Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-05-08 Planning Commission Packet
Agenda Planning Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota City H all, Council Chambers Wednesday, May 8, 2019 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Planning Commission, April 24, 2019 V.Public Hearings A.Varince request B-19-05, 6509 Indian Hills Roa d B.Preliminary Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Dev elopment at 7075-9 Amundson Avenue for MWF Properties C.Subdivision with Front Yard Setback Variances – 6625 Mohawk T rail VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," t he Board/Commission will invite resi dent s to share r elevant i ssues or concerns. Individuals must l i mi t t heir comments to three mi nutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same i ssue in t he int erest of time and topic. Gener al ly speaking, i tems that ar e elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Indi vi dual s should not expect the Chai r or Boar d/Commission Member s to respond to t heir comment s tonight. Instead, the Board/Commi ssion might refer the mat ter to st a% for consi derat i on at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX.Chair And Member Comments X.Sta : Comments XI.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli =c ation, an interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861 72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting. Date: May 8, 2019 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: F rom:Liz O ls on, Adminis trative S uppo rt S p ecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommission, Ap ril 24, 2019 Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : P lease approve the April 24, 2019, P lanning C ommission M eeting M inutes I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Minutes : Planning Commis s ion, April 24, 2019 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 1 of 10 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers April 24, 2019 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Melton, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, and Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner, Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Mangalick. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the April 24, 2019, agenda. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the April 10, 2019, meeting minutes. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Commissioner Lee offered up the amendment to add wording to the 2019 bylaws on page 5 to read, “E. 10. Provide annual educational opportunities for all members including an annual training session on the role of a planning commissioner and an annual training session with the City Attorney.” Motion carried as amended. V. Community Comment None. VI. Public Hearings A. Site Plan with Variance, 6304 York Ave. S. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 2 of 10 Director Teague explained that the variance request has been removed from the agenda and has been moved to a different date that has not been set at this time. B. Variance Request B-19-5, 6509 Indian Hills Rd. Director Teague explained that the variance request has been removed from the agenda and has been moved to the Planning Commission meeting on May 8, 2019. Commissioner Thorsen moved continuation of the Site Plan with Variance for 6304 York Ave. S. to an indefinite date. Commissioner Thorsen moved continuation of the variance request at 6509 Indian Hills Road to May 8, 2019. Commissioner Berube seconded the motions. The motions passed unanimously. C. Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Commissioner Thorsen and Chair Olsen introduced themselves and presented a PowerPoint on the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Olsen started the presentation with an overview that included the Metropolitan Council Regional Planning, Edina Comprehensive Plan Update Process (Big Ideas Workshop, Small Area Plans, and Updated Comprehensive Plan), Population Forecasts, Land Use Guide Changes, Public Meetings/Public Input (Better Together), Comment Report, and the Comprehensive Plan Schedule. Chair Olsen explained that there have been 177 public meetings between February 2017 and April 2019. Chair Olsen explained that the Comprehensive Plan is designed as framework for guiding future development, redevelopment, and community enhancement. Chair Olsen also explained that it will be used to shape Edina’s collective future growth, protect what Edina values, and create an even more attractive and sustainable Edina. Chair Olsen explained that one of the first steps they took was the Big Ideas Workshop that was held over 2 days. The Small Area Plans were after that to identify potential areas of change, growth, and investment. Chair Olsen explained that the third step was the update to the Comprehensive Plan, including the requirements of land use, housing, water resources, transportation, parks and trails, implementation, economic competitiveness, and resilience. Chair Olsen explained that in addition to Met Council requirements, Edina has identified six additional priorities that include Arts and Culture, Heritage Preservation, Energy and Environment, Health, Human Rights, and Community Services and Facilities. Commissioner Thorsen introduced himself and explained that the Metropolitan Council is the regional planning body for the 7 county metro area and explained that they are empowered by the state legislature. Thorsen explained the land use guide changes and discussed the following facts: • Units per acre were all approved as part of each Small Area Plan. • 7 percent of Edina has been guided for increased density. These areas are entirely within the Greater Southdale Area. • 93 percent of Edina will remain guided for no change in density or will experience a decrease. • Suggested ranges do not mean that it is the density for a site. Number of units allowed on sites is a decision of the City Council in a Rezoning application. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 3 of 10 Commissioner Thorsen discussed forecasts and the following information: • Population Forecasts are long range projections of expected growth largely based on regional macroeconomic, demographic and market assumptions. • Met Council Forecasts are not goals or targets, they are intended to be realistic estimates used to guide investments in infrastructure and public services (there are no incentives or penalties). • Forecasts are provided by the Metropolitan Council and provide a shared foundation for planning by the Met Council land local governments. • Metropolitan Council periodically adjusts forecasts based on new data, to ensure they are as accurate as possible. This has occurred recently with Edina and several other cities. Commissioner Thorsen explained that the reasons to accommodate growth include funding public services, keeping residents here, supporting workplace innovation, enabling multimodal transportation options, and advancing regional sustainability. Commissioner Thorsen explained that according to the Met Council forecast for Edina, approximately 7 percent of Edina’s total land area is forecast for population increase, 44 traffic analysis zones (TAZs), 8 TAZs (18 percent) are forecasted to increase population between now and 2040, and 36 TAZs (82 percent) are forecasted to remain the same or decrease in population. MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator, introduced herself and explained that she supported the project team during the 30 day review period. Lamon gave an overview of the Comprehensive Plan process, specifically concerning the public input and Better Together. Chair Olsen explained that the Planning Commission reviewed, analyzed, and categorized comments from residents. Chair Olsen thanked everyone who helped and ended the presentation. Public Hearing Julia Risser, 6112 Ashcroft Ave., thanked the Planning Commission for their work. Risser stated that she was disappointed to see that the Wooddale and Valley View maps were misrepresented in the Small Area Plans in the existing land use map, the future land use map, and the zoning site. Risser asked that the maps be updated in time before City Council meets. Bruce Douglas, 3915 W. 42nd Street, thanked the Planning Commission and suggested that it would be helpful if the Planning Commission could simply tell people what changes are being proposed for the city, why they are proposing the changes, and how they think it is going to affect the people that live in Edina. Andy Brown, 5512 Park Place, stated that he was disappointed in the transportation section. Brown stated that with the increased density, a discussion about transportation needs to be had about how transportation will help residents deal with the density. Brown stated that the level of density is unacceptable, especially with the lack of services. Brown also expressed concern about the Southwest light rail and the effect it is going to have on the transportation patterns. David Frenkel, 4510 Lakeview Drive, stated concern about the Fire Department issues in the Comprehensive Plan. Frenkel commented that the major issue he sees is the ISO rating the City of Edina Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 4 of 10 Fire Department gets, and that it is missing in the Comprehensive Plan. Frenkel commented that he was concerned that Minneapolis is not on auto response and mutual aid for the City of Edina, but they are for Richfield. Frenkel also stated concern that the City of Minneapolis doesn’t train with the City of Edina Fire Department. Jennifer Henomoth, 6200 Brookview Drive, stated that she thought the two significant flaws in the Comprehensive Plan are that the Met Council designates the City of Edina as an “urban district” and the Comprehensive Plan proposed is designating the City of Edina as an “urban center district.” Henomoth stated that her second concern was regarding traffic and the traffic studies that WSB conducts are flawed. Henomoth stated that WSB’s project studies don’t take into consideration the area outside of the scope of the study, and the studies don’t take into consideration the actual allowable maximum density that is being proposed in the plan. Hope Melton, 4825 Valley View Road, stated that she believes the 2018 Comprehensive Plan promotes environmentally sustainable and equitable growth and a socioeconomically balanced and diverse community. Melton urged the Planning Commission to approve the Comprehensive Plan. Carol Bromer, 6521 Creek Drive, thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for their work on the Comprehensive Plan. Bromer commented that she is grateful for the anticipated population growth and density. Bromer stated that she was grateful for the positive and environmental consequences and mitigating negative impacts on our environment, providing a variety of transportation modes in the Greater Southdale District Plan, protecting and maintaining undeveloped areas and parks throughout the city, providing an increased tax base through new developments, and recognizing and addressing the need for affordable housing in Edina. Barry Rosenthal, 6205 Scotia Drive, wanted to state his support for the Comprehensive Plan. Rosenthal stated that he believes the process was fair and he thinks it is a good plan, even though it is not perfect. Steve Brown, 5528 Halifax Lane, stated his support for the Comprehensive Plan and commended the Planning Commission, City Staff, and consultants for their effort and vision, their openness and transparency, and their commitment to affordable housing. Kris Bremer, 6001 Ewing Avenue S., stated gratitude to those who worked on the Comprehensive Plan and commented that she would like to see more public transit available. Bremer stated that she would like to see more attention to the problem of preserving affordable single family homes. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Bill Smith, Project Manager for the Comprehensive Plan, apologized for in the incorrect maps. Smith explained that the process in place is to take the document that is posted on Better Together and have it remain in place. Smith stated that the comments will be held to present to Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 5 of 10 City Council with the comment separate from the document. Smith stated that the plan is not to make revisions to the document until the City Council has had an opportunity to review. Smith stated that the maps will be looked at right away and the change should be posted on Better Together immediately. Director Teague commented on the incorrect zoning maps (including the other Small Area Plan maps) and stated that Staff will get those corrected right away. • Bill Smith spoke to the questions and concerns about the Transportation chapter and explained that 2 studies were done by WSB Consultants and looked specifically at the Southdale area to identify intersections in other capacity deficiencies that would occur, now and in the future. Smith explained that their analysis showed that those capacity deficiencies could be mitigated with the addition of turn lanes and other reasonable types of mitigation improvements. Smith commented that increasing density will make transportation all the more viable for the City of Edina. Smith stated that he believes the plan makes allowances for how transit can be improved in the area. Smith commented that the Southwest light rail was mentioned, but the traffic impacts that would occur were not looked at specifically at • Dan Cornejo, Consultant, explained that he worked with the Fire and Police Department on the chapter. Cornejo explained that during the Comprehensive Plan process, the Fire Department contracted a consultant for over a year and looked at the response times and the capacity of the current stations. Cornejo commented that he didn’t believe they looked at the interaction between Edina’s Fire Department and other neighboring cities, including training together. Cornejo stated that he will make sure the City of Edina will get involved with those discussions going forward. Cornejo commented that Fire Station Number 2 may be considered inadequate and needs to be expanded and relocated to the north. Cornejo also stated that the other recommendation within the next 10 years to redo Fire Station Number 3. • Chair Olsen commented that the preservation of affordable single family homes is one of the focus points of the housing plan and will be started in the next month or two. Commissioners commented that the proposal is expected at City Council in early May and then work would get started. Commissioners stated that the idea is that the housing chapter is not complete in some ways in terms of the level of guidance that they are hoping to give. Commissioners commented that the hope is that once the taskforce is formed, they can probably complete the study by the end of the year. Commissioners commented that if there is to be information gleaned, certainly it can still be incorporated into the housing chapter or be added as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan later. • Commissioners commented on the mention of “urban” and “urban center” and stated that they don’t know if there is a literal one to one correlation between Edina’s density figures and Met Council’s definition of “urban center.” Commissioners also commented that Edina has been designated as “urban,” which is not quite as dense as an “urban center,” like Minneapolis. Commissioners commented that the point was made that if Met Council is using 20 dwelling units per acre as the standard for an “urban center,” then the question is how is Edina’s “urban” is proposing significantly higher densities than the definition of “urban center?” Commissioners referenced the urban section from the local planning handbook from Met Council and commented that the definition includes a minimum of 10 or 20 units per acre for an entire area, not just one site. • Commissioners discussed concerns that were raised earlier regarding how traffic studies do not account for the area outside the scope of the study and maximum allowable vehicles allowed on Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 6 of 10 the road. Director Teague replied that a Traffic Engineer would need to speak to how traffic studies are done, but that the WSB studies did take into account Edina’s top end densities within the Southdale area so they were factored in. Bill Smith addressed the Planning Commission and explained a traffic impact study includes a proposed development and analyzing the development to determine the traffic it generates will affect the adjacent streets. Smith stated that the Comprehensive Plan does recommend is that it has the discretion to say that we, as a city, would like the studies to look at the adjacent streets to the development but also to go further to see what the neighborhood impacts would be. Smith stated that the city has taken steps to ensure that adjacent neighborhoods would be addressed regarding the neighborhood impacts. • Commissioners responded to the comment regarding what changes are being proposed for the city, why they are proposing the changes, and how they think it is going to affect the people that live in Edina. Commissioners explained that if the Comprehensive plan draft gets approved, there will be an addition of an executive summary or cover letter that will come from the Mayor and City Council and it will be a high level overview that will address the questions that were asked. Commissioners summarized what they thought were the key elements in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment with the recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Commissioner Lee offered up a recommendation a further study of the population and household forecasts as part of the upcoming housing study. Commissioner Thorsen did not accept the recommendation. Aye: Miranda, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen Nay: Lee The motion carried 8-1. D. Site Plan Review- 7725 Washington Ave S. (Self Storage Facility) Director Teague explained that the Planning Commission was asked to review a site plan proposal to remodel and expand the existing building at 7725 Washington Avenue and that a Site Plan review is required because the square footage of the proposed expansion exceeds the existing square footage by 10%. Teague explained that the site is currently zoned PID, Planned Industrial District. Mini-storage is a permitted use. Teague also stated that this project is code compliant; therefore, the applicant is entitled the proposed project. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 7 of 10 Appearing for the Applicant Gray Hayes, Ebert Construction, introduced himself and explained that the building will be light and bright. Hayes commented that the building will be a nice addition to the City of Edina and the company has developed other facilities, like this one, around the Twin Cities. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked if outdoor storage was allowed at the facility and Teague replied that it is not allowed. • Commissioners asked Teague about the amount of paving on the site and asked if the Planning Commission can request to reduce the paving to the amount needed instead of the amount that they happen to have. Teague replied that the Planning Commission can ask the applicant, but it cannot be required that they reduce the paving. Hayes explained that part of the impervious coverage is for fire access and they have to maintain fire access on both sides of the building to turn around. Hayes explained that after approval for the site plan, they are required to go back to the 9 Mile Creek and create an infiltration plan for the site so it will reduce some of the hard cover for that. • Commissioners asked what the external appearance is of the building and Teague replied that it is a brick building now and they will be painting it white and explained that the addition would have the material to match the white brick building. • Commissioners asked about the customer base being within a few miles of the location and asked if ecargo bikes would have access to load and unload easily. Hayes explained that the ordinance requires all of the loading and unloading to be done interior to the building so they would come in using the loading and unloading bay that would be large enough to accommodate easily 4 vehicles. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the site plan as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. E. Conditional Use Permit- Restoration Hardware, 6801 France Ave S. Planner Bodeker explained that Restoration Hardware, the applicant is proposing rooftop dining at the building under construction at 6801 France Avenue. Bodeker explained that a site plan for Restoration Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 8 of 10 Hardware was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2017 and the project was reviewed administratively after approval by the Planning Commission and City Council, due to the project changing from 3-4 stories down to three stories in height. Bodeker explained that the top floor of the three story RH under construction includes kitchen space, a pantry/wine bar, café, and outdoor terrace space with outdoor dining. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for rooftop dining, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Blair Harrington, Madigan, Dahl & Harlan, P.A., introduced herself and explained that she believes the application meets all of the requirements for approval and opened the floor to any questions. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked if the restaurant is the same size as what was originally approved and Bodeker replied in the affirmative. • Commissioners asked if the entire space was all retail and Harrington replied in the affirmative and commented that there are a few other locations nationwide that have the same type of model, such as Chicago and West Palm Beach. Harrington confirmed that the covered part if year round and the terrace section is weather permitting. Commissioners asked if the space on the rooftop would be available to rent out for parties, and Harrington replied that she was unsure, but that it might be a possibility. • Commissioners asked if the Restoration Hardware in West Palm Beach had its own identity or bar name for way finding and Harrington replied that she was unsure, but Chicago’s location has its own brand for the café. • Commissioners responded to the odor concerns and Bodeker stated that the Health Department responded to that and explained that the Fire Department requires that the hood and duct work installed in restaurants be cleaned according to certain standards and criteria that the Fire Department has, but they do not test for levels of odor. Commissioners commented that it could be an issue and should be looked into. Commissioners also commented that it would be nice to look at other communities do to mitigate the odor or what protections are in place. Teague replied that the ordinance reviews could be something that could be added to their work plan. Teague commented that the only complaint they’re received regarding odor was McCormick & Schmick’s that was rising to the condos above. Teague explained that the restaurant did something to their exhaust system to fix the issue. Public Hearing Nora Davis, 6921 Southdale Road, commented that she liked the building being 3 stories and stated that it is an attractive building. Davis also commented that she didn’t see plans for cooking order control and stated that it is an important issue that affects her neighborhood because the odors from existing restaurants seep into her neighborhood. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the conditional use permit as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. F. Variance Request- B-19-7, 5812 Hansen Road Planner Bodeker explained that the applicant is requesting a 4.25-foot front yard setback variance to build a foyer addition to the front of the existing home at 5812 Hansen Road. Bodeker explained that the property is approximately 13,845 square feet in area and is located on the west side of Hansen Road, north of Benton Avenue and the existing single family home will remain. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked if regulations account for the size of the lot or the width of the lot. Bodeker replied that they do not for front yard setbacks because it is based on the existing setbacks to the houses on either side of the subject property or the average of the block. • Commissioners thanked the applicant for a very complete set of plans and it is nice to see a workaround to an existing home that doesn’t involve a teardown. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 10 of 10 VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments None. X. Staff Comments None. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the April 24, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:40 PM. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Date: May 8, 2019 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Kris Aaker As s is tant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Varinc e req uest B-19-05, 6509 Ind ian Hills R oad Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : Approve the variance request. I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Report Aerial Map Engineering Memo Applicant Submittal STAFF REPORT Date: To: From: April 29, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Subject: B-19-5, A 46.96 -foot front yard setback variance and a .9 foot I st floor height variance for 6509 Indian Hills Road Information / Background: The application is for a front yard setback variance and .9 foot 1st floor height variance for a new home to be built at 6509 Indian Hills Road. The subject property is approximately 42,562 square feet in area, sloping approximately 40 feet up from the northwest corner of the site. The previous one-story rambler with an attached two car garage on the property was demolished in 2017. The applicant is proposing to rebuild on the lot with a new two story home with an attached three car garage in approximately the same location as the original home. The former home did not meet the required front yard setback along the Indian Hills Road side of the property with a setback of 40.57 feet provided from the west/front property. The required front yard setback is based on the average front yard setback of the homes located on either side of the property which is 87.535 feet and bisects 3/4ths of the proposed home and nearly the entire former home. The property owner tabled a previous request from the April 24th Planning Commission meeting for a front yard setback variance and 1st floor height variance in order to work with the adjacent neighbors on home placement. The neighbors preferred to have the new home match the existing nonconforming setback of the previous home to avoid impacting more trees and slopes. A variance is considered to allow the first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the previous home by more than one foot. The owners are requesting a 1st floor height variance of just under I foot in addition to the I foot increase allowed by ordinance. The home that was torn down had the front door facing the back of the lot, with the basement walk-out facing the street. By definition the 1st floor is the lowest entry facing the street. The new basement will closely match the old basement elevation and therefore will be no taller at grade. The new home will no longer face the back of the lot and will be re-oriented to have the front door of the home face the street. The new "main" floor is proposed to be 1.9 feet taller than the old "main" floor of the previous home when entering from the back yard. The 1.9 foot increase in the old "main" floor will be approximately even with the main floor of the home to the south and will be over 7 feet lower than the main floor of the home to the north. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 STAFF REPORT Page 2 Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Residential homes; zoned and guided low- med. density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 42,562 square foot lot is located on the south side of Indian Hills Road. The property is currently vacant. The lot slopes to a much higher elevation from the front to the back of the lot. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in a memorandum. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Side — Side - Front— Rear— 10 feet 10 feet 87.535 feet 25 feet 62.17 feet 39 feet *40.57 feet 175.7 feet Building Coverage 25% 10.1 % Building Height 40 feet 35 feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues STAFF REPORT Page 3 • Is the proposed variance justified? Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: I) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. The proposed use is permitted in the R- I Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of the new I st floor elevation height and matching the nonconforming front yard setback. The practical difficulty is that the previous home on the lot is nonconforming regarding front yard setback and the lot is a hill with elevation increases from front to rear affecting placement and new 1st floor. The topography and curved angle of the front lot line and the location of adjacent homes on either side creates design challenges for the lot. The new Ist floor will be nearly at the same elevation as the 1st floor elevation of the home to the south and will be 7.4 feet lower than the 1st floor of the neighbor to the north. The new home will be consistent with the location of the previous home and will be well within the 1st floor range of adjacent properties. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The previous home had an existing non-conforming front yard setback along Indian Hills Road. The proposed new home is within the non-conforming footprint of the previous home and will not be any closer to the front lot line than the previous home. The topography of the lot creates a challenge for home placement and 1st floor height given that elevation increases towards the back of the lot. To force the home farther back on the lot to conform to the front yard setback, removes more mature trees and requires a higher 1st floor elevation or significant grading of the lot. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The applicants are hoping to compliment the neighborhood with a home that fits the unique lot and surrounding properties. The home had been proposed to be farther back on the lot to be more in compliance with the current code, but was moved back towards the front lot line to match the existing nonconforming setback of the previous home at the request of adjacent neighboring property owners. Recommended Action: Approve a front yard setback variance and a 1st floor height variance for6509 Indian Hills Road. Staff recommends approval of the variances, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: • Survey date stamped, April 23, 2019 • Elevations and building plans date stamped April 23, 2019 STAFF REPORT Page 4 ® Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo. Deadline for a city decision June 22, 2019. DATE: May I , 2019 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director FROM: Zuleylca Marquez — Graduate Engineer RE: 6509 Indian Hills Road - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed include the proposed stormwater management plan revised 04/19/19 and the certificate of survey dated 04/ 19/19. Grading and Drainage Both the existing home and proposed home are situated on steep topography. Grading for the proposed home will closely match existing drainage paths. Drainage site wide will be directed to Indian Hills Road. The proposed stormwater management plan does not propose any additional drainage to neighboring private properties. Stormwater Mitigation City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 requires stormwater mitigation for this project and requires a stormwater management plan. The subject property drains to Arrowhead Lake which is a land locked basin. The applicant's stormwater management plan illustrates the use of swales and rain gardens to closely match existing discharge rates and runoff volumes to meet the SP-003 stormwater requirements of "No increase in peak flood elevations for 1% annual chance flood event". Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan is required by City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Curb Cut A curb cut permit will be required if the applicant proposes to replace or relocate existing curb cut. Public Utilities Water and sanitary sewer is served from Indian Hills Road. Per City of Edina Building Policy SP-024, a one-inch water service line is required from the curb stop to the dwelling. Other Items A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit will be required. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. If retaining walls greater than 4-feet are proposed, submit drawings, cross-section and calculations prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION TO: CITY OF EDINA FROM: STEVE SCHWIEIERS OF WOODDALE BUILDERS & JEFF LINDGREN OF JALIN DESIGN, LLC SUBJECT: 2 VARIANCE REQUESTS; A) REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 87.53' TO 40.57' B) INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION 1' DATE: APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING DEPARTMENT \ 2 3 2019 Required Variance Findings CITY OF EDINA Per the city of Edina, the variance procedure is a "safety value" to handle the unusual circumstances that could not be anticipated by these ordinances. The commission is charged to only grant a petition for a variance if it finds: (1) That the strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property The property located at 6509 Indian Hills Rd. has presented itself to be a very unique parcel of land given the abnormal setback location of the South neighboring home (#6517). The existing home found on the site was a walkout rambler with the "back" of the house facing the street and the existing property has an aggressive grade elevation change, dropping 43' vertical feet from back to front. After careful consideration of the neighborhood's character, we're finding that the typical zoning ordinances are not written in a manner to allow for the tasteful construction of a new home with current practical living situations. A) For The front setback reduction, the current Edina zoning code section 36-439 (1).a.2 states: "If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot that both have a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots on the same street; or the front street setback shall be the average fi•ont street setback of all other dwelling units on the same side of that street, between intersections." Using the above passage; The South home's (6517) front setback is 121.39 and the North-East's (6501) front setback 53.68, which averages out to a front setback of 87.53' for our (6509) home. The existing home that was onsite had a front setback of 40.57'. Therefore, we're respectfully requesting a setback reduction from 87.53' to 40.57' to match that of the existing home's set back and to better align with the more typical setbacks found in the neighborhood and more closely related to that of the North-East (6501) home. In addition, this setback reduction will aid in the least amount of grading changes and tree removal to the site. B) For the first floor elevation increase, the current Edina code section 36-439 (8) states; "Additions to, or replacement of, single dwelling unit buildings with a first floor elevation of more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building require a variance per [article II], division 3" Since the existing home that once stood on the site was built with the "back" of the house facing the street, and positioned much closer to the street than other homes on the block, we've been advised by the city planning department to reference the "First Floor" elevation with that of the upper elevation of the existing home which was set at 928.73'. In addition to this information, the lower level walkout was set at 919.99 and resided on the South- RE: 6509 INDIAN HILLS RD., EDINA, MN West end of the lot, street side. In conjunction with the above setback variance request, the further back we position a home on this site the higher in elevation it would need to be to align with the ascending grade found on site. In an effort to find a cohesive merger of the proposed home and existing site contour changes, we felt an elevation change was necessary. To aid in this effort, we're respectfully requesting a "First Floor" elevation increase of 1' above the allowable elevation of 929.73'. Though we're trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood by aligning with the existing homes setback, we're cutting back the massing by setting the 2-story element back an additional 10' which pushes our main floor elevation up. Doing so allows us to provide the least amount of impact on the existing contours, which in turn helps us preserve many of the mature trees found on the site. Additionally, in an effort to maintain similar characteristics in land contours, we providing a similar walkout lower level feature, like the existing home had in the same location. This elevation increase will also help provide positive slope away from the home to new proposed rain gardens that will be attractively incorporated along the driveway and near said walkout area to aid in site water collection. (2) That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A) Yes, it is given we're proposing to align the covered porch of our new home to match that of the existing home's setback at 40.57'and the 2-story massing is being set back an additional 10' to align more with the setback of the North-East home (6501). In addition, our intent is in response to neighborhood feedback and requests. B) Yes, it is due to the fact our proposed structure will be well under the maximum allowable building height of 40' from the average grade, even with the requested "First Floor" elevation increase. Our unique circumstance are due to the existing orientation and setback of the previous home found on the site and the atypical setback of the home to the South (6517). (3) Would not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. A) The approach we're requesting is being done with the intention of bringing the spirit back to this site and so it can work harmoniously with the neighborhood. Our intent is to add beauty to the already charming, yet eclectic, character found in the surrounding homes. We also are trying to balance the setbacks by aligning our covered porch with the existing home's setback and then pushing back the 2-story massing an additional 10' to better align with the North-East home (6501). All the while allowing us to minimally adjust the existing contours and keep as many of the mature trees as we can. B) Our alteration is being done to provide a positive effect by embracing the neighborhood's eclectic charm. The height of our proposed home is well within the maximum height allowed and seamlessly laces into the existing site's contours with minimal disturbance to the existing grade and surrounding mature trees. "Practical Difficulties" means that: (4) The property in question cannot put a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance. A) Due to the aggressive contour change found on the site and the number of mature trees, if we were use the current zoning code calculated setback of 87.53', we would in turn have to cut down an additional (10-13) more trees and we would need to either build the house into the side of the hill, or pull it up even higher, there by finding the need to request an even greater "First Floor" elevation variance. PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA 2 B) In essence, the typical zoning code for determining the "First Floor" elevation, is for home's that have the "front" of the home facing the street and are on level lots. When aligning the current zoning code with our site characteristics and the previous home's orientation and setback location, it creates undo hardships for planning a new home that can uphold the character of the neighborhood while paying special attention to doing minimal alterations to the existing contours or mature trees. The previous homes "First Floor" elevation of 928.73' worked well when it only had a 40.57' setback. But, since we're trying to marry our home with the existing lot's setback with that of the neighboring lots, it makes reasonable sense to increase our home's "First Floor" elevation to better align with the surrounding contours for minimal disturbance around the garage area and the lower walkout area as well. (5) The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to his/her property which were not created by the petitioner. A) This is correct. The home to the South is atypically setback further than all other homes on the block, there by doubling the increased setback on our lot. Then, with the aggressive grade change found on the lot, this larger set back would incur the lose of many more mature trees, and a home design that is built into a hillside which could create a home that is not in the spirit of the neighborhood. B) This is correct. The existing home's orientation with the "Back" facing the street and it's closer setback to the street when coupled with the standardized "Frist Floor" elevation zoning code creates an additional hurdle to overcome when we're trying to align our home with a setback that compares to the more typical setback of homes on the block. Unfortunately, the standardized zoning code can not account for all anomalies found throughout the city, therefore a variance for this property is necessary to meet all pliable zoning codes, no matter what. Our home is on a sliding scale, meaning, the more we set the house back, the higher it needs to be since the site is on an ascending hill side. We are attempting to locate the proposed home to match the existing building pad area and the walkout feature set the home back to fit the neighborhood, which in turn sets the appropriate "Frist Floor" elevation. (6) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surrounds. A) No, it will not alter the essential character of the property because our design intent is to maintain some existing characteristic by matching the existing home's setback with our covered porch and have our 2- story massing better align with the majority of the homes found on the block, with emphasis on the North-East Home (6501). B) No, it will not alter the essential character of the property because as we set our house back further into the ascending property contours, to better align with other homes on the block, it becomes more acceptable as a continuation of the neighborhood's attractiveness. To uphold this appeal, it becomes apparent that the "Frist Floor" elevation needs to raise as well. Our goal was to determine the best possible setback and "First Floor" elevation that could support the essential character of the site, while minimize contour manipulation and the destruction of many more mature trees. Thank you for considering our variance requests. Respectfully, /A J ffrey A. Lin gren, President JALIN Design, LLC PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA 3 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 4/30/2019 1 inch = 50 feet PARCEL ID: 0611621240016 OWNER NAME' PARCEL ADDRESS: 6509 Indian Hills Rd, Edina MN 55439 PARCEL AREA: 0.96 acres, 41,890 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE Vacant Land-Residential HOMESTEAD: MARKET VALUE: TAX TOTAL: ' ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land-residential HOMESTEAD: MARKET VALUE. Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 4/30/2019 PARCEL ID: 0611621240016 OWNER NAME: PARCEL ADDRESS: 6509 Indian Hills Rd, Edina MN 55439 PARCEL AREA: 0.96 acres, 41,890 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TvDD• II—ant Land-Residential HOMESTEAD: MARKET VALUE: TAX TOTAL: ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land-residential HOMESTEAD: MARKET VALUE Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable f or any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 X 023.6,_ • • 4•1V 906. • :. 97.5' Cop Ight 02019 JALIN Design • NOVNWESTERLY INE OF LOT 3 LW. PER SURVEY, NEIGHBOR'S H USE H SETBACKS OF 53.6 AND 6 .28 FO 3.68' -AN A G- 3, JALIN DESIGN 9,3.3 925 763-464.4401 BindgronOjalln-dosivn.com www.jalln-dosIgn.com • 932 WOODDALE BUILOERS 5 UPPER CAN11LE PLANNING DEPARTI\1 SOUTHWESTERLY UNE OF LOT 2 APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA ORY DWELLING 2,035SF MAIN ELEV: 930.7 ). f , / LOT 2 6-9A 6—'c'wnc E ovNERS: ELEV: 930.1. SCREENED . ' - POACH • 11 SF THEAS1\ERLY NE OF LOT 3 R4( CONCEPT 01.25.19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 0422-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION .rn 0 ..") rn at. . ADJACENT HOMES SETBACK IS 121.39' 4.11/04,4, / or \ k) ati ) 24 r 943 942.95 X92 8" OAK • SITE PLAN TI 19%0" 1.5'4" 264" 7-0" 19.-6" 76.-0" •v ... ,.. •, .• , UNEXCAVATED PATIO ABOVE L.. .,: .... , — — — --- — -.- W I b( ....- ..... fL I , I UNEXCAVATED =^.o.-?+ !i' FS .- 0 . u 1 i fli I ---H-......--. ----H -, .. . ,, • .. • ...=6'1% .--,.., I 1 1 r BM - 1 0' 3" x-81'-' '..'r , - '4 I Ef _Ji .