Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
01-2007
Agenda Item: 9 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE OF REPORT: DATE OF MEETING: SUBJECT: REVIEW DEADLINE: Planning Commission Co -Authored by City Administrator Chad M. Adams, City Planner Rose Lorsung, and Assistant to Planning Dusty Finke. January 5, 2007 January 9, 2007 Bancor Group Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Medina Golf Course March 17, 2007 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Bancor Group has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide a portion of the perimeter of the Medina Golf Course formally known as the Rolling Green Golf Course (see map) from Public/Semi-Public to medium density residential. Medium density residential encompasses the net density range of 3-6 units/net acre. The site is not currently in the City's Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), which allows urban sanitary sewer service connection, but is designated to be in the MUSA post 2020. The land use request includes the reguiding for the west and north perimeter of the 18-hole portion of the site, with the remainder scheduled to remain golf course. Bancor recently appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council during October 2006 for a Concept Plan on the same golf course site. Bancor is now seeking formal City approval of an amendment to Medina's Comprehensive Plan to reguide the property. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved through this process, the applicant would then need to submit applications to the City for the actual development (including, at minimum: Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan). 2. SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed property to be reguided is 28.45 gross acres in size with a net development area of 15.76 acres. The proposed number of units is 49, which results in a net density of 3.11 units/ acre. It should be noted that this net density figure has changed since the Concept Plan Review process due to new Metropolitan Council requirements for calculating net density. In summary, the Metropolitan Council has revised their method for deducting particular items and infrastructure, including the arterial road which affects the Bancor application. Previously, arterial roads were allowed to be deducted from the gross acreage to determine net density. By adding these areas (i.e. road) back into the equation, the net developable acres increased from 14.0 to 15.76 acres, dropping the net density from 3.50 as presented at the Concept Plan to its current figure of 3.11 units/net acre. The properties surrounding the site have varying zoning. The properties to the north of the site are zoned Rural Residential Urban Reserve. The properties to the west are zoned Suburban Medina Golf Course 1 Bancor Group Concept Plan Residential (Foxberry Farms) and Business Park. To the east is Wild Meadows as a PUD (with single-family use). To the south is Multi -Family Residential, Urban Commercial and Industrial. The ground cover on the site includes some poor soils and wetland areas. In the Northeast corner of the site, there is a Maple Basswood forest remnant and considerable low lying wetland areas and some area just removed from a floodplain (see map). 3. CONCEPT PLAN FEEDBACK: Meeting minutes for the Concept Plan at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings are attached for a full review. The Planning Commission was generally favorable to the land use of the property but was concerned about the timing, similar to other Concept Plans for which Comprehensive Plan Amendments are required. The residents and commission both shared concerns about traffic (foot, bicycle and vehicle) on County Road 116. The commission was also concerned about the future long-term use of the entire golf course including the 9-hole portion of the site which is already in the MUSA and zoned for Multi -Family Residential. The City Council was also generally supportive of the land use. There was a significant amount of discussion about maintaining the Country Club as a golf course and as open area. Discussion occurred regarding County Road 116 and resident traffic concerns. The applicant stated that they are willing to make significant contributions to road infrastructure in the area. Concerns about timing and previously discouraging other Comprehensive Plan Amendment was also discussed. There was also concern raised that this amendment may overwhelm city resources and slow down the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan update. 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS: If Bancor receives initial City approval, the amendment request would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review, comments and approval. The City would then need to accept or deny any conditions set by the Metropolitan Council by formal resolution. Additionally, if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council and City, the applicant would then need to submit applications to the City for the actual development (including, at minimum• Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan). 5. REVIEW: Timing Staff believes that the timing of this Comprehensive Plan amendment is the most important consideration with this request, as with all Comprehensive Plan amendments or rezonings at this time. The City of Medina is currently delving deep into the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan (which must be completed by the end of the year 2008) and therefore has not had the opportunity to thoroughly review this property for planning, transportation, utilities, etc. Staff believes that the most logical and most beneficial strategy to plan a significant change in land use such as proposed is to evaluate based on the regional planning that will occur over the next year. The Bancor development will require significant Medina Golf Course 2 Bancor Group Concept Plan infrastructure improvements, and it is more wise and efficient to plan for these improvements within the context of city-wide development and infrastructure planning Traffic A significant amount of concern was raised by residents, Commissioners, and Council members on the impact of the proposed development on County Road 116. The City requested that the applicant provide a traffic study so that these concerns could be put into context. The applicant provided a trip generation report for the proposed 49 units (attached). The applicant's engineer estimated that each unit would generate 5.86 trips per day, for a total of 290 trips per day added to County Road 116 for the entire development. Although the applicant has stated at public meetings that they would be willing to contribute significantly to improvements along County Road 116, the timing issue is, again, of primary concern. Even if the applicant would contribute to improvements necessary for this particular request, planning these improvements without a broader knowledge of surrounding land -use for the area would be premature and may lead to insufficient design. Land use decisions for property directly to the north of the County Club (currently zoned Rural Residential -Urban Reserve) and west (currently zoned Business Park and to accommodate a future backage road from County Road 116 to Arrowhead) during the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan update, may lead to the need for significantly more improvements to County Road 116 in the relatively short-term. Without knowing this information, transportation planning for this amendment is extremely difficult. Density The City continues to discuss with the Metropolitan Council their requirements for achieving a 3 to 5 minimum unit/net acre density within the City's MUSA for the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan update. Currently, the City is sitting at just under 2 units/net acre in our MUSA. In November 2004, the City Council approved by resolution a commitment to reach a city net density average of 3 units per acre for all post 2000 developments as part of the Charles Cudd Bridgewater at Lake Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Bancor application will be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council to determine if the City is demonstrating strong progress to meet this commitment. While accommodating the minimum 3 to 5 units per acre required by the Metropolitan Council, the proposed Bancor development's net density of 3.11 units/acre will only minimally increase the City's overall net density average for the MUSA. Based on initial discussion with Metropolitan Council officials, the City may expect conditions to be placed on the City to further meet net density or other Metropolitan Council requirements. Furthermore, by approving the Bancor amendment at 3.11 units/net density acre, the City will need to evaluate other areas in the City for even higher density to meet the Metropolitan Council's requirements. While the City may determine that the Bancor land -use and density may be appropriate for the golf course site, it again may be premature to determine the net density for this site without evaluating the remaining properties and targeted densities within the MUSA. This exercise will be accomplished during the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan update. Medina Golf Course 3 Bancor Group Concept Plan Utilities The City has recently approved a detailed capital improvement plan (CIP) for water infrastructure and implemented water user rates and connection fees based on expected growth of the Hamel Water System. The CIP is identifying the need for additional water supply wells and a water tower in 2007 and 2008 along with the addition of a water supply line from Hamel Legion Park to the new water treatment facility on Tower Drive to meet the needs of existing users and expected future users. The construction of a water tower in 2008 is occurring seven years earlier than planned, according to the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. Additional users, burden on existing facilities infrastructure, or need for future infrastructure that will result from the Bancor development has not been considered into the City's CIP or current established rates and connection fees. The City has also approved a sewer staging plan as part of the existing Comprehensive Plan, which targets the amount of gallon per day flows approved by the City and Metropolitan Council. While the proposed Bancor development will not create a significant burden on the daily flows, the golf course area was not included in the pre-2020 MUSA staging plan. It is also reasonable to conclude that the golf course area, as a public/semi-public guided area, was not intended to demand sewer units through the Metropolitan Council through 2040. The City and Metropolitan Council may need to evaluate the staging plan further to determine affects on other designated MUSA properties. 6. CITY DISCRETION: The City has a high level of discretion in considering Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City establishes a Comprehensive Plan as a guide for future decision making, and has the opportunity to update it every decade. The City should seek to follow its own Comprehensive Plan unless there is a significant benefit to amending it. The City Council will need to approve the amendment by a 2/3 vote of the full Council. 7. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to reguide portions of the perimeter of the Medina Country Club from public/semi-public to medium -density residential. The City's existing Comprehensive Plan does not guide this property for residential use and is not included the existing MUSA area until after 2020. Because the process for updating the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan is currently underway, staff stresses the focus be placed on considering all land -uses, densities, infrastructure and other community amenities before approving an application for one particular area, such as the perimeter of the Medina Golf Course. Staff further recommends that this land -use consideration be reviewed through the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan update process. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant's Letter 2. Excepts from the minutes of the October 10, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and the October 17, 2006 City Council meeting 3. Site Plan Packet 4. Traffic Generation Report Medina Golf Course 4 Bancor Group Concept Plan December 8, 2006 Ms. Rose Lorsung: City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RECEIVED DEC 11 2006 Re: The Townhomes of Rolling Green — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request Dear Ms. Lorsung: Attached is a resubmittal of the information previously provided to the City on October 25, 2006. Also included, is a copy of the wetland delineation report and determination that you requested after our meeting on November 14, 2006, a copy of the traffic analysis and a map confirming the area to be reguided per your phone request on November 21, 2006. Also included is a revised copy of the concept plan modified to reflect the addition of the road right of way into the developable area and a revised density calculation. This last item reflects a change that come from a discussion you and I had with the City's Metropolitan Council Representative on December 1, 2005. While our submittal was considered complete in your letter dated November 15, 2006 we are providing additional information to assist the City's review and respond to recent requests for additional information. A full list of the exhibits is provided below with a brief explanation of each item. As our application states we are requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the "Subject Property" shown on the Subject Property Exhibit. The attached Concept Plan shows the use we are proposing. This is the same plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council during our concept review. From the general comments we received from both of those bodies it appeared that there was a general indication that this proposal fit into the City's overall plan for development. There were some questions about the timing. As a part of our concept review we addressed the reasons that we believe this amendment should be considered at this time. The letter accompanying that request is attached. In summary this letter gave several reasons why this amendment should be considered at this time. These included: 6 This property is a hole in the doughnut. It is circled by existing development, most of which is in the MUSA — see Surrounding Development Exhibit. O Existing sewer and water facilities exist adjacent to and around the property — see Existing Utilities Exhibit. ® Residential use of the site is the only practical use in the long term. ® The Club and Developer are part of a complicated arrangement that will allow the Club to gain back control of the property not included in this request. Approval of this development proposal is the only way to make that happen. t ® Provides the option for sewer service along Shawnee Woods Road. This was highlighted in the City's current Comprehensive Plan as an area where septic systems were failing and may need to be provided with City sewer. It was also noted that residents petitioned the City for sewer service as a part of the previous Comprehensive Plan Update. ® In addition and also noted during concept review, we are prepared to work with the City and assist in addressing some of the traffic concerns that residents of Foxberry Farms have raised. While these concerns currently exist, by agreeing to allow this request to proceed, we can help craft a partial solution now, rather than several years from now. As a part of our original application we did not make a specific request for the type of guiding that would be needed to accommodate our development proposal. We are asking for an extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to accommodate our project. Based on a review of the current guiding in the City's Comprehensive Plan it appears that Multi -Family Residential Guiding would accommodate the use and density proposed. We plan, however, to use the City's PUD zoning for the proposal to better fit the project and limit impact to trees and other natural resources. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Packet 1. Surrounding Area: Provides the general location of the property in the City. 2. Surrounding Development: Indicates the amount of development and the MUSA around the development. 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Subject Property: Shows the specific portion of the property 4. Certificate of Description: Provides a legal description of the area of the Medina Golf and Country Club over which Bruce Hendry holds an option for development. 5. Proposed Density Calculation: Shows the acreages and calculation of the density of the project based on the current Metropolitan Council guidelines as we understand them. 6. Concept Plan: Plan for development of the property into 48 twin homes and one single family home of similar design. 7. Topographic Map: Existing topography of the site 8. Utility Plan: Preliminary street, sewer and water systems plans if developed as shown in the concept plan. 9. Grading Plan: Preliminary grading plan of the site if developed as shown in the concept plan. 10. Wetland Impact and Mitigation Plan: Possible wetland impacts and mitigation if developed as shown in the concept plan. 11. Adjacent Existing Sewer and Water Facilities: Location of existing and adjacent facilities around the property. 12. Housing Elevations and Floor Plans: Concepts for the type of housing proposed for the development. Other Attachments 1. Concept Plan Letter: Provided as a part of our concept review. 2. Traffic Study: Provided to fulfill the Metropolitan Council's traffic impact requirements. This also shows that the peak hour traffic impact on TH55 if minimal. It will add 1 additional left turn every 5 minutes during that hour. 3. Wetland Delineation Report: Completed and submitted to the City previously. This verifies the approved delineation of the existing wetland on the site. Please let me know if you need any additional information or have any question about what we are proving you. Sincerely, Paul Robinson RGN Development LLC cc: Chad Adams, City Administrator 3 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from October 10, 2006 Meeting Minutes 8. Bancor Group Inc., Concept Plan for Medina Golf Course (Public Hearing) Commissioner Pederson excused himself from this agenda item, stating a possible conflict of interest. Lorsung stated that Concept Plans are non -binding conversations, and there will be no motions tonight. The City Council will discuss the Concept Plan on October 17, 2006. The relevant parcel is zoned and guided for public/semi-public. This Concept Plan proposes a multi- family residential use along the west (along CR116) and north (along Shawnee Woods Road) perimeter of the Country Club. The concept includes a density of 3.5 units/net acre. Lorsung reviewed staff comments on the concept. One concern would be traffic issues on CR116. Staff did note attractive open space and park features. Lorsung noted that the a part of the nine -hole portion of the golf course is already zoned and guided within the MUSA, and this concept plan does not note any change to that status. David Newman — President, Bancorp Group — described the issue of ownership. The Club had financial problems in the past and was bought out of bankruptcy by Bruce Hendry. Hendry has an option to purchase the land for $1. The Club currently has a lease on the area of the 18-hole course and the area of the clubhouse which would continue to be valid even if the property was sold. Newman noted that the concept shows repaving and extension of sewer/water on Shawnee Woods at developer's expense. Newman stated that they took efforts to minimize impacts on trees. He stated that they believe that the buys will primarily be empty -nesters and will have less of an impact on traffic because they are less likely to travel during peak hours. Newman noted that LeGran builders may be involved as the builder and has provided the concept sketches. Homes would be starting at $675,000. Newman stated that this deal would help ensure that the Medina Country Club would stay a public use for generations to come. Newman stated that the City has prided itself on making reasonable, practical decisions. The timing of this Comprehensive Plan amendment has little downside. Crosby inquired about the timing of the Henry deal. Newman stated that there is a fixed cost option at this time. Reg Pederson — board member of the Medina Country Club, and former President — stated that the club has been working for a long time to get this moving. The club is in the financial position to buy out the options that are not a piece of this concept. 200 acres of land would then be owned by the Golf Club, which would remain the Club forever. He stated that the Club has 170 members are from Medina, and with their family members make up a large percentage of Medina's population. There is urgency because Mr. Henrdy is looking to simplify his life. If the city does not act now, it is likely there will soon be a development plan on the Par 3 and driving range. 