HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-08-2018 POSTED IN CITY HALL May 4, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2018
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 - Ditter Properties – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive -
Concept Plan Review of potential rezoning and subdivision
6. Reminder Special Meeting – Tuesday, May 15, 2018 – 6 p.m.
7. Approval of April 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2018
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: April 26, 2018
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – May 1, 2018 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Woods of Medina Final Plat –710 Shawnee Woods Road and 4412 County Road 116 –
4412 JKP LLC has requested final plat for a 16-lot subdivision on approximately 8.25 acres.
Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule for City Council when complete,
tentatively at the May 15, 2018 meeting.
B) Ditter Concept Plan – Jim Ditter, Tom Ditter, and Ditter Properties have requested review of a
concept plan related to the potential subdivision of four existing parcels totaling approximately 25
acres into six lots. Two of the existing parcels are served by City sewer and included within the
urban service area but all the property is zoned rural residential. The applicants requested that the
City consider rezoning the two parcels served by city sewer to Suburban Residential, allowing the
parcels to be reduced in size to create additional rural lots. Staff is conducting a preliminary review
and the item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the May 8 Planning Commission
meeting.
C) Deer Hill Preserve 2nd Addition – Property Resources Development Company has requested final
plat for the 2nd phase of Deer Hill Preserve, to include 5 lots in the northwest portion of the site.
Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to the City Council when complete,
tentatively at the May 15 meeting.
D) Reiser lot line rearrangement – 1425 County Road 24 and PID 23-118-23-32-0002 – The
John H. Reiser Trust and Philip W. Reiser Trust have requested approval of a lot line
rearrangement between two 10-acre parcels. The City Council adopted a resolution
approving the rearrangement at the April 17, 2018 meeting. Staff will work with the
applicant to finalize the rearrangement with Hennepin County.
E) Maxxon Site Plan Review – 900-920 Hamel Road – Maxxon has requested a site plan review for a
4,854-square foot addition between the two existing buildings on their property. The applicant
proposes to convert existing bituminous to pervious surfacing because no more hardcover can be
added as a result of the Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay District. The Planning Commission reviewed
at the January 18 meeting and recommended approval. The Council granted approval on February
20. Staff will work with the applicant on conditions of approval before construction begins.
F) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested final plat
approval for their conservation design subdivision of 6 lots and conservation of 70 acres (11.76
buildable). The Council granted final approval at the February 20 meeting. Staff will work with the
applicant on the conditions of approval.
G) Lunski Final Plat – Lunski, Inc. has applied for final approval of the subdivision related to
the development of 83 units of mixed senior housing and 24,000 s.f. of office north of
Highway 55 and west of Mohawk Drive. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at
the November 16 meeting. Staff will work with applicant on conditions of approval before
construction begins.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2018
City Council Meeting
H) Reserve of Medina Second Addition – Toll Brothers has requested approval of the second
phase of the Reserve of Medina project. The City Council adopted approval documents on
September 19. Staff will work with the developer related to the conditions of approval.
I) Johnson ADU CUP, Dykhoff Septic Variance, 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.
J) Hamel Road Thirty Two, 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) Comprehensive Plan – Met Council staff has verbally indicated that the City’s 2020-2040 Plan
Update is now complete for review. It appears that their deadline to act on the plan is July 7, 2018.
Met Council staff continues to raise questions related to the staging of high density residential
property. Council members Martin and Anderson, City Administrator Johnson and myself are
scheduled to meet with Metropolitan Council Member Katie Rodriguez and relevant committee
chairs and relevant staff to try to find a mutually agreeable way forward.
B) LED Lighting – staff has prepared the study and recommendations related to LED lighting. The
information was presented for a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission at the April 10 meeting.
The Planning Commission recommended a couple of adjustments and recommended adoption of the
ordinance. Staff intends to present to the City Council on May 1.
C) Stormwater Ordinance and Design Guide –staff met with Engineering staff to discuss the scope and
workplan for reviewing the City’s stormwater regulations to conform with the City’s surface water
management plan and current practices. Staff is tentatively planning a discussion at the May 15
Council Worksession.
D) Mixed Residential zoning district – staff has begun researching options for implementing the mixed
residential zoning district. Staff intends to coordinate outreach for involvement of affected property
owners in May or June with the intent of preparing an ordinance for the June or July Planning
Commission meeting.
E) Sanitary Sewer Inflow Ordinance – staff has created a rough draft of an ordinance related to
enforcement of prohibited connections to the sanitary sewer system for review. Staff anticipates
presenting the ordinance to the Council in May or June.
