HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-12-2009CITY OF MEDINA
2052 COUNTY ROAD 24
MEDINA, MN 55340
AGENDA
MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, February 12, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEDINA CITY HALL
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of January 8, 2008 Planning Commission minutes
6. Ordinance Amendment — Section 828.43 — Pertaining to regulations related to
wetlands. Continued Public Hearing
7. Abdhish and Mary Bhaysar — 2105 Chestnut Road (PID 15-118-23-24-0003)
— Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 8,400 sq. ft. accessory
structure in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district. Public Hearing
8. Robb Stauber — 705 Hamel Road (PID 12-118-23-32-0001) — Site Plan
Review for the construction of three townhome units in the Multi -Family
Residential (MR) zoning district. Public Hearing
9. Ordinance Amendment — Section 815 — Pertaining to regulations related to
signage. Public Hearing
10. City Council Meeting Representation Schedule
11.Adjourn
Posted in City Hall February 8, 2008
Agenda Item: 3
Liz Weir's PC Update: Feb 7, 2008
The Council:
- promoted Dusty Finke to associate planner
- held a public hearing for the $3,000,000 project to rebuild and streetscape Hamel Road
from Brockton Lane to Hunter Drive. The scope of the project includes new sewer pipes,
simple street-scaping and the option to bury overhead power lines. If the power lines are
not buried, the cost of the project drops to $2.2 million. TIF funds from new
development, sewer funds, bonding and a 20 percent assessment to benefited properties
will be used to pay for the improvement. The City takes a risk if not enough new
development takes place in the TIF district to create tax increment. If that should happen,
the City would have to find other monies to cover costs. In order to capture TIF funds,
Medina had to act now to initiate the project; however, if costs come in very high, the
project can be stopped. At a meeting of Uptown Hamel business owners, everyone
present supported rebuilding Hamel Road, but some questioned the cost of burying the
power lines.
- approved the Comprehensive Plan over two meetings with all the recommendations of
the Planning Commission, except that we are considering the vacation of the Tamarack
ROW easement over Elm Creek marsh. The Council also changed two parcels north of
TH 55 from Commercial to Mixed Use, since both parcels abut residential. Because re -
guiding the Watertower site from Mixed Use to Commercial on the south side of 55
meant a loss of housing units to the 2016 increment of the staging plan, we added parcels
of low density housing west of Mohawk to that staging boundary. At the Park
Commission's requests, more potential trails were added to the trail map. The
Comprehensive Plan now goes to our surrounding 18 agencies for up to six months of
comment, before it is officially submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review.
- discussed applying a 12-month moratorium to allow staff time to rewrite the ordinances
that will support the guiding in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff begins work on the
new ordinances immediately.
- received well over 50 letters and e-mails from residents who fear a future major
north/south route from TH 55 to County Road 6. The correspondence requests the
vacation of the Tamarack ROW easement over Elm Creek marsh. The Council is in
support of vacation of the ROW but will consider keeping the utility easements. Because
the ROW crosses Elm Creek, a state water body, the DNR has 60 days in which to
comment, before any action can be taken. A public hearing will be held April 15.
- held a workshop to review City goals achieved in 2007 and to set new goals for 2008.
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
1. Call to Order: Acting Chair Mary Verbick called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Mary Verbick, Jeff Pederson, Michele Litts, Charles Nolan,
Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, and Jim Simons.
Absent: None
Also Present: Councilmember Elizabeth Weir, Planning Director Tim Benetti, City Wetland
Conservation Act Agent John Smyth, and Assistant to Planning Dusty Finke.
2. Nominations and Elections for Chair and Vice -Chair for 2008
Verbick asked for nominations for Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioners
nominated Charlie Nolan, Jeff Pederson, and Robin Reid.
Following statements from the nominees, ballots were handed out, and Pederson received four
votes.
Commissioners nominated Robin Reid and Charlie Nolan for Vice Chair. Ballots were handed
out and Nolan received the majority of the Vice Chair votes.
Motion by V. Reid, seconded by R. Reid to approve the election of Jeff Pederson as Chair and
Charlie Nolan as Vice Chair. Motion passes unanimously.
3. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
Terry Heitland (1300 Oakview Road) stated he had received a letter from a neighbor regarding
the Tamarack right-of-way across Elm Creek between Blackfoot Road and Hamel Road. He
stated that the rural atmosphere is extremely important to Medina and he shares the concerns
of Seth and Nancy Hoyt, the authors of the letter.
R. Reid stated the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a road in this area within the next 20
years, but that the appearance of the right-of-way is confusing.
Weir stated the fear is likely because of the City approaching state -aid eligibility. She stated that
people are afraid because Tamarack may be one of the few opportunities for a north -south
connection through the City and other agencies might apply pressure to the City.
4. Update from City Council Proceedings
Weir wished members a Happy New Year and welcomed the new members. She summarized
Council actions since the last Commission meeting, including: approved Landform as
consultant planner; swore in Jodi Wunsch as Deputy Clerk; accepted feasibility study on
1
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Hamel Road reconstruction and called a public hearing on street improvements for January
15; discussed the Highway 55 Coalition's long-term concept and the City Council's goal to
prevent impacts on Elm Creek, as well as studying ways to lessen impact on local business;
reviewed the Farr memory care/office concept plan; and advertised for Well 7 project.
5. Planning Department Report
Benetti stated that Chapters 6 and 7 of the draft Comp Plan are being updated by the Advisory
Panel's drafting committee, and maybe a bit different when presented to the City Council
than when the Commission reviewed them. He stated that at this time, there are no land use
applications pending for the February meeting, but there may be some in the next couple of
days. He stated that he took part in an orientation with the new members. Benetti also stated
he had updated the Planning Commission procedures manual ahead of that training and the
Commission could discuss the manual later in the meeting.
6. Approval of December 11, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes
Motion by Nolan, seconded by Pederson to approve the December 11 minutes with the noted
changes. Motion carries unanimously (Abstentions: Simons, V. Reid).
7. Ordinance Amendment — Section 828.43 — Pertaining to Regulations Related to
Wetlands. Continued Public Hearing
Smyth delivered a brief staff report. He reviewed the benefits of wetland buffers, and suggested
buffers widths for various functions. Smyth described the four functional classifications of
wetlands. He described the various regulations of the three watershed districts in the City.
Smyth summarized the draft ordinance, including what triggers would require the
establishment of buffers, the size of the buffers, and the other regulations in the ordinance.
Public Hearing continued
Bob Trojan (3505 Pioneer Trail) asked if you would have to put buffers around all the wetlands
on the property, even if they're uphill and 1000 feet away.
Smyth replied that all wetland would require buffers.
Trojan stated that if you can't measure something, you can't improve it. He asked if there was a
measurement that is meant to be improved by the ordinance. If you can't measure it, you
don't know if you're improving it. He stated that 3/5 of the wetlands in the City are at the
highest quality, so maybe there is no need for a buffer. He stated there is no evidence that
our Preserve wetlands are getting any worse. He said 90% of harmful nutrients come from
agriculture, and this ordinance does nothing about it. Trojan stated that landowners have to
grant an easement over the property, which would allow the City to push trails through
peoples' back yards as well. He said everyone wants to be a good steward of the
environment and that mowed lawn is phenomenal at filtering nutrients as well.
2
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Verbick stated the goal is to maintain and protect the wetlands. She said going back to repair
wetlands is more difficult than protecting them now.
Weir stated that wetlands tend to have lower values as you get more and more hardcover, so
Medina should seek to protect the quality of wetlands now. For examples of why wetland
protection is needed, there are two impaired water bodies in the City and Holy Name will
soon be designated as impaired. Additionally, high quality wetlands with buffers can protect
land values.
Paul Robinson (RGN Development, 1521 94th Lane, Blaine) said he had submitted a letter. They
are not opposed to an ordinance, and have plenty of examples of working with them. The
City should take incremental steps with the buffers. Distance from the wetland doesn't help
keep people out of buffers as much as good signage, a defendable easement, and education.
He stated that existing roads and right-of-ways should be exempt from buffer requirements.
He said there should be more flexibility to reduce the buffer to 5 or 10 feet over a small
distance if you have thousands of feet with larger buffers.
Bruce Workman (2212 Chippewa Road) stated that he has interests in a number of points,
including quality of wetlands, and how it impacts property owners. If you have higher
quality, you will get a better value. However, if you make things entirely undevelopable, you
take all value away. He stated that, in his case, he would lose 20% of his lots. The property
would be better if developed, because it is farmed right up to the wetland edge with 10 tons
of phosphorous/year. Larger developments should be able to work out deals and get what the
City needs. However, if the ordinance is too strict, you lose out on that. He stated that if the
intent is to clean up a certain watershed, it shouldn't be just a blanket ordinance.
Abdhish Bhaysar (2105 Chestnut) stated that they moved in four years ago. They have
delineated their wetlands and knew where the rules would allow them to build. They were
excited to build up their wetlands to improve habitat. They wished to build a house for the
family, build a barn for some horses, and then rehabilitate the wetlands. He stated that
buffers are used by cities because they are easily quantifiable. Buffers give a false sense of
security that the wetland will be secure. He stated that buffers are a simplistic way to help
wetlands, but there are better ways. Bhaysar stated that the large number of Preserve
wetlands shows not that they deserve some special protection, but rather that many, many
people may get severely impacted. He stated the ordinance is taking a family that is trying to
do good things for the wetlands and disallowing them from doing things they wish to do with
their lives. If you wanted to protect wetlands, you would tell everyone that you have to put
buffers around every wetland automatically. However, if you did that, there would be a
revolt. He said having these triggers just hits a few people every year, and it may take
hundreds of years to protect all the wetlands.
Verbick stated that the ordinance with triggers allows the City to get to the point where there are
buffers around all of the wetlands. The City can monitor it as certain things happen, and it is
the most reasonable and legal way of establishing the buffers.
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Bhaysar stated that wetland regulations are very complex and have passed under the radar of
most residents, because they don't know how it would impact them. The City should send
out information to all of the residents every time something may change that could impact
them. Publishing a notice is not enough. He suggested that if the triggers are left in to
impact existing property owners, then it should be delayed so that property owners know it is
coming.
Doug Dickerson (2625 Pioneer Trail) stated that the map shows that he has a Manage 1 wetland
on his property, although if he had it delineated, it likely would not even be a wetland.
Dickerson suggested buffers of 35 feet; 25; 20; 20. He also suggested keeping the structure
setback at 20 feet. He stated that he would like to entertain the idea of creating an area
within the highest quality natural resource areas where there would be larger buffers.
Ben Hodap (Anderson Engineering, Plymouth) stated that he has done a lot of work in the
community, the surrounding watersheds, and is familiar with state regulations. He stated
they had questions from clients to see how it would impact them. He stated that the
ordinance should reference MnRAM 3.1, since that is the current standard. He said the
setback from the edge of the buffer is also questionable...this is like having a buffer, on the
buffer, on the wetland. Hodap stated that the City Engineer uses the information from the
state study. However, a study in Eden Prairie showed that the bulk of the pollution and
nutrients are captured within the first 15 feet of the buffer. He said the City's assessment
covers up vast differences among the Preserve wetlands within the City.
Smyth stated that the Eden Prairie study was done under the best possible conditions with the
best possible vegetation. The state report was broader.
Simons asked if it would be the responsibility of the property owner to classify wetlands that
aren't previously classified.
Smyth replied that it would be, but most of the information needed could be acquired while they
were already out delineating the wetland. They then would only need to enter it into the
program.
Nolan stated that an easement can have very specific language that states what its purpose is, and
the City can't just push public trails through everywhere.
V. Reid inquired if someone could place a path through the buffer to reach a pond.
Finke stated that the current draft doesn't explicitly allow for a path.
V. Reid stated the ordinance is for the common good, but it also has to be reasonable.
Weir inquired if there should be an exemption for a lot of record that would be rendered
unbuildable.
4
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Nolan stated the setback from the buffer is a setback on top of another setback. He stated that he
could see how this could be burdensome. Flexibility is important, because Medina is unique.
The issue with burdening homeowners has been troubling. He stated that under the
ordinance they could only apply during the growing season, and they would have to go get
engineers and wetland scientists. He said he supports triggering the ordinance on
subdivisions, commercial projects, and new homes. Other activities, such as garages and
barns, should have some sort of minimal buffer so people aren't building right up against the
wetland.
Simons stated he understands what Nolan is getting at. Rather than trying to decide how many
square feet should be considered a "major project," this would be a bit cleaner.
R. Reid stated that a large majority of wetlands would have the highest restrictions, so the impact
may be more than we first thought, because there are so many preserves. The ordinance
should differentiate between developers and single-family homeowners. The triggers should
be updated to be more consistent with Minnehaha Creek Watershed, but adding in new
construction. There should be more flexibility so that there doesn't have to be a formal
variance.
Litts stated staff should also look at the exemption for lots which are made unbuildable.
Verbick stated that they had discussed animal grazing in the wetlands and allowing trails.
Litts leaves the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
Nolan stated that he believes the minimum buffers in the draft are not flexible enough and are
excessive.
Workman stated the buffers may not be a big deal for large lots, but could hurt more dense
development.
Robinson stated that with attached residential units, the buffer could be within commonly owned
land, and it would be someone's back yard. In these cases, setbacks aren't as important.
Smyth stated he is a big proponent of the setbacks, as it helps so much with enforcement.
Pederson inquired if something more shouldn't be done regarding horses and agriculture.
