HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-10-2020 Planning Commission Packet POSTED IN CITY HALL March 6, 2020
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020
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 – Adam’s Pest Control (Jar-Har, LLP) – PIDs 04-118-
23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001 – Preliminary Plat, Rezoning,
Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review (updated)
6. Approval of February 11, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
7. Council Meeting Schedule
8. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 4, 2020
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: February 27, 2020
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – March 4, 2020 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 Council reviewed and tabled the request at the November 6 meeting
to allow for a neighborhood meeting, which was held on January 20. Staff intends to
present to the Council at the March 17 meeting.
B) 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). The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the November 12 meeting and recommended approval.
The City Council reviewed on December 3 and directed staff to prepare documents for
approval. Staff has been working with the adjacent property owner to secure right-of-way
for the frontage road to Willow Drive. We have been unable to reach agreement on the
right-of-way to the east, so the applicant intends to amend the site plan and plat to access the
site directly from Highway 55. A public hearing on the updated site plan is scheduled for
March 10.
C) OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate
company for OSI) has requested approval of a site plan review and preliminary plat to construct an
expansion to the existing building and parking lot at 4101 Arrowhead Drive. The plat proposes to
increase the size of the main lot and decrease the size of the outlot to the north. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the December 10 meeting and recommended approval. The
City Council reviewed at the January 7 meeting and directed staff to prepare documents.
Staff is in discussions with OSI about improvements to Arrowhead Drive and will present
approval documents when complete.
D) 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.
E) 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. The application is incomplete
for review, and the City has requested additional materials.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 4, 2020
City Council Meeting
F) Johnson ADU CUP, 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.
G) 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) Residential Garage Requirements – staff met with a developer considering a townhome project in
the City. The developer noted that the City requires each townhome to have a 440 square foot
garage, which they indicated did not seem common, and would not be marketable. Staff has
collected information and recommended a reduction in the size requirement for townhomes. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed on February 11. The Commission voted
4-3 to recommend approval of the ordinance reducing the minimum size and making other changes.
Three Commissioners did not support the reduction in garage size. Staff intends to present the
ordinance at the March 4 Council meeting.
B) Tamarack Drive study – Staff is scheduling meetings with relevant agencies and property owners to
collect background information. Staff is aiming for a public engagement activity in April.
C) Hackamore Road Preliminary Design – WSB is scheduling a kick-off meeting for this project with
staff from Corcoran and Medina the week of March 9.
D) Diamond Lake Regional Trail – representatives from Three Rivers Park district met with the Park
Commission on 2/26 and discussed potential alternative routes for a future regional trail which is
being planned to run north-south in the eastern 1/3 of the City. The Commission and staff provided
feedback on the alternatives and discussed other possible routes.
TO: City Council
FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: February 27, 2020
RE: Police Department Updates
Hiring Processes
Justin Hanson has started his field training program with Officer Boecker and the first couple of
weeks have gone very well. We have posted the second patrol position for the internal process with
a deadline of March 9th. On Thursday February 29th we will be holding the interviews for the
sergeant’s position.
Coronavirus
As the news increases of the coronavirus spreading through different countries, we are hearing we
should prepare for the worst. In 2003 we prepared for “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome”,
(SARS) and in 2014 “Middle East Respiratory Syndrome”, (MERS) and more recently we prepared
for the Pandemic Flu. In each of these cases we discussed response plans at the emergency
management meeting. We will continue to develop these plans to address the Coronavirus as it
progresses. Currently, we are purchasing N95 masks, hand sanitizer, and disinfecting wipes and are
monitoring the movement of the virus. If we have a major outbreak, we will keep everyone up to
date.
Patrol:
Training – On 02-/12, Officer Boecker attended Background Investigator Training.
On 02-25 Officer Boecker conducted our annual Use of Force and Taser Training.
Officer Justin Hanson is in full swing with his field training and it is progressing well. He is going
to be an excellent officer for the department.
Patrol Activities - For the dates of February 11 to February 25, 2020 our officers issued 70 citations
and 122 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 7 traffic accidents, 14
medicals, 10 alarms.
MEMORANDUM
We have had several weather-related incidents the past two weeks as a result of the snow and ice.
Luckily, we had no serious injury related crashes, and most were minor property damage or vehicles
that went into the ditch.
On 02-13, Officers Hanson and Gregory responded to a school bus stop arm violation that occurred
on State Highway 55. The bus driver reported that a vehicle had passed the bus as it was letting a
student off. The owner of the vehicle was contacted, and she admitted that she was driving the car
but never saw a bus during her travels. The driver will be formally charged.
On 02-15, Officers Hanson and Boecker responded to a burglary. It was learned that 4-5 unknown
males had entered a residence looking for one of the renters. There was nothing stolen, and it is not
known who entered the residence.
On 02-20, Officer Scharf assisted Minnetonka Police with an impaired driver who was all over the
road and backing up on the off ramp on I-394. The driver was arrested and Officer Scharf who is a
Drug Recognition Examiner (DRE) assisted in evaluating the driver.
02-21, Officer Scharf took a theft from auto report at St. Ann’s Church. The victim reported that she
was at a funeral when someone stole a bag from her unlocked vehicle. No suspects at this time.
On 02-22, Officer Scharf responded to a fall from a horse. Upon arrival, the female appeared to
have a severe head injury and was transported to the hospital.
Investigations:
Interviewed a suspect involved with the fraudulent use of a credit card. The credit card was stolen
from a residential burglary in Medina in September of 2019. The case was submitted to the county
attorney’s office for charging.
Investigating a case of check forgery. I submitted an administrative subpoena to the bank to obtain
video surveillance of the suspect.
Received information about a possible DNA match from a commercial burglary in 2019. The DNA
was found on a window crank and is not a match for the victim. The DNA profile will be uploaded
to a National Data Base and will be routinely searched. The investigation is ongoing.
Completed the Investigator section of the 2019 annual report.
Participated in our annual use of force training.
There are currently (3) cases assigned to investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: February 26, 2020
MEETING: March 4, 2020
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• Staff will be kicking off the Hackamore design project in the next week.
• The streets are shifting around with the frost moving down. This is a temporary
inconvenience and the roadways will return to normal as they thaw.
• We have had one snow fall in the past two weeks. It has been a very clam stretch of
weather.
• Public Works will be posting the seasonal weight restrictions as soon as the State
announces their restrictions. We typically follow MNDOTs lead but we reserve the right
to extend the season as long as we see fit.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public Works has discovered several malfunctioning meters in the water system. Staff
will follow up with each meter.
• Public Works is gathering quotes to replace the chlorine gas with bleach for both the
Morningside and Independence Beach water systems. Bleach is a slightly more expensive
disinfectant but is a lot safer for the operator and the general public, especially if there is
a leak.
PARKS/TRAILS
• The sliding hills and skating rinks are being used a lot this year with the reasonable
temperatures and the abundance of snow.
• Public works will be working with Jenco, our weed and feed contractor, for the parks and
other properties. The idea is to work on best management practices to reduce the amount
of both herbicide and fertilizer.
PERSONNEL
• I will be on vacation from February 29th to March 7th.
• The fulltime Public Works Maintenance Technician posting closed February 24th. City
staff will score and bring in the top candidates for interviews. The best candidate will be
brought forward to council for approval.
Equipment
• Public works has been demoing three backhoes from John Deere, Case, and Caterpillar.
We have also ordered our skid steer replacement and air compressor.
• The 2003 Sterling single axel truck had some major repairs done to it recently. As always
with large truck repairs they are never inexpensive. Let’s hope the rest of the year goes
well for repairs.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 1 of 6 March 10, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: March 6, 2020
MEETING: March 10, 2020 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing - Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) - Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit - PIDs
04-118- 23-21-0001 & 04-118-23-24-0001 (N of Hwy 55, W of Willow Drive)
Background
Jan 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.
In order to effectuate the development of the land, 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
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at the November 2019 meeting
and recommended approval of the request. At that time, the applicant proposed to provide
access to the site by constructing a new street over vacant property to the east, assuming right-of-
way would be granted over the property.
The owner of the property to the east has indicated that they are not prepared to provide right-of-
way at this time. The applicant has indicated that their preferred alternative is still to construct
the access to the east, but if right-of-way is not provided, they propose direct access to Highway
55. The applicant met with MnDOT, who has indicated that, if alternative access is not
provided, a full access with left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes added on Highway 55 would be
the required alternative.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 2 of 6 March 10, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) Planning Commission Meeting
Except for the potential change of access, the proposal is the same as reviewed by the City late
last year. This report discusses the potential change of access but does not repeat the rest of the
information about the requests. The report presented to the Planning Commission and City
Council last year is attached for reference.
Transportation, Streets and Right-of-way
As noted above, the applicant’s preferred plan is to construct a road to connect to Willow Drive
as a primary access. The City would then accept this street as a public roadway. 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 Adam’s Pest Control site and Willow
Drive. City staff and the applicant have been in discussions with the owners to secure public
right-of-way which would allow the applicant to construct the street. At this point, the owner of
the property to the east has indicated that they are not prepared to provide the right-of-way at this
time. The owner of the property to the east entered into an agreement with the City in 1993, in
which they agreed to construct a private road from Willow Drive to abut the Adam’s Pest
Control Property when construction occurred on the property to the east. Ultimately, this private
street could allow access to the Adam’s Pest Control property when constructed.
The applicant has requested approval of direct access to Highway 55 as a “back-up plan” if right-
of-way is not provided. The applicant (and City staff) consulted with MnDOT on the access.
