HomeMy Public PortalAbout02.16.2021 - Complete City Council Packet Posted 2/11/2021 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 16, 2021
7:00 P.M.
Meeting to be held telephonically/virtually
pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the February 2, 2021 Regular Council Meeting
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Fire Protection with Hamel
Volunteer Fire Department
B. Resolution Granting Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Lothar and Monica Krinke for Accessory
Structure Over 5,000 Square Feet
VI. COMMENTS
A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda
B. Park Commission
C. Planning Commission
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Medina Townhome Development LLC – 1432 County Road 29 – Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Concept Plan Review
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Hackamore Road Improvement Project
1. Resolution Authorizing Submission of Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) Grant
Application for Hackamore Road Improvement Project
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
A. Future Fire Service Planning Update
X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
XII. ADJOURN
Telephonic/Virtual Meeting
Call-in Instructions
Join via Microsoft Teams to view
presentations at this link:
https://medinamn.us/council/
For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122
Enter Conference ID: 145 763 06#
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: February 11, 2021
DATE OF MEETING: February 16, 2021
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report
Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions
Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/
For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122; Enter Conference ID: 145 763 06#
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Fire Protection with
Hamel Volunteer Fire Department – Mayor Martin and Council Member DesLauriers
have worked closely with the Hamel Fire Department on the attached contract
amendment. After Council approval, staff will collectively execute the amendment with
the Hamel Fire Department. Staff recommends approval.
See attached agreement.
B. Resolution Granting Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Lothar and Monica Krinke for
Accessory Structure Over 5,000 Square Feet – Council reviewed the Conditional Use
Permit request at the February 2, 2021 meeting and directed staff to prepare the attached
resolution for approval. Staff recommends approval.
See attached resolution.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Medina Townhome Development LLC – 1432 County Road 29 – Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review – Medina Townhome Development LLC has
requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review for a proposed 24-
unit townhome development at 1432 County Road 29, north of Highway 12 and east of
County Road 29. 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 action and the feedback is purely advisory.
See attached report.
2
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Hackamore Road Improvement Project – During the spring of 2020, the cities of Medina
and Corcoran authorized WSB to prepare preliminary design (30% and 75%) for future
improvements to Hackamore Road. The project would extend from just west of County
Road 116 to just east of County Road 101. In June of 2020, after the completion of 30%
design, the City Council decided not to proceed with the 75% design work. Staff had
included discussion related to Hackamore Road as a goal for 2021. In addition, Pulte has
applied for Final Plat approval of the final addition of the Reserve of Medina, which will
include a street connection to Hackamore as well. The City Engineer believes the
Hackamore project may be a good candidate for the LRIP grant application.
See attached report and resolution.
Recommended Motion #1: Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing submission of
LRIP grant application for Hackamore Road Improvement Project.
Recommended Motion #2: Motion to authorize WSB to proceed with 75% design of the
Hackamore Road Improvement Project and pay half of the cost up to the not-to-exceed
cost described in the scope of services.
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
A. Future Fire Service Planning Update – Mayor Martin, Council Member DesLauriers, Chief
Nelson and I attended the Future Fire Service Planning Meeting on February 11, 2021. A
brief update will be provided at the meeting.
No attachments for this item.
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005819E-005833E for $59,037.00
and order check numbers 051254-051303 for $147,856.61, and payroll EFT 0510800-0510832
for $57,344.97.
INFORMATION PACKET:
• Planning Department Update
• Police Department Update
• Public Works Department Update
• Claims List
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1
February 2, 2021
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2021 3
4
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on February 2, 2021 at 5
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6
7
Martin read aloud a statement explaining that meetings continue to be held in a virtual 8
format due to the ongoing pandemic and provided instructions on how members of the 9
public can participate. 10
11
I. ROLL CALL 12
13
Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid. 14
15
Members absent: None. 16
17
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi 18
Gallup, City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim 19
Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and 20
Chief of Police Jason Nelson. 21
22
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:04 p.m.) 23
24
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:04 p.m.) 25
Johnson requested to add an item to the agenda as 9B titled Fire Services Update. 26
27
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Martin, to approve the agenda as amended. 28
29
A roll call vote was performed: 30
31
Reid aye 32
Cavanaugh aye 33
Albers aye 34
DesLauriers aye 35
Martin aye 36
37
Motion passed unanimously. 38
39
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:06 p.m.) 40
41
A. Approval of the January 19, 2021 Work Session City Council Meeting 42
Minutes 43
Moved by Albers, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the January 19, 2021 work 44
session City Council meeting minutes as presented. 45
46
A roll call vote was performed: 47
48
Albers aye 49
DesLauriers aye 50
Reid aye 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2
February 2, 2021
Cavanaugh aye 1
Martin aye 2
3
Motion passed unanimously. 4
5
B. Approval of the January 19, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6
Martin noted that prior to tonight’s meeting Johnson distributed proposed corrections to 7
the minutes as submitted by Martin, Cavanaugh and DesLauriers. 8
9
Moved by Martin, seconded by Cavanaugh, to approve the January 19, 2021 regular 10
City Council meeting minutes as amended. 11
12
A roll call vote was performed: 13
14
Martin aye 15
Cavanaugh aye 16
Reid aye 17
DesLauriers aye 18
Albers aye 19
20
Motion passed unanimously. 21
22
V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:08 p.m.) 23
24
A. Approve 2021 Work Plan Goals 25
B. Approve SCADA Software Upgrade Agreement with Total Control Systems 26
Inc 27
C. Approve Public Works Maintenance Worker Joe Ende Wage Adjustment 28
D. Approve Renewal of Consumption and Display Permit for American Legion 29
Post 394 at 75 Hamel Road 30
E. Resolution No. 2021-07 Accepting Donation from Memorial for Ruth Ostrem 31
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Reid, to approve the consent agenda. 32
33
A roll call vote was performed: 34
35
DesLauriers aye 36
Albers aye 37
Cavanaugh aye 38
Reid aye 39
Martin aye 40
41
Motion passed unanimously. 42
43
VI. COMMENTS (7:10 p.m.) 44
45
A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 46
There were none. 47
48
B. Park Commission 49
Scherer reported that the Park Commission met in February to discuss the 2021 goals 50
including the trail near Loram and the extension to the north that will be part of the 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3
February 2, 2021
Arrowhead intersection improvements. He noted that the Commission would also like to 1
begin phasing improvements for Hunter Park, noting that perhaps the tennis courts could 2
move forward without removing the ballfield section. He stated that there is an 3
upcoming joint worksession with the Commission and Council to discuss the Diamond 4
Lake Regional Trail on February 16th. 5
6
C. Planning Commission 7
Finke reported that the Planning Commission will meet the following week to hold public 8
hearings to consider a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for a 24-unit townhome 9
development and to continue a discussion related to the Stormwater Management 10
Ordinance that began at the January meeting. 11
12
VII. PRESENTATIONS 13
14
A. Resolution No. 2021-08 Approving Amendments to the Educational 15
Facilities Revenue Note (Yeshiva of Minneapolis Project), Series 2018, and 16
Authorizing Execution and Delivery of Documents Related Thereto – Public 17
Hearing (7:14 p.m.) 18
Johnson stated that in December of 2018 the City of Medina issued conduit bonds in the 19
aggregate amount of $7,000,000 and loaned the proceeds to Yeshiva of Minneapolis. 20
He stated that the proceeds were used to expand and improve the school facilities 21
located in St. Louis Park. He stated that Yeshiva now has the opportunity to lower the 22
interest rate on the bonds, which requires the City of Medina to hold a public hearing and 23
adopt a resolution approving the request for refinancing. 24
25
Martin commented that the memorandum from legal counsel was fairly straightforward 26
and welcomed any additional questions from the Council and/or staff. 27
28
There were no additional comments from staff or the Council. 29
30
Martin opened the public hearing. 31
32
No comments. 33
34
Martin closed the public hearing. 35
36
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-08 37
Approving Amendments to the Educational Facilities Revenue Note (Yeshiva of 38
Minneapolis Project), Series 2018, and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of 39
Documents Related Thereto. 40
41
A roll call vote was performed: 42
43
Reid aye 44
Cavanaugh aye 45
Martin aye 46
DesLauriers aye 47
Albers aye 48
49
Motion passed unanimously. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4
February 2, 2021
VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1
2
A. Lothar and Mona Krinke – 2905 Willowood Farm Road – Conditional Use 3
Permit for Addition to Accessory Structure (7:20 p.m.) 4
Finke presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an addition of a 5
riding arena onto an existing barn. He noted that accessory structures in excess of 6
5,000 square feet require a CUP. He displayed a sketch of the proposed arena with the 7
proposed building elevations. He stated that the CUP includes specific standards to 8
larger accessory structures and general standards for all CUP’s noting that the detailed 9
review was included in the staff report. He noted that the applicant is proposing a 10
filtration basin to meet the stormwater requirement and in terms of architecture the 11
applicant proposes to mimic some of the existing features of the barn along with 12
additional elements such as shutters and two-tone color for the siding. He stated that 13
the Planning Commission held a public hearing in January and received two comments 14
from the public in support of the request. He stated that the Commission recommended 15
architectural elements which have been incorporated by the applicant, and the 16
Commission unanimously recommended approval. 17
18
Martin welcomed any questions from the Council. 19
20
Reid commented that the suggestions by the Planning Commission and incorporated by 21
the applicant make a great improvement to the proposed building. 22
23
Martin also thanked the Planning Commission for its recommendation and the applicant 24
for responding to that request. She stated that it is nice to have that care for design 25
infused into these projects. 26
27
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to direct staff to prepare a resolution granting 28
Conditional Use Permit approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. 29
30
A roll call vote was performed: 31
32
Albers aye 33
Martin aye 34
Reid aye 35
Cavanaugh aye 36
DesLauriers aye 37
38
Motion passed unanimously. 39
40
B. Addison and Cynthia Piper – 1745 Hunter Drive – Lot Combination 41
(7:28 p.m.) 42
Johnson stated that the applicants are requesting approval to combine two lots into a 43
single lot. He noted that the combination would not bring the parcels into compliance but 44
would improve the situation. 45
46
Finke commented that generally the City has supported combinations of lots that fall 47
short of the minimum requirements within this district even though the resulting lot may 48
not come into full compliance. He stated that because of the City’s suitable soil 49
requirement of five acres, compliance would not be met, but this will result in one home 50
on one noncompliant lot rather than two noncompliant lots. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5
February 2, 2021
1
1. Resolution No. 2021-09 Approving a Lot Combination of Lots 2 2
and 3, Block 1, Tally Ho Farms 3
Moved by Reid, seconded by Albers, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-09 Approving a Lot 4
Combination of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Tally Ho Farms. 5
6
A roll call vote was performed: 7
8
Albers aye 9
DesLauriers aye 10
Reid aye 11
Cavanaugh aye 12
Martin aye 13
14
Motion passed unanimously. 15
16
IX. OLD BUSINESS 17
18
A. Ordinance No. 668 Amending Chapters 1 and 3 of the City Code of 19
Ordinances Pertaining to Penalties and Targeted Residential Picketing 20
(7:32 p.m.) 21
Johnson stated that the draft ordinance was brought forward at the January 19th Council 22
meeting with direction for staff to bring this forward for formal adoption with no revisions. 23
He stated that other communities have adopted similar ordinances recently. He noted 24
that one resident submitted a request to speak on this topic. 25
26
Martin asked if Batty had additional comments to add. 27
28
Batty commented that as Johnson indicated a number of other cities have recently 29
adopted similar ordinances. He stated that this is patterned after an ordinance adopted 30
in a Wisconsin city 30 years ago which dealt with targeted residential picketing, 31
specifically picketing in front of an individual house. He stated that the ordinance was 32
appealed and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1988. He stated that the court found the 33
ordinance to be content neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a government interest as it 34
did not prohibit picketing but merely prohibited that from occurring in front of an 35
individual residential property. He stated that the court found that this left open other 36
avenues for people to express their views while protecting someone’s right for privacy in 37
their own home. He stated that the other changes proposed were cleanup matters 38
related to penalties for misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors as identified under State 39
law. 40
41
Martin thanked Batty for that additional explanation. She welcomed the resident that 42
would like to speak tonight. 43
44
Chris Hillberg, 4559 Trillium Drive, noted that he finds residential picketing objectional 45
and does not like the idea. He stated that based on the last meeting of the Council it 46
appears the Council holds the same viewpoint. He stated that the question is not 47
whether the Council likes the concept but whether it supports free speech and whether 48
this would abridge that right for free speech. He stated that Minnesota State law allows 49
a person to obtain a restraining order if they feel that is necessary. He stated that the 50
Medina ordinance adds “or other similar activities”, which is vague compared to the other 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6
February 2, 2021
ordinances. He also explained concern with language in section C, which is also very 1
broad and could prohibit someone from standing in front of another person’s home. 2
3
Martin thanked the resident for his input. 4
5
DesLauriers referenced section C and stated that his interpretation would be that is 6
public property and if a person is picketing on the street and does not violate A or B, he 7
would not have an issue with persons picketing on a sidewalk in front of his home. He 8
was unsure that C should be included. 9
10
Batty replied that C does broaden the ordinance and the Council would be within its right 11
to eliminate that, but A and B would still prohibit the situation described by DesLauriers if 12
the activity is targeted at a house and within the right-of-way. He stated that if adopted 13
the ordinance would include a ban on picketing in front of a specific house. 14
15
Martin commented that she interpreted the comments of DesLauriers to be that A and B 16
could provide the intended desire without including C. She clarified that C could be 17
covered by trespassing. 18
19
DesLauriers commented that he does not believe C should be included without 20
additional language. 21
22
Martin asked if the additional language of “on private residential property without the 23
consent of the occupants of the dwelling” would be acceptable to DesLauriers for C, but 24
then noted that would seem to be covered under trespassing. 25
26
Batty agreed that language would cover much of the same territory covered by 27
trespassing. He clarified that for trespassing one would have to assert that the 28
unwanted person leaves, whereas if the language of C were modified, it would not 29
require that confrontation. 30
31
Martin commented that she would not want someone that feels threatened to come 32
outside of their home to tell others to leave and therefore would support adding the 33
additional language to C. 34
35
Albers commented that he is fine with how C is written. He stated that if the requirement 36
is for the resident to come outside and confront those picketing that would create a 37
potential flashpoint, which would not be desired. He commented that residents have the 38
right to peace and quiet on their own property and should not be required to confront 39
others. He commented that this ordinance has been upheld by the Supreme Court and 40
he has no issue with how the ordinance is drafted as it is meant to protect residents of 41
Medina. 42
43
Martin commented that further modifying C would not advance one’s argument, as A or 44
B could trigger this whether on private property or within right-of-way. 45
46
Reid commented that if protesters are in the public right-of-way but stationary in front of 47
someone’s house that is virtually the same thing as being on someone’s property. 48
49
Cavanaugh commented that developments have private roads and asked if those 50
developments could then state that they do not want picketing on those roads. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7
February 2, 2021
1
Batty commented that most of the roads in Medina are public roads and that is what this 2
language is focused on. He stated that in the case of private roads, the owners of those 3
roads could determine the allowed activity. 4
5
Cavanaugh commented that as a public figure he accepts that people can critique but 6
recognizes that his neighbors do not sign up for that. He commented that there are 7
other areas where people can picket and does not believe that activity belongs within the 8
residential areas. He commented that he could support the language as drafted. 9
10
Martin asked if C is included in the language upheld by the Supreme Court. 11
12
Batty was unsure if C was included in that language. He stated that the court did look at 13
how narrowly tailored the ordinance was and noted that this language focuses on 14
targeted residential picketing and does not prohibit picketing that goes through a 15
neighborhood. He clarified that this is meant to prohibit picketing of a specific residential 16
property and does not prohibit a demonstration from walking through a residential area. 17
18
Martin noted that the memorandum from Batty states that similar ordinances have been 19
deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court and that he believes this language to be 20
consistent with the language upheld by the Supreme Court. 21
22
Moved by Albers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to Adopt Ordinance No. 668 Amending 23
Chapters 1 and 3 of the City Code of Ordinances Pertaining to Penalties and Targeted 24
Residential Picketing. 25
26
A roll call vote was performed: 27
28
DesLauriers nay 29
Albers aye 30
Cavanaugh aye 31
Reid aye 32
Martin aye 33
34
Motion passed. 35
36
1. Resolution No. 2021-10 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 668 by 37
Title and Summary 38
Moved by Albers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adopt Resolution No. 2021-10 39
Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 668 by Title and Summary. 40
41
A roll call vote was performed: 42
43
DesLauriers nay 44
Albers aye 45
Cavanaugh aye 46
Reid aye 47
Martin aye 48
49
Motion passed. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8
February 2, 2021
B. Fire Services Update (7:58 p.m.) 1
Johnson commented that the Fire Service District meetings occurred in October, 2
November, and January with the next meeting scheduled for February 11th. He stated 3
that representatives from the State Fire Marshal’s office began facilitating the meetings 4
in January and have agreed to continue to do so. He stated that the timeline for the 5
process has been estimated at five to seven years, explaining that it is complex to merge 6
multiple government services entities. He stated that the group will work to form a team 7
to continue to work on the matter. He thanked all the Fire Chiefs/Representatives that 8
have participated and continue to provide input as well as representatives from the 9
neighboring communities. He also expressed appreciation to Martin and DesLauriers for 10
all their efforts. 11
12
Martin commented that the Council previously evaluated this topic and believed the 13
process would take less time. She stated that she has spoken to each of the Mayors 14
serviced by the Fire Departments involved and they are all intrigued by these 15
discussions. She commented that there is momentum from the Fire Chiefs and with the 16
support of the Mayors, she would like permission from the Council to move away from 17
the concept of nonrenewal of the contracts and move forward with continuation of the 18
fire service contracts as they would normally renew. 19
20
DesLauriers commented that they have learned from the termination notices and they 21
would prefer that the Fire Departments continue to focus on the goal for the future. 22
23
Reid asked if the Council was previously working on contracts that were not 24
automatically renewable and provided the opportunity to change the contract dependent 25
upon the situation. She asked if the intent was then to remove that restriction and 26
reinstate automatic renewals. 27
28
Martin commented that the Maple Plain contract was set to expire without renewal terms 29
available and therefore the City would enter into a new contract with the typical terms 30
and fees. She stated that there is a clause within the Long Lake contract that states 31
either of the parties could terminate the contract if they choose to move to a Fire District. 32
She stated that Loretto and Hamel had automatic renewal terms within the contracts but 33
still included a right for early termination if that was desired. She stated that she would 34
ask that the Fire Departments continue to be allowed to provide service under the 35
existing contract relations and focus additional energies on attending the Fire District 36
meetings to determine if that option could come to fruition. 37
38
Cavanaugh thanked Martin and DesLauriers for their work on this topic. 39
40
Albers echoed thanks to Martin and DesLauriers for their leadership and work on this 41
topic. He recognized the time and commitment it takes to lead this effort. He also 42
thanked staff. 43
44
Martin agreed that it has been a team effort between herself, DesLauriers, Barnhart, 45
Johnson, and Nelson. 46
47
Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to direct staff, Martin and DesLauriers to 48
reinstate or permit the contracts with Loretto, and Hamel to continue to renew in their 49
typical manner and negotiate an extension of the contract with Maple Plain. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 9
February 2, 2021
A roll call vote was performed: 1
2
Cavanaugh aye 3
Albers aye 4
Reid aye 5
DesLauriers aye 6
Martin aye 7
8
Motion passed unanimously. 9
10
X. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (8:11 p.m.) 11
Johnson had nothing further to report. 12
13
XI. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (8:12 p.m.) 14
Martin commented that she, Cavanaugh, Finke, Gallup, Scherer, and Johnson attended 15
a presentation by the Three Rivers Park District related to the deliberations and public 16
process in coming to a proposed route for the leg of the trail that will go through Medina 17
which will be discussed at the February 16th Council worksession. 18
19
XII. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (8:13 p.m.) 20
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Martin, to approve the bills, EFT 005800E-21
005818E for $57,934.87, order check numbers 051211-051253 for $181,716.88, and 22
payroll EFT 0510772-0510799 for $54,030.73 and payroll check 020477 for $2,283.37. 23
24
A roll call vote was performed: 25
26
Reid aye 27
Cavanaugh aye 28
DesLauriers aye 29
Albers aye 30
Martin aye 31
32
Motion passed unanimously. 33
34
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 10
February 2, 2021
XIII. ADJOURN 1
Moved by Reid, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. 2
3
A roll call vote was performed: 4
5
Martin aye 6
Reid aye 7
Cavanaugh aye 8
Albers aye 9
DesLauriers abstained (left meeting) 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Motion passed. 17
18
19
20
21
22
__________________________________ 23
Kathleen Martin, Mayor 24
Attest: 25
26
____________________________________ 27
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 28
ME230-744-700596.v3 1
DRAFT
1/31/21
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND
RESTATED CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION
This First Amendment to Amended and Restated Contract for Fire Protection (the “First
Amendment”) is made this ___ day of ________, 2021 by and between the City of Medina, a
municipal corporation in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to
as Medina) and the Hamel Volunteer Fire Department, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation in
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as Hamel VFD). Medina and Hamel
VFD are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Parties.
Whereas, the Parties have previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated
Contract for Fire Protection (the “Contract”) effective January 1, 2018 regarding fire protection
services; and
Whereas, the Parties wish to confirm their relationship as the Parties to the Contract and to
modify the Contract as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Medina’s letter to Hamel VFD dated December 31, 2020 entitled Medina/Hamel
Fire Contract Notification Letter is hereby rescinded by Medina, such rescission is
accepted and approved by Hamel VFD and the Parties agree that the letter has no
force or effect as if it never had been sent.
2. Section 20.3 of the Contract is deleted in its entirety and a new Section 20.3 is
added as follows:
By mutual written agreement of Medina and Hamel VFD for any reason including
to enable participation in a fire service district or similar organization.
3. Except as provided in Section 2 of this First Amendment, all terms and conditions
of the Contract remain in full force and effect.
Agenda Item # 5A
ME230-744-700596.v3 2
4. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original regardless of the date of its execution and delivery. All such
counterparts together shall constitute one and the same document. Any signature
transmitted by facsimile or other electronic means shall be treated as an original
signature for all purposes hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Medina and Hamel VFD have caused this First Amendment to
be duly executed in their names and behalves on or as of the date first above written.
CITY OF MEDINA
By: __________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By: __________________________________
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator
ME230-744-700596.v3 3
HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT
By:
Its
By:
Its
Resolution No. 2021-##
DATE
Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION 2021-##
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
LOTHAR AND MONICA KRINKE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Lothar Krinke and Monica K. Krinke (the “Applicants”) own property
located at 2905 Willowood Farm Road (the “Property”), which is legally described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a conditional use permit for construction an
approximately 12,600 square foot addition to an existing accessory structure with a footprint of
approximately 5,728 square feet on the Property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed addition would result in an accessory structure with an
approximate footprint of 18,328 square feet; and
WHEREAS, Section 825.19 of the City Code states that the City may grant a conditional
use permit to allow for accessory structures with a footprint which exceed an aggregate of 5,000
square feet on properties more than five acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the requested
conditional use permit on January 12, 2021, heard testimony from the Applicants, City staff, and
interested parties, and recommended approval subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the request at the February 2, 2021 meeting,
reviewed the testimony and recommendation of the Planning Commission and took additional
testimony; and
WHEREAS, following such review, the City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
1) The proposed accessory structures are consistent with the specific requirements for
the conditional use as described in Section 825.19 and 826.98 of the City Code,
subject to the conditions noted in this resolution.
2) The proposed uses are consistent with the general criteria described for conditional
uses in Section 825.39 of the City Code.
Agenda Item # 5B
Resolution No. 2021-## 2
DATE
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota
hereby approves the conditional use permit for the addition to the accessory structure noted
above, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1) The Applicants shall install improvements as indicated on the civil plans received by the
City on 12/11/2020 and architectural plans received by the City on 1/25/2021, except as
modified by the conditions herein.
2) The Applicants shall address comments made by the City Engineer.
3) The Applicants shall update plans to provide additional detail on proposed grading,
drainage and design of the filtration basin. Plans shall maximize runoff from impervious
surface to the filtration basin and direct runoff away from the paddock area.
4) The accessory structure shall only be used for private purposes and no commercial
boarding or other activity shall be permitted.
5) The Applicants shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including provisions for recordation of easements, planting of appropriate vegetation and
installation of required signs.
6) The Applicants shall execute a stormwater maintenance agreement and maintain
stormwater management practices as described in the agreement.
7) Manure shall be managed in a manner which prevents nuisance and protects water
quality. The Applicants shall implement a manure management plan submitted to the
City, and management shall be subject to periodic review by city staff.
8) The Applicants shall manage the use of pasture in a manner which prevents overgrazing
and erosion.
9) The number of animal units shall not exceed eight unless manure and pasture
management plans are approved by City staff for additional animals. In any event,
animal density on the Property shall not exceed the amount permitted in the RR district
(grazable acres minus 1).
10) The Applicants shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs
associated with the review of the application for the conditional use permit.
Dated:
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. 2021-## 3
DATE
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
Medina Townhome Development LLC Page 1 of 7 February 16, 2021
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: February 11, 2021
MEETING: February 16, 2021 City Council
SUBJ: Medina Townhome Development LLC – 1432 County Road 29 –
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan
Review Deadline
Application Received: January 5, 2021
Review Deadline: March 6, 2021
Summary of Request
Medina Townhome Development LLC has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan Review for a proposed 24-unit townhome development at 1432 County Road 29,
north of Highway 12 and east of County Road 29.
