Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-14-2023 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: March 10, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2023 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Changes to Agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Representative at next City Council meeting 5. Planning Department Report 6. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Oppidan Investments – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review for development of approximately 310,000 s.f. warehouse/office on two lots (PID 0411823140004) 7. Approval January 10, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes 8. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 7, 2023 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: March 2, 2023 MEETING: March 7, 2023 City Council SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates Land Use Application Review A) Pioneer Highlands Final Plat – Onyx Investments has requested final plat approval of a four-lot rural subdivision located south of Pioneer, east of Willow Drive. Staff intended to present to City Council on January 17, 2023, but the applicant has requested delay. Staff will present to Council at the March 7 meeting. B) 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. The City Council granted PUD general plan and preliminary plat approval on January 17. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present to Council when complete, potentially at the March 21 meeting. C) Cates Industrial Park – Comprehensive Plan Amendment– Oppidan has submitted preliminary plat and site plan review for a 310,000 square foot warehouse/office development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will schedule for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the March 14 Planning Commission meeting. D) 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 granted approval of the preliminary plat and site plan review at the February 7 meeting. Final plat review is underway. E) 1225 Maplewood Concept Plan – John and Lisa James have requested review of a concept plan review for a three-lot subdivision. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will schedule for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the April 11 Planning Commission meeting. F) 562 Hwy 55 lot combination – Arul Jothi Ramalingam has requested to combine property at 562 Hwy 55 with an adjacent separate 16.5’ wide strip of property they own to the east. Council approved the combination on February 17 and it has been submitted to Hennepin County. The project will be closed. G) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – BAPS Minneapolis Medina has requested an amendment to their approved site plan review. The applicant has submitted updated architectural information based on the City’s updated regulations pertaining to architectural elements. The applicant has also proposed minor adjustments to the site layout previously approved. The Council reviewed at the November 9 meeting and recommended approval. The Council approved the amended Site Plan Review at the December 6 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they intend to start construction during the spring of 2023. H) 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 MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 7, 2023 City Council Meeting 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. I) 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. J) 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. K) Pioneer Trail Preserve – This project has been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application. Other Projects A) Bamboo Early Childhood – the applicant has requested Administrative Site Plan Review approval to convert existing home at 562 Highway 55 into a daycare facility. The property is zoned Commercial-Highway and review is underway. B) Permit software implementation – staff continues to work with OpenGov to set up the system. C) Hackamore Road – staff has prepared agreements for acquisition of easements on 5 of the 6 properties necessary for the project, which will be presented for Council approval on March 7. The City Engineer is also requesting approval of plans/specs and authorization to bid the project at the March 7 meeting. D) Chili Cookoff – Staff held a chili cook-off on February 28 and Planning Director Finke delivered a remarkable 4th consecutive last-place finish. Former Assistant City Administrator Jodi Gallup was invited to defend her title and took a dramatic one-vote victory over Jack Gleason. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: March 2, 2023 RE: Department Updates On February 28, 2023, Officer Hall and Investigator Scharf set up a recruiting booth at Minnesota State Mankato’s Job Fair. This is the second job fair we have attended this year in an attempt to get our name in front of potential candidates and to learn more about what others are trying to do to recruit and retain in law enforcement. Officers responded to a critical incident on County Road 101 near the intersection with Hackamore Road. The call where parents were self-transporting their child to a hospital for breathing issues that turned worse when their child stopped breathing and began to turn blue. Hamel Fire was first on scene followed by Sergeant Boecker. CPR was initiated and continued until the child was taken from the scene to the hospital. Upon arrival at the hospital the child was pronounced deceased. Investigator Scharf was called to investigate. Initial results indicate that the child passed away from medical complications. As you can imagine these types of calls are emotional especially when children are involved. Officers, firefighters, EMS personal, and dispatchers all play an important role in trying to help others. A critical incident stress debrief has been set up by CISM. The Critical Incident Stress Debriefings are a confidential way for individuals to discuss the incident as it relates to their thoughts, perceptions, and feelings, in order to reduce stress. They normally take place 24-72 hours after the incident and consist of peers and mental health professionals specially trained by the Metro CISM Team. I have been working with our Records Management Solution (RMS) consortium to come up with a solution to secure our records management data. As I had reported to council, we are nearing the end of life with our current solution (LETG) and some major concerns have come up with not only accessing our data but the possibility of losing it. These issues were brought to the forefront when between Christmas and New Year’s we had a six-day outage. We were advised by those that looked into the issues that there are grave concerns with all of our data being lost. We were also advised that it is not a matter of if this will happen again but a matter of when. I will bring more to the council on this as things firm up. Right now, we are currently working with our 15-city consortium to create a JPA. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department has agreed to not only be the fiscal agent but to also host the hardware needed to move our data to our local control. As the agreement gets crafted, I will forward this to the City Attorney for review and work with Finance Director Barnhart on the budget impacts as this is something that was not accounted for in my budget. Initial cost impacts appear to be minimal for this year. This is an item that is and has been in the CIP for the past several years. Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between February 14, 2023 and February 28, 2023: Citations – 19 Warnings – 86 PD Accidents – 6 PI Accidents – 0 Medicals – 9 Falls – 7 Suspicious Calls – 5 Traffic Complaints – 2 Other Agency Assists – 9 Business/Residential Alarms - 6 Welfare Checks - 3 On 02/14/2023 at 1126 hours officer responded to Choo Choo Bar and Restaurant in Loretto to take a burglary report. Owner reported the damage was believed to have occurred either on 02/12 or 02/13 when someone was able to gain access to the business and attempted to gain entry into the ATM. Access was not obtained to the ATM and only caused some damage to the door. On 02/15/2023 at 1517 hours officers were dispatched to a report of an employee unconscious at 279 Medina Street in Loretto. Upon arrival by Loretto Fire and officers found an employee without a pulse and CPR was immediately started. Lifesaving measures were continued as North Ambulance arrived on scene. After exhausting all efforts, the employee was declared deceased. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner responded and will determine the cause of death. On 02/15/2023 Officers were dispatched to a welfare check at 4125 Apache Drive. A female called reporting she had not heard from her sister who lives at that address. Upon arrival, officers were able to make contact with the female who said her phone broke. She was advised to contact her sister when able. Officers let the sister know she was ok. On 02/17/2023 at approximately 2122 hours officer on routine patrol ran a registration check on a vehicle in the area of Holiday on Clydesdale Trial and received a hit that the registered owner had an unconfirmed warrant for her arrest. Officers eventually made contact with the female and confirmed she did have an active warrant for uninsured vehicle. She was arrested and transported to Hennepin County Jail. On 02/17/2023 at 2207 hours officer on routine patrol observed a vehicle on County Road 101 driving at an excessive speed. Radar indicated the vehicle driving 80/50 zone. The vehicle was stopped and driver issued an excessive speed citation. On 02/18/2023 at 2245 hours officer was requested to assist West Hennepin Public Safety at Monies Bar in Maple Plain. Officer was on scene of traffic stop in the parking lot of the bar when he witnessed another vehicle strike a parked vehicle. Medina Officer responded and arrested that driver for DWI. He was booked and released at the Medina Police Department. On 02/22/2023 at 1253 hours officer responded to Detour 19 Bar to take an attempted burglary report. Owner reported someone had attempted to break into a service door but was unsuccessful. On 02/24/2023 at 0810 hours officers responded to the 2900 block of Willowwood Farm Road on a report of a person having a mental health issue. Upon arrival officers learned a male at the address was breaking things in the home and had not been taking his prescribed medications. Officers spoke with all parties involved and they agreed to keep separate for the rest of the evening. Case forwarded to the embedded social worker for follow up. On 04/24/2023 at 1143 hours Medina Officers responded to assist West Hennepin Public Safety with a stolen vehicle that was eastbound on Highway 12. Officers had been notified by automated license plate reader that was monitoring Highway 12. Officers waited until the stolen vehicle was east of Baker Park Road. Officers ahead of the vehicle stopped traffic which caused the stolen vehicle to stop. The stolen vehicle attempted to flee along the shoulder but got stuck in the snow. The lone occupant was taken into custody with no further incident. On 02/24/2023 at 0229 hours officer was called to a welfare check of an individual in the garage of a residence in the 3400 block of Hunter Drive. Resident was alerted to his garage by his dog barking and found an unknown male laying down in the garage. The male was found to be extremely intoxicated and had left an area bar on foot and was trying to walk home. The male was taken into custody and transported to a Hennepin County Detox facility. On 02/25/2023 at 1929 hours officers were dispatched to a report of a 3-year-old in cardiac arrest in the area of County Road 101 and Primrose Lane. Upon arrival first responders found a 3-year-old girl pulseless. CPR was immediately started and continued when North Ambulance arrived. The child was transported to the hospital but was unable to be revived and was declared deceased at the hospital. On 02/27/2023 Officer responded to take a theft report of a resident at Okalee of Medina. Officer learned that a resident was missing more than $12,000 of jewelry from their residence. The case has been forwarded to Investigations for follow-up. Investigations: Received multiple reports of attempted burglaries in the City of Loretto at restaurants/businesses over the course of the last month. Two suspects are identified, and the investigation is ongoing. Responded (on-call) to assist with the investigation of a three-year-old that passed away. No foul play expected at this time. Received a theft from an assisted living home, investigation ongoing. With regards to a fraud report from the middle of January in which the victim’s checks were stolen, washed, and used at multiple online locations. The suspect has been identified. There are currently 15 cases assigned to investigations. 1 TO: Medina Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lisa DeMars, through Public Works Director Steve Scherer DATE: March 1, 2023 MEETING: March 7, 2023 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Last weeks snowstorm packed a powerful punch and Public Works did a terrific job planning for and dealing with the challenge. • The feasibility report and JPA is in your packet for Townline Road South. • Spring road restrictions are right around the corner, we’re reviewing maps to document necessary updates. • Staff has met with Corcoran on the Hackamore Road street improvement project and will begin moving forward at the March 7th meeting. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • The media disposal test results for radium and arsenic levels returned relatively low radium levels so we will be able to safely recycle the spoils in a street project instead of shipping to a disposal site. I expect this to result in a sizable savings for the project. The project is moving along slowly nonetheless we should have the first filter back online early next week. • Staff continues to work on a recommendation for the sewer connections to Independence. PARKS/TRAILS • A contract for garden maintenance work is in your packet. • The park signs to direct ballfield spectators to the overflow parking available off Mill Street are here and will be installed at Legion Park first thing this spring. MISC • Lisa attended PWE Hazardous Waste Generator Compliance Training and will evaluate our processes to ensure they remain compliant with Hennepin County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency mandates. • Parking lot lights have been serviced and/or repaired at POLICE/PW and City Hall. • Clean-up day is on the schedule for Saturday April 29. Lisa is coordinating services for the event; the fee schedule is in your packet. MEMORANDUM Cates Industrial Park Page 1 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: March 9, 2023 MEETING: March 14, 2023 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Oppidan Investments – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review – PID 04-118-23-14-0004 Summary of Request Oppidan Investments has requested land use approvals 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. During the summer of 2022, the applicant also submitted three potential concept plans and requested feedback from the City on how development could be laid out on the site. Minutes from these discussions are attached for reference. The following applications have been submitted for review: 1) Rezoning to Business (B) zoning district 2) Preliminary Plat to subdivide subject site into two lots 3) Site Plan Review for proposed construction 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, and the total area of regulated wetlands on the site is approximately 0.75 acres. 