HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-11-2017 POSTED IN CITY HALL JULY 7, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 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. Public Hearing – Lunski, Inc. – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Site
Plan Review for a 90 unit Senior Assisted Living/Independent Living
Community and Office Building located North of State Hwy 55, South
of Chippewa Rd and west of Mohawk Dr. (PID#03-118-23-32-0007)
6. Public Hearing – Buddy and Kim Snow – 2402 Hamel Road –
Conditional Use Permit to construct a second principal home on Rural
Residential property over 40 acres
7. 32 Hamel Road LLC – 32, 36, 42 Hamel Road – Preliminary/Final Plat
to combine three lots into one
8. New Email Address Check-in
9. Approval of June 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
10. Council Meeting Schedule
11. Adjourn
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
__________________________________________________________________
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Nate Sparks
DATE: July 6, 2017
RE: Medina Senior Living Community Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review
CITY FILE: LR-17-204
Application Date: June 19, 2017
Review Deadline: August 18, 2017
BACKGROUND
Lunski, Inc. has made an application for a rezoning, preliminary plat, and site plan review for development of a
three-story 90 unit senior housing building, a two-story medical office building, and a lot for future
development.
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in February as a Concept Plan. The
Concept was for an 80 unit senior building, a medical/office building, and a commercial building. The Planning
Commission discussed the rezoning as being generally acceptable. However, there were concerns voiced about
the size of the project being too intense for the site. The Council discussed concerns about parking, building
height, and wetland impacts. The applicant removed the commercial building from the site and increased the
amount of parking provided, and increased the number of independent/assisted living units.
PROJECT SITE
The property is located north of Highway 55, west of Mohawk Drive, and south of Chippewa Road. The site is
10.8 acres in size. There is a 2.6 acre wetland on the lot. Much of the site is wooded.
ZONING / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject site is guided for a Commercial land use in the current Comprehensive Plan and Business in the
proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The property is zoned RCH, Rural Commercial Holding which is an
interim designation for land awaiting urban development. This area is identified for urban development, at this
time.
PROPOSED REZONING
The applicant proposes to rezone the property to B, Business District, which would be consistent with the
direction the City is heading in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. “Nursing homes, assisted living facilities,
and independent living facilities associated with such uses” are a permitted use within this District. In the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, which is still in effect until the 2040 Plan is adopted, this site is guided for a Commercial
land use which contemplates “commercial, office, and retail uses” that are “concentrated along the TH 55
corridor.” The Business zoning district was designed more to implement the Business land use in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and the Commercial-Highway district was designed for the Commercial land use.
However, because the City has contemplated changing the land use of the subject site to Business in the draft
2040 Plan, any rezoning would ideally be generally consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and not in
conflict with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2030 plan does establish unique objectives for the Commercial
and Business land uses, but instead the uses share a similar set of objectives. As such, it could be argued that the
rezoning to Business is not inconsistent with the 2030 Commercial land use, especially within the context of the
proposed change to Business in the draft 2040 Plan update.
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to divide the parcel into four lots. Lot 1 is intended for a private street. Lot 2 is a
3.39 acre site intended for future development. Lot 3 is a 3.08 acre site that is intended to house the senior
facility. Lot 4 is a 3.81 acre lot for a medical clinic/office building. The minimum lot size is 3 acres in the B
District. Lot 1 will need to be an outlot as it is intended for a private street.
The minimum lot width in the B District is 175 feet with a minimum lot depth of 175 feet. It appears that all lots
meet these standards.
Lot Area Upland Area Width Depth
B District Standards 3 acres N/A 175 feet 175 feet
Lot 1 (Outlot for private road) 0.49 acre 0.45 acres 54.75 391.81
Lot 2 3.39 acres 2.64 acres 175 566
Lot 3 3.08 acres 2.13 acres 245 457
Lot 4 3.81 acres 2.99 acres 175 705
The private road needs to be platted within an outlot, pursuant to the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance. If this is not platted in this fashion, Lot 3 would technically have no frontage and would
not comply with City requirements and Lot 1 would not comply with minimum lot standards.
Park dedication will be required with the plat. The Park Commission will review the application. At the concept
plan review, the Park Commission discussed that a trail along Chippewa Road may be required.
SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
Site Access
The site is proposed to be accessed by a 24 foot private street off of Chippewa Road. The street is on the plan
within Lot 1, which needs to be changed to an outlot. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires private streets
to meet City road standards. The outlot will need to be owned by an association to which all lots would be
members.
The proposed private street is not centered in the proposed outlot. The applicant states that this is due to grade
changes towards the western property line and to balance the need for spacing between the access point to the
west and wetlands to the east. The private road needs to be located within the Outlot. Drainage and utility
easements should be enlarged along the outlot subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. This also
results in the trail along the drive being on the individual lots. The trail should be placed within an easement to
ensure it may be used by all site users.
The City Engineer requested a traffic study and some additional information has been requested. This
information will determine the necessity of any turn lanes or improvements at nearby intersections.
Senior Housing Building
The senior facility is proposed with 90 units and about 100,000 square feet. There are 32 one bedroom, 14 two-
bedroom, 10 memory care, 5 special care, and 29 studio units. The units range from roughly 450 square feet for
the studio, 580 square feet for the one bed room, and 900 for the two-bedroom units with some variation. The
special and memory care units are smaller. There are 48 garage stalls proposed on the lowest level of the
building.
45 of the units are for “independent living.” The B District allows for assisted living facilities with independent
living “associated” with the use. This would appear to require 50% of the units, at minimum, to be assisted
living with the remaining independent units to be age restricted. Of the 45 assisted living units, 15 are proposed
to be memory/special care.
The proposed building is three stories tall. The average roof height to adjacent grade is 44' 2.5”. The B District
allows building heights of 30 feet, 35 feet with sprinklers, and 45 feet with necessary conditions required by the
fire marshal. Required yard setbacks are required to be increased for buildings greater than 35 feet in height by
the amount they exceed 35 feet in height. This would be an additional 9 feet.
In the B District, all exterior building materials are required to meet the following standards:
(a) A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco (not Exterior Insulation
and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass.
(b) A maximum of 80 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or
decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color impregnated in earth tones (rather than
painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
(c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper), fiber cement lap siding or Exterior
Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall
building design.
The proposed building is 19% masonry, 17% stone, 8% lap siding, 26% stucco, and 30% glass. This appears to
meet the requirements for the exterior finish. The detail on the material comprising the lap siding should be
provided.
Building modulation is required for every 100 feet of horizontal length. The proposed structure is meeting this
requirement.
Medical Office Building
The proposed medical/office building is two stories in height and about 25,000 square feet. The proposed floor
plan is not very detailed and just shows general space. The plans state that average roof height to adjacent grade
is 35' 6”. The building appears to be meeting the building modulation requirements.
The proposed building is 58% masonry, 8% “architectural wood veneer”, 12% stucco, and 22% glass. This
appears to be consistent with the required architectural standards.
Lot 2
No construction is proposed for Lot 2, at this time. A demonstration building has been placed on the lot for
conceptual review.
Setbacks & Performance Standards
Within the B District, the minimum front yard setback is 40 feet. This may be reduced to 30 feet for a private
street. Setbacks to arterial roads are required to be 50 feet. Side and rear yard setbacks are required to be 25
feet, which may be reduced to 15 feet in order to accommodate shared site improvements.
Yard setbacks are required to be increased for buildings greater than 35 feet in height. This would add slightly
over 9 feet of required setback to the senior building and 6 inches to the setback of the medical/office building.
The medical/office building appears to be exactly 50 feet from the Highway 55 right-of-way, which cannot
accommodate the extra six inches of setback. The senior building appears to be able to accommodate the extra 9
feet of setback to the private road and side and rear lot lines.
Parking lots are required to have a 25 foot front yard setback, 25 feet to a street side yard, 20 feet for a street side
yard to a private street, and 15 feet to the side and rear yard. The side and rear yard parking setback may be
reduced in cases where the parking is shared, as is proposed in this situation. As proposed, it appears that these
setbacks are generally met.
In Section 832.2.06 it states that there is a 100 foot setback to residential zoned areas for both buildings and
parking lots. The properties across Chippewa Road are zoned residential. The right-of-way is 66 feet in width,
leaving at least 34 feet on the subject site to account for. The 40 foot front yard building setback would be
greater this distance, however, the setback for a parking lot may need to be adjusted. There are reductions
available for this setback when additional landscaping is placed for screening purposes.
The B District standards state that impervious surfaces are capped at 70% unless utilizing shared improvements
when the limit may be raised to 80%. The applicant will need to demonstrate that this standard is being met.
The applicant is currently proposing to meet this standard by using porous pavement.
There is a proposed skyway between the two buildings. Existing regulations do not provide a means to allow an
encroachment on required yards for such a structural element.
Tree Preservation & Landscaping
Section 828.41 of the Zoning Ordinance states requirements for tree preservation. For a property of this size,
the allowed significant tree (8 caliper inches in diameter) removal related to “initial site development” is 10%.
Initial site development is the “grading and construction of streets, trails, and sidewalks; the installation of
utilities including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, natural gas, electric, and cable television; or the grading
and construction of drainage ways and storm detention areas.”
Activities other than the initial site development are permitted at 15% removal of significant trees for lots of
about 3 acres in size. This would allow for 15% removal of trees on the three lots being created for building
sites.
On the tree preservation plan, it is stated that there are 1944 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The
table of trees appears to have 1943 inches of trees. The allowed removal for initial site development (10%)
would allow for 193 inches of removal. The plan states there are 183 inches being removed for initial site
development. One tree on Lot 1, which is the lot intended for the private street, is incorrectly labeled as a
removal for “lot development” instead of initial development. Adding this tree to the total would result in 191
inches of trees being removed for the initial site development out of the permitted 193 inches.
For tree removal related to the site development, the applicant is using the three development sites as one. As
stated during the concept plan review, this is intended to be 15% on each lot. One of the three lots is not
proposed for development, at this time, and by including these trees in the total would only be acceptable if this
were intended to be some sort of conservation area where the trees were intended for preservation. However, it
is a future development site.
The tree removal table on C2.0 shows 372.5 caliper inches of removal for “lot development.” An examination
of these numbers appears to actually show a total “lot development” removal of 395.5 inches. These numbers
were provided on a lot-by-lot basis but the totals were not broken down in that manner.
Lot 3 has 40.5 inches of significant trees. The 15% removal would allow for about 6 inches of trees to be
removed. All 40.5 inches are proposed for removal. This results in about 34.5 inches of necessary replacement.
Lot 4 has 460 inches of significant trees after the initial development removal. The 15% removal would allow
for 69 inches of trees to be removed. 355 inches are proposed for removal. This results in 286 inches of
necessary replacement.
This would appear result in a total required tree replacement for development on Lots 3 and 4 of about 320.5
inches rather than the 80 inches identified on the plan. It may be advisable for the applicant to revise the tree
preservation plan and quantify removal for each lot independently. The applicant has stated that they are
intending to meet the tree replacement requirements with the landscaping plan.
The landscaping plan requirements for development in the B District would be 56 overstory trees, 28 ornamental
trees, and 94 shrubs. The applicant's plan summary states they are providing 58 three inch in diameter overstory
trees, 28 two inch ornamental trees, and 137 24” tall shrubs. The planting schedule provided with the plan
actually shows 57 overstory trees, 27 ornamental trees, and 131 shrubs. The plan itself appears to show 50
overstory trees, 28 ornamental trees, and 113 shrubs. The plans, plan summary, and the planting schedule should
be revised to be consistent.
Overstory trees are required to be 2.5” in diameter for landscaping purposes. Ornamental trees are required to be
two inches in diameter. Shrubs are required to be 24” inches. The proposed ornamental trees and shrubs meet
the minimum size standards while the overstory trees are 0.5” inches greater than the minimum required.
Eight percent of the parking area is required to be landscaped. The applicant states that the parking lot area is
54,872 square feet. The plan states they are providing 4,431 square feet of green space. This totals 8.08%.
Landscaping in the parking lots is required to be in islands at least 12 feet in width, which appears to be met.
The building is required to be separated from parking areas and access drives by landscaping in areas at least 12
feet wide, which also appears to be met.
Tree replacement is intended to be over and above the minimum requirements of the landscaping plan.
Replacement trees are required to be native trees identified on the list in Sudivision 10 of the Tree Preservation
Ordinance. Replacement trees are required to be a minimum of two inches in diameter. The applicant is
proposing some trees in the landscaping plan that are greater than the required 2.5 inches. Perhaps, the intent is
for 0.5 inches to be applied to the replacement requirement. If there were 57 trees provided, this would result in
a reduction of about 28.5 inches of replacement trees.
All mechanical equipment, trash areas, and loading docks are required to be screened. Also, Section 828.07
requires screening from any commercial use to a residential use which would require screening on Lot 2.
Lighting
As required by Ordinance, a photometric lighting plan has been submitted for review. The subject site lies
within Lighting Zone E4 which corresponds to areas which exhibit high ambient lighting levels. The zone
generally includes urban areas with primary land uses for commercial, business and industrial activity (including
highway commercial and downtown districts).
According to the lighting plan, a total of 44 exterior fixtures are proposed upon the subject property as
summarized below:
Type Plan Symbol Height Quantity Arrangement
Parking Lot Fixture (Commercial) A2 32 feet* 2 Back to back
Parking Lot Fixture (Senior
Residential)
B4 & B5 22 feet* 11 Single
Pedestrian Scale Fixture C 12 feet 13 Single
Pedestrian Scale Fixture D 3.5 feet 13 Single
Wall Sconce WP15 NA 5 Single
* Referenced fixture height includes 2-foot pole base
As shown, all proposed light fixtures meet the maximum pole height requirements of 32’ - 6” (30 feet plus a pole
base which does not exceed a height of 30 inches).
Consistent with Ordinance requirements (for E4 zones), all fixtures are proposed to have an output of less than
2,000 lumens and are to be fully shielded such that light sources are not visible from adjacent properties and
rights-of-way.
Within E4 zones, the Ordinance stipulates that maximum lighting levels at the property line must not exceed 1.5
footcandles before curfew and 0.6 footcandles “after curfew.” In review of the photometric lighting plan, it
appears that maximum lighting levels at the property line measure 0.1 footcandles which conforms with
Ordinance requirements.
The submitted lighting plan does not provide any information related to the illumination of site and building
signage. Conformance with the lighting requirements of Section 829 of the Ordinance will be required as a
condition of sign permit approvals.
Signage
In Section 815.11, the B District allows for one free standing sign per lot up to 80 square feet of sign area and 20
feet in height. Signs are required to be setback 10 feet from all property lines and outside of a clear vision
triangle for a street or access drive. There are three free standing signs proposed. A multi-tenant pylon sign is
proposed on Lot 2, which would technically be a sign on a lot without a principal use since no construction is
proposed for this lot, at this time. A monument sign is proposed for Lot 3, which does not appear to be meeting
setbacks and could be viewed as being within a clear vision triangle of the private street and access drive. A
pylon sign with a dynamic display is proposed for Lot 4. This will need to demonstrate compliance to the City's
brightness requirements. The illumination and lighting related to the signs were not included in the photometric
plan.
Off-Street Parking
The plan currently has 217 stalls on the site. The parking areas are proposed to be shared. The City's parking
ordinance states that the required parking is required to be on the parcel with the use generating the parking
demand except in cases of shared or joint parking. This may be deemed acceptable provided there is an
association in place to manage this common element adequately to ensure the proper amount of parking is
provided at all times.
Section 828.51 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all parking stalls be a minimum of 9' x 19' with a two-way
drive aisle width of 22 feet. The City may require that primary drive aisles be increased to 24' in width. The
plan generally shows the primary drive aisles with a 24 foot width and the secondary with a 22' width. The
ordinance states that a maximum of 20% of the required stalls may be provided as compact car spaces, which are
required to be a minimum of 8' x 16' in size.
Section 828.51 Subd. 1 (j) states that “to the extent practicable, dead end drives shall not be permitted.” There is
a dead end drive aisle for parking on the east end of the medical/office building. The fire marshal required a fire
truck turn around if this is to be permitted. There is a proposed car turnaround at the end of the drive, which
should be made larger or it would be ineffective. This would likely result in the removal of an additional
parking stall.
The number of stall required for the medical/office building is based on 1 stall per 250 square feet. This results
in a parking requirement of 100 stalls. The applicant is providing 33 stalls on the lowest level of the building
and the remainder in the parking lots.
The senior building does not have a specific number designated for required parking. Therefore, the Planning
Commission is to review the parking and make a recommendation to the City Council. It is important to keep in
mind that the required parking is to accommodate residents, guests, and employees. Fluctuations in the number
of independent living units versus the assisted living units could alter the number of needed parking stalls.
Therefore, it is very important that the proper number of stalls be provided on the site. City Staff reviewed the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Standards Manual which recommends 0.4 stalls per unit for senior assisted
living and 0.35 stalls per unit for memory/special care units. The remaining independent living units could defer
to the City's multi-family parking standard for 2.25 stalls per unit. This would result in a parking requirement of
120 stalls. Alternatively, the City could allow 1 stall per unit for the 29 studio units which would reduce the
required parking by about 36 stalls. 48 stalls are being provided in the lowest level of the building.
Grading & Drainage
In the B District standards, in Section 832.3.03, states that “site improvements shall be designed in a way which
most effectively maintains predevelopment topography, drainage patterns and ecological functions.” It also
states that “drainage and stormwater improvements shall be designed with an emphasis on integrated stormwater
management practices such as vegetative swales, filter strips, biorention, and similar improvements as approved
by the city rather than pipes and retention ponds.”
The proposed site is being raised in order to accommodate the development. There is a portion of a wetland on
site being filled. The City Engineer has provided comments related to grading and drainage.
Stormwater comments from the City Engineer and Watershed District may require significant revisions to the
storm sewer plan for the site. The applicant is using porous pavement for a portion of the parking lot, in order to
meet impervious surface requirements. Specifications on this pavement type should be provided. Water quality
modelling components will need to be identified.
Wetlands
There is a 2.6 acre wetland on the site. This wetland is identified as a “Manage 1” classification. This requires
an average of a 30 foot wetland buffer with a minimum of 20 feet. The setback from a principal structure to the
buffer is 15 feet and 5 feet for accessory structures. Private trails, parking areas, and structures are not permitted
within the buffer. The plan should clearly depict the wetland buffer distance being used at all points and the
method by which the wetland buffer is being averaged. It appears that there are structural elements that are
likely not meeting the required wetland buffer setback.
There are areas where the wetland buffer has been made steeper than watershed district standards, which
requires additional buffering. The Elm Creek Watershed District has provided comments. These comments
cause the need for plan revisions, so Staff is not recommending action until the changes are provided for review.
Wetland impacts are proposed with the plan. There is also a boardwalk proposed over the wetland. The City
Engineer has requested additional information regarding these impacts and the WCA application.
Utilities
The site will be serviced by sewer and water. The City Engineer has provided comments and requested
revisions. Easements for utility mains may be required.
Association Documents
Due to the shared parking and the private street, a strong association will be required for this development. Draft
covenants were provided and reviewed by the City Attorney. The Attorney recommended revisions to ensure
that the association and not the developer is the declarant and that the easements be made to continue in
perpetuity to ensure that the easements can't be terminated. Also, is was recommended that there not be clauses
placing restrictions on the reciprocal agreements that would weaken the shared parking concept. The applicant
should work with the City Attorney on making revisions to these documents.
REQUEST REVIEW
The applicant is proposing a rezoning to B, Business which will correspond with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is still in effect, identifies this parcel as Commercial. The General
Business designation more directly corresponded with the Business District. The Comprehensive Plan discusses
the two designations as follows:
Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments; can include
commercial, office and retail uses; is concentrated along the TH 55 corridor and are served or will be served by
urban services.
General Business (GB) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including light industrial and retail
uses. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office and business park developments
and are served or will be served by urban services.
The purpose of the Business District is:
“The purpose of the Business (B) district is to provide for a zoning district for a mix of office, high quality light
industrial, and larger-scale retail and service uses with proximity to arterial roadways. Development shall include
high quality and attractive building materials and architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order
to limit impacts on surrounding land uses, and shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently
utilize site improvements and to protect the natural environment.”
The rezoning will need to be found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The site plan has some issues that will need to be corrected in order to meet all zoning requirements.
In the Subdivision Ordinance it is stated that the City shall deny approval of a preliminary plat if one or a
combination of the following finding are made:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the
proposed subdivision is premature.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils,
susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type
of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot
size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial
environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health
problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets,
easements or right-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is proposing to develop the property by putting two uses on two lots that share parking and utilize
a private street. The two uses and the associated parking are fully utilizing the site and there appears to be some
plan revisions necessary to meet stormwater requirements, wetland buffers, tree preservation, minimum parking,
and setbacks. A third lot is being made available for future development that would also result in additional tree
removal and storm water management issues.
If the Planning Commission finds that this application is not meeting the necessary review criteria, it would be
appropriate to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council.
Otherwise, the Planning Commission may wish to table this request to allow for the adjustments to the plans
requested by the Watershed District and the City Engineer and also provide comments to the applicant on
desired revisions to the plan. Staff would recommend the following issues, at minimum, be addressed:
1. Mechanism for ensuring the senior building meets zoning shall be identified. This includes limitations
on independent living units and required parking provisions.