MnDOT has indicated that, if no alternative access exists, they would recommend and require
that a left-turn lane and right-turn lane be added on Highway 55 to serve the property.
A limited access, such as a right-in/right-out only, does not appear to be a good alternative in this
case because there are not good opportunities for drivers to turn around neither east or west of
this property. Without medians, it is difficult to make the u-turns and to prevent the left turns
either in or out. As a result, and contrary to what may have been expected, MnDOT concluded
the full access with turn-lanes was the least concerning alternative. The City Engineer concurred
with this conclusion, and their summary is attached.
When the roadway to Willow Drive is provided in the future, MnDOT will be able to limit the
access at that time. There would be costs for MnDOT to implement those changes such as
alterations to the driveway or potential construction of a median.
Staff recommends the following conditions related to access, depending on which access
scenario is to occur:
• Access through new road to Willow Drive:
o Owner shall construct public street meeting relevant specifications to Willow
Drive, including necessary stormwater management.
o Owner shall provide documentation acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure
closure of the temporary right-in access from Highway 55 within three years after
completion of the building.
• Access onto Highway 55: The Owner shall construct left-turn lane and right-turn lane
and other necessary improvements as recommended and required by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 3 of 6 March 10, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) Planning Commission Meeting
Preliminary Plat Review
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 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. 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. The Applicant shall construct necessary improvements to provide access as follows.
a. If access is provided via new road to Willow Drive:
i. Owner shall construct public street meeting relevant specifications to Willow Drive,
including necessary stormwater management.
ii. Owner shall provide documentation acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure closure
of the temporary right-in access from Highway 55 within three years after completion
of the building.
b. If access is provided directly via Highway 55: The Owner shall construct left-turn lane
and right-turn lane and other necessary improvements as recommended and required by
the Minnesota Department of Transportation
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated 2/27/2020 and
12/3/2019 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 preserve four acres of the wooded area for park and open space
dedication. If the Owner or a future Owner extinguishes the covenant to preserve the area in
the future, a full cash-in-lieu fee of 8% of the future market value of Lots 1 and 2 shall be
payable.
5. The plat shall dedicate right-of-way for the future cul-de-sac.
6. 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.
7. The watermain and hydrants within the lots shall be privately maintained.
8. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements in order to ensure completion.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 4 of 6 March 10, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) Planning Commission Meeting
9. 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.
10. 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.
Rezoning/Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit Review
The criteria for reviewing proposed rezonings, site plan reviews and conditional use permits
were discussed in the staff report upon initial review, which is attached for reference.
The City has a higher level of discussion when determining how to zone the property. As
discussed during the initial review back in November, the Business (B) and Business Park (BP)
are both intended to implement the objectives of the Business land use. The Planning
Commission and Council should also determine whether the B or BP zoning district is most
appropriate for Lot 2 based upon the objectives described in the Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes described for each district. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of Lot 1 to the
B district and also believes it is reasonable to zone Lot 2 as B as well.
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 in the attached 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 and the Planning Commission had recommended some of those
conditions upon initial review, which are described 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.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at their November 12
meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached for reference. Three people
spoke at the hearing and were not opposed to the project but requested that the City consider
concerns related to stormwater management, light, noise, and potential costs for other taxpayers
for infrastructure improvements.
Following the public hearing, the Commission supported the Business zoning district for both
lots and were supportive of the project. Following review, the Planning Commission
recommended 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 2/27/2020 and
12/3/2019 except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 5 of 6 March 10, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) Planning Commission Meeting
4. The Applicant shall construct necessary improvements to provide access as follows.
(a) If access is provided via new road to Willow Drive:
1. Owner shall construct public street meeting relevant specifications to Willow
Drive, including necessary stormwater management.
2. Owner shall provide documentation acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure
closure of the temporary right-in access from Highway 55 within three years after
completion of the building.
(b) If access is provided directly via Highway 55: The Owner shall construct left-turn
lane and right-turn lane and other necessary improvements as recommended and
required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
5. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage.
6. The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to provide landscaping to south and west of
the vehicle service bay and vehicle storage doors.
7. The Applicant shall update the parking lot plan to divide the parking into cells with
landscaping at least 12 feet in width.
8. The Applicant shall update plans so that the access/circulation for the accessory building
meets setback requirements from Highway 55.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The Applicant shall identify HVAC locations and provide screening measures for review
and approval.
12. All comments from the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
13. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
14. The outdoor dining and drinking area shall be delineated with fencing.
15. 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.
16. All vehicle repair shall occur within the structure.
17. 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.
18. No automobile storage, display or sales shall occur upon the site unless a separate
conditional use permit is obtained for such use, except that retired vehicles used in
connection with the approved use(s) on the site may be sold.
19. The site plan review approval shall be effective for two years 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.
20. 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.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 6 of 6 March 10, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) Planning Commission Meeting
Potential Action
As noted above, the request is the same as reviewed by the Planning Commission except the
potential change of access to access directly to Highway 55 if right-of-way is not provided over
property to the east.
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and then determine whether the potential
access to Highway 55 changes its recommendation based on the relevant criteria or whether
additional conditions should be considered.
Following such review, the Commission could consider the following action:
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. December 3, 2019 City Council report
2. List of Documents
3. Excerpt from 11/12/2019 Planning Commission
4. Comp Plan Information – Business Land Use
5. Engineering comments dated 11/5/2019
6. Traffic Engineer comments dated 3/2/2020
7. Public Comments received (Reader, Kozlak, Chudek)
8. Applicant narrative describing potential Highway 55 access
9. Preliminary Plat and Plans (Civil dated 12/3/2019 and 3/2/2020)
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 1 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: November 26, 2019
MEETING: December 3, 2019 City Council
SUBJ: Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) - Rezoning, Preliminary Plat,
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit - PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 &
04-118-23-24-0001 (north of Highway 55, 1300 feet west of Willow Drive)
Background
Jan 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
Agenda Item # 7D
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 2 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council 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.”
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 3 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
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
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
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 4 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Transportation, Streets and Right-of-way
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. The plans show a right-in/right-out onto Highway 55, but the
applicant is updating plans to show access via the road to Willow.
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 – Ordinance Requirements
City’s subdivision regulations require up to one of the following amounts to be dedicated for
parks, trails, and open space purposes:
• 2.4 acres of land to be dedicated – 10% of the buildable property
• $65,200 (estimated) in-lieu of land dedication – 8% of the pre-developed market value
• Combination of land and cash
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 5 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan
No park or trail improvements are identified in the City’s Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, a
map of which is attached for reference.
The City’s natural resource inventory and Open Space Plan identify the wooded area in the
northern portion of the site as a “good” quality maple-basswood forest. This quality of woodland
is uncommon in the metropolitan area and has been identified as a priority for conservation. At
this point, no development is proposed on the northern lot so no disturbance of the woodland is
proposed. However, Park Dedication during review of the plat provides opportunity for
preservation.
Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space
The applicant proposes preservation of the approximately 20 acre wetland area and installation
of three bike repair stations in City parks as park dedication. Wetland areas have certain
protections through the wetland conservation act and City ordinances. It appears that the bike
repair stations retail for approximately $750-$1500+installation costs.
The applicant has also discussed the possibility of trails to access the natural amenities of the
site, specifically the eagles’ eyrie and the woods to the north. The Park Commission can discuss
whether such trails, although internal to the site, could provide a broader public use, perhaps in
connection with a trailhead.
Park, Trail, Open Space Discussion
Staff recommends discussion related to preservation of the wooded area in the northern portion
of the site. The City’s natural resource inventory identifies this as a comparatively high-quality
natural resource in the City and a priority for protection.
Existing City regulations and practical realities of the site provide some protections. The City’s
tree preservation ordinance would require replacement if more than 10% of the trees were
proposed to be removed. The wetland to the west and north provide buffer requirements, and
when combined with property line setbacks from the residential property to the north, encompass
a fair amount of the area. These factors, combined with the topography of this portion of the
property, would suggest construction in their area may be challenging.
With all of that being said, there would be no prohibition against disturbance within most of the
wooded area. In past examples, the City and property owner have agreed on partial credit for
preservation when the City hasn’t required the actual full dedication of land into City ownership.
Based upon the challenges with construction in this case, it appears that this may be an
opportunity.
Park Commission Recommendation
The Park Commission reviewed at their November 20 meeting. The Commission discussed the
wooded area of the lot and generally supported preservation to the extent possible. The
Commission did not believe it was necessary for the land to be taken publicly, but supported
some amount of credit for private conservation. The Council should discuss whether to require
dedication of some portion of the area as park dedication, or if it would prefer that staff discuss
with the applicant some credit for private preservation.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 6 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Plat 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, the
Planning Commission 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 shall pay cash-in-lieu of land dedication in the amount of ___________. A
covenant shall be recorded related to the preservation of the ____ acre wooded area. If the
Owner or a future Owner extinguishes the covenant in the future, the remaining park
dedication fee of ________ shall become payable.
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.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 7 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Proposed Site Plan
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
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 8 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
supports allowing four years for construction to begin. Staff requested architectural plans
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.
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%
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 9 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Fenestration and Transparency
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.
Wetland Required
buffer
Large basin to west 35 feet
Northern wetland (wooded) 35 feet
Eastern wetland 25 feet
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 10 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Transportation/Access/Loading
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.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 11 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Parking
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.
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
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 12 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
• Minimum Planting
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.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 13 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Conditional Use Permit
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.
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.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 14 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
(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. The applicant has noted that they
occasional sell their own trucks when the retire them from service. Staff has recommended that
these be exempted from the prohibition.
(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 document, 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.
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.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 15 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
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.
