Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03.15.2023 Park Commission Meeting Packet Posted 03/10/2023 Page 1 of 1 AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE MEDINA PARK COMMISSION Wednesday, March 15, 2023 7:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Minutes of the January 18, 2023 Regular Park Commission Meeting 4. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE 5. CATES INDUSTRIAL PARK – Oppidan Investments – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review 6. STAFF REPORT a. Park Commission Representation at City Council Meeting b. Upcoming Events c. Park Funds Update d. Park Maintenance Update e. General Items 7. ADJOURN Meeting Rules of Conduct to Address the Park Commission: • Fill out & turn in comment card • Give name and address • Indicate if representing a group • Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes CITY OF MEDINA PARK COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023 Page 1 of 5 The Park Commission of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on January 18, 2023 at 7:00 1 p.m. 2 3 2022 Chairperson Mary Morrison presided. 4 5 1. CALL TO ORDER 6 7 2022 Chairperson Mary Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 8 9 Present: Park Commissioners Terry Sharp, Steve Webster, Will Gunter and Tom Mayer. Youth 10 Park Commissioners Katya Cavanaugh and June Ney. 11 12 Absent: Park Commissioners Troy Hutchinson, Nila Norman. 13 14 Also Present: Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Lisa 15 DeMars, and Park Commission Liaison to City Council Councilmember Joe Cavanaugh. 16 17 2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PARK COMMISSION MEMBER 18 19 Morrison welcomed Park Commissioner Mayer and although Hutchinson was absent, thanked 20 him for volunteering to serve another term. The members of the commission introduced 21 themselves. 22 23 3. APPOINTMENTS OF OFFICERS 24 25 Morrison opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. 26 27 Sharp nominated Morrison for Chair. 28 29 Morrison nominated Sharp for Vice Chair. 30 31 Morrison nominated Norman for Secretary. 32 33 Motion by Sharp, seconded by Webster, to elect Morrison as Chair. Motion carries 34 unanimously. 35 36 Motion by Morrison, seconded by Gunter, to elect Sharp as Vice Chair. Motion carries 37 unanimously. 38 39 CITY OF MEDINA PARK COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Motion by Morrison, seconded by Webster, to elect Norman as Secretary. Motion carries 1 unanimously. 2 3 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 4 5 K.Cavanaugh requested time to discuss emergency telephone stations at Hamel Legion Park. 6 Morrison invited K.Cavanaugh to present after the City Council update. 7 8 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9 10 A. Approval of the November 16, 2022 Park Commission Meeting Minutes 11 Morrison noted prior to the meeting page numbering corrections are to be incorporated. 12 13 Motion by Sharp, seconded by Gunter, to approve the November 16, 2022 Park Commission 14 minutes as amended. Motion carries unanimously. 15 16 6. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE 17 18 J.Cavanaugh provided an update on recent City Council Actions. 19 20 Scherer noted contract with HAC will be negotiated in the upcoming months, and that the group 21 100% supports modifying their process to include a pre-registration period for Medina kids. 22 23 Gunter asked if the City has thought about negotiating depreciation and maintenance into the 24 contract. He also asked if the City has statistics, by organization, based on usage of the park. 25 26 Sharp suggested seeking out a college intern to assist with the creation of a building/building 27 asset inventory list for reference when calculating depreciation and maintenance. 28 29 J.Cavanaugh and the Park Commission agree the City should look into reduced rates for 30 residents of the City. 31 32 Sharp offered to inquire with the Maple Grove Park system to find out how they handle resident 33 rates and building inventories. 34 35 Scherer took notes to discuss with City Staff. 36 37 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA – BLUE LIGHT EMERGENCY PHONES 38 39 CITY OF MEDINA PARK COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023 Page 3 of 5 K.Cavanaugh presented a handout for Blue Light Emergency Phones which is a solar powered 1 emergency call box that anyone could utilize if in a dangerous situation. Upon picking up the 2 phone a strobe light is activated, and immediately dispatched to emergency personnel. The 3 phones are common on college campuses. K.Cavanaugh expressed interest in installing a unit at 4 Hamel Legion Park; one of our most frequented parks with expected attendance growth after the 5 grandstand is built. 6 7 Sharp commented the phones are a great amenity and asked for the cost associated with 8 installation and maintenance, and whether grant money is available. 9 10 K.Cavanaugh didn’t have cost at the moment but noted the unit is powered by solar; which 11 would minimize maintenance costs. 12 13 Mayer frequents the park and observes a high percentage of individuals using cellphones thus 14 questioned if the phones are necessary. K.Cavanaugh stated her research indicated crime rates 15 go down when these phones are available and envisions the phones being utilized by young 16 children or older adults who might not carry cellphones. 