1 of 3 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from October 10, 2006 Meeting Minutes Crosby inquired if the Club would purchase everything except the 23 acres in this concept why the Par 3 and driving range would stay in the MUSA. Pederson replied that this would make it easier to get financing to purchase the remaining land. Verbick inquired how the process ensures that the golf course will always be a golf course. Pederson stated that the ownership would be under the Club, and most members do not have equity. By selling, they would not have a lot to gain. Verbick inquired how they guessed that empty -nesters would be the main buyers. Pederson stated that there are already members looking to buy. Newman added that past experience shows support for this assumption. Public Hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. Frank Mignone — 3316 Red Fox — stated that the 12 acres already in the MUSA will count against the City for density in discussion with the Met Council. He suggested that there has to be a way to compromise to pull these acres from the MUSA. Bill Hockmuth — 840 Fox Path Court — stated that he and many neighbors are very concerned with traffic. Automobile and truck traffic would increase, and there would be increased danger for buses in the neighborhood. He also stated that there is no path or trail along CR116 leading to the Target development, where many children from Foxberry Farms will be riding to work. He recognized the developer's efforts to approach the traffic issues, but stated that it did not seem like a good idea to do this before the city's comprehensive plan is complete. Bruce Workman — 2212 Chippewa — stated that he has been working with Medina Country Club for some time. There are some timing issues to consider with the city undertaking the Comprehensive Plan process. Workman proposed a larger discussion about expanding the MUSA line all of the way to the City border to the north. He stated that the issue is bigger than the concept. Charles Gauck — 3820 Linden Drive East — stated that there are 68 units in Medina Highlands, and watching traffic in the development would support the theory that traffic is heaviest during off-peak hours. Hockmuth pointed out the fact that County Road 101 is a four lane road while CR116 is two lanes. Dickerson inquired about the naming of the development. Newman stated that there are marketing people looking into the naming. Dickerson stated that he likes the concept. It looks like a good product. He stated that the timing was a concern, and it should be looked at with the entire Comp Plan 2of3 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from October 10, 2006 Meeting Minutes Verbick stated that she is bothered by the fact it would seem arbitary to move forward on this issue while waiting on the Comprehensive Plan for everything else. She inquired to staff if there is a prediction what could happen if the City decided to hold off. Lorsung stated that the Par 3 is included in the MUSA already, and it could be developed at any time with a simple site plan, and perhaps a plat. Verbick inquired what could be done with the traffic problems because CR116 is a County Road. Lorsung stated that the city could require the developer to do studies and undertake improvements if the private development causes additional traffic issues. Crosby stated that as far as land use is concerned, this makes sense. It is right in the middle of the MUSA. Subject to traffic concerns, he stated that he is in favor of the concept. Crosby stated that he would be comfortable with the redrawing of the MUSA line. On the timing issue, he stated he would be somewhat reluctant to change the MUSA line without knowing the wider impacts. Fortin concurred that she likes the land use and likes the concept. However, the timing is a concern. Fortin inquired if there are plans for CR116. Chad Adams replied that there are plans for the intersection of CR116 and Highway 55, but at this time, there are no plans for CR116 farther to the north. Reid stated that she shares the concerns on the timing, that it seems like the city would be jumping the gun. She stated that that she would feel a lot more comfortable is there was a way to add additional guarantees that this could be open space for a longer time or forever. Crosby summarized the comments of the Commission. As a matter of land use and concept, the commission seems to like this plan. There must be additional allowances for traffic, trails and bicycles, and access onto CR116. The Commission seems to believe it would be appropriate to extend the MUSA line in this way but perhaps not at this time. Public Hearing closed at 8:24 p.m. 3 of 3 Medina City Council Excerpt from October 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes B. Concept Plan Review from Bancorp Group — Perimeter of Medina Golf and Country Club Lorsung stated the project is on the Medina Golf and Country Club Course and is located in the northeast corner of the City. She noted the current guiding for the property is public or semi- public. She said part of the area is scheduled for MUSA service pre-2020. Lorsung showed a photo of the site and explained where it would be located. She noted the 3.5 units per acre is slightly above what is requested by the Met Council. Lorsung said Staff feels the timing of the project is overall the most important concern, and that the land -use for the property is appropriate. She said the development would require Comprehensive Plan amendments. Lorsung said there have been several concerns raised about County Road 116. She added the site has some attractive open space features and park areas. She noted that the City understands this proposal would be in addition to any future development of the 12-acre 9-hole portion of the golf course, which is already in the MUSA and zoned Multi -Family Residential. David Newman, 1529 94th Lane NE, Blaine, MN, said that he is the president of RGM Development. He said they are calling the townhomes Rolling Green, but the name could be changed. He explained RGM Development and the Bancor Group. Newman noted that he and Pflaum are trying to create excellent communities that will stand the test of time. He said there have been 10 years of discussion about development between his group and the golf course. He explained the history of the land and ownership of the property and golf course. He noted several problems that were found after an initial agreement with the property owner and golf course. He said several obstacles were hurdled before the development could move forward. Newman said he understands the City's problem with the timing, however, his contract expires on September 1, 2007 and he does not have time to wait until the Comprehensive Plan is approved. Newman explained the proposed twin homes and one single -residence home. He noted that there is a high water table and how that affects the properties. He said because of the natural features, the City has limited options that it can consider for the parcel. Newman noted where the homes and driveways would be built. He also noted areas that would be dedicated as park areas. He also noted several natural features of the land. Newman stated one of the largest issues is traffic. He said the development would tie in to existing intersections. He said in the right of way dedication, they are proposing some additional areas that could assist in resolving some traffic issues. Newman presented the home elevations and said the Country Club approved their plans. He noted the other developments in the area and said the proposed development is like an "island" between all the developed land. He said the uses and utilities are already established in the area. 1 of 4 Medina City Council Excerpt from October 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes Newman explained the target demographic for his development and said there will be one maintenance facility for lawn care provided through the Homeowners Association. He also noted that the targeted demographic area would not likely be using the adjoining roads at peak hours. Newman explained that the development would ensure the Medina Country Club remains a golf course community for generations to come. He said his proposal is unique because everything around it has been planned and the utilities are ready for development. He also noted that there is an opportunity to expand some other housing options with the twin homes. He said moving the project forward now would allow for planning Highway 116 now rather than later. Reg Pederson, the past president of Medina Golf and Country Club, said the Hendry deal began over 20 years ago. He explained the Golf Course and Country Club's financial position and said this deal will ensure the Golf Course's future. He said that nearly 20% of the members are Medina members. Pederson explained that Hendry would like to sell the property at this point. He said if the development does not happen at this time, Hendry would request development rights to heavily develop the Par 3. He said that 235 members of the golf club would likely be lost and the Golf Course would have a problem attracting new members and maintaining current membership, which could mean losing the golf course all together. Smith said she likes the idea and would like the area to stay open space. Pederson said there are several things stopping the area from being the golf course. He explained the equity and non -equity partners of the course. He said 80% of the membership would not favor the area being anything other than a golf course. Smith asked if all current membership is non -equity. Pederson explained that only non -equity memberships are currently given and the memberships would not be re -sold as equity memberships. He said when equity memberships are relinquished the golf course buys them. Pederson said the membership of the Medina Golf and Country Club has a 40-year lease, which presents the property from being sold for redevelopment. Weir asked how far they are into the lease. He explained that they are 30 years left of the 40-year lease and there are three 15-year extensions after the 40-year period is up. Weir said it is a very desirable development and a good use of the land. She raised a concern about the traffic issues on 116 and the timing of the application. She said she would like to know more about Hendry's sunset date of September 2007. She said the development would stabilize the golf course and asked if it could be considered during the Comprehensive Plan discussions. Workman explained the difficulty in the timing of the issue and that it could probably not be included in the Comprehensive Plan discussions. Pederson said that Hendry would likely grant a 2-week extension, but would not grant an extension beyond that. Smith asked how long the Comprehensive Plan and Site Plan approval took for Bridgewater. Lorsung and Adams explained that it took nearly a year for approval. 2 of 4 Medina City Council Excerpt from October 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes Cavanaugh noted that he liked the project to preserve the views of the golf course from 116. He said he would like to see such a project in the area. He noted his concern with ensuring that the golf course remains as -is. He said any change in the land for this development would require a comprehensive plan change for the multi -family use to be put back to public use. Cavanaugh noted that there would be many other groups who would like Comprehensive Plan Changes and his belief is Bancor would like to have approval before they have to wait in line for other projects. Workman noted that Brinkman supports the project. Smith said she believes some good developments have been lost and she supported approving this project and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She noted that the issues of traffic on 116 and 55 must be addressed. She noted several amenities that were added with the Bridgewater development. Cavanaugh asked if the 20% equity members could purchase the non -equity 80%. Pederson explained that there would be no money to be made. Workman said that the intent of the membership is to maintain the land as a golf course. Pederson explained how the non -equity membership works which allows the member to play golf, have dinner at the club, and have amenities of the club. He added that there is no money to be made with a non -equity membership. Smith noted the tree ordinance and asked how the trees would be replaced. Workman said the City would eventually require such replacement. Smith also asked if the road going into Foxberry along 116 would be improved and if Shawnee Road to the north would be improved. Newman replied that after the neighborhood meetings and Planning Commission meeting, his engineers spoke with Hennepin County and is willing to make a significant contribution for some road improvements. He said the City and his group could use the opportunity to improve the roads. Workman noted his reluctance to change the Comprehensive Plan for one development, but said he supports the proposed development. Smith asked how the City could go ahead with such a Comprehensive Plan amendment with available Staff. Workman said the project could be outsourced. Adams said he has spoken to Planning Staff and some part-time or outside consultants could be utilized, but noted there is currently a transition with the Landform Consultant. He said Staff would have to ask for additional resources for the project if the City desired to keep pace with the Comprehensive Plan timeline. Smith asked if the developer would pay such costs. Adams noted that developer fees would help reimburse both consultant and additional staff time spent on the project, but that existing Staff would have to be involved and their available resources would be limited on other projects/priorities. Adams asked how the Comprehensive Plan and other projects would be compromised if the Bancor project and other applications came forward with Comprehensive Plan amendments. Cavanaugh asked if it is fair to ask other proposals to wait until after the Comprehensive Plan. Smith asked if the project could be included earlier in the process of the Comprehensive Plan update. Weir stated she would like to take such an action. 