD – Engineering Review September 27, 2019 Page 4 K:\014630-000\Admin\Docs\2019-09-19 Submittal\_2019-09-27 Mark of Excellence Concept PUD - WSB Comments.docx Wetlands 30. The concept plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland replacement plan approval is required prior to any wetland impact. o Wetland impacts shown on sheets C-5.0 and C-5.1 are not complete. Show all wetland impact locations or note if the impacts will be associated with a design done by others. 31. Multiple wetland boundaries have been approved at this project location. The applicant should verify that the most recent wetland boundaries are being used for project design. 32. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The wetland east of the project is partially mapped as a DNR Site of Biodiversity Significance, and the wetlands in the project are classified as a Preserve by the city’s Wetland Functional Classification mapping. The plans will need to show the upland buffers widths, structure setbacks, and where the buffer markers will be placed. 33. Interior roadways are shown to cross wetlands in multiple locations. In order to maintain hydrology between the wetland basins, plans should include culverts under these roadways. If culverts are not proposed, any secondary impacts to wetlands because of reduced hydrology will require replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 1 Mark Smith – Mark of Excellence Homes – East of Mohawk Drive, North of Highway 55 and 1952 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plans (7:24 p.m.) 1. Weston Woods 2. Hardwood Hills Batty stated that during the previous review in October, Pederson recused himself based upon a conversation he had with Pederson from which he concluded that Pederson likely had a conflict of interest. Batty stated that since that time, he has reevaluated the information and does not believe Pederson has a conflict of interest and therefore Pederson can participate in the discussion. Batty stated he would be happy to give additional details if any Council Member wanted that. No member requested additional information. Finke stated that this is a PUD Concept Plan review, noting that the previous Comprehensive Plan amendment requested at the prior review has been withdrawn. He stated that the Roy property is proposed to be developed with 74 twinhomes and is currently guided low density residential and is within the current staging period. He noted that the site is 80 acres in size but contains much wetland area and therefore has 28 net developable acres. He stated that the Cavanaugh property is proposed to be developed with 36 single-family homes, 25 row townhomes, 5.7 acres of business and a five-acre open space park. He stated that the site is 53.5 total acres, with approximately half of it wetlands, which leaves 27 net developable acres. He noted that the parcel is currently guided as mixed-use development within the current staging period. He stated that the City has formally submitted the draft Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and noted that there are proposed changes within the draft for both parcels. He stated that while the Roy parcel would remain low density residential, the staging would be delayed from the current staging period to the 2025 staging period. He stated that the Cavanaugh parcel is proposed under the new Comprehensive Plan to change to business use and would be available for development upon adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the requested PUD would allow flexibility to the underlying zoning districts. He stated that the City would need to determine that the flexibility requested would equate to the overall benefit that would be provided. He stated that the applicant has submitted its narrative of how its request would meet those criteria. He stated that the applicant notes that they have attempted to lay a concept plan out on the northern property, consistent with the R-1 zoning district, and has shown that it cannot develop that parcel under the R-1 zoning requirements and hit the required density of two units per acre. He stated that for that reason, they are requesting flexibility with the zoning to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the wetlands and required wetland buffers make it difficult to develop single-family home lots on the property. He identified the adjacent existing property uses and designations under the draft Comprehensive Plan. He presented the Concept Plan, as submitted by the applicant. He highlighted the locations of the different types of development as proposed. Finke advised that the City’s natural resource specialist walked the property and identified the proposed conservation area as the highest quality on the sites. He stated that the proposed density and timing of development would appear to be generally in line with the existing Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the changes would come under the draft Comprehensive Plan with the change in staging to the Roy property and the change in guiding to the Cavanaugh property. He stated that the City does have the ability to approve of a development if the proposal is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan as the City will continue to operate under the existing Comprehensive Plan until the draft plan is adopted. He noted that State statute allows cities to adopt a moratorium to protect the planning process when a city is going through the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. He provided additional details on the Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 2 timeline for the review process of the draft Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. He estimated that the draft Comprehensive Plan could be adopted in the spring of 2018 and therefore believes that it would be appropriate to consider both the existing and draft versions of the Comprehensive Plan when reviewing development applications. He provided details on the proposed tree preservation, noting that the highest quality portion of the woods would be preserved. He provided additional details on transportation and access. He noted that the applicant is proposing to fund the construction costs for the extension of Chippewa. He advised that the City would be responsible for mitigation and wetland credits that would be needed but noted that the applicant is willing to provide on-site mitigation opportunity as well. He noted that the link has been identified as important to support developing property to the west. He stated that the City has identified the need for an additional watermain in this area of the City, which is the highest infrastructure need of the City. He stated that the applicant has proposed to provide that connection. He stated that the applicant has proposed the open space park and noted that the Park Commission will review the request to determine if they would like more active use of the park. He noted that the northern and southern parcels are located in different school districts. He asked that the Council provide good feedback to the applicant, as this will help the applicant to determine if he should make the investment to move the proposal forward. Martin stated that if the City decided, independent of this project, to proceed with the Chippewa Road extension, the assessment for that project would be very difficult, as the neighboring property owners could be only partially assessed and much of the cost would fall to the City. She asked for details on how the watermain construction would be funded, independent of this project. Scherer replied that water connection fees could be used to fund the watermain improvement. Martin stated that she struggled to understand what benefits would result from the proposed project to residents in surrounding neighborhoods. She stated that there could be bike and running paths, pretty views with access to some gorgeous properties and the trees that would be preserved. She provided background information on the reasoning for the guiding and staging proposed for the properties. She explained that the 2025 staging was selected because that would allow for additional time for the Chippewa Road extension. She noted that she dislikes traffic and acknowledged that this proposal would bring in additional traffic on already busy routes. She believed that MnDOT has no appetite to fund a right-in/right-out turn at Mohawk and therefore any development is stuck with the intersection as it is. She stated that she would want additional information on the connections that would be made through trails and to the open space area. Finke stated that the plan does identify trails through the open space and staff has suggested additional connections and placement. He stated that they would include a trail along Chippewa as well and that would be an expectation of any development of these properties. He stated that because this is a coordination of the development of two parcels, there would be a larger conservation area. He noted that the coordination of the development also provides the necessary rights of way for the road rather than acquisition that may be needed if the road was done through a 429 process. Mark Smith, Mark of Excellence Homes, stated that the new proposal takes into account the concerns expressed by staff, the Planning Commission, Park Commission, and City Council. He stated that this proposal reduces the number of units on the northern parcel from 94 units to Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 3 74 units. He stated that they removed the homes along the northern rural border and around the thumb. He stated that heavy trees and shrubs were added along the northern rural and neighboring development to provide a larger buffer. He stated that the homes along the thumb were also removed to preserve the views of that area for everyone in the City. He noted that the proposed project creates a 500-foot buffer between the Bridgewater development and the nearest townhome. He stated that they reduced the bituminous area by 25 percent, which helps the groundwater quality and provides additional greenspace. He stated that they have a proposed density of 2.94 unit per acre on the northern parcel. He stated that they have hired someone to look at the design of the homes to find additional improvements that could be made. He noted that an additional ten to 40 feet of spacing, above what is required by the City code, would occur between the units. He also provided photos of the inside of some existing homes of this model type that he has built to show that they are not just plain, typical homes and are of a high-quality, ranging in value from $500,000 to $700,000. He stated that they attempted to determine if they could meet the requirements of the R-1 district on the northern parcel and explained that when you remove the wetlands, wetland buffers, and setbacks, they could not meet the two units per acre density requirement and would only be able to reach 1.6 units per acre. He stated that they are still willing to provide park dedication for the area they are not able to utilize for development. He stated that on the southern parcel they would be protecting a quarter mile of shoreline on the property and would provide the five acres of park land along with another acre of trees. He stated that they would provide a bridge across the creek to connect the single-family homes to the park and provide another walkway to the other acre of trees that would be preserved. He stated that if they build Chippewa they would also provide sufficient right-of-way to support a trail along the roadway. He stated that both parcels meet the density requirements of the current zoning and meet the requirement for mixed-use. He noted that they attempted to keep the density to the low end because they know of the City’s desire to slow growth. He stated that 13 acres of upland would be preserved when only seven acres would be required. He stated that this would be an excellent project and if the City were to wait, a project could come in that meets the minimum requirements. He stated that he also has experience in commercial development and typically a commercial developer would remove additional trees to provide additional views of the water, rather than conserving the trees he is proposing to conserve. He stated that in his mind, Bridgewater would have been much more controversial than this proposed development. He noted that there is development all around this parcel, which creates a doughnut hole; noting that this development would complete the area and provide a connection between the west and east. He stated that the different products would provide a housing variety to Medina residents of all ages. He stated that he went out at 6:00 a.m. the previous day and sat in the OSI parking lot to assess traffic. He provided a summary of his analysis. He stated that he did similar investigation in the afternoon from the Polaris parking lot and provided a summary of those results. He did not foresee that this proposed development would add a significant increase in traffic. Mitchell stated that the Council received a number of emails, largely from people opposed to the project. Ms. Nohre stated that the developer has stated that he is creating a development that would meet the goals and desires of the community but did not believe that to be true. She believed that most residents are opposed to this project. She stated that in the past, this project has not been supported by the Council and this new version is still not supported by the Planning Commission. She stated that the developer stated that he has spent time and money developing this plan but argued that the City has spent more time and money developing the draft Comprehensive Plan. She asked the Council to strongly consider a moratorium, or at the least, to require studies to investigate the areas of impact surrounding traffic, the environment, Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 4 and future development. She believed that there would be an implication on traffic. She stated that she moved to Medina for greenspace and urged the Council to focus on the City’s desire to slow growth. Mr. Vivanco stated that he drives the route the developer spoke of every day and disagrees with the traffic information provided by the applicant on Arrowhead. He stated that the light turns red only after three or four vehicles go through. He stated that there are so many workers at OSI that employees park along Arrowhead and Meander and therefore adding additional vehicles would increase the traffic problems. He stated that he does not like sitting in traffic. He asked that the Council not rush into any decisions and not approve the project without obtaining full study information on traffic, the environment, and the City budget. He stated that the City is in the process of having the draft Comprehensive Plan reviewed and one reason the City was ahead of other municipalities is because of the desire for slow growth. He asked that the Council consider placing a moratorium on development until the draft Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Martin asked for information on the length of time Mr. Vivanco sits at the light waiting to turn onto Highway 55 from Arrowhead. Mr. Vivanco stated that he does not have a length of time but stated that it seems like a long time. He stated that he sometimes misses the first light but then makes the second green light. He estimated that three vehicles are able to turn during a green light. Martin stated that the City has identified the need for a watermain and for the extension of Chippewa Road. She stated that there are positives that would be provided through this development, along with what may be considered negatives. She stated she values the input of residents as to whether the benefits would outweigh the negatives. She stated that it seems to be a question of what is better; to have the development now with the benefits of PUD control, a new watermain and the Chippewa Road extension or waiting for the development in the future knowing that the City will not have the same controls in developing the property. Mr. Vivanco stated that is a good question. He stated that while he can appreciate the developer is willing to pay for the road, there would still be additional costs the City would have to bear, and those costs are not known. He stated that while the cost to build the road is known, the environmental costs that the City would have to finance is still not known. He believed that the City should go into this with its eyes open as to the implications on the finances, traffic and environment. He believed that the process should not be rushed. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that this property has been in his family for 50 years and there have been other development proposals. He stated that the City is proud of that property, because he is paying the taxes on that property. He stated that he has paid for that road a few times over the years with the amount of assessments that he has had to pay. He stated that everyone wants that property to be open space, but it is taxed at the highest value. He stated that this would be a phenomenal use of a topographically challenged property. He stated that the property is not contiguous and therefore would not be suitable for only business use. He stated that business brings in more traffic than a mixed home site. He referenced the traffic that is brought in from OSI. He stated that a fair number of retirees would purchase these homes and would not impact peak traffic times. He stated that this is a proposal for less units than has come forward in the past. He asked the Council to consider the big picture, noting that he cannot picture a better and more thoughtful use of the property. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 5 Martin asked for details on the last proposal for the property. Cavanaugh stated that the last proposal was from D.R. Horton and included a large apartment building in order to reach the required density because of the site challenges. Martin asked for details on the use of a moratorium and whether that should be considered. Mitchell stated that it is an available tool. He stated that if the Council is generally negative and the applicant were still to move forward, the Council can enact a moratorium at that time. He stated that if the Council is generally positive, there would be no need for a moratorium. Batty stated that the City is presented with a project that is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan but is not consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the City is pretty far down the road with the effort that has been put in to create the draft Comprehensive Plan and has submitted that plan for review by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that if, or when, the plan is considered complete, there could be a relatively quick review by the Metropolitan Council because the City is one of the first to submit a plan. He stated that the issue would be whether the City likes the project enough to hold the door open, or whether the City believes that the draft comprehensive plan is too far down the road and it would not make sense to allow this concept to move forward. He did not think it would make sense to promote some sort of footrace to get something in the door as that would risk the developer spending a lot of time and money on a project that does not make it. He stated that it would make sense to review this project from a big picture prospective and provide the necessary guidance to the developer. He stated that if the Council decides that it will let the approval of the draft plan play out and not delay the adoption, it would make sense to indicate that to the developer so that he can make an informed decision. He stated that a moratorium is designed to protect the planning process and would be an appropriate tool to consider if the Council came to believe an application threatened the planning process in the form of adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. Anderson asked if a moratorium would be a blanket moratorium that would apply to all developers coming in that might alter the draft Comprehensive Plan. Batty noted that a moratorium could apply to all, or part of the community, as desired. He stated that the City has enacted a number of moratoria over the years. He stated that the City has sometimes attempted to draft a moratorium narrowly but it tends to be a blunt tool. Martin asked if the Council should then be reviewing the concept plan under the PUD ordinance. Batty stated that the question is whether the Council is willing to let the Comprehensive Plan door close or take action to leave it open for this project. Cousineau stated that the Council should look at the concept plan not only under the PUD objectives but also under the Comprehensive Plan process. She stated that the Council should decide if it is willing to forego the planning process they have taken the past few years or decide if it is willing to allow this to move forward. She stated that this is such a better plan and appreciates the changes the applicant has made, but still struggles with some of the PUD criteria. She stated that she also struggles with fairness as the Council has stated that they are not ready for other development because of the timing of the draft Comprehensive Plan process. She felt that this would undermine the efforts of the Steering Committee and the Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 6 desire of Medina residents to slow growth. She stated that one thing people will disagree on is the importance of the road and who will pay for that. She stated that she tends to think the City has spent a lot of time and money on the draft Comprehensive Plan process and the Steering Committee has even reconsidered the Cavanaugh property since the last time this applicant came forward. She stated that in her opinion, she would say the timing is too late with how far the City is into the review process of the draft Comprehensive Plan. She stated that whatever developer comes the City will ensure it meets its high standards. Pederson stated that with the Oakdale situation, he is concerned with the water service and pressure that would be needed for the fire department. He stated that the watermain is needed infrastructure. He stated that in his opinion the cost for the road is between $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 and did not want to be put in the place where they try to make the road work with only City financing. He stated that the developer is willing to pay for the road rather than the City using a 429 project. He stated that this would also provide a park, rather than the City paying for the creation of that as well. He stated that the developer has listened to the requested changes and incorporated all the notes that have been given to him. He stated that he has no interest in going into a moratorium. He stated that land acquisition would also be needed if the City were to construct the road extension, which would only add costs to the project. He stated that this project would include property on both sides of the road and would also pay for construction of the road. He stated that past developers have walked away from the costs of the road and is unsure how the City could pass on this offer. Anderson stated that this is probably the most difficult review the Council has made. He stated that this is a very unique set of properties that would provide an opportunity for a developer to manage both properties. He noted that the watermain will be paid for by the future planning of the City as it has been identified in the City’s plan for public safety and management of growth. He stated that he attended the Planning Commission the previous week and agreed with their consensus that the planning process must be honored. He stated that the City has spent the past two years gaining input from the public and the overriding comment was a desire for slowed growth. He believed that should be honored and noted that adding growth above what has been mandated will not be supported by the residents. He stated that this is a terrific plan and agreed with the comments that the applicant has been great in listening and incorporating comments but did not believe that this is the right time. Mitchell stated that OSI purchased property to construct a larger parking lot to solve their parking issue. He stated that when Wealshire was approved, the City knew that was a bit unusual and had to know that there would be some fallout from that decision. He stated that under this proposal, with both sides being developed, that would cost the City less money than if the road is constructed in the future. He stated that a 429 project is not a magic wand and there could be problems with that process. He stated that there was a letter from MnDOT included in the packet stating that the City has to improve Chippewa and noted that extension has been identified in the City’s planning process. He stated that when he ran for office, D.R. Horton had just said no to developing in Medina. He stated that the developer is building in other communities and there was a reason they decided not to pursue the project in Medina. He stated that cities sometimes pass up good projects and regret that they did; providing examples of poor decisions in Plymouth and Wayzata. He stated that in terms of the planning process with the draft Comprehensive Plan, the City and Council know that D.R. Horton pulled out of the site. He noted that at that time the Roy property was not interested in developing and noted that if that property owner were part of the discussion two years ago, he believed the City would have been thrilled. He stated that there is no doubt there is a matter of timing. He stated that when the 2040 Comprehensive Plan started there was nothing before the City and things have Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 7 changed. He agreed that it is terrible that time has been spent on the new Comprehensive Plan but would like to set that aside. He stated that he would like to consider the merits of the project on its own and not in terms of the timing of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that in terms of the plan itself there are opinions that the property on east across from OSI would be a difficult business site. He stated that perhaps the City has done the best it can do on that piece of land. He stated that on the Roy property there would be a large buffer provided to the neighboring Bridgewater residents. He stated that votes should not depend on the people that call just before the meeting from Bridgewater residents. He noted that there are many more residents in the City than just the Bridgewater Neighborhood. He stated that there has been such little public involvement and therefore the decision falls to the Council and their independent judgement of whether this would be good for the City as a whole. He noted that frequently the people that do not want a project are the people that live next to it. He stated that this proposal had come a long way and if this were proposed two years ago it would not be a big deal. He stated that the Bridgewater residents would still be opposed to it. He stated that the watermain still needs to go in and the Chippewa extension still needs to get done. He believed that this is the best of a difficult situation. He stated that this is the second iteration from this developer and he would still need to make a formal plan. He stated that if the application turns out to be not what they expected, they can always deny the PUD or impose a moratorium. He stated that he is more positive than negative about the proposal. Martin stated that she believes the plan is much improved and thanked the developer for listening and addressing the comments that had been made. She appreciated the comparison to the hole in the doughnut, noting that it truly is. She stated that like Mitchell, she wished that this project had come a few years earlier. She stated that in her mind, it is a matter of a tradeoff between of accepting the project now, with the added benefit of having the road and watermain costs removed from the City budget and being able to have an enhanced development through the public process, and waiting a few more years for that development to occur. She reviewed some of the impacts that would occur if this development were delayed and the benefits that the City would not receive. She stated that if she lived in that area, she would be concerned with the additional traffic but would also recognize the benefits of the development are the elements that would be conserved and the trail connections that would be provided. She recognized that the City has spent two years working on the draft Comprehensive Plan and were given the approval by the Metropolitan Council to slow the rate of growth. She stated that there were public hearings during the Comprehensive Plan development process and the common denominator was the desire for greenspace and rural character. She stated that additional homes, homes clustered together, and additional traffic do not provide the desired results for the community. She stated that she would have liked to hear a few voices in support of the project. She stated that it seems that the initial response was to stop development, and perhaps people have not considered the benefits of the PUD coupled with the cost savings of the City to have this development versus waiting to see what may happen in the future. She stated that she would have to base her decision on the lack of additional support and the planning process the City has undertaken. She stated that the goal of the draft Comprehensive Plan is to have the southern parcel for business to provide continuity of corporate campuses along Highway 55, which would result in business traffic heading in the opposite direction from residential traffic during peak times. She stated that she is not willing to deviate from the last few years of planning without more public support. Pederson stated that there is additional traffic on Arrowhead. He noted that Wealshire and Lunski are being developed and there is worse traffic on Willow, therefore the same comments could have been said for those. He stated that if they are using that justification, he would have voted against those projects as Willow is a worse access than Arrowhead has ever been. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/19/2017 Meeting Minutes 8 Cousineau stated that Lunski was approved 4-1 and the talk of Chippewa was discussed in that application. She stated that project was approved even without considering that Chippewa would be done. Pederson asked if funds were collected from Lunski for Chippewa. Finke noted that funds were not collected from Lunski but both Lunski and Wealshire would be subject to a 429 project. Pederson stated that whichever way this shakes out, everyone has done a great job. He noted that there are people closer than Bridgewater that would be affected by this that are looking at this as a good thing for the City, and that is why they are not here opposed to the project. He recognized the time the Steering Committee has spent. Anderson stated that the entire community provided a voice during that process and believed that the Council needs to listen to that input. Mitchell thanked the developer for coming and hoped that was the guidance they were looking for. He noted the different emailed letters that were received. Johnson confirmed those would become part of the public record. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Mark Smith – Weston Woods – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan – East of Mohawk Drive and North of Highway 55 Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for property east of Mohawk Drive and north of Highway 55. He explained that the request would be to change the land use of the southern property from a business designation to a residential designation, noting that two different residential products would be proposed ranging from low to medium density. He advised that five acres of property would be proposed to be deeded to the City for conservation/park/open space. He stated that the second half of the request would be to amend the staging of the northern property, which is designated for development after 2025, to 2019/2020. He stated that the PUD Concept Plan would include 76 twinhomes on the northern property, and 41 single- family and 33 townhomes on the southern property. He stated that the norther parcel is approximately 80 acres, but only 20 acres would be developable after exclusion of wetland and buffer. He stated that the southern parcel is 55 acres in size with 28 acres buildable. He reviewed the surrounding land uses, noting business to the west and southeast, low density residential to the east, and land identified as future development to the north. He displayed the Concept Plan, identifying the different residential products proposed throughout the sites. He noted that the applicant would propose to extend Chippewa Road from Mohawk to Arrowhead Road as part of this development, noting that the applicant would propose to pay for that extension. He noted that the park/open space would be proposed for the southeast portion of the southern site. He stated that the City’s natural resource specialist visited the site a few years ago and identified that area to be a higher quality wooded area. He reviewed the existing land uses for the northern and southern portions of the site, comparing that to the proposed land uses through this request. He also reviewed the current staging of the properties, comparing that to the proposed staging. He noted that the City reviewed a similar Concept Plan a few years ago from the same applicant, while still in the Comprehensive Plan process, and noted that minutes from previous discussions were provided in the Commission packet for review. He suggested that the Commission focus on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, as that decision would drive the request. He suggested that the Commission also provide input on the PUD but concentrate on the question of use. He provided additional details on how the staging plan of the City was developed, noting that it focused on the supported infrastructure, not only of the City but also regionally. He explained that the staging in this area focused on the ability to extend Chippewa Road, which the applicant is proposing with the request. He stated that a second watermain would also be needed in this area, noting that the applicant is also proposing to construct that improvement at their cost. He stated that staging is also intended to reduce concentration of development in different areas and timeframes and to control growth. He stated that this property is included in the MUSA but the change in land use would remove 23 to 28 acres of land guided for business development and instead changing that to residential and adding additional homes to this area. He noted that three public comments were included in the packet and three additional written comments were received after the report but before the hearing and all will be included in the record for tonight’s meeting. Amic asked for details on the comment “going west to go east”. Finke explained that Mohawk drive access would be restricted as right-in/right-out and therefore explained how vehicles would travel west in order to move east. He confirmed that there would not be another way to go east to Highway 55 from these properties. Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, explained that this is a concept that was brought forward to the City two years ago when it was close to the end of the discussion related to the Comprehensive Plan and therefore it was difficult to consider making changes. He noted that the developer decided to wait and give the City time to complete that process. He explained that they believe that this is a good plan that also provides public benefits and that is why they are bringing it back at this time. He stated that the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 Comprehensive Plan amendment would consider the overall goals for the community and how that can be addressed. He noted that this would provide a mix of housing and provides for the preservation of open space. He asked if the City wants to provide for the joint development of that parcels or would rather rely on a market driven response to the staging and use. He stated that they have combined the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment with the PUD Concept Plan, noting that the PUD over both the north and south parcels allows the developer to balance the density between the parcels while providing buffering and preservation of open space. He commented that the development is focused on the westerly portion of both the north and south parcels, to create a 1,300-foot open space buffer to the nearest neighboring parcels. He stated that 60 percent of the site would be preserved with the inclusion of wetlands and wetland buffers. He noted that Mark Smith has purchased both the northern and southern parcels and is now a landowner in the community. He reviewed the single-family homes and townhomes proposed for the southern parcel and the twinhomes on the northern parcel, noting that this would provide a range of housing types for residents and potential residents. He stated that the southerly wooded area would create a nice buffer to the highway, but they will need to review that to ensure that the trees are healthy. He stated that the park area would have 20 parking stalls for visitors. He stated that they understand that this development could not move forward without providing public benefit. He noted that they attempted to keep the density low, while still meeting the requirements for being within the MUSA. He again summarized the public benefits that would be provided through the development. He noted that the sites will ultimately develop but noted that the joint development of the parcels would provide public benefit in return. Reid stated that during the last review of this concept there was discussion on why the southern parcel was not appropriate for business development and asked the developer to provide a brief statement for the Commissioners that were not a part of the Commission at that time. Griffiths explained that the main reason this parcel would not be appropriate for business development would be the topography of the site and the natural features that should be preserved. He noted that a small portion of the property close to the highway could develop as business but much of the site is covered in wetlands and therefore would not be suitable for a campus development. He noted that Mr. Smith has owned the properties for two years and has had very little interest in business development. He noted that residential development provides additional flexibility to work within the topography and wetland locations. Reid stated that she would like assurance that there would be a variety of styles and colors in the material and architectural design and as she would not want to see copycat homes throughout the development. She asked how the staging of the development would be completed. Mark Smith, applicant, replied that he would mass grade the site and noted that the single-family and townhome market have strong demand right now. He stated that the twinhome development may be staged for a later time. Amic asked the cost benefit of the infrastructure improvements. Griffiths stated that he does not have that exact information. Finke stated that the City is completing a corridor study to provide updated costs. He noted that the costs two years ago estimated about $800,000 to $1,000,000 for street construction with significant wetland mitigation that would have an additional cost. He noted that the developer would not propose to fund the mitigation costs, that would be a City responsibility. He noted that the corridor study will continue irrespective of this request. He stated that the watermain has been identified in the City’s CIP with a cost Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes 3 of $300,000. He noted that if the properties do not develop, the City would ultimately move forward on that infrastructure improvement. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Chris Hillberg, 4459 Trillium Drive, stated that he is passionate about preserving the rural character of Medina and finds this request in opposition of the work the City put into the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that throughout that process there were many opportunities for different uses and staging for the properties. He urged the Commission not to go against the wishes of the people that put so much time and effort into developing the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that although the applicant is proposing to build the road, he believes that would be more expensive than expected. He questioned why the City would be responsible for permitting and wetland mitigation as that would be very expensive. He stated that the applicant has stated that the increase in density would allow the applicant to provide a higher investment in infrastructure. He stated that he interprets that as the developer will build the road if they are allowed to build more homes. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Nester stated that R-1 is typically used for low density residential and therefore the density of the northern parcel does not meet that. She noted that the business designation was strategically chosen for the parcels closest to Highway 55 in order to promote traffic moving west during peak commuting hours. She stated that this plan would create additional residential traffic that would add to congestion. She stated that if business parcels are converted to residential that does not meet the goal of promoting business development. She stated that another community goal is to spread residential development, and this would instead add to the concentration of this area. She stated that while she appreciates the benefit of infrastructure needs, she did not believe that was worth selling out the vision or the time that was spent creating the current Comprehensive Plan. Galzki stated that after waiting for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, he does not believe it would make sense to change this many elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there are so many changes that are not in line with the intentions and vision for the area. He stated that it a great development, but there are more negatives than positives. He stated that the residents in that area already have hardships with traffic and the City attempted to plan to help mitigate those concerns. He stated that he would have a hard time supporting the concept. Nielsen stated that she would have a hard time seeing why there would need to be a uniformity between the two properties. She commented that it would seem strange to have residential along the Highway 55 corridor. She noted that she does appreciate the preservation of the wetlands and trees. Amic stated that this is an elegant design given the topography of the area. He stated that the tradeoff would be you know what you get with this, but you would not know what you would get in five years. He stated that while he could be talked into things, it does not seem to matter with the opinions of the other Commissioners that spoke. Piper stated that her biggest concern would be related to access of trying to go east. She commented that it would be senseless to put that many homes into this spot and not provide the ability to travel all directions. Reid stated that she sees this differently. She explained that this would be a PUD and therefore flexibility is provided in density, related to the R-1 comment. She stated that initially she was concerned with having housing next to Highway 55 but with layout the homes will not be that close to the highway. She Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes 4 stated that there is an opportunity that should be considered. She stated that she does not see a solution for the problem at Arrowhead and asked if there are plans to deal with that, as Arrowhead will continue to stall development in this area. Finke stated that is why the corridor study is continuing to move forward, in attempt to find a solution for Arrowhead and Chippewa to allow for development of the properties staged into the future. Reid stated that she does not think the southern parcel is suitable for business development and therefore would not be opposed to changing that property to residential. Piper asked if the southern parcel could have access from Highway 55 for business. It was confirmed that the parcel would only have access from Mohawk. Reid stated that these parcels will develop eventually. She stated that the concept does a nice job of making use of what is there while preserving the wetlands, wooded areas and open space. She noted that one developer cannot support the road and therefore combining the development of the northern and southern parcels would allow for the construction of the road. She stated that this is the first development in a long time that provides a variety of housing products, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she likes seeing a variety of price points for homeowners, which this provides. Mark Smith provided the range for the pricing of the homes, noting that the twinhomes would begin around $300,000 while the single-family and townhomes would begin around $500,000 to $600,000. He noted that there is also a large creek that runs through the southern parcel that would restrict typical business development. Reid stated that as a taxpayer, the developer is offering to contribute quite a bit of infrastructure that the City has identified need for. She stated that she sees a lot of advantages to this development, recognizing that there are tradeoffs. She believed this to be a good use of the properties and the City would be unsure of what would come in the future. She noted that the area around this is developed and therefore would not have a problem with this developing. She commented again that it would not seem the southern parcel would be appropriate for business development. She stated that although this would include Comprehensive Plan amendments, there would be a lot received in return. She noted that the wetlands and trees that are currently visible from Bridgewater will remain as a buffer. Brett Palmer, 4673 Bluebell Trail, referenced the traffic study, which included three roundabout options and reconfiguration of the OSI entrance. Finke stated that the Chippewa and Arrowhead study will continue irrespective of this development, noting that there will be an open house the following week. He noted that those elements are part of the corridor study. Nielsen asked if the Chippewa extension has been included in the last two Comprehensive Plan process. She stated that if that is important why were the properties not staged differently with the hope that someone would come in and complete that road. Reid noted that previous developers walked away from the properties because of the cost for the road. She stated that one developer will not fund the road and that is why it would make sense to combine the development of the two parcels into one. Finke commented that infrastructure is not the only element that goes into staging, noting that all the elements weighed on the staging proposed. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes 5 Amic stated that this would have four football fields of buffer between this and the next development and he believed that this could be a good deal for the City. He stated that in five years this will develop anyway, and the City might not like that plan more than this. Galzki stated that while it is great that someone is offering to fund the infrastructure needs, the City can fund that as well rather than developing for development sake. He stated that as good as the plan is and the public improvements that would be provided, the City would be liable for the wetland mitigation, there would be increased traffic congestion, and traffic improvements would be needed. He stated that the road and watermain improvements are already included in the City’s CIP and he would prefer to use the Comprehensive Plan to guide the vision for the City into the future. He stated that he has a hard time believing that the public improvements would be worth the additional tradeoffs. Motion by Nester, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Motion carries 4-2 (Amic and Reid opposed). (Absent: Williams) Finke stated that there will be an open house for the Arrowhead and Chippewa corridor study the following Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. He noted that this application will go before the Park Commission at their next meeting and then to the City Council on November 6th. Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/16/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Mark of Excellence Homes – Weston Woods – East of Mohawk Drive and North of Hwy 55 – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan – Park Dedication Review Gallup provided an overview presentation of the applicant’s request for a comprehensive plan amendment to change land use from business to residential and move up the staging from 2025 to 2020. The PUD Concept Plan shows 76 twinhomes on the north property (Roy Property) and 41 single-family, 33 townhomes, and 5.5 acres of park/open space/land preservation on the south property (Cavanaugh Property). Gallup stated that the park dedication ordinance allows 10% of buildable land, which would total 7.5 acres, or 8% of cash-in-lieu, which would be approximately $600,000 to $800,000, or a combination of land and cash. These amounts are the standard required park dedication amounts for any development. The applicant has suggested protection of 5.5 acres of wooded area with a small active park, construction of parking/trailhead, and a trail connection from the north lot to the south lot. If preservation and amenities only meet standard park dedication ordinance requirement, it may not support the applicant’s requested flexibility. Gallup stated that if the applicant’s comprehensive plan amendment is approved, it will add approximately 74 additional homes to the area that were originally slated to be business land in the comprehensive plan. This development also proposes 76 twinhomes five years sooner than originally planned. The Park Commission may want to take this into consideration when determining the amount, size, and locations of future parks in the area. It was noted that this area of the city has other land to the west of Mohawk and north of Chippewa that is zoned to add 65-80 homes in five years, and there could be potential long-term (20+ years) future residential development to the north. Gallup stated that staff’s recommendation would be to recommend construction of an east-west trail and construction of a north- south trail. Staff requests Park Commission discussion and direction on an active park. Staff suggests acquiring the preservation area as justification for the comprehensive plan amendment/PUD instead of taking it as park dedication. Morrison noted that the amount of park/open space land dedication being proposed is only 5.5 acres, but the park dedication ordinance could allow up to 7.5 acres. Discussion took place noting that trails and cash-in-lieu could be combined to reach the full park dedication requirements. Bill Griffith, Attorney representing applicant Mark Smith, stated that they are not proposing less than the minimum. He also noted that while this commission is only looking at park and trail dedication, the City Council is considering other public infrastructure to meet the public benefits test as justification for the comprehensive plan amendment/PUD. He stated that the non-park benefit is the extension of Chippewa Road. Griffith noted that the primary opportunity to the city is that the applicant would develop the north and south parcels together. This would produce 3.0 units per acre for the overall land, which is the minimum the Metropolitan Council will consider for development. He noted that this community has priority to develop slowly and this density is important in achieving that goal. Griffith discussed the applicant’s plan design showing an upland buffer area in the north east section of this development to help screen this development from the Bridgewater neighborhood. He stated that the proposed park would allow for the preservation of woodland, which would be plowed down if this parcel stayed zoned as business. He pointed out the trailhead and 20 parking spaces the applicant proposes to develop. Weir stated that the trailhead as proposed is too intrusive located in the center of the wooded area. She noted that forest trees need trees to protect them from blowing over. The other Park Commissioners concurred with this statement. Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/16/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 Weir questioned if the upland area is not developed, who would maintain it? Mark Smith, applicant, stated that the upland area may be converted to a wetland. He stated the area would be owned by the homeowner’s association. Sharp stated that he liked the opportunity for a neighborhood park, but also liked the idea of preserving the trees. Jacob stated that he loved the concept of tree preservation, but then questioned what the city does to find an active park. He stated that it is important to have trail connections. He suggested looking at the larger area to have a concept plan on where a future park could be built. Thies stated that she would like to see the wooded area containing the knoll preserved. She also stated that an active park is needed to serve these residents. Morrison stated that she would also like to see this knoll preserved, but not to build a parking lot into or next to the woods. She noted that this whole area will need a park where the community can gather, not just a woodland. She also noted the importance of trail connections. Rumsey agreed that the woods should not be carved out for parking. He stated that it was important to have trail connections to Chippewa Road. Weir agreed with what everyone had said thus far. She noted that the city has wanted a slow growth approach for at least the last three election cycles, but this plan feels like it is hurrying growth. With that said, she noted that this is a tremendous opportunity to get the road and utilities built. She noted that having a trail up Mohawk to Corcoran was important to the City of Corcoran. She questioned how successful a business would be in this location because of access if land use designation stayed as business. She noted that business uses are easier for the city because they need less city services but liked that the residential development would not require as many trees to be torn down. Lee stated that the city would want trails both east-west and north-south. He asked the applicant if sidewalks were being proposed in the neighborhoods? Smith stated that there were no sidewalks in the plans. Smith stated that the north side twinhomes have a private street and the south side would have single family homes on a public street. Weir suggested taking three acres for future park land on the northwest boarder, so it can be combined with an additional three acres when property to the north develops. She questioned if the applicant could build twinhomes on the western edge of the currently preserved upland and still incorporate screening from Bridgewater. This could make up for the lost density in acquiring the three acres of future active park land. Lee recapped everyone’s comments by noting that they would like to see the woods preserved in the south, but not count it against their park dedication requirement, removal of the parking next to the woods, create trail connections east-west and north-south, and consideration of Weir’s idea noted above. Smith noted that the 17.6 acre Scherber property to the west of Wealshire is in the Rockford School District. He suggested that if the Park Commission was looking for one large active park to serve this area of town that the city might want to consider purchasing this whole lot to be used as an active park. The Park Commission questioned the topography but was intrigued by the idea if the land was flat enough and the price was right. 