17 18 Webster asked where the call is dispatched, Hennepin County or directly to the Medina Police 19 Department. After some discussion, the Park Commission concluded calls would likely go to a 20 dispatch center. 21 22 The Park Commission had positive feedback and asked K.Cavanaugh to do a little more 23 research, speak with the Medina Police Chief, and research grant opportunities, and present 24 options and costs. K.Cavanaugh agreed to do more research. 25 26 7. 2023 PARK COMMISSION GOALS 27 28 The Park Commission discussed annual events and goals for the year. The following 29 goals/actions were created: 30 31 April 29, 2023 Clean up day. The Park Commission expressed interest in participating at Clean 32 up day and instructed DeMars to add an agenda item in February or March, to finalize display 33 ideas and participation commitment. 34 35 May 17, 2023 Park Tour. The Park Commission noted their preference to keep the tour limited to 36 one evening, and for the park tour only. 37 38 June 21, 2023 Capital Improvement Plan Review. The Park Commission is more comfortable 39 participating in maintenance of the asset inventory, now that DeMars has shared the existing list. 40 CITY OF MEDINA PARK COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023 Page 4 of 5 August 1, 2023 Night to Unite Neighborhood Celebrations. This event is hosted by the Police, 1 and added to the Park Commission event list for awareness as some events last year took place in 2 parks. DeMars agreed to share scheduled events, when they become available, so Park 3 Commissioners have the option to attend. 4 5 September 16, 2023 Medina Celebration Day. The Park Commission expressed interest in 6 participating at Celebration Day with a tent and display located next to the Public Works and 7 Police area and instructed DeMars to add an agenda item in August to finalize display ideas and 8 participation commitment. 9 10 Grant Research. Seek grant opportunities for playground equipment, backstops, trails, buckthorn 11 removal, etc. Subcommittee: Webster, K.Cavanaugh, DeMars. 12 13 Clydesdale Trail. Repave failing sections of trail from CR116 to CR101 (Tolomatic to Holiday). 14 15 Hackamore Trail. Trail will be on Corcoran (North) side of street and is still in planning stage. 16 17 Medina Road Trail. Pave shoulder from corner of Hunter & Medina Road heading West. 18 19 Townline Road Trail. Pave trail. 20 21 Deer Hill Preserve Trail. Finalize securement of the trail easement. 22 23 Hunter Lions Park. Continue implementing phased park improvements. Subcommittee: Mayer, 24 Scherer, Webster. 25 26 Lakeshore Park. Install canoe / kayak racks. Install seating areas. 27 28 Medina Morningside Park. Replace baseball backstop and benches. 29 30 Medina Lake Preserve. Begin clean-up / development (woods). Trail head and pavilion (this item 31 will likely push to 2024 & beyond). 32 33 Hamel Legion Park. Grandstand at Paul Fortin Field. Privacy fencing and planting trees on 34 property line. Scoreboard completion (all are HAC projects). 35 36 Chippewa Road park land. Name the park. Begin the plan / design concept process. Plant 37 nursery stock. Subcommittee: Gunter, Ney, Webster, Scherer, DeMars, Finke. 38 39 Shawnee Woods. Trail entrance sign. 40 41 Walnut Park. Update signage (stormwater education opportunity). 42 43 Potential Land Acquisition. City Council is always on the lookout for opportunities. 44 CITY OF MEDINA PARK COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes January 18, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Park Commissioner Park Assignments for 2023 – Park Commissioners should review their 1 assigned park(s), update the asset inventory for their park(s), and recommend any changes to the 2 Capital Improvement Plan for their park(s). 3 4 Holy Name Park - Gunter 5 Hunter Lions Park - Mayer 6 Rainwater Nature Area - Morrison 7 Hamel Legion Park - Webster, K.Cavanaugh 8 Medina Morningside Park - Norman 9 Lakeshore Park - Hutchinson 10 Walnut Park - Hutchinson 11 Maple Park - Hutchinson 12 Tomann Preserve - Norman 13 Medina Lake Preserve - Sharp 14 The Park at Fields of Medina - Sharp 15 Shawnee Woods - Sharp 16 Land on Chippewa Road - Webster, Ney 17 City Hall - Morrison 18 19 8. STAFF REPORT 20 21 DeMars asked if any Park Commissioner had questions regarding the staff report. 22 23 Morrison directed attention to the roster for Park Commission representation at City Council 24 meetings and instructed the Park Commission to add dates to their calendar, or trade with another 25 Park Commissioner if unable to attend. 26 27 Sharp and Morrison instructed DeMars to provide bullet points from meetings to aid the Park 28 Commissioners in providing useful updates to the City Council. DeMars agreed to provide 29 bullet points. 30 31 9. ADJOURN 32 33 A motion was made by Mayer, seconded by Sharp, to adjourn the meeting. 34 35 The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by Lisa De Mars. 36 Cates Industrial Park Page 1 of 5 March 15, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Park Commission Meeting TO: Park Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: March 9, 2023 MEETING: March 14, 2023 Planning Commission SUBJECT: 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 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. MEMORANDUM Agenda Item 5 Cates Industrial Park Page 2 of 5 March 15, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Park 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 5 March 15, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Park 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. 