F) Long Lake Subwatershed Partnership Carp Study and Removal – staff continues to work with the
cities of Long Lake and Orono, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, and the Long Lake Waters
Association on preparing to conduct a carp study and potential carp removal in Long Lake. The City
Council included $10,000 in the CIP for this project, which is the same amount being proposed by
most of the other partners for the project. Staff has indicated Medina's general support for the study
(with a much reduced scope from the grant requested in 2017) and a subsequent removal if the
population justifies so. Staff expects a memorandum of understanding on the project for Council
approval at the May 1 meeting with the consultant (WSB) hoping to begin work immediately after.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday April 10, 2018 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Dino DesLauriers, Kerby Nester, Robin 8
Reid, Janet White, and Rashmi Williams. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioner Todd Albers. 11
12
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke. 13
14
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15
16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Cousineau provided an update on recent City Council activity including the final approval of 21
the School Lake Nature Preserve, establishing the storm sewer taxing district. She stated that, 22
if feasible, the Council directed staff to submit an application for a bike path along CR 101. 23
She reported that the Council approved the changes to the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts as 24
recommended by the Planning Commission. She stated that the business tour and business 25
forum occurred and provided a brief update. 26
27
Finke provided additional information on a survey that was provided to current business 28
owners which allowed the business owners to provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses 29
of doing business in Medina. 30
31
Cousineau reported that the Council also approved the Maxxon Site Plan. She stated that 32
staff is discussing Brockton Lane improvements with the City of Plymouth. She stated that 33
the Council held the Board of Appeal and Equalization this past week to hear testimony and 34
noted that an additional meeting will be held the following week to make decisions. 35
36
DesLauriers asked if the field is getting new lights or whether it is replacement of the existing 37
lights. 38
39
Finke confirmed that the lights are replacements. 40
41
4. Planning Department Report 42
43
Finke provided an update. 44
45
5. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code 46
Regarding Regulations Related to Lighting and Sign Illumination 47
48
Finke provided information on an interim ordinance enacted on lighting without shielding 49
and specifically in regard to a parcel that received complaints regarding lighting in the past 50
and then brought forth a similar request. He stated that the trend is now to replace lighting 51
2
with LED. He noted that the City has brightness limitations on lighting that is not downcast, 52
under existing code. He stated that while the measurement that was used under the ordinance 53
was a common way to measure incandescent lighting, it does not adequately measure LED 54
lighting. He stated that the City wanted to ensure that the Code would adequately measure 55
the brightness of LED lighting. He stated that because the LED lighting is more efficient, 56
you can make brighter, bigger signs using less energy. He stated that staff spoke with other 57
communities and determined that most communities do not measure the brightness of signage 58
and decorative lighting. He stated that Bloomington has an extensive set of regulations and 59
that planner was very helpful in gathering information. He noted that staff also spoke with 60
lighting companies and engineers to gather data. He stated that the main concern is that the 61
unshielded blue lights will cause problems with the adjacent residential development. He 62
went over some of the options that were reviewed. He stated that measuring in NITs has 63
proven to be a more effective way to measure LED lighting. He provided photographs as an 64
example. He stated that he recently met with a property owner on an unrelated issue that 65
desired to place a dynamic display on their property, but explained that the current code 66
requires at least 400 feet of frontage to have a dynamic display. He provided background 67
information stating that the City had concern that dynamic displays could cause problems if 68
allowed on smaller street frontage areas. He stated that in the experience of the City, the 69
dynamic signs have not caused a problem as long as the requirements on brightness are met. 70
He stated that therefore staff would support allowing dynamic displays on properties with 71
lesser frontage. He stated that dynamic displays are only allowed to change once per minute 72
and therefore cannot be animated and advised that those elements would remain in code. He 73
stated that the dynamic displays count against the signage allowed on the property and 74
therefore the property would need to give up part of the traditional signage in order to have a 75
dynamic display. He stated that staff is suggesting a limitation of 500 NITs for signage. He 76
stated that the lighting ordinance currently only applies to non-residential properties. He 77
stated that the City Code currently includes a curfew element, which would require the 78
signage to be turned off at 11:00 p.m. or when the business closes. He stated that the curfew 79
is not enforced and therefore staff suggests removing the curfew requirement for signage. He 80
stated that the other curfew is for glass enclosed areas and noted that staff does not 81
recommend removing that curfew. He noted that staff currently does not have a method to 82
measure NITs and provided additional information on the cost and maintenance of a meter. 83
84
Amic asked the number of sign permits the City receives on an annual basis. 85
86
Finke replied perhaps five to ten permits per year. 87
88
Reid asked for details on reducing the frontage requirement from 400 feet to no requirement. 89
90
Finke agreed that it would remove that limitation, but explained that the dynamic display 91
would still need to meet the other elements of the sign ordinance. 92
93
Reid asked if any applicant other than Holiday has asked for the tube lighting around a 94