Planning Commission Recommendation
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.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 16 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
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.” The Planning Commission 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.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at their November 12
meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached for reference. Three people
spoke at the hearing and were not opposed to the project, but requested that the City consider
concerns related to stormwater management, light, noise, and potential costs for other taxpayers
for infrastructure improvements.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed. The Commission supported
the Business zoning district for both lots and were supportive of the project. Following review,
the Planning Commission recommended 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.
13. The outdoor dining and drinking area shall be delineated with fencing.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 17 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
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, except that retired vehicles used in
connection with the approved use(s) on the site may be sold.
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 the Council finds that the criteria described in the report have been satisfied, the following
action would be appropriate:
Move to direct staff to prepare documents approving 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. Excerpt from 11/12/2019 Planning Commission
3. Excerpt from 11/20/2019 Park Commission
4. Comp Plan Information – Business Land Use
5. Engineering comments dated 11/5/2019
6. Public Comments received (Reader, Kozlak)
7. Applicant narrative
8. Applicant description for additional garage doors
9. Preliminary Plat and Plans (Civil dated 10/28/2019; Arch dated 9/11/2019)
3/6/2020
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
Site Plan-Updated 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 1 Yes Fig 2 only
Hwy 55 turn lane plan 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 1 Yes
Narrative-Access 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 1 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
Review Extension 12/24/2019 12/24/2019 1 Yes Yes February 7, 2020
Review Extension 1/26/2020 1/26/2020 1 Yes Yes April 7, 2020
<OVER>
3/6/2020
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
City Engineer-access comments 3/2/2020 1 Y
Pioneer-Sarah Watershed Review 9/26/2019 6 Y
Pioneer-Sarah Review 11/14/2019 6
Pioneer-Sarah Review 11/21/2019 8 Y Conditional Approval
MnDOT comments 8/9/2019 7 Y
Notice 11/1/2019 12 Y 15 pages w/ affidavit and labels
Notice 2/28/2020 6 Y 9 pages 2/ affidavit and labels/map
Preliminary Comments 8/9/2019 3 Y
Review Extension 10/23/2019 2 Y
Fire and Plat Comments 11/21/2019 2 Y
Park Dedication Market Value 11/21/2019 1 Y
Natural Resource Comments 11/20/2019 1 Y
Planning Commission Report 11/7/2019 16 Y 45 pages w/ attachments
City Council Report 11/26/2019 17 Y 60 pages w/ attachments
Planning Commission Report 3/5/2020 6 Y
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Jim Reader Email 11/12/2019 Y
Dave Kozlak Email 11/12/2019 Y
Jeff Chudek Email 3/2/2020 Y
Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/2019 Y
Park Commission Minutes 11/20/2019 Y
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 11/12/2019 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Jan Har, LLC (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 Drive
Finke presented a request from Jan Har, LLC (Adam’s Pest Control) to develop a piece of vacant property
north of Highway 55 and west of Willow Drive to build a 43,000 square foot building. He noted that part
of the building would contain a bar/restaurant while the accessory building would house a 1,300
shop/warehouse/vehicle building for Adam’s Pest Control use. He suggested that the Commission review
the requests in the following order: rezoning request, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, and Conditional Use
Permit. He displayed the subject site which is 43 acres in size and noted that the northern area would
remain for potential future development. He referenced the eagle’s nest on the site, noting that would not
be disturbed by this project. He reviewed the surrounding land use and zoning. He displayed the
elevation for the office building and accessory building. He explained that a rezoning of this site would
be expected upon development and noted that the site is within the current staging period. He explained
the differences between the Business and Business Park zoning districts. He stated that staff believes that
business would be appropriate for both the southern and northern portions of the property. He provided
details on the proposed access which would construct a road connecting to Willow Drive for full access
with a temporary right-in from Highway 55 for three years to allow the business to become established.
He stated that staff also recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions noted in
the staff report. He provided details on the proposed building and some adjustments that would be needed
to the driveway and stormwater management plan. He stated that there would be a shared parking
proposal between the office and restaurant use. He provided details on the proposed building elevations
and architectural modulation. He stated that the applicant would move forward with the office building
first and would like a longer time period to begin construction of the restaurant and noted that staff would
recommend allowing four years for that to occur.
Piper asked if the property is currently owned by the applicant or whether the sale of the property would
be conditional upon approval by the City.
Finke replied that the applicant owns the property.
Reid asked where the division of the property would occur.
Finke identified the proposed division of the property.
Andrea Doop, of Adam’s Pest Control, introduced her architect to provide additional information to the
Commission.
Steve Kleineman, architect representing the applicant, stated that if the site were divided vertically in half
the left side of the property is virtually all wetland. He stated that when the design of the project began it
started as one building, but the grade is quite high on the eastern side of the property and slopes to the
west. He stated that because the office function is not as connected to the warehouse function, it made
sense to push the warehouse building to the east to be more out of site. He stated that on the west side the
office and restaurant were oriented to take advantage of the wetland views. He provided details on the
proposed building elevations, materials, and building layout. He stated that their goal is to create an
attractive and interesting building as it would be visible from Highway 55.
Amic asked the distance of the three-story building from Highway 55. It was estimated at least 200 feet.
Reid asked why the applicant would want the northern half of the property to be zoned as business rather
than business park, noting the adjacent residential property.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 11/12/2019 Meeting Minutes
2
Kleineman replied that they are unsure what would be developed on that northern portion and therefore
the business use would allow the most flexibility at this time.
Amic asked the location of the eagle in the finished project.
Kleineman replied that it would be found in the grouping of trees to the west of the restaurant.
Piper asked for details on the access proposed.
Kleineman replied that the right-in from Highway 55 would be proposed temporarily in order to make the
restaurant viable. He explained that it would be difficult for customers to find the access from Willow
Drive when seeing the restaurant from Highway 55. He stated that once on the site people would exit
onto Willow Drive and therefore after that length of time people would become familiar with the Willow
access.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
Donald Jeszewski, 6215 Willow Drive, referenced the access on Mohawk which does not allow a left-turn
and advised that many vehicles still turn left. He asked how the property to the north would have access
once divided.
Finke explained that both the northern and southern portions would have the same access using the street
to Willow.
Jeszewski referenced language in the staff report related to an easement and received clarification that
would not include property that he owns. He asked about paving. He asked why a four-story apartment
building would be allowed on the northern portion of the property adjacent to existing residential.
Finke stated that while it was mentioned that may be of interest, it has not been proposed at this time.
Jeszewski stated that he enjoys the privacy and seclusion of his home and would be opposed to a large
four-story apartment building. He stated that his driveway has been under water for the past few years
and did not believe the stormwater ponds are large enough in that area. He did not believe the culvert
under Highway 55 is large enough.
Finke explained that the request would be subject to stormwater management requirements.
Tim Broadhead, operating officer at Rockler, stated that his business has concern with traffic. He asked if
the applicant is asking the City to pay for some of the infrastructure or whether those improvements
would be funded by the applicant. He stated that they would be happy to have additional businesses
along Highway 55.
Finke explained that all of the improvements for the development, outside of the public right-of-way,
would be funded by the applicant. He stated that one unique element for the subject site and properties to
the east is that a sanitary lift station has been identified as a need for the properties in this area and would
be funded through the City’s capital funds along with partial fees from the properties that would receive
benefit. He stated that there may be improvements to a portion of Willow Drive.
Broadhead asked if the sanitary lift station would impact Rockler.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 11/12/2019 Meeting Minutes
3
Finke did not believe that the business would be impacted.
Broadhead stated that they would welcome development on the site and simply wanted clarification of the
financial elements.
Finke advised of two written comments from Jim Reader and David Kozlak that were received and
distributed to the Commission and provided a summary of those comments related to safety, access on
Highway 55, lighting, and potential impacts on hunting. He noted that the resident does support the
development with those concerns identified.
Additional details were provided on the proposed outdoor seating.
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Reid suggested that the Commission begin with the proposed rezoning as the other elements would be
dependent upon that change.
Nester stated that she is not opposed to rezoning both parcels as business as that would be less restrictive.
Finke stated that the request is to rezone the subject site as a whole.
Reid suggested that a separate motion be made for the zoning change.
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend approval of the rezoning. Motion carries
unanimously. (Absent: Williams)
Reid stated that it seems there are a lot of questions about the traffic flow.
Nester noted that contingencies are already written in.
Finke provided additional clarity, noting that staff would desire additional details to be worked out before
this moves to the City Council.
Piper asked the definition of frontage road.
Finke identified the area proposed for the road and provided additional details.
Reid asked where the right-in from Highway 55 would be.
Finke noted that it would essentially be where the field road exists today and would connect to the
parking lot.
Galzki stated that the sharper right-in seems to make sense to prevent people from turning left. He stated
that it would seem feasible to have that temporary right-in option as long as the frontage road to Willow
Drive is provided. He noted that the conditions seem appropriate to address any concerns.
Piper stated that she can see the desire for the right-in access but believes that it would be a problem for
drivers. She felt strongly that the right-in should only be allowed temporarily.
Nester stated that if the right-in is allowed for three years and the restaurant is not constructed for four
years, that would seem to miss the point of having that access.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 11/12/2019 Meeting Minutes
4
Piper asked if the applicant would move forward with the project if the right-in is not allowed.
Kleineman stated that Adam’s Pest Control would not need the access onto Highway 55, but the owner
felt was important to help the restaurant become established.
Piper asked if this Highway 55 access would require MnDOT approval.
Finke confirmed that the applicant and City have been working with MnDOT and the property owner to
the east and at this point MnDOT has indicated that they would support the temporary three year right-in
access.