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 • South of the site – Business guiding • North of the site – agricultural/rural – guided FDA MEMORANDUM Future Land Use: Business (pending) Staging/Growth: 2020 (pending) Current Zoning: RR-UR Proposed Zoning: Business (B) Gross Area: 30 acres Net Area: 28 acres Proposed construction: 310,000 s.f. Cates Industrial Park Page 2 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Environmental Assessment Worksheet – Negative Declaration 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 Cates Industrial Park Page 3 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 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. Rezoning Request The Applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to the Business (B) zoning district. The subject site is currently zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, which is consistent with the Future Development Area designation that applied to the property prior to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in June 2022. A rezoning would be anticipated to implement the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The City’s practice is to zone property intended for Business development as either Business (B) or Business Park (BP). The purpose statement of each district is as follows: “Business (B) Purpose. The purpose of the Business (B) district is to provide for a zoning district for a mix of office, high quality light industrial, and larger-scale retail and service uses with proximity to arterial roadways. Development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to limit impacts on surrounding land uses, and shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently utilize site improvements and to protect the natural environment.” “Business Park (BP) Purpose. The purpose of the Business Park (BP) district is to provide an attractive, high quality business park primarily for office, high quality manufacturing and assembly, and non-retail uses in developments which provide a harmonious transition to residential development and neighborhoods by: 1) conducting all business activities and essentially all storage inside buildings, 2) consisting of low profile, high quality and attractive buildings which blend in with the environment, 3) providing open space, quality landscaping and berming which achieve a park-like setting; 4) including berming and buffering of parking, loading docks and other similar functions; and 5) protecting and enhancing the natural environment.” Generally speaking, the BP district is more restrictive in terms of allowed uses and building height than the B district because it is intended to apply to property more proximate from arterial roadways and more proximate with residential development. The subject property is proximate to Highway 55, an arterial roadway, and other property zoned B to the west. Property to the north and east is currently rural residential, but has been guided Future Development Area. The B district was contemplated during review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Plans and staff believes the zoning to B is appropriate based on the proximity to Highway 55. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning to the B district. The remaining staff report reviews the request within the context of the B district. Cates Industrial Park Page 4 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Preliminary Plat The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots and two outlots. Outlot A is proposed east of Lot 2, and contains the stormwater pond for the development. Outlot B is located north of the new proposed orientation of Cates Ranch Drive. The intent for Outlot B is to be able to combine with property north of the new street orientation. The following table compares the proposed lots with the dimensional standards of the B district. The lots significantly exceed the minimum standards of the B district. B District Requirement Lot 1 (west lot) Lot 2 (east lot) Minimum Lot Area 3 acres 7.68 acres 11.71 acres Minimum Lot Width 175 feet 488 feet 470 feet Minimum Lot Depth 175 feet 760 feet 1270 feet Transportation, Streets, Right-of-way and Access The subject site has frontage on two public roadways, Willow Drive to the west and Chippewa Road to the south. Cates Ranch Drive, a private road, is located to the north. The applicant proposes to realign Cates Ranch Drive further south to align with the existing Twinco/Romax driveway west of Willow Drive. The applicant proposes one access to Willow Drive, two accesses to Chippewa Road, and one access to Cates Ranch Drive. The applicant originally had proposed a 2nd access to Cates Ranch Drive, but combined accesses upon recommendation of staff. The Site Plan shows only one access, but it should be noted that the remaining civil plans have not yet been updated and still show the 2nd access point. A traffic analysis was conducted at the time of the EAW and reviewed at the time of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The traffic analysis contemplated the larger 665,000 s.f. development which included the 40 acres to the north. The traffic analysis identified the need for a series of improvements to adjacent streets to support the development. The applicant proposes to construct the improvements, which include: 1) Right-turn lanes into most site accesses 2) Left-turn lane from Willow Drive to Chippewa Road 3) Right-turn lane from Willow Drive to Chippewa Road 4) Expanded left-turn lane from Willow Drive onto Highway 55 Cates Industrial Park Page 5 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting With the improvements noted above, the traffic analysis projected that there should not be issues on local streets for most of the day with the larger development. The primary issue was projected at peak evening rush hour. The traffic analysis found that at the p.m. peak, it is projected that vehicles waiting to turn left onto Highway 55 may back-up through the intersection of Chippewa Road and may need to wait two light cycles to clear the intersection. If traffic is backed-up at Willow Drive, staff assumed that some drivers would likely find alternatives and reviewed potential impacts to other intersections. Staff assumed up to 40% of the traffic may instead utilize Chippewa Road east to Arrowhead Drive as an alternative during the p.m. peak. If this occurred, it improves operations at the Willow Drive/Hwy 55 intersection and did not appear to cause issues on Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive to Highway 55. With the smaller developments of 310,000 square feet, 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 two-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. As such, the traffic analysis reviewed whether improvements to the local transportation network could be implemented to function without assuming an expansion to Highway 55. The applicant proposes to construct the improvements identified within the traffic analysis in connection with this proposed development. With the reduced scale of this development from the when the traffic analysis was conducted, the traffic impacts would be less than originally contemplated. MnDOT has requested installation of a traffic monitoring camera as a condition of the development. This would allow review of the operations of the intersection and may allow for adjustments to the timing of the light. The applicant proposes an access from the north which is partially located within an Outlot which currently contains a private road shared by two properties to the east. Access for this site was contemplated from this outlot when the sites were subdivided in the 1990s. The owner of the subject site also has fee ownership of the outlot, but it is subject to certain agreements with another owner. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant provide evidence 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 6 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Staff recommends that provisions be made to direct truck traffic leaving the site to Willow Drive rather than Chippewa Road. This provides more convenient access for trucks directly to Highway 55 rather than the local street network. The applicant proposes signage within the truck court to direct trucks to the north and “do not enter” signage at the southern access. Wetlands/Floodplains There are eight wetlands on the subject site with a total area of approximately 1.5 acres. The wetlands along the north of the subject site were found to be “incidental,” which means they are not regulated because they were caused by construction of the roadway and ditch. The applicant proposes grading in this area, but these incidental wetlands are not regulated by the wetland conservation act. The applicant proposes approximately 0.02 acre (1000 s.f.) of wetland impact to the south of the eastern building. This impact is subject to Wetland Conservation Act review and replacement if approved. The applicant is also reviewing modifications to the grading plan to further reduce the impacts. No floodplains are identified on the subject site. Sewer/Water/Easements The applicant proposes to extend sewer and water service from the Okalee project to the southeast to serve the site. The applicant proposes to loop this new watermain to Willow Drive, which is an important link for the broader City water system. The property owner has also previously granted to the City an easement for construction of a sanitary sewer lift station north of the subject site. With the exception of the primary watermain loop and a portion of the sewer extension, staff recommends that the sewer and water lines serving the buildings remain privately maintained. 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. Park Dedication Park Dedication – Ordinance Requirements City’s subdivision regulations require up to one of the following amounts to be dedicated for parks, trails, and open space purposes: • 2.8 acres of land to be dedicated – 10% of the buildable property • $250,000-$315,000 (estimated) in-lieu of land dedication – 8% of the pre-developed market value • Combination of land and cash The Park Commission is scheduled to review the request at their March 15 meeting and will provide a recommendation related to park dedication. Area of Regulated Wetlands 0.5 acre Proposed impacts 0.02 acre (4%) Parks and Trails Park Improvements N/A Trail construction 2100 linear feet Off-road trail easement 2820 linear feet Cates Industrial Park Page 7 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The City’s Parks and Trails plan do not identify future park or trail improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. However, it is important to reevaluate park and trail needs when an amendment is proposed to the Comprehensive Plan. 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. The Park Commission reviewed during Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Plan Review and did not recommend requiring park land. The Commission did recommend trail improvements. An excerpt from these discussions is attached. The applicant proposes to construct a trail through the open space in the southern portion of the site. The applicant also proposes to construct a trail along the western portion of the site, near Willow Drive. This is approximately 2100 linear feet of trail construction, highlighted in pink in the site plan to the right. The applicant also proposes a trail easement through the eastern portion of the site for a potential future trail. This corridor is approximately 1320 linear feet in length and highlighted in yellow. Review Criteria – Subdivision Ordinance 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. Cates Industrial Park Page 8 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting (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. As noted above, the proposed lots exceed the dimensional standards of the B district. Staff has recommended a series of conditions below to ensure that necessary infrastructure is provided to support the proposed development. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 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 subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to construction. 3) Preliminary approval shall be contingent upon a determination by the City Attorney that public right-of-way may be dedicated over Outlot A, Cates Ranch as contemplated in the preliminary plat. Alternatively, the plat shall be updated to provide right-of-way along the north of the subject site as recommended by the City Engineer. 4) Preliminary approval is contingent upon approval of wetland replacement plan to allow accommodate proposed street improvements. 5) The Applicant shall satisfy park dedication requirements as determined by the City Council following consultation with the Park Commission. 6) 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, public sanitary sewer mains and stormwater improvements, and over all wetland areas. 7) 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, and the Developer shall execute and record a Wetland Buffer Easement Agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney. 8) The Applicant shall execute and record access easements or other instruments in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney to provide adequate access and circulation between the lots to accommodate the Applicant’s proposed integrated development. 9) 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. 10) Sewer and watermain improvements within the lots shall be privately maintained except for the 12” watermain loop and eastern portion sanitary sewer. The Applicant shall update plans to differentiate between public and private utility lines. 11) The Applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer and the Applicant shall submit updated plans prior to or at the time of final plat application which address the comments. 12) The Applicant shall construct turn lane and street improvements as displayed in the plans received by the City on _________. Cates Industrial Park Page 9 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 13) The Applicant shall provide for traffic camera infrastructure at the Highway 55/Willow Drive traffic signal as recommended by MnDOT. 14) The plat shall be updated to dedicate right-of-way as recommended by the City Engineer. 15) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site improvements prior to commencing construction in order to ensure completion. 16) 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. 17) The Applicant shall obtain all permits required by Elm Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council and any other relevant agencies. 18) The final plat application 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. 19) 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. Cates Industrial Park Page 10 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Site Plan Review The following table compares the concept plans with the dimensional standards of the B district. B District Requirement West Building (Lot 1) East Building (Lot 2) Minimum Front Yard Setback (Street) 40 feet 142’ W 40’ S 100’ N 81’ S 100’ N Minimum Rear/Side Yard Setback 25 feet 94’ E 94’ W 442’ E Setback from Residential 100 feet 75’ w/ + buffer 100’ N 100’ N 442’ E Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet 51’ W 44’ S 200’ N 100’ N 310’ S Rear and Side Yard 15 feet NA 300’ E Residential 100 feet 200’ N 300’ E Maximum Hardcover 70% 53.4% (integrated) 53.4% (integrated) Building Height (sprinkled) 45 feet 32 feet 32 feet 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. Architectural Design The B zoning district requires the following architectural standards. Materials The following table summarizes the proposed buildings with the requirements of the B district. The full language from the B district is copied below the table. “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. (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.” Materials Required Building 1 Building 2 Glass, stone, brick, stucco Min 20% 20% 20% Precast concrete Max 80% 80% 80% Metal, wood, fiber cement Max 20% Cates Industrial Park Page 11 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The applicant has not provided material calculation for the loading dock elevation or total building calculation. Staff recommends a condition to confirm minimum standards are met for all building facades. 