An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found below.
Agenda Item # 7A
Medina Townhome Development LLC Page 2 of 7 February 16, 2021
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
The aerial shows existing land uses and describes planned land uses as follows:
• The City of Maple Plain is west of County Road 29. The Haven Homes senior project is
under construction to the northwest
• Baker Park Reserve is located to the east and northeast
• Property to the southeast is guided for High Density Residential (HDR) development.
• The lot north of the subject site includes an existing single-family home and is guided for
potential HDR redevelopment
• Commercial property is located to the south
The site is approximately two acres in size and currently includes an existing home and garage.
The site slopes down to the east and includes moderate tree cover.
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
The subject site is guided for High Density Residential (HDR) development and zoned R4
(Residential Multiple Family). The HDR land use and R4 zoning district allow townhome and
multi-family development with a density between 12-15 units/acre.
Staff has attached the Vision and Community Goals, the general land use principles and
objectives of residential land use from the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria for reviewing a
PUD include determining whether the PUD meets these objectives better than a development
following the general ordinance standards.
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
action and the feedback is purely advisory.
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.
Medina Townhome Development LLC Page 3 of 7 February 16, 2021
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
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.
Proposed Site Layout
The concept plan proposes 24 townhome units divided amongst four 6-unit structures. This
density would be at the low end required within the HDR land use and R4 district. The applicant
has indicated that they would intend to offer the townhomes for rent.
The R4 zoning district is intended to implement development in the HDR land use. 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.
The applicant has requested the PUD for primarily for flexibility from the setback requirement to
the new public street along the south of the property. The applicant has stated that this flexibility
is necessary to obtain the minimum density of 12 units/acre with townhome units. The applicant
states that townhomes could not be developed at this density without some flexibility through a
PUD. The alternative would likely be for a 3-story multi-family structure, which may not be
economically viable at this scale.
The following compares the concept to the R4 district requirements.
R4
Requirement
Proposed
Townhomes
Minimum Net Area per Unit 3400 s.f. 3850 s.f.
Maximum Net Area per Unit 3650 s.f. 3850 s.f.
Minimum Setback from Perimeter 20 feet 20 feet
Arterial Road setback 50 feet 50 feet
Local Road Setback (new road on south) 40 feet 20 feet
Private Road Setback (internal driveway) 25 feet 22 feet from drive
to garage
Minimum Distance Between Buildings 30 feet 50 feet
Max. Hardcover – total
Excluding wetlands and ponds
60%
70%
Not indicated
The applicant proposes a density of approximately 11.5 units/acre, just under 12 units/acre,
which is the lower end of the density range required in the HDR land use. The Comprehensive
Plan allows the city to consider flexibility to the density standards as follows: “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.” This
would allow the number of units to be reduced to 22 if the conditions are met. The Planning
Commission and City Council can discuss whether this flexibility seems appropriate based upon
Medina Townhome Development LLC Page 4 of 7 February 16, 2021
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
the slopes of the site, to provide more opportunity for stormwater management, or if the project
exceeds minimum standards.
The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to rent two of 24 the units (or 1 of the 22
units if the density is reduced as described above) at 80% of the area median income (AMI) to
help provide options at a lower rent point. The remaining units would be market rate rents, but
provides rental options which are generally lacking within Medina.
Architectural Design
Renderings of the proposed townhomes are attached.
The minimum standards of the R4 district include:
• Accent materials – minimum of 20% of any façade facing a street shall be accent material
• Garage door elements – if garage doors occupy more than 50% of horizontal façade
facing a street, additional elements are required
• Building modulation – buildings are required to be modulated at least once per 50 feet.
This may include varying building height, building setback, building orientation, roof
pitch, roof design, or significant differences in building materials/design.
The applicant has not suggested architectural standards beyond the minimum R4 standards, and
staff recommends that the architectural design at least meet the minimum standards of the R4
district.
Because the applicant is proposing to pull the units closer to the new street to the south, staff
would recommend additional architectural elements on the southern facades of the southern
buildings to make these buildings have more of a “rowhome” or “brownstone” feel along the
sidewalk. This could include porches, steps, etc.
Tree Preservation, Buffer Yard and Landscaping
Although the site is not wooded, it is a residential lot with moderate tree cover throughout. It is
likely that most of the trees will need to be removed from the site for any project to be developed
at HDR density. Development would be subject to the City’s tree preservation regulations, but a
waiver may need to be considered because the required density of the Comprehensive Plan and
the fact the trees are scattered around the site. Staff recommends that consideration be given to
preserve trees along the perimeter of the site.
The concept plan does not include landscaping details. The minimum landscaping requirements
of the R4 district are based on the perimeter of the development site and requires a minimum of
22 overstory trees, 11 ornamental trees, and 33 shrubs.
A bufferyard with an opacity of 0.1 is required along the adjacent street, which may further
supplement planting requirements.
The City could consider requiring architectural, landscaping, berming, fencing, and other
elements beyond the minimum standards as part of a PUD. Staff would recommend that a
privacy fence be considered along the northern property line with the adjacent single-family
home.
Medina Townhome Development LLC Page 5 of 7 February 16, 2021
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Wetlands and Floodplain
The site contains no wetlands or floodplains.
Transportation/Parking
The City’s transportation plan anticipates a new public street along the south of the property,
which is intended to provide access to the future development property to the east, and to loop
south to connect with the driveway from Holiday and the multi-tenant retail building to the
south. In the future, this loop will provide full access to the commercial properties when
Hennepin County constructs a median in County Road 29 at the Highway 12 intersection.
The applicant proposes to construct the roadway to the point where it turns south off the
property. The remaining portion of the loop is anticipated to be constructed by the development
to the east.
The applicant proposes a right-turn lane from the new road onto County Road 29. Staff
recommends that the roadway width be increased east of the turn lane to accommodate the turn
radius around the curve to the south.
As noted above, the property to the north is guided for HDR redevelopment. Ideally, an
opportunity for access to that site through this subject property would be provided to reduce the
need for access onto County Road 29. Staff does not recommend requiring an access easement
at this time, but would recommend that considerations be made such that the site design could
accommodate it in the future.
City code requires a minimum of 0.25 guest parking spaces per townhome unit. Staff
recommends that a minimum of 6 parking spaces be provided because it will be difficult to
maneuver around vehicles parked in front of the garage. One opportunity may be to provide
parking along the driveway between the two buildings.
Staff also recommends that the applicant meet the recommendations of Public Safety and the
Maple Plain Fire Department with regard to emergency vehicle circulation.
Sewer/Water
The applicant proposes to extend sewer and water service from County Road 29 to serve the
townhome units and to stub the services to the east. Staff recommends that future plans address
the comments of the City Engineer.
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The Concept Plan includes conceptual grading and stormwater plans. A filtration basin is
proposed in the southeast corner of the site and the applicant is considering an underground
filtration tank under the driveway.
Staff believes there are several considerations for the underground filtration device, including
construction and maintenance costs and construction/structural considerations in relation to
adjacent buildings and retaining walls. It may be advisable to consider alternatives.
Medina Townhome Development LLC Page 6 of 7 February 16, 2021
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
The City prohibits lawn/landscaping irrigation from using City water. Staff would recommend
that stormwater re-use be utilized for a portion of the stormwater requirements.
Park/Trails/Multi-Modal
The applicant proposes a small “tot-lot” playground within the project and a sidewalk along
the new road. The nearest park is located approximately ½ mile to the northwest at the Orono
School Early Learning Center in Maple Plain.
Staff recommends additional recreational amenities as part of the amenities of the PUD. This
may include something like a basketball hoop or similar amenity. In addition, staff
recommends construction of a sidewalk or trail along County Road 29. This will provide
pedestrian access to the property to the north if it redevelops.
Public Hearing/Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the concept plan at the February 9 meeting.
The draft minutes from the discussion are attached.
The neighbor immediately to the north of the subject site spoke at the hearing and requested
consideration for a privacy fence, lighting limitations for patios which will be close to his
property, and careful review of drainage so there are no impacts to his property.
Comments from Planning Commissioners generally supported a townhome use on the subject
property, if it could be shown that the site could accommodate the circulation, parking, and other
improvements necessary. Commissioners noted that the concept did appear to be tight,
especially after guest parking is added. Commissioners did not raise concerns with the reduced
setback to the new street to the south, but reiterated that design improvements for the southern
façade would be necessary. Some Commissioners spoke favorably of the provision of rental
housing, especially for units reserved at lower rents reserved for residents at lower incomes.
Review Criteria/Staff Comments
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 pages 2-3), the Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies.
The PUD process allows flexibility to the general zoning standards to result in a more desirable
development than would be expected through strict adherence to the requirements, which in this
case are the R4 requirements. The process provides flexibility which is ultimately at the
discretion of the City. Such flexibility often cuts in both directions, certain aspects of the
development may not meet the general standards while other exceed minimum standards. The
flexibility provides the opportunity for collaboration in site design because the City can request
adjustments which may be seen as preferred, but would not be required under general standards.
When considering the PUD, it is important to compare against the development likely to occur
under the standard R4 zoning district. The PUD is not being compared to lower density
Medina Townhome Development LLC Page 7 of 7 February 16, 2021
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
development or no development at all. The high level of discretion applies to use of the PUD
process, whereas the City would have a lower level of discretion if a development was proposed
at a similar density range which met the standard zoning requirements.
In this case, it appears that the primary flexibility being sought through the PUD is to reduce the
front setback to the new street to the south.
The applicant describes how they believe the proposed concept meets the objective in their
narrative, which is attached for reference. The applicant argues that the PUD allows for
development of the site with rental townhomes while still meeting the City’s density
requirements for the site. They indicate that this type of development is viable for the site and
market and more desirable than development of the site under the R4 standards, which would
likely need to be a taller multi-family building.
Staff has provided comments throughout the report to be incorporated into any future formal
application. These comments are summarized below:
1) Architectural design shall be improved for the south of the southern units to provide more
of a “front entry” design. Architectural design shall otherwise meet or exceed the
minimum requirements of the R4 district.
2) The site design shall meet the recommendations of Public Safety and Maple Plain Fire
with regard to emergency vehicle access and circulation.
3) Consideration shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as practical. Landscaping
shall meet the requirements of the R4 zoning district and provide required buffer yards
along streets.
4) A privacy fence shall be provided along the northern property line adjacent to the existing
single-family lot.
5) The width of the public roadway shall be increased as recommended by the City
Engineer.
6) The site design shall be reviewed to provide opportunity for the property to the north to
potentially access through the subject site.
7) The applicant shall agree that two of the units (or one if the number of units is reduced to
22) is reserved for rental at or below 80% AMI.
8) Guest parking shall be provided.
9) The applicant shall provide additional recreational amenities and a trail along County
Road 29.
10) The applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer and shall be subject to
review and approval by Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed and other
relevant agencies.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Excerpt from draft 2/9/2021 Planning Commission minutes
3. Excerpt from Comprehensive Plan
4. Engineering Comments
5. Applicant Narrative
6. Concept Plan
2/5/2021
Project: LR-21-287– CR29 Townhomes 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 Document
Date
Pages Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 1/5/2021 1/5/2021 3 Yes Yes
Deposit 1/5/2021 1/5/2021 1 Yes Yes $2000
Plans 1/5/2021 6/19/2019 14 Yes Yes
Purchase Agreement 1/5/2021 9/15/2020 14 Yes Yes
Narrative 1/5/2021 NA 4 Yes Yes
Narrative-Updated 1/29/2021 NA 4 Yes Yes
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Legal Comments 1/15/2021 1 Y
Engineering Comments 1/15/2021 4 Y
Building Comments 1/14/2021 1 Y
Minnehaha Creek 1/14/2021 1 Y
Hennepin County 1/13/2021 2 Y
Notice 1/29/2021 8 Y 11 pages w/ affidavit, labels, map
Planning Commission Packet 2/4/2021 7 Y
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 02/09/2021 Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Medina Townhome Development LLC – 1432 County Road 29 –
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan
Finke stated that the proposed concept includes 24 townhomes on approximately two acres, bordering
Maple Plain. He stated that the subject site is guided for high density residential development and
zoned R4, which allows for 12 to 15 units per acre. He stated that the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) process intends to provide flexibility in return for achieving other City objectives and/or
public benefit. He identified the adjacent property uses and zoning. He displayed the proposed site
plan, noting that the applicant proposed four six-unit buildings. He compared the site layout to the R4
zoning regulations, noting that the primary flexibility requested would be a reduction to the setback to
the new road to the south from 40 feet to 20 feet. He stated that the proposed density is just under 12
units per acre which would be reasonable for a site of this size compared to the density range of the
underlying zoning district. He stated that the applicant would be open to reserving two units out of
the 24 as affordable units, for those making 80 percent of the area median income or less. He
displayed the proposed elevations, both front and back. He stated that staff would recommend that at
least the minimum architectural standards be met with additional elements added to the units closest
to the public roadway. He noted that staff would also suggest a privacy fence to the north to buffer
from the existing single-family homes. He provided details on the proposed roadway that would be
built to provide access into the site. He noted that staff suggests that the roadway to the south be
widened in order to allow better circulation. He stated that staff would also suggest additional guest
parking because of the small size of the driveways. He stated that perhaps the ability to provide
access to the property to the north be shown as well in the case of future development.
Piper asked if the public road continues and circles around the back of the shopping area to the gas
station, would it eventually end up being part of the future high density residential to the east of those
structures.
Finke replied that the road would be partially constructed on the future high-density parcel to the east
and therefore would be required as improvements for that development.
Sedabres asked if the requirement for the six parking spaces could be accommodated while
maintaining the proposed density.
Finke replied that it is possible that the parking could be located along the entry drive, otherwise the
units may need to be resized in order to accommodate the parking and maintain the density.
Sedabres referenced the property to the north and asked how many additional units could fit on that
property under that standard zoning.
Finke replied that size is approximately .5 acres in size and therefore would equate to six units but
noted that there may be dimensional constraints and therefore less units could be approved.
Nielsen asked if the setback proposed to be reduced to 20 feet from 40 feet would be further impacted
by the desire for the road to the south to be wider.
Finke replied that the setback is measured to the right-of-way line and therefore the road could be
widened within the existing right-of-way without impacting the setback further.
Shane LaFave, representing the applicant, introduced the members of his team that are present
tonight. He stated that they see a need for rental housing for families in this area as there is not a
large supply but there is a demand in this part of the community. He stated that the townhome
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 02/09/2021 Minutes
2
concept would align with the density recommendation for the site. He described the challenges of
attempting to fit all the required elements into the site but believed that this concept maximizes the
land to its full potential. He stated that the townhomes would be three to four bedrooms and therefore
they anticipate families and have included a tot lot amenity. He stated that the PUD is requested for
the setback requirement as they do not feel they could provide this number of units without that
flexibility. He believed that this development would be attractive to families that want to live in the
community but could perhaps not afford to purchase or would prefer to rent.
Nielsen asked for input on the mention of two affordable housing units.
LaFave replied that they are comfortable designating two units at the 80 percent median income level.
He stated that would lower the rent amounts from those identified in the proforma but would not be a
large difference. He recognized that there is a need for that in the metro area and understands the
need and desire for that.
Popp asked if the applicant has insight on how the rental demand for that area has changed in the past
five years.
LaFave replied that they completed a market demand assessment but noted that does not go into the
history of the demand and instead estimates the current demand.
Popp asked and received confirmation that the property is within the Orono School District.
Piper referenced the six additional guest parking stalls recommended by staff and stated that it would
seem those would need to be included and asked if the developer is committed to finding space for
them.
LaFave replied that staff did share that concern prior to the meeting, and they do recognize the need
for that parking. He stated that the other potential would be to cap the drive lanes and provide
parking in those areas.
Josh Mckinney, representing the applicant, stated that there are a few options available that would be
viable for guest parking and provided additional details on those potential locations. He stated that
they would further explore those options as they go further into the design.
Nielsen referenced the comment related to the south facing side of the buildings and asked for input
from the developer.
LaFave replied that the comment is well received. He noted that in the first iteration they did not
have the sidewalk connecting but they recognized the comment of staff to make that more pedestrian
friendly. He stated that they will continue to enhance those entrances to the townhomes to look more
like front entries, which could include improving the materials, as they proceed with design. He
stated that they are motivated to make it look nice and therefore they are not concerned with
accommodating those comments from staff.
Nielsen asked if there are any suggestions from staff that the applicant would be concerned with
incorporating.
LaFave replied that it would be tough to provide the connection to the property to the north. He
stated that if they attempted to guess where a drive lane would go to the north, it would most likely
eliminate the tot lot and impact the privacy fence. HE stated that it would be difficult to anticipate
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 02/09/2021 Minutes
3
what could/would be developed on that site and would not want to see an amenity removed from this
site in the interest of guessing on what could happen on the property to the north.
Popp referenced the preservation of trees mentioned in the staff report, noting the two areas suggested
that could be practical to preserve and asked for input from the applicant.
LaFave stated that they like the visual and noise barrier that trees provide and therefore are motivated
to keep all the trees they can on the west. He stated that the area to the east would be dependent upon
grading and concrete pouring. He stated that if that can be done without damaging tree roots, they
would like to preserve those trees.
Mckinney agreed that they would like to maintain the number of trees that they can as that provides
additional separation from Baker Park Road. He asked the Commission to consider the context in
which this is placed. He stated that there may be a need to remove trees within the boundary, but
Baker Park will maintain its trees.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Robert Braun, 1472 Baker Park Road, commented that he would support the concept for a privacy
fence as well as preserving trees when possible near the property line. He commented that the
buildings and patios would be near the property line and would want to ensure that there is not an
impact to his property from hardcover runoff. He also asked about patio lighting and potential
impacts to his property from that lighting.
Finke replied that stormwater runoff would be a consideration that would be addressed through the
formal plan process and would be looked at carefully to ensure the runoff does not impact adjacent
properties. He stated that lighting from individual units would not be regulated but stated that could
perhaps be addressed through the PUD if that is a concern.
Mr. Braun asked the rental value for the properties.
LaFave replied that they would anticipate rents around $2,000 per month.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Grajczyk commented that he likes the townhome concept for this property, recognizing that it is
becoming a more popular area for growth and development. He stated that architecturally wise he
agrees with the need for a change on the south side of the building along the road, as well as widening
that road. He commented that the driving and parking space between the buildings is tight and could
see that as an issue for future residents having enough space to back out and get through and would
prefer to see something with a little more space that is driver friendly.
Piper echoed the comments of the previous Commissioner in that this site is awfully tight for traffic
coming in and out. She also prefers the guest parking be provided. She stated that as long as the
applicant can meet the City requirements, she supports this moving forward.
Popp agreed with the direction of the staff comments to be incorporated into the plans moving
forward. He stated that he supports the preservation of trees on the east and west. He stated that he
also supports the additional architectural elements on the units facing the road to the south. He stated
that the additional parking spots would increase the tightness of the site. He referenced the potential
access to the north and stated that it would seem difficult to do that without removing another
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 02/09/2021 Minutes
4
valuable element such as the tot lot. He stated that he would prefer the additional separation and tot
lot. He stated that this appears to be a valuable development that would align with the City’s goals.
He referenced the comment related to lighting, which is a valid concern from that resident.
Rhem echoed the comments of the previous Commissioners. He stated that staff did an excellent job
with their comments and appreciated the applicant for agreeing to incorporate those elements. He
stated that this is a great potential development that aligns with what the City is attempting to achieve
in its Comprehensive Plan and therefore is very supportive of the request.
Sedabres stated that overall, he supports this design as it fits within the R4 standards and appreciates
the openness of the developer to provide affordable housing units as that is something the community
definitely needs. He echoed the comments related to architectural design on the south and potentially
the west sides. He stated that he considered what the local area looks like, noting that the stone fits
within the R4 district and adjacent developments. He stated that perhaps additional materials are used
to break up the lap siding from east to west.
Nielsen agreed with the comments expressed by the Commission thus far. She stated that this appears
to be a great design for this property. She noted that she would like to see the two units for affordable
housing, if possible, and some sort of downcast lighting on the north side to ensure that does not
impact the neighbors to the north.
LaFave appreciated the feedback from the Commission tonight. He stated that they will find space
for the guest parking and will be cognizant of the vehicle spacing overall. He stated that it appears
that perhaps the connection to the north is not needed if they can preserve greenspace and provide the
tot lot as an amenity. He stated that they will also think carefully about architecture and the materials
they propose, especially on the south side.
Finke stated that the intent is to forward this concept to the City Council at its meeting next week.
Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
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
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.
K:\017473-000\Admin\Docs\2021-01-08 Submittal\_2021-01-15 CR29 Townhome 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
January 15, 2021
Mr. Dusty Finke
City Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: CR 29 Townhomes PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-21-287
WSB Project No. 017473-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
WSB staff have reviewed County Road 29 Townhomes Concept PUD plan submittal dated
January 5, 2021. The plans propose to construct 24 multi-family units (townhomes) on a 2 acre
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. With future submittals, identify the proposed street ROW/easements and note the widths
on the site plan. Based on the information provided, it appears the intent is for the shared
access to bey a public street with the remaining portion of the roadways within the site
will be private as no easements have been proposed.
2. The applicant will need to coordinate with the property owner directly to the south for the
planning and construction of the proposed public/shared access to CR 29. Lengthen the
taper for the proposed right turn lane to a minimum of 7.5:1 or a minimum of 100ft at the
public/shared access location. Modify the width of the proposed lanes with a 12’
left/through lane and 13.5’ outer lane widths to face of curb.
3. Any work within Hennepin County right of way will require a permit. The applicant shall
also meet the requirements of the County’s plat review committee.
4. With future plan submittals provide a signing and striping plan with callouts for specific
striping and signage types.
5. Add typical street section(s) details to the plans meeting the City’s standard, at minimum.
The current site plan shows all of the bituminous pavement being “heavy-duty”, confirm
intended pavement design. The final street section shall be designed by a registered
geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site.
6. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures and required turn around space as required by the City Fire Marshall.
7. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH
design speed, at minimum. Provide a profile drawing for the proposed public/shared
access.
City of Medina – CR 29 Townhomes PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
January 15, 2021
Page 2
K:\017473-000\Admin\Docs\2021-01-08 Submittal\_2021-01-15 CR29 Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments.docx
8. The plan does not include trails, sidewalks, or other pedestrian amenities that connect all
of the units. See the City Planners comments on pedestrian access and mobility
requirements.
9. Provide topographic survey that extends 50 feet beyond the limits of the proposed
development. Include additional topography south of the proposed public/shared access
improvements.
10. With future submittals include the City standard details for the pertinent improvements
proposed.
Water/Sewer Utilities
11. With future submittals show the existing sewer and watermain system including the
nearest existing hydrants, valves, and manhole locations.
12. The City of Medina’s sanitary sewer system serves the existing site from the west along
CR 29.
13. The City of Maple Plain’s water system serves the site. The final design shall meet the
City of Maple Plain watermain design standards. Confirm whether or not a permit from
the City of Maple Plain will be required. A review of valve locations will be provided with
future plan submittals.
14. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain
sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future phases
or other adjacent developments will be required and reviewed with future submittals.
With this in mind, at minimum the City will require that the internal site watermain is
extended to the northerly property line with a stub and temporary hydrant.
15. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the City Fire Marshal.
16. The City will require that each unit have a separate water/sewer service. Each water
service shall have a separate curb stop (shut-off). With future submittals show proposed
sanitary sewer/water service lines and stub invert elevations on plans; the City requires a
minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations.
17. Gravity sewer is being proposed to serve all units within the development. The City’s
typical standard is to place sewer a minimum of 10’ below the surface (18” vertical
separation below the watermain). Where this depth is not feasible, the City will allow an 8’
depth; depths less than 8’ will require review on a case-by-case basis and require
insulation and/or insulated pipe at minimum.
18. 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.
19. With final construction plans, if basements are proposed with the townhomes, 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.
20. Where any sewer pipe (storm or sanitary) crosses the watermain, include a note saying
“Maintain 18-Inch Separation, 4” Rigid Insulation”. Provide dimension notes in various
locations between the watermain and storm/sanitary sewer.
City of Medina – CR 29 Townhomes PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
January 15, 2021
Page 3
K:\017473-000\Admin\Docs\2021-01-08 Submittal\_2021-01-15 CR29 Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments.docx
Traffic & Access
21. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be 176 daily
trips, 11 AM peak hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips, assuming 24 townhomes on the
site.
22. Any access to CR 29 will be controlled by Hennepin County; full access to the proposed
development and the existing retail site to the south shall be combined into one location
between the existing retail and the proposed site. The proposed plan shows a
shared/public access to CR 29 with two lanes exiting (one left and one right lane) and
one lane entering.
23. We understand the existing shared access to the retail site and Holiday will remain open
with the proposed development. However, the access will need to be converted to a
right-in/right-out in the future when development to the east is proposed, in accordance
with Hennepin County requirements. These improvements will need to be coordinated
with the property owner to the north and west.
24. A traffic analysis/study should be submitted with assumptions of the existing, proposed,
and future development(s) to determine whether when turn lanes will be required at the
shared access on CR 29. The analysis should also include what level of future
development will trigger the need for construction of the turn lanes. Additional comments
may follow from the City (either Maple Plan or Medina) and/or Hennepin County based
on the final concept plan submitted.
Stormwater
25. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling
consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual.
26. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and
retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface. By satisfying the volume
requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. Follow the City’s
Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirement if
infiltration is not feasible.
27. The applicant may want to consider using the stormwater ponds for irrigation. Credits for
volume control can be given for stormwater reuse. City ordinance does not allow for
municipal water system to be used for irrigation.
28. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that
post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions
discharge rates.
29. 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.
30. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards (Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District) and the applicant shall submit for the required permits.
Grading and Erosion Control
31. Provide EOFs for all low points inside and outside the roadway.
32. Provide topographic survey that extends 50 feet beyond the limits of the proposed
development.
33. Provide spot elevations at the high points between the lots.
City of Medina – CR 29 Townhomes PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
January 15, 2021
Page 4
K:\017473-000\Admin\Docs\2021-01-08 Submittal\_2021-01-15 CR29 Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments.docx
34. Maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2% and maximum 33% slopes.
Vegetated swale grades shall be a minimum of 2.0%. Show directional arrows and
percent grades on future submittals.
35. Include a typical section/design on the plans for the proposed retaining walls. Submit
retaining wall engineered designs for walls 4-feet or greater.
36. A full review of erosion/sediment control will be conducted with the final plat submittal.
37. An NPDES permit must be submitted to the City prior to start of construction.
38. A review of the erosion/sediment control plan will be completed with preliminary/plat
submittals.
Wetlands
39. A wetland delineation was approved for the site in 2017 and concluded there are no
wetlands present (NOD No. WF-17-089).
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
PUD Concept Plan Submission – 1432 Co Rd No 29, Medina, MN 55359
(a) General Information.
(1) The name and address of the landowner(s) and their interest in the subject
property.
Please see the attached Application.
(2) The applicant's name and address, if different from the landowner.
Please see the attached Application.
(3) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to
the development of the PUD being submitted, including attorney, land
planner, engineer and surveyor.
>The architect is Kaas Wilson Architects, LLC. Address is 1301 American Blvd E, Suite
100, Bloomington, MN 55425.
>Civil Engineer is Sambatek. Address is 12800 Whitewater Dr, #300, Minnetonka, MN.
>Surveyor is Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Address is 445 North Willow Drive, Long
Lake, MN 55356.
(4) Evidence that applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to
effectuate the proposed PUD including a statement of all legal, beneficial,
tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and
including an abstract, commitment for title insurance, or registered property
abstract, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show
the status of title or control of the subject property.
A copy of the Purchase Agreement is enclosed for documentation of site control.
(b) Present Status.
(1) Address and legal description of subject property.
Please see the enclosed survey.
(2) Existing zoning classification and present use of subject property and all lands
within 1,000 feet of subject property.
Please see the enclosed survey.
(3) A map depicting existing development of subject property and all land within
1,000 feet thereof and locations of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains,
wells, storm, sanitary and septic sewer systems, with invert
elevations on and within 100 feet of subject property.
Please see the enclosed survey.
(c) A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is
intended to serve and the market demand. The statement is also to demonstrate the
proposed PUD's relationship to Medina's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed
PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and
use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the
City.
Currently this 2 acre property is used as a vacant single family home, garage, and land.
The proposal is to remove the single family home and garage and construct 24 new townhomes
(4 buildings), some private outdoor space and recreational area, as well as a new public road.
The townhomes will consist of both three-bedroom and four-bedroom homes that will be
rented to families in need of rental housing. The driving factor behind this use type is the lack of
rental housing options for families in the area. A 3rd party rental housing demand assessment
was conducted by Viewpoint Consulting and it estimated the unmet rental demand for the
primary market area surrounding this site is 168 units. Construction of new rental townhomes
will help meet that unmet demand.
Once construction is completed the site will have density of 12 units/acre. The proposed
use of rental townhomes and density of 12 units/acre fits within the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
To further address Section 827.25 of the City Zoning Code, rental townhomes are not
something that currently exists in abundance in Medina. Provision of these townhomes will
allow for those who for various reasons cannot purchase a home in Medina to still live in this
community, thereby helping to meet the demands for all styles of economic expansion (Subd. 1).
Without a PUD the density recommendation on this 2 acre site is not physically or economically
feasible, so the classification of a PUD allows for a higher and better maximization of the site
(Subd. 2). The completion of this project also includes constructing an access road to the 14 acre
parcel located immediately to the SE of the subject property, which will make development of
that parcel more feasible and convenient (Subd. 6). Without a PUD, the setback requirements in
the underlying zoning code would require this project to be less than 24 units, which means it
would not meet the density recommendation, which in theory would mean it cannot move
forward. A 24 unit project meets the density recommendation, maximizes the use of the site
area, and allows for more diversity of housing options to be offered in the City (Subd. 8 and 9).
(d) Site Conditions. Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale
acceptable to the Zoning Administrator, which includes the following:
(1) Contours - minimum two foot intervals.
(2) Location, type and extent of tree cover and vegetation.
(3) Slope analysis.
(4) Location and extent of water bodies, streams, floodplains and approximate
location of wetlands on and within 300 feet of the subject property.
(5) Significant rock outcroppings.
(6) Existing drainage patterns.
(7) Vistas and significant views.
(8) Soil conditions as they affect development.
All of the graphics should be the same scale to allow cross reference. The use of
overlays is recommended for clear reference.
Please see the enclosed survey, architectural and civil drawings.
(e) Schematic drawings of the proposed development concept including, but not limited to,
the general location of major circulation elements, public and private open space,
buildings, structures, and other land uses, and buffering and screening.
Please see the enclosed drawings.
(f) A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units or square feet of developed
land use activities proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed
approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total
project area, which shall include at least the following as applicable:
(1) Area devoted to residential uses.
(2) Area devoted to residential use by building type.
(3) Approximate site area and floor area devoted to commercial, industrial, or
institutional uses.
(4) Area devoted to private open space.
(5) Area devoted to public open space.
(6) Approximate area devoted to streets.
(7) Approximate area devoted to and number of off street parking and loading
spaces and related access.
Please see the enclosed architectural plans containing this information.
(g) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a
single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units
shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each
such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space
and structures/units to be provided or constructed during each such stage and the
overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage.
We do not anticipate construction of all 4 buildings to take longer than 1 construction
season. Our intention is to start construction this summer and complete all site work prior
to winter, then complete the interior work during the winter months and complete the
project in full in early 2022.
(h) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or private open space or service
facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and
maintenance of such open space or service facilities.
Part of the site plan includes some private outdoor space which will most likely include a
small playground and pergola area. This area will be maintained by the property owner
and manager along with the rest of the property.
(i) General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to
property included in the proposed PUD.
There are no restrictive covenants to be recorded with respect to the property that we are
aware of.
(j) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, wells, sanitary sewer, septic and
storm sewers.
Please see the enclosed Civil plans.
(k) Mailing labels of current owners of the property necessary for public hearing, obtained
from Hennepin County property records.
SCOTT WARD BAKER
6110 BLUE CIRCLE DR
SUITE 100/NORTH ENTRANCE
MINNETONKA MN 55343
HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES INC
4567 AMERICAN BLVD W # 256
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55437
PRC LLC
8300 10TH AVE N
GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427
TJA PUB LLC
4820 U S HWY NO 12
MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359
ROBERT J BRAUN
1472 BAKER PARK RD
MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359
MAPLE PLAIN GATEWAY PROP LLC
300 LINDAWOOD LN
WAYZATA MN 55391
HAVEN HOMES INC
7485 OFFICE RIDGE CIR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
(l) The Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and/or City Council may excuse an
applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required in
this stage, which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific
proposal.
(m) The Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and/or City Council may require
the submission of any additional information or documentation which it may find
necessary or appropriate.
Please let us know if any additional materials are required.
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentCOVER
0.0 01/05/21
Medina Townhome Development
01/05/21
CONTENTS
COVER 0.0
PROJECT SUMMARY 0.1
PROJECT DATA 1.0
ZONING MAP 1.1
SITE PLAN 2.0
LEVEL 1 - TYP.
TOWNHOUSE
3.0
LEVEL 2 - TYP.
TOWNHOUSE
3.1
EXTERIOR MATERIALS 6.0
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 6.1
DEVELOPER
ARCHITECT
Medina Townhome Development LLC
Kaas Wilson Architects
CONCEPT PLAN
SITE METRICS
ADDRESS 1432 County Road 29
Medina, MN 55359
PARCEL AREA 95,114 SQ.FT. (2.18 ACRES)
ZONING PUD
APPLICATION CONCEPT PLAN
PROJECT TEAM
DEVELOPMENT
Medina Townhome Development LLC
ARCHITECT
Kaas Wilson Architects
1301American Blvd E, Suite 100
Bloomington, MN 55425
(612) 879-6000
CIVIL ENGINEER
Sambatek
12800 Whitewater Drive
Suite 300
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
(763) 476-6010
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentPROJECT SUMMARY
0.1 03/12/20
Site Location Aerial
6 Townhomes
6 Townhomes
Tot Lot
6 Townhomes
6 Townhomes
50'-0"
20'-0"
20
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentSITE PLAN
2.0 03/12/20
1" = 40'-0"1 SD Site Plan
BUILDING METRICS
STORIES 2 STORIES
HEIGHT 26.5 FT
DWELLING UNITS 24 UNITS
GROSS SQ FT 52,854 SQ FT
PLANNING METRICS
Zoning
Proposed:PUD
Height
Proposed:2 Stories / 26.5ft Feet
Density
Proposed:11 Units per Acre
Setbacks
Proposed:50ft Front / 20ft Rear / 20ft Side
Vehicle Parking
Proposed:4 Stalls per Unit / 8,064 ft2 Total Area
Private Open Space
Proposed:Estimated 1,200 ft2
Public Open Space
Proposed:0ft2
Area Devoted to Street
Proposed:Estimated 3,417 ft2
Area Devoted to Private Drive
Proposed:Estimated 12,209 ft2
TOWNHOME UNIT MIX
3BR+Den
Unit 4-0 12
Count Area
2,197 ft2
Total Area
26,364 ft2
Unit 5-0
4BR Count Area
2,207 ft2
Total Area
26,490 ft212
Total 24 52,854 ft2
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentPROJECT DATA
1.0 03/12/20
PARKING
Level Type Count
Level 1 Garage 48
Level 1 Surface 48
96
GROSS AREA - TOTAL
Level Area
Level 2 23,683 ft²
Level 1 29,171 ft²
Grand total 52,854 ft²
6.1
1
6.1
2
6.1 3
6.14
UNIT 4-0 UNIT 5-0 UNIT 4-0 UNIT 5-0 UNIT 4-0 UNIT 5-0
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentLEVEL 1 - TYP. TOWNHOUSE
3.0 03/12/20
3/32" = 1'-0"1 Level 1
6.1
1
6.1
2
6.1 3
6.14
UNIT 4-0 UNIT 5-0 UNIT 4-0 UNIT 5-0 UNIT 4-0 UNIT 5-0
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentLEVEL 2 - TYP. TOWNHOUSE
3.1 12/29/20
3/32" = 1'-0"1 Level 2
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
111'-1 7/8"
TH Truss Brg.
120'-3"
7.37.27.1
4.1
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.1
4.1
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
111'-1 7/8"
TH Truss Brg.
120'-3"
7.3 7.1 7.2
4.1
7.1 7.37.2
4.1
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
111'-1 7/8"
TH Truss Brg.
120'-3"
7.1 7.2
7.1
4.1
26
'
-
6
"
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
111'-1 7/8"
TH Truss Brg.
120'-3"
7.3 7.1
7.1
4.1
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
6.1 03/12/20
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Front Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"2 Back Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"3 Elevation 3 - a
1/16" = 1'-0"4 Elevation 4 - a
kaas wilson architects
Medina Townhome DevelopmentEXTERIOR MATERIALS
6.0 03/12/20
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Material Mark Description Area Percentage Image
7.2 VERTICAL CFB LAP - WHITE OR SIM. 3,901 ft² 10%
7.3 VERTICAL CFB LAP - LIGHT BRONZE OR
SIM.
3,789 ft² 10%
8.1 Window Glazing 4,560 ft² 12%
38,135 ft²
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Material Mark Description Area Percentage Image
4.1 CULTURED STONE 2,754 ft² 7%
7.1 HORIZONTAL CFB LAP - WHITE OR SIM. 23,131 ft² 61%
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1001.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1001.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1000.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1000.0TOTLOT
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
FILTRATION BASIN
PROPOSED FILTRATION BASIN
BOTTOM = 989.00
10-YEAR HWL = 991.17
100-YEAR HWL = 991.86
15.76'24'15.76'
13
'
13
'
13
'
50'
36'
20
'
20'
20
'
93'50'
6'
13
'
7'
7'
23
'
5'
5'
10
'
16'36'
30
'
4'
6'
6'
16'36'16'
18
'
24
'
18
'
18
'
24
'
18
'
16'36'
70
'
SCALE IN FEET
0 6030
NORTH
Jan 05, 2021 - 11:14am - User:JPistorius L:\PROJECTS\22471\CAD\Civil\Sheets\22471-C3-SITE.dwg
C3.01
SITE PLAN
Project
Location
Certification
Sheet Title
Summary
Revision History
Sheet No.Revision
Project No.
Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By
Designed:Drawn:
Approved:Book / Page:
Phase:Initial Issued:
Client
MEDINA
TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT,
LLC.
MEDINA
TOWNHOMES
MEDINA, MN
1432 COUNTY ROAD 29
JEB JGP
JEB
PRELIMINARY MM/DD/YYYY
22471
Registration No.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed
professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state
of Minnesota.
If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this
plan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,
Minnetonka, MN office.
Date:12345
JOSHUA E. BALZER
MM/DD/YYYYPRELI
M
I
N
A
R
Y
1.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.
2.ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT “GUTTER OUT” WHERE WATER
DRAINS AWAY FROM CURB. ALL OTHER AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS “GUTTER
IN” CURB. COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR.
4.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.
5.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
6.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF
EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE
LOCATIONS.
7.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PYLON SIGN DETAILS
8.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL AND FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF LIGHT
POLE.
9.REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, LOT NUMBERS, LOT AREAS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS.
10.ALL GRADIENTS ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE
OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THE
MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE 2.08%
(1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA
ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY
THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS
THE DESIGN GRADIENT AND COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR.
11."NO PARKING" SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED ALONG ALL DRIVEWAYS AS REQUIRED BY CITY.
12.STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY.
LEGEND
EASEMENT
CURB & GUTTER
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
SAWCUT LINE
NUMBER OF PARKING
STALLS PER ROW
SIGN
PIPE BOLLARD
STANDARD DUTY
ASPHALT PAVING
HEAVY DUTY
ASPHALT PAVING
CONCRETE PAVING
PROPERTY LIMIT
EXISTINGPROPOSED
KEY NOTE
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
DEVELOPMENT NOTES
WETLAND LIMITS
TREELINE
XX
XX
THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL XX. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED
ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING
SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING
UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE
CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY
HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).
IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,
INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.
IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
AREA
GROSS SITE AREA
BUILDING SETBACKS
FRONT YARD
REAR YARD
SIDE YARD
ZONING
EXISTING ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
95,114 SF 2.18 AC
50 FEET
20 FEET
20 FEET
R-4
R-4
PAVEMENT BY OTHERS
(SEE ARCHITECTURAL
PLANS)
10
0
0
99
8
99
9
996997998
999
1000
999
990
990
986987988
989
989
991 991992
990995100
0
987988989991992993994996
9
9
7
9
9
8
999
10
0
0
99
9
9
9
9
999
1000
999 998
100
0
999 PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1001.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1001.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1000.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1000.0TOTLOT
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
FILTRATION BASIN
T W:999.82
BW:993.28
TW:999.00
BW:992.00
T W:999.00
BW:985.78
T W:999.00
BW:989.00
TW:999.04
BW:999.02
TW:999.00
BW:989.00
PROPOSED FILTRATION BASIN
BOTTOM = 989.00
10-YEAR HWL = 991.17
100-YEAR HWL = 991.86
T W:999.97
BW:999.04
SCALE IN FEET
0 6030
NORTH
Jan 05, 2021 - 11:14am - User:JPistorius L:\PROJECTS\22471\CAD\Civil\Sheets\22471-C4-GRADE&EC.dwg
C4.01
GRADING &
EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
Project
Location
Certification
Sheet Title
Summary
Revision History
Sheet No.Revision
Project No.
Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By
Designed:Drawn:
Approved:Book / Page:
Phase:Initial Issued:
Client
MEDINA
TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT,
LLC.
MEDINA
TOWNHOMES
MEDINA, MN
1432 COUNTY ROAD 29
JEB JGP
JEB
PRELIMINARY MM/DD/YYYY
22471
Registration No.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed
professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state
of Minnesota.
If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this
plan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,
Minnetonka, MN office.
Date:12345
JOSHUA E. BALZER
MM/DD/YYYYPRELI
M
I
N
A
R
Y
1.PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG PROPOSED CURB DENOTE GUTTER GRADE.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT “GUTTER OUT” WHERE WATER DRAINS AWAY FROM CURB. ALL
OTHER AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS “GUTTER IN” CURB.
3.ALL GRADIENT ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB
RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR
ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE IN 2.08% (1:48). CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES
PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT. COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PAVING CONTRACTOR.
4.CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT
PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT.
5.SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONTRACTOR WILL BE
SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING
PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE
DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT
INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
6.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS
ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SOILS REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY:
COMPANY: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING, INC.
ADDRESS: 414 37TH AVE N, ST. CLOUD, MN 56303
PHONE: 320-774-3500
DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2017
CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT.
7.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE DEWATERING AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION.
8.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL SHALL BE PERFORMED ON THE STREET AND PARKING AREA SUBGRADE.
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. CORRECTION OF THE
SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER.
9.REPLACE ALL SUBGRADE SOIL DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAVE BECOME UNSUITABLE AND WILL NOT PASS A TEST ROLL.
REMOVE UNSUITABLE SOIL FROM THE SITE AND IMPORT SUITABLE SOIL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
10.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH
AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE
NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.
11.EXISTING TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AND/OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT ARE OF PRIME CONCERN TO
THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND SHALL BE A RESTRICTED AREA. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT TREES TO REMAIN AT ALL TIMES.
EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT NEEDLESSLY BE OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES AND EXTREME CAUTION SHALL BE EXERCISED WHEN WORKING
ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S
EQUIPMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIOR TO THE
BEGINNING OF OPERATION. SHOULD CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY LIMBS, THE BROKEN LIMBS SHOULD
BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANY LASTING DAMAGE TO THE TREE. NO TREES
SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO
THE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE.
12.EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE.
CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN
EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE
TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.
13.TRENCH BORROW CONSTRUCTION: IF ALLOWED BY THE OWNER, CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE “TRENCH BORROW” EXCAVATION IN
AREAS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN ORDER TO OBTAIN STRUCTURAL MATERIAL. TREES SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR DAMAGED AS A
RESULT OF THE EXCAVATION, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE EXCAVATION SHALL COMMENCE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM
THE LIMIT OF THE BUILDING PAD. THE EXCAVATION FROM THIS LIMIT SHALL EXTEND AT A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1 FOOT HORIZONTAL TO 1
FOOT VERTICAL (1:1) DOWNWARD AND OUTWARD FROM THE FINISHED SURFACE GRADE ELEVATION. THE TRENCH BORROW EXCAVATION
SHALL BE BACKFILLED TO THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION, AND SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
OF THE QUALITY COMPACTION METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 2105.3F2. SNOW FENCE SHALL BE FURNISHED AND
PLACED ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE TRENCH BORROW AREA WHERE THE SLOPES EXCEED 2 FOOT HORIZONTAL TO 1 FOOT VERTICAL
(2:1).
14.FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED, CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING
ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR
SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN
FINISHED GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS
THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED, ERODED OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S
OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK.
15.TOLERANCES
15.a.THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30
FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.
15.b.THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.10 FOOT ABOVE, OR
0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.
15.c.THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR
0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.
15.d.AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION,
UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER.
15.e.TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS.
16.AFTER THE SITE GRADING IS COMPLETED, IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS
SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE.
17.CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ANY HAUL ROADS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING
CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL INDICATE HAUL ROADS ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL “SITE MAP”. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF EACH ROADWAY. CONTRACTOR SHALL POST WHATEVER SECURITY, AND
COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY EACH GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF EACH ROADWAY.
18.DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN WETLAND MITIGATION SITE AND ANY DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE WETLAND SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6 TO
12 INCHES OF ORGANIC SOILS, PREFERABLY SOILS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY REMOVED FROM WETLAND AREAS. SEEDING IN THE WETLAND
MITIGATION AREAS ABOVE THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL SHALL BE MN STATE SEED MIX 34-271, WET MEADOW SOUTH AND WEST, OR
APPROVED EQUAL. FOR STATE SEED MIXES, OATS AND WINTER WHEAT SHOULD BE SELECTED BASED ON THE TIME OF YEAR THAT THE MIX
IS BEING USED. OATS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN MIXES IF BEING USED BETWEEN OCTOBER 15TH AND AUGUST 1ST. WINTER WHEAT
SHOULD BE USED BETWEEN AUGUST 1ST AND OCTOBER 15TH. THE SEEDING RATE IS THE SAME FOR OATS AND WINTER WHEAT. MIX
34-271 SHOULD BE APPLIED AT 12 POUNDS PER ACRE. SEED SHALL BE WATERED UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF VEGETATION IS OBTAINED.
19.FILL PLACED WITHIN THE BUILDING PAD AREAS SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH HUD/FHA PROCEDURES AND DATA SHEET 79G.
20.RETAINING WALL(S) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF _________________ (MODULAR BLOCK, TREATED TIMBER, BOULDER, ETC.) MATERIAL.
CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE ENGINEER AND LOCAL AUTHORITY CERTIFIED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND
SOIL BORINGS. THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER FOR THE RETAINING WALL(S) SHALL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS OF THE RETAINING
WALL IMPROVEMENT, AND A LETTER CERTIFYING THE INSTALLATION OF THE WALL(S) WAS CONSTRUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
902.5
X
902
SPOT ELEVATION
CONTOUR
RIP RAP
OVERFLOW ELEV.
CURB & GUTTER
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
PROPERTY LIMIT
EXISTINGPROPOSED
LEGEND
WETLAND LIMITS
TREELINE
STORM SEWER
SOIL BORINGS
GRADING NOTES
DRAINTILE
EOF
902.5
D
THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL XX. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED
ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING
SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING
UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE
CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY
HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).
IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,
INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.
IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1001.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1001.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1000.0
PROPOSED TOWNHOME7,300 S.F.FFE=1000.0TOTLOT
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
FILTRATION BASIN
PROPOSED FILTRATION BASIN
BOTTOM = 989.00
10-YEAR HWL = 991.17
100-YEAR HWL = 991.86CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SYSTEMMH 01
RE=998.05
IE=982.20 (FIELD VERIFY)
MH 02
RE=999.15
IE=986.42
MH 03
RE=998.84
IE=987.06
MH 05
RE=1000.48
IE=992.92
211 LF - 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 2.00%
32 LF - 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 2.00%
39 LF - 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 2.00%
104 LF - 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 2.00%
62 LF - 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 2.00%
25 LF - 8" PVC
SCH 40 @ 2.00%
25 LF - 8" PVC
SCH 40 @ 2.00%
8" PVC STUB
IE=987.66
SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE
IE=993.42
SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE
IE=993.42
SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE
IE=988.30
SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE
IE=988.30
23 LF - 8" PVC
SCH 40 @ 2.00%
23 LF - 8" PVC
SCH 40 @ 2.00%
WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTION WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTION
WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTION WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTION
CONNECT TO EXISTING 8"
WATERMAIN WITH 8"
TEE & GATE VALVE
(FIELD VERIFY)
98 LF - 15"
STM SWR @ X.XX%
115 LF - 15"
STM SWR @ 1.00%
4 LF - 15"
STM SWR @ 1.00%
CB 104
RE=999.25
IE=996.25
CBMH 103
RE=999.28
IE=995.27
CBMH 102
RE=998.30
IE=994.12
CBMH 101
RE=998.29
CONNECT TO
FILTRATION BASIN
IE=994.00
21 LF - 24"
STM SWR @ 0.50%
FES
IE=988.88
OCS 100
RE=998.68
IE=993.90 W
IE=988.11 E
W/ 2.6' WEIR WALL
FES 200
IE=989.00FES 203
IE=996.00
CBMH 201
RE=998.54
IE=995.30 W, S
IE=989.44 E
CBMH 202
RE=998.54
IE=995.78
CBMH 201A
RE=998.94
IE=995.56
HYDRANT
6" GATE VALVE
MH 04
RE=999.05
IE=987.84
HYDRANT
6" GATE VALVE
HYDRANT
6" GATE VALVE
22 LF - 24"
STM SWR @ 2.00%
24 LF - 24"
STM SWR @ 2.00%
11 LF - 24"
STM SWR @ 2.00%
51 LF - 18"
STM SWR @ 0.50%
46 LF - 18"
STM SWR @ 0.50%
18" STM SWR STUB
IE=995.798" WATERMAIN TEE
AND PLUG
SCALE IN FEET
0 6030
NORTH
Jan 05, 2021 - 11:14am - User:JPistorius L:\PROJECTS\22471\CAD\Civil\Sheets\22471-C5-UTIL.dwg
C5.01
UTILITY PLAN
1.THE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STANDARD
UTILITIES SPECIFICATIONS" AS PUBLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), EXCEPT AS
MODIFIED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS.
