HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-12-2019 POSTED IN CITY HALL: November 8, 2019
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2019
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. Public Hearing – Jan Har, LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) – Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit –
PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001 – north of Hwy 55,
west of Willow Dr.
6. David B. Raskob – 4585 Balsam Street – Variance to exceed 25%
hardcover limitation within Shoreland Overlay District
7. Approval of October 8, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Minutes
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2019
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: October 31, 2019
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – November 6, 2019 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A)Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive,
north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp Plan
Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single-family,
and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing at the October 8 meeting. A number of residents provided written comment
and one spoke in opposition of the amendment. Following the hearing, the Planning
Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
request will be presented to the City Council on November 6.
B)3672 Pinto Rezoning – Woodbury REI, LLC has requested a rezoning of its property at the
northeast corner of Tower Drive and Pinto Drive from Commercial-Highway to
Commercial-General. The owner is interested in constructing self-storage on the property.
A public hearing was held at the October 8 Planning Commission meeting. The owner to
the west of the site spoke in opposition of the rezoning and the use of the site for self-
storage. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval
of the rezoning. The request will be presented to the City Council on November 6.
C)Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s
Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office
building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of
Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). Staff is conducting a
preliminary review, and the item will be scheduled for a public hearing when complete,
potentially at the November 12 Planning Commission meeting.
D)4585 Balsam Hardcover Variance – Dave Raskob has requested a variance from the 25%
hardcover limitation for a lot within the shoreland overlay district, to 32.4%. Staff is
conducting a preliminary review and the planning commission is tentatively scheduled to
review on November 12.
E)Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a
preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The application is currently incomplete
and will be scheduled for a hearing when necessary information is submitted.
F)Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert
Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a
staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. Staff is conducting a preliminary
review and will schedule when complete for review.
G)Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition/OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of
Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested approval of a site
plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility.
The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to
Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Council adopted approval documents
on November 7. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. The applicant has also
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2019
City Council Meeting
proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which were presented at the Planning Commission
on March 12. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended site plan. Staff
will present to the City Council when the final plat is prepared.
H) Van de Ven/Welch combination/rearrangement – 1765 Medina Road and 1752 County
Road 24 – Martha and Andrew Van de Ven and Mark and Sara Welch have requested to
rearrange 3 lots into 2. The Council approved the request at the October 15 meeting. Staff
will coordinate recording of documents with the applicant.
I) Woods of Medina Final Plat – Shawnee Woods Road/County Road 116. Excelsior Group
has transferred this project into their responsibility and intends to begin construction this
fall. Construction started the week of October 14.
J) Vacation, Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – 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.
K) Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working
with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded.
Other Projects
A) Quad City Agreement – Medina, Loretto, and Greenfield have signed the agreement and we are still
awaiting Independence.
B) Zoning Enforcement – two correction notices are pending for zoning violations.
C) Chippewa/Arrowhead Visioning Study – Staff held the open house related to this study on October
15 and met with the DNR to discuss permitting. WSB will present the report at the November 6
meeting.
TO: City Council
FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: October 31, 2019
RE: Police Department Updates
Hiring Processes
Public Safety Director
Sgt Nelsen has been selected to move on in the process for the Public Safety Director position. Next
week he is scheduled for a physiological exam. If successful, City Administrator will be putting an
offer memo together for him for approval at the November 19th City Council Meeting.
Officer Position
We received 35 applications for the officer position. Assistant City Administrator Gallup has ranked
the applications and we will be interviewing the top 16 candidates on November 7, 2019. From there
we will bring back the top 7 to 10 candidates for a second interview on November 14th with police
personnel and a council representative. A chief interview and background to follow.
Hamel Fire Transition Meeting
Our third meeting is schedule for November 1st.
Department Meeting / Training
At our October 29th department meeting, we talked about goals for the upcoming year. We also
discussed the Holiday Train, squad cameras and the new Teams software program. After the
discussion, Officer Boecker ran the officers through a use of force scenario.
Patrol Updates – Sgt. Nelson
Training: Officer Hall attended leadership training at the BCA. Officers Jessen, Gregory and Boecker
attended driving school training in St. Cloud. Officer Scharf and I attended the annual Towards Zero
Deaths conference in St. Cloud. We also had a department meeting where use of force and use of
force scenarios were conducted by Officer Boecker.
MEMORANDUM
Patrol Activities - For the dates of October 9 to October 29, 2019, our officers issued 64 citations and
178 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 4 traffic accidents, 20 medicals, and
16 alarms.
On 10-27-19, Officer McGill took a burglary report where the homeowner reported items missing from
his residence. The residence has been unoccupied for several years and it was recently learned that
high school kids may be going through the house because it looks abandoned. Officers have found
open doors to the residence and have been working with the homeowner to better secure the property.
On 10-20-19, Officer Scharf was dispatched to a driving complaint where the caller advised that a
vehicle traveling east on Hwy 55 was all over the road and almost side-swiped another vehicle.
Officer Scharf was able to locate the vehicle which was pulling a trailer. The vehicle was stopped after
observing driving conduct and the driver was found to be intoxicated. The driver was arrested. He
tested a .11 and was transported to the Hennepin County Jail.
On 10-18-19, Officer Gregory and I assisted Three Rivers Park Police with a person who fled on foot
from the officer who was investigating a motorcycle at a campsite. The motorcycle was found to be
stolen. The driver was identified but not located.
On 10-18-19, Officer Scharf stopped a vehicle for displaying the wrong license plates. It was learned
that the vehicle had been bought two years prior and that the owner had never transferred the title or
purchased correct license plates and evading paying taxes on the vehicle. The driver was arrested, and
the vehicle was impounded.
On 10-15-19, Officer Boecker was dispatched to take a runaway report. It was learned that a 13-year-
old had left his residence after getting into trouble with his parents. The male was found to have a
serious medical condition and believed to be in danger if not located in the woods. Chief Belland,
Officer McGill, Investigator McKinley and I, along with several other agencies and search and rescue
groups, were called to assist. We were unable to locate the juvenile, but he did come home
approximately 11 hours later after spending the night lost in the swamp by his house.
On 10-11-19, Officer Scharf stopped a vehicle for following to close. The driver was found to be
intoxicated and was subsequently arrested. He tested .19 and was booked into the Hennepin County
Jail.
Investigator Update – Investigator McKinley
Responded overnight to assist with the search of a juvenile runaway who had some medical issues.
Numerous agencies assisted with searching for the juvenile. I responded and interviewed the parents.
Observed a juvenile victim of a sexual assault interviewed at CornerHouse in Minneapolis. Located
and interviewed the suspect. My report will be sent to the County Attorney’s office for review.
In August, our office had an incident involving two recovered stolen vehicles. I did a search warrant on
three cell phones recovered off occupants of the vehicles. I received the results of that search warrant
this week. I am requesting the occupants be charged with possession of stolen property. I will be
submitting my case to the County Attorney’s office for review.
Covered two patrol shifts for officers who were on vacation.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: October 31, 2019
MEETING: November 6, 2019
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• The Hickory Dr project is complete. Between the changes to the street and storm water,
it’s a huge improvement. It is pleasant when the coordination between property owners,
the watershed, and the city goes smoothly.
• The Brockton Lane project is behind schedule and should be paved by early next week.
There are overages on the engineering side due to the extended length of the project and
the contractor seemingly lacking coordination. Discussions took place with Plymouth to
make sure we all agree on the extra inspection charges. This is an addition to the design
fee addition that was approved in July this year.
• Striping for Medina Road was completed October 29th, which took longer than
anticipated.
• Public Works has been working on getting all the valves and manholes lowered or
patched around to avoid damage to the snowplows.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public Works and Planning are working to update our stormwater manual to include
maintenance. We are continuing to work on this project and touch base on the project
weekly.
• The water systems have all been winterized and are ready for cold weather.
PARKS/TRAILS
• Fall cleanup still needs to be done on our parks but they are generally in good shape.
• Public Works will be prepping the skating rinks and soon will be making snow for the
sledding hill.
MISCELLANEOUS
• Trees have been ordered for cleanup day. As always, we try to order a mixture of
varieties, however, people seem to fixate on maples and so we tried to order more of
those varieties.
• Public Works has had all its plow trucks DOT certified. There were a few minor defects
but nothing alarming. This is the advantage of having newer, well-maintained vehicles.
• We are prepping bid packets earlier than usual to send out next week for the lawn and
ground services contract which will be due in December for the 2020 and 2021 seasons.
to the City of Medina’s Annual
Employee Recognition & Holiday Event
Thursday, December 5th, 2019
5 PM – 7 PM
Social 5:00-5:30
Dinner 5:30-6:15
Recognition 6:15
Hamel Community Building
3200 Mill Street
Main course, salad, coffee, punch and water provided
Please bring an appetizer, side or dessert to share
Bring Your Own—wine, beer or soda
RSVP by Friday, November 22nd with number attending to
Anne.klaers@medinamn.gov
Recognizing:
For Years of Service: Welcome New Employees:
Jennifer Altendorf - 5 years Patrick Johnson - Police
Tom Gregory - 15 years Austin Roerick - Public Works
Steve Scherer - 25 years Ben Schneider - Planning
Rolf Erickson - 40 years Kaylen Boeddeker - Police
2019 Retirements:
Ivan Dingmann - 16+ years
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 1 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: November 7, 2019
MEETING: November 12, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control)
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review – PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 &
04-118-23-24-0001 (north of Highway 55, 1300 feet west of Willow Drive)
Background
Jar Har, LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) has requested approval of various land use applications to
allow for a business development on property located north of Highway 55, approximately 1300
feet west of Willow Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 43,000 square-foot, three-
story office building with a bar restaurant and a 13,100 square foot accessory building for shop,
warehouse, and vehicle storage.
The subject site is approximately 43 acres, but the western half is part of a large wetland basin
(Pioneer Creek). The northern five acres of the site is wooded, and the remainder is farmed. The
site slopes from east to west. A bald eagle eyrie is located within a large tree near Highway 55
on the edge of the wetland. Site and building construction would be subject to US Fish and
Wildlife Services regulations and recommendations.
Property to the east of the site is also guided for business, but much is currently farmland.
Graphic Packaging is located to the southeast. Rural homes in the City of Corcoran are located
to the north. The large wetland to the west is between 850-1350 feet in width, with rural
residential uses to the west. An aerial of the site and surrounding properties can be found at the
top of the following page.
The request includes the following land use applications, and staff recommends that they be
considered in this order:
1) Rezoning from Rural Business Holding (RBH) to Business (B) - The subject site, and
property to the east and south, is guided for business development in the Comprehensive
Plan. The subject site is currently zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH). The applicant
proposes to rezone both proposed lots to the Business (B) zoning district.
2) Preliminary Plat to plat property into two lots - The applicant proposes to plat the property
into two lots. The southern lot is proposed to be approximately 26.5 acres in size and to
be developed in this application. The northern lot is proposed to be approximately 19.5
acres in size for future development. No improvements are proposed on the northern lot
at this time.
3) Site Plan review for construction of new buildings
4) Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Recreation, Outdoor Dining/Drinking area, and vehicle
repair
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 2 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Rezoning Request
As previously noted, the subject site has been designated as “Business” in the City’s 2020-2040
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH). The RBH
zoning district is intended to apply to property planned for business development prior to
development with City sewer and water. Rezoning is expected at the time sewer and water are
extended to the property.
The City has established the Business (B) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts to implement
the objectives of the Business land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has requested
that the entire site be zoned to Business.
The B and BP districts allow similar uses, but as described in their purpose statements, generally
the B district is intended to be applied to property more proximate to arterial roadways: “The
purpose of the Business (B) district is to provide for a zoning district for a mix of office, high
quality light industrial, and larger-scale retail and service uses with proximity to arterial
roadways. Development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and
architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to limit impacts on surrounding
land uses, and shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently utilize site
improvements and to protect the natural environment.”