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. Cates Industrial Park Page 4 of 5 March 15, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Park Commission Meeting 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 Park and Trails Plan 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. Parks and Trails Park Improvements N/A Trail construction 2100 linear feet Off-road trail easement 2820 linear feet Cates Industrial Park Page 5 of 5 March 15, 2022 Rezoning, PrePlat, Site Plan Review Park Commission Meeting Proposed Improvements 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 and is shown in pink on 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. This is shown in yellow. Public Works recommends trail easements 20’ in width. Staff recommends requiring park dedication for the easements which are not abutting the right-of-way, a total area of 1.3 acres. The trail easement abutting right-of-way is provided rather than requiring additional right-of-way. This area would equate to 46% of the maximum dedication which could be required. Staff recommends cash-in-lieu for the remaining dedication amount. Potential Motion Motion to recommend requiring dedication of trail easements as described in the staff report, with cash-in-lieu of additional land dedication. Attachments 1. Excerpt from 1/18/2022 Park Commission minutes 2. Excerpt from 5/17/2022 City Council minutes 3. Excerpt from 5/10/2022 Planning Commission minutes 4. Applicant Narrative 5. Civil Plans 6. Architectural Plans 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). 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 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 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 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. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Medina Park Commission FROM: Lisa DeMars, Public Works Administrative Assistant DATE OF REPORT: March 10, 2023 DATE OF MEETING: March 15, 2023 SUBJECT: Park Commission Meeting Report 2.Additions to Agenda If any Park Commissioner wishes to add an item to the agenda after the agenda has already been posted, the agenda item must be proposed at this point in the meeting. The Park Commission must agree to add the item by motion. No attachments for this item. 4.City Council Update This is a reoccurring agenda item to have the City Council Liaison to the Park Commission give an update at each meeting on what is happening at the Council level. City Council member Joseph Cavanaugh has been appointed as the Liaison to the Park Commission for 2023. No attachments for this item. 5.Cates Industrial Park – Oppidan Investments – Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review Please refer to the attached excerpt from the January 19, 2022 meeting where the Park Commission heard the comprehensive plan amendment for this project. Planning Director Dusty Finke’s report provides background information on the applicant’s request to develop 310,000 square feet of warehouse / light industrial / office buildings on approximately 30 acres east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. See attached report.  Recommended Action:  The Park Commission should review the report and make a recommendation requiring dedication of trail easements as described in the staff report, and cash-in-lieu of additional land dedication. Staff Report Park Commission Representation at Council Meeting. Upcoming council meetings will be held on March 21, and April 4 and 18. (Terry Sharp is on the roster for March, Nila Norman is on the roster for April). Steve Scherer will continue to provide meeting updates if you are unable to attend or trade dates with another Park Commissioner. Upcoming Events. April 29 city wide clean-up from 8:00AM to noon. Fund (Municipal, Park Dedication, Robert G Mitchell Jr. Designated Beneficiary) Update. Park dedication fee revenue generated from new development in 2022 was $164,748. Park Maintenance Update. Hamel Legion: Agre Tennis is again offering lessons and renting court time. Installation of the scoreboard donated by the Hamel Lions will begin soon. Fields of Medina: Alchemy Soccer historically rented open space at Maple Park, however the fields are in need of repairs, so we are offering them space at FOM. Lakeshore: the canoe/kayak rack is being assembled at public works and will be installed this spring. After the snow melts we will start the process to obtain price quotes to plan and install seating areas. Medina Lake Preserve: we are researching options to clear the heavy 2 buckthorn (including goats!) as well as a partnership with Green River Greening for grant opportunities to create a management plan for the land. Park Commission Member List. Youth Park Commissioner Cavanaugh’s term expires in April, the corrected Park Commissioner Member List is included in your packet. General Items. This is a reoccurring agenda for Park Commissioners or Staff to give a verbal update on any other general park items. Staff representation at the March 15 Park Commission meeting will be Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Lisa DeMars, and Planning Director Dusty Finke. greatrivergreening.org Great River Greening | 251 Starkey Street | Suite 2200 | Saint Paul, MN 55107 Great River