1.1.ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.
1.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN, TURN OFF, INTERFERE WITH, OR ATTACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE TO OR TAP
WATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSE
CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE THE
LIABILITY OF CONTRACTOR.
1.3.A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES AND HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10-FEET BETWEEN OUTSIDE
PIPE DIAMETERS IS REQUIRED AT ALL WATERMAIN AND SEWER MAIN (BUILDING, STORM AND SANITARY)
CROSSINGS.
2.ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
2.1.ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.
2.2.ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR-35, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2.2.1.ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES TO BUILDING SHALL BE PVC SCH 40 CONFORMING TO ASTM D2665.
2.3.ALL WATERMAIN TO BE DUCTILE IRON - CLASS 52, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2.3.1.ALL WATERMAIN TO HAVE 7.5-FEET OF COVER OVER TOP OF WATERMAIN.
2.3.2.PROVIDE THRUST BLOCKING AND MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINTS ON ALL WATERMAIN JOINTS PER CITY
STANDARDS.
2.4.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE SMOOTH INTERIOR DUAL WALL HDPE PIPE WITH WATER TIGHT GASKETS, UNLESS
NOTED OTHERWISE.
2.4.1.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE FOR ROOF DRAIN SERVICES TO BUILDING SHALL BE PVC SCH 40 CONFORMING TO
ASTM D2665.
2.5.RIP RAP SHALL BE Mn/DOT CLASS 3.
3.COORDINATE ALL BUILDING SERVICE CONNECTION LOCATIONS AND INVERT ELEVATIONS WITH MECHANICAL
CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
4.ALL BUILDING SERVICE CONNECTIONS (STORM, SANITARY, WATER) WITH FIVE FEET OR LESS COVER ARE TO BE INSULATED
FROM BUILDING TO POINT WHERE 5-FEET OF COVER IS ACHIEVED.
5.CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT.
6.SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES,
CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF
ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY
AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT
CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF
CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
7.ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THAT ARE DISTURBED BY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED IN
KIND. SODDED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD.
8.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS
BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC
WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.
9.ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE UTILITY
BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY:
COMPANY: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING, INC.
ADDRESS: 414 37TH AVE N, ST. CLOUD, MN 56303
PHONE: 320-774-3500
DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2017
CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS SOILS REPORT.
10.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT 2 COPIES OF SHOP DRAWINGS FOR MANHOLE AND CATCH BASIN STRUCTURES TO ENGINEER.
CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW 5 WORKING DAYS FOR SHOP DRAWING REVIEW.
11.CONTRACTOR AND MATERIAL SUPPLIER SHALL DETERMINE THE MINIMUM DIAMETER REQUIRED FOR EACH STORM
SEWER STRUCTURE.
12.THE UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM SHOWN ON THE UTILITY PLAN AND THE DETAIL SHEETS IS FOR
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DEPICTS THE MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS AND THE SYSTEM ELEVATIONS.
THE CONTRACTOR (WITH THEIR SUPPLIER OR DESIGNER) SHALL SUBMIT DESIGN DRAWINGS TO THE ENGINEER FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL DEPICT THE FINAL LAYOUT AND
DETAILS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER FOR THE STATE IN WHICH
THE PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED. THE SUBMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE ALL NECESSARY PRODUCT INFORMATION, DESIGN
CALCULATIONS AND BEDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM. FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION,
THE CERTIFYING ENGINEER SHALL SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE OWNER AND ENGINEER INDICATING THEY OBSERVED THE
INSTALLATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM WAS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CERTIFIED
DRAWINGS.
TELEPHONE
ELECTRIC
GAS LINE
FORCEMAIN (SAN.)
EASEMENT
WATERMAIN
SANITARY SEWER
EXISTINGPROPOSED
STORM SEWER
CURB & GUTTER
DRAINTILE
D
S S
SLS
LEGEND
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES
THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL XX. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED
ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING
SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING
UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE
CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY
HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).
IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,
INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.
IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
Project
Location
Certification
Sheet Title
Summary
Revision History
Sheet No.Revision
Project No.
Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By
Designed:Drawn:
Approved:Book / Page:
Phase:Initial Issued:
Client
MEDINA
TOWNHOME
DEVELOPMENT,
LLC.
MEDINA
TOWNHOMES
MEDINA, MN
1432 COUNTY ROAD 29
JEB JGP
JEB
PRELIMINARY MM/DD/YYYY
22471
Registration No.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly licensed
professional ENGINEER under the laws of the state
of Minnesota.
If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this
plan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,
Minnetonka, MN office.
Date:12345
JOSHUA E. BALZER
MM/DD/YYYYPRELI
M
I
N
A
R
Y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Stremel, City Engineer
Dusty Finke, Planning Director
Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: February 11, 2021
MEETING: February 16, 2021 City Council
SUBJECT: Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – 75% Design
Background:
During the spring of 2020, the cities of Medina and Corcoran authorized WSB to prepare preliminary
design (30% and 75%) for future improvements to Hackamore Road. The project would extend from
just west of County Road 116 to just east of County Road 101. In June of 2020, after the completion
of 30% design, the City Council decided to not proceed with the 75% design work. Staff had
included discussion related to Hackamore Road as a goal for 2021. In addition, Pulte has applied for
Final Plat approval of the final addition of the Reserve of Medina, which will include a street
connection to Hackamore as well.
The purpose of the project is to address deteriorating and insufficient infrastructure, to develop a
cohesive plan that both cities can use to guide transportation needs, right-of-way, and pedestrian
mobility along the corridor.
The intent of completing the preliminary design work was to allow both cities to request adequate
right-of-way at the time of adjacent development approvals and to determine what improvements are
necessary at each intersection. This will provide the opportunity for each city to require
compensation and/or construction of improvements which serve these adjacent developments in a
manner cohesive to the larger project area.
Between April and May 2020, the cities conducted public engagement with residents in both cities on
the future of the corridor, WSB conducted a traffic analysis, and the staffs of both cities worked
together to arrive at two alternative road designs for consideration by both City Councils.
In June of 2020, WSB and City Staff brought forth to the City Council a report and preliminary plans
to a 30% completion level for consideration and comment. This report summarized the existing
condition and expected future needs of the roadway and provided two alternative designs for Council
consideration. This information is attached for reference.
The project costs were estimated between $6.5-$7 million, although it is important to note that the
intent was to secure construction of much of corridor in connection with adjacent development and
that staff would anticipate some contribution from Hennepin County at the intersections of County
Road 116 and County Road 101.
Agenda Item # 8A
2
The City Council preferred the “two-lane design” with turn lanes at specific intersections which were
anticipated to experience higher turning movement volumes. The City Council also expressed an
interest in widening the shoulders of the roadway as much as possible to provide more space for
bikers and to provide long-term flexibility. Direction from each City Council on the preferred
alternative was similar.
After both City Councils generally agreed on the preferred alternative, staff recommended
proceeding with design to a 75% level on the chosen alternative. Doing so would provide more
specific information on matters such as grading, drainage, and stormwater, and provide more
information to adjacent developers so that the cities could maximize construction of the
improvements or contributions from adjacent developments.
Initially, the City Council authorized WSB to proceed with 75% design. At the June 16, 2020
meeting, the Council voted to reconsider its action and made the decision not to proceed with further
design. Council expressed concern with the cost of the project, the uncertainty of Hennepin County
funding, and lack of agreement on how the project costs would be allocated to each City. City
Council members stated that most of the development and traffic necessitating the improvements
were from Corcoran and that Medina should not be responsible for half of the cost.
Staff concurs with the concerns related to cost allocation and has expressed the same sentiment
throughout the process. Indeed, staff had raised these concerns even before the cities engaged on
preliminary design.
Local Road Improvement Program Grant
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) administers the Local Road Improvement
Program (LRIP), which offers opportunities for grant funding based upon a competitive application
process. Funding of $75 million is available for cities, townships, and counties across the state.
Grant awards may be up to $1,250,000. If you would like more information, you can visit
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/lrip.html
The City Engineer believes the Hackamore project may be a good candidate for the LRIP grant
application. WSB has estimated that cost of preparing a grant application is approximately $4,000.
The grant requests a single jurisdiction as the primary applicant but full support of the other
jurisdiction is critical. Staff is proposing that Medina be the primary applicant for the grant, noting
that the project is a partnership between the cities. In recent discussions with staff at the City of
Corcoran, they are also supportive of the grant opportunity and stated they will support splitting the
cost of the application.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution which would authorize submission of the grant
application.
75% Design
Staff continues to believe it would be very advantageous to complete design to a 75% level for the
following reasons:
• Ideally, much of the improvement to the roadway will be able to be secured or constructed
with adjacent developments. Doing so may result in a series of projects and the 75% plans
3
will help make sure things fit together, cohesive to the larger project area. It will also help
provide guidance for contributions from adjacent developments.
• The 75% plans will inform both cities requirements for right-of-way and inform the grading
plans of adjacent developments.
• The 75% plans will allow stormwater management to be considered across the corridor and
allow both cities to require adjacent developments to accommodate sufficient capacity by
expanding stormwater improvements which are within the sites. This would significantly
reduce the cost of the project. This will be especially important because new MS4
regulations from the state may require the additional treatment for reconstructed roadway in
addition to the expanded roadway.
The cost to complete the 75% design is approximately $48,000. Staff had recommended each city
contributing equally to this cost while noting that agreeing to split the cost in no way implies
agreement on future allocation of project costs. The cost to the City would, therefore, be $24,000.
Staff believes that there is a high likelihood that the cities would save many times this amount if the
75% plan allows the cities to take advantage of even one opportunity to obtain right-of-way or
stormwater management in an adjacent project which may otherwise be overlooked or missed.
Staff recommends the following actions:
1) Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing submission of LRIP grant application for
Hackamore Road Improvement Project.
2) Motion to authorize WSB to proceed with 75% design of the Hackamore Road Improvement
Project and pay half of the cost up to the not-to-exceed cost described in the scope of
services.
Attachments
1. Resolution authorizing LRIP submission
2. 6/16/2020 Engineer’s Report summarizing 30% design
Member ___________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF LOCAL ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (LRIP) GRANT APPLICATION FOR
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the project consists of the reconstruction of Hackamore Road
between Medina Lake Drive and CSAH 101 including turn lane and intersection
improvements at CR 116 and CSAH 101, vertical curve correction to meet State Aid
requirements, and construction of a multiuse trail along the north side of the roadway,
and;
WHEREAS, Hackamore Road is an east-west two-lane rural section local
roadway with a 2018 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 2,150 in the project area,
and;
WHEREAS, the existing pavement in the project area is aging, settling, and
showing signs of deterioration including alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking, and
transverse cracking, and;
WHEREAS, there are existing drainage issues in the corridor as identified by
adjacent residents and engineering analysis, and;
WHEREAS, there are currently no bicycle or pedestrian facilities along
Hackamore Road in the project area and there is an opportunity to connect to existing
facilities along CR 116 and CSAH 101, and;
WHEREAS, an analysis of crash data showed that 11 crashes occurred in the
project area in the three-year period from 2017-2019, including five crashes at the
intersection with CR 116 and five crashes at the intersection with CSAH 101, and;
WHEREAS, the project would address deteriorating infrastructure and drainage
issues, accommodate future traffic volumes as the area develops, improve intersection
operations and safety, and improve pedestrian safety and mobility, and;
WHEREAS, improvements to Hackamore Road to address safety and operational
needs as the corridor develops, including the proposed trail, are identified in the City of
Medina’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and;
WHEREAS, Hackamore Road is a Route of Regional Significance, linking CR
116, CSAH 101, and CR 47, and;
WHEREAS, the project would benefit the cities of Medina, Corcoran, Maple
Grove, and Plymouth, as well as Hennepin County by improving the intersections of
Hackamore Road with CR 116 and CSAH 101, and;
WHEREAS, the Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP), administered by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), has made available $75,000,000 in
total funds, with a maximum award amount of $1,250,000, to fund capital construction
costs for projects that meet the program criteria, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Medina and the City of Corcoran share ownership and
maintenance of the roadway corridor, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Medina will cover its share of project costs associated
with the reconstruction project not covered by the grant award or financial contributions
from the City of Corcoran, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Medina agrees to comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Medina has the necessary capabilities to adequately
develop, implement, manage, and maintain this public improvement project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the city of Medina,
as follows:
1. The City Council hereby supports the project, including the roadway
reconstruction, intersection improvements, and trail construction.
2. The City Council hereby supports the City’s submission of a LRIP application
and authorizes WSB & Associates, Inc. to prepare and submit said application.
3. The City Council hereby provides assurance that the City of Medina will pay its
share of the costs associated with the reconstruction project and ensure that all
aspects of the LRIP funding requirements are met.
Dated: February 16, 2021
_________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
___________ and upon a 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.
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.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
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayors and City Councils
City of Corcoran
City of Medina
From: Jim Stremel, PE - Senior Project Manager
Date: June 11, 2020
Re: Hackamore Road Improvement Project – 30% Design
WSB Project No. R-015661-000
Project Scope & Background
The Hackamore Road Improvement Project, extending from Medina Lake Drive to the approach
of Brockton Lane N (CR 101), was initiated jointly by the City of Corcoran and the City of Medina.
The project was not only initiated to address deteriorating and insufficient infrastructure, but to
develop a cohesive plan that both cities can provide to adjacent property owners and developers
to guide transportation needs, right-of-way, and pedestrian mobility in the area.
At the current 30% level of design, two alternates for the roadway, trail, and intersection controls
were developed. The intent of this report is to outline the process and development of the two
design alternatives, necessary intersection controls, stormwater management needs, potential
impacts of the two design alternatives, and to consider the next steps with the project
development.
Information and materials used in the preparation of this report were collected from the City of
Corcoran, City of Medina, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and other impacted agencies. This data
included:
· Existing and historic traffic volume data
· Current crash history
· Proposed and anticipated development plans
· As-built roadway plans
· Survey/topographic data previously obtained or readily available
· Wetland and floodplain locations from available delineations, GIS, or other mapping
· Property Owner and Stakeholder engagement data
· City franchise agreements with private utility companies
· Soil borings and geotechnical report by Haugo Geotechnical Services, June 2019
Existing Conditions
The proposed improvement project extends from Medina Lake Drive to the intersection at
Brockton Lane N (CR 101) and the westerly intersection approach on CR 47 (Hackamore Road).
The existing Hackamore Road is currently a 24-foot wide, bituminous paved rural section; no
pedestrian facilities exist along this section of roadway. The alignment of the roadway is generally
straight with no horizontal curves. The current posted speed is 40 MPH in both directions. Based
on a 40 MPH speed, a vertical curve on the easterly portion of the project (the westerly approach
to CR 101) is deficient and does not provide the required sight distance.
Crash data from the past 3 years (2017-2019) was collected for the Hackamore Road corridor.
The data shows that over the past three years there has been 11 crashes in the corridor. 10 of
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 2
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
the crashes have occurred at the County Road intersections and just one at the internal street
intersections. Table 1 show the crash data by year for each location.
Table 1: Crash Summary by Year
Location
2017 2018 2019 Total
Crashes PI PD PI PD PI PD
Hackamore Road at
Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) 0 2 0 1 1 1 5
Hackamore Road at
Hunter Road 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Hackamore Road at
Brocton Lane (CSAH 101) 1 1 1 1 0 1 5
PD = Property Damage, PI = Personal Injury
Pavements in the study area are aging and experiencing differing severities of stresses including
alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking. Areas of isolated pavement
settlement also exist throughout the project area. The Geotechnical Exploration Report, by Haugo
Geotechnical Services in June 2019, can be provided upon request.
Currently, there is not a storm sewer collection system within Hackamore Road. The existing
roadway is a rural section road with ditches along a majority of the length of the roadway.
Driveway culverts are present at existing driveway approaches to the road. Additionally, there are
4 culverts that convey drainage across the roadway.
There are existing drainage issues that have been identified both by residents and engineering
observation and analysis with 30% design. Specifically, there is a low point in the corridor to the
west of Hackamore Circle. This drainage issue may involve working with adjacent property
owners to determine if property is available for stormwater management. Other areas of concerns
will be reviewed in more detail with 75% design.
There are no existing sanitary sewer systems within Hackamore Road. There is an existing 8”
PVC watermain section located along the south side of Hackamore in the boulevard between
Hunter Drive and Bergamot Drive with a crossing to Corcoran at Bergamot Drive for use as an
emergency interconnection.
Existing traffic volume data for the primary intersections was collected based on traffic counts
conducted the week of March 9, 2020. These counts were used as the existing baseline
conditions for the area. The existing 2020 peak hour and average daily traffic (ADT) traffic counts
for the corridor are shown on the attached figure in Appendix B and used for the traffic
forecasting and operations analysis in this report.
Traffic Forecasting Analysis
In order to analyze the lane configuration and traffic control needs in the corridor, traffic forecasts
were prepared for the twenty-year design (year 2040) condition, representing the full
development of the area. 2040 traffic volumes were determined for the project by projecting the
existing 2020 traffic counts to the 2040 design year. The projections included:
· Background traffic growth of 1% / year.
· Estimating the traffic volume from the current adjacent development that is yet to be
completed.
· Estimating the traffic volumes from proposed future development in the corridor.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 3
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
The trip generation used to estimate the proposed area traffic is based on rates for other similar
land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual, 10th Edition. The projected 2040 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, assuming full
development of the area traffic, are shown on the attached figure in Appendix B.
Traffic Operations Analysis
The traffic operations analysis was completed by evaluating the existing and projected traffic
operations for the Hackamore Road project area, including the intersections of:
· Medina Lake Drive / Future Development Access
· Foxberry Drive
· Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
· Future Development Access
· Hunter Road / Future Development Access
· Bergamot Drive / Steeple Chase Lane
· Proposed Development Access (Church)
· Brockton Lane (CSAH 101)
The intersections in the corridor were evaluated during the AM and PM peak hours using
Synchro/SimTraffic micro simulation software. The results are derived from established
methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The software was used to
evaluate the characteristics of the roadway network including lane geometrics, turning movement
volumes, traffic control, and signal timing.
The results of the operations analysis is shown below in Table 2 for the Existing 2020 Conditions,
2040 without any improvements conditions, and 2040 with proposed improvements condition.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 4
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
Table 2 – Level of Service and Delay Summary
X (X) – Overall LOS or Delay (Worst Movement LOS or Delay)
Control
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
2
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
2
0
4
0
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
2
0
4
0
w
i
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
e
c
/
v
e
h
)
Thru-
Stop
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Me
d
i
n
a
L
a
k
e
D
r
/
Fu
t
u
r
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
(
A
)
1
(
2
)
A
(
A
)
1
(
2
)
A
(
A
)
3
(
9
)
A
(
B
)
3
(
1
1
)
A
(A
)
2
(
7
)
A
(
A
)
3
(
8
)
Thru-
Stop
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Fo
x
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
A
(
A
)
1
(
3
)
A
(
A
)
1
(
4
)
A
(
A
)
1
(
4
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
5
)
A
(
A)
1
(
3
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
4
)
Signal
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Pi
n
t
o
D
r
(C
S
A
H
1
1
6
)
A
(
B
)
6
(
1
3
)
A
(
B
)
9
(
1
7
)
C
(
D
)
2
1
(
3
8
)
C
(
D
)
2
3
(
4
4)
B
(
C
)
1
0
(
2
1
)
B
(
C
)
1
5
(
2
7
)
Thru-
Stop
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
NA
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
(
A
)
3
(
7
)
A
(
A
)
4
(
8
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
6
)
A
(
A)
3
(
6
)
Thru-
Stop
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Hu
n
t
e
r
R
d
/
F
u
t
u
r
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
A
(
A
)
1
(
4
)
A
(
A
)
1
(
4
)
A
(
A
)
4
(
8
)
A
(
A
)
4
(
9
)
A
(
A)
2
(
7
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
8
)
Thru-
Stop
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Be
r
g
a
m
o
t
D
r
/
St
e
e
p
l
e
C
h
a
s
e
L
n
A
(
A
)
1
(
5
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
7
)
A
(
A
)
3
(
9
)
A
(
A
)
4
(
9
)
A
(
A)
2
(
6
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
7
)
Thru-
Stop
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Fu
t
u
r
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
(C
h
u
r
c
h
)
NA
N
A
N
A
N
A
A
(
A
)
3
(
7
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
6
)
A
(
A
)
2
(
5
)
A
(
A)
1
(
4
)
Signal
Ha
c
k
a
m
o
r
e
R
d
a
t
Br
o
c
k
t
o
n
L
n
(C
S
A
H
1
0
1
)
B
(
C
1
1
(
2
2
)
B
(
C
)
1
2
(
2
1
)
C
(
E
)
2
9
(
5
6
)
C
(
D
)
2
5
(
47
)
B
(
C
)
1
7
(
2
8
)
B
(
C
)
1
6
(
2
6
)
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 5
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
Turn Lane Analysis
Based on the Forecasted 2040 traffic conditions a turn lane analysis was completed for the
primary intersections in project area. The analysis was conducted to determine the turn lanes
needed to accommodate the existing and future development on Hackamore Road. Criteria and
guidance reviewed included:
· MnDOT Road Design Manual
· MnDOT Access Management Manual
· MnDOT / LRRB (Local Road Research Board) Research Report 2008-14: Turn Lane
Lengths for Various Speed Road and Evaluation of Determining Criteria
· NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 457: Evaluating
Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study
The full turn lane analysis report can be found in Appendix B and graphically shown in the
project exhibits in Appendix A.
Proposed Improvements
Road Geometric Comparisons:
Based on the traffic forecast and analysis, two geometric concept plans were developed based
on a 40 MPH design speed that included the recommended geometric improvements, preliminary
intersection control design, and right-of-way needs. Figures have been attached to this memo for
reference.
The proposed improvements, for both alternatives, would include roadway reclamation, subbase
reconstruction, intersection improvements, and trail construction on the north side of Hackamore
Road. The roadway would remain a predominately rural section. Curb and gutter is proposed for
locations needing additional drainage direction, where the trail will be at the back of curb to
decrease the overall roadway width, and at the intersections with CR 116 and CR 101. In
general, Option 2 proposes more curb due to the proximity of the trail and to implement other
impact-minimizing measures.
· Option 1: This option is comprised of a continuous center left turn lane, right turn lanes
at designated intersections, and one through lane in each direction. The trail location
tends to deviate further away from the edge of roadway with a wider boulevard.
· Option 2: The second option includes dedicated left and right turn lanes as necessary,
and one through lane in each direction. The trail location is generally close to (with
minimum boulevard) or abutting the edge of the roadway. With this option, any necessary
widening of the roadway near Hackamore Circle to accommodate future development
would be the responsibility of the developer.
Hackamore Road is a designated State Aid roadway. The existing roadway alignment meets all
horizontal curve requirements but does not meet the vertical curve requirements at the east end
of the project on the westerly approach to CR 101 for a 40 MPH posted speed limit. In order to
meet State Aid requirements, the proposed design would lengthen this vertical curve, which
would require significant grading to lower the elevation by approximately 2-3 feet. The options
are included with Figures 1A-F located in Appendix A for comparison.
Trail Improvements:
Currently, there are no pedestrian facilities along Hackamore Road. However, pedestrian facilities
do exist in the northeast quadrant of the Brockton Lane N intersection extending to the north, and
in the southwest quadrant of CR 116 extending to the south.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 6
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
The proposed pedestrian improvements on Hackamore Road extend the full length of the project
corridor from Medina Lake Drive to Brockton Lane N (CR 101) in both options. The proposed
bituminous trail is 8-feet wide with a boulevard of varying width. Where the trail is adjacent to the
roadway or at back of curb, the trail will be 10-feet wide. The use of retaining walls for the
adjacent trail section maybe necessary if constructed, as shown in Option 2, due to the increase
in side-slopes from this correction.
The location of the proposed trail in Option 1 extends further north from Hackamore Road in the
areas were adjacent development is planned and meanders through the adjacent properties. With
this design, the trail could potentially be constructed as part of the site development at a time in
the future. With this in mind, the construction of the pedestrian facilities would be delayed until the
time that development occurs, but the cost of the trail would likely be included as a part of the
overall development improvements.
In Option 2, the trail is located adjacent to the roadway boulevard or at the back of curb
throughout the corridor and would be constructed in conjunction with the roadway project. This
option reduces impacts to adjacent properties and wetlands and would have more immediate
pedestrian accessibility, however the cities would bear the cost of the trail with the project initially.
The trail options shown in the exhibits for are interchangeable and could be constructed with
either roadway option. With either trail option, crossing improvements would be installed at both
CR 116 and CR 101, including push buttons on the signals and crosswalk markings. An
uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is being considered between Hunter Drive and Bergamot Drive.
The final determination of the crossing location will be made during final design in consideration
of the location of the future development accesses to the south of Hackamore Road.
East of the intersection between Hackamore Road and CR 101, trail improvements are shown on
the north and south side of CR 47 (Hackamore Road). These trails are not included in the
proposed improvement costs but are shown in the Figures for reference to indicate potential
future connection points for the proposed trail on Hackamore Road.
Intersection Improvements:
In addition to the improvements on Hackamore Road, turn lane and intersection improvements
are proposed on CR 116 and CR 101. Right turn lanes on CR 116 are proposed on the
northbound and southbound directions to accommodate additional vehicular operations;
additional northbound or southbound turn lanes on CR 101 are not proposed. Signal
improvements at both Hennepin County intersections will be necessary due to the widening of
Hackamore Road and the addition of improved pedestrian crossings.