The BP zoning district is intended to be applied to property more proximate to residential lands:
“The purpose of the Business Park (BP) district is to provide an attractive, high quality business
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 3 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
park primarily for office, high quality manufacturing and assembly, and non-retail uses in
developments which provide a harmonious transition to residential development and
neighborhoods by: 1) conducting all business activities and essentially all storage inside
buildings, 2) consisting of low profile, high quality and attractive buildings which blend in with
the environment, 3) providing open space, quality landscaping and berming which achieve a
park-like setting; 4) including berming and buffering of parking, loading docks and other similar
functions; and 5) protecting and enhancing the natural environment.”
The most significant difference between the BP and B zoning districts is that the B district allows
a height of 45 feet, and the BP district allows 35 feet. The setback requirements are slightly
more for BP and very limited outside storage is permitted in B while no outside storage is
permitted in BP.
The subject site is adjacent to Highway 55, which would generally align with the purpose
statement of the B zoning district. Residential property is located north of the site in the City of
Corcoran, which may suggest that the BP district could be applied to the proposed northern lot.
However, the proposed northern lot is approximately 865 feet north of Highway 55, which is still
proximate to the highway.
The definition and objectives of the Business land use should provide guidance when
determining appropriate zoning regulations for property within the use. This information is
attached for reference.
According to Section 825.35 of the City Code: “amendments [to the zoning map] 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.”
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the entire subject site to the B zoning district.
Staff believes the proposed zoning of the southern lot to the B zoning district is consistent with
the purposes of the district. While the northern lot is adjacent to residential property in Corcoran
to the north, it is still proximate to Highway 55. As such, staff believes the B district is
appropriate.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes to plat the subject property into two lots. The subject site has two
property identification numbers, but staff did not find record of previous subdivision. The B and
BP district have different minimum lot standards, but it appears that both proposed lots far
exceed the minimum standards of either district. The following table compares the proposed
lots to the standards of the B and BP districts.
B Requirement BP
Requirement
Lot 1
(south lot)
Lot 2
(north lot)
Minimum Lot Area 3 acres 3 acres 26.58 acre 19.59 acre
Minimum Lot Width 175 feet 200 feet 1440 feet 935 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 175 feet 200 feet 660 feet 1440 feet
Transportation, Streets and Right-of-way
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 4 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The applicant proposes to construct a road to connect to Willow Drive as a primary access. The
applicant proposes a temporary access into the site from Highway 55 for three years following
completion of the building.
There is property owned by another party between the subject site and Willow Drive. City staff
is working with the owners to secure public right-of-way which would allow the applicant to
construct the street. The City would then accept this street as a public roadway. Without the
street connection to Willow Drive, it is likely that staff would be requiring a traffic analysis and
potentially major improvements on Highway 55 if the applicant were proposing as primary
access. Staff recommends a condition that the plat and site plan review are contingent upon
construction of the street to connect to Willow Drive.
Staff recommends a condition that the owner provide documentation acceptable to the City
Attorney to ensure closure of the access onto Highway 55 within three years after completion of
the building. Staff also recommends a condition that the plat be updated to dedicate right-of-way
for the proposed cul-de-sac from Willow Drive.
Provided the access to Willow Drive is constructed, the City Engineer did not raise concerns
related to the City’s transportation system. The City Engineer did not oppose the temporary right
from Highway 55. However, the City Engineer did raise concern with access directly onto
Highway 55 if the access to Willow Drive is not provided.
Sewer/Water/Easements
The applicant proposes to loop a watermain from the west side of Graphic Packaging to the site
and then back to Willow Drive along the proposed roadway. Staff recommends that all
watermain and hydrants improvements within the subject site be private.
The applicant proposes to expand sanitary sewer along the street to a future City sewer lift
station which is proposed along Willow Drive. Private sewer lines would extend from the cul-
de-sac to serve the buildings.
Staff recommends a condition that easements be provided around the perimeter of the lot, over
all wetland areas, over all stormwater facilities, and over public and private watermains and
hydrants. Because staff recommends that the watermain within the site be private, staff
recommends that a wider drainage and utility easement be provided along the eastern property
line between the watermains to allow for a potential connection between them at some point in
the future.
Park Dedication
The Park Commission is scheduled to review the proposed subdivision at the November 20
meeting to make a recommendation on required Park Dedication. The City’s subdivision
ordinance requires the dedication of up to 10% of the buildable property, a cash payment in-lieu
of land dedication, or some combination.
The City’s parks, trails, and open space plan do not call for improvements in the area of the
subject site. The applicant proposes a trail system to enjoy the natural amenities on the site,
including the eagle’s eyrie and the woods to the north. The applicant also proposes to install a
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 5 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
bike repair station. The Park Commission will discuss these proposed improvements in relation
to required park dedication.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions,
the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the
following findings are made:
(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.
(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.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does
not meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
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 City’s has a relatively low amount of discretion while reviewing a plat request. If the plat
meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it should be approved.
Subject to the following conditions, staff does not believe these findings are met. Therefore,
staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the
conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon construction of a roadway to provide
access to the site from Willow Drive.
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _______, except as
may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Applicant provide park dedication as recommended by the Park Commission.
5. The plat shall dedicate right-of-way for the proposed cul-de-sac.
6. The plat shall dedicate a wider drainage and utility easement along the eastern property line
for potential water main connection.
7. The plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lots, over all
water mains and hydrants, over stormwater improvements, and over all wetland areas.
8. The watermain and hydrants within the lots shall be privately maintained.
9. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements in order to ensure completion.
10. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting
preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for
time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
11. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the
cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents.
Proposed Site Plan
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 6 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The proposed uses of the principal building include office and bar/restaurant, which are
permitted in B zoning district. The applicant also proposes entertainment in the bar/restaurant
and outdoor seating. Indoor recreational uses and outdoor dining/drinking areas are allowed with
conditional use permit. The proposed uses of the accessory structure include warehouse and
vehicle storage, which are allowed uses and vehicle repair, which is a conditional use.
Following is a summary comparing the proposed construction to the dimensional standards of
the B district. This review is contingent upon rezoning to the B zoning district and would need
to be reevaluated if the City does not approve of the requested rezoning.
B District
Requirement
Principal
Building
Accessory
Building
Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 330 feet (cul-de-
sac)
510 feet (cul-de-
sac)
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 820 feet (west) 1300 feet (west)
Minimum Interior Yard
Setback
25 feet
(15 feet if integrated)
300 feet (north)
330 feet (east)
550 feet (north)
40 feet (east)
Setback from Highway 55 50 feet 127 feet 62 feet
Setback from Residential 100 feet
(75 feet w/ screening)
800 feet
(southwest)
N/A
Setback for Structures >35’ + foot per foot +7 feet N/A
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 30 feet (south)
19 feet (south)
Rear and Side Yard 15 feet 120 feet (north)
900 feet (west)
50 feet (east)
Residential (east) 100 feet
(60 feet w/ screening)
800 feet
(southwest)
1300 feet
(southwest)
Maximum Hardcover 70% 17.3% (total) 17.3% (total)
Building Height 45 feet 37.6’ (42’ to top
of arch. element)
22’ (27’ to top of
arch. Element)
It appears that that access drive and circulation for the accessory building does not meet
minimum setback requirements from Highway 55. It appears that this area is wider than it would
need to be, so staff recommends a condition that the plans be adjusted to abide by setback
requirements. With the exception of this portion of the access lane, it appears the proposed site
plan meets dimensional standards of the district.
Building Materials and Design
The B zoning district requires the following architectural standards. The Planning Commission
and Council can discuss whether the proposed building is consistent with the standards or
recommend conditions if necessary.
The applicant may not construct the restaurant portion of the building with the initial
construction, but has requested the ability to construct within a reasonable timeframe. Staff
supports allowing four years for construction to begin. Staff requested architectural plans
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 7 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
showing the building with and without the restaurant to confirm that the building could meet
architectural requirements in either case. Both elevations are included in the attached plans.
Materials
The B district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the following
standards:
(a) A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco
(not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass.
(b) A maximum of 80 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative
block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a
high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
(c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper), fiber cement lap
siding or Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent
materials which are integrated into the overall building design.”
The principal building is proposed to include
the exterior materials to the right:
The accessory structure is proposed to include the
exterior materials to the right:
Staff recommends a condition that the concrete
panels are “color impregnated in earth tones (rather
than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine
appearance.”
Modulation
The business districts require: “Buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous
building walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or
building materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a
minimum of one element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion
thereof. Alternative architectural or site elements and designs may also be approved by
the city which achieve the purpose of reducing the visual impact of long building walls.”
The southern portion of the proposed principal building elevations contain many aspects of
modulation, including horizontal (varying building setback), vertical (varying building heights),
different materials, and elements such as awnings. The northern portion of the building does not
include as much modulation, but does provide vertical stone elements more than once per 100
feet.
The accessory building is a large rectangle with the same building height. The structure is
proposed to include vertical stone architectural elements in excess of once per 100 feet which
complement the principal structure.
Fenestration and Transparency
Materials Proposed Required
Glass, stone, brick, stucco 48% Minimum 20%
Precast concrete 31% Maximum 80%
Metal 20% Maximum 20%
Materials Proposed Required
Glass, stone 23% Minimum 20%
Precast concrete 66% Maximum 80%
Metal 10% Maximum 20%
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 8 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The business districts require: “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 southern façade of the principal structure includes approximately 18% window coverage and
various other architectural elements. The southern façade of the accessory structure includes
approximately 4% window coverage and a stone architectural feature. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission and Council discuss whether the fenestration and architectural design of
the accessory building is consistent with this requirement.
Multi-sided Architecture
The business districts require: “Any rear or side building elevation which faces a
public street 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.”
Staff believes the principal structure generally provides multi-sided architecture.
Stormwater
The applicant proposes a series of filtration basins for stormwater management. The City
Engineer has reviewed and provided comments to address. Most significantly, additional
volume control will be required. Staff recommends as a condition of approval.
The project will also be subject to Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed review and approval.
Wetlands and Floodplains
The western half of the property is within a large wetland basin which is connected with the
headwaters of Pioneer Creek. A smaller basin is located in the woods to the north and a
drainageway in the east-central area of the property near the proposed lot line. No wetland
impacts are proposed. The applicant has proposed to subdivide the property such that Lot 2
could receive access without wetland impacts, but some impacts may be requested to cross the
drainageway when Lot 2 is developed.
The wetland protection ordinance requires upland
buffers with average width as described to the right:
The plan identifies the required buffers and the
applicant proposes very little disturbance within the buffers, only to accommodate the discharge
from a filtration basin to the northwest.
FEMA floodplain maps identify a large “Zone A” floodplain within the large wetland basin to
the west. Neither FEMA nor the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed have identified a base flood
elevation for this basin, but the structures are proposed more than 10 feet above the elevation of
the floodplain location. No impacts are proposed within the mapped floodplain.
Transportation/Access/Loading
Wetland Required
buffer
Large basin to west 35 feet
Northern wetland (wooded) 35 feet
Eastern wetland 25 feet
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 9 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Transportation and access are discussed above within the review of the preliminary plat. Staff
recommends that sidewalk connections be provided from the cul-de-sac to the principal structure
and that pedestrian circulation be reviewed within the parking lot. This would allow connection
with pedestrian improvements within neighboring developments to the east.
The business zoning districts include the following requirements related to loading docks:
• Limitation on loading dock area located outside of courtyards - Loading docks,
excepting those located within a courtyard as defined by this Section, shall not occupy
greater than 10 percent of the building perimeter. If it deems it practically necessary, the
city may allow additional loading dock area outside of courtyards, but not in an amount
to exceed 20 percent of the building perimeter.
