HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-14-2016 POSTED IN CITY HALL June 10, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of Draft Minutes for April 12, 2016 Planning Commission
meeting.
6. Public Hearing – Excelsior Group – 2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road –
PUD Concept Plan for a subdivision of 87 single family lots
7. Public Hearing – Clough Properties – 45 Highway 55 – Plat, Shoreland
Overlay Hardcover Variance, Site Plan Review
8. Potential Special Meeting: Wednesday, August 3, 2016
9. Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 June 7, 2016
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: June 1, 2016
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – June 7, 2016 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Deer Hill Preserve (Stonegate Farms) Final Plat – Property Resources Development Company has
requested final plat approval for the Deer Hill Preserve CD-PUD subdivision, formerly known as
Stonegate Farms. The first phase of the development is proposed to include 10 lots in the northeast
corner of the site, near the current termination of Deerhill Road. The City Council reviewed at the
April 5 meeting and directed staff to prepare approval documents after the applicant submits
adequate Conservation Easement and Land Stewardship documents. The applicant has now
requested that the City construct Deerhill Road through a 429 Assessment process. Staff has begun
preparing for this process, including preparation of necessary petition and waiver agreements.
B) Just for Kix Site Plan Review, Variance, Lot Combination –45 Highway 55 – Just for Kix has
requested approval of a Site Plan Review for construction of an 18,040 square foot building to
include a dance studio and retail. The applicant has requested a variance to increase the maximum
hardcover in the Elm Creek shoreland overlay district from 25% to 50% and also a lot combination
to combine the property annexed from the City of Plymouth. Staff is conducting a preliminary
review and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when complete, potentially
at the June 14 meeting.
C) Excelsior Group Concept Plan –2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – The Excelsior Group has
requested review of a Concept Plan for development of 87 single family lots west of the proposed
Wealshire site. The property is not within the current Staging period and the applicant seeks
flexibility to jump ahead one period. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the application
will be presented to the Planning Commission when complete, potentially at the June 14 meeting.
D) Jeffrey-Johnson Lot Line Rearrangement and Easement Vacation – 2605 and 2505 Willow Drive
– Glenn Jeffrey has requested approval of a rearrangement of the lot line between his and his
neighbor’s property. The Jeffrey’s propane tank is located on the Johnson property. The applicant
has also requested to vacate easements adjacent to the lot lines and replace with new easements.
Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to Council when ready, potentially at the
June 21 meeting.
E) LeJuene Lot Line Rearrangement – 2782 and 2820 County Road 24 – Larry and Jean LeJeune have
requested approval of a rearrangement of lot lines between two parcels they own. Staff is
conducting a preliminary review and will present to Council when ready, potentially at the June 21
meeting.
F) Clydesdale Marketplace Sign PUD Amendment – northeast corner of Highway 55 and Clydesdale
Trail. Clydesdale Marketplace LLC has requested an amendment to the Medina Clydesdale
Marketplace PUD in order to allow construction of a monument sign at the northeast corner of
Highway 55 and Clydesdale Trail. This sign would replace the sign on top of the large retaining
wall and provide additional space for more tenants. The City Council approved at the May 17
meeting and the project will now be closed.
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. The Met Council has also approved of the
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 June 7, 2016
City Council Meeting
previous Comp Plan amendment. The City Council granted approval at the May 3 meeting. Staff is
working with the applicant on the conditions of approval before construction begins.
H) Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery, Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels –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.
I) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– These preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting
a final plat application
J) Bradford Creek, Hamel Haven, Buehler subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final
approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction
begins.
Other Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan – The City held community meetings on May 14 and 16. Attendance was
strong, especially on Saturday when the Council Chambers were packed. The Steering Committee
met to discuss the feedback from the Community Meetings and continue working on the Land Use
Plan. Staff has also provided rough drafts of the Housing and Land Use chapters of the Plan for
review by the Steering Committee.
B) Cable Expansion Analysis – Planning staff continued assistance with the analysis related to
proposed cable construction for 2016.
C) DNR Stormwater Reuse Discussion – I attended a focus group regarding the appropriation permit
process for stormwater reuse for irrigation purposes. This is an extremely important topic for the
City because of our prohibition of using City water for irrigation in new developments. The DNR is
looking at establishing a “general permit” for irrigation reuse that would allow the City to regulate
the practice instead of requiring a state permit.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday April 12, 2016 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, 8
Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, and Janet White. 9
10
Absent: None. 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
Anderson reported that the City Council met the previous Tuesday to consider the Final Plat 21
approval for Deerhill Preserve on ten of the lots, which the Council approved subject to the 22
conditions recommended by staff and the signing of a Development Agreement and an 23
agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He advised that the Council also 24
considered a request to reduce sewer and water connection fees for the Wealshire of Medina 25
applicant, noting that the Council approved extending the repayment period from three years 26
to five years, but did not reduce the connection fees. He stated that the Council also approved 27
the advertisement of bids for the updating of the City Hall, which will include additional 28
restrooms, a conference room and expanded space for the planning department on the lower 29
level, as well as an updating of paint on the upper level. 30
31
4. Planning Department Report 32
33
Finke provided an update. 34
35
5. Approval of the March 8, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 36
37
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Barry, to approve the March 8, 2016, Planning 38
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 39
40
6. Public Hearing – Dellcroft – PUD Concept Plan for a Subdivision of 131 41
Single Family Lots and 30 Townhomes West of Arrowhead Drive, North and 42
South of Hamel Road 43
44
Finke presented a request for the Commission to review a Concept Plan for Dellcroft, noting 45
that the purpose is to provide input to the applicant prior to submission of a full application. 46
He stated that this Concept Plan is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 22 home 47
conservation design development on the 90 acres south of Hamel Road and 109 single family 48
and 30 townhome standard developments on the 65 acres north of Hamel Road. He stated 49
that both parcels are zoned rural residential in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the 50
conservation design PUD would provide additional flexibility in return for additional 51
conservation efforts, noting that approximately 30 percent of the buildable land south of 52
2
Hamel Road would be placed in conservation easements. He noted that a Comprehensive 53
Plan amendment would be needed for the parcel north of Hamel Road to allow for that 54
increased density and extension of City water and sewer utilities into the area currently 55
identified as rural residential. He provided additional details on the zoning and planned use 56
of the adjacent parcels of land. He displayed the proposed Concept Plan and provided 57
information on the proposed reguiding for the property, noting the items that the City should 58
consider when reviewing a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that the City is in the 59
process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and advised of upcoming public meetings, May 60
14th and 16th, where the public can provide input on the process. He reviewed the details of 61
the portion of development proposed to be north of Hamel Road, providing the proposed lot 62
sizes for the single-family homes and noting that the homes would surround a central open 63
space corridor of approximately 12 buildable acres which would include an active park. He 64
stated that the applicant is requesting a PUD to allow the mix of housing styles proposed and 65
to allow smaller lots within the property. He explained that the same number of homes 66
allowed under the R-1 zoning district would be proposed, but with smaller lots which would 67
help to create the 12 acres of open space. He stated that the net density proposed is 2.44, and 68
would be 3 units per acre if the open space area is not considered. He advised that 22 lots are 69
proposed for the parcel south of Hamel Road, but noted that if this moves forward, a wetland 70
delineation would need to be completed. He stated that in a conservation design PUD the 71
applicant would need to be protecting resources in return for increased flexibility and advised 72
that the Commission would need to provide input on that factor. He stated that the purpose of 73
this discussion is purely advisory to provide comments, as will the City Council at their 74
meeting the following week. 75
76
Albers asked if there are similar PUDs in Medina that the Commission could use as a 77
comparison. 78
79
Finke stated that perhaps the best comparison would be Wild Meadows but flipped. He noted 80
that the northern lots in Wild Meadows are a bit smaller than the lots proposed in the 81
conservation design PUD for this concept, and the southern portion of Wild Meadows has 82
similar lot sizes to the northern portion of this concept. He stated that the Deerhill Preserve 83
conservation design PUD is perhaps similar, as well, with the conservation design proposed 84
here, although these lots are a bit smaller than the Deerhill Preserve lots. 85
86
V. Reid asked the density bonus allowed in the Deerhill Preserve development. 87
88
Finke replied that the Deerhill Preserve received a density bonus of almost 200 percent. 89
90
Murrin stated that the property is currently zoned rural residential and asked what the guiding 91
of the property will be under the new version of the Comprehensive Plan that the City is 92
currently working on. 93
94
Finke replied that the conceptual land use of the property thus far is to remain rural 95
residential. 96
97
V. Reid stated that the goal is to have the update of the Comprehensive Plan completed in the 98
next year and asked the timing for potential development. 99
100
Finke stated that he would leave that response for the applicant, but noted that the applicant 101
fully recognizes that the City is in this process. 102
103
Paul Robinson, representing the applicant, provided background information on his 104
experience with development and municipalities, noting that he previously worked for the 105
3
City of Medina. He provided photographs and highlighted accomplishments of developments 106
that these partners have worked on in the City and surrounding communities, including 107
Foxberry Farms, Wild Meadows, Locust Hills, and Woodland Cove. He stated that the 108
common goal for these developments is to set aside as much open space as possible creating a 109
community with trails and open space that can be enjoyed by the residents. He stated that 110
they believe the majority of the traffic will come down Highway 55 and then Arrowhead 111
which would not impact residential neighborhoods and would instead come through the 112
commercial areas. He stated that they are requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to 113
bring the northern area of the proposed development into the urban service area and are 114
flexible with timing as they are aware that the City is currently updating that plan. He noted 115
that the southern area of the proposed development does not require a Comprehensive Plan 116
amendment and therefore they are simply requesting input on whether that would meet the 117
conservation design PUD criteria. He stated that the open space proposed for the north would 118
be 30 percent and 50 percent for the southern portion, for a total of 45 percent of the overall 119
area. He stated that the open space would create a connective greenway corridor which 120
would continue on to two open space areas considered significant by the City of Medina. He 121
reviewed the conservation efforts which would include restoration of the wetland areas and 122
establishment of buffers, which do not currently exist; the establishment of an oak savanna; 123
restoration of the woodlands, to the extent possible; and incorporation of native themes into 124
the landscaped areas. He stated that the conservation efforts would create a habitat for 125
wildlife and pollinators, as well as additional treatment for stormwater. He provided details 126
on the 2.8 miles of proposed trails and 1.5 miles of sidewalks, noting that the trails could also 127
connect to neighboring developments, but stated that the Blackfoot development was not very 128
excited about that potential connection. He noted that there would be a variation of five 129
different home product types that would range in value from $275,000 to $1,500,000. He 130
provided details on the proposed stormwater aspects, noting that many of the developments 131
that they have constructed have won awards for their stormwater treatment. He provided 132
details on the landscaping proposed, noting that there would be over 1,000 trees on this 133
project. He stated that this would create a high quality community with low impact 134
development and a variety of home products for buyers to choose from. He stated that they 135
are known to create high quality developments and that is their intent for this development as 136
well. He thanked the Commission for their time and welcomed their feedback. He noted that 137
they met with 12 of the neighbors of these parcels and received a range of responses from 138
supportive to non-supportive. He stated that they agree with the comments of staff that a 139
better buffer should be created between the north side of the property and the property to the 140
west. 141
142
R. Reid asked if the developer would be interested in doing the southern parcel of the 143
property if the northern parcels were not approved. 144
145
Robinson replied that they would need to consider that option and advised that the current 146
agreement with the property owner is for both parcels. 147
148
Murrin asked the reason for providing a wide range of home options and the large range of 149
diversity. 150
151
Robinson replied that the northern portion of the site would range from $270,000 to $500,000 152
or $600,000, while the southern portion of the development would have the higher range of 153
prices, explaining that the diversity would be split by the north south division. 154
155
Murrin asked if there was a reason that the developer does not want to just follow the Wild 156
Meadows model throughout the parcels. She also asked why the developer chose Medina. 157
158
4
Robinson stated that they were reading into the Comprehensive Plan to create some of the 159
housing specified such as workforce housing. He stated that Medina is a great place to build 160
because it has a great reputation with a great school district. 161
162
Albers stated that the developer went up to the limit of 100 percent density bonus and asked if 163
there was a consideration to not push the limit of the bonus and instead ask for a smaller 164
bonus. 165
166
Robinson explained that they are creating smaller lots in order to create a conservation 167
easement where they would spend additional funds on restoration. He stated that they will 168
take the input of the City to determine where the bonus could end up. 169
170
V. Reid stated that she has concern with the size of the park. 171
172
Robinson noted that there would be flexibility to change the size of the park. 173
174
V. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. 175
176
Paul Ohnsorg, 1475 Blackfoot Trail, stated that the neighbors share a lot of the same 177
