HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-12-2016 POSTED IN CITY HALL January 8, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Introduction of Commission Members
3. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
4. Update from City Council proceedings
5. Planning Department Report
6. Approval of Minutes
a. December 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting
b. December 15, 2015 Concurrent City Council and Planning
Commission meeting
7. Hamel Brewery – 22 Hamel Road – Site Plan Review and Conditional
Use Permit for outdoor dining and drinking area. Public Hearing
8. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process
9. Election of 2016 Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair
10. Council Meeting Schedule
11. Adjourn
Introduction of Member; Page 1 of 1 January 12, 2016
Election for Chair and Vice Chair Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: January 8, 2016
MEETING: January 12, 2016 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Introduction of Members; Election for 2016 Chair and Vice-Chair
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
Introduction of Commission Members
At their January 5 meeting, the City Council appointed two members to the Planning
Commission following the expiration of the terms of Commissioners Nolan and Williams.
I am happy to introduce “new” members Robin Reid and Chris Barry.
I use the term “new” because Robin served on the Commission for three terms through the end
of 2014. City ordinances require taking at least a year off following three terms. And
now…Robin is back for more fun!
If possible, please take a couple minutes before the meeting for introductions.
Staff looks forward to working with Robin and Chris over the next three (and hopefully more)
years!
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
The Commission elects its annual Chair and Vice Chair at the first meeting of the year.
Historically, the Commission has placed the election at the end of the first meeting, so that
residents and applicants who are present for hearings do not have to sit through the nomination
and election process. In the past, the Chair (or Vice Chair, if the Chair is not present) from the
previous year has chaired the meeting until the election at the end of the agenda. Staff generally
runs the meeting during the election process.
We arranged the agenda as described above, and I recommend that 2015’s Vice Chair, Victoria
Reid, chair the meeting until the election. Vicki has indicated that she is willing to do so.
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 January 5, 2015
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: December 30, 2015
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates January 5, 2016 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Bradford Creek Plat and ROW Vacation – 2872 Ardmore Ave. – Susan Prodahl, Carl Henderson,
and Paul Henderson have requested plat approval in order to re-plat eight substandard lots in
Independence Beach into two buildable lots. The applicants have also requested that the City vacate
a portion of right-of-way to the north of the subject site in which there is currently no roadway
improvements. Staff is conducting a preliminary review to determine if the application is complete
for review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the December 8 meeting and
recommended approval. The request is scheduled to be presented to the Council on January 5.
B) Kal Point Site Plan Reivew, PUD Amendment – 340 Clydesdale Trail – Kalyan Vempaty has
requested an amendment to the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD and a Site Plan Review to
construct a commercial building containing a restaurant and upstairs office space on the final lot
within Clydesdale Marketplace. Staff is conducting a preliminary review to determine if the
application is complete for review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the
December 8 meeting and recommended approval. The request is scheduled to be presented to the
Council on January 5.
C) 45 Highway 55 Rezoning – Steve Clough has requested that the City rezone property to the east of
Aldi from Uptown Hamel-2 to Commercial Highway-Railroad. This zoning is the same as the Aldi
site and the property to the west of Sioux Drive in the vicinity. The rezoning is in anticipation of
commercial development of the site. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the
December 8 meeting and recommended approval. The request is scheduled to be presented to the
Council on January 5.
D) Woodland Hill Preserve sign variance – 696 Woodland Hill Court – Woodland Hill Preserve Inc.
has requested a variance from the setback requirements for signs for the neighborhood monument
sign of Woodland Hill Preserve. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the December 8
meeting and recommended denial of the variance from the front yard setback. The Commission
stated that they were not as concerned about the side yard setback variance. The request is
scheduled to be presented to the Council on January 5.
E) Hamel Brewery Site Plan Review and CUP – 22 Hamel Road – 22 Hamel Road LLC has requested
a site plan review for construction of a brew pub with food service. The applicant has also requested
A CUP for an outdoor seating area. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule for a
hearing when complete, potentially at the January 12 Planning Commission meeting.
F) Vickerman Right-of-way Vacation – 2982 Lakeshore Ave. – Michael Vickerman has requested that
the City vacate the southern half of the adjacent right-of-way in which there are currently no street
improvements. Staff has scheduled a public hearing for the January 19 City Council meeting.
G) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has
requested a site plan review for construction of a 173,000 sf memory care facility. The request also
includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park and an Interim Use Permit to permit continued
agricultural use of the portion of the property not proposed to be developed. The Met Council has
also approved of the previous Comp Plan amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed the
rezoning, site plan review and interim use permit at the February 10 meeting and unanimously
recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the May 19 meeting and directed staff to
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 January 5, 2015
City Council Meeting
prepare approval documents. The applicant has subsequently changed their proposed site plan which
was presented to the Planning Commission and Council. The applicant is working on finalizing
construction plans.
H) Medina Mini-Storage Site Plan Review; Text Amendment – 4790 Rolling Hills Road – Highway 55
Rental Portable Storage, LLC has requested a site plan review to construct three additional mini-
storage buildings. The applicant has also requested an amendment to the City’s zoning code to
allow fiber-cement (“Hardiboard”) exterior building materials in the Rural Business and Rural
Commercial Holding districts. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the October 13
meeting. The Commission supported fiber cement materials (lap siding only) in the RBH and RCH
districts and recommended approval of the site plan review. The City Council adopted the ordinance
on November 4 and adopted a resolution of approval on the site plan on November 17. Staff will
work with applicant on the conditions of approval before construction begins.
I) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery and Hamel Place –The City Council has adopted resolutions
approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order
to complete the projects.
J) Stonegate Conservation Design Subdivision, Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– these preliminary
plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application
K) Hamel Haven, Buehler subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is
working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction begins.
L) Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels – WH has requested a conditional use permit for the installation of a
solar garden approximately an acre in area at their substation on Willow Drive, south of Highway
55. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at the June 16 meeting. Staff will work with the
applicant to meet the conditions of approval before construction.
Other Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan –staff put together information related to the vision and goals for review by the
Steering Committee and also has begun putting together conceptual land use maps for discussion.
B) City Hall Renovation – staff met with potential owner’s representatives to provide assistance on the
renovation project. The owner’s rep is helping solicit architect proposals.
C) Internet Analysis – staff met with a vendor who may potentially be interested in offering wireless
internet services to homes in Medina. Staff requested additional details and will report to the
Council if potential exists.
D) Engineering Standards – staff reviewed proposed amendments to the City’s engineering standards.
WSB will incorporate comments for final presentation.
E) Loram Administrative Site Plan Review – staff received an application for Loram to expand their
existing parking lot. This request may be reviewed administratively as a result of amendments made
to City Code earlier in the year.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday December 8, 2015 4
5
1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Victoria Reid, 8
Janet White, and Kent Williams. 9
10
Absent: Chairperson Charles Nolan. 11
12
Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks and City Planner Dusty Finke. 13
14
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15
16
There were none. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Finke provided updates on the October and November proceedings of the City Council, 21
which included approval of the mini storage facility on Highway 55 as recommended by the 22
Planning Commission, approval of amendments regarding dog regulations, approval of 23
amendments to parking regulations, and adoption of the 2016 budget. 24
25
4. Planning Department Report 26
27
Finke provided an update. 28
29
5. Approval of the October 13, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 30
31
Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to approve the October 13, 2015, Planning 32
Commission minutes with changes as noted. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nolan) 33
34
6. Bradford Creek Addition – Preliminary/Final Plat to Plat Property into Two 35
Lots (2872 Ardmore Avenue) – Public Hearing 36
37
Finke presented a request for a Preliminary Plat, noting that the request also includes Final 38
Plat and vacation of right-of-way, but advised that those approvals go before the City Council 39
and therefore the Commission will only consider the Preliminary Plat. He stated that this 40
request would reconfigure eight substandard lots into two conforming lots. He noted that the 41
right-of-way requested to be vacated would be divided into the two lots. He advised that 42
historically there had been one single-family home on the eight substandard lots and provided 43
additional details on the lots and zoning. He stated that the eight lots would be split in half, 44
divided equally into two lots. He stated that a conceptual grading plan has been provided to 45
demonstrate how a building pad for the homes could fit into the property. He stated that there 46
are no existing improvements in the right-of-way requested to be vacated. He explained that 47
even though the Council will hold the hearing and make the decision on that request, the item 48
is included in the Preliminary Plat because the land would be combined with the two lots. He 49
stated that staff believes that the northern half of the right-of-way could serve any future 50
needs the City may have, and therefore does not oppose the vacation. He stated that the two 51
lots as laid out appear to meet the zoning requirements of the urban residential and shoreland 52
2
overlay district. He provided additional information regarding the tree replacement policy 53
and noted that there would be additional options should the trees required not fit on the lot. 54
He stated that Ardmore Avenue is a 22-foot road within a 44-foot right-of-way and is under 55
the City minimum and therefore staff recommends that additional right-of-way be dedicated 56
in case the road is improved in the future. He stated that the stormwater requirements are not 57
triggered through this reconfiguration and that is why there are no requirements of that 58
nature. He stated that staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions included in the 59
staff report. 60
61
Murrin asked, and received confirmation, that the right-of-way is currently 60 feet and the 62
applicant is requesting that be reduced to 30 feet. She asked if the previous home was one of 63
the eight lots. 64
65
Finke explained that the home straddled the four lots in the center and the detached garage 66
straddled two of the other lots. 67
68
Murrin asked why the applicant would want to vacate right-of-way on Palm and then dedicate 69
additional right-of-way on Ardmore. 70
71
Finke explained that the City Engineer’s recommendation is for the additional right-of-way 72
on Ardmore in order to accommodate future road improvements for that roadway. He 73
explained that the City would have requested the additional right-of-way regardless. 74
75
Murrin asked why the applicant would want the additional area off Palm. 76
77
Finke stated that the property would be counted into the lot area and therefore would provide 78
additional square footage and flexibility for construction. 79
80
Murrin asked if there would be any negative tax ramifications to vacating the right-of-way. 81
82
Finke stated that the City would actually gain taxable area, but noted that it would be a very 83