building. 95
96
Finke stated that there are other businesses that use that type of architectural lighting and 97
provided examples. He noted that the language would ensure that the lighting is legally 98
installed and would not be grandfathered in. 99
100
Reid asked if that type of lighting could simply be prohibited. 101
102
Finke confirmed that could be an option to consider. He stated that the Commission could 103
also consider using the tube lighting against the total allowed signage for the site. He 104
3
provided additional details on the reasoning behind choosing 500 NITs. He noted that the 105
banding could be prohibited in certain districts, or adjacent to certain districts, if desired. He 106
stated that might be the best choice if the Commission is attempting to avoid residential 107
properties from seeing the lights. 108
109
Reid stated that when she moved to Medina you could see the stars. She stated that as 110
development has increased, it becomes harder to see the stars and perhaps it would be nice to 111
have limitations on residential lighting in the future. 112
113
DesLauriers stated that he agrees that there should be some limitation on the LED tubing. He 114
also agreed that it would be helpful to have limitations on residential lighting, but believed 115
that it would be harder to measure things like Christmas lights. 116
117
Reid noted that it is helpful to anticipate these types of activities. 118
119
DesLauriers agreed with removing the requirement for 400 feet of frontage for dynamic 120
signs. 121
122
Williams asked why other communities do not regulate the issue. 123
124
Finke explained that it is a complicated issue and therefore many communities do not want to 125
get into the topic. 126
127
White asked the difference between the Highway 55 Rental sign and the Medina 128
Entertainment Center sign. 129
130
Finke explained that some signs already had scrolling text and therefore are “grandfathered” 131
in. 132
133
White asked if there have been any complaints from residential properties after the City 134
started using LED lights on street lighting. 135
136
Finke confirmed that the City has received complaints. He stated that the lighting question is 137
relevant in terms of what the City would want to spec and how that could be enforced with 138
private utility companies. He noted that a requirement could also be set on the number of 139
street lights within a neighborhood. He stated that currently the City requires downcast 140
lighting for new developments. He noted that when older street lights with cobra heads are 141
switched to LED, that does cause concern. He stated that LED lighting tends to have a more 142
blue appearance which can impact sleep habits. He noted that while that discussion is 143
relevant, it is not necessarily an element of this study. 144
145
White opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. 146
147
Todd Lecy, owner of Adams Pest Control, stated that they have a property along the 148
highway. He stated that they currently have a reader board, but that can be a pain to change 149
the lettering. He noted that a dynamic display would allow them to change the message 150
without having to go into the outdoor elements. He stated that while he would love to have 151
animation, he understands that is not allowed. He referenced the blue lighting used by 152
Holiday and noted that those lights are a beacon from far away. He noted that perhaps it not 153
be allowed adjacent to residential properties. He stated that the blue lighting is part of the 154
Holiday brand and perhaps that tubing be counted against the square footage of their allotted 155
signage. 156
157
4
Amic asked if ants could pull the message along when the message changes. 158
159
Finke replied that the message cannot scroll. 160
161
Mr. Lecy noted that there are signs in the City that currently have a scrolling message and 162
when an animation occurs the message is not showing, and therefore that element happens 163
quickly. He stated that moving displays and animation have been around for a long time. He 164
stated that they can live without the animation and simply want an easier way to change the 165
message on their sign. 166
167
Reid confirmed that the dynamic sign would be allowed for the business if the 400-foot 168
frontage requirement is removed. 169
170
White closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. 171
172
Amic stated that he agrees with the changes and agrees that the blue light is part of the 173
Holiday brand. He stated that he would agree with not allowing the tubing towards 174
residential development and that it should count against the total allotted signage. 175
176
DesLauriers agreed. 177
178
Williams agreed and noted that she would remove the 400-foot frontage requirement. 179
180
Nester stated that she agreed with the statements made. She stated that she would not allow 181
the scrolling, as that can be distracting to drivers. 182
183
White also agreed. She believes that the Highway 55 corridor should remain safe and she 184
would not want that area to be lit up during the night. She stated that she does not mind the 185
banding around the sign, but would not want to see that around buildings. 186
187
Reid confirmed the consensus of the Commission, that the banding should be counted in the 188
500 NITs calculation. 189
190
White agreed that the scrolling should be limited, as it currently stands in the ordinance. She 191
stated that she has concerns with residential, as lighting can be installed to provide safety, but 192
can also be intrusive. She noted that residential lighting will not have an easy solution and 193
therefore she would rather address that element in the future. She agreed that there should be 194
a lighting standard for new developments. 195
196
Williams stated that they have flood lights on their property because it is more rural and there 197
is concern from predators when their animals are outside. 198
199
Amic stated that he would support continuing not to enforce the night curfew, but keeping 200
that language in just in case the City needs to enforce that element in the future. 201
202
Reid agreed that she would like to see the curfew remain. 203
204
Motion by Reid, seconded by Amic, to recommend approval of the ordinance amendments 205
related to lighting and signage with the following changes: leave in curfew for signs, count 206
any decorative banding towards allowed signage, and prohibit decorative light banding 207