2. Lot 1 shall be identified as an Outlot.
3. Impervious surface calculations shall be provided.
4. The tree preservation plan shall be revised.
5. The landscaping plan shall be revised.
6. The turnaround on the dead end parking area shall be increased in size.
7. All setback issues shall be corrected.
8. Association documents shall be provided in the manner requested by the City Attorney.
9. All comments from the Elm Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
10. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
Attached:
Aerial Photo
List of Documents
Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Planning Commission minutes
Excerpt from February 21, 2017 City Council minutes
Engineer’s Comments received 7/6/2017
Elm Creek Watershed District Comments received 7/6/2017
Applicant’s Narrative
Preliminary Plat
Plan Set dated 6/19/2017
Project: LR‐17‐204 – Lunski Senior Community Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 3 Y Y Fee 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 1 Y Y $11,000 Narrative 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 4 Y Y Labels 6/19/2017 NA 1 Y Y Labels inaccurate; staff updated Plan Set 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 23 Y Y Plan Set – Updated 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 25 Y Y Soils Map 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 3 Y Y Traffic Analysis 5/12/2017 5/10/2017 66 Y Y Preliminary Plat 5/16/2017 5/12/2017 1 Y Y Draft Covenants 6/19/2017 NA 19 Y Y Wetland Replace. App. 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 13 Y Y Stormwater Report 6/19/2017 6/16/2017 142 Y Y (continued on back)
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Legal Comments 5/25/2017 1 Y Legal Comments 6/28/2017 1 Y Building Official Comments 5/26/2017 1 Y Building Official Comments 6/26/2017 1 Y MnDOT Comments 6/1/2017 1 Y No Comments City Engineer Comments 5/30/2017 3 Y City Engineer Comments 7/6/2017 4 Y Elm Creek Watershed Comments 7/6/2017 9 Y No Recommendation Incomplete Letter 6/2/2017 2 Y Legal Notice 6/30/2017 19 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Lunski, Inc. – Concept Plan Review for an 80 Unit, Three-Story
Senior Assisted/Independent Living Facility and Commercial/Medical Office
Development – North of Hwy 55, South of Chippewa Road and West of Mohawk Drive
Finke noted that this is a concept review and therefore following the public hearing the Commission
would simply be asked to provide input. He stated that this request includes an 80-unit senior
housing community which would be a combination of assisted and independent living in addition to
an office, medical office and commercial buildings. He stated that this would not be an allowable use
under the commercial zoning district and is therefore requesting a zoning change that would allow
senior living as a permitted use. He noted that the property will be reguided to business under the
new Comprehensive Plan, but the applicant would like to jump ahead in order to continue on in the
process if the Commission feels that this would be a good fit. He reviewed the current zoning under
the existing Comprehensive Plan and proposed zoning under the draft Comprehensive Plan for the
adjacent properties. He reviewed the proposed access, noting that there would most likely be some
wetland impacts in order to provide that access. He stated that the senior living building would be
three stories with 80 units in addition to the office building and commercial building. He noted that
staff would suggest a number of adjustments in order to bring the request into compliance with the
business zoning district. He noted that there may need to be a reduction in square footage in order to
accommodate the adjustments and provide sufficient space for emergency vehicle access. He
described the proposed building materials. He noted that staff would recommend a traffic study to
determine if any traffic improvements would be needed for Chippewa Road. He noted that the office
and commercial buildings may be under parked and that would also support the reduction in square
footage. He stated that it is important to quantify the mix between the assisted and independent living
units because it impacts parking needs and because the code requires that assisted living is the
primary use. He stated that the real discretion would be whether the City would support the rezoning
in the interim until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted.
R. Reid asked if simply a zoning amendment would be required or whether a Comprehensive Plan
amendment would be needed.
Finke stated that the major question would be whether the business zoning would be appropriate. He
stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be administrative.
Murrin asked how the staging would work.
Finke replied that there is staging for business, but noted that this is within the imminent stage for the
existing plan and draft Comprehensive Plan. He confirmed that if approved the applicant could begin
construction immediately.
Barry noted that this is currently one lot that would be broken into four parcels. He asked if there is a
benefit to splitting the lots.
Finke explained that staff suggested that it may be worth looking at subdivision as that would provide
flexibility with the sale of the parcels as the uses are not necessarily items that would be owned by the
same party.
Albers asked if there is a difference between subdivision of the lots and a PUD.
Finke stated that a PUD would provide more design flexibility as well as flexibility under the
regulations.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
2
Albers asked if these units would count towards affordable housing as this is higher density.
Finke explained that it would likely count as high density housing. He stated that from his
understanding, credit for high density housing will not give you a credit towards affordable housing,
as the forecasts are looking at housing costs rather than density. Finke provided additional
clarification on how the high density and affordable housing figures are calculated.
Dean Lunski, 1416 Main Street in Hopkins, stated that they purchased the property in 2006 and have
been waiting to develop the property as they were caught in a moratorium. He stated that they have
urgency to develop, as they have owned the land for some time. He stated that they have done
marketing reports and would prefer close to a 50/50 split between the assisted and independent living,
perhaps slightly higher on the assisted living side. He stated that the preference would be to have
high density residential zoning for the senior living property. He stated that perhaps in the beginning
they would begin with a ratio of 75 percent assisted. He stated that they are not putting in memory
care units because of the proximity to the memory care center nearby.
Murrin asked why the independent living/assisted living would be proposed for that site.
Lunski replied that it would be for efficiency. He noted that originally they had padded the site for
retail, but that does not appear to be a good fit. He stated that they have begun a marketing study and
believe that the units would be absorbed within six months. He stated that they would be the
developer and would have an independent manager to run the assisted living.
Murrin asked if the applicant has done assisted living before.
Lunski replied that the construction team has a lot of experience in high density development. He
stated that he does have other projects he owns that have independent management.
DesLauriers asked if the plat would accommodate a reduction in square footage to support additional
parking.
Lunski replied that they could adjust the parking and reduce the square footage for the commercial
building.
R. Reid asked if this could work without the commercial building.
Lunski replied that they would need the commercial building in order to make the overall project
work.
Barry asked the number of staff that would be required for the assisted living facility.
Lunski stated that they have not figured out the staffing at this point. He stated that they do not want
to cut any corners on that project and want to make sure the rooms and amenities needed are
provided.
Albers referenced the wetland mitigation that would be needed and asked if the applicant has spoken
to the property owner to the west about obtaining an easement to travel through their property for
access as a method to avoid the wetland.
Lunski stated that he does not know that property owner, but would be open to having that
conversation.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
3
Finke stated that it seems unlikely, but that conversation could occur.
Lunski stated that they reviewed the site to determine the best approach to meeting the setbacks and
disrupting as little as possible.
Albers referenced the three-story building and confirmed that would not include the garage. He
stated that his main concern from the south elevation would be the height, noting that this would be a
fairly sizable building in the wooded area. He stated that he would want to ensure that it fits into the
character of the building. He noted that Polaris blends nicely into their background and noted that he
had concern with the overall height of the project.
Lunski stated that they followed the business zoning requirements for height.
Acting Chairperson Albers opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
No comments made.
Acting Chairperson Albers closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
Murrin stated that she would like to have the residential units count towards the high-density numbers
for the community, noting that perhaps that could be delayed to count towards the Comprehensive
Plan components.
Albers stated that there is already proposed guiding for high density and this would essentially add
more.
Murrin noted that she would like to have the units count towards the high density for the community
and suggested removing high density from another area to create a balance.
R. Reid stated that this area was already designated as commercial and therefore was not zoned for
rural development.
Finke stated that there would be an option to rearrange the high density within the draft plan, as the
Council has not formally approved the plan. He stated that procedurally the draft plan has been
largely unchanged through the numerous public hearing and public meetings and that would be
making a pretty major shift.
Barry stated that the Steering Committee did a lot of work through the open houses to develop the
draft plan. He stated that it is impossible to predict what the Metropolitan Council will release in
their next system statements. He stated that a lot of work has already been done on the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore did not recommend changing that. He stated that the decision at
this time would be to determine the best course of action now for this application.
Murrin asked if the applicant would like to build the commercial first or the high-density portion first.
Lunski replied that the commercial building would go hand in hand with the assisted living. He noted
that if the site were zoned for high density residential they would switch the development to more
high density residential and the commercial aspects would be removed. He estimated 140 units if
high density housing were to be the zoning.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
4
Albers stated that he would not envision that type of use. He stated that he liked the design of the
building, even though it will be big. He stated that the thought of a retail coffee shop would be
appealing.
R. Reid stated that she does not have a problem with rezoning the property to business. She stated
that one reason this type of use was not allowed within commercial was because they did not want it
to face Highway 55. She stated that, as arranged, this would not access from Highway 55 and
therefore would support the use. She stated that the site appears crowded, but she does not have a
problem with the rezoning.
Lunski stated that the site will blend a bit more with the commercial use.
R. Reid asked for information on timing and whether the applicant would be prepared to break ground
this year.
Lunski replied that they are ready to build and would like to break ground this year if the process
continues to move forward.
R. Reid asked if this would open the floodgates for similar applications if this is allowed to move
forward.
Finke stated that there are two similar requests this evening, although not entirely the same request.
He stated that the likelihood is fairly low as there is not that much property in play that would not
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that a number of property uses are going to be
changed from the existing use under the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that developers are looking
to be consistent with the new plan, which is good, but noted that the City still needs to accept
comments from other jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Council and therefore some things under the
draft plan can change. He confirmed that the difference between the commercial and business zoning
districts is not much.
The Commission confirmed consensus to support the change in zoning from commercial to business
should this continue to move forward.
Albers referenced the overall size of the development and asked if the applicant would be willing to
scale back the development to meet the necessary setbacks and requirements.
Finke confirmed that some adjustments would need to be made to meet the minimum zoning
requirements, but noted that the changes would not be substantial.
Medina City Council Excerpt from February 21, 2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Lunski Senior Housing/Office Concept Plan Review – PID 03-118-23-32-0007 (7:18 p.m.)
Finke noted that this is a concept plan review and therefore the Council will simply provide
comments and no formal action is necessary. He stated that this is a proposed 80-unit
combination of independent and assisted senior living and would also include an office building
and commercial building. He discussed the topography and current state of the site including
trees and wetlands. He stated that a future request may come forward to rezone the parcel
from commercial to business. He noted that the draft Comprehensive Plan designates this land
as business rather than the current designation of business. He identified the zoning and uses
of adjacent properties. He displayed the concept plan which identifies the senior housing
building, the office building, and the commercial building. He stated that the concept plan
designates three lots and provided more details on the proposed access. He reviewed some of
the concerns noted by staff including the need to specify the mix of assisted living and
independent units within the complex. He noted that within the business zoning district,
assisted living would need to be the primary use with independent living as an accessory. He
stated that one item to be considered is whether the Council would be comfortable rezoning the
parcel to business ahead of the adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan. He noted that staff
has suggested that the building size be reduced slightly to better fit onto the parcel. He
provided additional information on high density housing and how those units are calculated.
Pederson referenced the wetland that would be filled and asked for additional information.
Finke stated that there are wetland impacts for the driveway, which staff views as a necessity as
access will not be supported onto Highway 55.
Anderson referenced lot three, specifically the setback requirement, and asked how much the
applicant is short of meeting that requirement.
Finke replied that the applicant would be about two or three feet short of meeting the setback
requirement.
Pederson asked whether emergency and fire vehicles would have adequate space to navigate
the site. He noted that if this moves forward the Chippewa extension may be needed and the
applicant should be aware of the costs.
Mitchell noted that this is different than the original plan for the area but it could still be a good fit
and asked for the input of the Council.
Pederson stated that this seems to be a good fit for the property but it seems that there is too
much going on with the site.
Cousineau stated that this does not seem like a bad location for the project but the project is too
large and feels like a jump ahead.
Mitchell stated that commercial is not filtered through the same jump ahead as residential
development.
Anderson stated that the real question is regarding the policy. He stated that despite the
similarities between business and commercial zoning, there have been previous applicants that
wanted to come in under the new Comprehensive Plan zoning and the Council has denied
those requests. He stated that if the applicant feels strongly they should request a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Medina City Council Excerpt from February 21, 2017 Meeting Minutes
2
Mitchell noted that this would not draw a large amount of traffic to the site, which is in
agreement with what the City wants. He stated that he attended the Planning Commission
meeting and endorsed the comment that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner for
a possible driveway that would avoid the wetland. He stated that the applicant has stated that
they would like flexibility in the unit type so that they can change over time based on the market
demands. He cautioned to ensure that if flexibility is provided, a sufficient amount of parking is
still provided. He stated that this seems to be a lot of development on not so much land.
Cousineau stated that there is real emphasis on the business park zoning that the buildings
should blend into the surroundings and she commented that perhaps the landscaping could be
tweaked to better blend. She noted that the height of the building would stand out a lot
compared to the surrounding uses.
Pederson stated that applicants have complained later in the process about the cost of
underground parking and noted that the applicant should be aware of that cost as the
underground parking would be needed to support this level of development.
Anderson noted the applicant should be aware of the potential cost of expanding Chippewa that
would come along with that road project.
Mitchell stated that this is a terrific use for the property. He stated that the Council is getting into
the design details in order to provide a higher level of comment to the applicant. He stated that
he is in favor of the project with the comments the Council made tonight.
Pederson stated that he is also in agreement with the project as long as the details could be
worked out.
Cousineau stated that she would be willing to rezone to high density if we could ensure our
density is not in excess of our required numbers.
Finke provided additional details on the process that would be necessary to change the zoning
to high density. He stated that at the Planning Commission, the applicant did say that if the
rezoning was done to high density they would not be opposed to that and would then choose
high density rather than senior living.
Cousineau asked if this could create a creep in the increase of residential units that would not
count towards high density requirements.
Finke stated that there are a number of acres available for business development that could be
used for assisted type living.
Dean Lunski, applicant, stated that they purchased the property in 2005 with the intent to
develop in 2005, but a moratorium was placed and therefore they have not been able to
develop. He stated that if they were going to rezone to residential they would go to multi-family
housing rather than independent/assisted living as that use is also highly in demand. He stated
that the aging population of Medina is growing and therefore there is a demand for senior living
in the area.
Mitchell stated that the applicant has sat on this land for many years and the applicant would
like to get moving and not wait until 2020.
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
July 6, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-204
WSB Project No. 03433-140
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed The Medina Senior Living application and plans dated June 20, 2017. The
applicant proposes to construct a 90 unit senior living complex consisting of three stories and
approximately 118,100 square feet. In addition, a separate 40,000 square foot two-story
medical/office building is also proposed for the site.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Site and Grading Plans
1. The utilities shown on the site plan and make it difficult to read, either eliminate these on the
site plan or make the line-types lighter.
2. The City’s comprehensive trail plan shows a future trail extension along Chippewa Road.
The applicant may need to provide additional right of way, easements, and/or construct a trail
along this section of Chippewa Road as a part of the park dedication allocation to the City.
3. Provide an exhibit showing the turning movements of trucks (fire and delivery) within the
site including the delivery entrances along with a detail of the truck dimensions.
4. Provide details and design information for the proposed boardwalk with future submittals.
5. Provide a legend on the site plan denoting the various types of paving and walkways
proposed for the site with clear hatching patterns.
6. There are details shown in the plans for retaining wall, show the location and elevation
information more clearly on the site/grading plans. The elevations should include both the
top and bottom of the wall.
7. Note that slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in locations where the steep slopes are proposed.
8. Correct the symbol for the proposed tree locations on the landscaping sheets; it is also not
clear what types of trees are being planted in relation to the legend.
Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
July 6, 2017
Page 2
9. The City will provide confirmation whether or not additional ROW is required along
Chippewa Road for the trail once the traffic study has been updated as indicated in this
review concerning the turn lanes.
10. In general, plans shall meet the requirements set forth in the City’s Design Manual.
11. Maximize the parking lot bump out at the southeasterly lot to allow for greater turning
movement space during backup maneuvering.
12. Provide analysis to confirm that the proposed underground parking is feasible given the
underlying soil conditions and water table elevation.
Utility Plan
13. Easements may be required by the City to encompass all or a portion of the sanitary sewer
and watermain into the site.
14. Looping connections may be required to minimize long dead-end watermain sections, the
layout provided will require review by the City’s Fire Marshall. Extend the watermain south
with the sanitary sewer alignment along the westerly property line and provide a second
connection to the existing watermain at TH 55.
15. Extend the watermain and sanitary sewer stubs up to the right of way line adjacent to
Chippewa Road. Add gate valve to the watermain stub.
16. Label the building services separately and include type of pipe and stub invert information
for the sanitary services. Add missing invert information to northerly sewer stub.
17. Provide dimension labels between watermain and both sanitary sewer and storm sewer
piping.
18. Use different line-type for sanitary sewer that includes arrows to denote direction of flow.
19. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for the proposed structures served by
City water.
20. On Sheet C5.0 under Sanitary Sewer Notes, note 1 needs to be corrected to meet the
requirements of the City of Medina design guidelines in regards to pipe strength designation
and bury depth.
21. Based on the current design, it appears the applicant will be required to apply for permits
from DLI and MDH, provide copies to the City.
Traffic & Intersections
22. Although the Traffic Study does indicate that no turn lanes are required at the Site Entrance,
the updated information and analysis outlined below should be provided to make a final
determination. In addition, in order to provide a recommendation on the need for turn lanes at
Willow Drive or determining the interaction between the adjacent driveways, the additional
information and analysis should be provided.
23. Dependent on the increase on vehicular traffic, the development may contribute to the need
for extending Chippewa Road to the east between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Dive.
24. The posted speed limit on Chippewa Road is currently 40 mph. There are horizontal curves
on the current roadway west of the proposed site driveway. With this in mind, the proposed
Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
July 6, 2017
Page 3
driveway should be analyzed for sight distance issues or concerns. A figure showing the site
line analysis should be provided.
25. The intersection analysis only considered Chippewa Road at the site entrance. To document
the area impacts, the intersections of Chippewa Road at Willow Drive and Chippewa Road at
Mohawk Drive should also be analyzed.
26. The site traffic generation should be revised/updated with the following:
o The text of the project narrative indicates that the Senior Housing part of the site
includes assisted living as well as the senior housing.
o The medical office is now smaller 24,757 sf
o The retail is now larger 4,320 sf. Is it anticipated that this could be a Pharmacy? If so,
that should be used for traffic generation.
27. The majority of the traffic to and from the site will use Willow Drive to TH 55. Additional
analysis showing delay’s and queues need to provided, specifically for the left and right turn
movements at:
o Chippewa Road at site driveway;
o Chippewa Road at Willow Road;
o Chippewa Road at Mohawk Drive.
28. The site plan should be updated to show the correct location of the proposed uses. The future
phase (commercial) access location to the main driveway is close to Chippewa Road. This
should be evaluated to insure no conflicts.
29. The Traffic Study indicates that the interaction between the Site entrance and the property
driveway adjacent to it does not have any issues. Provide the assumption(s) for development
of the adjacent property and additional discussion/analysis, including future traffic generation
and the anticipated left/right turn queues between driveways, to validate whether or not there
will be future impacts and issues.
Stormwater Management
30. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement. It is not clear in the
submittal how this will be accomplished. One option is to utilize stormwater reuse from the
proposed ponds for irrigation.
31. Several ponds are shown on the grading plans. The City requires compliance with the
volume control requirement and it is not clear that any infiltration or filtration volume is
provided.
32. The development will need to meet the appropriate Elm Creek Watershed standards and
permitting requirements, provide permitting documents to the City when approved.
33. Provide demonstration that the water quality criteria have been met using PondNet, P8, or
other approved water quality modeling method.
34. Specify if future impervious area at the north side of the site has been included for treatment
or if this area is to be treated once constructed.
35. EOFs must be labeled on the plans for all BMPs.
36. Label the size and type of existing and proposed storm sewer piping, label the invert
information on all catch basins/manholes.
Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
July 6, 2017
Page 4
37. Calculations must be submitted indicating the culvert under the proposed entrance road is
sized adequately to convey the offsite tributary area to the wetland.
38. North Pond must have a minimum dead pool depth of 3 feet.
39. North Pond NWL does not match that used in HydroCAD. Confirm the correct NWL and
HWL.
40. Show HWL on the plans for the biofiltration basin.
41. Confirm that the freeboard from the lowest opening of the buildings meets the two feet of
freeboard from the emergency overflow elevations of the BMPs.
Wetland Impacts
42. Label the wetland buffer and provide dimensioning on each sheet.
43. WCA application comments:
o Include a more complete description of the purpose and need for the project,
including any standards that may apply to the driveway, pathways, ADA, etc.
o It appears that project elements other than the driveway are contributing to the
wetland impact as well (grading for the building, paved pathway, and gazebo area).