1 Dusty Finke From:doug mackey <mackeydoug@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 01, 2019 9:19 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Todd Albers; Dino Deslauriers; John Anderson Subject:Re: RE: Hi Dusty,      Can you add my email to your packet of information in opposition of the proposed changes to the comp plan and  development you have sent to me below?      Also, why is the city considering a comp plan that was just recently finished?  Additionally, who is paying for the roads?   Our roads in our neighborhood are horrible.  For the past two and a half years we have had the misfortune of having  excessive amounts of little black rocks that were used to top coat our roads.  These rocks have created a lot of issues,  kids can’t roller blade in the street, bike tires are always being popped, many children have lost control of their bikes and  wrecked, and these sticky little rocks stick to the car tires and fill up our garages and make their way into our kitchens  and cover our floors.  I talked with Steve who was in charge of this project he he explained that the city didn’t have the  funds to do the roads properly and to do so would require a giant assessment for each household in Bridgewater.  So  before the city spends $ on new roads that will be filled with construction traffic for the duration of the build out of the  Mohawk project, I would like them to address our current roads so that they are safe and suitable.      Additionally, I have a lot of concerns over the extra traffic on Arrowhead.  This use to be a quiet little neighborhood that  was safe and secure.  With every near by housing addition comes more crime, more door to door solicitors, and less  freedom for our kids and parents who moved here for the peace of mind.     Adding the connecting road to arrowhead would drastically change the landscape and the view for our neighbors who  moved here bc they appreciate the wetland which we have come to enjoy.  It would also change and affect the traffic  flow and increase our all ready lengthy commutes from our neighborhood to hwy 55.  Between the long stop times at  the lights, the dismal 30mph speed limit the the police love to enforce, and the train that shuts down the lights, we  simply can’t add another 140 homeowners that are making their way east every morning to hwy 55 by way of cutting  through to Arrowhead and onto 55.  There is just no way that’s a good idea.  Lastly, Arrowhead turns into a dirt road just  north of our neighborhood.  We currently use that to walk our pets, jog, etc.  The road is already over traveled and since  it is not paved, it is often a short cut for people around here coming from the Maple grove area or from the west off 47.   There is no doubt this traffic will increase and the safety of this road and path will change for the worse.      I strongly oppose the proposal for these, and many other reasons.  Please help us keep Medina a quiet, peaceful and  safe city and do not approve this project.      Doug and Bethany Mackey  4562 Bluebell Trail N  Medina MN 55340        Sent from my iPhone    > On Oct 1, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov> wrote:  >   1 Dusty Finke From:Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 02, 2019 8:31 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Weston Woods proposed development Dusty,  Please provide this email to the Planning Commission and City Council members.  I unfortunately cannot attend the  meeting on October 8th so I wanted to express my concern in writing.  I am opposed to the Weston Woods  development and urge the Planning Commission and City Council to vote against it.  The applicant is requesting an  amendment to the Comp Plan for 2025 instead of 2020 (or possibly 2019).  As you are all aware, the City Staff, Planning  Commission and City Council members just completed this Comp Plan and put a lot of thought and consideration into  that process and the staging dates (including public input).  As a resident of Bridgewater, I understand that those parcels  will eventually be developed in the future, but why do they need to be developed sooner than we all envisioned?  I also  have great concern over traffic and the road realignment on Arrowhead.  I currently experience delays getting onto Hwy  55 in the morning from Arrowhead (sometimes take 2 cycles of the light).  I'm fearful of what the extra traffic will do to  that morning route and the overall driving experience on Arrowhead.  Please think about the current Medina residents  (especially neighbors to this proposed development) when you review this submittal and think about why the comp plan  is staged for 2025.      Thank you.  Kim Hofstede  4418 Bluebell Trail S, Medina  1 Dusty Finke From:Janelle Dennis <jdennis@wexhealthinc.com> Sent:Thursday, October 03, 2019 12:55 PM To:Dusty Finke; Kathleen Martin; Jeff Pederson; Todd Albers; Dino Deslauriers Cc:Dennis, Adrian Subject:Amendment to Comp Plan - oppposed Good afternoon -    I'm writing in response to the public hearing notice that was mailed to us in regard to comp plan amendment. We intend to be present at the meeting, and oppose amending the plan. As impacted homeowners, we are already confronted with significant traffic and noise related tto automobiles and trains. It's non-sensical to consider perpetuating issues that are already undesirable. The Weston Woods project would significantly impact traffic and impact morning work commutes and eliminate much of the areas natural beauty. The proposal is disheartening and my hope is that we can all work together to make sure that Medina can maintain the very qualities that make it unique and a desribable place to live.     Janelle and Adrian Dennis  4629 Bluebell Trail N  Medina, MN 55340  Dusty Finke City Planner, Medina Re: Please consider the following comments and questions regarding the Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept proposal. As a starting point, I would suggest calibrating to the purpose and scope of the Comprehensive Plan. Purpose: “The 2040 Comprehensive Plan establishes Medina’s vision as a community and sets goals and objectives which guide future decisions and policies.” Scope: “The 2040 Comprehensive Plan builds upon the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan and the identified community goals and aspirations for the future. The Plan identifies goals, strategies, policies and standards for growth and development that preserve the rural character, open spaces and natural resources that make Medina a unique place.” • The goals and objectives guiding decisions and policies have been established in the Plan and are based on sound input from residents, staff, commissions, committees, etc. With the Plan just being established, barely a year old, I would question the need or rationale to already make changes or amendments. Typically, achieving the desired results or goals comes from working a Plan. • Significant consideration in the vision and goals of the community and the Plan is given to protecting natural resources, open spaces, rural vistas and promoting the rural character of Medina. It would seem that amending the Plan to accelerate the development of 41 single family homes, 76 twinhomes, and 33 row townhomes would contradict the community vision and goals the Plan is trying to achieve. • A change in designation to medium-density residential is not consistent with the Plan. • Increasing density is not consistent with the Plan, goals or vision. • Changing zoning from Rural Residential-Urban Reserve is not consistent with the Plan. • I assume a forecast has been established that guides development staging and if there is a new unplanned development of 150 units, what other developments won’t happen so forecast is not exceeded? And how would these changes be communicated? (“The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals.”) • What type of traffic studies would be done to understand the impact, safety and input from the community? Amending the newly created Comprehensive Plan to accelerate the staging plan and increase density seems to directly contradict what the Plan is trying to accomplish. It does not appear that the proposed amendments would be in line with the established Guide Plan or Objectives listed below. The Guide Plan: Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-3, maintains Medina’s rural character and protects the City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is consistent with the City’s Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles. Objectives: 1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources in the rural areas. Thank you, Pete Nohre 4412 Bluebell Trl S. Medina 1 Dusty Finke From:Darryn Thiessen <darryn.thiessen@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 07, 2019 10:12 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Public Hearing Re: Mark Smith Development Project Dusty,    I am writing with regard to the Mark Smith Development Project at a location east o Mohawk Dr., north of Hwy 55 for a  Planned Unit Development as well as an amendment to the said project.    I have great concerns and objections to the project as my family and I live in the nearby Bridgewater neighborhood.  Our  concerns are traffic volumes, home values, density of homes/acre, impacts to natural wetlands/wildlife, and  community safety.    Traffic volumes have already intensified immensely since our family moved hear in 2012 with the additional Medina  Fields neighborhood being constructed since that time.  I do not believe any changes to road infrastructure could  possibly alleviate the added pressures that increase in population would affect.    We greatly value the feel of living in a remote neighborhood and having surrounding buffers of farm fields, wetlands,  and nature.  This appeal adds great value to our homes and would be threatened by this new development.  The new  development with a mix of single family homes, twin homes, and town homes appealing to a lower income home owner  would adversely affect home values in Bridgewater in my opinion.    Density of homes/acre have been changing in recent years with projects such as this.  I understand the city is seeking tax  revenues with approving projects such as this.  Please do not forget the high tax dollars collected by home owners that  have been drawn in to the Median region where the aforementioned appeal is a remote country property removed from  the city and the dense populations etc. Projects such as this could easily adversely affect the cities income should  existing home owners flee and/or property values decrease.    Although the developer stipulates their protection of current wetlands, I have to state my concerns to this development  and how it will impact the surrounding wetlands and the long term protection of them.  When we continue to surround  every single marsh, lake, etc. how can those be sustained as they rely on natural run off to fill them with waters?    I am also concerned about community safety.  When we allow a development such as this, how might our community  safety being affected?  Are we prepared to increase our policing to accommodate the added population?    To summarize, I would ask the city council what type of community do we wish to have going forward?  One that keeps  the appeal of suburban, remote, country living, or instead a developing densely populated, congested urban area?    Please consider these concerns as you conduct your public hearing Tuesday October 8th, 2019.  I do know that these  concerns among others are shared by most if not all of the 100+ home owners in the Bridgewater neighborhood.    Sincerely,    Darryn & Sarah Thiessen  4515 Bluebell Trail S.  Medina, MN 55340  1 Dusty Finke From:Sandra Woodrum <sandra.l.woodrum@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 07, 2019 8:45 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:MOE Homes Proposal Dear Mr. Finke:    Regarding the Mark of Excellence Homes proposed development east of Mohawk Dr., north of Hwy 55, I am against for  several reasons including the following:    This proposed development is not consistent or compatible with the “nature and character” of Medina living. Residents  made choices to live in a rural environment and would like to preserve its original nature and character. We have  already experienced significant traffic delays and congestion on 55, especially since the addition of OSI. What impact  studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of this development on existing traffic patterns and back‐ups on  Arrowhead Road – which is not built to sustain the proposed traffic? Builders want to make a profit by building as many  homes as they can, without putting funds back into the infrastructure to support the additional homes and population of  the immediate and surrounding areas.     What alternatives have been contemplated to mitigate current and projected traffic congestions? Again, with 150 units  planned to be built, where are the funds for supporting infrastructure? What impact studies have been conducted to  evaluate the effects on electrical infrastructure and grid stability in the surrounding areas due to the additional and very  significant load? Certain local neighborhoods are over developed and now face constant power interruptions due to  inadequate planning. What impact studies have been conducted with regard to wildlife impact? There is noticeably less  green space and wildlife, ruining the reason residents moved here – for rural peace and the nature surrounding.      This is a rural area with OSI in close proximity already impacting traffic, noise, OSI employees walking in the immediate  neighborhoods on their breaks Mon‐Fri. these proposed units will add another increase in foot traffic as well. And how  will this new development impact noise and light pollution around Bridgewater and adjacent areas? Does the city have a  plan to replace the displaced trees and other vegetation that will be destroyed by this large development?    I strongly advise against building this development, putting in a traffic circle or a through road to Arrowhead as this road  has also experienced significant traffic congestion, which it cannot sustain. The addition of 150 units will certainly have  negative immediate and negative lasting impacts on the current neighborhoods, traffic, disruptions and noise for  families currently living here. And the “higher standards of site and building design” are sub‐par “using an extensive  amount of glass” and “deep garages” to store trash bins? The definition of high standards is not “deep garages providing  homeowners room to store trash and recycling bins indoors.” I do not support the addition of more homes built, no  matter what type they claim to be, as this is a rural area enjoyed by its current residents. Again, builders want to build as  many units as they can in a small space, make their money, and move on to ruin another rural area without caring about  the impacts on current neighborhoods, nature, natural surroundings and families. I am 100% against ROE or any other  builder adding homes and a road through to Arrowhead.     Sincerely,    Sandra Woodrum  Bridgewater Neighbor    Larkin Ho/fu"fl#Larkin Hoftran Re: 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 1000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55 437 -1060 GENE RAr.: 952-835-3800 FAx: 952-896-3333 wEB: www.larkinhoftnan.com September 25,2019 Dusty Finke AICP City Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Weston Woods of Medina; Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for PIDs 03- I I 8-23 -42-000 1, 03 - 1 18-23-41 -000 l, and 03 - 1 1 8-23-43-0005 Dear Mr. Finke We represent Mark of Excellence Homes ("MOE") regarding the proposed Weston Woods of Medina project ("Project") located in the City of Medina ("City"). The Project includes development on approximately 131 gross acres of land located north of Highway 55 and East of Mohawk Drive with a mix of single-family development, twinhomes, and row townhomes. This letter and the accompanying materials constitute a request for the following applications by MOE: 1) comprehensive plan ("Comp Plan") amendments, and 2) a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan ("Concept Plan") for a project with an approximate overall density of 3.0 units per acre. Background and Proiect Description The Project includes two properties ("Properties), consisting of the "Cavanaugh Parcel," totaling approximately 54.91 acres, located east of Mohawk Drive and north of Highway 55; and the "Roy Parcel" an approxim ately 7 5.42-acre parcel located east of Mohawk Drive and immediately north of and adjacent to the Cavanaugh Parcel. MOE is seeking to develop the Properties with a mix of single-family homes, twinhomes, and row townhomes with an average overall density of approximately 3.0 units per acre. The Roy Parcel will include approximately 47.33 acres of wetland and buffer area with no designated open space. The Cavanaugh Parcel will include approximately 26.42 acres of wetland and buffers, and 5.47 acres of parks. The net developable acreage is based on the Metropolitan Council's formula for calculation of net residential density calculated by the gross acres less wetlands, buffers, public parks and open space, arterial road rights-of-way, and floodplains. The resulting density of the proposed PUD Concept Plan is as follows: Gross Area weflands/SuIIer ParksiOpen Space Net Developable Roy Parcel 75.42 acres 47.33 acres 0.00 acres 28.09 acres Cavanaugh Parcel 54.91 acres 26.42 acres 5.4J acres 21.10 acres Project Total 130.33 acres 73.75 acres 5.47 acres 49.19 acres Dusty Finke AICP Septernber 25,2019 Page2 rposed Net Developable Dwelling Units Density Roy Parcel 28.09 acres 76 proposed 2.7 unitslacre Cavanaugh Parcel 22.57 acres 74 proposed 3.2 units/acre Proiect Total 49.67 acres 150 Units 3.0 units/acre The proposed 3.0 units per acre of density will be allocated among single-family residences, twinhomes, and row townhomes as follows: The Project will also include the improvement of Chippewa Road from Mohawk Drive on the west to Arrowhead Drive on the east, as well as the completion of a water loop connected to the City's municipal water system. Land Use A nnlications MOE is seeking the following land use applications 1. Comp Plan Amendments MOE is seeking the following Comp Plan Amendments to accommodate the Project a. Comp Plan Amendment: Roy Parcel (2025 to 2020 Staging) The Roy Parcel is currently designated with the Low-Density Residential (LDR) future land use designation with stagin gfor 2025 development. MOE is seeking a Comp Plan amendment to re- guide the Roy Parcel from2025 staging to 2020 with flexibility granted through the PUD to allow development as early as 2079. b.Comp Plan Amendment: Cavanaugh Parcel (Business to Low-Density Residential and Medium-Density Residential Future Land Use Designation) The Cavanaugh Parcel is currently designated with a future land use designation of Business. MOE is seeking a Comp Plan Amendment of the future land use designation of the Cavanaugh Parcel from Business to a combination of LDR on portions of the property planned for single family residential and Medium-Density Residential (MDR) designation to accommodate the proposed townhome development. Acres Number Densitv Single-Family Residences 16.96 acres 41 Units 2.4 unitslacre Twinhomes 28.09 acres 76 Units 2.7 :ur:ritslacre 8.0 units/acreRow Townhomes 4.14 acres 3.0 units/acreProiect Total 49.19 acres 150 Units 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Plan I{ou'sing Types 33 Units Dusty Finke AICP September 25,2079 Page 3 The predominant zoning district for the Properties is Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR), with approximately 5.25 acres of the southernmost portion of the Cavanaugh Parcel zoned as Commercial-Highway (CH). MOE is seeking a review and approval of the PUD Concept Plan, with a request for rezoning to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to follow at a later date. The PUD District will allow for the flexible application of the City's Zoning Code ("City Code"), including the flexible distribution of densities over the entire Project area resulting in a density on the Roy Parcel that is higher than otherwise allowed. The distribution of density is required to make the project work within the market, and as a result of the increased densities MOE is able to offer higher standards of site and building design, along with the preservation of high- quality natural resources, including mature tree stands and substantial wetlands located on the Properties. Additionally, the increased density allows MOE to provide a substantially higher investment in infrastructure, which would not be possible without the flexibility allowed by the PUD. Following approval of the Comp Plan amendments above, approval of the PUD will be consistent with the Comp Plan designation and staging of the Properties. The overall density will be 3.0 units per acre over the entire Project, with higher density located near Highway 55. The Project is consistent with the standards and purpose of the City's PUD Ordinance under Section 827.25 as follows: a.Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety io type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. The Project is designed to accommodate a mix of housing types and densities while preserving and protecting wetlands, tree stands and open spaces. The Project includes a combined 73.75 acres of wetland and buffer conservation areas, as well as 5.47 acres of wooded open space or parks. The five-acre park/open space on the Cavanaugh Parcel includes over 300 hardwood trees, which have been preserved as parkland with playground equipment and20 parking spaces to ensure community accessibility. The park area will become a neighborhood asset providing open space and trail facilities for use by the residents of the development and the general public. This protects and preserves one of the City's natural resources and meets or exceeds the 10 percent park dedication requirement under City Code Section 820.31. b. Higher standards of site and building design The PUD allows the Project to provide a variety of high-quality housing styles, including single family lots, twinhomes and row townhomes in a high-quality design, integrated into the open space and wetlands. The single family homes will be located adjacent to natural areas, including wetlands, park and open space, and preserved woodlands. The townhomes have high-end features and the exteriors will use an extensive amount of glass creating an abundance of natural light on three sides. Deep garages will provide homeowners room to store trash and recycling bins indoors. To improve exteriors, MOE has engaged a designer to create a variety of architectural features to enhance the front of the building units. The addition of the row homes in the center of the south parcel provides a housing option for newer families close to the park and open space. This amenity makes the row homes highly valuable and marketable. Dusty Finke AICP September 25,2019 Page 4 c.The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. To the north on the Roy Parcel, more than two-thirds of the site will be preserved as wetlands and woodlands providing natural buffer areas within the development. All of the proposed residences on the Roy Parcel are clustered on the west of the property, which provides more than a 1,300 foot buffer between the Bridgewater neighborhood to the east and the nearest home in the development. To the south on the Cavanaugh Parcel, nearly sixty percent (60%) of the site is preserved in wetlands, woodlands, park and open space. Specifically, the developer will dedicate a 5-acre park/open space area preserving the existing wooded area including over 300 hardwood trees. This preservation effort will become a defining feature of the development and will preserve an area of significant trees. d. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. The Concept Plan shows a number of ponding areas designed to manage storm water and minimize storm water impacts from the development. MOE will work with the City to incorporate low impact development and best stormwater practices throughout the development. For instance, the plan proposes construction of stormwater reservoirs to provide irrigation to landscaping on the Roy parcel. e. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. The Project preserves and enhances wetland and woodland areas creating large buffers to surrounding development and large portions of the Properties will be dedicated as parkland and open space. MOE will work with the City to enhance buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. For instance, heavy landscaping and tree planting along Mohawk Road will provide a buffer between homes and roadways. f. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. The Project is the result of a creative use of land that allows the placement of a variety of home sites on the Properties in a way that preserves wetlands, woodlands, and open space while still meeting the required density contained within the City's land use regulatory documents. The Project ranges in density with the higher density located nearest to Highway 55 and a range of density north of the highway. The overall net density in the Project is 3.0 units per acre, which is consistent with both City and Metropolitan Council guidance for new residential development. g. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. Dusty Finke AICP September 25,2019 Page 5 MOE has designed the PUD to maximize the use of developable land while preserving natural features such as wetlands, woodlands, and upland buffers to nearby development. On both of the Properties, the footprint and density of housing maximized in a manner that reduces the impervious surfaces and reduces the in the size and length of infrastructure serving the development. In addition, MOE has proposed construction of new infrastructure at its own expense, including the extension of Chippewa Road between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Road, as well as the water loop which will serve surrounding neighborhoods and reduce the City's need for public investment in infrastructure. However, any oversizing of public required by the City must be bome by the City These improvements far exceed the typical infrastructure investment that is required under such a development. h.A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) MOE has requested a Comp Plan amendment to develop the Project as a comprehensive PUD with a mix of development types. The requested Comp Plan amendments will allow for the concurrent development of both the Roy and Cavanaugh parcels as a single residential PUD offering a variety of housing types and densities, while preserving natural and opens spaces. Preserving the wetlands, buffers, open space, and tree stands is consistent with the Comp Plan, and extending Chippewa Road and the water loop will further the Comp Plan's infrastructure goals. The Project will effectuate the objectives of the Comp Plan as proposed. l.A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. The use of the PUD not only results in a more desirable and creative environment, but is absolutely essential to approval of the plan as proposed and permits a mix of densities while preserving natural and opens spaces. The Project provides several public benefits, including the preservation of woodlands, wetlands, and open spaces and a reduction in density and impervious surface as discussed above, along with the extension of Chippewa Road and the water loop. Please contact me with any questions about the above narrative or the enclosed materials. Sincerely,fua1'?m William C. Griffith, for Larkin Hoffinan DirectDial: 952-896-3290 Direct Fax: 952-842-1729 Email: weriffith@larkinhoffinan.com cc: Mark Smith 4841-5812-6245, v. 2 0+0 0 1+0 0 0+001+002+002+51.15 CH I P P E W A R O A D PO L A R I S RO A D CONNECTION DR. S H O R T W A Y R D . MOHAWK ROADMOHAWK ROAD SITE DATA SITE DATA - ROY PARCEL 80.09 Ac. Site Area:75.42 Ac. ( Less Chippewa, Mohawk, Hackamore R/W ) Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:47.33 Ac. Net Developable Area:28.09 Ac. ( 75.42 - 47.33 ) Twin Home Residential:76 Units ( Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B ) Setbacks: 25' front from curb 30' from county road 30' min. between building 15' structure setback from wetland buffer Overall Net Density: 2.7 u/a ( 76 units / 28.09 ac.) SITE DATA - CAVANAUGH PARCEL 54.91 Ac. Gross Site Area:52.99 Ac. (Less Chippewa, Mohawk R/W ) Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:26.42 Ac. Park / Openspace: 5.47 Ac. (10% Required Park Dedication = 5.47 ac.