The principal building is not proposed to include a loading dock. Garage doors and docks
occupy 12.3% of the perimeter of the accessory structure. The applicant has submitted a
narrative describing why the additional doors are necessary. About ½ of the garage doors allow
for inside vehicle storage, rather than loading. Staff believes it is reasonable to determine that
the doors in excess of 10% are practically necessary, especially since the principal structure has
no docks.
• Loading docks shall not be located in required yard setbacks and should be located in a
way which minimizes visibility from residential zoning districts and public streets.
The proposed docks meet setback requirements and no residential property is in the area. The
vehicle storage and shop doors are located on the western side of the accessory building. The
building is a few feet below grade, which would reduce visibility, but may be visible east-bound
on Highway 55. The applicant proposes landscaping on the bottom of the wall, near the
building, but staff recommends a condition to incorporate or shift some planting to the top of the
retaining wall to improve screening.
• The loading dock setback adjacent to or across a street from a residential zoning district
shall be increased to 100 feet.
The proposed docks are 1300 feet from residential property.
• Any loading dock within 300 feet of a residential zoning district shall be separated from
the residential district by a building or a wing wall. The city may approve of other
alternatives for noise abatement and screening.
The proposed docks are 1300 feet from residential property.
• Loading docks shall be screened from adjacent property and streets to the fullest extent
possible using the following techniques, or others as approved by the city.
o Building design/configuration
o Wing walls
o Below grade docks. This technique shall be supplemented with landscaping.
o Landscaping
o Berming
o Decorative Fencing.
The applicant proposes landscaping on the bottom of the wall, near the building, but staff
recommends a condition to incorporate or shift some planting to the top of the retaining wall to
improve screening.
Parking
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 10 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The applicant proposes 298 parking spaces. According to the City’s parking ordinance, the
office, restaurant, and warehouse/shop would require a minimum of 260 parking stalls.
The applicant anticipates live music within the bar/restaurant. It is likely that this would increase
the parking demand of the bar/restaurant because some of the space would likely be opened up
for standing room. However, the applicant anticipates that the entertainment use would occur in
the off-peak office hours, which would provide the opportunity to share the parking. The
parking ordinance allows for Joint Use Parking when “parking demands occur at different times,
if approved by the City.” The ordinance also allows the City to reduce the required number of
parking spaces based on “factors having an impact on parking demand and capacity.” Staff
believes the proposed joint parking between the office and entertainment use is appropriate.
Lighting
The City’s lighting ordinance requires light trespass to be no more than 0.2 FC at property lines.
The applicant has submitted a lighting and photometric plan and there are some areas that appear
to be 0.3 FC at the property line. The plans will need to provide updated fixtures or shielding to
meet the maximum allowance.
Staff recommends a condition requiring updated photometrics showing compliance with the 0.2
FC limitation and stating that all lighting fixtures must be fully shielded and downcast.
Tree Preservation
578 significant trees were identified on the site, mostly within the wooded are to the north, along
the boundaries of the site and adjacent to the wetlands. Additional trees were not located on the
island west of the large wetland. The applicant proposes to remove two trees for the street
construction (0.3%) and eight trees (<10% of trees on Lot 1) for construction of the building.
The tree preservation ordinance would permit 10% of the trees on the site to be removed in
connection with “initial site development” (streets, utilities) and an additional 10% of the trees
from each lot to be removed for other construction.
Landscaping
The business district includes the following landscape requirements:
• Building Setting - At least 12 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all
buildings except for walks, plaza space and approved loading docks.
Landscaping greater than 12 feet in width is proposed adjacent to the buildings.
• Minimum Planting
Office 1 stall per 250 s.f. 36,000 square feet 144 stalls
Warehouse/Shop 1 stall per employee
or 1 stall per 2000 s.f.
15,827 square feet
6 max shift
8 stalls
Restaurant 1 stall per 3 seats 250 indoor seats
75 outdoor seats
83 stalls
25 stalls
Total 260 stalls
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 11 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Requirement Required Proposed
Overstory trees 1 per 50’ site perimeter 103 trees 107 trees
Ornamental trees 1 per 100’ site perimeter 52 trees 54 trees
Shrubs 1 per 30’ site perimeter 183 shrubs >1000 shrubs
It appears that the landscaping plan exceed the minimum planting requirements of the district.
As noted above, staff is recommending additional screening for the garage doors on the
accessory structure. The City can require additional plantings for screening where necessary.
• Parking lot landscaping – minimum of 8% of parking lot area
The interior of the parking lot and loading dock area includes almost 20% landscaping area,
primarily because of the filtration basin and berm between the two buildings.
• Landscaping islands every 20 spaces, wider separations for cells of 120 spaces
Plans provide landscaping islands. However, a larger separation at least 12 feet in width is
required in the portion of the parking lot east of the principal structure. Staff recommends a
condition requiring this change.
Utilities, Mechanical Equipment, and Trash and Recycling Facilities
The business districts require: All utilities shall be placed underground. To the extent possible,
all utility equipment, meters and transformers shall be placed either inside of the building or
within an outside mechanical court formed by walls. If not located within the building,
these items shall be fully screened from view from adjacent property and streets through
the use of opaque landscaping or walls constructed of materials which are compatible
with the building.
The landscaping plan shows landscape screening around transformers and generators.
The plans do not identify HVAC location. Staff recommends a condition that HVAC locations
be identified and screening measures provided.
All trash and material to be recycled are required to be stored within the principal building,
within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed outdoor area adjacent to the principal
structure. The applicant has identified locations adjacent to each building.
Conditional Use Permit
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 12 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Indoor recreational uses, outdoor dining/drinking areas, and vehicle repair are all conditional
uses within the B zoning district. Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are subject to specific
requirements for each use which are above the general zoning requirements, and also subject to a
general set of criteria for all CUPs.
Following are the specific standards for each use with a summary of how staff believes each are
met:
Indoor Recreational Uses
(a) Entrances for public access, as well as other outdoor areas where patrons may congregate,
shall be no less than 200 feet from residential districts.
The building and all outside areas are located more than 770 feet from residential property.
(b) Provisions for noise reduction shall be identified based on the type of use proposed.
Staff recommends a condition requiring provisions for noise reduction for the live music.
Outdoor dining/drinking
(a) The outdoor space shall be at least 200 feet from any residential zoning district.
The outdoor seating area is located more than 770 feet from residential property.
(b) The area shall be directly adjacent to the principal structure, and be clearly delineated by
fencing or decorative landscaping.
The plans appear to identify fencing, but staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the
CUP.
(c) The area shall not interfere with fire safety access to the building.
No concerns were raised by the Fire Marshal.
(d) Outdoor speakers and lighting shall be designed to limit impacts on adjacent property or
right-of-way.
Lighting is required to be downcast and no outdoor speakers are proposed.
(e) Pervious surfacing is encouraged, and if utilized, these areas shall not be considered
as an impervious surface.
The applicant does not propose pervious surfacing.
Automobile Repair
(a) The structure containing the use shall be no less than 200 feet from residential districts.
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 13 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The building is over 1300 feet from residential property.
(b) Vehicles parked outside awaiting service or pick-up shall be located in an area which is fully
screened from neighboring properties and from the right-of-way.
The building provides indoor vehicle storage, but staff recommends this as an ongoing condition
for the CUP.
(c) No inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the premises, unless in the process of being
repaired and are stored within a building.
Staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the CUP.
(d) All repair functions shall occur within an enclosed building.
Staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the CUP.
(e) No sales, storage, or display of automobiles shall be permitted unless a conditional use
permit is granted for such a use.
Staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the CUP.
(f) Equipment specifications shall be submitted. Vibration and noise reduction measures may be
required by the city.
The equipment is anticipated to be standard repair equipment. Staff does not recommend
additional noise reduction.
(g) Additional screening may be required to limit sight and noise impacts of service bays.
Staff has recommended additional screening for the service bay door.
(h) Adequate provision shall be made for proper inside storage of all new and used
petroleum, chemical, liquid, and other products.
Staff recommends this as a condition prior to building permit.
(i) Towing operations shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only if allowed as part of the
conditional use permit and if clearly subordinate to the principal use. The city may apply
necessary conditions and limitation on this use.
No towing is proposed.
General CUP Standards
Pursuant to Section 825.39 of the zoning doce, when considering CUPs, the City shall consider:
Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the CUP will impede development.
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 14 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities
have been or are being provided.
These matters are discussed above, and subject to the conditions recommended, staff believes they
will be addressed.
Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street
parking and loading space to serve the proposed use.
These matters are discussed above, and staff believes have been provided.
Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control
lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties
will result.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of
the City and to the existing land use.
The uses are all permitted in the zoning district.
Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The uses are all permitted in the zoning district.
Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed CUP would conflict with the policies of the City.
Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Subject to construction of the access to Willow Drive, staff does not believe this will be a concern.
Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare
or general unsightliness.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant anticipates construction during 2020. As noted above, the restaurant may not be
constructed with the initial project.
Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning
Officer.
The applicant is listed as the owner of the property.
Staff Recommendation
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 15 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
As discussed above, staff recommends that the rezoning request be discussed first. The
improvements on Lot 1 are designed according to the B zoning district. The criteria for
reviewing a rezoning were described above. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of Lot 1
to the B district. The Planning Commission and Council should also determine whether the B or
BP zoning district is most appropriate for Lot 2. Staff believes it is reasonable for both sites to
be zoned B.
Staff also recommends approval of the preliminary plat. The criteria for the plat and
recommended conditions were described earlier in the report.
The City has a relatively low level of discretion when reviewing the Conditional Use Permits and
Site Plan Review. It a proposed conditional use permit meets the specific and general standards
described earlier in the report, it should be approved. The City Council may impose additional
conditions “it considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the
community as a whole.” Staff has recommended some of those conditions below.
The purpose of a Site Plan Review is to review compliance with relevant land use regulations. If
the proposed construction meets the requirements, it should be approved. The City can apply
conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with City requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of US Fish and Wildlife Services with
regard to construction near the bald eagle nest.
2. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon approval of a rezoning of the
subject property to the Business zoning district.
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _____________,
except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage.
5. The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to provide landscaping to south and west of
the vehicle service bay and vehicle storage doors.
6. The Applicant shall update the parking lot plan to divide the parking into cells with
landscaping at least 12 feet in width.
7. The Applicant shall update plans so that the access/circulation for the accessory building
meets setback requirements from Highway 55.
8. The Applicant shall submit specifications confirming that proposed concrete panels are
color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a
high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
9. The Applicant shall update lighting plants to comply with the City’s lighting ordinance,
limiting light trespass to 0.2 FC at the property line.
10. The Applicant shall identify HVAC locations and provide screening measures for re view
and approval.
11. All comments from the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
12. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
Jar Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 16 of 16 November 12, 2019
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
13. The outdoor dining and drinking area shall be delineated with fencing.
14. Adequate provision shall be made for proper inside storage of all new and used
petroleum, chemical, liquid, and other product related to the vehicle repair.
15. All vehicle repair shall occur within the structure.
16. Vehicles parked outside awaiting service or pick-up shall be located in an area which is
fully screened from neighboring properties and from the right-of-way. No inoperable
vehicle may be parked outside.
17. No automobile storage, display or sales shall occur upon the site unless a separate
conditional use permit is obtained for such use.
18. The site plan review approval shall be effective for one year and thereafter shall be
considered null and void. The restaurant portion of the project may be constructed as a
separate project, provided the permit is obtained within four years of approval.
19. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, site plan review, and related documents.