concerns. He stated that they are concerned with the lighting in both developments, but 178
specifically the lower development, as the lighting would go out and up and the neighbors 179
value their view of the night sky. He was also concerned with traffic patterns on Hamel Road 180
and Hunter Drive because even though the developer stated that most of the traffic would 181
utilize Highway 55 and Arrowhead, some of the traffic would choose to use the other route. 182
He was also concerned with the trail system, noting that they would not like to see the 183
Blackfoot Trail connection as that would cause additional traffic into an area that is pretty 184
rural at this time. 185
186
Jeff Evanson stated that the property is currently zoned rural residential and also expected to 187
remain that way in the draft of the new Comprehensive Plan which extends to 2040. He 188
stated that as citizens they view the Comprehensive Plan as a critical document that lays out 189
the goals of the community and did not see a reason to review this Concept Plan while the 190
Comprehensive Plan is being updated. He noted that while the proposed development 191
complies with some elements of the Comprehensive Plan it does not comply with other 192
elements and therefore asked the Commission not to consider this rezoning request. He noted 193
that south of this property there is a concentration of over 30 herring nests and advised that 194
this development would significantly impact the flight patterns of those birds. 195
196
Michael Mergens, representing Greenwood Stables 2, stated that he understands that this is a 197
Concept Plan and his intent is to provide feedback to the developer. He stated that his clients 198
have made substantial financial investments into their property based on the fact that their 199
property is zoned rural residential and the property around them is zoned rural residential. He 200
stated that under that zoning, the expectation is at least five acres per home and this 201
development is not even close to meeting that specification of the Comprehensive Plan. He 202
stated that the increased level of density is not compatible with a horse farm and each and 203
every time he has seen that happen, the horse farm had to relocate. He stated that going from 204
one house per five acres to one house per quarter acre directly abutting the horse farm is not 205
appropriate. He stated that he was glad to see that the developer is open to creating a larger 206
buffer between the developed property and the horse farm, but noted that buffer would need 207
to be substantial and the lots would need to be larger. He stated that the proposed 208
development in no way matches the Comprehensive Plan and the City should consider the 209
intent of the Comprehensive Plan when reviewing requests. 210
211
5
John Turrittin, 1525 Blackfoot Trail, stated that he met with the developers the previous week 212
and had a nice conversation and appreciated the opportunity to provide direct input. He 213
stated that the Comprehensive Plan should guide development, rather than development 214
driving the Comprehensive Plan. He referenced the trail system to the southeast corner of the 215
development leading to his driveway, which is in no way a trail and would not work. He 216
wanted to ensure that there are adequate and significant buffers to properties adjoining this 217
development, both on the north and south. 218
219
David Crosby, 2402 Hamel Road, stated that most of the points he was going to make have 220
already been covered. He asked if there are any precedents for a development of this size 221
within Medina that are/were in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, not only as it exists, 222
but as it is proposed to move forward. He noted that the traffic on Hamel Road would be 223
significantly impacted. 224
225
V. Reid stated that there have been Comprehensive Plan amendments in the past few years, 226
although not for a housing development. 227
228
Jim Lane, 2605 Hamel Road, stated that he knows the applicants to be great developers and is 229
happy to welcome them back to Medina, but does not believe that this is the right location for 230
this development. He noted that he had submitted a letter to the City stating that he is 231
actively opposed to consideration of this project while the City is in the process of updating 232
the Comprehensive Plan, as a development of this size could have an impact on the process of 233
updating the Comprehensive Plan. He asked that the City ask the developer to withdraw their 234
request until after such time when the Comprehensive Plan has been submitted to the 235
Metropolitan Council. He stated that the north portion of this proposed development is not 236
only inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, but also with the draft 237
Comprehensive Plan. He believed that the northern and southern portions of the project 238
should be split up and considered separately. He was also concerned with the implications 239
that could occur in regard to the Wayzata School District, as intense growth will have 240
additional costs and growth needs for an already large school district. 241
242
V. Reid stated that as part of the Comprehensive Plan, Finke has met with the various school 243
districts to determine their needs and be respectful of their needs. 244
245
Kristin Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, echoed the comments of Mr. Lane and reminded the 246
Commission about the density issues and quality of what is being conserved in the proposed 247
conservation design PUD, noting that everything on this land is very low quality. She stated 248
that the Deerhill Preserve development has high quality resources which are being preserved, 249
and that is why the high-density bonus was provided. She commented that while the 250
developer has done a nice job of thinking about what would be important to the people that 251
would buy these homes; they did not do a good job of thinking about what is important to the 252
existing Medina residents in this rural area and the rural character of Medina. 253
254
Dan Strand, 1985 Hamel Road, stated that his property would abut the east line of the south 255
development. He pointed out that in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan under housing objectives; 256
it states that lots in new subdivisions should have frontage roads with direct access to a local 257
street and not a County road or State highway. He noted that 116 is a County road. He 258
referenced the south properties and asked, and received confirmation that those lots would 259
utilize septic systems and wells for sewer and water services. He had a safety concern with 260
the pressure of water on a tightly built community, noting that in case of fire there may not be 261
sufficient water pressure. He noted that with the homes tightly built, the fire could easily 262
jump and spread. He stated that he attended the 2030 Comprehensive Plan process and that 263
plan states that there will be no development for Hamel Road until sewer and water is 264
6
brought to the area, noting that there is no sewer and water for that area. He stated that the 265
plan for this development would be to connect to Highway 55 sewer and water and during the 266
2030 Comprehensive Plan process it was specified that connection to the Highway 55 sewer 267
and water would not be allowed. He stated that people invest in their property and with what 268
is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, explaining that people have invested in their property 269
with the understanding that this area will remain rural residential. He stated that the 270
Commission and Council are the gatekeepers of the community and asked that they do what 271
is right and stand up for what the people in the community want and have been told would be. 272
273
Beth Strand, 1985 Hamel Road, stated that they purchased their home in 1991 and moved to 274
Medina to have space and the rural character. She stated that in the Medina City Code, 275
Subdivision 5, Section 720, it states that two septic sites are required for new lots; she 276
received confirmation that two sites have been platted for each lot. She asked if the sites 277
would be a minimum of 75 feet away from the wetlands as specified; it was confirmed that 278
the developer believes so, but would have to confirm that figure. She noted that the 279
Comprehensive Plan specifies that the lots must be a minimum of five acres in the rural 280
residential zoning district and felt that the water character of the area would be negatively 281
impacted by this development. 282
283
Kristin Evanson, 3072 Willow Drive, stated that her biggest concerns are with the increased 284
traffic, as traffic from the south would utilize Willow Drive. She stated that she lives on a 285
horse farm and moved to this area because of the five-acre minimum lot size, with the belief 286
that Medina stood behind that minimum lot size. She stated that this development would 287
change the character of this area significantly, as people currently ride their horses and the 288
traffic would impact that ability. She noted that the greenway corridor identified by the 289
developer is not the path that the wildlife currently takes. She stated that she shutters at the 290
development north of Highway 55 and does not want this area to become like that. 291
292
Betty Goodman, 2495 Willow Drive, echoed the comments of the residents thus far who view 293
the project unfavorably. She stated that the traffic on Willow Drive is already stacked in the 294
mornings at County Roads 6 and 24 and believed that those problems would become worse 295
with this level of development. She stated that although the developer has stated that people 296
will go north to Arrowhead and Highway 55, people will want to go south too and will take 297
Willow Drive. 298
299
Chris Renier, 3392 Hamel Road, stated that she likes the comments thus far made by 300
residents. She stated that while it is tempting to get distracted by conversations about traffic 301
wildlife, or lot size, the bottom line is that this is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive 302
Plan and should be rejected on that basis alone. She commented that this is a terrible position 303
for the property owner of Greenwood Stables to be in as the only option would be for the 304
horse farm to sell and therefore that would increase this type of development in the area. 305
306
Kent Williams agreed with the comments that were made tonight and believed that this 307
development is a terrible idea for Medina. He stated that conceptually the Commission 308
would have to consider what the developer could get without the conservation design, which 309
would be 25 to 30 homes. He stated that then the Commission should consider what would 310
be better for the environment, to have 30 homes or 160 homes. He stated that the rezoning 311
and reasoning for that should be considered first, as the developer would be jumping from 30 312
homes to 160 which is far beyond the 200 percent density bonus allowed and the only way in 313
which the developer is able to do that is by rezoning. He stated that the Commission should 314
consider why the rezoning request for this property and whether that makes sense for the area 315
itself and the surrounding residents. He stated that once you get past the rezoning and 316
Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Commission would need to consider the conservation 317
7
design element, which would double the density to reach the overall number of houses, and 318
determine what would be conserved. He noted that in a conservation design, the developer 319
would be preserving an asset that exists on the lot and asked about the asset that is being 320
conserved as he has not heard that. He stated that there are trees proposed to be planted and 321
prairie grasses planted but noted that would be done with normal development. He stated that 322
this request makes no sense. He referenced the first applicant that came in with a request to 323
build three homes that was denied because it was not worth it and noted that this request is 324
now to build 160 homes. He believed that this is the time for the City to draw the line and 325
state that this rezoning does not make sense and this is not an appropriate use of the 326
conservation design PUD. 327
328
V. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. 329
330
V. Reid stated that even though this is presented as one application, the Commission could 331
consider the requests separately, as only one section would require a Comprehensive Plan 332
amendment. She suggested reviewing the northern portion of the development first. 333
334
White stated that she appreciated the developer’s ideas in regard to a variety of housing 335
which appears to be laid out well. She noted that it is a bit too dense and does not have 336
appropriate buffers. She stated that she would not support the rezoning of the parcel. She 337
referenced the southern half of the development and would not support a conservation design 338
because she did not feel that there were high quality views on the property and the best view 339
in that area is when you are driving on Hamel Road, which would not be preserved. 340
341
Murrin commented that she likes the development but has concerns with the location within 342
the City. She asked what the incentive was to change the zoning from rural residential and 343
how the City would benefit from adding a large number of homes that would place burdens 344
on the infrastructure and utilities which are already stressed. She stated that she has concerns 345
with the number of lots and would like to see fewer houses with bigger lots. She asked what 346
the City is getting in return for the conservation design density bonus and what is actually 347
being conserved, as well as the amount of buildable land being conserved. She believed that 348
the City should abide by the Comprehensive Plan and what has been guided for this area. 349
She stated that while she does like the development she does not believe that this is the 350
appropriate location, as it does not align with the goal and objectives for that rural residential 351
area. 352
353
Albers believed that the City would be better served if that area were to continue with rural 354
residential as zoned, which would allow 11 homes on the southern portion. He stated that in 355
regard to the parcel to the north, he agrees that the development would not be happy with the 356
neighboring horse farm and would complain and ultimately drive out that property owner. 357
He stated that he would not support amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. 358
359
Barry stated that the updating of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be the trigger for this type of 360
request. He stated that he would struggle to rezone this parcel as there are not new things 361
needed. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan would remain consistent, as this area has 362
been planned rural residential for the past 20 years and would continue. He noted that there 363
is nothing being conserved on the southern portion that would justify a conservation design 364
PUD and therefore that area should also remain under the current guiding for one home per 365
five acres. 366
367
R. Reid commented that there is a larger issue with the Comprehensive Plan, as both the 368
current and draft forms have an intent to preserve the rural character of the City, noting that 369
Hamel Drive is the most rural route in the City and should be preserved as such. She stated 370
8
that if the City goal is to remain with the Comprehensive Plan, than the last thing the City 371
should do is allow even low density residential into a rural residential area. She stated that it 372
can be tempting to allow a nice development, but noted that once that door is opened more 373
developers will come through. She noted that a lot of families have requested to develop 374
their properties and have been told no and therefore the City should have the courage to say 375
no. She stated that this is a test and the City needs to stand firm on their preservation of rural 376
residential. She stated that the City does not need this and would be sacrificing too much to 377
get this. 378
379
Foote stated that the northern portion is much too dense and the Comprehensive Plan process 380
needs to be continued as is. He stated that he does like the southern portion of the 381
development and noted that Wild Meadows is one of the best he has seen. He stated that he 382
would not support the northern portion of the development at all. He agreed that the 383
development would be a huge problem for the horse farm. 384
385
V. Reid stated that she agrees that the southern parcel of the development is separate. She 386
noted that a 200 percent density bonus is too much, but prefers thoughtful development as 387
opposed to sprawl. She stated that the northern parcel is tricky, as the City is updating the 388
Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the requirements of the Plan. She agreed that the 389
Comprehensive Plan should drive development and not vice versa. She stated that the reality 390
is that the City will need to do development, including some high-density development, and 391
acknowledged that the northern portion of the City has taken the brunt of that development. 392
She stated that she would not support the northern portion of the development. 393
394
V. Reid asked if the northern portion of the development would meet the requirements of the 395
Metropolitan Council. 396
397
Finke replied that the development would not fulfil the requirements of the Metropolitan 398
Council. 399
400
Finke commented that the Concept Plan will be presented to the City Council the following 401
Tuesday. He noted that this was the public hearing and although the Council may allow some 402
comments, it would not be to this extent. He stated that he was pleased to hear the interest in 403
the Comprehensive Plan and reminded residents of the public meetings that will occur on 404
May 14th from 9:30 a.m. to Noon and May 16th from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. 405
406
V. Reid briefly recessed the meeting at 8:41 p.m. 407
408
V. Reid reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. 409
410
7. Public Hearing – Clydesdale Market Place, LLC – Amendment to Planned Unit 411
Development Adjacent to 345 Clydesdale Trail to Construct a Larger Replacement 412
Monument Sign Closer to Highway 55 413
414
Finke presented a request to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Clydesdale 415
Market Place in regard to the signage, specifically to increase the size of the monument sign 416
at the southwest corner of the development. He stated that the proposed sign would be a 30-417
foot tall sign with over 300 square feet in total size. He noted that the current sign is 87 418
square feet in size. He stated that within the PUD two monument signs were approved for the 419
site and provided a photograph of the other approved sign which has a size of 120 square feet. 420
He noted that was the extent of signage allowed for the development. He explained that the 421
applicant is asking for the larger sign in order to provide additional visibility for the tenants 422
which are not listed on the current monument signs and do not have visible signage from the 423
9
roadway. He stated that there are 13 different occupants to the development and only 4 have 424
wall signage which is visible from the roadway. He noted that the terms of signage specified 425
in the PUD is more restrictive than what would be allowed for the development otherwise, as 426
each tenant could have an 80 square foot sign. He stated that this is a narrow amendment for 427
the overall PUD. He stated that the staff report states that staff generally supports an increase 428
in signage and concurs that the number of businesses is not supported by the current amount 429
of signage. He noted that the question would be the amount of increase, noting that the 430
maximum sign regulation allows for a 20-foot high sign and this request is for 30 feet. He 431
stated that the panels requested are 31 inches tall and could be reduced in size to 432
accommodate all the tenants within the maximum height limit. He stated that a reasonable 433
amount of signage for this development would be three signs of 80 square feet for a total of 434
240 square feet. He stated that there are benefits to a coordinated commercial development 435
such as this through PUD, as scattered development would have much more signage. He 436
stated that perhaps this sign be allowed as a size of 20 feet by 12 feet, which when combined 437
with the other sign would provide a total of 360 square feet of signage along Highway 55. 438
439
Foote asked if there is any sign similar to the proposed height of 30 feet outside of Medina in 440
surrounding communities. 441
442
Finke stated that Lowes in Plymouth is about 30 to 35 feet while CVS is approximately 27 443
feet. He confirmed that all the signs in Medina are capped at 20 feet with the exception of the 444
Medina ballroom which has a variance because of the grade, noting that the sign from 445
highway grade does not exceed 20 feet. 446
447
Albers asked at what point drivers would start to see the sign if it is allowed at 30 feet. 448
449
Finke stated that the only item that would be visible at 30 feet would be the Target tenant. 450
451
Murrin asked if the other sign could be made to be the taller sign since that sign already sits 452
up higher. 453
454
Finke stated that the applicant could speak to that more, but noted that sign would not be as 455
visible to the eastbound traffic. 456
457
Albers referenced the property south of Wells Fargo that was approved as an Indian 458
restaurant. 459
460
Finke stated that property has not been withdrawn. 461
462
Eric Olson, representing the applicant, provided pictures of the Lowes sign in Plymouth to 463
provide a reference. He stated that when he started a few of the smaller, locally owned 464
tenants commented that the largest marketing effort they have to bring in customers is 465
signage which is how this process arose. He stated that the goal is to provide signage for the 466
smaller locally owned tenants. He explained that the proposed size of the signage is meant to 467
help increase visibility for drivers from the roadway. He stated that there is also a challenge 468
for the site with being up on the hill and the current sign has zero visibility from the west. He 469
stated that the current monument sign is only visible from traffic moving in one direction and 470
does not have visibility for the other direction until drivers are past the sign. He stated that 471
the liquor store tenant was going to attend, but runs the store himself and was unable to get 472
away, noting that the liquor store tenant stated that he does get business from the smaller real 473
estate type signs he places. 474
475
10
Finke stated why Target occupies 30 percent of the sign if the driver of this request is the 476
other tenants. 477
478
Olson explained that the site is governed not only by the PUD, but also through an 479
Operational Easement Agreement (OEA) which Target sets up when they build a site. He 480
explained that the request would not only need to be approved by the City, but also by the 481
members of the OEA; and Target would not approve the request without their inclusion. He 482
noted that when the sign was originally proposed, it was smaller and Target had their own 483
requirements in order to approve the request. 484
485
Foote asked if this would be approved by Target. 486
487
Olson stated that conceptually the sign has been approved, but would go back to Target for 488
final approval. It was confirmed that Target would then have their name on two signs. He 489
provided additional details on the requirements from Target regarding signage. 490
491
V. Reid asked if the applicant would be in agreement with a 20-foot sign. 492
493
Olson replied that this proposed size would be the smallest that they would like to go. 494
495
V. Reid referenced a nearby sign that lists multiple tenants off County Road 101 that is 496
smaller. She stated that it is rare to allow signage closer to the highway rather than closer to 497
the buildings and was concerned with site pollution. 498
499
Olson appreciated V. Reid’s concern and noted that they would match the material of the sign 500
to the nearby retaining wall. He confirmed that the existing sign would be removed. He did 501
not believe the new sign would be taller than the top of the Caribou Coffee building. He 502
stated that the current panels for the sign are 21.75 feet, while the new panels are proposed to 503
be 31 feet. 504
505
Murrin asked how tall and wide the current panels are compared to the new panels. 506
507
Olson replied, providing the current panel and proposed panel dimensions. 508
509
Murrin asked if the applicant considered making the other existing sign taller. 510
511
R. Reid replied that sign is not visible from both directions of traffic. 512
513
Olson replied that the other sign is currently 20 or 21 feet high and did not consider that 514
location because that is more of the Target sign. He noted that they would consider that if the 515
same goals could be met and if Target would agree to that, but explained that their lot ends 516
before that Target sign. 517
518
Murrin asked if the 30-foot sign would be higher than the Target sign, noting that she realizes 519
that the grade is different. 520
521
Olson stated that he believed that the sign would be lower than the Target sign because of the 522
change in topography. 523
524
Barry asked how the brushed aluminum finishing was chosen as compared to the brushed 525
rock, which fits in with the surroundings. 526
527
11
Olson confirmed that the finish could be modified to better fit in with the surroundings as the 528
brushed aluminum was just chosen as the sign was modeled from a sign at another property 529
they own. 530
531
Drew Palmer, Wells Fargo Corporate Real Estate Group, stated that he is here in support of 532
the sign request. He stated that Wells Fargo loves this community and would like to have 533
increased visibility to service their customers. He noted that the business currently has a 534
problem with signage issues as customers are not finding this location and therefore going to 535
the Plymouth or even Buffalo locations. He believed that this would be a great opportunity 536
for this location to thrive and alert customers to this location. 537
538
V. Reid opened the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. 539
540
No additional comments. 541
542
V. Reid closed the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. 543
544
Barry stated that he supports this proposed height, noting that the intent for this corridor is to 545
support business and he would like to see the smaller businesses supported with increased 546
visibility. He noted that his only comment would be for the aesthetic of the sign to blend into 547
the surrounding aesthetics. 548
549
Foote echoed the comments of Barry in regard to the aesthetics and noted that he would 550
support the 30 foot height, as he believed 20 feet would be too small. 551
552
R. Reid stated that this is a unique situation because the stores are up so high and are not 553
visible from the roadway when driving by and therefore supported the 30 foot height for the 554
sign. 555
556
Albers stated that he would support 30 feet, as it is important for both westbound and 557
eastbound drivers to have visibility in time to make the turn into the development. 558
559
Murrin stated that she would be in favor of increased signage for the businesses in that area in 560
order to help those businesses grow and be successful. She asked if the sign would be 561
perpendicular to Highway 55 and would be lit from both sides. 562
563
Olson confirmed that the sign would be perpendicular to the roadway and would be lit to 564
increase visibility. 565
566
Murrin asked if the 30 feet would be high enough to alert drivers, noting that she would 567
support the sign as proposed. 568
569
White stated that she would also support this request, as this sign would be an improvement 570
from the existing sign. She asked how this signage was a part of the original PUD and if 571
there is background that should be considered. 572
573
Finke stated that the applicant did request larger signage, but the City did not approve the 574
request at that time. 575
576
V. Reid stated that she believes that the sign is too big and that 20 feet would be sufficient. 577
She believed that all the tenants should be able to list their names, but believed that this 578
would be giving Target too much visibility. She did not want Medina to become Plymouth 579
and noted that she will vote against the request. 580
12
Motion by Murrin, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment 581
based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to conditions recommended by 582
staff, with the additional condition that the brushed aluminum be changed to match the 583
nearby fence. Motion approved 6-1 (V. Reid opposed). 584
585
8. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process 586
587
Finke asked the Commission to speak to their friends and neighbors to check out the 588
information on the website and provide any comments. He reminded everyone about the 589
public meetings on Saturday, May 14th from 9:30 a.m. to Noon and then Monday, May 16th 590
from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at City Hall. He noted that the Steering Committee will meet the 591
following Thursday, April 26th. He noted that there was a lot of interest tonight and hoped 592
that interest would continue to the public meetings. 593
594
R. Reid stated that she still has concern with the vision statement and wanted to ensure that 595
does not fall between the cracks as the Plan moves forward, noting that is the one statement 596
that everyone will read. 597
598
9. Council Meeting Schedule 599
600
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Commissioner 601
White volunteered. 602
603
10. Adjourn 604
605
Motion by Albers, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion 606
carried unanimously. 607
Excelsior Group Page 1 of 6 June 14, 2016
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: June 9, 2016
MEETING: June 14, 2016 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Excelsior Group LLC – PUD Concept Plan Review –
2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: April 20, 2016
120-day Review Deadline: August 19, 2016
Summary of Request
The Excelsior Group, LLC has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for an 87-lot residential
development north of Chippewa Road and west of Mohawk Drive. The subject site is a total of
37 acres (31 net acres), with two single family homes. Much of the property is pasture with
some tilled farmland. There are
The subject site is guided for Low Density Residential development in the current
Comprehensive Plan within the 2021-2025 staging period. The Comp Plan permits a property to
develop up to two years early through a point system. The properties are zoned Rural
Residential-Urban Reserve, which is an interim zoning designation for property until
development occurs consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Property to the north and west is currently rural residential lots, planned for future low density
development in the Comp Plan after 2021. Polaris is located to the southeast of the subject
property and the Wealshire is under construction to the east. The property south of Chippewa
Road is planned for future commercial development. An aerial of the site and surrounding
property can be found at the top of the following page.
The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal
application. The Planning Commission and City Council will not take any action and the
feedback is purely advisory.
Comprehensive Plan
As noted above, the subject properties are guided Low Density Residential (LDR) in the current
Comp Plan, which would anticipate development with a net density of 2-3.5 units per acre. The
properties were part of the Staging Plan amendment completed last year, which changed the
properties from the 2016-2020 staging period to the 2021-2025 staging period. The amendment
also reduced the amount of flexibility permitted for developing prior to the staging period. A
residential development can occur two years prior to the staging period (rather than up to 5 years
early).
Excelsior Group Page 2 of 6 June 14, 2016
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The City is currently in the midst of its decennial Comprehensive Plan update. The Steering
Committee has put together drafts of a Vision, Community Goals, and a draft Land Use map.
This information is attached for reference. Because the update of the Comp Plan is underway
and these properties would not be permitted to develop until after the new plan is expected to be
effective, staff believes it is reasonable to consider this concept plan within the context of the
draft Comprehensive Plan.
The Vision and Community Goals speak to only expanding urban services as necessary to
support the minimum forecasted growth. The subject property is not proposed for urban services
within the draft Comp Plan update, even though it is planned for urban services in the current
Plan. In order to support the goal of limiting expansion, the City may wish to discuss reducing
growth in another location if expanding services to this site.
Proposed Site Layout
The applicant proposes a mix of 87 small single family lots. The applicant proposes 55-foot
wide “villa” lots on the eastern property, which is located in the Rockford School District. The
applicant proposes 65- and 75-foot wide single family lots on the western property, which is
Excelsior Group Page 3 of 6 June 14, 2016
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
located in the Wayzata School District. The proposed net density is approximately 2.8
units/acre, which falls in the middle of the LDR density range.