Add a discussion of the need and design requirements for these elements.
o If stormwater will outlet into the wetlands, discuss how the stormwater will be pre-
treated prior to discharging to the wetland and include in the impact acreage any
impacts that result from outfall structures, including riprap.
o Add a discussion regarding the boardwalk.
o The current application does not include details regarding avoidance alternatives. The
WCA requires that two avoidance alternatives be discussed. One can be a no-build
alternative. Include exhibits of each alternative.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
elm creek
Watershed Management Commission ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TECHNICAL OFFICE 3235 Fernbrook Lane Hennepin County Public Works
Plymouth, MN 55447 Department of Environment and Energy PH: 763.553.1144 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 700
E-mail: judie@jass.biz Minneapolis, MN 55415 www.elmcreekwatershed.org PH: 612.596.1171
E-mail: jason.swenson@hennepin.us
CHAMPLIN • CORCORAN • DAYTON • MAPLE GROVE • MEDINA • PLYMOUTH • ROGERS
S:\EMD \DEMCON\CORR\SWENSON\WATERSHEDS\ELM CREEK \PLAN REVIEWS\2017\2017 -019 Medina Senior Community, Medina\2017-0 19
Review Memo .docx
Medina Senior Living Facility
Medina , Project #2017-019
Project Overview: The 10.8-acre commercial project site is located north of Highway 55, south
of Chippewa Drive and midway between Willow Drive and Mohawk Drive. The site is currently
vacant and covered by forested lands and a cattail marsh wetland is located in the central portion
of the site running in an east -west direction. The proposed project is 6.00 acres, with 3.77 acres
of impervious surface and will include two new main building structure s, an accessory structure,
and paved parking and driveway access to Chippewa Road. The remaining approximately 3.5
acres on the north side of the site will be platted for future development and is not subject to the
Elm Creek Watershed Commission review now. Our review will be for compliance to the
Commission’s 3 rd generation standards and rules.
Applicant: Lunski Inc . – c/o Dean Lunski, 1416 Main Street, Hopkins, MN 55343. Phone: 952-
929-3400. Email: dlunski@psidb.com
Agent/Engineer: Hill Engineering, Inc . – c/o Jay Hill, P.E., 1585 Dunlap Street North, Saint Paul ,
MN 55108. Phone: 612-987-4455. Email: hilleng@gmail.com
Exhibits :
1) ECWMC Request for Plan Review and Approval received May 31 , 2017 (City authorization
is J une 1 , 2017).
2) Project review fee of $2,750 on May 31 , 2017.
3) Complete plan was received on June 20, 2017.
4) Medina Senior Living Community Preliminary Plat (dated 5/12/2017)
5) Medina Senior Living Community, Site Plan Review Submittal (dated June 19, 2017)
CS..........Cover Sheet
A-SITE ..Architectural Site Plan
C1.0 .......Existing Conditions
C2.0 .......Tree Survey
C3.0 .......Site Plan
C4.0 .......Grading Plan
C5.0 .......Utility Plan
C6.0-6.2 Civil Details
C7.0 .......SWPPP
Medina Senior Living Community Page 2
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
C7.1 .......Erosion Control Plan
L1.0-2.0 .Landscaping Plan
6) Stormwater Design Report, dated June 16 , 2017 (unsigned).
7) Joint Application Form for Wetland Impacts, Dated 6/19/2017
8) Purchase Agreement for Wetland Bank Credits, 6/16/2017
Findings ;
9) A complete application was received on June 20 , 2017. The initial 6 0-day review period
expires August 19, 2 017.
10) The entire site will be routed to the existing wetland located in the center of the property.
The wetland discharges through a 15” Culvert to the south into the Highway 55 Right of
Way, then south under Highway 55 and through neighboring properties before discharging
into the series of wetlands and ditches south of Highway 55 eventually flowing north into
Rush Creek.
11) Rule F. Floodplain Alteration does not pertain to this project. There are no established
FEMA or ECWMC flood plains within the project corridor.
12) Rule G. Wetland Alteration. City of Medina is the Local Government Unit administe ring
the Wetland Conservation Act of Minnesota. A wetland delineation has been completed
and approved by the LGU. The applicant proposes impacts to 0.11 acres of wetlands to
complete the project. The applicant is proposing to purchase banking credits to mitigate
the pro posed impacts. Credits are proposed to be purchased from the Soberg wetland bank
in Hennepin County, roughly 1 ½ miles west of the proposed impacts.
In addition, there is a trail crossing of the wetland with no details of what this crossing is
(grading, b oardwalk, etc…). Information about this crossing must be added to the project
plans and should be included in any WCA permit applications. These issues should be
addressed by the City of Medina in their role as WCA LGU.
13) Rule I. Buffer requirements. Buffers are required to be an average of 25 feet wide, with a
minimum width of 10 feet. Several revisions are required to meet the Commission’s
requirements as follows:
a. At the proposed wetland impact area, a 10 foot wide minimum buffer is required.
Based on the site improvements as shown, this will require moving several
proposed trails out of the minimum buffer as they are not allowed in the buffer
when constructed as part of other site improvements.
b. The proposed gazebo will also need to be moved out of the 10 foot required
minimum buffer, and we suggest it also meet the recommended structure setback
of 15 feet from the required buffer.
c. There are multiple locations where the proposed buildings encroach into the
recommended 15 foot structure setback from the wetland buffer.
Medina Senior Living Community Page 3
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
d. The applicant must provide calculations demonstrating that minimum area is met
for the wetland buffers, taking into account all areas that require additional width
being added for slopes that are steeper than 6H:1V. There are multiple areas where
the minimum slopes are not met.
e. The applicant is proposing including all of the south pond and sloped as part of the
wetland buffer to increase the average buffer width. Staff will accept the pond in
the minimum 25 foot buffer in this area, but will not allow the remainder of the
pond to be include in the buffer width averaging.
14) Rule E. Erosion and Sediment Control will meet the Commission’s requirements with
minor revisions:
a) A final plan, dated and signed by a Professional Engineer licensed in Minnesota, must
be submitted to the Commission and the City of Medina .
b) The SWPPP must include a map identifying the receiving waters from the site. The
SWPPP states that the site drains to waters that are impaired. These must be identified
correctly in the SWPPP, not just stated generically. A review of the MPCA impaired
waters map did not identify any impaired waters within 1 mile of the site.
c) Note #6 on Sheet C4.0 need to be changed to state stabilization must occur within 14
days per the current NPDES permit. The language on the plans has not been effective
since August of 2013 when the current NPDES permit was made effective.
d) The SWPPP should identify who prepared the SWPPP and the training received that
qualifies them to prepare the SWPPP to comply with NPDES permit requirements. A
copy of the University of Minnesota Erosion Control Certification is one example.
e) BMP Notes on Sheet 7.0, Item 1 refers to designing all BMPS for 0.5 inches of runoff.
This should be replaced with 1.1 inches, per the current Elm Creek Watershed
Standards (which will also meet the current requirements of the NPDES construction
stormwater permit in effect since August of 2013.
f) The plans should have an actual Statement of Estimated Quantities (SEQ) on the plans
for at a minimum of all erosion control items to comply with NPDES permit
requirements.
g) The erosion control plans must provide redundant sediment control devices (such as a
second line of silt fence) adjacent to the wetland on site since the required 50 foot buffer
in the NPDES permit will not be maintained.
h) Inlet erosion controls should be shown at all culverts on the site per the detail plate
ERO -9 on Sheet C7.0
i) Details are missing for the proposed filtration basin such as the depth of the facility
above the filtration medium (see the cross section on Sheet C6.2). In addition, these
details appear to conflict with some of the standard plate details on RG-02 and RG-03
on sheet C6.0. Details RG-02 and RG-03 are also largely illegible at the scale they are
currently printed at and should be increased in size.
j) The Civil details on sheet 6.0 include a porous asphalt detail/cross section that refers to
a draft specification from MnDOT dating to 2012. The applicant should note that this
specification is now outdated and should be updated to MnDOT’s current standard. The
Medina Senior Living Community Page 4
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
la st revision from MnDOT is dated 4/3/2017 and may be found in MnDOT Special
Provisions SP 140.
k) No soil borings were provided for review showing the groundwater elevations on the
site. If any of the proposed pervious parking facilities or rain garden do not meet the
required 3 feet of separation from the groundwater elevation, then an impermeable liner
is required. This appears to primarily be an issue for the proposed rain garden facility.
l) The bottom of all infiltration/infiltration features should be scarified (ripped) to a
minimum depth of 12 inches prior to installing the remainder of the infiltration feature.
15) Rule D. Stormwater Management will be provided by two proposed ponds and filtration
feature (rain garden). Per the stormwater reports, runoff from the rooftops is proposed to
be routed directly to the south stormwater pond. However, no details on how this is
proposed to occur are provided for review, and the roof profile of the senior living
community does not support this conclusion as shown on the plans. Runoff from the
parking areas is a routed through pervious parking areas and then also is directed to the
south stormwater pond. Runoff from the entrance access and some trails is proposed to be
directed to the northern stormwater pond. A rain water garden is also proposed for the site
that will provide treatment for runoff from so me of the proposed trails only.
Again, it should be noted that the stormwater calculations do not appear to take into account
any further expansion on the north side of the site at this time outside of the proposed access
drive.
16) The southern pond outlet will be equipped with a 12” orifice at 990.0’ and discharges
through a 10” outlet pipe at 991.0’ in elevation. No details on proposed pipes or outlet
control structures were provided for review in the plan set.
17) The northern pond will be equipped with a 12” orifice at 990.0’ and discharges through a
12” outlet pipe at 991.0’ in elevation per the HydroCAD model. The project plans call for
a normal water level of 992.0’. This discrepancy must be resolved. No details on proposed
pipes or outlet control structures were provided for review in the plan set.
18) The HydroCAD modeling for the site does not take into account the existing watersurface
or the proposed water surface correctly in the modeling. All open water surfaces, such as
open water in the wetland and open water on each of the proposed ponds should be modeled
using a curve number of 98 (though this is not included in the impervious surfaces
calculation).
19) Stormwater rate control.
The post-development stormwater runoff rates for the 2-, 10- and 100-year events meet the
standards as presently modeled and are shown below:
Storm
Event
E xisting
Discharge Rate (cfs)
Proposed Discharge
Rate (cfs)
2-year 2.60 0.87
10-year 5.04 1.66 100-year 10.81 3.58
Medina Senior Living Community Page 5
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
These rates will require verification when modifications are made to the HydroCAD
models.
20) Volume analysis:
The volume abstraction requirement for 1.1” of runoff from 3.37 acres of new impervious
surface is about 13,460 cubic feet.
The applicant notes that soils are not conducive for infiltration . However, a significant
portion of the site appears to contain type C soils that have a higher infiltration rate than
used in the modeling for the project. The applicant is proposing to build three separate
areas of parking with pervious pavement and storage provided under the pavement with
drain tile outlets. Two of these appear to be able to be redesigned to take advantage of the
better soils to increase the volume abstraction.
Without detailed infiltration testing of the soils at the actual elevations where infiltration is
proposed to occur, the applicant is advised to use the infiltration rates from the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual with a factor of safety of 2.0 applied to them (ie: reduce the infiltration
rate in ½).
The applicant proposes using excess wetland buffer areas for additional abstraction credits.
Per the notes above, the area covering the south pond is not acceptable for use in these
calculations.
The applicant will need to provide a better accounting of how the required abstraction will
be met for the site.
21) Water quality and nutrient analysis :
a. The applicant provided a narrative account of water quality and nutrient analysis
from the site, but provided no backup calculations to demonstrate how these
numbers were determined.
b. The applicant also appears to call the existing forested area on the site grassland,
meadow, or open space. The applicant is advised to apply the correct pre-developed
land use of woodland to the water quality calculations.
c. The applicant must provide the calculations from PondNET or other water quality
modeling software (such as the MIDS calculator) to demonstrate the source of the
information provided in the narrative.
22) At the time of writing this report, it was not certain which party (City of Medina or the
applicant) would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater
management facilities. A responsible party must be established for the O&M Plan.
Medina Senior Living Community Page 6
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
Recommendation:
None at this time. Significant revisions are still required to the site to bring it into compliance
with ECWMC Rules.
Hennepin County
Department of Environment and Energy
July 5 , 2017
Jason Swenson, P.E.
Technical Advisor to the Commission
���� C A I N S T ��. . < 6
L U N S K I I N C .
x e n
s c p J
" v s - m 1 - 4
J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 1 7
D u s t y F i n k e
C i t y P l a n n e r , C i t y o f M e d i n a
D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g
2 0 5 2 C o u n t y R o a d 2 4
M e d i n a , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 4 0
M r . F i n k e ,
P l e a s e f i n d e n c l o s e d t h e s u m m a r y f o r t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t l o c a t e d b e t w e e n H i g h w a y 5 5 a n d
C h i p p e w a R o a d ( P I D # 0 3 1 1 8 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 7 ) . T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t c o n s i s t s o f t w o c o m p o n e n t s : a 3 s t o r y
A s s i s t e d / I n d e p e n d e n t S e n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y a n d a t w o s t o r y m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g .
P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n :
W e a r e p r o p o s i n g a 9 0 u n i t a s s i s t e d / i n d e p e n d e n t s e n i o r l i v i n g c o m m u n i t y c o n s i s t i n g o f t h r e e s t o r i e s
a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 8 , 1 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t . T h e d e s i g n o f t h e s e n i o r c o m m u n i t y w i l l a c c o m m o d a t e a
m i n i m u m o f 5 0 % a s s i s t e d l i v i n g u n i t s a n d l i k e l y m o r e d e p e n d i n g u p o n l e a s i n g d e m a n d . A m e n i t i e s w i l l
i n c l u d e o n - s i t e d i n i n g , a b i s t r o c a f e / c o f f e e s h o p , b e a u t y s a l o n , e x e r c i s e / w e l l n e s s r o o m , a n d v a r i o u s
g r o u p g a t h e r i n g a r e a s a c c o m m o d a t i n g a w i d e v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s . E x t e n s i v e o u t d o o r s p a c e s i n c l u d i n g
p o r c h e s , p a t i o s a n d t r a i l s a c r o s s t h e s i t e p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e s i d e n t s t o e n g a g e t h e
n a t u r a l s e t t i n g .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g , a t w o s t o r y , 4 0 , 0 0 0 s . f . ( a p p r o x i m a t e ) m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g i s
p r o p o s e d a d j a c e n t t o H i g h w a y 5 5 a l o n g t h e s o u t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e . T h e i n t e n d e d u s e w i l l p r o v i d e
a s y n e r g i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e s e n i o r f a c i l i t y a n d a u g m e n t t h e s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e t o r e s i d e n t s o n s i t e
i n a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g a v a l u a b l e m e d i c a l r e s o u r c e w i t h i n t h e a r e a . A p r o p o s e d s k y w a y c o n n e c t i o n
b e t w e e n t h e t w o b u i l d i n g s w i l l f u r t h e r a l l o w r e s i d e n t s a n d s t a f f t o w o r k i n t a n d e m a c r o s s t h e t w o
f a c i l i t i e s . A n u n d e r g r o u n d p a r k i n g g a r a g e a s w e l l a s s u r f a c e p a r k i n g i s p r o v i d e d f o r t h i s f a c i l i t y .
A f t e r r e c e i v i n g c o m m e n t s t h r o u g h t h e c i t y ' s C o n c e p t S u b m i t t a l r e v i e w o f t h e p r o j e c t , a n d p e r d i s c u s s i o n
w i t h C i t y s t a f f , w e h a v e m a d e a n u m b e r o f r e v i s i o n s t o t h e o v e r a l l p r o j e c t . T h e s e r e v i s i o n s a r e t h e r e s u l t
o f b o t h i n t e r n a l r e v i e w a s w e l l a s o u r b e s t a t t e m p t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f M e d i n a ' s z o n i n g
o r d i n a n c e s . T h e s e r e v i s i o n s i n c l u d e :
" O v e r a l l r e d u c t i o n o f u n i t s w i t h i n t h e s e n i o r l i v i n g f a c i l i t y f r o m 1 3 5 t o 9 0 .
" R e d u c t i o n i n t h e m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g a r e a b y a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 , 0 0 0 s . f .
" E l i m i n a t e d 1 s t o r y c o m m e r c i a l b u i l d i n g w i t h i n t h e s o u t h w e s t c o r n e r o f t h e s i t e r e s u l t i n g i n a
n e e d f o r 1 7 f e w e r p a r k i n g s t a l l s .
" A l l b u i l d i n g s w i t h i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t c o n f o r m t o s e t b a c k r e g u l a t i o n s p e r B z o n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s .
" L o t l i n e s a r e r e v i s e d t o r e f l e c t t h e f o o t p r i n t o f t h e a c c e s s d r i v e w i t h i n l o t 1 a s w e l l a s t h e p a r k i n g
l a y o u t b e t w e e n l o t s 3 a n d 4 .
" P a r k i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e r e v i s e d t o b e t t e r r e f l e c t t h e C i t y ' s o r d i n a n c e s h o w e v e r t h e o r d i n a n c e s
d o n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s a s e r v i c e b a s e d s e n i o r l i v i n g f a c i l i t y a s a t y p e o f u s e .
" A w a l k i n g p a t h h a s b e e n e x t e n d e d t o C h i p p e w a R o a d p e r s t a f f c o m m e n t s .
" T h e c u r r e n t s i t e p l a n c o m p l i e s w i t h B z o n i n g d i s t r i c t l a n d s c a p e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n c l u d i n g : 1 2 '
b u f f e r b e t w e e n a l l b u i l d i n g s a n d a c c e s s d r i v e s , 8 % o f p a r k i n g a n d d r i v e a r e a s a r e l a n d s c a p e d ,
a n d l a n d s c a p i n g b r e a k s w i t h i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t a r e m i n i m u m 1 2 ' w i d e .
T h e e x i s t i n g s i t e :
T h e 1 0 . 8 a c r e s i t e i s z o n e d R u r a l C o m m e r c i a l H o l d i n g ( R C H ) . A l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e c o n s i s t s o f a
M a n a g e 1 W e t l a n d . T h e w e t l a n d a r e a i n c l u d i n g b u f f e r a n d r e q u i r e d b u i l d i n g s e t b a c k s t o t a l s l i g h t l y m o r e
t h a n 4 0 % o f t h e o v e r a l l s i t e a r e a . T h e r e h a v e b e e n a v a r i e t y o f c o n c e p t p l a n s p r e p a r e d c o n s i s t i n g o f a
v a r i e t y o f p r o p o s e d u s e s f o r t h e s i t e . A l l o f t h e o t h e r c o n c e p t p l a n s r e q u i r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e w e t l a n d
i m p a c t s i n o r d e r t o d e v e l o p a f e a s i b l e c o n c e p t p l a n . S i n c e t h e e x i s t i n g w e t l a n d b i s e c t s t h e p r o p e r t y a n d
t h e r e a r e s i t e a c c e s s c o n t r o l s a l o n g H i g h w a y 5 5 , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o a v o i d a l l w e t l a n d i m p a c t s w h i l e
u t i l i z i n g a v a i l a b l e d e v e l o p a b l e l a n d . T h i s p r o p o s e d d e s i g n m i n i m i z e s t h e a m o u n t o f p r o p o s e d w e t l a n d
i m p a c t t o t h e g r e a t e s t a m o u n t p o s s i b l e . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t w e t l a n d r e p l a c e m e n t w i l l b e a c h i e v e d b y
p u r c h a s i n g a v a i l a b l e o f f - s i t e w e t l a n d b a n k i n g c r e d i t s .
T h e r e a r e a l m o s t 2 , 0 0 0 c a l i p e r - i n c h e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t t r e e s l o c a t e d o n t h e p r o p e r t y . T h e p r o p o s e d d e s i g n
p r e s e r v e s 7 0 % o f t h e e x i s t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t t r e e s . I t i s p r o p o s e d t h a t a l l o f t h e r e q u i r e d r e p l a c e m e n t t r e e s
w i l l b e p r o v i d e d o n - s i t e , a l o n g w i t h o t h e r s i t e l a n d s c a p i n g .
T h e p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g s :
T h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y b u i l d i n g i s a 3 s t o r y , 9 0 u n i t a s s i s t e d l i v i n g / i n d e p e n d e n t s e n i o r c o m m u n i t y
w i t h o n e l e v e l o f p a r k i n g p a r t i a l l y b e l o w g r a d e . T h e t o t a l g r o s s a r e a o f t h i s b u i l d i n g , e x c l u d i n g g a r a g e ,
w i l l b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 9 9 , 8 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t . T h e g a r a g e w i l l b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 8 , 5 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t a n d w i l l
c o n t a i n 4 8 p a r k i n g s t a l l s .
T h e m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g w i l l b e t w o s t o r i e s a n d c o n t a i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 4 , 8 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t o f
c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e . I n a d d i t i o n , a l o w e r l e v e l w i l l a c c o m m o d a t e 3 3 g a r a g e s t a l l s a s w e l l a s s e r v i c e s p a c e .
T h e i n t e n d e d u s e w o u l d p r o v i d e a r e g i o n a l c l i n i c w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s p e c i a l t y c a r e s u c h a s
c h i r o p r a c t i c , o r t h o p e d i c , o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n / p h y s i c a l t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s . A s k y w a y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n
b u i l d i n g s o n s i t e a l l o w s d i r e c t a c c e s s f o r t h e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e s e n i o r f a c i l i t y t o t a k e d i r e c t a d v a n t a g e o f
t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e .
P r o p o s e d a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e t a i l s o f t h e n e w b u i l d i n g s :
T h e b u i l d i n g s w i l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f M e d i n a ' s p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d s f o r e x t e r i o r m a t e r i a l s p e r
S e c t i o n 8 3 5 a n d 8 3 8 . 5 ( b y r e f e r e n c e ) . T h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y w i l l b e d e t a i l e d i n a t r a d i t i o n a l m a n n e r ,
2
including a masonry base and accents, and provide warm earth tone colors. The Senior Living Facility
will employ sloped roofs at a minimum 6:12 pitch.