Smyth said some of that will also be addressed with the City's stormwater plan.
Weir stated even if we differentiate between developers and homeowners, we shouldn't just
write off all regulations for existing lots.
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Simons to table the wetland ordinance until the February
meeting and direct staff to prepare an amended ordinance with the recommendations from
the Commission. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Litts).
5
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Motion by Simons, seconded by Nolan to keep the public hearing open, to be continued at the
February Planning Commission meeting. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Litts).
8. Ordinance Amendment — Sections 825.07, 826.21 and 826.98 — Removing Animal -
Assisted Therapy as a Conditional Use in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district.
Public Hearing
Benetti delivered the staff report. He stated that following approval of an Interim Use Permit for
the MnLINC application at 2000 Chestnut Road, the Council directed staff to prepare an
ordinance removing Animal -Assisted Therapy as an allowed use within the RR district. He
noted this ordinance amendment will not impact the MnLINC operations, because they are
operating under a valid IUP for two years. He stated the staff report described four options,
the first of which is to remove the use as suggested by the Council.
V. Reid inquired if removing this language would disallow the group who received the Interim
Use Permit from bringing in an application.
Benetti stated that it would not allow them or future applicants to apply for a Conditional Use
Permit.
Public Hearing opened at 10:20 p.m.
Abdhish Bhaysar (2105 Chestnut) stated that they agree with repealing the ordinance, and that
was their assumption when they signed an agreement to allow MnLINC to operate at 2000
Chestnut Road for no more than two years.
Motion by Simons, seconded by Pederson to recommend Option 1 from the staff report;
adoption of the ordinance as presented. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Litts).
Public Hearing closed at 10:21 p.m.
9. Review and Approval of the Revised Planning Commission Training and Orientation
Manual and related Operational Procedures document
Benetti stated that staff had updated the Commission's Orientation Manual, as well as the
Operational Procedures. The changes are identified in the document, which was in the
packet.
Weir suggested a number of changes. She stated that she had written them down and she would
make them available for staff
Reid suggested a map of the City be added as well.
6
Medina Planning Commission DRAFT January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
10. City Council Meeting Representation Schedule
Finke stated that the City Council wishes to have a Commissioner present at each meeting in
order to update them on Commission activities and recommendations. He asked
Commissioners to look at their calendars and leave him a list of availability. He stated that
he would lay out the schedule and email it to members.
11. Adjourn
Motion by Nolan, seconded by Reid to adjourn at 10:29 p.m. Motion carries unanimously.
(Absent: Litts)
7
Agenda Item: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti
DATE: February 5, 2008
MEETING: February 12, 2008 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Wetland Ordinance Amendment
Background
City staff has taken the recommendations made at the January Planning Commission meeting and
prepared the latest iteration of the Wetland Protection ordinance (attached). The ordinance has been
changed significantly in order to approach some of the recommendations.
The main recommendations from the Commission in January were as follows:
(1) Make the ordinance applicable primarily to new development, but with a separate set of
regulations for activities such as construction of accessory buildings for existing residents.
(2) Add flexibility for staff to work with applicants on achieving the goals of the ordinance even
if all of the regulations would not be met.
(3) Add information regarding what can be done in the buffers (paths to ponds for skating, etc.)
(4) Insert an exemption for situations where the regulations make a property unbuildable.
(1) Applicability — New Development and Other Activities
The applicability section was changed significantly. To summarize, the ordinance requires the full
buffers for "new development," and describes it as: subdivisions, site plan reviews, construction of
a new principal structure, redevelopment of a principle structure (except one destroyed by disaster),
and projects which alters wetlands or floodplains.
Other land use applications (CUPs, Variances, etc.) were excluded from the "new development"
definition. Under the current draft, these applications would trigger a 15-foot buffer (and 10-foot
structure setback) around only the portion of the wetland downgradient from the proposed activity.
The Planning Commission should discuss whether all land use applications should trigger the full
buffers, or only subdivisions and site plans.
The final clause in the applicability section is meant to apply the 15-foot buffer (and 10-foot
structure setback) to projects such as accessory structures and large additions. It was carried over
similar to earlier drafts. If all three of the following conditions are met, the 15-foot buffer would be
triggered: 1) additional hardcover is proposed within 100 feet of a wetland; 2) disturbance exceeds
50 cu. yds. or 5,000 sq. ft.; and 3) the area disturbed naturally drains to a Wetland. This would
likely trigger most projects within 100 feet of a wetland (although not decks). The Planning
Commission should discuss this last trigger and make recommendations (is 100 feet a good distance
trigger, should the amount of disturbance be adjusted, etc.).
The Commission should also discuss the 15-foot buffer and 10-foot structure setback (from the
buffer) requirement for these other activities. The current draft requires this buffer only in the area
downgradient from the proposed activity (rather than adjacent to all wetlands on the property). 15-
feet is the minimum recommended buffer in order to be effective for any of the purposes of the
ordinance. The classification of the wetland would not impact the required buffer under the current
draft. The Commission should discuss if this minimum buffer for all classifications of wetlands is
the best course of action, if the buffer should be larger (perhaps in conjunction with changing the
trigger to cover less activities), and if the buffer should only be required for the area adjacent to
activity on the property (rather than adjacent to all wetlands).
(2) Flexibility
Some suggested additional flexibility in the ordinance if wetland protection could still be
accomplished. The ordinance already allows flexibility through buffer averaging. Additionally,
subd. 5(d) allows for reductions in the buffer if existing structures or hardcover are located in which
a buffer may be required. Variance provisions also exist.
If the Planning Commission supports additional flexibility, subd. 5(d) could be adjusted to allow for
more staff discretion (rather than requiring city council approval). Additionally, language could be
added to read something similar to: "the buffer requirements of this section may be reduced if the
applicant implements practices that grant superior long-term wetland protection than the required
buffers would achieve. A reduction in buffer requirements may only be granted in situations where
the buffer requirements of this section are determined by the city to impose undue hardships on the
use of the property."
(3) Uses within the Buffers
A new subsection was added to the draft which better describes what can be done within buffers.
This arose partly because of questions regarding if a person could mow a narrow strip through the
buffer in order to reach the wetland. This, as well as docks and boardwalks, are allowed in the
newest draft to give "reasonable access" to the wetland. The subsection also clarifies that utility
poles and other essential public services could also be placed in the buffer, and allows flood and
drainage structures (with city approval) as well.
Staff also clarified the public access/trails issue. Fear was expressed at a prior public hearing about
the city forcing trails into the easements granted over the buffer. The newest draft makes it even
more explicit that the purpose of the easement is for protection of the buffer. The city can establish
trail rights through another avenue (and perhaps even place them in the buffer), such as acquisition
or park dedication, as allowed by other regulations.
(4) Exemption for Parcels Made Unbuildable
A clause was added to the Exemptions which protects against a situation where the buffers and
setbacks required in the ordinance would take up an entire parcel. As it is currently worded, an
existing lot which is made completely unbuildable (would be completely covered by wetlands,
buffers, or setbacks) is e4empted from the ordinance. In addition to this exemption, the flexibility
described above and variance provisions are also part of the ordinance.
The Planning Commission should discuss if they believe a total exemption is the best tool, or if it
would be better to reduce the required buffers. Additionally, the Commission should discuss if they
support a lower threshold for an exemption, and what that threshold should be.
2
Other Comments from January PC Meeting
Throughout the discussion of the wetland ordinance, there have been quite a few comments, and
some concern, raised about the large proportion of Preserve wetlands in the City which would
require the largest buffer. The City's wetland Engineer, John Smyth suggested a possible way to
approach this concern. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has identified and mapped a
number of High Quality Natural Areas and Sites of Biodiversity Significance (see the attached map
for locations). The Commission could recommend that Preserve Wetlands which are adjacent to
these areas receive the largest buffer, Preserve wetlands the next level, and then Manage 1, 2, and 3.
This, in effect, would create a fifth classification of Wetlands, and the buffers could be as follows:
Wetland
Classification
Upland Buffer
Zone Average
Width
Minimum
Upland Buffer
Zone Width
Minimum Structure Setback
from the Outer Edge of the
Upland Buffer Zone
Preserve and adjacent
to DNR mapped Area
50 feet
30 feet
20 feet
All Other Preserve
40 feet
30 feet
20 feet
Manage 1
35 feet
25 feet
20 feet
Manage 2
25 feet
25 feet
20 feet
Manage 3
20 feet
15 feet
20 feet
Example Impact on Developable Property
At the November Planning Commission meeting, it was suggested that an estimate be made on the
impact of the buffer requirements on the amount of property which could be developed in relation
to some of the Comprehensive Plan forecasts.
Staff used information from WSB to get rough estimates of what the impact on developable
property may be across the City. The RR-UR and BP districts were used in order to get these
estimates because these areas are where the current Comp Plan draft proposes a large portion of the
future development. These figures are rough, and may be actually overestimates because the
wetlands were not delineated by WSB.
District
Acres
Acres of
Wetlands
Acres of
Buffer
Percentage
RR-UR
1466
375
113
7.7%
BP
875
277
83
9.5%
It is important to remember that currently the watershed districts have regulatory authority as well.
In the case of a substantial development, the relevant watershed would weigh in. It is likely that
they would require buffers (20'-50' buffers have been required by the Elm Creek watershed on
recent plats or sites plans). In these cases, the additional impact of the buffers within the draft
ordinance would be comparatively reduced.
3
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. The "triggers" and the buffer/setback requirements
are the major regulatory tools of the ordinance, so staff advises the Commission to give explicit
recommendations to the Council on those matters, if possible. The staff report also suggests a
number of other possible discussion points.
Attachment
1. Ordinance
2. Map DNR Mapped High Quality Natural Areas and Sites of Biodiversity Significance
4
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Pertaining to Wetland Protection and Regulation
Amending Sections 826.25.5, 828.43, 831.05, 831.07, 832.05, 832.07, 833.05, 833.07 and
835.05
The city council of the city of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Medina Code Section 826.25.5, subdivision 2 is amended by deleting the stricken
material as follows:
Section 826.25.5. (UR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Setback Requirements. Within the
Urban Reserve district, the following development standards shall apply:
Subd. 2. The following minimum lot sizes, width, depth and setback requirements shall
be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in other
sections of this ordinance. For purposes of calculating the amount of contiguous suitable soils
available on a lot, only acceptable soils from the Medina Soils List in section 820.29 subd. 5
shall be considered suitable. The amount of contiguous suitable soils shall not include the areas
outlined in section 820.29 subd. 4(a).
(a) Lot Size - 40 acres with at least five acres of contiguous soils suitable for a
standard individual sewage disposal system as regulated by section 720 Individual
Sewage Treatment Systems et seq. of the code of ordinances. The lot must contain
a primary and secondary site for an on -site sewage disposal system and both sites
must be protected during construction.
(b) Lot Width —110 feet.
(c) Lot Depth — 200 feet.
(d) Front Yard Setbacks — 50 feet.
(e) Side Yard Setbacks — 20 feet.
(f) Rear Yard Setbacks — 40 feet.
(g) Setbacks from Commercial Zoning Districts — 75 feet.
(h)
a dl f..*•l a,
1
SECTION II. Medina Code Section 828.43 is amended by deleting the st-fi-ek-eb material and
adding the underlined material as follows:
Section 828.43. Wetlands Conservation.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of th:s subsection is to recognize, preserve, ^n-1 protect the
environmental, aesthetic, and hydrologic functions of the city's wetlands. These functions include,
but arc not limited to, sediment control, polluti t. ', ftlt t- ti, ,,,,,,i f = -ee' afge and providing
habitat for fish and wildlife. The regulations and standards of this district shall be applied as an
overlay zone, further regulating the use of land as allowed by other use distficts under this ordinance.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings given to them:
(b) "Applicant" means a person who applies for a permit to undertake any activity
regulated by this subsection.
(c) "Rules" m uns Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8120, as amended.
All other terms used in this subsection ' ' '' f '' +'' " +'' D"'""
meanings given there.
wetlands within the city. Except as provided in tke exemption and no loss -1-t,=rmin-*i^n provisions
Subd. 1. Local Government Unit. The city shall be the local government unit for the purposes of
the Act and the Rules.
Subd. 5. Technical Evaluation Panel.
(a) A wetlands technical evaluation panel is hereby established. The panel shall be
composed of the city engineer, a person appointed by the Board of Water and Soil
Resources, and a person appointed by the Hennepin County Conservation District.
(b) The technical evaluation panel shall exercise the authority granted to it under the Act,
the Rules, and this subsection, including, without limitation:
(i) making technical determinations concerning questions of public values, location,
(ii) assisting in making wetland size and type determinations as part of exemption
and no loss determinations;
2
OH) answering technical questions and participating in monitoring of replacement
wetlands; and
(iv) participating in the monitoring of banked wetlands.
""y u. u c��cHi�3irorraor"3i
the provisions of this sql3seetion for the purposes of draining or filling a wetland. An exemption
certificate shall be granted pursuant to the following conditions:
(a) receipt from the applicant by the city council of satisfactory evidence that the wetland to
be drained or filled meets the exemption criteria contained in the Rules;
(b) a finding by the technical evaluation panel that the wetland meets the exemption criteria
contained in the Rules, if such a finding is deemed necessary by the city council; and
(c) receipt by the applicant from the city of a certificate granting an exemption from the
provisions of this subsection.