The R1 zoning district was created to implement the LDR land use. The R1 district requires
larger lots and setbacks than the applicant proposes within this development. Development of
R1 lots would likely result in a density closer to the minimum LDR requirement of 2 units/acre.
R1 Requirement Proposed
65’ and 75’ Lots
Proposed
55’ Lots
Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 9,000 s.f. 6,500 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 65 or 75 feet 55 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 30 feet 25 feet
Side Yard Setback (combined) 25 feet (15 & 10) 15 feet (5 & 10) 15 feet (7.5 & 7.5)
Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 25 feet 20 feet
Max. Hardcover 40%
Staging Plan
As noted above, the subject properties are not planned for development until after 2021. The
Staging Plan permits a property to be considered for development two years early through a list
of criteria which are described in the attached document. The flexibility in staging is
accomplished through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) review.
The information submitted by the applicant does not provide substantial detail on whether the
criteria would be met. The crucial factor is whether sufficient infrastructure exists to develop
existing and planned development in addition to the proposed project. In this case, the City
Engineer is specifically interested whether the project could be served through existing gravity
sewer service.
In terms of other factors described in the Staging Plan Flexibility section, the proposed
development is adjacent to existing development, which would achieve points. The site plan
includes small areas of open space, a small park area, and trail connections which may warrant
points. These factors would not provide sufficient points to justify Staging flexibility. The
applicant would need to provide additional detail on remaining factors to determine the extent to
which any are met.
Even with the flexibility permitted in the Staging Plan, development would not be permitted until
2019. In the meantime, the City intends to adopt is decennial Comprehensive Plan update. As a
result, development will likely be guided by the updated Comp Plan.
Tree Preservation and Buffer Yards
Few trees are located on the subject properties. Any application would be subject to the City’s
tree preservation and replacement requirements.
Excelsior Group Page 4 of 6 June 14, 2016
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Any development request would need to provide landscaped buffer yards to rural properties to
the west and north.
Wetlands and Floodplain
The subject properties appear to contain four wetlands, which most of the wetland areas being in
the southern portion of the site. The applicant proposes impacts to the southwestern wetland in
order to construct a street to serve lots in this portion of the site. The concept plan identifies the
City’s minimum upland buffers around remaining wetland areas.
FEMA maps identify no floodplains on the subject properties.
Transportation
The applicant proposes a single access point at Chippewa Road, located where the 2212
Chippewa driveway is today. If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, information
should be provided to determine if improvements should be required for Chippewa Road.
Mohawk Drive has limited right-in/right-out access to the east of the site. As a result, eastbound
traffic would be required to go west on Chippewa Road to Willow Drive in order to turn left onto
Highway 55.
The concept plan shows two connections to property to the north and a connection to property to
the west. If the surrounding property is guided as rural residential, these connections may not be
advisable. Staff recommends reorienting the street layout depending on the planned land uses to
the north and west.
Sewer/Water
If development were to occur at the subject site, sewer and water infrastructure would be
required to be extended from Mohawk Drive to the property. The applicant would also be
required to loop the water main to connect to the main north of the Wealshire project.
The applicant should provide data sufficient to review whether the site can be served with
gravity sewer lines. Staff would not support early development if a sewage lift station were
necessary.
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The Concept Plan does not include full grading or stormwater plans. Any development proposal
would ultimately be subject to relevant stormwater standards.
Park Dedication
The City’s subdivision regulations requires up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated
for park purposes. The City may also choose to accept cash in-lieu of all or a portion of this land
dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre-developed market value, up to a maximum of
$8000 per home. Staff does not believe the fee would reach the maximum in this case, but it will
be determined more precisely during the preliminary plat review if the applicant proceeds with a
formal application.
Excelsior Group Page 5 of 6 June 14, 2016
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The concept plan identifies an approximately ¾ acre park area including with a “tot lot”
playground equipment. The concept plan also identifies trail connections through the
neighborhood connecting to Chippewa Road and to Wealshire. If the applicant proceeds with a
formal application, the connection to Wealshire, which is private property, would need to be
discussed with the property owner.
Purpose of Concept Plan Review/Review Criteria
According to Section 827.33 of the City Code: “As the first step in the review procedure for a
PUD, an applicant shall complete and submit…[a] Concept Plan...” “Comments and actions by
the City during review of the Concept Plan are purely advisory and in no way shall bind the City
to subsequent approval…nor imply any future approval.”
The City has a great deal of discretion in the Planned Unit Development and in reviewing the
requested Staging Plan flexibility. The Concept Plan process allows the developer to receive
feedback in order to determine whether they will invest in the formal development proposal. The
purpose of the PUD district is described below. A PUD should meet these objectives in order to
be approved.
“Section 827.25. PUD - Planned Unit Development Regulations - Purpose. PUD - Planned
Unit Development provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards
designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential
areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The PUD process,
by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and
depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage:
Subd. 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of
economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of
structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design.
Subd. 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as
high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic
features and the prevention of soil erosion.
Subd. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development
practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the
standard requirements of the City.
Subd. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to
surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and
lower intensity uses.
Subd. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and
orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of
development and service facilities.
Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lower development costs and public investments.
Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive
Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.”
Excelsior Group Page 6 of 6 June 14, 2016
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
As noted above, the properties are not planned for development until 2021. Development prior
to this time would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or Staging Plan flexibility to 2019.
The criteria noted in the Flexibility section would also need to be achieved in order to allow for
the development.
Staff Comments
The Planning Commission and City Council should review and provide comments on the
Concept Plan. Because the property is within the 2021 Staging timeframe, staff believes it make
sense to review the concept within the context of the Draft Comprehensive Plan update.
Currently, the draft Plan identifies the properties to be removed from the MUSA and to be
guided rural residential.
If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, staff has provided comments throughout the
report, which are summarized below:
1) Any future application shall be subject to all relevant City regulations and policies.
2) The applicant shall provide information necessary to confirm that gravity sewer service is
practical.
3) Any proposed development proposal should include provisions for vegetative buffers to
rural properties to the north and west.
4) The applicant shall provide information requested by the City Engineer to determine
whether street improvements are necessary to support the development.
5) The street alignment should be updated so that future street connections are not provided
to rural property.
Attachments
1. Staging Plan Flexibility Criteria
2. Engineering Comments dated May 9, 2016
3. DRAFT Comp Plan Information (Vision, Goals, Future Land Use)
4. Concept Plan
5. Location Maps submitted by applicant
Medina City Code 825. Zoning – Administration
825. Zoning –Administration Page 28 of 51
STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT TO BE SERVED BY CITY UTILITIES
Section 825.34. Staging and Growth.
Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the timing of
growth and development within the city consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Such
regulations are in the public interest to ensure the preservation of the rural heart of the
City and to promote contiguous growth in order to provide efficient and cost-effective
services to residents.
Subd. 2. Urban Services Phasing Plan.
(a) Property shall not be served by city water or sanitary sewer utilities prior to the date
described within the Urban Services Phasing Plan, except as regulated herein.
The Urban Services Phasing Plan, herein referred to as the “Phasing Plan,” can be
found within the Comprehensive Plan and is hereby incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein and as it may be amended from time to time.
(b) The city council, following consultation of the planning commission, may consider
requests for flexibility to the date which city water and sanitary sewer utility
services are available according to the Phasing Plan, as permitted within the
Comprehensive Plan. Properties shall only be prioritized for early development
when it is determined by the city that a proposed project significantly achieves the
criteria described below in Subd. 4. Such flexibility shall be at the sole discretion
of the city council, and be considered as described herein.
Subd. 3. Review Process for Phasing Plan Flexibility.
(a) In order for a project to be granted flexibility to the Phasing Plan, the property shall
require rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district, unless the city
council waives this requirement. The council shall only waive the PUD
requirement upon a determination that review and regulation of the project can be
accomplished through the development standards, review procedures, and other
relevant regulations of the existing zoning district.
(b) The city council shall deny a request for flexibility to the Phasing Plan, except upon a
finding that the proposed project significantly achieves the criteria identified in
Subd. 4 below. The following represents the minimum standard which must be
met in order for the city council to consider flexibility to the Phasing Plan. The
city council shall have the discretion to require achievement of additional city
objectives during the review process.
(1) The crucial factor described in Subd. 4(a) shall be determined to be achieved;
and
(2) Fifty or more points shall be achieved amongst the various primary and
secondary factors described in Subd. 4(b) and Subd. 4(c). The city may
grant a maximum of ten points for each primary factor and a maximum of
five points for each secondary factor.
(c) The project proposer shall be responsible to reimburse the city for the costs incurred
by the city in reviewing the request, including any additional costs of analyzing
the extent to which the project meets the review criteria for Phasing Plan
flexibility.
Medina City Code 825. Zoning – Administration
825. Zoning –Administration Page 29 of 51
Subd. 4. Criteria for Reviewing Requests for Phasing Plan Flexibility
(a) Crucial factor: Infrastructure Capacity.
The city shall review existing sanitary sewer, water, and street infrastructure to
determine if sufficient capacity exists to support all three of the following: 1)
existing development previously approved by the City; 2) the proposed project;
and 3) all other development which has been identified in the Comprehensive
Plan for the current Phasing period. If existing capacity is determined to be
insufficient for the proposed project, but the project proposes to make necessary
improvements, the city may give consideration to such proposal, provided the
improvements are constructed at no cost to the city or other property owners. The
improvements shall also be consistent with city infrastructure plans and policies
and be designed to serve other future development when appropriate.
(b) Primary factors (maximum of 10 points per item):
(1) Sustainability. To achieve this objective, the project shall incorporate
sustainable practices such as high energy efficiency, responsible
construction materials and processes, site design which supports multiple
transportation options, and other sustainable practices.
(2) Natural resource protection and low impact development. To achieve this
objective, the project shall incorporate low impact development practices
and exceptional natural resource and ecological preservation. Meeting the
minimum tree preservation and wetland protection regulations shall be
equivalent to one point, with additional points granted for additional
preservation.
(3) Proximity to existing development. To achieve this objective, the project
shall be adjacent to or a short distance from existing development which is
served by city utility services. Property which is immediately adjacent to
existing development shall be granted the most points, with fewer points
granted with increased distance.
(4) Open Space Protection. To achieve this objective, the project shall
permanently protect open space from development. The number of points
granted shall be based on the relative size of the open space area protected
and the ecological value of the open space.
(5) Limited impacts on city services. Points for this objective shall be based
upon the expected need for city services, with fewer points granted for
projects which have a higher potential impact. For example:
(i) Projects which can access regional roadways with limited distance
on city streets may be granted additional points.
(ii) Commercial uses which create lower levels of traffic, particularly
truck traffic, may be granted additional points.
(iii) Commercial uses with lower water usage may be granted additional
points.
(c) Secondary factors (maximum of 5 points per item):
(1) High quality architectural design and materials. Points may be granted for
this objective for a number of different elements. Meeting the minimum
requirements of the underlying zoning district with regards to building
Medina City Code 825. Zoning – Administration
825. Zoning –Administration Page 30 of 51
materials, modulation, and other relevant standards would be equivalent to
one point. Additional elements may include:
(i) Varying types of home within a single-family development.
(ii) Utilization of more high quality building materials, such as brick and
stone, than is required by the underlying zoning district.
(iii) Four-sided architecture.
(2) Community amenities. Points may be granted for this objective based on a
number of different amenities, examples of which include:
(i) Private trails, recreational, or gathering areas beyond which is
required as part of park dedication requirements.
(ii) High quality signage and lighting fixtures, to be maintained by the
property owner(s).
(3) Affordable housing (residential development only). To achieve this
objective, affordability shall be guaranteed by a covenant or similar means
approved by the city. The amount of points granted shall be based on the
level of affordability as well as the proportion of units which are
affordable.
(4) Employment opportunities (commercial/business development only). Points
for this objective shall be based on the number of employees, especially
new positions which will be filled after the user begins operations within
the city.
(5) Other factors. The City may grant additional points to projects that meet
objectives which are not specifically described above.
Section 825.35. Zoning Amendments; Criteria for Granting Zoning Amendments. The City
Council may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map. Such amendments shall
not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and
policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.
Section 825.37. Procedure on Zoning Amendments.
Subd. 1. An amendment to the text of the Ordinance or zoning map may be initiated by the
City Council, the Planning Commission or by application of a property owner. Any
amendment not initiated by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the Planning
Commission for review and may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the
Planning Commission recommendations. Individuals wishing to initiate an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinances shall fill out a zoning amendment application form signed by the
property owner and submit it to the Zoning Administrator.