Nester asked if the three years would begin after approval of after the restaurant is opened.
Finke stated that the three years would begin once the initial building is constructed. He clarified that if
the restaurant is not built during that time period that would simply be a missed opportunity for the
restaurant to utilize the right-in.
Galzki commented that if there is adequate way finding signage that would alleviate any issues with
people finding the right access.
Piper asked what would happen with the signage rules.
Reid stated that the applicant would need to follow the sign regulations. She believed that there would
need to be large signage needed.
Finke stated that once the right-in is closed it would be apparent that Willow would be the way to access
the business.
Galzki stated that people will find the way into the restaurant and did not see any issues with that.
Finke stated that the condition would specify the frontage road and the right-in only. He noted that the
Commission could clarify that it wants the applicant to update the plans to show that. He stated that a
portion of the shoulder would be converted to a turn lane for the temporary right-in.
Nielsen stated that she does not oppose the right-in and would not have a problem with that remaining
open indefinitely.
Amic agreed that he also did not have a problem with the right-in. He noted that GPS will bring people to
the restaurant. He stated that he would also support an indefinite right-in.
Piper stated that perhaps a condition could be made that would review the right-in every year or few
years.
Finke stated that as proposed the right-in would close after three years. He noted that ultimately that
would be a MnDOT decision.
Dave Kozlak, 4545 Wichita Trail, commented that he would like to see that right-in reviewed yearly
noting the number of accidents on that stretch of Highway 55 and near Wichita.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 11/12/2019 Meeting Minutes
5
Galzki commented that this is a great development and matches the desires of the City for this area
through the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there are adequate conditions in the staff report that
address the necessary coordination that is needed with other regulatory agencies. He believed that this
request should continue to move forward subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Reid asked if there are additional comments or questions related to the Preliminary Plat, Site Plan or
CUP.
Nester referenced the eagle nest on the property and asked if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife have been
notified or if that would occur when the permit is obtained.
Kleineman provided additional details on that process.
Amic noted that the eagle does not seem to have problems with noise as the nest is along Highway 55.
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Amic, to recommend approval of preliminary plat, site plan review and
CUP. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Williams)
Finke noted that it would be proposed to bring this forward to the City Council at its December 3rd
meeting.
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. 50% credit is allowed for filtration. Basins will need to be resized
to meet the volume control requirement.
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
1
Dusty Finke
From:Jim Stremel <JStremel@wsbeng.com>
Sent:Monday, March 02, 2020 12:00 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Chuck Rickart
Subject:Medina Adams Site - TH 55 Access Response
Hello Dusty,
We’ve come up with a list of improvement options for the Adams access off of TH 55 to have something to respond to at
the upcoming CC/planning com meetnigs. This runs the full gamut of “safest” to “least safe”. “Safest” is a relative term
as all intersections have inherent safety risks. Every intersection is unique and so point to specific “data” that would
help the decision making process for this instance is really not readily available without a more lengthy traffic
study/review. With all that in mind, here is a list based on our experience in similar situations (in a format that can be
added to our last review letter).
With no access to Willow Drive, in the short term, the access to TH 55 should be designed to provide the safest
condition for traffic entering and exiting the site. The options that should be considered from safest to least safe
are discussed below.
a) Widen TH 55 for an eastbound left turn lane and westbound right turn lane and, provide a left and right
turn lane out from the site.
b) Widen TH 55 for an eastbound bypass lane and westbound right turn lane and, provide a left and right
turn lane out from the site.
c) Construct a raised concrete median on TH 55 restricting left turn access in and out of the site. Widen TH
55 for a westbound right turn lane. Provide a right turn lane out from the site. (u‐turns and enforcement
are a concern with this option)
d) Leave as full access no “control” as it is today. Provide “no left turn during Peak Hours, 7am to 9am,
4pm to 6pm” signing on TH 55. (u‐turns during these hours and enforcement are concerns with this
option).
e) Right‐in/right‐out with raised median/signage at the Adams driveway. (u‐turns and enforcement are
concerns with this option).
Let us know you thoughts and whether you want to discuss in more detail.
Jim Stremel, PE
Sr. Project Manager
763.287.8532 (o) | 612.419.1549 (m)
WSB | wsbeng.com
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely
for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email
from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited.
WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result
of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
1
Dusty Finke
From:Scott Johnson
Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:51 AM
To:Dusty Finke; Ed Belland
Subject:FW: New submission from Contact Us
FYI
From: Jim Reader <jim_reader@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 5:24 AM
To: Website Inquiries <city@medinamn.gov>
Subject: New submission from Contact Us
Name
Jim Reader
Email
jim_reader@comcast.net
Phone
(763) 350-3000
Comments
Re: mtg tonight building going up on 55.
I live close enough to receive the mtg notice. I can not come to the meeting. I'm in Corcoran, not Medina.
1) I do not want to hear any complaints from future Medina residents about hunting next to their property. Hunting is legal in
Corcoran. Most of the hunting on my 5 acres is "no noise", bow hunting. But shot gun hunting is legal.
2) There is large eagles nest , possibly on the interested parcel, .almost on 55. It's enjoyed by myself, neighbors, -- anyone who
drives 55. That's thousands per day! We look for the eagles starting in Jan and especially during the spring hatching season.
They are so neat!!
I'm going to suggest that the MN DNR install a video cam to film the nest and then transmit it on the net, Being next to 55 it will
be convenient to maintain.
Regards, JIm Reader resident of 50 + yrs.
Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members,
I am writing in response to the Jar Har LLP‐“Adams” proposal to develop land located north of
Highway 55 and west of Willow Drive.
I have read through the memorandum packet and feel I understand the proposal for rezoning and
planning requirements. There are many requests and it is not extremely clear which ones will be voted
upon at the November 12th meeting.
I have the following specific concerns and questions:
1. Driving safety (CUP standard Subd. 1 and 9)‐ Since the access to Highway 55 is now proposed to
be a right in/right out, does the ‘CUP’ for the access address these issues:
Eastbound vehicles must make a right hand turn and go west. Has an Adam’s Pest Control
driving plan has been established and reviewed? Where will they turn around to go east?
Will they use the first roads they see, like Wichita Trail, a dead end residential street, or
Rolling Hills Road to turn around and go east? This could cause morning rush hour safety
conflicts between a fleet of trucks and school children waiting for the bus on a quiet
residential street that is not designed for heavy vehicles. Will restaurant patrons be directed
through signage to a safe location to turn or will they also turn into the first driveway they
see to make a U turn to the east?
If restaurant or staff who disregard the barriers and make a left turn or if ‘X’ amount of
traffic accidents or DUI’s occur will the right in/right out be revoked ?
I propose that a yearly review of traffic safety and accidents take place up to the full
termination of the access to 55 once the new frontage road to Willow is established so
traffic can safely access 55 in both direction at the signal light.
2. Lighting (CUP standard Subd. 5)‐ ‐According to staff recommendations the lighting is to be
reduced to the acceptable range, I would like to request shielding be used on the Hwy 55 side to
block unnecessary light from rural residential and the lake. Have lighting hours been
established? Neighboring industrial lighting shuts off or is reduced after hours. Since a
restaurant is proposed what will be the hours of operation? Will the lights go off or be
diminished after close?
3. Noise (CUP standard Subd. 9) Has an outdoor decibel level been established for outdoor dining
and music? Or if windows or doors are opened (common restaurant design feature).
4. Hunting (CUP standard Subd. 1). Will the Adam’s building (or subsequent restaurants which
may take over the property) remove the ability for Peter Lake residents to hunt on the lake?
This would injure the enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity and possibly even
diminish unique property amenities.
Opinion:
Overall I support the development of the land with Adam’s Pest Control and welcome a local
and well run business, with excellent ties to the community, to the area. I am somewhat apprehensive
about the restaurant, as it is an often a contested business with local municipalities regarding
ordinances, noise, crime, etc. But coming from a family that has been in the business for almost 100
years I also know when done right it too can be a value to the community.
As with any development I am primarily concerned with Safety, light, noise, and change in my
rights as a property owner. In our development on Wichita Trail, our children’s wellbeing is of utmost
focus. Late night noise and light along with increase in traffic of non‐residents has us worried.
Additionally the effects to the natural area and environment around Peter Lake warrants study.
All of the Residents on Wichita Trail have well water and any run off or spillage of stored chemicals,
which sole purpose is to kill animals, could be detrimental to people, pets or the ecosystem. There is a
high likelihood the eagles will leave the area, and the possibility of additional runoff at its most minimal
will change the ecosystem.
In regards to the initial request for residential rezoning, I am highly opposed. I reviewed all
versions of the 2040 plan submitted to Met Council and agreed with the current zoning identifications.
I believe that the solicitation for public input not cast correctly. I understand the requirements
to inform the surrounding residents, but due to geographical features and sightlines I believe more
individuals should have been informed. This is based on visual and auditory effects of the proposed
development, due to water and site lines over swamps and lakes. Additionally the Agenda was never
posted until a few hours prior to the planning commission meeting, thus no public could be informed
unless a specific call, letter or email was directly sent. I have sought out information since, pulling over
and reading the development sign located on site. Small font at 55 mph is not likely to be understood.