adjacent to residential. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers) 208
209
6. Lot Line Rearrangement Review Process 210
5
Finke stated that according to the ordinance, the Commission is supposed to review lot line 211
rearrangement, but noted that there is not a lot of discretion on the part of the City if the 212
request meets the requirements. He stated that the requests have not been coming to the 213
Planning Commission and therefore would ask that the Commission waive the review unless 214
deemed appropriate by City staff or City Council. He noted that subdivisions and lot splits 215
would still come before the Commission, but would prefer to keep lot line rearrangement as 216
administrative as possible. 217
218
DesLauriers stated that he is okay waiving the right to review, but would like to see the 219
requests in the Commission packet as a matter of staying aware of what is happening in the 220
community. 221
222
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Williams, to recommend that Planning Commission 223
review of lot line rearrangements be waived unless review is deemed appropriate by City 224
staff or the City Council. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers) 225
226
7. Call Special Meeting – Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. 227
228
Finke provided a brief overview of the agenda for the special meeting. 229
230
Motion by Amic, seconded by Reid, to call a special meeting on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 231
6:00 p.m. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers) 232
233
8. Approval of the February 13, 2018 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 234
235
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Amic, to approve the February 13, 2018, Planning 236
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers) 237
238
9. Council Meeting Schedule 239
240
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and DesLauriers 241
volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 242
243
10. Adjourn 244
245
Motion by Reid, seconded by Williams, to adjourn the meeting at 8:19 p.m. Motion carried 246
unanimously. 247
Ditter Properties Page 1 of 7 May 8, 2018
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: May 3, 2018
MEETING: May 8, 2018 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ditter Properties – Concept Plan Review – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive –
Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: April 22, 2018
60-day Review Deadline: June 21, 2018
Summary of Request
Jim and Tom Ditter (Ditter Properties) have requested review of a concept plan for the potential
subdivision of 4 parcels they own into 6 lots. The four existing parcels are a total of approximately 25
acres, and each range in size from 3-8.5 acres, located east of Holy Name Drive and north of Holy Name
Cemetery.
Three existing homes and a number of outbuildings exist on the four parcels today and the parcels share a
driveway off of Holy Name Drive. Much of the remaining property is wooded. Holy Name Cemetery is
located to the south, the Churchill Farms neighborhood in Plymouth is immediately to the east, and Holy
Name Lake is located to the west of Holy Name Drive. An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the
following page.
Two of the existing parcels are served by City sewer and included within the urban service area but all of
the property is zoned rural residential. The applicants are requesting that the City consider rezoning the
two parcels served by city sewer to Suburban Residential, allowing the parcels to be reduced in size to
create additional rural lots.
According to section 825.63 of the City Code: “concept plan review serves as the basis for
informal conceptual discussion between the city and the applicant regarding a specific land use
proposal. It is designed to assist the applicant in preparing a formal land use application for the
city’s consideration. The purpose of the concept plan review is to identify significant issues,
suggest design considerations and discuss requirements of the city’s official controls. Concept
plan review is optional, not mandatory, for qualified applicants…generally limited to those
involving the exercise of legislative discretion by the city council, requiring public expenditures
or likely to have community-wide significance.” Some examples include Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and Rezoning applications, which would both be likely in this case.
The concept plan appears to contemplate the following formal requests:
1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This amendment would change the future land use of
proposed Lots 1 and 2 from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential and reduce the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to match reduced size of the sewered lots.
2) Rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 from Rural Residential to Suburban Residential
3) Preliminary Plat for the subdivision
Ditter Properties Page 2 of 7 May 8, 2018
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Comprehensive Plan
The subject properties are guided Rural Residential in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (both the
existing 2010-2030 Plan and the draft 2020-2040 Plan Update), but two of the parcels are shown
with the metropolitan urban service area. These two parcels were connected to City sanitary
sewer in the early 2000’s when the system was extended north of Holy Name Lake to bail out
failing septic systems on the small lots along Lakeview Drive. Two other properties (besides the
two Ditter lots) east of Holy Name Drive were also connected to the system at that time. The
City has no watermains in the area and the properties are all served by individual wells.
Although the two properties were connected to the sanitary sewer, the land use and zoning of the
parcels remained rural residential. Parcels along Lakeview Drive, and one parcel east of Holy
Name Drive was rezoned to Suburban Residential, but larger rural properties east of Holy Name
Lake which were connected were not rezoned. Staff believes the reason that the larger properties
were not rezoned was because doing so would have lowered the minimum lot size to 30,000
Ditter Properties Page 3 of 7 May 8, 2018
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
square feet, allowing the lots to be further subdivided. However, the sewer was not installed
with the intent to allowing more sewered development in the area.