The medical / office facility design has a more modern feel however will share masonry materials with
the senior living facility as well as other material cues. A manufactured wood veneer and composite
metal panel elements accent the masonry and stucco structure.
Both buildings provide a regular patterned window system and a variety of materials to subdivide
exterior facades to minimize scale and enhance the community feel.
Parking:
There has been significant discussion regarding the amount of parking required for the proposed uses
on the site. Currently 220 total parking spaces are provided across lots 3 and 4. 81 stalls (37%) are
underground garage parking, minimizing additional impervious site coverage.
The medical / office building requires 100 parking stalls and currently meets city ordinances for its use at
1 parking stall per 250 s.f. of area.
The Senior Living Facility is currently allotted 120 parking stalls. The City of Medina does not recognize a
service based senior living facility within its parking ordinances and therefore does not have a use type
which can be properly applied in this situation. Currently we are calculating parking for this facility in
the following manner:
45 Independent Living Units x 2.25 spaces / unit (Apartment use per Ordinance) = 102 stalls
30 Assisted Living Units x .4 spaces per unit (per City Staff) = 12 stalls
15 Memory Care / Special Care Suites x .35 spaces per unit (per City Staff) = 6 stalls
Total calculated parking = 120 stalls
Internally, ownership as well as the design team have evaluated a number of scenarios to ensure
adequate parking is provided as it is a key component to the success of this development. Because
there is not a specific ordinance which applies to this use, an alternate method of calculating parking
based upon past experience and evaluation of other similar facilities results in the following:
45 Independent Living Units x 1.25 spaces per unit = 57 stalls
30 Assisted Living Units and Specialty Care Suites x .4 (per City staff) = 12 stalls
Employee parking per shift = 28 stalls
90 total units x .25 guest parking (per Ordinance) = 23 stalls
Total calculated parking (alternative method) = 120 stalls
Based on the parking evaluations above, we feel the proposed uses are adequately parked and will
function as intended. Additional parking factors include:
• Covenants between lots within the development allowing shared parking across lot lines to
allow for ebb and flow of parking based on unique demand for certain occasions such as guest
parking on holidays.
3
" P r i v a t e s h u t t l e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y t h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y r e d u c e s t h e n e e d f o r
r e s i d e n t s t o m a i n t a i n a p r i v a t e v e h i c l e .
" T h e s e n i o r f a c i l i t y w i l l m a i n t a i n a m i n i m u m 5 0 % a s s i s t e d l i v i n g u n i t s p e r t h e C i t y ' s r e q u i r e m e n t
h o w e v e r a s t h e b u i l d i n g m a t u r e s , t h i s p e r c e n t a g e i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e a s a p r i m a r y g o a l o f t h e
f a c i l i t y w i l l b e t o a l l o w r e s i d e n t s t o a g e i n p l a c e . T h i s w o u l d r e s u l t i n a n a d d i t i o n a l d e c r e a s e i n
d e m a n d f o r p r i v a t e v e h i c l e s o n s i t e i n t h e f u t u r e .
P r o p o s e d s i t e w o r k :
T h e s i t e w o r k w i l l c o n s i s t o f t h e i n i t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f L o t s 1 , 3 a n d 4 a n d w i l l i n c l u d e e x t e n d i n g u t i l i t i e s
t h r o u g h t h e s i t e a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e m a i n a c c e s s d r i v e . O v e r a l l s i t e d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l b e
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s u b m i t t e d S i t e P l a n R e v i e w p a c k a g e w i t h L o t 2 r e m a i n i n g a f u t u r e p h a s e .
S a n i t a r y s e w e r i s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e a t t h e s o u t h w e s t c o r n e r o f t h e s i t e n e a r t h e p r o p o s e d o u t b u i l d i n g .
S a n i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e w i l l b e e x t e n d e d t o t h e 2 p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g s a n d a l s o a l o n g t h e p r o p o s e d a c c e s s
d r i v e t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e f o r p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e .
W a t e r m a i n i s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e H i g h w a y 5 5 r i g h t o f w a y . W a t e r
s e r v i c e w i l l b e e x t e n d e d t o t h e 2 p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g s a n d a l s o a l o n g t h e p r o p o s e d a c c e s s d r i v e t o p r o v i d e
s e r v i c e f o r p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e .
S t o r m w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t i s p r o p o s e d t o b e h a n d l e d o n - s i t e m e e t i n g a l l r e q u i r e d r a t e , v o l u m e & q u a l i t y
r e q u i r e m e n t s . A l l s t o r m w a t e r i s p r o p o s e d t o b e d i s c h a r g e d t o t h e e x i s t i n g o n s i t e w e t l a n d c o m p l e x . T h e
p l a n c u r r e n t l y h a s 2 r e t e n t i o n p o n d s s h o w n . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e 2 m a j o r f a c i l i t i e s , a n u m b e r o f s m a l l e r
i n f i l t r a t i o n / f i l t r a t i o n b a s i n s ( r a i n w a t e r g a r d e n s ) w i l l b e d e v e l o p e d w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t s i t e .
P r o j e c t P h a s i n g :
O v e r a l l , s i t e d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l c o n s i s t o f L o t s 1 , 3 a n d 4 i n c l u d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a l l u n d e r g r o u n d
u t i l i t i e s , s i t e i m p r o v e m e n t s , a n d l a n d s c a p i n g .
T h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y o n L o t 3 w i l l b e t h e f i r s t b u i l d i n g t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d . T h e i n t e n t i s t o b e g i n
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e m e d i c a l o f f i c e / b u i l d i n g o n L o t 4 w i t h i n t h e a l l o t t e d c i t y a p p r o v a l t i m e f r a m e .
W e l o o k f o r w a r d t o a t h o u g h t f u l d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t h i s s i t e a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f i t s d e v e l o p m e n t .
T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
S i n c e r e l y ,
D e a n L u n s k i
L u n s k i I n c .
1 4 1 6 M a i n s t r e e t
H o p k i n s , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 4 3
4
Project: LR‐17‐204 – Lunski Senior Community Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 3 Y Y Fee 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 1 Y Y $11,000 Narrative 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 4 Y Y Labels 6/19/2017 NA 1 Y Y Labels inaccurate; staff updated Plan Set 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 23 Y Y Plan Set – Updated 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 25 Y Y Soils Map 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 3 Y Y Traffic Analysis 5/12/2017 5/10/2017 66 Y Y Preliminary Plat 5/16/2017 5/12/2017 1 Y Y Draft Covenants 6/19/2017 NA 19 Y Y Wetland Replace. App. 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 13 Y Y Stormwater Report 6/19/2017 6/16/2017 142 Y Y (continued on back)
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Legal Comments 5/25/2017 1 Y Legal Comments 6/28/2017 1 Y Building Official Comments 5/26/2017 1 Y Building Official Comments 6/26/2017 1 Y MnDOT Comments 6/1/2017 1 Y No Comments City Engineer Comments 5/30/2017 3 Y City Engineer Comments 7/6/2017 4 Y Elm Creek Watershed Comments 7/6/2017 9 Y No Recommendation Incomplete Letter 6/2/2017 2 Y Legal Notice 6/30/2017 19 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Lunski, Inc. – Concept Plan Review for an 80 Unit, Three-Story
Senior Assisted/Independent Living Facility and Commercial/Medical Office
Development – North of Hwy 55, South of Chippewa Road and West of Mohawk Drive
Finke noted that this is a concept review and therefore following the public hearing the Commission
would simply be asked to provide input. He stated that this request includes an 80-unit senior
housing community which would be a combination of assisted and independent living in addition to
an office, medical office and commercial buildings. He stated that this would not be an allowable use
under the commercial zoning district and is therefore requesting a zoning change that would allow
senior living as a permitted use. He noted that the property will be reguided to business under the
new Comprehensive Plan, but the applicant would like to jump ahead in order to continue on in the
process if the Commission feels that this would be a good fit. He reviewed the current zoning under
the existing Comprehensive Plan and proposed zoning under the draft Comprehensive Plan for the
adjacent properties. He reviewed the proposed access, noting that there would most likely be some
wetland impacts in order to provide that access. He stated that the senior living building would be
three stories with 80 units in addition to the office building and commercial building. He noted that
staff would suggest a number of adjustments in order to bring the request into compliance with the
business zoning district. He noted that there may need to be a reduction in square footage in order to
accommodate the adjustments and provide sufficient space for emergency vehicle access. He
described the proposed building materials. He noted that staff would recommend a traffic study to
determine if any traffic improvements would be needed for Chippewa Road. He noted that the office
and commercial buildings may be under parked and that would also support the reduction in square
footage. He stated that it is important to quantify the mix between the assisted and independent living
units because it impacts parking needs and because the code requires that assisted living is the
primary use. He stated that the real discretion would be whether the City would support the rezoning
in the interim until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted.
R. Reid asked if simply a zoning amendment would be required or whether a Comprehensive Plan
amendment would be needed.
Finke stated that the major question would be whether the business zoning would be appropriate. He
stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be administrative.
Murrin asked how the staging would work.
Finke replied that there is staging for business, but noted that this is within the imminent stage for the
existing plan and draft Comprehensive Plan. He confirmed that if approved the applicant could begin
construction immediately.
Barry noted that this is currently one lot that would be broken into four parcels. He asked if there is a
benefit to splitting the lots.
Finke explained that staff suggested that it may be worth looking at subdivision as that would provide
flexibility with the sale of the parcels as the uses are not necessarily items that would be owned by the
same party.
Albers asked if there is a difference between subdivision of the lots and a PUD.
Finke stated that a PUD would provide more design flexibility as well as flexibility under the
regulations.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
2
Albers asked if these units would count towards affordable housing as this is higher density.
Finke explained that it would likely count as high density housing. He stated that from his
understanding, credit for high density housing will not give you a credit towards affordable housing,
as the forecasts are looking at housing costs rather than density. Finke provided additional
clarification on how the high density and affordable housing figures are calculated.
Dean Lunski, 1416 Main Street in Hopkins, stated that they purchased the property in 2006 and have
been waiting to develop the property as they were caught in a moratorium. He stated that they have
urgency to develop, as they have owned the land for some time. He stated that they have done
marketing reports and would prefer close to a 50/50 split between the assisted and independent living,
perhaps slightly higher on the assisted living side. He stated that the preference would be to have
high density residential zoning for the senior living property. He stated that perhaps in the beginning
they would begin with a ratio of 75 percent assisted. He stated that they are not putting in memory
care units because of the proximity to the memory care center nearby.
Murrin asked why the independent living/assisted living would be proposed for that site.
Lunski replied that it would be for efficiency. He noted that originally they had padded the site for
retail, but that does not appear to be a good fit. He stated that they have begun a marketing study and
believe that the units would be absorbed within six months. He stated that they would be the
developer and would have an independent manager to run the assisted living.
Murrin asked if the applicant has done assisted living before.
Lunski replied that the construction team has a lot of experience in high density development. He
stated that he does have other projects he owns that have independent management.
DesLauriers asked if the plat would accommodate a reduction in square footage to support additional
parking.
Lunski replied that they could adjust the parking and reduce the square footage for the commercial
building.
R. Reid asked if this could work without the commercial building.
Lunski replied that they would need the commercial building in order to make the overall project
work.
Barry asked the number of staff that would be required for the assisted living facility.
Lunski stated that they have not figured out the staffing at this point. He stated that they do not want
to cut any corners on that project and want to make sure the rooms and amenities needed are
provided.
Albers referenced the wetland mitigation that would be needed and asked if the applicant has spoken
to the property owner to the west about obtaining an easement to travel through their property for
access as a method to avoid the wetland.
Lunski stated that he does not know that property owner, but would be open to having that
conversation.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
3
Finke stated that it seems unlikely, but that conversation could occur.
Lunski stated that they reviewed the site to determine the best approach to meeting the setbacks and
disrupting as little as possible.
Albers referenced the three-story building and confirmed that would not include the garage. He
stated that his main concern from the south elevation would be the height, noting that this would be a
fairly sizable building in the wooded area. He stated that he would want to ensure that it fits into the
character of the building. He noted that Polaris blends nicely into their background and noted that he
had concern with the overall height of the project.
Lunski stated that they followed the business zoning requirements for height.
Acting Chairperson Albers opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
No comments made.
Acting Chairperson Albers closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
Murrin stated that she would like to have the residential units count towards the high-density numbers
for the community, noting that perhaps that could be delayed to count towards the Comprehensive
Plan components.
Albers stated that there is already proposed guiding for high density and this would essentially add
more.
Murrin noted that she would like to have the units count towards the high density for the community
and suggested removing high density from another area to create a balance.
R. Reid stated that this area was already designated as commercial and therefore was not zoned for
rural development.
Finke stated that there would be an option to rearrange the high density within the draft plan, as the
Council has not formally approved the plan. He stated that procedurally the draft plan has been
largely unchanged through the numerous public hearing and public meetings and that would be
making a pretty major shift.
Barry stated that the Steering Committee did a lot of work through the open houses to develop the
draft plan. He stated that it is impossible to predict what the Metropolitan Council will release in
their next system statements. He stated that a lot of work has already been done on the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore did not recommend changing that. He stated that the decision at
this time would be to determine the best course of action now for this application.
Murrin asked if the applicant would like to build the commercial first or the high-density portion first.
Lunski replied that the commercial building would go hand in hand with the assisted living. He noted
that if the site were zoned for high density residential they would switch the development to more
high density residential and the commercial aspects would be removed. He estimated 140 units if
high density housing were to be the zoning.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes
4
Albers stated that he would not envision that type of use. He stated that he liked the design of the
building, even though it will be big. He stated that the thought of a retail coffee shop would be
appealing.
R. Reid stated that she does not have a problem with rezoning the property to business. She stated
that one reason this type of use was not allowed within commercial was because they did not want it
to face Highway 55. She stated that, as arranged, this would not access from Highway 55 and
therefore would support the use. She stated that the site appears crowded, but she does not have a
problem with the rezoning.
Lunski stated that the site will blend a bit more with the commercial use.
R. Reid asked for information on timing and whether the applicant would be prepared to break ground
this year.
Lunski replied that they are ready to build and would like to break ground this year if the process
continues to move forward.
R. Reid asked if this would open the floodgates for similar applications if this is allowed to move
forward.
Finke stated that there are two similar requests this evening, although not entirely the same request.
He stated that the likelihood is fairly low as there is not that much property in play that would not
require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that a number of property uses are going to be
changed from the existing use under the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that developers are looking
to be consistent with the new plan, which is good, but noted that the City still needs to accept
comments from other jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Council and therefore some things under the
draft plan can change. He confirmed that the difference between the commercial and business zoning
districts is not much.
The Commission confirmed consensus to support the change in zoning from commercial to business
should this continue to move forward.
Albers referenced the overall size of the development and asked if the applicant would be willing to
scale back the development to meet the necessary setbacks and requirements.
Finke confirmed that some adjustments would need to be made to meet the minimum zoning
requirements, but noted that the changes would not be substantial.
Medina City Council Excerpt from February 21, 2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Lunski Senior Housing/Office Concept Plan Review – PID 03-118-23-32-0007 (7:18 p.m.)
Finke noted that this is a concept plan review and therefore the Council will simply provide
comments and no formal action is necessary. He stated that this is a proposed 80-unit
combination of independent and assisted senior living and would also include an office building
and commercial building. He discussed the topography and current state of the site including
trees and wetlands. He stated that a future request may come forward to rezone the parcel
from commercial to business. He noted that the draft Comprehensive Plan designates this land
as business rather than the current designation of business. He identified the zoning and uses
of adjacent properties. He displayed the concept plan which identifies the senior housing
building, the office building, and the commercial building. He stated that the concept plan
designates three lots and provided more details on the proposed access. He reviewed some of
the concerns noted by staff including the need to specify the mix of assisted living and
independent units within the complex. He noted that within the business zoning district,
assisted living would need to be the primary use with independent living as an accessory. He
stated that one item to be considered is whether the Council would be comfortable rezoning the
parcel to business ahead of the adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan. He noted that staff
has suggested that the building size be reduced slightly to better fit onto the parcel. He
provided additional information on high density housing and how those units are calculated.
Pederson referenced the wetland that would be filled and asked for additional information.
Finke stated that there are wetland impacts for the driveway, which staff views as a necessity as
access will not be supported onto Highway 55.
Anderson referenced lot three, specifically the setback requirement, and asked how much the
applicant is short of meeting that requirement.
Finke replied that the applicant would be about two or three feet short of meeting the setback
requirement.
Pederson asked whether emergency and fire vehicles would have adequate space to navigate
the site. He noted that if this moves forward the Chippewa extension may be needed and the
applicant should be aware of the costs.
Mitchell noted that this is different than the original plan for the area but it could still be a good fit
and asked for the input of the Council.
Pederson stated that this seems to be a good fit for the property but it seems that there is too
much going on with the site.
Cousineau stated that this does not seem like a bad location for the project but the project is too
large and feels like a jump ahead.
Mitchell stated that commercial is not filtered through the same jump ahead as residential
development.
Anderson stated that the real question is regarding the policy. He stated that despite the
similarities between business and commercial zoning, there have been previous applicants that
wanted to come in under the new Comprehensive Plan zoning and the Council has denied
those requests. He stated that if the applicant feels strongly they should request a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Medina City Council Excerpt from February 21, 2017 Meeting Minutes
2
Mitchell noted that this would not draw a large amount of traffic to the site, which is in
agreement with what the City wants. He stated that he attended the Planning Commission
meeting and endorsed the comment that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner for
a possible driveway that would avoid the wetland. He stated that the applicant has stated that
they would like flexibility in the unit type so that they can change over time based on the market
demands. He cautioned to ensure that if flexibility is provided, a sufficient amount of parking is
still provided. He stated that this seems to be a lot of development on not so much land.
Cousineau stated that there is real emphasis on the business park zoning that the buildings
should blend into the surroundings and she commented that perhaps the landscaping could be
tweaked to better blend. She noted that the height of the building would stand out a lot
compared to the surrounding uses.
Pederson stated that applicants have complained later in the process about the cost of
underground parking and noted that the applicant should be aware of that cost as the
underground parking would be needed to support this level of development.
Anderson noted the applicant should be aware of the potential cost of expanding Chippewa that
would come along with that road project.
Mitchell stated that this is a terrific use for the property. He stated that the Council is getting into
the design details in order to provide a higher level of comment to the applicant. He stated that
he is in favor of the project with the comments the Council made tonight.
Pederson stated that he is also in agreement with the project as long as the details could be
worked out.
Cousineau stated that she would be willing to rezone to high density if we could ensure our
density is not in excess of our required numbers.
Finke provided additional details on the process that would be necessary to change the zoning
to high density. He stated that at the Planning Commission, the applicant did say that if the
rezoning was done to high density they would not be opposed to that and would then choose
high density rather than senior living.
Cousineau asked if this could create a creep in the increase of residential units that would not
count towards high density requirements.
Finke stated that there are a number of acres available for business development that could be
used for assisted type living.
Dean Lunski, applicant, stated that they purchased the property in 2005 with the intent to
develop in 2005, but a moratorium was placed and therefore they have not been able to
develop. He stated that if they were going to rezone to residential they would go to multi-family
housing rather than independent/assisted living as that use is also highly in demand. He stated
that the aging population of Medina is growing and therefore there is a demand for senior living
in the area.
Mitchell stated that the applicant has sat on this land for many years and the applicant would
like to get moving and not wait until 2020.
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
July 6, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-204
WSB Project No. 03433-140
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed The Medina Senior Living application and plans dated June 20, 2017. The
applicant proposes to construct a 90 unit senior living complex consisting of three stories and
approximately 118,100 square feet. In addition, a separate 40,000 square foot two-story
medical/office building is also proposed for the site.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Site and Grading Plans
1. The utilities shown on the site plan and make it difficult to read, either eliminate these on the
site plan or make the line-types lighter.
2. The City’s comprehensive trail plan shows a future trail extension along Chippewa Road.
The applicant may need to provide additional right of way, easements, and/or construct a trail
along this section of Chippewa Road as a part of the park dedication allocation to the City.
3. Provide an exhibit showing the turning movements of trucks (fire and delivery) within the
site including the delivery entrances along with a detail of the truck dimensions.
4. Provide details and design information for the proposed boardwalk with future submittals.
5. Provide a legend on the site plan denoting the various types of paving and walkways
proposed for the site with clear hatching patterns.
6. There are details shown in the plans for retaining wall, show the location and elevation
information more clearly on the site/grading plans. The elevations should include both the
top and bottom of the wall.
7. Note that slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in locations where the steep slopes are proposed.
8. Correct the symbol for the proposed tree locations on the landscaping sheets; it is also not
clear what types of trees are being planted in relation to the legend.
Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
July 6, 2017
Page 2
9. The City will provide confirmation whether or not additional ROW is required along
Chippewa Road for the trail once the traffic study has been updated as indicated in this
review concerning the turn lanes.
10. In general, plans shall meet the requirements set forth in the City’s Design Manual.
11. Maximize the parking lot bump out at the southeasterly lot to allow for greater turning
movement space during backup maneuvering.
12. Provide analysis to confirm that the proposed underground parking is feasible given the
underlying soil conditions and water table elevation.
Utility Plan
13. Easements may be required by the City to encompass all or a portion of the sanitary sewer
and watermain into the site.