Residents such as should all be informed:
THOMAS C GUBBINS
3212 PIONEER TR
HAMEL MN 55340
CHASE K HANSON
4602 WICHITA TR
HAMEL MN 55340
DAVID F KOONMEN
3312 PIONEER TR
HAMEL MN 55340
JEAN S SHILINSKI
STANLEY J SHILINSKI
3400 PIONEER TR
HAMEL MN 55340
DAVID A ANDERSON
ELISSA A HENRICKS
4592 WICHITA TR
HAMEL MN 55340
BRYAN K NORMAN
NILA J NORMAN
4625 WICHITA TR
HAMEL MN 55340
JAYMES GROSSMAN
3082 STATE HWY NO 55
HAMEL MN 55340
JAMES R READER
6200 ROLLING HILLS RD
HAMEL MN 55340
DONALD J SPECKEL
6210 ROLLING HILLS RD
HAMEL MN 55340
J J KIRLEY & T A BOYTIM
P.O. BOX 187
HAMEL MN 55340
ANDREW J & DEBRA L MALECHA
6221 WILLOW DR
HAMEL MN 55340
DONALD & LESLIE JESZEWSKI
6215 WILLOW DR
HAMEL MN 55340
With that said, I would like to thank the planning director, Dusty Finke, for open and honest
communication during this process. And the council for hearing my concerns
Sincerely,
Dave Kozlak
4545 Wichita Trail
Medina, MN
1
Dusty Finke
From:Jeff & Becky Chudek <jefferychudek@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 02, 2020 3:47 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Subject:Adams pest control meeting
Dusty,
Thank you for working to make the city a better place to live! I can’t imagine the various viewpoints you have to try and
find common ground for.
As a resident within 1000 feet of Adam’s pest control’s proposed building site, I welcome it as much as I can, turning
natural land to constructed land. Progress happens, I can’t buy the land to keep it the same, so best wishes to those that
build! We hope they take great care of the wetlands so close to them.
Please consider two items for us:
On Hwy 55, around 1000 feet west from the proposed site is Rolling Hills Rd that we live on. Turning onto or off of Hwy
55 at morning or evening is borderline miserable, headed towards dangerous. Adding another turn on to Hwy 55 when
there is another option that was laid out years ago with easements seems less than wise. I hope the city is doing all it
can to avoid additional turns on to Hwy 55.
When assigning zoning, I hope you can avoid zoning the property behind Adams Pest Control as apartments. There are
some really nice houses next door, and I hope you can find some other way to zone it that would leave less options for
the trouble that seems to come with apartment buildings and still keep the wetland in our backyard quiet.
Thank you for your time,
Jeff Chudek
763‐458‐8104
6322 Rolling Hills Rd
MinnesotaWaterscapes.com
Check out what we’re doing at
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.Facebook.com%2Fmnponds&data=02%7C01%7Cdusty.fi
nke%40medinamn.gov%7C1cf9bc562a6a4a70e63d08d7bef3305b%7Cee47714f9d2e494291b7fafe59ba4e1f%7C0%7C0%
7C637187824016373389&sdata=qxWuyvZAAEiFfEqcqrVq7f0LOzkTILNK5Asuz0qBzAw%3D&reserved=0
Sent from my phone
MinnesotaWaterscapes.com
Check out what we’re doing at
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.Facebook.com%2Fmnponds&data=02%7C01%7Cdusty.fi
nke%40medinamn.gov%7C1cf9bc562a6a4a70e63d08d7bef3305b%7Cee47714f9d2e494291b7fafe59ba4e1f%7C0%7C0%
7C637187824016373389&sdata=qxWuyvZAAEiFfEqcqrVq7f0LOzkTILNK5Asuz0qBzAw%3D&reserved=0
Sent from my phone
1
Dusty Finke
From:Todd Leyse <tleyse@adamspestcontrol.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2020 9:41 AM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Erik Hedman
Subject:Full Permanent Highway Access
Dusty
When we applied to develop the parcel west of Willow Dr last year, our intent was to build a private road
through an easement from Willow Dr to our property. The easement is on property owned by St. Louis Park
Investments.
To date, we've given the city three extensions to approve this project and ultimately set a deadline of February
28, 2020 to work something out with SLPI without complete success.
Therefore we are requesting full, permanent access from Highway 55, as well as construction access from
Highway 55. We will still get utilities (water, sewer) through the easement to Willow Dr.
We met with MnDOT on February 20th and provided them a concept plan that they provided feedback on.
The concept plan we are submitting incorporates MnDOT's feedback but needs a bit more survey work beyond
our property but is pretty close to what we will submit to MnDOT. Their approval process may take a couple of
months.
Meanwhile, we are still open to building the private road if the city can work it out with SLPI in a timeframe
that is acceptable to us. Therefore we recommend the planning commission and the city council approve our
plan with either:
A. Private Road access to Willow Drive and Hwy 55 Right Turn Only Access for 3 Years post occupancy as
previously submitted, OR
B. Full permanent access to Hwy 55
at the developer's discretion. Meaning we are proceeding with Plan B approvals but we reserve the right to
change back to plan A if the city can work things out with SLPI in a time frame acceptable to us.
Todd
‐‐
Todd Leyse | President | tleyse@adamspestcontrol.com
Adam's Pest Control, Inc. 922 Hwy 55 Suite 100 | Medina MN 55340
www.adamspestcontrol.com | 763.478.9810 ext. 804 | 800.227.2214 | Fax 763.478.6715
Follow us on Facebook!
13605 1st Ave. N. #100 Plymouth, MN 55441P 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090 | ae-mn.comAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC | Proj #1523615236EXISTING CONDITIONSSURVEYC1.0------
PLOTTED:COMM. NO.
DRAWING NO.
----XXXXX
ADAM'S PEST
CONTROL
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N . #1 0 0
P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 | a e -m n .c o m
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C
DRAWING TITLE
CHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:
XXXXXXXXX
DATE
REVISION LOG
DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATE
HIGHWAY 55
MEDINA, MN
JAN-HAR, LLP
PROJECT PHASE
FIG. B
HIGHWAY 55
ENTRANCE/EXIT
OVERALL CONCEPT
PLAN
LEGEND
PROPOSED ASPHALT
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
N
0 150'300'
1 HIGHWAY 55 ENTRANCE/EXIT CONCEPT - OVERALL PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1" = 150'
PROPOSED BLDG.FFE = 988.0
PROPOSED BLDG.
FFE = 994.0
1000
995980985
98
9
985980980980975 975 975975985
970980985980975
1
0
0
21000 990980980975980985
10051005
990
985 9859859851
0
0
5 1005989
990990
990 976973986
987987
98899098798898598
5
983.5
987993983983987986987988 975
99
0995988
98
5
990
99
5
9
97
9
83
99
0
99
5
99
6
99
0
99
1
9899919929929
9
2
9
9
3992
9919
9
3
993
9
9
2
993 987987
98798
9
98
8
RDRDRDRD13605 1st Ave. N. #100 Plymouth, MN 55441P 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090 | ae-mn.comAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC | Proj #15236NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION15236LEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATER SERVICE (SEE SHEET C4.0)PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER (SEE SHEET C4.0)PROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM STRUCTURESPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND WALKRIPRAPBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED RETAINING WALLEXISTING CURBPROPOSED CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERPROPERTY CORNERSEXISTING SPOT ELEVATONPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION (GUTTER GRADE IF SHOWN ON CURB LINE)4-FT HIGHRETAINING WALLFILTRATIONBASIN #3SURFACE = 976.0FILTRATIOINBASIN #4SURFACE = 973.0FILTRATIONBASIN #1SURFACE = 983.53.5:1 SLOPE(MAX.)3:1 SLOPE(MAX.)T/BERMEL. = 991.5 RIPRAP SPILLWAY(TYP.)STM FESINV. = 973.00STM FESEL. = 972.56STM CONTROLSTRUCTURERIM = 979.36-FT HIGHRETAINING WALL(MAX.)SITE GRADING,DRAINAGE & EROSIONCONTROL PLANC3.0RSRSJNSCALE:1SITE GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1" = 60'N060'120'5-FT HIGHRETAINING WALL(MAX.)GRASS-LINED SPILLWAYEL. = 980.80STM CONTROLSTRUCTURERIM = 976.3STM FESEL. = 970.0STM CONTROLSTRUCTURERIM = 986.8STM FESINV = 976.00CB'SSILT FENCEPROPOSED CONTOUREXISTING CONTOURSPILLWAYEL. = 975.3T/BERMEL. = 976.3ROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE LOCATIONREMOVE EXISTINGENTRANCE & CULVERT3:1 SLOPE(MAX.)988MONUMENT SIGNPAVEMENT, BIT. CURBAND END CURBFUTURE ROADWAY(NOT INCLUDED)4-FT. HIGH WALL (MAX.)