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 material and color differentiation along the facades. Slight vertical modulation is proposed with different height parapet walls and 3 elements. The buildings are essentially rectangles with no horizonal modulation. Staff encourage Planning Commission and Council to comment on whether the design provides modulation sufficient to meet these requirements. 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.” The west elevation of Building 1 and the north and south elevation of both buildings face streets. Building elevations propose approximately 15% window coverage on the west façade and 5.7% on the north and south facades. The Planning Commission and City Council are encouraged to comment on whether the design meets the intent of this requirement. 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.” Three sides of each building face either a street or residential property. The only side which does not face a street or residential property is the loading dock area. Staff believes the north and south elevations do appear to have less elements than the east and west elevations. The Planning Commission and City Council are encouraged to comment on whether the design meets the intent of this requirement. Tree Preservation/Landscaping There are existing trees along Willow Drive around the buildings in the southwestern portion of the property but no wooded areas which would be removed by proposed construction. Staff recommends a condition that this removal be quantified to verify compliance with tree replacement requirements. Cates Industrial Park Page 12 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 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. Additional plantings are required to meet minimum planting requirements. Staff recommends a condition to update the landscaping plan to providing more plantings. The B district requires a minimum of 8% of the land area within parking, driveway, and loading dock area to be landscaping. The applicant has updated plans to provide more landscaping areas to meet this requirement. Parking The applicant proposes 216 parking spaces and has indicated that this should be sufficient based upon their experience developing and managing similar buildings. The applicant anticipates predominantly warehouse uses, accounting for approximately 85-90% of the building. Office uses are anticipated at 10-15%. Office space requires more parking, so staff believes it is reasonable to project a 85%/15% split for the sake of parking. 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 site plan does leave sufficient area to accommodate additional parking sufficient to meet minimum City standards. City code allows for setting aside “proof of parking” locations rather than requiring construction of parking which may not be necessary. However, staff believes it is important that the grading and stormwater plans are laid out to allow efficient future construction of the proof of parking locations. Staff recommends a condition that site and construction plans be updated to show proof-of- parking locations and how construction will be accommodated. Staff also 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. Office Warehouse Building 1 19,762 s.f. (15%) 111,984 s.f. (85%) Building 2 26,524 s.f. (15%) 150,300 s.f. (85%) Total 46,286 s.f. 262,284 s.f. Office 1 stall per 250 s.f. 46,286 s.f. (15%) 185 stalls Warehouse 1 stall per employee or 1 stall per 2000 s.f. 262,284 s.f. (85%) 131 stalls (131 employees max) Total 316 stalls Cates Industrial Park Page 13 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Stormwater/Grading The applicant proposes a large stormwater pond to the east of the building. Stormwater is proposed to be reused for lawn/landscape irrigation. The City Engineer has provided comments to be addressed for consistency with stormwater requirements. Staff recommends a condition that these comments be addressed and that the applicant obtain approval from the Elm Creek Watershed. 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 applicant proposes all loading docks within the “court” between the buildings. The applicant proposes metal screen walls to further screen the docks. The B district requires that screening walls “shall be constructed of similar materials and design as the principal structure.” Staff believes the design of the screening walls appears to complement the design of the building. Metal is allowed as an accent material for the building. If the structure meets material building standards including the area of the screening walls, staff believes this design is appropriate. The applicant also proposes berms and landscaping south of the loading docks to provide additional screening. Staff recommends that the alignment of the southern access be updated to allow the berm and landscaping to better screen the dock area. Outdoor Storage The B zoning district allows limited outdoor storage areas only with review and approval of a conditional use permit specific to the use. The applicant has not requested outdoor storage areas. Trucks and vehicles are permitted to be parked within loading dock areas. Lighting The City’s lighting ordinance requires light trespass to be no more than 0.6 FC at property lines, and 0.0 FC at residential districts (eastern and northern property line) and that lighting be downcast. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant submit specification and photometrics consistent with this requirement. 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. Trash and recycling will be accommodated within the buildings. Staff recommends a condition to provide screening details upon building permit application. Cates Industrial Park Page 14 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, 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 code requires the applicant to describe what infrastructure they propose to install and encourages installation, but does not include specific requirements. The applicant has indicated that they will provide conduit for future tenants to install EV infrastructure if they design, but that they do not intend to install EV infrastructure. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation 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. Staff has identified a series of changes and conditions which are required to be met for the proposed plans to meet City requirements. These changes and conditions are mainly related to design and it appears that the site would be able to accommodate necessary changes. Staff is recommending that much of this information be provided prior to action by the City, and other technical conditions can be incorporated into final plans at the time of building permit. As such, staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Review subject to the following conditions: 1) The Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon plat approval. 2) The Site Plan Review 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) The Applicant shall update plans to identify proof-of-parking locations and shall update grading and stormwater plans to show that construction of this parking can be accommodated. 6) It is acknowledged that proposed parking is intended to accommodate warehousing as the principal and predominant use. Other uses shall not exceed 15% of the structures unless the applicant has provided evidence satisfactory to City staff, that adequate parking exists for the use. 7) It is acknowledged that the amount of parking, anticipated site layout, and projected uses on the site result from direct action of the Applicant for the sake of any future variance request. 8) The Applicant shall update the landscaping plans to provide 0.5 opacity to the north and east of the structures, meet the minimum planting standards of the B district, and provide required tree replacement. 9) The Applicant shall submit exterior lighting specifications and photometrics. Light trespass shall not exceed 0.0 FC at the northern and eastern property line or 0.6 FC at other property lines. All parking lot and landscape lighting shall be downcast and shielded. 10) 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 15 of 15 March 14, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 11) The Applicant shall submit building material specification for all facades of the proposed structure and materials shall meet the minimum standards of the B district. 12) The Applicant shall update plans to provide additional berming south of the loading dock courtyard. 13) The Applicant shall provide information on transformer, meter, and HVAC equipment and provide screening measures for review and approval. Any rooftop equipment shall be screened with elements which are compatible with the architectural design of the building, to the satisfaction of City staff. 14) All comments from the Elm Creek Watershed District shall be addressed. 15) All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed. 16) 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 B standards prior to storing outside. 17) The Applicant shall update plans to identify bicycle storage areas. 18) 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. 19) The Applicant shall install signage and take other measures to encourage trucks and most vehicles to utilize the northern shared access. 20) The site plan review approval shall be effective for two years and thereafter shall be considered null and void. Site plan approval for Building 3 shall be effective for four years. 21) 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. 22) 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. Attachments 1. Excerpt from 5/10/2022 Planning Commission minutes 2. Excerpt from 1/18/2022 Park Commission minutes 3. Excerpt from 5/17/2022 City Council minutes 4. Applicant Narrative 5. Civil Plans 6. Architectural Concepts 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. 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. CITY OF MEDINA APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSIDERATION Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review and Rezoning Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Oppidan and the Cates Family is requesting a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Site Review 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 30.19 acres parcel located in the Northeast corner of the intersection of Willow Drive and Chippewa Road (Parcel ID 0411823140004) into two industrial buildings. The buildings are intended to be used for warehouse or light manufacturing, compatible with a “Business (B))” Zoning. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide this parcel to Industrial, in late 2022. 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 have the easterly building back up to the west building to minimize the truck court area along Cates Ranch Road.. Zoning Change The current zoning of the proposed site plan is Rural Residential – Urban Reserve (RR-UR) We are requesting a zone change from Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) to Industrial. The site is currently bordered with the zones: Business (B), Commercial-Highway (CH), Rural Business Holding, and Residential with Business Park (BP), and Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) close nearby. We believe this zoning change would blend advantageously with nearby businesses while following our compliance plan amendment from 2022. Site and Landscape Plan The subject property is 30.19 acres and consists of farmland and a vacant farmstead, 7.08 acres of which are building areas. 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 said layout to the staff. Furthermore, we also incorporated additional staff, planning commission, council and public comments into the layout we are presenting. Therefore, we feel this is the most efficient layout for the site that will provide an additional area for employment within 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 office/warehouse buildings equaling a total area of approximately 308,570 sq. ft. (see Exhibit B –Site Plan). The front side of the west buildingwill face Willow Drive and the east building will be facing the residential area to the east.. 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 the stie from Chippewa Road and Cates Ranch Road and leaving the site from Cates Ranch Road. Dedicated car entrances will be connected to Willow Driveand Cates Ranch Road for the westerly building and to Chippewa Road and Cates Ranch Road from the easterly building. The building and parking setbacks for the Industrial Park zoning district are being with the proposed plan. A summary of the Proposed Setbacks required under the Insustrial Zoning Code and what is proposed for the developement are listed in the table below: Building Setbacks Required Provided For East Buildng Provided for West Building Front %0 Ft/100 From Res. 442 127.2 Side 50 Ft North 100 South 77.0 North 100 South 53.5 Rear 50 Ft 95 95 Residential 100 FT 100 North 442 East 100 Parking Setbacks Front 25 359.5 46.5 Side 25 100 100 Rear 25 NA NA Residential 50 328 100 Parking Landscaping on the site will have at least 8% of the interiors of all surface parking areas will be landscaped with breaks occurring approximately every 20 stalls. We are proposing three different parking areas. A West car parking area, a center truck loading and trailer parking area, and an East car parking area. Our West car park area measures at 19,541 sf. The West car park landscaping has a requiremetn of 1,563 sf (8%), but we are providing 1,843 sf (9.43%). The Center truck loading and parking area measures at 102,792 sf. The center truck loading and parking landscaping requires 8,223 sf (8%), but we are providing 10,250 sf (10.0%). Lastly, the East car parking area measures at 42,331 sf. The East car park landscaping requires 3,386 sf (8%), andt we are providing 3,473 sf (8.2%). Additionally, there are 210 spaces of parking required and we are proposing 216spaces. Required ADA parking falls at 7 spaces and we are proposing 8 spaces. Therefore, all areas of parking are above the code requirements. Landscaping on the site will consist of trees and shrubs along the buildings and throughout 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. Thus, during the review process, there were very few comments regarding any issues, 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. Therefore, 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 traveling East bound on Chippewa. Therefore, 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. Thus, 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. The proposed configuration does allow for significant open space preservation and continued functionality of natural wetland systems on- and off-site as well. Wetland Impacts The site has several wetlands on the property, of which four will be impacted in some way. Wetland 1 is a total area of 26,520 sf, and the impacted area equals 691 sf (1.89%) with a non-impacted area of 235,829 sf. Wetland 2 is total area of 11,570sf, and the impacted area equals 11,570 sf (100%) of with a non- impacted area of 0 sf. Wetland 3 is a total area of 21,635 sf with an impacted area of 2,147 sf (9.92%). This leaves the non-impacted area at 19,488 sf. Lastly, wetland 4 is a total area of 6,160ft with an impacted area of 1010 sf (16.6%). This leaves a non-impacted area of 5,140 sf. Thus, the entire wetland square footage equals 63,734 with an impacted 15,423 square feet. In regard to Wetland 2, through conversation with the city 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, since Cates Ranch Road will become a city street at some point in the future. Additionally, it makes sense to have the intersections align because it 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 11,570 sf from Wetland 2, or 100%. This is because the wetlands in this area lie within the ditches alongside the roadway, in order to realign the road and have the grades work of the development, the roadway needs to be widen and result is an impact to the wetlands in the ditch areas. The impact to Wetland 4 is a result of rotating the easterly building from an east to west configuration to a north and south configuration to minimize the amount of truck court fronting the Cates Ranch Road ROW. This was a direct result of the community input at the public hearing with planning commission for the concept plan review and was discussed at the concept plan review for the City Council. 