Potential Action
If, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission finds that the criteria described in the
report have been satisfied, the following action would be appropriate:
Move to recommend approval of the rezoning, preliminary plat, site plan review, and
conditional use permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Comp Plan Information – Business Land Use
3. Engineering comments dated 11/5/2019
4. Applicant narrative
5. Applicant description for additional garage doors
6. Preliminary Plat and Plans (Civil dated 10/28/2019; Arch dated 9/11/2019)
11/8/2019
Project: LR-19-255 – Adam’s Pest Control Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit
The following documents are all part of the official 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 Document
Date
Pages Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 7/23/2019 7/23/2019 3 Yes Yes
Deposit 7/23/2019 7/15/2019 1 Yes Yes $11,000
Rezoning Extension 11/4/2019 11/4/2019 1 Yes Yes
Narrative 7/23/2019 N/A 3 Yes Yes
Road proposal 8/23/2019 N/A 2 Yes
Plans 7/23/2019 7/22/2019 18 Yes Yes
Plans-Updated 9/11/2019 9/11/2019 24 Yes Yes
Plans-Civil-Updated 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 14 Yes Yes Civil only
Plans-Civil-Updated 11/7/2018 11/7/2019 4 Yes C3, C4, C5, C5.1 only
Turning Exhibit 9/11/2019 9/11/2019 2 Yes Yes
Narrative re: garage doors 9/11/2019 8/19/2019 1 Yes Yes
Stormwater Management 9/11/2019 9/6/2019 71 Yes Yes
Stormwater – Updated 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 81 Yes
Stormwater – Updated 11/7/2019 11/7/2019 46 Yes Yes
<OVER>
11/8/2019
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
City Engineer comments 8/7/2019 1 Y
City Engineer comments 8/23/2019 4 Y
City Engineer comments 9/27/2019 5 Y
City Engineer comments 11/5/2019 5 Y
Pioneer-Sarah Watershed Review 9/26/2019 6 Y
MnDOT comments 8/9/2019 7 Y
Notice
Preliminary Comments 8/9/2019 3 Y
Review Extension 10/23/2019 2 Y
Planning Commission Report 11/7/2019 16 Y 45 pages w/ attachments
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
EExxcceerrppttss ffrroomm 22002200--22004400 CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann
FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann PPrriinncciipplleess
TThhee FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann gguuiiddeess tthhee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff MMeeddiinnaa tthhrroouugghh 22004400,, aanndd wwiillll bbee uusseedd ttoo
iimmpplleemmeenntt tthhee CCiittyy’’ss ggooaallss,, ssttrraatteeggiieess aanndd ppoolliicciieess.. TThhee PPllaann iiss gguuiiddeedd bbyy tthhee VViissiioonn aanndd
CCoommmmuunniittyy GGooaallss aass ffuurrtthheerreedd bbyy tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg pprriinncciipplleess::
DDeevveellooppmmeenntt PPaatttteerrnnss aanndd NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd FFoorrmm
EEnnccoouurraaggee ooppeenn ssppaacceess,, ppaarrkkss aanndd ttrraaiillss iinn aallll nneeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd ddeevveellooppmmeennttss.. SSuurrvveeyyss
iinnddiiccaattee tthhaatt aa hhiigghh qquuaalliittyy ooff lliiffee iiss ffoouunndd wwhheenn rreessiiddeennttss hhaavvee vviissuuaall aacccceessss ttoo ggrreeeenn
ssppaacceess..
CCrreeaattee nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss wwiitthh aa vvaarriieettyy ooff hhoouussiinngg ttyyppeess tthhaatt aarree wweellll ccoonnnneecctteedd wwiitthh rrooaaddss,,
ttrraaiillss oorr ssiiddeewwaallkkss..
MMaaiinnttaaiinn tthhee iinntteeggrriittyy ooff rruurraall nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss aanndd pprroommoottee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ppaatttteerrnnss
ccoonnssiisstteenntt wwiitthh eexxiissttiinngg rruurraall rreessiiddeennttiiaall ddeevveellooppmmeenntt..
RReeccooggnniizzee nneeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss aanndd pprroommoottee nneeww ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ccoommppaattiibbllee iinn
ssccaallee,, aarrcchhiitteeccttuurraall qquuaalliittyy aanndd ssttyyllee wwiitthh eexxiissttiinngg nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss..
SSttaaggee rreessiiddeennttiiaall ggrroowwtthh ttoo mmiinniimmiizzee tthhee aammoouunntt ooff aaddjjaacceenntt ddeevveellooppmmeennttss wwhhiicchh ooccccuurr
wwiitthhiinn tthhee ssaammee ttiimmee ppeerriioodd..
GGuuiiddee ddeennssiittyy ttoo aarreeaass wwiitthh pprrooxxiimmiittyy ttoo eexxiissttiinngg iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree aanndd ffuuttuurree iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree
aavvaaiillaabbiilliittyy..
CCoonncceennttrraattee hhiigghheerr ddeennssiittyy ddeevveellooppmmeenntt nneeaarr sseerrvviiccee oorriieenntteedd bbuussiinneesssseess ttoo hheellpp
pprroommoottee wwaallkkaabbiilliittyy..
CCoonnssiiddeerr ppllaannnneedd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt iinn ssuurrrroouunnddiinngg ccoommmmuunniittiieess wwhheenn mmaakkiinngg llaanndd uussee
ddeecciissiioonnss iinn tthhee CCiittyy..
RRooaadd PPaatttteerrnnss
RReeccooggnniizzee rreeggiioonnaall hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy aanndd ppllaannnneedd iimmpprroovveemmeennttss,, aalloonngg wwiitthh uussee
ffoorreeccaassttss,, aass mmaajjoorr ffaaccttoorrss iinn ppllaannnniinngg ffoorr ggrroowwtthh aanndd llaanndd uussee cchhaannggeess..
EEssttaabblliisshh ccoolllleeccttoorr ssttrreeeettss wwiitthh ggoooodd ccoonnnneeccttiioonnss tthhrroouugghh tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy’’ss ggrroowwtthh aarreeaass..
PPrroommoottee ttrraaiillss aanndd ssiiddeewwaallkk aacccceessss nneeaarr rrooaaddss aanndd tthhoorroouugghhffaarreess ttoo eennccoouurraaggee mmuullttii--
mmooddaall ttrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn cchhooiicceess..
CCoonnssiiddeerr ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo iimmpprroovvee nnoorrtthh--ssoouutthh ttrraavveell wwiitthhiinn tthhee CCiittyy..
OOppeenn SSppaacceess aanndd NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess
PPrreesseerrvvee nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess tthhrroouugghhoouutt tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy aanndd pprroovviiddee eedduuccaattiioonnaall
ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo rreessiiddeennttss ttoo hheellpp tthheemm uunnddeerrssttaanndd tthhee vvaalluuee ooff nnaattuurraall aarreeaass..
PPrreesseerrvvee ooppeenn ssppaacceess aanndd nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess..
PPrrootteecctt wwooooddeedd aarreeaass aanndd eennccoouurraaggee iimmpprroovveemmeenntt ooff eexxiissttiinngg rreessoouurrcceess aanndd
rreeffoorreessttaattiioonn.. EEvvaalluuaattee eexxiissttiinngg wwooooddllaanndd pprrootteeccttiioonnss aanndd ssuupppplleemmeenntt aass nneecceessssaarryy..
SSuuppppoorrtt tthhee gguuiiddeelliinneess iiddeennttiiffiieedd iinn tthhee OOppeenn SSppaaccee RReeppoorrtt ttoo pprreesseerrvvee tthhee CCiittyy’’ss nnaattuurraall
ssyysstteemmss..
BBuussiinneessss DDiissttrriiccttss aanndd CCoommmmeerrcciiaall AArreeaass
FFooccuuss sseerrvviiccee bbuussiinneesssseess aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt nneeaarr uurrbbaann rreessiiddeennttiiaall ddeennssiittiieess aanndd aalloonngg
pprriimmaarryy ttrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn ccoorrrriiddoorrss..
PPrroovviiddee ccoonnnneeccttiioonnss bbeettwweeeenn rreessiiddeennttss aanndd ccoommmmeerrcciiaall aarreeaass aanndd pprroommoottee bbuussiinneesssseess
wwiitthhiinn mmiixxeedd--uussee aarreeaass..
WWoorrkk ttoo ccrreeaattee jjoobb ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess iinn tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy ffoorr MMeeddiinnaa rreessiiddeennttss ttoo rreedduuccee
ttrraaffffiicc aanndd ccoommmmuuttiinngg ddeemmaannddss..
EEmmpphhaassiizzee sseerrvviiccee aanndd rreettaaiill uusseess wwhhiicchh sseerrvvee tthhee nneeeeddss ooff tthhee llooccaall ccoommmmuunniittyy aanndd
pprroovviiddee ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy ttoo ggaatthheerr..
SSuuppppoorrtt bbuussiinneessss ddeevveellooppmmeenntt wwiitthh aa ccoorrppoorraattee ccaammppuuss ssttyyllee wwhhiicchh pprroovviiddeess ooppeenn
ssppaacceess aanndd pprrootteeccttss nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess..
Future Land Use Designations
Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse,
and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office
and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services.
Land Use Policies by Area
Business Uses
The following objectives refer to business land uses that are connected to or planned for urban
services. Businesses in this use generally include office complexes, business park development,
warehouse and light industrial opportunities.
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural
characteristics of the property.
2. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment
opportunities utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services.
3. Consider permitting uses such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities where
suitable, subject to appropriate requirements related to density, ensuring compatibility
between uses, and preventing the use from being predominantly independent-living
residential in nature. These uses are expected to occupy a very small proportion of
Business land. Residential density is estimated to be between 5-20 units per net acre, but
flexibility will be considered based upon the mix of nursing home, assisted living,
memory care, independent living units, and other uses proposed within a development.
4. Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially
guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas.
5. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and
to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3)
standards.
6. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural
vistas and open spaces of the City.
7. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style
developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features.
8. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access
points to collector and arterial roadways.
9. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are
compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public
streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy.
10. Emphasize pedestrian safety.
11. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
12. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM
November 5, 2019
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-19-255
WSB Project No. 14536-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed The Adam’s Pest Control application and plans dated October 29, 2019. The
applicant proposes to construct a three-story office building with a bar/restaurant. In addition, a
separate warehouse/storage/maintenance building is also proposed for the site.
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 & Paving Plans
1. Provide an exhibit showing the turning movements of trucks (fire and delivery) within the
site including the delivery entrances along with a detail of the truck dimensions. Include
an analysis of fire truck turning movements and access, the City’s Fire Marshall will need
to review this plan. Complete, exhibit provided. The City’s Fire Marshall will provide
comment separately from this memo.
2. With final construction plans please provide the following:
o In general, plans shall meet the requirements set forth in the City’s Utility and
Stormwater Design Manuals. Include the City’s standard details where
applicable.
o Show typical pavement sections (standard, heavy duty, etc.) based on
geotechnical analysis and recommendations.
o Add symbols and notations for proposed sign locations.
Traffic & Access
3. The proposed site plan and project narrative indicates that the site access to TH 55
would be a right-in/right-out, until such time as the future access to Willow Drive is
constructed, at which time the access would be closed within three years. This comment
was for information no plan revisions are required.
4. The current plan shows only the addition of a westbound right turn lane and does not
show how the access would be restricted to right-in/right-out. The plan should be revised
to include this additional information. The plan was revised to include a striped median at
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 2
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
the entrance. This design will not provide the necessary restrictions for left turning
vehicles into or out of the site. The site access should be redesigned to include
restrictions by using raised concrete medians, signing and additional pavement markings.
In leu of providing a more restrictive right-in/right-out access, the access could be closed
with the addition of the access to Willow Drive.
5. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be 2375 daily
trips, 108 AM peak hour trips and 223 PM peak hour trips, assuming a multi-family
building on the northerly lot. This comment was for information no plan revisions are
required.