A second design option was developed at CR 116 which shifts the proposed intersection north to
limit the impact to a significant wetland on the southeast quadrant of the roadway. The shift in
alignment north also limits the impact to a large elevated transformer and provides space to
accommodate the signal control panel at or near the existing location. Figure 3 showing these
intersection alternatives can be found in Appendix A.
Roadway reconstruction is also proposed for the CR 47 approach to Hackamore Road, east of
CR 101, to accommodate the revised traffic pattern and turn lanes. The City of Plymouth is
currently working on a larger CR 47 corridor study as a part of the future turn-back process with
Hennepin County, which include improvements up to CR 101. Further refinement of this approach
will be needed with 75% design to determine the most efficient way to accommodate the
Hackamore Road improvements from the west to the east side of the intersection.
Project Phasing:
With both alignment options, the proposed street reconstruction is split into three phases. Phase
1 extends between CR 101 and the western boundary of the Steeple Chase Development
(Ravinia), Phase 2 from the western boundary of the Steeple Chase Development to the western
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 7
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
boundary of 565 Hackamore Road, and Phase 3 from the western boundary of 565 Hackamore
Road to Medina Lake Drive.
Phase 1 was determined based on factors including condition of the roadway pavements, the
deficient vertical curve near CR 101, and that most development has occurred within this portion
of Hackamore Road. Development within Phase 2 and 3 is either in the early stages or has not
proceeded fully. Therefore, the location of intersections and infrastructure needs are not fully
known. Proposed Phase 1 construction would occur during the 2021 season, and Phase 2 and 3
would follow as early as the 2022 and 2024 construction seasons based on the progress of
adjacent developments.
Street/Pavement Section:
Two 10-ton street sections were proposed within the geotechnical report previously completed by
Haugo Geotechnical Services in 2019. The first recommended section consisted of 6 ½ inches of
bituminous over 18 inches of aggregate base, the second section consisted of 6 inches of
bituminous, 10 inches of aggregate base, and 18 inches of select granular borrow sub-base. Both
meet the granular equivalency requirements for the project.
For cost estimations at 30% design, the second section was used. This is the more costly option
for street section, when compared to the section without a select granular borrow sub-base.
During final design, either a combination of both sections (depending on the prevailing underlying
soil conditions) or the first street section could be used to reduce the overall roadway costs of the
project.
The soil borings also indicated poor underlying soil conditions in numerous areas of the project.
The resulting geotechnical analysis recommended removing these soils and replacing them with
granular materials, which is included with the cost estimates. The full report can be provided upon
request.
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain:
There are no sanitary sewer or watermain improvements proposed as part of this project. The
City of Corcoran is planning a watermain looping connection as a separate project and will plan
for a utility corridor with the Hackamore Project.
Right-of-Way Considerations:
Additional right-of-way will need to be acquired for the widening of Hackamore Road, as well as
the installation of pedestrian facilities on the north side of the roadway. The right-of-way needed
varies between the proposed design options, but in each case the width has been minimized
through the alignment and location of the trail and boulevard widths. The figures in Appendix A
also show the potential permanent right-of-way impacts.
Stormwater Management & Floodplain Impacts:
Storm sewer improvements will likely include a combination of ditch systems, storm piping
systems within the curbed sections, and stormwater treatment areas to capture and retain storm
sewer in accordance with the cities and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
(ECWMC). Impacts to the 100-yr floodplains are not anticipated with this project.
This project will require an ECWMC permit. A pre-application meeting with held with ECWMC and
the Cities of Medina and Corcoran on April 23, 2020, the minutes are included in Appendix D. In
the meeting, stormwater best management practices (BMPs) were discussed. This project will
trigger ECWMC stormwater management rules requiring rate and volume control off of the net
increase of impervious surface. Due to limited right-of-way areas and the project’s phased
approach, the cities discussed flexibility with BMP construction with the watershed. It is the Cities’
preference for adjacent developments to construct BMPs as they occur along the corridor.
ECWMC was open to this idea. Additionally, it was discussed that the BMPs will be sized to
capture and treat the net increase of impervious surface. While some BMPs may capture existing
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 8
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
and new impervious, some new impervious may not be able to be captured and treated prior to
discharge from the site. ECWMC was amenable to this approach. It was discussed that an
agreement may be drafted that would allow for timing flexibility for the cities to construct the
BMPs in such case that development doesn’t occur as expected.
Adjacent development on the north side of Hackamore Road in the City of Corcoran may provide
a significant opportunity for the cities to share stormwater management BMP’s. This would all but
eliminate the need to provide rate control or other large treatment areas in Phase 1 of the project
within the Hackamore public right-of-way. Additionally, there is potential for adjacent
development along the western portion of the corridor in Phase 2 and 3. These developments
could construct their stormwater management systems to accommodate the road drainage.
Rate control will be provided to manage runoff from the site improvements. The corridor has two
main drainage areas. The first area drains to a ditch northwest of the intersection of Hackamore
and CR116 the second area drains to a wetland southeast of the intersection of Hackamore and
CR101. BMPs will be constructed to maintain runoff rates to these discharge points.
Volume control of 1.1” off net new impervious surface will be provided within the constructed
BMPs. Soils onsite are not conducive to infiltration so alternative sequencing practices will be
provided to achieve the required retention volume.
Permits/Approvals
This project as proposed will result in disturbing more than one acre of underlying subgrade
material, and therefore, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will
be required. A permit from ECWMC will also be required for the stormwater management and
erosion control aspects of this project.
A permit from Hennepin County will also be needed for the work within the county right-of-way on
both CR 101 and CR 116. If the cities propose to utilize State Aid funds, plan review and approval
will also be required by MnDOT.
Wetland impacts will occur as a result of the project. The project will require permitting through
the Wetland Conservation Act, US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources,
and ECWMC. Permit applications will be prepared after the 75% design is complete. Mitigation
for wetland impacts will be required at a 2:1 ratio. The Board of Water and Soil Resources’ Local
Road Replacement Program will be reviewed to determine if the project meets the requirements
for replacement. For any impacts that do not meet the requirements, mitigation is recommended
through the purchase of wetland credits as it is more cost-effective than onsite mitigation. In
addition, there is little to no upland available within the existing right-of-way so onsite mitigation
would need to be identified in an adjacent development.
Private Utilities
There are private utilities currently located within the proposed project area. Known utility owners
include:
· CenturyLink [Telephone]
· Comcast [Internet/Television]
· Wright Hennepin Coop [Communications]
· CenterPoint Energy [Gas]
· Xcel Energy [Gas/Electric]
· Arvig [Fiber]
· Mediacom [Fiber]
· Zayo Group [Fiber]
The roadway impacts to private utilities have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, but
relocations will be necessary for utility poles and potentially some underground infrastructure.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 9
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
Known utility owners have been notified of the proposed improvements. Once a final design
alternative is selected, further coordination efforts will be conducted with 75% design.
The utility relocations are primarily needed to meet the State Aid requirement of a minimum 10-
foot clear zone, measured from the edge of the outside through-traffic lane; Hackamore Road is
classified as a “Suburban Undivided” roadway. A significant number of utility poles and sections
of the existing gas main at the edge of the existing roadway do not meet the current clear zone
requirements and will be in direct conflict with the trail, roadway, or proposed clear zone. Between
the two options, Option 2 has somewhat fewer utility impacts due to the narrower footprint of the
roadway and the trail being located at the back of curb in more locations. For both options, utility
poles will likely need to be relocated to the far side of the trail.
Project Cost Estimates & Funding
Opinion of Probable Cost:
Detailed opinions of probable cost for both options can be found in Appendix C of this report.
Each opinion of probable cost incorporates estimated 2021 construction costs and includes a
10% construction contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 25% of the construction cost
and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. The table below provides a
summary of the opinions of probable cost for the options under consideration.
Table 3: Estimated Project Cost Summary
Description Option 1 - Estimated
Project Cost
Option 2 - Estimated
Project Cost
Phase 1
Street Improvements $ 1,710,000.00 $ 1,519,000.00
Trail Improvements $ 221,000.00 $ 227,000.00
Wetland Mitigation $ 26,166.00 $ 11,430.00
Stormwater Management Improvements $ 367,000.00 $ 357,000.00
CR 47 Approach Improvements $ 387,000.00 $ 387,000.00
CR 101 Signal Improvements $ 505,000.00 $ 505,000.00
Sub-Total for Phase 1 $ 3,216,166.00 $ 3,006,430.00
Phase 2 & 3
Street Improvements $ 2,278,000.00 $ 2,012,000.00
Trail Improvements $ 256,000.00 $ 263,000.00
Wetland Mitigation $ 104,316.00 $ 71,394.00
Stormwater Management Improvements $ 481,000.00 $ 453,000.00
CR 116 Signal Improvements $ 505,000.00 $ 505,000.00
CR 116 North Turn Lanes Improvements $ 76,000.00 $ 76,000.00
CR 116 South Turn Lanes Improvements $ 83,000.00 $ 82,000.00
Sub-Total for Phase 2 & 3 $ 3,783,316.00 $ 3,462,394.00
Grand Total for Project $ 6,999,482.00 $ 6,468,824.00
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 10
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
The above costs in Table 3 are estimated costs for roadway, storm sewer, stormwater
improvements, and minor utility impacts for both alternatives. At this time, costs have not been
reduced in consideration of the potential for adjacent development to share in the cost of trail and
stormwater management improvements.
The cost to obtain right-of-way for the proposed improvements were not included with the project
estimates; in most cases it has been assumed that adjacent property owners would provide the
necessary right-of-way with future development. With that said, there are locations along the
corridor where right-of-way may need to be purchased from existing single-family owners to
accommodate trail and stormwater improvements. Further refinement of the right-of-way costs
will be determined at 75% design.
The cost to mitigate disturbed wetland areas were also included where pertinent; it was assumed
mitigation will occur through the purchase of wetland credits and not onsite mitigation. No
contingency or overhead were included with the cost of the wetland credits.
Potential Project Funding:
Funding for the Hackamore Road improvements is proposed to come from a combination of City
of Medina and City of Corcoran funds, State Aid funding, and cost sharing agreements. Special
assessments to benefiting single-family property owners are not being proposed by either city at
this time. Potential cost sharing agreement partners include Hennepin County for the work within
the county road intersections and signals at CR 116 and CR 101. There is also a cost share
opportunity for the portion of CR 47 east of CR 101 with Hennepin County, cities of Plymouth and
Maple Grove.
More in depth funding divisions will be determined during the 75% Design Phase based on cost
sharing agreements and development progression.
Community Engagement & Agency Coordination
Meeting with Adjacent Cities & Hennepin County:
City engineering staff met with the City of Plymouth, City of Maple Grove, and Hennepin County
to discuss proposed improvements along Hackamore Road. The most critical portions of the
project with respect to these agencies are the intersections at CR 116, CR 101, and that portion
of CR 47 east of CR 101. Meeting minutes from these discussions can be found in Appendix D.
Neighborhood Open House:
A Virtual Open House meeting for adjacent property owners was held on May 19, 2020.
Preliminary information was available to property owners regarding the concept plans and
impacts associated with the project. Approximately 20 residents were in attendance, as well as
council members in both cities, city staff from both the City of Medina and the City of Corcoran,
and WSB engineering representatives. The primary feedback given related to the increased traffic
potential, future development in the area, and drainage concerns.
Mapping & Comment Activity:
In order to gather input and engage the public on the Hackamore Road project, Social Pinpoint
was used . The site includes an interactive map to compare the existing conditions, Option 1, and
Option 2, as well as allows users the ability to add comments on the various options. The main
feedback given centered around the additional turn lanes on Hackamore Road, (with residents
both for and against the additional lane) drainage concerns, and the need to keep the green feel
of the corridor. The comments from Social Pinpoint (to date) have been included in Appendix E.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 11
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
Proposed Schedule
The proposed project schedule is as follows:
Complete 30% Level of Geometric Design ................................................................ Late May 2020
1st Set of City Council Meetings (June 11th Corcoran, June 16th Medina) ........................ June 2020
Begin 75% Design (Single Option, All Phases, Upon Authorization) ................ Mid/Late June 2020
Finalize 75% Design ............................................................................................. July/August 2020
2nd Set of City Council Meetings (Authorize Final Design of Phase 1) ......................... August 2020
Complete 100% Final Design (Phase 1) ..................................................................... January 2021
Project Bidding (Phase 1) ........................................................................................... February 2021
Phase 1 Construction Complete ........................................................................................ Fall 2021
Phase 2/3 Design ................................................................................................... As Early As 2022
Phase 2/3 Construction ......................................................................................... As Early As 2023
Summary and Recommendation
The Hackamore Road Improvement Project includes roadway, stormwater, intersection, and
pedestrian improvements from Medina Lake Drive to Brockton Lane N (CR 101). The existing
roadway has been identified for improvements by both the City of Corcoran and the City of
Medina due to the deteriorating pavement and the need to accommodate the additional traffic
volumes due to development in the area. The project was not only initiated to address
deteriorating and insufficient infrastructure, but also to develop a cohesive plan that both cities
can provide to adjacent property owners and developers to guide the transportation needs, right-
of-way, and pedestrian mobility.
Two alternates for the roadway, trail, and intersection controls were developed for this 30%
Roadway Design Memorandum.
Option 1 is a three-lane design, with a center turn lane through the length of the project, as well
as additional right turn lanes where warranted for the developments. This option has the benefit
of a continuous center turn lane for left turns to facilitate the adjacent development traffic.
However, the option has a larger footprint than the existing roadway, as well as a larger impact
than Option 2. Option 1 provides more flexibility in designing around future intersections to
accommodate development where access points may not be known at this time.
Option 2 is a two-lane design, with right and left turn lanes where warranted at both existing and
anticipated intersection locations with future development. This option has the benefit of a
narrower street section in some locations with fewer adjacent impacts. However, the option has a
more complicated footprint with left and right turn lanes only as needed, causing more shifts to
the roadway and trail alignments. Both options will have potential wetland impacts, utility
relocations, and right of way needs, but Option 2 minimizes these to a greater extent.
Trail improvements are proposed on the north side of the roadway in both options. Option 1 has a
meandering alignment extending beyond the right of way in many locations, where Option 2 is
generally a roadside trail adjacent to Hackamore Road separated by a narrower boulevard or
curb in most locations. The trail alignments shown in the exhibits are interchangeable and could
be constructed with either roadway option.
Based on the information provided in this memorandum and staff input from staff in both cities, it
is our recommendation Option 2 be pursued for 75% design. This option is less costly, while
maintaining beneficial corridor improvements to accommodate current and future traffic levels.
Option 2 minimizes cost through decreasing the impervious surface, lowering the stormwater
management needs, minimizing wetland impacts, while improving safety with dedicated turn
lanes and pedestrian facilities in a similar manner as Option 1.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project - 30% Street Design Memorandum
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
June 11, 2020
Page 12
K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\30% Design Memos\Roadway Memo\1. 30% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final.docx
Proceeding with 75% design will provide the opportunity for the cities to refine costs, analyze
funding mechanisms, and complete a cohesive plan guiding the transportation needs, right-of-
way, and pedestrian mobility of this corridor.
List of Figures and Appendices
Appendix A – Concept Plans & Figures
Figure 1A-F – Option 1/Option 2 Comparison
Figure 2 – CR 116 Intersection Design Alternative
Figure 3 – Project Phasing Plan
Appendix B – Traffic Volume Figures and Turn Lane Analysis
Appendix C – Opinion of Project Costs – Detailed Estimates
Appendix D – Coordination Meeting Minutes
Appendix E – Public Engagement Comments from Social Pinpoint Mapping Site
F
O
X
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
ME
D
I
N
A
L
A
K
E
D
R
UG
T
UG
T
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UG
T
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
U
G
T
U
G
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
U
G
E
U
G
E
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHEOHEOHE
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
STA 111+68.19, 0.00'
FOXBERRY DRIVE
STA 103+97.19, 0.00' RT
MEDINA LAKE DRIVE
100+00 105+00 110+00
F
O
X
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
ME
D
I
N
A
L
A
K
E
D
R
UG
T
UG
T
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UG
T
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
U
G
T
U
G
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
U
G
E
U
G
E
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHEOHEOHE
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
STA 111+68.19, 0.00'
FOXBERRY DRIVE
STA 103+97.19, 0.00' RT
MEDINA LAKE DRIVE
100+00 105+00 110+00
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 1
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
WSB PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
FIGURE
DATE:
NO.DATE BY CHK REVISION
015661-000
AS SHOWN
GMD
GMD
JLS
06/02/2020
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
30% DESIGN
CITY OF MEDINA
CITY OF CORCORAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
AND IMPACTS
OPTIONS 1 AND 2 1A
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 2
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
1
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1B
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
1
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1B
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
LEGEND
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
TURF BOULEVARD
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
WETLAND IMPACTS
PRELIMNARY PERMANENT
RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMET NEEDS
WETLAND BOUNDARY
BMP 1
5234 SF
BMP 1
5234 SF
POTENTIAL FOR TRAIL TO BE
INSTALLED BY ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT
SIZED TO TREAT HACKAMORE
ROAD RUNOFF. POTENTIAL TO
SHARE STORMWATER
TREATMENT WITH FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
SIZED TO TREAT HACKAMORE
ROAD RUNOFF. POTENTIAL TO
SHARE STORMWATER
TREATMENT WITH FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
FU
T
U
R
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CT
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
6
UGT UG
T
UGTUGT
UGT UGT
U
G
T
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH
E
OH
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
STA 114+17.16, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 116
STA 121+63.93, 0.00'
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
115+00 120+00 125+00
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
PHASE 3 PHASE 2
FU
T
U
R
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
CT
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
6
UGT UG
T
UGTUGT
UGT UGT
U
G
T
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH
E
OH
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
UG
E
STA 114+17.16, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 116
STA 121+63.93, 0.00'
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
115+00 120+00 125+00
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
PHASE 3 PHASE 2
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 1
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
WSB PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
FIGURE
DATE:
NO.DATE BY CHK REVISION
015661-000
AS SHOWN
GMD
GMD
JLS
06/02/2020
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
30% DESIGN
CITY OF MEDINA
CITY OF CORCORAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
AND IMPACTS
OPTIONS 1 AND 2 1B
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 2
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
1
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1A
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
2
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1C
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
1
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1A
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
2
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1C
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
LEGEND
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
TURF BOULEVARD
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
WETLAND IMPACTS
PRELIMNARY PERMANENT
RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMET NEEDS
WETLAND BOUNDARY
CTY ROAD 116
SEE SHEET 1F
CTY ROAD 116
SEE FIGURE 1F
BMP 2
8268 SF
BMP 2
8268 SF
BMP 3N
3852 SF
BMP 3S
9868 SF
BMP 3N
3852 SF
BMP 3S
9868 SF
SIZED TO TREAT HACKAMORE
ROAD RUNOFF. POTENTIAL TO
SHARE STORMWATER
TREATMENT WITH FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
SIZED TO TREAT HACKAMORE
ROAD RUNOFF. POTENTIAL TO
SHARE STORMWATER
TREATMENT WITH FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL FOR TRAIL TO BE
INSTALLED BY ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL TO MOVE TRAIL
CLOSER TO ROADWAY TO
MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
C
I
R
HU
N
T
E
R
R
D
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
STA 136+86.43, 0.00'
HUNTER ROAD
STA 130+65.02, 0.00'
HACKAMORE CIRCLE
130+00 135+00 140+00
PHASE 2 PHASE 1
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
C
I
R
HU
N
T
E
R
R
D
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
STA 136+86.43, 0.00'
HUNTER ROAD
STA 130+65.02, 0.00'
HACKAMORE CIRCLE
130+00 135+00 140+00
PHASE 2 PHASE 1
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 1
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
WSB PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
FIGURE
DATE:
NO.DATE BY CHK REVISION
015661-000
AS SHOWN
GMD
GMD
JLS
06/02/2020
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
30% DESIGN
CITY OF MEDINA
CITY OF CORCORAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
AND IMPACTS
OPTIONS 1 AND 2 1C
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 2
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
2
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1B
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
4
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1D
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
2
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1B
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
4
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1D
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
LEGEND
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
TURF BOULEVARD
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
WETLAND IMPACTS
PRELIMNARY PERMANENT
RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMET NEEDS
WETLAND BOUNDARY
ST
E
E
P
L
E
C
H
A
S
E
R
D
BE
R
G
A
M
O
T
D
R
UGT UGT UGT
UG
T
UG
T
UGTUGTUGT
UG
T
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
STA 145+25.03, 0.00'
STEEPLE CHASE ROAD
STA 145+12.85, 0.00'
BERGAMOT DRIVE
145+00 150+00 155+00
REMOVE AND REPLA
EXISTING CULVE
ST
E
E
P
L
E
C
H
A
S
E
R
D
BE
R
G
A
M
O
T
D
R
UGT UGT UGT
UG
T
UG
T
UGTUGTUGT
UG
T
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
STA 145+25.03, 0.00'
STEEPLE CHASE ROAD
STA 145+12.85, 0.00'
BERGAMOT DRIVE
145+00 150+00 155+00
REMOVE AND REPLA
EXISTING CULVE
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 1
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
WSB PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
FIGURE
DATE:
NO.DATE BY CHK REVISION
015661-000
AS SHOWN
GMD
GMD
JLS
06/02/2020
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
30% DESIGN
CITY OF MEDINA
CITY OF CORCORAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
AND IMPACTS
OPTIONS 1 AND 2 1D
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 2
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
4
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1C
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
5
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1E
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
4
3
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1C
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
5
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1E
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
LEGEND
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
TURF BOULEVARD
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
WETLAND IMPACTS
PRELIMNARY PERMANENT
RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMET NEEDS
WETLAND BOUNDARY
BMP 4
11699 SF
BMP 4
11699 SF
SIZED TO TREAT HACKAMORE
ROAD RUNOFF. POTENTIAL TO
SHARE STORMWATER
TREATMENT WITH FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
SIZED TO TREAT HACKAMORE
ROAD RUNOFF. POTENTIAL TO
SHARE STORMWATER
TREATMENT WITH FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT
CT
Y
R
O
A
D
1
0
1
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
OH
T
OH
T
OH
T
OH
T
OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
STA 167+14.88, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 101
160+00 165+00
170+00
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
CT
Y
R
O
A
D
1
0
1
UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT
F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
OH
T
OH
T
OH
T
OH
T
OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
STA 167+14.88, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 101
160+00 165+00
170+00
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CULVERT
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 1
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
WSB PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
FIGURE
DATE:
NO.DATE BY CHK REVISION
015661-000
AS SHOWN
GMD
GMD
JLS
06/02/2020
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
30% DESIGN
CITY OF MEDINA
CITY OF CORCORAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
AND IMPACTS
OPTIONS 1 AND 2 1E
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
HACKAMORE ROAD - OPTION 2
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
5
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1D
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
:
1
5
8
+
0
0
SE
E
F
I
G
U
R
E
1D
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
LEGEND
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
TURF BOULEVARD
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
WETLAND IMPACTS
PRELIMNARY PERMANENT
RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMET NEEDS
WETLAND BOUNDARY
VERTICAL CURVE ADJUSTMENT
VERTICAL CURVE ADJUSTMENT
POTENTIAL RETAINING WALL
WOULD REDUCE IMPACTS SHOWN
POTENTIAL FOR TRAIL TO BE
INSTALLED BY ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT
TRAIL BY OTHERS - SHOWN
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
TRAIL BY OTHERS - SHOWN
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
CTY ROAD 116
UG
T
UGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGT UGT UGT UGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
F/
O
F/
O
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
UGE UGE UGE
UG
E
UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE
STA 114+17.16, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 116 11
5
+
0
0
CTY ROAD 116
UG
T
UGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UGT
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UG
T
UGTUGTUGTUGTUGT UGT UGT UGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O
F/
O
F/
O
F/
O
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
OH
E
UGE UGE UGE
UG
E
UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE
STA 114+17.16, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 116 11
5
+
0
0
CTY ROAD 116 - OPTION 1
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
WSB PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
FIGURE
DATE:
NO.DATE BY CHK REVISION
015661-000
AS SHOWN
GMD
GMD
JLS
06/02/2020
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
30% DESIGN
CITY OF MEDINA
CITY OF CORCORAN
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
AND IMPACTS
OPTIONS 1 AND 2 1F
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
50 100
N
CTY ROAD 116 - OPTION 2
HACKAMORE ROAD
SEE FIGURE 1B
HACKAMORE ROAD
SEE FIGURE 1A
HACKAMORE ROAD
SEE FIGURE 1B
HACKAMORE ROAD
SEE FIGURE 1A
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
LEGEND
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
TURF BOULEVARD
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
WETLAND IMPACTS
PRELIMNARY PERMANENT
RIGHT OF WAY/EASEMET NEEDS
WETLAND BOUNDARY
F
O
X
B
E
R
R
Y
D
R
FU
T
U
R
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
ME
D
I
N
A
L
A
K
E
D
R
CT
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
6
STA 111+68.19, 0.00'
FOXBERRY DRIVE
STA 103+97.19, 0.00' RT
MEDINA LAKE DRIVE
STA 114+17.16, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 116
STA 121+63.93, 0.00'
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
C
I
R
HU
N
T
E
R
R
D
STE
E
P
L
E
C
H
A
S
E
R
D
FU
T
U
R
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
BE
R
G
A
M
O
T
D
R
STA 145+25.03, 0.00'
STEEPLE CHASE ROAD
STA 145+12.85, 0.00'
BERGAMOT DRIVE
STA 136+86.43, 0.00'
HUNTER ROAD
STA 130+65.02, 0.00'
HACKAMORE CIRCLESTA 121+63.93, 0.00'
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
STE
E
P
L
E
C
H
A
S
E
R
D
CT
Y
R
O
A
D
1
0
1
BE
R
G
A
M
O
T
D
R
STA 167+14.88, 0.00'
COUNTY ROAD 101
STA 145+25.03, 0.00'
STEEPLE CHASE ROAD
STA 145+12.85, 0.00'
BERGAMOT DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET
0
H:
100 200
N
WSB PROJECT NO.:
SCALE:
PLAN BY:
DESIGN BY:
CHECK BY:
FIGURE
DATE:
NO.DATE BY CHK REVISION
015661-000
AS SHOWN
GMD
GMD
JLS
06/02/2020
HACKAMORE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
30% DESIGN
CITY OF MEDINA
CITY OF CORCORAN
PHASING 3
PHASE 1
LEGEND
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
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
|
55
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
Memorandum
To: Project Management Team:
Brad Martens, City Administrator, City of Corcoran
Kevin Mattson, PE, Public Works Director, City of Corcoran
Scott Johnson, City Administrator, City of Medina
Dusty Finke, AICP, Planning Director, City of Medina
Steve Scherer, Public Works Director, City of Medina
Jim Stremel, PE, Project Manager, WSB
Lydia Ener, PE, Project Engineer, WSB
Heather Nelson, PE, Water Resources Engineer, WSB
From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE, Traffic Engineer, WSB
Date: April 17, 2020
Re: Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Turn Lane Location Analysis
Cities of Medina and Corcoran
WSB Project No. 015661-000
In conjunction with the detailed design of the Hackamore Road improvement project (Medina
Lake Drive to Brockton Lane) the location of turn lanes at intersections and access locations were
analyzed. As part of the analysis, criteria were reviewed to guide the identification of locations
where it may be appropriate to construct dedicated right or left turn lanes. There are several
sources that can be used to determine the need for turn lanes. Recommendations from guidance
documents were reviewed including:
• MnDOT Road Design Manual
• MnDOT Access Management Manual
• MnDOT/LRRB (Local Road Research Board) Research Report 2008-14: Turn Lane
Lengths for Various Speed Road and Evaluation of Determining Criteria
• NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 457: Evaluating
Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study
The analysis provides for implementing turn lanes in a way to improve the safety of uncontrolled
intersection movements by removing the turning traffic from the through lane. Turn lanes should
be added to any design where suitable space, right-of-way, and finances are available for
construction.