The applicant proposes to rezone the two sewered lots to Suburban Residential (SR) and to
reduce their size to closer to the minimum lot size of the SR district, 30,000 square feet. This
change would require a reduction of the size of the MUSA to match the smaller lots. Staff also
believes a change of land use in the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Residential to Low Density
Residential (LDR) would be necessary to support a rezoning to SR.
The Land Use Principles, policies, and objectives of the relevant land uses from the Plan should
provide guidance as the Planning Commission and City Council consider requests to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff has attached excerpts from the land use chapter of the draft 2020-
2040 Comp Plan update for reference. Staff provided the information from the draft Plan
because it is expected to be in place by the time a formal application would be submitted and
able to be considered by the City.
Staff believes it could reasonably be argued that a LDR designation for the areas served by City
sewer is not inconsistent with the objectives of the Comp Plan. The definition of RR states that
the area is not intended to be served by urban services, while the LDR land use is intended to be
served. On its face, it would appear logical that the properties which are connected to the sewer
be designated LDR, especially if they are small enough to prohibit further subdivision. On the
other hand, the parcels could remain guided RR despite the fact they were connected to the sewer
system in connection with the bail-out if doing so serves some of the other objectives.
One of the objectives of the RR land use is to maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten
acres for new development. However, the City has historically recognized that the 5 acres of
contiguous suitable soils requirement can result in some cases in lots smaller than 10 acres, and
in other cases can require lots to be much larger than 10 acres.
For reference, there is one addition similarly situated property to the northwest which is just over
6 acres in size and connected to the sewer system. This property owner may have similar
arguments to reduce the size of the lot served by sewer and have enough land to meet the RR
standard on a second lot.
Ditter Properties Page 4 of 7 May 8, 2018
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Proposed Site Layout
The applicant proposes a total of 6 lots, two of which would be zoned SR and served by City
sewer, and four lots which would be zoned RR. The lots are proposed to be served by a private
road in the location of the existing shared driveway. The following table summarizes the
proposed SR lots compared to the requirements of the district.
SR
Requirement
Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 30,000 s.f. 38,702 s.f., 43,914 s.f
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 125 feet, 139 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 125 feet 256 feet, 342 feet
Front Yard Setback 35 feet 35 feet (new structures)
1 foot (existing home from ROW)
Side Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback 40 feet 40 feet
Max. Hardcover 60%
The following table summarizes the proposed RR lots compared to the requirements of the
district.
RR Requirement
Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 5 acres contiguous
suitable soils
5.0 – 5.07 acres contiguous
Gross Area None 5 acres, 5.27 acres, 5.85 acres, 5 acres
Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 468 feet, 364 feet, 381 feet, 514 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 463 feet, 840 feet, 1138 feet, 518 feet
Front Yard Setback 50 feet 50 feet
Side Yard Setback 50 feet 50 feet
Rear Yard Setback 50 feet 50 feet
Max. Hardcover 40%
It appears that the proposed lots meet the dimensional standards of the SR and RR zoning
district. The existing home on Lot 1 does not meet the minimum front setback from Holy Name
Drive, but the subdivision does not affect this situation.
The applicant will need to complete a wetland delineation prior to preliminary plat application to
verify that all wetland areas are excluded from the calculation of suitable soils.
The private road is proposed to be constructed in Outlot B. The width of Outlot B will need to
be determined based upon the design of the street. It is likely that a minimum of 60 feet in width
will be required.
Tree Preservation
An extensive grove of trees covers much of the subject property. The applicants’ families have
planted most of these trees in recent decades. Aerial photos show these plantings over time.
Ditter Properties Page 5 of 7 May 8, 2018
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
It appears that the installation of improvements is likely to require the removal of a number of
these existing trees. The tree preservation ordinance would permit the removal of 10% of the
trees upon initial site development (installation of street, storm water, etc.) and an additional
15% of trees for the construction on each lot. The tree preservation ordinance allows credit for
planted trees, which will significantly reduce or potentially eliminate the need for replacement.
Wetlands/Floodplain/Shoreland
The applicant has identified two wetlands on the subject property. As noted previously, a
wetland delineation will be required prior to preliminary plat application. The subdivision would
be subject to the City’s wetland buffer requirements.
The subject property extends west of Holy Name Drive. The applicant proposes to plat this
portion of the property into a separate outlot. Most of this outlot is located within the floodplain
adjacent to Holy Name Lake and would be subject to relevant regulations.
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 6 are located within 1000 feet of Holy Name Lake and subject to the Shoreland
Overlay District regulations. These lots would be limited to 25% hardcover. The required front
setback exceeds required setbacks from Holy Name Lake, and the lot width and size
requirements of the SR district exceed the requirements of the shoreland overlay district.