—. \ BILLIARDS / , 3 t is'o^x in" ,!' REF. I ' MECH./STOR. °,,.„, •K ..,MI . ----- BAR AREA 1411 2a_c_ III II II .. 157 x 12'0" F". ,....., v . 111111111111111111111i1 m muumuu Ivo^ x 1 '0" 1 '''';' re x 5V , ‘,......, PORCH ABOVE HALL, -- WINE i,.. : t , A, ,..-.„., 1 --,,,, ..,,,,i,,,- IN , 97" x 5'4" , .,,.. L 4r BARN DR 1 E.._ _ UP I I GUES— RM ... ---.. 14'0" x 12'0" ... 47 __ — I ***** EXERCISE 18'0" 13'0" x -I- •_ __ . MEDIA STAIRS vi x L9'6" = Et 1 L .. ,. 7:7 .,...., .. s. PORCH ABOVE PATIO 76'4" RETAINING WALLS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 11-0" FINISHED LOER - 1,721 SF MECH/STOR. 246 SF PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EL'". Copyright 02019 JALIN Design. JALIN DESIGN 763-464.4401 Illndgronejalln-closIgn.con www.I olln-dosIon.corn WOODDALE CONCEPT 01-25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A1.0 CopyrightC2019 JALIN Design • JALIN DESIGN 763.464-44w jfinrigronejolln.dosion.corn www.jolin-dosign.com 26L0"19'-0" 15'4 2?-0 \ \ , ,-,' —,‘ WOODDALE BUILDERS 04 95(81 74 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA RPI,WTF, PRIVATE RES. ° z `±' z z -1 6509 INDIAN HILLS RD, F ‘7,N EDINA, MN •0 :0 :0 :0 'I 111.11, — - - - _ __-_ I 7T IV 1 I 1 s ....-...._ I Lii I I 1 ' I I 7 i r 1 I 9:2c81 GRILL NEN NI a I WM liiii 3-CAR GARAGE 24'0" x 38'0" • 1 PA All .io . ___ , — MIIIIIIIIIIMI WIC •..... NE L. 6' 16 i' — sr. i p - •• CH c..m. "------- 10'0" x 5'0" T.-- I mum I r/77,7,/ ,/ ,'') SERVING i 1 11 i --- - 8'0" x 9'0" MAIM ..==7/ . I II O 26 9'x131 I MUD RM 10'0" x 9'0" -=. -5r. I . 10:0)7, 1 1 i . a ..,?....,,,,, - ..7.7. illi 22 '0I' 110 741.- imp WI POW. 11111111111111110 i F.::2,1::: ,I t ::.,..,:::, _As.... RON] vORCH Alia 11.4 1 mr-vir FOYER .:I.:= 9'0" x I 1'6" 1 7 _ _ P - N I N G -1 _ _ .__,__ .,-- I 6 la' 11 , 1 A ,-- L 1 1 ( ) ' ifilf Citi ' n ii g I 3-SIDE 13'0" x 14'01 —1 FP. N. 1/II r - - 1 1 _ 216' . 220 kV $TAI — 8'6" x I _ _ — Ill ri . MAIN FLOOR A LEVEL PLAN I • 1 \ 1. a- IT 6 23 0" /2'.0" I MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN E:11 Q 0 AI.I SCALE: 1/8"= I'-0l" FINISHED MAIN - 2,035 SF GARAGE - 014 SF SCN PORCH - 295 SF I BEDRO 11'3"x M 3'0" #4 ROOF BELOW r-- ROOF BELOW RAILING OPEN TO- BELOW SHELVES BEDROOM #2 1213" x KO" WNER'S WI 11,f"x1Y6" - = OWNER'S BATH 10'8" x 1 8" BENCH 10'6" x 5'0" LINEN I LINEN OWNER'S BEDRM WWWW.VMS 186 z 15'6" 9'6" x 19'6" 7 r LJ 7 L ROOF BELOW WIC 6'8"X5 C L VI 16'0' x 19'0" SN BAT 5.4" x 10 0" STAIRS UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = l'-0" FOOTPRINT: 2,362 SQFT (INCLUDES STAIRS) UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A1,2 ROOF BELOW r LJ Copyright E32019 JALIN DnsIgn JALIN DESIGN 763.464-4401 illndgrartejalln-dosIgn.corn www.jolln-doelpn.corn gat WOODDALE BUILDERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA CONCEPT 01-25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION WEST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = I'-0" r7 ft I a I I I k &WNW ...1=•=6 1.21'1 -J10E-1 MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 930.7 H NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL At ELEV. 930.3 RIP§ILIISE L6' `61 • -= - I Wet :4; ,, g • • •=.1 ======="rarall uppERLEvEL ELEV. 941.4' NW S. var. 4111_111111F mmousiorkimmin •% NN -- ___--- eanau snommima .111111112111111 WM= N-E NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 938.1' EXISTING HOMES MAIN Lrya. NU ELEV. 928.73' • oak EXISTING HOMES LOWER / ELEV. 919.99' _ • II M NI I —...••========1, - 11111 . 1 . 1 C 7 ITAKIWAS1102 11106110 on MIN III MID 719 EDO DOD DOD DOD III III III III III III UPPER LEVEL Act ELEV. 941.4' AIF Ai& N-E NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL MU ELEV. 938.1' NORTH ELEVATION 0 Scale: 1/8" = l'-0" MAIN LEVEL At ELEV. 930.7' NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL deb ELEV. 9303 AVERAGE GRADE ELEV. 924.0' LO_WER LEVEL Ankh ELEV. 919.7 MINIF PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA Coprighc e2019 JALIN Degn JALIN DESIGN 763.464.4401 ilinegronejalln-ciesign.com www.lalin-dosign.com WO ODDALE BUILDERS CONCEPT 01.25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION CONCEPT RENDERING A2.0 Ill III • • LS' Mli••••••=1IMIMOMIMMI MMILMMON V•••IN/M. liwyM•M•O•My••••••Or ,momm•mompa.........=•••••• 41111.4,1:. •1•110•11•31 WIII•••••••••• 21=1•••=111•1111MMMI••••••M =MM. .111•••••=1•• ::..••••••• Ntati: irstvr UPPER LEVEL Ant ELEV. 941.4' MAIN LEVEL illak ELEV. 930.7 \-ir TA r i t i e ZircA SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = l'-0" - - -- L--,;- -.,,.. 1 —,, — —:, c, ' _ ---7- PLANNING DEPARTMEN— APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA UPPER LEVEL AIL ELEV. 941.4' V. MAIN LEVEL At ELEV. 9307 VP ••A "rel--=?•-=""1 'midriff/1E ViAr -41•••=uorara il=110••••;. • MO MENNEN Copyright 02019 ALIN Design JALIN DESIGN 763.464-1401 illndgrenalalln-ciollmcom v•ww.jalln-design.com 0 vi J LV Z z w _ < < z o_ z 0, 0 CONCEPT 01-2S-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION CONCEPT RENDERING A2. W99? RALE Copyright ©2019 JALIN Deslp WOODDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2 019 CITY OF EDINA CONCEPT 01-25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14.19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 09-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION CONCEPT RENDERING A2.2 PERSP E REN EKING JALIN DESIGN 763.464-4401 ,lindgranOjalln-desIgn.com www.jalln-desIgn.corn Copyright 02019 JALIN DesIgn JALIN DESIGN 763.464-4401 filnelgrenejalln-design.conn www.jolln-da.lpn.com 2. EXISTING HOME TO THE SOUTH PICTURE REFERENCE i. DEPARTMENT 2 3 2019 F EDig v, vi w z DI E Z ,stt- < < Z fo o a_ Z 1-U 0 cY% CONCEPT 01-23-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION 3. EXISTING DRIVE WAY APPROACH WITH SOUTHERN HOME IN B.G. WOODDALE BUILDERS PLANNIN APR CITY EXISTING SITE PHOTOS A3.0 EV S01.0Hd 31.1S DNI1S1X3 Noissuens 30NVIWA 6 I -ZZ-1,0 433SIA311 Nassuens 61-1,0-60 3ONVIIIVA M31A-9)1 61-02-Z0 NVIcl MalART3 6 I I -ZO CMHS1131VM MBIA311 61-56-10 1430N00 VNICI3 AO A110 6102 Eg add IN3OLLUVc 3CISNINNtr1d NI DNIN00-1 ..133211S 14011d 31DNY 3CIIM 4KIN31A1 'S SILIS 1131314113d IV Ina )1001 DIklb%0NVc1 .17 8113011118 TIValOcon. .na•ulfinop-unnionoApunj 1.04171/917.£9L NOIS3C1Nrivr •,•iL 411,4 Oi V>4. I .11111...)WieNLI • atiW.M1MSe&VeCablak:11.7r N.\..W.at4TbSallaltt . 1 KEMPER 8e ASSOCIATES INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 6509 INDIAN HILLS ROAD 721 01.11.11MAY 0 N.V1. KW 1111.1.1.1.111.11.TA 26 t 113 21003 CITY OF EDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1 • • _., . ..” F .F'71, m 1 nomas W ,,,A747:2= (PROPOSED SITE & GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN) 7-- I NI I:1: • =V., • SECTION 0 1.116 N ...--- .., 7.71:12a6allar= A MaINFZZENfei)); - 0- a 1 n 91 i 0 9 1 l0 , . Le 01. . ,,,..3 P ix - o ;r , ...-- . 'i , ,„ ISIONVIIIIIIIII O -0/--- . NOSTEE.S OCE0 00C. o NO. 10301670 N ' • A, ists'• italili' VI L.4 t.', —, , -'... I..' 011‘,- lift / OVA.' . AI e4PA '4 6 - 114 to .4'5 0.04) , / . dor,-,414-0 ..Altom ----- LE GAL DESCRIPliN or 4 14,rittl4 . AREA SUMMARY \ACINITY MAP (NO SC ZONING REQUIREMENTS / le 0 1% A ii rat 11:4 4 PfA mat R-1 - WI. D11131111c WY 01310a / 141*. 'Q.- pr . LOY 3 ..13.3112 XL R. OR 0.07.11 ACII. PROM. NO. f00.101.F .. 3.033 SO. FT. PROPOSED MONT PEN. -. 013 SO. fr. p.p.. 3,...., ,..... 3.. rr. PROPOSED FRONT PATO .. SO. T. PROPOS. NEAR PATO .. ISO SO. IT. LEGEND W.. LOT AKA - 0000 SO. Pt 410,44*4 MINIM. LOT nom - .73 NIT WI... OOP. - 110 FELT 'Alt,. 41,4 Fenu...1 LIN NO IR TO PORI.. RAM - re, / (4,.411,, DAM. ORM. . mum. MONT - .3 5101110/30 Ft, f i t' FOININO WRACKS_ FAO. - JO Mt (MLR YORE 11. 21i Of mr LOTS ON ONE SEE Of A SlIKET 4. ki, DEIV.17. 31/1117 ocutocco ARE OCCUR. V OKLLING MO IMO AllE Own1J11C UNITS WM SMELT. MONT 31RECT =Mal WALL OE IC AVON. Of TrIE 01,121./NC UNITS ON RC OF T1E FRONT STRICT SUBMS 4474fiat ME STRIC. OR 1NE FRONT .11=219A13t .ALL OE 111,5. 'fir 1 Cr MI. 01101 OWL. 411411.3 OP TIE S. ME Of VAT ST.T. OMEN womEcnoos) oloc - 10 FM PEAR ,co k: ( arrcr rm. mac orool / • ki, / / Illi il V ~Cy 4 k ► t ., ...R. ..11 NO' , xr.... '...T 4'..‘ $ N-"1/4 .i: nart1" ,,,,., - "*PROPO' RES100 '17' woo MAN ALS RO. '"----=----.1 . : • lik rwfM.... i . ''' ' 44 t_- 4, A.,--- ,..., kirk -6,-. 1 ilitjr II I PW'''''t -.r,' -..r' -:. / Ar. eler ) . .„. ---..... mel 0 worANT.oruonme PIO 1a11, alFC unT ....00-7,1A01,.. slo _._ ......„.. -n- wur K. o• illi? ,,i PLANNING DEPARTMENT . LIFE Cr- d-. . 7...121:717°' ''' • a a1.7 ., APR 2 3 2019 -m--- - ......„„,,, Air ......... =To.. tcr or.rrvo..c CITY OF EDINA N. Iii \ Vf/ i . , At 4‘ 1 ria kik ( 41 1 1 III lit' v, ENRIEY 1iz"*74A4.ig rastt 621,,,, I Nu/ h i Ili ,oNANINfillikalk - PROPOSED ELEVATION SUMMARY p..411/4v „„ '''.1.11.1,. ._. , p.n.., ... ne new roneo new - me i' y „tes ,-.Sq„,41Z .. ,., 41:741. 1 ...,. no. I .rol.. I tilik mom re. no.- .., rom.. a a larsill-ir.... "70.:s I i m""'”' PREPANO FM l;:m-T..;;R:i''"` VA A. LINDGREN 111 . 001.111 . 7. IFINNESOTA 33.1.13 *a..-' • . gY4'82,...•.•••• kIlir - i.:' __ .A. ,-7.74.2-ETES::::, ‘ VAllip, — - 1 1,.....t..i i 7,. ,. `zz ir,:z.... t..... - L D CERTIFICATE OF - SURVEY ,, 0.,„„....,......... City of Edina, H ennepin County, Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB &Associates 2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 6509 Indian Hills Road May 3, 2019 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 188 ft / DATE: May 1, 2019 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez – Graduate Engineer RE: 6509 Indian Hills Road - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed include the proposed stormwater management plan revised 04/19/19 and the certificate of survey dated 04/19/19. Grading and Drainage Both the existing home and proposed home are situated on steep topography. Grading for the proposed home will closely match existing drainage paths. Drainage site wide will be directed to Indian Hills Road. The proposed stormwater management plan does not propose any additional drainage to neighboring private properties. Stormwater Mitigation City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 requires stormwater mitigation for this project and requires a stormwater management plan. The subject property drains to Arrowhead Lake which is a land locked basin. The applicant’s stormwater management plan illustrates the use of swales and rain gardens to closely match existing discharge rates and runoff volumes to meet the SP-003 stormwater requirements of “No increase in peak flood elevations for 1% annual chance flood event”. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan is required by City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Curb Cut A curb cut permit will be required if the applicant proposes to replace or relocate existing curb cut. Public Utilities Water and sanitary sewer is served from Indian Hills Road. Per City of Edina Building Policy SP-024, a one-inch water service line is required from the curb stop to the dwelling. O ther Items A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit will be required. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. If retaining walls greater than 4-feet are proposed, submit drawings, cross-section and calculations prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed professional engineer. GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION TO: CITY OF EDINA FROM: STEVE SCHWIETERS OF WOODDALE BUILDERS & JEFF LINDGREN OF JALIN DESIGN, LLC SUBJECT: 2 VARIANCE REQUESTS; A) REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 87.53' TO 40.57' B) INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION 1' DATE: APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 3 2019 Required Variance Findings CITY OF EDINA Per the city of Edina, the variance procedure is a "safety value" to handle the unusual circumstances that could not be anticipated by these ordinances. The commission is charged to only grant a petition for a variance if it finds: (1) That the strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property The property located at 6509 Indian Hills Rd. has presented itself to be a very unique parcel of land given the abnormal setback location of the South neighboring home (#6517). The existing home found on the site was a walkout rambler with the "back" of the house facing the street and the existing property has an aggressive grade elevation change, dropping 43' vertical feet from back to front. After careful consideration of the neighborhood's character, we're finding that the typical zoning ordinances are not written in a manner to allow for the tasteful construction of a new home with current practical living situations. A) For The front setback reduction, the current Edina zoning code section 36-439 (1).a.2 states: "If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot that both have a front street setback on the same street, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots on the same street; or the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all other dwelling units on the same side of that street, between intersections." Using the above passage; The South home's (6517) front setback is 121.39 and the North-East's (6501) front setback 53.68, which averages out to a front setback of 87.53' for our (6509) home. The existing home that was onsite had a front setback of 40.57'. Therefore, we're respectfully requesting a setback reduction from 87.53' to 40.57' to match that of the existing home's set back and to better align with the more typical setbacks found in the neighborhood and more closely related to that of the North-East (6501) home. In addition, this setback reduction will aid in the least amount of grading changes and tree removal to the site. B) For the first floor elevation increase, the current Edina code section 36-439 (8) states; "Additions to, or replacement of single dwelling unit buildings with a first floor elevation of more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building require a variance per [article II], division 3" Since the existing home that once stood on the site was built with the "back" of the house facing the street, and positioned much closer to the street than other homes on the block, we've been advised by the city planning department to reference the "First Floor" elevation with that of the upper elevation of the existing home which was set at 928.73'. In addition to this information, the lower level walkout was set at 919.99 and resided on the South- RE: 6509 INDIAN HILLS RD., EDINA, MN West end of the lot, street side. In conjunction with the above setback variance request, the further back we position a home on this site the higher in elevation it would need to be to align with the ascending grade found on site. In an effort to find a cohesive merger of the proposed home and existing site contour changes, we felt an elevation change was necessary. To aid in this effort, we're respectfully requesting a "First Floor" elevation increase of 1' above the allowable elevation of 929.73'. Though we're trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood by aligning with the existing homes setback, we're cutting back the massing by setting the 2-story element back an additional 10' which pushes our main floor elevation up. Doing so allows us to provide the least amount of impact on the existing contours, which in turn helps us preserve many of the mature trees found on the site. Additionally, in an effort to maintain similar characteristics in land contours, we providing a similar walkout lower level feature, like the existing home had in the same location. This elevation increase will also help provide positive slope away from the home to new proposed rain gardens that will be attractively incorporated along the driveway and near said walkout area to aid in site water collection. (2) That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A) Yes, it is given we're proposing to align the covered porch of our new home to match that of the existing home's setback at 40.57'and the 2-story massing is being set back an additional 10' to align more with the setback of the North-East home (6501). In addition, our intent is in response to neighborhood feedback and requests. B) Yes, it is due to the fact our proposed structure will be well under the maximum allowable building height of 40' from the average grade, even with the requested "First Floor" elevation increase. Our unique circumstance are due to the existing orientation and setback of the previous home found on the site and the atypical setback of the home to the South (6517). (3) Would not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. A) The approach we're requesting is being done with the intention of bringing the spirit back to this site and so it can work harmoniously with the neighborhood. Our intent is to add beauty to the already charming, yet eclectic, character found in the surrounding homes. We also are trying to balance the setbacks by aligning our covered porch with the existing home's setback and then pushing back the 2-story massing an additional 10' to better align with the North-East home (6501). All the while allowing us to minimally adjust the existing contours and keep as many of the mature trees as we can. B) Our alteration is being done to provide a positive effect by embracing the neighborhood's eclectic charm. The height of our proposed home is well within the maximum height allowed and seamlessly laces into the existing site's contours with minimal disturbance to the existing grade and surrounding mature trees. "Practical Difficulties" means that: (4) The property in question cannot put a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance. A) Due to the aggressive contour change found on the site and the number of mature trees, if we were use the current zoning code calculated setback of 87.53', we would in turn have to cut down an additional (10-13) more trees and we would need to either build the house into the side of the hill, or pull it up even higher, there by finding the need to request an even greater "First Floor" elevation variance. PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA 2 B) In essence, the typical zoning code for determining the "First Floor" elevation, is for home's that have the "front" of the home facing the street and are on level lots. When aligning the current zoning code with our site characteristics and the previous home's orientation and setback location, it creates undo hardships for planning a new home that can uphold the character of the neighborhood while paying special attention to doing minimal alterations to the existing contours or mature trees. The previous homes "First Floor" elevation of 928.73' worked well when it only had a 40.57' setback. But, since we're trying to marry our home with the existing lot's setback with that of the neighboring lots, it makes reasonable sense to increase our home's "First Floor" elevation to better align with the surrounding contours for minimal disturbance around the garage area and the lower walkout area as well. (5) The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to his/her property which were not created by the petitioner. A) This is correct. The home to the South is atypically setback further than all other homes on the block, there by doubling the increased setback on our lot. Then, with the aggressive grade change found on the lot, this larger set back would incur the lose of many more mature trees, and a home design that is built into a hillside which could create a home that is not in the spirit of the neighborhood. B) This is correct. The existing home's orientation with the "Back" facing the street and it's closer setback to the street when coupled with the standardized "Frist Floor" elevation zoning code creates an additional hurdle to overcome when we're trying to align our home with a setback that compares to the more typical setback of homes on the block. Unfortunately, the standardized zoning code can not account for all anomalies found throughout the city, therefore a variance for this property is necessary to meet all pliable zoning codes, no matter what. Our home is on a sliding scale, meaning, the more we set the house back, the higher it needs to be since the site is on an ascending hill side. We are attempting to locate the proposed home to match the existing building pad area and the walkout feature set the home back to fit the neighborhood, which in turn sets the appropriate "Frist Floor" elevation. (6) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surrounds. A) No, it will not alter the essential character of the property because our design intent is to maintain some existing characteristic by matching the existing home's setback with our covered porch and have our 2- story massing better align with the majority of the homes found on the block, with emphasis on the North-East Home (6501). B) No, it will not alter the essential character of the property because as we set our house back further into the ascending property contours, to better align with other homes on the block, it becomes more acceptable as a continuation of the neighborhood's attractiveness. To uphold this appeal, it becomes apparent that the "Frist Floor" elevation needs to raise as well. Our goal was to determine the best possible setback and "First Floor" elevation that could support the essential character of the site, while minimize contour manipulation and the destruction of many more mature trees. Thank you for considering our variance requests. Respectfully, J ffrey A. Lin gren, President JALIN Design, LLC PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA 3 5 F 926 WOODDALE BUILDERS Rt . • • -INV 906. 0 • ct, PER SURVEY, NEIGHBOR'S H USE H S SETBACKS OF 53.6 AND 6 .28 FO 68 —ANA' ' • G OF 58. 1 OAK '•. v .-- ./- ------- / --- i v .7 N 0 R_TH Cl/ESTER L Y 1..INE OF LOT 3 ---- / ------ 0.1- 3, , ae Copyright ©2019 JALIN Design JALIN DESIGN 763.464.4401 jlindgren@jalin-design.com www.jalin-design.com / / / / vv 925 ..... v - - - - - - - - - - - -. . ..; :- -1 // v --- "--- v UPPER CANT1LE PLANNING DEPART,‘. LINE E TH Ly O w F E L s O TE T R 2 APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINI,L, tP 151 OAK._ 936 ta (11 91918 ELEV: 930.1 SCR E NED PO CH 311 SF BACKTI 358 SF ELEV: 929.5 0 P-) rn to rn N M cr) to rn 9180-- 9" ,E N9RTHEASfrRLY,---w- pNE OF LOT 3 0)4)1 NORTH tD to to to 0 / 92 8" OAK LOT 2 6-2A O Bs, EICst t,INE 2'1 AK 913.77 \ . • RTH AS ER E 0 LIT 4 On. ADIACENT HOMES SETBACK IS 121.39' (rs \ LL vi w z I-F`2 z < < z > 0 a Z LLI c• CONCEPT 01-25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION SITE PLAN TI JALIN DESIGN 763.464.4401 jlindgren@jalin-design.com www.jalin-design.com WOODDALE BUILDERS LL vi uj Z Z < < Z > 0 Z Copyright ©20 19 JALIN Design 76'-0" / / 26'-0" I, 19'-0" 13'-6" J , I5'-6" 2" \ . 9 ir. m UN EXCAVATED .7. i '9 Ri PATIO ABOVE o . . ,. .. .... Lu : Z ') 19 I / \ .- UNEXCAVATED . 9 •:. 1 1 1 i I , zo s , I I I o 4 BAT _ z: z10'3" \ BILLIARDS _ 1 11is 1X FURNACE 0 —I / / / /, /0 I, 15'0" x 17'6" REF. 11111 Il k Ill 1 \ MECH./STOR. ° \',_ — BAR AREA ft WIC 15 x 12 CABL V 7 SECURE ITY II . ..' ' 0 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 157 x I I'0' • iN ----, PORCH ABOVE — I WINE HALL 1 1 — 4.11%r _ mi t io , 1 40111 .4. i 1 1 97- x 5'4" 1 I 8'9' ,r- 7-- 9 4" - %Iv 40 - 7-' b. L I 48" BARN DR —.— 1 .......... ,_ v:.:...4 UP GUEST RM 444-- 14'0" x I 2V n ' :: __, .144 EXERCISE 1 I I I rc 18'0" x 13'0" cC J _ _-1 9 ce .c M DIA 11 k---,-/ En = ._ I ' x 19'6" PLANNING DEF III _, STAIRS I.9'9' i I 11 YOGA MAT 8'6" x I 2'6" k' --1 1 'er, APR 2 3 g 1 .• • ., ,:. •• •..,.. . L us I 7'-0" PORCH ABOVE I 9r-6" / 9'-6" 23' 7 15'-0" /- CITY OF / ---1 1 -1 r — PA 10 LOWER LEVEL FLI 11 I 1 g' 1 1 1 A .0 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" I\ / __..... 1 761011 / —.....—r WALLS MECH./STOR. - 246 SF ARTMEN 2019 R - 1,721 SF CONCEPT 01-25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02- 14- 19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20-19 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A1.0 OR PLAN Copyright ©2019 JALIN Design JALIN DESIGN 763.464-4401 jlindgren@jalin-design.com www.jalin-design.com WOODDALE BUILDERS O \O CONCEPT REVIEW WATERSHED REVIEW SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE SUBMISSION REVISED VARIANCE SUBMISSION 01-25-19 02-14-19 02-20-19 03-04-19 04-22-19 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AI.I i 76'-0" 26}0" I, 19'-0" I3'-6" 15'-6" \ 'as rn .9' \ • •••IN 1 I 1 9'x8'j i 1 1 1 _i___ I I I I A 1 1 I .- 9'x8 11 GRILL I I I I eal . Ir 1 MERE 3-CAR GARAGE n I In 24'0" x 38'0" I °FEN PA0-1- 1 MI 01- J \ I WIC , t'6"x161 um En RCH /I. 11111•11.11 AN•Nr.- 10'0" x 5'0" PM f43:7- I In1 • lig" % - b . if " /// SERVING 1111 -1 ZO „...:.cj ,, 1 r MUD RM am= i -'. c' N / e . 9'x8'l J I 10'0" x 9'0" II i rn °4kVi ./ -, ..4 tr) 1,, KIT -EN-1,))/4 IH i:e2.1 _ _ 22r I I '0'' 1 ctiol Pow. IMIENEN u R .,0) ,....,:i vo Gil . b ' FRONT PORCH AA N ) \ I? 0" t2 -'0' FOYER -- - - ,.._ _1 ...k. ........ l__J L__ _. 1 9'0" x I I'6" it t....1 11 Air I INING ! 1 r 1 '6" 18' 1 co . DN UP I- 4 , I —7 I- - - litigali o .7.17e. 1 L. NM_ 00000000000000000000 00 Ilagai DEN , 3-SIDE ..., I r:o I3'0" x 14'0'1 it) II , I'. -. In ' II! GRE Lr) :T RM n , 22'0" 21'6" ia/ p --1 STAI "1 Ma 8'6" x I • 1 .. (? Os In= _ \ 9 4 1:161111.1 .t0 111 ., — i I' 0" , I-91-6— I— 9'-6" 23 -0" 15'-0" (...--1 • • . PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = l'-0" FINISHED MAIN - 2,035 SF GARAGE - 1,014 SF SCN PORCH - 295 SF O JALIN DESIGN 763.464.4401 jlindgren@jalin-design.com www.jalin-design.com OOM #3 " x 13'0" BEDR M #4 3'0" BEDRO I I '3" x WO ODDAL E I- -1 L 2,362 SQFT FOOTPRINT: (INCLUDES STAIRS) Copyright ©2019 JALIN Design PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA CONCEPT 01-25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20- I 9 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION I\ WIC 6.8"X5! \ I II I- -1 LJ STAIRS 9'6" x 19'6" 5'4"x I0'0"_ o BAT WIC - LINEN HALL 5'6" x 17'6" L9 OWNER'S BATH 10'8" x 1'8" BENCH L TUB/ SHOWER ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW i 1 la LINEN I LINEN (p DN HALL 10'6" x 5'0" ROOF BELOW " x 12'0" OWNER'S BEDRM 18'6 x 15'6" V KID'S LIVIN 1 x 19'0" RAILING OPEN -TO BELOW SHELVES BEDROOM #2 12'8" x 14'0" UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ROOF BELOW UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AI.2 I I ••••••• ebeignoi elninaolkililiammolliolleilln On. Tr r t -r NORTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = l l -0" CONCEPT RENDERING A2.0 Copyright ©20 19 JALIN Design JALIN DESIGN 763.464-4401 jlindgren@jalin-design.com www.jalin-design.com WOODDALE BUILDERS ci V) vi w z I-FL2 z < < z >0 t, cL — o Lr) CONCEPT REVIEW WATERSHED REVIEW SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE SUBMISSION REVISED VARIANCE SUBMISSION 01-25-19 02-14-19 02-20-19 03-04-19 04-22-19 TH NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 930.3 ELEV. 930.7' AVERAGE GRADE ELEV. 924.0' . •=• _17= ___ LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 919.7' ELEV. 9 I 9.99' WEST ELEVATION 2.0 Scale: 1/8" = I T -0" '......"-.........__I-.............•....t......,__.. m11111111 1111 Milmilioramlame1=11.0.ff -,- .._.... I-. -._,- - _ . ..7......r......4.11.0101•11•11•IiiiiirialluniirrimItsirtrobt... - ..... _ _._ _.,___.• .-.. -. A -..-. : - • e ,,,,,................. ....,....111011111Ons.110.111•116.1•1111.1110M,d. bAINI Muir ._..... _..- .. •• _ -. - -i.e.- _ ...4............. ...1..................Mimilealusulum....am Immammo...... ,- . . . - - _-.. ,=... _.._._ '1:=-", '" .... ='.::1- him- -tali= raiViasoka - . ''''`............'",_., -^........-...n.....•••••••-••••-...-',411 1•1111fiNsimmaY0:--'-' - ..........a, .."'"'"....'..".:. '''''''.......- "ollataminElelaIlEndliniem.aluln--.- ='.............-------....-.111MIEMONMI111.11ill .. - ,. ....... --............ . .....-.....a....o.i.....Y.--1.• . ..- -..."..........................m.-yas.dlinia•INIME/Ilmmbi.A11-, ---- ......- - -....1.................-..._._,.. _ -.- - - =Ems Nos NO mi '-'-'411..aMiliammitmlail.... -, ",a10/Mmorionlorbs al. 7 ps4 I "Z" 1.14:1. •• MN. halRYideim ..,,,,,, 41.1•••••......... MIMI • •4.181/0,, - r t r,- i • - ; . --- _ , _ MANI_ - r ' se . IngillY heft A RIM •il •alliemiell aialigehyri _ ___maallillallIIII•illahLIII•alfigiblokboMagO/Oh011mallo•aliloOSOOlbal.Vmakri- 7 L • vinybilimaaadiaireeliNiiftlblabel V. ,edi.okeLBromilitIollinnownoialloammilsoloillainneviamummlonnwoonmenuogoodomnamlimadirseamadramanmedimlourd., . - - .1.•smengrilsiulamm•a•iimErk... ,......-.. . PLANNING DEPARTMEI: APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA hiraMINAL. w..==•*== - - - - - - - fl= RIDGE LINE amodeefellw mu • arourim.....mi libehritsmailmailan IA Oh Ainumeunr.armi.i.ao immaimaramainamolina AM atill=n1C,Ik." /R odwohllsitammlillaew diatiellmONAININ smaohllisisan dna Wasel "MO' hiludmiNniralts, kilhOp•MAI.•• AIMM.YAIAMM., ;3100 . mn _ .••=•••• loMDIE anst=v ••=.1•••• I.A.1•••••••=ftaffil iML=L•EY ,M=M1••••1...0111 01malMEM 11111 11E1 d••••••••' ked•Lalla ash LZPAIVICALIAMIIIMINEAVair Am. ,..0111Ii.air4111111640haal lidM.8111111.1.. aur ALA Virtn5bas ill.M.11.6 monm 11.11."1.1 nummaillitillairushaisiate re.1110111118611illamirienIslim MEMBIAitairl.ladlinIMON mai-a aik/sM I I - I. ••• • MI • • • • • • ‘VMEM111.11111.111 1irdeMaMMMIMITIMM • Magma iMal•IML. ''.:...m..1•MM.01••••.1•1•••••• smm•iMu.M•Mlimlin•••amma••••••••••11w .MmalblaalawsAMO•mb. "..lamaYaI•kma.Wa • IMMI.1a.EWl=a1MM.YliVa.m.m4/ =r •.••tftomi edamma....•.•,amlm osam1===, Y•di r.116•MY•matm.•milmIN. aieme•Mlie N"lar=nominalN Itaa AINME.alftamm.. •,"Mmmum••••JOY aNYMMOiaaal•••••• ar•WMIl Lti •••.0•01•MOYME.4SIMtmaltil• 'WM& -.....11 •••••i•ba.m.• w• •1111 1=Siii..••• "rnallinnea A••••.••••,,••••,,,..._=Y1.1 1.1140.1•••11a1.....A ad' Iklita lall11111ftlimIllimilli MUUMUU V NSW 116.11/111•111111111. 411100.111Euglliiimi b..-adrE1.1.4.11 V•MINIAINatimakhOyomMNIIINNIAMal 'saw a...4 vie maw .1111611111minllosl 4McJ1111.111.111..im IMO =NNW. .6.61"'" NMI 1..114 Eike 4. - WIRY a bilmadroldi nil III' ; MAIN LEVEL N-E NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 938.1' Qi) EXISTING HOMES MAIN L ELEV. 928.73' —i— MOW EXISTING HOMES LOWER LEV _ IN Ill Ill ark,ig &rim arab.. IMIhisamill _ iiiii.140.OMANION111/1•11fillmni Yam 116•14. I. A.J rm. On mailembi Mal BounimbilhallaIMMI as arnutiriimioarru. 1111 a•a el -v • • • UPPER LEVEL 50 ELEV. 941.4' Q!) N-E NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 938.1' 111 1 IIP - MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 930.7' H NEIGHBOR MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 930.3 ::17 =1 =I r_1111111 _, IGIUJJ I., L6' IC a UPPER LEVEL ELEV. 94 I .4' TjT:T ,T, T'T T ••• • • Mita* 1•11111MILMOBIIIIMINIII imimmlohliarammkt AMIN. 11111M111•111110•11 111101111111.11110•111 TTFT-T. *TTP r n II-1' 11 'I r T a r". rrr I Mg I MI Pa I 0111 .11 P WIN SUVA am« mom Mrt MO t 121 mgmraiLd u•-••••—h.,Ammmuip• •.•••/• ibamMelmokmumLIMA mthimmaarqiimuMOM niim OlamaLIkYMW .411.41111111••1•11 11116:1111100 Aild.1•11111111 1.121moolmk•orruti aff imeasaimm.••••arar ''...161161114511111.114. rr IlOmmmki MIIIIMIumfMAnNon _ MM. • A.le Galt .aadamkaMlial •••ab lab I 61 IN bi UPPER LEVEL Abli ELEV. 941.4' \Jr PLANNING DEPARTMEN- APR23 2019 CITY OF EDINA Copyright 02019 JALIN Design JALIN DESIGN 763.464-4401 jlindgren@jalin-design.com www.jalin-design.com LL vi V) Lu z z 1±! z < z > 0 0 cz w 0. CONCEPT REVIEW WATERSHED REVIEW SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE SUBMISSION REVISED VARIANCE SUBMISSION 01-25-19 02-14-19 02-20- I 9 03-04-19 04-22-19 CONCEPT RENDERING A2. I WOODDALE 111=1•11161111001dIMMINIONIWaliliftillialillii•lini•MONPSSINYINIMI•dolleallIONOINYM=Ii•Ahad111111111/0. 11114fismOMMIMILit- .TMATINI21 mmilemaaMomimam imam miSlummilmal "Mumlfammlimam.111111illimMrsisama llumam/Mmai mMIM mil MMMINI -mblumilMMIMIUmaluilMmullkINIYmmahmMil.MMMIMYoultasMil•W` ''.11.1.W.IMMONNiaaMira...011/MiallE11••••L.MINlielMeAlln• .M.MIMIUMMMkdRakkeMm1011.1•11•60•11maiMliamalilliibilemW rrn WilmmftammasomumosommormammuumbubM • k.M.Mimmmihimimme -^allam••••••• iffiliolesnadit• ,rialimumiranimiumnp, ••••••••••••.• , •• IYM•abatrnuilAmMlasaanulann••••..m.YO., bdnes1.1•1•111NualslA ftralINIII Mil.o6a2•100••• ~M. a.k latlikalliM MU IR IN Ill.* IV 11•111•11AMMI NNINIsoliMINI1.111•Er IMIrall•MmaNIMINLAIIIIMM.anMIN.AMmA, 1n1141=M•fanui1L2mnrdlIM11111•.1111•.• Shalaimai•AminwMan•a•kadmea, IIMIPMPM102 a.-- 'MIPMINSIM OM MM. ommmon==. ,............. .''..........L.==...•••••••••L`.. - .11PIIMMIN ' -11.111MIIMM L......-...... 0...i.1.0.1.1 ..... ftwa......... i•FiarmlUPIM Infmr.IIIIIIIMIll Purr EV= _are .r..„- vliNAIIII IM.9."'IMIVI, ....rn mem•ml -r•-mmilMIO umlWomi -. I'alow s. Iiin M. ....Ting =11alimona.' mThni 2limina, l'ilrraimillummir.VAINiallatimilli1=X 71.1 . xt:.tm.iga.mmisAd d atrmmukamiwimMiLd a goIMAmmillolimMkratmIllAlablimkli •MiiillmilmamillmmamairmillimimamilmgmaarmilIllaimaillimumemallikimipmlirillmomordl milismommmis.mmilllImMIsamolm.millilammilamommalramthIll \mmIlimmonli l \ ,MilbaiMINIMmi•JlimilMmIlliMMINIlmorlimriJimliblallillsomallialMIMiallMeiel IMMELINIMIOSIIIIMEMIIIMIletillfilftit2 IMIIIINabklilaa111114 11111iimillAsfISMAit IlmftliiiMailliiMr Ailmsillamm 111M.MINWE{ m ala ss rla== miima lmillilMWANIMIl mi pown.ii=rmrwymm umell=73 .. m . " IMOWIMIWOMMI".....WompMENriS am.. .R.s..a.r.r mmerma.m.lema• SUMMMA•M eIRMEMA.1••.•••.•••••IBM Mt.n. 1•1•1•0/..••••ii• UMIMIN=•1MMM=MERY UPPER LEVEL i 50 ELEV. 941.4' MAIN LEVEL ELEV. 930.7' SOUTH ELEVATION A2. I Scale: I /8" = 1'-0" t • , _ _II II II 11: 77 _, _ ._ . ,:....___. _ _ 1--...—_,.4,---4 , —,--- - EAST ELEVATION A2. I/ Scale: I /8" = 1'-0" MAIN LEVEL Ant ELEV. 930.7' HII III III III Hi III III III III III III III III I - - . %.. . ---. _TioS.M..... -'-'2".--,...4111 "..'-- ..••••NEW/Omi— ,..-. - _..._-••IM '..ilill...ii'il. ,'''''— ...111ft ....r.• law lli III III III --.-.....M6"- ,iiii7.7 111 I I I ........ ‘'....s..- 1 7~1 All•MV•...-..111..\ E.M111,".../ opal VME=M=1.GOMIIIMMIIMSOIMIIMM • • NEP.- 111111 Mill ENE V.— • IN., IP" UNIIMMINI ERE ERIN PER-SP CITY OF EDINA Copyright ©2019 JALIN Design JALIN DESIGN 763.464-4401 jlindgren@jalin-design.com www.jalin-design.com WOODDALE BUILDERS 0 CONCEPT 01-25-19 REVIEW WATERSHED 02-14-19 REVIEW SITE PLAN 02-20- I 9 REVIEW VARIANCE 03-04-19 SUBMISSION REVISED 04-22-19 VARIANCE SUBMISSION CONCEPT RENDERING A2.2 0 o O VNi NJ O •.0 •0 1N3INIblVd30 1-01717.179P.C9L c- 0 U) >rr `Zi 0 0 H m m m (),; 3. EXISTING DRIVE WAY APPROACH WITH SOUTHERN HOME IN B.G. PRIVATE RES. rri;1 6509 INDIAN HILLS FIX). (-8 EDINA, MN 5e2 > < n m m m co m •-• Z m < -0 m r•74 < Z NZ 7° n m C5 m Z x z 3 < C CO < m 3 T. 8.7 Z — n 0 m NOISH1 Nnvr c.n m 0 m m m -n 0 H (1) rn 0 0 7z) 4, PANORAMIC LOOK OUT AT PERIMETER SITES VNIO3 JO ALIO co IN3VVIEA30 DM " r on 4c x on 5; > Q .< 7:1 g;E Tiq () R L2 < " 2E 3 Dcn 22 Ri -0 FR g FR r) 0 m 5; 7. zE m eAZ O m z E9 O PRIVATE RES. 6509 INDIAN HILLS RD. EDINA, MN (.1 Xm X —I 0 z —I 0 u.) 0 I c Nr M I-Ott-17912- C9L NORTHEASTERLY DOE OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 6509 INDIAN HILLS ROAD (ELEVATION NEW PER PLANS BY JALIN DESIGN) rtff eD SOL ONSEDILOTERCA 110OF MYER LEVEL CANTILEVER PROPOSED ELEVATION SUMMARY HOUSE GPI WO. MOOR - NOISE COYEST LORI ROOM - 9I9.7 GAR. FLOG - 920.7 RICHT PORCH ROOK - 930.1 SCRIENEO PORCH FLOOR - TM OF REAR PATO - 929.0 We Cr MORT PATIO - 90.0 NOM SCRE NON. PROPOSE0 CO TREES PMM.TRE . NAY NEM TO DE NDED PPOIECTIVE MICI SURR NG OU MTN PREPARED FOR: JEFFREY A. LINDGREN JAUN DESIGN 6514 108TH TRAIL NORTH BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55445 763-464-4401 NORTHWESTERLY DDE OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 6509 INDIAN HILLS ROAD (ELEVATION MEW PER PLANS BY JAUN DESIGN) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1 6240 (1821~fl4D10T DM TWD HOG 6509 INV) AN HILLS ROAD DADS FOR MARRON NORM. CONY OCORONATE om) SYSTEM COD ex (10. AEA SUREM REAL ENTS GE GM MCA. 1117009011. MORIN. OF TRANSPORION NIS NEM TATO) WASS FOR REVATIONA TOP MIT Cr ME HYDRANT AT 004 PORI HILLS TIO. - 1010411440 INEY,01.68 0400 29) (EN PSD Cr 1TNIA IIM IAN DEPT.) CITY OF EDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (PROPOSED SITE & GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN) I 17711 1 NCR EVJALS 20 FEET KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 721 OLD HIGHWAY 8 N.W. NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112 651-631-0351 FAX 651-631-8805 cola: ItemperOpra-ns.net enrckempersurveys.com SECTION 6, T116N, R21W cAat . lea SIxto /RM .„.• IOU 9200.5 7 7 /2' 92 9 z 4. z NCR PVC / BARBARY MR01 / / / / / LINER LEVEL 919.7 EL1V'. AI 11 CAN 44/ 'AO It' ROGER ROAM FIRST .01 ELMON WAS MDR) NOE54 ari, t 4g, MD PROPO RESID 6509 INDIAN II OL. LOT 2 "00 0 °GR A SR VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) ZONING REQUIREMENTS ZONED 11-1 - SINGLE DIYaLING UNIT DISTRICT MINIMUM LOT AREA - 9,000 SO. FT. MINIMUM LOT MTh - 75 FEET MINIMUM LOT DEPTH - 120 FEET MINIMUM LOT WORT TO PERIMETER RA110 - 0:1 MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE - 255 MAXIMUM HEIGHT - 2.5 STORIES/30 FEET BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT - 30 FEET (WHS/ MORE THAN 255 OF THE LOTS ON ONE SIDE OF A STREET BETWEEN STREET INTERSECTIONS ARE OCCUPIED BY DWELLING UNITS, AND THERE ARE DWELLING UNITS ON ABUTTING LOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE LOT THAT BOTH HAVE A FRONT STREET SETBACK ON THE SAME STREET, THE FRONT STREET SETBACK SHALL BE THE AVERAGE OF THE FRONT STREET SETBACKS OF THE DWELLING UNITS ON THE TWO ABUTTING LOTS ON THE SASE STREET: OR THE FRONT STREET SETBACK SHALL BE THE AVERAGE FRONT STREET SETBACK OF ALL OTTER DWELLING UNITS ON THE SAME SIDE CF THAT STREET, BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS) SIDE - 10 FEET REAR - 25 FEET (AS PER CITY OF EDINA ZONING CODE) ODOUR MEATAL-1 TOOT LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRUSTEE'S DEED DOC. NO. 10391679 Lot 3, Block 7, Indian MAID, according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County. Mknesoto AREA SUMMARY LOT 3 = 42,562 SO. FT. OR 0.9771 ACRES. PROPOSED HOUSE FOOTPRINT = 3,035 SCI. FT. PROPOSED FRONT PORCH = 438 SO. FT. PROPOSED SCREENED PORCH = 305 SO. FT. PROPOSED FRONT PATIO = 154 SO. FT. PROPOSED REAR PATIO = 359 SO. FT. BUILDING COVERAGE = 4,291 SO. FT. (10.15 OF LOT AREA) LEGEND COMM CONTOUR UNE N92736 EXISTING SPOT ./ATION SOIN CI SANITARY soot NANGE CON CATCH BON PP 0 POAER POLE FRG FRE HIORRIT WVOI WATER GAVE mo NAL BOP -OI- 61089=01 a16Ttt 4003 SAMTNItY SERER STOF01 SEMI 10101 IIAN/MINCE GS IIMI/SEMICE IRREPOGRAD TELEVISOR LIES DOOMS OffE1001 00 GOV. MVO nir MGR CF SOW, DENO. RECORD (R) IGENSON AS PER RAT Or DOAN HOS WO. SET SURMY • IICAONOY A. IMMER 113107. 105P0970 =NOM UNE 1+120.0 PROPOSED MOT 111.101 ...dr..-- DIRECTOR —X-- PROOSE0 21.3 MiCIE 0-- SET ORSET STARE IC) TREE TO FE RE110110 r-tOCA. TO BE Mr 04 O7.ER STATE OfE-COL 011) PM. TO ANY EACAVADEN BAN IE59-ROOT I 1 ROG .1,19 9 AINACIENT RECOENG 42574 OPPG CARREVIDI Lay ica-,6ca KLI-4 aotAX PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA • E0 LOT 11 .2 LOT 4 ra 179 FLOMPLAN NOM SUMER PROPERTY NES MOOT ROOD 200 IX. (A FAS MOOG. TO BE OUTSOE THE 0.2W AVM. FEDERAL MDG C E E IC FYLocOoeAu G t G e EN a MO c T RO T J I O R NBRANCE RATE NAP COGUNITY PANEL MM. 2700C-004 F. DATED NOVONG 4. 2016. NENNERN COUNTY, IRITESOTA CERTFICATOrt I HERE M BY CERRO 1HAT SURVEY PLAN. CR REIT WAS ROMANO BY RR Oft BEER NT ERECT SUFERBSTN AN THAT 1 MI A DULY LON. PROP-159M WO SURVEYOR LOADER THE GM Or STA. Cr .NESCITX D. 1.11.0 0. 10001, PLS 10407 DATED 1195 1921.0AT OF dIDEIL 2019 ASSCOMES, NATIVE PLANTS TO BE SPECIFIED BY LANDSCAPER SIDE SLOPES 1:3 -M-IT4 I N ik 1 ,411.•03,,r/,' .7 *kit 1-111 . 1.74-&-isi..1' 1.1 %ie.' .41144-4 17111— ',...11P1P1-4/>VNII 1•A 0.7.W.-4,1K/E1,-- MNDOT FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW (70% SAND / 30% COMPOST) DEPTH - 12 INCHES IMINANgiklikiNPOKAONV .#wri$4$4k, $sk "TIVAWF (.1 IlsslalstlitistWit 11 Vifilatiblittttelw. li 1 11=111=1 11-11 1 I I-I 11-1 I I-I I I-I I I-I I I- I I-I I I-I I- I ' SCARIFY IN-SITU SOILS BELOW BASIN (MIN 2 FEET) N re LL 05 iww O!' q` wmwo Iwo 44- OETcF 2 >- SCALE: NONE 0. S. DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 1. INSTALL RAIN GARDENS ONLY AFTER ALL UPSTREAM AREAS HAVE BEEN RESTORED WITH SOD. 2. EXCAVATE RAIN GARDENS TO THE DESIGN ELEVATIONS. LOOSEN AND RIP SOILS BELOW TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 FEET PRIOR TO INSTALLING THE FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW. 3. PRE-MIX THE FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW BEFORE PLACING IN THE BASIN. PLACE MATERIAL IN THE BASIN LOOSELY WITHOUT DRIVING ON OR COMPACTING THE MATERIAL AFTER PLACEMENT. 4. INSTALL MULCH & PLANT MATERIAL PER THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 5. REMOVE ANY TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA IS ADEQUATELY VEGETATED. 6. WATER PLANT MATERIAL AS REQUIRED AFTER INSTALLATION. RAIN GARDEN DESIGN SUMMARY NAME LOCATION TOP OF SAND/MULCH TOP OF BERM OVERFLOW HWL OVERFLOW TYPE RAIN GARDEN #1 ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAY 922.5 925.0 924.0 924.4 2 FT. WIDE VEGETATED WEIR RAIN GARDEN #2 REAR YARD 915.8 918.0 917.3 917.6 2 FT. WIDE VEGETATED WEIR 0 V) < (i) a 1- 0 _1 5 2 co Z Z Z 2 <- Ei E Z 0 0 2 — Lr) CO RAIN GARDEN DETAIL DRAWING TYPE CONST DATE 04/19/2019 RAIN GARDEN DETAIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 2 3 2019 CITY OF EDINA C100/SCALE: NONE PREPARED BY JTK CHECKED /APPROVED JTK / JTK PROJECT NUMBER 14672-2019-000 SHEET II 01 1 DRAWING 1 C100 f Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. • Water Tower PI Business Ctr 6901 E Fish Lake Rd Ste 184 Maple Grove, MN 55369 • (t) 763-463-5036 (f) 763-463-5037 • www.ae2s.com Date: May 8, 2019 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:C ary Teague, C o mmunity Development Directo r Item Activity: Subject:P reliminary R ezo ning fro m P I D, P lanned Ind ustrial Dis tric t to P UD, P lanned Unit Development at 7075-9 Amunds on Avenue fo r MW F P roperties Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approve the P reliminary R ezoning, P reliminary D evelopment P lan and P reliminary P lat. I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Report Draft Ordinance Engineering Memo Traffic and Parking Study Applicant Narrative Lands cape/Site Plan Building Rendering Building Rendering Preliminary Plat Propos ed Plans Site Location & Sketch Plan May 8, 2019 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Preliminary Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development at 7075-9 Amundson Avenue for MWF Properties Information / Background: The Planning Commission is asked to consider a redevelopment proposal of 7075-9 Amundson Avenue to tear down the existing vacant dry cleaners building and build a 4-story, 62 unit affordable housing project. The project would contain underground and surface parking stalls. (See attached plans.) The property is 1.2 acres in size. This site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which has a height limit of 5 stories and 63 feet, and a density of 50 units per acre. (See portions of the Small Area Plan attached.) The applicant has revised their original plans to meet these requirements, after the approval of the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan (SAP). The site is currently zoned PID, Planned Industrial District. The request would require the following: 1. A Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; 2. Preliminary Plat and 3. Preliminary Development Plan. A rezoning of the site is required to bring the site into conformance with the Small Area Plan. The site is currently zoned for industrial uses, which are not allowed in the 70th and Cahill SAP. The applicant went through a sketch plan review before the Planning Commission and City Council. To address issues raised during that review, the applicant has revised the plans. The revisions include: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Dedication of a 17-foot trail easement along the south lot line for future construction of a connection from Amundson Avenue to the Regional Bike Trail. Improved Architecture. Greater building articulation, added planters and patios. Expansion of the outdoor activity area behind the building, including additional green space on the west side. Increased green space on the west side. Provision of a direct connection to the regional trail from the development. Front patios/decks for ground level units to activate the street level. Reduced parking & increased green space on the east site. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Duplexes and multi-unit apartments; zoned PRD-3, Planned Residential District and guided medium residential. Easterly: City owned property, regional bike trail; zoned PID Planned Industrial District, and guided open space park. Southerly: Office; zoned PID Planned Industrial District, and guided industrial. Westerly: Murphy Automotive; Zoned PCD-4, Planned Commercial District guided Neighborhood Node. Existing Site Features The subject property is 1.25 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a vacant dry cleaner building. Planning Guide Plan designation: NN, Neighborhood Node (10-50 units per acre) Zoning: PID, Planned Industrial District PUD Rezoning The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to allow affordable housing on the site and flexibility in setbacks. (See attached draft PUD Ordinance.) Within a PUD District, the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent of the PUD. Below is a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the existing PID Standards on the lot. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Compliance Table City Standard (PID) Proposed Building Setbacks Front – Amundson Ave. Rear – Park Side – North Side – South Parking Lot Setbacks Front – Amundson Ave. Rear – Park Side – North Side – South 53 feet (based on height) 53 feet 53 feet 53 feet 20 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 0-11 feet* 24-48 feet* 15 feet* 68 feet 0 feet* 0 feet* 100+ feet 17 feet Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet SAP Allows 5 stories & 63 feet 5 stories & 63 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 1.5* Parking 2 spaces per unit (1.25 enclosed) 124 total (77 enclosed) 94 stalls total (62 enclosed – includes up to 3 compact stalls)* *Flexibility through the PUD requested Per Chapter 36 of the City Code the following are the regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; STAFF REPORT Page 4 c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The project would be a vast improvement over the existing conditions of the site; it would improve pedestrian movement in the area and provide a future connection to the regional trail to the east. The project would provide a transition area from the industrial district, into the commercial node to the west. Most notably, the project provides affordable housing. The PUD Ordinance is the tool that allows the City to maintain affordable housing on the site. 2. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. If the Metropolitan Council amends the Comprehensive Plan (70th and Cahill Small Area Plan) to allow housing the proposed use would be allowed. The Zoning Ordinance amendment (PUD Rezoning), lists the uses that would be allowed on this site. Housing is an allowed use in the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan. Wenck Associates did a parking and traffic analysis that determined that the proposed parking would support the uses proposed, and the traffic generated would be supported by the existing roads, with no improvements required. (See attached study.) STAFF REPORT Page 5 b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The proposal would not include a mixture of land uses. However, it would include affordable housing. Within the overall NN, Neighborhood Node, this project would introduce the first residential use in this Node. The project would help the City meet its affordable housing goals established with the Metropolitan Council of 1,220 new affordable housing units by the year 2030. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; As mentioned above, the proposed uses would be for housing that is all affordable. Providing affordable housing and sustainable development are goals within the Comprehensive Plan that this project would accomplish. Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives include: • Encourage the development and maintenance of a range of housing options affordable to residents at all income levels and life stages. • Support the development of a wide range of housing options to meet the diverse needs and preferences of the current and future Edina community. • A pedestrian-friendly environment. • Improve connectivity, both externally & internally. • Building frames the street. • Ensure that public realm corridor design is contextual, respectful of community character, supportive of commercial and mixed-use development, promoting community identity and orientation, and creating high quality experiences for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. • Support continued livability and high quality of life for all city residents by balancing goals and priorities for development, especially as the community responds to changes over time. • Encourage infill and redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure, complement community context and character, and respond to needs at all stages of life. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and STAFF REPORT Page 6 The proposed building density would be 50 units per acre and consistent with the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan. The site has adequate utilities capacity; the use would generate less traffic than a commercial dry cleaners; would provide affordable housing; would be a sustainable development; and would take advantage of Metro Transit Availability. Staff believes the density is appropriate for this site. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The proposed project does require variances from the already established standards in the PID District. Flexibility is requested in regard to setbacks and parking spaces. For the reasons stated above, staff believes the purpose and intend of the PUD Ordinance is met; most importantly the provision of 62 affordable housing units. Access/Site Circulation Vehicular access to the site would be from Amundson Avenue. Per the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan, a neighborhood connection to the regional trail is proposed at the south end of this site. The applicant is willing to dedicate a 17-foot easement for future construction of that connection. When the property to the south develops, additional land would be added for the connection. A front sidewalk would be constructed from 70th Street to the south down Amundson Avenue. An additional trail connection would be made at the back of the building to connect the project directly to the regional trail. Traffic Study Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study, which concludes that the surrounding roadways could support the proposed use. (See the attached parking and traffic study.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 31 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 40 over story trees. They would include a mixture of Maple, Oak, Spruce, Crabapple and Honeylocust. A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Living Streets/Multi-Modal Consideration Sec. 36-1274. - Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (a) In order to promote and provide safe and effective sidewalks and trails in the City and encourage the use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, the following improvements are required, as a condition of approval, on developments requiring the STAFF REPORT Page 7 approval of a final development plan or the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to article V of this chapter: (1) It is the policy of the City to require the construction of sidewalks and trails wherever feasible so as to encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the City. Therefore, developments shall provide sidewalks and trails which adjoin the applicant's property: a. In locations shown on the City's sidewalk and trail plan; and b. In other locations where the council finds that the provision of such sidewalks and trails enhance public access to mass transit facilities or connections to other existing or planned sidewalks, trails or public facilities. (2) Developments shall provide sidewalks between building entrances and sidewalks or trails which exist or which will be constructed pursuant to this section. (3) Developments shall provide direct sidewalk and trail connections with adjoining properties where appropriate. (4) Developments must provide direct sidewalk and trail connections to transit stations or transit stops adjoining the property. (5) Design standards for sidewalks and trails shall be prescribed by the engineer. (6) Nonresidential developments having an off-street automobile parking requirement of 20 or more spaces must provide off-street bicycle parking spaces where bicycles may be parked and secured from theft by their owners. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five percent of the automobile parking space requirement. The design and placement of bicycle parking spaces and bicycle racks used to secure bicycles shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Whenever possible, bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a public entrance to a principal building. (b) The expense of the improvements set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be borne by the applicant. As mentioned above a pedestrian sidewalk would be constructed along Amundson Avenue, and a bike connection to the regional trail provided. Given the narrow spacing of the project, the sidewalk is located back of the curb. The city engineer has reviewed this proposal, and finds acceptable in this situation. Typically a boulevard style sidewalk would be required. A 17-foot easement would be dedicated to provide a future connection to the regional trail. This future connection would be the main connector of this Node to the regional trail as recommended in the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined in the attached review memo. Drainage would be directed to the south to an underground vault beneath the parking field. (See attached grading plan.) A Site Improvement Performance Agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks, utilities and any other public improvements. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, as they are the City’s review authority over the grading of the site. STAFF REPORT Page 8 Building/Building Material The applicant is proposing the building to be made of architectural cast stone, rockface block and lap siding. (See attached renderings.) Density The proposal is to develop 62 units on this 1.25 acre parcel. The proposed density would be 50 units per acre which would be on the high end of range allowed in the small area plan. Staff believes the density is justified due to the fact that the project would provide 100% of the units to be affordable. Preliminary Plat The applicant is also requesting a Preliminary Plat to create new Plat that would combine the lot. No park dedication is required, because there are no new lots being created. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed Rezoning to PUD reasonable to develop this site? Yes. The proposed plans are reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan regarding height, use and density. The previous industrial use (dry cleaning) would not be allowed. Rezoning and redevelopment of the site is require to bring the site into conformance with the 70th and Cahill Plan. 2. The proposed project with 62 units, would help the City meet its affordable housing goals established with the Metropolitan Council of 1,220 new affordable housing units by the year 2030. 3. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: a. Provide affordable housing. b. Create a more efficient and creative use of the property and would create an improved future from the neighborhood node to the regional bike trail. c. Provides internal parking. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from Amundson Avenue. d. Enhance landscaping and green space. Extensive landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. e. Ensure that the buildings proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. STAFF REPORT Page 9 f. Improved pedestrian connections. 4. Project could be a catalyst for further development of this area. 5. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Wenck Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and the proposed parking. 6. The proposal would be a vast improvement over the existing vacant structure on the site. 7. The project would provide a transition area from the industrial district, into the commercial node to the west. Options for Consideration Approval Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Affordable housing is identified as a need in the Comprehensive Plan; and the proposed amendment would assist the City in meeting its established affordable housing goal with the Met Council of providing 1,220 new affordable housing units by the year 2030. This project would include 62 new affordable housing units toward that goal. 2. The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the criteria for a PUD. 3. The proposed density of 50 units per acre is reasonable, and within the density range suggested in the Comprehensive Plan of between 10-50 units per acre. 4. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Wenck Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and the proposed parking.. 5. The project would utilize sustainability principles. 6. Project would meet the following additional Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: a) Encourage the development and maintenance of a range of housing options affordable to residents at all income levels and life stages. b) Support the development of a wide range of housing options to meet the diverse needs and preferences of the current and future Edina community. c) A pedestrian-friendly environment. d) Improve connectivity, both externally & internally. STAFF REPORT Page 10 e) Building frames the street. f) Ensure that public realm corridor design is contextual, respectful of community character, supportive of commercial and mixed-use development, promoting community identity and orientation, and creating high quality experiences for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. g) Support continued livability and high quality of life for all city residents by balancing goals and priorities for development, especially as the community responds to changes over time. h) Encourage infill and redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure, complement community context and character, and respond to needs at all stages of life. 7. The project would provide a transition area from the industrial district, into the commercial node to the west. Preliminary approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Development Plan must be generally consistent with approved Preliminary Development Plans dated April 5, 2019. 2. Sustainable design. The design and construction of the entire project must be done with the Sustainable Initiatives as outlined in the applicant’s narrative within the Planning Commission staff report. 3. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. 4. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering’s memo dated April 30, 2019. 5. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Final Rezoning is subject to approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD-18, Planned Unit Development-18 District on this site. 8. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit prior to issuance of a building permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. 9. A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval. 10. Compliance with the Wenck Traffic Study recommendations. 11. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at the time of the first building permit. STAFF REPORT Page 11 Denial Recommend the City Council deny the proposed Preliminary Rezoning, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed project does not meet the spirit and intent of the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan. 2. The proposal does not meet public realm objectives outlined in the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan. 3. The purpose and intent of the proposed PUD has not been satisfied. The project is not mixed use. 4. The proposal does not meet the eligibility standards of the PUD Ordinance. 5. The building is too large for the site. The setbacks do not conform to the underlying PID District standards. 6 There would not be adequate parking per the City’s parking requirements. 7. The applicant has not adequately addressed concerns raised at Sketch Plan. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the findings and conditions listed above. Deadline for a city decision: August 7, 2019 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION MAY 21, 2019 ORDINANCE NO. 2019-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE PUD-18, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-18 ZONING DISTRICT The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby amended to add the following: Sec. 36-507 Planned Unit Development District-18 (PUD-18) (a) Legal description: Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON'S TERRACE AND That part of the most Northerly 70 feet of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying West of the Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON TERRACE. (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re-development plans, dated April 5, 2019 except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2019-__ on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: Multi-family Apartments/Townhomes/Condos. (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the PCD-1 Zoning District. (e) Conditional Uses: None (f) Signs shall be regulated per the PCD Zoning District. (g) Income levels for all dwelling units shall be limited such that the average household income is 60% or less of the Area Median Income for a minimum of 40 years from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy. 2 (h) Development Standards. In addition to the development standards per the PCD-1 Zoning District, the following shall apply: Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk City Standard Building Setbacks Front – Amundson Ave. Rear – East Side – North Side – South Parking Lot Setbacks Front – Amundson Ave. Rear – Park Side – North Side – South 0-11 feet 24-48 feet 15 feet 68 feet 0 feet 0 feet 100 feet 17 feet Building Height 5 stories & 53 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.50 Parking 94 stalls total (62 enclosed – includes up to 3 compact) DATE: April 30, 2019 TO: 7075 Amundson Ave, Owner and Development Team CC: Cary Teague – Community Development Director FROM: Chad Millner, PE – Director of Engineering Charlie Gerk, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 7075 Amundson Ave – Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for pedestrian facilities, utility connections, grading, and storm water. Plans reviewed were; Civil, Landscape, and Survey drawings dated 04/05/2019. Review Comment Required For General 1. Trail connection to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail must meet the design standards of and be approved by Three Rivers Park District. General Comment 2. Existing easements held by the City require Council action to vacate if deemed appropriate and necessary for the project. Consider requests can require up to 60-days to process. General Comment 3. Deliver as-build records of public and private utility infrastructure post construction. Certificate of Occupancy 4. Maintenance for sidewalks along Amundson Avenue to be responsibility of property owner. General Comment 5. City intends to replace City-owned retaining wall adjacent to W. 70th Street on the north property line of the north parcel prior to this project. Consider allowing City access to reconstruction retaining wall. General Comment Survey 6. An existing and proposed site condition survey is required. Grading/Building Permit 6.1 Show all existing and proposed public and private easements. Grading/Building Permit Living Streets 7. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. Grading/Building Permit 8. Saw cut concrete sidewalk joints on public sidewalks. Grading/Building Permit 9. Public sidewalk to be minimum 5’ in width with a 5’ boulevard or 6’ in width without a boulevard. Grading/Building Permit 10. Provide 17’ trail easement on south parcel. Certificate of Occupancy Traffic and Street 11. Review fire access requirements with fire department. Fire truck turning template attached. Grading/Building Permit 12. Provide traffic study and implement city approved recommendations. Grading/Building Permit 13. Curb cut permit required for entrance reconstruction. Prior to Reconstructing Entrance 14. Road patching shall conform to Edina Standard Plates 540-545. Full width, saw cut to saw cut on Amundson Avenue. Certificate of Occupancy Sanitary and Water Utilities 15. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations. Grading/Building Permit 16. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 17. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer’s engineer. Grading/Building Permit 18. Apply for a sewer and water connection permit with Public Works. Prior to Starting Utility Work 18.1 Meter required for building service line and combined lines. No meter required for fire only service line. Grading/Building Permit 18.2 Public Works to determine acceptable installation methods. Grading/Building Permit 19. Disconnected sanitary and water services to be capped at main. 20. A SAC determination will be required by the Metropolitan Council. The SAC determination will be used by the City to calculate sewer and water connection charges Grading/Building Permit 21. Single connection from main for fire and domestic, split after main connection. Grading/Building Permit 22. MN Department of Health well disclosure certificate (#257098) indicates a private well on site. Wells not in use must be sealed by a licensed well contractor per MN Rules, Chapter 4725. Certificate of Occupancy Storm Water Utility 23. Provide geotechnical report with soil borings. Grading/Building Permit 24. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic report meeting watershed and state construction site permit requirements. Grading/Building Permit 25. Submit watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed. Grading/Building Permit 26. Subject site is tributary to subwatershed NMS_29. No net Grading/Building Permit increase in flows for the 1% Atlas-14 event. 27. Protect 18” RCP storm sewer on south parcel. General Comment Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 28. A SWPPP consistent with the State General Construction Site Stormwater Permit is required. Grading/Building Permit Constructability and Safety 29. Construction staging, traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. Grading/Building Permit 30. Retaining walls over 4-ft in height require design by a structural engineer. Grading/Building Permit Other Agency Coordination 31. MDH, MPCA and MCES permits required as needed. Grading/Building Permit 32. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Districts permit is required. Grading/Building Permit WENCK File #3022-14 April 29, 2019 Prepared by: WENCK Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Traffic and Parking Study for Amundson Flats in Edina, MN April 2019 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 6.0 PARKING ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 6-1 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 7-1 8.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 8-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................. 2-2 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN ................................................................................ 2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................. 3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .............................. 4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ................. 5-4 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________________ DATE: April 29, 2019 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 April 2019 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic and Parking Study is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed new residential building located at 7075 Amundson Avenue in Edina, MN. The project site is located on the east side of Amundson Avenue south of W. 70th Street. The proposed project location is currently occupied by a vacant building which previously housed a dry cleaner. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • W. 70th Street/Cahill Road • W. 70th Street/Amundson Avenue • Cahill Road/Amundson Avenue The proposed project will involve removal of the existing building and constructing a new apartment building with 62 dwelling units. The project includes 94 on-site parking spaces, with 62 underground and 32 surface stalls. As shown in the site plan, one access point is provided on Amundson Avenue. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2021. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 22 net trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 27 net trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 337 net weekday daily trips. • Traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at the intersections analyzed to accommodate the proposed project. • A trip generation comparison with a retail use on the site shows the number of trips generated by the proposed apartment building is higher in the a.m. peak hour and lower in the p.m. peak hour and during a typical weekday. • The proposed project is designed to provide both pedestrian and bicycle connections to the surrounding infrastructure. The project includes sidewalk along Amundson Avenue and a sidewalk connection to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. • The project owner has indicated that bicycle spaces will be provided to encourage bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents will be provided within the parking structure and an outside rack will be placed near the building entrance. A bicycle maintenance station will also be provided within the parking structure to help encourage bicycle use by residents. • The proposed number of parking spaces can accommodate the expected peak parking demand based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. April 2019 2-1 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic and Parking Study is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed new residential building located at 7075 Amundson Avenue in Edina, MN. The project site is located on the east side of Amundson Avenue south of W. 70th Street. The proposed project location is currently occupied by a vacant building which previously housed a dry cleaner. The project location is shown in Figure 1. This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the following intersections: • W. 70th Street/Cahill Road • W. 70th Street/Amundson Avenue • Cahill Road/Amundson Avenue Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve removal of the existing building and constructing a new apartment building with 62 dwelling units. The project includes 94 on-site parking spaces, with 62 underground and 32 surface stalls. As shown in the site plan, one access point is provided on Amundson Avenue. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 20 21. The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. April 2019 2-2 April 2019 2-3 April 2019 3-1 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site is currently occupied by a vacant building. The site is bounded by Amundson Avenue to the west, W. 70th Street to the north, the Nine Mile Regional Trail to the east, and commercial property to the south. Near the site location, W. 70th Street is a two-lane roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. Cahill Road and Amundson Avenue are two-lane roadways. Existing conditions at intersections near the proposed project location are described below and area shown in Figure 3. W. 70th Street/Cahill Road (all-way stop control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with stop signs on all approaches. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The eastbound approach provides one left turn/through/right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. The southbound approach serves as access to a residential property on the north side of W. 70th Street. W. 70th Street/Amundson Avenue (minor street stop control) This intersection has four approaches and is controlled with stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. The southbound approach serves as access to a residential property on the north side of W. 70th Street. Cahill Road/Amundson Avenue (minor street stop control) This intersection has three approaches and is controlled with a stop sign on the westbound Amundson Avenue approach. The northbound approach provides one through/right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one left turn/through lane. The westbound approach provides on left turn/right turn lane. Turn movement data for the intersections was collected during the weekday a.m. (7:00 - 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in March 2019. April 2019 3-2 April 2019 4-1 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2022. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2019 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. • 2022 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2022 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on both recent growth experienced near the site and projected growth in the area. • 2022 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2022 No-Build volumes to determine 2022 Build volumes. Trip Generation for Proposed Project Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for the proposed development were calculated based on data presented in the tenth edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Apartments 62 DU 5 17 22 16 11 27 337 DU=dwelling unit Table 1 shows the net number of trips generated by the proposed development including reductions for existing trips. As shown, the project adds 22 net trips during the a.m. peak hour, 27 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 337 net trips daily. Trip Generation Comparison for Land Use Alternative In addition to the proposed apartment building use, trip generation estimates were developed for a retail land use alternative for comparison purposes. The number of trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Tenth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-2. April 2019 4-2 Table 4-2 Trip Generation for Alternative Land Use Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Retail 20,000 SF 12 7 19 36 40 76 755 SF=square feet The comparison show the number of trips generated by the proposed apartment building is higher in the a.m. peak hour and lower in the p.m. peak hour and during a typical weekday. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 50 percent to/from the east on W. 70th Street • 25 percent to/from the west on W. 70th Street • 25 percent to/from the south Cahill Road Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4. April 2019 4-3 April 2019 5-1 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, b ut with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffi c flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. April 2019 5-2 The LOS results for the study intersections are presented in Figure 5 and discussed below. W. 70th Street/Cahill Road (all-way stop control) - During the a.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS C for all scenarios. Traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on the intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. W. 70th Street/Amundson Avenue (minor street stop control) - During the a.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on the intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Cahill Road/Amundson Avenue (minor street stop control)- During the a.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS C or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on the intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Amundson Avenue/proposed access (minor street stop control) - During the a.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under existing, 2022 No-Build, and 2022 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS A. The overall intersection operates at LOS A for all scenarios. Traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on the intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. April 2019 5-3 Overall Traffic Impact Trips generated by the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. No improvements are needed at the subject intersections to accommodate the proposed project. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Under existing conditions, sidewalk is provided on the north side of W. 70th Street and on the west side of Cahill Road. No sidewalk is provided on Amundson Avenue. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is located immediately east of the project site. On -street bicycle lanes are provided on W. 70th Street and on Cahill Road. The proposed project is designed to provide both pedestrian and bicycle connections to the surrounding infrastructure. The project includes sidewalk along Amundson Avenue and a sidewalk connection to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. The project owner has indicated that bicycle spaces will be provided to encourage bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents will be provided within the parking structure and an outside rack will be placed near the building entrance. A bicycle maintenance station will also be provided within the parking structure to help encourage bicycle use by residents. April 2019 5-4 April 2019 6-1 6.0 Parking Analysis As described earlier, the project includes 94 on-site parking spaces, with 62 underground and 32 surface stalls. The proposed amount of parking was compared to industry standards to determine adequacy. Parking data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) was used to determine the expected parking demand for the proposed land uses. Data provided in the ITE publication Parking Generation, 5th Edition, indicates the various proposed uses peak at different times during the day. The ITE data was adjusted to account for the expected modal split for the site. Based on the ITE data, the peak weekday parking demand for the overall site occurs between 6 am and 8 am. The peak parking demand during that time period is 73 spaces. The 94 spaces provided can accommodate the expected peak parking demand. April 2019 7-1 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 22 net trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 27 net trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 337 net weekday daily trips. • Traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at the intersections analyzed to accommodate the proposed project. • A trip generation comparison with a retail use on the site shows the number of trips generated by the proposed apartment building is higher in the a.m. peak hour and lower in the p.m. peak hour and during a typical weekday. • The proposed project is designed to provide both pedestrian and bicycle connections to the surrounding infrastructure. The project includes sidewalk along Amundson Avenue and a sidewalk connection to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. • The project owner has indicated that bicycle spaces will be provided to encourage bicycle use by residents. Long-term spaces for residents will be provided within the parking structure and an outside rack will be placed near the building entran ce. A bicycle maintenance station will also be provided within the parking structure to help encourage bicycle use by residents. • The proposed number of parking spaces can accommodate the expected peak parking demand based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. April 2019 8-1 8.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets 3: Cahill Rd/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2019 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.8 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 193 75 115 244 1 67 1 142 1 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 193 75 115 244 1 67 1 142 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 241 94 144 305 1 84 1 178 1 1 1 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay 13.3 12.9 12.2 9.4 HCM LOS B B B A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 32% 0% 100% 0% 33% Vol Thru, % 0% 72% 0% 100% 33% Vol Right, % 68% 28% 0% 0% 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 210 269 115 245 3 LT Vol 67 1 115 0 1 Through Vol 1 193 0 244 1 RT Vol 142 75 0 1 1 Lane Flow Rate 262 336 144 306 4 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.401 0.491 0.249 0.486 0.007 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.504 5.256 6.224 5.715 6.333 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 654 686 578 631 563 Service Time 3.543 3.288 3.955 3.446 4.392 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.401 0.49 0.249 0.485 0.007 HCM Control Delay 12.2 13.3 11 13.8 9.4 HCM Lane LOS B B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 2.7 1 2.7 0 7: Amundson/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2019 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 317 6 44 364 2 1 1 18 2 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 317 6 44 364 2 1 1 18 2 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 70 - - 70 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 417 8 58 479 3 1 1 24 3 1 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 482 0 0 425 0 0 1021 1021 421 1033 1024 481 Stage 1 - - - - - - 423 423 - 597 597 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 598 598 - 436 427 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1081 - - 1134 - - 215 236 632 211 235 585 Stage 1 - - - - - - 609 588 - 490 491 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 489 491 - 599 585 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1081 - - 1134 - - 205 224 632 194 223 585 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 205 224 - 194 223 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 608 587 - 490 466 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 462 466 - 575 584 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 12.2 20.2 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 529 1081 - - 1134 - - 242 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 0.001 - - 0.051 - - 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 8.3 - - 8.3 - - 20.2 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.2 - - 0.1 6: Cahill Rd & Amundson 04/26/2019 2019 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 3 199 13 5 201 Future Vol, veh/h 10 3 199 13 5 201 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 3 224 15 6 226 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 470 232 0 0 239 0 Stage 1 232 - - - - - Stage 2 238 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 552 807 - - 1328 - Stage 1 807 - - - - - Stage 2 802 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 549 807 - - 1328 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 549 - - - - - Stage 1 803 - - - - - Stage 2 802 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 0 0.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 593 1328 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.025 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.2 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS - - B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 3: Cahill Rd/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 199 77 118 251 1 69 1 146 1 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 199 77 118 251 1 69 1 146 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 249 96 148 314 1 86 1 183 1 1 1 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay 13.8 13.3 12.6 9.5 HCM LOS B B B A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 32% 0% 100% 0% 33% Vol Thru, % 0% 72% 0% 100% 33% Vol Right, % 68% 28% 0% 0% 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 216 277 118 252 3 LT Vol 69 1 118 0 1 Through Vol 1 199 0 251 1 RT Vol 146 77 0 1 1 Lane Flow Rate 270 346 148 315 4 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.417 0.511 0.257 0.505 0.007 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.561 5.308 6.276 5.766 6.428 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 645 679 572 627 554 Service Time 3.603 3.343 4.01 3.501 4.494 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.419 0.51 0.259 0.502 0.007 HCM Control Delay 12.6 13.8 11.2 14.3 9.5 HCM Lane LOS B B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 2.9 1 2.8 0 7: Amundson/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 327 6 45 375 2 1 1 19 2 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 327 6 45 375 2 1 1 19 2 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 70 - - 70 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 430 8 59 493 3 1 1 25 3 1 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 496 0 0 438 0 0 1050 1050 434 1062 1053 495 Stage 1 - - - - - - 436 436 - 613 613 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 614 614 - 449 440 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1068 - - 1122 - - 205 227 622 201 226 575 Stage 1 - - - - - - 599 580 - 480 483 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 479 483 - 589 578 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1068 - - 1122 - - 195 215 622 184 214 575 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 195 215 - 184 214 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 598 579 - 480 457 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 451 457 - 564 577 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 12.3 20.9 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 521 1068 - - 1122 - - 231 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 0.001 - - 0.053 - - 0.023 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 8.4 - - 8.4 - - 20.9 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.2 - - 0.1 6: Cahill Rd & Amundson 04/26/2019 2022 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 3 205 13 5 207 Future Vol, veh/h 10 3 205 13 5 207 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 3 230 15 6 233 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 483 238 0 0 245 0 Stage 1 238 - - - - - Stage 2 245 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 542 801 - - 1321 - Stage 1 802 - - - - - Stage 2 796 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 539 801 - - 1321 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 539 - - - - - Stage 1 798 - - - - - Stage 2 796 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 0 0.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 583 1321 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.025 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.3 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS - - B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 3: Cahill Rd/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.4 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 200 77 118 255 1 69 1 146 1 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 200 77 118 255 1 69 1 146 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 250 96 148 319 1 86 1 183 1 1 1 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay 13.9 13.5 12.6 9.6 HCM LOS B B B A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 32% 0% 100% 0% 33% Vol Thru, % 0% 72% 0% 100% 33% Vol Right, % 68% 28% 0% 0% 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 216 278 118 256 3 LT Vol 69 1 118 0 1 Through Vol 1 200 0 255 1 RT Vol 146 77 0 1 1 Lane Flow Rate 270 348 148 320 4 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.418 0.513 0.257 0.513 0.007 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.574 5.314 6.277 5.768 6.444 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 645 678 572 624 553 Service Time 3.616 3.352 4.014 3.505 4.511 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.419 0.513 0.259 0.513 0.007 HCM Control Delay 12.6 13.9 11.2 14.5 9.6 HCM Lane LOS B B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 2.9 1 2.9 0 7: Amundson/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 327 7 48 375 2 4 1 28 2 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 327 7 48 375 2 4 1 28 2 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 70 - - 70 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 430 9 63 493 3 5 1 37 3 1 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 496 0 0 439 0 0 1059 1059 435 1077 1062 495 Stage 1 - - - - - - 437 437 - 621 621 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 622 622 - 456 441 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1068 - - 1121 - - 202 224 621 197 223 575 Stage 1 - - - - - - 598 579 - 475 479 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 474 479 - 584 577 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1068 - - 1121 - - 192 211 621 176 210 575 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 192 211 - 176 210 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 597 578 - 475 452 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 445 452 - 548 576 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 13.5 21.5 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 467 1068 - - 1121 - - 224 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.093 0.001 - - 0.056 - - 0.023 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 8.4 - - 8.4 - - 21.5 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0.2 - - 0.1 6: Cahill Rd & Amundson 04/26/2019 2022 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 3 205 14 5 207 Future Vol, veh/h 14 3 205 14 5 207 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 3 230 16 6 233 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 483 238 0 0 246 0 Stage 1 238 - - - - - Stage 2 245 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 542 801 - - 1320 - Stage 1 802 - - - - - Stage 2 796 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 539 801 - - 1320 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 539 - - - - - Stage 1 798 - - - - - Stage 2 796 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0 0.