Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-28 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PacketAgenda Plan n ing Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers Wednesday, July 28, 2021 7:00 PM Watch th e m ee ting on cable TV or at EdinaMN .gov/LiveM ee tings or Face book.com /Edin aM N . To participate in Public Hearings: Call 800-374-0221. Enter Conference ID 6848907. Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta9 member will introduce you when it is your turn. Or attend the meeting to provide testimony, City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 W. 50th St. I.Ca ll To Ord er II.Roll Ca ll III.Approva l Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approva l Of Meeting Min u tes A.Min u tes: Pla n n ing Com m ission Ju ly 14, 2021 V.Special Recogn ition s An d Presentation s A.Su stain able Bu ild ings Policy VI.Com m u n ity Com m ent During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. G enerally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Pu b lic Hea rings A.B-21- 23, 4904 By wood W est, A va ria n ce for th e relief from requirem en t to ha ve a 50% fu ll dep th b asem en t u n d er the m ain 2oor VIII.Rep orts/Recom m en d ation s A.Findin g th at th e Plan for 4040 W . 70th St. are consisten t with the Com p rehen sive Pla n - Tax Increm en t Fina n ing IX.Cha ir An d Mem ber Com m ents X.Sta8 Com m ents XI.Adjournm en t The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli;cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: July 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion July 14, 2021 Ac tion 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 minutes from the J uly 14, 2021 P lanning Commission. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description July 14, 2021 Draft Meeting Minutes Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers July 14, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Strauss, Olsen, Bennett, Agnew (remote), Bartling, Alkire and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner, and Liz Olsen, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Berube and Cullen. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the July 14, 2021, agenda. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, June 23, 2021 Commissioner Alkire moved to approve the June 23, 2021, meeting minutes. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Commissioner Alkire offered up the amendment to change wording on page 1 to read, “July 14.” As well as an amendment to replace wording on page 2 that reads “2.66-foot” with “2.33-foot.” Motion carried as amended. V. Community Comment Ms. Janie Weston, 6136 Brookview Avenue, Edina, addressed the Commission regarding a number of proposals for 4404 Valleyview Road for redevelopment. She expressed her concerns about the possibility of a three-story residential home being built on the lot. She requested the Planning Commission follow the Wooddale/Valleyview Small Area Plan which indicates no higher than a two-story home can be built there. VI. Public Hearings A. B-21-17, A 36-Foot Front Yard Setback Variance for New Home Construction – 5404 Stauder Circle Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request for a 36-foot front yard setback variance for new home construction. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Ryan Fish, PK Architecture, 4329 29th Avenue S., Minneapolis introduced himself and addressed the Commission. He answered questions of the Commission. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the front yard setback variance. Motion Commissioner Bartling moved that the Planning Commission approve the 36-foot front yard setback variance for new home construction as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. Motion carried. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. B. B-21-20, Rear Yard and Lot Coverage Variance Request – 6601 Biscayne Blvd Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request for a rear yard and lot coverage variance. Staff recommends denial of the variance, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Christopher Strohm, architect, 4901 Abbott Ave So, Minneapolis, introduced himself and addressed the Commission. Mr. Russ Rubin, applicant, 6601 Biscayne Blvd, introduced himself and addressed he Commission. The Commission asked questions of the applicant. Public Hearing Mr. Jim Vandervelde, 6605 Biscayne Blvd, addressed the Commission and indicated he was in favor of the variance. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 3 of 5 It was noted there were two other comments via Better Together Edina in favor of the variance request. Commissioner Miranda moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the variance request. Some of the Commissioners supported the building coverage and thought the addition would improve the property with the rain garden addition and other improvements. As well as some of the Commissioners thought the addition could be redesigned to fit within the current setback area to meet the goals without a variance. Motion Commissioner Agnew moved that the Planning Commission approve the rear yard and lot coverage variance request given that this aligns with the goals that City set out within the Comprehensive Plan of being able to age in place as well as this is reducing the overall footprint of their coverage area. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Additional Commission discussion ensued. Director Teague indicated he could provide some additional findings for approval for the Commission to consider in the motion and/or the Commission could ask the applicants if they would be willing to revise their plans and come back. Chair Nemerov asked the applicants if they would like to amend their plans. Mr. Rubin indicated he would like to amend the plans and come back to the Commission. Chair Nemerov asked Commissioner Agnew if she would like to remove her motion. Commissioner Agnew agreed to remove her motion if the applicant was willing to come back. Commissioner Miranda moved to continue this item to the August 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. C. B-21-21, 2.1-Foot Side Yard Setback Variance – 5615 Sherwood Drive Assistant Planner Bodeker presented the request for a 2.1-foot side yard setback variance . Staff cannot support a side yard setback variance for a structure that can be designed or placed on the lot so that it meets the 10-foot setback requirements. Staff does not believe there are unique circumstances to the subject property. The Commission asked questions of staff. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Matt Kirshner and Ms. Margaret Kirshner, introduced themselves and addressed the Commission. Mr. Sonnek, architect for the applicants, was also at the meeting and answered Commission questions. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Public Hearing No one wished to address the Commission. It was noted there were two comments from Better Together Edina in support of the variance. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission discussed the variance. Motion Commissioner Miranda moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the 2.1-foot side yard setback variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. Motion carried with 8 ayes, 0 nays. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Revised Overall Development Plan, Site Plan Review – 4911 77th Street West Director Teague presented the request for a zoning ordinance amendment . Staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Jay Scott, Solomon Real Estate Group, introduced himself and addressed the Commission. Mr. Davis Stahl, Cutting Nail Architect was also at the meeting and reviewed the plans with the Commission. The Commission asked the applicants questions. Public Hearing Mr. Steve Brown, 5528 Halifax Lane, addressed the Commission and indicated he was in favor of the project. Ms. Lori Grotz, 5513 Park Place, addressed the Commission and indicated she was not in favor of the project. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Motion carried. Resident comments were addressed by City Staff and the applicants. The Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The Commission was divided on approval of the project. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Motion Commissioner Strauss moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, revised overall development plan, site plan review at 4911 77th Street West as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Alkie seconded the motion. Motion failed due to a tie vote. Commissioner Bennett moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the City Council of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, revised overall development plan, site plan review at 4911 77th Street West as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Motion failed due to a tie vote. The Commission continued to debate possible alternatives to a motion. The applicant preferred to move this forward to the City Council as presented. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments Received. X. Staff Comments Received. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Strauss moved to adjourn the July 14, 2020, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 10:50 PM. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Motion carried. Date: July 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:G rac e Hancoc k, S us tainability C oordinator Item Activity: Subject:S ustainable Buildings P olic y Information 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: No action is required. I N TR O D U C TI O N: Grace H ancock, S ustainability Coordinator, and M arisa Bayer, C E E , will give a joint presentation on a proposed sustainable buildings policy. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Pres entation Report Handout FAQ Document Edina Sustainable Building Policy Development A part of the Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative Katie Jones, Marisa Bayer Pg. 2 Agenda •How we got here •Proposed policy •Feedback to-date •Proposed resources •Q&A Pg. 3 How we got here •City Council Values •Existing Practices o Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 30% by 2025 o 2016 Electricity Action Plan o 2019 Efficient Building Benchmarking Ordinance EngagementEquity Environment Pg. 4 Sustainability is important in Edina Pg. 5 Definition: What is a sustainable building policy? Where triggered by funding or land use incentives, SBPs establish minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for new construction or significantly renovated developments. Included criteria typically target areas for pollution reduction and resource conservation. Also known as: green building policies, green building standards, Pg. 6 Policy History 2001 Minnesota State Legislature directs the establishment of Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3) 2006 Minneapolis adopts LEED Building Policy 2010 Saint Paul and St. Louis Park adopt Sustainable / Green Building Policies 2013 Maplewood adopts Green Building Program Ordinance 2018 Rochester and DMC adopt New Construction Sustainable Guidelines Proposed Sustainable Building Policy Pg. 9 Terms New development project Trigger (PUD or $$) Subject to Sustainable Building Policy Not subject to Sus. Bldg. Policy Yes No Pg. 10 Policy Triggers •Land use incentives •Planned unit development (PUD) •Financial incentive •Housing & Redevelopment Funds •Tax Increment Financing (TIF) •Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act •Housing Improvement Area and Affordable Housing Trust Fund •Conduit Bonds Pg. 11 Terms Third-party green building rating system City Overlay Sustainable Building Policy Pg. 12 Rating Systems –Things to Note Provide third-party verification Some certifications cannot be given until 12 months after a development is constructed Third party verification is relatively easy to operationalize for a city Pg. 13 Rating System Options Commercial/Mixed-Use LEED B3 Guidelines Multi-family LEED B3 Guidelines Green Star Homes Green Communities Single-family LEED Green Star Green Communities Parking Park Smart Silver Other rating systems as approved. Pg. 14 What about single-family homes? •The policy does not apply, unless: •The development requests a PUD •The development requests public $$ •Most likely scenarios: •Affordable townhome development •Subdivision development requiring a PUD •Takeaway –the policy will not have a large effect on single-family development Rare for single-family homes Pg. 15 Overlay Criteria Rule Predicted greenhouse gas emissions Must be calculated and reported Electric vehicle charging capability (if parking is included at all) i) Install conduit that allows 10% charging stations to be installed at a future date ii) 5% of parking spaces must be dedicated to charging stations Electric Appliance Capability Install electric sources for space heating, hot water heating, and cooking where cost-effective (simple payback periods should align with SB 2030 Guidelines) Feedback to date Pg. 17 Many developers/architects already incorporate sustainable elements Part of company mission to be sustainable Client included it in the scope Makes building more marketable Requirement of local jurisdiction Requirement of funding source Ethical responsibility for public health, safety It’s the right thing to do Pg. 18 Common themes in barriers and concerns Compliance Expertise •Setbacks, design guidelines, zoning •Evolving policies •Who is confirming compliance? •Lack of technical expertise at different points in process (design, approvals, construction, certification) •Only so many contractors who can do this work Cost implications Consistency •Higher standards result in more costs •Additional review can delay construction •Most funding sources don’t identify additional expense as “eligible” •Some funding sources have their own requirements •Differences between jurisdictions on overlays Pg. 19 Common themes for solutions and benefits Compliance Expertise •Single point of contact on who to ask questions •Clear decision maker on adherence to policy •Updated website, development review •Technical expertise for guidelines and overlays early on in process •Different points in process (design, approvals, construction, certification) Cost implications Consistency •Grants or incentives to help achieve goal •Streamlining process to avoid construction and permit delays •Uniform policies across jurisdictions to avoid confusion •Developer agreement listing requirements to avoid changes in standards Pg. 20 Edina Stakeholder Takeaways Part 1 •Building owners should be able to choose their rating system based on goals and cost •Bringing in third party rating requirements takes risk/liability off design team •Need for technical expert for questions •It’s important to be able to tell the story of SBP through case studies, both to demonstrate best practices and to sell to financiers •Currently, there is a market for sustainability in commercial buildings •There is less of a market demand for sustainability in MF buildings. •In both cases, SBP can help move the market. Pg. 21 Edina Stakeholder Takeaways Part 2 •This policy takes a different approach than Edina’s development questionnaire •Rather than guided questions, it requires a third-party certification and compliance with an overlay •Be very clear about rating system version requirements and the policy’s relationship to code •Requirement will be for whichever is most stringent between chosen rating system and code •There was interest: •In addressing sustainability in existing buildings •To accelerate this policy’s adoption Pg. 22 EEC Stakeholder Feedback •Overlay requirements for electrification and electric vehicles should be stronger •Electrification has greenhouse gas emission impacts and is important component of Climate Action Plan under development •Electric vehicle requirements seem low, especially with even more new vehicles on the road•Timeline for implementation should be moved up •Education period should be shorter to avoid missing 2022 projects•Renovations and remodels should be included in the policy at 10,000 sq ft•Sustainability rating systems should included LEED Silver as a minimum•Where possible, integrate this into our business recognition program Proposed Resources Pg. 24 Efficient Buildings Collaborative Standardized process for benchmarking policies Shared resources Tools for implementation Economically feasible Basic uniformity across cities benefits building owners Pg. 25 Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative •Recognition that small-to mid-sized cities often lack •Capacity •Technical expertise •Funding •Purpose: expand resources for cities to be able to develop and implement sustainability policies and programs •Open-source resources inside and outside of the county through use of JPAs Pg. 26 Efficient Buildings Collaborative Phase 2 WHAT: POLICY GUIDE HOW: IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCES Pg. 27 Sustainable Building Policy Activities POLICY REQUIREMENT EDUCATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPER COMPLIANCE TRACKING AND CERTIFICATION REPORTING Pg. 28 Timeline Proposal to City Council in 2021 October 2021 Implementation vendor contracted Q4 2021 Policy goes into effect •Only new developments started after this date would be subject to the policy ~July 1, 2022 Q&A FAQs Pg. 32 FAQs How is this Sustainable Building Policy different from previous policy? From current sustainable design questionnaires? The City of Edina currently has a voluntary development questionnaire that asks developers and architects to design for sustainability early in the design process. While the previous questionnaire used guided questions on a limited number of topic areas to encourage sustainable development, the new policy requires developers select one third-party green rating systems from a list and become certified. In addition, there are two requirements, one for measuring predicted greenhouse gas emissions and one for EV readiness, that apply regardless of green rating system selected. Pg. 33 FAQs What developments will this policy apply to? This policy will only apply to developments seeking a PUD (planned unit development) or financial assistance in the form of: •Housing & Redevelopment Funds •Tax Increment Financing (TIF) •Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act •Housing Improvement Area and Affordable Housing Trust Fund •Conduit Bonds Pg. 34 FAQs Why use a third-party rating system? Will this increase the cost of development? Using a third-party rating system, such as LEED or MN Green Communities, ensures that buildings are meeting sustainability requirements that are widely recognized as best practices. Doing so also clarifies liability and also allows for more certainty for the design team in knowing the policy requirements will be met. The cost for engaging the third-party rater is typically less than one percent of the cost of a project and when examined early in the design process, studies show that utilizing sustainability practices contributes 1-2% to total costs. Pg. 35 FAQs What is the implementation timeline? The policy is anticipated to go into effect beginning July 1, 2022, meaning any new building applications submitted after that day will be affected. This policy will not apply to any building applications that were submitted before the policy goes into effect. How will this policy relate to the ever-evolving rating system versions and energy code? The policy will require compliance with the most recent rating system version in existence at the time of development application. Where elements of the selected rating system and energy code differ, the policy will require adherence to the most stringent. January, 2021 Prepared by Katie Jones, Marisa Bayer Center for Energy and Environment In collaboration with Hennepin County MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL SUSTAINABLE BUILDING POLICIES GUIDE Policy Framework and Implementation Recommendations 1 OVERVIEW Cities throughout Minnesota seek to improve public health, environmental justice, and environmental and economic sustainability. As cities set targets to reduce carbon emissions, reduce waste, protect natural areas, and mitigate stormwater runoff, many are turning to building-related strategies to help achieve these goals. Generally, cities have three main levers to create change: mandatory requirements, process incentives, and financial incentives. Because the State of Minnesota sets the building code, cities are unable to establish building requirements that are more strict than existing code; however, with financial levers and authority over land use, cities have tremendous potential to use sustainable building policies as a tool to make progress toward sustainability goals. To date, Minnesota cities have taken three approaches in the application of sustainable building policies, listed below in order of impact: 1. Mandatory approach (Recommended). Th is policy approach identifies default sustainability requirements for funding programs and land use variances above certain thresholds. These requirements are in addition to other program and land use requirements. 2. Scoring approach. Buildings are scored on a set of criteria and those with the highest scores qualify for city program funding and approval. 3. Suggestion approach. Developers are strongly encouraged to consider sustainability in construction through a sustainability questionnaire. Based on research of existing policies and interviews with Minnesota cities, we identified best practices and recommendations for creating a framework and implementing a mandatory sustainable building policy. The intent of this guide is to provide a resource for cities considering sustainable building policies and to encourage standardization across cities. Standardization has many benefits including improvin g efficiency and cost-effectiveness across the region, facilitating the adoption of sustainable building practices, and reducing competition among cities for development. Sustainable Building Policy Defined Sustainable building policies establish minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for new construction or significantly renovated developments. Included criteria typically target areas for pollution reduction and resource conservation. Also known as green building policies. Existing Policies As of 2020, seven Minnesota cities have some type of formal sustainable building approach: Duluth, Edina, Maplewood, Minneapolis, Rochester, St. Louis Park, and Saint Paul. The affected building types, triggers, and criteria vary by policy, although some standardization is taking shape. See the Appendix for detailed comparison of the policies. 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK GUIDE A policy framework addresses the fundamental questions of “what” and “who” — what does the policy cover, who does this apply to, who manages the policy, and what happens with non - compliance. Identify City Overlay and Applicable Rating Systems The first step is to understand the universe of existing third -party green building rating systems.1 Such rating systems provide processes for developers to achieve the city’s aims. Rating systems are often similar but not identical. For that reason, the city should note the strengths and weaknesses of the rating systems relative to one another and make a list of priority impacts the city wants to target. That list, along with considerations of other city goals, becomes a city overlay — a set of specific measurable minimum requirements that go beyond the base construction code and may exceed a standard’s requirements. Figure 1: Example relationship between the city overlay and an existing rating system for a single- family home new construction. A development must comply with everything in the city overlay. For many components, the MN Green Communities rating system meets the city’s criteria. However, as this example shows the city is specifically targeting higher building performance with DOE Zero Energy Ready certification. Applicable rating systems and the overlay should both be included in a policy. The two work in tandem, giving the city high -level policy customization, while giving developers flexibility in how to meet the targets. One benefit for the city is that using such rating systems lessens the need for specialized staff. In addition, leveraging existing rating systems that are well known in today’s construction industry allows for ease of communication and cost -effectiveness of implementation. 1 Green building rating systems — sets of sustainability criteria with detailed and proscriptive pathways for meeting the criteria. They are generally broad covering many sustainability areas (e.g., water, energy, waste, materials) and can include topic focused standards (e.g., Sustainable Buildings 2030 energy standard). DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes ENERGY STAR® certification Water conservation, waste diversion, indoor environmental quality, etc. City Overlay: Single Family Residential Rating System: MN Green Communities 3 Leverage existing third-party rating systems Cities with existing sustainable building policies recognize the value of standardization across the region — the more ubiquitous the rules, the more practiced the industry becomes at complying with them and the more cost-effective implementation becomes. Because of the unique characteristics of different building types, policy requirements should specify the appropriate rating system for each building type. The table below shows the most common and recommended minimum rating systems and their associated levels by building type. Municipal, Commercial, Mixed- Use, Industrial • LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations; Certified Silver or higher • B3 Guidelines Multifamily • LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations; Certified Silver or higher • B3 Guidelines • GreenStar Homes; Certified Silver or higher • Green Communities * Single-family • LEED for Homes; Certified Silver or higher • MN GreenStar; Certified Silver or higher • Green Communities* Parking • Park Smart Silver *For projects with MHFA funding, it is recommended that the MN Overlay version be used. Establish City Overlay Criteria Below we lay out the most common overlay criteria. Where possible, criteria are performance-based, which gives developers flexibility, and drives innovation and cost efficiencies. Cities should prioritize criteria for adoption that balance needs for implementation with city goals to ensure policy success. It is also important to note that as environmental and economic conditions change, flexibility within each criterium is valuable. For that reason, it is recommended that a department director be charged with promulgating the detailed overlay requirements. It is also critical to include a third-party verification component in the policy. Verifiers should be proposed by the developer and acceptable to the city. 4 Recommended Overlay Criteria Recommended Rule Predicted and actual energy use Meet SB 2030 Energy Standard through design and operation; for 1-3-unit buildings, meet DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Homes standard. Predicted greenhouse gas emissions Calculate and report. Predicted and actual use of potable water Achieve 30% below the water efficiency standards of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Predicted use of water for landscaping Achieve 50% reduction from consumption of traditionally irrigated site. Utilization of renewable energy Evaluate 2% of on-site renewables; install if cost-effective using SB 2030 guidance. Electric vehicle charging capability (if parking is included) Install conduit that allows charging stations to be installed at a future date. Diversion of construction waste from landfills and incinerators Achieve 75% diversion rate Indoor environmental quality Use low-VOC (volatile organic compounds) materials including paints, adhesives, sealants, flooring, carpet, as well as ASHRAE thermal and ventilation minimums. Stormwater management Adhere to quantity and quality requirements, including infiltration rate, suspended solid , and phosphorous reductions. Resilient design Document a design response to several identified potential shocks and stressors such as utility interruption, extreme rainfall and transportation interruption. Design Team shall integrate the identified strategies into the design of the project. Ongoing monitoring of actual energy and water use Benchmark using ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager annually. 5 Policy Triggers Given the regional competition for development, cities often balance priorities of encouraging development while achieving community-wide goals, such as sustainability targets. For this reason, we 1) encourage the greatest number of cities to adopt similar sustainable building policies to standardize the practice across a region , and 2) recommend cities consider their unique leverage points for the greatest impact. Cities can use the following triggers to activate a sustainable building policy: 1. Funding incentives. The most straightforward trigger is a developer’s request for public funding. To date, several cities have successfully used a minimum trigger of $200,000 in cumulative public funding. The types of qualifying funding sources vary. We recommend maximizing public funding sources for the greatest impact. (See examples below.) 2. Land use incentives. Though there is little track record of this approach for sustainability in Minnesota, it is used in other areas of the country. For cities with established zoning rules, we recommend cities consider three types of land use triggers: a. Planned unit development (PUD). Where a city has a large tract of land for development, it can set high -level density and other rules, such as a sustainable building policy, for the site, while giving the developer flexibility in how that is accomplished. b. Premiums. Setting clear expectations for developers can reduce costs and encourage specific types of development. We recommend cities consider codifying sustainability premiums as an incentive for density and height bonuses. c. Variance. Where not codified as premiums, cities should consider applying a policy when more intense variances are requested. 3. Process incentives. Cities can create faster approval processes and higher prioritization in permit and inspection reviews for developments that adhere to the sustainable building policy. This has not yet been tried in Minnesota but has been done elsewhere. 4. Building size. Because larger building developments have the greatest environmental impact and more sophisticated design teams, we recommend that a policy apply to buildings that meet the following size thresholds. This trigger is only activated when a project receives a funding, land use, or process incentive. a. New construction of 10,000 square feet and greater. b. Significant renovation of buildings 10,000 square feet and greater that include a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system . Funding Sources Comprehensive policies count all public dollars toward the threshold that triggers compliance including: 1. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) 2. Bonds 3. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) 4. HOME Investment Partnership Program 5. Housing Redevelopment Authority funds 6. Land write-downs 7. Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) 8. A dedicated Sustainable Building Policy fund 9. Any other Federal, State, Regional (e.g., Met Council), or City funding source 6 Enforcement Enforcement can be approached from two angles — either for financially incentivized projects or for those triggered by land use and process incentives. The financial incentive is often needed to encourage and make such developments viable in the first place, making a financial penalty for non -compliance challenging to employ. For that reason, the best practice is to be proactive on the front end, providing sufficient resources and check-ins during the design development process to ensure compliance along the way. For projects triggered by land use and process incentives, the city could enact a fine for violation, which has been done in other American cities with some as high as $500 per day for non-compliance. In either case, compliance with the sustainable building policy should be included in the development agreement and loan documents. Evaluation Cities should evaluate a policy’s impact and adjust over time in order to meet stated go als. A best practice is to build a framework for these components within the policy itself by requiring an annual progress and impact report and setting a reassessment timeline (e.g., every 3 -5 years) for overlay criteria and the approved third -party rating systems. Codify the Policy After the city council or board adopts the sustainability building policy, it is important to codify the policy within or near zoning - and planning-related chapters in city code because a sustainable building policy concerns land development. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE Before approval, it is important to have a plan to address questions of “how” — namely, how to operationalize the policy. Policy adoption alone will not ensure a sustainable buil ding policy will be successful. Additional steps are needed to create structure, ownership, and awareness of the policy. Identify Leaders and Collaborators Policies are often managed by departments that are responsible for education, awareness, and enforcement. In some cases, these responsibilities may fall across departments, so it is important early on to identify the department and individual who will take primary ownership for the policy. Below is a list of key stakeholders to involve: Sustainability S taff As topic specialists, sustainability staff should either lead or play a significant part in policy development and assist in policy implementation. Such staff can advocate for the policy internally and educate external stakeholders. In addition, any i nitial meetings with 7 a project’s development team should include sustainability staff or other designated, qualified individuals who can speak to the technical nature of sustainability requirements. Planning Department City planning departments should be involved in the management of the sustainable building policy. City planners are responsible for reviewing project applications, engaging with developers, and ultimately drafting the developer’s agreement, which is the document holding a project developer a ccountable for following policies and codes. External Collaborators External partners can provide technical assistance to project teams to meet policy rating systems. These generally fall into two categories: • Specific: A partner that develops and manages an individual rating system is best equipped to answer questions regarding pathways for compliance for their rating system (e.g., USGBC for LEED). • Broad: A partner that can answer questions across multiple rating systems. Increase Awareness of the Policy A key question to ask is: how do developers, architects, and contractors know the policy ex ists? If the policy is new, or if major changes have been made to an existing policy, cities should take proactive steps to inform their development community about how this policy will impact future projects. At minimum, cities should post the policy cle arly on the city’s website for easy access. Additional engagement would build support and acceptance of the policy. We recommend cities offer trainings, networking events, and building tours, as well as engage building associations to spread the word about the policies. Cities could also partner on outreach initiatives to increase reach and minimize cost. Community Highlight: St. Louis Park, MN Because the City’s Community Development Department oversees project and land use applications as well as financial incentives for development, it is a natural fit for the sustainable building policy to be managed by that depa rtment. Sustainability staff, who are in a different department, remain engaged by attending project meetings with developers to educate them about the City’s climate goals and aspects of the policy. The City also keeps an architecture and engineering firm on retainer for more detailed review beyond sustainability staff’s abilities and to help developers meet the goals of the policy. Community Highlight: Rochester, MN The City of Rochester hosts green building tours to showcase successful implementation of their policy in new development. Developers and architects can tour new buildings, ask questions, and learn how their peers are following Rochester’s sustainable building policy. 8 Identify Projects Subject to the Policy Although a policy itself specifies minimum requirements for subject developments, the city must create a process to easily identify incoming projects that meet those requirements. This is accomplished by leveraging existing development review processes. Pl anners also often use checklists and review guides to ensure projects meet required development policies and codes. For that reason, we recommend cities use this process to integrate a review for the sustainable building policy. Cities should make sure so meone with sustainability expertise, either sustainability staff or other designated reviewers, attend development review meetings. Educate Project Teams Once the city has identified an eligible project, the policy should be reviewed with the project’s development team to ensure they understand all the components of the policy. This is a great opportunity for development teams to ask questions and for city staff to champion their policy. This meeting should be scheduled after a project application or funding application is received to ensure policy criteria can be incorporated as early as possible in the design process . Having the right people at the meeting will ensure that the policy expectations are clearly communicated, and any questions are addressed . On the city’s side, this meeting should include those involved in managing the policy, such as sustainability and planning staff. If the city is working with an external collaborator to help with technical assistance, including them in this meeting would be advantageous. From the project team, the architect and owner’s representative should be invited so that the team responsible for designing and funding the project understand the expectations. Ensure Compliance A best practice for compliance is for cities to connect project teams with external collaborators who are technical experts in both the development process and sustainability requirements. Cities then track compliance with the list of requirements. Because most projects that have been subject to sustainable building policies in Minnesota have been commercial, mixed use, or large multifamily, city staff have relied on the B3 Tracking Tool to monitor compliance for most recommended overlay criteria and then have separate manual tracking mechanisms to track any remaining criteria. Community Highlight: Saint Paul, MN The City of Saint Paul uses funding and size minimums to determine the projects subject to their sustainable building policy. After public project funding is requested and before it is approved, the staff member responsible for managing the policy is notified of the project. Staff send a letter to the project team detailing compliance requirements for the project, and soon after they hold a meeting involving the project team to review these requirements. Sustainability staff leverage this opportunity to walk through the policy step by s tep to make sure there are no surprises for the project team. 9 Another best practice is to leverage other existing processes for front end -confirmation of sustainable design, such as Xcel Energy’s Energy Design Assistance program and other simil ar utility programs that incentivize energy modeling to meet building performance criteria. Enforce the Policy Enforcement comes into play once a project receives the necessary approvals to start construction. In most cases, following the previous steps wi ll ensure that a project adheres to the policy; however, if the project does not meet minimum standards, enforcement may be necessary. Formal enforcement should be codified in the policy, so developers understand the implications of not complying. Informally, city staff can communicate with project teams about the negative impact to their relationship and concerns over future projects following city policies. Evaluate Impact Evaluating the policy’s impact helps city staff and city decision-makers understand if the policy achieved the intended goals. Project reports should detail the size, cost, and anticipated savings compared to actual performance. A summary of these along with the collective environmental benefits (e.g., gallons of water and greenhouse gas emissions saved compared to code) should be shared with city council, staff, and the public. In addition, annual or biennial reviews with project teams, city staff, and external collaborators give valuable input into the effectiveness of the policy. Cities should talk to project teams about what worked and what could be improved about the sustainable building policy’s implementation process. They should also talk to external collaborators and sustainability experts about the latest trends and best practices for sustainable buildings. Having both quantitative and qualitative data on the policy’s success will be useful during future policy updates to strengthen its impact. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS Going forward, these policies should evolve as new sustainability standards become available and as city goals around reducing structural racism and ensuring equity becom e clearer and more focused. As cities find alignment on these issues, they should continue to exchange best practices and evolve together. We recommend cities check in on at least a biannual if not quarterly basis. This could be led by cities themselves or by an external coordinator. Areas that may warrant further exploration include: • Compliance tracking tool. Cities currently lack a holistic method for tracking compliance for all property types and may benefit from the development of one. Community Highlight: Rochester, MN The City of Rochester structures their Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreements as pay-as- you-go disbursements, giving the city the opportunity to withhold future disbursements if a project does not adhere to certain policies or codes. The city has used this approach for projects in the Destination Medical Center and throughout the municipality. 10 • Additional compliance strategies. Another possible route to ensure compliance is by leveraging permitting and inspections processes. However, because construction code is prescriptive and most sustainability criteria is performance -based, there has been no attempt in Minnesota thus far to take either of these two routes: o During permit approval. Because cities approve permits that give the green light for construction, they could explore issuing permits only once design models adequately indicate that susta inability requirements will be met. Incorporating permit approvals that are based on modeled designs of performance would necessitate thorough consideration of expertise and permitting staff needs. o During inspections. Building inspectors could take a bigge r role in ensuring sustainability criteria are incorporated during construction. Similar to design review for permits, inspectors evaluate a building based on prescriptive code. For that reason, inspector scope would need to expand to include evaluation ag ainst a performance-based model design. • A one-stop-shop for expertise on sustainable building policies. An external collaborator would not only consult on multiple rating systems, but also serve as a single point of communication for technical questions a nd compliance monitoring for project teams and cities, respectively. This type of group has not yet been established to serve Minnesota cities. However, such a partner with broad expertise, design review experience, and implementation support ability could serve multiple cities while reducing sustainability staff needs. Although sustainable building policies have been around more than a decade in Minnesota, there remain great opportunities for more cities to leverage such policy tools and for better standardization among cities to ease implementation. As cities actively invest in new developments or receive developer requests outside existing zoning rules, they can use these policies to achieve sustainability goals. In the end, the built environment h as strong impacts on environmental health and livability, and sustainable building policies are an important tool to build the physical environment that cities want and need. Achieving Sustainability in the Built Environment Cities throughout Minnesota seek to improve public health, environmental justice, and environmental and economic sustainability. Many cities are taking advantage of building-related strategies to reduce carbon emissions and waste, protect natural resources, and mitigate stormwater runoff. With a sustainable building policy, cities can use public financing and their authority over land use to make meaningful progress toward achieving their sustainability goals. Leveraging financial incentives and authority over land use, a sustainable building policy establishes minimum sustainability criteria that go beyond existing state code for new construction and redevelopment. Included sustainability criteria typically target reducing pollution and conserving resources. This policy would be voluntary for developments not seeking financial incentives or land use changes. What are the Benefits? • Ensures new construction is on the forefront of efficient building construction. • Improves Edina’s building stock with healthy and sustainable buildings. • Creates demand for sustainability in the property market. • Supports Edina’s goal to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. To support our sustainability goals and building investment, the City of Edina is proposing a sustainable building policy. Edina Sustainable Buildings Proposed Framework The proposed sustainable building policy would apply to new construction and redevelopment projects that receive public financing and planned unit development approval. The policy would be structured to give developers the power to choose their preferred third-party rating system based on building type as well as their expertise and experience. The policy would also include additional sustainability requirements for electric vehicle charging and predicted greenhouse gas emissions to help the City meet its carbon reduction goals. Resources through Hennepin County Hennepin County Efficient Buildings Collaborative provides cities with a platform of shared resources to lower costs and exchange best practices. The County is currently undergoing a competitive RFP process to hire a vendor to provide education, technical resources, and compliance assistance. Upon policy passage and joint powers agreement approval, the City of Edina and developers will have access to the selected vendor. It is important to the City that the appropriate technical resources are available for successful sustainable building construction. Joining Sustainability and Climate Leaders Edina will be joining six cities with a formal sustainable building policy, along with another that is in the process of creating its own policy. The Cities of Saint Paul and St. Louis Park have been implementing their policies for more than 10 years, providing multiple local examples of successful policy implementation. Proposed Policy Details Policy Triggers Projects that receive the following incentives would “trigger ” or necessitate compliance of the policy: • Planned Unit Developments (PUD) • Housing & Redevelopment Funds • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) • Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act • Housing Improvement Area and Affordable Housing Trust Fund • Conduit Bonds Sustainable Rating Systems Developers would select from the following third-party rating systems to adhere to the policy: • LEED • B3 Guidelines • Green Star Homes • Green Communities • Park Smart Edina Overlay Developers would also be subject to an Edina-specific Overlay, which aligns with established goals. • Electric vehicle charging • Predicted greenhouse gas emissions For questions, contact Sustainability Coordinator Grace Hancock at ghancock@edinamn.gov. 1-3% Realized Annual Energy Savings in Cities with Benchmarking Policies Edina Proposed Sustainable Building Policy   FAQ      How is this Sustainable Building Policy different from previous policy? From current sustainable design  questionnaires?   The City of Edina currently has a voluntary development questionnaire that asks developers and  architects to design for sustainability early in the design process. While the previous questionnaire used  guided questions on a limited number of topic areas to encourage sustainable development, the new  policy requires developers select one third‐party green rating systems from a list and become certified.  In addition, there are two requirements, one for measuring predicted greenhouse gas emissions and  one for EV readiness, that apply regardless of green rating system selected.  What developments will this policy apply to?  This policy will only apply to developments seeking a PUD (planned unit development) or financial  assistance in the form of:  • Housing & Redevelopment Funds  • Tax Increment Financing (TIF)  • Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act  • Housing Improvement Area and Affordable Housing Trust Fund  • Conduit Bonds  Why use a third‐party rating system? Will this increase the cost of development?  Using a third‐party rating system, such as LEED or MN Green Communities, ensures that buildings are  meeting sustainability requirements that are widely recognized as best practices.  Doing so also clarifies  liability and also allows for more certainty for the design team in knowing the policy requirements will  be met. The cost for engaging the third‐party rater is typically less than one percent of the cost of a  project and when examined early in the design process, studies show that utilizing sustainability  practices contributes 1‐2% to total costs.  What is the implementation timeline?   The policy is anticipated to go into effect beginning July 1, 2022, meaning any new building applications  submitted after that day will be affected. This policy will not apply to any building applications that were  submitted before the policy goes into effect.  How will this policy relate to the ever‐evolving rating system versions and energy code?  The policy will require compliance with the most recent rating system version in existence at the time of  development application. Where elements of the selected rating system and energy code differ, the  policy will require adherence to the most stringent.  How many projects would this apply to?  Approximately forty‐five projects in the past 10 years have requested a PUD or financial incentives. If  historical development patterns continue, we’d anticipate about two‐thirds of projects to follow the  sustainable building policy.  What happens if a developer chooses not to the follow the policy? What happens if the project  doesn’t certify under the chosen requirements?  Projects that request a PUD or funding from the City of Edina will be notified of the sustainable building  policy. If the developer chooses not to follow the policy, the City can withhold granting the PUD or  funding request, or choose not to recommend the project for approval. Once the project is complete, if  it chooses not to certify under the chosen sustainability standard then the City has the option to rescind  the funding incentives provided.       Date: July 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-21- 23, 4904 Bywood Wes t, A variance for the relief from requirement to have a 50% full depth bas ement under the main floor Ac tion 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 as submitted I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he applicant is requesting a 15.5%, (640.3 square foot), variance from the minimum 50% basement requirement for an addition on crawl space to the existing home at 4904 B ywood West. T he current code requires 50% of the home’s first floor to have a full basement. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Engineering Memo Narrative Site Location Survey Plans Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report 7-22-21 Noon Pres entation The subject property consists of two lots, is 78,154 square feet in area and is located on the west side of Bywood West in the Rolling Green neighborhood. The current site has a two-story home with an inground pool built in 1960. The property includes a vacant lot located directly behind 4904 Bywood West that fronts Interlachen Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a 15.5%, (640.3 square foot), variance from the minimum 50% basement requirement for additions on crawl space to the existing home at 4904 Bywood West. The current code requires 50% of the home’s first floor to have a full basement. The property also includes a vacant lot, (Lot 5), that abuts to the rear of the Bywood West property with access gained from Interlachen Boulevard. The home additions include a master bedroom, garage addition and expansion off the back of the home. There is a new in ground swimming pool and screened pool house on the Bywood West lot, (on Lot 2), and a detached garage and sport court proposed on the vacant lot, (Lot 5), fronting and accessing from Interlachen Blvd. The proposal is to add onto the existing home that will maintain a smaller than required basement area. The applicant also intends to combine the properties into one parcel. Except for the proposed basement area, all other portions of the plan comply with zoning ordinance requirements. The City of Edina requires the following: Basements: All single dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. Variance: - Relief from requirement to have full depth basement under main floor of the existing home with additions on crawl space. The current code requires 50% of the new home first floor to have full basement below. Due to the proposed structure’s proximity outside the flood zone sub-basin, but still adjacent to a pond and flood plain, the City Engineer would require any new basement area to be elevated. An addition to the home requires a variance from the 50% basement rule or low floor elevated above the flood zone. July 28, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B-21-23, a variance for the relief from requirement to have a 50% full depth basement under the main floor of a remodeled home with additions on crawl space at 4904 Bywood West. Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 78,154 square foot parcel was developed in 1960 with a two-story home and is located on the west side of Bywood West. The property consists of two lots, one fronting Bywood Way and the other fronting Interlachen Boulevard. 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 their memorandum. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. Volume control and rate control for the additional impervious surface is provided via the underground stormwater storage system. A final grade as-built survey, inspection, and as-built cut/fill analysis will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development The proposed basement floorplans indicate that the existing basement is to remain, and two areas of new crawl space are proposed (under the southern home addition and near the covered entry, totaling just under 1,000 SF). The LFE requirement applies to the new crawl space areas, not the existing basement. The proposed LFE conforms with FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01. Staff is amenable to a site-specific standard that uses FEMA-recommended elevations and precautions for basement areas outside of the HI_22 subwatershed. Compliance with the final site-specific standard requirements will also be verified at final permit closeout. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side – West Rear - South Side – East Front – 10 feet 25 feet/50 feet/pond 10 feet 76.4 feet 10 feet 68.5 feet 10.7 feet 76.6 feet Building Coverage 25% 13% Basement First Floor Elevation Building Height 50% 906.8 ex/907.8 max 40 feet 42.5%* 906.8 26 feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of variances with a with a new home without a basement? Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for variances to allow the additions to be built without a basement having a gross floor area equal to at least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with 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 proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of the basement size. The additions can accommodate the needs of the STAFF REPORT Page 4 applicant without having new construction exposed to potential flood risk. The current code requires 50% of the home’s first floor to have full basement below. Due to the proximity to a pond and flood plain, the City Engineer requires elevated basement/low openings. The City Engineering findings include a 100 year back to back flood risk criteria, it is acceptable in this situation to elevate or eliminate new basement area. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The applicant has indicated that the existing home on site currently has a full basement that has never had ground water problems. The current sump pump does not run. Professional soil borings have shown no ground water until reaching much lower depths than the proposed crawl spaces. Nevertheless, given Engineering standards, basement area cannot be constructed at the existing basement elevation. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Owners have indicated they would comply with the full basement ordinance if flood plain conditions allowed. After discussions and consideration of City Engineer requirements, the owner has agreed to crawl space. This brings the property more into conformity with zoning ordinance flood plain requirements than existing conditions. The variance will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. All aspects of the home will conform to the ordinance requirements with exception of the proposed crawl space. The variance is in keeping with the intent of city ordinances and policies and flood protection goals of the city. The proposed home additions reflect the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. The home is appropriate and similar to surrounding properties. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance, subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey: Date stamped: June 28, 2021. • Building plans and elevations dated: June 28, 2021. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. 3. Combine the two lots into one parcel with one Property Identification Number. STAFF REPORT Page 5 DATE: 7/2 3 /2021 TO: Cary Teagu e – Plan ning Director FROM: Ross Bintner, PE – Engineering Services Manager Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 4904 Bywood West - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, flood risk, erosion and sediment control, and general adherence to 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 included grading and drainage plan, erosion and sediment control plan, cut and fill analysis, stormwater management memo, and a geotechnical report stamped July 15, 2021. Summary of Work The applicant proposes additions to the homes, new pool, outbuilding, and sport court. The request is for a variance to a full basement requiremen t and to the lowest floor requirement. Easements A utility easement is shown on Lot 2. Given the lot consolidation, the easement should be vacated. The easement vacation application has been submitted and is being processed. Grading and Drainage Lot 2 consists of subwatersheds HI_6 and HI_22. Lot 5 consists of subwatersheds HI_20, 21, and 22. Subwatershed HI_22 is landlocked and contains a structural flooding issue. The grading of the lot removes the natural overflow from HI_22 to the east. The applicant plans an alternative overflow above the 1%-annual- chance flood elevation of the basin at 903.99’, but lower than the current overflow elevation of 905.0’. • Sheet C400 indicates net cut below the local 1%-annual-chance flood elevation in su bwatershed HI_22. No work is proposed in the local 1%-annual-chance flood elevation in subwatershed HI_6. • Two feet of freeboard is suggested for the outbuilding from the overflow path to the south from the underground system (903.7’). Currently, the accessory structure is set at 904.5’. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP -003 standards. Volume control and rate control for the additional impervious surface is provided via the underground stormwater storage system. A final grade as -built survey, inspection, and as-built cut/fill analysis will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development The City previously reported a local 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of 903.4’ in subwatershed HI_22. Staff requested a review of the model by Barr Engineering and found this elevation assumed a 12” CMP outfall. Staff reviewed the site and found no outlet. The applicant may provide further information from any site investigation it conducts on the outlet elevation or starting water elevation. The attached technical review (Barr Engineering Co., September 28, 2020) set the1%-annual-chance flood elevation at 903.7’. Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (C WRMP) section 3.1.2.1(5) requires the lowest floor elevation (LFE) at no less than 2’ above the back-to-back 1%-annual-chance flood elevation, with the elevation of the waterbody established by one of a variety of methods. a. The elevation of th e back-to-back 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of 905.0 ’ (LFE 907.0 ’) b. The starting water elevation of 900.5’, as determined by Barr Engineering. c. In conversation, the applicant’s engineer relayed that the water elevation may be currently set by pumping by private parties. The proposed basement floorplans indicate that the existing basement is to remain, and two areas of new crawl space are proposed (under the southern home addition and near the covered entry, totaling just under 1,000 SF). The LFE requirement applies to the new crawl space areas, not the existing basement. The applicant proposes to use the attached FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 to set the LFE for the additions. The FEMA Technical Bulletin 10 -01 allows the LFE to be 5’ below the back-to-back 1%-annual chance flood elevation . With a back-to-back 1%-annual chance flood elevation of 905 .0 ’ in this case, the required LFE is 900.0 ’. Based on the FEMA Floodplain Construction Guidelines Memo Response document, the proposed LFE is 900’. This proposed LFE conforms with FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01. Staff is amenable to a site-specific standard that uses FEMA-recommended elevations and precautions for basement areas outside of the HI_22 subwatershed. Considerations for a site-specific proposal are listed below and can be verified during the permit review. Compliance with the final site-specific standard requirements will also be verified at final p ermit closeout. • Reduction in the freeboard, a deeper basement, may have the effect to increase the exposure to flood risk through groundwater. The complete proposal for a site-specific standard shall describe engineered systems to reduce the foundation system vulnerability to that increased groundwater flood risk. The offset of increased exposure by creating an engineered foundation system and reducing the system vulnerability could create the basis for City approval of a site-specific standard for this constrained site. • The complete proposal sh all identify ways to eliminate or minimize public risks such as removing sanitary connected floor drains and creating an overhead sanitary sewer connection. • The complete proposal shall demonstrate compliance with the Simplified Approach design requirements listed in the attached FEMA Technical Bulletin 10 -01on page 15 and 16 of the document and the conditions listed on page 17 of the document. The engineer prepared a response and shall confirm it has been updated for the change in scope. The front yard draining to HI_6, has a local 1%-annual-chance flood elevation of 902.7’. The lowest opening elevation at the front of the structure is required at no less than 904.7’. Based on the grade adjacent to the proposed home of 904.96’, the lowest opening elevation requirement is met. The applicant should include the proposed lowest opening elevation on the revised survey. Note, a more detailed review was provided in the Engineering Variance Memo, Rev. 2, dated 10/22/20, w hich was in response to a different project scope (teardown /rebuild). Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP -002. The applicant proposes to use the driveway entrance at Interlachen Blvd as a construction entrance, along with the n orth entrance on Bywood W . Pictures of the existing apron shall be taken prior to demo and construction, as replacement at project closeout may be required if damaged. Street and Driveway Entrance Driveway entrances on Interlachen Blv d and Bywood W are to remain undisturbed. Driveway entrance is not required . Bywood W was milled and overlaid in 2005 and is planned for reconstructed in 2026. Refer to standard plates 540 and 543 for patching requirements on Bywood W . Interlachen Blvd was milled and overlaid in 2019. Refer to standard plates 540 and 541 for patching requirements on Interlachen Blvd. Public Utilities Water and sanitary is served to Lot 2 from Bywood W. A one-inch water service line from the curb stop to the dwelling is required per the City’s policy SP -024. Miscellaneous A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. A sealed well is located on Lot 2 and an unsealed well is located on Lot 5. Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will be required for the well on Lot 5. Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Project: 23270354.00 Stormwater Management General Engineering The following technical memorandum summarizes hydrologic and hydraulic evaluation of the proposed 4904 Bywood West grading and redevelopment project. The memorandum summarizes existing local flooding in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood West and evaluates the impact of proposed redevelopment on flooding within the HI_22 landlocked basin (see Figure 1) and neighboring drainage areas. Executive Summary The 4904 Bywood West property is located near the intersection of Bywood West and Interlachen Boulevard. The northeast portion of the lot drains east towards Bywood West, and the southwest portion of the lot drains to the landlocked HI_22 basin as shown on Figure 1. Under existing conditions, the 1% annal exceedance probability event (1% AEP event) results in a maximum water surface elevation (MWSE) of 903.7-feet, potentially impacting one structure within the basin (5904 Interlachen Boulevard). Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) reviewed and evaluated potential impacts of proposed grading and redevelopment outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) using the City of Edina’s (City) Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model. The proposed grading and redevelopment plan outlined in the Stormwater Management memo includes (a) regrading of portions of the lot within both the HI_22 and HI_6 subwatersheds, (b) addition of approximately 12,623 sf of new impervious surfaces, (c) modification of the overflow drainage direction of the HI_22 landlocked basin, (d) installation of a 1,360 cf underground infiltration BMP, and (e) construction of a small detention basin in the backlot portion of 4904 Bywood West. The impact of proposed grading and redevelopment during the 1% AEP event (i.e., the 100-year, 24-hour Atlas 14 event, MSE3 distribution) was evaluated to determine if the proposed stormwater management plan is protective of nearby structures. The City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP; Edina, 2018) stipulates that structures that are within or adjacent to a landlocked basin must have a lowest floor elevation that is at least two feet above the water level resulting from two concurrent 1% AEP events. For this reason, the back-to-back 1% AEP event was also evaluated for existing and proposed conditions. Existing and proposed condition MWSEs for the HI_22 and HI_6 subwatersheds for modeled design events are summarized below in Table 1. In the proposed condition, HI_22 is split into two subwatersheds (HI_22 and HI_22a) to model the drainage area to the proposed detention basin in the backyard of 4904 Bywood To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 2 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx West. HI_22a and HI_22 in the proposed condition are directly comparable to HI_22 in the existing condition. Table 1 shows that proposed conditions result in a 0.32 ft increase in the HI_22a subwatershed (the subwatershed to the proposed detention basin in the backlot portion of 4904 Bywood West) and a 0.06 ft increase in the HI_22 subwatershed 1% AEP event flood elevation (see Figure 2). The increase in flood elevation is caused by the reduction in available stormwater storage volume due to site grading and proposed fill and the proposed increase in impervious surface area. Despite the redevelopment plan providing an underground infiltration BMP that meets watershed district requirements (> 1.1 inches of runoff from new impervious area), proposed grading results in net fill within the flood inundation area, reducing total available storage volume. The increase in the 1% AEP MWSE has the potential to impact one (1) structure within the HI_22 subwatershed (5904 Interlachen Boulevard) but does not appear to impact structures within the HI_22a subwatershed. Table 1 also shows that proposed conditions result in a minimal increase in the HI_22a and HI_22 flood elevations for the back-to-back 1% AEP event (increase of 0.01 ft), and no impacts to flood elevations in the neighboring HI_6 subwatershed for design events evaluated. It is recommended that proposed grading be reviewed and adjusted to provide more storage within the HI_22a and/or HI_22 subwatershed to minimize or eliminate increase in flood risk within the HI_22 basin. The following technical memorandum outlines development of modeling inputs for existing and proposed conditions, presents key results related to evaluation of the impact of proposed conditions on flood risk, and provides conclusions and recommendations related to proposed redevelopment plan for 4904 Bywood West. Table 1 Comparison of flood elevations in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood West Subwatershed ID Design Event MWSE (NGVD29, feet) 1 1% AEP Back-to-Back 1% AEP Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) HI_22 HI_22a 903.66 903.98 0.32 905.01 905.02 0.01 HI_22 903.72 0.06 905.02 0.01 HI_6 HI_6 902.73 902.73 0.00 902.74 902.74 0.00 1 Edina XPSWMM flood elevations are typically reported to one tenth foot accuracy. Additional accuracy provided in this table to highlight impact of proposed conditions. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 3 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx Figure 1 4904 Bywood West study area location and existing condition 1% AEP flooding elevation. Figure 2 Increase in 1% AEP flood elevation (proposed flooding elevations minus existing flooding elevation) 4904 Bywood West Label key: 904 = proposed 1% AEP MWSE +0.32 = increase in 1% AEP MWSE (ft) To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 4 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 1.0 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling: XPSWMM The City’s Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model was updated and used to evaluate existing conditions and proposed conditions described in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020). Model updates were incorporated using methodology and source data outlined in the 2018 Edina CRWMP (Edina, 2018). The following subsections describe updates made to the existing conditions XPSWMM model and all updates associated with the proposed grading and redevelopment plan (proposed conditions). 1.1 Existing Conditions The following updates were incorporated into the City’s existing Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model. The cumulative result of all updates described below was an increase in the 1% AEP flood elevation of HI_22 from 903.4-feet to 903.7-feet (see Figure 1). 1.1.1 Removal of modeled outlet from HI_22 (landlocked) A 12-inch outlet from HI_22 to HI_6 was originally included in the XPSWMM model. Upon field review conducted by City staff, it was determined that no outlet from HI_22 exists, and that the basin is a landlocked feature. The applicant’s engineer described in conversation with the City that the HI_22 wet pond water elevation may currently be controlled by pumping conducted by private parties. 1.1.2 Update to modeled pond normal water level The HI_22 wet pond normal water level (NWL) elevation was originally established by the assumed 12-inch outlet elevation from the HI_22 basin (901-feet). After determining the pond does not have an outlet (Section 1.1.1), the City requested a new starting NWL be established based on review of historic aerial imagery and available digital elevation data. Best available digital elevation data (2011 LiDAR, Hennepin County) shows a minimum elevation within the HI_22 basin of 899.3-feet. Aerial imagery from 1992 to August of 2020 (Appendix A) was reviewed. Review of historic imagery shows that the water surface elevations is typically contained within the 900.5-foot contour. For this reason, a starting water surface elevation of 900.5-feet was selected as the revised NWL for HI_22. 1.1.3 Other hydrologic and hydraulic updates The HI_22 subwatershed divide was reviewed and updated to better reflect the drainage area to the HI_22 basin. The corrected subwatershed to HI_22 is 1.937 acres (previously 2.168 acres). The original and updated subwatershed divides in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood Ave are shown in Figure 3. The subwatershed storage stage-area data for HI_22 was updated based on the revised subwatershed divide. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 5 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx In addition to the subwatershed area update, a zero percent detention (ZPD) value for HI_22 was added. The ZPD percentage value defines the fraction of directly connected impervious area which is open water and therefore has no depression storage. ZPD associated with the existing HI_22 wet pond was not captured in the original hydrologic inputs developed for HI_22. ZPD was calculated using the Edina 2016 land use data described in the Edina CWRMP (Edina, 2018). Figure 3 Updated subwatershed divides (updated divide shown in yellow, original divide in orange) 1.2 Proposed Conditions Proposed conditions outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) were reviewed and incorporated into a proposed conditions XPSWMM model. Updates incorporated into the proposed condition XPSWMM model are summarized in the following subsections. 1.2.1 Proposed grading plan: subwatershed and drainage pattern update The proposed grading plan and roof plan detail were georeferenced in ArcMap and used to update the subwatershed drainage divide to (a) the HI_22 wet pond and (b) the proposed detention basin located on the 4904 Bywood West property. The HI_22 subwatershed was subdivided to model the drainage area to the proposed detention basin (HI_22a, see Figure 4). Site grading near the 4904 Bywood west property results in a minor increase in the total drainage area to the HI_22 wet pond (1.960 acres proposed conditions compared to 1.937 acres in existing conditions). Hydrologic inputs for the proposed conditions model are discussed further in Section 1.2.3). To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 6 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx In addition to modifying the drainage area to the HI_22 basin, proposed grading alters the location of the emergency overflow (EOF) from HI_22 as shown in Figure 4. In existing conditions, during large rainfall events (e.g., the back-to-back 1% AEP event), overflow from the HI_22 drains along the south portion of the 4904 Bywood West lot east towards Bywood West at an elevation of 905.0-feet. In proposed conditions, the emergency overflow elevation remains the same (905.0-feet) but is shifted to the western edge of the property as shown in Figure 4 (i.e., the proposed grading blocks the existing overflow near the structure and creates a new overflow along the western edge of the property). As discussed in Section 2.0, the 1% AEP event does not access the emergency overflow elevation during existing or proposed conditions, meaning shifting the location of the emergency overflow does not alter drainage patterns during the 1% AEP design event. Figure 4 Proposed condition subwatershed divides, proposed grading contours, and HI_22 basin emergency overflow drainage update. 1.2.2 Proposed grading plan: storage stage-area update As shown in Figure 4, the proposed grading plan was georeferenced in ArcMap and used to define the storage stage-area data for the HI_22a and HI_22 subwatersheds. The grading plan proposes fill to create a berm between the backyard detention basin and the HI_22a, a fill within the backyard detention basin footprint, and cut along the western edge of the property to construct the sport court and outbuilding (establishing the new EOF location as described in Section 1.2.3 and shown in Figure 4). The result of the proposed grading plan is a reduction in stage-area and cumulative surface storage volume beginning at the 902-foot contour as shown below in Table 2 and Figure 5. Existing EOF location (altered by site grading near structure) Proposed EOF location To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 7 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx Table 2 Comparison of existing and proposed cumulative storage (combined HI_22a and HI_22) Elevation (ft, NGVD29) Storage Area (sf) Cumulative Storage (cf) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Diff. (cf) 1 899.3 4 4 0 0 0 900.0 6,587 6,587 2,340 2,340 0 900.2 6,972 6,972 3,696 3,696 0 900.4 7,307 7,307 5,124 5,124 0 900.6 7,628 7,628 6,617 6,617 0 900.8 7,943 7,943 8,174 8,174 0 901.0 8,277 8,350 9,796 9,804 7 902.0 13,769 11,726 20,820 19,842 -978 903.0 20,641 19,844 38,025 35,626 -2,398 904.0 32,371 31,112 64,531 61,104 -3,426 905.0 42,676 41,465 102,054 97,393 -4,661 906.0 57,896 49,555 152,340 142,903 -9,437 1 Difference in cumulative storage (proposed storage minus existing storage). Figure 5 Comparison of existing and proposed stage area (combined HI_22a and HI_22) To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 8 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 1.2.3 Proposed redevelopment plan: hydrologic update Hydrologic parameters were generated for the HI_22a subwatershed and the updated (i.e., subdivided) HI_22 subwatershed (see Figure 4). Hydrologic parameters were developed based on review of HydroCAD model results included in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) using methodology and supplementary data sources outlined in the Edina CWRMP (Edina, 2018). The 4904 Bywood West HydroCAD model was reviewed to determine the new impervious surface area in each subwatershed within the study area (of the total 12,623 sf of new impervious area, 6,522 sf is directed towards the HI_22a basin). Using methodology outlined in the Edina CWRMP (Edina, 2018), the proposed increase in directly connected impervious area and all other impacted hydrologic parameters (e.g., watershed width, ZPD, etc.) were calculated. Existing condition and proposed condition hydrologic parameters are summarized in Table 3. Hydrologic parameters not included in Table 3 were not updated (e.g., Horton infiltration parameters). Table 3 Comparison of existing and proposed hydrologic parameters Parameter Existing Proposed HI_22 HI_22a HI_22 Total Area (ac) 1.937 0.695 1.265 DC Imp. (%) 1 29.6% 36.0% 33.0% Width (ft) 690 254 755 ZPD (%) 23% 0% 32% Pervious Ds (in) 2 0.17 0.709 3 0.17 Impervious Ds (in) 2 0.06 0.599 3 0.06 1 DC imp. = directly connected impervious fraction (%) 2 Ds = depression storage 3 Depression storage of HI_22a increased to model 1,360 cf of abstraction volume associated with underground infiltration BMP (see Section 1.2.4). 1.2.4 Proposed redevelopment plan: detention basin and underground storage The backyard detention basin in HI_22a and underground infiltration BMPs outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) were incorporated into the proposed condition model. The backyard detention basin was modeled based on the proposed grading plan (see Figure 4) and outlet details included in the Stormwater Management Memo (i.e., 12-inch HDPE equalizer pipe at 903.4 feet and EOF berm at 903.8 feet). The underground infiltration BMP was modeled as an abstraction volume from the HI_22a subwatershed. Specifically, the pervious and impervious depression storage (Ds) values of the HI_22a subwatershed were increased to create 1,360 cf of abstraction volume (1,360 cf is the total storage volume of the proposed underground infiltration BMP). The infiltration rates assumed in the Stormwater Management Memo were not modeled as a conservative modeling assumption to account for soil saturation during large rainfall events. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 9 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 2.0 Model Results The City requested that Barr update the City Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model and develop a proposed conditions XPSWMM model to evaluate the following: 1) Create a plausible starting elevation for this landlocked basin and confirm the 1% AEP and back- to-back 1% AEP design event flood elevations (existing conditions); 2) Review the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo to confirm that it is protective of nearby private properties; and 3) Model the proposed emergency outlet elevation to the west and confirm that there is no impact to nearby private properties for the 1% AEP event. Suggest a minimum EOF outlet elevation. Questions originally posed by the City are answered in order in the following subsections. Results from the existing and proposed conditions XPSWMM model included in the executive summary (Table 1) are also referenced within the following subsections. For this reason, results from Table 1 are repeated within this section in Table 4, below. Table 4 Comparison of flood elevations in the vicinity of 4904 Bywood West [duplicate of Table 1] Subwatershed ID Design Event MWSE (NGVD29, feet) 1 1% AEP Back-to-Back 1% AEP Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Increase (ft) HI_22 HI_22a 903.66 903.98 0.32 905.01 905.02 0.01 HI_22 903.72 0.06 905.02 0.01 HI_6 HI_6 902.73 902.73 0.00 902.74 902.74 0.00 2 Edina XPSWMM flood elevations are typically reported to one tenth foot accuracy. Additional accuracy provided in this table to highlight impact of proposed conditions. 