Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10.18.2022 City Council Meeting Packet Posted 10/14/2022 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 18, 2022 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of the October 4, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution Certifying Delinquent Utility Charges to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2023 B. Resolution Certifying Delinquent Storm Water Utility Charges to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2023 C. Resolution Certifying Delinquent City Charges for Services to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2023 D. Approve Escrow Agreement for 1735 Medina Road E. Adopt Resolution Granting Extension of Time to BAPS Minneapolis LLC Site Plan Review Approval F. Adopt Ordinance Establishing Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District G. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Publication of Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District by Title and Summary H. Resolution Approving Pioneer Highlands Preliminary Plat I. Approve Pioneer Highlands Preliminary Development Agreement VI. COMMENTS A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda B. Park Commission C. Planning Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Cates Industrial Park Concept Plan Review B. Loram/Scannell Plat and Site Plan Review C. G & S-K Family LLC – Easement Vacation – Public Hearing VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS XI. CLOSED SESSION: Attorney-Client Privileged Discussion on Litigation Related to Zoning Violation at 2402 State Highway 55 Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05, Subd. 3(b). XII. POTENTIAL ADOPTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LITIGATION RELATED TO 2402 TH 55 XIII. ADJOURN Meeting Rules of Conduct to Address the City Council: • Fill out & turn in comment card • Give name and address • Indicate if representing a group • Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Medina Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: October 13, 2022 DATE OF MEETING: October 18, 2022 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Resolution Certifying Delinquent Utility Charges to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2023 – Staff recommends approval of the resolution certifying delinquent utility charges to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection in 2023. See attached resolution. B. Resolution Certifying Delinquent Storm Water Utility Charges to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2023 – Staff recommends approval of the resolution certifying delinquent storm water utility charges to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection in 2023. See attached resolution. C. Resolution Certifying Delinquent City Charges for Services to the Hennepin County Auditor for Collection in 2023 – Staff recommends approval of the resolution certifying delinquent City Charges for Services to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection in 2023. See attached resolution. D. Approve Escrow Agreement for 1735 Medina Road – The owner of the property desires to demolish the home and then market the property for sale with the accessory structure shed remaining on the property. The attached agreement addresses what is required to move forward as requested. Staff recommends approval. See attached agreement E. Resolution Granting Extension of Time to BAPS Minneapolis LLC Site Plan Review Approval – The applicant has requested an extension of time to apply for a building permit for the project. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. 2 F. Ordinance Establishing Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District – Staff recommends approval of the ordinance to establish the Hamel Townhomes Storm Water Improvement tax district. See attached ordinance. G. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance Establishing Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District by Title and Summary – Staff recommends approval of the summary publication for the resolution. See attached resolution. H. Approve Pioneer Highlands Preliminary Plat – The Applicant has requested preliminary plat approval for Pioneer Highlands. The subdivision of the Property into four lots is consistent with the direction from the City Council at the October 4, 2022 meeting. Staff recommends approval. See attached resolution. I. Approve Pioneer Highlands Preliminary Development Agreement – Staff recommends approval of the preliminary development agreement for Pioneer Highlands per Council direction at the October 4, 2022 meeting. See attached preliminary development agreement. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Cates Industrial Concept Plan Review – 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 has provided an updated concept for review and discussion. 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. No formal Council action. B. Loram/Scannell Properties – Wetland Replacement Plan – Scannell Properties and Loram have requested land use approval for development of three buildings totaling 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 of the proposed plat. The other two buildings are 3 proposed to be leased on a speculative basis. The applicant has indicated that they are hopeful some of their vendors and related businesses may occupy some spaces in the intermediate term and may provide additional space for Loram’s growth in the future as well. Staff recommends that the City Council review the TEP’s recommendation and applicant’s wetland application materials. The primary question for the Council is whether the “applicant has demonstrated to the Local Government Unit’s satisfaction that the activity will minimize impacts to wetlands.” (8420.0520 Subp. 4). Staff has included information on this topic from WSB. Staff is requesting Council review and discuss. Potential Action: If the City Council concurs with the TEPs recommendation and believes the application does not minimize wetland impacts, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to prepare a Notice of Decision denying the proposed Wetland Replacement Plan based upon the findings noted by the Council. If the Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated to its satisfaction that the activity will minimize impacts to wetlands and otherwise is consistent with the sequencing requirements for wetland impacts, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to prepare a Notice of Decision approving the proposed Wetland Replacement Plan based upon the findings noted by the Council and to present the Notice for Council action after the applicant has submitted necessary information related to wetland credit purchase. If the Council indicates that the applicant has not demonstrated that impacts have been sufficiently minimized, staff would recommend that the applicant either withdraws the application or provides an extension so that they can engage with staff on ways to update its application to reduce impacts. C. G & S-K Family LLC – Easement Vacation – Public Hearing – Gail Knappenberger, as general partner of G & S-K Family LLC, fee owner of 1400 and 1420 Tamarack Drive, has requested a lot line rearrangement between two adjacent properties which they own. The applicant’s lot line rearrangement is not yet prepared for review. Staff published a public hearing notice for the easement vacation for the October 18 meeting. Because of the long lead time for publishing legal notices, staff tries to anticipate timing to move applications ahead more quickly. To avoid the need to re-publish the public hearing notice, staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing on the proposed easement vacation, take any testimony, and continue the hearing to the November 1 Council meeting. Recommended Motion: Move to continue the public hearing on the proposed easement vacation at 1400 and 1420 Tamarack Drive to November 1, 2022. 4 X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 006558E-006575E for $65,985.16, and order check numbers 053491-53552 for $475,149.52 and payroll EFT 0512212-0512245 for $57,610.94. XI. CLOSED SESSION: Attorney-Client Privileged Discussion on Litigation Related to Zoning Violation at 2402 State Highway 55 Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05, Subd. 3(b). XII. POTENTIAL ADOPTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LITIGATION RELATED TO 2402 TH 55 INFORMATION PACKET: • Planning Department Update • Police Department Update • Public Works Department Update • Claims List Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 1 DRAFT 1 2 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2022 3 4 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on October 4, 2022 at 5 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6 7 I. ROLL CALL 8 9 Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid (arrived at 7:36 10 p.m.). 11 12 Members absent: None. 13 14 Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Attorney Dave Anderson, Finance 15 Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, 16 Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief of Police Jason Nelson. 17 18 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 19 20 III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:01 p.m.) 21 The agenda was approved as presented. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:02 p.m.) 24 25 A. Approval of the September 20, 2022 Work Session City Council Meeting 26 Minutes 27 Moved by Albers, seconded by Martin, to approve the September 20, 2022 work session 28 City Council meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed 4 to 0 (No Reid). 29 30 B. Approval of the September 20, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 31 Albers stated that he excused himself from the meeting at one point and asked if that 32 needed to be reflected in the motions that followed. 33 34 Johnson noted that staff could make that correction. 35 36 Moved by Albers, seconded by Martin, to approve the September 20, 2022 regular City 37 Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed 4 to 0 (No Reid). 38 39 V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:03 p.m.) 40 41 A. Adopt Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the 2022 General Election 42 B. Approve Hiring of Police Officer 43 C. Accept Donations for Medina Celebration Day 2022 44 D. Approve Equipment with Operator Services Agreement with Designing 45 Nature, Inc. 46 E. Approve Cates Easement Agreement 47 Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to approve the consent agenda. Motion passed 48 4 to 0 (No Reid). 49 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 2 VI. COMMENTS (7:04 p.m.) 1 2 A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 3 There were none. 4 5 B. Park Commission 6 Scherer reported that the Park Commission met recently to consider the Pioneer 7 Highlands proposal and recommended cash in lieu for park dedication. The 8 Commission also received a presentation about prairie grasses and their relationship 9 with horses. 10 11 Albers referenced a recent incident where a vehicle damaged a field that was recently 12 seeded and asked for an update. 13 14 Scherer replied that the Police Department caught the gentleman who then reseeded the 15 field. 16 17 C. Planning Commission 18 Finke reported that the Planning Commission will meet the following week to hold two 19 hearings to consider an updated concept for the Cates Industrial Park as well as a 20 proposal for the Loram and Scannell development. 21 22 VII. PRESENTATIONS 23 24 A. Orono School District Technology Referendum (7:07 p.m.) 25 Martha Van de Ven, Orono School Board, introduced Superintendent Dr. Kristine 26 Flesher who began in this position last year but has been with the District for 29 years. 27 Ms. Van de Ven noted that this will be her last year on the School Board as she will be 28 retiring from the position after 31 years. She thanked the Council for continuing the 29 culture of supporting public schools. She played a short video about technology and the 30 requested levy for the Council which is also available on the District website. She 31 provided comparison information of the requested levy compared to other school 32 districts. 33 34 Superintendent Kristine Flesher commented that the District has had the levy for 20 35 years and is grateful for the assistance during that time from the communities. She 36 stated that the requested technology levy would run for the next ten years. 37 38 Martin expressed thanks to the Van de Vens for their legacy to public service in the 39 community. 40 41 VIII. OLD BUSINESS 42 43 A. Hamel Legion Park – Grandstand at Paul Fortin Field – Conditional Use 44 Permit (7:15 p.m.) 45 Johnson stated that at the September 20th the Council reviewed the proposal from the 46 Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) and Hamel Hawks to construct the proposed grandstand at 47 Paul Fortin Memorial Field at Hamel Legion Park. The Council directed staff to reach 48 out to interested parties related to parking and traffic for baseball related activities at the 49 park. The Council also directed staff to draft a resolution granting CUP approval for the 50 construction of the grandstand subject to the conditions previously discussed. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 3 1 Finke stated that staff prepared the draft resolution as directed by the Council at the 2 previous meeting including the requirements for the netting and fencing. He stated that 3 at the meeting there was discussion related to the vegetation along the property line on 4 the east side of the park related to potential fencing and therefore staff went to the site to 5 observe the location of the trees. He noted that because of the location of the trees, 6 staff considered a chain link fence as screening appears to be provided by much of 7 trees. He stated that there were some gaps in the screening which would also be 8 addressed. He reported that staff discussed the chain link fence with HAC and the 9 Hawks, as well as adjacent property owners. He noted that the responses of the 10 property owners were included in the report, along with the draft resolution. 11 12 Cavanaugh stated that he visited the site this afternoon and there appears to be enough 13 room between the existing trees and what appeared to be the property line. He asked if 14 a privacy fence could fit in that area. 15 16 Scherer reported that some trimming would be necessary to potentially install a privacy 17 fence. 18 19 Martin stated that she also walked the property and there is a lack of screening on the 20 northern end which appears to be an invitation for people to walk through, and therefore 21 some barrier would be helpful for that property. She commented that it did appear that 22 some trees go over the property line as you walk down the row and as those trees grow, 23 they would push up against a fence. She stated that she likes the suggestion of placing 24 the chain link fence on the park side of the trees as it would be easier to maintain and 25 would not require an easement. She stated that would also be consistent with the 26 design of the field. She stated that if a privacy fence is placed on the private property 27 side of the trees, it would seem to be using taxpayer dollars to create a private ambiance 28 in the backyards of residents rather than just protecting those yards from trash and 29 trespassing. 30 31 DesLauriers commented that there are a few gaps in the screening that need to be 32 addressed. He commented that the park already has chain link fence and therefore 33 chain link fence would blend with what already exists. He agreed that it would be better 34 placed on the park side of the trees. 35 36 Cavanaugh stated that he would prefer a privacy fence. He understood the statement 37 about public funds but noted that there is a lot of activity and will continue to be so, 38 therefore a privacy fence would help to screen noise and visual impact. 39 40 Martin stated that when reviewing the minutes from the last meeting, there was a 41 resident who questioned if a privacy fence could withstand the impact from baseballs. 42 She asked if anyone looked into the feasibility of that. She noted that a chain link fence 43 would hold up against baseballs. 44 45 Scherer commented that a vinyl fence could crack if hit hard enough, or even in the cold. 46 47 Albers commented that he could not imagine a ball hit by youth traveling that distance 48 and hitting the fence. 49 50 DesLauriers commented that it is more than just youth hitting balls on that field. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 4 1 Albers stated that he believes the odds of a privacy fence cracking from a ball would be 2 low. He commented that the chain link fence would have the lowest cost and would 3 blend with the existing fencing at the park. He noted that would prevent trespassing into 4 properties while addressing gaps in screening would address the visual impacts. He 5 stated that there needs to be a solution that works for the residents but also works for 6 the other taxpayers in Medina. 7 8 DesLauriers agreed with the comments of Albers. 9 10 Martin asked if a privacy fence would be on the landowner side of the trees. 11 12 DesLauriers stated that he would not support a fence on that side because it would 13 become a question of who owns the fence. He stated that a chain link fence would then 14 make the most sense on the park side to blend with what already exists in the park, 15 noting that a privacy fence would look out of place in the park. 16 17 Cavanaugh commented that he agrees that a solid privacy fence on the park side of the 18 trees would look out of place and therefore supports a privacy fence on the private 19 property side of the trees. He stated that he would support a privacy fence for the first 20 200 feet. He believed that it would be a small dollar amount for the whole scheme of the 21 project. He stated that fence would prevent people from cutting through yards and 22 provide some privacy which would be a reasonable solution. 23 24 DesLauriers stated that he does not disagree, noting that today there is no privacy fence 25 and there has not been once since 1926. He stated that the trees are 15 feet tall, and 26 the grandstand will be 30 feet tall, therefore less balls will travel in that direction to begin 27 with. He asked if Cavanaugh would propose that the fence would be owned and 28 maintained by the City in that scenario. 29 30 Cavanaugh commented that his first choice would be that it belong to the property owner 31 and would recommend a cedar fence. He stated that if the property owners want the 32 fence and agree, it should be placed on their side of the property line and should be their 33 responsibility for maintenance. 34 35 Martin asked if the fence were placed on the private property side of the trees, the 36 residents would need to accept the fence which would be paid for by someone other 37 than that resident. She commented that under Cavanaugh’s scenario the fence would 38 become private property and they would be responsible for maintenance and upkeep. 39 40 Albers commented that approach would most likely cause more concerns for the City. 41 He stated that he could see that maintenance is not done to the standards of the City in 42 the future. He stated that one property owner could complete necessary upkeep while 43 the next could neglect the fence. He noted that if that scenario moved forward, he would 44 like to see required maintenance spelled out such as staining versus painting and a 45 requirement to maintain both sides of the fence. He stated that over the longer period of 46 time the fence would eventually need to be replaced and asked who would be 47 responsible for that. 48 49 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 5 Cavanaugh commented that the same situation would exist if the private properties put 1 up their own fencing. He stated that the fence would still be screened by the trees on 2 the park side. 3 4 Albers asked why the City would make that type of one-time investment into fencing on 5 private property. He stated that the big challenge was related to trespassing. He 6 commented that the trees provide screening of visual impact and noise. He did not 7 believe that the City should be placing privacy fencing on private property. 8 9 Cavanaugh commented that the only reason he suggests placing it on private property 10 would be to avoid the long-term maintenance. He confirmed that he would support 11 placing a wooden privacy fence on the private property side of the trees to become the 12 property of those residents. 13 14 Rohini Khanna, 4525 Alvarado Lane, Plymouth, stated that she has not seen any details 15 on the operational solution related to the park. 16 17 Martin commented that is infused into the draft resolution already. She stated that 18 tonight they are reconsidering the impact to the private property owners. 19 20 Khanna requested that the City consider bylaws that would allow for the park to mandate 21 that private neighborhoods be blocked off, youth associations should be mandated to be 22 composed of at least 40 percent Medina citizens, there should be a minimum of 40 23 minutes between games, at least five parent volunteers should be directing traffic, and 24 contracts shall be declined that have more members than the available parking. 25 26 Martin stated that she could submit her thoughts in writing for future conversations 27 related to programing. 28 29 DesLauriers asked if there is room for a six-foot chain-link fence behind the trees. 30 31 Scherer commented that trimming of the trees would be necessary for any fencing on 32 the private property side. He commented that trees do not grow the same in a perfectly 33 straight line. 34 35 Chris Sele, 4685 Brockton Lane, commented that his property has the most frontage 36 along the park. He commented on the flow of traffic and people parking and going into 37 the park. He noted that if his property and the neighboring property were purchased and 38 turned into an entrance to the park, that could solve this issue. He stated that this 39 comes down to reputation. He noted that he moved to Medina for the schools and the 40 reputation that the City has for values. He asked the Council to place themselves or a 41 loved Medina resident, such as Van de Ven, in one of these homes and asked if a chain 42 link fence would suffice in those scenarios. He stated that his kids play in his backyard, 43 and they need to be able to sleep and do well. He stated that he is eager to see the 44 grandstand built, but also feels that the concerns of the adjacent resident should be met 45 as well. He stated that he is disappointed in the City as this whole project should be 46 exciting and fun for everyone. He asked everyone to imagine that they live in his home 47 with three young children. He commented that his children could be killed in their yard 48 by a baseball flying into their yard. He stated that the Hawks five-year plan concealed 49 information from the Council, noting the intended increase in use of the field and park 50 including fireworks, concerts, and concessions. He agreed that those activities would 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 6 help to revive Uptown Hamel but believed that the adjacent residents should be 1 considered. He hopes that drunk people will not continue to walk through his yard and 2 leave trash. He stated that the chain link fence would still allow people to walk through 3 his yard, throw trash in his yard, and climb the fence. He stated that people are climbing 4 over the existing chain link fencing. He stated that the chain link fence would still allow 5 headlights to shine in their yard. He noted that initially the Council agreed to a six-foot 6 privacy fence and then held a private meeting with the baseball association and not the 7 residents to discuss and agree on the chain link fence. He was concerned that the 8 Council is trying too hard to justify a chain link fence. He asked the Council to do the 9 right thing and provide a privacy fence. He stated that he has consulted with legal 10 representation on this matter. He commented that the Council has been dupped as the 11 Hawks have a plan to increase use which in turn will increase the issues that already 12 exist. He stated that the City has stated that they do not believe this grandstand will 13 significantly impact the use of the park and field but commented that is directly in conflict 14 with the five-year plan from the Hawks. He stated that not all stakeholders were 15 included in the discussion, the applicant was not forthcoming with information, and 16 asked that the Council vote with the idea that their kids play in these yards. He stated 17 that if the City does not purchase his property at fair market value prior to the 18 construction of the grandstand, the Hawks can be prepared to pay out after the fact 19 based on a judge’s order. He stated that at a minimum, the Council needs to address 20 the requests of the residents, and the prevailing factor should be the protection of 21 residents. He stated that if those concerns are not addressed, this whole project could 22 be halted by an injunction, not just for the 2023 season but indefinitely. 23 24 Martin appreciated the input of the resident. She stated that anyone that has walked the 25 property since the last meeting has noticed the need for additional screening. She 26 asked if trees were removed since Sele purchased his property. 27 28 Sele replied that there were not. 29 30 Martin commented that the property was then purchased open to the baseball field. She 31 stated that the incidents of drunkenness and litter all existed prior to the purchase of the 32 property. She stated that the resident purchased the property next to the park. She 33 stated that the discussion would then be what may be an appropriate approach. She 34 stated that there has been discussion tonight about fencing in relation to placement and 35 type. She asked the resident for his input, as it seems the resident believes that the 36 privacy fence would make the issues go away in this matter and a chain link fence would 37 not. 38 39 Sele replied that the chain link fence on the north side is a great example of how 40 ineffective that is as people climb over the fence and throw trash. He noted that the 41 lights also go through a chain link fence. 42 43 Martin asked public safety for input on whether they are aware of that issue. 44 45 DesLauriers commented that it is a four-foot fence and people are not climbing over, 46 they are using the gate. 47 48 Sele commented that he observes people going over the fence. 49 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 7 Martin asked if the resident has thought of building their own fence since they purchase 1 a property adjacent to the park. 2 3 Sele commented that has crossed his mind but noted that there have been 4 improvements since he purchased the house such as lighting. He noted that a 5 reasonable person would not purchase a property next to a park and expect a 30-foot 6 grandstand, 356 capacity, to be constructed. He stated that he is not asking for much 7 but proposing to find a solution for traffic and parking and to do the right thing for his 8 family. 9 10 Martin stated that they are attempting to find that solution. She proposed the scenario 11 that the City or HAC installs the fence, which encroaches into the property line and 12 asked if the resident would expect compensation for the encroachment. 13 14 Sele replied that he would not expect compensation for encroachment. He stated that 15 he would be more interested in talking about the material of the fence noting that he 16 would want the fence to be non-permeable to keep the headlights out. 17 18 Martin stated that if she moved into the property with young children, she probably would 19 have installed her own fence by now. 20 21 Sele replied that if he were financially able to do so, that would be a great thing. 22 23 Martin commented that is the cost of purchasing that property. She reconfirmed the 24 statement that the resident would not be opposed to providing an easement for the fence 25 at no cost. 26 27 Sele replied that if the fence is built in his yard and whether the concern is related to 28 maintenance, he will maintain it in great order and would never ask the City to do 29 anything else about it. He confirmed that he would sign a written agreement as such. 30 31 Martin again confirmed that if the fence were built on the private property the resident 32 would maintain the fence and would not charge for the easement. 33 34 Sele replied that this would be funded by the Hamel Hawks and HAC. He stated that if 35 he were a fan donating to this project, he would support doing right by the residents that 36 live adjacent to the park. He stated that if a six-foot cedar fence were going to be 37 installed and that is all that would be done, he would also request that for his property, 38 he would want that installed along the back and south and the couple of feet on both 39 sides to connect to the house. He commented that this means a lot to him, and he does 40 not feel that this team has done a thorough job. 41 42 Martin commented that if the fence continues contiguous along the neighboring property, 43 she would wonder why fence would be installed on the south side. 44 45 Sele replied that people from the VFW will continue to throw their beer cans and if the 46 fence only runs along the backside, they will walk until they discover that fence and then 47 double back. He stated that he will install no trespassing signs in his front yard, but 48 people do not always listen to that when they are drunk. 