14. Looping connections may be required to minimize long dead-end watermain sections, the
layout provided will require review by the City’s Fire Marshall. Extend the watermain south
with the sanitary sewer alignment along the westerly property line and provide a second
connection to the existing watermain at TH 55.
15. Extend the watermain and sanitary sewer stubs up to the right of way line adjacent to
Chippewa Road. Add gate valve to the watermain stub.
16. Label the building services separately and include type of pipe and stub invert information
for the sanitary services. Add missing invert information to northerly sewer stub.
17. Provide dimension labels between watermain and both sanitary sewer and storm sewer
piping.
18. Use different line-type for sanitary sewer that includes arrows to denote direction of flow.
19. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for the proposed structures served by
City water.
20. On Sheet C5.0 under Sanitary Sewer Notes, note 1 needs to be corrected to meet the
requirements of the City of Medina design guidelines in regards to pipe strength designation
and bury depth.
21. Based on the current design, it appears the applicant will be required to apply for permits
from DLI and MDH, provide copies to the City.
Traffic & Intersections
22. Although the Traffic Study does indicate that no turn lanes are required at the Site Entrance,
the updated information and analysis outlined below should be provided to make a final
determination. In addition, in order to provide a recommendation on the need for turn lanes at
Willow Drive or determining the interaction between the adjacent driveways, the additional
information and analysis should be provided.
23. Dependent on the increase on vehicular traffic, the development may contribute to the need
for extending Chippewa Road to the east between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Dive.
24. The posted speed limit on Chippewa Road is currently 40 mph. There are horizontal curves
on the current roadway west of the proposed site driveway. With this in mind, the proposed
Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
July 6, 2017
Page 3
driveway should be analyzed for sight distance issues or concerns. A figure showing the site
line analysis should be provided.
25. The intersection analysis only considered Chippewa Road at the site entrance. To document
the area impacts, the intersections of Chippewa Road at Willow Drive and Chippewa Road at
Mohawk Drive should also be analyzed.
26. The site traffic generation should be revised/updated with the following:
o The text of the project narrative indicates that the Senior Housing part of the site
includes assisted living as well as the senior housing.
o The medical office is now smaller 24,757 sf
o The retail is now larger 4,320 sf. Is it anticipated that this could be a Pharmacy? If so,
that should be used for traffic generation.
27. The majority of the traffic to and from the site will use Willow Drive to TH 55. Additional
analysis showing delay’s and queues need to provided, specifically for the left and right turn
movements at:
o Chippewa Road at site driveway;
o Chippewa Road at Willow Road;
o Chippewa Road at Mohawk Drive.
28. The site plan should be updated to show the correct location of the proposed uses. The future
phase (commercial) access location to the main driveway is close to Chippewa Road. This
should be evaluated to insure no conflicts.
29. The Traffic Study indicates that the interaction between the Site entrance and the property
driveway adjacent to it does not have any issues. Provide the assumption(s) for development
of the adjacent property and additional discussion/analysis, including future traffic generation
and the anticipated left/right turn queues between driveways, to validate whether or not there
will be future impacts and issues.
Stormwater Management
30. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement. It is not clear in the
submittal how this will be accomplished. One option is to utilize stormwater reuse from the
proposed ponds for irrigation.
31. Several ponds are shown on the grading plans. The City requires compliance with the
volume control requirement and it is not clear that any infiltration or filtration volume is
provided.
32. The development will need to meet the appropriate Elm Creek Watershed standards and
permitting requirements, provide permitting documents to the City when approved.
33. Provide demonstration that the water quality criteria have been met using PondNet, P8, or
other approved water quality modeling method.
34. Specify if future impervious area at the north side of the site has been included for treatment
or if this area is to be treated once constructed.
35. EOFs must be labeled on the plans for all BMPs.
36. Label the size and type of existing and proposed storm sewer piping, label the invert
information on all catch basins/manholes.
Medina Senior Living – Engineering Review
July 6, 2017
Page 4
37. Calculations must be submitted indicating the culvert under the proposed entrance road is
sized adequately to convey the offsite tributary area to the wetland.
38. North Pond must have a minimum dead pool depth of 3 feet.
39. North Pond NWL does not match that used in HydroCAD. Confirm the correct NWL and
HWL.
40. Show HWL on the plans for the biofiltration basin.
41. Confirm that the freeboard from the lowest opening of the buildings meets the two feet of
freeboard from the emergency overflow elevations of the BMPs.
Wetland Impacts
42. Label the wetland buffer and provide dimensioning on each sheet.
43. WCA application comments:
o Include a more complete description of the purpose and need for the project,
including any standards that may apply to the driveway, pathways, ADA, etc.
o It appears that project elements other than the driveway are contributing to the
wetland impact as well (grading for the building, paved pathway, and gazebo area).
Add a discussion of the need and design requirements for these elements.
o If stormwater will outlet into the wetlands, discuss how the stormwater will be pre-
treated prior to discharging to the wetland and include in the impact acreage any
impacts that result from outfall structures, including riprap.
o Add a discussion regarding the boardwalk.
o The current application does not include details regarding avoidance alternatives. The
WCA requires that two avoidance alternatives be discussed. One can be a no-build
alternative. Include exhibits of each alternative.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
elm creek
Watershed Management Commission ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TECHNICAL OFFICE 3235 Fernbrook Lane Hennepin County Public Works
Plymouth, MN 55447 Department of Environment and Energy PH: 763.553.1144 701 Fourth Ave. South, Suite 700
E-mail: judie@jass.biz Minneapolis, MN 55415 www.elmcreekwatershed.org PH: 612.596.1171
E-mail: jason.swenson@hennepin.us
CHAMPLIN • CORCORAN • DAYTON • MAPLE GROVE • MEDINA • PLYMOUTH • ROGERS
S:\EMD \DEMCON\CORR\SWENSON\WATERSHEDS\ELM CREEK \PLAN REVIEWS\2017\2017 -019 Medina Senior Community, Medina\2017-0 19
Review Memo .docx
Medina Senior Living Facility
Medina , Project #2017-019
Project Overview: The 10.8-acre commercial project site is located north of Highway 55, south
of Chippewa Drive and midway between Willow Drive and Mohawk Drive. The site is currently
vacant and covered by forested lands and a cattail marsh wetland is located in the central portion
of the site running in an east -west direction. The proposed project is 6.00 acres, with 3.77 acres
of impervious surface and will include two new main building structure s, an accessory structure,
and paved parking and driveway access to Chippewa Road. The remaining approximately 3.5
acres on the north side of the site will be platted for future development and is not subject to the
Elm Creek Watershed Commission review now. Our review will be for compliance to the
Commission’s 3 rd generation standards and rules.
Applicant: Lunski Inc . – c/o Dean Lunski, 1416 Main Street, Hopkins, MN 55343. Phone: 952-
929-3400. Email: dlunski@psidb.com
Agent/Engineer: Hill Engineering, Inc . – c/o Jay Hill, P.E., 1585 Dunlap Street North, Saint Paul ,
MN 55108. Phone: 612-987-4455. Email: hilleng@gmail.com
Exhibits :
1) ECWMC Request for Plan Review and Approval received May 31 , 2017 (City authorization
is J une 1 , 2017).
2) Project review fee of $2,750 on May 31 , 2017.
3) Complete plan was received on June 20, 2017.
4) Medina Senior Living Community Preliminary Plat (dated 5/12/2017)
5) Medina Senior Living Community, Site Plan Review Submittal (dated June 19, 2017)
CS..........Cover Sheet
A-SITE ..Architectural Site Plan
C1.0 .......Existing Conditions
C2.0 .......Tree Survey
C3.0 .......Site Plan
C4.0 .......Grading Plan
C5.0 .......Utility Plan
C6.0-6.2 Civil Details
C7.0 .......SWPPP
Medina Senior Living Community Page 2
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
C7.1 .......Erosion Control Plan
L1.0-2.0 .Landscaping Plan
6) Stormwater Design Report, dated June 16 , 2017 (unsigned).
7) Joint Application Form for Wetland Impacts, Dated 6/19/2017
8) Purchase Agreement for Wetland Bank Credits, 6/16/2017
Findings ;
9) A complete application was received on June 20 , 2017. The initial 6 0-day review period
expires August 19, 2 017.
10) The entire site will be routed to the existing wetland located in the center of the property.
The wetland discharges through a 15” Culvert to the south into the Highway 55 Right of
Way, then south under Highway 55 and through neighboring properties before discharging
into the series of wetlands and ditches south of Highway 55 eventually flowing north into
Rush Creek.
11) Rule F. Floodplain Alteration does not pertain to this project. There are no established
FEMA or ECWMC flood plains within the project corridor.
12) Rule G. Wetland Alteration. City of Medina is the Local Government Unit administe ring
the Wetland Conservation Act of Minnesota. A wetland delineation has been completed
and approved by the LGU. The applicant proposes impacts to 0.11 acres of wetlands to
complete the project. The applicant is proposing to purchase banking credits to mitigate
the pro posed impacts. Credits are proposed to be purchased from the Soberg wetland bank
in Hennepin County, roughly 1 ½ miles west of the proposed impacts.
In addition, there is a trail crossing of the wetland with no details of what this crossing is
(grading, b oardwalk, etc…). Information about this crossing must be added to the project
plans and should be included in any WCA permit applications. These issues should be
addressed by the City of Medina in their role as WCA LGU.
13) Rule I. Buffer requirements. Buffers are required to be an average of 25 feet wide, with a
minimum width of 10 feet. Several revisions are required to meet the Commission’s
requirements as follows:
a. At the proposed wetland impact area, a 10 foot wide minimum buffer is required.
Based on the site improvements as shown, this will require moving several
proposed trails out of the minimum buffer as they are not allowed in the buffer
when constructed as part of other site improvements.
b. The proposed gazebo will also need to be moved out of the 10 foot required
minimum buffer, and we suggest it also meet the recommended structure setback
of 15 feet from the required buffer.
c. There are multiple locations where the proposed buildings encroach into the
recommended 15 foot structure setback from the wetland buffer.
Medina Senior Living Community Page 3
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
d. The applicant must provide calculations demonstrating that minimum area is met
for the wetland buffers, taking into account all areas that require additional width
being added for slopes that are steeper than 6H:1V. There are multiple areas where
the minimum slopes are not met.
e. The applicant is proposing including all of the south pond and sloped as part of the
wetland buffer to increase the average buffer width. Staff will accept the pond in
the minimum 25 foot buffer in this area, but will not allow the remainder of the
pond to be include in the buffer width averaging.
14) Rule E. Erosion and Sediment Control will meet the Commission’s requirements with
minor revisions:
a) A final plan, dated and signed by a Professional Engineer licensed in Minnesota, must
be submitted to the Commission and the City of Medina .
b) The SWPPP must include a map identifying the receiving waters from the site. The
SWPPP states that the site drains to waters that are impaired. These must be identified
correctly in the SWPPP, not just stated generically. A review of the MPCA impaired
waters map did not identify any impaired waters within 1 mile of the site.
c) Note #6 on Sheet C4.0 need to be changed to state stabilization must occur within 14
days per the current NPDES permit. The language on the plans has not been effective
since August of 2013 when the current NPDES permit was made effective.
d) The SWPPP should identify who prepared the SWPPP and the training received that
qualifies them to prepare the SWPPP to comply with NPDES permit requirements. A
copy of the University of Minnesota Erosion Control Certification is one example.
e) BMP Notes on Sheet 7.0, Item 1 refers to designing all BMPS for 0.5 inches of runoff.
This should be replaced with 1.1 inches, per the current Elm Creek Watershed
Standards (which will also meet the current requirements of the NPDES construction
stormwater permit in effect since August of 2013.
f) The plans should have an actual Statement of Estimated Quantities (SEQ) on the plans
for at a minimum of all erosion control items to comply with NPDES permit
requirements.
g) The erosion control plans must provide redundant sediment control devices (such as a
second line of silt fence) adjacent to the wetland on site since the required 50 foot buffer
in the NPDES permit will not be maintained.
h) Inlet erosion controls should be shown at all culverts on the site per the detail plate
ERO -9 on Sheet C7.0
i) Details are missing for the proposed filtration basin such as the depth of the facility
above the filtration medium (see the cross section on Sheet C6.2). In addition, these
details appear to conflict with some of the standard plate details on RG-02 and RG-03
on sheet C6.0. Details RG-02 and RG-03 are also largely illegible at the scale they are
currently printed at and should be increased in size.
j) The Civil details on sheet 6.0 include a porous asphalt detail/cross section that refers to
a draft specification from MnDOT dating to 2012. The applicant should note that this
specification is now outdated and should be updated to MnDOT’s current standard. The
Medina Senior Living Community Page 4
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
la st revision from MnDOT is dated 4/3/2017 and may be found in MnDOT Special
Provisions SP 140.
k) No soil borings were provided for review showing the groundwater elevations on the
site. If any of the proposed pervious parking facilities or rain garden do not meet the
required 3 feet of separation from the groundwater elevation, then an impermeable liner
is required. This appears to primarily be an issue for the proposed rain garden facility.
l) The bottom of all infiltration/infiltration features should be scarified (ripped) to a
minimum depth of 12 inches prior to installing the remainder of the infiltration feature.
15) Rule D. Stormwater Management will be provided by two proposed ponds and filtration
feature (rain garden). Per the stormwater reports, runoff from the rooftops is proposed to
be routed directly to the south stormwater pond. However, no details on how this is
proposed to occur are provided for review, and the roof profile of the senior living
community does not support this conclusion as shown on the plans. Runoff from the
parking areas is a routed through pervious parking areas and then also is directed to the
south stormwater pond. Runoff from the entrance access and some trails is proposed to be
directed to the northern stormwater pond. A rain water garden is also proposed for the site
that will provide treatment for runoff from so me of the proposed trails only.
Again, it should be noted that the stormwater calculations do not appear to take into account
any further expansion on the north side of the site at this time outside of the proposed access
drive.
16) The southern pond outlet will be equipped with a 12” orifice at 990.0’ and discharges
through a 10” outlet pipe at 991.0’ in elevation. No details on proposed pipes or outlet
control structures were provided for review in the plan set.
17) The northern pond will be equipped with a 12” orifice at 990.0’ and discharges through a
12” outlet pipe at 991.0’ in elevation per the HydroCAD model. The project plans call for
a normal water level of 992.0’. This discrepancy must be resolved. No details on proposed
pipes or outlet control structures were provided for review in the plan set.
18) The HydroCAD modeling for the site does not take into account the existing watersurface
or the proposed water surface correctly in the modeling. All open water surfaces, such as
open water in the wetland and open water on each of the proposed ponds should be modeled
using a curve number of 98 (though this is not included in the impervious surfaces
calculation).
19) Stormwater rate control.
The post-development stormwater runoff rates for the 2-, 10- and 100-year events meet the
standards as presently modeled and are shown below:
Storm
Event
E xisting
Discharge Rate (cfs)
Proposed Discharge
Rate (cfs)
2-year 2.60 0.87
10-year 5.04 1.66 100-year 10.81 3.58
Medina Senior Living Community Page 5
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
These rates will require verification when modifications are made to the HydroCAD
models.
20) Volume analysis:
The volume abstraction requirement for 1.1” of runoff from 3.37 acres of new impervious
surface is about 13,460 cubic feet.
The applicant notes that soils are not conducive for infiltration . However, a significant
portion of the site appears to contain type C soils that have a higher infiltration rate than
used in the modeling for the project. The applicant is proposing to build three separate
areas of parking with pervious pavement and storage provided under the pavement with
drain tile outlets. Two of these appear to be able to be redesigned to take advantage of the
better soils to increase the volume abstraction.
Without detailed infiltration testing of the soils at the actual elevations where infiltration is
proposed to occur, the applicant is advised to use the infiltration rates from the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual with a factor of safety of 2.0 applied to them (ie: reduce the infiltration
rate in ½).
The applicant proposes using excess wetland buffer areas for additional abstraction credits.
Per the notes above, the area covering the south pond is not acceptable for use in these
calculations.
The applicant will need to provide a better accounting of how the required abstraction will
be met for the site.
21) Water quality and nutrient analysis :
a. The applicant provided a narrative account of water quality and nutrient analysis
from the site, but provided no backup calculations to demonstrate how these
numbers were determined.
b. The applicant also appears to call the existing forested area on the site grassland,
meadow, or open space. The applicant is advised to apply the correct pre-developed
land use of woodland to the water quality calculations.
c. The applicant must provide the calculations from PondNET or other water quality
modeling software (such as the MIDS calculator) to demonstrate the source of the
information provided in the narrative.
22) At the time of writing this report, it was not certain which party (City of Medina or the
applicant) would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater
management facilities. A responsible party must be established for the O&M Plan.
Medina Senior Living Community Page 6
Medina, Project 2017-019
July 5, 2017
Recommendation:
None at this time. Significant revisions are still required to the site to bring it into compliance
with ECWMC Rules.
Hennepin County
Department of Environment and Energy
July 5 , 2017
Jason Swenson, P.E.
Technical Advisor to the Commission
���� C A I N S T ��. . < 6
L U N S K I I N C .
x e n
s c p J
" v s - m 1 - 4
J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 1 7
D u s t y F i n k e
C i t y P l a n n e r , C i t y o f M e d i n a
D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g
2 0 5 2 C o u n t y R o a d 2 4
M e d i n a , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 4 0
M r . F i n k e ,
P l e a s e f i n d e n c l o s e d t h e s u m m a r y f o r t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t l o c a t e d b e t w e e n H i g h w a y 5 5 a n d
C h i p p e w a R o a d ( P I D # 0 3 1 1 8 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 7 ) . T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t c o n s i s t s o f t w o c o m p o n e n t s : a 3 s t o r y
A s s i s t e d / I n d e p e n d e n t S e n i o r L i v i n g C o m m u n i t y a n d a t w o s t o r y m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g .
P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n :
W e a r e p r o p o s i n g a 9 0 u n i t a s s i s t e d / i n d e p e n d e n t s e n i o r l i v i n g c o m m u n i t y c o n s i s t i n g o f t h r e e s t o r i e s
a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 8 , 1 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t . T h e d e s i g n o f t h e s e n i o r c o m m u n i t y w i l l a c c o m m o d a t e a
m i n i m u m o f 5 0 % a s s i s t e d l i v i n g u n i t s a n d l i k e l y m o r e d e p e n d i n g u p o n l e a s i n g d e m a n d . A m e n i t i e s w i l l
i n c l u d e o n - s i t e d i n i n g , a b i s t r o c a f e / c o f f e e s h o p , b e a u t y s a l o n , e x e r c i s e / w e l l n e s s r o o m , a n d v a r i o u s
g r o u p g a t h e r i n g a r e a s a c c o m m o d a t i n g a w i d e v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s . E x t e n s i v e o u t d o o r s p a c e s i n c l u d i n g
p o r c h e s , p a t i o s a n d t r a i l s a c r o s s t h e s i t e p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e s i d e n t s t o e n g a g e t h e
n a t u r a l s e t t i n g .
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g , a t w o s t o r y , 4 0 , 0 0 0 s . f . ( a p p r o x i m a t e ) m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g i s
p r o p o s e d a d j a c e n t t o H i g h w a y 5 5 a l o n g t h e s o u t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e . T h e i n t e n d e d u s e w i l l p r o v i d e
a s y n e r g i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e s e n i o r f a c i l i t y a n d a u g m e n t t h e s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e t o r e s i d e n t s o n s i t e
i n a d d i t i o n t o p r o v i d i n g a v a l u a b l e m e d i c a l r e s o u r c e w i t h i n t h e a r e a . A p r o p o s e d s k y w a y c o n n e c t i o n
b e t w e e n t h e t w o b u i l d i n g s w i l l f u r t h e r a l l o w r e s i d e n t s a n d s t a f f t o w o r k i n t a n d e m a c r o s s t h e t w o
f a c i l i t i e s . A n u n d e r g r o u n d p a r k i n g g a r a g e a s w e l l a s s u r f a c e p a r k i n g i s p r o v i d e d f o r t h i s f a c i l i t y .
A f t e r r e c e i v i n g c o m m e n t s t h r o u g h t h e c i t y ' s C o n c e p t S u b m i t t a l r e v i e w o f t h e p r o j e c t , a n d p e r d i s c u s s i o n
w i t h C i t y s t a f f , w e h a v e m a d e a n u m b e r o f r e v i s i o n s t o t h e o v e r a l l p r o j e c t . T h e s e r e v i s i o n s a r e t h e r e s u l t
o f b o t h i n t e r n a l r e v i e w a s w e l l a s o u r b e s t a t t e m p t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f M e d i n a ' s z o n i n g
o r d i n a n c e s . T h e s e r e v i s i o n s i n c l u d e :
" O v e r a l l r e d u c t i o n o f u n i t s w i t h i n t h e s e n i o r l i v i n g f a c i l i t y f r o m 1 3 5 t o 9 0 .
" R e d u c t i o n i n t h e m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g a r e a b y a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 , 0 0 0 s . f .
" E l i m i n a t e d 1 s t o r y c o m m e r c i a l b u i l d i n g w i t h i n t h e s o u t h w e s t c o r n e r o f t h e s i t e r e s u l t i n g i n a
n e e d f o r 1 7 f e w e r p a r k i n g s t a l l s .
" A l l b u i l d i n g s w i t h i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t c o n f o r m t o s e t b a c k r e g u l a t i o n s p e r B z o n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s .