2.1 HI_22 starting water surface elevation and flood elevations: existing conditions As outlined in Section 1.1.2, the HI_22 starting water surface elevations (i.e., the modeled NWL) was updated based on review of best available digital elevation data (2011 LiDAR, Hennepin County) and review of historic aerial imagery (Appendix A). Review of historic imagery shows that the water surface elevation is typically contained within the 900.5-foot contour. For this reason, a starting water surface elevation of 900.5-feet was selected as the revised NWL for the HI_22 wet pond. 2.2 Determine if 4904 Bywood West stormwater management plan is protective of nearby properties As outlined in Table 4, proposed conditions outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) result in a 0.32 ft increase in the HI_22a subwatershed (the subwatershed to the proposed detention area in the backlot portion of 4904 Bywood West) and a 0.06 ft increase in the HI_22 subwatershed 1% AEP event MWSE (see Figure 2). The increase in To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 10 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx 1% AEP flooding has the potential to impact one (1) structure within the HI_22 subwatershed (5904 Interlachen Boulevard) but does not appear to impact structures within the HI_22a subwatershed. 2.3 Model the proposed EOF and suggest minimum EOF elevation The proposed grading plan shifts the location of the EOF from the east side of the HI_22 basin to the west side, but does not alter the EOF elevation of 905.0-feet (see Figure 4 and discussion in Section 1.2.1). The 1% AEP flood elevations for both existing conditions (903.7-feet) and proposed conditions (HI_22: 903.7- feet; HI_22a: 904.0-feet) are below the EOF (905.0-feet), meaning that shifting the EOF locations does not impact nearby subwatersheds during the 1% AEP event. To avoid impacting the neighboring HI_20 and HI_21 subwatersheds to the west, the EOF from the HI_22 basin should be maintained above the 1% AEP flood elevation (i.e., the EOF elevations should be high enough to prevent overflow from HI_22 to HI_20 during the 1% AEP event). Based on proposed conditions, the minimum EOF should be maintained above 904.0-feet (see 1% AEP MWSEs outlined in Table 4). It is recommended that the EOF be maintained at the existing elevation of 905.0-feet to provide 1-foot of freeboard and to provide resiliency for future climate conditions. 3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Proposed conditions outlined in the 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo (Solution Blue, Inc., 2020; revised August 27, 2020) were evaluated using the City’s Nine Mile Creek XPSWMM model. Based on this evaluation, it was determined that proposed conditions outlined in the Stormwater Management Memo result in a minor increase in 1% AEP flood elevations in the HI_22a and HI_22 basins, potentially impacting one structure in the HI_22 basin (5904 Interlachen Boulevard). For this reason, Barr recommends that the proposed grading plan be reviewed to determine if more storage can be provided within the HI_22a and/or HI_22 basin (i.e., balance cut/fill within the 1% AEP (903.7-feet) flood inundation area). In addition to the recommendation related to grading (above), Barr proposes the following recommendations to minimize risk to structures within the HI_22 basin and within neighboring subwatersheds: • Verify the low-entry elevation of structures within the HI_22a and HI_22 basins (in particular, 5904 Interlachen Boulevard which is potentially impacted during the 1% AEP design event). • The minimum EOF should be maintained above 904.0-feet (see 1% AEP MWSEs outlined in Table 4). It is recommended that the EOF be maintained at the existing elevation of 905.0-feet to provide 1-foot of freeboard and to provide resiliency for future climate conditions. • Coordinate with private entities performing pumping of the HI_22 basin to establish a pumping operation protocol (e.g., pump the basin to an elevation of 900.5-feet within 24-hours of a rainfall event). • Provide a designed and protected overflow connection between the HI_22a detention basin and HI_22 wet pond (note: may already be considered in proposed design). To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 11 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx • Provide a designed and protected EOF from the HI_22 basin to the west (consider routing the EOF around the proposed sport court and outbuilding). References Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2018. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Edina. Solution Blue, Inc. 2020. 4904 Bywood West Stormwater Management Memo. Revised August 27, 2020. Prepared on behalf of Boyer Builders. To: Ross Bintner and Kris Aaker – City of Edina (City) From: Michael McKinney, PE – Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: XPSWMM evaluation of 4904 Bywood West redevelopment project Date: September 28, 2020 Page: 12 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2020\SW\Potential 2020 updates\4904 Bywood West\02 - 2nd Request Stormwater Plan\Tech Memo\4904 Bywood West Proposed Development Review.docx Appendix A Historic Imagery of HI_22 Wet Pond Google EarthDate: 4/21/2020Source: 2020 Maxar Technologies Google EarthDate: 4/28/2018Source: not specified Google EarthDate: 4/3/2018Source: not specified Google EarthDate: 2/28/2006Source: U.S. Geological Service Google EarthDate: 4/21/2003Source: 2020 Maxar Technologies Google EarthDate: 4/26/1992Source: U.S. Geological Service FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY MITIGATION DIRECTORATE Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe From Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program FIA-TB-10 (5/01) Technical Bulletin 10-01 Any comments on the Technical Bulletins should be directed to: Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Directorate Program Policy and Assessment Branch 500 C Street, SW. Washington, DC 20472 Wave design on cover based on the Japanese print The Great Wave Off Kanagawa, by Katsuchika Hokussai (1760–1849), Asiatic Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Key Word/Subject Index This index allows the user to locate key words and subjects in this Technical Bulletin. The Technical Bulletin User’s Guide (printed separately) provides references to key words and subjects throughout the Technical Bulletins. For definitions of selected terms, refer to the Glossary at the end of this bulletin. Key Word/Subject Index Page Basement construction, engineered option 19 Basement construction, simplified approach 15 Basement foundation in fill, not recommended 9 Basement foundation in fill, vulnerability to subsurface flooding 1, 9 Basement foundation, in fill placed above BFE 10 Basement foundation, with lowest floor at or above BFE 10 Basement foundation, with lowest opening above BFE 11 Basement foundation, with lowest opening at BFE 12 Community permitting, administrative options for 5 Crawlspace foundation 7 Fill, placed to remove land from the SFHA 1 Fill, areas where prohibited 3 Fill, proper placement of 5 Foundation flood risk, summary table 13 Freeboard, recommendations 6 Insurance coverage for basement flooding, restrictions 9 Professional certification 4 Professional certification, sample form 4 “Reasonably safe from flooding,” defined 2 “Reasonably safe from flooding,” NFIP regulations concerning 2 Slab-on-grade foundation 8 Stem wall foundation 7 Sump pump, requirements for simplified basement construction 15 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 10-01 Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably Safe From Flooding in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program Introduction For the purpose of administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), FEMA identifies and maps flood hazard areas nationwide by conducting flood hazard studies and publishing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These flood hazard areas, referred to as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), are based on a flood having a 1-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the 100-year flood or Base Flood). Structures within the SFHA in a community participating in the NFIP are subject to floodplain management regulations that impact building standards and are designed to minimize flood risk. For example, Title 44, Part 60, Section 3(c)(2) of the Code of Federal Regulations—abbreviated as 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2)—requires that the lowest floor of a residential structure, including basement, built within the SFHA be at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). In addition, flood insurance must be purchased for these structures if they are used as collateral to secure a loan provided by a federally regulated lender. Flood insurance coverage may be purchased for all eligible structures within a participating community. Insurance rates for structures located within the SFHA differ from the rates for structures located outside the SFHA. When permitted under applicable Federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, earthen fill is sometimes placed in an SFHA to reduce flood risk to the filled area. Under certain conditions, when engineered earthen fill is placed within an SFHA to raise the surface of the ground to or above the BFE, a request may be submitted to FEMA to revise the FIRM to indicate that the filled land is outside of the SFHA. When such revisions are warranted, FEMA usually revises the FIRM by issuing a Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F). After FEMA has revised the FIRM to show that the filled land is outside the SFHA, the community is no longer required to apply the minimum NFIP floodplain management standards to any structures built on the land and the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements no longer apply. It is worth noting that states and local communities may have floodplain regulations that are more restrictive than the minimum requirements of the NFIP and may continue to enforce some or all of their floodplain management requirements in areas outside the SFHA. Although a structure built on a site that has been elevated by the placement of fill may be removed by FEMA from the SFHA, the structure may still be subject to damage during the Base Flood and higher-magnitude floods. Constructing the entire structure at or above the level of the BFE will minimize the flood risk from the Base Flood and is therefore the most prudent approach to constructing on fill. Conversely, a structure with a basement (subgrade area) adjacent to or near the floodplain may well be impacted by subsurface flooding brought on by surface flooding. 1 This bulletin provides guidance on the construction of buildings on land elevated above the BFE through the placement of fill. Several methods of construction are discussed, and the most prudent— those that result in the entire building being above the BFE—are recommended. In some areas of the country, basements are a standard construction feature. Individuals may wish to construct basements on land after it has been removed from the floodplain by a FEMA revision. Buildings with basements built in filled areas are at an added risk of flooding when compared to buildings on other types of foundations. However, there are two major ways to minimize this additional risk from subsurface flooding. First, the building should be located farther back from the edge of the fill closest to the flooding source. Second, the higher the basement floor is elevated, the less the risk. This technical bulletin provides guidance on how to determine that these buildings will be reasonably safe from flooding during the occurrence of the Base Flood and larger floods. To be reasonably safe from flooding during the Base Flood condition, the basement must (1) be dry, not have any water in it, and (2) be structurally sound, not have loads that either exceed the structural capacity of walls or floors or cause unacceptable deflections. In practice, this means that soils around the basement must have low permeability to minimize or stop water infiltration to the basement wall and floors. Any water that does permeate to the basement must be removed by a drainage layer on the outside (soil side) of the basement. In addition, the foundation walls and floor slab must be designed and constructed for any increased loads that may occur during the Base Flood condition. NFIP Regulations Part of a community’s application to participate in the NFIP must include “a commitment to recognize and duly evaluate flood hazards in all official actions in the areas having special flood hazards and to take other such official actions reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the program” [44 CFR 59.22 (a)(8)]. NFIP regulations at 44 CFR 60 include Subpart A: Requirements for Flood Plain Management Regulations. Each community participating in the NFIP adopts a floodplain management ordinance that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements listed in 44 CFR 60. Subpart A establishes specific criteria for determining the adequacy of a community’s floodplain management regulations. The overriding purpose of the floodplain management regulations is to ensure that participating communities take into account flood hazards, to the extent that they are known, in all official actions relating to land management and use. One of the minimum requirements established by the regulations is set forth at 44 CFR 60.3 (a)(3), which states that, for all proposed construction or other development within a participating community, the community must “Review all permit applications to determine whether the proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding.” 44 CFR 59.1 defines “development” as “…any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operation or storage of equipment or materials,” 2 3 Floodways, V Zones, and Alluvial Fan Flood Hazard Areas This bulletin does not apply to the following: • Construction in the floodway. The NFIP prohibits encroachments into the floodway that would cause increases in flood stage. • Construction in SFHAs designated Zone V, VE, or V1-V30 on FIRMs. The NFIP prohib- its the use of structural fill for support of buildings in V zones. Buildings constructed in a V zone must be constructed on an open foundation consisting of piles, piers, or posts and must be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member is at or above the BFE. In addition, this bulletin strongly recommends that structural fill not be used to elevate buildings constructed in A zones in coastal areas. Detailed guidance concerning proper construction methods for buildings in coastal areas is presented in FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55) and in NFIP Technical Bulletin 5, Free-of-Obstruction Requirements. • Construction in SFHAs subject to alluvial fan flooding (designated Zone A0 with depths and velocities shown on FIRMs). The NFIP will not remove land from the floodplain based on the placement of fill in alluvial fan flood hazard areas. More Restrictive State and Local Requirements NFIP Technical Bulletins provide guidance on the minimum requirements of the NFIP regulations. State or local requirements that exceed those of the NFIP take precedence. Design professionals should contact community officials to determine whether more restrictive state or local regulations apply to the building or site in question. All applicable standards of the state or local building code must be met for any building in a flood hazard area. By issuance of this Technical Bulletin, FEMA is noting that residual flood hazards may exist in areas elevated above the BFE by the placement of engineered earthen fill. Residual risks in these areas include subsurface flood conditions and flooding from events that exceed the base flood. This bulletin is intended to guide local floodplain management officials in determining whether structures placed in filled areas are reasonably safe from flooding. FEMA will require that the jurisdiction having authority for floodplain management determine that an area is reasonably safe from flooding before removing it from the SFHA. Warning Construction of a residential building in an identified SFHA with a lowest floor below the BFE is a violation of the floodplain management requirements set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2), unless the community has obtained an exception to NFIP requirements from FEMA and has approved procedures in place. Notes for Local Officials Professional Certification As required by state and local floodplain management ordinances, a proposed development must be determined to be reasonably safe from flooding. The official having the authority to make this determination should require all appropriate information for making the determination. This may include a certification by a qualified design professional that indicates the land or structures to be removed from the SFHA are reasonably safe from flooding, according to the criteria described in this technical bulletin. Such a professional certification may come from a professional engineer, professional geologist, professional soil scientist, or other design professional qualified to make such evaluations. A sample of such a certification is shown in Figure 1. 4 Figure 1 Sample of professional certification form. Address and Phone Professional Seal Project Name and Address Type of License Title Signature Date License Number I, certify that the design for the aforementioned development is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the guidance provided within FEMA’s Technical Bulletin 10-01 related to ensuring that structures are reasonably safe from flooding and in accordance with accepted professional practices. License Expiration Date Administrative Options for Community Permitting Communities may choose a variety of administrative procedures to assist them in gathering information that can be used to determine whether a proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding. Communities are encouraged to establish procedures that alert them to potential future development of a filled area. These procedures should allow for the evaluation of future development and a means to determine whether it will be reasonably safe from flooding. The following are examples of such procedures: • Require building sites to be identified on final subdivision plats and evaluate those building sites against the standards described in this Technical Bulletin. • Require grading plans as a condition of issuing fill permits and require that those grading plans include building sites, and evaluate those building sites based on this Technical Bulletin. • Require buffer zones or setback zones around the perimeter of fill pads or at the edge of the flood- plain and establish construction requirements within these buffer zones to ensure that buildings are safe from residual risk. • Require as a condition of final subdivision plat approval that the developer agree that no basements will be built in any flood areas. • Adopt or have regulations that control development of areas immediately adjacent to floodplains that would ensure that any construction is reasonably safe from flooding. For example, under the Minnesota State Building Code, communities designate areas outside of the floodplain as “Second- ary Flood Hazard Areas” where building officials evaluate plans for basements and can require modifications to the basement if an official believes there is a residual risk. • When issuing a permit for the placement of fill only in the SFHA, stipulate that no buildings will be built on the site without a subsequent building permit. Placement of Fill Properly placing fill requires an understanding of soil mechanics, local site conditions, the specific characteristics of the soils being placed, the methods used to place and compact the fill, and soil testing procedures. Standard engineering and soil mechanics texts cover these subjects in detail. The performance of these filled areas should consider, but is not limited to, the following: • the consolidation of the fill layers and any underlying layers • the effect of this consolidation on either excessive settlement or differential settlement • how the permeability of the soils affects water infiltration on any structures built on the site 5 6 Building on Land Removed From the SFHA by the Placement of Fill The safest methods of constructing a building on filled land removed from the SFHA are those that result in the entire structure being above the BFE. Methods that place the lowest floor of the building at, rather than above, the BFE are at greater flood risk, and methods that result in the lowest floor (including a basement floor) below the BFE have the highest flood risk of all. Placement of the lowest floor of these structures below the BFE, even through they are outside the SFHA, will result in an increased threat from subsurface flooding and magnified damages from flooding that exceeds the BFE. Loss of Storage and Conveyance The placement of fill in the SFHA can result in an increase in the BFE by reducing the ability to convey and store flood waters. This can result in increased flood damage to both upstream and downstream properties. To prevent these possible results, some communities prohibit fill, require compensatory storage for filled areas, and/or identify a more restrictive floodway. Risk of Flood Damage in Areas Adjacent to the SFHA Areas adjacent to the SFHA may have residual risks of flood damage similar to those in areas removed from the SFHA through the placement of fill. Both areas are subject to residual risk from subsurface water related to flooding and from floods greater than the Base Flood. Methods of construction discussed in this bulletin should also be used in these areas. The foundation types for buildings outside the SFHA described in the following sections are listed in order of their increasing risk of flood damage. Freeboard Freeboard is an additional height used as a factor of safety in determining the elevation of a structure, or floodproofing, to compensate for factors that may increase the flood height (ASCE 24-98, Flood Resistant Design and Construction). When fill is used to protect buildings from the Base Flood, the community should consider whether freeboard should be required. This consideration should include whether better information exists or conditions have changed (from when the BFE was originally established) that indicate that the BFE may be higher than originally expected. One example of when the BFE may be higher is when a culvert or bridge is blocked by debris. Flood modeling assumes an open channel or culvert. Even when the BFE is not expected to be higher, freeboard may be appropriate to provide increased protection from flood events less frequent than the Base Flood or to account for future changes that may increase the BFE. Non-Basement Foundations Non-basement foundations consist primarily of stem wall, crawlspace, and slab-on-grade foundations. Stem Wall Foundation A stem wall foundation can be used to raise the lowest floor above the surrounding grade. After the stem walls have been constructed and extended to the desired elevation, the area enclosed by the stem walls is filled with engineered compacted fill and a slab is poured on top (see Figure 2). Through the placement of additional fill, the site may be elevated above the BFE. This approach provides freeboard—an additional amount of elevation that helps protect against subsurface flooding and floods that exceed the Base Flood. Constructing a stem wall foundation and placing this additional fill on the site provide the highest level of flood protection. 7 Crawlspace Foundation Constructing a crawlspace beneath the first floor will raise the lowest floor of the structure above the surrounding grade (see Figure 3). Openings in the foundation walls are recommended. If flooding reaches the building, the openings allow flood waters to enter the area below the lowest floor and equalize the hydrostatic pressure on the foundation walls (see NFIP Technical Bulletin 1, Openings In Foundation Walls). The crawlspace alternative is less preferable than stem wall construction, which does not result in an enclosed area under the first floor and therefore requires no flood openings. Placing additional fill to a level above the BFE provides freeboard that helps protect against subsurface flooding and floods that exceed the Base Flood. Constructing a crawlspace foundation and placing additional fill on the site provide increased flood protection. Figure 2 Structure on a stem wall foundation. The lowest floor is raised above the BFE. The space enclosed by the stem walls is filled with engineered compacted fill. 8 Slab-On-Grade Foundation This method normally provides less flood protection than crawlspace construction because it does not elevate the house above the adjacent grade (see Figure 4). As a result, the lowest floor of the house can be as low as the BFE and would be inundated by any flood greater than the BFE. Placing additional engineered fill beneath the building to a level above the BFE would provide freeboard and therefore increased flood protection. Figure 3 Structure on a crawlspace foundation. The lowest floor is raised above the BFE. Openings in the foundation walls allow water from floods higher than the fill elevation to enter the crawlspace and equalize the pressure on foundation walls. Figure 4 Structure on a slab-on-grade foundation. The lowest floor is typically slightly higher than the surrounding grade. Basement Foundations Although basements are a desired feature in some areas of the United States, NFIP minimum requirements generally do not allow their construction in the SFHA, because of the increased risk of flood damages. The only instances where this is not the case are buildings for which FEMA has granted a special exemption to allow floodproofed basements. However, once land is removed from the SFHA through a map revision, these NFIP minimum requirements no longer apply. As a result, builders and property owners who build on land removed from the SFHA sometimes elect to install basements, which are at a higher risk of flood damage than the foundation types described previously. Constructing a basement on such land is not recommended, because the basement (i.e., lowest) floor and portions of the basement walls may well be subjected to subsurface flooding. The basement may therefore be subject to seepage and lateral hydrostatic and uplift pressure caused by high groundwater levels associated with flooding in surrounding areas. Additionally, when flooding exceeds the BFE, the basement area may be totally inundated with floodwater. When builders and homeowners decide to accept the additional risk associated with basement construction on filled land, they need to ensure that the basement and the rest of the house are reasonably safe from flooding. 9 Flood Insurance Coverage for Basements It is extremely important to note that the NFIP offers only limited coverage for basement flooding. First, in order for a claim to be paid, there must be a general condition of overland flooding where floodwaters come in contact with the structure. Secondly, the NFIP does not provide coverage for finished nonstructural elements such as paneling and linoleum in basement areas. Contents coverage is restricted to a limited number of items listed in the flood insurance policy. Contact a local insurance agent for more information. Warning In filled areas adjacent to floodplains, floods can still greatly influence the groundwater at the filled site. High groundwater at a site with a basement can result in water infiltrating the basement or greatly increased hydrostatic pressures on the walls and basement slab that can cause failure or permanent deformation. Even when floods have not reached houses with basements, FEMA has seen numerous examples of flooded basements, bowed basement floors, and collapsed basement walls that have resulted from the effects of high groundwater caused by flooding. In addition, the collapse of flooded basements has also occurred when water is rapidly pumped from basements surrounded by saturated soils whose pressure exceeds the capacity of the basement walls. 10 Four basement construction methods are described below in increasing order of flood risk. Basement Foundation With Lowest Floor At or Above BFE Placing the lowest floor of the basement at or above the BFE has the effect of eliminating flood- induced damage up to the BFE (see Figure 5). In general, the higher the basement floor is above the BFE the lower the risk of damage from seepage and hydrostatic pressure caused by flood-related groundwater. Where possible, the basement should be built with its floor at or above the BFE. An added benefit is that floods that exceed the BFE will cause significantly less damage to a structure with this type of basement than to structures with basements whose floors are at greater depths. Basement Foundation in Fill Placed Above BFE Placing fill to a level higher than the BFE has the effect of reducing the depth of the basement floor below the BFE (see Figure 6). It is recommended that fill be placed to a level at least 1 foot above the BFE. In general, the higher the basement floor the lower the risk of damage from seepage and hydrostatic pressure caused by flood-related groundwater. Where possible, enough fill should be properly placed so that the lowest grade adjacent to the structure is raised to an elevation greater than the BFE. An added benefit of fill placed above the BFE is that it helps protect the building from floods greater than the Base Flood. These floods are less likely to reach the structure. Figure 5 Basement foundation with lowest floor above the BFE. Damage from floods below the BFE is eliminated. Basement Foundation With Lowest Opening Above BFE In the event that the lowest floor is not elevated to or above the BFE and fill is not placed to a level above the BFE, the next best method of reducing flood risk is to place the lowest opening into the basement (e.g., window well) at a level higher than the BFE (see Figure 7). This will reduce the chances that surface flooding will enter and inundate the basement. However, the basement walls and floor slab will still be subjected to hydrostatic pressure with the potential for damage and seepage into the basement. In addition, the above-grade basement walls will be exposed to water from floods greater than the Base Flood. For this reason, the lowest opening in the basement walls should be above the BFE, as shown in Figure 7. 11 Figure 6 Basement foundation in fill placed above the BFE. The depth of the basement floor below the BFE is less than when no fill is placed. Figure 7 Basement foundation with lowest opening above the BFE. Surface flooding is less likely to enter and inundate the basement. Basement Foundation With Lowest Opening at BFE This is the least preferable condition of all because it results in the highest flood risk and is not recommended (see Figure 8). The lack of fill above the BFE, coupled with the lowest floor being below BFE and lowest opening at the BFE, exposes the basement to flooding from both subsurface flooding and any flood greater than the Base Flood. 12 Figure 8 Basement foundation with lowest opening at the BFE. The basement is exposed to flooding from any flood greater than the Base Flood. 13 Flood Risk by Foundation Type Table 1 summarizes the foundation construction methods described in this bulletin and ranks them in order of increasing flood risk—the safest foundation types appear near the top; the less safe foundation types appear near the bottom. The foundation construction methods that result in a building that is reasonably safe from flooding are shown in the dark gray area of the table. If the basement construction methods shown in the light gray area are used, the requirements described in the following sections of this bulletin must be met in order for the building to be considered reasonably safe from flooding. Table 1 Flood Risk by Foundation Construction Method 14 Basement Construction Guidance For those who have chosen to accept the additional risk associated with basement construction below the Base Flood on filled land that has been removed from the SFHA, this bulletin provides technical guidance about measures that can be taken to protect basements and meet the requirement that buildings be made reasonably safe from flooding. A simplified approach, including the requirements that must be met for its use, is presented first. For buildings that do not meet the criteria for the simplified approach, this bulletin provides technical guidance for the development of an engineering design tailored to the site conditions. Structural Design Design of foundation elements is addressed in model building codes. This technical bulletin does not address the structural design of basement walls or foundations. Floors and slabs should be designed for the hydrostatic pressures that can occur from the Base Flood. For the structural design, it is recommended that the full hydrostatic pressures be assumed unrelieved by the drainage system. Foundation walls that have not been designed for hydrostatic pressures, such as unreinforced masonry or pressure-treated wood wall systems, should not be used (see Figure 9). Figure 9 Failure of this unreinforced masonry basement during flooding in East Grand Forks, MN, in 1997 caused approximately $32,000 in damage. Simplified Approach Design Requirements If, for a building and building site, all the requirements listed below are met (see Figure 10), the building is reasonably safe from flooding. If all of these requirements are not met, the more detailed analysis described under Engineered Basement Option, on page 19 of this bulletin, should be performed to determine whether the building is reasonably safe from flooding. The ground surface around the building and within a defined setback distance from the edge of the SFHA (see next item) must be at or above the BFE. The setback is the distance from the edge of the SFHA to the nearest wall of the basement. The minimum allowable setback distance is 20 feet. The ground around the building must be compacted fill; the fill material—or soil of similar classification and degree of permeability—must extend to at least 5 feet below the bottom of the basement floor slab. The fill material must be compacted to at least 95 percent of Standard Laboratory Maximum Dry Density (Standard Proctor), according to ASTM Standard D-698. Fill soils must be fine-grained soils of low permeability, such as those classified as CH, CL, SC, or ML according to ASTM Standard D-2487, Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes. See Table 1804.2 in the 2000 International Building Code (IBC) for descriptions of these soil types. The fill material must be homogeneous and isotropic; that is, the soil must be all of one material, and the engineering properties must be the same in all directions. The elevation of the basement floor should be no more than 5 feet below the BFE. There must be a granular drainage layer beneath the floor slab, and a ¼-horsepower sump pump with a backup power supply must be provided to remove the seepage flow. The pump must be rated at four times the estimated seepage rate and must discharge above the BFE and away from the building. This arrangement is essential to prevent flooding of the basement or uplift of the floor under the effect of the seepage pressure. The drainage system must be equipped with a positive means of preventing backflow. Model building codes (such as the 2000 International Residential Code) also address foundation drainage (IRC Section R405) and foundation walls (IRC Section R404). Model building codes generally allow foundation drains to discharge through either mechanical means or gravity drains. In addition, there is often an exception to the requirement for drainage systems in well-drained soils. However, in or near floodplains, well-drained soils can, in fact, help convey groundwater towards the building foundation. Therefore, this exception should not apply in or near floodplains. 15 ? ? ? ? ? ? In some cases in or near floodplains, even with standard drainage systems, hydrostatic pressures from groundwater against the basement can result. When a standard drainage system is unable to eliminate hydrostatic pressure on the foundation, model building codes, including the 2000 International Residential Code (IRC Section R404.1.3), require that the foundation be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The simplified approach contained in this Technical Bulletin assumes no hydrostatic pressure on the foundation and should be used only when a standard drainage system, discharged by a sump pump that is equipped with backup power and that discharges above BFE, is employed. For other drainage systems, the designer should use the engineered basement option presented on page 19 of this bulletin and other appropriate building code requirements. 16 Figure 10 Requirements for use of the simplified approach to basement construction. ? 17 Technical Background for the Simplified Approach The simplified approach is based on the following conditions: 1. The area of the footprint of the basement is less than or equal to 1,200 square feet. 2. The soil is saturated; therefore, there is no time lag in the development of the seepage pattern with a change in flood water level. The groundwater table in floodplains is typically very shallow, and fine- grained soils have a substantial potential for maintaining saturation above the water table by capillary rise. 3. The tailwater level is at the elevation of the BFE. For this bulletin, “tailwater” is defined as the groundwater level beyond the structure, on the side away from the flood water surface. This is a reasonably conservative assumption because the flood would raise the groundwater level in the general area. In some cases, the tailwater level can be higher than the flood level because there is higher ground, as a valley wall, that feeds the groundwater into the floodplain soils. 4. The effective elevation of the base of the seepage flow zone can be defined (see Figure 11). This elevation is needed to permit calculation of the quantity of seepage flow. If the base elevation is not known, its depth below the base of the floor slab can be conservatively approximated as one-half of the building width most nearly perpendicular to the shoreline of the flood water. This would approximate the boundary effects of the three-dimensional seepage flow, in that it would represent the flow coming in from all sides and meeting in the center beneath the floor slab. This approach assumes a constant soil type and density over the flow zone. If the site has stratified soil layers, the engineered basement option should be used (see page 19 of this bulletin). 5. The quantity of seepage flow can be calculated by a simplified method based on Dupuit’s assumption that equipotential lines are vertical. (The Dupuit method uses Darcy’s law with specific physical characteristics. A more detailed description can be found in the first two references listed under “Further Information,” on page 23 of this bulletin.) The elements of the method are presented in Figure 11. The entry surface, with hydraulic head “a,” is a vertical line extending downward from the edge of the flood surface. The exit surface, with hydraulic head “b,” is a vertical line extending downward from the side of the structure closest to the flood water’s edge. The length of the flow path, “L,” is the setback distance. Flow is assumed to be horizontal, and the horizontal coefficient of permeability is the effective permeability. For simplicity, the small inclined entry zone at the river bank and the exit zone below the basement floor are ignored. This is a reasonably conservative measure. The phreatic line, or the line below which the seepage flow occurs under positive pressure, extends from the edge of the flood water to the elevation of the bottom of the basement floor slab. If the exit zone below the basement floor were included, the hydraulic head at “b” would be higher. As shown in Figure 11, the phreatic line is not a straight line, but within the limits of the assumed boundary values, it is close to a straight line. ? ? ? ? The Dupuit equation for the quantity of seepage flow is: q = k(a2 – b2)/2L where:q is the flow in cubic feet per second for a 1-foot width of seepage zone k is the soil permeability in feet per second (fps) (maximum value of k is 1x10-3 fps) a and b are hydraulic heads in feet (a < b + 5) L is the length of the flow zone in feet (L > 20 feet) Figure 11 Method for calculation of seepage flow. 18 19 To obtain Q, the total seepage flow, in cubic feet per second, q must be multiplied by the length around the periphery of the four sides of the structure. This is a simplifying approach that obviates the need for a three-dimensional flow net calculation and is reasonably conservative. It should be noted that the soil permeability does not affect the geometry of the seepage zone or the geometry of the phreatic line. The permeability does have a significant effect on the quantity of seepage that must be collected and discharged by the drainage layer and the sump pump. The calculation of the quantity Q provides a basis for the selection of a sump pump of adequate capacity. To allow for possible errors in the estimation of the soil permeability, the pump should have a capacity of at least four times the calculated value of Q. As noted in the requirements section, a standard sump pump of ¼ horsepower or greater will generally satisfy the requirements of seepage removal for the conditions described above. Engineered Basement Option If the requirements specified for the simplified approach are not met, a licensed soils engineer or geologist should perform a detailed engineering analysis to determine whether the structure will be reasonably safe from flooding. The analysis should consider, but is not limited to, the issues described in the following sections. Depth, Soil Type, and Stratification of Subsurface Soils The depth, soil type, and stratification of the subsurface soils may be complex. Four potential generalized scenarios are shown in Figures 12 and 13. Figure 12 shows two cases of homogeneous soil. The depth of penetration of the basement and the depth of the flow zone are not limited to the assumptions on which the simplified approach is based. Case I represents a foundation consisting of clayey soils, either fill or natural deposits or a combination, which are more or less homogeneous because they have similar engineering properties. If an adequate setback distance is provided, the seepage quantity would be relatively low, and uplift pressure beneath the slab could be controlled by an appropriately sized sump pump because of low permeability. Case II represents a foundation consisting of sandy soils, either fill or natural soil deposits or a combination, which are more or less homogeneous because they have similar engineering properties. The seepage quantity would be fairly large, and more attention would have to be given to the setback distance and to the provision of an adequately sized sump pump to prevent excessive uplift pressure beneath the floor slab because of high permeability. Figure 13 shows two simple cases of stratified soils, with impervious clays overlying pervious sands. This is a common occurrence in natural floodplain deposits. In Case III, the contact between the two soil strata is at some distance below the basement floor. This case would involve a moderate quantity of seepage, depending on the thickness, d, of the impervious stratum below the basement floor. There is also a potential for excessive uplift pressure beneath the floor, at the level of the bottom of the clay stratum. If d is equal to h, the net hydraulic head between the flood level and the floor level, the safety factor against uplift would be approximately 1.0. If d is less than h, there would be excessive uplift, with a safety factor equal to less than 1.0. 