The primary input for analyzing the need for turn lanes is the traffic conditions at each specific
intersection within the corridor. For the Hackamore Road Improvement project future year traffic
conditions were determined by projecting the existing 2020 traffic counts to the year 2040 by
including a background traffic growth of 1%/year and estimating the traffic volume from the
current adjacent development that is yet to be completed and adjacent future development. The
projected 2040 AM and PM peak hour volumes, assuming full development of the area traffic, are
shown on the attached figure.
The following sections provides a summary of each guidance document indicated above as well
as the recommended locations for turn lanes at each intersection in the Hackamore Road
corridor.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Turn Lane Location Analysis
Project Management Team
April 17, 2020
Page 2
MnDOT Road Design Manual:
The MnDOT Road Design Manual includes the following guidance for the location of turn lanes:
• In urban areas, right- and left-turn lanes should be considered whenever construction is
economically feasible.
• In urban areas, for preservation projects, left-turn lanes should be provided if feasible at
nonpublic access locations generating high traffic volumes, at locations where crash
locations confirm the existence of a hazard, and at locations determined by the District
Traffic Engineer in consideration of crashes, capacity and traffic volumes.
• In urban areas, for preservation projects, right-turn lanes should, if feasible, be provided
at all public road intersections and other locations as determined by the District Traffic
Engineer in consideration of crashes, capacity and traffic volumes.
• Continuous left-turn lanes for urban areas have no rigid design criteria – but generally
should be considered in the following: when shifting from rural to suburban or urban
areas; generally used with lower speeds; volumes should not be excessive for the facility
type; center turn lane should generally be 14 feet wide; if the roadway is being
reconstructed, realign opposite side driveway entrances if feasible; and pavement
markings should be developed by the District Traffic Engineer.
• Continuous right-turn lanes may be considered in locations where driveways are closely
spaced. They should not be longer than a quarter of a mile and speeds must be greater
than 30 miles per hour, with heavier volumes and high turning demands.
• In rural areas, right-turn lanes should be considered when the projected ADT is over
1,500, the design speed is 45 miles per hour or higher at all public road access points; if
industrial, commercial or substantial trip generating land use is to be served; or if the
access serves more than 10 residential units.
• In rural areas, left-turn lanes should be provided when the access is to a public road, an
industrial tract or a commercial center.
• In rural areas, if a left-turn lane is not warranted or if the construction of a left-turn lane is
not practical (due to right of way, environmental constraints, etc.), a bypass should be
considered. Preferably only at “T” intersections. Four-legged intersections should only
consider a bypass lane after all other solutions have been found impractical and the
cross-street volume is low.
As can be seen from the information above, the MnDOT Road Design Manual is conservative
with regard to the construction of dedicated right or left-turn lane construction. Guidance from this
document suggests that turn lanes should be constructed at all public streets in rural areas, along
with selected locations for commercial, residential and industrial uses. In urban areas they are to
be considered whenever feasible.
MnDOT Access Management Manual:
The MnDOT Access Management Manual is less conservative than the MnDOT Road Design
Manual and identifies higher thresholds on the need for dedicated turn lanes. Highlights from the
MnDOT Access Management Manual are listed below:
Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Turn Lane Location Analysis
Project Management Team
April 17, 2020
Page 3
• Right-turn treatment versus a right-turn lane: the guidelines indicate that a right-turn lane
may not be needed if a right-turn treatment can be provided (widening of the shoulder,
removing conflicting striping and shoulder rumble strips, prohibiting on street parking in
urban areas and/or adding pavement thickness to the shoulder) instead.
• Turn lanes should be provided at public street connections and driveways in accordance
with the MnDOT Road Design Manual – Section 5-3.
• Turn lane warrants for undivided highways:
o Warrant 1: Passing lane/climbing lane – at high volume driveways (>100 trips
per day) and all public street connections located on highway segments where
passing lanes or climbing lanes are present in the approach direction.
o Warrant 2: Limited sight distance/terrain – at all driveways and public street
connections with inadequate stopping sight distance or located on short vertical
curves or steep grades.
o Warrant 3: Railroad crossings – at high volume driveways (>100 trips per day)
and all public street connections where a railroad is parallel to the highway and
where the potential exists for vehicles delayed by a train to back up into the
through lanes of the highway, creating both safety and operational problems.
o Warrant 4: Signalized intersections – at all signalized public street connections
and driveways.
o Warrant 5: Heavy-vehicle traffic – at all driveways and public street
connections high-speed highways (posted speed ≥45 mph) where the heavy-
vehicle turning volume is 15 or more vehicles per hour for at least eight hours a
day for four months or more per year.
o Warrant 6: School entrances – at public and private school driveways on high-
speed highways used by school traffic.
o Warrant 7: Crash history – at high-volume driveways (>100 trips per day) and
all public street connections that demonstrate a history of crashes of the type
suitable to correction by a turn lane or turn-lane treatment, or where adequate
trial of other remedies has failed to reduce crash frequency.
o Warrant 8: Corridor crash experience – on highway corridors that demonstrate
a history of similar crash types suitable to correction by providing corridor -wide
consistency in turn-lane use.
o Warrant 9: Vehicular volumes – at high-volume driveways (>100 trips per day)
and all public street connections on high-speed highways (posted speeds ≥45
mph) that satisfy the following:
Highway AADT one year after opening; posted speed of 45 mph or higher
2-Lane Highway (AADT) Cross Street/Driveway (ADT) Turn Lane Requirement
> 1,500 >100 Right-turn lane warranted
1,500 – 2,999 >1,500 Left-turn lane warranted
3,000 – 3,999 >1,200 Left-turn lane warranted
4,000 to 4,999 >1,000 Left-turn lane warranted
5,000 to 6,499 >800 Left-turn lane warranted
>6,500 101 – 400 Left-turn lane or bypass lane
>6,500 >400 Left-turn lane warranted
Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Turn Lane Location Analysis
Project Management Team
April 17, 2020
Page 4
Under the warrant analysis outlined in the MnDOT Access Management Manual, right-turn lanes
would be recommended at all public street locations as well as private driveways that generate
100 trips or more per day. This is generally consistent with the MnDOT Road Design Manual.
However, the construction of left-turn lanes outlined by the MnDOT Access Management Manual
would require most side street cross volumes to be significantly higher than they currently are on
Hackamore Road in order to construct a dedicated turn lane. This varies from the MnDOT Road
Design Manual, which would indicate that in rural areas, left-turn lanes should be provided at all
public streets – regardless of volumes – if they are feasible to construct.
MnDOT/LRRB (Local Road Research Board) Research Report 2008-14: Turn Lane Lengths
for Various Speed Road and Evaluation of Determining Criteria:
Although this document discusses more on turn lane lengths , it does outline several criteria for
turn lane warrants, including those found in the MnDOT Road Design Manual and the MnDOT
Traffic Engineering Manual. The MnDOT Road Design Manual criteria was discussed above. The
criteria outlined in the MnDOT 1999 Traffic Engineering Manual provides figures based on the
roadway speed limit and design hour volumes.
The figures below represent the criteria outlined for left turn lanes with major roadway speed of
40-45mph and for right turn lanes.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Turn Lane Location Analysis
Project Management Team
April 17, 2020
Page 5
Applying this criterion would represent the most conservative approach for implementation of left
turn lanes. All left turn movements on Hackamore Road except the following would meet the
volume requirements for a dedicated lane:
• Maple Lake Drive Westbound
• Foxberry Drive Westbound
• Future Street east of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) Eastbound
• Hackamore Circle Eastbound
• Hunter Road/Future Street Eastbound
• Steeple Chase Lane/Bergamot Drive Westbound
For right turn lanes this criterion is not as conservative as that outline in the MnDOT Road Design
Manual or MnDOT Access Management Manual which would recommend a right turn lane at
every intersection that has more than 100 trips per day. Applying the above criterion right turn
movements would meet the volume requirements for a dedicated lane except at the following
Hackamore Road approaches:
• Maple Lake Drive Eastbound
• Foxberry Drive Eastbound
• Hackamore Circle Westbound
• Hunter Road/Future Street Eastbound
• Steeple Chase Lane/Bergamot Drive Eastbound
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 457: Evaluating
Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study:
Guidance from the NCHRP Report indicate the following should be used to determine when to
provide a left turn lane:
• A left turn lane should be considered at any median crossover on divided, high speed
road.
• A left turn lane should be provided on the unstopped approach of a high-speed rural
highway when it intersection with other arterial or collectors.
• A left turn lane is recommended on the unstopped approach of any intersection when the
combination of the intersection volumes intersect above or to the right of the appropriate
trend line shown in the associated figures based on speed on the major roadway.
The NCHRP Report also develop guidance for the need for right turn lanes based on operating
and collision costs compared to the cost of constructing a right turn lane.
The figures below show the turn lane criteria for two-lane roadways with a 40mph speed limit.
Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Turn Lane Location Analysis
Project Management Team
April 17, 2020
Page 6
The above guidance represents the most stringent criteria for installation of right and left turn
lanes. By applying this criteria, the only turn lanes that would be warranted on Hackamore Road
is the eastbound left turn and westbound right turn at the Brockton Lane (CSAH 101) intersection.
The other movements that meet the warrants are:
• Pinto (CSAH 116) Northbound Right
• Pinto (CSAH 116) Northbound Left
• Pinto (CSAH 116) Southbound Left
• Brockton Lane (CSAH 101) Northbound Right
• Brockton Lane (CSAH 101) Northbound Left
• Brockton Lane (CSAH 101) Southbound Left
Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Turn Lane Location Analysis
Project Management Team
April 17, 2020
Page 7
Turn Lane Recommendations
Based on review of each intersection in the Hackamore Road corridor using the above criteria
and engineering judgement the following locations for left and right turn lanes should be
considered. While these turn lane locations provides for a more conservative recommendation, it
will provide for the safest and most efficient roadway system.
Maple Lake Drive/Future Street (to north):
Eastbound Left turn lane to the Future Street
Westbound Right turn lane to the Future Street
Foxberry Drive:
No Turn Lanes
Pinto Drive (CSAH 116):
Eastbound Left turn lane to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
Eastbound Right turn lane to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
Westbound Left turn lane to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
Westbound Right turn lane to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
Northbound Left turn lane to Hackamore Road
Northbound Right turn lane to Hackamore Road
Southbound Left turn lane to Hackamore Road
Southbound Right turn lane to Hackamore Road
Future Street (to north):
Westbound Right turn lane to Future Street
Hackamore Circle:
No Turn Lanes
Hunter Road/Future Street (to south):
Westbound Left turn lane to Hunter Road
Westbound Right turn lane to Hunter Road
Steeple Chase Lane/Bergamot Drive:
Eastbound Left turn lane to Steeple Chase Lane
Westbound Right turn lane to Steeple Chase Lane
Church Entrance (to north):
Eastbound Left turn lane to Church Entrance
Westbound Right turn lane to Church Entrance
Brockton Lane (CSAH 101):
Eastbound Left turn lane to Brockton Lane (CSAH 101)
Eastbound Right turn lane to Brockton Lane (CSAH 101)
Westbound Left turn lane to Brockton Lane (CSAH 101)
Westbound Right turn lane to Brockton Lane (CSAH 101)
Northbound Left turn lane to Hackamore Road
Northbound Right turn lane to Hackamore Road
Southbound Left turn lane to Hackamore Road
Southbound Right turn lane to Hackamore Road
2040 Traffic Volumes
LEGEND
XX(XX) AM(PM) Forecast Peak Hour Movements
248 Assumed Build Lane Configuration
Traffic Signal
Traffic Sign
Hackamore Rd
Br
o
c
k
o
n
L
n
Pi
n
t
o
D
r
Hu
n
t
e
r
R
d
Be
r
g
a
m
o
t
D
r
Me
d
i
n
a
L
a
k
e
D
r
Fo
x
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
W
e
s
t
18
(
1
0
)
0
(
0
)
24
(
1
5
)
21 (56)
p s
8 (25)
j
(19) 6
2 (11)
x 0
m
(1
)
0
(0
)
0
(9
)
1
0
(66) 94
(0) 0
d 31 (95)
1 (6)
-
m
(0
)
0
(4
)
1
8
(93) 125
(0) 0
Fu
t
u
r
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
E
a
s
t
5
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
27
(
9
)
p
(16) 8
10 (22)k
s
f
12 (30)
x 0
144 (213)
(9) 4
m
(1
0
)
1
2
(0
)
0
(1
6
)
2
6
(188) 219
0
(
1
)
43
(
3
3
)
25 (37)k
0 (4)
13
(
4
)
x 4
104 (227)
p s
f
(15) 11
m
(1
)
1
(4
)
0
(1
)
4
(205) 245
(2) 2
74 (155)
i r w s 170 (145)
4
1
(
2
9
)
5
7
0
(
2
5
7
)
1
2
2
(
4
1
)
k 26 (82)
f
x 2 4 8(44) 32
v
(8
1
)
2
9
(5
9
8
)
1
6
3
(1
8
3
)
1
9
8
(154) 212
,(36) 61
Hackamore Road Traffic Analysis
Medina and Corcoran, MN
(42) 77
,(25) 45
(29) 23
v
(3
5
)
2
(6
9
1
)
1
1
7
(1
3
7
)
6
8
89 (59)
x 2 7
18 (47)
29 (70)
f
k
68
(
4
1
)
w s
11
(
2
0
)
59
2
(
1
6
1
)
u
(13) 10
v(207) 203
x
16 (26)
2
2
(
1
6
)
k
f 151 (202)1
0
(
8
)
[
2020 Traffic Volumes
Hackamore Road Traffic Analysis
Medina and Corcoran, MN
LEGEND
XX(XX) AM(PM) Existing Peak Hour Movements
248 Lane Configuration
Traffic Signal
Traffic Sign
Hackamore Rd
Br
o
c
k
o
n
L
n
Pi
n
t
o
D
r
Hu
n
t
e
r
R
d
Be
r
g
a
m
o
t
D
r
Me
d
i
n
a
L
a
k
e
D
r
Fo
x
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
m
(1
)
0
(7
)
8
(54) 77
(0) 0
2 (9)
-
d 17 (46)
m
(0
)
0
(3
)
1
5
(64) 83
(0) 0
1 (5)
-
d 19 (57)
(7) 3
c(112) 143
j 85 (127)
8 (18)
4
(
4
)
22
(
7
)
[
(6) 5
/
(1
)
1
(3
)
0
(1
)
3
(133) 147
(2) 2
4
57 (125)
p
d
14 (18)k
0 (3)
0
(
1
)
23
(
1
7
)
4
(
0
)
(27) 13
/
(4
2
)
1
2
(4
9
0
)
1
3
4
(1
5
0
)
1
6
2
(106) 143
(14) 28
2 4 8
44 (93)
i r w 139 (119)
2
7
(
1
0
)
4
6
7
(
2
1
1
)
1
0
0
(
3
4
)
21 (67)
;
8
(
1
4
)
48
5
(
1
3
2
)
u
48
(
2
1
)
w
10 (24)
14 (51)
;
(22) 17
?
(2
5
)
1
(5
6
6
)
9
6
(9
4
)
4
4
58 (37)
2 7
(25) 48
(19) 34
2040 Traffic Volumes
LEGEND
XX(XX) AM(PM) Forecast Peak Hour Movements
248 Assumed Build Lane Configuration
Traffic Signal
Traffic Sign
Hackamore Rd
Br
o
c
k
o
n
L
n
Pi
n
t
o
D
r
Hu
n
t
e
r
R
d
Be
r
g
a
m
o
t
D
r
Me
d
i
n
a
L
a
k
e
D
r
Fo
x
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
W
e
s
t
18
(
1
0
)
0
(
0
)
24
(
1
5
)
21 (56)
p s
8 (25)
j
(19) 6
2 (11)
x 0
m
(1
)
0
(0
)
0
(9
)
1
0
(66) 94
(0) 0
d 31 (95)
1 (6)
-
m
(0
)
0
(4
)
1
8
(93) 125
(0) 0
Fu
t
u
r
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
E
a
s
t
5
(
5
)
0
(
0
)
27
(
9
)
p
(16) 8
10 (22)k
s
f
12 (30)
x 0
144 (213)
(9) 4
m
(1
0
)
1
2
(0
)
0
(1
6
)
2
6
(188) 219
0
(
1
)
43
(
3
3
)
25 (37)k
0 (4)
13
(
4
)
x 4
104 (227)
p s
f
(15) 11
m
(1
)
1
(4
)
0
(1
)
4
(205) 245
(2) 2
74 (155)
i r w s 170 (145)
4
1
(
2
9
)
5
7
0
(
2
5
7
)
1
2
2
(
4
1
)
k 26 (82)
f
x 2 4 8(44) 32
v
(8
1
)
2
9
(5
9
8
)
1
6
3
(1
8
3
)
1
9
8
(154) 212
,(36) 61
Hackamore Road Traffic Analysis
Medina and Corcoran, MN
(42) 77
,(25) 45
(29) 23
v
(3
5
)
2
(6
9
1
)
1
1
7
(1
3
7
)
6
8
89 (59)
x 2 7
18 (47)
29 (70)
f
k
68
(
4
1
)
w s
11
(
2
0
)
59
2
(
1
6
1
)
u
(13) 10
v(207) 203
x
16 (26)
2
2
(
1
6
)
k
f 151 (202)1
0
(
8
)
[
WSB Project:Hackamore Drive Option 1 Design By:LME
Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS
City Project No.:
WSB Project No:015661-00 Date:6/3/2020
Item
No.
MnDOT
Specification
No.