Subd. 2. The property owner applying for a zoning amendment shall fill out and submit to the
Administrator a rezoning application form. A survey shall be attached if requested by the
Zoning Administrator. A site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity
showing the following information:
(a) location and dimensions of: lot, building, driveways, and off-street parking.
(b) Distance between: building and front, side, and rear lot lines; principal building and
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:\02712-890\Admin\Docs\Submittal 042516\_2016-04-09 Excelsior Group Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
May 9, 2016
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: The Excelsior Group Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-16-183
WSB Project No. 02712-890
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed The Excelsior Group Concept plan submittal dated April 25, 2016. The plans
propose to construct 83 single family parcels.
The documents 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.
Site Plan & Civil
1. Verify structure builds and the feasibility of serving the area with a gravity sewer system as
proposed. Show where the proposed connection points would be located to the existing
system.
2. Looping connections will be required to minimize long dead-end watermain sections. The
adjacent property to the east will be constructing a watermain that will provide a stub to the
very northeast corner of The Excelsior Group site.
3. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water.
4. The concept plan shows two trail connections to the neighboring property to the east. The
site plan for the adjacent property does not include trail connections to these locations. The
applicant will need to work with the adjacent property owner to provide trail connections.
Traffic
5. The concept plan shows future roadway connections to the north of the development. The
applicant should provide an estimate of the traffic volume that would utilize the proposed
roadways to reach the future development to the north.
6. The intersections should be analyzed to determine if turn lanes are required on Chippewa
Road or nearby intersections for either capacity or safety.
The Excelsior Group Concept Plan – Engineering Review
May 9, 2016
Page 2
K:\02712-890\Admin\Docs\Submittal 042516\_2016-04-09 Excelsior Group Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
7. The posted speed limit on Chippewa Road is currently 30 mph, but the City will be
increasing the speed limit to 40 mph in 2016. The proposed intersections should be analyzed
for sight distance issues or concerns.
Stormwater
8. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by
reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation.
9. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
Draft 6/10/2016
Vision Statement
Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of
its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the
City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods,
places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be
commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity.
Community Goals
Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the
rural character of Medina.
Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.
Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning,
engineering and development.
Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential
growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals.
Develop at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water
supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City.
Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes.
Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community.
Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect
neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents.
Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all
stages of their lives.
Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of
the City.
Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and
coordination with its contracted volunteer fire departments.
Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and
long-range planning and financial management.
OSI
Target
Polaris
Gregor Farm
City of Loretto
Hamel Legion Park
Walter G. Anderson
Maple Plain Park and Pool
Medina Golf and Country Club
Loram
City Hall
Water Tower
HAMEL
HIGHWAY 55
MEDINA
PIONEER
TAMARACKCOUNTY ROAD 24
WILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19HACKAMORE
H
O
M
ESTEA
D
NAVAJO HUNTERPRAIRIETOMAHAWKPARKVIEWTOWNLINEMOHAWKCOUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCHIPPEWA
COUNTY ROAD 116HOLY NAMELEAWOODMEANDER
BAKER PARKTAMRACKWAYZATA ARROWHEADCLYDESDALE
LAKE SHORE
DEERHILL
SPUR
KELLER
C
A
R
RIA
G
E
BLACKFOOTMAPLE
SPRUCE
EVERGREEN
CHEYENNE
TOWER
ELM CREEKMORNINGSIDE
BOBO LI NK PINTOLI
LACSHOREWOODBLUEBELLMEADOWOODS
COUNTY ROAD 11
WALNUTFERN APACHEME
D
I
NA L
A
K
E
PINE SIOUXCHESTNUT
OAKVIEWHARMONY BERGAMOTTRILLIUMCOTTONWOODSYCAMORE
N O R T H R I D G E
SHAWNEE WOODS
BOYERCHEROKEE BUCKSKINKATRINKA FOXBERRYLAKEVIEW
H O LLY B U S H
CHERRY HILL
COX
MELODY LI
NDENCRESTVIEW
CAPRIOLEELSEN
TRAPPERS
MORGAN CALAMUSHILLVIEW
PHILLIPSPRAIRIE CREEKVIXEN
SUMMIT
PAWNEE
SETTLERS
COVEYALBERT
CABALINE
LOST HORSE
WICHITA
RED FOXFOXTAIL
TOWN LINEB R ID A L P AT H
WI
LLOWBROOKSUNRISE
HIGHCRESTCREEKVIEW
DUSTYFOX PATH
HICKORYCHIPPEWAWILLOW
APACHEWILLOWBROCKTONHUNTERDEERHILL
MEANDERARROWHEA
DCOUNTY ROAD 24COUNTY ROAD 19PINTOLINDENFuture Land Use PlanDRAFT 06/10/2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: June 3, 2016
Legend
Future Land Use
Rural Residential
Agricultural
Future Development Area
Low Density Residential (2-3 u/a)
Medium Density Residential (5-7 u/a)
High Density Residential (12-15 u/a)
Mixed Residential (3.5-5 u/a; 1 u/a HDR)
Uptown Hamel
Commercial
Business
Rural Commercial
Institutional
Private Recreation
Park, Recreation, Open Space
Closed Landfill
Right-of-waysWetland Locations
Wetland Locations
Just for Kix Page 1 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: June 10, 2016
MEETING: June 14, 2016
SUBJ: Just for Kix – Site Plan Review, Hardcover Variance, Lot Combination
3522 Sioux Drive – Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: April 18, 2016
Review Deadline (120 days): August 16, 2016
Summary of Request
Clough Properties, LLC has requested approvals to construct an 18,040 square foot commercial
building at property currently addressed as 45 Highway 55. The applicant intends to operate
their dance studio, Just for Kix, in the structure along with a small related retail operation.
The subject site is located on the eastern City border, south of Highway 55 and north of the
railroad right-of-way. The property currently includes a single family home. Elm Creek flows
through the northwest
corner of the property
before flowing under
Highway 55. There are a
number of trees along the
bank of Elm Creek and also
trees to the east of the home.
Much of the property is
vacant. An aerial of the site
can be found to the right.
The subject site is zoned
Commercial Highway-
Railroad (CH-RR), the same
as the property to the west
of Sioux Drive. The City
rezoned the property from
Uptown Hamel-2 to CH-RR
in 2015 at the request of the
property owner. In addition,
earlier in the year, the City
recently annexed an
approximately ½ acre
portion of the property from
the City of Plymouth.
Just for Kix Page 2 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The applicant has requested the following land use applications in order to allow for the
proposed redevelopment of the site.
1) Plat to combine the property which was annexed by the City
2) Variance – the applicant requests a variance to exceed the maximum of 25% impervious
surface permitted in the Shoreland Overlay district of Elm Creek.
3) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building.
Although this staff report will generally describe the site plan review first for the sake of context,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the plat first, then the
variance request first, since the site plan review would be contingent upon the plat and variance.
Site Plan Review
Section 825.55 requires Site Plan Review approval prior to issuance of permits for new
commercial developments to determine whether it is consistent with relevant requirements.
Proposed Use
Dance studios and retail uses are listed as permitted uses in the CH-RR zoning district.
Setbacks/Lot Dimensions
Following is a summary of the proposed construction compared to the requirements of the
CH-RR zoning district and shoreland overlay district:
CH-RR Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 1 acre 2.19 acre
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 498 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 120 feet 540 feet
Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 50 feet
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 15 feet 25 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 76 feet
Street Setback (arterial) 50 feet 50 feet
Railroad Setback Zero, except as necessary for
safety, fire access, or utilities
76 feet (building)
3 feet (parking)
Setback from Residential 50 feet 280 feet
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard
Rear/Interior Side Yards
Residential
25 feet
10 feet
40 feet
27 feet
32 feet
255 feet
Maximum Impervious Surface 25% (Shoreland Overlay) 50%
Wetlands/Floodplain/Shoreland
Elm Creek flows through the northwest corner of the subject property. There are wetlands
adjacent to the creek that will require upland buffers with an average width of 30 feet. These
required buffers are all within the required 50-foot Elm Creek buffer.
A smaller, 2520 square foot wetland is also located in the central west of the property. The
applicant proposes to fill this wetland in order to construct the building. The applicant proposes
to purchase wetland credits in order to mitigate the impact. This wetland currently provides
Just for Kix Page 3 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
storage for surface drainage from the surrounding area before it drains into Elm Creek. Staff was
originally concerned that filling this wetland area would channelize the drainage to Elm Creek
because of the loss of storage capacity from the wetland. The applicant has updated plans to
incorporate BMPs to slow this drainage before the creek. The wetland impacts would be subject
to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) review.
There is a floodplain adjacent to Elm Creek with a 1% (100-year) regulatory elevation of 961.5
on the western property line and 960.8 on the east. There is also a 0.2% (“500-year”) floodplain
of 962. No construction or grading is proposed that will affect the regulatory floodplain.
The Shoreland Overlay District requires the following standards for property within 300 feet of
streams:
50 foot structure and parking setback: The structure is setback 55 feet from the stream
and parking is proposed to be setback 183 feet.
25% impervious surface maximum. The applicant has requested a variance to allow up to
50% of the site to contain impervious surfaces. This will be discussed more in-depth
later in the report.
Lowest level of the building shall be three feet above the ordinary high water level. The
proposed structure is over 10 feet above the high water level.
“Shoreland Alteration - Alteration of vegetation or topography shall be regulated to
prevent soil erosion, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic sites, prevent bank
slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation alteration necessary for the
construction of structures and individual sewage treatment systems or for the construction
of roads and parking areas shall be exempt from the vegetation alteration standards of this
subdivision. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest
management uses, is allowed, subject to the following standards:
o Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone shall not allowed.
o In the shore impact zone, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and
trimming of trees shall be allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal
dwelling and to accommodate the placement of permitted accessory structures or
facilities, provided that:
(1) the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced;
(2) along tributary streams, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and
(3) the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches
that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards.”
The applicant proposes no alteration of vegetation within the shore impact zone.
Stormwater/LID
The applicant proposes two pretreatment basins and two filtration basins in order to meet the
City and Elm Creek Watershed standards. The design has been reviewed by both engineers and
appear to generally meet the standards.
The applicant proposes water quality improvements which exceed minimum City standards.
This additional treatment has been provided in an attempt to mitigate the requested variance for
Just for Kix Page 4 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
additional hardcover in shoreland overlay district, which was a suggestion made by staff in this
instance and in similar variances in the past.
Building Materials
The applicant proposes primarily precast concrete exterior building materials. The proposed
building is approximately 50% concrete, 20% brick, 20% glass, and 10% exterior insulated finish
systems (EIFS).
Commercial districts require a minimum of 30% of the exterior materials to be brick, stone,
stucco, or glass. The code allows a maximum of 20% to be wood, metal, or hardiboard siding
and a maximum of 70% “decorative concrete...color impregnated in earth tones (rather than
painted) and…patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine
appearance.”
Material samples are available for review to determine whether the proposed precast concrete
has a sufficiently high quality finish and pattern.
Building Modulation/Fenestration/Multi-sided Architecture
Commercial districts require that “buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet
of building perimeter to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include
varying building height, building setback, or building materials/design.”
The proposed structure has a footprint of 186’x106’. This would require 4 aspects of modulation
along the long facades and 2 along the shorter facades. The building orientation provides one
aspect of horizontal modulation on the north and east façades which are also accompanied by the
use of brick. The southern façade provides an aspect through material differentiation. The
applicant proposes small vertical brick accents along the facades. Staff questions whether these
accents, especially the way in which they are repeated, meets the intent of the modulation
requirement.
Commercial districts require that “building elevations which face a public street shall include
generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the city
when windows are not practical.” The proposed northern façade includes approximately 20% of
the façade area as glass, or 31% of the linear frontage.
Commercial districts require that “any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street,
an interior access drive for the development, or a residential zoning district shall include design
and architectural elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s)
shall be compatible with the front building elevation.” In this case, only the northern façade
faces a public street. The northern façade is fairly similar to the southern façade, with the
exception of the canopy over the mail entrance.
The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether the modulation, fenestration, and
multi-sided architecture are sufficient.
Just for Kix Page 5 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
The applicant proposes to remove 11 trees around the existing home on the property. The
applicant does not propose to remove any of the trees adjacent to Elm Creek.
The tree preservation ordinance would allow 15% of the trees on the site to be removed for
“initial site development” and an additional 15% for remaining site development. There are 28
existing trees on the property, which would permit 4 trees to be removed for initial development
and 4 for other activities. This results in 24 inches of required tree replacement.
