Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12.7.2021 Complete City Council Meeting Packet Posted 12/03/2021 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 7, 2021 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/virtually pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the November 16, 2021 Regular Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve LMCIT Liability Insurance Renewal Waiver B. Approve 2022 Kennedy & Graven Rates C. Approve 2022 WSB Rates D. Adopt Resolution Establishing Polling Places for 2022 E. Approve 2022 Tobacco License Renewals VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2022 Budget  1. Budget and Tax Levy Presentation – Public Comment  2. Resolution Approving 2022 Final Tax Levy  3. Resolution Approving 2022 Final Budget B. Ordinance Adopting an Amended Fee Schedule – Public Hearing 1. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary  C. BPS Properties, LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Dr. – Marsh Pointe Preserve – PUD Concept Plan D. 342 Hamel Road - Hamel Townhomes LLC - Concept Plan E. 3692 Pinto Drive - Woodbury REI LLC - Conditional Use Permit & Site Plan Review F. Jeffery and Chris Cates – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development – PIDs 04-118-23-11-0002, 04-118-23-14-0004 1. Resolution Authorizing Release of Cates Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Distribution and Public Comment VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XI. CLOSED SESSION:  Consideration of Land Acquisition at PID 03-118-23-24-0002 Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(c)  XII. ADJOURN Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/ For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122 Enter Conference ID: 490 515 864# MEMORANDUM TO: Medina Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: December 2, 2021 DATE OF MEETING: December 7, 2021 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/ For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122; Enter Conference ID: 490 515 864# V.CONSENT AGENDA A.Approve LMCIT Liability Insurance Renewal Waiver – The City is required to approve the LMCIT form each year. Staff recommends approval. See attached waiver. B.Approve 2022 Kennedy & Graven Rates – Attached is a letter from Kennedy and Graven stating they are recommending an increase in legal rates for 2022, which represents an annual increase of about 1.43% for non-reimbursable work outside the retainer. The letter also includes a proposal to raise the monthly retainer from $1,500 to $1,750. The retainer has remained unchanged since 2017. This will increase City fees by $3,000 for an estimated increase in total legal fees paid by the City of less than $5,000 per year. Staff recommends approval. See attached letter. C.Approve 2022 WSB Rates – Attached is the 2022 letter for engineering services from WSB. They are recommending increasing their billing rates by 3.9% with no change to their monthly City retainer amount. Staff recommends approval. See attached letter. D.Resolution Establishing Polling Places for 2022 – Minnesota Statutes 204B.16, subd.1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to designate polling places by December 31 of each year for the upcoming year. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. E.Approve 2022 Tobacco License Renewals – Staff recommends Council approval of the 2022 tobacco license renewals. See attached memo. 2 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 2022 Budget - Staff recommends a City General Fund Budget of $5,742,058 and a proposed total levy of $4,980,597 for 2022. This is consistent with the preliminary budget adopted on September 7th by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the 2022 Budget. See attached budget booklet and resolutions. Recommended Motion # 1: Adopt Resolution Approving the 2022 Final Tax Levy Recommended Motion #2: Adopt Resolution Approving the 2022 Final Budget Recommended Motion # 3: Adopt Resolution Reducing Debt Service Tax Levies for 2022 B. Ordinance Adopting an Amended Fee Schedule – Public Hearing – Staff has updated the attached fee schedule to reflect changes for 2022. This item has been noticed and a public hearing will be held at this meeting prior to Council approval of the ordinance. See attached ordinance and resolution. Recommended Motion # 1: Adopt ordinance adopting an amended fee schedule Recommended Motion # 2: Adopt resolution authorizing publication of ordinance by title and summary. C. BPS Properties, LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Dr. – Marsh Pointe Preserve – PUD Concept Plan - BPS Properties, LLC has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review for a proposed 30-unit detached villa development located at 4250- 4292 Arrowhead Drive, east of Arrowhead Drive and south of Bridgewater. The subject site includes four existing rural lots totaling over 36 acres in size, but most of the land is within the large wetland to the south and east, with approximately 16.25 upland acres and 12.16 net acres after subtracting wetland buffers. The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal application. Generally, the City Council does not take any formal action and the feedback is purely advisory. Staff is not requesting formal action on the proposed concept. See attached memo. D. 342 Hamel Road - Hamel Townhomes LLC – Concept Plan – Hamel Townhomes LLC has made an application for a concept plan review for a 30-unit rental townhome development on a 2-acre site at 342 Hamel Road. The site is located in the City’s Uptown Hamel District. The site is currently two parcels. The westerly parcel is 0.98 3 acres in size and has an existing house. The easterly parcel is 1.17 acres in size and is vacant. The two parcels are owned in common. The site is located on the north side of Hamel Road and east of Hunter Drive. The site is immediately adjacent to the City’s Rainwater Nature Area, which is to the west. The purpose of a Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal application. Generally, the City Council does not take any formal action and the feedback is purely advisory. Staff is not requesting formal action on the proposed concept. See attached memo. E. 3692 Pinto Drive – Woodbury REI LLC – Conditional Use Permit & Site Plan Review – Woodbury REI LLC has made an application for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to build a 2,590 square foot multi-tenant retail building with a drive through lane at 3692 Pinto Drive. The building is planned to have two tenant bays. One bay is proposed to be occupied by a Caribou Coffee shop with no indoor service. The other is a general retail space of 1,590 square feet. The site is approximately 0.6 acres in size and located on the east side of Pinto Drive south of Highway 55 and north of Tower Drive. It is south of the railroad right-of-way. The applicant owns a separate parcel of land south of the site on the corner of Tower and Pinto Drives. Applicant is requesting review of a conditional use permit and site plan. See attached memo. Possible Motion: Motion to direct staff to draft a resolution granting approval for the requested conditional use permit and site plan review with the list of conditions F. Jeffrey and Chris Gates – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development – PIDs 04-118-23-11-0002, 04-118-23-14-0004 – Jeffery and Chris Cates have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Plan Review for development of approximately 665,000 square feet of warehouse/office buildings on approximately 70 acres east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. Chapter 4410 of Minnesota Rules regulates Environmental Review and requires mandatory completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for development of 300,000 square feet or more of warehouse/light industrial space within a city of Medina’s size. The purpose of an EAW is to develop an analysis and overview of the potential impacts of the development, determine if the project will cause any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through normal review processes, and provide information for planning and design. See attached memo. Recommended Motion: Move to adopt the resolution authorizing release of the Cates Industrial Park EAW for distribution and public comment. 4 XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 006162E-006182E for $79,999.93 and order check numbers 052301-052344 for $145,942.10, and payroll EFT 0511460-0511488 for $58,182.38. XII. CLOSED SESSION:  Consideration of Land Acquisition at PID 03-118-23-24- 0002 Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd. 3(c) INFORMATION PACKET: • Planning Department Update • Police Department Update • Public Works Department Update • Claims List Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 1 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on November 16, 2021 at 5 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 Martin read a statement explaining that the meeting is being held in a virtual format due 8 to the ongoing pandemic and provided instructions for public participation. 9 10 I. ROLL CALL 11 12 Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid. 13 14 Members absent: None. 15 16 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director 17 Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public 18 Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief of Police Jason Nelson. 19 20 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:03 p.m.) 21 22 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:04 p.m.) 23 The agenda was approved as presented. 24 25 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:04 p.m.) 26 27 A. Approval of the November 3, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 28 Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the November 3, 2021 regular 29 City Council meeting minutes as presented. 30 31 A roll call vote was performed: 32 33 DesLauriers aye 34 Albers aye 35 Cavanaugh aye 36 Reid aye 37 Martin aye 38 39 Motion passed unanimously. 40 41 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:05 p.m.) 42 43 A. Adopt Resolution 2021-78 Granting Approval of a Site Plan Review to BAPS 44 Minneapolis LLC at 1400 Hamel Road 45 B. Approve Recording Secretary Service Agreement with TimeSaver Off Site 46 Secretarial Inc. 47 C. Approve Uptown Hamel Corridor Planning Grant Agreement with Hennepin 48 County 49 D. Approve 2022 Meeting Calendar 50 Moved by Reid, seconded by Cavanaugh, to approve the consent agenda. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 2 1 A roll call vote was performed: 2 3 DesLauriers aye 4 Albers aye 5 Cavanaugh aye 6 Reid aye 7 Martin aye 8 9 Motion passed unanimously. 10 11 VI. COMMENTS (7:06 p.m.) 12 13 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 14 Robert Belzer, 4245 Wild Meadows Drive, referenced a City Council Memorandum from 15 Scherer dated April 15th related to water, sewer and storm water within Wild Meadows 16 and a related report from WSB. He would like the information entered into the record for 17 the meeting and made available on the City website. He stated that the document 18 provides an overview of ponds within Wild Meadows that have drainage issues and 19 related recommendations. He commented that the residents within the HOA are not 20 aware of the document. He stated that there are 15 ponds within Wild Meadows, and 21 they are degraded and need help. He noted that the report includes photographs of the 22 pond from different times to show the degradation. He stated that he also presented this 23 information to the Elm Creek Watershed as the residents need help in getting this 24 resolved. 25 26 Martin stated that Mr. Belzer’s information will be forwarded to the Council and is a part 27 of the public record. She stated that Belzer can share the information with the residents 28 and HOA. She noted that the recommendations were made to the Wild Meadow’s HOA 29 and therefore that is where the energy should be focused. 30 31 Johnson stated that staff has reviewed the information and requested an update from 32 the Wild Meadows HOA and Minnesota Land Trust on the status of the engineering 33 plans. He noted that he has not received a response. 34 35 Belzer commented that there is no housing authority in Medina to deal with issues that 36 arise. He noted that this is a serious problem with the storm pond as the HOA is not 37 sharing the information. He recommended that all financial matters related to the utilities 38 of a pond should be made public related to maintenance. He commented on the 39 difficulty he had in obtaining this information and believed it should be provided to the 40 public as it is a matter of public health. 41 42 B. Park Commission 43 Scherer reported that the Park Commission will meet the following night to discuss the 44 Marsh Pointe proposal in terms of park dedication and trails. The group will also review 45 the progress towards the 2021 goals. 46 47 C. Planning Commission 48 Finke reported that the Planning Commission met the previous week to hold public 49 hearings to review a concept plan for a 30-unit townhome development at 342 Hamel 50 Road and the Commission provided comments. The Commission raised concerns with 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 3 the footprint of the development and urged for connection to the greenspace. The 1 second hearing related to a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan review for a multi-2 tenant retail building at the corner of Highway 55 and Pinto Drive which would include a 3 drive-thru Caribou Coffee. The Commission recommended approval but expressed a 4 preference to develop the parcel in conjunction with the adjacent small parcel for better 5 planning. The Commission also reviewed the Marsh Pointe concept plan and was 6 generally in favor of the proposed development and use of the PUD. Some members of 7 the Commission asked if there was a way to increase buffering and reduce density. He 8 noted that the Commission also reviewed the sign ordinance once again and did not 9 change its previous recommendation. 10 11 VII. NEW BUSINESS 12 13 A. SH Ventures, Inc. – PID 05-118-23-22-0005 – Lifestyle Auto Condos – PUD 14 Concept Plan (7:23 p.m.) 15 Finke presented a concept plan review for an auto condo project on the subject site 16 approximately 258,000 square feet in size. He reviewed the zoning and guiding of the 17 parcel and adjacent properties. He displayed the concept plan noting the primary 18 access proposed from Highway 55. He displayed an updated rendering for the site. He 19 provided details on the future development area, noting that it is generally not intended 20 for development within the current timeframe of the Comprehensive Plan. He also 21 provided details on the rural residential urban reserve zoning. He stated that technical 22 review items were included in the staff report. He asked if the Council would support 23 non-residential uses within the future development area. 24 25 Martin stated that perhaps the Council should be polled at this time as that question 26 would determine whether additional review would be necessary. She noted that if the 27 rezoning and use were not supported, the other questions would then perhaps become 28 moot. 29 30 DesLauriers commented that he likes what he is seeing in terms of the autoplex but is 31 unsure if he would support the rezoning. He noted that he would be willing to listen to 32 more details. 33 34 Albers stated that this area was purposely set aside for future development or residential 35 when the current Comprehensive Plan was developed. He stated that if there are 36 changes to Corcoran, Medina may need to allocate additional housing units and 37 therefore this area was reserved for residential development. He stated that another 38 question would be what may happen with Highway 55 and its expansion and therefore 39 he is hesitant to change the designation of the property from FDA to PUD. He stated 40 that he would also be willing to continue to listen. 41 42 Reid stated that FDA is for properties designated for urban services in 20 years or more 43 and in the time being the property is not to be used for large businesses. She did not 44 believe the FDA guiding should be changed. 45 46 Cavanaugh commented that the property is currently raw land. He noted that if large 47 homes are developed on the property that would also lock the City in that use which he 48 was not sure was the best use of property along Highway 55. He stated that he does 49 like the increase in tax base that the project would provide and the low amount of traffic 50 that would be generated. He stated that he would be open to listening. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 4 1 Martin concurred with the comments made thus far. 2 3 Finke stated that the applicant proposes a direct access to Highway 55. He noted that 4 preliminary discussions were had with MnDOT indicating that right and left turn lanes 5 would be required. He noted that generally staff recommends against new access onto 6 Highway 55. He stated that the property is afforded access to adjacent roadways. He 7 stated that if the City is going to allow non-residential use within FDA perhaps it would 8 make sense to have that adjacent to a different roadway, such as CR 19. He provided 9 details on the right-of-way that would be requested if this were allowed to move forward. 10 He stated that the City has a rural business holding district, reviewing those regulations, 11 and asking if that would be a good guide to use. He stated that if this moves forward 12 staff would recommend larger setbacks and more buffering to limit the impact on existing 13 residential properties. He stated that a review was completed by the Park Commission 14 which recommended that the City be aggressive with the requirement for trail 15 easements. The Park Commission did not recommend a significant amount of park 16 land. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and two adjacent 17 neighbors raised concern with the intensity adjacent to residential property and originally 18 proposed second access which has since been removed. He noted that the majority of 19 the Commission did not find the use compatible with FDA, although two Commissioners 20 believed it may be consistent with certain adjustments. 21 22 Cavanaugh stated that he would want to ensure that any potential changes for Highway 23 55 have been accounted for. He stated that in terms of the concept, an auto condo 24 would be a low user of City services in return for the increase in tax base. He stated that 25 this is an intense use and would perhaps need to come down in scope. 26 27 Martin asked if the City could say interim access would be provided at one location now 28 and then if Highway 55 is expanded, the access would need to change. 29 30 Batty commented that would be a challenge to draft and he could not recall doing 31 something specific like that but did not see a reason that could not be done if there were 32 alternate access available. 33 34 Reid stated that this does not seem to qualify for a PUD. She stated that there has been 35 no explanation on how this would qualify for a PUD. She did not believe this would be 36 an appropriate use within FDA. She commented that the architect appears to be 37 unaware of the desire for Medina to maintain a rural atmosphere. 38 39 Albers commented that his property butts up to Highway 55 and he is aware of how busy 40 that roadway is. He stated that his concern would be related to access to Highway 55 41 and believed that should be done from CR 19. He stated that he would not want to see 42 access using Pioneer Trail. He stated that he also has a concern with events that could 43 be hosted at the site in terms of frequency and the traffic that would be anticipated. He 44 stated that he was concerned with a lack of modulation in the design. He agreed with 45 Reid that this does not seem to meet the requirements of Medina in terms of design. 46 47 DesLauriers commented that it is a great opportunity as the tax base generated is a 48 benefit for a use that generally does not have much intensity. He stated that he is 49 concerned with this use having access onto Highway 55. He suggested that the 50 property access from Chippewa Trail. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 5 1 Martin appreciated the input and agreed with the comments made. She stated that she 2 also has trouble seeing that this development would justify the use of a PUD. She noted 3 that she is also concerned with access from Highway 55. She noted that this was zoned 4 FDA being they are uncertain how Highway 55 improvements will play out. She also 5 expressed concern with noise that would be generated from events and the impact that 6 would have on the existing residential development. 7 8 Neil Campion, resident, stated that he voiced his objection to the concept at the public 9 hearing held by the Planning Commission. He noted that he voiced objection to the 10 secondary access, which has since been removed. He was also concerned with events, 11 noting that some people could choose to park on Pioneer Trail and walk up his driveway 12 to access the site. He stated that gaining access to Highway 55 from Pioneer is already 13 a challenge and was unsure how another access would not generate additional backups. 14 He stated that the building height seems tall and had concern with light spill onto his 15 property. 16 17 Bill Stoddard, applicant, stated that he has developed a number of projects throughout 18 the metro mainly apartments, residential, and senior living. He appreciated the input and 19 feedback of the Council. He stated that this is a large 31-acre site, and they are willing 20 to address the recommendations of staff related to landscaping, buffering, setbacks, 21 right-of-way, stormwater treatment, and fire suppression service. He stated that initially 22 they did propose a secondary access but removed that and would dedicate the road to 23 the neighboring properties. He stated that they have met with MnDOT, and they would 24 allow an access to this location, noting that the road would be widened to add a left and 25 right turn lane, which would make that section safer. He noted that this is a property that 26 would not use many City services but would provide a good tax base. He stated that 27 they can have lighting restrictions and limit the number of events on the site. He stated 28 that the property was previously zoned commercial before the change to FDA. He 29 believed that the timing is now or soon for this property and did not believe residential 30 would be the best use of the property along Highway 55 with commercial use across the 31 street. He stated that senior living was previously not believed to fit within residential but 32 has turned out to be a good combination. 33 34 Albers asked if there would be a limit on the size of berming that could be done along 35 the southeastern edge to provide additional screening for the residential area. 36 37 Finke believed there is a limitation on the height of the berm and other specifications. 38 He noted that significant berming can be done. 39 40 Reid asked if the applicant would be willing to redesign to better fit within the rural design 41 of Medina. 42 43 Stoddard confirmed that they could work on the design to make it fit in better. 44 45 Martin commented that she is having difficulty understanding how a piece of property 46 designated FDA and RRUR would be allowed for a condo complex of this nature and 47 whether that would make sense. She also struggled to see how this plan would achieve 48 the objectives of the PUD ordinance. She stated that should this move forward she 49 would like a narrative on how this would achieve the PUD objectives. She stated that 50 she would also want input from legal on how the change from FDA to this use is allowed. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 6 1 Reid stated that she objects to this use on this property and does not see how it qualifies 2 for a PUD. 3 4 Albers stated that he always thinks about what may be developed on this property if this 5 is not allowed. He stated that he would want to think through what is best for the City 6 and what the future could bring. 7 8 DesLauriers commented that he is looking forward to the additional feedback from the 9 applicant. 10 11 B. Weston Woods of Medina – Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District – Public 12 Hearing (8:13 p.m.) 13 Johnson stated that at the October 19th meeting final plat approval was provided for 14 Weston Woods and the City’s practice is to require the HOA to maintain the storm sewer 15 improvements which is done through a tax district. Staff recommends the establishment 16 of two districts as proposed. 17 18 Martin opened the public hearing. 19 20 No comments. 21 22 Martin closed the public hearing. 23 24 1. Ordinance 678 Establishing the Weston Woods of Medina – North Storm 25 Sewer Improvement Tax District 26 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adopt the ordinance establishing 27 the Weston Woods of Medina – North Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District. 28 29 A roll call vote was performed: 30 31 DesLauriers aye 32 Albers aye 33 Cavanaugh aye 34 Reid aye 35 Martin aye 36 37 Motion passed unanimously. 38 39 2. Ordinance 679 Establishing the Weston Woods of Medina – South 40 Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District 41 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adopt the ordinance establishing 42 the Weston Woods of Medina – South Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District. 43 44 A roll call vote was performed: 45 46 DesLauriers aye 47 Albers aye 48 Cavanaugh aye 49 Reid aye 50 Martin aye 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 7 1 Motion passed unanimously. 2 3 3. Resolution 2021-79 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and 4 Summary 5 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adopt the resolution authorizing 6 publication by title and summary. 7 8 A roll call vote was performed: 9 10 DesLauriers aye 11 Albers aye 12 Cavanaugh aye 13 Reid aye 14 Martin aye 15 16 Motion passed unanimously. 17 18 C. Planning and Building Assistant Position Recruitment (8:17 p.m.) 19 D. City Clerk/Assistant to City Administrator Position Recruitment 20 Johnson noted that Items 7C, 7D, and 7E are all interrelated. He noted that staff has 21 been updating job descriptions. He stated that the City Clerk position pay grade has 22 been reduced by changing the scope of the position and reallocation of duties. He noted 23 that the goal is to use this staffing structure for the near future. He stated that 24 adjustments may be needed and would then become part of the 2023 budget 25 discussions. He stated that the proposed reduction to the City Clerk position along with 26 the pay step and grade scale adjustments recommended by the DDA study would result 27 in an increase to the 2022 budget of $984. Council Member DesLauriers had requested 28 information prior to the meeting regarding individual increases. Johnson stated the 29 original information given to DesLauriers prior to the meeting was incorrect. He stated 30 that the market adjustment for the department heads as proposed would be $3,750 per 31 year per department based on updated information from Barnhart. 32 33 Barnhart stated that as per her memorandum, the department head market adjustment 34 would be spread over a period of two years and the other market adjustments would be 35 spread over three years. 36 37 Martin welcomed comments on the recruitment for the two vacant positions. 38 39 DesLauriers referenced the Planning and Building Assistant which is a grade three while 40 the City Clerk would be grade five/six. He asked if the larger range provided more 41 flexibility for hiring. 42 43 Johnson stated that the planning position would be a grade three and reviewed the 44 minimum qualifications which are less than the City Clerk position which has higher 45 qualifications and expectations and therefore a higher grade. 46 47 DesLauriers asked for input on the City Clerk position. 48 49 Barnhart stated that the position is currently budgeted around $37 dollars per hour but 50 would vary depending on the skills of the applicant. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 8 1 Martin applauded staff in approaching these positions and thinking it through and for 2 department heads willing to move responsibilities and spread around duties. She 3 appreciated the collaboration of staff. 4 5 Johnson thanked the department heads for their leadership. He stated that they have 6 stepped up, along with their staff members to fill in for an important part of the City staff 7 that has moved on to a new position. 8 9 Moved by Martin, seconded by Reid, to approve the job descriptions and authorize staff 10 to begin recruitment for the vacant Planning and Building Assistant and City 11 Clerk/Assistant to City Administrator positions. 12 13 A roll call vote was performed: 14 15 DesLauriers aye 16 Albers aye 17 Cavanaugh aye 18 Reid aye 19 Martin aye 20 21 Motion passed unanimously. 22 23 E. Proposed Pay Scale Market Adjustments for 2022 Budget (8:25 p.m.) 24 Johnson noted that the Assistant City Administrator has moved on to a new position with 25 Plymouth which allowed discussion of what could be done differently and to make 26 market adjustments to the pay scale. 27 28 Cavanaugh asked if the net effect would be about $3,000 per department head per year. 29 30 Johnson confirmed that the market adjustment would be $3,750 per department head 31 per year. 32 33 Reid commented that these adjustments are much needed. 34 35 Martin stated that she also welcomes the adjustments. 36 37 Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to approve and direct staff to implement market 38 adjustments in the 2022 budget. 39 40 A roll call vote was performed: 41 42 DesLauriers aye 43 Albers aye 44 Cavanaugh aye 45 Reid aye 46 Martin aye 47 48 Motion passed unanimously. 49 50 VIII. OLD BUSINESS 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 9 1 A. Ditter Cooling, Heating, and Electric – Sign Ordinance Regulations – Text 2 Amendment (8:28 p.m.) 3 Johnson stated that the applicant is interested in a dynamic display sign to advertise its 4 business but believes the current regulations would impact the effectiveness. The 5 Council reviewed this at the October 19th meeting but tabled the item after providing 6 preliminary direction to staff. 7 8 Finke stated that the Council agreed with a number of the changes proposed, which 9 have been incorporated into the draft ordinance. He stated that the discussion prior to 10 tabling the matter surrounded the increase in size for dynamic display. He reviewed the 11 current limitations, proposal from the applicant to increase the sign size and portion of 12 dynamic display, and recommendation of the Planning Commission. He stated that the 13 applicant has since indicated that the dynamic display be allowed at the full size of sign 14 allowed on their property, which would be up to 80 square feet. He stated that the draft 15 ordinance shows the proposed update but limits that increase to properties adjacent to 16 an arterial roadway separated by a railway. 17 18 Martin commented that she believed the Council supported the recommendation of the 19 Planning Commission to increase the size from 32 square feet to 40 square feet. She 20 stated that there would now be the addition for the properties setback from the railroad 21 and whether that increase should be allowed to 80 square feet. 22 23 DesLauriers stated that he would like to stay close to the recommendation of the 24 Planning Commission but would consider looking at the MPH chart. He commented that 25 80 feet seems large for that area. He stated that he would support an increase up to 48 26 square feet. 27 28 Albers commented that he would not support more than 48 square feet. 29 30 Martin commented that this property is segregated from the roadway by the railroad and 31 therefore the Council would seem to allow 48 square feet for those properties, but 40 32 square feet would remain for all other properties. 33 34 Cavanaugh stated that since the last meeting he has paid attention to signs on Highway 35 55. He stated that one sign that caught his interest is the sign at Hy-Vee and asked staff 36 how large that sign might be. 37 38 Finke replied that he believed that sign is 50 to 60 square feet. 39 40 Cavanaugh commented that he is not distracted by that sign and believes it is a sharp 41 sign for that development. He noted that the purpose of a sign is to assist a business 42 and if the business is saying the bigger sign is helpful, he does not see the difference 43 between 48 feet or 60 feet. He stated that he would also advocate for a larger size for 44 other businesses along Highway 55 that do not involve railroad tracks. 45 46 Reid stated that she could support 48 square feet for the railroad properties and 40 47 square feet for the other properties. 48 49 Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to allow 48 square feet for signs along 50 the railroad corridor and for other properties a size of 40 square feet. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 10 1 Finke reviewed the current regulations for height related to dynamic displays. He noted 2 that the applicant requested to remove that regulation and therefore the dynamic display 3 could be the same allowed height for the other portions of the sign. He stated that the 4 Planning Commission recommended an increase to 15 feet. He stated that the draft 5 ordinance would allow a height of 20 feet for properties in the railroad corridor. He 6 reviewed the message duration requirements and noted that the applicant proposes to 7 change that to 30 seconds, but the Planning Commission recommended to stay at one 8 minute. 9 10 Martin stated that she believed the Council previously agreed that the height should be 11 increased to 15 feet with the accommodation that height be measured from the grade of 12 the road. 13 14 Finke confirmed that was the recommendation of the Planning Commission, but the 15 applicant proposes to allow a height of 20 feet for properties in the railroad corridor. 16 17 DesLauriers stated that he does find that acceptable. He noted that 20 feet still might 18 not allow complete visual of the sign. 19 20 Chuck Winkler, Ditter, stated that their consultant is available as well to provide input. 21 22 Martin stated that will be allowed after the comments of the City Council. 23 24 DesLauriers stated that he would entertain a height of 25 feet. 25 26 Albers stated that he thought the height would be acceptable. 27 28 Finke provided clarification that the intent would be to allow the dynamic messaging to 29 go to that height. 30 31 Reid stated that she supports what has been discussed related to height. 32 33 Cavanaugh also agreed with the height change. 34 35 Martin noted the changes that would be necessary to support the height of 25 feet. She 36 confirmed that height would only apply to the railroad adjacent properties and a height of 37 20 feet would be allowed for other properties. 38 39 Winkler introduced his consultant. 40 41 Mike Casbalm, consultant representing the applicant, commented that the applicant 42 would like to incorporate images and text in a readable manner. He stated that a smaller 43 sign size limits the language that can be included at a readable size for moving traffic 44 and eliminates the option of including an image. He stated that when a minimized 45 display is required, the sign can become more distracting for drivers attempting to read 46 the message. He stated that 80 square feet would allow for the Ditter logo at the top and 47 messaging at the bottom. 48 49 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 11 Finke stated that he believes the applicant would advocate that the Council be more 1 open to dynamic displays, essentially allowing the display to encumber the entire sign 2 area for all properties, but their particular interest is in their own property. 3 4 DesLauriers commented that his position has not changed, and he would not allow an 5 80-foot sign at that location. 6 7 Albers agreed and stated that his position has not been swayed. He asked if this is 8 trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in modifying the ordinance that only benefits a 9 few properties. 10 11 Cavanaugh stated that perhaps they could go to 55 square feet as a compromise. 12 13 Reid stated that she could support 55 square feet. 14 15 Martin stated that she would not be inclined to go further than that as Medina has always 16 been conservative in terms of signage. She stated that having a lot of dynamic display 17 signs of significant size would be contrary to the goal of a rural character. She stated 18 that she would be inclined to stay with 48 square feet but could support 55 if the 19 remainder of the Council supported that change. She asked the Council for input on 20 whether they would support 55 feet for the properties in this railroad corridor. 21 22 DesLauriers stated that he can support 55 square feet for this area. 23 24 Albers agreed that he could also support that change. 25 26 Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to allow 55 square feet for the properties 27 in this corridor. She asked the Council for input on the message timing request. 28 29 DesLauriers stated that he would be open to allowing flexibility. 30 31 Albers stated that he has not been persuaded that the timing should be changed from 60 32 to 30. 33 34 Reid stated that she would also stay with 60 seconds. 35 36 Cavanaugh stated that he does not understand the impact in reducing from 60 to 30 37 seconds. 38 39 Casbalm stated that from an advertising perspective it provides flexibility to the business 40 owner to have more messages cycling through. He stated that traffic is traveling past 41 the sign would only see one message as it would take five to seven seconds to pass the 42 sign. 43 44 Martin noted that most drivers on 55 drive that corridor everyday and will see the 45 different messaging on different days or trips. She believed 60 seconds is fine for the 46 duration. 47 48 Casbalm stated that timing was not an issue important to the applicant and the 49 suggestion was just based on his knowledge as a sign consultant and current trends. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 12 Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to keep the duration of 60 seconds. She 1 summarized the other changes agreed upon by the Council. 2 3 Finke asked if the Council would support increasing the height for other zoning districts 4 adjacent railroad tracks, such as other commercial districts. 5 6 Martin confirmed that change would apply to all commercial districts. She continued to 7 review the proposed changes agreed upon by the Council. 8 9 1. Ordinance 680 Amending Regulations Pertaining to Signs; Amending 10 Chapter 8 of the City Code 11 Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to adopt the ordinance amending regulations 12 pertaining to signs as revised pursuant to the Council discussion. 13 14 A roll call vote was performed: 15 16 DesLauriers aye 17 Albers aye 18 Cavanaugh aye 19 Reid aye 20 Martin aye 21 22 Motion passed unanimously. 23 24 2. Resolution 2021-80 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and 25 Summary 26 Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to adopt the resolution authorizing publication by 27 title and summary. 28 29 A roll call vote was performed: 30 31 DesLauriers aye 32 Albers aye 33 Cavanaugh aye 34 Reid aye 35 Martin aye 36 37 Motion passed unanimously. 38 39 IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (9:19 p.m.) 40 Johnson informed Council that Belzer made the comment about a memorandum 41 Scherer put together for a Council packet, noting that is a public document. He stated 42 that the WSB report is also a public document and includes documents from other public 43 agencies. He noted that typically these documents are not placed on the website. 44 45 Martin and the City Council agreed with the policy not to place these documents on the 46 City of Medina’s Website. 47 48 X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (9:20 p.m.) 49 Reid stated that she continues to work on the logo approval. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2021 13 Cavanaugh noted that he attended the mayors meeting and reported that it was a fun a 1 lively discussion. 2 3 Martin encouraged the Council to rotate attendance for that event. 4 5 XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (9:22 p.m.) 6 Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Martin, to approve the bills, EFT 006148E-006161E 7 for $51,327.18, order check numbers 052241-052300 for $315,034.80, and payroll EFT 8 0511426-0511459 for $54,477.53 and payroll manual check 020451 for $7,834.82. 9 10 A roll call vote was performed: 11 12 Martin aye 13 Reid aye 14 Cavanaugh aye 15 Albers aye 16 DesLauriers aye 17 18 Motion passed unanimously. 19 20 XII. ADJOURN 21 Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Martin, to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 p.m. 22 23 A roll call vote was performed: 24 25 DesLauriers aye 26 Albers aye 27 Cavanaugh aye 28 Reid aye 29 Martin aye 30 31 Motion passed unanimously. 32 33 34 __________________________________ 35 Kathy Martin, Mayor 36 Attest: 37 38 ____________________________________ 39 Scott Johnson, City Administrator 40 LIABILITY COVERAGE – WAIVER FORM Members who obtain liability coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the member’s effective date of coverage. Return completed form to your underwriter or email to pstech@lmc.org. The decision to waive or not waive the statutory tort limits must be made annually by the member’s governing body, in consultation with its attorney if necessary. Members who obtain liability coverage from LMCIT must decide whether to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision has the following effects: • If the member does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant could recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether the member purchases the optional LMCIT excess liability coverage. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single claimant could recover up to $2,000,000 for a single occurrence (under the waive option, the tort cap liability limits are only waived to the extent of the member’s liability coverage limits, and the LMCIT per occurrence limit is $2,000,000). The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $2,000,000, regardless of the number of claimants. • If the member waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total all claimants could recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. 2 LMCIT Member Name: __________________________________________________________________________ Check one: o The member DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. § 466.04. o The member WAIVES the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minn. Stat. § 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of member’s governing body meeting: _____________________________________________ Signature: Position: ________________________________ Offices in Minneapolis Saint Paul St. Cloud 150 South Fifth Street Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax www.kennedy-graven.com Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer ME230-1A-762958.v1 RONALD H. BATTY Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9262 Email: rbatty@kennedy-graven.com November 17, 2021 Mr. Scott T. Johnson City Administrator City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: 2022 Legal Rates Dear Scott: I propose that Kennedy & Graven’s 2022 rates for Medina’s legal work be adjusted as follows. The rate for non-reimbursable work outside the retainer will increase by $5.00 per hour from $175 to $180 for attorneys. This represents an increase of about 2.85% for 2022 over 2021 but since rates were not increased in 2021, this represents an annual increase of about 1.43%. Based on the average number of hours billed during the last two years, this is estimated to result in an increase in fees by less than $1,900 next year. The reimbursable rate will also increase by $5.00 per hour from $275 to $280. In all cases there will also be an increase of $5.00 in the rates for paralegals and law clerks. I also proposed to raise the monthly retainer from $1,500 to $1,750. The retainer has remained unchanged since 2017. This will increase fees by $3,000 for an estimated increase in total legal fees paid by the city of less than $5,000 per year. As always, it has been a pleasure to work with the city council and city staff during the past year. I am proud to have been the Medina city attorney for the past 35 years and look forward to a successful 2022. Very truly yours, Ronald H. Batty Medina City Attorney Agenda Item #5B 70 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | SU I T E 3 0 0 | MI N N E A P O L I S , M N | 55 4 1 6 | 76 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | WS B E N G . C O M November 24, 2021 Mr. Scott Johnson City Administrator City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: WSB 2022 Rate Schedule Dear Mr. Johnson: Strong relationships have always been foundational to WSB. We believe in working with our clients to build what’s next and are grateful for opportunities to support your goals and initiatives. To us, this means working side-by-side to positively impact our communities. The last 18 months have been challenging for all of us. Like many agencies, we’ve cut costs and tightened our belts through innovation, collaboration, and automation. We are committed to using cutting-edge tools and new ideas to create efficiencies for our clients, while remaining a competitive and cost-effective partner. Through collaboration and a commitment to supporting our clients with their most challenging infrastructure needs, we are here as an extension of your staff, a partner, and an advocate. To determine our rate increase, we have closely reviewed our operations, external factors such as inflation, as well as keeping our rates flat for 2021. For 2022, we will be increasing our rates by an average of 3.9%. At WSB, we work to understand the challenges our clients face and want you to know that we are here to support you in whatever capacity you may need. We will continue to provide the highest quality services at a reasonable price. We fully understand that our clients have a choice in who they work with and that we must provide the best value for every project and service we deliver. We understand we earn the right to work with you, and we do that through our commitment to building what’s next, together. We are invested in our clients, people, work, and the communities that we serve. Thank you for the opportunity to be your partner. Sincerely, WSB James L. Stremel, PE Monica Heil, PE Senior Project Manager Vice President of Municipal Services Attachment srb 2022 Rate Schedule WSBENG.COM Billing Rate/Hour PRINCIPAL | ASSOCIATE $154 - $197 SR. PROJECT MANAGER | SR. PROJECT ENGINEER $154 - $197 PROJECT MANAGER $137 - $152 PROJECT ENGINEER | GRADUATE ENGINEER $92 - $150 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN | ENGINEERING SPECIALIST $59 - $148 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT | SR. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $71 - $152 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST | SR. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST $59 - $147 PLANNER | SR. PLANNER $71 - $152 GIS SPECIALIST | SR. GIS SPECIALIST $71 - $152 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVER $95 - $121 SURVEY One-Person Crew $152 Two-Person Crew $199 Three-Person Crew $214 OFFICE TECHNICIAN $54 - $95 Costs associated with word processing, cell phones, reproduction of common correspondence, and mailing are included in the above hourly rates. Vehicle mileage is included in our billing rates [excluding geotechnical and construction materials testing (CMT) service rates]. Mileage can be charged separately, if specifically outlined by contract. | Reimbursable expenses include costs associated with plan, specification, and report reproduction; permit fees; delivery costs; etc. | Multiple rates illustrate the varying levels of experience within each category. | Rate Schedule is adjusted annually. Resolution No. 2021-XX December 7, 2021 Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES FOR ELECTIONS HELD IN MEDINA IN 2022 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 204B.16, subd.1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to designate polling places by December 31 of each year for the upcoming year; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling place locations may be made at least 90 days before the next election if one or more of the authorized polling places becomes unavailable for use; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling place locations may be made in the case of an emergency when it is necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the city of Medina designates the following polling places for elections conducted in the city in 2022: Precinct 1A shall be: Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Precinct 1B shall be: Hamel Community Building 3200 Mill Drive Medina, MN 55340 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designate a replacement location meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling place designated in this Resolution that becomes unavailable for use by the City; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designate an emergency replacement polling place meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling place designated in this Resolution when necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution and any subsequent polling place designations to the Hennepin County Elections Office. Dated: December 7, 2021. Agenda Item #5D Resolution No. 2021-XX December 7, 2021 2 Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ Scott Johnson, City Administrator-Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item # MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Nichole Vogel, Administrative Assistant DATE: December 1, 2021 RE: Approval of 2022 Tobacco Licenses The following businesses have applied to renew their tobacco licenses effective January 1, 2022 through December31, 2022. All have paid the fee required and submitted the proper forms. 2022-01 Casey's Retail Company 2022-03 Holiday Companies — CSAH 29 2022-04 Koch's Korner, LLC 2022-05 Holiday Companies— 200 TH 55 2022-06 Hwy 55 Liquors 2022-07 Liquor Depot, Inc COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the above listed tobacco licenses for 2022. COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED The following businesses have not submitted their renewal paperwork in time for the packet deadline. I would also like to request Council approval/authorization to administratively issue their tobacco license renewals upon receiving the proper forms and license fees: 2022-02 Medina Golf and Country Club 2022-08 Inn Kahoots MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Erin Barnhart, Finance Director DATE: December 1, 2021 SUBJ: 2022 Final Budget This 2022 budget reflects the Council’s property tax levy and budget discussions throughout 2021. When approved, this budget will be the basis for the final 2022 property tax levy to be certified to Hennepin County in December 2021. The County will then use the certified property tax levy for final 2022 property tax calculations. General Fund - see attachment A The General Fund is the primary operating fund for the governmental operations of the City. Activities enabled by General Fund planning include police protection and community support, fire prevention and suppression, planning and zoning, street maintenance and repair, parks and recreation, sanitation and waste removal, as well as engineering, legal and general administrative functions. Over the course of 2021, staff and city council discussed several goals for the 2022 budget, which included; keeping a flat tax rate (22.492%), adding software to enable more online services and improve online payment options and conducting a market wage analysis. The following are primary areas in which increases are budgeted: • Property/Liability Insurance – ~$17,500 • Health Insurance – 7% increase ~$29,000 (3.5% employer, 3.5% employee) • Hennepin County Assessing Services – Commercial/Industrial Assessing Contract • Staff COLA 3.5%, step increases and market adjustments – $114,713 • Full-time Planning/Building Assistant- ~$88,000 (incl. benefits) • IT Services - ~$10,000 Health insurance renewals for 2022 increased 7.0% (split between City and employee.) The preliminary budget estimated a 10% increase. The 2022 final budget includes the reduced amount. Property Tax Levy – see attachments A-E The property tax levy allocates 83% to the general fund for general operations of the City. Debt service comprises 8% and capital levies (Municipal Park and Equipment) comprise 9%. Calculations from Hennepin County estimate a 6.9% market value increase and a 7.8% tax capacity increase for pay 2022. The market value increase, due in part to development growth in 2020 (38 new single-family homes, Wealshire, OSI and Auto Motor Plex), and a capital levy decrease provides ~$416,000 (attachment A, line 1) of additional tax revenue while lowering the tax rate 0.3% to 22.429% for 2022. Proposals for use of the tax revenue attributed to growth Agenda Item #7A 2 include; general fund increases, staff COLA and market wage adjustments and the remainder of $145,771 (attachment A, line 38) being allocated to a future fire facility. Proposed 2022 tax rate: 22.429%; 0.3% decrease from 2021. Pre-existing debt service levies have decreased by $58,062. Capital levies for the Municipal Park Fund and Equipment Fund have no increase. The overall total levy increase for 2022 amounts to $357,738. Property Tax Levy: 2021 2021 Change General Fund $3,731,800 $4,147,600 $415,800 Capital Equipment 312,500 312,500 0 Municipal Park Fund 112,000 112,000 0 Road Improvement Debt Service 119,651 59,403 (60,248) Building Debt Service 346,908 349,094 2,186 Total Levy $4,622,859 $4,980,597 $357,738 Property Tax Distribution – see attachments F-I Property taxes are distributed to several districts/agencies. Medina property taxes are distributed to Hennepin County, one of four school districts (Wayzata, Delano, Orono and Rockford), the City of Medina and metro taxing districts (regional railroad authority, county parks, mosquito control, etc.) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – see attachment J The CIP is a 5-year plan in place to determine long-term project & equipment needs. Capital improvement projects are funded by a combination of assessments, bonding, grants, state aid, developer contribution and the following funds: • Road Fund • Equipment Fund • Revolving Capital Fund • Water Capital Fund • Sewer Capital Fund • Storm Water Fund • Water Utility Fund • DWI Forfeiture Fund • Municipal Park Fund • Park Dedication Fund 2022 Road Projects • Arrowhead Intersection Upgrade • 500 Hamel Road • Chippewa Road • Pinto off 24 • Tower Dr West Overlay/curb • Sioux Dr • Iroquois Drive Overlay • Oakview Road - Overlay • Juniper Curve/Spruce • Deer Hill West - Final Wear Course • Tower Dr West (Overlay/Curb) • Shire Dr (Overlay) Utility Rate Increases Water 0% Sewer 0% Storm Water 3% 3 Reserve Fund A fund balance policy was established with specific guidelines the City of Medina will use to maintain an adequate level of fund balance within the General Fund, which is the main operating fund of the City. To provide for cash flow requirements, emergency and contingency needs, and funds for specific programs because major revenues, including property taxes and other government aids are received in the second half of the City’s fiscal year. A minimum of 5 months of tax related operating expenditures is required. 2021 Reserve Balance - $1,300,274 2021 Assigned Reserves - $874,264 (ARPA, Litigation, Railroad Crossing, Retirement, Comp Plan, Uptown Hamel, ALHOA) 2021 Available Reserves - $426,010 (reserve balance less assigned reserves) Actions Needed Motion to approve Resolution Approving Final Budget for 2022 Motion to approve Resolution Approving Final Levy for 2022 CITY OF MEDINA GENERAL FUND PRELIMINARY 2022 BUDGET 2022 Amount Percentage 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget YTD Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: 1 Property Tax Levy 3,325,897 3,280,862 3,434,452 3,344,141 3,731,800 1,917,462 4,147,600 415,800 11.1% 2 Other Taxes 33,000 86,330 75,000 91,711 75,000 49,160 85,000 10,000 13.3% 3 Licenses and Permits 377,400 599,726 390,669 717,380 391,269 700,095 492,500 101,231 25.9% 4 Intergovernmental 263,910 295,468 288,773 824,640 288,773 1,041,670 303,773 15,000 5.2% 5 Charges for Services 123,146 153,911 138,087 99,332 141,254 135,444 143,074 1,820 1.3% 6 Fines and Forfeitures 110,000 98,187 95,000 77,157 95,000 51,766 95,000 0 0.0% 7 Special Assessments 1,715 444 0 439 0 16 0 0 N/A 8 Miscellaneous 123,698 223,574 164,359 303,106 131,875 111,269 240,881 109,006 82.7% 9 Sale of Assets 0000000 0N/A 10 Transfers In 213,572 213,573 220,784 220,784 227,409 272,409 234,230 6,821 3.0% 11 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources 4,572,338 4,952,074 4,807,124 5,678,690 5,082,380 4,279,291 5,742,058 659,678 13.0% EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES: General Government: 12 Mayor & Council 25,146 26,264 25,544 25,525 25,544 22,698 25,544 (0)0.0% 13 Administration 630,578 732,195 662,230 669,973 664,268 559,954 691,552 27,284 4.1% 14 Elections 11,400 1,378 15,400 34,817 15,400 0 24,617 9,217 59.8% 15 Assessing 93,589 101,144 98,065 104,750 104,315 93,776 172,500 68,185 65.4% 16 Planning & Zoning 189,411 184,493 191,032 162,923 191,094 145,277 206,625 15,531 8.1% 17 Comprehensive Plan 8,000 0 8,000 0 8,000 0 8,000 0 0.0% 18 Data Processing 81,583 84,061 88,704 87,517 90,704 72,094 101,000 10,296 11.4% 19 Police/Public Works Facility 76,415 67,410 77,500 75,524 81,500 55,013 87,800 6,300 7.7% 20 Municipal Building 60,810 46,936 61,000 44,012 58,800 29,427 56,400 (2,400)-4.1% 21 Unallocated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 22 Total General Government 1,176,932 1,243,880 1,227,475 1,205,040 1,239,625 978,239 1,374,036 134,411 10.8% Public Safety: 23 Police 1,649,125 1,647,906 1,737,110 1,818,689 1,849,789 1,534,465 2,023,300 173,511 9.4% 24 Police Records Management 8,700 8,905 13,500 9,142 13,500 9,599 14,200 700 5.2% 25 Fire 446,242 425,597 419,111 453,225 408,130 420,483 441,448 33,318 8.2% 26 Building Inspections 318,343 339,170 330,664 425,195 329,479 215,688 441,953 112,474 34.1% 27 Emergency Management 5,200 4,739 5,800 146,986 5,800 6,283 6,050 250 4.3% 28 Total Public Safety 2,427,610 2,426,318 2,506,185 2,853,237 2,606,698 2,186,518 2,926,951 320,253 12.3% Public Works: 29 Public Works 727,877 752,426 751,401 589,176 741,356 535,052 793,620 52,264 7.0% 30 Sanitation & Recycling 20,080 15,031 26,001 13,798 26,539 12,570 25,321 (1,218)-4.6% 31 Total Public Works 747,957 767,457 777,402 602,973 767,895 547,622 818,942 51,046 6.6% Parks & Recreation: 32 Community Building 41,146 35,248 41,808 28,494 42,076 36,528 40,035 (2,041)-4.8% 33 Parks 170,970 205,705 193,373 176,663 186,341 153,779 231,241 44,900 24.1% 34 Total Parks & Recreation 212,116 240,954 235,181 205,156 228,417 190,307 271,277 42,860 18.8% 35 Economic Development Housing 0 0 56,880 0 57,010 0 57,907 897 1.6% 36 Transfers Out 4,000 404,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 504,000 147,174 143,174 3579.4% 37 Reserves 178,734 0 (178,734) -100.0% 38 Transfer to Fire Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 145,771 145,771 N/A 39 Total Expenditures & Other Financing Uses 4,568,615 5,082,608 4,807,123 4,870,407 5,082,379 4,406,686 5,742,058 659,678 13.0% EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) 40 EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES 3,723 (130,534)1 808,283 0 (127,396)(0)(0)N/A Attachment A City of Medina 2022 Property Tax Levy Scenario Summary Actual Proposed Pay Pay 2021 2022 Property Tax Information: 1 Estimated Market Value Change (Taxable)N/A 6.9% 2 Estimated Tax Capacity Change (Taxable)N/A 7.8% 3 4 General Fund Levy $3,731,800 $4,147,600 5 % Change N/A 11.1% 6 7 Debt Service & Capital Levies $891,059 $832,997 8 % Change N/A -6.5% 9 10 Total Levy $4,622,859 $4,980,597 11 % Change N/A 7.7% 12 13 City Local Tax Capacity Rate 22.492% 22.429% 14 % Change N/A -0.3% 15 16 17 Estimated Property Taxes: 18 19 $700,000 Home With No Market Value Change $1,687 $1,682 20 % Change N/A -0.3% 21 22 $700,000 Home With 3.0% Market Value Increase $1,687 $1,761 23 % Change N/A 4.4% 24 25 $5,000,000 C/I Property With No Market Value Change $22,154 $22,154 26 % Change N/A 0.0% 27 28 $5,000,000 C/I Property With 3.0% Market Value Increase $22,154 $22,989 29 % Change N/A 3.8% Attachment B City of Medina Property Tax Levies 2022 Proposed Proposed Amount Percentage Pay Pay Increase Increase 2021 2022 (Decrease) (Decrease) 1 General Fund Levy 3,731,800 4,147,600 415,800 11.1% 2 3 Debt Service & Capital Levies: 4 5 Public Works and Police Department Facility: 6 7 2012A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Bonds - $6.1 million 212,151 216,615 4,464 2.1% 8 2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds (2007A recharacterized CIP portion)134,757 132,479 (2,278) -1.7% 9 10 Total Public Works and Police Department Facility 346,908 349,094 2,186 0.6% 11 12 Other Debt Service: 13 14 2011B Taxable G.O. Improvement Bonds - Hunter Drive North 61,000 0 (61,000) -100.0% 15 2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds - Tower Drive 58,651 59,403 752 1.3% 16 17 Total Other Debt Service 119,651 59,403 (60,248) -50.4% Capital Levies: 18 Municipal Park Fund Levy 112,000 112,000 0 0.0% 19 Capital Equipment Fund Levy 312,500 312,500 0 0.0% 20 21 Total Capital Levies 424,500 424,500 0 0.0% 22 23 Total Debt Service & Capital Levies 891,059 832,997 (58,062) -6.5% 24 25 Total Levies 4,622,859 4,980,597 357,738 7.7% Attachment C City of Medina 2022 Proposed Property Tax Scenario Residential Homesteads 2021 2022 2021-2022 Budget Proposed Change 1 City Tax Rate:22.492%22.429%-0.3% 2 3 General Fund Levy:$3,731,800 $4,147,600 $415,800 4 5 Debt Service & Capital Levies:$891,059 $832,997 ($58,062) 6 7 Total Levy:$4,622,859 $4,980,597 $357,738 8 9 Change in Total Levy:7.7% 10 11 2021 CITY PROPERTY TAXES 12 13 Homestead City Local City 14 Market Market Value Tax Tax Capacity Property 15 Value Exclusion Capacity Rate Taxes 16 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 17 18 $100,000 ($28,200)$718 22.492%$161 19 $200,000 ($19,200)$1,808 22.492%$407 20 $300,000 ($10,200)$2,898 22.492%$652 21 $400,000 ($1,200)$3,988 22.492%$897 22 $500,000 $0 $5,000 22.492%$1,125 23 $600,000 $0 $6,250 22.492%$1,406 24 $700,000 $0 $7,500 22.492%$1,687 25 $800,000 $0 $8,750 22.492%$1,968 26 $900,000 $0 $10,000 22.492%$2,249 27 $1,000,000 $0 $11,250 22.492%$2,530 28 29 2022 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH NO MARKET VALUE CHANGE) 30 31 Market Homestead City Local City Property Percentage 32 Value Market Value Tax Tax Capacity Property Taxes Tax 33 2021 Exclusion Capacity Rate Taxes Increase Increase 34 NO CHANGE 2022 2022 2022 2022 (Decrease)(Decrease) 35 36 $100,000 ($28,200)$718 22.429%$161 ($0)-0.3% 37 $200,000 ($19,200)$1,808 22.429%$406 ($1)-0.3% 38 $300,000 ($10,200)$2,898 22.429%$650 ($2)-0.3% 39 $400,000 ($1,200)$3,988 22.429%$894 ($3)-0.3% 40 $500,000 $0 $5,000 22.429%$1,121 ($3)-0.3% 41 $600,000 $0 $6,250 22.429%$1,402 ($4)-0.3% 42 $700,000 $0 $7,500 22.429%$1,682 ($5)-0.3% 43 $800,000 $0 $8,750 22.429%$1,963 ($6)-0.3% 44 $900,000 $0 $10,000 22.429%$2,243 ($6)-0.3% 45 $1,000,000 $0 $11,250 22.429%$2,523 ($7)-0.3% 46 47 2022 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH MARKET VALUE INCREASE) 48 49 Market 50 Value Homestead City Local City Property Percentage 51 2021 Market Value Tax Tax Capacity Property Taxes Tax 52 INCREASE OF Exclusion Capacity Rate Taxes Increase Increase 53 2.0%2022 2022 2022 2022 (Decrease)(Decrease) 54 55 $102,000 ($28,100)$739 22.429%$166 $4 2.6% 56 $204,000 ($18,900)$1,851 22.429%$415 $9 2.1% 57 $306,000 ($9,700)$2,963 22.429%$665 $13 2.0% 58 $408,000 ($500)$4,075 22.429%$914 $17 1.9% 59 $510,000 $0 $5,125 22.429%$1,149 $25 2.2% 60 $612,000 $0 $6,400 22.429%$1,435 $30 2.1% 61 $714,000 $0 $7,675 22.429%$1,721 $35 2.0% 62 $816,000 $0 $8,950 22.429%$2,007 $39 2.0% 63 $918,000 $0 $10,225 22.429%$2,293 $44 2.0% 64 $1,020,000 $0 $11,500 22.429%$2,579 $49 1.9% 65 66 2022 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH MARKET VALUE INCREASE) 67 68 Market 69 Value Homestead City Local City Property Percentage 70 2021 Market Value Tax Tax Capacity Property Taxes Tax 71 INCREASE OF Exclusion Capacity Rate Taxes Increase Increase 72 4.0%2022 2022 2022 2022 (Decrease)(Decrease) 73 74 $104,000 ($27,900)$761 22.429%$171 $9 5.7% 75 $208,000 ($18,500)$1,895 22.429%$425 $18 4.5% 76 $312,000 ($9,200)$3,028 22.429%$679 $27 4.2% 77 $416,000 $0 $4,160 22.429%$933 $36 4.0% 78 $520,000 $0 $5,250 22.429%$1,178 $53 4.7% 79 $624,000 $0 $6,550 22.429%$1,469 $63 4.5% 80 $728,000 $0 $7,850 22.429%$1,761 $74 4.4% 81 $832,000 $0 $9,150 22.429%$2,052 $84 4.3% 82 $936,000 $0 $10,450 22.429%$2,344 $95 4.2% 83 $1,040,000 $0 $11,750 22.429%$2,635 $105 4.2% Attachment D City of Medina 2022 Proposed Property Tax Scenario Commercial/Industrial Properties 2021 2022 2021-2022 Budget Budget Change 1 City Tax Rate:22.492%22.429%-0.3% 2 3 General Fund Levy:$3,731,800 $4,147,600 $415,800 4 5 Debt Service & Capital Levies:$891,059 $832,997 ($58,062) 6 7 Total Levy:$4,622,859 $4,980,597 $357,738 8 9 Change in Total Levy:7.7% 10 11 2021 CITY PROPERTY TAXES 12 13 City Local City 14 Market Tax Tax Capacity Property 15 Value Capacity Rate Taxes 16 2021 2021 Pay 2021 2021 17 18 $1,000,000 $18,500 22.492%$4,161 19 $2,000,000 $38,500 22.492%$8,659 20 $3,000,000 $58,500 22.492%$13,158 21 $4,000,000 $78,500 22.492%$17,657 22 $5,000,000 $98,500 22.492%$22,154 23 $6,000,000 $118,500 22.492%$26,653 24 $7,000,000 $138,500 22.492%$31,151 25 $8,000,000 $158,500 22.492%$35,649 26 $9,000,000 $178,500 22.492%$40,148 27 $10,000,000 $198,500 22.492%$44,646 28 29 2022 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH NO MARKET VALUE CHANGE) 30 31 Market City Local City Property Percentage 32 Value Tax Tax Capacity Property Taxes Tax 33 2022 Capacity Rate Taxes Increase Increase 34 NO CHANGE 2022 Pay 2022 2022 (Decrease)(Decrease) 35 36 $1,000,000 $18,500 22.429%$4,149 ($12)-0.3% 37 $2,000,000 $38,500 22.429%$8,635 ($24)-0.3% 38 $3,000,000 $58,500 22.429%$13,121 ($37)-0.3% 39 $4,000,000 $78,500 22.429%$17,606 $0 N/A 40 $5,000,000 $98,500 22.429%$22,154 $0 N/A 41 $6,000,000 $118,500 22.429%$26,653 $0 N/A 42 $7,000,000 $138,500 22.429%$31,151 $0 N/A 43 $8,000,000 $158,500 22.429%$35,649 $0 N/A 44 $9,000,000 $178,500 22.429%$40,148 $0 N/A 45 $10,000,000 $198,500 22.429%$44,646 $0 N/A 46 47 2022 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH MARKET VALUE INCREASE) 48 49 Market 50 Value City Local City Property Percentage 51 2022 Tax Tax Capacity Property Taxes Tax 52 INCREASE OF Capacity Rate Taxes Increase Increase 53 2.0%2022 Pay 2022 2022 (Decrease)(Decrease) 54 55 $1,020,000 $18,900 22.429%$4,239 $78 1.9% 56 $2,040,000 $39,300 22.429%$8,814 $155 1.8% 57 $3,060,000 $59,700 22.429%$13,390 $232 1.8% 58 $4,080,000 $80,100 22.429%$17,965 $308 1.7% 59 $5,100,000 $100,500 22.429%$22,541 $386 1.7% 60 $6,120,000 $120,900 22.429%$27,116 $464 1.7% 61 $7,140,000 $141,300 22.429%$31,692 $541 1.7% 62 $8,160,000 $161,700 22.429%$36,267 $618 1.7% 63 $9,180,000 $182,100 22.429%$40,843 $695 1.7% 64 $10,200,000 $202,500 22.429%$45,418 $772 1.7% 65 66 2022 CITY PROPERTY TAXES (WITH MARKET VALUE INCREASE) 67 68 Market 69 Value City Local City Property Percentage 70 2022 Tax Tax Capacity Property Taxes Tax 71 INCREASE OF Capacity Rate Taxes Increase Increase 72 4.0%2022 Pay 2022 2022 (Decrease)(Decrease) 73 74 $1,040,000 $19,300 22.429%$4,329 $168 4.0% 75 $2,080,000 $40,100 22.429%$8,994 $335 3.9% 76 $3,120,000 $60,900 22.429%$13,659 $501 3.8% 77 $4,160,000 $81,700 22.429%$18,324 $667 3.8% 78 $5,200,000 $102,500 22.429%$22,989 $835 3.8% 79 $6,240,000 $123,300 22.429%$27,655 $1,002 3.8% 80 $7,280,000 $144,100 22.429%$32,320 $1,169 3.8% 81 $8,320,000 $164,900 22.429%$36,985 $1,336 3.7% 82 $9,360,000 $185,700 22.429%$41,650 $1,502 3.7% 83 $10,400,000 $206,500 22.429%$46,315 $1,669 3.7% Attachment E CITY OF MEDINA PROPERTY TAX SHARE BY TAXING AUTHORITY PROPOSED PAY 2022 Share 2021 in Cents Proposed Tax Rate County $0.40 38.366% Schools $0.30 29.207% * City $0.23 22.429% Other $0.07 6.620% ** $1.00 96.622% * School District #284 Wayzata ** Other includes various metro taxing districts, and other special taxing districts (excluding watershed) County $0.40 Schools $0.30 City $0.23 Other $0.07 Attachment F CITY OF MEDINA PROPERTY TAX SHARE BY TAXING AUTHORITY PROPOSED PAY 2022 Share 2021 in Cents Proposed Tax Rate County $0.38 38.366% Schools $0.34 34.622% * City $0.22 22.429% Other $0.06 5.590% ** $1.00 101.007% * School District #879 Delano ** Other includes various metro taxing districts, and other special taxing districts (excluding watershed) County $0.38 Schools $0.34 City $0.22 Other $0.06 Attachment G CITY OF MEDINA PROPERTY TAX SHARE BY TAXING AUTHORITY PROPOSED PAY 2022 Share 2021 in Cents Proposed Tax Rate County $0.41 38.366% Schools $0.26 23.828% * City $0.24 22.429% Other $0.09 7.985% ** $1.00 92.608% * School District #278 Orono ** Other includes various metro taxing districts, and other special taxing districts (excluding watershed) County $0.41 Schools $0.26 City $0.24 Other $0.09 Attachment H CITY OF MEDINA PROPERTY TAX SHARE BY TAXING AUTHORITY PROPOSED PAY 2022 Share 2021 in Cents Proposed Tax Rate County $0.37 38.366% Schools $0.34 35.475% * City $0.22 22.429% Other $0.07 6.783% ** $1.00 103.053% * School District #883 Rockford ** Other includes various metro taxing districts, and other special taxing districts (excluding watershed) County $0.37 Schools $0.34 City $0.22 Other $0.07 Attachment I 2022 CIP: DEPARTMENT Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Potential Revenue Source Roads 1 Arrowhead Intersection Upgrade 800,000$ 480,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 2 500 Hamel Road 150,000$ 70,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 3 Chippewa Road 4,940,000$ 50,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 4 Pinto off 24 30,000$ 15,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments & Developer 5 Tower Dr West Overlay/curb 273,000$ 136,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 6 Sioux Dr 41,000$ 20,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 7 Iroquois Drive Overlay 15,000$ 7,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 8 Oakview Road - Overlay 43,000$ 21,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 9 Juniper Curve/Spruce 16,000$ 8,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 10 Deer Hill West - Final Wear Course 203,000$ 203,000$ Road Fund 11 Townline Rd S.132,000$ 132,000$ Assessment Escrow Fund 12 Willow N. of 24 RECLAIM 570,000$ 455,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 13 Chestnut Rd 22,000$ 11,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 14 Foxberry - Phase I 147,000$ 73,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 15 Morningside 317,000$ 158,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 16 Pinto off Hamel Rd 10,000$ 5,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 17 Wild Meadows North 144,000$ 72,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 18 Clydesdale trail overlay 600/101 384,000$ 192,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 19 Medina Highlands 100,000$ 50,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 20 Tamarack N of Medina to Blackfoot Overlay 54,000$ 43,200$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 21 Cherokee Rd 24,000$ 12,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 22 Cheyenne Trl 52,000$ 26,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 23 Meadow Woods 73,000$ 36,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 24 Dusty & Deerhill 36,000$ 18,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 25 Meander Trail E.20,000$ 10,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 26 Meander Trail W.33,000$ 16,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 27 Willow S. of 24 168,000$ 134,400$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 28 Tamarack - Medina to 24 - Overlay 49,985$ 39,988$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 29 Tamarack City Limits to CSAH 24 Overlay 77,675$ 62,140$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 30 South Frontage Rd 25,000$ 12,500$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 31 Evergreen Rd - East of 101 28,000$ 14,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 32 Bella-Terra 22,000$ 11,000$ Road/Bonds/Assessments 33 Hackamore Street Section 150,000$ 50,000$ 3,000,000$ TBD Developer/Medina/Corcoran/LRIP 34 Hackamore Intersection (Plymouth)2,000,000$ 75,000$ Medina/Corcoran/County/Plymouth 35 Roads Sub-total 8,661,000$ 1,137,000$ 4,880,000$ 1,192,200$ 149,000$ 74,500$ 384,660$ 281,028$ 75,000$ 37,500$ 36 37 Public Works 38 Tandem 260,000$ 260,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 39 Water Truck / Tanker Replacement 20,000$ 20,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 40 Bucket Truck - Used 30,000$ 30,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 41 Skid Steer Upgrade w/ Bucket/Harly Rake 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 42 Single Axle Truck 220,000$ 220,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 43 Public Works Sub-total 4,000$ 4,000$ 274,000$ 274,000$ 272,000$ 272,000$ -$-$-$-$ 44 45 Police 46 PD Squad Cars 75,000$ 75,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 47 Traffic Squad 35,000$ 35,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 48 Police Security Cameras / Building / Interview Rooms 30,000$ 30,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 49 Records Management 90,000$ 90,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 50 Portable Radios 4,000$ 4,000$ DWI Forfeiture Fund/Cap Equip 51 Squad Radios DWI Forfeiture Fund/Cap Equip 52 Miscellaneous 10,000$ 10,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$ DWI Forfeiture Fund/Cap Equip 53 Police Sub-total 89,000$ 89,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 178,000$ 178,000$ 115,000$ 115,000$ -$-$ 54 55 Fire 56 HAMEL 57 Ongoing PPE Replacement 10,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 58 Engine 12 Replacement 29,412$ 29,412$ 29,412$ 29,412$ 29,412$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 59 Rescue 11 Replacement 19,482$ 19,482$ 19,482$ 19,482$ 19,482$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 60 Tanker 12 Replacement 22,424$ 22,424$ 22,424$ 22,424$ 22,424$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 61 **Annual Contract - Exp 12/31/2022 75,000$ 77,000$ 77,000$ 77,000$ 77,000$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 62 Hamel Fire Sub-total 81,318$ 75,000$ 83,318$ 77,000$ 83,318$ 77,000$ 83,318$ 77,000$ 83,318$ 77,000$ 63 64 Loretto & Long Lake 65 Fire (Loretto) - Exp 12/31/21 27,886$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 66 Fire (Long Lake) - Exp 12/31/2025 11,205$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 67 Fire Sub-total -$ 39,091$ -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ 68 69 Emergency Management 70 Siren Maintenance 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 71 Civil Defense Sirens 30,000$ 30,000$ Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund 72 Civil Defense Sub-total 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ -$-$ 73 74 75 Administration/Data Processing 76 Vehicle Equipment Bonds/Cap Equip Fund 77 Administration Sub-total -$ -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$ 78 79 City Buildings 80 City Hall Repairs/Renovation 15,000$ 15,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund 81 Community Building Repairs 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund 82 PW/Police Repairs/Renovations 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund 83 City Buildings - Parking Lot 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund 2022 - 2026 Capital Improvement Plan 2022 2023 2024 20262025 Attachment J 2022 CIP: DEPARTMENT Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Project Cost City Proposed Portion Potential Revenue Source 2022 - 2026 Capital Improvement Plan 2022 2023 2024 20262025 84 Future Fire District Buidling 6,000,000$ 6,000,000$ Revolving Cap. Impr. Fund 85 City Building Sub-total 55,000$ 55,000$ 55,000$ 55,000$ 55,000$ 55,000$ 55,000$ 55,000$ 6,170,000$ 6,170,000$ 86 87 88 89 Water (high growth expectation) 90 Water Treatment Plant Expansion 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$ Future - Water Capital 91 Meter Reading Upgrade 530,000$ 530,000$ Water Utility Fund 92 Chippewa West of Mohawk 435,000$ 435,000$ Future - Water Capital 93 Chippewa Watermain Extension - Arrowhead to Mohawk 286,142$ 286,142$ Water Capital Improvement (credits) 94 Tower Dr. Reconstruct 151,000$ 75,500$ Water Utility Fund 95 Water Tower (and land acquisition)2,600,000$ 2,600,000$ Future Water Cap (2020-2023) 96 Water Sub-total 1,402,142$ 1,326,642$ 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$ -$ -$2,600,000$ 2,600,000$ -$-$ 97 98 Sewer 99 I / I Maintenance 100,000$ 100,000$ Sewer Capital Fund 100 Generator Replacements 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Sewer Capital Fund 101 Willow Lift Station 700,000$ 700,000$ Sewer Capital Fund 102 Wild Meadows Lift Station Pump Replacement Sewer Utility Fund 103 Medina Morningside Lift Station Pump Replacement 15,000$ 15,000$ Sewer Utility Fund 104 Hunter/Hamel Rd Upsize 750,000$ 750,000$ Sewer Capital Fund 105 Sewer Sub-total 865,000$ 865,000$ -$-$800,000$ 800,000$ -$-$-$-$ 106 107 Storm Water 108 Wolsfeld Ravine 200,000$ 50,000$ Storm Water Fund/Grants/MCWD 109 Tower Dr Reconstruct 238,000$ 238,000$ Storm Water Fund/Grants/MCWD 110 Painter's Creek 300,000$ 75,000$ Storm Water Fund/Grants/MCWD 111 Long Lake Creek 300,000$ 75,000$ Storm Water Fund/Grants/MCWD 112 Storm Water Sub-total 438,000$ 288,000$ 300,000$ 75,000$ -$-$300,000$ 75,000$ -$-$ 113 114 Municipal Park Replacements 115 Trails 116 Annual Trail Replacement 25,000$ 25,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ Municipal Park Fund 117 Hamel Legion Park 118 Holy Name Park 119 Hunter Lions Park 120 Full Park Reconstruction/Tennis Court 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ Municipal Park Fund/Grants/Donations 121 Lakeshore Park 122 Redesign/Large Playground Equipment 100,000$ 100,000$ Municipal Park Fund 123 Rainwater Nature Area 124 Maple Park Municipal Park Fund 125 New baseball backstop 25,000$ 25,000$ 126 Walnut Park 127 Medina Morningside Park 128 Park Redesign/Update 100,000$ 100,000$ Municipal Park Fund 129 Replace baseball backstop & benches 15,000$ 15,000$ Municipal Park Fund 130 Parking Area Municipal Park Fund 131 Medina Lake Preserve 132 Park Clean-up 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ Municipal Park Fund 133 Tomann Preserve - Park Development 134 The Park at Fields of Medina 135 265,000$ 265,000$ 155,000$ 155,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 155,000$ 155,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 136 137 New Park Development 138 Trails 139 Arrowhead Tr Connection 55 - Meander/Signal 60,000$ 60,000$ Park Dedication Fund 140 Hackamore Trail 230,000$ 115,000$ 263,000$ 131,000$ Park Ded/Cost Share w/ Corcoran 141 Medina Road Trail 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Park Dedication Fund 142 Medina Lake Preserve 143 Trail Head & Pavillion 15,000$ 15,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ Park Dedication Fund 144 Hamel Legion Park 145 Parking Lot Lights at ball fields 5,000$ 5,000$ Park Dedication Fund 146 Ball Field Lights at Paul Fortin Field 147 Grand Stand at Paul Fortin Field 550,000$ -$Hamel Athletic Club 148 Shawnee Woods - Entrance Sign 5,000$ 5,000$ Park Dedication Fund 149 Park Land by Medina Golf & CC 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ Park Dedication Fund 150 Sioux Dr./HWY 55 Ped Crossing Future Study 151 Land Acquisitions / New Trails (rolling-used as development occurs)250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ Park Dedication Fund 152 Parks Sub-total 615,000$ 500,000$ 1,138,000$ 456,000$ 325,000$ 325,000$ 550,000$ 550,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 153 154 TOTAL:12,482,960$ 4,651,233$ 8,442,818$ 3,841,700$ 1,929,818$ 1,849,000$ 4,250,478$ 3,915,528$ 6,928,318$ 6,884,500$ Resolution No. 20 21 December 7, 2021 Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2021- RESOLUTION APPROVING 2022 FINAL TAX LEVY Be it resolved, by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for the current year, collectible in 2022, upon the taxable property in the City of Medina, for the following purposes: To raise $4,147,600 as adequate revenue for the general fund operating budget (of which $145,771 will be allocated to reserves), $408,497 as adequate revenue for debt service, $312,500 for capital equipment and $112,000 for municipal parks. General Fund: $4,147,600 Debt Service: 2012A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds $ 216,615 2013A G.O. Refunding Bond $ 132,479 2015A G.O. Improvement Bond $ 59,403 Municipal Parks $ 112,000 Capital Equipment $ 312,500 Total Levy: $4,980,597 The City Administrator -Deputy Clerk, Scott T. Johnson, is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Dated: December 7, 2021. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: _________________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _______ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 20 21- December 7, 2021 Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2021- RESOLUTION APPROVING 2022 FINAL BUDGET Be it resolved by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be approved for the 2022 budget: Expenditures/ Revenues & Expenses & Other Sources Other Uses General Fund $ 5,742,058 $ 5,742,058 Special Revenue Funds $ 209,000 $ 417,950 Capital Project Funds $ 1,639,837 $ 3,879,271 Debt Service Funds $ 755,583 $ 856,709 Water Fund $ 1,570,738 $ 1,932,196 Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 849,172 $ 894,752 Storm Water Fund $ 265,500 $ 567,160 Be it also resolved by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) be approved for 2022: 2022 CIP $ 4,651,233 Dated: December 7, 2021. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ________________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _______ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2022 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL BUDGET DECEMBER 7, 2021 KATHLEEN MARTIN MAYOR DINO DESLAURIERS COUNCIL MEMBER TODD ALBERS COUNCIL MEMBER ROBIN REID COUNCIL MEMBER JOE CAVANAUGH COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT JOHNSON CITY ADMINISTRATOR ERIN BARNHART FINANCE DIRECTOR JASON NELSON PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR DUSTY FINKE PLANNING DIRECTOR STEVE SCHERER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY CITY OF MEDINA 2022 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL BUDGET Table of Contents CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S BUDGET SUMMARY Page Transmittal Letter ........................................................................................................ 1 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY .............................................................. 5 Revenue Summary/Graph ............................................................................................ 6 Expenditure Summary ................................................................................................. 7 Expenditure Summary by Department/Graph .............................................................. 8 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Revenue Detail ............................................................................................................ 9 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES General Government Overview ....................................................................................................... 10 Mayor and Council ........................................................................................ 11 Administration ............................................................................................... 12 Elections ........................................................................................................ 14 Assessing ....................................................................................................... 16 Planning and Zoning ...................................................................................... 18 Comprehensive Plan ...................................................................................... 19 Data Processing ............................................................................................. 20 Police/Public Works Facility .......................................................................... 21 Municipal Building ........................................................................................ 22 Unallocated Insurance .................................................................................... 23 Public Safety Overview ....................................................................................................... 24 Police............................................................................................................. 25 Police Records Management .......................................................................... 27 Fire ................................................................................................................ 28 Building Inspections ...................................................................................... 29 Emergency Management ................................................................................ 31 Public Works ............................................................................................................. 32 Sanitation and Recycling ........................................................................................... 34 Parks and Recreation Community Building ..................................................................................... 35 Parks .............................................................................................................. 36 Economic Development Housing .............................................................................. 38 CITY OF MEDINA 2022 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL BUDGET Table of Contents Continued General Fund Budget Summary ................................................................................. 39 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGETS ............................................................ 41 Environmental Fund .................................................................................................. 42 Municipal Park Fund ................................................................................................. 43 Field House Operations Fund .................................................................................... 44 Lawful Gambling ...................................................................................................... 45 Police Forfeiture Fund ............................................................................................... 46 Police Reserve Equipment Fund ................................................................................ 47 German Liberal Cemetery Fund ................................................................................ 48 Community Event Fund............................................................................................. 49 Cable Franchise Fund ................................................................................................ 50 Combined Special Revenue Funds Budgets ............................................................... 52 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS BUDGETS ............................................................ 55 Park Dedication Fund ................................................................................................ 56 General Capital Improvement Fund ........................................................................... 57 Water Capital Improvement Fund .............................................................................. 58 Sewer Capital Improvement Fund ............................................................................. 59 Tax Increment 1-9 Fund ............................................................................................ 60 Equipment Replacement Fund ................................................................................... 61 Road Improvement Fund ........................................................................................... 62 Combined Capital Project Funds Budgets .................................................................. 64 CITY OF MEDINA 2022 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL BUDGET Table of Contents Continued DEBT SERVICE FUNDS BUDGETS .................................................................... 67 G.O. Taxable Improvement Bonds 2011B Fund ........................................................ 68 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 2020A (2012A) Fund (PW/PD Facility) ........ 69 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2012B (TIF) .......................................................................... 70 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2013A (PW/PD Facility) ....................................................... 71 G.O. Improvement Bonds 2015A (Tower Drive) ....................................................... 72 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2016A (TIF).......................................................................... 73 G.O. Improvement Bonds 2020A (2017A) (Deer Hill) .............................................. 74 Combined Debt Service Funds Budgets ..................................................................... 76 PUBLIC UTILITY FUNDS BUDGETS ................................................................. 79 Water Utility Fund .................................................................................................... 80 Sewer Utility Fund .................................................................................................... 82 Storm Water Utility Fund .......................................................................................... 84 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................ 87 FEE SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 1 of 89 Mayor and City Council Members November 24, 2021 The City of Medina Staff is pleased to submit the 2022 proposed Comprehensive Annual Budget and property tax levy for your consideration of final approval on December 7, 2021. This 2022 budget reflects the Council’s property tax levy and budget discussions throughout 2021. When approved, this budget will be the basis for the final 2022 property tax levy to be certified to Hennepin County in December 2021. The County will then use the certified property tax levy for final 2022 property tax calculations. Total taxable market value increased 6.9% from $1.887 billion in 2021 to $2.017 billion in 2022. Adjusted net tax capacity increased 7.8% from $20.553 million in 2021 to $22.205 million in 2022. The budget proposes a General Fund property tax levy increase of $415,800 for 2022, which decreases the tax rate of 22.492% from 2021 to 22.429% in 2022. The levy increase is primarily due to new growth and tax base expansion. Pre-existing debt service levies have decreased by $58,062. Capital levies for the Municipal Park Fund and Equipment Fund have no increase. The overall total levy increase for 2022 amounts to $357,738. Property Tax Levy: 2021 2022 Change General Fund $3,731,800 $4,147,600 $415,800 Capital Equipment 312,500 312,500 0 Municipal Park Fund 112,000 112,000 0 Road Improvement Debt Service 119,651 59,403 (60,248) Building Debt Service 346,908 349,094 2,186 Total Levy $4,622,859 $4,980,597 $357,738 The General Fund Budget reflects the revenues and expenditures developed from the City’s service needs, trend analysis, the annual goal setting session, joint work sessions with the City Council and Staff, and City Council discussions. The expenditure levels are focused on maintaining the City’s current level of services and to address capital, maintenance, or special project needs. Page 2 of 89 GENERAL FUND REVENUES: The total budgeted revenue for 2022 is $5,742,058 compared to the 2021 budget of $5,082,380. As has been true in the past, these revenue estimates are based on conservative assumptions. With the proposed general operating levy increase, property tax collections in the General Fund are projected to increase from $3,731,800 in 2021 to $4,147,600 in 2022. As in prior years, the City continues to receive the largest portion of the General Fund revenue from the property tax. In 2022, the tax levy will provide approximately 72% of the City’s total General Fund revenues. Licenses and Permits are estimated to remain steady. The budget is conservative regarding building permit activity to account for slowing growth in the future. A large portion of building permit surplus can be offset by building inspection liability that is not booked until year-end. Budgeted transfers to the General Fund from the Water, Sewer, and Storm Water funds have increased from $227,409 in 2021 to $234,230. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES: General Fund expenditures are budgeted to increase from $5,082,380 in 2021 to $5,742,058 in 2022, of this increase $145,771 is a transfer to the future fire facility fund. General government expenditures are budgeted to increase $134,411 or 10.8%, largely due to staff wages and building contracts services (utilities and maintenance). Public safety expenditures are budgeted to increase $320,253 or 12.3%, due to staff wages and building inspections. Parks and recreation expenditures are budgeted to increase $42,860 and public works expenditures are budgeted to increase by $51,046 or 6.6%. Capital replacement acquisitions will continue to be transacted through other funding sources or reserves on an as needed or emergency basis only. Personnel costs represent 56% of the General Fund Budget. A 3.5% cost of living adjustment (COLA) and defined pay grade step (step) increases are included in the 2022 budget for qualifying employees. OTHER FUND BUDGETS In addition to the City’s General Fund Budget and proposed property tax levy, the City also has several other Special Revenue, Capital Projects, Debt Service, and Enterprise fund budgets. While a profile and proposed budget of each fund is included in this budget document, a summary of each fund’s key changes should be noted to understand the impact on meeting future City service needs. Community Event Fund: The City has depended on donations to fund the fireworks display at the annual Medina Celebration Day event. Conduit bond revenue in the amount of $15,500 was received in 2019 to be spread over five years. Additional donations will again be needed in 2022 to fund a fireworks contract for the event. To assist in the event funding, a $4,000 transfer in from the General Fund is budgeted for 2022. Municipal Park Fund: Park equipment has an asset/depreciation life between 10 and 40 years. Past practice for park equipment replacement needs have been funded from the General Fund or Park Dedication Fund if classified as a capital improvement. The past need for park replacement has not Page 3 of 89 been great because the parks were new or newer. As the parks and park equipment within the City of Medina approach asset life, there will be an increased need for replacement. The funds within the Park Dedication Fund will not be enough to maintain a practice of funding replacements or improvements. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan shows between $13.8 and $27.4 million in new parks and trails development over the next 20 years. The Park Dedication Fund’s revenue source is 100% dependent on development and developers and needs to be set aside for future use. There have been past years and will be again when no revenue comes in for Park Dedication. Thus, the reason there is importance in establishing a constant revenue source for the Municipal Park Fund to handle replacements, which will be ongoing while there are parks in use. Water Utility: The City’s 2020 Water Rate Analysis demonstrated the need for a 0% rate increase in user rates and no current increase in the trunk connection fees. Sewer Utility: The City’s 2020 Sewer Rate Analysis includes a 0% rate increase in user rates and a decrease in trunk connection fees because of the addition of an area charge for the Willow TH 55 lift station. Storm Water Utility: A 3% increase in the Storm Water Utility rate has been included in the 2022 budget. The storm water utility revenue supports administrative costs for annual reporting, pond maintenance, etc. and will be used as matching funds for capital project completion. The CIP for storm water projects is large and completion of the projects is highly contingent on receiving grant or cooperative funding from other agencies and partners. The remaining portions of this document provide greater detail on individual fund sources and uses budgets. Supplemental information can be obtained from the Finance Department. FINAL COMMENTS This budget has been prepared based on the direction given by the City Council to date and the best estimates of staff of the available revenues and the expenditures required to reasonably maintain core levels of services without significantly compromising quality of life for Medina taxpayers. Respectfully Submitted, Erin Barnhart Finance Director Page 4 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 5 of 89 General Fund The General Fund is the primary operating fund for the governmental operations of the City. Activities enabled by General Fund planning include police protection and community support, fire prevention and suppression, planning and zoning, street maintenance and repair, parks and recreation, sanitation and waste removal, as well as engineering, legal and general administrative functions. Page 6 of 89 General Fund Revenues and Other Financing Sources By Type 2022 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES BY TYPE Property Tax Levy 3,434,452 3,731,800 4,147,600 415,800 11.1% Other Taxes 75,000 75,000 85,000 10,000 13.3% Licenses and Permits 390,669 391,269 492,500 101,231 25.9% Intergovernmental 288,773 288,773 303,773 15,000 5.2% Charges for Services 138,087 141,254 143,074 1,820 1.3% Fines and Forfeitures 95,000 95,000 95,000 0 0.0% Special Assessments 0 0 0 0 N/A Miscellaneous 164,359 131,875 240,881 109,006 82.7% Sale of Assets 0 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 220,784 227,409 234,230 6,821 3.0% Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 4,807,124 5,082,380 5,742,058 659,678 13.0% Property Tax Levy $4,147,600 72% Other Taxes $85,000 1% Licenses and Permits, $492,500 9% Intergovernmental $303,773 5% Charges for Services $143,074 3% Fines and Forfeitures $95,000 2% Special Assessments $0 0% Miscellaneous $240,881 4% Transfers In $234,230 4% Total $5,742,058 Page 7 of 89 General Fund Expenditures and Other Financing Uses By Department 2022 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) General Government: Mayor & Council 25,544 25,544 25,544 (0) 0.0% Administration 662,230 664,268 691,552 27,284 4.1% Elections 15,400 15,400 24,617 9,217 59.8% Assessing 98,066 104,316 172,500 68,184 65.4% Planning & Zoning 191,032 191,094 206,625 15,531 8.1% Comprehensive Plan 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% Data Processing 88,704 90,704 101,000 10,296 11.4% Police/Public Works Facility 77,500 81,500 87,800 6,300 7.7% Municipal Building 61,000 58,800 56,400 (2,400) -4.1% Unallocated 0 0 0 0 N/A Total General Government 1,227,476 1,239,626 1,374,037 134,410 10.8% Public Safety: Police 1,737,110 1,849,789 2,023,300 173,511 9.4% Police Records Management 13,500 13,500 14,200 700 5.2% Fire 419,111 408,130 441,448 33,318 8.2% Building Inspections 330,664 329,479 441,953 112,474 34.1% Emergency Management 5,800 5,800 5,825 25 0.4% Total Public Safety 2,506,185 2,606,698 2,926,726 320,028 12.3% Public Works: Public Works 751,401 741,356 793,620 52,264 7.0% Sanitation & Recycling & Organics 26,001 26,539 25,321 (1,218) -4.6% Total Public Works 777,402 767,895 818,941 51,046 6.6% Parks & Recreation: Community Building 41,808 42,076 40,035 (2,041) -4.8% Parks 193,373 186,341 231,241 44,900 24.1% Total Parks & Recreation 235,181 228,417 271,277 42,860 18.8% Economic Development Housing Housing 56,880 57,010 57,907 897 1.6% Total Economic Development Housing 56,880 57,010 57,907 897 0 Transfers Out 4,000 4,000 147,174 143,174 3579.4% Transfer to Reserves 178,734 0 (178,734) Transfer to Future Fire Facility 0 0 145,771 145,771 N/A Total Expenditures & Other Financing Uses 4,807,124 5,082,380 5,742,058 659,677 13.0% Page 8 of 89 General Fund Expenditures and Other Financing Uses By Department 2022 General Government, $1,374,036 , 24% Public Safety, $2,926,951 , 51% Public Works, $818,941 , 14% Parks and Recreation, $271,278 , 5% Economic Development Housing, $57,907 , 1% Transfers Out, $292,945 , 5% Total $5,742,058 Page 9 of 89 General Fund Revenues PROFILE Revenues for all General Fund operations, regardless of the department responsible for charging and collecting them, are all listed jointly in the revenues section of the budget document. This includes all revenues from property taxes to recreation charges for activities. The primary breakdowns for revenues in the General Fund are:  Taxes  Special Assessments  Licenses and Permits  Intergovernmental Revenues  Charges for Services  Fines and Forfeitures  Miscellaneous Revenues REVENUE DETAILS Property Taxes $ 4,147,600 These are the General Fund property taxes charged to all taxable properties in the City of Medina based on the tax capacity of each property. The 2022 budget is 13.0% greater than the 2021 budget. Property Taxes make up about 72% of the total revenues and other sources collected to provide General Fund services. Licenses and Permits $ 492,500 These are charges for items that state statutes have granted authority to issue and the fee amounts are generally authorized on an annual basis within the City’s fee schedule. The City estimates these amounts conservatively as these amounts can vary considerably from year to year. Types of fees included are liquor and cigarette licenses, and building, plumbing, and hunting permits. Charges for Services $ 143,074 Cities may receive revenues for services provided. The main sources of revenue are from public safety services and community room rentals. Other charges include election filing fees, sales of maps and copies, and assessment searches. These three revenue sources, property taxes, licenses and permits, and charges for services, together make up approximately 84% of the City’s general operating revenues and other sources. The balance comes from fines and forfeitures, intergovernmental activity, antenna rent, and operating transfers. Page 10 of 89 General Fund Expenditures GENERAL GOVERNMENT OVERVIEW PROFILE The General Fund General Government consists of City Council, Administration, Elections, Assessing, Planning & Zoning, Comprehensive Plan, Data Processing, and Municipal Buildings. 2022 General Government Expenditures 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) General Government: Mayor & Council 25,544 25,544 25,544 (0)0.0% Administration 662,230 664,268 691,552 27,284 4.1% Elections 15,400 15,400 24,617 9,217 59.8% Assessing 98,066 104,316 172,500 68,184 65.4% Planning & Zoning 191,032 191,094 206,625 15,531 8.1% Comprehensive Plan 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% Data Processing 88,704 90,704 101,000 10,296 11.4% Police/Public Works Facility 77,500 81,500 87,800 6,300 7.7% Municipal Building 61,000 58,800 56,400 (2,400)-4.1% Unallocated 0 0 0 0 N/A Total General Government 1,227,476 1,239,626 1,374,036 134,410 10.8% $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Page 11 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – MAYOR AND COUNCIL PROFILE The City Council is comprised of the Mayor and four Council Members. All are elected at large. Under the City’s Council-Administrator form of government, the City Council exercises the legislative authority of the City. The City Council is responsible for formulating City policy, enacting legislation, adopting the annual budget, levying local property taxes, and appointing members to advisory boards and commissions. Members of the City Council also constitute the Board of Appeal and Equalization, and the Canvassing Board for municipal elections. The City Council budget includes expenditures related to compensation, memberships, subscriptions and training of its members. Printing expenditures are also included for the flier Council has chosen to insert with the County’s proposed tax statements over the past few years. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVELS 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Mayor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Council Members 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • Medina is a Statutory A form of government. • All Council members are at large. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Mayor and Council Total Personnel Services 17,494 17,494 17,494 (0)0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 8,050 8,050 8,050 0 0.0% Total Mayor and Council 25,544 25,544 25,544 (0)0.0% Page 12 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – ADMINISTRATION PROFILE The City Administrator is the Chief Administrative Officer of the City. It is the Administrator’s duty to properly administer all affairs relating to the City. The Administrator provides management of the City to ensure that all City Council policies and directives are carried out. Activities include coordinating recommendations to the City Council on financial, legislative, and management issues and to serve as a liaison between the Council, advisory boards and commissions, consultants, other levels of government, the media, and the public. The Administration budget includes expenditures related to general administration, human resources management, information technology, legal, contract management, statutorily required clerk services and financial management including: budgeting, debt management, investments, vendor check processing, special assessments, public improvement financing, and risk management. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 City Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Assistant to City Administrator/City Clerk 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Administrative Assistant 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Administration Intern Finance Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Asst. Finance Director 1.00 1.00 Accountant I 1.00 Accountant II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting Part-Time 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Total FTE's 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.80 4.80 5.22 5.18 STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • In 2006, a Finance Director position was added to bring financial functions in house from the consultants and previously assigned to the City Administrator. The position created investment strategies to provide cash flow and conserving capital, while maximizing investment income revenue. • In 2007, an Accountant was added to handle utility billing and the processing of development reimbursable items, as well as to improve segregation of accounting and finance duties, assist in enhancing the accuracy of financial reporting, and to meet the demands of City growth. This position also provided support for the additional 250 utility accounts added through new development. Page 13 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – ADMINISTRATION (continued) • In 2008, the position of Assistant to the City Administrator was reassigned from an Administrative Assistant position to assume all statutory clerk functions (as Deputy Clerk), duties in human resource management, elections, public relations, information technology, contract management and liaison to parks and the community building previously held by the City Administrator. • In 2008, an Accounting Technician position was created to replace the retiring Deputy Clerk. The position also provided resources for the newly created Storm Water Utility which added an additional 2,500 accounts, as well as monthly utility billing in 2009. • In 2012, an Assistant Finance Director position was created to replace the Accountant position as well as to cover added responsibilities acquired due to a vacant Finance Director position in interim status with a contracted consultant. • In 2015, the Finance Director position was filled eliminating the Assistant Finance Director position and reducing consultant hours. Additionally, a half-time Accountant position was filled. • In 2016, the budget includes the reassignment of the position Assistant to the Administrator to Assistant Administrator/City Clerk. • In 2018, the budget includes the reassignment of the Accounting Technician position to Accountant II. • In 2019, a part-time administrative assistant position was created to be shared between admin and finance, replacing the vacant PT Finance Clerk position. Assistant City Administrator position was approved pay grade increase from 5-6 to 7-8. • In 2021, the Asst. City Administrator/City Clerk position became vacant and was reallocated to Asst. to City Administrator/City Clerk and decreased to pay grade 5-6. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Administration Total Personnel Services 547,890 545,938 568,502 22,564 4.1% Total Supplies 5,100 5,100 5,100 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 109,240 113,230 117,950 4,720 4.2% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Administration 662,230 664,268 691,552 27,284 4.1% Page 14 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT - ELECTIONS PROFILE The City Clerk’s Office is responsible for administration of elections, including supervision of elections and voter registration. The Clerk’s Office ensures elections are handled in accordance with State, Federal, and County regulations. The Clerk’s Office oversees all activities related to City elections including notices, materials, and certification of process. Additionally, the Clerk’s Office arranges polling places and sets up voting equipment. The Clerk’s Office also supervises the recruiting and training of election coordinators and judges and oversees the maintenance of voter registration files. Section 200 of the Medina City Code provides for regular municipal elections to be held in even-numbered years only. STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • Although internal staff provides a service to this department every year and significantly during an election year, no time is allocated due to the fluctuation in activity during off election years. The General Administration budget contains the staffing resources to conduct the City’s elections. • In 2006, City Staff restructured the flow of the election coordination by increasing internal staff administration and decreasing part-time hiring by 30%. • In 2008, the City established a second precinct, which led to additional hiring of part-time election staffing. • In 2010, City Staff enacted additional efficiencies in election coordination and shifts to reduce part- time hiring. • In 2012 additional shift hours were added for an additional absentee precinct at the primary and general election. This was also a presidential election and required more staffing. • In 2014 two part-time election judges were hired to administer absentee voting. • 2015 was a non-election year. Shift staffing was not necessary. • 2016 one full-time election judge was hired to administer absentee voting along with staff. Presidential election and no excuse absentee voting implemented. Additional election judges for office help will be needed for future presidential elections. • 2017 was a non-election year. • In 2018, two full-time election judges were hired to assist in absentee voting. • In 2020, two primary elections and one general election were held. All elections had absentee voting and required election judges at City Hall. Page 15 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – ELECTIONS (continued) OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Elections Total Personnel Services 8,550 8,550 11,842 3,292 38.5% Total Supplies 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 5,850 5,850 11,775 5,925 101.3% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Elections 15,400 15,400 24,617 9,217 59.8% Page 16 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT - ASSESSING PROFILE The primary function of the City’s Assessing services is to provide the accurate classification and valuation of all real, personal and exempt property, including the value of all improvements and structures thereon, located within Medina at maximum intervals of five years. In addition, the Assessor maintains a data base and affiliated files, including property characteristics and photographs on all parcels, provides computerized reports and responds to requests of the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Hennepin County, City departments and members of the general public. The City Assessor also attends and coordinates the City’s Local Board of Appeal and Equalization hearing, commonly held in April each year and provides valuation information to the City to determine park dedication fees when properties subdivide. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL AND STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY The City continues to utilize contracted assessing services. On a regular basis, the City receives competitive quotes for this service. The contract services the City engages in are more economically feasible than hiring full-time staff. The City currently contracts with Rolf Erickson Enterprises Inc. South West Assessing for residential assessing services. In 2021, the City contracted with Hennepin County for commercial, industrial and apartment assessing services. No staffing is allocated to this department. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Assessing Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Other Services and Charges 98,066 104,316 172,500 68,184 65.4% Total Assessing 98,066 104,316 172,500 68,184 65.4% Page 17 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – PLANNING AND ZONING PROFILE The Planning and Zoning department is primarily responsible for the drafting and enforcement of the City’s zoning and subdivision ordinances (Chapter 8) and for coordinating the Comprehensive Plan. The department has considerable contact with various members of the public on matters related to property in the City including residents, business owners, contractors and builders, potential buyers, developers, realtors, appraisers, flood insurance agents, and other similar persons. The department manages the review process of all land use and development applications including: subdivisions, site plan reviews, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, rezoning, variances, and other appeals. This process includes meeting with potential applicants prior to an application, reviewing requests for consistency with City regulations, preparing memoranda to assist the City officials, and drafting resolutions and ordinances. The department also coordinates the development process after a project is approved, which entails drafting documents such as easements and development agreements and verifying that all terms and conditions applied to a project are followed. Assistance is provided to the Planning Commission, including supplying monthly information packets, maintenance of Commission meeting agendas and minutes, and distribution of public hearing notices. Geographical Information System (GIS) and mapping services for all City departments are provided by this department. This includes obtaining and maintaining relevant data and creating maps and providing spatial analysis when requested. The department inspects for compliance with zoning and nuisance regulations and carries through with enforcement activities when necessary. This includes unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and property maintenance, and property manure management practices. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Planning Director 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 City Planner 0.70 0.75 0.75 Associate Planner 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Planning and Building Assistant 0.12 0.30 0.35 0.35 Administrative Assistant 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Part Time Help Total FTE's 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.22 1.22 STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • In 2004, the City created the position of full-time City Planner, as opposed to utilizing only outside consultants to meet the demands of the City’s growth and land use applications. • In 2008, the department was restructured to provide or enhance professional planning and zoning services in the areas of land-use review, building permit review, ordinance revisions, use of GIS, as well as code and septic enforcement. • In 2016, the City Planner was reassigned as Planning Director and the Planning Assistant was budgeted and reassigned at Associate Planner. Page 18 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – PLANNING AND ZONING (continued) OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Planning and Zoning Total Personnel Services 140,682 144,044 153,575 9,531 6.6% Total Supplies 750 750 750 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 49,600 46,300 52,300 6,000 13.0% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Planning and Zoning 191,032 191,094 206,625 15,531 8.1% Page 19 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROFILE The City’s Comprehensive Plan is updated every ten years and establishes the vision and sets the course for the City looking out two decades to guide future residential growth, economic development, and investments in City services such as natural resources, parks, recreation, transportation, and water resources. The 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan was completed in September 2018. $8,000 is assigned each year within General Fund reserves to account for total project cost every ten years. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY N/A 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Comprehensive Plan Total Other Services and Charges 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% Total Comprehensive Plan 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% Page 20 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – DATA PROCESSING PROFILE The main function for Data Processing is information technology (IT). This covers annual licensing fees and web-based programs, as well as copier/printer leases. Also included are maintenance costs for workstations and servers necessary to maintain the City’s electronic records and management. In 2014 video recording and editing of City Council meetings was implemented. In 2017 transition to the cloud was implemented reducing the need for servers. In 2021, contracted services with Cipher Laboratories was replaced with Solution Builders. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL AND STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY This service is provided on a contractual basis. No staffing is allocated directly to this department and staff coordination is budgeted from the General Administration budget. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Data Processing Total Supplies 68,954 70,954 73,500 2,546 3.6% Total Other Services and Charges 19,750 19,750 27,500 7,750 39.2% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Data Processing 88,704 90,704 101,000 10,296 11.4% Page 21 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY PROFILE The former Clam Corp building at 600 Clydesdale Trail was obtained in 2012 and improved in 2013 for use as the Medina police/public works facility. The Police/Public Works Facility department provides for the ongoing cleaning, maintenance and repair of the building. Public Works and Police departments contract or perform all maintenance on building and/or equipment. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL The personnel from the Public Works and Police departments provide these services within the scope of their existing duties. STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY The Public Works and Police departments are responsible for these activities. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the General Capital Improvement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Police/Public Works Facility Total Supplies 0 2,000 2,500 500 25.0% Total Other Services and Charges 77,500 79,500 85,300 5,800 7.3% Total Police/Public Works Facility 77,500 81,500 87,800 6,300 7.7% Page 22 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – MUNICIPAL BUILDING PROFILE The Municipal Building function provides for the ongoing cleaning, maintenance and repair of government buildings including City Hall. Other facilities, such as Hamel Community Building, Field House, and Hamel Water Treatment Plant have expenditures charged directly to their respective departments. Public Works contracts or performs all maintenance on building and/or equipment, as well as mowing, work on garden beds, heating/cooling, plumbing, painting, parking lot, electrical, and water softener upkeep. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL The personnel from the Public Works department provide these services within the scope of their existing duties. STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY The Public Works Department is responsible for these activities with minor contracting and maintenance contracts used for specific items. The Administration Department provides contract management for the various service contracts to these areas. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the General Capital Improvement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Municipal Building Total Supplies 2,800 2,800 2,800 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 58,200 56,000 53,600 (2,400)-4.3% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Municipal Building 61,000 58,800 56,400 (2,400)-4.1% Page 23 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) GENERAL GOVERNMENT – UNALLOCATED INSURANCE PROFILE Insurance coverage costs include insurance policy premiums, agent services and provisions for deductible amounts. Under Minnesota Statutes, the City is obligated to contract with an insurance agent to procure any policies deemed appropriate. It is anticipated that the agent selected will provide advice and recommendations regarding exposures, policies and options for the City. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) has added a risk management component to its operations that provides a review of identified exposures and advice as to how the City can minimize potential for claims. NOTE: In years prior to 2015, the City did not allocate insurance policy premiums to existing City departments. For the 2015 budget and forward, the City intends to allocate insurance costs by department. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY N/A 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Unallocated Total Other Services and charges 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Unallocated 0 0 0 0 N/A Page 24 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY OVERVIEW PROFILE The General Fund Public Safety departments include Police Services, Police Records Management, Fire Services, Building Inspections, and Emergency Management activities. These categories relate directly to making the City of Medina a safe place to live and work. These services are necessary to address mandated requirements by State and Federal laws. It is the responsibility of the local unit of government to protect their citizens and property. 2022 Public Safety Expenditures 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Public Safety: Police 1,737,110 1,849,789 2,023,300 173,511 9.4% Police Records Management 13,500 13,500 14,200 700 5.2% Fire 419,111 408,130 441,448 33,318 8.2% Building Inspections 330,664 329,479 441,953 112,474 34.1% Emergency Management 5,800 5,800 6,050 250 4.3% Total Public Safety 2,506,185 2,606,698 2,926,951 320,253 12.3% Page 25 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY – POLICE PROFILE The Police Department provides for police administration, public safety services, investigation, and patrol. The Public Safety Director provides leadership and management oversight by coordinating and administrating all divisions within the department. The Public Safety Director is responsible for overseeing multiple strategies by ensuring accountability and allocating resources. Sworn, uniformed officers respond to calls-for-service of both emergency and non-emergency nature. In addition, police services conduct proactive patrol in residential and commercial areas to deter crime and increase traffic safety. Officers seek to make a positive difference in the lives of the residents of Medina and the community. Community Service Officers are utilized to perform police- related duties that do not require a sworn police officer. The investigative process includes, but is not limited to, carrying out interviews and interrogations, recording and witnessing formal statements, conducting line-ups, performing surveillance, gathering and processing evidence, reviewing and analyzing the data gathered, writing and serving search warrants, and disseminating information to fellow officers within the department and agencies outside the police department. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Public Safety Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sergeant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Investigator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Officers 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 CSOs 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Administrative Assistant 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Transcriptionist 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Overtime 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Total FTE's 14.57 14.57 14.07 13.57 12.82 12.82 12.82 12.82 12.82 12.82 STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • Medina began providing contractual police services to Loretto from the date of inception. • In 1998, scheduling was structured to provide response to all emergencies, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. • In 2003, the drug task force was formed, and a position was designated to address drug related issues. In 2005, that position was backfilled for general patrol duties. • In 2004, the Sergeant position was created to increase the supervision and accountability of the patrol division and to work on investigations. • In 2007, an Investigator was added to do all in house investigations. • In 2007, a part-time Transcriptionist was added to increase efficiencies within the department. • In 2013, the Police Chief position was elevated to the Public Safety Director position. Page 26 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY – STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY (continued) • In 2019, Police Sergeant was promoted to Public Safety Directed; effective March 2020. Addition of full- time officer was approved; effective 2020. Part -time transcriptionist position was removed from the budget; effective 2020. • In 2021, a part-time Administrative Assistant was added for backup. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the Equipment Replacement Fund, Police Forfeiture Fund, and Police Reserve Equipment Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Police Total Personnel Services 1,511,542 1,625,521 1,758,100 132,579 8.2% Total Supplies 61,068 60,568 68,500 7,932 13.1% Total Other Services and Charges 164,500 163,700 196,700 33,000 20.2% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Police 1,737,110 1,849,789 2,023,300 173,511 9.4% Page 27 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY – POLICE RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROFILE This function was established to capture the ongoing expenditures created by the City’s records management system. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL The personnel from the Police department provide these services within the scope of their existing duties. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Police Records Management Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Other Services and Charges 13,500 13,500 14,200 700 5.2% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Police Records Management 13,500 13,500 14,200 700 5.2% Page 28 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY – FIRE PROFILE The purpose of fire protection is to respond to fire, medical emergencies, water rescues and chemical spills/hazards within the City in a timely and efficient manner to minimize the loss sustained by citizens and/or businesses in the City. The fire services budget also provides public education in fire prevention, fire safety awareness, and fire extinguisher training. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL This service is provided on a contractual basis. No staffing is allocated to this department. The Administration Department provides contract management for the service contracts and the coordination is provided by the Police Department. In 2020, a fire study was completed to determine benefits of a regional fire district or municipal fire department. Planning and implementation are projected to continue. In 2021, the Maple Plain Fire contract was renegotiated and set for a one-year term. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the Equipment Replacement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Fire Total Other Services and Charges 419,111 408,130 441,448 33,318 8.2% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Fire 419,111 408,130 441,448 33,318 8.2% Page 29 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY – BUILDING INSPECTIONS PROFILE The Building Inspection division provides services for all building permit related activities in the City. This includes permits for new construction, additions, alterations and remodels, mechanical, plumbing, and septic systems. This also includes reviewing plans for consistency with relevant codes prior to construction beginning, and on-site inspections during and after construction. The function also maintains address files with past permit information and completes various state-required reports. The division is also responsible for the review and inspection of other types of permits including permanent and temporary sign permits, driveway/curb cut permits and sewer/water hookup permits. The division provides bi-annual fire inspections of all commercial properties in the City. Such inspections include proper material storage, fire suppression devices, emergency exiting and fire lane circulation. This division coordinates the City’s septic system monitoring program. This program requires property owners on individual sewage treatment systems to have their systems pumped and inspected by a private licensed contractor a minimum of once every three years. This division also provides inspections for construction site erosion and sediment control measures to protect water quality and is responsible for regulation and enforcement related to wetlands within the City. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Planning Director 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 City Planner 0.30 0.25 0.25 Associate Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.13 Planning and Building Assistant 0.88 0.70 0.65 0.65 PW Inspector 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Administrative Assistant 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Intern 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.35 Total FTE's 2.39 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.58 1.61 STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • The City utilizes contract services for most plan review inspection activities. • In 2009, staff was allocated to provide zoning plan reviews for structure setbacks, hardcover, and landscaping. In-house staff also provides administrative support and coordinates financial and statistical reporting. • In 2010, more accurate allocation of the Administrative Assistant, who provides phone and counter services relating to building inspections, was implemented. Page 30 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY – BUILDING INSPECTIONS (Continued) • In 2016, the City Planner was reassigned as Planning Director and the Planning Assistant was budgeted and reassigned at Associate Planner. • In 2018, the budget for Public Works Inspector was moved from Public Works to Building Inspections. • In 2021, the Administrative Assistant shared between the Public Works and Planning/Building department was allocated to full-time Public Works. A full-time Planning and Building Assistant position was posted to be filled in 2022. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Building Inspections Total Personnel Services 170,259 171,379 242,803 71,424 41.7% Total Supplies 750 750 950 200 26.7% Total Other Services and Charges 159,655 157,350 198,200 40,850 26.0% Total Building Inspections 330,664 329,479 441,953 112,474 34.1% Page 31 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY – EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROFILE The purpose of the Emergency Management function is to ensure the effective coordinated use of resources to: 1) maximize the protection of life and property, 2) ensure the continuity of government, 3) sustain survivors and 4) repair essential facilities and utilities in the event of a disaster, whether natural or manmade. Emergency Management is headed by the Public Safety Director. The City’s emergency plan is reviewed annually, and continual training is conducted in accordance with City Ordinance 206. In 2020, the Emergency Management fund was used to monitor all COVID-19 related expenditures that were reimbursable from CARES ACT funds. This fund will continue to monitor COVID-19 expenditures as well as all expenditures reimbursable from ARPA funds if applicable. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL The personnel from the Police department provide these services within the scope of their existing duties. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the General Capital Improvement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Emergency Management Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Other Services and Charges 5,800 5,800 6,050 250 4.3% Total Emergency Management 5,800 5,800 6,050 250 4.3% Page 32 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS PROFILE Public Works provides maintenance of all City streets, sidewalks and trails, which includes patching, seal coating, crack sealing, sweeping, striping, mowing ditches, shouldering, grading, drainage issues, paving and minor sidewalk and curb repair. Also included are snow and ice control on roads, trails and parking lots, which are provided in a safe and cost-effective manner while balancing personnel resources and environmental concerns, as well as servicing all trucks and equipment used. Public Works also provides traffic control, maintenance, replacement and inventory of signage, pavement markings, and street and signal lights. The department also maintains a compost and brush pile that can be utilized by the residents year-round. Public Works is on call 24/7 for all emergencies that may arise. Compliance with safety regulations is provided by the department, including training seminars and testing to maintain the various licensing requirements, and yearly safety training to meet OSHA requirements. The Public Works Department provides budgeting, pavement management, road material bids, contracting with low bidders, and overseeing all road projects each year, as well as other smaller projects. Public Works is also involved in the set up, and tear down, and post clean-up of Clean-up Day and Medina Celebration Day. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 PW Director 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 PW Foreman 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Administrative Assistant 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Street Maintenance/Inspector 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.49 PW Maintenance 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 PW Maintenance 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 PW Maintenance 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.45 0.50 PW On-call 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Winter Temp 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 Part Time Help 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 Total FTE's 2.96 2.86 2.86 2.61 2.61 2.42 2.67 2.72 2.52 2.27 Page 33 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS (continued) STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • In 2006, the Public Works Superintendent duties were redefined following retirement of the Public Works Director, which allowed for a higher level of administration and supervision. • In 2007, a Foreman position was created to manage the day-to-day oversight of the employees working in the field. An On-Call policy was also adopted to compensate staff available for dispatch after hours. • In 2009 & 2010, the department delayed the replacement of the retiring Equipment Operator. Part-time staffing was utilized for seasonal projects such as snow plowing and street maintenance. • In 2011, the Street Maintenance position was written to include inspections. • In 2012, the Public Works Superintendent title was changed to Public Works Director and the Administrative Assistant title was changed to Office Assistant. • In 2014, a winter temporary position was added, which will become a full-time Public Works Maintenance position in 2015, allocated 50% to public works and 50% to parks. • In 2018, the inspections position was budgeted to Building Inspections and removed from Public Works Budget. • In 2020, winter seasonal help was added to assist in snow plowing. • In 2021, the Administrative Assistant shared between the Public Works and Planning/Building department was allocated to full-time Public Works. A full-time Planning and Building Assistant position was posted to be filled in 2022. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the Equipment Replacement Fund and Road Improvement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Public Works Total Personnel Services 298,971 287,826 330,170 42,344 14.7% Total Supplies 244,580 242,580 239,200 (3,380)-1.4% Total Other Services and Charges 207,850 210,950 224,250 13,300 6.3% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Public Works 751,401 741,356 793,620 52,264 7.0% Page 34 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) SANITATION AND RECYCLING PROFILE Sanitation and recycling is responsible for the administration of the City’s recycling and organic activities as well as refuse hauling. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Assistant to City Administrator/City Clerk 0.10 Deputy Clerk 0.10 0.10 Total FTE's 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • In 2009, the City took on duties previously provided by a contracted Recycling Coordinator. • In 2016, the budget includes the reassignment of the position Assistant to the Administrator to Assistant Administrator/City Clerk. • In 2021, the Asst. City Administrator/City Clerk position became vacant and was reallocated to Asst. to City Administrator/City Clerk and decreased to pay grade 5-6. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Sanitation and Recycling Total Personnel Services 12,156 12,694 11,471 (1,223)-9.6% Total Supplies 500 500 500 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 4,450 4,450 4,450 0 0.0% Total Sanitation and Recycling 17,106 17,644 16,421 (1,223)-6.9% Organics Total Supplies 7,895 7,895 7,900 5 0.1% Total Other Services and Charges 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% Total Organics 8,895 8,895 8,900 5 0.1% Total Sanitation and Recycling & Organics 26,001 26,539 25,321 (1,218)-4.6% Page 35 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) COMMUNITY BUILDING PROFILE The Hamel Community Building is available to be rented for various private functions. The Community Building department provides for the ongoing cleaning, maintenance and repair of the Hamel Community Building. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL Services are provided on a contractual basis. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the General Capital Improvement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Community Building Total Personnel Services 6,078 6,346 5,735 (611)-9.6% Total Supplies 5,500 5,500 5,500 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 30,230 30,230 28,800 (1,430)-4.7% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Community Building 41,808 42,076 40,035 (2,041)-4.8% Page 36 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PARKS PROFILE This department represents the consolidation of all park maintenance operating functions. Activities within this department include maintenance and repair of playground equipment, installation and upkeep of park signage, repairs and snow removal on parking lots, dock installation and repairs, park shelter buildings, picnic shelters, irrigation systems, bleachers, benches, restroom and dumpster enclosures to ensure safe, clean and accessible park buildings and equipment. In addition, this department provides basic park turf maintenance including mowing, fertilizing, weed control, and seeding and aerating. It also provides miscellaneous grounds maintenance such as streetscape and flower maintenance, rain garden maintenance, as well as garbage collection and picking up litter. Other responsibilities include maintenance activities for athletic fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and ice-skating rinks. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 PW Director 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 PW Foreman 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Administrative Assistant 0.20 Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Assistant to City Administrator/Deputy Clerk 0.05 0.05 0.05 Street Maintenance/Inspector 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 PW Maintenance 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 PW Maintenance 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 PW Maintenance 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.50 Part Time Help 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Total FTE's 1.25 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.85 1.00 0.50 0.50 STAFFING HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY • The staffing structure of the department has been modified since 2006 to reflect the time spent by Public Works staff and administrative support for park functions. • In 2017, a part-time parks position was added. Page 37 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) PARKS AND RECREATION (continued) OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY See the Park Dedication Fund & Municipal Park Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Parks Total Personnel Services 73,728 64,296 101,696 37,400 58.2% Total Supplies 29,020 29,020 29,020 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 90,625 93,025 100,525 7,500 8.1% Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Parks 193,373 186,341 231,241 44,900 24.1% Page 38 of 89 General Fund Expenditures (Continued) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROFILE This department created in 2020 was derived to budget funds for the City to continue to participate in the Livable Communities Act (LCA), a program administered by the Metropolitan Council offering grants to participating cities to support development of affordable and life-cycle housing. The City elected to take part in the LCA in 1996 and to continue in 2010. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also notes that the City participates in LCA Communities which participate in the LCA are required to expend a certain amount annually to help create, sustain, preserve, or advance affordable and/or life-cycle housing opportunities (ALHOA). The City is required to report annually whether at least 85% of the annual amount (determined by Metropolitan Council) is expended each year. If the City does not expend 85% of the ALHOA, the City does not qualify for any grants within the LCA. Current funding source is antenna revenue. OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL OUTLAY None requested. 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) Economic Development Housing Total Other Services and Charges 56,880 57,010 57,907 897 1.6% Total Economic Development Housing 56,880 57,010 57,907 897 1.6% Page 39 of 89 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 2022 Amount Percentage 2020 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Property Tax Levy 3,434,452 3,731,800 4,147,600 415,800 11.1% Other Taxes 75,000 75,000 85,000 10,000 13.3% Licenses and Permits 390,669 391,269 492,500 101,231 25.9% Intergovernmental 288,773 288,773 303,773 15,000 5.2% Charges for Services 138,087 141,254 143,074 1,820 1.3% Fines and Forfeitures 95,000 95,000 95,000 0 0.0% Special Assessments 0 0 0 0 N/A Miscellaneous 164,359 131,875 240,881 109,006 82.7% Sale of Assets 0 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 220,784 227,409 234,230 6,821 3.0% Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources 4,807,124 5,082,380 5,742,058 659,678 13.0% EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES: General Government: Mayor & Council 25,544 25,544 25,544 (0)0.0% Administration 662,230 664,268 691,552 27,284 4.1% Elections 15,400 15,400 24,617 9,217 59.8% Assessing 98,065 104,315 172,500 68,185 65.4% Planning & Zoning 191,032 191,094 206,625 15,531 8.1% Comprehensive Plan 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% Data Processing 88,704 90,704 101,000 10,296 11.4% Police/Public Works Facility 77,500 81,500 87,800 6,300 7.7% Municipal Building 61,000 58,800 56,400 (2,400)-4.1% Unallocated 0 0 0 0 N/A Total General Government 1,227,475 1,239,625 1,374,036 134,411 10.8% Public Safety: Police 1,737,110 1,849,789 2,023,300 173,511 9.4% Police Records Management 13,500 13,500 14,200 700 5.2% Fire 419,111 408,130 441,448 33,318 8.2% Building Inspections 330,664 329,479 441,953 112,474 34.1% Emergency Management 5,800 5,800 6,050 250 4.3% Total Public Safety 2,506,185 2,606,698 2,926,951 320,253 12.3% Public Works: Public Works 751,401 741,356 793,620 52,264 7.0% Sanitation & Recycling 26,001 26,539 25,321 (1,218)-4.6% Total Public Works 777,402 767,895 818,942 51,046 6.6% Parks & Recreation: Community Building 41,808 42,076 40,035 (2,041)-4.8% Parks 193,373 186,341 231,241 44,900 24.1% Total Parks & Recreation 235,181 228,417 271,277 42,860 18.8% Economic Development Housing 56,880 57,010 57,907 897 1.6% Transfers Out 4,000 4,000 147,174 143,174 3579.4% Reserves 178,734 0 (178,734)-100.0% Transfer to Fire Facility 0 0 145,771 145,771 N/A Total Expenditures & Other Financing Uses 4,807,123 5,082,379 5,742,058 659,678 13.0% EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES 1 0 (0)(0)N/A Page 40 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 41 of 89 Special Revenue Funds Special Revenue Funds are categorized by the specific nature of the source of revenues. Grant and donation funds given for a specific purpose are accounted for as Special Revenue Funds. The Special Revenue Funds for the City of Medina are:  Environmental Fund  Municipal Park Fund  Field House Operations Fund  Charitable Gambling  Police Forfeiture Fund  Police Reserve Equipment Fund  German Liberal Cemetery Fund  Community Event Fund  Cable Franchise Fund Page 42 of 89 Special Revenue Funds ENVIRONMENTAL FUND PROFILE The Medina Environmental Fund’s primary function is to provide for securing land for conservation of natural resources, for parks and open space, and for trails, including partnerships with other agencies on grant applications; secondary uses include: 1) Incentivizing residents to improve storm water run-off management through voluntary installation of rain gardens and other measures in order to benefit the health of lakes and streams; 2) Establishing a program for the installation of curb cuts for interested residents who wish to install rain gardens; 3) Partnering with Storm Water Utility Funds or grant resources to accomplish water improvement projects; 4) Lending funds to landowners to complete wetland mitigation projects that will be repaid to the City when the landowner receives compensation for the mitigation; 5) Implementing Low Impact Development or other sustainable initiatives in City projects; 6) Removing sick and diseased boulevard trees on city land and replacing them; and, 7) Subsidizing the cost of tree stock made available to residents on City Clean Up Day. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Miscellaneous 10,413 0 (10,413)-100.0% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Other Services and Charges 36,052 31,000 (5,052)-14.0% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 N/A Transfers Out 0 0 0 N/A Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 36,052 31,000 (5,052)-14.0% Net Change in Fund Balance (25,639)(31,000)(5,361)20.9% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 519,744 494,105 Fund Balance, End of Year 494,105 463,105 Page 43 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) MUNICIPAL PARK FUND PROFILE The Municipal Park Fund is to be used by the City Council as they see the need for park projects and maintenance outside of expenditures within the General Fund and Park Dedication Fund. Municipal Park Fund projects are primarily the replacement of existing park equipment and structures that do not qualify for the Park Dedication Fund. Projects and replacements are presented through the Capital Improvement Plan. Revenues are generated by taxes, antenna revenue, grants and donations from individuals, businesses and organizations. In 2019, discussions and planning took place amongst staff, City Council, Park Commission and community outreach to establish a 30-year replacement plan. A levy implementation was passed for 2020 and onward to fund ongoing replacements. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Property Taxes 58,452 112,000 53,548 91.6% Miscellaneous 8,327 0 (8,327)-100.0% Transfers In 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Uses 66,779 112,000 45,221 (0) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 35,281 265,000 229,719 651.1% Net Change in Fund Balance 31,498 (153,000)(184,498)-585.7% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 379,194 410,691 Fund Balance, End of Year 410,691 257,691 Page 44 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) FIELD HOUSE OPERATIONS FUND PROFILE The Field House Operations Fund was established at the end of 2009 with a donation to assist in operating costs related to the opening of the field house at Hamel Legion Park. The donation was part of the contributions for the construction of the field house. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Miscellaneous 2,120 1,000 (1,120)-52.8% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Personal Services 0 0 0 N/A Supplies 630 900 270 42.9% Other Services and Charges 2,974 4,100 1,126 37.8% Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 3,604 5,000 1,396 38.7% Net Change in Fund Balance (1,484)(4,000)(2,516)169.6% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 6,178 4,694 Fund Balance, End of Year 4,694 694 Page 45 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) CHARITABLE GAMBLING FUND PROFILE The Charitable Gambling Fund was established in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 349.213(f)(2). The statute gives the City of Medina local authority to require organizations with premises permits to conduct lawful gambling to make specific expenditures of no more than 10% of the net profit. The Gambling and Control Board has an authorized list of approved expenditure uses for all revenue received from lawful gambling donations. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Miscellaneous 4,638 0 (4,638)-100.0% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Other Services and Charges 0 0 0 N/A Capital Outlay 0 0 0 N/A Transfers Out 0 0 0 N/A Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 0 0 0 N/A Net Change in Fund Balance 4,638 0 (4,638)-100.0% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 0 4,638 Fund Balance, End of Year 4,638 4,638 Page 46 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) POLICE FORFEITURE FUND PROFILE The Police Forfeiture Fund was established to account for receipts and disbursements related to forfeited vehicles, equipment and cash from drug, DWI, and other crime related cases. Expenditures are restricted by law to be used for drug and DWI enforcement. In 2018, due to law changes, forfeiture revenues and federal drug revenues have ceased or decreased significantly. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Fines and Forfeitures 28,787 20,000 (8,787)-30.5% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Sale of Assets 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 28,787 20,000 (8,787)-30.5% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Personal Services 1,033 0 (1,033)-100.0% Supplies 0 0 0 N/A Other Services and Charges 0 40,000 40,000 N/A Capital Outlay 0 0 0 N/A Transfers Out 0 0 0 N/A Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 1,033 40,000 38,967 3772.5% Net Change in Fund Balance 27,754 (20,000)(47,754)-172.1% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 236,881 264,634 Fund Balance, End of Year 264,634 244,634 Page 47 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) POLICE RESERVE EQUIPMENT FUND PROFILE The Medina Police Reserve Equipment Fund is utilized to track donations to the City of Medina in appreciation of the Reserves as well as Charges for Services they provide. These donations are accepted by City Council for various purposes. Various expenditures are approved through the Capital Improvement Program for a period of five years when enough funds are available. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Charges for Services 0 0 0 N/A Miscellaneous 295 0 (295)-100.0% Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 295 0 (295)-100.0% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Supplies 389 3,000 2,611 670.6% Other Services and Charges 180 1,200 1,020 567.1% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 N/A Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 569 4,200 3,631 637.9% Net Change in Fund Balance (274)(4,200)(3,926)1431.7% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 17,939 17,665 Fund Balance, End of Year 17,665 13,465 Page 48 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) GERMAN LIBERAL CEMETERY FUND PROFILE The German Liberal Cemetery Fund was created in 2010 when the cemetery was transferred to City ownership. This fund is used to account for lot sales that are legally restricted to the maintenance of the cemetery and principal amounts received and related interest income for the care of the German Liberal Cemetery. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Charges for Services 7,150 5,000 (2,150)-30.1% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 7,150 5,000 (2,150)-30.1% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Personal Services 0 0 0 N/A Other Services and Charges 1,630 4,650 3,020 185.2% Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 1,630 4,650 3,020 185.2% Net Change in Fund Balance 5,520 350 (5,170)-93.7% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 167,605 173,125 Fund Balance, End of Year 173,125 173,475 Page 49 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) COMMUNITY EVENT FUND PROFILE The Community Event Fund was established to account for donations and event costs as they relate to the City’s Celebration Day. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Miscellaneous 7,450 0 (7,450)-100.0% Transfers In 4,000 4,000 0 0.0% Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 11,450 4,000 (7,450)-65.1% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Supplies 2,789 0 (2,789)-100.0% Other Services and Charges 10,326 8,100 (2,226)-21.6% Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 13,115 8,100 (5,015)-38.2% Net Change in Fund Balance (1,665)(4,100)(2,435)146.2% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 23,328 21,663 Fund Balance, End of Year 21,663 17,563 Page 50 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) CABLE FRANCHISE FUND PROFILE The Cable Franchise Fund was established to account for cable related costs. Cable franchise fee revenues are committed to this fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Other Taxes 58,899 67,000 8,101 13.8% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 58,899 67,000 8,101 13.8% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Other Services and Charges 11,593 15,000 3,407 29.4% Transfers Out 45,000 45,000 0 0.0% Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 56,593 60,000 3,407 6.0% Net Change in Fund Balance 2,306 7,000 4,694 203.6% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 69,513 71,819 Fund Balance, End of Year 71,819 78,819 Page 51 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 52 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) 204 226 227 230 Environmental Municipal Field Charitable Fund Park House Gambling REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Revenues Property Taxes 112,000 Other Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines and Forfeitures Miscellaneous 0 0 1,000 0 Total Revenues 0 112,000 1,000 0 Other Financing Sources Sale of Assets Transfers In Total Other Financing Sources 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources 0 112,000 1,000 0 EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES: Current General Government Public Safety Public Works Parks & Recreation 31,000 0 5,000 Total Current 31,000 0 5,000 0 Capital Outlay General Government Public Safety Public Works Parks & Recreation 0 265,000 Total Capital Outlay 0 265,000 0 0 Other Financing Uses Transfers Out Total Expenditures & Other Financing Uses 31,000 265,000 5,000 0 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES (31,000)(153,000)(4,000)0 Page 53 of 89 Special Revenue Funds (Continued) 235 236 238 240 250 Total Police Police Reserve German Liberal Community Cable Special Forfeiture Equipment Cemetery Event Franchise Revenue 112,000 67,000 67,000 0 0 5,000 5,000 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 20,000 0 5,000 0 67,000 205,000 0 0 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 0 4,000 20,000 0 5,000 4,000 67,000 209,000 4,650 4,650 40,000 4,200 44,200 0 8,100 15,000 59,100 40,000 4,200 4,650 8,100 15,000 107,950 0 0 0 0 0 265,000 0 0 0 0 0 265,000 0 45,000 45,000 40,000 4,200 4,650 8,100 60,000 417,950 (20,000)(4,200)350 (4,100)7,000 (208,950) Page 54 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 55 of 89 Capital Project Funds The Capital Projects set of funds is used to record and keep track of costs for major projects. Often these projects will cross fiscal years and must be kept separate for assessment accounting or funding purposes. The City’s Capital Improvement Program includes a five-year projection of capital improvement needs that will partially be funded from the Capital Project Funds. Some of the funds act as repositories for capital replacement funds for major assets, such as water and sewer infrastructure. The Capital Projects Funds include:  Park Dedication Fund  General Capital Improvement Fund  Water Capital Improvement Fund  Sewer Capital Improvement Fund  Tax Increment 1-9 Fund  Equipment Replacement Fund  Road Improvement Fund Page 56 of 89 Capital Project Funds PARK DEDICATION FUND PROFILE The Park Dedication Fund is to be used by the City Council as they see the need for new park projects, outside of expenditures within the General Fund. Park Dedication funds are needed for new park development, which is the intended use of Park Dedication funds, as mandated by state statute. Park Dedication Fund projects are presented through the Capital Improvement Plan. Revenues are generated from Park Dedication Fees charged on new developments. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Intergovernmental 0 0 0 N/A Charges for Services 49,643 20,000 (29,643)-59.7% Miscellaneous 214,933 6,000 (208,933)-97.2% Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 264,576 26,000 (238,576)-90.2% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 353,369 500,000 146,631 41.5% Net Change in Fund Balance (88,794)(474,000)(385,206)433.8% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 1,739,175 1,650,381 Fund Balance, End of Year 1,650,381 1,176,381 Page 57 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PROFILE The General Capital Improvement Fund provides for the accounting of sources (revenues) and uses (expenditures) of monies available from several sources such as the General Fund or grant activity. The City’s Capital Improvement Program includes a five-year projection of capital improvement needs that will partially be funded from the Capital Improvement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Intergovernmental 0 0 0 N/A Miscellaneous 0 2,000 2,000 N/A Transfers In 0 0 0 N/A Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 0 2,000 2,000 N/A EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 276 55,000 54,724 19857.2% Net Change in Fund Balance (276)(53,000)(52,724)19131.5% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 262,126 261,850 Fund Balance, End of Year 261,850 208,850 Page 58 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PROFILE The Water Capital Improvement Fund accounts for the construction of water infrastructure. The financing of these improvements is through a combination of special assessments, water connection fees through development, and bonding. The fund supports debt service payments of the Water enterprise fund as follows: • 100% for the Water Tower, Well, and Raw Water Supply Line, Series 2007A bonds (since refunded by the 2013A bonds) The City’s Capital Improvement Program includes a five-year projection of capital improvement needs that will partially be funded from the Water Capital Improvement Fund. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Charges for Services 557,385 300,000 (257,385)-46.2% Special Assessments 0 0 0 N/A Miscellaneous 0 5,000 5,000 N/A Transfers In 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 557,385 305,000 (252,385)-45.3% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 0 435,000 435,000 N/A Transfers Out 204,038 491,480 287,442 140.9% Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 204,038 926,480 722,442 354.1% Net Change in Fund Balance 353,347 (621,480)(974,827)-275.9% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 1,510,363 1,863,710 Fund Balance, End of Year 1,863,710 1,242,230 Page 59 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PROFILE The Sewer Capital Improvement Fund accounts for the financing of improvements and the construction of sewer infrastructure. The financing of these improvements is through a combination of special assessments, sewer connection fees through development, and bonding. The City’s Capital Improvement Program includes a five-year projection of capital improvement needs that will partially be funded from the Sewer Capital Improvement Fund. In 2020, and interfund loan of $140,000 was made to the debt service fund for early redemption of bonds callable. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Charges for Services 65,360 40,000 (25,360)-38.8% Special Assessments 0 0 0 N/A Miscellaneous 0 15,000 15,000 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 65,360 55,000 (10,360)-15.9% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 0 850,000 850,000 N/A Transfers Out 0 0 0 Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 0 850,000 850,000 N/A Net Change in Fund Balance 65,360 (795,000)(860,360)-1316.3% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 3,235,754 3,301,114 Fund Balance, End of Year 3,301,114 2,506,114 Page 60 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) TAX INCREMENT 1-9 FUND PROFILE The Tax Increment 1-9 fund accounts for all tax increment financing (TIF) revenues and expenditures from TIF District 1-9. This TIF District has been the primary financing tool for the redevelopment around the Uptown Hamel area and north Hwy 55 and 101 area. Revenues are derived from tax increments on properties within the TIF District. The TIF District fund makes annual transfers to the 2008A G.O. Bond Fund - Uptown Hamel and 2005C G.O. Tax Increment Bond Fund – Uptown Hamel (since refinanced by the 2012B G.O. Refunding Bonds) as necessary based on annual TIF fund analysis. Payments of principal and interest are also made on two Pay-As-You-Go Tax Increment Notes based on the amount of increment received on various parcels. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Tax Increments 275,104 452,547 177,443 64.5% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 275,104 452,547 177,443 64.5% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 269,351 0 (269,351)-100.0% Transfers Out 272,800 196,200 (76,600)-28.1% Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 542,151 196,200 (345,951)-63.8% Net Change in Fund Balance (267,047)256,347 523,394 -196.0% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year (65,207)(332,254) Fund Balance, End of Year (332,254)(75,907) Page 61 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND PROFILE This fund is a capital improvement fund for replacement of equipment such as Public Works trucks and machinery, police vehicles, fire equipment, and major office equipment. Proceeds from the issuance of Equipment Certificates and transfers from the General Fund have been the primary funding sources. Beginning with the 2015 budget, the City intends to certify a property tax levy specifically for the funding of equipment replacement. In 2019, a levy implementation was passed for 2020 and onward. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Property Tax Levy 163,092 312,500 149,408 91.6% Miscellaneous 86,848 0 (86,848)-100.0% Sale of Assets 2,000 20,000 18,000 900.0% Transfers In 145,287 85,267 (60,020)-41.3% Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 397,227 417,767 20,540 5.2% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 292,326 214,591 (77,735)-26.6% Transfers Out 0 0 0 N/A Total Expenditures and Other Financing Uses 292,326 214,591 (77,735)-26.6% Net Change in Fund Balance 104,902 203,176 98,274 93.7% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 25,051 129,952 Fund Balance, End of Year 129,952 333,128 Page 62 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND PROFILE This fund is a capital project fund utilized to construct and maintain the City’s road system. Numerous projects are scheduled in the five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The City also incorporates the Pavement Management Plan into the CIP for long range planning. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Intergovernmental 839,372 95,381 (743,991)-88.6% Special Assessments 35,705 0 (35,705)-100.0% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 100,000 286,142 186,142 186.1% Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 975,077 381,523 (593,554)-60.9% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay 836,628 1,137,000 300,372 35.9% Net Change in Fund Balance 138,449 (755,477)(893,926)-645.7% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 300,211 438,660 Fund Balance, End of Year 438,660 (316,817) Page 63 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 64 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) 401 402 225 General Water Park Capital Capital Dedication Improvement Improvement REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Revenues Property Tax Levy Tax Increments Intergovernmental 0 0 Charges for Services 20,000 300,000 Special Assessments 0 Miscellaneous 6,000 2,000 5,000 Total Revenues 26,000 2,000 305,000 Other Financing Sources Sale of Assets Transfers In 0 0 Bond Proceeds 0 Total Other Financing Sources 0 0 0 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources 26,000 2,000 305,000 EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES: Capital Outlay General Government 35,000 Public Safety 10,000 Public Works Parks & Recreation 500,000 10,000 Economic Development Water 435,000 Sewer Total Capital Outlay 500,000 55,000 435,000 Other Financing Uses Transfers Out 491,480 Total Expenditures & Other Financing Uses 500,000 55,000 926,480 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES (474,000)(53,000)(621,480) Page 65 of 89 Capital Project Funds (Continued) 403 Sewer 406 411 420 Total Capital Tax Increment Equipment Road Capital Improvement #1-9 Replacement Improvement Projects 312,500 312,500 452,547 452,547 95,381 95,381 40,000 360,000 0 0 0 15,000 0 0 0 28,000 55,000 452,547 312,500 95,381 1,248,428 20,000 20,000 85,267 286,142 371,409 0 0 0 0 0 105,267 286,142 391,409 55,000 452,547 417,767 381,523 1,639,837 0 35,000 210,591 220,591 4,000 1,137,000 1,141,000 510,000 0 0 435,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 0 214,591 1,137,000 3,191,591 196,200 0 687,680 850,000 196,200 214,591 1,137,000 3,879,271 (795,000)256,347 203,176 (755,477)(2,239,434) Page 66 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 67 of 89 Debt Service Funds Debt Service Funds track the monies collected and paid for the retirement of bonded debt obligations of the City. Funds are collected in several ways. Some dollars are collected through property tax levies established solely for payment of these obligations. Some dollars are collected through special assessments against specific properties in the City which receive the benefits of debt-financed projects. Tax increments are also dedicated to payment of debt obligations in some cases. If a general pledge of the tax base of the City is made against a bond obligation it is accounted for in the Debt Service Funds. The City’s Debt Service Funds include:  G.O. Taxable Improvement Bonds 2011B Fund  G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 2020A (2012A) Fund (PW/PD Facility)  G.O. Refunding Bonds 2012B Fund (TIF)  G.O. Refunding Bonds 2013A Fund (PW/PD Facility)  G.O. Improvement Bonds 2015A (Tower Drive)  G.O. Refunding Bonds 2016A (2008A)  G.O. Improvement Bonds 2020A (2017A) Fund Page 68 of 89 Debt Service Funds G.O. TAXABLE IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2011B FUND PROFILE These bonds were to fund the 2011 Hunter Drive North road improvement project based on the financing philosophy of Council from 2008. The Council proceeded with a bonding and assessment policy. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from the property tax levy and special assessments. Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and paying agent fees for bond servicing. In 2020, this debt was fully retired with an interfund loan from the sewer capital fund; to be repaid and closed in 2021. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Property Tax Levy 32,078 0 (32,078)-100.0% Intergovernmental 0 0 0 N/A Special Assessments 0 0 0 N/A Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 32,078 0 (32,078)-100.0% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Debt Service 0 0 0 N/A Net Change in Fund Balance 32,078 0 (32,078)-100.0% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year (49,788)(17,710) Fund Balance, End of Year (17,710)(17,710) Page 69 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) G.O. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS 2012A FUND PROFILE These bonds were issued in the amount of $6.1 million to fund the 2012 purchase and improvement of the building at 600 Clydesdale Trail for use as the Medina public works/police facility. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from the property tax levy, Water Fund (9%), and Sewer Fund (11%). Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and paying agent fees for bond servicing. This debt will be replaced with refunding bond 2020A. In 2020, the City issued the 2020A G.O. Refunding Bonds to refinance $4,880,000 of the 2012A G.O. CIP Bonds, with the defeasance occurring on February 1, 2021. Revenues for payment of bond 2012A come from the property tax levy and the utility funds (water & sewer). Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and agent fees for bond servicing. This debt will be fully retired on February 1, 2034. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Property Tax Levy 111,758 216,615 104,857 93.8% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 53,038 54,154 1,116 2.1% Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 164,796 270,769 105,973 64.3% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Debt Service 5,179,825 253,489 (4,926,336)-95.1% Transfers Out 0 0 0 N/A 5,179,825 253,489 (4,926,336)-95.1% Net Change in Fund Balance (5,015,029)17,280 5,032,309 -100.3% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 5,353,762 338,734 Fund Balance, End of Year 338,734 356,014 Page 70 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) G.O. REFUNDING BONDS 2012B FUND (TIF) PROFILE In 2012, the City issued the 2012B G.O. Refunding Bonds to refinance $655,000 of the 2005C G.O. Tax Increment Bonds (Uptown Hamel), with the defeasance occurring on February 1, 2013. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from tax increments generated by TIF District 1-9 and special assessments. Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and agent fees for bond servicing. In 2020, this debt was fully retired with an interfund loan from the sewer capital fund; to be repaid and closed in 2021. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Special Assessments 3,514 0 (3,514)-100.0% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 75,000 0 (75,000)-100.0% Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 78,514 0 (78,514)-100.0% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Debt Service 0 0 0 N/A Net Change in Fund Balance 78,514 0 (78,514)-100.0% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year (78,392)122 Fund Balance, End of Year 122 122 Page 71 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) G.O. REFUNDING BONDS 2013A FUND PROFILE In 2013, the City issued the 2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds to refinance $1,160,000 of the 2007A G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, with the defeasance occurring on February 1, 2015. A total of $1.4 million of the remaining outstanding 2007A G.O. Water Revenue Bonds were originally recharacterized as G.O. CIP bonds in 2012 to assist in the financing of improvements of the building at 600 Clydesdale Trail for use as the Medina public works/police facility. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from the property tax levy, Water Fund (9%), and Sewer Fund (11%). Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and paying agent fees for bond servicing. This debt will be fully retired on February 1, 2023. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Property Tax Levy 70,890 132,479 61,589 86.9% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 33,689 33,120 (569)-1.7% Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 104,579 165,599 61,020 58.3% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Debt Service 162,808 159,902 (2,906)-1.8% Net Change in Fund Balance (58,229)5,697 63,926 -109.8% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 173,459 115,230 Fund Balance, End of Year 115,230 120,927 Page 72 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2015A FUND PROFILE In 2015, the City issued $1,765,000 of 2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds to finance improvements to Tower Drive. Other sources for the project included MSA, park dedication, grant, and utility funds. The project is accounted for in the Tower Drive capital projects fund. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from the property tax levy and special assessments. Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and paying agent fees for bond servicing. This debt will be fully retired on February 1, 2031. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Property Tax Levy 30,140 59,403 29,263 97.1% Special Assessments 36,990 53,468 16,478 44.5% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 67,130 112,871 45,741 68.1% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Debt Service 153,621 146,128 (7,493)-4.9% Net Change in Fund Balance (86,491)(33,257)53,234 -61.5% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 386,484 299,994 Fund Balance, End of Year 299,994 266,737 Page 73 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) G.O. REFUNDING BONDS 2016A FUND PROFILE In 2016, the City issued the 2016A G.O. Refunding Bonds to refinance $2,280,000 of the 2008A G.O. Improvement Bonds, with the defeasance occurring on February 1, 2017. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from tax increments generated by TIF District 1-9 and special assessments. Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and agent fees for bond servicing. This debt will be fully retired on February 1, 2024. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Special Assessments 4,554 10,144 5,590 122.7% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 197,800 196,200 (1,600)-0.8% Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 202,354 206,344 3,990 2.0% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Debt Service 188,721 185,078 (3,643)-1.9% Net Change in Fund Balance 13,634 21,266 7,632 56.0% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 41,471 55,105 Fund Balance, End of Year 55,105 76,371 Page 74 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS 2017A FUND PROFILE In 2017, the City issued $1,210,000 of 2017A G.O. Improvement Bonds to finance the Deer Hill Improvement Project. The project will be 100% assessed; payable at the sale of each lot, issuance of building permit or at the end of a twelve-year deferment in 2028. The project is accounted for in the Deer Hill Improvement capital projects fund. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from special assessments. Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and paying agent fees for bond servicing. In 2020, this debt was refunded with G.O. Refunding Bond 2020A. In 2020, the City issued the 2020A G.O. Refunding Bonds to $1,120,000 of the 2017A G.O. Improvement Bonds, with the defeasance occurring on December 22, 2020. Revenues for payment of this bond issue come from special assessments. Expenditures in this fund are for principal and interest on the bonds and paying agent fees for bond servicing. This debt will be fully retired on February 1, 2031. 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Preliminary Increase Increase YTD Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Special Assessments 891,127 0 (891,127)-100.0% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 N/A Transfers In 0 0 0 N/A Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 N/A Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 891,127 0 (891,127)-100.0% EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES: Transfers Out 0 0 0 N/A Debt Service 1,833 112,112 110,279 6015.3% 1,833 112,112 110,279 6015.3% Net Change in Fund Balance 889,294 (112,112)(1,001,406)-112.6% Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 257,823 1,147,118 Fund Balance, End of Year 1,147,118 1,035,006 Page 75 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 76 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) 312 316 319 320 G.O.G.O. Taxable G.O.G.O. Improvement Improvement CIP Refunding Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds 2010A 2011B 2012A 2012B REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: Revenues Property Tax Levy 0 0 216,615 Intergovernmental 0 Special Assessments 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues 0 0 216,615 0 Other Financing Sources Transfers In 54,154 0 Bond Proceeds 0 Total Other Financing Sources 0 0 54,154 0 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources 0 0 270,769 0 EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES: Expenditures Debt Service 0 0 253,489 0 Other Financing Uses Transfers Out 0 Bonds Paid by Escrow Total Other Financing Uses 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures & Other Financing Uses 0 0 253,489 0 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER FINANCING USES 0 0 17,280 0 Page 77 of 89 Debt Service Funds (Continued) 321 322 323 324 G.O.G.O.G.O.G.O. Refunding Improvement Refunding Improvement Total Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Debt 2013A 2015A 2016A 2017A Service 132,479 59,403 0 0 408,497 0 0 53,468 10,144 0 63,612 0 0 0 0 0 132,479 112,871 10,144 0 472,109 33,120 196,200 0 283,474 0 0 0 33,120 0 196,200 0 283,474 165,599 112,871 206,344 0 755,583 159,902 146,128 185,078 112,112 856,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159,902 146,128 185,078 112,112 856,709 5,697 (33,257)21,266 (112,112)(101,126) Page 78 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 79 of 89 Public Utility Funds The Public Utility Funds track the revenues and expenses for fee based public utility services provided by the City. These funds operate on their own ability to generate revenues and receive no property tax support. Each year the City Council reviews the operations of these funds and sets rates for each service based on the needs for general operations, capital spending and debt service payments. The public utilities in 2022 include:  Water Utility Fund  Sewer Utility Fund  Storm Water Utility Fund Page 80 of 89 Public Utility Fund s (Continued) WATER UTILITY FUND PROFILE The Water Utility Fund provides for the distribution of potable water to customers. This fund includes the operations, administration and utility billing for the utility. The City has three separate water systems which it maintains: Hamel, Independence Beach and Medina Morningside. Water is supplied by ten municipal wells, and the Hamel system utilizes a water treatment facility. Also included in the Water Fund along with providing the water is the maintenance of meters, locating water mains and services, testing of the municipal water supply throughout the systems as required, preventative maintenance, and emergency repairs to the City’s distribution system. The utility billing operation prepares and sends out utility bills, receives meter readings and administers the collections and assessment for nonpayment. Agreements with the cities of Maple Plain and Orono are also in place to provide water to separate developments within the City of Medina. OVERVIEW A 0% water rate increase is proposed for 2022; supported by the 2020 Water Rate Analysis. Operating expenses (excluding transfers) are budgeted to increase $575,111 (includes CIP). Transfers out to the General Fund for operating costs are budgeted increase of approximately 3%. In 2012, the City issued $6.1 million of 2012A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to fund the 2012 purchase and improvement of the building at 600 Clydesdale Trail for use as the Medina public works/police facility. The Water Fund will be transferring amounts equal to 9% of the debt service payments on the CIP bonds through February 1, 2034. Additionally, in 2012, the City recharacterized $1.4 million of the remaining outstanding 2007A G.O. Water Revenue bonds. The debt was removed from the Water Fund as revenue bonds and was correspondingly reestablished as CIP bonds to assist in the financing of improvements of the building at 600 Clydesdale Trail for use as the Medina public works/police facility. The Water Fund will be transferring amounts equal to 9% of the debt service payments on the recharacterized bonds (since refinanced by the 2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds) through February 1, 2023. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 PW Director 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 PW Foreman 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Office Assistant 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Administrative Assistant 0.10 Street Maintenance/Inspector 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 PW Maintenance 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 PW Water/Sewer Operator 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 PW Maintenance 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 PW On-call 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.15 Part Time Help Total FTE's 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.80 1.50 1.50 CAPITAL OUTLAY Accounted for in the Water Capital Improvement Fund. Page 81 of 89 Public Utility Funds (Continued) WATER UTILITY FUND (continued) 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services Charges for Services 1,080,400 1,321,400 241,000 22.3% Special Assessments 14,000 14,000 0 0.0% Meter Sales 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Total Charges for Services 1,114,400 1,355,400 241,000 21.6% TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,114,400 1,355,400 241,000 21.6% OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel Services 225,368 236,429 11,061 4.9% Supplies 102,020 102,020 0 0.0% Depreciation 345,000 350,000 5,000 1.4% Other Services and Charges 351,350 910,400 559,050 159.1% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1,023,738 1,598,849 575,111 56.2% OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)90,662 (243,449)(334,111)-368.5% NONOPERATING REVENUES Miscellaneous Revenues 0 0 0 N/A Interest Earnings 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Water Connect/Reconnect Fee 17,000 5,000 (12,000)-70.6% Total Nonoperating Revenues 22,000 10,000 (12,000)-54.5% NONOPERATING EXPENSES Bond Principal (195,000)(200,000)(5,000)2.6% Bond Interest (9,038)(5,338)3,700 -40.9% Fiscal Agent s Fees (800)(800)0 0.0% Total Nonoperating Expenses (204,838)(206,138)(1,300)0.6% INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS (92,176)(439,587)(347,411)376.9% CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS Transfers from Other Funds 204,038 205,338 1,300 0.6% Transfers to Other Funds (124,402)(127,209)(2,807)2.3% Capital Contributions 0 0 0 N/A Total Capital Contributions and Transfers 79,636 78,129 (1,507)-1.9% CHANGE IN NET POSITION (12,540)(361,458)(348,918)2782.4% NET POSITION, JANUARY 1 11,919,908 12,624,114 704,206 5.9% NET POSITION, DECEMBER 31 11,907,368 12,262,656 355,288 3.0% Page 82 of 89 Public Utility Funds (Continued) SEWER UTILITY FUND PROFILE The Sewer Utility Fund provides for the collection and conveyance of wastewater through a system of mains and lift stations. Sewage is treated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, whose fees account for a significant portion of this fund’s expenses. Included in this fund is the routine and preventative maintenance of the City’s collection system and its appurtenances, monitoring of inflow and infiltration, television inspection of the interiors of mains, and customer service such as providing sewer locations. This activity involves the operation and maintenance of the City’s ten lift stations, which includes buildings, equipment, and property. The utility billing operation prepares and sends out utility bills and administers the collections and assessment for nonpayment. An agreement with the City of Plymouth is also in place to provide sewer service to an area within the City of Medina. OVERVIEW Rates are scheduled to increase by 0% as supported by the 2020 sewer rate analysis. Operating expenses are projected to increase by $45,987 (includes CIP). Transfers out to the General Fund for operating costs were reviewed in 2020 and show a budgeted increase of approximately 3%. In 2012, the City issued $6.1 million of 2012A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds to fund the 2012 purchase and improvement of the building at 600 Clydesdale Trail for use as the Medina public works/police facility. The Sewer Fund will be transferring amounts equal to 11% of the debt service payments on the CIP bonds through February 1, 2034. Additionally, in 2012, the City recharacterized $1.4 million of the remaining outstanding 2007A G.O. Water Revenue bonds. The debt was removed from the Water Fund as revenue bonds and was correspondingly reestablished as CIP bonds to assist in the financing of improvements of the building at 600 Clydesdale Trail for use as the Medina public works/police facility. The Sewer Fund will be transferring amounts equal to 11% of the debt service payments on the recharacterized bonds (since refinanced by the 2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds) through February 1, 2023. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 PW Director 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 PW Foreman 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Office Assistant 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Administrative Assistant 0.05 Street Maintenance/Inspector 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 PW Maintenance 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 PW Water/Sewer Operator 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 PW Maintenance 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 PW On-call 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.15 Total FTE’s 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.51 1.21 1.21 CAPITAL OUTLAY Accounted for in the Sewer Capital Improvement Fund. Page 83 of 89 Public Utility Funds (Continued) SEWER UTILITY FUND (continued) 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services Charges for Services 761,525 812,586 51,086 6.7% Special Assessments 2,500 31,586 0 1163.4% Total Charges for Services 764,025 844,172 51,086 10.5% TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 764,025 844,172 51,086 10.5% OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Services 146,675 142,662 (4,013)-2.7% Supplies 5,880 5,880 0 0.0% Depreciation 100,000 125,000 25,000 25.0% Other Services and Charges 465,500 490,500 25,000 5.4% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 718,055 764,042 45,987 6.4% OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)45,970 80,130 5,099 74.3% NONOPERATING REVENUES Miscellaneous Income 0 0 0 N/A Interest Earnings 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Total Nonoperating Revenues 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS 50,970 85,130 5,099 67.0% CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS Transfers to Other Funds (128,000)(130,710)(2,710)2.1% Capital Contributions 0 0 0 N/A Total Capital Contributions and Transfers (128,000)(130,710)(2,710)2.1% CHANGE IN NET POSITION (77,030)(45,580)2,389 -40.8% NET POSITION, JANUARY 1 4,896,236 4,958,540 62,304 1.3% NET POSITION, DECEMBER 31 4,819,206 4,912,960 93,754 1.9% Page 84 of 89 Public Utility Funds (Continued) STORM WATER UTILITY FUND PROFILE The Storm Water Utility Fund provides for the collection and management of storm water throughout the City in compliance with State and Federal regulatory requirements. The Storm Water Utility provides for regional planning, surface water quality monitoring, and compliance with the Wetlands Conservation Act, approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) to impaired bodies of water and mandated Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). OVERVIEW Operating revenues are budgeted at a 3% rate increase. Operating expenses are budgeted to decrease by $15,400. Potential projects are comprised of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) implemented in the City’s SWPPP, TMDL Implementation Plan(s), Loretto Wetland Restoration/Creation, Water Quality improvements relating to Hamel Road Tower Drive project, Stream, Ditch, and Wetland Restoration, other wetland restoration in MCWD area, and other general projects recommended by the Public Works Director and City Administrator. Grant funding is likely necessary for the completion of major projects. BUDGETED PERSONNEL LEVEL 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 PW Director 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 PW Foreman 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Office Assistant 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Administrative Assistance 0.15 Street Maintenance Inspector 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 PW Maintenance 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 PW Maintenance 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Total FTE's 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 CAPITAL OUTLAY Various Improvements. Page 85 of 89 Public Utility Funds (Continued) STORM WATER UTILITY FUND (continued) 2022 Amount Percentage 2021 Prelim Increase Increase Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services Charges for Services 258,193 263,000 7,307 1.9% Special Assessments 2,500 2,500 0 0.0% Total Charges for Services 260,693 265,500 7,307 1.8% TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 260,693 265,500 7,307 1.8% OPERATING EXPENSES Personal Services 73,070 85,675 12,605 17.3% Supplies 5,200 5,200 0 0.0% Depreciation 70,000 70,000 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges 82,700 342,700 260,000 314.4% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 230,970 503,575 272,605 118.0% OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)29,723 (238,075)(265,298)-901.0% NONOPERATING REVENUES Miscellaneous Income 0 0 0 N/A Interest Earnings 0 0 0 N/A Total Nonoperating Revenues 0 0 0 N/A INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS 29,723 (238,075)(265,298)-901.0% CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND TRANSFERS Transfers from Other Funds 0 0 0 N/A Grants 0 0 0 N/A Transfers to Other Funds (61,733)(63,585)(1,852)3.0% Capital Contributions 0 0 0 N/A Total Capital Contributions and Transfers (61,733)(63,585)(1,852)3.0% CHANGE IN NET POSITION (32,010)(301,660)(267,150)842.4% NET POSITION, JANUARY 1 1,692,161 1,767,493 75,332 4.5% NET POSITION, DECEMBER 31 1,262,342 1,465,833 203,491 16.1% Page 86 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 87 of 89 Capital Improvement Program The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a planning document that presents a five-year overview of scheduled capital projects to address the City’s goals for maintaining public infrastructure. The CIP includes a long-term financing plan that allows the City to allocate funds for these projects based on assigned priorities. The five-years within the CIP provides the City with an opportunity to evaluate project priorities annually and to adjust the timing, scope and cost of projects as new information becomes available. The information contained in this plan represents an estimate of improvement costs based on present knowledge and expected conditions. A capital improvement is defined as a major non-recurring expenditure related to the City’s physical facilities and grounds. The CIP also distinguishes between projects contained in the City’s operating budgets and capital improvement projects financed through the City’s capital funds and public utility funds. The CIP is predicated on the goals and policies established by the City Council, including general development, redevelopment, and maintenance policies that are part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A primary objective of the CIP is to identify projects that further these goals and policies in a manner consistent with funding opportunities and in coordination with other improvement projects. (The CIP will be compiled and presented separately.) Page 88 of 89 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Page 89 of 89 Fee Schedule The City Council adopts an ordinance which revises the City’s fee schedule, including fees for land use, liquor licensing, public safety, and other permits issued by the City. It also establishes rates for sanitary sewer, water, storm water, and other services. (The fee schedule will be compiled and presented separately.) Ordinance No December 7, 2021 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDED FEE SCHEDULE The city council of the city of Medina ordains as follows: Section 1. The schedule of fees and rates attached hereto as Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C is hereby adopted. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2022 upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Medina this 7th day of December, 2021. _____________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Deputy Clerk Published in the Crow River News this ___ day of December, 2021. Agenda Item #7B Exhibit A City of Medina Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 1 December 7, 2021 Administration Service Charge Address Labels $50.00 Address List $25.00 Administrative Appeal $250.00 Affidavit of Filing $15.00 Audit Book copy $50.00 City Code Book Cost + 10% Copies – single or double sided (B&W) $0.25 per page ($5.00 minimum) Copies or pictures – color 8 ½ x 11 $.50 per page ($5.00 minimum) Credit Card Payments Credit Card fees apply; + $0.50 if less than $100.00 (excluding utility and online HCB payments) Delinquent Charges Assessed 10% administrative fee DVD/Flash Drive/CD $30.00 per DVD/Flash Drive $20 per CD Mailing costs of copies/reports At cost New resident listing $20.00 Peddler, Solicitor, Transient Merchant Permit Application Fee $50.00 up to $100.00 if extensive background check is needed Photographs $20.00 + cost of photo Non-Sufficient Funds $30.00 Notary No Charge Special Assessment search $25.00 Special Council Meeting request $250.00 Special Event Permit Fee $25.00 Tax Increment Financing application (minimum) $1,500 (deposit) + c.a.c Tobacco License (annual) $150.00 German Liberal Cemetery Service Charge Gravesite Purchase $1,500.00 Gravesite Transfer $15.00 Interment (Open/Close) for Casket (Includes locate & marker) $1,010 Interment (Open/Close) for Cremation or infant Cherub $410 Disinterment (Open/Close) for Casket $900.00 Disinterment (Open/Close) for Cremation or infant Cherub $300 Marker Removal $100 Funeral Service Attendant/Traffic Control $150.00 Park and Recreation Service Charge Independence Beach Parking Permit (residents only) No Charge Ball Field and Court Use See Exhibit C Hamel Community Building See Exhibit B Liquor Service Charge 3.2 Malt Liquor-off sale $50.00 3.2 Malt Liquor-on sale $100.00 Consumption & Display License $200.00 Liquor License Investigation (in-state maximum) $500.00 Liquor License Investigation (out-of-state maximum) $10,000.00 Off-sale $150.00 On-sale Class A: >20,000 sq. ft. $7,500.00 On-sale Class B: 12,000 – 20,000 sq. ft. $6,500.00 On-sale Class C: 6,000 – 12,000 sq. ft. $5,500.00 On-sale Class D: < 6,000 sq. ft. $4,500.00 On-sale Sunday $200.00 Public Dance $100.00 3.2 Malt Liquor one day set up $25.00 Temporary on-sale application fee $25.00 Wine License $2,000.00 On-sale Brewer Taproom License $500.00 Off-sale Small Brewer License $150.00 Microdistillery Cocktail Room License $500.00 Fire Service Charge Fire False Alarm (first) No Charge Fire False Alarm (second) $150.00 Fire False Alarm (third) $200.00 Fire False Alarm (fourth and thereafter) $250.00 Post Fire Inspection $40.00 + c.a.c. Number of alarms within one calendar year Exhibit A City of Medina Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 2 December 7, 2021 Police Service Charge Accident/Police Report $.25/page ($5.00 minimum) Burning Permit (non-resident) $20.00 Burning Permit (resident) No Charge Dog Impounds $25.00 at Police office or $50.00 at Strehler Farm + $10.00 each additional calendar day Reserve Officer at event/per hour $25.00 Event Security (per officer/per hour) $100.00 and $125.00 on Holidays (3-hour minimum) Fingerprinting Resident & Employees $20.00 up to 3 cards, $5.00 each additional card. Non- residents $30.00 up to 3 cards, $5.00 each additional card. Criminal Suspense Files Non- Medina Case $20.00 Fireworks Permit $50.00 Gambling Investigation Fee (annual) $50.00 Gambling Application for Exempt Permit $10.00 Gun Club license (annual) $50.00 Hunting Permit (non-resident) $25.00 Hunting Permit (resident) $15.00 Kennel License (City Council Review) $300 (deposit) + c.a.c. Kennel License (Administrative Review) $100.00 Kennel License (Waiver) $300 (deposit) + c.a.c. Letter of Conduct $15.00 Police False Alarm (first) No Charge Police False Alarm (second) $25.00 Police False Alarm (third) $50.00 Police False Alarm (fourth) $75.00 Police False Alarm (fifth and thereafter) $150.00 Vehicle Impound/Storage $10.00/day + towing fees No Parking Sign Deposit $5.00 per sign. Deposit returned when signs are returned. Public Works Service Charge Curb stop repair $250.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Driveway Curb Cut Review $100.00 (no fee if in connection with building permit fee >$1000) Driveway Waiver $500.00 Frozen/damaged meter repair $100.00 Annual ROW Registration Fee $100.00 per year Noxious Weed / Mowing $150 per hour ROW Permit $100.00 Small Wireless Facility Rent $150 Annual + $25 Maintenance Small Wireless Electrical $73 per node (less than or equal to 100 watts), $182 per node (>100 watts), or actual cost Sanitary Sewer Prohibited Connection Fee - Residential $100 per month Surcharge – noncompliance w/ stormwater prohibition from sanitary sewer $100.00 per month Sanitary Sewer Prohibited Connection Fee – Comm/Industrial $100 + $20 per 1,000 gallons per month Water disconnect/reconnect trip fee $65.00 Unpermitted Hydrant Water Usage $500 (first) $750 (second) $1,000 (third) Radio Transmitter $135.00 $165.00 Water meter iPearl (1”) + radio transmitter & meter horn $535.00 $617.00 Water meter iPearl (3/4”) + radio transmitter & meter horn $420.00 $468.00 Water meter SRII (1”) + radio transmitter & meter horn $556.00 All other meters (at cost) Trunk Connection Rates per living unit for residential; and, equivalent for commercial as determined by the Metropolitan Council SAC, except as may be amended by City policy. City may adjust number of units determined by Metropolitan Council if it deems it appropriate based on information provided. Service Charge Hamel Urban Service Area-Sewer Willow Lift Station Area $860 $1,555 Hamel Urban Service Area-Water $7,575.00 Independence Beach Area-Sewer $860 Independence Beach Area-Water $4,410.00 Medina Morningside Area-Sewer $860 Medina Morningside Area-Water $4,410.00 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Fee As set by Metropolitan Council Maple Plain Service Area-Water Per Maple Plain Fee Schedule Number of alarms within one calendar year Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Not Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red Exhibit A City of Medina Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 3 December 7, 2021 Sewer and Water Rates - All rates monthly. (MM=Medina Morningside, IB=Independence Beach). Service Charge Sewer (residential) minimum $22.73 per month Sewer (residential) per 1,000 gallons of water usage $5.68 Sewer (commercial) minimum $22.73 per month Sewer (commercial) per 1,000 gallons of water usage $5.68 Sewer only (residential) (based on 6,000 gallons per month) $34.10 per month MM & IB Water (residential) (base charge) $12.99 per month MM & IB Water (residential) 0-4,000 gallons $2.88 per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (residential) 5,000-6,000 gallons $3.25 per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (residential) 7,000-10,000 gallons $4.33 per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (residential) 11,000-23,000 gallons $4.68 per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (residential) 24,000 and up gallons $5.78 per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (irrigation) 0-13,000 gallons $4.68 per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (irrigation) 14,000 and up gallons $5.78 per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (commercial) (base charge) $12.99 per month MM & IB Water (commercial) water usage under 10,000 gallons per month $4.33per 1,000 gallons MM & IB Water (commercial) water usage over 10,000 gallons per month $5.78 per 1,000 gallons Storm Water Utility Fees Service Charge Storm Water Utility Annual Fee $35.42 $36.48 per Residential Equivalency Factor (REF) + Annual Watershed Due established by specific Watershed Storm Water Appeal $250.00 Sewer and Water Rates - All rates monthly. Service Charge Hamel Water (residential) (base charge) $18.06 per month Hamel Water (residential) 0- 4,000 gallons $3.25 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (residential) 5,000-6,000 gallons $3.97 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (residential) 7,000-10,000 gallons $5.42 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (residential) 11,000-23,000 gallons $6.38 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (residential) 24,000 and up gallons $7.22 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (irrigation) 0- 13,000 gallons $6.51 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (irrigation) 14,000 and up gallons $7.22 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (commercial) (base charge) $18.06 per month Hamel Water (commercial) water usage 0 – 9,000 gallons per month $5.42 per 1,000 gallons Hamel Water (commercial) water usage 10,000 + gallons per month $7.22 per 1,000 gallons Penalty for unpaid utility bills 10% per month on unpaid balance (penalty not interest) City of Maple Plain Water Service Rate established by City of Maple Plain + 10% Medina administrative fee City of Orono Water Service Rate established by City of Orono + 10% Medina administrative fee City of Plymouth Sewer Service Rate established by City of Plymouth + 10% Medina administrative fee The Enclave at Medina Raw Water Usage for the first 2,000,000 gallons per month $3.25 per 1,000 gallons The Enclave at Medina Raw Water Usage above 2,000,000 gallons per month $3.81 per 1,000 gallons Dominium (per unit) 0-13,000 gallons $3.25 per 1,000 gallons Dominium (per unit) 14,000 and up gallons $3.81 per 1,000 gallons Tanker Fill $75.00 + Hamel commercial water rates Exhibit A City of Medina Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 4 December 7, 2021 Building Inspection Related Service Charge Building Permits Based on valuation – 1994 Building Fee Schedule, except $50 flat fee if valuation <$1500 Building Plan Review 65% of building permits Investigation fee (for work began without permit) Double charge 100% of Building Permit Fee Demolition (minimum) $100.00 per structure (residential) + surcharge $200.00 per structure (non- residential) + state surcharge Fence <7 feet (no Permit); >=7feet+ = based on valuation – 1994 building fee schedule (location verification) Building – fireplace $75.00 per fireplace + state surcharge Re-side – residential $100.00 per structure + state surcharge Re-roof – residential $100.00 ($165 for wood shingles/shakes) per structure + state surcharge Occupancy Financial Guarantee (ex: occupy home prior to approval of final grade; other similar) $10,000 escrow or $20,000 escrow if septic system is not completed Window, patio door, and front door replacement (existing openings) $50.00 (1 window); $100.00 (2+ windows) + state surcharge Windows and doors (changing opening) Based on valuation – 1994 Building Fee Schedule Grading, Plan Review (engineer review of submitted plans and building permits) $250.00 (grading plan review fee is reduced in cases where combined building plan review and grading plan review otherwise would exceed $650) Grading Permit (grading permit fee for disturbance less than 1000 cubic yards is reduced in cases where combined building permit and grading permit would otherwise exceed $1000) < 50 cubic yards = $50.00 51-100 cubic yards = $75.00 101-1000 cubic yards = $200.00 1,001+ cubic yards = $200+$25 per each additional 100 yds. (max. $750.00) + financial guarantee of 150% of cost; Violations = c.a.c. Hardcover Surface/shed<200 s.f. (optional permit) Small Improvement Review (ex. sport courts, address monuments, pillars, sheds< 200 square feet, etc.) $50.00 Mechanical (residential) $75.00 per piece + state surcharge Moving Structure on public street $100.00 + c.a.c. Plumbing (residential) $50.00 (1-5 fixtures); $10.00 each additional + state surcharge Septic (new – Types 1-3) Septic (new – Type 4) $250.00 + $100 site visit $935 Septic Repair (drainage fields) $125.00 Septic or Holding tank only (ex: floor drains): Connect to existing system $100.00 Septic system abandonment $100.00 Septic Violation Inspection $250.00 + c.a.c. Sewer Hook-up $100.00 Signs (temporary/portable) $50.00 Sign face replacement-wall or pylon $50.00 New monument/pylon sign State fee schedule New wall sign/lighting change $100.00 Storm water Pollution Prevention Program Review $200.00 Underground Tank Removal $100.00 Tree Preservation Plan Review $50.00 (no fee if part of grading or building permit) Water Hook-up $100.00 Water Heater – residential $50.00 + state surcharge Temporary Structures – res Temporary Structures - comm $100.00 + state surcharge $200.00 + state surcharge Planning and Zoning Service Charge Agriculture Preserve Application $50.00 + c.a.c. Agriculture Preserve Expiration $50.00 + c.a.c. Appeal Administrative Decision $500 (deposit); c.a.c. not to exceed $500 Alternative Upland Buffer Request or Appeal of Wetland Conservation Act Staff Decision, Correction Notice or Classification of Functional $500 (deposit) + c.a.c. Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red Exhibit A City of Medina Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 5 December 7, 2021 Assessment and Value Classification Appeal of Wetland Corrections Notice $500.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Appeal of Open Space Composite Map and/or reference data $500.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Cartway Easement $20,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment $2,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Comprehensive Plan Copy $100.00 Concept Plan Review $1,000.00 Conditional Use Permit application (commercial, minimum) $2,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Conditional Use Permit application (Telecommunications Tower, minimum) $2,000 (deposit) + c.a.c. Conditional Use Permit application (residential, minimum) $1,000 (deposit) + c.a.c. Conditional Use Permit Annual Review $100.00 residential; $200.00 commercial Conservation Design collaborative goal setting process $1,000.00 Development Improvement Financial Guarantee (i.e. Letter of Credit or Cash) 150% amount of estimated improvements Environmental Review (e.g. EAW, EIS) $10,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Interim Use Permit $2,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Lot Combination or Rearrangement Lot Combination of Substandard Lots $1,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. $200 + cost of title documentation Maps 11x17 = $1; others = c.a.c. Park Dedication Fee (see city code) Residential = 8% of land value but no < $3,500/unit or >$8,000/unit; Commercial = 8% of land value Planned Unit Development Concept $2,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Planned Unit Development General Plan $10,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Planned Unit Development Final Plan $2,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Rezoning Application (minimum) $1,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Site Plan Review “Administrative” $1,000.00 deposit + c.a.c. Site Plan Review $5,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Subdivision Application (minimum) (2-5 lots) Subdivision Application (>5 lots) $5,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. $10,000 (deposit) + c.a.c. Temporary Outdoor Sales Event $50.00 Upland Buffer Vegetation Review/Inspection/Guarantee 150% financial guarantee Upland buffer sign $6.00 Vacation $2,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Variance Application (minimum) $1000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. for residential; $2,000.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. for commercial Wetland Delineation Review $600.00 Wetland Field Estimate (flagging) $300.00 Wetland Exemption Decision/No Loss $300.00 Wetland Replacement Plan $750.00 (deposit) + c.a.c. Zoning Letter $50.00 Staff Consultant Fees – Staff and consultant time spent on planning applications (or defined as other c.a.c.) will be charged to applicant. Service Charge City Attorney Up to $275 $280 per hour, per rate schedule City Engineer Up to $185 $197 per hour, per rate schedule Survey Crew Up to $205 $214 per hour, per rate schedule Prosecuting Attorney Up to $143.75 per hour, per rate schedule Planning Consultants Up to $160 per hour, per rate schedule Tree Inspector Up to $90 per hour City Staff - Professional $90 per hour City Staff – Public Works $70 per hour + time & half for over time City Staff – Field Inspector $90 per hour + time & half for over time City Staff – Administrative Support $70 per hour + time & half for over time Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red Exhibit A City of Medina Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 6 December 7, 2021 *c.a.c. = city accrued costs *Deposits for land use and other applications must include the fee established by this fee schedule ordinance and any unpaid fees from the previous application involving essentially the same property by the same or similar applicant. *Deposits for land use applications that require more than two requests or large in scale shall be determined by the City Administrator. *Deposits will be returned for land use projects paid in full after final approval, deposits for wetland and grading permits will be returned upon acceptance of work if bills are paid in full. *Escrow for building certificate will be returned upon acceptance of project. *Land use applications are processed by planning, building, finance, engineering and legal departments and all costs associated with the review shall be billed to the applicant. Exhibit B Hamel Community Building Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 7 December 7, 2021 Group Time Period Rental Rate Monday to Thursday All Day $190 Monday to Thursday < 4 Hours $100 Monday to Thursday < 1.5 Hours $50 Friday All Day $250 Saturday or Sunday All Day $450 Alcohol Usage* All Day $100 Facility walk-through required: First one is free, if you miss appointment or need another one, each additional walk-through: Scheduled $25 Appointment with vendor to view facility prior to event Scheduled $25 Sales Tax Included in all fees. Kitchen Service Area and Outdoor Shelter use included in all fees. * in addition to base fee Community Building Security Deposit ○ Time Period Security Deposit Rate City Approved Medina Civic Groups - Any Day Anytime $100 Any Day Monday to Friday Anytime $250 Saturday or Sunday Anytime $500 Any Day w/ Alcohol or Dance Anytime $500 ○ This fee is to cover any damage to the facility, extra clean-up, or cancellation of event without 3 weeks’ notice. Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red Exhibit C Field and Court Reservation Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 8 December 7, 2021 Field Usage Fee Table Field fees are based on a 2.5-hour time slot. If additional time is needed, the fee will increase $25 per additional hour. Facility Practice Fee Game Fee Tournament Fee Ball Field* $25 $50 Calculated on a case by case basis Open Field $50.00 $100 Calculated on a case by case basis Light Fee: $15 / field / hour – this fee will be required if lights are requested *Renter is expected to drag the field on day of reservation, chalk for their own games, and prepare field for playing condition in the event of rain. These fees cover the city’s cost to reserve the field and help pay for annual maintenance and capital expenses to keep these facilities in playing condition. Field Usage Security Deposit $500.00 Security Deposit for field reservations pertaining to games and/or practices per every Field Reservation Application submitted. $800.00 Security Deposit for field reservations pertaining to tournaments per every Field Reservation Application submitted. Tennis Court Fee Rental & Deposits The tennis courts are available free of charge to residents on a first come, first serve basis. Organized recreational groups may reserve the tennis courts with advanced approval, based on availability, for the following fee: Court Rental - $20 per court per hour* Court Deposit - $150 Security Deposit *This fee may be negotiated through a separate group rental agreement, which must be approved by the Medina City Council. Key Deposit A $25 key deposit is required for issued keys to any building reservation on the facilities. Keys must be returned by 4:30 p.m. of next business day after rental. Rental Fees for Amenities Field House Bathroom Fee $70 per day to reserve both men’s and women’s bathrooms Portable Toilets The City of Medina will determine if Additional Toilets or Special Cleaning needs to be scheduled on the day or days that the fields are reserved. Portable Toilet Fees: $60 Additional Units (per unit); $200 ADA Toilet; $35 Special Cleaning (per unit) Exhibit C Field and Court Reservation Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 9 December 7, 2021 RESERVATION FEE AND DEPOSIT POLICY Recreation Field Reservation fees Recreation field reservation fees are the fees required for the direct usage of the fields. This fee includes the field usage fee as well as any fees associated with the requested/required rental of amenities. All fees will be required by the City upon submission of the reservation application. Refunds of Reservation Fees Refunds for all recreation field reservation fees are processed on an individual basis with regards to the conditions of the cancellation. All cancellation notices and requests for rescheduling must be submitted in writing. Any cancellations that occur upon the day of the event, the City must receive the cancellation notice by the next business day.  REFUND FOR CANCELLATIONS DUE TO WEATHER CONDITIONS. All cancellations that are due to weather conditions must be verified by the City staff prior to refund. A percent of the recreation field reservation fees may be remitted to the City according to the percent of field used if event is interrupted due to weather conditions and is not rescheduled.  NO FEE REFUNDS. Recreation field reservation fee refunds will not be given for cancelled game/practice reservations that are not related to weather conditions less than fourteen (14) days before the event.  NO FEE REFUNDS. Recreation field reservation fee refund will not be given for cancelled tournament reservations that are not related to weather conditions less than thirty (30) days before the event. Recreation Field Reservation Security Deposit Recreation Field Reservation Security Deposit is required to secure the performance of the field usage and any administration fees connected to cancellations or rescheduling. A security deposit will be required by the City upon submission of the reservation application. Refunds of Security Deposit The applicant; having fulfilled the obligations under the field reservation application, City Code Chapter 515, and an after post-event inspection by the Public Works Department, will have their Security Deposit refunded.  A full security deposit will be remitted to the applicant upon having left no financial obligation to the City and having caused no damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.  A percent of the security deposit will be remitted to the City pending: 1) any financial obligation to the City, 2) the percent of damages to the facilities beyond the ordinary wear and tear. Resolution No. 2021- December 7, 2021 Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2021- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ___ BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ___ an ordinance amending the city’s fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is 9 pages in length and consists almost entirely of a chart and exhibits; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ___ to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The city council of the city of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ___. The ordinance revises the city’s fee schedule, including fees for public safety, sewer and water, storm water, planning and zoning, building, and other services. The ordinance will not be codified. The full text of Ordinance No. __ is available for inspection at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that the City Clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in the clerk’s office at city hall for public inspection and that the City Clerk post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city. Resolution No. 2021- December 7, 2021 2 Dated: December 7, 2021. Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _______ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 1 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: December 1, 2021 MEETING: December 7, 2021 SUBJECT: BPS Properties, LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Dr. – Marsh Pointe Preserve – PUD Concept Plan Review Deadline Application Received: October 12, 2021 Review Deadline: December 11, 2021 Summary of Request BPS Properties, LLC has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review for a proposed 30-unit detached villa development at located at 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive, east of Arrowhead Drive and south of Bridgewater. The subject site includes four existing rural lots totaling over 36 acres in size, but a majority of the land is within the large wetland to the south and east, with approximately 16.25 upland acres and 12.16 net acres after subtracting wetland buffers. The east side of the property is a peninsula out into the large wetland area. The aerial at the top of the following page shows the subject site and surrounding land uses as follows: • Bridgewater at Lake Medina is to the north • Foxberry Farms is located across the wetland to the east • Medina Lake Preserve (City passive park) is to the northeast • Future Business Land (currently farmed) is to the west • Future Low Density Residential located to the south Comprehensive Plan/Zoning The subject site is guided for Low Density Residential (LDR) development and zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The LDR land use allows development with a density between 2-3 units/acre. The purpose of the R1 zoning district is to be the default zoning for development within the LDR land use. The R2 zoning district is also an alternative which the City has the discretion to apply to LDR property to allow smaller lots to cluster homes to preserve natural areas and open spaces. The applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allows an applicant to request flexibility from the standard regulations to support a development which better achieves City objectives. The City has a good deal of discretion whether to approve a PUD as an alternative to standard zoning. MEMORANDUM • 30 detached villas • 12.16 net acres • 2.47 unit/net acre • 36+ gross acres • Guided LDR (2-3 u/a) Agenda Item #7C Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 2 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Staff has attached the Vision and Community Goals, the general land use principles and objectives of residential land use from the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria for reviewing a PUD include determining whether the PUD meets these objectives better than a development following the general ordinance standards. The applicant describes how they believe their proposal achieves these purposes and objectives in their narrative. PUD Concept Plan The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal application. Generally, the Planning Commission and City Council do not take any formal action and the feedback is purely advisory. Purpose of a Planned Unit Development According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 2. Higher standards of site and building design. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 3 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. Proposed Site Layout The concept plan proposes 30 detached single-family one-story villas. This density falls within the center of the LDR density allowance. As described above, the R1 zoning district is the main intended district to implement development in the LDR land use. The R2 zoning district is an alternative at the City’s discretion to smaller lots to cluster homes to protect natural resources and open space. As noted above, a PUD allows “deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards” to serve the purposes described in the PUD ordinance. To analyze whether to approve a rezoning to PUD, the City compares the request to the expectations of the underlying zoning designation. The applicant’s concept is patterned after the R2 zoning district, and the following table compares the concept to the R1 and R2 district requirements. The flexibility being requested as part of the PUD are highlighted in yellow. R1 Requirement R2 Requirement Proposed Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 8,000 s.f. 9,000 s.f. Maximum Lot Width 90 feet 60 feet 60 feet (narrowest shown 68’) Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet 90 feet (shallowest shown 131’) Front Setback 25’ (30’ to garage) 25’ (30’ to garage) 25 feet Side setback 25’ combined (10/15) 15’ combined (10/5) 7.5’ Rear setback 30’ 20’ to open space 25’ 15’ to open space 25’ 15’ to open space Setback to Collector (Arrowhead Dr.) 40’ 40’ 40’ Max. Hardcover 40% 50% 55% Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 4 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting The main flexibility requested being a reduction of the front setback to the garage from 30’ to 25’. The applicant describes their rationale for a PUD within their narrative, but generally pertains to the fact that the depth of the site to the wetland and the large wetland buffers limits much of the site to a single-loaded street. The applicant also proposes one-story product which will have less of a visual impact, whereas they believe larger lots would likely be developed with larger two-story single family developer. The applicant proposes a maximum hardcover within the lots of 55%. It should be noted that the applicant proposes the 50’ average wetland buffer outside of the lots. Having the buffers outside of the lots reduces the likelihood of trespass into the buffers and staff strongly recommends that the lots be platted this way. If portions of the buffers were within the lots, it would lower the percentage within the lot. It should also be noted that the R1 and R2 zoning district would permit this amount of hardcover “if stormwater management practices are implemented on the lot which, according to the City Engineer, reduce runoff below that which would occur if abiding by the maximum impervious surface regulation.” Staff recommends a condition that, at a minimum, the applicant update plans to maximize the amount of roof runoff which can get to the stormwater system. In addition to these lot standards, the applicant proposes for the PUD to address the fact that the cul-de-sac at the end of the peninsula exceeds the maximum length allowed in the subdivision ordinance. This is discussed further in the transportation section on the next page. Architectural Design The applicant has not provided specific architectural plans, but has indicated that they intend to sell the lots to Charles Cudd and has provided photos of units constructed by Charles Cudd that are similar to what would be proposed in this development. The R1 and R2 districts do not provide much in terms of specific architectural requirements except that garage doors which occupy more than half of a façade have to include architectural features. Architectural standards can be adopted as part of the PUD process. Staff recommends that standards be included at the time of General Plan/Preliminary Plat submission if the project proceeds. Because the applicant indicates that one of the main rationales for the PUD is to support the one-story villa design, the Planning Commission and City Council may wish to consider a reduced maximum building height limitation in the district, potentially limiting to one story. Transportation The applicant proposes a new public street accessing Arrowhead Drive near the southern property boundary. The applicant has originally proposed the street approximately 50 feet further north, but shifted it south based on the feedback from staff and the Planning Commission. The Site Plan on the first page of the plans show this access point nearer to the southern property, but the remaining plan sheets were not updated and show it further north. Arrowhead Drive will be realigned next year as part of the construction of Chippewa Road to the west of the site. Staff recommended that the access point be shifted as close as possible to the Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 5 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting southern property line and that provisions be made to potentially connect the roadway with development to provide flexibility to reduce access points to Arrowhead Drive. Staff recommends that a right-turn lane be required if determined necessary by the City Engineer. The proposed street terminates in a cul-de-sac with a length of over 2100 feet which serves 30 lots. Because of the large wetland and depth of the property, there really is not an alternative to continue this street in any direction. The subdivision ordinance limits cul-de-sac length to 750 feet or 20 homes. The applicant proposes to allow the longer cul-de-sac as part of the PUD flexibility, and notes that there really is not an alternative for the length. Staff believes this is a reasonable approach. Tree Preservation, Buffer Yard and Landscaping There are approximately 600 trees on the subject site. Approximately half of these trees are landscaping trees which have been planted by the property owners over the years. The applicant has provided an analysis which has been reviewed by staff, which is a 20-page document available upon request reviewing historical aerials and the existing trees. Staff has received the information and generally concurs with the analysis. Most of the landscaping trees planted by property owners over time are proposed to be removed for grading (261 out of 308). The applicant has requested that these trees not be counted towards required tree replacement. The Tree Preservation ordinance provides credit for trees planted while under another ownership. The ordinance also provides provisions for waivers “for circumstances where the applicant has exhausted all reasonable design options” to preserve trees. The PUD also provides opportunity for flexibility with regard to tree removal and replacement. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 6 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting 287 of the trees appear to have not been planted on the properties since the homes have been constructed. Of these trees, 87 are proposed to be removed. The tree preservation ordinance would limit removal to 25% of the trees, or 71. Minimum landscaping requirements would be 2 trees per lot plus a bufferyard with an opacity of 0.2 along the northern property line, for a total of approximately 100 trees. The applicant proposes to plant an additional 106 trees. These trees account for the required replacement for removal of the additional 16 “natural” trees beyond what is allowed by the tree preservation ordinance. Staff believes it is reasonable to consider landscaping trees which were clearly planted on the properties differently than naturally occurring trees. It seems reasonable to not discourage tree planting by counting it against future redevelopment. The applicant has updated plans to incorporate a new site layout, updated grading plans to preserve the wooded area on the east end of the property which appears to pre-date the homes being constructed on the site. Staff believes the proposed replacement is reasonable based on the circumstances as part of the PUD. Wetlands and Floodplain The large wetland to the south and east of the project is identified as a Preserve wetland in the City’s management classification study. The wetland is adjacent to a DNR mapped area and requires an upland buffer with an average buffer of 50 feet and a minimum buffer of 30 feet. The plans appear to meet the minimum buffer width and the applicant has indicated that they intend to exceed the overall average width of 50 feet. The existing driveway crosses a wetland to serve the eastern two lots. The applicant proposes approximately 11,500 s.f. of wetland impacts to widen this area with the new street. The applicant proposes a narrower road section through this area, and it appears that there is likely not alternatives to access this area. The application will be subject to Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan approval. There is a floodplain identified within the large wetland which the Elm Creek Watershed has identified with a base flood elevation of 982.6. It appears that all improvements are more than three feet above this elevation. The proposed fill for the road across the wetland area appears close to this elevation. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant verify that no fill will be placed below the flood elevation or that they provide compensatory storage. Sewer/Water The applicant proposes to extend sewer and water from Arrowhead Drive to serve the site. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments. Staff recommends that the applicant address the comments at the time of preliminary plat. Stormwater/Grading Review The applicant proposes ponds with stormwater reuse. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments. Staff recommends that the applicant address the comments at the time of preliminary plat. • Classification: Preserve/DNR Mapped • 50’ average buffer • 30’ min buffer • 11,500 s.f. impacts Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 7 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting Park/Trails/Multi-Modal The City’s subdivision ordinance requires the following to be dedicated for parks, trails and public open space purposes, at the City’s option: • Land – 1.6 acres – Up to 10% of the buildable land • Cash-in-lieu of land – TBD, but likely between $175,000-$250,000 – 8% of the pre- developed market value; minimum of $3500/residential unit, maximum of $8000/residential unit • Combination of the above The City’s Parks and Trails plan have identified important improvements within the subject property: • Trail connection from Arrowhead Drive to Medina Lake Preserve • Parking/trailhead for Medina Lake Preserve • In addition, the City Council approved of a potential route for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail which may go through the site from Arrowhead Drive to the “peninsula” and then potentially include a boardwalk south across the large wetland. The applicant has attempted to address these identified needs within the concept plan. A trail is proposed along the northern property line from Arrowhead Drive to Medina Lake Preserve. The applicant has proposed locations for parking near Medina Lake Preserve and has also shown a location for the continuation of the Three Rivers trail from Medina Lake Preserve to the south. The applicant also proposes a small park to serve the residents of the neighborhood. This park is intended to be maintained by the HOA. Staff also recommends that the City Council discuss whether the City should require construction of the trail from Medina Lake Preserve to the wetland to the south at this time, or only secure the easement for future construction. This trail is intended to be transferred to Three Rivers Park District if and when they construct a boardwalk to the south. However, it is likely the trail would lead to a dead-end for a fairly long time. The trail would be along the wetland and may be desirable even if users need to turn around. An amenity at the end of the trail may also serve as a destination in the interim. Park Commission Recommendation The Park Commission reviewed at their November meeting and provided comments. When presented to the Park Commission, the proposed trail followed along the north side of the proposed street, including in front of the four homes located on the north of the street. The Park Commission strongly recommended that the trail be located behind as many of those homes as possible to reduce driveway crossings and potentially dangerous conflicts between trail users and vehicles reversing out of driveways. The applicant reviewed and updated the Site Plan (first page of the attached plans) to show how a trail could be located within the rear yard of three of the lots. The applicant proposes one driveway crossing in the northwest corner of the site, but it appears that this lot could be designed with a turn-around so that vehicles pulling out of the garage would be able to turn around and drive forward out of the driveway. General feedback from the Park Commission was supportive of this proposal. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 8 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting The applicant proposes to construct six nose-in parking spaces on the north side of the proposed street. These spaces would be mostly located within the Medina Lake Preserve property. The Park Commission was willing to consider the parking being located partially within the City property, depending on the amount of tree removal. It appears that the parking spaces could be installed with the removal of approximately 3 significant trees and a large amount of brush. Staff believes the removal of some of the brush may be a benefit because it may make Medina Lake Preserve more inviting from the parking area. Planning Commission Comments/Public Hearing The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the November 9 meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes are attached for reference. One resident spoke at the hearing and three provided written comments. Commissioners were generally supportive of the design achieved through the PUD process. Several Commissioners said they wished there could be a few less units to provide more greenspace and screening. Commissioners recommended significant landscaping based on comments from neighboring residents. Review Criteria/Staff Comments The purpose of the PUD Concept Plan is to provide purely advisory comments to the applicant for their consideration whether and how to continue with a formal application. The City has a great deal of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is a legislative action. A PUD should only be approved if it achieves the purposes of the PUD district (described on pages 2-3), the Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies. The PUD process allows flexibility to the general zoning standards to result in a more desirable development than would be expected through strict adherence to the requirements, which in this case are the R1 or R2 requirements. The process provides flexibility which is ultimately at the discretion of the City. Such flexibility often cuts in both directions, certain aspects of the development may not meet the general standards while other exceed minimum standards. The flexibility provides the opportunity for collaboration in site design because the City can request adjustments which may be seen as preferred, but would not be required under general standards. When considering the PUD, it is important to compare against the development likely to occur under the standard zoning district. The PUD is not being compared to lower density development or no development at all. The high level of discretion applies to the use of the PUD process, whereas the City would have a lower level of discretion if a development was proposed at a similar density range which met the standard zoning requirements. The applicant describes how they believe the proposed concept meets the objectives in their narrative, which is attached for reference. Staff has provided comments throughout the report to be incorporated into any future formal application. These comments are summarized below: 1) The application shall be subject to approval of Wetland Replacement Plan. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 9 of 9 December 7, 2021 PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting 2) Architectural standards shall be provided for review and approval at the time of General Plan of Development application. 3) Structures within the PUD shall be limited to a building height of XX and shall not exceed one-story (excluding basement). 4) The applicant shall update plans to maximize the distance from the proposed intersection to future Hackamore Road and to provide flexibility for potential future street connection to the south. 5) The applicant shall construct a right-turn lane on Arrowhead Drive at the proposed intersection if recommended by the City Engineer. 6) The applicant shall maximize roof runoff from the rear yards which is captured for stormwater reuse. 7) The applicant shall verify that no fill is placed below the floodplain or provide a plan for compensatory flood storage. 8) The applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer and shall be subject to review and approval by Elm Creek Watershed and other relevant agencies. Attachments 1. Excerpt from Comprehensive Plan 2. Excerpt from draft November 9, 2021 Planning Commission minutes 3. Excerpt from draft November 17, 2021 Park Commission minutes 4. Public Comments Received 5. Engineering Comments 6. Applicant Narrative 7. Playground sketch 8. Concept Plan (note: Site Plan on 1st page updated with new access and trail location…remaining pages show original proposal) Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. • Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. • Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. • Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. • Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. • Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. • Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. • Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. • Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. • Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. • Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments. • Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form • Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces. • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks. • Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. • Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods. • Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period. • Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. • Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability. • Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns • Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes. • Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth areas. • Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi- modal transportation choices. • Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources • Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas. • Preserve open spaces and natural resources. • Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary. • Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas • Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors. • Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed-use areas. • Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. • Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather. • Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park. Residential Uses Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the maximum density requirement of the relevant land use. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area. 5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards. 6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies. 7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. 13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations. 15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space. 18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. 19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 1 Public Hearing – BPS Properties LLC – 4250-4294 Arrowhead Drive – Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Development of 30 Single-Family Villa Lots on Approximately 14 Net Acres (PIDs 0211823310007, 021182332-0012, -0003, -0005) Finke presented a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept plan for a development of 30 detached villas on approximately 12.16 net acres. He noted that the entire site is approximately 36 gross acres but contains wetlands and related buffers. He noted that the property is guided for low density residential and the proposed density of 2.47 units per acre falls within that allowed range. He stated that the site is zoned urban reserve, so some sort of rezoning would be necessary at the time of development. He reviewed the adjacent property uses. He displayed the proposed layout, recognizing the amount of street length in order to avoid wetlands and buffer areas. He displayed photos of similar homes constructed by Charles Cudd, whom the applicant would propose to work with. He provided details on the related Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, noting that the applicant would propose a PUD that uses the R-2 district as the underlying district. He reviewed how the proposal would compare to the proposed underlying regulations under R-2. He referenced the long cul-de-sac proposed but recognized that there may not be a better choice because of the site constraints. He provided details on transportation, tree preservation and landscaping, wetlands, sewer/water, and parks/trails. Popp referenced the wetland replacement plan and asked what that would entail and how it would apply to the property. Finke stated that the applicant has not applied for a replacement plan at this time, but the expectation would be that would most likely occur by purchase of wetland credits from a bank. He noted that it would be less efficient to do onsite mitigation for this scale of impacts. Popp asked the number of units would be allowed under R-1 zoning if the same roadway were proposed. Finke replied that without having additional wetland impacts it would be a challenge to meet the minimum density of the Comprehensive Plan for the property. He noted that some flexibility to the standards would be necessary under any zoning in order to achieve the minimum density of two units per acre. George Stickney, applicant, commented that he and his partners have worked together on several projects and mentioned some of those projects. He stated that they do not do many developments and do not seek them out. He stated that if he is involved in a project, his goal is to create the nicest project possible. He stated that he will not be involved in any project that has a negative impact on adjacent properties. He stated that the average price point for these villas would be $1,300,000. He stated that when entering the development there would be a pond with landscaping and an entry monument. He noted that if he moves that entrance to the south, it would impact the slope for the pond. He stated that they want to have a soft curve in the road to keep vehicle speeds slow. He stated that when traveling into the site, after about eight or nine homes, he would propose a community amenity of a small playground. He noted that would service the empty nesters that would most likely live in the homes for their grandchildren to play, as well as a place for neighbors to stop and play when using the trails. He stated that his goal is to create something that is the highest and best use for not only the subject property but the surrounding neighbors as well. He stated that if this development is approved, it would increase the property values of the existing adjacent properties. He commented that if there are concerns from neighbors, he would work with them to ensure they are addressed. He stated that he recently spoke with an adjacent property owner that desires additional Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 2 screening that he will be happy to add. He stated that every inch of the roadway has been walked and the homes have been thoughtfully placed to ensure that none of the homes impact the views of others. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Dan Paup, 4490 Bluebell Trail, stated that it appeared the grading would direct stormwater onto his property into the pond. He asked for details on how the stormwater would travel based on the grading. He stated that there has not been clarity on the trees that would be removed. He noted that his home has a lot of privacy that could be lost and therefore he would like a clearer vision of what would be removed in order to understand the impact to his privacy. Stickney commented that they tipped the angles of the lots along that block to keep the view corridor to the north towards the wetlands rather than towards the Popp property. He stated that he has trees that will hide the parking area and can place additional trees if necessary. He noted that most of the removals in that area would be Boxelders. He stated that his goal is not to remove anything other than those necessary. D. Paup stated that his concern is with the older and taller trees that provide privacy to his property. Stickney stated that he would be more than happy to meet the resident on the property and discuss what could be done over and above his landscaping to address those concerns. Rick Osberg, representing the applicant, noted that the lots in that area have a swale that drains easterly towards the pond and would discharge to the wetland. Finke read written comments from Brian Lorentz at 4484 Bluebell Trail South which will become a part of the record. Finke stated that he would attempt to respond to Lorentz’s questions. Finke stated that the road would be a public roadway. He stated that screening is shown in the landscaping plan. He stated that generally the main level of the homes is approximately five to ten feet lower than the lower levels of the Bridgewater homes. Osberg commented that the site is generally below the lower level of the Bridgewater homes because of the topography of the site. He noted that there would be a retaining wall on the north side of the road on the high point of the site. Finke stated that a letter from Alyssa Girard (4587 Medina Lake Drive) was received and distributed this afternoon to the Planning Commission. He submitted the letter into the record. Stickney recognized the concern of the resident but noted that he created a one level project in order to maintain views for everyone. He noted that some people that will move to this development will come from the other developments in Medina that are downsizing. He stated that the rooflines are much lower than a two-story project and will not hurt the values of adjacent properties. He stated that he chose natural colors for the playground set in order to blend with the natural landscape and provide a place for kids and grandkids to play. Robert Belzer asked a number of questions in the chat feature. Finke clarified the location of the subject property and its proximity to the Wayzata property. He stated that the storm ponds are proposed to utilize landscaping irrigation reuse and landscaping Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 3 buffers would be required. He stated that the applicant has shown the use of grass swales in the rears of the lots identified. He stated that the applicant would be required to the stormwater management requirements of the City and Watershed. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Piper commented that she can speak to the integrity of Stickney and his developments as well as Charles Cudd. She stated that while she wishes the lots were bigger, she understands why they are not. Popp commented that in reviewing the land and its positioning, he would like to see the wetlands and natural areas highlighted as valued areas. He believed that is also the vision of the developer, so he was pleased to hear that. He commented that there has been important feedback heard from the community, which the City should consider in its next Comprehensive Plan process. He stated that he likes the vision laid out with consideration to the neighbors and existing natural areas. He stated that he was surprised that the target market is empty nesters given the sizes of the units. Galzki shared the comments of the Commission. He stated that he is leery of the dead-end road but understands there are not a lot of alternatives in this location. He stated that he would also like to see bigger lots but understands the reasoning. He noted that some of the homes on the north side of the roadway could perhaps instead provide greenspace. He appreciated the comments from the neighbors. He stated that he had concern with the entrance onto Arrowhead Drive as they look to improve that intersection area but again recognized there are limited options. Sedabres appreciated the comments of the neighbors and the willingness of the developer to work with the neighbors. He commented that this will be a welcome addition to Medina. Rhem commented that it is clear how much thought the developer has put into the project and appreciates his willingness to address concerns of neighbors. Nielsen stated that she also likes the design. She noted that it is a bit denser than the development to the north but is okay with that as it transitions towards Highway 55. She commented that this sounds like it would be a nice development. Finke noted that staff intends to present this to the Park Commission on November 17th and to the City Council on December 7th. Medina Park Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/16/2021 Minutes 1 BPS Properties, LLC – 4250-4292 Marsh Pointe Preserve – PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Director Dusty Finke provided an overview of the PUD Concept Plan Review for a proposed 30-unit detached single-family one-story development located at 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive, east of Arrowhead Drive and south of Bridgewater. The subject site includes four existing rural lots totaling over 36 acres in size, but a majority of the land is within the large wetland to the south and east, with approximately 16.25 upland acres and 12.16 net acres after subtracting wetland buffers. The east side of the property is a peninsula out into the large wetland area. Finke noted the park commission reviewed this project a couple months back, there have been a couple reiterations, so the applicant is now back with a PUD for concept plan review. The purpose of this overview is for discussion, comments, and guidance. Should the applicant submit a formal application for a preliminary plat, the Park Commission will review to provide a formal recommendation. Finke explained the subject site is guided for Low Density Residential (LDR) development and zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The LDR land use allows development with a density between 2-3 units/acre. The applicant’s concept is patterned after the R2 zoning district, and the flexibility being requested as part of the PUD is for front setback and max hardcover. The applicant indicated they will develop the land then partner and sell lots to Charles Cudd to build the homes. Finke explained the City’s Parks and Trails requirements identified by the City’s plan include a trail from Arrowhead to Medina Lake Preserve, a potential route for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail connection with boardwalk, and Parking/Trailhead. The applicant has indicated interest to incorporate a private park in addition to the public amenities. Commissioner Terry Sharp questioned why the development, which appears to cater toward empty nesters, would include a private park. George Stickney, BPS Properties, responded that the park would be tasteful and beautiful, no element would exceed 8’ in height, and intended use is for residents’ grandchildren as well as anyone utilizing the trails. Finke suggested discussion points as follows: (1) reorient lots to minimize conflicts with trail (consider side-load garages or shared driveways, or design trails in rear yards) (2) parking locations (3) construction of trail to edge of wetland to south. Jacob polled each Park Commissioner on the project and after significant discussion, the consensus of the commission is to examine designing the trail to the rear yards of Block 2, Lot 1, 2, and 3 to mitigate an unacceptable hazard, an accident waiting to happen. In Block 1, Lot 1, it is the recommendation of the commission to include a turn-around. The commission also recommended the consolidation of parking to one general area. 1 Dusty Finke From:Alyssa.Girard <Alyssa.Girard@target.com> Sent:Monday, November 1, 2021 11:05 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Marsh Point Preserve Hi Dusty, I received notice this weekend about a development being built off Arrowhead Drive that comes within 1000 feet of my property. I live in Foxberry Farms, off Medina Lake Dr (4587 Medina Lake Dr). We JUST purchased this home for over $1M and have done some extensive remodeling. Although we could have purchased a new home in one of the 100+ developments being taken over in this area, we CHOSE Foxberry Farms because it offers large lots with beautiful views! Right now, my view is over Medina Lake Preserve – I don’t see a home in the distance and NOW, if I understand this letter correctly, I’m going to have homes out my backyard – which I specifically chose Medina to avoid!! I am very upset with this city – to continue allowing it to be developed….people choose this city to have privacy and to not stare at our neighbors (we’d build or live in Plymouth if we wanted that experience). I’m writing to you with my concern and my disappointment. I know I probably can’t stop this ridiculous development from happening, but what I do want from you is 2 things: 1. To understand where these house are going to be and how much they will impede on my view…I want to see what my future will look like out my back window. 2. Please enforce Charles Cudd to keep ALL the existing trees to give the new residents privacy, but to more importantly, give us as Foxberry Farms residents the views and tranquility we came to this neighborhood for – this area is a hidden gem – please help keep it that way! We also have to maintain this preserve; the beauty of it and the wildlife that call it home. This city has the power to enforce strict requirements and to ensure those residents who have come to Medina, and have invested large amounts of money into a home, stay for years to come! Medina has a name; a name of beauty – people know this area is different than it’s surrounding cities – PLEASE keep it that way! Looking forward to hearing from you, Alyssa Alyssa Girard | Director, Communications | Store Operations | Target | TPN - 14600 | 1000 Nicollet Mall | Minneapolis, MN 55403 | 612.940.5557 (c)   1 Dusty Finke From:Brian Lorentz <Brian.R.Lorentz@outlook.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 7:21 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Questions for Planning Commission Meeting Hello Dusty,    I have some comments and questions for the meeting.  They are pertaining to the proposed development: BPS  Properties LLC– 4250‐4292 Arrowhead Dr.    Is it acceptable for me to email you the question and listen for the answers?  My wife and I are listening  in.  But, I have to be driving during part of the meeting, so it may be difficult for me to talk.  If we have to ask  them ourselves, we can make that work.  Thank you.    Here are my items:    Comment:   My comment is that the neighborhood consists of fairly large houses on lots smaller than those in  Bridgewater.  My concern is that this will tend to have a negative impact to the Bridgewater neighborhood.  I  would prefer to see larger lots in the development.      Questions:  Would the street through the neighborhood be a public City Street?    Would there be any type of screening between the new development and Bridgewater?    Can you please describe the final elevations for this project?  That is, will there be raising or lowering of the  existing elevations?  Please describe.    Thank you.    Brian Lorentz  4484 Bluebell Tr S  Medina, MN 55340  K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M October 27, 2021 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-21-301 WSB Project No. 018785-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and PUD submittal dated October 8, 2021. The applicant proposes to construct 38 detached villas home sites over approximately 39 located east of Arrowhead Drive at the future Chippewa Road intersection. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Preliminary Plat (Sheet 2.0) & General Comments 1. The City Planner will provide comments pertaining to the proposed landscaping, reginal trail easements, and tree preservation plan under separate cover. 2. The street has not been named; the City Planner will provide comments concerning the street naming. 3. Provide specific drainage and utility easements outside of the roadway areas instead of noting them as outlots. 4. With final plat submittal, provide a sheet with hatching for differing pavement types (streets, concrete walk, bituminous trails, etc.). Provide signing and striping sheet(s). Confirm whether or not there will be a monument sign. 5. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures, cul-de-sacs, as required by the City Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will review and provide comments under separate cover. 6. It appears that improvements to Arrowhead Drive are no longer proposed with the Marsh Pointe subdivision improvements. Final design and plans between the adjacent Weston Woods development and Marsh Pointe will need to correlate with each other and include, but be limited to, pertinent match points/notes, utility locations, and trail/pedestrian access locations. 7. In order to calculate a letter of credit and construction engineering escrow amounts for the final development agreement, an engineer’s estimate (in Excel format) of the proposed utility improvements and a schedule for completion of construction will be City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review October 27, 2021 Page 2 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx required. The estimate should also include the cost of landscaping items. This can be provided at the time of final plat submittal. Existing Site & Demolition Plan (Sheets 1.1 – 1.2) 8. With final plat submittal, provide a removals/demolition plan to show what trees are proposed to be removed, buildings to be demolished, impacts to Arrowhead Drive, etc. 9. The existing site and demolition plans will also need to include existing utility locations, pipe sizes, pipe material types, etc. Show more of the water/sewer main along Arrowhead Drive and Hackamore Road further north and south beyond the proposed access point. Erosion Control & SWPPP Plans (Sheets 3.0 – 3.3) 10. An NPDES permit will need to be obtained for this project and a SWPPP must be developed in accordance with the MN Construction Stormwater Permit. 11. A detailed review of erosion/sediment control will be conducted with the final plat submittal. Preliminary Street, Grading & Drainage Plans (Sheets 4.0 – 4.3) Street: 12. City design standards typically require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design speed for local streets, at minimum. With the standard, the minimum low speed urban horizontal curve radius is 300’ and the minimum vertical curve length is 90’; None of the horizontal curves will meet this criteria. Confirm what design criteria is being used and provide sight distance review of the sharpest curve to the east as well. 13. Provide parking for future regional trail/park access near easterly curve. Review locations of landscaping/significant trees to maintain acceptable sight distance for vehicles accessing these spaces. A parking area was provided with the updated plans, but the trail is shown to cross the parking area; relocate trail to avoid parking area. 14. A review of trail connections, ped ramps, and general ADA criteria will be made with the final plat submittal. 15. With final plat submittal provide the following: a. Include profile drawings for the street within the development. b. Profile view of streets that include stationing, curve length, percent grade, and other standard geometric/design information. Add stationing to plan view on all sheets and horizontal curve information on the street design sheets. Use a different set of stationing numbers for each street (Arrowhead versus development street) so that that there are not overlapping numbers. c. Applicable City standard detail plates, see specific notes in section below. Storm Sewer & Grading: 16. Storm sewer pipes should be in drainage and utility easements, please verify that pipes are all within easements. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review October 27, 2021 Page 3 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 17. Label more of the proposed contours and the location of all EOF’s. Locations of EOF’s or other concentrated discharge point over vegetated areas will require a permanent energy dissipation/stabilization method such as rip-rap or permanent turf reinforcement matting. 18. The road subgrade will require a draintile piping system placed a minimum of 100’ in each direction from the low point catch basin and extended to within 100’ of the high point in the street grade profile, whichever is greater. The draintile pipe size shall be a minimum of 4” and comprised of PVC Schedule 40 or SDR 26. 19. With final plat submittal provide the following a. In general maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2% and maximum 33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall also be a minimum of 2.0%. b. Drainage arrows on plans showing direction of runoff. Note specifically high points between each side-yard swale. c. Include percent slope In all other swale locations and verify that it meets the City requirement of 2%. d. The City will require a common draintile collection system (rigid PVC Schedule 40 or SDR 26) for sump pump discharges. A separate foundation pipe system in addition to the sump discharge system should be considered where full basements are proposed. The size of the common collection system should be 6” and comprised of PVC schedule 40 or SDR 26. e. Add rip-rap quantities and class notes at each flared end section and pond overflows (if applicable). f. Note the size of proposed storm sewer structures. Preliminary Utility Plans (Sheets 5.0 – 5.3) 20. Hydrant locations shall be reviewed and approved of by the City Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ overlapping influence radius (maximum 400’ spacing) is required along roadway (hose length). 21. With final construction plans, provide confirmation of MDH (watermain) and MPCA (sanitary sewer) plan review and permitting. The City engineer will need to review and sign the sanitary sewer permit. 22. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. 23. The plans propose a long dead end watermain segment, provide an analysis for fire flow/capacity. 24. The existing sanitary manhole will need a new infi-shield installed, note as such on the plan. Add an note for all sewer manholes to add a “flex seal” or approved equal as a sealant to the interior chimney section. 25. Add general notes to the utility plans to the effect of: a. The City of Medina shall not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that are associated with variations in the utility as-built elevations. All utility connections shall be verified in the field. b. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The Owner and Engineer of Record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review October 27, 2021 Page 4 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx c. All watermain and sanitary sewer testing shall be done in accordance with the City of Medina standards and specifications. Copies of all test results shall be submitted to the City (Public Works Director, City Engineer), the Owner, and the Engineer of Record. d. Watermain shall have a minimum cover of 7.5’. e. The City will require televising for sanitary sewer pipe installations prior to accepting a warrant for the utility system provide report and video files to the City for review. 26. With final plat submittal provide the following: a. Plan/profile sheets for watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. a. Provide dimension notes from watermain to parallel sewer mains (storm and sanitary sewer); the minimum horizontal separation between mains is 10 feet. Where watermain crosses storm or sanitary sewer, add a note at each location to the effect of “Maintain 18” Minimum Separation, 4” Rigid Insulation” on both the plan view and profile view locations (both utility and storm sewer sheets). b. Show water/sewer service location to each lot and include the curb stop location at utility easement location (10’ beyond ROW). For each lot location add the low floor opening elevation, sewer service station from downstream manhole, sewer service invert elevation at utility easement (10’ beyond ROW), riser height if applicable, and curb stop elevation. Construction Notes & Standard Details Plans (Sheets 6.0 – 6.3) 27. Retaining walls greater than 4’ in height will required certified engineering drawings/plans form a registered structural engineer. A safety fence/guardrail will be required at the top of the wall. Provide soil borings/geotechnical analysis for the area where the wall is proposed. The proposed retaining wall will be greater than 4’ in height. Plans for the retaining wall will need to be submitted with the final construction plans. Approval of the construction plans will not be provided without review of the retaining wall. 28. The proposed street section should be reviewed and designed by a geotechnical engineer. Provide soil borings and geotechnical report with final plat submittal. 29. Provide details for the proposed stormwater treatment areas. 30. Provide specific details for each of the control structures proposed. Provided, in-progress with plan updates. 31. A full review of standard details will be conducted with the final plat submittal. Traffic & Access 32. A visioning study was completed in November of 2019 for the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive area. The intent of the study was to guide the transportation needs within the Arrowhead Drive and Chippewa Road corridors. The tee intersection of Hackamore Road into Arrowhead shown on the applicant’s plans appears to be consistent with the study and was identified as a feasible option to accommodate the increase in traffic as development occurs in the area. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review October 27, 2021 Page 5 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 33. The location of the proposed development access road was originally intended to tee off of Hackamore as noted within the visioning study. The applicant has shown the driveway approximately 300’ south of the future Hackamore Road tee intersection on Arrowhead Drive instead. Move the driveway location as far south as possible to provide the most flexibility with turn lane configurations on Arrowhead Drive. With this proposed driveway location, southbound left turn lane and northbound right turn lanes will be required with the level of traffic expected by 2040. 34. With the potential for future development to the south, consider other options for the access drive off of Arrowhead Drive to allow for the proposed access to be moved further to the south in the future. This will allow more flexibility in alignment with future development on the west side of Arrowhead Drive. 35. The vertical and horizontal geometrics along Arrowhead Drive is proposed to be modified with the Weston Woods development plans; Arrowhead Drive has a 40 MPH design speed. Provide a sight distance exhibit for the proposed Marsh Pointe driveway access location. Stormwater Management & Modelling 36. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and the applicant shall submit for the required permits. Provide final permitting documents and approvals from watershed. 37. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. 38. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface. By satisfying the volume requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. Follow the City’s Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirement if infiltration is not feasible. a. Filtration is given 50% credit Per the City Stormwater Design Manual. If filtration is being used throughout the site, please account for 2.2 inches of runoff being treated to meet the requirements. b. Current plans show treatment of .647 ac-ft X 50%=0.3235 ac-ft. c. Consider irrigation reuse to meet volume control requirements. 39. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions discharge rates. 40. Currently the development is proposing to treat one third of the impervious surface generated from the roundabout. Coordination with adjacent developments will be necessary to ensure that 100 percent of the impervious is account for when fully developed. 41. Water Reuse a. 1. Required design submittal packages for water reuse BMPs must include: a. An analysis using Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Stormwater Reuse City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review October 27, 2021 Page 6 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx Calculator. An example of the Calculator can be found in Appendix E. The full spreadsheet can be requested from the City. b. Documentation demonstrating adequacy of soils, storage system, and delivery system; and c. Operations and maintenance plan. The O& M plan should follow the guidelines listed in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. c. Approved capacity of an irrigation practice will be based on: a. An irrigation rate of 1.0 inches per week over the irrigated pervious area(s), the rate identified through the Stormwater Reuse Calculator (whichever is less), or as approved by the City; and b. No greater than a 26 week (April 15th to October 15th) growing season. d. Design of the irrigation system must include, but is not limited to, the following items. Each system will be reviewed and approved by the City on a site-by-site basis. a. Plumbing code review, adherence, and permitting, if applicable. b. Water reuse pump system design including supply line, intake, meter, and pump c. Electrical and controls design d. Construction drawings, specifications, and system integration e. Two (2) feet of permanent pool from the bottom of the pond must be maintained following drawdown for irrigation. Stormwater Design Manual City of Medina, MN WSB Project No. 011705-000 Page 20 f. Use rates should be monitored at least monthly for at least three years. This should be compared to the water budget analysis of the design to determine whether the modeled level of performance is being achieved. 42. Stormwater Pond 2P a. 80% credit for using stormwater ponds with extended detention storage. Additional information on extended detention requirements is found in Section 7.4. b. 60% credit for using stormwater ponds without water reuse 43. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access to all ponding facilities. a. Lot 1 Block 1 currently does not meet freeboard requirements i. Freeboard must be met for EOF route along property line. HWL of 996.18 for Pond 2P and low opening of 996.3 for lot 1 block 1 b. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 of Block 3 currently do not meet the 2 foot freeboard requirements. c. Clearly label the EOF for each basin on the grading plan including a stabilized overflow d. Clearly label EOFs for drain inlets to meet the city’s freeboard requirements. e. Provide information on HWL for the adjacent wetland. 44. Provide a maintenance access to all permanent stormwater management best management practices. 45. With final design, provide storm sewer calculations using the rational method, sizing storm sewer for the 10-yr 24-hr Atlas 14 rainfall. Provide drainage area map for storm sewer sizing and calculations. 46. Provide pretreatment for the direct storm sewer outfalls to the NURP/filtration basins in the form of 4 foot sumps per City standards. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review October 27, 2021 Page 7 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 47. Show clean outs with invert elevation at the ends of each drain tile section within filtration benches. Wetlands & Buffers 48. 10% removal of significant trees is allowed for areas of 10-20 acres for redevelopment as outlined in city ordinances. a. Allowable removals for the site based on 4,891 inches of natural significant trees is 489 inches. b. Proposed removals of 1,532 inches c. Proposed-allowed+ required mitigation. 1,532-489=1,043 inches 49. Required mitigation is 1,043 caliper inches 50. Show replacement tree locations on plan sheet. 51. Provide size, species, and number of replacement trees a. All deciduous Replacement Trees shall be a Diameter of at least two (2) caliper inches in size. All coniferous Replacement Trees shall be at least four (4) feet in height b. All Replacement Trees shall be planted within the Development Site, in a non- patterned arrangement, duplicating natural conditions whenever possible. Replacement Trees may be planted in an alternative location if that location is approved by the city council c. All Replacement Trees shall be appropriate for the soil conditions found at the planting site. All Replacement Trees shall be from certified nursery stock and shall not be bare root stock. d. If more than twelve (12) Replacement Trees are required on a Development Site, there shall be no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the same species. 52. Tree Replacement Plan will need to be submitted to the city for review and approval by the city council. The Tree Replacement Plan shall be certified by a Forestry Specialist. 53. Wetlands were delineated and boundaries approved. 54. Wetland impact is proposed. A replacement plan must be submitted to the City of Medina for Wetland Conservation Act review. 55. Wetland adjacent to the development is classified as a Preserve Wetland on the City’s Functional Classification of Wetlands Map and is adjacent to a mapped Minnesota County Biological Survey Site of Biodiversity Significance. Average 50-foot-wide buffers (30-foot minimum) are required adjacent to Preserve Wetlands. Proposed buffers are only 30 feet wide (minimum 20 feet) and do not meet the buffer standards. Complete. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review October 27, 2021 Page 8 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-12 Submittal\_2021-10-27 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer November 4, 2021 1 Marsh Point Preserve – Medina, MN, by BPS Properties, LLC Project Narrative Marsh Pointe Preserve is a proposed redevelopment of four existing single family homesites. The properties are located along a private roadway on the east side of Arrowhead Drive approximately one-half mile north of Highway 55. According to Hennepin County Property website, three of the existing homes were built in 1979 and one in 1993. Prior to the homes being constructed, the land was open space and tilled farmland, per inspection of historical aerial photographs. Older photos indicate the minimal presence of trees on the site. The site is surrounded on the south and east by a large wetland. A wetland delineation was completed in June 2021. The north line abuts the Bridgewater at Lake Medina platted additions. The developable portion of the site is elongated and narrow, running east to west, resembling a peninsula on the east end. There are no streets stubbed to the site. Street access is only available via a connection to Arrowhead Drive. Sewer and water connection is also available along Arrowhead Drive. Numerous development scenarios have been explored through the concept plan design process. The alternative of constructing a roundabout connection at Arrowhead Drive was incorporated into a previous design. However, due to environmental constraints on the site’s developable area, the platting layout did not support a quantity of lots sufficient to support the added construction cost of a roundabout. Submittal of the August 20, 2021 version of the preliminary plat proposed 38 lots but through city review, was found to have excessive wetland impact and provided insufficient wetland buffer. Continued study and concept plan renditions brought the site configuration to the current proposal, where a street connection to Arrowhead Drive is proposed, located 300 feet from the proposed realigned connection of Arrowhead Drive to Chippewa Road (as shown on the Weston Woods Preliminary Plat.) In order to provide a lot density greater than two units/acre and an average wetland buffer width of 50’, a Planned Unit Development application is proposed, which includes a few deviations from the City of Medina’s R2 zoning lot standards. Both the previous and current development layouts necessitate the platting of a cul de sac that exceeds the maximum length per city code. There is no street or right of way stub to the property with the exception of at Arrowhead Drive and the site is surrounded by wetlands on the south and east. To utilize the property to the best and highest use, the nearly 2,300-foot long cul de sac is necessary, in order to serve the development with public street access. The utilization of the PUD process allows for platting of a number of lots (30 proposed) that provides for a feasible per-lot development cost, minimizes wetland impact, provides buffer having width no less than 30’ and an average width of more than 50 feet. Furthermore, tree impact is less than the earlier development proposal. Wetland impact cannot be avoided in the construction of street A as it extends to the east portion of the project. Presently, a driveway crosses the wetland, serving the two homes on the east. The grade of the new street will need to be raised to provide adequate cover for the proposed utilities. The combined roadway widening and the slope banks propose to impact 11,471 s.f. of wetland. If the street was reduced from 28’ wide to 24’ wide along the north side, as a part of the PUD approval, wetland impact could possibly be reduced by approximately 1,400 s.f. November 4, 2021 2 The developer has selected to work with one builder, Charles Cudd Company, which can customize the design of homes to suitable fit the building pads proposed within the development. Charles Cudd Co. proposes homes that are better suited for buyers having a lifestyle characterized as “empty nesters”, typically retired or nearing retirement – one level homes, well apportioned with upper bracket sale values. Charles Cudd Company has built several successful neighborhoods in the city of Medina and looks forward to being a part of what they feel will be a beautiful new community. All of the homes will be single-story with a height of approximately 32’ to 34’ from the front grade. Each home will either have a lookout or walkout lower level. Owner’s suites will be located on the main floor. The homes will range in size from approximately 3,200 to 4,400 finished sq ft. Photographs showing examples of exterior and interior styles and designs are appended to this narrative. A Home Owner’s Association will be formed for the platted lots within the neighborhood. The HOA will own, maintain and operate (as applicable) the irrigation system and appurtenances, retaining wall, fencing, entrance monument and common space. As individual lots will not be allowed to connect to the public water system for irrigation, a stormwater re-use irrigation system is proposed. The pumping station will be located adjacent to the east stormwater basin – Pond 3P. An irrigation main will be installed generally running along the rear of blocks 3 and 5, but will also cross the right of way to server blocks 1, 2 and 4 as well. This will provide connection availability for each home. Certain portions of the common space may also be irrigated. It is anticipated that an HOA owned well will be drilled to augment the required irrigation volume. PUD GOALS MET The Marsh Point Preserve PUD design meets several of the applicable goals outlined is Section 827.25 of the Medina City Code. These are specifically characterized as follows: 1. Working with a specific builder that targets the mature home owner/buyer addresses the market demand for this the homesites offered by Marsh Pointe Preserve. The development offers high standards of care in site design and home construction. 2. The site design respects and preserves the nearly 3,000 feet of wetland frontage with the preservation of 3.98 acres of buffer. Buffer areas currently mowed will be revegetated and demarcation will be provided at the buffer fringe. 3. Stormwater management best management practices will incorporate irrigation, supplied by stormwater which will be pumped from the east stormwater pond to irrigate 4.7 acres of lawn and maintained open space. 4. A trailway will be constructed, leading to the Medina Lake Preserve. Parking spaces will be constructed nearby the entrance to the Preserve to allow the community to access the open space trails. 5. The roadway and utility system has been fashioned to the most efficient routing that is feasible, given that the narrow breadth of the property allows for very limited ability to front lots on both sides of the street. 6. The flexibilities sought through the PUD approval are minimal and are not contrary to the planning principles allowed through the Residential zoning ordinance. In summary, all of the statements listed above strive to achieve the applicable residential development goals outlined in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. November 4, 2021 3 November 4, 2021 4 November 4, 2021 5 November 4, 2021 6 10/26/2021 Preliminary Budget Possible Additions Possible Reductions QTY Notes Play Equipment Smart Play Venti & Swings 48,745.00 List Price of Equipment Discount (2,924.70)6% Sales Tax - if applicable 2,696.03 Medina Sales Tax - 7.525% Equipment Installation (Man Hours & Concrete for Footings)9,492.13 Full professional installation by Landscape Structures Certified Installers Delivery of Play equipment 625.00 estimated / final quote will be provided Mobilization 500.00 Dumpster(s) - 30 Yard 519.80 Disposal of packaging material Site work Excavation & Hauling (new container) 0.00 Demo, Excavation & Disposal (existing container)0.00 Special Equipment (Lull, Lift, Compactor, etc.)0.00 Border Options Concrete Border Straight (LF)0.00 0 Standard 6" W x 12" D w/ rebar Concrete Boarder Curved (LF)0.00 0 Standard 6" W x 12" D w/ rebar Plastic Timbers & Ramp 0.00 Retaining Wall 0.00 Surfacing Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) EWF - Playground Safety Surfacing (CY)5,557.41 139 CY IPEMA Certified Playground Surfacing - Meets the standards of ASTM, ADA & CPSC. 12" compacted depth. GeoTextile Fabric (Sq. Ft.)1,125.38 3,001 SF Price includes installation Budget Total Total Additions Total Reductions Total w/ Additions & Reductions 66,336.03 0.00 0.00 66,336.03 General Contractor General Contractor PRELIMINARY BUDGET George Stickney 210 East Lake St. Wayzata, MN 55391 George Stickney - Realtor PlayCAD Quote Date:10/26/2021 Rep Organization: Flagship Recreation Quote No: MarshPointe_Medina 102621 By:JLT Contact Person: Brett Altergott Project Title: Marsh Pointe Preserve 10-26-21 Location: Medina, MN Page 1 of 2 Smart Play® (5-12 years) PHASE-1 Direct Bury Aluminum UNIT TOTAL QTY NO. DESCRIPTION WEIGHT (lb) PRICE (US $) WEIGHT (lb) PRICE (2022) Smart Play® Ages 5-12 Yrs 1 210739A Venti Alum Posts DB1 3770.0 44,940.00 Freestanding Play Signs 1 182503C Welcome Sign (LSI Provided) Ages 5-12 years Direct Bury 24.0 0.00 Site Furnishings 1 186583A Wood-Grain Bench 70" w/Back 2x4 Cedar Slats w/2 Armrests DB 171.0 1,190.00 Swings 2 174018A Belt Seat ProGuard Chains for 8' Beam Height 8.0 140.00 16.0 280.00 1 176038G Full Bucket Seat ProGuard Chains for Toddler Swing 11.0 380.00 1 177332A Single Post Swing Frame 8' Beam Height Only 213.0 1,405.00 1 177337A Toddler Swing Add-On Beam 31.0 550.00 SUMMARY CONCRETE (cu-ft) FOOTINGS (count) LABOR (man-hours) WEIGHT (lb) PRICE (2022) Smart Play® (5-12 years) PHASE-1 113.7 49 80.0 4,236.0 48,745.00 Total Safety Zone Area = 1831 sq. ft. ALL PHASES Smart Play® 94.5 43 70.0 3,770.0 44,940.00 Freestanding Play 19.2 6 10.0 466.0 3,805.00 Total 113.7 49 80.0 4,236.0 48,745.00 •Square Footage calculation is approximate and for estimation purposes only. Landscape Structures shall not be held liable for any costs associated with surfacing by others. •Estimated man-hours do not include hours for custom product installation or site preparation. 2 4 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 0+0 0 1+00 2+00 3+ 0 0 HAC K A M O R E DRI V E SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 ST-1 The North 467 feet of the East 467 feet of the West 1122 feet (68 rods) of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; (Abstract) And Lot 1, Block 1,and Outlot B, Arrowhead Estates, according to the record thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract) And Par 1: That part of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, including the accretions thereto, lying and being northwest of the centerline of Hennepin County Ditch No. 26 and the Northeasterly extension thereof and Northeast of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the east line of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, 400 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence West on a line parallel to the South line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 1000 feet to a point; thence Northwest to the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4, and there ending. Said Government Lot 4, including accretions thereto, being described as follows, to-wit; Government Lot 4, including the accretions to Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, all described as commencing at the North Quarter corner of said Section 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 24 minutes 35 seconds West, along the North and South centerline of said Section 2 a distance of 608.56 feet; thence South 6 degrees 47 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 817.18 feet; thence South 36 degrees 53 minutes East, a distance of 1040.00 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes west, a distance of 500.00 feet; thence South 46 degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds West to the North line of said Government Lot 4; thence Westerly along said North line to the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Southerly along the West line of said Government Lot 4 to the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 4; thence easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 4 to the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Northerly along the North and South centerline of said Section 2, a distance of 1006.25 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a line bearing South 35 degrees 18 minutes 24 seconds West from the actual point of beginning; thence North 35 degrees 18 minutes 24 seconds East, 942.56 feet, more or less to the actual point of beginning. Par 2: The North 66 feet of the East 196.71 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Par 3: The North 66 feet of the following described part of Government Lot 4 as measured at right angles to and drawn parallel with the North line of said Government Lot 4; That part of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, lying and being West of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23; thence Northeast to a point 1000 feet West on a line drawn parallel to the South line of said Government Lot 4 from a point on the East line of said Government Lot 4, 400 feet North of the southeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Northwest to the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4 and there ending. (Torrens Property) (Torrens Certificate No. 1361928) And That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of the West 1122.00 feet thereof and west of the East 196.71 feet thereof. (Abstract) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+0 0 23+ 0 0 24 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 2 7 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 3 0 + 0 0 3 1 + 0 0 3 1 + 4 3 . 7 1 BTM = 977.00 NWL = 982.00 HWL = 984.20 POND (12P) BTM = 979.00 NWL = 984.50 HWL=987.39 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 SB-1 988 990 992 998 1000 982 984 986 984 982 L.P. % 3.0 G. B . % 2 . 5 H. P . % 1. 5 %2.0 %5.0 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 10 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 10 0 6 992 991 990 99 2 99 2 99 6 99 8 10 0 0 10 0 2 996 998 990 988 988 988 986 984 990 988 986 984 982 984 986 988 990 992 996 996 992 99 6 99 2 99 2 996 986 988 . 2 98 8 . 5 21+00 22+00 23+ 0 0 24 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 2 7 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 3 1 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 POND (11P) BTM = 977.00 NWL = 982.00 HWL = 984.20 POND (12P) BTM = 979.00 NWL = 984.50 HWL=987.39 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 SB-1 G RWO 988 990 992 998 1000 % 3.0 G . B . % 2 . 5 H. P . % 1. 5 %2.0 %5.0 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 10 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 10 0 6 992 991 990 99 2 99 2 99 6 99 8 10 0 0 10 0 2 996 998 990 988 988 988 986 984 990 988 986 99 6 986 988 . 2 98 8 . 5 23+ 0 0 24 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 2 7 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-1 G RWO SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 G RWO SB-1 2 7 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 3 0 + 0 0 3 1 + 0 0 3 1 + 4 3 . 7 1 998 1000 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 6 10 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 10 0 6 992 991 990 99 2 99 2 99 8 10 0 0 10 0 2 996 998 990 988 984 982 984 986 988 990 992 996 996 992 99 6 99 2 99 2 99 6 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 2 7 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 3 1 + 0 0 3 1 + 4 3 . 7 1 EXISTING TREESTO REMAIN, TYP. STORM BASIN STORM BASIN MONUMENT SIGN BY OWNER, LOCATION OPTION 'A' COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE CONIFEROUS TREE, TYP. OVERSTORY TREE, TYP. ORNAMENTAL TREE, TYP. ORNAMENTAL TREE, TYP. OVERSTORY TREE, TYP. CONIFEROUS TREE, TYP. EXISTING TREESTO REMAIN, TYP. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. MONUMENT SIGN BY OWNER, LOCATIONOPTION 'B' MARSH POINTE PRESERVE MEDINA, MINNESOTA NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com ME230-761-766139.v1 PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina City Council FROM: Nate Sparks DATE: December 1, 2021 MEETING DATE: December 7, 2021 RE: 342 Hamel Road - Concept Plan CITY FILE: LF-21-305 BACKGROUND Hamel Townhomes LLC has made an application for a concept plan review for a 30 unit rental townhome development on a 2 acre site at 342 Hamel Road. The site is located in the City’s Uptown Hamel District. PROJECT SITE The site is currently two parcels. The westerly parcel is 0.98 acres in size and has an existing house. The easterly parcel is 1.17 acres in size and is vacant. The two parcels are owned in common. The site is located on the north side of Hamel Road and east of Hunter Drive. The site is immediately adjacent to the City’s Rainwater Nature Area, which is to the west. There are single family homes on the south side of Hamel Road, which are zoned Urban Residential. To the east are six single family homes and property owned by St. Anne’s Church, which are zoned Uptown Hamel. To the north is the railroad tracks. The site slopes from the road to the tracks about 16 feet. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING The subject site is guided Uptown Hamel in the Comprehensive Plan. The Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan further states: “The Uptown Hamel land use allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses to create a vibrant, walkable, and attractive place; a place to shop, work and live. Agenda Item #7D Objectives: 1.Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co-exist on adjacent parcels as well as within the same structure or on the same parcel. Uptown Hamel is intended to provide flexibility in terms of residential and commercial uses. As a result, it is difficult to project future uses in the area, but it is estimated that approximately 40% of the land will be utilized for residential purposes, 40% for commercial uses, and 20% for office uses. 2. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of buildings, shared parking, on-street, underground, or ramp parking. 3. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small-town heritage and traditional small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, and overhangs over the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. Establishment of design guidelines to support this objective. 4. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning of these areas. 5.Create master plans for mixed-use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness to adjacent land uses. 6. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 7. Encourage underground or structured parking through flexibility to standards, including increased residential density up to 20 units per acre. 8.Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 9. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 10. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.” The City implements the Uptown Hamel designation with the UH, Uptown Hamel zoning district. The purpose of this district is stated to be: “to create a distinctive Uptown Hamel area that is an attractive, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use town center, by using building facades, porches, walkways, landscaped plazas, lighting, signage, landscaping and parking to blend retail, office, higher-density housing, specialty shops, and gathering spots into a unified and viable community.” PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to place 30 rental townhomes on the property, which is a density of about 14 units per acre. The units are proposed as a mix of three and four bedrooms. Each unit is proposed with a two car garage. The site is proposed to have two eight, one six, and two four unit buildings. The four unit buildings are facing the street with the others behind. APPLICATION REVIEW Building Setbacks For this type of use, the UH District does not have a minimum front yard setback. The minimum side yard setback is eight feet. The rear yard setback is stated as “an amount determined by the city which is necessary to provide adequate parking, access and loading for people and goods, fire access/control or to meet other ordinance requirements.” The proposed development has a setback of 4.8 feet from the front lot line with porches that extend to the lot line. The side yard setbacks are eight feet. Density The Comprehensive Plan allows 4 to 15 units per acre. The UH District states that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2,904 square feet. Both standards state that the maximum development density is 15 units per acre. The survey states that the site is 2.141 acres. This would allow for a range of 9 to 32 units on the site. Architecture The UH District states that from the street “building design shall make the street visually more interesting, functionally more enjoyable and useful and economically more viable. Buildings, porches, and plaza spaces shall be designed to bring the building and its activity more in contact with the street.” The concept shows two buildings facing the street that are intended to have porches. These buildings should have a street facing appearance, and staff recommends that the design include distinctive porch elements. Porches are identified as a theme for Uptown Hamel. Therefore, the design of this element will be important for review and discussion. Exterior materials are required to consist of one or more of the following: natural brick, stucco, stone, wood, glass, or commercial grade fiber cement lap siding with a wood appearance which is installed per manufacturer’s specifications. Treated or anodized metal may be used for trim. The proposed building materials should be more specific to ensure these standards are being met and that the appearance of the buildings is consistent with other buildings of a similar nature within the district. Staff would recommend that accent materials or a second texture be included on the external facing facades. Windows and openings are required to be generous, especially on the street side, and their placement and design shall express the pedestrian friendly, livability of the town center. Buildings are required to be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet in frontage to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building materials/design. At the street level, at least 30 percent of the façade should be glass in windows and doors. It appears that the elevations provided are approximately 30% glass on the main level if measured linearly and that sufficient modulation has been provided. Parking The City’s parking ordinance requires townhomes to provide two parking spaces per unit plus 0.25 spaces per unit for guest parking. For general townhomes, this would require a two car garage with a minimum size of 400 square feet. In the UH District this can be one parking space in a garage of at least 240 square feet and one outside parking space. The applicant is proposing a two car garage attached to each unit. The size of the garage appears to generally meet the townhome standard of 400 square feet. It appears the intent is also to provide space to park in front of most of the garages. The applicant will need to provide an emergency vehicle turning exhibit to verify that parking in front of the garages is possible. The site plan also shows 8 guest parking spaces, which is the minimum required. These stalls will be required to be 9’ x 19’ in size to meet minimum standards. Site Access & Circulation There is proposed a circular drive in the site to provide access to the units. This drive is generally 24 feet in width. This width should be maintained in all areas. On a secondary drive aisle, such as the aisle to the units in the southeastern and southwestern portions of the site, the ordinance does permit the width to be reduced slightly to 22 feet. The aisles in these areas are less than this standard. The City’s parking ordinance does not allow dead end drive lanes. Areas for cars to back out should be placed where needed. The lessened drive aisle width and lack of backing space are problematic for the units in the southeast and southwest corners. As designed, these garages are not accessible with adequate drive aisles and staff recommends widening the drive aisle and providing adequate turnaround. This would likely result in the need to remove some units. Having sufficient depth of a drive into the garages is important, as well. Ideally, this would be maintained at least as 19 or 20 feet to provide for adequate space for a vehicle to be in front of the garage while not impeding circulation. Truck turning movement diagrams will need to be provided for emergency and other service vehicles. The applicant has provided some diagrams for review. The Uptown Hamel District also encourages connections to neighboring properties. A drive aisle should be made to be capable of connecting to future sites to the east. The plan also shows some limited snow storage areas. One of these areas appears to be against a building. Pedestrian Ways & Recreation The applicant is depicting a small dog area and a gazebo structure near the rear of the lot. Staff recommends a dog waste station be installed. Complete plans shall be provided for proposed sidewalks and trails to serve parking and recreation areas, and to serve areas within the proposed development to link the city’s trail system. On the concept, a sidewalk is shown entering the side from the front sidewalk along the entry drive. A connection from the site into the nature area adjacent may be an appropriate amenity. Staff would recommend that the applicant update the site layout to provide improved pedestrian connectivity from the units to the exterior of the site. Staff would also recommend that the applicant consider ways to maximize the usability of the exterior spaces and how such areas may interplay with adjoining public spaces, including the sidewalk and Rainwater Nature Preserve. Impervious Surfaces, Grading & Drainage The Uptown Hamel District allows for up to 90% impervious surface coverage. The site is proposed at 80%. Stormwater improvements were constructed to treat some additional runoff in the Uptown Hamel Area, but new hardcover in excess of approximately 65% will need to be treated on-site. The applicant has indicated that treatment may be provided with underground filtration in the northwest portion of the site. The Engineer has provided comments related to drainage for the site. The site has a slope of about 16 feet from front to back. There will likely be extensive retaining walls. Such walls may interfere with the rear yards of the units. Locations of the walls will need to be reviewed. Lighting A lighting plan meeting the City Code requirements will be required. Tree Preservation The site design does not appear to take tree preservation into consideration. There are several trees on the north side of the lot. A full tree preservation and replacement plan will be required. Landscaping The Uptown Hamel District requires that at least 5 percent of the site shall be plaza or landscaped. Landscaping shall consist of a combination of decorative deciduous and coniferous trees, shrubs, flowers, ground covers and rain gardens. Landscaped areas and pockets shall be delineated and separated by any of the following: curbing, decorative fencing, decorative walls, planter boxes, containers, “cut outs” in a plaza, or by similar means. All that part of the site not taken up by buildings, walks, or plazas or approved parking and loading shall be landscaped. The site has small areas to the rear of the buildings that is intended to be space for the residents adjacent to their units. These spaces are narrow in some instances. More details on the usability of these areas should be provided. Storage & Screening All materials and facilities for recycling and trash shall be kept inside the principal buildings or within a completely screened area. If a completely screened area is used it must be architecturally compatible with and made of the same or better material used on the principal building and meet the architectural and development standards of the district. Any trash or storage areas will need to be identified and will be required to meet these standards. Any fences and walls shall be decorative using a traditional design and may be used to delineate and separate spaces and to protect topographic change. Fence material shall be wrought iron, anodized steel or aluminum, or wood. Walls shall be made of brick, concrete brick, decorative block, cedar or redwood or stucco on concrete. Fences and walls shall not be located to prevent desirable access through areas. Full fence and wall designs will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission reviewed the concept plan and provided comments to the applicant. Generally, the Commissioners had a consensus that the plan was in “misalignment with the vision” for Uptown Hamel. The density was too great for this type of development resulting in a proposal lacking adequate amenities and connection to the community. The draft meeting minutes are attached for reference. STAFF COMMENTS The applicant is choosing to seek the maximum density and utilizing a type of development that cannot provide the density in a compact manner. This leads to an inadequate vehicle circulation and limited amenities and green space. The applicant may wish to consider lessening the density to improve these conditions or consider a different housing product. The Uptown Hamel District is intended to have a street forward design that incorporates traditional elements of the neighborhood. The applicant will need to provide a higher degree of architecture for the public facing areas and clearly identify the Uptown Hamel themes being included. The applicant did revise its plan slightly by adding a foot to the driveway length and backing spaces. However, the drive aisle to the units in the southern portion of the site is still not meeting requirements. They also provided architectural renderings of the street facing façade that depicts a porch. Overall, the Uptown Hamel and general zoning requirements would require some adjustments to the concept plan. The access to the units fronting Hamel Road will need to be improved. Drive aisles and parking should also be improved. Additional connectivity and plaza space should be incorporated as required in the Uptown Hamel district. However, the concept plan appears to meet the density and dimensional requirement of the district, and with these adjustments, staff did not identify aspects that seemed out of compliance with the City’s zoning standards. The City Council can discuss whether, with these adjustments, the development is consistent with what was envisioned in Uptown Hamel. It is important to note that the objectives of Uptown Hamel are for a denser, more urban development form. This would suggest less greenspace and a more compact design for multi- family development. However, the ordinance does require accessible plaza space and amenities, connectivity, and similar requirements. If the Council generally concurs with the Planning Commission consensus that this project does not align with the vision of Uptown Hamel, this may suggest that the City’s current zoning regulations are not sufficient for townhome development at this density. If that is the case, Staff would suggest studying these issues and considering ordinance changes to requirements for development of duplex and townhome projects within the Uptown Hamel District. These are the types of uses that result in the pursuit of maximum density without adequate space. The ordinance seems to be geared more towards vertical mixed uses and apartment type development leaving specific design criteria for other forms of attached housing somewhat unaddressed. If the City Council directs such a study, it may be necessary to consider a moratorium in the future if any formal townhome applications are submitted in the meantime. On the general plan itself, as proposed, and in addition to the more global, policy-related comments provided above regarding the Uptown Hamel District, staff offers the following additional comments: 1. The street facing side of the units should have an enhanced architectural appearance that fits within the context of the area. 2. Details on the tree preservation and replacement plan shall be provided. 3. The circulation throughout the site shall use 24 foot drive aisles. Access lanes to the southern units shall not be less than 22 feet in width with 19 foot deep driveways. 4. No dead end drive aisle without backing spaces are permitted. 5. Truck turning motions should be provided. 6. Adequate space in front of the garages for vehicles shall be provided that does not interfere with the internal site circulation. 7. Opportunities for connections to properties to the east should be provided in the future. 8. An internal connection to the City nature area to the west should be considered. 9. More green space/recreation areas for the residents including the private areas behind the units should be considered. 10. Details on fencing and walls (including the likely substantial retaining walls) should be provided and designed with care to fit the Uptown Hamel standards. 11. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Engineering Comments 2. Excerpt from 11/9/2021 Planning Commission minutes 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Concept Plan K:\019125-000\Admin\Docs\2021-11-22 Submittal\2021-10-30 Hamel Townhomes Concept Plan - WSB Engineering Review Comments.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M November 30, 2021 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Concept Plan Submittal – Engineering Plan Review City Project No. LF-21-305 WSB Project No. 019125-000 Dear Mr. Finke: WSB staff have reviewed the Hamel Townhomes Development Concept Plan submittal dated November 16, 2021. The applicant proposes to construct 30 rental townhomes on a 2.15 acre parcel located in the Uptown Hamel area in the City of Medina. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Streets 1. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures and required turn around space as required by the Fire Marshall. Provided, awaiting response from Fire Marshall. 2. The plan provides sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities within the site. See the City Planners comments on pedestrian access and mobility requirements. 3. With future submittals provide an existing conditions/removal plan, grading plan, construction details, and erosion/sediment control plans. Provide a SWPPP with final construction plans. Applicant stated additional plans will be provided with a future full plan set submittal. 4. Add typical street section(s) details to the plans meeting the City’s standard, at minimum. The final pavement section shall be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site. 5. The City may consider widening Hamel Road in the future to provide additional on-street parking. With that in mind, provide site grading and building elevations that accommodate the future relocation of sidewalk facilities up to or closer to the property line (within City right-of-way). Utility Plan 6. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. City of Medina – Hamel Townhome Development – Engineering Plan Review November 30, 2021 Page 2 K:\019125-000\Admin\Docs\2021-11-22 Submittal\2021-10-30 Hamel Townhomes Concept Plan - WSB Engineering Review Comments.docx 7. For all existing public utilities, label the pipe size, pipe material, and proposed percent grade for gravity mains. 8. Abandon the existing watermain service up to the main within Hamel Road. 9. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain sections; the proposed site accommodates watermain looping. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future phases or other adjacent developments will be required and reviewed with future submittals. With this in mind, the City will require that the watermain at the northeast corner have a stub towards the northeast corner of the site. The easterly portion of the proposed watermain through the site up to and including the connection at Hamel Rd and the stub to the northeast will need to be 8” diameter pipe. 10. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ influence radius (approximately 400’ spacing) is required to serve the immediate residential areas. Show proposed hydrant locations on the utility plan and provide an exhibit showing hydrant influence spacing. 11. The watermain connections to the building(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshall. With future submittals show proposed water service and sanitary sewer service locations on the plans; the City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations for sanitary sewer services. A separate water/sewer service will be required for each townhome unit. 12. Gravity sewer is being proposed to serve all units within the development. The City’s typical standard is to place sewer a minimum of 10’ below the surface (18” vertical separation below the watermain). Where this depth is not feasible, the City will allow an 8’ depth; depths less than 8’ will require review on a case-by-case basis. Show rim/invert information for all sanitary manholes. 13. With final construction plans, if basements are proposed with the townhomes, the City will require draintile or other connections for sump pump discharges. A separate foundation pipe system in addition to the sump discharge system should be considered. Grading and Erosion Control 14. Provide a grading plan with future submittals. Include drainage arrows on the grading plan showing the direction of flow and slope percentages. A portion of the site will impact the existing ponding location to the west, expand the pond to the greatest extent possible at the northeast corner of the adjacent pond. 15. Provide EOF locations for all low points inside and outside the roadway. 16. Maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2% and maximum of 33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall be 2.0% or more. A swale will be required along the easterly and northerly property lines. 17. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP with final construction plan submittals. 18. An NPDES permit will be required for this project, a copy of the permit will be required prior to the issuance of City permits. City of Medina – Hamel Townhome Development – Engineering Plan Review November 30, 2021 Page 3 K:\019125-000\Admin\Docs\2021-11-22 Submittal\2021-10-30 Hamel Townhomes Concept Plan - WSB Engineering Review Comments.docx 19. A full review of the erosion/sediment control plan and SWPPP sheets will be completed with future submittals. 20. Show retaining wall locations and provide construction details. Traffic & Access 21. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be 512 daily trips, 32 AM peak hour trips and 39 PM peak hour trips, assuming 78 townhomes on the site. 22. A traffic analysis/study should be submitted with assumptions of the proposed and future development(s) to determine whether or not turn lanes will be required on Hamel Road. The analysis should also include what level of future development will trigger the need for construction of the turn lanes. Additional comments may follow from the City based on the final concept plan submitted. 23. Provide a figure showing truck movements throughout the site including the largest truck (semi-truck?) and the largest fire truck. Design driveways and circulation routes to accommodate these vehicles. Provided, awaiting response from Fire Marshall. Stormwater Management 24. The applicant will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. 25. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface. By satisfying the volume requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. Follow the City’s Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirement if infiltration is not feasible. o Volume control for this site is provided by the adjacent pond constructed by the city. The pond was designed to handle and treat up to 50% impervious cover. Any additional impervious over 50% will need to be treated on site. o Filtration receives 50% credit for stormwater treatment. If filtration is being used 2.2” of runoff should be used in calculations to assure adequate treatment. 26. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions discharge rates. 27. Provide storm sewer sizing calculations and rational for verification with future submittals. Refer to the city design guidelines for pipe sizing and flow requirements. 28. Provide additional information on how stormwater within the site is going to be conveyed to the existing pond. 29. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access to all ponding facilities. 30. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards for Elm Creek Water Management Commission and the applicant shall submit for the required permits. City of Medina – Hamel Townhome Development – Engineering Plan Review November 30, 2021 Page 4 K:\019125-000\Admin\Docs\2021-11-22 Submittal\2021-10-30 Hamel Townhomes Concept Plan - WSB Engineering Review Comments.docx Wetlands 31. There do not appear to be any wetlands present within the project parcels. 32. The pond in the parcel west of the project parcel is a created stormwater pond; therefore, no upland buffer is required. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Hamel Townhomes LLC – 342 Hamel Road – Concept Plan Review for Development of 30 Townhomes on Approximately 2.14 acres (PIDs 1211823420015 and -0016) Sparks presented a concept plan for the property located at 342 Hamel Road to develop 30 townhomes on 2.17 acres within the Uptown Hamel district. He stated that there would be a mix of three- and four- bedroom townhomes. He reviewed the adjacent land uses. He noted that the zoning district allows a mix of residential and commercial uses with a density range of four to 15 units per acre. He stated that the proposal would equate to 14 units per acre. He stated that the zoning district requires street focused architecture and a parking ratio of 2.25 per unit with one stall in the garage. He provided details on site access and circulation along with staff recommendations. He reviewed development standards and provided related recommendations from staff. He displayed the proposed layout for the site and highlighted the comments from staff related to different site elements. He reviewed the summary of staff comments included within the staff report. Grant Tjernagel, applicant, stated that he is present to address any questions. Sedabres asked if these would be owned occupied or rental units. Tjernagel replied that these units would be intended for rental. Piper asked if families would be the target market because of the number of bedrooms. Tjernagel confirmed that is correct. Piper asked if there has been thought to outside meeting space for children. Tjernagel commented that the area next door could be an area for recreation or Hamel Legion Park, which is down the road. Nielsen asked if there is an idea of what the monthly rent would be for the units. Tjernagel estimated between $2,500 to $3,000. Nielsen referenced the comment related to a retaining wall or fence, noting that she would believe a buffer between the tracks would be helpful if these units are aimed to families. Tjernagel stated that at this point they are excited to get comments and input. He noted that they will attempt to minimize everything to the best of their ability. Nielsen stated that staff has provided a list of items that should be addressed and asked if the applicant has any issues with those recommendations. Tjernagel replied that he did not. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Robert Belzer, Wild Meadows resident, stated that he would like to have the WSB report from June 16, 2021 entered into the record. He stated that he is concerned with the drainage issues within Wild Meadows. Nielsen clarified which agenda item the Commission is discussing. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 2 Belzer recognized that he missed the appropriate time of the agenda and asked that if there is time at the end of the meeting perhaps, he could make his comments. Piper commented that she is uncomfortable in terms of access to recreation. She stated that she understands that the park is 1.5 blocks away. She asked what is next door to the property. Nielsen replied that rainwater garden is adjacent to the property. Piper asked the size of that property. Finke replied that there is not a lot of space for active recreation. He noted that the parcel is five acres in size, but less than one acre is upland. He noted that there are trails around the parcel. Piper asked if children could play soccer in that location. Nielsen replied that the property would not accommodate that type of activity. Finke stated that two letters were received and distributed to the Planning Commission and entered those comments into the record. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Galzki stated that he lives down the street from this property and received comments from many concerned neighbors. He referenced the intent of the Uptown Hamel zoning district and did not believe that this concept fits that intent. He stated that he is hesitant to have rental units, especially with that high of a price point. He noted that rent is much higher than the mortgage for his single-family home. He referenced the traffic that this would add to the area as well. He believed that this would be going in the wrong direction from the intended vision for the area. Piper concurred with the comments from Galzki. She commented that this proposal feels too massive for that space. She also did not believe that the plan takes into account what people that would live there would need. She stated that if there are four bedrooms, there would likely be more than two vehicles per unit. She commented that the concept feels overwhelming, and she would not support it. Popp agreed that this is not the best fit for Uptown Hamel, specifically the misalignment for a mix of retail and residential. He felt that the mixed-use aspect is missed as well as connection to the community. He stated that this concept feels isolated and lacks amenities. Rhem echoed the concerns of the other Commissioners. He stated that if he were to support this it would require significant redesign. He agreed that this feels very tight for the space. He stated that he would need to see a reduced density, incorporation of the staff comments, and connection to the community. Sedabres appreciated the thought of increased density potential in Uptown Hamel as there are limited areas to pursue density opportunities but believed this might be too far. He commented that there is a miss on the ability to connect to the community and plaza space. He stated that this seems more outer suburbs design rather than Uptown Hamel. He stated that he would support some density opportunity as they transition from villas further east but noted that this is too much. Nielsen agreed that this is far too dense, and she does not favor this design. She agreed that this is a misalignment with the vision. A202 A8 A202 D8 GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH A202H5A202H11 GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH 104' - 0" 5' - 4 " 36 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 50 ' - 0 3 / 4 " BATH BEDBED BED BED BED BED BED BATH BATH LAUNDRYLAUNDRY BATH BEDBED BED BED BED BED BED BATH BATH LAUNDRYLAUNDRY ISSUE DATE: COLLINS WEBB #: PROFESSIONAL SEAL COPYRIGHT © BY COLLINS WEBB ARCHITECTURE, LLC K J H G F E D C B A 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 K J H G F E D C B A REVISION DATES: 30 7 B S W M a r k e t S t r e e t , L e e ' s S u m m i t , M i s s o u r i , 6 4 0 6 3 P : 8 1 6 . 2 4 9 . 2 2 7 0 w w w . c o l l i n s a n d w e b b . c o m 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 1 2 : 1 5 : 1 7 P M 4 PLEX PLANS HA M E L T O W N H O M E S 17 NOVEMBER 2021 21082 34 2 H a m e l R o a d , M e d i n a , M N 5 5 3 4 0 CO N C E P T P L A N R E V I E W A102 1/8" = 1'-0"A6 1ST FLOOR PLAN - 4 PLEX 1/8" = 1'-0"F6 2ND FLOOR - 4 PLEX 1/8" = 1'-0"F11 ROOF PLAN - 4 PLEX ROOF PRIMARY ROOF -ASPHALT SHINGLE PORCH -METAL ROOF PANEL LAP SIDING VERTICAL SIDING PORCH STONE ISSUE DATE: COLLINS WEBB #: PROFESSIONAL SEAL COPYRIGHT © BY COLLINS WEBB ARCHITECTURE, LLC K J H G F E D C B A 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 K J H G F E D C B A REVISION DATES: 30 7 B S W M a r k e t S t r e e t , L e e ' s S u m m i t , M i s s o u r i , 6 4 0 6 3 P : 8 1 6 . 2 4 9 . 2 2 7 0 w w w . c o l l i n s a n d w e b b . c o m 11 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 1 2 : 1 5 : 3 1 P M EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4-PLEX UNITS HA M E L T O W N H O M E S 17 NOVEMBER 2021 21082 34 2 H a m e l R o a d , M e d i n a , M N 5 5 3 4 0 CO N C E P T P L A N R E V I E W A202 3/16" = 1'-0"A8 HAMEL ROAD VIEW 3/16" = 1'-0"H11 4 PLEX - WEST VIEW 3/16" = 1'-0"H5 4 PLEX - EAST VIEW 3/16" = 1'-0"D8 NORTH VIEW CONCEPTUAL MATERIALS 5. 7 ' 19.0'24.0' 24.0'19.0'51.0' 51.0' 54 . 1 ' 37 . 0 ' 15 . 2 ' 37 . 0 ' 15 . 2 ' 2.0' 37.0'15.2'24.0'37.0'15.2'37.0' 2.0' 24.0' 37 . 0 ' 2. 0 ' 6. 6 ' 18 . 0 ' R6.0 ' R 6 . 0 ' R6.0 ' R 6 . 0 ' R6. 0 ' R 6 . 0 ' R5. 0 ' R6.0 ' R 6 . 0 ' 20 8 . 9 ' 15 6 . 9 ' 20 8 . 9 ' 104.9'104.9' 51 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' 3. 5 ' R 6 . 0 ' R6.0 ' R6.0 ' R 6 . 0 ' 5. 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 5' SETBACK 20' SETBACK 8' S E T B A C K 8.0' 8.0' 8' S E T B A C K GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 36' - 11" GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 15 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 6.2'51.0' GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH 104' - 11" GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH 9.2' GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 20 8 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 24 . 0 ' 14:45 Request c o n t r o l 30 . 0 ' R16.0 ' 37.0'19.7'19.0' R5.0 ' R 1 2 . 0 ' R16.0' R 5 . 0 ' R12 . 0 ' 37 . 3 ' 11 . 5 ' 6. 4 ' 19 . 0 ' 6. 1 ' 12 . 0 ' 12 . 0 ' 5. 4 ' 5. 6 ' GANG MAILBOX GAZEBO STRUCTURE CHAIN LINK FENCED DOG RUN6' HEIGHT PVC PRIVACY FENCING 25 . 0 ' 12.8' 20 . 0 ' 12.8' 8.7'4. 8 ' 4. 8 ' 24.5' 12.8' 12.8' CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY STANDARDS, TYP. BIT. PVMT., TYP PROPOSED 4 UNIT BUILDING BIT. PVMT., TYP PROPOSED 4 UNIT BUILDING PR O P O S E D 8 U N I T B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D 8 U N I T B U I L D I N G PR O P O S E D 6 U N I T B U I L D I N G SNOW STORAGE 8 CONCRETE SIDEWALK PVMT.STRIPING, TYP. BIT. PVMT., TYP MATCH EXIST. CURB PER CITY STANDARD MATCH EXIST. CURB PER CITY STANDARD ZONING: (AG) AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE ZONING: (UH) UPTOWN HAMEL ZONING: (CH-RR) COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY RAILROAD ZONING: (UR) URBAN RESIDENTIAL B612 C&G B612 C&G B612 C&G B612 C&G SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE SNOW STORAGE R 6 . 0 ' R6. 0 ' R 6 . 0 ' R6. 0 ' R 5 . 0 ' R16 . 0 ' R5 . 0 ' R 2 0 . 0 ' 18 . 1 ' 19 . 0 ' 19.0' GRAVEL PATH HAMEL ROAD Pavers Pavers (f.k.a. Rockford Road) 12" RCP 3 0 " R C P 18" RCP 8" PVC8" PVC 12" WM 15 " R C P SOO LINE RAILROAD (Width Varies) Bit u m i n o u s T r a i l (A Public R/W) Access POND [A] Sidewalk crosses property line. Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture 5000 Glenwood Ave Golden Valley, MN 55416 civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060 COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c HA M E L T O W N H O M E S 34 2 H A M E L R D , M E D I N A , M N 5 5 3 4 0 18 5 0 W W A Y Z A T A B L V D , L O N G L A K E , M N 5 5 3 5 6 HA M E L T O W N H O M E S , L L C PR O J E C T PR E L I M I N A R Y : NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION .. .. .. .. .. .. PROJECT NUMBER:21266 11/16/2021 CONCEPT PLAN .. .. .. .. .. 10/5/2021 CONCEPT PLAN DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:EH RB .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2021 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION C2.0 SITE PLAN .. .. .. .. .. .. SITE AREA TABLE: 1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS. 6.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 7.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 9.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL. 10.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES. 11.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL. 12.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 14.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS. 15.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 16.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP. 17.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 18.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS. 19.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SITE LAYOUT NOTES: SITE PLAN LEGEND: TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGS SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED. HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGN NP = NO PARKING FIRE LANE ST = STOP CP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY Know what's below. before you dig.Call R CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, SEE DETAIL. PROPERTY LINE CURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUT GUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLAN LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE). SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL. HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE). SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO PERVIOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - CONCRETE PAVER PERVIOUS SYSTEM. INCLUDE ALL BASE MATERIAL AND APPURTENANCES AS SPECIFIED PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS. MAKE: BELGARD, OR EQUIVILANT MODEL: AQUASTONE, OR EQUIVILANT COLOR: T.B.D. - PROVIDE SAMPLES, SHOP DRAWINGS & PRODUCT DATA REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPECIALTY PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) - PROVIDE BID FOR THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS, INCLUDE VARIATIONS OF BASE MATERIAL AND OTHER NECESSARY COMPONENTS. 1. STAMPED & COLORED CONCRETE 2. CONCRETE PAVERS MAKERS, COLORS, MODELS, & PATTERN TO BE INCLUDED IN SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. OPERATIONAL NOTES: TRASH: TRASH RECEPTACLES IN GARAGECITY OF MEDINA SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: 1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES. ACCESSIBILITY ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOT PAINT. 0 1" = 20'-0" 20'-0"10'-0" N ZONING NOTES: 1.CURRENT ZONING: UPTOWN HAMEL (UH) 2.PROPOSED ZONING: UPTOWN HAMEL (UH) 3.THE GROSS LAND AREA IS 93,259 +/- SQUARE FEET OR 2.14 +/- ACRES. 4.DENSITY: AT LEAST 10 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER NET ACRE. PROPOSED UNITS = 30 5.SETBACKS: FRONT YARD: 0 FT SIDE YARD: 8 FT REAR YARD: 20 FT 5. 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 5' SETBACK 20' SETBACK 8' S E T B A C K 8.0' 8.0' 8' S E T B A C K GA R A G E GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 36' - 11" GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 15 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH 104' - 11" GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GA R A G E GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DIN I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 20 8 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " HAMEL ROAD Pavers Pavers (f.k.a. Rockford Road) 12" WM SOO LINE RAILROAD (Width Varies) Bitu m i n o u s T r a i l Railroad Tracks (A Public R/W) Access POND [A] Sidewalk crosses property line. 5. 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 5' SETBACK 20' SETBACK 8' S E T B A C K 8.0' 8.0' 8' S E T B A C K GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 36' - 11" GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 15 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH 104' - 11" GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GA R A G E GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LIV I N G KIT C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KIT C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KIT C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KIT C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 20 8 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " HAMEL ROAD Pavers Pavers (f.k.a. Rockford Road) 12" WM SOO LINE RAILROAD (Width Varies) Bitu m i n o u s T r a i l Railroad Tracks (A Public R/W) Access POND [A] Sidewalk crosses property line. 5. 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 5' SETBACK 20' SETBACK 8' S E T B A C K 8.0' 8.0' 8' S E T B A C K GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 36' - 11" GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 15 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH 104' - 11" GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GA R A G E GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DIN I N G LIV I N G KIT C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KIT C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KIT C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KIT C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LIV I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 20 8 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " HAMEL ROAD Pavers Pavers (f.k.a. Rockford Road) 12" WM SOO LINE RAILROAD (Width Varies) Bitu m i n o u s T r a i l Railroad Tracks (A Public R/W) Access POND [A] Sidewalk crosses property line. Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture 5000 Glenwood Ave Golden Valley, MN 55416 civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060 COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c HA M E L T O W N H O M E S 34 2 H A M E L R D , M E D I N A , M N 5 5 3 4 0 18 5 0 W W A Y Z A T A B L V D , L O N G L A K E , M N 5 5 3 5 6 HA M E L T O W N H O M E S , L L C PR O J E C T PR E L I M I N A R Y : NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION .. .. .. .. .. .. PROJECT NUMBER:21266 11/16/2021 CONCEPT PLAN .. .. .. .. .. 10/5/2021 CONCEPT PLAN DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:EH RB .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2021 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION C2.1 VEHICLE TURNING DIAGRAM .. .. .. .. .. .. 0 1" = 50'-0" 50'-0"25'-0" N MOVING TRUCK FIRE TRUCK GARBAGE TRUCK SW C o r n e r of Lot 1 6 N'ly Li n e o f H a m e l R o a d (f.k.a. R o c k f o r d R o a d ) (P.O. B . ) A P o i n t 552.5 f e e t N W ' l y o f the S W C o r n e r o f Lot 1 6 ( " P o i n t A " ) Li n e P a r a l l e l w i t h NW ' l y L i n e o f L o t 1 6 S'ly R i g h t - o f - W a y Line o f S o o L i n e Railro a d Point o f Begin n i n g Li n e P a r a l l e l w i t h NW ' l y L i n e o f L o t 1 6 pe r f o u n d m o n u m e n t a t i o n 30.83. 6 15.8 13 . 4 6.2 24 . 2 22.5 3. 8 12.50. 7 17.6 10 . 9 0.3 26 . 7 40 . 2 28.5 40 . 3 28.3 Fire Pit Stone Wall Bituminous Driveway Deck HAM E L R O A D S73° 1 2 ' 0 9 " E 2 9 0 . 0 0 S1 5 ° 5 7 ' 1 8 " W 3 1 7 . 3 4 N74° 5 3 ' 2 7 " W 2 9 0 . 0 0 N1 5 ° 5 7 ' 1 6 " E 3 2 5 . 8 9 2 Story House 342 Hamel Rd Foundation Area= 1,899 S.F. Block Wall Bl o c k Wa l l Paver s Paver s Edge o f Wood s (f.k.a . R o c k f o r d R o a d ) 12" R C P 30 " RC P 18" R C P 18" R C P 12" R C P 8" PV C 8" PV C 12" W M 15 " RC P SOO L I N E R A I L R O A D (Widt h V a r i e s ) Block Wall Bi t u m i n o u s T r a i l Railr o a d T r a c k s Garage (A Pu b l i c R / W ) 175.0 0 115.0 0 Acces s PON D PID: 1211823420015 PID: 1211823420016 Address Unassigned 552.5 0 80.0 0 NW ' l y L i n e of L o t 1 6 [A] Si d e w a l k cross e s prope r t y line. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED That part of Lot 18 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on Northerly line of Rockford Road distant 552.5 feet Northwesterly from Southwest corner of Lot 16, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 241, said point to be known as Point "A", thence Northwesterly along said Northerly road line distant 175 feet, thence Northeasterly parallel with Northwesterly line of said Lot 16 to Southerly right-of-way line of Soo Line Railroad, thence Southeasterly along said right-of-way line distant 80 feet to actual point of beginning; thence Southerly to said point “A”; thence Southeasterly along said Northerly road line distant 115 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with Northwesterly line of said Lot 16, to Southerly right-of-way line of said Railroad; thence Northwesterly along said right-of-way line to beginning (12-118-23-42-0016) AND That part of Lot 18 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point where the Northwesterly line of Lot 16, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 241 intersects the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the Rockford Road; thence Northwesterly along said right-of-way line 552.5 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Northwesterly along said right-of-way line 175.0 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with the Northwesterly line of said Lot 16 a distance of 323.6 feet more or less to the Southwesterly right-of-way line of the Soo Line Railroad; thence Southeasterly along said railroad right-of-way line 80.0 feet; thence Southerly to the point of beginning. (12-118-23-42-0015) GENERAL SURVEY NOTES 1.Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (1986 Adjustment). 2.Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is the top nut hydrant located on the south side of Hamel Rd, having an elevation of 1010.49 feet, as shown hereon. 3.We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utility companies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities for this site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property. 4.Site Address: 342 Hamel Road, Medina, MN 55340. 5.This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0167F, effective date of November 4, 2021. 6.The Gross land area is 93,259 +/- square feet or 2.141 +/- acres. 7.The names of the adjoining owners of the platted lands, as shown hereon, are based on information obtained from Hennepin County GIS. SURVEY REPORT 1.This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic Title Insurance Company, File No. 2129307, dated June 10, 2021. We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment: a. Item no.'s 1-6 and 8-11 are not survey related. b. The following are numbered per the referenced title Commitment: [7]. There is an easement for sewer purposes over that part of the property as shown by Document No. 8107991. Please note this easement lies westerly of and does not appear to affect subject property. 2.Conflicts such as (but not limited to): encroachments, protrusions, access, occupation, and easements and/or servitudes: [A] Please note there is a sidewalk that crosses the southwest property corner. VICINITY MAP Me d i n a T o w n h o m e s 34 2 H a m e l R o a d , M e d i n a , M N 5 5 3 4 0 Ed i n a R e a l i t y Jo s h A n d e r s o n PR O J E C T PROJECT NO.: 21266 COPYRIGHT 2021 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION V1.0 BOUNDARY/ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY .. .. .. .. .. .. N 44565 RORY L. SYNSTELIEN LICENSE NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 7-27-2021 N CL I E N T Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060 QA/QC FIELD CREW DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY UPDATED BY DJT JRN CJ . OVERHEAD UTILITIES GASMAIN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER FIBER/COMM. LINE ELECTRIC LINE (RECORD) WATERMAIN ELECTRIC LINE GASMAIN (RECORD) CHAINLINK FENCELINE Linetype & Symbol Legend CONCRETE SURFACE PAVER SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVEL/LANDSCAPE SURFACE WOODEN FENCELINE GUARDRAIL WATERMAIN (RECORD) SANITARY SEWER (RECORD) STORM SEWER (RECORD) FIBER/COMM. LINE (RECORD) TELEPHONE LINE (RECORD) TELEPHONE LINE SIGN SANITARY MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE CABLE TV BOX TELEPHONE MANHOLE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE BOX TRAFFIC SIGNAL GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER WATER MANHOLE WATER VALVE AIR CONDITIONER BOLLARD CATCH BASIN ELECTRIC MANHOLE GAS VALVE FLAG POLE HANDICAP SYMBOL FOUND IRON MONUMENT HYDRANT CAST IRON MONUMENT SET IRON MONUMENT FLARED END SECTION POWER POLE UTILITY MANHOLE GUY WIRE CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE ROOF DRAIN SEWER CLEAN OUT FIRE CONNECTION WELL UTILITY VAULT POST INDICATOR VALVE GAS MANHOLE HAND HOLE FIBER/COMM. MANHOLE MAIL BOX FUEL TANK ELECTRICAL OUTLET SB SOIL BORING LIGHT POLE 80204002040 SCALE IN FEET SANMH XX RE= XX.XX IE= XX.XX SANMH XX RE= XX.XX IE= XX.XX SANMH XX RE= XX.XX IE= XX.XX SANMH XX RE= XX.XX IE= XX.XX SANMH XX RE= XX.XX IE= XX.XX SANMH XX RE= XX.XX IE= XX.XX PROPOSED GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX 6" WATER6" WATER 6" WATER 6" COMBINED DIP WATER SERVICE AND VALVE, STUB TO WITHIN 5' FROM BUILDING, COORD. W/MECH'L 6" COMBINED DIP WATER SERVICE AND VALVE, STUB TO WITHIN 5' FROM BUILDING, COORD. W/MECH'L STUB SANITARY TO 5' FROM BUILDING IE @ STUB=XX.XX COORD. W/MECH'L STUB SANITARY TO 5' FROM BUILDING IE @ STUB=XX.XX COORD. W/MECH'L MAKE WET TAP CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATER MAIN, COORD. WITH CITY UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM CB XX RIM=XX.XX IE=XX.XX CB XX RIM=XX.XX IE=XX.XX HAMEL ROAD Pavers Pavers (f.k.a. Rockford Road) 12" RCP 3 0 " R C P 18" RCP 8" PVC8" PVC 12" WM 15 " R C P SOO LINE RAILROAD (Width Varies) Bit u m i n o u s T r a i l (A Public R/W) Access POND [A] Sidewalk crosses property line. 5. 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 5' SETBACK 20' SETBACK 8' S E T B A C K 8.0' 8.0' 8' S E T B A C K GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 36' - 11" GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 15 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH 104' - 11" GARAGEGARAGE DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH GARAGE GARAGE DINING LIVING KITCHEN BATH DININGLIVING KITCHEN BATH GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H GA R A G E DI N I N G LI V I N G KI T C H E N BA T H 20 8 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060 COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c HA M E L T O W N H O M E S 34 2 H A M E L R D , M E D I N A , M N 5 5 3 4 0 18 5 0 W W A Y Z A T A B L V D , L O N G L A K E , M N 5 5 3 5 6 HA M E L T O W N H O M E S , L L C PR O J E C T PR E L I M I N A R Y : NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION .. .. .. .. .. .. PROJECT NUMBER:21266 .. .. .. .. .. .. 10/5/2021 CONCEPT PLAN DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:XX XX .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2021 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION C4.0 CONCEPT UTILITY PLAN .. .. .. .. .. .. GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: UTILITY LEGEND: CITY OF MEDINA UTILITY NOTES: 1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES. Know what's below. before you dig.Call R CATCH BASIN GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATER MAIN PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT MANHOLE FES AND RIP RAP 1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 2.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 4.UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION" AND "SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 5.CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE-USED OR PLACED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER. 6.ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) AWWA C151, ASME B16.4, AWWA C110, AWWA C153 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7.ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 26 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) ASTM D3034 & F679, OR SCH 40 ASTM D1785, 2665, ASTM F794, 1866) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE HDPE ASTM F714 & F2306 WITH ASTM D3212 SPEC FITTINGS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9.PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF FLARED END SECTION. 10.UTILITIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS. 11.CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.15 FEET PER DETAILS. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 12.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 13.HYDRANT TYPE, VALVE, AND CONNECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ARE INCIDENTAL. 14.A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAIN IS INCIDENTAL. 15.A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 16.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 17.CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES SHALL BE CORE-DRILLED. 18.COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS. 19.COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH ADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF. 20.ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUT. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 21.ALL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHERE REQUIRED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING. 22.2CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES. 23.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES. COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACT INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES. 24.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. 25.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT. APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES. 26.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 1109.0. 27.FOR ALL SITES LOCATED IN CLAY SOIL AREAS, DRAIN TILE MUST BE INSTALLED AT ALL LOW POINT CATCH BASINS 25' IN EACH DIRECTION. SEE PLAN AND DETAIL. INSTALL LOW POINT DRAIN TILE PER PLANS AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. 0 1" = 20'-0" 20'-0"10'-0" N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina City Council FROM: Nate Sparks DATE: December 1, 2021 MEETING DATE: December 7, 2021 RE: 3692 Pinto Drive – Conditional Use Permit & Site Plan Review CITY FILE: LR-21-303 Review Deadline Application Received: September 14, 2021 Conditional Use Permit Review Deadline: January 11, 2021 (extended) BACKGROUND Woodbury REI LLC has made an application for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to build a 2,590 square foot multi-tenant retail building with a drive through lane at 3692 Pinto Drive. The building is planned to have two tenant bays. One bay is proposed to be occupied by a Caribou Coffee shop with no indoor service. The other is a general retail space of 1,590 square feet. PROJECT SITE The site is approximately 0.6 acres in size and located on the east side of Pinto Drive south of Highway 55 and north of Tower Drive. It is south of the railroad right-of-way. The applicant owns a separate parcel of land south of the site on the corner of Tower and Pinto Drives. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as a “Commercial” land use. This designation “provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial corridors and are served or will be served by urban services.” The property is zoned CH, Commercial-Highway. The purpose of this district is to “provide a zoning district for a mix of retail and service businesses with visibility and proximity to arterial roadways which provide services for the residents of the city as well as the broader region.” The Agenda Item #7E retail use is permitted use within this district. Drive-through services require a conditional use permit. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-tenant building with a drive-through coffee shop and a retail store. The site is intended to share a primary access point to Tower Drive with the property to the south that would enter the property on the eastern edge. The applicant also proposes an exit to Pinto Drive on the western side of the lot. The drive-through lane is proposed to the north of the building with parking to the south. There is a small outdoor seating area in front of the drive-through coffee business. Otherwise, there is no area inside the building for seating. The retail space is on the eastern side of the building and is 1,590 square feet in area. APPLICATION REVIEW As stated above, the ordinance requires a CUP for the drive-through service use. The site also requires a site plan review to confirm conformance to the City’s requirements. Structure Setbacks The following table compares the proposed building to the CH District setback requirements: CH Requirement Proposed Front Setback 25 feet NA Setback to Major Collector 50 feet 63 feet Rear Setback 25 feet 42 feet Railroad Setback 0 feet 22 feet The proposed building is consistent with the district requirements. Site Access The applicant proposes a shared drive accessing across the lot to the south. The lots are currently under common ownership. A shared driveway easement will be required with maintenance requirements established. City and Hennepin County staff had substantial discussions with the applicant related to concerns surrounding the access onto Pinto Drive. Staff strongly recommended against any access to Pinto Drive because of proximity to the railroad tracks and Highway 55, proximity to turn lanes on Pinto Drive, likelihood of conflicts between vehicles stacked at the stop light and trying to exit the site, and introducing an additional crossing to the trail. While the access presents these concerns, because the property appears to be a separate lot (even though the owner also owns the parcel to the south), City and Hennepin County staff determined that it may be a better outcome to work with the applicant to limit to only an exit and to design in a way which is least problematic rather than entering into a dispute about access rights. Hennepin County has provided comments on the exit lane onto Pinto Drive. There is a trail adjacent to Pinto Drive along the west boundary of the property. The applicant shall provide additional signage and striping warning of a trail crossing. Parking The City requires 1 stall for every 250 square feet of retail space and 1 stall for every 3 seats in a restaurant. Staff does not believe the parking regulations specifically address the coffeeshop which has no indoor seating. In such cases, the City Council determines minimum parking requirements following review by the Planning Commission. The outdoor seating area in front of the coffee shop shows 8 seats. Based upon the restaurant calculation, this would require 3 parking stalls for the seating. The applicant stated that the largest shift at the coffee shop would have 5 employees. If one stall was required for each employee on the largest shift, a minimum of 8 stalls may be a reasonable minimum requirement for the coffeeshop. The retail store is 1,590 square feet in area which would require 7 parking stalls. The applicant is proposing 14 stalls which appears to generally function. Parking stalls are required to be 9 feet by 19 feet in area. The proposed stalls meet this requirement. Drive aisles in parking areas are required to be 24 feet in width, which is met, as well. Parking areas and drive lanes are required to be 25 feet from the right-of-way and 10 feet from interior lot lines. The site plan meets these standards. Drive-Through Services Standards In Subd. 7 of Section 838.5.08, the standards for drive through services are provided: (a) All parts of the drive-through lane(s) shall be no less than 200 feet from residential zoning districts. (b) Drive-through lanes shall not be permitted within required yard setback areas. (c) The site plan shall allow adequate pedestrian circulation, vehicle circulation, and vehicle stacking which does not interfere with on-site parking and loading. (d) The drive-through shall allow adequate stacking and circulation so as to avoid impacts on adjacent property or public right-of-way. (e) The City may require additional necessary conditions to limit the impact of drive-through lanes on surrounding property, including but not limited to: limiting hours of operation, restricting drive-through lane orientation, limiting the volume of loudspeakers and ordering devises, and/or requiring additional landscaping, berming, or other means of screening. The site is over 500 feet from residential property. Generally, the applicant has provided a pedestrian route into the site. There is stacking for 11 cars on the site. The applicant states that for a drive-through coffee shop of this type, the general stacking maximum is about 10 cars. This is based off the amount of time to serve customers typical to this business. The City’s parking ordinance requires a minimum of five stacking spaces for a drive-through use, but the CUP standards allow a higher amount if deemed necessary by the City. Lighting Outdoor lighting in the CH District is limited to 0.5 footcandles at the property lines. The applicant has provided a photometric plan generally meeting these requirements. Impervious Surfaces/Stormwater The parcel is about 0.61 acres in size. The total impervious surfaces proposed are about 0.47 acres. This includes the shared drive, which is on the lot to the south. Without this added impervious, the total is 67% which meets the maximum requirement of 75% in the CH District. The applicant proposes an underground filtration system for stormwater management to the west of the building. The City Engineer has provided review comments and staff recommends a condition that they be addressed. Architectural Standards The City’s standards for building materials and design are located in Section 838.5.01. The exterior finish is proposed to be 12% fiber cement lap siding, 28% percent stone, 17% glass, 7% fiber cement lap siding, 35% stucco and 8% metal. This generally meets the ordinance requirements. Building modulation is required once every 40 feet. The building is modulated by the varying design of the exterior finish and by the change in building setback. All buildings facing the public are required to have windows. All four sides have windows. The building is proposed with four-sided architecture. The plan was modified after the Planning Commission meeting to meet the recommendations of the Commission regarding the architecture facing Highway 55. Buildings are permitted to be up to 45 feet in height. The proposed structure is about 17.5 feet in height. Tree Preservation The applicant proposes to remove 20 of the 21 significant trees on the lot and 2 on the lot to the south to allow for the construction of the building, parking lot, drive-through, and shared access drive. The average size of a significant tree on this site is 14.2 inches in diameter. The tree preservation ordinance would permit 15% of the trees on the site to be removed for “initial site development” and an additional 20% of trees on the site to be removed for other activities. This would equate to 7 trees allowed to be removed without replacement. Additionally, two trees may be removed from the site as an exception from the ordinance. There are 302 inches of trees proposed for removal on the lot while 1 significant tree of 10 inches in diameter is being preserved. The required replacement of about 114 inches. Replacement trees are required to be a minimum of 2 inches in diameter. This would result in the need for about 57 replacement trees. The applicant proposes some additional trees on-site, but this many trees could not be planted on the property. Payment to the City’s reforestation/forest management fund could account for the remainder. The two trees being removed on the lot to the south will be counted against tree requirements on that lot upon development. Landscaping The landscaping plan is required to have 1 overstory or evergreen tree for every 50 feet of lot perimeter, 1 ornamental tree for every 100 feet, and 1 understory shrub for every 30 feet. The perimeter of the lot after subtracting right-of-way is 626 feet, resulting in the requirement of 13 overstory, 7 decorative, and 21 shrubs. The applicant is landscaping in excess of these amounts, and the additional 15 inches could constitute replacement trees. Utilities A utility plan has been provided but there are not significant public improvements required for construction of the building. Comments from the City Engineer are attached. Signage The applicant is proposing two wall signs on the south elevation, one on the west, and two on the north. Wall signs are permitted up to 89 square feet on the north and south sides and up to about 50 square feet on the west side. The proposed signage is under these amounts. There is a proposed ground monument sign depicted on the site plan but no architectural renderings of this sign. One free standing sign up to 80 square feet and 20 feet in height is permitted. Such signage has to be 10 feet from all property lines, which appears to be met. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW Conditional uses may be approved by the City, provided the use meets the review criteria found in Section 825.39 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. STAFF COMMENTS Subject to the conditions noted below, it appears that building and site layout could conform to code requirements. The proposed drive through service use is not within the proximity of a use where it could be viewed as incompatible. Therefore, Staff does recommend approval. Development of this site separately from the lot to the south caused challenges for this site layout and staff is concerned that construction on the 0.4 acre site to the south will have additional challenges. After application of setback requirements and parking and with the shared drive across the eastern side, there will be very limited space for the establishment of a use. The applicant has stated no plan for this lot and has not depicted any sort of demonstration use or layout. Also, the parking, while meeting code, is primarily along one side of the drive and limited. Sharing parking with the lot to the south would likely make for a far more efficient site layout and make both lots more comfortably meet the parking demands that may arise from successful businesses. Alternatively, combining the two lots and making one larger building would likely result in a more effective and efficient site layout. It does appear the parcel is separate, so staff encouraged the applicant to consider these alternatives, but is not recommending denial of this request. However, staff recommend a condition acknowledging that the owner’s actions of developing the sites separately are what is causing the challenges. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at their November 9 meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached for reference. One person spoke at the hearing, raising concerns with how vehicles commonly back-up through the proposed access to Pinto and sometimes through Tower Drive. Commissioners generally believed the drive-thru use was good for the site. Some noted that, although the City couldn’t require it, they believed it would be preferable for the two lots to be combined and developed with a single, larger building. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request with the following conditions, (which included modification of the architecture which has been met by the revised plans submitted by the applicant): 1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement satisfactory to the City which shall include the requirements described below as well as other relevant requirements of City ordinance or policy. 2. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans received by the City on October 28, 2021 and November 22, 2021, except as modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction. 3. The Applicant shall provide a letter of credit prior to any site construction in an amount recommended by the City Engineer to ensure completion of the required improvements. 4. The applicant shall grant drainage and utility easements over all utilities, stormwater improvements, and drainageways. 5. It is acknowledged that the proposed shared access occupies a portion of the adjacent lot owned by the Applicant. Any impact of such access on the future development site shall not constitute a practical difficulty for development of the site and results because of the actions of the Applicant. 6. The Applicant shall include signage and striping warning of the trail crossing. 7. The Applicant shall provide compensation for planting the 99 inches of replacement trees off-site. 8. A shared driveway easement/agreement shall be required with the lot to the south. 9. Details on the free-standing sign shall be provided conforming to code requirements. 10. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the stormwater improvements on the Property and shall execute and record a stormwater maintenance agreement. 11. All comments from the City Engineer and City Attorney shall be addressed. 12. The Applicant shall obtain necessary permits for the Department of Health, Hennepin County, and any other relevant agency. 13. The tree removal on the southern lot shall be incorporated into any plan review for that site. POSSIBLE ACTION Motion to direct staff to draft a resolution granting approval for the requested conditional use permit and site plan review with the list of conditions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Excerpt from draft 11/9/2021 Planning Commission minutes 2. Engineering comments 3. Applicant narrative 4. Applicant drive-thru capacity description 5. Plans Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Woodbury REI LLC – 3692 Pinto Drive – Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review of Construction of 2,590 Square Foot Multi-Tenant Retail with Drive-Thru (PID 1211823230013) Sparks presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan Review for a 2,590 square foot multi-tenant building which would have two tenant bays. He noted that one tenant would be a drive-thru coffee shop. He reviewed the zoning of the property. He stated that this site would be proposed to be developed with a shared access for the property and adjacent property, which is under common ownership, to Tower Drive along with the exit to Pinto Drive. He reviewed details of the proposed project including setbacks, tree replacement and noting that the free-standing sign details would be required. He displayed the proposed layout, explaining how traffic would circulate through the site. He reviewed the parking requirements and explained how that would relate to the proposed uses. He noted that while ideally, they would like more, staff believes that the parking proposed would meet the minimum requirements. He commented that there is not much buildable area for the portion of the site to the south and therefore it could make sense to provide additional parking or develop the two portions together. He noted that the proposal is only for the northern portion of the site and does meet the applicable standards. He provided details on the stacking that would be available within the drive-thru lane, which was based on the business model of the company to ensure sufficient space. He provided additional details on tree preservation requirements, noting that there is not adequate space for the necessary replacement and therefore a portion of that would need to be done through payment to the City’s reforestation account. He displayed the architectural renderings, noting that updated plans have been provided to ensure four-sided architecture. He stated that staff finds that the drive-thru lane generally meets the CUP criteria and would be acceptable. He stated that the Site Plan also generally meets the requirements. He noted that staff believes that this is somewhat of a missed opportunity to develop the lot to the south at the same time because of the common ownership but recognized that these are separate parcels, and the City cannot require them to be developed together. He stated that staff finds that the applications general meet Code requirements and recommend approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Popp referenced the mention to the Hennepin County comments for the access to Pinto Drive noting that he did not see the comments or response in the packet. Sparks commented that in order to have that access point, the comment from Hennepin County would need to be addressed, therefore an adjustment would need to be made. He stated that as long as the necessary adjustments are made, the access would be acceptable. Popp referenced the stacking available for 11 vehicles, which exceeds the City requirements. He noted that a previous rendition showed 12 vehicles and asked if that had been adjusted for some reason. Sparks commented that he believed that it was always shown as 11, but the City first desired 12. He noted that once the data was provided by the business, the City accepted 11. Piper asked if this is the same site that had been reviewed in the past for a storage use. It was confirmed to be so. Charles Shots, representing the applicant, commented that they originally proposed a storage facility on the site but there had been a number of local objectives. He stated that his client has worked extremely hard to find a use compatible with the area and to find retail uses. He stated that they have worked closely with staff and Hennepin County to find a solution that would work for everyone to create a successful project. He hoped that the Commission would support the project. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 2 Nielsen stated that she was a member of the Commission when the storage proposal came through and noted that she is pleased to see this use instead. She asked if there is a vision for the south lot or the reasoning why that is not being considered at this time. Shots replied that it was not in the best interest of his client to do that at this time. He stated that there was an advantage to the limited square footage of the building as the retail climate is very challenging at this time. He noted that the retail use is to be determined at this time, but the coffee tenant is already on board. He explained that it did not make sense to add additional retail space without known tenants. Nielsen stated that staff proposed 15 conditions and asked if there is opposition to any of those conditions. Shots replied that they support the conditions as proposed. He noted that they worked closely with staff and Hennepin County for the right out only at Pinto Drive and did not believe additional adjustments would be necessary for that exit. Nielsen asked if there is an analysis to the impact to the other existing Caribou. Shots replied that if that were an issue, he did not believe Caribou would be interested in the project. He noted that generally the drive-thru only concept supports the other existing locations. Popp stated that he was hoping there would be cannibalization of some of the current clientele for the existing Caribou location, as the drive-thru lane often has long stacking in that location. Shots commented that he cannot say for sure whether that would be the case, but it would be feasible that some customers using drive-thru may shift to the new location. Sedabres referenced the right turn lane that goes over the trail crossing and asked if there have been thoughts about traffic counts and when the highest periods of activity would occur. Shots replied that the peak time occurs in the early morning hours between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. He stated that they are respectful of the trail and feel that it would be a part of the business community for the store, therefore they are welcoming and want to provide access to the business from the trail. He stated that they would place signage and did not anticipate any conflicts. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Jason McElfresh, 852 Hamel Road, commented that Pinto Drive often backs up to the stop sign and asked if left turns would be allowed for Tower Drive. Finke commented that Pinto Drive is a County roadway, therefore the City would need to coordinate with the County. He stated that signs could be posted to alert drivers not to block the intersection. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Sedabres commented that he is supportive of the request and believes this makes sense given the constraints on the property. He stated that he is not familiar with how much the trail is used and was uncertain if there would be conflict. He noted that if the trail could be marked appropriately, he would support this. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 11/09/2021 Minutes 3 Rhem agreed that this is a great development that makes sense for the space. Popp agreed that this is a good use of the space and agrees with the conditions of approval suggested by staff. Piper agreed with the comments of the Commission. She stated that this is a great idea, and she is pleased to see it. She noted that she is curious as to how the southern lot will develop in the future. Galzki confirmed that he is also supportive of this request. He stated that he was also a member of the Commission when the storage use came forward, noting that he supported that request. He noted that he does believe that this will be a much better fit for the site. He stated that the trail is not heavily used during the morning hours when the coffee business would experience its peak. He stated that he does see value in having two accesses onto Tower with one way traffic flow as that could accommodate a future development to the south and would allow for additional greenspace and outdoor seating. He understood that is not the direction the applicant chose to follow and supports the request as submitted. Nielsen stated that she also supports this and believes it to be a good use of the property. She noted that ideally, she would like to see something more integrated with the southern lot but understands that is not how it is presented. Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review with the conditions recommended by staff. A roll call vote was performed: Galzki aye Piper aye Popp aye Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carries unanimously. Finke commented that this will move forward to the City Council at its December 7th meeting. K:\018977-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-28 Submittal\_2021-11-04 Pinto Retail CUP & Site Plan Review - WSB Comments.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M November 4, 2021 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Pinto Drive Retail Site Plan Review – Engineering Plan Review City Project No. LR-21-303 WSB Project No. 018977-000 Dear Mr. Finke: WSB staff have reviewed the Pinto Drive Retail site plan submittal dated October 28, 2021. The applicant proposes to construct one commercial building and one parking lot with 13 total parking spaces. The proposed project will generate approximately 0.43 acres of new impervious on the existing 1.17 acre site located at 3692 Pinto Drive. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. General 1. Comments on the landscaping plans will be provided under separate cover by City Staff. 2. The City Fire Marshall will provide pertinent comments concerning fire truck access and hydrant locations under separate cover. 3. Any work within Hennepin County right of way will require a permit, add a note to the plan to this affect. The applicant shall also meet the requirements of the County’s plat review committee. 4. A cross-access easement will be required for the proposed driveway to Tower Drive, see City attorney comments. 5. In order to calculate a letter of credit and construction engineering escrow amounts for the final development agreement, an engineer’s estimate (in Excel format) of the proposed utility improvements and a schedule for completion of construction will be required. The estimate should also include the cost of landscaping items. Existing Conditions & Demolition Plans (C101) 6. Coordinate with Hennepin County on the proposed removals within Pinto Drive. Specifically, they may require that a strip of bituminous is removed in front of the curb to allow for proper forming of the concrete. 7. There are two remaining trees near the easterly property line shown to remain. Review grading and confirm trees will not be impacted; contours may need to be revised to protect trees. Pinot Drive Retail Site Plan Review – Engineering Review November 4, 2021 Page 2 K:\018977-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-28 Submittal\_2021-11-04 Pinto Retail CUP & Site Plan Review - WSB Comments.docx 8. Label all existing public utilities shown on the plans include the size and material type. The watermain on the westerly side is not labeled. Site Plan (C201) 9. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures and required turn around space as required by the Fire Marshall. In-progress, it appears the fire truck will drive-over the curb at the site exit to Pinto due to the tight curve/skew. 10. A delivery truck circulation plan should be provided including verifying that all truck turning movements can be accommodated, including fire trucks. 11. Note placement of valley gutter across new driveway connection at Tower Drive. The plans/installation should meet City standards. In progress, the plans should show more clearly graphically that the proposed valley gutter meets City standards. 12. Note specific locations of ped ramps, add white striping across the driveway similar to Casey’s and McDonalds on the other side of TH 55. Confirm with County ped ramps will not be required for the trail crossing the driveway on Pinto. 13. Add the appropriate signage warning of a pedestrian crossing, right-turn signage, other signage appropriate for a right-only exit, including a “right-out” and “do not enter” signs. 14. Confirm there is adequate space for a vehicle to back out of the northern “wait stall” without being impacted by the vehicle at the drive thru window. 15. Reduce the severity of the curve at the “right-out” site exit to allow for vehicles to face more perpendicular at the trail crossing. Grading Plan (C301) 16. Maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2% and maximum 33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall also be a minimum of 2.0%. Show more arrows and grade percentages of the pavement surface and curb lines with future plans. 17. At EOF locations for all basins, show the grading/contours in those areas to facilitate the overflow conveyance. Label EOF locations and elevations. Complete. 18. Grade/extend a dedicated swale along the easterly share property line (southeasterly portion of the site). Not complete, a portion of the adjacent site appears to direct drainage towards this site (southwest corner), consider ways to direct this drainage into the swale. To the north the swale begins to direct runoff from this site to the adjacent site, consider ways to maintain the drainage within the existing drainage and utility easement. 19. Consider showing rough proposed grading for future lot to the south to confirm what is being proposed with the current improvements will work from a grading/drainage standpoint. Utility Plan (C401) 20. Based on the current design, it appears the applicant will be required to apply for a permit from DLI, provide copies to the City. Pinot Drive Retail Site Plan Review – Engineering Review November 4, 2021 Page 3 K:\018977-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-28 Submittal\_2021-11-04 Pinto Retail CUP & Site Plan Review - WSB Comments.docx 21. Hydrant locations (existing & proposed) shall be reviewed and approved of by the City Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ influence radius (approximately 400’ spacing) is required around building (hose length). Provide an exhibit showing hydrant influence spacing. In-progress, exhibit provided and awaiting approval by City Fire Marshall. 22. The watermain connections to the building(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshall. Show the location of the PIV and curb stop location on the plan(s). The City requires that domestic and fire services are separate taps from the main. A separate curb stop is required for the domestic service and gate valve (PIV) for the fire line. In- progress, awaiting approval by City Fire Marshall. 23. The domestic water service is shown to be located under the proposed monument sign, consider moving monument sign, water service, or both. In progress, can this be moved further away while maintaining a minimum of 10’ separation from the underground storm sewer treatment area? 24. On the final construction plans add the following notes. Complete. o The City will not be responsible for any additional costs incurred associated with variations in the utility asbuilt plans, elevations, or locations. o Watermain/services shall have a minimum of 7.5’ of cover. o The City will require televising for sanitary sewer pipe installations prior to accepting a warranty for the utility systems; provide report and video files to the City for review. 25. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. Complete, it appears the public sewer main is already within an existing drainage and utility easement (southeast portion of the site); water service to the northwest is considered a private line. 26. Where watermain crosses any storm sewer or sanitary sewer, add a note at each location to the effect of “Maintain 18-inch Separation, 4” Rigid Insulation”. If offsets are required where conflicts with normal watermain pipe placement occur, add appropriate details to the plans. Complete. 27. The existing sanitary manhole will need a new infi-shield installed, note as such on the plan. Add an note for all sewer manholes to add a “flex seal” or approved equal as a sealant to the interior chimney section. Complete. 28. The City does not allow service lines to be connected directly into manholes, connect the proposed service to the existing mainline south of the manhole. One of the cleanouts for the new building is shown within the drive lane/entrance to the site; this may cause damage to the cleanout over time, consider moving this to the curved island to provide more protection. 29. Provide sewer service stub to future lot (across the driveway) from the existing main. Complete. 30. Label the pipe material/strength designation for sewer mains (i.e. SDR 35, SDR 26, etc.) and class of RCP for storm sewer. For those storm sewer pipes crossing into County right of way, RCP will be required. 31. On the final plans, note the sizes of the proposed storm sewer structures. Complete. Pinot Drive Retail Site Plan Review – Engineering Review November 4, 2021 Page 4 K:\018977-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-28 Submittal\_2021-11-04 Pinto Retail CUP & Site Plan Review - WSB Comments.docx Erosion Control & SWPPP Plans (C501, C604, C605, C606) 32. Stormwater Narrative says that the project will disturb over an acre of soils. Plan set shows that the disturbance will be 0.8 acres, please verify the amount of soil disturbance to clarify if a NPDES permit and SWPPP are required. 33. Erosion control blanket is required for slopes 4:1 or greater. 34. Provide notes on methods proposed for temporary soil stabilization. 35. Provide fertilizer type proposed in combination with the seed mix. 36. Please add surface water flow direction arrows for pre and post construction conditions. 37. Add additional silt fence to the southwesterly portion of the site as perimeter control. Not location of staging and/or material storage (on adjacent site?). 38. Additional comments will be provided upon confirmation of total areas of disturbance and submittal of final plans. Construction Details Plans (C601, C602, C603, C607) 39. Utilize City of Medina standard details where applicable. Include the detail for a valley gutter. Add sanitary sewer manhole details. Complete. 40. Refer to record plans for the Pinto Drive project; Hennepin County may require that the pavement section and/or curb meet their standards where disturbed within their right of way. 41. The final pavement section shall be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site and may need to include a thicker aggregate section and/or a sand section. The City recommends a geotextile stabilization fabric between the class 5 and underlying subgrade. The pavement section for the primary fire truck access route shall meet a 9-ton design. 42. A full review of standard details will be conducted with the final plan submittal. Traffic & Access 43. Hennepin County has jurisdiction for review and approval of access to Pinto Drive. The applicant will need to coordinate with the County on the proposed access and utility connections; permit(s) will be required. 44. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be 919 vehicle per day (vpd), 94 AM peak hour trips and 55 PM peak hour trips, assuming a 1,000sf Caribou Coffee and 1,530sf of general retail on the site. Pinto Drive is classified as a Major Collector in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Pinto Drive has an existing ADT of 2000vpd south of TH 55. Currently there is a short 75ft channelized left turn lane southbound at Tower Drive. Full access to the site will be from a driveway on Tower Drive approximately 160ft east of Pinto Drive. A right-out access would also be provided directly to Pinto Drive. 45. Access to the southerly site should be from the proposed driveway to Tower Drive. 46. With the number of proposed trips an analysis should be completed to verify that the lane configuration at the Pinto Drive and Tower Drive would be adequate to accommodate the proposed site, especially in the AM peak hour. Pinot Drive Retail Site Plan Review – Engineering Review November 4, 2021 Page 5 K:\018977-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-28 Submittal\_2021-11-04 Pinto Retail CUP & Site Plan Review - WSB Comments.docx 47. The site plan shows a drive-through stacking (queue) for 11 vehicles. If a 12th vehicle is queued, access to the parking lot would be blocked unless a vehicle would use the exiting lane to bypass the queued vehicles. Based on the table below, this configuration would accommodate the average condition, however it would not accommodate the 85th Percentile Queue. It would be recommended that queuing for an additional 2 to 3 vehicles be provided. Coffee Shop Drive-Through Queue Study Results (Minnesota Locations) Number of Data Points 14 days Average Max Queue 11 vehicles Range 7 to 16 vehicles 85th Percentile Queue 13.5 vehicles 33rd Percentile Queue 10 vehicles Source: Drive-Through Queue Generation, February 2012 Stormwater 48. Currently the applicant is proposing to connect into Hennepin County’s storm sewer system on Pinto Drive. If this is the only feasible option for connection to the storm sewer the applicant will need to provide additional information on the proposed connect. o Model the County storm sewer system to show it provides the necessary capacity for this project. o Work with the County for modeling and rate restrictions for the connection in Pinto Drive. o Provide response as to what the proposed storm sewer service connection to the future southerly lot is intended for. 49. The development does not trigger and will not need to meet the appropriate watershed standards for Elm Creek Water Management Commission. Complete. 50. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with City’s Stormwater Design Manual. 51. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface. By satisfying the volume requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. Follow the City’s Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirement if infiltration is not feasible. o Refer to Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual for alternatives to infiltration and the credit given to each practice.  Filtration is credited at 50%.  Currently plans are showing construction of 17,249.76 sf of new impervious. filtration of 2.2” over the surface requires a treatment volume of 3,162 cf. The underground filtration system provides 3,332 CF of volume below the outlet, which meets the City requirements. Pinot Drive Retail Site Plan Review – Engineering Review November 4, 2021 Page 6 K:\018977-000\Admin\Docs\2021-10-28 Submittal\_2021-11-04 Pinto Retail CUP & Site Plan Review - WSB Comments.docx o Water quality requirements for the project are considered met with the volume control requirements. 52. The City encourages consideration of the future lot to the south with regard to sizing of the underground stormwater treatment structure. There is no variance for stormwater treatment requirements if the future site layout does not facilitate space for a separate treatment area. 53. Provide rational and calculations for storm sewer pipe sizing. Complete. 54. Rate control for new developments must be equal to or less than existing conditions. Currently plans show Pinto Drive storm sewer rates increased for the 2-year storm. o Developer is requesting a variance for the 2-year rate restrictions based on the design guidelines. Using a six inch diameter outlet structure may supersede the rate control requirements. 55. Provide drainage arrows and slope on storm sewer plan to show the direction of flow over the impervious surfaces to verify that all new impervious is being directed to the underground filtration chamber. Complete. 56. Provide HWL and EOF for underground filtration to verify freeboard is being me on the site. Complete. 57. Show overland EOF’s throughout the site. Complete. 58. Provide operation and maintenance plan for the Stormtech Underground Filtration system. Wetlands 59. There are no wetlands present on the project parcels. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer September City of Med 2052 Coun Medina, M Re: 36 Dear Plann W drive-throu with the lar the vacant accounted sites. The p Per 838.5.0 (a) All part There is no (b) Drive-th The drive-t (c) The site interfere w Drive-throu exists. Ped vehicle sta (d) The driv public right Ample veh property or (e) The Cit property, in volume of l screening. The landsc properties. Respectful Corey Eng Project Ma Reprise De r 14, 2021 dina Planning D nty Road 24 N 55340 692 Pinto Drive ning Departme We are proposin gh service for rger commercia property to the for. The plan p property is zon 08 Subd. 7, the ts of the drive-t o residential zo hrough lanes sh through lane ha e plan shall allo with on-site park ugh stacking is destrian circula cking is provid ve-through sha t-of-way. icle stacking is r public right-of ty may require ncluding but no loudspeakers a cape plan provi Caribou Coffe ly, lund anager esign Department e, Hamel, MN 5 nt, ng to develop th a Caribou coffe al district it is a e south. All req provides for ap ned Commercia e following con through lane(s) oning within 200 hall not be perm as been positio ow adequate pe king and loadin separated from tion between th ed to ensure th all allow adequa s provided for 1 f-way. additional nece ot limited to: lim and ordering de ides extensive ee operates dur 55340 – New M he existing vac ee shop and a part of, and th uired utilities, a propriate scree al-Highway, and ditional use req ) shall be no le 0 feet of the sit mitted within re oned outside al edestrian circu g. m the parking lo he parking lot a hat stacking ne ate stacking an 2 cars at the d essary conditio miting hours of o evises, and/or screening to m ring typical bus Multi-Tenant Re cant lot with a n retail tenant as he proposed im access roads, d ening of the driv d a conditional quirements will ess than 200 fe te. All adjacent equired yard se l required yard ulation, vehicle ot, so no confli and front entry ever disrupts cir nd circulation s drive-through la ons to limit the i operation, restr requiring addit minimize the im siness hours of etail new 2,590 SF m s yet unidentifie mprovements w drainage syste ve-through lan use permit is l be met: et from residen t properties are etback areas. d setback areas circulation, and ict between pa does not cross rculation within so as to avoid im ane. Stacking w impact of drive ricting drive-thr tional landscap mpact of drive-th f 5:00 AM to 8:0 12400 Po multi-tenant ret ed. This use w will facilitate futu ems, and parkin ne to minimize i required for dri ntial zoning dis e commercially s d vehicle stack rking and drive s the drive-thro n the parking lo mpacts on adja will not impact t e-through lanes rough lane orie ping, berming, o hrough lane on 00 PM daily. Architectu ortland Avenue Bur Office Fa tail building wit will be compatib ure developmen ng needs have impact on adja ive-through ser stricts. zoned. king which does e thru stacking ough lane. Suff ot. acent property the adjacent s on surroundin entation, limiting or other means n surrounding re & Planni e South, Suite 1 rnsville, MN 553 e: (952) 252-40 ax:(952) 252-40 th ble nt of been acent rvice. s not ficient or ng g the s of ng 100 337 042 043 October 25 City of Med 2052 Coun Medina, M Re: 36 C W Dear Plann W as well as survey hav requiremen additional p forward, an R drive-thru o “Cabin Driv intentionall cabin must DT. Where A traditional c can serve 4 Caribou sh proposed M the propos spaces. 11 Respectful Corey Eng Project Ma Reprise De 5, 2021 dina Planning D nty Road 24 N 55340 692 Pinto Drive ity Project No. WSB Project No ning Departme We have revised comments prov ve been revised nts to 14 stalls parking stalls h n access easem Regarding drive only “Cabin” sto ve Thrus opera y designed for t be heated in l eas reports and typical order r coffee shop dri 4 cars in the tim hould need only Medina store. F ed Caribou con stacking spac ly, lund anager esign Department e, Hamel, MN 5 LR-21-303 o. 018977-000 nt, d plans in respo vided by consu d per city comm (5 required for have been adde ment agreemen -thru stacking, ore concept: ate average 2:5 speed of servi ess than a min d articles sugg uns through th ive-thru with a me normally re y 75% of the st For the 85th pe ncept should b ces are provide 55340 – New M onse to engine ulting planner N ments. Two pat r Caribou emplo ed to meet thes nt will be devel Caribou provid 54 minutes, abo ice and to redu nute whereas tr est Starbucks e drive-thru on full menu to co quired to serve tacking that wo ercentile calcula e able to accom ed. Multi-Tenant Re eering commen Nate Sparks via tio tables have oyees, 2 for pa se off-street pa oped for the dr ded the followin out a minute fa uce wait times a raditional store DT operates at ly concept Car omplete an orde e 3 at a full men ould be required ated stacking o mmodate that s etail – Plan Re nts from Jim St a phone and e- been eliminate atio use, and 7 arking needs fo riveway crossin ng data specific aster than tradit and stacking. es will have long t around 4:00 m ribou stores in er. In other wo nu traditional d d for a tradition of 13.5 cars cite same level of t 12400 Po visions remel in a lette -mail. All sheet ed to reduce th for the retail te or the site. As t ng the property c to the propos tional drive thru By example, fo ger prep times minutes.” less than 75% rds, the propos drive-thru. On t nal coffee shop ed in the engin traffic with roug Architectu ortland Avenue Bur Office Fa er dated 9-23-2 ts except for th he parking enant), and he project mov y to the south. sed limited men us, they were ood items in the that slow dow of the time it ta sed Caribou co he basis of this p drive-thru for t eering comme ghly 10 stacking re & Planni e South, Suite 1 rnsville, MN 553 e: (952) 252-40 ax:(952) 252-40 2021 e site ves nu e n the akes a oncept s data, the ents, g ng 100 337 042 043 U G E U G E U G E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E OH E OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E304819PARKING INFORMATION PARKING STALLS 13 STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS 1 STALLS DRIVE THRU STALLS 11 STALLS TOTAL STALLS 25 STALLS PROPERTY INFORMATION TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 1.176 AC DISTURBED AREA 0.8 ±AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.081 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.477 AC NET INCREASE IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.396 AC PROPOSED SITE LEGEND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER TIPPED CURB AND GUTTER TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE PAINTED DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAINTED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FLOW LINE, CENTERLINE OF FENCE, EDGE OF PAVEMENT, OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3. ALL INTERIOR PARKING STALL STRIPING SHALL BE 4" AND YELLOW IN COLOR. 4. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL STRIPING, ACCESS AISLE, AND SYMBOL SHALL BE PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN FULL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 6. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 7. WORK WITHIN PINTO DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRES A PERMIT FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FROM THE CITY FOR THE WORK CONDUCTED. 8. COUNTY ROAD SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALL ON SQUARE TUBE POSTS PER MNDOT STANDARD DETAILS. 9. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED UTILITIES. 1-800-252-1166. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:LICENSE #: PRINTED NAME:JEREMY E. ANDERSON 4422310/06/21 HAMEL, MN DRAWN BY DATE ISSUED JOB NO. CHECKED BY PROJECT LOCATION: PI N T O D R I V E R E T A I L NE W M U L T I - T E N A N T S H E L L B U I L D I N G 36 9 2 P I N T O D R I V E , H A M E L , M N 5 5 3 4 0 RJK JEA 21180 SITE PLAN APPROVAL 09-14-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-25-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-28-2021 0'20'40' 1 2 CONCRETE STOOP (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) B6 CURB AND GUTTER (B624 ON STREET, B612 ON SITE) CONCRETE SIDEWALK/PATIO/SLAB (SEE CIVIL DETAILS) TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN RAMP BOLLARD (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) PATIO FURNITURE (BY OTHERS) SPEAKER BOX, MENU BOARD, AND CLEARANCE ARM SIGN (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) CONCRETE PAD WITH SENSOR LOOPS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) PYLON MONUMENT SIGN (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) PAINTED MESSAGE, CROSS WALK, STOP BAR, AND DIRECTIONAL ARROWS PATIO RAILING (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) BIKE RACK (SEE ARCHITECTURAL) "NO PARKING" SIGN & POST "STOP" SIGN AND POST "DO NOT ENTER" (R5-1) 36"X36" SIGN AND POST, FACING EXIT DRIVE LIGHT POLE (SEE ELECTRICAL) REMOVE & REPLACE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY FOR UTILITY SERVICES INSTALLATION. CONCRETE DRIVE APRON W/ SIDEWALK PROPOSED 4" PARKING STRIPING SOUND BARRIER FENCING & LANDSCAPING CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY STANDARDS BITUMINOUS STREET REPAIR PER CITY STANDARDS 4" WHITE CROSSWALK STRIPING REPLACE BITUMINOUS TRAIL "ONE WAY ONLY" (R6-1) 54"x18" SIGN & POST, FACING EXIT DRIVE "NO U-TURN" SIGN & POST, FACING NORTH 5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK "NO RIGHT TURN" (R3-1) 36"x36" SIGN & POST, FACING SOUTH 3 KEY NOTES: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 STAT E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 SOO L I N E R A I L R O A D PI N T O D R I V E TOWER DRIVE CI V I L S I T E P L A N C201 UN D E R G R O U N D ST O R M W A T E R SY S T E M PROPOSED BUILDING 22 2 4 . 0 0 24.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 R6.0 0 R 1 8 . 0 0 R 3 0 . 0 0 R30.00R18.0 0 R1 . 9 0 R6 . 0 0 R30.63 R29.34 R20 . 0 0 R 2 0 . 0 0 27 . 3 1 8.71 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 12 12 13 16 30 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 2 2 20 21 22 15 14 12 1 9 . 0 0 ( T Y P ) 9.00 9.009.00 (TYP) 18 . 0 0 R 2 . 0 0 2.98 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 PR O P O S E D E A S E M E N T 40.00 4.67 29 29 17 30 9.00 R10.0 0 R 8 . 0 0 R 2 7 . 0 0 R2 . 0 0 13 . 8 5 1 SANITARY MANHOLERIM: 1003.29INV: BENCHMARKTOP NUT OF HYDRANTELEV:1005.34 SANITARY MANHOLE RIM: 1003.67 INV: 989.62 SANITARY MANHOLE RIM: 1004.61 INV: 989.36 CATCH BASIN RIM: 1003.96 INV: 999.21 CATCH BASINRIM: 1004.93INV W: 999.15INV NE: 999.05 INV E: 999.01 CATCH BASINRIM: 1004.69INV: 1000.24 CULVERTINV: 992.69 CATCH BASINRIM: 995.06INV S: 992.26INV NE:992.21 CATCH BASIN RIM: 995.33 INV W: 991.83 INV SE: 991.78 CATCH BASIN RIM: 995.30 INV: 992.25 CATCH BASIN RIM: 995.18 INV W: 991.88 CATCH BASINRIM: 992.92INV: 991.47 CATCH BASIN RIM: 998.75 INV: 995.05 STORM MANHOLE RIM: 999.18 INV E: 994.58 INV N: 994.38 INV E: 994.58 INV S: 994.56 15" RCP 18 " R C P 15 " R C P 18" R C P 18 " R C P 15" RCP 12" R C P 8" P V C 2 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S FO FO F O FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F O F O F O FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T U G E U G E U G E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E OH E UGT UGT l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllllllllll16" DIP WATERMAIN BENCHMARKTOP NUT OF HYDRANTELEV:1006.51 S69°5 7 ' 3 8 " E 2 1 5 . 4 8 S0 0 ° 1 6 ' 1 9 " W 2 1 0 . 0 2 S86°50'19"W 203.14 N0 0 ° 1 6 ' 1 9 " E 2 9 5 . 0 6 PARCEL ID: 1211823230013 OWNER: WOOBURY REI, LLC PARCEL ID: 1211823230014 OWNER: WOOBURY REI, LLC 32" OAK 8" BIRCH 8" BIRCH 40" OAK 20" ELM 15" OAK 6" OAK 10" OAK 15" OAK 8" ASH 8" ASH 15" OAK 20" OAK 20" OAK 10" MAPLE 18" COTTONWOOD 10" BIRCH 12" OAK 15" OAK 10" PINE 6" BIRCH 20" OAK 10' BIRCH6" BIRCH 6" BIRCH 10" ASH 15" ASH 18" ASH 24" ASH 24" OAK OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OHE LEGEND HYDRANT SANITARY MANHOLE GATE VALVE POWER POLE LIGHT POLE CATCH BASIN SIGN DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE SHRUB PEDESTAL GUY WIRE BOLLARD POWER BOX ELECTRIC METER MONITORING WELL SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT WOOD FENCE CHAINLINK FENCE WIRE FENCE STORM SEWER LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE WATERMAIN OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND FIBER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND GAS LINE CONCRETE PAVEMENT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AGGREGATE SURFACING LANDSCAPING BUILDING UGT FO UGE GAS l W CO X NOTES: 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS & TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY: DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 120 17TH AVENUE W ALEXANDRIA, MN 56308 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND REMOVAL LIMITS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 3. SAWCUT CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK, OR REMOVE AT NEAREST EXPANSION JOINTS. 4. SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH AT ALL TIE-IN LOCATIONS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE ALL NECESSARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SITE STABILITY PRIOR TO EXECUTING ANY SITE REMOVALS. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS FOR REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AFFECTED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT. ALL PERMITS, APPLICATIONS, AND FEES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 7. ALL EXCESS OR WASTE MATERIAL GENERATED AS PART OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN FULL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 9. THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND/ OR RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING LOCATION AND ELEVATION TO ENSURE THAT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN) ARE NOT DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10. WORK WITHIN PINTO DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRES A PERMIT FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FROM THE CITY FOR THE WORK CONDUCTED. 11. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED UTILITIES. 1-800-252-1166. REMOVALS LEGEND = CURB REMOVAL = BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVAL = REMOVE TREE 1 2 SAWCUT EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SAWCUT EXISTING CURB & GUTTER OR REMOVE AT NEAREST EXPANSION JOINT REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER 3 4 KEY NOTES: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:LICENSE #: PRINTED NAME:JEREMY E. ANDERSON 4422310/06/21 HAMEL, MN DRAWN BY DATE ISSUED JOB NO. CHECKED BY PROJECT LOCATION: PI N T O D R I V E R E T A I L NE W M U L T I - T E N A N T S H E L L B U I L D I N G 36 9 2 P I N T O D R I V E , H A M E L , M N 5 5 3 4 0 RJK JEA 21180 SITE PLAN APPROVAL 09-14-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-25-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-28-2021 0'20'40' STAT E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 SOO L I N E R A I L R O A D PI N T O D R I V E TOWER DRIVE 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S & R E M O V A L S C101 1 1 1 3 3 3 GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S FO F O FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F O F O F O FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T U G E U G E U G E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E OH E UGT UGT l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllllllllll OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E l l ll > > > >30481999 8 997 999 9 9 8 9 9 9 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1000999 1001 99 9 999 99 9 99.20 99.3098.81 99.00 98.52 98.10 97.83 98.07 98.45 98.75 99.12 99.01 99.38 99.50 99.68 99.20 0.00 99.57 99.19 99.01 98.46 98.93 98.39 97.9598.77 97.76 98.48 97.84 99.50 99.50 98.93 98.57 1003.901003.90 98.89 98.94 99.20 99.50 99.89 98.8798.90 98.04 99.8599.22 98.54 98.57 98.35 99.41 98.97 98.90 > 98.44 99.30 98.50 98.86 99.51 99.09 98.98 98.71 99.38 GRADING LEGEND = EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR = EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR = EXISTING CONTOUR LABEL = PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR = PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR = PROPOSED CONTOUR LABEL = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION* = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION* = PROPOSED SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION *SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG CURB & GUTTER AND OTHER REVEALS ARE TO FLOWLINE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 100 NOTES: 1. THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND/ OR RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING LOCATION AND ELEVATION TO ENSURE THAT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN) ARE NOT DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. SIDEWALKS SHALL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.00% CROSS SLOPE, OR 5.00% LONGITUDINAL SLOPE. 3. CONCRETE ENTRANCES AND APPROACHES SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.00% CROSS SLOPE IN SIDEWALK AREAS. 4. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.00% CROSS SLOPE IN ALL DIRECTIONS. 5. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS. 6. ALL EXCESS OR WASTE MATERIAL GENERATED AS PART OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. 7. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL/SURFACE RESTORATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA. 8. IN ADDITION TO THESE PLANS, A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY INCLUDES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE DESIGN OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BMP. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE STORMWATER BOOK AND COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. 9. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 10. INFILTRATION AREAS SHALL NOT BE EXCAVATED TO FINAL GRADE UNTIL THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED. ONLY LOW IMPACT TRACK EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED WITHIN INFILTRATION AREAS. 11. SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN INDICATE FINISHED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS & GUTTER FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE GRADE. 12. WORK WITHIN PINTO DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRES A PERMIT FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FROM THE CITY FOR THE WORK CONDUCTED. 13. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED UTILITIES. 1-800-252-1166. XX.XX 1 2 MATCH INTO EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH INTO EXISTING CURB & GUTTER GRADE BREAK ADA PEDESTRIAN RAMP (SEE DETAILS) TAPER CURB REVEAL EXPOSE FOUNDATION 3 4 5 KEY NOTES: 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:LICENSE #: PRINTED NAME:JEREMY E. ANDERSON 4422310/06/21 HAMEL, MN DRAWN BY DATE ISSUED JOB NO. CHECKED BY PROJECT LOCATION: PI N T O D R I V E R E T A I L NE W M U L T I - T E N A N T S H E L L B U I L D I N G 36 9 2 P I N T O D R I V E , H A M E L , M N 5 5 3 4 0 RJK JEA 21180 SITE PLAN APPROVAL 09-14-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-25-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-28-2021 0'20'40' PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=1000.00 GR A D I N G P L A N C301 STAT E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 SOO L I N E R A I L R O A D PI N T O D R I V E TOWER DRIVE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 2 2 2 2 3 3 BENCHMARK (TOP NUT HYDRANT) ELEV:1005.34 BENCHMARK (TOP NUT HYDRANT) ELEV:1006.51 3 4 5 5 5 6 EOF FROM SYSTEM EL:797.25 1.8 0 % 2.08 % 2.01% 3. 4 7 % 4 . 4 0 % 4 . 4 0 % 4 . 0 9 % 2. 2 8 % 1 . 5 6 % 1. 4 9 % 1.49% 1.50% 1 . 5 0 % 5 GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S F O FO FO F O FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F O F O F O FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T U G E U G E U G E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E OH E UGT UGT l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllllllllll OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E l l ll > > > >304819> = EXISTING HYDRANT = EXISTING GATE VALVE = EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE = EXISTING STORM MANHOLE = EXISTING CATCH BASIN = EXISTING WATER LINE = EXISTING SANITARY LINE = EXISTING STORM LINE = PROPOSED CURB STOP = PROPOSED CLEANOUT = PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE = PROPOSED CATCH BASIN = PROPOSED WATER LINE = PROPOSED SANITARY LINE = PROPOSED STORM LINE D l UTILITY LEGEND l > NOTES: 1. THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN ARE APPROXIMATE. THEY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND/ OR RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING LOCATION AND ELEVATION TO ENSURE THAT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES (SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN) ARE NOT DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND COORDINATE BUILDING UTILITY CONNECTION SIZES, LOCATIONS, AND ELEVATIONS WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS. 3. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL/SURFACE RESTORATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA. 4. WATERMAIN/SERVICES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 7.5' OF COVER. 5. SEE WATER DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 6. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES IS REQUIRED AT ALL WATER LINE CROSSINGS WITH SANITARY SEWER OR STORM SEWER. THE WATER LINE SHALL NOT HAVE JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE CROSSING. INSULATE CROSSINGS WITH STORM SEWER. 7. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING FOR UNIT'S CONNECTION. 8. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 90'. 9. SANITARY SEWER SERVICES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 2.00% GRADE. 10. SEE SANITARY SEWER DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 11. ALL SANITARY MANHOLES SHALL HAVE FLEX-SEALS OR APPROVED EQUAL ADDED AS A SEALANT TO THE INTERIOR CHIMNEY SECTION. 12. ALL NONCONDUCTIVE PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A LOCATE (TRACER) WIRE PER MINNESOTA RULES, PART 7560.0150 13. ALL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE PLUMBING CODE. 14. ALL PIPING SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE PLUMBING CODE. 15. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL REMAIN VISIBLE FOR INSPECTION. 16. WORK WITHIN PINTO DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRES A PERMIT FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FROM THE CITY FOR THE WORK CONDUCTED. 17. THE CITY WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED ASSOCIATED WITH VARIATIONS IN THE UTILITY AS-BUILT PLANS, ELEVATIONS, OR BOTH. 18. THE CITY WILL REQUIRE TELEVISING FOR SANITARY SEWER PIPE INSTALLATIONS PRIOR TO ACCEPTING A WARRANTY FOR THE UTILITY SYSTEMS; PROVIDE REPORT AND VIDEO FILES TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW. 19. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM FOR BURIED UTILITIES. 1-800-252-1166 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:LICENSE #: PRINTED NAME:JEREMY E. ANDERSON 4422310/06/21 HAMEL, MN DRAWN BY DATE ISSUED JOB NO. CHECKED BY PROJECT LOCATION: PI N T O D R I V E R E T A I L NE W M U L T I - T E N A N T S H E L L B U I L D I N G 36 9 2 P I N T O D R I V E , H A M E L , M N 5 5 3 4 0 RJK JEA 21180 SITE PLAN APPROVAL 09-14-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-25-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-28-2021 0'20'40' PROPOSED BUILDING FFE=1000.00 4" CLEANOUT 45° BEND 11.25° BEND INV:993.77 CONNECT TO EXISTING 4" SEWER SERVICE APPROX INV:990.00 (FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH) 184 LF - 4" PVC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE @ 2.00% MIN. 124 LF - 1.5" PE WATER SERVICE @ 8' MIN. BURY STORM MANHOLE-4 - 48"∅ (FOR FUTURE CONNECTION) RIM:1002.00 INV:995.36 CATCH BASIN-2 - 36"∅ RIM:998.10 INV:994.68 CATCH BASIN-3 - 36"∅ RIM:997.83 INV:994.38 CATCH BASIN-1 - 36"∅ RIM:997.76 INV:994.11 STORM MANHOLE-1 - 48"∅ (OUTLET STRUCTURE) RIM:997.25 6" UNDERDRAIN INV:992.50 12" OUTLET INV:992.50 6" MANIFOLD INV:994.48 WEIR WALL TOP EL:995.30 EOF EL:797.25 100 YEAR HWL:995.49 STORM MANHOLE-2 - 48"∅ RIM:998.10 INV:994.00 TO ISOLATOR ROW INV:994.48 TO MANIFOLD SUMP:991.00 78 LF - 6" PVC FROM BLDG DOWNSPOUTS @ 1.04% MIN. 74 LF - 12" PVC @ 0.52% MIN. 37 LF - 12" RCP CL III @ 0.67% CORE DRILL AND CONNECT TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN INV:992.25 (FIELD VERIFY) CORE DRILL AND CONNECT TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN INV:995.05 (FIELD VERIFY) REPLACE CASTING WITH NEENAH R-3501-R FOR DRIVEWAY SURMOUNTABLE CURB 60 LF - 15" RCP CL III @ 0.52% MIN. 109 LF - 12" PVC @ 0.52% MIN. 4" CLEANOUT 1.5" CURB STOP 1.5" WET TAP TO EXISTING WATERMAIN (FIELD VERIFY LOCATION & DEPTH) SI T E U T I L I T Y P L A N C401 STAT E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 SOO L I N E R A I L R O A D PI N T O D R I V E TOWER DRIVE EXISTING HYDRANT BENCHMARK=TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV:1005.34 EXISTING HYDRANT BENCHMARK= TOP NUT HYDRANT ELEV:1006.51 6" ELEVATED MANIFOLD INV:994.48 6" ELEVATED MANIFOLD INV:994.48 6" PERFORATED UNDERDRAINS INV:992.50 UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS* BOTTOM SAND EL:992.50 BOTTOM STONE EL:993.50 CHAMBER INVERT EL:994.00 TOP CHAMBER EL:995.33 TOP STONE EL:995.83 SAND POROSITY:0.30 STONE POROSITY:0.40 BOTTOM STONE THICKNESS:6 IN. TOP STONE THICKNESS:6 IN. SIDE STONE THICKNESS:12 IN. END STONE THICKNESS:12 IN. CHAMBER ROW SPACING:6 IN. REQUIRED STORAGE BELOW WEIR:3,322 CF REQUIRED TOTAL STORAGE:4,064 CF *7 ROWS OF 14 ADS STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWING OF SYSTEM FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE SEDIMENT ISOLATION ROW AT EACH ROW CONTAINING AN INLET. UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM (SEE TABLE FOR DETAILS) EOF EL:797.25 100-YEAR HWL:995.49 ISOLATOR ROW STORM MANHOLE-3 - 48"∅ RIM:998.48 INV:994.00 TO ISOLATOR ROW INV:994.48 TO MANIFOLD SUMP:991.00 20 LF - 12" PVC @ 0.52% MIN. MAINTAIN 18" SEPARATION AND PROVIDE 4" RIGID INSULATION AT CROSSING 6" CLEANOUT 40 LF - 6" PVC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE @ 2.00% MIN.CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN (FIELD VERIFY LOCATION & DEPTH) INSTALL NEW INFI-SHIELD TO EXISTING MANHOLE GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S GA S FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F O F O F O FO FO FO FO FO FO FO UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T UG T U G E U G E U G E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E UG E OH E UGT UGT l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllllllllll OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E l l ll > > > >304819 > C: \ M A L E A H \ C A R I B O U \ M E D I N A , M N \ L A N D S C A P E P L A N \ L A N D S C A P E P L A N - 2 4 X 3 6 . D W G # # # # 1 0 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 1 HAMEL, MN DRAWN BY DATE ISSUED JOB NO. CHECKED BY PROJECT LOCATION: LA N D S C A P E P L A N Know what's below. Call before you dig. Dial 811 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS PER CITY OF MEDINA -LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE SEC. 838.5.03 - LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: 1. SUBD. 2. BUILDING SETTING: a) 10' OF LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS EXCEPT FOR WALKS, OUTDOOR SALES... b) WALKS WITHIN THIS LANDSCAPE AREA SHALL BE LIMITED TO ACCESS POINTS OF BUILDING. SUBD. 3. OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES AND CONFIFEROUS TREES A. A MINIMUM OF ONE TREE PER 50 FT OF LOT PERIMETER SHALL BE REQUIRED. a. SIZE: DECIDUOUS TREES 2.5" CAL MEASURE FOUR FEET OFF GROUND, AND CONIFEROUS TREES 6' HT. b. LOCATION: APPROVED BY CITY PRIOR TO PLANTING. c. TYPE: NO MORE THAN 25% OF TREES MAY BE OF A SINGLE SPECIES. d. CREDIT FOR PRESERVED TREES: THE CITY MAY REDUCE THE REQUIRED OVERSTORY TREES IF APPLICANT PRESERVES MORE THAN EXISTING TREES REQUIRED BY SUBD. 9 OF SECTION 838.5.03. SUBD. 4. ORNAMENTAL TREES A. A MINIMUM OF ONE TREE PER 100 FT OF LOT PERIMETER SHALL BE REQUIRED. a. SIZE: TREES SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2" CAL MEASURE FOUR FEET OFF GROUND. b. LOCATION: APPROVED BY CITY PRIOR TO PLANTING. c. TYPE: NO MORE THAN 25% OF TREES MAY BE OF A SINGLE SPECIES. SUBD. 5. UNDERSTORY SHRUBS A. A FULL COMPLIMENT OF UNDERSTORY SHRUBS SHALL BE PROVIDED. a. SIZE: POTTED AND A MINIMUM OF 24" HT. b. A MINIMUM OF ONE SHRUB PER 30 FT OF LOT PERIMETER. SUBD. 6. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING A. A MINIMUM OF 8% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA WITHIN PARKING, DRIVEWAY, AND LOADING DOCK AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPED. a. LANDSCAPING OF 12' IN WIDTH SHALL SEPARATE PARKING LOTS INTO CELLS OF NO MORE THAN 120 STALLS. b. LANDSCAPING SHALL BREAK UP ROWS OF PARKING EVERY 20 SPACES. c. SHADE TREES SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH IN THE LANDSCAPING. d. WHERE PRACTICAL, THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RECEIVE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE ADJACENT PARKING AREA. SITE DATA: LOT AREA:=30,812 SF (0.7 AC) PERIMETER OF LOT = 824.34 LF REQ PROVIDED 1 OVERSTORY/CONIFEROUS TREE/ 50 LF OF LOT PERIMETER 17 17 (824.34 LF / 50 = 16.49) 1 ORNAMENTAL TREE/ 100 LF OF LOT PERIMETER 9 9 (824.34 LF / 100 = 8.24) 1 SHRUB / 30 LF OF LOT PERIMETER 28 38 (824.34 LF / 30 = 27.48) 0'20 40 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.0 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.7 1.9 2.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.3 0.7 0.4 1.9 1.4 3.9 3.4 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.6 1.5 4.4 2.5 1.7 0.8 0.4 1.6 1.5 4.5 3.9 2.5 1.7 0.9 0.5 1.7 1.5 3.1 2.9 2.2 1.6 1.1 0.7 1.7 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.3 0.9 2.0 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.2 2.8 1.9 1.6 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.5 1.9 1.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.50.50.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 DHS @ 23' BHS @ 23' BHS @ 23' CHS @ 23' CHS @ 23' CHS @ 23' CHS @ 23' Plan View Scale - 1" = 16ft Pi n t o D r i v e R e t a i l Me d i n a , M N Designer MG Date 08/31/2021 Scale As Shown Drawing No. Summary 1 of 1 Statistics Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Parking and Drives 1.7 fc 4.9 fc 0.2 fc 24.5:1 8.5:1 Site 0.6 fc 4.9 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A M M FD 24 X 4 8 14 X 30 24 X 4 8 24 X 4 8 14 X 30 18 X 36 18 X 4 2 18 X 4 2 18 X 4 2 18 X 4 2 18 X 36 M HAMEL, MN DRAWN BY DATE ISSUED JOB NO. CHECKED BY PROJECT LOCATION: PI N T O D R I V E R E T A I L NE W M U L T I - T E N A N T S H E L L B U I L D I N G 36 9 2 P I N T O D R I V E , H A M E L , M N 5 5 3 4 0 CE CS 21180 SITE PLAN APPROVAL 09-14-2021 CITY COMMENTS 10-25-2021 NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PRE L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y Jeff and Chris Cates Page 1 of 2 December 7, 2021 Environmental Assessment Worksheet City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: December 1, 2021 MEETING: December 7, 2021 City Council SUBJECT: Jeffery and Chris Cates – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development – PIDs 04-118-23-11-0002, 04-118-23-14-0004 Summary of Request Jeffery and Chris Cates have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Plan Review for development of approximately 665,000 square feet of warehouse/office buildings on approximately 70 acres east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. Chapter 4410 of Minnesota Rules regulates Environmental Review and requires mandatory completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for development of 300,000 square feet or more of warehouse/light industrial space within a city of Medina’s size. The purpose of an EAW is to develop an analysis and overview of the potential impacts of the development, determine if the project will cause any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through normal review processes, and provide information for planning and design. The City is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this type of EAW. As the RGU, the City is responsible for preparing the EAW, reviewing comments from the public and other agencies, responding to the comments as necessary, and making a determination on whether or not additional environmental review is necessary via an Environmental Impact Statement. Review of the Concept Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment is anticipated to occur concurrently with the public comment period of the EAW. Staff recommends that the City Council make a determination on whether additional environmental review is necessary for the project prior to making a decision on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Process The project proposer is required to submit all necessary information for the City to prepare the EAW. Staff has reviewed and edited the attached draft EAW and prepared for publication. Some comments are still being addressed and are called out with comment boxes in the document. These will be addressed prior to publication. Staff has not included the wetland delineation report, since this is a longer, technical document without much policy impact. MEMORANDUM Agenda Item #7F Jeff and Chris Cates Page 2 of 2 December 7, 2021 Environmental Assessment Worksheet City Council Meeting After preparation of an EAW, the RGU is required to submit to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), route to other relevant agencies, publish appropriate notices, and advertise that the EAW is available for comment for 30 days. After the comment period closes, the City will need to respond to comments as necessary and make a determination whether or not it is necessary to complete additional environmental review through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Staff anticipates this action in February if the Council authorizes publication of the EAW at the December 7 meeting. Potential Action As the RGU, the City is responsible for the content of the EAW. Staff has reviewed and edited the EAW and is requesting that, following review, the City Council take the following action: Move to adopt the resolution authorizing release of the Cates Industrial Park EAW for distribution and public comment Attachment 1. Draft Resolution 2. Draft Cates Industrial Park EAW Resolution No. 2021-## December 7, 2021 Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF CATES INDUSTRIAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR DISTRIBUTION AND PUBLIC COMMENT WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Jeffrey and Christine Cates (collectively, the “Proposer”) own property east of Willow Drive and north of Chippewa Road (the “Property”) which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Proposer intends to request land use approvals for a warehouse/industrial development upon the Property with an approximate gross floor area of 665,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, construction of the project requires mandatory completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300, Subp. 14; and WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for review of the EAW pursuant to the Rules; and WHEREAS, the Proposer has submitted an EAW which has been reviewed, revised, and prepared for distribution by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina, Minnesota authorize release of the Cates Industrial Park EAW for distribution and public comment, subject to final review and revision deemed necessary by City staff. Dated: December 7, 2021. __________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Deputy Clerk Resolution No. 2021-## 2 December 7, 2021 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ____________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2021-## 3 December 7, 2021 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property Lot 3, Block 1 and Outlot A, Cates Ranch, Hennepin County, Minnesota; And Lot 1, Block 1, Cates Ranch 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Cates Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet December 2021 Prepared by: Cates Industrial Park EAW i December 2021 Table of Contents 1. Project Title ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Proposer .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 3. RGU ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ....................................................................................................................................... 2 5. Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 6. Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 7. Cover Types ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 8. Permits and Approvals Required ............................................................................................................................... 5 9. Land Use .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms .................................................................................................... 7 11. Water Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ............................................................................................... 15 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) .............. 17 14. Historic Properties ................................................................................................................................................... 19 15. Visual ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19 16. Air ................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 17. Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21 18. Transportation ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................ 23 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................. 24 RGU Certification .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 List of Tables Table 1: Project Magnitude ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Cover Types ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4: Soil Types ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 5: Wells ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Utility Demand Estimate ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 7: MPCA WIMN Sites Within 150 Feet of the Project Site .......................................................................... 15 Table 8: Parking Stalls ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 9: Proposed Site Trip Generation – Opening Year (2025) .......................................................................... 21 List of Figures Figure 1: County Map ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 2: USGS Map ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3: Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 4: Existing Cover Types ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 5: Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 6: Future Land Use ................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 7: Water Resources within One-Mile Study Area ......................................................................................... 33 Figure 8: Water Resources on Site ................................................................................................................................... 34 Cates Industrial Park EAW ii December 2021 Figure 9: MPCA What's In My Neighborhood (WIMN) Sites ................................................................................. 35 List of Appendices Appendix A: Proposed Site Plan Appendix B: Wetland Delineation Report Appendix C: Traffic Impact Anlaysis Appendix D: Agency Correspondence Cates Industrial Park EAW 1 December 2021 July 2013 Version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB’s) website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidance Documents.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. 1. Project Title Cates Industrial Park 2. Proposer Proposer: Jeff Cates Family Contact Person: Jeff S. Cates Title: President/CEO Address: 2400 Cates Ranch Drive #100 City, State, ZIP: Hamel, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 478-8961 Email: N/A 3. RGU RGU: City of Medina Contact Person: Dusty Finke Title: Planning Director Address: 2052 County Road 24 City, State, ZIP: Medina, MN, 55340 Phone: 763-473-8846 Email: dusty.finke@medinamn.gov Cates Industrial Park EAW 2 December 2021 4. Reason for EAW Preparation Check one: Required: Discretionary: ☐EIS Scoping ☐Citizen petition ☒Mandatory EAW ☐RGU discretion ☐Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 14: Industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities 5. Project Location County: Hennepin City/Township: Medina PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NE and SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 4, Township 118N, Range 23W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River – Twin Cities and South Fork Crow River GPS Coordinates: 45.062091, -93.585900 Tax Parcel Numbers: 0411823110002 and 0411823140004 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the EAW: · County map showing the general location of the project (see Figure 1) · US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 2) · Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-construction site plan. (see Figure 3 and Appendix A) 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor (approximately 50 words). The Cates Family owns three parcels of approximately 68.9 acres of agricultural land located north of Highway 55 at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive in Medina. There is an existing farmstead and associated structures on the site. The proposed project consists of a total of approximately 664,500 square feet of office/warehouse uses on the site. Development of the site would include new infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All of these new services would be extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrading existing systems to support the new land development. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion, include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize 1) construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes; 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes; 3) significant demolition, Cates Industrial Park EAW 3 December 2021 removal, or remodeling of existing structures; and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. The Cates Family is proposing a total of approximately 664,500 square feet of new light industrial uses on an approximately 68.9-acre site north of Highway 55 at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive in Medina. See Figure 1 for project location. The project is anticipated to consist of three office/warehouse buildings: · Building 1: Located in the northwestern portion of the site, this area will consist of a 205,000 square foot office/warehouse building. · Building 2: Located in the northeastern third of the site, this area will consist of a 205,000 square foot office/warehouse building. · Building 3: Located in the southern third of the site, this area will consist of a 254,500 square foot office/warehouse building. The project site plan is designed to have the three buildings face the exterior property lines as much as possible. The vehicle parking areas are proposed to be parallel with Willow Drive and Chippewa Road, and the truck courts are designed to the be in the rear of the buildings to provide the maximum amount of screen to the truck court from neighboring properties. The perimeter wetlands will be fully preserved and development proposed maintains the required buffers. Greenspace is maximized along the permitter to provide opportunities to screen areas of concern. Vehicular access to the development will be from the west along Willow Drive via both a new access in the northwestern corner of the site and Cates Ranch Drive, which bisects the site (see Appendix A). Improvements to the intersection of Willow drive and Highway 55 will also be part of this development to alleviate traffic congestion in the area. These improvements will ultimately consist of a double left turn lane on Willow Drive, and an acceleration lane along eastbound Highway 55. Additional access to the development will be from Chippewa Drive on the south. Building elevations are designed to offer a fresh, progressive building exterior. The building will be constructed of precast panels with neutral stone aggregate. The tenant entries will provide a pop of color and more textures to lead the tenants and customers to the entrances. The exterior of the buildings are also designed with horizontal and vertical undulation to provide a breakup of the massing of the building. Construction will be phased starting with mass grading of the site projected and construction of the first building in the summer of 2022. This phase will include the street reconstruction of Cates Ranch Drive and Willow Road, grading, storm water management and utility improvement for all 3 buildings. Construction of the lift station and improvements to the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 55 will be phased in with the project during the second phase of the project, unless they are determined to be required sooner. The entire project is expected to be completed over the course of 3 to 5 years. Cates Industrial Park EAW 4 December 2021 c. Project magnitude Table 1: Project Magnitude Measure Magnitude Total Project Acreage 68.9 Linear Project Length 4,000 linear feet of street reconstruction Number and Type of Residential Units N/A Commercial Building Area (square feet) N/A Industrial Building Area (square feet) Building 1: 205,000 sq ft Building 2: 205,000 sq ft Building 3: 254,500 sq ft Institutional Building Area (square feet) N/A Other Uses – specify (square feet) N/A Structure Height(s) Building 1: 40-45 feet Building 2: 40-45 feet Building 3: 40-45 feet d. Explain the project purpose. If the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of this project is to develop three existing agricultural parcels into an industrial development. e. Are future stages of this development, including development on any other property, planned or likely to happen? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. Not applicable. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and past environmental review. Not applicable. 7. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. The site covers approximately 68.9 acres of semirural, agricultural land. Existing cover types within the study area are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 4 and were determined by reviewing 2021 aerial photography and land cover classification maps. Table 2: Cover Types Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Wetlands 5.0 4.6 Deep Water/Streams 0.0 0.0 Wooded/Forest 3.8 0.0 Cates Industrial Park EAW 5 December 2021 Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Brush/Grassland 2.0 0.0 Cropland 55.0 0.0 Lawn/Landscaping 1.7 29.55 Impervious Surface 1.4 30.0 Stormwater Ponding 0.0 4.75 Total 68.9 68.9 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, certifications, and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing, and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3100. Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status Local City of Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applied for Preliminary and Final Plat To be applied for Site Plan Approval To be applied for, if needed Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for Sewer and Water Permit To be applied for, if needed Wetland Conversation Act Replacement Plan Approval To be applied for Regional Metropolitan Council Comprehensive plan amendment To be applied for, if needed State Minnesota Department of Health Water Extension Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if needed Cates Industrial Park EAW 6 December 2021 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if needed Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if needed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Permit To be applied for, if needed Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if needed 9. Land Use a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands. Existing land use for the site is agricultural, farmstead, and undeveloped (see Figure 5). Adjacent existing land uses include agricultural, undeveloped, single family detached, and industrial/utility. The nearest park is Fields of Medina, located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. However, there is a proposed paved trail and future park at the Chippewa Road/Mohawk Drive intersection, one half-mile southeast of the project site.1 Approximately 99 percent of the project site consists of prime farmland, prime farmland if drained, and farmland of statewide importance. ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. Medina’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the project site as a future development area (FDA) (see Figure 6). FDAs are areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the city and will be provided municipal sewer and water services. These areas will remain rural until designated for urban services in a future comprehensive plan update.2 Agricultural land is expected to transition to different land uses as the city develops. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Future land use west of the project site is business, which identifies larger tracts of land suitable for office, warehouse, or light industrial that are served or will be served by urban services. Future land uses east of the site is FDA. 1 Park and Trail Plan. Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://medinamn.us/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/6-1-ParksTrails-2018-10-02.pdf 2 Land Use. Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://medinamn.us/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/Chapter-5-Land-Use-and-Growth-10-02-2018.pdf Cates Industrial Park EAW 7 December 2021 iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The project site is zoned Rural Residential – Urban Reserve (RR-UR) and is not within any overlay districts or the city’s Shoreland Overlay District. If the proposer were to proceed with a formal development request, rezoning to the Business or Industrial Park zoning district would be required. b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. Nearby land uses include agricultural, rural residential, and industrial. The project is compatible with the planned land use and zoning as outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the project site and adjacent areas. The project proposes the extension of municipal sewer and water services to the site. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Any proposed development would require a zoning change to the parcels within the site to allow for office/warehouse and commercial use. The project would include berming, landscape screening, and significant setbacks from residential property. 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms a. Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County (2018),3 bedrock geology of the project site consists of Jordan Sandstone, a medium- to coarse-grained, friable quartzose sandstone. A small portion of the northwestern corner of the project site consists of the St. Lawrence Formation, which is a dolomitic, feldspathic siltstone with interbedded, very fine-grained sandstone and shale. The estimated depth to bedrock is approximately 126-150 feet below grade. The surficial geology consists of loam to clay loam diamict deposits. No sinkholes, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions were identified in the project area. b. Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations 3 Available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/200919 Cates Industrial Park EAW 8 December 2021 including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, there are 11 soil types within the site. The erosion hazard rating included in Table 4 indicates the hazard of soil loss form off-road areas after disturbance activities expose the soil surface. Within the project site, all soil types are not rated for an erosion hazard rating, meaning that there is not enough information to make a determination regarding soil erodibility. The soils information is included in Table 4. Table 4: Soil Types Map Unit Name Soil Type Acres within Study Area Percent of Site Erosion Hazard Houghton muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes L14A 0.1 0.1% Not rated Moon loamy fine sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes L19B <0.1% 0.1% Not rated Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22C2 7.1 10.3% Not rated Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes L23A 16.0 23.2% Not rated Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes L24A 17.9 25.9% Not rated Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes L25A 6.9 10.1% Not rated Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L36A 0.3 0.4% Not rated Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes L37B 3.4 4.9% Not rated Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes L40B 8.6 12.5% Not rated Dundas-Cordova complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L45A 7.9 11.4% Not rated Muskego and Houghton soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes L50A 0.8 1.1% Not rated Depth to bedrock on the site is approximately 126 to 150 feet below grade. The site earthwork is estimated be a net fill of 20,658 cubic yards based on the excavations for ponding, underground stormwater management, vehicle infrastructure, and building foundations. A NPDES permit is required because the project will disturb more than one acre of land. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. All unpaved areas disturbed during construction will be revegetated in accordance with the standard NPDES permit requirements. In areas with steep slopes, special consideration will be given to prevent erosion during construction, such as erosion control blankets, along with vegetation establishment to permanently stabilize side slopes and any areas impacted as a result of construction. Cates Industrial Park EAW 9 December 2021 11. Water Resources a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. There are several wetlands located in the site. Aquatic resources within the construction limits were delineated using a routine Level 2 delineation method.4 A wetland delineation was completed (Kimley-Horn 2021) for all wetland boundaries as shown in Appendix B. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters within one mile of the project site include Morin Lake, Peter Lake, and ten unnamed waterbodies and three unnamed public water courses (see Figure 7). The North Bay of Peter Lake, located 0.8 miles west of the site, is listed on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA’s) 303d Impaired Waters List for nutrients. ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. According to the Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas, depth to ground water varies from 0 to 10 feet across the project site. Based on the MN Well Index, static ground water appears to be greater than 50 feet below the surface in the area. According to the MDH (Minnesota Department of Health) Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer, the project site is not within a MDH wellhead protection area. According to the MHD’s Minnesota Well Index, there is one active unverified well on the project site (Unique Well ID 127348). No additional wells are within 150 feet of the project site and four wells located within 400 feet of the project site. The unidentified well will be located and abandoned during construction of this project. If any other wells are encountered during construction, they will be capped and sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 4 Level 2 delineation methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) along with the Midwest regional supplement (USACE, 2012). More information available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/ Cates Industrial Park EAW 10 December 2021 Table 5: Wells Well ID Number Well Status Well Name Static Water Level (ft) Well Depth (ft) Date Completed Location 127348 Active Cates, Wally 74 132 01/25/1984 On site 536396 Sealed Cates, W.H. 61 153 04/22/1994 Within 400 feet of site 495788 Active Creal, James 91 190 01/09/1992 Within 400 feet of site 713252 Active Null 85 252 07/08/2004 Within 400 feet of site 754021 Active Cates, W.H. 60 180 11/08/2007 Within 400 feet of site b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below. i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. Based on the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) determination standards for the proposed uses (see site plan in Appendix A), the additional wastewater flows are projected to be approximately 40,967 gallons per day (GPD) at full buildout (see Table 6). Wastewater is expected to be equivalent to domestic strength wastewater. In the event a specific user would have wastewater stronger than domestic strength wastewater, a pretreatment facility would be required to be installed. Wastewater for the proposed development will be collected by a gravity sewer collection system and will be routed to a lift station that will be constructed as part of this project by the City. The lift station will tie into the existing 8-inch PVC sanitary sewer within Willow Drive southwest of the site. The sanitary sewer sizing is determined assuming 30% office space with one SAC per 2,400 square foot, and 274 GPD per SAC and 70% warehouse with one SAC per 7,000 square foot, and 274 GPD per SAC. No pretreatment of sanitary sewer flows is anticipated. The lift station has been studied by the City of Medina’s Engineering consultant in their November 19, 2019 study titled Willow Drive/TH 55 Regional Lifter Station Project. A future development area of 107 acres was identified in the study, which encompasses the Cates property. The northerly two thirds of the property was to flow to a new lift station, while a small portion of the southwest corner was designated to flow by gravity to the existing Willow Drive sewer and the southeast portion of the property was to flow to the southeast gravity sewer Cates Industrial Park EAW 11 December 2021 in Chippewa Road. Sanitary sewer flows studied for a future development was estimated to be 800 GPD per acre, which accounted for a flow of 33,141 GPD flowing to the lift station and 8,288 GPD to the gravity sewer in Willow Drive, which a combined amount of approximately 41,429 GPD going to the gravity line in Willow Drive. The proposed project is proposing a flow of 40,967 GPD, which is less than the anticipated flow. All sanitary sewers are located outside the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) required setbacks from a well. On-site wells will be sealed by a licensed well contractor according to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725. Table 6: Utility Demand Estimate Structure Size Average Flow (GPD) Peak Hour Daily Flow (gpd) based on a peak hour factor of 4.0 Peak Hour Flow in (gpm) Building 1 205,000 sq ft 12,650 50,600 35.14 Building 2 205,000 sq ft 12,650 50600 35.14 Building 3 254,500 sq ft 15,700 62,800 36.67 Total Average GPD 41,000 164,000 106.95 Wastewater will be conveyed through the municipal collection system to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) regional collection and treatment system. Wastewater will be treated at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro WWTP) in St. Paul. The Metro WWTP treatment type is advanced secondary with chlorination/dechlorination, and it discharges treated effluent to the Mississippi River. The Metro WWTP has a capacity of 314 million gallons per day (MGD) and receives an average flow of 164 MGD as of June 2021. Given an estimated excess capacity of 150 MGD, the regional treatment facility and wastewater collection pipes has sufficient long-term capacity to handle the additional wastewater flow of approximately 41,000 GPD (0.04 MGD) that would be generated by the proposed development. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Not applicable. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. Cates Industrial Park EAW 12 December 2021 Not applicable. ii. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Stormwater within the site currently sheet flows to several documented wetlands onsite and either infiltrates, or overflows to the northeast. Post-construction quality of stormwater runoff from the project site will be improved by best management practices (BMP) to meet MPCA treatment requirements. Proposed stormwater management includes several ponds onsite offering pretreatment and stormwater retention prior to discharging to the existing wetlands, in total the proposed development includes approximately 4.75 acres of above ground stormwater management areas. Stormwater quantity will be controlled such that volume and discharge rates are consistent with BMPs. The stormwater quantity will be reduced by the equivalent of 1.1-inch over the sites impervious surface when infiltration is feasible and 0.5-inches over the sites impervious surface when infiltration is infeasible. Filtration methods to meet the quantity reduction receive only 50% credit, meaning if 0.5 inches over the sites impervious surface is required, filtration will need to meet 1-inch over the sites impervious surface. Discharge rates will match or be less than existing for the 1-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Completed conveyance systems and BMPs for the project will be designed according to acceptable industry standards and conform to jurisdictional requirements. Because of the soil types on the property alternatives to infiltration will most likely need to be considered as viable options. Limited aboveground raingardens, water reuse, and possibly underground filtration treatment will likely be used to meet the water quality standards where space for aboveground BMPs are limited. Pre-treatment of stormwater will be provided as required by the city and Elm Creek Watershed District. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit administered by the MPCA. The SWPPP will cover temporary measures to prevent pollution during construction (erosion and sediment control as well as controls to minimize spills, leaks, or other discharges of pollutants) and permanent measures to prevent stormwater pollution after construction. These BMPs may include one or more of the following: silt fencing, inlet sediment filters, sediment traps, grit chambers, temporary ditch checks, rock filter dikes, fiber logs, turf reinforcement mats, temporary seeding, riprap and erosion control blankets for disturbed areas, and seeding or placement of sod or other plant material for final restoration. An Erosion Control Plan checklist will be followed by the developer to meet city and state Cates Industrial Park EAW 13 December 2021 requirements, minimize drainage problems and soil erosion, and prevent sediment from entering curb and gutter systems and storm sewer inlets. The project will comply with all City of Medina, Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, MPCA, county, and state rules for stormwater management, and chloride use will be addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan that will be reviewed by the city for compliance. iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Construction dewatering may be required for the redevelopment of the project site. Construction activities related to dewatering will include discharging to temporary stormwater BMPs. Any temporary dewatering will require a DNR Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering would only occur during utility installation and potential construction of building footings. The water supply will be obtained from five active and two reserve municipal groundwater wells, ranging from 240 to 770 feet deep, that currently supply the City of Medina Hamel water system, that draw water from the Quaternary Buried Unconfined, Quaternary Buried Artesian, Tunnel City-Wonewoc and Jordan aquifers.5 Water appropriation for new wells or an increase in authorized volume is not anticipated for the project as the city’s current system can accommodate the development. The projected water demand for the project is approximately 41,000 GPD upon full build out; the first building constructed would have a demand of approximately 15,700 GPD and each additional building with 12,500 GPD per building. The water supply system will be connected to the existing 12-inch water main at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive and will extend the 12” main easterly to complete the 12-inch loop along Chippewa Road. A 12-inch system will be utilized within the proposed development and tie into the existing 8-inch line in Willow Drive. The proposed project will also comply with the city’s irrigation policy, which prohibits the use of treated municipal water for lawn irrigation. iv. Surface Waters 1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects 5 Available at: https://medinamn.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Medina-CCR_Report_2020.pdf Cates Industrial Park EAW 14 December 2021 from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations. The National Wetlands Inventory identifies six wetlands within the site: two freshwater emergent wetlands and four freshwater ponds. Aquatic resources within the construction limits were delineated using a routine Level 2 delineation method. A wetland delineation was completed in 2021 by Kimley-Horn, the results of this delineation are shown in Appendix B. During the onsite delineation, vegetation, soils, and current hydrologic characteristics were evaluated at each wetland area and area of investigation identified within the study area. There are approximately 3.0 ac of wetland impacts anticipated for the project for both onsite and offsite improvements. There is anticipated to be approximately 1.50 acres of impact to the onsite wetlands that are currently roadside ditches and a low-quality field ditch. The onsite wetland impacts will provide water quality treatment to the onsite stormwater runoff prior to having any discharge into the existing wetlands. . The offsite wetland impacts will be required for the intersection improvements to Willow Drive and Highway 55 and the widening of Willow drive. These impacts are anticipated to be 1.5 acres in size. Any removal of existing wetlands will require the purchase of wetland banking credits and the developer will obtain applicable Wetland Conservation Act and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals. 2) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. No alternations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of either development scenario. Cates Industrial Park EAW 15 December 2021 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes a. Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. MPCA’s What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN) database was reviewed to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential environmental hazards are located on the project site or within 150 feet of the project site. The database does not include any sites within the project site; however, the parcels of two sites are located within 150 feet (see Table 7 and Figure 9). Using the following criteria established by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the sites were classified into high, medium, and low risk sites: · High risk: In general, sites with high environmental risks are properties that have documented releases of chemicals or hazardous or regulated substances (e.g., active and inactive state and federal cleanup sites, active and inactive dump sites, and active leaking underground storage tank sites), strong evidence of contamination (e.g., soil staining, stressed vegetation), or storage of large volumes of petroleum or other chemicals (e.g., bulk storage tank facilities). · Medium risk: Sites of medium environmental risk are properties where smaller volumes of petroleum, chemicals, or hazardous materials are frequently stored and used (e.g., registered underground and aboveground storage tanks, vehicle repair facilities, metal working shops), but at which no evidence of spills or releases exists, or properties with documented releases that have been “closed” (signifying no further cleanup actions deemed necessary) by the MPCA. Closed sites, such as closed leaking underground storage tank sites, are considered medium risks because residual soil or groundwater contamination may exist. · Low risk: Low environmental risk sites include properties where minor volumes of chemicals or hazardous materials have been used or stored (e.g., hazardous waste generators, and possibly some farmsteads and residences). Table 7: MPCA WIMN Sites Within 150 Feet of the Project Site Site ID Site Name Activity Risk Level Status 132089 Graphic Packaging International Air quality Low Active Hazardous waste – small quantity generator Low Industrial stormwater Low Cates Industrial Park EAW 16 December 2021 Site ID Site Name Activity Risk Level Status Above ground storage tank Medium Construction stormwater Low Inactive Industrial stormwater Low Industrial stormwater Low 9109 Polaris Corporate Headquarters Construction stormwater Low Inactive b. Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. Construction Generated Waste Demolition debris and earth materials will be generated during demolition of the existing farmstead and associated structures. The solid wastes generated during demolition will be recycled or disposed of at a state-permitted landfill. Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) will require management prior to any demolition, renovation, or operations and maintenance work that might disturb identified or assumed asbestos materials. If ACM is discovered during renovation/demolition activities, disturbance work will immediately stop until a determination regarding asbestos content within the material is discovered. Construction of the proposed development will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which will either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Operationally Generated Waste The proposed development would generate new demands on solid waste management and sanitation services provided in the project area. Based on the proposed area of 664,500 square feet office/industrial space, it is estimated that the non-residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream will be around 9,972 tons per year. Hazardous waste products are not anticipated to be produced or stored within the proposed development. c. Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of Cates Industrial Park EAW 17 December 2021 chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. No underground storage tanks have been identified within the project site. Any hazardous waste materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project will be disposed of in the manner specified by local or state regulation or by the manufacturer. A spill prevention plan will be developed, and proper spill prevention controls will be in place for any vehicle refueling or maintenance that occurs on site during construction. d. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling. Regulated material and/or waste will be managed in accordance with Chapter 503 of the Medina City Code and state requirements. No known toxic or hazardous wastes are anticipated to be generated on the site. Toxic or hazardous waste to be stored on the site during construction will include fuel and oil necessary to operate heavy construction equipment and during operations may include commercial cleaning supplies. 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. The site is currently largely agricultural land providing limited wildlife habitat. The project is not located within any regionally significant ecological areas. There are seven Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and no Regionally Significant Ecological Areas located within one mile of the site. Additionally, no native plant communities are within or adjacent to the project site. 12 Public Water Basins and three unnamed DNR Public Watercourses are located within one mile of the project site, none of which are classified as trout streams. Existing cover types are shown in Figure 4. b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-965) and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained, and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results. State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species (per license agreement LA-965), there are no records within the EAW study area and one record within one mile of the study area. Cates Industrial Park EAW 18 December 2021 A record for the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator), a state-listed threatened species, is located within one mile from the project site. This species is a large swan that prefers small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies with extensive beds of emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. The site does not contain suitable habitat for the species; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Trumpeter Swan are anticipated. Other Sensitive Ecological Resources There are seven areas of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and no Regionally Significant Ecological Areas located within one mile of the site. Considering no MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance or RSEAs are within the project limits, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated. No native plant communities are within or adjacent to the project site. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. Effects to Wildlife Habitat The current site provides several acres of non-native wildlife habitat. It is possible one or more species utilizing the existing site may be relocated as a result of site development. Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species No adverse impacts are anticipated to any state-listed species. A request for concurrence was submitted to the DNR and is currently pending (see correspondence in Appendix D). Invasive Species Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment, and other debris. Stormwater Stormwater run-off can cause a number of environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which in turn may harm wildlife. The proposed development scenarios include stormwater management and treatment of stormwater run-off within the site which will improve water quality. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. No adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Effects to Wildlife Habitat The proposed development includes stormwater ponds that will be seeded with native plants to provide habitat for pollinators and small mammals. Some green space and native landscaping will be provided within the proposed development scenarios. Pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote pollinator habitat. Additional measures to prevent or Cates Industrial Park EAW 19 December 2021 minimize wildlife habitat include stormwater BMPs such as phased grading, temporary sediment basins, and erosion control measures. Invasive Species The proposed project would not result in the introduction of invasive species. Disturbed areas would be reestablished using appropriate native and stabilization seed mix. Invasive species will be controlled on-site during construction and landscaping will not include any DNR identified invasive species. Additionally, best management practices will be followed when relocating equipment from other sites. Stormwater The project will include approximately 4.75 acres of above ground stormwater management areas. These areas will allow for stormwater treatment in diverse environments that can support pollinators and other wildlife. 14. Historic Properties Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. A search of the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office’s Statewide Inventory was requested to identify known historic properties and archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project site. The result of this database search provided a listing of recorded sites/properties that are in general vicinity of the project site; however, no known resources have been identified in the project site (see Appendix D). It is not anticipated that archaeological sites will be uncovered during the construction of this project as the project site has been previously disturbed with agricultural activities. However, if cultural materials are encountered during the construction, a qualified Professional Archaeologist will be contacted to assess the discovery and provide guidance. 15. Visual Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. The site includes existing agricultural land that is not near any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Future development would conform with the zoning regulations for building height, building form, landscape screening, and lighting would be in conformance with city ordinances. Adverse visual effects are not anticipated. Cates Industrial Park EAW 20 December 2021 16. Air a. Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. No stationary source emissions are anticipated as part of the development projects; therefore, no mitigation is required. b. Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO, which is a byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concentrations are highest where vehicles idle for extended periods of time. For this reason, CO concentrations are generally highest in vicinity of signalized intersections where vehicles are delayed and emitting CO. Generally, concentrations approaching state air quality standards are found within about 100 feet of a roadway source. Further from the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind such that concentrations rapidly decrease. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. c. Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. The project may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions would be controlled by sweeping, watering, or sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated. Cates Industrial Park EAW 21 December 2021 The construction and operation of the project are not expected to generate objectionable odors. 17. Noise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. Operations of the project will generate noise consistent with industrial/warehouse uses and are not anticipated to affect quality of life for nearby properties. Building design will incorporate noise reduction technologies in interior spaces, where possible. Existing Noise The project site is agricultural land. The existing traffic noise sources at the site are the surrounding roadways, including Highway 55 to the south. Construction Noise Typical construction noise will be temporarily generated by construction activities. Operational Noise The MPCA regulates mechanical noise associated with building operation. All future development will be required to comply with these requirements. 18. Transportation a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project is included in Appendix C. Below is a summary of the information included in that report. Parking The project site does not include any existing parking spaces. The proposed project includes 585 vehicle parking and 219 truck parking stalls (see Appendix A for parking location). The proposed industrial parking is consistent with city ordinances (Sec. 828.51), which requires one space per 2,000 square feet gross floor area. shows the number of parking stalls allocated to each building. Trip Generation Based on a review of industrial land uses provided in the Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 130 Industrial Park was determined to be most appropriate for the proposed development based on the anticipated site operations and site size. Per LUC 130 assumptions, site-generated traffic projections are presented in Table 1. Table 8: Proposed Site Trip Generation – Opening Year (2025) Cates Industrial Park EAW 22 December 2021 Land Use Description Vehicle Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Industrial Park Passenger Vehicle 203 36 239 46 193 239 Truck 12 15 27 10 17 27 Total Site Trips 215 51 266 56 210 266 The 664,830 square feet of industrial development is anticipated to generate 2,240 daily trips with 266 AM peak hour trips (215 entering and 51 exiting) and 266 PM peak hour trips (56 entering, 210 exiting). Transit and Other Transportation Modes There are no transit routes or pedestrian facilities in the study area. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. The traffic analysis evaluated intersection capacity for the following intersections: · Willow Drive & Highway 55 · Willow Drive & Chippewa Road · Chippewa Road & Access 1 · Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive (Access 2) · Willow Drive & Access 3 The capacity analysis was performed to determine the delay and level of service (LOS) for the study intersections for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040) conditions. The future year analysis scenarios include: Opening Year (2025) No-Build Conditions – The no-build traffic volumes are the anticipated future traffic volumes with area growth taken into consideration and the inclusion of the planned Roy and Cavanaugh site traffic and two potential developments on the west side of Willow Drive In this scenario, access would not be provided to the proposed site. Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions – The Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the Opening Year (2025) No-Build traffic volumes. In this scenario, access would be provided to the proposed site based on the site plan. Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions – The no-build traffic volumes are the anticipated future traffic volumes with area growth taken into consideration and the inclusion of the planned Roy and Cavanaugh site traffic and two potential developments on the west side of Willow Drive. In this scenario, access would not be provided to the proposed site. Cates Industrial Park EAW 23 December 2021 Horizon Year (2040) Build Conditions – The Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the Horizon Year (2040) No-Build traffic volumes. Access to the site would remain the same as Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions. Highway 55 tapers from a four-lane cross section to a two-lane cross section approximately one mile east of Willow Drive. MnDOT reviewed the Highway 55 corridor to determine the feasibility of converting the highway from a two-lane cross section to a four-lane cross section in 2008. The study reviewed Highway 55 from Plymouth to Rockford including the portion of TH 55 near the proposed site. The study found that a four-lane section is recommended but funding has not been identified, therefore this improvement was not analyzed in the study, but it should still be considered regardless of whether the proposed site is constructed. The analysis results show that the minor leg movements at the intersection of Highway 55 and Willow Drive experience undesirable levels of service under the Existing Year (2021) conditions. In the future build and no-build conditions, in general, the same movements are anticipated to have LOS E/F operations. The north-south approaches do not have adequate capacity to accommodate all the background and proposed traffic. With the addition of site traffic the southbound movements are anticipated to have 95th percentile queues that extend beyond the provided storage bays. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. Based on the analysis results, the southbound approach at TH 55 & Willow Drive is anticipated to have 95th percentile queues that extend past the existing storage in both peak hours and impact the upstream intersection. To mitigate the anticipated queuing at TH 55 & Willow Drive in the Opening Year and Horizon Year Build, the addition of a second southbound left turn lane and signal timing updates were analyzed. It should be noted that because TH 55 in only a single lane road, a second receiving lane would have to be added for the Southbound left turns, this lane could be dropped downstream of the intersection. The southbound left turn lanes at TH 55 & Willow Drive should be 300 feet long to accommodate queues. 19. Cumulative Potential Effects a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Cumulative potential effects are defined as “the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”6 The geographic areas considered for cumulative potential effects are 6 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a Cates Industrial Park EAW 24 December 2021 those near the project site and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. A new residential development and associated road extension is currently being constructed approximately one mile east of the project site. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. Impacts resulting from the proposed project could include wetland impacts, traffic changes to the area, and increased demand on utilities. Impacts from current and future developments adjacent to the project site will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur. 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. All known environmental effects are addressed in the preceding sections. Cates Industrial Park EAW 25 December 2021 RGU Certification The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: · The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. · The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages, or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively, · Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title Cates Industrial Park EAW 26 December 2021 Figures Cates Industrial Park EAW 27 December 2021 Figure 1: County Map Cates Industrial Park EAW 28 December 2021 Figure 2: USGS Map Cates Industrial Park EAW 29 December 2021 Figure 3: Existing Conditions Cates Industrial Park EAW 30 December 2021 Figure 4: Existing Cover Types Cates Industrial Park EAW 31 December 2021 Figure 5: Existing Land Use Cates Industrial Park EAW 32 December 2021 Figure 6: Future Land Use Cates Industrial Park EAW 33 December 2021 Figure 7: Water Resources within One-Mile Study Area Cates Industrial Park EAW 34 December 2021 Figure 8: Water Resources on Site Cates Industrial Park EAW 35 December 2021 Figure 9: MPCA What's In My Neighborhood (WIMN) Sites Cates Medina Industrial EAW December 2021 APPENDIX A Proposed Site Plan R O A DW I L L O W D R I V E S T A T E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 C H I P P E W A R O A D W I L L O W D R I V E 30.0' PROPOSED BUILDING ±205,000 SF STORM POND ±45,500 SF STORM POND ±97,290 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ±205,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ±256,000 SF 50 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP)25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 60. 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 64 . 0 ' 977.0' 977.0' 97 7 . 0 ' 262.0' 20 0 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 80 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 12.0' TYP 12.0' TYP 10.0' 64.0' 9. 0 ' TY P 9. 0 ' TY P 19.0' 26.0' 19.0' 26.0' 26.0' 26.0' 120.0' 12 . 0 ' TY P DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' STORM POND ±21,000 SF 30.0' STORM POND ±43,000 SF 26 . 0 ' 60.0'60.0' 26 . 0 ' 21 0 . 0 ' 21 0 . 0 ' 30.0' 26 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 30 . 0 ' SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL 30.0' SCREEN WALL CO N C E P T SI T E PL A N EX-1 CA T E S M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L ME D I N A MN DA T E CH E C K E D B Y SC A L E DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y KH A P R O J E C T 16 0 7 7 4 0 5 4 11 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 AS S H O W N CJ J ZT R MC B IMPACTED WETLAND Th i s d o c u m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c o n c e p t s a n d d e s i g n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n , a s a n i n s t r u m e n t o f s e r v i c e , i s i n t e n d e d o n l y f o r t h e s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e a n d c l i e n t f o r w h i c h i t w a s p r e p a r e d . R e u s e o f a n d i m p r o p e r r e l i a n c e o n t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d a d a p t a t i o n b y K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . s h a l l b e w i t h o u t l i a b i l i t y t o K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . SHEET NUMBER 2 0 1 8 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 76 7 E U S T I S S T R E E T , S U I T E 1 0 0 , S T . P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 4 PH O N E : 6 5 1 - 6 4 5 - 4 1 9 7 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M K: \ T W C _ L D E V \ O P P I D A N \ C a t e s M e d i n a I n d u s t r i a l \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ E x h i b i t s \ E X - 1 _ C o n c e p t S i t e P l a n _ E A W . d w g N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 2 1 - 8 : 5 6 a m © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LEGEND DELINEATED WETLAND BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 68.9 AC EXISTING WETLANDS ON SITE 5.04 AC (7.32% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED WETLANDS IMPACT 1.61 AC (2.34% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 15.29 AC (22.20% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING TRAILER PARKING (PROPOSED)219 SPACES ASSOCIATE PARKING (PROPOSED)585 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING 333 SPACES REQUIRED ADA PARKING 12 SPACES ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING RR-UR - RUAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PROPOSED ZONING BP - BUSINESS PARK BUILDING/ PARKING SETBACKS FRONT (MAJOR ROAD) = 100' FRONT (MINOR ROAD) = 50' RESIDENTIAL = 50' SIDE/REAR = 20' NO R T H Cates Medina Industrial EAW December 2021 APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation Report Traffic Impact Analysis Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park MEDINA, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 202 1 Prepared For: Cates Family Trust Prepared By: 1 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Future Conditions .................................................................................................................. 4 Future Traffic Forecasting ........................................................................................................... 4 Future Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................... 4 4.0 Proposed Development ......................................................................................................... 6 Site Location ............................................................................................................................... 6 Site Access and Circulation ......................................................................................................... 6 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................... 6 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................. 7 Traffic Forecasts ......................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 Intersection Capacity Analysis............................................................................................... 8 Level of Service Overview ........................................................................................................... 8 Existing Year (2021) .................................................................................................................... 9 Opening Year (2025) No-Build .................................................................................................. 10 Opening Year (2025) Build ........................................................................................................ 11 Horizon Year (2040) No-Build.................................................................................................... 14 Horizon Year (2040) Build ......................................................................................................... 15 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................... 19 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 20 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park is proposed on the northeast corner of the intersection of Willow Drive & Chippewa Road, approximately 600 feet north of Trunk Highway (TH) 55, in Medina, Minnesota. The site is proposed to include a 666,000 square-foot industrial park on an undeveloped approximately 70- acre site. The current site plan is included in Appendix A. The project location and study intersections are shown in Exhibit 1. All exhibits are included in Appendix B. This report presents and documents the study methodology, summarizes data collection and development traffic characteristics, highlights the evaluation of traffic conditions at the study intersections, and identifies recommendations to address potential operational impacts that the proposed development has on the surrounding transportation system. 3 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is proposed on an undeveloped area on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Willow Drive & Chippewa Road. The area surrounding the proposed development is generally low-density single family residential and agricultural land uses with some industrial developments along TH 55. Regional connectivity to the site is provided by TH 55 which is located approximately 600 feet south of the site. A summary of the roadways in the study area is outlined below. Trunk Highway 55 (TH 55) runs east-west in the study area and is located south of the proposed development. In the study area, TH 55 is a two-lane undivided highway with traffic signals at intersections with major roadways. At the intersection with Willow Drive, TH 55 provides dedicated left and right turn lanes. Approximately one mile east of Willow Drive, TH 55 transitions to a divided four- lane roadway. TH 55 has a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) and is classified as a Principal Arterial in the Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Based on the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Traffic Mapping Application, the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along TH 55 is 15,800 vehicles per day (vpd) in the study area. Willow Drive is a north-south roadway that runs along the western boundary of the proposed site. Willow Drive is a 2-lane undivided roadway that starts at Pioneer Trail to the south and approximately one-quarter mile north of Chippewa Road turns into a gravel roadway. At its intersection with TH 55, Willow Drive provides dedicated left and right turn lanes. Willow Drive has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and is classified as a Minor Collector in the Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing AADT along Willow Drive is 1,500 vpd. Chippewa Road is an east-west two-lane undivided roadway that connects Willow Drive to Mohawk Drive to the east and runs parallel to TH 55. Chippewa Road is classified as a local roadway and is planned to be a Minor Collector roadway according to the Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The posted speed limit on Chippewa Road is 40 mph. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the AADT along Chippewa Road is approximately 690 vpd. The following is a list of the study intersections analyzed in this report and the intersection control type at each intersection: • Willow Drive & TH 55 – Signalized • Willow Drive & Chippewa Road – Side-Street Stop Control Exhibit 2 provides the existing geometry and intersection control for the study intersections. Turning movement counts were conducted on a typical weekday from 7:00 to 9:00AM and 4:00 to 6:00PM at the study intersections in October 2021. These time periods coincide with the typical peak traffic periods of the proposed land use as well as the surrounding street system. The weekday peak traffic volumes occur within the study area from 7:00 to 8:00AM and 4:30 to 5:30PM. For purposes of this analysis, the peak hour traffic volumes were balanced between the study intersections. At the time of the data collection, the COVID-19 public health crisis could have impacted traffic volumes resulting in atypical traffic conditions. Based on knowledge of surrounding traffic patterns, traffic volumes in the project area were assumed to represent typical conditions. Existing (2021) peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Exhibit 3. A summary of the turning movement count data is provided in Appendix C. Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 4 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS The proposed industrial development is expected to be constructed and operational by 2025; therefore this study evaluated traffic conditions for Opening Year (2025) as well as Horizon Year (2040). Future Traffic Forecasting Background traffic was assumed to be comprised of overall background growth (applied in the form of an annual growth rate) and development-specific traffic estimates for planned development in the area. Historical traffic count data was obtained from the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application. There is not historical AADT data along Willow Drive nor Chippewa Road and traffic volumes on TH 55 have remained steady over the past 20 years. Therefore, no growth was assumed on TH 55 and a conservative two percent growth rate was assumed for all other study intersections. This is consistent with the Roy & Cavanaugh Site Traffic Impact Study, completed by Swing Traffic Solutions in 2019, which is located approximately 1 mile to the east of the proposed site and the Chippewa and Arrowhead Visioning Study completed by WSB in 2019. In addition to the background growth rates, trips were added to the study intersections to account for multiple approved/potential developments in the area, they are: • The Roy & Cavanaugh site that is proposed on the northeast corner of TH 55 & Mohawk Drive. The site-generated traffic volumes from the Roy & Cavanaugh Site Traffic Impact Study were assumed in the background traffic volumes. As part of the Roy & Cavanaugh Site Traffic Impact Study, two roadway scenarios were analyzed. The first scenario considered the existing roadway geometry in the study area and the second scenario considered that Chippewa Road was extended between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive. The second scenario with the extension of Chippewa Road was assumed for this study for the site-generated trips from the Roy & Cavanaugh site. • 248,900 square feet of proposed industrial development on the west side of Willow Drive. It was assumed that all traffic would utilize a single access on Willow Drive and that the trip distribution would be similar to the proposed development. • 35,000 square feet of office on the west side of Willow Drive. It was assumed that the majority of vehicles entering the site would utilize a right in on TH 55, all the exiting traffic would use Willow Drive, and that the trip distribution would be similar to the proposed development. The Chippewa and Arrowhead Visioning Study assumed more growth on Chippewa Road than the two percent listed above, however, this study did not shift traffic away from the Willow Drive & Chippewa Road intersection based on the future connection so the volumes should still provide a conservative estimate. The Opening Year (2025) No-Build traffic projections, including background growth and the Roy & Cavanaugh site-generated trips, are depicted in Exhibit 4. The Horizon Year (2040) No-Build peak hour traffic projections include the trips generated by the adjacent industrial, office, and Roy & Cavanaugh developments and are shown in Exhibit 5. Future Roadway Improvements TH 55 tapers from a four-lane cross section to a two-lane cross section approximately one mile east of Willow Drive. MnDOT reviewed the TH 55 corridor to determine the feasibility of converting the highway from a two-lane cross section to a four-lane cross section in 2008. The study reviewed TH 55 from Plymouth to Rockford including the portion of TH 55 near the proposed site. The study found that a four-lane section 5 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 is recommended but funding has not been identified, therefore this improvement is not anticipated by Opening Day (2025). For purposes of this analysis, the TH 55 expansion to four-lanes was not assumed to be completed by the Horizon Year (2040). Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 6 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Location The proposed development is in the City of Medina, Minnesota. The surrounding area is primarily undeveloped with low density, single family developments mixed in and industrial land uses along TH 55. The proposed development consists of three industrial buildings on the northeast corner of Willow Drive & Chippewa Road. It is anticipated to be open by 2025. The proposed site is currently undeveloped and zoned as Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The project location is shown in Exhibit 1. Site Access and Circulation Access to the site is proposed via Willow Drive, Chippewa Road and Cates Ranch Drive. Cates Ranch Drive is a proposed dead-end access road. A summary of the three main site accesses is below. • Chippewa Road & Access 1 • Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive (Access 2) • Willow Drive & Access 3 Access 1 on Chippewa Road will serve passenger vehicles only and the other two accesses will serve a combination of passenger vehicles and heavy vehicles. The access spacing between the two access on Willow Drive is approximately 1,075 feet and the access on Chippewa Road is approximately 500 feet from the intersection with Willow Drive. Trip Generation In order to calculate site trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed development, data was referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The Trip Generation Manual provides peak hour trip rates, inbound-outbound percentages, as well as truck trip generation rates that were used to estimate the anticipated passenger vehicle and truck trips. Based on a review of industrial land uses provided in the Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 130 Industrial Park was determined to be most appropriate for the proposed development based on the anticipated site operations and site size. Truck trips were developed using the truck trip generation rates that are provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual Supplement, 10th Edition for LUC 130 Industrial Park. Per LUC 130 assumptions, site-generated traffic projections are presented in Table 1. The 666,000 square feet of industrial development is anticipated to generate 2,244 daily trips with 266 AM peak hour trips (215 entering and 51 exiting) and 266 PM peak hour trips (56 entering, 210 exiting). Table 1: Trip Generation Land Use Description ITE LUC Intensity Vehicle Type Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Industrial Park 130 666,000 Square Feet Passenger Vehicles 1,864 203 36 239 46 193 239 Trucks 380 12 15 27 10 17 27 Total Site Trips 2,244 215 51 266 56 210 266 7 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Trip Distribution and Assignment The estimated distribution of site-generated traffic on the surrounding roadway network as it approaches and departs the site is a function of several variables, such as the nature of the surrounding land uses, prevailing traffic volumes/patterns, characteristics of the street system, and the ease with which motorists can travel over various sections of that system. The anticipated directional distributions estimated for the proposed development is outlined below. • 80% to/from the east on TH 55 • 20% to/from the west on TH 55 While there may be a small percentage of vehicles that utilize Chippewa Road after the connection is made to the east, it is not anticipated to be a significant amount and analyzing all site traffic at the Willow Drive & TH 55 intersection provides a more conservative analysis. The site traffic assignment, representing traffic volumes associated with the proposed development at the study intersections, is a function of the estimated trip generation (Table 1) and the directional distribution (listed above). The directional distribution is anticipated to be the same for passenger vehicles and heavy vehicles accessing the site, but the trip assignment is anticipated to be different at the accesses. Access 1 is to be utilized by only passenger vehicles while Access 2 and 3 are anticipated to be utilized by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The proposed development traffic was distributed to the site accesses based on the proposed site layout including the location and size of buildings, anticipated site circulation, and size and function of the parking areas in relation to the proposed site accesses. The site trip distribution for passenger vehicles is shown in Exhibit 6 and the site trip distribution for trucks is shown in Exhibit 7. The anticipated site-generated passenger vehicle traffic is illustrated in Exhibit 8 and the anticipated site-generated trucks are illustrated in Exhibit 9. The total site-generated traffic is presented in Exhibit 10. Traffic Forecasts Total traffic projections for Opening Year (2025) Build were calculated by adding the site-generated trips (Exhibit 10) to Opening Year (2025) No-Build traffic projections (Exhibit 4). Traffic projections for the Opening Year (2025) Build are illustrated in Exhibit 11. Traffic projections for the Horizon Year (2040) Build are illustrated in Exhibit 12. Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 8 5.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS An intersection capacity analysis was performed at the study intersections to quantify the delay and level of service at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. The capacity analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic traffic models and delays and level of service were evaluated for each of the following scenarios: • Existing Year (2021) • Opening Year (2025) No-Build • Opening Year (2025) Build • Horizon Year (2040) No-Build • Horizon Year (2040) Build Level of Service Overview Synchro/SimTraffic version 11 was used for the capacity analysis. Level of Service (LOS) is a quantitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the operations of an intersection. It ranges from A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst level of operation. LOS A conditions are characterized by minimal vehicle delay and free-flow conditions, while LOS F is characterized by long vehicle delay – usually when demand exceeds available roadway capacity. Although LOS E is defined as at-capacity, LOS D is generally the minimum acceptable level of operation at an intersection. The LOS criteria for unsignalized and signalized intersections is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Unsignalized Signalized A Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within traffic stream. 0 – 10 0 – 10 B Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream. > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20 C Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds. > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35 D Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average travel speeds continue to decrease. > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55 E High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed. > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80 F Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic flow. > 50 > 80 9 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Existing Year (2021) The Existing Year (2021) analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the baseline operating conditions for the study area without the addition of the background growth or development traffic. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 3 were used in the Existing Year (2021) analysis. In order to evaluate existing traffic operations, signal timings for TH 55 & Willow Driver were obtained from MnDOT. A summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS for each movement at the study intersections in the Existing Year (2021) are shown in Table 3 for the AM peak hour and Table 4 for the PM peak hour. The movements that are operating at LOS E are shown in orange and the movements that are operating at LOS F are shown in red. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix D. Table 3: Existing Year (2021) AM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 11.4 B 15.1 B 9.8 A 16.0 B WB 26.3 C 4.4 A 1.7 A NB 91.7 F 51.3 D 27.2 C SB 100+ F 20.1 C 5.0 A Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 2.2 A 1.3 A WB 3.7 A - - 2.6 A NB 1.5 A 0.6 A 0.4 A SB - - 0.2 A - - 1Delays in excess of 100 seconds per vehicle are reported as "100+". Table 4: Existing Year (2021) PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 35.0 C 6.9 A 3.6 A 15.4 B WB 15.2 B 13.6 B 7.0 A NB 76.7 E 64.2 E 6.0 A SB 67.9 E 40.3 D 29.4 C Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 2.3 A 2.3 A WB 3.8 A - - 2.2 A NB - - 1.4 A 1.0 A SB - - 0.2 A 0.0 A All study intersections currently operate at LOS B or better during the peak hours with some individual movements operating at LOS E and F. At the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive, the northbound left-turn and the southbound left-turn movements are operating at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. Additionally, the northbound through movement is operating at LOS E in the PM peak hour. This delay is likely a function of the relatively long cycle length (160 seconds) and due to the signal priority given to the east-west traffic flow along TH 55. As a result, long periods of green time are allocated to the east- west through movements and north-south traffic on Willow Drive receives shorter green times. The 95th percentile queues for the study intersections are anticipated to be accommodated within their existing storage bays. Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 10 Opening Year (2025) No-Build The Opening Year (2025) No-Build analysis was completed to understand the opening year baseline operating conditions for the study area without the addition of the development traffic. For this analysis signal timing at the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive were adjusted slightly from Existing Year (2021) due to all the development assumed in background growth. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 4 were used in the Opening Year (2025) No-Build analysis. A summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS for each movement at the study intersections in the Opening Year (2025) No-Build are shown in Table 5 for the AM peak hour and Table 6 for the PM peak hour. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in orange and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Table 5: Opening Year (2025) No-Build AM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 19.7 B 22.3 C 13.9 B 20.8 C WB 34.6 C 7.9 A 3.3 A NB 67.5 E 80.6 F 26.8 C SB 83.0 F 19.9 B 7.3 A Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 1.6 A 4.9 A WB 4.9 A - - 3.1 A NB 1.8 A 1.3 A 0.6 A SB - - 0.3 A - - Table 6: Opening Year (2025) No-Build PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 45.4 D 9.1 A 4.9 A 31.8 C WB 34.7 C 33.0 C 24.2 C NB 67.6 E 55.7 E 7.0 A SB 91.2 F 18.7 B 48.1 D Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 2.6 A 4.7 A WB 4.7 A - - 2.9 A NB - - 1.5 A 1.0 A SB - - 0.8 A 0.0 A With the addition of background traffic growth, the Roy & Cavanaugh site traffic, and the two potential developments, the study intersections are estimated to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Consistent with the Existing Year (2021) analysis, there are individual movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E/F. At the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive, the northbound left-turn, northbound through and the southbound left-turn movements are anticipated to operate at LOS E/F. This is consistent with the Existing Year (2021) analysis except for the northbound left-turn movement in the AM peak hour. 11 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 The 95th percentile queues for the individual movements at the study intersections are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective provided storage except for the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive. In the PM peak hour, the 95th percentile queues on the southbound approach at TH 55 & Willow Drive are expected to be approximately 260 feet which would be able to be accommodated in the taper of the southbound left turn lane. Opening Year (2025) Build The Opening Year (2025) Build analysis was completed to understand the impact of site-generated traffic on the study intersections. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 11 were used in the Opening Year (2025) Build analysis. A summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS for each movement at the study intersections in the Opening Year (2025) Build is shown in Table 7 for the AM peak hour and Table 8 for the PM peak hour. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in orange and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix F. Table 7: Opening Year (2025) Build AM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 32.1 C 35.2 D 23.5 C 30.9 C WB 44.0 D 13.3 B 6.4 A NB 60.7 E 43.6 D 32.2 C SB 100+ F 26.4 C 13.6 B Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 6.5 A 11.1 B WB 9.9 A 0.3 A 11.1 B NB 3.8 A 2.3 A 1.2 A SB - - 0.7 A - - Chippewa Road & Site Access 1 Side Street Stop EB 1.4 A 0.2 A - - 1.4 A WB - - 0.5 A - - SB - - - - 2.9 A Willow Drive & Site Access 2 (Cates Ranch Drive) Side Street Stop WB 5.4 A - - - - 5.4 A NB - - 2.2 A 1.1 A SB - - 0.4 A - - Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Side Street Stop WB 4.5 A - - - - 4.5 A NB - - 0.7 A 0.7 A SB - - 0.8 A - - 1Delays in excess of 100 seconds per vehicle are reported as "100+". Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 12 Table 8: Opening Year (2025) Build PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 55.7 E 12.8 B 4.4 A 93.5 F WB 85.0 F 97.6 F 82.8 F NB 54.8 D 51.7 D 6.3 A SB 100+ F 88.0 F 100+ F Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 86.9 F 97.5 F WB 100+ F 21.4 C 87.2 F NB - - 1.7 A 1.0 A SB - - 100+ F 53.7 F Chippewa Road & Site Access 1 Side Street Stop EB 2.3 A 0.2 A - - 100+ F WB - - 100+ F - - SB - - - - 100+ F Willow Drive & Site Access 2 (Cates Ranch Drive) Side Street Stop WB 15.6 C - - - - 15.6 C NB - - 0.4 A 0.2 A SB - - 15.6 C - - Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Side Street Stop WB 6.0 A - - - - 6.0 A NB - - 0.2 A 0.6 A SB - - 0.2 A - - 1Delays in excess of 100 seconds per vehicle are reported as "100+". With the addition of the site-generated trips, the study intersections are expected to operate poorly in the PM peak hour. Southbound queues at Willow Drive & TH 55 are anticipated to extend back through multiple intersections impacting operations at Willow Drive & Chippewa Road and Chippewa Road & Site Access 1. The 95th percentile queue for the southbound approach of TH 55 & Willow Drive is approximately 300 feet in the AM peak hour and approximately 1,300 feet in the PM peak hour which will exceed the existing storage provided. The queue in PM peak hour is anticipated to impact the upstream intersection of Willow Drive & Chippewa Road and consequently Chippewa Road & Site Access 1. To mitigate the anticipated queuing at TH 55 & Willow Drive in the Opening Year (2025) Build, signal timing at the intersection was reviewed as well as the addition of a second southbound left turn lane. It should be noted that because TH 55 in only a single lane road, a second receiving lane would have to be added for the Southbound left turns, this lane could be dropped downstream of the intersection. It was assumed that the southbound left turn lanes would be 225 feet long. Adjustments to signal timing splits were minimal and maintained priority for TH 55. It should be noted that the cycle length was maintained as splits were adjusted. These improvements and signal timing adjustments are anticipated to reduce the queues on the north- south movements while maintaining similar delays along TH 55. TH 55 is a coordinated corridor; therefore, the entire corridor may be impacted by adjusting signal timings and improvements at TH 55 & Willow Drive. Any improvements to TH 55 & Willow Drive would need to be coordinated and approved by MnDOT. A summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS for each movement at the study intersections with the signal timing adjustment in the Opening Year (2025) Build are shown in Table 9 for the AM peak hour and Table 10 for the PM peak hour. The movements that are anticipated to operate at 13 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 LOS E are shown in orange and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix G. Table 9: Opening Year (2025) Build with Mitigation AM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 26.1 C 23.4 C 14.3 B 21.6 C WB 34.2 C 11.1 B 5.8 A NB 62.9 E 54.6 D 5.8 A SB 70.5 E 21.6 C 7.1 A Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 4.8 A 9.9 A WB 9.9 A 0.3 A 1.9 A NB 4.0 A 2.2 A 1.1 A SB - - 0.5 A - - Chippewa Road & Access 1 Side Street Stop EB 1.4 A 0.2 A - - 2.8 A WB - - 0.5 A - - SB - - - - 2.8 A Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive (Access 2) Side Street Stop WB 5.3 A - - - - 5.3 A NB - - 2.1 A 1.1 A SB - - 0.4 A - - Willow Drive & Access 3 Side Street Stop WB 4.1 A - - - - 4.1 A NB - - 0.7 A 0.8 A SB - - 0.8 A - - Table 10: Opening Year (2025) Build with Mitigation PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 50.7 D 10.1 B 3.3 A 42.3 D WB 51.5 D 44.8 D 32.7 C NB 76.5 E 62.6 E 4.7 A SB 79.7 E 16.0 B 50.7 D Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 3.9 A 8.0 A WB 8.0 A 2.0 A 3.9 A NB - - 1.7 A 1.2 A SB - - 2.2 A 1.0 A Chippewa Road & Access 1 Side Street Stop EB 2.2 A 0.2 A - - 6.0 A WB - - 0.3 A - - SB - - - - 6.0 A Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive (Access 2) Side Street Stop WB 7.8 A - - - - 7.8 A NB - - 0.3 A 0.2 A SB - - 0.6 A - - Willow Drive & Access 3 Side Street Stop WB 6.0 A - - - - 6.0 A NB - - 0.3 A 0.7 A SB - - 0.2 A - - 1Delays in excess of 100 seconds per vehicle are reported as "100+". Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 14 With the addition of dual southbound left turn lanes, all study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours and all site accesses are anticipated to operate at LOS A. In both the AM & PM peak hours, delays on TH 55 are anticipated to increase slightly. In the AM & PM peak hours at TH 55 & Willow Drive, the southbound left-turn is still anticipated to operate at LOS E, but delay is decreased when compared to Opening Year (2025) Build scenario. This is generally consistent with the Existing Year (2021) analysis and better than the Opening Year (2025) No-Build analysis. As previously mentioned, the delay for the side street movements is a function of the relatively long cycle length (160 seconds) and due to the signal priority given to the east-west traffic flow along TH 55. The 95th percentile queues for the individual movements at the study intersections are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective provided storage except for the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive. In the PM peak hour, the 95th percentile queues on the southbound approach at TH 55 & Willow Drive are expected to be approximately 290 feet (12 vehicles) which would extend beyond the taper length of the southbound left turn lanes and potentially impact southbound traffic. However, this queue will not block the upstream intersection. The southbound left turn lanes could be extended to 300 feet to accommodate all queues. Adding a second southbound left turn lane and adjusting the signal timing at the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive is expected to reduce the anticipated queueing for the southbound movements on Willow Drive and would maintain acceptable mainline through operations along TH 55. These improvements would mitigate the impacts of the site-generated traffic until the expansion of TH 55 to a four-lane cross section occurs. Horizon Year (2040) No -Build The Horizon Year (2040) No-Build analysis was completed to understand the baseline horizon year operating conditions at the study intersections without the addition of the development traffic. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 5 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) No-Build analysis. For the analysis, the same geometry as the existing condition was assumed but the traffic signal timings at the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive were updated. A summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions for each movement at the study intersections is shown in Table 11 for the AM peak hour and Table 12 for the PM peak hour. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in orange and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix H. 15 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Table 11: Horizon Year (2040) No-Build AM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 45.4 D 9.1 A 4.9 A 24.4 C WB 34.7 C 33.0 C 24.2 C NB 67.6 E 55.7 E 7.0 A SB 91.2 F 18.7 B 48.1 D Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 2.6 A 4.7 A WB 4.7 A - - 2.9 A NB - - 1.5 A 1.0 A SB - - 0.8 A 0.0 A Table 12: Horizon Year (2040) No-Build PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 23.3 C 27.3 C 16.2 B 31.8 C WB 41.6 D 9.4 A 4.0 A NB 78.5 E 56.4 E 30.2 C SB 75.3 E 16.7 B 7.8 A Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 1.8 A 6.6 A WB 6.5 A - - 6.6 A NB 1.9 A 1.3 A 0.8 A SB - - 0.4 A - - With the addition of background traffic growth and the adjacent development, the study intersections are estimated to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. These results are generally consistent with the Opening Year (2025) No-Build analysis, there are individual movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E/F. Similar to the Opening Year (2025) No-Build analysis at the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive, the northbound left-turn, northbound through and the southbound left-turn movements are anticipated to operate at LOS E/F. The 95th percentile queues for the individual movements at the study intersections are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective provided storage except for the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive. In the PM peak hour, the 95th percentile queues on the southbound approach at TH 55 & Willow Drive are expected to be approximately 300 feet (12 vehicles) which would extend beyond the taper length of the southbound left turn lanes and potentially impact southbound traffic. However, this queue will not block the upstream intersection. Horizon Year (2040) Build The Horizon Year (2040) Build analysis was completed to understand the impact of site traffic on the operating conditions of the study intersections. The traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 12 were used in the Horizon Year (2040) Build analysis. Consistent with the Opening Year (2025) Build analysis, it was Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 16 assumed that dual southbound left turn lanes and signal timing adjustments will be made at TH 55 & Willow Drive. A summary of the average delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS under Horizon Year (2040) Build Conditions for each movement at the study intersections are shown in Table 13 for the AM peak hour and Table 14 for the PM peak hour. The movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS E are shown in orange and the movements that are anticipated to operate at LOS F are shown in red. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix I. Table 13: Horizon Year (2040) Build AM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 27.4 C 27.2 C 16.0 B 24.9 B WB 45.3 D 12.0 B 6.2 A NB 68.9 E 44.4 D 7.8 A SB 73.5 E 18.3 B 8.3 A Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 4.8 A 9.3 A WB 9.3 A 0.4 A 4.2 A NB 2.8 A 2.3 A 1.2 A SB - - 0.6 A - - Chippewa Road & Access 1 Side Street Stop EB 1.5 A 0.3 A - - 2.9 A WB - - 0.5 A - - SB - - - - 2.9 A Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive (Access 2) Side Street Stop WB 5.5 A - - - - 5.5 A NB - - 2.1 A 1.0 A SB - - 0.3 A - - Willow Drive & Access 3 Side Street Stop WB 5.2 A - - - - 5.2 A NB - - 0.7 A 1.0 A SB - - 0.1 A - - 17 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Table 14: Horizon Year (2040) Build PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS TH 55 & Willow Drive Signal EB 56.2 E 9.8 A 4.3 A 47.4 D WB 40.0 D 49.9 D 40.0 D NB 79.7 E 68.9 E 5.2 A SB 96.7 F 23.9 C 53.5 D Willow Drive & Chippewa Road Side Street Stop EB - - - - 14.0 B 13.0 B WB 13.0 B 2.0 A 12.3 B NB - - 2.1 A 1.3 A SB - - 4.0 A 2.7 A Chippewa Road & Access 1 Side Street Stop EB 2.8 A 0.2 A - - 6.8 A WB - - 1.0 A - - SB - - - - 6.8 A Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive (Access 2) Side Street Stop WB 7.7 A - - - - 7.7 A NB - - 0.4 A 0.4 A SB - - 0.7 A - - Willow Drive & Access 3 Side Street Stop WB 6.0 A - - - - 6.0 A NB - - 0.2 A 0.1 A SB - - 0.0 A - - With the addition of site-generated traffic, the study intersection operations are generally consistent with the Opening Year (2025) Build analysis with the study intersections estimated to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. All site accesses are anticipated to operate at LOS A. Similar to the Opening Year (2025) Build conditions, the southbound left-turn movement is anticipated to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour at TH 55 & Willow Drive, the southbound left turn is expected to operate at LOS F in PM peak hour. The 95th percentile queues for the individual movements at the study intersections are anticipated to be accommodated within their respective provided storage except for the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive. In the PM peak hour, the 95th percentile queues on the southbound approach at TH 55 & Willow Drive are expected to be approximately 315 feet (13 vehicles) which would extend beyond the taper length of the southbound left turn lanes and potentially impact southbound traffic. However, this queue will not block the upstream intersection. As previously mentioned, the southbound left turn lanes could be extended to 300 feet to accommodate all queues within the turn lane/taper. When TH 55 is expanded to 4 lanes, operations at the Willow Drive & TH 55 are expected to be acceptable. Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 18 6.0 TURN LANE NECESSITY The necessity of turn lanes at the site accesses was reviewed. Willow Drive and Chippewa Road has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. MnDOTs turn lanes warrants for left and right turn lanes are for 45 mph roads or greater but were still reviewed as part of the analysis. MnDOT provides guidance on the need for left- turn and right-turn lanes based on the major road AADT and the cross street AADT. Table 15 comes directly out of Chapter 3 of the MnDOT Access Management Manual, where Figure 3.40 provides a warrant for left- turn lanes and Figure 3.41 provides a warrant for right-turn lanes. Table 15: MnDOT Turn Lane Warrants Willow Drive Accesses There are no anticipated southbound left turns into the site accesses on Willow Drive, so the left turn warrant was not evaluated. Currently Willow Drive has an AADT of 1,500 vehicles per day. In 2040 the roadway is projected to have an AADT of 4,900 vehicles per day with the addition of the proposed development and background growth/developments. At the north Access the AADT is anticipated to be less than 1500 vehicles per day. The ADT of the Cates Ranch Drive will be approximately 55% of trips generated by the new development, which is expected to be 1,230 vehicles per day with the development. As a result, the proposed developments total traffic is just above the 100-vehicle threshold at Cates Ranch Drive. Therefore, a northbound right turn lane is warranted in the build condition, however, it is not anticipated to have significant operational impacts, so a turn lane is not recommended. Chippewa Drive Access Currently Chippewa Drive has an AADT of 690 vehicles per day. In 2040 the roadway is projected to have an AADT of 1,800 vehicles per day with the addition of the proposed development and background growth/developments. The ADT of the Cates Ranch Drive will be approximately 35% of trips generated by the new development, which is expected to be 780 vehicles per day with the development. As a result, the proposed developments total traffic does not meet the 1,500 vehicles per day threshold for a left turn lane. A right turn lane is warranted but it is anticipated that there will be minimal right turns at the access, therefore, it is not recommended. 