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 572 1320 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.033 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.5 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS - - B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 11: Amundson & access 04/26/2019 2022 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 13 19 1 4 51 Future Vol, veh/h 4 13 19 1 4 51 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 16 24 1 5 64 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 99 25 0 0 25 0 Stage 1 25 - - - - - Stage 2 74 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 900 1051 - - 1589 - Stage 1 998 - - - - - Stage 2 949 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 897 1051 - - 1589 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 897 - - - - - Stage 1 995 - - - - - Stage 2 949 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0 0.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 1010 1589 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.021 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.6 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 3: Cahill Rd/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2019 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.3 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 199 81 149 182 1 147 1 295 1 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 199 81 149 182 1 147 1 295 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 205 84 154 188 1 152 1 304 1 1 1 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay 13.6 12.2 18.7 9.6 HCM LOS B B C A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 33% 0% 100% 0% 33% Vol Thru, % 0% 71% 0% 99% 33% Vol Right, % 67% 29% 0% 1% 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 443 281 149 183 3 LT Vol 147 1 149 0 1 Through Vol 1 199 0 182 1 RT Vol 295 81 0 1 1 Lane Flow Rate 457 290 154 189 3 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.673 0.461 0.29 0.33 0.006 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.307 5.735 6.802 6.289 6.473 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 680 626 527 570 548 Service Time 3.357 3.791 4.559 4.046 4.565 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.672 0.463 0.292 0.332 0.005 HCM Control Delay 18.7 13.6 12.3 12.1 9.6 HCM Lane LOS C B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 5.2 2.4 1.2 1.4 0 7: Amundson/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2019 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 499 7 71 345 2 7 1 73 4 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 499 7 71 345 2 7 1 73 4 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 70 - - 70 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 531 7 76 367 2 7 1 78 4 1 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 369 0 0 538 0 0 1060 1060 535 1098 1062 368 Stage 1 - - - - - - 539 539 - 520 520 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 521 521 - 578 542 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1190 - - 1030 - - 202 224 545 190 223 677 Stage 1 - - - - - - 527 522 - 539 532 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 539 532 - 501 520 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1190 - - 1030 - - 189 207 545 153 206 677 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 189 207 - 153 206 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 526 521 - 538 493 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 497 493 - 428 519 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 14.6 25.2 HCM LOS B D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 461 1190 - - 1030 - - 185 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.187 0.002 - - 0.073 - - 0.035 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.6 8 - - 8.8 - - 25.2 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0 - - 0.2 - - 0.1 6: Cahill Rd & Amundson 04/26/2019 2019 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 15 432 41 10 219 Future Vol, veh/h 24 15 432 41 10 219 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 17 485 46 11 246 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 776 508 0 0 531 0 Stage 1 508 - - - - - Stage 2 268 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 366 565 - - 1036 - Stage 1 604 - - - - - Stage 2 777 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 362 565 - - 1036 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 362 - - - - - Stage 1 597 - - - - - Stage 2 777 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0 0.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 420 1036 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.104 0.011 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.6 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS - - B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0 - 3: Cahill Rd/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 205 83 154 188 1 151 1 305 1 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 205 83 154 188 1 151 1 305 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 211 86 159 194 1 156 1 314 1 1 1 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay 14.2 12.6 20.2 9.7 HCM LOS B B C A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 33% 0% 100% 0% 33% Vol Thru, % 0% 71% 0% 99% 33% Vol Right, % 67% 29% 0% 1% 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 457 289 154 189 3 LT Vol 151 1 154 0 1 Through Vol 1 205 0 188 1 RT Vol 305 83 0 1 1 Lane Flow Rate 471 298 159 195 3 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.702 0.481 0.304 0.345 0.006 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.364 5.815 6.883 6.37 6.698 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 669 617 521 563 538 Service Time 3.42 3.878 4.647 4.134 4.698 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.704 0.483 0.305 0.346 0.006 HCM Control Delay 20.2 14.2 12.7 12.5 9.7 HCM Lane LOS C B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 5.7 2.6 1.3 1.5 0 7: Amundson/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 514 7 73 355 2 7 1 75 4 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 514 7 73 355 2 7 1 75 4 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 70 - - 70 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 547 7 78 378 2 7 1 80 4 1 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 380 0 0 554 0 0 1091 1091 551 1130 1093 379 Stage 1 - - - - - - 555 555 - 535 535 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 536 536 - 595 558 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1016 - - 192 215 534 181 214 668 Stage 1 - - - - - - 516 513 - 529 524 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 529 523 - 491 512 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1016 - - 180 198 534 144 197 668 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 180 198 - 144 197 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 515 512 - 528 484 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 487 483 - 416 511 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 14.9 26.3 HCM LOS B D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 450 1178 - - 1016 - - 175 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.196 0.002 - - 0.076 - - 0.036 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.9 8.1 - - 8.8 - - 26.3 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0 - - 0.2 - - 0.1 6: Cahill Rd & Amundson 04/26/2019 2022 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 15 445 42 10 226 Future Vol, veh/h 25 15 445 42 10 226 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 28 17 500 47 11 254 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 800 524 0 0 547 0 Stage 1 524 - - - - - Stage 2 276 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 354 553 - - 1022 - Stage 1 594 - - - - - Stage 2 771 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 349 553 - - 1022 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 349 - - - - - Stage 1 586 - - - - - Stage 2 771 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15 0 0.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 405 1022 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.111 0.011 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 8.6 0 HCM Lane LOS - - C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 - 3: Cahill Rd/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.3 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 209 83 154 190 1 151 1 304 1 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 209 83 154 190 1 151 1 304 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 215 86 159 196 1 156 1 313 1 1 1 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay 14.4 12.6 20.3 9.8 HCM LOS B B C A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 33% 0% 100% 0% 33% Vol Thru, % 0% 71% 0% 99% 33% Vol Right, % 67% 28% 0% 1% 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 456 293 154 191 3 LT Vol 151 1 154 0 1 Through Vol 1 209 0 190 1 RT Vol 304 83 0 1 1 Lane Flow Rate 470 302 159 197 3 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.703 0.489 0.304 0.349 0.006 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.38 5.824 6.892 6.379 6.724 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 668 616 519 561 535 Service Time 3.437 3.886 4.658 4.145 4.724 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.704 0.49 0.306 0.351 0.006 HCM Control Delay 20.3 14.4 12.7 12.6 9.8 HCM Lane LOS C B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 5.8 2.7 1.3 1.6 0 7: Amundson/access & 70th St 04/26/2019 2022 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 514 11 81 355 2 9 1 81 4 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 514 11 81 355 2 9 1 81 4 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 70 - - 70 - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 547 12 86 378 2 10 1 86 4 1 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 380 0 0 559 0 0 1109 1109 553 1152 1114 379 Stage 1 - - - - - - 557 557 - 551 551 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 552 552 - 601 563 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1012 - - 187 210 533 175 208 668 Stage 1 - - - - - - 515 512 - 519 515 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 518 515 - 487 509 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1012 - - 174 192 533 137 190 668 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 174 192 - 137 190 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 514 511 - 518 471 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 472 471 - 407 508 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 15.6 27.4 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 436 1178 - - 1012 - - 167 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.222 0.002 - - 0.085 - - 0.038 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.6 8.1 - - 8.9 - - 27.4 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0 - - 0.3 - - 0.1 6: Cahill Rd & Amundson 04/26/2019 2022 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 28 15 445 46 10 226 Future Vol, veh/h 28 15 445 46 10 226 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 31 17 500 52 11 254 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 802 526 0 0 552 0 Stage 1 526 - - - - - Stage 2 276 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 353 552 - - 1018 - Stage 1 593 - - - - - Stage 2 771 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 348 552 - - 1018 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 348 - - - - - Stage 1 585 - - - - - Stage 2 771 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.2 0 0.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 400 1018 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.121 0.011 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15.2 8.6 0 HCM Lane LOS - - C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 - 11: Amundson & access 04/26/2019 2022 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 8 82 4 12 80 Future Vol, veh/h 3 8 82 4 12 80 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 8 85 4 12 82 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 193 87 0 0 89 0 Stage 1 87 - - - - - Stage 2 106 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 796 971 - - 1506 - Stage 1 936 - - - - - Stage 2 918 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 790 971 - - 1506 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 790 - - - - - Stage 1 929 - - - - - Stage 2 918 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 914 1506 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.012 0.008 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - Amundson Flats - Project Narrative April4, 2019 Overview The proposed project will be a 62-unit affordable "workforce" housing community serving families whose average income is 6O% or less of the area median income. We have committed to maintaining that level of affordability for at least 40 years. The building will be four stories of apartments with a mixture of one, two, and three-bedroom units, and a combination of underground and surface parking. The unit mix will be: o 8 1 - bedroom units - averaging 700 sf o 23 2 - bedroom units - averaging 1, 008 sf . 31 3 - bedroom units - averaging L,2O2 sf Amenities provided in the building include: o Fulltime, on-site property management o ln-unit laundry facilities o Fitness room o Community room o Central collection (via chutes) of trash and recycling o 1 covered parking stall per unit (at no additional cost to the resident) o Bike rack at each parking stall within the garage Conformance to SmallArea Plan: The propose development conforms the recently approved TOth & Cahill Small Area Plan in several ways: o Affordable Housing: The proposed development supports the City's priority for creating new affordable housing. o Density: The 62 units on the 1.25 acre site conforms to the 50 units per acre maximum density o Building Height: The proposed development conforms to the Building Height Limits provided in the SmallArea Plan. o Parking: The proposed development maximizes the use of underground parking, and puts all of the surface parking behind or at the end of the buildings, consistent with the goal of an active streetscape o Connectivity to trail: See Trail Easement section below ! Design Changes Made After Sketch Plan Reviews: Reduced Parkins & lncreased Green Space on East Side Covered parking was increased but total parking was reduced. As a result, all surface parking north of the main building entry was eliminated, significantly increasing the green space on the east side of the building. Grades were adjusted to eliminate the short retaining wall on the east side from the previous design. ln addition, we are proposing some regrading and landscaping of city property along the NE corner of the site - which we have reviewed with city staff. The result of those changes is a significantly larger landscaped yard with direct connection to the bike trail for our residents. Greater Buildine Articulation & lncreased Green Space on West Side The entire building was shifted to the east by approximately 2'. Eliminating surface parking north of the main entry also allowed shifting the north half of the building further - a total of approximately 4'. The result is greater articulation between the north and south halves of the building. ln addition, green space along the west side of the building was increased. lncreased Activation and Articulation of West Side Patios were added to the first-floor units on the west side and both ends to create a greater sense of activity and connectivity between the building and Amundson Ave. Some architecturaldetailing over the west side patios was added to further differentiate the first floor from the upper 3 floors. Due to the grade change along Amundson Ave, the patios for the southern units are elevated. To create additional articulation the building we added a series of stepped planters. The planters break up the massing and effectively create a step back at the first level above grade, creating a visual "street wall". The cumulative effect of those design changes, along with the dominant use of cultured stone at the first level of apartments, is to visually distinguish the first floor of apartments from the upper floors. Trail Easement The reduction in surface parking allowed shifting the parking along the south property north to free up approximately 77'. We recognize that a major element of the Small Area Plan was to provide for a connection between Amundson Ave and the Regional Trail east of the site. We are proposing a 17' easement be provided to the city for the purpose of developing a trail connection from Amundson Avenue to the eastern edge of the Amundson Flats site. How that easement is developed will depend on several factors, including the desired grade at Amundson and how the trail relates to the adjacent property to the south and east. Ultimately, development of that trail connection will be by the City. ln the drawings we have submitted we show one way in which that easement could be developed - see below. lf approved, we will work with the city to coordinate our final site and landscaping plans with the 2 City's planning for the trail with the goal of incorporating in our development plan elements that support the City's goals for the trail connection. Lrtiltsc*ri $*'A stFutrr I n- nL I nnlilG ltn:i IFl*e$,ryl€ffqnftG ttl{r}s{rFF lFfA $FollF {TAr RFlllfllli l*4,-l vt"tacfL o\tEtltttic i'I INEAF** 'LITURETTIAIL !EIJ€LUFfiE}T'trst::FtRrr{! tA|8lt rdAl cx t ts t. sloi,l A I ptloFERTl lrlf 1.{'gtrsT. tg"iucftt SAAI tt\fjlSilJi8l'i, txr l.irrAetql Frt Lo! li ..'i t. rtAtAnga,$Ax 10.t' fan gfiliEo rHrl srt AB,tActilT pfrOptnlr nEolrltD ejil$t flLicE{r ill. ]-$r i.) r0t 7 ,' ;l , !"f.S' 3 , rl' ! What this is: A brief questionnaire to help community decision makers understand how this development aligns with key focus area of sustainability that ensures both developers and the com m unity long-term value. Why? Through the 2014 Visioning process, environmental stewardship is one of seven strategic focus areas. Vision Edina's Environmental Stewardship states: 'There is a growing awareness of the impact that the built environment has on the natural environment, and the individual and collective responsibility we all have towards good environmental stewardship. Community residents and stakeholders believe that Edina can take an active and ambitious internaland regional leadership role in promoting more comprehensive recycling, smart building, and energy efficiency practices. These themes couple well with the parallel benefits in smarter urban planning, increased transportation options, and application of technology." Questions Answers Sustainable Design & Energy Have you utilized Xcel Energy's Energv Desisn Assistance and/or Centerpoint Energy's Builder and Developer programs for this development? We will be using Xcel's EDA program. Will the buildings meet lB2030 energy goals and/or will they be Enersv Star certified? lf not, please share the steps you are taking to support energy conservation. We will use Energy Star appliances but the building will not be Energy Star Certified. Will you be optimizing the roof by installing a sreen roof?No Will there be any renewable energy generation on site?No Will there be purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs)?No Comments Managing Water What percent of the property is pervious surface before the redevelopment? What is the percent post development? 84%before 74% after What new services will be pervious? (i.e. Sidewalks, driveways, overflow parking)No new surfaces will be pervious How will the landscaping support the natural ecosystem? (i.e. Rain gardens, Yo native plants, %bee friendly pollinator plants) See Comment below Comments: Re Supporting Natural Ecosystem: ln the proposed landscape plan o 62Yo of trees species, 60% of tree count will be native. o 6O% of shrub species, 2O% of shrub count will be native. o 37To of perennial species, 33% of perennials count will be native, o 63% of tree species, 55% of tree count will be pollinator friendly. o 60% of shrub species, 2oo/o of shrub count will be pollinator friendly o 6O% of perennial species, 72% of perennials count will be pollinator friendly Over Drltrtlt@ o All plant material will be specified as free of neonicotinoid based pesticides in propagating or storing. Managing Tree Canopy What percent of the property is covered by tree canopy before redevelopment? What is the percent post development? Before: 1,900 sf After: 7L,22O sf Will you be replanting/replacing trees at least four to five inches in diameter to positively impact the tree canopy (ordinance requirement is only 2.5 inches in diameter)? See Comment Comments: Canopy will be positively impacted by providing larger installed trees. 5O% of deciduous will be larger than 2.5" cal. 28% of deciduous trees will be greater than 4" . slyo of coniferous trees will be larger than 6' height; LOOo/o of the coniferous will be greater than 4" cal. Managing Waste Will a recycling service be provided to all businesses on site?There will be central recycling collection and chutes accessible at each floor. Will an organic (i.e. food waste) recycling service be provided to all businesses on site? No Comments Sustainable Transportation Will there be bike parking near main entrance for guests?Yes Do you have EV Charging Stations for owners or guests to use?Yes, 2 for residents Will there be parking spaces provided for car-sharing vehicles to reduce the overall number of cars? No Comments: ln addition to bike parking at the entry, a bike rack for each unit will be provided on the wall at the head of each parking stall in the garage. Over Amundson Ave(A PUBLIC R/W)T r a c t BL o t 2 OWNER: 7101 Amundson LLC 7101 Amundson Ave Edina, MN 55439 7070 Amundson LLC7017 Amundson Ave Edina, MN 55439 Edina, MN 55439 OWNER: 7070 Amundson LLC 7070 Amundson Ave Edina, MN 55439 OWNER: 7100 Amundson LLC 7100 Amundson Ave Edina, MN 55439 ΔBituminous SurfaceBi t um i n o u s P a t hBituminous PathBituminous Surface Bituminous SurfaceSignWest face ofWall is 0.5 ±E of line R/W line per Half Section maps A West line of Tract B, RLS 1193 ConcreteRet Wall WoodWallStoneWall2.1' Thick Wallis on line 2.5' Thick Wallis on line East line Lot 2, Block 1, Amundson's Terrace CBR Rim=848.51 Inv=843.84 CBR Rim=848.44 Inv=843.34 SMH Rim=851.56 Inv=842.84 Utility and Drainage Easement per plat of Amundson's TerraceSoutherly limit of Amundson Avenue as shownon plat of Amundson's TerraceSoutherly Extension of the East line Lot 2, Block 1, Amundson's Terrace SMHRim=862.37Inv=851.37 CBRRim=865.77 6 - BHS15 - EI8 - BCJ1 - ABM1 - ABM1 - ABM1 - ABM7 - KFG9 - BES11 - BES5 - AFD4 - MJ6 - PPCB1 - RBC6 - PPCB1 - DKL1 - SSC1 - SSC11 - EI13 - BCJ3 - MJ6 - PPCB1 - RBC11 - EI13 - BCJ6 - PPCB1 - RBC8 - MJ1 - SSC10 - BCJ6 - PPCB1 - RBC9 - KFG1 - SSC11 - LTC22 - DBDC11 - BCJ6 - PMD1 - DKL10 - BCJ6 - PMD1 - DKL14 - PMD1 - RBC23 - BCJ1 - RBC4 - BHBS36 - LTC1 - CSO1 - CSO1 - CSO2 - SHL1 - SHL2 - ABS1 - CSO1 - SHL1 - EKC1 - ABM1 - ABM1 - ABM1 - ABM1 - EKC1 - SHL3 - BES6 - AFD3 - FPR3 - FPR3 - FPR3 - FPR3 - FPR4 - PPCB3 - PPCB2 - PPCB2 - PPCB26 - BES31 - BHBS2 - AFD1 - EKC1 - EKC1 - SHL1 - AFD1 - AFD20 - BCJ14 - PMD12 - PPCB2 - DKL8 - LTC4 - BES21 - BCJ4 - PPCB24" MAINT. STRIP, SEE DETAIL, TYP.24" MAINT. STRIP, SEE DETAIL, TYP.MAINT. STRIP, SIZE VARIES,INCLUDE ALL AREA BETWEENBUILDING & WALK, TYP.24" MAINT. STRIP, SEE DETAIL, TYP.MAINT. STRIP, ALONGBACK-OF-CURB, INCLUDEALL AREA BETWEEN CURB& BACK-OF-WALL, SEEDETAIL, TYP.LAWN, TYP.LAWN, TYP.MATCH TURF TO CITYSTREETSCAPE PROJECT, TYP.LAWN, TYP.LAWN, TYP.NATIVE SEEDING, TYP.NATIVE SEEDING, PROVIDEGEOTEXTILE ON SLOPES PERGRADING PLAN & SPECS., TYP.EDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.24" MAINT. STRIP, SEE DETAIL, TYP.LAWN, TYP.NATIVE SEEDING, TYP.CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE & ASSESSEXIST. VEG. FOR HEALTH & AESTHETICS INTHIS AREA. PROPOSE TRIMMING &REMOVAL BASED ON BEST PRACTICES,INCLUDING REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIESSPECIALITY PLAYGROUND MULCH, PER PLAYGROUNDMANUF. SPECIFICATIONS & REQUIREMENTS, INSTALLPER MANUF. SPECS.12 - KFGREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN............Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cPROJECT 24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.4/5/19ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION............PROJECT NUMBER:19033....4/5/19CITY SUBMITTALDRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:BNDK..................................20194/12/2019 12:23 PMAMUNDSON FLATS 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 MWF PROPERTIES........1.WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTERINSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRESSING OPERATIONS) OF 2"-4" DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH, SAMPLESREQUIRED.2.ALL TREES SHALL HAVE 3' DIA. MULCHED MAINTENANCE "SAUCER" TO BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDEDCYPRESS MULCH. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.3.IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEWLANDSCAPING. OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.4.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS ANDSHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR ISRESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCEPERIOD.5.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULEAND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.6.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THEDURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTEDFOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.7.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYER TOPSOIL LOAM AND SODAS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.8.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTINGFIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREESAND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.9.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.10.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.11.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPECONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.12.REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES.13.PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLYPROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TOHEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK.SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB.14.CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROMOWNER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.LANDSCAPE NOTES:01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NPLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITESYMQUANT.COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTCOMMENTSDECIDUOUS TREESABM4Autumn Blaze MapleAcer x freemanii 'Jeffersred'2.5" CAL.B&BCOMPLIMENTARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMABM4Autumn Blaze MapleAcer x freemanii 'Jeffersred'4.5" CAL.B&BPRIMARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMCSO4Crimson Spire OakQuercus 'Crimson Spire'2.5" CAL.B&BCOMPLIMENTARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHL2SKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTGleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole'4.5" CAL.B&BPRIMARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHL4SKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTGleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole'3.5" CAL.B&BACCENT STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMEKC4Espresso Kentucky CoffeetreeGymnocladus dioicus 'Espresso'3.5" CAL.B&BACCENT STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMORNAMENTAL TREESABS2AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRYAmelanchier x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance (tree form)'1.5" CAL.B&BORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSSC4SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRABMalus 'Spring Snow'1.5" CAL.B&BORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMRBC6RED BARON FLOWERING CRABMalus 'Red Baron'1.5" CAL.B&BORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMEVERGREEN TREESBHS6BLACK HILLS SPRUCEPicea glauca 'Densata'12' ht.B&BFULL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM40TOTAL TREES - SEE LANDSCAPE CALCS.SHRUBS - CONIFEROUS & EVERGREENMJ15MEDORA JUNIPERJuniperus scopulorum 'Medora'36" HT.CONT.BCJ129Blue Chip JuniperJuniperus horizontalis 'Blue Chip'24" SPD.CONT.FPR15PAVEMENT FOXI ROSERosa 'Foxi Pavement'24" HT.CONT.DKL5Dwarf Korean Lilac (tree form)Syringa meyeri 'Palibin (tree form)'#5CONT.AFD15Red Gnome DogwoodCornus alba 'Regnzam'24" HT.CONT.179TOTAL SHRUBSPERENNIALS, GRASSES & VINESDBDC22MAMMOTH DARK BRONZE DAISY CHRYSANTHEMUMChrysanthemum 'Dark Bronze Daisy'#1CONT.KFG28KARL FOERSTER GRASSCalamagrostis x acutiflora "Karl Foerster"#1CONT.BHBS35Blue Heaven Little Blue StemSchizachyrium scoparium 'Blue Heaven'#1CONT.PMD40PARDON ME DAYLILLYHemerocallis 'Pardon Me'#1CONT.PPCB57PLUM PUDDING CORAL BELLSHeuchera 'Plum Pudding'#1CONT.BES53GOLDSTURM RUDBECKIARudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm'#1CONT.LTC55LITTLE TITCH CATMINTNepeta racemosa 'Little Titch'#1CONT.EI37Englemann IvyParthenocissus quinquefolia 'var. englemannii'327TOTAL PERENNIALS, GRASSES, & VINESKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRLEGENDLAWN - LOCALLY SOURCED, BLUEGRASS-BASED, NON-MINERAL GROWNSOD, 36" "BIG ROLL" PREFERRED, STAKE PER INSTALLER OR MANUF.RECOMMENDATIONS.1" DIA. ROCK MAINTENANCE STRIP OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIRED. PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLANGEOTEXTILE AT SEEDED SLOPED AREAS, SEE GRADING AND SWPPPNOTES/PLANS, PROVIDE AND INSTALL BIODEGRADABLE STAKES PERMANUF. INSTRUCTIONS & SPECS.PROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESNATIVE SEED - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE, PER MNDOT SEEDINGMANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)2"-4" DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH AT ALL PLANTING BEDS, SAMPLESREQUIRED PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLANPROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS - SEEPLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANTSCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESPROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULEAND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESEDGING - HEAVY DUTY VINYL, BLACK IN COLOR, PROVIDE ALL STAKESAND CONNECTORS PER MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS/SPECSDECORATIVE BOULDERS (ROUNDED & BLOCK STYLE), 18"-30" DIA.LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS:1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY PLANT MATERIAL FREE OFNEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES AND/OR TREATMENTS OF ANY KIND,INCLUDING BY NOT LIMITED TO IMIDACLOPRID (CONFIDOR, ADMIRE,GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), THIAMETHOXAM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER),CLOTHIANIDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DANTOP), ACETAMIPRID (MOSPILAN,ASSAIL, CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFURAN(STARKLE, SAFARI, VENOM), AND NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR, GUARDIAN).2.CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMENTOR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEENUSED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGEPLOTS OF THE SUPPLIED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLANTING OFAGRICULTURAL (OR OTHER) SEED TREATED WITH NEONICS..POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL: REGIONAL TRAIL VIEW AMUNDSON FLATS STREET ENTRANCE VIEW AMUNDSON FLATS Bituminous Surface Bituminous Surface Bituminous PathBituminous SurfaceVentVentWall Bitumi n o u s P a t h Bituminous SurfaceBituminous Surface Bituminous SurfaceSign Edge of BituminousConcreteRet Wall WoodWallStone WallOverhangOverhangWallConc (typ)CBRRim=848.51Inv=843.84CBRRim=848.44Inv=843.34SMHRim=851.56Inv=842.84BUILDINGHEIGHT=869.69SMHRim=862.37Inv=851.37CBRRim=865.77S00°00'58"E 423.09S89°55'58"W 150.00N00°00'58"W 70.00 N89°55'32"E30.00N00°00'58"W 351.93 S75°31'18"E 91.6645.59Δ=104°29'40"R=25.00Utility Easement perDoc. No. 3528636 &Road Easement perDoc. No. ____________ East Line of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON'S TERRACE and its Southerly ExtensionNorth Line of Tract B,REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193South Line of Lot 2, Block 1,AMUNDSON'S TERRACELOT 1BLOCK 1West Line of Tract B,REGISTERED LANDSURVEY NO. 1193 1/2 Inch Iron Pipew/ Cap #194210.3 feet South and0.4 feet WestFound Nail0.3 feet EastFound 1/2 InchIron Pipe1/2 Inch Iron Pipew/ Cap #194210.4 Feet WestFound 1/2 Inch Rebarw/ Cap #65081.9 feet NorthFound 1/2 InchIron PipeP.I.D:0811621110008Address: UnassignedOwner: City of EdinaP.I.D:0811621110022Address: 7101 Amundson AveOwner: 7101 Amundson LLCP.I.D:0811621110020Address: 7100 Amundson AveOwner: 7100 Amundson LLCP.I.D:0811621110019Address: 7070 Amundson AveOwner: 7070 Amundson LLCP.I.D:0811621110010Address: 7017 Amundson AveOwner: 7070 Amundson LLCP.I.D:0811621110005Address: 5415 70th St WOwner: Timcin Properties LLPP.I.D:0811621110018Address: 5400 70th St WOwner: Edina Manor LLCProposed 17' Trail EasementProposed 2.70' Wide RetainingWall EasementVICINITY MAPAMUNDSON FLATS 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA, MN 55439 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 MWF PROPERTIES PROJECT 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comPROJECT NO.: 19033COPYRIGHT 2019 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONV1.0PRELIMINARY PLAT............60153001530SCALE IN FEETN44565RORY L. SYNSTELIENLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.4-15-2019NCLIENTOVERHEAD UTILITIESFIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERTELEPHONE LINECABLE LINE WATERMAINELECTRIC LINEGASMAINCHAINLINK FENCELINESIGNSANITARY MANHOLESTORM MANHOLECABLE TV BOXTELEPHONE MANHOLEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE BOXTRAFFIC SIGNALGAS METERELECTRICAL METERWATER MANHOLEWATER VALVEAIR CONDITIONERBOLLARDCATCH BASINELECTRIC MANHOLEGAS VALVEFLAG POLEHANDICAP SYMBOLFOUND IRON MONUMENTHYDRANTCAST IRON MONUMENTSET IRON MONUMENTFLARED END SECTIONLinetype & Symbol Legend POWER POLEUTILITY MANHOLECONCRETE SURFACEPAVER SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEGRAVEL/LANDSCAPE GUY WIRECONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREESURFACEWOODEN FENCELINEGUARDRAILPRELIMINARY PLAT:AMUNDSON FLATSPRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTESLEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON'S TERRACEANDThat part of the most Northerly 70 feet of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193,Hennepin County, Minnesota lying West of the Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 2,Block 1, AMUNDSON TERRACE.(Torrens Property)DATE OF PREPARATION:04-15-2019SITE BENCHMARK:Top nut of the fire hydrant located on the Easterly side of Amundson Avenue approximately 350feet south of 70th St West having an elevation of 852.31 feet (NGVD 1929)EXISTING ZONING:Per a zoning letter from the City of Edina dated January 8, 2019 the subject property lies withinthe following zone:70th & Cahill Neighborhood NodeZoning Guidelines per said zoning letter are as follows:Building Setbacks: Not specifiedParking Requirements: Not specifiedDensity: Max residential density up to 50 dwelling units per acreBuilding Height: Up to 5 stories not to exceed 63 ft.AREAS:Gross Land Area = 54,501 Sq. Ft. or 1.25 AcresFLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chancefloodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0363F, effective date ofNovember 4th, 2016, and Community Panel No. 27053C0451F, effective date of November 4th,2016.Owner/Developer:Amundson Flats, Limited Partnership7645 Lyndale Ave SMinneapolis, MN 55423Architect:Miller Hanson Architects218 Washington Ave N, Suite 230Minneapolis, MN 55401Civil Engineer:Civil Site Group4931 W 35th St, #200St. Louis Park, MN 55416Surveyor:Civil Site Group4931 W 35th St, #200St. Louis Park, MN 55416________________________________________________________Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565rory@civilsitegroup.com Premier Prnner lien 0 9 EI 9'AII:131teUuLnt, GfreTtr-wCiTil El 1‘1" 11 :Hon Avenue Batting Cages o i fiee .14V. Pepper 9 41 st Al et TJ e al Nina Re,Liumi11 SS G. Fin 9 9 Wellness Resource5 Victoria Dai Proenintions 9 Xcel Energy 9 Color Go internation 9 OSS Tax Service 9 Sir Lines-A-Lot 9,2 akansoS,r:trir sla 0 -0 EXISTING LIGHT DI EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING GAS VALVE PROPOSED MANHOLE STORM PROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORM PROPOSED GATE VALVE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARY PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED LIGHT PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED WATER MAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE o EXISTING STOPBOX err./ EXISTING GATE VALVE III EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX DATE DESCRIPTION 4.2 <2.0161.04T04 SHEET NUMBER CO.0 V1.0 C1.0 C2.0 C3.0 C4.0 C5.0 C5.1 05.2 SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET SITE SURVEY REMOVALS PLAN SITE PLAN GRADING PLAN UTILITY PLAN CIVIL DETAILS CIVIL DETAILS CIVIL DETAILS L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES & DETAILS DRAWN FECIIN REVIEWED 611 SC PROJECT NUMBER 19033 SW1.0 SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONS REVISION SUMMARY DATE SW1.1 DESCRIPTION SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONS SW1.2 SW1.3 SW1.4 SW1.5 TITLE SHEET CO.0 0 coerNununvo, sire sown D. SWPPP - DETAILS SWPPP - NARRATIVE SWPPP-ATTACHMENTS SWPPP-ATTACHMENTS 4./20111]4 PM t'”14D,SON FLATS D \A 9 MINNESOTA ISSUED FOR: CITY SUBMITTA ARCHITECT: MILLER HANSON ARCHITECTS 218 WASHINGTON AVE. N. SUITE 230 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 812-332-5420 DEVELOPER I PROPERTY OWNER: MWF PROPERTIES 4845 LYNDALE AVE. S. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 65423 812-243-4637 ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CIVIL SNE GROUP 4931 W 35TH STREET SUITE 200 ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55418 812-615-0080 SURVEYOR: CIVIL SITE GROUP 4931 W 35TH STREET SUITE 200 ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 812-615-0060 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: BRAUN INTEREC CORP. 11001 HAMPSHIRE AVE. S. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 952495-2000 1125 XI 137.17 137 \-41.26 691.00 G 891.00 TC 891.00 85/7S EC 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL ElOSTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATION 1.0* CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW UNE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB (GLITTER TOP) SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF WALL SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALL DRAINAGE ARROW Know what's below. Call before you dig. MASTER LEGEND: GR OUP cts Eiwwwdm • smniyire • Landscape AmMecere 4931 W.35415914 Sul. 200 SL Louis Perk, MN 65416 Meseepuuncom 612415-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF TESTATE OF ESOTA 0 EXISTING MANHOLE IS EXISTING CATCH BASIN .7)Ir EXISTING HYDRANT 04 4 0111o• EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EOF=1135.52 AaoA :11411111014111. SILT FENCE! BIOROLL • GRADING LIMIT INLET PROTECTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 501 BORING LOCATION CURB AND GUTTER (T.0 =TIP OUT) ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY SHEET INDEX 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS MeeRww R. Payek DATE MAO DOOM NO. 44263 SITE LOCATION SITE LOCATION MAP - r r Y Yl I c"; a) > < Co aa 2 (1) s v ta t E ?`i< v g. C.: Art ,Sri >> >> >> SCALE IN FEET Linetype & Symbol Legend PLANNING DEPARTMENT FO FIBER OPTIC GASMAIN WATERMMN SANITARY SEWER OWNER: Thncin Properties UP 5415 70th St W Edina, MN 55439 LS *19421 0.1 S 0.4 W ds, aP O.; OWNER: 7070 Amundson LLC 7017 Amundson Ave Edina, Mil 55439 to, 60 V 000 4189'55'32" \ 30.00 !, L ‘6'N ‘,..„ 111,41411.51 ,,,,,,, Half SRlectiWonhnmea7s -I'' s",'"°-1"--- \ ...:"O Utility and Drainage Easement _ per Doc. No. B528636`-- OWNER: 7070 Amundson UC 10 7070 Amundson Ave tra Edina, MN 55439 0 — — — — 0 A West line of---, 0Z Tran B, RLS 1193 `......_____ OWNER: 7100 Amundson LLC 7100 Amundson Ave Edina, MN 55439 OWNER: :::7=1S% 1 Edina, IN 55439 ..•••••,„„„ CivilSite GROUP 4931 W. 351H ST. SURE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, IAN 55410 CIYISIMGr011p.com Is on line Xfc; °1 1S3 SI 40 *A* j,,Wall Is 0.6 k E of line ,,,, X34•1 X e klath of Curb Is 0.9 E ‘,`Wall 15 0.9 W of line 1900 589°55'513"W taRn Pipe x , • fir ‘; ; • - • • -Wall Is o 1.9 I E line End IP LS T19421 0.3 5 0.4W X West face of Wallis 0.5 E of line /2 ,rIthiity and Drainage Easereot plat of Amundson's Terrace 0 ,9,,,S T-5 _ - - X-.'— — .Al— ---,e. 6090. I 1 i X*''' _....---Utilty and Dthinage Ersdfnent i' per Doc. No. 84960 • a —147,-t., / I 0 *31) rtl '$f‘ ",,4 e I .-BUILDING ) HEIGHT=869.69 ..///4// .44 706 / 'ulluttR-R,pt W rice p LT/3) 57640 , ---o o s 11 L S itu A '• t 1 IJ L/1 47' • k 1 A • P,11 ,8, 1, ffi CNE LEVEL BMOC BUILDING 7075 AllU1650`4 AVENUE t5, MN_ WPRAIIPAI — 150.00 r • Ls .650 7101 Amundson Ave Fed Rek OWNER: 71E11 Amundson LLC / 3 \ Edina, MN 55439 1/, d -;111 t Southerly Ike of the Northerly 70.00 feat of booty B. RLS 1193 aeyy O. Surt.a 54,501* Sq.Ft. 1.25± Acres c;',,o (; 649 'Ota loon — I I 414PIP t- 80x •-•- I' I GI I - rad N9R0.3 E 0 Thicktp0,,-, • 50 East line Lot 2, EOM( I, / Amundson's Terrace r Qa 4-1 H s,1 Edge of Bit is 0.8. East of line „-Southerly Extension of the East line Lot 2, Block 1, Amundson's Terrdce OWNER: City Of Edina VICINITY MAP f WI L.: yR rr:GE• O: F. r1r0 S.. Fr OJECT NO.:19033 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I 81.18 DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE ESOTA DATE Amundson's Terrace REVISION SUMMARY DESORPTION ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 7075 & 7079 Amundson Avenue, Edina, MN Miller Hanson Architect 218 Washington Avenue North, Suite 230, Minneapolis, MN 55401 GI >41.'' 59fh k'YtV?lEk° 2.1' Thick Wail \,eq- ' 0 Cd gO 4 1 CV ri TI e l P, k..., / 1 1 1 I OWNER: EDINA Manor LLC 5400 70th St W Edina, MN 55439 BO 07.5.5.7 et-v.5517V x*. 53 51-2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Parcel 1: Lot 2, Block I, Amundson's Terrace. Parcel 2: That part of the most Northerly 70 feet of Tract 13, Registered Land Survey No. 1193, Hennepin County, Minnesota, tying shoot of the Southerty extension of the East line of Lot 2, Block 1, Amundson's Terrace. Hennepin County, Minnesota Tercel. Property ALTA/N5PS Land Title Survey Notes (numbered per Table A) 1. Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjustment). 2. Site Address: 7075 Amundson Avenue, Edina, MN, 3. This properly is contained in Zone X (area deterrnimd to be outside the 0.2% annual charm floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map Nos. 27053C0451F, Community Panel No. 270160, effecUve date of November 4, 2016 and 270530036.341, Community Panel No. 270160, effective date of November 4, 2016. 4. the Gross land area Is 54,5011/- square feet or 1.25 VP acres. 5. Elevations are based on the top nut of the fire hydrant located on the Easterly side of Amundson Avenue approximately 350 feet south of 70th St West having an elevation 01 052.30 feet (NGVD 1929), as shown hereon. 6. The current Zoning for the subject property was not provided by the Insurer. Pease note that the general restrictions for the subject property may have been amended through a dty process. We could be unaware of such amendments If they are not in a recorded document provided to us. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from Ute Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this Site. 9. The number of parking stalls on this site are as follows: 20 Regular 0 Handicap = 20 Total Parking Stalls. 11. We have shown the Iodation of utilities to the best of our ability based or observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utility companies, plans provided by Pent, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this Information to develop a view of the.underground for this Ste. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features tannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed Information Is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe en the utilities located on the subject property. 13. The names of the adjoining owners of the platted lands, as shown hereon, are based on information obtained from current tax records. SURVEY REPORT 11. This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Tide Insurance Company /Winne/ Commercial Services, File No. NCS-9455738-MLPS, dated January 28, 2019 We note the following Mit regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Ube Commitment: a. Item Co.'s 1-8 6 13 are not survey related. b. The following are numbered per the referenced tide Commitment: 9. The following, which appears as a recital on the Certificate of Title for the land: Subject to utility and drainage easement as shown on plat; (as to Par 1). Please note that we hate shown the drainage @ Witty easement along the Southerly fine allot 2. 