49 50 Martin commented that would seem an issue with the VFW. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 8 1 Sele replied that the team is recommending that people park at the VFW. He stated that 2 people drink at the VFW and then casually stroll through his yard. He commented that 3 this situation will amplify that. 4 5 Martin asked about Sonny’s property. 6 7 Sele replied that property owner already has an old, dilapidated fence. He believed that 8 the criteria should be what reduces people walking through his yard and what will 9 resolve the situation, so he does not need to file a lawsuit. 10 11 Albers asked if the fence along the north butts into Sonny’s property. 12 13 Scherer confirmed that it does tie in but there is a gap where people could walk into 14 Sunny’s yard. He confirmed the proposed path the fence would take to ensure there are 15 no gaps along the field. 16 17 Albers commented that the fence would then run to the batting cages and tie in and 18 therefore there would not be a path from the parking lot to the properties to the east. 19 20 Sele replied that would make sense. He noted that people could still walk through his 21 front yard only to discover there is a fence and then walk back out. 22 23 Albers commented that they cannot solve the issue of the front yard. He stated that their 24 concern is with the park and access from the back. He stated that they are not talking 25 about people walking from Brockton into the front yard. 26 27 Sele replied that he is concerned with people coming from Brockton. He commented 28 that he will be at the games in spring of 2023 if this situation is resolved. 29 30 Albers asked what the solution to the front yard would be, whether that would be to place 31 a fence with a gate along the front. 32 33 Sele replied that a fence would not be needed to Brockton, but if people can see 10 to 34 15 feet on the north and south sides of his home and along the back, that will prevent 35 them from walking into his yard. 36 37 Albers asked why the neighbors do not work together to fence the two properties and 38 split the cost. 39 40 Sele replied that is not the proposal and did not understand why he is feeling bad about 41 asking for privacy and security of his family. 42 43 Albers commented that the City owns the park and the fence from the park into the 44 backyard would be appropriate on the public side, but beyond that it is private property. 45 He stated that the ballfield has existed since 1926 and was there when the home was 46 purchased. 47 48 Sele replied that the ballfield was part of the reason he purchased the home. 49 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 9 Albers commented that he lived in another community where he was near a ballfield, 1 and he put up his own fence. 2 3 Sele replied that in that scenario the City did not propose a grandstand with a capacity of 4 256 in addition to the issues that already exist. He did not believe the context was the 5 same. 6 7 Cavanaugh did not believe that was a fair statement. He stated that Albers is attempting 8 to balance the public interest with the private interest. 9 10 Sele asked why they are looking so hard to not put anything in place. 11 12 Brad Sanke, 4665 Brockton Lane, stated that he is not sure why they are here again, but 13 he does feel dupped by the City in thinking it would take their concerns to heart. He 14 referenced the lies that have been said at the last meeting and in this meeting. He 15 stated that staff did not reach out to the residents, the residents reached out to City staff. 16 He referenced the statement that foul balls will be reduced by this project but did not 17 believe that to be accurate noting that the grandstand would only protect those in the 18 grandstand. He stated that the netting is only in front of the grandstand and there will 19 continue to be foul balls. 20 21 Martin asked for input on the matters before the Council tonight. She stated that the 22 Council appreciated the input from the residents and those from Plymouth at the last 23 meeting and since that time they further explored the concepts of a fence and where the 24 property line exists. She asked that the accusatory comments stop and asked for the 25 input on the matter of the fence. 26 27 Sanke stated that he would like to finish his comments. 28 29 Martin stated that the Council has heard these comments before and the intent tonight is 30 to find a solution, noting that speakers were asked to limit their comments to three 31 minutes. 32 33 Sanke referenced additional comments that he believed to be inaccurate related to 34 parking and traffic concerns and how busy public works staff is. He referenced a 35 statement that was made by a representative from HAC at the last meeting related to 36 how someone going onto his private property could require a lawsuit, noting that he 37 would need to pay and then sue HAC to be covered by their insurance. He stated that 38 he has run out of patience for a lack of empathy for the residents in this area. He 39 commented that the residents in this area and in Plymouth do not benefit from this 40 improvement and therefore the City can buy his property if they like. 41 42 Martin asked if the resident would like to have input on the fence. 43 44 Sanke commented that he does not see that as a solution that would resolve the 45 problem. He stated that he and his neighbor that just spoke have been talking to an 46 attorney. 47 48 Martin commented that the Council is seeking the input from these residents related to 49 the fence. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 10 Sanke stated that he would prefer the fence on his side of the trees and would grant an 1 easement to the City, at no cost, for the construction of the fence. He also agreed that 2 he would sign a written agreement agreeing to maintain the fence. 3 4 Albers asked what would occur if the property were to be sold. 5 6 Martin commented that there could be covenants of record related to the fence and 7 ongoing maintenance. 8 9 Albers stated that there are only two property owners involved in this discussion but 10 there are two more property owners that the fence may encroach upon that have not 11 provided input. He noted that an easement would be necessary from the other two 12 property owners in order to move forward on that path. 13 14 DesLauriers asked if Sanke would be in agreement with a privacy fence just along the 15 back side of the property. He noted that the previous resident wanted both sides as 16 well. 17 18 Sanke replied that as long as the privacy fence was six feet in height and went along all 19 four properties, he would agree with that. 20 21 Martin commented that the Council cannot commit to building a fence on other private 22 properties without the same agreements related to easement and ongoing maintenance. 23 24 Sanke commented that if the fence is stopped at the edge of his property, people would 25 cut through at that location. 26 27 Cavanaugh commented that he would recommend that the solid cedar privacy fence be 28 built for the first 200 feet on the property owner’s side of the property with a chain link 29 fence for the remainder as the other homes do not back up to the grandstand. He stated 30 that would keep people from cutting through and would allow people to move around on 31 the park side but would keep a barrier on the side of the homes. He commented that the 32 chain link portion of the fence could run alongside the park side of the trees. 33 34 Scherer commented that staff would have to look at that to determine where the fence 35 could transition to City property. 36 37 Martin commented that if they were to proceed with a proposal it would be contingent 38 upon the permitting of the new grandstand and would be an expense of the Hawks and 39 HAC. She commented that the fencing improvements would not come without the 40 grandstand, therefore if the grandstand is not built, the fence would not be built. 41 42 Dan Kelly, Hamel Athletic Club, stated that he reviewed the materials prepared by City 43 staff as well as the discussion tonight. He asked that the Council focus on the request 44 tonight, noting that the conditions should focus on the change in use (grandstand). He 45 stated that there is already a park, baseball fields, parking lot, and two bars. He 46 referenced the comments submitted by a resident dated September 28th related to 47 trespassing through his yard from patrons of the VFW going for a stroll in the park. He 48 commented that there was no baseball activity in the park on the nights mentioned in 49 that letter. He stated that looking at the issues raised tonight, one was drunk people. 50 He stated that does not pertain to the youth sports players or their parents. He noted 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 11 that issue is related to the bar that the resident lives near. He stated that issue should 1 not be tied to this request for the ballfield. He noted that the second issue was 2 trespassing and believed that the comments of Albers best addressed that in that for this 3 project the trespassing should be from the parking lot/baseball field which is prevented 4 through a chain link fence on the City side of the trees in the park. He noted that 5 garbage from trespassers was also mentioned, which again has not been demonstrated 6 to be baseball related as beer cans were repeatedly mentioned. He stated that 7 headlights were mentioned but noted that the resident purchased a home with a parking 8 lot behind it and should have anticipated that issue. He stated that the parking lot 9 existed before he purchased his home and he should have expected that to continue, 10 noting that it is not a result of the change in use. He referenced the comment related to 11 baseballs going into yards. He noted that the highest risk of a baseball in the yard is 12 right now as the yards are less protected right now than they would be with the 13 grandstand and netting. He stated that if a six-foot chain-link fence were added, those 14 yards would be further protected. He asked that the Council focus on the conditions that 15 should be placed upon the permit from the change in use, rather than to the existing 16 issues caused by things that already exist. He suggested a chain link fence from the 17 corner to the batting cages as that would match the existing fence, provide protection, 18 and would require little maintenance. He believed that would be a fair compromise 19 between HAC and the concerns raised. 20 21 Reid asked if HAC feels that there is a need for the grandstand. 22 23 Kelly agreed that they feel that would be a nice amenity for those that are currently 24 bringing in their own chairs to watch games. 25 26 Martin commented that there will most likely be an increased number of bodies at certain 27 times of the year due to the activities that can be held with the grandstand. She asked if 28 it would then seem reasonable that there could be an increased potential for litter, traffic 29 issues, etc. 30 31 Kelly commented that the parking lot at Fortin only has so many stalls and therefore the 32 lighting from vehicles would not increase. He believed that parking would continue to be 33 discussed as previously mentioned. He commented that the games end at 10 p.m. and 34 the lighting is turned off at that time. He stated that there are games Mondays through 35 Thursday and therefore he did not believe the use would increase. He stated that he 36 has been going to the park for many years, four days per week, and has not seen people 37 trespassing through yards to get to games. He stated that if there are people going 38 through yards that are drunk and dropping beer cans, that would most likely be resulting 39 from the two nearby bars and not the youth baseball attendees. He did not believe the 40 grandstand would increase that issue as he did not believe that to be a youth baseball 41 driven problem. 42 43 Martin reviewed the possible actions the Council could consider. She noted that two of 44 the property owners would find it acceptable to have a privacy fence constructed on their 45 property, at the expense of someone else, without charging for that easement and 46 agreeing to long-term maintenance. She asked if the Council chooses that option for 47 those two property owners, would the City then make the same offer for the next two 48 property owners, or transition to a chain link fence on the City side of the property line for 49 the remainder. She again provided a list of options related to fencing that the Council 50 could recommend. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 12 1 Cavanaugh stated that the statement could be made that a privacy fence would be 2 required, provided that the required easement/maintenance agreements be executed 3 and if that is not done, the chain link fence could be constructed on the City property. 4 5 Martin noted that those other two properties have been notified and have not provided 6 input or expressed concern throughout this process, therefore, to add additional expense 7 to solve someone else’s problem does not seem to make sense. She stated that one of 8 those properties had a privacy fence and felt it not necessary to maintain it. 9 10 Cavanaugh asked if Martin would support chain link fence for the remainder, after those 11 two properties. 12 13 Albers commented that this is being complicated. He stated that he would prefer to build 14 the six-foot chain-link fence along the City property. 15 16 Reid stated that she prefers the look of a privacy fence. 17 18 DesLauriers agrees with Albers that the chain link fence would be the best option as it 19 would blend with the fencing already at the park. He stated that the City should remain 20 consistent with fencing on its own property and the same type of fencing that is in the 21 park. He noted that this would also not require any easements or maintenance from 22 other property owners. 23 24 Martin confirmed that Reid would also agree with that option. 25 26 Cavanaugh commented that he believes that there is enough activity in the parking lot to 27 require a privacy fence for the first 200 feet. He stated that if the choice is a chain link 28 fence or nothing, he would support the chain link. He commented that there are also 29 trees screening and did not think the transition to chain link would impact aesthetics. 30 31 Albers stated that perhaps the privacy fence for 200 feet is placed on the City side as he 32 is not in favor of placing fencing on private property and trying to get easements. 33 34 Cavanaugh stated that perhaps the option is given to provide the easement and if that is 35 not done, the chain link would be placed on the City side. He noted that the issue 36 appears to be with the first two properties and in order to simplify this he believes the 37 privacy fence should be placed on their property and then transitioned to City property. 38 39 Albers stated that he believes the issue is being complicated with the issue of 40 easements and transitioning from private property to City property. He noted on the 41 north side of the properties there is no privacy fence. 42 43 Cavanaugh commented that the rest of the properties along the north are commercial 44 versus residential. He asked if buildings back up to the property line on Sonny’s and 45 therefore people will not walk through that property. 46 47 Scherer commented that people walk through Sonny’s property right now. 48 49 Albers believed it would be cleaner to use chain link all the way down on the City 50 property. 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 13 1 Martin commented that makes sense. She stated that Cavanaugh is mentioning issues 2 with the parking lot and lights which existed for years and therefore someone purchasing 3 a property should have observed that when they purchased their home. She did not feel 4 a need to construct a solid wall. She stated that there seems to be consensus for the 5 option of the six-foot chain-link fence along the City property and additional trees to be 6 planted in the gaps. 7 8 Cavanaugh asked if there is netting that can be added to chain link fence as a privacy 9 barrier. 10 11 DesLauriers stated that there are some that are tied to the fence as wind barriers. 12 13 Cavanaugh asked if that could be added. 14 15 Scherer stated that could be an option but believed the trees would add more benefit. 16 17 Martin asked if HAC would like to speak to this potential option. 18 19 Kelly commented that their preference would be to have fencing for the first 200 feet. He 20 noted that the other property owners have not spoken and perhaps do not want a fence. 21 He stated that they would support the 200 feet as those are the homeowners that have 22 expressed concern and that would be closest to the grandstand. He stated that he 23 would argue that the remainder of the fencing would have nothing to do with Fortin Field. 24 He noted that the kids that play in the smaller fields have nothing to do with the 25 grandstand. He asked that the conditions be focused on the change in use of Fortin 26 Field specifically. He commented on the increased need for maintenance with slats in a 27 chain link fence. He commented that this is a significant project run by volunteers and 28 they would prefer to devote their funds to the benefit of the fields. 29 30 DesLauriers disagreed but stated that perhaps the last two homes are optional as those 31 property owners may not want the fence. 32 33 Reid agreed. 34 35 Albers stated that he could also support that. 36 37 Cavanaugh commented that those coming from the VFW or Legion would probably cut 38 through where there is a gap in the fence. 39 40 Martin asked why people would walk in that direction. 41 42 Kelly commented that people do not park at the VFW to come to the ballpark. He stated 43 that when Fox 9 featured the field, they did offer a shuttle from the VFW but otherwise 44 the parking at the VFW is not a part of Hamel baseball. 45 46 Sanke commented that is not true because people park wherever they find space, which 47 can be at the VFW. He commented that people will cut across where there is a gap in 48 the fence. 49 50 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 14 Albers proposed that the chain link fence be constructed on the City property for the first 1 200 feet and with the City contributing the cost for the remainder of the fence. He stated 2 that would mean that HAC would not be responsible for the entire cost of the fence and 3 that would solve the trespassing issue. He agreed that baseball is not causing the issue 4 from the bars, but the fence would prevent people from trespassing. He agreed that the 5 screening should be filled in with trees where needed along the northside properties. He 6 stated that he would propose the fence from the corner to the east to Brockton. He 7 stated that would enclose the park and those properties would be secluded from patrons 8 of the park. 9 10 Cavanaugh provided input on the location for the fence, noting that one property owner 11 may want to better align that with his property. 12 13 Martin agreed that alignment could include input from that property owner. 14 15 1. Resolution Granting CUP Approval for Construction of a Covered 16 Grandstand at 3200 Mill Drive 17 Moved by Albers, seconded by DesLauriers, to adopt the Resolution Granting 18 Conditional Use Permit Approval for Construction of a Covered Grandstand in Hamel 19 Legion Park with the condition that the applicant be responsible for a six-foot chain-link 20 fence along or near the first 200 feet of the eastern property line of the park from the 21 northeast corner and direct staff to determine whether additional screening would be 22 appropriate for the length of the parking lot. Motion passed unanimously. 23 24 Moved by Albers, seconded by Martin, for the City to construct and fund a six-foot chain-25 link fence for the remaining 267 feet with additional fencing to the east dependent on 26 discussions with that property owner. 27 28 Further discussion: Cavanaugh asked if the property on the south side did not desire a 29 fence, would the Council be okay with that. 30 31 It was the consensus of the Council that it would agree that a fence would not be 32 necessary on that property if the property owner did not desire that fence. 33 34 Motion passed unanimously. 35 36 Martin restated and confirmed the original motion that was made by Albers and 37 seconded by DesLauriers. 38 39 IX. NEW BUSINESS 40 A. Pioneer Highlands Preliminary Plat (9:04 p.m.) 41 Johnson stated that the applicant is requesting a rural subdivision of 68 acres to create 42 four rural lots. He identified the subject property which is currently vacant and farmed. 43 He verified the correct PID number for the property which is located on Pioneer Trail. 44 45 Finke displayed an aerial photo of the property which is surrounded by rural residential 46 properties with the exception of future business to the north. He stated that information 47 was provided related to the soils and septic sites. He stated that this property is located 48 within two watersheds and the Pioneer Sarah Watershed is taking control of the review. 49 He stated that the Park Commission recommended cash in lieu of land dedication. He 50 reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing where some residents 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 15 provided input on stormwater and there were conditions developed to support those 1 concerns. He stated that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions noted 2 within the report. 3 4 Cavanaugh asked if there would be any chance that there would be a trail along Pioneer 5 Trail. 6 7 Finke stated that the parks and trails plan includes a bikeable shoulder for Pioneer Trail 8 and staff believes that the right-of-way would support that. He commented that there is 9 a lot of topography and wetlands on this side of the road and therefore an off-road trail 10 would be unlikely. 11 12 Moved by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to direct staff to prepare a resolution granting 13 preliminary plat approval, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion 14 passed unanimously. 15 16 B. Tim and Megan Elam – 1582 Homestead Trail – Conditional Use Permit 17 (9:10 p.m.) 18 Johnson stated that the applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to 19 construct a 160 foot by 160-foot accessory structure at 1582 Homestead Trail. He 20 stated that the property is over five acres in size and therefore this type of structure 21 would be allowed through a CUP. 22 23 Martin stated that a revised proposed resolution granting approval of the CUP was 24 received today that includes additional language. 25 26 Finke stated that the architectural plans for the accessory building and landscaping plan 27 were provided in the staff report. He stated that in order to have more than 5,000 square 28 feet of accessory buildings, a CUP would be required. He stated that stormwater 29 management and higher architectural standards are required as part of the CUP and 30 have been included in the plans. He reviewed items that were added as conditions after 31 review by staff and the Planning Commission in order to minimize the impacts on 32 adjacent property. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing in 33 September and unanimously recommended approval. He confirmed that additional 34 language was added to the revised resolution and that is the item that the Council 35 should take action on tonight. 36 37 Cavanaugh commented that this looks like a beautiful plan. 38 39 Martin agreed that the architecture was lovely and appreciated the modified landscaping 40 plan to appease the neighbors. 41 42 1. Resolution Granting CUP Amendment to Tim and Megan Elam 43 Moved by Albers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to adopt the revised Resolution Granting 44 Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Tim and Megan Elam. Motion passed 45 unanimously. 46 47 Martin briefly recessed the meeting. 48 49 Martin reconvened the meeting. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 16 C. Target – 300 Clydesdale Trail – PUD Amendment (9:20 p.m.) 1 Johnson stated that the applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow 2 additional signage directing patrons to their drive-up service. 3 4 Finke provided additional details on the requested signage that direct people to the east 5 end of the building, noting that employees would then not need to cross into the parking 6 lot to bring items out. He reviewed the existing sign allowance through the PUD. He 7 stated that staff believes that it would be beneficial to allow the additional signs as 8 requested as well as additional signage on the façade to provide more flexibility. He 9 stated that the signage would still remain under the square footage allowed under 10 normal standards. He reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing with 11 no public testimony and unanimously recommended approval. 12 13 Cavanaugh thanked staff for thinking about the future and being flexible for the business 14 that may come. 15 16 1. Ordinance Amending the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD 17 Moved by Albers, seconded by Martin, to adopt the Ordinance Amending the Medina 18 Clydesdale Marketplace PUD Related to Signage at 300 Clydesdale Trail. Motion 19 passed unanimously. 20 21 2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and 22 Summary 23 Moved by Albers, seconded by Martin, to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Publication 24 by Title and Summary. Motion passed unanimously. 25 26 D. THC Licensing Ordinance (9:24 p.m.) 27 Johnson stated that in 2022 the legislature passed legislation which allows certain THC 28 products to be sold legally. He stated that because the legislator did not include 29 regulations, many cities have developed their own regulations to govern that activity. He 30 stated that the City tends to establish a licensing program which would govern those 31 entities that wish to sell those products, similar to the licensing for the sale of tobacco 32 and liquor products. He stated that Nelson stated that the State law does not identify a 33 minimum age for customers of these products and therefore he would like to see a 34 minimum age of 18 or 21 to use or possess THC products. 35 36 Martin stated that Anderson further explained the issue to her today and after thinking a 37 bit more she questioned whether this ordinance would affect the sale of non-intoxicating 38 THC products, such as cream. 39 40 DesLauriers commented that those products have CBD. 41 42 Anderson commented that the intent of the ordinance is to require licensure for 43 businesses in Medina that want to sell THC products to the general public. He reviewed 44 the definition of those products. He stated that businesses have been and could 45 continue to sell CBD products as those are non-intoxicating and not included in the 46 definition. He stated that the State law specifies that the products only be sold to those 47 21 and older. He stated that State law does not prohibit use or possession of these 48 products for any age group and therefore he would agree with the recommendation of 49 Nelson to include language that prohibits use or possession of these products by those 50 under 18. He reviewed the actions different cities are choosing to take and noted that 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 17 staff recommends this licensing program to allow what State law authorizes. He stated 1 that if the Council desires to prohibit the use/possession by those under 18, or 21, the 2 Council should direct staff to revise the ordinance and bring it back. 3 4 DesLauriers asked the difference between a 5 mg THC gummy and smoking marijuana. 5 6 Anderson replied that edibles can be sold by retailers and consumed by the general 7 public. He stated that possession of under 42 grams or marijuana would be considered 8 a petty misdemeanor, therefore it is not a crime but would result in payment of a fine. 9 He stated that the recent direction of law enforcement, including Hennepin County, has 10 been not to site people for small amounts or marijuana but noted that is a policy decision 11 of each department. 12 13 DesLauriers commented that at James J. Hill Days in Wayzata there was a table selling 14 THC edibles. He believed that the brightly colored packaging was attractive to children. 15 He asked if, similar to vaping, whether the City would be able to not allow retailers to sell 16 these products. 