The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About10-11-2022 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: October 7, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2022 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Changes to Agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Representative at next City Council meeting 5. Planning Department Report 6. Public Hearing - Cates Industrial Park – 2575 Cates Ranch Dr. – Oppidan – Concept Plan for approximately 308,000 s.f. warehouse/industrial development (PID 0411823140004). 7. Public Hearing - Scannell Properties/Loram – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for subdivision of three lots and development of approximately 396,000 sq. ft. of warehouse/office/industrial – east of Arrowhead Dr., south of Hwy 55 (PIDs 1111823220003 and 1111823230001). 8. Approval September 13, 2022, Planning Commission Minutes 9. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: September 29 2022 MEETING: October 4, 2022 City Council SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates Land Use Application Review A) Hamel Legion Park Grandstand – The Hamel Athletic Club has requested a site plan review for construction of a grandstand at the Paul Fortin Field in Hamel Legion Park. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the September 13 meeting. Several nearby residents raised concerns related to baseball programming in the park, especially related to parking and traffic. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the CUP based on the parking and programming issues. The Council reviewed on September 20 and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval with additional conditions. Staff will present on October 4. B) Pioneer Highlands Preliminary Plat – Onyx Performance Investment LLC has requested approval of a 4-lot rural subdivision located on approximately 67 acres south of Pioneer Trail, east of Willow Drive. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the September 13 meeting and following the hearing recommended approval. Staff intends to present to Council on October 4. C) Elam Accessory Structure CUP – 1582 Homestead Tr. – Tim and Megan Elam have requested a conditional use permit for construction of a barn/storage building with a footprint of approximately 10,000 s.f. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the September 13 meeting and following the hearing recommended approval. Staff intends to present to Council on October 4. D) Target/Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD Amendment – 300 Clydesdale Tr – Target has requested an amendment to the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development to allow additional signage for their Drive-Up services. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the September 13 meeting and following the hearing recommended approval. Staff intends to present to Council on October 4. E) Loram/Scannell Medina Industrial – Loram and Scannell have submitted materials for the City to prepare an EAW for a warehouse/industrial development east of Arrowhead Drive, south of Highway 55, to the south of Loram’s existing facility. The council approved the findings of fact and made a negative declaration on the need for an EIS at the April 5 meeting. Staff will route the record of decision as required. The applicant has now also applied for preliminary plat and site plan review approval for construction of approximately 450,000 s.f. of office warehouse on three lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their August 10 meeting and recommended various updates to the plan. The applicant has indicated that they are preparing supplemental information. Staff will present when prepared. F) Meander Park and Boardwalk – Meander Rd, east of Arrowhead Dr – Medina Ventures had requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a development to include four residential units north of Meander Rd, and commercial uses south of Meander Rd including a venue, restaurant, daycare, and speculative retail space. Staff is reviewing materials and will schedule for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the November 9 meeting. MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting G) Knappenberger Rearrangement and Easement Vacation – Gail Knappenberger has requested approval of a lot line rearrangement between two properties in common ownership. The applicant also requests to vacate easements adjacent to the relocated property line and proposes to grant replacement easements next to the new line. Staff is reviewing the information and has scheduled a hearing for the October 18 Council meeting. H) Adam’s Pest Control Final Plat – Jan Har LLC has requested final plat approval for a two lot subdivision for development of an office north of Hwy 55 and west of Willow Drive. The property owner to the east of the site has not agreed to provide right-of-way, so the applicant proposes access directly to Highway 55. Council granted final approval at the September 20 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant on conditions of approval before construction. I) 500 Hamel Road Apartment Concept Plan – Medina Apartments LLC has requested review of a concept plan review for development of a 97-unit apartment building at 500 Hamel Rd. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their August 10 meeting and Council provided comments on August 16. The developer met with neighbors on September 12 and the parties have indicated that they will meet again to discuss the project. J) Hamel Townhomes Final Plat – 342 Hamel Rd – Hamel Townhomes, LLC has requested final plat approval for a 30-unit townhome development. The Council granted final plat approval on August 16. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize documents prior to beginning of construction. K) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment– Jeff and Chris Cates have submitted an amendment request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. The amendment proposes to change the future land use of approximately 30 acres from Future Development Area to Business for an approximately 300,000 s.f. development. The Council adopted a resolution granting preliminary approval and authorizing submission to Met Council at the July 17 meeting. Staff has submitted to Met Council for review. L) 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. M) 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 Council adopted a resolution for approval at the November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction until spring. N) 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. O) Baker Park Townhomes, Johnson ADU CUP, 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. Other Projects A) Uptown Hamel Analysis – staff hosted a booth a Celebration Day for public engagement on the Uptown Hamel analysis. WSB has also created a short community survey on Hamel, which is currently being hosted online. B) Hackamore Road – staff is in discussion with property owners related to potential easement acquisition. C) Holy Name Wetland Bank – staff met with the property owners and Minnehaha Creek related to the potential creation of a wetland bank in connection with the Blooming Meadows development. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: September 29, 2022 RE: Department Updates We have been busying trying to hire both Police and Community Service officers the past two weeks. We did conduct interviews for the Community Service Officer positions. After the interviews, I handed out two background candidates. Both candidates are current law enforcement students and are seeking part time employment. I will update the council on the background process as it proceeds. Our police officer application process has closed. We have given a conditional officer to a lateral candidate who has eight years of experience with the City of Crystal. I am recommending that the city council authorize the hiring at the October 4, 2022 council meeting. We are also in the process of setting up several candidate interviews in the next week or two as we feel that there is a protentional to hire a second officer from this hiring process. This is extremely exciting news as the candidate pool is very limited as I have informed council in the past. The past two weeks we have held quarterly firearms training at the Delano Range and a department meeting. The meeting included our mental health professional, who conducts our mandatory wellness checks on the officers, attended our meeting to discuss wellness practices with the department. All officers are now seeing her on an annual basis. I also have utilized her to conduct our pre-employment psychological assessments of our new hires as she has intimate knowledge of our employees and my leadership style along with our city goals and values. This allows a much better opportunity of finding the right fit for our organization. Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between September 14 and September 27, 2022: Officers issued 17 citations and 56 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 6 property damage accidents, 1 personal injury accident, 8 medicals, 3 suspicious calls, 7 traffic complaints, 17 assists to other agencies, 10 business/residential alarms, and 3 - 911 hang-ups. On 09/14/2022 Officer was called to the Medina Ridge Condominiums on a report of a male yelling for help from an apartment. Officers were eventually able to make entry into the apartment and found the tenant had fallen several hours earlier and was unable to get himself back up. North paramedics arrived to evaluate the individual. On 09/14/2022 Officer took a phone call regarding a theft report. Victim reported receiving a text message from someone claiming to be from US Bank inquiring if victim had made a charge at Walmart. Victim replied they had not and then received a phone call from a person claiming to be from US Bank Fraud Department. Victim was talked into making two transactions totaling $2600 before realizing this was most likely a scam. On 09/16/2022 Officer was called to the Medina Inn on an assist. A female reported her mother had stayed at the Inn overnight and she was supposed to pick her up the following morning and bring her back to Illinois. Her mother was refusing to get into the car. Upon arrival the officer was able to speak with the elderly mother and convince her to go with her daughter. The mother/daughter had been involved in a verbal domestic the evening prior as well which resulted in the mother staying overnight at the Medina Inn. On 09/16/2022 Officer was called to the Target lot on a report of a possible intoxicated driver leaving the parking lot. The officer located the person described and made contact. The officer observed no signs of intoxication. No issues were found with the subject. On 09/16/2022 Officer received a report of an approximately 2-year-old in a diaper walking around the Medina Ballroom parking lot. Officer located the child and began checking the area of Clydesdale Circle in an attempt to locate the parents. The officer located a front door standing open on one of the units. Officers eventually made contact with a person inside who was taking a nap and unaware that the child had left the residence. Case was forwarded to the social worker for follow up. On 09/16/2022 Officers responded to assist West Hennepin Public Safety on a shooting in Maple Plain. An individual had showed up at a hospital with a gunshot wound to the hand and reported he had accidentally shot himself while cleaning a gun. Officers responded to the apartment where the incident had occurred and secured it until West Hennepin officers could respond. On 09/22/2022 Officer was dispatched to a damage to property call that occurred at Hunter Lions Park. A witness reported a vehicle driving through the freshly seeded ballfield area and left ruts. Officer was able to track down the driver who lived a couple houses down from the park. The driver was a juvenile who admitted to causing the damage to the park. The juvenile’s parents were contacted, and they are working out a plan to fix the damage to the ballfield. On 09/24/2022 Officers were called to Target on a theft that had just occurred, and the female theft suspect had left Target on foot pushing a cart. Officers eventually located the female suspect at Caribou. The female admitted to taking items without paying saying some of the items did not ring up. The female was found to have a Hennepin County warrant. She was arrested and transported to Hennepin County Jail. She was also issued a trespass notice at the request of Target. On 09/25/2022 Officers were called to a domestic in the 4500 block of Pioneer Trail. Two adult brothers had apparently got into an argument, and one had apparently struck the other brother. Both brothers had been drinking. It was determined the two would be separated and one of the brothers contacted someone to pick him up from the residence. The case will be forwarded to the Medina Prosecuting Attorney for review of charges. Investigations: Investigator Scharf is still out on leave but has been cleared to come back starting September 30. Investigative cases have been handled by Sergeant Boecker. 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: September 28, 2022 MEETING: October 4, 2022 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • The overlay for the Deer Hill Road final lift is done. Shouldering will take place in the weeks to come at which point the street will be complete. The street install on this project was assessed back to the developer. • The Tower Drive paving project is close to completion with just some dirt work behind the curb left to be done before the seasons change. • After receipt of a complaint from the bus company, Public Works is trimming trees in the Foxberry Farms neighborhood as branches were hitting the busses. Trimming trees is always a sensitive issue with our residents, so we mailed a notice and contacted the HOA. Derek also knocks on doors as the crew works their way through the neighborhood. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • The bid documents have been advertised for the filter media replacement in the water treatment facility. Several venders have visited the plant, so we anticipate a few competitive bids. • Public Works will begin our fall hydrant flushing and inspections starting October 3rd. This process will take a few weeks and a notice was included in the newsletter and on our webpage. • Water meters and radios have been on backorder for several months. We’ve been receiving just enough to keep up with the demand, but we are currently out of stock for new housing. PARKS/TRAILS • The grandstand proposal is back in the packet for your review. We discussed some options for future parking and scheduling. I feel we should cautiously look at expanding on-site parking, while keeping in mind all park activities. We also discussed signage to get park goers to utilize the overflow parking near the community center. • Public Works shut down the irrigation system and will be winterizing the field house in the next few weeks. MEMORANDUM 2 MISC • The Safety Committee hosted CPR/AED/First Aid training for staff on September 27th at City Hall. The class was well attended, and feedback was positive for the instructor and the class content. • Lisa and I continue to work with WSB on Medina’s MS4 reauthorization permit as required by the MPCA. We expect to present a revised plan and ordinances to Council this month. It has been a long process to evaluate and update all the necessary minimum control measures. Cates Industrial Park Page 1 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: October 6, 2022 MEETING: October 11, Planning Commission SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Concept Plan Review – PID 04-118-23-14-0004 Summary of Request Jeff and Chris Cates have requested a Concept Plan Review for development of approximately 310,000 square feet of warehouse/light industrial/office buildings on approximately 30 acres east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. On July 19, 2022, the City Council granted conditional approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the subject site for Business development and to amend the staging/growth designation of the property to the 2020 staging period. The applicant had requested comments from the City on three potential concept plans for potential layout of the development on the subject site during the summer of 2022. Minutes from those discussions are attached for reference. The applicant has made adjustments to the layout that they believed was the most supported by Planning Commission and Council and, before proceeding with full design, have requested an additional opportunity to discuss with Commission and Council. The subject site is predominantly farmland. A home and farm buildings are located in the southwest portion of the site. There are eight small wetlands throughout the property, occupying approximately 2 acres of the site. The aerial at the top of the following page depicts the subject site and surrounding land uses as follows: • West of site – Graphic Packaging and Twinco – zoned Business • West of site – Business guiding – currently farmed • East of the site – rural homes – guided FDA and zoned RR-UR, similar to the subject site. • South of the site – Business guiding • North of the site – agricultural/rural – guided FDA The subject site is currently zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, but would be anticipated to be rezoned to the Business (B) district after the Comprehensive Plan Amendment becomes effective. MEMORANDUM Proposed Land Use: Business Current Land Use: Future Development Area Proposed Staging/Growth: 2020 period Gross Area: 30 acres Net Area: 26 acres Proposed construction: 310,000 s.f. floor area Cates Industrial Park Page 2 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The purpose of a Concept Plan Review is to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to provide comments on a proposed application, but no formal action is taken. Concept plans are intended for requests in which the City has a higher level of discretion to inform an applicant’s formal application. Cates Industrial Park Page 3 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Environmental Assessment Worksheet 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. An EAW was completed at the end of 2021 and reviewed by relevant agencies in early 2022. The EAW was completed based on the applicant’s original request for a larger project that included the 40 acres north of the subject site and a total floor area of approximately 665,000 square feet. The City Council adopted the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision on the EAW on March 1, 2022 and determined that the project does not necessitate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The negative declaration on the need for an EIS found that standard review processes would be sufficient for environmental review purposes, provided the comments of the relevant agencies are addressed during the formal process. Previous Concept Plan Review The applicant submitted three conceptual site plan options for review during the summer of 2022. These concepts are included at the end of the attachments for reference. • Concept 1 showed two 260’x580’ buildings (150,800 s.f. each) running north-south with a larger setback to Willow Drive and much of Chippewa Road. • Concept 2 showed a single 260’x972’ building (252,720 s.f.) running diagonally in the middle of the site. • Concept 3 showed two 260’x580’ buildings, with one fronting closer to Willow and Chippewa and the second diagonally in the center of the site. The minutes from these discussions are attached for reference, but staff has attempted to summarize some of the key takeaways: • Truck access to Willow Drive was very important. • Preference for structures to be further west on the site, closer to existing business and greater distance from residential to the east. • Some preference for the way the “fronts” of the buildings oriented toward adjacent streets. Staff does not believe there was a clear consensus for one of the concepts, but on balance, it appeared that the plurality of comments indicated some preference for Concept 3. However, staff believes the reasons stated for preference (truck access to Willow Drive, larger setbacks to east, etc.) could be accomplished with multiple layouts. The applicant has indicated that they have attempted to address the comments and direction from the earlier concept plan review with their updated concept, which is similar to Concept 3. Cates Industrial Park Page 4 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Updated Concept Plan The following table compares the concept plans with the dimensional standards of the B district. B District Requirement West Building East Building Minimum Front Yard Setback (Street) 40 feet 110’ W 58’ S 78’ N 171’ S 340’ N Minimum Rear/Side Yard Setback 25 feet 115’ E 25’ W 101’ E Setback from Residential 100 feet 75’ w/ + buffer 78’ N 900’ E 101’ E 340’ N Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet 25’ W 17’ S 160’ N 100’ S Rear and Side Yard 15 feet NA 110’ E 25’ W Residential 100 feet 160’ N 110’ E Maximum Hardcover 70% Building Height (sprinkled) 45 feet The fire lane/driveway along the south of the West Building does not meet the required 25’ setback from Chippewa Road. It appears that there may be room to push the fire lane closer to the building or potentially reduce the footprint of the building. The property to the east and north of the subject site is zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve and requires increased setbacks and a landscape buffer with 50% opacity. The setbacks can be reduced by increasing the landscape buffer to 70% opaque, which appears necessary north of the West Building. Architectural Design The B zoning district requires the following architectural standards. The concept plan does not provide sufficient information to review for compliance, but the Planning Commission and City Council are encouraged to provide feedback based on these requirements, to the extent possible. Materials The BP district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the following standards: (a) A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco (not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass. (b) A maximum of 80 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance. Cates Industrial Park Page 5 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting (c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper) or fiber cement lap siding or Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design.” The conceptual renderings appear to show primary material of precast concrete panels. The elevations suggest that three of the sides will meet the requirements, but do not quantify the loading dock façade. Staff recommends that this be addressed on formal application. Modulation The business districts require: “Buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous building walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a minimum of one element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion thereof. Alternative architectural or site elements and designs may also be approved by the city which achieve the purpose of reducing the visual impact of long building walls.” The applicant proposes some material and color differentiation along the facades. Very little horizontal or vertical modulation is proposed, with elements bumping out only a few feet along the façade. Staff would recommend more significant modulation upon formal application. Fenestration and Transparency The business districts require: “Building elevations which face a public street shall include generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the city when windows are not practical.” Multi-sided Architecture The business districts require: “Any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s) shall be compatible with the front building elevation.” The northern façades face residential property and a potential future public right-of-way. Staff does not believe the northern façade of the Eastern building provides architectural elements of a quality associated with the front façade. Staff recommends that this be addressed upon formal application. Transportation Transportation was a significant discussion topic during review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and previous concept plan. During review of the larger development, the following improvements were contemplated: 1) Capacity improvements at the Willow Dr./Highway 55 intersection – extend left-turn lane from Hwy 55 to Chippewa Road to provide more stacking 2) Turn lanes at Willow Dr./Chippewa Rd. intersection 3) Improvements on Willow Drive up to any access for the site Cates Industrial Park Page 6 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting With the improvements noted above, the traffic analysis projected that there should not be issues on local streets for most of the day with the larger development. The primary issue was projected at peak evening rush hour. The traffic analysis found that at the p.m. peak, it is projected that vehicles waiting to turn left onto Highway 55 may back-up through the intersection of Chippewa Road and may need to wait two light cycles to clear the intersection. If traffic is backed-up at Willow Drive, staff assumed that some drivers would likely find alternatives and reviewed potential impacts to other intersections. Staff assumed up to 40% of the traffic may instead utilize Chippewa Road east to Arrowhead Drive as an alternative during the p.m. peak. If this occurred, it improves operations at the Willow Drive/Hwy 55 intersection and did not appear to cause issues on Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive to Highway 55. With the smaller developments, less back-up would be anticipated on Willow Drive if the necessary improvements noted above were provided in connection with the development. In the long-term, the analysis found that expansion of Highway 55 to dual-lanes in each direction through the Willow Drive intersection would result in acceptable movements at the Willow Drive and Highway 55 intersection even with the larger development. Expansion of Highway 55 has not yet been programmed by MnDOT and would not be anticipated for at least a decade. As such, the traffic analysis reviewed whether improvements to the local transportation network could be implemented to function without assuming an expansion to Highway 55. The applicant proposes to construct the improvements identified within the traffic analysis in connection with this proposed development. With the reduced scale of this development from the when the traffic analysis was conducted, the traffic impacts would be less than originally contemplated. MnDOT has requested installation of a traffic monitoring camera as a condition of the development. This would allow review of the operations of the intersection and may allow for adjustments to the timing of the light. The applicant proposes an access from the north which is partially located within an Outlot which currently contains a private road shared by two properties to the east. Access for this site was contemplated from this outlot when the sites were subdivided in the 1990s. The owner of the subject site also has fee ownership of the outlot, but it is subject to certain agreements with another owner. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant provide evidence at the time of formal application that they are legally able to make the changes to the private road. Staff also recommends that public right-of-way be required to connect with property to the east of the subject site. The applicant has suggested that his right-of-way could be provided over the Outlot containing the private road. Staff believes this may be an acceptable location, provided the applicant provides evidence that such right-of-way can be provided and not be encumbered for future use. Staff does not recommend opening a public road at this time, since it would only serve this subject site. However, securing the right-of-way is important to ensure potential access for future development to the east. Cates Industrial Park Page 7 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Staff recommends that provisions be made to direct truck traffic to Willow Drive rather than Chippewa Road. This may include removing the western access on Chippewa Road or separating the truck court from this access. Trucks should also be encouraged not to exit to the eastern access point. Wetlands/Floodplain The concept shows approximately 11,600 s.f. of impacts north of the western building. Varying amounts of impacts are proposed for access points. Any impact would be subject to review by the Technical Evaluation Panel and require mitigation. The City’s wetland buffer regulations would be triggered by any formal application. FEMA floodplain maps do not identify any floodplains with 1% annual chance of flooding. Comments during the EAW and from the City of Corcoran suggested that the flood elevation be confirmed on the site based upon updated information. Sewer/Water The applicant proposes to add the subject site to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and to connect to the City’s sewer and water system. The City Engineer and Public Works has not identified significant concerns related to capacity within the overall City sewer and water systems. Improvements to the adjacent systems will be necessary to support the development. Staff recommends that a 12” watermain be connected from Willow Drive to the existing water system located southeast of the site along Chippewa Road at Okalee. The applicant has not submitted full utilities plans, but preliminary review suggests sanitary sewer from the site should be able to flow via gravity to the existing system. The City has previously identified the need for a lift station to serve future Business property west of Willow Drive. The lift station was also planned to potentially serve property to the north and northeast of the subject site in the long-term, since the area is designated as FDA and may be considered for development in future Comprehensive Plan updates. The City has budgeted to construct the lift station as a public improvement, which would be funded with sewer connection fees. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to provide land for the lift station even if it is not necessary for the subject site. Staff recommends that land for the lift station be required as a condition of development. Tree Preservation/Landscaping There are existing trees around the buildings in the southwest corner of the property but no wooded areas. Any future application would need to provide information related to tree preservation requirements. The Business district requires minimum tree planting based on the perimeter of the site and also requires a buffer with an opacity of 0.5 adjacent to residential property along the north and east. Cates Industrial Park Page 8 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The B district requires a minimum of 8% of the land area within parking, driveway, and loading dock area to be landscaping. Staff does not believe it appears that the concept plan meets this minimum requirement. It is likely that landscaping areas will need to be included within the loading dock areas in spaces which are not proposed for loading. Stormwater/Grading The applicant has not submitted grading or stormwater plans, but concept plans do identify large stormwater ponds throughout the site. Any future development application will be subject to City and Elm Creek Watershed regulations related to volume control, rate control, water quality and other stormwater management requirements. Loading Docks The B district includes the following requirements related to loading docks: • Limited to 10% of a building perimeter, unless they are located within a loading dock “court” formed by buildings. • Loading docks within 300 feet of a residential zoning district have to be separated from residential property by a building. The loading dock to the north of the East Building is located within 300 feet of residential property to the east. The applicant proposes a screening wall to the east and a bermed landscaped screen to the north. The perimeter of the eastern building is 1872 square feet, which would allow 187.2’ of loading docks. City code states that a loading dock is calculated at a minimum of 12 feet of width, which would allow 15 docks for a total of no more than 187.2’ in width. The applicant proposes 18 pull up docks and 2 drive-in docks. Staff recommends that these docks be reduced to meet code, or the orientation of the site be updated to orient them toward the other building. Mechanical Equipment/Trash/Recycling The B district requires mechanical equipment to be located and screened to not be visible from adjacent property or public streets. Trash and recycling are required to be stored within the principal building, within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed area with similar architecture. Staff recommends that these matters be addressed on formal submittal. Parks and Trails The City’s Parks and Trails plan do not identify future park or trail improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. However, when considering future land use within the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes it is important to consider how the change would impact park and trail needs. Property identified as FDA is anticipated to be designated for development at some point in the long-term future, and the City would determine appropriate park and trail needs when it is designated. It is important to note that additional park and trail improvements will likely be identified when and if FDA property is designated for development in the future. Cates Industrial Park Page 9 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The Comprehensive Plan identifies a search area for a neighborhood park to the east of the site but the City is purchased property at 2120 Chippewa Road for this park. The Park Commission did not believe an additional park is likely necessary in the area. In terms of trail improvements, staff recommends that private trail connections be incorporated into the plans between the buildings which provide opportunities to connect to adjacent sites. Staff believes it may be worthwhile to require a trail easement connecting Chippewa Road to Cates Ranch Drive for a potential trail when the property to the east develops. Staff recommends that sufficient right-of-way be required adjacent to roadways for future non- motorized transportation options and that the grading of the street and site improvements be designed to make it easier to retrofit future bikeable shoulders, sidewalks, or trails adjacent to streets. Staff Comments The conditional approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was contingent upon a plat and site plan review satisfactory to the City. Staff encourages the Planning Commission and City Council to provide comments on the concept plan. Staff has also provided the following comments on the Concept Plan: 1) A substantial buffer shall be provided from adjacent rural property. The buffer shall include an appropriate combination of distance, berming, vegetation and potentially fencing. 2) Provisions shall be incorporated into the design to maintain the natural drainageways through the site. Any wetland impact shall be subject to WCA review and approval. 3) The applicant shall establish base flood elevation(s) for Zone A floodplains within the site and for wetlands adjacent to the site. 4) Access locations and circulations shall be improved as recommended by City staff. Primary truck access shall be provided to Willow Drive. Provisions shall be incorporated to reduce truck access to Chippewa Road. 5) Right-of-way shall be dedicated along the north of the property if such dedication is determined appropriate at the time of plat review. 6) The applicant shall provide evidence that the access point in the Outlot north of the site can be constructed as shown and that public right-of-way can be provided for future roadways and not be encumbered. 7) The northern façade of the East building shall be updated to provide architectural elements similar to the front façade. 8) Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated for Chippewa Road and Willow Drive to support turn-lane improvements and non-motorized transportation. 9) The applicant shall provide land for a sanitary sewer lift station. The location of this land should be at a comparatively low elevation to minimize construction depth. 10) The applicant shall provide turn lane improvements for Willow Drive and Chippewa Road as described in the traffic analysis and shall provide for camera monitoring system as recommended by MnDOT. 11) Loading docks shall be reduced or reoriented to meet the limitations of code. 12) Provisions for pedestrian connectivity shall be provided. 13) Provisions for mechanical screening and trash/recycling storage shall be provided upon formal application. Cates Industrial Park Page 10 of 10 October 11, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 14) Architectural plans shall be updated to provide additional modulation along building facades facing the exterior of the site. 15) Plans shall be updated to provide required landscaping within parking lots/loading areas. 16) The applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer. 17) Park dedication shall be provided as required by the City Council after recommendation by the Park Commission. Attachments 1. Excerpt from 5/10/2022 Planning Commission minutes 2. Excerpt from 1/18/2022 Park Commission minutes 3. Excerpt from 5/17/2022 City Council minutes 4. Applicant Narrative 5. Concept Plan 6. Architectural Concepts 7. Concept Plans from previous review Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 5/10/2022 Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Concept Plan Review for Development of Approximately 250,000-302,000 Sq. Ft. of Warehouse/Office/Industrial on 31 Acres – 2575 Cates Ranch Drive (PID 0411823140004) Finke presented a concept plan review for a proposed business development that would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that the Commission considered a larger request of this nature for this site and the adjacent site earlier this year. He stated that ultimately the City Council did not appear to favor the larger development of both parcels and following that review, the applicant withdrew the larger plan and submitted the three options within this concept plan review. He displayed the three concepts submitted by the applicant which range from 250,000 to 300,000 square feet. He stated that staff provided input on each of the concepts within the packet. He commented that staff believes that it would be important to provide convenient access for truck traffic from Willow Drive, as that would be the preferred route from Highway 55. He stated that additional landscaping was added as well as additional greenspace along the streets. He referenced a shared drive or private road in the outlot to the north of the subject site. He stated that the private drive is not part of the concept plan, but it is currently under common ownership. He then highlighted the pros and cons of each of the three concepts. He stated that the density of this concept has been reduced from the previous review. He also reviewed the goals within the Comprehensive Plan and land available for business development. He stated that the opportunity for larger scale business development is currently limited and if there is interest in creating additional opportunity for business development, staff believes this site would be well suited. He also reviewed the designations of the property in previous versions of the Comprehensive Plan, noting an urban commercial designation in 2000. He stated that with the previous submittal, the applicant submitted the necessary information for the EAW, and it was determined that an EIS would not be necessary. He noted that a traffic study was also done for the larger proposal and reviewed the improvements that were proposed. Piper stated that there is a light on Willow Drive and asked if this would add turn arrows for left turns. Finke confirmed that there could be a single left hand turn with slightly more time but noted that MnDOT does not want to adjust the timing by much because the intention is to keep traffic moving on Highway 55. He noted that there would be a desire to create more stacking to ensure there are not impacts to other roadways at peak times. He noted that if Highway 55 is expanded to four lanes, Willow Drive could then be expanded to have two left turn lanes. He stated that this proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and asked that the Commission provide input on the question of land use within the context of the concepts provided. Nielsen invited the applicant to speak. Peter Coyle, land use counsel for the Cates family, stated that they received a lot of feedback at the City Council and even though it was not the direction they wanted to go, it was constructive, and they have made adjustments. He commented that they have scaled the project back and limited development to the 30-acre parcel. He noted that the reduced scale of the project would limit the related impacts of the project but still provide an opportunity for business campus development. He stated they committed to the Council at the last meeting that if there were traffic impacts to Willow, the improvements would be at the expense of the developer. He stated that they provided three concepts and welcomed input from the Commission on which they would favor. He recognized that the plans would change once there are tenants and/or buyers involved. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 5/10/2022 Minutes 2 Popp referenced the intended use of perhaps a campus or corporate use. He noted that the initial proposal included a fair amount of industrial/warehouse versus a corporate park and asked if that vision has changed. Coyle stated that vision has not changed as there is not a buyer or tenant in hand. He stated that they are attempting to show that this could be a distribution facility, but if a corporate buyer came with a plan for something of that nature, they would accommodate for that if it also fit within the business designation. Nielsen asked if this were approved and developed, would the applicant then come back for a request on the northern parcel. Coyle stated that he could not answer that. He noted that they heard loud and clear from the Council that it does not support that at this time, and they made the adjustments to their plan. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Piper stated that on a general concept basis, if all required elements are completed, she could support any of the three concepts. She stated that she could support the land use change. Rhem stated that he would also be comfortable with the land use change as there are similar land uses within the area. Popp stated that he is more comfortable with this reduced scale. He stated that previously he raised concerns about the use type. He stated that he prefers more of a business park over industrial/warehouse because of the truck traffic. He also noted a preference for more job creation. He acknowledged that it would be hard to say if this would be attractive to residents because it is early in the process. Nielsen stated that she struggles with this. She agreed that in looking at a map, business could work, but would be hesitant to change the land use provided by the Steering Committee that developed the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she likes the smaller scale of this development, and it would fit with the business in the area. She commented that she prefers the access off Willow rather than Chippewa. Rhem stated that he prefers the concept that hugs tighter to the commercial property, concept three. He agreed that access to Willow Drive is key. Popp stated that he likes concept two as it provides screening to the north. He also recognized that is the smallest footprint of the three options. He stated that while he does not have concern with the other concepts, he does prefer concept two. Nielsen agreed that she also prefers concept two with the screening and greenspace. She noted that modulation would be a must if the one wall building is chosen. Finke stated that staff intends to present this to the Council at its meeting the following week to obtain feedback. Medina Park Commission Excerpt from 1/19/2022 Minutes 1 CATES INDUSTRIAL PARK Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Cates Industrial Park. He identified the subject parcel and highlighted the surrounding property uses and future land uses. He stated that the site is guided for Future Development Area (FDA) which signifies that the property may be considered for urban development in future planning processes. He explained that for the current planning period of through 2030, the property is not anticipated for urban development. He stated that the applicant is proposing a business use within the current staging period. He explained that the proposal would be for approximately 665,000 square feet of warehouse and light industrial uses with office. He stated that the concept plan does not provide specific details for the development but is provided for context for this Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that if the amendment is approved, additional content would be provided during future applications for plat, site plan review, etc. He noted that the project is being presented to the park commission now so that the commission can consider whether a potential land use change will necessitate additional improvements in the park and trail plan. Morrison polled the members, there were no comments or questions at this time. Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/17/2022 Minutes 1 Cates Industrial Park – Concept Plan Review (7:19 p.m.) Johnson stated that the applicant has withdrawn their original request and has submitted a request for approximately 300,000 square feet of warehouse, light industrial, office use on the southern portion of the property. He stated that three concepts were provided to determine if the Council would support a scaled down use of this nature. Finke stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would still be needed to support this use. He stated that the subject site is south of Cates Ranch Drive. He stated that there is discussion within the report about the impression of staff highlighting positives and negatives of each concept, if the broader land use change is supported. He displayed the elevations that were provided along with the three concepts. He noted that staff believes that trunk access to Willow is important regardless of the concept. He stated that a PUD may make sense in order to maximize the setback and greenspace on the exterior of the site and support truck circulation on the interior. He stated that the staff report does identify changes in property use compared to the acreage previously projected for business. He noted that transportation was thoroughly discussed with the larger project. He stated that even though the impact would be reduced with a smaller scale project, there would be anticipated improvements related to the project. He stated that the applicant has stated that they would be willing to provide the land for a sanitary sewer lift station and noted that staff would look for a lower elevation location to make installation of the lift station earlier. He noted that the Planning Commission discussed modulation of the building and the importance of that, should this move forward. He welcomed input from the Council on the broader land use question as well as on the concepts. DesLauriers asked if the lift station was included in the City’s CIP for 2023. He also asked if the CIP only included the cost for the lift station and not the acquisition of land. Albers stated that he would like to discuss what has changed from the last review other than this being smaller. He believed the direction was very specific related to a change in zoning. DesLauriers stated that they asked the applicant to come back with a version on the southern half, which is what has been done. Martin agreed that the Council invited the applicant to come back and present a request for the southern portion. Anderson agreed that four members of the Council supported the applicant coming back with a reduced scale plan while Albers was opposed. Albers asked what has changed that would change the perspective of the Council. Finke stated that one of the Comprehensive Plan objectives is to provide opportunities for the desired amount of business development. He stated that it could be argued that the smaller scale would better meet the desire of the Council for that type of development. Albers commented that there are certain things the Council is supposed to review when considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment and he did not think the criteria were met. DesLauriers stated that a vote was not taken last time as it was a concept. He read some of the comments and consensus of the Council from the previous minutes which invited the applicant to come back with revised plans. Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/17/2022 Minutes 2 Albers asked if the answers of the Council on the broader land use question have changed. Finke replied that the decision would provide the Council with the highest level of discretion. He stated that the mission, vision, principles, and goals would provide guidance when considering an amendment to the plan. Martin stated that in looking at the vision and goals within the report, she recalled the previous discussion of the Council related to the use. She stated that it is a bit of a stretch. She asked how the Comprehensive Plan goals would be achieved moving forward. She stated that conceptually the Council seemed to buy off on a commercial use but perhaps the size of the project was too severe. She stated that she did recall some support for the use and invitation for the applicant to come back with a reduced scale project. DesLauriers commented that this request meets three of the five requirements for the business district. He stated that when looking at FDA, the key component is that any future development would rely on infrastructure. He noted that the infrastructure is in place to support the development. He stated that Graphic Packaging is located across the street and another business down the road, therefore this property is in a business district and this project would create jobs. Albers stated that the Council was going down the path towards denial and therefore was confused as to what has changed. DesLauriers stated that the size was an important factor as he believes 30 acres fits much better than 70 acres. He stated that this sized development makes sense in this area. He confirmed that his decision is also supported by the fact that the necessary infrastructure is in place or would be added by the developer. Martin recognized that two members of the Council are not present to provide input tonight. She invited the developer to speak. Peter Coyle, spoke representing the applicant, noting that they did attempt to make changes to address the feedback of the Council. He stated that the broad goals they believe their concept would address including job creation opportunity, business creation, quality of life, and protection of natural resources. He commented that infrastructure is important and if there are transportation impacts caused by the project, they would fund those improvements. He noted that the northern parcel would also remain rural, more at the direction of the Council than the applicant. He stated that the designation of FDA is a non-designation and believes that the City should be able to designate actual land uses for properties. He stated that they would like to proceed with a version of this plan. He stated that they have been working with staff for eight to nine months, including completion of the required EAW. He stated that the primary objective of the meeting tonight was to determine whether this reduced scale project would be supported before moving for formal submissions. Martin asked for input on the three concepts. Albers stated that he prefers option three. Martin stated that she also preferred that concept but could also support option two if there was more modulation. Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/17/2022 Minutes 3 DesLauriers stated that he did not have a strong feeling either way but would lean towards concept two. He stated that he would square up the layout of the building and would have two access drives to Willow, one for vehicles and one for trucks. Martin commented that it would go without saying that a submittal would also need to meet City Code in terms of landscaping and architecture. Coyle commented that these are just concepts as they would still need to get a tenant and would not be building something without the input of the ultimate user. Martin recognized that if there were two users, perhaps the two-building concept would be the better fit in that scenario. She stated that she would be flexible between options two and three, depending on what was most beneficial to the user. DesLauriers asked staff if there was a preference for one of these plans in terms of the lift station. Finke stated that the discussion has not yet been had with the applicant. He noted that the projected location was actually on the northern parcel but recognized that may no longer be on the table. He noted that the concepts show the lift station on the corner of the site, which is high in elevation, but believed there were opportunities in lower elevations for that lift station. DesLauriers asked if there is any concern with the future DLRT through this area. Finke noted that layout is more to the west. He stated that there were comments related to pedestrian connectivity included in the review. Martin noted that she agrees with much of the analysis within the staff report. She confirmed the consensus of the Council that any future plans would need to address the analysis and comments within the staff report. CITY OF MEDINA APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSIDERATION Concept Plan Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Oppidan and the Cates Family is requesting a Concept Plan Approval in reference to the property referred to as CATES RANCH INDUSTRIAL, located on Willow Drive, north of Highway 55, in the City of Medina, Hennepin County Minnesota (see Exhibit A – Location Map). Project Background Oppidan along with the Cates Family is proposing to develop a 30.18 acres parcel located in the Northeast corner of the intersection of Willow Drive and Chippewa Road (Parcel ID 0411823140004) in to two industrial buildings. The buildings are intended to be used for warehouse or light manufacturing, compatible with an “Industrial Park (IP)” Zoning. The Planning Commission and City Council recently approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide this parcel to Industrial. During the comprehensive plan process the Planning Commission and City Council were shown three different conceptual layouts for the site. Our understanding is the consensus of the commission, and the council was to have a two-building layout with the buildings facing Willow Drive and Chippewa Road. Site and Landscape Plan The subject property is 30.18 acres and consists of farmland and a vacant farmstead. During the Comprehensive Plan process, the council and planning commission had the opportunity to review three different layouts for the property and provide their feedback. The design team incorporated the comments from the council and commission into the proposed layout and submitted the layout to staff. We also incorporated additional staff comments into the layout we are presenting. We feel this is the most efficient layout for the site that will provide an additional area for employment in the City, while meeting the goals set by the planning commission and council to maintain the look and feel the City of Medina stands for. The proposed development will include two industrial/warehouse buildings equaling a total area of approximately 308,113 sq. ft. (see Exhibit B – Conceptual Site Plan). The front sides of the buildings will face Willow Drive and Chippewa Road. The truck courts and loading docks will be placed rear of the buildings and screened from public right-of-way view. Each building has full traffic circulation around all sides of the building for fire protection. Truck traffic will be limited to entering and leaving the site from Cates Ranch Road, and the entrances directly to Willow Drive and Chippewa Road will be for car traffic and emergencies. Landscaping on the site will consist of trees and shrubs along the buildings and through out the development. Specific trees will be placed to screen the truck dock areas of the buildings along with a combination of beaming and opaque fencing. The trial connections along Chippewa Road will be set in a natural setting of trees, shrubs and native plantings to complement the area. Previous Studies and Anticipated Traffic Improvements Before the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the developer conducted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, (EAW) for the project to identify any environmental, traffic, infrastructure, or community issues with the project. Several agencies were given the opportunity to review this document and provide comments to the City and Developer. During the review process, there were very few comments, all very minor in nature, including comments from the adjoining community from the north that did not oppose the development. Through out the EAW process and initial discussions with City staff, traffic in the area has been a concern. Trunk Hwy 55 is a two-lane road as it intersects with Willow Drive, and even thought this intersection has a traffic signal it is known to not function very well for south bound traffic off Willow Drive. Several options were proposed to improve this intersection, but MNDOT will only allow a camera with some minor signal timing adjustments as they see fit. In order to keep the intersection of Willow Drive and Hwy 55 functioning as it does today, the existing south bound left turn lane on Willow Drive will be extended to the intersection with Chippewa. Additionally, a south bound left turn lane will be constructed at the intersection of Willow Drive and Chippewa to accommodate traffic wanting to east bound on Chippewa. This will allow traffic to gain access to Hwy 55 at Arrowood Drive as well. Based on the traffic models the Arrowwood Drive and Hwy 55 intersection can accept the additional traffic along with the Willow Drive and Hwy 55 intersection. The improvements to Willow Drive will be installed with the proposed development at NO cost to the City. The improvements to Willow Drive will benefit not only the development, but the existing businesses and future developments to the west as well. The proposed site layout is consistent with the City’s desire for buildings in proximity with centralized activity. This configuration does allow for significant open space preservation and continued functionality of natural wetland systems on- and off-site. Wetland Impacts The site has several wetlands on the property, the majority of which will be preserved. In talking with staff, the alignment of Cates Ranch Road needs to be moved south to align the entrance onto Willow Road to the access across the street. The realignment