3 of 4 Medina City Council Excerpt from October 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes Workman suggested the conversation continue when Bancor comes back with a formal application. Smith said the discussion should happen because other projects could warrant such consideration as well. Workman said it does not matter until the formal application is made. Weir stated she does not want the proposal to slow down the Comprehensive Plan. Smith noted her dislike that property owners hold such power over such developers and projects. She said landowners should be more reasonable. Cavanaugh said that the Hamel Road concept is also excellent and the discussion about whether to include such projects in the Comp Plan needs to be had. 4 of 4 Westwood Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie. MN 55344 MAIN 952-937-5150 Enx 952.537-5822 TOLL FREE 148B-937.515R e mnn wpseweslwoodps.com www.westwoodps.mm From: Allan Klugman, P.E., PTOE To: Paul Robinson, Rolling Green LLC Date: November 27, 2006 Re: Trip Generation Review for the Rolling Green Development, Medina, MN Overview This memorandum summarizes a trip generation review conducted for the Rolling Green development in Medina, MN. The Rolling Green project consists of 49 twin home -style townhouse units. These homes are geared toward "empty nesters" and other smaller -sized family units. Trip Generation The reference report Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, contains trip generation statistics for "residential condominium/townhouse," ITE code 230. Daily trips for this land use are 5.86 trips per dwelling unit. For reference, it is noted that a "trip" is either a trip out of or into the development. For example, a resident who leaves the development in the moming and returns in the evening would account for two trips. Applying the ITE rate of 5.86 to the 49 units planned for Rolling Green produces a projected daily trip generation (at full site build -out) of about 290 trips per day. The accompanying diagram shows the trips added to the external roadways by the Rolling Green development in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. If you have any questions on this material, please contact me at (952) 906-7418 or at allan.klueman n westwoodps.com. Esihi!I.IiiIEU !tl 19/2 TWIN CEDES/METRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD IVJ - I 1/4 IVV -E r_,ri-_ .' 1 IVJ - I IVV-Z tVJ-1 IVd-Z 1UV-1 IVV-0 14V-I Wd-I NV-£ IVI-9 NV-Z _'.. siunco dirk YAId a8 yVy inoH vac' uaalp nuiiiog 3o samouuAtoi IVJ-0I IWI-E IVV -E I SS AtiA I 19V•S IVJ -11 IVY -1 I IVd-I NV - I IVJ-E NV-0 Wd-N Wd-5 IUV-Z NV NV - 0 IU.i-L Wd-1 NV-i IVV-0 IVJ-E IU\'-S IVJ - IUV - z 4 IVd-I IVJ-Z iVJ-i IUV-Z ivy -0 WV-1 IVJ-L WV-Z Agenda Item: 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Assistant to Planning; through Rose Lorsung, City Planner DATE: January 5, 2007 MEETING: January 9, 2007 Planning Commission SUBJ: Wetlands Classification WSB & Associates, the consulting firm hired to determine the functions and values of wetlands throughout the City, will be present at the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to discuss the establishment of classifications of wetlands as well as policies for wetland protection. They will coordinate a discussion that will be an early step in forming a Wetlands Ordinance. This is a continuation of discussions during the spring and summer of 2006, when the wetland ordinance was tabled pending the completion of WSB's work. Because the discussion will most likely have an impact on the ordinance that is ultimately proposed, the City published the discussion as a public hearing. Attachment: Memo from WSB & Associates hlc. Memorandum To: Planning Commission, City of Medina Front: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates Date: December 26, 2006 Re: Functional Assessment of Wetlands —Management Policies WSB Project No. 1716-00 As you are aware, the City is completing a Functional Assessment of Wetlands. As part of Medina's efforts to complete the Functional Assessment of Wetlands, the City will be developing specific wetland management policies for different wetlands. These policies will be based on individual wetland characteristics that are being defined as part of a field assessment of the wetlands that is currently being completed. Based on the results of the assessment, wetlands will be placed into one of four categories. These categories include Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, or Manage 3. The Preserve wetlands will be those wetlands with higher functions and public values and the wetlands with the lowest functions and public values will be classified as Manage 3. This classification convention was chosen to be in conformance with guidance provided by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and the Mimrehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). As part of the City's process, policies for each of these four wetland categories will also be developed. The policies will be developed with input from the Planning Commission, City Council, City Staff, public, and regulatory agencies. Toward that end, we have prepared this memo to answer some common questions about this process and to provide you with some tecluucal information. 1. Why is the City creating wetland management policies? Currently under Minnesota law, wetlands are regulated by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The City is the Local Govenunent Unit (LGU) for the implementation of the WCA. The purpose of WCA is to achieve no net loss of wetlands in the State. These rules have moved the State forward since 1991 in protecting and replacing wetland resources; however, the WCA rules are written in such a way that all wetlands are created equal, regardless of quality. The WCA and the City Planning process allow the City to develop more flexibility in the management of wetlands. In this way, the City can determine which wetlands have greater priority and should be provided additional protection than WCA and also which (BWwefammgiI alEC('AMU G6N6NTIU IItHAND ;INC AND 4:41.(IESV.(6d10.1$1606-pcdre December 26, 2006 Page 2 wetlands have lesser values and could be managed in a different manner. By creating wetland management policies, the City can more proactively manage wetland resources. 2. What kind of policies can be implemented with this process? The WCA states that wetland impact must be avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent practical. If wetland impact occurs, replacement must occur at a 2:1 ratio. There are no other policies outlined in the WCA. Through this process, the City can develop and implement specific policies related to wetland buffers, setbacks, storm water treahnent standards, water level bounce standards, mitigation ratios, and sequencing flexibility. The City can also look at the wetlands throughout the City in relation to land planning and greenway corridor activities and tie these processes together. 3. What are some specific management policies that the City should be considering? Outlined below is more specific information related to the possible management policies that will be discussed and refined throughout the functional assessment process. Based on the outcome of input from the City and the public, these policies will be developed and incorporated into City ordinance. Wetland Buffers: Wetland buffers are upland areas surrounding wetlands that are not disturbed by mowing or grading and generally should contain native vegetation. Buffers provide a variety of benefits including water quality protection, erosion control, nutrient removal, groundwater interaction, infiltration, aquatic and wildlife habitat protection, minimization of human impact on the water body, open space, and recreational opportunity. Buffers can also provide aesthetic features. There are many factors to consider when implementing wetland buffers such as: ® What is the appropriate buffer width et Should there be a setback from the buffer to create usable yard space ® Should buffers be dedicated in easements or outlots ® Should grading be allowed in the buffer ® Will trails, storm ponds, or retaining walls be allowed in buffer ® Will buffer averaging be allowed ® Should buffers apply to all wetlands or only upon development or redevelopment When developing buffer standards, cities need to take into account data on the effectiveness of different buffers as well as how policy decisions will impact landowners. To assist the City in this endeavor, the attached table shows the buffer requirements of a number of communities as well as information from a literature search of studied wetland buffer benefits. Storm Water Treatment: While the WCA does not contain specific storm water treatment requirements prior to storm water discharge to wetlands, the Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations require pretreatment of storm water prior to discharge to wetlands upon development. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency also has minimum treatment standards. Through the City's Comprehensive (tVlmelonutOROJF.CTAIANJGFNLATNRP 11'LTLINII FUNCM'U FALLER...IMO- Il211.IM1-pr.Jm December 26, 2006 Page 3 Storm Water Management Plan process, these standards can be developed. The wetland management classifications can also direct policy related to storm water pretreatment, if the City so chooses. While the City will be required to at least meet the standards of the Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations which currently require treatment of 2.5 inches of rainfall over a development area prior to discharge to a wetland, the City could develop other standards if they wish to provide additional water quality treatment to specific wetlands if additional protection is needed. Water Level Bounce: As development occurs, additional impervious surface is created. The additional impervious surfaces results in additional storm water runoff from the area. The additional volume of runoff can result in greater fluctuations in water elevations in local lakes and wetlands. Factors such as the elevation and duration of this "bounce" can have any impact on wetlands. The higher the water level above the historic water level for longer periods of time can result in dead vegetation or changing vegetation type to a type that can handle the stress of constant water level changes. In general, water levels should remain relatively constant to maintain diverse and native plant species in a wetland. In 1997, Minnesota's Stormwater Advisory Group developed guidelines for wetland bounce based on wetland susceptibility. Examples of highly susceptible wetlands include sedge meadows, wooded swamps, and seasonally flooded basins. The less susceptible wetlands include shallow and deep marshes, dredged areas, and wet meadows. The guidelines for allowed bounce within these wetlands are outlined below: Highly Susceptible Wetlands Moderately Susceptible Wetlands Slightly Susceptible Wetlands Least Susceptible Wetlands Storm bounce Existing Existing plus 0.5 feet Existing plus 1.0 feet No limit Inundation duration for 1- and 2-year rain event Existing Existing plus 1 day Existing plus 2 days Existing plus 7 days Inundation duration for 10- year rain event Existing Existing plus 7 days Existing plus 14 days Existing plus 21 days Source: Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Group (1997) This information is a guideline only and can be discussed with the City Engineer as part of the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan development. Mitigation Ratios: The WCA requires a 2:1 mitigation ratio for wetland impacts. The City could consider increasing these mitigation ratios on high quality wetlands. This would have the effect of creating a further deterrent to impacts on the higher quality wetlands in the City. There are a number of cities in the Metro area that have a 3:1 II Nmdmmny1PRCU£q'ALINAG£d2N1W'P IITTUNU IrI INC AND IAI@'DIM:AIO- IIIfLO-pr.afar December 26, 2006 Page 4 mitigation ratio for Preserve wetlands. While this strategy does further deter wetland impacts, it should be carefully considered on how this will impact future private and public projects. Mitigation ratios could also be reduced for wetlands of lower quality. However, the City is responsible for maintaining an overall 2:1 mitigation ratio and would be required to conduct public mitigation projects to make up for any shortfall. This can be costly for cities and should be carefully considered prior to implementation. Sequencing Flexibility: Sequencing is the process by which an applicant demonstrates that they have avoided and minimized wetland impacts to the greatest extent feasible. This is required by the WCA for all projects and reviewed by the LGU through the permitting process. Sequencing flexibility can be employed for wetlands that are shown to be of lesser quality. While the WCA outlines the rules for the sequencing flexibility process, the City can decide to apply wetland sequencing flexibility to only those wetlands that are in a Manage 3 category through the wetland management process. The City could also determine that sequencing flexibility would not be allowed for any wetlands or not allowed for higher quality Preserve and Manage 1 wetlands. 4. Other Ongoing Planning Processes. The MCWD in the process of updating its Watershed Management Plan. The MCWD usually does this about every 10 years. As part of this process, the MCWD will develop standards and rules, such as wetland buffers, which the City will need to at least meet. The City is working to coordinate these two processes so that the wetland management policies the City develops meets the MCWD. It is anticipated that the City will complete their process before the MCWD completes their Plan update. The City will continue to keep the MCWD informed as to the progress of the wetland policy development. Based on discussions with the Planning Corrunission, City Council, and public, the wetland management policies will be developed in the next few months. If you have any questions or comments during this process, please feel free to call me at (763)287-7196. c: Rose Lorsung, City Planner U; WmetarnmgWROJELTAGNAG6'AItNTRIP NL'TLINP 6LWC el KIWYSIME -]TTM6 pcdur December 26, 2006 Page 5 Summary of Wetland Buffers in Metro Area I. Watershed Districts/Watershed Management Organizations with the City of Medina Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: The MCWD currently requires wetland buffers for projects based on wetland size, not wetland functions. The MCWD plans to change these requirements through their Watershed Management Plan update and rule process in the next 1-2 years to base their buffer widths on wetland functions. Currently, the MCWD requirements are as follows: Wetland Size 0-1 acre 1-2.5 acres 2.5-5 acres >5 acres Buffer Width 16.5 feet 20 feet 25 feet 35 feet Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission: The PSCWMC requires a 20 foot buffer around any wetland upon development or redevelopment. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission: The ECWMC requires a 50 foot buffer adjacent to Elm Creek and requires member cities to develop their own wetland buffer policies. II Samalina of Metroaolitan City Buffer Reauir Wetland Management Classifications Preserve Manage 1 Manage 2 Manage 3 Other Lakeville 50 feet 25 feet <2 acres 35 feet >2 acres 17 feet <2 acres 25 feet >2 acres 17 feet 25 feet (Restore) Savage 50 feet 40 feet 30 feet 16.5 feet Coon Rapids 40 feet 25 feet <2 acres 35 feet >2 acres 15 feet <2 acres 25 feet >2 acres 15 feet 15 feet (Ponds) 25 feet (Restore) Rosemount 75 feet 50 feet 30 feet 15 feet Maple Grove* 40 feet (High Quality) 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Plymouth 90 feet 65 feet 45 feet 30 feet Chanhassen* 50 feet 20 feet 16.5 feet 0 feet Eden Prairie 50 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet * Categories are named differently, but placed into the naming convention shown here for ease in comparison. III. Literature Review Results The information presented in this section is from the "Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A study of Functions, Values, and Size" prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. This study was completed in 2001 and reviewed 41 different literature reports in published journals, IlWae/aoungWROIRCTANNeIGEMENPRFT IIE7LANU RING AND VI6UESAR:AIO-111606-pc dne December 26, 2006 Page 6 presented at professional conferences, or contained within other studies completed by various agencies. In summary, this report found that differing wetland buffers were beneficial depending on what function the buffer was expected to perform. The results are surumarized below. Function Recommended Minimum Buffer Width Special Considerations Sediment reduction 100 feet Steep slopes (5-15%) or sensitive wetlands; consider buffer width additions with each 1% increase in slope Sediment reduction 50 feet Shallow slopes (<5%) or low quality wetland Phosphorus reduction 100 feet Steep slope Phosphorus reduction 50 feet Shallow slope Nitrogen reduction 100 feet Biological contaminant and pesticide reduction 50 feet Wildlife habitat and corridor protection 50 feet in rural 100 feet in urban Maintain existing species diversity Wildlife habitat and corridor protection 100 feet Unthreatened species Wildlife habitat and corridor protection 200-300 feet Rare, threatened, or endangered species Minimize negative impacts of human pressures 50 feet Source: `Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A study of Functions, Values, and Size" prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District WRmelmnmgIntWECfANNAGEAtkYllVtlt IV6'tLINO P'G'NC AND PALOESUMAIO-1)1606 CITY OF MEDINA 2052 COUNTY ROAD 24 MEDINA, MN 55340 AGENDA MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY January 9, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEDINA CITY HALL 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments 3. Introduction of Planning Commission members 4. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair 5. Update from City Council proceedings 6. City Planner's Report 7. Approval of December 12, 2006 Planning Commission minutes 8. Functions and Values Assessment of Wetland Management Classifications discussion. Public Hearing 9. Bancor Group — Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re -guide property along the perimeter of the Medina Country Club to allow for multi -family residential — County Road 116, North of Highway 55 (PID 01-118-23-32-0001). Previously Postponed Public Hearing 10. RJ Ryan Company, Peter Hasselquist — Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure over 3000 sq. ft. in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district — 2705 Willow Drive (PID 16-118-23-41-0004). Previously Postponed Public Hearing 11. Michael & Kalli Ahlstrom — Variances from side- and front -yard setbacks and impervious surface maximums for an addition to a home in the Urban Residential (UR) zoning district and the shoreland overlay district — 4565 Pine Street (PID 18-118-23-24-0168). Public Hearing 12. Schedule representation for 2007 City Council meetings 13. Adjourn Posted in City Hall January 5, 2007 Agenda Item No. PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, Landform, through Rose Lorsung, City Planner DATE: December 20, 2006 for the January 9, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting RE: Michael and Kalli Ahlstrom. Variance from front and side yard setback and maximum impervious surface requirement for property located at 4565 Pine Street (PIN 18-118-23-24-0168) Landform File No. MED06031 REVIEW DEADLINE: March 15, 2007 1. Application Request Michael and Kalli Ahlstrom have requested a variance from the required 10-foot side yard and 30-foot front yard setback and the 25% maximum impervious surface requirement to allow construction of a 997 square foot addition to their home on the property located at 4565 Pine Street. The new addition would require a front yard setback variance of 5 feet, a side yard variance of 2.4 feet and a variance to increase the total impervious surface to 32.6% of the site. 2. Context Level of Discretion in Decision Making The City has a high level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned Urban Residential (UR) and Guided Urban Residential (UR). The surrounding properties are also all zoned and guided UR. 3. Analysis of Request The property is located to the east of Lake Independence and to the west of Lake Ardmore. The property is within the shoreland overlay district of both lakes, which are classified as Recreational Development (RD) Lakes. The proposed home addition will require a variance to exceed the 25% maximum impervious surface shoreland requirement. The proposed home addition will increase the total impervious from 21.5 % of the site (1,937 square feet) to 32.6% of the site (2,934 square feet). The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Waters Division has reviewed this application and will not support the variance request to exceed the 25% maximum impervious surface requirement unless a provision is added that requires there to be no increase of stormwater run-off from the property. Staff recommends that the applicant construct a rain garden or implement an alternative Best Management Practice to meet this requirement. This has been included as a condition of approval. Ahlstrom Variance Page 2 Prepared by Landtorm December 20, 2006 SETBACKS Front Side -west Side -east Rear Lakeshore Requirements (feet) 30 10 10 30 75 Existing (feet) 25 13.6 19.8 49 320 Proposed (feet) 25 7.6 11.8 32 312 The existing home is encroaching 5 feet upon the required 30-foot front yard setback from Pine Street. The home is considered an existing legal non -conforming structure and, as such, may remain. However, the proposed addition will extend the