17 18 Anderson confirmed that cities would have the ability to prohibit the sale of those 19 products but noted that does not mean it would not go unchallenged. He stated that 20 does not mean the products would not be in the community as they could be purchased 21 in other communities. He stated that some cities have adopted moratoriums and some 22 of those have been challenged but have not yet been litigated. 23 24 Cavanaugh asked if the City were to place a moratorium for one year would that 25 potentially result in less challenges than outright prohibiting the sale. He stated that 26 perhaps the State will develop regulations during that year. 27 28 Martin commented that perhaps the City should begin with regulating as suggested and 29 making it illegal for persons under a certain age to possess/consume these products. 30 She stated that she does not want to be the first city challenged on outlawing the sale. 31 She stated that the licensing would require retailers to meet certain criteria. She stated 32 that it could be reviewed in one year to determine if a different course is desired. 33 34 Cavanaugh asked if the City would be less likely to be challenged if a moratorium were 35 enacted. 36 37 Martin commented that she is unsure what the moratorium would be for if the desire is 38 simply to wait for additional regulation by the State. 39 40 Anderson explained that the intent of a moratorium is to press pause, maintain the status 41 quo and study the issue to determine what is best for the City. He stated that would be 42 fine for the City to do, but the moratorium would need to be adopted under that rationale 43 rather than stating that the City is waiting for the State to take action. He could not 44 answer what the likelihood of a lawsuit would be. He stated that to the knowledge of 45 Nelson there are no retailers in Medina that sell these products at this time and the point 46 would be to get ahead of retailers that may wish to do so in the future. He stated that it 47 would be a similar regulation to the sale of tobacco and liquor. 48 49 Martin asked how a moratorium would be worded. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 18 Anderson stated that the moratorium would be against the sale of these products for up 1 to one year to allow staff to research methods of regulation. 2 3 Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to support the moratorium. 4 5 Johnson confirmed that staff has sufficient direction and can bring this back to a future 6 Council Meeting on the consent agenda. 7 8 DesLauriers commented that he would still desire action related to the 9 possession/consumption of those products for those under 18 or 21. 10 11 Anderson commented that would be a simple ordinance that staff could prepare and 12 present to the Council at the next meeting. 13 14 It was the consensus of the Council to set the age at 21 and that the incident would be a 15 petty misdemeanor. 16 17 E. Mediacom Franchise Extension (9:46 p.m.) 18 Johnson presented an ordinance which would extend the Mediacom franchise for a five-19 year period. He noted that staff continues to look for additional options for cable 20 franchise and broadband service for residents and businesses of Medina. 21 22 1. Ordinance Granting Mediacom Franchise Extension 23 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adopt the Ordinance Granting Mediacom 24 Minnesota LLC a Franchise Extension through January 1, 2029. Motion passed 25 unanimously. 26 27 2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and 28 Summary 29 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to adopt the Resolution Authorizing 30 Publication by Title and Summary. Motion passed unanimously. 31 32 X. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (9:47 p.m.) 33 Johnson reminded the Council of the virtual meeting testing that will occur this coming 34 week for those interested. 35 36 Albers noted that he is not interested as he would not meet the equipment requirements. 37 38 Martin commented that it seems that the equipment requirements are a bit much. 39 40 Albers agreed and noted that he has no problem participating virtually through any 41 formats. 42 43 Johnson explained that it is an issue with audio and the equipment/programming that the 44 City is using to allow virtual participation during a live meeting. 45 46 XI. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (9:50 p.m.) 47 Martin encouraged Council participation in the North Metro Mayors meetings. She 48 provided an update about a meeting she attended with Loram and how their proposed 49 development fits or does not fit with the wetland regulations. 50 51 Medina City Council Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 19 XII. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (9:53 p.m.) 1 Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Martin, to approve the bills, EFT 006542E-006557E 2 for $68,630.69, order check numbers 053449-053490 for $94,411.42, and payroll EFT 3 0512183-0512211 for $57,132.97. Motion passed unanimously. 4 5 XIII. CLOSED SESSION: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED DISCUSSION ON 6 LITIGATION RELATED TO ZONING VIOLATION AT 2402 STATE HIGHWAY 7 55 PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 13D.05, SUBD. 3(B) 8 Moved by Martin, seconded by DesLauriers, to adjourn the meeting to closed session at 9 9:54 p.m. for an attorney-client privileged discussion on litigation related to zoning 10 violation at 2402 State Highway 55 pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.05, Subd. 3(b). 11 12 Further discussion: Cavanaugh noted that he will be recusing himself from this 13 discussion. 14 15 Motion passed unanimously. 16 17 The meeting returned to open session at 9:55 p.m. 18 19 XIV. CLOSED SESSION: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE 20 REVIEW PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 13D.05, SUBD. 3(A) 21 Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to adjourn the meeting to closed session at 22 9:56 p.m. to conduct a City Administrator annual performance review pursuant to Minn. 23 Stat. 13D.05, Subd. 3(a). Motion passed unanimously. 24 25 The meeting returned to open session at 11:07 p.m. 26 27 XV. ADJOURN 28 Moved by Albers, seconded by DesLauriers, to adjourn the meeting at 11:08 p.m. 29 Motion passed unanimously. 30 31 32 __________________________________ 33 Kathy Martin, Mayor 34 Attest: 35 36 ____________________________________ 37 Scott Johnson, City Administrator 38 Resolution No. 2022- October 18, 2022 Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION IN 2023 WHEREAS, the records of the Utility Funds of the City of Medina list certain accounts as being delinquent; and WHEREAS, the consumers have been previously notified of the delinquency in accordance with the statutes of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 444.075 and Section 740.23 of the Medina City Code authorizes certification of such delinquent accounts to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota to direct the Hennepin County Auditor to place upon the tax rolls for taxes payable in 2023 the delinquent accounts which are listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto, at an interest rate of 12 percent from the date of adoption of this resolution. Dated: October 18, 2022. Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item #5A Resolution No. 2022- October 18, 2022 2 Exhibit A PIN PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNERS NAME PAST DUE 10% FEE BALANCE 02-118-23-41-0044 4225 SHOREWOOD TR VIDYOTHAM REDDI $152.65 $15.27 $167.92 12-118-23-44-0003 4685 BROCKTON LN CHRISTOPHER SELE $613.67 $61.37 $675.04 12-118-23-41-0022 3482 SIOUX DR MATTHEW EDMAN $108.14 $10.81 $118.95 11-118-23-41-0001 805 HAMEL RD JJC HAMEL INC $486.16 $48.62 $534.78 12-118-23-31-0023 3455 ELM CREEK DR GREG/AMY KALBERER $48.21 $4.82 $53.03 02-118-23-41-0002 4365 CO RD NO 116 BIG STONE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS $71.26 $7.13 $78.39 02-118-23-41-0010 4235 FOXBERRY CT GEORGE T STEINER FAM TRUST $2,776.61 $277.66 $3,054.27 12-118-23-11-0036 3907 WILD MEADOWS DR CYNTHIA BUSCHER $454.18 $45.42 $499.60 12-118-23-12-0052 370 LYTHRUM LN MARK & KARI PENDERGAST $423.03 $42.30 $465.33 01-118-23-44-0014 105 PRAIRIE CREEK RD ERIK/ANDREA ANDERSON $1,652.05 $165.21 $1,817.26 01-118-23-12-0017 280 BERGAMOT DR CARLOS SILVA $4,917.43 $491.74 $5,409.17 01-118-23-12-0005 335 BERGAMOT DR ROBERT/ERICA DOVENBERG $135.56 $13.56 $149.12 02-118-23-22-0020 4586 BLUEBELL TR N LUCAS OLSON-ELM $178.65 $17.87 $196.52 12-118-23-13-0025 267 CHERRY HILL TR JAMEE OLSON $251.37 $25.14 $276.51 02-118-23-44-0099 873 MEANDER CT SARMOSI LLC $2,134.79 $213.48 $2,348.27 01-118-23-13-0014 255 CALAMUS CIR MATT ATKINSON $1,907.90 $190.79 $2,098.69 12-118-23-43-0046 3238 BUTTERNUT DR BRAD CALLI $1,963.27 $196.33 $2,159.60 02-118-23-34-0054 4153 PRAIRIE VIEW TR SUMBAL MAHMUD $198.65 $19.87 $218.52 12-118-23-43-0078 3249 RED OAK TR KAREN MCCOY $49.21 $4.92 $54.13 01-118-23-24-0005 674 ASTER RD DALE/CAROL MONSON $617.60 $61.76 $679.36 13-118-23-11-0069 3004 CYPRESS CIRCLE NO RICHARD/SUSAN VIGILANTE $94.73 $9.47 $104.20 01-118-23-33-0005 4140 FAIRWAY DRIVE JAMES HUNTER $474.34 $47.43 $521.77 13-118-23-11-0103 3091 WILD FLOWER TRAIL AT HOME RENTALS LLC $52.56 $5.26 $57.82 01-118-23-22-0038 719 WOODLAND HILL COURT THOMAS/KELLY JACOBS $35.98 $3.60 $39.58 01-118-23-24-0030 540 LILIUM TR DEQO/WARSAME DIRIE $724.24 $72.42 $796.66 01-118-23-23-0060 731 SHAWNEE WOODS RD HEATH ALLEN HOMES LLC $74.79 $7.48 $82.27 01-118-23-23-0066 734 SHAWNEE WOODS RD HEATH ALLEN HOMES LLC $74.79 $7.48 $82.27 02-118-23-43-0081 1015 FIELD COURT MALLIKARJUN/SHILPA VIDYAPURAM $49.95 $5.00 $54.95 01-118-23-21-0013 455 LILIUM TRAIL ABAH ALI $80.39 $8.04 $88.43 12-118-23-23-0013 3692 PINTO DR 3672 PINTO MEDINA LLC $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 18-118-23-24-0137 2851 LAKESHORE AVE THOMAS/TAMARA WARNER $80.73 $8.07 $88.80 18-118-23-22-0192 3112 LAKESHORE AVE GREG ROBINSON $2,610.31 $261.03 $2,871.34 18-118-23-21-0017 4525 WALNUT ST JOE ROBERTS $2,306.54 $230.65 $2,537.19 30-118-23-22-0004 1432 BAKER PARK RD MEDINA HOMETOWN DEVELOPMENT $70.32 $7.03 $77.35 28-118-23-14-0009 2486 BOBOLINK RD FELIPE VILLALPANDO $580.62 $58.06 $638.68 28-118-23-13-0006 2662 BOBOLINK RD TIMOTHY BERGQUIST $3,233.16 $323.32 $3,556.48 28-118-23-14-0018 2495 BOBOLINK RD MICHAEL HANSON $1,823.31 $182.33 $2,005.64 $31,575.48 $3,157.55 $34,733.03 $34,696.15 $3,469.62 $38,165.77TOTAL Resolution No. 2022- October 18, 2022 Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT STORM WATER UTILITY CHARGES TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION IN 2023 WHEREAS, the records of the Storm Water Utility Funds of the City of Medina list certain accounts as being delinquent; and WHEREAS, the consumers have been previously notified of the delinquency in accordance with the statutes of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 444.075 and Section 740.23 of the Medina City Code authorizes certification of such delinquent accounts to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota to direct the Hennepin County Auditor to place upon the tax rolls for taxes payable in 2023 the delinquent accounts which are listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto, at an interest rate of 12 percent from the date of adoption of this resolution. Dated: October 18, 2022. Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item #5B Resolution No. 2022- October 18, 2022 2 Exhibit A PIN PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNERS NAME PAST DUE 10% FEE BALANCE 03-118-23-22-0002 2400 CATES RANCH DR JEFFREY CATES $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 07-118-23-14-0001 4350 HAMEL RD ROBERT GARVEY $391.64 $39.16 $430.80 23-118-23-24-0009 1302 CO RD NO 24 JAMES F. SHUNK $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 22-118-23-23-0004 2232 CO RD NO 24 ROBERT SCHERER $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 02-118-23-22-0002 1555 HACKAMORE RD CLINTON EIDE $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 13-118-23-43-0015 2442 HOLY NAME DR CHRISTOPHER PRIGGE $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 25-118-23-11-0003 1482 HUNTER DR WYATT/GEORGIANNA DECKER $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 06-118-23-22-0002 4695 STATE HWY NO 55 SLP JCR LLC $78.33 $7.83 $86.16 13-118-23-31-0008 545 MEDINA RD CODY BERGERON $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 23-118-23-22-0007 1495 MEDINA RD SANA SHAMSI $20.48 $2.05 $22.53 14-118-23-14-0008 860 NAVAJO RD SALINA/ATIF RIZVI $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 19-118-23-23-0001 4792 PERKINSVILLE RD C PAUL LINDHOLM $78.33 $7.83 $86.16 23-118-23-24-0004 2175 TAMARACK DR BRAD KOSTIAL $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 29-118-23-24-0004 1225 WELCOME DR JACQUELYN HOOVER $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 16-118-23-41-0009 2672 WILLOW DR L AND R NEVERLAND LLC $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 12-118-23-23-0014 3672 PINTO DR 3672 PINTO MEDINA LLC $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 12-118-23-41-0023 3482 SIOUX DR MATTHEW EDMAN $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 04-118-23-14-0005 PID 04-118-23-14-0005 JEFFREY CATES $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 02-118-23-21-0001 PID 02-118-23-21-0001 CLINTON EIDE $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 11-118-23-14-0002 PID 11-118-23-14-0002 ALCAMACHI CORPORATION $109.33 $10.93 $120.26 04-118-23-14-0004 2575 CATES RANCH DR JEFFREY CATES $136.66 $13.67 $150.33 23-118-23-12-0002 2322 TAMARACK DR ANDREW SORENSON $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 12-118-23-24-0001 592 STATE HWY NO 55 BRYCE HILL $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 04-118-23-11-0002 2590 CATES RANCH DR JEFFREY CATES $204.98 $20.50 $225.48 28-118-23-13-0027 2745 MORNINGSIDE RD NICHOLAS BADAVINAC $64.63 $6.46 $71.09 18-118-23-21-0016 4525 WALNUT ST JOE ROBERTS $78.33 $7.83 $86.16 02-118-23-44-0099 873 MEANDER CT SARMOSI LLC $88.82 $8.88 $97.70 12-118-23-43-0108 ENCLAVE 4 OUTLOT F ENCLAVE OF MEDINA $34.20 $3.42 $37.62 11-118-23-33-0006 1495 HAMEL ROAD MATTHEW YA VANG $68.33 $6.83 $75.16 06-118-23-22-0003 80 ADDRESS PENDING ROSEMARIE SCHUMACHER $313.30 $31.33 $344.63 $2,795.67 $279.57 $3,075.24TOTAL Resolution No. 2022- October 18, 2022 Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT CITY CHARGES FOR SERVICES TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION IN 2023 WHEREAS, the records of the Outstanding Receivables of the City of Medina list certain accounts as being delinquent; and WHEREAS, the obligors were previously notified of the delinquency in accordance with the statutes of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 462.353, and Section 514.67, as well as, Section 355.07 and Section 825.51 of the Medina City Code authorizes certification of such delinquent accounts to the Hennepin County Auditor for collection; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota to direct the Hennepin County Auditor to place upon the tax rolls for taxes payable in 2023 the delinquent accounts which are listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto, at an interest rate of 6 percent from the date of adoption of this resolution. Dated: October 18, 2022. __________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Agenda Item #5C Resolution No. 2022- October 18, 2022 2 EXHIBIT A PIN PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNERS NAME PAST DUE 10% FEE BALANCE 12-118-23-14-0037 325 CLYDESDALE TRAIL CLYDESDALE MARKET LLC 25.00$ 2.50$ 27.50$ 14-118-23-43-0005 1100 MEDINA ROAD ERIK HALVERSON 300.00$ 30.00$ 330.00$ 325.00$ 32.50$ 357.50$ TOTAL 1 ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1735 MEDINA ROAD This ESCROW AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of _____________, 2022 by and between the Estate of Robert J. Roehl (the “Owner”), and the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”). RECITALS A. The Owner is fee owner of the real property located at 1735 Medina Road, Medina, Minnesota, 55356 and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”). B. The Property currently contains a single-family detached dwelling (the “Dwelling”), along with an accessory pole shed structure with a footprint of approximately 672 square feet (the “Accessory Structure”). C. The Owner desires to demolish the Dwelling and thereafter market the Property for sale with the Accessory Structure remaining thereon. D. Although the Medina City Code expressly prohibits a parcel from having an accessory structure without a principal structure, the Owner has nevertheless requested permission to demolish only the Dwelling. E. The City is willing to authorize the Owner to demolish the Dwelling and leave the Accessory Structure on the Property, notwithstanding the above-referenced prohibition, provided, however, that the Owner agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree and stipulate as follows: 1. Demolition of Dwelling. Provided that all other state and local requirements are satisfied, the City agrees that the Owner may demolish the Dwelling and leave the Accessory Structure on the Property on condition that the Owner complies with all terms and conditions of this Agreement and each of the following: (a) The Owner will either construct a new principal structure on the Property or demolish the Accessory Structure by the Completion Deadline, as that term is defined in section 2 of this Agreement; Agenda Item #5D 2 (b) The Owner will provide the City with an Escrow, as defined and required in section 4 of this Agreement; and (c) The Owner will pay the City for its administrative costs, as required in section 6 of this Agreement. 2. Owner Requirements. The Owner agrees to construct a new principal structure on the Property, in accordance with any and all applicable state and local laws, requirements, and regulations, by no later than December 31, 2024 (the “Completion Deadline”). The principal structure shall not be considered complete until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the City in accordance with all requirements of the state building code and any other applicable local regulations. In lieu of constructing a new principal structure by the aforementioned Completion Deadline, the Owner may, alternatively, demolish the Accessory Structure on or before the Completion Deadline in accordance with any and all applicable state and local laws, requirements, and regulations related thereto. 3. City’s Rights. The City shall retain throughout the term of this Agreement a right of entry upon the Property to enforce all terms and conditions contained herein. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enter the Property at all reasonable times to inspect the Property and, upon a failure by the Owner to meet its obligations in section 2 above, to demolish the Accessory Structure and dispose of all components. The City shall make reasonable efforts to notify the Owner before any work commences; provided, however, that any inability to make contact with the Owner following such reasonable efforts shall in no way affect the City’s rights herein. Nothing in this Agreement shall create liability on behalf of the City for entering onto the Property, demolishing and disposing of the Accessory Structure, and the Owner shall have no right to recover any damages, at law or in equity, for such activities if done in accordance with the terms contained herein. 4. Costs; Cash Escrow. The Owner agrees that all costs for the potential demolition of the Accessory Structure, irrespective of whether performed by the Owner or the City, must be paid by the Owner. The City shall assume no cost whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, for said demolition. In order to ensure that the Accessory Structure is demolished pursuant to this Agreement if the Owner’s obligations are not performed by the Completion Deadline, and to satisfy any current or future costs to the City that may be necessary if the Owner defaults on its obligations hereunder, the Owner agrees to deliver to the City immediately upon the execution of this Agreement $10,000 (the “Escrow”), which amount represents the estimated cost to the City should it have to exercise its right to enter onto the Property and demolish the Accessory Structure, including all incidental costs associated therewith. The Escrow shall remain in a non-interest bearing account held by the City until released by the City. The Escrow may be used by the City to complete the demolition and disposal of the Accessory Structure on the Property and to pay any fees or costs otherwise due from the Owner to the City pursuant to this Agreement. The City may draw upon the Escrow to pay any costs or expenses it may incur related to demolishing and disposing of the Accessory Structure, as well as any costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, that the City may incur to enforce this Agreement and to recover its costs should the Owner default on its obligations herein. If the Escrow is not sufficient to cover the City’s costs incurred, the Owner shall be required to reimburse the City for any unreimbursed costs within 30 days of being invoiced by the City. The City agrees to release the Escrow balance upon termination of this Agreement and satisfaction of all of the Owner’s remaining duties under this Agreement in accordance with section 5. 3 In the event the City does not recover all of its costs under the provisions of this section 4, as an additional remedy, the City may, at its option, assess the Property in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, chapter 429, and the Owner hereby consents to the levy of such special assessment without notice or hearing and waive their rights to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statues, section 429.081, provided that the amount levied, together with the Escrow deposited with the City under this section, does not exceed the expenses actually incurred by the City. Further, the City may, at its option, as an additional remedy, recover such expenses actually incurred by the City as service charges, in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, sections 415.01, 366.011, 366.012, and, separately, 514.67. The Owner hereby consents and agrees that any such unreimbursed costs shall constitute a service fee the City may collect as provided pursuant to the above-referenced statutes and the Owner further consents to the levy of an assessment pursuant thereto without notice or hearing and waives its rights to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statues, provided the amount levied does not exceed the expenses actually incurred by the City pursuant to this Agreement. This section 4 shall survive termination of this Agreement and shall be binding on the Owner regardless of the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. 5. Release of Escrow. On or before the Completion Deadline, the Owner will notify the City that either (i) the construction of the new principal structure has been completed and a certificate of occupancy has been issued; or (ii) the Accessory Structure has been properly demolished. Upon receipt of such notification and verification thereof, the City shall issue a check for the release, without interest, of the Escrow balance to the Owner. For the sake of clarification, and pursuant to section 10.a of this Agreement, any Escrow balance to be returned will be paid by the City to the then-current owner of the Property. 6. Administrative Costs. In addition to the Escrow, the Owner agrees to pay $250 to the City to reimburse it for the legal and administrative costs incurred to draft, process, record and administer this Agreement. The Owner shall pay this amount to the City immediately upon execution of this Agreement. 7. Representations and Acknowledgments. The Owner represents that it is fee owner of the Property, that it has full legal power and authority to encumber the Property as provided in this Agreement, that in doing so it is not in violation of the terms or conditions of any instrument or agreement of any nature to which the Owner is bound or which relates in any manner to the Property. By signing this Agreement, the Owner grants the City a license, and such other permissions as may be required, to enter the Property as needed to conduct inspections and to demolish and dispose of the Accessory Structure as otherwise provided for and authorized in this Agreement. The Owner understands and acknowledges that, pursuant to the Medina City Code, accessory structures are prohibited from being located on a parcel that does not have a separate principal structure. In constructing a new principal structure prior to the Completion Deadline, the Owner will bring the Property into compliance with said prohibition. Additionally, the Owner further agrees and acknowledges that until said principal structure is constructed or, alternatively, the Accessory Structure is demolished, the Owner will be out of compliance with the aforementioned requirement and the remedies expressly provided to the City herein to address said noncompliance are not exclusive, meaning that following the Completion Deadline, the City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to exercise any other rights that it may have, whether or not contained herein, in law or in equity, to enforce its code requirements. 4 8. Liability; Indemnification. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City, its officers, agents, and employees shall not be liable or responsible in any manner to the Owner, Owner’s successors or assigns, the Owner’s contractor or subcontractors, material suppliers, laborers, or to any other person or persons for any claim, demand, damage, or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or the performance of this Agreement, or the City’s exercise of its rights under this Agreement, nor will Owner make any claim against the City for or on account of any injury, loss or damage resulting from Owner’s Property or use thereof. The Owner agrees to indemnify, protect, hold harmless and defend the City, its officials, employees, contractors and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims, actions or judgments, including attorneys’ fees which Owner or its contractors and subcontractors may hereinafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay, arising out of by reason of any act or failure to act by Owner, its officers, employees, agents or contractors or arising out of or by reason of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation on liability to which the City is entitled under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or otherwise. 9. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate immediately upon the satisfaction of all of the following: (i) either a new principal structure has been constructed on the Property or the Accessory Dwelling has been demolished; (ii) the City has been fully reimbursed for all costs and expenses owed to it hereunder; and (iii) the City has returned the Escrow balance, if any, to the Owner. 10. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Binding on Future Owners. The promises and obligations contained within this Agreement are covenants running with the Property and are binding on the Owner and its successors and assigns until this Agreement is terminated as provided herein. All references to the Owner contained in this Agreement shall also be references to the Owner’s successors and assigns. b. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of all mutual understandings between the parties with respect to this Agreement, superseding all prior or contemporaneous proposals, communications, and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by court order or by a writing executed by all the parties hereto under the provisions of this Agreement. c. Notice. Any notice which is required under this Agreement will be deemed "given" upon hand delivery or three (3) days after prepaid posting in the U. S. Mail whichever will first occur. Notices shall be delivered or mailed to, or to such other address as a party may designate by notice to the other party: If to the Owners: Estate of Robert J. Roehl Attn: Jerome Roehl PO Box 835 Walker, MN 56484 If to the City: City of Medina 2052 County Rd 24 5 Hamel, MN 55340 Attn: City Administrator d. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. e. Recording; Release. The covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement shall bind the Owner and its successors and assigns and shall run with the Property. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that this Agreement be in a form which is recordable among the property records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The City intends to record this Agreement with the County at the Owner’s expense. Upon termination of this Agreement, the city administrator shall be authorized, upon a written request by the Owner or their successors or assigns, to execute and deliver a document releasing the Property from this Agreement and confirming that there are no outstanding obligations to be performed hereunder. f. Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. g. Waiver. A waiver by the City or the Owner of any breach of any term of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach of the same term or any other term of this Agreement. h. Headings. Any headings appearing at the beginning of the several sections contained in this Agreement have been inserted for identification and reference purposes only and shall not be used in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. i. Severability. If any part of this Agreement shall be held invalid, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Agreement, provided that such invalidity does not materially prejudice either party under the remaining parts of this Agreement and this Agreement shall be construed as if the unlawful or unenforceable provision or application had never been contained herein or prescribed hereby. j. Public Data. This Agreement and the information related to it are subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, which presumes that data collected by the City is public data unless classified otherwise by law. k. Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership, association or joint venture between the City and the Owner. l. Compliance with Laws. Unless expressly authorized herein, the Owner agrees to abide by and conform to all laws, rules, and regulations, including future amendments, controlling or affecting the use or occupancy of the Property. m. Attorney Fees. The Owner agrees to pay the City's costs and expenses, including attorney fees, in the drafting and administering this Agreement. The Owner further agrees to pay the City’s costs and expenses, including attorney fees, in the event a suit or action is brought by the City against the Owner to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 6 n. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into the Agreement. [signature pages to follow] 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first written above. THE OWNER: ESTATE OF ROBERT J. ROEHL Jerome T. Roehl, Personal Representative STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF _________________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, 2022, by Jerome T. Roehl, the Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert J. Roehl, on behalf of the Estate. Notary Public 8 THE CITY: CITY OF MEDINA By: ______________________________ Kathleen Martin Its: Mayor The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2022, by Kathleen Martin, the mayor of the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. By: ______________________________ Scott T. Johnson Its: City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2022, by Scott Johnson, the city administrator of the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. _____________________________________ Notary Public This document was drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 700 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9274 A-1 EXHIBIT A The Property is situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Roehl Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property PID 2211823110006 Resolution No. 2022-## October 18, 2022 Member ____________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-## RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECTUATE BAPS MINNEAPOLIS LLC SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL; AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2021-78 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, the city of Medina adopted Resolution 2021-78, granting site plan review approval to BAPS Minneapolis, LLC (the “Applicant”) for construction of a 46,000 square foot building and ancillary improvements for a religious/assembly use; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said resolution, the approval was effective for one year; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an extension of time to apply for a building permit for the project NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The site plan review approval shall be effective until November 16, 2023, and thereafter shall be considered null and void. 2. Except as explicitly stated above, all terms and conditions of Resolution 2021-78 are hereby reaffirmed. Dated: . Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk Agenda Item #5E Resolution No. 2022-## October 18, 2022 2 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member __________ upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE HAMEL TOWNHOMES STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT TAX DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Background: Findings. 1.01. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 444.16 – 444.21 (the “Act”) to establish a storm sewer improvement tax district within the Hamel Townhomes development (the “District”) to acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain and otherwise improve storm sewer systems and related facilities within the District and to acquire, construct, maintain and improve stormwater holding areas and ponds outside of the District which are for the benefit of the District in accordance with the Act and to levy a tax on all taxable property within the District to finance such activities. 1.02. It is found and determined that it is in the best interests of Medina and its storm water management program that the District be established. The District shall be comprised of the land legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section II. Establishment: Authorizations. 2.01. The Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District is hereby established. The City shall have all powers and authority conferred by the Act in the operation and financing of the activities of the District. 2.02. The boundaries of the District include all property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and are depicted in the map on Exhibit B, attached hereto. 2.03. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the Auditor and Recorder of Hennepin County upon recordation of the Hamel Townhomes plat. Section III. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication and the recording of the plat of Hamel Townhomes in Hennepin County. Agenda Item #5F Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE Adopted by the City Council of the City of Medina this ____ day of ____, 2022 Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: _________________________________ Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on this _____ day of ____________, 2022. Ordinance No. ### DATE 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of property contained within boundaries of the Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Lots 1 through 4, Block 2, Lots 1 through 8, Block 3, Lots 1 through 6, Block 4, Lots 1 through 8, Block 5, and Outlot A, all in Hamel Townhomes, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Ordinance No. ### DATE 4 EXHIBIT B Location of Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District Resolution No. 2022-## DATE Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2022-## RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance establishing the Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publications by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is four pages in length and contains a map; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety: Public Notice The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance establishing the Hamel Townhomes Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District. The tax district applies to the property within the Hamel Townhomes plat and development and would allow the City to acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain and otherwise improve storm sewer systems and related facilities related to the District and to levy a tax on all taxable property within the District to finance such activities. The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city clerk keep a copy of the ordinances in their office at city hall for public inspection and that they post a full copy of the ordinances in a public place within the city. Agenda Item #5G Resolution No. 2022-## 2 DATE Dated: ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ____ upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2022-## DATE 831906.v1 Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION 2022-## RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE PIONEER HIGHLANDS PLAT WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Onyx Performance Investments, LLC (the “Applicant”) is the fee owner of the property located southeast of Willow Drive and southwest of Pioneer Trail (the “Property”) which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested preliminary plat approval for Pioneer Highlands, a subdivision of the Property into four lots; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 13, 2022, reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and City staff, heard testimony from interested parties, and recommended approval of the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, the Park Commission reviewed the request at the September 21, 2022 meeting, reviewed park dedication requirements, and recommended cash-in-lieu of land dedication; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the request at the October 4, 2022 meeting, reviewed the testimony, and considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Park Commission; and WHEREAS, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions noted below, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in regard to the preliminary plat based on the requirements of the City’s subdivision ordinance: a. The proposed preliminary plat is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and is not premature for consideration. b. The subdivision is appropriate for the physical conditions on the site including the topography, storm water, natural resources, and soils. c. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and the proposed lots meet minimum lot size standards. d. The proposed subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage. e. The proposed subdivision is not likely to be injurious to public health. f. The proposed subdivision and its improvements will not conflict with public or private streets, easements, or rights-of-way. Agenda Item #5H Resolution No. 2022-## DATE 831906.v1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota hereby grants preliminary approval of the Pioneer Highlands plat, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements as described in this staff report around the perimeter of each lot and Outlot A, and over all wetlands, stormwater improvements, and drainageways as recommended by the City Engineer. 2. The plat shall dedicate a minimum of 33-feet of right-of-way for Pioneer Trail, or more if necessary, to provide 33-feet from the centerline of the existing roadway. 3. The Applicant shall provide documentation to verify that the minimum average upland buffers have been provided and shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including provision of easements, planting of vegetation and installation of signage. 4. The Applicant shall provide and record an instrument that grants requisite easements for the shared driveway to ensure perpetual access for all lots, which shall meet all requirements of the city, at time of final plat. 5. The Applicant shall quantify the maximum footprint of impervious surface for which stormwater management is provided for each lot. 6. Lot 3 shall provide culverts and easements for drainage crossings prior to getting a building permit. 7. This approval is contingent upon approval of a letter of map amendment for floodplains. 8. The Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of park land in an amount of $32,000.00. 9. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that meets all requirements of the City Attorney, which shall include the conditions described herein as well as all other requirements of city ordinance or policy. 10. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated August 29, 2022, except as may be modified herein. Final plans shall be provided at the time of final plat and shall address the comments of the City Engineer dated September 8, 2022, meet Pioneer-Sarah Watershed regulations and Elm Creek Watershed regulations, and other relevant staff and agencies and the conditions noted herein. The plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 11. The Applicant shall execute and record a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney to describe the responsibility of the property owners to maintain the private stormwater improvements. 12. The Applicant shall obtain all permits required by Pioneer-Sarah Watershed Management Commission and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission. 13. The Applicant shall provide title evidence prior to or at the time of final plat application and abide by the recommendations of the City Attorney with regard to title matters and recording instructions. 14. The final plat application shall be filed within 180 days of the date of this resolution or the approval hereby granted shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council. 15. 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. Resolution No. 2022-## DATE 831906.v1 Dated: By: ______________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: By: _________________________ Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: And the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution No. 2022-## DATE 831906.v1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property PID 0911823110002 Abstract Property 830808.v1 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MEDINA AND ONYX PERFORMANCE INVESTMENTS, LLC REGARDING PIONEER HIGHLANDS This document drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 700 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 Agenda Item #5I 830808.v1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Right to Proceed ............................................................................................................. 1 2. Preliminary Improvement Plans ..................................................................................... 2 3. Erosion Control .............................................................................................................. 2 4. No Additional Improvements Authorized; Assumption of Risk .................................... 3 5. Letter of Credit ............................................................................................................... 3 6. Responsibility for Costs; Escrow for Construction Inspection ...................................... 4 7. Developer’s Default ........................................................................................................ 5 8. Insurance ......................................................................................................................... 5 9. Clean up and Dust Control ............................................................................................. 5 10. Compliance with Laws ................................................................................................... 5 11. Agreement Runs With the Land ..................................................................................... 5 12. Indemnification ............................................................................................................... 6 13. Assignment ..................................................................................................................... 6 14. Notices ............................................................................................................................ 6 15. Severability ..................................................................................................................... 6 16. Non-waiver ..................................................................................................................... 6 17. Counterparts ................................................................................................................... 7 SIGNATURES .............................................................................................................................. 8-9 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT B PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT C COST ESTIMATE OF PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENTS 830808.v1 1 This Preliminary Development Agreement (the “Preliminary Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of __________, 2022, by and between the city of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “City”), and Onyx Performance Investments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on October 17, 2022, the City granted conditional approval of the preliminary plat of the property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) related to the Developer’s proposed residential development, which plat is tentatively named Pioneer Highlands (the “Subdivision”); and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested permission to grade the Property prior to the City’s consideration or approval of the final plat of the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to allow the Developer to grade the Property before final plat approval if such work is conducted in accordance with this Preliminary Agreement and all other relevant statutes, ordinances and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Right to Proceed. In connection with approval of the final plat of the Subdivision, the Developer and the City intend to enter into a development agreement (the “Development Agreement”) which will provide for the completion of certain improvements necessary to accommodate the Subdivision (the “Subdivision Improvements”), as well as other conditions of approval. In the interim and at the request of the Developer, the City agrees to allow the Developer to construct the Preliminary Improvements, as hereinafter defined, in accordance with this Preliminary Agreement. The Developer may not construct any portion of the Preliminary Improvements on the Property until all the following conditions precedent have been satisfied: a) this Preliminary Agreement has been executed by the Developer and the City; b) the required Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit (as hereinafter defined) has been received by the City from or on behalf of the Developer; c) engineering and construction plans for the Preliminary Improvements in digital form have been submitted by the Developer and approved by the city engineer; d) the Developer has paid the City for all legal, engineering and administrative expenses incurred by the City regarding the Subdivision and this Preliminary Agreement and has given the City the additional escrow required by section 6 b) of this Preliminary Agreement; e) all erosion control measures are in place; f) the Developer has received any and all required permits from the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, the Pioneer-Sarah 830808.v1 2 Watershed Management Commission, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and any other entity having jurisdiction over the Property; g) the Developer has acquired fee title to the Property; h) the Developer or the Developer’s engineer has initiated and attended a preconstruction meeting with the city engineer and staff; and i) the City has issued a notice that all conditions precedent have been satisfied and that the Developer may proceed to construct the Preliminary Improvements. 2. Preliminary Improvement Plans. a) The Preliminary Improvements consist, generally, of site grading. The Developer agrees to construct the Preliminary Improvements on the Property in accordance with the City’s preliminary plat approval and the approved engineering and construction plans for the Preliminary Improvements (collectively, the “Preliminary Improvement Plans”). All work must be done in strict compliance with the Preliminary Improvement Plans and all requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding contaminated soils. Within 30 days after completion of the Preliminary Improvements and stabilization of the site, the Developer shall provide the City with an “as constructed” grading plan and a certification by a registered land surveyor or engineer. The documents which constitute the Preliminary Improvement Plans are those on file with and approved by the City and are listed on Exhibit B attached hereto. The Preliminary Improvement Plans may not be modified or expanded by the Developer without the prior written approval of the City. b) All construction equipment used in connection with the Preliminary Improvements will access the Property from Pioneer Trail. Construction traffic shall not utilize Willow Drive north of Pioneer Trail. c) All work performed by or on behalf of the Developer on or related to the construction of the Preliminary Improvements shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. 3. Erosion Control. a) All construction regarding the Preliminary Improvements shall be conducted in a manner designed to control erosion and in compliance with all City ordinances and other requirements, including the City’s permit with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding municipal separate storm sewer system program. Before any portion of the Property is rough graded, an erosion control plan shall be implemented by the Developer as approved by the City. The City may impose reasonable, additional erosion control requirements after the City’s initial approval if the City deems such necessary due to a change in conditions. All areas disturbed by the excavation shall be reseeded promptly after the completion of the work in that area unless construction of streets or utilities, buildings or other improvements is anticipated immediately thereafter. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. 830808.v1 3 b) If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems reasonably appropriate to control erosion based on the urgency of the situation. The City agrees to provide reasonable notice to the Developer in advance of any proposed action, including notice by telephone or email in the case of emergencies, but limited notice by the City when conditions so dictate will not affect the Developer’s obligations or the City’s rights hereunder. c) The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all expenses it reasonably incurs in connection with any action it takes to control erosion. No Preliminary Improvements will be allowed on the Property unless the Developer is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. The erosion control measures specified in the Preliminary Improvement Plans or otherwise required within the Property or adjacent areas shall be binding on the Developer and its successors and assigns. 4. No Additional Improvements Authorized; Assumption of Risk. At the time of approval of the final plat(s) of the Subdivision, the City and the Developer intend to enter into the Development Agreement for completion of the remainder of the Subdivision Improvements. Nothing in this Preliminary Agreement is intended to authorize the Developer to construct anything more than the grading activities expressly authorized herein. Authorization under this Preliminary Agreement is limited exclusively to the Preliminary Improvements listed on the Preliminary Improvement Plans in Exhibit B. Additionally, nothing contained in this Preliminary Agreement shall be construed as granting any rights or approvals not expressly authorized herein, including, without limitation, any final plat approval for the Subdivision, and the Developer acknowledges and agrees that it is proceeding with the Preliminary Improvements absent such rights or approvals at its sole risk. 5. Letter of Credit. a) In order to ensure completion of the Preliminary Improvements authorized under this Preliminary Agreement and satisfaction of all fees due to the City, the Developer agrees to deliver to the City prior to beginning any work on the Property a letter of credit (the “Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit”) in the amount of $[TBD, 150% cost of work, minimum $50,000], which represents 150 percent of the estimated cost of the Preliminary Improvements. The Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit shall be delivered to the City prior to beginning any work on the Property and shall renew automatically thereafter until released by the City. The estimated cost of the work covered by the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit is itemized on Exhibit C attached hereto. The Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit shall be issued by a bank determined by the City to be solvent and creditworthy and shall be in a form acceptable to the City. The Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit shall allow the City to draw upon the instrument, in whole or part, in order to complete construction of any or all of the Preliminary Improvements on the Property and to pay any fees or costs due to the City by the Developer upon failure of the Developer to complete such work or to satisfy such financial obligations. b) The City agrees that, prior to drawing on the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit, it will provide notice to the Developer and a period of no less than 15 days for the Developer to cure the default. Notwithstanding the above, the City shall not be obligated to 830808.v1 4 allow a cure period which extends beyond the expiration date of the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit. c) The Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit shall be released in full and returned to the Developer after completion of the Preliminary Improvements and satisfaction of all other financial obligations of the Developer to the City under this Preliminary Agreement. Prior to releasing any portion of the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit or accepting another letter of credit in replacement, the City shall first be satisfied regarding the quality and completeness of the work, that the Developer has taken such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no liens will attach to the Property and that all of the Developer’s financial obligations due to the City have been satisfied. d) It is the intention of the parties that the City at all times have available to it a Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit in an amount adequate to ensure completion of all elements of the Preliminary Improvements and other obligations of the Developer under this Preliminary Agreement. To that end and notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, a request by the Developer for a release or reduction of the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit shall be evaluated by the City in light of that principle. e) If at any time the City reasonably determines that the bank issuing the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit no longer satisfies the City’s requirements regarding solvency and creditworthiness, the City shall notify the Developer and the Developer shall provide to the City within 30 days a substitute for the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit from another bank meeting the City’s requirements. If the Developer fails to provide the City with a substitute Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit from an issuing bank satisfactory to the City within 30 days, the City may draw under the existing Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit. 6. Responsibility for Costs; Escrow for Construction Inspection. a) The Developer agrees to pay to the City an administrative fee in the amount necessary to reimburse the City for its reasonable costs and expenses in reviewing preliminary matters regarding the Subdivision, including the drafting and negotiation of this Preliminary Agreement. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City in full for such costs within 30 days after notice in writing by the City. The Developer also agrees to reimburse the City for the cost incurred in the enforcement of any provision of this Preliminary Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorneys’ fees. b) The Developer shall also pay a fee for City construction observation and administration relating to the Preliminary Improvements. Construction observation shall include inspection of all the Preliminary Improvements. In order to reimburse the City for the reasonable cost of inspection of the Preliminary Improvements, the Developer shall deposit an additional $________ into an escrow account with the City, which shall receive and hold such funds solely under the terms of this Preliminary Agreement. The City shall reimburse itself for expenses from the escrow and will provide the Developer with a copy of any invoice from the city engineer or evidence of other cost or expense attributed to the escrow prior to deducting such funds from the escrow. If any funds held under this escrow exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the City for its costs under this section, such funds shall be returned to the 830808.v1 5 Developer without interest. If it appears that the actual costs incurred will exceed the estimate, the Developer and the City shall review the costs required to complete the project and the Developer shall deposit additional sums with the City as needed. 