small difference. 84
85
Williams referenced the City-owned lot north of the property and asked if that would be a 86
candidate for plantings should the applicant not be able to accommodate the necessary 87
replantings required under the tree replacement policy. 88
89
Finke stated that area is already pretty wooded so there would be limited opportunities on that 90
property. 91
92
White referenced the driveway configuration to Ardmore and asked if that could change to 93
Brook Avenue. 94
95
Finke stated that it is a public right-of-way and the person building on lot two would have 96
that choice, although lot one would have to access Ardmore. 97
98
Reid referenced the northern parcel owned by the City and asked if public access to the 99
property would be lost if the Palm Street right-of-way is vacated. 100
101
Finke stated that there would still be 30 feet of right-of-way that could be used to access the 102
property. He noted that there are a lot of parcels owned by the City in this area that have 103
been gained through tax forfeiture. 104
105
3
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 106
107
Sue Prodahl stated that the property was her father’s property and the home was demolished 108
when he passed away. She believed the highest and best use for the property would be to 109
divide the property into two buildable lots which would generate additional income for the 110
City through taxes and building permits. She confirmed that the vacated right-of-way would 111
provide more flexibility for builders. 112
113
Williams asked if the soil conditions have been verified for the lots. 114
115
Craig Westman, platting surveyor, stated that a soils analysis was discussed, but was not part 116
of the requirements. He stated that he included that in the plan in order to not lead on 117
potential purchasers as certain house types could not be done without further verification. He 118
noted that it would be the due diligence of the potential buyer/builder to ensure that the type 119
of home they want to build would be appropriate for the soils on the lot. He noted that 120
footings and drain tiles would most likely be required because of the heavy soils on the lots. 121
122
Williams asked if these lots would have septic. 123
124
Finke advised that the lots would be connected to sewer and water. 125
126
Westman referenced the conditions regarding the development agreement and sewer and 127
water and asked if that should be discussed with the Commission or Council. 128
129
Finke stated that the timing for that could be discussed at the City Council. 130
131
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. 132
133
White stated that she does not have any problem with the application as she feels that it will 134
fit well with the neighborhood. 135
136
Finke stated that a neighbor to the northeast had concerns with the tree removal that may be 137
required to fit two homes and the impact that could have on the lake. 138
139
Foote asked if direction would need to be given on tree removal. 140
141
Finke stated the applicant is on notice and a permit would be required for removal, noting that 142
the ultimate design of the home would dictate the amount of tree removal. He advised that 143
the intent would be to remove the smallest amount of trees possible. 144
145
White asked for details on the replacement trees that would be required. 146
147
Finke replied that inch per inch replacement would be required. 148
149
Williams stated that he reviewed the review criteria and he did not think that those items were 150
triggered with the exception of the soils statement. He asked staff if the notice provided to 151
potential buyers would be sufficient. He stated that the conditions proposed by staff would 152
address any other concerns that he may have had. 153
154
Albers stated that he does not see any problems with the application. 155
156
Reid stated that the only thing she was bothered by was the random public nature preserve 157
owned by the City to north, but noted that would be the concern of the Park Commission. 158
4
Foote stated that he would support the application. 159
160
Murrin confirmed that the position of staff is that the right-of-way is not needed in the current 161
amount and 30 feet would be sufficient for future road plans. 162
163
Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Bradford Creek 164
Addition Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and right-of-way vacation, subject to the conditions 165
noted in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nolan) 166
167
7. Kal Point – Planned Unit Development General Plan and Site Plan Review for 168
Construction of a Restaurant and Office (340 Clydesdale Trail) – Public Hearing 169
170
Murrin asked if she would have a conflict because she lives adjacent to the property. 171
172
Finke stated that technically there would not be a conflict because she does not have a 173
financial interest, but noted that the question would be whether she could remain objective to 174
the application. 175
176
Murrin stated that she could and would then take part in the review of this item. 177
178
Sparks presented a request for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) 179
General Plan and for a Site Plan review for the construction of a restaurant and office space. 180
He stated that the entire development was approved as a PUD in 2005 and this parcel was 181
identified as retail use. He explained that an amendment would be needed for the PUD, as 182
this desired use is not the original intended use. He noted that from a use point of view, both 183
a restaurant and office space would be allowable uses. He provided details on the two-story 184
building that would include a restaurant on the first floor and office space on the second floor. 185
He displayed a sketch of the proposed site with the building as proposed, providing additional 186
details and noted that the plan is consistent with the general concept for the development. He 187
referenced parking and advised that a restaurant of this size would require 40 spaces and the 188
office space would require 15. He stated that this site has 36 stalls and the applicant is 189
proposing to fill the remaining balance with shared parking from the adjacent Target site. He 190
advised that the Target site does have extra space but noted there is a bit of distance between 191
the site and the proposed shared parking. He noted that the trail system could be extended 192
towards that area to provide pedestrian access. He stated that the restaurant is titled as a bar 193
and grill, which usually has more business at night, noting that time frame could work well 194
with the shared parking of a retail site. He stated that if the shared parking is going to be 195
allowed, a written agreement would be needed. He identified a crosshatch area in the center 196
of the lot that is proposed to be constructed with pervious pavement. He provided additional 197
details on the proposed retaining wall and recommended fencing. He advised that the PUD 198
requires four-sided architecture and provided additional details on the proposed building 199
materials and design. He provided additional details on the proposed access point but noted 200
that if the recommendations from the City Engineer cannot be worked into the plans, the 201
access would remain as it is. He noted that additional details are needed on the existing tree 202
species and regarding the landscaping plan. He stated that staff does not have concern with 203
the parking because of the excess parking nearby, but noted that a written agreement would 204
be needed. He noted that staff recommends approval as proposed with the conditions and 205
recommendations in the staff report. 206
207
White referenced the original PUD, noting that restaurant and office space are approved uses, 208
and asked if combining the two uses into one building were mentioned in the PUD. 209
210
5
Sparks stated that the original PUD designated certain uses for certain spaces. He noted that 211
over the years, items have come in that differ slightly but have still been accepted as long as 212
the uses are allowed in the PUD. 213
214
White asked if office space had been designated for any sites in the original PUD. 215
216
Sparks stated that the original PUD specified uses, but also deferred to the uses allowed in the 217
urban commercial district as well. 218
219
White asked if the original PUD addressed having a two-story building, as she believed the 220
other buildings are one story. 221
222
Sparks stated that the PUD did not prohibit a two-story building, but confirmed that there are 223
no other two-story buildings. 224
225
White asked concerning the heights of the other buildings. 226
227
Sparks stated that a 35-foot building would be allowed if sprinkled and noted that this 228
building would be 26 feet and would come in under the sprinkling requirement. 229
230
White asked what the square footage would need to be in order to fit with the available 231
number of parking stalls. 232
233
Sparks stated that restaurant parking requirements are not based off square footage and 234
provided additional details on the calculations used for that type of use. 235
236
Williams referenced parking and stated that the applicant proposes to have an agreement with 237
the Target site and asked how realistic it would be since there would be parking available at 238
Wells Fargo which is closer and that building closes at 5:00 p.m. He asked if the applicant 239
considered sharing parking with Wells Fargo instead. 240
241
Sparks stated that there have been discussions with the applicant regarding the shared parking 242
and the applicant has been working with Target because of the available amount of excess 243
parking spaces. 244
245
Albers asked for additional information on the pedestrian access recommended by staff. 246
247
Sparks highlighted the path that would take. 248
249
Williams asked if the restaurant would be using the office space or whether they would be 250
using the space themselves. 251
252
Sparks believed that the applicant is going to use the office space for themselves. He 253
provided additional details on the storm water management and noted that providing the 254
adjustments recommended by the City Engineer, the proposed plans would be sufficient. 255
256
Albers asked if additional maintenance would be required for pervious pavement. 257
258
Sparks stated that there is some maintenance and that is why the additional conditions were 259
added. 260
261
Albers referenced the fence and asked if the fence would run the entirety of the retaining wall 262
or just in the sections two feet above grade level. 263
6
Sparks stated that the recommendation is for the fence to run the entirety of the retaining 264
wall. 265
266
Murrin referenced the setback and received confirmation that the City would be okay with the 267
zero foot front yard setback. She referenced the building finish and asked if there is a 268
corresponding condition for approval. She referenced the drive aisles and was unsure that 269
widths were mentioned. 270
271
Sparks noted that the widths would meet the City Code. 272
273
Murrin referenced condition 17 and confirmed that would be Metro West. 274
275
Foote referenced the parking and asked if the parking in the back of the building is normal 276
sizes or whether those are smaller spaces. 277
278
Sparks noted that the stalls meet the City requirements. 279
280
Foote asked how people would know to park in the Target parking lot if the original lot is 281
full. 282
283
Sparks noted that signage could be installed. 284
285
Foote stated that he was concerned with the distance between this site and the Target site. 286
287
Reid asked the available spaces at the Goddard site, as that site is not open on the weekend. 288
289
The owner of Goddard stated that they are not interested in shared parking. 290
291
Reid asked how many of the parking spaces would be for the patio seating. 292
293
Sparks stated that five stalls would be equal to the patio parking. 294
295
Reid noted that for three seasons of the year the patio seating would not be used. She noted 296
that the office use within the building would most likely have different use than the restaurant 297
and therefore with that consideration and the patio, the parking calculation may be higher 298
than actually needed. She referenced the sump pump and asked if it is less than desirable for 299
the applicant to have the pervious pavement. 300
301
Finke stated that pervious pavement takes more maintenance than regular pavement and is an 302
allowable treatment. He noted that the applicant is requesting a waiver from the full 303
requirements and that is why additional recommendations had been made. 304
305
Albers asked if the west curb cut would align with the Goddard entrance. 306
307
Sparks stated that the curb cuts were installed before the sites were developed. 308
309
Finke confirmed that they do line up. 310
311
Kal Vempaty, the applicant, provided details on the application which would include the 312
restaurant on the first floor and office space on the second floor. He stated that the office 313
space would accommodate seven to 10 employees. He asked that the project architect is also 314
present to address any questions. 315
316
7
Greg Dahling, project architect, stated that the restaurant use for parking calculations would 317
be 40 stalls and noted that the restaurant use would be evenings and weekends. He stated that 318
the office use would be normal daytime business hours during weekdays so those uses would 319
not have much overlap. He stated that the applicant has also been working with Target to 320
obtain the shared parking document. 321
322
Kal Vempaty said that the owner of the development has stated that shared parking could 323
occur for any of the uses and the document will be further modified to allow for the shared 324
parking of nearby uses. He stated that there are additional maintenance charges that they 325
would contribute to in order to have access to the shared parking. 326