Landscaping requirements are based upon the lot perimeter, including:
1) 1 overstory tree per 50 feet of perimeter
2) 1 ornamental tree per 100 feet of perimeter
3) 1 shrub per 30 feet of perimeter
The subject site is approximately 1500 feet in perimeter, requiring 30 overstory trees, 15
ornamental trees, and 50 shrubs. The proposed landscaping appears to be short by approximately
4 trees (depending on size chosen for installation). Staff recommends a condition to bring the
landscaping and tree replacement plan into compliance.
Commercial district standards require landscaping to occupy a minimum of 8% of the parking lot
and loading dock area. Staff calculates that 10.3% of the proposed parking lot area is
landscaping.
Transportation
The applicant proposes to access the site through a shared driveway with Aldi to the west, which
connects with Sioux Drive. The applicant proposes to close the existing access to Highway 55,
which is consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation policies.
The City anticipated the subject site accessing Sioux Drive during the discussions with Aldi.
These projects, along with development west of Sioux Drive, led the City Engineer to
recommend construction of turn lanes on Sioux Drive at Westfalen Trail. The City has initiated
the project for construction this summer with the intention that new commercial uses east and
west of Sioux Drive pay for the full cost of the project. Staff recommends that the applicant
enter into an agreement with the City related to the payment of assessments on the project.
The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief have raised concerns related to fire truck circulation on the site
because of the single access point. They recommend maintaining an emergency vehicle access
to Highway 55 in order to provide adequate circulation. Staff has had discussions with MnDOT
and it appears that they are supportive because this will helps with the full access closure.
Following construction of the turn lanes, the City Engineer has not raised concerns related to the
impact of the development on the transportation system.
Staff recommends that the sidewalk be extended to the property line in order to allow more
convenience pedestrian access. A sidewalk crosses much of the property to the west to Sioux
Drive, although does not connect all of the way to the subject property.
Just for Kix Page 6 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Off-Street Parking
The City would require a minimum of 73 parking spaces (1 per 250 gross square feet of dance
studio and retail space). The applicant proposes 74 parking stalls.
The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief have reviewed and provided comments related to the circulation
for fire apparatus. Staff recommends a condition addressing these comments.
Sewer/Water
An existing City of Plymouth sewer main travels along the south and west of the property to the
Met Council lift station west of Sioux Drive. The applicant proposes to connect to this sewer
line. The City of Medina does not have a sewer line in the area which could serve the lot without
a lift pump. Staff recommends a condition that an agreement with Plymouth be in place prior to
construction.
Aldi stubbed a water main to the western lot line, which the applicant proposes to loop along
their western property line to connect to the existing water service which served the home. The
City Engineer has also provided technical comments which the applicant should be required to
address.
Loading Dock
No loading docks are proposed. The retail space is fairly small and deliveries will be made from
the parking lot during non-peak times.
Utilities/Mechanical Equipment/Trash and Recycling
Commercial districts require that utilities be located under ground and that transformers be
screened. The applicant proposes to relocate existing electrical lines underground. Staff
recommends a condition that the applicant identify the location of the electrical transformer
along with screening provisions.
Commercial districts require “equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural
elements and materials which are compatible with the overall design of the building.” Staff
recommends that the applicant provide additional detail to ensure compliance with this
condition.
Lot Combination/Plat
The applicant proposes to combine the property recently annexed from the City of Plymouth
with the main portion of the property. These parcels have been historically under common
ownership but bisected by the municipal boundary.
As noted in the table on page 2, the proposed combined lot meets the lot standards of the CH-RR
zoning district. In addition to ensuring that the proposed lot meets lot standards, the subdivision
ordinance also allows the City to require necessary dedications to support the property in
question. Infrastructure to serve the lot was discussed throughout the report in connection with
the Site Plan Review. Staff recommends that the plat also dedicate easements as recommended
by the City Engineer for utilities on the site and as recommended by MnDOT for Highway 55.
Just for Kix Page 7 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Review Criteria
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council review the requests in the
following order: 1) Hardcover Variance; 2) Site Plan Review.
Lot Combination/Plat
The subdivision ordinance establishes the following criteria when reviewing requests within the
City. Staff has provided potential findings for each of the criterion.
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or
that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
The proposed combination is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and is not
premature because it does not affect the infrastructure necessary to serve the area. The
combination prevents the small eastern parcel from being smaller than lot standard
minimums and removes various shortcomings of the property.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such
that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
The proposed combination improves the ability to develop the combined property and
does not affect the physical characteristics described above.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not
meet minimum lot size standards.
The combination prevents the small eastern parcel from being smaller than lot standard
minimums.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
The proposed combination provides more space to provide stormwater improvements.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
The proposed combination is not likely to cause public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
The proposed combination will not conflict with streets, easements, or right-of-way. In
fact, the combination improves the situation by providing access to the eastern property.
Variance
According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the
following criteria when reviewing a variance request:
“Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances.
(a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance.
Just for Kix Page 8 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
(b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be
established, all of the following criteria shall be met:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In
determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance
requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty
and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are
denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The applicant argues that the location of a commercial property along Elm Creek and near major
intersection in the City is unique and justifies a variance. The City has approved a variance for
50% hardcover on the two commercial sites to the west, but the previous approvals do not create
precedent, as each variance is to be reviewed on its own. The proposed commercial use is
permitted in the district and even a variance to 50% is significantly below the amount of
hardcover which is permitted on other commercial property. Staff believes the development
would be similar to the development to the west, thus not altering the essential character of the
locality.
The applicant is proposing water quality improvements above and beyond minimum City
standards in order to mitigate the impact of additional stormwater. If the variance is to be
approved, staff would also suggest a condition that the applicant restores the streambank as
recommended by Elm Creek watershed as a condition of the hardcover variance. This has also
been required in previous variance requests.
Site Plan Review
The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed
construction for consistency with City regulations. Obviously, in this case, the proposed
construction exceeds hardcover requirements. If the City Council does not grant approval of the
variance, the Site Plan Review cannot be approved. If the Council approves the variance, it
appears that other relevant regulations would be met. 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 City has a high level of discretion when reviewing requests for variances. In fact, a variance
should only be granted if the City finds that the criteria have been met. Generally, the City has a
low level of discretion when reviewing on site plan applications. If the request is consistent with
City regulations, it should be approved. In this case, the site plan does not meet hardcover
limitations without a variance. Therefore, if the variance is not granted, the Site Plan Review
should not be approved.
Just for Kix Page 9 of 9 June 14, 2016
Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Recommendation
If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the variance criteria are met, staff would
recommend approval of the Variance, Plat and Site Plan Review subject to the following
conditions:
1) Site Plan Review approval is contingent upon approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan.
2) The Applicant shall construct improvements as displayed on the plans received by the
City on 5/25/2016, except as modified herein.
3) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City to ensure compliance with the conditions noted herein as well as
other relevant requirements of City ordinance and policy.
4) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit to ensure completion of required site
improvements.
5) Site Plan Review is contingent upon approval from MnDOT of an emergency access in
order to allow adequate emergency vehicle circulation.
6) The Applicant shall complete any shore restoration recommended by the Elm Creek
Watershed to mitigate impacts of additional hardcover.
7) The Applicant shall provide additional details on mechanical equipment location and
screening details. The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to provide the
requirement amount of replacement trees.
8) The Applicant shall update plans to extend the sidewalk to the western property
boundary.
9) The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City related to improvements to
Sioux Drive which are necessary to support access to the property.
10) The Applicant shall obtain approval and any required agreements in order to connect to
the City of Plymouth of sewer line.
11) The Applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and
City Attorney.
12) The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals, including but not limited
to Elm Creek Watershed Management Organization, the Minnesota Department of
Health, the Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
other relevant agencies.
13) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the plat, site plan and other relevant documents.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Engineer Comments dated 6/1/2016
3. Fire Marshal Comments dated 6/7/2016
4. DNR Comments
5. Applicant Narrative
6. Preliminary Plat
7. Final Plat
8. Plans dated 5/25/2016
Project: LR‐16‐181 – Just for Kix Plat, Variance, Site Plan Review 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 4/18/20164/18/20163 Fee 4/18/20164/11/20164 4 checks ‐ $17,000 Mailing Labels 4/18/20164/18/20165 Narrative 4/18/20164/15/20162 Plan Set 4/18/20164/15/201619 16 civil pages; 3 arch Plan Set – Updated 5/12/2016 16 Civil only updated Plan Set – Updated 5/25/2016 11 Civil only updated Prelim Plat 4/18/2016 Final Plat 4/18/2016 Stormwater Report 4/18/20164/15/2016187 Stormwater Report 5/25/20165/10/2016212 Rendering 4/25/2016 1 Fire Truck Exhibit 5/25/2016 1 Title Commitment 5/25/2016 11 Applicant Response 5/25/20165/24/20165 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineer Comments 4/22/2016 5 Engineer Comments 6/1/2016 3 Legal Comments 5/5/2016 1 Building Official Comments 4/26/2016 1 Building Official Comments 6/7/2016 1
DNR Comments 5/12/2016 3 No comments Elm Creek Review 6/6/2016 6 Public Comments
Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763‐541‐4800
Fax: 763‐541‐1700
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
June 1, 2016
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Just for Kix Development - Site Plan Review
City Project: LR-16-181
WSB Project No. 02712-880
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the Site Plan and Plat submittal received May 24, 2016 for the Just for Kix Dance
Studio. The plans propose to construct a 12,790 square foot facility now with provisions for a 5,250
square foot future addition. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
Sheet C2.12
1. The note for this sanitary sewer connection includes “sewer drop”. The note and plans should
be clarified to show an outside drop. Sanitary sewer drop inlet manhole, City Detail SAN-04,
should be added to the plan set.
2. Note on the plans that the watermain shall have a minimum 7.5’ of cover where the
watermain is in the vicinity of the ponding areas.
3. The new watermain must have a 10’ horizontal clearance to existing sanitary sewer as well.
The section at the west entrance does not meet this standard. Note at crossing to maintain 18-
inch separation.
Sheet C3.11
1. Recommended parking lot grades are between 2% and 5%. The plans show parking lot
grades as flat as 0.5%. The parking lot grades should be revised to fall within the
recommended grades.
2. Add more elevations for top/bottom of proposed retaining walls along the entire length of the
walls. Provide a profile in the plans.
Just for Kix Site Plan
June 1, 2016
Page 2
Stormwater review comments are attached. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
Attachment
Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763‐541‐4800
Fax: 763‐541‐1700
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\02712‐880\Admin\Docs\052516 Submittal\053116 Stormwater Review.docx
Memorandum
To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer
City of Medina
From: Earth Evans, P.E.
Water Resources Project Manager
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: 5.31.16
Re: Just for Kix
Stormwater Management Plan Review
City Project No. LR-16-181
WSB Project No. 2712-880
We have completed a preliminary review of the Just for Kix development in Medina, MN. The
site was previously reviewed on 4.22.16. Materials provided for review by I+S Group include
the following:
Stormwater Management Report dated 5.10.16
Grading and Utility plans dated 4.15.16
Response to comments dated 5.10.16
These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s Stormwater
Design Manual and general engineering practices for stormwater management.
Please provide documentation of compliance with ECWMC requirements.
1
Dusty Finke
From:Spiegel, Jason (DNR) <Jason.Spiegel@state.mn.us>
Sent:Tuesday, May 17, 2016 11:20 AM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Drewry, Kate (DNR)
Subject:RE: Hardcover variance request - Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay
Attachments:shoreland_variance_guidance_isc_rev_10_10_12.pdf
Hi Dusty,
We gave this a quick review and will not be offering any specific comments. However, we would like to request that the
attached DNR general guidance document be distributed to the City Council/Planning commission for their
consideration when they review this and any other shoreland variance applications.
Sincerely,
Jason Spiegel
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Ecological and Water Resources – Hydrologist
1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106
651‐259‐5822
From: Dusty Finke [mailto:Dusty.Finke@ci.medina.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Drewry, Kate (DNR)
Cc: Spiegel, Jason (DNR)
Subject: RE: Hardcover variance request - Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay
Hi Kate,
They updated plans (link in the attached email), which is probably why the old link was down.
Thanks,
Dusty
From: Drewry, Kate (DNR) [mailto:kate.drewry@state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:10 AM
To: Dusty Finke
Cc: Spiegel, Jason (DNR)
Subject: RE: Hardcover variance request - Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay
Hello Dusty:
Just getting to this and find that the link to the electronic plans is no longer working. Can you send the materials by pdf?
Best Regards,
Kate Drewry
Metro Area Hydrologist
DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Page 1 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012
Shoreland & Floodplain
Variance Guidance Series
This is one of a series of examples developed as guidance for considering variance requests along
lakes and rivers. Consult your local shoreland and floodplain ordinances.