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT FUTURE ROAD SUBGRADE ONLY, IN AREA IDENTIFIED, FOR AFUTURE ROADWAY. SUBGRADE ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 12" LOWER THAN FINISHED GRADESSHOWN. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL SEEDING/MULCHING/TOPSOIL ON THE SHAPEDSUBGRADE FOR TEMPORARY TURF ESTABLISHMENTPROVIDE RIPRAP AT STORM SEWER OUTLETS, PER DETAIL.SUMPED BOTTOM STORM MANHOLE, TO COLLECT AND HOLD SEDIMENT FOR PRE- TREATMENTPURPOSES. MAINTAIN/CLEAN REGULARLY. REFER TO UTILITY PLAN FOR DETAIL.PROVIDE SEEDED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON AREAS GRADED STEEPER THAN 4:1.PROVIDE ENKAMAT, OR APPROVAL SIMILAR EROSION CONTROL MAT WITHIN AREAS OFCONCENTRATED FLOW.PROVIDE STAKED BIOROLL DITCH CHECKS IN GRADED SWALES, PER DETAIL.KEY NOTES:1CONSTRUCT SUBGRADE ONLY, FOR FUTURE ROADWAY11NEW 18" CULVERTSTM FESEL. = 973.70STM FESEL. = 978.00FESINV. = 983.50DRAINAGE ARROW23MULCH-COVERD PATH & LEVEL PAD FOR FUTURE BEE -KEEPING FACILITY (BY OTHERS)233223100-YR HIGH WATER LEVELHWLROOF DRAIN PIPERDBERMB
E
R
M HWL = 980.53HWL = 975.42HWL=985.812LIGHTING POLE LOCATIONGRASS-LINEDEMERGENCY SPILLWAYEL. = 987.59-FT HIGH WALL (MAX.)ALONG CURB LINEGRASS-LINEDEMERGENCY SPILLWAYEL. = 990.546666455EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ROUTE (E.O.F.)4561.NO WETLAND IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.2.PROJECT IS ADJACENT TO A FEMA ZONE A FLOOD PLAN, LOCATED WITHIN THEWESTERN PORTION OF LOT 1.3.PRE-TREATMENT OF IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF AREAS, IS ACHIEVED BY UPSTREAMSUMPED MANHOLE STRUCTURES, PER DETAIL AND KEY NOTE #3.4.RETAINING WALLS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 4-FT. HEIGHT, ARE TO BE DESIGNED BYA CERTIFIED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, AND MAY REQUIRE HANDRAILS OR SAFETYFENCING.GENERAL NOTES:STM FESINV = 985.044:13.5:1 SLOPE(MAX.)444:1 SLOPE(MAX.)333SOIL BORING (REFER TO GEOTECH. REPORT DATED 11/15/19)DETENTION AREA #2(GRASS SWALE)100 YR H.W.L. = 990.22FESINV. = 984.75T/BERMEL. = 981.8DELINEATED WETLANDWETLAND BUFFER WITH MONUMENTATIONAPPROX. LOCATION OFFUTURE ROADWAY(BY OTHERS)DELINEATEDWETLANDWETLANDBUFFERDELINEATEDWETLANDWETLANDBUFFERWETLANDBUFFER
WILLOW DRIVE
13605 1st Ave. N. #100 Plymouth, MN 55441P 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090 | ae-mn.comAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC | Proj #15236NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION15236LEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATER SERVICEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM STRUCTURESPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND WALKRIPRAP (SEE SHEET C6.0)PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED RETAINING WALLEXISTING CURBPROPOSED CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERPROPERTY CORNERSEXISTING SPOT ELEVATONPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION(SEE SHEET C5.0)(SEE SHEET C5.0)SAN. MH 1SAN. MH 2SAN. MH 3SAN. MH 4(LIFT STATIONBY OTHERS)SAN. MH 5SAN. MH 6SAN. MH 7FILTRATION BASIN #4SURFACE EL. = 973.00FILTRATION BASIN #3SURFACE EL. = 976.00FILTRATION BASIN #1SURFACE EL. = 983.50SAN.MH 10SAN. MH 11STMSTM
SAN. "K"SAN. MH 8CBMH 5CONNECT WITHEXISTING SAN. MH@ INV = 982.00STMH 9A8" WATER MAIN8" WATER MAINCONNECT WITHEXISTING WATER MAIN4-FT HIGHRETAINING WALL6-FT HIGHRETAINING WALLSTM CONTROLSTRUCTURE 19RIM = 976.30STM FES 19A INV = 971.26STM FES 18A INV = 972.50CONTROLSTRUCTURE 18RIM = 979.30GRASS-LINED SPILLWAYEL. = 980.80STM FES 10AINV = 973.00SITE UTILITY PLANC4.0RSRSJNSCALE:1SITE UTILITY PLAN 1" = 100'N0100'200'SAN.MH 9SAN. "E"SAN. "F"SAN. "G"SAN.
"H
"
S
A
N
.
"
I
"RIPRAP FLUMESA
N
.
"
J
"CBMH 8CBMH 9CBMH 7CBMH 12STM FES 16AINV = 976.00SAN. "D" (BY OTHERS)
SAN. "A" (BY OTHERS)SAN. "B" (BY OTHERS)SAN. "C" (BY OTHERS)STMSTMSTM8"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N8" WATERMAINCBMH 3CB 1STMSTMSTM
ST
M
GRASS-LINEDEMERGENCY SPILLWAYEL. = 990.505-FT HIGHRETAINING WALLSTMSTM STMAPIPE DESIGNATIONSANITARY SEWER TABLEDESCRIPTION340' -XX" @ XX%COMMENTGRAVITY BY OTHERS1MANHOLE NO.SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURES1002.00COMMENTBY OTHERSRIM ELEV.983.40 (+)INV. ELEV.2983.00XXX.XX3BY OTHERSBY OTHERS4LIFT STATION, BY OTHERS56FUTURE ROAD, TBD789 ------------1011XX = INFORMATION IS YET TO BE DETERMINED (BY OTHERS)."TEMP" RIM EL. MAY BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO FUTURE ROAD DESIGN.XX = INFORMATION IS YET TO BE DETERMINED (BY OTHERS).FUTURE ROAD, TBDFUTURE ROAD, TBDFUTURE ROAD, TBD983.20977.0 (TEMP)966.30967.70969.10970.30976.50986.10977.50986.35981.00991.40978.5 (TEMP)987.5 (TEMP)999.0 (TEMP)994.0 (TEMP)965.00 (w)XXX.XXB340' -XX" F.M.FORCEMAIN BY OTHERSC330' -XX" F.M.FORCEMAIN BY OTHERSD330' -XX" F.M.FORCEMAIN BY OTHERSE ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------F318' - 8" @ 0.4%G344' - 8" @ 0.4%H345' - 8" @ 0.4%I300' - 8" @ 0.4%J390' - 8" @ 1.6%K250' - 8" @ 0.4% ------------310' - 6" @ 1.1%GRASS-LINED EMERGENCYSPILLWAY, EL. = 987.5STM CONTROLSTRUCTURE 4RIM = 986.50STM FES 3AINV = 983.50CB 15ACBMH 16CBMH 14CB 15CB 11CB 6PROPOSED WATER HYDRANT9-FT HIGH WALL (MAX.)ALONG CURB LINE4-FT. HIGH WALL(MAX.)NEW 18" CULVERTCB 1STRUCTURE NO.STORM SEWER TABLEDOWN STREAM PIPE DESCRIPTIONRIM ELEV.INV. ELEV.CBMH 2 (2' SUMP)CBMH 3 (W/SAFL)OCS 4CBMH 5CB 6CBMH 7CBMH 8 (2' SUMP)STMH 9 (W/SAFL)STMH 10CB 11CBMH 12 (2' SUMP)CB 13ACBMH 14CB 15CBMH 15ACBMH 16 (W/SAFL)OCS 17STMH 17AOCS 18 (DROP)OCS 19CB 13CBMH 2CB 13ASTMH 9ACB 1388' - 12" HDPE @ 0.50%990.00986.50102' - 12" HDPE @ 0.50%991.75986.0640' - 15" HDPE @ 0.50%991.70985.24 (N)145' - 12" HDPE @ 1.00%986.50982.00113' - 18" HDPE @ 0.40%985.50980.5542' - 12" HDPE @ 1.00%986.85983.4095' - 15" HDPE @ 2.00%986.50983.00114' - 21" HDPE @ 1.00%986.20980.10125' - 18" HDPE @ 3.17%985.00978.96118' - 21" HDPE @ 1.29%979.50975.0060' - 24" HDPE @ 0.80%977.50973.4842' - 15" HDPE @ 1.00%986.85983.40207' - 15" HDPE @ 1.80%986.50983.008' - 12" HDPE @ 1.25%987.90983.90113' - 12" HDPE @ 1.50%987.80983.8070' - 15" HDPE @ 1.10%986.20982.1060' - 15" HDPE @ 0.83%982.50979.5094' - 18" HDPE @ 0.80%983.75979.0087' - 15" HDPE @ 3.00%991.30985.00±88' - 18" HDPE @ 0.50%979.30975.50±30' - 18" HDPE @ 0.80%976.30971.50ASSUME COMMON INVERTS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.984.54 (W)45' - 30" HDPE @ 0.40%985.20979.27 (SW)978.25 (NW)30' - 15" HDPE @ 1.00%982.00979.00 (E)976.30 (W)STM FES 19B INV = 973.7018' - 18" RCPSTM FES 4AINV = 984.7527' - 8" RCPSTM FES 18A INV = 978.0019"-18" RCPPROPOSED BLDG.FFE = 988.00
PROPOSED BLDG.
FFE = 994.00 STMH 10977.00 (NE)981.05 (SE)RDRDRDROOF DRAIN PIPERDRDLIGHTING POLE LOCATIONRIP RAP SPILLWAY, EL. = 975.3PETER LAKE -1000'S SHORELANDOVERLAY LINEGENERAL NOTES:1.SANITARY SEWER MATERIAL SHALL BE PVC-SDR35, UNLESS DETERMINED OTHERWISE BY CITYCONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.2.WATERMAIN PIPE MATERIAL SHALL BE PVC-C900,UNLESS OTHERWISE DETERMINED BY CITYCONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.SERVICE STUBSFOR LOT 2HYD. #36" FIRE MAINHYD. #1SLOPE 8" PERFORATEDDRAINTILE @ 0.2%SLOPE 8" PERFORATEDDRAINTILE @ 0.2%SLOPE 8" PERFORATEDDRAINTILE @ 0.2%8" FESINV=985.00EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINTILE W/ CLEANOUTP.I.V. #1F.D.C.6" FIRE MAINHYD. #26
"
WM
F.
