Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08.18.2020 Complete City Council Regular Meeting Packet Posted 08/13/2020 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 18, 2020 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 August 4, 2020 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution Accepting Donation of Masks B. Resolution Accepting Public Utilities Within the Reserve of Medina 2nd Addition VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Concept Plan VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. John and Mary Bartzen – Variance for Setback for Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) to Wetland – 1075 Oak Circle – Public Hearing B. US Home Corp. (Lennar) – Meadow View Townhomes –Rezoning and Preliminary Plat – North of Hwy 55, South of Meander Road, West of CR 116 IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT 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: 676 046 652# MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: August 13, 2020 DATE OF MEETING: August 18, 2020 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: 676 046 652# V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution Accepting Donation of Masks – The City of Medina received a generous donation of 2,000 masks from a source who wishes to remain anonymous. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. B. Resolution Accepting Public Utilities Within the Reserve of Medina 2nd Addition – Staff recommends approval of the resolution accepting the public utilities within the Reserve of Medina 2nd addition. The Developer will be required to submit a warranty bond to repair or replace any defects to the utility improvements for two years. See attached resolution. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Concept Plan – The City Council reviewed this plan at the July 21st meeting and directed staff to work closely with the adjacent property owners and their engineers to develop a plan that the interested parties would agree to for the future. City Engineer Jim Stremel’s memo provides background information on the follow-up meeting and comments received from the interested parties along with how the concept plan was updated to reflect discussions with adjacent property owners. See attached memo and report. Recommended Motion: Motion to adopt the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study with a fully signalized intersection at TH 55.  2 VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. John and Mary Bartzen – Variance for Setback for Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) to Wetland – 1075 Oak Circle – Public Hearing – John and Mary Bartzen have requested a variance to the 75-foot setback required by the City’s Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) Ordinance between an ISTS and wetlands. The subject property is small for a rural lot, being approximately 0.6 acres. Subdivision of this property occurred in 1958, long before the City adopted its larger lot size requirement for rural areas. Notably, other homes in the area are of similar size. The subject site and surrounding land are guided and zoned Rural Residential. See attached report. Potential Motion: The ISTS ordinance states that the City Council will hold a public hearing on any variance request for variance before taking action. Following the hearing, if the City Council finds that the variance criteria have been satisfied, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the variance subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. B. US Home Corp. (Lennar) – Meadow View Townhomes –Rezoning and Preliminary Plat – North of Hwy 55, South of Meander Road, West of CR 116 – Lennar (US Home Corporation) has requested a rezoning and preliminary plat for a proposed 125-unit townhome development south of Meander Road, west of CR116 and north of Hwy 55. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the July 14 meeting, and following the public hearing, they unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. See attached report. Potential Motion: If, following review, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is appropriate and the proposed plat does not meet the criteria for denial, the following motion could be made: Move to direct staff to prepare documents granting rezoning and preliminary plat approval for the Meadow View Townhomes, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005608E-005624E for $50,646.06 and order check numbers 050527-050587 for $232,733.83, payroll EFT 0510407-0510438 for $51,842.07.  3 INFORMATION PACKET:  Planning Department Update  Police Department Update  Public Works Department Update  Claims List  Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1 August 4, 2020 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2020 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on August 4, 2020 at 7:00 5 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 Martin read aloud a statement explaining that all City meetings will be held in a virtual 8 format due to the ongoing pandemic. She provided instructions on how members of the 9 public can participate in the meeting. 10 11 I. ROLL CALL 12 13 Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, and Pederson. 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 Public Safety Director Jason Nelson. 21 22 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:09 p.m.) 23 24 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:09 p.m.) 25 The agenda was approved as presented. 26 27 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:10 p.m.) 28 29 A. Approval of the July 21, 2020 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 30 Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the July 21, 2020 special City 31 Council meeting minutes as presented. 32 33 A roll call vote was performed: 34 35 Pederson aye 36 Anderson aye 37 DesLauriers aye 38 Albers aye 39 Martin aye 40 41 Motion passed unanimously. 42 43 B. Approval of the July 21, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 44 Martin noted that prior to the meeting changes were distributed by staff as suggested by 45 herself, Anderson and DesLauriers for incorporated into the minutes. 46 47 Moved by Martin, seconded by Pederson, to approve the July 21, 2020 regular City 48 Council meeting minutes as amended. 49 50 A roll call vote was performed: 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2 August 4, 2020 1 Pederson aye 2 Anderson aye 3 DesLauriers aye 4 Albers aye 5 Martin aye 6 7 Motion passed unanimously. 8 9 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:12 p.m.) 10 11 A. Approve Labor Agreement between Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. 12 and City of Medina 13 B. Appoint Lisa DeMars to Administrative Assistant to Planning and Public 14 Works Position 15 C. Appoint Kaylen Boeddeker to Police Officer Position 16 D. Authorize Recruitment to Fill Vacant Community Service Officer Position 17 E. Resolution No. 2020-41 Accepting Resignation of Kerby Nester from the 18 Planning Commission 19 The Council and staff thanked Nester for her service on the Planning Commission. 20 21 Martin also welcomed the new members of staff. 22 23 Anderson applauded Nelson on the hiring of Kaylen Boeddeker, noting that he is 24 pleased to have a woman joining the department. 25 26 Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. 27 28 A roll call vote was performed: 29 30 Pederson aye 31 Anderson aye 32 DesLauriers aye 33 Albers aye 34 Martin aye 35 36 Motion passed unanimously. 37 38 VI. COMMENTS (7:14 p.m.) 39 40 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 41 There were none. 42 43 B. Park Commission 44 Scherer reported that the Park Commission met to discuss the CIP and review the 45 Lennar townhome proposal. He reported that the parks continue to be busy and well 46 used. 47 48 Gallup noted that the Commission will meet next on August 19th. She reported that they 49 continue to work with the WSB consultant on the park design process. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3 August 4, 2020 C. Planning Commission 1 Finke reported that the Planning Commission will meet the following week to hold three 2 public hearings: Ditter subdivision and land use applications, Conditional Use Permit for 3 Home Occupation, and regarding the Ordinance related to accessory structures and 4 shed setbacks. 5 6 VII. OLD BUSINESS 7 8 A. Hickory Drive Street Improvement Project Levying Special Assessment – 9 Public Hearing (7:19 p.m.) 10 Stremel provided background information on the Hickory Drive Street Improvement 11 Project process, noting that construction occurred primarily in 2019, with the remaining 12 punch list items completed by June 2020. He reviewed the pre-project conditions as 13 well as the completed road project elements and stormwater improvements. 14 15 DesLauriers commented that the road looks fantastic. 16 17 Stremel reviewed the projects costs. He recommended that the Council hold the public 18 hearing and consider adopting the assessment roll. 19 20 Martin opened the public hearing. 21 22 No comments made. 23 24 Martin closed the public hearing. 25 26 1. Resolution No. 2020-42 Adopting Assessment Roll for Hickory 27 Drive Street Improvement Project 28 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-42 29 Adopting Assessment Roll for Hickory Drive Street Improvement Project. 30 31 A roll call vote was performed: 32 33 Pederson aye 34 Anderson aye 35 DesLauriers aye 36 Albers aye 37 Martin aye 38 39 Motion passed unanimously. 40 41 B. Brockton Lane Street Improvement Project Levying Special Assessment – 42 Public Hearing (7:31 p.m.) 43 Barnhart reported that the project total came in under the budgeted/estimated amount. 44 She stated that because the City did not have to bond for the project, the assessment 45 was delayed until this time and the change in cost will be reflected in the lower 46 assessments. She stated that typically 50 percent of the project is assessed, but the 47 assessment was dropped to 25 percent because only one side of the road was financed 48 by Medina. 49 50 Martin opened the public hearing. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4 August 4, 2020 1 No comments made. 2 3 Martin closed the public hearing. 4 5 1. Resolution No. 2020-43 Adopting Assessment Roll for Brockton 6 Lane Street Improvement Project 7 Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to adopt Resolution No. 2020-43 8 Adopting Assessment Roll for Brockton Lane Street Improvement Project. 9 10 A roll call vote was performed: 11 Pederson aye 12 Anderson aye 13 DesLauriers aye 14 Albers aye 15 Martin aye 16 17 Motion passed unanimously. 18 19 VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (7:36 p.m.) 20 Barnhart provided an update on CARES Act funds. She stated that there has been a lot 21 of discussion by cities regarding to what would be considered eligible expenses. She 22 stated that anything directly related to COVID would be an eligible expense but there is 23 still some question related to payroll expenses. She stated that until there is more 24 direction, the City is taking the position that public safety payroll expenses will not be 25 submitted. She stated that the City will begin submitting expenses in September and will 26 continue to do so monthly. She stated that the City continues to evaluate options for 27 spending the CARES Act funds and improvements that would be needed at City Hall 28 related to COVID. She stated that Hennepin County has released a grant program for 29 small businesses and Medina is encouraging its small businesses to apply. She stated 30 that for Medina to release funds to small businesses, it would need to have a grant 31 program in place following the regulations of the CARES Act. She did not think Medina 32 should have their own grant program because of the CARES Act regulations and due to 33 the City’s smaller staff. She stated that she will be speaking with Finance Directors in 34 neighboring cities to share information and discuss ideas. 35 36 Martin commented that for those in the private sector it has seemed that these 37 regulations are relatively fluid. She asked what the funds available to the City are, when 38 the funds would need to be expended and for what purposes. 39 40 Barnhart replied that the City was allotted $500,711. She stated that she created a 41 separate investment account for those funds. She stated that the current deadline for 42 expenditures to be purchased and received is November 15th. She stated that the State 43 has released lists of eligible expenses and provided details on the reimbursement and 44 tracking process involved. She reviewed some examples of reimbursed expenses and 45 noted that some larger cities are running their own small business grant programs. She 46 stated that Medina is stocking supplies to ensure there is a sufficient supply of masks 47 and other PPE for the future. She stated that the County and State are helping with 48 things needed for the elections. She stated that staff has been setup to telecommute, 49 with the proper equipment and software options being reviewed in case that 100 percent 50 telecommuting is needed again in the future. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5 August 4, 2020 1 Martin commented that she appreciates that staff is walking the line conservatively to 2 ensure that it does not overspend for items it will not be reimbursed for. She asked if 3 there is anything that could be done to assist in allowing in person meetings at City Hall. 4 She commented that the building itself is constrained and therefore was unsure if there 5 are improvements that would allow that during this time. 6 7 Peterson expressed appreciation to City staff for their thoroughness in preparing City 8 Hall and staff to continue during COVID. 9 10 Anderson agreed that it would be tough to retrofit City Hall to hold in person meetings. 11 12 DesLauriers stated that he too is working in the PPP world and commented that the 13 reporting has not been finally approved to allow expenses to be submitted in the private 14 sector. He commented that staff is doing a great job of managing these funds and 15 encouraged staff to keep up the good work. 16 17 Martin commented that in the public sector the decisions are left to the auditors and 18 therefore the opinion is much more cautious than the private sector. 19 20 Albers agreed that it would be best to continue to be conservative and be careful how 21 those funds are spent to ensure expenses fall within the guidelines. 22 23 IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (7:53 p.m.) 24 No comments. 25 26 X. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (7:54 p.m.) 27 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the bills, EFT 005592E-28 005607E for $49,621.79, order check numbers 050468-050526 for $504,111.96, and 29 payroll EFT 0510380-0510406 for $50,285.90. 30 31 A roll call vote was performed: 32 33 Pederson aye 34 Anderson aye 35 DesLauriers aye 36 Albers aye 37 Martin aye 38 39 Motion passed unanimously. 40 41 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6 August 4, 2020 XI. ADJOURN 1 Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m. 2 3 A roll call vote was performed: 4 5 Pederson aye 6 Anderson aye 7 DesLauriers aye 8 Albers aye 9 Martin aye 10 11 Motion passed unanimously. 12 13 14 __________________________________ 15 Kathleen Martin, Mayor 16 Attest: 17 18 ____________________________________ 19 Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 20 Resolution No. 2020-xx August 18, 2020 Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2020-xx RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION OF MASKS WHEREAS, a source wishing to remain anonymous has generously offered to donate 2,000 masks (the “Donation”) to the city of Medina (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the Donation will be dedicated to the safety of Medina staff in the continuing efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to accept the Donation and express its gratitude. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina, Minnesota, that the City accepts the Donation and expresses thanks. Dated: August 18, 2020. _______________________________ 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 vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item # 5A Resolution No. 2020-## August 18, 2020 Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION 2020-## RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN THE RESERVE OF MEDINA 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “Developer”) is constructing improvements within the platted development known as The Reserve of Medina 2nd Addition for the purpose of developing single family lots; and WHEREAS, the Developer and the City have previously entered into an agreement dated September 12, 2018 (the “Development Agreement”) related to the development of the subdivision; and WHEREAS, consistent with the terms of the Agreement, the Developer has completed construction of sanitary sewer and watermain infrastructure improvements (the “Utility Improvements”), to serve the units within the Development; and WHEREAS, the street improvements within the Development will be completed at a future date and therefore will not yet be accepted by the City as public improvements; and WHEREAS, the city engineer has inspected the Improvements and determined that they have been constructed in accordance with the plans incorporated in the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of construction of the Utility Improvements is $859,275.00, which includes $477,275.00 for sanitary sewer and $382,000 for water supply; and WHEREAS, as required by the Development Agreement, the Developer or the Developer’s contractor will be required to submit a warranty bond regarding repair or replacement of any defects in the Utility Improvements for two years from the date of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City hereby accepts the Utility Improvements as public improvements and shall maintain them, except as provided for herein. Agenda Item # 5B Resolution No. 2020-## 2 August 18, 2020 2. The Developer shall remain responsible to repair or replace defective portions of the Utility Improvements if they show signs of failure for two years from the date of this resolution, normal wear and tear excepted. 3. If the Developer shall fail to repair or replace defective portions of the Utility Improvements as required herein and pursuant to the Development Agreement, the City shall utilize the warranty bond for such purpose. 4. Upon receipt of the warranty bond and at the discretion of the city engineer, the City authorizes a reduction of the letter of credit for the Improvements as described herein. 5. Acceptance of the Utility Improvements is subject to the terms and conditions of the letter from the city engineer dated July 30, 2020. 6. City staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary or convenient to carry out the intent and purpose of this resolution. Dated: August 18, 2020. 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. K:\012197-000\Admin\Docs\Warranty Bond & Resolutions\2020-08-11 Request for Warranty Bond Utilities - Reserve of Medina 2nd - Draft.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M August 11, 2020 Mr. Chad Onsgard Director of Development Minnesota Division Pulte Group 7500 Flying Cloud Dr, Suite 670 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: The Reserve of Medina 2nd Add – Accept Utility Improvements & Request Warranty Bond City Project No.SD-17-213, WSB Project No. 012197-000 Dear Mr. Onsgard: WSB & Associates, Inc., the City of Medina’s engineering consultant (Engineer), has observed the installation and testing of the watermain and sanitary sewer utilities (Improvements) for The Reserve of Medina 2nd Addition development in accordance with the plans and as required by the Development Agreement. The City Council must formally accept the Improvements by resolution at a regularly scheduled council meeting. Prior to acceptance of the Improvements by the City Council, the developer is required to submit a two-year warranty bond for 100% of the construction costs of the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. At this time, the warranty bond shall be in the amount of $859,275.00 based on the construction cost estimates previously provided by the developer’s engineer. City staff and the Engineer will consider a reduction in the Letter of Credit (LOC) after the City Council formally accepts the Subdivision Improvements and receives the warranty bond. Please submit the warranty bond effective for two calendar years to the attention of City Administrator Scott Johnson at Medina City Hall. The approval of the LOC reduction will be contingent upon receipt of the warranty bond. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Stremel, City Engineer DATE: August 13, 2020 MEETING: August 18, 2020 SUBJECT: Tamarack Drive Corridor/Visioning Study – Final Concept Plan Background: A project update on the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study was provided to the City Council at the May 19th Council meeting that included the purpose and need for the study, results of the traffic forecasting, traffic operations analysis, the public engagement efforts conducted, and a review of the specific geometric alignment options considered for the corridor. At that time, the Council selected a preferred roadway alternative which included an undivided roadway section without a center parkway median, a traditional intersection at Meander, and a roundabout intersection at the future commercial intersection. The Council then directed staff to complete the study based on the preferred roadway alternative and take the actions necessary to secure approval from relevant agencies for the full signalized access at Highway 55. A final draft of the study and concept plan was presented to the City Council at the July 21st meeting. At this meeting, there were several property owners/representatives in attendance and comments on the roadway concept plan were discussed in detail. The City Council directed staff to work closely with the adjacent property owners and their engineers to develop a plan that the interested parties would agree to. With that direction, City staff scheduled and conducted a meeting that included representatives from the Cavanaugh’s, Lennar, the Jubert’s, and Loram. Additional comments were received and summarized as follows: 1. General support for the roundabout and shifting it further south as close to the TH 55 intersection as possible. 2. Create a full access north of the roundabout (south of Meander Road) for both the commercial on the west side and the high-density residential on the east side, including left turn lanes for both and a south bound right turn lane to the commercial side. 3. Show that one of the commercial access roadways extending from Tamarack Drive will have a potential future extension through the site to Meander Road. 4. On the south side of TH 55, Loram asked that the proposed right-of-way taking to construct Tamarack Drive be minimized. Project Update & Final Concept Plan: Since the last Council meeting, the concept plan was updated to reflect the discussions with the adjacent property owners and address their concerns with the location of the roundabout, right-of- way, and the access points. Updates to the report to reflect these discussions were also made. Agenda Item # 7A 2 After the concept was updated, staff provided it to the parties. Staff received comments from the engineer representing the Cavanaughs and had discussions with representatives from Lennar. The comments did not pertain to the alignment or design of Tamarack, but instead pertained to matters which will need to be worked through as properties along the corridor develop. Lennar inquired how the portion of the street which staff is recommending that they construct with their project would relate with the costs of the broader Tamarack improvements. Staff replied that the intent was for each portion of Tamarack to be constructed by the first adjacent development project through the corridor. Comments from the engineer working with the Cavanaughs are attached for reference. These comments similarly inquired how the costs of the Tamarack improvements would be allocated to projects as they developed. The comments also requested that the property owners maintain ‘control’ over the alignment of future access/street connections off of Tamarack into adjacent developments. Staff believes the alignment and circulation of access points and streets off of Tamarack will be proposed during future development and will be subject to City review and approval at the time development is proposed in the future. Similarly, the City should maintain flexibility to determine the extent of improvements required with each project based upon the circumstances at the time and the City should maintain its discretion to consider assessments, petition and waiver agreements, and other possible funding mechanisms in the future as benefitted properties develop. Next Steps Consider adopting the corridor study in its entirety with a fully signalized intersection at TH 55 and the general geometric design of a future Tamarack Drive roadway. The adoption of the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study will allow City staff to take the necessary steps to secure right-of- way, require construction of the street which serves it and is adjacent to development along the corridor and the financial obligations for proposed improvements from adjacent property owners as development plans are submitted to the City. Approving the concept plan and corridor study does not commit the City to provide funding for the project. City Council Action Requested: Staff requests a motion to adopt the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study with a fully signalized intersection at TH 55. Attachments 1. Tamarack Vision Study 2. Comments from Cavanaughs 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Final Report Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jim Stremel, PE, City Engineer Date: August 13, 2020 Re: Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study Background The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan anticipates residential, institutional, and commercial growth within the Tamarack Drive corridor. The study corridor is located from Hamel Road to the south up to Meander Road to the north. There has been development interest on the north side of Trunk Highway (TH) 55 within the medium density parcels, and on the south side of TH 55 where the Wayzata School District recently purchased property. Although no specific plans are underway for construction of a school on this site, staff believes it is appropriate to anticipate the potential after 2025, when the property is staged for development. It is anticipated that the development along the corridor will likely be completed by multiple parties at different times. The Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study was initiated to develop a cohesive plan guiding the transportation needs, right-of-way, public utilities, access points/spacing, pedestrian mobility, and other parameters within the Tamarack Drive corridor. The Study will provide a guide to the City for the following as development occurs: 1. Requiring right-of-way to allow construction of the proposed improvements. 2. Require construction of portions of the roadway as part of the required improvements by adjacent developments. 3. Provide a framework for securing financial contributions for certain portions of the roadway which benefit all of the adjacent developments and may not be able to be constructed until a future time. Information and materials used in the preparation of this report were collected from the City of Medina, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and other impacted agencies. This data included: · Existing and historic traffic volume data · Updated crash history · Proposed and anticipated development plans · Wayzata School master site plans · As built roadway and utility plans · Survey/topographic data previously obtained or readily available · Wetland and floodplain locations from available GIS or other mapping · Property owner and stakeholder engagement data Existing Conditions Roadway Currently, there is no connection between TH 55 and Meander Road or between TH 55 and Hamel Road. A prescriptive easement does exist for the current unmaintained roadway south of TH 55, but not to the north. The proposed roadway corridor is a combination of agricultural land, floodplains, and wetlands. There is no existing paved (improved) roadway or City utilities within the proposed corridor. There is an access off of TH 55 in both the north and south directions including eastbound and westbound turn lanes. Just to the south of TH 55, CP Railroad owns and operates a single track and a narrow crossing exists. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 2 TH 55 is an east/west four-lane facility with two lanes in each direction and left and right turn lanes at Arrowhead Drive, future Tamarack Drive and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). West of Arrowhead Drive the roadway transitions to a two-lane facility. TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection currently has eastbound and westbound left and right turn lanes. TH 55 has a functional classification of a Principal Arterial. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. Utilities There is a 16-inch trunk watermain located adjacent to TH 55. From Tamarack Drive, the watermain runs on the north side of TH 55 west and on the south side to the east. An existing 24- inch trunk sewer runs parallel along the south side of TH 55 in a drainage and utility easement adjacent to the existing road right-of-way. At the westerly property line of the commercial property to the west of Tamarack Drive, a sewer main runs north/south connecting to the trunk main and to the residential neighborhood to the north. A storm sewer culvert runs underneath TH 55 at the intersection with Tamarack Drive connecting the low-lying wetland areas on each side of the highway. No other storm sewer exists at this location. Traffic Forecasting Analysis (Summary) Existing peak hour turning movement and daily traffic volumes were developed based on existing data available for the area. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts are based on the current City of Medina, Hennepin County, and MnDOT State Aid count data. Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. Based on this review, a factor of 1.1 (0.5%/year) over a 20-year period was used to project traffic from existing conditions to the 2040 analysis year. 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 future area development traffic was determined based on the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and adjacent development Traffic Studies. The 2040 Future Land Use Plan shows that the area will include: commercial, medium density residential, mixed residential, and rural residential uses north of TH 55 and a future Wayzata School District use south of TH 55. The size of the land use estimates was based on available land in the area assuming typical uses from similar sites and density calculations outlined in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Traffic forecasts were prepared for the twenty-year design (year 2040) condition, representing the full development of the area. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and anticipated area development site traffic generation to determine the 2040 Build traffic conditions. The estimated existing and projected 2040 traffic volumes are shown below in Table 1. Table 1: Existing and Projected ADT Traffic Volumes Location Existing ADT Projected 2040 ADT Tamarack Drive south of Meander Road NA 1,750 Tamarack Drive north of TH 55 NA 8,300 Tamarack Drive south of TH 55 NA 3,300 Tamarack Drive north of Hamel Road NA 1,000 TH 55 west of Arrowhead Drive 16,600 22,300 City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 3 Location Existing ADT Projected 2040 ADT TH 55 west of future Tamarack Drive 18,800 24,800 TH 55 west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 18,800 27,200 TH 55 east of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 25,000 33,500 Meander Road east of Arrowhead Drive 400 1,200 Meander Road west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 900 2,200 Arrowhead Drive north of Meander Road 1,050 7,100 Arrowhead Drive south of TH 55 2,200 2,500 Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of Meander Road 9,600 12,200 Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of TH 55 9,600 11,000 Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) south of TH 55 2,200 2,600 Hamel Road east of Arrowhead Drive 1,200 1,400 Hamel Road west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 1,600 2,100 Traffic Operations Analysis & TH 55 Signal Review (Summary) The traffic operations analysis was completed for the Tamarack Drive area, including the intersections of: · TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive · TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) · Meander Road at Arrowhead Drive · Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) · Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) · Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) · Tamarack Road at Meander Road (projected only) · Tamarack Road at Development Access (projected only) · Tamarack Road at TH 55 (projected only) · Tamarack Road at Hamel Road (projected only) Tamarack Drive has been identified by the City of Medina as a future Collector roadway between Meander Road and Hamel Road that would provide access to the development area north and south of TH 55. The access of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines as a future full movement signalized intersection. In addition, left and right turn lanes are currently provided for both eastbound and westbound TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection. The City has been guiding development of the areas adjacent to TH 55 based on the current City 2040 Comprehensive plan assuming a full movement signalized access on TH 55 at Tamarack Drive. However, in order to verify the need for this access, two roadway access alternatives were included as part of this analysis including: 1. A full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes; and 2. A partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. The traffic analysis evaluated the operations for the existing and projected 2040 conditions at the impacted area intersections with the proposed Tamarack Drive corridor improvements using Synchro/SimTraffic software for the traffic signal and stop sign control intersections and RODEL software for the roundabout controlled intersections. The capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the AM and PM peak hours assuming the two Tamarack Drive Improvement City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 4 access alternatives. The following table shows the level of service comparison of the existing and 2040 build conditions with both access alternatives at TH 55 considered. Co n t r o l Intersection Existing Projected 2040 Full Access Projected 2040 Right-in/Right-out AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Si g n a l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr D (E) C (E) E (F) D (E) F (F) E (F) Si g n a l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) E (F) D (E) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (B) A (B) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (F) A (C) F (F) A (F) F (F) C (F) Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (A) A (A) A (B) A (A) A (B) A (B) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Development Access NA NA A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Tamarack Dr NA NA A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) Th r u - St o p Tamarack Dr at Development Access NA NA A (B) A (B) A (A) A (B) Si g n a l TH 55 at Tamarack Dr NA NA D (E) D (E) C (E) C (E) Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd at Tamarack Dr NA NA B (C) A (A) C (D) A (A) C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB The details of the traffic analysis and alternative comparison is documented in the memorandum attached in the appendix. Based on the analysis documented in the memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: · The City of Medina identified the need to prepare a preliminary plan and vision for the future Tamarack Drive corridor from Meander Road to Hamel Road (CSAH 115). The corridor has been included in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. · The access to TH 55 at Tamarack Drive is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines. In addition, MnDOT completed a preliminary corridor design concept for TH 55 from I-494 to the Crow River in 2007 and an EA/EAW in 2008. These documents both identified a future controlled intersection access at the TH 55 and Tamarack Drive. · The areas north and south of TH 55 adjacent to the future Tamarack Drive corridor is planned for commercial and residential development north of TH 55 and a future Wayzata School District use south of TH 55. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 5 · The future area development is anticipated to generate up to 10,307 daily, 752 AM peak hour and 1,030 PM peak hour trips north of TH 55 and; 3,079 daily, 955 AM peak hour and 260 PM peak hour trips south of TH 55. · Two roadway access alternatives were prepared and analyzed including a full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes, and a partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. · The results of the existing conditions traffic operations analysis results show that all intersections are operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersection of TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour which is operating at an overall LOS E. · The analysis results for the 2040 condition with a full movement signalized intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F; and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. · The analysis results for the 2040 condition with right-in/right-out intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F and PM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F; and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. · Based on comparison of the two access alternatives, the right-in/right-out access alternative would divert traffic to the adjacent roadways and would have significant traffic operation impacts specifically at the adjacent intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116);and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road. In addition, there is a safety concern with vehicles turning out from Tamarack Drive merging with vehicles on TH 55 traveling at 55mph. Based on these conclusions the following is recommended: 1. Provide a full movement intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive to provide access to the existing and future development area north and south of TH 55, as identified by the City of Medina and in the current MnDOT Access Management Guidelines for the TH 55 corridor. 2. The construction of Tamarack Drive including the full movement access connection to TH 55 should be completed as development continues to occur in the area north of TH 55. It is recommended that should Meander Road reach a level of 3,100vpd, which would be a level to warrant a traffic signal at the Meander Road and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) intersection, the connection to TH 55 should be completed. Assuming the existing traffic volume on Meander Road (900vph) with the full development of the Meadow View Townhomes (1,010vpd), a portion of the commercial development (1,190vpd) or approximately 12% of the development could be completed prior to the need for the construction of Tamarack Drive. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 6 3. As the area adjacent to TH 55 and Tamarack Drive is developed, continue to review the warrants for installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection. When warrants are met, work with MnDOT for approval and construction of the traffic signal system. Based on review of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) traffic signal warrants, it is estimated that the required traffic volume currently exist on TH 55 (>15,000vpd) to warrant a traffic control signal system; however, it is anticipated that the approximately 35% of the development on the north side of TH 55 or the school development on the south side of TH 55 or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) would need to be completed to warrant the traffic signal system. 4. As traffic grows in the area work with MnDOT and Hennepin County on possible improvements at the intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116); and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road to improve future traffic operations The full traffic forecast and operations analysis is included in Appendix B. Proposed Improvements & Concept Plan Development Commercial Site Analysis WSB’s Land Development team analyzed the commercial areas north of TH 55 for potential site layouts and access points to the proposed Tamarack Drive extension. This included a site-fit analysis to maximize potential commercial uses with current City ordinance guidelines for setbacks and parking areas. The uses considered include a convenience store/gas station, hotel, single/multi-tenant retail, and a single tenant retail (with loading dock), with various access options to both Tamarack Drive and Meander Road. Based on feedback gathered as part of the public engagement process, two concepts for the corridor were developed: an undivided roadway (Concept A) and a parkway (Concept B). Each concept displayed a roundabout at Tamarack Drive and a future frontage road providing access to the east and west to commercial areas. An alternate two-way stop intersection was also considered. At Meander Road and Tamarack Drive, a two way stop intersection was shown graphically. These concepts are provided in Appendix A. Full Corridor Concept Plan Based on the traffic forecasting, analysis, and stakeholder input, a concept plan for the entire corridor was developed that includes the recommended geometric improvements, preliminary intersection control design (stop condition or roundabout), signal improvements at TH 55, and right-of-way needs. The street section considered for each of the concepts include an undivided roadway/parkway design with both sidewalks and multi-use trails. The divided/parkway roadway option was not preferred by the City Council; the roundabout was the preferred intersection control at the primary commercial site entrance. The installation of a roundabout at the commercial site entrance will provide improved turning/access operations and be safer than a traditional intersection configuration for both vehicles and pedestrians. The proximity of a roundabout can also be located closer to TH 55 than a traditional four-legged intersection. Pedestrian connectivity is also an important component of the corridor considering the proposed land uses and the need to connect the north and south portions of the corridor. The proposed concepts include a multi-use trail and a sidewalk, one on each side of the roadway along with a crossing at TH 55. The Three Rivers Park District is planning a regional trail system (Diamond Lake Trail Corridor) and the City believes the Tamarack Corridor is a feasible location for this improvement, including a crossing at or near TH 55. City staff have been in contact with the Three Rivers Park District and is a willing partner for this opportunity. The corridor concept figures have been included in Appendix A of the report. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 7 Railroad Crossing Improvements The proposed improvements to the intersection of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 will require an expansion of the railroad crossing on the south side of TH 55 to accommodate the proposed roadway and pedestrian improvements. Canadian Pacific Railroad will require that a new four- quadrant gate system is installed. With these improvements, a railroad quiet zone (whistle-less crossing) is also proposed. Public Utility Planning Utility extensions along Tamarack Drive, including storm sewer and new watermain, are proposed to be a part of the final alignment option(s). The watermain extension is proposed to be 16-inch ductile iron trunk line from TH 55 to the existing Meander Road. This line will provide additional looping within the system, as well as a point of connection for the future developments. It is anticipated that adjacent development would connect to this trunk main and extend further into the area and serve individual lots. Existing sanitary sewer is located along the south side of TH 55, westerly boundary of the commercial area that connects at Meander Road and Cavanaugh Drive, and at Jubert Drive. As development occurs, it is anticipated that these development areas will connect to the sewer at these locations and extend further to serve individual lots. Storm sewer improvements will likely include a storm piping system sized to convey runoff from an urban street section to meet State Aid design criteria, stormwater treatment areas to capture and retain storm sewer in accordance with City and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC), and culverts to facilitate flow to the existing floodplains. Additional discussion of the stormwater management improvements is included in the section below. Right-of-Way Considerations Additional right-of-way will need to be acquired for the extension of Tamarack Drive north and south of TH 55, where no platted easement exists. The proposed right-of-way needs have been compiled electronically with the CAD work completed with this visioning study and can be provided upon request. It is important to note that the City may request more right of way from property owners/developers then what is shown in the exhibits. Right of way that is not utilized for the public improvements would be vacated once the projects are completed. The location of the proposed right-of-way is shown graphically in Figure 1 in Appendix A of the report. Public Engagement Activities Public Engagement Activities In order to gather input and engage the public on a vision for the Tamarack Drive corridor, City staff prepared a survey, mapping activity (currently underway), and held an open house. Initially, when the scope of the project was prepared, and in-person open house was proposed to engage the pubic on this project. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and to respect the CDC guidelines limiting public gatherings, the public engagement strategy needed to be in a virtual format that did not require direct in-person contact. With that challenge at hand, the City ultimately decided to use Social Pinpoint, an online public engagement platform where surveys and a mapping interface can be developed. Here is a summary of the virtual public engagement activities utilized for this study, which generally focused on the portion of the corridor north of TH 55. · A survey was developed asking for input on various hard-scape design elements and street sections that would be feasible in the corridor. These included a center median (parkway) street section, typical undivided street section, round-about/traditional City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 8 intersection designs, landscaping ideas, and pedestrian access options. Those who participated were able to vote on these various options and provide other input on the “ideas wall.” Enclosed with this memo are the survey results and comments placed on the ideas wall. · A virtual open house through a webinar platform was held on April 14, 2020 that included general information on the corridor and study elements, a commercial site analysis/mapping, review comments provided on the initial online survey, and live resident feedback (voice calls and written questions) from residents during the meeting. The intent was to mimic what would normally have been available at an in-person meeting. · Based on the initial survey results and the virtual open house, two final concepts were created (Concepts A & B) utilizing both a parkway roadway design and a traditional undivided roadway section with various commercial site alternatives. The concepts were posted on Social Pinpoint and open for comments until May 28th. The results of the initial survey and comments provided for the final Social Pinpoint website are included in Appendix D. The final commercial site layout concepts in response to the public engagement comments are located in Appendix A. Meetings with Adjacent Property Owners The City met with adjacent property owners that had an interest in the design and access points along the Tamarack Drive corridor. Three different engineering firms representing the various property owners provided input on behalf of their clients on the geometric design of Tamarack Drive north of TH 55. Discussions with the property owners included the location of the proposed roundabout (as close to TH 55 as possible), the addition of a second commercial access (traditional intersection) north of the roundabout, and the need for a future loop road from Tamarack Drive west through the future commercial area to Meander Road. The property owners also commented on the need to be as equal as possible with the split of the proposed right-of- way needs for Tamarack Drive. A loop road west of Tamarack Drive through the future commercial area could originate at either the proposed roundabout or the traditional intersection location north of the roundabout. The loop road could be public or private but in either case will be determined at the time of an actual development plan submittal for the commercial area. Figure 1 located in Appendix A shows the final concept plan for the corridor based on adjacent property owner input. Agency Coordination A number of coordination meetings were held with project stakeholders including Hennepin County to discuss the proposed improvements throughout the corridor including detailed discussions on the intersection at Hamel Road and TH 55. Meeting with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) City engineering staff met with MnDOT to discuss the intersection of Tamarack Drive and TH 55 and the need for a fully signalized intersection to accommodate the proposed traffic for a fully developed condition. At that time of the meeting MnDOT was receptive to the improvements but asked that the City provide them with an analysis of the traffic forecasting, traffic operations, and a review of alternatives in-lieu of further improvement to the intersection at TH 55. The City provided the requested analysis and MnDOT provided a letter of concurrence for the proposed signalized intersection. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 9 In preparation for the actual signal improvements, MnDOT will require that a more refined design is submitted for review and approval. The timeframe for final design review and approval by MnDOT can take up to 18 months. Meeting with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety City staff met with representatives of both Canadian Pacific Railroad and MnDOT Rail Safety. The proposed improvements to the intersection of Tamarack Drive and TH 55 were discussed along with the potential need to expand the railroad crossing on the south side of TH 55. The primary take-away from this meeting was that further refinement of the proposed design is needed and coordination with CP Railroad will be required to acquire the additional right-of-way for the improvements. The railroad will require that the local agency fund any improvements needed including the crossing panels, improvements needed to facilitate a whistle-less crossing, and the gate/lighting system. The timeframe to design and coordinate these improvements and right-of-way acquisition with CP Railroad and the Federal Railroad Administration on the whistle- less crossing can take up to 24 months. Meeting with Hennepin County City staff met with Hennepin County to discuss proposed improvements at Hamel Road. The improvements of Hamel Road will be necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic associated with development and will include the need for a dedicated left turn lane at minimum. Hennepin County asked that the City continue to provide updates as the project progresses. Once development occurs between Hamel Road and TH 55 and a specific plan is being developed, the County will require review and approval of any proposed changes to the intersection at Hamel Road. The timeframe for final design review and approval by Hennepin County can take up to 12 months. The meeting minutes and documentation of these discussions are included in Appendix E. Permitting Considerations Stormwater Management The preferred concept plan exceeds the 5,000 square foot threshold requiring a City of Medina Stormwater Management Plan for any new impervious surfaces. The total new impervious within the project area is approximately 200,000 square feet (4.6 acres). The stormwater management plan must include at a minimum: · Volume Control – Design calculations of a BMP to capture and retain onsite 1.1 inches of runoff from the net new impervious surface. · Rate Control – Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to show that post development discharge rates are less than existing discharge rates. · Storm Sewer Sizing – Storm sewer sizing to meet State Aid design criteria. The proposed improvements are located within the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC). A permit will be required from ECWMC because the proposed improvements disturb more than 1 acre. Since this is a linear project, the net new impervious surface must meet ECWMC’s runoff rate restrictions, volume control requirements, and water quality requirements listed below: · Runoff rates for post development must be less than existing discharge rates. · Stormwater runoff volume must be abstracted onsite to meet 1.1 inches of runoff from the net new impervious surface. · No net increase in total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) from the existing conditions. The City of Medina’s standards are more stringent than ECWMC’s for stormwater management for this project. NPDES permitting will be required for construction activity. Based on the amount City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 10 of impervious cover proposed, the NPDES permitting requirements for treatment and volume control do apply but are satisfied through the City and ECWMC permitting. To meet the requirements of the City of Medina and ECWMC, it is anticipated that adjacent development will oversize their stormwater management to treat impervious created from the Tamarack corridor. Since timing of development cannot always be predicted, temporary ponds may need to be installed as necessary to manage stormwater. Preliminary BMPs have been sized along the corridor to manage runoff if the timing of development does not correlate with road construction. It will be necessary to extend an existing culvert that runs under TH 55. The culvert extension is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of TH 55 and Tamarack. Along with this culvert extension some regrading of the existing ditch will be necessary. The culvert and ditch will be designed such that the hydraulic capacity is maintained. Environmental Based on a review of the National Wetland Inventory and nearby approved wetland delineations, wetland impacts may occur as a result of development and the extension of Tamarack Drive including the area at TH 55 with the proposed signal improvements. A wetland delineation will need to be completed for parcels that do not already have approved boundaries. Impacts are anticipated north and south of the intersection of Tamarack and TH 55. Options to minimize wetland impacts will need to be evaluated during final design. The project will require permits from the DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), WCA (via City of Medina), and ECWMC. We expect it will take 6-9 months to prepare documents/plans and obtain permits from all agencies. Mitigation for WCA regulated wetland impacts will be required at a 2:1 ratio and it is anticipated to be provided through the purchase of wetland credits from an USACE approved wetland bank or through onsite mitigation. Wetland banks are available in Hennepin County at a cost of approximately $2.50-$3.00/square foot (2020 dollars). Options for onsite mitigation will also be reviewed and would require 5 years of monitoring following construction to ensure success. The State’s Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) rules were reviewed. The project would not trigger an EAW based on the mandatory thresholds for a highway project. Utilities For the extension of the 16-inch trunk watermain from TH 55 to Meander Road, a Minnesota Department of Health watermain permit will be required. Construction For disturbance greater than 1 acre a MN Pollution Control Agency (NPES) permit will be required for construction activities. Permitting requirements for permanent BMP’s will be satisfied through the City and ECWMC permits. Project Cost Estimates & Funding Opinion of Probable Cost A detailed opinion of cost for the project can be found in Appendix C of this report. The opinion of cost incorporates estimated 2020 construction costs and includes a 10% construction contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 28% of the construction cost and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. The table below provides a summary of the opinion of probable cost for the options under consideration. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 11 Table 2: Estimated Project Cost Summary Description Estimated Project Cost TH 55 Signal $ 645,000 North Approach Street & Storm $ 497,000 South Approach Street & Storm $ 600,000 Railroad Crossing Improvements $ 791,000 North Street & Storm to Meander Rd $ 1,374,000 Watermain Looping Connection $ 401,000 South Street & Storm to Hamel Rd $ 1,206,000 Grand Total Estimated Project Cost $ 5,514,000 The above costs in Table 2 are estimated project costs for roadway, storm sewer, stormwater improvements, signal improvements, and watermain as indicated for the various areas of the project. The cost to obtain right-of-way for the proposed improvements was not included with the project estimates; It has been assumed that adjacent property owners would provide the necessary right-of-way with proposed development. The approximate cost to mitigate disturbed wetland areas was included with the estimated costs. It was assumed the purchase of wetland credits and not onsite mitigation. Excavation quantities were estimated based on available soil information (NRCS) and known wetland locations; soil borings or a geotechnical analysis were not completed with the visioning study. The actual depth and composition of peat or other poor soils within the project area could affect the cost of the project significantly. Soil borings and a geotechnical analysis are recommended if the City proceeds with further refinement of the design. Potential Project Funding/Implementation It is likely that several projects may occur at different times within the corridor prior to full completion of this vision. Most of the proposed improvements will be implemented with adjacent development to extend public streets, utilities, and other infrastructure. Agreements to fund these projects would be required of developers or property owners. Portions of the improvements that cannot be constructed with adjacent development may need to be implemented as a public project and funded through an area-wide Chapter 429 Special Assessment to benefitting property owners. Based on discussion with MnDOT and Hennepin County, it is not anticipated that a cost share of the intersection improvements at either Hamel Road or TH 55 is possible. The City may also need to fund a portion of the trunk watermain looping connection, but the share of the cost will be determined at the time of development approvals. Summary, Recommendations, & Next Steps Summary The Tamarack Drive corridor is located from Hamel Road to the south up to Meander Road to the north. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the Future Land Use Plan, shows that this area has been planned for a combination of medium density residential, mixed residential, and commercial land uses. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 12 It is anticipated that the development along the corridor will likely be completed by multiple parties at different times. The study will provide a guide to the City for the following as development occurs: 1. Requiring right-of-way to allow construction of the proposed improvements. 2. Provide a framework for securing financial contributions for certain portions of the roadway/intersection improvements which benefit adjacent landowners. 3. Require construction of portions of the roadway, watermain, or other improvements in conjunction with adjacent developments. There has been development interest on the north side of TH 55 with the medium density residential property and on the south side of TH 55 within the mixed residential zoning area where the Wayzata School District recently purchased property. Plans have been submitted to the City for a townhome development within the medium density residential property. Although no specific plans are underway for construction of a school on the Wayzata School District site, staff believes it is appropriate to anticipate the potential after 2025, when the property is staged for development. The corridor visioning study is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and represents the City’s vision for this corridor. Roadway, Intersections, and Signal at TH 55 The Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study and the final concept plan is based upon input from City Council, City staff, MnDOT, Hennepin County, comments made through the public engagement process, input from property owners, and the City’s engineering team. The final vision incorporates a roundabout as the preferred primary access to the future commercial area and an undivided roadway section where possible. The installation of a roundabout at the commercial site entrance will provide improved turning/access operations and be safer than a traditional intersection configuration for both vehicles and pedestrians. The proximity of a roundabout can also be located closer to TH 55 than a traditional four-legged intersection. The concept plan also indicates a loop road west of Tamarack Drive through the future commercial area, which could originate at the proposed roundabout location or the traditional intersection to the north of the roundabout. This shared access could be designated as public or private but in either case would be determined at the time of a specific development plan submittal for the commercial area. Based on the traffic forecasting and operations analysis completed with this study, a signal at TH 55 is warranted when approximately 35% of the development occurs on the north side of TH 55, the school development on the south side of TH 55, or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) occurs. The proposed medium density residential development (Meadowview Townhomes) will not in itself warrant the signal at TH 55; the proposed increase in traffic for this development is 1,190 vehicles per day (vpd). It is anticipated that further development within the corridor would likely trigger the need for a full signalized intersection at TH 55 to accommodate the increase in traffic levels. It is important to note that the increase of traffic could change if the final development is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. The timeframe for design, review, right-of-way acquisition, and approvals between MnDOT and CP Railroad for the intersection at TH 55 could take 18 to 24 months prior to the construction of the proposed improvements. City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum August 13, 2020 Page 13 List of Appendices and Figures Appendix A Figure 1 – Full Corridor Exhibit Figure 2 – Commercial Analysis Concept Appendix B Traffic Study Appendix C Engineer’s Opinion of Project Costs Appendix D Social Pinpoint Survey Social Pinpoint Mapping Responses Appendix E Meeting Minutes with MnDOT Letter of Concurrence for TH 55 Signal from MnDOT Meeting Minutes with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety Meeting Minutes with Hennepin County Appendix A Figure 1 – Full Corridor Exhibit Figure 2 – Commercial Development Concept W S B F i l e n a m e : D a t e : P r i n t e d : 8 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 0 K : \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ La y o u t \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 _ l o . d g n City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Study REQUIREMENTS PLANS AND SIGHT DISTANCE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT ROAD INTERSECTION WILL BE FINAL LOCATION OF HAMEL Legend ROADWAY SHOULDERS (PAVED) CURB SIDEWALK INPLACE SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL DELINEATED WETLAND EXISTING R/W PROPOSED R/W S TO P ROUNDABOUT OPTION S TO P N 0 SCALE IN FEET 150 300 Figure 1 S TO P EXISTING ADT PROJECTED 2040 ADT XXX (XXX) MINNESOTA 55 M e a n d e r R o a d H a m el R o a d Conceptual Roadway Geometrics and Alignments August 2020 MEANDER ROAD DEVELOPMENT TO FUTURE EXTEND THROUGH ONE ACCESS TO BASED ON DEVELOPMENT ACCESS TO BE DETERMINED EXACT ALIGNMENT AND 4 0 ' 4 0 ' 5 0 ' 4 0 ' 4 5 ' 6 6 ' 9 ' 7 0 ' 4 5 ' 1 1 0 ' 1 2 5 ' 160' 160' 400 (1800) 900 (2200) 1200 (1400) 18,800 (24,800) 0 (1000)0 (3300) 0 (8300) 0 (1750) 18,800 (27,200) 1600 (2100) C: \ U s e r s \ e k e l l y \ D o c u m e n t s \ P R O J E C T _ M e d i n a \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 C o m m e r c i a l C o n c e p t s 0 4 2 9 2 0 Tamarack Drive Study - Commercial Area Concepts Tamarack Drive Study - Medina, Minnesota April 29, 2020 | WSB Project number: 015599-000 Concept A Concept B Scale in Feet 800’0’200’400’North Scale in Feet 800’0’200’400’North WET WE T W E T WE TWE T WET WE T W E T WE T WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET W E T WET WE T W E T WE TWE T WET WE T W E T WE T WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET W E T FUTURE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Undivided Roadway Section - 66’ R.O.W.Parkway Section - 80’ R.O.W. Tamarack Drive - Undivided Road Tamarack Drive - Parkway Alternate Intersection at Commercial Entrance Alternate Intersection at Commercial Entrance Note: Commercial uses are illustrative only to show context for potential street orientations. LEGEND PROPOSEDTAMARACK DR ALIGNMENT COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPESCREENING STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREA FRONTAGEROAD DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ROUNDABOUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland RETAIL 3.0 ac. +/- COM M E R C I A L 3.0 acr e s + / - HIGH W A Y 5 5 HIGH W A Y 5 5 MEANDER ROAD RETAIL 2.3 ac. +/- RETAIL 1.5 ac. +/- RETAIL 3.0 ac. +/- COMMERCIAL 2.5 ac. +/-COMMERCIAL 5.5 ac. +/- City Park Fields of Medina City Park Fields of Medina COMMERCIAL 5.0 ac.+/- CO M M E R C I A L 1. 8 a c . + / - MEANDER ROAD stormwater management Paved Trail Paved Trail MedianSidewalkSidewalk TA M A R A C K D R TA M A R A C K D R TA M A R A C K D R COM M E R C I A L 3.0 acr e s + / - RETAIL 1.0 ac. RETAIL 1.0 ac. RETAIL 2.0 ac. RETAIL 3.0 ac.+/- RETAIL 4.0 ac.+/- RETAIL 2.5 ac.+/- RETAIL 3.0 ac.+/- COMMERCIAL 8.0 ac.+/- COMMERCIAL 4.0 ac.+/- TA M A R A C K D R stormwater management Appendix B Traffic Study 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 Technical Memorandum To: Scott Johnson, City Administrator Dusty Finke, AICP, Planning Director Steve Scherer, Public Works Director City of Medina From: Charles Rickart PE, PTOE, Principal, Traffic Engineer Jim Stremel PE, Project Manager WSB Date: May 11, 2020 Re: Tamarack Drive Corridor Project Development/Visioning Traffic Engineering Review Medina, MN WSB Project No. 015599-000 Background The City of Medina has initiated a Project Development/Visioning study for the Tamarack Drive corridor from Hamel Road (CSAH 115) to Meander Road. The study will provide the adjacent property owners and developers a guide for the look and feel of the corridor, street section, right- of-way needs, public utilities, pedestrian access, and vehicular access spacing as this area develops. The attached Figure 1 shows the proposed project location. The City’s current and past Transportation Plan identifies the future Tamarack Drive roadway connection including a proposed traffic signal system at TH 55 to accommodate future land use growth planned in the vicinity of Tamarack Drive north and south of TH 55. MnDOT developed the TH 55 Corridor Access Framework which has been included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines for this section of roadway. In addition, MnDOT completed a preliminary corridor design concept for TH 55 from I-494 to the Crow River in 2007 and an EA/EAW in 2008. These documents both identified a future controlled intersection access at the TH 55 and Tamarack Drive. The City was a key partner in developing the concept and is supportive of TH 55 expansion to address existing and future congestion on the highway. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to: document the existing traffic conditions in t he area; determine the proposed traffic generated from the area development; analyze the impacts the area development would have on the adjacent roadways and intersections with a full movement signalized access or a right-in/right-out access at Tamarack Drive and TH 55; provide conclusions and recommendations for lane configuration and intersection control. Existing Conditions The impacts from the proposed area development was evaluated at the following existing intersections: • TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • Meander Road at Arrowhead Drive • Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) • Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 2 Roadway Characteristics Meander Road: Meander Road is an east/west two-lane local City street from Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) to Arrowhead Drive. The roadway has a curvilinear urban cross section alignment with a pedestrian path on the north side, from Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) to Cavanaugh Drive whe re it transitions to a rural cross section. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 40mph. TH 55: TH 55 is an east/west four-lane facility with two lanes in each direction and left and right turn lanes at Arrowhead Drive, future Tamarack Drive and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). West of Arrowhead Drive the roadway transitions to a two-lane facility. TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection currenting has eastbound and westbound left and right turn lanes. TH 55 has a functional classification of a Principal Arterial. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 55mph. Arrowhead Drive: Arrowhead Drive is a north/south roadway from Hackamore Road to Hamel Road (CSAH 115). South of TH 55, Arrowhead Drive is a four-lane County Road (CSAH 118) to just south of Prairie Drive where is transitions to a two-lane facility. This section of Arrowhead Drive is designated as a Minor Collector with a posted speed limit of 40mph. North of TH 55, Arrowhead Drive is a two-lane local City street with a posted speed limit of 30mph. Left and right turn lanes are currently provided only at the intersection of TH 55. Hamel Road (CSAH 115): Hamel Road (CSAH 115) is an east/west two-lane rural cross section, Major Collector from CSAH 19 to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). The roadway has a posted 40mph speed limit from Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) to west of the proposed Tamarack Drive intersection, and 30mph from there to Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). Pinto Drive (CSAH 116): Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) is a north/south roadway from Hamel Road (CSAH 115) through City of Medina and City of Corcoran to Territorial Road in the City of Rogers. North of TH 55, the roadway is a “Other Arterial” (former B-Minor Arterial) with a two-lane urban cross section from TH 55 to north of Clydesdale Trail and a rural cross section from that point north. South of TH 55 the roadway is a Major Collector with a two-lane urban cross section. A pedestrian path is provided on the west side of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of TH 55 and on the east side south of TH 55. A raised concrete median with left and right turn lanes is provided at TH 55. The roadway has a posted 55mph speed limit north of TH 55 and 30mph south of TH 55. Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour turning movement and daily traffic volumes were developed based on existing data available for the area. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts are based on the current City of Medina, Hennepin County and MnDOT State Aid count data. The turning movement traffic at the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116), and; Arrowhead Drive at Meander Road were determined based on resent previous studies in the area. The turning movement traffic volumes at the other intersections were estimated based on the existing hourly approach counts conducted with the ADT counts. Historic turning movement counts were also used to help estimate each movement. The attached Figure 2 shows the existing area intersections that were analyzed as part of this, with the existing AM and PM peak hour and ADT traffic volumes. Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Analysis The existing traffic operations were evaluated at intersections in the study area for the AM and PM peak hours using Synchro/SimTraffic micro simulation software for the traffic signal and stop sign control intersections. The operations analysis results are based on the established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table 1 – Existing Traffic Operations Summary shown below, summarizes the existing LOS and delays at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and existing traffic volumes. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 3 The analysis results show that all intersections are operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersection of TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour which is operating at an overall LOS E. All movements during the AM peak hour are operating at a LOS C or better, however there are some movement during the AM and PM peak hours that are operating at LOS E or F including: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM = LOS E • TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • WB TH 55 - Thru: PM = LOS E • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) – Left: AM = LOS F • EB TH 55 - Left: PM = LOS E Meander Rd at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116 • EB Meander Rd - Right: AM = LOS E Table 1 – Existing Traffic Operations Summary C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Tamarack Drive Alternatives Tamarack Drive has been identified by the City of Medina as a future Collector roadway between Meander Road and Hamel Road that would provide access to the development area north and south of TH 55. The access of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines as a future full movement signalized intersection. In addition, left and right turn lanes are currently provided for both eastbound and westbound TH 55 at the future Tamarack Drive intersection. The City has been developing the areas adjacent to TH 55 based on the current City 2040 Comprehensive plan assuming a full movement signalized access on TH 55 at Tamarack Drive. However, in order to verify the need for this access, two roadway access alternatives were included as part of this analysis including: a full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes, and; a partial acce ss, right-in/right-out stop- controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. Co n t r o l Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Si g na l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr D (E) 41 C (E) 33 Si g na l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) E (F) 70 D (E) 47 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (F) 9 A (C) 2 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 4 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (A) 5 A (A) 4 Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 4 Traffic Projections In order to analyze the lane configuration and traffic control needs of the proposed Tamarack Drive corridor and impact on the existing area roadways and intersections, projected traffic volumes were determined for the area. Projected 2040 traffic volumes were determined based on the anticipated future development land use in the area and the City’s current Transportation Plan. The following sections outline the projected background traffic growth, traffic generation from the study area, as well as the traffic distribution and projected traffic volumes. Background Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. Based on this review a factor of 1.1 (0.5%/year) over a 20-year period was used to project traffic from existing conditions to the 2040 analysis year. Proposed Development Area Traffic Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed area development is shown in Table 2 on the following page. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed area traffic is based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute o f Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The table shows the Daily, AM peak and PM peak hour trip generation based on anticipated commercial and residential development north of TH 55 and a future Minnetonka School District use south of TH 55. The size of the land use estimates was based on available land in the area assuming typical uses from similar sites and density calculations outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Development Area Traffic Distribution Area generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including previous traffic and transportation studies in the area; the City’s current Transportation Plan; anticipated origins and destinations for specific land use, and; existing travel patterns and future roadway connections. Based on these parameters the following general traffic distribution was used to distribute the projected traffic volumes to the area roadway network: • 46% to / from the east on TH 55 • 30% to / from the west on TH 55 • 12% to / from the north on Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • 5% to / from the north on Arrowhead Drive • 5% to / from the east on Hamel Road • 2% to / from the west on Hamel Road Projected Traffic Volumes Traffic forecasts were prepared for and the twenty-year design (year 2040) condition, representing the full development of the area. The traffic forecasts were prepare d by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and anticipated area develop ment site traffic generation to determine the 2040 Build traffic conditions for both TH 55 at Tamarack Drive access alternatives. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 5 The attached Figure 3 and Figure 4 shows the 2040 Build Traffic Volumes assuming the full movement signalized intersection, and; Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows the 2040 Build Traffic Volumes assuming a right-in/right-out intersection. Table 2 - Estimated Area Trip Generation Planned Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out North of TH 55 - East of Tamarack Town Homes 138 units 1,010 505 505 63 15 49 77 49 29 Office 30,000sf 292 146 146 35 30 5 35 6 29 Restaurant 5,000sf 561 280 280 50 27 22 49 30 19 Bank 4,000sf 400 200 200 38 22 16 82 41 41 Total Trips North of TH 55 East of Tamarack 2,263 1,132 1,132 186 94 92 242 125 117 North of TH 55 - West of Tamarack Office 70,000sf 682 341 341 81 70 11 81 13 68 Hotel 145 rooms 1,212 606 606 68 40 28 87 44 43 Convenience / Gas 2,500sf 1,561 780 780 101 51 51 123 62 62 Fast Food Restaurant 2,500sf 1,177 589 589 100 51 49 82 42 39 Retail 40,000sf 1,510 755 755 38 23 14 156 75 81 Pharmacy 6,000sf 655 327 327 23 12 11 62 31 31 Day Care 6,000sf 286 143 143 66 35 31 67 31 35 Restaurant 5,000sf 561 280 280 50 27 22 49 30 19 Bank 4,000sf 400 200 200 38 22 16 82 41 41 Total Trips North of TH 55 West of Tamarack 8,044 4,022 4,022 566 332 234 788 370 418 South of TH 55 Elementary School 750 Students 1,418 709 709 503 271 231 128 61 66 Middle School 780 students 1,661 831 831 452 244 208 133 65 68 Total Trips South of TH 55 3,079 1,539 1,539 955 516 439 260 126 134 Total New Trips 13,386 6,693 6,693 1,707 941 765 1,290 621 669 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 6 Forecasted Conditions Traffic Analysis A traffic analysis was completed evaluating the traffic operations for the projected 2040 conditions at the impacted area intersections with the proposed Tamarack Drive corridor improvements using Synchro/SimTraffic software for the traffic signal and stop sign control intersections and RODEL software for the roundabout controlled intersections. The capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the AM and PM peak hours to document the 2040 traffic operations assuming the two Tamarack Drive Improvement access alternatives including: Tamarack Drive at TH 55 as a full movement access with a traffic control signal, and; Tamarack Drive at TH 55 as a right-in / right-out stop sign controlled access. The results of the analysis are discussed in the following sections: 2040 Analysis with Full Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive Table 3 – 2040 Traffic Operations Summary with TH 55 full access shown below, summarizes the projected LOS and delays at the primary intersections in the study area assuming: Tamarack Drive constructed with a full movement signalized intersection at TH 55; Arrowhead Drive improved to include a southbound dual left turn at TH 55: Existing lane geometry and traffic control at all other intersections, and: projected 2040 traffic volumes based on the traffic generation shown in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The analysis results show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. All movements during the AM and PM peak hours would operate at a LOS D or better, however there are some movement that are operating at LOS E or F including: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: PM = LOS E • SB Arrowhead Dr - Left: AM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: PM = LOS E; Thru: AM = LOS F TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • NB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) – Left: PM = LOS E; Thru: AM and PM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: PM = LOS F; Right: PM = LOS F • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS F Meander Rd at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Thru: AM = LOS F; Right: AM = LOS F • EB Meander Rd - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Right: AM = LOS F TH 55 at Tamarack Drive • NB Tamarack Dr - Right: AM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM = LOS E • SB Tamarack Dr – Left: PM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 7 Table 3: Projected 2040 Level of Service, with a Signal at TH 55 Co nt r o l Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Si g na l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr E (F) 69 D (E) 44 Si g na l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 102 F (F) 123 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 1 A (A) 2 Thr u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 108 A (F) 7 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 4 A (A) 3 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (B) 5 A (A) 4 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Development Access A (A) 1 A (A) 1 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Tamarack Dr A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Tamarack Dr at Development Access A (B) 4 A (B) 5 Si g n a l TH 55 at Tamarack Dr D (E) 54 D (E) 48 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd at Tamarack Dr B (C) 14 A (A) 2 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. 