20 Figure 12 Case I and Case II – homogeneous soil. Case IV shows impervious soils overlying pervious soils, with the contact between the soil strata at some distance above the basement floor. This case would involve a large quantity of seepage and potential for excessive uplift beneath the basement floor. Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical investigations must be made for cases that do not conform with the assumptions on which the simplified approach is based. Information that is needed to permit an adequate engineering analysis includes the following: • The BFE, which is to be used as the design flood water surface for calculating expected seepage. • The elevation of the bottom of the basement floor. This can be adjusted as needed to achieve more suitable conditions. • The setback distance of the basement wall from the edge of the flood water. This can be adjusted to achieve more suitable seepage control or to accommodate available space restraints. • The elevation of the groundwater table and its seasonal variations. A high water table would cause problems with groundwater control during construction of a basement, even without a flood event. • The stratification of the subsurface materials, for both natural and fill soils. In general, borings should be drilled to a depth below the bottom of the floor slab that is at least two times as great as the depth of the bottom of the floor slab below the BFE. Figure 13 Case III and Case IV – stratified soils. 21 • The engineering classification of the soils, for both natural and fill soils. This must be done in accordance with ASTM D2487, Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes. This is the Unified Soil Classification System that is universally used throughout the United States. Local or county agricultural soil survey maps should not be used, because they do not give specific information about location and depth of soils, and their designations are not pertinent to civil engineering use. • Subsurface conditions landward from the structure. This includes information about the location of the water table, whether it is higher or lower than the flood level, and information about any penetrations of the soil, such as ponds. Attention should be given to the possibility that higher ground, such as valley walls, could contribute to the groundwater level in the floodplain, either perennially or during periods of heavy rain. • Information about any penetrations through the basement walls below the BFE, such as utility lines and other openings. • Analysis of seepage quantity. The analysis can be made by the conservative simplified method described in Item 5 in the section titled Technical Background for the Simplified Approach (illustrated in Figure 11), or by the construction of a flow net that takes into account all of the boundary conditions more rigorously. A flow net may be required to permit analysis of uplift pressures. Uplift pressures may be more significant in laminated or stratified soil deposits. Buildings in Existing Filled Areas In evaluating buildings in existing filled areas, the two approaches already described—the simplified approach or the engineered basement option—can be used. If the simplified approach is used, all the requirements for the use of this approach must be met. Some possible means for evaluating whether these requirements are met include soil tests and investigations, including soil borings and hand augers; field records from the time the fill was placed; and soil surveys. If the requirements for the simplified approach are not met, a licensed soils engineer or geologist should perform a more detailed engineering analysis as described under Engineered Basement Option on page 19. More extensive soil investigations and testing may be required to complete the analysis. The NFIP The NFIP was created by Congress in 1968 to provide federally backed flood insurance coverage, because flood coverage was generally unavailable from private insurance companies. The NFIP is also intended to reduce future flood losses by identifying floodprone areas and ensuring that new development in these areas is adequately protected from flood damage. The NFIP is based on an agreement between the Federal government and participating communities that have been identified as floodprone. FEMA, through the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA), makes flood insurance available to the residents of a participating community, provided the community adopts and enforces adequate floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum NFIP requirements. The NFIP encourages communities to adopt floodplain management ordinances that exceed the minimum NFIP criteria set forth in Part 60 of the NFIP Floodplain Management Regulations (44 CFR 60). Included in the NFIP requirements, found under Title 44 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, are minimum building design and construction standards for buildings located in SFHAs. Through their floodplain management 22 ordinances or laws, communities adopt the NFIP performance standards for new, substantially improved, and substantially damaged buildings in floodprone areas identified on FEMA’s FIRMs. Technical Bulletins This publication is one of a series of Technical Bulletins that FEMA has produced to provide guidance concerning the building performance standards of the NFIP. These standards are contained in 44 CFR 60.3. The bulletins are intended for use primarily by state and local officials responsible for interpreting and enforcing NFIP regulations and by members of the development community, such as design professionals and builders. New bulletins, as well as updates of existing bulletins, are issued periodically, as necessary. The bulletins do not create regulations; rather they provide specific guidance for conforming with the minimum requirements of existing NFIP regulations. Users of the Technical Bulletins who need additional guidance concerning NFIP regulatory requirements should contact the Mitigation Division of the appropriate FEMA regional office or the local floodplain administrator. NFIP Technical Bulletin 0, the User’s Guide to Technical Bulletins, lists the bulletins issued to date, provides a key word/subject index for the entire series, and lists addresses and telephone numbers for FEMA’s 10 Regional Offices. Ordering Information Copies of FEMA Technical Bulletins can be obtained from the FEMA Regional Office that serves your area. In addition, Technical Bulletins and other FEMA publications can be ordered from the FEMA Publications Distribution Facility at 1-800-480-2520. The Technical Bulletins are also available at the FEMA web site at www.fema.gov. Further Information The following publications contain information related to the guidance presented in this bulletin: American Society of Civil Engineers. 1998. SEI/ASCE 24-98, Flood Resistant Design and Construction. Cedergren, H. R. 1977. Seepage, Drainage and Flow Nets. Wiley. New York. Harr, M. E. 1977. Mechanics of Particulate Media. McGraw Hill. New York. International Code Council. 2000. International Building Code. Birmingham, AL. International Code Council. 2000. International Residential Code. Birmingham, AL. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 1986. EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 1978. EM 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees. Washington, DC. 23 Glossary Base Flood – The flood that has a 1-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the 100-year flood). Basement – Any area of a building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. Community – Any state or area or political subdivision thereof, or any Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or authorized native organization, which has the authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations for the areas within its jurisdiction. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – The independent Federal agency that, in addition to carrying out other activities, administers the NFIP. Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) – The component of FEMA directly responsible for administering the flood insurance aspects of the NFIP. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) – The insurance and floodplain management map issued by FEMA that identifies, on the basis of detailed or approximate analysis, areas of 100-year flood hazard in a community. Floodprone area – Any land area susceptible to being inundated by flood water from any source. Mitigation Directorate – The component of FEMA directly responsible for administering the flood hazard identification and floodplain management aspects of the NFIP. New construction/structure – For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which the start of construction commences on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes subsequent improvements to the structure. For flood insurance purposes, these structures are often referred to as “post-FIRM” structures. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) – Area subject to inundation by the base flood, designated Zone A, A1-30, AE, AH, AO, V, V1-V30, or VE. 24 Variance Application Introduction Property: Jeffrey and Molly Engelsma 4904 Bywood West, Edina, Mn Mr. and Mrs. Engelsma own and live in a home located on the property at 4904 Bywood West, Edina, MN They have lived in this home for several years and now have decided to remodel and add on to the existing home. There is 1 variance request. Variance 1: Relief from the ordinance requiring 50% first floor area of new home to have full basement. Attached is the proposed site plan, the renovation building plans, and variance application. Thank you for considering our requests. Dan Schultz Builders by Design, Inc. On behalf of the owners Jeffrey and Molly Engelsma. CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT" Attachment to Page 2 of Variance Application. The proposed variance will: 1. Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Variance 1: The current code requires 50% of the home first floor to have full basement below. Due to the proximity to a pond and flood plain although outside the flood zone sub basin the city engineer requires minimal basement size. 2. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other properties in the zoning district. Variance 1: The existing home on site currently has a full basement that has never had ground water problems. The current sump pump does not run. Professional soil borings done show no ground water until reaching depths of close to 10' below the basement. Due to proximity to flood risk, city engineers are requiring crawl space only and special considerations in the construction of the basement to adequately protected from water penetration by installing foundation waterproofing coatings along with under floor drainage and sump pump with back up electrical. 3. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Variance 1: Owners would be happy to comply with the full basement ordinance if conflicting flood plain conditions allowed. After discussions and consideration of city engineer requests, Mr. Engelsma has agreed to a reduced to crawl space only. This brings the property more into conformity with zoning ordinance than existing conditions. 4. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Variance 1: This variances will not alter the exterior look of the building in any way. The variance will not have any impact on the neighborhood. CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 490 4 Bywood July 15, 2 021 1 in = 188 f t / 001 On. L 0 T /19010901 IS•LE SPOT WES ry AP *SU We. I. 0 SCALE IN FEET 3 5 R V t. I. I N G GREEN CITY OF EDINA JUL 1 5 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 20 20 40 91 ION INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD REVISIONs SATE Add Senn coal x041350014'. 01.15 2021 02I, Add 61 ev raze Booms... SI...DRESS 490111temod Edinn AIN .436 EROPERTYDESCRIPTION L. 2. Block I. (ELWOOD ADINTION. Hennepin County. PA JOB N. 264 21 6001C/PAGE 173/19 SHEET 1 oft E SC AL 111 = 201 SHEET MEE 30, 42 DRAWN ChM REFERENCE 186-10 15120 51TE ADDRESE 554)4 PROPERITDESCRIPRON Lot 5, Ello=t 1. LEVU', ADDITION. -,t,"Tr.r.:=-• Taa 3,4vem under the Ion t. Stole el 1.nosoto. WASSOWN LAST SURVESING.INC. Ow • 06-09-2021 WcoonowAtSnowN.R.1.5.104REO 15.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR: JEFF & MOLLY ENGELSMA LEGEND Fence • Yelephane Pedestal • Son 0,4,4 O Cps Veter jk 1.1.1 Pole O Power Pole Retake. WO x900.0 Feett EstalWe 29C00T0 140 34 Curb Venal. w900.0. Top el MN Omar. EMOng Conteter • Found Iron Ilona.. Wc Wd MRoAme5 30 40213. 4 of", FRt. ,4+,0 SF 50033 NOUSE ROW YARD SLISK2 44600 54.0. pnoa 320. /4510 357. te512 to2.r 4482o 14.0 752137.0. 14905 Ammo. En/ Front Tord Settook - 76.4. NOTE MAI.. front Hard selbooks per stymy work perlorrred by Frank . Corder. dated August 13, 2016 end preAd. by 0.9 13051110 AWFABI (,soon liN1EIN1004 BLVD Lot Area (Vacont) = 36.200 SF 14105.121221230:21 Lot Amo = 41.967 SF 00319.2 1321 COV11.60 Have = 4203 Sr Comred Peethes = 343 St Pe. Polle 2.006 SF ALLOW5KEE Porch = -50 SF Polo = -150 SF E. Pool Perimeter w -526 SF 25E lleAnsum Ata•otalo lot Cowen. COST. SMERV0US SURFKE Hoose = 4.203 SF Corte., P..s = 343 SF Po. Pe. = 2.005 St = 3.357 sr Ta ol N.3 SF 502 Baelennwn 0.050 503038 .E135.121.129221SIEELLECLIBIA. COSMO PROPERTY AREAS 4904 5920 1=11.1.- 03T1Z 0.90 kme 006011011133 PROPERTY MFA = 78,154 or 1.79 .es P00004F3 07150. Core.doted Lot Eno 70154 SF or 1.79 Acres PROPOSED LOT CO•RALE L. 0 T iSISS D/Ittiga P.209.1109.7 !7627.11rilt ten co 40 14 8'48)55040 iPLwy 186. LAT 0\ O O L. 0 T USA HnEx.21a Propzed Malbns = 5..932Z Proposed WKS. Pete w 200 SF • SF Prop.. Semen Pooch = 411 SF Proposed 22b62. Peol = 1,144 SF Proposed peel Patio = 2.465 SF Pr... 0:W36ns = 464 SF ALLOWANCES: Ponah w -50 SF Pao w -150 SF 4' Pool Peen.. Deck w -155 SF TOW 1417,2 SF 25i 1,14.02n AA... Lot Corerogs PROPOSED 11111ERVIOU6 SURFIKE House w/ Proposed A.... 5,952 SF Eat9'02....ned Per.. - 372 SF Prep.. 5525. Po. • 200 SF Prom. Screen Porch - 411 SF Ealw.9 Drtreway at Hoven = 3,357 SF Proposed A4A<na Dem., al Nan* = 135 . Proposed Po. Potto = 2.455 SF Proposed .. .no = 464 SF Pr.../01155 OrNeway a 0.1.614 2.520 SF Propos. Sport Court = 2.079 SF Total = 17.965 SF = 2102 502 lemirrewn A1.4560penlo5e Sorlace //PROPOSED LOT COVOLKE AIO 1UPERVO45 SUM. OEM ON DE 03104211011 OF DE LOT 092011000011 SURVEY TREF. TO THE EROSION 040 5000011 C0111201. RAY PE100F63 BY SOL.. BLUE FOR THE PROPOSED SDE 040 WOES 712114ARe• 1)4.1 al be rortneost corner @mood West end Crescent len.e. Elev.:on = 90526. DOES 9.. tr1 ed to IM !rash. 41r, 647605 r„7 -110 search woo mode Me way cos/went, -112 boot. el ell .21'as sho=o ore Horn ether ansorawd mblenc• Me 1.1 and/or Horn Wogs lumnhed by Oa WNW turned end ors d'!"'ef=".1lraf" " TV BROWN LAND SUR VEYJNG. INC. W 0030 CMS. AVUEM SO, SVCS. EILCOICIIST011. 6.25 . BSC OSS. SES-1055 0.31-NNF012.1%.70=LT“NOrtl*RVETINO.COHI L CHIMNEY REC AREA CLOSET UP UTILITY/ STORAGE 1 9) L EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT: 3260.67' EXISTING BASEMENT FOOTPRINT: 1427.11' EXISTING BASEMENT PERCENTAGE: 43.8% EXISTING BASEMENT FLOORPLAN -IT Engelsma Residence CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 ?021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TT\ C\i C) 7:3 Q >LU E l° 2 Z 2 6)- 5 C O. Fall (f) 7 c:4 CID SCALE: 1/8" = 1'0" LN2LAIlLIVd30 ONINNVid HOZ 8 z Nnr VNIO2 dO All0 r CRAWL SPACE 1 L FAMILY ROOM WORKOUT ROOM 3/4 BATH 1 MN Lic#: BCO26555 MN Lic#: BCO26555 0) -cj (Z) >10 — LC) CO c2 •— > C E co (71 CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAMILY ROOM `is GARAGE P UP MUDROOM MUDROOM BATH GARAGE STORAGE P COVERED PORCH KITCHEN PANTRY COVERED -PORCH - FOYER PIANO ROOM DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM 1/2 BATH OFFICE HEARTH ROOM SCALE: 1/8" = 1'0" EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOORPLAN CLOSET #2 A MASTER MASTER BATHROOM // MASTER HALLWAY SHOWER cac —1 MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM #2 UP MASTER CLOSET HALLWAY CHIMNEY z z BEDROOM #4 FLAT ROOF SCALE: 1/8" = 1'0" EXISTING UPPER LEVEL FLOORPLAN CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C\1 CY) >10 Ea in CZ c 2 > c E c° 0 >'‘ C71 MN Lic#: BCO26555 z Engelsma Residence C C\I 4131.15' 1427.11' 34.5% PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOORPLAN PROPOSED HOUSE FOOTPRINT: EXISTING BASEMENT FOOTPRINT: PROPOSED BASEMENT PERCENTAGE: SCALE: 1/16" = 1'0" O SLAB COIDIULLE SLAB 011 oARADE 04 ONE. FOO .LAE 0/1GPADE EXIST CPR., SPACE PO. I I I I 1-71 I I I I 171-1 r- r I I PONT LOAD ro •OL LOAD TI- L IJ r IL 11 11__JL CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTrviENT Engelsma Residence MN Lic#: BCO26555 2 BoC SISIOr Old DN.., PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOORPLAN VNIG3 dO All0 -1— 11- 0 .V.V53551181 0,1111Vd3, 1". 0 VZ • 'AS 'nal lh- cr snxtio isi = i 6/24/2021 Engelsma Residence 21185 Viking Blvd. BUILDERS Wyoming, MN 55092 by DESIGN MN Lic#: BCO26555 = .9 141, :T1VOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT VNICIA AO All',77 NV-1e21001d -OAT] 2:Oddf1 COS0d02:1d = ..9 OlVOS 21185 Viking Blvd. BUILDERS Wyoming, MN 55092 by DESIGN MN Lic#: BCO26555 6/24/2021 Engelsma Residence 191 111.•. 1.111•E II II m la III 1•1111111 IMMIEll 1111 ii I Ill 11 I W W kW& •••• ME•• •••• M•II• 1111 11111 1 11 1 111,1 1 11 Ali II n 111 NI 11 Y Nr I, 1 , II •••• 1 1 1 .1 '111 11[2 Om •••M II••11 MINIM II••• •••• •••• •••• •••• SNOLLVA-1 IVI "S' _LNOIJ Cl2S0c102:1c1 1 ms 11 Iii 1111 III I III iiIIlill II CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6/24/2021 Engelsma Residence 21185 Viking Blvd. BUILDERS Wyoming, MN 55092 by DESIGN MN Lic#: BCO26555 ..O.I. = ..9141. SNOLLVAT1E ECIIS CIES0dCkld - m rn z ..03 = ,.9111- 6/24/2021 Engelsma Residence BUILDERS by DESIGN 21185 Viking Blvd. Wyoming, MN 55092 MN Lic#: BCO26555 = - ••• • '2111111 — :.11.11 2 _ _ filPitnifai ape ninfmaisigr,_=. !!1:= ••1115 1110.1• 41rie.L.-.• r -427.er. w•irezi .- - ;4 . • . 7." Licfocg E.Kr- v..yez,e) sgeryf qg 6 41 rtv t4 64IP wcsT LsA-174 r co-f- Z-( Ex.' izeziD-P CITY OF EDINA JUN 2 8 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 001 On. L 0 T /19010901 IS•LE SPOT WES ry AP *SU We. I. 0 SCALE IN FEET 3 5 R V t. I. I N G GREEN CITY OF EDINA JUL 1 5 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 20 20 40 91 ION INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD REVISIONs SATE Add Senn coal x041350014'. 01.15 2021 02I, Add 61 ev raze Booms... SI...DRESS 490111temod Edinn AIN .436 EROPERTYDESCRIPTION L. 2. Block I. (ELWOOD ADINTION. Hennepin County. PA JOB N. 264 21 6001C/PAGE 173/19 SHEET 1 oft E SC AL 111 = 201 SHEET MEE 30, 42 DRAWN ChM REFERENCE 186-10 15120 51TE ADDRESE 554)4 PROPERITDESCRIPRON Lot 5, Ello=t 1. LEVU', ADDITION. -,t,"Tr.r.:=-• Taa 3,4vem under the Ion t. Stole el 1.nosoto. WASSOWN LAST SURVESING.INC. Ow • 06-09-2021 WcoonowAtSnowN.R.1.5.104REO 15.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR: JEFF & MOLLY ENGELSMA LEGEND Fence • Yelephane Pedestal • Son 0,4,4 O Cps Veter jk 1.1.1 Pole O Power Pole Retake. WO x900.0 Feett EstalWe 29C00T0 140 34 Curb Venal. w900.0. Top el MN Omar. EMOng Conteter • Found Iron Ilona.. Wc Wd MRoAme5 30 40213. 4 of", FRt. ,4+,0 SF 50033 NOUSE ROW YARD SLISK2 44600 54.0. pnoa 320. /4510 357. te512 to2.r 4482o 14.0 752137.0. 14905 Ammo. En/ Front Tord Settook - 76.4. NOTE MAI.. front Hard selbooks per stymy work perlorrred by Frank . Corder. dated August 13, 2016 end preAd. by 0.9 13051110 AWFABI (,soon liN1EIN1004 BLVD Lot Area (Vacont) = 36.200 SF 14105.121221230:21 Lot Amo = 41.967 SF 00319.2 1321 COV11.60 Have = 4203 Sr Comred Peethes = 343 St Pe. Polle 2.006 SF ALLOW5KEE Porch = -50 SF Polo = -150 SF E. Pool Perimeter w -526 SF 25E lleAnsum Ata•otalo lot Cowen. COST. SMERV0US SURFKE Hoose = 4.203 SF Corte., P..s = 343 SF Po. Pe. = 2.005 St = 3.357 sr Ta ol N.3 SF 502 Baelennwn 0.050 503038 .E135.121.129221SIEELLECLIBIA. COSMO PROPERTY AREAS 4904 5920 1=11.1.- 03T1Z 0.90 kme 006011011133 PROPERTY MFA = 78,154 or 1.79 .es P00004F3 07150. Core.doted Lot Eno 70154 SF or 1.79 Acres PROPOSED LOT CO•RALE L. 0 T iSISS D/Ittiga P.209.1109.7 !7627.11rilt ten co 40 14 8'48)55040 iPLwy 186. LAT 0\ O O L. 0 T USA HnEx.21a Propzed Malbns = 5..932Z Proposed WKS. Pete w 200 SF • SF Prop.. Semen Pooch = 411 SF Proposed 22b62. Peol = 1,144 SF Proposed peel Patio = 2.465 SF Pr... 0:W36ns = 464 SF ALLOWANCES: Ponah w -50 SF Pao w -150 SF 4' Pool Peen.. Deck w -155 SF TOW 1417,2 SF 25i 1,14.02n AA... Lot Corerogs PROPOSED 11111ERVIOU6 SURFIKE House w/ Proposed A.... 5,952 SF Eat9'02....ned Per.. - 372 SF Prep.. 5525. Po. • 200 SF Prom. Screen Porch - 411 SF Ealw.9 Drtreway at Hoven = 3,357 SF Proposed A4A<na Dem., al Nan* = 135 . Proposed Po. Potto = 2.455 SF Proposed .. .no = 464 SF Pr.../01155 OrNeway a 0.1.614 2.520 SF Propos. Sport Court = 2.079 SF Total = 17.965 SF = 2102 502 lemirrewn A1.4560penlo5e Sorlace //PROPOSED LOT COVOLKE AIO 1UPERVO45 SUM. OEM ON DE 03104211011 OF DE LOT 092011000011 SURVEY TREF. TO THE EROSION 040 5000011 C0111201. RAY PE100F63 BY SOL.. BLUE FOR THE PROPOSED SDE 040 WOES 712114ARe• 1)4.1 al be rortneost corner @mood West end Crescent len.e. Elev.:on = 90526. DOES 9.. tr1 ed to IM !rash. 41r, 647605 r„7 -110 search woo mode Me way cos/went, -112 boot. el ell .21'as sho=o ore Horn ether ansorawd mblenc• Me 1.1 and/or Horn Wogs lumnhed by Oa WNW turned end ors d'!"'ef=".1lraf" " TV BROWN LAND SUR VEYJNG. INC. W 0030 CMS. AVUEM SO, SVCS. EILCOICIIST011. 6.25 . BSC OSS. SES-1055 0.31-NNF012.1%.70=LT“NOrtl*RVETINO.COHI Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 22 July 2021 Public Hearing Comments-4904 Bywood West Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: 4904 Bywood West, A variance request for a 15.5%, (640.3 square foot), variance from the minimum 50% basement requirement for an addition on crawl space to an existing home No Responses VISITORS 1 CONTRIBUTORS 0 RESPONSES 0 0 Registered 0 Unverified 0 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 0 Anonymous 4904 BywoodVariance request Less than a 50% basement EdinaMN.gov 2 October EdinaMN.gov 3 EdinaMN.gov 4 EdinaMN.gov 5 Existing Home EdinaMN.gov 6 EdinaMN.gov 7 EdinaMN.gov 8 EdinaMN.gov 9 EdinaMN.gov 10 EdinaMN.gov 11 EdinaMN.gov 12 EdinaMN.gov 13 EdinaMN.gov 14 EdinaMN.gov 15 EdinaMN.gov 16 EdinaMN.gov 17 EdinaMN.gov 18 Date: July 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I I.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:S tephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Development Manager Item Activity: Subject:F inding that the P lan for 4040 W. 70th S t. are cons is tent with the C omprehensive P lan - Tax Increment F inaning Ac tion 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: Approved Resolution B-21-22 I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he E dina Housing Foundation acquired 4040 W. 70th S t. and selected a developer to develop 118 age restricted affordable housing units. In order to use the S outhdale T I F 2 Special legislative pooled funds and in order to capture tax increment, a T I F District must be created. T he P lanning Commission is required to make a finding that the proposed plans for development of the site are consistent with the Comprehensive P lan. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Resolution No. B-21-22 Appendix A Resolution No. 2019-17 Pres entation July 28, 2021 Chair and Members of the Edina Planning Commission Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Development Manager Finding that the Proposed Development Plans for 4040 W. 70th Street is Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan – Tax Increment Financing District Information / Background: On December 11, 2019 the Planning Commission approved Resolution 2019-17 finding that a modification to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for the Southdale 2 TIF District to include the acquisition of 4040 W. 70th St. for an 118 unit, age restricted affordable housing developments conformed to the Comprehensive Plan. The approved Resolution was required to allow the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to lend Southdale 2 TIF pooled funds for this acquisition. Since that time, the Edina Housing Foundation selected a developer through a competitive Request for Qualifications process. The developer, a partnership between Lupe Development Partners and Ecumen, has undergone the regulatory approval process for their proposed 118-unit development. The next step is the City Council has to hold a Public Hearing scheduled on August 4, 2021 to consider the creation of a new TIF district that serves to advance the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of creating 118 new affordable housing units towards the overall goal of 1804 new affordable units Citywide. A new TIF district allows for the use of Southdale 2 TIF pooled “Special Legislative Funds’ to be used to support this development, that would otherwise sunset on December 31, 2021, as well as tax increment from the new development itself. A written opinion and input from the Planning Commission in the form of the proposed resolution regarding the proposed development’s continued compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is being solicited in advance of the City Council’s Public Hearing. Specifically, the Planning Commission is asked to confirm that the proposed residential use of 4040 W. 70th Street is generally in compliance with Edina’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval based on the following activities and findings: STAFF REPORT Page 2 • Parcels are located within the boundaries of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, • The site is guided for 25 to 75 units per acre, which could allow up to 118 housing units. • The Zoning Ordinance allows for 4 stories and 48 feet. • The City Council gave preliminary approval to the Site Plan. Note that specific details regarding the use, terms and conditions of tax increment financing are evaluated by the Edina City Council and Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (not the Planning Commission). TIF District Requirements Establishing a new TIF District or modifying an existing TIF Plan is done in accordance with Section 469 of the Minnesota Statutes and is subject to the approval of the City Council after a public hearing. The process also requires the HRA submit a draft TIF Plan or Modification to the County and School District 30 days prior to the public hearing. The formation of a new TIF District requires consideration of the project’s cost, conformity with land use regulations, impact to the tax base, infrastructure needs and other fiscal implications. On July 2, 2021, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, other taxing agencies, such as Hennepin County and Edina School District #273, were notified of the potential creation of a new 4040 W. 70th St. TIF district. To date, no comments have been received from the County or the Schools regarding this proposal. Compliance with Greater Southdale District Plan The development of 4040 W. 70th St. into age restricted affordable housing is supported by the Greater Southdale District Plan: Page 32: “Additionally, Edina’s continued aging of its own population will bring increased development pressures to the district as these residents choose to leave their home but not their community. The development community is responding with new apartments for young singles and couples and with new senior and assisted living facilities near medical and other community services.” Page 85: “The Greater Southdale District has an important role to play in accommodating expected housing growth. Already an area characterized by high density residential and mixed-use development, it is guided for additional infill development of a similar or higher intensity. The presence of jobs, retail and services, transit, and public amenities means this area contains the elements for a complete community, which can leverage these advantages for a convenient and accessible lifestyle for a range of household types. Affordable housing is a necessary component of the housing mix. This is especially true given the demographic future of Greater Southdale. The expected growth in the senior population and the desire to attract young workers and families both point to the need to STAFF REPORT Page 3 have more affordable housing, including options for those that might choose to move here from other parts of the community.” Page 100: “Land Use Goal #4: Provide for housing choices (housing and unit types, rental and ownership, and costs) to accommodate a wide range of individuals, including youth, singles, couples, families with children, seniors, and people with special needs.” Page 101: “5-A. Promote new housing adjacent to or near existing residential development to facilitate neighborhood clusters. 5-B.Seek to optimize housing densities to increase housing that is proximate to transit and within walking distance of services and amenities.” The attached Planning Commission Resolution B-21-22 expresses such confirmation and is recommended to be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. B-21-22 FINDING THAT THE 4040 WEST 70TH STREET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, property at 4040 West 70th Street (the “Property”) is proposed to be redeveloped by Cornelia View Developers, LLC into the Cornelia View project consisting of a four-story, 118- unit senior affordable housing project; and WHEREAS, the Edina Planning Commission (the “Commission”) reviewed the Cornelia View Developers, LLC redevelopment proposal on May 12, 2021 and recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council via the passage of Resolution 2021-44 approved the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the Property on June 15, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the “HRA”) has recommended terms by which tax increment financing could be used to bridge a financial gap that otherwise renders the development of affordable housing unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City Council will be considering the establishment of a new Tax Increment Financing District to enable the affordable housing development at the Property; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes require notification and input from several entities as part of the process of establishing a new Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, the HRA and the City of Edina (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4040 West 70th Street Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District”) therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the Commission all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment proposal that is described in Appendix A as the subject of the Plans is the same as that approved by the City Council on June 15, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans and guided land use as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: July 28, 2021 _______________________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ___________________________________ Planning Commission Secretary STATEMENT OF INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY TEAM & EXPERIENCE OVERVIEW 4040 WEST 70TH STREET CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING& DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 CITY OF EDINA APR 12 20Z1 PLANNING DEFAH i NIENT Mill City Quarter Woonerf 4040 WEST 70TH STREET STATEMENT OF INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY 4040 West 70th Street Apartments, LP is creating senior affordable rental housing, an amenity space with community- based programming and public art, transforming the existing 4040 West 70th parcel. We hope to create an appealing housing option for Edina residents greater than 55 years old, who wish to remain in their community after retirement. A compelling package of green space coupled with high performance sustainable development practices makes for a demonstration project of extraordinary value. INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY Our design, construction methods, and amenities will be high quality. We will provide no less than 25%-unit masonry exteriors, with architectural grade metal and durable cement exterior materials, high performance sound mitigation engineering, and quality interior finishes that rival "market- rate" properties. Our housing choices are complimentary to the neighborhood's need, with a large and growing "age-in- place" population. A diverse range of housing price points will add opportunities to the Cornelia neighborhood and address a chronic shortage of need-specific senior housing — at an affordable price point. This parcel would contain 118 units, comprised of 83% 1-bedroom and 17% 2-bedroom units. We believe we can achieve 118 parking spaces through a combination of below ground and at-grade stalls, subject to input from planning staff and community. One and a half acres sounds like a lot, but in reality, this is a compact and challenging site demanding creative thinking and flexible strategies to produce a winning outcome. The parcel is north-south in orientation, and Valley View Road is the least traveled street of the two hard edges. A prominent traffic circle on 70th Street suggests minimizing access from the south. The Southdale Design Experience suggests a stepping on the west edge that projects closer to France Avenue. Affordability is best paid for with density, but the limitations of below-grade and surface parking may constrain unit counts below the permitted maximum. Our goal is to create dual-purpose spaces that serve both as connection points to the public realm, but also operate to infiltrate storm water and provide green edges with visual interest. We believe the below grade parking should be entered from the west side of the property. The economics and circulation limitations permit only one level of such parking. There are a variety of surface parking options along with a vehicle drop of/pick up area The site will feature walking paths through and around the site to encourage physical activity and connect residents to the rich selection retail, commercial and entertainment within blocks. An outdoor gathering space for social activity, community gardens, raised beds and lush landscape serve to encourage resident engagement and to connect to street grid. The building will have first floor common areas and amenities including lobby, fitness center, community/ clubroom with kitchen, business center, package and mail center, trash and recyctiqgftciittimilieasing/management offices. Viewshed from Valley View will provide for an outdoor public art component. APR 12 2021 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP PLANNING DEPARTMENT STATEMENT OF INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY The development team will set aside funds for locally commissioned art sculpture or similar artist installations. We would like to approach the Edina Arts Commission for participation in this effort, and we have suggested the idea to the staff at the Edina Arts Center in our outreach conversations with them. The unit mix will be one- and two-bedroom units averaging 610 and 930 square feet, respectively, will feature complete kitchens with full sized cooktop/oven, over cooktop microwaves, refrigerator/ freezer, dishwasher, and disposal. Cabinets will be solid wood construction. Some units will have either islands or peninsula kitchen layouts, while others will be galley style. An emphasis on closet space, both at entry and in the main body of each unit will be provided. Up to 35% of the apartment homes will have a deck or balcony. The project will include design elements to intentionally support the health, safety and accessibility of its future residents. Units and common areas will comply with the principals of Universal Design, which will allow for accessibility to populations with physical limitations. In addition to this commitment, a number of fully handicapped accessible units will be provided so that a person in a wheelchair could use all amenities of the apartment and some units will be adaptable for persons with vision or hearing impairments to allow them to live independently. Residential hallways will have handrails on one side and grab-bars will be provided in unit bathrooms. An enhanced lighting design package will consider needs of aging eyes. To mitigate spread of infectious disease, automatic plumbing fixtures and accessories will be used in public restrooms, automatic lighting, door openers and antimicrobial materials will be used when / where possible. ZONING / PUD The complexities of the site offer some design challenges to incorporate sufficient parking, attractive amenity spaces, landscape and storm management. We have conferred with City Planner Cary Teague on two occasions regarding appropriate land use, and we recommend a rezoning from PCD3 to a specific PUD for affordable housing, that staff could probably embrace. The PUD could allow for some flexibilities on parking such that not all is required below ground, and in particular, the exterior materials requirements of the planned district could be balanced between masonry, architectural metal and either lap or panel fiber cement that is attractively deployed. These are important cost considerations we believe an experienced team can help mitigate on the issue of design, producing excellent architecture at an effective price point. CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 3 TO U.G. PARKING LOBBY Jo' 4040 WEST 70TH STREET TEAM OVERVIEW & EXPERIENCE RAIN GARDEN O 1/ c:C LANDSCAPE SCREENING RAIN GARDEN COMMUNITY SCULPTURE \ COMMUNITY GARDENS .9 1 ART/COMMUNITY 1_1 ROOM 1111 Ll 1 I LISTAIRi H 1H L_ 17111711111__.Ji: ) )- - - - -4 - i _ t____ _. I Ai L ___ TA W. 70TH STREET PROJECT TEAM OVERVIEW Applicant is a joint venture of Ecumen and Lupe 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP ECUMEN 3530 Lexington Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126 Contact: Anne Stanfield, Director of Business Development annestanfield@ecumen.org I (651) 766-4320 LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC 1701 Madison Street NE, Suite 111, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Contact: Steve Minn, Vice President & Chief Financial Officer steve.minn@lupedevelopment.com I (612) 843-4069 CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHO WE ARE, & WHAT WE DO The development team, which consists of Ecumen and Lupe Development Partners, LLC, were selected by the Edina Housing Foundation to develop this affordable housing project on its land. The two development teams have created a joint venture called 4040 West 70th Street Apartments, LP. The project team features companies and professionals who have partnered successfully on housing developments in the Twin Cities for years. We offer the reassurance of a well- organized, experienced partnership to redevelop the existing office building on the site into a community-orientated housing option that will be a model demonstration project. Proven success in developing affordable housing. ( Experience with complex sites (power lines, tracks, zoning, tight sites). Creative solutions for connecting to outdoor amenities. < Enhancing communities with site-specific buildings and programs. 