7. Developer’s Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to construction or repair of any of the Preliminary Improvements or any other work or undertaking required by this Preliminary Agreement and following the notice and opportunity to cure provided for in section 5b) of this Agreement, the City may draw on the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit and perform the work. This Preliminary Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek an order from any court for permission to enter any portion of the Property for such purposes. If the City does any such work and incurs costs in excess of any amount available under the Preliminary Improvements Letter of Credit, the Developer agrees to reimburse the City for the additional costs within 30 days of notice by the City. If the Developer fails to reimburse the City within 30 days of notice, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy special assessments to recover the costs thereof. For this purpose, the Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, expressly waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Property. The Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, also waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 429.081 with regard to the assessments against the Property. Finally, and notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer agrees that any and all unrecovered costs for work performed on the Property by the City following a Developer default constitute charges for governmental services that the City may, at its option, collect pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 514.67. 8. Insurance. The Developer agrees to take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until six months after completion of the Preliminary Improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer’s work or the work of its contractors or subcontractors. Liability limits shall not be less than $2,000,000. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. The certificate of insurance shall provide that the City must be given the same advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance as is afforded to the Developer. 9. Clean up and Dust Control. The Developer shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets adjoining the Property resulting from work on the Preliminary Improvements by the Developer, its contractors, agents or assigns. Prior to any construction on the Property, the Developer shall identify to the City in writing a responsible party for erosion control, street cleaning, and street sweeping. The Developer shall provide dust control to the satisfaction of the City’s engineer throughout construction on the Property. 10. Compliance with Laws. The Developer agrees to comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations and directives of the state of Minnesota and the City applicable to the Property and the Subdivision. This Preliminary Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of Minnesota. 830808.v1 6 11. Agreement Runs With the Land. This Preliminary Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be recorded against the title thereto. 12. Indemnification. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by it and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from any City approvals related to the Subdivision. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys’ fees, except matters involving the intentional or grossly negligent act of the City or its agents or employees. 13. Assignment. The Developer may not assign this Preliminary Agreement without the prior written permission of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or denied. 14. Notices. Any notice or correspondence to be given under this Preliminary Agreement shall be deemed to be given if delivered personally or sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested: a) as to Developer: Onyx Performance Investments, LLC 1585 Medina Rd Medina, MN 55356 Attn: ____________________ b) as to City: City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Attention: City Administrator with a copy to: David T. Anderson Kennedy & Graven 700 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 or at such other address as either party may from time to time notify the other in writing in accordance with this paragraph. The Developer shall notify the City if there is any change in its name or address. 15. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Preliminary Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall pertain only to such section and shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Preliminary Agreement. 830808.v1 7 16. Non-waiver. Each right, power, or remedy conferred upon the City by this Preliminary Agreement is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, or available to the City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement. Each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power, or remedy. If any party waives in writing any default or nonperformance by another party, such waiver shall be deemed to apply only to such event and shall not waive any other prior or subsequent default. 17. Counterparts. This Preliminary Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original and shall constitute one and the same Preliminary Agreement. ************************* 830808.v1 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF MEDINA By: __________________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor By: __________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________, 2022, by Kathleen Martin, the mayor of the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. __________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of __________, 2022, by Scott T. Johnson, the city administrator of the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. __________________________________ Notary Public 830808.v1 9 ONYX PERFORMANCE INVESTMENTS, LLC By: __________________________________ Its: __________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ______________, 2022, by __________________, the ______________________ of Onyx Performance Investments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. __________________________________ Notary Public A-1 830808.v1 EXHIBIT A TO PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description PID 0911823110002 Abstract Property 830808.v1 B-1 EXHIBIT B TO PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Preliminary Improvements Plan Documents The following documents prepared by _______________, engineer issue date ______________, collectively constitute the Preliminary Improvements Plans: [to be inserted] C-1 830808.v1 EXHIBIT C TO PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Preliminary Plan Improvements Cost Estimate [to be inserted] Cates Industrial Park Page 1 of 10 October 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: October 13, 2022 MEETING: October 18, City Council SUBJECT: Cates Industrial Park – Oppidan – 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 Proposed Staging/Growth: 2020 period Gross Area: 30 acres Net Area: 26 acres Proposed construction: 310,000 s.f. floor area Agenda Item #7A Cates Industrial Park Page 2 of 10 October 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council 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 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council 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 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council 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 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council 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 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council 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 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 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council 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 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council 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 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council Meeting The Comprehensive Plan identifies a search area for a neighborhood park to the east of the site but the City has 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. Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the concept plan at the October 11 meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached. Three people spoke at the hearing, the owner of the property east of the site and the couple who owns the home to the northeast. The owner to the right requested increased setback and other measures to reduce the impact on their property. The owners to the northeast raised concerns about the loading docks oriented to the north, truck traffic on the outlot where their driveway is currently located, and traffic concerns in general. Planning Commissioners emphasized the importance of berming and screening, especially if the loading docks are going to be oriented to the north and not screened by a building. Two Commissioners expressed support for orienting the eastern building with loading docks toward the center of the site between the buildings. Staff Comments The conditional approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was contingent upon a plat and site plan review satisfactory to the City. Staff has provided the following comments on the Concept Plan to help inform the potential final design and formal application. 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. Cates Industrial Park Page 10 of 10 October 18, 2022 Concept Plan Review City Council Meeting 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. 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 draft 10/11/2022 Planning Commission minutes 2. Excerpt from 5/10/2022 Planning Commission minutes 3. Excerpt from 1/18/2022 Park Commission minutes 4. Excerpt from 5/17/2022 City Council minutes 5. Applicant Narrative 6. Concept Plan 7. Architectural Concepts 8. Concept Plans from previous review Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 10/11/2022 Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – 2575 Cates Ranch Drive – Oppidan – Concept Plan for Approximately 300,000 SF Warehouse/Industrial Development (PID 0411823140004) Finke stated that this proposal would be for approximately 300,000 square feet of primarily warehouse space. He summarized the previous reviews and actions that resulted in conditional approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the site. He noted that this proposal is similar to concept three that was reviewed earlier this year and reviewed the details of the updated concept including access, parking, stormwater ponds, landscaping/screening, and architectural renderings. He noted that during the previous discussions there was input related to truck traffic and a desire to push development away from residential property and towards Willow Drive. He stated that the applicant attempted to address some of those comments from the previous review in this updated concept. He provided additional input related to setback requirements as well as additional ways to encourage trucks to utilize Willow Drive rather than Chippewa. He also noted changes that would be necessary related to the number of loading dock doors and traffic improvements that would be required with the project. Popp referenced the front yard setback and asked where that point is where 17 feet is proposed rather than 20 feet. Finke identified the area on the southern looped access. Popp asked for clarification on the ten percent limit for the dock. Finke stated that loading docks are limited to ten percent of the perimeter unless the docks are screened by another structure, such as a courtyard. He noted the docks on the western building are screened and therefore the limitation would not apply, but that limitation would apply on the eastern building. Nielsen asked if the eastern building would be screened by the wall. Finke replied that is not a proposed wall, but berm and landscaping. Jacob referenced the west side, facing Willow Drive, and asked for details from the parking to the road. Finke replied that 25 feet would be needed at minimum from the parking to the right-of-way. Jacob asked if there would be potential to use berm or screening between the road and buildings to the public road. Finke replied that there are landscaping requirements but there are not buffer yard requirements between two business properties. Piper asked, and received confirmation, that 45 feet of building height is the maximum height in the business district. Jacob asked if that would provide an opportunity for a mezzanine level or second story in the office area. Jay Moore, Oppidan, stated that they have been working with the Cates family for over a year on this project. He stated that they are attempting to gain input and determine if there is support for this concept before moving forward into a more formal submission of plans. He recognized the off-site improvements that will be made to improve traffic as part of this project and highlighted the other changes that have been made to the concept in order to address the previous comments of the Commission and Council. He Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 10/11/2022 Minutes 2 stated that they have attempted to minimize the wetland impacts to the extent possible. He stated that the Cates family has also agreed to provide the City with an easement for a future lift station on their northern property. He commented that the number of docks seems to be a little light for the eastern building and asked if there would be any flexibility to request additional docks if that is necessary. He noted that there is a berm and pond and there would be landscaping. Nielsen asked if the applicant agrees with the conditions noted by staff. Moore commented that he did have questions about the loading dock and also related to the architectural requirements for the northern elevation. Grajczyk asked if there are specific businesses that the applicant would target for these buildings as a tenant. Moore commented that they currently are not working with a tenant, but they do have a meeting setup next month with a local business looking for a headquarters. He noted that they have a similar project in Chaska that has a lot of interest. He stated that once a building goes up, they receive a lot of interest. He expected several high-quality users having interest in this project. Piper asked when this would be anticipated to be occupied. Moore replied most likely spring of 2024. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Isai Damyan, 2240 Chippewa Road, stated that his main concern is with the proximity to his home along with concerns for noise and traffic. Finke stated that the applicant currently proposes a setback of 101 feet on that side, where the minimum setback is 100 feet. Damyan stated that he would also have concern with the building height. He stated that if this does move forward, he would prefer to not see the structure close to his home. He asked if there would be any fencing. Jacob noted the condition related to buffering which could include berming, landscaping and/or fencing. Finke commented that perhaps the applicant could address the use of the eastern looped drive. He stated that staff has suggested some things in attempt to minimize activity on the eastern side. Moore replied that is provided for the fire lane. Jacob asked if that loop could go out to Cates Ranch Drive rather than Chippewa in order to redirect that traffic towards Willow. Moore stated that they would place appropriate signage throughout the development directing truck traffic to Willow. He noted that the lane on the east is strictly for the fire lane. R.J. and Jolene Burgess, 2490 Cates Ranch Drive, stated that he was concerned that his lack of comments at earlier meeting may have been mistaken as his support. He stated that placing the buildings back so far with docks facing Cates Ranch Drive is a concern for those properties along Cates Ranch Drive. He Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 10/11/2022 Minutes 3 stated that he would prefer something similar to option one where the docks face each other and therefore the noise and lights would be screened by the buildings. He asked if the buildings could be spun so that the docks do not face Cates Ranch Drive. He stated that they are not opposed to the development but would like some changes to be made so that they do not see so much of the traffic coming and going. Jolene Burgess commented that it will be tough for them to get in and out of their driveway as proposed. She commented that the noise and scent from the loading docks will impact their property. Burgess commented that he is also concerned with the additional traffic on Willow Drive as truck traffic already parks along side of Willow at times. He asked why the traffic could not be directed to Chippewa rather than placing additional traffic onto Willow. Finke stated that there was discussion during the past concept that included the northern parcel which included use of Chippewa for employees. He highlighted some of the traffic improvements that would be part of the project. He noted that there was not a stacking concern for trucks to get onto Highway 55 from Willow and the real concern was with employees during peak times. Burgess asked the path that truck traffic would be taking to come into and leave the site. Finke stated that staff suggested encouraging trucks to use Willow as much as possible which could be done onsite for trucks leaving the site. He commented that there would not be restrictions on inbound traffic. Burgess commented that if the docks face each other, he would not see a reason trucks would need to park alongside the road to wait as the courtyard would provide more room for staging. J. Burgess provided input on the difficulty to get onto Highway 55 at that location, noting that it often takes a few light cycles. Jacob asked if the City could request MnDOT to change the light cycle timing. Finke replied that at this time that intersection is not monitored but stated that as part of this project, the applicant would be providing a monitoring camera. He noted that MnDOT would not find it unreasonable for a vehicle to wait a few cycles to get onto Highway 55, as MnDOT prioritizes traffic on Highway 55. Burgess stated that they do not have much challenge with the western building. He asked why the eastern building could not be turned 90 degrees to the south and left justified to be closer to Chippewa. He commented that they have ingress and egress rights onto Cates Ranch Drive and asked if they would receive any information on the changes that would be made to that roadway. Finke noted that the same notice for this meeting would be provided for the formal application. J. Burgess stated that when they purchased this home they intended to be there forever. She commented that the ingress/egress for their property may be blocked with truck traffic. She asked if they could split off from that to have their own access. Finke commented on a potential change that could be made to split that driveway off but noted that would impact the site layout. He commented that the lots to the east do not have frontage on a public street, therefore the dedication of that right-of-way is important, but the location is not locked in where that could be provided. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 10/11/2022 Minutes 4 Moore commented that he did not believe there would be trucks parking on the east side of Willow for this site. He stated that the trailer court could house 50 trucks easily with additional parking available. He commented that the existing buildings with truck traffic were designed in the past and are thriving but perhaps not designed to support that. He stated that this building would be office with employees and a warehouse with some distribution. He stated that if needed, a truck could wait internally. He stated that from the previous discussions it seems concept three was the preferred option of the Commission and Council and therefore they moved forward with that design which is efficient and minimizes impacts to wetland. He stated that while there is a potential to move the layout, it would impact the environment. Nielsen asked the hours the truck court would be used. Moore replied that would typically be used during business hours. Piper asked if trucks could arrive early and wait for business hours. Moore replied that could potentially occur. Popp referenced the screening wall and asked the approximate height. Mike Brandt, project engineer, replied that would be a berm of approximately six feet with landscaping on the top. Popp noted that the berm would be six feet with trees to provide additional screening. J. Burgess stated that she understands the comment related to wetland impacts. She noted that a memory care center was just developed, and a pond was dug to mitigate the wetland impacts. Burgess commented that when the applicant’s team was speaking at the last meeting, the Council picked the option they believed would best fit. He noted that he did not make a comment because the applicant stated there was not yet a user. He stated that he did not want to provide a lot of input without a user. He asked why the building could not be turned. Nielsen stated that was addressed noting the desire to minimize wetland impacts. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Jacob commented that he likes the overall concept of the building and warehouse/distribution center. He stated that he does have input on berming and provided the location of a distribution park in Plymouth which uses large berms to screen from an adjacent residential development. Grajczyk commented that perhaps public safety could follow up on the comment related to trucks already parking along Willow to address that issue. He agreed that screening will be a priority in order to create a buffer. He recognized that this is a challenging area because there are some residential homes along with business development. He asked if Cates Ranch Drive could be connected to the east to Mohawk, as that could create another potential route. He stated that perhaps the size of the easterly building could be shrunk a bit to reduce the impact on adjacent properties and maintain the more rural feel. He stated that color selection could also help this fit into the area. Rhem agreed with the previous comments noting that his biggest concern is related to the berming and a desire to minimize the impacts to neighbors. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 10/11/2022 Minutes 5 Nielsen stated that originally, she preferred concept three, but looking at the two-building plan she had not thought about the beeping from the trucks. She noted that does concern her and therefore she could love to rotate the building to have the truck bays face each other. She stated that perhaps the south road at the end of the west building could be removed to force the traffic towards the north onto Willow. Piper commented that she also likes the idea of rotating the buildings given the concerns that were brought forward. She stated that if that is not possible, she would recommend shortening the east building by 20 feet. Finke stated that if the docks were orientated towards each other, more docks would be allowed as the ten percent limitation would then not apply. Popp commented that he likes that the wetland impacts have been mitigated and greatly reduced from the original concept. He referenced the comment about rotating the buildings, noting that would be much more supported. He applauded the applicant for their wetland mitigation impacts. 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). 502.0' W I L L O W D R I V E S T A T E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 C H I P P E W A R O A D CATES RANCH D R I V E 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 60.0'68.0'7.0' 7. 0 ' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' ±1 5 0 . 0 ' ±1 8 0 . 0 ' 15.0' 70 . 0 ' 30.0' 30.0' 26.0' 30 . 0 ' 109.2' 18.0' 37.9' 30.0' 54.2' 101.6' 17 1 . 5 ' 28 9 . 8 ' 12 . 0 ' 47 . 2 ' 12.0' 12.0' 25.0' 18 . 0 ' 25.9' FUTURE LIFT STATION PROPOSED ±131,525 SF BUILDING W/ 9 DOCK STALLS PROPOSED ±176,588 SF BUILDING W/ 18 DOCK STALLS PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 15 . 0 ' 15 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' PROPOSED SCREEN WALL PROPOSED SCREEN WALL PROPOSED SCREEN WALL 30.0' 78 . 0 ' 40 . 0 ' 40 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' 20 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT ±11,600 SF 16.6' 50 2 . 0 ' 262.0' 26 2 . 0 ' 674.0' CO N C E P T S I T E PL A N # 3 EX-1 CA T E S M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L M E D I N A M N DA T E CH E C K E D B Y SC A L E DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y KH A P R O J E C T 16 0 7 7 4 0 5 4 04 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N CJ J ZT R M C B Th i s d o c u m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c o n c e p t s a n d d e s i g n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n , a s a n i n s t r u m e n t o f s e r v i c e , i s i n t e n d e d o n l y f o r t h e s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e a n d c l i e n t f o r w h i c h i t w a s p r e p a r e d . R e u s e o f a n d i m p r o p e r r e l i a n c e o n t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d a d a p t a t i o n b y K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . s h a l l b e w i t h o u t l i a b i l i t y t o K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . SHEET NUMBER 20 1 8 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 76 7 E U S T I S S T R E E T , S U I T E 1 0 0 , S T . P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 4 PH O N E : 6 5 1 - 6 4 5 - 4 1 9 7 W W W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M K: \ T W C _ L D E V \ O P P I D A N \ C a t e s M e d i n a I n d u s t r i a l \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ E x h i b i t s \ C o n c e p t S i t e # 5 . d w g S e p t e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 - 1 1 : 4 8 a m © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LEGEND DELINEATED WETLAND ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING RR-UR - RUAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PROPOSED ZONING IP - INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 50' RESIDENTIAL = 100' SIDE/REAR = 50' PARKING SETBACKS FRONT = 25' RESIDENTIAL = 50' SIDE/REAR = 25' PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BERM BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 30.19 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 14.17 AC (46.94% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 16.02 AC (53.06% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREAS 6.77 AC (22.42% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING TRAILER DOCK DOORS (PROPOSED)27 SPACES ASSOCIATE PARKING (PROPOSED)242 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING 148 SPACES REQUIRED ADA PARKING 7 SPACES DELINEATED WETLAND SETBACK PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" A B C D E F G H J K L M N T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" P Q LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" LEVEL-DOCK 96' - 0" 123456 T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" LEVEL-DOCK 96' - 0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" LEVEL-DOCK 96' - 0" ABCDEFGHJKLMN T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" PQ EXTERIOR MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL PERCENTAGES REQUIRED 1. CLASS 1: 20% MIN. BRICK, NATURAL STONE, STUCCO (NOT EIFS), COPPER, GLASS 2. CLASS 2: 80% MAX. DECORATIVE CONCRETE, SPLIT FACE BLOCK, DECORATIVE PRECAST 3. CLASS 3: 20% MAX. WOOD, METAL, FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING, EIFS MATERIAL PERCENTAGES ON BUILDING 1. NORTH (DOCK SIDE) 2. SOUTH A. CLASS 1: 5750/19560 = 29% B. CLASS 2: 13810/19560 = 71% 3. EAST A. CLASS 1: 1872/9244 = 20% B. CLASS 2: 7372/9244 = 80% 4. WEST A. CLASS 1: 1872/9244 = 20% B. CLASS 2: 7372/9244 = 80% N MEDINA SPEC INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 1 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MEDINA, MN 10-05-2022 1" = 20'-0"P003 1 PRESENTATION - SOUTH 1" = 20'-0"P003 2 PRESENTATION - WEST 1" = 20'-0"P003 3 PRESENTATION - EAST 1" = 20'-0"P003 4 PRESENTATION - NORTH LIGHT BUFF AGGREGATE DARK AGGREGATE BRAZILWOOD SMOOTH IRONSPOT TITAN SIZE WHITE ACMDARK BUFF AGGREGATE A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 H J K L M N WAREHOUSE MECH P Q N MEDINA SPEC INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 1 - SHELL PLAN MEDINA, MN 10-05-2022 LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" A B C D E F G H J K T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" M LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" LEVEL-DOCK 96' - 0" 123456 T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" LEVEL-DOCK 96' - 0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" LEVEL-1 100' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-A 133' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT 128' - 0" LEVEL-DOCK 96' - 0" ABCDEFGHJK T.O. PARAPET-C 135' - 0" T.O. PARAPET-B 134' - 4" M EXTERIOR MATERIAL PERCENTAGES MATERIAL PERCENTAGES REQUIRED 1. CLASS 1: 20% MIN. BRICK, NATURAL STONE, STUCCO (NOT EIFS), COPPER, GLASS 2. CLASS 2: 80% MAX. DECORATIVE CONCRETE, SPLIT FACE BLOCK, DECORATIVE PRECAST 3. CLASS 3: 20% MAX. WOOD, METAL, FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING, EIFS MATERIAL PERCENTAGES ON BUILDING 1. EAST (DOCK SIDE) 2. WEST A. CLASS 1: 5245/16888 = 31% B. CLASS 2: 11643/16888 = 70% 3. SOUTH A. CLASS 1: 1821/9209 = 20% B. CLASS 2: 7388/9209 = 80% 4. NORTH A. CLASS 1: 1821/9209 = 20% B. CLASS 2: 7388/9209 = 80% MEDINA SPEC INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 2 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MEDINA, MN 10-05-2022 1" = 20'-0"P003 1 PRESENTATION - WEST 1" = 20'-0"P003 2 PRESENTATION - NORTH 1" = 20'-0"P003 3 PRESENTATION - SOUTH 1" = 20'-0"P003 4 PRESENTATION - EAST LIGHT BUFF AGGREGATE DARK AGGREGATE BRAZILWOOD SMOOTH IRONSPOT TITAN SIZE WHITE ACMDARK BUFF AGGREGATE A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 H J K WAREHOUSE MECH M N MEDINA SPEC INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 2 - SHELL PLAN MEDINA, MN 10-05-2022 Loram/Scannell Page 1 of 4 October 18, 2022 Wetland Replacement Plan City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: October 13, 2022 MEETING: October 18, 2022 City Council SUBJECT: Loram/Scannell Properties – Wetland Replacement Plan - PIDs 1111823230001 and 1111823220003 Summary of Request Scannell Properties and Loram have requested land use approval for development of three buildings totaling 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 of the proposed plat. The other two buildings are proposed to be leased on a speculative basis. The applicant has indicated that they are hopeful some of their vendors and related businesses may occupy some spaces in the intermediate term and may provide additional space for Loram’s growth in the future as well. 