makes sense to do now and as Cates Ranch Road will become a city street at some point in the future, and to have the intersections align makes Willow Drive safer from a traffic aspect. The realignment of Cates Ranch Road, and the access into the development will result in a wetland impact of approximately 11,600 sf. The remaining wetlands on the site will be preserved and not impacted as part of this development. Utilities The City of Medina had WSB study the sanitary sewer in the area in November of 2019. The lift station feasibility study outlined the need for a lift station to serve properties to the north, west and east of this development with sanitary sewer. The WSB study indicates sanitary sewer services to the two buildings will be extended from two different areas. The westerly building will be serviced by the gravity sewer located in the Willow Drive and Chippewa Road Intersection. The easterly building will be served from an 8-inch stub on Chippewa Road located to the east of the property. As part of the project, a property for a new lift station will be assigned to the City as part of this development. Water service to the development will be provided from Willow Drive and extend to the north and east for future development. Internally, a fire loop will encompass the buildings with hydrants proposed throughout the development. Stormwater ponding will be provided for the development in accordance with the City and Elem Creek Watershed District Rules. The ponds will meet the rate control requirements so the discharge from the proposed development does not exceed the existing condition in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Stormwater reuse will be used to irrigate some of the landscape areas in the development, and to help meet the volume control requirement for the stormwater rules. The stormwater system will be designed to maintain hydrology to the wetland areas being preserved, to maintain the viability of the animal and plant life in the wetlands there is today. Architecture Design Historically, the Medina’s industrial market has consisted of small to medium sized manufacturing and research facilities located in single use buildings. As the industrial/manufacturing market has matured, users are seeking more flexible leasable spaces as opposed to owner-occupied buildings. The proposed facilities are intended to target this type of user. The exterior elevations provide increased glass coverage and warm buff colors. The building is designed to provide a high level of flexibility for future tenants that require high level office environments adjacent to high-bay warehousing, manufacturing, and value-added production, which is in short supply in the west metro. This use will provide added economic and employment opportunities and will add overall value to the development. Parking is designed to accommodate 10-20 percent office use and can provide additional parking for manufacturing and value-added production in the rear loading/service area. The façade of the building is a composition of solid and voided space. The variation helps break apart the volume of the building. Window size and placement also play a large role in the overall perception of the building from a pedestrian’s point of view. The design team will utilize glass, and a variety of warm materials and colors to enhance each entry. Brick exposed aggregate and glass will balance the weight and scale of the building. This trio will provide adequate texture and depth to how the building is perceived. The windows and doors will be proportionate to human scale yet blend with the overall proportions of the building. Sustainable Initiatives The construction will incorporate waste diversion to reduce the amount that is disposed into landfills. This will include construction waste from both the site and building. Appropriate construction materials will be recycled as much as possible. The landscape design seeks to incorporate best management practices with regards to low impact design and vegetative buffering. The building shell is primarily composed of precast panels. The manufacturer of the precast panel is local to the area and the aggregate on the panels are from local quarries. The panels being investigated for use are the VersaCore+green sandwich type. These panels deliver R-values that are LEED friendly consisting of R=28.2 with 58% recycled content. The project will prepare the basic building for future EV charging stations for delivery trucks and vehicles if the tenants so desire. While the actual system for these energy saving ideas will be constructed by each tenant; the building will provide the basic infrastructure to accommodate them. The health and wellness of the end users are also important to this project. As many items will be finalized by the tenant’s design, the base building and site will contribute to the health of the end user in a positive manner. Below is a basic list of items that will be constructed and will contribute to a health and wellness of he occupants. o Outdoor trails that lead to natural environments o Possible bike racks. o Wall panels that have a high sound attenuation (STC), 52. o Clerestory windows and tall windows in the warehouse to provide access to daylight and offer outside views to warehouse employees o Use of sustainable products with low Volatile Organic Content (VOC). K:\TWC_LDE\AOPPIDAN\Cat es Medina Industrial\3 Design\CAD\Exhibits\Concept Site #5.dwg September 19, 2022 - 11:48am This do cument, to gether with the c oncepts and d esigns pres ent ed herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purp ose and client for which it was prepared. R euse of and improper r elianc e on this docum ent without writt en authorization and adaptation by Kimley-H orn and Ass ociat es, Inc. shall be without li ability to Kiml ey-Ham and Associates. Inc. Co .o 005Vr 9 ma 4{1111 111111 11111 411111 1111111 lulu 11111 �u u \11111• 1114 3' tuu. 41114. 111 `1111141 8111111 "t 1111111% nnttmuiu ui iu uu11uuuumi �u uttll lu llll111lul1 .ill l Illlu l 11111 ll lu it l t" uuu muu umuu u, ' ".ittmumltullull llu uuu lluuuulll ""tullu luulil . .Ilu lluu ulutl% it mu mm u . 4114ulililllillllt 11uu muu lttlt' C. !lu uuu lllllullu 't'1 Auu ltlll11111111t11t1u 11tt111 i11111111111111111111111111111 - /111111111111111111111111111r . 1ri 11111t111111u uuu ulil' •. 11111111111✓' .1c „r;ac M O771M w -5 !n!II!u!! i!Il �m ttaE u!nnn:!I!fi ,07 _..,.. _..1..., -� ,r11 rI„!!!!!!!!1M Lb gZ .0'000 .5 S)IOV913S ONINNVd SNOVE LSS DNIOIInS O NINO Z 03SOd0 Nd ONINO Z ONLLSIX3 NaVd -ro aisnaNi - dl KHA PRO JECT 160774054 ANVWWnS ONINOZ PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ONINa Vd VOV 03aInO3a ONINaVd aJaln03a ASSOC IATE PARKING (PROPOSED) (a3SOd0ad) SNOOD N00 0 a3lltlal N D N rn D y D ;fl z C) Walt( ONI011n9 V3aV SnOlAa3d 03SOd0Nd V3aV SOOIAa3d VS O3SO dO ad Ala3dONd O3S0 do ad X 0 218 N �D O D :I1 r�I7 cn AaVWWns Viva oma1ln9 0 0 0 a a a S PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEM ENT 0 0 0 a t�l M r m G) m z 17 CATES MEDINA INDUSTRIA L CONCEPT SITE PLAN #3 DATE 04/15/2022 sCHLE AS SHOWN DESIGNED BY CJJ DRAWN BY ZTR PO 4. > aZ Kimley» Horn ® 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIA TES, INC. 7 EUSTIS STREET. SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE: 651-645-4107 WWW.KIMLEY-HO RN.C OM REV ISIO NS DATE BY MEDINA MN CHECKED SY MCB No. Loram/Scannell Page 1 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: October 6, 2022 MEETING: October 11, 2022 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Loram/Scannell Properties – Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP - PIDs 1111823230001 and 1111823220003 Summary of Request Scannell Properties and Loram have requested land use approval for development of approximately 396,000 square feet of warehouse/office space located east of Arrowhead Drive, south of Highway 55. Loram proposes to move many of its operations from other sites into the building on Lot 2. The applicant has indicated that they were hopeful some of their vendors and related businesses may occupy the other spaces in the intermediate term but may provide additional space for Loram’s growth in the future as well. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its August meeting and noted a number of outstanding matters. The applicant has submitted some supplemental information especially related to architecture and landscaping. The applicant also adjusted parking to the west of the front building to reduce wetland impacts by approximately 1700 square feet. Otherwise, the proposed building and site layout are the same as previously reviewed. The following applications have been requested to implement the proposed construction: 1) Preliminary plat for subdivision of three lots. 2) Site Plan Review for new construction. 3) Conditional Use Permit for Warehouse use. The subject site is predominantly farmland. There is a large wetland along the east of the subject site and six smaller wetlands located around the property. Most of the site is fairly flat, except the eastern portion which slopes to the wetland. The aerial at the top of the following page depicts the subject site and surrounding land uses as follows: • North – Loram main facility – zoned Industrial Park • South – Automotorplex – zoned PUD • West – Hennepin County Public Works facility – zoned PUD • Southeast – BAPS temple (site plan approved, currently vacant) – zoned business Park • East – Wayzata Schools (guided Mixed Residential) MEMORANDUM Proposed construction: 396,000 s.f. Three Buildings/Lots Area: 24 acres Future Land Use: Business Staging: 2018 Current Zoning: Industrial Park Loram/Scannell Page 2 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Comprehensive Plan and Zoning The property is guided for Business development in the Comprehensive Plan and staged for current development (staged after 2018). The property is zoned Industrial Park (IP). Environmental Assessment Worksheet 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 EAW was completed and reviewed by relevant agencies during the spring of 2022. The City Council adopted the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision on the EAW on April 5, 2022 and determined that the project does not necessitate an Environmental Impact Statement. The City received comments which recommended reducing wetland impacts with any development and also related to recommended stormwater management and traffic improvements. Loram/Scannell Page 3 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Preliminary Plat The applicant proposes to plat the subject property into three lots. The following table compares the proposed lots to the standards of the IP District. IP Requirement Lot 1 (west lot) Lot 2 (north lot) Lot 3 (south lot) Minimum Lot Area 5 acres 7.50 acres 5.07 acres 8.79 acres Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 777 feet 322 feet 455 feet Minimum Lot Depth 300 feet 420 feet 683 feet 822 feet The stormwater pond and wetlands to the east of the site are proposed within a separate outlot. The property is proposed to be platted and developed as an Integrated Development, with parking, driveways, and loading docks crossing the property lines between the lots. The City recently amended the zoning ordinance to clarify that certain standards such as setbacks and impervious surface calculations can be reviewed on a development-wide basis within the IP district. The applicant has indicated that they intend to include land from adjacent land that they own to the northeast of the subject site. The plat cannot include a portion of existing property, so the applicant will need up update the plat to include the entire parcel and plat the remaining of that property into a separate (4th) lot. Staff has no reason to believe that this property could not be platted in this way. Transportation, Streets, Right-of-way and Access The applicant proposes a new access along the south of the property, and also to connect to and share the existing Loram access just north of the property line. Lots 2 and 3 will sit east of Lot 1 and not have frontage on a public or private roadway. The City recently amended the subdivision code to allow for lots to be created without frontage within an integrated development, provided adequate access easements are in place. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval. Arrowhead Drive is a Hennepin County roadway (CR118), and Hennepin County recommends that a left-turn be constructed at the new southern access as part of the required site improvements. Hennepin County recommended 50-feet of right-of-way, and the preliminary plat appears to propose such dedication. The County also recommends that the existing trail along Arrowhead Drive be reconstructed and shifted to the east for increased distance from Arrowhead Drive. The trail was shifted closer to Arrowhead Drive along this property to avoid wetland impacts. Staff does not recommend relocating the trail unless it is necessary for road widening. Staff does recommend additional trail easement be required to accommodate future relocation if necessary. Wetlands/Floodplains The subject property is adjacent to a large wetland along the eastern property line, and six smaller wetlands are located throughout the site. The applicant proposes to impact five of the other wetlands in their entirety and much of the western wetland for a total of 1.22 acres of Loram/Scannell Page 4 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting wetland impacts for the proposed construction. The applicant reduced the impacts by approximately 1,710 s.f. by moving approximately 10 parking spaces from the front of the western building to the north. Staff has recommended that wetland impacts be reduced, especially for the wetland along the western portion of the site adjacent to Arrowhead Drive, which has not been consistently farmed in recent years. Impacts are subject to approval of a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Replacement Plan permit, which are subject to state WCA rules. The City is advised on WCA applications by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) from various agencies. The TEP has provided their findings that the applicant has not made sufficient efforts to adjust the scale and layout of the project to minimize wetland impacts. If the impacts are allowable under WCA rules, the applicant proposes some on-site wetland mitigation, but predominantly to purchase credits. As proposed, access to Lots 2 and 3 require wetland impacts. As such, staff recommends that review of the preliminary plat is contingent upon WCA approval. Regardless of whether the proposed impacts may be allowable under WCA regulations, staff strongly recommends that wetland impacts to the western wetland be reduced and that minimum upland buffers be provided adjacent to remaining wetlands for consistency with relevant City regulations. The wetland protection ordinance requires upland buffers with average width as described to the right: As noted above, most of the small wetlands are proposed to be impacted in their entirety. Much of the western wetland is also proposed to be impacted and smaller impacts are proposed along the east of the larger wetland to the east. The applicant proposes retaining walls immediately adjacent to the impacts on the edge of the wetlands to remain, which prevents minimum required upland buffers from being created. The applicant proposes to provide wider areas of buffers along the remaining frontage to offset the lack of buffers adjacent to the wetland. If the City Council approves the proposed wetland impacts, staff believes allowing this additional buffer averaging is consistent with the purpose of the buffer regulations. Floodplains No floodplains are identified by FEMA mapping on the subject property. Sewer/Water/Easements Existing sewer and water mains are located within Arrowhead Drive and along the southern property line of the subject property. Staff recommends that the sewer and water lines extended to serve the three properties remain privately owned and operated. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments on the utility plans, which staff recommends be addressed. Staff recommends that drainage and utility easements be provided as recommended by the City Engineer, including along the perimeter of lots, over utilities, and over wetland areas. Wetland Required buffer Large wetland to east 30 feet Other wetlands 20 feet Loram/Scannell Page 5 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Park Dedication The City’s subdivision ordinance requires the dedication of up to 10% of the buildable property, a cash payment in-lieu of land dedication, or some combination. The City’s parks plan does not call for parkland in the area of the subject site. The trail plan identifies the existing trail along Arrowhead Drive. Staff recommends that additional trail easement be required along the proposed right-of-way to allow for relocation of the trail in the future if Hennepin County determines that it desires to do so. In addition to the trail easement, staff would recommend cash in-lieu of additional land dedication. The fee is based upon 8% of the pre-developed market value of the land, with such value to be confirmed by the City Assessor. If the property to the northeast of the site is included in the plat as the applicant has indicated, staff recommends that the City require land for the potential future location of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. The location of the overpass crossing of Hwy 55 and the railroad has not yet been established, so staff recommends requiring dedication of easement along the north of the site and the east of the large wetland to accommodate. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions, the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following findings are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way. If the plat meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it should be approved. In this case, staff has identified two primary considerations related to the proposed plat: 1) Proposed plat includes a portion of adjacent property. The plat needs to be updated to include the entire property. 2) Access and usability of the proposed lots within the plat require wetland impacts, which are subject to WCA permitting. Until these matters can be addressed, staff would not recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Loram/Scannell Page 6 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting If the considerations above are able to be addressed, staff would recommend that the following conditions be applied to review of the plat: 1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy. 2. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _______, except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction. 3. The Applicant provide park dedication as recommended by the Park Commission. 4. The plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer, including but not limited to, adjacent to the perimeter of the lots, over all water mains and hydrants, over stormwater improvements, and over all wetland areas. 5. The plat shall be subject to the City’s wetland protection ordinance, including provision of minimum required upland buffers adjacent to wetlands on the site and vegetation establishment. 6. The Applicant shall execute and record access easement and agreements in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney to provide adequate access to the lots. 7. The Applicant shall dedicate a trail easement adjacent to Arrowhead Drive to accommodate potential relocation of the existing trail further from the street. 8. Sewer and watermain improvements within the lots shall be privately maintained. 9. The Applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer. 10. Turn lane improvements on Arrowhead Drive as recommended by Hennepin County Transportation shall be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements. 11. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site improvements in order to ensure completion. 12. The Applicant shall provide title documentation at the time of final plat application and abide by the recommendations of the City Attorney with regard to title matters. 13. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council. 14. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Loram/Scannell Page 7 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Proposed Site Plan The applicant has indicated that the proposed uses would include predominantly warehouse space along with office space. Warehouse/distributing is an allowed conditional use in the IP district, and office is a permitted use. The CUP for warehousing will be discussed later in this report. Any other use would be subject to confirmation that such use is permitted in the district and potentially subject to separate conditional use permit review. Following is a summary comparing the proposed construction to the dimensional standards of the IP district. IP District Requirement Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet 150’ 75’ (W) 75’ (W) Rear Yard Setback 50 feet 60’ (E) 62’ (E) 55’ (E) Side Yard Setback 50 feet 85’ (N) 92’ (S) 73’ (N) 87’ (S) 92’ (N) 102’ (S) Setback from Residential 100 feet 332’ (SW) NA 225’ (E) Parking Setbacks Front Yard 50 feet 68’ NA NA Rear and Side Yard 50 feet (25’ w/ buffer) 25’ 0’ (N-shared) 25’ (S) Maximum Hardcover 70% 70% (int. dev.) 70% (int. dev.) 70% (int. dev.) Building Height 35 feet 33.8’ 33.8’ 33.8’ As noted above, Loram proposes to occupy the building on Lot 2. The applicant proposes to construct parking across the northern property line of Lot 2 to accommodate shared parking with the Loram building to the north. The applicant also proposes the loading dock court to be divided by the property lines for each building to allowed shared use of this area. Earlier renditions of the plan exceeded the maximum hardcover permitted on the development site win the IP district. Loram owns property to the northeast of the development site and proposes to transfer land, most of it wetland, from this adjacent property into the subject site. This effectively reduces the percentage of hardcover by increasing the lot area without reducing the amount of hardcover. Wetlands and Floodplains Matters related to wetlands and floodplains are described within the preliminary plat section above. The site plan proposes to impact 1.22 acres of wetlands. Impacts are subject to WCA permit review, which was recently submitted. In addition to WCA regulations, various City zoning requirements require the minimization of wetland impacts and the protection of wetland areas. Staff has recommended that the layout be updated to reduce impacts and to provide improved upland buffer adjacent to wetlands which are not impacted. Loram/Scannell Page 8 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Building Materials and Design The IP zoning district requires the following architectural standards. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether the proposed building is consistent with the standards or recommend conditions if necessary. Materials The applicant proposes pre-cast concrete building with some brick accents. The IP district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and non-combustible (except for wood used as an allowed accent material), consisting of one or more of the following: At least 20 percent shall be brick, natural stone, granite, stucco (but not - Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS)), copper or glass. Up to 20 percent may be wood, engineered wood, fiber cement, anodized aluminum or similar metals which may be used as an accent material if appropriately integrated into the overall building design and in the case of wood, not subject to damage caused by heavy use or exposure. Lap siding shall not be used. When requested, samples of the external materials shall be submitted to the City. Concrete and pre-cast concrete panels may be allowed provided the total of such material does not make up more than 80 percent of the exterior material. Building Appearance – The IP district requires: “All buildings and structures and remodeling of either existing or new buildings shall take into account compatibility related to architectural quality and mass of the structure to be constructed. Elements of compatibility include, but are not limited to: building form, mass, height and bulk; fenestration, exterior materials and their appearance, color (compatible and harmonious with the building, other nearby buildings which meet the standards described above and the natural setting in the area) durability, setback, landscaping, exterior lighting, and site improvements.” Modulation The IP district requires: “The design of buildings shall employ architectural modulation to minimize the apparent scale and dimension of structures. Modulation means harmonious changes or variations of the massing and façade of a structure. Modulation is intended to achieve high quality architecture which is aesthetically pleasing and functional. Modulation may be achieved by variations in the form, mass, bulk and height of structures and shall be combined with architectural features to achieve a high standard of design. At least the following shall be used as guidelines: (1) Building design should avoid blank walls and large unbroken expanses of walls exposed to the outside. (2) Building design should mitigate the visual impacts of a large building mass through offsets, projections, and recesses in the façade. (3) The appearance of massive roofs should be avoided by variations in the rooflines and height. Dormers, deep eaves, overhangs and cornices may help create visual interest. Materials Required Building 1 Building 2 Building 3 Glass, stone, brick, stucco Min 20% 14% glass, 6% brick 10% glass, 10% brick 13% glass, 8% brick Precast concrete Max 80% 80% 80% 79% Metal, wood, fiber cement Max 20% Loram/Scannell Page 9 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting (4) Decorative roof elements should be incorporated into other roof or wall elements to avoid looking “tacked on.” (5) Building elevations should be articulated to provide a reasonable amount of visual interest by varying the shape or pattern of windows, building materials, textures, and colors.” Building 1, which is most visible along Arrowhead Drive, is approximately 600 linear feet parallel with the roadway. Architectural design of the facade is differentiated by color variations of the proposed precast panels and areas of more increased window coverage at the corners of the building and in the center. A series of small parapet walls variations is also included. The Planning Commission and City Council can provide feedback on whether the architectural design is consistent with the standards above. Transportation/Access Transportation and access are discussed above within the review of the preliminary plat. Staff recommends that pedestrian connections be improved throughout the site. Non-Pedestrian Transportation Staff recommends that the internal sidewalk configuration be improved to allow more convenient walking throughout the site and between buildings. The IP district also requires that bicycle rack locations be identified. Loading Docks The IP district requires that loading dock areas be screened from adjacent property and streets to the fullest extent practicable. The proposed layout screens loading docks between the buildings very well from the north, south, and west. The IP district also states that loading docks shall not be located within 300 feet of a residential property. The loading docks are approximately 250 feet from the eastern property line, which is with a property guided for residential development. There are approximately 475 feet of wetland east of the property line before the buildable land to the east. Staff would recommend significant screening east of the loading dock and that no loading docks be permitted on the eastern 50 feet of Building 3. Parking The applicant proposes 392 parking spaces and has indicated that this should be sufficient based upon their experience developing and managing similar buildings. A narrative describing their experience with parking demand is attached for reference. The uses anticipated by the applicant are described in the table to the right. Office Warehouse Building 1 18,900 s.f. (15%) 107,100 s.f. (85%) Building 2 17,850 s.f. (20%) 70,150 s.f. (80%) Building 3 18,200 s.f. (10%) 163,800 s.f. (90%) Total 54,950 s.f. 341,050 s.f. Loram/Scannell Page 10 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The following table describes the City’s minimum parking standards, based upon the applicant’s assumptions. It is important to note that warehousing has the lowest parking requirement of any use in code. This means that if the uses differ significantly from the mix projected by the applicant, the amount of parking would no longer meet minimum requirements. The proposed development occupies almost the entirety of the buildable portion of the site. There is almost no opportunity to construct additional parking, although the applicant has indicated that there is also flexibility to convert some of the loading dock area into additional employee parking. Staff recommends a condition that warehousing occupy a minimum of the percentages of each tenant space noted above. Other uses may only be permitted with approval by City staff that sufficient parking will be provided in addition to any approval process required by code. Staff also recommends a condition noting that any shortage of parking is fully based upon the actions of the applicant and shall not be used as justification for any future variance request. Lighting The City’s lighting ordinance requires light trespass to be no more than 0.3 FC at property lines, and 0.0 FC at residential districts (eastern property line) and that lighting be downcast. The applicant has submitted a lighting and photometric plan that appear to meet these requirements. Tree Preservation The subject property is almost entirely farmed or wetlands. There are a small number of trees along the edge of the field. Staff recommends that information be provided on the existing trees and removal. Replacement likely will be required but will probably be a small number compared to landscaping requirements. Landscaping The IP district includes the following landscape requirements: • Street Trees – not less than one tree per 50 feet, or fraction thereof, of street frontage The subject site includes 777 feet of frontage along Arrowhead Drive, which would require a minimum of 16 trees clustered along the frontage. The applicant proposes 25 trees along the frontage of Arrowhead Drive, mostly clustered to the north and south. A total of 181 trees are proposed, mostly lining the north and south property lines. • Open Space Trees – Complement form and function of open spaces Very little open space is proposed to remain on the site with the exception of stormwater basin or unimpacted wetland, so opportunities for planting is limited. Office 1 stall per 250 s.f. 54,950 s.f. (13.9%) 220 stalls Warehouse 1 stall per employee or 1 stall per 2000 s.f. 341,050 s.f. (86.1%) 171 stalls (171 employees max) Total 391 stalls Loram/Scannell Page 11 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting • Building Setting - At least 15 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all buildings except for walks, plaza space and approved loading docks. The applicant proposes 15 feet between the parking lot and buildings. Much of this area is proposed to be occupied by sidewalks running parallel to the building, many of which appear to be almost 10 feet wide. Staff recommends that sidewalk width be minimized as much as possible to increase the area for landscaping. • Parking lot landscaping – minimum of 5% of the interior of surface parking lot area; islands every 20 spaces Staff has calculated that approximately 6% of the parking lot includes landscaping and required landscaping islands are provided. Stormwater The applicant proposes a biofiltration basin east of building 3. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments. Staff recommends that these comments be addressed. The project will also be subject to Elm Creek Watershed review and approval. Sewer/Water Existing sewer and water mains are located within Arrowhead Drive and along the southern property line of the subject property. Staff recommends that the sewer and water lines within the site remain privately owned and operated. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments on the utility plans, which staff recommends be addressed. Utilities, Mechanical Equipment, and Trash and Recycling Facilities The IP districts requires: • All utilities shall be placed underground. Transformers and similar equipment, if any, should be located inside a building or shall be fully screened from view. • All rooftop equipment shall be designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops from higher elevations or abutting property. Equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. • To the extent possible, all mechanical equipment, meters and transformers shall be placed inside the building or in a mechanical court formed by walls which completely enclose and screen the equipment. Utilities serving the site shall be placed underground. No information has been provided on mechanical and utility equipment. Staff recommends that this information be provided consistent with IP standards. All trash and material to be recycled are required to be stored within the principal building, within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed outdoor area adjacent to the principal structure. The applicant has indicated that trash and recycling will be within the building. Loram/Scannell Page 12 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting EV Preparedness The City recently adopted an ordinance which requires applicants to describe Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure preparedness or implementation is proposed. The applicant has identified approximately 20% of the parking spaces as “EV-ready.” The applicant intends to install a small amount of charging stations and to install conduit to reduce future costs of installation for the remainder. Outdoor Storage Outdoor storage areas are required to be identified on the site plan, screened from view, and limited to 20% of the footprint of the building on the lot. No outdoor storage areas are identified on the plan, so staff recommends a condition that no outside storage area is permitted unless identified for review. Conditional Use Permit – Warehouse Warehousing/Distributorship is a conditional use within the IP zoning district. Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are subject to specific requirements for each use which are above the general zoning requirements, and also subject to a general set of criteria for all CUPs. The following specific standard is described in the IP district for warehousing: “Parking and truck configuration may require additional consideration.” Hennepin County has recommended that the existing Loram access north of the subject site be used as the main entrance for trucks. Staff recommends a condition requiring signage and other practices to direct as much of the truck traffic to that location as possible. Staff believes that the loading dock courtyard between the three buildings as proposed should help limit the impact of truck circulation to a great degree. General CUP Standards Following are the general CUP standards from Section 825.39 of the zoning code, along with potential finding on each: Subd. 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. Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern. Subd. 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. Staff does not believe the CUP will impede development. Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. These matters are discussed above, and subject to the conditions recommended, staff believes they will be addressed. Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Loram/Scannell Page 13 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting These matters are discussed above. Additional information is necessary to confirm adequacy of parking. Subd. 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. Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern. Subd. 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. The uses are all permitted in the zoning district. Subd. 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. The uses are all permitted in the zoning district. Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Staff does not believe the proposed CUP would conflict with the policies of the City. Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Subject to construction of the turn lane on Arrowhead Drive, staff believes this would be achieved. Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern. Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant is attempting to commence site work during the fall of 2022, with construction of buildings 1 and 2 in 2023. The timeline for building 3 would be based upon uptake of building 1. Staff recommends that the site plan review be valid for a no longer than a period of three years. Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. Loram is listed as the owner of the property. Staff Comments The purpose of a Site Plan Review is to review compliance with relevant land use regulations. If the proposed construction meets the requirements, it should be approved. The City can apply conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with City requirements. The proposed site plan is contingent upon approval by the City Council of the WCA application related to the proposed wetland impacts. The TEP has provided findings that the applicant has not made adequate efforts to adjust the scope and layout of the project to minimize wetland impacts, and staff has recommended that the footprint of the development be adjusted to reduce impacts to wetlands and adjacent buffers. Loram/Scannell Page 14 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The applicant has requested the opportunity to present their plans to Planning Commission and City Council and to describe how they feel they have minimized impacts while still meeting their project objectives. If the City Council grants approval of the proposed WCA application related to the wetland impacts, staff would recommend that the following conditions be considered in connection with the Site Plan Review. 1) The Site Plan Review and CUP shall be contingent upon plat approval. 2) The Site Plan Review and CUP shall be contingent upon approval and implementation of the Wetland Replacement Plan related to the proposed wetland impacts. 3) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _____________, except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction. 4) The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of signage. 5) It is acknowledged that proposed parking is intended to accommodate warehousing as a principal use. Other uses shall not exceed 15% of building 1, 20% of building 2, or 10% of building 3 unless the applicant has provided evidence satisfactory to City staff, that adequate parking exists for the use. 6) It is acknowledged that the amount of parking, anticipated site layout, and projected uses on the site result from direct action of the Owner for the sake of any future variance request. 7) No loading docks shall be permitted within 300 feet of the eastern property line of Lot 3. Based upon the footprint of the building shown on the plans dated 9/22/2022, no loading dock would be permitted on the eastern 50 feet of the building. 8) Landscaping shall be increased east of the loading dock. 9) The Applicant shall increase landscaping adjacent to the buildings, including through reducing sidewalk width to the extent possible. 10) All parking lot and landscape lighting shall be downcast and shielded. 11) The Applicant shall provide information on transformer, meter, and HVAC equipment and provide screening measures for review and approval. 12) All comments from the Elm Creek Watershed District shall be addressed. 13) All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed. 14) All trash and recycling shall be stored within the buildings. If storage is proposed outside the building, location and enclosure shall be submitted for review and approved by staff for consistency with IP standards prior to storing outside. 15) Outside storage shall be limited to the areas identified on the site plan within the loading dock area of Lot 2. No outdoor storage shall be permitted on Lots 1 or 3 unless specifically proposed and approved by the City as part of a Site Plan Review. 16) The Applicant shall update plans to identify bicycle storage areas. 17) The Applicant shall install signage and take other measures to encourage trucks and most vehicles to utilize the northern shared access. 18) The site plan review approval shall be effective for one year and thereafter shall be considered null and void. Building 3 may be constructed as a separate project, provided the permit is obtained within three years of approval. Loram/Scannell Page 15 of 15 October 11, 2022 Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 19) The Applicant shall obtain necessary permits from the City, Hennepin County, Elm Creek Watershed, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, and any other relevant agency prior to commencing construction activity on the Property. 20) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, site plan review, and related documents. Potential Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission first hold a public hearing on the application. Staff identified a number of technical conditions which need to be addressed. In addition to any other subjects, staff would encourage specific discussion on the following two matters which were identified in the report: • Whether the Commission believes the applicant has taken sufficient efforts to adjust the scope and layout of the project to minimize wetland impacts. • Whether architectural design is sufficient to meet the requirements of the IP district, especially related to modulation of the structure fronting Arrowhead Drive. If the Commission finds these matters have been adequately addressed, the following action could be taken: Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and site plan, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. If the Commission finds that one or both should be addressed, the following action could be taken: Motion to recommend that the Site Plan and Plat be updated to [reduce wetland impacts] and/or [improve architectural design of the western building]. Attachments 1. Applicant parking narrative 2. Applicant wetland permit submittal 3. Engineering Comments 4. Civil Plans (note: only plat, site plan, landscaping plan, and wetland buffer plan updated; grading and utility plans were from original plan set) 5. Architectural Plans 1 Dusty Finke From:Phil Homan <Phil.J.Homan@loram.com> Sent:Thursday, October 6, 2022 10:09 AM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Scott Moe; Wurdeman, Brian Subject:RE: Planning Committee Agenda Dusty I will comment on Building 2 Since it will be occupied by Loram Day 1. We have 15% designed as office space with some of that being break rooms (12,500SF) We have 5% as a light industrial Lab space (5,000 SF). Total of the above two items is 17,500SF out of the building footprint of 88,000 or 20% which we conservatively accounted for as “office”. The remainder is warehouse and storage and internal truck bays Loram currently has 13 warehouse employees involved in these activities. There may be an addition 10 or so logistics people we move to that site. Loram also has about a dozen or so traveling technicians that would use cube space on that site when they are in town. No parking needed when they are not There may be 5 to 10 people on any given day in the Lab space. Max cube space in our preliminary design is around 50 to 60 if we filled up all potential office space with full time people. I counted 104 parking spaces in front of building 2 so with all the potential possibilities from the above data above I don’t see us running into any issues with regard to parking if we build to this plan. This space will act as overflow space to our existing lot should it be needed. Loram also has space to add additional parking on our existing site if needed. We have been holding off doing that pending the build out of this site since we will destress our existing lot with this capacity. Not sure how this will affect the overall site plan but I see building 2 has excess parking capacity. With regard to our existing site and the OSI site those are primarily office spaces so not sure if it’s a valid comparison to what is proposed here. As a side note many companies are shifting towards remote working and flex time in the post pandemic world. Loram recently instituted a flex work policy whereby people can work remotely around 20% of the time. This also takes pressure off parking. I am currently sending this email from my “Lake office” Wondering how this will affect City codes of the future Happy to answer any other questions I’ll let Scott speak to Buildings 1 and 3. Phil J. Homan | CEO Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 3900 Arrowhead Drive ● Hamel, MN 55340 Office: 763-478-2246 phil.j.homan@loram.com ● www.loram.com 1 Dusty Finke From:Scott Moe <ScottM@scannellproperties.com> Sent:Thursday, October 6, 2022 10:42 AM To:Phil Homan; Dusty Finke Cc:Wurdeman, Brian Subject:RE: Planning Committee Agenda Solution Builders ‐ ThnAir Warning: Sender ScottM@scannellproperties.com is not yet trusted by your organization. Please be careful before replying or clicking on the URLs. Report Phishing Mark Safe powered by Graphus® Dusty, I’ll speak to buildings 1 & 3 as they are our speculative projects we are JVing with Loram. I’ve been marketing speculative projects for almost 40 years and predicting parking counts is always a challenge, so I respect your request to address the parking. And sure, I’d love to have more parking to cover the outlying/heavy parking user, but the economics of today’s developments don’t allow us the slack to have more than is shown on the plan – and is meeting code. If the rare heavy parking user comes to building 1 we will have to convert some of the truck courtyard area to pedestrian parking, a very common solution BTW. Or we’d have to reduce the size of building #3 and add parking there in the unlikely event the parking numbers were crazy big, but a deal we wanted to do. Building #1 effectively has double row parking across the entire front of the building. The double row of end cap parking effectively makes up for the parking lost due to the “notches” utilized to add more wetland area. For the majority of users, which is who we have to design for, the parking will be adequate and consistent within the market. Regarding building #3 there is no parking issues as we have it designed. Double row parking across the entire front is common and again, will meet the majority of potential users. It’s common for higher employee count manufacturing to utilize a portion of the truck courtyard area for warehouse/manufacturing area employees as they like to utilize back door access. Our current design meets code and I’m very comfortable with the number of stalls in this plan. Respectfully, Scott Moe Director of Development | Scannell Properties Phone: 651.707.5867 scannellproperties.com From: Phil Homan <Phil.J.Homan@loram.com> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 10:09 AM To: Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov> Cc: Scott Moe <ScottM@scannellproperties.com>; Wurdeman, Brian <Brian.Wurdeman@kimley‐horn.com> Subject: RE: Planning Committee Agenda Project Name and/or Number: Loram Medina Industrial PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Phil Homan, Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. Mailing Address: 3900 Arrowhead Drive, Hamel, MN 55340 Phone: 763-478-2246 E-mail Address: Phil.J.Homan@loram.com Agent Name: Ashley Payne, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mailing Address: 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: 507-216-0763 E-mail Address: ashley.payne@kimley-horn.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Hennepin City/Township: Medina Parcel ID and/or Address: 1111823220003 and 1111823230001 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): S11 T118N R23W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 93.560805°W 45.046878°N Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 25 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Project Site Description: Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. (Loram) is proposing to develop the property located directly south of their current facility located along Arrowhead Drive, City of Medina, Hennepin County, MN. The proposed development site is approximately 25 acres of currently vacant and is actively farmed with row crops. See Figure 1 for the project location and Figure 2 for existing site conditions. Loram is proposing to construct an industrial park with three (3) buildings. One building will be utilized by Loram for expansion of their facility to the north. The other two buildings will house other businesses that support the Loram facility and their current business. The total square footage of the three buildings is approximately 400,000 square feet. The proposed development also includes other infrastructure including a stormwater management pond, employee parking, truck and trailer parking, loading docks, drive aisles, and landscaping. See Appendix A for the proposed development site plan. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 Wetland Delineation Summary and Approvals: Kimley-Horn conducted a wetland investigation and field delineation in July 2021 for the Loram Property. In total eight wetlands and one ephemeral stream were delineated. The TEP reviewed the delineation in October 2021 and issued a Notice of Decision on October 19, 2021, approving the wetland types and boundaries. In a letter dated January 7th, 2022, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the boundaries (Regulatory File No. MVP-2021-01843-RLG). The delineated boundaries are shown in Figure 2. An approved jurisdictional determination is currently pending for the site. The NOD and USACE delineation approvals are included i n Appendix B. Project Purpose: The purpose of the project is for Loram to expand their current campus to the south and provide a facility for other supporting businesses to expand and develop within the same industrial development as Loram. Loram currently has warehouse facilities located in other locations across the southwest metro and is looking to consolidate those facilities and provide a more cohesive campus for their employees and vendors. The purpose of the two additional buildings is to provide a facilities for additional businesses that support Loram and can be collocated within the same industrial development to streamline deliveries and provide a cohesive campus for Loram. Loram will retain an ownership interest in the entire industrial park. Project Need: The parcel has been owned by Loram since the original facility was constructed and is zoned for light industrial. Currently, Loram facility does not house all of activities within one campus area and they are currently split across multiple sites. The existing Loram facility is fully utilized and does not have room to expand to provide space the additional warehousing and sub assembly needed for their current business. Given the sustained growth Loram is experiencing, space for additional warehousing and light industrial uses from existing supporting businesses who service Loram at other facilities in the metro area are needed to provide a more cohesive streamlined campus for Loram. See additional information is Attachment C. The buildings have been sized to meet Loram requirements for warehousing and light industrial based on what is currently being used at other facilities across the metro. The intent of developing the parcel to the south is to create campus complex for Loram and supporting businesses to streamline deliveries, provide a collaborative industrial development with connections to the main Loram campus and utilize the land currently owned by Loram. Proposed Impacts: The project is proposing to impact 1.26 acres of wetland and 119 linear feet of an ephemeral stream for development and construction of the industrial facility and infrastructure needed for the facility. The majority of the wetlands to be impacted are actively farmed wetlands. It is anticipated that all wetlands on the site except Wetland 4 and Wetland 5 are isolated and not regulated by the USACE. See the current site plan in Appendix A. See additional information is Attachment C. Proposed Mitigation: Loram is proposing the following mitigation: On-Site Wetland Creation : Loam is proposing the expand the remaining portion of Wetland 8 to create additional wetland along Arrowhead Drive. The current development plan shows an anticipated 23,667 SF of wetland to be created on site to mitigation for the loss of wetlands as a result of the development. This area is shown on the site plan in Appendix A. Wetland Bank Credits: Loram will purchase wetland mitigation bank credits for the mitigation that is required for the development. It is anticipated the credits will be purchased from a wetland bank located in BSA 7 and if credits are available, in the same major watershed as the project. Other Additional Information: EIS Negative Declaration and EAW: Due to the project size, the proposed development required an EAW. The City issued a negative declaration for the project in February 2022. The negative declaration and EAW is included in Appendix C. Section 7: Federally listed species were addressed the EAW. The EAW is included in Appendix C. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 MN DNR NHIS Review: State listed species was addressed in the EAW. The Blanding’s turtle was identified by the DNR. The measures outlined by the DNR will be following to minimize impacts to the species. The EAW is included in Appendix C. 100-year Floodplain: The project site is not within a 100-year FEMA floodplain. Section 106: A Phase I Archaeological survey was completed for the site based a previously identified Indian burial mound located in the project vicinity. No archaeological resources were identified during the Phase I archaeological investigation. The report is included in Appendix D. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 Project Name and/or Number: Loram Medina Industrial PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact 1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 Wetland 1 Wetland Fill Permanent 3,693 SF 3693 Seasonally flooded basin Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 Wetland 2 Wetland Fill Permanent 2,626 SF 2626 Seasonally flooded basin Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 Wetland 3 Wetland Fill Permanent 4,818 SF 4818 Seasonally flooded basin Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 Wetland 5 Wetland Fill Permanent 917 SF >10 acres Seasonally flooded basin Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 Wetland 6 Wetland Fill Permanent 3,572 SF 3572 Seasonally flooded basin Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 Wetland 7 Wetland Fill Permanent 17,744 SF 17,744 Seasonally flooded basin/Wet meadow Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 Wetland 8 Wetland Fill Permanent 21,772 SF 44,431 SF Seasonally flooded basin/shallow marsh Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 Ephemeral Stream 1 Linear Feature Fill Permanent 119 LF 119 LF N/A Hennepin. BSA 7, WM #20 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: None to-date 1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 PART FIVE: Applicant Signature Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Date: I hereby authorize Kimley-Horn to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 7/18/2022 Project Name and/or Number: Loram Medina Industiral Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: Project Site Description: Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. (Loram) is proposing to develop the property located directly south of their current facility located along Arrowhead Drive, City of Medina, Hennepin County, MN. The proposed development site is approximately 25 acres of currently vacant and is actively farmed with row crops. See Figure 1 for the project location and Figure 2 for existing site conditions. Loram is proposing to construct an industrial park with three (3) buildings. One building will be utilized by Loram for expansion of their facility to the north. The other two buildings will house other businesses that support the Loram facility and their current business. The total square footage of the three buildings is approximately 400,000 square feet. The proposed development also includes other infrastructure including a stormwater management pond, employee parking, truck and trailer parking, loading docks, drive aisles, and landscaping. See Attachment A for the proposed development site plan. Project Purpose: The purpose of the project is for Loram to expand their current campus to the south and provide a facility for other supporting businesses to expand and develop within the same industrial development as Loram. Loram currently has warehouse facilities located in other locations across the southwest metro and is looking to consolidate facilities and provide a more cohesive campus for their employees and vendors. The purpose of the two additional buildings is to provide a facilities for additional businesses that support Loram and can be collocated within the same industrial development to streamline deliveries and provide a cohesive campus for Loram. Loram will retain an ownership interest in the entire industrial park. Project Need: The parcel has been owned by Loram since the original facility was constructed and is zoned for light industrial. Currently, Loram facility does not house all of activities within one campus area and they are currently split across multiple sites. Loram has outgrown its existing facility and does not have any buildable property left on its current site without impacting additional wetlands, exceeding hard cover limitations or negatively affecting city ordinances. The need is most acute in general warehousing and sub assembly operations that feed the main production line for railway maintenance vehicles. Loram is currently renting overflow warehouse facilities in several places around the metro area as much as 60 miles away which requires parts to be brought to the facility daily from other locations managed by third party logistics companies. This process in inefficient, negatively impacts out production and is cost prohibitive in the long term. Given the sustained growth Loram is experiencing, space for additional warehousing and light industrial uses from existing supporting businesses and companies who service Loram at other facilities in the metro area are needed to provide a more cohesive streamlined campus for Loram. The buildings have been sized to meet Loram requirements for warehousing and light industrial based on what is currently being used at other facilities across the metro. The intent of developing the parcel to the south is to create campus complex for Loram and supporting businesses to streamline deliveries, provide a collaborative industrial development with connections to the main Loram campus and utilize the land currently owned by Loram. Proposed Development Requirements: • Three buildings totaling approximately 400,000 SF of light industrial/warehousing space. • Direct driveway connection to the existing Loram facility. • Driveway Access to Arrowhead Drive for employees and visitors and truck traffic for the industrial facility. • Stormwater infrastructure (stormwater basin) to meet local, state, and federal requirements. • Employee parking, loading docks, and truck/trailer parking for the facility DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: No Build Alternative: The no-build or “do-nothing” alternative would avoid all wetland and stream impacts; however, would not meet the purpose and need of the project. The wetlands would continue to be farmed and the site would remain in row crop production. Run-off from the farm field would continue to flow into the large wetland complex to the east of he parcel. Full Avoidance Alternative: A full avoidance alternative is not feasible considering the location of the delineated wetlands in relation to the existing Loram facili ty. The purpose of the project is to expand the Loram campus south to provide additional warehousing and space for Loram and affiliated businesses. In order to create a cohesive campus for Loram and affiliated businesses , a connection to the existing facility is required. In order to create that connection, 2 access roads are required along the northern edge of the development parcel an along the southern edge of the existing Loram facility. The locations of the proposed driveway connections to the Loram facility are situated so that they minimize car/truck interactions and provide a direct connection to the larger Loram facility. The access points fixed due to truck turning movements and spacing required from the access point off Arrowhead Drivel therefore, these connections will require wetland impacts. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): Wetland impacts have been minimized to the extent practicable while still meeting the purpose and need of the project. Alternative 1: The proposed development plan presented in the EAW was the preferred alternative for the project proposer. The proposed development plan included three buildings with 449,400 sf of light industrial/warehousing space. The building sizes and locations of the buildings and stormwater infrastructure provided capacity for larger businesses and a larger building to fit Loram’s current warehousing need. This alternative provided stormwater management in the lowest point of the site (NE corner) and also provided additional parking and drive accesses for the buildings. This alternative identified approximately 3 acres of wetland impact. Due to the proposed wetland impacts, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. L Shaped Building: An L-shaped building along with the proposed Loram building was evaluated to determine if this alternative was feasible. An L shaped building would not function from a campus development standpoint as it would cause traffic pattern impacts and conflicts for truck/trailer traffic between the buildings. Loram’s traffic would need to move out to Arrowhead drive and then back into the other facility. This would not be feasible given the large tele handling equipment or cranes with suspended loads that will need to move between the existing Loram facility and the new buildings.. The intermixing with general road traffic is not feasible or desirable for the City or Loram. The anticipated tenants to support Loram’s operations will require individual secure entrances, separate loading docks, and will need to keep employee and truck/trailer traffic separate. Loram has unique parts and assemblies that are often large and require special handling with oversized trucks and cranes to unload or move them. It would be a safety hazard to mix this activity with other traffic or vehicle parking. This alternative may minimally reduce wetland impacts; however, it does not meet the purpose and need of the project. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Two Buildings: One large building in addition to the proposed Loram building was evaluated to determine if this alternative was feasible. A two-building campus would not from a campus development standpoint as it would cause traffic pattern impacts and conflicts for truck/trailer traffic between the buildings. Loram’s traffic would need to move out to Arrowhead drive and then back into the other facility. This would not be feasible given the large tele handling equipment or cranes with suspended loads that will need to move between the existing Loram facility and the new buildings. The intermixing with general road traffic is not feasible or desirable for the City or Loram. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 The anticipated tenants to support Loram’s operations will require individual secure entrances, separate loading docks, and will need to keep employee and truck/trailer traffic separate. This would not be feasible with only 2 buildings. Loram has unique parts and assemblies that are often large and require special handling with oversized trucks and cranes to unload or move them. It would be a safety hazard to mix this activity with other traffic or vehicle parking. Additionally, erecting two larger buildings would only make them attractive to single purpose warehouse/distribution activities that would have a significantly higher amount of truck traffic in and out of the development. This alternative would not reduce wetland impacts; however, it does not meet the purpose and need of the project. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Three Building Alternative with buildings running parallel to Arrowhead Drive A reconfiguration of the site was evaluated in an attempt to minimize wetland impacts. The function of the campus would be impacted with this configuration and wetland impacts would not be reduced. Instead of impacting the wetland along Arrowhead Drive, the wetland along the eastern edge of the property would be impacted. This wetland is a larger wetland complex that is DNR public water, provide floodplain storage, and is not currently actively farmed. This alternative was eliminated from consideration. Preferred Alternative Loram is proposing to construct an industrial park with three (3) buildings. One building will be utilized by Loram for expansion of their facility to the north. The other two buildings will house other businesses that support the Loram facility and their current business. The total square footage of the three buildings is approximately 400,000 square feet. The proposed development also includes other infrastructure including a stormwater management pond, employee parking, truck and trailer parking, loading docks, drive aisles, and landscaping. See Attachment A for the proposed development site plan. The three-building layout is intended to offer the best flexibility to accommodate Loram’s 100% controlled activities with other organizations of various sizes who do work for Loram to create a cohesive campus approach and streamline interactions with the main Loram facility just north of the development site. Proposed Wetland Impacts and Minimization Efforts: Wetland 1: Wetland 1 is small, farmed wetland along the southern edge of the property. This wetland is currently farmed and appears to have formed in the last 10 years after the Motorplex development was constructed. This wetland provides little value as it is highly disturbed by active farming practices and contains no wetland vegetation. This wetland will be impacted by the driveway connection for the proposed development with Arrowhead Drive. To avoid equipment and truck/trailer and employee vehicle interactions, this access point is required. Wetland 2: Wetland 2 is small, farmed wetland along the southern edge of the property. This wetland is currently farmed and appears to have formed in the last 10 years after the Motorplex development was constructed. This wetland provides little value as it is highly disturbed by active farming practices and contains no wetland vegetation. This wetland will be impacted by the access drive internal to the site for the proposed development. This access drive is required to provide truck/trailer access to the loading dock for Buildings 1 and 3 on the site. Wetland 3: Wetland 3 is small, farmed wetland along the southern edge of the property. This wetland is currently farmed and appears to have formed in the last 10 years after the Motorplex development was constructed. This wetland provides little value as it is highly disturbed by active farming practices and contains no wetland vegetation. This wetland will be impacted by employee parking for Building 3 and the drive access for Building 3. The employee parking is needed at the front of the building to avoid truck/trailer conflicts with employee vehicles and pedestrian traffic on the site. Wetland 5: Wetland 5 is a seasonally flooded basin/wet meadow wetland complex that extends east and connects into the DNR Public Waters Wetland. A portion of this wetland is actively farmed and historically, this area does not appear to meet wetland criteria. The portion of the wetland to be impacted is actively farmed and provides low function and value. Impacts to this wetland have been minimized to the extent practicable. A retaining wall will be constructed adjacent to the access road to minimize impacts to the wetland grading activities in this area. The proposed project will impact 917 SF of Wetland 5. The wet meadow portion of the wetland will be maintained as wetland and will be protected from stormwater run-off and addition disturbance as it will be separated from the development by a retaining wall for the access road. A berm will be placed south of wetland 5 to avoid impacts from the proposed stormwater basin to this wetland area. Wetland 6: Wetland 6 is small, farmed wetland along the northern edge of the property. This wetland is currently farmed and appears to have formed after the Loram facility was constructed. This wetland provides little value as it is highly disturbed by active farming practices and contains no wetland vegetation. This wetland will be impacted by the proposed Loram Building DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 (Building 2 on the site plan in Attachment A). The Building 2 placement is critical to the function of the existing Loram facility and the interactions between the new building and the existing facility. The building was situated to streamline the interactions between the facilities while still allowing for proper access spacing along the existing entrance to the Loram facility. A drive aisle on the north side of Building 2 is required for entrance and to minimize interactions between truck/trailers at the loading docks and vehicles traveling throughout the proposed development. Wetland 7: Wetland 7 is a seasonally flooded basin/wet meadow wetland complex along the northern edge of the property. This wetland is located just south of the Loram facility access road. A portion of this wetland is actively farmed and provide minimal function and value. Wetland 7 will be impacted due to the placement of the access driveway connecting the proposed development with the existing Loram facility. This access drive is required in this location to allow for truck turning movements into the new development and provide connectivity to the existing Loram campus. The placement of the access road along the northern edge of Building 1 is required to provide proper circulation within the proposed development. The employee parking for Building 1 is located at the front of the building and truck loading docks are located at the rear of the building so the building provides screening of the truck loading docks. The placement of Building 1 also offers screen from the additional truck loading dock areas for Buildings 2 and 3 so people traveling along Arrowhead Drive do not see the interworking’s of the industrial park. Wetland 8: Wetland 8 is a seasonally flooded basin/shallow marsh wetland complex. A portion of the wetland is actively farmed with row crops. This wetland appears to have gotten larger over the last 10 years or since improvements were made to Arrowhead Drive. Impacts to this wetland have been minimized to the extent practicable. Building 1 and associated infrastructure (parking, stormwater management, drive aisles, etc) have been moved to the east to the extent practicable by still allowing for the building and industrial park to function in appropriately. A retaining wall will be construction along the employee parking area on the very eastern portion of the wetland to minimize impacts to the wetland. 21,774 SF of Wetland 8 will be impacted by the proposed development. The remaining 22,659 SF of wetland will be maintained as wetland. The project is also proposing to expand this wetland linearly along Arrowhead Drive to replace the impacted wetland on the site. The proposed wetland expansion will total 23,667 which increases the total wetland size to 1.06 acres of wetland. The wetland will be maintained and additional impacts to the wetland will be minimized as the wetland will be separated from the development by a retaining wall and the development will collect stormwater run-off and route it away from the wetland area. This will assist in improving water quality for the wetland as it will no longer be receiving run-off from the existing farm field. Ephemeral Stream 1: Ephemeral Stream 1 will be impacted as a result of Building 2 construction. Ephemeral Stream 1 is located in the center of the site and has formed due to run-off from the agricultural field down the slope into the wetland. This stream will be impacted as a result of building construction. Drainage patterns will be changed across the site to provide treatment of stormwater for the proposed development prior to discharging into any wetland areas. Off-Site Alternatives. An off -site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. No additional off-site alternatives were evaluated. The land is owned by the project proposer and will be used to expand their existing facility. The project requires a direct connection to the existing Loram facility. The existing Loram facility is const rained by a large wetland complex to the east, Arrowhead Drive to the west and the existing railroad and Highway 55 to the north. No other land is available adjacent to Loram that would provide a direct connect to their existing facility and would not impact significantly more wetland. DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 Project Name and/or Number: Loram Medina Industrial Attachment D Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements. Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Wetland Bank Account # County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # Credit Type (if applicable) Number of Credits TBD TBD TBD 7 TBD 2.53 acres Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU. Project-Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions (restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed project. WCA Action Eligible for Credit1 Corps Mitigation Compensation Technique2 Acres Credit % Requested Credits Anticipated3 County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # 1Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526. 2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 3If WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA. Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile……) and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique: Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, land use (on and surrounding the site), existing soils, drainage systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (inlets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.): DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 Project Name and/or Number: Loram Medina Industrial Attach a map of the existing aquatic resources, associated delineation report, and any documentation of regulatory review or approval. Discuss as necessary: For actions involving construction activities, attach construction plans and specifications with all relevant details. Discuss and provide documentation of a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site to define existing conditions, predict project outcomes, identify specific project performance standards and avoid adverse offsite impacts. Plans and specifications should be prepared by a licensed engineer following standard engineering practices. Discuss anticipated construction sequence and timing: For projects involving vegetation restoration, provide a vegetation establishment plan that includes information on site preparation, seed mixes and plant materials, seeding/planting plan (attach seeding/planting zone map), planting/seeding methods, vegetation maintenance, and an anticipated schedule of activities: For projects involving construction or vegetation restoration, identify and discuss goals and specific outcomes that can be determined for credit allocation. Provide a proposed credit allocation table tied to outcomes: Provide a five-year monitoring plan to address project outcomes and credit allocation: Discuss and provide evidence of ownership or rights to conduct wetland replacement/mitigation on each site: Quantify all proposed wetland credits and compare to wetland impacts to identify a proposed wetland replacement ratio. Discuss how this replacement ratio is consistent with Corps and WCA requirements: By signature below, the applicant attests to the following (only required if application involves project-specific/permittee responsible replacement): • All proposed replacement wetlands were not: • Previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or permit • Drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years • Restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs • Restored using private funds, other than landowner funds, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. • The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. • An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security will be provided to guarantee successful completion of the wetland replacement. • Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located and submit proof of such recording to the LGU and the Corps. Applicant or Representative: Title: Signature: Date: DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 CEO 7/18/2022 Figures DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 S tre hl e r R d C o u n t y R o a d 1 9 Spurzem Lake Lake Independence Pio n e e r T r l Hamel R d Ro l l i n g H il l s Rd Chippewa Rd Tom a h awk T rl C o u n t y R o a d 1 9 C o u n t y R o a d 1 9 Baker National Golf Course Loretto Leighton Lake Katrina W a t e rtownRd L e a f S t Bayside R d 6 th Ave N Baker Park Reserve Stubbs Bay K alk R d Rush Creek Golf Club Corcoran Dupont Swamp Lake Ho rseshoe T r l W i l lo w D r Will o w D r Lark i n R d O l d S e t tle r s R d Pioneer T r l A r r o wh e a d D r Br o c k t o n L n N Meander R d M o h a w k R d W i l l o w R d Hamel R d B r o c k t o n L n N Hackamore Rd H u n t e r D r Highw a y 55 Highway 55 Medina Golf & Country Club Shamrock Golf Course Mooney Lake 12 Wi l l o w D r Wa tertown R d T a m a r a c k D r Me d i na Rd Wi l l o w D r N H u n t e r D r 6th A ve N N W i l l o w Dr F e r n d a l e R d N B r o w n R d S Woodhill Country Club Wayzata Country Club Spring Hill Golf Club Orono Medina Ditter Long Lake 8 2 nd Av e N We ave r L ake D r D u n k i r k L n N Tr o y L n N North Hennepin Regional Trail Cor 4 6th A ve N Du n k irk Ln N Tr o y L n N Peo n y L n N El m R d Old R o c k f o r dRd La w n d a l e L n N B ass L a ke Rd V i c k s b u r g L n N C ounty Road47 9 t h A ve N 25th Ave N D u n k i r k L n N 2 4t h Ave N 1 9th A v e N Medina Rd Parkers Lake Park Plymouth Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Three Rivers Park District, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA 0 0.5 1Miles Figure 1. Project Location Map Loram Property Medina, MN Legend Study Area DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 SP-1 SP-2 SP-4 SP-5 SP-6 SP-7 SP-8 SP-9 SP-10 SP-11 SP-12 SP-13 SP-3 Ephemeral Stream 1 119 ln ft Wetland 2 0.08 ac Wetland 1 0.12 ac Wetland 3 0.11 ac Wetland 4 0.25 ac Wetland 8 1.02 ac Wetland 6 0.08 ac Wetland 7 0.41 ac Wetland 5 0.99 ac 0 200 400US Feet Figure 2. Delineated Resources Map Loram Property Medina, MN Legend Study Area Sample Points Delineated Wetland Boundary Delineated Ephemeral Stream Delineated Wetlands within Study Area Seasonally Flooded Basin Shallow Marsh Wet Meadow Aerial Imagery Courtesy of NearMap (2018) Ar r o w h e a d D r DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 Appendix A DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 PROPOSED BUILDING 3 ±182,000 SF UP UP UP P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G 1 ± 1 2 6 , 0 0 0 S F PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ±88,000 SF EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY TRAIL EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 30' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 30' WETLAND BUFFER AR R O W H E A D D R I V E (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION PROPOSED ON-SITE WETLAND MITIGATION 40 . 0 ' 20.0' 24.0' 20.0' 15.0' 60.0'60.0' 24 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 59 . 9 ' 60 . 1 ' 30.0'20 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' 15 . 5 ' 15.0' PR E P A R E D F O R OV E R A L L S I T E PL A N C400 ME D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L ME D I N A MI N N E S O T A DA T E : I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , SP E C I F I C A T I O N O R R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y ME O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N A N D TH A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D P R O F E S S I O N A L EN G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F MI N N E S O T A . MN LI C . N O . BR I A N M . W U R D E M A N XX / X X / X X X X XX X X X 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 8 4 6 0 2 9 06 / 3 0 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N SJ S SJ S BM W NORTH 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 2 2 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 \ S c a n n e l l \ M e d i n a \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ R e f e r e n c e s \ _ A R C H I V E \ E x h i b i t s \ 2 0 2 2 - 0 6 1 4 O P T I O N 2 W E T L A N D S \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 - 4 : 2 5 p 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 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R OPTION 1 WETLAND CALCULATIONS: IMPACTED WETLAND AREA: 55,145.20 SQUARE FEET WETLAND CREDIT REQUIRED (2:1): 110,290.40 SQUARE FEET ON-SITE WETLAND REPLACEMENT: 23,667.94 SQUARE FEET ON-SITE WETLAND REPLACEMENT CREDIT (75%): 17,750.96 SQUARE FEET 2,626.44 sf 4,818.31 sf 3,693.5 sf 3,572.5 sf17,744.63 sf 21,772.14 sf 693.25 sf 224.25 sf 7,109.83 sf 16,558.11 sf DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 ±126,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ±182,000 SF PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G 3 ±8 8 , 0 0 0 S F EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY TRAIL EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 30' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND BOUNDARYPROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 30' WETLAND BUFFER AR R O W H E A D D R I V E (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 24.0' 40 . 0 ' 40 . 0 ' 24.0' 24.0' 120.0' 180.0' 40 . 0 ' 24.0' PR E P A R E D F O R OV E R A L L S I T E PL A N C400 ME D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L ME D I N A MI N N E S O T A DA T E : I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , SP E C I F I C A T I O N O R R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y ME O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N A N D TH A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D P R O F E S S I O N A L EN G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F MI N N E S O T A . MN LI C . N O . BR I A N M . W U R D E M A N XX / X X / X X X X XX X X X 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 8 4 6 0 2 9 06 / 3 0 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N SJ S SJ S BM W NORTH 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 2 2 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 \ S c a n n e l l \ M e d i n a \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ R e f e r e n c e s \ _ A R C H I V E \ E x h i b i t s \ 2 0 2 2 - 0 6 2 9 O P T I O N 7 W E T L A N D S \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 - 5 : 1 7 p 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 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R OPTION 3 WETLAND CALCULATIONS: IMPACTED WETLAND AREA: 92,316.71 SQUARE FEET WETLAND CREDIT REQUIRED (2:1): 184,633.42 SQUARE FEET 2,626.45 sf 4,818.41 sf 3,693.5 sf 3,572.56 sf17,744.59 sf 35,558.36 sf 24,302.81 sf DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 PROPOSED BUILDING 3 ±216,400 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ±104,900 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 1 ±128,000 SF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE STAT E H W Y 5 5 AR R O W H E A D D R 40 . 0 ' 200.0' 64 0 . 0 ' 130.0' 901.5' 24 0 . 0 ' 582.5' 18 0 . 0 ' EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF EXISTING WETLAND APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF EXISTING WETLAND APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF EXISTING WETLAND STORMWATER/ WETLAND MITIGATION AREA STORMWATER/ WETLAND MITIGATION AREA STORMWATER/ WETLAND MITIGATION AREA STORMWATER/ WETLAND MITIGATION AREA SHEET NO. DRAWN BY: DATE: NORTH EAW SITE PLAN MEDINA INDUSTRIAL PREPARED FOR: SCANNELL PROPERTIES ERW 01/17/2022 EX-5 BUILDING 1 DATA SUMMARY AREAS BUILDING 1 AREA ±128,000 SF BUILDING 1 PARKING PROPOSED AUTO PARKING 142 STALLS PROPOSED TRUCK PARKING 51 STALLS PROPERTY SUMMARY TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 1,092,255 SF (25.07 AC) PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED FENCE SETBACK LINE PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA LEGEND APPROXIMATE WETLAND AREA BUILDING 2 DATA SUMMARY AREAS BUILDING 2 AREA ±104,900 SF BUILDING 2 PARKING PROPOSED AUTO PARKING 131 STALLS PROPOSED TRUCK PARKING 45 STALLS BUILDING 3 DATA SUMMARY AREAS BUILDING 3 AREA ±216,400 SF BUILDING 3 PARKING PROPOSED AUTO PARKING 192 STALLS PROPOSED TRUCK PARKING 73 STALLS DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 ±162,175 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ±303,685 SF 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 64 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' 30.0' EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY TRAIL EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 30' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 30' WETLAND BUFFER 60 . 0 ' 30.0' AR R O W H E A D D R I V E (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC MAINTENANCE ROUTE 50' BUILDING SETBACK 25 . 0 ' 15 . 0 ' 15.0' 15.0' 15 . 0 ' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER 40.0' 40.0' 40 . 0 ' 15.0' 20 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' 15.0' PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT NORTH 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 2 2 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 \ S c a n n e l l \ M e d i n a \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ R e f e r e n c e s \ _ A R C H I V E \ E x h i b i t s \ 2 0 2 2 - 0 6 2 9 O P T I O N 4 W E T L A N D S \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 - 4 : 2 9 p 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 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R OPTION 5 WETLAND CALCULATIONS: IMPACTED WETLAND AREA: 78,698.56 SQUARE FEET WETLAND CREDIT REQUIRED (2:1): 157,397.12 SQUARE FEET 2,626.45 sf 4,818.41 sf 3,693.5 sf 3,572.56 sf17,744.59 sf 35,558.36 sf 10,684.69 sf DocuSign Envelope ID: A8297586-9956-4E02-8DEF-3783F8731B88 1 MEMORANDUM To: Dusty Finke City of Medina From: Ashley Payne Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: September 14, 2022 Subject: Loram Medina Replacement Plan Application (WR-22-174 (20951)) Response to TEP Comments and Findings In response to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Replacement Plan Application TEP Findings received on August 16, 2022, and comments received during the TEP meeting held on August 3, 2022, Kimley-Horn is submitting the following additional information on behalf of the applicant. Applicant Discussion indicated that the immediate needs of the project involve the need for Building 2 (88,000 SF) and a portion of Building 1 (126,000 SF) to house existing operations for the Loram facility. Building 3 (182,000) is proposed speculatively to provide space for future, unidentified users. In evaluation of the need for the project, the TEP finds that the applicant has not adequately evaluated alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands: 1) Mn Rule 8420.0520 Subpart 3.C requires that persons proposing to impact a wetland must provide the local government unit with documentation describing at least two alternatives that avoid wetland impact, one of which may be the no-build alternative. a) The avoidance plan outlines a no-build alternative. The "Full Avoidance Alternative" does not describe the development that could actually be built while avoiding wetlands. It simply states that it's not feasible. The applicant needs to show what amount of development is possible while still avoiding wetlands and discuss how that amount of development meets the needs of the project. A No-Build Alternative was presented in the original application which meets the requirement of 1 Full-Avoidance Alternative. As previously noted, the No-Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project; therefore was eliminated from consideration. The Applicant has evaluated a second full avoidance alternative to avoid all wetlands located on the subject property. The second full avoidance alternative depicts one building located in the middle of the site and avoids all wetland impacts. This alternative includes a 196,000 SF building, associated infrastructure, and stormwater management. This alternative is approximately half of the proposed alternative and would not meet the purpose and need of the project. This building would be too large for just the Loram operations. Having multiple tenants in one building for the 2 Loram facility is not desirable for multiple reasons and described in the original application. This alternative is also not economically feasible as it does not allow of additional tenants or provide an opportunity for associated businesses to Loram to be adjacent to their existing facility and reduce shipping and distribution costs for Loram and other businesses. See Attachment A for the second full avoidance alternative. 