" L o t l i n e s a r e r e v i s e d t o r e f l e c t t h e f o o t p r i n t o f t h e a c c e s s d r i v e w i t h i n l o t 1 a s w e l l a s t h e p a r k i n g
l a y o u t b e t w e e n l o t s 3 a n d 4 .
" P a r k i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e r e v i s e d t o b e t t e r r e f l e c t t h e C i t y ' s o r d i n a n c e s h o w e v e r t h e o r d i n a n c e s
d o n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s a s e r v i c e b a s e d s e n i o r l i v i n g f a c i l i t y a s a t y p e o f u s e .
" A w a l k i n g p a t h h a s b e e n e x t e n d e d t o C h i p p e w a R o a d p e r s t a f f c o m m e n t s .
" T h e c u r r e n t s i t e p l a n c o m p l i e s w i t h B z o n i n g d i s t r i c t l a n d s c a p e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n c l u d i n g : 1 2 '
b u f f e r b e t w e e n a l l b u i l d i n g s a n d a c c e s s d r i v e s , 8 % o f p a r k i n g a n d d r i v e a r e a s a r e l a n d s c a p e d ,
a n d l a n d s c a p i n g b r e a k s w i t h i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t a r e m i n i m u m 1 2 ' w i d e .
T h e e x i s t i n g s i t e :
T h e 1 0 . 8 a c r e s i t e i s z o n e d R u r a l C o m m e r c i a l H o l d i n g ( R C H ) . A l a r g e p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e c o n s i s t s o f a
M a n a g e 1 W e t l a n d . T h e w e t l a n d a r e a i n c l u d i n g b u f f e r a n d r e q u i r e d b u i l d i n g s e t b a c k s t o t a l s l i g h t l y m o r e
t h a n 4 0 % o f t h e o v e r a l l s i t e a r e a . T h e r e h a v e b e e n a v a r i e t y o f c o n c e p t p l a n s p r e p a r e d c o n s i s t i n g o f a
v a r i e t y o f p r o p o s e d u s e s f o r t h e s i t e . A l l o f t h e o t h e r c o n c e p t p l a n s r e q u i r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e w e t l a n d
i m p a c t s i n o r d e r t o d e v e l o p a f e a s i b l e c o n c e p t p l a n . S i n c e t h e e x i s t i n g w e t l a n d b i s e c t s t h e p r o p e r t y a n d
t h e r e a r e s i t e a c c e s s c o n t r o l s a l o n g H i g h w a y 5 5 , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o a v o i d a l l w e t l a n d i m p a c t s w h i l e
u t i l i z i n g a v a i l a b l e d e v e l o p a b l e l a n d . T h i s p r o p o s e d d e s i g n m i n i m i z e s t h e a m o u n t o f p r o p o s e d w e t l a n d
i m p a c t t o t h e g r e a t e s t a m o u n t p o s s i b l e . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t w e t l a n d r e p l a c e m e n t w i l l b e a c h i e v e d b y
p u r c h a s i n g a v a i l a b l e o f f - s i t e w e t l a n d b a n k i n g c r e d i t s .
T h e r e a r e a l m o s t 2 , 0 0 0 c a l i p e r - i n c h e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t t r e e s l o c a t e d o n t h e p r o p e r t y . T h e p r o p o s e d d e s i g n
p r e s e r v e s 7 0 % o f t h e e x i s t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t t r e e s . I t i s p r o p o s e d t h a t a l l o f t h e r e q u i r e d r e p l a c e m e n t t r e e s
w i l l b e p r o v i d e d o n - s i t e , a l o n g w i t h o t h e r s i t e l a n d s c a p i n g .
T h e p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g s :
T h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y b u i l d i n g i s a 3 s t o r y , 9 0 u n i t a s s i s t e d l i v i n g / i n d e p e n d e n t s e n i o r c o m m u n i t y
w i t h o n e l e v e l o f p a r k i n g p a r t i a l l y b e l o w g r a d e . T h e t o t a l g r o s s a r e a o f t h i s b u i l d i n g , e x c l u d i n g g a r a g e ,
w i l l b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 9 9 , 8 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t . T h e g a r a g e w i l l b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 8 , 5 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t a n d w i l l
c o n t a i n 4 8 p a r k i n g s t a l l s .
T h e m e d i c a l / o f f i c e b u i l d i n g w i l l b e t w o s t o r i e s a n d c o n t a i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 4 , 8 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t o f
c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e . I n a d d i t i o n , a l o w e r l e v e l w i l l a c c o m m o d a t e 3 3 g a r a g e s t a l l s a s w e l l a s s e r v i c e s p a c e .
T h e i n t e n d e d u s e w o u l d p r o v i d e a r e g i o n a l c l i n i c w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s p e c i a l t y c a r e s u c h a s
c h i r o p r a c t i c , o r t h o p e d i c , o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n / p h y s i c a l t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s . A s k y w a y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n
b u i l d i n g s o n s i t e a l l o w s d i r e c t a c c e s s f o r t h e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e s e n i o r f a c i l i t y t o t a k e d i r e c t a d v a n t a g e o f
t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e .
P r o p o s e d a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e t a i l s o f t h e n e w b u i l d i n g s :
T h e b u i l d i n g s w i l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f M e d i n a ' s p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d s f o r e x t e r i o r m a t e r i a l s p e r
S e c t i o n 8 3 5 a n d 8 3 8 . 5 ( b y r e f e r e n c e ) . T h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y w i l l b e d e t a i l e d i n a t r a d i t i o n a l m a n n e r ,
2
including a masonry base and accents, and provide warm earth tone colors. The Senior Living Facility
will employ sloped roofs at a minimum 6:12 pitch.
The medical / office facility design has a more modern feel however will share masonry materials with
the senior living facility as well as other material cues. A manufactured wood veneer and composite
metal panel elements accent the masonry and stucco structure.
Both buildings provide a regular patterned window system and a variety of materials to subdivide
exterior facades to minimize scale and enhance the community feel.
Parking:
There has been significant discussion regarding the amount of parking required for the proposed uses
on the site. Currently 220 total parking spaces are provided across lots 3 and 4. 81 stalls (37%) are
underground garage parking, minimizing additional impervious site coverage.
The medical / office building requires 100 parking stalls and currently meets city ordinances for its use at
1 parking stall per 250 s.f. of area.
The Senior Living Facility is currently allotted 120 parking stalls. The City of Medina does not recognize a
service based senior living facility within its parking ordinances and therefore does not have a use type
which can be properly applied in this situation. Currently we are calculating parking for this facility in
the following manner:
45 Independent Living Units x 2.25 spaces / unit (Apartment use per Ordinance) = 102 stalls
30 Assisted Living Units x .4 spaces per unit (per City Staff) = 12 stalls
15 Memory Care / Special Care Suites x .35 spaces per unit (per City Staff) = 6 stalls
Total calculated parking = 120 stalls
Internally, ownership as well as the design team have evaluated a number of scenarios to ensure
adequate parking is provided as it is a key component to the success of this development. Because
there is not a specific ordinance which applies to this use, an alternate method of calculating parking
based upon past experience and evaluation of other similar facilities results in the following:
45 Independent Living Units x 1.25 spaces per unit = 57 stalls
30 Assisted Living Units and Specialty Care Suites x .4 (per City staff) = 12 stalls
Employee parking per shift = 28 stalls
90 total units x .25 guest parking (per Ordinance) = 23 stalls
Total calculated parking (alternative method) = 120 stalls
Based on the parking evaluations above, we feel the proposed uses are adequately parked and will
function as intended. Additional parking factors include:
• Covenants between lots within the development allowing shared parking across lot lines to
allow for ebb and flow of parking based on unique demand for certain occasions such as guest
parking on holidays.
3
" P r i v a t e s h u t t l e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y t h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y r e d u c e s t h e n e e d f o r
r e s i d e n t s t o m a i n t a i n a p r i v a t e v e h i c l e .
" T h e s e n i o r f a c i l i t y w i l l m a i n t a i n a m i n i m u m 5 0 % a s s i s t e d l i v i n g u n i t s p e r t h e C i t y ' s r e q u i r e m e n t
h o w e v e r a s t h e b u i l d i n g m a t u r e s , t h i s p e r c e n t a g e i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e a s a p r i m a r y g o a l o f t h e
f a c i l i t y w i l l b e t o a l l o w r e s i d e n t s t o a g e i n p l a c e . T h i s w o u l d r e s u l t i n a n a d d i t i o n a l d e c r e a s e i n
d e m a n d f o r p r i v a t e v e h i c l e s o n s i t e i n t h e f u t u r e .
P r o p o s e d s i t e w o r k :
T h e s i t e w o r k w i l l c o n s i s t o f t h e i n i t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f L o t s 1 , 3 a n d 4 a n d w i l l i n c l u d e e x t e n d i n g u t i l i t i e s
t h r o u g h t h e s i t e a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e m a i n a c c e s s d r i v e . O v e r a l l s i t e d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l b e
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s u b m i t t e d S i t e P l a n R e v i e w p a c k a g e w i t h L o t 2 r e m a i n i n g a f u t u r e p h a s e .
S a n i t a r y s e w e r i s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e a t t h e s o u t h w e s t c o r n e r o f t h e s i t e n e a r t h e p r o p o s e d o u t b u i l d i n g .
S a n i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e w i l l b e e x t e n d e d t o t h e 2 p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g s a n d a l s o a l o n g t h e p r o p o s e d a c c e s s
d r i v e t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e f o r p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e .
W a t e r m a i n i s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e H i g h w a y 5 5 r i g h t o f w a y . W a t e r
s e r v i c e w i l l b e e x t e n d e d t o t h e 2 p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g s a n d a l s o a l o n g t h e p r o p o s e d a c c e s s d r i v e t o p r o v i d e
s e r v i c e f o r p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e .
S t o r m w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t i s p r o p o s e d t o b e h a n d l e d o n - s i t e m e e t i n g a l l r e q u i r e d r a t e , v o l u m e & q u a l i t y
r e q u i r e m e n t s . A l l s t o r m w a t e r i s p r o p o s e d t o b e d i s c h a r g e d t o t h e e x i s t i n g o n s i t e w e t l a n d c o m p l e x . T h e
p l a n c u r r e n t l y h a s 2 r e t e n t i o n p o n d s s h o w n . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e 2 m a j o r f a c i l i t i e s , a n u m b e r o f s m a l l e r
i n f i l t r a t i o n / f i l t r a t i o n b a s i n s ( r a i n w a t e r g a r d e n s ) w i l l b e d e v e l o p e d w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t s i t e .
P r o j e c t P h a s i n g :
O v e r a l l , s i t e d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l c o n s i s t o f L o t s 1 , 3 a n d 4 i n c l u d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a l l u n d e r g r o u n d
u t i l i t i e s , s i t e i m p r o v e m e n t s , a n d l a n d s c a p i n g .
T h e S e n i o r L i v i n g F a c i l i t y o n L o t 3 w i l l b e t h e f i r s t b u i l d i n g t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d . T h e i n t e n t i s t o b e g i n
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e m e d i c a l o f f i c e / b u i l d i n g o n L o t 4 w i t h i n t h e a l l o t t e d c i t y a p p r o v a l t i m e f r a m e .
W e l o o k f o r w a r d t o a t h o u g h t f u l d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t h i s s i t e a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f i t s d e v e l o p m e n t .
T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
S i n c e r e l y ,
D e a n L u n s k i
L u n s k i I n c .
1 4 1 6 M a i n s t r e e t
H o p k i n s , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 4 3
4
0
Scale In Feet
6030
C DateProject ArchitectPermit Submit DateProject NumberNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION765 North Hampden Avenue, #180
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
952.583.9788
Medina, MinnesotaPRELIMINARY
PLAT05/12/1716043n/a1585 DUNLAP STREET N
ST. PAUL, MN 55108
612.987.4455
DELINEATED WETLAND
BOUNDARY
30' WETLAND BUFFER
15' WETLAND BUFFER
SETBACK
ALL OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1
TO BE DRAINAGE &
UTILITY EASEMENT
PROPOSED DRAINAGE &
UTILITY EASEMENT
PROPOSED DRAINAGE &
UTILITY EASEMENT
PROPOSED DRAINAGE &
UTILITY EASEMENT
PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER
W/ MONUMENT SIGNS
+,*+:$<
&+,33(:$52$'02+$:.'5,9(:,//2:'5,9(6,7(
$%29(
$&&(66,%/(
$%29(),1,6+(')/225
$5&+,7(&7
$/80,180
$3352;,0$7(
%($5,1*3/$7(
%(1&+0$5.
%/2&.,1*
%27720
%277202):$//
&$67,13/$&(
&$7&+%$6,1
&(,/,1*
&(5$0,&7,/(
&/($5 $1&(
&21&5(7(
&21&5(7(0$6215<81,7
&216758&7,21
&217,18( 286
&2856(
$%9
$&&
$))
$5&+
$/80
$3352;
%3/
%0
%/.*
%27
%2:
&,3
&%
&/*
&7
&/5
&21&
&08
&2167
&217
&56
'(9(/23(5 $5&+,7(&7
&5$,*+$570$1
.(/&,(52%,1621
1+$03'(1$9(18(
68,7(
673$8/0,11(627$
FUDLJ#PGJDUFKLWHFWVFRP
NHOFLH#PGJDUFKLWHFWVFRP
&21752/-2,17
'(7$,/
',$0(7(5
',0(16,21
'225
'2:163287
'5$:,1*
'5,1.,1*)2817$,1
(/(&75,& $/
(/(9$7,21
(48$/
(;+$867
(;,67,1*
(;3$16,21-2,17
(;3$16,21
(;+$867)$1
(/(&75,&$/3$1(/
(/(&75,&:$7(5&22/(5
(;7(5,25
),1,6+(')/225(/(9$7,21
),5(3/$&(
&-
'7/
',$
',0
'5
'6
':*
')
(/(&7
(/
(4
(;+
(;,67
(-
(;3
()
(/(&31/
(:&
(;7
))(
)3/
)/225'5$,1
)227,1*
)281'$7,21
),5(+<'5$17
*$*(*$8*(
*$/9$1,=('
*(1(5$/&2175$&725
*5$%%$5
+$5':$5(
+($7,1*9(17,/$7,21
$,5&21',7,21,1*
+(,*+7
+$1',&$3
+2//2:0(7$/
+25,=217$/
+26(%,%%
,1&/8'(
,16,'(',$0(7(5
,168/$7,21
,17(5,25
,19(57
)'
)7*
)1'
)+
*$
*$/9
*&
*%
+':
+9$&
+7
+&
+0
+25
+%
,1&/
,'
,168/
,17
,19
-2,67
/$0,1$7(
/$9$725<
/()7+$1'
/,*+7
0$7(5,$/
0$1+2/(
0$18)$&785(
0$6215<
0$6215<23(1,1*
0(7$/
0,6&(//$1(286
127,1&2175$&7
127726&$/(
180%(5
21&(17(5
23(1,1*
23326,7(
23326,7(+$1'
2876,'(',$0(7(5
29(5+($'
-67
/$0
/$9
/+
/7
0$7
0+
0)5
0$6
02
07/
0,6&
1,&
176
12
2&
231*
233
23+
2'
2+
29(5+($''225
3$5$//(/
3$57,7,21
3$9(0(17
3/$67,&/$0,1$7(
3/$7(
35(6685(75($7('
32/<9,1</&+/25,'(
3281'63(5648$5()227
3281'63(5648$5(,1&+
35(&$67
3523(57</,1(
32:(532/(
48$55<7,/(
5$',86
5(7851$,5
522)'5$,1
5()(5(1&(
52&.)$&(
5,*+7+$1'
5,*+72):$<
2+'
3$5
3$57
3907
3/$0
3/
37
39&
36)
36,
3&
3/
33
47
5
5$
5'
5()
5)
5+
52:
5220
528*+23(1,1*
52'$1'6+(/)
6+($7+,1*
6+2:(5
6,0,/$5
62/,'&25(
63(&,),&$7,216
648$5(
67$,1/(6667((/
67250'5$,1
6758&785$/
6<00(75< ,&$/
7+,&.1(66
7232)&21&5(7(
7232)6/$%
7232):$//
75($'
7<3,&$/
7232))227,1*
81),1,6+('
50
52
5 6
6+7*
6+5
6,0
6&
63(&
64
667/
6'
6758&7
6<0
7+.
72&
726
72:
7
7<3
72)
81)
85,1$/
81/(66127('27+(5:,6(
9(57,&$/
9(177+58522)
:22'
:$7(5&/26(7
:$7(5+($7(5
:$7(53522),1*
:$7(55(6,67$17
:(/'(':,5()$%5,&
:,'7+:,'(
<$5'+<'5$17
<$5''5$,1
<$5',1/(7
85
812
9(57
975
:'
:&
:+
:3
:5
::)
:
<+
<'
<,
$%%5(9,$7,216
$//1(&(66$5<$1'255(48,5('7(676,163(&7,2166+23'5$:,1*5(9,(:6
$1''5$:,1*,17(535(7$7,2165(48,5('%<7+(*(1(5$/&21',7,2166+$//
%((;(&87('%<$5(*,67(5('$5&+,7(&7$1'25%<$5(*,67(5('(1*,1((5
,)1277+($5&+,7(&72)5(&25'$1'257+((1*,1((52)5(&25'6+$//%(
+(/'+$50/(66)257+$73257,212)7+(:25.,03523(5/<(;(&87('7+(
,163(&7,21$5&+,7(&7$1'25(1*,1((56+$//%(&20(5(63216,%/()257+26(
,163(&7,216'(&,6,216$1'25'2&80(17,17(535(7$7,2160$'($67+(<
5(/$7(727+(&2175$&7'2&80(176$1'7+(,5,17(17
$//&216758&7,216+$//0((7$//$33/,&$%/(&2'(6$1'0267675,1*(17
6+$//$33/<
',0(16,216*,9(1)250$6215<21$5&+,7(&785$/'5$:,1*6$5(120,1$/
81/(6627+(5:,6(127('
6&$/('0($685(0(1762)'5$:,1*66+$//127%($//2:('
',0(16,21)25678':$//6$5(72)$&(2)678'$1'',0(16,216)25
0$6215<:$//6$5(72)$&(2)%/2&.81/(6667$7('27+(5:,6(
*(1(5$/127(6
352-(&76,7(/2&$7,21
&216758&7,21&2168/7$17
-21*80%5,//
32%2;
0,11($32/,601
&,9,/(1*,1((5
-$<+,//3(5/6
'81/$3675((71257+
673$8/0,11(627$
+LOOHQJ#JPDLOFRP
352-(&76800$5<
6+((7,1'(;
/XQVNL,QF
'($1/816.,
0$,1675((7
+23.,160,11(627$
0RPHQWXP'HVLJQ*URXS//&
+LOO(QJLQHHULQJ,QF%XLOGLQJ&RQVWUXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW,QF
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD
6,7(3/$15(9,(:68%0,77$/
$5&+,7(&785$/
$ 6(1,25)$&,/,7<*$5$*(3/$1 -XQH
$ 6(1,25)$&,/,7<67)/2253/$1 -XQH
$ 6(1,25)$&,/,7<1')/2253/$1 -XQH
$ 6(1,25)$&,/,7<5')/2253/$1 -XQH
$ 6(1,25)$&,/,7<(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 -XQH
$ 6(1,25)$&,/,7<(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 -XQH
$ 0(',&$/2)),&()/2253/$16 -XQH
$ 0(',&$/2)),&((;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 -XQH
$ (;7(5,253(563(&7,9(6 -XQH
$ (;7(5,253(563(&7,9(6 -XQH
&,9,/
& (;,67,1*&21',7,216 -XQH
& 75((6859(< -XQH
& 6,7(3/$1 -XQH
& *5$',1*3/$1 -XQH
& 87,/,7<3/$1 -XQH
& &,9,/'(7$,/6 -XQH
& &,9,/'(7$,/6 -XQH
& &,9,/'(7$,/6 -XQH
& 6:333 -XQH
& (526,21&21752/3/$1 -XQH
&6 &29(56+((7
$6,7($5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$6,7(/,*+7,1*3+2720(75,&
29(5$//6,7($5($
$&5(6 6) 727$/6,7($5($ $3352;,0$7(
$&5(6 6) '(/,1($7(':(7/$1'$5($
,1&/8',1*6(7%$&.$1'%8))(5 $3352;,0$7(
$&5(6
6) ())(&7,9(86($%/(6,7($5($
,1&/8'(60,125:(7/$1',03$&7$7$&&(66'5,9(
&855(17=21,1* 585$/&200(5&,$/+2/',1* 5&+
352326('=21,1* %86,1(66 %
6,7($''5(66 3,'
352326('86(
/27 &20021/27
/27 )8785('(9(/230(17
/27 6(59,&(%$6('5(6,'(17,$/&$5()$&,/,7<
$66,67('/,9,1*,1'(3(1'(17/,9,1*
6(1,25&20081,7<
/27 0(',&$/2)),&(
6(1,25/,9,1*)$&,/,7<
81,76(1,25$66,67('/,9,1*,1'(3(1'(17/,9,1*
&20081,7<
$3352;,0$7(/< 6) 127,1&/8',1**$5$*(
67$//81'(5*5281'3$5.,1**$5$*(
6725<%8,/',1*+(,*+7
0(',&$/2)),&(%8,/',1*
6725<0(',&$/2)),&(%8,/',1*
$3352;,0$7(/<6)$%29(*5$'(
67$//81'(5*5281'3$5.,1**$5$*(
6.<:$<&211(&7,21726(1,25)$&,/,7< 237,21$/
/27
)8785(3+$6(
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD&6
&29(56+((7-XQH QD/$1'6&$3(
/ /$1'6&$3(3/$1 -XQH
/ /$1'6&$3('(7$,/6 -XQH
/XPLQDLUH
6FKHGXOH3URMHFW 0(',1$6(1,25
/,9,1*6\PERO 4W\/DEHO $UUDQJHPHQW /XP/XPHQV //)'HVFULSWLRQ /XP:DWWV 7RWDO:DWWV %8*5DWLQJ
$ %$&.%$&. (&)6/$1:*: %8*
% 6,1*/( (&)6/$1:*819//&''%=+,6 %8*
% 6,1*/( (&)6/B$1:* %8*
& 6,1*/( 6)530/$1: %8*
' 6,1*/( %501:819%53 %8*
:3 6,1*/( /3:%= %8*
&DOFXODWLRQ
6XPPDU\3URMHFW 0(',1$6(1,25
/,9,1*/DEHO &DOF7\SH 8QLWV $YJ 0D[0LQ $YJ0LQ 0D[0LQ
)&DW3URSHUW\/LQHDW*UDGH ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 1$ 1$
)&%H\RQG3URS/LQHDW*UDGH ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 1$ 1$
0DLQ:DONZD\)&DW*UDGH ,OOXPLQDQFH )F
1RUWK:DONZD\)&DW*UDGH ,OOXPLQDQFH )F 1$ 1$
3DYHG$UHD)&DW*UDGH ,OOXPLQDQFH )F
:3
0+
:3
0+
:3
0+
:3
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
&
0+
%
0+
%
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
%
0+
%
0+
%
0+
%
0+
$
0+
$
0+
%
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
'
0+
&
0+
&
0+
%
0+
%
0+
%
0+
:3
0+
%
0+
00 000
00
0(',1$6(1,25/,9,1*6,7(3+2720(75,&3/$13+,/,36/('
6(5,(6
$//9$/8(66+2:1$5(+25,=217$/0$,17$,1(')227&$1'/(6$7*5$'(
),;785(',675,%87,217(03/$7(6$5(6+2:1$70)&)255()(5(1&(86(21/<
9$/8(6'2127,1&/8'(&2175,%87,21)520$'-$&(17675((7253523(57</,*+7,1*$//),;785(02817,1*+(,*+76$5(6+2:1$'-$&(1772),;785(/2&$7,216213/$1
$&
*(1(5$/3$5.,1*/27
/,*+7,1* &200(5&,$/
)8//<6+,(/'(' !/06
3('(675,$16&$/(*(1(5$/
,//80,1$7,21
)8//<6+,(/'(' !/06
'
3('(675,$16&$/(
'(7$,/,//80,1$7,21
% %
*(1(5$/3$5.,1*/27
/,*+7,1* 6(1,255(6,'(17,$/
)8//6+,(/'(' !/06
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD$
6,7(
/,*+7,1*
3+2720(75,&-XQH QD6&$/(
6,7(/,*+7,1*3+2720(75,&3/$1
6&$/(
6,7(/,*+7,1*.(<
6&$/(
/,*+7),;785(7<3(6$%$1'%
6&$/(
/,*+7),;785(7<3(&
6&$/(
/,*+7),;785(7<3('
6&$/(
/,*+7),;785(7<3(:3
&+,33(:$52$'
67$7(+,*+:$<12
3$5.,1*6(7%$&.