Description Unit Estimated Total
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price Estimated Total Cost
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 58,400.00$ 58,400.00$
2 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 20,000.00$ 4,000.00$
3 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 15,000.00$ 3,000.00$
4 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 676.0 3.00$ 2,028.00$
5 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 5.00$ 1,250.00$
6 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 7.00$ 1,750.00$
7 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 150.0 3.00$ 450.00$
8 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 14324 2.50$ 35,810.00$
9 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 4950 8.00$ 39,600.00$
10 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 3504 8.00$ 28,032.00$
11 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 7878 16.00$ 126,048.00$
12 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 8595 24.00$ 206,280.00$
13 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 954 24.00$ 22,896.00$
14 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 954 24.00$ 22,896.00$
15 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 27 300.00$ 8,100.00$
16 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
17 2131.506 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION GAL 1723 3.00$ 5,169.00$
18 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1982 30.00$ 59,460.00$
19 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y 6078.0 3.00$ 18,234.00$
20 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 1310 1.25$ 1,637.50$
21 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 717 5.00$ 3,585.00$
22 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 2125 86.00$ 182,750.00$
23 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 2975 84.00$ 249,900.00$
24 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - 3.0" THICK S Y 263 50.00$ 13,150.00$
25 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 250 15.00$ 3,750.00$
26 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 3 550.00$ 1,650.00$
27 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 622 16.00$ 9,952.00$
28 2531.504 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S Y 250 60.00$ 15,000.00$
29 2545.601 RELOCATE UTILITY L S 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
30 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
31 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
32 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
33 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
34 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 250.00$ 2,500.00$
35 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
36 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
37 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
38 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 321 30.00$ 9,630.00$
39 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
40 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2912 1.25$ 3,640.00$
41 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 106 5.00$ 530.00$
42 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 1249.00 8.00$ 9,992.00$
43 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1.30 4,000.00$ 5,200.00$
44 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 5240 1.00$ 5,240.00$
45 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 50 2.00$ 100.00$
46 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 2620 1.00$ 2,620.00$
46 2582.518 CROSSWALK MSSG PAINT S F 216 3.50$ 756.00$
47 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 72 4.00$ 288.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 1,225,098.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 122,509.85$
SUBTOTAL 1,347,608.35$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 336,902.09$
TOTAL 1,685,000.00$
WETLAND MITIGATION COST 26,166.00$
A. Roadway Costs - Hackamore Phase 1
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
48 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 7,700.00$ 7,700.00$
49 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.1 20,000.00$ 2,000.00$
50 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.1 15,000.00$ 1,500.00$
51 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 1288 8.00$ 10,304.00$
52 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 548 8.00$ 4,384.00$
53 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 470 30.00$ 14,100.00$
54 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 2575 30.00$ 77,250.00$
55 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 400 10.00$ 4,000.00$
56 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 64 50.00$ 3,200.00$
57 2540.618 RETAINING WALL S F 375 75.00$ 28,125.00$
58 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 161 30.00$ 4,830.00$
59 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1456 1.25$ 1,820.00$
60 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 34 5.00$ 170.00$
61 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.4 4,000.00$ 1,600.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 160,983.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 16,098.30$
SUBTOTAL 177,081.30$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 44,270.33$
TOTAL 221,000.00$
62 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 10,500.00$ 10,500.00$
63 2105.601 DEWATERING L S 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
64 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 4)L S 1 88,800.00$ 88,800.00$
65 2130.610 UTILITY CREW HOUR 8 800.00$ 6,400.00$
66 2451.607 PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL C Y 28 16.00$ 448.00$
67 2501.502 18" PIPE APRON EACH 4 300.00$ 1,200.00$
68 2501.502 24" PIPE APRON EACH 4 500.00$ 2,000.00$
69 2501.503 18" PIPE CULVERT L F 60 65.00$ 3,900.00$
70 2501.503 24" PIPE CULVERT L F 72 85.00$ 6,120.00$
71 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 300 60.00$ 18,000.00$
72 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 500 70.00$ 35,000.00$
73 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 144 90.00$ 12,960.00$
74 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 5 750.00$ 3,750.00$
75 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 24 500.00$ 12,000.00$
76 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 60-4020 L F 6 600.00$ 3,600.00$
77 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 6 2,500.00$ 15,000.00$
78 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III C Y 28 100.00$ 2,800.00$
79 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS IV C Y 48 150.00$ 7,200.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 231,678.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (25%) 57,919.50$
SUBTOTAL 289,597.50$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (0%) 72,399.38$
TOTAL 362,000.00$
C. Storm Costs - Hackamore Phase 1
B. Trail Costs - Hackamore Phase 1
80 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 78,700.00$ 78,700.00$
81 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.3 20,000.00$ 6,000.00$
82 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.3 15,000.00$ 4,500.00$
83 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 972.0 3.00$ 2,916.00$
84 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 5.00$ 1,250.00$
85 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 7.00$ 1,750.00$
86 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 150.0 3.00$ 450.00$
87 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 20612 2.50$ 51,530.00$
88 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 7123 8.00$ 56,984.00$
89 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 5042 8.00$ 40,336.00$
90 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 11337 16.00$ 181,392.00$
91 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 12368 24.00$ 296,832.00$
92 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 38 300.00$ 11,400.00$
93 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
94 2131.506 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION GAL 2480 3.00$ 7,440.00$
95 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 2852 30.00$ 85,560.00$
96 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y 8746.0 3.00$ 26,238.00$
97 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 1855 1.25$ 2,318.75$
98 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1031 5.00$ 5,155.00$
99 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 3057 86.00$ 262,902.00$
100 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 4280 84.00$ 359,520.00$
101 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - 3.0" THICK S Y 263 50.00$ 13,150.00$
102 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 250 15.00$ 3,750.00$
103 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 3 550.00$ 1,650.00$
104 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 1206 16.00$ 19,296.00$
105 2531.504 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S Y 250 60.00$ 15,000.00$
106 2545.601 RELOCATE UTILITY L S 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
107 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
108 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
109 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
110 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
111 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 250.00$ 2,500.00$
112 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
113 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
114 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
115 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 454 30.00$ 13,620.00$
116 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
117 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 4123 1.25$ 5,153.75$
118 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 150 5.00$ 750.00$
119 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 1769.00 8.00$ 14,152.00$
120 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1.8 4,000.00$ 7,200.00$
121 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 7420 1.00$ 7,420.00$
122 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 50 2.00$ 100.00$
123 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 3710 1.00$ 3,710.00$
123 2582.518 CROSSWALK MSSG PAINT S F 216 3.50$ 756.00$
124 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 72 4.00$ 288.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 1,651,494.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 165,149.45$
SUBTOTAL 1,816,643.95$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 454,160.99$
TOTAL 2,271,000.00$
WETLAND MITIGATION COST 104,316.00$
125 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 8,900.00$ 8,900.00$
126 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.1 20,000.00$ 2,000.00$
127 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.1 15,000.00$ 1,500.00$
128 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 1853 8.00$ 14,824.00$
129 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 789 8.00$ 6,312.00$
130 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 677 30.00$ 20,310.00$
131 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 3706 30.00$ 111,180.00$
132 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 400 10.00$ 4,000.00$
133 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 64 50.00$ 3,200.00$
134 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 227 30.00$ 6,810.00$
135 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2062 1.25$ 2,577.50$
136 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 47 5.00$ 235.00$
137 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 185,848.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 18,584.85$
SUBTOTAL 204,433.35$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 51,108.34$
TOTAL 256,000.00$
D. Roadway Costs - Hackamore Phase 2 & 3
E. Trail Costs - Hackamore Phase 2 & 3
138 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 5,300.00$ 5,300.00$
139 2105.601 DEWATERING L S 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
140 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 1)L S 1 -$ -$
141 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 2)L S 1 41,200.00$ 41,200.00$
142 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 3N)L S 1 58,500.00$ 58,500.00$
143 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 3S)L S 1 55,900.00$ 55,900.00$
144 2130.610 UTILITY CREW HOUR 8 800.00$ 6,400.00$
145 2451.607 PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL C Y 42 16.00$ 672.00$
146 2501.502 18" PIPE APRON EACH 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$
147 2501.502 24" PIPE APRON EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$
148 2501.503 18" PIPE CULVERT L F 150 65.00$ 9,750.00$
149 2501.503 24" PIPE CULVERT L F 36 85.00$ 3,060.00$
150 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 300 60.00$ 18,000.00$
151 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 500 70.00$ 35,000.00$
152 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 144 90.00$ 12,960.00$
153 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 4 750.00$ 3,000.00$
154 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 24 500.00$ 12,000.00$
155 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 8 2,500.00$ 20,000.00$
156 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III C Y 70 100.00$ 7,000.00$
157 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS IV C Y 24 150.00$ 3,600.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 298,342.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (25%) 74,585.50$
SUBTOTAL 372,927.50$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 93,231.88$
TOTAL 466,000.00$
158 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$
159 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 367,500.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 36,750.00$
SUBTOTAL 404,250.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 101,062.50$
TOTAL 505,000.00$
160 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 2,600.00$ 2,600.00$
161 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 167 150.00$ 25,050.00$
162 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 350.0 3.00$ 1,050.00$
163 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 211 2.50$ 527.50$
164 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 58 12.00$ 696.00$
165 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 78 12.00$ 936.00$
166 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 116 16.00$ 1,856.00$
167 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 127 36.00$ 4,572.00$
168 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 1 600.00$ 600.00$
169 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 55 40.00$ 2,200.00$
170 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 11 5.00$ 55.00$
171 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 19 120.00$ 2,280.00$
172 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 26 118.00$ 3,068.00$
173 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
174 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
175 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 40 35.00$ 1,400.00$
176 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 84 3.50$ 294.00$
177 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 84 2.00$ 168.00$
178 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 9 5.00$ 45.00$
179 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 36.0 12.00$ 432.00$
180 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$
181 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 450 2.00$ 900.00$
182 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 24 4.00$ 96.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 53,425.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 5,342.55$
SUBTOTAL 58,768.05$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 14,692.01$
TOTAL 73,000.00$
G1. Intersection Costs - CR 116 Signal
F. Storm Costs - Hackamore Phase 2 & 3
G2. Intersection Costs - CR 116 North Turn Lanes
183 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 2,800.00$ 2,800.00$
184 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 167 150.00$ 25,050.00$
185 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 350.0 3.00$ 1,050.00$
186 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 265 2.50$ 662.50$
187 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 73 12.00$ 876.00$
188 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 97 12.00$ 1,164.00$
189 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 146 16.00$ 2,336.00$
190 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 159 36.00$ 5,724.00$
191 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 1 600.00$ 600.00$
192 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 68 40.00$ 2,720.00$
193 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 14 5.00$ 70.00$
194 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 24 120.00$ 2,880.00$
195 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 32 118.00$ 3,776.00$
196 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
197 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
198 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 40 35.00$ 1,400.00$
199 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 84 3.50$ 294.00$
200 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 84 2.00$ 168.00$
201 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 9 5.00$ 45.00$
202 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 36.0 12.00$ 432.00$
203 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$
204 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 450 2.00$ 900.00$
205 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 24 4.00$ 96.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 57,643.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 5,764.35$
SUBTOTAL 63,407.85$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 15,851.96$
TOTAL 79,000.00$
206 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$
207 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 367,500.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 36,750.00$
SUBTOTAL 404,250.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 101,062.50$
TOTAL 505,000.00$
208 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$
209 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 3214.0 3.00$ 9,642.00$
210 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 350.0 3.00$ 1,050.00$
211 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 3214 2.50$ 8,035.00$
212 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 884 8.00$ 7,072.00$
213 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1179 8.00$ 9,432.00$
214 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1768 16.00$ 28,288.00$
215 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 1928 24.00$ 46,272.00$
216 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3.0 300.00$ 900.00$
217 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 826 30.00$ 24,780.00$
218 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 640 1.25$ 800.00$
219 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 161 5.00$ 805.00$
220 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 286 86.00$ 24,596.00$
221 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 382 84.00$ 32,088.00$
222 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 200 15.00$ 3,000.00$
223 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$
224 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 72 60.00$ 4,320.00$
225 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 300 70.00$ 21,000.00$
226 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 2 750.00$ 1,500.00$
227 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 12 500.00$ 6,000.00$
228 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 2 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$
229 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 704 16.00$ 11,264.00$
230 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
231 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
232 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
233 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
234 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 250.00$ 2,500.00$
235 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 250 2.50$ 625.00$
236 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 250 2.50$ 625.00$
237 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 100 8.00$ 800.00$
238 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 40 30.00$ 1,200.00$
239 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
240 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 356 1.25$ 445.00$
241 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 9 5.00$ 45.00$
242 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 153.0 8.00$ 1,224.00$
243 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$
244 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 450 1.00$ 450.00$
245 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 24 4.00$ 96.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 280,904.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 28,090.40$
SUBTOTAL 308,994.40$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 77,248.60$
TOTAL 386,000.00$
H1. Intersection Costs - CR 101 Signal
G3. Intersection Costs - CR 116 South Turn Lanes
H2. Intersection Costs - CR 47 Turn Lanes & Approach
WSB Project:Hackamore Drive Option 2 Design By:LME
Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS
City Project No.:
WSB Project No:015661-00 Date:6/3/2020
Item
No.
MnDOT
Specification
No.
Description Unit Estimated Total
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price Estimated Total Cost
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 51,800.00$ 51,800.00$
2 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 20,000.00$ 4,000.00$
3 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 15,000.00$ 3,000.00$
4 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 676.0 3.00$ 2,028.00$
5 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 5.00$ 1,250.00$
6 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 7.00$ 1,750.00$
7 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 150.0 3.00$ 450.00$
8 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 12056 2.50$ 30,140.00$
9 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 4950 8.00$ 39,600.00$
10 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 3504 8.00$ 28,032.00$
11 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 6631 16.00$ 106,096.00$
12 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 7234 24.00$ 173,616.00$
13 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 954 24.00$ 22,896.00$
14 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 954 24.00$ 22,896.00$
15 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 27 300.00$ 8,100.00$
16 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
17 2131.506 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION GAL 1723 3.00$ 5,169.00$
18 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1668 30.00$ 50,040.00$
19 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y 6078.0 3.00$ 18,234.00$
20 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 1310 1.25$ 1,637.50$
21 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 603 5.00$ 3,015.00$
22 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 1788 86.00$ 153,768.00$
23 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 2504 84.00$ 210,336.00$
24 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - 3.0" THICK S Y 263 50.00$ 13,150.00$
25 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 250 15.00$ 3,750.00$
26 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 3 550.00$ 1,650.00$
27 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 922 16.00$ 14,752.00$
28 2531.504 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S Y 250 60.00$ 15,000.00$
29 2545.601 RELOCATE UTILITY L S 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
30 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
31 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
32 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
33 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
34 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 250.00$ 2,500.00$
35 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
36 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
37 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
38 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 321 30.00$ 9,630.00$
39 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
40 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2912 1.25$ 3,640.00$
41 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 106 5.00$ 530.00$
42 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 1249.00 8.00$ 9,992.00$
43 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1.30 4,000.00$ 5,200.00$
44 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 5240 1.00$ 5,240.00$
45 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 50 2.00$ 100.00$
46 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 2620 1.00$ 2,620.00$
46 2582.518 CROSSWALK MSSG PAINT S F 216 3.50$ 756.00$
47 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 72 4.00$ 288.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 1,086,476.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 108,647.65$
SUBTOTAL 1,195,124.15$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 298,781.04$
TOTAL 1,494,000.00$
WETLAND MITIGATION COST 11,430.00$
A. Roadway Costs - Hackamore Phase 1
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
48 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 7,900.00$ 7,900.00$
49 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.1 20,000.00$ 2,000.00$
50 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.1 15,000.00$ 1,500.00$
51 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 1331 8.00$ 10,648.00$
52 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 566 8.00$ 4,528.00$
53 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 486 30.00$ 14,580.00$
54 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 2661 30.00$ 79,830.00$
55 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 400 10.00$ 4,000.00$
56 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 64 50.00$ 3,200.00$
57 2540.618 RETAINING WALL S F 375 75.00$ 28,125.00$
58 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 161 30.00$ 4,830.00$
59 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1456 1.25$ 1,820.00$
60 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 34 5.00$ 170.00$
61 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.4 4,000.00$ 1,600.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 164,731.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 16,473.10$
SUBTOTAL 181,204.10$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 45,301.03$
TOTAL 227,000.00$
62 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 10,500.00$ 10,500.00$
63 2105.601 DEWATERING L S 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
64 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 4)L S 1 88,800.00$ 88,800.00$
65 2130.610 UTILITY CREW HOUR 8 800.00$ 6,400.00$
66 2451.607 PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL C Y 28 16.00$ 448.00$
67 2501.502 18" PIPE APRON EACH 4 300.00$ 1,200.00$
68 2501.502 24" PIPE APRON EACH 4 500.00$ 2,000.00$
69 2501.503 18" PIPE CULVERT L F 60 65.00$ 3,900.00$
70 2501.503 24" PIPE CULVERT L F 72 85.00$ 6,120.00$
71 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 300 60.00$ 18,000.00$
72 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 500 70.00$ 35,000.00$
73 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 144 90.00$ 12,960.00$
74 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 5 750.00$ 3,750.00$
75 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 24 500.00$ 12,000.00$
76 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 60-4020 L F 6 600.00$ 3,600.00$
77 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 6 2,500.00$ 15,000.00$
78 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III C Y 28 100.00$ 2,800.00$
79 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS IV C Y 48 150.00$ 7,200.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 231,678.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (25%) 57,919.50$
SUBTOTAL 289,597.50$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (0%) 72,399.38$
TOTAL 362,000.00$
C. Storm Costs - Hackamore Phase 1
B. Trail Costs - Hackamore Phase 1
80 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 69,500.00$ 69,500.00$
81 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.3 20,000.00$ 6,000.00$
82 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.3 15,000.00$ 4,500.00$
83 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 972.0 3.00$ 2,916.00$
84 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 5.00$ 1,250.00$
85 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT S Y 250.0 7.00$ 1,750.00$
86 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 150.0 3.00$ 450.00$
87 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 17349 2.50$ 43,372.50$
88 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 7123 8.00$ 56,984.00$
89 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 5042 8.00$ 40,336.00$
90 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 9542 16.00$ 152,672.00$
91 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 10409 24.00$ 249,816.00$
92 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 38 300.00$ 11,400.00$
93 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
94 2131.506 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION GAL 2480 3.00$ 7,440.00$
95 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 2400 30.00$ 72,000.00$
96 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y 8746.0 3.00$ 26,238.00$
97 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 1855 1.25$ 2,318.75$
98 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 868 5.00$ 4,340.00$
99 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 2573 86.00$ 221,278.00$
100 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 3603 84.00$ 302,652.00$
101 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - 3.0" THICK S Y 263 50.00$ 13,150.00$
102 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 250 15.00$ 3,750.00$
103 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 3 550.00$ 1,650.00$
104 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 1972 16.00$ 31,552.00$
105 2531.504 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S Y 250 60.00$ 15,000.00$
106 2545.601 RELOCATE UTILITY L S 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
107 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
108 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
109 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
110 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
111 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 250.00$ 2,500.00$
112 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
113 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 2000 2.50$ 5,000.00$
114 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
115 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 454 30.00$ 13,620.00$
116 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
117 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 4123 1.25$ 5,153.75$
118 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 150 5.00$ 750.00$
119 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 1769.00 8.00$ 14,152.00$
120 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1.8 4,000.00$ 7,200.00$
121 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 7420 1.00$ 7,420.00$
122 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 50 2.00$ 100.00$
123 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 3710 1.00$ 3,710.00$
123 2582.518 CROSSWALK MSSG PAINT S F 216 3.50$ 756.00$
124 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 72 4.00$ 288.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 1,457,790.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 145,779.00$
SUBTOTAL 1,603,569.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 400,892.25$
TOTAL 2,004,000.00$
WETLAND MITIGATION COST 71,394.00$
125 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 9,200.00$ 9,200.00$
126 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.1 20,000.00$ 2,000.00$
127 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.1 15,000.00$ 1,500.00$
128 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 1915 8.00$ 15,320.00$
129 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 815 8.00$ 6,520.00$
130 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 699 30.00$ 20,970.00$
131 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 3830 30.00$ 114,900.00$
132 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 400 10.00$ 4,000.00$
133 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 64 50.00$ 3,200.00$
134 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 227 30.00$ 6,810.00$
135 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2062 1.25$ 2,577.50$
136 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 47 5.00$ 235.00$
137 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 191,232.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 19,123.25$
SUBTOTAL 210,355.75$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 52,588.94$
TOTAL 263,000.00$
E. Trail Costs - Hackamore Phase 2 & 3
D. Roadway Costs - Hackamore Phase 2 & 3
138 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 13,100.00$ 13,100.00$
139 2105.601 DEWATERING L S 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
140 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 1)L S 1 -$ -$
141 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 2)L S 1 41,200.00$ 41,200.00$
142 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 3N)L S 1 58,500.00$ 58,500.00$
143 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION (BMP 3S)L S 1 55,900.00$ 55,900.00$
144 2130.610 UTILITY CREW HOUR 8 800.00$ 6,400.00$
145 2451.607 PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL C Y 42 16.00$ 672.00$
146 2501.502 18" PIPE APRON EACH 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$
147 2501.502 24" PIPE APRON EACH 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$
148 2501.503 18" PIPE CULVERT L F 150 65.00$ 9,750.00$
149 2501.503 24" PIPE CULVERT L F 36 85.00$ 3,060.00$
150 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 300 60.00$ 18,000.00$
151 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 500 70.00$ 35,000.00$
152 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 144 90.00$ 12,960.00$
153 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 4 750.00$ 3,000.00$
154 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 24 500.00$ 12,000.00$
155 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 8 2,500.00$ 20,000.00$
156 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III C Y 70 100.00$ 7,000.00$
157 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS IV C Y 24 150.00$ 3,600.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 306,142.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (25%) 76,535.50$
SUBTOTAL 382,677.50$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 95,669.38$
TOTAL 478,000.00$
158 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$
159 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 367,500.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 36,750.00$
SUBTOTAL 404,250.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 101,062.50$
TOTAL 505,000.00$
160 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 2,600.00$ 2,600.00$
161 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 167 150.00$ 25,050.00$
162 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 350.0 3.00$ 1,050.00$
163 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 211 2.50$ 527.50$
164 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 58 12.00$ 696.00$
165 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 78 12.00$ 936.00$
166 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 116 16.00$ 1,856.00$
167 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 127 36.00$ 4,572.00$
168 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 1 300.00$ 300.00$
169 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 55 40.00$ 2,200.00$
170 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 11 5.00$ 55.00$
171 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 19 120.00$ 2,280.00$
172 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 26 118.00$ 3,068.00$
173 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
174 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
175 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 40 35.00$ 1,400.00$
176 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 84 3.50$ 294.00$
177 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 84 2.00$ 168.00$
178 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 9 5.00$ 45.00$
179 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 36.0 12.00$ 432.00$
180 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$
181 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 450 2.00$ 900.00$
182 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 24 4.00$ 96.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 53,125.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 5,312.55$
SUBTOTAL 58,438.05$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 14,609.51$
TOTAL 73,000.00$
G2. Intersection Costs - CR 116 North Turn Lanes
F. Storm Costs - Hackamore Phase 2 & 3
G1. Intersection Costs - CR 116 Signal
183 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 2,800.00$ 2,800.00$
184 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 167 150.00$ 25,050.00$
185 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 350 3.00$ 1,050.00$
186 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 265 2.50$ 662.50$
187 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 73 12.00$ 876.00$
188 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 97 12.00$ 1,164.00$
189 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 146 16.00$ 2,336.00$
190 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 159 36.00$ 5,724.00$
191 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 1 300.00$ 300.00$
192 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 68 40.00$ 2,720.00$
193 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 14 5.00$ 70.00$
194 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 24 120.00$ 2,880.00$
195 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 32 118.00$ 3,776.00$
196 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
197 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
198 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 40 35.00$ 1,400.00$
199 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 84 3.50$ 294.00$
200 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 84 2.00$ 168.00$
201 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 9 5.00$ 45.00$
202 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 36.0 12.00$ 432.00$
203 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$
204 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 450 2.00$ 900.00$
205 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 24 4.00$ 96.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 57,343.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 5,734.35$
SUBTOTAL 63,077.85$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 15,769.46$
TOTAL 79,000.00$
206 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$
207 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 367,500.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 36,750.00$
SUBTOTAL 404,250.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 101,062.50$
TOTAL 505,000.00$
208 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$
209 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 3214 3.00$ 9,642.00$
210 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) L F 350 3.00$ 1,050.00$
211 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 3214 2.50$ 8,035.00$
212 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 884 8.00$ 7,072.00$
213 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1179 8.00$ 9,432.00$
214 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1768 16.00$ 28,288.00$
215 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 1928 24.00$ 46,272.00$
216 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3.0 300.00$ 900.00$
217 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 826 30.00$ 24,780.00$
218 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 640 1.25$ 800.00$
219 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 161 5.00$ 805.00$
220 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 286 86.00$ 24,596.00$
221 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 382 84.00$ 32,088.00$
222 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 200 15.00$ 3,000.00$
223 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$
224 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 72 60.00$ 4,320.00$
225 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 300 70.00$ 21,000.00$
226 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 2 750.00$ 1,500.00$
227 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 12 500.00$ 6,000.00$
228 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 2 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$
229 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 704 16.00$ 11,264.00$
230 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
231 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
232 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
233 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
234 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 10 250.00$ 2,500.00$
235 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 250 2.50$ 625.00$
236 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 250 2.50$ 625.00$
237 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 100 8.00$ 800.00$
238 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 40 30.00$ 1,200.00$
239 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
240 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 356 1.25$ 445.00$
241 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 9 5.00$ 45.00$
242 2575.604 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 153.0 8.00$ 1,224.00$
243 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 0.1 4,000.00$ 400.00$
244 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 450 1.00$ 450.00$
245 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 24 4.00$ 96.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 280,904.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 28,090.40$
SUBTOTAL 308,994.40$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%) 77,248.60$
TOTAL 386,000.00$
H2. Intersection Costs - CR 47 Turn Lanes & Approach
H1. Intersection Costs - CR 101 Signal
G3. Intersection Costs - CR 116 South Turn Lanes
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: ECWMC Pre-Application Meeting (Virtual) - Minutes
Project: Hackamore Road Improvement Project
Date: April 23, 2020
Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 015661-000
Attendees: See Below
1. Introductions
City of Medina: Dusty Finke, Steve Scherer
City of Corcoran: Kevin Mattson
WSB: Heather Nelson, Jim Stremel
Elm Creek: Jim Kujawa, Joe Waln
2. Project Location
a. Hackamore Road west of CR116 and just past CR101
3. Scope
a. Joint project between City of Medina and City of Corcoran
b. Current Scope is for 30% & 75% Design for roadway, trail, intersections,
stormwater management
c. Project is proposed to be constructed in phases, discuss permitting in
phases.
· The easterly portion is proposed for construction in 2021, the
westerly phases will be driven in large part by development occurring
in subsequent years, possibly within 5 years.
· Full design for the project up to 75%, eastern phase will be 100%
design.
· Greater than 5 years’ timeline may have an issue with the commission
getting permitted.
· Work the BMPs with adjacent developments.
· Potential for BMPs within adjacent developments could be approved
as a condition to the watershed permit.
4. Anticipated ECWMC Permitting Needs
a. Potential Culvert replacements
· DNR and ECWMC both require permit for extension or replacement
City of Medina and City of Corcoran - Hackamore Road Improvement Project
ECWMC Pre-Application Meeting – 4/23/2020 – Meeting Minutes
Page 2
· Watershed would require that the conveyance for the 2, 10, and 100-
year events are the same if the culverts are replaced.
b. New Impervious – Approximately 5 Acres
· Road widening to include turn lanes
· Trail Construction, there is no exception for a linear trail installation
with turf boulevard.
c. BMP locations
· Provide rate control and water quality volume
· Discussion on BMP locations with phased project approach.
· BMP mass balance, individual drainage areas be treated if possible.
· For a linear project, the watershed would look at this project with a
“mass balance” concept for the whole corridor.
· The watershed suggested protecting the Manage 1 wetland at the SE
quad of CR116, possibly with the use of curb/CB’s to direct runoff to
the north.
d. Wetland Delineation has been prepared for the right of way areas
e. No FEMA floodplain impacts are anticipated
5. Schedule
a. Anticipate submittal of the permit application to ECWMC by July 2020
b. Construction start 2021 for Phase 1 (from about Steeplechase to the east)
6. Questions, Clarifications, Other
7. Adjourn
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: Large Agency Group Coordination Meeting - Minutes
Project: Hackamore Road Improvement Project
Date: April 27, 2020
Proj. No.: 015661-000
Attendees: See below
1. Introductions
City of Medina: Dusty Finke, Steve Scherer
City of Corcoran: Kevin Mattson, Brad Martens
City of Plymouth: Michael Thompson, Chris LaBounty
City of Maple Grove: John Hagen
Hennepin County: Jason Gottfried, Jonathan Krieg
WSB: Chuck Rickart, Lydia Ener, Jim Stremel
2. Scope & Project Location
a. Joint project between City of Corcoran and City of Medina
b. Hackamore Rd from Medina Lk Dr (west extents) to CR 101 (east extents) in
including the approach to CR 101 from CR 47
c. Current engineering scope is 30% & 75% Design for roadway, trail, intersections,
stormwater management.
d. Project is proposed to be constructed in phases, with the easterly half (Phase 1)
scheduled for 2021 construction.
3. Geometric Design (30%)
a. Two geometric options being reviewed for 30%
· Three lane option
· Two lane option with dedicated turn lanes
· No significant difference between CR 101 and CR 116 intersections with
either option
· 40 MPH design speed
b. Traffic counts and analysis (turn lanes, intersection design)
c. Trail alignment review, proposed on north side
d. Initial stormwater management considerations, looking for coordination with
adjacent developments on Corcoran side (Eaglebrook Church, Lennar, Gonyea)
4. Intersection at CR 101/CR 47
a. Hackamore geometric review
b. CR 47 Corridor study/status
· City of Plymouth has received final draft comments from Hennepin Co.
· Timing of proposed improvements, study was scoping document,
City of Corcoran/Medina - Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Large Agency Group Coordination - Minutes
April 27, 2020
Page 2
· Pedestrian improvements and connection to destinations a priority for the
public, speed reduction is also a priority, most of corridor is a two-lane
version with dedicated turn lanes
· Development at SE quadrant (Weston Ridge development) is being
considered.
· City of Plymouth has grant funding for trail to the southeast (funds only for
101 and not for CR 47), the trail located along CR 101 south of the
intersection.