2) Mn Rule 8420.0520 Subpart 3.C(2) notes that the LGU must determine whether any proposed feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands and (Subpart 3.C(3)) whether a reasonable modification of the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project could avoid impacts to wetlands. a) The applicant evaluated four alternative site configurations, three of which impacted more wetland than the proposed alternative and one that the TEP was not shown a site configuration for. The application did not contain feasible and prudent alternatives that demonstrate modifications to the size, scope, configuration or density that would avoid wetland impacts. It should be noted that the original intent to develop the subject property into an industrial development was to include more square footage and larger buildings on the site similar to the alternative shown in the EAW that was completed by the City in early 2022. From the initial concept and development plan evaluated as part of the EAW, the applicant has since reduced the building size and scope of the project to minimize wetland impacts, increase green space and reduce the hardscape of the project. The preferred alternative for the applicant would be larger buildings and more square footage to maximize the development of the property. Economically, larger buildings would be more economically feasible; however, the scope of the project has since been reduced to minimize impacts to the wetland areas. Since the application submittal, the applicant and design team has investigated ways to further reduce wetland impacts to the wetland along Arrowhead Drive. The revised site plan has created some parking islands and changes to the parking areas to avoid additional wetland. The site plan included in Attachment B has reduced the wetland impacts by 0.12 acres for a total of 1.23 acres of impact for the proposed project. The reduction in parking still allows the project to meet industry standards for the proposed uses. b) The 2-buildling alternative evaluated a building area that was larger than the proposed by 69,860 square feet. Modification of this alternative is feasible to avoid impacts to wetlands while still meeting the needs of the project. The two-building alternative that has been evaluated for a larger footprint due to that being the preferred alternative for the applicant as more square footage would be more economically feasible for development. However, since the two-building concept was evaluated and determined to not meet the purpose and need of the project, this concept was eliminated. Two Building Alternative: Based on comments from the TEP meeting, a second two building alternative was evaluated by the applicant and design team. The additional two building scenario evaluated includes two buildings, totaling 380,100 SF and associated infrastructure. This concept would impact up to 0.77 acres of wetland and preserves the wetland along Arrowhead Drive. The two-building concept does not meet the purpose and need of the project as it is a two-building concept versus the three-building concept 3 (preferred alternative) which is the purpose of the project. The two-building concept presented in Attachment C has the following operational issues: • Truck access to the truck court is problematic as it mixes employee parking and truck traffic. • There is a limited employee parking for the north building due to the geometry of the truck access to the truck court • The total building square footage (380,100 sf) is less than the market demand as determined by Scannell/Loram (396,000 sf) Due to the operational issues, less square footage and number of buildings, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. The applicant must provide the wetland mitigation bank information from which the proposed banking credits will be supplied. The project applicant is currently in conversations with wetland banks and intends to purchase wetland bank credits from that bank to mitigate the full impact of wetland on the site. The intent is to purchase wetland bank credits at a 2:1 replacement ratio. Application should remove references to farmed wetlands "appearing to have formed in the last 10 years" or historically not being present. The applicant is not requesting a decision related to incidental wetlands. The current application under review is for a replacement plan approval and the applicant is not requesting an incidental wetland determination at this time for the wetlands located on the subject property; however, the references to the farmed wetlands and the observation that wetland characteristics became more prevalent in the last ten years provides support for sequencing flexibility. Prior to the existing Loram campus construction, roadway improvements and the development of the Motorplex development south of the subject property, the farmed wetlands were not prevalent in historic aerials in normal precipitation years. These wetlands are low quality isolated wetlands that provide low function and value to the surrounding area. Mitigation for these wetland areas will be provided through the purchase of wetland banking credits from an established wetland bank. The mitigation wetlands are higher quality than the currently farmed wetlands within the subject property. A construction and maintenance plan for the wetland mitigation areas proposed along Arrowhead Drive will be required as part of plan review. A full construction design and mitigation maintenance plan is currently being developed and will be provided to the City during the site plan review phase of the project. A description of the wetland area construction and seeding plan is below. It should be noted that the applicant is not requesting mitigation credit for the created wetland areas within the subject property. The intent of the created wetland is to provide additional wetland within the City of Medina to offset impacts to some of the wetlands onsite. The applicant is also proposing to purchase credits for all wetland impacts for the project at a 2:1 replacement ratio. 4 Wetland Construction and Seeding Plan: Grading The wetland area will be graded concurrently with the development. Construction is anticipated to start in 2022. The wetland area will be graded, and excavation of existing soils will be completed during the early stages of project construction. The grading plan is attached. Best management practices shall be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during construction. Silt fence will be placed around the remaining wetland and the perimeter of the site to prevent erosion and sedimentation during construction and vegetation establishment. The silt fence will be removed once construction has been completed and the wetland area has been stabilized. Soil Preparation Soils for the wetland area will be the existing soils on the site and subsoils in areas where grading activities are anticipated. The native seed mix designed for these areas will thrive in these soil conditions. Herbicide Control It is assumed the subsoils will lack a seed bank; therefore, weed species are not anticipated to establish prior to seeding. If any weed species or other vegetation appear in the wetland area prior to seeding, the area will be spot sprayed to eliminate any undesirable vegetation. Erosion Control Silt fence and erosion control blanket will be used to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Depending on the timing of the seeding, a cover crop may be used to establish vegetation prior to seeding of the native seed mixes. Seeding Seed Mixes The following seed mixes will be used for the wetland area and upland buffers. All seed mixes will be obtained from an approved vendor and the seed tags can be provided to the City if needed. Emergent Wetland/Wet Meadow: • State Seed Mix 34-171 – Wetland Rehabilitation o Seeding rate: 5.3 lb./ac Upland Buffer: • State Seed Mix: 35-241 – Mesic Prairie General Seed Mix 5 o Seeding rate: 36.5 lb./ac Wetland Maintenance The wetland area will be monitored for any areas experiencing erosion from surface water run-off and will be corrected to prevent further washes or erosion in wetland for the first year after construction. The following vegetation maintenance will be completed during the first year to confirm establishment of wetland within the identified creation area. • Spot spraying of herbicide o Spot spaying of areas dominated by non-native vegetation will completed to eliminated colonies of non-native vegetation. Herbicide will be applied by a licensed applicator at the appropriate times to control invasive species. Other methods chosen by the seeding contractor to encourage native vegetation grow and inhibit the spread of invasive species will be completed. It is anticipated the created wetland will assume characteristics of the adjacent existing wetland along Arrowhead Drive. Wetland buffers are required by City of Medina ordinance. Buffers must be established around wetlands onsite, or a variance requested if buffers are not feasible. Wetland buffers will be provided for the remaining wetlands located within the subject property where feasible. In areas where wetland is adjacent to retaining walls, wetland buffers are no feasible without impacting additional wetland. The applicant will place signature along the upland buffers and edges wetland to denote environmentally sensitive areas to the public. ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED BUILDING 1 ±196,925 SF EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY TRAIL EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 30' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND BOUNDARY 30' WETLAND BUFFER AR R O W H E A D D R I V E (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC 50' BUILDING SETBACK 20' WETLAND BUFFER20' WETLAND BUFFER 20' WETLAND BUFFER 20' WETLAND BUFFER 20' WETLAND BUFFER 4 0 . 0 ' 40.0' 40.0' 40.0' 70 . 0 ' 50 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' 18 . 0 ' 18 . 0 ' 9.0' 15 . 0 ' 15.0' 15.0' PR E P A R E D F O R OV E R A L L S I T E PL A N C400 ME D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L ME D I N A MI N N E S O T A DA T E : I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , SP E C I F I C A T I O N O R R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y ME O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N A N D TH A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D P R O F E S S I O N A L EN G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F MI N N E S O T A . MN LI C . N O . BR I A N M . W U R D E M A N XX / X X / X X X X XX X X X 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 8 4 6 0 2 9 06 / 3 0 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N SJ S SJ S BM W NORTH 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 2 2 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 \ S c a n n e l l \ M e d i n a \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ R e f e r e n c e s \ _ A R C H I V E \ E x h i b i t s \ 2 0 2 2 - 0 6 2 9 O P T I O N 9 W E T L A N D S \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 - 1 1 : 2 2 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 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R ATTACHMENT B UP UP OUTLOT A LO T 1 P R O P O S E D B U I L D I N G 1 ±1 2 6 , 0 0 0 S F LOT 2 PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ±88,000 SF OUTLOT B OUTSIDE STORAGE OUTSIDE STORAGE EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV ST A L L EV ST A L L LOT 3 PROPOSED BUILDING 3 ±182,000 SF UP 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 64 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY TRAIL EASEMENT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 30' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND BOUNDARYPROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 30' WETLAND BUFFER 60 . 0 ' AR R O W H E A D D R I V E (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC MAINTENANCE ROUTE 20' D&U EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 25 . 0 ' 15 . 0 ' 15 . 0 ' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER 24.0' 40 . 0 ' PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT SEE SHEET C401 SEE SHEET C402 SEE SHEET C403 SEE SHEET C404 PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION 30' WETLAND BUFFER 15 . 0 ' BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 42.81 AC BUILDING AREA 1 126,000 SF (6.8% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 2 88,000 SF (4.7% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 3 182,000 SF (9.8% OF TOTAL AREA) PARKING BUILDING 1 REQUIRED PARKING 76 SPACES (18,900 SF OFFICE:1/250 SF) 54 SPACES (107,100 SF WAREHOUSE: 1/2000 SF) 130 TOTAL SPACES BUILDING 1 PROPOSED PARKING 149 SPACES @1.00 RATIO BUILDING 1 ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS BUILDING 2 REQUIRED PARKING 72 SPACES (17,850 SFOFFICE:1/250 SF) 35 SPACES (70,150 SF WAREHOUSE: 1/2000 SF) 107 TOTAL SPACES BUILDING 2 PROPOSED PARKING 108 SPACES @1.00 RATIO BUILDING 2 ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS BUILDING 3 REQUIRED PARKING 73 SPACES (18,200 SF OFFICE:1/250 SF) 82 SPACES (163,800 SF WAREHOUSE: 1/2000 SF) 155 TOTAL SPACES BUILDING 3 PROPOSED PARKING 135 SPACES @1.00 RATIO BUILDING 3 ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS TOTAL CITY REQ'D 392 TOTAL SPACES TOTAL PROVIDED 392 TOTAL SPACES PROPERTY SUMMARY MEDINA INDUSTRIAL TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 26.67 AC RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC NET PROPERTY AREA 25.78 AC LOT 1 7.50 AC LOT 2 5.07 AC LOT 3 8.79 AC OUTLOT A 3.42 AC OUTLOT B 1.00 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PLATTED AREA)18.04 AC (69.98%) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PLATTED AREA)7.74 AC (30.02%) TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 22.62 AC WETLAND IMPACTS SEE WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) PROPOSED ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 50' SIDE = 50' REAR = 50' PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED FENCE SETBACK LINE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK LEGEND PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT 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 2 2 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 \ S c a n n e l l \ M e d i n a \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g S e p t e m b e r 0 6 , 2 0 2 2 - 4 : 2 3 p m © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R SITE PLAN NOTES 1.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 3.ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'. 4.ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 7.SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY SUNDE LAND SURVEYING , DATED 06/17/2021. KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 8.TOTAL LAND AREA IS 25.67 ACRES. 9.PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 11.NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE. 12.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS. 13.REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS. 14.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 15.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 16.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 20' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 17.THERE ARE WETLAND IMPACTS, REFER TO WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. NORTH PROPOSED EV READY STALL ATTACHMENT C OUTLOT A LOT 2 PROPOSED BUILDING 2 ±143,100 SF OUTLOT B LOT 3 PROPOSED BUILDING 3 ±237,000 SF 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 64 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 24 . 0 ' EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY TRAIL EASEMENT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 30' WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND BOUNDARYPROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 30' WETLAND BUFFER 60 . 0 ' AR R O W H E A D D R I V E (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC MAINTENANCE ROUTE 20' D&U EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 25 . 0 ' 15 . 0 ' 15 . 0 ' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER 30' WETLAND BUFFER SEE SHEET C401 SEE SHEET C402 SEE SHEET C403 SEE SHEET C404 PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 42.81 AC BUILDING AREA 1 126,000 SF (6.8% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 2 88,000 SF (4.7% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 3 182,000 SF (9.8% OF TOTAL AREA) PARKING BUILDING 1 REQUIRED PARKING 63 SPACES (1/2000 GSF) BUILDING 1 PROPOSED PARKING 123 SPACES @0.98 RATIO BUILDING 1 ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS BUILDING 2 REQUIRED PARKING 44 SPACES (1/2000 GSF) BUILDING 2 PROPOSED PARKING 108 SPACES @1.23 RATIO BUILDING 2 ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS BUILDING 3 REQUIRED PARKING 91 SPACES (1/2000 GSF) BUILDING 3 PROPOSED PARKING 143 SPACES @0.79 RATIO BUILDING 3 ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS PROPERTY SUMMARY MEDINA INDUSTRIAL TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 42.81 AC RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC NET PROPERTY AREA 41.92 AC LOT 1 7.50 AC LOT 2 5.07 AC LOT 3 8.79 AC OUTLOT A 3.42 AC OUTLOT B 18.04 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PROPERTY AREA)18.35 AC PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PROPERTY AREA)24.46 AC TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 22.62 AC WETLAND IMPACTS SEE WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) PROPOSED ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 50' SIDE = 50' REAR = 50' PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED FENCE SETBACK LINE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK LEGEND PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT 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 2 2 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 \ S c a n n e l l \ M e d i n a \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ R e f e r e n c e s \ _ A R C H I V E \ E x h i b i t s \ 2 0 2 2 - 0 8 0 8 O p t i o n 8 \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g A u g u s t 0 8 , 2 0 2 2 - 4 : 5 3 p 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 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R SITE PLAN NOTES 1.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 3.ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'. 4.ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 7.SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY SUNDE LAND SURVEYING , DATED 06/17/2021. KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 8.TOTAL LAND AREA IS 25.67 ACRES. 9.PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 11.NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE. 12.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS. 13.REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS. 14.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 15.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 16.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 20' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 17.THERE ARE WETLAND IMPACTS, REFER TO WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. NORTH K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering 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 July 28, 2022 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Preliminary Plat & Plan Review City Project No. LR-22-318 WSB Project No. 020306-000 Dear Mr. Finke: WSB staff have reviewed the Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Preliminary Plat & Plans submitted to the City on July 18, 2022. The applicant proposes to construct a total of three office/warehouse buildings by combining two parcels totaling 25.1 acres. 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 & General Comments 1. The City Planner will provide comments pertaining to the proposed landscaping, overall trail/pedestrian access, and tree preservation plan under separate cover. Acknowledged by applicant. 2. The preliminary plat is hard to read with all of the infrastructure/grading shown. Provide a cleaner version for review. Show proposed drainage and utility easements. Plat cleaned up but provide dimensions of utility easements to the property lines in various locations. 3. 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. Revised site plan submitted, but monument sign said to be constructed by others and by the contractor; clarify what is being proposed. 4. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures as required by the City Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will review and provide comments under separate cover. In-progress, awaiting Fire Marshall review. 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 (watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, ponding, etc.) and a schedule for completion of construction will be required. The estimate should also include the cost of landscaping items. 6. Any work within Hennepin County right of way will require a permit. The applicant shall also meet the requirements of the County’s plat review committee. Acknowledged by applicant. City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review July 28, 2022 Page 2 K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx Existing Site & Demolition Plan (Sheet C200 – C204) 7. Confirm whether additional removals within Arrowhead Drive for the watermain connection to the north will be needed due to proximity of connection to the edge of roadway. Watermain shown as 8’ from back of curb. Note, to protect back of curb during construction. 8. The existing site and demolition plans will also need to include existing utility locations, pipe sizes, pipe material types, etc. Show more of the watermain along Arrowhead Drive. Make sure the text shows up on each of the sheets/views, move text so that it is not on top of linework and is readily legible. Erosion/Sediment Control, SWPPP Plans, & Details (Sheets C300 – C312) 9. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future plan submittals. SWPPP shall include all requirements in the Construction Stormwater General permit section 5.3-5.26 10. Provide a location map of the project site with a one mile radius showing all discharge locations and adjacent water bodies. 11. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing. 12. A more detailed review of erosion/sediment control will be conducted with the final plat submittal. Site Plan (Sheets C401 – C404) 13. The City Planner will provide comments pertaining to the proposed landscaping, pedestrian access/mobility, and tree preservation plan under separate cover. Acknowledged by applicant. 14. Typical pavement sections were provided on the plan. The final pavement section shall be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site. Provide geotechnical report with future submittals. Geotechnical report with paving designs provided. Typical pavement sections were not included with this submittal. Several detail pages included with the previous submittal were not included with this one (Sheets C3.11, C4.06, C4.07, C5.06, etc.) Grading, Drainage, and Storm Sewer Plans (Sheets C500 – C504) 15. Provide and note EOF locations for all low points inside and outside the roadway. Provide EOF arrows with highpoint/EOF elevations at locations on plans. Some CBMHs are shown as having EOFs that are lower than their rim elevations. 16. With final plat submittal provide the following: a. In general maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2.0% and maximum 33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall also be a minimum of 2.0%. Some areas identified as being greater than 3:1 or less than 2% City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review July 28, 2022 Page 3 K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx 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%. See western swales along Arrowhead Drive d. Add rip-rap quantities and class notes at each flared end section and pond overflows (if applicable). e. Note the size of proposed storm sewer structures. i. Provide pipe sizes and directions corresponding to invert elevations ii. Match crowns or 0.8 flow lines of pipes 17. At the southeasterly portion of the site, there is a portion proposed to be graded toward the adjacent property to the south. At this location, the parking lot could overflow into the greenspace; this area needs to be graded to drain in the easterly direction and not into the adjacent property. Utility Plan (Sheets C600 – C603) 18. 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. The City will not require easements for the sanitary sewer within the site. Twenty-foot (20’) easements were provided over all watermain. The City will provide guidance whether all valves (including service valves) and hydrants need to be encompassed by drainage and utility easement. Increase easement as necessary. 19. At the southeasterly portion of the site along the property line, extend the watermain and sewer main east matching the locations proposed by the adjacent property owner. Otherwise, proposed landscaping will be impacted with this connection: 20. Add general notes to the utility plans to the effect of: a. The City 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. City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review July 28, 2022 Page 4 K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx 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. c. All watermain and sanitary sewer testing shall be conducted in accordance with the City 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 warranty for the utility system; provide report and video files to the City for review. f. Tracer wire installation shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the MN Rural Water Association Standards. See these standards for further details. 21. With final plat submittal provide the following: 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). Acknowledged by applicant, to be submitted with future plat updates. Watermain: 22. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future phases or other adjacent developments may be required and reviewed with future submittals. Complete. 23. 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. Provide an exhibit showing hydrant influence spacing. In-progress, awaiting Fire Marshall review. 24. 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 Fire Marshall review. 25. The City will require that the watermain is connected to the existing watermain along the southerly property line as opposed to a separate connection within Arrowhead Drive. It is anticipated that the property owner/developer for the property to the southeast will be extending the watermain further east; a connection to the easterly end of this future stub should be made into the Loram property. 26. Hydrants and adjacent valves should be located and fully encompassed within curbed islands. Gate valves symbols shifted to islands or notes added. Sanitary Sewer: 27. The City will require that the sewer main is connected to the existing main along the southerly property line as opposed to making a separate connection within Arrowhead Drive. Complete. City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review July 28, 2022 Page 5 K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx Construction Notes & Standard Details Plans (Sheets C100, C405 – C407, C505 – C506, C605 – C607) 28. Provide specific details for the proposed stormwater treatment areas. 29. Provide specific details for each of the control structures proposed. 30. A full review of standard details will be conducted with the final plat submittal. Traffic & Access 31. The Site Plan shows a new access on the east side of the site to the property to the north across a railroad spur. Who will be using this access and how will it impact the circulation of both sites? 32. An evaluation of turn lane needs for the access on Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) shall be provided based on the Hennepin County Comment from the EAW “County guidelines based partially on MnDOT, FHWA, etc. best practices recommends turn lanes in both directions for access(es) with these many projected trips” and the Developer response in the EAW “Turn lane needs will be evaluated based upon final site layout and required if necessary”. 33. Hennepin County approval and permit will be required for the access to Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) and working in the County right-of-way. Acknowledged by the applicant. 34. Provide a figure showing truck movements throughout the site including the largest truck and the largest fire truck. Driveways and circulation routes shall be designed to accommodate these vehicles. Stormwater Management 35. The applicant will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. Complete. 36. 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. Complete. 37. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions discharge rates. Complete. 38. The applicant may want to consider using the stormwater ponds for irrigation. Credits for volume control can be given for stormwater reuse. City ordinance does not allow for municipal water system to be used for irrigation. Complete. f. Provide additional details for the water reuse system. Along with a map showing the irrigatable areas. g. Required design submittal packages for water reuse BMPs must include: Complete. i. An analysis using Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Stormwater Reuse Calculator. An example of the Calculator can be City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review July 28, 2022 Page 6 K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx found in Appendix E. The full spreadsheet can be requested from the City. ii. Documentation demonstrating adequacy of soils, storage system, and delivery system iii. Operations and maintenance plan. The O& M plan should follow the guidelines listed in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. iv. Approved capacity of an irrigation practice will be based on: 1. An irrigation rate of 1.0 inches per week over the irrigated pervious area(s) or the rate identified through the Stormwater Reuse Calculator (whichever is less); or as approved by the City 2. No greater than a 26 week (April 15th to October 15th) growing season. v. 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. 1. Plumbing code review, adherence, and permitting, if applicable. 2. Water reuse pump system design including supply line, intake, meter, and pump 3. Electrical and controls design 4. Construction drawings, specifications, and system integration vi. 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 5. 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. 39. 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. Complete. 40. 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. 41. The proposed drainage exhibit in the stormwater report shows differed drainage area number than the existing drainage area for the site. 25.65 ac existing and 25.69. Explain difference in drainage area and any offsite drainage that could account for the difference. Provide an updated stormwater narrative that reflects all changes in acreage, drainage areas, and HWL. 42. Stormwater Pond 8P shows different HWL elevations in the grading detail on sheet C506 than on the plan set and in the hydroCAD modeling. Confirm HWL and confirm all elevations match. 43. Provide additional pretreatment in conformance with the City Design Manual. Provide 4’ sump structures prior to discharge into the basin for pretreatment. 44. Adjacent wetland shows a OHWL of 988.8. The pond is shown to have a bottom of 984.20. Provide a clay liner to ensure that there is separation from the pond and wetland. City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review July 28, 2022 Page 7 K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx h. Stormwater basin could have potential future impacts on hydrology of wetland if they are not separated. i. Attach detail of stormwater pond with Clay liner. 45. Draintile should have a clay liner underneath along with geotextile fabric under the tile. Update plans and standard detail to show this. j. Filtration shall have 3’ of separation from seasonally saturated ground water. Appears there may be conflict with the adjacent wetland, leading to inundation and maintenance issues. k. Provide drain tile location on plan sheet including clean outs. 46. Provide a standard detail for draintile cleanouts. l. Call out locations of cleanouts on the grading plan to ensure future maintenance and access. 47. Include an stabilized EOF showing grades and location on the grading plan. 48. Provide designated maintenance access to stormwater BMP’s for future maintenance. Show areas on plan for maintenance and how access will be to the draintile. m. Filtration bench cannot be used for maintenance access. Wetlands & Environmental 49. Clearly delineate existing wetland boundaries on the plan. Complete 50. Wetland impacts are referenced on the plan and note “see wetland permit application”. To date, no replacement plan application has been received by the LGU. A No Loss application suggesting incidental wetlands on site is currently under review. A replacement plan must be submitted that clearly documents the purpose and need for the project, avoidance alternatives, and implemented minimization measures. A replacement plan was submitted to the LGU on 7/19/22 and will be reviewed under WCA and city wetland regulations. 51. Wetlands 4 and 5 are DNR Public Waters. A DNR public waters permit may be required for impacts to these wetlands, including any proposed stormwater outfalls. 52. Wetland buffers may be required around the remaining portions of Wetland 8 and the wetland mitigation area. Show wetland buffers on the site plan. Wetland 8 is classified as a Managed 3 wetland which requires an average buffer width of 20 feet (minimum 15 feet). Wetlands created for the purpose of onsite mitigation require a minimum 25-foot buffer per MN Rules 8420.0522 Subpart 6.B. Wetland buffers should not be proposed in a way that impacts wetland. If the minimum buffer requirements cannot be met while avoiding impacts to the wetland, the design must be modified to allow room for wetland buffer or, if that’s not feasible, a variance should be requested. 53. Provide the wetland buffer seed mix proposed for the site. 54. Include wetland buffer signage locations on the plan. 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. With future submittals, include a response to the comments in this letter. City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review July 28, 2022 Page 8 K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering 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 LEGEND a PS iii N CV CV - E RI U) Z 0 I - U) U N U) N U C rn KS M V a N 8 5 UI bility to Kimley-Horn en authorization end adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Abed the specific purpose and client for which it was pre E S 8 3 U 8 PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION P. I 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION SITE PLAN NOTES RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC L1 \ EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY SEE SHEET C403 PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT PROPERTY LINE LANDSCAPE BUFFER S W ; -__- PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT G 21 LOT POSED BUILDING 2 ±88,000.SF LANDSCAPE BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT LOT3 PROPOSED BUILDING 3 ±182,000 SF I OUTLOT B <, BOUNDARY '</ _BEN-NCdT , MAINTENANCE ROUTE 1 /PROPOSED WETLAND PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT SHEET C402 OUTLOT A /1 err 30' WETLAND BUFFER S_---- - � *4. �rrrr rrr.r3 111111 �rrrr.+ r+rrr7 , rrrr rrrr� SEE SHEET C404 ////1.....,� 11!!1 111 111 :!1111111111111111111111111111 ELECTRICAL PLAN. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.HA. STANDARDS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS MD DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES. SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS. EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTIUTY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 3. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3• AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE S. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED. REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. B. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES. STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORmES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 7. SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY B SURVEYING, DATED 08/17(021. O LLABIUTY FOR ANY ERRORS. INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIO ' 1 EREIN. 8. TOTAL ORES. KIMLEY-H 9. PYLON //i U '� Ig.NSSSSHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARE SH I8BIPSOYj ORMATONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFYAtV„[ICpC9Tl0 AAA HAY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THE CONST 8IH� MONUMENT SIGN. 11. NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTUTY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE. 12 REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS. 13. REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS. 14. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. IS. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 18. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 27 IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 17. THERE ARE WETLAND IMPACTS, REFER TO WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. .- PROPERTY LINE -.X1 50' BUILDING SETBACK �gm/ rrrr rrrr I.., r r rr i_,_._._. 50' BUILDING . SETBACK E_____, rrrr._ rrrr Ir----. r PROPERTY LINE rrr.y ••••••••,•• ~I rrr„ / EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY •r •r ; 30' WETLAND BUFFER / 182,000 SF (9.8% OF TOTAL AREA) GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 35 70 140 - PROPERTY UNE -e-1-1-X-X- PROPOSED FENCE SETBACK UNE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED EV READY STALL PROPERTY SUMMARY MEDINA INDUSTRIAL TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 26.67 AC C a O K z RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC NET PROPERTY AREA 25.78 AC OT 1 7.50 AC OT 2 5.07 AC OT 3 8.79 AC OUTLOT A 3.42 AC OUTLOT B PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PLATTED AREA) 1.00 AC 18.04 AC (69.98%) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PLATTED AREA) 7.74 AC (30.02%) TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 22.82 AC DI WETLAND IMPACTS SEE WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARK OP) PROPOSED ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 50' SIDE = 50' REAR = 50' PROPOSED PROPERTY BUILDING AREA 1 BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS 42.81 AC 126,000 SF (6.8% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) I BUILDING AREA 2 88,000 SF (4.7% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 3 PARKING BUILDING 1 REQUIRED PARKING 76 SPACES (18,900 SF OFFICE:1250 SF) 54 SPACES (107,100 SF WAREHOUSE 12000 SF) 130 TOTAL SPACES BUILDING 1 PROPOSED PARKING 149 SPACES ©1.00 RATIO BUILDING 1 ADA STALLS REQD / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS BUILDING 2 REQUIRED PARKING 72 SPACES (17,850 SFOFFICE:1/250 SF) 35 SPACES (70,150 SF WAREHOUSE: 12000 SF) 107 TOTAL SPACES BUILDING 2 PROPOSED PARKING 108 SPACES ©1.00 RATIO BUILDING 2 ADA STALLS REQD / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS BUILDING 3 REQUIRED PARKING 73 SPACES (18,200 SF OFFICE:1/250 SF) 82 SPACES (183,800 SF WAREHOUSE: 12000 SF) 155 TOTAL SPACES BUILDING 3 PROPOSED PARKING 135 SPACES 01.00 RATIO BUILDING 3 ADA STALLS REQD / PROVIDED 5 STALLS / 5 STALLS TOTAL CITY REQ'D 392 TOTAL SPACES TOTAL PROVIDED 392 TOTAL SPACES SHEET NUMBER 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND PRFI IMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRI I(' TION K:\TWC_LDEV\Scannell\Medina\3 Design\ CAD \References\_ARCHIVE\Exhibits\2022-0808 WETLAND BUFFER CALCS\C4-SITE PLAN .dwg September 12, 2022 - 2:33pm This document, together with th e con cepts a nd designs pres ented herein, as an instrum ent of servi ce, is intended only f or the specific p urpose and cli ent for which it was pr ep ared . Reuse of and impr op er reliance on this document without written authorizati on and adaptation by KimleyH om and Ass ociates, Inc. shall be with out liability to Kiml ey-Hom a nd Associates, Inc. LOT 1 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 ±126,000 SF •\ I1' rtrttrrrrr rrrrrllrrr mITT1 . I\�i I; • 1N1111UU11111U11111U 11111111I I l `� �llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll \\\\ `tllllllllilllllllllllllllllllll II \- :: �llllllllllllllllillllllll}, N v1LLlll]1111LuLti w J N ua3doad C 3 0 C I -I r o II II I AD J i�A"1 cmyymm T m$, - m p ,1 0 N �D A�A� TT1 ll• ll' ll' 11 ll O O 6 PRO POSED STA NDARD DUTY ASPHALT 1lRHdSY ALSO MV3H 03SO dO Nd I — m c) m z ct m X 2 y co Z D m WETLAND BUFFER EXHIBIT Kimley>» Horn © 2022 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 56114 PHONE 651-645.4197 WNAN .KIM LEY-HO RN.CO M No. REVISIONS DATE BY K:\TWC LDEV\ScanneII Medina\3 Design \CAD\PlanSheets\L1-LANDSCAPE PLAN.DWG September 12, 2022 - 3:07pm g SEE SHEET L101 x n tended only for the specific purpose and dent for which it was prepared. Reuse of end improper reliance on this document without written authorize This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service. is f I W > H E2 w o p A N = U o recta SEE SHEET L103 II LANDSCAPE SUMMARY -EX. INDUSTRIAL / MANUFAE'fURING LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY Y C ZONED: BUSINESS DISTRICT MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED TREES: 82 OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS / CONIFEROUS TREES = 4,096 L.F. SITE PERIMETER/50 41 ORNAMENTAL TREES = 4,096 L.F. SITE PERIMETER/100 PROVIDED TREES: 106 OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS / CONIFEROUS TREES = 60 DECIDUOUS TREES + 46 CONIFEROUS TREES 75 ORNAMENTAL TREES REQUIRED SHRUBS: 137 SHRUBS = 4,096 L.F. SITE PERIMETERr30 PROVIDED SHRUBS: 185 SHRUBS EXISTING TREES REMOVED: 5 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN: 17 TOTAL TREES REQUIRED: 123 = 82 OVERSTORY + 41 ORNAMENTAL TOTAL TREES PROPOSED: 181:106 OVERSTORY * 75 ORNAMENTAL Know what's below. Call before you dig, PRFI IMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRI ICTIC)N SEE SHEET [.1 I I I I I 4tI I I 1%111 I l l l l l l l l l l l V SEE SHEET L104 —1 OUTLOT A I .I I ii OUTLOT B 1__— I It I. it jj STORM WATER SYSTEM 1 1 1 1 HI =1 1 F- 0 SEEDING KEYNOTES SEED WITH MNDOT 22-112: FIVE-YEAR STABILIZATION SEED MIX (TYP.) SEED VNTH MNDOT 33-261: STORM WATER SOUTH .3 WEST SEED MIX (TYP.) SEED WITH MNDOT 34-171: WETLAND REHABILITATION SEED MIX (TYP.) SEED WITH MNDOT 35-221: DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL SEED MIX (TYP.) LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES Q EDGER (TYP.) O DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) O ROCK MULCH (TYP.) ® SOD(TYPJ O MAINTENANCE STRIP (TYP.) LANDSCAPE LEGEND EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING VEGETATION EDGE TO REMAIN (TYP. EDGER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SOD / IRRIGATION, SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS (TYP.) SEED/ SOD EDGE (TYP.) GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 35 70 140 Z O1 u 2 Z Q F U ',<1 O U ri4Z z m � CU 10i a E R 'w C 0 0 8 z W 2 INDUSTRIAL PREPARED FOR SCANNELL MINNESOTA Q 2 f SHEET NUMBER L100 K:\TWC LDEV\Scannell\Medina\3 Design \CAD\PlanSheets\C5-GRADING PLAN.dwg July 15, 2022 - 3:27pm lutes, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc 0 E tten authorization and odaptabon b e concepts and designs pr This document, together • A A A MN IS ST123 I g �I GRADING PLAN NOTES i '`06 ' ! ,......-12'PVCI SEE SHEET C501_ 14; ST120 /2/ 0 - Q \ ,k iff -J t / 15• PVCNNW '' • 0 0 aJ 1 J W RE I --7 1 • 1 � LL � � I I) 71 LL xlowG J ,! , t - PAW. 00.4 MN 48- 5T120 18' HDPE MIN 48' ST 07 i � �I MIN 40 I I MNaB" ST OS -- Mw ae' 'ta II ST108 ST104. /� 4, V 1 / \\\\ \\ \ \ 0 �ERBIWILDING ?` �J\1 ) "I \ 1,��,000 SF/ ,°°3 J 11 I FF 1004.71 _,6D2- / / 1002 1 \_4 __ __ :77771 fi 1 �� U -.H EX. WETLAND e I ( \ I NI SEE SHEET C502 n,,i ' J j \ t 4\ DELINEATED WETLAND / / ` 3D WETLAND BUFFER / I11, W7�Sg�M3 , - % MN Ni' 8T10I� _ I� 411. I STOR MINA TER AREA . sm G r,si• � > =.,?, .r ,s_rnrc. A. -- -�.s>��'> s,-;'.ate a ®a® ■ ieMll MMMMs�aFUF..e® w �iti��►' c. n nu!!I!i_iC�lil��IRii!!lttlmla>�slml' so 3siiFl�iNSI 4Er/!®ESei malm o•.. (� - 11 aMN4. ^� �T22 � __•- �� AAR ms_ r __ _%��i�� ._. 24•H.•E �� _ - C utunen eu vrtilni // ^ 32 WETLAND BUFFER I �/ sM1 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WM THE CITY OF MEDINA, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE 1.806252-1168 AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-78 HDPE: O'- 10- PER AASHTO M-252 HDPE: 12.OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2308 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-1785 STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-78, JOINTS PER ASTM Ca8I, C -9W, AND C-443 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM 03034, JOINTS PER ASTM 0.3212 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED MMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. AMEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTUTY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12 INSTALL A MINIMUM OF 4- CLASS S AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE -VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4' OF TOPSOIL 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2%. IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.DA COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 16. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3' INSULATION BY 5 WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4 OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3 OF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. 18. ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 19. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE KITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 20. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 21. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT •INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND'OUTFALL' CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. 17 RETAINING WALL COORDINATION NOTES 1. RETAINING WALL SHOWN IS ONLY SCHEMATIC. ACTUAL DETAILS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL BY ENGINEER. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE ALL DIMENSION AND DETAILS NECESSARY FOR INSTALLATION. 3. RETAINING WALL SHALL BE RECON BLOCK WALL OR APPROVED EQUAL A CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE TIMING OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE RETAINING WALL WITH ALL UTILITIES, SPECIFICALLY THE STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED WALLS. 5. GEOTECHNICAL BORING INFORMATION BASED ON THE REPORT USTED ON SHEET C100. 6. FINISHED ELEVATIONS ON THE GRADING PLAN ARE AS STATED ON THE PLAN WITH THE TOP OF THE WALL SPOTS AND BOTTOM OF WALL SPOTS DENOTING THE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. ACTUAL BOTTOM AND TOP OF RETAINING WALL ELEVATIONS MAY VARY DUE TO MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL ACTIVITIES WTH THE WALL REINFORCING AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, WETLAND LIMITS, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LIMITS. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL NECESSARY COORDINATION, STAGING, TEMPORARY SHORING, AND SEQUENCING AT NO EXTRA COST. / LEGEND PROPERTY LINE --- (20 - EXISTING CONTOUR /2, PROPOSED CONTOUR O PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOUD CASTING) • PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) ® PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT M0 PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION PROPOSED RIPRAP =•i(0m PROPOSED STORM SEWER WATERMAIN ••••••••••••••••••••••• SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 0.0% 0.00% PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION PROPOSED ADA SLOPE GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 3670 140 Know whafs belOW. Call before y0U dig. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Q U REVISIONS 2 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNED BY CGM a J Z U) 2 z PREPARED FOR SCANNELL MINNESOTA Z DI W SHEET NUMBER C500 m S E Inc. shall be without li orn and Associate E S C 43 5 S E 0, rument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for document, together A A a taw 1 8' WATERMAIN +f l l l l l l I t i i i/ V SEE SHEET C601 { SSE 8" WATERMAIN • L It I554µ V -93 _r I 8" WATERMAIN 6-p { (I ■ SEE SHEET C603 I I IA -8 WATERMAIN _i ' i •- Loy 0 -- UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1. ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8' PVC SDR35 PER ASTM 03034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12 DEEP 8' PVC SDR26 PER ASTM 0-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12 DEEP 6' PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM 0.1785 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3. WATER UNES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 6' AND LARGER, PVC 04900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4 AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER ANNA C150 SMALLER THAN 3' PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE 9C PER ANSI 818.22 OR PVC, 200 P.5.1., PER ASTM 01784 AND 02241. 4. MINIMUM TRENCH WDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5. ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS KITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CRY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 8. ALL UTILTIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10) APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18' VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7E' COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. 8. IN THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFUCT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM UNES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR 0900 KITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER UNE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WTN APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWN/A C-151) (CLASS 50). casaa V I • I:. 99, 041Pli POW,: 1 9. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACNFILLING. 10. TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13 REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF MEDINA AND/OR STATE OF MINNESOTA WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACTOR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFUCT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. I • 1 • SSE I I I I i • 55.7 8" WATERMAIN 18. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19. BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20. ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21. ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. 22. THE CITY 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. 23. 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. 24. ALL WATER MAIN MD SANITARY SEWER TESTING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. COPES OF ALL TEST RESULTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY (PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. CITY ENGINEER) THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. 25. THE CITY WILL REQUIRE TELEVISING FOR SANITARY SEWER PIP INSTALLATIONS PRIOR TO ACCEPTING A WARRANTY FOR THE UTILITY SYSTEM; PROVIDE REPORT AND VIDEO FILES TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW. 6" WATERMAIN 3 • • 4 SEE SHEET C602 J • 4 • 8" WATERMAIN SEE SHEET C603 rr.+ rrrrA --- A-�rr4-+ ✓ A-•11.-r ✓ r 4-6- I_ r r r r I-.- -•rr r r r .-r r r r r I•• r rro - •• r r .-• r r II _I I II J LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED -6 0 F=4 0 >- - .-.® ELC -ELC COM -COM- GAS -GAS GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 3- 140 GATE VALVE HYDRANT REDUCER TEE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY CLEANOUT WATERMAIN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN Know what's below. Call before you dig. PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION F- 0 REVISIONS z E SCALE AS SHOWN U co S J Z_ o N W 20 Z PREPARED FOR SCANNELL MINNESOTA Q Z a W SHEET NUMBER C600 Olg5leuauREi 13s'v 33'-1' W-0 errGRADE ELEVATION NB R" _I •• • Milian I■. ELEVATION - WEST X OCN O O CEP ■■ ■■ II IN MC 111111111111111111 II II II II SUWON WM! IEEE ■■ ■I 0 niummomm !SIEREH! II II WM --. Num II I. L` •� 0 0 E) man mmis !NE!MEM ! ! .I .. .. .. EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND CDSTEEL FORM YINIS3 PRECAST WALL PANELS WIEN REVEALS • PAINTED AREA'. FORM SF. PRECAST ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING AREA: 8,0365E -let ©PRECASTWALLPAMEL WE T1 IMBEDDED THIN BRICK VENEER AREA: 3,570 W -6% 0 allEm O. STNU -0. TO MURIA" 133'-NERA 1' 1AUM /LEVERAGE GRADE F VAT °ELEVATION - NORTH MOO 3/W E'-0' AN3,5n URUREA �1W /LRDOFEIEVAT3[W P 3. ®® mom MHH 'I ■I E .. C.) ELEVATION - SOUTH /61• =1,- O NNOM MMII NUMM U MUMOMMIMINNi O MiMMMI llOMMWM °NOM lMMOWN MMOMMfliii MUMS MMEEMMONI NUM ■0HH ■ HHQHHL7H■ ■ HHCIHIHL7HHOHIH ■ ■HCIHmr]H■CI■oi ®HHDHHHI!]HH s !HHCI]HHL7MMOMH ■ MH17HHOHH ■ HH0 MEM EE EE ELEVATION - EAST fili 1111111 Iran III- i.l T ' �►� 1111111 I;-- III! 111111 r. O3D VIEW Aaoo --�"✓4r?f i J SCANNELL PROPOSED BUILDING 1 NEW CONSTRUCTION ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 44256 F I I' t V M0 AG EX XANSfX . . . 1070 Twelve Oat, Gx�!e' Wayzata MN 55391 "C 952-425747 =a 552-4257447 G �p��J GO. MAW.° WALT BE DISKO TM WINO'S ARO ORMEM a INCA RESParnn xSTRUAWNTS W SERV. AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON IAA STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS. INCLUDING COPYNNNTSO T EARAOXDDONNITMS. DI RIDlM DATE DTECIROWIL Min MTL ... MEC V.4=1: A3ARREME�N,N EXTERIOR • BUILDING ELEVATIONS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS A300 EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND • WAL{ 1n Owµ -B 11s•n R00f FIF/AIpX 131'-�' uTIV:I D. A.r ELEVATION - NORTH 3/64•-1, .2. 3 Ca. .2. 3 .2. 3_ 0 am ME Ifini ME ESE ER EMI WA MOM =MEM Ili= 11®IJmatlli! 11®!11� • 1 1 i �11I111111111�1 jj X11 !11® �Ilil®1®! NNI�BB ES! NN7<RE� mm die m. ® ®® mm mm mm mm mm ®S �i �•mm — m. umu lu 11 11 11 11 11 g 11 11 11 11 11 11� 11 11 11 11 11 ELEVATION - WEST 3/64•-1'd To.wule _ 135' n ROOFErrVA1», BMX PLEW 108 DOCRL WL 9s'n ELEVATION - SOUTH 0 0 O ELEVATION - EAST O Il■m FROM 0 0 0 3D View PC -1 STEEL FORM GINISH PRECAST WALL PANELS WITH REVEALS - PAINTED AREA 40,1125f -6096 ® ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING AREA, 5,160 SF -10% PRE..WLL A PANEL WITH IMBEDDED THIN BRICK VENEER AR EA 4,998.. 1016 SCANNELL PROPOSED BUILDING 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION MEDINA, MN 44256 SrleM '8K*TwelveNleCent. wegala ME155391 Tel 952-0:67400 Far X0-426-7440 ME HIMITECTI MAIL BE 0E08E0 TM AUTHORS AND OWNERS R WPM,. INSTRUMENTS. MM. ART AND O RETAIN. C TMON LAW,fTAMORY AN D OTHER AMATO RIGHTS, INOUOING DOFRrA05 Of NEATENOE000OIMEM 110. DEAN. Dell MmLcl. imam NM NAM. ANNMT MEDR1DRr. PPAPP.0, ai CATE COMMIHINEMMAN 490.8.NINELINEON. 886 EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS A300 A 70 S1370' YLes'muc tlrlrae 4 VILA_ dwooe armor / A351tarEVN Ltl GARDE 49Y.0 EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND PC -1 STEEL FORM FINISH PRECAST WALL PANELS WITH REVEALS -PAINTED AREA 54291 SF - 79% ® ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING AREA:9,OR SF -13% 0ARu PRECAST: Ws.3souALL PANELnL WITH IMBEDDED THIN BRICK VENEER NINON =YAW �reeeiiBlELai i ® 811. �� _-----_ ® ��=051g filal .__ � •-- mai IllNENE NM ENO MEM 111 rag II= MI IM min wi maiw =II moKm�� --B �� -- -MIEN NC- MIME - siall , ICTD ELEVATION - SOUTH °ELEVATION - WEST *300 3/61..=1'D• 133 ==.=sue III iiii 1■ II II - _.— II ■■ —— IUI EMI - III ��=■ M■ Egormsomes MIME II ;; MI ME= III ;; MIN III ®Ml1 6 - .. :. I!!! II II III II .. it IM! MEM IIIa.. III 11111111111111111111111111,, ■!1■■■' ELEVATION - EAST 3/5, =r-0" ELEVATION - NORTH 3/64" -1-0 D VIEW SIGNA�t �I.,�ix�E 1411141-. I II 1 1.1 ii I, mum 'y 7' 'l I II II III i l illl�llllil �� a 1 I -, 4 SCANNELL PROPOSED BUILDING 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION MEDINA, MN 44256 I ' 100DTxeNe OaksCNM VI_I TI ' - SWByDEh LT4 OD IM 55391 Tel 95747137400 Fu 9524267440 I NEREBMIRIV Y THAT THIS NA SPEW NATION OR REPORT in RE OR UNOM NY PA IJI0 UNDER THE lADLO I AN A 6 �7 �L XMMOM [[�C MOD 4 A , AMMAN, REWSIMTON N17� R: MOM OWNERS. TNFII RESPaTM INSTRUNRN OF SFAVI F M SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AM °MLR MEWED RIGMS, INESUNM COMO,. M TM MAIMED 00011•117471 p 060!1301 ME MDI7,RRRIER Tm 00EDN 5,003. 1 WV 0012001 o 7004011011/117171. LS NW ,r7P EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS A300 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday September 13, 2022 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, Justin Popp, and 8 Braden Rhem. 9 10 Absent: Planning Commissioner Ron Grajczyk. 11 12 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and Associate Planner Deb Dion 13 14 2. Changes to Agenda 15 16 Nielsen noted that Item 10 should be the August 10th minutes rather than August 9th. 17 18 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19 20 Finke provided an update on recent City Council meeting activity. 21 22 4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 23 24 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Jacob volunteered 25 to attend in representation of the Commission. 26 27 5. Planning Department Report 28 29 Finke provided an update. 30 31 6. Pioneer Highlands – South of Pioneer Trail, East of Willow Drive – Onyx 32 Performance Investment LLC – Preliminary Plat for 4 Lot Rural 33 Subdivision (PID 0911823110002) – Public Hearing 34 35 Dion presented a four-lot rural subdivision request on the subject property which is 36 approximately 68 acres. She reviewed the proposed lot division layout and septic designs as 37 required by preliminary plat. She noted that each lot identifies a preliminary and secondary 38 location as required and in compliance with City Code. She stated that this request would 39 meet all requirements of a rural subdivision. She commented that the site is currently vacant 40 and farmed. She stated that three separate wetlands were identified through the required 41 delineation and the applicant has shown the required buffers. She stated that the south 42 portion of lots three and four contain floodplain and the applicant completed modeling and 43 will complete a LOMA prior to final plat as required. She stated that staff has reviewed the 44 stormwater plans and has provided conditions. She stated that each of the lots is required to 45 have easements, along with the shared driveway. She commented that if the subdivision 46 meets all of the standards the City would have a relatively low amount of discretion upon 47 review but could place additional conditions upon the application. 