Transportation
The applicant proposes to construct a private road in the location of the existing shared driveway
to serve the subdivision, shown as Outlot B on the concept plan. The private road would extend
approximately 450 feet and terminate in a cul-de-sac. Lots 4 and 5 would then share a driveway
off of the cul-de-sac, shown as Oulot C.
The City Engineer has not raised concerns regarding the impact of the subdivision on the broader
transportation network.
Sewer/Water
As noted above, Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system,
but would be served with individual wells. Lots 3-6 are proposed to be served by septic and
wells. Soils and percolation information will be required to confirm a primary and secondary
septic location for each proposed rural lot upon preliminary plat application.
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The concept plan does not include information related to grading and stormwater improvements.
The City Engineer has noted relevant stormwater management requirements which will need to
be met upon preliminary plat application.
Park Dedication
A future subdivision of the property would provide opportunity to secure park dedication
according to the subdivision ordinance. The City’s subdivision regulations allow the City to
require park dedication as follows:
1) Land – Up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated for park purposes – estimated
to be approximately 2.4 acres in this case.
Ditter Properties Page 6 of 7 May 8, 2018
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
2) Cash-in-lieu – The City may also choose to accept cash in-lieu of all or a portion of this
land dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre-developed market value, with a
minimum of $3500 and a maximum of $8000 per home. This would likely be $16,000
in this case ($8000 for each new lot).
3) Combination of the above.
The City’s decision on required park dedication is guided by its Comprehensive Park, Trail, and
open space plan as well as the Master Plan. Map 6-1 from the Park, Trail, and Open Space Plan
is attached for reference. These documents do not identify any need for park land in this area of
the City.
The documents also do not identify any trails specifically on the subject properties. The plans do
identify a north-south trail between Medina Road and County Road 24 to the east of Holy Name
Lake.
The Plan does not identify the precise location of off-street trail corridors. The subject property
may provide an alternative north-south location. A large wetland on the property to the north
would prevent connecting to Medina Road. As such, it appears this alternative may not be
preferred to the connection west of Holy Name Lake.
As a result, staff does not recommend land dedication for parks or trails if the subdivision moves
forward. The Park Commission reviewed the concept plan at their April 18 meeting and
concurred with staff’s recommendation that cash be accepted in lieu of land dedication.
Review Criteria
The purpose of a concept plan is to provide feedback to an applicant to consider prior to a formal
application. Such feedback does not imply any future approval by the City and the Planning
Commission and Council do not take any formal action at this time.
As noted above, the concept plan appears to contemplate the following formal requests:
1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This amendment would reduce the size of the MUSA
to match the size of the reduced lots. The amendment would also change the future land
use of these parcels from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential.
2) Rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 from Rural Residential to Suburban Residential.
3) Preliminary Plat for the subdivision.
The City would have a great deal of discretion when considering the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. The Planning Commission and Council can review the land use descriptions,
principles, and objectives to determine if the proposed amendment is appropriate.
The Rezoning would ultimately be contingent upon the decision on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Section 825.35 of the City Code states that zoning amendments: “shall
not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals
and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.” If
the Comprehensive Plan is approved, a rezoning would seem appropriate.
Ditter Properties Page 7 of 7 May 8, 2018
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The City would have relatively low level of discretion on the preliminary plat, provided the plat
meets relevant requirements. In this case, a plat arranged as shown in the concept plan would be
contingent upon approval of the above requests.
Staff Comments
Staff believes that, on its face, it seems logical to guide property served by municipal sewer to a
land use which anticipates urban services, such as Low Density Residential. The land use is
often not changed in bail-out situations, because this can open the potential of further urban
development on larger lots. In this case, the applicant is proposing additional rural development,
not urban.
There are very few examples of similar situations which may make similar requests. One
additional parcel adjacent to this subject site may have enough acreage to create a separate rural
lot in addition a parcel connected to the sewer system. The City had identified potential septic
concerns and the potential of extending service to the Wichita Trail neighborhood, but a number
of these systems have subsequently been upgraded. In addition, none of these parcels would
appear large enough to divide an additional rural lot.
The Planning Commission and Council should weigh out the various principals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan to determine if the proposed amendment is appropriate. Staff believes it
could reasonably be found that the amendment is supported by the descriptions and objectives
described in this report and does not oppose the potential Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, staff has provided comments throughout this
report, the most significant of which are summarized below:
1) Any future application shall be subject to all relevant City regulations and policies.
2) A wetland delineation shall be completed prior to preliminary plat application.
3) The private road shall be designed such that slope in minimized. Any slope greater than
10% shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief and subject to necessary conditions.
4) The width of Outlot B shall be reviewed based upon design and location of private road.