%8,/',1*6(7%$&.
:(7/$1'
,03$&7
6(1,25$66,67('
,1'(3(1'(17/,9,1*
6725<*$5$*( 81,76
*$5$*(67$//6 6)
3</216,*1 6((
'(7$,/$ ,17(51$//<
,//80,1$7('
:(7/$1'%2 81'$5 <
$9* 6(7%$&.%8))(5
0 ,1 :(7/$1'
02180(176,*1
6(('(7$,/$
)8785(
3+$6(
%2$5':$/.
5(7(17,21
321'
%,780,1286
3$7+
35 ,1&,3$/%8,/',1*6(7%$&.
%8,/',1*3$5.,1*6(7%$&.
%8,/',1*3$5.,1*6(7%$&.
3$5.,1*6(7%$&.
%8,/',1*6(7%$&.
0 ,16(7%$&.%8))(5
/27
6)
$&5(6
/27
6)
$&5(6
/27
&20021
6)
$&5(6
/27
6)
$&5(6
'(/,9(5<
75$6+
0$,1
(175$1&(
67$//6
67$//6
*$5$*(
(175$1&(
2)),&(0(',&$/
6725<*$5$*(
*$5$*(67$//6
6)
3</216,*1$*( 6((
'(7$,/$ ,17(51$//<
,//80,1$7(':'<1$0,&
',63/$<
0$1$*(
)8785(&211(&7,21:&+,33(:$52$'75$,/
%8,/',1*6(7%$&.
%8 ,/',1 *6 (7 %$&.
%8 ,/',1 *6 (7 %$&.6.<:$<
&211(&7,21$7
1')/225
612:
6725$*(
&29(5('
(175$1&( 67
)/225
67$//6
5($5(175$1&(
/2:(5/(9(/
*$5$*(
(175$1&(
*$=(%2
&20081,7<
*$5'(1$5($6
6(&85('
0(025<&$5(
&2857<$5'
%28/'(55(7$,1,1*
:$//6 7<3,&$/',1,1*3$7,2
:$//6,*1$*(
6(((;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
:$//6,*1$*(
6(((;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
:$//6,*1$*(
6(((;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
:$//6,*1$*(
6(((;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
:$//6,*1$*(
6(((;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
/2 $',1 *=2 1 (
),5('(37
&211(&7,21
/2$',1*=21(
&('$5
)(1&(
&200(5&,$/
)8785(3+$6(
6725<
6)&203$&767$//6
7851$5281'
$5($35,9$7('5,9(
5(7(17,21
321'
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD$6,7(
$5&+,7(&785$/
6,7(3/$1-XQH QD6&$/(
$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
29(5$//6,7($5($
$&5(6 6) 727$/6,7($5($ $3352;,0$7(
$&5(6 6) '(/,1($7(':(7/$1'$5($
,1&/8',1*6(7%$&.$1'%8))(5 $3352;,0$7(
$&5(6
6) ())(&7,9(86($%/(6,7($5($
,1&/8'(60,125:(7/$1',03$&7$7$&&(66'5,9(
&855(17=21,1* 585$/&200(5&,$/+2/',1* 5&+
352326('=21,1* %86,1(66 %
6,7($''5(66 3,'
352326('86(
/27 &20021/27
/27 )8785('(9(/230(17
/27 6(59,&(%$6('5(6,'(17,$/&$5()$&,/,7<
$66,67('/,9,1*,1'(3(1'(17/,9,1*6(1,25&20081,7<
/27 0(',&$/2)),&(
6(7%$&.5(48,5(0(176 %86,1(66',675,&7
3$5.,1*6(7%$&. )5217$1'5($5
3$5.,1*6(7%$&. 6,'(<$5'6
)5217<$5'%8,/',1*6(7%$&.
)520+,*+:$<
5($5<$5'%8,/',1*6(7%$&.
6,'(<$5'%8,/',1*6(7%$&. 6,'(<$5'6
0$<%(5('8&('72
:+(16+$5('$0(1,7,(6(;,67
/275(48,5(6$'',7,21$/
6(7%$&.%$6('8321%8,/',1*
+(,*+7$%29(
352326(')$5
/27 1$
/27 6)6) )$5 )8785('(9(/230(17
/27 6)6) )$5
/27 6) 6) )$5
5(48,5('3$5.,1*
6(1,25/,9,1*)$&,/,7< 727$/81,76 0,172%($66,67('/,9,1*$1'25
63(&,$/7<&$5(
7+(0(',1$&,7<25',1$1&('2(6127,'(17,)<6(1,25/,9,1*256(1,25&$5(
)$&,/,7<:,7+,16(&7,2168%'2))675((763$&(65(48,5('6((
&$/&8/$7('3$5.,1*%(/2:
0(',&$/2)),&(%8,/',1* 6)6)3(567$// 67$//6
&$/&8/$7('3$5.,1*
6(1,25/,9,1*)$&,/,7< /27
,/81,76[63$&(63(581,7 67$//6
$/81,76[63$&(63(581,7 67$//6
0(025<&$5(63(&,$/&$5(68,7(6[63$&(681,7 67$//6
727$/6(1,25/,9,1*)$&,/,7<352326('3$5.,1* 67$//6
&200(5&,$/3$5.,1* /27
727$/0(',&$/2)),&(%8,/',1*3$5.,1* 6)3(567$// 67$//6
727$/&$/&8/$7('3$5.,1* 67$//6
3529,'('3$5.,1*
/27 685)$&(67$//6*$5$*(67$//6 67$//6
/27 685)$&(67$//6*$5$*(67$//6 67$//6
727$/3529,'('3$5.,1* 67$//6
6+$5('3$5.,1*&29(1$176:,//%((67$%/,6+('%(7:((1/276$1'
35,9$7(6+877/(6(59,&(:,//%(3529,'('725(6,'(176:,7+,17+(6(1,25
/,9,1*)$&,/,7<
0
Scale In Feet
6030
'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU127)25&216758&7,211RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD(;,67,1*
&21',7,216QD'81/$3675((71
673$8/01
0
Scale In Feet
6030
'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU127)25&216758&7,211RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD75((
6859(<QD'81/$3675((71
673$8/01
'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU127)25&216758&7,211RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD6,7(3/$1QD'81/$3675((71
673$8/01
0
Scale In Feet
6030
&2175$&7256+$//),(/'9(5,)</2&$7,216$1'(/(9$7,2162)
(;,67,1*87,/,7,(6$1'7232*5$3+,&)($785(635,25727+(
&200(1&(0(172)6,7(*5$',1*7+(&2175$&7256+$//
,00(',$7(/<127,)<7+((1*,1((52)',6&5(3$1&,(625
9$5,$7,216)5207+(3/$16
$//',0(16,216$5(6+2:1727+()$&(2)&85%81/(66
27+(5:,6(127('
%8,/',1*',0(16,2165()(5727+(2876,'()$&(2)%8,/',1*
81/(6627+(5:,6(127('
127('
$//&85%5$',,6+$//%(
81/(6627+(5:,6(127('
$//35,9$7(&85%$1'*877(572%(%81/(6627+(5:,6(
127('
$'$3('(675,$15$036:7581&$7(''20(672%(&216758&7('
$7$//&85%&5266,1*62)6,'(:$/.
&2175$&7256+$//%(5(63216,%/()25$//6,7(6,*1$*($1'
675,3,1*$66+2:1217+,63/$1
+$1',&$33('3$5.,1*3529,'('3(5$'$&2'(
&2175$&7256+$//3$,17$//+$1',&$33('67$//6+$1',&$33('
/2*26$1'&5266+$7&++$1',&$33('/2$',1*$,6/(6:,7+%/8(
3$9(0(170$5.,1*3$,17,1:,'7+
&2175$&7256+$//3$,17$1<$//',5(&7,21$/75$)),&$552:6
$66+2:1,1:+,7(3$,17
$//6,*1$*(6+$//,1&/8'(3267&21&5(7()227,1*$1'67((/
&$6,1*:+(5(5(48,5('
$//6,*1$*(1273527(&7('%<&85%/2&$7(',13$5.,1*/2725
27+(53$9('$5($672%(3/$&(',167((/&$6,1*),//(':,7+
&21&5(7($1'3$,17('<(//2:
$//6,*1672%(3/$&('%(+,1'7+(%$&.2)&85%81/(66
27+(5:,6(127('
+$1',&$36,*1$*(72%(,167$//('+,*+$60($685('72
7+(%277202)7+(6,*1$65(48,5('%<01&2'(
6,*1$*( 675,3,1*127(6
'(/,1($7(':(7/$1'
%281'$5<
:(7/$1'%8))(5
:(7/$1'%8))(5
6(7%$&.
35()$%5,&$7('$/80,180
3,(56833257('
%2$5':$/.
29(5:(7/$1'
%,780,128675$,/
5(7$,1,1*:$//
*$=(%2
%,2),/75$7,21%$6,1 325286%,780,1286
3$9(0(17
67250:$7(5321'
67250:$7(5321'
%,780,128675$,/
+($9<'87<%,780,1286
3$9(0(17
325286%,780,1286
3$9(0(17
'(35(66(',6/$1'
:5,%%21&85%
7<3,&$/
6):(7/$1',03$&7
0,7,*$7,2172%(9,$385&+$6,1*
:(7/$1'%$1.&5(',76
352326(''5$,1$*(
87,/,7<($6(0(17
352326(''5$,1$*(
87,/,7<($6(0(17
352326(':(7/$1'
%8))(5:02180(17
6,*1
'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU127)25&216758&7,211RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD*5$',1*
3/$1QD'81/$3675((71
673$8/01
0
Scale In Feet
6030
:(7/$1'%8))(5
:(7/$1'%8))(5
352326(':(7/$1'%8))(5
0
Scale In Feet
6030
'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU127)25&216758&7,211RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD87,/,7<
3/$1QD'81/$3675((71
673$8/01
/)39&
6'5#
5
5(
,(
/)39&
6'5#
5
5(
,(
/)39&
6'5#
3/8*
/)39&
',3&/
/)39&
6'5#
&$3
,(
/)39&&
&$3
[7((
:(77$3
:9$/9(
5
5(
,(
&211(&772(;
0$1+2/(
,(
+<'5$17
*9
;5('8&(5
/)39&
&
/)39&
&
%(1'
/)39&
&
+<'5$17
*9
/)39&&
;7((
/)39&
&
+<'5$17
*9
/)39&&
;7((
/)39&
&
+<'5$17
*9
/)39&&
;7((
/)39&
6'5#
/)39&&
&$3
7((
/)39&
6'5#
&$3
,(
'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU127)25&216758&7,211RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD(526,21
&21752/
3/$1QD'81/$3675((71
673$8/01
0
Scale In Feet
6030
,167$//3(5,0(7(5
6,/7)(1&( 7<3,&$/
,167$//&216758&7,21
(175$1&( 7<3,&$/
,167$//,1/(7
3527(&7,21 7<3,&$/
'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU127)25&216758&7,211RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD/$1'6&$3(
3/$1QD'81/$3675((71
673$8/01
0
Scale In Feet
6030
6)
*$5$*(
6)
6725$*(
5(&(,9,1*
6)
75$6+
67$,5
67$,5
67$,5
6(59,&(
/2%%<
/2%%<
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
81,7
6)
0(025<
&$5(
68,7(
6)
0&
6833257
$5($
6)
67$))
$5($
',1,1*
/,9,1*
6(&85('
0(025<
&$5(
&2857<$5'
.,7&+(1
0(025<
&$5(
(175$1&(
;
;
;
;
5(7$,1,1*:$//
5(7$,1,1*:$//
(/(9$725
3,7$%29(
*$5$*(
)/225
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
*$5$*(
)/2253/$1-XQH ,VVXH'DWH6&$/(
*$5$*()/2253/$1
83
3257(
&2&+(5(
6)
.,7&+(1
)$0,/<
',1,1*
50
6)
',1,1*
5220
6)
%('
6)
%('6)
%('6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('6)
678',2
6)
678',2
+($57+
5220
6)
,17(51(7
%,6752
&$)(
6)
:(//1(66
&(17(5
6)
$'0,1,675$7,9(
&21)(5(1&(
5220
6)
%5($.
5220
6)
&/,1,&
6)
%('
6)
678',2
/2%%<
0$,/
$&&(6672
&20081,7<*$5'(16
6)
+286(
.((3,1*
2)),&(
2)),&(
2)),&(
67$,5
67$,5
67$,5
5(&(37,21
6)
%8,/',1*
(1*,1((5
'(021675$7,21
.,7&+(1
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
+286(
.((3,1*
6)
%('
6)
63(&,$/
&$5(
68,7(
6)
63(&,$/
&$5(
81,7
6)
63(&,$/
&$5(
81,7
6)
63(&,$/
&$5(
81,7
6)
63(&,$/
&$5(
81,7
6)
63(&,$/
&$5(
81,7
2)),&(
6)
678',2
6)
67$))
$5($
6)
6&
6833257
$5($
',1,1*$5($
/,9,1*$5($
;
;
;
;
;
(/(9$725
81,6(;
;
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
),567)/225
3/$1-XQH ,VVXH'DWH81,70,;%<7<3(
%('
%('
0(025<&$5(5220
63(&,$/&$5(81,7
678',2
*UDQGWRWDO
*5266%8,/',1*$5($%<)/225
/2:(5/(9(/ 6)
67)/225 6)
1')/225 6)
5')/225 6)
727$/*5266%8,/',1*$5($ 6)
6&$/(
67)/2253/$1
83
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
+286(
.((3,1*
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
6725$*(
23(172
%(/2:
6.<:$<
&211(&7,21
75$16)(56
'2:17267
)/225 12
$&&(66721'
)/225:,7+287
&5('(17,$/6
67$,5
75$6+
67$,5
67$,5
/,%5$5<
&20081,7<
/,9,1*$5($
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
6725$*(
6)
%('
6)
67$))
$5($
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('
;
;
;
;
;
6)
%('
6.<:$<
/2%%<
(/(9$725
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
6(&21'
)/2253/$1-XQH ,VVXH'DWH6&$/(
1')/2253/$1
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
08/7,385326(
5220
&+$3(/
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
67$))
$5($
6)
+286(.((3,1*
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
678',2
6)
%('
6)
%('
6)
6725$*(
67$,5
67$,5
67$,5
75$6+
681'(&.