2040 Analysis with Right-in/Right-out Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive Table 4 – 2040 Traffic Operations Summary with Right-in/Right-outl access shown below, summarizes the projected LOS and delays at the primary intersections in the study area assuming: Tamarack Drive constructed with a stop controlled right-in/right-out intersection at TH 55; Arrowhead Drive improved to include a southbound dual left turn at TH 55: Existing lane geometry and traffic control at all other intersections, and: projected traffic volumes based on the traffic generation shown in Table 2 The analysis results show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F and PM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. All movements during the AM and PM peak hours would operate at a LOS D or better, however there are some movement that are operating at LOS E or F including: Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 8 TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive • NB Arrowhead Dr – Left: AM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: PM = LOS F • SB Arrowhead Dr - Left: AM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: AM = LOS F TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • NB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) – Left: AM and PM = LOS E; Thru: AM and PM = LOS E • WB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS E, PM = LOS F; Right: PM = LOS F • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM and PM = LOS E • EB TH 55 - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Thru: AM = LOS F Meander Rd at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) • SB Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) - Thru: AM = LOS F; Right: AM = LOS F • EB Meander Rd - Left: AM and PM = LOS F; Right: AM and PM = LOS F TH 55 at Tamarack Drive • NB Tamarack Dr - Right: AM = LOS E • SB Tamarack Dr – Right: PM = LOS E Table 4: Projected 2040 Level of Service, with a Right-in/Right-out at TH 55 Co n t r o l Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) Si g n a l TH 55 at Arrowhead Dr F (F) 82 E (F) 56 Si g n a l TH 55 at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 171 F (F) 168 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Arrowhead Dr A (B) 3 A (B) 3 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) F (F) 164 C (F) 23 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at Arrowhead Dr A (A) 4 A (A) 3 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (B) 8 A (B) 5 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Development Access A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Meander Rd at Tamarack Dr A (A) 2 A (A) 2 Th r u - St o p Tamarack Dr at Development Access A (A) 4 A (B) 5 Th r u - St o p TH 55 at Tamarack Dr C (E) 22 C (E) 15 Th r u - St o p Hamel Rd at Tamarack Dr C (D) 20 A (A) 1 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 9 Alternative Comparison Two alternatives were reviewed and analyzed for the 2040 build conditions. The advantages and disadvantages for each alternative is outlined below: Full Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive: Advantages • Improvement has been planned by the City of Medina and MnDOT • The ADT volume on Meander Road traffic would remain at a local street level (1,750vpd) • The ADT on Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Arrowhead Drive between Meander Road and Hamel Road (CSAH 115) would have less impact than right-in/right-out access alternative Disadvantages • Additional full movement signalized intersection in the TH 55 corridor • With the increase in traffic from the site development TH 55 and Arrowhead Drive, TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) will have increased delays and LOS from the existing conditions. Right-in/Right-out Access at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive: Advantages • Limits access to TH 55 • Distributes local traffic to adjacent roadways Disadvantages • The ADT on Meander Road would more than double from the full movement access alternative. • The ADT on Hamel Road would increase more than 30% from the full movement access alternative. • The ADT on Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Arrowhead Drive between Meander Road and Hamel Road (CSAH 115) would increase between 15% and 25% from the full movement access alternative. • The AM peak hour volume in the southbound Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) to eastbound TH 55 dual left turn lane would increase from 766vph to 916vph • The AM peak hour volume in the eastbound Meander Road to southbound Pinto Drive right turn lane would increase from 28vph to 301vph • TH 55 and Arrowhead Drive, TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) will have longer overall delays and worse LOS than with the full movement access alternative • Safety of vehicles turning out from Tamarack Drive merging with vehicles going 55mph on TH 55. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 10 Conclusion / Recommendations Based on the analysis documented in this report, WSB has concluded the following: • The City of Medina identified the need to prepare a preliminary plan and vision for the future Tamarack Drive corridor from Meander Road to Hamel Road (CSAH 115). The corridor has been included in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. • The access to TH 55 at Tamarack Drive is included in the MnDOT Access Management Guidelines. In addition, MnDOT completed a preliminary corridor design concept for TH 55 from I-494 to the Crow River in 2007 and an EA/EAW in 2008. These documents both identified a future controlled intersection access at the TH 55 and Tamarack Drive. • The area’s north and south of TH 55 adjacent to the future Tamarack Drive corridor is planned for commercial and residential development north of TH 55 and a future Wayzata School District use south of TH 55. • The future area development is anticipated to generate up to 10,307 daily, 752 AM peak hour and 1,030 PM peak hour trips north of TH 55 and; 3,079 daily, 955 AM peak hour and 260 PM peak hour trips south of TH 55. • Two roadway access alternatives were prepared and analyzed including: a full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes, and; a partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and southbound right turn lanes. • The results of the existing conditions traffic operations analysis results show that all intersections are operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersection of TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour which is operating at an overall LOS E. • The analysis results for the 2040 condition with a full movement signalized intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. • The analysis results for the 2040 condition with right-in/right-out intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F and PM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F, and; Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F. • Based on comparison of the two access alternatives, the right-in/right-out access alternative would divert traffic to the adjacent roadways and would have significant traffic operation impacts specifically at the adjacent intersections of: TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116), and; Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road. In addition, there is a safety concern with vehicles turning out from Tamarack Drive merging with vehicles on TH 55 traveling at 55mph. Technical Memorandum Tamarack Drive – Traffic Analysis May 11, 2020 Page 11 Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Provide a full movement intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive to provide access to the existing and future development area north and south of TH 55, as identified by the City of Medina and in the current MnDOT Access Management Guidelines for the TH 55 corridor. 2. As the area adjacent to TH 55 and Tamarack Drive is developed, continue to review the warrants for installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection. When warrants are met work with MnDOT for approval and construction of the traffic signal system. Based on review of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) traffic signal warrants, it is estimated that the required traffic volume currently exist on TH 55 (>15,000vpd) to warrant a traffic control signal system, however, it is anticipated that the approximately 35% of the development on the north side of TH 55 or the school development on the south side of TH 55 or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) would need to be completed to warrant the traffic signal system. 3. As traffic grows in the area work with MnDOT and Hennepin County on possible improvements at the intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116), and; Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road to improve future traffic operations. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Chuck Rickart at (612).360.1283. W S B F il e n a m e : D a t e : P r in t e d : 5 / 9 / 2 0 2 0 K: \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ E x h ib i t s \ F ig u r e 1 P r o j e c t A r e a . d g n Medina, MN Tamarack Dr Traffic Study FIgure 1 - Project Area N 115 COUNTY 116 COUNTY 115 COUNTY 101 COUNTY P i n t o D r Meander Rd A r r o w h e a d D r Hamel Rd B ro c k to n La n e H u n t e r D r Pioneer Tr B r o c k t o n L a n e MINNESOTA 55 Project Area Figure 2. Existing Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Average Daily Traffic Volume Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd 20 9 ( 1 9 0 ) 18 ( 1 6 ) k 10 (21) (1 8 8 ) 2 0 1 (2 2 ) 1 2 15 (17)r w s 4 8 2 ( 3 ) 1 (1) 2 (2) f k (59) 23 6 (3) x 2 4 8 w sir v (2 6 ) 1 9 (7 7 3 ) 2 4 6 (6 ) 1 (1) 1 ,(25) 54 43 ( 6 2 ) 79 9 ( 3 0 2 ) 60 ( 4 1 ) 73 ( 3 4 ) i w k x 57 (69) 52 (57) f (70) 43 v(49) 35 97 ( 5 0 ) 5 ( 3 ) i r 20 (33) 62 (78) f k (59) 47 2 (3) x 2 4 8 w s v (2 ) 1 (4 ) 3 (4 ) 2 (16) 11 ,(2) 1 74 ( 4 5 ) (32) 20 v (6 2 ) 1 8 (4 1 ) 2 8 (1 2 1 ) 6 0 (807) 1776 ,(16) 42 121 (65) x 2 4 8 k 165 (137) f 389 (1687) s 34 ( 2 9 ) 61 ( 3 1 ) 12 9 ( 1 4 7 ) i r w (949) 1826 ,(15) 70 (111) 69 v (1 5 ) 8 (9 4 ) 7 7 (3 2 ) 2 7 42 (27) x 2 4 8 565 (1811) 120 (600) f k 69 3 ( 2 0 7 ) w s 10 2 ( 6 3 ) 64 ( 6 0 ) i r X,XXX 16,600 18,800 1,050 2,200 1,600 1,200 1,600 2,500 25,0002,200 9,600 900 9,600 400 Figure 3. 2040 Build Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r 25 7 ( 2 1 6 ) 52 ( 5 6 ) k r w s 47 (53) 17 (19) 4 8 (2 1 5 ) 2 4 4 (2 4 ) 1 3 12 0 ( 1 3 4 ) 92 4 ( 3 4 4 ) 2 ( 3 ) k 2 (2) f 1 (1) i r w s 7 (3) x 2 4 8(142) 86 v (2 9 ) 2 1 (8 6 5 ) 3 0 7 (7 ) 1 (1) 1 ,(28) 60 38 ( 3 2 ) 67 ( 3 4 ) k 16 9 ( 1 6 8 ) i r w s 641 (2029) 204 (158) f (35) 22 v (6 9 ) 2 0 (4 5 ) 3 1 (1 3 4 ) 6 6 134 (72) x 2 4 8 (1063) 2214 ,(18) 46 15 4 ( 8 0 ) 71 ( 6 6 ) 76 6 ( 2 2 9 ) 133 (663)k i r w s f 46 (30) x 2 4 8 1010 (2258) (17) 77 (141) 111 v (1 7 ) 9 (1 0 4 ) 8 5 (3 5 ) 3 0 (1344) 2408 , 81 ( 3 8 ) 57 (63)k i w f 66 ( 4 5 ) x 88 (91) (77) 48 v(69) 69 96 (74) i r w s 2 (3) 8 2 ( 5 0 ) 6 ( 3 ) 1 0 7 ( 5 5 ) k 69 (86) f x 2 4 8(65) 52 v (2 ) 1 (4 ) 3 (4 ) 2 (58) 73 ,(2) 1 LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Forecasted Average Daily Traffic VolumeX,XXX 22,300 24,800 7,100 2,500 2,100 1,400 2,100 3,500 33,6002,600 11,000 2,200 12,200 1,200 1,750 8,300 3,300 1,000 27,200 Figure 4. 2040 Build Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r f 46 (57) 5 (6)s (12) 12 v (1 5 ) 8 (1 0 ) 5 (58) 53 , 2 8 s f 67 (59) 2 8 33 (48) v (1 5 ) 1 8 (6 1 ) 5 6 (52) 38 ,(16) 200 (0) i r w s 76 (96) 40 ( 4 5 ) 36 ( 9 ) 16 ( 2 1 ) k 16 (24) f x 2 4 8(46) 27 v (2 7 7 ) 2 5 5 (1 0 ) 3 1 (1 0 3 ) 7 8 (0) 0 ,(291) 195 97 ( 1 3 0 ) 60 ( 4 6 ) 14 5 ( 2 2 0 ) k f 746 (2087) 184 (206) 243 (61)i r w s (38) 160 (139) 118 v (4 2 ) 1 3 6 (4 5 ) 6 2 (6 4 ) 2 1 0 (1188) 2171 , x 2 4 8 61 ( 4 0 ) 74 (38)k i w f 25 ( 1 5 ) x 91 (123) (15) 30 v(85) 65 Figure 5. 2040 Build Right-in, Right-out Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r (2 1 5 ) 2 4 4 (1 8 3 ) 1 5 0 22 (27) 4 8 r w s 28 (50) 25 7 ( 2 1 6 ) 42 ( 4 3 ) k (129) 64 v (2 9 ) 2 1 (8 7 0 ) 3 2 5 (7 ) 1 (1) 1 ,(301) 227 7 (3) x 2 4 8 1 (1) i r w s k 2 (2) f 99 ( 1 2 8 ) 94 5 ( 3 4 4 ) 2 ( 3 ) (930) 2117 ,(18) 46 (184) 150 v (1 0 9 ) 1 5 2 (5 9 ) 6 0 (1 3 4 ) 6 6 136 (78) x 2 4 8 i r w s 528 (2024) 182 (151) f k 15 8 ( 1 6 6 ) 54 ( 4 2 ) 67 ( 3 4 ) (17) 77 (133) 107 v (4 2 ) 3 1 (1 1 0 ) 1 0 7 (3 5 ) 3 0 (1111) 2220 , 283 (88) x 2 4 8 818 (2229) i r w s f 133 (663)k 11 3 ( 7 0 ) 15 0 ( 1 0 8 ) 91 6 ( 4 7 5 ) (87) 57 v(57) 49 x 72 (79) i w f 211 (110)k 73 ( 4 7 ) 92 ( 4 8 ) (71) 74 v (2 ) 1 (4 ) 3 (4 ) 2 (25) 34 ,(2) 1 x 2 4 8 46 (42) i r w s 2 (3) 3 8 0 ( 1 2 3 ) 6 ( 3 ) 1 2 4 ( 8 2 ) k 91 (111) f LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Forecasted Average Daily Traffic VolumeX,XXX 22,300 22,900 7,100 3,100 2,100 1,900 2,800 3,500 33,6003,800 12,900 4,800 12,200 2600 5,900 4,150 1,400 1,700 24,200 LEGEND XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Movements 248 Turning Movements Figure 6. 2040 Build Right-in, Right-out Peak Hour Volumes Tamarack Dr Traffic Study Medina, MN Ar r o w h e a d D r Pi n t o D r Meander Rd Hamel Rd Ta m a r a c k D r (96) 87 v (2 0 ) 1 2 (0 ) 0 (130) 105 , 2 8 5 (6)s 38 (57)f v (6 ) 5 (7 4 ) 5 8 (42) 33 , 46 (53) 2 8 33 (48) s f (88) 72 (272) 153 v (1 6 9 ) 1 6 8 (0 ) 0 (6 4 ) 4 8 (0) 0 ,(125) 70 x 2 4 8 0 (0) i r w s 30 (37) 72 ( 7 9 ) 0 ( 0 ) 46 ( 6 2 ) k 63 (80) f (42) 170 v (7 2 ) 2 3 3 (1188) 2171 , 8 i 746 (2087) 216 (253)k f 98 ( 1 6 0 ) (5) 21 v(85) 65 x 91 (123) i w f 325 (79)k 1 6 3 ( 5 8 ) 4 4 ( 1 3 ) Appendix C Engineer’s Opinion of Project Costs WSB Project:Tamarack Drive Corridor Design By:LME Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS City Project No.: WSB Project No:015599-000 Date:8/13/2020 Item No. MnDOT Specification No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 20,900.00$ 20,900.00$ 2 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 245 200.00$ 49,000.00$ 3 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 336 12.00$ 4,032.00$ 4 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 256 18.00$ 4,608.00$ 5 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 264 24.00$ 6,336.00$ 6 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$ 7 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 438,236.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (15%) 65,735.40$ SUBTOTAL 503,971.40$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 141,111.99$ TOTAL 645,000.00$ 8 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 12,800.00$ 12,800.00$ 9 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 3455 3.00$ 10,365.00$ 10 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$ 11 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$ 12 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1900 14.00$ 26,600.00$ 13 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 634 16.00$ 10,144.00$ 14 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2073 24.00$ 49,752.00$ 15 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 691 20.00$ 13,820.00$ 16 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 17 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 888 35.00$ 31,080.00$ 18 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$ 19 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 173 5.00$ 865.00$ 20 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 308 88.00$ 27,104.00$ 21 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 410 86.00$ 35,260.00$ 22 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$ 23 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$ 24 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$ 25 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$ 26 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$ 27 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 268,298.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,829.80$ SUBTOTAL 295,127.80$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 82,635.78$ TOTAL 378,000.00$ t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$ 28 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 38,000.00$ 38,000.00$ 29 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 30 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 31 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 67,000.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 6,700.00$ SUBTOTAL 73,700.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 20,636.00$ TOTAL 94,000.00$ OPINION OF PROBABLE COST A. Roadway Costs - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack B1. Roadway Costs - North TH 55/Tamarack Approach B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North 32 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 18,100.00$ 18,100.00$ 33 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 5074 3.00$ 15,222.00$ 34 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 1247 12.00$ 14,964.00$ 35 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1247 12.00$ 14,964.00$ 36 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 2791 14.00$ 39,074.00$ 37 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 931 16.00$ 14,896.00$ 38 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 3045 24.00$ 73,080.00$ 39 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 1015 20.00$ 20,300.00$ 40 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 41 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1304 35.00$ 45,640.00$ 42 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$ 43 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 254 5.00$ 1,270.00$ 44 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 452 88.00$ 39,776.00$ 45 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 603 86.00$ 51,858.00$ 46 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$ 47 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$ 48 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$ 49 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$ 50 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$ 51 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 379,276.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 37,927.60$ SUBTOTAL 417,203.60$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 116,817.01$ TOTAL 534,000.00$ t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$ 52 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 53 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 54 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 29,000.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 2,900.00$ SUBTOTAL 31,900.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 8,932.00$ TOTAL 41,000.00$ 55 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 31,200.00$ 31,200.00$ 56 2540.602 RAILROAD CROSSING PANELS LF 115 1,500.00$ 172,500.00$ 57 2565.601 GATE SYSTEM LS 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 653,700.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 65,370.00$ SUBTOTAL 719,070.00$ INDORECT COST TOTAL (10%) 71,907.00$ TOTAL 791,000.00$ B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North C3. Roadway Costs - Railroad Crossing C1. Roadway Costs - South TH 55/Tamarack Approach 58 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 39,300.00$ 39,300.00$ 59 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 60 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 61 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$ 62 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 9490 3.00$ 28,470.00$ 63 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 3866 12.00$ 46,392.00$ 64 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 2552 12.00$ 30,624.00$ 65 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 5220 16.00$ 83,520.00$ 66 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 5694 24.00$ 136,656.00$ 67 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$ 68 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$ 69 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 2438 35.00$ 85,330.00$ 70 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 2600 1.25$ 3,250.00$ 71 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 475 5.00$ 2,375.00$ 72 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 845 88.00$ 74,360.00$ 73 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 1126 86.00$ 96,836.00$ 74 2360.504 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C), 3.0" THICK S Y 709 50.00$ 35,450.00$ 75 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 76 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$ 77 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 4801 10.00$ 48,010.00$ 78 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 240 15.00$ 3,600.00$ 79 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 2860 16.00$ 45,760.00$ 80 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$ 81 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 82 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 83 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$ 84 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 85 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 86 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 87 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 88 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$ 89 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 191 30.00$ 5,730.00$ 90 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 91 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1734 1.25$ 2,167.50$ 92 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 40 5.00$ 200.00$ 92 2575.604 SODDING S Y 1014 7.00$ 7,098.00$ 93 2575.605 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 94 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 2600 1.00$ 2,600.00$ 95 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1300 1.00$ 1,300.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 824,954.50$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 82,495.45$ SUBTOTAL 907,449.95$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 254,085.99$ TOTAL 1,162,000.00$ 96 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 97 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 98 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1300 60.00$ 78,000.00$ 99 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$ 100 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 6 750.00$ 4,500.00$ 101 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 39 450.00$ 17,550.00$ 102 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 103 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 12 2,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 104 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 150,530.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 15,053.00$ SUBTOTAL 165,583.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 46,363.24$ TOTAL 212,000.00$ 105 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$ 106 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 4 6,800.00$ 27,200.00$ 107 2503.602 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 108 2503.602 16" GATE VALVE EACH 3 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 109 2503.603 6" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 110 2503.603 8" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 111 2503.603 16" DIP WATERMAIN L F 1300 130.00$ 169,000.00$ 112 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION S Y 20 40.00$ 800.00$ 113 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 2000 10.00$ 20,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 284,500.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 28,450.00$ SUBTOTAL 312,950.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 87,626.00$ TOTAL 401,000.00$ D. Roadway Costs - Tamarck North of TH 55 E. Storm Sewer - Tamarck North of TH 55 F. Watermain - Tamarck North of TH 55 114 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 115 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 116 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 117 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$ 118 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6732 3.00$ 20,196.00$ 119 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 4642 12.00$ 55,704.00$ 120 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1609 12.00$ 19,308.00$ 121 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3703 16.00$ 59,248.00$ 122 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 4039 24.00$ 96,936.00$ 123 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 17 300.00$ 5,100.00$ 124 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$ 125 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1729 35.00$ 60,515.00$ 126 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 3320 1.25$ 4,150.00$ 127 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 337 5.00$ 1,685.00$ 128 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 600 88.00$ 52,800.00$ 129 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 799 86.00$ 68,714.00$ 130 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 131 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$ 132 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 3652 16.00$ 58,432.00$ 133 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 134 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 135 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$ 136 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 137 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 138 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 139 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 140 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$ 141 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 288 30.00$ 8,640.00$ 142 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 143 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2614 1.25$ 3,267.50$ 144 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 60 5.00$ 300.00$ 145 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 2,400.00$ 146 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 3920 1.00$ 3,920.00$ 147 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1960 1.00$ 1,960.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 586,841.50$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 58,684.15$ SUBTOTAL 645,525.65$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 180,747.18$ TOTAL 826,000.00$ 148 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 149 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 150 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 151 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1950 60.00$ 117,000.00$ 152 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$ 153 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 7 750.00$ 5,250.00$ 154 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 59 500.00$ 29,500.00$ 155 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 156 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 14 2,500.00$ 35,000.00$ 157 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 269,730.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,973.00$ SUBTOTAL 296,703.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 83,076.84$ TOTAL 380,000.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3,952,066.00$ GRAND TOTAL COSTS 5,514,000.00$ H. Storm Sewer - Tamarck South of TH 55 G. Roadway Costs - Tamarck South of TH 55 WSB Project:Tamarack Drive Corridor Design By:LME Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS City Project No.: WSB Project No:015599-000 Date:6/26/2020 Item No. MnDOT Specification No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 20,900.00$ 20,900.00$ 2 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 245 200.00$ 49,000.00$ 3 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 336 12.00$ 4,032.00$ 4 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 256 18.00$ 4,608.00$ 5 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 264 24.00$ 6,336.00$ 6 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$ 7 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 438,236.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (15%) 65,735.40$ SUBTOTAL 503,971.40$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 141,111.99$ TOTAL 645,000.00$ 8 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 12,800.00$ 12,800.00$ 9 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 3455 3.00$ 10,365.00$ 10 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$ 11 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$ 12 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1900 14.00$ 26,600.00$ 13 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 634 16.00$ 10,144.00$ 14 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2073 24.00$ 49,752.00$ 15 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 691 20.00$ 13,820.00$ 16 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 17 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 888 35.00$ 31,080.00$ 18 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$ 19 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 173 5.00$ 865.00$ 20 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 308 88.00$ 27,104.00$ 21 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 410 86.00$ 35,260.00$ 22 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$ 23 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$ 24 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$ 25 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$ 26 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$ 27 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 268,298.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,829.80$ SUBTOTAL 295,127.80$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 82,635.78$ TOTAL 378,000.00$ t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$ 28 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 38,000.00$ 38,000.00$ 29 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 30 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 31 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 67,000.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 6,700.00$ SUBTOTAL 73,700.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 20,636.00$ TOTAL 94,000.00$ OPINION OF PROBABLE COST A. Roadway Costs - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack B1. Roadway Costs - North TH 55/Tamarack Approach B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North 32 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 14,800.00$ 14,800.00$ 33 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 4063 3.00$ 12,189.00$ 34 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 999 12.00$ 11,988.00$ 35 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 999 12.00$ 11,988.00$ 36 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 2235 14.00$ 31,290.00$ 37 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 745 16.00$ 11,920.00$ 38 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2438 24.00$ 58,512.00$ 39 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 813 20.00$ 16,260.00$ 40 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$ 41 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1044 35.00$ 36,540.00$ 42 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$ 43 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 204 5.00$ 1,020.00$ 44 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 362 88.00$ 31,856.00$ 45 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 483 86.00$ 41,538.00$ 46 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$ 47 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$ 48 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$ 49 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$ 50 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$ 51 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 310,033.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 31,003.30$ SUBTOTAL 341,036.30$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 95,490.16$ TOTAL 437,000.00$ t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$ 52 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 53 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 54 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 29,000.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 2,900.00$ SUBTOTAL 31,900.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 8,932.00$ TOTAL 41,000.00$ 55 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 31,200.00$ 31,200.00$ 56 2540.602 RAILROAD CROSSING PANELS LF 115 1,500.00$ 172,500.00$ 57 2565.601 GATE SYSTEM LS 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 653,700.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 65,370.00$ SUBTOTAL 719,070.00$ INDORECT COST TOTAL (10%) 71,907.00$ TOTAL 791,000.00$ B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North C3. Roadway Costs - Railroad Crossing C1. Roadway Costs - South TH 55/Tamarack Approach 58 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 30,200.00$ 30,200.00$ 59 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 60 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 61 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$ 62 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6067 3.00$ 18,201.00$ 63 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 3866 12.00$ 46,392.00$ 64 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 2552 12.00$ 30,624.00$ 65 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3337 16.00$ 53,392.00$ 66 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 3640 24.00$ 87,360.00$ 67 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$ 68 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$ 69 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1559 35.00$ 54,565.00$ 70 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 2600 1.25$ 3,250.00$ 71 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 304 5.00$ 1,520.00$ 72 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 540 88.00$ 47,520.00$ 73 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 720 86.00$ 61,920.00$ 74 2360.504 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C), 3.0" THICK S Y 709 50.00$ 35,450.00$ 75 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 76 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$ 77 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 4801 10.00$ 48,010.00$ 78 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 240 15.00$ 3,600.00$ 79 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 2860 16.00$ 45,760.00$ 80 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$ 81 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 82 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 83 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$ 84 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 85 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 86 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 87 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 88 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$ 89 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 191 30.00$ 5,730.00$ 90 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 91 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1734 1.25$ 2,167.50$ 92 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 40 5.00$ 200.00$ 92 2575.604 SODDING S Y 1014 7.00$ 7,098.00$ 93 2575.605 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 94 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 2600 1.00$ 2,600.00$ 95 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1300 1.00$ 1,300.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 632,785.50$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 63,278.55$ SUBTOTAL 696,064.05$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 194,897.93$ TOTAL 891,000.00$ 96 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 97 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 98 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1300 60.00$ 78,000.00$ 99 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$ 100 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 6 750.00$ 4,500.00$ 101 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 39 450.00$ 17,550.00$ 102 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 103 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 12 2,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 104 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 150,530.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 15,053.00$ SUBTOTAL 165,583.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 46,363.24$ TOTAL 212,000.00$ 105 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$ 106 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 4 6,800.00$ 27,200.00$ 107 2503.602 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 108 2503.602 16" GATE VALVE EACH 3 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 109 2503.603 6" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 110 2503.603 8" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 111 2503.603 16" DIP WATERMAIN L F 1300 130.00$ 169,000.00$ 112 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION S Y 20 40.00$ 800.00$ 113 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 2000 10.00$ 20,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 284,500.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 28,450.00$ SUBTOTAL 312,950.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 87,626.00$ TOTAL 401,000.00$ D. Roadway Costs - Tamarck North of TH 55 E. Storm Sewer - Tamarck North of TH 55 F. Watermain - Tamarck North of TH 55 114 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 115 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 116 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$ 117 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$ 118 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6732 3.00$ 20,196.00$ 119 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 4642 12.00$ 55,704.00$ 120 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1609 12.00$ 19,308.00$ 121 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3703 16.00$ 59,248.00$ 122 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 4039 24.00$ 96,936.00$ 123 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 17 300.00$ 5,100.00$ 124 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$ 125 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1729 35.00$ 60,515.00$ 126 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 3320 1.25$ 4,150.00$ 127 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 337 5.00$ 1,685.00$ 128 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 600 88.00$ 52,800.00$ 129 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 799 86.00$ 68,714.00$ 130 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$ 131 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$ 132 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 3652 16.00$ 58,432.00$ 133 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 134 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 135 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$ 136 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 137 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$ 138 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 139 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$ 140 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$ 141 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 288 30.00$ 8,640.00$ 142 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$ 143 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2614 1.25$ 3,267.50$ 144 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 60 5.00$ 300.00$ 145 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 2,400.00$ 146 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 3920 1.00$ 3,920.00$ 147 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1960 1.00$ 1,960.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 586,841.50$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 58,684.15$ SUBTOTAL 645,525.65$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 180,747.18$ TOTAL 826,000.00$ 148 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 149 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 150 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$ 151 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1950 60.00$ 117,000.00$ 152 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$ 153 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 7 750.00$ 5,250.00$ 154 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 59 500.00$ 29,500.00$ 155 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 156 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 14 2,500.00$ 35,000.00$ 157 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 269,730.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,973.00$ SUBTOTAL 296,703.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 83,076.84$ TOTAL 380,000.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3,690,654.00$ GRAND TOTAL COSTS 5,146,000.00$ G. Roadway Costs - Tamarck South of TH 55 H. Storm Sewer - Tamarck South of TH 55 Appendix D Social Pinpoint Survey Social Pinpoint Mapping Responses 1 Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study: Social Pinpoint Activity Results Survey (22 responses as of 04/21/20) Section 1: Example Roadways Ranking 1 = most preferred choice, 6 = least preferred choice Summary Votes for Each Rank by Example Rank Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 1 6 0 12 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 0 9 2 3 4 3 1 5 3 4 4 0 5 3 5 4 3 5 3 4 0 7 3 2 6 5 5 0 2 0 7 6 0 12 1 1 22 3 5 0 9 2 4 3 1 5 3 4 0 5 3 5 4 33 4 0 7 3 2 5 5 0 2 0 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Ranking Distribution Overview 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Example 1 6 2 4 0 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 1 Ranking Distribution 3 Example 2 0 3 3 5 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 2 Ranking Distribution 4 Example 3 12 5 1 3 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 3 Ranking Distribution 5 Example 4 1 0 5 5 7 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 4 Ranking Distribution 6 Example 5 1 9 3 4 3 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 5 Ranking Distribution 7 Example 6 2 2 4 3 2 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example 6 Ranking Distribution 8 Section 2: Roadway Features Summary Yes Votes by Feature Feature Yes Votes Percent Trees/Vegetation 18 82% Sidewalks and/or Trails 18 82% Grass or Landscaped Median 14 64% Decorative Lighting 13 59% Roundabout 5 23% Bump-Out (Curb Extension) 2 9% Concrete Median 2 9% Sidewalks and/or Trails Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 18/22 (82%) Comments: · Trails will be nice. Combination of this with natural landscaped median. · Trails are a good idea. · It would be nice to extend the trails in the area along both sides of Tamarack Drive. · Trail/sidewalk is great for families and kids to be able to walk and bike the area · Making the neighborhoods connected with bike trails wold be ideal. · Walking, jogging and biking trail · Trails or wide sidewalks are a must. Lots of pedestrians in high residential areas and for commercial business. · Adding trails is always positive in my opinion. 