48 49 Jacob asked the minimum wetland buffer. 50 51 2 Dion stated that each wetland is different based on the management class. She noted that one 52 of the wetlands has a required buffer of 35 feet while the other two are 25 feet. She noted 53 that the principal structure must also be setback an additional 15 feet from the buffer, whereas 54 an accessory building could be setback five feet from the buffer. 55 56 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. 57 58 Michael Botten, 2522 Pioneer Trail, stated that this land was previously farmland. He stated 59 that it looks like the driveway is across from his driveway which means he would get 60 headlights towards his door and asked if that could be moved. He advised of the underground 61 creek and the path is takes until it comes above ground, noting that feeds into the wetlands all 62 the way to Highway 55. 63 64 Mr. Dickerson, 2625 Pioneer Trail, asked how many of the Commission members have 65 walked the property or drove past. He stated that this area has a lot of wetlands and therefore 66 he is concerned that the changes to this property would add impervious surface and could 67 cause drainage changes. He asked how the water enters and flows out of the site. 68 69 Mark Gronberg, representing the applicant, stated that there are two ways the water leaves the 70 site. He stated that the north half of the property drains north into the wetland and under the 71 culver under Pioneer Trail. He noted that some of that water would be temporarily retained. 72 He commented that the site is currently farmland and dirt with a high runoff factor. He stated 73 that seeding grass would help to slow the runoff rate. He noted that they have been working 74 with the watershed district on the application. 75 76 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 77 78 Piper commented that she likes the recommendations of staff and was impressed with the 79 detail. She hoped that would address the concerns from the residents. She hoped that the 80 recommendation from the Commission would include the mention of the watershed. 81 82 Nielsen asked if the applicant has any issues with the conditions as proposed by staff. 83 84 Gronberg stated that he did not have any issues as those are typical review comments. 85 86 Popp commented that overall, this is a good plan for the property. He stated that of the 15 87 conditions recommended by staff, six address the concerns related to the wetlands and 88 watershed which address the concerns of the residents. 89 90 Rhem echoed the comments of Popp. 91 92 Jacob agreed. 93 94 Nielsen also agreed, noting that she supports the request as long as the conditions are met. 95 96 Motion by Piper, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject 97 to the conditions in the staff report and emphasis on the conditions related to watershed. 98 Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Grajczyk) 99 100 7. City of Medina – Hamel Legion Park – 3200 Mill Drive – Conditional Use Permit and 101 Site Plan Review for Construction of Covered Grandstand – Public Hearing 102 103 3 Finke stated that this application is from the City for a CUP and Site Plan Review for a 104 covered grandstand in Hamel Legion Park. He noted that the grandstand is proposed by the 105 Hamel Hawks and Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) and advised that those organizations have 106 done fundraising for the project. He noted that some City support is requested and that will 107 be discussed by the City Council. He stated that the grandstand would take the place of the 108 bleachers at Fortin Field. He provided details on the size of the grandstand and reviewed the 109 zoning and related zoning standards. He stated that staff recommends a condition related to 110 height to ensure 30 feet is not exceeded. He stated that the grandstand is not anticipated to 111 impact the programming in the park but would be an amenity for people watching the game 112 at that field. He reviewed the sketch and photographic example provided by the applicant. 113 He stated that there have been comments related to parking during evening events at the park 114 and noted that staff has provided comments related to parking. He commented that staff does 115 not believe that those impacts would be intensified, and staff will address the parking 116 concerns regardless of whether this moves forward. He stated that perhaps the sightliness of 117 the back of the grandstand should be discussed along with lighting, noting that any lighting 118 should be downcast. 119 120 Jacob asked the capacity of the grandstand, and it was noted as 360. He asked for details on 121 the netting, and that was noted that it would provide safety for the seating. He referenced the 122 topic of signage at the parks, which was not discussed in this proposal. He asked if additional 123 advertising would be needed to fund this expenditure. 124 125 Finke stated that the ordinance was amended related to the scoreboard feature within the park. 126 He stated that the amendment also allowed for internal advertising signs on the park property 127 128 Piper asked the timing for the project and whether the needed sponsorships have been 129 received. 130 131 Greg DeVos, Hamel Hawks, confirmed that they have raised the funds necessary for the 132 project. 133 134 Popp referenced the issue of parking and asked the capacity of the grandstand compared to 135 the current capacity of the bleachers. 136 137 DeVos replied that there are currently three sets of five row bleachers. He commented that 138 they are not increasing the number of games on the field. He stated that the current seating 139 does not provide adequate visibility. 140 141 Finke stated that the main issue with parking is related to practices when all the fields are 142 being used. He noted that the purpose of the bleachers is for the games when other HAC 143 activities are not occurring. 144 145 Popp asked if any landscaping was included in the CUP. 146 147 Finke replied that there was no landscaping proposed to be incorporated as a part of this 148 project in addition to what exists in the park. 149 150 Jacob asked if this field would be used for tournaments as that could impact the parking. 151 152 DeVos replied that HAC does not use the fields on the weekends unless there is a tournament. 153 154 Nielsen stated that the schedule would not increase as a result of the grandstand. 155 156 4 Popp asked the approximate number of games that are played on this field during a season. 157 158 DeVos provided details on the length of the season and the number of games. 159 160 Jacob noted that in the early spring the field has been used for high school games. 161 162 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 163 164 Nielsen noted that email comment received from Nicole Sanders who had questions related to 165 parking, fencing, and concessions. 166 167 Dan Holm, 4500 Alverado Ln, stated that the residents in his neighborhood love the park and 168 use the park daily. He stated that they chose the development because of the access to the 169 park. He commented on the walkability to the different businesses in the community. He 170 noted that parking is the number one concern for the neighborhood. He stated that his 171 neighborhood is actually in Plymouth, and they have posted the street as no parking because 172 of the issues that have arisen because of people parking on both sides of the street. He stated 173 that when there are overlapping games there are issues with parking and concern for the 174 safety of the children. He noted that the streets in the development were never intended to 175 have parking on both sides. He did not believe that expansion should occur of the park 176 facilities without increasing parking. He stated that there is land to add more parking in the 177 park. He stated that people should also be made aware of the Mill Street entrance to the park. 178 179 Nielsen asked how many times during the summer there was a significant problem with 180 parking. 181 182 Holm stated that the issue occurred Tuesday through Thursday for the spring little league 183 season. He suggested a few places near the sliding hill where parking could be added. 184 185 Piper asked if there is land that could be converted to parking. 186 187 Christopher Sele, 4865 Brockton Lane, stated that when sitting on his deck he can watch the 188 sunset but if the grandstand is built, he would no longer be able to do that because it would be 189 blocked. He commented that he is a baseball player and coach and supports the Hamel 190 Hawks. He stated that he supports the park but is concerned with the lack of data that seems 191 to be utilized to inform this process. He stated that this would increase the seating of the 192 park, but it has been stated that this will not impact parking. He stated that he does not want 193 this grandstand in his backyard. He stated that he has three children, one of which has special 194 needs, and it has been a battle to deal with the noise from the business and park. He stated 195 that the increased capacity would equate to the park being 180 stalls short for parking in order 196 to support that increased capacity. He commented that one of the areas mentioned for 197 additional parking is where ice skating occurs in the winter and where people play fetch with 198 their dogs. He stated that the only feasible location for parking would be to purchase homes 199 and turn that area into parking. He commented that the fields are being used more than three 200 nights per week. He stated that he was diagnosed with brain cancer last year, which was a 201 rough recovery and not made easier by the park noise and parking issues. He realized that he 202 could live somewhere else but noted that he purchased his home because he and his family 203 enjoy the park. He stated that he now has epilepsy and has had to have police and fire to his 204 home multiple times because of his seizures and therefore he needs to have access for 205 emergency services to his home. He stated that parking, safety, noise, and lights are all 206 concerns that he feels should have more information. He stated that when Fox 9 was at the 207 park, he had no less than 50 people walking through his yard to get to the park which resulted 208 in damage. He stated that he called the police 1.5 weeks ago because some kids were getting 209 5 into an argument and the lights were being turned off and on, which led to arguments at Inn 210 Kahoots. He noted that he has called the police many times because of concerns for safety 211 and negative activity at the park. He believed that more data should be provided to support 212 the request. He stated that the visibility from the bleachers is fine as he often watches games. 213 He stated that he is working with his real estate attorney to determine the diminishing value 214 of this property as a result of this project. He highlighted conditions recommended for the 215 CUP that he did not believe were accurate. 216 217 Jacob commented that the park is a busy place whether it is baseball or just general use. 218 219 Brad Sanke, 4665 Brockton Lane, stated that his neighbor was the previous speaker and 220 highlighted many of the concerns that he shares. He stated that his backyard also faces the 221 proposed grandstand which would be 100 feet or less from his property. He stated that he has 222 emailed the City and HAC with complaints about trash. He stated that at the end of the adult 223 games there are beer cans and beer cases outside of the trash cans. He commented that he 224 often picks up bottles and cans when he is out walking his dog. He provided an example of a 225 situation he experienced waking up to find the electrical panel at the park wide open because 226 there is not a safety lock on the panel. He stated that he walked the park to inventory the 227 available parking in different locations throughout the park. He asked how there could 228 possibly be enough parking for the families using the park. He commented that the issue is 229 not just happening Tuesday through Thursday. He noted on September 6th he walked the 230 parking lot and counted the number of adults and provided that data. He asked where 231 additional parking could be added. He noted that his home and those of his neighbors could 232 be purchased and parking could be added in that location. He stated that he has asked the 233 police to sit in his driveway on three occasions to observe these issues. He provided an 234 example of a safety concern he witnessed with children attempting to get into their parent’s 235 vehicle. He believed that more handicap parking would also be needed. 236 237 Barb Northway, resident of the Villas at Copper Creek, stated that she serves on the 238 neighborhood Board, and they all use and enjoy the park and want to be good neighbors. She 239 commented that her concern is related to parking as she feels the park is over programmed. 240 She noted that on some nights there are ten fields being used. She stated that perhaps the 241 programming is spread to other parks, spread across more days, or maybe less children are 242 accepted into the program. She asked if a parking study has ever been done on the park to 243 determine whether the parking supports the programing. She did not believe the park could 244 handle additional visitors to the grandstand. 245 246 Nielsen asked if the park has been busier because Hunter Park was shut down this year. 247 248 Finke acknowledged that was a factor this year, but definitely not the main issue. 249 250 Northway commented that the four smaller fields were previously in the soccer area rather 251 than the outfield area which has brought more parking demand to the east where it was 252 previously shared by the west. 253 254 Greg Swenson, 19015 45th Avenue, stated that 360 seats will be added and asked if the 255 existing bleachers would be removed. It was confirmed that this would replace the bleachers. 256 He noted that parents should be provided information on where parking can occur and 257 therefore park in the closest location. He stated that if parking were added where the ice-258 skating rink is, could that still be used for skating in the winter. 259 260 Sanke referenced a letter from Pat Truax which stated that use of Hunter Park would unload 261 10 percent of the traffic from this park. 262 6 263 264 DeVos stated that they have been working to keep town ball available in Hamel. He stated 265 that they are aware of the issues with traffic and HAC has worked with Medina police in the 266 past to assist in traffic management. He commented that there are over 600 kids in the HAC 267 program and over 200 additional children were denied. He stated that HAC does realize there 268 is not enough space and they have been working with the City to address that issue. He noted 269 that the field is open for public use and there are neighborhood kids that use the fields and do 270 not properly maintain the fields. He stated that the grandstand would be moved 40 feet closer 271 to home plate which would be further from the homes than the existing bleachers. He stated 272 that after every game, the coaches and ball players pick up trash. He stated that there are not 273 enough trash containers, and they are working with the City to get additional containers. He 274 recognized the Fox 9 event and stated that he was not aware of any problems that occurred 275 that night, noting that they even had people park at the VFW and shuttled them from there. 276 He stated that the grandstand would improve the viewing and some of those viewers would 277 walk to the games. He stated that the LED lights are downcast and do not shine into homes. 278 He stated that they have the correct number of ADA seats and parking stalls. He noted that 279 they do have a lock on the electrical panel and will follow up to ensure that lock is still 280 operational. He stated that they are attempting to make the experience better for fans with the 281 grandstand seating. 282 283 Roh Khana, Villas resident, commented that there is an undertone of pleading from the 284 residents. She stated that if there is somewhere else, they should be voicing their concern, 285 they would be open to that as their concerns thus far seem to fall on deaf ears. She stated that 286 the residents love where they live and love the park, but there needs to be a balance. 287 288 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. 289 290 Nielsen thanked the residents for the input. She stated that regardless of the decision tonight, 291 the issues brought up will not change as those issues already exist. She stated that the City is 292 working to address those issues. 293 294 Finke commented that this is a unique situation because regardless of the land use decision, 295 this is a City park. He noted that even if the CUP standards are met, it is a City park, and the 296 Council can still make the decision as to whether or not to allow the improvement in the park. 297 298 Nielsen stated that the Commission is a recommending body, and the City Council will make 299 the final decision. 300 301 Jacob noted his experience with the Park and a former member of the Park Commission. He 302 stated that the HAC baseball program includes children from Medina and other neighboring 303 communities such as Plymouth. He stated that there are some housekeeping issues that need 304 to be resolved such as security for the lighting system to ensure users cannot turn lights on 305 and off. He stated that the issue with trash is also something that could be remedied quickly. 306 He stated that he would love to see HAC and the neighbors have some sort of a neighborhood 307 meeting to develop solutions for the parking problem. He stated that perhaps other parks are 308 leveraged in the area to move some of the programming to other locations and take pressure 309 off this location. He believed that the grandstand could be a great thing and a cool feature for 310 the park. 311 312 Nielsen asked if there are ballfields at other parks. 313 314 Jacob stated that Morningside has fields but those are often used by Orono. 315 7 316 Rhem commented that his sons play little league in the small outfield fields, and it is 317 maddening to find parking. He did not believe that was the issue before the Commission 318 today. He commented that the grandstand is a nice improvement for the park but the 319 challenge he would have is that the park is already overutilized as it is. 320 321 Popp agreed and stated that while he would love to have the grandstand and the benefit of 322 that amenity, there are programming and park issues that need to be addressed. He stated that 323 if those issues could be addressed, the grandstand would be a benefit to the park. 324 325 Piper commented that she raised five children and often struggled to find parking for 326 activities. She was empathetic to the concerns of the neighbors related to parking. She was 327 unsure that all the users of that park could sit down and discuss the issues that are being 328 experienced. She stated that she is tempted to deny the request and ask that those users meet 329 to discuss this on a bigger level. 330 331 Nielsen agreed that there are a lot of issues, and it comes down to whether the grandstand will 332 increase those issues. She noted that the grandstand would add at least 150 seats and that 333 likely would increase traffic. She stated that she would also support a neighborhood open 334 house meeting. 335 336 Piper asked if the Commission could vote on the grandstand and then have a separate motion 337 that would require a public neighborhood open house meeting within the next 60 days to 338 review these issues. 339 340 Jacob comments that this has been a meeting where public input has been received and 341 perhaps the City Council then provides direction to staff, the Park Commission, and HAC to 342 program the fields. 343 344 Piper asked what would happen if the project were delayed 60 to 90 days. 345 346 DeVos replied that the concrete would need to go down this fall and the remainder of 347 construction would occur in the spring. He stated that they presented the City with a five-348 year plan. He stated that they have raised funds and the chance is that prices would increase 349 if this does not move forward. 350 351 Rhem suggested that the Commission vote on the merit of the CUP, noting that the Council 352 will review the input from the public as part of the record from this meeting. 353 354 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to recommend denial because of the parking and 355 programming issues described. Motion carries 4-1 (Jacob opposed). (Absent: Grajczyk) 356 357 8. Tim and Megan Elam – 1582 Homestead Trail – Conditional Use Permit for 358 Construction of Accessory Building – Public Hearing 359 360 Dion presented a request from the property at 1582 Homestead Trail for a CUP amendment to 361 construct an accessory building that would be used for storage. She provided details on the 362 property, which received a CUP in the past for an accessory home which is occupied by other 363 family members. She highlighted the proposed location for the accessory building and noted 364 that the existing accessory buildings blend well into the site. She reviewed the details of the 365 request and highlighted elements of the proposed landscaping. She provided details about the 366 design and building materials and noted that the site would still remain well under the 40 367 percent hardcover allowed. She stated that the applicant proposes a raingarden to treat 368 8 stormwater as part of this project. She noted that one letter was received from a neighbor that 369 had concerns with the sightlines. She explained that the neighboring property is higher in 370 elevation and looks straight down the driveway. She noted that the applicant would be 371 willing to move trees in order to better screen the view of the neighbor. She stated that the 372 staff report details how the request meets the criteria of the CUP. 373 374 Piper asked if this is one complete piece of property or whether it was previously two 375 properties that were combined. 376 377 Dion replied that she could not recall the property ever being two properties. 378 379 Popp noted that there were a playhouse and chicken coop that were not approved by the 380 previous CUP, yet they exist today and asked how that occurred. 381 382 Dion replied that those were constructed without knowing a building permit was needed and 383 therefore will be included in this CUP to clean that up. 384 385 Popp asked if there is running water for this accessory building. 386 387 Piper asked if the applicant is requesting plumbing for the building. 388 389 Tim Elam, applicant, stated that they do not plan to put in another well as they already have 390 two wells on the property. He stated that they would run water to the shed. He stated that 391 they have a holding tank that could be pumped out for a floor drain. 392 393 Piper asked what would be stored in this building. 394 395 Elam provided details noting vehicles and other mechanical equipment. 396 397 Nielsen asked if there is assurance from the applicant that no additional structures would be 398 added to the property without proper permitting. 399 400 Elam confirmed that to be true. 401 402 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. 403 404 Amy Allworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, stated that her family has lived in the home since 1994 405 and loves their property and country living. She complimented the Elam’s on the beautiful 406 design of the barn. She stated that it is a lovely structure, but they are concerned with the 407 impact of the size and their enjoyment of their backyard where they created the terrace. She 408 noted that this structure would be within their line of sight. She asked that large trees and 409 plantings help to mitigate the scale of the barn and would also like to see downcast lighting as 410 a condition of approval. She had concerns with additional lighting that could disturb their 411 view. She also had concern with an increase of traffic and noise from the barn. 412 413 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. 414 415 Popp commented that it is a beautiful barn, and he does not have any concern with the land 416 use and size of the property. He asked if there would be any opportunities to put evergreens 417 on the west side of the property to screen the view of the neighbors. 418 419 9 Elam confirmed that they would be willing to plant more trees. He stated that they did plant 420 40 evergreens already. He noted that the property does slope down from the neighboring 421 property to their property and therefore it will take time for those trees to grow. 422 423 Piper asked for details on lighting and whether that lighting would be on a timer system. 424 425 Elam commented that they have lights going up the driveway which remain on all night. He 426 noted that they would have motion lights on the accessory building and inside the building 427 they would have regular LED lighting. It stated that it would be dark outside the barn until 428 someone drove up to it and the motion lights kicked on. He was unsure if they would add 429 landscaping lights, as they do have those around the property, but would be fine not adding 430 those. 431 432 Nielsen asked if the building could be placed in another location to assuage the concerns of 433 the neighbor. 434 435 Elam commented that they have 33 acres and therefore could put it in another area, but this 436 area is already connected to an existing driveway. He noted that there is sloping topography 437 in other areas of the property as well. 438 439 Piper referenced the paving that would occur in front of the building and asked if that would 440 be for parking. 441 442 Elam provided additional details noting that would be a drive-in door. 443 444 Nielsen stated that she does not see any issues with the applicant. 445 446 Rhem agreed and appreciated the willingness to work with the concerns of the neighbor. 447 448 Jacob agreed. 449 450 Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use 451 Permit subject to the conditions in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 452 Grajczyk) 453 454 9. Target – 300 Clydesdale Trail – Planned Unit Development Amendment for Additional 455 Signage – Public Hearing 456 457 Finke presented a requested amendment to the PUD for Medina Clydesdale Marketplace. He 458 stated that there has been a previous amendment for signage and provided background details 459 on that approved amendment. He noted that this amendment would be limited to the Target 460 property. He stated that the proposal was to add two signs to the wall to alert customers to 461 the new drive-up location on the east side of the building. He stated that in addition to the 462 wall signs there would be a number of internal site signs that would be limited in size to four 463 square feet. He stated that the proposal for the drive-up signs would be larger and that is why 464 those are included in the request. He provided details as to the access of the site and where it 465 would make sense to have directional signage. He commented that staff believes that the 466 request is reasonable and perhaps additional flexibility should be considered for signage. 467 468 Grant Egan, representing the applicant, stated that the additional wall signage and wayfinding 469 signage was not anticipated in 2005 but desired because of the changes in buyer patterns 470 following COVID. He stated that Target has seen a large increase in drive-up service, and 471 they would like to continue to meet that demand and help customers find the appropriate 472 10 location. He stated that there was a pilot program for drive-up service on the south side and 473 those stalls would be remarked for regular parking as the drive-up service would be moved to 474 the east. He noted that this location would be much safer for Target employees to bring out 475 the orders. 476 477 Jacob noted that this change would make it so that people do not have to cross the road to 478 load the merchandise and would seem to be safer and more efficient. 479 480 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. 481 482 No comments. 483 484 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. 485 486 Rhem stated that he is employed by Target Corporation and wanted to disclose that. He 487 stated that he does not see any issues with the request as it would improve traffic flow and 488 make it easier for employees to bring out orders. 489 490 Jacob echoed those comments as it will improve safety and traffic flow. 491 492 Popp stated that this is logical and makes sense. He commented that this would improve ease 493 of use for the customers and employees. 494 495 Nielsen and Piper agreed. 496 497 Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit 498 Development amendment to increase allowed signage at 300 Clydesdale with additional 499 flexibility recommended by staff for additional signs. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 500 Grajczyk) 501 502 10. Approval of the August 10, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 503 504 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to approve the August 10, 2022, Planning 505 Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 506 Grajczyk) 507 508 11. Adjourn 509 510 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. Motion carried 511 unanimously. 512