327
Finke stated that there is shared parking allowed throughout the site, but each site should 328
provide its own parking for its space as well. He noted that the amendment would be 329
necessary to allow for the shared parking with Target, as this site would not have sufficient 330
parking for its requirement. 331
332
Williams confirmed that the applicant would be buying their way out of the self-sufficient 333
parking requirement with the Target agreement. He asked and received confirmation that the 334
office space would not be leased and would be used for his business use. 335
336
Greg Dahling stated that they will work with staff to ensure the right combination of 337
materials. He stated that they would prefer to avoid the fence on the retaining wall and only 338
place the fence on the areas above 30 inches, as specified in City Code. 339
340
Williams stated that for aesthetic purposes perhaps the whole area should be fenced. 341
342
Greg Dahling stated that would be reviewed, but noted that they would not want to obstruct 343
the view from Clydesdale. He referenced the eastern side of the property near Wells Fargo 344
and stated that they would be requesting inward access of the site from Wells Fargo and not 345
from Clydesdale. He stated that delivery vehicles could use that path in order to make 346
deliveries. He clarified that they are not asking for access from Clydesdale, but simply from 347
the Wells Fargo lot. 348
349
Reid stated that she visited the site on 5:00 p.m. on a Sunday night and was surprised with the 350
level of traffic in that area. 351
352
Kal Vempaty stated that Target has supported the design of this proposal as well. 353
354
Murrin asked for additional information on the office space use. 355
356
Kal Vempaty stated that he owns other businesses and the office space would be used for his 357
office use. He provided additional information on the IT services his business provides. 358
359
Murrin referenced the business signage and asked if all three signs would be illuminated. 360
361
Kal Vempaty confirmed that the three signs would be lit. 362
363
Murrin asked if there would be live music or bands. 364
365
Kal Vempaty stated that they do not have live music or bands and would be a similar 366
atmosphere to Applebee’s. 367
368
Reid asked how the size of the restaurant space was chosen. 369
8
Kal Vempaty provided details on the calculations they used to determine the size of the 370
building including population, nearby residents, and business polling. 371
372
Reid stated that she likes the design standards to make the site pedestrian friendly. She stated 373
that it makes sense to have the door at the back to have people easily come in, but believed 374
that it would cut the building off from the remainder of the site for walkability. She asked if 375
the building could be reversed. 376
377
Kal Vempaty stated that was his first proposal, to have the grand entrance at the front, but 378
there would be space lost if that option was chosen. He stated that the patio location would 379
also have an impact, as customers would rather sit front side rather than at the back of the 380
building. 381
382
Reid stated that a lot of restaurants have patios and entrances in the front of the building. 383
384
Greg Dahling stated that could be reviewed during the design phase. He noted that additional 385
controllability will be reviewed during the liquor license discussion and therefore he was 386
hesitant to confirm access through the patio at this time. 387
388
Reid asked, and received confirmation, that the application would be in agreement with 389
bicycle racks. She referenced the recommended landscaping plan and noted that she would 390
like to see additional landscaping in the front. She stated that the front looks very office and 391
not like a restaurant and therefore she would like to see additional landscaping in the front to 392
make it more welcoming. 393
394
Greg Dahling stated that the drawing of the building is not an accurate landscaping plan. 395
396
Sparks noted that the landscaping plan was provided in the Commission packet. 397
398
Kal Vempaty asked if the Commission desires an entrance in the front. 399
400
Reid stated that the item will be discussed, as others may have another point of view. 401
402
Greg Dahling stated that the reason there is not a secondary door is for controllability, where 403
management would have to watch a front and back door, but noted that could be 404
accommodated if needed. 405
406
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:44 p.m. 407
408
Aaron Amic, Medina resident and business owner of Goddard School, stated that he will 409
support this restaurant but also has some concerns. He stated that the curb cuts do align and 410
he has concern that if the parking lot is full, people will spill over into his lot. He stated that 411
he is not interested in sharing parking with the restaurant as he does not receive funding from 412
the maintenance account for the development. He stated that the agreement for his property 413
was clear that there would be no cross usage and his biggest concern is that people would still 414
park in his lot. He was also concerned with the flow of the traffic. 415
416
Williams asked if there is typically parking occurring at night or on weekends. 417
Amic stated that there is cleaning staff that use the parking during the off hours. 418
419
Williams stated that signage could be posted directing people to Target for overflow parking. 420
421
9
Murrin asked if the parking lot for Goddard School is part of the shared parking in the 422
development agreement. 423
424
Amic stated that his parking is separate from the shared agreement. He was unsure of the 425
answer but agreed that signage could assist. He asked for written assurance from the 426
applicant on how the issue would be addressed if patrons park in his lot. He stated that his 427
hope is that the restaurant is very successful and noted that if the site is successful, the 428
parking will overflow and they will spill into his lot because it is closer than Target. 429
430
Williams stated that perhaps signage stating ‘Goddard School only’ could be installed if it 431
becomes a problem. 432
433
Rand Lillie stated that he is opposed to the restaurant use, as this will increase traffic and 434
noise. He stated that they already hear the disturbance of the traffic and use of the site and 435
would like the Commission to consider the noise that an additional use could add. He was 436
also concerned with the safety of the pond, as the neighborhood side had been fenced to 437
prevent children from having accidents. 438
439
Williams stated that in the past, walls had been installed to assist in preventing the spread of 440
noise and asked if that would be appropriate in the loading area. 441
442
Sparks noted that there were conditions added to prevent additional noise disturbance, 443
including the trash being inside and the landscaping that will assist with screening of light 444
and noise. 445
446
Albers referenced snow removal and asked if that was handled by individual property owners 447
or the management company, as stalls will be lost when snow is stored on the property. 448
449
Sparks identified an area occupied by landscaping in the northwest corner that could be used 450
for snow storage. 451
452
Finke stated that staff would look into that with the shared parking agreement. 453
454
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. 455
456
Reid stated that the issues identified were traffic and circulation, parking, entrance to the 457
building, drainage, and landscaping. She referenced traffic and circulation and the request to 458
make the Wells Fargo a one way through. 459
460
Williams stated that would be up to Wells Fargo as to whether or not to allow that, and 461
advised that if they choose to not allow that, the delivery trucks would need to access through 462
Clydesdale. He agreed that proof of parking needs to be provided through a shared parking 463
agreement and believed that signage should be installed to direct overflow traffic to the 464
Target lot. He also believed a statement should be added that if there is evidence that people 465
are parking at the Goddard School, a sign would be installed at the applicant’s expense 466
stating ‘no parking in the Goddard lot.’ 467
468
Murrin stated that the overflow parking could be directed to any area other than Goddard 469
School. She stated that it would be clearer to install a sign that says you cannot park at the 470
Goddard School rather than direct people to every other business. 471
472
Finke stated that staff will figure out the technicalities and language for signage. 473
474
10
Reid asked for input on the entrance to the building and whether that should be orientated 475
more towards the rest of the marketplace community. 476
477
Williams agreed that there should be a front entrance, but did not want the traffic to go 478
through the patio area. 479
480
Reid stated that she would like the front entrance to function and act as the main entrance. 481
482
Greg Dahling stated that in regard to making the main entrance on the front, the majority of 483
people would be coming from the back parking area and therefore an entrance could be made 484
on the front, but that would be the secondary access and the main entrance would be in the 485
back. 486
487
Williams stated that the entrance on the front will be functioning, but will not be the main 488
entrance. 489
490
Reid stated that she would like to see the front entrance be the main entrance with the inside 491
setup however the applicant desires. 492
493
Murrin referenced the landscaping and suggested that additional trees be planted in the back 494
and perhaps the sign on that side not be lit to prevent disturbance to the neighborhood. 495
496
Williams stated that there is an Ordinance and PUD that would deal with light pollution in 497
addition to the evergreen trees that will be planted in the back. 498
499
Murrin stated that if you are in the parking lot you would not need a lighted sign to find the 500
building. 501
502
Williams stated that he is not convinced that this would rise to the level the Commission 503
needs to address, as the existing regulations would govern that. 504
505
Finke noted that this would be the closest sign to the residential development. 506
507
Reid asked if the applicant would be comfortable with that request or perhaps a smaller sign, 508
or placed lower. 509
510
Kal Vempaty stated that they are placing signs on three sides of the building and he would be 511
fine not placing a sign on the back side of the building at this time. 512
513
Greg Dahling stated that perhaps limitations be placed on a sign for the back side of the 514
building should the applicant wish to add that in the future. 515
516
Finke stated that staff could work on the language prior to the review by the Council. 517
518
Murrin asked if a height minimum should be specified for the decorative fence on the 519
retaining wall. 520
521
Reid did not think that additional limitations should be placed at this time on the fencing. 522
523
Williams noted that specifications are provided in the City Code. He asked what would 524
happen if the pervious pavement would not be maintained. 525
526
11
Finke stated that the water would still ultimately filter down and noted that records of 527
maintenance would also need to be provided. 528
529
Motion by Murrin, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the PUD General Plan 530
and Site Plan for the construction of a restaurant and office at 340 Clydesdale Trail, Kal 531
Point, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, with the addition that signs should be 532
installed directing patrons to the shared parking areas, if the signage does not work the 533
applicant shall work with staff to direct patrons away from the Goddard School; the grand 534
main entrance shall be in the front, off of Clydesdale; and lighted sides are allowed on three 535
sides of the building, but not the north side of the building. Motion approved unanimously. 536
(Absent: Nolan) 537
538
Finke noted that all of the items considered tonight, if approved, would be considered at the 539
January 5, 2016 City Council meeting. 540
541
8. Just for Kix – Rezoning from UH-2, Uptown Hamel-2 to CH-RR, Commercial-542
Highway/Railroad (45 State Highway 55) – Public Hearing 543
544
Finke stated that the applicant is presenting this rezoning request in anticipation of a future 545
commercial development request. He stated that the request is complicated because the 546
property straddles the line between Medina and Plymouth. He noted that the applicant is 547
going through the process of rezoning in both cities and will bring a development request 548
back in the future. He stated that this is the last remaining Uptown Hamel parcel on the hill. 549
He stated that the Concept Plan was provided as an informative measure. He stated the 550
Uptown Hamel zoning district is not in tune with larger commercial use and that is why the 551
commercial-highway/railroad district is being requested. He stated that the property is guided 552
for a mixed use business land use in the Comprehensive Plan, as was the Aldi site 553
neighboring this property. He stated that staff believes that this rezoning would still be in 554
tune with the land use identified in the Comprehensive Plan. He provided examples of 555
similar rezoning requests within other zoning districts, but the same land use. He stated that 556
staff recommends approval of the request subject to the condition in the staff report. 557
558
Williams asked the zoning of the property to the east in Plymouth. 559
560
Finke stated that the property is guided commercial. He stated that staff recommends that the 561
entire building be located within the boundary of Medina to prevent other problems in the 562
future. 563
564
Murrin asked if the access would still be made available from Highway 55 or whether the 565
back access would be the only access. 566
567
Finke stated that would be part of the application review at that time and the zoning would 568
have nothing to do with that access. 569
570
Reid asked if the rezoning would limit the number of stories further than currently allowed. 571
572
Finke stated that the commercial district would actually allow three stories, which is one less 573
than currently allowed in the Uptown Hamel district. 574
Andy Brandel, ISG, spoke in representation of the applicant and stated that they have been 575
working with both Medina and Plymouth staff in order to coordinate the process and the 576
client can make their decision on whether or not to move forward. 577
578
Reid opened the public hearing at 9:34 p.m. 579
12
Jim Taylor spoke in representation of the Arnt property, noting that they support the request. 580
He noted that Just for Kix would be a dance school for children and would be a good fit for 581
the community. He asked that the Commission support the request. 582
583
Reid closed the public hearing at 9:36 p.m. 584
585
Williams stated that this request makes sense and would fit with the zoning of all the other 586
properties in that area. 587
588
Motion by Albers, seconded by Williams, to recommend approval of a rezoning from UH-589
2, Uptown Hamel-2 to CH-RR, Commercial-Highway/Railroad for the property at 45 State 590
Highway 55. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan) 591
592
9. Woodland Hill Preserve Sign Setback Variance (696 Woodland Hill Court) 593
594
Sparks presented a variance request for the location of an entrance sign for a subdivision. He 595
stated that in the subdivision plans the entrance sign was located on the west side, but the 596
applicant determined that the site would not work for the sign and therefore is requesting to 597
move the sign to the east side, which would require a variance from the ten foot setback from 598
property lines. He stated that one of the setbacks impacted would be an outlot and therefore 599
that would be less impactful to other property owners. He noted that to the east there is a 600
significant tree that would obstruct the view of the sign. He stated that if the sign would have 601
been proposed for the east side when the application was reviewed originally there most 602
likely would not have been any issues. He displayed photographs of the proposed location 603
with stakes that would identify the proposed location. He stated that after reviewing the 604
variance request against the criteria, staff did not feel that the zero lot line for the front would 605
be justified. He stated that the variance from the south would not be concerning because of 606
the outlot location. He stated that staff recommends approval of the request for the side yard 607
setback but not the front yard setback. 608
609
Albers asked if there would be issues if the sign was on the other side of the road. 610
611
Sparks stated that there would be issues with drainage and utilities on the other side of the 612
road and provided additional details on the proposed location and visibility. 613
614
Albers asked if there would be landscaping proposed around the sign or whether this would 615
just be the sign. 616
617
Finke noted that landscaping would be required per the Ordinance. 618
619
Justin Bannwarth, representing Gonyea Development, the applicant, stated that they initially 620
planned to place the sign on the west side of the road, but there were challenges because of 621
grading and retaining walls that will be installed in the future. He stated that when the 622
location on the eastern side was identified their concern was encroachment on the 623
neighboring property owner’s lot and a large tree in the view corridor. He stated that any 624
help they could receive to increase the visibility would be appreciated. He stated that 625
typically there would be up lighting cast onto the sign and landscaping would be provided. 626
Murrin asked the number of lots in the development. 627
628
Bannwarth replied that there would be 15 lots total. 629
630
Williams asked if this location would exist within the drainage and utility easement. 631
632
13
Finke stated that a portion of the easement would be utilized. 633
634
Bannwarth stated that they would be willing to enter into an encroachment agreement if 635
desired, stating that the City would not have liability to landscaping or those type of elements. 636
637
Reid asked if there were any public comments. 638
639
Grant Bender stated that he lives in the Toll Development and there is a challenge for this 640
development to have their own identification. He stated that he supports the request. 641
642
Reid stated that one criteria for the variance is that the plight of the landowner is unique and 643
not created by the landowner. She did not feel that this is unique and felt that bringing the 644
sign closer to the outlot would be fine. She stated that she would recommend denial of the 645
portion going into the easement. 646
647
Williams agreed that this would not rise to the level of justification to interfere with the 648
easement. 649
650
Foote agreed with the comments made by Williams. 651
652
White agreed that this would not meet the standards of the variance request. 653
654
Reid stated that she would be fine with the sign being moved closer to the Outlot. 655
656
Motion by White, seconded by Reid, to recommend denial of the Woodland Hill Preserve 657
sign front yard setback variance and recommend approval of the side yard setback variance. 658
Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan) 659
660
10. Council Meeting Schedule 661
662
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting on Tuesday, December 15th, and White 663
volunteered to represent the Planning Commission. 664
665
11. Adjourn 666
667
Motion by Albers, seconded by Williams, to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 p.m. Motion 668
carried unanimously. 669
ISSUED FOR15028ATS&R PROJECT NO.SHEET NUMBERSUBMITTALPLANNING COMMISSIONSHEET NAMEDECEMBER 11, 2015 ISSUE DATECHECKED BYDRAWN BYCONSULTANTSWEB: www.atsr.comFAX: 763.525.3289TEL: 763.545.3731SUITE 300MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554278501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROADPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED FOR15028ATS&R PROJECT NO.SHEET NUMBERSUBMITTALPLANNING COMMISSIONSHEET NAMEDECEMBER 11, 2015 ISSUE DATECHECKED BYDRAWN BYCONSULTANTSWEB: www.atsr.comFAX: 763.525.3289TEL: 763.545.3731SUITE 300MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554278501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROADPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
1
:1
(8.211
:1
(R=2035.08ǻ
L=107.601
(
17.64 1.8517.37 1.751.931.2321.36 SURMOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTERTELPOLESTORMMANHOLE 1128.00107.00PAVER SIDEWALKEXISTING BUILDING
20" BOXELDERCATCH BASINMANHOLE 113HAMEL ROAD66
10UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 4240547NW CORNEROF LOT 38NE CORNEROF LOT 39WEST LINEOF LOT 38NORTH LINEOF LOT 39LINE PARALLEL TOWEST LINE OF LOT 38EXISTING WATERMAIN6" WATER SVC
EXISTING SANITARY SEWERSEWER SVC6" PVC WATER STUB
1014101610181020102210241026102810
1
8
10
2
0
1022
1024RIM = 1019.16N Inv. = 1014.19S Inv. = 1014.19RIM = 1015.71W. INV. = 1012.01S. INV. = 1012.08EXISTING 24" HDPESTORM SEWERSILT FENCESEE DETAILC-1002/C4.0ROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE, SEEDETAIL C-1002/C4.0INLET PROTECTION,SEE DETAIL C-1002/C4.0LIMITS OFDISTURBANCELIMITS OFDISTURBANCEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEHAMEL ROADSILT FENCESEE DETAILC-1002/C4.0PROPOSED LOADING DOCKTOP OF LOADING DOCK=1019.94BOTTOM OF LOADING DOCK=1016.94PROVIDE STAIRS WITH6 RISERS AT 5". SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSBEAVER TAIL CURBPROVIDE STAIRS WITH5 RISERS AT 5". SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROVIDE STAIRS WITH6 RISERS AT 5". SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSINLET PROTECTIONSEE DETAILC-1012/C4.0INLET PROTECTIONSEE DETAILC-1012/C4.0INLET PROTECTIONSEE DETAILC-1012/C4.0PROPOSED DECK RAMPSLOPED AT 5.00% MAXIMUMSEE SPECIFICATIONS FORFURTHER DETAILPROPOSED DECK. FFE=1030.00SEE SPECIFICATIONS FORFURTHER DETAIL. GRADESHOWN IS GRADE BELOWDECK SURFACEBEAVER TAIL CURBPROPOSED HEAVY DUTYEROSION CONTROL ANDTURF REINFORCEMENTMAT BLANKET, SEEDETAIL C-1000/C4.0PROPOSED HEAVYDUTY EROSIONCONTROLBLANKET SEEDETAIL C-1000/C4.026 LF BIOLOG SEEDETAIL C-1003/C4.0PROPOSED LIGHTDUTY EROSIONCONTROLBLANKET SEEDETAIL C-1000/C4.0INLET PROTECTIONSEE DETAILC-1012/C4.0PROVIDE STAIRS WITH7 RISERS AT 7". SEEARCHITECTURAL PLANSCONTRACTOR SHALL ENSUREPOSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAYFROM EXISTING BUILDING21 LF BIOLOG SEEDETAIL C-1003/C4.0LEGENDPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED STORM SEWERDENOTES SURFACE DRAINAGEPROPSOED SEDIMENT CONTROL AT MH/CBPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION1020EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR102622.50LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTIONPROPOSED MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION21.58 MEPROPOSED SILT FENCEPROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTEXISTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SECTION LINEEXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING MANHOLEEXISTING TREESPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVERSTOP OF WALL21.58 TWBOTTOM OF WALL21.58 BWTOP OF LOADING DOCK20.00 TDBOTTOM OF LOADING DOCK17.00 BDPROPOSED STORM SEWER MANHOLEPROPOSED BIOLOGHIGH POINT29.48 HPPROPOSED LIGHT DUTY EROSIONCONTROL BLANKETPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY EROSIONCONTROL BLANKETISSUED FORATS&R PROJECT NO.SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAMEISSUE DATECHECKED BYDRAWN BYCONSULTANTSWEB: www.atsr.comFAX: 763.525.3289TEL: 763.545.3731SUITE 300MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554278501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROADPlanners and Engineers2300 Berkshire Lane N, Suite 200Plymouth, MN 55441763.559.9100 www.vaaeng.cominfo@vaaeng.com15028SUBMITTALPLANNING COMMISSIONDECEMBER 11, 2015 PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1.ALL EXISTING INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SURVEY BY GRONBERG &ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NUMBER 15-435, DATED NOVEMBER 24,2015 . BACKGROUND SURVEY ON THESE DRAWINGS IS FORREFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO SURVEY AS THE BASIS FOR ALLPROJECT WORK.2.SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BY MTMENVIRONMENTAL, INC. PROJECT NUMBER 2014.110 DATED JULY 28,2014.3.CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONSINCLUDING LOCATIONS OF EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATEUTILITIES, AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIORTO STARTING CONSTRUCTION.4.ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE TOREMAIN UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.5.CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE ALL EXISTINGIMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES THATARE TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ANY DAMAGE AT OWNEXPENSE.6.ALL WORK TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF MEDINA AND STATE OFMINNESOTA STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.7.ALL EXCAVATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OFOSHA 29 CFR, PART 1926, SUBPART P "EXCAVATIONS ANDTRENCHES". THIS DOCUMENT STATES THAT EXCAVATION SAFETY ISTHE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.8.CATCHBASINS AND MANHOLES ARE SHOWN ON PLAN LARGER THANACTUAL SIZE. COORDINATE LOCATION OF MANHOLE COVER ANDCASTING SO THAT IT IS PROPERLY LOCATED AT THE BACK OFCURBLINE FOR THE CURB INLETS OR CENTERED IN THE AREA ASSHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR THE AREA DRAINS AND MANHOLECOVERS.9.FLARED END SECTIONS (FES) ARE SHOWN ON PLAN LARGER THANACTUAL SIZE. ALL PIPE LENGTHS INCLUDE FES.CONTRACTOR/SURVEYOR TO STAKE THE END OF FES FORLOCATION.10.PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AT STREETS AND SIDEWALKS PERCITY OF MEDINA AND MMUTCD REQUIREMENTS.11.ANY WORK PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIESMUST BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND ALL REGULATINGGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND APPROPRIATE PERMITS MUST BEOBTAINED.GENERAL NOTESGRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES1.PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS ARE TO TOP OFGRADE, PAVEMENT OR BACK OF CURB, UNLESS OTHERWISESPECIFIED.2.PROVIDE PERMANENT SEEDING AND FERTILIZING OF ALLDISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF PAVING PERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANS.2.INSTALL PERIMETER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ITEMS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.CONTROL PLANAND EROSIONSITE GRADING, DRAINAGE,1C2.0SITE GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN010'20'30'1"=10'ALL EXISTING INFORMATION INCLUDINGALL UTILITY INVERTS SHALL BE FIELDVERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONSEE ARCHITECTURAL FOR DETAILSFOR BUILDING FOUNDATION DRAINTILECONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE POSITIVEDRAINAGE AT ALL LOCATIONS WHEREPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MATCH INTOEXISTING. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFYENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES
1
:1
(8.211
:1
(R=2035.08ǻ
L=107.601
(
17.64 1.8517.37 1.751.931.2321.36 SURMOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTERTELPOLESTORMMANHOLE 1128.00107.00PAVER SIDEWALKEXISTING BUILDING
20" BOXELDERCATCH BASINMANHOLE 113HAMEL ROAD66
10UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 4240547NW CORNEROF LOT 38NE CORNEROF LOT 39WEST LINEOF LOT 38NORTH LINEOF LOT 39LINE PARALLEL TOWEST LINE OF LOT 38EXISTING WATERMAIN6" WATER SVC
EXISTING SANITARY SEWERSEWER SVC6" PVC WATER STUB
RIM = 1019.16N Inv. = 1014.19S Inv. = 1014.19RIM = 1015.71W. INV. = 1012.01S. INV. = 1012.08EXISTING 24" HDPESTORM SEWERMODIFY EXISTING CATCHBASIN TOACCOMMODATE NEENAH R-3501-TB CASTING. SETRE=1019.08. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOPDRAWINGS OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TOENGINEER FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONPROPOSED CURB ANDGUTTER (TYP.) SEEDETAIL C-5030/C4.0PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN RAMPSEE DETAIL C-5023/C4.0PROPOSED SURMOUNTABLECONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERSEE DETAIL C-5033/C4.0PROPOSED SURMOUNTABLECONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERSEE DETAIL C-5033/C4.0PROPOSED CLEANOUTSEE DETAIL C-3013/C4.0PROPOSED CLEANOUTSEE DETAIL C-3013/C4.0PROPOSED CLEANOUTSEE DETAIL C-3013/C4.0PROPOSED CLEANOUTSEE DETAIL C-3013/C4.0PROPOSED CLEANOUTSEE DETAIL C-3013/C4.0PROPOSED 62 LFDRAINTILE AT 0.25%SEE DETAIL C-3039/C4.0PROPOSED 33 LFDRAINTILE AT 0.25%SEE DETAIL C-3039/C4.0PROPOSED 45 LFDRAINTILE AT 0.25%SEE DETAIL C-3039/C4.0PROPOSED 37 LFDRAINTILE AT 0.25%SEE DETAIL C-3039/C4.0PROPOSED 147 LFDRAINTILE AT 0.25%PROPOSED 129 LFDRAINTILE AT 0.25%INV:1013.80 (N,S)SEE DETAIL C-3011/C4.0NO PARKING AREA, SEEDETAIL C-5004/C4.1NO PARKING AREA, SEEDETAIL C-5004/C4.1PROPOSED THICKENEDEDGE SEE DETAILC-5070/C4.1CONCRETE JOINTINGSEE DETAIL C-5073/C4.1CONCRETE JOINTINGSEE DETAIL C-5073/C4.1LEGENDPROPOSED STORM SEWEREXISTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING SECTION LINEEXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING MANHOLEEXISTING TREESPROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVERSPROPOSED STORM SEWER CATCHBASINSPROPOSED STORM SEWER MANHOLEPROPOSED DECKISSUED FORATS&R PROJECT NO.SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAMEISSUE DATECHECKED BYDRAWN BYCONSULTANTSWEB: www.atsr.comFAX: 763.525.3289TEL: 763.545.3731SUITE 300MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554278501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROADPlanners and Engineers2300 Berkshire Lane N, Suite 200Plymouth, MN 55441763.559.9100 www.vaaeng.cominfo@vaaeng.com15028SUBMITTALPLANNING COMMISSIONDECEMBER 11, 2015 PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SITE UTILITY PLAN1.ALL EXISTING INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SURVEY BY GRONBERG &ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NUMBER 15-435, DATED NOVEMBER 24,2015 . BACKGROUND SURVEY ON THESE DRAWINGS IS FORREFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO SURVEY AS THE BASIS FOR ALLPROJECT WORK.2.SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BY MTMENVIRONMENTAL, INC. PROJECT NUMBER 2014.110 DATED JULY 28,2014.3.CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONSINCLUDING LOCATIONS OF EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATEUTILITIES, AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIORTO STARTING CONSTRUCTION.4.ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE TOREMAIN UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.5.CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE ALL EXISTINGIMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES THATARE TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ANY DAMAGE AT OWNEXPENSE.6.ALL WORK TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF MEDINA AND STATE OFMINNESOTA STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.7.ALL EXCAVATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OFOSHA 29 CFR, PART 1926, SUBPART P "EXCAVATIONS ANDTRENCHES". THIS DOCUMENT STATES THAT EXCAVATION SAFETY ISTHE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.8.CATCHBASINS AND MANHOLES ARE SHOWN ON PLAN LARGER THANACTUAL SIZE. COORDINATE LOCATION OF MANHOLE COVER ANDCASTING SO THAT IT IS PROPERLY LOCATED AT THE BACK OFCURBLINE FOR THE CURB INLETS OR CENTERED IN THE AREA ASSHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR THE AREA DRAINS AND MANHOLECOVERS.9.FLARED END SECTIONS (FES) ARE SHOWN ON PLAN LARGER THANACTUAL SIZE. ALL PIPE LENGTHS INCLUDE FES.CONTRACTOR/SURVEYOR TO STAKE THE END OF FES FORLOCATION.10.PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AT STREETS AND SIDEWALKS PERCITY OF MEDINA AND MMUTCD REQUIREMENTS.11.ANY WORK PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIESMUST BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND ALL REGULATINGGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND APPROPRIATE PERMITS MUST BEOBTAINED.GENERAL NOTESUTILITY NOTES1.ALL UTILITY DEMOLITION AND/OR ABANDONMENT TO BEPERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF MEDINA AND STATE OFMINNESOTA REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS.2.EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATELOCATIONS. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALLEXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES WHICH MAY INCLUDE BUTIS NOT LIMITED TO: ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, GAS, CABLE TV,COMPUTER CABLE, FIBER OPTIC CABLE, SANITARY SEWER, STORMSEWER AND WATERMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT 811 BEFOREEXCAVATING.3.REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENTS TRACKED OR OTHERWISEDEPOSITED ONTO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PAVEMENT AREAS.REMOVAL SHALL BE ON A DAILY BASIS THROUGHOUT THEDURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. CLEAN PAVED ROADWAYS BYSHOVELING OR SWEEPING. STREET WASHING IS ALLOWED ONLYAFTER SHOVELING OR SWEEPING HAS REMOVED SEDIMENT. SEECITY OF MEDINA STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS4.PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM COVER OVER THE TOP OF PIPEAS FOLLOWS:A.8.0' OVER WATERMAINB.8.0' OVER SANITARY SEWERC.1.5' OVER STORM SEWER1C3.0SITE UTILITY PLAN 10'20'30'1"=10'CATCH BASIN/MANHOLEREMARKSSTORM SEWER SCHEDULESIZEGRATE TYPE(NEENAH)CB-2R-3067-VBINLET2' X 3'48"STMH-3R-1642SOLID COVER96"CB-448"CB-5R-3067-VB2' X 3'STMH-1R-1642SOLID COVERALL EXISTING INFORMATION INCLUDINGALL UTILITY INVERTS SHALL BE FIELDVERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONSEE ARCHITECTURAL FOR DETAILSFOR BUILDING FOUNDATION DRAINTILECONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE POSITIVEDRAINAGE AT ALL LOCATIONS WHEREPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MATCH INTOEXISTING. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFYENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIESINLETINLETR-1792-FGFD-6R-4937-B6" PIPEINLET
ISSUED FOR15028ATS&R PROJECT NO.SHEET NUMBERSUBMITTALPLANNING COMMISSIONSHEET NAMEDECEMBER 11, 2015 ISSUE DATECHECKED BYDRAWN BYCONSULTANTSWEB: www.atsr.comFAX: 763.525.3289TEL: 763.545.3731SUITE 300MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554278501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROADPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED FOR15028ATS&R PROJECT NO.SHEET NUMBERSUBMITTALPLANNING COMMISSIONSHEET NAMEDECEMBER 11, 2015 ISSUE DATECHECKED BYDRAWN BYCONSULTANTSWEB: www.atsr.comFAX: 763.525.3289TEL: 763.545.3731SUITE 300MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554278501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROADPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Hamel Brewing Page 1 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: January 7, 2016
MEETING: January 12, 2016 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Hamel Brewing – Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review –
22 Hamel Road – Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Review Deadline: February 14, 2016
Overview of Request
22 Hamel Road LLC has requested a Site Plan Review for construction of a structure to include a
bar, brewery, and food service at 22 Hamel Road. The applicant also requests a conditional use
permit for an outdoor dining, drinking, and entertainment area as an accessory use.
An aerial of the subject site can be found below.
Hamel Brewing Page 2 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
The subject site is located on the east end of Hamel, northwest of the intersection of Hamel Road
and Brockton Lane. The site is currently vacant with a number of trees around the perimeter.
The site falls towards the railroad tracks to the north. The City approved a Site Plan Review for
an apartment building for this property over a year ago, which has expired and is null and void.
Proposed Site Plan
The applicant proposes to construct a building of approximately 5,316 square feet. The main
level would contain the bar and food service area. The basement is proposed to include brewing
operations, storage for the bar, and utility space. A second level 450 square foot “mezzanine” is
proposed for additional seating.
The applicant proposes to construct 24 parking spaces behind the building, with the entrance/exit
access drive to the east of the building. The building is proposed to include a deck to the west
and north of the building.
Proposed Uses
Bars and restaurants are allowed service uses in the Uptown Hamel-2 district.
“Brewing, distilling, and similar uses, provided such production does not exceed 50% of the
floor area and provided such activities are accessory to on-site sales or consumption” is a
permitted accessory use. The brewing operation is proposed to occupy less than 50% of the floor
area.
“Outdoor dining, drinking, or entertainment area” is listed as a conditional use in the district.
Setbacks / Hardcover
The following table summarizes the lot requirements of the Uptown Hamel-2 district in
comparison to the proposed site plan.
UH-2 District
Requirement
Proposed
Min. Front Yard Setback Zero 10 feet
Max. Front Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet
Min. Side Yard Setback Zero, or 8 feet if openings 5 feet (west-deck)
14 feet (west – building)
26 feet (east)
Min. Rear Yard Setback “amount determined
necessary by city”
155 feet (north)
Max. Impervious Surface 90% 82% (incl. deck)
Building Height 3 stories 2 stories
The building meets the dimensional standards.
Building Materials and Design
The proposed structure is a partial two-story building with a sloped shingle roof designed to
appear similar to a barn appearance. The applicant proposes fiber-cement lap siding.
Hamel Brewing Page 3 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
The UH-2 district code states that exterior materials shall consist of one or more of the
following: natural brick, stucco, stone, wood and glass. Treated or anodized metal may be used
for trim.
Fiber cement siding is not listed as a permitted material, but was recently added in the rural
commercial/business holding districts. Staff does not oppose the material in the Uptown Hamel
area, as the appearance is similar to wood, which is an allowed material, and maintenance
requirements are lower than for wood. Staff would recommend amending the zoning code to
allow for the material if the Planning Commission and Council support the material.
If the Planning Commission and Council do not support the material, the applicant could utilize
“smartboard” siding for a similar appearance.
The following requirement is included in the UH-2 district related to building design:
“Fenestration – Modulation. Windows and openings shall be generous, especially on the street
side, and their placement and design shall express the pedestrian friendly, livability of the town
center… Buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet in frontage to avoid long,
monotonous building walls. This modulation may include varying building height, building
setback, or building materials/design. At the street level, at least 30 percent of the façade should
be glass in windows and doors.”
The first floor of the proposed building includes a fair amount of window coverage,
approximately 48% of the linear footage or 37% of the area. Because the site slopes to the north,
much of the basement is exposed to the front. The basement includes the brewery function and
utility uses, so there are limited windows on the basement level. The Planning Commission and
Council may wish to discuss the windows on the first level if they meet the “street level”
window requirements.
The applicant proposes a solid privacy fence towards Hamel Road for the deck to the west of the
building. The Planning Commission and Council may discuss whether this is inconsistent with
the window fenestration requirements or whether a more open fence is more consistent.
The proposed structure is approximately 68’x50’, so would only require a single element of
modulation on each elevation. The proposed building does include elements of modulation from
the front, with various rooflines and an overhang over the door. The eastern and western also
include elements of modulation.
Porches or Overhangs
The Uptown Hamel district states that: “Porches, which overhang into walks, are one of Uptown
Hamel’s trademarks. These features should be preserved, enhanced, and improved. New
commercial structures on Hamel Road and Sioux Drive are expected to be designed and
constructed with these features.”
The proposed structure includes a small overhang over the front door as well as overhangs on the
east and west elevations. Incorporating a street-level porch is complicated by the elevated first
floor elevation. The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss if the proposed
overhang over the front door meets the intent of the district.
Hamel Brewing Page 4 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Stormwater and LID Review
The Uptown Hamel area is served by public stormwater improvements which were constructed
and the cost of which partially assessed to properties in the area. A mainline is located along the
east of the subject site and also to the north. The applicant proposes to add catch basins to this
mainline in order to direct water into the system. The City Engineer has provided review
comments, and staff recommends that compliance with these comments be included as a
condition of approval.
The stormwater pipe on the southeastern portion of the property is not centered in the existing
utility easement. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant provides an easement over the
pipe.
Access/Driveway/Parking
The applicant proposes an access drive on the eastern edge of the property. This access will be
offset slightly from Brockton Lane. Ideally, this access would be lined up with Brockton Lane,
but the applicant does not control the property to the east in order to do so. The City Engineer
believes the location is close enough that the proposed offset will cause concerns.
According to the survey, it appears that a portion of the street and sidewalk is located outside of
the platted right-of-way. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant grants a right-of-way
easement in a width recommended by the City Engineer.
As noted above, the applicant proposes 24 parking spaces in the rear of the building. City Code
would require 1 parking space per 3 seats in the bar plus 1 parking space per 2000 square feet of
manufacturing, for a total of 50 parking spaces. Staff believes that it makes sense to account for
two additional “curbside” spaces for the food service use as well, for a total of 52 required
spaces. The Uptown Hamel regulations allow flexibility to off-street parking requirements. The
code requirements are as follows:
“Off – Street Parking. Flexibility in the number of required off-street parking spaces and
loading facilities is allowed in [Uptown Hamel] because: 1) many parcels were developed
prior to enactment of parking and loading requirements; 2) some parcels are small; 3) some
parcels have little open space; and 4) there is a need to retain continuity of buildings
fronting on Hamel Road and in the future on Sioux Drive, and there is a preference for
“infill” on Hamel Road to be buildings, not parking lots or structures.
In providing this flexibility, the city will consider the use and need for parking, the amount of
off-street parking that is being provided, the amount of nearby onstreet parking, any nearby
public parking lots, peak parking demands for the use, joint use of parking facilities, and
other relevant factors. In granting a parking reduction, concern for the overall benefits to the
Uptown Hamel district will be considered as well as use and enjoyment of adjacent
properties and economic impacts.
The city council may establish and allow a fee in lieu of required parking to be paid towards
the full number of off-street parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. The proceeds
of this fee shall be utilized by the city to achieve alternative parking solutions in the Uptown
Hamel Districts. This fee shall be established under the then-current city fee schedule.”
Hamel Brewing Page 5 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Some on-street parking is available along Hamel Road; approximately 25 spaces within 500 feet.
Many of the current uses along Hamel Road are offices, which will tend to have different peak
needs than Hamel Brewing. The exception to that is Inn Kahoots, to the southwest, which can be
expected to have the same peak parking needs.
There is additional public parking available in lots approximately 1000 feet away from the
property, south of Hamel Road and west of Mill Street. Unfortunately, the subject site is fairly
distant from the public parking lot.
Staff encouraged the applicant to look for opportunities for shared parking on other properties as
well, but the applicant has not confirmed whether they have done so.
The Planning Commission and City Council should determine if adequate off-street parking has
been provided for the proposed use, taking into consideration the flexibility permitted in the
Uptown Hamel area.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
There are 11 significant trees located along the perimeter of the subject site. The applicant
proposes to remove 9 of the trees to accommodate the proposed construction. Many of these
trees are Ash and Elm trees and there is spruce closer to the street. The applicant made efforts to
preserve the two largest Black Walnut trees on the site.
The City’s tree preservation ordinance would require replacement for removal in excess of 4
trees (plus an additional tree if necessary for street/utility construction, which is not the case
here). The ordinance requires inch:inch replacement, or 48 inches in this case. The applicant
proposes 2 overstory trees and an ornamental tree as part of their landscaping plan, along with a
large assortment of shrubs. The overstory trees would provide 6 inches towards replacement.
The applicant has requested that the City consider a waiver of the remaining replacement
requirements. The Tree Preservation ordinance states that “a waiver of the number of Trees
required to be replaced, may be granted by the city council, in its full and absolute discretion, on
a case-by-case basis for circumstances where the applicant has exhausted all reasonable design
options for the Development Site.” The ordinance requires that the applicant implement best
management practices to avoid tree impacts. The applicant claims to have realigned the site to
avoid the large Black Walnut trees. It should also be noted that the Uptown Hamel districts
contemplate denser urban development which makes it difficult to preserve scattered trees on a
site.
The Uptown Hamel districts require a minimum of 5% of the site to be landscaped. The
applicant’s plan includes landscaping on approximately 18% of the site.
Lighting
The applicant proposes four parking lot lights and it appears that fixtures are also proposed along
the building. The fixtures appear to match the street lights in Uptown Hamel very well. The
fixtures are required to be downcast and the applicant will be required to submit photometrics
confirming light does not exceed 0.2 Foot Candles at the property line after curfew.
Hamel Brewing Page 6 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Loading Docks
Loading docks are optional in Uptown Hamel, but “access to adequately handle materials must
be provided on the site. A rear entrance for loading area is favored over loading area from the
side or front. Loading docks, if provided, shall have a nine-ton capacity, dustless, all-weather
surface and shall not be located on the street side of a building.”
The applicant proposes to construct a loading dock along the eastern side of the building.
Originally, the applicant had requested that the dock be considered from Hamel Road in order to
accommodate limited semi deliveries, but staff encouraged the applicant to look for options
which were not on the street side of the building.
Wetlands/Floodplains
No wetlands or floodplains are located on the site or adjacent, and there are no impacts.
Trash/Recycling/Mechanical Equipment
The Uptown Hamel district requires that “All…recycling and trash shall be kept inside the
principal buildings or within a completely screened area. If a completely screened area is used it
must 1) be architecturally compatible with and made of the same or better material used on the
principal building, and 2) meet the architectural and development standards of the district.”
The applicant proposed a screened area near the loading dock. Materials are required to be
compatible with the building. Because the deck will sit above the trash enclosure, it may be
advisable to include a roof structure.
The applicant also proposes mechanical equipment (transformer, condensers) in this area north
of the building. This area will be fairly well screened by the building, deck, and trash enclosure.
The equipment may be visible from the parking lot and deck, but screening is generally required
from views off of the site.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant proposes a deck to the west and north of the building as an outdoor dining,
drinking, and entertainment area, which is a conditional use in the district. The use is subject to
the general CUP criteria of 825.39 (summarized on attached) and also by specific standards in
the Uptown Hamel district. The City may also attached conditions upon the use in order to
mitigate negative impacts. Following is a summary of the specific standards and potential
findings for each:
i) Shall be allowed only in connection with a restaurant or bar which has inside seating for
at least 20 people. Roof-top dining is encouraged and must have suitable access and
safety measures for patrons and employees.
The inside restaurant/bar shows capacity of 96 people and is proposed on a deck,
not a roof-top.
ii) The outdoor dining/drinking/entertainment area shall not be larger than one-half of the
inside seating area.
The inside restaurant/bar shows capacity of 96 people and the proposed outdoor
area shows seating for 48 people, exactly half of the inside area. In terms of
square footage, it appears that the outside area does exceed ½ of the inside seating
Hamel Brewing Page 7 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
area. The applicant believes seating capacity is the more relevant factor than
square footage. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss if a condition
limiting outdoor seating to 48 people meets this condition.
iii) The outdoor dining/drinking/entertainment area shall be delineated by decorative
fencing, landscaping, building walls or some combination of these or similar features,
and may be included in the green space areas with the use of pervious surface materials.
The applicant proposes a privacy fence on the west and south of the outdoor
seating area and a split-rail fence to the north. The privacy fence on the west
likely makes sense to minimize visual and sound impacts to the west. As noted
above, staff believes it may be advisable to consider a transparent fence along
Hamel Road instead of a privacy fence to provide a sense of fenestration.
iv) If the sale of intoxicating liquor is inside, the outside area may be required to have all
access to the space from only inside the principal building.
This matter will be reviewed in relation to liquor licensing requirements.
v) The establishment’s hours of operation may be limited and noise reduction measures may
be required in order to minimize impact on surrounding land uses.
The Planning Commission and Council may discuss whether such conditions are
appropriate. If such condition is not enacted, a condition may allow the condition
to be re-evaluated depending upon complaints.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed
construction for consistency with City regulations. The City “may condition its approval in any
manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to
achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which
the property is located.”
The main question with regards to the site plan is whether proposed parking is adequate for the
proposed use. Staff believes the criteria for the outdoor seating area have been met.
If the Commission and Council believe that adequate parking is provided (as a result of the
flexibility permitted in the Uptown Hamel area), staff would recommend approval with the
following conditions to ensure compliance with relevant City regulations:
1) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer’s comments dated
12/23/2015
2) Improvements shall be installed as shown on the plans dated 12/30/2015 except as
modified herein.
3) Approval of the Site Plan shall be contingent upon an amendment to the zoning code to
add fiber-cement lap siding as a permitted exterior building material in the district.
4) Outdoor seating shall be limited to 48 people.
5) The City may enact noise reduction conditions if deemed necessary in the future
following notice to the property owner
Hamel Brewing Page 8 of 8 January 12, 2016
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
6) The applicant shall grant an easement over the existing stormsewer pipe on the eastern
side of the property and an easement for right-of-way purposes as recommended by the
City Engineer.
7) The applicant shall provide photometrics on all exterior lighting in compliance with
lighting regulations. All fixtures shall be downcast to limit light trespass onto adjacent
property.
8) The trash enclosure materials shall be consistent with the proposed building.
9) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the site plan review, conditional use permit and other relevant
documents.
Potential Action
If the Planning Commission finds that adequate provisions have been made for parking and that
other relevant regulations are met, the following motion would be in order:
“Move to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit subject to
the conditions described in the staff report.”
Attachments
1. Conditional Use Permit Standards
2. Document List
3. Engineering comments dated 12/23/2015
4. Applicant Narrative
5. Plans received by the City 12/30/2015
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
Section 825.39. Conditional Use Permits; Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits. In
granting a conditional use permit, the Medina City Council shall consider the advice and
recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the
City Council shall consider the following:
Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially
diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The specific criteria for outdoor seating area allows the City to require compliance with conditions which will mitigate impacts of the area on adjacent property. The applicant
proposes a privacy fence to the west and limiting seating to 48 people. The Planning
Commission and City Council should discuss if any other conditions are warranted.
Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the outdoor seating area will impede development on adjacent property.
Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have
been or are being provided. Staff does not believe the outdoor seating area affects utilities or drainage or other facilities
(with the possible exception of parking, which is discussed in the next criterion).
Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street
parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. As noted in the report, it does increase the parking need for the subject property, and the
applicant is already seeking flexibility for parking even for the inside seating. If the Planning
Commission and Council find that the flexibility sought for the inside and outside seating area
are appropriate, than this criterion would appear to be met.
Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive
odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result. The specific criteria for outdoor seating area allows the City to require compliance with conditions which will mitigate impacts of the area on adjacent property. The applicant
proposes a privacy fence to the west and limiting seating to 48 people. The Planning
Commission and City Council should discuss if any other conditions are warranted.
Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs
of the City and to the existing land use.
Outdoor seating areas are permitted in the district with a CUP.
Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the
zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Outdoor seating areas are permitted in the district with a CUP.
Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Outdoor seating areas are permitted in the district with a CUP.
Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the outdoor seating area will cause traffic concerns.
Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare
or general unsightliness. The specific criteria for outdoor seating area allows the City to require compliance with conditions which will mitigate impacts of the area on adjacent property. The applicant
proposes a privacy fence to the west and limiting seating to 48 people. The Planning
Commission and City Council should discuss if any other conditions are warranted.
Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant intends to construct in the spring of 2016.
Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning
Officer. Hennepin County records show that the applicant is the owner of the subject property.
Project: LR‐15‐173 – Hamel Brewery Site Plan Review and CUP The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 12/16/2015 12/16/20153 Application Y Application‐Updated 12/30/2015 12/30/20153 Application‐12‐30‐2015 N Fee 12/16/2015 12/10/20151 Fee Y $5000 Mailing Labels 12/31/2015 12/31/20151 Labels Y Narrative 12/15/2015 NA 2 Narrative Y Narrative‐Additional 12/30/2015 NA 1 Narrative‐Add‐12‐30‐2015 N Plans 12/15/2015 12/11/201512 Plans Y 12 pages + 4 pages color elev. Plans‐Updated 12‐30‐2015 12/30/2015 NA 2 UpdatedSheets‐12‐30‐2015 N L3.0 and Inside Seating Layout Plans‐Updated01‐05‐2016 01/05/2015 NA 1 UpdatedL30‐01‐05‐2016 N Sheet L3.0 Stormwater Report 12/15/2015 12/11/2015104 Stormwater Report Y Site Plan Review Checklist 12/15/2015 NA 3 Site Plan Review Checklist Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 12/23/20152 EngComments‐12‐23‐2015 Legal Comments 12/20/20151 Legal Comments Elm Creek Watershed Email 12/17/20151 Elm Creek – NoReview No Watershed Review required Building Official Comments 12/21/20151 Building Comments‐12‐21‐15 Police Comments 12/16/20151 Police Comments No Comments Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Public Hearing Notice 12/31/2015 Notice
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\02712-720\Admin\Docs\Plan Submittal 121515\_2015-12-23 Hamel Brewery - Site Plan & Stormwater Review Comments - Final.docx
December 23, 2015
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Hamel Brewery Site Plan Submittal: City Project No. LR-15-173
WSB Project No. 02712-720
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the updated site plan submittal for the proposed Hamel Brewery site. The plans
propose to construct one new building structure at 22 Hamel Road. Documents provided for review
include civil site and grading plans dated 12/11/15, and stormwater management plan dated 12/11/15.
The plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering
standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to
engineering and stormwater management matters.
1. No permit is required from ECWMC as the project is less than their review threshold.
2. The site is tributary to Elm Creek. The south portion of the site is tributary to the City’s
existing regional storm sewer system, which is a 24-inch pipe that discharges to an
existing regional pond west of the development in Rainwater Park.
3. Based on the LiDAR information, it appears that approximately an additional 100-feet
west of the site is tributary to the development. This additional offsite runoff should be
incorporated into the HydroCAD models.
4. The City generally does not allow hard cover in side yard drainage and utility easements.
The proposed development will have improvements within the drainage and utility
easement.
5. Water quality BMPs are not required as the area was included in the sizing calculations
for the existing regional pond downstream of the site.
6. Connections to the existing storm sewer piping shall be made with a manhole structures;
no direct connections allowed. A storm sewer manhole should be added at the connection
to the existing 24” storm sewer from FD-6.
Site Plan Review – Hamel Brewery
December 23, 2015
Page 2
K:\02712-720\Admin\Docs\Plan Submittal 121515\_2015-12-23 Hamel Brewery - Site Plan & Stormwater Review Comments - Final.docx
7. Provide drainage and utility easement for existing storm sewer where existing D&U
easement does not fully encompass the pipe.
8. Note size and type of existing sanitary sewer service, existing water services, and storm
sewer piping in and around the site. Expand view of plan to show nearest fire hydrant.
9. Note two benchmarks on the plan.
10. Verify location of shut-off for the 6-inch water service stub. If the shut-off is located
within the proposed granite stairway, it will need to be moved/added to a location at least
5’ from the stair structure.
11. City standard plates should be added in place of the “VAA” plates. Provide typical
section detail for concrete entrance apron.
12. Proposed grading contours and/or point grades should be amended so that runoff does not
overtop the retaining wall from the east side.
13. Proposed grading along the eastern side of the site appears to be steeper than 3:1. Amend
the proposed grading or add a retaining wall so that the slope is 3:1 or flatter.
14. Show more grade percentages along curb lines and between contours.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
To: City of Medina Planning and Zoning Department
Enclosed is the additional information requested for the conditional use permit for Hamel
Brewing Co. project. The conditional use permit is addressing the shortage of parking as required
by zoning code.
Parking:
We are finding that our proposed parking along with on street parking will satisfy our parking
needs. With the desired urban frontage for the site and other limiting factors on-site parking is
limited to 24. The remainder of required spaces needed, will be found in the adjacent city street
frontage and parking lots. We believe these available spots will adequately support the tap
room/restaurant.
Parking Summary:
Parking required by zoning (1 space/3 seats in taproom/restaurant) - 144 Seats/3=48 parking
spaces. Parking for Industrial brewing operations(1 stall per 2,000 SF or Workers on largest
shift) – 2 spaces. The uses are going to be used at different times so we are expecting our max
parking need to be in the taproom/restaurant. Requiring 48 total spaces.
Parking Provided on site – 24 spaces
Remainder of public parking available: 25 spaces in 600 ft, There are 125 more public parking
spaces if you expand the distance to 1000 ft. from site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dominic E Fragomeni
22 Hamel Road LLC
12/11/2015
Update on Page 1 of 2 January 12, 2016
Comp Plan Update Process Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: January 8, 2016
MEETING: January 12, 2016 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process
Background
The City began the process of the decennial update of the Comprehensive Plan in September. To
date, activities include:
• September 18, 2015 – Metropolitan Council releases System Statement, beginning
process
• September 20, 2015 – City holds “kick-off event” at Celebration Day
• September and October 2015 – City solicits members for a steering committee to lead the
process; City Council appoints members
• October 29 – Steering Committee holds first meeting
• November 9, 2015 – City holds Visioning Event to inform the Vision Statement
• November 19, 2015 – Steering Committee puts together draft Vision Statement
• December 15, 2015 – Concurrent City Council and Planning Commission meeting to
discuss Vision Statement
• January 6, 2016 – Steering Committee amends Vision and suggests Community Goals to
support the Vision
Throughout this process, the City has been encouraging feedback on the Vision through email
blasts, the City Newsletter, and an online engagement tool called mySidewalk. Members of the
Steering Committee and Council have also been encouraged to try to engage neighbors.
Vision and Goals
The Planning Commission reviewed a previous draft of the Vision Statement at the concurrent
meeting with the City Council on 12/15/2015. The Steering Committee has subsequently
adjusted the statement and also added a number of overarching Community Goals to support and
add more depth to the vision.
The DRAFT Vision and Community Goals are attached. Planning Commissioners are
encouraged to provide feedback prior to the meeting or at the meeting.
Language is obviously very important in these documents, and we will be continuing to enhance
the language. More important at this point in the process are the goals themselves…whether
people disagree with the aspects of the vision and goals and whether people think additional
matters should be added.
Update on Page 2 of 2 January 12, 2016
Comp Plan Update Process Planning Commission Meeting
Land Use Concepts/Density Discussion
At their January 6 meeting, the Steering Committee discussed Metropolitan Council
requirements and the interplay between residential densities, amount of land area required to be
developed, and planning for higher density residential development.
The attached presentation was put together by Eric Zweber, the consultant assisting the City with
the public participation process of the Comprehensive Plan. The presentation describes the
Metropolitan Council requirements and provides examples of residential developments at various
densities. It also conceptually shows how different minimum density standards affect how the
City may plan future land uses in the community.
The Steering Committee generally favored increasing the minimum density for high-density
residential land uses in order to reduce the amount of acreage which is necessary to be guided for
such growth.
The Steering Committee will be reviewing conceptual land use maps more specifically in early
February.
Feedback Encouraged
The Planning Commission need not take any action on the attached information, but is
encouraged to provide feedback.
Attachments
1. DRAFT Vision Statement and Community Goals
2. Presentation Re: Met Council requirements and density
Vision Statement
Medina is one community. The City will strive to maintain its unique heritage by
promoting and protecting its rural character and its natural environment. Medina will
foster well-designed neighborhoods and create retail and other destinations for the
community to gather. The City will develop in a deliberate fashion in which the pace of
development will be commensurate with the resources available from investments in
services and infrastructure and sustain a high quality of life for residents.
Community Goals
Limit expansion of urban services to the area necessary to accommodate forecasted
residential growth and desired business opportunities.
Develop at a sustainable pace which does not exceed investments in school,
transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure.
Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire
community.
Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of prices to support residents at
all stages of their life.
Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.
Preserve and promote the rural vistas, open spaces and rural character in all areas of the
community.
Page - 4 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – MEDINA INTRODUCTION
Specific strategies for Emerging Suburban Edge communities and Diversified Rural communities can
be found on Medina’s Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook.
Forecasts
The Council uses the forecasts developed as part of Thrive to plan for regional systems. Communities
should base their planning work on these forecasts. Given the nature of long-range forecasts and the
planning timeline undertaken by most communities, the Council will maintain on-going dialogue with
communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that
may have an impact on regional systems.
The Thrive forecasts for population, households, and employment for your community are:
2010 (actual) 2014 (est.) 2020 2030 2040
Population 4,892 5,831 6,300 7,300 8,400
Households 1,702 1,961 2,300 2,840 3,400
Employment 3,351 4,823 4,980 5,300 5,500
Housing Policy
The Council adopted the Housing Policy Plan on December 10, 2014, and amended the plan on July 8,
2015. The purpose of the plan is to provide leadership and guidance on regional housing needs and
challenges and to support Thrive MSP 2040. The Housing Policy Plan provides an integrated policy
framework to address housing challenges greater than any one city or county can tackle alone.
Consistent with state statute (Minn. Stat. 473.859, subd. 2(c) and subd. 4), communities must include a
housing element and implementation program in their local comprehensive plans that address existing
and projected housing needs.
The Council has also determined the regional need for low and moderate income housing for the
decade of 2021-2030 (see Part III and Appendix B in the Housing Policy Plan).
Medina’s share of the region’s need for low and moderate income housing is 253 new units affordable
to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI) or below. Of these new units, the need is for
147 affordable to households earning at or below 30% of AMI, 106 affordable to households earning
31% to 50% of AMI, and 0 affordable to households earning 51% to 80% of AMI.
Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Medina
At or below 30% AMI 147
31 to 50% AMI 106
51 to 80% AMI 0
Total Units 253
Specific requirements for the housing element and housing implementation programs of local
comprehensive plans can be found in the Local Planning Handbook.
Page 10 of 35
Continue to next page Continue to next page
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT CURRENT HANDBOOK
Projected housing needs
For this update we will address
the need for low- and moderate-
income housing within three bands of
affordability.
For this update we have increased
the minimum densities to support
affordable housing development but
also provided additional flexibility in
meeting this requirement.
1. “Acknowledge your community’s share of the region’s need for
affordable housing at three bands of affordability: <30% AMI,
31-50% AMI, and 51-80% AMI.
2. Guide residential land at densities sufficient to create
opportunities for affordable housing using one of the following
options:
• Option 1: Guide sufficient land at minimum residential densities
of 8 units/acre to support your community’s total allocation of
affordable housing need for 2021 – 2030. This option may be
best for communities that find it difficult to support densities of
12 units/acre (per Option 2), or prefer simplicity over flexibility in
their density minimums.
• Option 2: Guide sufficient land at minimum residential densities
of:
• 12 units/acre to address your communities allocation of
affordable housing need at <50% AMI. This combines your
community’s allocation at <30% AMI and 31-50% AMI.
• 6 units/acre to address your community’s allocation of
affordable housing need at 51-80% AMI.
Option 2 may be best for communities that feel they can achieve
affordable housing needs at 51-80% AMI with less than 8 units/
acre. It also allows the affordable housing need to be addressed
with less actual land, as is the case if communities choose to use
even higher densities than are required. Furthermore, communities
using Option 2 may guide land to meet their allocation of affordable
housing need at 51-80% AMI using a minimum density range of
3-6 units/acre if they have demonstrated in the last 10 years the
application of programs, ordinances, and/or local fiscal devices
that led to the development of housing affordable at 51-80% AMI in
their community. Examples include: density bonuses for affordable
housing unit inclusion, local funding programs such as TIF, etc.”
Previous Handbook:
“Goals and policies should address the need to add low- and moderate-
income affordable housing…”
Page 11 of 35
Page - 5 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – MEDINA INTRODUCTION
Figure 1. Medina Community Designation
Page 12 of 35
NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY LOCAL PLANNING HANDBOOK
Net density is important in ensuring the region’s orderly and efficient growth, and to provide essential services that
benefit the metro area. Communities and land within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) receive a higher
level of regional services and investments than those in the Rural Service Area, such as regional wastewater services,
regional highways, transit service, the Regional Parks System, and programs that support redevelopment. In return,
the Council expects jurisdictions in the MUSA to plan for and build the higher levels of development that economically
support those regional services.
The region is able to provide cost-effective infrastructure and services when it is able to anticipate where, when, and
to what extent growth will occur. The Council establishes overall density expectations for communities based on
their Community Designation with additional expectations near transit stations. Density thresholds are based on an
understanding of future regional growth, market demand in different parts of the region, existing development patterns
and redevelopment opportunities, existing planned land uses in local comprehensive plans, and regional policies to
support the concentration of higher density growth around transit stations.
Setting minimum average densities for new development
provides communities with the flexibility to determine which
areas in their community are best suited for higher or lower
density development under the framework of meeting that
overall minimum on available developable lands.
HOW DO WE CALCULATE NET DENSITY?
The Council measures minimum net density to support forecasted growth by taking the minimum number of planned
housing units and dividing by the net acreage. Net acreage does not include land covered by wetlands, water bodies,
public parks and trails, public open space, arterial road rights-of-way, and other undevelopable acres identified in or
protected by local ordinances such as steep slopes.
NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY GUIDELINES
What can be netted out from Gross Acres Important notes What cannot be netted out
Wetlands and Water Bodies Defined as public waters and
wetlands consistent with state
delineation practices, buffers may
also be included*
Setbacks from water bodies,
storm ponds, NURP ponds
Public Parks and Open Space Must be public or in permanent
open space (federal, state, regional,
local) or land held in perpetual open
space in an open space easement.
Privately held conservation
easements, private parks,
private trails
Arterial Road Rights-of-Way Arterial roads are part of the
metropolitan highway system
Arterial Road Right-of-Way
Local road rights-of-way
that are not part of the
metropolitan highway system
Other areas that are protected from
development by local ordinances
Floodplains, steep slopes, bluffs
*Areas protected or removed from development by local ordinance can be netted out
Metropolitan Council
390 Robert Street North
Saint Paul, MN 55101
metrocouncil.org
Main: 651.602.1000
TTY: 651.291.0904
Public Information: 651.602.1500
public.info@metc.state.mn.us
LOCAL PLANNING HANDBOOK
July 2015
Page 13 of 35
Steering Committee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Households and Forecasts
Units Development
1,702 Households as of 2010 Census
71 Permits issued since 4/1/2010 in
pre‐2010 subdivision
18 Vacant lots in Park Ridge Acres
2 Vacant lots in Bridgewater
5 Vacant lots in Tuckborough Ridge
6 Vacant Lots in Leawood Farms
224 Enclave Single Family Lots
129 Fields of Medina Single Family Lots
126 Reserve of Medina Single Family Lots
43 Villas Single Family Lots
15 Woodland Hill Single Family Lots
41 Enclave Townhomes
26 Dominum Rental Townhomes
2,408 Current Household Capacity
(12/31/2015)
3,400 Met Council 2040 Forecast
992 Minimum Households for 2040 Plan
Page 14 of 35
AGENDA ITEM III.
Steering Committee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Vacant Land Inventory
VACANT LAND WITHIN THE EXISTING MUSA
Land Use Type Gross Acreage Wetland
Acreage Net Acreage Minimum
Units
Rural Residential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Agriculture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
LD Residential 218.26 89.86 128.40 257
MD Residential 160.36 73.90 86.46 303
HD Residential 116.64 12.13 104.51 732
Mixed Use (9‐40) 331.58 63.19 268.39 470
Mixed Use ‐ Busi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Commercial 102.14 27.75 74.39 0
General Business 372.62 109.15 263.47 0
Industrial Business 43.13 14.02 29.11 0
Private Rec 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Parks and Rec 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
P‐R State or Region 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Open Space 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Public / Semi‐Public 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Sanitary Landfill 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Total 1,344.73 390.00 954.73 1,761
Page 15 of 35
Orono PlymouthCorcoran
IndependenceKatrina
Independence
Medina
Spurzem
Peter
School Lake
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Mooney
Krieg
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
HAMEL
PION
E
E
R
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19MEDINANAVAJO
HIGHWAY 55
TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT
COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE BROCKTONHOL
Y
N
AM
E
HACKAMORE
HOLLYBUSH
MORNINGSIDE HUNTERTAMARACKHIGH
W
A
Y
5
5
MEDINA MEDINAWILLOW
COUNTY ROAD 24
Loretto
Maple Plain
Independence
Maple GroveGreenfield
TOMAHAWKCHIPPEWA CHIPPEWA
COUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 101COUNTY ROAD 116MOHAWKARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 11
CLYDESDA
L
E
CLYDESDALE
EVERGREENCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHAMELWILLOWPIONEER
HAMEL
HIGHWAY 55
Last Amended: May 21, 2013 (CPA 2030-4)Adopted: November 17, 2009
UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83
Scale: 1:30,000[
Future Land Use Plan
*This map is not perfectly precise.Actual boundaries may vary, and should be field verified.
Map 5-2
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Guide Plan
Rural Residential
Agriculture
Developing-Post 2030
Low Density Res 2.0 - 3.49 U/A
Medium Density Res 3.5 - 6.99 U/A
High Density Res 7 - 30 U/A
Mixed Use 3.5 - 6.99 U/A
Mixed Use - Business 7 - 45 U/A
Commercial
General Business
Industrial Business
Private Recreation (PREC)
Parks and Recreation
P-R - State or Regional
Open Space
Public Semi-Public 0 U/A
Closed Sanitary Landfill
Right-of-Way
Page 16 of 35
AGENDA ITEM IV.
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
2030 Land Use Categories
LDR (Low Density Residential):
2.0 to 3.49 Units per Acre
128.40 Net Acres
MDR (Medium Density Residential):
3.5 to 6.99 Units per Acre
86.46 Net Acres
HDR (High Density Residential):
7.0 to 30 Units per Acre
104.51 Net Acres
MU (Mixed-Use):
3.5 to 6.99 Units per Acre
268.39 Net Acres
MU-B (Mixed-Use Business):
7.0 to 45.0 Units per Acre
0.00 Net Acres
Enclave
Gramercy
Fields of Medina
Hamel Condos
Page 17 of 35
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
2040 System Statement requires 253 affordable units between 2020 and 2030.
The Metropolitan Council requires that affordable housing land be either a minimum
of 8 units per acre or 12 units per acre.
Medina
Enclave Townhomes
7 units/acre
Plymouth
Cornerstone Townhomes
7 units/acre
Plymouth
Cascades Twinhomes
4.7 units/acre
253 units / 8 units/acre = 31.63 acres
253 units / 12 units/acre = 21.08 acres
50% more land required for 8 units/acre.
Page 18 of 35
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
What does High Density Residential look like?
Gramercy
10 units/acre
Medina Examples
Hamel Condos
30 units/acre
Plymouth Examples
Vicksburg Village
20 units/acre
Summer Wood
32 units/acre
Summer Creek
18 units/acre
Vicksburg Village (334 units on 16.32 acres) is 25% more Units
than Medina is required between 2020 and 2030.
Page 19 of 35
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
Current Density Ranges Does Not Match Housing Types
Bridgewater
2 units/acre
LDR: Currently 2.0 to 3.49 Units/Acre Proposed 2.0 to 4.99 Units/Acre
MDR: Currently 3.5 to 6.99 Units/Acre Proposed 5.0 to 11.99 Units/Acre
Plymouth Cornerstone Townhomes
7 units/acre
Enclave Townhomes
7 units/acre
Fields of Medina West
3.5 units/acre
Fields of Medina East
3 units/acre
Page 20 of 35
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
Current Density Ranges Does Not Match Housing Types
Gramercy
10 units/acre
Hamel Condos
30 units/acre
Vicksburg Village
20 units/acre
Summer Creek
18 units/acre
HDR: Currently 7.0 to 30.0 Units/Acre Proposed 12.0 to 30.00 Units/Acre
Page 21 of 35
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
A Mixed-Use District?
Land Use Unit Percentage Acreage Percentage
(2\3.5\8)
Acreage Percentage
(2/5/12)
Low Density ResidenƟal 40% 61.88% 70.18%
Medium Density ResidenƟal 30% 26.52% 21.05%
High Density ResidenƟal 30% 11.60% 8.77%
Increasing the Medium Density to 5 units/acre and High Density to 12 units/acre:
Increases Low Density land area by 8.30%
Decreases Medium Density land area by 5.47%
Decreases High Density land area by 2.83%
Mixed‐Use
2/3.5/8
Mixed‐Use
2/5/12
Minimum Density 3.09 3.51
Minimum HDR Units/Acre 0.93 1.05
IMPLEMENTATION:
Minimum Density and High Density Residential Units
Page 22 of 35
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
A Mixed-Use District?
Plymouth Example: Vicksburg Ln and Cty Rd 47
Overall Density: 5.9 units/acre Overall HDR : 0.8 units/acre
West View Estates
67 units
18 units/acre
Single Family
102 units
2.85 units/acre
Townhomes
280 units
7 units/acre
Vicksburg Commons
50 units
9 units/acre
Page 23 of 35
Steering CommiƩee
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Medina City Hall
Wednesday, January 6
5:30 p.m.
Density
THE RESULTS
AssumpƟons:
Minimum of 253 High Density ResidenƟal Units (Affordable Housing Requirement)
Minimum of 3.2 Units/Acre Overall Density (Allows for Comprehensive Plan Amendments)
Approximately 1,100 Units (Actual Units will be Greater)
Land Use Acres Density Units
Low Density ResidenƟal 180.80 2 362
Medium Density ResidenƟal 43.81 5 219
High Density ResidenƟal 16.48 12 198
Mixed ResidenƟal 86.69 2/5/12 304
Total ResidenƟal 327.78 3.30 1083
Affordable Units 289
Land Use Acres Density Units
Low Density ResidenƟal 98.48 2 197
Medium Density ResidenƟal 106.76 3.5 374
High Density ResidenƟal 35.85 8 287
Mixed ResidenƟal 86.69 2/3.5/8 268
Total ResidenƟal 327.78 3.43 1126
Affordable Units 367
Results (Same Land Area):
78 Less High Density Units (Almost a Gramercy)
89.5 More Acres for Low Density ResidenƟal (Single Family Homes)
Increase in Townhome and Apartment Units would
Result in Less Land Developed
Page 24 of 35