Why are impervious surface coverage limits important?
In the protection of water quality, the management of rainwater on individual lots is one of our most
important tasks. Rainwater that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate runs downhill to lakes,
wetlands, or rivers. As impervious surface coverage increases, the
rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters
increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not
addressed, pollution increases and the diversity of aquatic life is
reduced. Local governments have limited discretion to deviate
from - or grant a variance to - impervious surface limits. They may
do so only if all of the variance criteria established in state statutes
and their local ordinances are met. In evaluating such requests,
local governments must examine the facts, determine whether all
statutory and local criteria are satisfied, and develop findings to
support the decision. If granted, local governments may impose
conditions to protect resources. An example impervious surface
variance request, with considerations, is provided below.
Example Impervious Surface Variance Request
A property owner wishes to build a large lakehome on a conforming lot.
The lake lot includes a private driveway with a spur to the neighbor’s lot,
which was placed to avoid an adjacent wetland. The building plans for
the new construction plus the existing private road spur to the
neighbor’s property would exceed the impervious surface limit provision
in the local ordinance.
Considerations for Findings
A good record and findings help keep communities out of lawsuits and help them prevail if they find
themselves in one. In evaluating the facts and developing findings for this variance request, all of the
following statutory criteria must be satisfied, in addition to any local criteria:
Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual
property owner against the purposes of the shoreland regulations for protecting the public interest.
These purposes are derived from Minnesota Shoreland Rules, which established impervious surface
caps to prevent excessive runoff from constructed surfaces. Such excessive runoff causes erosion,
transport of pollutants to public waters thereby degrading water quality. Considerations: Will
deviating from the required limit on this property undermine the purposes and intent of the
ordinance? Why or why not? Is it possible to mitigate the consequences of additional impervious
surface on-site such that additional runoff will not be produced? Would this mitigation be in harmony
with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not?
Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
The local comprehensive plan establishes a framework for achieving a community’s vision for the
future. Most plans contain goals and policies for protecting natural resources and shorelands, as well
as maps that identify areas of high risk or with high ecological value where development should be
avoided. The variance request must be considered with these goals and policies in mind. Maps should
be consulted to determine if the property is within any areas identified for protection. Considerations:
Which goals and policies apply? Is allowing additional impervious surface and runoff consistent with
these goals and policies? Why or why not?
Impervious Surfaces
Page 2 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012
Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of the land - such as lot dimensions, steep
slopes, poor soils, wetlands, and trees. These do not include physical limitations or personal
circumstances created by the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface
provision, such as size of home or design preferences. Consider what distinguishes this property from
other shoreland properties to justify why the applicant should be able to deviate from the provision
when others must comply. Considerations: What physical characteristics are unique to this property
that prevent compliance with the requirement? Were any difficulties in meeting the impervious
surface limit created by some action of the applicant? Has the applicant demonstrated no other
feasible alternatives exist that would not require a variance, such as increasing the setback to reduce
driveway length or reducing the lakehome’s footprint?
Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Consider the size of the proposed structure, the extent of encroachment, and how it relates to the
shoreline and hydrology of the riparian area. A large addition located close to the shoreline can
detract from the natural appearance and character of the lake and its riparian areas and degrade water
quality by altering topography, drainage, and vegetation in the riparian area, negatively affecting
recreational, natural, and economic values. Considerations: Does the variance provide minimal relief
or a substantial deviation from the required setback? Does it affect the natural appearance of the
shore from the lake? Does it affect the hydrology of the riparian area?
Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Examine the reasons that the variance is requested and evaluate them in light of the purposes of the
local shoreland ordinance and the public water resource at stake. Since the impervious surface cap is
generally intended to reduce runoff to public waters, it may not be appropriate to allow large areas of
constructed surfaces so close to the water. Considerations: Has the applicant demonstrated that the
proposed construction is reasonable in this location given the sensitive nature of the area and the
purposes of the regulations? Why or why not?
Note: The last three criteria address practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties
Range of Outcomes
Based on the findings, several outcomes can occur:
If the applicant fails to prove that all criteria above are met, then the variance must be denied. For example,
the local government could find that the building plans itself created the circumstances necessary for a
variance rather than the any unique physical characteristics of the property.
If the applicant demonstrates that all criteria are met, then the variance may be granted. For example, the
local government could find that the construction footprint is reasonable, the circumstances are unique given
the adjacent wetland, and the minor deviation in the impervious surface coverage does not alter the
hydrology of the area (as determined through runoff calculations).
If the variance is granted and the impervious surface in any way alters the hydrology of the area, then
conditions may be imposed, such as to increase the structure setback from the lake by 15 feet to reduce the
extent of the driveway and minimize the amount of impervious surface coverage over the limit.
Conditions on Variances
If findings support granting the variance, consideration must be given to the impacts on the public water
and the riparian area and appropriate conditions to mitigate them. Conditions must be directly related and
roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. Several examples are provided below:
Modify construction designs (to minimize impact);
Use permeable pavement systems for walkways, driveways, or parking areas (to reduce effective
impervious surface area and infiltrate runoff);
Direct rain gutter discharges away from the public waters and into infiltration basins (to reduce
connected impervious coverage to allow additional areas for infiltration);
Preserve and restore shoreline vegetation in a natural state (to intercept and filter runoff coming
from structures and driveways); and/or
Increase setbacks from the ordinary high water level (to provide infiltration near public waters).
More information at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/variances.html
7900 International Drive + Suite 550 + Minneapolis, MN 55425
952.426.0699 + www.is-grp.com
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING
April 15, 2016
Dusty Finke City Planner Planning Department City of Medina
2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340
RE: Just For Kix Project Description and Application Narrative Medina, Minnesota Dusty:
Please consider the following project description and narrative during the review process for the attached Application for Planning Consideration for the following types of requests:
• Site Plan Review
• Preliminary & Final Plat Review
• Variance Request
• Lot Combination All supplemental information required by the respective review processes has also been attached to provide a comprehensive review.
The Application for Planning Consideration and supplemental information are being submitted as part of a request to allow development of an existing residential site to accommodate a new 18,040 square foot Just For Kix Dance Studio. Development of the proposed new dance studio will also include construction of a new parking lot to serve the facility as well as the necessary site improvements including the associated, drive aisles, stormwater facilities, and utilities. The proposed site is located at 45 State Highway No. 55 in Medina, Minnesota. Initially, the proposed project site was
comprised of two parcels. Once parcel was located in Medina, Minnesota (PID#: 1211823410007), and the other in Plymouth, Minnesota (PID#: 0711822320003). Through completion of a formal detachment/annexation process, the 0.57 acres of property located within the City of Plymouth has been detached and concurrently annexed to the City of Medina.
The properties are described as Part of Lot 34 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 241 and Part of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ Section 7, Township 118, Range 22 as illustrated on the attached Preliminary Plat. After platting this newly annexed parcel
with the adjacent subject property, the parcel will total 2.199 acres and will be described as Lot 1, Block 1, Just For Kix as illustrated on the attached Final Plat. In addition, the two parcels were formerly two individual lots based on their location within their corresponding City. A lot combination will be required to combine these individual lots into one lot within the City of Medina.
The parcel is zoned as CH-RR: Commercial Highway-Railroad District with Shoreland Overlay. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Medina’s Comprehensive Plan and City Zoning Ordinance. Since dance studios and other
commercial business related industries are permitted within the CH-RR Zoning District, no zoning modifications will be required to facilitate the proposed project. The site is bordered by Elm Creek to the northwest and Trunk Highway No. 55 to the northeast and the site is served
by an existing access and utilities from Highway No. 55. The following figures provide the anticipated public utility usage generated by the redeveloped site, including estimated water and sanitary sewer usage:
Proposed Site Usages
Type SF % of Site
Dance 18,040 18.90
Parking/Access 28,976 30.4
Stormwater Management 12,561 13.2
Landscaping 36,228 37.5
Total 95,805 100
Proposed Site Utility Usages
Type Monthly (Gallons) Yearly (Gallons)
Domestic Water 6,000 72,000
Sanitary 6,000 72,000
Page 2 of 2 952.426.0699 + www.is-grp.com
Site work for the proposed project will include, but not limited to, grading, paving, landscaping, lighting, extension of the existing curb and gutter, water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer as well as other general site work as required to
complete construction. Demolition and removal of the existing residential building will also be required to accommodate the proposed development. In addition, the proposed project will include construction of a retaining wall on the south side of the site to control and appropriately direct drainage resulting from development of the site.
Construction of two (2) new filtration basins is proposed on the north and east side of the site as illustrated in the attached site plans and supplemental information to manage stormwater runoff created by the development of the site. Stormwater from the southwest portion of the site will be directed to the corresponding north basin and
stormwater from the east portion will drain toward the east basin. Stormwater will then be treated by pretreatment basins and eventually overflow into the adjacent ditchway that drains into Elm Creek, or into the MNDOT right-of-way. Based on the Shoreland Overlay District requirements, impervious surfacing is limited to 25% of the total site area.
To accommodate the proposed new dance studio and to meet City of Medina parking requirements, a variance is required to increase the allowable impervious area to 50%. Please note that the variance requested is the minimum application required to alleviate the development condition.
The requested variance will not be materially or otherwise detrimental to the purposes of the Medina Zoning Ordinance or to other properties within the CH-RR Zoning District, and will not create any negative impacts to the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or the general public.
Due to the traffic already generated by neighboring commercial properties, traffic volume within the area is not anticipated to increase dramatically as a result of the proposed development. No pollution, negative impacts to the environment, or effects on existing waterways or the capacity of flood plains are anticipated as a result of this project.
In addition to the Application for Planning Consideration process, an application for Request for Plan Review and Approval, along with the required supplemental information, has also been submitted to the Elm Creek Watershed District for review and approval. There are adjacent properties within the proposed project area that have been granted variances to mitigate similar conditions and allow performance of ordinary operations afforded to other similarly situated tenants of like business. Therefore, no special privileges will result from approval of the variance. Rather, granting the requested variance will
afford the same opportunities to the subject parcel. Approval of the proposed project will provide a complementary use and an added amenity to the area within an existing development district. The project is consistent with pertinent orderly development guidelines, and all applicable local
ordinances and regulations affecting redevelopment of this property have been considered and adhered to during the design process. This project is an appropriate land use within the district and meets adequate setbacks and parking requirements for the proposed use.
These considerations along with the supplemental information provided within this submittal support approval the attached Application for Planning Consideration. Please contact me at 952-426-0699 if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this request on behalf of Just For Kix.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrew T. Brandel, PE Associate Principal, Engineer
Civil Engineering Group ATB/jrc
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"
TOP OF FOOTING96' - 0"
RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR99' - 9 7/8"
T.O. WALL @ STUDIO
118' - 8"
T.O. WALL @ SHOP123' - 0"
METAL CAP FLASHING
EIFS
EIFS COLUMNS
CONCRETE
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
METAL CAP FLASHING
BRICK COLUMNS
PRECAST CONCRETE
COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE
SIGNAGE ALUMINUM WINDOWS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
SIGNAGE
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"
TOP OF FOOTING96' - 0"
RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR
99' - 9 7/8"
T.O. WALL @ STUDIO118' - 8"
METAL CANOPY
CONCRETE
METAL CAP FLASHING
BRICK COLUMNS
PRECAST CONCRETE
COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE
ALUMINUM WINDOWS
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"
TOP OF FOOTING96' - 0"
RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR99' - 9 7/8"
T.O. WALL @ STUDIO118' - 8"
T.O. WALL @ SHOP
123' - 0"
METAL CAP FLASHING
EIFS
EIFS COLUMNS
CONCRETE
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
SIGNAGEMETAL CAP FLASHING
BRICK COLUMNS
PRECAST CONCRETE
COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE
SIGNAGE
METAL CANOPYALUMINUM WINDOWS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"
TOP OF FOOTING96' - 0"
RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR99' - 9 7/8"
T.O. WALL @ STUDIO118' - 8"
T.O. WALL @ SHOP123' - 0"
METAL CAP FLASHING
EIFS COLUMNS
CONCRETE
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
SIGNAGE
METAL CAP FLASHING
BRICK COLUMNS
PRECAST CONCRETE
COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE
01/2"1" 2"1/4"
REFERENCE SCALE1" = 1"
$5&+,7(&785((1*,1((5,1*(19,5210(17$/3/$11,1*ZZZLVJUSFRP
0(',1$0,11(627$$35,/
-867)25.,;
6+((7180%(5
(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216
1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"4 EAST ELEVATION
1989 SFSTUDIO 4 1989 SFSTUDIO 5
37 SFSTOR 37 SFSTOR
1969 SFVIEWING
2036 SFSTUDIO 2 1989 SFSTUDIO 3
1988 SFSTUDIO 1
01/2"1" 2"1/4"
REFERENCE SCALE1" = 1"
$5&+,7(&785((1*,1((5,1*(19,5210(17$/3/$11,1*ZZZLVJUSFRP
0(',1$0,11(627$$35,/
-867)25.,;
6+((7180%(5
)/2253/$13+$6(
1/8" = 1'-0"1 FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 2 (18,100 SF)
RENDERING
ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING www.is-grp.com JUST FOR KIX - NEW FACILITY
Medina, MN - 18393 - April 25, 2016
BM TNFH982.67TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55GMGM959ELM CREEK960
Approximate FEMAFlood Zone X1/2" IronRLS 90531/2" IronRLS 17006W. Line - Sec. 7-118-22 Approximate FEMAFlood Way Zone AE1/2" IronPOB1/2" IronRLS 17006E. Line - Lot 34 E 1/4 CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMN. Line - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)N. Line - Lot 34Cl
o
t
h
e
s
l
i
n
e
30 NE CornerLot 351/2" IronRLS 431101/2" IronRLS 43110Water's Edge1/27/20161/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 10938GravelSurface1/
2
"
I
r
o
n
RL
S
1
0
9
3
8
E. Line - Sec. 12-118-23Centerline - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)Wa
t
e
r
'
s
E
d
g
e
3/2
5
/
2
0
1
6
EL
M
C
R
E
E
KParcel 1Parcel 2SE CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMBLOCK 1LOT 1S. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687N. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T15368740
75 S73°19'23"E76.50N08°37'05"W223.14
L=518.47R=1835.32Δ=16°11'09"C.=516.75C.Brg=N82°16'19"WL=298.96R=2191.88Δ=7°48'53"C.=298.73C.Brg=S48°35'20"EL=211.30R=2191.88Δ=5°31'24"C.211.22N55°15'29"WS31°58'49"W10.00Δ=2°17'51"L=87.49R=2181.88C.Brg=N59°10'06"WC.=87.48S02°07'48"W 240.31 L=49.64R=2391.88=1°11'20"S3
2
°
5
8
'
4
9
"
W
50
.