2 2 5 13 14 18 18 0 5 10 15 20 Concrete Median Bump-Out (Curb Extension) Roundabout Decorative Lighting Grass or Landscaped Median Sidewalks and/or Trails Trees/Vegetation Number of Yes Votes 9 Trees/Vegetation Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 18/22 (82%) Comments: · This would be an ideal scenario. · I prefer trees and vegetation. · The more trees/vegetation the better as far as I'm concerned. · We need WAY MORE TREES in Medina so that along with other vegetation, that gets manicured and taken care of would be great to see. · Mature trees and beautiful flowers like hanging baskets... · Whether trees/bushes are located on street sides or the median, they fit that location of Medina well and make it a greener more luxurious look than just roadway. Grass or Landscaped Median Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 14/22 (64%) Comments: · Aesthetically pleasing. · Landscaped is nice. Grass, if not maintained, will be aesthetically unappealing. · I like the look of landscaped medians. · Would prefer this over concrete median, but a median is needed. · Landscaping will be key to make this look upscale and nice. Decorative Lighting Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 13/22 (59%) Comments: · Optional - but not necessary. · I would prefer to not have any additional lights/streetlights added. · I like the idea of decorative lighting as long as it doesn't increase the overall light pollution near residences. Would be nice along trails for safety in the evening, but it does have a more commercial/retail feel to me. · We don't have enough lighting in general in our current neighborhood in the Fields of Medina on Jubert Trail. Also on Meander there is hardly any lighting. For community safety I would like to see more lighting in general. · Well lit roads to take safe evening walks. · I'm not in favor of adding light pollution to our neighborhood. Roundabout Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 5/22 (23%) Comments: · Just doesn't feel right for the area. · No roundabout, too much road, not necessary for this plan and future road. 10 Concrete Median Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 2/22 (9%) Comments: · Maintenance issues with this. Not ideal or sustainable long term. · I don't like concrete. · I prefer landscaped medians to concrete. · concrete is so ugly and does not provide an upscale look · One of the reasons I love living in Medina is because of the wildlife and natural beauty. I don't believe that a concrete median would be consistent with the current landscape. Bump-out (Curb Extension) Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 2/22 (9%) Comments: · I would not want to encourage parking along Tamarack Drive. I think there should be other, dedicated parking areas. · I think that will slow traffic which will be great. Traffic on Meander drives WAY too fast. Other Features (What other features would you like to see that were not included in the examples above?) Comments: · I think that the combination of the trails with natural landscaping is an ideal scenario. · A stop light at 55/Tamarak is critical to manage egress and release pressure on the meander/116/arrowhead egress that will come from future development · Please ensure Tamarack and ideally, Arrowhead becomes whistle free crossings for train track parallel to 55. Thank you! The whistle free crossings create a better environment for families to enjoy the growing neighborhoods, the ability to play outside without interruption and sleep with windows open. · Would like to see Many Tall evergreens planted on the North side of Meander to separate the Fields of Medina Neighborhood to what will be the newly developed space. · benches, small grass areas for walking, sitting. · I live in the Fields of Medina - West neighborhood, and my biggest concern is the volume and speed of cars on Meander road. Because of how the road straightens out, cars often exceed the 40 mph speed limit, which makes me nervous to have my children playing in the back yard. Thank you for consulting the community for this project! 11 Ideas Wall (14 comments as of 04/21/20) Within each comment type, responses are sorted from most likes to least. Things I would like to see (7 comments) 1. If townhomes are built the city should leverage Meander Rd for an outlet to both 116 and Arrowhead. Meander can be expanded with a median to 4 lanes. No railroad crossing req. There will be minimal traffic northbound to Hamel Rd. We’ve been told by Medina city officials numerous times that the county will not allow an intersection with a light at Mohawk and now somehow it is appropriate to add another intersection and a light on hwy 55. I can’t see any logic or rationale with this decision. [5 Likes, 3 Dislikes] 2. We need to very mindful of walkable areas from Meander onto 116. This walkway does not go through and is very dangerous - especially for those turning right from the southbound lane. We need to be able to mitigate future issues that limit sight lines for those that walk this route. From my standpoint, we cannot move forward with this project until we address the potential density issues that will impact this area. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 3. Need to have a traffic light at 116/meander and/or tamarack/55. Currently it's very dangerous making a left or right turn off of meander to 116. Meander can't support additional traffic from this new development at this intersection without a light. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 4. Please consider traffic and safety along all of Meander Road with the addition of this proposed neighborhood and new road. There is significant pedestrian traffic from the current residential areas along Meander and traffic controls such as roundabouts at the existing roads of Jubert Dr and Cavanaugh Dr as well as the proposed intersection of Tamarak could assist with slowing traffic and keeping families safe [2 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 5. If we do need to better link parts of Medina north and south of Hwy 55, could we add a bike and pedestrian tunnel or tasteful access bridge? Always concerning seeing people try to cross the Hwy & hoping drivers follow the traffic lights. Would be nice for the retail and restaurant space to have a very walkable almost park like feel with benches, landscape, fountains, etc. that encourage community vs. a typical strip mall. Adding the biking & pedestrian access could help encourage that vibe. [1 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 6. *If increasing residential density, will need a plan to mitigate light pollution. *A nice to have for the residents in the area would be an off leash dog park. *Meander Road will need to be expanded into a total of 4 lanes (2 lanes in each direction) to accommodate traffic, with a median in between. *And please refrain from using any roundabouts! *When evaluating restaurant ideas, prioritize local eateries/breweries and fast casual (like Chipotle and Punch Pizza). [1 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 7. first choice would be to see an upscale retail / restaurant development use the entire space to compliment an upscale community like Medina. Using the entire space would allow ample room to keep a country like feeling and draw people from neighboring cities. 12 Second choice would be to move the proposed neighborhood to Meander and Arrowhead where they would already have access to 2 exits eliminating the additional traffic on Meander. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes] Things I would not like to see (4 comments) 1. I fail to see how 138 new townhomes, an additional traffic restricting light on hwy 55 and a new railroad crossing aligns with the council’s stated mission statement; “Keep Medina Rural”. Perhaps a business park with small retail shops, restaurants and coffee shops, and maybe a soccer pitch accessible via Meander Rd to 116 and Arrowhead would be less invasive and serve the neighborhoods in the area better without further restricting traffic on hwy 55. [9 Likes, 2 Dislikes] 2. Agree with all other comments. This proposed neighborhood and new road do not make sense in this location. This does not fall in line at all with the vision of Medina and why residents move here. If you need to bring down the average home price in Medina, please don't do it at the expense of other residents. There is PLENTY of space in Medina to add a massive townhouse development that would not be adjacent to an another established neighborhood. Put this development on the other side of 55 [2 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 3. I have concerns that the existing park that already accommodates, both East and West Fields of Medina, Bridgewater and the Foxberry neighborhoods would not be large enough to accommodate another 100+ homes. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 4. For safety reason's I would not want a hotel overlooking the park. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes] Other comments (3 comments) 1. It would be nice to get public comments on if adding another through road across 55 is the correct design plan vs. just the aesthetics; which I imagine to be ignored regardless. I totally understand new access points to the proposed development area will need to be created off of 55, but I don’t understand why it’s seen as necessary for it to go all the way through to Meander or across the highway to connect to Hamel road. Agreed with another poster that a light at Meander/116 would be better. [6 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 2. If Medina is committed to keeping a rural feeling, they should take a hard look at allowing 130 plus town homes and determine if that really fits the vision of Medina. One of the most attractive qualities of this area is Wayzata schools without the congesting and constant building like Plymouth. What does this mean for our schools that are already filled to the max? Will this result in redistricting yet again? I think this is a slippery slope. [5 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 3. As Medina expands the neighborhoods near Pinto and Arrowhead, it would be ideal to ensure Tamarack and Arrowhead become whistle free train intersections. To enjoy the peace of the countryside and allow residents to sleep with windows open - whistle free train intersections are a must as Medina expands developments. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes] 1 Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study: Concepts A & B Comments A total of 20 comments were received as of 05/18/20. The three types of comments are outlined below along with map showing the location of the comment: • Something I Like • Something I Don’t Like • Make a Comment Something I Like Marker Comment Likes Dislikes 1 I like landscape screening - important for keeping kids out of the commercial area and keep "Medina" feel of rural view for Fields of Medina homes. Please ensure retail buildings are tasteful on all sides not just front face. 5 0 2 Love that paved trail crosses 55. I hope it continues south to Hamel road providing residents access beyond immediate trails for biking. I'm also a fan of the median as it creates a greener area for residents and commercial alike. 0 0 3 Much more aesthetically appealing. Trees and median needs to be maintained. 3 0 4 I like Concept A better than Concept B. Tamarack Drive is only going to be about .5 miles long--I don't think it needs a median with trees. 0 2 5 I like the roundabout concept as well as the parkway, which for a such a short segment wouldn't have really high maintenance costs. 0 0 6 A staggered entrance between the commercial area and neighborhood would allow for traffic coming from west to enter the commercial area before getting to the neighborhood and potentially cut down on some traffic where there high pedestrian traffic 2 0 7 Parkway is more aesthetically pleasing and allows for more landscaping options, though it must be maintained 0 0 8 Prefer the roundabout over the alternate intersection option for the commercial entrance 1 0 9 I prefer less retail/commercial. 0 0 10 Prefer having the pond closer to Meander instead of Highway 55 - however, not at the extent of having an intersection here. Remove the intersection and keep the pond. 0 0 2 “Something I Like” Comment Locations 3 Something I Don’t Like Marker Comment Likes Dislikes 1 Would prefer not to have a four way intersection at the neighborhood entrance and commercial area entrance. If a 4 way intersection is added here it need needs to be controlled, preferably by a roundabout 1 0 2 A four-way stop here would significantly negatively impact the neighborhood. 2 0 3 Less traffic into our neighborhood - Fields of Medina. 2 0 4 Having commercial traffic sharing an intersection with the neighborhood is highly undesirable, and adds risk to the many children in this development. 0 0 5 Why is there a need to extend Tamarack drive to Hamel Road? There is not enough traffic to warrant that. Let's keep Medina rural and not an extension of the overdeveloped Plymouth. 0 0 6 We don't need to develop so much in Medina. There are traffic issues on 116 and that intersection is too busy. Let's keep Medina rural. 0 0 4 “Something I Don’t Like” Comment Locations 5 Make a Comment Marker Comment Likes Dislikes 1 Need more traffic control along Meander as Tamarack Drive and the future commercial and medium density residential building will create more traffic - this is a residential area with a lot of pedestrian activity and the safety and comfort of the families in the area needs to be considered 1 0 2 Please consider the safety of crossing Meander Road to the park by adding cross walks to the intersection 0 0 3 Something for the city to consider is that the railroad crossing at Arrowhead and 55 is still an extremely loud horn and signal crossing. If the city is putting in 100-plus townhomes and increasing the tax revenue so significantly, it makes sense to address this railroad crossing, as almost every single resident in Fields of Medina is frustrated with that issue. 1 0 4 In addition to landscape screening on the south side of Meander - a white vinyl privacy fence like that seen on the Charles Cudd development on Meander/116 would add privacy to the homes backing up to Meander. 1 0 6 “Make a Comment” Comment Locations Appendix E Meeting Minutes with MnDOT Meeting Minutes with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety Meeting Minutes with Hennepin County 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M Agenda: MnDOT Coordination Meeting - Minutes Project: City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study Date: March 5, 2020 Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 15599-000 Attendees: See Sign-In Sheet 1. Introductions 2. Project Background a. A cohesive plan is not available for the Tamarack Drive corridor; this study is intended to incorporate the City’s vision and provide concept plans, a traffic analysis, and include preliminary cost estimates b. Identification of ROW needed for adjacent property/developments along the corridor c. Pedestrian improvements and connectivity d. TH 55 intersection improvements, geometrics, schedule planning e. Let public involvement/input drive the planning/design process 3. Design & Geometrics a. South of TH 55 i. Wayzata Schools: The School District is in the process of planning for site, plan anticipated within the next year or so. The school has planned to ii. Railroad crossing: quiet zone anticipated with intersection improvements. iii. Intersection at Hamel Rd (County Rd): Scope of study will consider where Tamarack Rd can intersect with Hamel Rd but not provide as much detail for the roadway section between the railroad and Hamel Rd. b. North of TH 55 i. Residential/commercial development: Plans for the residential development adjacent to Meander Rd have been submitted to the City. ii. Intersection at Meander Rd: Scope of study will consider up to two alternatives for the intersection. c. Improvements at TH 55 i. EB/WB legs of TH 55 a. The intersection was studied and a full movement access was recommended as part of corridor access framework studied with the 2007 TH 55 design concept vision (EA). b. The full movement access included support by MnDOT for a signal at that location. c. MnDOT considers TH 55 a preservation corridor, not an expansion corridor. ii. North/South legs of TH 55 a. Skew/angle of approach from north/south b. Culvert crossing, ditch alignment City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – MnDOT Coordination Meeting - Minutes March 5, 2020 Page 2 c. MnDOT will require that justification be provided for the timing on need for the intersection, if justified MnDOT would consider the full movement intersection and in the 3-5 year timeframe, and installation of a signalized intersection at such time as it is warranted. iii. Pedestrian connectivity a. Three Rivers Park District is creating a master plan for “Diamond Lake Trail Corridor” that includes this general area. b. Alignment, at-grade or grade separated crossing is yet to be determined. iv. Future intersection/signal system a. Look at barriers for using the other access points on Meander Rd and Hamel Rd versus a Tamarack Dr intersection with TH 55, justify need to impact TH 55. b. MnDOT commented on the poor soils and constructed a “land bridge” for a portion of TH 55 in this area. v. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plan/stop at CR 116 a. Included with a Metropolitan Council Study b. MnDOT does have some involvement in the process (Todd Sherman) 4. Planning/Schedule for TH 55 Intersection Improvements a. South Side: Wayzata Schools, approximately 4 years out, layout of site (elementary and/or middle school) unknown but the school is in the planning process. The peak hour rush (buses, cars) will have the most impact on the design and planning considerations. b. North Side: i. Residential development concept plan a. Currently being reviewed by the City ii. Commercial development c. Intersection Planning: i. MnDOT will revisit the original justification for the intersection from prior studies. ii. WSB will need to incorporate a review of the surrounding intersections and future capacity to accommodate traffic with or without new Tamarack Rd intersection at TH 55 and provided a summary to MnDOT for review iii. Both parties will review the MnDOT access spacing management guidelines. d. Next Steps with MnDOT: i. MnDOT will review and determine from original studies and WSB traffic analysis if intersection is still justified. Review will take approximately 30 days. ii. If determined to be justified, WSB will prepare preliminary geometric layout for MnDOT review. iii. MnDOT will review geometrics of proposed intersection/signal location. Consideration should be given for an interim condition if the initial development does not require a full signalized intersection. Review will take approximately 30 days. iv. MnDOT will determine what Level (Level I or II) Layout will be required. City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – MnDOT Coordination Meeting - Minutes March 5, 2020 Page 3 5. Funding Sources a. City b. Assessments to Adjacent Property Owners c. MnDOT/State Aid 6. Future Permits, Agency Approvals, Agreements a. Wetland (WCA/DNR) b. ECWMC (Stormwater, ditch/creek crossing) c. MPCA. Wetland, EAW, other environmental d. MnDOT 7. Preliminary Schedule First Meeting with MnDOT .................................................................................... March 5, 2020 First Meeting with Hennepin County, CP Railroad ................................................... March, 2020 Public Information Meeting .................... Early-Mid April (2nd Week, Notice in Newsletter), 2020 Draft Report and Preliminary Concept Plans .................................................. End of April, 2020 City Council Work Session (2nd Meeting) ............................................................... May 19, 2020 Meeting with City Staff .................................................................................. May 20 or 21, 2020 Second Meeting with MnDOT and Hennepin County .............................. Week of May 25, 2020 Final Report and Concept Plans ............................................................................. June 5, 2020 City Council Meeting to Review Final Report and Concept Plans ........................ June 16, 2020 8. Next Steps, Questions, Clarifications, Other Action Items (WSB) - Provide traffic analysis/study to MnDOT for intersection justification. Submit through Todd Sherman Action Items (City) Action Items (MnDOT) - Revisit/review original justifications for intersection improvements - Confirm whether or not a Level I or II Layout plan is needed at time of geometric review 9. Adjourn WS Sign -In =orm TAMRACK DRIVE CORRIDOR STUDY — MNDOT CO ORDINATION MEETING CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA WSB PROJECT NO. 015599.000 MNDOT CO ORDINATIO N MEETING - MARCH 5, 2020 1:00 PM 0 Name Representing Phone (Include Area Code) I Cell/Pager (Include Area C ode E-mail Address J jm ,11h 1 l .s Zcp3-z9z-'o'3,2 6'T-''!' - ' 5- o:urn taw, co" .(X)611- OIKSait-- ..., �? A uJ- - ,, edit�, f 1 9 ` " uj 7j , 2 + -VC oc2-' X 71/3 c Cri 1/44vcC . e/i5se., c., 49----1 ts P ( 24 J Ii Cf u 57 77?I ��L 4P --�` J _J 5-7 `:_k IQ a .)-A e " ...,,ar _s % ale .-3-1 _ ��) City o! Medina Tamarack Orroc C orrode( Study Match 5, 2020 Page 2 Name Zfifioof Phone CelUJPager Repr ese nting (Include Area (Include Area Code} C ode} figloT 0-1-,2 4 7720 E-mail Address Zil-.3,0 6514>044s Tab (\-/\,„0 T (,S11- z 1-11 4S bra+-..k<...}.l.$)5 6p -A y.. ?r',? If ire-cL4 /i144717 C�`7 Oil- /afv-/iaf f q C.C'/Yi,,,es !C r735_'tf1030. nremacriv ra0 00305M'Ir0i Muetr4RJOJ 00 05 PA Irkse.r r. uxr Cur"*u SO" - Sir kidx-s Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 An equal opportunity employer MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 July 22, 2020 Dusty Finke Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Chuck Rickart Principal WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 SUBJECT: MnDOT Review # S20-039 Tamarack Drive Corridor MN 55 & Tamarack Drive Medina, Hennepin County Dear Messrs. Finke and Rickart, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Tamarack Drive Corridor development. MnDOT has reviewed the documents and has the following comments: Traffic: MnDOT Metro Traffic concurs that a full movement signalized intersection would be an appropriate intersection control at the intersection of TH 55 at Tamarack Drive, as indicated by the Tamarack Drive Traffic Study. An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report will be needed. Metro Traffic agrees that continued proactive coordination is needed with respect to the assessing signal warrants as development occurs adjacent to the project area. General considerations regarding a future signal at this location: • The signal would require full preemption and will use the new CTC railroad preemptions cards. • The signal would require integration into the MnDOT fiber network, this will require one vault and hand hole will have to be moved. • All opposing left turns must be compatible, the provided concept shows that the NB and SB double left turn lanes appear to conflict. • The right turn lanes off of mainline would need to be extended to accommodate the signal. MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 For more information about this comment, please contact Izaak Peterson, Metro Traffic Safety, at 651-234-7829 or izaak.peterson@state.mn.us. Multimodal: MnDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian’s comments are shown in red on the attached plan documents. For questions regards the attached comments, contact Jesse Thornsen, Metro Multimodal, at 651- 234-7788 or Jesse.Thornsen@state.mn.us. Water Resources: MnDOT has no comments concerning drainage at this time. However, future specific details concerning Tamarack Drive drainage patterns and systems may necessitate a Drainage Permit Review. For questions regards these comments, contact Mark Fairbrother, Metro Water Resources, at mark.fairbrother@state.mn.us or 651-234-7528. Permits: As this is a layout, the only permits required would be for utilities in the MnDOT Right-of-Way. Permits can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro Permits Section at 651-234-7911 or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. PDF file(s) uploaded to MnDOT’s external shared internet workspace site at: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. Mailed or hand delivered documents in PDF format on a flash drive or CD-ROM to: MnDOT – Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 4. Printed documents via mail or hand delivery to the address above. Include one set of full-size plans. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7797. Sincerely, MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 Cameron Muhic Senior Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Lance Schowalter, Design Mark Fairbrother, Water Resources Jason Swenson, Water Resources Andrew Lutaya, Area Engineer Douglas Nelson, Right-of-Way Izaak Peterson, Traffic MnDOT ADA Office Mackenzie Turner Bargen, Multimodal Jesse Thornsen, Multimodal Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council 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: Hennepin County Coordination Meeting - Minutes Project: City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study Date: April 30, 2020 Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 15599-000 Attendees: Jason Gottfried (Hennepin County), Andy Mielke (SRF Consulting, TH 55 Coalition), Dusty Finke (City Planner), Chuck Rickart (WSB), Jim Stremel (WSB) 1. Introductions 2. Project Background a. A cohesive plan is not available for the Tamarack Drive corridor; this study is intended to incorporate the City’s vision and provide concept plans, a traffic analysis, and include preliminary cost estimates b. Identification of ROW needed for adjacent property/developments along the corridor c. Pedestrian improvements and connectivity d. TH 55 intersection improvements, geometrics, schedule planning e. Let public involvement/input drive the planning/design process 3. Design & Geometrics a. North of TH 55 i. Residential/commercial development ii. Intersection at Meander Rd and potential modifications b. Improvements at TH 55 i. EB/WB legs of TH 55 may need adjustment depending on final intersection layout ii. North/South legs of TH 55 a. Skew/angle of approach from north/south b. Culvert crossing, ditch alignment c. Railroad proximity to intersection to the south iii. Pedestrian connectivity a. Three Rivers Park District is creating a master plan for “Diamond Lake Trail Corridor” that includes this general area. b. Alignment, at-grade or grade separated crossing is yet to be determined. Need to add trail/sidewalk to proposed typical section. c. South of TH 55 iv. Wayzata Schools: The School District is in the process of planning for site, plan anticipated within the next year or so, but the best schedule the school can provide is that development could would likely not occur within the next 4 years. Both elementary and middle school possible v. Intersection at Hamel Rd (County Rd): consider where Tamarack Rd can intersect with Hamel Rd, see map. City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Hennepin County Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 30, 2020 Page 2 vi. The County would expect an eastbound left turn lane on Hamel to NB Tamarack. vii. A future to the south would be a neighborhood access, likely not a major thoroughfare. viii. Railroad Crossing: a. Existing crossing and panels b. Quiet zone c. Signal phasing d. Crossing improvements e. Highway 55 Corridor Safety Coalition i. Started into the early 2000’s ii. Improve the long-term safety, mobility, and operations of Highway 55 through this corridor. iii. Look at opportunities to find funding mechanisms and consider a larger project scope/improvement iv. One of their intents is to extend four lanes further west within TH 55 corridor v. Not a lot of discussion about the 2007 MnDOT corridor study vi. Like to work with local partners and appreciate all of the input from local partners and stakeholders vii. Would like to be included in future discussions and distribution of study reports/materials Add bike/ped connections to the map/plan. Also add fourth leg to the south of Hamel and turn lanes on Hamel. Add dual left turn lanes SB as well as on the westbound on Hwy 55? Any reason to add NB left turn from Tamarack to TH 55? 4. Planning/Schedule for Hamel Road Improvements a. The City is working to construction the intersection at Hwy 55, the vision will establish what the full intersection will look like, and then determine how things will be funded likely through adjacent development. Want to avoid “hiccups” in this corridor between the agencies involved. b. Implementation of intersection at TH 55 is likely in 2-3 years on the short term, 3- 7 on the long-term planning process. c. Next Steps with County: i. Would like to bring to their plat review committee, sight distance is always a concern ii. Signal warrants analysis would be helpful, but this intersection would be up against their prioritization factor iii. Send draft of commercial concept analysis d. Highway 55 Corridor Safety Coalition i. Next meeting is in August and will share this information, will provide any feedback and whether a more formal presentation is necessary City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Hennepin County Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 30, 2020 Page 3 5. Easements / Right-of-way a. City b. Assessments to Adjacent Property Owners c. MnDOT/State Aid d. CP Railroad e. Hennepin County 6. Future Permits, Agency Approvals, Agreements a. Wetland (WCA/DNR) b. ECWMC (Stormwater, ditch/creek crossing) c. MPCA. Wetland, EAW, other environmental d. MnDOT e. Railroad/MnDOT Rail & Safety f. Hennepin County (Hamel Rd) 7. Preliminary Schedule Meeting with MnDOT ............................................................................................ March 5, 2020 Initial Meeting with Hennepin County ....................................................................... April 2, 2020 Meeting with CP Railroad/MnDOT Railroad ............................................................ April 9, 2020 Meeting with Hennepin County/City ....................................................................... April 30, 2020 Public Information Meeting .................... Early-Mid April (2nd Week, Notice in Newsletter), 2020 Draft Report and Preliminary Concept Plans .................................................. End of April, 2020 City Council Work Session (2nd Meeting on the month) ......................................... May 19, 2020 Meeting with City Staff .................................................................................. May 20 or 21, 2020 Second Meeting with MnDOT and Hennepin County .............................. Week of May 25, 2020 Final Report and Concept Plans ............................................................................. June 5, 2020 City Council Meeting to Review Final Report and Concept Plans ........................ June 16, 2020 Potential intersection improvements ...................................................................... 2022 – 2024? 8. Next Steps, Questions, Clarifications, Other Action Items (WSB) Action Items (County) 9. 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: Railroad Coordination Meeting - Minutes Project: City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study Date: April 9, 2020 Proj. No.: WSB Project No. 15599-000 Attendees: Brian Osborne (CP Rail), Chris Rice (MnDOT Rail Safety), Dusty Finke (City Planner), Chuck Rickart (WSB), Jim Stremel (WSB) 1. Introductions 2. Project Background a. A cohesive plan is not available for the Tamarack Drive corridor; this study is intended to incorporate the City’s vision and provide concept plans, a traffic analysis, and include preliminary cost estimates b. Identification of ROW needed for adjacent property/developments along the corridor c. Pedestrian improvements and connectivity d. TH 55 intersection improvements, geometrics, schedule planning e. Let public involvement/input drive the planning/design process 3. Design & Geometrics a. North of TH 55 i. Residential/commercial development ii. Intersection at Meander Rd and potential modifications b. South of TH 55 i. Wayzata Schools: The School District is in the process of planning for site, plan anticipated within the next year or so, but the best schedule the school can provide is that development could would likely not occur within the next 4 years. Both elementary and middle school possible ii. Intersection at Hamel Rd (County Rd): consider where Tamarack Rd can intersect with Hamel Rd c. Improvements at TH 55 i. EB/WB legs of TH 55 may need adjustment depending on final intersection layout ii. North/South legs of TH 55 a. Skew/angle of approach from north/south b. Culvert crossing, ditch alignment c. Railroad proximity to intersection to the south, need for crossing improvements/widening. CP Railroad and MnDOT Rail would like a brief analysis of alternatives to improving this crossing. iii. Pedestrian connectivity a. Three Rivers Park District is creating a master plan for “Diamond Lake Trail Corridor” that includes this general area. City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Railroad Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 9, 2020 Page 2 b. Alignment, at-grade or grade separated crossing is yet to be determined. Need to add trail/sidewalk to proposed typical section. iv. Railroad Crossing: a. Existing crossing and panels b. Quiet zone c. Signal phasing d. Crossing improvements for pedestrians 4. Planning/Schedule for TH 55 Intersection Improvements a. Intersection Planning with MnDOT: i. MnDOT will revisit the original justification for the intersection from prior studies. ii. WSB will need to incorporate a review of the surrounding intersections and future capacity to accommodate traffic with or without new Tamarack Rd intersection at TH 55 and provided a summary to MnDOT for review iii. Both parties will review the MnDOT access spacing management guidelines. iv. Complete this analysis and review in May b. Railroad crossing and improvements i. Refine plan to include pedestrian crossing and center median wide enough for a gate system (too wide for one gate on each side). Level of detail should be accurate enough to show proposed right-of-way. ii. CP railroad suggested starting the initial stages of the quiet zone with the FRA and conduct a diagnostic meeting onsite to determine preliminary quiet zone improvement requirements. iii. Submit plan to railroad for review and request the right-of-way needed for the proposed crossing. c. MnDOT Rail Coordination i. Include MnDOT rail in correspondence relating to submittals with the railroad and the FRA for the quiet zone. 5. Easements / Right-of-way a. Adjacent property owners b. MnDOT c. CP Railroad 6. Future Permits, Agency Approvals, Agreements a. Wetland (WCA/DNR) b. ECWMC (Stormwater, ditch/creek crossing) c. MPCA. Wetland, EAW, other environmental d. MnDOT e. Railroad/MnDOT Rail City of Medina – Tamarack Drive Corridor Study – Railroad Coordination Meeting - Minutes April 9, 2020 Page 3 7. Preliminary Schedule Meeting with MnDOT ............................................................................................ March 5, 2020 Initial Meeting with Hennepin County ....................................................................... April 2, 2020 Meeting with CP Railroad/MnDOT Railroad ............................................................ April 9, 2020 Meeting with Hennepin County/City ............................................................................ April, 2020 Public Information Meeting .................... Early-Mid April (2nd Week, Notice in Newsletter), 2020 Draft Report and Preliminary Concept Plans .................................................. End of April, 2020 City Council Work Session (2nd Meeting) ............................................................... May 19, 2020 Meeting with City Staff .................................................................................. May 20 or 21, 2020 Second Meeting with MnDOT and Hennepin County .............................. Week of May 25, 2020 Final Report and Concept Plans ............................................................................. June 5, 2020 City Council Meeting to Review Final Report and Concept Plans ........................ June 16, 2020 Potential intersection improvements ...................................................................... 2022 – 2024? 8. Next Steps, Questions, Clarifications, Other Action Items (WSB) Action Items (CP Railroad) Action Items (MnDOT Rail) 9. Adjourn Appendix F Figure 3 – Approximate Buildable Areas Map Figure 4 – Potential Benefitting Properties Map Figure 5 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – Signal System Figure 6 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – North Approach Figure 7 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – South Approach Figure 8 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – Grand Total ?ØA@ Prairie View Trl Tamarack Dr J u b e r t D r Cavanaugh Dr Fescue Dr Hamel Rd Hickory Dr CP Railroad Highway 55 Jubert Trl Meander Rd 3 12 2B 13 78 6 9 10 5 2A 4 1 11 Proje ct L ocation Buildable Areas Wetlands 100 Ye ar Floodplain 500 Ye ar Floodplain 0 550Feet¯Buildable Area MapTamarack Drive Project - TH 55Signal & Approach ImprovementsMedina, MN Document Path: K:\015599-000\GIS\Maps\BuildableArea.mxd Date Saved: 6/24/2020 10:32:52 AM 1 inch = 550 f eet ?ØA@ Tamarack Dr J u b e r t D r Prairie View TrlCavanaugh Dr Fescue Dr Hamel Rd Hickory Dr CP Railroad Highway 55 Jubert Trl Meander Rd 3 12 2B 13 78 6 9 10 5 2A 4 1 11 Approximate Project Location Bene fitting Parcels 0 550Feet¯Potential Benefitting Parcel MapTamarack Drive Project - TH 55Signal & Approach ImprovementsMedina, MN Document Path: K:\015599-000\GIS\Maps\AssessmentMap.mxd Date Saved: 6/24/2020 2:24:34 PM 1 inch = 550 f eet City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS - SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS Project No.015599-000 Date:6/26/2020 MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS BUILDABLE AREA (AC)ZONING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE / ACRE TRAFFIC VOLUME PERCENT OF TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATED 1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC 600 HWY 169 S #1660, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 66 0.5% 2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 1,006 7.4% 2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 2,789 20.5% 3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC 3650 YUMA LN N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 2,460 18.1% 4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN 1248 STATE HWY NO 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 152 1.1% 5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA 225 STATE HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 762 5.6% 6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 1,913 14.0% 7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL 1212 HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 58 0.4% 8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 41 0.3% 9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC P O BOX 188, HAMEL MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 830 6.1% 10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 998 7.3% 11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER 1222 HAMEL ROAD, HAMEL MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 33 0.2% 12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA 2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 435 3.2% 13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 2,081 15.3% Figure 5 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - Traffic Signal/Intersection TH 55 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - SCHEDULE A City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS - NORTH SIDE TH 55 Project No.015599-000 Date:6/26/2020 MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS BUILDABLE AREA (AC)ZONING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE / ACRE TRAFFIC VOLUME PERCENT OF TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATED 1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC 600 HWY 169 S #1660, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 66 0.7% 2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 1,006 10.9% 2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 2,789 30.2% 3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC 3650 YUMA LN N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 2,460 26.6% 4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN 1248 STATE HWY NO 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 152 1.6% 5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA 225 STATE HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 762 8.2% 6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 1,913 20.7% 7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL 1212 HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 58 0.6% 8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 41 0.4% 9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC P O BOX 188, HAMEL MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 0 0.0% 11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER 1222 HAMEL ROAD, HAMEL MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 0 0.0% 12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA 2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 0 0.0% Figure 6 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - North Approach TAMARACK DRIVE NORTH OF TH 55 - SCHEDULE B City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS - SOUTH SIDE TH 55 Project No.015599-000 Date:6/26/2020 MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS BUILDABLE AREA (AC)ZONING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE / ACRE TRAFFIC VOLUME PERCENT OF TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATED 1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC 600 HWY 169 S #1660, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 0 0.0% 2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 0 0.0% 2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC 3650 YUMA LN N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN 1248 STATE HWY NO 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA 225 STATE HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL 1212 HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 0 0.0% 9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC P O BOX 188, HAMEL MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 830 19.0% 10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 998 22.8% 11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER 1222 HAMEL ROAD, HAMEL MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 33 0.8% 12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA 2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 435 9.9% 13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 2,081 47.5% TAMARACK DRIVE SOUTH OF TH 55 - SCHEDULE C Figure 7 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - South Approach City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS Project No.015599-000 Date:6/26/2020 MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS BUILDABLE AREA (AC)ZONING TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE / ACRE TRAFFIC VOLUME PERCENT OF TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATED 1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC 600 HWY 169 S #1660, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 66 0.5% 2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 1,006 7.4% 2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES 15701 LA BONA TER, MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 2,789 20.5% 3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC 3650 YUMA LN N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 2,460 18.1% 4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN 1248 STATE HWY NO 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 152 1.1% 5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA 225 STATE HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 762 5.6% 6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 1,913 14.0% 7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL 1212 HWY 55, HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 58 0.4% 8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH 3650 YUMA LANE N, PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 41 0.3% 9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC P O BOX 188, HAMEL MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 830 6.1% 10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 998 7.3% 11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER 1222 HAMEL ROAD, HAMEL MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 33 0.2% 12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA 2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 435 3.2% 13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284 210 COUNTY RD 101 N, WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 2,081 15.3% Combined Potential Benefit - SCHEDULES A - C Figure 8 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - Combined Potential Benefit 1 Dusty Finke From:Erik Miller, PE (MN) <EMiller@sambatek.com> Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:18 AM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Joe Cavanaugh; Joseph Cavanaugh Subject:RE: Tamarack Study - roadway alignment Dusty – thank you for your work on the Tamarack Road improvements.  