6. With a significant increase in traffic, the primary concern is with the safety of the traffic
entering and exiting the right-in/right-out at TH 55 from the proposed site. Provide a
traffic analysis and calculations reviewing the traffic generation, potential for vehicles to
make an eastbound left into the site from TH 55, left turn out of the site to eastbound TH
55, and a review of the safety impacts and recommended improvements to the site
access at TH 55. Should the right-in / right-out access be maintained, and redesigned,
additional documentation should be provided for the right-out onto TH 55. This would not
be necessary should the access be closed.
Grading & Storm Sewer Plan
7. Provide a geotechnical analysis and show soil boring locations on grading plans. Not
Resolved.
8. With final construction plans please provide the following:
o Provide top and bottom elevations of all retaining walls and details/ typical
sections. Walls greater than 4’ in height will require plans signed by a structural
engineer. Consider safety railings for retaining walls 3’ or taller. Complete, notes
and typical section added. Applicant stated they will provide a retaining wall
construction plan and engineered drawings prior to construction.
o Provide a storm sewer table. Complete, Exhibit provided.
o Add more directional arrows with percent grades along curb lines, parking lot
areas, walkway profile/cross slope grades, etc. Add additional grade notes to
slopes such as “3:1” or “4:1” where appropriate.
Utility Plan
9. The City of Medina is currently working on a feasibility study and a preliminary design of
a sewer system along Willow Drive that includes a possible lift station. The lift station is
intended to provide service to the Adam’s site (among other surrounding areas). The
sanitary sewer information shown on the plan will need to be revised once the feasibility
is complete. As shown, there is excessive depth (up to 30’) for the sanitary sewer
between manholes #6-8 but these issues will likely be resolved with the City’s feasibility.
The applicant shall coordinate construction activities with the future road or proposed lift
station and associated sanitary sewer.
10. Show proposed utility stubs to any of the adjacent lots with the extension of watermain
and sanitary sewer to Willow Road. Not complete.
11. With final construction plans please provide the following:
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 3
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
o Show material type for the sanitary sewer noting SDR 35 pipe up to an 18’ depth;
SDR-26 for between 18-26’; and DR-18 for depths exceeding 26’. Note this
information for each pipe run.
o Define what utilities are public and private.
Easements may be required by the City to encompass all or a portion of
the sanitary sewer and watermain into the site.
Define future maintenance responsibilities of the utilities.
Access to some of the structures may be limited as they are in areas with
3:1 slopes or adjacent to the future roadway and do not have a defined
access. An acceptable access will be required to reach and maintain the
structures.
o Provide plan and profile views of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain
identifying potential conflicts. If pipes will be directionally drilled, note as such.
o Label all pipe sizes, material types, and grades for watermain pipnig. The City’s
preference is to use PVC C900 for watermain and PVC (SDR based on depth)
for sewer. See the City’s Utility Design Manual.
o Provide dimension labels showing separation between watermain and both
sanitary sewer and storm sewer piping.
o Watermain and services should have a minimum horizontal separation of 10’ and
vertical separation of 24” (or 18” with insulation) from both sanitary and storm
sewer piping and should be noted as such on the plans.
o Provide sizes and material types of all existing utilities that are being connected
to as part of the project. Call out the locations of existing hydrants.
o Show a separate fire and domestic water service stub into the building with the
appropriate shut off valves, PIV valves, curb stops, etc.
o Describe the types of connections to existing utilities and show proposed valve
locations.
o The water and sanitary sewer should be a lighter line-type on the grading plan.
12. The layout provided will require review by the City’s Fire Marshall to verify hydrant
spacing for fire protection coverage as well as approval of fire apparatus access/turn
around.
13. Apply and provide copies to the City of any required permits including DLI (final design),
watershed (final design), and NPDES (construction).
14. Show soil boring locations on utility plan. Not complete.
15. Casing pipe will be required where utilities cross the retaining walls. Note on the plan
and provide specific details for each crossing proposed. Not complete.
16. Provide a looping watermain connection along the easterly property line connecting the
proposed southerly and northerly watermain lines or provide an analysis showing that
adequate fire flow can be provided to the remaining lots in the loop (future multi-family on
the Adam’s site, three lots to the east) if the watermain within the Adam’s site were to be
shut-off. Not complete.
17. Added watermain easement will need to allow for hydrants and hydrant construction.
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 4
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
Stormwater Management
18. The development will need to meet the appropriate requirements for Pioneer-Sarah
Creek Watershed Management Commission. Please provide permitting documents to the
City when approved.
19. Provide soil borings for infiltration areas to determine if feasible due to soil type and
groundwater levels. Typically, infiltration is not recommended for C type soils which are
prevalent in the City of Medina. The bottom of infiltration basins must have 3 feet of
separation from current groundwater levels. In most cases, infiltration has not been found
to be feasible in the City, but rather filtration. Filtration basins have been added with
draintile on the bottom. Basins will need to be resized to meet the volume control
requirement of 1.65” runoff from impervious areas. Current basin sizes do not meet these
requirements.
20. Provide pretreatment for all infiltration areas. If infiltration is not found to be feasible,
pretreatment will still be required for filtration areas. Call out where pretreatment
structures are located on the plans.
21. No impervious area is currently directed to Basin #2. No credit for provided volume can
be used for this BMP. Additionally, provided volume can only be credited for the other 3
BMPs for the amount of impervious area contributing to the basin. 3. The City will not
allow credit for oversizing basins if there isn’t enough impervious routed to the basin.
22. The rate control summary table should provide comparison of existing and proposed
discharge rates for all three rainfall events.
23. Highway 55 ditch discharge location is not shown on the drainage figures. Both existing
and proposed drainage figures should match all labels for subcatchments and nodes in
the HydroCAD model.
24. EOF locations and elevations must be specifically labeled on the plans for all BMPs. Not
complete.
25. Label the size and type of existing and proposed storm sewer piping, label the invert
information on all catch basins/manholes. Not complete.
26. Calculations must be submitted indicating the culvert under the proposed entrance road
is sized adequately to convey the offsite tributary area. Not complete.
27. Curve numbers for existing agriculture land must use the peak growth formula listed in
the City’s Design Manual. Not complete.
28. Confirm minimum and maximum velocities for storm sewer are met for the 10-year
rainfall event. Minimum pipe velocity is 3 fps and maximum is 10 fps. Not complete.
29. Discharge velocities into stormwater BMPs must not exceed 6 fps. Not complete.
30. Provide HydroCAD model or stage-storage/discharge tables to confirm BMPs drain within
48 hours. Applicable for either infiltration or filtration. To be reviewed once basins are
sized appropriately to meet volume control requirement.
31. With final construction plans please provide the following:
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 5
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
o Access routes (8’ wide minimum) will be required to reach the proposed control
structures. Show the locations on the plans.
o Separate SWPPP sheets showing erosion and sediment control BMP’s for the
site.
o Operation and maintenance plan for stormwater BMPs.
Erosion Control
32. Provide a copy of the NPDES General Construction Permit prior to any site disturbance.
33. Double silt fence must be implemented adjacent to the existing wetlands. Not complete.
34. Label construction entrance on the plans.
35. Provide a description of construction sequencing for the stormwater filtration areas to limit
impacts and ensure the basins are functioning post construction. Not complete.
36. Update any reference to infiltration basins in the SWPPP. Revise to be consistent with
proposed onsite BMPs.
Wetland Impacts
37. Confirm if any wetland impacts are anticipated. If so, a wetland permit application would
need to be submitted. Wetland buffers are adequate for the Complete.
The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted
plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or
modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards.
We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if
you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet.
Sincerely,
WSB
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
Project Overview and Narrative
Adam’s Pest Control, Inc., Valued Member of the Community for 36 Years, Continues To Grow
Adam’s Pest Control, Inc has operated in Medina since 1983 when it purchased the Anchor Motel at 872 Hwy
55, next to Peg’s Countryside Cafe. This 8 unit hotel and landlord quarters over time was converted to office
space and upgraded multiple times over the years until Adam’s outgrew it.
The company that owned the property was actually Don-Har, LLP and when Don Hanson passed away in
1995, it became Jan-Har, LLP. This was the first property owned by the partnership. Today, Jan-Har owns 5
properties including locations in Nisswa, Milaca, and now 3 in Medina.
In 2000, Jan-Har purchased Village Auto Body at 922 Hwy and in 2007 tore down the two dumpy garages and
upgraded the neighborhood with a beautiful 13,200 square foot office building, warehouse and single vehicle
repair bay. The original building housed Complete Eye Care of Medina, a startup, and a Commercial Bank of
Minnesota, a small loan office for Heron Lake States Bank. Shortly after moving in, Jan-Har remodeled their
old office building at 872 which is now home to Pilates and State Farm.
Adam’s again is outgrowing its facility and so Jan-Har purchased the property we are discussing today in 2018.
While over 44 acres, the western 19.71 acres is wetland (Wetland 3 Type 1/2/3 PEM1C/B/A Floodplain
Forest/Seasonally Flooded Basin/Shallow Marsh). On the North end that borders Corcoran, specifically the
Eastern half, exists a forest that Dusty tells me it is considered Moderate Quality Basswood Maple forest. The
unique part of the property is the bald eagles nest right on the busy, noisy highway. Unfortunately, people
frequently stop on the shoulder of 55 to take pictures.
The 2020 Plan
Jan-Har is planning its next building for Adam’s. It will be a 3 story office building with some tenant space on all
3 floors, and likely with a bar/restaurant with a patio that overlooks the eagle’s nest and wetlands.
There will be a second building, tucked into the hill, that will hold the warehouse, requisition room (where
technicians get their products), indoor vehicle storage, and vehicle repair bay.
Access
For access, we are requesting highway 55 right in, right out only access, converting the existing shoulders to
turn lanes until we have been in the property for 3 years or the private road to Willow is built for 3 years,
whichever is later. This is so customers can find the restaurant easily and learn how to get in/out via WIllow.
Without this access, the restaurant concept is a non-starter. We would be fine with signing a closure
agreement in advance to this effect.
Utilities
We expect to get water and sewer through the rights of way easement of the private road, although the city’s
sewer only extends a little bit north on Willow. TwinCo is on septic. There is talk the city will have to extend the
sewer north on Willow and install a grind/lift/pump station because that area is lower than the sewer system
near Graphics Packaging (formerly Walter G Anderson). The lift station, if that is the design, will service our
property, Twin Co, and the future development of the two parcels adjacent to the private road and the Cates
Ranch, east of Willow.
It is unfortunate that the city does not have water and sewer further west on Hwy 55 in front of our property. It
becomes a significant extra expense for us to connect to them - approximately 1400’ to extend these utilities
from Willow to the edge of our property.
Private Road
St. Louis Park Investments (SLPI) owns the two outlots set aside for a future private road. The also own the
parcel north of the private road, parcel to the south of the private road, and the TwinCo property. The private
road right of way was created decades ago to give those parcels and our property access. The agreement,
written by the city, and agreed upon by the city and SLPI was poorly written, in many people’s opinions. Our
development does not appear to trigger anything. Therefore, SLPI’s stance, despite our best efforts to
negotiate with them, is to pay nothing towards the water, sewer and a private road.
We have met with Bob Atkinson who claims to have the SLPI properties and Cates property under contract. It
sounds like he has submitted something to the city about rezoning the Cates property. Supposedly, he wants
to put in large industrial parks on these properties, build the private road, and develop it before we do. We
hope this is the case, but we can’t confirm any of this. His realtor is Rose Lorsung. She indicates we are a little
ahead of them with city submittals, but I think they plan to break ground before us.
The agreement between SLPI and the city says the city won’t maintain the road. I would hope the city would
reconsider this position if the road, including a short extension up to the culdesac on our property, were built to
city specs, but this is up to the city and SLPI or Bob Atkinson if he buys it.
