Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-11-2017 POSTED IN CITY HALL APRIL 7, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of Draft March 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 6. Public Hearing - Elim Care, Inc. – Concept Plan Review for development of an approximately 134-unit assisted living, nursing home, and independent living facility at the northeast corner of Highway 12 and County Road 29. 7. Public Hearing - Peter Rechelbacher – 1822 Homestead Tr. – Ordinance Amendment to City Zoning Code related to regulations for solar equipment and Conditional Use Permit for installation of ground mounted solar energy array. 8. Joseph Molde – 4035 Apache Drive – Variance from 150-foot animal structure setback for a proposed chicken coop. 9. Council Meeting Schedule 10. Adjourn 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Monday, March 20, 2017 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Chris Barry, Dino DesLauriers, Robin Reid, and Janet 8 White. 9 10 Absent: Commissioners Todd Albers, Kim Murrin, and Laurie Rengel. 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 Anderson reported that the Council last met to discuss the proposed amendment to the current 21 Comprehensive Plan for a memory care facility. He stated that the Council had a lengthy 22 discussion and ultimately directed staff to prepare the item for approval. He stated that the 23 Council will formally approve the item under the Old Business section of the Council agenda 24 the following night. He noted that the zoning requirement for the property is consistent with 25 how the Steering Committee had planned to zone the property under the draft Comprehensive 26 Plan. 27 28 4. Planning Department Report 29 30 Finke provided an update. 31 32 5. Approval of the February 13, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 33 34 Motion by Reid, seconded by Barry, to approve the February 13, 2017, Planning 35 Commission minutes with changes as noted. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, 36 Murrin and Rengel) 37 38 6. Public Hearing – Three Rivers Park District – Conditional Use Permit 39 Amendment to Allow “We Can Ride, Inc.” to Provide Horse Therapeutic 40 Services to Needs of Individuals with Disabilities and Special Needs at Baker 41 Park Public Safety Facility Location at 4301 County Road 24 42 43 Finke presented a request from the Three Rivers Park District to amend the existing 44 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow “We Can Ride, Inc.” to provide therapeutic horse 45 services to needs of individuals with disabilities and special needs at Baker Park Public 46 Safety Facility. He stated that the applicant is requesting a maximum of 20 horses on site. 47 He stated that the stable is currently used for storage and not as a stable, as the Three Rivers 48 Park District has ended their mounted patrol of the park. He provided an aerial photograph of 49 the property, noting that the site is in the middle of the Baker Park Preserve property. He 50 stated that the property is zoned for public/semi-public and the original use of the property 51 included patrol and mounted patrol activity. He noted that the original condition of the CUP 52 2 allowed up to 16 horses at the facility. He noted that the storage currently occurring at the 53 stables would be moved to another indoor site on the property, as outdoor storage is not 54 allowed. He stated that equine assisted therapy is not listed as a use within the zoning 55 district, but advised that is a relatively unique use. He stated that staff looked at some of the 56 other uses permitted in the zoning district and determined that the use is similar in nature and 57 could be properly regulated through the conditions of a CUP. He displayed the proposed site 58 plan and identified the grazable acres available. He noted that upland buffers would be 59 required to protect the wetlands located in the middle of the grazing area. He reviewed the 60 other proposed improvements that are a part of this request, including improvements to the 61 access and the addition of a fire lane. He reviewed the animal density regulations of the rural 62 residential zoning district but noted that those regulations would be different, as those are 63 typically hobby farms rather than a commercial operation. He noted that staff recommends 64 that specific conditions be added to the CUP regarding manure management and grazing. He 65 noted that the applicant is requesting up to 20 horses. He explained that the stable holds 13 66 horses and the additional horses would be housed in another area, such as injured horses. He 67 noted that although the applicant may not have 20 horses on the site, they are requesting that 68 additional flexibility. He stated that staff recommends leaving the maximum number of 69 horses at 16, as currently specified in the CUP. He reviewed the proposed building materials 70 and noted that staff believes that there would be sufficient parking available. He stated that 71 staff recommends approval of the request. 72 73 DesLauriers asked the original intent of the 16 horses allowed under the current CUP. 74 75 Finke stated that it would be typical in the early 1990’s that the City would allow what the 76 applicant was requesting, as long as it was reasonable and allowable; and therefore, the 77 applicant most likely requested up to 16 horses. He described the path the improved access 78 road would take as it looped around the area. 79 80 Chair White referenced the animal density and asked how that was determined. 81 82 Finke stated that in 1993 there were no limitations on animals in any zoning district and 83 therefore he believes that 16 is the number that was requested by the Three Rivers Park 84 District. He provided additional details on the proposed conditions that would be imposed 85 regarding grazing to prevent erosion and sediment damage. 86 87 Bo Carlson, representing the applicant, stated that Baker Park is one of the jewels of the 88 Three Rivers Park District. He noted that the We Can Ride program began three years ago, 89 but noted that the organization has had a longer relationship with Hennepin County. He 90 stated that due to some changes in land use, Hennepin County asked We Can Ride to find 91 another location to provide their services. He stated that the County suggested that We Can 92 Ride sit down with Three Rivers Park District to determine if there would be a possibility to 93 partner to provide this service. He stated that the mounted patrol operation was discontinued 94 in 2013 or 2014 and the horses and equipment were sold to the City of Duluth. He stated that 95 this left the Park District with vacant stables and park land and provided an opportunity for 96 the Park District to partner with We Can Ride. He stated that the Park District is not the 97 experts in all areas of programming they provide, but do have the land base and therefore 98 often partner with another organization to provide the programming. He provided examples 99 of other partnerships the Park District has within the park land they own, such as rowing. He 100 stated that the partnership opportunities allow the Park District to provide unique 101 programming options and also expose people to the parks. He stated that this programming 102 would provide service to a very unique niche. He stated that the proposed area for this use is 103 in the middle of Baker Park Reserve and provides an opportunity to utilize the horse trails. 104 He stated that there is not a high pressure on the existing horse trails and therefore this would 105 3 be an opportunity to utilize the existing trails. He stated that this would serve the users and 106 park customers well and would be another element to the services that could be provided to 107 the users of the Three Rivers Park District, noting that the Park District Board is very 108 supportive of this project. 109 110 Mary Mitten, Executive Director of We Can Ride, stated that We Can Ride is 35 years old 111 and has had a successful relationship with Hennepin County throughout that term. She stated 112 that they have a premier accredited status through PATH, which is an organization that sets 113 up regulations and safety measures. She noted that there are two sites that the organization 114 uses and has a total of 21 horses between the two sites with ten staff members and 250 115 volunteers. She estimated that they have helped 3,000 to 5,000 individuals with special needs 116 or disabilities during that 35 years. She provided examples of how We Can Ride has helped 117 their clients. She stated that they are proud to bring these benefits to the community and 118 hoped that the community would be excited as well, noting that there are a lot of volunteer 119 opportunities. 120 121 Janet Hegland, Board Chair for We Can Ride, referenced some of the recommendations that 122 were suggested by staff, noting that staff did a great job of addressing the challenges of fitting 123 within the zoning code. She stated that the current working herd of horses is 17 and therefore 124 they are asking for a limit of 20 horses. She stated that when the horses can no longer serve 125 the purpose of the program they commit to finding those horses a forever home where they 126 can live their lives out. She noted that new horses also come in on a trial basis and therefore 127 they can exceed 17. She stated that they have not exceeded 19 horses, but simply request 20 128 to allow the transient movement. She stated that the horses are not put out to pasture to eat 129 and are more for recreation, as they feed the horses in the stable. She noted that a quarter of 130 the horses are not allowed to pasture because of their dietary restrictions. She noted that they 131 also recognize the need to avoid pasture during certain times of the year, such as wet times, in 132 order to reduce the impact on the pasture. She noted that the pasture impact would be lower 133 than traditional home or commercial use. She advised that the horses are also receiving 134 exercise during the trail rides and receive other exercise outside of pasture. She noted that 135 one horse serves seven clients, and therefore limiting the horses to 16 would impact the 136 number of people served. She referenced the condition requiring a manure bunker. She 137 stated that there are wetlands on the Hennepin County site and therefore they recognize the 138 importance of wetland protection and use a dumpster which is hauled away by a certified 139 hauler. She stated that the dumpster system works well for them and the bunker is not a use 140 they would like to have. She asked for the definition of an event. She stated that they do not 141 get the opportunity to have an event at the current center and therefore their events are limited 142 to training and open house nights. She estimated 15 to 30 people at the “events.” 143 144 Barry noted that there are currently 17 horses at the Hennepin County location and another 145 four horses at the other location and asked if they are ever combined. 146 147 Mitten stated that the horses are kept separate at the different sites. 148 149 Carlson stated that the second location is further away and therefore they are independent 150 locations and the horses are not swapped between locations. 151 152 Chair White referenced the fabric structure and asked if the applicant has used that material 153 previously. 154 155 Mitten stated that the structure is new to We Can Ride, but noted that the material has been 156 used at other facilities. She stated that the material is very sturdy and easily maintained. 157 158 4 Chair White asked if the building would be heated. 159 160 Mitten replied that the facility is not insulated and therefore would not be heated. She 161 explained that the current facility has a small indoor heated arena and therefore that could be 162 used for the small number of winter riders. 163 164 Chair White asked if the entire staff and volunteer team would travel with the transition. 165 166 Mitten replied that as far as she knows the current staff members are transitioning as well, 167 noting that the location will actually be closer than the current location for some staff 168 members. She noted that the organization may lose some volunteers in the transition. 169 170 DesLauriers asked the impact to the organization if the horses are limited to 16. 171 172 Hegland replied that would lower the number of people that they currently serve. She noted 173 that the organization underwent strategic planning recently and has plans to expand to 174 additional locations in the future, but that would be years out and therefore the number of 175 clients would be limited if the horses were limited to 16. 176 177 DesLauriers stated that he had the chance to tour the facility and asked where the vehicles 178 currently being stored on the site would go. 179 180 Carlson stated that there are a lot of options for the Park District. He stated that there are 181 several opportunities to move the seasonal equipment on the Baker Park site and on other 182 sites throughout the Park District. He stated that the hours of operation for the public safety 183 department are outside of the programming hours for We Can Ride. He stated that Three 184 Rivers Park District would provide the land and We Can Ride would fund the necessary 185 improvements. 186 187 Chair White referenced the acres identified for grazable acres and asked how that is 188 determined, noting that there would perhaps be additional acres available within the park. 189 190 Carlson replied that the fence line identified in the site plan pretty accurately matches the 191 historic fencing, with the exception of the changes due to the wetland protection. He stated 192 that they are somewhat constrained in the area because of the protection of the wetlands and 193 the desire to avoid tree removal to simply add pasture land. He stated that the footprint 194 would be gained by utilizing the existing horse trails. 195 196 Finke asked for information on the maximum number of horses on the site with the horse 197 patrol historically. 198 199 Carlson stated that the mounted horse patrols pre-date his time with the Park District noting 200 that when he joined the organization there were maybe four horses on site. He was unsure 201 that 16 horses were ever housed on the property during the mounted patrols. 202 203 DesLauriers asked if it is typical to not put horses out to pasture, as it was mentioned that 204 about half the horses would not be pastured. 205 206 Mitten replied that certain breeds of horses have dietary restrictions and therefore are not 207 pastured. 208 209 Chair White opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. 210 211 5 Mark Skau, 2575 Morningside Road, stated that it appears that they are trying to squeeze too 212 many horses into a small space. He noted that they will be putting another structure in which 213 will also reduce the available pasture. 214 215 Chair White noted that the grazable acres were determined with the new building included. 216 217 Skau stated that it appears that will be a lot of horses for that small space. He stated that 218 residential properties that want to have horses are required to have a lot more land. He asked 219 if the horse trails cross any walking paths. 220 221 Chair White stated that some of the horse trails may parallel the walking trails but do not 222 cross. 223 224 Skau stated that he would be concerned that elderly walkers could run into the horses. He 225 also asked how this would be paid for. 226 227 Chair White stated that the Three Rivers Park District would lease the facility and the City 228 would not have a financial burden. 229 230 Brent Webush, 2605 Morningside Road, stated that he works for the Department of Public 231 Safety for Three Rivers Park District. He stated that seven horses is the maximum number of 232 horses that the Park District had at the facility. He stated that there was a time when the Park 233 District asked to have more horses and the City of Medina denied that request. He stated that 234 he thinks this is a great program, noting that his daughter rides in the program. He stated that 235 he does not think this is the best location for this programing, as he does not believe there is 236 sufficient space. He asked if the program would be open to the general public. He stated that 237 there is not tax benefit to the residents of Medina and asked how much money Hennepin 238 County has provided to the program throughout the years and whether there is in-kind 239 maintenance provided from the County. He asked if there was a water quality issue at the 240 current property owned by Hennepin County and if that is why the program was directed to 241 move from the Metropolitan Council. 242 243 Nicole Spader, 2132 Grandview in Minnetrista, stated that she used to run a therapeutic 244 riding center in Colorado. She stated that these are typically older horses and therefore it is 245 not the same type of horse that you would see at Medina homes or commercial operations. 246 She stated that these are slow, old horses that are different than the majority of horse owners 247 and therefore is different in terms of grazable acres. She stated that she had many horses at 248 her facility that were never put to pasture, and that is okay because of their dietary needs. 249 250 Julie Benson, 5705 Deville Drive in Edina, stated that she currently lives about three minutes 251 from We Can Ride noting that her daughter takes lessons through the program. She stated 252 that she was sad that the program was going to move, but excited when they mentioned the 253 possibility of moving the facility to Baker Park. She stated that this would be a very 254 welcoming place for the clients with special needs. She stated that she cannot even express 255 the difference that this program creates and the relationships that are fostered through the 256 program. She stated that it is not just the riding lessons, but the program also works with 257 clients to establish goals. She stated that she is always amazed at how clean the We Can Ride 258 facilities are, noting that people take such pride in how the facility is maintained and how the 259 horses are treated. She stated that this is proven therapy that makes a difference. She stated 260 that she is a proud parent and is proud to speak about We Can Ride because it does work. 261 She noted that she personally knows people in the area that would volunteer at the facility. 262 263 6 Linda Tedfor, 1617 Drew Avenue South, stated that she is a proud parent of a We Can Ride 264 client, noting that her son has been riding for 19 years. She stated that if the number of 265 horses are limited that is true. She explained that when people begin riding they are doing the 266 program and do not want to stop. She stated that when you limit the number of horses, that 267 will then limit the number of kids that can begin in the program. She stated that when you 268 locate a program like this in the community, you are creating an opportunity for members of 269 the community to volunteer and learn empathy which is an amazing opportunity. 270 271 Chair White closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. 272 273 R. Reid stated that this is a lovely program, but noted that she is not an expert in the number 274 of horses. She stated that this makes sense for the location and this would be a positive 275 program, but simply believes the Commission should discuss the number of horses. 276 277 DesLauriers stated that he too supports the program, but noted that after walking the facility 278 this is not a large location. 279 280 Barry asked if the horses would all be full sized. 281 282 Mitten replied that there are a few smaller ponies. 283 284 Barry stated that he looked at the animal density requirements within the rural residential 285 zoning district. He noted that half of the horses do not go to pasture and therefore that would 286 reduce the amount of space needed for pasture. He stated that he does not have an issue with 287 raising the number of horses from 16 to 20. He stated that based on what he has heard, there 288 will not always be the full number of horses on the land and not all the horses will be outside 289 for pasture. 290 291 Chair White asked if a condition should be added allowing the 20 horses with the condition 292 that a certain number of the horses will not be grazed. 293 294 Finke commented that would be hard to manage. 295 296 R. Reid asked the number of grazable acres at the current site. It was determined that there is 297 a similar amount of grazable acres at the current facility. 298 299 Barry stated that he would support 20 horses as requested by the applicant. 300 301 DesLauriers asked if they could start at 16 horses and then review the request in six months to 302 determine if additional four horses could be added. 303 304 Barry stated that you could reverse that and allow 20 horses and you could review that in six 305 months to determine if a lesser number would be needed. He noted that the applicant already 306 has 17 horses at their currently facility. 307 308 Chair White stated that it appears that this organization is a good steward of the land and if 309 the applicant is not, the Three Rivers Park District would be overseeing the activity on their 310 site. She stated that therefore she could support 20 horses. 311 312 R. Reid asked if anyone has a problem with the horse manure dumpster. 313 314 Barry stated that it appears that the applicant uses the dumpster method currently and would 315 simply change the address for pickup and delivery with the same company. He stated that if 316 7 the dumpster works today for the organization, he would not see a reason to change that 317 method to build the bunker. He stated that he would support the use of the dumpster rather 318 than the bunker and confirmed the consensus of the Commission. 319 320 Chair White asked for the definition of event. 321 322 Finke stated that an event is typically a couple hundred people or something that has an 323 impact on public safety, such as parking on streets nearby the facility. 324 325 Chair White confirmed the consensus of the Commission to remove condition eight and 326 increase the number of allowed horses in condition one from 16 to 20 horses. She stated that 327 the Planning Commission is a recommending body and therefore this item will go before the 328 City Council at a later date. 329 330 Finke stated that most likely the Council will review this item on April 4th. 331 332 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Barry, to recommend approval of the CUP Amendment 333 subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, removing condition eight and increasing the 334 maximum number of horses in condition one to 20. Motion carries 3-1 (Opposed: 335 DesLauriers). (Absent: Albers, Murrin, and Rengel) 336 337 Chair White expressed appreciation for the people in attendance and their encouraging 338 stories. She noted that while the Commission appreciates those stories, the job of the 339 Commission is simply to review the land use. 340 341 7. Council Meeting Schedule 342 343 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following night on March 21st. 344 345 Chair White volunteered to represent the Planning Commission at the Council meeting the 346 following night. 347 348 8. Adjourn 349 350 Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Barry, to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Motion 351 carried unanimously. 352 Project:  LR‐17‐197 – Elim Care Concept Plan 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  3/10/2017 3/10/2017 3 Application Y   Fee  3/10/2017 3/9/2017  1 Deposit Y  $4000 Narrative  3/10/2017 3/9/2017  2 Narrative Y   Narrative – Updated  3/31/2017 3/31/2017 1 Narrative‐3‐31‐0217 N   Concept Plan  3/10/2017 9/1/2015  1 Concept Plan Y   Concept Plan – Updated  4/4/2017  9/1/2015  3  Yes  N  Elevations dated 4/3/2017 Photos  4/4/2017  4/3/2017  2  Yes      Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document  Document Date # of pages Electronic  Notes Legal Comments  3/15/2017  1 Legal Comments  Building Official Comments  3/31/2017  1 Building Comments  Hennepin County comments  3/21/2017  1 Hennepin  Minnehaha Creek  3/24/2017  1 Minnehaha  Engineering Comments  3/23/2017  3 Eng Comments        Public Comments         701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800    Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com  March 23, 2017 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility Concept Plan – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-17-197 WSB Project No. 03433-230 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility application and concept plans dated March 10, 2017. The applicant proposes to construct a multi-level senior living facility with roughly 134 units (mixture of assisted/skilled living and memory care) with a gross building footprint area of 56,600 square feet located on the north side of US Hwy 12 east of Baker Park Road (Co Rd 29). 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 1. The applicant will need to coordinate with the property owner directly to the north and west for the planning and construction of the proposed loop road and shared access from CSAH 29. The property owner has a plan to develop the site to the north. 2. Any work within Hennepin County right of way will require a permit. The applicant shall also meet the requirements of the County’s plat review committee. 3. Based on the information provided on the site plan, it appears the intent is for the “future loop road” to be a public street; the remaining portion of roadways within the site will be private as no easements have been proposed. 4. Roadways on the site are shown up to the lot lines in many locations making perimeter D&U easements unusable. 5. It is unclear how access Lot 2 will be provided. Provide a location on the plans and/or a written response. Utilities 6. The City of Medina’s sanitary sewer system serves the existing retail site to the west. Verify the existing pipe location/size or manhole inverts and note on plan on future submittals. Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility – Engineering Review March 23, 2017 Page 2 Easements may be required by the City to encompass all or a portion of the sewer into the site. 7. The City Maple Plain’s water system currently serves the existing retail site to the west. Verify the size and type of watermain on future submittals. The final design shall meet all City of Maple Plain watermain design standards. Confirm whether or not a permit from the City of Maple Plain will be required. 8. Watermain looping will be required along the proposed shared access road and within the site with a minimum diameter of 8-inch watermain. Easements may be required to encompass all or a portion of the proposed water system within the site. 9. The applicant should provide evidence that adequate water pressure and fire flow capacity will be available for the proposed structures served by City water. Show hydrant locations on future submittals. 10. It is unclear as to how the proposed Lot 2 will be served by water and sewer. Provide information on the plans and/or written response. Traffic & Intersections 11. The future access to CSAH 29 will be controlled by Hennepin County, full access to the proposed development to the north and the existing retail site to the west will be combined into one location between the existing retail and the proposed site to the north at some point in the future (proposed shared access). We understand the existing shared access to the retail site and Holiday will remain open with the proposed development. However, the access will need to be converted to a right-in/right-out in the future when development to the east is proposed, in accordance with Hennepin County requirements. These improvements will need to be coordinated with the property owner to the north and west. 12. Based on the anticipated traffic generated by the applicant’s site and the proposed development to the north, left and right turn lanes should be provided along CSAH 29 at the shared access intersection. 13. The proposed public street (shared access) connecting to CSAH 29 should be designed to accommodate two lanes exiting (one left and one right lane) and one lane entering. 14. A detailed Traffic Study should be completed including assumptions of all future development, to determine the length of the turn lanes to be constructed on the proposed public road in order to accommodate the proposed development as well as the future development to the east. Stormwater Management 15. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation. 16. The development is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and will need to meet the appropriate standards for this type of development and disturbance level. 17. The project site will need to meet the requirements for a Major Expansion Project. Provide a stormwater management plan and modelling calculations in accordance with City requirements with future submittals. No building or grading permit will be issued until a satisfactory stormwater management plan has been approved by the City. Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility – Engineering Review March 23, 2017 Page 3 18. The City’s freeboard standard requires at least 2 feet of vertical separation between a stormwater ponding emergency overflow and the lowest exposed opening of any proposed structure onsite. 19. Show the storm sewer discharge points from the site and how that will be incorporated into the existing retail site to the west and future development to the north. 20. The concept plan did not provide specific contouring of the proposed pond area(s); provide site/pond contouring with future submittals. During the 100-year rainfall event, the HWL elevation must be at least 1’ below the existing roadway shoulder edge and the wetted perimeter fully encompassed within the site. 21. Include an erosion and sediment control site plan with future submittals. 22. The City functions as the LGU for administering the WCA. Submit the appropriate paper work to the City. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer 1 Dusty Finke From:Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us> Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:49 PM To:Dusty Finke; Debra Peterson Cc:'Kelly.Grissman@threeriversparks.org'; Sherman, Tod (DOT); mark@terra-mark.com; Robert H. Byers Subject:Elim Care - Concept Plan Attachments:Elim Care.pdf Hello Debra and Dusty,    The plat review committee discussed the Concept Plan for Elim Care on Tuesday, March 21, 2017 and offer the following  comments:    As previously discussed with 1432 County Road 29 and Park Commons Development   With the completion of this planned internal loop road, a median will be constructed north of the intersection  with US 12 to limit access to right‐in/right‐out at the holiday station/retail center.   As previously discussed with both the Park Commons development and 1432 County Road 29, we envision the  long‐term future of CSAH 29 between US 12 and CSAH 19 (Main Street) most likely as a 3‐lane urban section  with storm drains.    With a Baker Park trail head only ¼ mile to the north it would be highly desired to include internal sidewalk  circulation and connections to future bike/ped accommodations planned for County Road 29   Furthermore, with the Three Rivers Park boundary immediately surrounding this property, the developer may  want to work with Three Rivers Parks personnel to establish an internal connection to the trail system.     Further consideration   This proposal would need to provide for a necessary future internal access location to Lot #2 as MnDOT very  likely would not accommodate access to Trunk Highway 12   Upon completion of the median to extend north of the existing southerly access location (Holiday  Station/Monie’s), any future development across CR 29 at the ‘Gateway’ parcel needs to ensure a cross access  easement to the southerly parcel (Monie’s Pub)   As this does not about the county road we have no right‐of‐way related comments    Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you wish to discuss any of these items further.    Jason    Jason Gottfried  Senior Planning Analyst  Hennepin County   Office: 612‐596‐0394  Email: Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us    Hennepin County Public Works  1600 Prairie Drive  Medina, MN 55340‐3410        2 Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system. 1 Dusty Finke From:Katherine Sylvia <ksylvia@minnehahacreek.org> Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 2:31 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Debra Peterson Subject:Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility- Preliminary Site Concept Comments Hi Dusty,     The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Site Concept for the Assisted Living Facility  proposed at Highway 12 and Baker Park Road. Based on the information that we have right now, the District has the  following comments related to MCWD rules:     1. The Project will require an Erosion Control, Stormwater Management, and Wetland Protection permit for the  District. Stormwater Management will be evaluated as New Development. The treatment scope and  requirements will be determined once we have a better understanding of the amount of proposed impervious.  2. A wetland delineation is shown on the plans, we will want to confirm that it is a valid delineation.  3. The Wetland on‐site is a Manage 1 Wetland and requires a 40’ buffer with a 20’ minimum for averaging. This is  reflected on the plans, but we will want to work with them on the proposed averaging.   4. Currently the proposed stormwater pond is located within the wetland buffer. MCWD does not allow  stormwater facilities in wetland buffers and that area will need to be included in the buffer averaging  calculations.     I think it would be helpful to schedule a meeting with the developer to discuss our comments, any comments that you  have prepared, identify site constraints, and discuss possible solutions with all parties at the table. We are also  interested in exploring how the redevelopment of this site might present opportunities for improving the water quality  of the tributary that flows to Lake Katrina.     Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts and if you think a meeting would be beneficial for the city as  well.     Sincerely,     Katherine          Katherine Sylvia   Permitting Program Lead   Minnehaha Creek Watershed District  Direct 952‐473‐2855  15320 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka, MN 55345    www.minnehahacreek.org          7900 International Drive + Suite 550 + Minneapolis, MN 55425 952.426.0699 + www.is-grp.com ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING March 31, 2017 Dusty Finke City Planner Planning & Zoning Department City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: Project Description and Application Narrative for Planning Consideration Elim Care, Inc. – New Assisted Living, Assisted Living MC, and Independent Living Facility Medina, Minnesota Dusty, Please consider the following project description and narrative during the review process for the attached Application for Planning Consideration. All supplemental information required by the application has also been included to provide a comprehensive review. The attached application and supplemental information are being submitted for review of the attached concept plans in support of a proposed new Elim Care, Inc. Assisted Living Facility in Medina. A new parking lot as well as the associated site improvements including drive isles, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and utilities are also proposed to accommodate the new facility. The new facility will consist of approximately 134 units and provide assisted and skilled living as well as memory care. A preliminary breakdown of the proposed units is provided below.  Skilled Care: 62 units  Assisted Living Care: 31 units  Assisted Living Memory Care: 16 units  Independent Living: 25-27 units The 14.24 acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Baker Park Road and U.S Highway 12 in Medina, Minnesota (PID: 3011823230001). Per the Medina Zoning Map the property is zoned Commercial-Highway (CH). It should be noted that the site is somewhat constrained due to a large wetland and buffer area located near the center of the property. Please review the attached concept plans in support of the proposed new assisted living facility. Feel welcome to contact me at 952.426.0699 if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this request on behalf of Elim Care. Sincerely, Reese Sudtelgte, PE Civil Engineer Civil Engineering Group Elim Care Page 1 of 6 April 11, 2017 Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: April 7, 2017 MEETING: April 11, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Elim Care Assisted Living/Nursing Home Concept – PID 30-118-23-23-0001– Public Hearing Summary of Request Elim Care has requested review of a concept plan for development of a three-story senior care facility at the northeast corner of Highway 12 and County Road 29. The concept shows 134 units, with a mix of skilled nursing care, assisted living, memory care, and independent living. The subject site is guided for Commercial development in the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Commercial-Highway (CH). The Commercial land use does not permit the proposed use. The draft 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan update proposes to change the future land use of the subject property to High Density Residential (HDR). At this time, the proposed uses are generally permitted in the districts which are intended to implement the HDR land use. However, the Comp Plan update is still under review. The six-month timeframe for affected jurisdictions to comment on the City’s plan is just beginning, and the City will need to evaluate these comments prior to approving the plan update and submitting to the Met Council for approval. The update is anticipated to be in effect in early 2018. The applicant desires to begin construction in the spring of 2018, and would prefer to secure land use approvals this year. However, the applicant recognizes that the City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is hoping to apply for land use approvals in the fall or winter, because staff indicated that the City would be in a position to take action until after the Comp Plan update is in effect. The applicant has submitted the concept plan in order to indicate their intention and to solicit feedback in order to expedite their formal submission at a later time. The subject site is currently vacant. A large wetland is located through the center of the property, dividing it roughly in half. There are scattered trees on the site, with a larger stand of trees in the northwest corner of the site. Baker Park Preserve is located to the east and north of the site, Highway 12 to the south, and commercial property to the west. An aerial of the subject property and surrounding lands can be found at the top of the following page. Elim Care Page 2 of 6 April 11, 2017 Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Concept Plan The applicant’s concept plan includes the construction of a three story building with an approximate footprint of 60,000 s.f. on Lot 1. At this time, the applicant is still determining the appropriate mix of units, which will affect the overall size of the structure, as some of the wings of the building are likely to be two-story. The concept plan shows underground parking, with additional surface parking to the east of the building. The concept plan also shows how the footprint of a multi-family development could be arranged on Lot 2, the land east of the wetland. The applicant has not submitted details on this development because they do not intend to carry forward with it in the near term. Staff reviewed the concept plan compared to the requirements of the R-4 zoning district, which is the most similar district currently in the zoning code for the HDR land use. It appears that changes will be necessary to the R-4 zoning district in order to account for the updated density range of the HDR land use in the Comp Plan update. In fact, the City could ultimately decide to zone the property into another district or create a new district. As such, all of the standards are subject to change following the Comprehensive Plan update. Elim Care Page 3 of 6 April 11, 2017 Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting The following table summarizes the dimensional standards of the R-4 zoning district compared to the concept plan. The items highlighted in yellow would need to be adjusted in order to comply. R-4 District Requirement Lot 1 Lot 2 Minimum Lot Size Based on density; To be adjusted 3.28 acre 4.27 acre Setback from Exterior of Site 20 feet 20 feet (building) 25 feet Increase for 3-story 40 feet 20 feet Street Setback Private 25 feet Local 40 feet 20 feet Minor Collector 50 feet N/A N/A Arterial 50 feet 150 feet 55 feet Driveway Setback 10 feet 0 feet; 7 feet 163 feet Impervious Surfaces 60% 40% 23% Building Design Conceptual elevations were provided for the senior care building, as well as photographs of two existing Elim Care facilities. All buildings will need to be designed according to R-4 district standards. The elevations appear to be predominantly lap siding. Current R-4 regulations state that exterior materials for nursing homes and assisted living facilities: “shall consist of the following materials: brick, natural stone, stucco, Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, copper, glass, decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. A maximum of 20 percent of the vertical building exterior may be metal or fiber cement lap siding or other materials approved by the city, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design.” It would appear that the applicant would need to reduce the amount of lap siding in order to comply. The R-4 district requires modulation of the building façade a minimum of once per 50 feet. The conceptual renderings would appear to meet this requirement, but it should be noted upon formal submission. The Planning Commission and Council can provide feedback to the applicant on the conceptual building elevations. Transportation The applicant proposes to access Baker Park Road (County Road 29) through construction of a new access at the northwest corner of the property. The concept would allow access to both Lots 1 and 2 to this location. It appears that the access for Lot 2 would be through private, shared driveway over Lot 1. Existing right-of-way exists between the two sites to the northwest to allow this construction. When the property to the west developed, the City and Council required right-of-way to allow construction of a roadway from Holiday’s driveway northerly to this new proposed access as well. The applicant’s concept plan shows the construction of this loop. Hennepin County has Elim Care Page 4 of 6 April 11, 2017 Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting requested this loop from Holiday to allow for construction of a median in County Road 29 in the location of Holiday’s existing driveway. This will increase the stacking available at the intersection of Highway 12 and County Road 29. The City Engineer recommends that the applicant provide a traffic study upon development to determine what improvements are necessary at the new intersection with County Road 29 in order to support the development. The applicant’s concept plan does not identify a sidewalk connection along the new access drive. Staff recommends construction of a sidewalk in order to allow improved non-vehicular transportation. Wetlands/Floodplain A wetland is located through the center of the property, dividing it roughly into two halves. The concept plan shows that the lots would be subdivided on each side of the wetland. The concept plan shows impacts proposed to extend access to Lot 2. It appears that impacts are necessary in order to provide access. The wetland is classified in the City’s wetland map as a Manage 1, requiring an average buffer of 30 feet in width. Minnehaha Creek Watershed has indicated that their rules require an average buffer width of 40 feet. The concept plan generally abides by the 40-foot buffer, and shows a few locations which are proposed to be reduced through buffer width averaging. There are no floodplains identified by FEMA on the property. Tree Preservation/Landscaping A stand of trees is located in the northwest portion of the site, in the location where access is proposed to be extended to Baker Park Road. Trees are also scattered throughout the site. Removal of a maximum of 10% of the significant trees is permitted for initial site development and an additional 10% from each lot during development. Removal in excess of this amount would need to be replaced on an inch:inch basis. The applicant did not submit a landscaping plan. The R-4 zoning district requires the following, in addition to any required replacement trees: 1) Landscaped buffer yard adjacent to Highway 12 2) 56 overstory trees (1 per 60 feet perimeter) 3) 28 ornamental trees (1 per 120 feet perimeter) 4) 84 shrubs (1 per 40 feet perimeter) A minimum of eight percent of the parking lot area is required to be landscaped. It appears the concept plan includes significantly more than this amount. A minimum landscaping area 10 feet in width is required between parking lots/driveways and buildings. It appears that additional landscaping area may be required to the west and south of the building. Elim Care Page 5 of 6 April 11, 2017 Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Parking The concept plan shows underground parking within the senior care building on Lot 1 and approximately 55 surface parking spaces. Generally, two spaces are required for each residential dwelling and parking for the nursing home/memory care portion will be reviewed upon formal submission (generally 1 space per 3 units). This would equate to approximately 142 parking spaces. A minimum of one space per residential unit is required to be enclosed either underground or in a garage. Parking requirements will be reviewed upon formal submission The number of units and number of underground parking spaces is not specified for Lot 2. Mechanical Equipment/Utilities/Trash and Recycling Mechanical equipment and utilities such as transformers are required to be screened. Details will be required on formal application. Trash and recycling storage is required to be within a structure or within a screened area adjacent to a structure. Details will be required on formal application. Purpose of Concept Plan Review 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.” Concept Plans are appropriate in cases where the formal request which will arise out of the concept plan involves some amount of discretion on behalf of the City. As noted at the beginning of the report, the City has identified this property as potentially being reguided to High Density Residential in the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Once the Plan update is adopted, a subsequent rezoning will be necessary. As such, even without a pending application, the City is likely in the process of making discretionary changes to the property. With regards to the concept plan, staff has provided comments throughout the report, but summarizes the main comments below: 1) Concept shall be updated to be consistent with the applicable district following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Landscaping areas adjacent to the west and south of the building should be widened. 3) Sidewalk connection shall be provided along the access drive for pedestrian transportation. 4) The application will be subject to tree preservation and replacement requirements. 5) The applicant shall meet the recommendation of the City Engineer, the City Fire Marshal, the Fire Department, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed, and other relevant agencies. Elim Care Page 6 of 6 April 11, 2017 Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Attachments 1) Document list 2) City Engineer Comments dated 3/23/2017 3) Hennepin County comments dated 3/21/2017 4) Minnehaha Creek Watershed comments dated 3/24/2017 5) Applicant Narrative dated 3/31/2017 6) Concept Plan received by City 4/4/2017 Project:  LR‐17‐197 – Elim Care Concept Plan 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  3/10/2017 3/10/2017 3 Application Y   Fee  3/10/2017 3/9/2017  1 Deposit Y  $4000 Narrative  3/10/2017 3/9/2017  2 Narrative Y   Narrative – Updated  3/31/2017 3/31/2017 1 Narrative‐3‐31‐0217 N   Concept Plan  3/10/2017 9/1/2015  1 Concept Plan Y   Concept Plan – Updated  4/4/2017  9/1/2015  3  Yes  N  Elevations dated 4/3/2017 Photos  4/4/2017  4/3/2017  2  Yes      Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document  Document Date # of pages Electronic  Notes Legal Comments  3/15/2017  1 Legal Comments  Building Official Comments  3/31/2017  1 Building Comments  Hennepin County comments  3/21/2017  1 Hennepin  Minnehaha Creek  3/24/2017  1 Minnehaha  Engineering Comments  3/23/2017  3 Eng Comments        Public Comments         701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800    Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com  March 23, 2017 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility Concept Plan – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-17-197 WSB Project No. 03433-230 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility application and concept plans dated March 10, 2017. The applicant proposes to construct a multi-level senior living facility with roughly 134 units (mixture of assisted/skilled living and memory care) with a gross building footprint area of 56,600 square feet located on the north side of US Hwy 12 east of Baker Park Road (Co Rd 29). 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 1. The applicant will need to coordinate with the property owner directly to the north and west for the planning and construction of the proposed loop road and shared access from CSAH 29. The property owner has a plan to develop the site to the north. 2. Any work within Hennepin County right of way will require a permit. The applicant shall also meet the requirements of the County’s plat review committee. 3. Based on the information provided on the site plan, it appears the intent is for the “future loop road” to be a public street; the remaining portion of roadways within the site will be private as no easements have been proposed. 4. Roadways on the site are shown up to the lot lines in many locations making perimeter D&U easements unusable. 5. It is unclear how access Lot 2 will be provided. Provide a location on the plans and/or a written response. Utilities 6. The City of Medina’s sanitary sewer system serves the existing retail site to the west. Verify the existing pipe location/size or manhole inverts and note on plan on future submittals. Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility – Engineering Review March 23, 2017 Page 2 Easements may be required by the City to encompass all or a portion of the sewer into the site. 7. The City Maple Plain’s water system currently serves the existing retail site to the west. Verify the size and type of watermain on future submittals. The final design shall meet all City of Maple Plain watermain design standards. Confirm whether or not a permit from the City of Maple Plain will be required. 8. Watermain looping will be required along the proposed shared access road and within the site with a minimum diameter of 8-inch watermain. Easements may be required to encompass all or a portion of the proposed water system within the site. 9. The applicant should provide evidence that adequate water pressure and fire flow capacity will be available for the proposed structures served by City water. Show hydrant locations on future submittals. 10. It is unclear as to how the proposed Lot 2 will be served by water and sewer. Provide information on the plans and/or written response. Traffic & Intersections 11. The future access to CSAH 29 will be controlled by Hennepin County, full access to the proposed development to the north and the existing retail site to the west will be combined into one location between the existing retail and the proposed site to the north at some point in the future (proposed shared access). We understand the existing shared access to the retail site and Holiday will remain open with the proposed development. However, the access will need to be converted to a right-in/right-out in the future when development to the east is proposed, in accordance with Hennepin County requirements. These improvements will need to be coordinated with the property owner to the north and west. 12. Based on the anticipated traffic generated by the applicant’s site and the proposed development to the north, left and right turn lanes should be provided along CSAH 29 at the shared access intersection. 13. The proposed public street (shared access) connecting to CSAH 29 should be designed to accommodate two lanes exiting (one left and one right lane) and one lane entering. 14. A detailed Traffic Study should be completed including assumptions of all future development, to determine the length of the turn lanes to be constructed on the proposed public road in order to accommodate the proposed development as well as the future development to the east. Stormwater Management 15. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation. 16. The development is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and will need to meet the appropriate standards for this type of development and disturbance level. 17. The project site will need to meet the requirements for a Major Expansion Project. Provide a stormwater management plan and modelling calculations in accordance with City requirements with future submittals. No building or grading permit will be issued until a satisfactory stormwater management plan has been approved by the City. Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility – Engineering Review March 23, 2017 Page 3 18. The City’s freeboard standard requires at least 2 feet of vertical separation between a stormwater ponding emergency overflow and the lowest exposed opening of any proposed structure onsite. 19. Show the storm sewer discharge points from the site and how that will be incorporated into the existing retail site to the west and future development to the north. 20. The concept plan did not provide specific contouring of the proposed pond area(s); provide site/pond contouring with future submittals. During the 100-year rainfall event, the HWL elevation must be at least 1’ below the existing roadway shoulder edge and the wetted perimeter fully encompassed within the site. 21. Include an erosion and sediment control site plan with future submittals. 22. The City functions as the LGU for administering the WCA. Submit the appropriate paper work to the City. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer 1 Dusty Finke From:Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us> Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:49 PM To:Dusty Finke; Debra Peterson Cc:'Kelly.Grissman@threeriversparks.org'; Sherman, Tod (DOT); mark@terra-mark.com; Robert H. Byers Subject:Elim Care - Concept Plan Attachments:Elim Care.pdf Hello Debra and Dusty,    The plat review committee discussed the Concept Plan for Elim Care on Tuesday, March 21, 2017 and offer the following  comments:    As previously discussed with 1432 County Road 29 and Park Commons Development   With the completion of this planned internal loop road, a median will be constructed north of the intersection  with US 12 to limit access to right‐in/right‐out at the holiday station/retail center.   As previously discussed with both the Park Commons development and 1432 County Road 29, we envision the  long‐term future of CSAH 29 between US 12 and CSAH 19 (Main Street) most likely as a 3‐lane urban section  with storm drains.    With a Baker Park trail head only ¼ mile to the north it would be highly desired to include internal sidewalk  circulation and connections to future bike/ped accommodations planned for County Road 29   Furthermore, with the Three Rivers Park boundary immediately surrounding this property, the developer may  want to work with Three Rivers Parks personnel to establish an internal connection to the trail system.     Further consideration   This proposal would need to provide for a necessary future internal access location to Lot #2 as MnDOT very  likely would not accommodate access to Trunk Highway 12   Upon completion of the median to extend north of the existing southerly access location (Holiday  Station/Monie’s), any future development across CR 29 at the ‘Gateway’ parcel needs to ensure a cross access  easement to the southerly parcel (Monie’s Pub)   As this does not about the county road we have no right‐of‐way related comments    Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you wish to discuss any of these items further.    Jason    Jason Gottfried  Senior Planning Analyst  Hennepin County   Office: 612‐596‐0394  Email: Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us    Hennepin County Public Works  1600 Prairie Drive  Medina, MN 55340‐3410        2 Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system. 1 Dusty Finke From:Katherine Sylvia <ksylvia@minnehahacreek.org> Sent:Friday, March 24, 2017 2:31 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Debra Peterson Subject:Elim Care Inc. Assisted Living Facility- Preliminary Site Concept Comments Hi Dusty,     The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Site Concept for the Assisted Living Facility  proposed at Highway 12 and Baker Park Road. Based on the information that we have right now, the District has the  following comments related to MCWD rules:     1. The Project will require an Erosion Control, Stormwater Management, and Wetland Protection permit for the  District. Stormwater Management will be evaluated as New Development. The treatment scope and  requirements will be determined once we have a better understanding of the amount of proposed impervious.  2. A wetland delineation is shown on the plans, we will want to confirm that it is a valid delineation.  3. The Wetland on‐site is a Manage 1 Wetland and requires a 40’ buffer with a 20’ minimum for averaging. This is  reflected on the plans, but we will want to work with them on the proposed averaging.   4. Currently the proposed stormwater pond is located within the wetland buffer. MCWD does not allow  stormwater facilities in wetland buffers and that area will need to be included in the buffer averaging  calculations.     I think it would be helpful to schedule a meeting with the developer to discuss our comments, any comments that you  have prepared, identify site constraints, and discuss possible solutions with all parties at the table. We are also  interested in exploring how the redevelopment of this site might present opportunities for improving the water quality  of the tributary that flows to Lake Katrina.     Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts and if you think a meeting would be beneficial for the city as  well.     Sincerely,     Katherine          Katherine Sylvia   Permitting Program Lead   Minnehaha Creek Watershed District  Direct 952‐473‐2855  15320 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka, MN 55345    www.minnehahacreek.org          7900 International Drive + Suite 550 + Minneapolis, MN 55425 952.426.0699 + www.is-grp.com ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING March 31, 2017 Dusty Finke City Planner Planning & Zoning Department City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: Project Description and Application Narrative for Planning Consideration Elim Care, Inc. – New Assisted Living, Assisted Living MC, and Independent Living Facility Medina, Minnesota Dusty, Please consider the following project description and narrative during the review process for the attached Application for Planning Consideration. All supplemental information required by the application has also been included to provide a comprehensive review. The attached application and supplemental information are being submitted for review of the attached concept plans in support of a proposed new Elim Care, Inc. Assisted Living Facility in Medina. A new parking lot as well as the associated site improvements including drive isles, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and utilities are also proposed to accommodate the new facility. The new facility will consist of approximately 134 units and provide assisted and skilled living as well as memory care. A preliminary breakdown of the proposed units is provided below.  Skilled Care: 62 units  Assisted Living Care: 31 units  Assisted Living Memory Care: 16 units  Independent Living: 25-27 units The 14.24 acre subject property is located at the southwest corner of Baker Park Road and U.S Highway 12 in Medina, Minnesota (PID: 3011823230001). Per the Medina Zoning Map the property is zoned Commercial-Highway (CH). It should be noted that the site is somewhat constrained due to a large wetland and buffer area located near the center of the property. Please review the attached concept plans in support of the proposed new assisted living facility. Feel welcome to contact me at 952.426.0699 if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this request on behalf of Elim Care. Sincerely, Reese Sudtelgte, PE Civil Engineer Civil Engineering Group W LINE OF NW 1/4 OF SEC. 30-118-23 U. S . H I G H W A Y N O . 1 2 TRAVELLED STREET Edge of delineated wet landBAKER PARK ROAD (CO RD NO 29)WET L A N D WET LAND WET LANDSW CORNER OF NW 1/4, SEC. 30-118-24 way z a t a b l v d ELIM CARE INC. ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MEDINA MINNESOTA 18012 CONCEPT 2 JRS JRS ATB - 15-18012 C2.11 PRELIMINARY SITE CONCEPT 09/01/2015 THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ISG AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT PROJECT NO. FILE NAME DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY TITLE ISSUE DATE CLIENT PROJECT NO. SHEET 18012 CONCEPT 2 REVIEWED BY NO DATE DESCRIPTION REVISION SCHEDULE PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATIONBAKER PARK RDU S H W Y N O . 1 2 CITY O F MAPL E PLAI N TOTAL AREA: WETLAND BUFFER: AREA BUILDABLE AREA: PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA, TYP. LOT 1 7.56 AC LOT 2 6.67 AC PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPOSED BUILDING APPROXIMATE 1 LEVEL SF = 59,600 7.56 AC 2.155 AC 5.405 AC 6.67 AC 2.660 AC 4.010 AC LOT 1 LOT 2 14.23 AC 4.815 AC 9.415 AC TOTAL PROPOSED FUTUREBUILDING EXAMPLE COMMUNITY: VALLEY VIEW VILLAGE DES MOINES, IOWA Elim Care Medina Senior Living & Skilled Nursing POPE A A C I I I l C C I 5 MEDINA, MINNESOTA 04/03/17 1 COMM#24351-17006 4/3/2017 11:03:10 AM C:\Revit Projects\M16-223_Medina_R16 Central_csoma.rvt MEDINA, MINNESOTA MEDINA SENIOR LIVING & SKILLED NURSING 04/03/17 | COMM#24351-17006 M2.5 1 FRONT ENTRY 4/3/2017 11:03:15 AM C:\Revit Projects\M16-223_Medina_R16 Central_csoma.rvt MEDINA, MINNESOTA MEDINA SENIOR LIVING & SKILLED NURSING 04/03/17 | COMM#24351-17006 M2.6 1 VIEW FROM HIGHWAY Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher Page 1 of 7 April 11, 2017 Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: April 5, 2017 MEETING: April 11, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher – 1822 Homestead Trail – Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Conditional Use Permit – Public Hearing Summary of Request Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher have requested a zoning ordinance text amendment and a conditional use permit related to solar panels. The applicants desire to install a 28 kW solar array on their property at 1822 Homestead Trail. An array of this capacity would occupy a footprint of just under 1500 s.f. Current City regulations limit Solar Equipment to occupy a footprint of 1000 square feet. The applicants request that the City consider amending its zoning code in order to allow larger solar arrays. The applicant has also requested a conditional use permit for installation of the Solar Equipment. Solar Equipment Regulations Current City regulations generally permit solar panels which are attached to structures in every zoning district, subject to certain standards. Regulations also permit ground-mounted solar equipment in the Rural Residential zoning district and the Agricultural Preservation district through a conditional use permit. These arrays are limited in size to a footprint of 1000 square feet. Larger ground-mounted arrays (with a footprint up to 43,560 s.f.) are permitted in the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts. The ordinance was amended to add ground-mounted solar equipment as a conditional use in 2015. Since that time, one property in the Business district has installed a 20,000 s.f. array (Wright-Hennepin at Willow Drive, south of Highway 55). No ground-mounted arrays have been installed on residential property. Currently in rural residential districts, ground-mounted solar equipment is subject to the following conditions: • Solar Equipment shall only be permitted on a parcel which is five acres or greater in area. • Solar Equipment shall only be allowed as an accessory use on a parcel with an existing principal structure. • Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines. • The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 1000 square feet. The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 15 feet. Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher Page 2 of 7 April 11, 2017 Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting • The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual impacts of the Solar Equipment. • The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes. • The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co-generation of energy. • All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views. • The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses. The applicant requests that the City consider increasing the allowed footprint from 1000 square feet. The applicant does not advocate a specific number, provided it is increased to at least 1500 s.f. to allow them to install the solar array they desire to install which would support 50 percent of their expected annual energy needs. When the City adopted the ordinance allowing ground-mounted solar panels, there was a fair amount of discussion related to the footprint limitation. The limitation related primarily to lot coverage and also limiting production so that it is accessory to a residential use, rather than a more commercial production of power. One thousand square feet would accommodate a solar array which could produce energy slightly higher than the average Minnesota residential electric customer. The applicant advocates an increase in the maximum footprint because homes in the rural residential districts of Medina tend to be larger than the average Minnesota home and, therefore, consume a higher amount of electricity. The applicant has reviewed their average electrical usage and estimates that an array with a footprint of 1500 s.f. would produce approximately 50% of their annual energy. City staff supports adding flexibility to the maximum footprint of solar equipment. The conditional use permit process would provide the opportunity to apply conditions when necessary. If the Planning Commission and Council want to add flexibility but still maintain some maximum size, one or more of the following requirements could be added: • Limit production capacity to the expected electric demand. • Increase the maximum footprint to 2500 s.f. or 3000 s.f. • Limit Solar Equipment larger than 1000 s.f. to larger lots (10 or 20 acres) Staff also discussed the potential of allowing smaller solar arrays as a permitted use instead of a conditional use. This would reduce the time and money necessary to install an array. This threshold could be set at 750 s.f. or 1000 s.f. and larger arrays would be possible through a CUP. The attached ordinance would make this change but can be removed if the Planning Commission and Council prefer the CUP process for all arrays. Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher Page 3 of 7 April 11, 2017 Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting Conditional Use Permit Review The applicant proposes to install two solar arrays, each having a footprint of 715 s.f. (11’x65’) to the north of their home currently under construction. The equipment would have a capacity of 28 kW. The subject property is located at 1822 Homestead Trail and is 75 acres in size. Baker Park is located west of the property, the Deer Hill Preserve CD-PUD subdivision to the east, and Alpine Farm is located to the northwest of the site. Remaining property to the north and the property to the south is zoned Rural Residential. The western half of the subject site, where the solar equipment is proposed near the new home, has been farmed historically. The applicant is in the process of restoring the property as part of the conservation reserve program (CRP). This includes restoring the wetland areas in the western portion of the site and planting prairie along the rolling hills in the center of the site. The eastern half of the property includes wetlands and a maple basswood forest area. An aerial of the site and surrounding lands can be found below. Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher Page 4 of 7 April 11, 2017 Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting As noted above, ground-mounted solar panels are subject to the following conditions. The applicant has requested that the City consider increasing the maximum allowed footprint for solar equipment from 1000 s.f. in order to allow their proposed arrays. Without such a change, the request would not meet the standards and would need to be amended or staff would recommend denial. If the City increases the maximum square footage, staff believes that the conditions are satisfied. Staff has provided potential findings for each condition in italics. • Solar Equipment shall only be permitted on a parcel which is five acres or greater in area. The subject property is 75 acres in area. • Solar Equipment shall only be allowed as an accessory use on a parcel with an existing principal structure. A new home is currently under construction on the Property. • Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines. The Solar Equipment is proposed 100 feet from the northern property line and hundreds of feet from other property lines. • The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 1000 square feet. This limitation is the subject of the requested text amendment. If the Planning Commission and City Council do not support increasing the maximum allowed footprint area, the proposed array would be larger than permitted. In such a case, staff would recommend that the applicant amend their request with a smaller array or otherwise would recommend denial of the request. • The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 15 feet. The height of the equipment will vary depending on grade, but is proposed to be 15 feet or under at all locations. • The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual impacts of the Solar Equipment. The applicant has submitted the proposed landscaping plan for their property. Substantial plantings are proposed near the proposed solar equipment, especially to the north. • The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes. Compliance with this condition will be confirmed upon permit. • The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co-generation of energy. Staff recommends that this condition be included on the CUP. • All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views. Staff believes that the location of the panels and landscaping are sufficient to mitigate these concerns. Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher Page 5 of 7 April 11, 2017 Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting • The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses. Staff has recommended a number of conditions, and the Planning Commission and Council can add if they find it appropriate. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation Section 825.39 of the City Code establishes general criteria which apply to all conditional uses. Staff has provided potential findings for each criterion in italics. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Staff does not believe the solar equipment will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor impair values. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Staff does not believe the installation of solar equipment will impede normal and orderly development. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff does not believe the installation of solar equipment will affect utilities, roads, drainage or other facilities. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Parking is not relevant for the installation of solar equipment. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Staff does not believe the installation of solar equipment will create odor, fumes, dust, noise or vibration. Staff recommends a condition that the equipment be non-reflective. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The proposed use is permitted in the district subject to relevant requirements. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The proposed use is permitted in the district subject to relevant requirements. If the City does not increase the maximum allowed footprint, the proposal would be need to be amended in order to be consistent with the purposes of the ordinance. Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher Page 6 of 7 April 11, 2017 Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Generally, the use is consistent with policies of the City, with the exception of the size of the arrays. If the City does not increase the maximum allowed footprint, the proposal would be need to be amended in order to be consistent with the purposes of the ordinance. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. The solar equipment will not affect traffic. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Staff believes that the location of the panels and landscaping are sufficient to mitigate these concerns. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant intends to install the solar equipment this summer. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. The applicant is listed as the owner in Hennepin County records. The City has a relatively low amount of discretion in the review of conditional use permits. If the proposal meets the general criteria noted above and the specific standards previously discussed, it should be approved. The City may impose, in addition to those standards and requirements expressly specified in this Ordinance, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interests of the community. In this case, the proposed footprint of solar equipment exceeds the maximum permitted, unless the City amends the code as requested by the applicant. If the City declines to amend the zoning code, staff would recommend that the CUP proposal be amended to 1000 s.f. or would recommend denial. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance to increase the maximum footprint of solar equipment. Staff also recommends that arrays under 1000 s.f. be a permitted use rather than requiring a CUP. If the City increases the maximum footprint above that requested by the applicant, staff would recommend approval of the CUP, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of the requested CUP is contingent upon an amendment to the zoning ordinance increasing the maximum footprint of solar equipment. 2) The solar equipment shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 3) The applicant shall install landscaping adjacent to the solar equipment as shown on the site plan received by the City March 9, 2017. The owner of the property shall be responsible to maintain the vegetation as long as the Solar Equipment is installed on the Property. 4) The solar equipment shall be non-reflective in nature. 5) The applicant shall provide an emergency response plan to the Police and Fire Department for review. 6) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for installation of the solar equipment and shall meet all relevant requirements. Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher Page 7 of 7 April 11, 2017 Zoning Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting 7) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and other relevant documents. Potential Motion If the Planning Commission finds that it is appropriate to increase the maximum footprint of Solar Equipment on rural property, the following motions would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding Solar Equipment. Move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the findings and subject to the conditions described in the staff report. Attachments 1) DRAFT ordinance 2) List of Documents 3) Applicant Narrative/Solar Equipment specifications 4) Site Plan Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SOLAR EQUIPMENT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 828.09 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleted the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 828.09. Solar Equipment. Any equipment or device that utilizes, operates or supplies energy derived from the sun shall meet the following standards: Subd. 1. Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure. The following standards shall apply to Solar Equipment which is affixed to a structure: (a) The equipment or device must be affixed to a structure and meet all setback requirements for principal structures in the zoning district where located. (b) The equipment or device may not exceed the height of the building by more than five feet, and shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed. (c) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes. (d) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co-generation of energy. (e) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views. (f) Solar equipment which is mounted to a roof which is not flat, and which is visible from the nearest right-of-way, shall not have a finished pitch more than five percent steeper than the roof. (g) The zoning administrator may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood, if applicable. Subd. 2. Ground-mounted Solar Equipment, if not affixed to a structure. (a) The following standards shall apply to Ground-mounted Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure, within the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts: (i) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure shall only be permitted in the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts and only following Conditional Use Permit approval. (ii) Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 300 feet from residential property. (iii) Solar Equipment shall meet all setback requirements for principal structures in the zoning district where located. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE (iv) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall be considered lot coverage and impervious surface for the purpose of calculating such standards. The footprint shall include all space between pieces of Solar Equipment, unless the pieces are separated by more than 25 feet. (v) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 20% of the lot. (vi) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 20 feet. (vii) The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual impacts of the mounting devices of the Solar Equipment. (viii) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes. (ix) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co-generation of energy. (x) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views. (xi) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses. (b) The following standards shall apply to Ground-mounted Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure, within residential zoning districts in which such Equipment is permitted: (i) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure shall only be permitted in the Agricultural Preservation, Rural Residential, Rural Residential- Urban Reserve, Rural Residential-1, and Rural Residential-2 zoning districts and only following Conditional Use Permit approval. (ii) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall only be permitted on a parcel which is five acres or greater in area. (iii) Solar Equipment shall only be allowed as an accessory use on a parcel with an existing principal structure. (iv) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines. (v) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 1000 square feet. (vi) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 15 feet. (vii) The City may require lLandscaping or other means of screening shall be installed to limit visual impacts of the structural supports of the Solar Equipment. (viii) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes. (ix) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co-generation of energy. (x) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views. (xi) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1000 square feet shall only be permitted upon conditional use permit review and approval, subject to the conditions noted below: (1) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1000 square feet shall only be permitted on parcels which are 20 acres or greater in area; Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE (2) The production capacity of Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall not exceed the expected electrical demand of the property; (3) The footprint occupied by the Solar Equipment shall not exceed 2500 square feet; (4) The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual impacts of the Solar Equipment; and (1)(5) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses. SECTION II. Section 826.13 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 826.13. (AG) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the agricultural Agricultural preservation Preservation zoning district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Subd. 11. Ground-mounted Solar Eequipment which is not affixed to a structure, subject to conditional use permit approval and compliance with performance standards of section 828.09 subd. 2(b) of this ordinance. SECTION III. Section 826.23 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 826.23. (RR) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within any Rural Residential District the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Subd. 13. Ground-mounted Solar eEquipment which is not affixed to a structure, subject to conditional use permit approval and compliance with performance standards of section 828.09 subd. 2(b) of this ordinance. SECTION IV. Section 826.25.4 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 826.25.4. (RR-UR) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the Urban Reserve district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses when used in conjunction with a principal structure: Subd. 9. Ground-mounted Solar eEquipment which is not affixed to a structure, subject to conditional use permit approval and compliance with performance standards of section 828.09 subd. 2(b) of this ordinance. Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE SECTION V. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _______, 2017. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ______day of _______________,2017. Project: LR-17-196 – Rechelbacher Solar Text Amendment and CUP 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 3/9/2017 3/9/2017 4 Application Y Fee 3/9/2017 3/10/2017 1 Deposit Y $1000 Mailing Labels 3/9/2017 2/21/2017 4 Labels Narrative 3/9/2017 NA 13 Narrative Y Site Plan 3/9/2017 3/8/2017 2 Site Plan Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Legal Comments 3/15/2017 1 Legal Comments Building Official Comments 3/31/2017 1 Building Comments Police Comments 3/16/2017 1 Police Comments Legal Notice 3/31/2017 6 Legal Notice Public Comments Page | 1    __________________________________Solar Array Proposal____________________________  Summary  Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to install a solar array at their home  located at 1822 Homestead Trail, Medina, MN.  They also are requesting a zoning text amendment to Medina City  Ordinance Section 828.09 subdivision 2 entitled “Solar Equipment, if not affixed to a structure”, section b (residential),  section (v) that currently state, “The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 1000 square feet.”      Proposal  The Rechelbacher family would like to harvest solar energy on their 75 acre property to provide for 50% of their  anticipated residential electrical needs.  Electrical analysis of the Rechelbacher home anticipates they will require   55,000‐70,000kWh (kilo Watt Hours) per year, with fluctuations based on winter temperatures and usage.  To produce  50% of their electrical needs, a 28kW solar array is requested.  The array could either be in a 11’ x 130’ = 1,430 sq ft  configuration, or two rows of 11’ x 65’ with 19’ in between rows.  The proposed total solar array footprint is 430 sq feet  over the city ordinance amount of 1,000 sq ft.  It is for this reason the Rechelbachers are requesting a text change to the  current City of Medina Ordinance 828.09 for an increase to the solar footprint.     Two solar arrays rows measuring 11’ by 65’ each, with a height less than 15’, separated with 19’ spacing are  proposed.  The Rechelbachers would place these rows at least 100’ from their north property line that sits close to the  house site.  Existing and to‐be‐planted trees will provide a barrier from the solar array view on the north side of the  property.  New tree plantings and building structures would make it difficult to see the solar arrays from the west and  south views.  East views are completely covered by an existing old growth forest that sits on a hill.   The Rechelbachers would like to make a difference to our natural environment by limiting their energy footprint.   Solar energy avoids air and water pollution that is created by energy sources such as coal, gas and nuclear power.  Unlike  coal, gas or uranium used for nuclear power, solar energy is a renewable resource that does not have limited deposits  within the earth. Solar power removes a homeowner’s dependence on large energy networks.  The footprint of solar  arrays allows for natural grasses to grow whose deep roots help our hydrosphere to recirculate rain water back into  aquifers. Solar energy assists in providing cleaner air, water and natural environments.                           Page | 2    _______Proposed Solar Field and Landscaping_______    Solar Array Rows Page | 3    Page | 4    ____________________Solar Installation Provider______________________  All Energy Solar Contact:  Nick Nelson   Director of Business Development  Cell:     (651) 334‐6286  Office:  (800) 620‐3370        Page | 5             Page | 6    _______________________________Proposed Solar Panels___________________________    Page | 7      Page | 8      Page | 9      Page | 10    ________________________Proposed Solar Electrical Inverter__________________  (A solar inverter converts the variable direct current (DC) output of a photovoltaic (PV) solar panel into a utility  frequency alternating current (AC) that can be fed into a commercial electrical grid or used by a local, off‐grid electrical  network.)        Page | 11              Page | 12                        Page | 13                March 8, 2017RECHELBACHERMedina, MN© 2017 HART HOWERTON. Th e designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. Th e drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton.Conceptual Master Plan1/4 ac1/8 ac0 80 160 240 320'1" = 80' at 24" x 36"1 min. WalkConservation Conservation EasementEasementSolar ArraySolar ArrayProperty LineProperty LineProperty LineProperty LineProperty Line March 8, 2017RECHELBACHERMedina, MN© 2017 HART HOWERTON. Th e designs and concepts shown are the sole property of Hart Howerton. Th e drawings may not be used except with the expressed written consent of Hart Howerton.Enlarged House Plan0 30 60 90 120'1" = 30' at 24" x 36"Conservation Conservation EasementEasementSolar Array- (2) Rows of Solar Panels- 11' x 65' Each Row- 40 Panels per Row for a total of 80 Panels (28 kWh)100' Minimum 100' Minimum SetbackSetbackProperty Line19' Between Rows19' Between Rows Certificate of Survey 858.00 (52 rods) Center of Sec. 4 — North Line of the SW % of Sec. 4 Sep tic N Pole Born — 342.42 N89'39:3411,1 Line Parallel with the East Line of \ .)‹ the SE % of the f:•'( \ SW%ofSec. 4 \ \ \\ \ N MAR 2 9 2017 2 9 2017 eh�cke�� Coop [o(cL D(\ lax12 Line Parallel with the South Line of the SE % of the SW % of Sec. 4 N8525'471.1 482.73 D. - • NO1'09'47"W parallel \ N0074 40"W meas. •\ / 5.25 200.00 Gravel 84'16'0" _,NOI 09'47"W ✓1315 .2' ..._...._Cote 24 •4300" 'Point "A" 11 •\ • _' ,„N88"50'13"E 33.00 Telephone E .Pedestal ... - Edge of Bit. NO1b9 7 a 0 I 0 •—Edge of Greve Henn r'•• Come, I T. 116 \'.s. Edge of Bit. e Southeast ;)f Section 4, inty, Minnesota I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Requested By: Joe Molde Paul E. Otto License #40062 Date: 11-16-16 Date: 11-11-16 Drawn By: T.J.B. Scale: 1 "=60' Checked By. P.E.c Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 1 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debra Peterson, Associate Planner through Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: April 4, 2017 MEETING: April 11, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Molde – Animal Structure Setback Variance – 4035 Apache Drive Review Deadline Complete Application Received: March 15, 2017 Review Deadline: July 1 2, 2015 Overview of Request Joe Molde has requested a variance to reduce the required setback for a small animal structure from 150 feet to 40 feet. The applicant proposes to house chickens on the property, but there are no locations to construct a coop that would meet the required 150 foot setback. The subject site is 3.5 acres in area and includes the home and pole barn. The property is triangular in shape and has wetlands on the southern half. Easements occupy the east and west property lines. The applicant proposes to place the small chicken coop between the house and pole barn. An aerial photograph of the site can be found at the top of the following page. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR). According to the district “Livestock or traditional farm animals are permitted on properties two acres or larger at a maximum density of one animal unit for the first two Grazable Acres of land and one additional animal unit for each Grazable Acre of land thereafter.” The subject site includes approximately just over one Grazable Acre and is 3.5 gross acres in area. The RR district would permit one animal unit for the first two acres of land and one additional animal unit for each Grazable Acre of land thereafter. The subject property would be allowed just over ½ animal units. One-half animal unit is equivalent to one llama or 50 chickens. However, a structure for animals is required to be setback 150 feet from property lines. Because of the shape of the lot, and easements there are no locations on the site which could meet this setback. The applicant proposes a small shed no larger than 144 square feet to be set 40 feet from the northern property line. The shed would be over 150 feet from the two neighboring driveways to the east and west. The property owner to the north contacted staff and stated they did not have any concern with a chicken coop being 40 feet from their property line. In a previous Variance request, a condition of the variance was to have a more stringent condition on the number of animal units allowed on the property. Perhaps limiting the number of animal units from .5 to .3 is an option. In a different zoning district (RR1) within the City we require only a 75 foot setback for animal structures, and place limitations on the number of horses permitted on a property at two. It appears that the chicken coop could be located south of the existing driveway, which could increase the set back over 75 feet from all property lines in order to reduce the setback variance. The applicant argues that this location is too close to the Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 2 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting wetland and would not be practical. In addition, the location would then be less than 150 feet from the southern property line requiring two variances in order to increase the setback from the northern line. The proposed location would only require a single variance from the northern property line, albeit a larger variance. Analysis According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the following criteria when reviewing a variance request: “Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances. (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 3 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Staff believes the variance has little bearing on the Comprehensive Plan and is certainly not inconsistent with the Plan. Staff does not believe the variance would alter the essential character of the locality. The triangular shape of the lot is unique, as is the fact that the lot is uniquely small for a rural lot, having been created prior to more current standards. The circumstances are also unique because the lot is burdened by right-of-way and a driveway easement and includes a fair amount of wetlands. It appears the primary questions are whether the proposed use is reasonable and if the variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The proposed use is, on its face reasonable, since animals are permitted on the property but with no location for a smaller chicken coop shelter. It may be reasonable to find the opposite: the fact that a location for a shelter cannot be found that meets setbacks could suggest that keeping animals on the property is not a reasonable use. Staff does believe that the 150 foot setback was established with larger livestock in mind. The purpose would appear to be to limit the impact the animals may have on adjoining owners. It could be reasonably argued that the limitation of animal units in this case serves a similar purpose and intent in limiting impacts. Staff does not oppose the variance. The adjacent property to the north which is closest to the coop is very wooded and is naturally screened. Staff also believes limiting the animal units to 0.3 would also help limit impacts. If the Commission finds that the variance criteria are met, staff would recommend the following conditions be attached to any recommendation of approval: 1) The maximum animal units permitted to be kept on the property shall be reduced by 50%. 2) The applicant shall not remove any of the vegetation surrounding the proposed animal structure without replacing on an inch:inch basis. 3) The applicant shall utilize the variance within one year of approval, or the variance shall be considered null and void. 4) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the variance and other relevant documents. Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 4 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting Potential Motion If the Commission finds that the variance criteria are met, the following motion would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the variance based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to conditions recommended by staff. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Applicant Narrative received 3/29/17 3. Survey received by the City 3/29/17 Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 1 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debra Peterson, Associate Planner through Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: April 4, 2017 MEETING: April 11, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Molde – Animal Structure Setback Variance – 4035 Apache Drive Review Deadline Complete Application Received: March 15, 2017 Review Deadline: July 1 2, 2015 Overview of Request Joe Molde has requested a variance to reduce the required setback for a small animal structure from 150 feet to 40 feet. The applicant proposes to house chickens on the property, but there are no locations to construct a coop that would meet the required 150 foot setback. The subject site is 3.5 acres in area and includes the home and pole barn. The property is triangular in shape and has wetlands on the southern half. Easements occupy the east and west property lines. The applicant proposes to place the small chicken coop between the house and pole barn. An aerial photograph of the site can be found at the top of the following page. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR). According to the district “Livestock or traditional farm animals are permitted on properties two acres or larger at a maximum density of one animal unit for the first two Grazable Acres of land and one additional animal unit for each Grazable Acre of land thereafter.” The subject site includes approximately just over one Grazable Acre and is 3.5 gross acres in area. The RR district would permit one animal unit for the first two acres of land and one additional animal unit for each Grazable Acre of land thereafter. The subject property would be allowed just over ½ animal units. One-half animal unit is equivalent to one llama or 50 chickens. However, a structure for animals is required to be setback 150 feet from property lines. Because of the shape of the lot, and easements there are no locations on the site which could meet this setback. The applicant proposes a small shed no larger than 144 square feet to be set 40 feet from the northern property line. The shed would be over 150 feet from the two neighboring driveways to the east and west. The property owner to the north contacted staff and stated they did not have any concern with a chicken coop being 40 feet from their property line. In a previous Variance request, a condition of the variance was to have a more stringent condition on the number of animal units allowed on the property. Perhaps limiting the number of animal units from .5 to .3 is an option. In a different zoning district (RR1) within the City we require only a 75 foot setback for animal structures, and place limitations on the number of horses permitted on a property at two. It appears that the chicken coop could be located south of the existing driveway, which could increase the set back over 75 feet from all property lines in order to reduce the setback variance. The applicant argues that this location is too close to the Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 2 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting wetland and would not be practical. In addition, the location would then be less than 150 feet from the southern property line requiring two variances in order to increase the setback from the northern line. The proposed location would only require a single variance from the northern property line, albeit a larger variance. Analysis According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the following criteria when reviewing a variance request: “Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances. (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 3 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Staff believes the variance has little bearing on the Comprehensive Plan and is certainly not inconsistent with the Plan. Staff does not believe the variance would alter the essential character of the locality. The triangular shape of the lot is unique, as is the fact that the lot is uniquely small for a rural lot, having been created prior to more current standards. The circumstances are also unique because the lot is burdened by right-of-way and a driveway easement and includes a fair amount of wetlands. It appears the primary questions are whether the proposed use is reasonable and if the variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The proposed use is, on its face reasonable, since animals are permitted on the property but with no location for a smaller chicken coop shelter. It may be reasonable to find the opposite: the fact that a location for a shelter cannot be found that meets setbacks could suggest that keeping animals on the property is not a reasonable use. Staff does believe that the 150 foot setback was established with larger livestock in mind. The purpose would appear to be to limit the impact the animals may have on adjoining owners. It could be reasonably argued that the limitation of animal units in this case serves a similar purpose and intent in limiting impacts. Staff does not oppose the variance. The adjacent property to the north which is closest to the coop is very wooded and is naturally screened. Staff also believes limiting the animal units to 0.3 would also help limit impacts. If the Commission finds that the variance criteria are met, staff would recommend the following conditions be attached to any recommendation of approval: 1) The maximum animal units permitted to be kept on the property shall be reduced by 50%. 2) The applicant shall not remove any of the vegetation surrounding the proposed animal structure without replacing on an inch:inch basis. 3) The applicant shall utilize the variance within one year of approval, or the variance shall be considered null and void. 4) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the variance and other relevant documents. Agenda Item #8 Joe Molde Page 4 of 4 April 11, 2017 Animal Structure Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting Potential Motion If the Commission finds that the variance criteria are met, the following motion would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the variance based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to conditions recommended by staff. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Applicant Narrative received 3/29/17 3. Survey received by the City 3/29/17 Project: LR-17-198 – Molde Variance 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 3/15/17 3/15/17 5 Yes Yes Fee 3/15/17 3/15/17 Yes Yes $1000.00 Mailing Labels 3/15/17 3/15/17 3 Yes Yes Narrative 3/15/17 3/15/17 1 Yes Yes Updated Narrative 3/29/17 3/29/17 1 Yes Yes Survey 3/15/17 3/29/17 1 Yes Yes Updated Survey 3/29/17 3/29/17 1 Yes Yes Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes PH Mailing with affidavit of mailing 3/31/17 5 No Planning email (Peterson) sent to DRC 3/22/17 1 Yes Email for review Planning email (Finke) to applic - 3/27/17 1 Yes Planning review comments to applicant Public Comments: 4/3/17 Calvin E. Ladd of 4125 Apache Dr. Medina, contacted staff asking about Variance request. He stated he did not have any issues with the coop being placed 40 feet from his southern property line. To who it may concern, 3/29/2017 We are requesting a variance for a chicken coop. The most adequate space for this would be approximately 40" from the property line 5 feet north of the corner of our mound system. This will be a dry safe place for our chicken coop, as all of our property south of the gravel drive is wetland, west of the house has a septic and mound system, and south of the lean to is wetland and on a hill. We would like to have an approximate 12x12 building & run to accommodate approximately 10 chickens for egg laying. IIECEOVE MAR 2 9 2017 2 9 2017 D