The city shall mail a copy of its decision to the landowner and other persons to whom such
notice is required within the time periods set forth in the Act and the Rules.
Subd. 7. No loss. A landowner uncertain whether proposed work will result in a loss of
wetlands may :.:ply f:r . ne less d *-rmination. No le , determinations shall be made by the city
council pursuant to the following conditions:
(a) receipt from the applicant by the city council of satisfactory evidence of one of the
(i) the work will not drain or fill a wetland;
(ii) water level management activities will not result in the conversion of a wetland
to another land use;
(iii) the activities arc in a surface impoundment for containment of fossil fuel
combustion waste or water retention, and are not part of a compensatory
wetland mitigation program; or
(iv) the activity is being conducted as part of an approved replacement plan or is
conducted or authorized by public agencies for the purpose of wetland
restoration and the activity is restricted to placing fill in a previeusly
excavated drainage system to restore a wetland to its original condition; and
(b) a finding by the technical evaluation panel that the criteria set forth in this subdivision
have been satisfied, if such a finding is deemed necessary by the city council.
Subd. 8. Replacement Plan Decisions.
3
•
(a) A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland who does not qualify for or fails to
plan from the city council. Replacement plans intended to mitigate activities within
the city must involve the ,replacement or rehabilitation of properti pursuant to the
location requirements set forth in the Rules.
(b) Replacement plan decisions under this subsection shall be made pursuant to the
following procedures:
(i) The applicant must submit the proposed plans to the city.
(ii) If the applicant proposes to undertake an activity affecting less than 10,000
square feet of wetland, the City shall, within ten -19ys of r=sriving the
application, mail a summa.-y of the application, including tip irtzatity of the
applicant, the location and scope of the project, and a statement as to the
received, to the technical evaluation panel, the state commissioner of natural
resources, and individual members of the public who have requested a copy.
(iii) If the applicant proposes to undertake an activity affecting 10,000 square feet or
mail a copy of the application, an invitation to comment, and a statement as
to the duration of the time period on which comments on the application will
be received, to the technical evaluation panel, the watershed district or water
management organization in which the wetland is located, the state
commissioner of natural resources, and individual members of the public
who have requested a copy.
(iv) The city council shall base decisions concerning replacement plans on the
standards set forth in the Rules and on any technical determinations of the
technical evaluation panel concerning the public values, location, size, and
landowner and other per:mons to whom such notice is required within the time
periods set forth in the Act and the Rules.
(c) The city may at any time inspect any activity or project undertaken under this
subdivision to ensure compliance with the Act, the Rules, and this subsection. In the
event that the activity or project is not in compliance with the Act, the Rules, or this,
subsection, the city may take any enforcement action availal3le under the state law,
the Rules, or the Medina city code.
Subd. 9. Wetland Banking. Upen application by a landowner, the ^ity council shall
determine whether a wetland shall be certified as eligible for deposit in the state wetland bank. The
city council ;,hall certify a wetland as eligibl= fer a pesi in th s*-} w=*.1^.n4 hark pursuant to the
following conditions:
4
(a) receipt from the applicant by the city council of satisfactory evidence that the wetland
meets the criteria for banking contained in the Act and the Rules; and
!1.\ f- Eli b tl, 1, 1 P.y ahaatief p aiie that tje-wotl 1 r t + b 1 '
iig
contained in the Act and the Rules, if such a finding is deemed necessary by the city
council.
Subd. 10. Fees. Any application under this ordinance must be accompanied by the fee
established from time to time by the city council by resolution. No application shall be considered
complete until the appropriate fee has been received by the city.
Subd. 11. Incorporation by Reference. The Act and the, Rules arc hereby inc;orporatod by
Subd. 1. Purpose. The city council of the city of Medina finds that wetlands serve
a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality, reduce floodin and erosion,
provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space an are an inte rg al__part of the cites
environment. Wetland are also important �hvsical, educational„ ecological. aesthetic.
recreational and economic assets to the city They are critical to the citv's stormwater
management and other aspects of the public health, safety and general welfare. Regulating
wetlands and the land uses around them is therefore in the public interest.
Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall
have the meanings given to them:
(a) "Amalie." lie. " means the individual or entity submitting a land use a lication to
the city.
(b) "MnRAM" means the Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for
Evaluating Wetland Functions as referenced in Minnesota Rules 8420.0549 and
maintained by the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources. MnRAM is a
field tool used to assess Wetland functions on a qualitative basis. Wetland
functions assessed by MnRAM include floral diversi and integrity; wildlife
habitat, water quality protection; flood and stormwater attenuation- recreation;
aesthetics: education; science; fishery habitat; shoreline nrotection•_groundwater
interaction; and commercial uses.
(c) "Native Vegetation" means plant species indigenous to or naturalized to the
Hennepin County Region of the State of Minnesota or plant species classified by
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as native in the Minnesota
Native Plant Database. Native Vegetation does not include Weeds a defined by
this section.
5
(d) "Non-native Vegetation" means species not indigenous to or naturalized to the
Hennepin Co Re • ion of the State of Minnesota by the De s artment of Natural
Resources or plant species.
(e) "Setback" means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the
nearest edge of the Upland Buffer Zone.
f "Upland Buffer Zone" means an area or areas of vegetated • ound cover around
the erimeter of a Wetland that either in its natural condition or throu h
intervention, is critical to the protection of that Wetland. An Upland Buffer Zone
protects the e • ge of a Wetland from erosion and filter sediment, chemicals and
other nutrients from the runoff that drains into the Wetland. An Upland Buffer
Zone also provides wildlife habitat and assists in maintainin • diversi of both
plant and animal species within the city. It also reduces human disturbances to
the Wetland by providing a visual and physical transition area from a yard. to a
Wetland.
(g) "WCA" means the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, Minnesota
Statutes Sections 103G.222 - .2373. The city of Medina shall be designated as
the Local Government Unit for the purposes of the WCA.
(h) "Weeds" mean (il "noxious weeds" as defined and designated pursuant to the
"Minnesota Noxious Weed Law." Minnesota Statutes Sections 18.76 through
18.88, as amended from time to time or (ii) any volunteer plants including but
not limited to, spotted knapweed (Centaurea Maculosal or burdock Arctium
Minus). For the purposes of this section, Weeds shall not include dandelions or
clover. The city weed inspector and/or assistant city weed ins ector shall
maintain a current list of plants that are defined as "Weeds" for ou poses of this
section.
(i) "Wetland" means a land that is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic
s -ms where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is
covered by shallow water. For p poses of this section in order for a land to be
considered a "Wetland," it must have all of the following characteristics: (i a
predominance of hydric soils; (ii) be inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequenc and duration sufficient to su B port a o revalence of
hvdrophvtic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. and
(iii under normal circumstances, support a prevalence of hydrophytic ve • etation.
(j) "WMCM" means a Wetland Management Classification Map which is to be
maintained by the ci . The WMCM shall classify each Wetland in the ci as
one or more of the following types: "Preserve," "Manage L" "Manage 2 " and
"Manage 3." The classification shall be based on an assessment using MnRAM.
The WMCM is hereby adopted by reference and a copy of which shall be kept on
file in the office of the zoning administrator. It shall be available for public
review during all normal city office hours.
Subd. 3. General Provisions.
(a) In order to protect Wetlands, this section incorporates by reference the WCA and
anv future amendments to the WCA that are adopte by the Legislature. In the
event that any requirements of this section are inconsistent with the W
stricter provision that provides the most protection for Wetlands shall apply_
(b) Applicability. This section shall apply to all grope containing Wetlands in the
following circumstances:
(i) When anv new development activity occurs on the pro erty. For purposes
of this section, "new develo sment activi " means:
(Al Any subdivision or minor subdivision which results in a net
increase in the number of lots;
(B) Any site plan review application;
C Construction nstruction of . rinci al structure on an existi vacant lot:
(D) Redevelopment of a property which:
1� results in the removal of more than fifty percent of the
market value of a principal structure;
2� the structure's removal is followed by reconstruction
(except as exempted by subdivision 3 (c) of this section;
and
3� results in a net increase in the square footage of impervious
surfaces that drain to a Wetland, or results in the relocation
of impervious surfaces closer to a Wetland, or results in
changes to drama e patterns (slopes, meander an tterns.
etc.) that the city engineer determines will increase the
veloci or rate of runoff to a Wetland;
(E) Any project that involves the draining filling,_ vation, or
alteration of a Wetland;
(F) An` proiect that alters or fills land below the proiecteI 100- ear
hieh water elevation of a body of water; and
(ii) An other land use a D lication submitted to the city which is not specified
ecified
above, including, but not limited to, conditional use Hermits, variances and
rezonings.
7
iii When there is a construction or land alteration activity on a property that
does not fall within the above categories, but the city has determined that
the activity may adversel_ im act a Wetland because it meets all of the
following conditions:
�A- The portion of the property to be disturbed by the construction or
land alteration activity naturally drains to a Wetland;
(B) The amount of rading on the proerty exceeds fifty cubic yards or
the construction activity involves the disturbance of an area of
more than five thousand square feet; and
(C) The proposed structure or proposed impervious surface is within
one hundred feet of the Wetland.
(c) Exemptions. The Upland Buffer Zone and Setback requirements of this section shall
not apply to the following:
(i) An land use a plication that has received final or reliminary plat an royal
b the ci council prior to the effective date of this section;
ii Reconstruction of a legal non -conforming structure that was destroyed by
fire or other peril that is permitted to be reconstructed by ci code and state
statute; or
(iii) Any parcel existing prior to the effective date of this section on which the
implementation of the Upland Buffer Zone and Setbacks as re uired b this
section alon . with other res rictions in the zonin . ordinance would
encompass the entire parcel.
Subd.4. Application Materials. An Applicant shall submit the following
information to the city alon . with all other materials re c uired by city code with respect to any
land use application or permit application:
(a) A grading plan if grading is proposed including the area and volume of land
disturbance;
(b) The square footage of the proposed structure and an impervious surface.
LO A Wetland delineation report. It is the responsibility of the An licant to
determine whether Wetlands exist on the property by completing a Wetland
delineation and submitting a Wetland delineation reportThe following shall
ay 81 to the Wetland delineation report:
(i) The report shall delineate and document the boundaries of any Wetlands on
au:wove in accordance with the WCA requirements.
8
(ii) The ci may reauire that the Wetland delineation be erformed b a certified
Wetland delineator. The Wetland delineation must be performed according
to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and
eq nt amendments. and be acceotable to the city enLin - T e city
h. e com.1-t retion in de rmininl, whether the Wetland
delineation report is acceptable.
en ineer
(iii) The report shall state the WMCM classifications for all Wetlands located on
the property. If a Wetland on the property is not shown or classified on the
WMCM. the Applicant shall submit a completed electronic copy of the
MnRAM (version 3 0) form for the Wetland to the city, The MnRAM form
shall be completed by a certified Wetland delineator.
(iv) Wetland delineations and any required MnRAM classifications shall be
completed by the Applicant between April 20th and October 20th of the
given year and must be submitted to the city for review no later than
November 1st. A Wetland delineation completed outside these dates or
submitted later than November 0 may be considered to be incomplete.
(v) Wetland classification appeal. In the event that the Applicant is not in
Agreement with a Wetland's WMCM classification, th v may a. eal the
classification to the city The Applicant shall put the a eal in writin and
include supporting documentation The appeal will be reviewed by city staff
and decided by a technical evaluation anel members of which will be
determined by the city council The technical evaluation panel shall make a
determination on the appeal within forty-five days of recut of a complete
appeal application The Applicant may appeal the technical evaluation
panel's decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty
da s of the technical evaluation panel's decision.
(vi) The city shall place any approved Wetland classifications on the WMCM.
(d) A certificate of survey or site plan describing the proposed activity and showing
the Upland Buffer Zones to the Wetlands on the property;
(e) An Upland Buffer Zone lmiscaping_plan if required:
(f) An submittals required by the WCA;
(g) Legal descriptions of the Wetlands and Upland Buffer Zones to be used on the
conservation easement Wetland and Aland Buffer Zones shall be protected by
a conservation easement to be granted to the city• and
(h) Deposit funds in an amount to be determined b the city tc be used for any
expenses incurred by the ci in comnletin its review of the Wetland delineation
9
report Wetland ordinance compliance a WMCM classification anneal. andif
appropriate developing a Wetland boundary estimate and determining if the
Upland Buffer Zones proposed b the Applicant meet the re I uirements of this
section.
Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Structure Setbacks.
(a) If a new development activity as defined in subdivision 3(bl(il of this sectionis
proposed, the following Upland Buffer Zone and structure Setbacks shall be
required for each Wetland within or adiacent to the subiect prone :
Wetland
Upland Buffer
Minimum Upland
Minimum Structure Setback
Zone Average
Buffer Zone
from the Outer Edge of the
Classification
Width
Width
Upland Buffer Zone
Preserve
50 feet
30 feet
20 feet
Manage 1
35 feet
25 feet
20 feet
Manage 2
25 feet
25 feet
20 feet
Manage 3
20 feet
15 feet
20 feet
If approved by city staff, the width of the Upland Buffer Zone may vary alon
the Wetland's boundaries, so long as the following conditions are met:
(i) The Upland Buffer Zone's width does not fall below the Minimum Upland
Buffer Zone Width at any location;
(ii) The total area of the Upland Buffer Zone meets or exceeds the total area
which would be required if the Upland Buffer Zone Avera. e Width was
utilized; and
(iii) Areas that are within an Upland Buffer Zone with a preconstruction slope
exceeding twelve percent must meet or exceed the Upland Buffer Zone
Average Width requirement.