5) The applicant shall submit soil and percolation information to identify a potential primary
and secondary septic site on each rural lot.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Comprehensive Plan Information
3. Engineering Comments
4. Narrative
5. Concept Plan
Project: LF‐18‐226 – Ditter Concept Plan The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 3/30/2018 3/30/2018 3 Application Y Signed by owner 4/9 Fee 3/30/2018 3/30/2018 1 Fee Y $1000 Narrative 4/22/2018 4/20/2018 1 Narrative Y Concept Plan 4/6/2018 4/6/2018 1 Concept Plan Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineer Comments 4/27/2018 2 Engineering Legal Comments 4/25/2018 1 Legal Preliminary Review/Incomplete 4/19/2018 2 Incomplete Legal Notice 4/27/2018 3 Notice 7 pages w/ affidavit and labels Park Commission Report 4/12/2018 3 Park Report 5 pages w/ attachments Planning Commission Report 5/3/2018 7 Planning Report 18 pages w/ attachments Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Park Commission Minutes 4/18/2018
LLaanndd UUssee PPrriinncciipplleess,, DDeessccrriippttiioonnss,, PPoolliicciieess aanndd OObbjjeeccttiivveess
DDRRAAFFTT 22002200--22004400 CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann
FFuuttuurree GGeenneerraall LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliiccyy DDiirreeccttiioonn
As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open
spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be,
primarily a rural community.
The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional
forecast and consistent with Community Goals.
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
Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby
farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and
passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres
and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this
Plan.
Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units
per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services.
The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development.
Land Use Policies by Area
The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into
generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the
Community Goals and Land Use Principles.
These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will
update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and
designations identified in this section.
The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable
development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master
plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed-uses
will be available and will be supported through zoning.
Rural Designations
The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area.
A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these
designations is to provide low-intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby
farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and
passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the
timeframe covered by this Plan.
A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The
City recognizes that such low-density, development will continue to be a desired housing
alternative.
The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System
Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural
Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement.
The Metropolitan Council has identified a significant portion of Medina’s rural area in the
Long-term Sewer Service Area (LTSSA) for the Blue Lake wastewater facility. The Metropolitan
Council designates the LTSSA for the possibility of extension of urban services in the long-term,
beyond 25 years in the future. Medina is required to identify the LTSSA in its Comprehensive
Plan.
The Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA is identified in Map 5-5. The Metropolitan Council states
that the LTSSA is intended to provide opportunities to efficiently extend urban services to
accommodate long-term growth. The City believes that much of this area does not support
efficient extension of urban services and the City seeks opportunities to remove property from
the LTSSA. The following factors affect the efficiency of providing future urban services and
are displayed on Map 5-6:
Wetlands, Topography, Regional Parks and Scientific Areas
Wetlands occupy a significant portion of the area identified by the Metropolitan Council
within the LTSSA, accounting for approximately 40% of the area. This fact, along with
topographical conditions, would make the provision of wastewater service inefficient. In
addition, Baker Park and the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area occupy large
portions of Medina’s rural area, further separating any developable areas.
Historical development patterns
Much of the LTSSA was developed with large-lot residential neighborhoods prior to the
Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA designation. These properties tend to include large homes
with comparatively high home values, making the likelihood of redevelopment with
urban services costly. The Metropolitan Council seeks density lower than 1 unit per 10
acres for efficient extension of wastewater service. As evidenced on Map 5-6, the vast
majority of the LTSSA within Medina has been previously developed in a pattern that is
denser than 1 unit per 10 buildable acres. As a result, much of the LTSSA does not
provide opportunity for efficient extension of wastewater service by the Metropolitan
Council’s policy.
Distance between regional infrastructure and City infrastructure
The Metropolitan Council would need to extend wastewater service into the southern area
of Medina if development were to occur in the future. The City’s primary municipal
water system is in the northern portion of Medina. One of these services would need to be
extended a great distance in order to be provided in connection with the other, or the City
would need to establish a separate water system. Either alternative would be costly and
would not be efficient.
In discussions with Metropolitan Council staff, the City has identified approximately 730 acres
to be removed from the LTSSA in the southern portion of the City, because a similar acreage in
the northwest corner of the City was added to the Blue Lake wastewater facility service area.
The City will continue to seek opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA because of the
factors noted above.
The City’s Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for
allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and simultaneously
preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative
developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently conserved open
space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City’s natural resources, open space
and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres per unit.
Medina’s wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent smaller, unsewered
lot development, but are ideal for low-density rural housing.
Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but
allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area
will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to
replace failing systems.
Objectives:
1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative
arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources.
2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural
resources in the rural areas.
3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site
sewage disposal systems.
4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with
rural service area development.
5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries
and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential
development.
6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and
safety.
7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural
land use.
8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural
Residential and Future Development Area land use.
9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that
protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. Within the
Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (see Map 5-5), these exceptions will
be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross
acres if consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Flexible Residential Development
Guidelines.