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 easterly stub on the soth side of Chippeqa Road. . Both buildings 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 pond does 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 is 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 the 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). 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 BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 0 - C O V E R S H E E T . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 4 3 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y NORTH VICINITY N.T.S. SITE MEDINA, COUNTY, MN 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE SITE MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS INCLUDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.IF REPRODUCED, THE SCALES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON A 30x42 SHEET. 3.ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICES COMPANIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO ANNOUNCED BUILDING POSSESSION AND THE FINAL CONNECTION OF SERVICES. 4.ALL GENERAL CONTRACTOR WORK TO BE COMPLETED (EARTHWORK, FINAL UTILITIES, AND FINAL GRADING) BY THE MILESTONE DATE IN PROJECT DOCUMENTS. NOTES: PROJECT TEAM: ENGINEER KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL C. BRANDT, P.E. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE (651) 645-4197 CATES MEDINA INDUSTRIAL SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 118N, RANGE 23W FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call ARCHITECT MOHAGEN HANSEN 1000 TWELVE OAKS CENTER DR. STE 200, WAYZATA, MN 55391 TELEPHONE: (952) 426 - 7400 SITE BENCHMARKS: TOP OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEODETIC MONUMENT "2722 Q" ELEVATION: 973.23 FEET (NAVD88) BENCHMARKS HWY 5 5 W I L L O W D R . PI O N E E R T R A I L LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100 ST.PAUL, MN 55114 TELEPHONE: (651) 645 - 4197 CONTACT: MICHAEL C. BRANDT SURVEYOR EGAN, FIELD, & NOWAK 1229 TYLER ST NE, STE 100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 TELEPHONE: (612) 466 - 3300 FAX: (612) 466 - 3383 OWNER / DEVELOPER OPPIDAN 400 WATER ST #200 TELEPHONE: (952) 294 - 1246 CONTACT: JAY MOORE PR E P A R E D F O R CO V E R S H E E T C000 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C000 COVER SHEET C100 GENERAL NOTES V100 ALTA LAND TITLE SURVEY V101 ALTA LAND TITLE SURVEY V102 ALTA LAND TITLE SURVEY V103 PRELIMINARY PLAT C200 OVERALL DEMO PLAN C300 OVERALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PH1 C301 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH1 C302 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH1 C303 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH1 C304 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH1 C305 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH1 C306 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH1 C307 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH1 C310 OVERALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN - PH2 C311 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH2 C312 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH2 C313 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH2 C314 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH2 C315 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH2 C316 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH2 C317 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ENLARGEMENTS - PH2 C320 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS C400 OVERALL SITE PLAN C401 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C402 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C403 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C404 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C405 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C406 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C407 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C420 SITE DETAILS C421 SITE DETAILS C490 SITE PLAN VEHICLE MOVEMENT - FIRE TRUCK C491 SITE PLAN VEHICLE MOVEMENT C492 SITE PLAN VEHICLE MOVEMENT C500 OVERALL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C501 GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C502 GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C503 GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C504 GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C505 GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C506 GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C507 GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C510 GRADING DETAILS C600 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN C601 UTILITY PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C602 UTILITY PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C603 UTILITY PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C604 UTILITY PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C605 UTILITY PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C606 UTILITY PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C607 UTILITY PLAN ENLARGEMENTS C610 UTILITY DETAILS C611 UTILITY DETAILS L100 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS L102 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS L104 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS L103 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS L105 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS L106 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS L107 LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENTS L108 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L200 IRRIGATION PLAN 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 BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ V 1 - A L T A . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 : 2 0 p m 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 PR E P A R E D F O R AL T A L A N D T I T L E S U R V E Y V100 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N W I L L O W D R I V E C H I P P E W A R O A D 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 P A R C E L 2 W I L L O W D R I V E CATES RANCH ROAD CAT E S R A N C H R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D L O T 1 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K L O T 2 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K O U T L O T B C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K T T O U T L O T A C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 98 . 0 ' 439.8' 441.0' 291 . 8 ' 81 . 8 ' 11 5 . 5 ' 53 . 5 ' 142.1' 142.1' 99 . 4 ' 99 . 2 ' 99 . 6 ' 12.0' PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE S3 6 ° 2 6 ' 5 4 " W 17 . 9 2 ' S3 3 ° 4 7 ' 4 7 " W 40 . 2 9 ' S2 ° 4 3 ' 2 7 " W 10 . 0 0 ' S1 ° 1 4 ' 3 3 " E 34 3 . 4 8 ' S88°45'25"W 501.80' PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASMENT CATES INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASMENT PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASMENT 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ V 1 - P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 4 5 a m 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 PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BERM DELINEATED WETLAND SETBACK PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R NORTH PR E P A R E D F O R PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T V103 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 30.19 AC PROPOSED LOT 1 TOTAL AREA 7.68 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (LOT1)5.41 AC (70.44% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (LOT1)2.27 AC (29.56% OF PROPERTY AREA) WILLOW DRIVE DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.22 AC PROPOSED LOT 2 TOTAL AREA 11.71 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (LOT 2)7.75 AC (66.18% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (LOT 2)3.96 AC (33.82% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED OUTLOT A TOTAL AREA 9.76 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT A) 2.40 AC (24.59% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT A) 7.36 AC (75.41% OF PROPERTY AREA PROPOSED OUTLOT B TOTAL AREA 0.82 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT B) 0.33 AC (40.24% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT B) 0.49 AC (59.76% OF PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREAS 7.08 AC (23.45% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING TRAILER DOCK DOORS (LOT 1)9 SPACES TRAILER DOCK DOORS (LOT 2)15 SPACES ASSOCIATE PARKING (LOT 1)92 SPACES ASSOCIATE PARKING (LOT 2)138 SPACES TRAILER PARKING (LOT1)16 SPACES TRAILER PARKING (LOT 2)18 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING (LOT 1)66 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 2000 SF REQUIRED PARKING (LOT 2)89 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 2000 SF REQUIRED/PROPOSED ADA PARKING (LOT 1)3 SPACES / 4 SPACES REQUIRED/PROPOSED ADA PARKING (LOT2)4 SPACES / 4 SPACES 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B 99 5 99 5 99 3 99 3 99 4 99 4 99 6 996 997 W I L L O W D R I V E C H I P P E W A R O A D 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 P A R C E L 2 W I L L O W D R I V E CATES RANCH ROAD CAT E S R A N C H R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D 99 0 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 98 0 985 99 0 99 5 976 977 97 8 978 978 97 9 98 1 98 2 983 984 986 987 988 98 9 98 9 99 1 992 993 994 99 6 99 7 99 8 980 985 990 995 10 0 0 977 977 978 979 981 982 983 984 986 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 996 996 997 997 998 998 999 999 99 0 99 5 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 8 995 100 0 100 0 996 99 6 997 99 7 998 998 999 999 98 0 98 5 990 99 5 10 0 0 10 0 5 977 978 979981 982 983 98 4 98 6 98 7 98 8 989991 992 993 99 4 99 6 99 7 998 99 9 10 0 1 10 0 2 10 0 3 10 0 4 99 7 997 99 7 997 997 997 998 998 998 998 99 9 999 99 0 99 5 100 0 10 0 0 98 6 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 99 6 997 997 998 99 8 99 9 999 10 0 1 10 0 1 100 2 10 0 2 98 0 985 977 977 978 97 9 981 982 983 984 986987988989 980 976 977 978 979 97 5 98 0 985 972 973 97 4 97 6 97 7 97 8 97 9 98 1 982983 REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING REMOVE EXISTING POWER LINE REMOVE EXISTING FENCE REMOVE EXISTING VEGETATION DEMO EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD - COORDINATE EXTENTS OF REMOVAL WITH PROPOSED ROAD LOCATION SHOW ON SITE PLAN REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD / PARKING AREA ON PROPERTY AFTER DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD / PARKING AREA ON PROPERTY AFTER DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS REMOVE EXISTING FENCE AND CONCRETE PAD REMOVE ALL EXISTING TREES FROM THIS TREE LINE AREA CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO RESIDENCES AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION DEMO ROAD AND CLEAR SHOULDER AREA FOR ROAD EXPANSION - COORDINATE WITH SITE PLAN DEMO ROAD AND CLEAR SHOULDER AREA FOR ROAD EXPANSION - COORDINATE WITH SITE PLAN DEMO ROAD AND CLEAR SHOULDER AREA FOR ROAD EXPANSION - COORDINATE WITH SITE PLAN DEMO ROAD FOR WATER MAIN INSTALLATION DEMO ROAD FOR WATER MAIN INSTALLATION DEMO ROAD FOR WATER MAIN INSTALLATION 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 BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 2 - D E M O P L A N . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 4 5 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION REMOVE BITUMINOUS SURFACE REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE TREE REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE UTILITY LINES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE EXISTING J-BARRIER EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FLARED END SECTION EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM CATCHBASIN EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVE EXISTING WELL EXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER EXISTING ROOF DRAIN EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING METAL COVER EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING CABLE BOX EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING TREE CLEARING & GRUBBING FILL & ABANDON UTILITY LINES EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER LEGEND FULL DEPTH SAWCUT 1.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL (IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES) ALL STRUCTURES, PADS, WALLS, FLUMES, FOUNDATIONS, PARKING, DRIVES, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, ETC. SUCH THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PLANS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. ALL FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 2.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFUL MANNER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF THE PERMIT AND RECEIPTS OF DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS TO THE OWNER AND OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL UTILITY SERVICES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL TIMES. UTILITY SERVICES SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND COORDINATION WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND/OR THE CITY. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY CONCERNING PORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY'S FORCES AND ANY FEES WHICH ARE TO BE PAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL FEES AND CHARGES. 5.THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND ARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY DEMOLITION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ALL AREAS OF PROPOSED WORK. 6.ALL EXISTING SEWERS, PIPING AND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS ANY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE. VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROCEED WITH CAUTION AROUND ANY ANTICIPATED FEATURES. GIVE NOTICE TO ALL UTILITY COMPANIES REGARDING DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND CAP ALL LINES BEFORE PRECEDING WITH THE WORK. 7.ELECTRICAL, TELEPHONE, CABLE, WATER, FIBER OPTIC, AND/OR GAS LINES NEEDING TO BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY. ADEQUATE TIME SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR RELOCATION AND CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION IN UTILITY SERVICE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN ANY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 8.CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES, ENCLOSURES, ETC. (AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AS APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE COORDINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MEDINA, <COUNTY> COUNTY AND MN/DOT. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTIES IF ACCESS WILL BE INTERRUPTED OR ALTERED AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10.PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OCCURRING, ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED. 11.CONTRACTOR MAY LIMIT SAW-CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS BUT IF ANY DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WATER MAIN WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPT. AND THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT TO PLAN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ENSURE ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IS CONSTANTLY AVAILABLE TO THE SITE THROUGHOUT THIS SPECIFIC WORK AND THROUGH ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ARRANGING/PROVIDING ANY REQUIRED WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WITH THE CITY OF MEDINA DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER MAIN SHUT OFFS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND NO EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL BE PROVIDED. 13.REFER TO SURVEY FOR ALL EXISTING INVERT AND RIM ELEVATIONS. 14.ALL UTILITIES SHOWN ARE EXISTING UTILITIES. 15.IN THE EVENT A WELL IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY. ALL WELLS SHALL BE SEALED BY A LICENSED WELL CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE OF MN REQUIREMENTS. 16.IN THE EVENT THAT UNKNOWN CONTAINERS OR TANKS ARE ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER AND/OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY. ALL CONTAINERS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT A PERMITTED LANDFILL PER THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF ANY EXISTING DRAINTILE IS ENCOUNTERED ON SITE. NO ACTIVE DRAINTILE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. DEMOLITION PLAN NOTES NORTH Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L D E M O P L A N C200 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 W I L L O W D R I V E W I L L O W D R I V E C H I P P E W A R O A D CATES RANCH ROADCATES RANCH ROAD C H I P P E W A R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D L O T 1 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K L O T 2 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K O U T L O T B C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K T T O U T L O T A C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K 30.0' 35.3' R=4.00' R=10.00' 60.0'7.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50 2 . 0 ' 262.0' PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED SCREEN BERM 262.0' 67 4 . 0 ' PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 60.0' 16.2' 64.0' 26 . 0 ' 359.5' 442.1' 328.8'30.0' PROPOSED BERM 7.0' IMPACTED WETLAND 3 FUTURE TRAIL CONNECTION PROPOSED RETAINING WALL, BY OTHERS12.0' 143' PROPOSED SCREEN WALL PROPOSED SCREEN WALL PROPOSED SCREEN WALL IMPACTED WETLAND 1 IMPACTED WETLAND 2 IMPACTED WETLAND 4 10 0 . 4 ' 439.8' 441.0' 287 . 0 ' 77 . 0 ' 11 5 . 5 ' 38 . 7 ' 127.2' 127.2' 12 5 . 6 ' 30 . 0 ' 19.0'26.0'19.0'11.0' 19.0'26.0'19.0' 36.5' 10.0' 46.5' 36.4' 10.0' 46.5' 10 . 0 ' 70.0' 26.0' 11.0' 7.0' 19.0'26.0'19.0' 19.0'26.0'19.0' 12 . 0 ' 30.0 ' 30.0' 15 1 ' 18 1 ' 143' 180' 10 . 0 ' 10 . 0 ' PROPOSED RETAINING WALL, BY OTHERS 10 1 . 8 ' 17 . 4 ' 28 2 ' 18 3 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 125' 17 1 ' 10 9 ' 12.0' 12.3' 12.0' 12.0' 12 . 0 ' 12 . 7 ' 12 . 0 ' 15 0 ' 16 4 ' 12.0' 12.0' 12.0' 53 . 5 ' 60 . 0 ' 52 0 . 0 ' 52 2 . 9 ' 26 . 0 ' 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 4 - S I T E P L A N . d w g M a r c h 0 2 , 2 0 2 3 - 6 : 0 7 p m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING RR-UR - RUAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PROPOSED ZONING B - BUSINESS BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT = 50' RESIDENTIAL = 100' SIDE/REAR = 50' PARKING SETBACKS FRONT = 25' RESIDENTIAL = 50' SIDE = 25' REAR = 15' WEST BUILDING PROPOSED SETBACKS (PARKING / BUILDING) NORTH = NA / 100' WEST = 46.5' / 127.2' SOUTH = 53.5' EAST BUILDING PROPOSED SETBACKS (PARKING / BUILDING) NORTH = NA / 100.4' EAST = 359.5 / 442.1' SOUTH = NA / 77' BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 30.19 AC PROPOSED LOT 1 TOTAL AREA 7.68 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (LOT1)5.42 AC (70.57% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (LOT1)2.26 AC (29.43% OF PROPERTY AREA) WILLOW DRIVE DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY 0.22 AC PROPOSED LOT 2 TOTAL AREA 11.71 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (LOT 2)7.75 AC (66.18% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (LOT 2)3.96 AC (33.82% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED OUTLOT A TOTAL AREA 9.76 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT A) 2.40 AC (24.59% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT A) 7.36 AC (75.41% OF PROPERTY AREA PROPOSED OUTLOT B TOTAL AREA 0.82 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT B) 0.33 AC (40.24% OF PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (OUTLOT B) 0.49 AC (59.76% OF PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREAS 7.08 AC (23.45% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING PROPOSED ASSOCIATE PARKING (LOT 1)92 SPACES PROPOSED ASSOCIATE PARKING (LOT 2)124 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING (LOT 1) ASSUME 95% WAREHOUSE SPACE AND 5% OFFICE SPACE 0.95*131,746 SF = 125159 SF 63 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 2000 SF 0.05*131,746 SF = 6587 SF 27 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 250 SF TOTAL SPACES REQ'D = 90 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING (LOT 2) ASSUME 95% WAREHOUSE SPACE AND 5% OFFICE SPACE 0.95*176,824 SF = 167,983 SF 84 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 2000 SF 0.05*176,824 SF = 8841 SF 36 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 250 SF TOTAL SPACES REQ'D = 120 SPACES REQUIRED/PROPOSED ADA PARKING (LOT 1)3 SPACES / 4 SPACES REQUIRED/PROPOSED ADA PARKING (LOT2)4 SPACES / 4 SPACES PARKING AREA GREEN SPACE AT LEAST 8% OF THE INTERIORS OF ALL SURFACE PARKING AREAS SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH BREAK OCCURRING APPROXIMATELY EVERY 20 STALLS WEST CAR PARK AREA 19,541 SF WEST CAR PARK LANDSCAPING REQUIRED: 1563 SF (8%) PROVIDED: 1843 SF (9.43%) CENTER TRUCK LOADING AND PARKING AREA 102,792 SF CENTER TRUCK LOADING AND PARKING LANDSCAPING REQUIRED: 8223 SF (8%) PROVIDED: 10,250 SF (10.0%) EAST CAR PARK AREA 42,331 SF EAST CAR PARK LANDSCAPING REQUIRED: 3386 SF (8%) PROVIDED: 3473 SF (8.2%) IMPACTED WETLAND SUMMARY IMPACTED WETLAND 1 TOTAL AREA = 36,520 SQ FT IMPACTED AREA = 691 SQ FT (1.89%) NON-IMPACTED AREA = 35,829 SQ FT IMPACTED WETLAND 2 TOTAL AREA = 11,567 SQ FT IMPACTED AREA = 11,567 SQ FT (100%) NON-IMPACTED AREA = 0 SQ FT IMPACTED WETLAND 3 TOTAL AREA = 21,635 SQ FT IMPACTED AREA = 2,147 SQ FT (9.92%) NON-IMPACTED AREA = 19,488 SQ FT IMPACTED WETLAND 4 TOTAL AREA = 6160 SQ FT IMPACTED AREA = 1018 SQ FT (16.5%) NON-IMPACTED AREA = 5142 SQ FT Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R NORTH 01 06 07 08 02 04 03 05 PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L S I T E P L A N C400 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 SITE PLAN NOTES 1.REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF STOOPS, TRUCK DOCKS, TRASH ENCLOSURES & PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS. REFER TO THE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED LIGHT POLES, CONDUITS, AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. 2.REFER TO CERTIFIED SITE SURVEY OR PLAT FOR EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING EASEMENTS, PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS, AND ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY & PARCEL INFORMATION. 3.DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE DRAWN TO THE FACE OF CURB, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT, AND AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 4.UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RELOCATING EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED WORK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TRAFFIC SIGNS, LIGHT POLES, ABOVEGROUND UTILITIES, ETC. PERFORM WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS. COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 5.TYPICAL PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE 9.0-FEET IN WIDTH AND 19-FEET IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 6.MONUMENT SIGN(S) ARE DETAILED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIGN DIMENSIONS, LOCATION AND REQUIRED PERMITS WITH THE OWNER. PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LEGEND DELINEATED WETLAND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA DELINEATED WETLAND SETBACK PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B WETLAND SUMMARY TOTAL WETLAND ON PROPERTY OR IMPACTED BY DEVELOPMENT 63,734 SF (1.46 AC) TOTAL IMPACTED WETLAND 15,423 SF (0.35 AC) (0.24 % OF TOTAL WETLAND) RIGHT-OF-WAY W I L L O W D R I V E W I L L O W D R I V E C H I P P E W A R O A D CATES RANCH ROADCATES RANCH ROAD C H I P P E W A R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D T T SS-16 RE:982.02 IE:980.50 W SS-37 SS-38 SS-39 RE:998.07 IE:984.85 NW IE:984.85 E SS-47 SS-46 SS-49 SS-50 98 0 98 5 99 0 995 995 995 995 995 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 1000 1000 976 976 977 97897 8 97 8 97 9 98 1 982 98 3 98 4 986 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 994 994 996 996 99 6 996 996 997997 997 997 99 7 997 997 998 998 99 8 998 998 99 8 998 99 9 999 99 9 99 9 99 9 999 999 1001 100 1 1002 1002 100 3 1003 10 0 4 1004 995 99 4 996 997 998 99 599 6 990 991 992 993 994 995 992 993 994 996 997 995 994996997 995 99 2 993 994 996 996 997 997 998 998 10 0 0 10 0 1 100 2 10 0 2 100 0 999 10 0 1 99 5 993 994 996 997 99 5 99 4 996 99 6 997 997 99 7 99 7 99 8 998 998 99 8 996 997 998 999 998 999 997 998995 994 996 997 99 5 99 4 99 699 799 8 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 9 995 994 995 995 994 994 996 996 997 99 8 10 0 0 99 8 99 9 997 997 998 11.4' PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/8 DOCK STALLS FFE =997.0 PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/15 DOCK STALLS FFE =997.0 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVER EXISTING STUB TO CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. PROPOSED 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING 12" DIP WATER MAIN PROPOSED 12" FUSIBLE PVC C-900 WATER MAIN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED 12" FUSIBLE PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 12" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 12" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 12" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" WATER MAIN - FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND MATERIAL PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION TO BUILDING PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 12" FUSIBLE PVC C-900 WATER MAIN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED 10" PVC C-900 WATER SERVICE TO BUILDING PROPOSED 10" PVC C-900 WATER SERVICE TO BUILDING PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION TO BUILDING PROPOSED 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN PROPOSED 12" PVC C-900 WATER PIPE STUB WET TAP CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATER LINE WET TAP CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATER LINE PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION TO BUILDING PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED 6" WATER PIPE WITH 6" VALVE TO FIRE HYDRANT 990 995 988 989991992 993 994 990 995 989 991 992 993 99 4 996 99 5 99 5 99 2 99 2 99 2 99 2 99 3 99 3 99 4 99 4 99 6 99 6 99 6 99 7 995 992 993 994 996 997 99 5 99 5 99 5 99 5 DIRECTIONAL DRILL SANITARY SEWER LINE UNDER CHIPPEWA ROAD DIRECTIONAL DRILL WATER PIPES IN RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH OF CHIPPEWA ROAD AND WHERE THE WATER MAIN CROSSES CHIPPEWA ROAD PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - PROVIDE INSULATION WHERE GROUND COVER LESS THAN SIX FEET 348 LF - 8" PVC @ 1.25% 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 BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ 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 F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 6 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1.ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2.SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP 6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-1785 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3.WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PER ANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4.MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5.ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6.ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. 8.IN THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9.LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10.TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11.ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12.EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13.REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF MEDINA AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 19.BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 20.ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 21.ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN GATE VALVE HYDRANT TEE REDUCER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE GAS MAIN STORM SEWER LEGEND CO SANITARY CLEANOUTCO EXISTING PROPOSED 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L U T I L I T Y P L A N C600 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N 01 06 07 08 02 04 03 05 01 06 07 08 02 04 03 05 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call NORTH 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B 99 0 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 5 10 0 0 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 9 985 990 995 982 983 984 986 987 988 988 988 98 9 99 1 992 993 994 996 997 998 99 8 980 979 981 980 985 99 0 978 979 981 982 983 984 986 987 988 989 99 1 99 2 993 995 99 6 99 7 99 8 98 0 98 0 985 985 990 995 99 5 995 1000 100 0 97 8 97 8 97 9 97 9 98 1 981 982 98 2 98 3 98 3 984 984 986 986 987 987 988 988 98 9 989 991 992 99 3 994 99 4 99 4 996 997 998 999 10 0 1 1001 10 0 2 1002 10 0 0 100 5 99 7 99 8 99 9 10 0 1 10 0 2 10 0 2 1002 100 3 10 0 4 1006 997 997 99 7 997 998 998 998 998 999 999 99 9 99 9 976 976 977 97 5 98 0 985 972 97 3 97 4 97 6 977 978 97 9 98 1 98 2 98 3 98 4 986 987 988 W I L L O W D R I V E W I L L O W D R I V E C H I P P E W A R O A D CATES RANCH ROAD CATES RANCH ROAD C H I P P E W A R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D L O T 1 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K L O T 2 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K O U T L O T B C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K T T O U T L O T A C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K 996 98 0 98 5 97 6 97 7 97 8 97 9 98 1 98 2 98 3 98 4 995 996 99 5 99 6 99 7 99 7 99 7 99 8 99 8 99 8 99 9 99 3 99 2 99 2 1.20%1.20% 1.20% 1.20% 1.5 9 % 2.36% 5. 2 2 % 2.54% 24.16% 24.83% 10.01% 33.33% 25 . 0 5 % 6.9 8 % 3. 5 1 % 8. 5 3 % 6.9 6 % 99 5 99 6 99 7 995 996997 996 997 999 99 9 10 0 1 99 5 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 10 0 0 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 9 99 6 990 995 986986 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 985 982983984 986987988 992 993 994 99 5 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 99 5 99 6 99 6 99 7 99 7 99 8 99 8 99 9 99 9 98 5 99 0 99 5 98 4 98 6 98 7 98 8 98 9 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 98 0 98 1 98 2 98 3 97 6 97 7 97 8 97 9 22.03% 25.00% 2.1 9 % 33 . 3 7 % 1.50% 2.60% 2.27% 1.93% 2.50% 3.08% 2.24% 1.7 4 % 13 . 7 6 % 4.9 7 % 1.20%1.20% 1.20% 1.20%1.20% 4. 8 7 % 2. 0 6 % 4.92 % 11 . 9 0 % 3.2 6 % 7.53% 2.15% 2.03% 1.74% 2.05% 25 . 0 0 % D D D D RD 106 RD 203 RD 105 RD 102 RD 101 RD 205 RD 204 RD 206 STMH 3 RD 202 CB 1 STMH 20 CBMH 2 CBMH 15 CBMH 11 CBMH 22 CB 14 CB 24 CB 26 CBMH 12 STMH 21 RD 104 RD 103 RD 201 RD 107 RD 207 RD 208 CBMH 10 CBMH 19 CBMH 6 CBMH 18 CBMH 8 STMH 16 FES 23 FES 13 FES 27 FES 25 D 33.50% D PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 BMP #1 - DETENTION BASIN BASIN BOTTOM: 975.00 NWL: 980.00 TOP OF POND: 982.00 100-YR HWL: 981.89 CBMH 7 STMH 5 CB 4 STMH 31 FES 32 CB 9 FES 30 FES 29 CBMH 28 FES 21.1 CBMH 17 99 5 99 1 99 1 99 2 99 2 99 4 996 997 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 997.00 993.00 993.00 997.00 997.00 996.50996.50996.50996.50 996.50 997.00 996.50 996.50 997.00 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 997.00 993.00 993.00 996.50 996.21 994.57 994.29 994.79 995.03 993.90 994.79 994.29 994.49 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.73 995.58995.35 996.29 996.24 994.12 994.79 993.83 994.79 993.83 994.79 993.83 994.49 994.72 992.28 991.25 991.86 991.36 991.86 991.36 991.75 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 995.39 992.28 995.75 995.75 991.81 996.50 996.50 996.50 ??? 986.54 996.38 985.67 992.29 992.28 991.57 993.00 992.32992.67 993.00 993.00 993.00 993.00 993.00 995.75 994.48 994.76 995.45 992.28 992.52 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.75 996.87 994.15 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 991.46 995.75 990.83 992.11 996.90 994.63 994.67 995.75 995.75 995.43 994.98 994.56 994.51 995.75 995.75 995.38 994.89 995.75 995.75 994.39 994.48 994.83 995.36 995.75 995.75 994.15 994.36 994.58 995.25 995.75 995.75 994.29 994.31 994.41 995.18 995.75 995.75 994.69 994.60 994.95 995.47 995.75 995.75 994.63 994.72 994.96 995.45 996.49 999.65 999.70 996.72 994.94 995.27 995.27 994.72 993.08 992.47 994.11 993.58 990.44 988.92 987.98 987.77 989.84 988.87 988.03 985.94986.19986.24 986.78 992.22 992.24 995.11 994.48 995.41 994.70 996.81 996.76 996.49 996.45 996.99 997.35 997.51 995.20 993.71 993.67 992.87 1000.46 1001.40 1002.06 1000.78 998.41 995.83 992.37 992.19 992.64 987.37 997.42 997.57 996.56 996.71 996.74 996.89 997.97 998.12 995.40 993.37 992.27 993.90 998.68 996.85 997.15 998.73 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ 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 F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 4 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y 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.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER 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 ELEVATION 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 PROPOSED RIDGE LINE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED TOP/BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION TW:0.0 BW:0.0 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L G R A D I N G & D R A I N A G E P L A N C500 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N NORTH 01 06 07 08 02 04 03 05 AREA KEY MAP NORTH NTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B W I L L O W D R I V E CAT E S R A N C H R O A D L O T 1 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K O U T L O T B C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K 98 0 98 0 985 985 990 995 97 897 8 97 9 97 9 98 1 981 982 98 2 98 3 98 3 984 984 986 986 987 987 988 988 98 9 989 991 992 993 100 5 100 3 10 0 4 1006 990 988989 991 992 99 2 1.20% 6.9 8 % 6.3 3 % 8. 5 3 % 6.9 6 % 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 993.00 997.00 997.00 996.50 996.50996.50 996.50 996.50 994.57 994.29 994.79 995.75 995.75 995.75 992.28 996.50 1002.47 986.54 992.29 995.45 992.52 992.28 992.28 994.56 994.51 995.75 995.75 993.08 992.47 994.11 993.58 990.44 988.92 987.98 987.77 990.81 989.84 988.87 988.03 985.94 987.15 987.21 986.97 990 995 986986 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 996 997 975 980 985 976 977 978 979 981 982 983 984 986 987 988 1.20% 1.20% 1. 9 3 % 5.0 9 % 2. 0 6 % 4.92 % 9. 2 1 % 2. 6 5 % 1.74% 2.05% 976 976 977 D 94 LF - 18" HDPE @ 1.22% 105 LF - 18" HDPE @ 1.22% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 996.14 995.03 989.33 988.12 992.28 994.86 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% D 66 LF - 24" HDPE @ 0.70% 64 LF - 18" HDPE @ 2.10% 9. 5 0 % 4.6 9 % 7. 7 6 % 9. 0 0 % 994.90 994.85 994.88 994.82 995.38 995.44 995.39 995.45 995.29 TW:986.30 BW:975.85 TW:987.20 BW:975.42 TW:977.64 BW:977.04 TW:980.10 BW:976.68 TW:981.85 BW:976.49 TW:983.71 BW:976.34 TW:987.09 BW:974.99 TW:987.00 BW:974.64 TW:986.92 BW:974.70 TW:986.82 BW:975.02 TW:986.76 BW:975.25 TW:986.66 BW:975.65 1001.80 997.01 995.63 992.37 99 0 995 10 0 0 987988 98 9 99 1 99 2 99 3 994 996 997 998 999 272 LF - 24" HDPE @ 0.70% 99 5 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 D 147 LF - 24" RCP @ 2.00% 79 LF - 24" RCP @ 2.00% 83 LF - 15" RCP @ 6.05% PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 995 99 1 99 2 993 994 996 996 EOF:994.90 EOF:994.72 995 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 6 990 995 987 98 8 989 991 992 99 3 993 99 4 99 4 10 . 3 5 % 150 LF - 12" HDPE @ 1.22% RD 102 RE:996.43 STMH 3 RE:995.45 CBMH 2 RE:994.29 RD 104 RE:992.94 CB 4 RE:989.11 CB 9 RE:988.08 STMH 31 RE:987.14 FES 32 RE:974.33 FES 33 RE:992.52 FES 34 RE:987.52 99 0 995 98 6 98 7 98 8 98 9 99 1 99 2 993 994 996 997 98 2 983 11,567 SF OF IMPACTED WETLAND 10 0 0 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 9 10 0 1 10 0 2 100 2 10 0 3 STMH 5 RE:994.40 1000.45 987.37 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 5 - G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 5 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE 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.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER 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 ELEVATION T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 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 PROPOSED RIDGE LINE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED TOP/BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION TW:0.0 BW:0.0 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 PR E P A R E D F O R G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S C501 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N AREA KEY MAP NORTH NTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 NORTH 02 03 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B C H I P P E W A R O A D W I L L O W D R I V E L O T 1 T 995 99 5 995 1000 100 0 992 993 994 99 4 994 996 997 998 999 10 0 1 1001 10 0 2 1002 10 0 0 99 7 99 8 99 9 10 0 1 10 0 2 1002 100 3 10 0 4 99 7 997 998 99 5 99 6 99 7 99 7 99 7 99 8 99 8 99 8 99 9 1.20% 1.5 9 % 2.36% 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 997.00 993.00 995.03 993.90 994.79 994.29 994.49 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.35 991.75 992.28 992.28 996.50 1002.47 995.92 992.67 995.75 992.28 992.28 995.75 996.90 994.63 994.67 995.75 995.75 995.49 996.49999.42 999.55 996.72 994.94 995.27 995.27 996.49 995.20 993.71 99 5 99 6 995 996 997 996 997 999 99 9 10 0 1 99 5 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 1.20% 7.53% 2.15% 2.03% D 99 LF - 18" HDPE @ 0.79% 174 LF - 36" HDPE @ 0.75% 75 LF - 24" HDPE @ 0.75% 135 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.75% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 992.28 995.75 991.86 992.32 992.32 992.28 992.28 994.91 994.97 994.94 995.43 995.42 995.46 995.27 995.27 995.89 994.95 994.73 995.87 996.99 996.91 997.09 996.84 996.76 996.61 996.63 996.11 995.72 994.56 995.74 1001.80 992.28 993.00 993.00 270 LF - 48" HDPE @ 0.75% PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 995 996 996 997 999 EOF:994.98 EOF:994.15 997 99 7 99 7 998 RD 106 RE:996.43 RD 105 RE:996.43 RD 101 RE:996.43 CB 1 RE:994.54 CBMH 15 RE:994.29 CB 14 RE:994.02 RD 103 RE:992.94 RD 107 RE:992.94 STMH 16 RE:995.95 CBMH 17 RE:989.49 995 99 2 993 994 996 99 5 99 5 99 4 99 6 99 7 99 3 10 0 0 10 0 1 10 0 2 100 0 99 6 997 99 8 99 9 995 995 992 992 993 993 994 994 996 996 997 995 996 997 998.72 1001.15 1002.30 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 5 - G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 5 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE 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.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER 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 ELEVATION T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 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 PROPOSED RIDGE LINE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED TOP/BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION TW:0.0 BW:0.0 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 PR E P A R E D F O R G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S C502 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N AREA KEY MAP NORTH NTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 NORTH 01 04 03 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B CATES RANCH ROAD L O T 1 B L O C K 1 L O T 2 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K T 980 985 99 0 978 979 981 982 983 984 986 987 988 989 99 1 99 2 990 995 1000 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 1001 1002 99 2 99 2 1.20% 1.20% 8. 5 3 % 6.9 6 % 993.00 997.00 997.00 996.50 996.50996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 997.00 993.00 991.36 EOF:991.86 991.36992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 995.75 991.81 986.54 EOF:985.67 992.29 993.00 993.00 993.00 992.52 992.28 992.28 992.28 992.28 990.83 992.11 995.75 995.75 995.75 987.77 990.81 989.84 988.87 988.03 985.94 987.15 987.21 986.97 992.22 992.24 990 995 986986 987 988 989 991 992 993 994 996 997 975 976 977 978 979 992 993 994 99 599 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 2.1 9 % 60 1 . 1 2 % 1.20% 1.20% 1.20%1.20% 1. 9 3 % 5.0 9 % 2. 0 6 % 976 976 977 200 LF - 18" HDPE @ 0.69% 114 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.69%289 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.69% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 989.33 988.12 992.28 992.32 993.00 992.28 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 64 LF - 18" HDPE @ 2.10% 992.32 992.32 992.28 992.28 TW:988.76 TW:989.91 TW:990.76 TW:992.31 TW:992.55 TW:992.95 TW:993.34 TW:993.85 TW:994.33 TW:994.82 TW:995.13 BW:989.50 BW:983.48 BW:980.78 BW:980.33 BW:978.93 BW:979.58 BW:979.97 BW:982.52 BW:981.62 BW:981.18 BW:980.74 TW:986.30 BW:975.85 TW:986.30 BW:976.50 TW:987.20 BW:975.42 TW:977.64 BW:977.04 TW:978.00 BW:977.54TW:980.10 BW:976.68 TW:981.85 BW:976.49 TW:983.71 BW:976.34 TW:987.09 BW:974.99 TW:987.00 BW:974.64 TW:986.92 BW:974.70 TW:986.82 BW:975.02 TW:986.76 BW:975.25 TW:986.66 BW:975.65 TW:986.53 BW:976.21 98 0 98 5 97 797 897 9 98 1 98 298 398 4 98 6 986 987 993.00 993.00 272 LF - 24" HDPE @ 0.70% 99 5 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 EOF:991.57 D 147 LF - 24" RCP @ 2.00% 79 LF - 24" RCP @ 2.00% PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 987 10 . 3 5 % RD 203 RE:996.43 RD 202 RE:992.94 RD 104 RE:992.94 RD 103 RE:992.94 RD 201 RE:992.94 CBMH 10 RE:992.82 CBMH 6 RE:991.36 CBMH 8 RE:991.21 CBMH 7 RE:991.36 CB 9 RE:988.08 FES 30 RE:978.83 STMH 31 RE:987.14 FES 32 RE:974.33 11,567 SF OF IMPACTED WETLAND 70 LF - 18" HDPE @ 0.69% 70 LF - 18" HDPE @ 0.69% 691 SF OF IMPACTED WETLAND 2,147 SF OF IMPACTED WETLAND 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 5 - G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 5 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE 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.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER 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 ELEVATION T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 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 PROPOSED RIDGE LINE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED TOP/BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION TW:0.0 BW:0.0 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 ## # # # # # # ZT R M L S M C B PR E P A R E D F O R G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S C503 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N AREA KEY MAP NORTH NTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 NORTH04 05 01 02 C H I P P E W A R O A D T 99 0 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 5 99 3 995 100 0 994 99 4 996 997 998 999 10 0 1 10 0 2 1002 99 7 997 99 5 99 6 99 7 99 7 1.20% 1.20% 1.5 9 % 2.36% 5. 2 2 % 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 997.00 993.00 997.00 996.50 996.50 997.00 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 993.00 996.50 996.21995.73 995.58 995.35 992.28 991.25 991.86 991.75 992.28 992.28 992.28 996.50 995.92 992.28 993.00 992.32992.67 993.00 993.00 992.28 992.28 995.75 995.75 996.49 996.45 996.99 997.35 995.20 993.71 993.67 992.87 995 996 997 999 99 9 10 0 1 99 5 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 6 99 7 10 0 0 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 9 1. 5 7 % ??? 9.3 9 % 3.7 0 % 1.20% 25 . 0 0 % D 99 LF - 18" HDPE @ 0.79% 158 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.79% 299 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.79% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 90 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 96 LF - 6" PVC @ 2.00% 992.28 992.32 993.00 992.28 991.86 992.32 992.28 992.32 992.28 992.32 995.26 995.47 994.59 995.37 995.89 994.95 994.73 994.56 995.74 995.22 994.44 995.32 995.11 992.28 270 LF - 48" HDPE @ 0.75% 93 LF - 15" RCP @ 2.00% PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 993 994 99 5 99 4 994 EOF:991.46 RD 206 RE:996.42 STMH 20 RE:994.83 RD 107 RE:992.94 RD 207 RE:992.94 RD 208 RE:994.49 CBMH 19 RE:991.75 CBMH 18 RE:991.25 FES 21.1 RE:995.52 995 992 992 993 993 994 996 995 996 997 1,018 SF OF IMPACTED WETLAND 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 5 - G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 5 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE 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.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER 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 ELEVATION T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 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 PROPOSED RIDGE LINE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED TOP/BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION TW:0.0 BW:0.0 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 ## # # # # # # ZT R M L S M C B PR E P A R E D F O R G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S C504 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N AREA KEY MAP NORTH NTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 NORTH 02 03 05 06 07 L O T 2 985 990 982 983 984 986 987 988 98 9 99 1 992 993 980 979 981 98 0 98 5 97 6 97 7 97 8 97 9 98 1 98 2 98 3 98 4 22.90% 24.83% 10.01% 33.33% 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50996.50 996.50 994.79 994.79 993.83 994.49 994.72 995.75 994.76 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.75 995.75 994.59 994.95 995.75 995.75 994.29 994.31 994.41 995.18 995.75 995.75 994.63 994.72 994.95 995.11 994.48 995.41 994.70 994 99 5 99 6 99 6 99 7 99 7 99 8 99 8 99 9 99 9 98 5 99 0 99 5 98 4 98 6 98 7 98 8 98 9 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 98 0 98 1 98 2 98 3 97 6 97 7 97 8 97 9 25.00% 60 1 . 1 2 % 1.93% 2.38% 2.27% 93 LF - 18" RCP @ 7.00% 289 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.69% 100 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.68% 99 LF - 30" RCP @ 0.69% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 110 LF - 18" RCP @ 7.00% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 995.51 995.46 995.45 995.49 994.91 994.93 994.86 995.51 995.46 995.45 995.49 994.87 994.98 994.96 TW:993.85 TW:994.33 TW:994.82 TW:995.13 TW:994.79 TW:994.93 TW:995.06 TW:995.33 BW:995.26 BW:982.52 BW:981.62 BW:981.18 BW:980.74 BW:979.55 BW:986.93 BW:988.63 67 LF - 48" RCP @ 0.37% PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 EOF:994.33 EOF:994.33 EOF:994.33 994.67 BMP #1 - DETENTION BASIN BASIN BOTTOM: 975.00 NWL: 980.00 TOP OF POND: 982.00 100-YR HWL: 981.89 RD 203 RE:996.43 RD 205 RE:996.43 RD 204 RE:996.43 CBMH 11 RE:994.71 CB 24 RE:993.83 CB 26 RE:993.83 CBMH 12 RE:993.83 FES 13 RE:982.88 FES 27 RE:981.79 FES 25 RE:981.79 CBMH 28 RE:983.17 FES 29 RE:982.50 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 5 - G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 5 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE 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.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER 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 ELEVATION T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 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 PROPOSED RIDGE LINE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED TOP/BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION TW:0.0 BW:0.0 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 PR E P A R E D F O R G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S C505 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N AREA KEY MAP NORTH NTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 03 NORTH 04 06 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B O U T L O T A C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K 99 0 99 1 99 2 99 3 99 4 99 5 10 0 0 99 6 99 7 99 8 99 9 995 992 993 994 996 997 998 99 8 2.54% 25 . 0 5 % 996.50 997.00 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.50 996.29 996.24 994.79 995.39 995.75 994.48 995.75 995.75 994.31 995.18 995.75 995.75 994.36 994.44 994.70 996.81 996.76 99 6 22.03% 25.00% 1.93% 2.58% 3.08% 2.24% 1.7 4 % 1. 5 7 % 3.7 0 % D 71 LF - 30" HDPE @ 0.79% 156 LF - 36" RCP @ 0.79% 75 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 78 LF - 12" PVC @ 2.00% 995.42 995.35 995.35 995.40 994.80 994.81 994.77 995.44 995.48 994.53 995.19 997.15 994.36 995.26 995.47 995.32 995.11 994.21 995.04 997.00 996.18 997.42 998.01 998.16 997.57 996.33 93 LF - 15" RCP @ 2.00% PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 99 4 EOF:994.59 99 7 99 8 998 998.12 998.00 995.83 996.43 BMP #1 - DETENTION BASIN BASIN BOTTOM: 975.00 NWL: 980.00 TOP OF POND: 982.00 100-YR HWL: 981.89 RD 206 RE:996.42 CBMH 22 RE:994.09 CB 24 RE:993.83 STMH 21 RE:996.22 FES 23 RE:983.42 FES 21.1 RE:995.52 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C 5 - G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S . d w g F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 1 : 5 5 a m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y 0.0%PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION 0.00%PROPOSED ADA SLOPE 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.ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19.ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21.MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. PROPOSED STORM SEWER 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 ELEVATION T/G:0.0 EOF:0.0 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 PROPOSED RIDGE LINE PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED TOP/BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION TW:0.0 BW:0.0 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 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 . M I C H A E L C . B R A N D T , P . E . 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 42 6 6 1 PR E P A R E D F O R G R A D I N G P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T S C506 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N AREA KEY MAP NORTH NTS 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 NORTH 04 05 08 07 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N ZT R M L S M C B CONIFEROUS TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ROOT SIZE BHS 13 PICEA GLAUCA `DENSATA`BLACK HILLS SPRUCE B & B 6` HT. CBS 14 PICEA PUNGENS COLORADO SPRUCE B & B 6` HT. ERC 17 JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA EASTERN RED CEDAR B & B 6` HT. WHC 11 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `WHITE CEDAR`WHITE CEDAR B & B 6` HT. WHP 21 PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE B & B 6` HT. ORNAMENTAL TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ROOT SIZE ALS 14 AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLANCE`AUTUMN BRILLANCE SERVICEBERRY B & B 6` HT. IRW 11 OSTRYA VIRGINIANA IRONWOOD B & B 1.5" CAL. QUA 19 POPULUS TREMULOIDES QUAKING ASPEN B & B 1.5" CAL. SSC 3 MALUS X `SPRING SNOW`SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE B & B 1.75" CAL MIN TCH 6 CRATAEGUS CRUS-GALLI INERMIS TM THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN B & B 1.5" CAL. OVERSTORY TREE CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ROOT SIZE BOL 13 TILIA AMERICANA `BOULEVARD`BOULEVARD LINDEN B & B 2.5" CAL. HCK 12 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY B & B 2.5" CAL. IHL 17 GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS VAR. INERMIS `IMPERIAL`IMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST B & B 2.5" CAL. SWO 15 QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK B & B 2.5" CAL. CONIFEROUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ROOT SIZE SGJ 28 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS `SEA GREEN`SEA GREEN JUNIPER #5 CONT.5` O.C. TAU 44 TAXUS X MEDIA `TAUNTONII`TAUTON YEW #5 CONT.5` O.C. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ROOT SIZE AJN 19 PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `JEFAM`AMBER JUBILEE NINEBARK #5 CONT.4` O.C. ANH 12 HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS `ANNABELLE`ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA #5 CONT.4` O.C. BLC 44 ARONIA MELANOCARPA `IROQUOIS BEAUTY` TM IROQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY #5 CONT.4` O.C. Dbh 45 DIERVILLA LONICERA DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE #5 CONT.3` O.C. LDN 41 PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `DONNA MAY` TM LITTLE DEVIL NINEBARK #5 CONT.4` O.C. RTD 30 CORNUS SERICEA `BAILEYI`RED TWIG DOGWOOD #5 CONT.5` O.C. SEM 15 SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA `SEM`SEM FALSESPIREA #5 CONT.3` O.C. PERENNIALS CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT SPACING BES 155 RUDBECKIA FULGIDA `GOLDSTURM`BLACK-EYED SUSAN #1 CONT 18" O.C. BHG 201 SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM `BLUE HEAVEN`BLUE HEAVEN LITTLE BLUESTEM #1 CONT 24" O.C. KFG 140 CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER`KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS #1 CONT 30" O.C. PDS 86 SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1 CONT 24" O.C. WLC 97 NEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW`WALKERS LOW CATMINT #1 CONT 30" O.C. WSE 89 ECHINACEA PURPUREA `WHITE SWAN`WHITE SWAN CONEFLOWER #1 CONT.24" O.C. PLANT SCHEDULE 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 BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ P l a n S h e e t s \ L 1 - L A N D S C A P E D E T A I L S . D W G F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 2 : 0 2 p m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH NOTES: 2X ROOT BALL WIDTH SOD 4" TOPSOIL PREPARED PLANTING BED AND BACKFILL SOIL (THOROUGHLY LOOSENED) NOTES: 1.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2.PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING OF TOP AND ROOT. 3.REMOVE CONTAINER AND SCORE OUTSIDE OF SOIL MASS TO REDIRECT AND PREVENT CIRCLING FIBROUS ROOTS. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 4.PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 5.WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 6.BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 7.PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 8.MIX IN 3-4" OF ORGANIC COMPOST. 1.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2.PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING. 3.SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL. INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. 4.SLIT REMAINING TREATED BURLAP AT 6" INTERVALS. 5.BACKFILL TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL, THEN WATER PLANT. REMOVE THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 6.PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL. 7.WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 8.BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER SECOND TIME. 9.PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. 10.FINAL LOCATION OF TREE TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER. PLANTING SOIL ON CENTER SPACING AS STATED ON PLAN. EXTEND HOLE EXCAVATION WIDTH A MINIMUM OF 6" BEYOND THE PLANTS ROOT SYSTEM. FINISHED GRADE EDGER, AS SPECIFIED TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1081 SHRUB / PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1082 1/ 2 " FINISHED GRADE AT LAWN, 1/2" BELOW TOP OF DIVIDER. LAWN SIDE "BLACK DIAMOND" EDGING BY VALEEY VIEW SPECIALTIES CO. USE 20 FT. LENGTHS. USE KNURLED CONNECTOR AT SPLICES, USE CORNER, TEE, VEE, OR WIDE ANBLE CONNECTORS AT ANGLE 10" X 7/8" METAL ANCHOR STAKES AT 48" O.C., AND AT CHANGES. EACH END. PLASTIC DIVIDER: FINISHED GRADE AT SHRUBS/ PERENNIALS, 1" BELOW TOP OF DIVIDER. PLANTING BED 1" POLY EDGER DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S.L1083 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTS OR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. 2.ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 3.NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 4.ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND/OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 6.ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA-GROWN AND/OR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADE SHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3. 7.PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. 8.PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES. 9.PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL-IN MATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY. 10.PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLARE IS LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWN TO THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLARE. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLARE SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 11.OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 12.PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES. 13.WRAP ALL SMOOTH-BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST. 14.STAKING OF TREES AS REQUIRED; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 15.THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEED OF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS. 16.BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN/DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. MINIMUM 4" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 12" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR TREE, SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS. 17.MULCH TO BE AT ALL TREE, SHRUB, PERENNIAL, AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WITHIN TURF AREAS. PERENNIAL AND ORNAMENTAL GRASS BEDS SHALL HAVE 2" DEPTH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH TO BE FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL AND NATURAL IN COLOR, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE RIVER ROCK, 1 1/2" DIAMETER, AT MINIMUM 3" DEPTH, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE ON COMMERCIAL GRADE FILTER FABRIC, BY TYPAR, OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH NO EXPOSURE. MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. MULCH TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 18.EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE VALLEY-VIEW BLACK DIAMOND (OR EQUAL) POLY EDGING OR SPADED EDGE, AS INDICATED. POLY EDGING SHALL BE PLACED WITH SMOOTH CURVES AND STAKED WITH METAL SPIKES NO GREATER THAN 4 FOOT ON CENTER WITH BASE OF TOP BEAD AT GRADE, FOR MOWERS TO CUT ABOVE WITHOUT DAMAGE. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V-SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TO CREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. INDIVIDUAL TREE, SHRUB, OR RAIN-GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. EDGING TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE). 19.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PARKING LOT ISLANDS TO BE SODDED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AROUND ALL TREES AND SHRUBS. SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX, FREE OF LAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. SEED AS SPECIFIED AND PER MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS. IF NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 20.PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OPERATION MANUALS, AS-BUILT PLANS, AND NORMAL PROGRAMMING. SYSTEM SHALL BE WINTERIZED AND HAVE SPRING STARTUP DURING FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. SYSTEM SHALL HAVE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PARTS AND LABOR. ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. SYSTEM SHALL INCLUDE A RAIN SENSOR AND APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY. 21.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. 22.REPAIR, REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD/SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 23.REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO OWNER. 24.RAIN GARDEN NOTE: PROVIDE AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AT RAIN GARDEN AREA SIDE SLOPES AFTER ALL PLANTING HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. BLANKET TO BE ONE SEASON GEOJUTE, MN/DOT CATEGORY 2 (STRAW 1S, WOOD FIBER 1S), OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLANKET TO BE OVERLAPPED BY 4" AND ANCHORED BY SOD STAPLES. PLACE BLANKET PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. TRENCH IN EDGES OF BLANKET AREA TO PREVENT UNDER MINING. PROVIDE SILT FENCE AT TOP OF SLOPE AS NEEDED. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO MATCH OTHER PROJECT PLANTING MULCH. PLACE 4" DEPTH OF MULCH AT ALL PLANTING AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AREA (NO FILTER FABRIC). SEE RAIN GARDEN DETAIL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. RAIN GARDEN TO PROVIDE PROPER INFILTRATION AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS PER ENGINEERS APPROVAL. 25.MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND OTHER PLANTS UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION, BUT IN NO CASE, LESS THAN FOLLOWING PERIOD; 1 YEAR AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION. MAINTAIN TREES, SHRUBS, AND OTHER PLANTS BY PRUNING, CULTIVATING, AND WEEDING AS REQUIRED FOR HEALTHY GROWTH. RESTORE PLANTING SAUCERS. TIGHTEN AND REPAIR STAKE AND GUY SUPPORTS AND RESET TREES AND SHRUBS TO PROPER GRADES OR VERTICAL POSITION AS REQUIRED. RESTORE OR REPLACE DAMAGED WRAPPINGS. SPRAY AS REQUIRED TO KEEP TREES AND SHRUBS FREE OF INSECTS AND DISEASE. REPLENISH MULCH TO THE REQUIRED DEPTH. MAINTAIN LAWNS FOR 45 DAYS AFTER INSTALLING SOD INCLUDING MOWING WHEN SOD RECITES 4” IN HEIGHT. WEED PLANTING BEDS AND MULCH SAUCERS AT MINIMUM ONCE A MONTH DURING THE GROWING SEASON. PROVIDE A MONTHLY REPORT TO THE OWNER ON WEEDING AND OTHER MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. 