10. The folowing, which appears as a recital on the Certificate of Tale for the Land: Subject to utility easement In favor (*the Oty of Edina created by instmment recorded in Book 2484 of Deeds, page 545, Doc No. 3528636, over that part of the above property described as follows: *strip of land 60 feet in width, the cthterline of which Is described as follows: beginning at the point of intersection of the South line of Amundson's Terrace and the center line of Amundson Avenue as dedkated In the Pat of Amundson's Terrace; thence South along the extension of said center line a distance 01170,08 feet; thence deflecting to the right cm a curve having a radius 80 feet (delta 89.56'301 a distance 04125.58 feet; theme Westerly tangent to said curve a distance of 251 Met, more or less, to a point on the East line of Cahill itoad;(as to Par 2). Please note that we have shown this easement over the Westedy portion of Tract O. 11. Right of way for Amundson Avenue as presently laid out and traveled. Please note that Amundson Avenue Ls a public right-ofway up to the Southerly line of tot 2, That part of said road that encumbers Tract B is not covered by an easement. 12, Easement for utility and drainage purposes In favor of the City of Edna, as conte-coed in the Easement dated April 28, 1966, recorded June 20, 1966, as Doc. No. 849601. TMs easement is located along the Northerly portion of tract 8, as shown hereon. 2.Connicts such as (but not limited toll encroachments, protrusions, access, octhpation, and easements and/or servitudes: a. Please note that there Is a retaining wall located along the westerly and northerly portion of the subject property that appears to be used for the public right-of-way that is not contained within en easement, as shown ALTA CERTIFICATION To: EaSt Edina Housing Foundation, a Minnesota non-profit corporation; HIVE Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited !Jellifies company; and Mist American Tide Insurance Company National Commercial Services: This Is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which It Is based were made In accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Tale Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on March 8, 2019. Dated this 19th day of March, 2019. Rory L. SynstelIen Minnesota license No. 44565 rorytadvllsltegroce.00m 30 15 0 15 30 60 — 0> — STORM SEWER cal OVERHEAD UTILITIES no. — TELEPHONE UNE —5.0 ELECTRIC UNE CABLE LINE CHAINUNK FENCEUNE WOODEN FENCEUNE —0-0— GUARDRAIL CONCRETE SURFACE PAVER SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVELAANDSCAPE SURFACE SIGN O tm or( MANHOLE C9 SANITARY MANHOLE (g) STORM MANHOLE • CATCH BASIN TELEPHONE BOX O TELEPHONE MANHOLE M ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER 03 TRAFFIC SIGNAL C3 oasis Tv sox • ELECTRICAL METER 03 GAS METER • FOUND IRON MONUMENT O SET IRON MONUMENT O CAST IRON MONUMENT M AIR C0110MONER APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA • BOLIARD O ELECTRIC MANHOLE o- FLAG POLE M FUARED END SECTION Mg GAS VALVE HANDICAP 5Y14801 .0.• HYDRANT • WATER MANHOLE • WATER VALVE 11 POWER POLE :1 GUY WIRE CONIFEROUS TREE 0 DECIDUOUS TREE RORY L. SYNSTELIEN DATE 03/19119 1.10E40E NO 441115 „ 0 COTIFOGHr m1, LW. SfrE GROUP era. 1--- -----0_ ' ----_ / -, i ---r ------- , __. -------e:,!--,-,_-,.., 1 I ----1-;-,,---t ___ --,, ---1--------------i-__._:_,__ ,, -,„,...„, , 1-,_ ---- _ ,, LiEMOWEXISTING , 1 , -1 1-----1- Vi-: -: -- --RE011111100,WALCA __ 1 i , 1 Miltitr'l — 1 A 1 i( 501/D51'5 St -7423,US t 8 T i X 6 11 REMOVE EXISTING ' ,,,. - _ ._-1_ _ - - r --- -it `L AVEMENTA)63 BASE -,- _ - - /WEAK AND - - - - S-7-1-'f'f -- ----7--- -(--- - - - - -t _ - ,-_,,L ,:_ A2'!? _ 4 , _ _ - -PARXING SIGNSMR: _ L., _ _ _ ._-- r , ____ I. ---.....- —. 721.-,-).---- C —7...... A , 4 '4, .2.,..._, • :-,,ILEMOVE EMSTIN5L7_ _ • \ FENCE AND FOOTING, R6ARETAINI9VENCIECWS ULGAND - - REMOVEEMS111493 .Tp. FOOTItia, '-?..L, C,' —1 ' ---t,,,. 'Z'' etpReARD GLrrifly Mi.- REMOVE EXISTING TREE --- ,-ANDBALLROOTATYP. REMOVE EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND FOOTINGS=Pfh. '' 1,- -----=1:j - ..__, 1 ALL UNUSED EXISTING WATER SERVICES WITHIN THE PROPOSED UNITS SHALL BE REMOVED AND ABANDONED BACK TO THE MIN PER CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS STANDARDS Amundson Ave REMOVE AU.EXISI1NG (A PUIALIC 4/14/ UTILTY SERV. PER UTIL,TY COMPANY AND a1 e7ral smo-441.0410 161, 44 CITY, DIANDMIDS 6,464 se 4n4446 4.(4141.11 J41.1011 A1(.41.5 F- 7 c 10111 e•Aosm6 .01 tl - - - - ALIA ----- ------- I L COORDINATE •,,,___=;,__RELoaknouop EXISTINdOVERHEAD LINEwitirknYovmER O R u REMOVAL NOTES: SEE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PIAN (SWPPP) PLAN FOR 11. PROPOSED WORK (BUILDING AND CML) SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND APPROVED BY 'ME CRY 2. REMOVAL OF MATERIALS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. WITH MNOOT, STATE AND LOCAL REOLKATIONS. 12. SITE SECURITY MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROVIDED IN A MANNER TO PROHIBIT VANDALISM, AND 'THEFT, DURING AND AFTER NORMAL WORK HOURS, 3. REMOVAL OF PRIVATE UTILMES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY OWNER 'THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. SECURITY MATERIALS SHALL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACMES. BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY. 4. EXISTING PAVEMENTS SHALL BE SAWCUT IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE 13. VEHICULAR ACCESS TOME SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR ORNERY AND DRAWINGS OR THE NEAREST JOINT FOR PROPOSED PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS. INSPECTION ACCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATING HOURS. AT NO POINT ADJACENT STREETS BE BLOCKED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CRY PRIOR TO 6. ABANDON, REMOVAL, CONNECTION, AND PROTECTION NOTES SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE. COORDINATE WITH PROPOSED PLANS. 14. M1 TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF NE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL 7. EXISTING ON-SITE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. TO, SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL RENIN OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. IS. SHORING FOR BUILDING EXCAVATION MAY BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR AND AS APPROVED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. TS STAGING, DEMOUTION, AND CLEAN-UP AREAS SHALL BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY 16 DAMAGE BEYOND THE PROPERTY UNITS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTWITY LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER AS SHALL BE REPAIRED INA MANNER APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERAANDSCAPE REQUIRED BY THE CITY. ARCHITECT OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY. 1. 8. PROPERTY LINES SHALL BE CONSIDERED GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. WORK WITHIN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS SHALL INCLUDE STAGING, DEMOLITION AND CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. B. MINOR WORK OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE ALLOWED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. 5, THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT SHALL CIRCULATION OF REMOVED MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF TOA LEGAL OFFSITE LOCATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. Know what's below. Call before you dIe. =20,0" ISST 10-0' 0 20-0' 0441(127(s 1175 Leff=1 X OL 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL REMOVAL OF PAVEMENT MD ALL BASE MATERIAL, INCLUDING BR., CONC., AND GRAVEL PMTS. REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ALL FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS. REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER. IF IN RIGHTMF-WAY, COORDINATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT. TREE PROTECTION TREE REMOVAL - INCLUDING ROOTS AND STUMPS CITY OF EDINA REMOVAL NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA REMOVALS LEGEND: 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 (i) LUJ re LL I 0 I.L. U. 2 G R P En0966Ing Sur,,/,g • LEr64564.9 achleotve 4931 W. 35111 54661. 54119 200 CC Louts Pas/, IAN 55416 group wrn 612-615-0065 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS UNA.T1 tIT:13(1 IttVI AYLY, 151, DA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAN A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IIINNESOTA. Ma aw R Pavek LUTE 45/19 ()CENSE NO. 44263 ISSUETSUBMTITAL SUMMARY DATE T.V111 DESCRIPTION CITV &RUFF,. PROJECT NUMBER: 15033 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION REMOVALS PLAN c1.0 0 colAr4.1.4.1.51,51r. GROUP NC '-'CIN OF EDINA FOR FENCE STALLATIONAM IT TO RETAINM 6 L MATCH FUTURE BIT. TRAIL - THE CITY OF EOM IS IN THE PROCESS OF REDESIGNING Sr* 48. BLA STEEL • , 70TH STREETTO ADD A - FENCE-To-MA BITUMINOUS TRAIL. =„ ALONG 75TH ST. COORDINATE FINAL ALK 3 g COORDINATE MATH /HE DRAINTRE - - SO0'00.58I ---4 ES Di E OE ,s SITE AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING CONDITION 18,462 SF 33.9% 27,409 SF 50.3% 2,630 SF 15.13% BUILDING COVERAGE ALL PAVEMENTS ALL NON-PAVEMENTS PROPOSED CONDITION 21,870 SF 40.1% 18,382 SF 317% 14,249 SF 26.1% 1. All WORK MOON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO FOLLOW CITY OF EDINA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS. TOTAL SITE AREA 54,501 SF 100.036 54,501 SF 100.0% 45,871 SF 84.2% 40,252 SF 73.9% -5,619 SF .10.3% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED [GNOMON DIFFERENCE (EX. VS PROP.) PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA OPERATIONAL NOTES: SNOW REMOVAL: ALL SNOW SHALL BE PUSHED TO LANDSCAPED AREAS. TRASH REMOVAL: TRASH REMOVAL TO BE COORDINATED W/ BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND TRASH HAULER. DELIVERIES: DELIVERIES SHALL OCCUR ALONG AMUNDSON AVENUE. Know what's below. Call before you dig. 1' 20t0' N9i1 1 10t0' 0 20.0* 4/.2111.4411 GR O U P CMTryhoed.-6umTl,q WNvxps AroMecture 4431 W. WIN SI.. Sub 200 EL La. Park MN 55416 14Nyoup cern 612.616-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS DRAWN WEIN REVIEWED BY: DK I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS PIM, SPECIFICATION, DR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MAOhow R. Push DATE 4/5/19 NO. 44203 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE .12 DESCRIPTION MY MI.. PROJECT NUMBER" 19033 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION DATE SITE PLAN C2.0 2,11.2.11,121,11 124,21.221h PRO ALONG BE / 15 M ---U 5' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL EASEMENT CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY IF DRAINSIDOST IN FACE OF WALL PRIOR TO GRADING WORK. IF DRAINS EXIST BELOW MAL GRADE, COORS. WITH ENGINEER AND THE CITY. 800R. INNATE RELOCATION OF oti,svro OVERHEAD LINEW/ UTILITY OWNER ----WITETSHTCAST-94SLACE_CONC. ',PLANTER, SEE ARCH. FOR & 2 FINISH, PROVIDE SI DRAWIN S. NTeE , -.MONC1CURBAT -- _ - - 85E Pr As I ON OM CONC. WMX, TYP 00.811e1111 4' BENCH, GROUND Pre 6' BENCH, BENCH, GROUND MOUNTED PER MANUF. MOUNTED PER MANUF. SPEC, COORDINATE WI SPEC., COORDINATE W/ FF&E PLAN. PROVIDE FF&E PLAN. PRO)ADE COLOR SAMPLES, TYP. COLOR SAMPLES, TYP. ' fT-c4- 71. CONCRETE PATIOS, COORON W/ ARCH., TYP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O• nw 37) SEG. RETAINING WALL. PROVIDE SHOP pRAvuues 8 COLOR ,,SUOIAITIAL, INSTALL PER MANUF. SPEC. EMENT C- 30' PliBLIC ROADWAY EASEMENT • MATCH BASTING ) e6, SYS CONC. UTILITY PAD COORD. W/ UTILITY CO FOR MAL LAYOUT, SIZE &LOCATION, COORD.WI ELECTRICAL ENG. PWON TRACTOR __CONCRETEBIDeNALJEiatify STANDARDS, TYP. MAKE . CONNECTION TO EX ONET TRAIL -----114StAL:BcDPSION,_ - --- PER1RML GUIDELINES. - „ „ - :T.•1 .- -- H (3) 'HOOF STYLE BICYCLE RACKS, SEE DETAIL PVMT. STRIPING 'Ni s TIP. 10 CURB 136 I2 TO RIBBON CURS TRANSITION, SEE DETAIL ilSEA r BIT. PUNT., -/ TYP -13812 GIG, TYP. MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL, SEE GRADING FOR HEIGHT, TYP. CONC. WALK. TYP i crly' I.- -- ...-.7.' I I I 4 10' CURS T, CURB TAPER SUPS-TAPER' -17.0' Amundson Ave (A PUBLIC R/W) , , REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH • __EXISTING MATCH, TYP I I FED RAMP, SEE DETAILS, 00/ICRETE DRIVEWAYI- ,) OP;),; EYP. ' Y, - 9 APRON Ppi CITYI b' STANDARDS, 1.1111 d ,ACCESSIBLE PARKING - SPACE, INCL SIGNAGE, STRIPING j- • AND RAMPS (4) 5.84C0/10. STAIR & HAND RAL SEE CHEET C3.0 FOR ELEVATIONS MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL, SEE GRADING FOR HEIGHT, TIP. REPLACECURBAND CONCRETE ) GUTTER TO MATCH SI CiEWAUC 'ER crrr o',STING, TYP. STANOARDS,TYR-', COORDINATE SIDEIYMR ALIGNMENT W/ crrArucer RE-DESIGN. SIDEWALK PER CITY STANDARDS, TOP. IT COORDINATE duArtoRAIL& FENCING , LOCATIONS & DETAILING PER yr/ ---' STREET RE-DESIGN. pa4.1_ 4uospunt. No It'd US N'4444 . 4.240' 4.1.4./ 14 1.11 At.,4414. Ll ospun (LI SITE LAYOUT NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF All SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT UNITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY TINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILMES, BUIWINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEEFULANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION Of MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-0E4AT AND STREET OPENING PERMIT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS. 5. LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEERIANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 8. CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BURPING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMff SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW ANO APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. B. PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADA. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL 9. CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 2M WIDE WHITE PAINTED UNE, SPACED MP ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE MOE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES. 10. SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAL 11. ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 13. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS. 14. PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 15. ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE MITE 4' WIDE TYP. 16. BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE 'LIGHT DUTY' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 17. ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT PIE DRIP UNE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS. B812 CEG, PIP. I L. /3! MATCH, TYP. I I _ _/ CITY OF EDINA SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: SITE AREA TABLE: SITE PLAN LEGEND: HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATL CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE EASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, SEE DETAIL PROPERTY UNE • I=1 INN - III CONSTRUCTOR LIMITS CURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (7.0.)11P OUT GUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLAN TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGS SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED. HC ...ACCESSIBLE SIGN NP= NO PARKING FIRE LANE ST = STOP CP = =TACT CAR PARING ONLY 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS 59.33 58.30 TB '1, 45,97 49.70 C - - 466 G C 111.1•111-C".. 0 C4_, /-1) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IRIS PVN. SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT] AM ADULT LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER 114E LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA GENERAL GRADING NOTES: I 1 1 I^ I"'1 I 1 A.--) 11 EROSION CONTROL NOTES: SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5 oustm P14 P=20-0 10,0* 0 20,0* DATE DESCRIPTION GROUP ekeiEnelne•rtrey &Amine Landscape Archlectre 4931 W. 350)519/44.0131e 200 St Lads Park MN 55416 ar03egroup.com 612816-0060 00 ;' , I 1 ------- --- --- - ee5 - 846 / --- --- r1 1 - - _ 50,19 ' ,±• • eel -698 -W5g )U ,ryy55.9 0 rtir -1111 000'005ST 1 54.93 , 53.0* 8,50 TC c 5198 57.90 1Zt \ 58.80 HP 5g 56 pp 7y 15:2 965;:py, 42 U.,' 5564°S 4-, a Do mom, „.„ „mwaraptim 59.42 49'.94 91 • 5 LiS 4d 5%; BW 57 33 TW 0510(1177 5 410 93.MM me 5 3 Ai 555.0063 TW 060000 59 81 1".111111 01 11121/Milli 111116111111JA P `Ensue' 5 BW railWrar Ora ak . , 60.00: 59.93 PR. BW 57 55 -U. OW 60.00 60.00 . 59.33 DOOR 60,00 DOOR 60.00 58.15 6000 LP DOOR 59.93 69.93 58.94 PR, BW \ 59.74 PRT„7W/BW I Es. or - 59.93 60.00 DOOR 59.91 59.83 60.00' nOR° 59.93 I FFE=860.00 - GFE=849.00 56.04-' 56.06 56.07 ' 1. DOOR 1 ,'_ 59 83 57.91 4 RISERS 11 5.8- EAGai'c - 60.00 55.94 55.16 \ 5.3 OT 4:90 3107 53.39 11.11WIMMilik‘MMIIMINEMIENT01. 54.11 1,4 .14•14,5 56.00 11T . 54.00 OW 55.36 sW • 5561 7705 B i8 A a B.0 5 LI (A PUBLIC R/W) 33.1-415,uospuntuv 40161E uo umoes se 4461318 DespurAPV JO 114.11 011341345 Im 1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION, EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER 3. GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 4. PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW-LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, 6. GRADES OF WALES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 6% MAX LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1% MIN. AND 2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6, PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 31 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAJNED AREAS IS 4:1 7. PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES GREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY A REGISTERED RETAINING WALL ENGINEER DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTERMICE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL. ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES. 9. IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATEFUAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE. 10. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. ID(CESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH Of 8 INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TOA MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHES. 11. FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSMON AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERMCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTORS OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK 12. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROU. WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE THE CONTRACTOR SFIALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS.111E TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER NO TEST ROLL SHALL OCCUR WITHIN IP OF AM UNDERGROUND STOMA REIENTIONMETENTION SYSTEMS. 13. TOLERANCES 13.1. THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0,30 FOOT MOVE, OR 020 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 13.2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 13.3, AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION. UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER 13.4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 10 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. 14. MAINTENANCE 14.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC MD EROSION, AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. 142, CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF 15 TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED AND MULCHED. 14.3. WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE, AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION. MILLER HANSON PARTNERS 49.00 GARAGE 0008 54.61 ME 52.79 ss.63 P, SW 578 EX OW 57541 = EX. MW 58.92 - B 59771W •187.89 BW TW/BW 11,T7-1 56.00 WI '• 55.131 E110 5 55.5 4,20 1,7,f3W 55.53 TW xx4,5,•xxx,..mi 55.03 BW Amundson Ave 57.33 3W 9,44, ••••., Is LL 4 33333 U- z w J 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY BRAUN INTERTEC, DATED 08-21.2018 GROUNDWATER WAS NOT OBSERVED AT ELEVATIONS RANGING FROM 28 FEET TO 45 FEET DEEP. CITY OF EDINA GRADING NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC GRADING NOTES. GRADING PLAN LEGEND: PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA 1125 1137 \-41.26 891.00 G 891.00 TC 891,00 BS/TS 891.00 ME EOP=1135.52 Know what% below. Call before you dig. EX 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1.0. CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTERIFLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTER SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRS SPOT GRADE ELEVATION MATCH EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER (T.0 =TIP OUT) EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 4() VVIO CRY VALOTIN. DRAWN WAN REVIEWED BY:DK PROJECT NUMBER: 19633 REVISION SUMMARY GRADING PLAN C3.0 COMAY11,201A11, errE CAOIAMC DATE GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DESCFUPITON I B E a A' S g • 8 DT CLEANOUT 12B, 'IE (S856111 IE (N115.4.117_ SET CASTING 8. BELOW SURFACE -1111.F 6' DT - -1-# PERE. PVC -421 0.50% DT CLEANOUT128, IE (N)=858,9C SET CASTING 8' ! -- BELOW SURFACE r 214 LP, ir HPDE _ STORM at 1.64 1 FES 31 _ so0.00.58.r-42.;. QB RIM.% 52.09 EX. IETW/E)4836.55 PR. IE (124.S 7842.68 - - 8 4,1 r- PR 1E BY-DTy839.00 - - ,--CONSTRUCT MH OVER -AD.E<ISTING STORM SEWER - PIPE PER CITY STANDARDS -- ' -12 EF 124 HPDE- - _ -78.1.011/412_,7 23 LF IBTLIPDE STORM-OB 1.DO% - - - - 21 LF 12' RCP . STORX142) 1.00% 32 , T. - . itetiew.44- -- _ .11,MH 11 __ a a STORMWATER TREATMENT VAULT 1A RIM=852.17 IE (W)=848.44 1E (N)=846.44 IE (S)=843.44 KRAKEN KF-13.10 --- 1.1 FLOW=0,78 CFS -; _ SYSTEM CAPACITY=1 25 CFS 4.444141 ----- . _TiE.84910 _ --- ----- 12' INLET: 1E342.90 23 LF 1Y SCH 40 PVC STOPM O .00% CS 2 RI/44850M 1E4848.87 STORM 2.00 37 1 TCHIPVC 12' INLET I E=1343.92 S 23 LF 12' HPDE STORM @ 2.00% 13'13 RIM=857.90 I =853.69 10' OPLAST RUCTURE WIT 8.'60 ME GRA TRENCH DRAIN 21 RIM=848 88 BOT=8413.88 IE (S)=844.38 8' COMBINED WATER SERVICE. CONSTRUCT PER CITY OF EDINA, BLDG ROOF DRAIN SPECIFICATION, DETAILS, AND STUB STANDARDS. STUB TO 5 FROM STUB 1E450.64 BLDG., COORD. W/MECH'L. BLDG I E=1350 64 , , - COORD. W/ MECI-I'Ll ii... . ,'• • i - • , FIRE DEPARTMENT ' - I Li .-1. -4-- -11- CONNECTION, COORD.. W/MECILL / ‘t/ .4, 38 LF 12' SCH 40 PV STORM @ 0.50' 12' INLET - 1E4Q.69 110 12' HPDE Sk811.1@ 1.00% STORMWATER TREATMENT VAULT 18 1 RIM=847.87 KRAKEN KMF-36-38-30 CURB , FILTER FLOW=0.19 CFS 8' PVC SAN. SEWER SERVICE. CONSTRUCT PER CITY OF t ,1.-- , EDINA SPECIFICATIONS, ' -I DETAILS, AND STANDARDS. I7-T-11."-1I , IE © STUB=843.65 i 1 I STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG. i$IIII. 1.11....1 MEW NM] COORD. W/MECHTL. _ I a ---11.mmitm„,„, owls CB 14 RIM=858.80 lE=853.88 18' NYLOPLAST ..1 34 LF 12' SCII 40 PVC , . , CB 15 STRUCTURE WITH , , - STS? 0-501' IE=854.05 , - Rim,,,,,, _' -_,- . 151ELOMEGRATE „ I . lir NYLOPLAST ; = STRUCTURE WITH 18' DOME GRATE a , ,,-, 447 LF 12' SCH 40 PVC STORM 0 0.50% 31 LF SCH40 PVC SAN. SERV. 80 1.00% ‘T, CONTRACTORSHALLSAWCUT& REMOVE PUBUC PVMTS., CURBS, AND ttgt=2MO T F y UTILMES. REPIACGAII/MATERIAL, IN KIND, AND TO CRY STANDARD AND APPROVAL RE/LOVE ALL 85511NO , UTILITY SERVICES PER I UTILITY COMPANy AND Om STANDARDS . , I 4. 140p101f 58-1'.' 70.00 CB 18 11144,8- 58.28 \ 1E484.28 181 NYLOPLAST el-Rum-Om wrni 18* DOME GRATE ,.,. cB eo El MAKE WET TAP 4, CONNECTION TO L. EXISTING ir - , WATER MAIN, COORD. WITH CITY EX SAN. MH s RIM451.56 EX IE (WS)=842.84 (FIELD VERIFY) poeukt suospumuy Jo mid uo 000,00,.0, 10 PROP IE (E)=843.34 con DRILL CONNECTION TO - - EXISTING MANHOLE, COORDINATE WITH CITY aaN P c GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: EE p LI /7 Lt./ V og 1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 3. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT 'GOPHER STATE ONE CALL' (851.484-0002 OR 800-2624166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER, 4. UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF 'STANDARD SPEOFICATIONS FOR WATER AWN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION' AND 'SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION' AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CfTY AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 5. CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE-USED OR PLACED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER. 6. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) AWWA C151, AWE B18.4, AWWA C110, AWWA 0153 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 28 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) ASTM 03034 8 F879, OR SCH 40 ASTM 01785, 2865, ASTM F794,1868) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE HOPE ASTM F714 8 F2306 WITH ASTM D3212 SPEC FITTINGS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF FLARED END SECTION. 10. UTI MES ON THE PLAN ARE SHONN TO WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS 11. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE HUMPED 0.15 FEET PER DETAILS. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 12. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 13. HYDRANT TYPE, VALVE, AND CONNECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRY REQUIREMENTS. HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ARE INCIDENTAL. 14. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18' VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAN IS INCIDENTAL 15. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 18, AU. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRY STANDAROS AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 17. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES SHALL BE CORE-DRILLED. 111. COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS. 19. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH ADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CRY STAFF. 20. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CRY. ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUT. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PRONGED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCO) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE UNITED TO SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 21. ALL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHERE REQUIRED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES. 23. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTIUTIES, COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATOR SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACT INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES. 24. CONTRACTOR SHALT. PLANTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK 25. ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT. APPROVED RESIUENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MARE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES. 25. ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 1109.0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA CITY OF EDINA UTILITY NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES. S ahs CLEANOUT DT lE=839.00, TYP.' DRAW DOWN RISER, TYP. • 6. PVC PERF. DRAIN! TILE WRITER scpc 0.00141 TYP. 360 LF (4 kows-u.. ee'LF) 80' PERF. CMP UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM 12' SIDE 8 END STONE, 30' STONE SEPARATION, B' STONE COVER 24' SAND BASE BAFFLE WALLS BETWEEN PER. AND NON-PERF PIPES; TOP BAFFLE WALLS4842.90 00 CMP 1E441.00 6' DT/SAND 1E439.00 Op' CMP TOP=846.00 LCO-YR HWL=645.07 ..-DRAW DOWN ;RISER, TYP. SYSTEM CAPACITY=0.27 CFS UTILITY LEGEND: CATCH BASIN MANHOLE GATE VALVE ANO VALVE BOX PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT WATER AWN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER FES AND RIP RAP Know Mai below. Call before you dig. 10.0' 0 20,01 CV2019 1.3 GROUP CFA Enolv.Wp Euyeylop loadocopo Artiotootvo 4951 W. 35111 Stan. Sao 200 St Lads Pork MN 55416 chilelosroupcom 612-815-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS •ch Lt, • uj LLI O LLI z • z 0 CC a uj LL 5. • w a - < 0 Lc> 15 2 AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ESOTA. Ma R. PIMA, DATE 44/19 LICENSE NO 44283 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE art stolen. DRAWN BY:BN REVIEWED 135, DK PROJECT NUMBER: 10033 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIVDON UTILITY PLAN C4.0 COP1FLIGHr201 01V0. Sill OWN, C. DESCRIPTION .10 GR O U P CIA Witeering Swaying • Land.apa Arcit•olur• 4631 W. 3.56151reek &AWN St Louie Peek, IAN 55416 aWelteenwp corn 612-615-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS I MIEN COMFY INA MSS PLAN, SPECIFICAMON, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MI OM Mpi. FL Pavek DATE 4A5/19 LICENSE NO. 442E3 DRAWNEIY:BR REVIEWED BY: OK ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE 0,610 OESCRIPRON err 01.1000TTIC PROJECT NUMBER.. 10033 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION DATE CIVIL DETAILS C5.0 (:) sopos*ErsolscrAL SITE GROUP 00 r <0•1 00 LIMO 19 6411-0-9000/1 TM ON sssss,0,ss sssys., sp. NEOTER. NEWATIO INIAL if PIM caw.. MI 01 WHYS 01010 09-0(M 100... 0 r n 0011.01 0. I1AMI S'10 M0 IX10 co al 9010 ON 0.11100.11 A. 99 ...ILI.< 1.900.11 0010000 ALL MN. TO 010 0.0101-4000. 1110.1 TO COVINI 0011.001. NS comcnans 0 A...a wa. 1NPA 000901 NA n0 1100 C01.120 10 LIGON 501 EE 11.0110111.111 1 0.0. NM rum r /1099T .110.111 MPS 11.091 PALO PR. 00-0111EAVImn 011010 EDN 10009.11 a 19.0111.0 PA 111E100 SI. 01 rillIATICAM14.421;91,14y0 1100.1.0 0101.110.13 OS CII BIS NOW PO .R.L 1191.6 FAN. SO Ar. 0090 Kan.; P. ARS 10101. NA 11/111.1101/2 0301.1 000191 AS LAN 001 As100011 901 0 10.0105 FM 1001 cayeanu0 Ti F001911 NLE 10 MAN 019. w Drew 10301 at. 01 a, T-P1 r-r 2-r rr M.EMSEMES 1,211CIMLEMEC II J 601.11Y6M2 CITY OF EDINA ENOINGC111/0 & PUBLIC MILKS DEPTS. NOTES =100/91111110 11-191-0 11% 006E0 ME SRA IRE 0.10 NOM .1.1 If A 101. CA..0 =OE 1011 0.1-9 0 11 WINIMIZI/N0 IC A SEMI 11103 .00YE ALLIS. MOO AS 001/19. NINO. EC.. V.. 0310910.01191, POSO. 01190 ST.AL - 50E SOSO [0.001 COLAS 11ENOUS 0900 NO 1091 .0 10 10.1. RI-NO NM 01,090 0011999 LOOSE 91111 NU bow ULM. 104 t111. --------- fiEr'"OTEET1102 COI r PESSOLTO ONCRs. SASE 31 00.000 po. 9 .1000 pm., RM. 1.010. 0. (NW. LAM. t1=1,7r-VJLETATZedakr"' 0-00 A i) Anw.c. xu,ruz lermmtrulatimu , R. CR 5.150. 0959. ▪ SIVCE NAT SE 001013 MN NI 4,11/0 0-00 S 001 lar Las. LOON 10 ASE11.= 001 04EllF 0911515 K RO SE 100 012 .1) 10=1 C. 000 0.0101011 CRP SOU SE 6.5.50.:64-51.M.ZTIO FLOC 1171 INC SOITIN 1090 Olt 0 f0.001.010t CITY OF ELBA ENGWERING PUBIC WORKS DEPTS. PLAN 22 1/2'-45• BEM& PLAN - Er0105, Pcoa rum ern. c010.000 cootarawall .05T.RM. MTN 091.11 COOKE ammear SINE 101 COVI Ares yrs marrt r. sEC1IGI4 A-A, filITTRESS DIMESSIONS f-af 21N t-r COT OF RSV. ENGINEERING & MENG WORKS DEPTS. 05100 PEKOE I' A 00 00000 0091 RNA Mr .0 0111,009011 EASE 0001 I-NY 001 0 1010 Nfo. 09010111.IMP. 00.0 01.190 01.0 WA tt 03 0.1-1 /111. 110900 MO NMI .11110 PATON V.Pf MOS. V.Z.4.0,1.14 -000.09Th1=06Ark,r.u ma .210. WA w MN. MUNN PO.T. OPAL 1900 IR 1104 e Om M. NIS 101113m 90.910 900 070041 m 0.51. Sr.. FIRM .9FR 000 ayu. 00.0, 091 Turco nay 00 e 1.7019 cm. mug., cr scum. now. In M600= Fralgrastrdal Wel.„81=41.1. 111.101555. rum 1,s S nwar art CW: lax. II As or.. SW DOWN MY OF EOINA COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY APRONS unri_tuNo PVELIC WORKS WTH coqcv WALK _ ;7/ DEPTS. orruwwx / se(twa la2e5 40121 saxs. 81) rom Aare/ r NMI 0.0 0011.10110 PLUS Dwrzeratulvaraz. 0 ,sm) rmix.yr4.-41 O no,--aar-rAcula--- trOcen0==graWaras tr. 001000 00 00000 60110, 00910E VIR AANS 011 SE /P 110=79".&0' 00.1010.1. caess 0ea isou acran/100094 S9000040 OTY OF EDINA DRANOCRINO & PUBLIC WORKS DORIS OFSKR4 RHOS ENT ,ate, w, wllr L PESse HOST ram SAY =MAT A% VA:=14241rk • Stem Seleliss.,099.45 - Wat ;NT 04 . .911 ANI000 • MKS (001.01 l's' TS. NOV. SEISME,,_ Low 5 Or 0 0E1E00 I we O. 0 SOL CITY OF EDINA EN0NEERIN0 & PfAUIC WORKS DEPTS, TRACER WIRE ACCESS BOX .a.1/ 1000 11.10900 TO 011,70"="111"4 'ASVAMIel 'Mar ott•nre or own MA COLLAR VFW TOP SMEARS RATE 1 10 KNEES ol-t8 I LW 3110.01.11111, .0 1191. ni NOT 00 MOW( MS 911010.1009 TO 1. LON RR 1•001. RATIO1 NSA somASO HAT0 300 MOSS -IS 40 MOE SCNIC PM ISCPC IN' SEWER AND WATER SERVICE ,2 1 Dtlic;11 04-00 MAMMAS saIl TC.91, 61,041001 415 HYDRANT AND GATE VALVE sTANDMEI HAD ASYSEs 01-1e 100 CITY OP EDNA ENGINEERS,* & PUBLIC WEAKER DEPT& CATC ASI aANHOLE APIti/90 INNEN r ra r-r T-r 0,0 st 00 ry r-r 'YX'. ROTES 0.2.09.111. 0.00 PA 011 Ms. If MOO A. PLO. 0010,0‘ 0-1 1010i SI rt 0.019010.CACE 91911 SIE AS AWE E.. 0.0 s 0 0001 a rensal AEON 019 EL 0 100 W. AS POSENESTS. NS00110 IRO A ES. Si 001 0 arras low ma LA OM Id POO 0 .10,550 /101 0011950 1M. 0.0.1 SO K NILE 00.110,01 10000 0.19. 0LOT woo. SOON .1,111 SOON N. 010 MK 01 CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK lcP I HATE 120 9_,K,Sat 6-10 -11 0.901 ./5 80$1,(1.9 r A•••000 10y 010•rm CITY OF MINA ENSINEERNS &PUBLIC WORKS DEPTS. RATE 420 STAAVA60 HATE 500 MISES 01-16 CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE CURS de GLITTER /Were OVIETIES. CYMTS TTSSOCO)RS ONLY WHERE YAM MEETS ECGE OF WALK LEAVE ECM OF MULCH DOWN I. FROM TOP OFWAM 1, FINISHED COMPACTED SUBORACE NOTE& 1.LIISTAUATIONSAALL BE CERTIFEDAND N ACCORDANCE TORN ONSTE &CA TECHIMWI AS SPECIFIED. 2.SEE 0E08ECHNICALRECOVEASMATIONS FOR cones meow REQUITEMENT& 3. SEE lAYOUT DRAWINGS FOR WETS OF RAMS &SEE CONCRETE ASMIT DEMI FOR REP/AO/EMS. SIDI YAM EVANSON MPITAM SEMANTATALL CURBS. O CONCRETE WALK/PAD CASTING SCHEDULE N T S (PRIVATE PROPERTY) 3 N T S O ACCESSIBLE PARKING PAVEMENT MARKING NTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA COMPACTED SUBORADE (100%0F STANDARD PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY) C) LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT NOTE SECTION IS FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY. REFER TO GEOTECH FOR FINAL PAVEMENT SECTION. NTS WPM , 01,4 gt :ivA0-2,41PA 1.5 WEAR COURSE (MNDOT 2360 - SPY/M.340B) TACK COAT (MNDOT 2357) 2' BASE COURSE (WIDOT 2360 SPNWB330B) CLASS 5 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (MNDOT 3138) CASTING SCHEDULE CATCH BASINAWRIEREIRISER GRAM ME NEENAH) REMARKS 1,11 R-1642 STORM MANHOLE 2 82067 STORM CURS INLET 12-12 R-4342 STORM AREA DRAIN INLET NOTE 1. CMTINGS SHALL BE MUM FOAMY CASTNGS OR APPROVED EOUNALIEM. 2. CASTINGS SNAIL BE STAMPED %MIN APPROPRIATE LORRY NNE rSTOFOA SEWER., SANITARY SEWER" M CONCRETE AS SFECIRED .0 XWIA WIRE MESH AND *MRS AS SPECIFIED rciAss5AGGREGATEBASE USW BROOAIFINSH PERPENDICULAR TO TRAFFIC WITH WHIM SMOOTH TROWELLED EDGE TOCUED CENTROLJOINT SEE DETAL (TYP.) 6' RADIUS 12' DWAETER 8' LINE WIDTH 3' LINE WIDTH 6.13' SQUARE OVERALL 16' RADIUS ALL COLORS TO MATCH ADA STANDARD COLORS SOISI TOS 1010. CURIO PAVIS MONO ey parr 0010164 COLKINE 01105. 91090111 0' COWL. VMS eta 5.106 0.001 NOTES_ /0.10.0 19/100 1,0111 ANA IS 491-911 10010 00 DOL.. Et. FE CATE '90111 eF....,;li m is RAIL 0. ASO 50 01. Ft 0000 A f AO. MX T.IIN ANI 0,0 . SATE 0.090 MOO E I ,W TOP SECTION -1T-/jt " 001T SW TO lir spa ILAIXTIP MO 011 MOS "4 SE MT ES% TO lr 0910 0.19 VAL,E 10... ma rc ciaz 00s. • lir wa ROI Y-11. Wry. MO • 11A0 txtrxsroNs ,assa, sosa, PdegE =WI. St LE raj& 00 cric tals 11---32,0-- NO. 8 ROUND BASE CITY OP EDINA ENGINEER.* & PUBLIC WORKS DEFER 00flEIL 01.0. GATE VALVE AND BOX '550055 Ti .R0L-s Er.,Ert14,' PPE 01440117(0) 19100100) aT IJ 19 AY ILI 90 CA-ASS_IT CI ASS C CT( OF EDINA ENGISEERING & PuBLIC MIRKY CEPTS PIPE BEDDING DETAIL /V 11000011. 009111 MOW, FLAIE 360 rICVSIX 61-00 .2010 1.0 COUP EW BOX SW VFW MID 10:0) COY CLASS A NUL 09.1. Cf PGE • SIS If. Es • If 3111 MI 1MS Sa • tr Off C0 91SR br 01 01E11 ea* ar SE. U) w w 0 0 a. 2 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONPAGTED SUBORAM NOTES: 1. 'RIESE SECTIONS ARE FOR ESTIVAT910 PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO StaWT TO LATMCAPE ARCHRECT CERTEED DRAY/293 BY A WANES= PROFESSIONAL EAVNEER OH STAFF WITH RETAN203 WALL MANUFACTURE PRIOR TO WALL INSTALLATION. PREPARADON MOD MATIFICATON TO BE PAID FOR BY ME CONTRACTOR. SECTION ANS ELEVATION OF EACH WALL AERATED. 2 ALL SOL PARIMETERS 81011 BE VERFIM BY A GEOTECHNIC.0. CONSULTANT OR SITE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF ACTUAL BITE COMMONS DEFER FROM THOSE A..0, NOTIFY MANUFACTRIER OF CUD RETAITING W41/ T2 HOURS FILM TO ENSTAUATIC41 3. 4 RAMS IS ADORED RI RETAINS.* WALLS 04 LOCAllONS MEE UFFERENGES IN GRADE ON STFER WDE OF TE WAIL ARE EN MESS Of 25 ALD ARE LOCATED CLOSER 110.4 4' TO A WALK. PAIN, PAM° AREA, OR *LVE ACCESS CR TLE KEN SDE-SEE FUNS. 5. ODGRONATE LocAram MID INSTAUADDN Of PALM POSTS AM) FOOTAGE DURING DE INSTALLATION OF WALL MATERIALS. IL COORDINATE INSTALLADON OF AAA. POSTS ANTI FOOTINGS FATE INSTALLATION AND LOCATION OF GEORGE) REINFORCEMENT. AT NO PRAT THROUGHCUT RE DIRATION OF THE CONTRACT SHALL CONTRACTOR ALTER THE PREGRITY OF ITE GEOGIM OR WAIL MMERL0S. 2 NA CAVE RALEIG FOOTINGS AS SPEWED ND 01 A WRIER TO NOT DISTURB TIE WAU.SEOG100 AS RECOGOAEN)E1) BY THE WAD. MANUFACILIFER COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDUUNG OF PALM FOOTNG WITH WALL MANUFACTURER TO OBSERVE INSTALLATION OF FLAMM) FOOTINGS. 0 RETAINING WALL NTS EXP. JOINT & SEALANT, TYP ADJACENT WALK AND TOP OF CURB SHALL MATCH SEE SITE AND PVMT. DETAILS CONDITION AT WALK APPROX FINISH GRADE (ADJ. FG) OUTSIDE PLAY AREA B' MW. SAND SUB BASE PERMEABLE FILTER FABRIC, MNDOT TYPE I WASHED COURSE DRAINAGE AGGREGATE, UMESTONE NOT PERMITTED COMPACTED CLASS V AGGREGATE NOTE: SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED FOR LAYOUT AND REINFORCING, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. O PLAYGROUND CURB & MULCH NTS GROUP CLi Erphoming • Stagy.a 4931 W. S.561 Street, Sits 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 DINislegroup.com 612-616-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS Cl) ' -9 z 2 LL Z ww CO z O to Ci) Z 2 O I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MAATB.R R. Pavak LIME 415/19 0GENSE NO. 44283 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Cire SUWITFAL DRAWN BY:B14 REVIEWED BY: 01( PROJECT NUMBER: 19033 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION CIVIL DETAILS C5.1 covrax.Txattava.s/TE cRow NC. FORMED.IN-PLACE MONOLITHIC CONC. CURB. PROVIDE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH ON TOP SURFACE. REINF. W184 REBAR AND 6' WELDED WIRE MESH. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS, TYP RAD. CORNERS, TM APPROX FINISH GRADE (TOP OF MULCH) IN PLAY AREA 12' MIN. PLAY AREA ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER SPECIALITY MULCH. VERIFY DEPTH WIN PLAYGROUND EQUIP. MANUF. DATE ,541. DATE FINISHED GRADE 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S„ MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 a. 0 a. u. 2 APR 0 5 2019 ITY OF EDINA 10. REMOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA IS ADEQUATELY VEGETATED. GENERAL NOTES 1. IN THE EVENT THAT SEDIMENT IS INTRODUCED INTO THE BNB' DURING OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EXCAVATION, THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVES FROM THE PRACTICE PRIOR TO CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION. 2. GRADING OF RETENTION DEVICES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED USING LOW-COMPACTION EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION 0 UNDERLYING SOILS. 3. ALL SUB MATERIALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED RETENTION DEPTH (ELEVATION) SHALL BE UNDISTURBED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING WALK MATERIALS SEE DETAIL 81 64 STEEL DOM SPACED 36' O.C. SLEEVED INTO STAIR ASSEMBLY (TYP.) #4 REBAR 3' CLEARANCE COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND TIE RERAN TO FOOTING REBAR (TIP.) STAIR & RAILING NOTES: ASSEMBLY SECTION 1. SOIL TESTING, COMPACTION, AND BACKFILLING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR AS SPECIFIED. 2. SUBMIT RAILING SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION. COORDINATE FABRICATION OF RAILING WITH OTHER RAIL OR FENCE TYPES. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 3. COORDINATE INSTALLATION OF RETAINING WALL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STA/RS-SEE RETAINING WALL DETAIL 4. NO SPACE SHALL BE ALLOWED BETWEEN STAIRS AND RETAINING WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. CONCRETE SHALL DIRECTLY ABUT FACE OF RETAINING WALL O EXTERIOR SITE STAIR & HANDRAIL (NO CHEEK/SIDE WALL) NTS JOINT WITH SEALANT. 8154 STEEL DOWEL WITH SLEEVE COMPACTED SUBGRADE (TIP.) FABRIC WRAP TOP OF ROCK WITH CONTECH C-40 NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE WRAP SIDES AND BOTTOM OF SYSTEM WITH 404,1IL HPDE IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE SUBDRAIN FILTER MATERIAL FINE FILTER AGGREGATE PER MNDOT 3149.2J 6' PERF. CPP DRAIN TILE PIPE PER MNDOT 3245 WITH FABRIC SOCK LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS 1. INSTALL SILT FENCE AND/OR OR OTHER APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING OR ENTERING THE PRACTICE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL DOWN-GRADIENT PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE ANY UP GRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY BEGINS. 3. PERFORM CONTINUOUS INSPECTIONS OF EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES. 4. INSTALL I/RUMS (WATER, SANITARY SEWER, ELECTRIC, PHONE, FIBER OPTIC, ETC) PRIOR TO SETTING FINAL GRADE OF BK)RETENTION DEVICE. 5. PERFORM ALL OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 6. SEED AND MULCH ALL AREAS AFTER DISTURBANCE. 7. CONSTRUCT RETENTION DEVICE UPON STABILIZATION OF CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA. 8. IMPLEMENT TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES. 9. PLANT AND MULCH SITE. C) UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM NTS 11111:1117-:-,11E. 12' 60' DIA PERI. CMP PIPE. INSTALL WEIRS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS O ACCESSIBLE SIGN AND POST NTS CAP BLOCI<IMIHNE OVERHAND FROM FACE OF WA11.2 READS OF ACHESNE PER NANUFACITRERS RECOMEMADONS IW, TYP MODULAR ROG< RETAINEM3 WAIL UNITAS SPE-CITED (TYP.) GEOGED AMMO:000R AS SPEOF1EDVERFY LENGTH WITH ENDNEER IS WIDE MANAGE LAYERDIP DIA STOLE 05% COMPACTED MCNEILL SOL M6 LIFTS 4. DIA PERFORATED EKES WITH FILTER SOCK (SLOFE TO OLDIET) SW, TSP MATERIALS VARY SEE RANS 1409M1A1 COMPACTED LEVELING PAD Il, L Ll, I VOITIVIIIIK, MODIFY RAD. CORNERS TO MEET ADJ. WALK SURFACE APPROX. FINISH GRADE (TOP OF MULCH) IN PLAY AREA 4' DIA. PERF. DRAINTILE, SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR CONNECTIONS AND LAYOUT, TYP. .2010 tra WALK MATERIALS SEE DETAIL FINISHED G 64 REBAR AT NOSE OF TREAD (TIP.) BROOM FINISH TREADS PERPENDICULAR TO TRAFFIC WIDTH UP TREAD STANDARD SANITARY SEWER MgN HOLE MT 51.0tAil rulr. 200 COVER SHALL BE STAMPED SMITARY SEAR. METAL SEWER CASTING • RIMER TO STRUCTURE WERKE f OR TYPE NUL 2 AND MAX 5 ADJUSTEIG MOS. MO UT BETWEEN NNW, CASTING, AND ALONO OUTSIDE PRECAST CONCRETE CONE SECTION STEPS CFI COVAISTREANI 541E WISER <WEFT • PIP AT PlL JCINTS SLOPEAT 21NET. (TYE) RIMER BOOT RUTTER BOOT GAMS SHALL BE E STANDARD PAC-an 10111 7 LEAN GROUT, OR POURED ERAS REINFORCED )91TH Ex r ono ws41 O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE NTS VERIFY WALK WIDTHS WITH SITE PLAN. REGARDLESS OF SITE PLAN LAYOUT, ENSURE MIN. 38' BETV/EEN HANDRAILS. INSTALL POSTS INTO STEP SURFACE. CORE-DRILL 1-3/8' DLA. HOLE AND INSTALL WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT, CROWN FOR DRAINAGE. SEAL AS SPECIFIED (TYP.) SPACE POSTS EQUALLY. 4,0. MAXIMUM O.C. 1/T DIA. RADIUS ON NOSE (TIP.) 1 1/2' DIA. POWDER COATED STEEL POSTS AND RAIL 1)4' SEAM WELD JOINTS, SAND AND SMOOTH ALL BURS. FURNISH AND INSTALL RAILING TO MATCH SLOPE OP STAIR. COORDINATE FINAL FINISH COLOR WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION-SEE NOTES. 112' WIDE EXPANSION JOINT WITH SEALANT. 811#4 STEEL DOWEL WITH 1NT WIDE EXPANSION SLEEVE METIL SETYD1 CASTTLG -REFER TO STRUCTURE SCHEDULE FOR TYPE MK 2 MD MAX 6 ADJUSTO3 RINGS. GROUT BETWEEN MSS, CASTING, AND ALOOD OUTST3E. PRECAST CONCRETE CONE SEMIS STEPS ON DOANSTREAM SIDE GROUTS HUT CHCS IU BASES SHALL BE 8' STANDARD PRECAST WITH 2' LEAN GROUT, OR POURED 8' SLAB REINFORCED WITH 6' x 6' 10/10 MESH DIMENSIONS FROM FLACK OF CURB (BOC)TO CENTER OF PIPE MRA 1,41. LN FROM BOG 5. OW /01. IN FROM BOC 6 DR WI • 3. BENIN) BOG 'I` DIN 1211 telENIM BOO DIA.11.01.15.8642.9 BOC COVER SHALL BE SPITED 'STORM SEWER' 0 STORM MANHOLE NTS N KEY 0 1. TOPSOIL 2. FREE DRAINING ANGULAR WASHED STONE 3/4" - T PARTICLE SIZE (NON LIMESTONE MATERIAL THAT CONTAINS LESS THAN 5% DELETERIOUS MATERIALS). INSTALL TO MIN. 95% STANDARD DENSITY PER AASHTO T99. TYP. SECTION DETAIL NTS EXTEND POST PAST TOP OF POST GALVA4S210 STEEL FASTENER (TYP. OF 2) METAL SIGN ACCORDING TO MN STATE CODE GREEN PONDER COATED STEEL SQUARE POST AS SPECIFIED ROD GALVANIZED STEEL PEE PANTED WM11 COAT OF AFPROPARTE FREER AND IWO GOATS EON MUM_ FE1 A/ERAAR SPACE PATH GROUT. COVER VARA YELLOW IDEAL SKEW PLASM COVER. 0 DEGREE SLOPE MATEALN. VARIES-SEE RAN 1 INCE SILICONE AMER OR ASPHALTIC CADMIC COMPOUND FIR ANM/LAR SPACE TO 1 9901 FROM TDP WITH SLID SAM UP METAL RATE HEIDE() TO BOTTOM Of r PEE CONCRETE FOOTING AS SPECIFIED NOM 1. ETON SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED. VEREY POST PART COLOR 191111 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORI° RETALIATION. at•T ,/-45t0.16 TAW:SITES DATE ea, ILAT,Pq.2.41,"..;%7713,7 .R."7 • .....31'74.411331.7.54.471••••••••• 311113:1133.1-V. • - • ••• 2.3%10,4 ...1•1•11e4........, 4 • Cuoi 04,. MI,. 4Ln., tax fj; g1,11,1rto,"71A114.11.".t.".. 2120001W, FAO STLISADLE FLAK ROME CUTS A (SITTER DETAIL " I uss t,t.us 0.2 ".