(28.09 + [52.99 - 26.42] = 54.66 x 0.10 ) Net Residential Developable Area:21.10 Ac. (Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B ) Overall Residential Units:74 Units Single Family Lots 70' x 130' +/-41 lots Row Townhome Units 33 lots Setbacks: 30' front / rear 35' from county road 10' side 15' structure setback from wetland buffer Single Family Density: 2.5 u/a (41 units / 16.39 ac.) Row Townhome Density: 7.0 u/a (33 units / 4.71 ac.) Overall Net Density: 3.5 u/a (74 units / 21.10 ac.) SITE DATA - BOTH PARCELS Net Residential developable Area:49.19 Ac. (Less Chippewa,Monarch,Hackamore R/W ) Overall Net Residential Density: 3.0 u/a (150 units / 49.19 ac.) * All areas are approximate. Developable area estimated from County GIS Data as measured from local codes. Wetlands were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental and field located by Landform Professional Services. Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.R R in collaboration with: MARK SMITH ROY & CAVANAUGH SITES ∂ Medina, MN Concept Planning∂ 09.30.2019 CONCEPT PLAN G NORTH 0 150 300 Concept G combined sites.dwg BLUEBELL TRAIL NORTH AR R O W H E A D E S T A T E S 7 PID: 0211823320012 4250 ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 PID: 0211823320008 4200 ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 HA C K A M O R E D R I V E BL U E B E L L T R A I L S O U T H BRIDGEWATER ROAD 2B R I D G E W A T E R A T L A K E M E D I N A BL U E B E L L T R A I L S O U T H 4 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 8 91011 6 OUTLOT D 5 4 OUTLOT C 8 7 3 2 1 22 21 20 19 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 992.4992.4992.4 MO H A W K D R I V E CHIPPEWA ROAD OUTLOT B BLOCK 1 1 2 3 WE T L A N D DNR WETLAND OHW = 978.3 DNR WETLAND OHW = 980.6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B LOT 1 N89°42'49"W 2676.18 N0 1 ° 1 4 ' 2 0 " E 5 1 8 . 9 6 S2 2 ° 0 9 ' 3 9 " W 8 6 . 3 2 L = 17 3 .7 3 R=870.89 Δ=11°25'46" S1 0 ° 4 3 ' 5 3 " W 5 3 4 . 3 4 S89°23'02"E 493.55 S2 6 ° 3 3 ' 2 1 " W 1 4 6 8 . 0 9 N88°39'29"W 332.51 S39 ° 2 9 ' 2 2 " W 4 8 1 . 8 7 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 2 0 1 . 5 5 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 4 8 3 . 4 8 L=29.99 R=170.00 Δ=10°06'25" 30.02 S00°37'28"W N20°01'40"E 5.00 N0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " W 1 5 4 . 8 2 33.01 N88°39'29"W S0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " E 2 6 4 0 . 4 8 1297.08 5 11.5 5 11. 5 North w e s t e r n B e l l T e l e p h o n e C o m p a n y E a s e m e n t p e r B o o k 1 7 6 1 o f D e e d s , p a g e 8 3 filed a s D o c . N o . 2 4 2 8 2 4 9 a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . N o . 5 3 7 3 0 6 2 CHIPPEWA ROAD AR R O W H E A D D R I V E CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK 170 33 33 33 33 33 3333 3333 33 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D 98 0 . 6 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 660 S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3 EX. 6" DIP EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 1 2 3 4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364 6566 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 9 42 77 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT C CHIPPEWA ROAD POLARIS ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . SH O R T W A Y R D . 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3 + 0 0 4+ 0 0 5+00 6+ 0 0 7+ 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 9 + 4 3 . 6 6 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14151617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 13 4 BLUEBELL TRAIL NORTH AR R O W H E A D E S T A T E S 7 PID: 0211823320012 4250 ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 PID: 0211823320008 4200 ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 HA C K A M O R E D R I V E BL U E B E L L T R A I L S O U T H BRIDGEWATER ROAD 2B R I D G E W A T E R A T L A K E M E D I N A BL U E B E L L T R A I L S O U T H 4 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 8 91011 6 OUTLOT D 5 4 OUTLOT C 8 7 3 2 1 22 21 20 19 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 992.4992.4992.4 MO H A W K D R I V E CHIPPEWA ROAD OUTLOT B BLOCK 1 1 2 3 WE T L A N D DNR WETLAND OHW = 978.3 DNR WETLAND OHW = 980.6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B LOT 1 N89°42'49"W 2676.18 N0 1 ° 1 4 ' 2 0 " E 5 1 8 . 9 6 S2 2 ° 0 9 ' 3 9 " W 8 6 . 3 2 L = 17 3.7 3 R=870.89 Δ=11°25'46" S1 0 ° 4 3 ' 5 3 " W 5 3 4 . 3 4 S89°23'02"E 493.55 S2 6 ° 3 3 ' 2 1 " W 1 4 6 8 . 0 9 N88°39'29"W 332.51 S39 ° 2 9 ' 2 2 " W 4 8 1 . 8 7 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 2 0 1 . 5 5 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 4 8 3 . 4 8 L=29.99 R=170.00 Δ=10°06'25" 30.02 S00°37'28"W N20°01'40"E 5.00 N0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " W 1 5 4 . 8 2 33.01 N88°39'29"W S0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " E 2 6 4 0 . 4 8 1297.08 5 11.5 5 11. 5 North w e s t e r n B e l l T e l e p h o n e C o m p a n y E a s e m e n t p e r B o o k 1 7 6 1 o f D e e d s , p a g e 8 3 filed a s D o c . N o . 2 4 2 8 2 4 9 a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . N o . 5 3 7 3 0 6 2 CHIPPEWA ROAD AR R O W H E A D D R I V E CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK 170 33 33 33 33 33 3333 3333 33 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D 98 0 . 6 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 660 S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3 EX. 6" DIP EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 1 2 3 4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364 6566 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 9 42 77 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT C CHIPPEWA ROAD POLARIS ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . SH O R T W A Y R D . 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3 + 0 0 4 + 0 0 5+00 6+ 0 0 7+ 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 9 + 4 3 . 6 6 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14151617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 13 4 {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 300 600 CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X C1MEH003 - Cover Sht Area Plan.dwg COVER SHEET/AREA PLAN PUDC-1 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EASEMENT AREA LOT AREA WETLAND AREA WETLAND BUFFER COMMON AREA DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY ZONINGAREA SUMMARY TOTAL AREA:135.00 CURRENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING RR-UR RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PUD 18.489 24.395 6.865 10.200 56.710 14.593 AC. AC. AC. AC. AC. AC. AC. POND / RAIN GARDENS 3.748 AC. SITE MEDINA, MINNESOTA NORTH NO SCALE AREA LOCATION MAP AR R O W H E A D 55 494 94 694 55 SITE 116 24 19 50 19 10 11 9 101 47 MO H A W K R D . DR I V E HORSESHOE TRAIL WI L L O W R D . ROAD HAMEL PI O N E E R TRAIL That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 01 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a distance of 833.09 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 86.32 feet; thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a central angle of 11 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43 minutes 23 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29. 99 feet along a tangential curve concave easterly, having a central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of 170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 30.00 feet to the south line of said South Half and said line there terminating. Abstract property AND Parcel1: The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 2: That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property. Parcel 3: Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract property Parcel 4: The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 5: The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 6: That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property C1 M E H 0 0 3 - C o v e r S h t A r e a P l a n . d w g 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 HA C K A M O R E D R I V E 15 16 17 18 19 20 990.6 INV CMP 12 989.6 992.0 991.5993.2 993.1 INV CMP 15 TO STMH 988.6 FES 15 RCP 990.1 FES 15 RCP 990.8 991.9 991.9 992.0 989.4 988.1 INV CMP 24 984.3 988.9 INV CMP 24 984.3 991.3 990.0992.5 INV E RCP 15 988.2 991.9 INV CMP 15 988.2 994.2 CMP 12IN INV 987.8 CMP 12IN INV 988.1 992.4 992.6992.3 991.8 992.3992.1992.5FES 18IN RCP 984.2 FES 15IN RCP 990.1 MO H A W K D R I V E WE T L A N D DNR WETLAND OHW = 978.3 490 491492 493 494 495 A-37 496 A-87 497 A-59 498 499 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222324 2526 27 28 2930 3132 33 343536 3738 39404142 43 4445464748 495051 52 53 5455 56 5758 59606162 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 7374 7576 77 78 7980 8182 83 848586 87 88 8990 91 92 93 94 9596 9798 99 100 101 102 103104105106 107 108109 110111 112113114115116117118119 120121122 123124 125126127 128129 130 131132 133 134 135136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143144 145 146 147148149 150 151152153154155156157158159 160161162 163164165 166 167 168169 170171 172173174175176 177 178179 180181 182183184 185 186187188 189 190191192193194195 196197 198 199 200 201202 203 204 205 206207 208 209210211 212 213 214 215 216 217218219 220 221222223 224 225 226 227 228 229230 231232 233234235 236237238239240 241 242 243 244 245246247 248249 250251 252253254255256257258 259 260 261262 263 264 265 266267 268 269 270271 272 273274275 276 277 278279 280 281282283 284 285 286 287288 289 290 291 292 293 294295 296297 298 299 300 301302 303 304305 306 307308 309 310 311 312313 314 315 316317 318 319 320321322323 324325326 327328329330331332333 334335336 337338339340 341342 343 344345346347 348349350 351352353 354355356 357358 359 360361362 363364365 366367368369 370 371372373374 375 376377 378379 380381382383384 385 386 387388 389 390 L=173.73 R=870.89 Δ=11°25'46" {\C256;1297.08} 5 11.5 5 11 . 5 Nort h w e s t e r n B e l l T e l e p h o n e C o m p a n y E a s e m e n t p e r B o o k 1 7 6 1 o f D e e d s , p a g e 8 3 filed a s D o c . N o . 2 4 2 8 2 4 9 a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . N o . 5 3 7 3 0 6 2 CHIPPEWA ROAD 33 33 3333 3333 33 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D 980.6 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 {\ C 2 5 6 ; 6 6 0 } DENOTES SLOPES 18% AND GREATER WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X C2MEH003 - Exist Cond.dwg EXISTING CONDITIONS PUDC-2.0 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE INFO NWI MAP That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 01 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a distance of 833.09 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 86.32 feet; thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a central angle of 11 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43 minutes 23 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29. 99 feet along a tangential curve concave easterly, having a central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of 170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 30.00 feet to the south line of said South Half and said line there terminating. Abstract property AND Parcel1: The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 2: That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property. TOTAL PROJECT SITE AREA: 135.0 AC. PID # 0311823420001 PARCEL 1,4,5 & 6 MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 SITE AREA = 37.7 AC+/- PID # 0311823410001 PARCEL 2 MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 SITE AREA = 9.5 AC+/- PID # 0311823430005 PARCEL 3 MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 SITE AREA = 5.25 AC+/- Parcel 3: Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract property Parcel 4: The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 5: The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 6: That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property C2 - 0 M E H 0 0 3 - E x i s t C o n d . d w g 0+ 0 0 991.4 992.3992.4 992.7992.8 991.3 INV E RCP 15 988.2 INV CMP 15 988.2 994.1 HH CABX EM EM CABX CABX 988.5 CA B X CAB X 992.4992.4992.4 HH CMP INV 36 981.5 CMP TOP 984.6 CMP TOP 984.7 CMP INV 36 981.9 CMP 12IN INV 987.8 CMP 12IN INV 988.1 991.0 991.7 989.9 987.9 44" DECIDUOUS44" DECIDUOUS OE OE OE OE OE OE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I > I DNR WETLAND OHW = 980.6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B BLOCK 1 LOT 1 490 7 8 9 10 11 1213 S2 6 ° 3 3 ' 2 1 " W 1 4 6 8 . 0 9 N88°39'29"W 332.51 S39 ° 2 9 ' 2 2 " W 4 8 1 . 8 7 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 2 0 1 . 5 5 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 4 8 3 . 4 8 N20°01'40"E 5.00 N0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " W 1 5 4 . 8 2 33.01 N88°39'29"W S0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " E 2 6 4 0 . 4 8 1297.08 CHIPPEWA ROAD CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK 17 0 33 33 33 33 33 33 WE T L A N D EX. SAN.MH RIM:995.01 INL: 982.81 (W) INV: 974.76 (N)(S) INV:976.05 9 8 0 . 6 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 PARCEL 2 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 PARCEL 6 468.00 46 8 . 0 0 59 0 . 0 0 S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3 80 LF. 6" PVC EX. SAN.MH RIM:984.50 INV:973.28 EX. 6" DIP EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C DENOTES SLOPES 18% AND GREATER WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X C2MEH003 - Exist Cond.dwg EXISTING CONDITIONS PUDC-2.1 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE INFO TOTAL PROJECT SITE AREA: 135.0 AC. PID # 0311823420001 PARCEL 1,4,5 & 6 MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 SITE AREA = 37.7 AC+/- PID # 0311823410001 PARCEL 2 MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 SITE AREA = 9.5 AC+/- PID # 0311823430005 PARCEL 3 MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 SITE AREA = 5.25 AC+/- NWI MAP That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 01 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a distance of 833.09 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 86.32 feet; thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a central angle of 11 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43 minutes 23 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29. 99 feet along a tangential curve concave easterly, having a central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of 170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 30.00 feet to the south line of said South Half and said line there terminating. Abstract property AND Parcel1: The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 2: That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property. Parcel 3: Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract property Parcel 4: The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 5: The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 6: That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property C2 - 1 M E H 0 0 3 - E x i s t C o n d . d w g 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364 6566 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 9 42 77 OUTLOT C CHIPPEWA ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . HA C K A M O R E D R I V E 15 16 17 18 19 20 MO H A W K D R I V E WE T L A N D DNR WETLAND OHW = 978.3 N89°42'49"W 2676.18 N0 1 ° 1 4 ' 2 0 " E 5 1 8 . 9 6 S2 2 ° 0 9 ' 3 9 " W 8 6 . 3 2 L=173.73 R=870.89 Δ=11°25'46" S1 0 ° 4 3 ' 5 3 " W 5 3 4 . 3 4 S89°23'02"E 493.55 L=29.99 R=170.00 Δ=10°06'25" 30.02 S00°37'28"W S0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " E 2 6 4 0 . 4 8 1297.08 5 11.5 5 11 . 5 Nort h w e s t e r n B e l l T e l e p h o n e C o m p a n y E a s e m e n t p e r B o o k 1 7 6 1 o f D e e d s , p a g e 8 3 filed a s D o c . N o . 2 4 2 8 2 4 9 a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . N o . 5 3 7 3 0 6 2 CHIPPEWA ROAD 33 33 3333 3333 33 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D 9 8 0 . 6 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 660 EXISTING EASEMENT TO BE VACATED WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM 33 6 6 60 33 66 33 33 33 33 WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM 6364 65 6+00 7+00 8+00 30 ' B- B 25 ' 40.22' 30'MIN. CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 ARE SHOWN THUS: DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way lines as shown on the plat. 10 (Not to Scale) LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING TWINHOME SITE SUMMARY SETBACK SUMMARY UNIT SETBACKS: FRONT (FROM BACK OF PRIVATE ROAD) CORNER ( FROM BACK OF PRIVATE ROAD) BETWEEN BUILDINGS REAR (FROM BOUNDARY) FROM MOHAWK DRIVE FROM CHIPPEWA ROAD 25 FT. 25 FT. 30 FT. 30 FT. 50 FT. 50 FT. CURRENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING RR-UR RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PUD PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: PER TITLE COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY FILE NO; 559399 JULY 5, 2017 1. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THE COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST ON AN ASSUMED BEARING ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH HALF A DISTANCE OF 833.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 86.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 173. 73 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 46 SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 870. 89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 534.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 29. 99 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 25 SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 170.1FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF AND SAID LINE THERE TERMINATING. ABSTRACT PROPERTY TYPICAL TWINHOME LAYOUT EASEMENT DETAIL C3MEH003 - Pre Plat.dwg PRELIMINARY PLAT PUDC-3.0 4 Gross Site Area:75.42 Ac. ( Less Chippewa, Mohawk, Hackamore R/W ) Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:47.33 Ac. Net Developable Area:28.09 Ac. Twin Home Residential:76 Units ( 38 Twinhome Bldgs) ( Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B ) Overall Net Density:2.70 u/a ( 76 units / 28.09 ac.) C3 - 0 M E H 0 0 3 - P r e P l a t . d w g 1 2 3 4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT C CHIPPEWA POLARIS ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . SH O R T W A Y R D . 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14151617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 13 4 994.1 EM EM 992.4992.4992.4 DNR WETLAND OHW = 980.6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B LOT 1 S2 6 ° 3 3 ' 2 1 " W 1 4 6 8 . 0 9 N88°39'29"W 332.51 S39 ° 2 9 ' 2 2 " W 4 8 1 . 8 7 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 2 0 1 . 5 5 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 4 8 3 . 4 8 N20°01'40"E 5.00 N0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " W 1 5 4 . 8 2 33.01 N88°39'29"W S0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " E 2 6 4 0 . 4 8 1297.08 CHIPPEWA ROAD CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK 17 0 33 33 33 33 33 33 WE T L A N D 9 8 0 . 6 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3 EX. 6" DIP EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P 33 33 33 33 60 6 0 60 60 60 60 60 WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM 4+00 5+00 6+00 6 5 4 7 POLARIS SF-North Road POINT ID L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 STATION 1+82.92 3+92.75 8+94.81 10+67.40 13+16.12 DELTA RADIUS TANGENT 55.00 413.58 127.21 84.65 50.00 N56° 00' 00"E N87° 20' 47"E S82° 02' 51"E S87° 01' 44"E S53° 48' 40"E SF-North Road POINT ID C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 STATION 0+18.45 2+37.92 8+06.33 10+22.02 11+52.05 DELTA 033°39'16" 031°20'47" 010°36'21" 004°58'53" 033°13'04" RADIUS 280.00 283.00 478.00 522.00 283.00 TANGENT 84.68 79.41 44.37 22.71 84.41 164.47 154.83 88.48 45.38 164.07 N72° 49' 38"E N71° 40' 24"E S87° 21' 02"E S84° 32' 18"E S70° 25' 12"E SF-South Road POINT ID L6 L7 L8 STATION 1+43.57 5+77.61 10+49.25 DELTA RADIUS TANGENT 51.22 204.24 166.23 S64° 00' 00"E N37° 39' 51"E N02° 39' 13"W SF-South Road POINT ID C6 C7 C8 STATION 0+14.82 1+94.79 7+81.85 DELTA 026°20'44" 078°20'09" 040°19'04" RADIUS 280.00 280.00 380.00 TANGENT 65.53 228.10 139.50 128.75 382.82 267.40 S77° 10' 22"E N76° 49' 56"E N17° 30' 19"E CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 ARE SHOWN THUS: DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines and being 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way lines as shown on the plat. 10 (Not to Scale) LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING SOUTH PARCEL SITE SUMMARY SETBACK SUMMARY UNIT SETBACKS: FRONT CORNER REAR SIDE STRUCTURE FROM WETLAND BUFFER FROM MOHAWK DRIVE FROM CHIPPEWA ROAD 30 FT. 30 FT. 30 FT. 10 FT. 15 F.T. 35 FT. 35 FT. CURRENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING RR-UR RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PUD TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT LAYOUT EASEMENT DETAIL C3MEH003 - Pre Plat.dwg PRELIMINARY PLAT PUDC-3.1 5 5 Gross Site Area:52.99 Ac. (Less Chippewa, Mohawk R/W ) Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:26.42 Ac. Park / Openspace: 5.47 Ac. Net Residential Developable Area:21.10 Ac. (Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B ) Residential Units:74 Units Single Family Lots 70' x 130' +/-41 lots Row Townhome Units 33 lots Single Family Density:2.5 u/a (41 units / 16.39 ac.) Row Townhome Density:7.0 u/a (33 units / 4.71 ac.) Overall Net Density:3.5 u/a (73 units / 22.33 ac.) * All areas are approximate. Developable area estimated from County GIS Data as measured from local codes. Wetlands were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental and field located by Landform Professional Services. That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line: Parcel1: The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 2: That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property. Parcel 3: Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract property Parcel 4: The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 5: The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property Parcel 6: That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens property OVERALL SITE SUMMARY - BOTH PARCELS Net Residential Developable Area:49.19 Ac. (Less Chippewa, Mohawk, Hackamore R/W ) Overall Net Residential Density:3.0 u/a 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+ 0 0 22+ 0 0 23+ 0 0 24+00 25+00 25+78.46 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+0012 + 0 0 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364 6566 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 9 42 0+00 1+00 2+00 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3+ 0 0 4 + 0 0 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+ 0 0 10 + 0 0 11+00 12+00 13 + 0 0 14+ 0 0 15 + 0 0 1 6 + 0 0 1 7 + 0 0 18 + 0 0 19+ 0 0 20 + 0 0 2 1 + 0 0 2 2 + 0 0 2 3 + 0 0 2 4 + 0 0 25+ 0 0 26+0027+0028+00 29+00 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 7 4 . 9 9 77 OUTLOT C 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 2+ 5 1 . 1 5 CHIPPEWA ROAD POLARIS ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . MO H A W K R O A D HA C K A M O R E D R I V E 15 16 17 18 19 20 CABX INV CMP 12 989.6 HH INV CMP 15 TO STMH 988.6 FES 15 RCP 990.1 FES 15 RCP 990.8 INV CMP 24 984.3 CABXINV CMP 24 984.3 INV E RCP 15 988.2 INV CMP 15 988.2 CMP 12IN INV 987.8 CMP 12IN INV 988.1 992.4 FES 18IN RCP 984.2 G G G G G G G G G G G G OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE MO H A W K D R I V E > > > > > > > > I I I I I I I I I I I I I > > I I I I EX. MH 4A RIM:982.74 INV:979.88(N) INV:979.88(E) INV:979.78(S) 28' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:979.88 EX. MH 3 RIM:990.71 INV:979.25(N) INV:979.25(W) INV:979.25(E) INV:979.15(S) 28' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:979.36 I EX. MH 2 RIM:987.30 INV:978.20(N) INV:978.20(E) INV:978.10(S) EX. MH 1 RIM:986.42 INV:977.20(N) INV:977.20(E) INV:977.10(S) EX. SAN.MH RIM:990.82 INV:976.05 29' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:977.32 29' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:978.31 >I WE T L A N D DNR WETLAND OHW = 978.3 North w e s t e r n B e l l T e l e p h o n e C o m p a n y E a s e m e n t p e r B o o k 1 7 6 1 o f D e e d s , p a g e 8 3 filed a s D o c . N o . 2 4 2 8 2 4 9 a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . N o . 5 3 7 3 0 6 2 CHIPPEWA ROAD 33 33 3333 3333 33 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D 9 8 0 . 6 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 >> > I 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 9 0 % 8" S A N @ 1 . 0 0 % 10" SAN@ 0.28% 10" SAN@ 0.28% 10" SAN@ 0.28%10" SAN@ 0.28%10" SAN@ 0.28% 10 " S A N @ 0 . 2 8 % 10" SAN @ 0.28% 10" SAN @ 0.28% 10" SAN@ 0.28% 10 " S A N @ 0 . 2 8 % 10 " S A N @ 0 . 2 8 % 10" SAN@ 0.28% 10 " S A N @ 0 . 2 8 % 10 " S A N @ 0 . 2 8 % 10 " S A N @ 0 . 2 8 % 10" SAN@ 0.28% 8" SAN@ 1.00% 10 " S A N @ 0 . 