Park Dedication Fees
Because the property is two parcels and we plan to
subdivide them differently - near the grove of
trees/small wetland in the middle of the property, we
are submitting the subdivision request soon. We
understand this triggers a park dedication fee and
given no park is planned for the area, we would have
to pay the fee, or it could be reduced or stayed if a
nature area was preserved. We’d like to offer up the
19.71 acre wetland as a preserved area. In addition,
we’d like to provide the city with three bike repair
stations (with tools and a pump) that the city can
install in the central park, at the police station (where
an annual Bike Safety Rodeo starts), and at a park at
24 & 19, which is on two popular bike trails.
Subdivision
The current properties are two parcels, but we want the parcels to be configured differently. Therefore, we are
submitting a subdivision request. We’d like it named “Adams”. You can see them in the proposed packet.
We’re asking that the southern parcel, where these buildings will be built, be rezoned Business (B).
While we plan on selling the northern parcel, we’d like to direct it to be multi-family residential, an apartment
building some day. As defined, with underground parking, we think it could hold up to a 4 story, 116 unit,
building. This would tremendously help the bar/restaurant concept. The unique parcel could allow for a
structure surrounded on 3 sides by mature trees and a beautiful wetland to the west. The entry could be via a
private entrance between trees. Walking paths could enhance the residential experience along the wetlands
and in this nice 100 year old forest. To the north are Corcoran single family homes, so it seems like a great
transition between single family homes and business. We are looking for guidance as to how this northern
property should be zoned. Or, should we let the buyer make that determination?
Timing
For timing, we hope to break ground with earth work around July 1, 2020, with major construction of the
building shell and exterior occurring between September 1 and December 31 to avoid any issues with the
eagles. To do this, much of the office and warehouse buildings will be built with precast panels having a more
modern appearance. The restaurant portion will likely be more typical construction, but also have a modern
feel. You know our tastes - it will be an attractive building.
We expect to move in around April 1, 2021, but the general contractor has not laid out an exact construction
schedule yet.
The last time we built in Medina, it took 9 months to get approval. W orking backwards from July 1, 2020
groundbreaking, we need to submit to the city by October 1, 2019, so that is our plan. Hopefully the approval
process will go quicker this time. One hang up last time was MnDOT. I encourage a meeting be set up soon to
get their unofficial reaction to this concept plan, so they can respond in a timely manner and not hold up the
process.
SKD Architects, Inc.
11140 Highway 55, Suite A
Plymouth, MN 55441
763.591.6115 763.591.6119 fax
Date: August 19, 2019
To: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
From: SKD
Re: Jan-Har, LLP Project, PID’s 04-118-23-21-0001 & 04-118-23-24-0001
Dock and Overhead Door width at the Warehouse Requisition, Vehicle Repair and Vehicle
Storage Building
The requested narrative supports the need for dock and garage doors width as shown on the plan for
the Warehouse Requisition, Vehicle Repair and Vehicle Storage Building.
There are 6 dock or overhead doors totaling 66’-0” in width. The current building perimeter is 544’-0”.
The percentage of doors is 12.13%. The zoning ordinance limits that width to 10% unless shown the
need for additional width.
Below is a breakdown of the number of doors needed for each area of the building.
A. Warehouse
a) 10’-0” wide, single drive in door. Services smaller trucks and clients using the heat
chamber.
b) 8’-0” wide, single dock door. Set up required for semitruck deliveries.
B. Repair Bay
a) 12’-0” wide, single drive in door. This door is used to service a potential of 3 repair
bays. The single door allows servicing of all vehicle types.
C. Vehicle Storage
a) 3 @ 12’-0” wide, drive in doors. The 3 doors allow indoor storage of their current box trucks,
which by Medina Ordinance cannot be kept outside. The depth allows for tandem storage up
to 6 vehicles. A single door will restrict their ability to maneuver a large truck and store the
same number of vehicles efficiently.
Memorandum
Agenda # 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debra Peterson, Associate Planner, through Director Dusty Finke
DATE: November 8, 2019
MEETING: November 12, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Dave and Angie Raskob – 4585 Balsam Street – Variance to exceed
impervious surface maximum in Shoreland Overlay District
Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: October 7, 2019
120-day Review Deadline: February 3, 2020
Summary of Request
Dave and Angie Raskob, the applicants have requested approval of a variance to exceed the 25
percent impervious surface maximum in the Shoreland Overlay District to construct a single-
family home at 4585 Balsam Street. The subject lot is currently vacant. The applicants have
provided a narrative explaining their practical difficulty. An aerial of the subject property is
below:
The subject lot is zoned UR, Urban Residential. It is currently within 1,000 feet from both Lake
Ardmore (located to the east of subject property) and Lake Independence (to the west). The lot
was platted in 2005 and is described as L2, B1, Maple Walk.
The subject lot is 9,477 square feet in size, which meets the required UR zoning district lot size
requirements of 9,000 square feet, in the absence of the Shoreland Overlay district. The
Shoreland Overlay district requires 15,000 square feet of lot area with a maximum of 25 percent
impervious surface. The applicants are requesting to exceed the impervious surface maximum in
the Shoreland Overlay district by 5.78 percent.
Dave and Angie Raskob – 4585 Balsam Street Page 2 of 5 November 12, 2019
Impervious Surface Variance Planning Commission Meeting
The following table summarizes setbacks and impervious requirements.
Setbacks/Impervious Surface Requirements
Proposed
Min. Front Yard Setback (north) 30 feet 30 feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south) 30 feet 30 feet
Min. Side Setback (east/west) 10 feet 24+ feet
Maximum Hardcover 25% 30.78 %
Future Deck
The applicants have shown a 10’ x 15’ deck location on the survey. It is not the applicant’s
intention to construct the deck with the construction of the house, but rather to receive approval
for it during the variance process. The deck is shown on the east side of the house and would be
on the walk-out side of the lot. This would mean that the deck would be raised approximately
10+- feet off of the ground. Given this distance, it would leave room for a patio door or some
sort of door under the deck which would mean egress would be warranted from under the deck to
the yard. This side of the house would provide a lot of natural light given that it is on the
walkout side of the lot.
Decks are considered impervious surface/hardcover which is why the applicants are providing a
product/material in the pictures below that allows for water to run through it, so that it wouldn’t
be considered hardcover. The concern staff has is the area under the deck. If the deck is
considered permeable based on the ability for water to go through it, then the area under the deck
should be conditioned to not be allowed to have a concrete patio or any hardsurfaced material
under deck, unless permeable. The material the applicants have provided is shown below is from PlasTEAK Products - Plastic Grates for Docks, Decks & Walkways:
Dave and Angie Raskob – 4585 Balsam Street Page 3 of 5 November 12, 2019
Impervious Surface Variance Planning Commission Meeting
The PlasTeak brand would not be the only material allowed, but rather anything similar meeting
building code standards and as permeable as the PlasTeak product in the pictures above.
The applicants have mentioned that if the Commission is not favorable of the deck on the upper
level, they would not install a door so that the future homeowners would not feel they had a right
to install a deck in the future. They do think a door should be installed on the east side at
minimum for egress and light.
The alternative option would be to allow the property to have a regular deck no larger than 10’ x
12’ or 10’ x 15’ and then it wouldn’t matter if the area under the deck has concrete and a slider
could be installed and that area of the home could be utilized on both levels.
Engineering – Storm Sewer – Run-off
The City Engineer has reviewed the Variance request and has the following review comments:
(1) A direct connection should be made to the existing structure at Ardmore Avenue as
opposed to daylighting with a flare end and rip-rap.
(2) The applicants have increased the size of the pipe opening per the request of the City
from 8 inches to 12 inches to improve maintenance capabilities and conveyance of
stormwater.
(3) In addition to the installation for the filtration trench (French drain), the applicants have
proposed to collect additional run-off from the site and convey it from the site and
convey it through a new storm sewer pipe and connection at Ardmore Avenue. The
storm sewer at Ardmore Avenue is connected to the adjacent treatment pond.
Building Code Review
The decking material will be required to be state certified and meet state building code
requirements.
Pursuant to Chapter 8, Section 825.45 of Medina City Code, the City shall grant Variances if the following
Criteria are met:
(a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ordinance.
In exchange for the increased impervious surface, the applicants are proposing to go above and
beyond by installing a filtration trench (French drain) that will collect additional run-off from off-site
properties and convey all water through a new storm sewer pipe that will connect it at Ardmore
Avenue and then it would go to the adjacent treatment pond. Currently the subject lot takes on a lot of
water from neighboring properties.
The intent of the 25% hardcover limitation is to reduce the rate and amount of stormwater runoff to
nearby lakes. The applicants proposed to achieve the intent by installing stormwater improvements on
the property which would exceed those required if a home was built with 25% hardcover.
(b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The subject lot is guided Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and the construction of
one home that has a footprint of 2,344 square feet does not appear to be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Dave and Angie Raskob – 4585 Balsam Street Page 4 of 5 November 12, 2019
Impervious Surface Variance Planning Commission Meeting
(c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in comp lying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute
a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficulty to be established, all 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;
The applicants are proposing to use the property for the construction of a single-family home.
The home would be of reasonable size, consisting of a 2,344 square foot footprint, which includes
the attached garage. The proposed footprint is consistent in size with single family homes in the
neighborhood. Staff does not feel that reducing the house footprint or driveway would be a good
consideration.
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner;
The subject lot was created through a plat combing a larger number of lots in 2003. That plat
allowed the creation of this lot below the minimum lot size requirement in the Shoreland Overlay
District, which appears to be unique. In addition, the existing topography of the lot and the
substantial amounts of off-site drainage are unique and not created by the landowner.
and;
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The construction of the single-family home in this neighborhood will be in conformity with all the
other homes in the block and area. The proposed home will not stand out from the essential
character of the neighborhood, but rather provide a home on a vacant lot.
Planning Considerations and Findings
The lot is showing a footprint for a home designed with the existing grades in mind and to
minimally alter the lot. As a result, a portion of the home will be below grade. The driveway
will be at a minimal width which will help to keep hardcover at a minimum.
Staff feels the applicant has put much consideration into the planning of the home layout and
grading of the lot. Given how the lot is uniquely sloped and how improvements the applicants
are proposing will improve the runoff for the neighboring properties, staff feels this may be a
better result than reducing the hardcover.
Staff does recommend the French drain system and conveying neighboring run-off to run into the
proposed storm sewer pipe to help alleviate run-off not only for their lot but for the surrounding
area properties as a benefit to the area. This in exchange for not having to install a permeable
driveway seems much more beneficial to the surrounding area and much less maintenance to the
future homeowners.
Dave and Angie Raskob – 4585 Balsam Street Page 5 of 5 November 12, 2019
Impervious Surface Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request with the findings described above and subject
to the conditions which follow. The City may impose conditions in the granting of a variance to
insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Staff recommends the following
conditions:
1. A direct connection should be made to the existing structure at Ardmore Avenue as
opposed to daylighting with a flare end and rip-rap.
2. The Applicant shall construct the new home in substantial conformance with the survey
received by the City on November 7, 2019, except as amended herein.
3. No additional hardcover shall be added, which includes patios, sidewalks, building
additions, driveway expansions, or anything else not otherwise mentioned.
4. A building permit shall be required for deck prior to construction. Any future deck is
required to be constructed with PlasTeak grated material or another similar material
which is substantially permeable rather than standard deck boards. Materials shall meet
building code requirements. The surface under the deck shall also remain permeable.
5. The Applicant shall commence construction within one years of the approval of this
variance for the construction of the home, or else approval of the variance shall be
considered null and void.
6. The Applicant shall not have a timeline to commence construction of permeable deck.
7. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the request.
Attachments
1. Applicant’s Narrative
2. Survey received by City on 11-7-2019
3. League of Mn “Practical Difficulties” (2)
4. Document List
Letter of Intent
In Support of Request for Variance
4585 Balsam St Medina, MN
This Letter of Intent is meant to support our request for a variance to the hardcover requirement on a
non-conforming lot. We are requesting release from the existing ordinance where strict enforcement
would cause undue hardship. The Maple Walk development in Independence Beach was approved in
January of 2005, and we purchased this lot shortly after. As builders and long-time residents of the
neighborhood, we seek to make a beneficial improvement. The variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood.