D
.
C
.P.I.V. #26" WMHYDRANT #4
1000
990
995980985 98598098098097
5
974 975 975 975975985
970
98
0
985980975
1
0
0
21000 990980
980975980
98510051005
985
9859859851
0
0
5
1005995 989
990990
990 976973
98698798
7
98899098798598
5
983.5
9879939839839879869879
8
8
99
0
1003
1004
988
99
0
988
99
0
98
9
99
1
9
9
7
995
10
0
0
99
6
992992992
991993 983984992989992 987988988988
98
7 9879879869849889
9
3
9939
9
2
992993
997988975976991991
99
5
98999
3
995991992
991981982983984985986987988989976977978979980981982 972PROPOSED BLDG.
FFE = 1002.75
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
L
D
G
.
FF
E
=
9
8
9
.
2
5 6Prairie Cascade Willow2" CAL. B&B3Prairie Cascade Willow2" CAL. B&B10Black Hills Spruce6` HT. B&B3Balsam Fir6` HT. B&B9Amur Chokecherry2" CAL. B&B3Balsam Fir6` HT. B&B1Common Hackberry2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B2Green Mountain Sugar Maple2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B2Red Oak2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B2Green Mountain Sugar Maple2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B1Red Oak2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B4Green Mountain Sugar Maple2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B7Common Hackberry2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B12Midnight Schubert Chokecherry2" CAL. B&B1Midnight Schubert Chokecherry2" CAL. B&B2Green Mountain Sugar Maple2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B3`Autumn Brilliance` Serviceberry2" CAL. B&B10Red Rocket Maple2" CAL. B&B4`Autumn Brilliance` Serviceberry2" CAL. B&B7Red Rocket Maple2" CAL. B&B4Candicans White Fir6` HT. B&B4`Autumn Brilliance` Serviceberry2" CAL. B&B2Accolade Elm3" CAL. B&B8Accolade Elm3" CAL. B&B1Black Hills Spruce6` HT. B&B1Amur Chokecherry2" CAL. B&B11Heritage River Birch - multi-trunk form2" CAL. B&B2Heritage River Birch - multi-trunk form2" CAL. B&B5Green Mountain Sugar Maple2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B3Common Hackberry2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B3Red Oak2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B1Accolade Elm3" CAL. B&B2Red Oak2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B1Common Hackberry2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B1Black Hills Spruce6` HT. B&B5Black Hills Spruce6` HT. B&B6Balsam Fir6` HT. B&B1Accolade Elm3" CAL. B&B1Red Rocket Maple2" CAL. B&B5Balsam Fir6` HT. B&B2Apple5` HT. CONT.2Apple5` HT. CONT.TREESQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONT.SIZE15GREEN MOUNTAIN SUGAR MAPLEB&B2 - 1/2" CAL.ACER SACCHARUM `GREEN MOUNTAIN` TM13HERITAGE RIVER BIRCH - MULTI-TRUNK FORMB&B2" CAL.BETULA NIGRA `HERITAGE`12COMMON HACKBERRYB&B2 - 1/2" CAL.CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS8RED OAKB&B2 - 1/2" CAL.QUERCUS RUBRA9PRAIRIE CASCADE WILLOWB&B2" CAL.SALIX X `PRAIRIE CASCADE`12ACCOLADE ELMB&B3" CAL.ULMUS X `ACCOLADE`CONIFEROUS TREESQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONT.SIZE17BALSAM FIRB&B6` HT.ABIES BALSAMEA4CANDICANS WHITE FIRB&B6` HT.ABIES CONCOLOR `CANDICANS`17BLACK HILLS SPRUCEB&B6` HT.PICEA GLAUCA DENSATAORNAMENTAL TREESQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONT.SIZE18RED ROCKET MAPLEB&B2" CAL.ACER RUBRUM `RED ROCKET`11`AUTUMN BRILLIANCE` SERVICEBERRYB&B2" CAL.AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE`4APPLECONT.5` HT.MALUS DOMESTICA `HONEYCRISP`10AMUR CHOKECHERRYB&B2" CAL.PRUNUS MAACKII11MIDNIGHT SCHUBERT CHOKECHERRYB&B2" CAL.PRUNUS VIRGINIANA `MIDNIGHT`CITY OF MEDINA, MN, LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTSBUSINESS PARK (BP) AND BUSINESS (B) DISTRICTSOVERSTORY DECIDUOUS SHADE & CONIFEROUS TREESA minimum of one (1) tree per fifty (50) feet, or fraction thereof, of lot perimetershall be required.Lot Perimeter:5,134ftTrees Required:103Trees Provided:107ORNAMENTAL TREESA minimum of one (1) tree per one-hundred (100) feet, or fraction thereof, of lotperimeter shall be required.Lot Perimeter:5,134ftTrees Required:52Trees Provided:54UNDERSTORY SHRUBSA minimum of one (1) shrub per thirty (30) feet, or fraction thereof, of lotperimeter shall be required.Lot Perimeter:5,134ftShrubs Required:172Total Shrubs Provided:1,166Total 5 Gal Size:283NOTE:Shrub & perennial locations are not labeled at this time. Schedule is providedto demonstrate meeting city requirementsSHRUBSQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTSIZE64ANNABELLE SMOOTH HYDRANGEACONT.5 GAL.HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS `ANNABELLE`178CREEPING JUNIPERCONT.5 GAL.JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS `YOUNGSTOWN`41BLUE WONDER DWARF ALBERTA SPRUCECONT.5 GAL.PICEA GLAUCA `BLUE WONDER`424GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMACCONT.2 GAL.RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW`PERENNIALSQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTSIZE223SUMMER BEAUTY GLOBE LILYPOT8" POTALLIUM TANGUTICUM `SUMMER BEAUTY`64FEATHER REED GRASSCONT.1 GAL.CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER`75PURPLE CONEFLOWERPOT8" POTECHINACEA PURPUREA305MAY NIGHT SALVIACONT.1 GAL.SALVIA X SYLVESTRIS `MAY NIGHT`115AUTUMN JOY SEDUMCONT.1 GAL.SEDUM X `AUTUMN JOY`SHRUBS - NATIVE AREASQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTSIZE15AMERICAN HAZELNUTCONT.2 GAL.CORYLUS AMERICANA15NINEBARKCONT.1 GAL.PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS12AMERICAN PLUMCONT.2 GAL.PRUNUS AMERICANA65SAND CHERRYCONT.1 GAL.PRUNUS PUMILA68LABRADOR TEACONT.1 GAL.RHODODENDRON GROENLANDICUM27SMOOTH SUMACCONT.2 GAL.RHUS GLABRA15PRAIRIE WILLOWCONT.2 GAL.SALIX HUMILIS88ARCTIC BLUE LEAF WILLOWCONT.1 GAL.SALIX PURPUREA `CANYON BLUE`26FLAME WILLOWCONT.2 GAL.SALIX X `FLAME`64MEADOWSWEETCONT.1 GAL.SPIRAEA ALBA64LOWBUSH BLUEBERRYPOT8" POTVACCINIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUMSCALE:1LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN 1" = 40'13605 1st Ave. N. #100 Plymouth, MN 55441P 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090 | ae-mn.comAnderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC | Proj #15236NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION15236N040'80'LANDSCAPE PLANTINGPLANL1.0DSDSDSLEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSNOTES1.ALL SHRUB & PERENNIAL PLANTINGS IN LANDSCAPE BEDS SHALLRECEIVE IRRIGATION (SEE L2.0 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES)2.ALL SHRUB PLANTINGS IN NATIVE SEED AREAS SHALL RECEIVETEMPORARY IRRIGATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT PURPOSES ONLY(SEE L2.0 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES)3.REFER TO PLAN SHEET L2.0 FOR SODDING, SEEDING, FERTILIZERAND TOPSOIL NOTESNEW SOD W/ IRRIGATIONPRAIRIE RESTORATION "MIXEDHEIGHT/MESIC" SEED MIX, ORAPPROVED EQUAL13" DEEP, SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH W/ FABRICSPADE EDGE LANDSCAPE BORDER2CONSTRUCTION LIMITSPRAIRIE RESTORATION "SHORELINE"SEED MIX, OR APPROVED EQUALPLANT SCHEDULECODE REQUIREMENTSMONUMENT SIGNSEE SITE PLANBIO-FILTRATIONBASIN: SEE CIVILBIO-FILTRATIONBASIN: SEE CIVILBIO-FILTRATIONBASIN: SEE CIVIL33333322222
(14 PARKING STALLS)(15 PARKING STALLS)(15 PARKING STALLS)(17 PARKING STALLS)(12 PARKING STALLS)(8 PARKINGSTALLS)(21 PARKING STALLS)
(10 PARKING STALLS)(8 PARKINGSTALLS)(1 H.C.STALL)(2 STALLS)(12 PARKING STALLS)(4 H.C. STALLS)PLOTTED:COMM. NO.
DRAWING NO.