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP TEAM OVERVIEW & EXPERIENCE JOINT VENTURE: 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP YECUMEN® Ecumen is one of the largest and most innovative nonprofit providers of senior housing and services in Minnesota and the nation. Founded more than 150 years ago, Ecumen develops and operates a variety of senior housing options and services, including cooperative senior housing, independent living, assisted living, long-term care, short-term rehabilitation care, senior affordable housing, as well as at-home and community- based services including home care and hospice, an online durable medical equipment store, and consulting services in management, marketing and development. Ecumen employs nearly 3,000 team members and serves more than 15,000 customers annually. The Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal has named Ecumen one of Minnesota's "Best Places to Work" ten times. A 501(c)(3) corporation headquartered in Shoreview, MN, Ecumen does business in four states, managing over 44 senior communities -- 31 of which are both owned and operated. Affordable housing has been part of Ecumen's portfolio for nearly 50 years, and over one third of Ecumen's owned communities offer subsidized housing, providing 580 units of affordable housing to seniors in Minnesota. Ecumen has long been recognized as a leader and innovator in senior housing and services, distinguishing itself among other nonprofit providers by embracing several of the strategies for- profits have used to build scale. Senior Housing News recently named Ecumen as one of its "6 Senior Living Providers to Watch in 2020." Over the past two decades, Ecumen has transformed its business from traditional skilled nursing care to a diverse mix of independent living, subsidized housing, assisted living, campus-based skilled care offerings, and an innovative co-op model, as well as home health and hospice service lines. Ecumen has developed 11 senior residential properties in Minnesota in the past 10 years, working closely with city officials on designs that fit and complement each individual community. Ecumen is known for creating innovative living spaces and services for seniors, priding itself on life enrichment programming to keep residents active and engaged. On the cutting edge of using Al technology in senior housing, Ecumen has recently implemented a Minnesota Department of Human Services grant-funded pilot designed to reduce social isolation and promote social connectedness. It's Abiitan Mill City community, which opened in 2016 in the heart of downtown Minneapolis, has been widely recognized for its unique integration in the broader urban community, with features such as two restaurants and a fitness center open to the public. Recent awards include a 2019 Award of Excellence from the MN Chapter of the Commercial Real Estate Development for its Zvago St. Anthony Park Cooperative community, and a Special Recognition Award in 2015 from the American Institute of Architects for innovative age-friendly design for Abiitan Mill City. A selection of Ecumen's developments include: ABIITAN MILL CITY— MINNEAPOLIS, MN Receiving a Special Recognition Award from the American Institute of Architects for innovative age-friendly design, Abiitan Mill City provides Downtown Minneapolis with its first senior housing complex in over 20 years, developed on one of the last open parcels of land in the Mill District. A five-story building, this project includes market-rate Independent Housing with Services apartments (86 units), Memory Care apartments (48 units), and 2 additional levels of underground parking. Abiitan uniquely supports the active lifestyle of its residents, creates a strong connection with the local community and facilitates intergenerational engagement with its location and programming. The building, which is in walking distance to many of the city's top amenities (Mississippi River, Stone Arch Bridge, Guthrie, Mill City Museum) includes two public restaurants and a gym with outside membership. Abiitan opened in 2016. CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 2 TEAM OVERVIEW & EXPERIENCE JOINT VENTURE: 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP • SEASONS AT APPLE VALLEY, APPLE VALLEY, MN Seasons at Apple Valley consists of 106 independent or assisted living market-rate rental apartment homes, as well as 28 additional residences for seniors requiring 24-hour enhanced or memory care services. Independent units range from studios to two-bedrooms, offering a variety of layouts. A vital part of the lifestyle at Ecumen Seasons at Apple Valley is the inviting community spaces, which include: grand entry, great room with fireside lounge and bar, creative arts studio, a chef's kitchen with three distinctive restaurant areas, spa and beauty salon, state of the art fitness center, movie theater, and guest suite. Seasons of Apple Valley opened in 2012. GITY OF EDINA Lupe Development Partners Lupe Development Partners, LLC is a woman- owned W/ MBE Certified real estate development company that began operations in 1989. Lupe has focused its portfolio of housing-related development activities on transit- oriented development and adaptive reuse. The company has created (or is currently in development with) over 2,000 units of affordable housing, market-rate apartments and ownership units in the Twin Cities, and over 2 Million square feet of commercial, office, industrial and retail. Lupe only manages for its own account, providing asset management in cooperation with a dedicated team within its residential portfolio and performing direct property management to its retail and office portfolio. Lupe Development Partners has developed over 1,000 units of affordable housing in the last 20 years in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. We still co-own and manage all of these units. A typical tax credit project requires a 30-year commitment to affordability which is our typical program. Since 1989, Lupe Development has created over $500 Million of real estate value from the ground-up including condominiums, rental housing, retail, office and industrial property. Lupe has attracted over $55 Million of private tax credit investor equity in its affordable housing developments since 2012, and has a well- earned reputation as a firm that can overcome obstacles and challenges. We are problem- solvers first and foremost. It is often said that awards are rarely given unless you apply, but we are proud to have many "award-winning" projects in our portfolio, ranging from "best of..." citations, unique engineering applications, creative financing, or innovations in housing. Most recently in 2016, Finance & Commerce presented Lupe Development Partners with two Top Projects awards for Mill City Quarter and Broadway Flats. Mill City Quarter also won an engineering award for our stormwater design. STONE ARCH APARTMENTS, MINNEAPOLIS, MN In 2000, the Stone Arch Apartments became the first truly affordable rental apartments to be built in the high demand riverfront area of Minneapolis. Stone Arch Apartments are a fitting addition to an area successfully making the transition from historic and industrial to recreational and residential. The Stone Arch Apartments are designed to reflect the history of the area while providing unique high-tech living spaces that offer everything that modern lifestyles demand. The warehouse/ industrial-chic vernacular creates apartment styles previously found only in other cities like San Francisco, Chicago or New York. Stone Arch's interior finishes include industrial lighting, high ceilings, huge windows, exposed beams, ductwork and warehouse-style spaces, which create an environment fitting the modern urban professional. 520 SECOND STREET SE APARTMENTS (N/K/A STONE ARCH 2), MINNEAPOLIS, MN This 91-unit apartment building in Marcy Holmes was delivered in 2014, with the help of Hennepin County TOD funds for site improvements and utility relocations. 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 3 APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BROADWAY FLATS, MINNEAPOLIS, MN Located in North Minneapolis at the corner of Broadway and Penn Avenue North, this 103-unit development with 10,000 SF of retail is located in a corridor ravaged by the 2010 tornado, and was made possible with the partnership of federal, state, regional, county and city resources. This mixed-use development has 10 efficiencies, 82 one- bedroom, and 15 two-bedroom units above underground and tuck under parking. Our effort to "raise the bar" about how the north side community thought about affordable housing was accomplished with attention to detail, an impressive list of amenities and keen budget control. The project features a cyber-cafe, community room, conference room, exercise facility, bike storage, and storage lockers. The overall project was delivered on-time and under budget. 0 LAKE STREET APARTMENTS, MINNEAPOLIS, MN The site is on Lake Street, just two blocks east of the Lyn- Lake intersection and one block south of the Midtown Greenway, completed on November 1, 2020 and 90% of the 111 work force affordable units are leased as of February 1. The owner has also committed to house up to nine (9) veterans who are homeless and have disabilities. This development is in a community that has become a high-rent district; the majority of new housing in last ten years has been high-end market rate, with market-rent exceeding the median income levels. This transit-oriented redevelopment revitalizes current surface parking, automotive and warehouse uses, and creates high-density affordable housing with emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle-focused connections to existing amenities and new transit connections. The overall project was delivered on- time and under budget. Lupe Development Partners has a successful development history of working with the property manager, architect, and processing agent. TEAM OVERVIEW & EXPERIENCE JOINT VENTURE: 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP It has great river views and is in close proximity to Downtown and the U of M. The project consists of a six-story building with 91 underground parking spaces. The project was conceived to address the long-standing waiting list of affordable units at Stone Arch Apartments around the corner, and is managed as part of the Stone Arch "campus" for the development team. Stone Arch 2 is 100% affordable, workforce focused, and has primarily 1-bedroom units with 15% studios. Amenities include a business center, community room, fitness center, extensive bicycle parking and connections to the riverfront walking and biking trails. Units have large closets and many of the units have decks and/or balconies. MILL CITY QUARTER (MCQ), MINNEAPOLIS, MN An innovative demonstration of multiple property owner cooperation, MCQ offers Minneapolis' first "woonerf" creating a pedestrian and bicycle linkage to Park Board trails between the river and the downtown streets. The woonerf includes an inviting educational interpretation of this district's historic milling and rail past as well as sculptures and seating areas for public enjoyment. Hennepin TOD funds helped fund our woonerf and site improvements, allowing for a public easement with the Minneapolis Park Board for trail use. In conjunction with the neighboring Abiitan senior project, the master development provides unique housing and services in a downtown campus. MCQ consists of one six-story building with 150-units of affordable senior-marketed & workforce housing, 14,000 sq. ft. of first floor retail and 227 underground and surface parking spaces. The unit mix is comprised of 115 one-bedroom units and 35 two-bedroom apartments. This downtown Minneapolis parcel is at the gateway to the historic riverfront milling district offering a rich patina of public recreation and transit options, in proximity to a vibrant and ethnically diverse employment base delivered on-time and under budget. CITY OF EDINA, APR 12 2021 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP Li PLANNING DEPARTMENT TEAM OVERVIEW & EXPERIENCE JOINT VENTURE: 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP PROPERTY MANAGER: ECUMEN Founded in 1862, Ecumen has grown to be among the most innovative leaders in senior housing and services with a passion for serving older adults and helping them live richer, fuller lives. Working closely with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and Minnesota Housing, Ecumen currently provides its unique and caring management style to 15 affordable senior communities containing more than 863 housing units. It has several additional affordable housing projects in process. Ecumen also has extensive experience and success at providing independent housing to hundreds of individuals in the older adult community across multiple states, as well as being a provider of skilled nursing care, assisted living, memory care and other needs-based senior care across four states. Ecumen's value also comes from its highly skilled, well-trained, experienced and dedicated workforce. Ecumen takes great pride in the services it provides to those who have chosen to be residents and, over time, has worked closely with HUD and other agencies to develop tenant selection guidelines that are fair and equitable to all and that help ensure a safe, affordable and enjoyable quality of life. Ecumen strongly advocates for those it serves and practices diversity and inclusion — proudly embracing the differences among people. Ecumen welcomes all people as customers, employees and vendors, regardless of race, color, age, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, physical ability, marital status, political beliefs, economic status — and all the many other ways people can be different from one another. Ecumen strives to uphold a culture where everyone is included and treated with dignity and respect. Honoring diversity and inclusion inspires people to engage, create, innovate and help drive organizational success. By giving all people the opportunity to contribute their skills, experience, passion and perspectives, Ecumen is a stronger company. ARCHITECT: POPE ARCHITECTS Pope Architects is an architecture and interior design firm based in St. Paul, MN, founded in 1974. The firm's practice is diverse and its reputation and expertise is well-established in multiple market sectors including multi-family housing, senior living, commercial, and healthcare. Pope Architects provides services around the country with a focus in the upper Midwest market. The firm's housing practice has grown over the last decade and includes over 5,000 units of multi-family and senior living housing designed by a dedicated housing team. Pope's team members have a unique sensitivity to the dynamics of housing planning and design that comes from their extensive work in multi-family and senior living campuses throughout the United States. They also bring the wisdom in project management gained from years of professional experience serving the needs of residents, families, staff and administrators. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT: RIPPLEY RICHARD Rippley Richard brings over 25 years of real estate development experience utilizing a variety of public and private funds. The principals of Rippley Richard have played key roles on development teams from securing necessary financing to development team coordination that keeps projects on time and on budget. Rippley Richard successfully navigates and balances the intricacies of new construction, acquisition and rehab, historic preservation, 100% affordable housing, mixed-income housing, mixed-use developments, commercial space, community assets, portfolio refinancing and general development consultation. The development team has engaged Rippley Richard to work on this development. CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 5 NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT JOINT VENTURE: 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP CORRESPONDENCE LAKE CORNELIA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION From: Nora Davis <noradavis73@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 8:25 AM To: Cameron Flakne <Cameron.Flakne@lupedevelopment.com > Subject: 404 West 70th - Update Morning - Cameron! Hope you are doing well - and staying dry. The Association doesn't provide letters of support for development projects. We will, however, continue to facilitate dialogue between neighbors and your development team. Now that it's getting warmer - we will be able to meet outside and on-site. Thanks - Nora SOUTH CORNELIA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION From: South Cornelia Neighborhood Association <SouthCorneliaNA@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 12:46:19 PM To: Cameron Flakne <Cameron.Flakne@lupedevelopment.com > Subject: Re: 404 West 70th - Update Hi Cameron, Like Nora and the Lake Cornelia Neighborhood Association, our South Cornelia Neighborhood Association also doesn't do endorsements of any kind. It's nothing personal — our bylaws simply don't permit it. And as Nora said, we're happy to continue helping the conversation along with all the interested folks around the 4040 West 70th Street area. All the best, Joel CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP (ECUMEN® Lupe Development Partners JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimley>>> Horn Expect More. Experience Better. ' NMI PROJECT TEAM SHEET INDEX APPLICANT ISA JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN & LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS EXISTING SITE CIVIL 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 01 EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONTEXT COVER SHEET ECUMEN 3530 LEXINGTON AVENUE NORTH, SHOREVIEW, MN 55126 ARCHITECT POPE ARCHITECTS 02 CONTEXT PLAN ALTA SURVEY CITY OF EDINA CONTACT: ANNE STANFIELD, DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MN 55108 GENERAL NOTES ANNESTANFIELD@ECUMEN.ORG I (651) 766-4320 LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC WARD ISAACSON, PRESIDENT— WISAACSON@POPEARCH.COM ZAC ROSENOW, ARCHITECT— ZROSENOW@POPEARCH.COM ARCHITECTURAL 03 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN DEMO PLAN SITE PLAN APR 12 2021 1701 MADISON STREET NE, SUITE 111, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 CIVIL ENGINEER 04 PEDESTRIAN & TRANSIT CIRCULATION DIAGRAM GRADING PLAN CONTACT: STEVE MINN, VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER STEVE.MINN@LUPEDEVELOPMENT.COM I (612) 843-4069 KIMLEY-HORN 767 N EUSTIS ST SUITE 100, ST PAUL, MN 55114 05 FLOOR PLANS: LOWER LEVEL & LEVEL ONE UTILITY PLAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 00 BRIAN WURDEMAN, CIVIL ENGINEER — BRIAN.WURDEMAN@KIMLEY-HORN.COM 06 FLOOR PLANS: LEVEL TWO & LEVEL THREE LANDSCAPE PLAN 07 FLOOR PLANS: LEVEL FOUR & ROOF LANDSCAPE DETAILS COVER SHEET 08 ELEVATION DRAWINGS *NOTE: SCALE IS PRESERVED ONLY WHEN PRINTED AT 24X36. 09 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS 10 EXTERIOR MATERIALS Lupe Development Partners (ECUMEN® JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimley*lorn Expect More. Experience Better. CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 01 EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONTEXT Lupe Development Partners (ECUMEI\l' JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimley0Horn Expect More. Experience Better. CITY OF EDINP, APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOT TO SCALE 02 CONTEXT PLAN <CC\.RESTORATION • HARDWARE & RH RESTAURANT' •tAl BANK OF AMERICA BMO HARRIS BREMER BANK' /SALON CONCEPTS ROCHE BOBOIS ilaNDERBERRY I HILL CHILD *if DEVELOPMENji CENTER "Ir 4,-2/ SOUTHDALE ',PET HOSPITAL TD AMERITRADE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ROOM & BOARD I 1 qlr (ECUMEN1' Lupe Development Partners JOINT VENTURE OF ECU MEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDI NA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimlep)Horn Expect More. Experience Better. 1"=20' 03 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN MOM CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.41INGIE - AP. SVIWOLIt R411141.1.111.110111VARIFS MUT VIVIIIOAD /1' ( ( RAIN GARDEN 4 *# ( COMMUNITY SCULPTURE ART/COMMUNITY HI0 ROOM DLI II ST4AJ R TAIR At W. 70TH STREET RAIN GARDEN STAT TO U.G. PARKING/ - • `Nt• 1.1aW LOBBY (ECLIM EN' Lupe Development Partners JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS KimlepAlorn Expect More. Experience Better. CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOT TO SCALE 04 PEDESTRIAN & TRANSIT CIRCULATION I BICYCLE CIRCULATION PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION W 7 OTHarS,Tomosio. UV voTH O DISTANCE TO TRANSIT STOPS 70TH ST W & TARGET -- 0.4 MI FRANCE AVE S & 72ND ST -- 0.4 MI YORK AVE S & 69TH ST W -- 0.7 MI SOUTH DALE EXIT & YORK AVE -- 0.7 MI SITE PARKING Type Use TOTAL VEHICULAR SURFACE 23 UNDERGROUND 86 TOTAL PARKING STALLS 109 BICYCLE OUTDOORS (PUBLIC) TBD INDOORS (RESIDENT/PRIVATE) TOD TOTAL BICYCLE RACKS 0 I(ECUMEN® • -5 1.1 U.,. • Lupe Development Partners CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimlep)Horn Expect More. Experience Setter. 1"=20' CORR 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED 1 BED STAN 2 EEO 1 0E0 STORAGE ART ROOM 1 BED 1 BED .L 1 BED 1 BED MAINTENANCE OFFICE '1 7 WORK ROOM OFFICER OFFICE.2 1:1 1 BED STAIR ,11111111, ELECMATA LRIDRY \ I BED 2 BED STORAG / / I 2 1 RED 1 BED CIRCULATION COMMON SPACE INDEPENDENT LIVING STORAGE [ SUPPORT APARTMENTS Unit Type GSF 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor TOTAL Units1 % of Total NKSF Al 1 BED 500 10 11 11 10 42 82% 21,000 A2 1 BED 600 8 12 12 7 39 23,400 A3 1 BED 750 3 6 5 2 16 12,000 B1 2 BED 875 3 4 3 3 13 11,375 B2 2 BED 1035 2 2 2 2 8 18% 8,280 TOTAL PER FLOOR 26 35 33 24 TOTAL UNITS 118 100% TOTAL UNIT S.F. 76,055 BUILDING GROSS S.F. Lower Level 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor S.F. TOTAL 31,400 31,400 29,600 21,500 113,900 31,400 31,400 TOTAL BUILDING 145,300 EX 05 2 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED WATER/ SPRINKLER LOWER LEVEL & LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLANS LOWER LEVEL PLAN LEVEL 1 PLAN JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE A RC H I TEC T S Kimley>>> Horn Expect More. Experience Better. CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1"=20' 06 LEVEL 2 & LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLANS lJ STORAGE ELEVATOR LOBBY 1 BED 2 BED 2 BED L — LEVEL 2 PLAN 2 BED 1 BED SH 1 BED 2 BED _ 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED 1 BED ELEVATOR LOBBY r el 1 _. BED ,- BED 1 BED ' 1 BED . - 2 0ED LEVEL 3 PLAN INCH MEDD GREEN ROOF 2 BED 1 BED _I] CIRCULATION COMMON SPACE INDEPENDENT LIVING STORAGE SUPPORT YEC U M E Lupe Development Partners /AEON (E,CLIMEN' Lupe Development Partners 1 BEE 1 BED T 1 BED STAIR ROOFTOP ROOFTOP LOUNGE 1 BED V STORAGE 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED ELEVATOR LOBBY 2 BED 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED 1 BEN 1 BED 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE A RC H I T E C TS KimleyHorn Expect More. Experience Better. CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1"=20' 07 LEVEL 4 & ROOF FLOOR PLANS LEVEL 4 PLAN ROOF PLAN - PHOTOVU.TAIO SYSTEM - 1 BED CIRCULATION Li COMMON SPACE INDEPENDENT LIVING STORAGE SUPPORT 2 BED 1 BED ROOFTOP 1 BED N 1 BED N 1 BED N STOREFRONT METAL SIDING SOUTH NORTH REFINISHED BALCONIES/RAILINGS P II it NM NE 11 II r1 11 PP H 11 Ss so Nu o II H •• •• WEST EAST II II II •• 11 11 111 •• •• ME .111 Vi i' 1 11 1 11) II ! 11 11 1 1 11 11111111,11 mm 1111.-.11V-11117 FIBER CEMENT1 COI OP 21 H I! II 11 !I II II .111 11 11 11 It II 11C- FIBER CEMENT Cn! OR RH HR CT(11,1-1-C,r, JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimley>>> Horn Expect More. Experience Better. CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BASED ON 1/16" PERSPECTIVES MATERIALS - TOTAL BUILDING MATERIAL NAME MATERIAL AREA PERCENT of WALL MASONRY 4,740 11.1% METAL 13,634 32.0% FIBER CEMENT LAP 10,741 25.2% GLASS 13,499 31.7% TOTALS 42,614 100.0% (EC.0 M E ® Lupe Development Partners • • • • • • • I • I STONE FIBER CEMENT COLOR-2 METAL PANE /di Tin RH E] LEI 11:1 • • 11 ma 1'1 111111 II Ii i1 Ir,1 11 11 • • ST( ,BER CEMENT COLOR-1 COMPOSITE WINDOWS/DOORS EAST ELEVATION MATERIAL NAME MATERIAL AREA PERCENT of WALL MASONRY 1,408 10.6% METAL 2,324 17.5% FIBER CEMENT LAP 4,724 35.5% GLASS 4,839 36.4% TOTALS 13,295 100.0% WEST ELEVATION MATERIAL NAME MATERIAL AREA PERCENT of WALL MASONRY 1,546 1 1.8% METAL 4,599 35.2% FIBER CEMENT LAP 2,837 21.7% GLASS 4,072 31.2% TOTALS 13,054 100.0% FIBER CEMENT COLOR-I SOUTH ELEVATION MATERIAL NAME MATERIAL AREA PERCENT of WALL MASONRY 1,363 15.8% METAL 2,833 32.9% FIBER CEMENT LAP 1,934 22.5% GLASS 2.473 28.7% TOTALS 8,603 100.0% NORTH ELEVATION MATERIAL NAME MATERIAL AREA PERCENT of WALL MASONRY 423 5.5% METAL 3,878 50.6% FIBER CEMENT LAP 1,246 16.3% GLASS 2,115 27.6% TOTALS 7.662 100.0% 08 I II ELEVATIONS CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 09.1 YEC U M E N® Lupe Development Partners JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimley>>) Horn Expect More. Experience Better. PLANNING DEPARTMEN iRENDERINGS AERIAL PERSPECTIVE LOOKING EAST PERSPECTIVE LOOKING EAST FROM VALLEY VIEW DRIVE CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (ECUMEN* Lupe Development Partners JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimler)>Horn Expect More. Experience Better. 09.2 RENDERINGS Lupe Development Partners 09.3 RENDERINGS APR 12 2021 CITY OF EDINA PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM VALLEY VIEW DRIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (ECUMEN® JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimley>>> Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Lupe Development Partners 09.4 RENDERINGS APR 12 2021 CITY OF EDINA PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH FROM W 70TH STREET PLANNING DEPARTMENT (ECUMEN® JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 POPE ARCHITECTS Kimlep)Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Lupe Development Partners JOINT VENTURE OF ECUMEN AND LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS BLACK COMPOSITE WINDOWS STOREFRONT, BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAMES AND PATIO DOORS )(ECUMEN® 4040 WEST 70TH STREET APARTMENTS, LP 4040 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA CITY OF EDINA PRELIMINARY REZONING & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION APRIL 12, 2021 DARK GRAY POWDERCOATED METAL PANEL STACKED, LIGHT COLORED STONE LIGHT WARM GRAY FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING (COLOR-1) MID-GRAY/BLUE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING (COLOR-2) 10 EXTERIOR MATERIALS POPE ARCHITECTS Kimley>>> Horn Expect More. Experience Better. CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 SUNSHADE POWDER COATED GRAY METAL BALCONIES STEEL, POWDER COATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT V1%10111111 iRil NMI Lupe Development Partners EDINA MULTIFAMILY z I— w 2 U) re 0 Z u j 0 111 w w ce ll w Se. La a. 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR EDINA MULTIFAMILY SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 28N, RANGE 24W 4040 70TH STREET WEST EDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN PROJECT TEAM: OWNER / DEVELOPER LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 0 PREPARED BY: BRIAN M. WURDEMAN 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197 Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C000 COVER SHEET V100 ALTA SURVEY C100 GENERAL NOTES C200 DEMO PLAN C300 TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN C400 SITE PLAN C500 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C600 UTILITY PLAN L100 LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 LANDSCAPE DETAILS 1701 MADISON ST NE, SUITE 111 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 TELEPHONE: (612) 436-3200 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE: (651) 645-4197 CONTACT: RYAN A. HYLLESTED SURVEYOR EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC. 1229 TYLER STREET NE SUITE 100 TELEPHONE: (612)466-3300 FAX: (612) 466-3383 CONTACT: CHRISTOPHER A. TERWEDO CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ARCHITECT POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANADANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 TELEPHONE: (651) 642-9200 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 1826 BUERKLE ROAD SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE: (651) 645-4197 CONTACT: STEVE MARTIN NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS INCLUDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. IF REPRODUCED, THE SCALES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON A ARCH full bleed D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches) SHEET. 3. ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICES COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDING POSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION OF SERVICES. 4. ALL GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED (EARTHWORK, FINAL UTILITIES, AND FINAL GRADING) BY THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS. Know what's below. Call before you dig. SHEET NUMBER PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARKS SITE BENCHMARKS: (LOCATIONS SHOWN ON SURVEY) SBM #1 TOP OF MNDOT GEODETIC MONUMENT "2733 Q" GSID STATION #95550 ELEVATION=874.82 (NAVD 88) SBM #2 TOP NUT OF HYDRANT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 70TH STREET WEST ELEVATION,872.55 (NAVD 86) C000 ENGINEER KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Kimley>>>Horn W 66TH STREET •. W 69TH STREET cad VICINITY N.T.S. KATWCLDEV \LUPE DEVELOPMENT \ Edina Multifamily \ 3 Design \CAIMPlanSheets \CO-COVER SHEET.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:06am EY.dwg April 12, Cn 0) F_ rn Cy E FIELD BOOK PAGE OPMENTE DRAWING NAME: 39551.dee JOB NO. 39551 FILE NO. 5458 EV\LUPE DEV VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE FIELDWORK CHIEF: TV DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: CT NO. DATE REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ST MOWN" S0128'25 W 329.94 111 All AD mm C' ;-q SIX OVADadARX Mir Or IMAM? EleVoOr2.53 fT z 0 I- IY (/) 0 0 LL H z w 0_ EDINA MULTIFAMILY PREPARED FOR w 2 co CL 0 Z • re • < a a. a SHEET NUMBER V100 land surveyors since 1872 SHEET 1 OF 1 NOT TO SCALE, FOR REFERENCE ONLY PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4040 70th Street West Edina, Minnesota 55435 Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc. WWW.EFNSURVEY.COM COP MIGHT 0 2020 By ECAIE FIELD & NOWAK, INC. 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 100 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413 PHONE: (612) 466-3300 PAX: (612) 466-3383 4 6) SCALE IN FEET • FOUND IRON MONUMENT, AS NOTED • SET IRON MONUMENT MARKED WITH LICENSE NUMBER 53536 O FOUND PK NAIL 3' 2 5 C ~Fy .142541 p: ry Ow Is ,17/-`,7/,`;"02XWI;1401135 AO, \ Cf: or-soz_16 1,817.9 RE-867.79-. E-847.7 15) lEoSS3J (£) 5) R gg o yy I '7°:;“ 7-".71454 31 //:',/ 1E I V I 1010701HSTROETIIEST BRICK BUMP. °MONO MO/We" APEAo14.112 YAK. SURVEY FOR: Kimley-Horn & Associates PiO660, • 611 • 7Th I V V • SOU .SPAR?Pot PLAT Or Off. PARR POST MOWN ,N0 .04 .25T 103.10 010OIN) a RAMP A s. "-I GE (CS' 5. PCP ny I L. 89-55:35V Q- -Re-OlO01 CoR 0. S IO 00) 0) 1,83 ( ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY FOR: Kimley-Horn & Associates LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract C. Register. Land Roney No. 1365. Hennepin County. Minnesoto. Deng Registered land as N eAclences1 by Certificate of Site Na 1511530. GENERAL SURVEY NOTES: 1. The orientation of this bearing system is bored on The Hennepin County comknote grid (HAD 133-2011 Ad)). 2. The legal description ond emernent informotien used in Al. preporalMn of this survey Is based on the Commitment fa Title Insurance prepared by Guaranty Commercial Title, Inc os agent for ad Republic TIVe Lowrance Compony, Commitment No. 651374 doled October 6, 2020. OPTIONAL TABLE A ITEMS: 1. Monuments bore been placed ca 00 maim oomere of the property deserbed hereon, 010.33 Oreody marked or referenced by .13.g monuments or witnesses in dose proximity to the caner. 2. The address of the property deem/ed hereon is 4040 70th Street West, Fenno, lamest,. 55435. 3. November pr b or e n , ertz Igwioed hereon lies sit*, Flood Zone X per Federol Insurance Role Mop No. 2705300364F. doted I. The told wee of the property desorbed hereon N 68.634 square feet or 1.57562 crags. 5. The contours depicted hereon are per ele.tIon data calected while conducting the fieldwork_ The contour intend is I foot. BENCHMARK: T. of Minnesota Deportment of Transportation Geodetic Monument '2733 0' GSD stall. 4 95550 Elemtion = 674.82 feet. (HAW 85) SITE BENCHMARK: Top at of hydrant Mooted on the south side of 70th Street West Donation = 872.55 Net. (NAVE/ ea) 6a. No 204000 repot or letter was received eon the Insurer pursuant to OptIond Table A Item 6(a). os sat forth in the 2016 Minimum Standard Detol Requirements for ALTA/HSPS Lend Tithe Surveys. 7o. Exterior Miceog dimensions are depicted here.. 7b1. The exterior buldng footprint cr., at grand level is depleted hereon. & Substantial lecture. observed in the process of conducting th• fidokumk we depleted hereon. 9. As of the dote of .le survey the property de Led hereon contain a total 01 78 visbly stuped poriOng tomes of which 76 ore standard maces end 2 ere handicapped spaces. too. There ore no dinAsMn or party walls on the properly described hereon. 11. Existing utdities, serices ond underground sto/clures shown hereon mere located eltbm physics'!, iron existMg records made ova.. to us. by resident testimony, or by locations provided by Gopher State One Cd1, per Ticket No. 210140753. Hower, locking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be occurately, cornp'ete'y and relobly depicted. Mere additional orMore detaled information is reguided. the client is odrised that excavation may be necessory. Other utiities and 33esi<03 moy be present and verification and location of oh ulXities and nen,es should be obtained from the owners al the respective 5111105 prior loony deign, plonnim or escamtlon. 13. The names of adjonIng miners occording to anent toe records are depicted hereon. to. As of the date of this survey there Is no obseovobie eVdence of current earth moving work, buten; construction or bolding additions on the property deserioed Noe.. 17. The surveyor Is unoware of any completed or proposed change. M sheet right-of-way lines_ As of Um dote of this ee n y b Lher h e .,...n ts observoble eNdence of recent str.t or sidesok construction onrepoks that offect the property d o s z 19. No plottable offslte easements or senitudes were deelosed in documents provided to the mmayce. 20. Professional Liability Neuron. policy obtained by the aurveyor to be in elf.' throughout the contract term, SURVEY ITEMS PER SCHEDULE B: ITEM 5: Sanitary Sewer emement(e) over the Land as sham on the recorded plot of South Office Park First Addition, omit as sham on the recorded plat of Replat of Lot 2. Block 1, South Office Pork Fist Addition. So, Soelory sever enserne, of/eels 0-e surtesed property crtl Is eeocled herein. LEGEND • BENCHMARK S SANITARY MANHOLE O MANHOLE (0) STORY MANHOLE IMMO CATCH ITA911 ▪ ROOF DRAIN (VALET) En At/TO SF/MOILER ri/- HYDRANT 080 SPRINKLER VALVE o ELECTRIC MANHOLE O GATE VALVE • HANDHCCE ▪ UGHT Ob UTILITY KIX GI GAS METER SICOI • HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE S NW/CARPED PARKING SIGN 1151 PARKING COUNT SANITARY SEWER UNDERGROUND TELECOMMUNICATION WATERMAN! UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WIRE O UNDERGROUND GAS ss STCRil SEWER a. ma SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING CONTOUR Leif G.°0( TREE BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE WALL Au 20 40 60 (4) S 1 1 AAI v L., N I j J CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION: T . o d Lups Der y opme Conr, oLIZIn ii eg,. 1.1 Inc oe 0, in;e t sts limited o Minnesota non-wolit commotion ublic TNI. nsurance Ca1Pany This Is to certify that this mop or plat and the coney on which It is bored sere made in mccodance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Del* Requirements for ALTA/HSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA ond AMPS, and includes Nees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(o), 7(o), 7(bXl), 8, 9, 10(o), 1000, II, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 of Toole A thereof. The fieldwerk cos completed on konuory 25, 2021. Dote of Plat or lAop. Februory 2. 2021 Chest aies1.4 4C,1( AtowA16' ex A. Terwedo Inv/mote license No. 53536 clefeedoliefneurvey.com EDINA MULTIFAMILY KATWC_LDE\ALUPE DEVELOPMENTEdina Multifamily \ 3 Design \CAD\PlanSheets \C1-GENERAL NOTES.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07am GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" (LATEST EDITION) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM AS APPLICABLE TO THESE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ALL MATERIAL AND LABOR TO CONSTRUCT THE FACILITY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE APPROVING AUTHORITIES, SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB ALL AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, REMOVING TREES, STUMPS, ROOTS, MUCK, EXISTING PAVEMENT AND ALL OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. 3. THE EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS QUALITY LEVEL '0" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF Cl/ACRE 38/02, ENTITLED STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF SUBSURFACE QUALITY DATA BY THE FHA. EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER. GUARANTEE IS NOT MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN OR THAT THE LOCATION OF THOSE SHOWN ARE ENTIRELY ACCURATE. FINDING THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AND SHALL BE DONE BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORK IN THE VICINITY. FURTHERMORE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE OWNER OR ENGINEER WILL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES SUSTAINED OR COST INCURRED BECAUSE OF THE OPERATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, NOR FOR TEMPORARY BRACING AND SHORING OF SAME. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO SHORE, BRACE, SWING OR RELOCATE A UTILITY, THE UTILITY COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT AFFECTED SHALL BE CONTACTED AND THEIR PERMISSION OBTAINED REGARDING THE METHOD TO USE FOR SUCH WORK. 4. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES WHICH MAY HAVE BURIED OR AERIAL UTILITIES WITHIN OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION AREA BEFORE COMMENCING WORK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 48 HOURS MINIMUM NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 5, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND BONDS IF REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES ONE COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND COPIES OF ANY REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. 7. ANY DISCREPANCIES ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER AND ENGINEER BEFORE COMMENCING WORK NO FIELD CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND NOTIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER. 8. ALL COPIES OF COMPACTION. CONCRETE AND OTHER REQUIRED TEST RESULTS ARE TO BE SENT TO THE OWNER DIRECTLY FROM THE TESTING AGENCY. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOCUMENTING AND MAINTAINING AS-BUILT INFORMATION WHICH SHALL BE RECORDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES OR AT THE COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION INTERVALS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO THE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CERTIFICATION TO JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES AS REQUIRED. ALL AS-BUILT DATA SHALL BE COLLECTED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR WHOSE SERVICES ARE ENGAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 10. ANY WELLS DISCOVERED ON SITE THAT WILL HAVE NO USE MUST BE PLUGGED BY A LICENSED WELL DRILLING CONTRACTOR IN A MANNER APPROVED BY ALL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY WELL ABANDONMENT PERMITS REQUIRED. 11. ANY WELL DISCOVERED DURING EARTH MOVING OR EXCAVATION SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER DISCOVERY IS MADE. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY KNOWN EXISTING OR OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. IF ANY CONFLICTS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THE SITE WORK THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OWNER OF AN IDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH INSTALLATION RELIEVES OWNER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO PAY FORA RELATED CHANGE ORDER. 13. SHOULD CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER ANY DEBRIS LADEN SOIL, STRUCTURES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS, OR OTHER SOURCE OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION, THEY SHALL IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE ALL MEASURES STATED ON THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, AND IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FULLY FUNCTIONAL CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY ALL JURISDICTIONS UNTIL NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASE OF WORK OR FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CHECKED BY A CERTIFIED PERSON AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A or RAINFALL EVENT, AND CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: INLET PROTECTION DEVICES AND BARRIERS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED IF THEY SHOW SIGNS OF UNDERMINING, OR DETERIORATION. 1. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL RE CHECKED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREAS SHOULD BE FERTILIZED, WATERED AND RESEEDED AS NEEDED. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS REFER TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. SILT FENCES SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IF DAMAGED. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SILT FENCES WHEN IT REACHES ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S) SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 4. THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION (SUITABLE FOR PARKING AND STORAGE). THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE TEMPORARY PARKING AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 5 ALL MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SHALL BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 2 CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING THE INSPECTION. TYPICAL OWNER/ENGINEER OBSERVATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: -PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING, SUBGRADE PREPARATION, BASE INSTALLATION ASPHALT INSTALLATION, UNDERGROUND PIPING AND UTILITIES INSTALLATION, INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES, CHECK VALVES, HYDRANTS, METERS, ETC., SIDEWALK INSTALLATION, CONNECTIONS TO WATER AND SEWER MAINS, TESTS OF UTILITIES EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP") IS COMPRISED OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN, THE STANDARD DETAILS, THE PLAN NARRATIVE, ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SWPPP, PLUS THE PERMIT AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. 2. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND THE STATE OF MN NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT (NPDES PERMIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CONTENTS. 3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) AND CONTROLS SHALL CONFORM TO FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS OR MANUAL OF PRACTICE, AS APPLICABLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL CONTROLS AS DIRECTED BY THE PERMITTING AGENCY OR OWNER. 4. SITE ENTRY AND EXIT LOCATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT THE TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED. DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO A PUBLIC ROADWAY, IT SHALL BE DONE IN AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN. ALL FINES IMPOSED FOR DISCHARGING SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC AREAS SHALL BE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS OF STABILIZATION SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THE LAST DISTURBANCE ON ANY AREA OF THE SITE. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE CLEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL OR AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PERMIT. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE ON PLAN THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA WHICH SHALL ALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AREA, EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA, AND AREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACILITIES, OFFICE TRAILERS, AND TOILET FACILITIES. 8. ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS, VEHICLE CLEANING, EQUIPMENT CLEANING, ETC.) SHALL BE DETAINED AND PROPERLY TREATED OR DISPOSED. 9. SUFFICIENT OIL AND GREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE OR READILY AVAILABLE TO CONTAIN AND CLEAN-UP FUEL OR CHEMICAL SPILLS AND LEAKS. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL ON SITE. THE USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOXIC LIQUIDS FOR DUST SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED. 11. RUBBISH, TRASH, GARBAGE, LITTER, OR OTHER SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO SEALED CONTAINERS. MATERIALS SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE PREMISES THROUGH THE ACTION OF WIND OR STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO DRAINAGE DITCHES OR WATERS OF THE STATE. 12. ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS IS PRACTICABLE. 13. ALL STAGING AREAS, STOCKPILES, SPOILS, ETC. SHALL BE LOCATED SUCH THAT THEY WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT STORM WATER QUALITY. OTHERWISE, COVERING OR ENCIRCLING THESE AREAS WITH SOME PROTECTIVE MEASURE WILL BE NECESSARY. 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RE-ESTABLISHING ANY EROSION CONTROL DEVICE WHICH THEY DISTURB. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE ESTABLISHED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THAT MAY LEAD TO UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE OR STORM WATER POLLUTION, SEDIMENTATION, OR OTHER POLLUTANTS. UNAUTHORIZED POLLUTANTS INCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO) EXCESS CONCRETE DUMPING OR CONCRETE RESIDUE, PAINTS, SOLVENTS, GREASES, FUEL AND LUBRICANT OIL PESTICIDES, AND ANY SOLID WASTE MATERIALS. 15. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE PROJECT. 16. ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. CHANGES ARE TO BE APPROVED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DMSION. 17. IF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AS APPROVED CANNOT CONTROL EROSION AND OFF-SITE SEDIMENTATION FROM THE PROJECT, THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE REVISED AND/OR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE REQUIRED ON SITE. ANY REVISIONS TO THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. PAVING AND STRIPING NOTES 1. ALL PAVING, CONSTRUCTION. MATERIALS, AND WORKMANSHIP WITHIN JURISDICTION'S RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL OR COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) OR MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) IF NOT COVERED BY LOCAL OR COUNTY REGULATIONS. 2. ALL SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (M.U.T.C.D) AND CITY STANDARDS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR FIRE LANES, ROADWAY LANES, PARKING STALLS, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOLS, ACCESS AISLES, STOP BARS AND SIGNS, AND MISCELLANEOUS STRIPING WITHIN THE PARKING LOT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 4. ALL EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL EXTEND THROUGH THE CURB. 5. THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF OFFSET JOINTS AT RADIUS POINTS SHALL BE 2 FEET. 6. ALL JOINTS, INCLUDING EXPANSION JOINTS WITH REMOVABLE TACK STRIPS, SHALL BE SEALED WITH JOINT SEALANT. 7. THE MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES OF ALL CONCRETE SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS IN THE A.C.I. (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A SECOND COATING OVER ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER FOLLOWED BY A COAT OF GLASS BEADS AS APPLICABLE PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 9. ANY EXISTING PAVEMENT, CURBS AND/OR SIDEWALKS DAMAGED OR REMOVED WILL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. 10. BEFORE PLACING PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SUITABLE ACCESSIBLE ROUTES (PER ADA). GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2%. IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 11. MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING IS TWICE THE DEPTH OF THE CONCRETE PAVEMENT IN FEET. GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES 1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS INCLUDING GRADES AND DIMENSIONS BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO THE ELEVATIONS INDICATED AND SHALL ADJUST 131/1P'S AS NECESSARY AND REGRADE WASHOUTS WHERE THEY OCCUR AFTER EVERY RAINFALL UNTIL A GRASS STAND IS WELL ESTABLISHED OR ADEQUATE STABILIZATION OCCURS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THERE IS POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS SO THAT SURFACE RUNOFF WILL DRAIN BY GRAVITY TO NEW OR EXISTING DRAINAGE OUTLETS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE NO PONDING OCCURS IN PAVED AREAS AND SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IF ANY GRADING DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND IN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT OR UTILITIES. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL MANHOLE COVERS, VALVE COVERS, VAULT LIDS, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, GUY WIRES, AND TELEPHONE BOXES THAT ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES TO REMAIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADES. 5. BACKFILL FOR UTILITY LINES SHALL BE PLACED PER DETAILS, STANDARDS, AND SPECIFICATIONS SO THAT THE UTILITY WILL BE STABLE. WHERE UTILITY LINES CROSS THE PARKING LOT, THE TOP 6 INCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED SIMILARLY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT. UTILITY DITCHES SHALL BE VISUALLY INSPECTED DURING THE EXCAVATION PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT UNDESIRABLE FILL IS NOT USED. 6 CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 4" OF TOPSOIL AT COMPLETION OF WORK ALL UNPAVED AREAS IN EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REGRADED AND SODDED. 7. AFTER PLACEMENT OF SUBGRADE AND PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST AND OBSERVE PAVEMENT AREAS FOR EVIDENCE OF PONDING. ALL AREAS SHALL ADEQUATELY DRAIN TOWARDS THE INTENDED STRUCTURE TO CONVEY STORM RUNOFF. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY OWNER AND ENGINEER IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE DISCOVERED. 8. WHERE EXISTING PAVEMENT IS INDICATED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW CUT FULL DEPTH FORA SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT JOINT AND REPLACE THE PAVEMENT WITH THE SAME TYPE AND DEPTH OF MATERIAL AS EXISTING OR AS INDICATED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PROTECTION OVER ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT BY THE OWNER. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AS REQUIRED DURING AND AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FLOWS. 10. IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ANY APPLICABLE REQUIRED PERMITS. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 11. FIELD DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN AT INTERVALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY OR TO MN/DOT STANDARDS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 12. ALL SLOPES AND AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE GRADED AS PER PLANS. THE AREAS SHALL THEN BE SODDED OR SEEDED AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS, FERTILIZED, MULCHED, WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL HARDY GRASS GROWTH IS ESTABLISHED IN ALL AREAS. ANY AREAS DISTURBED FOR ANY REASON PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOB SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ALL EARTHEN AREAS WILL BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND MULCHED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTROL OF DUST AND DIRT RISING AND SCATTERING IN THE AIR DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE WATER SPRINKLING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHODS OF CONTROL THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL GOVERNING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 14. SOD, WHERE CALLED FOR, MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED ON EXPOSED SLOPES WITHIN 48 HOURS OF COMPLETING FINAL GRADING, AND AT ANY OTHER TIME AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT EROSION, SEDIMENTATION OR TURBID DISCHARGES. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT LANDSCAPE ISLAND PLANTING AREAS AND OTHER PLANTING AREAS ARE NOT COMPACTED AND DO NOT CONTAIN ROAD BASE MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO EXCAVATE AND REMOVE ALL UNDESIRABLE MATERIAL FROM ALL AREAS ON THE SITE TO RE PLANTED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL UNDERGROUND STORM WATER PIPING PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND MWDOT SPECIFICATION. 17. ALL CONCRETE/ASPHALT SHALL BE INSTALLED PER GEOTECH REPORT, CITY OF EDINA AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. 18. SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FLOWLINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 19. LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. 20. IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE OWNER ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 21. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING EXISTING UTILITIES, AND SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES THAT OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT COMPENSATION. 22. BLEND NEW EARTHWORK SMOOTHLY TO TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING GRADE. 23. ALL PROPOSED GRADES ONSITE SHALL BE 31 OR FLATTER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. ANY SLOPES STEEPER THAN 41 REQUIRE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BLANKET. 24. ADHERE TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS NECESSARY IN THE GENERAL N.P.D.E.S. PERMIT AND STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 25 ADJUST AND/OR CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE A SMOOTH FIT AND CONTINUOUS GRADE. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE MINIMUM GRADES ARE MET WITHIN PAVED AREAS. 1.2% FOR ASPHALT PAVING AND 0.6% FOR CONCRETE PAVING. 3RD PARTY TEST REPORTS REQ'D TEST REPORTS REQUIRED FOR CLOSE OUT INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: - DENSITY TEST REPORTS - BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS OF WATER SYSTEM PRESSURE TEST OF WATER/SEWER - LEAK TESTS ON SEWER SYSTEM AND GREASE TRAPS -ANY OTHER TESTING REQUIRED BY THE AGENCY/MUNICIPALITY WATER STORM SEWER & SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT GRAVITY SEWER LATERALS, MANHOLES, GRAVITY SEWER LINES, AND DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, TOOLS, MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN FULL AND COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH THE SHOWN, DESCRIBED AND REASONABLY INTENDED REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT. THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 2. ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY LOCATION AND COORDINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTES CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SECTION OF THIS SHEET. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL DISTURBED VEGETATION IN KIND, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 4. DEFLECTION OF PIPE JOINTS AND CURVATURE OF PIPE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SECURELY CLOSE ALL OPEN ENDS OF PIPE AND FITTINGS WITH A WATERTIGHT PLUG WHEN WORK IS NOT IN PROGRESS. THE INTERIOR OF ALL PIPES SHALL BE CLEAN AND JOINT SURFACES WIPED CLEAN AND DRY AFTER THE PIPE HAS BEEN LOWERED INTO THE TRENCH. VALVES SHALL BE PLUMB AND LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. 5 ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE CAREFULLY STORED FOLLOWING MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE COATING OR LINING IN ANY PIPE FITTINGS. ANY PIPE OR FITTING WHICH IS DAMAGED OR WHICH HAS FLAWS OR IMPERFECTIONS WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER OR OWNER, RENDERS IT UNFIT FOR USE, SHALL NOT BE USED. ANY PIPE NOT SATISFACTORY FOR USE SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE JOB SITE, AND SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 6. WATER FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLES BEING BROUGHT ON SITE. 7. ALL UTILITY AND STORM DRAIN TRENCHES LOCATED UNDER AREAS TO RECEIVE PAVING SHALL BE COMPLETELY BACK FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNING JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY'S SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 8. UNDERGROUND LINES SHALL BE SURVEYED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, ANY AND ALL TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR ANY AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION. THESE TESTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, INFILTRATION AND EXFILTRATION, TELEVISION INSPECTION AND A MANDREL TEST ON GRAVITY SEWER. A COPY OF THE TEST RESULTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE UTILITY PROVIDER, OWNER AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. 10 CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE OF 15 AND A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 18" BETWEEN WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES AND LINES. 11. IF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS NECESSARY TO RETURN IT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BETTER. 12. ALL STORM PIPE ENTERING STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED TO ASSURE CONNECTION AT STRUCTURE IS WATERTIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED BY CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 13. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ALL STORM SEWER MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT, AND SHALL HAVE TRAFFIC BEARING RING d COVERS. MANHOLES IN UNPAVED AREAS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FINISH GRADE. LIDS SHALL BE LABELED 'STORM SEWER'. EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE. 14. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY LAND SURVEYORS. IF THE CONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY, AT THEIR EXPENSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW. 16. CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO SAME. 16. ALL STORM STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH UNIFORM POURED MORTAR FROM INVERT IN TO INVERT OUT. 17. ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO STORM SEWER BY PREFABRICATED WYES OR AT STORM STRUCTURES. ROOF DRAINS AND TRUCK WELL DRAIN SHALL RUN AT A MINIMUM 1% SLOPE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, AND TIE IN AT THE CENTERLINE OF THE STORM MAIN. 18. ALL ROOF AND SANITARY SEWER DRAINS SHALL BE INSULATED IF 7' OF COVER CANNOT BE PROVIDED. 19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THAT ARE TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 20. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND OTHER ABOVE AND BELOW-GRADE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AS SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATIONS OF EACH PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 21. A MINIMUM OF 5' SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN UTILITIES AND TREES UNLESS A ROOT BARRIER IS UTILIZED. 22. GAS, PHONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICES SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DRY UTILITY COMPANIES MAY ALTER THE DESIGN LAYOUT DURING THEIR REVIEW. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE FINAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 23. COORDINATE UTILITY INSTALLATION WITH IRRIGATION DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. 24. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FLOW LINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PERIMETER WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO INSIDE WALL FACE. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT WALL WIDTH AND SPECIFICATIONS. 25. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS). FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS, AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS. 26. REFERENCE M.E.P. PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 27. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE STRUCTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND PAD PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONS. 28. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE M.E.P PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR LIGHT POLE WIRING. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. 82100387 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 1101 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 DATED 4/02/2021 PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA• APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHEET NUMBER C100 TREE REMOVAL (TOP) TREE REMOVAL (TOP.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (IVP.) ASPHALT _ REMOVAL PROPOSED Iv -0 SAWCUT UNE (TOP.) DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES PROPERTY LINE REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING CLEARING S GRUBBING FULL DEPTH SAWCUT REMOVE TREE 3on X //////////// • REMOVE CONCRETE CURBS GUTTER • X•X•X•X•X•X•X • REMOVE UTILITY LINES PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASIN CITY OF EDINt EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVE EXISTING WELL APR 12 2021 EXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER EXISTING ROOF DRAIN EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING CABLE BOX EXISTING GUY PARE EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE LINE 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL (IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES) ALL STRUCTURES, PADS, WALLS, FLUMES, FOUNDATIONS, PARKING, DRIVES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC. SUCH THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PLANS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. ALL FACIUTIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER_ THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE PERMIT AND RECEIPTS OF DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS TO THE OWNER AND OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL UTILITY SERVICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL TIMES. UTILITY SERVICES SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND COORDINATION WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARDOR THE CITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WTH RESPECTIVE UTIUTY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE %MTH 7HE UTILITY COMPANY CONCERNING PORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANYS FORCES AND AN FEES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL FEES AND CHARGES EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION TREE REMOVAL (TOP.) CLEAR AND GRUB (TOP.) CLEAR AND GRUB (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION CURB REMOVAL (TYP) REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE ASPHALT REMOVAL REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS -"" PAVEMENT MARKINGS rr ir; *V1411111r .#7Z1 z _ _ REMOVE STARS AND RAILING REMOVE EXISTING ---1-1W SPRINKLER SYSTEM TREE REMOVAL(TYP.) S. EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STORM SEN/ER TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION — - - — _ 70TH STREET WEST (BO FOOT WOE PUBUG RIGHT Cr WAY) ELECTRICAL. TELEPHONE, CABLE, WATER, FIBER OPTIC, AND/OR GAS UNES NEEDING TO BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY. ADEQUATE TIME SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR RELOCATION AND CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A S/AOOTH TRANSITION IN UTILITY SERVICE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO EXISTING UTIUTIES WITHIN ANY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. B CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBIJC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES, ENCLOSURES, ETC (AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AS APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE COORDINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDINA 'COUNTY> COUNTY AND MN/DOT. 9 CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION. AND SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTIES IF ACCESS WU. BE INTERRUPTED OR ALTERED AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION 10. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OCCURRING, ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED. 11. CONTRACTOR MAY LIMIT SAW-CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT IF ANY DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR 12 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WATER MAIN WORK NUN ME FIRE DEPT. AND THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT TO PLAN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IS CONSTANTLY AVAILABLE TO ME SITE THROUGHOUT THIS SPECIFIC WORK AND THROUGH ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING/PROVIDING ANY REQUIRED WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WIN 7HE CITY OF EDINA DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO EXTRA COMPENSATION VALI BE PROVIDED. 13 REFER TO SURVEY FOR ALL EXISTING INVERT AND RIM ELEVATIONS 14 ALL UTILITIES SHOWN ARE EXISTING UTILITIES 15 IN THE EVENT A WELL IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY. ALL WELLS SHALL BE SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE OF MN REQUIREMENTS. 15. IN THE EVENT THAT UNKNOWN CONTAINERS OR TANKS ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER AND/OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. ALL CONTAINERS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF ATA PERMITTED LANDFILL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF ANY EXISTING DRAINTILE IS ENCOUNTERED ON SITE. NO ACTIVE DRAINTILE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. LEGEND FILL & ABANDON UTIUTY LINES GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 10 20 40 REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) li CONCRETE REMOVAL LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) UMITS OF. DISTURBANCE (TYP.) (1 CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN - AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PEDESTRIAN RAMP TO REMAIN AND BE -- 4 PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP-) ls CONCRETE REMOVAL CL EAR AND — GRUB (TOP) REMOVE EXISTING —.-- PAVEMENT MARKINGS )is EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN — AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) • CURB REMOVAL (TOP.) 5) ASPHALT REMOVAL REMOVE EXISTING SIGNAGE EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) I I I LII _ EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE EXISTING STORM SEWER TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED I, THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION N ' EXISTING SANITARY ) SEWER EASEMENT • —NZ — — — — REMOVE EXISTING SIGNAGE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN RAMP TO REMAIN AND RE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) PROPOSED SAWCUT UNE I (TNT.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYR) s'& -1, &V"' 1> 4'0'4' 'V " ' V"' 0 4.4._ ~'REMOVE EXISTING V . _ •.— .., REMOVE EXISTING !VP.) GAS METER CLEAR AND ? 4,,, ,:...* TRANSFORMER 0 1 0 ; TREE REMOVAL (TOP.) J. .,., 0 ‘,,,, REMOVE EXIS-TING / PAVEMENT MARKINGS N >t TREE REMOVAL (TYP ) CONCRETE REMOVAL ,t ,ar ' .1167:43V PTREE R AL (TY .) ' ro...i, re CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) O !NTS OF STURSANGE (TYP.) — — PROPOSED SAWCUT UNE (TYP.) GAS TEL CIV EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CURBS GUTTER UMITS OF CONSTRUCTION EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE EXISTING J-BARRIER EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATERMAN EXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ASPHALT REMOVAL (04,956V1) — TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) 6 THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND ARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY DEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ALL AREAS OF PROPOSED WORK_ 6 ALL EXISTING SEWERS, PIPING AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS ANY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROCEED WITH CAUTION AROUND ANY ANTICIPATED FEATURES. GIVE NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND CAP ALL LINES BEFORE PRECEDING MATH THE WORK 0.0.0.0.0 • • . • • • _ O—ELC wozosmonreinzaao 1 /////J I' 2 I— z WC u) ce 0 w Z 1.1 L 1 LT, fI, a. a EDINA MULTIFAMILY SHEET NUMBER C200 K \TWC_LDEV \LUPE DEVELOPMENTEdina Multifamily \ 3 DesigMCAMPlanSheets\C2-DEMO PLAN dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07am K: \TVVC_LDEV \ LUPE DEVELOPMENTEdina Multifamily \3 Design \CAD \PlanSheets\L1-TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07am LEGEND X X PROPERTY LINE TREE TO REMAIN TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING VEGETATION EDGE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TREE PROTECTION FENCE TREE MITIGATION DATA PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL: 18 TREES -71 PROTECTED TREE MITIGATION REQUIRED: 2 TREES *.1 'PROTECTED TREES MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT MITIGATION WITHIN 10 FOOT RADIUS OF BUILDING PAD, DECK OR PATIO OF A NEW OR REMODELED BUILDING, WITHIN 5 FOOT RADIUS OF DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS, WITHIN 10 FOOT RADIUS OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. 'PROTECTED TREES MUST BE REPLACED HATH ONE TREE OF SIMILAR SPECIES. TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1. PRUNING WILL BE DONE BY PROFESSIONALS DURING APPROPRIATE PRUNING SEASON. // NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, OPERATION OF MACHINERY, OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SORT WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE FENCE-LINE WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM CITY. 3. SITE GRADING TO BE DONE ONLY AFTER PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN, CITY HAS APPROVED FENCING LOCATIONS, AND ALL CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN BREIFED ON TREE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES. 5 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN OR REMOVED TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED, WITHIN DISTURBANCE LIMITS AND 10' OUTSIDE OF THE DISTURBANCE LIMITS. 5. TREE PRESERVATION TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND PER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. KEYNOTE LEGEND PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS FFE: 871.00 P1 FFE: 859.00 1 0 0 EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) (TYP.) Il ts 15 NOTE: ONLY SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN ON PLAN/ INVENTORY. DRIP LINE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TREE PROTECTION SIGN 3 TAG A SPECIES CAL IN. / HT. STATUS REQUIRES REPLACEMENT 1 DECIDUOUS 18 IN. REMOVED YES 2 DECIDUOUS 8 IN. REMOVED NO 3 DECIDUOUS 24 IN. REMOVED NO 4 DECIDUOUS 12 IN. REMOVED NO 5 DECIDUOUS 10 IN. REMOVED NO 6 DECIDUOUS 14 IN. REMOVED NO 7 DECIDUOUS 14 IN. REMOVED NO 8 DECIDUOUS 24 IN. REMOVED NO 0 DECIDUOUS 24 IN. REMOVED NO ID DECIDUOUS 15IN. REMOVED NO 1 DECIDUOUS 181N. REMOVED NO 12 DECIDUOUS 15 IN. REMOVED NO 13 DECIDUOUS 15 IN. REMOVED NO 14 DECIDUOUS 24 IN. REMOVED NO 5 DECIDUOUS 15 IN. REMOVED NO 16 DECIDUOUS 24 IN. SAVED NO 17 DECIDUOUS 20 IN. REMOVED NO 18 DECIDUOUS 14 IN. REMOVED NO 19 DECIDUOUS 15 IN. REMOVED YES >- LL Z ° LO I— I= Z < z LLI 1-1 > • Z 2.1 Z st( LLJ eL — w Lu LU • eL :A I a a * • a * * * • * a a a * * a 2 CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT FURNISH AND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE AT THE TREE'S DRIPLINE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SPECIFIED, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. MEN POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25 FEET BEYOND THE DRIP LINE. PLACE PROTECTION SIGNS ALONG FENCE AT 20' INTERVALS. 70TH STREET WEST TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION FENCE PLACEMENT EDINA MULTIFAMILY SCALE: N.T.S. C300 PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION z SHEET NUMBER C300 68,634 SF (1.57 AC) PROPOSED PROPERTY BUILDING AREA 31,446 SF (45.8% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) SURFACE ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 1 STALLS / 1 STALLS 4 STALLS / 4 STALLS UNDERGROUND ADA STALLS RUM / PROVIDED CITY OF EDINA CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTIUDES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS S POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELDS NOWAK INC, DATED 02/02/2021. APR 1 2 2021 7. EDINA MULTIFAMILY K: \TWC_LDEV \ LUPE DEVELOPMENTEdina Multifamily \ 3 Design \CAMPlanSheets C4-SITE PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07am PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING 24 STALLS LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED FENCE SETBACK LINE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPERTY SUMMARY EDINA MULTIFAMILY TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 88,634 SF (1.57 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 50,836 SF (1.16 AC) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 17,798 SF (0.41 AC) TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 68,634 SF (1.57 AC) ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING PCO-3 (PLANNEDCOMMERCIAL) PROPOSED ZONING PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) PARKING SETBACKS ROAD = 10' BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 35' SIDE = 10' REAR = 10' BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PARKING KEYNOTE LEGEND 10. PARKING SETBACK O --- rrr 7 4 3.5' BUILDING SETBACK GARDEN RAIN • • Z.• r rrr :r/ rrr ,=0 •• p LARGE BLOCK RETAINING WALL. 1 DESIGNED BY OTHERS. . CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP J DRAWINGS FOR ENGINEERS REVIEW AND APPROVAL. COLOR TO BE SPECIFIED BY OWNER Kr BUILDING SETBACK ? , PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING - 118 UNITS * * * 0 CONCRETE SIDEWALK ® 6' CONCRETE FILLED PIPE BOLLARD 0 MATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURBS GUTTER O ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP OE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN O ACCESSIBLE PARKING O AREA STRIPED BATH SYSL 45' 2 O.C. O STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT OI LANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS O TRUNCATED DOME RAMP OK HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT O 8612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) OM TRANSITION CURB NO FLAT CURB 0 4' ALUMINUM PICKET FENCE • CONCRETE PAVEMENT 10 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK 1 SPACE/4 RESIDENTS BASED ON MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF THE BUILDING, PLUS ONE SPACE/EMPLOYEE ON THE MAJOR SHIFT, PLUS ONE SPACE PER VEHICLE OWNED BY THE BUILDING'S MANAGEMENT VI REQUIRED PARKING * * * PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING 86 STALLS SITE PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND OSHA STANDARDS. 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS RAIN COMMUNITY • GARDEN * * * * * 3 ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE ID UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE F. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. S. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. MALEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 8 TOTAL LAND AREA IS 1 57 AC RES PLANNING DEPARTMENT PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH/ MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN 11. NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWSE 12 REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS. 11 REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS 14. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. IS ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. IS ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 17. THERE ARE <XXX> ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS. 18 FOR OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE THE <OFFSITE PLANS> IMPROVEMENTS PLANS. CONCRETE PAD FOR PUBUC ART. ART PIECE TO BE SUPPLIED BY OWNER. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * * T\'- LILEZG SETBACK b * * * ITEM 5 * * * 11(11fi h.- 10 I BUILDING SETBACK - - 70TH STREET WEST (CA PC.S L PE 5:OS1- ,4,) z 0 H 0 LL 0 40 —I 0_ 2 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET — 0 10 20 J 0 +I — % —X-1-- SHEET NUMBER C400 871 00 00 871.00 I I I II 9.8.1 )1 ft 71. P.1E 8654 /1)/./ (ME864 89)-)7186E-867 92 ST-7 R 1/ 7 I 7,1U, PROPOSE a RAIN GARD N SURFACE IE: 865.43 ENGINEERED SOIL MEDINDRAINTILEIE: 861.85 YEAR H • 881.8 ST-15 RE 865 43 IE'.661.57 SW 7 IE 861.7 NE/ Ij O CIEIED(X). 21 LF 15. 4,41 (G 868 55 1 E 6 4 09 1E 864 00 NE I G8)033 •-•:: 1 47% 10). 866.58 1-> II, • ST-6 /1741 • 41..M.9 RE 867.51 , 6). .\\ ,,, 3 1E861.96 NE, 0 0E09 1E-862.06 SE / ,7:862200 -- , 32 17 - 29 LF - 17 00.76% ST-19 RE868 36 17 /4 I/ 1E86362 NW / ST-3 /463.64 G.667 1E863,66 E ,L, 1E863.52 S '1, RE 866 03 1E862 22 5 \,......__ ._,,_... ,... 78.6??? NW OEM) G 866 29 ,.......__.*:1 49' LF- 12' ®070% ST-21 1E663 68 SW 79 LF - 15 0650% G 866 17 0" CHAMBER INFILT. SYSTE BOTTOM OF CHAMBER: 881.25 00-YEAR I-11A,L• 884 92 ,/ ST-2 IE 86222 N - 4 LF 151 @ 000% G 865.80) ST-S RE 86727 '1E863 84 SE 11 LF ST-20 1E863 °*%-roL, 61 LF 131 fl_ e \ (0 858.90 870.56) ST 12 87077IE 866 00 W 871.00 (5559.00 ( 8 70 6 7) G 859 INV 871 CO BW 859.53 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS FFE: 871.00 P1 FFE: 859.00 3- 7 196 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR 925 PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) 0 PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT r:o PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER 00.00 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION L1(11:73)- PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION GOD(-11 PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION T60(); PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION MCd9X .' PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION (ffFA)3 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 0 0% PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 000% PROPOSED ADA SLOPE GRADING PLAN NOTES 1 ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDINA SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM 0-76 HOPE 0' - 112. PER AASHTO 91-252 HDPE OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM 13-1785 STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM 0261, 0-990, AND C-443 HOPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM 123034, JOINTS PER ASTM 123212 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF MAY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. I GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE 9 ALL EXCESS MATERIAL BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. ID. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB ANO GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE 869 32 ,R0 S D RAIN GARD ISURFACE IE: 889.00 ENGINEERED SOIL IMEDINDRAINTILE IE: 864.00 1 i 1130-YEAR FIWL: 866. 8 10 (871.00 z \ A j 12 INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <41 CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS 13 UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <41 OF TOPSOIL>. 14 ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15 GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2%. IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED MC IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR MULES EXCEED 2% (t 5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR ADA COMPLIANCE ISSUES 5:87011 • .80 T3' I A 10 88 L TJ -K 7 16. 17. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 05% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE INSULATION BY 5' WOE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4. OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. II 871 00 ) tl~N N III 7870 06 Fro V 70TH ST-REET WEST - - -------- - 87/00 ,--(871.00) {4871.00 10 ROOF DRAIN S-WERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION 10 ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE MR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE OATH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE 21. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 125% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22 CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT 'INFALL CURB. WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND 'OUTFALL' CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 10 20 40 11 I PLANNING DEPARTMENT • m E 069.07 66964--( 868 42 786802) ••\ 0 I- CC 0 UN u_ I- z - a_ KATVVC_LDEV \ LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily \ 3 Design \CAD \PlanSheets \CS-GRADING PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07am „ = g >% O `; ki CU L115,WN E z In o w • J z z• 0 Qa a g '41 O cc EDINA MULTIFAMILY I- a 2 u) _ re 0 Lu 2 Z O LU a wl < LU a. a SHEET NUMBER C500 K:\TNC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENTEdina Multifamily \3 Design \CAMPlanSheets \C6-UTILITY PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:08am EDINA MULTIFAMILY LEGEND EXISTING 1-7-1 8 0 IV O IY PROPOSED • GATE VALVE 4▪ - HYDRANT REDUCER )14 TEE 0 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE Ig) SANITARY CLEANOUT WATERMAN 11119 SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER STORM SEWER ELC UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC COM TELEPHONE OAS GASMAN UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1 ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES 2 SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BEM FOLLOWS B' PVC SDR35 PER ASTM 5-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12 DEEP B' PVC SOR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 17 DEEP 6' PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM 04785 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWNA C150 3 WATER IJ NES SHALL BEM FOLLOWS. 6. AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4. MD LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA CI80 SMALLER THAN 3. PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE 'R PER ANSI 816 22 OR PVC, 200 P S I • PER ASTM 01764 AND D2241. 4 MINIMUM TRENCH MINH SHALL BE 2 FEET 5 ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS PATH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR M INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS 6 ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN ocr) APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF T-F COVER ON ALL WATERLINES 8. IN THE EVENT OFA VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH 400R C900 PATH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 113. VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21 11 (AWWA 0151) (CLASS 50) B. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BAC KEELING. CI PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS FFE: 871.00 P1 FFE: 859.00 10 TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.SI. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES 13. REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF EDINA AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER UNES II 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE_ THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTIUTY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ffi 18. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 18 CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN A 19 BACKFLOW DEVICES (DOCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20 ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. A 21. ALL WATERMAN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. n DATA CONDUITS (SEE ARCH PLANS) 554 IE 858 25 S PROPOSED GAS METER LOCATION (SEE ARCH. PLANS) PROPOSED WATER METER-, REMOTE READ LOCATION (SEE ARCH. PLANS) CITY OF EDINA APR 12 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ELECTRICAL METER PANEL LOCATION (SEE ARCH. PLANS) TRANSFORMER SWITCH (ELS) (SEE ARCH. PLANS) rt 10' WATER SERVICE to,e4 1E858.07 N IE 848.55 W IE 046 05 E CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM LOCATION OF INVERTS II --- CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE TELECOM CONNECTION PATH TELECOM PROVIDER -7---1 , , CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ELECTRICAL CONNECTION WITH . - . EXISTING ELECTRICAL HAND HOLE ' .- CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE GAS CONNECTION HATH GAS PROVIDER CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAN. COORDINATE REQUIRED SHUTOFF WITH CITY. 70TH STREET WEST GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 10 20 40 (99 9 - 11,1 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 1 PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBER C600 PICEA GLAUCA 'DENSATK BHS SYRINGA RETICULATA JTL RVB 6 BETULA NIGRA SIZE 6' HT. SIZE 6' HT. 6' HT. SIZE CONT CAL B&B CONT CAL B&B B&B CONT CAL B & B 2.5" CAL. B&B 2.5' CAL. CONT SPACING SIZE CONT SPACING SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONIFEROUS SHRUBS CODE QTY 0 GOJ 16 TAU 14 C TGA 13 JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA 'GREY OWL' TAXUS X MEDIA 'TAUNTONII' THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 'BAILJOHN' TM BDP 30 BLC 19 GLS 39 LON 55 LQF 16 SEM 60 SYRINGA X 'SMSJBP7' TM AROMA MELANOCARPA 'IROQUOIS BEAUTY' TM RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS 'DONNA MAY' TM HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'SMHPLQF' TM SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA 'SEM' 149 RUDBECKIA FULGIDA 'GOLDSTURM' BES NEPETA X FAASSENII 'KIT KAT' SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS ECHINACEA X 'POW WOW WILDBERRY' HEMEROCALLIS X 'ROSY RETURNS' KKC 95 PDS 29 PWW 18 RRD 41 AST BLU BLV 52 ASTER NOVAE-ANGLIAE 35 SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 42 VERBENA HASTATA OXE PBS 42 HELIOPSIS HELIANTHOIDES 147 LIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA #5 CONT. 4' O.C. #5 CONT. GREY OWL JUNIPER #5 CONT. 4' O.C. TAUTON YEW #5 CONT. 4' O.C. TECHNITO GLOBE ARBORVITAE #5 CONT. 3' O.C. COMMON NAME CONT SPACING SIZE DWARF RED TWIG DOGWOOD BLOOMERANG DARK PURPLE LILAC #5 CONT. 4' O.C. #5 CONT. 4' O.C. #5 CONT. #5 CONT. 3' O.C. CONT SIZE SPACING 18' OC 81 CONT GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC LITTLE DEVIL NINEBARK LITTLE QUICK FIRE HYDRANGEA SEM FALSESPIREA COMMON NAME BLACK-EYED SUSAN #1 CONT 18' O.C. CONT SIZE SPACING FLAT 2' PLUGS 36' OC FLAT 2' PLUGS 36' OC FLAT 2' PLUGS 36' OC FLAT 2' PLUGS 18' OC FLAT 2" PLUGS 36" OC KIT KAT CATMINT #1 CONT 18" OC PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1 CONT 24" OC POW WOW VVILDBERRY CONEFLOWER #1 CONT 24" OC ROSY RETURNS DAYLILY COMMON NAME NEW ENGLAND ASTER LITTLE BLUESTEM GRASS BLUE VERVAIN JOE PYE WEED OX-EYE SUNFLOWER PRAIRIE BLAZINGSTAR FIAT 18" OC 53 CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA 'KARL FOERSTER' KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS #1 CONT KFG 4- LDN RRD 2- BOP 5- TGA 4- LDN 15 BES PL K \TVVC_LDEV\ LUPE DEVELOPMENTEdina Multifamily \ 3 Design \CAD\PlanSheets\ L1-LANDSCAPE PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:08am 2-RTD 24 - JPW 3 - RVB 9- OXE 6 - AST 3-RTO 3 - BLU 4- OXE 14 - PBS 5 - BLV 29 - JPW 2 - RID LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANT SCHEDULE CONIFEROUS TREE 0 ORNAMENTAL TREE OVERSTORY TREE RAIN GARDEN 0 CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME ABM 2 GSL 1 CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME RTD 33 CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILADELINE' COMMON NAME BLACK HILLS SPRUCE COMMON NAME JAPANESE TREE LILAC CLUMP RIVER BIRCH MULTI-TRUNK COMMON NAME AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN COMMON NAME FIREDANCE RED TWIG DOGWOOD #5 CONT. 4' O.C. EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING SHRUB (TYP.) EDGER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SOD I IRRIGATION, SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS (TYP.) SEEDI SOD EDGE (TYP.) 15 JPW 2 - RTD 3 - RVB 5 - BLV 8 - OXE 16 - JPW 3 - RTO 9 - AST 4 - BLV 5 - BLU 2 - RTD 18 - PBS "e'C • .47 --o _o iffr ° eimee000c,0004ye•Hre0000ecooveee*, triPA cailv (4.re ' 3 - AST 5 - BLV 4- OXE 4 - AST 6 - BLU 3 - BLV 29 - PBS 32 - JPW 5-LQF 3 -ACD 4-SEM 4 - SEM 3 -ACD NUM 3 - LQF 2 - BOP m_ I. ROCK MULCH (TYP.) COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA- DETAILS TED REVISIONS 18 - PBS 6 - AST 4 - RTD 5 - BLV 6- OXE 7 - BLU 35 - PBS 29 - JPW 9 - AST 23 - JPW 3 - BLC 0 g.g 2 -GOJ 00 9 - RRD 5 - LDN 6" f04 5 ll'oy 1 K9 - TGA 4 / ,c44,44.Weiralirtreko Nto rg rolevreasitr ,--,g, tett:11 70TH STREET WEST PO FOOT WOE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME ACD 6 CORNUS SERICEA 'ALLEMAN'S COMPACT CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME CODE DIV BOTANICAL NAME JPW 226 EUPATORIUM MACULATUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS TREES REQUIRED: 26 TREES = 1,039 FEET PERIMETER / 40 TREES PROVIDED: 26 TREES OFF-STREET PARKING SCREENING: MUST BE 4 FEET ABOVE LEVEL OF PARKING LOT WITH MINIMUM OPACITY OF 90 PERCENT YEAR ROUND. IROQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY #5 CONT. 4' O.C. 30" OC NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 10 20 40 IMMMI z I- z ELu o_g (f) Lij o• 0 '<cc Pu" 0 g W a. < 0 SHEET NUMBER L100 61 - BES 31 - KKC 22 - GLS 2 - BDP 5- LDNI 12 - KKC - BES `a' PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS 12 -KKC FFE: 871.00 12 -BES P1 FFE: 859.00 7-SEM 5-LDN m ▪ —3-LDN PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1-ABM 12 - GLS LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES OA O EDGER (TYP.) O DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) O ROCK MULCH (TYP.) 0 SOD (TYP.) EDINA MULTIFAMILY 2 - BHS 3 - BDP 2 - LON 4-GOJ 3-BDP111 7- PDS,11 • 2 - JTL 11 1 10- LDN 11 T, I 4- GOJ 2 - BHS 2 - LDN 3 - BDP 5 - SEM 9-PDS 2-TAU 3-BDP Weif FENCING - SEE ARCH AND CML PLANS ti 3 - LDN 2 - BHS 3 - BLC 4 - SEM 5- PW/V 3 - BDP 3 - BLC ;ITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 \NNING DEPARTMENT A 2 - BHS 2- GOJ 3 - BDP 12 - KKC 4 - SEM 3 - BLC 3 - LDN 3 - BOP 2 - TAU 5 - SEM 13 - RRD • n n n ACER X FREEMANII 'AUTUMN BLAZE' TILIA CORDATA 'GREENSPIRE' 0 0 0 0 0 0 PERENNIALS RAIN GARDEN iii . Mat rrz EDINA MULTIFAMILY 5 I- z w E (i) a ce ce O 11 1 Z a- w- g_ 0- g a NOTES: LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING. 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL. INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2' ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. 4. SLIT REMAINING TREATED BURLAP AT 6" INTERVALS. 5. BACKFILL TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL, THEN WATER PLANT. REMOVE THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 6. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL 7. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 8. BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 9. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 10. FINAL LOCATION OF TREE TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2. ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. ON CENTER SPACING AS STATED ON PLAN. 3. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 4. ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND/OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6. ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA-GROWN AND/OR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. NOTES: 7. PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. 8. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES. 9. PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL-IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING OF TOP AND ROOT. 3. REMOVE CONTAINER AND SCORE OUTSIDE OF SOIL MASS TO REDIRECT AND PREVENT CIRCLING FIBROUS ROOTS. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 4. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL 5. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 6. BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 7. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 8. MIX IN 3-4" OF ORGANIC COMPOST. 10. PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11. OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. SHRUB / PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL L101 L101 SCALE: N.T.S 12. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 13. WRAP ALL SMOOTH-BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14. STAKING OF TREES AS REQUIRED; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15. THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16. BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN/DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. MINIMUM 4" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 12" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR TREE, SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS. MULCH AT PLANTING AREA CITY OF EDINA APR 1 2 2021 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 17. MULCH TO BE AT ALL TREE, SHRUB, PERENNIAL, AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WITHIN TURF AREAS. PERENNIAL AND ORNAMENTAL GRASS BEDS SHALL HAVE 2" DEPTH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH TO BE FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL AND COLORED RED, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE BUFF LIMESTONE, 1 1/2" TO 3" DIAMETER, AT MINIMUM 3" DEPTH, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE ON COMMERCIAL GRADE FILTER FABRIC, BY TYPAR, OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH NO EXPOSURE. MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. MULCH TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 18. EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE COL-MET (OR EQUAL) STEEL EDGING; 3/16" THICK, COLOR BLACK, OR SPADED EDGE, AS INDICATED. STEEL EDGING SHALL BE PLACED WITH SMOOTH CURVES AND STAKED WITH METAL SPIKES NO GREATER THAN 4 FOOT ON CENTER WITH TOP OF EDGER AT GRADE, FOR MOWERS TO CUT ABOVE WITHOUT DAMAGE. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V-SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. INDNIDUAL TREE, SHRUB, OR RAIN-GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. EDGING TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 19. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PARKING LOT ISLANDS TO BE SODDED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AROUND ALL TREES AND SHRUBS. SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX, FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. SEED AS SPECIFIED AND PER MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. L101 20. PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OPERATION MANUALS. AS-BUILT PLANS, AND NORMAL PROGRAMMING. SYSTEM SHALL BE WINTERIZED AND HAVE SPRING STARTUP DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. SYSTEM SHALL HAVE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PARTS AND LABOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22. REPAIR, REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD/SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 23. REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO OWNER. 24. RAIN GARDEN NOTE: PROVIDE AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AT RAIN GARDEN AREA SIDE SLOPES AFTER ALL PLANTING HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. BLANKET TO BE ONE SEASON GEOJUTE, MN/DOT CATEGORY 2 (STRAW 1S, WOOD FIBER 1S), OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLANKET TO BE OVERLAPPED BY 4" AND ANCHORED BY SOD STAPLES. PLACE BLANKET PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. TRENCH IN EDGES OF BLANKET AREA TO PREVENT UNDER MINING. PROVIDE SILT FENCE AT TOP OF SLOPE AS NEEDED. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO MATCH OTHER PROJECT PLANTING MULCH. PLACE 4" DEPTH OF MULCH AT ALL PLANTING AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AREA (NO FILTER FABRIC). SEE RAIN GARDEN DETAIL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. RAIN GARDEN TO PROVIDE PROPER INFILTRATION AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS PER ENGINEERS APPROVAL 25. MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND OTHER PLANTS UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION, BUT IN NO CASE, LESS THAN FOLLOWING PERIOD; 1 YEAR AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION. MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND OTHER PLANTS BY PRUNING, CULTIVATING, AND WEEDING AS REQUIRED FOR HEALTHY GROWTH. RESTORE PLANTING SAUCERS. TIGHTEN AND REPAIR STAKE AND GUY SUPPORTS AND RESET TREES AND SHRUBS TO PROPER GRADES OR VERTICAL POSITION AS REQUIRED. RESTORE OR REPLACE DAMAGED WRAPPINGS. SPRAY AS REQUIRED TO KEEP TREES AND SHRUBS FREE OF INSECTS AND DISEASE. REPLENISH MULCH TO THE REQUIRED DEPTH. MAINTAIN LAWNS FOR 45 DAYS AFTER INSTALLING SOD INCLUDING MOWING WHEN SOD RECITES 4' IN HEIGHT. WEED PLANTING BEDS AND MULCH SAUCERS AT MINIMUM ONCE A MONTH DURING THE GROWING SEASON. PROVIDE A MONTHLY REPORT TO THE OWNER ON WEEDING AND OTHER MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBER L101 2X ROOT BALL WIDTH REVISIONS EXTEND HOLE EXCAVATION WIDTH A MINIMUM OF 6' BEYOND THE PLANTS ROOT SYSTEM. FINISHED GRADE EDGER, AS SPECIFIED PREPARED PLANTING BED AND BACKFILL SOIL (THOROUGHLY LOOSENED) DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH SOD 4" TOPSOIL PLANTING SOIL --- - ................... WERan= =WATAilAr n=11=11= i11= 11= = 1=11 -11=11- =ri=" =11=11=11=11=n=I TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE N.T.S. TURF/SOD 12' STEEL EDGER SPIKE 3/16" X 4" STEEL EDGER MULCH SECTION PLAN STEEL EDGER DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S. L101 3/16' X 4" STEEL EDGER TURF/SOD 12' STEEL EDGER SPIKE TOP OF EDGER TO BE FLUSH WITH SOD MULCH SUBGRADE SPADED EDGE "V" SHAPED, 4" WIDTH, 4' DEPTH, MORE VERTICAL ON LAWN SIDE FINISHED GRADE SPADED EDGE DETAIL SCALE: 1-1/2,1' K: \TWC_LDEV1UPE DEVELOPMENTEdina Multifamily \3 Design \ CAD \ PlanSheets \L1-LANDSCAPE DETAILS.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:08am W 70TH STREET W 69TH STREET W 66TH STREET FRANCE AVE SVALLEY VIEW ROADW 72ND STREET DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.BRIAN M. WURDEMAN04/12/202153113DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNHKDHKDBMWNORTH VICINITY N.T.S. SITE EDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS INCLUDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.IF REPRODUCED, THE SCALES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON A ARCH full bleed D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches) SHEET. 3.ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICES COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDING POSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION OF SERVICES. 4.ALL GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED (EARTHWORK, FINAL UTILITIES, AND FINAL GRADING) BY THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS. NOTES: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE: (651) 645-4197 CONTACT: RYAN A. HYLLESTED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 1826 BUERKLE ROAD SAINT PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE: (651) 645-4197 CONTACT: STEVE MARTIN PROJECT TEAM: SURVEYOR EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC. 1229 TYLER STREET NE SUITE 100 TELEPHONE: (612) 466-3300 FAX: (612) 466-3383 CONTACT: CHRISTOPHER A. TERWEDO ENGINEER KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY: BRIAN M. WURDEMAN 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197 OWNER / DEVELOPER LUPE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS 1701 MADISON ST NE, SUITE 111 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 TELEPHONE: (612) 436-3200 EDINA MULTIFAMILY FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call ARCHITECT POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANADANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 TELEPHONE: (651) 642-9200 SITE BENCHMARKS: (LOCATIONS SHOWN ON SURVEY) SBM #1 TOP OF MNDOT GEODETIC MONUMENT "2733 Q" GSID STATION #95550 ELEVATION=874.82 (NAVD 88) SBM #2 TOP NUT OF HYDRANT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 70TH STREET WEST ELEVATION=872.55 (NAVD 88) BENCHMARKS 4040 70TH STREET WEST SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 28N, RANGE 24W BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C0-COVER SHEET.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:06amPREPARED FORCOVER SHEETC000EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMNSheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C000 COVER SHEET V100 ALTA SURVEY C100 GENERAL NOTES C200 DEMO PLAN C300 TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN C400 SITE PLAN C500 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C600 UTILITY PLAN L100 LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 LANDSCAPE DETAILS FORREFERENCEONLYNOT TO SCALE, FOR REFERENCE ONLY BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\V1-ALTA SURVEY.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07amDATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNHKDHKDBMWPREPARED FORALTA SURVEYV100EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1.THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" (LATEST EDITION) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM AS APPLICABLE TO THESE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ALL MATERIAL AND LABOR TO CONSTRUCT THE FACILITY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE APPROVING AUTHORITIES, SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB ALL AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, REMOVING TREES, STUMPS, ROOTS, MUCK, EXISTING PAVEMENT AND ALL OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. 3.THE EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS QUALITY LEVEL "D" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ACSE 38/02, ENTITLED STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF SUBSURFACE QUALITY DATA BY THE FHA. EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER. GUARANTEE IS NOT MADE THAT ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN OR THAT THE LOCATION OF THOSE SHOWN ARE ENTIRELY ACCURATE. FINDING THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AND SHALL BE DONE BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORK IN THE VICINITY. FURTHERMORE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE OWNER OR ENGINEER WILL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES SUSTAINED OR COST INCURRED BECAUSE OF THE OPERATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, NOR FOR TEMPORARY BRACING AND SHORING OF SAME. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO SHORE, BRACE, SWING OR RELOCATE A UTILITY, THE UTILITY COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT AFFECTED SHALL BE CONTACTED AND THEIR PERMISSION OBTAINED REGARDING THE METHOD TO USE FOR SUCH WORK. 4.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES WHICH MAY HAVE BURIED OR AERIAL UTILITIES WITHIN OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION AREA BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 48 HOURS MINIMUM NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND BONDS IF REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES ONE COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND COPIES OF ANY REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. 7.ANY DISCREPANCIES ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER AND ENGINEER BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NO FIELD CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND NOTIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER. 8.ALL COPIES OF COMPACTION, CONCRETE AND OTHER REQUIRED TEST RESULTS ARE TO BE SENT TO THE OWNER DIRECTLY FROM THE TESTING AGENCY. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOCUMENTING AND MAINTAINING AS-BUILT INFORMATION WHICH SHALL BE RECORDED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES OR AT THE COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION INTERVALS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AS-BUILT DRAWINGS TO THE OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CERTIFICATION TO JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES AS REQUIRED. ALL AS-BUILT DATA SHALL BE COLLECTED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR WHOSE SERVICES ARE ENGAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 10.ANY WELLS DISCOVERED ON SITE THAT WILL HAVE NO USE MUST BE PLUGGED BY A LICENSED WELL DRILLING CONTRACTOR IN A MANNER APPROVED BY ALL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY WELL ABANDONMENT PERMITS REQUIRED. 11.ANY WELL DISCOVERED DURING EARTH MOVING OR EXCAVATION SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER DISCOVERY IS MADE. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY KNOWN EXISTING OR OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. IF ANY CONFLICTS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THE SITE WORK THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OWNER OF AN IDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH INSTALLATION RELIEVES OWNER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR A RELATED CHANGE ORDER. 13.SHOULD CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER ANY DEBRIS LADEN SOIL, STRUCTURES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS, OR OTHER SOURCE OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION, THEY SHALL IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. TYPICAL OWNER/ENGINEER OBSERVATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: - PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING, SUBGRADE PREPARATION, BASE INSTALLATION ASPHALT INSTALLATION, UNDERGROUND PIPING AND UTILITIES INSTALLATION, INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES, CHECK VALVES, HYDRANTS, METERS, ETC., SIDEWALK INSTALLATION, CONNECTIONS TO WATER AND SEWER MAINS, TESTS OF UTILITIES 3RD PARTY TEST REPORTS REQ'D TEST REPORTS REQUIRED FOR CLOSE OUT INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: - DENSITY TEST REPORTS - BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTS OF WATER SYSTEM - PRESSURE TEST OF WATER/SEWER - LEAK TESTS ON SEWER SYSTEM AND GREASE TRAPS - ANY OTHER TESTING REQUIRED BY THE AGENCY/MUNICIPALITY WATER STORM SEWER & SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT GRAVITY SEWER LATERALS, MANHOLES, GRAVITY SEWER LINES, AND DOMESTIC WATER AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, TOOLS, MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN FULL AND COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH THE SHOWN, DESCRIBED AND REASONABLY INTENDED REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 2.ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY LOCATION AND COORDINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTES CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SECTION OF THIS SHEET. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL DISTURBED VEGETATION IN KIND, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 4.DEFLECTION OF PIPE JOINTS AND CURVATURE OF PIPE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SECURELY CLOSE ALL OPEN ENDS OF PIPE AND FITTINGS WITH A WATERTIGHT PLUG WHEN WORK IS NOT IN PROGRESS. THE INTERIOR OF ALL PIPES SHALL BE CLEAN AND JOINT SURFACES WIPED CLEAN AND DRY AFTER THE PIPE HAS BEEN LOWERED INTO THE TRENCH. VALVES SHALL BE PLUMB AND LOCATED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. 5.ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE CAREFULLY STORED FOLLOWING MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE COATING OR LINING IN ANY D.I. PIPE FITTINGS. ANY PIPE OR FITTING WHICH IS DAMAGED OR WHICH HAS FLAWS OR IMPERFECTIONS WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER OR OWNER, RENDERS IT UNFIT FOR USE, SHALL NOT BE USED. ANY PIPE NOT SATISFACTORY FOR USE SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE JOB SITE, AND SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 6.WATER FOR FIRE FIGHTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMBUSTIBLES BEING BROUGHT ON SITE. 7.ALL UTILITY AND STORM DRAIN TRENCHES LOCATED UNDER AREAS TO RECEIVE PAVING SHALL BE COMPLETELY BACK FILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNING JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY'S SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 8.UNDERGROUND LINES SHALL BE SURVEYED BY A STATE OF MN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR PRIOR TO BACK FILLING. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, ANY AND ALL TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR ANY AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION. THESE TESTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO, INFILTRATION AND EXFILTRATION, TELEVISION INSPECTION AND A MANDREL TEST ON GRAVITY SEWER. A COPY OF THE TEST RESULTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE UTILITY PROVIDER, OWNER AND JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE OF 10' AND A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 18" BETWEEN WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES AND LINES. 11.IF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS NECESSARY TO RETURN IT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BETTER. 12.ALL STORM PIPE ENTERING STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED TO ASSURE CONNECTION AT STRUCTURE IS WATERTIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED BY CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 13.UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN CITY AND STATE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ALL STORM SEWER MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT, AND SHALL HAVE TRAFFIC BEARING RING & COVERS. MANHOLES IN UNPAVED AREAS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. LIDS SHALL BE LABELED "STORM SEWER". EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE. 14.TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY LAND SURVEYORS. IF THE CONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY, AT THEIR EXPENSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW. 15.CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO SAME. 16.ALL STORM STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH UNIFORM POURED MORTAR FROM INVERT IN TO INVERT OUT. 17.ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO STORM SEWER BY PREFABRICATED WYES OR AT STORM STRUCTURES. ROOF DRAINS AND TRUCK WELL DRAIN SHALL RUN AT A MINIMUM 1% SLOPE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, AND TIE IN AT THE CENTERLINE OF THE STORM MAIN. 18.ALL ROOF AND SANITARY SEWER DRAINS SHALL BE INSULATED IF 7' OF COVER CANNOT BE PROVIDED. 19.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES THAT ARE TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 20.THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND OTHER ABOVE AND BELOW-GRADE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AS SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATIONS OF EACH PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 21.A MINIMUM OF 5' SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN UTILITIES AND TREES UNLESS A ROOT BARRIER IS UTILIZED. 22.GAS, PHONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICES SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. DRY UTILITY COMPANIES MAY ALTER THE DESIGN LAYOUT DURING THEIR REVIEW. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE FINAL DESIGN AND INSTALLATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 23.COORDINATE UTILITY INSTALLATION WITH IRRIGATION DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. 24.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FLOW LINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PERIMETER WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO INSIDE WALL FACE. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT WALL WIDTH AND SPECIFICATIONS. 25.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS). FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS, AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS. 26.REFERENCE M.E.P. PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 27.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE STRUCTURAL PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS AND PAD PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONS. 28.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE M.E.P PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR LIGHT POLE WIRING. GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES 1.GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS INCLUDING GRADES AND DIMENSIONS BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE THE SITE TO THE ELEVATIONS INDICATED AND SHALL ADJUST BMP'S AS NECESSARY AND REGRADE WASHOUTS WHERE THEY OCCUR AFTER EVERY RAINFALL UNTIL A GRASS STAND IS WELL ESTABLISHED OR ADEQUATE STABILIZATION OCCURS. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THERE IS POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS SO THAT SURFACE RUNOFF WILL DRAIN BY GRAVITY TO NEW OR EXISTING DRAINAGE OUTLETS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE NO PONDING OCCURS IN PAVED AREAS AND SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IF ANY GRADING DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND IN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT OR UTILITIES. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL MANHOLE COVERS, VALVE COVERS, VAULT LIDS, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, GUY WIRES, AND TELEPHONE BOXES THAT ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING CASTINGS AND STRUCTURES TO REMAIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADES. 5.BACKFILL FOR UTILITY LINES SHALL BE PLACED PER DETAILS, STANDARDS, AND SPECIFICATIONS SO THAT THE UTILITY WILL BE STABLE. WHERE UTILITY LINES CROSS THE PARKING LOT, THE TOP 6 INCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED SIMILARLY TO THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT. UTILITY DITCHES SHALL BE VISUALLY INSPECTED DURING THE EXCAVATION PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT UNDESIRABLE FILL IS NOT USED. 6.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 4" OF TOPSOIL AT COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL UNPAVED AREAS IN EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REGRADED AND SODDED. 7.AFTER PLACEMENT OF SUBGRADE AND PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST AND OBSERVE PAVEMENT AREAS FOR EVIDENCE OF PONDING. ALL AREAS SHALL ADEQUATELY DRAIN TOWARDS THE INTENDED STRUCTURE TO CONVEY STORM RUNOFF. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY OWNER AND ENGINEER IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE DISCOVERED. 8.WHERE EXISTING PAVEMENT IS INDICATED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW CUT FULL DEPTH FOR A SMOOTH AND STRAIGHT JOINT AND REPLACE THE PAVEMENT WITH THE SAME TYPE AND DEPTH OF MATERIAL AS EXISTING OR AS INDICATED. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PROTECTION OVER ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT BY THE OWNER. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE CLEANED OF DEBRIS AS REQUIRED DURING AND AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FLOWS. 10.IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ANY APPLICABLE REQUIRED PERMITS. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE OWNER AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 11.FIELD DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN AT INTERVALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY OR TO MN/DOT STANDARDS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, THE MOST STRINGENT SHALL GOVERN. 12.ALL SLOPES AND AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE GRADED AS PER PLANS. THE AREAS SHALL THEN BE SODDED OR SEEDED AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS, FERTILIZED, MULCHED, WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL HARDY GRASS GROWTH IS ESTABLISHED IN ALL AREAS. ANY AREAS DISTURBED FOR ANY REASON PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOB SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ALL EARTHEN AREAS WILL BE SODDED OR SEEDED AND MULCHED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTROL OF DUST AND DIRT RISING AND SCATTERING IN THE AIR DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE WATER SPRINKLING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHODS OF CONTROL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL GOVERNING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 14.SOD, WHERE CALLED FOR, MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED ON EXPOSED SLOPES WITHIN 48 HOURS OF COMPLETING FINAL GRADING, AND AT ANY OTHER TIME AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT EROSION, SEDIMENTATION OR TURBID DISCHARGES. 15.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT LANDSCAPE ISLAND PLANTING AREAS AND OTHER PLANTING AREAS ARE NOT COMPACTED AND DO NOT CONTAIN ROAD BASE MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO EXCAVATE AND REMOVE ALL UNDESIRABLE MATERIAL FROM ALL AREAS ON THE SITE TO BE PLANTED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. 16.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL UNDERGROUND STORM WATER PIPING PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATION. 17.ALL CONCRETE/ASPHALT SHALL BE INSTALLED PER GEOTECH REPORT, CITY OF EDINA AND MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. 18.SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FLOWLINE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 19.LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO THE PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. 20.IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE OWNER ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 21.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING EXISTING UTILITIES, AND SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES THAT OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT COMPENSATION. 22.BLEND NEW EARTHWORK SMOOTHLY TO TRANSITION BACK TO EXISTING GRADE. 23.ALL PROPOSED GRADES ONSITE SHALL BE 3:1 OR FLATTER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS. ANY SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 REQUIRE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BLANKET. 24.ADHERE TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS NECESSARY IN THE GENERAL N.P.D.E.S. PERMIT AND STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 25.ADJUST AND/OR CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE A SMOOTH FIT AND CONTINUOUS GRADE. 26.CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE MINIMUM GRADES ARE MET WITHIN PAVED AREAS, 1.2% FOR ASPHALT PAVING AND 0.6% FOR CONCRETE PAVING. EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1.THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ("SWPPP") IS COMPRISED OF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN, THE STANDARD DETAILS, THE PLAN NARRATIVE, ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SWPPP, PLUS THE PERMIT AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. 2.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND THE STATE OF MN NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT (NPDES PERMIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CONTENTS. 3.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) AND CONTROLS SHALL CONFORM TO FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS OR MANUAL OF PRACTICE, AS APPLICABLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL CONTROLS AS DIRECTED BY THE PERMITTING AGENCY OR OWNER. 4.SITE ENTRY AND EXIT LOCATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT THE TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO A PUBLIC ROADWAY, IT SHALL BE DONE IN AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT BASIN. ALL FINES IMPOSED FOR DISCHARGING SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC AREAS SHALL BE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5.TEMPORARY SEEDING OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS OF STABILIZATION SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THE LAST DISTURBANCE ON ANY AREA OF THE SITE. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE CLEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL OR AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PERMIT. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE ON PLAN THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA WHICH SHALL ALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AREA, EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA, AND AREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACILITIES, OFFICE TRAILERS, AND TOILET FACILITIES. 8.ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS, VEHICLE CLEANING, EQUIPMENT CLEANING, ETC.) SHALL BE DETAINED AND PROPERLY TREATED OR DISPOSED. 9.SUFFICIENT OIL AND GREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE OR READILY AVAILABLE TO CONTAIN AND CLEAN-UP FUEL OR CHEMICAL SPILLS AND LEAKS. 10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DUST CONTROL ON SITE. THE USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOXIC LIQUIDS FOR DUST SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED. 11.RUBBISH, TRASH, GARBAGE, LITTER, OR OTHER SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO SEALED CONTAINERS. MATERIALS SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE PREMISES THROUGH THE ACTION OF WIND OR STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO DRAINAGE DITCHES OR WATERS OF THE STATE. 12.ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS IS PRACTICABLE. 13.ALL STAGING AREAS, STOCKPILES, SPOILS, ETC. SHALL BE LOCATED SUCH THAT THEY WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT STORM WATER QUALITY. OTHERWISE, COVERING OR ENCIRCLING THESE AREAS WITH SOME PROTECTIVE MEASURE WILL BE NECESSARY. 14.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RE-ESTABLISHING ANY EROSION CONTROL DEVICE WHICH THEY DISTURB. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE ESTABLISHED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES THAT MAY LEAD TO UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE OR STORM WATER POLLUTION, SEDIMENTATION, OR OTHER POLLUTANTS. UNAUTHORIZED POLLUTANTS INCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO) EXCESS CONCRETE DUMPING OR CONCRETE RESIDUE, PAINTS, SOLVENTS, GREASES, FUEL AND LUBRICANT OIL, PESTICIDES, AND ANY SOLID WASTE MATERIALS. 15.EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE PROJECT. 16.ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. CHANGES ARE TO BE APPROVED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER AND THE CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DIVISION. 17.IF THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AS APPROVED CANNOT CONTROL EROSION AND OFF-SITE SEDIMENTATION FROM THE PROJECT, THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE REVISED AND/OR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES WILL BE REQUIRED ON SITE. ANY REVISIONS TO THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE ALL MEASURES STATED ON THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, AND IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FULLY FUNCTIONAL CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY ALL JURISDICTIONS UNTIL NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASE OF WORK OR FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CHECKED BY A CERTIFIED PERSON AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 7 CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF A 0.5" RAINFALL EVENT, AND CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: INLET PROTECTION DEVICES AND BARRIERS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED IF THEY SHOW SIGNS OF UNDERMINING, OR DETERIORATION. 1.ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREAS SHOULD BE FERTILIZED, WATERED AND RESEEDED AS NEEDED. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS REFER TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2.SILT FENCES SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IF DAMAGED. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SILT FENCES WHEN IT REACHES ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. 3.THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S) SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 4.THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION (SUITABLE FOR PARKING AND STORAGE). THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE TEMPORARY PARKING AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 5.ALL MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS SHALL BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 2 CALENDAR DAYS FOLLOWING THE INSPECTION. PAVING AND STRIPING NOTES 1.ALL PAVING, CONSTRUCTION, MATERIALS, AND WORKMANSHIP WITHIN JURISDICTION'S RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL OR COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) OR MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS (LATEST EDITION) IF NOT COVERED BY LOCAL OR COUNTY REGULATIONS. 