10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future
Development Area land uses during this planning cycle.
11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant
natural characteristics.
12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's
on-site septic system requirements.
13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and
development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is
not compromised.
14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards
and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff.
15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation
of significant natural resources.
Urban Service Designations
The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are
currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services.
Residential Uses
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant
natural characteristics of the property.
2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that
protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such
modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the
maximum density requirement of the relevant land use.
3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary.
4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for
residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is
purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to
provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on
independent projects within a Mixed Residential area.
5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low
impact development design standards.
6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public
facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth
strategies.
7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan.
8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the
provision of urban services that will hinder future division.
9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes,
conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open
space and natural features.
10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with
adequate facilities and open space.
11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot
sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land
use, market demands, and development standards.
13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources.
14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development
is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking,
green space, landscape buffering and height limitations.
15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to
reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required.
17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new
development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space.
18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in
exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family
units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources.
19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development
characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood.
20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods
and to maintain public health and safety.
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
April 27, 2018
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Ditter Subdivision Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LF-18-226
WSB Project No. 011931-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed the Ditter Subdivision Concept Plan application and plans dated March 30, 2018.
The applicant proposes to plat/construct six single family parcels.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Site Plan & Civil
1. Show location of access road and shared driveways with dimension notes for width and radii
lengths at curves.
2. Provide a typical street section for access road and shared driveway.
3. Note proposed profile grades on access road and shared driveways. Profile grades greater
than 10% shall be approved of by the City Fire Marshall.
4. Fire vehicle access shall be approved by the City Fire Marshall.
5. With submittal of building permits, show how the two existing sewer service laterals will be
utilized for the proposed construction. The City will not require extension of additional
public sewer services to new lots.
Stormwater
6. The concept plan qualifies as a “Major Single-Family Residential” subdivision and will need
to meet the volume control requirements listed in the Stormwater Design Manual. This
requirement can be met by adding a rain garden(s) sized using 0.0733 times the area of new
impervious in square feet.
Ditter Subdivision Concept Plan – Engineering Review
April 27, 2018
Page 2
7. Post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to those from existing conditions
for the 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year Atlas 14 rainfall events. MSE 3 distribution shall be
used.
8. A two-foot separation is required from an area’s emergency overflow elevation to the lowest
opening of proposed structures.
9. With future submittals, please provide the following:
a. Existing and proposed drainage maps.
b. Stormwater calculations showing compliance with the City’s rate control, water
quality, infiltration and freeboard requirements.
c. Note emergency overflow locations (EOF’s). A two-foot separation is required from
the lowest opening of proposed structures to the EOF.
d. Documentation that a permit application has been sent to Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
e. Erosion control plan.
10. With submittal of building permits, show approximate stormwater treatment locations within
each lot and consider grading implications.
Wetlands
11. A wetland delineation will need to be completed for the property. If any impacts are
proposed a replacement plan will also be required.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
April 20, 2018
Ditter Concept Plan Lot Proposal
Ditter Properties and Jim & Tom Ditter are submitting a concept plan proposing to subdivide our existing
property of 4 lots, that we own, to 6 lots. The 4 lots total approximately 25 acres located east of Holy
Name Drive and North of Holy Name Cemetery. At present there are 3 homes located on 3 of the lots –
2052 Holy Name Drive (Jim & Pam Ditter), 2042 Holy Name Drive (John & Anyce Ditter), 2032 Holy Name
Drive (Tom & Mimi Ditter). The 4th lot is a vacant 8 acre lot in about the center of the 4 existing lots. The
1st and 2nd homes (2052 & 2042) are now connected to the existing city sewer system. We are asking the
city to consider rezoning these 2 parcels with city sewer to Suburban Residential, which are now zoned
Rural Residential. This would allow us to reduce the size of the first 2 parcels and allow us to divide the
rest of the existing property into 4 Rural Residential lots. Most of the land is wooded, which we hand
planted a variety trees over the course of the last 30 years. The back 4 lots zoned Rural Residential
would all be on their own septic systems and separate wells for each of these lots.
The concept plan shows the first house (Jim & Pam Ditter) and the 2nd house (John & Anyce Ditter) on
the first lot. The reason for this is that I (Jim Ditter) own both property’s, but our mother has Life Estate,
so we will not remove her home off of the property till she can no longer stay living there on her own. At
this time we would remove the home so there would only be one home on the lot. The rest of the out
buildings would be removed at the time of the sale of the lots.
We are doing our best to come up with a plan that will work well for us and the City. We, Jim & Tom
Ditter, have lived here our entire lives and plan to stay in Medina long into the future. We also want to
keep the 1st home (2052), which is the original Ditter homestead home built in the 1880’s. We would like
to preserve this home as long as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim & Tom Ditter