2 8 % {EX. SAN MH 1}RIM: 992.25BUILD: 16.1'INL (E): 976.15 {MH 1}RIM: 992.08BUILD: 15.1' INL (N): 977.12 INV: 977.02 {MH 2} RIM: 994.00 BUILD: 16.3' INL (N): 977.80INV: 977.70 {MH 3} RIM: 991.93 BUILD: 13.3' INL (N): 978.72INV: 978.62 {MH 4} RIM: 991.71BUILD: 12.8' INL (E): 979.04INL (NW): 979.04 INV: 978.94 {MH 10}RIM: 993.38BUILD: 13.7' INL (E): 979.80INV: 979.70 {MH 11}RIM: 993.36BUILD: 13.4'INL (SE): 980.10INV: 980.00 {MH 12}RIM: 991.82BUILD: 11.4' INL (SE): 980.48INV: 980.38 {MH 14}RIM: 988.16BUILD: 6.4'INL (NE): 981.82INV: 981.72 {MH 15} RIM: 989.47 BUILD: 7.3' INL (N): 982.25INV: 982.15 {MH 16}RIM: 992.25BUILD: 9.8'INL (N): 982.57 INV: 982.47 {MH 17}RIM: 994.87 BUILD: 11.9'INL (NW): 983.05INV: 982.95 {MH 18}RIM: 994.35BUILD: 10.9'INL (NW): 983.52INV: 983.42 {MH 19}RIM: 994.97BUILD: 11.2'INL (NW): 983.91INV: 983.81 {MH 20}RIM: 996.56BUILD: 12.3'INL (NW): 984.33INV: 984.23 {MH 21}RIM: 995.68BUILD: 11.0'INL (N): 984.75INV: 984.65 {MH 5}RIM: 993.08BUILD: 12.7'INL (N): 980.47INV: 980.37 {MH 6}RIM: 993.90BUILD: 12.7' INL (N): 981.31INV: 981.21 {MH 7} RIM: 993.56BUILD: 10.7'INL (N): 982.95INV: 982.85 {MH 8}RIM: 994.96BUILD: 10.6' INV: 984.39 {MH 9}RIM: 991.97BUILD: 12.8'INL (E): 979.29INV: 979.19 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% {MH 24} RIM: 996.04BUILD: 20.4'INL (E): 975.71INV: 975.61 {MH 25} RIM: 997.94BUILD: 21.9'INL (NE): 976.17INV: 976.07 {MH 26} RIM: 998.33BUILD: 21.4'INL (E): 977.00INV: 976.90 {MH 27} RIM: 995.21BUILD: 17.8'INL (E): 977.52INV: 977.42 {MH 28} RIM: 995.88BUILD: 16.9'INL (S): 979.06 INL (E): 979.06 INV: 978.96 {MH 29} RIM: 993.98BUILD: 14.4' INL (E): 979.73INV: 979.63 {MH 30} RIM: 990.20BUILD: 9.3' INL (SE): 981.04INV: 980.94 {MH 31} RIM: 992.48BUILD: 11.0'INL (SE): 981.57INV: 981.47 ST M STM ST M STM STM STM STM STM STM ST M ST M STM 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT8" WAT8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" W A T STM {MH 22}RIM: 996.90INV: 985.58 STM ST M ST M ST M ST M STM {MH 13}RIM: 989.03 BUILD: 8.1'INL (E): 980.99INV: 980.89 10" SAN@ 0.28% CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X C4MEH003 - Utility.dwg UTILITY PLAN PUDC-4.0 6 CONSTRUCTION NOTES {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 22+ 0 0 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+ 0 0 14 + 0 0 14 + 7 9 . 3 8 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+0 0 7+0 0 8+0 0 9+ 0 0 10 + 0 0 11 + 0 0 12 + 0 0 0+0 0 1+ 0 0 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 1 2 3 4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT C 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 CHIPPEWA ROAD POLARIS ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . SHO R T W A Y R D . MO H A W K R O A D 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3 + 0 0 4+ 0 0 5+00 6+ 0 0 7+ 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 9 + 4 3 . 6 6 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14151617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 13 4 INV E RCP 15 988.2 INV CMP 15 988.2 HH CABX CABX CABX CA B X CAB X HH CMP INV 36 981.5 CMP TOP 984.6 CMP TOP 984.7 CMP INV 36 981.9 CMP 12IN INV 987.8 CMP 12IN INV 988.1 OE OE OE OE OE OE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G CHIPPEWA ROAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I > I I I EX. SAN.MH RIM:990.82 INV:976.05 DNR WETLAND OHW = 980.6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B BLOCK 1 LOT 1 1297.08 5 11.5 CHIPPEWA ROAD CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK 17 0 33 33 33 33 33 3333 33 WE T L A N D EX. SAN.MH RIM:995.01 INL: 982.81 (W) INV: 974.76 (N)(S) INV:976.05 9 8 0 . 6 80 LF. 6" PVC EX. SAN.MH RIM:984.50 INV:973.28 EX. 6" DIP EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AND FIELD LOCATED 10" SAN@ 0.28%{EX. SAN MH 1}RIM: 992.25BUILD: 16.1'INL (E): 976.15 {MH 1} RIM: 992.08 BUILD: 15.1'INL (N): 977.12INV: 977.02 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" SAN@ 1.00% {MH 23} RIM: 994.90BUILD: 19.7'INL (N): 975.30INV: 975.20 {EX. SAN MH 2}RIM: 975.55BUILD: 2.7' INL (E): 974.86 {MH 24}RIM: 996.04BUILD: 20.4'INL (E): 975.71INV: 975.61 {MH 25}RIM: 997.94 BUILD: 21.9' INL (NE): 976.17INV: 976.07 {MH 26} RIM: 998.33 BUILD: 21.4' INL (E): 977.00INV: 976.90 {MH 27}RIM: 995.21BUILD: 17.8'INL (E): 977.52INV: 977.42 {MH 28} RIM: 995.88BUILD: 16.9'INL (S): 979.06INL (E): 979.06 INV: 978.96 {MH 29}RIM: 993.98BUILD: 14.4'INL (E): 979.73INV: 979.63 {MH 30}RIM: 990.20BUILD: 9.3'INL (SE): 981.04INV: 980.94 {MH 31}RIM: 992.48BUILD: 11.0' INL (SE): 981.57 INV: 981.47 {MH 32} RIM: 993.99BUILD: 11.8'INV: 982.22 8" SAN@ 0.40% {MH 33} RIM: 991.86 BUILD: 11.7' INL (S): 980.27INV: 980.17 {MH 34}RIM: 990.48 BUILD: 10.0' INV: 980.45 {MH 47}RIM: 993.98BUILD: 10.8'INV: 983.15 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" WAT 8" W A T 8" WAT ST M STM ST M STM STM ST M ST M STM STM ST M 8" S A N @ 0 . 5 0 % 8" SAN@ 1.00% 8" SAN@ 0.50% 8" S A N @ 0 . 5 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 5 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" SAN@ 0.40% 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % 8" S A N @ 0 . 4 0 % {MH 46}RIM: 992.49BUILD: 10.6'INV: 981.92 {MH 45}RIM: 993.96BUILD: 12.6'INL (NW): 981.45 INL (NE): 981.45 INV: 981.35 {MH 35}RIM: 986.15BUILD: 11.8'INL (NE): 974.44INV: 974.34 {MH 36}RIM: 988.00BUILD: 13.1' INL (SE): 975.04 INV: 974.94 {MH 37} RIM: 988.90 BUILD: 13.3' INL (S): 975.75INV: 975.65 {MH 38}RIM: 990.00BUILD: 13.3'INL (S): 976.78INV: 976.68 {MH 39}RIM: 990.00BUILD: 12.7'INL (SE): 977.42INV: 977.32 {MH 40}RIM: 989.87 BUILD: 11.9'INL (E): 978.03INV: 977.93 {MH 41}RIM: 990.79BUILD: 12.3'INL (NE): 978.63INV: 978.53 {MH 42} RIM: 992.31BUILD: 13.3'INL (N): 979.08INV: 978.98 {MH 43} RIM: 992.01 BUILD: 12.2' INL (N): 979.91 INV: 979.81 {MH 44}RIM: 991.88BUILD: 11.5' INL (NE): 980.50INV: 980.40 CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 C4MEH003 - Utility.dwg UTILITY PLAN PUDC-4.1 7 CONSTRUCTION NOTES H.P.89.11 L.P. 88.26 H.P. 93.43 L.P. 84.30 % 4. 6 % 5. 4 %5.4 % 3. 3 %2.6 87.3 1 L.P . L.P. 91.60 % 5. 3 % 4. 7 % 3.8 % 5.0 %8.8 %10 H.P.94.28 %5.4 %4.2 %3.6 %4.8 %6.0 %7.2 %6.8 %4.8 %3.2 %2.6 %2.8 %4.5 %5.3 %6.3 H.P . 97.0 0 L.P. 92.45 H.P. 93.49 L.P. 89.45 H.P. 91.16 H . P . 9 6 . 5 0 L.P . 94.2 5 H . P . 9 4 . 9 3 L . P . 9 5 . 0 0 L.P.93.38 %9.6 %8.5 %6.0 %5.0 %2.5 %3.1 %5.6 %4.4 % 7. 8 % 7. 1 %4.1 % 4.2 % 5.0 %5.0 %6.0 %6.3 %5.2 %4.7 %6.7 D R O P 2 C %3.3 %3.5 % 4.7 % 4.2 %3.4 %3.5 %5.2 %7.9 DR O P 2C DR O P 2C % 4.5 % 6.3 % 6.9 % 7.3 % 7 . 5 % 6 . 3 CL CL93.39 %5.6 %4.4 %4.5 %4.5 % 5.3 % 5.5 %5.6 %5.9 %4.6 %5.1 GF = 9 9 4 . 0 98 6 . 5 FB L O 98 9 . 0 G F = 9 9 2 . 1 98 6 . 0 F B W O 9 8 5 . 5 GF = 9 9 5 . 0 98 7 . 5 FB W O 98 7 . 0 GF = 9 9 4 . 5 98 7 . 0 FB W O 98 6 . 5 GF = 9 9 4 . 5 98 7 . 0 FB W O 98 6 . 5 GF = 9 9 5 . 0 98 7 . 5 FB W O 98 7 . 0 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 98 8 . 5 FB W O 98 8 . 0 G F = 9 9 7 . 0 9 8 9 . 5 F B W O 9 8 9 . 0 GF=9 9 3 . 5 986.0 FBW O 985.5 G F = 9 9 7 . 5 9 9 0 . 0 F B W O 8 9 8 . 5 G F = 9 9 7 . 5 9 9 0 . 0 F B W O 9 8 9 . 5 GF=9 9 3 . 5 986.0 FBW O 985.5 GF = 9 9 3 . 5 986 . 0 FB W O 985 . 5 G F = 9 9 3 . 5 9 8 6 . 0 F B W O 9 8 5 . 5 GF=994.0 986.5 FBWO 986.0 GF = 9 9 5 . 5 98 8 . 0 FB W O 98 7 . 5 G F = 9 9 4 . 5 9 8 7 . 0 F B 9 9 4 . 3 L.P. 92.29 % 5. 6 GF=993.5 986.0 FBWO 985.5 %4.9 %7.6 %6.8 GF = 9 9 4 . 5 98 7 . 0 FB W O 98 6 . 5 G F = 9 9 7 . 0 9 8 9 . 5 F B W O 9 8 9 . 0 G F = 9 9 7 . 5 9 9 0 . 0 F B W O 9 8 9 . 5 EO F H.P.94.04 G F = 9 9 7 . 5 9 9 0 . 0 F B W O 9 8 9 . 5 GF=9 9 4 . 5 987.0 FBW O 986.5GF=994.5 987.0 FBWO 986.5 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 98 8 . 5 FB W O 98 5 . 8 GF = 9 9 5 . 5 98 8 . 0 FB W O 98 5 . 3 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 988 . 5 FB W O 988 . 0 G F = 9 9 7 . 0 9 8 9 . 5 F B W O 9 8 9 . 0 GF = 9 9 2 . 6 98 6 . 5 FB W O 98 6 . 0 G F = 9 9 7 . 5 9 9 0 . 0 F B W O 9 8 9 . 5 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 98 8 . 5 FB W O 98 8 . 0 G F = 9 9 6 . 0 9 8 8 . 5 F B W O 9 8 8 . 0 G F = 9 9 5 . 0 9 8 7 . 5 F B W O 9 8 7 . 0 GF = 9 9 4 . 5 98 7 . 0 FB 99 4 . 3 GF = 9 9 5 . 5 98 8 . 0 FB 99 5 . 3 GF = 9 9 5 . 0 98 7 . 5 FB 99 4 . 8 GF=994.5 987.0 FBWO 986.5 G F = 9 9 7 . 0 9 8 9 . 5 F B W O 9 8 9 . 0 FBLO 989.0888.0 FBLO 990.5 GF=997.0 889.5 FBWO 989.0 GF=997.5 890.0 FBLO 992.5 GF=997.5 890.0 FBLO 992.5 GF=997.5 890.0 FBLO 992.5 993.0 88.62H.P. 996 992 990 990 990 988 984988 986 984 984 982 982982 986 988 9 9 0 982 984 986 9 9 2 9 9 4 9 9 6 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 984 990 994 998 986990 988988 990988 984 H.P . 94.9 0 L. P . 85 . 5 E O F 980 982 984984 984984 982 988 988 986 984 982 986 988 988 986 988 992 992990 992 992990 990 986 985 986 986988 990 992 982 984984 988 990 988 982 984 988 988 986 984 990 992 9 8 4 9 9 0 99 4 99 0 9 8 6 9 8 2 994 99 4 996 9 9 6 9 5 4 9 5 8 9 6 2 9 6 6 9 7 0 9 7 4 9 7 8 9 9 6 990 994 986 994 992988984 994 996 994 99 8 99 6 99 4 99 2 99 4 994 994 99 6 99 4 99 6 99 4 9 9 6 9 9 0 986 992 992 99 2 99 0 984 987 987 986 990994 992 988 992 9 9 2 988 98 4 984988 99 0 98 6 98 6 98 0 97 0 96 0 9 8 8 9 8 6 9 8 6 9 8 4 9 8 6 984 986 9 8 2 9 8 6 970 980 984 986 9 8 8 986 982984 983 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+0 0 21+ 0 0 22+ 0 0 23+ 0 0 24+00 25+00 25+78.46 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364 6566 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 9 42 0+00 1+00 2+00 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3+ 0 0 4 + 0 0 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+ 0 0 10 + 0 0 11+00 12+00 13 + 0 0 14+ 0 0 15 + 0 0 1 6 + 0 0 1 7 + 0 0 18 + 0 0 19+ 0 0 20 + 0 0 2 1 + 0 0 2 2 + 0 0 2 3 + 0 0 2 4 + 0 0 25+ 0 0 26+0027+0028+00 29+00 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 7 4 . 9 9 77 OUTLOT C 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 2+ 5 1 . 1 5 CHIPPEWA ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . EO F 985.0 +/- EOF {STORM POND }HWL = 985 +/- NWL = 983 +/- HA C K A M O R E D R I V E 15 16 17 18 19 20 CABX INV CMP 12 989.6 HH INV CMP 15 TO STMH 988.6 FES 15 RCP 990.1 FES 15 RCP 990.8 INV CMP 24 984.3 CABXINV CMP 24 984.3 INV E RCP 15 988.2 INV CMP 15 988.2 CMP 12IN INV 987.8 CMP 12IN INV 988.1 991.0 991.7 989.9 987.9 984.4984.0 22" CONIFEROUS20" CONIFEROUS 38" DECIDUOUS 44" DECIDUOUS44" DECIDUOUS 987.9 987.6 987.3 987.5 14" CONIFEROUS18" CONIFEROUS 989.0 988.3 988.1 987.6 985.2 19" CONIFEROUS21" CONIFEROUS 988.2 987.7 987.1987.3 987.8 987.9 992.4W 986.6 987.3 FES 18IN RCP 984.2 FES 15IN RCP 990.1 UE UE UE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE MO H A W K D R I V E EX. MH 4A RIM:982.74 INV:979.88(N) INV:979.88(E) INV:979.78(S) 28' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:979.88 EX. MH 3 RIM:990.71 INV:979.25(N) INV:979.25(W) INV:979.25(E) INV:979.15(S) 28' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:979.36 EX. MH 2 RIM:987.30 INV:978.20(N) INV:978.20(E) INV:978.10(S) EX. MH 1 RIM:986.42 INV:977.20(N) INV:977.20(E) INV:977.10(S) EX. SAN.MH RIM:990.82 INV:976.05 29' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:977.32 29' L 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.4% STUB 4C INV:978.31 WE T L A N D DNR WETLAND OHW = 978.3 490 491492 493 494 495 A-37 496 A-87 497 A-59 498 499 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222324 2526 27 28 2930 3132 33 343536 3738 39404142 43 4445464748 495051 52 53 5455 56 5758 59606162 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 7374 7576 77 78 7980 8182 83 848586 87 88 8990 91 92 93 94 9596 9798 99 100 101 102 103104105106 107 108109 110111 112113114115116117118119 120121122 123124 125126127 128129 130 131132 133 134 135136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143144 145 146 147148149 150 151152153154155156157158159 160161162 163164165 166 167 168169 170171 172173174175176 177 178179 180181 182183184 185 186187188 189 190191192193194195 196197 198 199 200 201202 203 204 205 206207 208 209210211 212 213 214 215 216 217218219 220 221222223 224 225 226 227 228 229230 231232 233234235 236237238239240 241 242 243 244 245246247 248249 250251 252253254255256257258 259 260 261262 263 264 265 266267 268 269 270271 272 273274275 276 277 278279 280 281282283 284 285 286 287288 289 290 291 292 293 294295 296297 298 299 300 301302 303 304305 306 307308 309 310 311 312313 314 315 316317 318 319 320321322323 324325326 327328329330331332333 334335336 337338339340 341342 343 344345346347 348349350 351352353 354355356 357358 359 360361362 363364365 366367368369 370 371372373374 375 376377 378379 380381382383384 385 386 387388 389 390 N89°42'49"W 2676.18 N0 1 ° 1 4 ' 2 0 " E 5 1 8 . 9 6 S2 2 ° 0 9 ' 3 9 " W 8 6 . 3 2 L=173.73 R=870.89 Δ=11°25'46" S1 0 ° 4 3 ' 5 3 " W 5 3 4 . 3 4 S89°23'02"E 493.55 L=29.99 R=170.00 Δ=10°06'25" 30.02 S00°37'28"W S0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " E 2 6 4 0 . 4 8 1297.08 5 11.5 5 11 . 5 Nort h w e s t e r n B e l l T e l e p h o n e C o m p a n y E a s e m e n t p e r B o o k 1 7 6 1 o f D e e d s , p a g e 8 3 filed a s D o c . N o . 2 4 2 8 2 4 9 a n d d e f i n i t i o n o f E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . N o . 5 3 7 3 0 6 2 CHIPPEWA ROAD 33 33 3333 3333 33 WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D WE T L A N D 9 8 0 . 6 NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3 660 >> WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AND FIELD LOCATED CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 C5MEH003 - Pre Grading.dwg PRELIMINARY GRADING PUDC-5.0 8 Contact utility service providers for field location of services 72 hours prior to beginning grading. Refer to the Geotechnical Report prepared by XX, Dated XX/XX/XX, For additional information on backfill material and groundwater conditions. Remove topsoil from grading areas and stockpile sufficient quantity for reuse. Materials may be mined from landscape areas for use on site and replaced with excess organic material with prior Owner approval. Remove surface and ground water from excavations. Provide initial lifts of stable foundation material if exposed soils are wet and unstable. Rough grade Building Pad to 12 Inches below Finished Floor Elevation (FFE). Refer to Structural Specifications for Earthwork requirements for Building Pads. An Independent Testing Firm shall verify the removal of organic and unsuitable soils, soil correction, and compaction and provide periodic reports to the Owner. Place and compact fill using lift thicknesses matched to soil type and compaction equipment to obtain specified compaction throughout the lift. Compact cohesive soils in paved areas to 95% of maximum dry density, Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) except the top 3 feet which shall be compacted to 100%. Compact to 98% density where fill depth exceeds 10 feet. The soils shall be within 3% of optimum moisture content. In granular soils all portions of the embankment shall be compacted to not less than 95% of Modified Proctor Density (ASTM D1557). Coordinate with Architectural for building stoop locations. Slopes shown on adjacent walks and pavements should continue over stoops. Avoid soil compaction of infiltration practices. Any equipment used in Infiltration Areas should be small scaled and tracked. Install protective fencing as shown <before work begins/after basin is constructed/other timing?>. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Install perimeter sediment controls prior to beginning work and maintain for duration of construction. Remove controls after areas contributing runoff are permanently stabilized and dispose of off site. Limit soil disturbance to the grading limits shown. Schedule operations to minimize length of exposure of disturbed areas. Management practices shown are the minimum requirement. Install and maintain additional controls as work proceeds to prevent erosion and control sediment carried by wind or water. Refer to SWPPP Notes on Sheet C3.X for additional requirements. Excavate ponds early in the construction sequence. Remove sediment from ponds periodically and after areas contributing runoff are permanently stabilized. Contractor shall prevent sediment laden water from entering the infiltration system until the site is completely stabilized. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized within 72 hours of completion of work in each area. (If within 1 mile of Impaired Water use the following note instead) all exposed soils areas shall be stabilized immediately to limit soil erosion in that portion of the site where construction has temporarily or permanently ceased. Seed, Sod, Mulch and Fertilizer shall meet the following Specifications, as modified. Item Specification Number Estimated Quantities Sod MNDOT 3878 X S.F. Seed MNDOT 3876 MN TYPE 22-111 @ 30.5 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control X LBS. MN TYPE 25-151 @ 120 LB/AC - Permanent Turf X LBS. NDDOT CLASS IV @ 130 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control Mulch MNDOT 3882 Disc Anchored) X TON Fertilizer MNDOT 3881 General placement MNDOT 2575 See Landscape Sheets for permanent turf and landscape establishment. Scrape adjacent streets clean daily and sweep clean weekly. 12. 1. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. GRADING NOTES GENERAL NOTES EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES For construction staking and surveying services contact Landform at 612.252.9070.1. 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 23+ 0 0 24+00 25+00 25+78.46 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+ 0 0 14 + 0 0 14 + 7 9 . 3 8 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+0 0 7+0 0 8+0 0 9+ 0 0 10 + 0 0 11 + 0 0 12 + 0 0 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 1 2 3 4 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT C 0+ 0 0 CHIPPEWA POLARIS ROAD CO N N E C T I O N D R . SH O R T W A Y R D . 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+ 0 0 3 + 0 0 4+ 0 0 5+00 6+ 0 0 7+ 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 9 + 4 3 . 6 6 8 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14151617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 13 4 PID: 0211823320012 4250 ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 PID: 0211823320008 4200 ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 991.4 992.3992.4 992.7992.8 991.3 INV E RCP 15 988.2 INV CMP 15 988.2 HH CABX CABX CABX 988.5 CA B X CAB X HH CMP INV 36 981.5 CMP TOP 984.6 CMP TOP 984.7 CMP INV 36 981.9 CMP 12IN INV 987.8 CMP 12IN INV 988.1 991.0 991.7 989.9 987.9 44" DECIDUOUS44" DECIDUOUS 1006.3 OE OE OE OE OE OE OUTLOT B DNR WETLAND OHW = 980.6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B 490 491492 7 8 9 10 11 1213 7576 77 212 213 214 S89°23'02"E 493.55 S2 6 ° 3 3 ' 2 1 " W 1 4 6 8 . 0 9 N88°39'29"W 332.51 S39 ° 2 9 ' 2 2 " W 4 8 1 . 8 7 N69° 5 8 ' 2 0 " W 4 8 3 . 4 8 L=29.99 R=170.00 Δ=10°06'25" 30.02 S00°37'28"W N0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " W 1 5 4 . 8 2 33.01 N88°39'29"W S0 0 ° 2 0 ' 4 4 " E 2 6 4 0 . 4 8 1297.08 CHIPPEWA ROAD AR R O W H E A D D R I V E CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK33 33 33 33 33 33 WE T L A N D EX. SAN.MH RIM:995.01 INL: 982.81 (W) INV: 974.76 (N)(S) INV:976.05 9 8 0 . 6 660 80 LF. 6" PVC EX. SAN.MH RIM:984.50 INV:973.28 EX. 6" DIP EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 2 " D I P EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C EX . 1 0 " P V C WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AND FIELD LOCATED % 5 . 0 L.P. 92.45 H.P. 93.49 L.P. 89.45 H.P. 91.16 CL CL93.39 92.29 G F = 9 9 5 . 0 98 7 . 5FB W O 98 7 . 0 GF= 9 9 5 . 0 987.5 FBW O 987.0 % 9.0 GF= 9 9 5 . 5 988 . 0 FBW O 987 . 5 GF = 9 9 4 . 0 98 6 . 5 FB L O 98 9 . 0 %8.7 % 4.7 GF=996.0 988.5 FBWO 988.0 G F = 9 9 6 . 0 98 8 . 5 F B W O 98 8 . 0 GF = 9 9 6 . 5 98 9 . 0 FB W O 98 8 . 5 GF= 9 9 6 . 5 989 . 0 FBW O 988 . 5 GF=999 . 5 992.0FBWO991.5 GF=993.0 885.5 FB 992.8 G F = 9 9 6 . 0 98 8 . 5 F B W O 9 8 8 . 0 GF = 9 9 5 . 5 98 8 . 0 FB W O 98 7 . 5 %0 GF = 9 9 4 . 5 98 7 . 0 FB W O 98 6 . 5 % 7. 4 GF=994.0 886.5 FBLO 989.0 % 6. 2 GF=995.5 888.0 FBLO 990.5 % 5. 6 % 5. 5 GF = 9 9 7 . 0 88 9 . 5 FB L O 99 2 . 0 % 6. 8 % 4. 7 % 8. 0 GF=997.0 889.5 FBWO 989.0 %6.3 GF = 9 9 5 . 5 98 8 . 0 FB W O 98 7 . 5 %8 % 7. 6 %7.4 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 88 8 . 5 FB W O 98 8 . 0 %6.1 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 98 8 . 5 FB W O 98 8 . 0 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 88 8 . 5 FB W O 98 8 . 0 %7.2 GF=997.5 890.0 FBLO 992.5 GF=997.5 890.0 FBLO 992.5 GF=997.5 890.0 FBLO 992.5 GF=999.0 991.5 FBWO 991.0 % 4 . 7 GF=998.0 990.5 FBWO 990.0 % 7. 7 GF=99 9 . 5 992.0 FBWO 991.5 % 4 . 7 GF=10 0 0 . 5 993.0 FBWO 992.5 % 5 . 5 GF=100 0 . 5 993.0 FBWO 992.5 % 4 . 0 GF=995.0 987.5 FBLO 990.0 % 4. 0 H.P. 98.70 L.P. 92.29 H.P. 95.71 L.P. 90.07 EO F % 7. 3 GF=995.0 987.5 FBLO 990.0 L.P . 90. 0 6 L.P. 88.97 H.P . 93.6 9 % 5. 5 GF=998.0 990.5 FBLO 993.0 GF=1000 . 5 993.0FBWO992.5 % 6 . 3 % 5 . 0 GF=1 0 0 0 . 5 993.0FBWO992.5 EO F 88.62H.P. GF = 9 9 6 . 0 98 8 . 5 FB W O 98 8 . 0 %5.0 GF= 9 9 6 . 0 988 . 5 FBW O 988 . 0 % 6.7 % 7.6 GF= 9 9 6 . 0 988 . 5 FBW O 988 . 0 EOF G F = 9 9 6 . 0 8 8 8 . 5 F B W O 9 8 8 . 0 GF = 9 9 6 . 0 88 8 . 5 FB W O 98 8 . 0 G F = 9 9 6 . 0 9 8 8 . 5 F B W O 9 8 8 . 0 GF=996.0 888.5FBWO988.0 H.P. 91.22 H.P.92.44 L.P.90.32 H. P . 91. 0 7 L.P. 90.17 G F = 9 9 3 . 2 G F = 9 9 3 . 2 GF = 9 9 4 . 2 GF = 992.3 G F = 9 9 1 . 7 GF = 9 9 1 . 7 GF = 9 9 1 . 7 GF = 9 9 2 . 0 89.30 EO F 989.6 990.3 990.9 990.8 989.6 989.6 989.6 989.6 990.6 % 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 2. 0 %2.0 %2.0 992 992 990 990 990 988 984988 986 9 9 4 9 9 6 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 990 994 998 986990 988988 990988 984 986 988 988 986 988 992 992990 992 992990 990 L. P . 89 . 5 990 988 986 990 990 990 990 990 990 99 2 990 994 9 8 6 9 8 8 98 6 984 986 994996 1004 100 2 1006 100 4 10 0 0 99 8 990 986 98 8 984985986 9 9 4 9 9 0 988 992 984 988 990 986 984 982984 992988984982978 990 992 988 9 8 6 986 985 986 990 986988 9 9 2 9 9 4 98 4 98 6 984 986986 982 9 9 2 990992994 990 992 992 978 982 985 988 988 986 98 6 98 6 98 2 97 8 990 990 984 9 8 6 986 985 990 984 986 986 984 986 984 986 9 8 6 98 6 9 8 8 990 986 98 4 98 4 98 2 98 0 994 998 98 8 98 8 98 6 9 9 2 998 99 2 98 8 998 1000 988992994 996 994 996 984982978 990 9 9 0 990 992 990 990 983 980 982 983 990 984 990990 99 2 CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY RCH RCH RCH MARK SMITH 2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110 TEL (612)490-0558 COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH UTILITY PLAN NORTH UTILITY PLAN SOUTH PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH 25 AUG 2019 18 SEPT 2019 30 SEPT 2019 C-1.0 C-2.0 C-2.1 C-3.0 C-3.1 C-4.0 C-4.1 C-5.0 C-5.1 /SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. FILE NAME BY DATE DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW LA N D F O R M c CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. TITLESHEET PROJECT SHEET INDEX ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW CERTIFICATION 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 Web: landform.net Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. DEVELOPER MUNICIPALITY WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA MEDINA, MINNESOTA RH 09.18.2019 CONCEPT PLAN - PUD 09.30.2019 MEH17003 9 20 X X {\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.} NORTH 0 100 200 C5MEH003 - Pre Grading.dwg PRELIMINARY GRADING PUDC-5.1 9 Contact utility service providers for field location of services 72 hours prior to beginning grading. Refer to the Geotechnical Report prepared by XX, Dated XX/XX/XX, For additional information on backfill material and groundwater conditions. Remove topsoil from grading areas and stockpile sufficient quantity for reuse. Materials may be mined from landscape areas for use on site and replaced with excess organic material with prior Owner approval. Remove surface and ground water from excavations. Provide initial lifts of stable foundation material if exposed soils are wet and unstable. Rough grade Building Pad to 12 Inches below Finished Floor Elevation (FFE). Refer to Structural Specifications for Earthwork requirements for Building Pads. An Independent Testing Firm shall verify the removal of organic and unsuitable soils, soil correction, and compaction and provide periodic reports to the Owner. Place and compact fill using lift thicknesses matched to soil type and compaction equipment to obtain specified compaction throughout the lift. Compact cohesive soils in paved areas to 95% of maximum dry density, Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) except the top 3 feet which shall be compacted to 100%. Compact to 98% density where fill depth exceeds 10 feet. The soils shall be within 3% of optimum moisture content. In granular soils all portions of the embankment shall be compacted to not less than 95% of Modified Proctor Density (ASTM D1557). Coordinate with Architectural for building stoop locations. Slopes shown on adjacent walks and pavements should continue over stoops. Avoid soil compaction of infiltration practices. Any equipment used in Infiltration Areas should be small scaled and tracked. Install protective fencing as shown <before work begins/after basin is constructed/other timing?>. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Install perimeter sediment controls prior to beginning work and maintain for duration of construction. Remove controls after areas contributing runoff are permanently stabilized and dispose of off site. Limit soil disturbance to the grading limits shown. Schedule operations to minimize length of exposure of disturbed areas. Management practices shown are the minimum requirement. Install and maintain additional controls as work proceeds to prevent erosion and control sediment carried by wind or water. Refer to SWPPP Notes on Sheet C3.X for additional requirements. Excavate ponds early in the construction sequence. Remove sediment from ponds periodically and after areas contributing runoff are permanently stabilized. Contractor shall prevent sediment laden water from entering the infiltration system until the site is completely stabilized. All exposed soil areas must be stabilized within 72 hours of completion of work in each area. (If within 1 mile of Impaired Water use the following note instead) all exposed soils areas shall be stabilized immediately to limit soil erosion in that portion of the site where construction has temporarily or permanently ceased. Seed, Sod, Mulch and Fertilizer shall meet the following Specifications, as modified. Item Specification Number Estimated Quantities Sod MNDOT 3878 X S.F. Seed MNDOT 3876 MN TYPE 22-111 @ 30.5 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control X LBS. MN TYPE 25-151 @ 120 LB/AC - Permanent Turf X LBS. NDDOT CLASS IV @ 130 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control Mulch MNDOT 3882 Disc Anchored) X TON Fertilizer MNDOT 3881 General placement MNDOT 2575 See Landscape Sheets for permanent turf and landscape establishment. Scrape adjacent streets clean daily and sweep clean weekly. 12. 1. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. GRADING NOTES GENERAL NOTES EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES For construction staking and surveying services contact Landform at 612.252.9070.1. Woodbury REI LLC Page 1 of 5 November 6, 2019 Re-zoning City Council MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ben Schneider, Planning Intern and Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: October 28, 2019 MEETING: November 6, 2019 City Council Meeting SUBJ: Request for Rezoning 3672 and 3692 Pinto Drive Review Deadline Application received: September 16, 2019 120-day review deadline: January 3, 2020 Summary of Request Woodbury REI, LLC (the Applicant) owns two adjacent properties located at 3672 and 3692 Pinto Drive and has requested to rezone both lots from Commercial-Highway (CH) to Commercial-General (CG). The Applicant is making this request in order to develop a self- storage facility on these two lots. The Applicant would need to request a lot combination and site plan review in the future before construction could begin. Self-storage is not permitted in the CH zoning district, so the Applicant has requested the rezoning separately to determine if the City supports the rezoning before investing in surveying, civil, and architectural plans for their project. Analysis Map of Parcels and Zoning Districts The two lots are located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 55 and Pinto Drive. The zoning map above shows the districts that are in this area. Note that red represents CH and orange represents CG. The zoning map shows that one other parcel in the vicinity is zoned CH, and other parcels on the south side of the highway in this area are zoned CG. Agenda Item # 7C Woodbury REI LLC Page 2 of 5 November 6, 2019 Re-zoning City Council Comparing Commercial-Highway to Commercial-General Districts Below is how City Code describes the purposes of each of these districts: • Section 838.1.01: “The purpose of the Commercial-Highway (CH) district is to provide a zoning district for a mix of retail and service businesses with visibility from and proximity to arterial roadways which provide services for residents of the city as well as the broader region. Development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to limit impacts on surrounding land uses and shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently utilize site improvements and to protect the natural environment.” • Section 838.3.01: “The purpose of the Commercial-General (CG) district is to provide a zoning district for a mix of service, office, warehouse, and light manufacturing businesses. Property in this district will be proximate to arterial roadways, but generally have less visibility to these roadways than Commercial-Highway property. New development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to limit impacts on surrounding land uses and shall enhance the existing structures and uses in the district.” Most of the surrounding parcels on the south side of Highway 55 are likely CG rather than CH because of the historical development pattern in the area with small industrial and warehouse uses. However, the City has applied the CH district to 3 parcels on the intersection of the highway and Pinto Drive, two of which being the lots the Applicant wants rezoned. Staff believes that these three parcels were likely zoned CH due to their location near the intersection of Highway 55 and CR116, which increases visibility and accessibility. In addition, the fact that the subject site was not yet developed meant that the historical development pattern may not be as relevant. Section 838.1.02. of the City Code outlines the permitted uses in CH districts: (1) Essential Services (2) Professional and Medical Office Uses (3) Parks and Open Space (4) Public Services (5) Retail Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: pet stores, pawn shops, and adult establishments. (6) Service Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: hospitals; veterinarian clinics; adult establishments; services related to automobiles; and services delivered off-site, including but not limited to building/lawn contractors, electrical and other skills trades and pest control. (7) Hotels and Motels (8) Places of assembly, conference halls, lodges, and similar uses (9) Religious institutions (10) Banks and financial institutions (11) Showrooms (12) Daycare Facilities (13) Physical fitness clubs, dance studios, and similar uses Woodbury REI LLC Page 3 of 5 November 6, 2019 Re-zoning City Council CH districts also permit the following uses subject to a conditional use permit, as outlined in Section 838.1.03: (1) Structures which exceed 50,000 square feet in floor area (2) Automobile, Marine, or Trailer Sales or Rental (3) Automobile Repair, Oil Lubrication Service Shops, Auto Body Shops (4) Automobile Towing (5) Car Washes or Auto Detailing (6) Drive-through services (7) Hospitals (8) Indoor Recreational Uses, including but not limited to bowling alleys, dance halls, movie theaters, and live entertainment. (9) Motor Fuel Stations (10) Retail and service uses which include the keeping of animals on-site such as pet stores, veterinarian clinics, animal day cares, animal boarding, commercial kennels and similar uses. (11) Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) If these parcels were rezoned to CG, all the CH uses would still be permitted/conditional uses except for hotels and motels, drive-through services, hospitals, and motor fuel stations. There would also be new permitted/conditional uses including: • Contractor services typically delivered off-site such as building contractors, lawn care, electrical, plumbing, locksmiths, and extermination or pest control • Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Distributors not exceeding 10,000 square feet • Assembly or Manufacturing of light industrial products, except not the following uses and processes: leather tanning; paper manufacturing; meat slaughtering or rendering; metal plating; Teflon coating or similar coatings requiring high temperatures; the use of heavy or other drop forges; the use of heavy or other hydraulic surges; or the use of any devices capable of detection at the property line. • Warehousing, wholesaling, or distributors more than 10,000 but less than 20,000 square feet. City Code and Comprehensive Plan The City Code does not have specific language for rezoning commercial districts, but does offer general criteria for granting zoning amendments in Section 825.35: “The City Council may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map. Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.” As far as the Comprehensive Plan, it says the following about commercial districts: “The City should review existing standards within the Commercial zoning districts and amend as necessary to ensure that development is appropriately scaled with surrounding Woodbury REI LLC Page 4 of 5 November 6, 2019 Re-zoning City Council uses and also that development will protect and improve on the rural vistas and open spaces along Highway 55 and other arterial roadways within the City.” Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan also has a list of 14 objectives concerning commercial uses in the City. But these objectives largely focus on infrastructure standards or on broad goals of having attractive businesses. While important, staff does not believe that these objectives provide substantial guidance on this particular rezoning proposal. The City has guided much more property for Business uses than Commercial uses. The Growth and Development map is attached for reference. The Business land use allows for warehousing and assembly uses similar to the CG district. This may be a consideration for the current request, since the rezoning would allow some of the Commercial property to be developed with warehouse/industrial uses. Analyzing the Request Because the Applicant intends to build a self-storage facility and such a building may fall under a warehouse, the most important difference for the Applicant between CG and CH zoning districts is that warehousing is permitted in CG districts. However, staff believes it is important to know all the differences between these two districts when considering this request. The long-term use of this land should be considered in addition to what is currently being proposed. Despite more visibility at the intersection, and relatively easy access to Highway 55, the Applicant has argued that the railroad tracks create a burden for retail uses and potential businesses that rely on daily customers. In fact, the Applicant claims that potential businesses have stayed away from this parcel for this exact reason. The Applicant argues that increasing the flexibility of uses to include warehouse, manufacturing, or distributing would more likely result in development that is more appropriate with the City’s goals. As briefly discussed above, there are four uses that are currently permissible (at least with a conditional use permit) on these parcels that would no longer be allowed if this request was granted: drive through services, motor fuel stations, hospitals, and hotels/motels. No such structures exist on the parcels now. The Applicant has argued that drive-through services and motor fuel stations would not be built because of the proximity and barrier of the railroad. A hospital or hotel is not a realistic structure given the size of the parcels. Therefore, it could be argued that the rezoning would not really prohibit any of the uses which would likely be constructed. On the other hand, the rezoning to CG would allow uses such assembly, warehousing and self-storage, which would not be permitted under the CH zoning. Planning Commission Recommendation The Commission voted 4-1 (with one abstention) to recommend approval of the Applicant’s request. One adjacent property owner spoke at the hearing and adamantly spoke against the rezoning. The property owner felt that a warehouse or min-storage would not be an appropriate use for the property and it would be better to hold out for a retail use. Woodbury REI LLC Page 5 of 5 November 6, 2019 Re-zoning City Council The members who voted yes agreed that this rezoning is consistent with the surrounding parcels in this area. They were also receptive to the fact that most uses that are currently permitted would still be permitted if this rezoning were to occur. The Commissioner opposing the rezoning did not believe warehousing, self-storage, and industrial uses were appropriate for the subject site. Staff Recommendations/Potential Action Given the surrounding context, staff does not oppose this rezoning request. The proposed rezoning would be consistent with surrounding parcels and does not contradict the Comprehensive Plan. The additional uses (warehousing and assembly) which would be allowed within the CG are common in the vicinity. While staff believes the increased visibility and easy access to Highway 55 would likely support a small retail use at some point in the future, retail uses are also permitted in CG, with the exception of drive-thru uses. It would be just as reasonable to not rezone the property if the Planning Commission and Council determine that the CH district, which essentially requires retail or office uses and does not permit warehouse/assembly, better serves the City’s objectives. As noted above, it is worth noting that the City does not have a lot of property guided for retail development, and much more property guided for warehouse/assembly/light industrial. If the City Council determines that the rezoning to CG better meets City objectives, the following action could be made: Move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance rezoning to the Commercial-General zoning district. If the Council finds that the CH zoning should remain in place, the following action could be made: Move to direct staff to prepare documentation denying the requested rezoning. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Planning Commission minutes 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Conceptual Site Plan 5. Growth and Development Map 6. Zoning Map Project:  LR‐19‐260 – 3672/3692 Pinto Rezoning  The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are  only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.  Documents Submitted by Applicant  Document Received  Date  Document  Date  # of  pages  Electronic Paper  Copy?  Notes  Application 9/5/19 9/5/19 4 Yes Yes   Deposit 9/5/19 9/5/19 1    $2000  Narrative 9/5/19 9/4/19 1 Yes Yes   Concept Plan 9/5/19 9/4/19 1 Yes Yes              Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies  Document Document  Date  # of  pages  Electronic Notes  Jim Stremel, Engineer comments 9/12/19 1 Yes Review comments to initial submittal  Ben Schneider, Complete letter 9/19/19 2 Yes   Notice      Planning Commission Report 10/08/19 5 Yes 10 Pages With Attachments   City Council Report 10/28/19 5 Yes 10 Pages with Attachments    Public Comments   Document Date Electronic Notes  Planning Commission Minutes 10/08/19 PC Minutes                Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Woodbury REI, LLC – 3692 and 3672 Pinto Drive – Rezoning from the Commercial-Highway to the Commercial-General Zoning District Schneider stated that the applicant owns the two adjacent lots currently zoned as Commercial- Highway that are currently undeveloped. He noted that the surrounding parcels are zoned Commercial-General and the applicant is requesting to rezone their parcels to Commercial-General as well. He stated that the applicant would like to develop a self-storage business on the parcels, which would not be allowed in Commercial-Highway but would be allowed in Commercial-General. He reviewed some of the differences between the two zoning districts and some elements for the Commissions to consider. Piper stated that she is struggling with the location. Someone provided additional details on the parcel locations. Reid asked if the rezoning were approved, would the Commission see the project again to ensure that the design standards were being met. Schneider confirmed that the proposed project would still come back to the Commission for review. Galzki asked if any of the conditional uses for Commercial-General includes items that are no longer permitted. Schneider confirmed that those uses would not be permitted as conditional uses. Charles Schatz, representing the property owner, stressed the fact that this change in zoning would not in any way affect the future of retail on that site. He stated that this change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and unifies the existing zoning in the area. He stated that they have been working with City staff on the design of the project. He noted that the property is small in nature and therefore this would be a small-scale project and they would work to make the project architecturally pleasing. He stated that the property owner has tried very hard to gain development and there has been little to no interest because of the railroad tracks. He believed that this change would be beneficial and consistent with the goals of the City. Piper stated that every successful storage facility usually expands, whereas this would not have space to expand. She asked if that is why the design would be such that it could be converted to something else. Mr. Schatz stated that is not a consideration at this time and does not believe that is a factor in the current request. Reid opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Robb Stauber, owner of the Northstar Mattress building at 3795 Pinto Drive, stated that he has nothing against the applicant. He stated that the City cannot say that this property would not develop into something. He noted that Aldi, Oak Eatery and others developed next to railroad tracks. He stated that he listened to the last discussion and the statement was made that the City should not develop for the sake of development. He did not believe it would be consistent to allow this zoning change. He stated that just because something has not been developed, does not mean it will not develop in the future. He stated that his retail business has survived, and he feels that this would be a negative impact on his business. He stated that he does not want a storage facility next to his Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 business. He noted that he owns multiple properties in Medina. He urged the City to stay with its vision as this is a valuable piece of property. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Piper stated that she has mixed feelings. She stated that when looking at the plan, she gathers that this would be one story with access off Tower Drive. She asked the amount of physical property; it was confirmed that the total amount of land would be 1.2 acres. She commented that the plan looks very crowded. Amic stated that this is a horrible piece of land and did not believe that a lot of good development would be interested. He stated if not this, he would question what would want to go on that site. He stated that he would not have a good reason to deny the request. Nielsen agreed that this is a horrible piece of land. She questioned if this would develop on the site just to fill it up. Galzki stated that in his opinion, this type of request would be one step away from the allowed use. He noted that all the surrounding uses are already guided Commercial-General and when he looks at the four uses that would no longer be allowed, he does not see that would prohibit something that could perhaps be interested in developing on the site. He stated that he would have a hard time not wanting to grant the request as the items that would no longer be allowed with the zoning change already exist in the area. He stated that he does not have a problem with the zoning change. Nester agreed that this is different from the previous discussion as this does not involve a Comprehensive Plan amendment to staging request. She stated that she is in agreement with the proposed change. Reid stated that she would also be fine with the change in zoning. She noted that the corner currently does not look good and the railroad tracks will be a barrier for retail. She stated that if it is a nice- looking storage facility that includes screening, it would not be that visible. Piper asked if there is a shaking from the railroad tracks that could impact stored items. Schatz replied that they could look into it but was not concerned because of the distance between the site and railroad tracks. Motion by Piper, seconded by Galzki, to recommend approval of the rezoning from Commercial- Highway to Commercial-General. Motion carries 4-1-1 (Nielsen opposed) (Amic abstained). (Absent: Williams) Finke noted that this will also move forward to the City Council on November 6, 2019. DESIGN September 4, 2019 Application for Planning Consideration Narrative Request for Rezoning 3672 and 3692 Pinto Drive Architecture & Planning 6LOZ q - d3S 1A © 1 We are requesting that the current zoning for the addresses listing above be modified from the current zoning Commercial -Highway (CH) — District to Commercial — General (CG) District. The purpose of this request is to allow for a self -storage facility to be developed on the site. We feel that this rezoning will not negatively impact the immediate area or the City of Medina as a whole for the following reasons: 1. The two commercial zoning districts (existing and proposed) are similar in terms of the uses and standards they both permit with the exception of the conditional uses which require additional approval. 2. The immediately adjacent properties are also zoned Commercial — General (CG) District and therefore would be more compatible with the rezoned parcel than the current zoning district classification. 3. The current CH zoning does not necessarily work for this parcel because of the adjacent railroad tracks and the separation between the subject property and the highway. 4. The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding buildings and their uses. We are including a preliminary Concept Site Plan showing the proposed project and feel strongly that this will be a positive addition to the area, compatible with adjacent uses, and will enhance the site and the City as a whole. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. www. reprisedesign. cam 0) N II 0 0_ BITUMINOUS ROADWAY LLJ N 00°36'30" Iej ag4( orb 11 S L'9 '304 12" CONCRETE CULVERT 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10' x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 0 i 275 43 10' x30' 10'x30' 105(15' 105(15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 10'x15' 105(15' 105(20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10' x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 1 22'-4" 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x10 0'x10 10' x20' 24'-O" 10'x10 Z 10'x20' _ 5 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' L_ 10' x20' S 87°10'30" W 10'x10 10'x1010'x10 10'x10 0'x10 10'x10 0'x10 OCGNCRETE CABLE BOX OFFICE 20'x20' Urt 10'x20' x 0 10'x20' 0 10'x20' x 0 10'x20' CO X 0 10'x20' K 0 10'x20' X 0 10'x20' BJILDING #2 V V U) x 0 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' —c N l+ O 25 FT BUILDING& PARKING SEIBAGK 203.14 O 0 UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS 10 0 10 o 9 TOWER DIVE BUILDING AREAS ST ORAGE UNIT COUNTS BUILDING #1 - 4,585 SF BUILDING #2 - 11,725 SF TOTAL BLDG - 16,310 SF (7) 10'x5' (10) 10'x10' (16) 10'x15' (52) 10'x20' (2) 10'x30' 87 TOTAL STORAGE UNITS MEDINA SELF -STORAGE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DATE: 09-04-19 SCALE: 1 "=30' 0" 55 W bei 0 U N O O N S 00°36'30" W NORM 41 1 - 5 2019 - 5 2019 HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-4Development and Growth Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Wetland Locations Wetland Locations HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL P I O N E E R H O M E S T E A D T O M A H A W K CHIPPEWA PARKVIEW WILLOW COUNTY ROAD 19 COUNTY ROAD 101 COUNTY ROAD 116 M E DIN A MOHAWK NAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINE TAMARACK CHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEAD HUNTER CHEYENNE BROCKTON COUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE H O L Y N A M E HACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H EVERGREEN MORNINGSIDE H A M E L CLYDES DAL E COUNTY ROAD 19 WIL LOW HIGHWAY 55 P I O N E E R COUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA A R R O W H E A D COUNTY ROAD 19 WIL LO W HIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D I N A HAMEL WILLOW TAMARACK HUNTER Zoning Map 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Map Updated: July 5, 2019 Current to Ordinance #649 (Non-Residential) Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) PUD (Non-Res) Legend Residential - see reverse Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS) Business Park (BP) Business (B) Industrial Park (IP) Commercial-Highway (CH) Commercial Highway-Railroad (CH-RR) Commerial-General (CG) Rural Business Holding (RBH) Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) Sanitary Landfill (SL) Uptown Hamel (UH) Commercial-Neighorhood (CN) Public/Semi-Public (PS) Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL P I O N E E R H O M E S T E A D T O M A H A W K CHIPPEWA PARKVIEW WILLOW COUNTY ROAD 19 COUNTY ROAD 101 COUNTY ROAD 116 M E DIN A MOHAWK NAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINE TAMARACK CHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEAD HUNTER CHEYENNE BROCKTON COUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE H O L Y N A M E HACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H EVERGREEN MORNINGSIDE HAMEL CLYDES DAL E COUNTY ROAD 19 WIL LOW HIGHWAY 55 P I O N E E R COUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA A R R O W H E A D COUNTY ROAD 19 WIL LO W HIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D I N A HAMEL WILLOW TAMARACK HUNTER Zoning Map(Residential) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: July 5, 2019 Current to Ordinance #649 Legend Non-Residential (see reverse) Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Rural Residential 2 (RR-2) Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Suburban Residential (SR) Urban Residential (UR) Single Family Residential (R1) R1 - rezoning pending Single and Two-Family Residential (R2) R2- rezoning pending Residential-Mid Density (R3) Multiple Family Residential (MR) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Residential-Multiple Family (R4) Uptown Hamel (UH) OSI Page 1 of 1 November 6, 2019 Temp Parking Agreement/Amended P&W City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: November 1, 2019 MEETING: November 6, 2019 City Council SUBJ: OSI–Temporary Parking Agreement/Amendment to Petition and Waiver Background Last year, the City approved a site plan review for Open Systems International (OSI) to construct a new building north of their facility at 4101 Arrowhead Drive. OSI did not proceed with construction of this building, and is currently considering instead to construct an addition onto their existing building. If OSI proceeds with the addition, it would occupy some of their existing parking. OSI has requested to construct a temporary parking lot on adjacent property this fall so that they can begin construction on the addition in the spring and still accommodate their existing employees. Additional parking would then be constructed while the building is under construction, including converting the temporary parking to permeant parking. The attached agreement accommodates this temporary parking while ensuring its removal if the addition does not move ahead on the schedule anticipated. The agreement also proposes amendments to the Petition and Waiver which was entered into by the City and OSI nine years ago when OSI developed the site. The agreement relates to OSI’s responsibility to make improvements to Arrowhead Drive to improve access to/from their site. The Petition and Waiver is set to expire next year, and the City has identified the need for improvements to serve the driveway. The amendment to the agreement is intended to provide more time so that the improvements to Arrowhead can be incorporated with improvements on site for the addition. Potential Action Move to approve the Temporary Parking Agreement and Petition and Waiver Amendment. Attachments 1. Draft Agreement 2. Original Petition and Waiver Agenda Item # 7D 1 619879v1ME230-687 TEMPORARY PARKING AGREEMENT AND PETITION AND WAIVER AMENDMENT This Temporary Parking Agreement and Petition and Waiver Amendment (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ____________, 2019, by and between the city of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “City”), and Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Owner”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner is fee owner of certain land located near the intersection of T.H. 55 and Arrowhead Drive (the “Property”), which land is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, a portion of the Property is presently occupied by Open Systems International, Inc. (“OSI”), a business that desires to expand its building footprint on the Property to include additional improvements (the “Future Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the Owner has informed the City of its intention to apply to the City for certain land use approvals related to the potential subdivision and development of the Property to accommodate said Future Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Future Improvements will increase the number of persons employed by OSI on the Property and, accordingly, are expected to increase traffic volume and parking requirements at the Property which will require the construction of a new permanent parking lot; and WHEREAS, the Owner expects that construction of the Future Improvements will require a temporary reduction of permanent parking on OSI’s present site due to construction activity and building expansion; and WHEREAS, although the Owner is yet to formally make application to the City for any land use approvals related to the Future Improvements, it seeks permission to immediately undertake certain activities on the Property to provide for temporary parking accommodations in anticipation of the eventual construction of the Future Improvements; and 2 619879v1ME230-687 WHEREAS, the Owner has requested approval from the City to construct temporary parking accommodations on the Property prior to winter and in anticipation of said Future Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to accommodate the Owner and allow it to construct certain temporary parking accommodations on the Property prior to review, approval, and potential issuance of all necessary land use and development requirements, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Plans. a) The Owner is hereby authorized to construct the temporary parking improvements on the Property that are deemed necessary to accommodate OSI during the construction of the Future Improvements (the “Temporary Parking”), subject to the terms of this Agreement. Prior to beginning any activity on the Property related to the construction of the Temporary Parking on the Property, the Owner shall provide the City with the following: i. Plans and specifications detailing the Temporary Parking, including details regarding the temporary parking configuration and materials to be used; ii. An erosion control plan; and iii. A restoration plan that adequately describes how the Owner will restore the portion of the Property utilized for the Temporary Parking upon completion of the Future Improvements or upon a determination by the Owner that said Future Improvements will no longer be pursued. Said restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the removal of all gravel, regrading of the Temporary Parking site, and seeding of the surface. Each of these required documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Owner is not permitted to undergo any work on the Property related to the Temporary Parking until it has been notified, in writing, by the City that such plans are acceptable to the City. 2. Owner Warranties. a) The Owner agrees that it will construct all Temporary Parking consistent with the plans approved by the City Engineer. b) In the event that the construction of the Future Improvements does not commence on the Property on or before September 30, 2020, the Owner agrees to remove the Temporary Parking in compliance with the approved restoration plan on or before October 30, 2020. 