home to the east and the west along the existing 25-foot front yard setback line, which is considered an expansion of a non -conforming structure. Section 825.015, Subd. 1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that the City can only allow the expansion of a non -conformity if the number and extent of the nonconformities and the impact of the nonconformities upon neighboring property will be reduced in conjunction with the proposed construction. The proposed development does not meet these requirements and will need a variance in order to extend further east and west within the required 30-foot front yard setback. The proposed building addition will also require a variance to encroach 2.4 feet upon the required 10-foot side yard setback from the west property line. All other setback requirements will be met with the building addition. The Planning Commission must review the variance request with the standards outlined in Section 825.45 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: A) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owner of property since enactment of the Ordinance, have had no control. The property is only 8,999 square feet in area and is located within the shoreland overlay district. The size of the lot and the setback and maximum impervious surface requirements limit the buildable area of the lot. B) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. The literal interpretation of the Ordinance would prevent the applicant from constructing a two - car garage in place of the existing one -car garage and enlarging the living area of the house. Staff finds that this would deprive the applicant of the right to have a home that is consistent with recently built homes in the neighborhood. C) That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The existing home was constructed in 1977. At the time, the lot was considered conforming and all setback requirements were met. The change in the lot standards did not result from the actions of the applicant. Ahlstwm Variance Prepared by Landrorm Page December 20, 2006 D) That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. There have been many applicants who have received variances in the Lake Independence area in recent years. These lots have typically been non -conforming in size in that they do not meet the minimum lot size requirement and therefore the buildable area of the lot is much smaller. E) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Staff finds that the 2.4-foot side yard variance is the minimum needed to allow the construction of a second garage parking space and the 5-foot front yard variance is the minimum needed to allow the proposed addition along the existing front yard setback line. Staff notes that the proposed addition would not encroach further than the existing home into the font yard Staff further finds that the variance to exceed the maximum impervious surface requirement is the minimum needed to allow the applicant to construct the 2 car garage and increase the living area of the house consistent with other homes in the community. F) The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Staff finds that the proposed variance would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The proposed addition would be architecturally compatible to the existing home and an improvement from the current conditions. 4. Summary The applicants have supplied a hardship letter that has been attached for your review. City staff reviewed the hardship letter along with the plans that were submitted and has found that all of the criteria for granting a variance have been met. However, after reviewing the application the Planning Commission could reasonably reach a different conclusion. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance that which would alleviate the hardship. Ah'sGrom Variance Prepared by LandCorm Page 4 December 20, 2006 6. The variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. 7. The building addition shall be constructed as indicated on the plans received November 29, 2006, except as may be amended by this resolution. 8. The proposed building addition project shall not increase stormwater run-off from the site. The applicant shall construct a rain garden or implement an alternative Best Management Practice to meet this requirement. The plans shall be revised to show the proposed drainage patterns and compliance with this requirement. The stormwater management plan shall meet the design specifications of the City Engineer. 9. The plans shall be revised to show I -inch contours. 10. A building permit shall be obtained from the City prior to any work on the site. 11. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. Attachments I. Location Map 2. Applicant's Narrative received November 29, 2006 3. Engineer's Memo dated December 20, 2006 4. Email from DNR Waters Division dated December I I, 2006 5. Site Graphics received November 29, 2006 Lake Independence Location Map Ahistrom Property Balsam Street 4565 Pine Street 0 100 200 I Feet 400 Lake Ardmore ?AL LANDFORM MINNERPULIS.P110ENIX Dear Zoning, Planning , and Council, We write to request a variance for an addition to our home and residence located at 4565 Pine Street, Maple Plain, Minnesota. The legal description for the relevant real property is: Lot 001, Block 001, walds Independence Beach, Hennepin County The real property at issue was purchased by myself on g/ 7 . while the structure currently located on our property can reasonably be used as is by a family of three, the fact is its modesty as two bedroom, one and three-quarter baths, one car garage structure, simply does not fit the neighborhood. Put another way, to make our desired modifications and improvements to the current structure, strict adherence to the regulations of the current zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship in our effort to match new, construction and more recently built homes in the neighborhood. As we understand, when the structure currently located on our property was erected, in 1977, the front side set back from the road was twenty-five feet (25ft.). Since, the set back from the road has been changed to thirty feet (30 ft.). The current 30 ft. set back causes us a hardship we request relief from because we desire to build straight out the sides of our home, keeping the front facing aspect (i.e., frontage) of the existing structure to be maintained, consistent with newer structures in the neighborhood. we additionally request relief involving only a minor portion of the west side of the current structure where we understand the property line set back to be ten feet (10 ft.). The 10 ft. property line set back causes us a hardship for the current structure was not built in the center of the lot, a unique circumstance of the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and that which was not created by any persons presently having an interest in the property. Given we propose to closely resemble other structures within the neighborhood, specifically here, creating a two car garage in place of the existing one -plus, we additionally request a two and one-half foot (2.5 ft) variance from 10 ft. property line set back (of how much area?). To be certain, the granting of these variances will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the applicable ordinance, and will not negatively alter the essential character of the netghborhooduactually, granting such variances will be more consistent with ituor be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Further, our proposed variance requests will not: 1) increase the congestion of the public streets in the neighborhood; 2) increase the danger of fire; 3) be detrimental to the public welfare; or, 4) endanger the public safety. We appreciate the opportunity to be heard on our submission and would humbly ask that you grant our variance requests. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at the address and number below. Sincerely, Michael and Kalli Ahlstrom Bonestroo 0 Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects December 20, 2006 Ms. Rose Lorsung City Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 2335 West Highway 36 a St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com Re: 4565 Pine Street BRA File No. 000190-06000-1 Plat No. 408 Dear Rose, We have reviewed the building permit survey for the proposed house addition at 4565 Pine Street. We have the following preliminary comments with regards to engineering matters: • 1' contours should be shown • Existing and proposed house elevations should be provided. • We are concerned about drainage to the south of the house. Currently, the southwest corner of the site drains towards the house. It appears that the proposed addition may trap runoff and prevent it from properly draining. The survey should show proposed drainage patterns, which may include spot elevations and/or contours, to indicate how this area is to drain. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Darren Amundsen Cc: Tom Kellogg Bonestroo recently merged with DSU, bringing together some of the best regional talents in engineering, architecture, planning, landscape architecture, and urban design. Our combined team now provides integrated services in one organization. ■ St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN ■ Milwaukee, WI ■ Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Original Message From: Tom Hovey C ^: Sent: Monday, December 11., 20062:01 PM To: Jennifer Haskamp Cc: Rose Lorsung Subject: Ahlstrom Impervious Surface Variance, Shoreland Area Jennifer, I have reviewed the materials, received December 4, 2006, for the Ahlstrom variance and have the following comments: The Department of Natural Resources does not support the granting of the variance to the 25% impervious surface limit. The current proposal would increase the impervious surface on the parcel from approximately 21% to 33%. We recommend that the proposal be changed to reflect an impervious surface no greater than 25%. If the City decides to grant the variance for 33, we suggest_ that there be a provision that requires no increase of runoff for the parcel. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Tom Hovey Area Hydrologist MN DNR Waters Phone: 651.772.7923 Fax: 651.772.7977 e-mail: tom.hovey@dnr.state.mn.us Visit our website at: BUILDING P'ERIVIIT SURVEY Prepared for: Mike AhlstEom --eentedina os Wove/led e1_ 9803 9aa i PINE Existing Driveway /S89 03 STREET 'OliE 90.00 (plat) h dAPLE 48" °y onnir�r % £xrs/ ri g 6 9 N4/p i �/ OO 9Z0 le" W O O l 909 X982.3 � MAPLE 36"'ey ro 10.0 .-conls- O Proposed • b� Addition sus 8 x 980.7 v 0 0 09924U i O l_--_._-53 ._----_11.v-- 2 3 X962.2 X-982.0 9809 X985.5 X984.9 X 981.2 !swig, • Found Iron Monument x000.0 Existing Elevation Lot Area = 8,999 sq. ft. Existing House Area = 1,452 sq. ft. Proposed Addition Are0 = 997 sq. ft. Driveway Area = 485 sq. ft. Total Hard Cover Area - 2,934 sq. It. Percent of Hord Cover = 32.87 No proposed grading. Bearings based on assumed datum. N890920 E 90.30 (meas.) N8903'30-W 90.00 (plot) fie3 1 e9al De;cri ion (supplrelf by etietla Lot 1, Block 1, WALD's INDEPENDENCE BEACH, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, MN SCALE. 