While we understand this decision is time  sensitive due to the current development plans under consideration by the City, we want to make sure we take the time  to have a thoughtful and transparent planning process.  In working with the Cavanaugh’s in reviewing the latest roadway  alignment, our thoughts can be summarized as follows:  1. We would like confirmation that the Cavanaugh’s control the alignment of private/public street connections to  Tamarack road with respect to their property.  As discussed, we are not prepared at this time to make a  determination on how either access point will connect to the Pederson property and if either connection will be  a public or private street.  2. We understand that a second connection to Meander Road is a requirement of the townhome  development.  The R/W dedication from the Cavanaugh’s property for the construction of Tamarack Road to  Meander Road is conditioned upon the developer (or City) being responsible for 100% of the cost of those street  improvement as depicted on the proposed plans.  At a minimum, we understand those improvements would be  the Tamarack improvements adjacent to the east property line and include the western curb cut to the  Cavanaugh’s property.  We understand those improvement will be fully constructed as a part of the townhome  project.  3. We understand that stormwater management for such improvements shall be accommodated by the private  development.  As such, we expect that all stormwater for the Tamarack Road improvements outlined in no. 2  shall be accommodated in the townhome development.  4. While the connection to Hwy. 55 cannot be made at this time, we request that the townhome development  equitably contribute to any intersection improvements (signal, turnlane, etc.) associated with the such  connection.  The connection will benefit all parties, thus all parties should participate equitably.    Please review and confirm the City is in agreement with our understandings.  We presume as this process proceeds  forward, the City will memorialize these understandings in a formal fashion.    Thank you.      Erik Miller, PE (MN) Senior Client Service Manager, Commercial | Principal     Direct 763.259.6687 |   Cell   612.703.0735   Email EMiller@sambatek.com       Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental   Trusted advisors since 1966.                |   Watch our video and see why we're unique!      CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and the documents accompanying this e-mail contain confidential information. The information is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by phone and delete it from your system.   1075 Oak Circle Page 1 of 3 August 18, 2020 Septic Variance City Council MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: August 13, 2020 MEETING: August 18, 2020 City Council SUBJ: Public Hearing – John and Mary Bartzen – 1075 Oak Circle Variance – Setback for ISTS to wetland Review Deadline Application received: July 23, 2020 60-day review deadline: September 21, 2020 Summary of Request John and Mary Bartzen have requested a variance to the 75-foot setback required by the City’s Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) Ordinance between an ISTS and wetlands. The subject property is small for a rural lot, being approximately 0.6 acres. Subdivision of this property occurred in 1958, long before the City adopted its larger lot size requirement for rural areas. Notably, other homes in the area are of similar size. The subject site and surrounding land are guided and zoned Rural Residential. The property is located next to a large wetland which extends from the back of the lot to Tamarack Drive. The applicant’s septic designer has indicated that the proposed location is the only spot on the property which can accommodate a treatment and dispersal (drainfield) area. The location is approximately 20 feet to the south and 50 feet to the west of the wetland. The proposed drainfield is in the approximate location of the existing noncompliant system. The area will need to be corrected and a mound installed. The drainfield will occupy much of the southwest portion of the lot. An aerial photo showing the location of the drainfield and wetland locations can be found on the following page. Analysis Section 720.09 Subd. 5 states that “Tanks and soil treatment and dispersal areas shall be setback a minimum of 75 feet from wetlands.” This requirement was enacted by the City and is beyond the minimum state standard. The City has the authority to adopt more stringent requirements, but not less. State requirements do not include a minimum setback from wetland locations. Section 720.21 states that the City Council has the authority to consider variances from certain requirements of the septic ordinance, including required setbacks to wetlands. The ordinance establishes the following criteria for reviewing variance requests for ISTS. Staff has provided potential findings for each criterion in italics: Agenda Item # 8A 1075 Oak Circle Page 2 of 3 August 18, 2020 Septic Variance City Council 1. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Section, and is in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080, 7081, and 7082. As noted above, the wetland setback is above and beyond the minimum Minnesota standard requirement. Staff recommends a condition requiring additional monitoring of the system to serve the purpose and intent of the septic ordinance. 2. The City Council determines that the applicant has established there are practical difficulties in meeting the strict letter of this Section. The applicant’s septic designer has indicated that the proposed location is the only spot where a soil treatment and dispersal area could be located. 3. The condition causing the demonstrated difficulty is unique to the property and was not caused by the actions of applicant. The subject property is small as compared to current requirements because the lot was created in 1958. The number of like-size rural lots within the City is fairly low. 1075 Oak Circle Page 3 of 3 August 18, 2020 Septic Variance City Council 4. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest or damaging to the rights of other persons in the vicinity. Staff recommends a condition to require additional monitoring and more active management of the septic system, as is necessary, to reduce impacts. The ordinance states “in granting a request for a variance, the City may attach such conditions as it deems necessary to conform to the purpose and intent of this Section and to protect the health, safety, and welfare.” After review of the proposed design and variance, the City’s Building Official agrees there does not appear to be a good alternative to locating the drainfield on this property. Staff Recommendation Staff believes the request overall meets the criteria presented in this report. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall obtain an operating permit from the City which shall require a certified designer must monitor the ISTS on an annual basis. 2. The owner shall maintain a contract for monitoring and maintaining the ISTS. 3. The owner shall take necessary actions in the future as directed by the professional monitoring the ISTS, which may include, but is not limited to: a. adjusting dosing b. reduction of effluent c. additional pumping d. maintenance 4. A permit for installation of the ISTS shall be obtained within one calendar year of approval of the variance. 5. The Applicant 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 variance. Potential Action The ISTS ordinance states that the City Council will hold a public hearing on any variance request for variance before taking action. Following the hearing, if the City Council finds that the variance criteria have been satisfied, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the variance subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Attachments 1. List of Documents 2. Septic Design 8/13/2020 Project: LR-20-274 – Bartzen Septic Variance 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 7/23/2020 7/23/2020 3 Yes Yes Deposit 7/23/2020 7/23/2020 1 Yes Yes $1000 Septic Design 7/23/2020 7/14/2020 19 Yes Yes Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Building comments 7/7/2020 1 Y Legal comments No Comments Engineering comments No Comments Notice 7/31/2020 2 Y 5 pages w/ affidavit, map, list City Council Report 8/13/2020 3 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes SP TESTING INC. Steven B. Schirmers -951 Katydid Lane NE -St. Michael, MN 55376 Cert. No 627 - State License #394 - Phone 763-497-3566 - Fax 763-497-5011 www.sptesti ng.wastewater@comcast.net - schirmerswastewater.com July 14, 2020 John & Penny Bartzen 1075 Oak Circle Medina, MN This site has an existing on -site sewage treatment system which has been classified as non -compliant by others. The existing tanks are small, 750 gallon capacity & will need to be abandoned, pumped & filled with dirt. A tank abandonment report will need to be completed by a licensed contractor. This onsite sewage treatment system is designed for a Type 111 system, Type 1, 4 bedroom home in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency chapter 7080 & local ordinances. Monitoring is required for the mound to check for any ponding, overloading in the mound 1 time a year. SP Testing, Inc. is licensed to monitor the system for you. If ponding would occur in the mound, the effluent will need to be reduced to the mound. This site is very limited for a new system due to small lot, steep slopes, 75' wetland setback & the existing system. The new mound system will need to be placed over the existing trench system. The trenches near the east & west end of the proposed mound will need to be roughened up 10' from the end of the mound, 10' under the mound & 10' away from the toe of the mound. Also roughen up the entire 15t trench to prevent ponding to occur & seep into the mound absorption area. This site has very limited space for bringing materials in. The soils on this site are a clay loam. The seasonally saturated soil, mottled soil (redox features) were present at a depth of 16" to 30". A pressurized mound system will be installed. The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above mottled soil. Due to limited space 2 -Infiltrator IM 1060 will be used for the septic tanks & 1 - Infiltrator IM 1530 will be used for the pumping chamber with a timer. A pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area. The power supply & switches must be located outside the manhole & pumping chamber in a weather proof enclosure. A warning device must be installed with a light & sound device, this is in case of a pump failure. The manifold & supply line must have back drainage to the pumping chamber. Be sure the rock & sand fill material are clean. The sod layer below the entire mounded area must be turned over, just break up the sod. All property lines must be located prior to installation. If the tanks have less than 2' of cover, the lids, risers & maintenance hole covers must be insulated to a value of R10. Cleanouts for each lateral with a sleeve must be insulated & be accessible from finished grade in an irrigation box with a ball valve. All neighboring wells are located greater than 100' away from the proposed treatment area. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and after construction. The treatment area should be marked off before construction. This design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated if failure to protect the sites for new on -site sewage systems. MANAGEMENT PLAN: The tanks need to be maintained at a minimum of 1 time every 2 years, check with your pumper to set up a schedule. System inspected for areas by owner & or Inspector as determined by the local unit of Government. Any other requirements as determined by the local unit of Government. With proper installation & maintenance, this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. Nothing other than human waste, toilet tissue, laundry, showers, water softners etc. should be disposed of into the system. Garbage disposals are not recommended. Excessive amounts of soaps, antibacterial soaps, cleaning agents, shower cleaners used every shower & chlorine agents may kill the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Recommend laundering be limited to 3 to 4 loads per day. IRON FILTERS MUST NOT DISCHARGE INTO THE SYSTEM. Steven B. Schirmers &or.W, 3ea.+o ,..\3\••1\,' o >� 1a"4o rk w 4 l r ,S' ��iCCti,�►a� 0#v' Not7 '= 1©O.0 """os + V v Le, ' OFtrceLlotion Tests Scok: asoa Bonc`gs O Bend: Mork Note= This system is to be constructed to meet the Vgnntsvta Policr'ion Coa'rof ,7ncy Chapter 7080 & Local Ordinance Check' an underground utilities PROPERII OF: °\-.V)-\ Mla )'t».1 ►..c wa d v. S-/P,TESTING f D caned 4"/+ 7 Dux=2/1II. PH 763 - 497-3566 HOUSE a c t2c, fp s ; r daoo �' { o tel aa' 1J �t�SS SET- BACKS System must be t T.:ink...L.2 ` from property fines . from viols .1�. frorn.btdgs. Ttealrner! cued` Treatment ores a ..S.v mir>. Drop to Tank ,ttan.S"id8l Max.l"fa4. `' 'r--. 4 4AtAiS-ocil �i h o� sKdia.piped =STEM De3o4 -M OUND TYPE, -1.; _nf 00M ; { terage: pemolaI'on rate trim/inch (detign.83sq_ft treatment area per gal. of dolly sewage_f .v) 4.4 Cm IL. gal.lday . -'- .i .4 9 '11/sq.fl. of treatment area 0 pail. (- nft.t r- c i1.lenglh of bed area -ksuieslope run. ..to ! x�� heagft= Clean rock needed -- 5.osq.fiireatment area x depths rock b0ocult 23=_L aiyd5(314"ta21f/di., haldes 2 of rock above pipe) 'ChM, Clean send f • bebw rock needed 1 "� L. cu.yds. opprox. , sandy ban bock ft ° yds. approoc. , topsofi & Number of tanks retired , Ist t in % d c gat. ; 2nd lankilap.galmisilarns Pal -MIS }4 r.v. G. -t xUr ope-g-- Ptbrping chamber capacity- 25% of dolly sewage fort of. got. = gd.+ reserve sbcoge of 15 Oga 3 /131r-13-2_ gal pipe bock — - of cd.1 iQ4 frdt. of r dia. supply. pipe , fiumn.ft needed , 1 t gal; iaioi opacity needed I `) cn gal. ( Plus area far P p) I �� r L ca p 1 ,.. \ l.., 1 '3 0 - Distribglion Pipe a �a ,, . f' n da. perforot Dns 2L,0 `opcd Purtsp size pumpobie copocity l got. 4cydes/day) • use- 1 S Note= Distonce from treatment• aced tia nesghberir,g wefts- '<\•_4 q 1,3 y 00' Tank 1 Tan3t l��oot�ti tot 4. `P, + t frt±rn lakes, strews .from property totes /211 ` from wetter p 2 from bides. • ' tram trees 'Wig: Rioter supply end swilehes must be boiled iri a weather prod enclosure outside the purl ding • d er and maniple al SOIL - BORING.:aEVA-1100S TH.1 EL...�� - rode�dl T�:ZEL • PRESSURE E STRECMON MOUND SYS f M Tit."3 EL- :.`� Chamber +- Note i Then cortsiruciing bbd -- , this area shouti be shaped to diverl run- off from r q 1realrnent area. ill:5 EL: - ELEVATION at PROPOSED FUMING Ct1AMBER- u ' \-.) -1, ? 1411a i 1,4 m, S') • ft x2 it.Ivan-ma Deeded). AW, Sn?3„9 4 1- • PROPERTY i o) E" 14- eAl-,c,\A LO 5— PTEST NG INC. Designed By Dole : /l3/2c) , PH. %I-497- 556 Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 1 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 13, 2020 MEETING: August 18, 2020 City Council SUBJ: US Home Corp. (Lennar) – Meadow View Townhomes – N of Hwy 55 – S of Meander Rd., W of CR116 – Rezoning and Pre Plat Review Deadline Application Received: Review Deadline: September 15, 2020 (rezoning); October 20, 2020 (preliminary plat) Summary of Request Lennar (US Home Corporation) has requested a rezoning and preliminary plat for a proposed 125-unit townhome development south of Meander Road, west of CR116 and north of Hwy 55. An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found below. The aerial shows existing land uses and describes planned land uses as follows: • Subject property is approximately 20 net acres and is currently farmed • The Fields of Medina neighborhood is located to the north and zoned R2 • Property to the south and west is guided for future Commercial development • 125 townhomes • 27 buildings • 20 net acres Agenda Item # 8B Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 2 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting The site includes a large wetland to the east and south of the existing field. There are also areas in the field which have been designated as wetland. The application includes the following land use requests: 1) Rezoning of the residential development site to R3- Mid-Density Residential 2) Preliminary Plat Staff recommends that the rezoning request be considered first, because the plat is designed to meet the requirements of the R-3 zoning district. Comprehensive Plan The subject site is a portion of a larger property which extends to Highway 55. The larger property is guided for commercial development nearer Highway 55 and Medium Density Residential (MDR) in this location. MDR is planned for development at a net density of 5-7 units/acre. The applicant’s concept proposes to occupy the MDR portion of the site, leaving the commercial property to be split off for future development. The property is staged for development at this time. The subject site was part of a larger tract from which the Fields of Medina neighborhood was developed in 2012. A townhome development at this approximate density was contemplated within the “Stage I Master Plan” when the property was subdivided at that time. When the City updated its Comprehensive Plan between 2017-2018, this portion of the property was guided MDR consistent with previous planning. PUD Concept Plan The City reviewed a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan of this development in April. The previous concept had included 138 townhome units of two styles. The feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council generally found that the flexibility being proposed within the PUD did not result in a more desirable development than would result in developing under the R3 zoning district standards. Generally, the PUD Concept Plan had proposed the following flexibility: • Density consideration – during the concept plan, the applicant had proposed development at 7 units/acre, requesting that the site amenities proposed within the PUD (additional open space and buffering, public trails) justified the density. The current proposal has been reduced from 138 units to 125 units. • Garage size – during the concept plan, the applicant had proposed units with 380 square foot garages rather than 400 square feet required by code. Comments from Planning Commission and Council generally were not supportive of this flexibility. The applicant has updated architectural plans to provide 400 square feet. • Reduced front setback to garages – during the concept plan, the applicant had proposed units a few feet closer to the private roads in the development, to allow more green space behind the units. The applicant has pushed the units back to the minimum front setback of the R3 district. • Land Use: Medium Density Residential • Allowed Density: 5-7 units/net acre • Proposed Density: 6.25 units/net acre • Staging: Current Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 3 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting Rezoning Request The subject site is zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The RR-UR is an interim zoning utilized by the City for property which is currently rural, but which is planned for development. The applicant has requested a rezoning for the northern portion of the site which is guided MDR. The applicant has requested rezoning to the R3 (Mid Density Residential) zoning district, which is the district intended to implement development in the MDR land use. A rezoning to R3 would be anticipated at the time of development. The City has a high level of discretion when considering rezoning requests, provided such discretion is used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. According to Section 825.35 of the City Code: “amendments [to the zoning map] shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.” In this case, the purpose of the R3 district is specific to implementing the MDR land use. There is a relatively small amount of MDR land use within the City, so there are no alternative zoning districts which were created for such land. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to the R3 zoning district. The review of the preliminary plat is based upon approval to R3. Preliminary Plat/ Site Plan The applicant proposes 125 “rowhome” style townhomes amongst 27 buildings. The proposed buildings contain 3-6 units, with most building containing 4 or 5 units. The R3 districts permits townhome buildings with up to six units. Access is proposed to Meander Road at the intersection with Jubert Drive and a second entrance is proposed to future Tamarack Drive. The following compares the proposed to the R3 district requirements. It appears that the proposed development meets the dimensional requirements of the district. R3 Requirement Proposed Townhomes Minimum Net Area per Unit 6,222 s.f. 6,970 s.f. Maximum Net Area per Unit 8,700 s.f. 6,970 s.f. Minimum Setback from Perimeter 20 feet 40 feet Local Road Setback (Meander and Tamarack) 40 feet 40 feet Private Road Setback 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 30 feet 30 feet Max. Hardcover – total 50% 34% (36% of upland) The applicant proposes 125 units, which equates to 6,970 square feet of net area per units. This is equivalent to a density of 6.25 units/acre. The R3 district permits townhome development on a range from 5-7 units/acre. Density up to 5.5 units/acre is allowed by default, and “bonus density” is allowed up to a maximum of 7 units/acre if the following features are provided: • Sound suppression between units (+0.5 unit/acre) • Open space and recreational facilities (+0.25 units/acre) • Existing Zoning: RR-UR • Proposed Zoning: R3 Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 4 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting • Affordable housing (up to +1.5 units/acre) • Low Impact Development/LEED certification (up to + 1 unit/acre) • Oversized garages (+0.25 units/acre) The applicant has proposed to include additional sound suppression between units (+0.5) and provide private trails throughout the neighborhood, a public trail along the east side of Tamarack Drive (+0.25). While the Park at the Fields of Medina is located just north of Meander Road, staff recommends that some recreational opportunity, such as an open play area that is graded to be usable, be provided for the additional density. The applicant proposes a lot under each townhome unit. Each lot extends a few feet behind each unit and to the outside of end units. The plat proposes 32 outlots: • Outlot A is proposed to include the large wetland and the future commercial development property to the south. • Outlots B, O and U are proposed to include most of the common areas in the development • Outlot C contains the private roads throughout the neighborhood. • Remaining outlots surround each of the 27 proposed buildings. Outlot A contains the existing farmstead and various farm buildings. Outlot A was reviewed to ensure that the remaining land met the dimensional standards of the RR-UR zoning district. RR-UR Requirement Outlot A Minimum Gross Area 20 acres 33.17 acres Minimum Lot Size 5-acre contiguous suitable 5.14 acres Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 1448 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 697 feet Minimum Front Setback 50 feet 72 feet Minimum Rear Setback 50 feet >300 feet Minimum Side Setback 50 feet 135 feet (west) >1000 feet (east) Maximum Impervious Surface 20% < 2% Architectural Design Proposed building elevations of the proposed are attached. Lennar has indicated that architectural design is similar to the townhome in the Enclave neighborhood. Colors will vary upon different buildings. The minimum standards of the R3 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, 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. It appears that the proposed elevations meet the garage door and modulation requirements noted above. The front façade of each building incorporate shakes within the gables and brick or stone Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 5 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting wainscoting and appear to meet the accent material requirements. The rear façade of certain buildings face Meander Road or Tamarack Drive. Staff recommends a condition requiring accent materials to be incorporated into these facades. Tree Preservation, Buffer Yard and Landscaping The subject site is almost entirely farmed and contains six trees along the western portion of the field which are proposed to be removed. Replacement of 53 inches is required. A bufferyard with an opacity of 0.2 is required along Meander Road because the property to the north is a less-intensive district. The minimum landscaping requirements of the R3 district are based on the perimeter of the development site and requires a minimum of 99 overstory trees, 49 ornamental trees, and 148 shrubs, plus additional trees for replacement. The proposed landscaping plan meets these minimum requirements. Wetlands and Floodplain A large wetland is located east and south of the subject site. Narrow “fingers” of this wetland extend north into swales in the farmed portion of the property as well. The concept plan shows approximately 4,860 square feet of wetland impacts. These impacts are proposed on the ends of the comparatively lower quality narrow wetlands which extend into the farmed portion of the site. The applicant proposes to mitigate these impacts by purchasing wetland credits. The replacement plan is under review, and staff recommends any action be conditioned upon approval of the replacement plan. The large wetland is classified as a Manage 1 wetland, requiring an average buffer 30 feet in width. The applicant has provided a 35-foot wide buffer to meet Elm Creek Watershed rules. The wetland in the middle of the site is a manage 2 wetland, requiring a buffer of 25 feet. Staff recommends a condition requiring implementation of these buffers. A floodplain is located within and adjacent to the large wetland to the east and south of the subject property. Elm Creek Watershed has modeled this floodplain at an elevation of 980.4. It does not appear that the development would impact any floodplain areas. Transportation The applicant proposes two entrances to the neighborhood. One entrance is proposed on Meander Road, at the existing intersection with Jubert Drive. A second entrance is proposed on the west of the site to future Tamarack Drive. The applicant proposes all private streets throughout the development. The City’s past practice has been to encourage private roadways in the interior of townhome developments. Street maintenance, especially snow plowing, is a challenge on streets with a lot of townhome driveways. Depending on the scale and layout of a development, staff believes there may be some situations in which a main roadway through a development should be public, connecting other private roads which provide access to individual units. In this case, staff find it appropriate for all streets to be private as proposed. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 6 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting The City is currently completing a transportation study for area for the future construction of Tamarack Drive, which is planned to extend north and south of Highway 55 to serve the subject site and other development property in the vicinity. The study was presented to the Council on July 21 and will be presented to the Council for action before this request at the August 18 meeting. Because there are multiple owners and land uses along this corridor, the study anticipates that construction of Tamarack Drive will likely be phased and constructed in pieces along with adjacent development. The study examined how much traffic would be necessary to warrant the traffic signal on Highway 55 and how the existing transportation improvements in the area would be impacted. The study concludes that the full access (traffic signal) at Tamarack and Highway 55 would be justified at a volume of 3100 trips/day on Meander Road, and that the existing system could accommodate that volume of trips. Over this amount, improvements would be necessary. Existing traffic volumes (900 trips/day) plus the additional traffic from this residential development (1010 trips/day) is projected to be below this threshold. The current application proposes to subdivide the property east of Tamarack Drive. In additional to development of the northern portion of the site, the southern portion is proposed to be platted as a separate outlot and would need to be re-platted for future commercial development. Staff recommends that, at the very least, the following be required as a condition of this subdivision: 1. Dedication of all necessary right-of-way from the subject property, from Meander Road all the way to Highway 55. 2. Tamarack be constructed adjacent to the portion of this site currently being developed with townhomes, subject to provision of right-of-way by the property owner west of Tamarack. Right-of-way is not in place for the western portion of Tamarack. Staff recommends construction adjacent to the residential development if the owner provides the right-of-way. 3. Financial obligations towards the traffic signal and turn lanes at Highway 55 be secured from the residential development. Sewer/Water/Easements The applicant proposes to extend an existing sewer main from the northeast of the site which will serve the site. The sewer is constructed as flat and shallow in some locations as is advisable to avoid the need for a lift station for the site. It does not appear to be possible to extend sewer service to the west or south because of topography. An existing sewermain further west provides alternative access for adjacent sites. The applicant proposes to extend water from the northeast and northwest corners of the site and to stub a large watermain to the south. The City Engineer has provided technical review comments and staff recommends that addressing these comments be a condition of approval. The City generally requiring drainage and utility easements over all public utilities, stormwater improvements, emergency overflows, drainageways, wetlands and around the perimeters of lots. Staff recommends a condition that these easements be provided upon the plat. Easements will not be required between units, but rather between buildings as necessary. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 7 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting Stormwater/Grading Review The subject site generally slopes from north to south and the proposed construction generally follows this same pattern. Small berms approximately two feet in height are proposed along Meander Road with plantings on top of the berms. The applicant proposes to meet City and Elm Creek Watershed requirements for water quality by utilizing biofiltration basins. One of these basins is proposed to be enhanced with iron filings, which improves the water quality benefits of the basin and provides more credit. Park Dedication Park dedication for the entire property was required when the portion which now contains the Fields of Medina neighborhood was platted. 10% of the buildable portion of the entire property was deeded to the City for the Park at the Fields of Medina. The applicant proposes a system of private trails through the neighborhood and a public trail along the eastern side of future Tamarack Drive. These trails are intended to be amenities to provide additional density as described by the R3 zoning district. The applicant originally offered to construct the trail along the south side of Tamarack Drive to Jubert Drive and dedicate it to the City as a public trail as well. Feedback from the Park Commission during the Concept Plan Review was that this trail would mostly serve residents of the townhome neighborhood and should remain private. Since the trail is going to be private, the applicant relocated it more central to the neighborhood. The proposed private trails are located partially within required wetland buffers. Staff recommends a condition that these locations be updated. Averaging the width of the wetland buffer may also be an option. Review Criteria/Planning Commission Recommendation The applicant has requested approval of the following requests: 1) Rezoning of the residential development site to R3- Mid-Density Residential 2) Preliminary Plat Rezoning Staff recommends that the rezoning be considered first, because review of the plat is contingent upon the zoning. The rezoning was discussed beginning at the bottom of page 2 of this report. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the medium density residential portion of the site, to be effective upon recording of the plat. Preliminary Plat The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions, the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following findings are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 8 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way. The City has a relatively low amount of discretion while reviewing a plat request. If the plat meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it should be approved. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the July 14 meeting. There was a lot of comments and discussions related to the relationship between the Tamarack Drive study and the proposed development. Some Commissioners expressed support for the reduction of units in the proposed plans compared to the concept plan. Commissioners emphasized the importance of screening along Meander. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of the plat shall be contingent upon rezoning approval of the residential portion of the site to the R3 zoning district. If such rezoning is approved, it shall become effective upon the recording of the plat. 2) Preliminary plat approval is conditioned upon approval of a wetland replacement plan for proposed wetland impacts. 3) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy. 4) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated 6/22/2020 except as may be modified herein. Final plans shall be provided at the time of final plat and shall address the comments of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Elm Creek Watershed, other relevant staff and agencies and the conditions noted herein. Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5) The Applicant shall update plans to provide for the construction of Tamarack Drive adjacent to the residential development. If the City is not able to obtain right-of-way from the property owner to the west for such construction, the Applicant shall construct a second access on the west of the site which shall, to the extent practical, be constructed to be best utilized as a portion of the permanent improvement and shall enter into an agreement agreeable to the City related to the future construction of the permanent roadway. 6) The plat shall provide all necessary right-of-way and easements for construction of Tamarack Drive from Meander Road to Highway 55 which will be located within the property being platted as recommended by the City Engineer 7) The owner(s) of the property being platted shall provide enter into an agreement as determined appropriate by the City related to financial contributions towards the future construction of improvements at Highway 55 and Tamarack Drive including traffic signals and construction of the street approach and turn lanes. 8) The plat shall provide drainage and utility easements over all utilities, stormwater improvements, wetlands, and drainageways as recommended by the City Engineer. The plat Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 9 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting shall also provide easements along the perimeter of the site and between buildings as recommended by the City Engineer. 9) The grading plan shall be updated to provide space for recreational activities within the open space. 10) Trails shall be located outside of upland buffers. 11) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance upon the residential development site, including provision of easements, planting of vegetation and installation of signage. 12) A minimum of 20% of any façade facing a public or private street shall be accent materials such as shakes, brick, stone, face brick, decorative concrete, or others approved by the city. Compliance with this requirement shall be subject to review and approval by City staff at the time of building permit for each structure. 13) The Applicant shall implement the following design features which they have elected to incorporate to qualify for the density proposed upon the plat: a. Buildings and walls between dwellings shall meet Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 55. b. Open space and recreational amenities shall be provided as described in the plans. 14) A site plan review of each building within the development site shall not be required as described in Section 825.55 of City Code. However, each building shall be subject to administrative review by City staff for consistency with the site plan which accompanies the plat, relevant requirements of City Code, and the conditions noted herein. 15) The development shall be subject to the City’s lawn and landscaping irrigation regulations. No lawn or landscape irrigation systems shall be permitted to be connected to the City water system. The Applicant shall provide a description of any proposed irrigation system at the time of final plat application. 16) The Applicant shall submit HOA documents for City review and approval which shall describe provisions for maintenance of elements such as the private streets, trails, stormwater improvements, lawn irrigation, upland buffers, and bufferyard landscaping. 17) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site improvements to ensure completion. 18) The request shall be subject to review and approval of Elm Creek Watershed, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health, Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council and any other relevant agencies. 19) Outlot A shall be required to be platted and shall be subject to relevant requirements of subdivision and zoning ordinance at such time prior to its development. 20) The Applicant shall provide title documentation at the time of final plat application and abide by the recommendation of the City Attorney with regard to title matters and recording instructions. 21) The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council. 22) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Lennar – Meadow View Townhomes Page 10 of 10 August 18, 2020 Rezoning and Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting Potential Action If, following review, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is appropriate and the proposed plat does not meet the criteria for denial, the following motion could be made: Move to direct staff to prepare documents granting rezoning and preliminary plat approval for the Meadow View Townhomes, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Except from draft Planning Commission minutes 3. Engineering Comments 4. Applicant Narrative 5. Townhome info and photos 6. Plans and Plat 8/13/2020 Project: LR-20-270 – Meadow View Townhome Rezoning and Preliminary Plat 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 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 3 Yes Yes 5 pages w/ Rolling Green email Deposit 5/15/2020 4/6/2020 1 Yes Yes Check for $20,000, $9000 refunded Plans and PrePlat 5/15/2020 5/14/2020 30 Yes Yes Plans and PrePlat 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 32 Yes Yes Narrative 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 2 Yes Yes Narrative 5/18/2020 5/18/2020 2 Yes Narrative Building Plans 5/15/2020 10/31/2019 25 Yes Yes Building Plans 6/30/2020 May 2020 19 Yes No Townhome Pamphlets 5/15/2020 Na 4 Yes Stormwater Management Report 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 122 Yes Yes Stormwater Management Report 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 105 Yes No Plan review response 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 8 Yes Yes Plan review response-Planning 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 3 Yes No Plan review response-Eng 6/22/2020 6/22/2020 11 Yes Wetland Delineation – Jubert 5/15/2020 10/8/2019 79 Yes Yes Wetland Delineation – RG 5/15/2020 5/12/2020 29 Yes Yes Soils Exhibit 6/22/2020 NA 1 Yes Townhome Photos 6/22/2020 NA 6 Yes <OVER> 8/13/2020 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes City Engineer comments 6/8/2020 7 Y City Engineer comments 7/8/2020 8 Y 15 pages w/ plan notes Fire/Building comments 5/19/2020 1 Y Legal comments 5/20/2020 1 Y Elm Creek Comments 6/9/2020 8 Y Notice 7/2/2020 11 Y 15 pages w/ affidavit, list and map Preliminary Comments 6/8/2020 3 Y 10 pages w/ attachment Planning Commission Report 7/10/2020 9 Y 53 pages w/ attachments City Council Report 8/13/2020 10 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Planning Commission minutes 7/14/2020 Y Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 7/14/2020 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing - Lennar (US Home Corporation) – North of Hwy 55, South of Meander Road, ¼ mile West of CR 116 (11-118-23-12-0004) - Preliminary Plat and Rezoning for Development of 125 Townhomes on Approximately 20 Net Acres Finke presented a request from Lennar for a 125-unit townhome development on the subject property. He stated that the development proposes 27 buildings on 20 net acres with a density of 6.25 units per acre. He stated that the land use requests include a rezoning and preliminary plat. He identified the subject site and adjacent uses. He stated that the proposed density falls within the range identified within the Comprehensive Plan and is allotted for development within the current staging period. He provided details on the proposed access for the development. He stated that this parcel was planned for townhome development, noting that the medium density land use in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the City received and reviewed a concept plan a few months prior that included a PUD and following the direction of the Commission and Council, the applicant has returned with a plan that meets the guidelines of the zoning district rather than requesting flexibility under a PUD. He suggested that the Commission review the rezoning request, as the plat would be contingent upon the rezoning of the property. He provided details on the requested rezoning from RRUR to R3 and stated that staff recommends approval as the zoning district was anticipated to be used for medium density residential. He provided details on the preliminary plat and site plan for the 125-unit row townhome development noting that the proposed plan meets the required dimensional standards of the R3 zoning district. He reviewed details related to density, architectural design, proposed private roads within the development, transportation, and the related Tamarack Drive Study. He stated that staff recommends approval of both requests subject to the conditions noted within the staff report. Nielsen asked for details related to the roundabout on Tamarack Drive. Finke provided additional details on the Tamarack Drive Study and noted that at this time, the roundabout is the preferred intersection control. Nielsen asked if shifting the roundabout east would impact the number of townhomes able to be built on the site. Paul Tabone, Lennar, stated that they previously presented a concept to staff with 157 townhomes, which was reduced to 138 when previously presented to the Commission. He stated that following the input received related to buffering and noise, additional revisions were made to the concept. He stated that they worked with engineering and believe that the comments expressed by the Commission and Council during the concept review have been addressed. He stated that there was discussion related to making the trail public along the right-of-way, but a change was made to make that more interior and maintained by the HOA. He stated that the biggest unanswered question they have is what Tamarack Drive will ultimately look like and what the City’s goals will be to have that constructed. He noted that they will continue to work with staff throughout that process. Nielsen referenced the center of the development and commented that it seems one unit really sticks out and looks into another unit. Tabone stated that the overall footprint is shown inside the plat line. He noted that the view looks into the open space rather than into the next building. Nielsen stated that she has some reservations related to Tamarack and asked if the developer has any concerns, specifically whether it would impact the development if the roundabout were shifted to the east. Tabone replied that the grades in that area could cause problems. He stated that they are already dedicating half of the right-of-way for that area. He explained that they are incorporating screening, a trail, and some space for water runoff in that area and therefore shifting the road would impact those elements. He stated that they have been in contact with staff and will continue to work with staff as the study continues to go forward. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 7/14/2020 Meeting Minutes 2 Reid asked why Nielsen has concern with the roundabout placement. Nielsen commented that as proposed she interprets it as the City providing more space for Lennar to build townhomes and taking more land from the property owners to the west. Piper asked if there is access off Highway 55 currently to go north on Tamarack. Finke replied that Tamarack does not exist in that location currently. He stated the section shown in green would occur over time. Piper asked if all access for this development would be provided from 116 and Meander Road. Finke confirmed that to be true. Piper stated that is a lot of construction traffic to occur on those roads that already are busy. Tabone commented that they could also take Arrowhead to Meander. Piper asked if the sewer connection would come down Meander from 116. Finke stated that sewer connection exists on the northeast corner of the site and water to the northwest corner. Piper asked if Meander is adequate as it exists or whether improvements would be needed to add this volume. Finke replied that part of the Tamarack Drive Study was attempting to thread the needle between when it would be likely that the City would be able to receive approval for that connection without impacting surrounding roadways. Piper asked the anticipation as to when Tamarack might move forward. Finke stated that the construction of Tamarack will be largely based on when development in that area occurs, specifically when the 3,100 trips would be triggered, and the connection would be warranted by MnDOT. Grajczyk stated that since the last review, the applicant reduced the number of units proposed and made changes to the layout based on the comments from the residents, Commission, and Council. He asked for clarification on the trail alignment. Tabone stated that the trail was adjacent to the right-of-way in the concept review and in this configuration, they pulled the trail back from the right-of-way to accommodate for a berm, swale, and landscaping. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Eric Miller, representing the Cavanaughs, stated that they understand there is a lot of coordination in the Tamarack Drive Study and they are seeking additional time to refine and better define the road improvements. He stated that they are looking for a solution that would provide a more equal allocation to all property owners related to the road alignment. He stated that they would like to see the cul-de-sac shift slightly to the east and north, to create greater separation from Highway 55. He stated that they have land boundaries in play and would like better alignment with those boundaries. He stated that they would like to work with the applicant to consolidate the two access points onto Tamarack into one access point. He stated that the Cavanaughs would like to understand the scope of the improvements and how the costs will be addressed. He stated that they would like additional time to work through these issues and come to consensus that could be supported by all the parties involved. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 7/14/2020 Meeting Minutes 3 Reid commented that it seems those concerns are more reflective of the Tamarack Drive Study and hopefully will be addressed through that process. Dion read aloud a letter submitted via email from Chris Larson at 1125 Jubert Trail; the letter will become part of the record for the meeting. Finke provided details on the traffic study that was completed as a part of the Tamarack Drive Study, noting that because the City completed that study, an additional study was not required of the applicant. Chris Larson, 1125 Jubert Trail, asked whether the Tamarack Drive segment would be constructed before or after the construction of the townhomes. Finke stated that Tamarack would not be constructed before or in conjunction with the townhome project because the warrants for the intersection would not yet be met. He stated that adding the townhomes will increase traffic on Meander until Tamarack can be constructed, but the system should still function with that additional traffic until Tamarack can be constructed. Mr. Larson commented that he does not believe the traffic currently functions well and is concerned with the additional impact that this would have on traffic. Joe Cavanaugh, 275 Lakeview, stated that any changes to Tamarack would impact the southwestern portion of this plat. He stated that he believes it can be done with minimal impacts to the plat. He stated that they are concerned with the alignment of Tamarack and therefore are asking the Commission to table this decision until additional discussion can occur. Carol Schinmick, member of the Jubert family, stated that if the City moves forward with Tamarack Drive as proposed, the alignment should be moved to be more equal for all property owners. Grajczyk asked and received confirmation that there is currently not an intersection control at 116 and Meander. He asked if the concern of the resident was that intersection control or whether the resident was simply concerned with an increased number of vehicles on the road. Mr. Larson stated that he is concerned that there is not intersection control at Meander and 116, which he believes is a safety concern for both vehicles and pedestrians. Reid asked if Public Works could follow up on the concerns with visibility. Finke confirmed that could be done. Grajczyk asked how long Lennar would project that it would take to build this area out, whether that would be done in phases. Tabone replied that they would most likely look at two phases. He stated that they would still need to come back for final approvals, after securing preliminary approvals. He estimated that it would take about three phases to build the entire development out. He stated that if they were able to start grading this fall, they would look to perhaps start with a model, but the majority of the homes would not come in until next year. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Galzki stated that aside from the Tamarack Drive discussion he felt that both the rezoning and preliminary plat were fairly straightforward. He stated that it sounds like there are still undecided items related to Tamarack Drive, which would be his only concern with this moving forward. He stated that he would not want this to Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 7/14/2020 Meeting Minutes 4 lock in if Tamarack Drive is not locked in. He stated that he appreciates the effort from Lennar to incorporate the changes brought forward in the concept review. He asked for input from staff as to whether changes to the Tamarack Drive alignment would be substantial enough to impact this plat. Finke commented that the difference would be feet, not hundreds of feet. He stated that in terms of equalizing the right-of-way, that could be relatively straightforward as most of the right-of-way is at the Highway 55 intersection. He stated that there could be more impacts if the roundabout were moved. He stated that the intent would be to have the Tamarack Drive Study finalized prior to acting on the preliminary plat. Galzki stated that he then does not see any issues with the rezoning or approval of the preliminary plat. Nielsen stated that she appreciates the changes that Lennar has made since the last discussions. She stated that there are concerns with traffic on Meander and is not thrilled with the Tamarack Drive alignment, noting that she would prefer a more equal alignment. She stated that more time should be allowed for the property owners to work together and develop a more equitable solution. Nester echoed the concern related to traffic from Meander turning northbound on 116. She stated that she would support any way the Tamarack project could be coordinated with this effort. She stated that she would support a more equitable split of the right-of-way but also recognized that the alignment may have been chosen to avoid wetland impacts. Piper asked if staff stated that the Tamarack issues would be worked out before preliminary approval is given to Lennar. Finke confirmed that the intent is to finalize the discussions on the Tamarack alignment so that could be incorporated into the preliminary plat. He stated that if that is the outstanding issue, the Commission could move this ahead to the City Council and the project can continue to move forward to meet the statutory review timelines. Reid commented that the recommendation of the Commission tonight would be related to the plat and not the Tamarack Drive Study. Finke stated that the alignment could impact the plat if the road alignment were moved significantly to the east. He noted that there is a condition that states the applicant shall provide the right-of-way for Tamarack Drive. He anticipated that the issues related to the Tamarack Drive alignment would be worked out prior to the City Council review. Piper asked if the Commission could include language in its motion that the Commission wants to be apprised of that intent and timing. She stated that she is concerned that coming to a solution on the road alignment could take longer than Lennar would like. Finke commented that the conditions will handle that, given that the Tamarack Drive Study is in place at the time the preliminary plat is reviewed by the Council. He stated that if the Tamarack Drive Study is delayed, the language could be adjusted, depending on the feedback of the City Council. He stated that Lennar could provide input on their timeline and whether they would be open to an extension. Tabone stated that conditions five through seven address Tamarack Drive. He stated that they certainly want to know the final alignment for Tamarack Drive prior to the approval of their preliminary plat. He stated that they would also want to be clear on the obligations of the improvements. He stated that they are comfortable moving forward with the intention that they will continue to work with staff and will receive a final copy of the Tamarack Drive Study prior to the City Council review. He stated that they would still have to come back for final plat approval and any necessary changes would need to be incorporated prior to that time. He stated that they are aware that there will continue to be opportunities to work with staff and the City Council. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 7/14/2020 Meeting Minutes 5 Reid asked when this case would move forward to the City Council. Finke replied that the plat is tentatively planned to move to the City Council at its first meeting in August. He stated that the Tamarack Drive Study is being presented to the Council at its meeting next Tuesday. He stated that the issue therefore may be settled before the Council reviews the plat. He stated that there is some ability to push back the plat review at the Council level and explained that because the Commission only meets once per month there is a lack of flexibility in the Commission reviewing this again. Grajczyk stated that he does not have an issue with the proposed rezoning or preliminary plat as proposed. He stated that he would be comfortable moving forward because of the conditions listed related to Tamarack Drive and the other checks and balances in place at the staff and Council level. Couri stated that she does not have an issue with the rezoning or preliminary plat. She noted that the approval of the Council could be withheld if the Tamarack Drive Study does not resolve the concerns. Reid stated that she appreciates that Lennar incorporated the comments from the concept review related to screening. She stated that the rezoning makes sense and she would be comfortable moving the preliminary plat forward because of the actions that will take place at the Council level. She stated that it is in the best interest of Lennar to ensure the Tamarack Drive Study is finalized prior to Council review of their plan. Motion by Galzki, seconded by Grajcyk, to recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. A roll call vote was performed: Nester aye Nielsen aye Galzki aye Piper aye Grajcyk aye Couri aye Reid aye Motion carries unanimously. Finke noted that this is tentatively scheduled to move forward for City Council review at the August 4, 2020 meeting, dependent upon the results of the Tamarack Drive Study. K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - 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 July 8, 2020 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-20-265 WSB Project No. 015744-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat submittal dated June 22, 2020. The plans propose to construct 125 multi-family units (townhomes) on 22 acres over two parcels known as the “Jubert Property” and “Rolling Green Property”. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Streets 1. Add typical street section(s) details to the plans meeting the City’s standard, at minimum. The final street section shall be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site. Complete. 2. 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 Fire Marshall. Provided, To be verified by the Fire Marshall. 3. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design speed, at minimum. Applicant to demonstrate with street plan and profiles of Final Plans. 4. The developer is proposing private roadways through the development. If the City requires public streets, wider right-of-way will be required. Complete, applicant is currently proposing private roadways. 5. Show the existing roads to the north side of Meander Road more clearly on the plans with at least the first 100’ visible. Complete. 6. Provide a grading plan with future submittals. Complete. 7. Additional right of way and/or easements will need to encompass the proposed trail areas. Complete. 8. Minimize the number of street crossings with the proposed trail. Complete. 9. Additional right of way will be required at the intersections to facilitate future improvements and/or turn lanes. Additional right of way may also be required along the Tamarack Drive corridor adjacent to the westerly property line upon conclusion of the City’s visioning study. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 2 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx The applicant shall design the full width of the Tamarack Drive street section, see the undivided urban typical section provided. In the design, also include the westbound left turn lane on Meander Road and related roadway modifications. Complete, but the design of Tamarack Drive and associated turn lanes will be further evaluated as the City’s corridor study plan is finalized. 10. The proposed bituminous trail along Meander road appears be located within the development property (private property) and now within the Meander Road public right of way. The City does prefer this trail to be privately owned and maintained; the 6’ width is also acceptable as a privately owned and maintained trail. The trail along the Tamarack Drive extension is expected to be publicly owned and maintained within public right of way and so an 8’ width will be required. Complete, the applicant responded that the proposed trail is located outside of the right-of-way and will be considered a private trail as an amenity for the development. The trail has been expanded to provide additional connectivity to an open space area and to the existing trail on the north side of Meander Road. 11. With final construction plans, provide plan and profile view of proposed street and utility improvements. 12. See additional comments provided on submitted plan sheets. Water/Sewer Utilities 13. 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. o Uniform 15’ easement provided adjacent to roadway right-of-way. Complete. o Utility pipe and structures vary in location within easement throughout development (see comments on submitted plan sheets).  Several structures and adjacent pipe are not a minimum of 10’ from the outside edge of the easement and/or do not meet 1:1 requirements (e.g. S-3, 16.2’ deep and ~4’ from edge of easement; S-5, 14.1’ and 5’; etc.)  Additional easement provided. Some locations still do not have a minimum of 10’ from the outside edge of the easement and/or do not meet 1:1 requirement. See redline comments.  Storm sewer and structure A-8B in or near Block 1 (2)  Storm sewer in or near Block 11,12 (2)  Storm sewer in or near Block 17 (2)  Storm sewer in or near Blocks 19, 20  Storm sewer in or near Block 23 (2)  Sanitary sewer in or near Block 1  Sanitary sewer structure S-3  Sanitary sewer and structure S-10 in or near Blocks 22, 23  Hydrants at the south ends of Blocks 19 and 21 City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 3 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx o Provide additional easement for the utilities (and road) serving Block 7.  The property and easement lines for Block 7 do not match from the utility plans to the preliminary plat. Overall plat does not match enlarged plat.  Adjacent sanitary sewer and hydrant do not have 10’ of easement o Provide additional easement for the watermain loop north of Blocks 25 & 26. Complete. 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. In- progress, extend watermain south adjacent to Blocks 19 and 20 to southerly property line. 15. The City will require a 16-inch main along the Tamarack Drive from the southwest of the site looped to the existing watermain connection on Meander Road. The applicant only noted a 12” watermain. After further discussion with the City, a 12-inch watermain here will be adequate, revert back to the 12-inch on the plans. 16. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water. Applicant requests information from the City for available hydrant flow data and existing pressures to help determine adequate water pressure. 17. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ radius is required to serve the immediate residential areas. Figure provided, minor areas for Lot 4 Block 14 and Lot 1 Block 12 outside of coverage area; the City Fire Marshall will provide the final determination. 18. With future submittals show the proposed gate valve locations. Provide additional gate valves at each leg of intersections at the dead-end streets. Gate valves shall be placed such that, at a minimum, there is one less gate valve than there are watermain legs at the intersection. Complete, but with additional comments: o Gate valves added o Add gate valve to south leg of intersection adjacent to Blocks 9 and 17. o Shift the gate valve for the intersection serving Block 7 from the north leg to the east leg (limits the number of houses shut off with a repair to the east) o Add gate valve at connection with Jubert Trail and Meander Road. o Remove valve on south leg at Blocks 5 and 11. 19. With future submittals, show proposed sanitary sewer service lines and invert elevations on plans; the City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations. Minimum depth requirement note added to the plans. In-progress, applicant indicated inverts will be provided with future plans 20. Hatching on the plan is covering up some of the existing utility linework, please re-order the layers so all is visible. Complete. 21. Please use green for the line color of the sanitary sewer as opposed to the red; the red can be used for the storm sewer. Complete. 22. The sanitary sewer system and manholes were reconfigured from the previous submittal. The shallowest location appears to be S-13 with ~6.2’ of cover. Other locations with less than 7.5’ of cover include S-10, S-14, S-15, S-16. Applicant indicated that the shallow sanitary sewer depth (less than City standard) is necessary to avoid needing a lift station. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 4 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx Comment is unchanged, applicant still indicating that the shallow sanitary sewer depth (less than City standard) is necessary to avoid needing a lift station. This is acceptable to the City to avoid the need for a lift station, but depths less than 7’ within roadway areas should include insulation. 23. There is the potential for several utility conflicts between the sanitary sewer main/services and the water main/services in the western portion of the development where the sanitary sewer is 7-8’ deep. Verify minimum 18” vertical separation at the crossings. Show offsetting the watermain/services and insulate as necessary. o Applicant added a note to the General Utility Notes stating that a minimum 18” vertical separation would be required at all water and sanitary crossings. o Applicant indicated that specific crossings would be addressed with future plans o Modify note to read that a minimum of 24 inches of vertical clearance, or 18 inches of vertical clearance with 4 inches of insulation, when crossing sanitary or storm sewer lines or services is required 24. The storm sewer crosses the watermain at too shallow of an angle near Blocks 11 and 12. Adjust the crossing such that it is at a 45-degree angle or greater. Verify minimum 18” vertical separation at the crossings based on the 7.5’ depth of nearby storm structure A-1. Show offsetting the watermain and insulate as necessary. Complete. 25. Add general notes to the plans to the effect: o The City of Medina shall not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that are associated with variations in the utility as-built elevations. All utility connections shall be verified in the field. o All watermain and sanitary sewer testing shall be done in accordance with the City of Medina standards and specifications. Copies of all test results shall be submitted to the City (Public Works Director, City Engineer), the Owner, and the Engineer of Record. o The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The Owner and Engineer of Record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. o Completed – paraphrased versions of the notes have been added 26. Provide curb stop locations with final plans. Traffic & Access 27. Based on review of the future traffic conditions right or left turn lanes would not be needed at the Jubert Drive entrance on Meander Road assuming a connection to Tamarack Drive from the site and Tamarack Drive at TH 55 will be improved to a full movement signalized intersection. Due to the possibility that a full movement access at Hwy 55 and the Tamarack Drive may not be constructed, an eastbound/westbound left turn and westbound right turn lane on Meander Road at the Jubert Drive entrance should be constructed with the project as proposed. At a minimum, provide 250’ of additional right of way (minimum of 10’ wide) along Meander Road in each direction of Jubert Drive to accommodate the future turn lanes. In-progress. Turn lanes are shown in the Site Plan for both access locations on future Tamarack Drive and Meander Road. See notes on submitted plan sheets. Additional changes may be needed once final Tamarack Corridor Study is approved by City. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 5 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx 28. More details should be provided for the design of the Jubert Drive entrance to Meander Road. Some of the concerns include: the lanes should line up with the Jubert Trail; the width of the lanes, and; the taper past the median island. Complete. 29. Right of way should be provided to accommodate the Tamarack Drive and intersection improvements at Meander Road including a westbound left turn lane on Meander with the City’s preferred design alternative of a traditional intersection. With that said, a possible future roundabout is a viable alternative; also provide the necessary right of way for this intersection design. In the “Site Plan & Street” section above, a comment was made about the design and improvement of Tamarack Drive at Meander Road. The full intersection layout should be designed with the project as proposed. If the full width of Tamarack adjacent to the townhome development is not constructed along with the turn lanes on Meander, provide an interim plan for this intersection as well. Extend the right of way for the roundabout another 50’ in each direction (total of 300’). At which time the remaining development occurs and the roundabout is constructed, the right of way not needed will be vacated. In-progress. Additional changes may be needed once final Tamarack Corridor Study is approved by City. 30. Based on the site plan access is proposed from the east/west private street to the Tamarack Drive. This intersection would be located approximately 350 ft from Meander Road which does not correspond to the guidance in the Tamarack Drive corridor visioning study concept plan for a full movement intersection. The preferred access would be further south and connect directly with a future frontage road extending east from the future roundabout. Ideally, the proposed access to the Tamarack Drive would be considered temporary until the preferred access further south (to the frontage road) is viable once the remaining commercial development to the south proceeds. At that time, the original access location to Tamarack would be closed. At minimum, provide the necessary right of way to extend the easterly access/road to the south to the extents of the proposed property line. Alternatively, if the access to the townhomes from Tamarack Drive will be a permanent full movement intersection, a southbound left turn lane on Tamarack would be required. Complete, access to future Tamarack Drive is proposed. 31. The pedestrian crossings of Meander Road at the Main Site Entrance/Jubert Trail and the Tamarack Drive should line up with the pedestrian facilities on the north side of Meander Road, including ADA pedestrian curb ramps. Completed Stormwater 32. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. Complete. 33. 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. a. The submittal indicates that 7.64 acres of impervious is being added. This equates to a volume of 0.68 acre/ft. The proposed BMP provides biofiltration for a water quality volume between the elevations 981-982.5 based on the stage storage of the pond this equate to a WQ volume of 0.83 ac-ft. Medina allows for 50% credit for using City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 6 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx standard filtration or 0.41 ac-ft. The table in the narrative differs from these numbers, please clarify. Additionally, although there are restricted soils onsite, it is feasible to construct BMPs to count towards remaining volume control credit. The City of Medina Stormwater Design Manual provides additional credits and options for BMPs to meet the volume control requirement. Complete. 34. The applicant may want to consider using the stormwater ponds for irrigation. Credits for volume control can be given for stormwater reuse. 35. 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. Complete. 36. 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. a. Clearly label the EOF for each basin. Not Completed b. There are several EOFs for drain inlets that do not meet the city’s freeboard requirements. Please review and clarify. Not Complete. Specifically, Block 7. 37. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and the applicant shall submit for the required permits. 38. Storm sewer pipes should be in drainage and utility easements, please verify that pipes adjacent to Block 10 and Block 6 are within drainage and utility easements. Complete. 39. With final design, provide storm sewer calculations using the rational method. 40. The HWLs indicated on the plan sheet for the basins differ from the hydrocad model. Please clarify. Complete. 41. Provide details for the biofiltration basin to clarify how the water quality volume was calculated. Complete. 42. Provide pretreatment for the direct storm sewer outfalls to the biofiltration basin. Complete. 43. Stormwater management onsite will need to be sized to include any portion of Tamarack road that is constructed with this development. Not Completed. 44. Show clean outs at the ends of each draintile section within pond area. Grading and Erosion Control 45. Provide EOFs for all low points inside and outside the roadway. Complete. 46. Provide spot elevations at the high points between the lots. Complete. 47. Maintain all surface grades within the minimum 2% and maximum 33% slopes. A few limited locations are still greater than 33% slopes and less than 2%. Will review with final plans. 48. With final construction plans, the City will require draintile or other connections for sump pump discharges. A separate foundation pipe system in addition to the sump discharge system should be considered. Complete, the applicant indicated that all units will be slab on grade and not require sump pumps. 49. Provide detail on how the grades for the western biofiltration basin are tying into the existing grades to the south. Completed – additional note provided. 50. Show storm sewer pipes on the grading plan. Complete. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 7 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx 51. Provide proposed driveway grades. Complete. 52. Provide rim elevations of all storm structures. Complete. 53. Provide top and bottom of wall elevations for all proposed retaining walls. Provide fencing. Note retaining walls greater than 4’ shall be designed by a Minnesota Registered Professional Structural Engineer. All retaining walls shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 54. Provide how drainage swales flow across the retaining walls (overtops) SWPPP 55. An NPDES permit must be submitted to the City prior to start of construction. 56. Show energy dissipation at all pipe outlets. Complete. 57. An owner contact person should be provided in the SWPPP narrative (the operator contact person will be added at a later date via a SWPPP amendment). Complete. 58. Address potential need for temporary sedimentation basins, where 5+ acres of exposed soils will be draining to a common location. Please show these locations and/or reference the need for placement in your SWPPP Amendment table. Complete. 59. Estimated quantities of BMPs are required. This is referenced in the SWPPP narrative, but numbers are not listed out anywhere. Complete. 60. The SWPPP narrative references a “SWPPP Map.” Where is this located? Information that is needed includes: stormwater discharge points and receiving waters within 1 mile of the site. All other requirements are satisfied in the various plan sheets. Complete. 61. Please clarify that stockpiles will require temporary stabilization measures immediately and within 7 days of inactivity. Complete. 62. Please add “Stockpile Location(s),” “Equipment/Materials Staging Area(s),” and “Fueling Location(s)” to your SWPPP Amendments table or show them on your “Proposed SWPPP (overall)” sheet. Complete, added to the SWPPP Amendments table. 63. Clarify the timeframe for repairing/replacing nonfunctional BMPs (by the end of the next business day). Complete. 64. Permanent turf establishment shows seed type and location that will be used. Please also show what type of stabilization measures will be used (IE: ECB, hydro mulch types, straw mulch, etc.) and fertilizer type and quantities that will be used with each seed mix. Additionally, how will individual lots be temporarily and permanently stabilized? Complete. 65. Drainage arrows are shown in the “Proposed SWPPP (Overall)” sheet’s legend but are not drawn in on the plan. Drainage arrows (pre and post construction) are required. Complete. 66. Make note that the biofiltration basin is to be constructed last unless rigorous erosion and sediment controls are in place to prevent sediment from damaging the system. Complete. Wetlands 67. The wetland delineation for this site was reviewed and boundary adjustments were made to Wetland 3. The site plan appears to be using the old boundary and must be updated. City of Medina – Meadowview Townhomes Preliminary Plat – Engineering Review July 8, 2020 Page 8 K:\015744-000\Admin\Docs\2020-06-22 Submittal\_2020-07-08 Meadowview Townhome Concept PUD - WSB Comments - Final.docx The developer responded that the wetland delineation depicted is based on the previously submitted wetland delineation report for the Jubert Property. This is true, but updates were made to the boundary of Wetland 3 following the initial submittal that are reflected in the Notice of Decision for the project. The approved boundary must be used. 68. The site plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland replacement plan approval is required prior to any wetland impact. 69. The plans must show the upland buffers widths, structure setbacks, and where the buffer markers will be placed. The wetland south and east of the project is classified as a Manage 1 and requires an average 30-foot buffer (minimum 20 feet). The existing buffer shown is an average of 20 feet. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The other wetlands on the site have not been evaluated for quality. A management classification should be proposed. The developer responded that management classifications were approved based on the wetland delineation report approval. The Wetland Conservation Act does not regulate wetland buffers or quality. The Notice of Decision was for boundary and type and does not include an approval of quality or management classification. However, they are proposing a 35-foot buffer (25-foot minimum) to meet the watershed district requirements which will inherently meet the City’s buffer requirements for a Manage 1 wetland. Complete. 70. The plans show a 6-foot bituminous trail located within the buffer of Wetland 2. Total disturbance (permanent and temporary) must not exceed 8 feet in width and must be located outside of the minimum width of the required upland buffer zone. In order to calculate a letter of credit and construction engineering escrow amounts for the final development agreement, an engineer’s estimate (in Excel format) of the proposed utility improvements and a schedule for completion of construction will be required. The estimate should also include the cost of landscaping items. 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 May 15, 2020 Dusty Finke, AICP Planning Director, City of Medina RE: Meadow View Townhomes Preliminary Plat Dear Dusty, Please consider this narrative our update to Meadow View based on input and information received from the Planning Commission, Parks Commission, City Council, and City staff. An engineering response from ISG is incorporated behind this cover letter to address previous staff comments that apply to the enclosed site plan. While the overall intent of the project remains to construct townhomes on the subject property, several elements of the previous proposal are now being changed. A description of these items is below: 1. PUD Request - Based on input and concerns voiced at the 4/14/2020 Planning Commission Meeting and 4/21/2020 Council meeting, we hereby withdraw our request for a PUD. The community is being designed in accordance with R3 zoning standards. All R3 minimums are being adhered to and we are requesting a Rezoning to R3 for the entire project. 2. Land Use & Density – Per the 4/14/2020 Planning Commission Staff report, the newly proposed density and unit count is 6.25 units per acre and 125 townhomes, respectively. This should alleviate some of the density concerns voiced by City officials and neighboring residents. 3. Open Space & Trail - The open space corridor and trail has been shifted to the south side of Meander Road, and will be designated as a public trail for public use and maintenance. Screening is being shown in the form of additional landscaping and some berming along Meander road, per the requests of City officials and residents of The Fields of Medina. Overall green space in the community is 13.79 acres, meaning that over 66% of the site is now greens pace. It was also confirmed that open space obligations have been satisfied for this area. As such, no additional open space features are proposed. 4. Architecture – By eliminating the PUD request, Lennar can move forward with our standard architecture designs, colors, and materials. Primary exterior materials consist of vinyl with LP trim around windows. Stone accents are proposed on the fronts of the homes with decorative gables and dormers for some articulation. Additionally, all garages are being modified to bring the fronts out by 2 feet to get to the 400’ garage minimum square footage prescribed by ordinance. 5. Traffic – Traffic was a concern that was brought up by City staff, City officials, and neighboring residents. Based on ITE Trip Generation Rates, we believe that a townhome community with a total of 125 dwelling units will generate approximately 70 new trips in the morning, 84 new trips in the evening, and 904 Average Daily Trips (ADT). It should be noted that MnDOT’s thresholds for requiring a traffic study is is based on the following trip counts: • 250 new trips in the morning • 250 new trips in the evening • 2,500 new trips throughout the day Many cities and counties refer to it when deciding when to require a traffic impact study. A townhome community of 125 dwelling units is well below MnDOT’s thresholds for requiring a traffic impact study. Typically using this criteria, a traffic study should be considered for multi-family housing development of 340 or more dwelling units. We hope the City will acknowledge that Lenna used input from City Staff, Planning and Parks Commissions, and City Council and incorporated it into what we feel will be a great townhome neighborhood in the City of Medina. We had great success with our townhomes at the Enclave and recognize a market need that we believe we can contribute to fulfilling. Please contact me with questions as we continue moving forward with Meadow View. Regards, Paul J. Tabone Land Entitlement Mgr Lennar Minnesota LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Madison Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2017 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2019 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S.Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – Lennar Sales Corp. Seller’s broker. U.S. Home Corporation, BC001413 Construction License. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. Seller’s broker. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. BC736565, BC700385 Construction Licenses. (10067) 02/07/19 PATIO 2 CAR GARAGE GREAT ROOM DINING ROOM KITCHEN FOYER PORCH 18' x 20' 13' x 14'8' x 15' 9' x 14' UP PA N T R Y DW OPTFIREPLACE RE F . PWDR CO A T S BEDROOM 2 LOFT BEDROOM 3 LA U N D R Y / ME C H 12' x 12' 12' x 14' W.I.C. W.I.C. 13' x 11' 13' x 12' BATH OPT.W OPT.D WH RETURN FURN LI N E N DN OWNER'S SUITE OWNER'S BATH Main Level Upper Level 1,804 sq. ft. •2 Stories •3 Bedrooms •3 Bathrooms •2 Car Garage LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Madison Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 C D 2 Stories | 3 Bedrooms | 3 Bathrooms | 2 Car Garage 1,804 sq. ft. LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Jefferson Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2017 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2019 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S.Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – Lennar Sales Corp. Seller’s broker. U.S. Home Corporation, BC001413 Construction License. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. Seller’s broker. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. BC736565, BC700385 Construction Licenses. (10150) 03/29/19 Main Level Upper Level 1,906 Sq. Ft. •2 Stories •3 Bedrooms •3 Bathrooms •2 Car Garage LENNAR.COM LENNAR®The Jefferson Colonial Patriot Collection 952-373-0485 C D 2 Stories | 3 Bedrooms | 3 Bathrooms | 2 Car Garage 1,906 Sq. Ft.   23860 1-TITLE DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY MEADOW VIEW MASTER PLAN MEDINA, MINNESOTA PROJECT INDEX: LEGEND EXISTING W WET X X X X UT > <II I OE UE UTV G FBO PROPOSED <II I I OE UE UTV G >> >> >> >> OWNER: LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 554466 PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION: SEC 2 & 11 / TWP 118 / RNG 23 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDINA, MINNESOTA N S WE LENNAR HOMES ISG PROJECT # 20-23860 PROJECT LOCATION B.M. ELEVATION=1006.16 TNFH LOCATED APPOXIMATELY 180 FEET WEST OF THE NORTH WEST PROPERTY CORNER. MANAGING OFFICE: 6. ALL MANUFACTURED ARTICLES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE APPLIED, INSTALLED, CONNECTED, ERECTED, CLEANED AND CONDITIONED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURERS' INSTRUCTIONS. IN CASE OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS' INSTRUCTIONS AND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 7. ALL DISSIMILAR METALS SHALL BE EFFECTIVELY ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER TO AVOID GALVANIC CORROSION. 8. THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF ALL INPLACE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF I & S GROUP, INC. (ISG). NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE IS IMPLIED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SIZES, LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL INPLACE UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM PLAN. 9. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, MINIMUM 2 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION / CONSTRUCTION (1-800-252-1166). 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE OWNER - CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT, THE PROJECT MANUAL (WHICH INCLUDES GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS), DRAWINGS OF ALL DISCIPLINES AND ALL ADDENDA, MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER. 2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ISSUED TO ALL SUBCONTRACTORS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN COMPLETE SETS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE FULL EXTENT AND COMPLETE COORDINATION OF ALL WORK. 3. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONDITIONS REQUIRING INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 4. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONDITIONS REQUIRING INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 5. DETAILS SHOWN ARE INTENDED TO BE INDICATIVE OF THE PROFILES AND TYPE OF DETAILING REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE WORK. DETAILS NOT SHOWN ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO DETAILS SHOWN. WHERE SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS, DETAILS OR DESIGN INTENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED, NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. SPECIFICATIONS REFERENCE ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF MEDINA REQUIREMENTS AND MnDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION, 2018 EDITION, AND THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAIN AND WATERMAIN AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA 2013, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE. PROJECT DATUM HORIZONTAL COORDINATES HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83), 1996 ADJUSTMENT (NAD83(1996)) ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM, IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88). RTK GPS METHODS WERE USED TO ESTABLISH HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COORDINATES FOR THIS PROJECT. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY THIS PROJECT'S TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONSISTS OF DATA COLLECTED IN JANUARY 2020 BY ISG. PROJECT GENERAL NOTES LOCATION MAP 0 SCALE IN FEET OHL OF - TTK TTK JDF 05/15/2020 20-23860 1 TITLE SHEET GENERAL INFORMATION ---- ---- 1 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 7900 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE SUITE 550 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55425 PHONE: 952.426.0699 BLOOMINGTON OFFICE TITLE SHEET GENERAL INFORMATION > LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS SHEET INDEX SHEET INDEX >> >>>> >> >> >> >>> I I I I I I I I I I I I I W E T W E T WET WET WET WET W E T WET WET WE T WE T WET W E T WE T WE T WE T W E T WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WET WET WET WET W E T WE T WE T > EX 12" TREE EX 13" TREE EX 16" TREE EX 16" TREE EX 8" TREE EX 9" TREE EX 20" TREE 23860 EXIST DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 10 EXISTING SITE PLAN (OVERALL) ---- ---- 10 MEDINA MINNESOTA EXISTING SITE PLAN (OVERALL) 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 JRS JRS JDF LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS W E T W E T WET WET WET WET W E T WET WET WE T WE T WET W E T WE T WE T WE T W E T WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WET WET WET WET W E T WE T WE T EAST BIOFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM=984.00 HWL=985.94 EAST BASIN FOREBAY BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=954 HWL=985.94 WEST BASIN FOREBAYS BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=984.00 HWL=986.16 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 WET WET WET WET W E T WE T WET W E T WET W E T W E T WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WET W E T W E T WE T WE T WET WET WET W E T WE T WE T 35' AVG E R A G E WETLAN D B U F F E R 15' WET L A N D SETBAC K 25' AVER A G E WETLAND B U F F E R 15' WETLAND SETBACK 35' AVERAGE WETLAND BUFFER 15' WETLAND SETBACK WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWETTTETETTTTETETEEETETTTETETTEEEEEEEEETTTT WE T WE T WEWWWWWWEWWWWWWW WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WWWWE T WE T WE T WWWEWE T WWE T WWWWWWWEEETEEEEET WEWEWEWWEWWWEWEWEWWWEWE W E W E W E W E T E W E W E W E E WW E WWW E W E EE WWWW WEWE T WE T WE T WWEWWE T WEWWEWEWWE T WWWEWEWEWEWEEWEWE T WE T WEEEWWEWWWWWWE T WWEWWEWEWEETEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWEWEWWWWWWWWEWEWWEWWWWWWWWWWEWE WWWWWWWWW E T E T E T E T T E T EE T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WE T WWEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WE TEWE T WE T WE T WEWE T WE T T WE T TET WE T WE T TTT WE T TET WEEEWEWEWWWE T WE T WE T T WWE TET WE T WE TET WE T W TT WWWWWWW TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEWEEEEEEETEEETEETEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWE T WEWEEET WEWEWEWEWEWEEEWEWEWEWE TETEETEEEEETEETET WEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEE W E WWWW E WWWWWWWWWWWWW E WWW E WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW E W E E WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW E E WWWWWWWWWWW WETWETWETWETWETETWWEWETWETWETWETWWWETWEWWEWETWETWWWEWWEWWWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWETWEEWETETETETEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWETETETETETETEETETETETEWEWEWWWEWWEWEWWWWWWWW 35' WETL A N D BUFFER 15' WETL A N D SETBAC K 23860 SITE DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 16 OVERALL SITE PLAN ---- ---- 16 MEDINA MINNESOTA OVERALL SITE PLAN 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 JRS JRS JDF LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS TYPICAL PRIVATE STREET LAYOUT 1" =20' SITE SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GROSS AREA: WETLAND AREA (ONSITE): WETLAND IMPACTS: WETLAND BUFFER AREA (ONSITE): NET AREA: PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT: PERVIOUS AREA: IMPERVIOUS AREA: PRODUCT TYPE PARKING REQUIREMENTS SETBACKS WETWET WE T WE T WET WET WET WET W E T WE T WE T WE T W E T WET WE T WE T WET WET W E T WET WET WET WET W E T W E T WE T WE T WET WET W E T S88°54'57"E 650.77 S0 0 ° 0 7 ' 4 9 " W 6 9 7 . 3 2 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 5 2 2 . 5 6 Δ =30°32'34" L=143.93R=270.00 Δ=29°08'29" L=198.36R=390.00 S89°33'00"E 254.41 Δ =2 4 °1 5 '1 9 "L =1 3 9 .7 0 R =3 3 0 .0 0 N66°11 ' 4 2 " E 226.47 Δ =2 4 °1 5 '19 " L =1 1 4 .3 0 R =2 7 0 .0 0 Δ =3 3 °5 5 '2 8 "L =1 9 5 .3 9 R =3 3 0 .0 0 Δ =3 3 °3 2 '0 9 "L =1 2 8 .7 7 R =2 2 0 .0 0 N0 0 ° 1 2 ' 0 2 " E 1 1 6 7 . 1 5 S69° 5 9 ' 3 3 " E 1 4 4 8 . 6 3 S89°33'00"E 16.57 S89°02'37"W 1.50 11 12 6 1314 15 16 7 2 1 5 4 3 8 9 10 17 18192021 22 23 24 25 26 27 23860 PRELIM DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 12 PRELIMINARY PLAT (OVERALL) ---- ---- 12 MEDINA MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY PLAT (OVERALL) 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 MAS MAS OUTLOT AREAS: OUTLOT A = 1,445,018 SQ. FT. = 33.17 ACRES OUTLOT B = 211,839 SQ. FT. = 4.86 ACRES OUTLOT C = 95,454 SQ. FT. = 2.19 ACRES OUTLOT D = 8,315 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT E = 6,908 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT F = 8,199 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT G = 7,908 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRES OUTLOT H = 5,730 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT I = 6,073 SQ. FT. = 0.14 ACRES OUTLOT J = 5,492 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT K = 14,434 SQ. FT. = 0.33 ACRES OUTLOT L = 4,224 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRES OUTLOT M = 11,253 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRES OUTLOT N = 9,364 SQ, FT. = 0.21 ACRES OUTLOT O = 1,504 SQ. FT. = 0.03 ACRES OUTLOT P = 4,573 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRES OUTLOT Q = 7,073 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT R = 3,771 SQ. FT. = 0.09 ACRES OUTLOT S = 10,695 SQ. FT. = 0.25 ACRES OUTLOT T = 9,355 SQ. FT. = 0.21 ACRES OUTLOT U = 159,970 SQ. FT. = 3.67 ACRES OUTLOT V = 3,519 SQ. FT. = 0.08 ACRES OUTLOT W = 7,788 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRES OUTLOT X = 6,518 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT Y = 7,168 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT Z = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT AA = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT BB = 8,336 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT CC = 11,292 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRES OUTLOT DD = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT EE = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT FF = 8,399 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT PURPOSES: Outlot E, FIELDS OF MEDINA, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND Outlot A, ROLLING GREEN BUSINESS CENTER, Hennepin County, Minnesota. DATE LIC. NO.5-15-2020 45817 Mark A. Schwanz Drainage and Utility Easements are shown thus: Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, being 10 feet in width and adjoining rear lot lines and being 15 feet and adjoining right - of - way lines, unless otherwise indicated on the plat. WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET WET WET WET W E T WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T S88°54'57"E 650.77 40.0 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 40. 0 0 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 40. 0 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 32.0 0 40.0 0 S38 ° 4 2 ' 0 8 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N38 ° 4 2 ' 0 8 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S1 3 ° 1 1 ' 4 8 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N1 3 ° 1 1 ' 4 8 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 N74°25'32 " E 2 0 8 . 0 0 S74°25'32 " W 2 0 8 . 0 0 S74°25'32 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N74°25'32 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 N68° 3 9 ' 1 3 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 S68° 3 9 ' 1 3 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.3 3 59.3 3 59.3 3 59.3 3 59.3 3 59.3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 59.33 40 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.0032.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 32.00 5 9 . 3 3 32.00 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 4 0 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 N2 3 ° 2 0 ' 2 2 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S2 3 ° 2 0 ' 2 2 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 S84°27'25"W 144.00 N84°27'25"E 144.00 N73°31'5 0 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S73°31'50 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 S81°39'19"W 17 6 . 0 0 N81°39'19"E 17 6 . 0 0 S73°31'5 0 " W 1 4 4 . 0 0 N73°31'5 0 " E 1 4 4 . 0 0 S 1 6 ° 2 8 ' 1 0 " E 2 0 8 . 0 0 N 1 6 ° 2 8 ' 1 0 " W 2 0 8 . 0 0 Δ =2 4 °1 5 '1 9 "L =1 3 9 .7 0 R =3 3 0 .0 0 N66°11 ' 4 2 " E 226.47 Δ =2 4 °1 5 '1 9 " L =1 1 4 .3 0 R =2 7 0 .0 0 Δ =3 3 °5 5 '2 8 "L =1 9 5 .3 9 R =33 0 .0 0 Δ =3 3 °3 2 '0 9 "L =1 2 8 .7 7 R =2 2 0 .0 0 S89°33'00"E 16.57 59.33 11 12 8 1314 1516 7 2 1 6 5 148 17 7 34 1 1 2 44 89 51 14 8 4 7 9 80 94 27 13 4 4 89 3 3 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 40.00 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 5 9 . 3 3 4 0 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 59.3 3 4 0 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 3 2 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 59.3 3 59.3 3 59.3 3 59.3 3 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 4 0 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 S74°25'32 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N74°25'32 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 N 4 3 ° 2 2 ' 5 2 " W 1 4 4 . 0 0 S 4 3 ° 2 2 ' 5 2 " E 1 4 4 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 1 9 ' 3 2 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 1 9 ' 3 2 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N 0 4 ° 4 1 ' 3 0 " W 1 1 2 . 0 0 S0 4 ° 4 1 ' 3 0 " E 1 1 2 . 0 0 52 36 8 6 8 7 1 2 4 83 15 40.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 33 33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 33 33 40.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 S0 0 ° 1 9 ' 3 2 " W 1 1 2 . 0 0 40 3 4 9 10 23860 PRELIM DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 13 PRELIMINARY PLAT (EAST) ---- ---- 13 MEDINA MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY PLAT (EAST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 40 80 MAS _ MAS DATE LIC. NO.5-15-2020 45817 Mark A. Schwanz Drainage and Utility Easements are shown thus: Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, being 10 feet in width and adjoining rear lot lines and being 15 feet and adjoining right - of - way lines, unless otherwise indicated on the plat. OUTLOT AREAS: OUTLOT A = 1,445,018 SQ. FT. = 33.17 ACRES OUTLOT B = 211,839 SQ. FT. = 4.86 ACRES OUTLOT C = 95,454 SQ. FT. = 2.19 ACRES OUTLOT D = 8,315 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT E = 6,908 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT F = 8,199 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT G = 7,908 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRES OUTLOT H = 5,730 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT I = 6,073 SQ. FT. = 0.14 ACRES OUTLOT J = 5,492 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT K = 14,434 SQ. FT. = 0.33 ACRES OUTLOT L = 4,224 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRES OUTLOT M = 11,253 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRES OUTLOT N = 9,364 SQ, FT. = 0.21 ACRES OUTLOT O = 1,504 SQ. FT. = 0.03 ACRES OUTLOT P = 4,573 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRES OUTLOT Q = 7,073 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT R = 3,771 SQ. FT. = 0.09 ACRES OUTLOT S = 10,695 SQ. FT. = 0.25 ACRES OUTLOT T = 9,355 SQ. FT. = 0.21 ACRES OUTLOT U = 159,970 SQ. FT. = 3.67 ACRES OUTLOT V = 3,519 SQ. FT. = 0.08 ACRES OUTLOT W = 7,788 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRES OUTLOT X = 6,518 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT Y = 7,168 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT Z = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT AA = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT BB = 8,336 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT CC = 11,292 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRES OUTLOT DD = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT EE = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT FF = 8,399 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES WE T WE T WE T WE TWE T WE T WE T WE T W E T WE T WE T WE T N S68° 3 9 ' 1 3 " E 1 7 32.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 5 2 2 . 5 6 Δ=30°32'34" L=143.93R=270.00 Δ=29°08'29" L=198.36R=390.00 S89°33'00"E 254.41 Δ =2 4 °1 5 '1 9 "L =1 3 9 .7 0 R =3 3 0 .0 0 44 3 2 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 59.3 3 4 0 . 0 0 59.3 3 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 N 4 3 ° 2 2 ' 5 2 " W 1 4 4 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 1 9 ' 3 2 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 83 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 40.0032.0032.0040.00 59 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 40.0032.0032.0040.00 59 . 3 3 40.00 32.00 32.00 40.00 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59 . 3 3 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 59.33 59.33 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 32 . 0 0 40 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 32 . 0 0 59.33 40 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 1 4 4 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 1 4 4 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 1 4 4 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 1 4 4 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 1 4 4 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 1 4 4 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 1 4 4 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 1 4 4 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 2 0 8 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 2 0 8 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " W 1 7 6 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 2 8 ' 2 5 " E 1 7 6 . 0 0 S0 0 ° 1 9 ' 3 2 " W 1 1 2 . 0 0 N0 0 ° 1 9 ' 3 2 " E 1 1 2 . 0 0 N89°31'35"W 144.00 S89°31'35"E 144.00 N89°31'35"W 144.00 S89°31'35"E 144.00 16 1 10 22 24 105 22 76 76 14 14 40 10 17 181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23860 PRELIM DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT (WEST) ---- ---- 14 MEDINA MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY PLAT (WEST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 MAS MAS DATE LIC. NO.5-15-2020 45817 Mark A. Schwanz Drainage and Utility Easements are shown thus: Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, being 10 feet in width and adjoining rear lot lines and being 15 feet and adjoining right - of - way lines, unless otherwise indicated on the plat. OUTLOT AREAS: OUTLOT A = 1,445,018 SQ. FT. = 33.17 ACRES OUTLOT B = 211,839 SQ. FT. = 4.86 ACRES OUTLOT C = 95,454 SQ. FT. = 2.19 ACRES OUTLOT D = 8,315 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT E = 6,908 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT F = 8,199 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT G = 7,908 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRES OUTLOT H = 5,730 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT I = 6,073 SQ. FT. = 0.14 ACRES OUTLOT J = 5,492 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT K = 14,434 SQ. FT. = 0.33 ACRES OUTLOT L = 4,224 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRES OUTLOT M = 11,253 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRES OUTLOT N = 9,364 SQ, FT. = 0.21 ACRES OUTLOT O = 1,504 SQ. FT. = 0.03 ACRES OUTLOT P = 4,573 SQ. FT. = 0.10 ACRES OUTLOT Q = 7,073 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT R = 3,771 SQ. FT. = 0.09 ACRES OUTLOT S = 10,695 SQ. FT. = 0.25 ACRES OUTLOT T = 9,355 SQ. FT. = 0.21 ACRES OUTLOT U = 159,970 SQ. FT. = 3.67 ACRES OUTLOT V = 3,519 SQ. FT. = 0.08 ACRES OUTLOT W = 7,788 SQ. FT. = 0.18 ACRES OUTLOT X = 6,518 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT Y = 7,168 SQ. FT. = 0.16 ACRES OUTLOT Z = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT AA = 5,646 SQ. FT. = 0.13 ACRES OUTLOT BB = 8,336 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES OUTLOT CC = 11,292 SQ. FT. = 0.26 ACRES OUTLOT DD = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT EE = 6,574 SQ. FT. = 0.15 ACRES OUTLOT FF = 8,399 SQ. FT. = 0.19 ACRES 22 24 27 17 182021 2526 19 10 9 16 15 8 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EAST BIOFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM=984.00 HWL=985.94 EAST BASIN FOREBAY BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=954 HWL=985.94 WEST BASIN FOREBAYS BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=984.00 HWL=986.16 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> EX CB T/C=996.33 INVERT N=991.30 12"RCP EX CB T/C=996.48 INVERT S=990.22 12"RCP INVERT E=989.75 21"RCP INVERT NW=989.63 18"RCP EX CB T/C=996.38 INVERT S=989.96 12"RCP INVERT N=989.74 15"RCP INVERT W=988.56 21"RCP INVERT E=988.48 24"RCP EX CB T/C=996.37 INVERT N=991.05 12"RCP EX CB T/C=996.33 INVERT S=991.32 12"RCP INVERT N=990.15 15"RCP INVERT W=987.83 24"RCP INVERT E=987.82 24"RCP EX CB T/C=996.43 INVERT N=992.27 12"RCP EX CB T/C=997.14 INVERT NW=991.29 12"RCP INVERT E=986.97 24"RCP INVERT W=986.92 24"RCP EX CB T/C=996.44 INVERT NE=990.25 12"RCP INVERT SE=990.19 12"RCP INVERT W=986.68 24"RCP INVERT E=986.58 24"RCP EX CB T/C=994.90 INVERT W=986.07 24"RCP INVERT E=986.00 24"RCPEX SAN MH R=995.78 INVERT S=976.56 INVERT NW=976.47 INVERT E=976.47 EX CB T/C=996.44 I=990.97 12"RCP EX CB T/C=989.83 INVERT S=985.77 12"RCP INVERT W=985.22 24"RCP INVERT N=985.07 24"RCPEX CB T/C=989.94 INVERT N=986.06 12"RCP E R IN IN I=985.10 EX DROP INTAKE R=996.14 I= >>>>> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WE T WE T WE T WE T W E T WET WE T WET WE T W E T WE T WE T W E T W E T WET WET WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T W E T WET WET WET W E T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >>>> >> >> >> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> >>> >> > >> > I I I I I I 99 5 . 0 0 993.2 5 994.25 994.40 994 . 4 0 99 4 . 7 5 99 5 . 2 5 998.50 997.50 998.00 999.00 999.75 999.75 1 0 0 0 . 5 0 9 9 4 . 0 0 99 6 . 5 0 99 7 . 5 0 99 8 . 0 0 99 8 . 5 0 9 9 5 . 7 5 9 9 5 . 2 5 995.00 992.25 992.75 99 2 . 7 5 99 3 . 0 0 99 3 . 7 5 99 4 . 1 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 6 . 7 5 99 4 . 0 0 99 5 . 0 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 3 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 I > I > > I > I > I > I I I I I I I > I > I > I > I > I I I I I > I > I > I I I I I > I > I > I > I I I I IIII > I > I > I > I I I I I > I > I > I > I > > I > > I > > I > I > I> I > I > I> I I I I I I I I I I I I I > I > I > I > I > I I I I I I >I > > I > > I > > I > >I I > I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I > > I> I > I > I > I > I> I > I > I I I I >I I I > > I I > > I I I 23860 UTILITY DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 19 SITE UTILITY PLAN (OVERALL) ---- ---- 19 MEDINA MINNESOTA SITE UTILITY PLAN (OVERALL) 0 SCALE IN FEET 60 120 JRS JRS JDF LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS UTILITY LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED >>>> >> <II <II I I >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WE T WE T WE T W E T WET WE T WET WE T WE T WE T WE T W E T W E T WET WET WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T W W E T WET WET WET W E T WE T W E T WE T WE T WE T > 22 24 27 17 182021 2526 19 10 9 16 15 8 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EAST BIOFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM=984.00 HWL=985.94 EAST BASIN FOREBAY BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=954 HWL=985.94 WEST BASIN FOREBAYS BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=984.00 HWL=986.16 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 > > > > > > >>> >>> >>> > > > > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> >> > >> > 99 5 . 0 0 993.2 5 994.25 994.40 994 . 4 0 99 4 . 7 5 99 5 . 2 5 998.50 997.50 998.00 999.00 999.75 999.75 10 0 0 . 5 0 9 9 4 . 0 0 99 6 . 5 0 99 7 . 5 0 99 8 . 0 0 99 8 . 5 0 9 9 5 . 7 5 9 9 5 . 2 5 995.00 992.25 992.75 99 2 . 7 5 99 3 . 0 0 99 3 . 7 5 99 4 . 1 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 6 . 7 5 99 4 . 0 0 99 5 . 0 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 3 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> 23860 GRADE DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 24 OVERALL GRADING PLAN ---- ---- 24 MEDINA MINNESOTA OVERALL GRADING PLAN 0 SCALE IN FEET 60 120 JRS JRS JDF LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS >> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> I I I I I I I I I I I I I WE T W E T WE T WET W E T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET WET WET WET WE T W E T WE T WE T WE T WE T > > > 22 24 17 18 25 19 10 9 16 15 8 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EAST BIOFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM=984.00 HWL=985.94 EAST BASIN FOREBAY BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=954 HWL=985.94 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 > > > > > > > > > >>> >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >> > >>> >>> >>> >> > >> > >> > 99 5 . 0 0 993. 2 5 994.25 994.40 994 . 4 0 99 4 . 7 5 99 5 . 2 5 998.50 997.50 998.00 999.00 999.75 999.75 1 0 0 0 . 5 0 9 9 4 . 0 0 99 6 . 5 0 99 7 . 5 0 99 8 . 0 0 99 8 . 5 0 9 9 5 . 7 5 9 9 5 . 2 5 995.00 992.25 992.75 99 2 . 7 5 99 3 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 3 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 23860 GRADE DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 25 GRADING PLAN (EAST) ---- ---- 25 MEDINA MINNESOTA GRADING PLAN (EAST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 JRS JRS JDF LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I I I I I I I I I I I I WE T WE T WE T W E T WE T WET W E T WE T WE T W E T WE T WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WE T W E T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T 22 24 27 17 182021 2526 19 10 9 16 15 8 14 7 4 3 2 WEST BASIN FOREBAYS BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=984.00 HWL=986.16 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 > > > > > > > > > >>> >>> >>> > > > > > > >>> >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> > > > 99 5 . 0 0 993. 2 5 994.25 994.40 998 .5 999.0 999.75 999.75 1 0 0 0 . 5 0 9 9 4 . 0 0 99 6 . 5 0 99 7 . 5 0 99 8 . 0 0 99 8 . 5 0 995.00 992.25 992.75 99 2 . 7 5 99 3 . 0 0 99 3 . 7 5 99 4 . 1 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 6 . 7 5 99 4 . 0 0 99 5 . 0 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 3 . 0 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 99 4 . 0 0 99 4 . 5 0 99 5 . 5 0 >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> 23860 GRADE DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 26 GRADING PLAN (WEST) ---- ---- 26 MEDINA MINNESOTA GRADING PLAN (WEST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 JRS JRS JDF LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WE T WE T WE T W E T WET WE T WET WE T WE T WE T WE T W E T W E T WET WET WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T W W E T WET WET WET W E T WE T W E T WE T WE T WE T > WE T WE T WE T T WE T WE T WEEEWWW WE T WEWE T WWEEEEET TTT WE T WE T WWWE T WE T WE T WE TEW WEWWE T WWWE TET WE T WE T WE T E T TT E T EWEWW WE T WEWE T WEWE T WE T WEWEWE T WEWWEWEEWEWEWEEWEWEWWWWW WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WEWWE T WWE T WEWWWWWE T WWE T WE T WE T WWE T WE T WE T WEWEETEETTT W E T W E T W E W E T W E T W E T W E W E W E T W E T WW E T WW E E T EE TTTTTTTWE T TTTT EEWEWW WWWWWWWWWWEWEWEWEWEWEEEWEEWWE T WE T WE T WEWEEWEWEWEWE WE T WE T WE T WE T E T WE T WE T WE T WE T E T W E W E T W E W E T W E T W E T E TT W E T W E T WW E T W E T W E T E T TTTTTTTTTTTT WE T WE T WWE T WE TET WE T WEWET WE T WE T WE T WEWE T WE T WWE T WE T WETT E T E T E T EEE T TTTTT W E T W E W E WW E WWWW E T WWW E T W E EE T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T E W E T W E W E T W T W E W E T E T E T E TTTTTTTTTT W E T W E T E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T WW E T W E T WET WET WET W E T WE T T W E W E T W E W E T W E T WW E T WWW E T W E T W E T W E W E T W E WW E T WW E T W E W E T WW E T W E T W E W EEE T E T E T T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E WW E T W E WW E T WW E T WW E T W E WW E T E T TTT W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T E T W E WW E T W T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T E T W E WW E T W TT W E W E T W E T W E T W E T W E T WWWW E T W E T W E T E T W E T W E T W E T W E W E W E T E T TT 22 24 27 17 182021 2526 19 10 9 16 15 8 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EAST BIOFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM=984.00 HWL=985.94 EAST BASIN FOREBAY BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=954 HWL=985.94 WEST BASIN FOREBAYS BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=984.00 HWL=986.16 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 35' WE T L A N D BUFFE R 15' WE T L A N D SETBA C K 25' WETL A N D BUFFER 15' WETLAND SETBACK 23860 WETLAND DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 27 WETLAND BUFFER PLAN ---- ---- 27 MEDINA MINNESOTA WETLAND BUFFER PLAN 0 SCALE IN FEET 60 120 JRS JRS JDF LIC. NO.DATE JERREMY D. FOSS XX/XX/XXXX 55871 NOTE: THE CLARITY OF THESE PLANS DEPEND UPON COLOR COPIES. IF THIS TEXT DOES NOT APPEAR IN COLOR, THIS IS NOT AN ORIGINAL PLAN SET AND MAY RESULT IN MISINTERPRETATION. 06/22/2020 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS WETLAND LEGEND >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> I I I I I I I I I W E T WE T WE T WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET WET WET WET WE T W E T WE T > > > 22 7 10 9 16 15 8 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EAST BIOFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM=984.00 HWL=985.94 EAST BASIN FOREBAY BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=954 HWL=985.94 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > 23860 LAND DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 28 SITE RESTORATION PLAN (EAST) ---- ---- 28 MEDINA MINNESOTA SITE RESTORATION PLAN (EAST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 AET DPP DPP LIC. NO.DATE DANYELLE P. PIERQUET 49121XX/XX/XXXX SITE RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS TURF RESTORATION QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE 37,046 sf MnDOT 34-271 Wet Meadow South & West Native Seed SEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRE SEED 41,944 sf MnDOT 35-641 Mesic Prairie Southeast Native Seed SEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRE SEED 92,210 sf MnDOT 33-261 Stormwater South & West Native Seed SEEDING RATE: 35 LBS/ACRE SEED 624,283 sf MnDOT 25-131 Low Maintenance Turf Turf Seed SEEDING RATE: 220 LBS/ACRE SEED SITE SEEDING SCHEDULE >>>>>>>> I I I I I I T WE T WE T W E T WE T W E T WE T WET W E T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WE T WE T WE T WE T 22 24 27 17 182021 2526 19 WEST BASIN FOREBAYS BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=984.00 HWL=986.16 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 23860 LAND DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 29 SITE RESTORATION PLAN (WEST) ---- ---- 29 MEDINA MINNESOTA SITE RESTORATION PLAN (WEST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 AET DPP DPP LIC. NO.DATE DANYELLE P. PIERQUET 49121XX/XX/XXXX SITE RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS TURF RESTORATION QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE 37,046 sf MnDOT 34-271 Wet Meadow South & West Native Seed SEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRE SEED 41,944 sf MnDOT 35-641 Mesic Prairie Southeast Native Seed SEEDING RATE: 12 LBS/ACRE SEED 92,210 sf MnDOT 33-261 Stormwater South & West Native Seed SEEDING RATE: 35 LBS/ACRE SEED 624,283 sf MnDOT 25-131 Low Maintenance Turf Turf Seed SEEDING RATE: 220 LBS/ACRE SEED SITE SEEDING SCHEDULE >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> I I I I I I I I I W E T WE T WE T WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET WET WET WET W E T W E T WE T > > > 22 7 10 9 16 15 8 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EAST BIOFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM=984.00 HWL=985.94 EAST BASIN FOREBAY BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=954 HWL=985.94 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) TI (3) TI (3) TI (3) TI (4) TI (3) TI (4) TI (1) RG 23860 LAND DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 30 LANDSCAPE PLAN (EAST) ---- ---- 30 MEDINA MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE PLAN (EAST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 AET DPP DPP TREES COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME AM Green Mountain Sugar Maple Acer saccharum `Green Mountain` TM AP Emerald Lustre Maple Acer platanoides `Pond` TM AS Red Sunset Maple Acer rubrum `Red Sunset` GI Imperial Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis `Impcole` TM QB Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor TM Sentry Linden Tilia americana `McKSentry` UV American Elm Ulmus americana `Valley Forge` DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREE COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME MS Pink Spires Crab Apple Malus x `Pink Spires` MS2 Snowdrift Crab Apple Malus x `Snowdrift` SR Japanese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata EVERGREEN TREE COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME AB Balsam Fir Abies balsamea PA Norway Spruce Picea abies PB Black Hills Spruce Picea glauca densata PW White Pine Pinus strobus TT Techny Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis `Techny` DECIDUOUS SHRUBS COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME FF Northern Sun Forsythia Forsythia x `Northern Sun` RG Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low` SA Common White Lilac Syringa vulgaris `Alba` SV Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris VA American Cranberrybush Viburnum trilobum EVERGREEN SHRUBS COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME TI Green Giant Arborvitae Thuja x `Green Giant` PLANT SCHEDULE LIC. NO.DATE DANYELLE P. PIERQUET 49121XX/XX/XXXX >>>>>>>> >> I I I I I WE T WE T W E WE T W E T WE T WET W E T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T 22 24 27 17 182021 2526 19 10 9 16 WEST BASIN FOREBAYS BOTTOM=980.00 NWL=984.00 HWL=986.16 WEST BIOFRILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM =984.00 HWL=986.16 > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > (14) TI (13) TI (3) TI (3) TI (3) TI (3) TI 23860 LAND DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 31 LANDSCAPE PLAN (WEST) ---- ---- 31 MEDINA MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE PLAN (WEST) 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 AET DPP DPP TREES COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME AM Green Mountain Sugar Maple Acer saccharum `Green Mountain` TM AP Emerald Lustre Maple Acer platanoides `Pond` TM AS Red Sunset Maple Acer rubrum `Red Sunset` GI Imperial Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis `Impcole` TM QB Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor TM Sentry Linden Tilia americana `McKSentry` UV American Elm Ulmus americana `Valley Forge` DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREE COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME MS Pink Spires Crab Apple Malus x `Pink Spires` MS2 Snowdrift Crab Apple Malus x `Snowdrift` SR Japanese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata EVERGREEN TREE COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME AB Balsam Fir Abies balsamea PA Norway Spruce Picea abies PB Black Hills Spruce Picea glauca densata PW White Pine Pinus strobus TT Techny Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis `Techny` DECIDUOUS SHRUBS COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME FF Northern Sun Forsythia Forsythia x `Northern Sun` RG Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low` SA Common White Lilac Syringa vulgaris `Alba` SV Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris VA American Cranberrybush Viburnum trilobum EVERGREEN SHRUBS COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME TI Green Giant Arborvitae Thuja x `Green Giant` PLANT SCHEDULE LIC. NO.DATE DANYELLE P. PIERQUET 49121XX/XX/XXXX 23860 LAND DATE REVISION SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION BY SHEET TITLE PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY CLIENT PROJECT NO. REVIEWED BY OF - 05/15/2020 20-23860 30 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS ---- ---- 30 MEDINA MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS AET DPP DPP GENERAL PLANTING NOTES DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" ROOTBALL DIA 2X ROOTBALL DIA DEPTH OF ROOTBALL CONIFER / EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" ROOTBALL DIA 1.5 X ROOTBALL DIA DEPTH OF ROOTBALL CITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS LIC. NO.DATE DANYELLE P. PIERQUET 49121XX/XX/XXXX SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" ROOTBALL DIA 2X ROOTBALL DIA DEPTH OF ROOTBALL CONTAINER DIA 2X CONTAINER DIA SEEDING ESTABLISHMENT & MAINTENANCE TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT NOTE AM 3 Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2" CAL B & B Acer saccharum `Green Mountain` TM AP 8 Emerald Lustre Maple 2" CAL B & B Acer platanoides `Pond` TM AS 13 Red Sunset Maple 2" CAL B & B Acer rubrum `Red Sunset` GI 21 Imperial Honeylocust 2" CAL B & B Gleditsia triacanthos inermis `Impcole` TM QB 3 Swamp White Oak 2" CAL B & B Quercus bicolor TM 28 Sentry Linden 2" CAL B & B Tilia americana `McKSentry` UV 14 American Elm 2" CAL B & B Ulmus americana `Valley Forge` EVERGREEN TREE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT NOTE AB 11 Balsam Fir 6` HT MIN Abies balsamea PA 12 Norway Spruce 6` HT MIN B & B Picea abies PB 2 Black Hills Spruce 6` HT MIN B & B Picea glauca densata PW 6 White Pine 6` HT MIN B & B Pinus strobus TT 5 Techny Arborvitae 6` HT MIN B & B Thuja occidentalis `Techny` ORNAMENTAL TREE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT NOTE MS 14 Pink Spires Crab Apple 1.5" CAL B & B BRACE / STAKE Malus x `Pink Spires` MS2 8 Snowdrift Crab Apple 1.5" CAL B & B Malus x `Snowdrift` SR 27 Japanese Tree Lilac 1.5" CAL B & B Syringa reticulata DECIDUOUS SHRUBS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT NOTE FF 24 Northern Sun Forsythia 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MIN Forsythia x `Northern Sun` RG 1 Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MIN Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low` SA 20 Common White Lilac 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MIN Syringa vulgaris `Alba` SV 35 Common Lilac 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MIN Syringa vulgaris VA 17 American Cranberrybush 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MIN Viburnum trilobum EVERGREEN SHRUBS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT NOTE TI 51 Green Giant Arborvitae 3 GAL CONT 24" HT MIN Thuja x `Green Giant` PLANT SCHEDULE TURF RESTORATION QTY COMMON NAME SIZE 37,046 sf MnDOT 34-271 Wet Meadow South & West SEED 41,944 sf MnDOT 35-641 Mesic Prairie Southeast SEED 92,210 sf MnDOT 33-261 Stormwater South & West SEED 624,283 sf MnDOT 25-131 Low Maintenance Turf SEED PLANT SCHEDULE 5UILDING COD= DATA 5L/1 LE) ING OCCUFANC'' 4 OCCUFANT LOAD BASED ON THE 2020 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE TOWNHOUSES - MEADOW VIEW, MEDINA, MINNESOTA SINGLE FAMILY HOMES / EACH WITH MEANS OF EGRESS / FULLY SPRINKLERED TWO STORY BUILDINGS - 4 UNITS PER BUILDING JEFFERSON UNITS (END UNITS): TOTAL AREA IS 2,294 SQ. FT. INCLUDING THE GARAGE MADISON UNITS (INTERIOR UNITS): TOTAL AREA IS 2,153 SQ. FT. INCLUDING THE GARAGE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: IRC-3 TOWNHOUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 300.1 EACH TOWNHOUSE UNIT IS CONSIDERED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A SEPARATE BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1309.0202 SECTION R202 OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIRED UNIT SEPARATIONS THE UNITS ARE SEPARATED BY WALLS WHICH ARE CONTINUOUS FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF. THE WALLS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE EXTERIOR WALLS WITH A ZERO SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND MUST BE ONE HOUR RATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 8302.1 ON THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE. A TWO HOUR PROPRIETARY WALL SYSTEM IS BEING INSTALLED BETWEEN UNITS AS DETAILED ON THE PLANS. THE GARAGES ARE SEPARATED FROM THE RESIDENCES WITH GYPSUM WALL PANELS IN ACCORDANCE WITH IRC SECTION 8302.5 VINYL LAP SIDING AND TRIM PER COMMUNITY SPECIFICATIONS INDEX: AI - COVER (BUILDING ELEVATIONS) 42 - FOOTPRINT (BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANS) 43 - JEFFERSON C2X - ELEVATIONS 45 - JEFFERSON C2X - FOUNDATION; MAIN 4 UPPER FLR. PLANS (REVERSED) AS - JEFFERSON C2X - SECTIONS Al - JEFFERSON D2X - ELEVATIONS AS - JEFFERSON 02x - FOUNDATION, MAIN 4 UPPER FLR PLANS ,.3 JCITCRCON C2X JNDATI .d, SED) 410 - JEFFERSON D2X - SECTIONS 411 - MADISON C2x - ELEVATIONS 4W MEDICOS C2x TCUNDAT'ON, MAIN 4 urn:a FLR. FLAN( 413 - MADISON C2X - FOUNDATION, MAIN 4 UPPER FLR PLANS (REVERSED) AI4 - MADISON C2X. - SECTIONS AB - MADISON D2X - ELEVATIONS 415 - MADISON 02x - FOUNDATION. MAIN 4 UPPER FLR PLANS ^Il ' M SC'CON 2J( FOUND'TON, M"IN 40rCR rL21" LI'NC (r'C`'Cr✓'-D) AlE - MADISON D2X - SECTIONS A21 - DETAILS E22 - JEFFERSON C2x - ELECTRICAL E23 - ..Jr-i-tRSON D2X - ELECTRICAL E24 - MADISON C2x - ELECTRICAL 525 - MADISON 02x - ELECTRICAL Fl - FIREPLACE OPTIONS 5AI - SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION DETAILS 52 - MADISON BRACED WALL DETAILS S3 - JEFFERSON BRACED 4 TALL WALL DETAILS S4 - GARAGE PORTAL WALL 4 CANOPY ROOF FRAMING DETAILS ROOF VENT INSTALLATION NOTES: I. ALL ROOF VENTS TO BE INSTALLED OVER S" W. x 5" H. OPENINGS INTO THE ROOF SHEATHING. SOFFIT MATERIAL TO BE 10" AERATED. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR MANUFACTURER INFORMATION. 2. STANDARD LOCATION OF ROOF VENTS ON ROOFS TO BE 12" DOWN FROM THE ROOF RIDGE TO THE TOP OF THE S"x3" OPENING. 3. ROOF SHEATHING TO BE REMOVED FROM UNDERNEATH OVER -FRAMED OR PERPENDICULAR ROOF SYSTEMS FOR. PROPER AIR MOVEMENT. 4. NO ROOF VENTS, RADON PIPE EXHAUST, PLUMBING VENTS OR MECHANICAL VENTS WITHIN 4' OF PROPERTY/CENTER LINES BETWEEN UNITS. NOTE: WINDOW FALL PROTECTION TO BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RSI2.2 1R4DON NOTE: LENNAR WILL BE INSTALLING A "PASSIVE RADON READY" SYSTEM. ALL FOUNDATION SLABS WILL HAVE A MIN. 4" CLEAN AGGREGATE, COVERED BY S MIL POLY. THIS POLY WILL HAVE 12" LAP AT ALL SEAMS. ALL TEARS OR PUNCTURES WILL RE SEALED OR COVERED BY POLY. ALL OPENINGS WILL BE SEALED USING POLYURETHANE CAULK OR ELASTOMERIC SEALANT AT ALL OPENINGS. ALL SUMP BASKETS WILL HAVE SEALED LIDS. LENNAR WILL INSTALL A 3" GASTIGHT PVC PIPE, 4ND WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE DRAN TILE SYSTEM. USING A "T" FITTING, INTO THE DRAIN TILE SYSTEM WE WILL USE THE SHORTEST ROUTE TO EXIT THE ROOF SYSTEM, WITH A MAX. OF 2 50 DEGREE ELBOWS. IN UNCONDITIONED AREAS, THE RADON EXHAUST PIPE WILL BE INSULATED WITH AN R4 SLEEVE. THIS PIPE WILL BE LABELED "RADON GAS VENT SYSTEM" AT ALL ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS. ALSO, ALL RADON PIPES WILL BE LABELED AT ALL FLOORS FOR FUTURE REFFERENCE. AT ROOF EXIT LOCATIONS, WE WILL MAINTAIN A 10' DISTANCE TO ANY WINDOW LOCATION, 2' BELOW EXHAUST POINT AND ANY ADJACENT STRUCTURE, THE LOCATION OF THE EXIT POINT, IN TRUSS AREA, WILL BE CLEAR OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS WITHIN 24" HORIZONTALLY AND 35" VERTICALLY LENNAR WILL INSTALL AN OUTLET AND PULL CHORD LIGHT FOR FUTURE EXHAUST FAN ADDITION. E501 JEFFERSON C2X E502 MADISON C2X E502 MADISON D2X E501 JEFFERSON D2X IFIROH1r ELEVATION - a 'LIMIT 14 I I LIlDENG NOTE: SEE INDIVIDUAL ELEVATIONS FOR MATERIALS EB01 JEFFERSON D2X EB02 MADISON D2X E1502 MADISON C2X EB01 JEFFERSON C2X IRIEAIR IEILIEv r2cN - 4 UNIT SCAL liEILIIDIIN( • r- m• SOUAIRE FOOTAGE: JEFFERSON END UNIT MAIN (C4D) 7159 UPPER (C4D) 1147 TOTAL FINISHED 190& GARAGE 425 MADISON INTERIOR UNIT MAIN (C4D) 71271 UPPER (C4D) 10771 TOTAL FINISHED 1504 GARAGE 415 z z W J an —MA DIEON e 6 IUNI[IT BLDG. OWN ER:1E Io®llkTUI 1`ROD /l'L LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. PH: TITLE: COVER SHEET: A 1 I ROOF VENT 10 TRIM 4" TRIM 4 M ^ADD IRE SEPARATION TO SOFFIT AT LOT LINE 1:12 BOARD/BATTEN LAP SIDING I LAP SIDING 2 12 0 Ito 10" TRIM TRIM TRIM I0" TRIM A :12 —8 —0 _111 =0 TO. PLATE IM STONE FACE 6'-0 1:12 RAISED HEEL TO. PLATE T.O. PLATE I 0 T.O. SUBFL.- TO. PLATE* SLAP SIDING I IEIP3®1V ll ELEVATEGN dJ1PdFFEIECO az - L 1 ll 4 `TO. SUBFL TO. PLATE 11 10 TO. FON. 1:12 BOARD/BATTEN LAP SIDING I LAP SIDING 2 1:12 LAP SIDING I T.O. FDN. 4— C 0" TRIM 10" TRIM 10" TRIM M w TRIM 1:12 I ROOF VENT 12 TRIM IM 0 ADD FIRE SEPARATION TO SOFFIT AT LO nnn N�1 STONE FACE IFIIION'1f ELEVATION — S EIFIFIEIEBON CC2X IP3IIC�Igi7i T.O. SUBFL. TO. PLATE TO. FON. 10.12 II 6 0 11 0 10" TRIM 6' 0' 4X4 CEDAR BRACKETS SEE SHEET 55 OE S TRIM 2 BEDS ELEVATION - JIIEI�7k'IERECEICY CC2X e LEFT SCALE: 1l4" I'- 0" SCALE: 1l4. • I'- 0" LAP SIDING I A 11 2-6 RAISED HEEL ,T.O. PLATE TO. SUBFL. T.O. PLATE }.O. PLATE LAP SIDING 2 LAP SIDING I v = T.O. SUBFL. T.O_ PLATE TO. FON. 4'-0" 101— s BEIDIE ELEVATION — J7IEEIFIEIP3C®I CC2Z =HT MEAIE ELEVATION - �TIEYSIEI CON CC2 o IP E E71 SCALE: 1l9. • I- 0 IRIEAII3 1L' L1L' U' A ll EC dI1L' 111` 1GlNGO V CC51il lle1C.11" SCALE: U1 • 12 4'-0' MINIMUM T.O. PLATE LAP SIDING I S T.O. SUBFL.= T.O. PLATE T.O. FON z z W J 6 ®2-MAAIMI ON o 4 UNIT' OWNER:11•j Ii/®I- IE1P1PIEI O1V/E 0 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. EN: TITLE: ELEV SHEET: A3 z 5' Y r I 1 L J L L L 16'-53/4" 1 1/2" 0 m M m 0 ry 4. CONCRETE SLAB L J 1 1/2" 15'-I 1/2" MID 18'-9" 1 JPTDU Na4\ll ED IPLAN - allv1P1P 1GISl.3N ax _ 068 FULL LITE 1/4' 6'-5 I/2" 12'-0x10'-0" CONCRETE PATIO ETER (2/12x10 3/0x3/0 5H 5'-9 3/4" 3'-5"m 4'-0" 10" 10" FLUSH J OVERHANG �S Twss-r 1/2" !"x12" 0N. 55 COLUMN TO CLG 36" H. HALF WALL W/ WD. CAP. I RADON PIP d 8' CLG. '6",70,17,0E 04814 CLtlF ARpNU M Nm M6TNL WM p'YWLL -1_— -K:64 66-fmas =rr HALF WALL OR V RAILING -PER 5PEC'5 3'-114" 5'-I 1/4" I3'-8 3/4" 2/0x3/0 FIX/TEMP. NOTE: 6'h X 5' VINYL PRIVACY FENCE 'NOTE. DIMENSIONS ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING 10'-6 3/4 ELEC. METER (2) 13/4"x9 1/2" LSL GREAT ROOM 8' CLG. 16'-1 1/4" PLUMINGMINIFOLD IN ELECTRICAL PANEL/ NOT 140 P PL LAT MAIIN IFII032 FLAN o SIEIFIFIE2,30RT (MK. ET -0C E 7-, GA NBUL E W/ -38 5 F AM RI' SUL• OI UND -«ID L L. ---J (2) 13/4"x11 1/8" LSL [5E4 BHEET 54 FOR PORTAL WALL DETAIL 32' 0" 15'-1 I/2" 18'-1 1, 13/4' FR-C/L 1 3/4" FR-C/L 2/0x2 0 FIX 5 I/2" 10'-2 3/4" •NOTE• 0IME5SIO3S ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING 4'-4 3/4" v B' CLG. DBL.R/5� 3'-5 1/4" CLEAR 2-2x101 2/0x2/0 0X /0-2/0 FIX /0/6/0 FIX/TEMP. (3.080. 15 4" BELOW 50.R0. FOR THE WINDOW ABOVE) 2'-10 I/4"II 4'_0" 24" 25 42" H. WALL W/ 11" WOOD CAP 2- <10 15' IC" SCALE: I/4" • I'- 0" 32'-0" 5'-0 1/2" 3 I TIPIPIEIE IFILOGIR IPIIdA hT o Z EIFIFIETECON CC2X 4' -II 3/4" 14'-I" 3 1/2" 2-3/485/0 8H (21 13/4"x3 1/2" LSL SOUND INSULATE ALL WALLS IN MECH/LAUNO F?M- 6 I/2" w.lc 8CLG 4' -II 1/2" FLOOR 5RI8. OB. CLG. — ?TP. 24!'T5 $EDROOM °3 (2) 13/4"xS I/2" LSL OTEMPERED 2-3/4x5/0 °H 2,44" 1 3/4" FR -CL 1 3/4" FR -CL 0 0 0 w 1 Z Z W ®2 MAT MON o 4 UNTIL' OWN ERE 1"®ll-d/1C11PI EIRSO V/1PJ 6 b 8 Z 1 0 1 Cl 1 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. 014: TITLE: PLANS SHEET: A5 r II 4 32'-0" Ali a Z 1" Ux" ' : 1/2" 9 y 1. —Si', f jf 1' I. hh -••4...12///// L 1 \ \I 4" CONCRETE SLAB awn - RADON PIPE LOC. 4' CONCRETE SLAB W -.,--4 9 12'7 ' v_ I I I I I I I I in 1—..: v r L J J Y ,�.....�.+..�' • J ,. r I ro / 4(//r{/ /4' . '-4I 15'-I 12" M.O. 5-L" n 0 IS C. 13"-3' © T A10 / 32'_0" MlSl 1 VJL/AM1V 1CLL.25 - dJE 1P11'd1LUh1®1V JD2X 5' h X5' VINYL PRIVACY FENCE 'NOTE. DIMENSIONS ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING 10'-6 3/4 ELEC. METE :-3/4x5/0 SH (2) 13/4'x9 1/2" LSL �grLZR"o 56� 1/4" PLUMEING CEILING IN cE S STUDS 5'-0' ELECTRICAL PANEL Ham. D PL 51 P FO uLA +OTE: / INS U •TS Ft.(SOR •=V.G•-• W/ --3S = OWN SULA ON A .4M - IN ALL I" RIDS INSUL • ION =.A T T UN• R51D OFF OR T- 5E 15' CONCRETE PATIO. 32'-0" 31'-I I/4" �-IeA FLR >orvse-� 5'-0 I/2" NT" FN. SR COLUfN TO CLG. H. HALF WALL W/ WO; CAP.-, FW.6112 tRu HALF WALL OR RAILING -PER SPEC' 5-1 1/4" 3'-IIQ 3.-13/4" CLEAR (21 13/4'xIl 1/5' LSL SEE SHEET S4 FOR PORTAL WALL DETAIL' 13/4" 1 FR-G/Lp 15'-I I/2" 4 ASV] FIX 2/0x3//TEMP0 . NOTE: TORO 6'-9" 4" IS ' -I 12' 13'-S 3/4" 32' 0 MA HN FL EDEDI FLAN - IES FIMON InZ SCALE: I/4" . - 12" 1 3/4" 3 I/2" FR -CL 6'-0 1/2' 10'-2 3/4" 5 1/2" 0 -5 1/4" 23'-4" •NOTE• DIMENSIONS ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING /— HIP GIRDER AT 5'-9 I/2" 2-3/4x5/0 SH !]f lx@ \r■ MI yGLG.I u Iµ 13 I'4 III OWNER" • 11 : a 1 i. 1112----T v a ' CLG. SOUND INSULATE ALL WALLS IN MECH/LAUND RM. - U:.. GAL 0 III ry� a: Z�_W.H-J j O �a pp KIII = 1 2'-10" 4'-11 I/2" 5'-6 I2" 6" LOOR B_. �..n.•.•i..,,:.�..:'k 3'-2 12" 266/.5'-6 1 ' N III MISSES 4'-4 3/4" FLOOR BRIO j m III e• a l CO � IQ I III 1_•� v a OIO� - x• - H S 122x301 IATTICI `0 - L'4. S C G L L� I a =' T5 DOLESii L —J 'S u m OM O ER'S BBIkI b O 0 "„ s 6H. CLG. 5146. PNIII 24"TB T� 7 I I I g3 R ws 3'-5 1/4" In FM13 �6 ry 4 EL�IG ,GCL1=C iL Fj 42" II" H. WALL W/ WOOD CAP \ --- 3'-1 3/4" m— CLEAR s� A W ,DN IS i III I (2) 13/4"x9 1/2" LSL M U 11IPP D 2-3/4x5/0 514 2-3/bx /O SH 3/4 " FR -CL (2 13/4"x9 I/2" LSL l'-10 315" I 10-3 l/5" 3'-10" 3'-10" 18'-21/4" 3'-0" T'-5" 3'-0" 32.-0T ILTFYIETE 'FLOOR FLAN e .. LIFIFLI3BOH I YY SCALE: 1/4 . - A10 A T H x o 0 z z W J ®2-MAI E ON o 4 UNIT 011-dJIEIFIFIEI ON/IE 0 0 GI g 0 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. PN: TITLE: PLANS SHEET: A8 4 Ark I I I � • 1 1/2" S � 4" CONCRETE SLAB 1 1/2' I I I/ ___��_____��_____. _________-�______.____�_____ ' I LIJ e r I 7 = f (I I rib' •f. i l/2[' 3'-01/21' 6'-1 1/2" v 6 —2— f ..l 2 0 S -i J III 'S r L I ; 'f 4" CONCRETE SLAB LI'-1IDd 15'-I1R"M.O. I3,_0„ 19_4yr, I f 1 IFOUhTL ATEC N IPLMI4 MAIIDIIS ®N CC2X SCALE: 1/4" • I'- O" 0 4'-10 1/8" 3/4sAR-CL METER 3 _6" 6'-9 I/2" ° [RADON PIPET' 12`-0"xl0'-0" CONCRETE PATIO 8'-6 3/8" 12" CANT. ABOVE 6/fdx6/8 PATIO DR _0.1W1P:R61 �•U _ RUEHX2GIR O(K 5,-5 3/4" 3 1/2'} 2'-1 1/2• 10'-0 3/4 OOR BRE-, 1 3/4" FR -CL -- 2/0x1/0TE: FIX NO 3'-1 3/8" 3005 3/4 LITE 3'-2 1/5" 6'-10 I/4" 2 I AIII T IFTIA10, 3 I'1JLA,H M14IDIIS®H CC2IY 12'-10 1/4' SCALE: 1/4" • I'- O" •NOTE• DIMENSIONS ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING 9 I/2" 3 6'hX5' VINYL PRIVACY FENCE 9'-6 1/2 1 3/4" FR -CL 13'-8 I/4" ELECTRICAL 1 I/-" PANEL -51 N. C. EET ENT 0"0 RI-1E '• DO L S BOXOUT ABOVE] /21 13/4"xll 1/B" LSL SEE SHEET 54 FOR PORTAL WALL DETAIL 15'-I 1/2 10 1/4" I' -I0' 13/4' FR -CL ® 32'_0„ ®6'-6 1/4" 12'-8" 12'-6 I/4" 6' 6_011 6 6 I/4" NOTE. DIMENSIONS ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING / 5 3 54,_4, „ i, 3n5 5 S p14 13/4" FR -CL 3/4x5/0 SH 3/4" FR -CL - Q R/S t R/S 1-3/4x5/0 SH _ GIRD TRUSS I _ '-' -L ---1 4-2 — V ry2668 /1) 13/4"x9 1/2" LSL 3m •�I••E�JL�Jp 1668 i� % F ' I 1 I lul I sou INSULATE WALLS IN 8 m uu U W A te__ L — HECH/LAUND - �o15-S�1 Z 0 IF xd 2 i,,.. �I 1 7 _ 12x30 ATTIC I T_ 'U U I SKTL.I L_ e- J11_0'43'41 II'_9„ : C : N °' L- 0 CLG. 12'-4 3/4" U m RETURN V FURJ 3,0s 0 _ FLOOR BRIG 2666 # / 2,_10„ 1,_0„ O - - LOOK B �� fi m ILL , C S\e N 0/ u. S. p1 V Ilia i III v T8 L_ V-3" .61 AI 5 V2" 13'-5 I/2" 2'-5 3[8". 4'-0 1/4" f �` [RADON PIPEI 7 0 � ] WALL JD I I ' -6 3F8" \ F� 1666 3 ® � ea pTi4y+ry'Trpig 8' CLG 2 ty 668 U m O 9 \. 1666 _ J1 ivy LB, 6 +� 0 \ / 0 IFC 30 VA . \/�\J '�i ii, B' BLR��prpOpV�SyS GLG =+C 1 I by yyfl�.F. 8 'CLG. a r 1/0x3/O FIX 20x il�IX xm 0 DBL. R/5 e2/-31/2" _ IRIS 5 1/2" 12'-10 3/4" 4' -II" I3Z r 2/ -I000D TOP BOX OUT ` M1� rs/¢xrt m p 6IRGER TR/es ry zixlm 2/0x2/0 x• -1 3/4" FR -CL NOTE: SHEATH WINDOW[ H 15B — 2-3✓4 /ID SN FIxEDVTEFIP. 3/4" FR GL 4'-I I/2" 4'-I 12" 2'-41/2' 6'-101/4" 4'-6 1/4" I'-10" 161„ $'-3" 9'-2 3/4° 12'-101/4" ! IB'-10 I/4" f 32'-0" A14 3 UIPIPIEIP3 IF1002 ICLat'111V 1VllADMO1V \5 2I SCALE: I/4" • 0 0 w w 3 2/1 N Q Q J 1 1 ¢ W ¢ CI � ¢ z Z W ®2 MAT MON o 4 UNIT OWN ERE 1"®ll-d/1C11PI EIRSO V/1PJ 6 b 8 Z S 0 1 D LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. PS: TITLE: PLANS SHEET: A 1 3 INE OF SHAFT WALL w 1 1 w w •� /2' ••[. r 11/2 V 4" CONCRETE SLAB I I/2' E } '' I I 11/2" I 2° Il t_0, I _4,' t m �r I I L_1J `•�. 6'-I 1/2" $'-61/2" I IT -11" I 13b" L . .mi • .r— •�•' • 4" CONCRETE SLAB '•I I s L J ' r L J r T _ - 1'-1,$'l- 15'-1 I ' M.O. 1'10 " J 5,_0" -,._0� 19L0" 13'-0i' 32_01. ' .2 XIV 1217 4 4 tS Ik'OILTHIDATION FLAN e MAIIDIISON IID2 Y 1 3/4' FR -CL 6' h X5' VINYL PRIVACY FENCE Ate NOTE• DIMENSIONS ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING CONCRETE PATIO 32'-0" VINYL PRIVACY FEND C% 8'-6 3/8" 4'-10 I/8" 3/4" FR -CL ELEC. METER / A/C_ TH 2-314x5/0 514 T � 6/0x6/8 PATIO DR n)I v4'wain •Lsl r+e^FLrs.TR:As� 3'-8 1/4" ELECTRICAL PANEL II'- 1/4 IN' LATE LO.- ABv. •-A-- R 3 BLO ". 15511 TIO__N``-ND FOA IM. 'STAL RIuaID INS AT I BO • • ATT''ff/E •ER5 E OF LO05 TRU5 5 EA 00 L005-01.1 ABOVE 12)I 3/4"x11 1/8" L5L SEE SHEET 54 FOR PORTAL WALL DETAIL( 15'-1 1/2" IS' -10 1/4" SCALE: 1/4" , I'- 0' I2" CANT. ABOVE FLOW FUZEE. -Ib." NE TRJ55->` 13/4" 3/4MCL MET 0 54 5'-5 3/4" I 6'-9 1/2 3068 3/4 LITE 0'-0 3/4" 3-2 7/8 12'-10 1/4' 2 PLUM FLOOR IPILARI e MA (NOON IID2X 3'-7 3/8" 6'-10 1/4" 3 2'-0" I2'-51/4" 12'-8" 6'-61/4® 5'-61/4" 6'-0" 6'-4" 6-4" Aldk 5" 3'-54" 3,-5i" 5 •NOTE• DIMENSIONS ARE FRAMING TO FRAMING I 3/4" FR -CL 5/4 5/0 13/d" FR -CL# 2-3/4x5/0 SH RJSx Yx x R/8 ---- f1l 13/4"x9 IR" L5L 61R3 rvj 4'-2 I/2" r----,ti-� j N 668 2668 I � g� 8' CLG.h_ I._ j 41 8 IT J), &117 - L�__13 s� M E CLLG 12-4 3/4" '1l at. 11'-9" IN9LADTE WALLS IN MECH/LAUND ATT3CI - -J---I ISKTL. ¢ U' I ,3/4"d'I xQ 0 U'U l9 0 RETURU I/ i� t ie• I 66e Roa¢�aec FURN M 2668 11-0" 2'-10" "�,, _ V ,- _ FLOOR BRC - ` 1 `T ei ,, 7n:' ---= T Zr M1et0 xu i I 0 'L v M w'1 !� fi 0 B 41 { v — J 8 CLG.- J 1 9. J m 13'-5 1/2 I/21' 3'-3" 3'-3' v N 2' S 9/B" tub A 4'.01/4 T s 7 1 (RADON PIPET N 2x6 W4J,1. 2 * ' 0 2668 I I ' -6 3/8" 24' TB4 % LI-\ tq C N M1bb El m 0 LL 6G .1 3330 µ T 0 yIy�ry 8' CLG. 4S 8SY[ 13 11 IBYI\vAll %C /I I ���u i �/ L DEL. R/S 2/0,13/0®FIX 2/0x7/01 FIX UV R/S -3i T 4' -II"— 12'-103/4" 1/2" I 0 y /a NOTE: SHEATH WINDOW WITH OSB S o. 18 \ wooD 3,05 OUT- TOP Box OUT I I - /4C"" FR -CL I -54 2-3/4x5/0 5H T'-915/8" I'-54 1 I 1 F 3 3/4" -C/4" II 5'-4" 5'-4" 1 4'-0 T/8" X 10'-8" 4'-I 1/2" 1'-10" 6,-6" 4'-6 1/4" KK / 19'-101/4" 1' 12'-101/4" 32'_0" 41111 MY MY UPPER 71002 'PLAN e MA1INOON IID2X KALE: 1/4" . I'- 0" r L Z z W PROJECT ADDRESS: 0 > 0 F. - LOT NO. 1 BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. L PN: TITLE: PLANS SHEET: A 1 6 E JIEIFIFIEIRC D H C2X e MAEN FLOOR IEILIECC7TIRIICCAIL e ILIEIF'1T SCALE II4' = I' -0" SEIFIFIEIROON CC3X e NIFIPIEIR Y1LOOIR IEILIECC7TILICCAIL e fl EIF7P SCALE: 1/4' • 1' O" 3 SEIFIFIEIRSON C2Y e 1 IA1IN IFILOOIR IEILIECC7TIRECAIL e IRdGIH[7T SCALE: 1/4' = - 0- 0 I EIFIFIEIR M (MK e NIPIPIEIR IFILOOIR IEl ECC7TLLICCAi o 1RIICCIEII7P SCALE: 1/4' • I' - 0.' ELECTRICAL KEY 0 DUPLEX CONVENIENCE OUTLET 0 DUPLEX OUTLET ABOVE COUNTER WEATHERPROOF DUPLEX OUTLET I, is DUPLEX OUTLET (GROUND FAULT PROTECTED) j4 HALF -SWITCHED DUPLEX OUTLET I 4 DUPLEX OUTLET IN FLOOR 220 VOLT OUTLET WALL SWITCH THREE-WAY SWITCH FOUR-WAY SWITCH CEILING MOUNTED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE LED FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT EYE BALL FIXTURE LIGHT FIXTURE WITH PULL CHAIN r____ ,' FLOURESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE Q EXHAUST FAN • CHIMES ® SMOKE DETECTOR ® CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR ®T THERMOSTAT ELECTRIC PANEL • MULTI -MEDIA JACK GENERAL NOTE: THIS ELECTRICAL PLAN MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON PLUMBING AND HEATING PIPE LOCATIONS AND WOOD FRAMING MEMBERS SUCH AS JOISTS, TRUSSES AND STUDS, REFER TO SPECIFICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLIANCE ELECTRICAL AND/OR GAS HOOK-UP REQUIREMENTS, THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO WASHER, DRYER, RANGE/COOKTOP, MICROWAVE, OVEN AND/OR ADVANTIUM (WHERE APPLICABLE). DISHWASHER AND REFRIGERATOR I♦ 6 ®2 MAIMON o 4 UNIT OWNER IE Iii ®ll-d/ 1C/1P 1P 1PJ1NAi)®1 V /1PJ 6 M O Z 0 0 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. PN: TITLE: ELEC SHEET: E 2 2 r JIEIFIFIETRSON JU2 — MIAJIN IFIL®OIP3 IETLIECCTTIRTICCAIIL ILTELFTP z JEFFERSON 1LT1PIPIEIR IFILOOTR IEILIECCTPTRIICCAIIL e 1E77 dJTEIFYIFERSON 1U X MEIN IFILOOIR IEILIECCTPIRIICCAIIL IRIIGIfIITi` SCALE, /4'=1•-0" 4 oll EIFIFIEIISON IID2X — IJIPLPIEIR IFILOOIE TEILTECCTI"IRLTO.4 L TRIIOIATTI' SCALE: 1/4' • I' - 0" ELECTRICAL KEY DUPLEX CONVENIENCE OUTLET j(w DUPLEX OUTLET ABOVE COUNTER WEATHERPROOF DUPLEX OUTLET ,p DUPLEX OUTLET (GROUND FAULT PROTECTED) I& HALF -SWITCHED DUPLEX OUTLET Ef DUPLEX OUTLET IN FLOOR 220 VOLT OUTLET WALL SWITCH C3 THREE-WAY SWITCH Y4 FOUR-WAY SWITCH 4- CEILING MOUNTED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE LED FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT EYE BALL FIXTURE LIGHT FIXTURE WITH PULL CHAN FLOURESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE • EXHAUST FAN g CHIMES Q EMCEE DETECTOR ® CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR ® THERMOSTAT ELECTRIC PANEL e MULTI -MEDIA JACK GENERAL NOTE: THIS ELECTRICAL PLAN MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON PLUMBING AND HEATING PIPE LOCATIONS AND WOOD FRAMING MEMBERS SUCH AS JOISTS, TRUSSES AND STUDS. REFER TO SPECIFICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLIANCE ELECTRICAL AND/OR GAS HOOK-UP REQUIREMENTS, THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO WASHER DRYER, RANGE/COOKTOP, MICROWAVE. OVEN AND/OR ADVANTIUFI (WHERE APPLICABLE), DISHWASHER AND REFRIGERATOR z z W J ®2-MAI E ON o 4 UNIT 011-dJIEIFIFIEI ON/IE 0 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. EN: TITLE: ELEC SHEET: E23 r MAY:AM N CC2X e ICI A IN IFILOGIE IEILIECCZPURI CAIL = ILIEIFZP 8' OLG. CEILING FAN WI LIGHT S. C G. CLG. C. 4 e C . PANEL TEOR 3 8' CLG 122x30 I ATTIC I SKTL. L —J 0 8A T- N 13® RETURN I RIAICDITCON C21f iI.TIPIPIEIP IFILCIIR IEILIECCTI ECCAIL e ILIEIF7 3 IMIAIIDIIIE0 H CC2X e MAEPT I;a7LO0IE IEILIECCZ['I ECCATL e alIGIHI7f 4 MAIDIIS®Ivy CC YY e NIPIPIEIP3 57,001 IEILIECCT2lICCAIL e IRIIGIHTIF ELECTRICAL KEY DUPLEX CONVENIENCE OUTLET js8w DUPLEX OUTLET ABOVE COUNTER WEATHERPROOF DUPLEX OUTLET ,p DUPLEX OUTLET (GROUND FAULT PROTECTED) I& HALF -SWITCHED DUPLEX OUTLET Ef DUPLEX OUTLET IN FLOOR 220 VOLT OUTLET WALL SWITCH THREE-WAY SWITCH 14 FOUR-WAY SWITCH 4- CEILING MOUNTED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE 0- 0 LED FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT EYE BALL FIXTURE LIGHT FIXTURE WITH PILL CHAN FLOURESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE Q EXHAUST FAN g CHIMES 0 SMOKE DETECTOR ® CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR Q THERMOSTAT - ELECTRIC PANEL e MULTI -MEDIA JACK GENERAL NOTE: THIS ELECTRICAL PLAN MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON PLUMBING AND HEATING PIPE LOCATIONS AND WOOD FRAMING MEMBERS SUCH AS JOISTS. TRUSSES AND STUDS. REFER TO SPECIFICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLIANCE ELECTRICAL AND/OR GAS HOOK-UP REQUIREMENTS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO WASHER DRYER RANGE/COOKTOP. MICROWAVE, OVEN AND/OR ADVANTIUM (WHERE APPLICABLE), DISHWASHER AND REFRIGERATOR z z W J A ®2-MAI E ON o 4 UNIT 011-dJIEIFIFIEI ON/IE 0 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. PN: TITLE: ELEC SHEET: E24 IA T:DES Ohl IID2X — MAIN IF.U. IEILIECCZCJ ll CA L II IEIF71 I � ,� +��u 1 ❑ I Z .Mt71DIICC 1D 2X — UPPER 571,002 !C LIECTI J CALL 11d1L' I ll a REA11IISON 1U2Y: — MIA HN 71032 IEILIECC7PIKt11CA Th — EIGHT SCALE I/4• . I - 0" A MIA LIESON ID e ICTIP ImIEI IFILOOIR IEILIEC1TIP31ICCU L e WIGHT SCALE: = I' - 0" ELECTRICAL KEY • DUPLEX CONVENIENCE OUTLET • DUPLEX OUTLET ABOVE COUNTER isgt, WEATHERPROOF DUPLEX OUTLET I5t,iv DUPLEX OUTLET (GROUND FAULT PROTECTED) HALF -SWITCHED DUPLEX OUTLET 43, Ip Y3 DUPLEX OUTLET IN FLOOR 220 VOLT OUTLET WALL SWITCH THREE-WAY SWITCH FOUR-WAY SWITCH CEILING MOUNTED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE LED FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE RECESSED INCANDESCENT EYE BALL FIXTURE —0, LIGHT FIXTURE WITH PULL CHAIN FLOURESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE C EXHAUST FAN ® CHIMES ® SMOKE DETECTOR • CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR ®T THERMOSTAT ELECTRIC PANEL e MULTI -MEDIA JACK GENERAL NOTE THIS ELECTRICAL PLAN MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON PLUMBING AND HEATING PIPE LOCATIONS AND WOOD FRAMING MEMBERS. SUCH AS JOISTS, TRUSSES AND STUDS. REFER TO SPECIFICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLIANCE ELECTRICAL AND/OR GAS HOOK-UP REQUIREMENTS, THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO WASHER, DRYER RANGE/COOKTOP, MICROWAVE, OVEN AND/OR ADVANTIUM /WHERE APPLICABLE' DISHWASHER AND REFRIGERATOR I♦ 6 ®2 MAIMON o 4 UNIT OWNER IE Iii ®ll-d/ 1C/1P 1P 1PJ1NAi)®1 V /1PJ 6 M Z 0 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION NO. PN: TITLE: ELEC SHEET: E25 Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 August 18, 2020 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 13, 2020 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – August 18, 2020 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Meadow View Townhomes– north of Highway 55, west of CR116 – Lennar has applied for a preliminary plat to develop 125 townhomes on approximately 20 net acres. Staff has conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the July 14 meeting and recommended approval, conditioned upon the plan incorporating the final Tamarack Drive study information. The item is tentatively scheduled to be presented to Council on August 18. B) Bartzen Septic Variance – 1075 Oak Circle – John and Mary Bartzen have requested a variance from the required 75-foot setback from wetlands to replace an existing noncompliant septic system. It appears the proposed site is the only location which can accommodate a system. A public hearing is scheduled for the August 18 City Council meeting. C) Ditter Subdivision – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Tom and Jim Ditter have requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit to replat their existing four lots into five lots. A public hearing was held at the August 12 Planning Commission meeting. No one spoke at the hearing and the Commission unanimously recommended approval. D) Brugger Home Occupation CUP – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Kayla Brugger has requested a CUP to offer fitness instruction out of her home, in addition to sessions offered in client homes or virtually. A public hearing was held at the August 12 Planning Commission meeting. No one spoke at the hearing and the Commission unanimously recommended approval. E) Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 12 and recommended approval. The City Council granted preliminary plat approval on June 16. Staff will await an application for final plat. F) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials. G) OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested final plat approval for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addn. The City Council granted final plat approval on June 16. The applicant has begun site work and applied for a building permit. Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval to allow issuance of the permit. H) Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single- family, and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Council adopted a Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 August 18, 2020 City Council Meeting resolution granting conditional approval and authorizing submission to the Met Council. The Met Council has authorized the City to put the amendment into effect. Staff will await a preliminary plat application. I) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the November 12 and March 10 meetings and recommended approval. The City Council adopted approval documents on March 17. J) 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. K) 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) Tamarack Drive study – The Council reviewed the report on July 21 and directed staff to meet with adjacent property owners to attempt to address concerns which were raised at the end of the process. Staff coordinated a meeting with the owners and believes it is possible to incorporate a number of changes to address the comments. Generally, the concept will be updated to slide the roundabout as far south as possible, providing the opportunity for a second access point further north. B) Long Lake Subwatershed Assessment – staff met with a representative from the DNR related to potential ravine stabilization project within Wolsfeld Woods SNA. Work within a SNA has a number of stringent requirements, even when the project is intended to improve stormwater. Minnehaha Creek is updating its assumptions to meet these requirements to see if a project may be viable. C) City Hall Septic – staff has requested quotes for the construction this fall. TO: City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 13, 2020 RE: Department Updates New Officer On 08/05/2020, Kaylen Boeddeker started as our 11th officer. Officer Boeddeker is now in the FTO phase. She will be working closely with our FTO officers over the next few months. We are excited to have her on board. CSO Applications With Officer Boeddeker starting her new position, the application process to hire a new CSO has begun. Currently, we only have one applicant, but the closing date is not until August 28th. We are hopeful we can find a qualified candidate to join our team. All Healthy I am happy to say we are back to full staff. Everyone is healthy and doing well. We are diligently working to make sure our office and our squads are disinfected daily. Vacation I will be out of the office all next week (08/17–08/21) on a family vacation. Sergeant Boecker will be attending the council meeting on Tuesday. If there are any questions or issues, please contact Sergeant Boecker in my absence. Patrol: Patrol Updates 07/28/2020 through 08/11/2020 Patrol Activities – Between the dates of July 1, 2020 through July 14, 2020 our officers issued 32 citations and 80 warnings for various traffic violations. There were 4 property damage accidents reported, 7 medicals, 2 welfare checks/mental health calls, 2 business alarms, 7 residential alarms, 7 suspicious calls, and 22 assists to other agencies. On 08/01/2020 Officer responded to assist Three Rivers Police Department with a possible prowler at a campsite in Baker Park Campground. A camper, who was in a tent, was reporting someone going through their belongings and possibly attempting to enter their tent. Upon arrival it was MEMORANDUM determined a family of racoons was making the noise milling around in the campsite and were promptly shooed off. On 08/02/2020 Officer stopped a vehicle in the 1700 block of County Road 19 after observing several traffic violations. After making contact with the driver the officer determined that the driver may be under the influence of a controlled substance and he was placed under arrest for DWI. A felony amount of illegal drugs was found within the vehicle. The suspect was transported to the Medina Police Department and then to West Health in Plymouth after obtaining a search warrant for a blood draw. Charges are pending the blood results. On 08/02/2020 Officers responded to assist Corcoran Police Department at the scene of a fatal motor vehicle accident along Oakdale Drive. Medina Officers assisted with closure of the roadway and traffic control around the scene of the accident. On 08/04/2020 a local bank contacted our department concerned that a customer may have fallen victim to some type of scam as the bank customer had recently began withdrawing money and sending it via Western Union. On 08/05/2020 our new Patrol Officer, Officer Kaylen Boeddeker, started the Field Training process with Officer Gregory. Officer Boeddeker will be training with several experienced Medina Police Officers throughout the field training process at different stages of the training. On 08/06/2020 Officer was dispatched to a business burglary at Urban Market in the 3700 block of Pinto Drive. Forced entry was gained by breaking a window and the cash register was found to be missing. The case is believed related to several other burglaries along Highway 55 that same morning with the same modus operandi. The case was forwarded to Investigations. On 08/10/2020 Officers were dispatched to the glass broken out of a door of a business in the 190 block of Westfalen Trail. Upon arrival Officers found the glass on a rear door was shattered to an occupied business space. Nothing of value was inside the space to steal. Storms overnight did produce some large hail in the area. It is not known if the damage was from a hail stone or if someone broke the glass to gain entry. On 08/10/2020 Officer was dispatched to assist WHPS with a suspicious person going door to door in Independence. The Officer did locate the person who was going door to door offering roof inspections for the overnight hail storms in the area. The subject was warned that permits were needed in the city of Independence along with cities of Medina and Loretto to go door to door. It is common for these storm damage chasers to come to areas where hail has recently fallen in attempting to solicit business. Most do not obtain proper permits to go door to door. Investigations: Investigating a burglary of a business. The suspect smashed the glass door and stole a small amount of cash from the register. It is believed that this suspect is involved with several commercial burglaries in the area. Investigation is ongoing. Ongoing investigation involving the possession of child pornography. A total of eight videos were sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The videos will be analyzed by techs to locate the videos original location. Executed a search warrant on a suspicious vehicle that was in a parking lot of a business. The vehicle had heavy damage to the windshield and front bumper. Attempts are being made to speak with the registered owner of the vehicle. There are currently (8) cases assigned to investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: August 13, 2020 MEETING: August 18, 2020 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works has been cutting brush along Holy Name Drive and Chestnut Road after receipt of complaints from pedestrians who are walking on the street to avoid branches / over-growth. • Public Works will begin mowing the ROW along the city streets this week. • Public Works will be discussing the Tamarack Visioning Study at the council meeting. Jim Stremel, City Engineer, will provide a progress update with staff recommendations. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Public Works and Badger State Inspection are performing the final inspections to address any warranty issues with the water tower rehab project. A few items to be cleaned up remain on the list. • Public Works replaced a culvert under Holy Name Drive. They also patched the blacktop over the new culvert. The street was closed for the day to allow for safe repair. • Jim Stremel and I met with the HOA at the Enclave to discuss stormwater maintenance as the project moves forward. This is the second request in less than a month - we visited with the Fields of Medina last week. This will be a good exercise for staff as we create our stormwater maintenance policy, which remains on our goal list. PARKS/TRAILS • We are working on a second version of the Hunter Lions Park redesign. We have made recommendations to our consultant and plan to bring the new options to the park commission on August 19th. PERSONNEL • • Our new assistant to planning and public works, Lisa DeMars, started on August 6th. We look forward to getting her up-to-speed and catching up on numerous items which have been put aside for several months. ORDER CHECKS AUGUST 4, 2020 – AUGUST 18, 2020 050527 ANDERSON, JUDITH/SCOTT ..................................................... $95.00 050528 ARORA, VISHAL/POOJA .......................................................... $500.00 050529 CHARLES CUDD ......................................................................... $46.47 050530 KIELB, ERIC .................................................................................. $7.97 050531 MERRILD, CHANTELLE .............................................................. $32.48 050532 MINNESOTA TITLE ESCROW ACCOUNT .................................. $31.73 050533 PUZZO, JENNY ......................................................................... $250.00 050534 RAM GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC ................................. $10,000.00 050535 SALONEK, CHRISTINA ............................................................. $500.00 050536 SWANSON HOMES ............................................................. $10,000.00 050537 THURAIMANIKAM, SEETHA ..................................................... $700.00 050538 VOID .............................................................................................. $0.00 AMOUNT CORRECTION 050539 ALBRIGHT, ELIZABETH ............................................................ $250.00 050540 BERGERON, NICOLE ................................................................. $82.73 050541 BOHLKE, JOSEPH/KIMBERLY ................................................. $500.00 050542 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. .................................................. $783.61 050543 NESTER, MICHAEL/KERBY ........................................................ $13.87 050544 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY LLC ............................................ $73.87 050545 WENINGER, JULIE/MARK ........................................................ $250.00 050546 WILSON, KIM ............................................................................ $250.00 050547 ADAMS PEST CONTROL INC .................................................. $237.79 050548 ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ....................................... $2,628.40 050549 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $1,240.84 050550 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $34,752.20 050551 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC ....................................................... $86.42 050552 DESIGNING NATURE, INC. ...................................................... $369.46 050553 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ............................................................ $490.73 050554 EQUIFAX ....................................................................................... $7.99 050555 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC ............................................. $587.25 050556 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER ..................................................... $184.71 050557 HAMEL LIONS CLUB ................................................................ $712.64 050558 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH .................................................. $2,286.75 050559 HUGHES, STEVEN & MARY ................................................ $82,000.00 050560 J.O.T.S. COMPUTER SERVICES INC ....................................... $112.50 050561 JENCO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ..................................... $5,817.00 050562 JEREDS LAWN CARE INC ................................................... $10,500.00 050563 KD & COMPANY RECYCLING INC ........................................... $617.23 050564 LANO EQUIPMENT INC .............................................................. $59.55 050565 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES ............................... $496.00 050566 LEUER, STEVEN ......................................................................... $60.00 050567 LEXISNEXIS ................................................................................ $49.50 050568 MAPLE PLAIN, CITY OF ........................................................ $3,733.74 050569 MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $795.61 050570 MARTIN-MCALLISTER .............................................................. $550.00 050571 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP .......................................... $13,000.00 050572 MET COUNCIL (WASTEWATER SVC) ................................ $30,736.53 050573 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH .................................. $444.00 050574 MORRIS ELECTRONICS INC. .................................................. $200.00 050575 MOTLEY AUTO SERVICE LLC ................................................... $27.00 050576 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $123.39 050577 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC ............................................... $340.00 050578 ORONO, CITY OF .................................................................. $7,652.77 050579 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC ...................................... $80.00 050580 SLR15 RIFLES INC ................................................................ $1,926.00 050581 STREICHERS INC ..................................................................... $255.96 050582 SUMMIT COMPANIES ........................................................... $1,386.40 050583 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI .......................................................... $2,704.04 050584 TEGRETE (CARLSON BLDG) ................................................... $405.00 050585 TIME SAVER OFFSITE SEC SVCS IN ...................................... $544.50 050586 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER ................................................. $134.20 050587 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE .................................................. $30.00 Total Checks $232,733.83 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AUGUST 4, 2020 – AUGUST 18, 2020 005608E PR PERA .............................................................................. $15,707.47 005609E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $16,852.37 005610E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,790.00 005611E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,618.13 005612E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $20.00 005613E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,657.42 005614E FURTHER ................................................................................... $24.73 005615E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $324.66 005616E CENTURYLINK.......................................................................... $238.19 005617E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $4,928.95 005618E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,488.15 005619E FRONTIER .................................................................................. $56.85 005620E FURTHER ................................................................................. $118.26 005621E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $817.14 005622E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC .................................... $1,168.74 005623E XCEL ENERGY ......................................................................... $801.30 005624E CULLIGAN-METRO ..................................................................... $33.70 Total Electronic Checks $50,646.06 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AUGUST 5, 2020 0510407 BOEDDEKER, KAYLEN ............................................................ $628.35 0510408 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $633.53 0510409 VOGEL, NICHOLE ..................................................................... $858.82 0510410 ALBERS, TODD M. .................................................................... $230.87 0510411 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,521.00 0510412 ANDERSON, JOHN G. .............................................................. $230.87 0510413 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,514.01 0510414 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,484.50 0510415 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $1,978.15 0510416 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $1,765.68 0510417 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $1,721.91 0510418 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,650.69 0510419 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $2,119.18 0510420 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $1,883.95 0510421 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,093.94 0510422 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,093.57 0510423 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $1,808.41 0510424 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $949.86 0510425 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,866.68 0510426 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,286.94 0510427 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,427.39 0510428 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,076.67 0510429 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M ............................................................ $327.07 0510430 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,505.33 0510431 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,014.46 0510432 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,531.59 0510433 PEDERSON, JEFF .................................................................... $230.87 0510434 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,163.51 0510435 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $1,882.65 0510436 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,372.90 0510437 SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN .......................................................... $820.66 0510438 DINGMANN, NATHAN ............................................................ $1,168.06 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $51,842.07