•-3,04,..,51:::33.4.3t7.3."7.7.93:" • LASE. Prf..7.•1.11' ' 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS B. Civil ie GR OUP tlA Sughsulng • Surveying • tursisaps 4221 W. 35111 Strom, Sults 200 Loas Patic MN 55415 dettascscop.cont 6124164040 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS I I is SECIIEN 0-D 7. .1;141441tW1721.1'. DRAWN BY,EIN REVIEWED BY: DK I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PUN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A INKY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF 191E STATE OF MIRLNESOTA Al R. Pavel; DATE 4/5/19 LICENSE No. 44259 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE WIT DESCRIPTION ass susurrus PROJECT NUMBER: 19033 REVISION SUMMARY ESCRIPT/ON CIVIL DETAILS C5.2 COLTSUGMINTECM.STTEGLITTUP C. DATE 1.0.1 NVeit.1 zArAL,Iv-pwan,•.t...zf --- F-e-MOV.V14.1t-Arg 111.197=4,0,1.1ttl,WARIP4 '77 4,17,17733ViWKA "*"$ 10 1 :Wall 1rs: VP.1111517,513,41t1.-,'"•%•...V...M.`••• . a:MD tAT,W .93.11.41=1147,1`4.1...&11=- 0•"...7...14.57.1,11= • Ifi•49.79.14...4.0 • rZTFIN-2.77.5'1` .17,19W:1112-'.T.V.E7C9II .714.`".th=7:737155=71'..." •'• """ ••'• • . '1,71ISTAL".7 7- -197%11FP vr.-17"4-za 17`,4N7.7 17"....T iF17-1,`,1.77EiF.472 1W1101.5"=';``' T 41.1;14 '" 01011 001 DITSCIICTILL SAWS 0 STANDARD PIAN 5 -797.7ED [ 7 OF 6 SESI-DIIIECTICTIAL PAW II,. IITTSIVrgff1OPirierirCnsa 74",a S m[lux-us Trrr.est PAUSEST IFLATVEST 9PIIms TM MOST CD CLAS T TM tat NUM TUTETT/1 TW.G.S.0 paiTrff •• roma, • a vter.• 001,1531.W.75.411.3.57.17...3.T.7..••=• O ITTssuu TEE uscuTT s TAT. ty Tye,* a7TICIL:Tra tceirciyiii:157-3:::afylin tl..14.t nun:. MEM.. 011.1...C.6 t ZII.:IrIrc (If CI, ....c.v. • TVintlerkrIgINTAtliTMEIVegolflitai"'" 3,..,F I tv. WFT4001 ue...aula wt. on.•• • W.W.I( ...ma fn. eLL•tfil .F.'9417,•01N17.7:7117.4.' 'F.331.'77:2711.1? • ,FAS.V.`17.1"'""' • '"5:72,,,,..t.71,7.1117. rt.= 13,.41,..o Wan., 0 OLT ITILTIus . 1.011.1 Di essos CEDES/SIAS CT. EWE DETAILS STANDARD PI All 5-797.750 1 3 CU , CPTISTIL RETTFLTIDELITIT elVS:TITVIVVIZTV. • mem. TT. Iniesra. 1 ;Po;* ELSA DM -TAELE• • Kr-FUSS-LT+, ELSA LSD MUSE -TAI Tau,. Tay PTO LIN LSE MERE SLIM - TALI TYPPLIIDISSATS I 1-R .1 1 ,.7flJ21, I_ tam ,,,tev`48"isarli s.r 00 500*010 EDGE A1" '" nLt21.11" 4Vel=plat 2,-11-0-t\-0.4-240 Ctt4 UVICYL. rtittlat2 MTEC.TACLE CDT. 41R.,/ CMS ASO curtrn 93: "' mr.,t 01'.1171.17,--1=11.51.P. 4731.=7."....39V.74; 'W.11%17-..."737" 0-, 1!) 1-23-2017 FEEDSISIATI CUTS EWE DETAILS FETESTIOUi aC 1 23-2017 on VI.A111.7X 31 fl.C9 LIYE ODULDTTDDLOET MALTS.* A1.1 ."?..,41.1.14."*A1.74M7.4:,31.714% A'11 I7,11..r11; 777; Ltr.: (go 1-23-2017 SEDESTRIAT CO. IL STANDARD PLAN 5'-297.2501 5 OF 6 C. WIC CDC, - CA, 1.1,[ Nit FM MSS,. TD:uST intryieer"11rTill's rrAnwrzore.vr,ra.,-,-,A DIP4WAWKW.arxriAriViri4.- 4s. sts...mtros,,,A., rtss_4 2;47Furli'sliT3. =.1.9a-,1-4r,our,..-TTA-4..-- risszimpaytu v=s :mum: Cssa• ttsrcsi TICE 'SETTLE/IT stutos oat 47h, 1-23-2017 STANDARD FL AN 5-297.2501 6 OF E DEDESTATAT LISS PUP MAILS PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA YOSHI 111SPIA WM; MC, .011 vret 11,11111}-0-C1110-CMI SCL710.1 O. :41.7" af4 SECT I.DX IDS 74"1...177.1114.117.. 17. 1,0(411/.1 4134 ir))Ta (w 1-23-2017 DEDDSTSTAS CUTS ROMP DETAILS STANDARD Pt AN 5-797.7501 t OF E. —St UI TEM". to,.. La. iri.16:71.3F.Sirugher"T- T 13Ved1N.I.SW741.2.1',"=747`.-",.. 101110 '0;001.0 0.0 PUN EUTI111 STATICS 01-C1F51 CCM ell TISTILL FEOTSTAI. HISS ISITTOS COVED. DIDDETIOTTAL STAID*, 0.E MAY OIRSCIICLIAL ME TAY DISECTIOSAL AIN Cu. SAPIII. AT SACS CE- Cu. ASL [A011134 Cl tiI/I,U.10 PLODS SLAIP OuTIO yrkl Nf,D,1-23-2017 11,1'4: WV 4:4 r.-twettikr, FTLYTTPIAT CUPS- RAW. CCM" STANDARD PLAN 5 -297.2501 4 OF 6 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 N a 0 a LL 2 1162 LF 30 TREES 0 TREES SITE PERIMETER PERIMETER DIVIDED BY 40 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN REQUIRED MINIMUM PLANTING SIZE MIN. TREES MIN. BLDG. HT. TREES 24 FEET 700 1 VI 00 00'5i, 10,0' 0 20-o• KnOW what's below. Call before you dig. CM 2 Cn to LL1 - o 1- • a LL1 z Z 0 (,• " a. Li Ure LU) 2 a CivilEite GR OUP CM .4floatirp - Surveying Landscarm Antas<kr. 4831 W. 9511155.4. Sub 200 St Lab Park, MN 5511A thlslegfoup Coin 612-615-0060 MI11112 HANSON PARTNERS ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 3551 127...111717/ DRAW/1E1FM REVIEWED BY: DK PROJECT NUMBER, 10033 REVISION SUMMARY uvrrrtnatir nauvure. DESCRIPTION DATE LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0 2 0 5% 60% 20% 10% 5% 5 OR LESS b OR GREATER 8 OR GREATER 10 OR GREATER 12 OR GREATER ORNAMENTAL COMPLIMENTARY ACCENT PRIMARY FULL 2 OR LESS 2.5 OR GREATER 3.5 OR GREATER 4.5 OR GREATER 5.5 OR GREATER - 6 -,BAS NATIVE SEEDING, PROVIDE'. - GEOTEXTILE ON SLOPES PER GRADING PLAN & SPECS:. TYP. 5% 25% 25% 20% 20% 8 6 2 IS 6 3 2 6 ao! TOTAL REQUIRED• 31 .• - -- != ----- - - - --- 1: - - =-- - _,_ - -, , ,•,- - --- ---- ,__. ______ __ -,=_.-- --._ _ _ ----- _ - - -' -f- -D, ,. 7(.- -----) -'Elf.?1-1"-!__ - - ------ -- ---------- 1,1,1:'---_--1--7-1)-7--,-,-•-, :::::: 1 L,- - 7 - ' - '-1-- - - ••- - 7-1 __ _ ! ---------- ,. -- - , , - _ ,_ - -,•.,..--.• -T- - . • • 4- T • TO1111,46.E1.1011E TITAN TOW ROM LANDSCAPE MI/IRMO-5 CALCUIMMI OUETO REQUIRED ROUNDING UP Of PARIIAL SPECIES is0 CONTRACT SHALL EXIST. VEG. HEALTH & AF_STHETICS IN AREA. PROPOSE TRIMMING & RFJ,10V BASED ON BEST PRACTICES NCLUD NG AOVAL OF INVASIVE CIE -0 - -,--- EDGING, TYP. ,' ,Irifl,...,, ;.....c 4"14IIx Ifl, i 6.7s4M7'. ... Jae, V kVat,',. .__ -mL.I.feZ71.4/A.1,s_,,,,,,,zser.,- '17 ,.,,X1111,10,17 NATIVE 8 digr ..se Amy ga/AiSILTINIMISILmr-TelgrAl. oreNjylre*,, e' '..,41,„1.14140,- ,...IszymeyIrrill,M111SIRats,- ,.. ..7fr,.74, - NAN Iiik ..,....,........ ,kle -EKC 41- BE, illillill 1.-.....- ..--A= 1 - AB1A I 1 • AFD \ 1 -AFD 16" 11•Yr ., LAWN, TYP. 24' MAINT. STRIP, SEE DETAIL, TYP. SPECLALIIY PLAYGROUND MULCH, PER PLAYGROUND MAMIE. SPECIFICATIONS & REQUIREMENTS, INSTALL PER MANUF. SPECS. 1 - ABM 24' AW NT. STRIP, SEE DETAIL TYP. 1 - SHL 12 PPCI3 , , 8 • BOJ SyTTIP SEE DETAIL, TyP. p- r MINT, STRIP, SEE VARIES, - INCLUDE ALL AWE:A BETWEEN jt BUILDING & WALK, TYP. _ _ LAWN, TYP. 1 • RBC 14 - MAD 23 • BC1 DBDC I. P i fr_ !! ,1 t i/! I s 1_. POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL: 8 - MI 6 - PPCB - PPCS 13 -ECJ 3 - MJ 11 ,EI EEDENDING,TYPAle 1 am- Vifr 101. -4 II II- At* f 1 °-- I 1 I lit. i', MOW AIN{ NaubE Ai Lk* 10-1,4 ,._ 114,;1 I II g eRsj,.. toil 'hi . ND, .....1% i,........... --,.:7 roil ., ZWIFII I ".101 • ,•••11,e.1•01 W•Mr11•.1 41t i..4.111111/1110MTEM 4,4 El , all_1.11MW! ,. • ../Ii"-akkILVILI,7Pleirtgindie9-438MiNger=116114MANIIIST _ baleMIKA '11111W.IWfi iffilltiaz-Wal111111.1i111•614111 11MISIMIIMM1111/Mliziali 1E111 WAIL LAWN, TYP. , Tevu, .7 PLANNING D EMME 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY PLANT PATERS!. FREE OF NEOMCOT1NOID BASED INSECTICIDES AND/OR TREATMENTS OF ANY KIND,, INCLUDING BY NOT UNITED TO IMIDACLOPRID (CONFIDOR, ADMIRE, GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), THIAMETHOXAM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER), CLOTHIANIDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DANTOP), ACETAMPRID (MOSPLAN, ASSAIL CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFURAN (STAFULE, SAFARI, VENOM), ANS NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR GUARDIAN) 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOT01010 BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEEN USED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGE PLOTS OF THE SUPPUED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLAN/IRO OF NT) SEED TREATED WITH NEONICS.. MATCH TURF TO CRY _STREETSCAPEPROJECT, 24' PAINT, STRIP, 'SEE DEM* TYP. 10 - BCJ 1-RBC L_ Amundson Ave (A PUBLIC R/W) S p LI I-I LL! V LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS TOTAL REQUIRED 30 TREES MINNI MUM AMOUNTS OF REQUIRED TREES II VI TREE TYPE DECIDUOUS (IN. CAL) CONIFEROUS (FT. HT.) BLDG. HT. <24 FEET s,u6spuntUy uo wsPo.u,V Jo 11.,1 LEGEND LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4' DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTER INSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRESSING OPERATIONS) OF 24' DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH, SAMPLES REQUIRED. 2. ALL TREES SHALL HAVE 3' DIA. MULCHED MAINTENANCE 'SAUCER' TO BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CYPRESS MULCH. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF FROM TREE TRUNK 3. IF SHOWN ON RAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING.LANDSCAPING.SCAPING. OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 4. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITHTHE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. 5. UPON DISCOVERY OFA DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE FLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 8. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY DIE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RIROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL. GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE. 7. AIL AREAS MESSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4' LAYER TOPSOILLOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON DE DRAWINGS. 8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AN OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGIGING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 9. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE. 10. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ACTMTIES. 11. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. 12. REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVIDES. 13. PROVIDE SITE WKS IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN ANO INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB. 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROM OWNEROWNERPRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 24" DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH AT ALL PLANTING BEDS, SAMPLES REQUIRED PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLAN LAWN - LOCALLY SOURCED. BLUEGRASS-BASED. NON-MINERAL GROWN SOD, 30' `BIG ROLL' PREFERRED. STAKE PER INSTALLER OR MANUF. RECOMMENDATIONS. NATIVE SEED - MNDOT 36-221 DRY PRAIRIE, PER MNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014) 1' Dl. ROCK MAINTENANCE STRIP OVER FILTER FABRIC, SAMPLES REQUIRED. PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLAN GEOTEXTILE AT SEEDED SLOPED AREAS, SEE GRADING AND SWPPP NOTES/PLANS, PROVIDE AND INSTALL BIODEGRADABLE STAKES PER MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS & SPECS. PROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS- SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE SYMBOLS -SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES OUR) PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIMS 11 PROPOSED PROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES EDGING - HEAVY DUTY VINYL, BLACK IN COLOR, PROVIDE ALL STAKES ANO CONNECTORS PER MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS/SPECS ar 14 &P DECORATIVE BOULDERS (ROUNDED & BLOCK STYLE). TEP-.10' DIA. 4() PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITE SYM QUANT. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT COMMENTS DECIDUOUS TREES ABM 4 Aubann Blaze Maple Acerz freemeni ileffersrect ABM 4 CSO 4 Car/Ise/ISO@ Oak SHL 2 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST SHL 4 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST EKC 4 Espresso Kentucky Coffeelree Autumn Blaze Maple Acar x fieernanirJerterwee Quercus Crimson SpIrs' GleclAsla trfscanlhos Saycole' GledAsle Matenthoe SkynotE Gymnodadus dolma 'Espresso' 2.6' CAL 4.5' CAL 2.6' CAL kV CAL 3.5' CAI_ 3.6' CAL B&B B&B B&B B&B B&B B&B ACCENT STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM COMPUNENTARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM PRIMARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM COMPUMENTARY STRAIGHT LENTER. FULL FORM PRIMARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM ACCENT STRAIGHT LEADER FULL FORM ORNAMENTAL TREES SSC 4 SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRAB RBC 8 RED BARON FLOWERING CRAB ABS 2 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERSCEBERRY AmelarieNerx grendltlaa Autram Mance (tree femiy Males 'Spring Snow' Males Red Baron' 1.5' CAL 1.5' CAL 1.5' CAL B&B ORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM BIB ORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM B&B ORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADF_R. FULL FORM EVERGREEN TREES BHS 6 BLACK MS SPRUCE Pfeee gleam Denote' 17111. B&B FULL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM 40 TOTAL TREES- SEE IANDSCAPE CALCS. SHRUBS - CONIFEROUS & EVERGREEN MJ 15 MEDORA JUNIPER BCJ 129 Blue CNp Juniper. FPR 15 PAVEMENT FOS ROSE 5 DARE Korean Lim (tree loon) AFD 16 Red Gnome Dogwood Juipenrs horizontals Slue ChIp' Roea Feel Pevemenf Syfinge a/eyed 'Rabin (tree formy Meows scomlorum 'Madera' Comes alba 'Regrown' 38' HT. 24. SPD. 24' NT. 55 24' K. CONT. CONT. CONT. CONT. CONT. 179 TOTAL SHRUBS PERENNIALS, GRASSES & VINES DBDC 28 MAMMOTH DARK BRONZE DAISY CHRYSANTHEMUM Chlysenthemun Dark Bronze Dalsy 51 CONT. KEG 18 KARL FOERSTER GRASS Celamag roans x acutifloneKsrl Foote • CONT. MSS 37 Blue Heaven Utla Blue Stem Schlyachyrium scoperium Slue Heaven' • CONT. HAD 40 PARDON ME DAYULLY Hemerocalla Pardon Md It CONT. P PCB 57 PLUM PUDDING CORAL BELLS Heediera Flom Pudding' CONT. BES 53 GOLDMAN RUDBECKLA Rudbeckla eights SXdslumf 51 CONT. LTC 55 LITTLE TITCH CATMINT Nepela racemase Me Ude CONT. El 37 Englemann Ivy Prutenocissus of/Muddle Vet englerearinP 323 TOTAL PERENNIALS, GRASSES, & VINES 041019 1.6 PLI APR 0 5 2 019 CITY OF EDINA P 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS I HEREBY CERTIFY MATINS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERLY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND MAT I MEA DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Pe dl J. Server DATE 416119 MAME NO. 24904 LEGEND 7-4" DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH AT ALL PLANTING BEDS, SAMPLES REQUIRED PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLAN LAWN-LOCALLY SOURCED, BLUEGRASS-BASED, NON-MINERAL GROWN SOD, MP `BIG ROLL' PREFERRED, STAKE PER INSTALLER OR MANUF. RECOMMENDATIONS. NATIVE SEED - WINDT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE, PER MNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014) DLA. ROCK MAINTENANCE STRIP OVER FILTER FABRIC, SAMPLES REQUIRED. PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLAN GEOTEXTILE AT SEEDED SLOPED AREAS, SEE GRADING AND SWPPP NOTES/PLANS, PROVIDE AND INSTALL BIODEGRADABLE STAKES PER ?AMUR INSTRUCTIONS 8 SPECS. PROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS- SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIM PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANING SIZES PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES EDGING-HEAR DUTY VINYL, BLACK IN COLOR, PROVIDE ALL STAKES AND CONNECTORS PER MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS/SPECS DECORATIVE BOULDERS (ROUNDED 8 BLOCK STYLE), 18`...30° DIA mow whars below. Call before you dig. l...1010 PLI w w 0 a. U- 2 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 S. AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 DRAWN BY:11/4 REVIEWED BY: DK I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIF/CATFON, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. P J. Sewer DATE 4/5/10 UCENSE NO. 24904 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Ott KRIM& PROJECT NUMBER 70033 DATE REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION DATE LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES & DETAILS L1 co,RP.Nr 2011 CAT_ SITE GROW Inc IRRIGATION NOTES: r 5,1Y rAWArAWSTAI WAWA TAI Ifft A.V2MILf111/1Plab7M:210M217/MwfAM Ira gA O PLAYGROUND ENLARGEMENT FACE OF BUIDNO, WILL, OR STRUCTURE 1461 3' LATER OF ROCK 1A11.01 AS EPEOFED.PROVOESWPLE TO IANDSC.WE AROVECT FOR APPROVAL P64011 TO BOTANATON STAKED UNDSCAPEEDGERAS SPECEED SEE WSUFACTURERS IISTRUCTONS ARO SPECS. FOR WSTAUATION HA' NT WATER PERMEABLE OEOTEXTLE FABRIC AS SPEWED COMPACTED SUSGRADE (7,--) AGGREGATE MAINTANENCE STRIP NTS II I II aTI I Fi L_ I -I I I SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SATES AT EDGE OF '41tilij i I I EILTII ilii =n_ JI I- I A4-I =II g I I " - ' PLANTING BED RULE OF THUMB- MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON ' r-f'-'1-0 --,T, I t f_- ,_ k_...--- LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS THREE TimEs wori4- OR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT OF ROCFMALL 0 DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN NORMAL SHAPE FOR SPECIES) PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2 ABOVE ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE KEEP MULCH MIN. 2' FROM PLANT TRUNK ROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TO ENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACT :41:E4t: COSTING GRADE ..sho÷ic - SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF n=..,.. PLANTING BED =2.11 I11 BACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATION AWE DO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL =11. IT= RULE OF THUMB- MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON I THREE TIMES WIDTH LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS OF ROOTBALL OR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT ® DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS SHRUB PLANTING 1. ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE FULLY IRRIGATED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT IRRIGATION PLAN AND SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. SEE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IRRIGATION WATER, METER, AND POWER CONNECTIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONANSTAUATION. ANY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CORRECTING DAMAGES SHALL BE BORNE ENTIRELY BY THE CONTRACTOR. 4. SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE PER LOCAL UTIUTY COMPANY STANDARDS AND SNAIL BE PER NATIONAL AND LOCAL CODES. EXACT LOCATION OF SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUIVALENT AT THE JOB SITE. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY FOR THE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND METERING FACILITIES. 6. IRRIGATION WATER LINE CONNECTION SIZE IS 1-3k* AT BUILDING. VERIFY IMTH MECHANICAL PLANS.COVAGE. 7. ALL MAIN UNES SHALL BE UP BELOW FINISHED GRADE 8. ALL LATERAL LINES SHALL BE 12' BELLOW FINISHED GRADE. 9. ALL EXPOSED PVC RISERS, IF ANY, SHALL BE GRAY IN COLOR 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT AT 24Y BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE TOP OF PAVEJAENT. EXTEND SLEEVES TO 2-0' BEYOND PAVEMENT. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK THE LOCATION OF ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT PATH THE SLEEVING MATERIAL. 'ELLE' TO 2-0' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AND CAPPED. 12. FABRICATEALL PIPE TO MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS WITH CLEAN AND SQUARE CUT JOINTS. USE QUALITY GRADE PRIMER AND SOLVENT CEMENT FORMULATED FOR INTENDED TYPE OF CONNECTION. 13. BACKFILL ALL TRENCHES WITH SOIL FREE OF SHARP OBJECTS AND DEBRIS. 14. ALL VALVE BOXES AND COVERS SHALL BE BLACK IN COLOR. 15. GROUP VALVE BOXES TOGETHER FOR EASE WHEN SERVICE IS REQUIRED. LOCATE IN PLANT BED AREAS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 16. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER LOCATION SHALL BE VERIFIED ON-SITE WITH OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. 17. CONTROL WIRES: 14 GAUGE DIRECT BURIAL, SOLID COPPER IRRIGATION WIRE. RUN UNDER MAIN LINE. USE MOISTURE-PROOF SPL/CES AND SPLICE ONLY AT VALVES OR PULL BOXES. RUN SEPARATE HOT AND COMMON WIRE TO EACH VALVEAND ONE (1) SPARE WIRE AND GROUND TO FURTHEST VALVE FROM CONTROLLER. LABEL OR COLOR CODE ALL WIRES. 18. AVOID OVER SPRAY ON BUILDINGS, PAVEMENT, WALLS AND ROADWAYS BY INDNIDUALLY ADJUSTING RADIUS OR ARC ON SPRINGER HEADS AND FLOW CONTROL ON AUTOMATIC VALVE 19. ADJUST PRESSURE REGULATING VALVES FOR OPTIMUM PRESSURE ON SITE. 20. USE SCREENS ON ALL HEADS. 21. A SET OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ONSITE AT ALL TIMES IN AN UPDATED CONDMON. 22. ALL PIPE 3' AND OVER SHALL NAVE THRUST BLOCKING AT EACH TURN. 23. ALL AUTOMATIC ROAM CONTROL VALVES WILL HAVE r MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4' WASHED GRAVEL UNDERNEATH VALVE AND VALVE BOX GRAVEL SHALL EXTENT 3' BEYOND PERIMETER OF VALVE BOX 24. THERE SHALL. BE 3' MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOM OF VALVE BOX COVER AND TOP OF VALVE STRUCTURE. PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN NORMAL TREE SHAPE) THREE MAW WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROWN WITH TWO STRANDS Of WIRE TWISTED TOGETHER STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120' TO ONE ANOTHER. WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH NYLON STRAPPING WITH GROMMETS. ALTERNATE STABILIZING METHODS MAY BE PROPOSED BY CONTRACTOR TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE V.2*ABOVE EXISTING GRADE COMPACT BOTTOM OF PIT, TYP. CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL IF NON-BIODEGRADABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELY BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP MULCH MIN. 2' FROM PLANT TRUNK EXISTING GRADE NTS NTS PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2' ABOVE ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP MULCH MIN. 2' FROM PLANT STEM ROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TO ENSURE PROPER BACKFILITO-ROOT CONTACT !DOMING GRADE SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF PLANTING BED BACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATION DO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS OR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT O PERENNIAL BED PLANTING NTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF DINA O BUILDING ENTRANCE ENLARGEMENT 1'=5-0' 7.6 0 5 GROUP 01. OOWNNO• Orwyfo, • LIMN*. Ar0,41146 4931 W. 9511 Stre41, Sub 200 St. Lcula Park. INN 55416 cN93114group.com 612516-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS N 4 -14 uv xa 33 ~If- , ' 0 .• C_5 p U l7 LU V LEGEND: 1137 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. CITY OF EDINA EROSION CONTROL NOTES: Atitilltve411 EX CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL DRAINAGE ARROW SILT FENCE I BIOR01.1.- GRADING UNIT INLET PROTECTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA 1. THIS PROJECT IS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE AND WILL REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY EROSION CONTROL PERMITS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. SWPPP NOTES: 2. SEE SHEETS SW1.0 - SW1.5 FOR ALL EROSION CONTROL NOTES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. 3. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. 1' = 20,0' 15515i 10'41' 0 Know what's below. Call before you deb 07(00? 44,20191,24P11 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPEFWISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Me EIav R. Pavek LATE 4/5/19 ucesE so. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE HAI DESCRIPTION ORTSUMINTAL DRAWN BY: EN REVIEWED DR PROJECT NUMBER: 10033 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION DATE SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONS SW1 .0 w ce w o. 0 2 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 a.- .''' s , i '' 2" I ' A g 8 Jl l 11 IE tar•-11.,' - ------ PERIMETER --------- ------------------ - ( _rrri _ ------ - - -- LIMP. - • r- • - - _0.1 I e EROSION CONROLT — - — :ATCONSTRUORON _L_ O Ij ./(.9 •=,„; 4 VIS (a) 11 loo ,I__. Immim limr- , 1. . , •..,., „(r..m. flomm.• t- 7 '-',-', -",, '..r, .,,,,, 7 . ',.= INLET PROTECTION AT ' CATCH BASINS, TYP 0 , Amundson Ave El ,,,p i.-1. (A PUBLIC AM) 53effaj. s,uosponuA(jo IRO LIO 0.x001 50 alumni, uospun=410 71.9 flf004.15 ti - - - ---- PEFIIMEIER EROS IONONTROL AT CONSTRUCTION =. LIMITS, TYP. 3 1 .,73 k7Imi •M IMIL 6,s -C; `CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE S LI 0 2 d A. o o -4; Z7Z7ZA EROSION CONTROL BLANKET id s CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION AT ALL DOWNSTREAM CATCH BASINS. tl1-11514 IttViftWkl) UR DATE DESCRIPTION g ..-/ mg i: PI /- E g .."' X /(.' , O ------ , i ' \ , ' — — .-, . . _ - , • - P ERIM EtE P:1-I 1 -.I- -- i - - - - -- .- -\ -- -- ' - - - :: ''-- -- - 71-;:t- - 7 11--- -J I. ERGSION CONTROL _ 1 . - L ) ,--.-,_,,-,_ , _ - AT CONSTRUGTIPN ' 1 , -LIMITSj4YP . 1 - - - _ _, . - , - - - - _ - • V Li 0 S' LU 1137 1. RESERVED FOR COY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. CITY OF EDINA EROSION CONTROL NOTES: LEGEND: EX. CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL TO' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL DRAINAGE ARROW SILT FENCE /BIOROLL - GRADING LAO INLET PROTECTION PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA 1. THIS PROJECT IS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE AND WILL REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY EROSION CONTROL PERMITS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. SWPPP NOTES: 2. SEE SHEETS SW1.0 - SW1.5 FOR ALL EROSION CONTROL NOTES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. 3, SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. Know what's below. Call before you dbl. v= IT21 1 1243' 0 20-0' eenolo1211PIA GROUP 13.9 EA9AA.A.D• SurveAng • rendscope Archaic:um 4931 W.355 Street Sulte 200 SI- LAule Pair, MN 55116 cl.,71,P,graep 612-815-0000 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 I= 0. 0 0 U. a I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS PUN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED LW ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF /.1 1 ESOTA. NIS R. Pavek CATE 41511D I NO, 44283 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DESCRIPTION 011' SUISIITTAL PROJECT NUMBER: 19033 REVISION SUMMARY DATE INLET PROTECTION AT CATCH BASINS, TYP SWPPP-PROPOSED CONDITIONS SW` .1 A coTiWMAI v uva. sr. GROW 11. 1•1••••1{ 'lmmieree PERIMETER EROSION CONTRO-- AT CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TYP. ss INLET PROTECTION AT CATCH BASINS, TYP coilarkUotioN ENTRANCE ••••.•••••••9 Amundson Ave CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION AT ALL DOWNSTREAM CATCH BASINS. (A PUBLIC R/W) easuai s,uosplenuy IA lAId uo umetts se an uenv uospunwy l0 IAIA, 4,Anos • -- 53 I ------ I —rte` I 1, - _ - _ -85 ',00'00'58 115 :,..-----,.-...i..... _.......Kittemonmcm.,...._ ,00SiVisailMleimmisamgmei, 1 .,0 APv --------- - - ------- - - INLET PROTECTION AT CATCH BASINS, TYP r S eo & A 255 5E . 55 z S STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE [7/Z177A EROSION CONTROL BLANKET FILLER AS SPECIFIED 30 FROM EDGE OF ROAD TO FRONT OF SPEED BUMP ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY GATE DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY:BN REVIEWED BY: DO PROJECT NUMBER 16033 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION DATE GROUP pA Enenterleg SLLyeLlng Lar4seapa keit/adv. 4931 W.35111 stem, Sill, zoo St Lnula Park MN 95415 cereslagroup.com 6121315-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS OVERFLOW IS Y, OF THE CURB BOX HEIGHT FILTER FABRIC AS SPECIFIED OVERFLOW AT TOP OF FILTER ASSEMBLY EXISTING CURB, PLATE, BOX, AND GRATE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FILL UPSTREAM RASE EDGE WITH T OF DIRT OR COMPOST TO EMBED ROLL. DIRECTION OF FLOW WOODEN STAKES 1/2'XTX16' MIN. PLACED IV O.C. WHEN INSTALLED ON GROUND. IF INSTALLED ON PVMT. PROVIDE SANDBAGS BEHIND AND ON TOP AT MIN. NOTE: 1. COMPOST FILTER LOGS (B10 ROLLS) ERNI BE RLTREM EROSION CONTROL SO)0( OR APPROVED EQUAL 2. COMPOST FILLER TO BE MADE FROM A COMPOST BLEND 30%40% GRADE 2 (SPEC 3890) AND 60%-70% PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED WOOD CHIPS, PER MNDOT SPEC 3897. 3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE GEOTEXTILE KNITTED MATERIAL WITH MAX OPENINGS OF 3/8'. 4. IF MULTIPLE ROLLS NEEDED, OVERLAP BY MIN. 12' AT ENDS AND STAKE. 5. SILT SHALL BE REMOVED ONCE IT REACHES 80% OF THE HEIGHT OF THE ROLL OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY SITE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN PROPER FUNCTION. FILTER ASSEMBLY DIAMETER, V ON-GRADE IT AT LOW POINT HIGH-FLOW FABRIC NOTES: 1. REPLACE INLET GRATE UPON COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF INLET PROTECTION FABRIC. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM THE SURFACE OF THE SYSTEM AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND AT THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT. 3. REFERENCE APPLE VALLEY STANDARD PLATE ERO-4C. 0 CURB INLET FILTER @SEDIMENT BIO—ROLL / COMPOST FILTER LOG NTS NTS 35' R 3 PLAN TO CONSTRUCTION AREA EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 4. MEI, WOE SPEED &VP METAL POSTS 8,0' O.C. MAX. TO CONSTRUCT AREA FINISHED GRADE PROFILE eirt 1== — — riAPLATM GEOTEGILE FILTER FABRIC V MIN CRUSHED STONE 75' MINIMUM 35 R 0 EXISTING UNDISTURBED ROADWAY SUPPORT NET: 12 GAUGE 4' x 4' WIRE HOOKED ONTO PREFORMED CHANNELS ON POSTS AS SPECIFIED. WAVA, CARRY WIRE SUPPORT NET DOWN INTO TRENCH L SEDIMENT FENCE S FILTER FABRIC WITH WIRE SUPPORT NET AS SPECIFIED. METAL POST AS SPECIFIED. iFILTER FABRIC AS SPECIFIED SECURE TO WIRE SUPPORT NET WITH METAL CLIPS 12'0.C. ANCHOR FABRIC WITH SOIL, TAMP BACKFILL DIRECTION OF FLOW 'Vin.>.s9A AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 3 NOTES: 1. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND UNDISTURBED ROADWAY. 2. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDMONAL STONE OR ADDING STONE TO THE LENGTH OF THE ENTRANCE. 3. REPAIR AND CLEANOUT MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. 4. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. FINAL LOCATION AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE COORDINATED NTH THE CITY PRIORI() CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 6. CRUSHED STONE SHALL BE 1.1/2' DA CLOSE GRADED, AND IN ACCORDANCE TO MNDOT SECTION 2118. O STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS NTS '8' TAMP THE TRENCH FULL OF SOIL W BURY THE TOP END OF THE SECURE WITH ROW OF STAPLES, MATTING IN A TRENCH A OR 10' SPACING, A DOWN FROM MORE IN DEPTH TRENCH V OVERLAP: BURY UPPER E OF LOWER STRIP AS IN 'A' AND 'W. OVERLAP END OF TOP STRIP 4' AND STAPLE. NTS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS RAM SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAB PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MIIRU,w R. PROSE DATE 415/19 LIcense res 44283 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA NOTE: 1. PLACE STAPLES 2 FEET APART TO KEEP MATTING FIRMLY PRESSED TO SOIL '0' EROSION STOP: FOLD OF MATTING BURIED IN SILT TRENCH AND TAMPED. DOUBLERCAY OF STAPLES. PLACE STAPLES 2 FEET APART TO KEEP MATTING FIRMLY PRESSED TO SOIL TYPICAL STAPLE H8 GAUGE WIRE SWPPP - DETAILS 0 EROSION BLANKET NTS 1.20191ZSCP1.1 SW1.2 o ccenveaer eouraVe. ens GROUP VC ATTACHMENT A: SITE SPECIFIC SWPPP DOCUMENT SOILS INFORMATION PROJECT NAME:AMUNDSON FLATS PROJECT LOCATION (BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OCCURS. INCLUDE ADDRESS IF AVAILABLE.) ADDRESS: 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE CITY OR TOWNSHIP: EDINA STATE: MN ZIP CODE: 55439 LATITUDELOCITTUDE OF APPROXIMATE CENTROID OF PROJEC1_144.875278-93.361568 METHOD OF LAT/LONG COLLECTION (CIRCLE ONE): GPO OMJNE TOOCUSGS TOPOGRAPHIC ALL CITIES WHERE CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR: EDINA ALL COUNTIES WHERE CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR: HENNEPIN ALL TOWNSHIPS WHERE CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR: NA PROJECT SIZE (NUMBER OF ACRES TO BE DISTURBED): XXX PROJECT TYPE (CIRCLE ONE). EllITLAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION RES & RD CONSTRUCTION OTHER (DESCRIBE): )0000( CUMULATIVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (TO THE NEAREST TENTH ACRE) EXISTING AREA OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 1.0 POST CONSTRUCTION AREA OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 0.9 TOTAL NEW AREA OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 0.8 RECEIVING WATERS WATER BODY ID NAME OF WATER BODY WATER BODY TYPE SPECIAL WATER? (Y/N) IMPARIED WATER (WN) 27002900 LAKE EDINA LAKE N Y 07020012-510 NINEMILE CREEK RIVER N r . . • . . . EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES (N.13) DESCRIBE THE TYPES OF TEMPORARY EROSION PREVENTION BMP'S EXPECTED TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON THIS SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION: 1. DESCRIBE CONSTRUCTION PHASING, VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, HORIZONTAL SLOPE GRADING, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES TO MINIMIZE EROSION. DELINEATE AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED (E.G.. WITH FLAGS, STARES. SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC.) BEFORE WORK BEGINS. SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AT ATHE DOWNHILL LOCATIONS OF THE SITE. 2. DESCRIBE METHODS OF TEMPORARILY STABILIZING SOILS AND SOIL STOCKPILES (E.G., MULCHES. HYDRAULIC TACKIFIERS, EROSION BLANKETS, ETC.): TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTION WILL BE SEED AND MULCH AND EROSION BLANKETS WHERE REQUIRED, WITH PERMANENT COVER BEING EITHER SOD OR LANDSCAPE FEATURES. 3. DESCRIBE METHODS OF DISSIPATING VELOCITY ALONG STORMWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS AND AT CHANNEL OUTLETS (E.G., CHECK DAMS, SEDIMENT TRAPS, RIP RAP, ETC.): SOD WILL BE UTILIZED ALONG CHANNELS AND RIP RAP AT CHANNEL. 4. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED FOR STABILIZATION OF DITCH AND SWALE WETTED PERIMETERS (NOTE THAT MULCH, HYDRAULIC SOIL TACADIFIERS, HYDROMULCHES, ETC. ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE SOIL STABIUZATION METHODS FOR ANY PART OFA DRAINAGE DITCH OR SWALE) FINAL STABILIZATION OF FINALES WILL BE SOD 5. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION AT PIPE OUTLETS (E.G., RIP RAP, SPLASH PADS, GABIONS, ETC.) RIP RAP WILL BE UTILIZED AT PIPE OUTLETS B. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED TO PROMOTE INFILTRATION AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL ON THE SITE PRIOR TO OFFSITE DISCHARGE, UNLESS INFEASIBLE (E.G., DIRECT STORMWATER FLOW TO VEGETATED AREAS): DISCONNECTED IMPERVIOUS AREA AND INFILTRATION AREAS WILL BE UTILIZED 7. FOR DRAINAGE OR DIVERSION DITCHES, DESCRIBE PRACTICES TO STABILIZE THE NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER WITHIN 200 LINEAL FEET OF THE PROPERTY EDGE OR POINT OF DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER THE LAST 200 LINEAL FEET MUST BE STABIUZED WNHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTING TO SURFACE WATERS AND CONSTRUCTION IN THAT PORTION OF THE DITCH HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED FOR ALL DISCHARGES TO SPECIAL, IMPAIRED OR 'WORK IN WATER RESTRICTIONS'. ALL OTHER REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER CONNECTING TOA SURFACE WATER, PROPERTY EDGE AND CONSTRUCTION IN THAT AREA HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. N/A, NO DITCHES ON SITE 8. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION MEASURES THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION (E.G., CONSTRUCTION PHASING, MINIMIZING SOIL DISTURBANCE VEGETATIVE BUFFERS, HORIZONTAL SLOPE GRADING, SLOPE DRAINING/TERRACING, ETC.): OTHER EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: MINIMIZING SITE EXPOSURE WHEN POSSIBLE. 8. IF APPUCABLE, INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN APPENDIX A PART C3 REGARDING MA/ NTAJNING A 100-FOOT BUFFER ZONE OR INSTALLING REDUNDANT BMPS FOR PORTIONS OF THE SITE THAT DRAIN TO SPECIAL WATERS). N/A 10. IF APPLICABLE, DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION BMPS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE SITE TO PROTECT PLANNED INFILTRATION AREAS MINIMIZE SITE EXPOSURE IN AREAS ADJACENT TO INFILTRATION AREAS. DATES OF CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION START DATE: >X= ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: MOM GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIBE THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY (WHAT WILL BE BUILT, GENERAL TIMEUNE, ETC): X/C00( DESCRIBE BOIL TYPES FOUND AT THE PROJECT: XX700( SITE LOCATION MAP - ATTACH MAPS (U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE. NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPS OR EQUIVALENT) SHOWING THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF ALL RECENING WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS, DRAINAGE DITCHES, STORMWATER PONDS. OR BASINS. ETC. THAT WILL RECEIVE RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT. USE ARROWS SHOWING ME DIRECTION OF FLOW AND DISTANCE TO THE WATER BODY. GENERAL en NFORMATION (IIIA) 1. DESCR/BE THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROTION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICIES (SAPS). INCLUDE THE TIMING FOR INSTALLATION AND PROCEDURES USED TO ESTABLISH ADDMONAL TEMPORARY BMPS AS NECESSARY. (MASA) THE PROJECT IS PROTECTED BY TWO ( I) MAIN BMPS, SILT FENCE AND INLET PROTECTION DEVICES. THE SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE DOWNHILL LOCATIONS OF THE SITE AND MONITORED AS NECESSARY. INLET PROTECTION DEVIDES WILL BE INSTALLED IN ALL CATCH BASINS ON THE SITE AND ANY OFF SITE THAT WILL RECEIVE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THIS SITE. AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES ADDITIONAL BMPS SUCH AS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET MAY BE UTILITZED. 2. ATTACH TO THIS SWPPP A TABLE WITH THE ANTICIPATED QUANITMES FOR THE UPS OF THE PROJECT FOR ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S (IILA.4.13) SEE PAGE SW1.3 3. ATTACH TO THIS SWPPP A SITE MAP THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING FEATURES (I11A3.B-F). EXIST AND FINAL GRADES, INCLUDING DIVIDING LINES AND DIRECTION OF FLOW FOR ALL PRE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMRWATER RUNOFF DRAINAGE AREAS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT UNITS. LOCATIONS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND SOIL TYPES. • EXISTING AND FINAL GRADES, INCLUDING DIVIDING LINES AND DIRECTION OF FLOW FOR ALL PRE AND POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER RUNOFF DRAINAGE AREAS LOCATED WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS. • LOCATIONS OF AREAS NOT TO BE D1STRUBED. • LOCATION OF AREAS OF PHASED CONSTRUCTION. • ALL SURFACE WATERS AND EXISTING WETLANDS WITHIN ONE MILE FROM THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES THAT WILL RECEIVE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE SHE (IDENTIFIABLE ON MAPS SUCH AS USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAPS OR EQUIVALENT. WHERE SURFACE WATERS RECEIVING RUNOFF ASSOCLATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL NOT FM ON THE PLAN SHEET, THEY MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH AN ARROW, INDICATING BOTH DIRECTION AND DISTANCE TO THE SURFACE WATER. • METHODS TO BE USED FOR FINAL STABILIZATION OF ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREA 4. WERE STORMWATER MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED AS THE RESULT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, OR OTHER REQUIRED LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT? NO IF YES, DESCRIBE HOW THESE MEASURES WERE ADDRESSED IN THE SWPPP. IAB) N/A 6.13 THE PROJECT LOCATED IN A KARST AREA SUCH THAT ADDMONAL MEASURES WOULD BE NECESSARY OT PROJECT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AREAS AS DESCRIBED IN MINN. R. CHAPTERS 7050 AND 7060? NO IF YES. DESCRIBE THE ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO BE USED. (IIIA?) N/A 6. DOES THE SITE DISCHARGE TO A CALCEREOUS FEN LISTED IN MINN. R. 7060.0180, SUBP. 6 BYES OR NO IF YES. A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR THIS PERMIT. (PARTIES AND PART IIIA.8) 7. DOES THE SITE DISCHARGE TO A WATER THAT 18 LISTED AS IMPARED FOR THE FOLLOWING POLLUTANT(S) OR STRESSOR(S): PHOSPHORUS, TURBIDITY, DISSOLVED OXYGEN OR BIOTIC IMPAIRMENT? USE THE SPECIAL AND IMPAIRED WATERS SEARCH TOOL AT: WWW.PCASTATE.ME.USANATER/STORMWATEFUSTORMWATER-C.HTML N/A IF NO, SKIP TO TRAINING DOES THE IMPAIRED WATER HAVE AN APPROVED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDL) WITH AN APPROVED WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY? NO IF YES: A LIST THE RECEIVING WATER, THE AREAS OF THE SITE DISCHARGING TO IT, AND THE POLLUTANT(S) IDENTIFIED IN THE TAIL B. UST THE BMP'S AND ANY OTHER SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER RELATED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE TMOL IF THE SITE HAS A DISCHARGE POINT WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE IMPAIRED WATER AND THE WATER FLOWS TO THE IMPAIRED WATER BUT NO SPECIFIC BMPS FOR CONSTRUCTION ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE TMDL, THE ADDITIONAL BMPS IN APPENDIX A (C.1, C2, C.3 8 (C.4-TROUT STREAM)) MUST BE ADDED TO THE SWPPP AND IMPLEMENTED. (111A7). THE ADDITIONAL BMPS ONLY APPLY TO THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT THAT DRAIN TO ONE OF THE IDENTIFIED DISCHARGE POINTS. WA 8. IDENTIFY ADJACENT PUBLIC WATERS WHERE THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DER) HAS DECLARED 'WORK IN WATER RESTRICTIONS' DURING FISH SPAWNING TIMEFRAMES NIA SELECTION OFA PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IIID.) 1. WILL THE PROJECT CREATE A NEW CUMULATIVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE ACRE? YES OR NO IF YES, A WATER QUALITY VOLUME OF ONE INCH OF RUNOFF FROM THE CUMULATIVE NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES MUST BE RETAINED ON SITE (SEE PART MD OF THE PERMIT) THROUGH INFILTRATION UNLESS PROHIBITED DUE TO ONE OF THE REASONS IN PART 111.0.13, IF INFILTRATION IS PROHIBITED IDENTIFY OTHER METHOD OF OTHER VOLUME REDUCTION (E.G., FILTRATION SYSTEM, WET SEDIMENTATION BASIN, REGIONAL PONDING OR EQUIVALENT METHOD 2. DESCRIBE WHICH METHOD WILL BE USED TO TREAT RUNOFF FROM THE NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES CREATED BY THE PROJECT (ILD): • WET SEDIMENTATION BASIN • INFILTRATION/FILTRATION • REGIONAL PONDS • COMBINATION OF PRACTICES INCLUDE ALL CALCULATIONS AND DESIGN INFORMATION FOR THE METHOD SELECTED. SEE PART 111.0 OF THE PERMIT FOR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH METHOD. INFILTRATION / FILTRATION / REGIONAL PONDING CALCULATIONS ARE WITHIN THE SITE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT AND PART OF THIS SWPPP AS ATTACHMENT D. 3. IF IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO MEET THE TREATMENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE WATER QUALRY VOLUME, DESCRIBE WHY. THIS CAN INCLUDE PROXIMITY TO BEDROCK OR ROAD PROJECTS WHERE THE LACK OF RIGHT OF WAY PRECLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF ANY PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. DESCRIBE WHAT OTHER TREATMENT, SUCH AS GRASSES SWALES, SMALLER PONDS, OR GRIT CHAMBERS, WILL BE IMPLEMENTED TO TREAT RUNOFF PRIOR TO DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS. (111.C) IT IS FEASIBLE TO MEET REQUIREMENT FOR WATER QUALITY VOLUME. 4. FOR PROJECTS THAT DISCHARGE TO TROUT STREAMS, INCLUDING TRIBUTARIES TO TROUT STREAMS, IDENTIFY METHOD OF INCORPORATING TEMPERATURE CONTROLS INTO THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WA SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICIEB (N.C) DESCRIBE THE METHODS OF SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT THIS SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION TO 1,11NIMIZE SEDIMENT IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS 1. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED FOR DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETER CONTROL: SILT FENCE WILL SE INSTALLED AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE SITE 2. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SOIL STOCKPILES: SEED AND MULCH AS WELL AS EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS WILL BE UTIUZED AS NECESSARY 3. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED FOR STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION: SEE INLET PROTECTION DETAILS 4. DESCRIBE METHODS TO MINIMIZE VEHICLE TRACKING AT CONSTRUCTION EXITS AND STREET SWEEPING ACTIVMES: THE PROJECT WILL MIME A ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. S. DESCRIBE METHODS. IF APPLICABLE, ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G., DIVERSION BERMS) TO BE INSTALLED TO KEEP RUNOFF AWAY FROM PLANNED INFILTRATION AREAS WHEN EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA: SILT FENCE TO BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING TO PROTECT INFILTRATION AREAS. B. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED TO MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND PRESERVE TOP SOIL (UNLESS INFEASIBLE) AT THIS SITE: LIGHT TRACKED EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED, TOPSOIL WILL BE STRIPPED AND STOCKPILED 7. DESCRIBE PLANS TO PRESERVE A 50-FOOT NATURAL BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROJECTS SOIL DISTURBANCE ANDA SURFACE WATER OR PLANS FOR REDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS W A BUFFER IS INFEASIBLE: DOUBLE ROW OF SRT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED ALONG WETLAND. PROJECT WILL NOT DISTURB WITHIN 200 FEET OF WETLAND. 