20 0 10 20 40 I inch = 20 feet A SCHOBORG LA © SURVEYING INC. 6997 Co. Rd /3 SE 763-977-.3227 Delano, MN 55326 I hereby certify that this certificate of survey wos prepared by me or under my direct superdsion and that 1 om o duly Registered Load Surveyor under the laws of the Stole of IAinnesofo. •Vv'! Pa ui 8. Schoborg Dow 1./ 0/__ZaPA Reg fection No. 14700 Job Number: 8660 Hook/Page: 66/69 Survey Dole: 10-10-06 Drawing Noma ohlstteom.Cwg Drown by KW Revisions: 11-07-06 Mae Propo ed garage addition aline in. !MINN. `1"/J°J11/ ° 12 •a••••••remee. a• •• 11f1 C170.•1 lue aitm— 0„4r. did° W 4 5 "lei -9 .7.4 '"`tiftifi 111'44 ai.'W HO „Lyng 1,1 j1V(12(3, -- 7V-474- —.1'1 Cif) e)000 M., A' g CIE 8 rit - _ — 2T 1 ”9$ iiesv Oh - 721 Yt/ X- IC AYE° —41 - 14----„ 0..11 M 11 6 L I d)) j 1Xei�ina�+ 4.7h -.1.7 �.` 4V'9oy ...<q tlu'XI (1 N• —L ;a3KIV138110 iijn X' d are N N h F o/'i; A7.9 1 dry 0 nq a :aswro��sto k 3iS"(37 K'yAlvvvvv = 11 / i/7"////J/ -- — I acv30r .5 • I sei ^ T'v 'tFGi+=I' J 1 jM1�N_, 'p 33775 A51.1 1N3/ to, _A777117 . - FPT(fj: fi G13d--S;%- /i /naF f. //7777/ //.7 h 777777 7727727771 — p (7)o. / >mw / a S /= ry J-I cr.d-1 GOT: r 7i'' �'' JS.0-17F ' / =a/.. Uzi b; x oc *;nt1 dvo., v'1p'r,i 1/0 "UJ -00=7 D 201„s1 bL" i 0 ri d< a 14:0 93-C1- w "Ivo "id 3'7 "w4-0111/ 1/1»i( di!W z= rcl-vAa75 l5Y' ,30 a }091d No1m'Aa75 165/y " a n i . e . C O R W , 0 " 1 . 0 i / i / V 0 r t x t , b . / i v 1 0 7 1 4 / d 0 / J . p i i n a m n x o m m v r o a l A 0 . 4 4 . e n r e V t i c . f l i W 0 . 5 i s > W O r i j i j c l i j i j . - i j o e i j i j i j . n r " i j r r i j K r i j D i j n i j i j i j i j k . . . . n % 1 9 V 7 , 9 P . 7 0 1 7 ; 7 1 u m m e , 2 : 1 3 1 A i l V t ) S 1 ( 1 F 2 7 - - ' 1 , , - E - ? ; , 1 ' 1 i ; . 9 7 7 F T : 7 5 f r , " i j i j T . V U 5 7 7 5 1 7 u 2 - - - I t u r d 5 7 : o r u 2 5 1 r r r : 1 7 - 7 . 7 i j i j t i j 7 S " i j i j O i j : r X V v i F - 8 1 4 : ) - - I f ; 1 1 J : 0 5 F : U T r i j : , i j i j ( i j : V 4 4 . 5 I - - v 1 H 7 , 7 7 & - X F P 7 7 1 S I C , a d v d 4 5 ' ' 7 u 7 5 7 d o - e . t d d , d 1 7 ' 0 t A w T v . / 3 9 ) " U u d ; : S u O u : E I S ; ; U a u u r - - 5 0 ! ( i j T s 5 0 k w o / m 0 , 1 1 1 . : � P I � ? L i j i j : i j , ' g V e p : i j i j 7 A ' r . ) 2 . V P : i j i j i j r : N f e l i j " Agenda Item: 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Assistant to Planning & Public Works; through Rose Lorsung, City Planner DATE: January 4, 2007 MEETING: January 9, 2007 Planning Commission SUBJ: RJ Ryan/Hasselquist Conditional Use Permit and Variance; 2705 Willow Drive — Continuation of a Postponed Public Hearing General On October 2, 2006, RJ Ryan Company, on behalf of property owner Peter Hasselquist, applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 7,200 square foot accessory structure at 2705 Willow Drive (PID# 16-118-23-41-0004). They have, since that time, amended the plans to make the structure 8,040 square feet in size. City ordinances (Section 825.19) state that a residential property over 3 acres in size are permitted a maximum of two accessory structures or an aggregate size of 3,000 square feet. However, additional accessory structures (number or size) are conditional uses in properties over 5 acres in size. Upon obtaining information on the height of the home, it was also found that the proposed structure exceeds the height of the home, which violates Section 825.19. For this reason, the proposed structure could only be constructed with a variance. Site Details 2705 Willow Drive is a 17.63 acre parcel zoned as Rural Residential (RR). There are a number of CUPS in the area allowing accessory structures in excess of 3,000 square feet. Skyrock Farm is directly to the north, which has an existing CUP for a commercial horse facility. The Planning Commission and City Council recently approved of a CUP for a 15,000 sq. ft. accessory structure at the Evanson property to the northeast. There are numerous other CUPS in the area as well (see map below: the purple properties have existing CUP for accessory structures in excess of 3000 sq. ft.; the green properties are existing commercial horse facilities). Hal, CO *RI{ RES DI3 cc 0 2 W i Hasselquist property (2705 Willow Dr) There are wetlands located in the southwest corner of the property, but all construction will be set back over 180' and no impacts are to be made. Existing structures on the property include the home, a swimming pool with pool house, a gazebo, a playhouse, a corn crib, and an existing building that will be demolished in order to construct the new barn. Additionally, a tennis court is located north of the home. (see aerial of property below). :2705 UVILLOW DR 4= 1611823410004 PETER L HASSELOLJ[ST ET AL (c) Gwyn:OW-MK Pukeno:trylelma.timl Building Details The proposed structure is 8,040 square feet in size and will take the place of an existing building of approximately 1,550 square feet. The barn does have proposed animal use, both a chicken coop and horse stalls, and meets the required 150' setback for animal structures. The proposed barn will also include a bathroom, and a septic design will need to be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Construction of the barn seems to impact four significant trees along the northwest corner of the building. However, the plans do show eight new deciduous trees planted along Willow Drive to provide additional screening. Staff is recommending a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees in this area in order to ensure year-round screening. The plans show an additional driveway to be installed to service the barn, along with a new curb cut along Willow Drive. City ordinances (section 400.11) do allow for two curb cuts if certain regulations (100' frontage, acceptable storm water plan) are met and if the property owner enters into an agreement with the City which includes terms and conditions of the additional driveway. This property meets the minimum regulations for having two curb cuts, although the City Engineer is recommending that access be granted off of the existing driveway. City ordinances RJ Ryan/Hasselquist CUP 2 January 9, 2007 Planning Commission do expressly allow for conditions to be set on the amount of access points in the process of reviewing a Conditional Use Permit. If the Planning Commission is to recommend approval of a second driveway, staff recommends discussion of any terms or conditions to be added to the driveway agreement that must be entered into between the owner and the City. Building Height The proposed structure is approximately 28 feet in height, figured using the City ordinance definition of building height (from the average between the peak and the eave). This does not take into consideration the decorative elements on the roof, which have a gross height of 52 feet from ground level (see below). In this case, from the information we have available, it appears the single family home is approximately 20 feet in height. The proposed structure, therefore, violates Section 825.19 which states that accessory structures shall not exceed the height of the principal structure, except farm buildings. Staff has recommended to the applicant that they attempt to reduce the height, perhaps by expanding the footprint to make up for lost space. "Farm Building" Discussion Section 825.19 exempts "farm buildings" from the regulation stating that the accessory structure cannot exceed the height of the principal structure. The applicant has stated that they believe that the structure should be considered a farm building because it is a barn, includes a small area for animal habitation, and would store equipment used on the hobby farm. City ordinances contain a very specific definition for "farm" which follows. Subd. 33. Farm - A tract of land 10 acres or more in size which is principally used for agricultural activities such as the production of cash crops, livestock or poultry farming. Such farm may include agricultural dwellings and accessory buildings and structures necessary to the operation of the farm. RJ Ryan/Hasselquist CUP January 9, 2007 Planning Commission 3 Staff is of the opinion that this property is not principally used for agricultural activities, but rather as a site for a single family home. The applicant using the term "hobby farm" would perhaps support this fact. Additionally, the second floor of the proposed structure is to be used as a recreation room. This second floor creates the violation of the height regulation and has no relation to an agricultural use. The Planning Commission and City Council could, however, decide that this structure is indeed a farm building. Establishing this precedent would have impacts on other regulations within the ordinance. Farm buildings are not only exempted from the regulation that accessory structures cannot exceed the height of the principal structure, but they are also exempted from any maximum height restriction by subd. 1 of subsections 825.15, 825.25, and 825.25.5. Additionally, agricultural buildings are exempt from large portions of the state building code (see attached memo from the City Attorney). Because of the very specific definition of agricultural uses within statute, it would seem as if the City would need to somehow clearly differentiate between a "farm building" when it comes to building height and a building used for "agricultural uses." This would be the only way to avoid being inconsistent with the state statutes. If the Planning Commission is of the opinion that this structure qualifies as a farm building, staff recommends that the Commission suggest some criteria or descriptions for what constitutes a farm building. This information would be used within the resolution for approval and could help give staff guidance in the future. Conditional Use Permit Ordinance Compliance While reviewing Conditional Use Permits, City ordinances (Section 825.39) state that the City should consider the following: Subd.1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Staff believes that the similarity between this use and uses in the area will not present issues for property enjoyment. Additionally, screening of the barn will actually be improved. Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. There is no vacant property in the area that will likely develop under current guiding and zoning. Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The City's engineer has reviewed the plans and do not bring forward any major issues, except for suggesting only one curb cut to the property. Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. There will be no commercial use of the structure, so no additional parking or loading is necessary. RJ Ryan/Hasselquist CUP 4 January 9, 2007 Planning Commission Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The City will require any lighting to comply with Section 829.04, where all lighting must be downcast in order to maintain a dark sky rural area. Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Staff believes that the proposed barn is consistent with uses in the area and to the overall rural character of Medina. Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. While the use (a storage barn) may be consistent with the purposes of the rural residential district, staff believes that the fact that the structure violates a regulation regarding accessory structures makes it inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning code more broadly. Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Staff believes the use is consistent with the "diversified rural" guiding. Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. There will be no commercial use of this facility, and the use is consistent with many in the surrounding areas. Traffic impacts should, therefore, be similar to those by neighboring parcels. Subd.10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. The only business in the area is Skyrock Farm, a commercial horse facility. While the Hasselquist property is well screened from the north side and has little lighting, the height may be a concern. Subd.11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant was already seeking a building permit before becoming aware that a CUP was necessary. Construction should start in the spring of 2007. Subd.12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. The property owner signed on to the application from the start. Right -of -Way Easement Currently, the City does not have dedicated right-of-way along the west side of Willow Drive adjacent to this property. The property line actually extends into Willow Drive. The City does hold a prescriptive easement over the traveled road because it funds the maintenance. Usually, the City will receive right-of-way when an owner plats property. The City has started a precedent of requesting right-of-way easements during the review of land use projects that border city streets where there is no right-of-way. The City will bear the cost of preparing all easement documents and filing them. Staff is excited to further discuss with the applicant the possibility of establishing this easement. RJ Ryan/Hasselquist CUP 5 January 9, 2007 Planning Commission City Discretion The City has a relatively low level of discretion when it comes to reviewing Conditional Use Permits. If the application meets City ordinances, the CUP should be approved. In this case, it appears that the application violates a regulation within the ordinance and could, therefore be denied. Additionally, if the City decides to approve the CUP, the City may impose conditions that protect the best interests of the surrounding community and the city as a whole. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 8,040 square foot accessory structure because the proposed structure is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance based on the fact that the height of the structure violates subd. 2 of subsection 825.19 of the Medina City Code. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, staff would recommend the following conditions and also recommend that the Planning Commission recommend specific criteria or descriptions of what constitutes a farm building. 1) The applicants and owners shall warrant that the farm building proposed is for private use only, and that no commercial and/or fee -based horse boarding or training, storage or other activities shall occur; 2) This CUP will allow the following accessory structures on the property at a maximum, as shown within the plans received on December 21, 2006: an 8,040 sq. ft. barn, a 3,815 sq. ft. pool and pool deck, a pool house/porch, a play house, a gazebo, and a corn crib; 3) The applicant shall meet requirements of the MPCA with regard to manure management; 4) The applicant shall ensure that no grazing may occur within the wetlands on the property; 5) The applicant shall submit a septic design acceptable by the City prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed barn; 6) The applicant shall pull all necessary permits and demolish the existing 1,532 sq. ft. accessory building before construction of the proposed barn; 7) The applicant shall add coniferous trees in place of or in addition to the proposed trees shown in the plans to the southeast of the proposed barn to ensure year-round screening; 8) If a second curb cut is allowed off of Willow Drive, the applicant shall execute a driveway agreement with the City as required by Medina Code section 410.11; 9) If the area disturbed by grading is greater than 1 acre in area, the applicant shall present the city with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and also proof that the SWPPP was approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; 10) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; and 11) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the Conditional Use Permit application. Attachments 1) Site Map 2) Applicant Letter 3) Plans dated 12-21-06 (including survey, site plan, floor plans, elevations) 4) Photo illustrating height of single family home on property 5) City Engineer memo dated 1-4-07 6) City Attorney memo dated 1-5-07 RJ Ryan/Hasselquist CUP 6 January 9, 2007 Planning Commission Site Location: 2705 Willow Drive sparzem Ei=1 lr.. VOA Cr= A RiElefliff.a=inr.lairmL...01 ...4 •" III riar-23:1 07.11"; nu 11, ,dwatzursmallag962atiltil-Itna EX .' iiiiEtraijniniligigiSWPneriati za ISEIrLIN v-Val_r Plki. AI: 1:ffir will 21, ar ilalell I iniallA ilrolliff:wizmovi Pr ill l1...rezdauinw ; - !Nil I!■iMEMl S2 MAvail PinailinCrrairl, Co 6---,;,,:,,CI im Bilk imanimvit Ain A Imp lempo IN...samosa imingpres. Medina Street & Address Finder Map 41 42 OA Construction, Inc. 1100 Mendota Heights Road • Mendota Heights, MN 55120 • (651) 681-0200 • Fax (651) 681-0235 December 21, 2006 City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, MN 55340 Attn: Planning Staff Re: 2705 Willow Drive Medina, MN Dear Planning Staff: DEC 6 As the owner's representative, we are requesting a conditional use permit to construct a barn structure that is 5,040 square feet over the 3000 square feet maximum. This structure will be used for hobby farming, personal horse stalls and storage of personal equipment (no portion of this barn will be used for commercial horse boarding or storage). This structure has been placed on the 16 acre property to allow access from Willow drive and be partially screened by the existing landscaping. We are willing to work with the Planning staff and their recommendations. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions. Sincerely, R.J. RYANUCTION, INC. Brian Trombley Project Manager BT:bk Hasselquist Residence Planning Staff 10-25-06.doc An Equal Opportunity Employer 902 t GDAIDODU Kennedy & Graven CHARTERED Date: To: From: Re: Linda K. Thompson 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9276 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax lthompson@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM January 5, 2007 Medina planning commission Linda K. Thompson, assistant city attorney Hasselquist CUP — agricultural building Based upon the information supplied in the city staff report dated January 4, 2007, it appears that neither the Hasselquist property nor Hasselquists' proposed barn meet the statutory definitions of agricultural land, agricultural use or agricultural building. Definition of "Agriculture" The statutory definition of "agricultural land" is "land which is in agricultural use, and which has been identified as agricultural land by a local unit of government pursuant to sections 394.21 to 394.37, 462.351 to 4652.364, 366.10 to 366.19 or 473H.04 or which is composed of predominately class I, II, III, or IV soils as identified in the land capability classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and the county soil survey, if completed." Minn. Stat. § 17.81, subd. 3. There does not appear to be any information in the staff report to indicate that the Hasselquist property qualifies as agricultural land under the above definition. The property is zoned Rural Residential by the city, and the property is not in "agricultural use" (see below). The statutory definition of "agricultural use" is "the use of land for the production of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock which is under sections 18.44 to 18.61, fruit of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees and apiary products. Wetlands, pasture and 1 woodlands accompanying land in agricultural use shall be considered to be agricultural use." Id. at subd. 4. The Hasselquists' use of the property does not appear to meet this definition. The 17 acre property contains a house, swimming pool with pool house, a gazebo, a playhouse, a corn crib, a tennis court, and an existing accessory structure of unknown use. The current use is not for the production of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry or poultry products, etc. The proposed use includes horse stalls, a chicken coop and recreation room. These uses do not appear to be agricultural uses as defined in the statute. State Building Code An "agricultural building" is defined by the State Building Code as "a structure on agricultural land as defined in section 273.13, subdivision 23, designed, constructed, and used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, and sublessee of the building and members of their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of agricultural produce or products." Minn. Stat. § 16B.60, subd. 5. Section 273.13, subdivision 23 defines agricultural land as property of ten acres or more used for agricultural purposes. "Agricultural purposes" means the raising or cultivation of agricultural products. Minn. Stat. §273.13, Subd. 23(c). "Agricultural products" include the production for sale of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur -bearing animals, nursery stock, fruit, vegetables, grains, bees, fish, game birds, insects, trees, maple syrup, and commercial boarding of horses if the boarding is done in conjunction with raising or cultivating agricultural products. Minn. Stat. §273.13(e). If the building qualifies as agricultural it is exempt from the state building code. Minn. Rule 1300.0120, Subd. 4. The building and the land upon which it sits must meet the section 273.13, subd. 23 definition. Minnesota state building officials rely on the property classification according to the records of the county assessor's office to determine if the land is agricultural land. The Hasselquist building does not appear to meet the definition of section 273.13, subdivision 23. It is not proposed to be used for the production for sale of livestock, etc, and is not proposed to be used for commercial horse boarding in conjunction with cultivating agricultural products. 2 joiBonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects • January 4, 2007 Ms. Rose Lorsung City Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 551 1 3 Office: 651-636-4600 ■ Fax: 651-636-1 31 1 www.bonestroo.com Re: CUP — 2705 Willow Drive BRA File No. 000190-06000-1 Plat No. 406 Dear Rose, We have reviewed the revised plans for the proposed building at 2705 Willow Drive, dated December 15, 2006. The proposal is to build a residential out -building and add an additional access from Willow Drive. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed floor elevation, contours, and spot elevations shown on the Site Plan differ from those shown on the Grading Plan. These should be revised such that all sheets are in agreement. • It appears that access to the proposed building can be provided from the existing driveway. Therefore, we do not recommend a second access off Willow Drive be provided. • The city should consider requesting that the applicant provide a 33 foot right of way along Willow Drive. • The erosion and sediment control shown on the plans must be installed and maintained to city standards. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Darren Amundsen Cc: Tom Kellogg Bonestroo recently merged with DSU, brinijng together sane of the best regional tarts in sneering, architecture, planning, landscape architecture, and urban design. ar carbined team now prot4des integrated services in one organization. ■ St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, WI ■ Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned