The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About10-13-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL October 9, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of September 8, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes. 6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Building Materials in the Rural Business Holding District and Rural Commercial Holding District 7. Highway 55 Rental Portable Storage LLC – 4790 Rolling Hills Road – Site Plan Review 8. Council Meeting Schedule 9. Adjourn 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday September 8, 2015 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Charles Nolan, 8 Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Kent Williams. 9 10 Absent: None. 11 12 Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning 13 Assistant Debra Peterson, and City Councilmember John Anderson. 14 15 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 16 17 None. 18 19 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20 21 Anderson reported that the Council met the previous week to approve the 2016 preliminary 22 budget and tax levy, which has been forwarded to the County auditor, noting that now 23 certified the levy and budget can only be reduced and cannot be raised. He stated that the 24 Council reviewed the Ordinance regarding setbacks for decks and because the applicant 25 chose another path that issue did not require action. He noted that the Council discussed the 26 policy regarding sewer and water connection fees, which will continue to be discussed by 27 both the Council and Planning Commission. He reported that the Council also approved a 28 subdivision and plat request along with a variance for a deck, noting that the Commission had 29 reviewed both of those items prior to the Council. He noted that the Council also discussed 30 the timelines for the Comprehensive Plan, which Finke will provide an update on later tonight 31 on the agenda. 32 33 Williams asked for information on the Stonegate application, noting that the Council had a 34 vote to approve the application. 35 36 Anderson stated that there was ample discussion regarding the application and believed the 37 primary issue was not that the plan was not a good plan that had been markedly improved, 38 but that the application failed to measure up to the bonus density requested. He stated that 39 after a long and thoughtful discussion three of the Councilmembers felt that the plan justified 40 the density bonus and the application passed with a vote of three to one, noting that he was 41 the opposing vote, and one abstention as Mayor Mitchell abstained from the discussion. He 42 stated that the plan will now move forward to Preliminary Plat, which will go before the 43 Planning Commission. 44 45 Williams stated that he attended the Council meeting and expressed concern with how the 46 item played out. He explained that when the item first came forward there were comments 47 that this was a backdoor deal that was locked up and he had told those people that the item 48 would be considered on its own merit. He stated that it became clear to him at the last 49 meeting that it was a done deal and he felt that the Council had an obligation to approve that 50 density. He stated that because of how the item played out and how the record stands, people 51 2 that had been denied a conservation design will take a close look at that. He highlighted 52 issues that be believed the City missed, including the ability to assess the developer for the 53 improvement that will be needed to Deerhill Road. He believed that this issue set a bad 54 precedent for the City. 55 56 Anderson stated that if the record is reviewed from the City Council meeting minutes, initial 57 motions, twice, were denied for lack of a second. He explained that the reason they lacked a 58 second is because the Council felt that it had not weighed in with enough unanimity of 59 thought on the bonus density. He stated that there was significant amount of thought on the 60 part of the Council. He stated that the Council takes the recommendation of the Planning 61 Commission extremely seriously and if as a body the Commission comes to the conclusion 62 Williams just voiced, he would encourage the Commission to express those thoughts in a 63 written letter to the Council and Mayor. 64 65 Williams stated that he is only speaking for himself and agreed that there were awkward 66 moments when motions lacked a second because of the density. He found it surprising that 67 no one mentioned that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the 68 request based on the requested density. He appreciated the response of Anderson. 69 70 4. Planning Department Report 71 72 Finke provided an update. 73 74 5. Approval of the August 11, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 75 76 Motion by Foote, seconded by Reid, to approve the August 11, 2015, Planning Commission 77 minutes as amended. Motion carries unanimously. 78 79 6. Public Hearing – 3 Rivers Church – 52 Hamel Road – Conditional Use 80 Permit 81 82 Finke presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a religious institution 83 within an existing office building in Uptown Hamel. He stated that some of the office space 84 would continue to be used as office use while the multi-purpose room would be used for 85 gathering space during non-office hours. He stated that there are no external improvements 86 proposed, other than a possible sign on the building, while some internal changes may need to 87 be made to the multi-purpose room. He stated that the zoning district does allow this type of 88 use. He reviewed the parking standards, noting that Uptown Hamel does allow flexibility, 89 and stated that with the shared parking and on street parking staff believes that there is 90 adequate parking to support the use. He stated that the criteria for reviewing a Conditional 91 Use Permit were included in the staff report and advised that staff recommends approval of 92 the request subject to the conditions listed in the report. 93 94 Daniel Miller, building owner, stated that he is available for questions. 95 96 Williams asked the frequency of meetings. 97 98 Mark Harper, pastor, replied that in terms of larger assembly there would be one meeting per 99 week on Sunday mornings, noting that about six people attend Saturday morning prayer 100 service and perhaps a small group would meet on Wednesday evenings. 101 102 Nolan referenced the maximum of 60 people and asked if it would be possible for more 103 people to show up and what would happen in that instance. 104 3 105 Miller stated that there is a lobby outside of the multi-purpose room and the double doors 106 could remain open. 107 108 Nolan stated that his concern was more with parking. 109 110 Miller noted that there is another parking lot available across the street and he also has a 111 verbal agreement with 62 Hamel Road that would allow parking on Sunday mornings. He 112 noted that Inn Kahoots is another possible opportunity as they have a large lot that may be 113 available for shared use during Sunday mornings. 114 115 Williams asked where the congregation currently assembles and what the largest assembly 116 has been. 117 118 Harper stated that this is a new church that is in launch mode, noting that the leadership team 119 has been having planning meetings but the first large assembly would be once the permit is 120 approved. He stated that they did not know that they would not be able to begin until the 121 permit is received and therefore have pushed back the launch date. 122 123 Williams asked how large the congregation is at this time. 124 125 Harper stated that there are 25 people committed to the launch team at this time but noted that 126 they would offer two services, at 9 and 11 a.m. and stated that once the congregation 127 outgrows that space they would need to look for another space. He noted that they would like 128 to be in Medina long-term and would be open to suggestions for a permanent location in the 129 future. 130 131 Williams stated that there is a condition of approval that specifies that assemblies be limited 132 to 60 people with larger special events allowed to occur no more than four times per year. He 133 asked and received confirmation that would be acceptable for the applicant. 134 135 Finke provided clarification that the special events could exceed 60 people. He stated that in 136 order to get to 60 people some improvements would need to be made. He estimated that the 137 larger events could possibly reach 140 people with additional improvements. 138 139 Albers asked what the room is currently rated for. 140 141 Finke replied 60 people. He noted that some improvements would need to be made for the 142 larger assembly. 143 144 Williams asked if the applicant would have a problem receiving special approval if 145 attendance were to exceed 60 people and limiting those events to no more than four per year. 146 147 Harper replied that he would not have a problem with that. 148 149 Murrin asked who would be tracking the 60 people and would people be turned away if 60 150 people is reached. 151 152 Nolan stated that Conditional Use Permits are self-governed. He stated that it would be the 153 burden of the applicant to govern that aspect and come to staff if they need additional 154 attendance limits. He stated that usually those types of violations are complaint based. He 155 appreciated the feedback of Williams and stated that parking would also be his concern. He 156 recognized that there is probably ample opportunity for shared parking. He stated that 157 4 perhaps an additional clause could be added that would allow attendance to rise to 100 if the 158 applicant can present a shared parking arrangement that would support that level of use. He 159 noted that would take away the requirement that the applicant come back before the City for 160 further amendment. He received confirmation from the applicant that they were in agreement 161 with that condition. 162 163 Reid stated that the parking in the street is available to anyone as it is public parking and 164 questioned if that parking could be counted as part of the applicant’s parking. 165 166 Finke stated that the Uptown Hamel zoning ordinance allows flexibility in parking because of 167 the street parking. He stated that staff was comfortable going above the number of 60, but 168 was simply using the numbers the applicant provided. 169 170 Nolan confirmed that the additional condition could be added that would allow up to 100 171 attendees if shared parking can be demonstrated. He noted that this would be a great use in 172 Uptown Hamel on a Sunday morning. 173 174 Williams asked if special events would occur on a time other than Sunday morning. 175 176 Harper stated that there could be a special guest on another day of the week but that would be 177 held in the evening. He noted that the bigger events would be on Easter or Christmas and 178 those events would be on Sunday morning. 179 180 Murrin asked when the church anticipates to grow past the 60 people. 181 182 Harper stated that they would begin with two services, which would allow for 60 people per 183 service. He noted that an additional service could be added. He hoped to be looking for a 184 permanent location in one to two years, depending upon the rate of growth. 185 186 Murrin asked what the business is used for during the day. 187 188 Miller replied that the building is used exclusively for office during the day, noting that there 189 are typically eight people on the second floor and the church usually has two to three people 190 on the first floor. 191 192 Nolan opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 193 194 No comments made. 195 196 Nolan closed the public heard at 7:38 p.m. 197 198 Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use 199 Permit for 3 Rivers Church subject to the conditions noted in the staff report amending 200 condition two to state “except special events of more than 60 people shall be permitted” and 201 an added condition that up to 100 people shall be allowed if the applicant is able to 202 demonstrate a shared parking agreement. Motion carries unanimously. 203 204 7. Wealshire of Medina – PID 03-118-23-24-0003 – Rezoning, Site Plan Review and 205 Interim Use Permit 206 207 Finke stated that the Commission previously reviewed a recommended for approval a request 208 from Wealshire of Medina. He stated that the applicant has slightly revised the application 209 and therefore he wanted the Commission to have a chance to review the updated Site Plan, 210 5 which pushed the facility further away from neighboring properties. He noted that the 211 wetlands would be further impacted but advised that the applicant is proposing to complete 212 the mitigation onsite. He displayed the updated Site Plan and advised that the western most 213 building shifted to the east and south. 214 215 Murrin asked why the applicant is requesting less parking in the new plan. 216 217 Finke stated that there is less underground parking and more surface parking. He stated that 218 the building hardcover had been reduced by 10,000 square feet and therefore offsets that 219 additional surface parking space. 220 221 Nolan noted that the applicant is still well under the maximum hardcover. 222 223 Murrin asked why the building location was changed. 224 225 Finke believed it to be for internal operations. 226 227 White asked for additional information on the wetland mitigation. 228 229 Finke stated that the Wetland Conservation Act lays out various ways for a property owner to 230 mitigate, including the purchase of wetland credits from a wetland bank. He stated that the 231 rate of mitigation is two to one and provided additional information regarding onsite 232 mitigation. He stated that with the agricultural activities on the site the wetland would be 233 higher quality. 234 235 Nolan referenced the additional wetland and asked if there would be any impact on the tax 236 base as you would be creating additional wetland on what could be buildable land. 237 238 Albers stated that the land is one parcel. 239 240 Finke stated that the impact would not be very significant as the City does not have a shortage 241 of land for business development. 242 243 Corey Wiskow, who spoke in representation of Wealshire, stated that he has been working 244 with Finke for the past two weeks on this update to the plan. He stated that he is available for 245 questions. 246 247 Murrin asked why the building location is being changed. 248 249 Wiskow stated that there was a general idea of what the building should look like and how it 250 should function within the setbacks, noting that as they moved further along in the process 251 there were some tweaks made. He stated that the behavioral unit was moved in order to make 252 some changes to the inside of the building in order to function better for the residents of the 253 building including the addition of a “wow” factor for the residents which is an ice cream 254 parlor. He stated that they also tucked the building further in to move away from the 255 neighboring parcels. He stated that even though the building size has changed the same 256 number of residents would be housed in the building. He stated that they chose the property 257 because of the wetlands and the view that provides to the residents which is why they are 258 choosing to do the additional mitigation onsite to further improve that area for the residents to 259 enjoy. 260 261 Murrin asked why additional surface parking is being proposed compared to the underground 262 parking, which is going to be reduced. 263 6 264 Wiskow explained that those changes are made during the planning process in order to 265 accommodate additional aspects such as storage and kitchen size. He stated that the new plan 266 looks a bit better. 267 268 Murrin confirmed that the changes were made in order to be more efficient and fit the plans 269 better onto the site. 270 271 Wiskow stated that there is additional cost for the onsite mitigation but stated that they would 272 rather go through that process so that the residents are able to enjoy the feature rather than 273 paying for credits for wetland in another area. 274 275 Murrin asked if the intention is to have the same amount of wetland that exists now. 276 277 Wiskow stated that they will actually be increasing the size of the wetland because mitigation 278 is done at a rate of two to one. 279 280 Albers questioned how far out the applicant is looking for future additions. 281 282 Wiskow stated that it would depend upon the rate of occupancy. He stated that in 283 Bloomington they began with additional phases after the first year. 284 285 Finke provided additional information on the timing for the wetland mitigation. 286 287 Nolan stated that this was approved by the Commission in February and the decision would 288 be whether additional conditions or comments are needed. 289 290 Reid stated that she loves that the mitigation will occur onsite. 291 292 Motion by Reid, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the updated Site Plan for 293 Wealshire of Medina based on the previously approved conditions. Motion approved 294 unanimously. 295 296 8. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process/Schedule 297 298 Finke stated that the City Council reviewed this schedule at their last meeting and he now 299 wanted to share it with the Planning Commission. He stated that when the growth was 300 discussed the previous year the direction had been that once the system statements are 301 available from the Metropolitan Council the City should begin the process of updating the 302 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the schedule is aggressive as the City plans to complete 303 the updates within one year to then submit for comments from neighboring communities and 304 required agencies. He stated that is well ahead of the 2018 deadline. He noted that there 305 would be public participation meetings as well as online public participation. He stated that 306 the Council did endorse the use of a Steering Committee, which would include members from 307 the Council, Planning Commission, Park Commission and at large positions available for 308 residents. He stated that once the direction is known he will provide additional input to the 309 Planning Commission through email to determine who would be interested. 310 311 Nolan asked why the schedule is so aggressive and ahead of the deadline. 312 313 Finke explained that the release of the system statements is the kick off for the updating 314 process. He stated that one downside of responding that quickly is that you are not able to 315 account for plans of neighboring communities. He stated that the direction had been to move 316 7 quickly to address the concern the City had regarding the rate of growth. He stated that the 317 reduced forecast from the Metropolitan Council also had an impact on the Plan, which can 318 now be amended to include the lower numbers. He noted that interested Planning 319 Commissioners can let him know that they would be interested in joining the Steering 320 Committee. 321 322 Reid asked who the public at large people would be for the Steering Committee, whether 323 those are residents, business owners, or developers. She believed that those positions should 324 be chosen carefully or not at all, as two people out of seven could make the experience 325 unpleasant if they do not have a larger scale vision. 326 327 Nolan stated that he participated in the process the previous time and the Council makes an 328 implication to have a diverse group. 329 330 Reid stated that she did not feel that there was adequate consultation with the school districts 331 during the last Comprehensive Plan process and believed that the City should be more 332 proactive in planning for those kinds of items. 333 334 9. Council Meeting Schedule 335 336 Reid volunteered to attend the next City Council meeting. 337 338 10. Adjourn 339 340 Motion by White, seconded by Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Motion carried 341 unanimously. 342 Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 October 6, 2015 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: October 1, 2015 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates October 6, 2015 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Stonegate Conservation Design Subdivision – west of Deerhill, East of Homestead. The applicant has requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a conservation design subdivision of 42 lots on 170 gross acres. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter at the July 14 meeting and found that the proposed conservation design subdivision does not fully meet the objectives of the CD-district. As a result, the Commission recommended denial. The Park Commission reviewed on July 15. The City Council reviewed on August 5 and asked for a number of changes and reviewed an updated site plan on August 18. Following review, the Council directed staff to prepare documents of approval, providing the applicant updates the plat and plans as directed by September 1. The applicant submitted updated plans, which will be presented to the Council along with approval documents at the October 6 meeting. B) 3 Rivers Church CUP – 3 Rivers Church has requested a conditional use permit to operate within the existing office building at 52 Hamel Road. A public hearing was held at the September 8 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CUP. Staff intends to present it for Council review at the October 6 meeting. C) Medina Mini-Storage Site Plan Review; Text Amendment – 4790 Rolling Hills Road – Highway 55 Rental Portable Storage, LLC has requested a site plan review to construct three additional mini- storage buildings. The applicant has also requested an amendment to the City’s zoning code to allow fiber-cement (“Hardiboard”) exterior building materials in the Rural Business and Rural Commercial Holding districts. A public hearing is scheduled for the October 13 Planning Commission meeting. D) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has requested a site plan review for construction of a 173,000 sf memory care facility. The request also includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park and an Interim Use Permit to permit continued agricultural use of the portion of the property not proposed to be developed. The Met Council has also approved of the previous Comp Plan amendment. The Planning Commission meeting reviewed the rezoning, site plan review and interim use permit at the February 10 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the May 19 meeting and directed staff to prepare approval documents. The applicant has subsequently changed their proposed site plan which was presented to the Planning Commission and Council. The applicant is working on finalizing construction plans. E) Goddard School Site Plan Review – PJ Norman LLC has requested Site Plan Review approval to construct a new building to house a Goddard School at 345 Clydesdale Trail (next to Caribou Coffee). The City Council approved the project on July 21 and is now under construction. The project will now be closed. F) Etzel Setback Variance – 2942 Lakeshore Ave. – Brian Etzel has requested a variance to reduce the setback from Balsam Street from 30 feet to 12 feet for expansion of an existing deck. The proposed expansion is proposed to be setback the same distance as the existing deck, continuing the same building line. The Planning Commission reviewed at the August 11 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council adopted a resolution of approval at the September 15 meeting. This project will now be closed. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 October 6, 2015 City Council Meeting G) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery and Hamel Place –The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. H) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– these preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application I) Buehler Plat – Robert Buehler has requested approval of a plat to separate 2782 Willow Drive from an adjacent property. The parcels were a single lot and a previous owner sold portions of the lot to two separate buyers. The applicant seeks to subdivide the property to create a buildable lot, and the other portion of the property would be platted as an outlot. The City Council adopted a resolution of approval at the September 15 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to complete the conditions of approval before recording. J) Hamel Haven subdivision – This subdivision has received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction begins. K) Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels – WH has requested a conditional use permit for the installation of a solar garden approximately an acre in area at their substation on Willow Drive, south of Highway 55. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at the June 16 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to meet the conditions of approval before construction. Other Projects A) County Road 19 sewer meeting – Staff attended a meeting related to the future of sewer services for Medina, Loretto, Independence, Greenfield and Corcoran. B) Comprehensive Plan Timeline/Process – staff held the “kick-off” at Medina Celebration Day and began review of the System Statement released by the Met Council a couple of weeks ago. PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Nate Sparks DATE: October 7, 2014 RE: Highway 55 Mini Storage - Site Plan Review CITY FILE: LR-15-166 Application Date: September 14, 2015 Review Deadline: November 13, 2015 BACKGROUND Jeff Pederson, on behalf of Highway 55 Rental Portable Storage LLC, has made an application for a site plan review to allow the construction of three new mini storage buildings on a 17.9 acre site located north of Highway 55 and east of Rolling Hills Road (4790 Rolling Hills Road). The subject property is presently occupied by a single mini storage building. PROJECT SITE & DESCRIPTION The subject property is guided for “General Business” use by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is proposed in the staging plan for urban services between 2021 and 2025. The property is almost 18 acres in size. Only the western portion of the site is being utilized for the mini storage use. There are large slopes to the north, west, and east from the site. A majority of the subject parcel is wetlands. An aerial of the site can be found on page 6 of this report. The site is zoned RBH, Rural Business Holding District. The purpose of the RBH District is to provide a zoning district for properties guided for a General Business use in the City’s Comprehensive Plan where urban services are currently not available. Within RBH Districts, warehousing uses, such as mini storage, are allowed by conditional use permit. The subject site is bordered by rural residential uses to the south and by undeveloped properties to the east and west. The site is bordered on the north by the City of Corcoran. Like the subject property, the surrounding properties within the City of Medina are guided for future “General Business” use in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned RBH. In 1995, the City approved a conditional use permit to allow a mini storage facility upon the subject site. The site was approved for ten buildings on the site plan. One of the buildings was constructed thus far. Building locations upon the submitted site plan are generally consistent with the approved site plan, attached for reference. Three new mini storage buildings are proposed. All are proposed to be oriented in an east/west fashion, similar to the existing storage building. One building is proposed north of the existing structure while two are proposed to the south. The existing building is 9,400 square feet in area. The northern building (#3) is proposed at 4,600 square feet. The middle building (#2) is proposed at 10,800 square feet. The southern building (#1) is proposed to be 10,400 square feet. SITE PLAN REVIEW The site and building plans have been reviewed to determine compliance with the standards of the RBH, Rural Business Holding District: Consistency with Approved Plan As noted, the previously approved site plan illustrated future mini storage building locations. The proposed buildings are generally consistent with the approved site plan. Building Setbacks Within RBH Districts, buildings must be setback a minimum of 50 feet from rights-of-way. In compliance with such requirement, 53 foot setbacks are proposed from both Rolling Hills Drive and Highway 55. Along the north and east sides of the subject site, drainage and utility easements exist. The easement overlays the eastern two thirds of the site and a 75 foot wide strip along the north property (north of the proposed development area). All proposed structures meet applicable setback requirements and lie outside of easements. Building Materials & Design In the RBH District, the Ordinance requires buildings to comply with the standards of the Business Park & Business Districts found in Section 832.3. This section states that a minimum of 20% of the building finish must be brick, natural stone, stucco, copper, or glass. A maximum of 80% may be decorative concrete, split face rock, decorative block, or decorative concrete panels. A maximum of 20% may be wood, metal, cement fiber board, or exterior insulation finish systems. Proposed Building Materials Material Building #1 Building #2 Including Doors Cement Fiber Board 49% 10% Brick 22.5% 22% Doors 28.5% 68% Excluding Doors Cement Fiber Board 68.6% 31% Brick 31.3% 69% No elevations were provided for Building #3. The applicant intends to build this building in the future and is seeking to have the zoning approval to do so, provided the building elevation conforms to City Ordinances. As proposed, the buildings provided would not meet the minimum standards of the ordinance unless the amendment were passed. If the ordinance amendment were to be approved, the materials would be acceptable. The applicant is proposing a roof with a 3/12 pitch. The ordinance states that roofs with a 4/12 pitch or more cannot be constructed of metal. Due to the proposed pitch, the metal roofing materials area acceptable. The applicant proposes substantial portions of the building to be occupied by overhead doors for each storage unit. The RBH district limits the perimeter of the building which can be occupied by loading areas to 10%. However, loading areas which are within a “courtyard,” screened by other buildings, are exempt from this limitation. The applicant proposes to arrange the buildings in such a way that the buildings create such a courtyard for almost all of the loading areas. As such, these screened areas do not count towards the 10% limitation and are consistent with code. Building Height Within RBH District, a maximum height requirement of 30 feet is imposed. All proposed buildings fall well within this requirement. The ordinance requires building modulation for every 100 linear feet. To achieve this modulation, the applicant is proposing to vary the height of the building. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss if this is sufficient or if additional means such as material differentiation should be utilized. Driveways and Surfacing The existing mini storage building is accessed from the west via Rolling Hills Road. Both the existing access and internal driveways are presently surfaced in gravel. According to the City Code, asphalt or concrete surfacing is required for all parking and driveway areas in all commercial and industrial districts. As part of the proposed development, the applicant intends to pave the access drive and interior drive aisles upon the site. The access point from Rolling Hills Drive appears to be remaining as gravel. Staff recommends a condition that this be paved, as well. According to the submitted site plan, the drive aisles located between proposed buildings 1 and 2 measure approximately 54 feet in width. All other driveways measure 24 feet in width. The increased drive aisle width between Buildings 1 and 2 appropriately recognizes the maneuvering needs of oversized vehicles and equipment which likely will be stored within Building #1 which provided storage units depths of 40 feet. In this regard, proposed drive aisle widths are considered acceptable. The applicant shall demonstrate that firefighting equipment can make the turns on the east ends of the existing and proposed buildings to the satisfaction of the fire marshal. Grading & Drainage The proposed development will be required to provide the necessary stormwater rate control, volume control and quality treatment. As required, a stormwater management plan has been submitted for review. As shown on the plan, some alterations to the stormwater holding area located between Highway 55 and Building #1 have been proposed. Such alterations should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Also to be noted is that the submitted site plan calls for a 35 foot wetland buffer and an expanded wetland buffer area (26,915 square feet) between the wetland buffer and proposed building area to the west. Tree Preservation & Landscaping According to the submitted demolition plan, a total of four trees are to be removed from the site to accommodate proposed construction activities. Specific trees to be removed include three Boxelder ranging in diameter from 8 to 9 inches and one Aspen having a diameter of 5 inches. The site is nearly 18 acres in size and the proposed tree removal is within the allowed significant tree removal thresholds established within the City’s tree preservation regulations. To be noted is that a significant amount of vegetation presently exists north and east of the proposed building site (within the wetland buffer easement). Such vegetation will not be impacted by the proposed project. As required, a landscape plan has been submitted for review. As shown on the plan, landscaping has been proposed on the south and west sides of the site (along Highway 55 and Rolling Hills Road). Section 832.3.04 requires 1 overstory deciduous or evergreen tree planted every 50 feet, 1 ornamental tree for every 100 feet, and 1 shrub for every 30 feet of lot perimeter. For the calculation of lot perimeter, the applicant is only using the developed area of the site, as there is a large wetland on the eastern portion of the lot. This calculates to 1630 linear feet of perimeter. Required Proposed Overstory Trees 1 per 50 feet (1,630 ft /50 = 33) 33 Ornamental Trees 1 per 100 feet (1,630 ft /100 = 17) 18 Shrubs 1 per 30 feet (1,630 ft / 30 = 58) 58 The ordinance requires “native trees” unless otherwise necessary. The two represented conifer trees are not on the City’s native tree list found in Section 828.41 Subd. 10 but are of a similar species. It may be advisable for the applicant to make an attempt to find a native tree from the list, if feasible. For both the ornamental and overstory deciduous/conifer tree requirement it states that no more than 25% of either category of trees may be from one species. In both cases, there are more than 25% of certain tree species on the list. The plan should be revised to correct this. Screening shall be required of all loading and unloading areas located adjacent to residential and agricultural districts. In this case, there are no adjacent residential and agricultural districts. In all commercial and industrial districts loading and unloading areas shall be screened from any street or right-of-way by an opaque structure, earth berm or landscaping at least eight feet in height. The applicant is proposing the required screening, as noted above, and there is a significant grade change to the public right-of-ways. It may be advisable to augment the planting plan to include more evergreen trees between the site and the right-of-ways to better screen the site. Fencing The applicant plans to expand the perimeter chain link fencing upon the site to secure all mini storage buildings to be located upon the site. As part of such work, the existing electric security gate is proposed to be relocated. The Public Safety Director stated that there have been a number of thefts at the facility over the past few years. He recommends that the applicant enhance the security system in the facility now that it is being expanded. Lighting The applicant has indicated that site lighting will be provided by wall mount fixtures on the three new buildings. A lighting plan in conformance with Section 829 will need to be provided. All lights are required to be downcast and shielded and 0.2 FC of light trespass is permitted at the property line. Off-Street Parking The submitted site plan does not illustrate a formal off-street parking area. There is no proposed office or constant on-site employees. Section 828.51 Subd. 2 states that no commercial or industrial use may be established with a parking lot with less than four parking stalls. The specific use of a mini-storage building is not listed as having a specific, separate parking demand calculation which means the parking requirement may be established by the Council upon review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. If the Commission finds that the informal parking within the drive aisles to the storage units is sufficient, the plan may be acceptable. If not, a parking area for at least four cars shall be provided in conformance with the City’s parking lot design standards. Trash The submitted site plan does not illustrate an outdoor trash receptacle and/or enclosure. As a condition of site plan approval, the applicant should address, to the satisfaction of the City, how trash handling activities upon the site are to be managed. Signs No new signage is proposed as part of the proposed project. There is an existing freestanding sign upon the subject site. Sewer & Water No provision of sewer, septic, or wells are proposed. There is no office proposed for the site and there are no permanent employees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the applicant’s proposed ordinance amendment is found to be acceptable, the building and site plan generally meet the requirements of the RBH, Rural Business Holing District. Therefore, Staff would deem it acceptable for the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: 1. Approval is contingent upon adoption of the ordinance related to cement fiber exterior building materials in the RBH District.Building elevations for building #3 shall be provided and depict conformance to the ordinance. 2. The access drive shall be paved. 3. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to meet the standards of Section 832.3.04. 5. A lighting plan and photometric details depicting conformance to the provisions of Section 829 of the City Code shall be provided. 6. The applicant shall address, to the satisfaction of the City, how trash handling activities upon the site are to be managed. 7. The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the site plan, construction plans, and other relevant documents. ATTACHMENTS 1. Document List 2. Engineering Comments 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Plans Aerial Photo: HWY 55 ROLLING HILLS RD Project: LR‐15‐167 – Medina Mini‐Storage Site Plan Review The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 9/14/20159/14/20153 Application Y Updated 9/25/2015 Fee 9/14/20159/10/20151 Fee Y Narrative 9/14/20159/14/20151 Narrative Y Civil Plan Set 9/14/20159/14/20157 Plans Y 6 pages civil + 1 page ALTA Civils‐Updated 10/7/201510/7/20157 Plans‐10‐07‐2015 7 pages civil Stormwater Management Plan 9/15/20159/15/201598 Stormwater Y Stormwater – Updated 10/7/201510/6/201569 Stormwater‐10‐7‐2015 N Elevations 9/14/2015N/A 1 Elevations Y Elevations‐Updated 9/28/2015N/A 1 Elevations‐9‐28‐2015 Engineering Response 10/6/2015N/A 2 EngResponse N Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineer Comments 9/23/2015 3 EngComments‐9‐23‐2015 Legal Comments 9/16/2015 1 LegalComments Building Official Comments 9/22/2015 1 BuildingComments Pioneer Sarah Comments 10/7/2015 1 PioneerSarahComments Public Comments engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02712-590\Admin\Docs\2015-09-23 Sit Plan Review\_2015-09-23 Hwy 55 Mini Storage - Site Plan Review Comments.docx September 23, 2015 Mr. Dusty Finke Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: Highway 55 Mini Storage Site Plan Submittal – LR-15-167 WSB Project No. 02712-590 Dear Dusty: We have reviewed the site plan submittal dated September 14, 2015 for the Highway 55 Mini Storage expansion. The plans propose to construct three new storage buildings at an existing facility located at 4800 Rolling Hills Road, in the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Rolling Hills Road. Documents provided for review include civil site and grading plans dated 9/14/15 and the stormwater management plan dated 9/15/15. The plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. 1. A permit is required from Pioneer Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission. 2. A copy of the NPDES Construction General Permit should be provided to the City 3. If filtration is provided due to site constraints, the City of Medina requires filtration of 1.5” off new impervious versus the 1.1” proposed with the submittal. 4. Pond inlet and outlet design results in short-circuiting and should be improved upon. 5. Indicate with spot elevations the filtration basin bottom on the plans. Model indicates a bottom of 980.5 and the plans appear to show a bottom of 982.0. 6. Topsoil is not recommended in the filtration basin planting medium due to issues with plugging/clogging of filter media. 7. Riprap is required at all flared end sections (FES-1 and FES-2) 8. Provide storm sewer calculations with future submittals. Site Plan Review – Highway 55 Rental September 23, 2015 Page 2 K:\02712-590\Admin\Docs\2015-09-23 Sit Plan Review\_2015-09-23 Hwy 55 Mini Storage - Site Plan Review Comments.docx 9. Show the EOF elevation and route for the low area on the east side of the site (not the existing wetland but the proposed low area adjacent to the buildings). Confirm that 1- foot of separation is provided between the buildings and the EOF. 10. Are any modifications proposed to the existing culvert under the entry road from Rolling Hills Road? 11. Provide erosion and sediment control measures on the proposed filtration basin EOF, as well as the swale on the north side of the property. 12. Provide a minimum of 1-foot of separation between the filtration basin EOF and the 100- year HWL 13. The model appears to include draintile risers (5 rows and 4 columns of 2” vertical orifices). This doesn’t appear to be reflected in the plans. 14. Recommend providing a piped outlet in addition to the draintile outlet due to the tendency of the draintile to plug, especially with a 4” draintile. 15. A minimum slope for 4” draintile of 1% is recommended and the plans should be revised accordingly. 16. Reduce the slope of the inlet pipe into the filtration basin to reduce the velocity to 6 fps or less. 17. Please reference the specific source of the pretreatment area sizing calculation that is shown in the Stormwater Management Plan. The pretreatment area appears small for the tributary area. 18. Include City of Medina standard detail plates for additional construction related SWPPP BMP’s, rip-rap installation at FES, storm sewer structures with correct casting information, etc. Provide a detail for the proposed fence. 19. Grades of less than 1.0% are not recommended for parking lot swales. Consider increasing grade, adding catch basins, or both to improve surface drainage and capture of runoff. 20. Consider the installation of geotextile fabric under aggregate section (or as recommended by geotechnical engineer) within paved areas due to anticipated poor soil conditions. Site Plan Review – Highway 55 Rental September 23, 2015 Page 3 K:\02712-590\Admin\Docs\2015-09-23 Sit Plan Review\_2015-09-23 Hwy 55 Mini Storage - Site Plan Review Comments.docx Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBMITTAL NARRATIVE Highway 55 Mini Storage Medina, Minnesota September 14, 2015 DEVELOPMENT TEAM Developer: Civil Engineer: Surveyor: Landscape Architect: SITE INFORMATION Legal Description: Address: PID: SITE PLAN REVIEW Highway 55 Mini Storage and Rental — Jeff Pederson EVS — David Nash EVS — Michael Williams Land Matter — Kathy O'Connell See Attached 4790 Rolling Hills Road, Medina, Minnesota, 55340 0411823220001 The proposed site plan consists of one existing mini storage building and 3 new buildings on the site. The site shall include paved drive isles and relocation / additional security fencing around the site. The site lighting shall be provided by wall mount lights on the new buildings. EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION The existing use for the property is one multi -unit mini storage building and a gravel drive isle around the building. Site access is from Rolling Hills Road with a security gate near the entrance to provide security access in to the site. ZONING CLASSIFICATION The property has a current zoning classification of Rural Business Holding. The proposed development would meet the City zoning requirements for this zoning classification. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The development is located within the Pioneer — Sarah Creek Watershed jurisdiction. The proposed development would be designed to provide the necessary rate control, volume control and stormwater quality treatment. The proposed stormwater management plan revises the existing storm pond to meet the necessary stormwater management requirements for the City and the watershed. SCALEINFEET03060C201ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGEVS, INC.10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344Phone: 952-646-0236Fax: 952-646-0290www.evs-eng.comSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEPROJECT # # DATE REVISIONLOCATIONPROJECTKEB09.14.2015DJN2013-033.2Medina, MNCLIENTI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.___________________Dave NashDATE 09/14/2015REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836H:\2013\2013-033.2 Mini Storage Hwy 55 Alta Survey\Con Docs\Sheets\Mini Storage - C201 SP.dwgSheet Size:Last Saved By:Highway 55 Mini StorageCity Site Plan ReviewHighway 55 Rental &Sales, Inc. 1 10/07/15 City Comments 2 08/12/15 Rev. Per City CommentsSHEETSheet XC101Site Plan ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGEVS, INC.10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344Phone: 952-646-0236Fax: 952-646-0290www.evs-eng.comSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEPROJECT # # DATE REVISIONLOCATIONPROJECTKEB09.14.2015DJN2013-033.2Medina, MNCLIENTI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.___________________Dave NashDATE 09/14/2015REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836H:\2013\2013-033.2 Mini Storage Hwy 55 Alta Survey\Con Docs\Sheets\Mini Storage - C101 EX & DM.dwgSheet Size:Last Saved By:Highway 55 Mini StorageCity Site Plan ReviewHighway 55 Rental &Sales, Inc. 1 10/07/15 City Comments 2 08/12/15 Rev. Per City CommentsSHEETSheet XC101SCALEINFEET03060C101Existing Conditions& Demolition Plan STATE HIGHWAY NO. 55ROLLING HILLS RDSTH 55xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x xxxx986 992991 994981991992985981982983984986987988990991991 9 9 1992992.40 992.269 9 0 . 8 6 989.569 9 0 . 1 6992.00992.54 990.409 9 0 . 8 0991.209 9 1 . 0 6 9 9 1 . 1 2 9 9 1 . 3 6 990.72990.76990.60992.80992.20992.20991.20992.80992.20992.20991.60992.80992.20992.20991.60992.80992.20992.20991.60992.80992.20992.20991.60992.60992.00992.00991.40991.43992.80992.80992.80992.80992.80991.20991.60991.60991.60991.60991.40991.55990.999 9 0 . 7 8991.3899199233.3 % 33.3%0.9%1.0%0.8%9 9 0 . 3 06.6%0.9%1.0%4.6%8.7%9 9 1 9 9 0RIP-RAPEOF=985.50EOF989987985983982983981982983980.50980.509 8 0 . 5 0 980.50980.50980.50980.50990.92989.82990.20DITCH CHECKEOFEOFSILT FENCESILT FENCEFFE = 992.8FFE = 992.8FFE = 992.8FFE = 992.2FFE = 992.2FFE = 992.2FFE = 991.6FFE = 991.6FFE = 991.2FFE = 992.6FFE = 992.0FFE = 991.4GRADING NOTES1.PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHEDSURFACE ELEVATION.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TOAVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THECONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BEHELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENTPROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THISPROJECT.3.TEMPORARY SEED & MULCH TO BE PLACED WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTERROUGH GRADING COMPLETION.4.ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLETO LIMIT SOIL EROSION, BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYSAFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITEHAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED.5.THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT651-454-0002 BEFORE DIGGING TO VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTINGUTILITIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TOCOORDINATE WORK WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES AND RELOCATE ALLEXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.6.CONTRACTOR TO HAUL OFF ALL EXCESS MATERIAL TO A LOCATIONSELECTED BY CONTRACTOR.7.SILT FENCE AND EXISTING CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION SHALL BEINSTALLED PRIOR TO GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BEMAINTAINED UNTIL SITE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.8.IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FIELDVERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIORTO THE START OF GRADING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLNOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY OF DISCREPANCIES ORVARIATIONS FROM THE PLAN.9.CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIP, STOCKPILE AND RESPREAD SUFFICIENTTOPSOIL TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 4" OF TOPSOIL OVER DISTURBEDAREAS THAT WILL BE SODDED, SEEDED OR LANDSCAPED.10.CONTRACTOR TO SEED PRE-TREATEMENT BASIN AND STORM PONDBELOW THE HIGH WATER LEVEL WITH MNDOT MIX 310 OR 328.GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS1.THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION"AND THE CITY OF CHASKA SPECIFICATIONS.2.THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORMTRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD).3.THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OFMINNESOTA (CEAM) STANDARD SPECIFICAITONS.LEGENDSILT FENCEEROSION CONTROLBLANKETFIBER ROLLROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCEC301ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGEVS, INC.10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344Phone: 952-646-0236Fax: 952-646-0290www.evs-eng.comSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEPROJECT # # DATE REVISIONLOCATIONPROJECTKEB09.14.2015DJN2013-033.2Medina, MNCLIENTI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.___________________Dave NashDATE 09/14/2015REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836H:\2013\2013-033.2 Mini Storage Hwy 55 Alta Survey\Con Docs\Sheets\Mini Storage - C301 GR & EC.dwgSheet Size:Last Saved By:Highway 55 Mini StorageCity Site Plan ReviewHighway 55 Rental &Sales, Inc. 1 10/07/15 City Comments 2 08/12/15 Rev. Per City CommentsSHEETSheet XC101Grading & ErosionControl PlanSCALEINFEET03060 ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGEVS, INC.10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344Phone: 952-646-0236Fax: 952-646-0290www.evs-eng.comSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEPROJECT # # DATE REVISIONLOCATIONPROJECTKEB09.14.2015DJN2013-033.2Medina, MNCLIENTI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.___________________Dave NashDATE 09/14/2015REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836H:\2013\2013-033.2 Mini Storage Hwy 55 Alta Survey\Con Docs\Sheets\Mini Storage - C401 UT & SM.dwgSheet Size:Last Saved By:Highway 55 Mini StorageCity Site Plan ReviewHighway 55 Rental &Sales, Inc. 1 10/07/15 City Comments 2 08/12/15 Rev. Per City CommentsSHEETSheet XC101C401Utility & StormwaterManagement PlanSCALEINFEET03060 SCALEINFEET03060LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTSOverstory Trees per 50' Perimeter(1630 LF/50)= 33 TREESOrnamental Trees per 100' Perimeter(1630 LF/100)= 17 TREESShrubs per 30' Perimeter(1630 LF/30)= 55 SHRUBSNOTE: Total trees and shrubs shown are 18 and 58, respectively.LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS/CALCULATIONSBOTANICAL NAMEDECIDUOUS TREESKEYCOMMON NAMECeltis occidentalisHackberrySHRUBSPicea glauca densataBlack Hill SprucePinus sylvestrisAmelanchier alnifolia 'Regent' Regent ServiceberryAustrian PineBOTANICAL NAMEDECIDUOUS TREESKEYCOMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMEKEYCOMMON NAMEPopulus tremuloidesQuacking aspen , clump formMalus 'Prairifire'Prairiefire CrabSyringa reticulataJapanese Lilac, clump formAmelanchier x grandiflora Autumn Brilliance ServiceberryViburnum lentagoNannyberry TreeCONIFEROUS TREESEuonymus alatusRhus typhinaDiervilla loniceraWinged EuonymusStaghorn SumacDwarf Bush HoneysuckleENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGEVS, INC.10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344Phone: 952-646-0236Fax: 952-646-0290www.evs-eng.comSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEPROJECT # # DATE REVISIONLOCATIONPROJECTKEB09.14.2015DJN2013-033.2Medina, MNCLIENTI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.___________________Dave NashDATE 09/14/2015REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836H:\2013\2013-033.2 Mini Storage Hwy 55 Alta Survey\Con Docs\Sheets\Mini Storage - L101-102 LA.dwgSheet Size:Last Saved By:Highway 55 Mini StorageCity Site Plan ReviewHighway 55 Rental &Sales, Inc. 1 10/07/15 City Comments 2 08/12/15 Rev. Per City CommentsSHEETSheet XC101Landscape PlanL101 LANDSCAPE LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMEDECIDUOUS TREESKEYCOMMON NAME2.5"BBSIZEROOTQTY.REMARKS2.5"BB6'htBB8 CLUMP FORMBB2"BBBBBB4BBSHRUBSCONT.#5#224Syringa reticulataAmelanchier x grandiflora Viburnum lentagoPrairiefire CrabJapanese LilacAutumn Brilliance ServiceberryNannyberry TreeCeltis occidentalisPopulus tremuloidesHackberryQuacking aspen , clump formPinus sylvestrisPicea glauca densataAustrian PineBlack Hill SpruceCONIFEROUS TREESORNAMENTALTREES2"2"2"8 8 7to EQUAL 2.5"6'htMalus 'Prairifire'CLUMP FORMto EQUAL 2.5"TREE FORMCLUMP FORMto EQUAL 2.5"644Amelanchier alnifolia 'Regent' Euonymus alatusRhus typhinaDiervilla loniceraRegent ServiceberryWinged EuonymusStaghorn SumacDwarf Bush HoneysuckleCONT.CONT.CONT.#5#521. SEASONS/TIME OF PLANTING: NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TOPLANT IN OFF-SEASONS ENTIRELY AT HIS/HER RISK. DECIDUOUS POTTEDPLANTS:APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-NOV. 1DECIDUOUS B&B:APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-NOV. 1EVERGREEN POTTED PLANTS:APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-OCT. 1EVERGREEN B&B:APRIL 1-MAY 15; AUG. 21-SEPT. 1519. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR TWO COMPLETE GROWINGSEASON (APRIL 1 - NOVEMBER 1), UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. THEGUARANTEE SHALL COVER THE FULL COST OF REPLACEMENT INCLUDINGLABOR AND PLANTS.18. PLANTING SOIL FOR TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS: FERTILEFRIABLE LOAM CONTAINING A LIBERAL AMOUNT OF HUMUS AND CAPABLE OFSUSTAINING VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH. IT SHALL COMPLY WITH MN/DOTSPECIFICATION 3877 TYPE B SELECT TOPSOIL. MIXTURE SHALL BE FREE FROMHARDPACK SUBSOIL, STONES, CHEMICALS, NOXIOUS WEEDS, ETC. SOILMIXTURE SHALL HAVE A PH BETWEEN 6.1 AND 7.5 AND 10-10-10 FERTILIZER ATTHE RATE OF 3 POUNDS PER CUBIC YARD. IN PLANTING BEDS INCORPORATETHIS MIXTURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BED BY ROTOTILLING INTO THE TOP12" OF SOIL.17. USE ANTI-DESICCANT (WILTPRUF OR APPROVED EQUAL) ON DECIDUOUSPLANTS MOVED IN LEAF AND FOR EVERGREENS MOVED ANYTIME. APPLY ASPER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION. ALL EVERGREENS SHALL BESPRAYED IN THE LATE FALL FOR WINTER PROTECTION DURING WARRANTYPERIOD.16. LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION LINES, WITHTHE OWNER FOR PROPRIETARY UTILITIES AND GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT454-0002 (TWIN CITIES METRO AREA) OR 800-252-1166 (GREATER MINNESOTA)48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEPROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGES TO SAME. NOTIFY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE PLANTRELOCATION.15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALLAPPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK.14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP PAVEMENTS, PLANTERS AND BUILDINGSCLEAN AND UNSTAINED. ALL PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE ACCESS TO BEMAINTANED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. ALL WASTES SHALL BEPROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE. ANY PLANT STOCK NOT PLANTED ONDAY OF DELIVERY SHALL BE HEELED IN AND WATERED UNTIL INSTALLATION.PLANTS NOT MAINTAINED IN THIS MANNER WILL BE REJECTED. ANY DAMAGETO EXISTING FACILITIES SHALL BE REPAVED AT THE CONTRACTOR'SEXPENSE.9. ALL PLANTING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SPECIFIED.13. LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON-SITE WILL NOT BEALLOWED.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES ANDPLANTING SOIL QUANTITIES TO COMPLETE THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLAN.VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND.11. THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND IFDISCREPANCIES EXIST. THE SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVERTHE PLANTING NOTES AND GENERAL NOTES.10. MULCH: SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, CLEAN AND FREE OF NOXIOUSWEEDS OR OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL, IN ALL MASS PLANTING BEDSAND FOR TREES, UNLESS INDICATED AS ROCK MULCH ON DRAWINGS.SUBMIT SAMPLE TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DELIVERY ON-SITEFOR APPROVAL. DELIVER MULCH ON DAY OF INSTALLATION. USE 4" FORTREES, SHRUB BEDS, AND 3" FOR PERENNIAL/GROUND COVER BEDS,UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED.3. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANYPLANTS WHICH ARE DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY BEFORE, DURING, ORAFTER INSTALLATION.8. ALL TREES MUST BE PLANTED, MULCHED, AND STAKED AS SHOWN IN THEDETAILS.7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, SHAPES OF BEDS AND LOCATIONSSHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORCOMPLETE COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTING BEDS AT SPACING SHOWN ANDADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO THE EXACT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE THE STAKING LOCATION OF ALLPLANT MATERIALS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.6. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED TO THEDRIP LINE FROM ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, STORAGE OF MATERIALSETC. WITH 4' HT. ORANGE PLASTIC SAFETY FENCING ADEQUATELYSUPPORTED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS 6' O.C. MAXIMUM SPACING.5. ALL PLANTING STOCK SHALL CONFORM TO THE "AMERICAN STANDARDFOR NURSERY STOCK," ANSI-Z60, LATEST EDITION, OF THE AMERICANASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, INC. AND SHALL CONSTITUTE MINIMUMQUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT MATERIALS.4. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ACCEPTEDUNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.2. ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED AND FULL HEADED AND MEETALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED.1. ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS MATERIAL, FREE OF PESTSAND DISEASE AND BE CONTAINER GROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED ASINDICATED IN THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND.PLANTING NOTES22. MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH PORTION OF THEWORK IS IN PLACE. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINEDUNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTS IS COMPLETE, INSPECTION HASBEEN MADE, AND PLANTINGS ARE ACCEPTED EXCLUSIVE OF THE GUARANTEE.MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, CULTIVATING, MULCHING, REMOVALOF DEAD MATERIALS, RE-SETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADE AND KEEPINGPLANTS IN A PLUMB POSITION. AFTER ACCEPTANCE, THE OWNER SHALLASSUME MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTORSHALL CONTINUE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE TREES PLUMBTHOUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD.23. ANY PLANT MATERIAL WHICH DIES, TURNS BROWN, OR DEFOLIATES (PRIORTO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK) SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROMTHE SITE AND REPLACED WITH MATERIAL OF THE SAME SPECIES, QUANTITY,AND SIZE AND MEETING ALL LANDSCAPE LEGEND SPECIFICATIONS.24. WATERING: MAINTAIN A WATERING SCHEDULE WHICH WILL THOROUGHLYWATER ALL PLANTS ONCE A WEEK. IN EXTREMELY HOT, DRY WEATHER, WATERMORE OFTEN AS REQUIRED BY INDICATIONS OF HEAT STRESS SUCH AS WILTINGLEAVES. CHECK MOISTURE UNDER MULCH PRIOR TO WATERING TO DETERMINENEED. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR WATER.25. CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING, A FINAL ACCEPTANCEINSPECTION.27. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, ARE TO RECEIVE 4" TOP SOIL, SEED,MULCH, AND WATER UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED.26. PLANTINGS TO UTILIZE PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM.20. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 3DAYS PRIOR TO PLANNED DELIVERY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNINGPLANT INSTALLATION.STAKING DIAGRAMNOTE: GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL BUTCONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULLRESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAININGTREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THEDURATION OF THE GUARANTEEPERIODGUY WIRE WITH WEBBINGFLAGGING- ONE PER WIRE2"x2"x24" WOOD STAKE SET ATANGLE- STAKE TOP BELOW GRADECOORDINATESTAKING TO INSUREUNIFORMORIENTATION OFGUY LINES ANDSTAKES3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL ORTHOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL.INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UPTO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE.6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILLVOIDS.8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURSOF THE SECOND WATERINGUNLESS SOIL MOISTURE ISEXCESSIVE.7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OFINSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BESUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLYSATURATE ROOT BALL AND PLANTINGHOLE.5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILLSOIL.4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAPAND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. BACKFILLWITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OFROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE TOP 1/3OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWOHORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE.2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/ORDEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADER. DONOT PAINT CUTS.1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIORTO PLANTINGUNDISTURBED OR STABILIZEDSUBSOILSMINIMUM 1/2 WIDTH OF ROOT BALLPLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.)EXISTING GRADE4"-6" SHREDDED BARK MULCHGUY ASSEMBLY- 16" POLYPROPYLENEOR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2" WIDESTRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA.WIRE, 2-7" ROLLED STEEL POSTS0Q'27#2&6((67$.,1*DIAGRAM)CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAILNO SCALENOT TO SCALE2L101DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING16711ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGEVS, INC.10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344Phone: 952-646-0236Fax: 952-646-0290www.evs-eng.comSHEET NUMBERDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEPROJECT # # DATE REVISIONLOCATIONPROJECTKEB09.14.2015DJN2013-033.2Medina, MNCLIENTI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THISPLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OF MINNESOTA.___________________Dave NashDATE 09/14/2015REGISTRATION NUMBER 21836H:\2013\2013-033.2 Mini Storage Hwy 55 Alta Survey\Con Docs\Sheets\Mini Storage - L101-102 LA.dwgSheet Size:Last Saved By:Highway 55 Mini StorageCity Site Plan ReviewHighway 55 Rental &Sales, Inc. 1 10/07/15 City Comments 2 08/12/15 Rev. Per City CommentsSHEETSheet XC101L102Landscape PlanDetails PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Nate Sparks DATE: October 7, 2014 RE: Highway 55 Mini Storage - Ordinance Amendment CITY FILE: LR-15-167 Application Date: September 25, 2015 Review Deadline: November 24, 2015 BACKGROUND In conjunction with the site plan review application from Jeff Pederson of Highway 55 Rental Portable Storage, LLC., has requested that the City consider amending the zoning code in order to allow fiber cement board (commonly called “hardiboard”) as a primary exterior building material. PROPOSED AMENDMENT The applicant would like to construct a mini storage facility that would have a primary exterior finish of fiber cement board. Currently, in the Rural Business Holding, RBH District building material standards defer to the Business and Business Park District standards. The standards are as follows: (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 applicant would like to allow cement fiber board as a building material in the category labeled as b instead of c for the RBH District. This would allow for the proposed mini storage buildings to have an exterior finish of up to 80% cement fiber board siding. AMENDMENT ANALYSIS Fiber cement board lap siding is traditionally considered to be a residential style building finish, although commercial-grade material is also available. In addition, fiber cement board panels are being produced which mimic stone and stucco appearance. In the ordinance this type of material is only permitted on up to 20% of the building exterior (along with wood, exterior insulation finish systems, and metal). These materials are considered by some to not be as durable and are thus limited in their application within the Business and Business Park Districts. Fiber cement board can be a durable material, but does need to be painted more often than the primary materials that the City requires for commercial development. The material can be impregnated with color to increase the initial time before painting is necessary, but will need to be painted more often. This fact may increase the likelihood a property appearing blighted. Fiber cement board is considered to be noncombustible, unlike some of the other materials which are limited in commercial districts. It has become more common to find the commercial use of fiber cement siding. However, in many cities it is still only permitted as an accent material or in business districts that are transitional from business to residential in nature. The City has recently approved two commercial buildings with fiber cement board within Planned Unit Developments. The Goddard School is proposed to have fiber cement panels which mimic stucco and the maintenance facility at the Medina Golf and Country Club is proposed to have fiber cement lap siding. Neither of these buildings has been constructed in order to have any experience with the material. The Rural Business Holding (RBH) and Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) are intended to be districts where business and commercial uses are permitted pending the provision of urban services. The Planning Commission may find that the interim nature of these districts is appropriate for the limited inclusion of this building material. Staff believes if the City updates the materials in the RBH, it would make sense to use the same regulations in the RCH district. A zoning map is attached for reference. ORDINANCE REVIEW In order to accommodate this change into the ordinance, it would require the following changes. In both Sections 835.08 and 835.02.08, RCH and RBH District Design and Development Standards respectively, a subsection 2 could be amended to list specific building material requirements that would apply only to the RCH and RBH Districts. In this the fiber cement board siding could be added to the finish category that allows for up to 80% of the building exterior finish. RECOMMENDED ACTION If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment is acceptable, a recommendation of approval should be forwarded to the Council. ATTACHED: 1. Ordinance Form 2. Zoning Map Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS IN THE RURAL COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS HOLDING DISTRICTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 835.08 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 835.08. Design and Development Standards. Subd. 1. Generally. Design and development standards are established for this district to achieve a high standard of development by providing assurance that land uses, buildings, and functions are compatible within the district, with the guided development to occur within the district when municipal utilities are available, and with adjacent districts. The plans and the proposed use of a property shall conform to the design and development standards prior to approval of any permit. The applicant or owner shall supply data necessary to demonstrate such conformance. Subd. 2. The design and development standards for the Rural Commercial Holding District are the same as those specified for the commercial districts, as described in Section 838.5 of the City Code, with the exception of standards for exterior building materials which shall be as follows. 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 decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, decorative pre-cast concrete panels and/or commercial grade fiber cement. Such materials shall be color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and decorative concrete 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), Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design. Subd. 3. Property within the Rural Commercial Holding District has been identified for more intensive development when municipal utilities are available in the future. As a result, property shall be arranged and sites shall be designed so as to most efficiently accommodate additional future development. The City Council shall have the right to place conditions on any proposed development or deny a request within the RCH to ensure consistency with this requirement. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE SECTION II. Section 835.2.08 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 835.2.08. Design and Development Standards. Subd. 1. Generally. Design and development standards are established for this district to achieve a high standard of development by providing assurance that land uses, buildings, and functions are compatible within the district, with the guided development to occur within the district when municipal utilities are available, and with adjacent districts. The plans and the proposed use of a property shall conform to the design and development standards prior to approval of any permit. The applicant or owner shall supply data necessary to demonstrate such conformance. Subd. 2. The design and development standards for the Rural Business Holding District are the same as those specified for the business districts, as described in Section 832.3 of the City Code, with the exception of standards for exterior building materials which shall be as follows. 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 decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, decorative pre-cast concrete panels and/or commercial grade fiber cement. Such materials shall be color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and decorative concrete 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), Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design. . Subd. 3. Property within the Rural Business Holding District has been identified for more intensive development when municipal utilities are available in the future. As a result, property shall be arranged and sites shall be designed so as to most efficiently accommodate additional future development. The City Council shall have the right to place conditions on any proposed development or deny a request within the RBH to ensure consistency with this requirement. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE SECTION III. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this ______ day of ____________, 2015. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ________ day of _________________, 2015. Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL PIO N EE R H O M E S T E A DTOM AHAWKCHIPPEWA PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE COUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCOUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE HOL Y NAMEHACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H MORNINGSIDE H A M E LCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 PI ONEERCOUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA ARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D IN A HAMEL WILLOWTAMARACKHUNTERZoning Map(Residential) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: January 23, 2014 Legend Non-Residential (see reverse) Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Rural Residential 2 (RR-2) Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Suburban Residential (SR) Urban Residential (UR) Single Family Residential (R1) R1 - rezoning pending Single and Two-Family Residential (R2) R2- rezoning pending Residential-Mid Density (R3) Multiple Family Residential (MR) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hamel 1 (UH-1) Uptown Hamel 2 (UH-2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL PIO N EE R H O M E S T E A DTOM AHAWKCHIPPEWA PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 101COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE BROCKTONCOUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE HOL Y NAMEHACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H EVERGREEN MORNINGSIDE H A M E LC LY DESDAL ECOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 PI ONEERCOUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA ARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D IN A HAMEL WILLOWTAMARACKHUNTERZoning Map 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: January 23, 2014 (Non-Residential) Legend Residential - see reverse Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hamel-1 (UH-1) Uptown Hamel-2 (UH-2) Public/Semi-Public (PS) Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS) Business Park (BP) Business (B) Industrial Park (IP) Commercial-Highway (CH) Commercial Highway-Railroad (CH-RR) Commerial-General (CG) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rural Business Holding (RBH) Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) Sanitary Landfill (SL)