(b) If an activity as defined by subdivision 3(bl(n or subdivision 3(bl(iiil of this
section is proposed, an Upland Buffer Zone with an avera.e width of fifteen feet
shall be required. The Upland Buffer Zone must be adiacent to the lortion of the
Wetland downgradient from the proposed activity. The minimum structure
Setback shall be ten feet.
(c) All Upland Buffer Zones shall be measured from the ed. e of the delineated
Wetland as approved bthe city into the adiacent upland area.
10
(d) Where existing structures or impervious surfaces are located within an
area that would be required to be included in an Upland Buffer Zone,
alternative methods to protect the Wetland may be approved by the city
council in order to avoid creating unreasonable impacts on the existing use
of the property. Such methods may include, but are not limited to, Upland
Buffer Zone width averaging below the mum required re ire tion ofof
drainage to a different area where an Upland Buffer Zone is feasible while
still maintainin . the drainage to the Wetland, or the use of rainwater
gardens, vegetated swales or other best management practices for treating
runoff.
(e) For roadways, trails, and driveways, or portions thereof that are routed
across a Wetland pursuant to an approved WCA Permit Application,
Upland Buffer Zones will be required on the fill slope but fill shall not be
expanded to accommodate the Upland Buffer Zone requirement
Mitigation of the Upland Buffer Zone will be reauired as described in
subdivision 10 of this section.
Subd. 6. Alterations within Wetlands and Upland Buffer Zones. (a) The area
within Wetland and Aland Buffer Zones hall be preserved predominately in their natural
states. extent to the extent set forth below Wetlands and Ian Buffer Zone mu t be
Protected by a conservation easement granted to the city by the Applicant in a form provided by
the city. The conservation easement will preserve the natural state of the Wetland and Upland
Buffer Zones by restricting the activities that are allowed within the easement areas. The
easement will give the city the authority to enforce the conservation easement restrictions.
Additional public uses within the conservation easeent, such as am
trail, will not be reauired by
the ci for these purposes but may be required pursuant to other ar�plicable city requirements.
(b) An alterations within the Wetland and Upland Buffer Zone exc . t tho stated
below shall be prohibited including but not limited to, the installation or
placement of structures and impervious urfaces, the destruction or removal of
trees, shrubs or other vegetation the introduction of any Non-native Vegetation,
an mowing, dredging or excavation activities and the placement or storage of
any fill material or trash and the application of fertilizer. The following activities
are permitted:
(i)
(ii) The removal of Non-native Vegetation;
(iii) The removal of dead or diseased trees that pose a hazard;
(iv) The installation of utility poles, underground utili lines lighg t poles,
traffic regulatory signs and signals, mailboxes, and other equipment that is
determined by the city to provide an essential public service;
Activities described within an
land Buffer Zone land ca ins or
plan that was a . roved by the city
11
(v) The installation of public and private flood control structures, pondin. and
drainage facilities and associated accessory appurtenances as approved b
the city;
LAI The installation of environmental monitoring or control facilities,
including those related to water qualityand wildlife regulation;
(vii) The mowing of or installation of permeable . athwa s not to exceed four
feet in width to allow reasonable access to the Wetland;
E The installation of boardwalks, docks or other structures to allow
reasonable access to the Wetland. These structures shall not exceed four
feet in width or have poles greater than two feet in diameter;
(ix) The installation of public trails, if required. The tem • orary and . ermanent
trail disturbance shall not exceed nine feet in width and must be located
outside of the minimum width of the required Upland Buffer Zone.
Subd. 7. Upland Buffer Zone Markers. All Upland Buffer Zones shall identified
with markers. The Applicant shall be responsible for the costs of obtainin . and installin . the
markers At a minimum one marker shall be placed per lot at the upslope edge of the Upland
Buffer Zone and then placed every 250 feet thereafter and on all common lot lines.
kAl Proposed locations of the markers shall be shown on tradine or site elan for the
property. The location of the markers shall ca • ture the portion of the U p land Buffer
Zone that extends the furthest upslope into the lot. A plan that shows the location of
the marker shall be provided to the city for its review and a.. royal.
(b) Artwork and verbiage on the sign shall face away from the Wetland..
W. Sian dimensions specifications verbiage. and artwork shall be specified by the city
and provided to the Applicant.
Subd. 8. Ve etati.n Performance Standards. Upland Buffer Zones shall meet the
following vegetation performance standards:
(a) Where acceptable natural vegetation exists in an Upland Buffer Zone disturbance
is allowed only with a royal from the city An Upland Buffer Zone will be
considered to have acceptable natural vegetation if it:
of less than twenty-fivercent Weeds•
(ii) is covered by Native Vegetation with less than five percent exposed soil.
and
12
(iii) does not contain maintained turf grass.
(b) Where an Upland Buffer Zone or a portion thereof is not considered acceptable or
is to be disturbed, a Upland Buffer Zone landscaping elan must be submitted to
the ci engineer for approval At a minimum, the landscaping plan shall include
the following information:
(i) A plan sheet that shows the location of the Upland Buffer Zones The
Plan sheet must also show Upland Buffer Zones that are considered to be
acce table in their current state and identify them as areas that will not be
disturbed during gra ing The city may require silt fencing around these
are in order to protect them from ero ion and di turbance during ra ing
and construction;
(ii) The species planting and seeding locations for Upland Buffer Zones that
were determined to be unacceptable by the city. This shall involve the
seeding or la pnting of a mmum of at lea t four�ecies of native era_ sses
and five species of native forbs and a cover crop. The seed mix shall
consist of at least fifteen pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre and the
cover crop shall be at least tweny pounds per acre. If lantin is
proposed, spacing between plants shall not exceed three feet unless
otherwise approved by the city engineer; and
(iii) Detailed specifications that describe sequencing, scheduling, materials,
installation and maintenance execution for the seeding, planting, or Weed
removal within the Upland Buffer Zones.
(c) In cases where an Upland Buffer Zone landscaping plan is required the city may
require an approved form of a financial uarantee equal to 150 percent of the
estimated cost of the vegetation installation The financial guarantee shall be
valid for two years and may be used by the ci for compliance inspections and
establishment of the required vegetation if not completed by Applicant or if
deemed unsuccessful by the city Vegetation will be deemed b the ci to be
successful if the area has a minimum of one plant per square foot from the
specified seed mix or plantingplan and less than twen -five percent of the area is
inhabited by Weeds.
Subd. 9. Maintenance. The property owner or homeowners' association shall be
res.onsi.le for maintaining the Upland Buffer Zones on the prose . Mainten. lc- shall include
the following:
(a) Maintain and repair any damage to the Wetland Buffer Zone cau ed by activities
such as mowing cutting or grading, unless the activities are an roved b the city
13
b Ensure that all soil surfaces in the Wetland Buffer Zone are planted with Native
Vegetation and that th-re is less then five •ercent of open soil surface which ma
result in erosion.
Subd. 10. Wetland and Upland Buffer Zone Mitigation.
(a) In cases where Wetland or Upland Buffer Zone alteration is a • proved by the ci
and mitigation is req ired the mitigation must result in e • ual or im • roved
Wetland function and value. All Wetland mitigation plans must address water
Quality im • rovement, maintenance of preexisting hydrological balance and
wildlife habitat. Wetland mitigation must be performed at the ratios re • uired b
the WCA in order to achieve the replacement of the Wetland function and value.
(b) The following shall be reauired by the city for any Wetland or Upland Buffer
Zone mitigation: •
Li) Wetland mitigation shall conform to the requirements of the WCA.
Upland Buffer Zones shall be re • uired to be replaced on the fill slo • e and
elsewhere alon . the ed . e of the existing Wetland to meet the re • uired area
required by this section for an Upland Buffer Zone. If a Wetland is to be
completely filled pursuant to an a•proved Wetland permit, the Upland
Buffer Zone area requirement associated with the classification of that
Wetland will be also required for the replacement Wetland unless the
replacement is occurring adjacent to a Wetland with a classification that
requires a wider Upland Buffer Zone. In that event, the Upland Buffer
Zone requirement for the wider Upland Buffer Zone shall a • pl .
(ii) Wetland and Upland Buffer Zone plantings that are com • leted for
mitigation shall meet the standards for vegetation specified in this section.
(iii) U • land Buffer Zones ma be utilized for Wetland miti s ation credits if
they meet the requirements of the WCA.
Subd. 11. Variance. A variance from the requirements of this section may be
granted by the city council in accordance with the variance provisions of the city code, so
long as the variance does not violate the WCA or any other applicable state statutes or rules
Subd.12. Enforcement.
(a) Investigation. When a violation of this section is either discovered by or brou . ht
to the attention of the city the city shall immediately investigate the situation and
document the nature and extent of the violation.
(b) Notice of the Violation If a violation is found to exist. the city shall notify the
offending party of the reauireme of this section all other annlicable official
controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If
14
the structure or use is under construction or development, the city may order the
construction or development to be immediately stopped until the pro • e is
brought into compliance with this section If the construction or development has
alread been completed, then the ci ma issue an order identi in the
corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the
use or structure into compliance with this section.
(c) Appeal The offending, pa may appeal the city's correction order to the city
council. An anpeal must be brou ht in writine no later than ten days from the
date of the notice.
(d) Failure to Correct. If the offending parry does not correct the work within the
specified date on the notice and no appeal has been taken within ten days of the
notice, the city may enter the property and perform the corrective work. Any
amount incurred by the ci in : erformin the corrective w iork ma . be certified by
the city to the county for collection with the property taxes.
(e) Penalties Any person who violate any provision of this section hall be guilty_of
a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a maximum fine or maximum period of
imprisonment, or both, as specified by Minnesota Statutes Section 609.03. Each
additional day that the property remains in violation of this section shall
constitute an additional violation of this section and may be prosecuted
accordingly.
(0
Nothing contained herein shall prevent the ci from taking such other lawful
action as is necessa to prevent or remedy an violation of this section
including, but not limited to, seeking a civil iniunction or restraining order.
SECTION III. Medina Code Section 831.05, subdivision 9 is amended by deleting the a fiekeft
material as follows:
Section 831.05. Lot, Setbacks and Building Size Requirements. The following minimum
requirements shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications
set forth in other sections of this ordinance. (When setback provisions overlap, the most
restrictive provisions of both setbacks shall apply. See Figure 1.)
Subd. 9. Wei Setback: Shell -be a mink:awn of to f a tb k--shall h , l
yAnAt'ltie but sli ll net tom ., a €V f ftil a 1
a
SECTION IV. Medina Code Section 831.07, subdivision 1 is amended by deleting the stricken
material as follows:
Section 831.07. Design and Development Standards. Design and development standards are
established for this district to achieve a high standard of development by providing assurance
that land uses, buildings, and functions are compatible within the district and with adjacent
districts. The plans and the proposed use of a property shall conform to the design and
15
development standards prior to approval of any permit. The applicant or owner shall supply data
necessary to demonstrate such conformance.
Subd. 1. Design and development standards — all uses: The following design and development
standards are identified for all uses. Additional standards may be identified during the review
and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development
of the site, and the uses on adjacent property.
(a) Site Analysis — A complete analysis of the site shall be made and a site analysis
map shall be prepared as defined by this ordinance. The analysis map shall then
be used to determine how the site shall be used and to identify the appropriate
arrangement of the various components to the development. A site plan shall then
be prepared as defined by this ordinance.
(b) Landscape Plan — A landscape plan shall be prepared. The landscape plan must
include existing trees and landscaping to be retained. The plan must show new
landscaping including ground cover, shrubs, and trees by type, size, and spacing.
The plan must also include planting methods, walls and fences, if any, (which
must be decorative), plazas, fountains, sculptures, all outdoor lights, and other
relevant features.
(c) Building Plan - A building plan shall be prepared and include at least the
following : a generalized floor plan for each floor, uses, elevation plans for each
side of the building showing proposed color and type of materials, fenestration,
any rooftop equipment and proposed screening materials, size and square footage,
number of parking stalls in the building or in the ramp or deck, if any, building
size, building height, exterior lighting, signage if any, and any other relevant
features.
(d) Utilities — All utilities shall be placed underground. Transformers and similar
equipment, if any, should be located inside a building or shall be fully screened
from view.
(e) Signage — A coordinated signage system for the building and access may have to
be provided.
(f)
Natural Features and Drainage — Retaining existing land forms on the site is
encouraged especially when it involves natural amenities such as mature trees and
natural drainage. Protection of Elm Creek is required by the shoreland ordinance.
Natural vegetation enhancement along the creek is encouraged. Plans which
restore natural vegetation along the creek may be given up to a 25 percent
reduction in one or two of the yard setbacks.
(.0 Wetland Setback (See section titled Lot, Setback and Building Size
16
SECTION V. Medina Code Section 832.05, subdivision 9 is amended by deleting the f,tricken
material as follows:
Section 832.05. Lot, Setback and Building Size Requirements. The following minimum
requirements shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications
set forth in other sections of this ordinance (When setback provisions overlap, the most
restrictive provisions of both setbacks shall apply. See Figure 1).