Greening About Us Our mission is to inspire, engage, and lead local communities in conserving and caring for the land and water that enrich our lives. There has never been a more critical time to strengthen our shared greenspaces. At Great River Greening, we harness the power of community engagement to lead science-based habitat restoration throughout the state of Minnesota. We bring people from all walks of life closer to the natural world around them. As a leader in community-driven projects, we know this work, together, creates a lasting dedication to Minnesota’s land and water. Great River Greening began in 1995 as a project to “Green the Great River”. Over 10,000 volunteers planted 35,000 trees along the Saint Paul Mississippi River Valley, which sparked an even grander vision. Now we restore 2,000 acres of critical habitat annually alongside 2,500 volunteers. Great River Greening has grown to become Minnesota’s leader for community-based conservation. Our youth programming inspires over 1,000 future environmental stewards each year. Our ecologists give youth the hands-on education they need to nurture the environment beyond one place or one event, but continuously in their own neighborhoods and communities. Great River Greening | 251 Starkey Street | Suite 2200 | Saint Paul, MN 55107 greatrivergreening.org Great River Greening About Us VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS Each year, Great River Greening engages thousands of volunteers to participate in stewardship events in their own communities. We reach deep, partnering with civic organizations, schools, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies. Since we began, we have engaged over 45,000 volunteers, of which 12,000 are youth and young adults. YOUTH PROGRAMS Great River Greening helps hundreds of youths each year. We are dedicated to inspiring the stewards of tomorrow with hands-on activities and classroom instruction. We bring teens outdoors and inspire a commitment to their natural world. CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Our ecologists manage over 60 restoration projects a year, focusing on Minnesota’s most threatened natural areas. Through a science-based approach, we transform degraded habitat into beautiful, resilient outdoor places for people to connect with nature. While each project is unique, we address Minnesota’s more pressing environmental challenges: • Water quality along the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers • Declining pollinator habitat and health • Climate change that results in extreme weather and excessive flooding • Threatened public green spaces, including regional parks, trails, and wildlife areas • Engaging marginalized communities in environmental stewardship 2023 PARK COMMISSION GOALS Page 1 of 2 January 25, 2023 2023 PLANNED EVENTS January 18 Annual Goal Setting Session April 29 Participate in Annual City Clean-up Day (discuss in March) May 17 Annual Park Commission Park Tour June 21 Capital Improvement Plan Review August 1 Night to Unite Neighborhood Celebrations (a Police Event – Lisa to notify Park Commissioners if activities are planned in any park) September 16 Participate in Annual Celebration Day (discuss in August) GRANT OPPORTUNITY RESEARCH Be on the lookout for and review grant opportunities as they become available. Note: Webster is an active member of the Minnesota Park and Recreation Association, which may have more access to offerings. a. Subcommittee: Steve Webster, Katya Cavanaugh, Lisa DeMars TRAIL PROJECTS Clydesdale Trail • Repave failing sections of trail from CR116 to CR101 (Tolomatic to Holiday) Hackamore Trail • Trail will be on Corcoran (North) side of street and is still in planning stage Medina Road Trail • Pave shoulder from corner of Hunter & Medina Road heading West Townline Road Trail • Pave trail Deer Hill Preserve Trail • Finalize securement of the trail easement PARK PROJECTS Hunter Lions Park • Continue implementing phased park improvements • Subcommittee: Tom Mayer, Steve Scherer, and Steve Webster Lakeshore Park • Install canoe / kayak racks • Install seating areas Medina Morningside Park • Replace baseball backstop and benches Medina Lake Preserve • Begin clean-up / development (woods) • Trail head and pavilion (this item will likely push to 2024 & beyond) 2023 PARK COMMISSION GOALS Page 2 of 2 January 25, 2023 Hamel Legion Park • Grandstand at Paul Fortin Field (HAC project) • Privacy fencing and planting trees on property line (HAC project) • Scoreboard completion (HAC project) Chippewa Road park land • Name the park • Begin the plan / design concept process • Plant nursery stock • Subcommittee: Will Gunter, June Ney, Steve Webster, Steve Scherer, Lisa DeMars, Dusty Finke Shawnee Woods • Trail entrance sign Walnut Park • Update signage (stormwater education opportunity) Potential Land Acquisition • City Council is always on the lookout for opportunities 2023 PARK COMMISSIONER PARK ASSIGNMENTS Holy Name Park: Will Gunter Hunter Lions Park: Tom Mayer Rainwater Nature Area: Mary Morrison Hamel Legion Park: Steve Webster and Katya Cavanaugh Medina Morningside Park: Nila Norman Lakeshore Park: Troy Hutchinson Walnut Park: Troy Hutchinson Maple Park: Troy Hutchinson Tomann Preserve: Nila Norman Medina Lake Preserve: Terry Sharp The Park at Fields of Medina: Terry Sharp Shawnee Woods: Terry Sharp Land on Chippewa Road: Steve Webster and June Ney City Hall: Mary Morrison