19 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 7.0 C ONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A traffic impact analysis was performed for the proposed industrial park in Medina, MN to quantify the potential impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent intersections. The development is composed of three industrial buildings with a combined 666,000 square feet of industrial park. It anticipated to be operational by 2025. The site-generated trips for the development are 266 trips during the AM peak hour (215 entering and 51 exiting) and 266 trips during the PM peak hour (56 entering and 210 exiting). The study area intersections include the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive and the intersection of Willow Drive & Chippewa Road. A capacity analysis was performed for each of the following conditions to quantify operations at the study intersections with and without the site-generated trips: • Existing Year (2021) • Opening Year (2025) No-Build • Opening Year (2025) Build • Horizon Year (2040) No-Build • Horizon Year (2040) Build In the Existing Year (2021), Opening Year (2025) No-Build, and Horizon Year (2040) No-Build the intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better. In these three scenarios, the northbound left- turn, northbound through, and the southbound left-turn at the intersection of TH 55 & Willow Drive are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F in both peak hours. With the existing two-lane cross-section on TH 55, the volumes on TH 55 have long periods of green time and the north-south traffic on Willow Drive receives shorter green times. This results in poor operations on the north-south movements. With the addition of site traffic, the southbound approach at TH 55 & Willow Drive is anticipated to have 95th percentile queues that extend past the existing storage in both peak hours and impact the upstream intersection. To mitigate the anticipated queuing at TH 55 & Willow Drive in the Opening Year and Horizon Year Build, the addition of a second southbound left turn lane and signal timing updates were analyzed. It should be noted that because TH 55 in only a two-lane road, a second receiving lane would have to be added for the Southbound left turns, this lane could be dropped downstream of the intersection. The southbound left turn lanes at TH 55 & Willow Drive should be 300 feet long to accommodate queues. Any changes to the geometry and signal timings at TH 55 & Willow Drive would need to be coordinated and approved by MnDOT. No other turn lanes, or geometric improvements are recommended. Regardless of whether the site is constructed, TH 55 should be widened to a four-lane divided roadway, as previously Studied by MnDOT. When TH 55 is expanded, operations at TH 55 & Willow Drive will be significantly improved. Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 20 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Site Plan APPENDIX B: Exhibits APPENDIX C: Turning Movement Counts APPENDIX D: Existing Year (2021) SimTraffic Reports APPENDIX E: Opening Year (2025) No-Build SimTraffic Reports APPENDIX F: Opening Year (2025) Build SimTraffic Reports APPENDIX G: Opening Year (2025) Build with Mitigation SimTraffic Reports APPENDIX H: Horizon Year (2040) No-Build SimTraffic Reports APPENDIX I: Horizon Year (2040) Build SimTraffic Reports 21 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Appendix A: Site Plan R O A D W I L L O W D R I V E S T A T E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 C H I P P E W A R O A D W I L L O W D R I V E 30.0' PROPOSED BUILDING ±205,000 SF STORM POND ±45,500 SF STORM POND ±97,290 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ±205,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ±256,000 SF 50 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP)25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 60. 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 64 . 0 ' 977.0' 977.0' 97 7 . 0 ' 262.0' 20 0 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 80 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 12.0' TYP 12.0' TYP 10.0' 64.0' 9. 0 ' TY P 9. 0 ' TY P 19.0' 26.0' 19.0' 26.0' 26.0' 26.0' 120.0' 12 . 0 ' TY P DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' STORM POND ±21,000 SF 30.0' STORM POND ±43,000 SF 26 . 0 ' 60.0'60.0' 26 . 0 ' 21 0 . 0 ' 21 0 . 0 ' 30.0' 26 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 30 . 0 ' SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL 30.0' SCREEN WALL CO N C E P T SI T E PL A N EX-1 CA T E S M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L ME D I N A MN DA T E CH E C K E D B Y SC A L E DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y KH A P R O J E C T 16 0 7 7 4 0 5 4 11 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 AS S H O W N CJ J ZT R MC B IMPACTED WETLAND Th i s d o c u m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c o n c e p t s a n d d e s i g n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n , a s a n i n s t r u m e n t o f s e r v i c e , i s i n t e n d e d o n l y f o r t h e s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e a n d c l i e n t f o r w h i c h i t w a s p r e p a r e d . R e u s e o f a n d i m p r o p e r r e l i a n c e o n t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d a d a p t a t i o n b y K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . s h a l l b e w i t h o u t l i a b i l i t y t o K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . SHEET NUMBER 20 1 8 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 76 7 E U S T I S S T R E E T , S U I T E 1 0 0 , S T . P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 4 PH O N E : 6 5 1 - 6 4 5 - 4 1 9 7 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M K: \ T W C _ L D E V \ O P P I D A N \ C a t e s M e d i n a I n d u s t r i a l \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ E x h i b i t s \ E X - 1 _ C o n c e p t S i t e P l a n _ E A W . d w g N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 2 1 - 8 : 5 6 a m © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LEGEND DELINEATED WETLAND BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 68.9 AC EXISTING WETLANDS ON SITE 5.04 AC (7.32% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED WETLANDS IMPACT 1.61 AC (2.34% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 15.29 AC (22.20% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING TRAILER PARKING (PROPOSED)219 SPACES ASSOCIATE PARKING (PROPOSED)585 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING 333 SPACES REQUIRED ADA PARKING 12 SPACES ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING RR-UR - RUAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PROPOSED ZONING BP - BUSINESS PARK BUILDING/ PARKING SETBACKS FRONT (MAJOR ROAD) = 100' FRONT (MINOR ROAD) = 50' RESIDENTIAL = 50' SIDE/REAR = 20' NO R T H Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 22 Appendix B: Exhibits NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA LEGEND Proposed Site Location Study Intersection Proposed Site Driveway Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL LEGEND Project Site Location Study Intersection Existing Signal Control Existing Stop Control NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING (2021) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 4 OPENING YEAR (2025) NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 5 HORIZON YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 6 PASSENGER VEHICLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION LEGEND Proposed Site Location Site Traffic Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 7 HEAVY VEHICLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION LEGEND Proposed Site Location Site Traffic Distribution Inbound Site Traffic Outbound Site Traffic Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 8 PASSENGER VEHICLE PROJECT TRAFFIC LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 9 HEAVY VEHICLE PROJECT TRAFFIC LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 10 TOTAL PROJECT TRAFFIC LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 11 OPENING YEAR (2025) BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 NOT TO SCALE Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Drive 55 EXHIBIT 12 HORIZON YEAR (2040) BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS LEGEND Proposed Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (X X ) Site Access 1 Site Access 2 Site Access 3 23 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Appendix C : Turning Movement Counts Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Highway 55 Site Code: Start Date: 10/06/2021 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Eastbound Highway 55 Westbound Highway 55 Northbound Willow Drive Northbound Willow Drive Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 12:00 AM 0 5 0 0 5 1 7 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 12:15 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 12:30 AM 1 4 0 0 5 1 10 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 12:45 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Hourly Total 1 14 0 0 15 2 33 1 0 36 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 52 1:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 6 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1:15 AM 0 4 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 12 1:30 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1:45 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Hourly Total 0 12 0 0 12 0 18 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 34 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2:15 AM 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2:30 AM 0 7 0 0 7 0 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2:45 AM 0 6 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Hourly Total 0 18 0 0 18 0 18 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 3:00 AM 0 9 0 0 9 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 15 3:15 AM 0 13 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3:30 AM 0 11 0 0 11 1 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3:45 AM 0 18 1 0 19 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Hourly Total 0 51 1 0 52 2 11 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 67 4:00 AM 0 21 0 0 21 1 7 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 4:15 AM 0 39 1 0 40 2 6 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 49 4:30 AM 0 68 3 0 71 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 4:45 AM 1 68 1 0 70 4 11 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 Hourly Total 1 196 5 0 202 9 28 2 0 39 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 242 5:00 AM 2 97 0 0 99 4 11 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 5:15 AM 1 130 3 0 134 4 19 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 158 5:30 AM 3 179 9 0 191 15 15 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 223 5:45 AM 7 191 26 0 224 20 34 1 0 55 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 0 5 285 Hourly Total 13 597 38 0 648 43 79 3 0 125 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 1 0 7 781 6:00 AM 4 182 7 0 193 7 36 2 0 45 1 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 6 245 6:15 AM 7 249 11 0 267 4 47 14 0 65 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 5 338 6:30 AM 8 299 8 0 315 5 58 15 0 78 0 0 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 400 6:45 AM 10 292 9 0 311 12 70 7 0 89 1 0 5 0 6 5 0 3 0 8 414 Hourly Total 29 1022 35 0 1086 28 211 38 0 277 2 0 8 0 10 20 1 3 0 24 1397 7:00 AM 9 253 5 0 267 10 71 3 1 85 2 0 3 0 5 26 2 15 2 45 402 7:15 AM 8 309 10 1 328 13 106 7 2 128 0 0 4 0 4 11 1 14 0 26 486 7:30 AM 5 296 9 0 310 23 75 2 0 100 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 4 0 7 420 7:45 AM 4 257 10 1 272 16 81 7 1 105 4 2 6 0 12 7 1 8 0 16 405 Hourly Total 26 1115 34 2 1177 62 333 19 4 418 6 2 16 0 24 47 4 41 2 94 1713 8:00 AM 6 239 7 2 254 11 58 1 4 74 0 4 2 0 6 5 0 1 0 6 340 8:15 AM 3 209 14 0 226 8 78 3 0 89 1 1 5 0 7 10 1 1 0 12 334 8:30 AM 6 195 6 0 207 10 81 1 2 94 4 1 9 0 14 4 4 0 1 9 324 8:45 AM 10 160 8 0 178 6 77 0 0 83 0 1 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 269 Hourly Total 25 803 35 2 865 35 294 5 6 340 5 7 17 0 29 25 5 2 1 33 1267 9:00 AM 0 137 5 1 143 8 80 6 0 94 1 1 4 0 6 5 0 2 1 8 251 9:15 AM 3 150 1 0 154 4 102 4 0 110 0 1 0 0 1 6 1 10 0 17 282 9:30 AM 3 120 4 1 128 3 89 5 0 97 3 0 3 0 6 6 1 5 0 12 243 9:45 AM 1 147 5 0 153 3 113 3 3 122 2 1 3 0 6 4 1 6 0 11 292 Hourly Total 7 554 15 2 578 18 384 18 3 423 6 3 10 0 19 21 3 23 1 48 1068 10:00 AM 3 126 3 0 132 9 81 2 0 92 1 0 1 0 2 3 1 2 0 6 232 10:15 AM 4 128 7 0 139 4 101 3 0 108 5 2 2 0 9 7 0 2 0 9 265 10:30 AM 1 117 1 0 119 2 89 1 0 92 0 1 5 0 6 7 2 1 0 10 227 10:45 AM 3 106 3 0 112 6 98 5 2 111 4 1 7 0 12 6 0 0 0 6 241 Hourly Total 11 477 14 0 502 21 369 11 2 403 10 4 15 0 29 23 3 5 0 31 965 11:00 AM 4 117 2 0 123 8 109 1 0 118 1 2 9 0 12 12 0 5 0 17 270 11:15 AM 0 116 2 0 118 6 111 3 1 121 2 1 15 0 18 12 1 1 0 14 271 11:30 AM 0 109 4 2 115 13 107 1 1 122 3 2 7 0 12 10 0 3 0 13 262 11:45 AM 1 116 4 0 121 6 114 4 0 124 0 2 13 0 15 11 1 1 0 13 273 Hourly Total 5 458 12 2 477 33 441 9 2 485 6 7 44 0 57 45 2 10 0 57 1076 12:00 PM 3 108 2 1 114 5 118 2 1 126 5 0 13 0 18 8 2 7 0 17 275 12:15 PM 2 113 3 0 118 8 112 5 1 126 0 1 8 0 9 4 0 4 0 8 261 12:30 PM 4 105 1 0 110 8 114 6 0 128 3 1 4 0 8 3 1 7 0 11 257 12:45 PM 1 99 4 0 104 7 105 2 1 115 2 2 3 0 7 9 1 3 0 13 239 Hourly Total 10 425 10 1 446 28 449 15 3 495 10 4 28 0 42 24 4 21 0 49 1032 1:00 PM 0 92 9 0 101 7 125 6 0 138 4 1 13 0 18 5 0 1 0 6 263 1:15 PM 2 106 0 0 108 10 125 1 0 136 5 1 6 0 12 9 1 4 0 14 270 1:30 PM 3 103 2 0 108 11 130 4 0 145 6 0 14 0 20 7 0 2 0 9 282 1:45 PM 2 102 1 0 105 5 142 0 0 147 3 2 1 0 6 5 0 0 0 5 263 Hourly Total 7 403 12 0 422 33 522 11 0 566 18 4 34 0 56 26 1 7 0 34 1078 2:00 PM 2 98 2 0 102 4 180 1 1 186 2 0 10 0 12 6 1 1 0 8 308 2:15 PM 3 94 5 0 102 3 211 3 0 217 4 1 10 0 15 14 1 2 0 17 351 2:30 PM 3 116 2 0 121 6 209 4 1 220 5 1 15 0 21 6 1 1 0 8 370 2:45 PM 2 111 2 0 115 3 189 5 0 197 3 3 7 0 13 8 1 3 0 12 337 Hourly Total 10 419 11 0 440 16 789 13 2 820 14 5 42 0 61 34 4 7 0 45 1366 3:00 PM 1 106 4 1 112 4 216 3 0 223 3 2 13 0 18 19 2 11 0 32 385 3:15 PM 2 115 2 0 119 7 263 3 1 274 2 1 9 0 12 13 2 4 0 19 424 3:30 PM 4 113 1 0 118 4 261 4 0 269 9 0 17 0 26 10 1 11 0 22 435 3:45 PM 4 117 5 0 126 5 276 3 0 284 6 1 11 0 18 5 1 2 0 8 436 Hourly Total 11 451 12 1 475 20 1016 13 1 1050 20 4 50 0 74 47 6 28 0 81 1680 4:00 PM 0 100 2 0 102 3 271 3 0 277 9 4 13 0 26 13 1 3 1 18 423 4:15 PM 5 122 4 0 131 4 244 1 1 250 6 1 21 0 28 14 2 3 1 20 429 4:30 PM 4 107 2 1 114 2 255 4 2 263 18 2 32 0 52 4 3 8 0 15 444 4:45 PM 2 108 1 0 111 2 265 0 0 267 18 2 8 0 28 14 1 0 0 15 421 Hourly Total 11 437 9 1 458 11 1035 8 3 1057 51 9 74 0 134 45 7 14 2 68 1717 5:00 PM 0 112 3 0 115 2 293 3 1 299 11 2 11 0 24 14 3 10 0 27 465 5:15 PM 0 109 4 0 113 1 275 3 3 282 6 2 10 0 18 12 0 4 0 16 429 5:30 PM 1 117 2 0 120 2 238 3 0 243 8 0 2 0 10 13 0 3 0 16 389 5:45 PM 3 113 1 0 117 3 243 2 0 248 1 1 9 0 11 8 1 0 0 9 385 Hourly Total 4 451 10 0 465 8 1049 11 4 1072 26 5 32 0 63 47 4 17 0 68 1668 6:00 PM 2 75 0 1 78 2 168 5 0 175 5 0 8 0 13 5 0 4 0 9 275 6:15 PM 3 78 4 0 85 0 148 4 1 153 3 1 3 0 7 4 1 9 0 14 259 6:30 PM 5 87 1 0 93 3 152 12 0 167 2 0 3 0 5 8 1 6 1 16 281 6:45 PM 5 74 4 0 83 3 142 11 0 156 2 0 3 0 5 6 1 9 0 16 260 Hourly Total 15 314 9 1 339 8 610 32 1 651 12 1 17 0 30 23 3 28 1 55 1075 7:00 PM 0 55 1 0 56 1 117 2 0 120 3 0 2 0 5 17 1 10 0 28 209 7:15 PM 3 75 0 0 78 1 108 1 0 110 0 0 4 0 4 5 1 1 0 7 199 7:30 PM 2 64 4 0 70 2 108 1 2 113 2 0 1 0 3 3 0 3 0 6 192 7:45 PM 2 55 2 0 59 1 82 3 1 87 0 1 2 0 3 2 0 1 0 3 152 Hourly Total 7 249 7 0 263 5 415 7 3 430 5 1 9 0 15 27 2 15 0 44 752 8:00 PM 1 38 1 0 40 1 90 0 0 91 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 2 0 3 140 8:15 PM 0 39 0 0 39 0 65 5 0 70 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 112 8:30 PM 0 32 0 0 32 0 62 1 0 63 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 100 8:45 PM 1 42 2 0 45 1 63 1 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 115 Hourly Total 2 151 3 0 156 2 280 7 0 289 8 0 3 0 11 8 0 3 0 11 467 9:00 PM 0 49 0 0 49 0 58 2 0 60 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 112 9:15 PM 1 35 0 0 36 0 50 0 0 50 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 88 9:30 PM 0 26 0 0 26 0 46 0 0 46 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 74 9:45 PM 0 18 0 0 18 0 31 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 50 Hourly Total 1 128 0 0 129 0 185 2 0 187 2 1 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 5 324 10:00 PM 0 15 0 0 15 1 55 1 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 75 10:15 PM 1 15 0 0 16 0 40 6 0 46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 63 10:30 PM 1 8 0 0 9 0 32 1 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 43 10:45 PM 1 16 0 0 17 0 23 4 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 45 Hourly Total 3 54 0 0 57 1 150 12 0 163 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 5 226 11:00 PM 0 7 0 0 7 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 11 38 11:15 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 21 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 30 11:30 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 11:45 PM 0 3 0 0 3 1 11 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 17 Hourly Total 0 19 0 0 19 1 64 1 1 67 0 0 1 0 1 7 1 6 0 14 101 Grand Total 199 8818 272 12 9301 386 8783 241 35 9445 202 57 403 0 662 486 51 233 7 777 20185 Approach %2.1 94.8 2.9 0.1 -4.1 93.0 2.6 0.4 -30.5 8.6 60.9 0.0 -62.5 6.6 30.0 0.9 -- Total %1.0 43.7 1.3 0.1 46.1 1.9 43.5 1.2 0.2 46.8 1.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 3.3 2.4 0.3 1.2 0.0 3.8 - Lights 183 8400 256 12 8851 326 8327 192 31 8876 186 50 342 0 578 420 45 215 7 687 18992 % Lights 92.0 95.3 94.1 100.0 95.2 84.5 94.8 79.7 88.6 94.0 92.1 87.7 84.9 -87.3 86.4 88.2 92.3 100.0 88.4 94.1 Mediums 5 260 14 0 279 45 274 9 1 329 8 3 45 0 56 37 3 9 0 49 713 % Mediums 2.5 2.9 5.1 0.0 3.0 11.7 3.1 3.7 2.9 3.5 4.0 5.3 11.2 -8.5 7.6 5.9 3.9 0.0 6.3 3.5 Articulated Trucks 11 158 2 0 171 15 182 40 3 240 8 4 16 0 28 29 3 9 0 41 480 % Articulated Trucks 5.5 1.8 0.7 0.0 1.8 3.9 2.1 16.6 8.6 2.5 4.0 7.0 4.0 -4.2 6.0 5.9 3.9 0.0 5.3 2.4 Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Highway 55 Site Code: Start Date: 10/06/2021 Page No: 4 10/06/2021 12:00 AM Ending At 10/07/2021 12:00 AM Lights Mediums Articulated Trucks Northbound Willow Drive Out In Total 432 687 1119 17 49 66 55 41 96 504 777 1281 215 45 420 7 9 3 37 0 9 3 29 0 233 51 486 7 R T L U 97 4 2 20 6 34 3 91 9 3 Ou t 94 4 5 24 0 32 9 88 7 6 In 19 1 8 7 44 6 67 2 18 0 6 9 To t a l We s t b o u n d H i g h w a y 5 5 [ E ] R 24 1 40 9 19 2 T 87 8 3 18 2 27 4 83 2 7 L 38 6 15 45 32 6 U 35 3 1 31 627 578 1205 62 56 118 20 28 48 709 662 1371 Out In Total Northbound Willow Drive U L T R 0 186 50 342 0 8 3 45 0 8 4 16 0 202 57 403 Ea s t b o u n d H i g h w a y 5 5 [ W ] To t a l 17 5 9 1 57 0 37 0 18 5 3 1 In 88 5 1 27 9 17 1 93 0 1 Ou t 87 4 0 29 1 19 9 92 3 0 12 0 0 12 U 18 3 5 11 19 9 L 84 0 0 26 0 15 8 88 1 8 T 25 6 14 2 27 2 R Turning Movement Data Plot Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Highway 55 Site Code: Start Date: 10/06/2021 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (6:45 AM) Start Time Eastbound Highway 55 Westbound Highway 55 Northbound Willow Drive Northbound Willow Drive Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 6:45 AM 10 292 9 0 311 12 70 7 0 89 1 0 5 0 6 5 0 3 0 8 414 7:00 AM 9 253 5 0 267 10 71 3 1 85 2 0 3 0 5 26 2 15 2 45 402 7:15 AM 8 309 10 1 328 13 106 7 2 128 0 0 4 0 4 11 1 14 0 26 486 7:30 AM 5 296 9 0 310 23 75 2 0 100 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 4 0 7 420 Total 32 1150 33 1 1216 58 322 19 3 402 3 0 15 0 18 45 3 36 2 86 1722 Approach % 2.6 94.6 2.7 0.1 - 14.4 80.1 4.7 0.7 - 16.7 0.0 83.3 0.0 - 52.3 3.5 41.9 2.3 -- Total %1.9 66.8 1.9 0.1 70.6 3.4 18.7 1.1 0.2 23.3 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.0 2.6 0.2 2.1 0.1 5.0 - PHF 0.800 0.930 0.825 0.250 0.927 0.630 0.759 0.679 0.375 0.785 0.375 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.750 0.433 0.375 0.600 0.250 0.478 0.886 Lights 31 1109 30 1 1171 55 300 17 3 375 3 0 12 0 15 42 2 35 2 81 1642 % Lights 96.9 96.4 90.9 100.0 96.3 94.8 93.2 89.5 100.0 93.3 100.0 - 80.0 - 83.3 93.3 66.7 97.2 100.0 94.2 95.4 Mediums 1 27 2 0 30 2 10 1 0 13 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 46 % Mediums 3.1 2.3 6.1 0.0 2.5 3.4 3.1 5.3 0.0 3.2 0.0 - 13.3 - 11.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.7 Articulated Trucks 0 14 1 0 15 1 12 1 0 14 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 4 34 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 1.2 3.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 3.7 5.3 0.0 3.5 0.0 - 6.7 - 5.6 4.4 33.3 2.8 0.0 4.7 2.0 Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Highway 55 Site Code: Start Date: 10/06/2021 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 10/06/2021 6:45 AM Ending At 10/06/2021 7:45 AM Lights Mediums Articulated Trucks Northbound Willow Drive Out In Total 50 81 131 2 1 3 1 4 5 53 86 139 35 2 42 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 36 3 45 2 R T L U 12 1 3 17 30 11 6 6 Ou t 40 2 14 13 37 5 In 16 1 5 31 43 15 4 1 To t a l We s t b o u n d H i g h w a y 5 5 [ E ] R 19 1 1 17 T 32 2 12 10 30 0 L 58 1 2 55 U 3 0 0 3 87 15 102 4 2 6 3 1 4 94 18 112 Out In Total Northbound Willow Drive U L T R 0 3 0 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 15 Ea s t b o u n d H i g h w a y 5 5 [ W ] To t a l 15 1 0 40 28 15 7 8 In 11 7 1 30 15 12 1 6 Ou t 33 9 10 13 36 2 1 0 0 1 U 31 1 0 32 L 11 0 9 27 14 11 5 0 T 30 2 1 33 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (6:45 AM) Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Highway 55 Site Code: Start Date: 10/06/2021 Page No: 7 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM) Start Time Eastbound Highway 55 Westbound Highway 55 Northbound Willow Drive Northbound Willow Drive Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 5 122 4 0 131 4 244 1 1 250 6 1 21 0 28 14 2 3 1 20 429 4:30 PM 4 107 2 1 114 2 255 4 2 263 18 2 32 0 52 4 3 8 0 15 444 4:45 PM 2 108 1 0 111 2 265 0 0 267 18 2 8 0 28 14 1 0 0 15 421 5:00 PM 0 112 3 0 115 2 293 3 1 299 11 2 11 0 24 14 3 10 0 27 465 Total 11 449 10 1 471 10 1057 8 4 1079 53 7 72 0 132 46 9 21 1 77 1759 Approach % 2.3 95.3 2.1 0.2 - 0.9 98.0 0.7 0.4 - 40.2 5.3 54.5 0.0 - 59.7 11.7 27.3 1.3 -- Total %0.6 25.5 0.6 0.1 26.8 0.6 60.1 0.5 0.2 61.3 3.0 0.4 4.1 0.0 7.5 2.6 0.5 1.2 0.1 4.4 - PHF 0.550 0.920 0.625 0.250 0.899 0.625 0.902 0.500 0.500 0.902 0.736 0.875 0.563 0.000 0.635 0.821 0.750 0.525 0.250 0.713 0.946 Lights 10 434 9 1 454 9 1021 7 4 1041 53 6 69 0 128 38 9 21 1 69 1692 % Lights 90.9 96.7 90.0 100.0 96.4 90.0 96.6 87.5 100.0 96.5 100.0 85.7 95.8 - 97.0 82.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.6 96.2 Mediums 0 8 0 0 8 1 22 1 0 24 0 1 1 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 38 % Mediums 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.0 2.1 12.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 14.3 1.4 - 1.5 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 2.2 Articulated Trucks 1 7 1 0 9 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 29 % Articulated Trucks 9.1 1.6 10.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.8 - 1.5 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.6 Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Highway 55 Site Code: Start Date: 10/06/2021 Page No: 8 Peak Hour Data 10/06/2021 4:15 PM Ending At 10/06/2021 5:15 PM Lights Mediums Articulated Trucks Northbound Willow Drive Out In Total 24 69 93 2 4 6 1 4 5 27 77 104 21 9 38 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 21 9 46 1 R T L U 57 1 13 13 54 5 Ou t 10 7 9 14 24 10 4 1 In 16 5 0 27 37 15 8 6 To t a l We s t b o u n d H i g h w a y 5 5 [ E ] R 8 0 1 7 T 10 5 7 14 22 10 2 1 L 10 0 1 9 U 4 0 0 4 27 128 155 1 2 3 1 2 3 29 132 161 Out In Total Northbound Willow Drive U L T R 0 53 6 69 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 53 7 72 Ea s t b o u n d H i g h w a y 5 5 [ W ] To t a l 15 5 0 30 23 16 0 3 In 45 4 8 9 47 1 Ou t 10 9 6 22 14 11 3 2 1 0 0 1 U 10 0 1 11 L 43 4 8 7 44 9 T 9 0 1 10 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Chippewa Road_Medina, MN Site Code: Start Date: 10/12/2021 Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Eastbound Chippewa Road Westbound Chippewa Road Northbound Willow Drive Southbound Willow Drive Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 8 0 2 4 0 6 0 31 0 0 31 45 7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 7 0 9 0 11 0 0 11 23 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 9 2 1 3 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 21 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 18 1 4 6 0 11 0 5 0 0 5 34 Hourly Total 0 0 1 0 1 35 0 1 1 37 4 8 20 0 32 0 53 0 0 53 123 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 7 0 4 4 0 8 0 3 0 0 3 18 8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 11 0 1 0 12 1 4 6 0 11 0 4 0 0 4 28 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 2 2 1 0 5 0 7 0 0 7 19 8:45 AM 1 0 0 0 1 10 1 0 0 11 0 4 4 0 8 1 4 0 0 5 25 Hourly Total 1 0 1 0 2 33 1 3 0 37 3 14 15 0 32 1 18 0 0 19 90 *** BREAK ***--------------------- 4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 19 0 0 1 20 0 3 3 0 6 0 5 0 0 5 32 4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 2 8 0 1 0 9 0 3 2 0 5 0 3 0 0 3 19 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 2 14 0 0 0 14 0 3 2 0 5 0 2 0 0 2 23 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 16 0 8 2 0 10 0 6 0 0 6 32 Hourly Total 0 0 5 0 5 55 0 3 1 59 0 17 9 0 26 0 16 0 0 16 106 5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 15 0 2 0 17 0 6 1 0 7 0 4 1 0 5 31 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 2 0 10 0 6 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 5 22 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 3 17 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 2 0 8 1 1 0 0 2 16 Hourly Total 0 0 3 0 3 38 0 4 0 42 0 23 3 0 26 1 13 1 0 15 86 Grand Total 1 0 10 0 11 161 1 11 2 175 7 62 47 0 116 2 100 1 0 103 405 Approach % 9.1 0.0 90.9 0.0 - 92.0 0.6 6.3 1.1 - 6.0 53.4 40.5 0.0 - 1.9 97.1 1.0 0.0 -- Total %0.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.7 39.8 0.2 2.7 0.5 43.2 1.7 15.3 11.6 0.0 28.6 0.5 24.7 0.2 0.0 25.4 - Lights 1 0 10 0 11 101 1 6 1 109 7 48 45 0 100 2 85 1 0 88 308 % Lights 100.0 - 100.0 - 100.0 62.7 100.0 54.5 50.0 62.3 100.0 77.4 95.7 - 86.2 100.0 85.0 100.0 - 85.4 76.0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 0 12 0 1 2 0 3 0 4 0 0 4 19 % Mediums 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 5.6 0.0 27.3 0.0 6.9 0.0 1.6 4.3 - 2.6 0.0 4.0 0.0 - 3.9 4.7 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 2 1 54 0 13 0 0 13 0 11 0 0 11 78 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 31.7 0.0 18.2 50.0 30.9 0.0 21.0 0.0 - 11.2 0.0 11.0 0.0 - 10.7 19.3 Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Chippewa Road_Medina, MN Site Code: Start Date: 10/12/2021 Page No: 2 10/12/2021 7:00 AM Ending At 10/12/2021 6:00 PM Lights Mediums Articulated Trucks Southbound Willow Drive Out In Total 55 88 143 4 4 8 15 11 26 74 103 177 1 85 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 100 2 0 R T L U 51 1 2 48 Ou t 17 5 54 12 10 9 In 22 6 55 14 15 7 To t a l We s t b o u n d C h i p p e w a R o a d R 11 2 3 6 T 1 0 0 1 L 16 1 51 9 10 1 U 2 1 0 1 196 100 296 13 3 16 62 13 75 271 116 387 Out In Total Northbound Willow Drive U L T R 0 7 48 45 0 0 1 2 0 0 13 0 0 7 62 47 Ea s t b o u n d C h i p p e w a R o a d To t a l 20 0 0 20 In 11 0 0 11 Ou t 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 U 1 0 0 1 L 0 0 0 0 T 10 0 0 10 R Turning Movement Data Plot Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Chippewa Road_Medina, MN Site Code: Start Date: 10/12/2021 Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM) Start Time Eastbound Chippewa Road Westbound Chippewa Road Northbound Willow Drive Southbound Willow Drive Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 8 0 2 4 0 6 0 31 0 0 31 45 7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 7 0 9 0 11 0 0 11 23 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 9 2 1 3 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 21 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 18 1 4 6 0 11 0 5 0 0 5 34 Total 0 0 1 0 1 35 0 1 1 37 4 8 20 0 32 0 53 0 0 53 123 Approach % 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - 94.6 0.0 2.7 2.7 - 12.5 25.0 62.5 0.0 - 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 -- Total %0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 28.5 0.0 0.8 0.8 30.1 3.3 6.5 16.3 0.0 26.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 0.0 43.1 - PHF 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.486 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.514 0.500 0.500 0.714 0.000 0.727 0.000 0.427 0.000 0.000 0.427 0.683 Lights 0 0 1 0 1 20 0 0 1 21 4 6 20 0 30 0 49 0 0 49 101 % Lights -- 100.0 - 100.0 57.1 - 0.0 100.0 56.8 100.0 75.0 100.0 - 93.8 - 92.5 -- 92.5 82.1 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 % Mediums -- 0.0 - 0.0 5.7 - 100.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 1.9 -- 1.9 3.3 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 18 % Articulated Trucks -- 0.0 - 0.0 37.1 - 0.0 0.0 35.1 0.0 25.0 0.0 - 6.3 - 5.7 -- 5.7 14.6 Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Chippewa Road_Medina, MN Site Code: Start Date: 10/12/2021 Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 10/12/2021 7:00 AM Ending At 10/12/2021 8:00 AM Lights Mediums Articulated Trucks Southbound Willow Drive Out In Total 6 49 55 1 1 2 2 3 5 9 53 62 0 49 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 53 0 0 R T L U 21 0 0 21 Ou t 37 13 3 21 In 58 13 3 42 To t a l We s t b o u n d C h i p p e w a R o a d R 1 0 1 0 T 0 0 0 0 L 35 13 2 20 U 1 0 0 1 70 30 100 3 0 3 16 2 18 89 32 121 Out In Total Northbound Willow Drive U L T R 0 4 6 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 8 20 Ea s t b o u n d C h i p p e w a R o a d To t a l 5 0 0 5 In 1 0 0 1 Ou t 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 T 1 0 0 1 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM) Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Chippewa Road_Medina, MN Site Code: Start Date: 10/12/2021 Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM) Start Time Eastbound Chippewa Road Westbound Chippewa Road Northbound Willow Drive Southbound Willow Drive Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Left Thru Right U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 4:30 PM 0 0 2 0 2 14 0 0 0 14 0 3 2 0 5 0 2 0 0 2 23 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 16 0 8 2 0 10 0 6 0 0 6 32 5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 15 0 2 0 17 0 6 1 0 7 0 4 1 0 5 31 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 2 0 10 0 6 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 5 22 Total 0 0 5 0 5 51 0 6 0 57 0 23 5 0 28 0 17 1 0 18 108 Approach %0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 -89.5 0.0 10.5 0.0 -0.0 82.1 17.9 0.0 -0.0 94.4 5.6 0.0 -- Total %0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 4.6 47.2 0.0 5.6 0.0 52.8 0.0 21.3 4.6 0.0 25.9 0.0 15.7 0.9 0.0 16.7 - PHF 0.000 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.625 0.850 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.838 0.000 0.719 0.625 0.000 0.700 0.000 0.708 0.250 0.000 0.750 0.844 Lights 0 0 5 0 5 40 0 4 0 44 0 23 5 0 28 0 13 1 0 14 91 % Lights --100.0 -100.0 78.4 -66.7 -77.2 -100.0 100.0 -100.0 -76.5 100.0 -77.8 84.3 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 % Mediums --0.0 -0.0 2.0 -0.0 -1.8 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -5.9 0.0 -5.6 1.9 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 15 % Articulated Trucks --0.0 -0.0 19.6 -33.3 -21.1 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -17.6 0.0 -16.7 13.9 Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. 4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555 (630) 487-5550 bailey.waters@kimley-horn.com Count Name: Willow Drive & Chippewa Road_Medina, MN Site Code: Start Date: 10/12/2021 Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 10/12/2021 4:30 PM Ending At 10/12/2021 5:30 PM Lights Mediums Articulated Trucks Southbound Willow Drive Out In Total 27 14 41 0 1 1 2 3 5 29 18 47 1 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 17 0 0 R T L U 5 0 0 5 Ou t 57 12 1 44 In 62 12 1 49 To t a l We s t b o u n d C h i p p e w a R o a d R 6 2 0 4 T 0 0 0 0 L 51 10 1 40 U 0 0 0 0 58 28 86 2 0 2 13 0 13 73 28 101 Out In Total Northbound Willow Drive U L T R 0 0 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 5 Ea s t b o u n d C h i p p e w a R o a d To t a l 6 0 0 6 In 5 0 0 5 Ou t 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 T 5 0 0 5 R Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM) Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 24 Appendix D: Existing Year (2021) SimTraffic Reports SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour 10/25/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 5 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 1.3 1.5 1.2 0.4 1.2 4.2 0.1 4.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)11.4 15.1 9.8 26.3 4.4 1.7 91.7 51.3 27.2 112.7 20.1 5.0 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)16.0 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Road Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 3.7 2.6 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)23.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour 10/25/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 28 385 17 92 101 13 36 30 67 174 62 51 Average Queue (ft)6 89 1 33 18 1 7 2 16 57 8 17 95th Queue (ft)23 229 7 72 61 8 26 15 50 149 36 43 Link Distance (ft)6139 4045 665 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%)0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Road Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 18 72 16 Average Queue (ft)1 30 1 95th Queue (ft)8 69 7 Link Distance (ft)346 1407 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour 10/25/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.4 0.3 2.1 1.4 1.5 3.9 0.5 3.9 0.7 0.0 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)35.0 6.9 3.6 15.2 13.6 7.0 76.7 64.2 6.0 67.9 40.3 29.4 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)15.4 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Road Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBR NBT NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.3 3.8 2.2 1.4 1.0 0.2 0.0 2.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 Total Del/Veh (s)25.4 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour 10/25/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 22 125 8 29 354 78 124 39 75 119 47 66 Average Queue (ft)3 34 0 3 126 3 51 8 29 45 10 17 95th Queue (ft)16 93 4 17 275 44 107 31 57 98 35 50 Link Distance (ft)6139 4045 665 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Road Movement EB WB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 79 Average Queue (ft)4 32 95th Queue (ft)21 66 Link Distance (ft)346 1407 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 25 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Appendix E: Opening Year (2025) No-Build SimTraffic Reports SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.3 0.5 1.2 4.5 0.2 4.1 0.6 0.0 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 19.7 22.3 13.9 34.6 7.9 3.3 67.5 80.6 26.8 83.0 19.9 7.3 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 20.8 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.9 3.1 1.8 1.3 0.6 0.3 1.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 28.2 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 212 715 202 115 166 42 49 24 63 219 55 81 Average Queue (ft) 31 177 9 41 50 6 7 3 16 73 6 24 95th Queue (ft) 94 459 96 91 127 26 29 16 48 171 30 61 Link Distance (ft) 6139 4045 665 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 1 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 87 12 Average Queue (ft) 0 28 0 95th Queue (ft) 6 70 7 Link Distance (ft) 346 1407 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 4 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.8 1.5 1.6 3.8 0.5 3.9 0.9 0.0 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 45.4 9.1 4.9 34.7 33.0 24.2 67.6 55.7 7.0 91.2 18.7 48.1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 31.8 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBR NBT NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.6 4.7 2.9 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 42.4 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) No-Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 107 170 18 194 1123 189 129 43 76 276 229 125 Average Queue (ft) 32 53 1 11 364 13 51 7 30 142 29 40 95th Queue (ft) 78 133 8 83 849 104 108 32 60 259 204 89 Link Distance (ft) 6139 4045 665 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 5 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 73 26 Average Queue (ft) 6 33 2 95th Queue (ft) 24 65 28 Link Distance (ft) 346 1407 821 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 26 Appendix F: Opening Year (2025) Build SimTraffic Reports SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.6 0.9 1.5 3.9 0.1 4.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 32.1 35.2 23.5 44.0 13.3 6.4 60.7 43.6 32.2 101.4 26.4 13.6 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 30.9 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.5 9.9 0.3 11.1 3.8 2.3 1.2 0.7 2.2 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.4 0.2 0.5 2.9 0.9 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.4 2.2 1.1 0.4 1.7 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 37.7 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 378 1150 362 128 245 87 32 17 65 313 368 143 Average Queue (ft) 76 340 34 44 72 24 5 2 15 139 49 35 95th Queue (ft) 255 919 220 101 178 63 22 12 46 300 285 91 Link Distance (ft) 6139 4045 665 598 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 7 0 0 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 0 2 14 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 17 108 38 6 Average Queue (ft) 1 36 2 0 95th Queue (ft) 9 84 21 5 Link Distance (ft) 344 177 598 804 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 29 31 Average Queue (ft) 3 12 95th Queue (ft) 18 36 Link Distance (ft) 177 306 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 Average Queue (ft) 27 95th Queue (ft) 61 Link Distance (ft) 545 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 Average Queue (ft) 11 95th Queue (ft) 45 Link Distance (ft) 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 29 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.3 1.6 2.0 4.0 0.4 3.8 5.1 0.1 5.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 55.7 12.8 4.4 85.0 97.6 82.8 54.8 51.7 6.3 229.2 88.0 144.7 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 93.5 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 40.2 0.0 54.3 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 10.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 86.9 215.5 21.4 87.2 1.7 1.0 117.5 53.7 97.5 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 1.3 304.6 122.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.3 0.2 375.8 387.3 258.3 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 15.6 0.4 0.2 15.6 11.8 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 14.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 138.8 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 113 217 15 139 2339 300 158 51 70 320 615 260 Average Queue (ft) 44 87 1 9 1173 47 50 8 27 315 562 69 95th Queue (ft) 96 184 7 68 2550 204 113 33 55 347 777 160 Link Distance (ft) 6139 4045 665 598 Upstream Blk Time (%) 52 Queuing Penalty (veh) 226 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 25 0 83 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 0 89 0 0 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 42 184 9 805 Average Queue (ft) 7 135 0 343 95th Queue (ft) 31 235 7 810 Link Distance (ft) 344 177 598 804 Upstream Blk Time (%) 54 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 70 21 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LT TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 18 696 323 Average Queue (ft) 1 176 154 95th Queue (ft) 9 584 367 Link Distance (ft) 177 1037 306 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 33 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 159 208 Average Queue (ft) 50 33 95th Queue (ft) 103 221 Link Distance (ft) 545 1056 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 71 Average Queue (ft) 23 95th Queue (ft) 58 Link Distance (ft) 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 426 27 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Appendix G: Opening Year (2025) Build with Mitigation SimTraffic Reports SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Mitigated Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 0.9 1.5 4.2 0.1 4.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)26.1 23.4 14.3 34.2 11.1 5.8 62.9 54.6 5.8 70.5 21.6 7.1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)21.6 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 9.9 0.3 1.9 4.0 2.2 1.1 0.5 2.2 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 0.5 2.8 0.9 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.1 1.1 0.4 1.7 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)4.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)25.7 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Mitigated Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 307 601 186 117 196 76 25 15 55 153 181 65 Average Queue (ft)61 191 12 33 55 20 4 1 14 50 78 8 95th Queue (ft)200 492 117 80 145 56 16 11 42 130 153 38 Link Distance (ft)6132 4037 650 597 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%)3 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)6 1 0 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)75 Average Queue (ft)28 95th Queue (ft)62 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 220 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)23 131 20 Average Queue (ft)1 38 1 95th Queue (ft)11 90 12 Link Distance (ft)344 177 597 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Mitigated Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LT TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)35 6 31 Average Queue (ft)3 0 11 95th Queue (ft)20 4 35 Link Distance (ft)177 1037 306 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft)70 Average Queue (ft)30 95th Queue (ft)64 Link Distance (ft)545 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft)67 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)43 Link Distance (ft)674 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 6 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2025) Build Mitigated Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.6 2.2 3.9 0.4 3.9 0.3 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)50.7 10.1 3.3 51.5 44.8 32.7 76.5 62.6 4.7 79.7 16.0 50.7 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)42.3 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 8.0 2.0 3.9 1.7 1.2 2.2 1.0 3.3 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 0.2 0.3 6.0 2.6 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)7.8 0.3 0.2 0.6 2.6 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)6.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.5 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)52.4 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Mitigated Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 121 177 9 78 1248 300 176 51 64 270 311 352 Average Queue (ft)43 69 0 5 503 38 50 9 28 156 180 29 95th Queue (ft)90 148 6 47 1135 183 118 34 56 261 288 190 Link Distance (ft)6132 4037 650 597 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%)17 0 3 8 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)13 1 5 10 0 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 208 Average Queue (ft)85 95th Queue (ft)175 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 220 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)34 94 Average Queue (ft)6 46 95th Queue (ft)26 76 Link Distance (ft)344 177 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2025) Build Mitigated Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)6 69 Average Queue (ft)0 31 95th Queue (ft)4 53 Link Distance (ft)177 306 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 107 Average Queue (ft)46 95th Queue (ft)78 Link Distance (ft)545 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft)75 Average Queue (ft)20 95th Queue (ft)56 Link Distance (ft)674 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 30 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 28 Appendix H : Horizon Year (2040) No-Build SimTraffic Reports SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.3 0.6 1.3 4.3 0.2 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 23.3 27.3 16.2 41.6 9.4 4.0 78.5 56.4 30.2 75.3 16.7 7.8 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 24.4 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.8 6.5 6.6 1.9 1.3 0.8 0.4 1.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 31.9 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 294 877 198 134 196 44 50 38 79 247 56 79 Average Queue (ft) 50 248 10 55 59 9 8 3 20 83 7 28 95th Queue (ft) 189 620 96 114 150 31 30 20 60 190 32 60 Link Distance (ft) 6139 4045 665 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 1 2 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 18 100 17 Average Queue (ft) 1 38 0 95th Queue (ft) 8 85 4 Link Distance (ft) 346 1407 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 3.7 0.8 3.7 1.1 0.0 2.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 49.2 10.3 5.1 32.7 39.1 28.5 80.6 64.5 9.1 104.0 21.8 50.1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 37.9 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBR NBT NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.7 6.5 2.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 2.5 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 48.5 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 117 207 17 91 1208 299 213 146 115 319 421 138 Average Queue (ft) 38 64 1 10 445 21 75 20 37 176 49 48 95th Queue (ft) 90 147 8 71 1028 135 171 135 76 302 259 104 Link Distance (ft) 6139 4045 665 600 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 14 2 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 2 10 0 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 94 44 Average Queue (ft) 6 41 3 95th Queue (ft) 25 75 43 Link Distance (ft) 346 1407 821 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 21 29 Cates Ranch Drive Industrial Park – Medina, MN │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2021 Appendix I : Horizon Year (2040) Build SimTraffic Reports SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 0.8 1.5 4.3 0.1 4.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 27.4 27.2 16.0 45.3 12.0 6.2 68.9 44.4 7.8 73.5 18.3 8.3 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 24.9 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.8 9.3 0.4 4.2 2.8 2.3 1.2 0.6 2.2 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.5 0.3 0.5 2.9 0.8 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.5 2.1 1.0 0.3 1.6 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.2 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.6 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 28.9 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 374 739 284 145 256 142 47 24 68 196 222 100 Average Queue (ft) 70 249 10 57 59 22 8 2 16 61 86 10 95th Queue (ft) 226 577 96 121 162 78 29 12 47 153 175 51 Link Distance (ft) 6132 4037 650 597 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 2 0 0 0 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 94 Average Queue (ft) 33 95th Queue (ft) 70 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 220 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 17 108 28 Average Queue (ft) 1 41 1 95th Queue (ft) 10 88 12 Link Distance (ft) 344 177 597 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Traffic Projections AM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Movement EB SB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 36 Average Queue (ft) 5 11 95th Queue (ft) 23 36 Link Distance (ft) 177 306 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 86 Average Queue (ft) 32 95th Queue (ft) 70 Link Distance (ft) 545 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 Average Queue (ft) 7 95th Queue (ft) 34 Link Distance (ft) 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.9 1.6 2.2 3.9 0.5 3.9 0.5 0.0 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 56.2 9.8 4.3 40.0 49.9 40.0 79.7 68.9 5.2 96.7 23.9 53.5 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 47.4 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Performance by movement Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.0 13.0 2.0 12.3 2.1 1.3 4.0 2.7 5.6 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.8 0.2 1.0 6.8 2.9 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.7 0.4 0.4 0.7 2.5 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Performance by movement Movement WBL NBT NBR SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 57.5 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 148 166 18 138 1472 300 180 56 74 268 308 460 Average Queue (ft) 55 64 1 10 574 61 68 14 33 161 188 86 95th Queue (ft) 116 143 9 82 1270 246 139 43 60 280 312 396 Link Distance (ft) 6132 4037 650 597 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 340 340 200 200 220 220 220 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 19 0 10 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 0 11 18 2 Intersection: 1: Willow Drive & TH 55 (108) Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 198 Average Queue (ft) 77 95th Queue (ft) 161 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 220 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Willow Drive & Access/Chippewa Raod Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 34 143 107 Average Queue (ft) 4 57 13 95th Queue (ft) 21 112 93 Link Distance (ft) 344 177 804 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build Traffic Projections PM Peak Hour 11/30/2021 SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Intersection: 3: Chippewa Raod & Site Access 1 Movement EB WB SB Directions Served LT TR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 28 59 Average Queue (ft) 2 1 31 95th Queue (ft) 17 18 51 Link Distance (ft) 177 1037 306 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Willow Drive & Site Access 2 Movement WB NB Directions Served LR TR Maximum Queue (ft) 91 4 Average Queue (ft) 44 0 95th Queue (ft) 75 3 Link Distance (ft) 545 804 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Willow Drive & Site Access 3 Movement WB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 66 Average Queue (ft) 22 95th Queue (ft) 54 Link Distance (ft) 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 62 Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 December 7, 2021 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: December 1, 2021 MEETING: December 7, 2021 City Council Land Use Application Review A)Hamel Townhomes Concept Plan – Hamel Townhomes, LLC has requested review of a concept plan for a 30 unit townhome development at 342 Hamel Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9. Generally, Commissioners felt the concept was too dense with the proposed townhome use and was not consistent with the objectives of the Uptown Hamel district. Staff intend to present to the City Council on December 7. B)Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – BPS Properties has requested Preliminary Plat approval for a 38-lot subdivision east of Arrowhead Drive south of Bridgewater. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9. Commissioners were generally supportive of a PUD, although several suggested reducing the number of units and increasing green space. Staff intends to present to City Council on December 7. C)Caribou Cabin CUP and Site Plan Review – 3692 Pinto Drive – Woodbury REI LLC has requested a Site Plan Review and CUP for a small retail building including a drive-through at the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Pinto Drive. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9 and recommended approval. Staff intends to present to City Council on December 7. D)Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Worksheet – Oppidan has requested review of an EAW and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule review when complete. E)Ditter Heating and Cooling Site Plan Review – 820 Tower Drive – Ditter Heating and Cooling has requested a Site Plan Review for an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to its building. The application is incomplete for review and will be scheduled for a hearing when complete. F)BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), Minneapolis, has requested Site Plan Review for construction of a place of assembly. The Planning Commission reviewed at the September 14 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council reviewed on October 5, October 19, and November 3 meeting. The applicant updated plans to be consistent with the recently adopted interim ordinance pertaining to rooftop elements. The Council adopted a resolution for approval at the November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction until spring. G)Sign Ordinance Amendment – Ditter Heating and Cooling has requested that the City consider amending its Sign Ordinance to increase the allowed height and size of freestanding signs within the Commercial-General zoning district adjacent to a state highway – The Planning Commission held public hearings at the September and October meetings. Following discussion, the Commission recommended approval with several changes. The City Council discussed on MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 December 7, 2021 City Council Meeting October 19 and tabled for more information. The Council adopted an ordinance at the November 16 meeting. This project will now be closed. H)Life-Style Auto Condo – South of Hwy 55, west of Pioneer – SH Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of 12 buildings with approximately 258,000 square feet of space for privately owned garage condos. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided comments at the October 12 meeting. Most Commissioners generally did not believe the proposal was consistent with the objectives of FDA land use of the Comp Plan. The Council reviewed at the November 16 Council meeting and provided comments. The applicant has requested that the City Council remain open, as they are considering potential updates to their Concept Plan. I)Weston Woods Final Plat – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested Final Plat for development of 76 twinhomes, 42 single- family, and 33 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. Grading has begun on the project and final plans are under review. J)Medina Townhomes – 1432 Baker Park Road (County Road 29) – Medina Townhome Development LLC has requested a Planned Unit Development General Plan and Site Plan Review for 23 rental townhomes on 2 acres north of Highway 12, east of Baker Park Road. The City Council adopted approval documents on September 21. Staff is working with the applicant to address the conditions of approval prior to construction. K)Deer Hill Preserve 5th Addition – Deer Hill Road, east of Homestead Tr. – Property Resources Development Corporation has requested final plat approval for eight of the lots within the Deer Hill Preserve development. City Council approved the final plat at the August 17 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize conditions of approval before executing the plat. L)Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials. M)Prairie Creek, Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Pioneer Trail Preserve – These projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application. N)Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. O)Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Other Projects A)Rooftop Elements Moratorium – Staff began researching regulations in other communities and reviewing existing rooftop elements within the City. Staff intends to present to the Planning Commission on December 14. B)Elevate Business HC Worksession – I attended a worksession hosted by Hennepin County Community Works related to their programs intended to support businesses throughout Hennepin County. The purpose of the Worksession was to strategize on programs using various federal funds which are anticipated. C)Hennepin County Natural Resources Strategic Plan – I will be attending a worksession with Hennepin County staff related to their natural resource protection efforts on Thursday, December 2. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: December 2, 2021 RE: Department Updates With the holiday seasons starting last week, I think that it is important to reflect on the blessings that we each individually and collectively have. I am very thankful for being able to work in such a supportive community. One that respects police, fire, and emergency services personnel. The entire staff working at the police department goes above and beyond every day and it is evident in the phone calls, emails and things that are dropped off at the office each week. We are truly blessed. Our agency as well as many others in the metro are preparing for the Kim Potter trail. Jury selection started on 11-30-2021 with an anticipated opening statement date on or before 12-08-2021. We have two officers assigned to the west metro mobile field force team that will be ready if called to assist with the potential of civil unrest in Hennepin County. The Hennepin Chiefs have been meeting and collaborating on requests that have been coming in for our mobile field force teams. The annual Loretto Holiday Train event has been modified since CP Rail has cancelled the holiday train. It was decided that Loretto still wanted to raise money and food for the local food shelves. This event in the past has been one of the biggest contributors towards the food shelf. The Loretto Fire Department is going to have a meet and greet with Santa on December 11 in the morning and then in the afternoon they are going to close Railway Street down in their business/restaurant area and have reindeer, kiddie trains, Christmas characters and other fun holiday events. A member of the police department will be wearing the Grinch costume this year! We are again this year participating in Toy for Tots campaign and have posted information about that on our social media sites for the police department and city. Drop off sites and other information is on the website. We are also participating with Shop with a Cop. Our Officers and Community Service Officers will be pairing up with kids Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between November 10, 2021, and November 30, 2021: Officers issued 20 citations and 34 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 6 property damage accidents (involving deer), 6 medicals, 13 suspicious calls, 6 traffic complaints, 34 assists to other agencies, 14 business/residential alarms, and (4) 911-hangups. On 11/10/2021 Officer was dispatched to a customer problem at Casey’s General Store. It was reported a customer was upset about lottery tickets and began making a scene inside and outside the store. Upon arrival by officers the person was no longer on scene. On 11/12/2021 Officer was dispatched to a suspicious vehicle in the 400 block of Pheasant Ridge Road. Upon arrival the Officer made contact with a person in the vehicle who advised he was doing work on a home in the area. No issues found. On 11/13/2021 Officer was dispatched to Inn Kahoots Bar on a report of a customer unable to pay for his tab at the bar. Upon arrival Officer made contact with the subject and learned his debit card had been declined and he had no other way to pay for his tab. Subject contacted his brother who responded and paid for his tab and agreed to give the subject a ride home. On 11/14/2021 Officer responded to assist Carver County Sheriff’s Office on a high risk stop in the area of County Road 6 and County Road 83 in Maple Plain. Several other officers also assisted, and the driver was taken into custody without incident. Driver was wanted for domestic assault and interference with a 911 call and known to carry weapons. On 11/17/2021 Officer responded to the 3500 block of Pinto Drive on a theft report. Officer learned that overnight an enclosed trailer was stolen from a lot of the business and inside the trailer at the time were three motorcycles. The case has been forwarded to Investigations for follow-up. On 11/18/2021 Officer was dispatched to a welfare check at a business in the 800 block of Tower Drive. Officer learned that the business was supposed to be open, and an employee’s vehicle was in the lot, but no one would answer the door. While the officer was on scene another employee showed up for work and was able to gain entry into the business and learned the employee on site was sleeping and failed to wake up to open the business. No issues found. On 11/21/2021 Officer was dispatched to a reported abandoned ATV in the area of County Road 101 and Prairie Creek Drive. Upon arriving and investigating the officer learned the ATV belonged to a party who was placing markers for the snowmobile trail and had become stuck. The officer assisted with contacting a tow company to retrieve the ATV. On 11/24/2021 Officers were dispatched to an unresponsive male in the 2600 block of Bobolink Road. Upon arrival officers located a deceased male inside the attached garage at the residence who appeared to have been deceased for several days. No foul play was suspected in the incident and an autopsy is pending by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office. On 11/26/2021 Officer was dispatched to a residential burglary in the 1400 block of Willow Drive. Upon arrival the officer learned the residence had been burglarized within the past 24 hours and was discovered by a pet sitter who had stopped by to check on animals within the residence. Numerous items were found to have been taken from the residence. Case forwarded to investigations. On 11/27/2021 Officer was dispatched to a vehicle theft that had just occurred in the 4500 block of Trillium Drive. The vehicle owner reported just arriving home and was transferring items from the vehicle to the home when someone jumped into the vehicle and stole it from the garage. The vehicle was found the following day by Carver County Sheriff’s Office and after a pursuit several juveniles were taken into custody. Believed to be related to recent trend of stolen vehicles from the suburbs. On 11/29/2021 around 0319 hours Officer was dispatched to a business alarm at Liquor Depot in the 4300 block of Highway 55. Upon arrival the officer found the front door shattered by a rock. Entry was not believed to have occurred and suspect possibly scared off by the glass break alarm. Investigations: Investigating a theft of a motor vehicle. The victim’s vehicle was stolen from the garage and was later involved in a pursuit in Carver County. The vehicle was occupied by 5 juveniles. I attempted to collect a statement from the juvenile driver, but they declined. The juvenile will be charged in Carver County for numerous charges. It is unknown at this time if the juvenile who was driving the vehicle was the one who stole the vehicle from Medina. Investigation is ongoing. Investigating a theft of an enclosed trailer from a business. The enclosed trailer also had three motorcycles inside. I have sent out a crime alert with information about the trailer and motorcycle. I recently began training Officer Scharf, who will be taking over for Investigations in January. There is a lot of information to pass on and it will take several weeks. I was out of the office for the week of Thanksgiving. There are currently (6) cases assigned to investigations. 1 TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE December 1, 2021 MEETING: December 7, 2021 SUBJECT Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works has been going through our snow equipment to prepare for the inevitable arrival of snow/freezing rain. • Shouldering on Shire Drive is complete. Public Works was able to utilize some of the reclaimed material to finish the job. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Well #2 at Independence Beach was pulled out due to poor performance. After inspection a hole was found in the check valve, some very worn pipe was below the water level in the well, and a very worn motor. We engaged Bergeson Caswell to replace some pipe, the pump motor, and to rebuild the pump itself. The well should be in good shape for several more years. The last time work was completed on this well was 15 years ago, so it served us very well. • I am working through water meter supply chain issues that have the potential to impact new services in developing properties. We are looking into options as we move forward. I am in regular contact with our supplier to check on availability. • To fulfill another of our MS-4 storm water permit requirements, Public Works attended a Smart Salting Certification training course on November 30th to look at ways to reduce salt/chloride levels when dealing with slippery roads. PARKS/TRAILS • Public Works continues to remove excess dirt from Hunter Park. We have filled the old salt shed at City Hall with black dirt for use on future projects. • The Lakeshore Park concept plan is out for comment on our website and Facebook page. Residents have until December 31st to participate in the survey. PERSONNEL • Public Works remains shorthanded so we will again engage part-time help for the winter months as we work to recruit a full-time replacement. MEMORANDUM ORDER CHECKS NOVEMBER 16, 2021 – DECEMBER 7, 2021 052301 AGRAWAL, PRIYANKA ............................................................. $250.00 052302 ALCHEMY SOCCER SCHOOL LLC .......................................... $500.00 052303 THE DAMA CO ............................................................................ $45.00 052304 GOVINDU, NAGASUDHA .......................................................... $500.00 052305 KAZA, VENKATA ....................................................................... $250.00 052306 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $36,902.25 052307 METRO WEST INSPECTION ............................................... $35,296.18 052308 PINE TAR ACADEMY ................................................................ $500.00 052309 RAMON-NARVAEZ, CARMEN .................................................. $500.00 052310 CHB TITLE LLC ........................................................................... $66.40 052311 COLPITTS, SARAH ................................................................... $250.00 052312 FAIRCHILD, MARK/SHARON .................................................... $500.00 052313 MEDINA HIGHLANDS ............................................................... $150.00 052314 PEARSON, HEIDI ...................................................................... $250.00 052315 PULTE GROUP .................................................................... $30,000.00 052316 RISTOW, DAVID/KANA ............................................................... $30.38 052317 STUROS, TYLER ...................................................................... $250.00 052318 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................... $587.78 052319 ADAMS PEST CONTROL INC .................................................... $89.84 052320 ALDI, INC. .............................................................................. $5,000.00 052321 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES ...................................................... $959.89 052322 DOBOSZENSKI & SONS, INC. ............................................... $8,500.00 052323 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ............................................................ $435.33 052324 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC ........................................... $1,734.75 052325 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I ................................ $500.00 052326 HENN COUNTY TREASURER .................................................. $961.04 052327 HENN CTY RECORDER/REGISTRAR .......................................... $5.00 052328 HOLIDAY FLEET ......................................................................... $91.00 052329 MN DEPT OF LABOR/INDUSTRY ............................................. $100.00 052330 MOTLEY AUTO SERVICE LLC ................................................... $99.00 052331 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $24.95 052332 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS ................................... $877.50 052333 NUSS EQUIPMENT GROUP LLC ............................................. $414.04 052334 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CONSULTA .................................. $24.00 052335 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $363.34 052336 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,242.45 052337 SOLUTION BUILDERS INC ....................................................... $646.25 052338 STREICHER'S ........................................................................... $432.90 052339 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................ $1,472.98 052340 TEGRETE CORP .................................................................... $1,355.00 052341 TRANSPORT GRAPHICS ......................................................... $795.00 052342 SSI MN TRANCHE 1 #10322006 ............................................ $2,133.28 052343 SSI MN TRANCHE 3 #10327096 ............................................ $3,612.18 052344 XCEL ENERGY ......................................................................... $244.39 Total Checks $145,942.10 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS NOVEMBER 16, 2021 – DECEMBER 7, 2021 006162E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $473.48 006163E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $9,702.43 006164E FURTHER .............................................................................. $5,523.03 006165E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $845.79 006166E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,633.66 006167E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $23.00 006168E PR PERA .............................................................................. $18,951.61 006169E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,567.80 006170E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $2,790.00 006171E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $4,221.65 006172E MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT ............................................. $235.50 006173E MINNESOTA, STATE OF ....................................................... $1,442.00 006174E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $5,007.07 006175E XCEL ENERGY ...................................................................... $3,593.62 006176E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $4,386.24 006177E CENTERPOINT ENERGY ......................................................... $436.18 006178E GREAT AMERICA FINANCIAL SERVI ...................................... $178.95 006179E MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $795.61 006180E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES ................................................ $141.66 006181E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $1,900.65 006182E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $150.00 Total Electronic Checks $79,999.93 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT – NOVEMBER 24, 2021 0511460 BILLMAN, JACKSON CARROLL ............................................... $679.07 0511461 COOK, JUSTIN W ..................................................................... $478.29 0511462 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ...................................................... $700.98 0511463 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,492.82 0511464 BAUMGARDNER, COLETTE J .................................................. $370.55 0511465 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,607.94 0511466 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,701.26 0511467 DEMARS, LISA ....................................................................... $1,436.13 0511468 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $2,009.14 0511469 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $1,998.57 0511470 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,649.78 0511471 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,133.16 0511472 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,621.01 0511473 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $3,323.74 0511474 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,223.16 0511475 JACOBSON, NICOLE ............................................................. $1,247.18 0511476 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,724.54 0511477 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,093.01 0511478 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,499.13 0511479 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,225.73 0511480 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $2,235.04 0511481 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,419.86 0511482 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,622.71 0511483 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,234.67 0511484 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $4,505.70 0511485 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,588.84 0511486 VINCK, JOHN J ...................................................................... $1,793.69 0511487 VOGEL, NICHOLE .................................................................. $1,034.07 0511488 BURSCH, JEFFREY .................................................................. $532.61 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $58,182.38