We have carefully considered how we could build a home on this lot while limiting the impact of run-off
on neighboring properties. Our intention is to build a 40x60 single-family Insulated Concrete Form (ICF)
home with a 2-car garage, which we would set into the existing topography. We propose to install a
berm, French drain and HPDE below-grade drainage as indicated on the survey. Our sump pump outlet
would likewise be tied into that below-grade system. Lastly, although we don’t intend to put one on
immediately, we are also asking that a future permeable deck or underdeck gutter system be
considered within this variance. We believe these considerations would reduce the amount of surface
water in the yard, and its impact on the neighborhood.
The intention of a hardcover restriction is to limit the amount of run-off into the lakes and reduce the
impact of run off onto adjoining properties. Currently, the run-off from the highest point on Balsam
Street flows across our lot, through the neighbor’s yard, and down to Ardmore Avenue. Our proposed
berm would stop that run-off along our lot’s easterly edge, directing it underground and into the storm
sewer at the corner of Balsam Street & Ardmore Avenue. This improves an existing problem, where as a
permeable driveway & sidewalk would not.
What is perhaps most relevant here, and what we would ask the board to consider, is: (1) We are
proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner by asking for a minimal hardcover overage to
alleviate the practical difficulty. We are not requesting special privileges that are denied to others in the
same neighborhood. (2) The hardship is due to circumstances unique to this property and not created
by us. The lot was approved as-is and purchased in 2005, and hasn’t changed since then. (3) The
proposed drainage plan improves existing run-off, and thus creates no undue burden on any
neighboring residence. The style and structure of the home will be in step with the existing
neighborhood, and we believe the improvement would result in an overall increase in property value
and tax base.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
David & Angie Raskob
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
RELEV ANT LINKS:
Ill. Legal standards
When considering a variance application, a city exercises so-called "quasi-
judicial" authority. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the
legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the
application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal
standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance may be
granted. In contrast, when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance, the
city is exercising "legislative" authority and has much broader discretion.
A. Practical difficulties
"Practical difficulties" is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must
apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test
and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties,
all three factors of the test must be satisfied.
1.
The first factor is that the propeity owner proposes to use the properly in a
reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use
the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules
of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any
reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance
application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the
required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a
building there is reasonable.
2.
The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances
unique to the propeity not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness
generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of
property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences
of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach
or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything
physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping
topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo:
Land Use Variances
1/1 1/2019
RELEV ANT LINKS:
Tshe tracte' if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting
structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the
surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an
encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will
look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area.
201I Miim Laws, cli 19,
amendingMum Stat §
462 35 7, subd 6.
B. Undue hardship
"Undue hardship" was the name of the three-factor test prior to a May 2011
change of law. After a long and contentious session working to restore city
variance authority, the final version of HF 52 supported by the League and
allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. On May 5, Gov. Dayton
signed the new law. It was effective on May 6, the day following the
governor's approval. Presumably it applies to pending applications, as the
general rule is that cities are to apply the law at the time of the decision,
rather than at the time of application.
Krunnnewcher v. Crtr of
iSrjumetorika. 783 N W 2d 721
(Minn. June 24, 2010)
Miim Stat !: 462 351 subd
6
Minn Stat !§ 394 27, subd 7
See Section [, kVhat rs (7
!lmlanCe
The 2011 law restores municipal variance authority in response to a
Minnesota Supreme Court case, Krummenacher v. City ofMinnetonka. It
also provides consistent statutory language between city land use plaruiing
statutes and county variance authority, and clarifies that conditions may be
imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to,
and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact created by the variance.
In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the
statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use"
prong of the "undue hardship" test is not whether the proposed use is
reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the
variance. The new law changes that factor back to the "reasonable manner"
understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the
Krummenacher ruling.
See Section IV-A, Hmmony
+pit/i other land yrse conti'ols.
The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue
hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retained the familiar
three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential
character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was
already in the county statutes.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo:
Land Use Variances
liil{20j Cl
Project: LR-19-262 – Raskob 4585 Balsam Street Hardcover Variance
The following documents are all part of the official 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 10/7/19 10/4/19 5 yes yes
Fee 1000.00 10/7/19 1
Mailing Labels n/a
Narrative 10/7/19 9/30/19 1 yes yes
Survey 10/7/19 4/26/18 1 yes yes
survey 11/1/19 11/1/19 1 yes yes
survey 11/7/19 11/7/19 1 yes yes
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Police comments 10/8/19 1 yes
WSB email comments 10/17/19 1
WSB email comments 10/23/19 2 yes
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
1
1
CITY OF MEDINA 2
PLANNING COMMISSION 3
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 4
Tuesday October 8, 2019 5
6
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7
8
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Beth Nielsen, Kerby Nester, 9
Cindy Piper, and Robin Reid. 10
11
Absent: Planning Commissioner Rashmi Williams 12
13
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and Planning Intern Ben Schneider. 14
15
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 16
17
No comments made. 18
19
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20
21
Albers provided an update on recent activities of the City Council including approvals 22
granted through the Consent Agenda that had previously been considered by the Planning 23
Commission. He stated that the Council also approved a lot combination at 4072 Hamel 24
Road. 25
26
4. Planning Department Report 27
28
Finke provided an update. 29
30
5. Public Hearing – Mark Smith – Weston Woods – Comprehensive Plan 31
Amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan – East of 32
Mohawk Drive and North of Highway 55 33
34
Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Planned Unit 35
Development Concept Plan for property east of Mohawk Drive and north of Highway 55. He 36
explained that the request would be to change the land use of the southern property from a 37
business designation to a residential designation, noting that two different residential products 38
would be proposed ranging from low to medium density. He advised that five acres of 39
property would be proposed to be deeded to the City for conservation/park/open space. He 40
stated that the second half of the request would be to amend the staging of the northern 41
property, which is designated for development after 2025, to 2019/2020. He stated that the 42
PUD Concept Plan would include 76 twinhomes on the northern property, and 41 single-43
family and 33 townhomes on the southern property. He stated that the northern parcel is 44
approximately 80 acres, but only 20 acres would be developable after exclusion of wetland 45
and buffer. He stated that the southern parcel is 55 acres in size with 28 acres buildable. He 46
reviewed the surrounding land uses, noting business to the west and southeast, low density 47
residential to the east, and land identified as future development to the north. He displayed 48
the Concept Plan, identifying the different residential products proposed throughout the sites. 49
He noted that the applicant would propose to extend Chippewa Road from Mohawk to 50
Arrowhead Road as part of this development, noting that the applicant would propose to pay 51
2
for that extension. He noted that the park/open space would be proposed for the southeast 52
portion of the southern site. He stated that the City’s natural resource specialist visited the 53
site a few years ago and identified that area to be a higher quality wooded area. He reviewed 54
the existing land uses for the northern and southern portions of the site, comparing that to the 55
proposed land uses through this request. He also reviewed the current staging of the 56
properties, comparing that to the proposed staging. He noted that the City reviewed a similar 57
Concept Plan a few years ago from the same applicant, while still in the Comprehensive Plan 58
process, and noted that minutes from previous discussions were provided in the Commission 59
packet for review. He suggested that the Commission focus on the Comprehensive Plan 60
amendment, as that decision would drive the request. He suggested that the Commission also 61
provide input on the PUD but concentrate on the question of use. He provided additional 62
details on how the staging plan of the City was developed, noting that it focused on the 63
supported infrastructure, not only of the City but also regionally. He explained that the 64
staging in this area focused on the ability to extend Chippewa Road, which the applicant is 65
proposing with the request. He stated that a second watermain would also be needed in this 66
area, noting that the applicant is also proposing to construct that improvement at their cost. 67
He stated that staging is also intended to reduce concentration of development in different 68
areas and timeframes and to control growth. He stated that this property is included in the 69
MUSA but the change in land use would remove 23 to 28 acres of land guided for business 70
development and instead changing that to residential and adding additional homes to this 71
area. He noted that three public comments were included in the packet and three additional 72
written comments were received after the report but before the hearing and all will be 73
included in the record for tonight’s meeting. 74
75
Amic asked for details on the comment “going west to go east”. 76
77
Finke explained that Mohawk drive access would be restricted as right-in/right-out and 78
therefore explained how vehicles would travel west in order to move east. He confirmed that 79
there would not be another way to go east to Highway 55 from these properties. 80
81
Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, explained that this is a concept that was brought 82
forward to the City two years ago when it was close to the end of the discussion related to the 83
Comprehensive Plan and therefore it was difficult to consider making changes. He noted that 84
the developer decided to wait and give the City time to complete that process. He explained 85
that they believe that this is a good plan that also provides public benefits and that is why 86
they are bringing it back at this time. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan amendment 87
would consider the overall goals for the community and how that can be addressed. He noted 88
that this would provide a mix of housing and provides for the preservation of open space. He 89
asked if the City wants to provide for the joint development of that parcels or would rather 90
rely on a market driven response to the staging and use. He stated that they have combined 91
the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment with the PUD Concept Plan, noting that 92
the PUD over both the north and south parcels allows the developer to balance the density 93
between the parcels while providing buffering and preservation of open space. He 94
commented that the development is focused on the westerly portion of both the north and 95
south parcels, to create a 1,300-foot open space buffer to the nearest neighboring parcels. He 96
stated that 60 percent of the site would be preserved with the inclusion of wetlands and 97
wetland buffers. He noted that Mark Smith has purchased both the northern and southern 98
parcels and is now a landowner in the community. He reviewed the single-family homes and 99
townhomes proposed for the southern parcel and the twinhomes on the northern parcel, 100
noting that this would provide a range of housing types for residents and potential residents. 101
He stated that the southerly wooded area would create a nice buffer to the highway, but they 102
will need to review that to ensure that the trees are healthy. He stated that the park area 103
would have 20 parking stalls for visitors. He stated that they understand that this 104
3
development could not move forward without providing public benefit. He noted that they 105
attempted to keep the density low, while still meeting the requirements for being within the 106
MUSA. He again summarized the public benefits that would be provided through the 107
development. He noted that the sites will ultimately develop but noted that the joint 108
development of the parcels would provide public benefit in return. 109
110
Reid stated that during the last review of this concept there was discussion on why the 111
southern parcel was not appropriate for business development and asked the developer to 112
provide a brief statement for the Commissioners that were not a part of the Commission at 113
that time. 114
115
Griffiths explained that the main reason this parcel would not be appropriate for business 116
development would be the topography of the site and the natural features that should be 117
preserved. He noted that a small portion of the property close to the highway could develop 118
as business but much of the site is covered in wetlands and therefore would not be suitable for 119
a campus development. He noted that Mr. Smith has owned the properties for two years and 120
has had very little interest in business development. He noted that residential development 121
provides additional flexibility to work within the topography and wetland locations. 122
123
Reid stated that she would like assurance that there would be a variety of styles and colors in 124
the material and architectural design and as she would not want to see copycat homes 125
throughout the development. She asked how the staging of the development would be 126
completed. 127
128
Mark Smith, applicant, replied that he would mass grade the site and noted that the single-129
family and townhome market have strong demand right now. He stated that the twinhome 130
development may be staged for a later time. 131
132
Amic asked the cost benefit of the infrastructure improvements. 133
134
Griffiths stated that he does not have that exact information. 135
136