· Hackamore matching proposed layout in draft plan
· Interim basis design, transition/matching existing section on CR 47
· Right of way impacts, trail close to ROW on Maple Grove side
b. Eaglebrook Church concept plan/access discussion at the NW quadrant of CR
101
c. Signal relocation/adjustments
d. Cost share considerations
· City of Medina asked about signal cost participation for relocations, County
will need to weigh in on that with others from their design group.
e. County comments: overhead power lines would be in the way of the signal
luminaires (now a standard with the County). If overhead power cannot be put
underground, then other lighting alternatives may be necessary.
f. City of Plymouth has had extensive discussions with property owners and they
would like the pedestrian access built with the CR 47 turnback.
5. Intersection at CR 116
a. Hackamore geometric review, NB/SB right turn lanes
b. Adjacent development in the NW and NE quadrants
· Timing of proposed developments
· Access to Hackamore
b. Right of way impacts
c. Signal relocation/adjustments
d. Cost share considerations
· SB right turn lane, development responsible (Wessel) for cost sharing
· NB right turn lane not necessarily specific development driven improvement
6. Stakeholder Engagement
a. Large Group Meetings with County, cities of Plymouth/Maple Grove
b. Project meetings every two weeks (City of Medina/Plymouth)
c. MyLink site for project
d. Community engagement activities
7. Next Steps
a. Further design of both options, Corcoran/Medina select preferred option
b. Design concurrence with County/cities at CR 116/101
c. 75% design of preferred option, determine project costs/funding
d. Provide County with formal request for cost sharing at either the June or July
2020 meeting. Could take up to 6 months for agreement to be finalized.
City of Corcoran/Medina - Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Large Agency Group Coordination - Minutes
April 27, 2020
Page 3
8. Schedule
30 % Design Services
Kick-Off Meeting with Cities ................................................................................ March 12, 2020
Field Work (Traffic Counts, Remaining Topographic Survey) .................................. March 2020
1st Large Stakeholder Meeting (Plymouth, County, Both Cities) ......................... Late April 2020
Complete 30% Level of Geometric Design ........................................................ Early May 2020
Utility Company Notifications/Meeting (if needed)....................................................... May 2020
Evaluate Initial Right of Way Needs ............................................................................ May 2020
Community Engagement Event ............................................................................ Mid May 2020
Draft 30% Memoranda to Cities (Review and Comment) .................................... Mid May 2020
1st Set of City Council Meetings (30% Design Review/Input) ............................ Early June 2020
Final 30% Memoranda to Cities ..................................................................... by Mid-June 2020
75 % Design Services
Begin 75% Level of Design ........................................................................................ June 2020
2nd Large Stakeholder Meeting (Plymouth, County, Both Cities) ...... Late June/Early July 2020
Evaluate Final Right of Way Needs .............................................................................. July 2020
Draft of 75% Memoranda to Cities (Review and Comment) ................................... August 2020
2nd Set of City Council Meetings (75% Design Review/Input) ........ Late July/Early August 2020
Provide Final 75% Memoranda to Cities ........................................................ Early August 2020
Complete 75% Level of Design/Plans .................................................................... August 2020
9. Questions, Clarifications, Other
a. Action items (WSB):
· Summary request to Jason and CC John Krieg so they can begin the
discussion internally (Complete).
· Schedule a follow-up meeting during 75% design
· Formal request to County for cost sharing at June or July board meeting
10. Adjourn
City of Corcoran & City of Medina
Hackamore Road Reconstruction Project - 30% Design
Public Engagement Activity - Map Comparison/Comments on Social Pinpoint
Comments to date: June 3, 2020
Created on Type of Comment Map Option Comment Up Votes Down Votes First Name
2020-06-03 10:51:35 +1000 Something I Like Option 1 There is access from 101 which should be the primary entrance to the development.0 0 Maureen
2020-06-03 10:48:07 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 1
Absolutely agree. These developments shouldn't be destroying our small town feel. They have access to their developments from
116 and 101.0 0 Maureen
2020-06-03 10:45:13 +1000 Make a Comment Option 1
Dusty..Less wetland impact on the north side? There is virtually nothing on the south side east of Hackamore Circle. Except Wild
Meadows. Does that have anything to do with this rational?0 0 Maureen
2020-06-02 07:51:53 +1000 Something I Like Option 1 Walking path for safety is nice 0 0 Jimmy
2020-06-02 07:50:58 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 1
This is a small unused road that many families use today to run, walk, and bike. You should consider adding lanes on pinto into the
neighborhood rather than increasing traffic on Hackamore. There should also be green space on both sides of the road or at least the
south where there is already a current nice housing community. Create buffers on both sides of the road please 2 0 Jimmy
2020-06-02 00:31:37 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 1 There isn't any need for a turn lane into Hackamore Cir --only four families live here, and some are retirees with no children.1 0 John
2020-05-30 06:49:32 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 1 I agree, no turn lanes needed!0 0
2020-05-28 02:48:31 +1000 Make a Comment Option 1
Some of the initial rationale for the trail on the north side:
1) There is likely going to be a higher population along the north side of Hackamore, providing the opportunity for the greater amount
of people to access the trail w/o crossing Hackamore.
2) The trail may be able to be incorporated into adjacent developments in Corcoran, potentially making it easier to have more space
from the street.
3) It is anticipated there may be less wetland impacts on the north side.
- Dusty Finke, Medina 0 0
2020-05-28 02:43:03 +1000 Make a Comment Option 1
Thank you for your comments! The primary difference between the two options is that Option 1 provides a continuous left turn lane
to each street and driveway. Option 2 provides left-turn lanes only for the more traveled roadways. As a result, Option 1 is generally
wider. - Dusty Finke, City of Medina 0 0
2020-05-27 03:56:21 +1000 Make a Comment Option 1
Agreed. It seems most of the traffic would be coming/going toward the south on both Pinto and Brockton. Putting the trail on the
south side of Hackamore would prevent more road crossings and be much safer.0 0
2020-05-27 03:51:54 +1000 Something I Like Option 1 This will be important to have dedicated turn lanes for such a large development as The Reserve 1 1
2020-05-25 03:47:48 +1000 Make a Comment Option 1
It's a little difficult to see enough from these options but it appears to me that the majority of the construction in both is taking place
on the Corcoran side. Why is that? There's plenty of space on the other side (Medina) for trails and green space.
In addition, I'm assuming you are planning to move all the mailboxes that are on Hackamore to the houses with all these changes.1 1 Maureen
2020-05-20 12:09:52 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 1
Hackamore Road does not need to be turned into a through street handling a lot of traffic. There are other options for getting to 101
and 116. Corcoran is allowing and encouraging the loss of the charm of the area in its entirety!4 0 Maureen
2020-05-20 07:42:20 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 1 No turning lanes here 1 0 Fred
2020-05-19 23:59:47 +1000 Ideas and Suggestions Option 1
Due to future development , safety and low cost of small addition I think the project should be extended to a new intersection at
62nd and Snyder Road. This will eliminate a nothing road project in the near future.2 0 Dennis
2020-06-03 10:55:22 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 2 Getting the impression that our opinions don't matter because we are Corcoran....0 0 Maureen
2020-06-02 07:54:06 +1000 Ideas and Suggestions Option 2 Preference is option #2, but would still like to seen green space on the south side of hackamore west of 116 0 0 Jimmy
2020-06-02 07:04:50 +1000 Something I Like Option 2
I'm glad to see a trail on both options. This is really needed for safety for walking/running/biking. Hoping that it will eventually be able
to connect out to the NW Greenway!0 0
2020-06-02 00:39:37 +1000 Something I Dislike Option 2
While we like option 2 better, we still have issues, specifically how much of our land will be taken (do you REALLY need this much or
ANY green space?) but mostly our issue is water, water, water. Drain flow in our ditch is terrible right now, with much standing water
for days and days after a rain. You MUST solve the water flow problem first. How do you intend to handle that with the
improvements? We want someone to come out and talk to us BEFORE any decisions are made.1 0 John
2020-05-27 07:08:15 +1000 Make a Comment Option 2
I would like to work with the city for proper water drainage. Water comes from the east and goes in the drain in the middle of my
front yard. Water then goes to the wetland to the south, or to the north through the culvert under Hackamore. I have attached a
picture of frequent yearly floods in my front yard.
Lots of speeding vehicles. Would be great if we could figure out a way to control the speeders. Getting mail everyday is a dangerous
activity.1 0 Ryan
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February 16, 2021
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: February 11, 2021
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – February 16, 2021 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Krinke Accessory Structure CUP – 2905 Willowood Farm Road – Lothar and Mona
Krinke have requested a conditional use permit for construction of a 12,600 square foot
indoor riding arena addition to an existing barn. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing at the January 12 meeting and recommended approval. The Council reviewed at the
February 2 meeting and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. Staff intends to
present the resolution at the February 16 meeting.
B) Townhome PUD Concept Plan – 1432 County Road 29 – Medina Townhome
Development LLC has requested review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Plan for development of 24 townhomes east of Baker Park Road, north of Highway 12. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing at the February 9 Planning Commission
meeting. Staff intends to present the concept at the February 16 meeting.
C) Pioneer Trail Preserve – 2325 Pioneer Tr. – James and Melissa Korin have requested a 3-
lot subdivision of a 40-acre parcel. Preliminary review is underway, and a public hearing
will be scheduled when complete, potentially at the March 9 meeting.
D) M/I Homes Comprehensive Plan Amendment – 1400 Hamel Road – M/I Home has
requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use from Business to
Medium Density Residential and submitted a concept plan review for a potential
development of 78 townhomes. The applicant has not completed the application, and a
public hearing will be scheduled when complete, potentially at the March 9 meeting.
E) Holy Name Lake Estates Final Plat – north of County Road 24, northwest of Holy Name
Lake - JD Dossier Holdings LLC has requested final plat approval for a six-lot rural
subdivision on 90 acres. The City granted preliminary approval of the subdivision on
December 1, 2020. Preliminary review is underway, and the City Council will review when
complete, potentially at the March 2 meeting.
F) Meadowview Commons 2nd Addition Final Plat – south of Meander Rd, west of Jubert Tr –
US Home Corporation (Lennar) has requested final plat approval for development of the
remaining 83 townhome lots in the project. The initial 42 townhome lots were approved in
November 2020. Preliminary review is underway, and the City Council will review when
complete, potentially at the March 2 or March 16 meeting.
G) Reserve of Medina 3rd Addn Final plat – south of Hackamore Road, east of CR116 –
Pulte Homes has requested final plat approval for the final 31 lots in the Reserve of Medina.
Preliminary review is underway, and the City Council will review when complete,
potentially at the March 16 or April 6 meeting.
H) Piper Lot Combination – 1745 Hunter Drive – Cynthia and Addison Piper have requested a
combination of two adjacent parcels into a single lot. The City Council approved at the
February 2 meeting. Staff will assist the property owner with recording documents.
I) Weston Woods Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of
Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Preliminary Plat
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February 16, 2021
City Council Meeting
and PUD General Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 42 single-family, and 33
townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The City Council adopted documents of
approval at the January 5 meeting. Staff is coordinating permitting for construction of
Chippewa Road and will await final plat application.
J) Schwarz Accessory Dwelling Unit – 1425 County Road 24 – Chaid and Jessica Schwarz
have requested a conditional use permit to convert an existing home to an accessory
dwelling unit to allow construction of a new home on their property. The CUP would also
permit three accessory structures on the site. The applicant is considering withdrawing the
application because they do not believe they will proceed with the renovation for the ADU
at this time.
K) 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. The
application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials.
L) Ditter Subdivision, Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – These
projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application.
M) Johnson ADU CUP, 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.
N) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is
working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded.
Other Projects
A) Stormwater Management Ordinance – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the stormwater management ordinance at the January 12 and February 9 meetings. The
Commission recommended adoption of an ordinance and staff intends to present to Council
at the March 2 meeting.
B) Arrowhead Drive – staff has met with OSI and MnDOT related to design of improvements
at Arrowhead Drive and Highway 55.
C) Diamond Lake Regional Trail – staff attended a meeting hosted by Three Rivers with
owners of property on which the preferred route is located. Three Rivers will present the
route alternatives, feedback from public engagement, and preferred route to the Park
Commission and City Council on February 16. Public comment will be accepted at the
February 16 meeting before discussing potential next steps.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: February 12, 2021
RE: Department Updates
We are in the final week of accepting police applications. The deadline is February 12, 2021. At this
point we have a limited number of applicants but are hopeful that there will be more coming in at the
deadline. This is similar to what other chiefs in the west metro have been experiencing. The
candidate pool has shrunk over the past few years with fewer individuals wanting to become police
officers. I am confident that we will find a quality candidate.
The past two weeks officers have been busy with calls for service. Climate conditions have been
difficult to work in, but the officers have been doing a good job. This winter has been a tough winter
for squad and deer accidents. This past week we had our third one of the year. We have been
luckier than the deer as there has been minimal damage to our squads. With the number of deer and
the number of miles driven by the officers it is amazing that we do not have more.
This past week I have been chosen by the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association to
represent small cities on the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC).
CJCC meets every other month at the Hennepin County Government Center and works on things
such as service integration and the promotion of public safety and trust. Those that belong to the
CJCC are Community Corrections and Rehabilitation, Hennepin County Attorney, Hennepin County
Commissioners, Hennepin County Sheriff, Hennepin County Chief Public Defender, Minneapolis
Mayor Frey, Minneapolis Chief Arradondo, Minneapolis City Attorney, Minneapolis City Council
Member, Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Juvenile Court Presiding Judge, Criminal
Court Presiding Judge, Judicial District Administrator, Suburban Prosecutors Association,
University of Minnesota Police Chief Clark, Suburban Mayor (to be appointed), Maple Grove Chief
Werner, Maple Plain Mayor Maas-Kusske and Director of CJCC Jill Hermanutz. As you can see,
this is a pretty distinguished list of people and I am honored to be chosen to represent and give a
voice for the smaller agencies in Hennepin County. Attached is a link if you are interested in
learning more about CJCC. https://www.hennepin.us/cjcc/members
MEMORANDUM
Patrol:
Patrol updates 01/28/2021 through 02/11/2021
The following are updates of Patrol Officers between January 28, 2021 and February 11, 2021
officers issued 35 citations for various traffic offenses, 68 warnings, responded to 5 property damage
accidents, 2 vehicle vs. deer accidents, 2 injury accidents, 7 suspicious activity calls, 11 assists to
other agencies, 11 welfare checks, and 5 miscellaneous motorist assists.
On 01/29/2021 officers were dispatched to Target on a reported assault. It was reported that a
customer had struck another customer inside the store. Upon arrival officers located the victim with
Target employees who said he had commented to a female about not wearing a mask correctly inside
the store. The female’s husband took offense to the comment and an altercation took place where
the husband struck the victim in the face. The victim sustained a cut lip from the assault, was seen
by paramedics but refused transport. The case was forwarded to the Medina Prosecuting Attorney
for charging.
On 01/30/2021 officer responded to assist Corcoran PD with a reported stolen vehicle from the
Maple Hill trailer park. A known person was reported to have stolen an SUV from an acquaintance.
A Corcoran officer located the vehicle not too far from where it was reported stolen. The male
occupant refused to comply with police. Mace and a Taser were deployed before the suspect was
finally taken into custody. No force was used by the Medina officer.
On 01/30/2021 a resident reported a possible domestic in the area of 4600 block of Medina Lake
Drive. The resident reported their Ring door camera had captured a “scream” about ten minutes
prior to calling 911. They then reported hearing a second, closer “scream” a short time later. The
reporting party then advised it was possibly kids playing in the area and just requested a drive
through the neighborhood.
On 02/01/2021 officer responded to take a theft report at Highway 55 Rental. It was reported a
female had rented two “throne” chairs and failed to return them. After taking the report it was
determined that the person who rented the chairs possibly used a false name, provided false phone
numbers, and possibly used a stolen credit card number to pay for the rental. The suspect has not
been identified.
On 02/01/2021 an officer driving along County Road 19 struck a deer with the squad car near Baker
Park. The squad car sustained minimal damage to the front bumper as the push bumper took the
brunt of the impact. This is the second deer this squad has struck this year.
On 02/03/2021 officers were dispatched to an unwanted person pounding at the front door of a
residence in the 600 block of Lilium Trail. The male had left before officers arrived on scene. As an
officer was taking the report a neighbor walked up and said he was the one who had been knocking
on the door. He reported a food delivery driver had delivered food to his front door, but he had not
made any order. He was trying to see if any of his neighbors had ordered food.
On 02/04/2021 officers responded to assist Corcoran PD on an injury accident involving
snowmobiles in the 20000 block of County Road 50. Corcoran officers were tied up on a domestic
call initially at the time the accident was reported. Medina officers were first on scene and found
that two separate snowmobiles had crashed in a field in the area. Officers located a male victim
critically injured in one of the crashes. Loretto Fire Department assisted with transporting the male
out of the field to an awaiting ambulance. The victim was then transferred to a helicopter to be
flown to the hospital.
On 02/05/2021 officers were dispatched to a reported appliance fire in the 2900 block of County
Road 24. Upon arrival the officer learned that a boiler had caught fire and the homeowner had used
an extinguisher on the boiler prior to calling 911. Long Lake Fire Department responded and
assisted with making sure the fire was out and ventilating the home that had sustained smoke
damage.
On 02/07/2021 officer was dispatched to a reported garage fire in the 3100 block of Birch Avenue.
It was determined that the homeowner had placed a bucket of ashes from the fireplace next to a wall
in the garage which caused the wall to catch fire. Loretto Fire was able to quickly extinguish the fire
and keep it from spreading. A vehicle in the garage sustained some damage from the fire.
On 02/08/2021 officer was dispatched to Polaris Industries on a report of fire alarm sounding. Upon
arrival the officer was able to see smoke inside the building while looking through the windows.
Hamel Fire Department responded and was able to enter the building and found a mechanical lift
being used for construction had been left running and the motor was smoking. The unit was
unplugged, and the fire department assisted with clearing the building of smoke.
On 02/10/2021 officer was dispatched to a reported dumpster fire at a construction site in the 4600
block of Spruce Way. A neighbor had reported the dumpster had started on fire earlier in the day.
The neighbor had reported it to the construction crew who shoveled snow into the dumpster and
believed they had put the fire out. The dumpster had apparently re-ignited. Maple Plain Fire
responded and made sure the fire was completely out.
Investigations:
Investigating a hit and run accident that occurred near the intersection of HWY 55 and Sioux Drive.
I obtained the video from the MNDOT cameras and located the suspect vehicle. A picture of the
suspect’s vehicle was placed on the departments Facebook page. Investigation is on-going.
Received a report from Hennepin County Child Protection in reference to an address in Medina. I
am familiar with the address and the family has been receiving support from the county. No further
action was taken by our office.
Located the suspect and vehicle responsible for a previously reported theft at a gas station. I met
with the suspect and gas station manager. The suspect paid for the gasoline in full and the business
declined to press any charges.
There are currently (10) cases assigned to investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: February 11, 2021, 2021
MEETING: February 16, 2021
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• The streets are in good shape thanks to a cold weather ice melting product applied to
some of our salt. For years municipalities have been using magnesium to treat roadways.
Ice-B-Gone is a melting product with an additional added bi-product to enable salt to
work in extreme cold conditions, we transition to it when temperatures reach 10 degrees
or below.
• The streets continue to shift due to frost heave which means road conditions will become
rough over the next two months. This is typical for February; some years are worse than
others.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Considering the recent security breach at a water treatment plant in Florida we examined
our processes to assure everything is being done to protect the SCADA operating system
from cyber (or other) attacks. The process of upgrading the system has begun now that
council approved its upgrade at the last meeting.
• Lisa DeMars and I are working on several state, federal, and local reports for water,
sewer, and stormwater. These include the new 2021-2025 MS-4 permit application, 2020
MS-4 annual report, water conservation report, water usage report, risk and resilience
report, wellhead protection, along with annual sewer reporting. All of which will aid
completion of the city of Medina’s annual report due in March for council approval.
PARKS/TRAILS
• We will be discussing phasing of the Hunter Lions Park at the February Park
Commission meeting. Our intent is to phase in a plan for public works to complete as
much physical work as is possible and eliminate most of the project management,
bidding, contracting, and documentation.
• Public works is removing the trees we cut in Harriet’s Woods in the Lennar
Development. The trail is frozen enough so our large equipment will not cause damage.
We are researching available grants to aid in funding our reforestation program, the rest
will come from the environmental fund.
MISCELLANEOUS
• The application deadline for the public works position closes on Friday 2/12/20. To date
we have only received three applicants. We are hoping for a last-minute rush.
ORDER CHECKS FEBRUARY 2, 2021 – FEBRUARY 16, 2021
051254 VOID .............................................................................................. $0.00 PRINTING ISSUE
051255 STREICHER'S ............................................................................. $78.97
051256 ALL INDUSTRIAL INC ............................................................... $410.00
051257 ASPEN MILLS INC ...................................................................... $27.43
051258 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $1,241.75
051259 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $34,030.39
051260 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC ....................................................... $21.07
051261 BURNET TITLE ........................................................................... $56.35
051262 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA INC ................................. $20,446.61
051263 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES ................................................... $2,686.44
051264 DUPRE, WILLIAM ........................................................................ $27.76
051265 EARL F ANDERSEN INC .......................................................... $138.84
051266 ECM PUBLISHERS INC .............................................................. $63.32
051267 ESS BROS. & SONS, INC. ........................................................ $220.00
051268 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ...................................................... $93.15
051269 GRAINGER................................................................................ $238.60
051270 GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVI .................................... $178.98
051271 HACH COMPANY ...................................................................... $124.05
051272 HAMEL LUMBER INC .................................................................. $18.54
051273 HAMEL LIONS CLUB ................................................................ $525.00
051274 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH .................................................. $2,289.83
051275 HENN CTY RECORDER/REGISTRAR ........................................ $25.00
051276 MATTHEW E HUNZ .................................................................. $180.00
051277 ISC COMPANIES INC ................................................................... $7.91
051278 KELLY'S WRECKER SERVICE INC .......................................... $102.15
051279 LANO EQUIPMENT INC .............................................................. $13.99
051280 VOID .............................................................................................. $0.00 CHECK AMOUNT INCORRECT
051281 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGMT INC .......................................... $33.50
051282 CITY OF MAPLE PLAIN ............................................................ $829.92
051283 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $33,322.64
051284 MINNESOTA EROS CNTL (MECA) ........................................... $129.00
051285 MOTLEY AUTO SERVICE LLC .............................................. $2,163.50
051286 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $44.29
051287 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR .................................. $1,155.00
051288 NORTH MEMORIAL ............................................................... $1,330.00
051289 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS ................................... $175.50
051290 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $577.99
051291 OIL AIR PRODUCTS LLC ............................................................ $84.12
051292 CITY OF ORONO ................................................................... $1,059.81
051293 PULTE GROUP ........................................................................... $40.38
051294 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC .................................... $630.00
051295 STREICHER'S ........................................................................ $1,583.00
051296 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC ..................................... $1,191.92
051297 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI .......................................................... $2,832.67
051298 TIBKE, JILL ............................................................................... $159.79
051299 TIMESAVER OFFSITE .............................................................. $410.00
051300 TOWMASTER ............................................................................. $80.38
051301 VISU-SEWER INC ................................................................ $35,785.07
051302 WESTERN ELECTRIC .............................................................. $484.00
051303 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR .................................................. $508.00
Total Checks $147,856.61
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS FEBRUARY 2, 2021 – FEBRUARY 16, 2021
005819E PR PERA .............................................................................. $17,268.62
005820E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,212.86
005821E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,790.00
005822E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,864.90
005823E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $21.00
005824E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,715.20
005825E CENTURYLINK.......................................................................... $250.49
005826E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $5,052.99
005827E FP MAILING SOL POSTAGE BY PHON ................................. $1,000.00
005828E FURTHER ................................................................................. $341.33
005829E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $845.79
005830E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC ....................................... $994.74
005831E XCEL ENERGY ...................................................................... $8,587.05
005832E CULLIGAN-METRO ..................................................................... $34.40
005833E FRONTIER .................................................................................. $57.63
Total Electronic Checks $59,037.00
PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT – FEBRUARY 3, 2021
0510800 BILLMAN, JACKSON CARROLL ............................................... $621.41
0510801 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $584.21
0510802 ALBERS, TODD M. .................................................................... $230.87
0510803 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,671.94
0510804 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,540.92
0510805 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,846.28
0510806 CAVANAUGH, JOSEPH ............................................................ $230.87
0510807 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,095.86
0510808 DEMARS, LISA ....................................................................... $1,339.94
0510809 DESLAURIES, DEAN ................................................................ $230.87
0510810 DINGMANN, IVAN W ................................................................. $214.88
0510811 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $1,990.75
0510812 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,156.52
0510813 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,623.23
0510814 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $4,206.96
0510815 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,282.33
0510816 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,135.36
0510817 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,052.02
0510818 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,532.09
0510819 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $980.65
0510820 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,470.40
0510821 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,316.39
0510822 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,485.11
0510823 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $1,999.73
0510824 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M ............................................................ $327.07
0510825 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,568.34
0510826 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,035.75
0510827 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,598.37
0510828 REID, ROBIN ............................................................................. $230.87
0510829 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,441.70
0510830 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,966.18
0510831 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,348.15
0510832 VOGEL, NICHOLE ..................................................................... $988.95
Total Payroll Direct Deposit $57,344.97