26.SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING. 27.OWNER AND ARCHITECT TO CONFIRM SITE FURNISHINGS SUCH AS BENCHES, TABLES AND CHAIRS, AND TRASH/RECYCLING RECEPTACLES. LANDSCAPE NOTES PR E P A R E D F O R LA N D S C A P E D E T A I L S L108 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N 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 H . H Y L L E S T E D 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 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 7 7 4 0 5 4 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N CF K CF K RA H D D D D D D W I L L O W D R I V E W I L L O W D R I V E C H I P P E W A R O A D CATES RANCH ROADCATES RANCH ROAD C H I P P E W A R O A D C H I P P E W A R O A D L O T 1 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K L O T 2 B L O C K 1 C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K O U T L O T B C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K T T O U T L O T A C A T E S I N D U S T R I A L P A R K PROPOSED SCREEN BERM PROPOSED BERM IMPACTED WETLAND 3 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SCREEN WALL PROPOSED SCREEN WALL PROPOSED SCREEN WALL IMPACTED WETLAND 1 IMPACTED WETLAND 2 IMPACTED WETLAND 4 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED ±131,746 SF BUILDING W/ 8 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 PROPOSED ±176,824 SF BUILDING W/ 15 DOCK STALLS FFE = 997.0 LANDSCAPE KEYNOTESLANDSCAPE LEGEND EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE (TYP.) EXISTING SHRUB (TYP.) EDGER (TYP.) APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SOD / IRRIGATION, SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS (TYP.) SEED/ SOD EDGE (TYP.) A A B C D E LANDSCAPE KEYNOTES EDGER (TYP.) DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (TYP.) ROCK MULCH (TYP.) SOD (TYP.) MAINTENANCE STRIP (TYP.) SEEDING KEYNOTES SEED WITH MNDOT 22-112: FIVE-YEAR STABILIZATION SEED MIX (TYP.) SEED WITH MNDOT 25-131: LOW MAINTENANCE TURF SEED MIX (TYP.) SEED WITH MNDOT 33-261: STORMWATER SOUTH & WEST SEED MIX (TYP.) 22-112 25-131 33-261 22-112 CONIFEROUS TREE CODE COMMON NAME BHS BLACK HILLS SPRUCE CBS COLORADO SPRUCE ERC EASTERN RED CEDAR WHC WHITE CEDAR WHP WHITE PINE ORNAMENTAL TREE CODE COMMON NAME ALS AUTUMN BRILLANCE SERVICEBERRY IRW IRONWOOD QUA QUAKING ASPEN SSC SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE TCH THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN OVERSTORY TREE CODE COMMON NAME BOL BOULEVARD LINDEN HCK COMMON HACKBERRY IHL IMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST SWO SWAMP WHITE OAK CONIFEROUS SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME SGJ SEA GREEN JUNIPER TAU TAUTON YEW DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME AJN AMBER JUBILEE NINEBARK ANH ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA BLC IROQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY Dbh DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE LDN LITTLE DEVIL NINEBARK RTD RED TWIG DOGWOOD SEM SEM FALSESPIREA PERENNIALS CODE COMMON NAME BES BLACK-EYED SUSAN BHG BLUE HEAVEN LITTLE BLUESTEM KFG KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS PDS PRAIRIE DROPSEED WLC WALKERS LOW CATMINT WSE WHITE SWAN CONEFLOWER PLANT KEY 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 © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E 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 . 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 \ 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 F e b r u a r y 0 1 , 2 0 2 3 - 1 2 : 0 0 p m 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 P R E L I M I N A R Y REQUIRED TREES:100 OVERSTORY DECIDOUS / CONIFEROUS TREES = 4,988 L.F. OF SITE PERIMETER / 50 50 ORNAMENTAL TREES = 4,988 L.F. OF SITE PERIMETER / 100 PROVIDED TREES:133 OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS / CONIFEROUS TREES = 57 DECIDUOUS + 76 CONIFEROUS 53 ORNAMENTAL TREES REQUIRED SHRUBS:167 SHRUBS = 4,988 L.F. OF SITE PERIMETER / 30 PROVIDED SHRUBS:203 SHRUBS LANDSCAPE SUMMARY Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R NORTH PR E P A R E D F O R O V E R A L L L A N D S C A P E P L A N L100 CA T E S M E D I N A I N D U S T R I A L O P P I D A N M E D I N A M N 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 53 8 2 8 NOTE: SEE SHEET L108 FOR FULL LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE 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 01 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 3 AS S H O W N CF K CF K RA H 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 *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. 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" SCREEN WALL 60'-0" 14 ' - 6 " *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. 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" SCREEN WALL 60'-0" 14 ' - 6 " *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. 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 SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. 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 = 69% 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 1 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MEDINA, MN 03/09/2023 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 METAL LOUVERED SCREEN WALL MEDIUM BRONZE/ MEDIUM BUFF A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 H J K WAREHOUSE BUILDING #1 MECH M 502'-0" 51'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 51'-0" 26 2 ' - 0 " 50 ' - 0 " 5 0 ' - 0 " 5 0 ' - 0 " 5 0 ' - 0 " 62 ' - 0 " DRIVE-INDRIVE-IN SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL N MEDINA SPEC INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 1 - SHELL PLAN MEDINA, MN 03/09/2023 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 *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. 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" SCREEN WALL 14 ' - 6 " 60'-0" 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" SCREEN WALL *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. 60'-0" 14 ' - 6 " 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 SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. 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. WEST (DOCK SIDE) 2. EAST A. CLASS 1: 6469/22605 = 29% B. CLASS 2: 16136/22605 = 71% 3. NORTH A. CLASS 1: 1844/9222 = 20% B. CLASS 2: 7378/9222 = 80% 4. SOUTH A. CLASS 1: 1844/9222 = 20% B. CLASS 2: 7378/9222 = 80% MEDINA SPEC INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 2 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MEDINA, MN 10-05-2022 1" = 20'-0"P003 1 PRESENTATION - EAST 1" = 20'-0"P003 2 PRESENTATION - SOUTH 1" = 20'-0"P003 3 PRESENTATION - NORTH 1" = 20'-0"P003 4 PRESENTATION - WEST LIGHT BUFF AGGREGATE DARK AGGREGATE BRAZILWOOD SMOOTH IRONSPOT TITAN SIZE WHITE ACMDARK BUFF AGGREGATE METAL LOUVERED SCREEN WALL MEDIUM BRONZE/ MEDIUM BUFF 03/09/2023 *AVG. DECK HEIGHT: 30'-8" A.F.F. A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 H J K L M N WAREHOUSE BUILDING #2 MECH P Q 50 ' - 0 " 5 0 ' - 0 " 5 0 ' - 0 " 5 0 ' - 0 " 62 ' - 0 " 26 2 ' - 0 " 37'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 37'-0" 674'-0" DRIVE-INDRIVE-IN SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL N MEDINA SPEC INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 2 - SHELL PLAN MEDINA, MN 10-05-202203/09/2023 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday January 10, 2023 4 5 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Aheel Ahmed, John Jacob, Matt Plec, Justin Popp, and 8 Braden Rhem. 9 10 Absent: Planning Commissioners Beth Nielsen and Cindy Piper. 11 12 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke 13 14 2. Changes to Agenda 15 16 No comments made. 17 18 3. Introduction of Planning Commissioners 19 20 The members of the Commission introduced themselves. 21 22 4. Update from City Council Proceedings 23 24 Albers introduced himself and provided an update on the activity of the Council from its first 25 meeting of the year at which Council appointments were made and a discussion was had with 26 Representative Kristin Robbins. 27 28 Popp asked if there is a timeline for a new fire station and when that would be necessary. 29 30 Albers commented that timeline is not yet known and provided additional information on 31 how the communities in this area are working together to establish a fire district with shared 32 services that would operate in a more cost-effective manner. 33 34 Popp asked if there are any concerns with current response times. 35 36 Albers replied that Medina is currently served by four fire departments with excellent 37 response times. 38 39 Jacob asked what is driving the water treatment plant expansion. 40 41 Albers replied that it would be in anticipation of future growth. 42 43 5. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 44 45 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Jacob volunteered 46 to attend in representation of the Commission. 47 48 6. Planning Department Report 49 50 Finke provided an update. 51 2 52 7. Meander Park and Boardwalk – Meander Road, East of Arrowhead Drive – 53 Medina Ventures – PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat for Commercial 54 Development Including Event Venue, Daycare, Restaurant and Retail (PID 55 0211823330003) 56 57 Finke noted that the Commission reviewed this case in November and recommended 58 approval. 59 60 Plec excused himself from this discussion and vote to avoid a conflict of interest. 61 62 Finke stated that this is predominantly commercial development with residential development 63 on the northern portion of the site. He stated that originally the lodging units were proposed 64 to be on the northern portion of the site, but concern was raised, and it was determined that 65 the lodging should be incorporated into the commercial development and the northern units 66 should remain strictly residential. He stated that the applicant has updated their plans as such 67 for review. He stated that the focus tonight will be on the architectural changes and 68 incorporation of the lodging units into the event venue space. He stated that as proposed 69 there would be 19 rooms within the lodging space. He also highlighted architectural elements 70 that have been updated and improved since the last review. He noted that the twinhomes 71 have been updated to be two story homes. He stated that the materials were updated on the 72 event venue, increasing brick and tile. He noted that staff would suggest additional 73 modulation for the event venue and the twinhomes. 74 75 Jacob asked for details on signage. 76 77 Finke replied that signage has not yet been requested and therefore the standard signage 78 regulations would apply. 79 80 Chris Pederson, applicant, stated that they are attempting to create a boutique development 81 and therefore have not yet discussed signage but could consider a larger sign for the 82 development on the upland area. He stated that he would prefer more signage on the actual 83 buildings. He stated that the water feature would stand tall enough to have signage for the 84 event space. He stated that most daycare users would not be deciding to stop because of 85 signage and therefore building signage should be sufficient. He stated that the retail and 86 restaurant would have visibility from Highway 55 and therefore building signage should be 87 sufficient as well. He stated that it is not his intent to have large multi-tenant signage. He 88 stated that it is their intent to provide enough signage to alert customers but have the overall 89 development more lowkey and boutique. 90 91 Finke noted that if desired, the Commission could direct staff and the applicant to work 92 together to present a general plan for signage prior to the Council meeting. 93 94 Ahmed referenced the townhomes and asked if those would be listed for sale. 95 96 Pederson confirmed that they would sell those as single-family homes to individuals. He 97 thanked the Commission for the pivot at the November meeting to suggest lodging on the 98 commercial side as that is a key component for the development. He stated that having the 99 lodging component enclosed within the event center would also address the previous concern 100 of safety for those crossing Meander to reach the units on the northern portion of the 101 development. He recognized the signage is important for a restaurant or retail user and noted 102 that in terms of signage they want something on the building that would be visible and would 103 blend with the overall aesthetic of the development. 104 3 105 Ahmed recognized that detailed signage at this point would be premature. 106 107 Finke explained that the intent would be to discuss the allowable signage per frontage, noting 108 that could be combined to have one larger sign rather than two smaller signs. He noted that 109 they could also then discuss the building signage that would be allowed. He stated that there 110 could be general signage requirements incorporated into the development agreement that 111 would help to ensure the aesthetic of the development is carried through by individual users. 112 113 Pederson commented that he would perhaps want a sign denoting the overall Meander Park 114 and Boardwalk development that would fit with the rural character of the area. 115 116 Jacob inquired about what vehicle-resistant fencing would entail. 117 118 Finke replied that the alternative would be bollards. It was noted that securing and hardening 119 of various locations has become common practice, so there is likely a standard for fencing 120 intending to stand up to vehicles. 121 122 Pederson commented that a daycare operator would have additional regulations they would 123 have to meet in terms of safety, above the regulations of Medina. 124 125 Finke noted that a public hearing was held in November, therefore a second public hearing is 126 not required, and the meeting was not noticed as such. He stated that public input could still 127 be accepted. 128 129 No comments were made by the public. 130 131 Popp commented that he supported much of the development proposed in November but was 132 happy to see this compromise on the lodging. He stated that he also wanted to ensure that 133 this pivot was still economically feasible from the perspective of the developer, which seems 134 to be the case. He believed that all of the issues from November have been addressed and he 135 is happy with the updates to the design. He stated that he does support the recommendation 136 of staff for additional modulation. 137 138 Jacob concurred with Popp’s comments. 139 140 Ahmed had nothing new to add and wished the developer well. 141 142 Rhem commented that he too would support additional modulation on the two-story addition 143 to the event venue. 144 145 Pederson provided additional details that will be on the event venue and twinhomes that he 146 believes will provide modulation. He noted that the design of the twinhomes will be 147 changing and stated that their desire was to receive approval for the footprint, two-stories, 148 and number of units for the residential component. 149 150 Motion by Popp, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval with the conditions noted in 151 the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen and Piper; Recused: Plec) 152 153 Plec rejoined the Commission. 154 155 156 157 4 8. 2023 Planning Commission Officer Elections 158 a. Chair 159 b. Vice Chair 160 161 Finke opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chair for 2023. 162 163 Popp asked if there was interest expressed from Nielsen or Piper on the positions. 164 165 Finke replied that Nielsen stated that she is not interested in serving as Chair and suggested 166 Rhem for the position. 167 168 Motion by Popp, seconded by Ahmed, to elect Rhem as Chair. Motion carries 169 unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen and Piper) 170 171 Rhem opened the floor for nominations for the position of Vice Chair. 172 173 Rhem nominated Popp. 174 175 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to elect Popp as Vice Chair. Motion carries 176 unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen and Piper) 177 178 9. Approval of the November 9, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 179 180 Motion by Jacob, seconded by Rhem, to approve the November 9, 2022, Planning 181 Commission minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen 182 and Piper) 183 184 10. Questions/Discussion: “Land Use Regulation for Local Officials” Webinar 185 186 Finke stated that the City encourages the Commission to alert staff if there are training 187 opportunities they are interested in. He stated that this webinar was offered from the League 188 of Minnesota Cities and provides general knowledge on the topic which can be helpful for 189 Commission members. 190 191 Rhem commented that the information is helpful and provides a refresher as well. 192 193 Finke noted that planning cases typically fall into one of two categories: quasi-judicial or 194 legislative and provided additional details on each category including the level of discretion 195 each would have. 196 197 11. Adjourn 198 199 Motion by Jacob, seconded by Rhem, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried 200 unanimously. 201