3 619879v1ME230-687 c) All work performed by or on behalf of the Owner to construct the Temporary Parking shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No work under this Agreement may occur on Sunday. 3. Erosion Control. a) All work on the Property shall be conducted in a manner designed to control erosion and in compliance with all City ordinances and other requirements, including the City’s permit with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding municipal separate storm sewer system program. An erosion control plan shall be implemented by the Owner as approved by the City. The City may impose reasonable, additional erosion control requirements after the City’s initial approval, if the City deems such additional conditions to be necessary. All areas disturbed by the excavation shall be reseeded promptly after the completion of the work in that area unless the construction of buildings or other improvements is anticipated immediately thereafter. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. b) If the Owner does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems reasonably appropriate to control erosion based on the urgency of the situation. The City will make a good faith effort to notify the Owner in advance of any proposed action, including by telephone or email in the case of emergencies, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Owner’s obligations or the City’s rights hereunder. c) The Owner agrees to reimburse all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in connection with such actions. No grading or construction of the Temporary Parking will be allowed unless the Owner is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The erosion control measures specified in the Plans or otherwise required on the Property shall be binding on the Owner, its successors and assigns. 4. Haul Routes. The Owner agrees that any material which must be brought to or removed from the Property during construction of the Temporary Parking will use the haul route established by the City. For purposes of this provision, the City designates Arrowhead Drive south of the Property to T.H. 55 as the haul route. 5. Letter of Credit. a) In order to ensure successful erosion control and restoration, all as described herein, and satisfaction of all fees due to the City related to the Temporary Parking, the Owner agrees to deliver to the City prior to beginning construction of the Temporary Parking an irrevocable letter of credit (the “Letter of Credit”) in the amount of $_____________, which represents 150 percent of the estimated cost of erosion control measures and restoring the Property. The Letter of Credit shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of any permit to 4 619879v1ME230-687 allow construction of the Temporary Parking and shall renew automatically thereafter until released by the City. The Letter of Credit shall be issued by a bank determined by the City to be solvent and creditworthy and shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City. The Letter of Credit shall allow the City to draw upon the instrument, in whole or part, in order to complete the work described in this Agreement, and to pay any fees or costs related to the Property and due to the City by the Owner after written notice to Owner and Owner’s failure to cure the default within a reasonable period. b) The City agrees to release or reduce the Letter of Credit upon the full restoration of the Temporary Parking on the Property and satisfaction of all of the Owner’s financial obligations to the City. c) If at any time the City reasonably determines that the bank issuing the Letter of Credit no longer satisfies the City’s requirements regarding solvency and creditworthiness, the City shall notify the Owner and the Owner shall provide to the City, within 30 days, a substitute Letter of Credit from another bank meeting the City’s requirements. If the Owner fails to provide the City with a substitute Letter of Credit from an issuing bank satisfactory to the City within 30 days or such shorter period as may be necessary to ensure there remains a valid letter of credit available to the City, the City may draw under the existing Letter of Credit. 6. Insurance. The Owner or its contractor shall take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until the City has confirmed completion of the restoration of the Temporary Parking, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Owner’s work or the work of its contractors or subcontractors. Liability limits shall not be less than $500,000 when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission or for any other claim and $1,500,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. The certificate of insurance shall provide that the City must be given the same advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance as is afforded to the Owner or its contractor. 7. Responsibility for Costs; Escrow for Construction Inspection. a) The Owner agrees to pay to the City an administrative fee in the amount necessary to reimburse the City for its reasonable costs and expenses in reviewing the plans related to the Temporary Parking accommodations, including the drafting and negotiation of this Agreement. The Owner agrees to reimburse the City in full for such reasonable costs within 30 days after notice in writing by the City. The Owner further agrees to reimburse the City for the reasonable cost incurred in the enforcement of any provision of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorneys’ fees. b) The Owner shall also pay a fee for City erosion control inspections relating to the proposed Temporary Parking. In order to reimburse the City for the administrative fee and the reasonable cost of inspection under this Agreement, the Owner shall deposit an additional $1,000 into an escrow account with the City, which shall receive and hold such funds solely under the terms of this Agreement. Prior to drawing on the escrow account, the 5 619879v1ME230-687 City will provide the Owner with copies of all invoices or other evidence of costs and expenses for which the City intends to withdraw from the escrow account. If any funds held under this escrow exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the City for its costs under this subparagraph, such funds shall be returned to the Owner without interest. If it appears that the actual costs incurred will exceed the estimate, the Owner and the City shall review the costs required to complete the project and the Owner shall deposit additional sums with the City within ten days of the City providing the Owner with an invoice for such additional escrowed funds. 8. No Development or Building Permits Approved/Owner’s Risk. a) Nothing herein shall be interpreted to imply any approval of land use applications or building permits for any use or development on the Property, including those related to the Future Improvements. The Owner must abide by appropriate review and permitting processes for such potential future development, and must apply to the City for all requisite permits and approvals. b) The Owner hereby expressly acknowledges that it undertakes all activity related to the Temporary Parking permitted under this Agreement at its sole risk. Nothing herein shall have any impact upon any future review or approval which shall be conducted by the City. Further, this Agreement does not confer upon the Owner any rights with respect to the use or development of the Property, except those rights expressly provided herein. 9. Clean up and Dust Control. The Owner shall daily clean dirt and debris from all streets adjoining the Property resulting from construction work by the Owner, its contractors, agents or assigns related to the Temporary Parking and restoration thereof. Prior to any work occurring on the Property pursuant to this Agreement, the Owner shall identify to the City in writing a responsible party for erosion control, street cleaning, and street sweeping. The Owner shall provide dust control to the satisfaction of the City Engineer throughout construction on the Property. 10. Petition and Waiver Modifications. The parties previously entered into that certain Petition and Waiver Agreement, dated May 6, 2010 and recorded on May 7, 2010 as Document Number A9510305 (the “Petition and Waiver”), which provides details regarding the prospective realignment of Meander Road with OSI’s current access from Arrowhead Drive or the prospective construction of improvements to Arrowhead Drive to improve ingress to and egress from the Property. The parties also recognize that the Future Improvements will increase traffic and may affect options for addressing the location of the Owner’s current driveway accessing its property from Arrowhead Drive. The parties therefore desire to amend the Petition and Waiver in the following manner: a) The seventh whereas clause of the Petition and Waiver shall be amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the double-underlined language as follows: WHEREAS, development of the Property as planned under the City Approvals and development of other property in the vicinity may cause 6 619879v1ME230-687 traffic on Arrowhead Drive and Meander Road to increase to a level that the roadway and Access Easement configuration is dangerous and an impediment to the efficient passage of traffic requiring realignment of Meander Road with or the Access Easement or construction of improvements to Arrowhead Drive to improve ingress to and egress from the Property (the “Improvement Project”); and b) Paragraph 2 of the Petition and Waiver shall be amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the double-underlined language as follows: 2. If determined necessary by the City and under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Developer hereby petitions the City for construction of the Improvement Project, which shall consist generally of one or more lanes and other improvements on Arrowhead Drive to access the Property, or realignment of Meander Road or the Access Easement, or realignment of the intersection of Meander Road and Arrowhead Drive, as more specifically determined by the City. The City may determine that the Improvement Project is necessary at its sole discretion but upon reasonable evidence at any time prior to May 8, 2030within 10 years of the date of this Agreement. The City shall notify the Developer or its successors or assigns in writing if it determines the Improvement Project is needed. This provision does not preclude or estop the Developer from independently petitioning the City for construction of the Improvement Project at any time Developer believes traffic demand makes such Improvement Project necessary. In any event, Developer’s special assessment shall be limited to the amounts specified in paragraph 3, below. b) Paragraph 3 of the Petition and Waiver shall be amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the double-underlined language as follows: 3. The Developer consents to the City levying a special assessment for the Improvement Project against the Property in accordance with Minn. Stat., Section 429.061. The principal amount of the special assessment shall not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of the Improvement Project or $90,000________________, indexed for increases in construction costs from the month and year of this Agreement November 2019 to the month and year of the start of construction of the Improvement Project according to the ENR Construction Cost Index. The ENR Construction Cost Index for April, 2010 October 2019 is 8,676.08 11,326. Should the Improvement Project be necessitated as a result of a new development, business, or other developments not under the Developer’s control and in relation to property not owned by the Developer, Developer shall only be responsible for an equitably proportionate cost of the Improvement Project up to the $90,000________________ limit and shall not bear the total cost burden of the Improvement Project. All other benefited properties shall also be 7 619879v1ME230-687 assessed a fair and reasonable portion of the cost of the Improvement Project. c) Paragraph 10 of the Petition and Waiver shall be amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the double-underlined language as follows: 10. This Agreement shall terminate a) on May 8, 203010 years from the date hereof if the City has not made a written determination and sent notice to the Developer to complete the Improvements Project or b) upon the final payment of all special assessments levied against the Property for the Improvement Project if such special assessment is levied. The City agrees to execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish its rights hereunder upon receipt of such final payment. d) A new paragraph 11 shall be added to the Petition and Waiver, which shall read as follows: 11. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Property’s access from Arrowhead Drive, which is currently located approximately 430 feet north of T.H. 55, might due to its proximity to T.H. 55 and Meander Road be inadequate to accommodate the Improvement Project, as determined necessary by the City. Accordingly, in the event that the Improvement Project is constructed, the Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall within one year of completion of the Improvement Project move or realign the Property’s current access to a location determined by the City to best accommodate the Improvement Project, in the City’s sole discretion. This Agreement does not provide any formal approvals or permits that might be necessary to accommodate the Developer’s moving or realignment of said access and, accordingly, the Developer shall adhere to any and all requirements that would otherwise be necessary. e) All other terms and conditions of the Petition and Waiver shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted to apply to and read together with the revisions contained herein. 11. Owner’s Default. In the event that the Owner fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, such failure shall be deemed a default. If such default continues for 30 days after the City provides written notice to the Owner describing the nature of the default (or such longer period of time as is reasonably necessary provided Owner is making good faith efforts to cure the default), the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Owner shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek an order from any court for permission to enter the Property for such purposes. If the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy special assessments against the Property to recover the costs thereof. For this purpose, the Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns, expressly waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the 8 619879v1ME230-687 assessments exceed the benefit to the land so assessed. The Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns, also waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 429.081. 12. Compliance with Laws. The Owner agrees to comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations and directives of the state of Minnesota and the City applicable to the Property. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of Minnesota. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Owner may be grounds for denial of future approvals for the Property. 13. Agreement Runs with the Land. This Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be recorded against the title thereto and shall bind the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. Upon the request of the Owner or its successors and assigns, the City will issue a certificate in recordable form which certifies the extent which the Owner is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and if Owner has fully complied with and completed all terms of this Agreement, releasing Owner from this Agreement. The Owner shall reimburse the City for its costs in recording this Agreement. 14. Indemnification. The Owner hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred arising under this Agreement or the activities authorized herein. The Owner hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Owner to indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents from any violation of law or the consequences of their own negligence. 15. Assignment. The Owner may not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. 16. Notices. Any notice or correspondence to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to be given if delivered personally or sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested: a) as to Owner: Arrowhead Holdings, LLC 4101 Arrowhead Drive Medina, MN 55340 Attn: Ron Ingram and Ken Hall b) as to City: City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 ATTN: City Administrator with a copy to: Ronald H. Batty Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 9 619879v1ME230-687 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 or at such other address as either party may from time to time notify the other in writing in accordance with this section. The Owner shall notify the City if it changes its name or address. 17. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall pertain only to such section and shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement. 18. Non-waiver. Each right, power, or remedy conferred upon the City by this Agreement is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power, or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, or available to the City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement. Each and every right, power, and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power, or remedy. If either party waives in writing any default or nonperformance by the other party, such waiver shall be deemed to apply only to such event and shall not waive any other prior or subsequent default. 19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original and shall constitute one and the same Agreement. ************************** 1 619879v1ME230-687 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF MEDINA By__________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor By__________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________, 2019, by Kathleen Martin and Scott T. Johnson, the mayor and city administrator, respectively, of the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. ____________________________________ Notary Public 2 619879v1ME230-687 ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC. By__________________________________ Its: Chief Manager/President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2019, by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. ____________________________________ Notary Public 619879v1ME230-687 A-1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesot 619879v1ME230-687 B-B-1 11 i i i i i i 11 i 11 11 11 i i 11 Doc No A9510305 Certified filed and/or recorded on 5/7/10 2:30 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Michael H. Cunniff, County Recorder Jill L. Alverson, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 55 Pkg ID 623892 Doc Name: Agreement Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this (2,rn day of May, 2010, by and between the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee owner of certain real property located in Medina and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the _ Property is located generally in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of T.H. 55 and Arrowhead Drive; and WHEREAS, the City has approved a rezoning, plat, conditional use permit and site plan (collectively, the "City Approvals") to allow the development of the Property for commercial purposes; and WHEREAS, the approved site plan allows the access easement (the "Access Easement") which will provide ingress and egress to the Property and to Outlot C and which intersects Arrowhead Drive from the west to be located at a point 430 feet north of T.H. 55; and WHEREAS, Meander Road, a city street, intersects Arrowhead. Drive from the east at a point 330 feet north of T.H. 55; and WHEREAS, the location of Meander Road and the approved location of the Access Easement provide for an undesirable roadway configuration; and WHEREAS, development of the Property as planned under the City Approvals and development of other property in the vicinity may cause traffic on Arrowhead Drive and Meander Road to increase to a level that the roadway and Access Easement configuration is dangerous and an impediment to the efficient passage of traffic requiring realignment of Meander Road with the Access Easement or construction of improvements to Arrowhead Drive to improve ingress to and egress from the Property (the "Improvement Project"); and 1 WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the parties to avoid requiring the Developer to bear the expense of constructing the Improvement Project prematurely while offering the City sufficient assurances that the Developer will pay for some or all of the cost of such improvements if needed in the future; and WHEREAS, by separate development agreement, the City and the Developer have agreed that the Developer will construct the Improvement Project if required by the City in the future at the City's sole discretion; and WHEREAS, if the Developer fails to do so after notice by the City or requests the City do so, the City is willing to construct the Improvement Project without notices or hearings, provided the assurances and covenants hereinafter stated are made by the Developer to ensure that the City will have a valid and collectable special assessment as it relates to the Property to finance the cost of the Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, were it not for the assurances and covenants hereinafter provided, the City would not construct the Improvement Project without such notices and hearings and is doing so solely at the behest, and for the benefit, of the Developer; and WHEREAS, the parties have entered into this Agreement pursuant to and in satisfaction of the terms of the City Approvals previously granted by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, ON .THE BASIS OF THE COVENANTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Developer represents and warrants it is the fee owner of the Property, that it has full legal power and authority to encumber the Property as herein provided, that in doing so it is not in violation of the terms or conditions of any instrument or agreement of any nature to which it is bound or which relates in any manner to the Property and that there are no other liens or encumbrances against the Property except those listed in Exhibit B attached hereto. 2. If determined necessary by the City and under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Developer hereby petitions the City for construction of the Improvement Project, which shall consist generally of one or more lanes and other improvements on Arrowhead Drive to access the Property or realignment of the intersection of Meander Road and Arrowhead Drive, as more specifically determined by the City. The City may determine that the Improvement Project is necessary at its sole discretion but upon reasonable evidence at anytime within 10 years of the date of this Agreement. The City shall notify the Developer or its successors or assigns in writing if it determines the Improvement Project is needed. This provision does not preclude or estop the Developer from independently petitioning the City for construction of the Improvement Project at any time Developer believes traffic demand makes such Improvement Project necessary. In any event, Developer's special assessment shall be limited to the amounts specified in paragraph 3, below. 2 3. The Developer consents to the City levying a special assessment for the Improvement Project against the Property in accordance with Minn. Stat., Section 429.061. The principal amount of the special assessment shall not exceed the lesser of the actual cost of the Improvement Project or $90,000, indexed for increases in construction costs from the month and year of this Agreement to the month and year of the start of construction of the Improvement Project according to the ENR Construction Cost Index. The ENR Construction Cost Index for April, 2010 is 8,676.08. Should the Improvement Project be necessitated as a result of a new development, business, or other developments not under the Developer's control and in relation to property not owned by the Developer, Developer shall only be responsible for an equitably proportionate cost of the Improvement Project up to the $90,000 limit and shall not bear the total cost burden of the Improvement Project. All other benefited properties shall also be assessed a fair and reasonable portion of the cost of the Improvement Project. 4. The Developer waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.031, on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special assessment levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minn. Stat.' Section 429.061 and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and the special assessment be levied against the Property without notice of hearing or hearing. 5. The Developer waives the right to appeal the levy of special assessment in accordance with this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.081 and further specifically agrees with respect to such special assessment against the Property that: a. All requirements of Minn. Stat., Chapter 429 with which the City does not comply are hereby waived by the Developer; and b. The increase in fair market value of the Property resulting from construction of the Improvement Project will be at least equal to the amount of the special assessment levied against the Property, and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to the Property. 6. The special assessment levied against the Property shall be payable over such period as the City may determine, but not less than 10 years, and shall bear interest at a rate determined by the City, but not more than 2 percent above the City's cost of financing. The City's cost of financing shall mean the average coupon rate if the City sells debt to finance the Improvement Project. If no debt is sold for the Improvement Project, the rate shall be set using the same formula based on special assessment bonds of Minnesota municipalities which have the same credit rating as that of the City and are issued and sold at approximately the same time as the adoption of the resolution levying the special assessment. The first installment of principal and interest shall be included in the first tax rolls completed after adoption of the resolution levying the special assessment. 7. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained in this Agreement shall bind the Developer and its successors and assigns and shall run with the Property. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement be in a form which is recordable among the land 3 records of Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Developer and the City agree to make any changes in this Agreement which may be necessary to effect the recording and filing of this Agreement against the title of the Property. 8. At the request of the Developer, the City agrees to reapportion the special assessment against the Property should the Property be further subdivided in the future in such manner as the City deems reasonable, so long as the City's security in collecting the total amount of the special assessment is not jeopardized. 9. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed given if delivered personally or sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified and return receipt requested: a) as to the Developer Arrowhead Holdings, LLC 3600 Holly Lane North, Suite 40 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 Attn: Bahman Hoveida, Chief Manager/President as to the City City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Attn: City Administrator or at such other address as either party may from time to time notify the other in writing in accordance with this paragraph. 10. This Agreement shall terminate a) 10 yearsfrom the date hereof if the City has not made a written determination and sent notice to the Developer to complete the Improvements Project or b) upon the final payment of all special assessment levied against the Property for the Improvement Project if such special assessment is levied. The City agrees to execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish its rights hereunder upon receipt of such final payment. ***** ****off:****** 4 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands the day and year first written ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC Its: Chief Manager/President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 64/ day of May, 2010, by Bahman Hoveida, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. o tAE T„� <ENNETH R. HALL Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015 w a A A AA AAAAAA.PJFV\JV� � Prq-EtA 3i . Fie() �`, �., g4ron lYi‘inile4poi;5 56402 Notary Public tif 07 3/ I 5 CITY OF MEDINA By: /d' c By: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF-%ii -'1'Xl T. M. Crosby, Jr., Ma or ,i. Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (Ji day of May, 2010, by T.M. Crosby, Jr. and Chad M. Adams, the mayor and city administrator -clerk, respectively, of the city of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. 367594V,V, RHB ME230-496 6 LINDA DANE LANE NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA a My Commission Expires Jen.31, 2012 EXHIBIT A Legal Description The legal description of the Property is as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota EXHIBIT B Encumbrances or Liens on Property The Property is subject to the following encumbrances and no others: Those encumbrances included in that title commitment issued by Old Republic Title Insurance Company, Application No. ORTE723938, dated March 15, 2010 at 07:00 a.m. B-1 Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2019 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: October 31, 2019 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – November 6, 2019 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A)Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single-family, and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the October 8 meeting. A number of residents provided written comment and one spoke in opposition of the amendment. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The request will be presented to the City Council on November 6. B)3672 Pinto Rezoning – Woodbury REI, LLC has requested a rezoning of its property at the northeast corner of Tower Drive and Pinto Drive from Commercial-Highway to Commercial-General. The owner is interested in constructing self-storage on the property. A public hearing was held at the October 8 Planning Commission meeting. The owner to the west of the site spoke in opposition of the rezoning and the use of the site for self- storage. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the rezoning. The request will be presented to the City Council on November 6. C)Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). Staff is conducting a preliminary review, and the item will be scheduled for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the November 12 Planning Commission meeting. D)4585 Balsam Hardcover Variance – Dave Raskob has requested a variance from the 25% hardcover limitation for a lot within the shoreland overlay district, to 32.4%. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the planning commission is tentatively scheduled to review on November 12. E)Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The application is currently incomplete and will be scheduled for a hearing when necessary information is submitted. F)Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule when complete for review. G)Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition/OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested approval of a site plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility. The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Council adopted approval documents on November 7. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. The applicant has also Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2019 City Council Meeting proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which were presented at the Planning Commission on March 12. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended site plan. Staff will present to the City Council when the final plat is prepared. H) Van de Ven/Welch combination/rearrangement – 1765 Medina Road and 1752 County Road 24 – Martha and Andrew Van de Ven and Mark and Sara Welch have requested to rearrange 3 lots into 2. The Council approved the request at the October 15 meeting. Staff will coordinate recording of documents with the applicant. I) Woods of Medina Final Plat – Shawnee Woods Road/County Road 116. Excelsior Group has transferred this project into their responsibility and intends to begin construction this fall. Construction started the week of October 14. J) Vacation, Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. K) Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded. Other Projects A) Quad City Agreement – Medina, Loretto, and Greenfield have signed the agreement and we are still awaiting Independence. B) Zoning Enforcement – two correction notices are pending for zoning violations. C) Chippewa/Arrowhead Visioning Study – Staff held the open house related to this study on October 15 and met with the DNR to discuss permitting. WSB will present the report at the November 6 meeting. TO: City Council FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: October 31, 2019 RE: Police Department Updates Hiring Processes Public Safety Director Sgt Nelsen has been selected to move on in the process for the Public Safety Director position. Next week he is scheduled for a physiological exam. If successful, City Administrator will be putting an offer memo together for him for approval at the November 19th City Council Meeting. Officer Position We received 35 applications for the officer position. Assistant City Administrator Gallup has ranked the applications and we will be interviewing the top 16 candidates on November 7, 2019. From there we will bring back the top 7 to 10 candidates for a second interview on November 14th with police personnel and a council representative. A chief interview and background to follow. Hamel Fire Transition Meeting Our third meeting is schedule for November 1st. Department Meeting / Training At our October 29th department meeting, we talked about goals for the upcoming year. We also discussed the Holiday Train, squad cameras and the new Teams software program. After the discussion, Officer Boecker ran the officers through a use of force scenario. Patrol Updates – Sgt. Nelson Training: Officer Hall attended leadership training at the BCA. Officers Jessen, Gregory and Boecker attended driving school training in St. Cloud. Officer Scharf and I attended the annual Towards Zero Deaths conference in St. Cloud. We also had a department meeting where use of force and use of force scenarios were conducted by Officer Boecker. MEMORANDUM Patrol Activities - For the dates of October 9 to October 29, 2019, our officers issued 64 citations and 178 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 4 traffic accidents, 20 medicals, and 16 alarms. On 10-27-19, Officer McGill took a burglary report where the homeowner reported items missing from his residence. The residence has been unoccupied for several years and it was recently learned that high school kids may be going through the house because it looks abandoned. Officers have found open doors to the residence and have been working with the homeowner to better secure the property. On 10-20-19, Officer Scharf was dispatched to a driving complaint where the caller advised that a vehicle traveling east on Hwy 55 was all over the road and almost side-swiped another vehicle. Officer Scharf was able to locate the vehicle which was pulling a trailer. The vehicle was stopped after observing driving conduct and the driver was found to be intoxicated. The driver was arrested. He tested a .11 and was transported to the Hennepin County Jail. On 10-18-19, Officer Gregory and I assisted Three Rivers Park Police with a person who fled on foot from the officer who was investigating a motorcycle at a campsite. The motorcycle was found to be stolen. The driver was identified but not located. On 10-18-19, Officer Scharf stopped a vehicle for displaying the wrong license plates. It was learned that the vehicle had been bought two years prior and that the owner had never transferred the title or purchased correct license plates and evading paying taxes on the vehicle. The driver was arrested, and the vehicle was impounded. On 10-15-19, Officer Boecker was dispatched to take a runaway report. It was learned that a 13-year- old had left his residence after getting into trouble with his parents. The male was found to have a serious medical condition and believed to be in danger if not located in the woods. Chief Belland, Officer McGill, Investigator McKinley and I, along with several other agencies and search and rescue groups, were called to assist. We were unable to locate the juvenile, but he did come home approximately 11 hours later after spending the night lost in the swamp by his house. On 10-11-19, Officer Scharf stopped a vehicle for following to close. The driver was found to be intoxicated and was subsequently arrested. He tested .19 and was booked into the Hennepin County Jail. Investigator Update – Investigator McKinley Responded overnight to assist with the search of a juvenile runaway who had some medical issues. Numerous agencies assisted with searching for the juvenile. I responded and interviewed the parents. Observed a juvenile victim of a sexual assault interviewed at CornerHouse in Minneapolis. Located and interviewed the suspect. My report will be sent to the County Attorney’s office for review. In August, our office had an incident involving two recovered stolen vehicles. I did a search warrant on three cell phones recovered off occupants of the vehicles. I received the results of that search warrant this week. I am requesting the occupants be charged with possession of stolen property. I will be submitting my case to the County Attorney’s office for review. Covered two patrol shifts for officers who were on vacation. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: October 31, 2019 MEETING: November 6, 2019 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • The Hickory Dr project is complete. Between the changes to the street and storm water, it’s a huge improvement. It is pleasant when the coordination between property owners, the watershed, and the city goes smoothly. • The Brockton Lane project is behind schedule and should be paved by early next week. There are overages on the engineering side due to the extended length of the project and the contractor seemingly lacking coordination. Discussions took place with Plymouth to make sure we all agree on the extra inspection charges. This is an addition to the design fee addition that was approved in July this year. • Striping for Medina Road was completed October 29th, which took longer than anticipated. • Public Works has been working on getting all the valves and manholes lowered or patched around to avoid damage to the snowplows. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Public Works and Planning are working to update our stormwater manual to include maintenance. We are continuing to work on this project and touch base on the project weekly. • The water systems have all been winterized and are ready for cold weather. PARKS/TRAILS • Fall cleanup still needs to be done on our parks but they are generally in good shape. • Public Works will be prepping the skating rinks and soon will be making snow for the sledding hill. MISCELLANEOUS • Trees have been ordered for cleanup day. As always, we try to order a mixture of varieties, however, people seem to fixate on maples and so we tried to order more of those varieties. • Public Works has had all its plow trucks DOT certified. There were a few minor defects but nothing alarming. This is the advantage of having newer, well-maintained vehicles. • We are prepping bid packets earlier than usual to send out next week for the lawn and ground services contract which will be due in December for the 2020 and 2021 seasons. ORDER CHECKS OCTOBER 15, 2019- NOVEMBER 6, 2019 049447 BENEDICT, MICHAEL & DEBORAH ...................................... $5,000.00 049448 GEURTS, JOSEPH .................................................................... $500.00 049449 KRINGEN, JEFFREY/ERIKA ....................................................... $60.93 049450 MN DEPT OF LABOR/IND(BLDGPERM) ................................ $5,104.56 049451 OMER, AAZIM ........................................................................... $250.00 049452 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. ............................................... $1,256.30 049453 GOTTIMUKKALA, NAGA ........................................................... $500.00 049454 GUEST, EDRIS.......................................................................... $250.00 049455 JAIN, UMESH ......................................................................... $1,050.00 049456 JOHN KRAEMER & SONS INC ............................................ $10,000.00 049457 KULKARNI, AMIT/ASAVARI ...................................................... $400.00 049458 MN DEPT OF COMMERCE ....................................................... $396.25 049459 MN DEPT OF HEALTH ................................................................ $23.00 049460 PINE TAR ACADEMY ................................................................ $500.00 049461 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN ......................................... $252.50 049462 ASPEN MILLS INC .................................................................... $947.18 049463 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $3,379.48 049464 BROCK WHITE CO LLC ......................................................... $3,262.80 049465 CIRCLE V SPECIALTIES, INC................................................... $435.00 049466 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES ................................................... $1,322.47 049467 CORE & MAIN LP ................................................................... $8,518.26 049468 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY ....................................... $3,120.00 049469 ESS BROS. & SONS, INC. ........................................................ $264.00 049470 GRAINGER................................................................................ $163.24 049471 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I ............................. $1,093.00 049472 HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT ....................................... $82,625.00 049473 HOLIDAY FLEET ........................................................................... $8.60 049474 INTL CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSN ............................................ $650.96 049475 JIMMYS JOHNNYS INC ............................................................ $368.43 049476 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED .................................. $15,901.38 049477 KITTOK, JOSEPH M .................................................................. $535.00 049478 LANDFORM ENGINEERING CO ................................................. $34.50 049479 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES ..................................................... $12.66 049480 LANO EQUIPMENT INC ............................................................ $384.06 049481 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES ............................... $408.00 049482 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ............................................ $634.00 049483 LORETTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT IN............................... $23,595.75 049484 MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $645.24 049485 MATHESON TRI-GAS INC ........................................................ $168.31 049486 MEDINA INN ................................................................................ $64.46 049487 MN HWY SAFETY & RESEARCH CTR .................................. $1,335.00 049488 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $300.36 049489 NITRO GREEN LAWN & TREE CARE ................................... $5,278.00 049490 OFFICE DEPOT .......................................................................... $76.73 049491 ORONO, CITY OF .................................................................. $7,923.96 049492 PLEAA ......................................................................................... $40.00 049493 PRYOR LEARNING SOLUTIONS, INC ...................................... $199.00 049494 RANDYS SANITATION INC ......................................................... $20.00 049495 RES SPECIALTY PYROTECHNICS ....................................... $5,000.00 049496 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,376.35 049497 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC ................................. $1,364.00 049498 SHOWCASE LAWN CARE ..................................................... $5,011.00 049499 STREICHERS INC ..................................................................... $494.93 049500 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC ........................................ $595.96 049501 SUMMIT COMPANIES .............................................................. $285.00 049502 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................ $1,310.71 049503 TEGRETE (CARLSON BLDG) ..................................................... $29.90 049504 TIME SAVER OFFSITE SEC SVCS IN ...................................... $360.00 049505 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY ................................................ $87.65 049506 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR .................................................. $4,680.00 049507 US SOLAR BUSINESS ........................................................... $3,068.13 049508 VESSCO, INC. ........................................................................ $1,628.61 049509 WESTERN ELECTRIC INC ....................................................... $850.00 049510 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE ............................................. $1,022.20 049511 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.................................................... $45,267.00 Total Checks $268.689.81 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS OCTOBER 15, 2019 – NOVEMBER 6, 2019 005273E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $375.36 005274E PR PERA .............................................................................. $15,537.87 005275E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $16,348.70 005276E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,590.00 005277E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,605.74 005278E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $22.00 005279E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,402.52 005280E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,001.63 005281E FURTHER ................................................................................. $957.14 005282E MN DEPT OF REVENUE ........................................................ $1,801.00 005283E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $294.90 005284E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $150.00 005285E PR PERA .............................................................................. $17,131.99 005286E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,682.07 005287E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,590.00 005288E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,972.45 005289E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $22.00 005290E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,402.52 005291E MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $540.80 005292E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,462.60 005293E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $294.90 005294E CITY OF PLYMOUTH ................................................................ $937.48 005295E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $1,789.18 005296E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES ................................................ $153.23 Total Electronic Checks $92,066.08 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS OCTOBER 6, 2019 & OCTOBER 30, 2019 0509773 BOEDDEKER, KAYLEN ........................................................... $337.83 0509774 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. .......................................................... $741.82 0509775 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. .................................................. $1,436.78 0509776 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................ $2,466.20 0509777 BELLAND, EDGAR J. ............................................................ $2,801.98 0509778 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................ $2,208.95 0509779 CONVERSE, KEITH A. .......................................................... $1,945.12 0509780 ENDE, JOSEPH..................................................................... $1,650.83 0509781 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................ $2,649.59 0509782 GALLUP, JODI M. .................................................................. $1,925.40 0509783 GLEASON, JOHN M. ............................................................. $2,127.73 0509784 GREGORY, THOMAS ........................................................... $1,952.30 0509785 HALL, DAVID M. .................................................................... $2,023.84 0509786 JACOBSON, NICOLE ............................................................... $855.92 0509787 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. ......................................................... $2,326.13 0509788 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ........................................................... $2,218.77 0509789 JONES, KATRINA M.............................................................. $1,409.82 0509790 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................ $1,376.87 0509791 LEUER, GREGORY J. ........................................................... $1,977.35 0509792 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. ................................................. $1,530.77 0509793 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D ......................................................... $1,987.44 0509794 NELSON, JASON .................................................................. $2,277.29 0509795 PETERSON, DEBRA A. ......................................................... $2,078.46 0509796 REINKING, DEREK M ........................................................... $2,155.70 0509797 ROERICK, AUSTIN ............................................................... $1,382.24 0509798 SCHARF, ANDREW .............................................................. $2,122.45 0509799 SCHERER, STEVEN T. ......................................................... $2,303.11 0509800 SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN ......................................................... $563.29 0509801 BOEDDEKER, KAYLEN ........................................................... $675.25 0509802 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. .......................................................... $599.77 0509803 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. .................................................. $1,436.78 0509804 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................ $2,468.70 0509805 BELLAND, EDGAR J. ............................................................ $2,854.73 0509806 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................ $2,636.39 0509807 CONVERSE, KEITH A. .......................................................... $2,221.65 0509808 ENDE, JOSEPH..................................................................... $1,915.14 0509809 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................ $2,681.71 0509810 GALLUP, JODI M. .................................................................. $1,951.82 0509811 GLEASON, JOHN M. ............................................................. $1,926.67 0509812 GREGORY, THOMAS ........................................................... $2,275.63 0509813 HALL, DAVID M. .................................................................... $2,069.81 0509814 JACOBSON, NICOLE ............................................................... $797.04 0509815 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. ......................................................... $4,509.07 0509816 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ........................................................... $2,242.95 0509817 JONES, KATRINA M.............................................................. $1,480.92 0509818 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................ $1,405.44 0509819 LEUER, GREGORY J. ........................................................... $1,945.80 0509820 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. ................................................. $1,713.87 0509821 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D ......................................................... $2,154.24 0509822 NELSON, JASON .................................................................. $2,668.75 0509823 PETERSON, DEBRA A. ......................................................... $2,085.66 0509824 REINKING, DEREK M ........................................................... $2,170.49 0509825 ROERICK, AUSTIN ............................................................... $1,479.31 0509826 SCHARF, ANDREW .............................................................. $1,963.05 0509827 SCHERER, STEVEN T. ......................................................... $2,366.99 0509828 SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN ......................................................... $643.73 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $106,175.34