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) TEP Recommendation – Wetland Replacement Plan The development application proposes approximately 1.22 acres of wetland impacts on the subject site. The proposed plat and layout are contingent upon review and approval of those impacts by the City Council. Wetland impacts are only allowed upon a determination by the City Council that the applicant has taken sufficient efforts to avoid and minimize wetland impacts following review of the applicant’s “sequencing” application. MEMORANDUM Proposed construction: 396,000 s.f. Three Buildings/Lots Area: 24 acres Future Land Use: Business Staging: 2018 Current Zoning: Industrial Park Agenda Item #7B Loram/Scannell Page 2 of 4 October 18, 2022 Wetland Replacement Plan City Council Meeting The City is advised on wetland conservation act (WCA) applications by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) which includes the City’s wetland specialist and wetland professionals from various governmental agencies. The TEP provides recommendations to the City Council on sequencing and replacement plan applications. In this case, the TEP has recommended that the proposed application not be approved and found that project does not minimize wetland impacts as required by state rules. After the TEP makes a recommendation, the City Council is responsible to make the decision on the proposed wetland application. If the City Council were to approve of the proposed wetland impacts, there is additional information and revisions necessary before the applicant’s land use applications are prepared for action. The applicant has delayed making these revisions until the outcome of the wetland application is known. If the City does not approve the wetland impacts, the layout would need to be changed and the additional effort in the meantime would not have been necessary. Alison Harwood, the City’s WCA agent, will be present at the October 18 meeting to present the TEP’s recommendation. A summary of the TEP’s recommendation is attached. Loram/Scannell Page 3 of 4 October 18, 2022 Wetland Replacement Plan City Council Meeting Planning Commission Recommendation Staff has conducted a review of the preliminary plat and site plan review and presented to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on October 11. This review was contingent upon approval of the wetland impacts by the City Council. The full Planning Commission report summarizing the land use application and an excerpt from their draft meeting minutes is attached for reference. No one spoke at the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications on a 4-2 vote. The majority of the Commission appeared to indicate that they believed the applicant had made sufficient efforts to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. The two Commissioners who voted against the motion indicated that they believed the layout should be adjusted to further reduce impacts. Council Review Staff recommends that the City Council review the TEP’s recommendation and applicant’s wetland application materials. The primary question for the Council is whether the “applicant has demonstrated to the LGU’s satisfaction that the activity will minimize impacts to wetlands.” (8420.0520 Subp. 4) In reviewing the sufficiency of the applicant's proposal to minimize wetland impacts, the local government unit must consider all of the following: A. the spatial requirements of the project; B. the location of existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or configuration of the project; C. the purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration, or density; D. the sensitivity of the site design to the natural features of the site, including topography, hydrology, and existing vegetation; E. the value, function, and spatial distribution of the wetlands on the site; F. individual and cumulative impacts; and G. an applicant's efforts to: (1) modify the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project; (2) remove or accommodate site constraints including zoning, infrastructure, access, or natural features; (3) confine impacts to the fringe or periphery of the wetland; and (4) otherwise minimize impacts Staff believes wetland impacts could be reduced by shifting the footprint adjacent to the wetland along Arrowhead Drive to the east. This appears to be possible by reducing the square footage of one or more of the buildings, relocating parking into areas opened up by reducing building footprint, or other options. Three buildings could likely still be constructed, but one or more of the buildings may need to be smaller. The Council can consider information from the applicant on “the purpose of the project and how it relates to placement, configuration, and density” as part of that discussion. The Council should articulate its rationale for approval or denial because staff will need to prepare findings to support the Notice of Decision. Loram/Scannell Page 4 of 4 October 18, 2022 Wetland Replacement Plan City Council Meeting Staff believes it is important for the City Council to consider that the City has identified objectives related to wetland and open space preservation that are in addition to technical compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act. The City requires upland buffers adjacent to wetlands, the area of which are likely reduced if wetlands are impacted. Potential Action If the City Council concurs with the TEPs recommendation and believes the application does not minimize wetland impacts, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to prepare a Notice of Decision denying the proposed Wetland Replacement Plan based upon the findings noted by the Council. If the Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated to its satisfaction that the activity will minimize impacts to wetlands and otherwise is consistent with the sequencing requirements for wetland impacts, the following action could be taken: Move to direct staff to prepare a Notice of Decision approving the proposed Wetland Replacement Plan based upon the findings noted by the Council and to present the Notice for Council action after the applicant has submitted necessary information related to wetland credit purchase. If the Council indicates that the applicant has not demonstrated that impacts have been sufficiently minimized, staff would recommend that the applicant either withdraws the application or provides an extension so that they can engage with staff on ways to update its application to reduce impacts. Attachments 1. TEP summary 2. Applicant wetland application 3. Planning Commission Report 4. Excerpt from 10/11/2022 Planning Commission minutes 5. Civil Plans (note: only plat, site plan, landscaping plan, and wetland buffer plan updated; grading and utility plans were from original plan set) 6. Architectural Plans https://medinamn.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/Active Packets/CC PACKET - OCT 18/CA Approved/7B - LoramScannel TEP Findings Summary - Attachment 1.docx 54 0 G A T E W A Y B L V D | BU R N S V I L L E , M N | 55 3 3 7 | 95 2 . 7 3 7 . 4 6 6 0 | WS B E N G . C O M Memorandum To: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council From: Alison Harwood, WSB Date: October 13, 2022 Re: Loram Medina Industrial Replacement Plan City Project Number WR-22-174 WSB Project No. 20951-000 Loram Maintenance of Way submitted a wetland replacement plan application on July 19, 2022. The proposed project requests approval for impacts to seven wetlands totaling 1.27 acres of impact for the construction of an industrial park which will include buildings to support Loram’s current facility and business (Building 2 on applicant’s preferred site plan) as well as provide space for future (undefined) tenants (Buildings 1 and 3 on applicant’s preferred site plan). Mitigation for the impacts is proposed via the purchase of wetland credits. The location of these credits has not yet been identified but is likely to be outside of Hennepin County. The City of Medina serves as Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and is responsible for reviewing projects that have the potential to impact wetlands to ensure compliance with MN Rule 8420. The City also relies on input from a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), made up of technical professionals representing the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Hennepin County, and the LGU. The TEP provides technical findings and recommendations regarding WCA implementation. The TEP reviewed the applicant’s replacement plan application, participated in meetings with the applicant to review the application, provided comments related to the application, and reviewed the applicant’s subsequent responses to those comments. The TEP has provided findings related to these reviews (attached). The TEP’s recommendation is to deny the applicant’s replacement plan and applicant’s preferred site plan impacts, and consider a site plan that minimizes wetland impacts, specifically to a wetland on the western edge of the site along Arrowhead Drive. The information below summarizes the basis of the TEP’s findings and ultimate recommendation. TEP Review and Findings Summary MnRule 8420.0330 outlines requirements for replacement plan application and specifically references sequencing standards that are required to be followed. These sequencing standards are outlined in MnRule 8420.0520, Subpart 1, and require that an applicant complies with the following principles in descending order of priority: A. avoids direct or indirect impacts that may destroy or diminish the wetland; B. minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; C. rectifies by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland; D. reduces or eliminates impacts over time by operating in a manner that preserves and maintains the remaining wetland; and E. replaces unavoidable impacts by restoring or creating replacement wetland areas that have equal or greater public value. Mr. Dusty Finke October 13, 2022 Page 2 https://medinamn.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/Active Packets/CC PACKET - OCT 18/CA Approved/7B - LoramScannel TEP Findings Summary - Attachment 1.docx Compliance with Subpart 1A requires an alternatives analysis that requires at least two alternatives that avoid wetland impacts, one of which can be a no build. TEP Review and Findings: The July 19, 2022 application provided a no build alternative but did not provide an acceptable second avoidance alternative. The applicant subsequently provided a second avoidance alternative in their September 14, 2022 memo. The TEP reviewed the avoidance alternative and concurred that the avoidance alternative is not feasible and prudent. Compliance with Subpart 1B requires the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the LGU, that the proposed activity will minimize impacts to wetlands. When reviewing compliance with this requirement, the LGU must consider all the following: A. the spatial requirements of the project; B. the location of existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or configuration of the project; C. the purpose of the project and how it relates to placement, configuration, or density; D. the sensitivity of site design to the natural features of the site, including topography, hydrology, and existing vegetation; E. the value, function and spatial distribution of wetlands on the site; F. individual and cumulative impacts; and G. the applicant’s efforts to: a. modify the scope, size, configuration, or density of the project; b. remove or accommodate site constraints in zoning, infrastructure, access, or natural features; c. confine the impacts to the fringe or periphery of the wetland; and d. otherwise minimize impacts When reviewing, the LGU must also determine whether any proposed feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands (Mn Rule 8420.0520 Subpart 3.C(2)) and whether a reasonable modification of the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project could avoid impacts to wetlands (Subpart 3.C(3)). An alternative is considered feasible and prudent if it meets all of the following requirements: A. is capable of being done from an engineering point of view; B. is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; C. is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare; D. is an environmentally preferrable alternative based on a review of the social, economic, and environmental impacts; and E. would create no truly unusual problems. TEP Review and Findings: The July 19, 2022 application included four alternative site configurations, three of which impacted more wetland than the applicant’s preferred site plan alternative and an avoidance alternative was not shown as a site configuration and was deemed unacceptable. The application did not contain feasible and prudent alternatives that demonstrated modifications to the size, scope, configuration or density that would avoid wetland impacts. The applicant provided additional alternative site designs in their September 14, 2022 response memo. One additional alternative (revised 2-buidling alternative) includes 2 buildings totaling 380,100 square feet. This alternative impacted 0.77 acre of wetland, fully avoiding a wetland along Arrowhead Drive. The applicant determined that this alternative does not meet the purpose and need because it is a 2-buildling vs. 3-building concept, which they suggested was the purpose of the project. They also indicate that this alternative is problematic for traffic, provides Mr. Dusty Finke October 13, 2022 Page 3 https://medinamn.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/Active Packets/CC PACKET - OCT 18/CA Approved/7B - LoramScannel TEP Findings Summary - Attachment 1.docx limited employee parking, and is approximately 16,000 square feet less than their preferred alternative. The Applicant’s July 19, 2022 application stated that the purpose of the project was to expand their current campus and provide a facility for other supporting businesses to expand and develop within the same industrial development as Loram. The purpose and need noted that Loram’s current business needs were for Building 2 (88,000 square feet on applicant’s preferred site plan). The remaining 2 buildings on the applicant’s preferred site plan totaled 308,000 square feet and the stated need for those buildings was to create a campus complex for supporting businesses to streamline deliveries, provide a collaborative industrial development with connections to the main Loram campus, and utilize land currently owned by Loram. The TEP finds that the revised 2-buildling alternative outlined in their September 14, 2022 comment response memo meets the purpose and need stated in the application, is feasible and prudent per the criteria outlined above, and minimizes wetland impacts. The reduction in square footage by 16,000 square feet does not make the project economically infeasible, the concept layout appears to have vacant areas where additional parking could be provided, and the interaction between trucks and employee traffic does not appear to create a public safety hazard. TEP Recommendation Based on the review of the applicant’s submittals in compliance with MnRule 8420, the TEP finds that the applicant has not complied with MnRule 8420.0520, Subpart 1(B) and recommends the City of Medina, as LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act, denies the applicant’s replacement plan and applicant’s preferred site plan. The applicant also has not complied with MnRule 8420.0330 Subpart 3(C), which requires that the applicant provide a wetland bank account number and completed withdrawal application or executed purchase agreement. The applicant has not provided any information related to the location of the proposed wetland bank. The TEP would recommend approval of the revised 2-building alternative plan, which impacts approximately 33,492 square feet (0.77 acre) of wetland while preserving the wetland along Arrowhead Drive. Information related to the wetland bank would still be required prior to an approval recommendation. 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 in 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 C redits: 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 facility. 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 constrained 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 Co u n t y R o a d 1 9 Spurzem Lake Lake Independence Pion e e r T rl Hamel Rd Ro l l i n g H illsRd Chippewa Rd Tom a h awk T rl Co u n t y R o a d 1 9 Co u n ty R o a d19 Baker National Golf Course Loretto Leighton Lake Katrina Watert own Rd Le a f S t Bayside Rd 6th Ave N Baker Park Reserve Stubbs Bay Kalk R d Rush Creek Golf Club Corcoran Dupont Swamp Lake Ho r seshoe Tr l Willow Dr Wi l l o w D r Lark i n R d Old Settlers R d Pioneer Trl Ar rowh ead D r Br o c kton L n N Meander Rd Mo h a w k R d Wi l low Rd Hamel Rd Broc k ton L n N Hackamore Rd Hunte r D r Highwa y 55 Highwa y 55 Medina Golf & Country Club Shamrock Golf Course Mooney Lake 12 Wi l low Dr Wa te r town Rd Ta m a r a c k D r Medina Rd Wi l l o w D r N Hu n t e r D r 6th A ve N N W i l l o w Dr Fe r n d a l e R d N Br o w n R d S Woodhill Country Club Wayzata Country Club Spring Hill Golf Club Orono Medina Ditter Long Lake 82nd Av e N Weave r Lake Dr Du n k i r k L n N Tr o y L n N North Hennepin Regional Trail Cor 46th Ave N Du n kirk Ln NTr o y L n N Peon y Ln N Elm R d O ld Rockford Rd La w ndale L n N B ass Lake Rd Vic k s b u r g L n N C ounty Road 4 7 9t h Ave N 25th Ave N Dunk irk L n N 2 4th Av e N 19 t h A ve 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 PR 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 (PU 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 IND 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 LIC . 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 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 (PU 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 IND 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 LIC . 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 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 STATE 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 (PU 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 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 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 40. 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 O V E R A L L S I T E PL A N C400 M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L M E D I N A M I 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 M E 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 M I N N E S O T A . M N 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 W W 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 PR 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 W W 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 W W 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 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     K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx 70 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | SU I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 55 4 1 6 | 76 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 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft #### Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Scannell Properties/Loram – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Subdivision of Three Lots and Development of Approximately 396,000 SF of Warehouse/Office/Industrial – East of Arrowhead Drive, South of Highway 55 (PIDs 1111823220003 and 1111823230001) Finke stated that supplemental information has been provided since the last review of the Commission related to reduced wetland impacts, wetland buffer averaging, and landscaping. He stated that the related plans have not yet been updated as they wanted to gain input from the Commission and Council prior to updating those related plans. He stated that additional land was added into the site to reduce the hardcover percentage. He reviewed the additional landscaping that has been provided along with the additional architectural materials and details that were added. He stated that even though the wetland impacts were reduced, there would still be 1.22 acres of impact. He noted again that with the additional land that was added, the applicant was able to get under the hardcover threshold. He stated that information has been provided by the applicant on their projection for the parking need. He stated that this would appear to meet the minimum parking requirements, but staff has concerns with a lack of space for proof of parking, should that become an issue. He noted that the applicant stated that if there was a use that needed additional parking, it would most likely not need the same space for loading docks and that could then be converted to parking. He stated that staff suggests memorialization of the uses as proposed in order to ensure there would continue to be sufficient parking. Popp referenced the wetland to west next to Arrowhead, identified as wetland eight, and asked how much of that wetland would be impacted. A representative for the applicant replied that impact was noted as about 20,000 square feet, which is about half of that wetland. Jacob asked if there is aquatic life or vegetation that would be an area of concern. Finke replied that a function and values assessment of the wetlands were done, and the western wetland was identified as a manage three, which is on the lower end, whereas the eastern wetland was higher but did not believe is housed any noted species. Jacob commented that most of the wetlands are dry today. Phil Homan, CEO of Loram, stated that he is also a citizen of Medina. He referenced the feedback that was received in the prior review and noted that they made changes to the plan to address those concerns. He stated that they have also had a few meetings with the TEP related to the wetlands. He stated that he has worked at Loram for almost 30 years and the company has been a good corporate citizen of Medina since the late 1960s. He stated that the subject property was acquired in the 1980s for strategic growth opportunities in the future. He stated that the land was rented to farmers in the past and a portion was sold to the MotorPlex development. He stated that in the last 50 years they have completed four additions to the existing building and ran out of room on that parcel for additional expansion. He stated that they currently lease space in several warehouse facilities in the metro area and this expansion would allow Loram to consolidate those leased spaces onto this parcel. He stated that while Loram has locations across the world and in the U.S., they consider Medina to be home. He stated that his office window stares out at what would be the northern portion of this proposed development. He stated that he also owns a unit in the MotorPlex, therefore he will see the development from all sides. He stated that as a citizen of Medina he would not promote a project that he does not believe will be a good fit for Medina. He noted that the principal of Scannell also happens to be a Medina resident, therefore there are two partners in the project that have a vested interest in Medina. He stated that they have held this land for some time and now have a need to use it. He stated that this also provides an opportunity to capitalize on Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft #### Minutes 2 the interest in this area of the metro and provide space for another user. He stated that they would have liked to move forward earlier but the construction season has passed and therefore they would like to move forward with construction in the spring. Piper asked if Loram would be using buildings one and two with future development by others. Homan commented that Loram would fully occupy building two which would be primarily warehouse needs. He stated that building one would be constructed at the same time and they would intend to attract likeminded vendors of theirs, as that would lead to more efficient operations. Piper referenced the future development by others area and asked if the ownership of that property would remain the same. Homan stated that Loram would completely own lot two but would share ownership with Scannell of the other two lots. He stated that buildings one and two would be constructed at the same time and building three would be constructed in the future based on market demand. Piper asked who the City would deal with when there are plans for that property. Homan stated that the development will be as proposed but building three would be more dependent on the tenant that comes forward similar to the Oppidan request prior to this case. He confirmed that all buildings would look and feel the same to match the campus. Finke replied that the plat would be laid out with the separate lot and the site plan review would include all three buildings. He stated that if the third building came forward in the next four years, it could proceed to permit as presented in these plans. Ashley Pane, wetland professional at Kimley-Horn, stated that they have reviewed multiple concepts for this site before deciding on the site plan as proposed. She noted that they began with delineation in summer of 2021 and provided details on the wetlands on the site. She stated that they provided a full wetland avoidance concept which had one building that would not impact wetlands but noted that does not meet the needs of the applicant. She also reviewed the two-building scenario which would also not meet the needs of the applicant and would still have wetland impacts with the docks visible from Arrowhead. She stated that this project included an EAW, and a negative declaration was issued by the City Council earlier this year which included a concept with larger buildings and 2.3 acres of wetland impacts. She stated that the comments from the concept from the City and other agencies included a desired for a reduced size and wetland impact. She reviewed the different concepts that were reviewed after that time that included three buildings and attempted to reduce the scale and impacts to wetlands. She stated that their proposal would avoid the highest quality portion of the wetland and they would also propose to create additional wetland along Arrowhead to replace some of what would be lost. She noted that about the same area of wetland would be provided along Arrowhead. She stated that the applicant would also purchase bank credits at a 2:1 ratio to mitigate the loss of the remainder of the wetlands that would be impacted. She noted that the applicant would not request credit for the additional wetland created along Arrowhead Drive, that would simply be done in addition. Brian Wurdeman, Kimley-Horn, stated that they have added bike parking for each of the buildings, enhanced pedestrian connectivity between each of the buildings, added EV ready parking areas, and adding additional landscaping along Arrowhead Drive. Scott Moe, Scannell Properties, stated that Loram needs to expand, and the other two buildings would be a joint investment between Loram and Scannell. He stated that the building closest to Arrowhead would Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft #### Minutes 3 attract a higher finish user and provided examples. He stated that smaller tenants would be attracted to the first building and believed that could be a combination of Loram vendors/suppliers and others. He stated that the building fronting Arrowhead would completely screen the courtyard for trucks. He stated that this project would benefit Loram and the other businesses, increase the tax base, bring in employment options, and improve the aesthetic along Arrowhead Drive. He commented that the wetland authorities have done a great job on this proposal, and he acknowledged the importance of wetlands. He stated that the wetland entity has limitations on how flexible they can be as they view a wetland as a wetland, whereas most of these wetlands are dry and farmed. He noted that they would be replacing these low- quality wetlands with higher quality wetlands of a ratio of 2:1, along with increasing the wetland value near Arrowhead. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. Phil Holman, 150 Sunrise Court, stated that this property is bordered by Loram, the MotorPlex, a swamp, land purchased by the School District, and additional land with a purpose to be determined. He noted that this is an opportunity for Loram to pick its neighbors and stated that not one residential property would be impacted. He stated that he could not think of a more perfect spot in Medina to place this type of development. He stated that he has also had a meeting with the religious institution that is being constructed in this area in attempt to be a good neighbor and that organization had no issues. He stated that they also had a similar conversation with the MotorPlex that also did not have any concerns. He commented that there are businesses in Hamel that are outgrowing their space, and this could be an option for those businesses to locally relocate which would free up space in Hamel as well. Piper asked what will be done with the property at the corner of Arrowhead and Hamel. Homan replied that Mayor Martin and Finke met with him recently. He stated that their intention would be to move the activity from that site to building one which would orphan that piece of property for them. He stated that would leave the property available for redevelopment or sale. He stated that their vision for that five acres would be to have it redeveloped into something more appropriate. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Popp stated that in reviewing the report there was one thing that jumped out, the statement from the TEP that the applicant has not taken sufficient effort to avoid wetland impacts. He referenced a two-building concept that was included in the review from the applicant tonight that would have less wetland impact. He stated that Loram is a successful business in the community, and he wants to support this project but also wants to understand why the two-building option would not be feasible as there is similar square footage between the two building and three building concepts and similar distances between the buildings. He stated that the wetland creation sounds wonderful and seems to offset a large amount of the wetland impacts. He stated that if the 2:1 mitigation credits would be purchased and additional wetland would be created, he would be more supportive of the request. Rhem commented that if the screening were not provided by building one, the City would request additional screening. Finke stated that the wetland itself is subject to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules and there is a minimum buffer required adjacent to the wetlands. He stated that part of the mitigation area would be protected greenspace which would be similar to the created wetlands. Piper commented that she supports the request and did not see a reason to deny the request. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft #### Minutes 4 Rhem commended the development team for answering the questions he had during the last review related to the wetlands, mitigation and steps that have been taken in attempt to avoid those impacts. He stated that he now feels that he has a better understanding and supports the request. Grajczyk also commended Kimley-Horn for the presentation and review that has been completed for this process. He stated that he also supports Loram and the desired expansion. He commented that these are farmed and low-quality wetlands and because all options have been reviewed, he can support this plan. Jacob agreed that he likes the plan and wished the applicant well. Nielsen stated that she disagrees with the comments of the Commission. She appreciated all that has gone into the design and attempt to address the feedback from the last review. She did not see a need for lot three as there is not a need for that at this time. She noted that she also does not see a need for building one, although there are ideas for that use. She stated that she would prefer the two-building concept. She acknowledged that a wetland is a wetland and did not want this request to set precedent and therefore will not support this request. Wurdeman stated that Hennepin County has reviewed this and wants the majority of the traffic to come from the north, therefore the length of the building in the two-building concept would limit the ability for access, to get parked vehicles along the frontage, and would impact traffic flow. He stated that the truck movements would also be difficult to get around that building. Finke commented that with roadway extensions the southern access point would be in play, even though Hennepin County prefers the northern access. Homan stated that they are going to be moving equipment and material between the existing building and the new building. He noted that the ownership of the new buildings will also be different and therefore combining uses would make that difficult. He explained that moving equipment and material between facilities that goes through traffic, parking and pedestrian areas would also not be safe. He stated that in the discussions with the TEP there was an agreed need for 380,000 square feet but the TEP did not agree that there was a need for 396,000 square feet and therefore there seems to be incongruity in how the need is established. He stated that they will be investing $40,000,000 into this project and he would not be doing that if there was not a need. He stated that the TEP agreed to impacts of .76 acres of wetlands but not with 1.22 acres. He stated that they are creating three acres of wetlands that do not exist today with their mitigation credits. He stated that the TEP provided their preference without expressing that in a meeting with them. He noted that the preferred option of the TEP does not meet the County requirement, nor does it meet his needs as the business. He stated that their proposed request is roughly the same as the preferred option of the TEP. Finke stated that offsite mitigation always requires 2:1 replacement. EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY EX.TRAIL EASEMENT 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE EX. PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 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 ) EX. 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED ROW DEDICATION PROPOSED 20' WATERMAIN EASEMENT PROPOSED 20' WATERMAIN EASEMENT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LOT 2, BLOCK 1 LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OUTLOT A PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE OUTLOT B PR E P A R E D F O R PR E L I M I N A R Y PL A T EX-1 M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L M E D I N A M I N N E S O T A 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 07 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N SJ S SJ S BM W 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 . 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 W W W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E NORTH CATCH BASIN ELECTRIC BOX GATE VALVE HYDRANT UTILITY POLE GAS METER SANITARY MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE LIMITED ACCESS UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND GAS OVERHEAD WIRE SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN CULVERT UNDERGROUND TELECOMMUNICATION PROPERTY LINE LEGEND SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER GAS EXISTING PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER SANITARY CLEANOUTCO PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 OWNER LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC P.O. BOX 181 HAMEL, MN 55340 APPLICANT SCANNELL PROPERTIES 294 GROVE LANE, SUITE 140 WAYZATA, MN 55391 CIVIL ENGINEER KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC. BRIAN WURDEMAN, P.E. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 SURVEYOR SUNDE LAND SURVEYING ARLEE CARLSON, P.L.S. 9001 EAST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY, STE 118 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 EXISTING SUBJECT SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH 1 2 OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 1485 FEET; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE THEREOF 528 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO THE SAID NORTH LINE 1485 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE THEREOF; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE 528 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE SOUTH 250 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROPOSED SUBJECT SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MEDINA INDUSTRIAL FIRST ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LOT 2, BLOCK 1, MEDINA INDUSTRIAL FIRST ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MEDINA INDUSTRIAL FIRST ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA OUTLOT A, MEDINA INDUSTRIAL FIRST ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROPERTY SUMMARY MEDINA INDUSTRIAL TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 25.63 AC RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 0.89 AC NET PROPERTY AREA 26.52 AC LOT 1 7.50 AC LOT 2 5.06 AC LOT 3 8.79 AC OUTLOT A 3.42 AC OUTLOT B 0.86 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PROPERTY AREA)17.89 AC PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (WITHIN PROPERTY AREA)7.74 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' UP UP OUTLOT A LO T 1 PR 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 W W 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 1 2 , 2 0 2 2 - 3 : 3 0 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 UP UP OUTLOT A LO T 1 PR 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 BUFFER AREA-1 TOTAL BUFFER: 0.62 AC TOTAL PERIMETER: 664.55 LF AVERAGE BUFFER: 40.64 LF BUFFER AREA-2 TOTAL BUFFER: 1.17 AC TOTAL PERIMETER: 1564.04 LF AVERAGE BUFFER: 32.59 LF 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 W W 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 W E T L A N D B U F F E R C A L C S \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g S e p t e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 2 2 - 2 : 3 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 PROPERTY SUMMARY WETLAND BUFFER TOTAL BUFFER AREA 77,972.40 SF (1.79 AC) TOTAL BUFFER PERIMETER 2,228.59 LF TOTAL BUFFER AREA/TOTAL BUFFER PERIMETER 34.99 LF 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.) A B C D E LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES EDGER (TYP.) DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) ROCK MULCH (TYP.) SOD (TYP.) MAINTENANCE STRIP (TYP.) UP UP UP OUTLOT A OUTLOT B EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV STALL EV ST A L L EV ST A L L SEE SHEET L101 SEE SHEET L102 SEE SHEET L103 SEE SHEET L104 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY OTHERS STORM WATER SYSTEM 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 ) EX. INDUSTRIAL / MANUFACTURING LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY SEEDING KEYNOTES SEED WITH MNDOT 22-112: FIVE-YEAR STABILIZATION SEED MIX (TYP.) SEED WITH MNDOT 33-261: STORMWATER SOUTH & 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.) 22-112 33-261 34-171 35-221 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 W W 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 \ L 1 - L A N D S C A P E P L A N . D W G S e p t e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 2 2 - 3 : 0 7 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 PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L LA N D S C A P E P L A N L100 M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L M E D I N A M I N N E S O T A NORTH LANDSCAPE SUMMARY 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 PERIMETER/30 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 LANDSCAPE SUMMARY 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 M E 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 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U N D E R T H E L A W S O F TH E S T A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . M N LI C . N O . RY A N A . H Y L L E S T E D , P L A XX / X X / X X X X 53 8 2 8 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 07 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N BP S BP S RA H LOT 3 PROPOSED BUILDING 3 ±182,000 SF UP UP UP OUTLOT A LO T 1 PR 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 D D MIN 48" ST121 MIN 48" ST104 MIN 48" ST123 MIN 48" ST130 MIN 48" ST122 MIN 48" ST107 MIN 48" ST106 MIN 48" ST105 MIN 48" ST108 MIN 48" ST103 RD-8 ST131 RD-16 RD-1 RD-3 RD-5 RD-7 MIN 48" ST119 MIN 48" ST125 MIN 48" ST118 MIN 48" ST117 MIN 84" ST116 MIN 72" ST114 MIN 72" ST110 MIN 96" ST102 MIN 48" ST124 ST109 RD-2 ST115 RD-13 ST111 RD-6 RD-4 RD-15 RD-9 RD-10 RD-11 RD-12 ST100 15 " H D P E 12 " H D P E 12" PVC 12" PVC 12" PVC 12" PVC 24 " H D P E 24 " H D P E 24 " H D P E 48" HDPE 48" HDPE 48" HDPE 24 " H D P E 24 " H D P E 12" PVC 15" PVC 15" PVC 12" PVC 12 " H D P E 12 " H D P E 12 " P V C 12 " H D P E 12 " P V C 12 " P V C 12 " H D P E 15" HDPE 18" HDPE 24" HDPE 24 " H D P E 60" RCP 24 " H D P E 12 " P V C 12 " P V C 12 " P V C 12 " P V C 15" HDPE 15 " H D P E 99 0 99 5 10 0 0 98 7 98 8 98 9 99199 2 993 994 99 699 799 8 99 9 10 0 1 100 2100 3100 4 99 0995 10 0 0 10 0 5 10 0 5 99 1 99299399499699799899 9 10 0 1 10 0 2 10 0 3 10 0 4 10 0 4 10 0 6 10 0 6 10 0 7 10 0 7 10 0 8 10 0 8 1005 1004 100 4 100 4 1004 100 4 100 5 1005 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 6 10 0 6 1004 10 0 3 10 0 4 10 0 1 1000 1000 999 10 0 1 100 2 100 3 10 0 0 998 99 8 99 9 999 100 1 100 2 100 3 99 0 99 5 989 98 9 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 499 6 99 0 99 5 98 9 99 1 99 2 99 3 994 99 6 991 992 100 3 100 4 10 0 1 10 0 2 10 0 3 10 0 4 1004 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 10 0 5 100 1 10 0 2 10 0 3 10 0 4 100 6 1000 99 9 1001 1002 1003 995 99 0 98 9 99 1 99 2 99 3 100 0 99 9 100 1 100 2 1003 1002 1002 1003 1004 1001 1002 1002 10 0 0 100 010 0 5 10 0 1 10 0 2 10 0 3 10 0 4 10 0 6 10 0 3 10 0 3 10 0 3 10 0 2 10 0 3 10 0 4 1001 1002 1003 100 1 10 0 2 10 0 3 1004 1005 100 3100 4 999 999 1000 10 0 0 10 0 2 100 3 1004 1004 10 0 4 10041004 10 0 3 10 0 4 10 0 4 10 0 3 10 0 3 1002 10 0 1 1001 1002 995 100 0 993994 9969979989991001 1002 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % FFE = 1004.7 FF E = 1 0 0 5 . 2 988 STORMWATER AREA 99 0 99 1 99 2 99 3 98 9 98 8 SEE SHEET C501 SEE SHEET C502 SEE SHEET C503 SEE SHEET C504 98 5 98 5 98 5 99 0 99 0 99 5 99 5 99 5 99 5 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 2 30" RCP OCS-1 ST-300 EX. WETLAND OHWL = 988.8 EX. WETLAND OHWL = 988.8 DELINEATED WETLAND 30' WETLAND BUFFER DELINEATED WETLAND 30' WETLAND BUFFER 1. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % MIN 48" ST202 ST200 24" HD P E 24" HDPE 15" H D P E 15 " H D P E 15" HDPE MIN 48" ST120 18" HDPE18" HDPE D D MIN 48" ST201 24" H D P E ST101 60" RC P ST-83 12 " P V C 12 " P V C ST-81 MIN 48" ST-85 MIN 48" ST127 MIN 48" ST126 MIN 48" ST129 FFE = 1004.0 MIN 48" ST-86 12" HDPE ST-87 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 W W 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 5 - G R A D I N G P L A N . d w g J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 2 2 - 3 : 2 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 PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L G R A D I N G P L A N C500 M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L M E D I N A M I 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 M E 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 M I N N E S O T A . M N LI C . N O . BR I A N M . W U R D E M A N 07 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 53 1 1 3 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 07 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N CG M M E L BM W NORTH GRADING PLAN NOTES 1.ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MEDINA, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2.CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ 1-800-252-1166 AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3.STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76 HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252 HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-1785 STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4.CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5.SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8.GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9.ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10.REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12.INSTALL A MINIMUM OF 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13.UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OF TOPSOIL. 14.ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15.GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 16.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. 18.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 19.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 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. PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION HP:0.0 PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION LP:0.0 G:0.00 T:0.00 PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE ME:0.0 MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (SOLID CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE (ROUND INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE/ CATCH BASIN (CURB INLET CASTING) PROPOSED STORM SEWER CLENOUT PROPOSED RIPRAP PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION CO D SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN 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. 4.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 LISTED 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 WITH 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. UP UP UP OUTLOT A SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-7 SS-6 SS-8 SS-5SS-4 8" P V C 8" PVC 8" P V C 8" PVC 6" P V C 6" P V C 6" PVC 8" WATERMAIN 8" WATERMAIN 6" WATERMAIN 8" WATERMAIN 8" WATERMAIN SEE SHEET C601 SEE SHEET C602 SEE SHEET C603 8" WATERMAIN 8" P V C SS-9 SEE SHEET C603 8" WATERMAIN 8" WATERMAIN 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 W W 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 6 - U T I L I T Y P L A N . d w g J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 2 2 - 3 : 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 PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L U T I L I T Y PL A N C600 M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L SC A N N E L L M E D I N A M I 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 M E 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 M I N N E S O T A . M N LI C . N O . BR I A N M . W U R D E M A N 07 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 53 1 1 3 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 07 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N CG M M E L BM W UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1.ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2.SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP 6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-1785 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3.WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PER ANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4.MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5.ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6.ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-6" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. 8.IN THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9.LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10.TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11.ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12.EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13.REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF 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 EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19.BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20.ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21.ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. 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 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. 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. NORTH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND CO SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-A 133' - 4" 12345 T.O. STRUCTURE-B 135' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " PC-1GL-1 BRK-1PC-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-A 133' - 4" A B C D E F G H J K L M N T.O. STRUCTURE-B 135' - 0"PC-1 BRK-1 GL-1 ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " PC-1GL-1 BRK-1PC-1PC-1PC-1PC-1BRK-1BRK-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-A 133' - 4" 1 2 3 4 T.O. STRUCTURE-B 135' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " PC-1GL-1BRK-1 PC-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-A 133' - 4" ABCDEFGHJKLMN DOCK LEVEL 96' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " GL-1 PC-1 PC-1 STEEL FORM FINISH PRECAST WALL PANELS WITH REVEALS - PAINTED AREA: 45,324 SF - 80% EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND BRK-1 PRECAST WALL PANEL WITH IMBEDDED THIN BRICK VENEER AREA: 3,570 SF - 6% GL-1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING AREA: 8,026 SF - 14% DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952-426-7400 Fax 952-426-7440 DR A W I N G I N F O R M A T I O N PH A S E IS S U E R E C O R D RE G I S T R A T I O N A R C H I T E C T PR O J E C T N A M E COMPUTER DIRECTORY: SH E E T D E S C R I P T I O N THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. NO T FOR CONSTRU CTION C: \ R e v i t P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 2 8 5 _ M e d i n a 1 _ M a s t e r _ a a u t r e y F W D H J .rv t A300 EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS S.PAETZEL A.AUTREY 07/12/2022 20301 JOBS\SCANNELL\NORTHPARKVI_20301 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROPOSED BUILDING 1 NEW CONSTRUCTION ARROWHEAD DRIVE MEDINA, MN 44256 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 2 ELEVATION - NORTH 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 1 ELEVATION - WEST 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 3 ELEVATION - SOUTH 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 4 ELEVATION - EAST A300 5 3D VIEW NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" 1 2 3 4 T.O. WALL - B 135' - 0" T.O. WALL - C 138' - 10" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " BRK-1 PC-1GL-1 PC-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" ABCDEFGHJKLM T.O. WALL - B 135' - 0" T.O. WALL - C 138' - 10" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " BRK-1 PC-1 GL-1 BRK-1BRK-1BRK-1 PC-1PC-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" 1234 T.O. WALL - B 135' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " PC-1 GL-1 BRK-1PC-1PC-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" A B C D E F G H J K L M DOCK LEVEL 96' - 0" T.O. WALL - B 135' - 0" K.O.K.O.K.O.K.O. ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" 33 ' - 8 " PC-1 GL-1 EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND PC-1 STEEL FORM FINISH PRECAST WALL PANELS WITH REVEALS - PAINTED AREA: 40,112 SF - 80% GL-1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING AREA: 5,160 SF - 10% BRK-1 PRECAST WALL PANEL WITH IMBEDDED THIN BRICK VENEER AREA: 4,998 SF - 10% DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952-426-7400 Fax 952-426-7440 DR A W I N G I N F O R M A T I O N PH A S E IS S U E R E C O R D RE G I S T R A T I O N A R C H I T E C T PR O J E C T N A M E COMPUTER DIRECTORY: SH E E T D E S C R I P T I O N THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. NO T FOR CONSTRU CTION C: \ R e v i t P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 2 8 6 _ M e d i n a I n d u s t r i a l P a r k _ 2 _ a a ut r e y F W D H J . r v t A300 EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS S.PAETZEL/T. MOHAGEN A AUTREY 07/12/2022 21286 JOBS\SCANNELL\MEDINA2_21286 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROPOSED BUILDING 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION MEDINA, MN 44256 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 2 ELEVATION - WEST 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 1 ELEVATION - NORTH 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 3 ELEVATION - EAST 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 4 ELEVATION - SOUTH A300 5 3D View NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-A 133' - 4" A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q T.O. STRUCTURE-B 135' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-C 137' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" PC-1 GL-1 BRK-1 33 ' - 8 " BRK-1 BRK-1 PC-1 PC-1 PC-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-A 133' - 4" ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQ DOCK LEVEL 96' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-C 137' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" PC-1 GL-1 33 ' - 8 " 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" 6 5 4 3 2 1 DOCK LEVEL 96' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-B 135' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-C 137' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" PC-1 GL-1 33 ' - 8 " BRK-1 1ST LEVEL 100' - 0" 654321 T.O. STRUCTURE-B 135' - 0" T.O. STRUCTURE-C 137' - 0" ROOF ELEVATION 132' - 4" AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION 98' - 8" PC-1 GL-1 33 ' - 8 " BRK-1 EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND PC-1 STEEL FORM FINISH PRECAST WALL PANELS WITH REVEALS - PAINTED AREA: 54,891 SF - 79% GL-1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING AREA: 9,072 SF - 13% BRK-1 PRECAST WALL PANEL WITH IMBEDDED THIN BRICK VENEER AREA: 5,350 SF - 8% DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT NUMBER: 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Suite 200 Wayzata MN 55391 Tel 952-426-7400 Fax 952-426-7440 DR A W I N G I N F O R M A T I O N PH A S E IS S U E R E C O R D RE G I S T R A T I O N A R C H I T E C T PR O J E C T N A M E COMPUTER DIRECTORY: SH E E T D E S C R I P T I O N THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. NO T FOR CONSTRU CTION 18074 TODD MOHAGEN, AIA, NCARB I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. REGISTRATION NUMBER: C: \ R e v i t P r o j e c t s \ 2 1 2 8 7 _ M e d i n a 3 _ I n d u s t r i a l _ P a r k _ a a u tre y F W D H J . r v t A300 EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS S. PAETZEL T. NICHOLIE 07/12/2022 21287 Jobs\Scannell\Medina3_21287 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROPOSED BUILDING 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION MEDINA, MN 44256 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 1 ELEVATION - SOUTH 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 4 ELEVATION - NORTH 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 2 ELEVATION - WEST 3/64" = 1'-0"A300 3 ELEVATION - EAST NO. DESCRIPTION DATE A300 5 3D VIEW G&S-K Family LLC – 1400/1420 Tamarack Dr Page 1 of 1 October 18, 2022 Easement Vacation City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: October 13, 2022 MEETING: October 18, 2022 City Council SUBJECT: G&S-K Family LLC – Easement Vacation – 1400 and 1420 Tamarack Drive – Public Hearing Summary of Request Gail Knappenberger, as general partner of G & S-K Family LLC, fee owner of 1400 and 1420 Tamarack Drive, has requested a lot line rearrangement between two adjacent properties which they own. The applicant has also requested that the City vacate drainage and utility easements along the current property line between the parcels and to replace them with easements adjacent to the new proposed property line. The applicant’s lot line rearrangement is not yet prepared for review. Staff published a public hearing notice for the easement vacation for the October 18 meeting. Because of the long lead time for publishing legal notices, staff tries to anticipate