Finke stated that the City is completing a corridor study to provide updated costs. He noted 137
that the costs two years ago estimated about $800,000 to $1,000,000 for street construction 138
with significant wetland mitigation that would have an additional cost. He noted that the 139
developer would not propose to fund the mitigation costs, that would be a City responsibility. 140
He noted that the corridor study will continue irrespective of this request. He stated that the 141
watermain has been identified in the City’s CIP with a cost of $300,000. He noted that if the 142
properties do not develop, the City would ultimately move forward on that infrastructure 143
improvement. 144
145
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. 146
147
Chris Hillberg, 4459 Trillium Drive, stated that he is passionate about preserving the rural 148
character of Medina and finds this request in opposition of the work the City put into the 149
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that throughout that process there were many opportunities 150
for different uses and staging for the properties. He urged the Commission not to go against 151
the wishes of the people that put so much time and effort into developing the Comprehensive 152
Plan. He stated that although the applicant is proposing to build the road, he believes that 153
would be more expensive than expected. He questioned why the City would be responsible 154
for permitting and wetland mitigation as that would be very expensive. He stated that the 155
applicant has stated that the increase in density would allow the applicant to provide a higher 156
4
investment in infrastructure. He stated that he interprets that as the developer will build the 157
road if they are allowed to build more homes. 158
159
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. 160
161
Nester stated that R-1 is typically used for low density residential and therefore the density of 162
the northern parcel does not meet that. She noted that the business designation was 163
strategically chosen for the parcels closest to Highway 55 in order to promote traffic moving 164
west during peak commuting hours. She stated that this plan would create additional 165
residential traffic that would add to congestion. She stated that if business parcels are 166
converted to residential that does not meet the goal of promoting business development. She 167
stated that another community goal is to spread residential development, and this would 168
instead add to the concentration of this area. She stated that while she appreciates the benefit 169
of infrastructure needs, she did not believe that was worth selling out the vision or the time 170
that was spent creating the current Comprehensive Plan. 171
172
Galzki stated that after waiting for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, he does 173
not believe it would make sense to change this many elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 174
He stated that there are so many changes that are not in line with the intentions and vision for 175
the area. He stated that it a great development, but there are more negatives than positives. 176
He stated that the residents in that area already have hardships with traffic and the City 177
attempted to plan to help mitigate those concerns. He stated that he would have a hard time 178
supporting the concept. 179
180
Nielsen stated that she would have a hard time seeing why there would need to be a 181
uniformity between the two properties. She commented that it would seem strange to have 182
residential along the Highway 55 corridor. She noted that she does appreciate the 183
preservation of the wetlands and trees. 184
185
Amic stated that this is an elegant design given the topography of the area. He stated that the 186
tradeoff would be you know what you get with this, but you would not know what you would 187
get in five years. He stated that while he could be talked into things, it does not seem to 188
matter with the opinions of the other Commissioners that spoke. 189
190
Piper stated that her biggest concern would be related to access of trying to go east. She 191
commented that it would be senseless to put that many homes into this spot and not provide 192
the ability to travel all directions. 193
194
Reid stated that she sees this differently. She explained that this would be a PUD and 195
therefore flexibility is provided in density, related to the R-1 comment. She stated that 196
initially she was concerned with having housing next to Highway 55 but with layout the 197
homes will not be that close to the highway. She stated that there is an opportunity that 198
should be considered. She stated that she does not see a solution for the problem at 199
Arrowhead and asked if there are plans to deal with that, as Arrowhead will continue to stall 200
development in this area. 201
202
Finke stated that is why the corridor study is continuing to move forward, in attempt to find a 203
solution for Arrowhead and Chippewa to allow for development of the properties staged into 204
the future. 205
206
Reid stated that she does not think the southern parcel is suitable for business development 207
and therefore would not be opposed to changing that property to residential. 208
209
5
Piper asked if the southern parcel could have access from Highway 55 for business. It was 210
confirmed that the parcel would only have access from Mohawk. 211
212
Reid stated that these parcels will develop eventually. She stated that the concept does a nice 213
job of making use of what is there while preserving the wetlands, wooded areas and open 214
space. She noted that one developer cannot support the road and therefore combining the 215
development of the northern and southern parcels would allow for the construction of the 216
road. She stated that this is the first development in a long time that provides a variety of 217
housing products, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she likes seeing 218
a variety of price points for homeowners, which this provides. 219
220
Mark Smith provided the range for the pricing of the homes, noting that the twinhomes would 221
begin around $300,000 while the single-family and townhomes would begin around $500,000 222
to $600,000. He noted that there is also a large creek that runs through the southern parcel 223
that would restrict typical business development. 224
225
Reid stated that as a taxpayer, the developer is offering to contribute quite a bit of 226
infrastructure that the City has identified need for. She stated that she sees a lot of 227
advantages to this development, recognizing that there are tradeoffs. She believed this to be a 228
good use of the properties and the City would be unsure of what would come in the future. 229
She noted that the area around this is developed and therefore would not have a problem with 230
this developing. She commented again that it would not seem the southern parcel would be 231
appropriate for business development. She stated that although this would include 232
Comprehensive Plan amendments, there would be a lot received in return. She noted that the 233
wetlands and trees that are currently visible from Bridgewater will remain as a buffer. 234
235
Brett Palmer, 4673 Bluebell Trail, referenced the traffic study, which included three 236
roundabout options and reconfiguration of the OSI entrance. 237
238
Finke stated that the Chippewa and Arrowhead study will continue irrespective of this 239
development, noting that there will be an open house the following week. He noted that 240
those elements are part of the corridor study. 241
242
Nielsen asked if the Chippewa extension has been included in the last two Comprehensive 243
Plan process. She stated that if that is important why were the properties not staged 244
differently with the hope that someone would come in and complete that road. 245
246
Reid noted that previous developers walked away from the properties because of the cost for 247
the road. She stated that one developer will not fund the road and that is why it would make 248
sense to combine the development of the two parcels into one. 249
250
Finke commented that infrastructure is not the only element that goes into staging, noting that 251
all the elements weighed on the staging proposed. 252
253
Amic stated that this would have four football fields of buffer between this and the next 254
development and he believed that this could be a good deal for the City. He stated that in five 255
years this will develop anyway, and the City might not like that plan more than this. 256
257
Galzki stated that while it is great that someone is offering to fund the infrastructure needs, 258
the City can fund that as well rather than developing for development sake. He stated that as 259
good as the plan is and the public improvements that would be provided, the City would be 260
liable for the wetland mitigation, there would be increased traffic congestion, and traffic 261
improvements would be needed. He stated that the road and watermain improvements are 262
6
already included in the City’s CIP and he would prefer to use the Comprehensive Plan to 263
guide the vision for the City into the future. He stated that he has a hard time believing that 264
the public improvements would be worth the additional tradeoffs. 265
266
Motion by Nester, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan 267
amendment. Motion carries 4-2 (Amic and Reid opposed). (Absent: Williams) 268
269
Finke stated that there will be an open house for the Arrowhead and Chippewa corridor study 270
the following Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. He noted that this application will go 271
before the Park Commission at their next meeting and then to the City Council on November 272
6th. 273
274
6. Public Hearing – Woodbury REI, LLC – 3692 and 3672 Pinto Drive – Rezoning from 275
the Commercial-Highway to the Commercial-General Zoning District 276
277
Schneider stated that the applicant owns the two adjacent lots currently zoned as 278
Commercial-Highway that are currently undeveloped. He noted that the surrounding parcels 279
are zoned Commercial-General and the applicant is requesting to rezone their parcels to 280
Commercial-General as well. He stated that the applicant would like to develop a self-281
storage business on the parcels, which would not be allowed in Commercial-Highway but 282
would be allowed in Commercial-General. He reviewed some of the differences between the 283
two zoning districts and some elements for the Commissions to consider. 284
285
Piper stated that she is struggling with the location. Someone provided additional details on 286
the parcel locations. 287
288
Reid asked if the rezoning were approved, would the Commission see the project again to 289
ensure that the design standards were being met. 290
291
Schneider confirmed that the proposed project would still come back to the Commission for 292
review. 293
294
Galzki asked if any of the conditional uses for Commercial-General includes items that are no 295
longer permitted. 296
297
Schneider confirmed that those uses would not be permitted as conditional uses. 298
299
Charles Schatz, representing the property owner, stressed the fact that this change in zoning 300
would not in any way affect the future of retail on that site. He stated that this change is 301
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and unifies the existing zoning in the area. He stated 302
that they have been working with City staff on the design of the project. He noted that the 303
property is small in nature and therefore this would be a small-scale project and they would 304
work to make the project architecturally pleasing. He stated that the property owner has tried 305
very hard to gain development and there has been little to no interest because of the railroad 306
tracks. He believed that this change would be beneficial and consistent with the goals of the 307
City. 308
309
Piper stated that every successful storage facility usually expands, whereas this would not 310
have space to expand. She asked if that is why the design would be such that it could be 311
converted to something else. 312
313
Mr. Schatz stated that is not a consideration at this time and does not believe that is a factor in 314
the current request. 315
7
316
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. 317
318
Robb Stauber, owner of the Northstar Mattress building at 3795 Pinto Drive, stated that he 319
has nothing against the applicant. He stated that the City cannot say that this property would 320
not develop into something. He noted that Aldi, Oak Eatery and others developed next to 321
railroad tracks. He stated that he listened to the last discussion and the statement was made 322
that the City should not develop for the sake of development. He did not believe it would be 323
consistent to allow this zoning change. He stated that just because something has not been 324
developed, does not mean it will not develop in the future. He stated that his retail business 325
has survived, and he feels that this would be a negative impact on his business. He stated that 326
he does not want a storage facility next to his business. He noted that he owns multiple 327
properties in Medina. He urged the City to stay with its vision as this is a valuable piece of 328
property. 329
330
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. 331
332
Piper stated that she has mixed feelings. She stated that when looking at the plan, she gathers 333
that this would be one story with access off Tower Drive. She asked the amount of physical 334
property; it was confirmed that the total amount of land would be 1.2 acres. She commented 335
that the plan looks very crowded. 336
337
Amic stated that this is a horrible piece of land and did not believe that a lot of good 338
development would be interested. He stated if not this, he would question what would want 339
to go on that site. He stated that he would not have a good reason to deny the request. 340
341
Nielsen agreed that this is a horrible piece of land. She questioned if this would develop on 342
the site just to fill it up. 343
344
Galzki stated that in his opinion, this type of request would be one step away from the 345
allowed use. He noted that all the surrounding uses are already guided Commercial-General 346
and when he looks at the four uses that would no longer be allowed, he does not see that 347
would prohibit something that could perhaps be interested in developing on the site. He 348
stated that he would have a hard time not wanting to grant the request as the items that would 349
no longer be allowed with the zoning change already exist in the area. He stated that he does 350
not have a problem with the zoning change. 351
352
Nester agreed that this is different from the previous discussion as this does not involve a 353
Comprehensive Plan amendment to staging request. She stated that she is in agreement with 354
the proposed change. 355
356
Reid stated that she would also be fine with the change in zoning. She noted that the corner 357
currently does not look good and the railroad tracks will be a barrier for retail. She stated that 358
if it is a nice-looking storage facility that includes screening, it would not be that visible. 359
360
Piper asked if there is a shaking from the railroad tracks that could impact stored items. 361
362
Schatz replied that they could look into it but was not concerned because of the distance 363
between the site and railroad tracks. 364
365
Motion by Piper, seconded by Galzki, to recommend approval of the rezoning from 366
Commercial-Highway to Commercial-General. Motion carries 4-1-1 (Nielsen opposed) 367
(Amic abstained). (Absent: Williams) 368
8
369
Finke noted that this will also move forward to the City Council on November 6, 2019. 370
371
7. Approval of the August 13, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 372
373 Motion by Amic, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the August 13, 2019, Planning 374
Commission minutes with noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 375
Williams) 376
377
8. Council Meeting Schedule 378
379
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered 380
to attend in representation of the Commission. 381
382
9. Adjourn 383
384
Motion by Piper, seconded by Galzki, to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried 385
unanimously. 386