Subd. 9. Wetland Setback: Shall be a of 25 feet fer a wetland less than 1 acre and 50
bo € .slier. f ftil a l,...al
SECTION VI. Medina Code Section 832.07, subdivision 1 is amended by deleting the Gtrickcn
material as follows:
Section 832.07. Design and Development Standards. Design and development standards are
established for this district to achieve a high standard of development by providing assurance
that land uses, buildings and functions are compatible within the district and with adjacent
districts. The plans and the proposed use of a property shall conform to the design and
development standards prior to approval of any permit. The applicant or owner shall supply
plans and data necessary to demonstrate such conformance.
Subd. 1. Design and development standards — all uses: The following design and
development standards are identified for all uses. Additional standards may be identified during
the review and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed
development of the site, and the uses on adjacent property.
(a) Site Analysis — A complete analysis of the site shall be made and a site analysis
map shall be prepared as defined by this ordinance. The analysis map shall then
be used to determine how the site shall be used and to identify the appropriate
arrangement of the various components to the development. A site plan shall then
be prepared as defined by this ordinance.
(b) Landscape Plan — A landscape plan shall be prepared. The landscape plan must
include existing trees and landscaping to be retained. The plan must show new
landscaping including ground cover, shrubs, and trees by type, size, and spacing.
The plan must also include: planting methods, walls and fences, if any, (which
must be decorative), plazas, fountains, sculptures, all outdoor lights, and other
relevant features.
(c) Building Plan — The building plan shall be prepared and include at least the
following: a generalized floor plan for each floor, uses, elevation plans for each
side of the building showing proposed color and type of materials, fenestration,
any rooftop equipment and proposed screening materials, size and square footage,
number of parking stalls in the building or in the ramp or deck, if any, building
17
size, building height, exterior lighting, signage if any, and any other relevant
features.
(d) Utilities — All utilities shall be placed underground. Transformers and similar
equipment, if any, should be located inside a building or shall be fully screened
from view.
(e) Signage — A coordinated signage system for the building and access may have to
be provided.
(0 Grade Preserved — In general, existing landforms and grades on the site are
expected to be preserved. Some change may be appropriate to accommodate the
principal building, construct required berms, and achieve reasonable grades for
access drives. No grading or tree removal shall take place prior to approval of a
specific site plan for the site.
(g)
Natural Drainage — To the extent possible, development plans shall provide an
open, natural drainage system, except for such portions where it can be shown
that a natural system is not feasible. The volume and speed of runoff shall be
minimized. Flow shall be dispersed and directed in a manner that supports and
enhances natural drainage and enhances water quality. Ponds will only be allowed
when no other feasible alternative exists.
(40 Wetland Setback (Sec section titled, L t, Setback and Building Size
SECTION VII. Medina Code Section 833.05, subdivisions 9 and 12 are by deleting the stricken
material and adding the underlined material as follows:
Section 833.05. Lot, Setback and Building Size Requirements. The following minimum
requirements shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications
set forth in other sections of this ordinance (when setback provisions overlap, the most restrictive
provisions of both setbacks shall apply.) See Figure 1.
and 50 feet for wetlands greater than 1 acre, and such setback shall be natural vegetation, but
shallzrot-ba „,lie, _ rti izea l awn.
Subd. 12. Limitations on Setbacks: No required front yard, side yard, Q rear yard and
wetland setback or other required setbacks shall be used for building, storage, or other functions
except for recreation and open spaces uses. When setback provisions overlap, the most
restrictive provision of both setbacks apply. (See also Impervious Coverage in the Design and
Development Standard — all uses)
SECTION VIII. Medina Code Section 833.07, subdivision 1 is amended by deleting the stricken
material as follows:
18
"
S e c t i o n 8 3 3 . 0 7 . D e s i g n a n d D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d s . D e s i g n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s a r e
e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h i s d i s t r i c t t o a c h i e v e a h i g h s t a n d a r d o f d e v e l o p m e n t b y p r o v i d i n g a s s u r a n c e
t h a t l a n d u s e s , b u i l d i n g s , a n d f u n c t i o n s a r e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h i n t h e d i s t r i c t a n d w i t h a d j a c e n t
d i s t r i c t s . T h e p l a n s a n d t h e p r o p o s e d u s e o f a p r o p e r t y s h a l l c o n f o r m t o t h e d e s i g n a n d
d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s p r i o r t o a p p r o v a l o f a n y p e r m i t . T h e a p p l i c a n t o r o w n e r s h a l l s u p p l y
p l a n s a n d d a t a n e c e s s a r y t o d e m o n s t r a t e s u c h c o n f o r m a n c e .
S u b d . 1 . D e s i g n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s a l l u s e s : T h e f o l l o w i n g d e s i g n a n d
d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s a r e i d e n t i f i e d f o r a l l u s e s . A d d i t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s m a y b e i d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g
t h e r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l p r o c e s s , d u e t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e a c h s i t e , t h e p r o p o s e d
d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s i t e , a n d t h e u s e s o n a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y .
( a ) S i t e A n a l y s i s A c o m p l e t e a n a l y s i s o f t h e s i t e s h a l l b e m a d e a n d a s i t e a n a l y s i s m a p
s h a l l b e p r e p a r e d a s d e f i n e d b y t h i s o r d i n a n c e . T h e a n a l y s i s m a p s h a l l t h e n b e u s e d t o
d e t e r m i n e h o w t h e s i t e s h a l l b e u s e d a n d t o i d e n t i f y t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e
v a r i o u s c o m p o n e n t s t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . A s i t e p l a n s h a l l t h e n b e p r e p a r e d a s d e f i n e d b y
t h i s o r d i n a n c e .
( b ) L a n d s c a p e P l a n A l a n d s c a p e p l a n s h a l l b e p r e p a r e d . T h e l a n d s c a p e p l a n m u s t i n c l u d e
e x i s t i n g t r e e s a n d l a n d s c a p i n g t o b e r e t a i n e d . T h e p l a n m u s t s h o w n e w l a n d s c a p i n g
i n c l u d i n g g r o u n d c o v e r , s h r u b s , a n d t r e e s b y t y p e , s i z e a n d s p a c i n g . T h e p l a n m u s t a l s o
i n c l u d e : p l a n t i n g m e t h o d s , w a l l s a n d f e n c e s , i f a n y , ( w h i c h m u s t b e d e c o r a t i v e ) , p l a z a s ,
f o u n t a i n s , s c u l p t u r e s , a l l o u t d o o r l i g h t s , a n d o t h e r r e l e v a n t f e a t u r e s .
( c ) B u i l d i n g P l a n T h e b u i l d i n g p l a n s h a l l b e p r e p a r e d a n d i n c l u d e a t l e a s t t h e f o l l o w i n g : a
g e n e r a l i z e d f l o o r p l a n f o r e a c h f l o o r , u s e s , e l e v a t i o n p l a n s f o r e a c h s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g
s h o w i n g p r o p o s e d c o l o r a n d t y p e o f m a t e r i a l s , f e n e s t r a t i o n , a n y r o o f t o p e q u i p m e n t a n d
p r o p o s e d s c r e e n i n g m a t e r i a l s , s i z e a n d s q u a r e f o o t a g e , n u m b e r o f p a r k i n g s t a l l s i n t h e
b u i l d i n g o r i n t h e r a m p o r d e c k , i f a n y , b u i l d i n g s i z e , b u i l d i n g h e i g h t , e x t e r i o r l i g h t i n g ,
s i g n a g e i f a n y , a n d a n y o t h e r r e l e v a n t f e a t u r e s .
( d ) U t i l i t i e s A l l u t i l i t i e s s h a l l b e p l a c e d u n d e r g r o u n d . T r a n s f o r m e r s a n d s i m i l a r e q u i p m e n t ,
i f a n y , s h o u l d b e l o c a t e d i n s i d e a b u i l d i n g o r s h a l l b e f u l l y s c r e e n e d f r o m v i e w .
( e ) S i g n a g e A c o o r d i n a t e d s i g n a g e s y s t e m f o r t h e b u i l d i n g a n d a c c e s s m a y h a v e t o b e
p r o v i d e d .
( 0 G r a d e P r e s e r v e d O n d e v e l o p e d s i t e s e x i s t i n g g r a d e s a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e r e t a i n e d , e x c e p t
f o r e x p a n s i o n o f e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s w h i c h n e e d t o m e e t t h e e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g g r a d e a n d
f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f b e r m s o r s i m i l a r f e a t u r e s . I n d e v e l o p i n g n e w s i t e s , s i g n i f i c a n t
l a n d f o r m s a n d g r a d e s n e e d t o b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e p l a n w i t h s o m e c h a n g e a l l o w e d t o
a c c o m m o d a t e t h e p r i n c i p l e b u i l d i n g , r e q u i r e d b e r m s , a n d a c h i e v e r e a s o n a b l e g r a d e s f o r
p a r k i n g , a c c e s s a n d d r i v e s .
1 9
(g)
Natural Drainage — To the extent possible, development plans shall provide an open,
natural drainage system, except for such portions where it can be shown that a natural
system is not feasible. The volume and speed of runoff shall be minimized. Flow shall
be dispersed and directed in a manner that supports and enhances natural drainage and
enhances water quality. Ponds will only be allowed when no other feasible alternative
exists.
SECTION IX. Medina Code Section 835.05 is amended by deleting the Gtrickon material and
adding the underlined material as follows:
Section 835.05. Lot, Setbacks, Building Size Requirements and Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate. The
following minimum requirements shall be observed, subject to additional requirements,
exceptions and modifications set forth in other sections of this ordinance.
Subd. 9. Minimum Wetland Setback: 25 feet for a wetland loss than 1 acre and 50 feet for a
a EV f ft-il ze lawF
Subd. 12. Limitations on Setbacks: No required front yard, side yard, rear yard or and wetlaftEl
setback or other required setbacks shall be used for building, or other use. No impervious surface
shall be located in any required setback except for approved driveways, parking lot, walks, and
trails approved by the City. When setback provisions overlap, the most restrictive provision of
both setbacks applies.
SECTION X. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this _day of , 2008.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator
Published in the South Crow River News this _ day of , 2008.
20
z
49 03 05t 50 t5 ___0/ 5 '
6 51 56
52
01 17 14
Medila M1
Medin 1
Oduac:
•
y
edina M64
18— 5 Q
c
44 40 E�41 z
9
-33 3� �•�J"'
ounty CSAH24
110 'S
error
_M.—A_
'Wetland Management
Class
and
DNR High Quality Sites
' City Boundary
Sections
Roads
Scientific and Natural Areas
DNR Mapped High Quality Natural Areas
DNR Mapped Sites of Biodiversity Significance
Wetland Management Class
Protect
Manage 1
NMI
Manage 2
Manage 3
® ? f e 1-?\I Yl MVP
Wetlands are assigned a 12-digit
unique ID number in the 2007 Wetland
Inventory, as follows:
I27-118-23I-L16n0trt
County,
Township
& Range
Section Map Visit #
Label
To correlate information on this map to the wetland
inventory, use the County, Township, Range , and
Section numberwith the Map ID. The County,
Township, & Range numbers are: 27 — 118 — 23.
Section numbers and the Wetland Map ID are on
the map.
DNR Mapped High Quality Natural Communities
and Sites of Biodiversity Significance are areas
identified by the MN DNR as having diverse and
high quality or rare plant communities that are of
county or regional significance, and in some
cases, state-wide significance.
.1
0 7001,400 2,800 4,200 5,600
Feet
Bonestroo
December 2007
I:\190\190MARCad\av_projects\W L_inventory_2007. mxd
Agenda Item: 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti
DATE: February 5, 2008
MEETING: February 12, 2008 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Abdhish and Mary Bhaysar, CUP for 8400 sq. ft. accessory structure in RR,
2105 Chestnut Road (PID 15-118-23-24-0003) — LU Application 08-001
Overview of Request
Abdhish and Mary Bhaysar have requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow
construction of an accessory structure with a footprint of 8,400 sq. ft. Section 825.19 states that
parcels over 3 acres in size may include up to two accessory structures for an aggregate total of
3,000 sq. ft. in size. Additional accessory buildings and square footage is permitted on parcels
over 5 acres in size via a CUP. The purpose of a CUP is to allow the City Council to impose
conditions on the use which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Site Description
The subject property (2105 Chestnut Road) is approximately 19.7 acres in size, located east of
Willow Drive (see attached Site Location map). The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR),
guided Rural Residential in the current Comp Plan, and proposed as Permanent Rural in the draft
2010-2030 update of the Comp Plan.
A number of parcels in the area have been granted CUPS for large accessory structures. Just
within the past few years, a CUP was granted for a 15,000 sq. ft. indoor riding arena at 3072
Willow Drive, an 8,200 sq. ft. structure at 2705 Willow Drive, a 9,044 sq. ft. building at 1595
Medina Road, and an third accessory structure at 2455 County Road 24. Additionally, two
commercial horse facilities (Skyrock Farm and Alpine Farms) are nearby and a two-year Interim
Use Permit was granted for an animal -assisted therapy facility at 2000 Chestnut Road.
In addition to the applicants' home, a small shed also exists on the subject property. This shed
would be replaced by the proposed structure. The home is located closer to Chestnut Road, and
the property slopes downward as one heads south of the home. A large wetland is located on the
bottom of this slope. The proposed structure sits on the bottom of this slope, approximately 32
feet from the wetland, with the driveway as close as 22 feet to the wetland. The structure would
sit approximately 20 feet lower in elevation than the front yard of the home.
The proposed location of the structure is fairly isolated. Under leaf -free conditions, it is difficult
to see any existing structures on neighboring parcels. The topography of the site and the tree
cover in the area naturally screen the location.
Building Details
The proposed structure has a footprint of 8,400 sq. ft. on two levels. The location is located in
the side of the slope, similar to a "walk -out" home. One level is exposed on the north side, and
two levels on the south side. Corrugated metal is proposed for both the siding and roof of the
structure. Current ordinances do not specify required building materials for residential accessory
structures and the recently approved CUPS for large accessory structures mentioned above have
included both steel structures and concrete veneer structures.
The proposed structure is 29.4 feet in height. Section 825.19 requires that accessory structures
do not exceed the height of the principle structure on the property, and section 826.25 requires
that structures exceeding 30 feet in height meet a number of conditions. In this case, the home
has a flat roof and a habitable "cupola" above this roofline. Staff would likely measure the
height of the home by taking the midpoint between the cupola and the flat roof (similar to if the
home had a pitched roof). The height of the home, measured in this way, is 31.3 feet. The
proposed structure would, therefore, abide by height regulations.
The proposed structure includes six horse stalls, storage space, and play area. No restroom
facilities are proposed in the structure nor are any living spaces.
Ordinance Compliance
Section 825.39 states that when considering a CUP, the City shall consider the effect of the
proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands. Among other things, the City shall consider the following:
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 use is similar to many already existing in the area and that the location of the
structure mitigates impact on other property in the vicinity.
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 little vacant property surrounding the subject property, and such a use is not likely to
impede rural development possible under the RR district.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
With no restroom facilities, the utility needs of the structure are limited. The applicant proposes a
raingarden between the building and the wetland in order to mitigate the impact on the wetland.
The applicant does not propose a formal paved or gravel driveway to the structure. The Fire
Marshal has expressed concern about the lack of access to such a large structure for the fire
department. As such, staff is recommending a condition that a driveway acceptable to the Fire
Marshal be constructed.
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading
space to serve the proposed use.
No commercial uses would be permitted within the structure, so parking is not a major concern.
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.
Staff does not believe that the proposed use will increase odor, fumes, dust, noise, or vibrations.
The plans show that all lighting on the structure will be downcast and fully shielded.
2
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 structure is consistent with existing uses in the area and recently
approved CUPS and to the overall rural character of Medina.
7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in
which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The proposed use, a horse and storage structure is consistent with the purposes of the rural
residential district.
8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff does not see a conflict with the Comp Plan policies for the Permanent Rural Area.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
No commercial uses are proposed, and staff believes traffic will be consistent to surrounding uses.
10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general
unsightliness.
The only "businesses" nearby may be the AAT facility at 2000 Chestnut Road and the commercial
horse facility at 2825 Willow Drive, which should not be affected by the use.
11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicants wish to apply for a building permit before road weight restrictions begin in Apri�, in
order to get footings poured. They wish to have the structure complete by the fall of 2008.
12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The property owners are the applicants and Hennepin County lists them as the owners.
The proposed structure meets the 150' animal structure setback, the height, and the hardcover
regulations of the RR district. The wetlands on the property were delineated in 2003 and have
not been reviewed by the City. As such, staff recommends a condition requiring the applicant to
supply a delineation acceptable to the City Engineer for review once the growing season arrives.
Staff believes this is reasonable since obtaining and reviewing a wetland delineation would not
be possible at this time of the year, and because it appears that the applicant could adjust the size
or location of the structure slightly in order to stay at least 32 feet from the wetland.
Since the City is currently considering the wetland ordinance, it is worth mentioning that the
proposed structure would meet the setback requirements of the most current draft of the
ordinance which is before the Commission at this time (assuming the wetland edge is as shown
on the site plan). Under this draft, the City Engineer would review the grading plan to determine
which areas are downgradient of the proposed work, inspect the existing vegetation, and perhaps
require a plan to vegetate the 15' buffer. However, the applicant and the Commission should be
aware that the CUP, and then subsequently the building permit, would be subject to the wetland
protection regulations which are in place at time of their respective approval. The applicant is
proposing to direct runoff into a raingarden instead of directly into the wetlands on the property.
3
City Discretion
The City has relatively limited discretion to deny a Conditional Use Permit. If the application
meets City ordinances, the CUP should be approved. However, the City has discretion to impose
conditions on the approval that protect the best interests of the surrounding community and the
city as a whole. Section 825.41 states that these conditions could include, but are not limited to:
■ Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.
■ Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.
■ Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
■ Increasing the street width.
■ Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
■ Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.
■ Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or
nearby property.
■ Designating sites for open space.
Staff has recommended some possible conditions below.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions:
1) This conditional use permit allows construction of an accessory structure with a
maximum footprint of 8,400 sq. ft. in the general location shown on the plans received
January 25, 2008.
C) The applicants shall obtain necessary permits and demolish the existing shed as described
on the plans received January 25, 2008. .
3) The applicants shall warrant that the 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.
4) The applicants shall submit a wetland delineation acceptable to the City Engineer, and
apply for a review pursuant to Wetland Conservation Act rules.
5) The structure may be located no closer than 32 feet from the edge of the wetland as
approved by the City, and the driveway may be located no closer than 20 feet. The
applicant agrees to reduce the size of the structure, shift the location of the structure, or
apply for an amended CUP if, upon review of the wetland delineation, the wetland
boundary is found to be closer to the proposed structure location.
6) The applicants shall abide by wetland protection regulations in place at time of building
permit application.
7) The applicants shall meet requirements of the MPCA with regard to manure management
and shall install fencing to prevent grazing within wetlands on the property.
8) The applicants shall update plans and identify a proposed access drive to the structure
which is acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
9) 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. Location Map
2. Applicant Letter
3. Public Comment Received: Liz and Rolf Turnquist
4. Plans dated January 25, 2008
4
Spurzem
NTY ROAD 24
ins
Location Map
Subject Property: 2105 Chestnut Road
Date: 1-12-08
To: Mayor, Planning Commission Members, City Council Members, Neighbors, City of Medina
From: Abdhish and Mary Bhaysar, Medina residents
RE: CUP application for bam
Dear Mayor, Planning Commission Members, City Council Members and Neighbors of the City of Medina,
We are applying for a Conditional Use Permit to build a barn on our property in our back yard. The location of
the barn would be in the existing ration of the shed in our back yard, which is not visible to our neighbors or
from the street, Chestnut Road. The grade at the location of our shed is behind a hill and is about 40 feet below
the elevation of Chestnut Road at the front of our driveway to our house.
When we moved to Medina, we had always dreamed about building a barn and having horses some day. If we
Call build this barn, we will be one step closer to fulfilling our dreams for our family to enjoy the daily life of
living in a rural residential area We are planning only our personal family use of the bam. There is no
commercial use planned.
Many of you, our neighbors, also have large barns or riding arenas for personal use and this is what makes
Medina a special place. Fach of our families has had the freedom to explore life in a rural residential area by
building the type of home or barn that they have dreamt of having.
The thought of building a bam has also given us new thoughts for opportunities to minimize and/or eliminate
the impact of our new structure on the environment. Although it is not required, we are planning and designing
an engineered rain garden to filter the run off water that would normally have drained into the space that the
new barn will occupy and also to filter the run off water from the roof of the barn.
In addition, now that we have learned about rain gardens, we are planning and designing an engineered rain
garden to filter the run off water from our existing house and driveway. By building these rain gardens at the
same time, we hope to make a positive impact on our environment and on our wetland.
Those of us who moved here to Medina within the past few years have not necessarily had a chance to fulfill
our dreams that we had at the start, some of which include building barns and owning horses that can live on
our property.
We appreciate your consideration and we hope that you will allow us the opportunity to build our barn.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
�43 ►+i►S H IVIA'T rlsasC.
Abdhish and Mary Bhaysar, cell: 612-839-0711
LIZ AND R.OLF TIARN6114IST
2000 CI-tESTNIAT R�
HAMEL, MN 55340
Februartu 00, 2002
Medivo Pl,avwuivug Cow mi,ssiovu Members
Meoltna cite H-al,l,
2052 CouvutRd 24
MedCv1,2, MA,..55340
Dear Mediwa Citu Pl,anntn,g Covumiss%on Members,
we uo,derstavud that at the deb. 12 Pl,avl,vatn,g Covu.vu.issiovt, Meet%o,0 there will, be ah,
agevuda topic concerni-ne our tn,ef-ghborAbdhish P>haysar's Cl/IP for a & accessoru
structure. our propertu shares the P>haysar's entire eastervupropertu Ltne.
we f%vtd this structure to be tota flu i,h,00vusistevtt to the "Ru.raL Res idetntial," zovavue of
this properttu. There is nothiwg rural, or resi,devlti,n about this structure. It is a massive
vuetal %wdu trial built:Uwe that is nearl,u 4 stories tal,l,!! It is vuot a barvu or Give
agricultural, faciIttu but a mart, 19,000 sq ft storage facf,lau
-gtuowd the sheer size of this structure we are al,so coh,c,erwed with it's pro)dmitu to a
desigvuated wetl,avLd. This is especial,l,� ivuportant because of the Citu of Meo{i,na's
desire to i,K,crease its protection of wettatn ois.
This is vLot a structure that should be permitted to be built on this property. we are
veru oovIzerh,ed that this structure wilt damage our propertu val,ue atn,d that of our
weighbor's. we respectivel,tu request the Pl,atn,tn tn,g Covu.wt.issiovt. vote to devi,KA
recohkokevLd agaivust this CI.tP.
Liz aIAA Rol,f Turtn,qui,st
for
_.1030
1020
OSITE PLAN
1 r=sa.v
PROPOSED GRADING CHANGE
EDGE WETLAND
AS DELINEATED
---- SET—BACIf
GENERAL NOTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS BASED ON A PREVIOUS SITE
PLAN DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AS A CONTRACT
DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT A PRIOR DATE TO
THIS SUBMISSION UNDER A SEPARATE
CONTRACT. THE ACCURACY OF THIS PREVIOUS
DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN VARIFIED BY
CITYDESKSTUDIO.
A CERTIFIED SURVEY IS TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY.
ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA ADDED PER THIS
CONTRACT: 8,400 SF.
NO NEW PAVING OR DRIVES PROPOSED WITH i
THIS WORK.
r
PROJECT
BHAVSAR BARN
2105 CHESTNUT RD.
MEDINA, MN 65340
ARCHITECT
CITYDESKSTUDIO, INC.
1101 WASHINGTON AVE. S.
SUITE 202
MINNESOTA, MN 55415
612.8722398 t
612.339.4930 f
www.Gtydeskstudio.com
CONTACT: CHRISTIAN DEAN, AIA
`!A t 12 5 2005
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan.
specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly
Licensed Architect under the
laws of the Stale of Minnesota
PNl mea: CHRISTIAN D. DEAN
dorm.
Wens g4768 ere:
REVISIONS
CUP APP. 1.14.08
CUP APP. REVISIONS 125.08
DATE:
PROJECT NO.: 2008.03
DRAWN BY:
SITE PLAN
A1.0
OVERHEAD DR.
RETAINING WALL
O
CO
120'-0'
O
240•
24'-0' 24'-0
24'-0' 24'-0'
11'-s'
0
HORSE STALL 1
HORSE STALL 2 HORSE STALL 3
Cl
�r 1
=1"
HORSE STALL 4 HORSE STALL 5 HORSE STALL 6
ACCESS BAY
STORAGE STORAGE
STAIR TO MEZZANINE
OVERHEAD DR.
OVERHEAD DR.
STORAGE
— -1L
II
OPRELIM. GROUND FLOOR PLAN
GENERAL NOTE:
_THIS SITE PLAN IS BASED ON A PREVIOUS SITE
PLAN DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AS A CONTRACT
DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT A PRIOR DATE TO
THIS SUBMISSION UNDER A SEPARATE
CONTRACT. THE ACCURACY OF THIS PREVIOUS
DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN VARIFIED BY
CITYDESKSTUDIO.
A CERTIFIED SURVEY IS TO BE SUBMITTED
SEPARATELY.
ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA ADDED PER THIS
CONTRACT: 8,400 SF.
NO NEW PAVING OR DRIVES PROPOSED WITH
THIS WORK.
PROJECT
i
i
BHAVSAR BARN
2105 CHESTNUT RD.
MEDINA, MN 55340
ARCHITECT
CITYDESKSTUDIO, INC.
1101 WASHINGTON AVE. S.
SUITE 202
MINNESOTA, MN 55415
612.8722398 t
612.339.4930 f
www.cilydeskstudlo.com
CONTACT: CHRISTIAN DEAN, AIA
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan,
specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly
Licensed Architect under the
laws of the State of Minnesota
Pla way : CHRISTIAN D. DEAN
dysah n:
'cerise no 44768 two
REVISIONS
CUP APP. 1.14.08
CUP APP. REVISIONS 125.08
DATE:
PROJECT NO.: 2008.03
DRAWN BY:
FLOOR PLAN
A2.0
0
70'-0'
23'-4'
23'-4'
23.-4'
I
OEAST AND WEST ELEVATION
1
1'-2'
-- SLIDING BARN DOOR.
120'-0'
PRE-ENGINEERED STEEL
7t--
STRUCTURE
PRE -FIN. CURROGATED METAL
ROOFING AND SIDING AND
SECONDARY FRAMING BY
T"
70'-0'
PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING
/ SUPPLIER.
/
/
23'-4'
23'-4'
23'-4'
/
/
T
12'-0'
MEZZANINE STRUCTURE.
STEEL FRAMING WITH A
COMPOSITE CONCRETE DECK.
n
. \
12'-0'
oa
36'-0' N
^
STORAGE/PLAYAREA 1
_�_—
1
—,
_ . - ..- I
"....�
�j
HORSE STALLS
..
l BUILDING SECTION
co
22'-10'
24'-0'
24'-0'
24'-0'
22'-B'
1'- 4'
ONORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATION
1
8' 16' 48'
GENERAL NOTE:
FINAL DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION OF
OPENINGS TO BE CONFIRMED. DOCUMENT
INDICATES GENERAL STRUCTURE SIZE AND
FOOTPRINT.
SKYLIGHTS
PROJECT
BHAVSAR BARN
2105 CHESTNUT RD.
MEDINA, MN 55340
ARCHITECT
CITYDESKSTUDIO, INC.
1101 WASHINGTON AVE. S.
SUITE 202
MINNESOTA, MN 55415
612.8712398 t
612.339.4930 f
www.citydeskstudlo.com
CONTACT: CHRISTIAN DEAN, AIA
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby Certify that this plan,
spetiflCallon, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly
Licensed Architect under the
laws of the State of Minnesota
pint name: CHRISTIAN D. DEAN
slonalure-
llnnseno: 44788 deg
REVISIONS
CUP APP. 1.14.08
CUP APP. REVISIONS 1.25.08
DATE:
PROJECT NO.: 2008.03
DRAWN BY:
PRELIM. SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS
A3.0
ROOFTOP
'CUPOLA'
Q 2: Y
T.O.
PARAPET
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
0 16' 32' 64'
OSITE SECTION DIAGRAM
r=sr-0°
z0
w
w
--'4
i;
j; I 1Y
II
SITE PLAN R FE ENCE DIAGRAM
1'=32b'
DIAGRAMMATIC OUTLINE OF
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
APPROX. GRADE @ SECTION
CUT
etoss-o
HORSE STALL AREA
NEW PRE-ENGINEERED METAL
BUILDING.
EXISTING SHED FOR
REFERNCE
GENERAL NOTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS BASED ON A PREVIOUS STIE
PLAN DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AS A CONTRACT
DOCUMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT A PRIOR DATE TO
THIS SUBMISSION UNDER A SEPARATE
CONTRACT. THE ACCURACY OF THIS PREVIOUS
DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN VARIFIED BY
CITYDESKSTUDIO.
MEZZANINE LEVEL WITHIN
BARN
PROJECT
BHAVSAR BARN
2105 CHESTNUT RD.
MEDINA, MN 55340
ARCHITECT
CITYDESKSTUDIO, INC.
1101 WASHINGTON AVE. S.
SURE 202
MINNESOTA, MN 55415
612.872.2398 t
612.339.4930 f
www.dtydeskstudio.com
i CONTACT: CHRISTIAN DEAN, AIA
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
I hereby certify that this plan,
specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly
Licensed Architect under the
laws of the Stale of Minnesota
Pent name: CHRISTIAN D. DEAN
aorebae:
nsense no: 44768 Ms
REVISIONS
CUP APP. 1.14.08
CUP APP. REVISIONS 1.25.08
DATE:
PROJECT NO.:
2008.03
DRAWN BY:
SITE SECTION
A4.1
AGENDA ITEM: 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING REPORT
Medina Planning Commission
Andrew Gitzlaff, Landform through Tim Benetti, Planning Director
February 5, 2008 for the February 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
Robb Stauber. Request for approval of a Site Plan for the development of a 3-
unit townhome buildings as a Common Interest Community (CIC) on property
located at 705 Hamel Road.
REVIEW DEADLINE: April 30, 2008
1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan to allow the development of a 3-unit
townhome building as a Common Interest Community (CIC) on property located at 705 Hamel
Road.
2. CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN:
The applicant had previously proposed to construct two 3-unit townhome buildings on the site.
The Planning Commission and the City Council recommended preliminary approval of the
project, but final approval was not granted because the applicant has since decided to change the
site plan and reduce the scale of the project. The design and layout of the northern 3-unit
townhome building remains relatively the same on the revised site plan. However, the applicant
no longer intends to construct the southern 3-unit townhome building. According to the
applicant, constructing the southern townhome building would not be feasible because of market
conditions and the costs of the site improvements. In addition, the revised site plan now meets
the 25% maximum impervious surface shoreland overlay district requirement for Elm Creek and
a variance is no longer required.
3. BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the previously proposed site plan for a 6-unit townhome
development at a public hearing on November 13, 2007. The Planning Commission discussed
the proposed development and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood and natural
environment. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the site
plan subject to the conditions recommended by staff and the following conditions:
• The front porches of the northern townhome building should include railings or similar
architectural detailing.
• Foundation plantings should be added in front of the porches on the northern building.
• Decorative brick or stone should be added to the rear of the north townhome building
between the garages.
a
Robb Stauber
Page 2
Re: Medina Townhomes Site Plan and Variance
February 5, 2008
• Quality building materials should be used throughout the development.
• The Applicant should work with staff to ensure that these architectural improvements are
being met.
At this time these changes have not been made to the site plan and are still included as
recommended conditions of approval. The Planning Commission may wish to revaluate the
project's architecture based on the revised site plans and modify, add or delete any of these
conditions.
4. CONTEXT:
A. Level of City Discretion in Decision -Making
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposal
meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. If it meets
these standards, the City must approve the site plan application.
B. Zoning and Land Use
The subject property is guided and zoned Multi -Family Residential (MR). The purpose of the
MR land use designation and land use category is to provide a district which will allow multi-
family dwellings where proper relationships to other land uses and adequate transportation
services exist. The adjacent properties to the east and the west of the site are also guided and
zoned Multi -Family Residential and are occupied by similar multi -family uses. The properties to
the north of the site are guided and zoned Urban Commercial (UC), and are occupied by
commercial office and light industrial uses. The property to the south of the site is guided
permanent rural, zoned rural residential (RR) and consists mainly of wetlands and some open
fields. The property to the southeast is owned by the Metropolitan Council, guided and zoned
Public/Semi Public (PS) and is occupied by a sewer interceptor station.
C. Existing Conditions of the Site
The southern 3/4 of the site is within the 300-foot shoreland overlay district for Elm Creek, which
runs east -west to the south of the site. A portion of a larger wetland complex is located on the
south end of the site. The majority of this wetland area is located within the 100-year floodplain.
There are some large trees scattered throughout the site that have been identified on the existing
conditions survey. The property was previously used as a single family residence. The garage
and the house have recently been relocated from the site.
5. ANALYSIS: Consistency with Ordinance Standards
A. CIC Plat
The applicant intends to convey individual ownership to each unit through a Common Interest
Community (CIC) Plat that will need to be filed with the County. Each townhome unit will be
considered a separate condominium unit and the remainder of the site and any common elements
will be designated for common ownership by the owners of the individual units. A Homeowner's
Robb Stauber
Page 3
Re: Medina Townhomes Site Plan and Variance
February 5, 2008
Association will also need to be formed. The City's standard platting process will not be
required because new lots of record are not being created.
B. Site Plan
The applicant is now proposing to construct a 3-unit townhome building on the northern portion
of the site. The front entrances of the northern townhome building will face Hamel Road and the
garages will be tucked under the rear of the unit. The orientation of the buildings is the same as
the adjacent multi -family developments to the east and the west. Staff is comfortable with the
layout of the building on the site provided that some architectural improvements are made to the
elevations, as discussed in the building architecture section of this report.
Density
The site is currently guided Multi -Family Residential. The minimum density for this land
designation is a twinhome (2 units) and there is no maximum permitted density. The proposed
site plan complies with the existing Comprehensive Plan. However, the site will be reguided
High Density Residential in the proposed Comprehensive Plan update, which will allow a
density range from between 7 and 30 units per net acre. The approximate density of this project
is 3.5 units per net acre, which is less than what would be allowed under the updated
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan update has not been adopted yet, therefore, the
Planning Commission must review this project based on current standards.
Lot Standards
The ordinance requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet of site area per multi -family unit (36,000
total square feet) and the minimum lot width for multi -family structures is 100 feet. The site is
43,436 square feet in area and 100 feet wide. The proposed development meets all lot standard
requirements.
Building Standards
The maximum height for buildings in the MR district is 30 feet, measured from the average
grade around the building and must contain a minimum of 550 square feet of habitable floor area
per unit. The proposed townhome buildings meet these requirements.
Building Setbacks
The minimum required setbacks in the MR zoning district are as follows:
Front: 50 feet
Side, lot line: 15 feet or %2 height of building, whichever is greater
Side, interior party wall: 0 feet
Rear: 40 feet
From protected watercourse: 100 feet
The proposed development meets all setback requirements.
Robb Stauber
Page 4
Access and Vehicle Circulation
Re: Medina Townhomes Site Plan and Variance
February 5, 2008
The proposed development will access Hamel Road from a new driveway. The driveway will
extend down and around to the parking area at the rear end of the upper units
Right -of -Way
The applicant should dedicate 33 feet of right-of-way along the north end of the site for Hamel
Road.
Fire Safety
The City's Fire Marshal has determined that the existing fire hydrants along Hamel Road provide
adequate fire protection to the proposed townhome building. Sprinklers will not be required
provided that the proposed size of the building does not increase and all applicable building and
fire code standards are met.
Parking
The ordinance requires 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The proposed site plan shows
two attached parking stalls per unit and there is room in front of each garage stall for additional
guest parking. Time restricted parking is also allowed on Hamel Road in front of the units. Staff
recommends that the applicant include language in the HOA documents that restrict parking in
front of the garage spaces to guests only. The intent of this restriction is to prevent. primary
vehicle parking from taking place outside because the garages areas are being used for storage,
which is a common occurrence in townhome developments that do not include basements.
Signage
The proposed site plan does not identify any signage. If signage is proposed, it must be shown
on the plans and met the requirements of the City's sign ordinance.
Lighting
The proposed site plan does not identify any lighting. All building and site lighting must meet
the City's outdoor lighting requirements and must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan shows 2 overstory trees, 1 ornamental tree, 1 coniferous tree, 37
shrubs and 48 perennials. The trees will be planted in front yards of each unit.
Tree Preservation
The tree preservation ordinance requires that structure and homes be located to preserve trees.
There are a few significant trees scattered throughout the site that are identified on the existing
conditions survey. The applicant should work to preserve as many significant trees as possible,
Robb Stauber
Page 5
Re: Medina Townhomes Site Plan and Variance
February 5, 2008
particularly the 2 large coniferous trees at the north end of the site. The plans should be revised
to show tree protection measures for any trees that will be preserved.
Wetlands
A portion of a larger wetland complex is partially located on the south end of the site. The
wetland delineation and report have been approved by the City. The proposed site plan does not
impact the wetland areas. The proposed townhome buildings are setback approximately 40 feet
from the wetland area.
Elm Creek
Elm Creek, a protected watercourse, runs east -west to the south of the site. The Elm Creek
Water Management Commission (ECWMC) requires a 50-foot vegetative buffer from Elm
Creek. The proposed site plan satisfies this requirement by showing the construction of a rain
garden between the townhomes that filters runoff directed towards Elm Creek. ECWMC
conditionally approved the revised site plan provided that a maintenance area for the buffer area
is provided. The proposed development will need to comply with all the requirements from Elm
Creek Watershed District letter dated January 23, 2008.
Shoreland
The site is located within the 300-foot shoreland overlay district of Elm Creek. As a result of the
sites proximity to the creek, impervious surface is restricted to a maximum of 25% of the total
site area. The proposed development will consist of 8,020 square feet of impervious surface
(20.4% of the site area) and will meet all shoreland district requirements.
Stormwater Management
The site generally drains from northeast to southwest. The proposed site plan will route
stormwater generated from the site to the rain garden at the south end of the site that will filter
the runoff before it is discharged into Elm Creek. The proposed development will need to
comply with all stormwater management requirements listed in the City Engineer's memo dated
January 23, 2008.
Floodplain
A portion of the site that includes the wetland areas is within the 100-year floodplain. The
project will not impact the floodplain.
Municipal Sewer and Water
The site is served by municipal sewer and water. The utility plan will need to be revised to meet
all of the requirements listed in the City Engineer's memo dated January 23, 2008. Drainage and
utility easements will also be required over all ponding areas, wetlands, drainage ways, storm
sewers and water pipes.
Robb Stauber
Page 6
Parks and Trails
Re: Medina Townhomes Site Plan and Variance
February 5, 2008
The City requires a portion of the buildable land (not to exceed 10% of the site) as park
dedication, cash in lieu of land, or some combination thereof. Park dedication is required for the
3 new units that will be created but credit will be given for the existing single family home.
Cash in lieu of land would be $3,500 per unit (2 total units) for a total of $7,000.
The City's future trails plan identifies a need for a trail along Hamel Road. This proposed trail
would be approximately 1 mile long, extending from Pinto Drive on the western edge of Uptown
Hamel, east to the Medina city limit at Brockton Lane. The construction of this trail segment is
designated as a high priority (to be constructed within 1-5 years) in the Medina Trail Study
completed in 2003. The Parks Commission reviewed this application at their November 28,
2007 meeting recommended against the dedication of a trail easement at the north end of the site
for the future construction of a trail segment. The Parks Commission anticipated that the trail
would be located on the opposite side of the road and that a sidewalk would be more appropriate
for this side of the road in the future. There is enough room in the existing right-of-way to
construct the sidewalk.
Building Architecture
The front entrances to the townhome building, which will be on the most visible facade of the
project, will face Hamel Road and the garages will be tucked under the rear of the unit. This
design allows for a more welcoming view from Hamel Road. The applicant has done a good job
incorporating a variety of building materials and architectural detailing on this facade. It appears
that these building materials will consist of vinyl lap siding, vinyl shake siding and decorative
brick. However, the proposed building materials and color schemes have not been shown on the
plans. Staff recommends that this combination of building materials and level of architectural
detailing should be used on all sides of the building. Decorative brick or stone shall be added
between the garage doors. The massing of the units has been broken up by varying the front
setbacks for each unit. Staff recommends that additional breaks and variations be added to the
roof line on the side and rear elevations.
Retaining Walls
The proposed development includes the construction of retaining walls along the east and west
property lines. A detail of the proposed retaining walls should be provided prior to any site work
being conducted on the site. The architectural design of the retaining walls should be compatible
with the principle structures.
Screening
The ordinance requires that all mechanical equipment to be fully screened from contiguous
property and adjacent streets by architecturally integrating the equipment into the structure or by
surrounding it with opaque materials compatible with the principal structure. The plans must be
revised to show the location of any ground -mounted mechanical equipment and the proposed
method of screening.
Robb Stauber
Page 7
6. RECOMMENDATION:
Re: Medina Townhomes Site Plan and Variance
February 5, 2008
Staff finds that the site plan is consistent with the intent of the MR zoning district and the overall
character of the surrounding neighborhood. With respect to the overall site plan, the
architectural quality could be improved.
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions and findings:
1. The HOA documents shall be revised to include provisions that restrict parking in front
of the garages to guests only.
2. A 33-foot %2 right-of-way shall be dedicated along the north end of the site for Hamel
Road.
3. The proposed development shall comply with the adopted International Fire Code and all
the fire safety requirements of the City's Fire Marshall.
4. If signage is proposed, it must be shown on the plans and meet the requirements of the
City's sign ordinance.
5. All building and site lighting must met the City's outdoor lighting requirements and must
be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. The applicant shall work to preserve as many significant trees as possible, particularly the
2 large coniferous trees at the north end of the site. The plans shall be revised to show
tree protection measures for any trees that will be preserved.
7. The proposed development will need to comply with all the requirements from Elm
Creek Watershed District letter dated January 23, 2008.
8. All conditions stated in the City's Engineer memo dated January 23, 2008 shall be
addressed.
9. The utility plan will need to be revised to meet all the requirements from the City's
Public Works Department and the City Engineer.
10. Park dedication is due for the 3 new units being created but park dedication credit will be
given for the existing single family home.
11. The proposed building materials and color schemes shall be shown on the plans.
12. The applicant shall work with staff to make the following improvements to the overall
architectural quality of the project:
a. The proposed combination of building materials and level of architectural
detailing on the front fa9ade of the buildings shall be used on all sides of the
building.
Robb Stauber
Page 8
Re: Medina Townhomes Site Plan and Variance
February 5, 2008
b. Decorative brick or stone shall be added between the garages.
c. The massing of the building shall be broken up by providing additional breaks
and variations in the roof -lines on the side and rear elevations.
d. The front porches of the northern townhome building shall include railings or
similar architectural detailing.
e. Quality building materials shall be used throughout the development.
f. Foundation plantings should be added in front of the porches on the northern
building.
13. Construction details shall be provided for the proposed retaining walls along the east and
west property lines. The retaining walls shall be architecturally compatible with the
principal buildings.
14. The plans must be revised to show the location of any ground -mounted mechanical
equipment and the proposed method of screening. The ordinance requires that all
mechanical equipment to be fully screened from contiguous property and adjacent streets.
15. The Applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the on -site stormwater
management system that is satisfactory to the City. The maintenance agreement shall
establish a responsible party and be recorded before with the Development Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Engineer's memo, dated January 23, 2008
2. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission letter, dated January 23, 2008
3. Site Graphics received January 11, 2008
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
Bonestroo
January 23, 2008
Mr. Andrew Gitzlaff
Planner
C/O Landform
800C Butler Square
100 North 6t Street
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Re: Medina Townhomes
Bonestroo File No. 000190-08000-1
Plat No. L-07-017
Dear Andrew,
We have reviewed the revised plans for the proposed townhomes at 705 Hamel Road, dated 1-11-08. The
plans propose to construct one building with three units. We have the following comments with regards to
engineering matters:
Streets/Parking Lot
• A geotechnical report, R-value recommendation, and pavement design should be submitted for review
and approval.
Grading/Drainage/Wetlands
• Further stormwater calculations should be provided to include an analysis of inlet capacity for CB4.
The inlet capacity of this structure should be design to handle 100-year run off events.
• Grading near CB4 should be clarified to show that a minimum of one foot of freeboard is provided
between the EOF at the retaining wall and the lowest exposed elevation on the west side of the
townhomes.
• It appears that the proposed grading will route runoff from the subject property onto the neighboring
property to the east. The grading should be revised in this area such that all runoff is contained on the
subject property.
• Better defined swales should be graded to the north of the proposed rain garden such that all runoff
from the north is routed overland to the rain garden. The current grading plan indicates that runoff
along the east and west property lines may bypass the rain garden.
• Engineered retaining wall design and details should be submitted for all retaining walls greater than 4
feet in height. Wall design must take into consideration storm sewer pipes passing through or under
their foundations.
• See the attached memo from Dan Murphy and Lance Hoff regarding drainage.
Utilities
• A hydrant should be installed near the northwest corner of the building. The watermain serving
the hydrant should be 6" in size.
• Curb stops should be provided for each water service.
• The applicant should provide further information as to why 2" domestic services are proposed.
Generally, residential domestic services are 1 " in size.
• The Fire Marshal should review and comment on the revised plans.
• The applicant needs to verify where the existing sanitary sewer service connects to the sewer
system. If the existing service connects to the sewer on Hamel Road, the service should be
abandoned to the satisfaction of the city public works department. If the existing service is
connected to the stub in the back yard, then the sewer must be televised to verify the proper
location for abandonment
• Invert elevations should be given for the sanitary service line at cleanouts and connection points.
General
• Plans should identify a snow storage area.
• Proof of temporary construction easements must be provided for all utility work and grading that is to
occur on neighboring properties.
• Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all watermain pipes.
• We have estimated the total revised construction cost to be $187,733.00. A financial guarantee
should be provided for 150% of this amount, or $281,599.50.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894.
Sincerely,
BONESTR00
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
Dusty Finke, City of Medina
Steve Scherer, City of Medina
elm creek
Watershed Management Commission
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
3235 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
PH: 763.553.1144
FAX: 763.553.9326
E-mail: judie@lass.biz
TECHNICAL OFFICE
Hennepin County, DES
417 North 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55401-1397
PH: 612.596.1171
FAX: 612.348.8532
E-mail: Ali.Durounoolu@co.hennepin.mn.us
Project Review -Medina Townhomes
Medina, 2007-035
(revised plans)
Project Overview: The initial proposal for this project was to develop seven town homes on a one -
acre site (0.997 acres) located at the southwest corner of Hamel Drive and Tower Road (see map).
The revised submittal reduced the size of the development to three town homes and also reduced the
impervious cover. The south 60 feet of the property is within the 100-year floodplain of Elm Creek.
The base flood elevation is 977.00 feet. The plan is reviewed for the Commission's floodplain
management and buffer requirements. The project was approved in August 2007, conditioned on
receipt prior to the project review deadline of final, signed plans showing permanent buffer markers
and a maintenance plan for the buffer area.
Applicant & Agent. Robb Stauber, 7401 Washington Ave S, Edina MN 55439. Phone (763) 238-
7090; fax (952) 942-1006, Email: RStauber@goalcrease.com.
Engineering/Agent. Mark Kronbeck, Alliant Engineering, Inc., 233 Park Avenue South, Suite
300, Minneapolis, MN 55415. Phone (612) 767-9338; fax (612) 758-3099. Email:
mkronbeck@alliant-inc.com.
Exhibits:
1. Request for plan review, received on July 24, 2007.
2. Plan review fee of $100 (received on July 24, 2007).
3. Transmittal letter from the City (Dusty Finke).
4. Project review deadline extension letters.
5. Drainage calculations with removed south building, dated January 11, 2008.
6. Revised Plan Sheets (dated January 11, 2008, unsigned).
C-0 Cover Sheet
C-1 Existing Conditions Survey
C-2 Site Plan
C-3 Grading & Erosion Control Plan
C-4 Utility Plan
C-5 Detail Sheet
L-1 Landscape Plan
A 1.1 Exterior Elevations
A2.1 Foundation Plan
A3.1 First Floor Plan
A3.2 Second Floor Plan
CHAMPLIN • CORCORAN • DAYTON • HASSAN • MAPLE GROVE • MEDINA • PLYMOUTH • ROGERS
Medina Townhomes
January 23, 2008
Page 2
Findings:
General:
1. The extended project review deadline is April 15, 2008.
2. City of Medina is the LGU administering the Wetland Conservation Act. Wetlands have
been delineated by Alliant Engineering. The project is not proposing any wetland impacts.
Floodplains:
3. a) There are FEMA and Elm Creek WMC designated floodplains on this site. The base
flood elevation (BFE) has been established at 977 feet.
b) The project does not impact any floodplains. Some minor grading will be done to create
a rain garden. There will be no loss of flood storage due to this grading.
c) The lowest structure elevation must be at least 2 feet above the BFE. The submitted plan
satisfies this requirement.
Buffers:
4. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission requires 50 feet native vegetative buffer
from Elm Creek. This buffer will be provided by constructing a rain garden between the
town homes and Elm Creek. Runoff directed towards Elm Creek will be filtered through
this rain garden. A vegetation plan for the rain garden has been included.
5. Additional 90-foot green space is left between the town houses and the rain garden/buffer.
This green space will be planted with short prairie seed mix.
6. All the wetlands, floodplains and buffers are included in drainage and utility easements.
Buffers are indicated by permanent buffer monuments.
7. A long-term plan should be developed for the maintenance of the rain garden, which should
identify funding mechanism and a responsible party.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan:
8. The project is less than one acre in size and therefore does not require review by the
Commission.
Stormwater Management Plan:
9. The project is less than one acre in size and therefore does not require stormwater review by
the Commission.
Recommendations and Findings:
1. Project was approved in August 2007 with conditions. The following remaining
conditions must be satisfied before the project review deadline:
a. A copy of the final, signed plan must be submitted,
b. A maintenance plan for the buffer area should be provided. This should be
recorded with the title (or with the homeowner's association documents).
January 23, 2008
Date
Ali Durgunoglu, PhD, PE
Advisor to the Commission
SAEMDTEMCON\CORR\DURGUNOGLU\_WATERSHEDS\ELM_CRIULAN_REVIEW2007Wledina Townhomes\Medina Townhomes_FOF_2doc
Medina Townhomes
January 23, 2008
Page 3
SITE LOCATION
SAEMDZEMCON\CORROURGUNOGLU\_WATERSHEDS\ELM_CRKTLAN_REVIEW2007\Medina Townhomes\Medina Townhomes_FOF_2doc
MALLIANT
ENGINEERING, INC.
2008 - 3,13pm
Drawing name, PAalllant\Robb Stauber\070039\plan sheets\070039cowe.dwg Jan
DEVELOPER
ROBB STAUBER
7401 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
EDINA, MN 55439
COVER SHEET
MEDINA TOWNHOMES
TOWER; ..—
2-DRIVE
R 1 HAMEL ROAD :1 1
0' 40' 80' 120'
SCALE IN FEET
ARCHITECTURE
STEVE ELLEFSEN
STUDIO 44
ENGINEERING/
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CONTACT PERSON:
MARK KRONBECK
ALLIANT ENGINEERING
233 PARK AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415
PH 612-767-9338
FX 612-758-3099
PROJECT
LOCATION
N
Greed
11si Cnurdry Club
g2007 Microsoft Cplp. &DOE NAviEQ, ao G/orTe le atlas, Inc.
LOCATION MAP
N.T.8
SHEET INDEX
NO.
C-0 COVER SHEET 1-11
C-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY 2-11
C-2 SITE PLAN 3-11
C-3 GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 4-11
C-4 UTILITY PLAN 5-11
C-5 DETAIL SHEET 6-11
L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 7-11
A1.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATOINS 8-11
A2.1 FOUNDATION PLAN 9-11
A3.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 10-11
A3.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 11-11
233 PARK AVE. Boum, SUITE son
MINNEAPOLIB. MN 6606
PHONE 0121 768.8080
FAX (612) 7683088
MEDINA TOWNHOMES
a
OW
Z
W
2
aQ
xZ
ins
nM
N
O
E
E
z
C
COVER SHEET
REVISIONS
10-1-07 CRY COMMENTS
10-30-07 CRY COMMENTS -
1-11-08 REMOVED SOUTH BLDG.
DESIGNED BY MK
DRAWN BY DE
CHECKED BY MK
DATE ISSUED 7-11-07
SCALE 1' = 40'
JOB NO. 207-0038.0
C-O
SHEET 1 Of 11
/ A e
/ / v /
L - L _ / /
N 1 1 5 W N D D W \
" , C D 5 . 7 { n
\
3 0 . ` .
/ f& r r - r '