0
0 Δ=2°22'30"L=101.22R=2441.88C.=101.21C.Brg=S58°12'26"EN3
0
°
3
6
'
1
9
"
E
25
.
0
0 L=179.36R=2416.88Δ=4°15'07"C.=179.32C.Brg=S61°31'14"EN07°34'07"E
53.45N03°51'23"W
304.00
Center Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687392.50
N02°07'48"E 2704.24
11
0
12
5
15
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
217.64
86.36
S89°39'34"W 263.80100 16.5
1475.60C. Brg=S56°25'31"EC.=49.64PROJECT18393 PPLATNODATEDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYTHIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, INC.AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATEDWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.TITLESHEETOF1KH15-183934/15/16 1OFJUSTFOR KIXPRELIMINARYPLATBituminous SurfaceConcrete SurfaceExisting BuildingIron Monument FoundUtility Pole/Guy WireHydrantWater ValveGas MeterElectric MeterPostManholeSignMailboxDeciduous TreeSanitary Sewer LineStorm Sewer LineUnderground Gas LineOverhead Utility LineFenceTreelineWater's EdgeGuardrailSanitary ForcemainFEMA Base Flood Elevation LineDelineated Wet Land LineKEY PLANI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATELIC. NO.43110DANIEL L. STUEBERGMPart of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241 and part ofthe NW 1/4 - SW 1/4, Section 7-118-22, City of Medina,Hennepin County, Minnesota.JUST FOR KIXEXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION:(per Certificate of Title No. 1331968)Real property in the of Medina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows:Par 1: Lot 34, except that part lying West of a line running North and South through said lot; which line isdescribed as follows:Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, thence North to a point onthe North line of Lot 34, said Addition, which is situated 263.8 feet West from the East Quarter post inSection 12, Township 118, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in Auditor's SubdivisionNumber 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241,described as follows: Commencing at the East Quarter post in Section 12, Township 118, Range 23 Westof the Fifth Principal Meridian, thence West along the North line of said Lot 34, 263.8 feet, thence Southon a straight line towards the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241 to theNortherly line of the State Highway, thence Easterly along the Northerly line of the State Highway to theEast line of said Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, thence North along the said East Line of saidLot 34 to point of beginning.Par 2: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 118, Range22, described as follows to-wit: Commencing at the intersection of the West line of said Section 7 and theNorth line of the Right of Way of the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company,thence North along the said West line of said Section 7 to the South line of State Trunk Highway No. 55,thence Southeasterly along the South line of said State Trunk Highway No. 55 to the North line of saidRight of Way of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company; thence West alongthe said North line of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company to place ofbeginning.OWNERS / DEVELOPERS:SURVEYOR:Clough Properties, LLC ISG6948 Lake Forest Road 115 E. Hickory Street Suite 300Brainerd, MN 56401 Mankato, MN 56001 (507)-387-6651 AREA TABLE:Lot 1 Block 1 = 95,806 sq. ft.Right of Way = 72,995 sq. ft.Total = 168,801 sq. ftPROPOSED PROPERTY:ZONED: CH-RR (Commercial Highway-Railroad with Shoreland Overlay)Setbacks Building ParkingFront 25 feet 25 feetSide 15 feet 10 feetRear 25 feet 10 feetElm Creek 50 feet 50 feetBENCHMARK:Top nut fire hydrant located at southeast corner of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241.Elevation = 982.67 (NAVD88)FLOOD ZONE:Parts of the surveyed property shown on this survey map are in Flood Zone AE (base flood elevationsdetermined), Flood Zone X (areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood withaverage depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected bylevees from 1% annual chance flood), and Flood Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annualchance floodplain) according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No. 27053C0167E, publishedby the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective date September 2, 2004. Flood zone areas areshown on this survey.SITEVICINITY MAPSoo Line RRMN TH No. 55Sioux DrNE 1
/4SE 1
/4Sec. 12SE 1
/4SE 1
/4Sec
.
12SW 1
/4SW 1
/4Sec. 7NW 1
/4SW 1
/4Sec
.
7
TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55ELM CREEK1/2" IronRLS 90531/2" IronRLS 17006W. Line - SW 1/4
Sec. 7-118-221/2" IronPOB1/2" IronRLS 17006E. Line - Lot 34
S. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687E 1/4 CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMN. Line - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)N. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687N. Line - Lot 34NE CornerLot 351/2" IronRLS 431101/2" IronRLS 4311075 Water's Edge1/27/2016Elev=957.0NAVD(88)1/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 10938Centerline - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)Water's Edge3/25/2016Elev=955.8(NAVD88)ELM CREEKSE CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMBLOCK 1LOT 1S73°19'23"E76.50N08°37'05"W 223.14L=518.47R=1835.32Δ=16°11'09"C.=516.75C.Brg=N82°16'19"WL=298.96R=2191.88Δ=7°48'53"C.=298.73C.Brg=S48°35'20"EL=211.30R=2191.88Δ=5°31'24"C.211.22N55°15'29"WS31°58'49"W10.00 Δ=2°17'51"L=87.49R=2181.88C.Brg=N59°10'06"WC.=87.48S02°07'48"W 240.31 Δ=1°11'20"L=49.64R=2391.88C.Brg=S56°25'31"EC.=49.64S3
2
°
5
8
'
4
9
"
W
50
.
0
0 Δ=2°22'30"L=101.22R=2441.88C.=101.21C.Brg=S58°12'26"EN30°36'19"E25.00 L=179.36R=2416.88Δ=4°15'07"C.=179.32C.Brg=S61°31'14"EN07°34'07"E53.45N03°51'23"W 304.00
Center Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687L=1442.70R=2291.88Δ=36°04'00"392.50
N02°07'48"E 2704.24Wet LandWet Land45°27'0"
110 125150
1
0
0
1
0
0
217.6486.36 S89°39'34"W 263.80100S59°07'51"W 76.43S10°29'45"E19.42S80°23'37"E 100.06S18°08'23"E31.20S80°53'49"E 74.05N22°
1
8
'
4
2
"
E
26.6
4
N38°44
'27
"E
63
.28
S08°06'24"E
24.57
S79°43'47"E 71.07S38°36
'53"W41.09Δ=1°51'53"L=71.34L=80.47Δ=2°06'13"L=151.28Δ=3°57'16"L=158.76Δ=4°09'00"Δ=1°14'59"L=47.8116.5
1475.601000.00P
T
S
t
a
.
1
1
9
7
+
2
3
.
0
1/2" IronRLS 10938Sta. 1190+80Sta. 1191+75Sta. 1191+3540 N73°12'15"W19.87S73°12'15"E15.12N16°47'45"E10.00194.6411.0717.42
FINAL PLAT FOR REVIEWJUST FOR KIXJOB # 15-18393 DATE: 4-15-16 IRON MONUMENT FOUNDINDICATES 1/2" DIA. x 18"LONG SOLID IRON PIPE SETWITH PLASTIC CAP MARKED BYISG, LICENSE NO. 43110 TO BE SETBEFORE TIME OF RECORDING.WATER'S EDGEWET LAND LINEBEARING NOTE:The orientation of this bearing system isbased on the west line of SW 1/4 of Sec. 7,Twp. 118, Rge 22. Said line bears South 02degrees 07 minutes 48 seconds West.INSTRUMENT OF DEDICATIONKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Clough Properties, LLC, a Minnesotalimited liability company, owner of the following described property:Real property in the of Medina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows:Par 1: Lot 34, except that part lying West of a line running North and South through said lot; which line is described as follows:Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, thence North to a point on the North line of Lot 34, said Addition,which is situated 263.8 feet West from the East Quarter post in Section 12, Township 118, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in Auditor'sSubdivision Number 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, described as follows:Commencing at the East Quarter post in Section 12, Township 118, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, thence West along the North lineof said Lot 34, 263.8 feet, thence South on a straight line towards the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241 to the Northerlyline of the State Highway, thence Easterly along the Northerly line of the State Highway to the East line of said Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number241, thence North along the said East Line of said Lot 34 to point of beginning.Par 2: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 118, Range 22, described as follows to-wit: Commencingat the intersection of the West line of said Section 7 and the North line of the Right of Way of the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sault Ste. Marie RailwayCompany, thence North along the said West line of said Section 7 to the South line of State Trunk Highway No. 55, thence Southeasterly along theSouth line of said State Trunk Highway No. 55 to the North line of said Right of Way of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie RailwayCompany; thence West along the said North line of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company to place of beginning.Together with an easement for right-of-way 16.5 feet wide along the South side of that part of Lot 34 in Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, HennepinCounty, Minnesota, which lies West of the above described line.Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as JUST FOR KIX and does hereby dedicate to the public, for public use, the public ways and thedrainage and utility easements as created by this plat.In witness whereof said Clough Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this_______ day of ___________________, 20_____.Signed: Clough Properties, LLC___________________________________________Chief ManagerState of ____________________________County of ____________________________This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by _______________________, Chief Manager, of CloughProperties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. ___________________________________________(sign) ___________________________________________(print) Notary Public ___________________________ My Commission Expires ________________SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEI, Daniel L. Stueber, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in theState of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on thisplat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been or, will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined inMinnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown andlabeled on this plat.Dated this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.___________________________________________Daniel L. Stueber, Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 43110State of MinnesotaCounty of Blue EarthThis instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by Daniel L. Stueber, Licensed Land Surveyor. ___________________________________________ Kent A. Hays Notary Public, Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2020CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSIONBe it known that at a meeting held on this _________________ day of _____________________, 20_____, the Planning Commission of the City of Medinadid hereby review and approve this plat of JUST FOR KIX.___________________________________________ __________________________________________Chair Person SecretaryCITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTAThis plat of JUST FOR KIX, was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this_______ day of ___________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.___________________________________________ __________________________________________Mayor City Administrator-ClerkSURVEY DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTAPursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor by______________________________________RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTAI hereby certify that taxes payable in 20_____ and prior years have been paid for the land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of___________________, 20_____.Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor by______________________________________ DeputyREGISTRAR OF TITLES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTAI hereby certify that the within plat of JUST FOR KIX was recorded in this office this _______ dayof ___________________, 20_____, at _______ o'clock _____.M.Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles by______________________________________ DeputyR.T DOC. NO _______________________________________________0Scale in Feet4080BENCHMARK:MnDOT monument 2722 Y MnDOTElev=979.68 (NAVD88)SITEVICINITY MAPSoo Line RRMN TH No. 55Sioux DrNE 1
/4SE 1
/4Sec
.
12SE 1
/4SE 1
/4Sec
.
12SW 1
/4SW 1
/4Sec. 7NW 1
/4SW 1
/4Sec. 7