2.ALL SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (M.U.T.C.D) AND CITY STANDARDS. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR FIRE LANES, ROADWAY LANES, PARKING STALLS, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOLS, ACCESS AISLES, STOP BARS AND SIGNS, AND MISCELLANEOUS STRIPING WITHIN THE PARKING LOT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 4.ALL EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL EXTEND THROUGH THE CURB. 5.THE MINIMUM LENGTH OF OFFSET JOINTS AT RADIUS POINTS SHALL BE 2 FEET. 6.ALL JOINTS, INCLUDING EXPANSION JOINTS WITH REMOVABLE TACK STRIPS, SHALL BE SEALED WITH JOINT SEALANT. 7.THE MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES OF ALL CONCRETE SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS IN THE A.C.I. (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE) MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE. 8.CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A SECOND COATING OVER ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER FOLLOWED BY A COAT OF GLASS BEADS AS APPLICABLE PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 9.ANY EXISTING PAVEMENT, CURBS AND/OR SIDEWALKS DAMAGED OR REMOVED WILL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER AND OWNER. 10.BEFORE PLACING PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SUITABLE ACCESSIBLE ROUTES (PER A.D.A). GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 11.MAXIMUM JOINT SPACING IS TWICE THE DEPTH OF THE CONCRETE PAVEMENT IN FEET. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NO. B2100387 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 1101 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 DATED 4/02/2021 BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C1-GENERAL NOTES.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07amDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.BRIAN M. WURDEMAN04/12/202153113DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNHKDHKDBMWPREPARED FORGENERAL NOTESC100EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMN ITEM 5ITEM 5VALLEY VIEW ROAD70TH STREET WEST867868869870868869 870871 870871872873874875875873 8728718 7 0 869 869868 869 869870867866 865 BUILDING DEMOLITION MULTI-STORY BUILDING 10,442 SF CLEAR AND GRUB (TYP.) ASPHALT REMOVAL EXISTING STORM SEWER TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.)TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) ASPHALT REMOVAL ASPHALT REMOVAL ASPHALT REMOVAL TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) CLEAR AND GRUB (TYP.) CLEAR AND GRUB (TYP.) CLEAR AND GRUB (TYP.)EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) TREE REMOVAL (TYP.) EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STORM SEWER TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED REMOVE STAIRS AND RAILING REMOVE STAIRS AND RAILING REMOVE EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PEDESTRIAN RAMP TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PEDESTRIAN RAMP TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE REMOVAL CONCRETE REMOVAL ASPHALT REMOVAL PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) CONCRETE REMOVAL PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) CURB REMOVAL (TYP.) CONCRETE REMOVAL REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE REMOVE EXISTING SIGNAGE REMOVE EXISTING SIGNAGE REMOVE EXISTING TRANSFORMER REMOVE EXISTING GAS METER LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.)LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (TYP.) PROPOSED SAWCUT LINE (TYP.) REMOVE EXISTING SIGNAGE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION 1.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL (IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES) ALL STRUCTURES, PADS, WALLS, FLUMES, FOUNDATIONS, PARKING, DRIVES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC. SUCH THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PLANS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. ALL FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 2.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE PERMIT AND RECEIPTS OF DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS TO THE OWNER AND OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL UTILITY SERVICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL TIMES. UTILITY SERVICES SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND COORDINATION WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND/OR THE CITY. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY CONCERNING PORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY'S FORCES AND ANY FEES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL FEES AND CHARGES. 5.THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND ARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY DEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ALL AREAS OF PROPOSED WORK. 6.ALL EXISTING SEWERS, PIPING AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS ANY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE. VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROCEED WITH CAUTION AROUND ANY ANTICIPATED FEATURES. GIVE NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND CAP ALL LINES BEFORE PRECEDING WITH THE WORK. 7.ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE, CABLE, WATER, FIBER OPTIC, AND/OR GAS LINES NEEDING TO BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY. ADEQUATE TIME SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR RELOCATION AND CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION IN UTILITY SERVICE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ANY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 8.CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES, ENCLOSURES, ETC. (AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AS APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE COORDINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDINA, <COUNTY> COUNTY AND MN/DOT. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTIES IF ACCESS WILL BE INTERRUPTED OR ALTERED AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10.PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OCCURRING, ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED. 11.CONTRACTOR MAY LIMIT SAW-CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT IF ANY DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WATER MAIN WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPT. AND THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT TO PLAN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IS CONSTANTLY AVAILABLE TO THE SITE THROUGHOUT THIS SPECIFIC WORK AND THROUGH ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING/PROVIDING ANY REQUIRED WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WITH THE CITY OF EDINA DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED. 13.REFER TO SURVEY FOR ALL EXISTING INVERT AND RIM ELEVATIONS. 14.ALL UTILITIES SHOWN ARE EXISTING UTILITIES. 15.IN THE EVENT A WELL IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY. ALL WELLS SHALL BE SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE OF MN REQUIREMENTS. 16.IN THE EVENT THAT UNKNOWN CONTAINERS OR TANKS ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER AND/OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. ALL CONTAINERS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT A PERMITTED LANDFILL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF ANY EXISTING DRAINTILE IS ENCOUNTERED ON SITE. NO ACTIVE DRAINTILE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES NORTH LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE UTILITY LINES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE EXISTING J-BARRIER EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASIN EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVE EXISTING WELL EXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER EXISTING ROOF DRAIN EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING CABLE BOX EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE CLEARING & GRUBBING FILL & ABANDON UTILITY LINES EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER LEGEND FULL DEPTH SAWCUT BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C2-DEMO PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07amDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.BRIAN M. WURDEMAN04/12/202153113DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNHKDHKDBMWPREPARED FORDEMO PLANC200EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMN BIKES 101 COMMUNITY 102 MAIL 103 ELEVATOR LOBBY 104 FITNESS 106 TOILET 107 TOILET 108 MAINTENANCE OFFICE 109 LAUNDRY 110 MECH 111 OFFICE-2 112 OFFICE-1 113 PACKAGES 114 LOUNGE 115 LOBBY 116 WORK ROOM 117 STORAGE 118 STORAGE 119 ART 120 EXIT 121 Room 122 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS FFE: 871.00 P1 FFE: 859.00VALLEY VIEW ROAD70TH STREET WEST 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 11 13 12 14 15 17 10 76 18 19 16 B B B B B B B BB B B B B B B B B B A C C C C LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TREE TO BE REMOVED PROPERTY LINE TREE TO REMAIN LEGEND TREE PROTECTION SIGN FURNISH AND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE AT THE TREE'S DRIPLINE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS SPECIFIED, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. WHEN POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25 FEET BEYOND THE DRIP LINE. PLACE PROTECTION SIGNS ALONG FENCE AT 20' INTERVALS. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS DRIP LINE PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL: 18 TREES PROTECTED TREE MITIGATION REQUIRED:2 TREES *PROTECTED TREES MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT MITIGATION WITHIN 10 FOOT RADIUS OF BUILDING PAD, DECK OR PATIO OF A NEW OR REMODELED BUILDING, WITHIN 5 FOOT RADIUS OF DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS, WITHIN 10 FOOT RADIUS OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. *PROTECTED TREES MUST BE REPLACED WITH ONE TREE OF SIMILAR SPECIES. TREE MITIGATION DATA 1.PRUNING WILL BE DONE BY PROFESSIONALS DURING APPROPRIATE PRUNING SEASON. 2.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, OPERATION OF MACHINERY, OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SORT WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE FENCE-LINE WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM CITY. 3.SITE GRADING TO BE DONE ONLY AFTER PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN, CITY HAS APPROVED FENCING LOCATIONS, AND ALL CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN BREIFED ON TREE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES. 4.EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN OR REMOVED TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED, WITHIN DISTURBANCE LIMITS AND 10' OUTSIDE OF THE DISTURBANCE LIMITS. 5.TREE PRESERVATION TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND PER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. TREE PROTECTION NOTES TEMPORARY TREE PROTECTION FENCE PLACEMENT SCALE: N.T.S.C3001 KEYNOTE LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) TREE PROTECTION FENCE (SEE DETAIL) (TYP.) A B C D TREE PROTECTION FENCE NOTE: ONLY SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN ON PLAN/ INVENTORY. EXISTING VEGETATION EDGE TAG #SPECIES CAL IN. / HT.STATUS REQUIRES REPLACEMENT 1 DECIDUOUS 18 IN.REMOVED YES 2 DECIDUOUS 8 IN.REMOVED NO 3 DECIDUOUS 24 IN.REMOVED NO 4 DECIDUOUS 12 IN.REMOVED NO 5 DECIDUOUS 10 IN.REMOVED NO 6 DECIDUOUS 14 IN.REMOVED NO 7 DECIDUOUS 14 IN.REMOVED NO 8 DECIDUOUS 24 IN.REMOVED NO 9 DECIDUOUS 24 IN.REMOVED NO 10 DECIDUOUS 15 IN.REMOVED NO 11 DECIDUOUS 18 IN.REMOVED NO 12 DECIDUOUS 15 IN.REMOVED NO 13 DECIDUOUS 15 IN.REMOVED NO 14 DECIDUOUS 24 IN.REMOVED NO 15 DECIDUOUS 15 IN.REMOVED NO 16 DECIDUOUS 24 IN.SAVED NO 17 DECIDUOUS 20 IN.REMOVED NO 18 DECIDUOUS 14 IN.REMOVED NO 19 DECIDUOUS 15 IN.REMOVED YES BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-TREE INVENTORY AND PRESERVATION PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07amDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLA04/12/202156522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNPWBPWBMGCPREPARED FORTREE INVENTORYANDPRESERVATIONPLANC300EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMN ITEM 5ITEM 5 BIKES 101 COMMUNITY 102 MAIL 103 ELEVATOR LOBBY 104 FITNESS 106 TOILET 107 TOILET 108 MAINTENANCE OFFICE 109 LAUNDRY 110 MECH 111 OFFICE-2 112 OFFICE-1 113 PACKAGES 114 LOUNGE 115 LOBBY 116 WORK ROOM 117 STORAGE 118 STORAGE 119 ART 120 EXIT 121 Room 122 9. 0 ' 9.0' 9.0'18.0'18.0'12.0 '10.0'10.0'10.0'35. 0 ' 10. 0 '24.0'8.0' 10' PARKING SETBACK 35' BUILDING SETBACK 8.0'8.0'10' BUILDING SETBACK 10' BUILDING SETBACK 10' BUILDING SETBACK A A A A A A C C C C C CC D D D D D D C C F G H H H II I K L L L L L L L N M M LARGE BLOCK RETAINING WALL. DESIGNED BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL. COLOR TO BE SPECIFIED BY OWNER. OO J J J J J J 8.0 '15.5'30.0' I20.1'20.1'6.0'P P Q Q A A20.1'I I A A O O RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN COMMUNITY GARDENVALLEY VIEW ROAD70TH STREET WEST PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING - 118 UNITS 6.0'6.0'L CONCRETE PAD FOR PUBLIC ART. ART PIECE TO BE SUPPLIED BY OWNER. B B 8.0' E C C H C C BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 68,634 SF (1.57 AC) BUILDING AREA 31,446 SF (45.8% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING 1 SPACE/4 RESIDENTS BASED ON MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF THE BUILDING, PLUS ONE SPACE/EMPLOYEE ON THE MAJOR SHIFT, PLUS ONE SPACE PER VEHICLE OWNED BY THE BUILDING'S MANAGEMENT PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING 24 STALLS PROPOSED UNDERGROUND PARKING 86 STALLS SURFACE ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 1 STALLS / 1 STALLS UNDERGROUND ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 4 STALLS / 4 STALLS PROPERTY SUMMARY EDINA MULTIFAMILY TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 68,634 SF (1.57 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 50,836 SF (1.16 AC) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 17,798 SF (0.41 AC) TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 68,634 SF (1.57 AC) ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING PCD-3 (PLANNED COMMERCIAL) PROPOSED ZONING PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) PARKING SETBACKS ROAD = 10' BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 35' SIDE = 10' REAR = 10' PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED FENCE SETBACK LINE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK LEGEND PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT KEYNOTE LEGEND CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" CONCRETE FILLED PIPE BOLLARD MATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTER ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C. STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT LANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS TRUNCATED DOME RAMP HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) TRANSITION CURB FLAT CURB 4' ALUMINUM PICKET FENCE CONCRETE PAVEMENT PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q SITE PLAN NOTES 1.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 3.ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'. 4.ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 7.SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC., DATED 02/02/2021. KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 8.TOTAL LAND AREA IS 1.57 ACRES. 9.PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 11.NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE. 12.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS. 13.REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS. 14.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 15.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 16.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 17.THERE ARE <X.XX> ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS. 18.FOR OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, SEE THE <OFFSITE PLANS> IMPROVEMENTS PLANS.BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C4-SITE PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07amDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.BRIAN M. WURDEMAN04/12/202153113DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNBMWRAVBMWPREPARED FORSITE PLANC400EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMNNORTH BIKES 101 COMMUNITY 102 MAIL 103 ELEVATOR LOBBY 104 FITNESS 106 TOILET 107 TOILET 108 MAINTENANCE OFFICE 109 LAUNDRY 110 MECH 111 OFFICE-2 112 OFFICE-1 113 PACKAGES 114 LOUNGE 115 LOBBY 116 WORK ROOM 117 STORAGE 118 STORAGE 119 ART 120 EXIT 121 Room 122 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS FFE: 871.00 P1 FFE: 859.00VALLEY VIEW ROAD70TH STREET WEST875875871 871872872873873874874870 867868869866867868869870870870870869869 869870868869870867868 8698 6 7 8 6 8 870 870DDD D 8598608618628638648658708698688678668658648648658668664 LF - 15" @ 0.00% 32 LF - 15" @ 0.50% 79 LF - 15" @ 0.50% 35 LF - 15" @ 0.55% 29 LF - 12" @ 0.75% 86 LF - 12" @ 2.50% 61 LF - 8" @ 2.50% 37 LF - 15" @ 0.55% 96 LF - 12" @ 0.70% 21 LF - 15" @ 1.47% 11 LF - 18" @ 1.50% 1.80%2.20% 1 . 2 0% 3.12%3.88%3. 6 2% 2 . 9 1% 3. 2 3 % 1.65% 4.1 3 % 6. 1 1 %2.05% 11.2 5 %33.33%3:13: 1 6.30% 3 . 7 1% 6.78%20.42%15.56%7.73%6.88% 4.06% 9.87% G:859.00 G:858.90 G:859.00 G:858.90G:866.51 G:866.70 G:866.29 G:866.58 G:867.48 G:867.68 G:867.51 G:867.37 T/G:870.80 T/G:870.80 T/G:870.42 T/G:870.62 G:870.33G:868.55 G:867.91 G:868.39 G:868.30 G:868.09 TW:867.97 BW:867.22 TW:870.91 BW:859.43 TW:871.00 BW:859.53G:869.27 G:870.00 G:870.17 G:869.75 G:870.11 G:869.97 G:869.93 1.50%1.47% 1.80% 2 . 1 6%2.83%1.71% 3.4 9 %3.14%3 . 5 3%20.76%11.92%4.11%4.50%TW:867.15 BW:866.52 TW:870.00 BW:864.10 G:863.40 G:865.80 G:866.17 G:868.61 G:868.09 G:867.94 ME:867.38 ME:865.48 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00 871.00867.93 870.36 870.45 870.45 867.86 867.95 2.20% 7.3 9 % 7.3 5 % 1.88% 7.20% 2.00% 6.64% 6.80%6.70%7.13 % 6.95 % 6. 5 3 % 6.84%2.12%2.43%1.80%7.69% 9. 8 9 % 871.00 871.00871.00 ME:865.34 ME:864.89 ME:869.06 ME:869.32 ME:870.06 ME:870.04 870.94 870.56 870.26 870.17 869.39 870.25 870.12 870.08 869.74 869.74 868.64 ME:869.07 ME:868.02 868.42 ST-16 RE:869.00 IE:862.87 N ST-18 RE:868.09 IE:864.00 NE ST-19 RE:868.36 IE:863.62 NW IE:863.86 E IE:863.52 SST-3 RE:868.03 IE:862.22 S IE:862.22 NW ST-5 RE:867.51 IE:862.06 SE IE:862.20 S IE:861.96 NE ST-8 RE:867.37 IE:863.84 SE ST-12 IE:866.00 W ST-11 IE:866.00 W ST-7 RE:864.92 IE:861.26 SW IE:861.16 N ST-1 IE:860.97 S ST-15 RE:865.43 IE:861.57 SW IE:861.47 NE ST-13 IE:864.49 E ST-2 IE:862.22 N ST-20 IE:863.36 N ST-21 IE:863.68 SW 870.91 870.77 870.67 870.79 870.70 869.66 869.66 867.88 867.75 867.81 867.72 3.06%1.77%2.60%2.05%0.80%0.80%0.41% 0 . 9 5% 1. 1 3% 0 . 9 9% 1.23 %1.00%2.29 %1.31 %1.90% 2. 4 8% 1.5 0 % 60" CHAMBER INFILT. SYSTEM BOTTOM OF CHAMBER: 861.25 100-YEAR HWL: 864.92 PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN SURFACE IE: 869.00 ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA/DRAINTILE IE: 864.00 100-YEAR HWL: 866.28 PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN SURFACE IE: 865.43 ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA/DRAINTILE IE: 861.85 100-YEAR HWL: 861.89 8.12%8.12%1.90%7.0 3 % 7.7 6 %2.12%870.19 869.91 NORTH GRADING PLAN NOTES 1.ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDINA, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2.CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3.STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76 HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252 HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-1785 STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4.CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5.SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8.GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9.ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10.REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12.INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13.UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>. 14.ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15.GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 16.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. 18.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION LP:0.0 G:0.00 T:0.00 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE ME:0.0 MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION CO D BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C5-GRADING PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:07amDATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNDSSDSSBMWPREPARED FORGRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANC500EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMNDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.BRIAN M. WURDEMAN04/12/202153113 BIKES 101 COMMUNITY 102 MAIL 103 ELEVATOR LOBBY 104 FITNESS 106 TOILET 107 TOILET 108 MAINTENANCE OFFICE 109 LAUNDRY 110 MECH 111 OFFICE-2 112 OFFICE-1 113 PACKAGES 114 LOUNGE 115 LOBBY 116 WORK ROOM 117 STORAGE 118 STORAGE 119 ART 120 EXIT 121 Room 122 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS FFE: 871.00 P1 FFE: 859.00VALLEY VIEW ROAD70TH STREET WEST SS-2 IE:858.07 N IE: 846.86 W IE: 846.85 E CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM LOCATION OF INVERTS SS-1 IE:858.25 S 9 LF - 8" PVC@ 2.00%DATA CONDUITS (SEE ARCH. PLANS) TRANSFORMER SWITCH (ELS) (SEE ARCH. PLANS) PROPOSED WATER METER REMOTE READ LOCATION (SEE ARCH. PLANS) PROPOSED GAS METER LOCATION (SEE ARCH. PLANS) CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE TELECOM CONNECTION WITH TELECOM PROVIDER CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE GAS CONNECTION WITH GAS PROVIDER CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ELECTRICAL CONNECTION WITH EXISTING ELECTRICAL HAND HOLE CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN. COORDINATE REQUIRED SHUTOFF WITH CITY. ELECTRICAL METER PANEL LOCATION (SEE ARCH. PLANS) 10" WATER SERVICE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1.ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2.SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP 6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-1785 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3.WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PER ANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4.MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5.ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6.ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. 8.IN THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9.LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10.TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11.ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12.EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13.REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF EDINA AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19.BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20.ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21.ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. NORTH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND CO SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\C6-UTILITY PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:08amDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.BRIAN M. WURDEMAN04/12/202153113DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNHKDHKDBMWPREPARED FORUTILITY PLANC600EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMN LANDSCAPE KEYNOTESLANDSCAPE LEGEND EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING SHRUB (TYP.) EDGER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SOD / IRRIGATION, SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS (TYP.) SEED/ SOD EDGE (TYP.) ROCK MULCH (TYP.) COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA- DETAILS TBD FENCING - SEE ARCH AND CIVIL PLANS A LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES EDGER (TYP.) DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) ROCK MULCH (TYP.) SOD (TYP.) A B C DDDD D VALLEY VIEW ROAD70TH STREET WEST BIKES 101 COMMUNITY 102 MAIL 103 ELEVATOR LOBBY 104 FITNESS 106 TOILET 107 TOILET 108 MAINTENANCE OFFICE 109 LAUNDRY 110 MECH 111 OFFICE-2 112 OFFICE-1 113 PACKAGES 114 LOUNGE 115 LOBBY 116 WORK ROOM 117 STORAGE 118 STORAGE 119 ART 120 EXIT 121 Room 122 PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING 118 UNITS FFE: 871.00 P1 FFE: 859.00 3 - ACD 5 - LQF 5 - LQF 4 - SEM 3 - ACD 4 - SEM 2 - BDP 3 - LQF 4 - GOJ 2 - BHS 2 - LDN 3 - BDP 5 - SEM 9 - PDS 2 - TAU 3 - BDP 3 - LDN 2 - BHS 3 - BLC 4 - SEM 5 - PWW 3 - BDP 3 - BLC 3 - TGA 3 - LDN 2 - BHS 2 - GOJ 3 - BDP 12 - KKC 4 - SEM 3 - BLC 3 - LDN 3 - BDP 2 - TAU 13 - RRD 5 - SEM 2 - BHS 3 - BDP 2 - LDN 4 - GOJ 3 - BDP 10 - LDN 7 - PDS4 - PWW 2 - BDP 14 - BES 15 - BES 4 - LDN 5 - TGA 2 - BDP 10 - RRD 4 - LDN 5 - SEM 3 - BLC 4 - JTL 5 - TAU 13 - BES 13 - PDS 9 - LDN 9 - PWW 8 - SEM 4 - BLC 5 - TGA 19 - KKC 5 - LDN 9 - RRD 2 - GOJ 3 - BLC 3 - RVB 3 - JTL 2 - JTL 23 - JPW 9 - AST 29 - JPW 35 - PBS 7 - BLU 6 - OXE 5 - BLV 4 - RTD 6 - AST 18 - PBS 3 - OXE 7 - BLU 5 - AST 34 - JPW 6 - BLV 4 - SEM 8 - KFG 9 - KFG 9 - KFG 8 - KFG 13 - KFG 22 - BES 6 - KFG 9 - RRD 9 - KKC 5 - GLS 12 - GLS 1 - ABM 3 - AST 5 - BLV 4 - OXE 4 - AST 6 - BLU 3 - BLV 29 - PBS 32 - JPW 8 - OXE 12 - RTD 7 - BLU 24 - JPW 4 - AST 3 - BLV 15 - JPW 2 - RTD 3 - RVB 5 - BLV 8 - OXE 16 - JPW 3 - RTD 9 - AST 4 - BLV 5 - BLU 18 - PBS 2 - BDP 22 - GLS 31 - KKC 61 - BES 5 - LDN 12 - KKC 12 - BES 12 - KKC 12 - BES 7 - SEM 5 - LDN 4 - GOJ 4 - SEM 6 - SEM 3 - LQF 5 - TAU 6 - BLV 6 - AST 19 - PBS 2 - RTD 24 - JPW 9 - OXE 6 - AST 3 - RTD 3 - BLU 4 - OXE 14 - PBS 5 - BLV 29 - JPW 2 - RTD 3 - RTD A B A B A B D D DD D D D D D B A C C B A B B A B A B A 2 - RTD 1 - GSL COMMUNITY GARDEN CONIFEROUS TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE BHS 8 PICEA GLAUCA `DENSATA`BLACK HILLS SPRUCE B & B 6` HT. ORNAMENTAL TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE JTL 9 SYRINGA RETICULATA JAPANESE TREE LILAC CLUMP B & B 6` HT. RVB 6 BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH MULTI-TRUNK B & B 6` HT. OVERSTORY TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT CAL SIZE ABM 2 ACER X FREEMANII `AUTUMN BLAZE`AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE B & B 2.5" CAL. GSL 1 TILIA CORDATA `GREENSPIRE`GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN B & B 2.5" CAL. RAIN GARDEN CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING SIZE RTD 33 CORNUS SERICEA `BAILADELINE`FIREDANCE RED TWIG DOGWOOD #5 CONT.4` O.C. CONIFEROUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING SIZE GOJ 16 JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA `GREY OWL`GREY OWL JUNIPER #5 CONT.4` O.C. TAU 14 TAXUS X MEDIA `TAUNTONII`TAUTON YEW #5 CONT.4` O.C. TGA 13 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `BAILJOHN` TM TECHNITO GLOBE ARBORVITAE #5 CONT.3` O.C. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING SIZE ACD 6 CORNUS SERICEA `ALLEMAN`S COMPACT`DWARF RED TWIG DOGWOOD #5 CONT.4` O.C. BDP 30 SYRINGA X `SMSJBP7` TM BLOOMERANG DARK PURPLE LILAC #5 CONT. BLC 19 ARONIA MELANOCARPA `IROQUOIS BEAUTY` TM IROQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY #5 CONT.4` O.C. GLS 39 RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW`GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #5 CONT.4` O.C. LDN 55 PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `DONNA MAY` TM LITTLE DEVIL NINEBARK #5 CONT.4` O.C. LQF 16 HYDRANGEA PANICULATA `SMHPLQF` TM LITTLE QUICK FIRE HYDRANGEA #5 CONT. SEM 60 SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA `SEM`SEM FALSESPIREA #5 CONT.3` O.C. PERENNIALS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SIZE SPACING BES 149 RUDBECKIA FULGIDA `GOLDSTURM`BLACK-EYED SUSAN #1 CONT 18" OC KFG 53 CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER`KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS #1 CONT 30" OC KKC 95 NEPETA X FAASSENII `KIT KAT`KIT KAT CATMINT #1 CONT 18" OC PDS 29 SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1 CONT 24" OC PWW 18 ECHINACEA X `POW WOW WILDBERRY`POW WOW WILDBERRY CONEFLOWER #1 CONT 24" OC RRD 41 HEMEROCALLIS X `ROSY RETURNS`ROSY RETURNS DAYLILY #1 CONT 18" O.C. RAIN GARDEN CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SIZE SPACING AST 52 ASTER NOVAE-ANGLIAE NEW ENGLAND ASTER FLAT 2" PLUGS 36" OC BLU 35 SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM LITTLE BLUESTEM GRASS FLAT 2" PLUGS 36" OC BLV 42 VERBENA HASTATA BLUE VERVAIN FLAT 2" PLUGS 36" OC JPW 226 EUPATORIUM MACULATUM JOE PYE WEED FLAT 2" PLUGS 18" OC OXE 42 HELIOPSIS HELIANTHOIDES OX-EYE SUNFLOWER FLAT 2" PLUGS 36" OC PBS 147 LIATRIS PYCNOSTACHYA PRAIRIE BLAZINGSTAR FLAT 18" OC PLANT SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS TREES REQUIRED:26 TREES = 1,039 FEET PERIMETER / 40 TREES PROVIDED: 26 TREES OFF-STREET PARKING SCREENING: MUST BE 4 FEET ABOVE LEVEL OF PARKING LOT WITH MINIMUM OPACITY OF 90 PERCENT YEAR ROUND. NORTH BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-LANDSCAPE PLAN.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:08amDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLA04/12/202156522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNPWBPWBMSCPREPARED FORLANDSCAPE PLANL100EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMN DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH NOTES: 2X ROOT BALL WIDTH SOD 4" TOPSOIL PREPARED PLANTING BED AND BACKFILL SOIL (THOROUGHLY LOOSENED) NOTES: 1.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2.PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING OF TOP AND ROOT. 3.REMOVE CONTAINER AND SCORE OUTSIDE OF SOIL MASS TO REDIRECT AND PREVENT CIRCLING FIBROUS ROOTS. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 4.PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 5.WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 6.BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 7.PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 8.MIX IN 3-4" OF ORGANIC COMPOST. 1.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2.PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING. 3.SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL. INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. 4.SLIT REMAINING TREATED BURLAP AT 6" INTERVALS. 5.BACKFILL TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL, THEN WATER PLANT. REMOVE THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 6.PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 7.WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 8.BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 9.PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 10.FINAL LOCATION OF TREE TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER. PLANTING SOIL ON CENTER SPACING AS STATED ON PLAN. EXTEND HOLE EXCAVATION WIDTH A MINIMUM OF 6" BEYOND THE PLANTS ROOT SYSTEM. FINISHED GRADE EDGER, AS SPECIFIED TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1011 SHRUB / PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1012 MULCH 3/16" X 4" STEEL EDGER 12" STEEL EDGER SPIKE TURF/SOD SUBGRADE 12" STEEL EDGER SPIKE 3/16" X 4" STEEL EDGER4'MULCH TURF/SOD TOP OF EDGER TO BE FLUSH WITH SOD PLANSECTION STEEL EDGER DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1014SPADED EDGE DETAIL SCALE: 1-1/2"=1'L1013 MULCH AT PLANTING AREA SPADED EDGE "V" SHAPED, 4" WIDTH, 4" DEPTH, MORE VERTICAL ON LAWN SIDE LAWN GRASS FINISHED GRADE 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2.ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 3.NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 4.ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND/OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6.ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA-GROWN AND/OR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. 7.PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. 8.PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES. 9.PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL-IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 10.PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11.OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 12.PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 13.WRAP ALL SMOOTH-BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14.STAKING OF TREES AS REQUIRED; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15.THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16.BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN/DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. MINIMUM 4" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 12" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR TREE, SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS. 17.MULCH TO BE AT ALL TREE, SHRUB, PERENNIAL, AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WITHIN TURF AREAS. PERENNIAL AND ORNAMENTAL GRASS BEDS SHALL HAVE 2" DEPTH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH TO BE FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL AND COLORED RED, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE BUFF LIMESTONE, 1 1/2" TO 3" DIAMETER, AT MINIMUM 3" DEPTH, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE ON COMMERCIAL GRADE FILTER FABRIC, BY TYPAR, OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH NO EXPOSURE. MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. MULCH TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 18.EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE COL-MET (OR EQUAL) STEEL EDGING; 3/16" THICK, COLOR BLACK, OR SPADED EDGE, AS INDICATED. STEEL EDGING SHALL BE PLACED WITH SMOOTH CURVES AND STAKED WITH METAL SPIKES NO GREATER THAN 4 FOOT ON CENTER WITH TOP OF EDGER AT GRADE, FOR MOWERS TO CUT ABOVE WITHOUT DAMAGE. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V-SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. INDIVIDUAL TREE, SHRUB, OR RAIN-GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. EDGING TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 19.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PARKING LOT ISLANDS TO BE SODDED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AROUND ALL TREES AND SHRUBS. SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX, FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. SEED AS SPECIFIED AND PER MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 20.PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OPERATION MANUALS, AS-BUILT PLANS, AND NORMAL PROGRAMMING. SYSTEM SHALL BE WINTERIZED AND HAVE SPRING STARTUP DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. SYSTEM SHALL HAVE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PARTS AND LABOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 21.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22.REPAIR, REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD/SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 23.REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO OWNER. 24.RAIN GARDEN NOTE: PROVIDE AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AT RAIN GARDEN AREA SIDE SLOPES AFTER ALL PLANTING HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. BLANKET TO BE ONE SEASON GEOJUTE, MN/DOT CATEGORY 2 (STRAW 1S, WOOD FIBER 1S), OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLANKET TO BE OVERLAPPED BY 4" AND ANCHORED BY SOD STAPLES. PLACE BLANKET PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. TRENCH IN EDGES OF BLANKET AREA TO PREVENT UNDER MINING. PROVIDE SILT FENCE AT TOP OF SLOPE AS NEEDED. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO MATCH OTHER PROJECT PLANTING MULCH. PLACE 4" DEPTH OF MULCH AT ALL PLANTING AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AREA (NO FILTER FABRIC). SEE RAIN GARDEN DETAIL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. RAIN GARDEN TO PROVIDE PROPER INFILTRATION AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS PER ENGINEERS APPROVAL. 25.MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND OTHER PLANTS UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION, BUT IN NO CASE, LESS THAN FOLLOWING PERIOD; 1 YEAR AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION. MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND OTHER PLANTS BY PRUNING, CULTIVATING, AND WEEDING AS REQUIRED FOR HEALTHY GROWTH. RESTORE PLANTING SAUCERS. TIGHTEN AND REPAIR STAKE AND GUY SUPPORTS AND RESET TREES AND SHRUBS TO PROPER GRADES OR VERTICAL POSITION AS REQUIRED. RESTORE OR REPLACE DAMAGED WRAPPINGS. SPRAY AS REQUIRED TO KEEP TREES AND SHRUBS FREE OF INSECTS AND DISEASE. REPLENISH MULCH TO THE REQUIRED DEPTH. MAINTAIN LAWNS FOR 45 DAYS AFTER INSTALLING SOD INCLUDING MOWING WHEN SOD RECITES 4” IN HEIGHT. WEED PLANTING BEDS AND MULCH SAUCERS AT MINIMUM ONCE A MONTH DURING THE GROWING SEASON. PROVIDE A MONTHLY REPORT TO THE OWNER ON WEEDING AND OTHER MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. LANDSCAPE NOTES BYREVISIONSNo.DATEPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHEET NUMBER©K:\TWC_LDEV\LUPE DEVELOPMENT\Edina Multifamily\3 Design\CAD\PlanSheets\L1-LANDSCAPE DETAILS.dwg April 12, 2021 - 10:08amDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BYME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.MNLIC. NO.MITCHELL G. COOKAS, PLA04/12/202156522DATECHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT16006200104/12/2021AS SHOWNKHAKHAMGCPREPARED FORLANDSCAPEDETAILSL101EDINA MULTIFAMILYLUPE DEVELOPMENTPARTNERSEDINAMN PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-17 FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, sites at 4040 70th Street West and 7075-9 Amundson Avenue (the "Property") are proposed to be acquired for redevelopment into affordable housing projects; and WHEREAS, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has recommended terms by which tax increment financing from its existing Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") could be used to assist in the acquisition of the Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan of the TIF District (the "Modification") to designate the Property intended for acquisition with the use of TIF District funds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes require notification and input from several entities as part of the process of establishing or modifying a Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, the HRA and the City of Edina (the "City") have proposed to adopt the Modification to designate the Property for acquisition using Tax Increment funds and have submitted the Modification to the Edina Planning Commission (the "Commission") all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3 and 4; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Modification to determine its conformity with the general plans and guided land use as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modification conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: December 11, 2019 Planning Commission Chair E717ining Commission Secretary CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-927-8861 • Fax 952-826-0389 The CITY of EDINA Cornelia View Apartments Creation of a New Housing TIF District Stephanie Hawkinson Affordable Housing Development Manager July 29, 2021 August 4, 2021 The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 2 Approve Resolution No. B-21-22 finding that the 4040 W. 70th St. TIF District conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. The CITY of EDINA 3 44th & France 2 Proposed 4040 W. 70th St. TIF District TIF in Edina The CITY of EDINA EdinaMN.gov 4 The CITY of EDINA Additionally, Edina’s continued aging of its own population will bring increased development pressures to the district as these residents choose to leave their home but not their community. The development community is responding with new apartments for young singles and couples and with new senior and assisted living facilities near medical and other community services. (pg 32) Excerpts from Greater Southdale District Plan www.EdinaMN.gov 5 Land Use Goal #4: Provide for housing choices (housing and unit types, rental and ownership, and costs) to accommodate a wide range of individuals, including youth, singles, couples, families with children, seniors, and people with special needs. (pg 100) 5-A. Promote new housing adjacent to or near existing residential development to facilitate neighborhood clusters. 5-B.Seek to optimize housing densities to increase housing that is proximate to transit and within walking distance of services and amenities. (pg 101) The Greater Southdale District has an important role to play in accommodating expected housing growth. Already an area characterized by high density residential and mixed-use development, it is guided for additional infill development of a similar or higher intensity. The presence of jobs, retail and services, transit, and public amenities means this area contains the elements for a complete community, which can leverage these advantages for a convenient and accessible lifestyle for a range of household types. Affordable housing is a necessary component of the housing mix. This is especially true given the demographic future of Greater Southdale. The expected growth in the senior population and the desire to attract young workers and families both point to the need to have more affordable housing, including options for those that might choose to move here from other parts of the community.(pg 85) The CITY of EDINASouthdale 2 TIF Plan: 4040 W. 70th Street 6 4040 W. 70th Street The CITY of EDINA 4040 West 70th Street Acquisition of low- density office building for redevelopment into high density residential use. The site is guided for Office Residential. Plan Conformance: Is residential use in compliance with Comprehensive Plan? www.EdinaMN.gov 7