----XXXXX
ADAM'S PEST
CONTROL
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N . #1 0 0
P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 | a e -m n .c o m
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C
DRAWING TITLE
CHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:
XXXXXXXXX
DATE
REVISION LOG
DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATE
HIGHWAY 55
MEDINA, MN
JAN-HAR, LLP
PROJECT PHASE
2 INSET A
SCALE: 1" = 20'
FIG. A
HIGHWAY 55
ENTRANCE/EXIT
CONCEPT PLAN
LEGEND
PROPOSED ASPHALT
EXISTING ASPHALT
N
0 100'200'
SEE INSET A FOR ENTRANCE DETAILS
1 HIGHWAY 55 ENTRANCE/EXIT CONCEPT - PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1" = 100'
N
0 20'40'R5
0
'R50'12'13'12'9'13'12'12'9'BYPASS LANE
LEFT TURN
ENTRANCE LANE
BYPASS LANE
SHOULDER
RIGHT TURN
ENTRANCE LANE
BYPASS LANE
BYPASS LANE
SHOULDER
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXTENTS
SHOULDER 9'300'195'
(15:1 TAPER)780'
300'195'
(15:1 TAPER)780'
HIGHWAY 55 13'EXISTING ASPHALT
EXTENTS
EXISTING SURVEY EXTENTS
EXISTING SURVEY EXTENTS
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday February 11, 2020 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Ron Grajcyk, Beth Nielsen, 8
Kerby Nester, Cindy Piper, and Robin Reid. 9
10
Absent: None. 11
12
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and City Planner Deb Dion. 13
14
2. Introduction of Planning Commission Members 15
16
All the members of the Commission introduced themselves and provided background 17
information on their experience. 18
19
3. Election of 2020 Planning Commission Chair 20
21
Finke opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chair. 22
23
Motion by Piper, seconded by Amic, to nominate Reid as 2020 Planning Commission 24
Chair. 25
26
Finke called for other nominations. No other nominations were made. 27
28
Motion by Piper, seconded by Amic, to elect Reid as 2020 Planning Commission Chair. 29
Motion carries unanimously. 30
31
4. Election of 2020 Planning Commission Vice-Chair 32
33
Finke opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chair. 34
35
Motion by Reid, seconded by Nester, to nominate Amic as 2020 Planning Commission 36
Vice-Chair. 37
38
Finke called for other nominations. No other nominations were made. 39
40
Motion by Reid, seconded by Nester, to elect Amic as 2020 Planning Commission Vice-41
Chair. Motion carries unanimously. 42
43
5. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 44
45
No comments made. 46
47
6. Update from City Council Proceedings 48
49
Finke provided an update from the most recent City Council action. He reported that the 50
Council approved the variance request for the Raskob property, refinanced bonds, and 51
2
applied for and received a grant to complete a study of fire/public safety services. He stated 52
that the Council heard the OSI request and directed staff to approve documents of approval. 53
He advised that a new Police Officer was hired, noting that Belland will be retiring at the end 54
of March and current Sergeant Jason Nelson will be promoted to the Chief position. He 55
stated that the Police Department is currently recruiting for the Sergeant position. He advised 56
that there was a resignation in the Public Works Department and staff is currently recruiting 57
for that maintenance position. 58
59
7. Planning Department Report 60
61
Finke provided an update. 62
63
8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment: Residential Parking 64
Requirements 65
66
Dion stated that this ordinance review started with a staff review of a potential application for 67
a townhome project. She stated that at that preapplication meeting the square footage 68
minimum for the garage space of 440 square feet was determined to be too high for the 69
project. She noted that the development seemed to meet all the other requirements for a 70
townhome development in Medina, with the exception of garage size. She stated that the 71
City currently requires a minimum of 440 square feet for a single-family home and 72
townhome. She noted that staff then reviewed the requirements of other communities in the 73
metro area and reviewed those findings. She provided photographs provided by a developer 74
of two vehicles parked inside garages of smaller square footage. She stated that in 2011 the 75
City passed the regulation requiring a minimum square footage of 440 square feet for a 76
garage and noted that prior to that the City did not have a minimum requirement. She stated 77
that prior to the regulation, the Lennar townhome project used garages size of 370 and 389 78
square feet in size. 79
80
Finke noted that the Dominium townhome project, which was constructed after the 440 81
square foot requirement, made similar comments about garage size and had to adjust their 82
design to accommodate larger than normally built garage sizes. 83
84
Nielsen stated that she did not see Corcoran on the list. 85
86
Finke stated that city does not have much of an existing townhome development and 87
therefore staff did not look into that city. 88
89
Piper stated that she is surprised that Wayzata and Orono do not have minimum requirements. 90
91
Amic stated that in his opinion Wayzata has a more urban feel which typically has less garage 92
space. 93
94
Nester noted a conference she recently attended where it was stated that as transportation 95
continues to change, people will most likely change their garage space to additional living 96
space. 97
98
Amic noted that he has also heard that many families may transition from two vehicles to one 99
vehicle. 100
101
Dion reviewed the recommendation for the minimum garage size for single-family homes to 102
remain at 440 square feet with townhomes decreasing to 400 square feet. 103
104
3
Finke stated that currently the City has many regulations based on different uses in different 105
districts. He stated that the proposed table would more standardize the requirements for 106
garages based on use rather than zoning district. He stated that in some cases two garage 107
spaces would now be required where not previously required and therefore those properties 108
would become non-conforming. He explained that those properties are within “legacy 109
districts” that were constructed prior to the regulations enacted in the 1980s. He used the 110
example of the Independence Beach neighborhood. 111
112
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 113
114
No comment made. 115
116
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 117
118
Nester stated that her fear would be that people would not have enough room to park two 119
vehicles in their garage and would park one vehicle outdoors, which is not aesthetically 120
pleasing. She stated that she is in agreement with the restructuring within the ordinance but 121
would remain at a minimum of 440 square feet. 122
123
Nielsen stated that this sounded similar to the deck issue on Hunter, where builders build as 124
much as they can. She commented that this would allow a builder to build more home with 125
less garage/deck. 126
127
Piper commented that a smaller garage would also cause people to want to place their trash 128
cans outside of the garage. 129
130
Nielsen commented that this could also cause people to put their bicycles and other items 131
outdoors. 132
133
Reid commented that often happens at homes with two and three car garages. 134
135
Amic commented that some trucks are too large to park in a garage. He stated that when 136
walking through the Enclave townhome development, he does not often notice two vehicles 137
parked in a garage. He commented that often those garages have enough space for one 138
vehicle and the additional storage items. 139
140
Nielsen asked if 400 square feet would be sufficient for the potential development 141
application. 142
143
Finke stated that the developer would still need to modify their plans, noting that the 144
difference would simply be how much living space would need to be converted to garage 145
space. 146
147
Piper asked if townhome developments require vehicles to be parked in garages. 148
149
Finke commented that often trash cans are required to be in the garage but not vehicles. He 150
stated that the Enclave townhome development has garages of 380 square feet, and therefore 151
400 would be slightly larger. 152
153
Amic commented that at 400 square feet you are probably not going to fit two vehicles. He 154
commented that he does not believe that garage space will be a problem in 20 years and 155
believed that 400 square feet seemed like a good middle ground. 156
157
4
Galzki stated that one amenity of Medina is the amount of open space and he is leery when he 158
sees the trend in more development of smaller homes. He stated that 440 square feet is 159
already a small garage and would leave it as is. 160
161
Nielsen stated that if the garage size was reduced, the developer could potentially redesign to 162
add another townhome unit. 163
164
Galzki stated that the development would still need to meet all the other zoning requirements 165
and a few hundred square feet will most likely not make a significant difference. 166
167
Finke stated that the developer has stated that if the requirement is changed to 400 square 168
feet, the builder could make the change converting living space to garage space, but at 440 169
square feet the entire model would need to be changed. He noted that the developer has not 170
tweaked their model to that degree for any other community in the metro. 171
172
Reid stated that she would not have a problem changing the minimum to 400 square feet, as 173
people moving into townhomes often expect less space. She referenced the requirement that 174
would require all garage space to be connected or tucked under. She asked how that would 175
apply to multi-family housing, such as apartments. 176
177
Finke stated that if the requirement is not included, the apartment would have the option for a 178
detached garage bank that is a more outdated style of construction. 179
180
Amic commented that he believes that the Enclave townhome garages are too small but 181
agreed that 400 square feet would seem to be a good middle ground. 182
183
Finke explained that for townhomes, the larger requirement would equate to more garage 184
façade rather than living space. He spoke of the relation of the size requirements and density 185
requirements, noting that only so much will fit on the land still meeting the density and other 186
requirements. 187
188
Galzki commented that 400 square feet seems sufficient for a townhome and would be a good 189
compromise in providing for additional development. 190
191
Motion by Nester, seconded by Piper, to keep the minimum garage size at 440 square feet. 192
193
Further discussion: Nielsen stated that the question would then be whether to change the 194
other requirements recommended by staff. 195
196
Motion by Nester, seconded by Piper, to keep the minimum garage size at 440 square feet 197
and recommend approval of the other changes to the ordinance pertaining to residential 198
parking as presented. Motion failed with a vote of 3–4 (Nester, Nielsen, and Piper in 199
support). 200
201
Galzki noted that there are requirements from the Metropolitan Council and this change 202
would help to support the required density. 203
204
Grajcyk commented that he previously lived in a townhome with a smaller garage that was 205
still very nice with good curb appeal. He commented that in his experience 400 square feet 206
was enough space to park two vehicles and keep the trash can inside. 207
208
Motion by Amic, seconded by Galzki, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending 209
regulations pertaining to residential parking as recommended by staff with a minimum garage 210
5
size of 400 square feet for townhomes. Motion carries 4-3 (Nester, Nielsen, and Piper 211
opposed). 212
213
9. Approval of the December 10, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 214
215 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki, to approve the December 10, 2019, Planning 216
Commission minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 217
218
10. Council Meeting Schedule 219
220
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday but noted that the 221
Commission could provide a representative for the first Council meeting in March. Nielsen 222
volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 223
224
11. Adjourn 225
226
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Motion carried 227
unanimously. 228