8. DESCRIBE PLANS FOR USE OF SEDIMENTATION TREATMENT CHEMICALS (E.G., POLYMERS, FLOCCULANTS, ETC.) SEE PART N.C.10 OF THE PERMIT: N/A 9.18 THE PROJECT REQUIRED TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN DUE TO 10 OR MORE ACRES DRAINING TO A COMMON LOCATION OR 5 ACRES OR MORE IF THE SITE IS WITHIN 1 MILE OF A SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED WATER? NO IF YES, DESCRIBE (OR ATTACH PLANS ) SHOWING HOW THE BASIN WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART III.0 OF THE PERMIT. N/A DEWATERING AND BASIN DRAINING (IV.D) 1. WILL THE PROJECT INCLUDE DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING? NO IF YES, DESCRIBE MEASURES TO BE USED TO TREAT/DISPOSE OF TURBID OR SEDIMENT-LADEN WATER AND METHOD TO PREVENT EROSION OR SCOUR OF DISCHARGE POINTS (SEE PART N. D OF THE PERMIT): N/A 2. WILL THE PROJECT INCLUDE USE OF FILTERS FOR BACKWASH WATER? NO IF YES. DESCRIBE HOW FILTER BACKWASH WATER WILL BE MANAGED ON THE SITE OR PROPERLY DISPOSED (SEE PART 111.03. OF THE PERMIT): N/A ADDITIONAL BMPS FOR SPECIAL WATERS AND DISCHARGES TO WETLANDS (APPENDIX A, PARTS C AND LI) 1. SPECIAL WATERS. DOES YOUR PROJECT DISCHARGE TO SPECIAL WATERS? NO 2. IF PROXIMITY TO BEDROCK OR ROAD PROJECTS WHERE THE LACK OF RIGHT OF WAY PRECLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF ANY OF THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, THEN OTHER TREATMENT SUCH AS GRASSED SWALES, SMALLER PONDS, OR GRIT CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS. DESCRIBE WHAT OTHER TREATMENT WILL BE PROVIDED. WA 3. DESCRIBE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS FOR EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WITH A CONTINUOUS POSITIVE SLOPE TOA SPECIAL WATERS, ANO TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS FOR AREAS THAT DRAIN FIVE OR MORE ACRES DISTURBED AT ONE TIME. N/A 4. DESCRIBE THE UNDISTURBED BUFFER ZONE TO BE USED NOT LESS THAN 100 LINEAR FEET FROM THE SPECIAL WATER). N/A 5. DESCRIBE HOW THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WILL ENSURE THAT THE PRE AND POST PROJECT RUNOFF RATE AND VOLUME FROM THE 1, AND 2-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION EVENTS REMAINS THE SAME. NIA B. DESCRIBE HOW THE PERMANENT STOW/WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WILL MINIMIZE ANY INCREASE IN THE TEMPERATURE OF TROUT STREAM RECEIVING WATERS RESULTING IN THE 1, AND 2-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION EVENTS. N/A PLANNINGT2graIMEW 7. WETLANDS. DOES YOUR PROJECT DISCHARGE STORMWATER WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TOA WETLAND (E.G., CONVERSION OF A NA POND)? YES OR NO IF YES, DESCRIBE THE WETLAND MITIGATION SEQUENCE THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART D OF APPENDIX A. N/A APR 0 5 2019 INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE (N.5) DESCRIBE PROCEDURES TO ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE: • ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND • WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS, AND WITHIN (7) DAYS AFTER THAT INSPECTIONS MUST INCLUDE STABILIZED AREAS, EROSION PREVENTION,AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS AND INFILTRATION AREAS. INSPECTOR WILL FOLLOW REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED ABOVE AND FILL OUT 'ATTACHMENT B -CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER INSPECTION CHECIQIST 1. Describe pracdosa for storage of building products with a potential to leach pollutants to minimize expeauns to stortravater. ALL BUILDING PRODUCTS WILL BE SEALED AND STORED INA MANNER TO MINIMIZE EXPOSURE 2. Describe practices for storage of peetiddes, herNeldes, Insecticides, fertilizers, 1113611110n1 chemical, and landscape materials: ALL LANDSCAPE TREATMENT CHEMICALS WILL BE SEALED AND STORED INA MANNER TO MINIMIZED EXPOSURE 3. Describe practices for storage end disposal of hazardous matedals or tindo waste (e.g., oil, fuel, hydra* fluids, paint soNents, petroleum-based products, wood preservative, additives. curing compounds, and adds) occordlog to Minn. R. ch. 704 5, Including restricted access and secondary containment ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL BE APPROPRIATELY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE ACCORDING TO LOCAL AND STATE LAWS. 4. Describe collodion, storage and disposal of soad waste In compliance WINO Minn. R. ch. 7015: ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS MID SOLID WASTER WILL BE APPROPRIATELY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE ACCORDING TO LOCAL AND STATE LAWS 5. Describe management of portable me0 to prevent tipping and disposal of saNtery wastes In accordance vAlh Minn. R ch. 7040: SANITARY AND SEPTIC SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO WORKERS WITH PORTABLE FACILMES MAINTAINED AS NEEDED BY THE PROVIDER- 6. Describe spill prevention and response for fueling and equipment or vehide maintenance: EMPLOYEES WILL BE TRAINED IN TECHNIQUES DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE SPILLS. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT STALL BE CHECKED FOR LEAKS. 7. Describe containment and disposal 04 votikle and as/lament wash water and prohibiting engine degreesing on the elle: ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES SHALL BE WASHED OFF SITE 8. Describe storage and disposal of concrete end other washout wastes so Sul wastes do not contact the ground: ALL CONCRETE WASHOUT SHALL OCCUR OFF SITE. FINAL STABILIZATION (N.0) 1. DESCRIBE METHOD OF FINAL STABILIZATION (PERMANENT COVER) OF ALL DISTURBED AREAS: FINAL STABILIZATION WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH PAVEMENT, SOD AND LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. Z. DESCRIBE PROCEDURES FOR COMPLETING FINAL STABILIZATION AND TERMINATING PERMIT COVERAGE (SEE PART N.51.1-5): UPON STABILIZATION DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE CONTRCTOR AND OWNER SHALL MUTUALLY TRANSFER THE NPDES PERMIT TO THE NEXT OWNER WITH DOCUMENTS DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF TERMINATION PROCEDURE. DOCUMENTATION OF INFEASIBILITY: (IF APPLICABLE) CITY OF EDINA 44/2019 MD, PM MAP UNIT SYMBOL MAP UNIT NAME U116,4H LANDIRWIAMEHTS (CUT MO fItt ERA IAND)C04631.1., 0T) 3 PERGEHT MAPES • ci) N w w 0 LL 2 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS 6 O GROUP CM Engholdrp • 6..1'100 • 1.4.k.ospe Arctalewe 4931 W.2531 Stoat Bob 233 SL loads POHL IAN 55416 cfe6stegroup.oarn 612-616-0050 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF -INE STATE OF MINNESOTA MHSNAw FL Pavok DATE 461111 pasties No. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE 4911 DESCRIPTION CilY111191/1111 DRAWN BY:FIN REVIEWED BY: DK PROJECT NUMBER: 10033 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION DATE SWPPP-ATTACHMENTS SW1.4 ® COIN0.101.101.6. 0.1.9.1 q0000q -< NIA n n 000000 z GROUP CM enaheaaro .1.a6•cope 4031 W. 85111S14441. Su04 200 St LOIN Perk, MN 55416 DMIsitnroup.con 1312416-OM MILLER HANSON PARTNERS w w w ce a 0 2 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 O AMUNDSCIT\!- FLA 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 DRAWN BY:TiN REVIEWED BY: DK I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER WI DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Ma R. Pavek DATE 475/19 LICENSE NO. 44283 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE 4311111 DESCRIPTION CVVIIVIVAIVAL PROJECT NUMBER: 10033 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION DATE WPPP - ATTACHMENTS SW1.5 ©CO ROVP ATTACHMENT B: SWPPP INSPECTION FORM NOTE: THIS INSPECTION REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL ASPECTS OF THE NATIONAL APOLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM/STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (NPDES/SDS) CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER PERMIT ISSUED ON AUGUST 1, 2019. THE COMPLETION OF THIS CHECKLIST DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT ALL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE; IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE(S) TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. FACILITY INFORMATION SITE NAME: FACILITY ADDRESS: PERMIT NUMBER: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: INSPECTION INFORMATION INSPECTOR NAME: PHONE NUMBER: DATE (MWDD/YYTY): TIME: AM/ PM 19 THE INSPECTOR CERTIFIED IN SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL AND IS IT DOCUMENTED IN THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)? IS THIS INSPECTION ROUTINE OR IN RESPONSE TOA STORM EVENT: RAINFALL AMOUNT OF APPUCABLE): IS THE SITE WITHIN ONE AERIAL MILE OFA SPECIAL OR IMPARED WATER? IF YES, FOLLOW APPENDIX A AND OTHER APPLICABLE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS NOTE: IF N/A IS SELECTED AT ANY TIME, SPECIFY WHY IN THE COMMENT AREA FOR THAT SECTION. EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENT (PART N.B) 1. SOIL STABILIZATION WHERE NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FOR 14 DAYS? (7 DAYS WHERE APPLICABLE) 2. HAS THE NEED TO DISTURB STEEP SLOPES BEEN MINIMIZED? 3. ALL DITCHES STABILIZED 200; BACK FROM POINT OF DISCHARGE WITHIN 24 HOURS? (NOT MULCH) 4. ARE THERE BMPS FOR ONSTTE STOCWILES? 5. ME APPROPRIATE BMPS INSTALLED PROTECTING INLETS/OUTLETS? B. DO PIPE OUTLETS HAVE ENERGY DISSIPATION? COMMENTS: SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT (PART MC) 1. PERIMETER CONTROL INSTALLED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETERS? 2. PERIMETER CONTROL TRENCHED IN WHERE APPROPRIATE? 3. 50 FOOT NATURAL BUFFER MAINTAINED AROUND ALL SURFACE WATERS? 3.1. IF NO, HAVE REDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS BEEN INSTALLED? 4. INLET PROTECTION ON ALL CATCH BASINS AND CULVERT INLETS? 5. VEHICLE TRACKING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES COMPS) AT ALL SITE EATS? B. ALL TRACKEO SEDIMENT REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS? 7. ARE ALL INFILTRATION SYSTEMS STAKED AND MARKED TO AVOID COMPACTION? 8. ARE ALL INFILTRATION AREAS PROTECTED W1111 A PRETREATMENT DEVICE? 9. DO ALL STOCKPILES HAVE PERIMETER CONTROLS? COMMENTS: MAINTENANCEEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MAPS (PART N.E) N/A 1. ARE ALL PREVIOUSLY STABILIZED AREAS MAINTAINING 00% GROUND COVER? 2. ANY Di 1 Ln tRWIUNUWtRVtU? 0 3. rtRITAE NED-AND-FumerietereePROPERL COMMENTS: OTHER 1. ARE ALL MATERIALS THAT CAN LEACH POLLUTANTS UNDER COVER? 2. HAS ACCESS BEEN RESTRICTED TO ONSITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS? • UUES ONSII t i-UtIJNU ONLY OCCUR EN A CON iAINLU AREA? Y N N/A n n n n 0 El n 0 0 4. ARE ALL HMS, WAS IRS HEIRli PROPERLY UISPUSEU Uh f 5.-15THE-0014CRETEVASHW RRen.COrAraTar u)NIA1T COMMENTS: Y N N/A 7. WERE ANY DISCHARGES SEEN DURING THIS INSPECTION, SEDIMENT, WATER OR OTHERWISE? 0 0 0 7.1. IF YES, STATE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL POINTS OF DISCHARGE. PHOTOGRAPH THE DISCHARGE AND DESCRIBE THE DISCHARGE (COLOR, ODOR, FOAM, OIL SHEEN, ETC). HOW WU. IT BE REMOVED? HOW DID THE DISCHARGE HAPPEN? HOW MUCH WAS DISCHARGED? HOW WILL IT BE STOPPED, AND HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO STOP? IS THE DISCHARGE GOING INTO AN ADJACENT SITE? WAS THE DISCHARGE A SEDIMENT DELTA? IF YES, WILL THE DELTA BE RECOVERED WITHIN 7 DAYS? B. WILL A PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BE UTILIZED IN THIS PROJECT AS REQUIRED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART MO OF THE PERMIT? DESCRIBE: N/A 9. 18 ANY DEWATERING OCCURRING ON SITE? 0 9.1. IF YES, WHERE? WHAT BMP IS BEING USED? HOW MUCH WATER IS BEING DEWATERED? IS THE WATER CLEAR? WHERE IS THE WATER BEING DISCHARGED TO? IC ISA COPY OF THE SWPPP LOCATED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE? 11. HAS THE SWPPP BEEN FOLLOWED AND IMPLEMENTED ON SITE? 12. ISA SEDIMENTATION BASIN REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT AS SPECIFIED IN THE PERMIT? 12.1. IF YES. ARE THEY MAINTAINED AS SPECIFIED IN THE PERMIT? 13. IS THE TOPSOIL ON THIS PROJECT BEING PRESERVED? 19.1. IF YES, EXPLAIN HOW THE TOP SOIL IS BEING PRESERVED. IF NO, EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS INFEASIBLE. N/A 14. ARE ALL INFILTRATION SYSTEMS MARKED TO AVOID COMPACTION? 0 14.1. DO ALL INFILTRATION AREAS HAVE PRETREATMENT DEVICES? 0 0 0 IS. DESCRIPTION OF AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE NOTED DURING THE INSPECTION, REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. AND RECOMMENDED DATE OF COMPLETION OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: IS. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SWPPP: 17. POTENTIAL AREAS OF FUTURE CONCERN: IN. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS DISCLOSURES: • AFTER DISCOVERY, THE PERMIT REQUIRES MANY OF THE DEFICIENCIES THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THIS CHECKLIST BE CORRECTED WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME. SEE PERMIT FOR MORE DETAILS. • THIS INSPECTION CHECKLIST IS M OPTION FOR SMALL CONSTRUCTION SITES. LARGE CONSTRUCTION SITES AND LINEAR PROJECTS REQUIRE MORE EXTENSIVE/MORE LOCATION SPECIFIC INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. • THE PERMITTEE(S) IS/ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BMPS AS WELL AS EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS UNTIL ANOTHER PERMITTEE HAS OBTAINED COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT ACCORDING TO PART ILBA., OR THE PROJECT HAS UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION AND A NOTICE OF TERMINATION MS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE MPCA. q000000000< 00170000000 z oPPPPPPPPP N N/A n n q El ATTACHMENT C: MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PERMANENT STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ATTACHMENT C - CHAMBER FACILITY MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE 1. ALL GRIT CHAMBERS, SUMP CATCH BASINS, SUMP MANHOLES. OUTLET STRUCTURES, CULVERTS, OUTFALL STRUCTURES AND OTHER STORM WATER FACILITIES FOR WHICH MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED HEREIN MUST BE INSPECTED IN THE SPRING, SUMMER AND FALL OF EACH YEAR. WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE INSPECTION DATE, ALL ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS MUST BE REMOVED SUCH THAT EACH STORM WATER FACILITY OPERATES AS DESIGNED AND PERMITTED. CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS MUST BE KEPT CLEAR OF LITTER AND VEGETATIVE DEBRIS, INFLOW PIPES AND OVERFLOW SPILLWAYS KEPT CLEAR, INLET AREAS KEPT CLEAN, AND UNDESIRABLE VEGETATION REMOVED. EROSION IMPAIRING THE FUNCTION OR INTEGRITY OF THE FACILITIES, IF ANY, WILL BE CORRECTED, AND ANY STRUCTURAL DAMAGE IMPAIRING OR THREATENING TO IMPAIR THE FUNCTION OF THE FACILITIES MUST BE REPAIRED. 2. VOLUME CONTROL FACILITIES AND CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS MUST BE INSPECTED EVERY THREE MONTHS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD (BETWEEN SPRING SNOWMELT AND FIRST SUBSTANTIAL SNOWFALL) AND MONITORED AFTER RAINFALL EVENTS OF I INCH OR MORE TO ENSURE THAT THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA IS CLEAR OF LITTER AND DEBRIS, INFLOW PIPES AND OVERFLOW SPILLWAYS ARE CLEAR, INLET AREAS ARE CLEAN, UNDESIRABLE VEGETATION IS REMOVED AND THERE IS NO EROSION IMPAIRING OR THREATENING TO IMPAIR THE FUNCTION OFA FAC/LITY. IF SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED IN A INFILTRATION FEATURE, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF INSPECTION DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS MUST BE REMOVED, THE INFILTRATION CAPACITY OF THE UNDERLYING SOILS MUST BE RESTORED, MD ANY SURFACE DISTURBANCE MUST BE STABILIZED. INSPECTION MUST ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT TRAPS AND FOREBAYS ARE TRAPPING SEDIMENT AND THAT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE STORAGE VOLUME REMAINS, THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA IS STABLE (LE., NO EROSION IS OBSERVED), AND INLETS AND OUTLET/OVERFLOW SPILLWAYS ARE IN GOOD CONDITIONS WITH NO EROSION. MAINTENANCE TECHNIQUES USED MUST PROTECT THE INFILTRATION CAPACITY OF THE PRACTICE BY UNITING SOIL COMPACTION TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE (E.G., BY USING LOW-IMPACT EARTH-MOVING EQUIPMENT). 3. UNDERGROUND STORAGE CHAMBERS MUST BE INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY REMAINS. CAPACITY WILL BE CONSIDERED INADEQUATE IF SEDIMENT HAS DECREASED THE STORAGE VOLUME BY 50 PERCENT OF ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN VOLUME. ACCUMULATED DEBRIS AND SEDIMENT WILL BE REMOVED. AND INLET AND OUTLET STRUCTURES WILL BE CLEARED OF ANY FLOW IMPEDIMENTS. PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA COT X3 • t 9pLANTING ARE1 tr) 1.0 RETAINING WAIX 17.0 '-TRAIL EASEME POTENTIAL TRAIL aYOUT IN 1T EASEMENT >, 10.5' TRAIL D 1,-'1 Z5.74.if < <I .101 it -`• 1.8' BUMPER OVEAFiANG5kfiTI.1:411,4ggt-:-Pc.44`4414::.!,i (OUTSIDE TRAIL E4EM"'l 6.5' PLANTING AREA 10.5' WIDE --- FUTURE TRAIL 1 16" COT XR 1.0' RETAINING WALL FOR TRAIL E tn o 0 4— 1E-111E-111-111=--=-111 111E111-111-_-=-11ad=1 _111-111-7---111E111=-M-=111-111E-111E111 II Im1 Irri1 I 11 I i111 I I 1-I I 1 1111 ----I' III " tkAIL-E-A- SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL VEHICLE OVERHANG • Lire ;VP... LANDSCAPE AREA titki•Or NEI 1=7,_ditn MENT - ExAkT 1.8' 6.5' gffitLITT1 _ITAT-1 I I LE #1 - qs" .4 to e, 10.5' i ••. 17' TRAIL , EASEMENT-, - SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL VEHICLE OVERHANG 17.0' TRAIL EASEMENT I <1 <3 V. v , `I^ v ?5 ‘\V- ) — ) I- y$1) k)gc.-7,61? -1 4 6.5' 0-1 10.5' 8! ASH r—F— . . . . . . + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + TI SEEDING, TYP. 1 -ABM II II on MAI I I! 't A , A )1NCIIIU E LL I AIL I I I - A M 9's-th,1<1 4 t et . 4Q AREA FOR FUTURE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT RE-GRADE & PLANT LAWN MATCH EXIST. SLOPE AT PROPERTY LINE 7.0' 111=111-1 I E--71 I 1=11E11 I= I—I I— I I IM II MI I =I 11111111 I I N 1" = 51 -0" - - Z-6" 0 `'-grs..-.Ns.'. "t.V.' 6 I, .1 • . i_-_, 1 ('-.-- i› -1, • ,GC 4 <1 <I 4 EXIST. ADJACENT GRAI UNDISTURBED EXIST. ADJACENT BIT. LOT 51-0" 7.0' GRADING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY REQUIRED EXIST. ADJACENT BIT. LOT PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA LANDSCAPE AREA 1 - ABM I 7 - KFG -9=BES' (PPROX LOC 12"WM) l'ilsITI _Ill II III 1-116111=1 i=ill=u1=111=HIEifiEllt-El 1-_-_-_--a7_411_7_111L--_--in--1HEI 1=11=111=1 l=i l___1 1._. <<____[-T-;„lli,411,Egelli -41=111=117=17=111=111=_-= II__ 1 I =111411_=111_=11 1E11 1-111:7_-ifiE-111-=111-111=-111=1 I-11- = I -ifiEll1E111:7-111__111=111--1 1 fill IVT111-7111r--7-il q; • - - - tlk-AiLSA8EMENT - EXAM 1 ~t Il-11--A11:1-J k;-1180 "--7,[1:;',T--- — -- . - - T-6" 0 5141 II <4 << PM— >," TRAIL EASEMENT AREA THIS EXHIBIT IS PROVIDED AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE 17' TRAIL EASEMENT MIGHT BE DEVELOPED BY THE CITY 1" = 20'-0" 10'-0' 0 201-0" TRAIL EASEMENT SECTION - EXAMPLE #1 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS EX1.0 Project Number: 19033 I Revision Number: Issue Date: 04/01/2019 I Revision Date: CiyijSite 4931 W. 35TH ST., #200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 952.250.2003 / 763.213.394 www.CivilSiteGroup.com P.I.D:0811621110008 Address: Unassigned I Owner: City of Edina Architect: Miller Hanson Architects 218 Washington Ave N, Suite 230 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Civil Engineer: Clvil Site Group 4931 W 35th St, #200 St. Louis Pa*, MN 55416 1.251 Acres PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA Surveyor: Civil Site Group 4931 W 35th St, #200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 i - 'BLOCK 1 ',•-H r' 2 ▪ 14,5013 So FL P.I.D:0811621110010 Address: 7017 Amundson Ave Owner: 7070 Amundson LLC $2 Rory L. Synstellen Minnesota License No. 44565 rervOcivilsItegroup.com as PRELIMINARY PLAT:Alv NDSON _ATS 1. P.I.0:0811621110005 gg B Address: 5415 70th St W Owner: Ilmcin Properties LLP 641„• 0:6 L • j P.1.0:08116211113018 Address: 5400 70th St W Owner: Edina Manor LLC 1/2 Inch Iron Plp4 Vd Cap z19421 113 feet --'---Wth and ,ThZ feetW5ot =, , -...„.4... ELE.---:,,......._:....,..,........., 75 ..., oL., ` , ,j...,w ----...,....._,, .„.,,L. ti-.12-----,-- 9 - ....„,.. _ -------,...., - \ ------.._ , - ---1,1.04.3.------..__ , '1_ \ . -........_-___ 6 \ ,., /2 T- rech Iron Pipe LL.I •,/ Cap #19421 l --.6--,. „._ ..,-- 0.4 Feet West PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Mock 1, AMUNDSON'S TERRACE AND That part of the most Northerly 70 feet of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying West of the Southerly extension of the East ilne of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON TERRACE. (Torrent Property) DATE OF PREPARATION: 04-032019 BITE BENCHMARK: Top nut of the fire hydrant located on the Easterly side of Amundson Avenue approximately 350 feet south of 70th St West having an elevation of 852.31 feet (NGVD 1929) [JUSTIN° ZONING: Per a zoning letter from the Clty of Edina dated January 8, 2019 the subject property Iles within the following zone: 70th & Cahill Neighborhood Node Zoning Guidelines per said zoning letter are as follows: Building Setbacks: Not specified Parking Requirements: Not specified Density: Max residential density up to 50 dwelling unhs per acre Building Height: Up to 5 stories not to exceed 63 AREAS: Gross Land Area .54501 Sq. FL or 1 25Acres FLOOD ZONE DUIGNATIONI This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0363F, effective date of November 4th, 2016, and Community Panel No. 27053C0451F, effective date of November 4th, 2016. Owner/Developer: Amundson Flats, Limited Partnership 7645 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55423 PLO:0811621110019 Address: 7070 Amundson Ave Owner: 7070 Amundson LLC r - r t (` • P.I.D:0811621110020 Address: 7100 Amundson Ave Owner: 7100 Amundson LIC FO FIBER OPTIC GASMAIN WATERI4AIN • SANITARY SEWER — >> — STORM SEWER RU— OVERHEAD UTILITIES • TELEPHONE LINE ELE ELECTRIC LINE CW— CABLE UNE CHPINLINK FENCELINE O WOODEN FENCEUNE —0--0— GUARDRAIL CONCRETE SURFACE 11=1===•1111M 1.111•11MMIMM• IMMOMINIIMMIN• BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVEL/LANDSCAPE SURFACE IA1 SIGN O UTILITY MANHOLE I) SANITARY MANHOLE 01 STORM MANHOLE O CATCH BASIN 1]) TELEPHONE BOX Cr,) TELEPHONE MANHOLE El ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER IS TRAFFIC SIGNAL I CABLE IV BOX O ELECTRICAL. METER • GAS METER • FOUND IRON MONUMENT O SET IRON MONUMENT O CAST IRON MONUMENT • AIR CONDITIONER ▪ BOLLARD K ELECTRIC MANHOLE 0- FLAG POLE 41 FLARED END SECTION (01 GAS VALVE HANDICAP SYMBOL 'Ty HYDRANT • WATER MANHOLE K WATER VALVE 13. POWER POLE GUY WIRE CONIFEROUS TREE 0 DECIDUOUS TREE ,N1 89.5532"E -south Line of Lot 2, Block'f; 1 0.110 I AMUNDSON'S TERRACE '341 „.rFouno1/2 Inch - — — — — „_- iron Pipe i__North Line of Tract B,II REGISTERED LAND SURVEY- 19 -A, > [ ..1 ,,1 !OE LEVEL BRICK RIB= 4, 7075 AIII),050'.1 AVEAUE. 6. '. - \ LOT 1 ,, Ale"-' ,.o 1 -,4,-Th ,,,,4E O 0 F,J3untedNaE,. 4.4, ,{ v , / U/--- ' II, , ti I li'" , ,,- _ -- I 1 1 1 1 1 ,•.1'..., 1 I r / ill ' FoUnd 1/2 Inch ,J u—c,.. __D ->efirer---FHL 4,$(4 1 --T- ..., Rebar 589°5558'V 150:00 — — 7- -- — , . --.... V - .,-1 \ P.I.D:0811621110022 Address: 7101 Amundson Ave \ Owner: 7101 Amundson LLC L Iron Pipe • >0 0 pw A I 30 15 0 15 30 80 SCALE IN FEET Linetype & Symbol Legend PAVER SURFACE CivilSite Ort OUP 4931W. 3511IST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55418 ChalSieGroup.00m 0 ILL AMUNDSO 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA, MN 55439 !HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT! AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. IEN DATE 4-3-2019 LICENSE HO. 44565 6 0 MWF PROPERTIES 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 REVISION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO.: 19333 PRELIMINARY PLAT ()COPYRIGHT 20,9 othl. SITE GROUP FG AMUNDSON FLATS That part of the roost Northerly 70 feet of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying West of the Southerly extension of the S7s031 Feet line of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON TERRACE. 9 „ L Notary Public County, My Commission Expires: SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE I Rory L. Synstellen do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Ucensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat Is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on the plat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been or will be set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined In Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of 20 . Rory L. Synstellen, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 44565 STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by Rory L. Synstellen Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as AMUNDSON FIATS . In witness whereof said Amundson Flats, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, has caused these presents to be signed by Its proper officer this _day of , 20_. SIGNED: Amundson Flats, Limited Partnership by Its STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 Notary Signature Notary Printed Name Notary Public County My Commission Expires: CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA This plat of AMUNDSON FIATS was approved and accepted by the City Coundl of the City of Edina, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of 20 and said plat is In compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor by Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 3830.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this day of Mayor , Manager by RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable In 20_ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor by REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of AMUNDSON FLATS was filed In this office this day of at o'clock m. Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles by Deputy 30 15 15 30 60 IA1 SCALE IN FEET Bearings are based on the west line of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON"S TERRACE having an assumed bearing of NO01100.513"W • Found Iron Monument (see map for type) 0 1/2 Inch by 14 Inch Iron Monument Set Marked "RLS 44565 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 019 CITY OF EDINA ; , s / I 1, . LOT 1 South Une of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON'S TERRACE E3t 1/2 Inch Iron Pipe w/ Cap #19421 0.4 Feet West 50. BLOCK 1 in rn ao 60 N1391'55.3 2"E 30.00 I 30 I °, i a ui4Mg tgig arbrera ‘---H Found 1/2 Inch 30 • Iron Pipe r .4 5 1,5 61 Eg6 mpg 15.= flA Found Nall 0.3 feet East , P 300°00'58"E 423.09 Found 1/2 Inch Reber 9 W 1. / 9 C f : e l, t # 5 North 01 Found 1/2 Inch Iron Pipe I_ North Une of Tract 13, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193 1 1 S891.55158"W 150.00 /11'7z: / 11,7 14, .,„ 1/2 Inch Iron Pipe '14.1,1 ia Cap #19421 0.3 feet South and 0.4 feet West KNOW ALL PERSONS BYTHESE PRESENTS: That Amundson Flats, United Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, fee owner of the following described property situated In the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, to wit: Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON'S TERRACE AND R.T. DOC. NO 0) G) G) m irl m MWF PROPERTIES 7645 Lyndale Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55423 Tel: 612-243-0637 CML SITE GROUP CIVIL SITE GROUP 4931 W. 35th ST. 4931 W. 35111 ST. suite 200 suite 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 55416 Tel: 952.250.2003 Tel: 952.250.2003 r Fr R TA • U I L-= I • L_ L I rn O O E O E n LLT_,. 0 0 z • uta 2 • Fr= • • H tr , g • C, O 4i) PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN3KLENci3:1 ONINNVld C.71 O LOT VNICO JO AJJO MILLER /I arc h it ectsi`1\ 218 Washington Avenue North Suite 230 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612-332-5420 1,,vw.mIllerhanson.com HMV CIOVIIK TUT THIS PIM SPECIPICATIOX On REPORT WAS PREPARCO UNDER YY DIRECT UNO SIJOERVIMON uw RAT IAN A RECAST610.1401(15.1 'MEL/NA Oi TIE STATE OF 1.111.1.0TA NAME: KENT SIMON DATE: APRIL 5, 2019 NO. 16390 CEVELOPEA: CIVIL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: MEP ENGINEERS: AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 Amundson Avenue EDINA, MN DEVELOPER: MWF PROPERTIES 7645 Lyndale Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55423 Tel: 612-243.4637 avL ENGINEER: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, MEP ENGINEERS. CIVIL SITE GROUP CIVIL SITE GROUP 4931 W. 35th ST. 4931 W. 35th ST. suite 200 suite 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 55416 Tel: 952.250.2003 Tel: 952.2502003 "mum imminnisn! PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O CO O 1 VJ 1 0 IN3tAlltiVd3C1 ONINNIVld VNIGR JO A119 MILLER HANSON architects 218 Washington Avenue North Suite 230 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 612-332-5420 millerhanson.com IIVREBY CEPTIFY TKO PIAN SPECIFICATION OR 11.0frr WAS PREPARED UNDER DIRECT OUPEAMSION AND THATREGS.PCD ARCHITECT UNDER111e LA.101,11C MATE OP MINNESOTA NAME: KENT SIMON DATE: APRIL 5, 2019 NO. 16390 AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 Amundson Avenue EDINA, MN 1\MLLER 1-14,,NSON 612-332-5420 architects www.millorhan“...orn 218 Washington Avenue NOM Suite 230 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I I LIB I kil 14 ‘ r1112:sx!.1 Iwo! 1111mr, I I\ C) or a IIN C ti Ca met 111111111 ,NE171111MMIIIII 12371 - - zc to fJl mn I O ••••. • 9 m 0 0 0 0 z ENB IN31/4111Vci34 ONINNVid —0 70 CJI IV O \AIM dO k110 CEVELOPER. CP/IL ENGINEER UNDSCOE AR.PTECT. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEERS. S O AMUNDSON FLATS MWF PROPERTIES CIVIL SITE GROUP CIVIL SITE GROUP 7645 Lyndale Ave. S. 4931 W. 3561 ST. 4931 W. 35th ST. 7076 Amundson Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55423 Tel: 612-243-4637 suite 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN suite 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 2 EDINA, MN 55416 55416 Tel: 952.250.2003 Tel: 952.250.2003 NOISIAMI 5 3assi HERM' C.71, THAT KAN SPECIFICATION OR RCPCRT WAS PREPARED UNDER O. IV MEC, .1.01,51. .0 TINT I 1.1A PECUSTEREDMICHRECT UNDER IIHE 4160 OP THE STATE°. MINNEDOTA NAME: KENT SIMON DATE: APRIL 5, 2019 NO. 16390 C r. I I • • Ip Yo k11 kel rav 1.1102.42. III latt5aam H c• I 13371 WM= OE I H to C C (0, 3, o TRASH/REC H •oc - Ze/E (Th NVld 1:1001J auIHl -111 O 71 fV O c_o vma] JO A110 IN3IALLEIVaa DNINNYld C) 71 r 6Lr' 41141~ II r =1 cn LI es I C -0 z 1 iiii In MILLER I-I`NSON 812-332.5420 a r c h I t e C t S www.mIllerhanson.00m 218 Washington Avenue North Suite 230 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 I HEREBY CCP/1,711AT RAN SPECIf ICATICN REPORT WAS MRCP/MED 1041)Ell DRECT .PETIVISI. AND TYAT Ahl RCOGTIMED.C/drFCT UNOLIIIIICIA. Of 1NE STATE Or 1.1,11301"... NAME: KENT SIMON DATE: APRIL 5, 2019 NO. 16390 AM U N DSO N FLATS 7075 Amundson Avenue EDINA, MN ooq LIE I O AEA NIENI QoQ fn I O I I 0 PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPER: CML ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT' STRUCTURAL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEERS MWF PROPERTIES 7645 Lyndale Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55423 Tel: 612-243-4637 CIVIL SITE GROUP CIVIL SITE GROUP 4931 W. 35th ST. 4931 W, 35th ST. suite 200 suite 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN ST. LOUIS PARK MN 55416 55416 Tel: 952.250.2003 Tel: 952.250.2003 I F4 ro cevaoPea CIVIL ENGINEER. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT' STRUCTURAL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEERS MWF PROPERTIES 7645 Lynda° Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55423 Tel: 612-243-4637 CIVIL SITE GROUP CIVIL SITE GROUP 4931 W. 35th ST. 4931 W. 35th ST. suite 200 suite 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 55416 Tel: 952.250.2003 Tel: 952.250.2003 MILLER II-IANSON 612-332-5420 a r C h It Act S vnw,millerhansonoOM 218 Washington Avenue North Suite 230 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NOISLA3)3 V anssi O 03 O n C r- 0 0 -13 z VN1G3 i0 A1.10 —0 tV O INAN.LEIVdKI ONINNYld ILU C IZ P-= L C) joc CZ .Aq !MOM, CERTI,TNAT 1140 PLAN SPEOFICATON OF fICKAT WAS PIREPMED UM. 1.1V PRECT .PEAVIZION WIYMAT IOW MO. ARC XITEC7 UNDER 11. LANISOF 'ME STATE OF 1.111.E.901, NAME: KENT SIMON DATE: APRIL 5, 2019 NO. 16390 AMUNDSON FLATS 7075 Amundson Avenue EDINA, MN ISSUE & REVISION CITY SUMISSON 1821 COMM S T.O.SUBFLR - 3RD 120'73 3/4" T.O. SUBFLR - 2ND 110' -1 7/8" Is4IMSON Fl ATC =I=11=====1.=.=I•Ml•IMMMI•1”Il•NM•ONIMIMIL=====1==.=M==MINI.1•IMI.=I= • I I I I • • • I= • • • r1=7• TM TM 1 • I • II • I • I W=%%1EM7a& W1 R7MIWZ Ma..M% TO I I IT=7 rnrEr = .,....,.7.,=====1•111MMIIIMIIMMI.•=====1.•11====11•1•1111•1=MMOTIM 111=1=1=1MM MM1=•••==.M.= EMMEN Mama= -PLANNING-DEPARTMENT CAST STONE CAST STONE ALUMINUM RAILING ALUMINUM CHANNEL EYEBROW )111 T.O. PLAT I9 138' - 6 3/4" T.O. SUBFLR - 4TH 130' - 5 5/8" N CAST STONE ROCKFACE CMU 1 ROCKFACE CMU I :3 I 0 VINYL WINDOWS VARIED CFB LAP SIDING H < CFB PANEL SIDING I CFB PANEL SIDING 2 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 VARIED CFB LAP SIDING CFS PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 7 0 7 -5 1— T.O. PLANK-1ST ftik 100' - 0" T.O. SLAB - EAST ENTRY 96'0" - 0" T.O. SLAB - GARAGE 9. . s ROCKFACE CMU 1 ROCKFACE CMU 1 ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CAST STONE CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE a 1— CFB PANEL SIDING 1 METAL SOFFIT & FASCIA T.O. SUBFLR - 4TH 130 - 5 5/8" T.O. SUBFLR - 3RD 120' - 3 314" TO. SUBFLR - 2ND 110' - 1 7/8" T.O.FLAW- 100' T.O. SLAB - EAST ENTRY T.O. SLAB - GARAGE 89' - 0"0 32' EXTE118011 ELEVAT1ON5 A500 COINFCCNT 0 .0 111.1.83 110.4.50.1.MITEICTS PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION • 1=1 ...A1=11•11 J I ROCKFACE CMU 1 CAST STONE ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMI) 1 & SMOOTH CMI) 1 ROCKFACE CMU 1 CAST STONE ROCKFACE CMU 1 CAST STONE METAL SIDING & FASCIA ALUMINUM STOREFRONT ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU 1 ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE CAST STONE ROCKFACE CMU I CAST STONE I n 00 I 7 0 1® 1 El MN ME 11•1•11111MMINC=M=MIMI WI )111111 mmmmm ULIDIDMIliamalplagnneuar MA MIN DummuirarirriiihrammramniumnnnummaihnivinniZiffiffilimmu uneiliginifisramumuus.-1 .15M1.0651116;adwffraa7 - 15101111ERFIRRIONIPMERIMNEMORIEWAR'Mrame''"""''' iliMMillNINWIEWBEWIWIMPuom 0' 4' 8' 16' IIIHIII--- - -444+4-1 J ++4 4444-# ITV Mai Nimam 1111111•01111 =IC= +-1•;=. O PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION 1/8 = 1-0 I s g g PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION \-1-/ 1/Er = 1'-0" VARIED CFB LAP SIDING CFB PANEL SIDING 1 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING I VARIED CFB LAP SIDING APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA VINYL WINDOWS VARIED CFS LAP SIDING VARIED CFB LAP SIDING VARIED CFB LAP SIDING CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 co uZ I 2 2 I CFB PANEL SIDING 3 0 W j CFB PANEL SIDING 1 g I 1(14 METAL SOFFIT & FASCIA 8' 16' 32' CFB PANEL SIDING 2 138' - 6 3/4" T.O. PLATE 9 16' 32' CFB PANEL SIDING 1 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 ALUMINUM CAP RAIL CFB PANEL SIDING 1 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 VARIED CFB LAP SIDING VARIED CFB LAP SIDING CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 VARIED CFB LAP SIDING VINYL WINDOWS METAL SOFFIT & FASCIA METAL SOFFIT & FASCIA VINYL WINDOWS CFB PANEL SIDING 1 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING / ALUMINUM CAP RAIL VARIED CFB LAP SIDING CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 VARIED CFB LAP SIDING CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 7 0 7 I 51 =1111=IMi T.O. PLANK -1ST Aikb, 100' ALTERNATING ROCKFACE ROCKFACE CMU 1 CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU I CAST STONE APARTMENT CFS PANEL SIDING CAST STONE APR 0 5 2019 CAST STONE CAST STONE N FLATS AMIINTA NM ION CFB PANEL SIDING 1 MECHANICAL GRILL CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB. PANEL SIDING 3 ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU I & SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE VARIED CFB LAP SIDING (TN PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION \Li 1/8" = 1'-0" ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE CFB PANEL SIDING --A- T.O. SLAB - GARAGE 89.8 T.O. PLAT T.O. SUBFLR - 4TH 130 - 5 5/8" 'JP T.O. SUBFLR -3RD_ 120' - 3 3/4" \-1. T.O. SUBFLR 110' -1 7/Er \JP 138' - 6 3/4" ISSUE & REVISION COMM 8 1821 7,7 7 ' 0 7 N--i- ,-.5) PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION V:-/ 1/8" = 1'.0" Ell ------Itrm . Elm in sti-A ii . Wi ---=.= = = .=—.—:--.7.11111111 'a , —Nammi.unno ur ... .......,......,....m..m....mmuminniuminngin.m..................,,m,...a l.......=7: . =--- ..4....................4.2..._.... - ' n1 '"=' 114 CI n 51111141114191111-1E a 11 LAO! Miff fffINTEEIn 1 1: 11:5:77 . 7;72 .. 7:" .. 7 . TH EETE .. " ... 1 . :f . il : \ \ .,....„_______ ALTERNATING ROCKFACE • CMU 2 & SMOOTH CMU 2 ROCKFACE CMU 1 MU 1 I a fin I iiirAWMANI Mg I WA Rim ... ".5 5 5-353557 atanatt264•WitiSidakti kVA CAST STONE ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 2& SMOOTH CMU 2 ROCKFACE CMU 1 CAST STONE CFB PANEL SIDING 3 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 METAL HUNG CANOPY ALUMINUM STOREFRONT ALUMINUM RAIUNG ROCKFACE CMU 2 ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1& SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE ROCKFACE CMU 2 ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1 8 SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 2 & SMOOTH CMU 2 ROCKFACE CMU 1 CAST STONE I I I ROCKFACE CMU 2 ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 28 SMOOTH CMU 2 ALUMINUM CHANNEL EYEBROW CAST STONE 0' 8' 1 COPri.fr 0 .0 WILIER HAUSCti NialITECIS 2 CITY OF EDINA T.O. PLATE 138' -6 3/4" T.O. SUBFLR - 13rr - 5 5/8" \Jr T.O. SUBFLR :31 - 3 3/4'. kJ. T.O. SUBFLR -2ND 110' -1 7/8 'JP T.O. PLANK-1ST 100' - 0"V T.O. SLAB - GARAGE 89' - 0" kJ. I I MI - MO = MI g 0 05 I I cle w LAO _1u)- _17; PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 32' EXTERIOR ELM/ATOM A501 CAST STONE ROCKFACE CMU 1 ALUMINUM CHANNEL EYEBROW CAST STONE METAL CANOPY BEYOND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 32' 8 1 ISSUE & REVISION COMM S 1021 VARIED CFB LAP SIDING CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 EX1ERIOR ELEVATIONS A502 COPMWM02019 UW,RW.WNARCHTECTS O SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = T.O. SUBFLR 120' - 3 3/4" T.O. SUBFLR - 110' - 1 7/8" sa, T.O. PLANK -1ST 100' - 0"\-5' PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION E. CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 VINYL WINDOWS CFB PANEL SIDING 1 CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL WINDOWS SIDING VINYL ALUMINUM CHANNEL EYEBROW ALUMINUM RAIUNG • --7e1 -L1 ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 2 & SMOOTH CMU 2 ROCKFACE CMU 1 CAST STONE ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 1 & SMOOTH CMU 1 CAST STONE ROCKFACE CMU 1 CAST STONE ALTERNATING ROCKFACE CMU 2& SMOOTH CMU 2 01% ALUMINUM STOREFRONT METAL SIDING & FASCIA APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA .rn NORTH ELEVATION `,2-' 1/8" .1.-0" VARIED CFB LAP SIDING - CFB PANEL SIDING 2 CFB PANEL SIDING 1 T.O. SLAB - GARAGE 89' 16' 32' T.O. PLAT_? TD. — SUBFLR - 4TH_ ph 130' - 5 5/8" ‘.-1" TD. SUBFLR - — 120' - 3 3/4" \-w TD. SUBFLR - 2NL:!_pk — 110' - 1 7/8" \Jr T.O. PLANK -1ST 100' - 0" `Jr T.O. SLAB - GAIRAG±_5 138' - 6 3/4" 89' - 0" T.O. PLA- 138' - 6 3/4" T.O. SUBFLR - 130' - 5 5/8" \--IF I. P I. I n LIE . NI In n N NI n al! Inn . !! WI II !!! MEE iii ii a Ell LI VI 'MI • a !! ! ! IMIE °I M V ,11 Ila •n pm, !! ! I!. *BM B P ' ra3 !U , Et . g .1.., t• ! !! ,... p. l =7111111 M 1.1 I! 1 -' il -1! I m : NOR' I! I Vol 11"I'to! : :N AMUNDSON FLATS EDINA, MINNESOTA SITE SECTION o 10' 40' 80' SCALE - = 20'-0" MILLER HANSON arc hi t e c t s MWF properties PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA - • -ma ViV ••••••-••=,•rvrr rts. = MWF properties PLATS PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA AMUNDSON SOUTHEAST VI EW VILLEP HANSON architects MILLER HANSON architects MWF properties AMLWASak LzNTS STREET ENTRANCE VIEW PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 5 2019 CITY OF EDINA AMUNDSON FLATS AMUNDSON FLATS STREET ENTRANCE VIEW PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 1 9 2019 CITY OF ED1NA MILLER HANSON architects MWF properties VILLE HANSON architects MWF properties AMUNDSON FLATS REGIONAL TRAIL VIEW PLANNING DEPARTMEaf APR 1 9 2019 CITY OF EDINA 1162 LF 30 TREES 0 TREES SITE PERIMETER PERIMETER DIVIDED 8Y40 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 30 TREES TOTAL REQUIRED Amundson Ave CL PUBUC WWI PLANNING DEPARTMEN APR 1 9 '2019 CITY OF EDINA LEGEND COMMENTS SIZE ROOT kotge. GEoTEXTLE AT SEEDED SLOPED AREAS, SEE GRADING AND SWPPP NOTES/PLANS, PROVIDE AND INSTALL BIODEGRADABLE STAKES PER MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS & SPECS. 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS 3 CivilSite G R OUP Ga EnsInairiN • StregyIns• Landscape Antilactur• 4931 W.3581 Street W8200 RI Louis Park. MN 55418 cndse.gra.P com 612-615-0060 MILLER HANSON PARTNERS ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 051O crry smart. DRAWN WAIN REVIEWED BY: DK PROJECT NUMBER 19033 REVISION SUMMARY LD DATE DESCRIPBON LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0 1-EEC 14 -PMD I DIG 11-9W PM) D4L 10 - BC-1 • MID III. BCJ -EEC 23 BC.I 1-RBC P.- MJ 6-PPCB 3 502 13 - 602 1-RBC 6- PPCB 3-MJ - RBC 6- PPCB - 11 El T acS -DAL 6- PY 01 , 1 - El =,,,VP•W*21 - frearia. issamrammammi 1'1 EMS ISITO 'quoit 21161r, 1 - COO IC 1-SSC 1 - SSC LAWN, TYP. MATCH TURP TO car _STREETSCARE PROJECT, LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS MINN! MUM AMOUNTS OF REQUIRED TREES PLANTING SIZE REQUIRED M NI MUM TREE TYPE DECIDUOUS (IN. CAL) CONIFEROUS (ET. HT.) BLDG. HT. c24 FEET MIN. TREES BLDG. NT. P•=24 FEET MN. TREES ORNAMENTAL COMPLIMENTARY ACCENT PRIMARY FULL 2 OR LESS 2.5 OR GREATER 3.5 OR GREATER 4.5 OR GREATER 5.50R GREATER 5 OR LESS 6 OR GREATER 8 OR GREATER 10 OR GREATER 12 OR GREATER 5% 60% 20% 10% 5% 2 18 6 3 2 5% 25% 25% 20% 20% 2 8 8 6 6 TOTAL REQUIRED' 31 30 1 - EKC 3-PPCB 6-BHS NATIVE SEEDING. pROVI3E GEolExTILE DA SLOPES PER GRADING PLAN & SPECS.. TSP I - ABM 1 EDGING, Ty. .11111 1 t• 14 isvagort-, 141 ecutes-ti IV -A-,D 12 - R,G LAAN. TP 22' WIRT STRP. SEE DETAIL. TYP. ,NG, TYP. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXIST. VEG. FOR HEALTH 8.AESTHETics f5 THISAREA PROPOSE TRIMMING RE AOVAL BASED 014 BEST PRACTICES. "CLOD NG IkE.OVAL a F INVASIVE •ECIE LAWN, TYP. EDGING, TYP NATIVE S EKC '4 -PAIS 1 - ABC 20-602 6 - AFC 2'-AFD 2' . BES- -- 1 - BARS SEEDING. TYP. ,,1T1 TES 1: ABM 2-00. I - ARM 24* IAAINT STRIP, SEE DETAIL ,VP • - Si, LAWN. TYP SPECIAL TV PLAYGROUND MACH, PER PLAYGROUND WALE SPEC MATIONS & REQUIREMENTS, INSTAll PER MMU,.SPECS. 04' MAIN- STRIP, OFF DEM TYP MAINS STRIP, SZE VARIES INCLJDE ALL AREA BETWEEN BULDINC 0 WALK TYP 2- ppC8 6- 4C.) ar 'ANT STRIP. SFF DETAII -TP ET CAL B&B COMPLIMENTARY STRAIGHT LEADER FULL FORM 4.5* CAL B&B PRIMARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM ZS CAL B&B COMPLIMENTARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FILL FORM 4.5" CAL B&B PRIMARY STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM 3.5' CAL B&B ACCENT STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM IT CAL B&B ACCENT STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM 1.T CAL. B&B ORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER FILL FORM 1.5* CAL. BEE ORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER FLU FORM 1.5-CAL BEE ORNAMENTAL STRAIGHT LEADER FULL FORM LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB t. PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (AIWILIUM AFTER INSTALLATION AMS/OR TOP DRESSING OPERATIONS) OF DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH, SAMPLES REQUIRED. 2, ALL TREES SHALL HAVE T DIA. MULCHED MAINTEWINCE 'SAUCER' TO BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CYPRESS MULCH. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF T FROM TREE TRUNK 3. IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SEED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR MIT SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSWING. OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 4. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STNITIARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD, T-4 DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH AT ALL PLANTING BEDS, SAMPLES REQUIRED PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLAN LAWN- LOCALLY SOURCED. BLUEGRASS-BASED, NON-MINERAL GROWN SOD, 38-BIG RILL. PREFERRED, STAKE PER INSTALLER OR MANUF. RECOMMENDATIONS. NATIVE SEED - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE, PER MNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014) P DIA ROCK MAINTENANCE STRIP OVER FILTER FABRIC, SAMPLES REQUIRED. PROVIDE EDGING AS SHOWN ON PLAN PROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITE SYM QUART. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME DECIDUOUS TREES ABM ABM CSO SHL SHL EEC 4 4 4 2 4 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST 4 Autumn Blare Maple Aubrmn Blaze Maple Crams Spire Oak SKYLINE HONEYI.00UST Espresso Kentucky Wiesen kat xtnemani 'JelIenied Acerx freernartileffensred Quecan 'Crimson Spire' Gleditala IrisTanthos 'Skyeele' Gle:Seia Irlacanlhos 'Skycola Gymoodades clkieue Eepresso' ORNAMENTAL TREES ABS 2 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERWCEBERRY Amelanchlerx grancifbre 'Autumn Balance (tree Tam) SSC 4 SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRAB Males 'Spring Sow/ RBC 6 RED BARON FLOWERING CRAB Melee 'Red Bared 5. UPON DISCOVERY OFA DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 6. COMTIITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (I) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE 7. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTNITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4. LAYER TOPSOIL LOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. 8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUNDAND OVERHEAD GRIMES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 9. ALL FLINT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED MU MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE 10. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OVINER ALL WAAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. 11. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ACTMTIES. 12. REPAIR AT NO OOST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ACTAIITIES. 13. PROVIDE SITE WOE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENTIRACK OF CURB 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM IALCUDING PRICING FROM OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EVERGREEN TREES BIAS 6 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE From glauca Denside 17111 BBB FULL STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM 40 TOTAL TREES- SEE LANDSCAPE CALCS. SHRUBS-CONIFEROUS& EVERGREEN MJ 15 LIEDORAJUNIPER BCJ 129 Blue Chip Juniper FPR 15 PAVEMENT FOXY ROSE DKL 5 Deaf Korean Lim (tree lone) AFD 15 Red Gnome Dogwood Juniparus seopelorm 'Mederd ,Agip eres horizontals SIee Rosa 'Foil Pavement' Syringe mayeri Tanta (tree fowl Comes elTa Regarad 24' SPD. CONT. 35' HT. CONE 24" HT. CONT. 24' HT. CONE ES CONT. 179 TOTAL SHRUBS PERENNIALS, GRASSES & VINES DBDC 22 MAD IOTA OARK BRONZE DAISY CHRYSANISFJSUM KFG 28 KARL FOERSTER GRASS BHBS 35 Blue Heaven Lade BA* Slam PAUL 40 PARDON ME DAYLILLY PPC8 57 PLUM PUDDING CORAL BELLS BES 53 GOLDSTURAI RUDBECKIA LTC 55 LITTLE TITCH CATMINT El 37 Englemenn hs Heuchere 'Plum Puddle Rtelbeelda Rigida °Meta& Repels racemose UN Each' Parthenonsaus tainquelbia Ver. eagerness/ Chrysantharrum 'Dark Bronze Dais/ Calarnagrests a ecutiora 'Karl Foerster Selareehyritee =parkas 'Oka Heaved Hemerocalis Pardon Me' 11 SI LI SI 11 El El COW. CONE CONE CONE CONE CONE CONE 327 TOTAL PERENNIALS, GRASSES, (VINES PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE sYMBoLs - sEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS -SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED PERENNIAL RANT SYMBOLS-SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND RAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES EDGING HEAVE Duly VINYL, BLACK IN COLOR, PROVIDE ALL STARES AND CONNECTORS PER MANUF. iNsTRucTioNs/spEcs DECORATIVE BOULDERS (ROUNDED & BLOCK STYLE), 10,30. OIL Know what's below. Call before you dig. 1'=20-0' 22 1 10,0' 0 2a-cr V12,019 12/3 PM CSC .70174,1.76E1.41,E TH. TOT, UMW. F8.111f4431Vit RECLeFtf firS CALCULAT10,10.10Ff 0,810 F.B.I., .4.114 g.EC1E3 POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALT. PROVIDE ONLY PLANT MATERIAL PREECE NEONICOTIN010 BASED INSECTICIDES ARDOR TREATMENTS OFANY KIND, INCLUDING BY NOT UMITED TO IMIDACLOPREI (CONFIDOW ADMIRE, GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), TIVAMETHOMM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER), CLOTHIANDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DAMON, ACETAMIPRID (MGM" ASSAIL, CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFUFTAN (STARKE, SAFARI, VENOM), AND NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR, GUARDIAN). 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOTTNOID BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEEN USED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGE PLOTS OF THE SUPPLIED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLANTING OF AGRICULTURAL (OR OTHER) SEED TREATED WITH ATONICS.. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY HE OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION Am THAT IMI A Duet LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHrTECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PaAI R J. Sarver OATS 4/5.19 MORE NO. 24904 co 0 re 2 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 P.I.D:0811621110018 Address: 5400 70th St W Owner: Edina Manor LLC LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Black 1, AMUNDSON'S 'TERRACE PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES PLANNING DEPARTMENT Rory L Synstelien rory•chrtlsitegroup.corn Minnesota License No. 44565 a DECIDUOUS TREE Tr • /-7 , • 1/2 Inch Iron Plpe w/ Cap *19421 • @tie , 0.3 feet South and 0.4 feet West ,433,.1053' ASO ryy. 7075 AMUNDSON AVENUE, EDINA, MN 55439 AMUNDSON FLATS O 7645 LYNDALE AVE. S., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 MWF PROPERTIES _ UI PROJECT NO.: 18033 CivilSite GR OUP 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55410 CNISIteGroup.corn C REVISION SUMMARY 70th & Cahill Neighborhood Node PRELIMINARY PLAT:AMUNDSON FLATS AND That part of the most Northerly 70 feet of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying West of the Southerly extension of the East line of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON TERRACE. (Torrens Property) DATE OF PREPARATION: 04.15.2019 SITE BENCHMARK: Top nut of the fire hydrant located on the Easterly side of Amundson Avenue approximately 350 feet south of 70th St West having an elevation of 852.31 feet (NGVD 1929) EXISTING ZONING: Per a zoning letter from the City of Edina dated January 8, 2019 the subject property lies within the following zone: Zoning Guidelines per said zoning letter are as follows: Building Setbacks: Not specified Parking Requirements: Not specified Density: Max residential density up to 50 dwelling units per acre Building Height: Up to 5 stories not to exceed 63 R. AREAS: Gress Land Nae =54,501 Sq. Ft. or 1.25 Acres FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property Is contained In Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0363F, effective date of November 4th, 2016 and Community Panel No. 27053C0451F, effective date of November 4th, 2016. Owner/Developer: Amundson Flats, Limited Partnershlp 7645 Lyndale Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55423 Architect: Miller Hanson Architects 218 Washington Ave N, Suite 230 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Civil Engineer: Civil Site Group 4931 W 35th St, #200 St. tares Park, MN 55416 Surveyor: Civil Site Group 4931 W 35th St, #200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 APR 1 9 2019 30 15 0 15 30 60 CITY OF EDINA SCALE IN FEET Linetype & Symbol Legend FO FIBER OPTIC uns GASMAIN WATERMAIN SANITARY SEWER — >> — STORM SEWER Ow OVERHEAD UTILITIES — aa_ — TELEPHONE UNE - OLE ELECTRIC UNE BTY — CABLE UNE x CHAINUNK FENCEUNE —0— WOODEN FENCELINE —0-0— GUARDRAIL CONCRETE SURFACE PAVER SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVEL/LANDSCAPE SURFACE P.I.D:0811621110020 Address: 7100 Amundson Ave Owner: 7100 Amundson LLC 1112 Inch Iron Pipe r / Cap #19421 .4 Feet West Proposed 2.70' 20de Retaining ' Wall Easement BLOCK 1 • LOT 1 30.00 a0 I , 4'; I y -"f---------------- 17 Trail Easement -...5 ound 1/2 Tnch ".., t.., 1 - Frel 1/2 inch Reber 30 siren Pipe f 1 sp w/ CoCp 46508 ' 589°55'58"W 150.00 f 1.9 feet North 60 .--South Line of Lot 2, Block 1, AMUNDSON'S TERRACE N89°55'32"E O P.I.D:0811621110022 Address: 7101 Amundsen Ave Owner: 7101 Amundson LLC .....„..) Found 1/2 Inch Found. Nall . Iron pipe I_ North Una of Tract B, 0.3 feet East I` '4 . REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1193 - / 0 ,, A ' 1 ." ' I 1 il I ' I ?. I 1 I I 1 L 1 . i I I ' i 1 1======1 M1=I=M• IM=MM SIGN @ MLITT MANHOLE (5) SANITARY MANHOLE ® STORM MANHOLE O CATCH BASIN Ci TELEPHONE BOX (r) TELEPHONE MANHOLE • ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER an TRAFFIC SIGNAL ▪ CABLEW BOX 67> ELECTRICAL METER O GAS METER • FOUND IRON MONUMENT O SET IRON MONUMENT O CAST IRON MONUMENT 111 AIR CONDITIONER H BOLLARD 6) ELECTRIC MANHOLE (a— FLAG POLE .<1 FLARED END SECTION fn.] GAS VALVE HANDICAP SYMBOL -a, HYDRANT BB WATER MANHOLE 3 WATER VALVE TA POWER POLE d GUY WIRE CONIFEROUS TREE P.I.D:0811621110008 Address: Unassigned Owner: City of Edina Y" f. Os 500°00'58"E 423.09 P.I.D:0811621110005 Address: 5415 70th St W Owner: Tbncln Properties LLP P.1.0:0811621110010 Address: 7017 Amundson Ave Owner, 7070 Amundson LLC P.1.13:0811621110019 Address: 7070 Amundson Ave Owner: 7070 Amundson LLC DESCRIPTION DATE PRELIMINARY PLAT V 1 . 0 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. RORY L. 9XNEIELIEN DATE 4-152019 LICENSE No. 44555 Date: May 8, 2019 Agenda Item #: V.C . To:P lanning C o mmis s io n Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:C ary Teague, C o mmunity Development Directo r Item Activity: Subject:S ub d ivis ion with F ront Yard S etb ac k Variances – 6625 Mohawk Trail Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : R ecommend the C ity C ouncil approve the preliminary plat with variances subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Report Site Location Applicant Narrative Propos ed Plans Staff Recommended Eas ement & Setback Edina Subdivision His tory Submittals from adjacent res idents Petition May 8, 2019 Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Subdivision with Front Yard Setback Variances – 6625 Mohawk Trail Information / Background: Jim Seabold, on behalf of the Michelle and William McQuarie, is proposing to subdivide the 5 acre property at 6625 Mohawk Trail into three lots. The existing home on the lot would remain, and continue to gain access off Mohawk Trail. Two new lots would be created on the east half of the property and gain access off of Dakota Trail. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; and 2. Front yard setback variances from 73.5 feet to 30 feet for each lot. Within this neighborhood, the minimum lot size is established by the median width, depth and area of all lots within 500 feet of the property. The minimum lot sizes are met for this proposed subdivision. The front yard setback requirement is established by taking the average setback of the twelve (12) homes located on the west side of Dakota Trail in between Indian Hills Road and Shawnee Circle; the setback of the homes range from 21.7 feet to 180 feet. The average is 73.5. (See attached.) Variances are requested for the setback to Dakota Trail for two lots. Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are zoned and guided low-density residential, and contain single-family residential homes. Existing Site Features The existing site contains a single-family home that would remain. The site is wooded and contains slopes that fall toward Dakota Trail. See the attached tree inventory. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Planning Guide Plan designation: Single-dwelling residential Zoning: R-1, Single-dwelling district Lot Dimensions Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 27,439 s.f. 153 feet 190 feet Lot 1 128,593 s.f. 350 feet 340 feet Lot 2 45,601 s.f. 185 feet 240 feet Lot 3 46,980 s.f. 160 feet 275 feet The proposed subdivision meets all lot dimension requirements. (See the attached median calculations done by a licensed surveyor.) Grading/Drainage and Utilities As mentioned, the site drains toward Dakota Trail. The applicant is proposing to capture runoff in the front yard of each site in a rain garden to slow it down before flowing to the street. (See attached grading and drainage plan). The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of building permit application for each lot. Each lot would be custom graded at the time of building permit. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Any approval of the proposed plat would be subject to meeting all the conditions required by engineering in their review memo dated April 24, 209. The engineer has also verified that the disturbance of the 18% slopes would not exceed 25%. (See the attached engineering memo.) City Considerations Sec. 32-130. – Considerations. The planning commission, in reviewing proposed plats and subdivisions and in determining its recommendation to the council, and the council in determining whether to approve or disapprove of any plat or subdivision, may consider, among other matters, the following: (1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. STAFF REPORT Page 3 (2) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. (3) Comply with section 10-82. (Tree Ordinance) Protected trees may be removed without mitigation, in the following areas: a. Including, and within a ten-foot radius of, the building pad, deck or patio of a new or remodeled building. b. Including, and within a five-foot radius of driveways and parking areas. c. Including, and within ten-foot radius of installation of public infrastructure improvements including public roadways, stormwater retention areas and utilities. Trees outside of these areas would have to be replaced. Sec. 32-131. - Additional considerations. In addition to the foregoing matters, the commission, in connection with its recommendation to the council, and the council in determining whether to approve or disapprove a proposed plat or subdivision, shall specifically and especially consider the following matters: (1) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan. (2) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with chapter 36. (3) Whether the design of the proposed plat or subdivision, or the design or type of improvements proposed to be placed thereon, may be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. (4) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision conforms to, and complies with, the requirements of applicable state law. (5) Whether the proposed plat or subdivision complies with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of this chapter, as varied by variances therefrom, if any. The applicant has presented a code compliant plat that would not disturb the 18% slope areas by more than 25% on each lot. (See attached.) Staff believes that if the building pads were moved closer to the street, the impacts to the slopes could be reduced further. Staff believes a reasonable condition of an approval would be to require no more disturbance of the 18% slopes to 25% for each lot, and a slope conservation area be established to permanently protect those areas. All minimum lot area, width and depth requirements are met with the proposed plat. (See the attached median calculations.) Sec. 32-161. - Developer's agreement. After preliminary approval has been given to a plat or subdivision, the applicant shall enter into a developer's agreement (herein called the "agreement") with the city, on terms and conditions determined by the city, and shall cause all street, water and sewer improvements required by STAFF REPORT Page 4 the planner or engineer, or by the resolution granting preliminary or final approval, to be completed, pursuant to the agreement and to the city's then standards and specifications for such improvements. Sec. 36-1257. - Drainage, retaining walls and site access. (a) Drainage. No person shall obstruct or divert the natural flow of runoff so as to harm the public health, safety or general welfare. Surface water runoff shall be properly conveyed into storm sewers, watercourses, ponding areas or other public facilities. As part of the building permit, the applicant must submit a grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater management plan that is signed by a licensed professional engineer. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The plans must be approved by the city engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. Sidewalk – Traffic & Safety Sec. 36-1274. - Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (a) In order to promote and provide safe and effective sidewalks and trails in the city and encourage the use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, the following improvements are required, as a condition of approval, on developments requiring the approval of a final development plan or the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to article V of this chapter: (1) It is the policy of the city to require the construction of sidewalks and trails wherever feasible so as to encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the city. Therefore, developments shall provide sidewalks and trails which adjoin the applicant's property: a. In locations shown on the city's sidewalk and trail plan; and b. In other locations where the council finds that the provision of such sidewalks and trails enhance public access to mass transit facilities or connections to other existing or planned sidewalks, trails or public facilities. (2) Developments shall provide sidewalks between building entrances and sidewalks or trails which exist or which will be constructed pursuant to this section. (3) Developments shall provide direct sidewalk and trail connections with adjoining properties where appropriate. (4) Developments must provide direct sidewalk and trail connections to transit stations or transit stops adjoining the property. (5) Design standards for sidewalks and trails shall be prescribed by the engineer. (6) Nonresidential developments having an off-street automobile parking requirement of 20 or more spaces must provide off-street bicycle parking spaces where bicycles may be parked and secured from theft by their owners. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five STAFF REPORT Page 5 percent of the automobile parking space requirement. The design and placement of bicycle parking spaces and bicycle racks used to secure bicycles shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Whenever possible, bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a public entrance to a principal building. (b) The expense of the improvements set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be borne by the applicant. Edina’s recently adopted pedestrian and sidewalk plan includes a new sidewalk along Dakota Trial. (See attached plan.) However, engineering staff has indicated that they would not require the construction of sidewalk in this instance. Which side of the street the sidewalk would be located has not yet been determined. This sidewalk would be considered when Dakota Trail is scheduled for street reconstruction. Tree Removal With the layout of the subdivision there would be 54 trees removed to accommodate the building pads and stormwater retention areas. Under the City’s tree ordinance, some of these trees would have to be replaced. Those are trees removed outside of a 10-foot radius of the building pad, deck, patio, stormwater or utilities, and outside a five-foot radius of driveways and parking areas. Each lot would be reviewed individually at the time of building permit application to determine compliance with the city’s new tree ordinance. Park Dedication As with all subdivision proposals, park dedication is required. Edina City Code requires a park dedication fee of $5,000 for each additional lot created. Therefore a park dedication fee of $10,000 would be required for the two additional lots. History of Recent Subdivision Requests in Edina The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in recent years. Please note that the location of this site is not in the vicinity of all of these recent subdivisions, (See attached area map showing the locations of these requests…note that they are located in the Pamela Park Area.) History of Recent Subdivisions with Variances 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66-foot wide lots consistent with the area. (Median = 9,269 s.f. & 73 feet wide.) 2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview Avenue was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50-foot lots; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 3. In 2009, a 100-foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,699 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) STAFF REPORT Page 6 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,769 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,701 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 6. In 2012, 6120 Brookview was again proposed for subdivision. That request was denied. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 7. In 2012, 5945 Concord was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 10,028 s.f. & 77 feet wide.) 8. In 2015, a 100-foot lot at 5825 Ashcroft Avenue was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,790 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 9 In 2015, 5945 Concord was approved for a request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 10,028 s.f. & 77 feet wide.) 10. In 2016, 5845 Kellogg Avenue was denied a request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50-foot lots. (Median = 6,715 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 11. In 2017, 6124 Ewing Avenue was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width and area variances. (Median = 11,500 s.f. & 80 feet wide.) 12. In 2017, 5404 Park Place was approved for a request to subdivide into two (2) lots with lot width variances from 75 feet to 65 feet for each lot; and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 8,705 and 8,840 square feet. (Median = 8,107 s.f. & width was 60 feet wide.) History of Recent Subdivisions without Variances 1. In 2015, a seven lot subdivision at 5321 & 5331 Evanswood Lane, and 5320 and 5324 Blake Road was approved. The existing home on that lot remained, and six new lots were created. 2. In 2013, a three lot subdivision of 5 Merilane was approved. The existing home on that lot remained, and two new lots were created. Past Subdivision Request in the Subject Neighborhood (See attached documentation) 1. In 2002, there was a request for a three lot subdivision of 6725 Iroquois Circle, the property to the south of the subject site. The request was to build a road off Iroquois Circle to serve three new homes. The city denied that request based upon the following findings (rules from 2002): “In determining the appropriateness of a proposed new subdivision the City Council relies on the guidance provided in its Subdivision Ordinance. Section 11 of the Subdivision Ordinance STAFF REPORT Page 7 sets forth the following considerations the City Council may consider when reviewing proposed subdivisions:” "A.1. The suitability of the size and shape of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood." "B. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development, on the environment, including but not limited to, topography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation, susceptibility of site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site." "K. Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed." "L. Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent." (The proposal did disturb over 25% of the steep slope) “Having considered the elements of the ordinance in light of the facts adduced at both the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Council concludes the development is contrary to the Subdivision Ordinance for the following reasons: A. The physical characteristics of the Subject Property including topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, and the large amount of slopes with a grade exceeding 18 percent make the Subject Property unsuitable for additional development. B. The size and shape of the lots in the Proposed Subdivision are not consistent with lots in the immediate neighborhood. C. According to figures provided by the Proponent, development of the proposed subdivision will impact more than 25 percent of areas containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. D. Development of the street and cul-de-sac necessary to serve lots in the Proposed Subdivision would be harmful to adjacent properties and may create a safety hazard both during and after development. The development of the street and cul de sac would require the removal of between 20,000 and 29,000 cubic yards of soils, (1,200 to 1, 500 truckloads) and would require some retaining walls exceeding 30 feet in height. E. The Proposed Subdivision will be detrimental to the character and symmetry of the surrounding neighborhood. F. According to the Proponent’s Engineer, the development will increase storm water run-off, which could threaten surrounding properties.” STAFF REPORT Page 8 Note that that subdivision request was going to result in the disturbance of over 25% of the steep slopes on the site. The subject request would not disturb over 25% of the steep slopes if the front yard setback variances are granted. 2. Ratelle Hill Addition (1991). A four lot subdivision was approved for the adjacent property to the north. The minutes reflect the subdivision as in conformance with the city code at that time. (See attached minutes.) Note that property was smaller in size than the subject property and was approved for a four (4) lot subdivision, and the proposed subdivision is a larger land area and three (3) lots. Primary Issues • Is the proposed subdivision reasonable for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed lots meet all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. 2. The lots sizes are similar and in many instances larger than many in the neighborhood. 3. With smaller building pads, and the establishment of a permanent slope and tree preservation easement the trees and slopes could be permanently protected and ensured that no more than 25% of the 18% slopes would be disturbed for each lot on Dakota Trail. 4. Upon compliance with all city and watershed district requirements for grading and drainage, the proposed subdivision would not have a negative impact on adjacent property. • Are the proposed front yard setback variances reasonable to allow the subdivision? Staff does not support the requested front yard setback variances as proposed due to slope disturbance, tree removal, and the large size of the suggested building pads. Staff would support variances to allow construction of homes closer to Dakota Trail and would minimize impacts on the site. The front yard setback requirement is established by taking the average setback of the 12 homes located on the west side of Dakota Trail in between Indian Hills Road and Shawnee Circle; the setback of the 12 homes range from 21.7 feet to 180 feet. The average is 73.5. (See attached.) Per state law and the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: STAFF REPORT Page 9 a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is due to the location of the existing homes on this block with setbacks ranging from 21.7 to 180 feet back from Dakota Trail, and the steep slopes (18% slopes) on this site. The purpose of the request is to move the building pads closer to the street to protect some of the mature trees on the site, and minimize the impacts to the slopes. The applicant has demonstrated a code compliant setback and building pads that would meet all city code requirements including disturbance of the 18% slopes to not exceed 25% on each lot. Staff believes it would be reasonable to allow a setback closer to the street, not exceed 25% slope disturbance on each lot, and permanently preserve slopes and trees within the code compliant building pad areas. (See attached staff recommendation for tree and slope preservation area and 35-foot setback.) Staff would not support the building pads as proposed. Note that the disturbance areas are located in the same area as the code compliant homes. Staff would further suggest that the justification for a closer setback would be to establish a protective slope and tree preservation easement over the rear yards to permanently protect that area. (See attached recommended easement area.) The area essentially moves the code compliant homes 30-40 feet closer to the street and would permanently protect the extra area gained. b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The circumstances of the steep slopes and the wide variety of front yard setbacks on this block ranging from 21.7 to 180 feet are existing conditions and not created by the applicant. c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements requested by the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new single-family homes would be constructed on lots similar and larger in size to all lots on this block. • Is the proposed subdivision reasonable for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is reasonable for the following reasons: 5. The proposed lots meet all minimum zoning ordinance requirements. 6. The lots sizes are similar and in many instances larger than many in the neighborhood. STAFF REPORT Page 10 7. With smaller building pads, and the establishment of a permanent slope and tree preservation easement the trees and slopes could be permanently protected. 8. Upon compliance with all city and watershed district requirements for grading and drainage, the proposed subdivision would not have a negative impact on adjacent property. Options for Consideration Denial Recommend the City Council deny the proposed Preliminary Plat with Front Yard Setback Variances. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed plat and proposed building pads do not meet the standards outlined in Sec. 32- 130. – Considerations as follows: (1) Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. (2) Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. (3) Comply with section 10-82. 2. The physical characteristics of the subject property including topography, trees, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, and the large amount of slopes with a grade exceeding 18 percent make the subject property unsuitable for a two lot subdivision. 3. Development of the site as proposed would be harmful to adjacent properties. 4. Proposed building pads do not meet the City’s front yard setback requirements, and the variance criterion is not satisfied, due to the disturbance of slopes and trees. The tree and slope disturbance as proposed is excessive for the site. 5. The building pads are too large for the site and the grading plan and large retaining walls would have a negative impact to existing trees and steep slopes. Approval Recommend the City Council approve the proposed Preliminary Plat with Front Yard Setback Variances to 35 feet to Dakota Trail. Approval is based on the following findings: STAFF REPORT Page 11 1. The proposed lots meet all the required standards and ordinances for a subdivision. 2. With the establishment of a tree and slope preservation easement, permanent preservation of mature trees and slope areas within the allowed setback area would minimize impacts to the site and place them in permanent preservation. 3. The practical difficulty is due to the location of the existing homes on this block with setbacks ranging from 21.7 to 180 feet back from Dakota Trail, and the steep slopes (18% slopes) on this site. 4. The proposed lots are reasonably sized and consistent with the neighborhood. 5. The proposal, with specific development conditions, would not disturb more that 25% of the steep slope areas on each new lot. 6. In meeting all city and watershed district requirements for drainage the proposed subdivision would not have a negative impact on adjacent property. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. Final plat shall include a complete grading and drainage plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. The grading and drainage plans must be revised to meet the conditions required herein. 2. At the time of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the following: a. All requirements in the engineering memo dated April 24, 2019. b. The creation of a slope and tree preservation easement as recommended by staff, subject to City Council approval. c. Revised building pads that show a disturbance of no more than 25% of the slope areas for each lot with front setbacks of no closer than 35 feet to the front lot line on Dakota Trail. d. The agreement shall also include all the conditions of approval. 3. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: a. Park dedication fee of $10,000 must be paid prior to release of the final plat. b. A construction management plan will be required for the overall development of the site. c. Submit evidence of a Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district’s requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: STAFF REPORT Page 12 a. Curb-cut permits must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. Driveway plans must be consistent with the proposed grading plan to preserve as many trees as possible. b. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading plan for the site. Building pads must show a disturbance of no more than 25% of the slope areas for each lot, with front setbacks of no closer than 35 feet to the front lot line on Dakota Trail, and shall not encroach in the slope and tree preservation easement. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance with the overall grading plan and development agreement subject to review and approval of the city engineer. c. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. d. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. e. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private property. f. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb-to-curb and from saw-cut to saw-cut. 5. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the director of engineering’s memo dated April 24, 2019. 6. Compliance with the tree ordinance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed Subdivision and Front Yard Setback for the Plat, subject to the findings and conditions listed above. Deadline for a City Decision: July 16, 2019 Subject: SIGNED PETITION NAMES AND ADDRESSES Date: 5/2/2019 3:35:01 PM Central Standard Time From: np101@aol.com To: cteague@edinamn.gov Cc: gds@mgmllp.com May 2, 2019 Hi Cary, I have 30 names so far on the Signed Petition for Denial of this Proposed Subdivision of McQuarrie's back lot property off Dakota Trail. 1. Richard Doyle - 6800 Dakota Trail 2. Ashley Doyle - 6800 Dakota Trail 3. Betsy Cutcliffe - 6617 Mohawk Trail 4. Jay Cutcliffe - 6617 Mohawk Trail 5. Cathy Nelson - 6621 Dakota Trail 6. Danielle Spurgeon - 6621 Mohawk Trail 7. Jared Spurgeon - 6621 Mohawk Trail 8. Mike Carey - 6625 Dakota Trail 9. Sarah Carey - 6625 Dakota Trail 10. Destini Molitor - 6725 Iroquois Circle 11. Jon Powers - 6809 Iroquois Circle 12. JoAnn Bounk - 6801 Iroquois Circle 13. Beth Zenk - 6805 Iroquois Circle 14. Tony Zenk - 6805 Iroquois Circle 15. Paul Benn - 6813 Dakota Trail 16. Diane Powers - 6809 Iroquois Circle 17. Gary Wilkerson - 6609 Mohawk Trail 18. Marina Wilkerson - 6609 Mohawk Trail 19. Harriett Goldstein - 6629 Dakota Trail 20. Barb Dovolis - 6805 Dakota Trail 21. Gregg Dovolis - 6805 Dakota Trail 22. Margaret Rodriguez - 6624 Mohawk Trail 23. Tony Rodriguez - 6624 Mohawk Trail 24. Keith Dixon - 6813 Dakota Trail 25. Anne Dixon - 6813 Dakota Trail 26. Natalie Neal - 6812 Dakota Trail 27. Will Wentland - 6812 Dakota Trail 28. Hallie Richards - 6804 Dakota Trail 29. Steve Richards - 6804 Dakota Trail 30. Kathy Anderson - 6801 Dakota Trail I have the Signed Petitions by the 30 Homeowners in the Indian Hills Area and can drop the "signed" Petitions in person tomorrow, if that works for you Cary. Thank you. Sincerely, Betsy and Jay Cutcliffe 1. 5. PETITION TO DENY ANY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA - OF BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO - TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 - CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL - CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WATER RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB-DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARACTER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. :Lh „ -Do 6600, 1)&4iv,_ 5, 421 1(1(' 6 htUKALT1' ( P2,64 ,A16 CCLUI:_9 kittS0 btoa i MohouxTrai 1 IctA rel ti L tiu12,0A, )tcG1 momuir 11-Tki 0 -111--EA ii.r3kon 8. -Tr.,: AA k 7 C4tk%.1,1 1)119,7-3 (77'03 . rv)1 1 P 111! t-,A2 99 ' _174 yy) ‘t71 4/110 H rA..S5.'4 \-7'1 , 7173 I rig-ell:4,11)111DH 0_99 14141-d/RT3 3 . -ey 1-7 kl-r-'.) Jli hn19)=2-2 6981 9 e,-rn -a-14 I ,i -tn er147 -v e: 0)! ,/), --aE? 1-ed ,?:(4.2), ,Thy,4,41_50 20)cOgE) 1T"92 .11 vv) .scv, 9 ,I-vra,2 •-vp-SL 9* 1 Q j, c f Aivt/ or .94190 -1\ SW) 70.\" '6 'OT PETITION TO DENY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA, BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. A POSSIBILITY WOULD BE FOR THE BACK LOT TO BE ONE 2 ACRE LOT WITH A BUILDING PAD CLOSE TO DAKOTA TRAIL, ON THE FLAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, CLOSE TO 6800 DAKOTA TRAIL, WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF REMOVAL OF MATURE TREES AND LEAST AMOUNT OF TREE ROOT DISRUPTION. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 — CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL — CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WATER RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB-DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARACTER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE SHE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. YA VIA 61- (// (//2,-/Lio - 3 o 66/ 8 PETITION TO DENY ANY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA — OF BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO — TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 — CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL — CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WATER RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB-DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARACTER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. - \ LAA () o - LA1 :jr). Y 69 -Do — 6c5DO ha-WA- 0). 11 niohtuic-rai 6 Ir- 7'werkt32k P..e-i bbal Mohowtc -Troi I - lcuadii- *Utryd-A. mohuoc -Rai 1 - (Toxad sp u14-9,azn 1 s" 0..11.-4.4-c. .. AA k C P. flat/ Sam_17) L re(g, 1\/\6\t() Q__X12. \\TW\6,s 1k, -C-- 4 / 6 y /7 " (rev/ /1,„4„,,,_ P.a.. I a e D4(,/A T'4•1 Bo-KtD DO \Ok' DaktbV -7, , Ed-tfi'a HA .s-s,-1.31 C)U igt/0111- t-‘)(1-1 (IC j 0 iburiv /36x4,,kik_ I 24t),O Co ZDS- ce-k A.)pa_ e L (Liyo L S-76U14it 01 .3 (k_Le- I to PC' rD 1; AV, Rt.vt, Czt-"d wi4e'"" Hasii=vtk_i_, k_604: CP69 zr2foive ,4 Eclyi.17;„ori Grog FitohtitAkTr PeCt,c,I tim,1-11‘ (1.-1 dkekw-k ke-, 11„, • A-s-123 PETITION TO DENY ANY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA — OF BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO — TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 — CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL — CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WATER RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB-DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARACTER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ti' (AA. j\ \(\ LAA \0 0 )w Ly s:(0 J.1 (,1 4 -6,:- f rit; I - 1bsoo _bakb2tzt. Trek-4 0 —491'1 niohttAL —Friti\, it„L , (41k4 0 A btta 1 M0h0LAJK. Troi 1 414D-A. kycal Moho.ot ToLmci Spti fale) PL-4 'TN.: .. AA C._ Ast-I ;,11.77-3 v‘imi Ass. ( (914A~1 Q 3 cA5 V I, h )1 71 NW 11)19J `1;:i-PLL --10111\A 01A1 o07 0 ) r(vi... P14 f:, 9,9 V-vni-1-.1.111711D/4 099 an 4, :27. od 9 'At e ‘141,in-rpy) -0 Y . - 1,7 I emen y -D-14! (77.3"-rel n tia Y/#)lea iv'ed 27)) cl_G--)Iytol}r sc-12 0,) rap _?,X) s-z p) ,-)d-.,410 brLf03- 17:12ll fj\ \ LAA \O 0 )\ tzy '‘O .i (*Z+6,11„ L t k j Zthi.„69 -Do ve, - (ADO _bakda,, Tre6 3. Niti;DA ocal 1•40howl(Troi I - Ictai IL iw , monavic i -1-7021--zd Spi.r,9Aon (46 -z-s" Tr.,: I .. P . 4. 5. 6. PETITION TO DENY ANY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA - OF BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO - TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 - CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL - CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WATER RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB-DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARAC1ER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY AL1ER THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 102-h-S Nvl '-"PY198 i J 1 -ri--if crtv q- %I e ----`4-4,0)frIfild) zodisWil /14L. 'nocr 4-/9 gaSs 9 X t r At" .111773 f "-`3`141.-. 3 vINPNIP 14 -W) 93 --, a-cd-i4 1 YY) . 1, -tet n-j 0 r ..r. ' L11 `435111141 ' vii&T;3 1-.)-10-41.--r-v-vpH 0. 099 x lacereta `m D vrenft..) . ,r4ss, , n,c.u , -,..-14ip ' 41-:--, . .) P, 4 AL izr. (:,o e 9 C4'1^1 t y '")2119( Ce —te)erl 009 rr''Y.-Y( 1t 11 1 .k v_i vilt., fa' E / )1 3 ,,--azi 1 .4ed --------1/ .x"reP 45 ! --",44-, --n-1/7 c:10)40-14 _5 000-.) 'Pra-2 -2 u 0 / /-)-----if° '---:-/ ---ti! :vvvig ' •Y -d--: v-r) c1-0),,, c)2,0-.) .)-p-i-a- A-14.-a-czt. ,-)^-7 "C ! --,„).z3 0'71- V 9 * / (2 ,,f `7..) Thil)"77f.99, i'v.ivil (2 ('' -----P-4-g5/ '''-‘7 -K. i -,1 v( / y1-7 -a .1fe7ey4g. ryi;-- ; f\--v\-3 IN60_.\\ s-iun --110_\Qv .1 .0, o -7 Lo uv /7 vi q-,,Q GVL.( (I\ \9° 9 -Do Vsoo Tre6 (y_ r\fv,,t ri, kin oca 1 MohouxTrai 1 - let/MIL 401-frA wca1 morAux Rai Sp taOyzo if) PETITION TO DENY ANY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA - OF BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO - TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 - CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL - CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WATER RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB-DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARACTER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. '6 `‘'‘..)(f3 (712-11i'l9N9a --n $) ewl.V(1 i.)1! P1 bool —zi(69) wAr3 ' r,v'A..0+2611Nt —671) yttl\I ?1\ • (:k•ii zr")?ea if), ‘1A-azi i-ej -----'''-i/ )7P 51 -"N4'17'4 ---i') c1P An _5 0 g.or) 7 1‘192 -eurY cl'-'"( 1--_,Z .-to Y.‘4•39g ' }0 '\-0 c1-0)Aci,1-,020-.) .1-1 ,-1-DqNi 2-9_. ''')-12,--2- "C! pm, o-7) 'ZT 9* "MI' c2 Th-v//)•17a9/ /101Z-12/ rjr ---7r4-1-"5.,/ ‘"2/,.7 '-c.1 -)d--41/0 brivoi -222.(2,C c;74% 'rvai . ""91cP P r,099 3'074 !(Y) 7 -'11'11-4 ki5.^11.1 0099 x1a(rd-34/3!rn -nr insg, (mu ( ,•,24,113 k sykA • .) ef)10.)=1: &De 9 Cny '.+74 f -Wel Cod trwl..--r% 4 1), 2. PETITION TO DENY ANY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA — OF BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO — TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 — CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL — CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WATER RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB-DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPER1ThS ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARACTER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 1. g,h„rd \Voo 3. 4. ezz j 1-(. 6. CS-- niohttAL -1-ai Nitkon ocal 1•40h0t)JK.TAli -- 40,1-5LaA tott),1 momuxFrctit -10Lmct sp t, s- AA k C_oak_7 & g i anth L Carey_ k•plo1;tN_ (gt12-- \r0Q1; .tsCok, 10. ,---;-f>- 1:,-,:--) ,,,,Jic_ff - --_,, 7) e 7 7 /1/ gt-4-/- 2 ( '6 ( g --) , - )1, .64?,,-- bez-e‘li----, J 0 //iv 1 5. 4/ / -z--ce-,4, --e-tlrk .-e' #2.,_,c 7 ana- 2-e.,t, (t5N(_ol 6 c Alruci4A 01. i a ‘1- // DAA,/z 7 ;4...) <, ve 4,..,___. P A .• i a e .., I b. 04....t..,..i.4..,' 1C24"""Ad"— '. i :2 'lc- 1?14d" 41 'P." 2-7(07 t" C.r;"(* (44 117;1 117s3 ) 111 . P-A- c Wiefr—e/001-A 6-Cog /40tk aiNL .Tka i pd,'",., ti6,15,1%*0 Hot-44-ta, L IAA I Le-4)v ,-,-- G6 oe) ii-tdkeki,k Tkoa itiii4c: ti,,, 7-it-ILL-Q., i s-S-4.01 If Ii II (L k PETITION TO DENY ANY SUBDIVISION OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL, EDINA, MINNESOTA - OF BACK SIDE OF PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. REASON FOR DENIAL OF MCQUARRIE'S NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY 6725 IROQUIS CIRCLE (DENIED SUBDIVIDING SEPTEMBER 2002 - CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA VOTED 8 TO 0 FOR DENIAL OF SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY) WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS FOR CONCERN FOR THE POSSIBLE SUBDIVIDING OF THE BACK LOT OF 6625 MOHAWK TRAIL - CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNT OF MATURE TREE LOSS, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, HEIGHT AND AMOUNT OF RETAINING WALLS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM INCREASED STORM WA ihR RUNOFF CAUSED BY THE SUB DIVIDING BACK PROPERTY INTO TWO 1 ACRE LOTS. TOO MUCH SOIL EROSION AND DISRUPTING OF TREE ROOTS WITH CONNECTING PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD ALTER THE CHARACTER AND SYMMETRY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THUS VIOLATE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE QUANTITY OF TREES LOST TO DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. GRADING REQUIRED WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LARGE RETAINING WALLS WOULD BE NEEDED. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD INCREASE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION THAT COULD THREATEN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.