timing to move applications ahead more quickly. To avoid the need to re-publish the public hearing notice, staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing on the proposed easement vacation, take any testimony, and continue the hearing to the November 1 Council meeting. Potential Action Move to continue the public hearing on the proposed easement vacation at 1400 and 1420 Tamarack Drive to November 1, 2022. Attachments 1. Exhibit showing proposed easement vacation MEMORANDUM Agenda Item #7C N O R T H SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RS G ALP N E S S N E R I D E E I EN EN NG R R S RSU EV OY S RS G ALP N E S S N E R I D E E I EN EN NG R R S RSU EV OY S 14000 25TH AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 120 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 (952) 476-6000 WWW.SATHRE.COM LAYOUT SHEET:D&U VACATE JOB #:47495-001 REVISIONS DRAWN BY: CMT CHECKED BY:DLS DATE:9/7/2022 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN HEREON FROM RECORDED PLAT 0 SCALE IN FEET 200 100 100 200 400 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 7th day of September 2022. ________________________________________________________ Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147 schmidt@sathre.com PREPARED FOR EASEMENT EXHIBIT GAIL KNAPPENBERGER EASEMENT VACATION DESCRIPTION A drainage and utility easement over, under and across that part of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, MAPLE RIDGE ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin county, Minnesota, lying 5.00 feet on either side of a centerline described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 50 minutes 42 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 3, a distance of 352.48 feet to the shared south corner of said Lots 2 and 3, which is also the actual point of beginning of the described centerline; thence North 22 degrees 49 minutes 32 seconds West along the west line of said Lot 3 to the northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 22 seconds East, along the north line of said Lot 3, a distance of 449.19 feet to the east line of said Block 1 and there terminating Easement Vacation Area: 6,794 S.F. Easement Vacation Area Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 October 18, 2022 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: October 13, 2022 MEETING: October 18, 2022 City Council SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates Land Use Application Review A) 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. The Council reviewed on October 4 and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval, which will be presented at the October 18 meeting. B) 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 398,000 s.f. of office warehouse on three lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their August 10 and October 11 meetings and recommended approval on a 4-2 vote. Staff intends to present the wetland application to council on October 18 or November 1. C) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment– Oppidan has submitted a concept plan review for a 310,000 square foot warehouse/office development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. The applicant is requesting feedback prior to proceeding with full design of their project. The Planning Commission reviewed and provided comments on October 11. Staff intends to present to Council on October 18. D) 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. E) 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. The rearrangement is not yet ready for review, so staff will request that the Council continue the hearing to November 1. F) 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. City Council approved the CUP and authorized construction on October 4. Staff will be working on the fence installation and is discussing how to proceed with the discussions on improving parking. MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 October 18, 2022 City Council Meeting G) 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. Council adopted a resolution of approval on October 4. The project will now be closed. H) 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. Council adopted the ordinance amending the PUD on October 4. The project will now be closed. I) 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. J) 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. K) 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. 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) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Pioneer Trail Preserve – These projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application. N) BAPS Site Plan, 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. Jim Stremel will provide an update to Council on progress on design and permitting at the October 18 worksession. C) Litigation – Staff spent significant time preparing for trial and went to court on Monday. Additional settlement discussions occurred prior to the start of trial, and staff intends to discuss with Council in closed session on October 18. D) Minnehaha Creek TAC – I attended a Technical Advisory Committee meeting related to Minnehaha Creek’s Land and Water Partnership program. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: October 13, 2022 RE: Department Updates These past two weeks we have been busy interviewing candidates for both Police and Community Service Officer openings. We have been progressing well within the processes and have currently given out two background packets to potential Community Service Officers who are both looking for part time work. Investigator Scharf is currently conducting their pre-employment backgrounds. On October 13, I will conduct two Chief’s interviews with finalists for the police officer position and from there will offer a conditional job offer pending the passing of the pre-employment background, psychological, physical, and council approval. Our training staff is working on joint training with the city of Corcoran at the new park property off Chippewa. This will be scenario-based training with the two departments. We normally do this joint training in the summer but have not done so the past two summers due to COVID and staffing issues. Staff is also preparing to finish up yearly mandated firearms training in November. I will be attending the International Chief’s of Police Conference in Dallas, Texas from October 14-19. I am looking forward to collaborating with chiefs from around the world at this event in hopes to bring back ideas that will benefit out department and the citizens of Medina. Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between September 28 and October 11, 2022: Officers issued 23 citations and 45 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 4 property damage accidents, 3 personal injury accidents, 8 medicals, 5 suspicious calls, 5 traffic complaints, 7 assists to other agencies, 9 business/residential alarms, and 4 welfare checks. On 09/29/2022 at 1246 hours officer was dispatched to an interrupted theft in the 800 block of Highway 55. Victim reported walking back to his truck and finding someone taking items out of his truck to include wiring and a gas can. Victim confronted the suspect who dropped the items and left in a pickup. Victim was able to obtain a license plate on the suspect’s vehicle. The case has been forwarded to investigations for follow up. On 09/29/2022 officers were dispatched to a welfare check in the 500 block of Clydesdale Circle. Person called 911 reporting they believed their mother was possibly suicidal after an argument and that she had left in a white SUV from the residence. Upon arrival officers located the mother sitting in the vehicle in the driveway. She reported she was sitting in the car listening to music to calm down after the argument with her juvenile daughter. Officers went inside the residence and spoke with all parties. Tensions had calmed down and both parties agreed to go to bed for the night. On 09/30/2022 officer took a forgery report by phone. Victim reported someone had called the post office and requested their mail be forwarded to another address which the victim had not done. Victim had already contacted the post office and reported the incident. No known financial loss at this time. On 09/30/2022 at 1745 hours officers were dispatched to a suspected impaired driver in the drive thru at McDonalds. Caller reported being nearly run over in the parking lot by a female who was believed to be intoxicated. Upon arrival officers located the female parked at the drive thru window. Officers were able to make contact and found the female to be extremely intoxicated. She was arrested for DWI and later submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of .25. She was transported to Hennepin County Jail. On 10/03/2022 officer was dispatched to a threat report at a residence on Wichita Trail. Victim reported their estranged father sending unwanted text messages which victim interpreted as threatening. The officer was provided a copy of the video and after review it was determined no crime had been committed. Victim was advised of options as to obtaining either an order for protection or harassment order through Hennepin Courts. On 10/03/2022 officer was dispatched to a reported chemical smell in the area of the 3100 block of Lakeshore Avenue. Loretto Fire Department was also paged to the area to investigate. Upon arrival it was determined that a neighbor had their concrete driveway sealed which was putting off the odor. On 10/05/2022 officer was dispatched to a report of mail theft in the 3800 block of Linden Drive. Victim reported placing two checks in the outgoing mail of her mailbox that morning. When the mail person arrived to collect, she was advised there was no mail in the mailbox. The victim had already contacted the bank to cancel the checks. On 10/07/2022 officer was dispatched to the area of Hamel Road and County Road 19 on a report of a gas spill. Driver advised they were driving along the roadway when their gas tank on their vehicle had fallen loose and has spilled gasoline on the roadway. Loretto Fire Department responded and was able to contain the spill. The vehicle was towed from the scene. On 10/08/2022 officers conducted extra enforcement in the area of the Automotorplex event. Several citations were issued for excessive speed in the area including 85 in a 55 zone, 87 in a 55 zone, 82 in 55 zone, 99 in 55 zone (clocked 109/55). On 10/09/2022 at 0900 hours officer was dispatched to a reported mental health problem at Holiday, 200 Highway 55. Person called 911 reporting he was suicidal and needed help. Upon arrival the officer made contact with the individual who was well known to our agency and known to have mental health issues. The party voluntarily agreed to go to the hospital to be evaluated and was transported by North ambulance. On 10/10/2022 officers were dispatched to a reported slumper in the 500 block of Highway 55. Homeowner reported an unknown person parked in the driveway for the past three hours and appeared incoherent. Officers arrived and found the male possibly suffering from a diabetic issue. North ambulance arrived and assumed care of the individual. After administering treatment, the individual came around and eventually refused transport to the hospital. On 10/10/2022 officer was dispatched to an injured squirrel in the roadway in front of the police department. Upon investigation the officer located a deceased squirrel in the roadway. The squirrel was removed. On 10/11/2022 officer responded to a theft from auto report at Target. Victim reported doing landscaping on the Target property. Shortly after 1100 victim began receiving notification on his phone that his cards were suspected of being used fraudulently. Victim found that his wallet had been taken from his unlocked work truck that was parked in the Target parking lot within the past few hours. The cards were used to purchase gift cards at a Plymouth Target store. The case will be forwarded to investigations for follow up. Investigations: Returned to work the week of the 3rd following a great surgery recovery. Received a child protection report, investigation on-going. Received two different theft reports, one resulted in a loss of $2,600, the other with fraudulent credit card use, unrelated. Both investigations on-going. On October 12th and 13th, I attended the annual Towards Zero Death’s traffic seminar in St. Cloud, attending a total of 5 courses over two days. The courses ranged from new vehicle technology/safety risks for first responders, impacts of speeding, human trafficking and exploitation, crash reconstruction, and investigating alcohol overservice. Additionally, I re-certified as a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) to keep that certification up to date. I have nearly completed two CSO backgrounds, with the anticipated completion date being early next week. There are currently 7 cases assigned to investigations. 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: October 13, 2022 MEETING: October 18, 2022 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • The Deerhill Road project is complete. • The Public Works crew has been busy patching around manholes, catch basins and valves this week to prepare for snow plowing season. • The tree trimming in the Foxberry Farms neighborhood is complete the crew spent several days clearing over-hanging trees. • We are in the process of installing signage on Chippewa Road and will make the traffic change at Mohawk and Chippewa soon. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • The bids are back for the water treatment plant media replacement. They came back higher than expected because of an added addendum to dispose of the greensand that may contain high radium levels. Testing will be done to see exactly what we are dealing with as we get closer to the project. • Public Works completed our fall flushing. This is a large undertaking and took three staff members three weeks to complete. PARKS/TRAILS • The grandstand has been occupying some of my time in the past week. HAC would like to proceed but we have permits and contracts to get in place prior to work being done. City Attorney Dave Anderson and I will be working with the groups to put together a purchasing contract to keep the purchase of the grandstand within our guidelines. • Public Works staff will be working with our contractor as well as doing work ourselves to clean up the new park site on Chippewa Road prior to the police and fire training that will be done. Our contractor will seal the well and we will also be removing the septic tanks in the future. MISC • Lisa and I continue to work with WSB on Medina’s MS4 reauthorization permit as required by the MPCA. It has been a long process to evaluate and update all MEMORANDUM 2 the necessary minimum control measures. We will present a revised plan and ordinances to Council within the next couple month. • We are in the middle of overhauling the safety manual to combine and eliminate the handbook (so there is one document to maintain). The manual will continue to align with our insurance and personnel policy requirements, as well as OSHA mandates. ORDER CHECKS OCTOBER 4, 2022 – OCTOBER 18, 2022 053491 ALDRIDGE, PATRICIA/THOMAS ............................................... $127.87 053492 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO., INC ................................................ $204.49 053493 FIELDSTONE FAMILY HOMES INC ...................................... $10,000.00 053494 HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT ............................................. $250.00 053495 KNIGHT, ROBERT ........................................................................ $24.85 053496 US HOME CORP .......................................................................... $51.48 053497 MISHRA, MAHENDRA ................................................................ $500.00 053498 MN DEPT OF LABOR/INDUSTRY ........................................... $9,634.45 053499 ROCK CREEK PROPERTY LLC .................................................. $33.16 053500 SJB MASONRY LLC ................................................................... $500.00 053501 THE TITLE GROUP....................................................................... $49.67 053502 VADAPALLI, VENKATA ................................................................ $42.11 053503 ED BELLAND .............................................................................. $165.00 053504 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $38,993.13 053505 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC ...................................................... $320.69 053506 BRAUN, ROBERT .................................................................... $1,500.00 053507 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. ................................................... $718.98 053508 CORE & MAIN LP ....................................................................... $729.66 053509 DITTER INC.............................................................................. $3,692.60 053510 EARL F ANDERSEN INC ............................................................ $369.95 053511 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ................................................................ $79.15 053512 ENGEL WATER TESTING INC ................................................... $504.00 053513 EQUIFAX ....................................................................................... $15.18 053514 FERGERSON WATERWORKS #2158 .................................... $1,243.12 053515 FINANCE AND COMMERCE ...................................................... $236.51 053516 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ...................................................... $367.20 053517 HACH COMPANY ....................................................................... $735.99 053518 HAMEL LUMBER INC ................................................................. $275.25 053519 HAMEL FIRE RELIEF ASSN .................................................. $59,158.83 053520 HAMEL LIONS CLUB .................................................................. $975.00 053521 HAMEL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT ........................................ $89,187.50 053522 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH ................................................... $2,347.02 053523 HENN COUNTY SHERIFF .......................................................... $110.85 053524 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ............................................. $47.50 053525 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED ................................... $18,220.14 053526 LANO EQUIPMENT INC ............................................................. $330.45 053527 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR ................................................... $520.00 053528 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGMT INC .......................................... $39.00 053529 CITY OF LONG LAKE .............................................................. $6,681.75 053530 LORETTO VOL FIRE DEPT INC ........................................... $23,964.21 053531 CITY OF MAPLE PLAIN ........................................................... $5,542.91 053532 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL .................................................... $4,920.30 053533 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL .................................................. $32,291.02 053534 METRO ELEVATOR INC ............................................................ $200.00 053535 METRO WEST INSPECTION ................................................ $36,142.19 053536 MILLER TRUCKING & LANDSCAPE .......................................... $360.00 053537 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ................................... $465.00 053538 MINNESOTA TOPSOIL ............................................................ $5,090.00 053539 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $425.71 053540 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR ...................................... $325.00 053541 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTION LLC ............................................... $280.23 053542 CITY OF ORONO ..................................................................... $7,642.34 053543 PREMIUM WATERS INC .............................................................. $53.48 053544 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC ............................... $21,601.85 053545 SCHERERS PUMPKIN PATCH .................................................. $255.00 053546 SOLUTION BUILDERS INC ..................................................... $5,027.79 053547 STREICHER'S ............................................................................. $465.96 053548 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ................................................................. $646.52 053549 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI ........................................................... $3,941.17 053550 TIMESAVER OFFSITE ................................................................ $626.88 053551 TIMECLOCK PLUS LLC .............................................................. $299.18 053552 WSB & ASSOCIATES ............................................................ $75,600.25 Total Checks $475,149.52 ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS OCTOBER 4, 2022 – OCTOBER 18, 2022 006558E PR PERA ................................................................................ $17,816.93 006559E PR FED/FICA ......................................................................... $18,116.47 006560E PR MN Deferred Comp ............................................................ $2,784.00 006561E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................... $3,933.43 006562E CITY OF MEDINA ......................................................................... $23.00 006563E FURTHER................................................................................. $1,929.37 006564E MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT .............................................. $724.20 006565E CENTURYLINK ........................................................................... $273.43 006566E CULLIGAN-METRO ...................................................................... $36.50 006567E FP MAILING SOL POSTAGE BY PHON ................................. $1,000.00 006568E FURTHER........................................................................................ $9.00 006569E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ........................................ $150.00 006570E FP MAILING SOL POSTAGE BY PHON ................................. $1,000.00 006571E FRONTIER .................................................................................... $57.54 006572E FURTHER................................................................................. $6,594.80 006573E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ............................................................. $934.95 006574E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC ..................................... $1,420.58 006575E XCEL ENERGY ........................................................................ $9,180.96 Total Electronic Checks $65,985.16 PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT OCTOBER 12, 2022 0512212 ALBERS, TODD M. ..................................................................... $230.87 0512213 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. .................................................... $1,137.76 0512214 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................... $2,788.42 0512215 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................... $3,071.78 0512216 CAVANAUGH, JOSEPH ............................................................. $230.87 0512217 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ............................................................ $2,196.15 0512218 DEMARS, LISA ........................................................................ $1,558.36 0512219 DESLAURIES, DEAN .................................................................. $230.87 0512220 DION, DEBRA A. ...................................................................... $2,091.50 0512221 ENDE, JOSEPH ....................................................................... $2,008.32 0512222 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................... $2,869.01 0512223 GLEASON, JOHN M................................................................. $2,225.40 0512224 GREGORY, THOMAS ................................................................. $678.13 0512225 HALL, DAVID M. ....................................................................... $2,262.65 0512226 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................... $2,793.10 0512227 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................. $909.85 0512228 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. .............................................................. $2,740.17 0512229 KLAERS, ANNE M. .................................................................. $1,708.78 0512230 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................. $1,918.38 0512231 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M .............................................................. $327.07 0512232 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. ................................................... $1,651.73 0512233 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D ........................................................... $2,087.91 0512234 NELSON, JASON ..................................................................... $2,795.91 0512235 RATKE, TREVOR J .................................................................. $1,760.56 0512236 REID, ROBIN ............................................................................... $230.87 0512237 REINKING, DEREK M .............................................................. $2,546.50 0512238 RUTH, BRENDA L. ................................................................... $1,652.48 0512239 SCHARF, ANDREW ................................................................. $1,607.79 0512240 SCHERER, STEVEN T. ........................................................... $2,527.20 0512241 THIES, ANN C ............................................................................. $453.05 0512242 VINCK, JOHN J ........................................................................ $2,235.36 0512243 VOGEL, NICHOLE ................................................................... $1,029.10 0512244 WALKER, CAITLYN M. ............................................................ $1,910.20 0512245 BURSCH, JEFFREY ................................................................ $1,144.84 Total Payroll Direct Deposit $57,610.94 1 ME230-702-830929.v1 Member _________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. _________ RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is presently engaged in litigation in Hennepin County District Court (Court File No. 27-CV-21-7210) with North Metro Companies LLC, The Robert J. Muller Trust U/A/D June 4, 2004 and The Lawrence L. Pribyl Revocable Trust; and WHEREAS, the litigation was initiated by the City due to violations of the City’s ordinances on real property located at 2402 State Trunk Highway 55, Medina, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated a settlement of the dispute, the terms of which are contained into the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the city council determines it is in the best interests of the public and the City’s taxpayers to approve and execute the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release and bring an end to the litigation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council of the city of Medina hereby approves the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release in substantially the form as attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the mayor and city administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release when presented for signature by the city attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the mayor, city administrator, and city attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all additional steps and actions necessary or convenient to finalize the appropriate documents and/or agreements to facilitate the settlement of this matter as provided herein and the City’s officers, employees, and consultants are authorized to take such steps as are needed to carry out the terms of the final settlement agreement. Dated: _______________, 2022. Kathleen Martin, Mayor Agenda Item #XII 2 ME230-702-830929.v1 ATTEST: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member __________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. A-1 ME230-702-830929.v1 EXHIBIT A [to be inserted]