6)
&20081,7<
/,9,1*$5($
6)
%('
6)
6725$*(
6)
%('
6)
38%
;
;
;
;
;
(/(9$725
29(5581
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
7+,5')/225
3/$1-XQH ,VVXH'DWH6&$/(
5')/2253/$1
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
522)
/2:(5/(9(/
/2:(5/(9(/*$5$*(
(175<(;,7
5(7$,1,1*:$//
9,1</:,1'2:
678&&2
6+,1*/('522)
6721(
3257(&2&+(5(6721(
0$6215<
678&&2
/$36,',1*
&$676721(&$3 6,//
6.<:$<
&211(&7,21
67$,5(*5(66(;,7
:$//6,*1$*( 6) 6)29(5$//:$//$5($
6)$//2:('3(56(&7,21E
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
522)
$/80,1806725()5217
(175<
6721(
0$6215<%$6(
6+,1*/('522)
35(),1,6+('0(7$/
*8$5'5$,/
$/80,1806725()5217
#522)3$7,2
3(5*2/$
678&&2
0$6215<
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
522)
/2:(5/(9(/
6.<:$<&211(&7,21
/2:(5/(9(/*$5$*(
(175<(;,7
5(7$,1,1*:$//0$6215<5(&(,9,1*
75$6+5220$&&(66
/$36,',1*
6721(
678&&2
9,1</:,1'2:6
6721(
6+,1*/('522)
&$676721(&$3
6,//
35(),1,6+('0(7$/%$/&21,(6
(;7(5,25),1,6+3(5&(17$*(6
0$6215<
6721(
/$36,',1*
678&&2
*/$=,1*23(1,1*6
6)
6)
6)
6)
6)
6) 727$/
$9(5$*(522)+(,*+7)520$'-$&(17*5$'(
3(5&(17$*(2)%$6(0(17/(9(/81'(5*5281'
'<1$0,&',63/$<
64)7
,17(51$//<
,//80,1$7('6,*1
3$1(/6
64)7
&$676721(
35(&$67&$3
0$6215<
35(&$67&$3
,17(51$//<
,//80,1$7('
6,*13$1(/
64)7
&$676721(
35(&$67&$3
0$6215<
35(&$67&$3
,17(51$//<
,//80,1$7('6,*1
3$1(/64)7
&$676721(
35(&$67&$3
0$6215<
35(&$67&$3
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
(;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216-XQH ,VVXH'DWH6&$/(
35(6(17$7,216287+(/(9$7,21
6&$/(
35(6(17$7,21 0$,1(175<(/(9$7,21
6&$/(
35(6(17$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21
6&$/(
3</216,*1
$
/27
6&$/(
3</216,*1
%
/27
6&$/(
02180(176,*1
&
/27
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
522)
/2:(5/(9(/
6(&85('0(025<&$5(&2857<$5'67$,5(*5(66(;,70$6215<
6721(
6+,1*/('522)678&&2
/$36,',1*
5(7$,1,1*:$//
35(),1,6+('0(7$/*8$5'5$,/
678&&2
/$36,',1*6721(
9,1</:,1'2:6
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
522)
/2:(5/(9(/
6+,1*/('522)
6721(
35(),1,6+('0(7$/%$/&21,(6
3257(&2&+(
0$,1(175$1&(
522)3$7,23(5*2/$
35(),1,6+('0(7$/*8$5'5$,/
9,1</:,1'2:6
&$676721(&$3 6,//
6721(
35(),1,6+('0(7$/*8$5'5$,/
5(7$,1,1*:$//
678&&2
/$36,',1*
678&&2
0$6215<
6(&85('0(025<&$5(&2857<$5'
:$//6,*1$*( 6) 6)29(5$//:$//$5($
6)$//2:('3(56(&7,21E
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
(;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216-XQH ,VVXH'DWH6&$/(
35(6(17$7,21 1257+(/(9$7,21
6&$/(
35(6(17$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,21
6)
*$5$*(
6)
6(59,&(67$,5
67$,5
(/(9$725
(/(9$725
87,/,7,(6
6)
/(9(/
67$,5
67$,56.<:$<$%29( 6)
/(9(/
67$,5
67$,5
522)723
3$7,26.<:$<$&&(66522)
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0HGLFDO2IILFH%XLOGLQJ0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD$
)/2253/$16-XQH ,VVXH'DWH6&$/
(
*$5$*(/(9(/
6&$/
(
),567)/2253/$1
6&$/
(
1')/225
*5266%8,/',1*$5($%<)/225
*$5$*(/(9(/ 6)
67)/225 6)
1')/225 6)
*UDQGWRWDO 6)
*$5$*(3$5.,1*
*$5$*(/(9(/
*UDQGWRWDO
67)/225
5RRI
*$5$*(/(9(/
1')/225
6.<:$<&211(&7,21
0$6215<
$/80,1806725()52170$,1(175<
35(),1,6+('0(7$/&20326,7(3$1(/
$5&+,7(&785$/:22'9(1((5
0$6215<
678&&2
&20326,7(0(7$/3$1(/
67)/225
5RRI
*$5$*(/(9(/
1')/225
0$6215<
678&&2&20326,7(0(7$/3$1(/
0$6215<
$/80,180
6725()5217
/2:(5/(9(/*$5$*($&&(66
67$,5(*5(66(;,7 6(59,&($&&(66
$/80,180:,1'2:6
67)/225
5RRI
1')/225
&20326,7(0(7$/3$1(/
678&&2
0$6215<
&$676721(
$5&+,7(&785$/:22'
9(1((5
$/80,180:,1'2:6
6.<:$<&211(&7,21
$/80,1806725()5217
0$,1(175<
:$//6,*1$*(6) 6):$//$5($
6)$//2:('3(56(&7,21E
67)/225
5RRI
*$5$*(/(9(/
1')/225
&20326,7(0(7$/3$1(/
678&&2
0$6215<
&$676721(
$5&+,7(&785$/:22'
9(1((5
$/80,180:,1'2:6
(;7(5,25'(&.*8$5'5$,/
&20326,7(0(7$/
3$1(/
0$6215<
&$676721(
:$//6,*1$*(6) :$//$5($ 6)
6)$//2:('3(56(&7,21E
(;7(5,25),1,6+3(5&(17$*(6
0$6215<
$5&+:22'9(1((5
678&&2
6)
6)
6)
6) 727$/
*/$=,1*23(1,1*6 6)
$9(5$*(522)+(,*+7)520$'-$&(17*5$'(
67)/225
5RRI
*$5$*(/(9(/
1')/225
6):$//6,*1$*(
6)$//2:('7+,6:$//
67)/225
5RRI
1')/225
6):$//6,*1$*(
6)$//2:('7+,6
:$//
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD0HGLFDO2IILFH%XLOGLQJ0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD$
(;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216-XQH ,VVXH'DWH6&$/
(
1257+:(67(/(9$7,21
6&$/
(
6287+($67(/(9$7,21
6&$/
(
:(67(/(9$7,21 )5217(175$1&(
6&$/
(
6287+(/(9$7,21 +,*+:$<(;32685(
6&$/
(
6287+($67'(7$,/(/(9$7,21
6&$/
(
6287+:(67'(7$,/(/(9$7,21
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
(;7(5,25
3(563(&7,9(6-XQH ,VVXH'DWH3(563(&7,9(6287+9,(:)520+,*+:$<
3(563(&7,9(6287+($679,(:)520+,*+:$<
020(1780'(6,*1*5283//&'DWH3URMHFW$UFKLWHFW3HUPLW6XEPLW'DWH3URMHFW1XPEHU&+6,7(3/$15(9,(:1RUWK+DPSGHQ$YHQXH
6W3DXO0LQQHVRWD
0HGLQD6HQLRU/LYLQJ&RPPXQLW\0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD;
(;7(5,25
3(563(&7,9(6-XQH ,VVXH'DWH3(563(&7,9(6(1,25%8,/',1*0$,1(175<
3(563(&7,9(1257+9,(:)520&+,33(:$52$'
Buddy and Kim Snow Page 1 of 5 July 11, 2017
CUP for 2nd Principal Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 3, 2017
MEETING: July 11, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Buddy and Kim Snow – Conditional Use Permit for 2nd Principal Dwelling -
2402 Hamel Road – Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Application Received: June 9, 2017
120-day Review Deadline: October 7, 2017
Summary of Request
Buddy and Kim Snow have requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for construction of a 2nd
principal dwelling at 2402 Hamel Road. The subject site is owned by David and Kitty Crosby,
who are Kim’s parents.
The subject site is approximately 71 acres in size and zoned rural residential. The property is
located north of Hamel Road, at the intersection with Willow Drive. All surrounding property is
zoned rural residential. Currently, the property contains a home and a barn. Most of the
property is pasture grass or hayed and there are wetlands in the western portion of the property.
An aerial of the site is at the top of the following page, with the location of the proposed 2nd
home highlighted.
The RR zoning district permits a 2nd home to be constructed on a property greater than 40 acres
in size if a conditional use permit is approved. The home must be occupied by family or
employees of the property owner or can be utilized as a guest house.
CUP Standards for a Second Principal Dwelling
A second principal residential dwelling structure is an allowed conditional use within the Rural
Residential zoning district on properties over 40 acres in size, subject to the following review
criteria (City Code Section 826.98). Staff has provided potential findings for each in italics.
(i) may be used only by members of the family, by persons employed on the property or as a
guest house;
The applicant (and proposed residents) are the daughter and son-in-law of the property owners.
(ii) must be located in reasonable proximity to primary and secondary septic sites other than
those associated with the first principal structure;
The applicant has provided evidence of a primary and secondary septic site for the 2nd home as
well as a potential secondary site for the first principal structure.
Buddy and Kim Snow Page 2 of 5 July 11, 2017
CUP for 2nd Principal Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
(iii) must meet all setback requirements;
The proposed house location far exceeds the required 50 foot setbacks from property line, and is
proposed over 700 feet from the front property line, 250 feet from the eastern property
line, and 300 feet from the western property line.
(iv) must be shown on a shadow or ghost plat submitted to the city to be located in such a
manner as to make future subdivision of the parcel feasible without the need for
variances; and
The applicant has provided a ghost plan which shows that the property could be feasibly
subdivided in the future. It should be noted that review of this ghost plat is, of course,
subject to current regulations which may be changed in the future. Following is a
summary of the current dimensional requirements of the RR district and the conceptual
lots identified by the Applicant:
Buddy and Kim Snow Page 3 of 5 July 11, 2017
CUP for 2nd Principal Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
RR Requirement Potential Lot 1 Potential Lot 2
Min Lot Size 5 acres suitable soils 29.59 acre suitable 12.72 acre suitable
Gross Area N/A 52.1 acres 19.4 acres
Front Setback 50 feet 325 feet 730 feet
Rear Setback 50 feet 940 feet 142 feet
Side Setback 50 feet 250 feet 54 feet
Side Setback 50 feet 880 feet 320 feet
(v) the city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations
it deems reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood.
A minimum of 40 acres is required for the 2nd home, which means that the density with two
homes on the lot is still lower than would generally be allowed in the RR district. In this
case, the subject site is over 70 acres in size, so the density is substantially lower. Staff
believes this large lot size generally protects the rural residential character of the area,
even with two homes. The Planning Commission and City Council can discuss whether
any additional conditions are warranted.
General Conditional Use Permit Standards
In addition to the specific standards for both the accessory structures and the accessory dwelling
unit noted above, the Planning Commission and City Council are to consider the following
general criteria when reviewing all CUPs (City Code Section 825.39):
1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity.
Staff does not believe the 2nd home will be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property nor
will the CUP impair property values.
2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the 2nd home will impede the normal and orderly development of
surrounding vacant property.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
Staff believes adequate utilities, roads and other facilities are provided. If the applicant adds
more than 5000 square feet of hardcover, the City’s stormwater management ordinance would
be triggered and stormwater improvements would need to be incorporated.
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and
loading space to serve the proposed use.
Staff believes adequate parking exists.
5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
Buddy and Kim Snow Page 4 of 5 July 11, 2017
CUP for 2nd Principal Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result.
Staff does not believe a 2nd home would bring up these concerns, as they are more relevant for
commercial uses.
6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
The proposed use is listed as allowed conditional uses.
7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The 2nd home is a permitted conditional use and staff believes it would be consistent with the
purposes of the zoning code and the RR zoning district.
8. The use is not in conflict with the policies of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed use is in conflict with the policies of the City.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe a 2nd home would cause traffic or congestion concerns.
10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
Staff does not believe the use would cause these concerns.
11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant intends to construct the new home later this year.
12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The City Attorney has not requested additional documentation with regards to ownership at this
time.
Staff Recommendation
When reviewing a conditional use permit request, the Planning Commission and City Council
should review the specific and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP
should be approved.
As described in Section 825.41 of the City Code: “In permitting a new conditional use or the
alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council 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 surrounding area or the
community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited, to the following:
1. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.
2. Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.
3. Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
4. Increasing the street width.
5. Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
6. Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.
Buddy and Kim Snow Page 5 of 5 July 11, 2017
CUP for 2nd Principal Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
7. Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or
nearby property.
8. Designating sites for open space.”
Staff has provided potential findings for the criteria throughout the report. Subject to the
conditions below, it appears that the request generally meets the criteria. Staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions.
1) The single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit may not be conveyed separately
and shall at all times be under common ownership.
2) The second home on the Property shall be only occupied by members of the property
owners’ family, by persons employed on the property, or as a guest house.
3) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs
associated with the review of the application for Conditional Use Permit.
If the Planning Commission finds that the general and specific CUP criteria noted above have
been satisfied, the following motion would be in order:
Move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request of Buddy and Kim
Snow for a second principal dwelling at 2402 Hamel Road, based upon the findings
noted in the staff report and subject to the conditions in the report.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Building Official Comments received 6/26/2017
3. Applicant narrative
4. Site Plan
5. Potential “Ghost” Plat
Project: LR-17-206 – Snow/Crosby 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 06/09/2017 6/9/2017 3 Y Y
Fee 6/9/2017 6/7/2017 1 Y Y $1000
Narrative 6/9/2017 6/9/2017 1 Y Y
Labels 6/9/2017 6/6/2017 4 Y Y
Septic Evaluation 6/9/2017 6/4/2017 14 Y Y
Site Plan 6/9/2017 6/7/2017 1 Y Y
Conceptual Division 6/9/2017 6/7/2017 1 Y Y
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Legal Comments 6/20/2017 1 Y
Building Official Comments 6/26/2017 1 Y
Legal Notice 6/30/2017 6 Y
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
METRO WELT INrOPECTION CIRV11C 0 NC
Loren Kohnen, Pres.
Metro West Inspection Services, Inc.
Box 248
Loretto, MN 55357
June 26, 2017
To: Debra Peterson
From: Loren Kohnen
Item: David Crosby
2402 Hamel Rd
C.U.P. for 2nd Home site
(763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
Mtrowst76@aol. com
After reviewing the applicant, as per provided information on the septic system, two
septic locations are provided that meet the MPCA rules and city ordinance.
Respectfully,
Loren Kohnen
Building Official Certificate #589
MPCA Certificate #756
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
ECOEFIVE
June 9, 2017
Dusty Finke
City Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
JUN
2011
TO: Dusty Finke and Planning Commission
FR: Buddy and Kim Snow
RE: Conditional Use Permit (residential) for 2402 Hamel Road
We are writing to request a Residential Conditional Use Permit at my parent's, David
and Kitty Crosby, homestead at 2402 Hamel Road.
Hamel Road has been a part of my life since I was born and Buddy's life since the
day we were married, as we were married on the property in 2001. It is a truly
special place that my parents have owned for over 50 years.
My brothers and I have always agreed that we would keep the property intact and in
the family. As Buddy and I are the ones who want to live there, it seems logical to
build on the property now so we can enjoy the land with my parents, our children
and our extended family from today into the future.
Country living is getting harder to find in the broader metro area, so we are excited
to be able to live in the country, close to Minneapolis and in a great community. We
hope you will approve our Conditional Use Permit so we can move to the country
and live near my parents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
(0
co
1)
z
--NWcor. o fE%2 of SE 1/4
S2 ¢9
S89 31 '55 "E 1328.39
N Ecor. o fEY2o fSE%4-'
Existing PID N o. 0911823410001
77.5 Ac res
i
Existing B ar n- ,
Existi ng H ouse- ,
Prbpased-�
ous e/Garpge
i
WI -07'43"W �
oa
3 �
1454:1=00
,--SWcor. ofE%2 of SE 14
1-
Legend
• F ound ir on Monument
DO Cast Iron Mo nume nt
® F ound Woode n Lath
SCALE
200
0
615.00
100 200
A1322'17"E 520 .00
�\ S li ne of %2 of SE %4
•
Ham el Road N88 57'43"W 719.97
Existing Well
Soil Boring
400
1 inch = 200 f eet
Beari ngs based on a ssumed d atum .
S0 21 '09 "E 2643 .46
SE cor . ofE %2 of SE Y$-'
B oundary D escri ption (suppli ed by client)
The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Secti on 9, Township 118, R ang e 23,
E xcept th at p art of the S outheast Quarter of the Southeast Q uarter of Section
9, T ownship 118 North, R ange 23 W est of th e 5th Pri ncipl e Meridian, de scrib ed
as follows:
Begi nning at th e so uthwest c orner of said S outhea st Qua rter of th e S outheast
Q uarter; the nce E ast along th e south line of said Southea st Q uart er a di stanc e
of 615 feet; thence deflecting left 87 degrees 40 minut es a dist ance of 520
feet; then ce defl ecting left 88' deg ree s a distanc e of 175 fe et; then ce deflecting
right 38 d eg ree s a di stanc e of 83 fe et; th en ce d efl ecting l eft 19 d egr ees 30
minutes to the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the S outhe ast Qu arter;
then ce South to the p oint of beginning . A ccordi ng to the United States
Go vernm ent Sur vey there of and situ ate in Hen nepin Cou nty, Minn es ota .
Pr ep ared for:
.3
m
Kim Sn o w
NJ -
03
J ob Numb er:
N
h
N
L
a
O
y
CN
C
O
Oi
C
L
Re visi ons:
rN
Registration No.
N0' 12'54 "W 1865.64
S89"31 '55"E 1328. 39
-NW con ofE%2 ofSE14
LLJ
0
W
0
a)
\I
J
(—Pro posed Bou nda ry Line
•1
NE cor. ofE%2 of SE 14-/
0
w
0
Propose d Lot 1
52. 1 Acre s
Existing Barn- ,
Existi ng Ho use-\
yy &BB 7
SB-9
Pr oposed Lot 2
19 .4 Acres
N4683 pp
3 �6
Q
. s 11•oo
,--S W cor. of E %2 of SE %4
1- 615.00
Proposed--/
Hou se/Garag e
\
\
Bit uminous
Drive way
c -Shed
`-Fen ce
OL
SB-1
&S,9-5
SB-3
sSB- 6
SB-PIF SB-4
\\ S. li ne of %2 of SE %4
60.0 -
Ham el Ro ad N8857'43"W 719.97
SE c or . ofE%2 of SE 1/4-'
S0 21 '09 "E 2643.46
Proposed Lot 1 Suitable Soils (acres): Propo sed L ot 2 Suitabl e S oil s (a cr es): Site Addr ess:
L23A 0.07 L25A 0.67 2402 H amel Rd
L25A 0 .93 L37B 0 .77 M edi na, MN 55340
L45A 0 .48 L4OB 1.78
L378 0.25 L41C2 9.5 Note:
L4OB 8.55 12 .72 Aerial photo and suitable s oil s
L22C2 0 .55 m ap obt ai ned fr om Hen nepin County .
L41C2 18 .76 Propo sed L ot Area 19.4
29.59
Proposed Lot Area 52.1
Total Suitabl e Soil
Total S uitabl e S oil 65 .6%
56 .8% Be arings based on assumed dat um.
ea
a
a
as
0
0
v
Prepared for:
0
co
Job Number:
J
vi
0
O
O
m
N
hi
0
0
0
J)
vi
E
0
.c
c
0
0
U
0
U
O
N
•0
.h
Li)
0
Q)
0
E xisti ng W ell
O
F ound Iron M onum ent
•
M onument
0
0
v
0
0)
.c
0
(n 0
F ound Woode n L ath
32 Hamel Road LLC Page 1 of 4 July 11, 2017
Preliminary/Final Plat for Lot Combination Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 6, 2017
MEETING: July 11, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: 32 Hamel Road LLC – Preliminary and Final Plat for Lot Combination –
32-42 Hamel Road
Review Deadline
Application Received: June 14, 2017
120-day Review Deadline: October 12, 2017
Summary of Request
32 Hamel Road LLC has requested approval of a plat to combine three lots located at 32, 36, and
42 Hamel Road into a single parcel. The parcels are 3,600 square feet, 9,800 square feet, and
16,340 square feet respectively, for a total of 30,258 square feet.
The subject properties are located north of Hamel Road, west of the intersection with Brockton
Lane, near the City’s eastern boundary. An existing building occupies nearly all of the smallest
lot at 32 Hamel Road.
The applicant seeks to combine the properties in order to provide more flexibility with potential
additions on the existing building, construction of parking, and the like. No construction is
proposed at this time.
Location: 32, 36, and
42 Hamel Road
32 Hamel Road LLC Page 2 of 4 July 11, 2017
Preliminary/Final Plat for Lot Combination Planning Commission Meeting
The subject property, and property to the east and west, is zoned Uptown Hamel-2.
The City approved of a plat to combine the lots back in 2009, but the previous owner never
recorded the plat. A copy of resolution 2009-43 is attached for reference. Generally, staff
supports the combination of small lots in the Hamel area when possible in order to improve the
redevelopment potential of the parcels.
Analysis
The properties are currently zoned Uptown Hamel (UH-2). The table below summarizes the
required lot standards for the district (Section 834) and what is proposed for the combined lot.
UH-2 Requirement Proposed Lot
Lot Size No Minimum 30,258 square feet
Lot Width No Minimum 155 feet
Minimum Front Setback None 11.9 feet
Maximum Front Setback 10 feet 11.9 feet
Minimum Side Setbacks None (if no doors or windows)
8 feet (if openings)
0.5 feet (east, no doors)
96 feet (west, with door)
Minimum Rear Setback 12 feet 166 feet
Maximum Impervious Surface 90% 13.8% (as existing today)
32 Hamel Road LLC Page 3 of 4 July 11, 2017
Preliminary/Final Plat for Lot Combination Planning Commission Meeting
The lot created as a result of the proposed combination would meet the lot standards of the UH-2
district. Staff has noted that the existing building exceeds the maximum front setback regulation.
The requirement is intended to locate future buildings closer to the sidewalk, providing the
pedestrian-friendly character that is desired in UH. The building is also only 0.5 feet from the
eastern property line, with the overhang extending over the property to the east.
The combination of the lot does not increase the non-conformity of the building. As a result,
staff does not believe the location of the existing structure should impact the review of the plat.
Wetlands/Floodplains/Easements
The three properties do not have any wetland areas, and are not within a floodplain.
Staff is recommending standard drainage and utility easements that are common practice with
plats; 10 feet along right-of-way and 5 feet along interior lot lines. Because of the proximity of
the existing building to the east property line, staff does not recommend easements for the
southern-most 40 feet of the eastern property line.
Right-of-way and Access
The City has 66-feet of right-of-way dedicated in front of the subject lots, and the City Engineer
is not recommending additional dedication.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
According to Section 820.21 of the City Code, the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or
final plat based on one or a combination of the following findings. Staff has provided potential
findings for each in italics:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or
that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
As noted above, staff believes the lot combination is consistent with the City’s policy that
smaller lots in the Uptown Hamel area be combined when possible. Staff has noted that
the existing building exceeds the maximum front yard setback. However, because the non-
conformity is not proposed to increase, staff recommends approval of the combination.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that
the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
Staff believes the combination does not raise concerns in these areas.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not
meet minimum lot size standards.
As noted above, staff believes the lot combination meets ordinance standards, with the
exception of the front setback exceeding the 10 foot maximum. Because the non-conformity
is not proposed to increase, staff recommends approval of the combination.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
Staff does not believe the combination will cause environmental concerns.
32 Hamel Road LLC Page 4 of 4 July 11, 2017
Preliminary/Final Plat for Lot Combination Planning Commission Meeting
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
Staff does not believe the combination will cause health concerns.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
Staff does not believe the combination will conflict, with the condition that drainage and
utility easements be provided.
The subdivision ordinance states that for a lot line rearrangement, certain requirements of the
ordinance may be waived if the City Council, following consideration by the Planning
Commission, so determines. In this case, staff is recommending that the requirement for a public
hearing, as is required when a property is being subdivided into more lots, be waived. It appears
that all other standards would be met
Staff recommends approval of the plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney with regards to title
documentation;
2. The final plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within 120 days of the date of the city
council resolution granting final approval or the final plat shall be considered void, unless
a written request for time extension is submitted by the Owner and approved by the City
Council; and
3. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary and final plat and related documents.
If the Planning Commission concurs, the following motion would be in order:
Move to recommend approval of the plat of Hamel Thirty Two, subject to the conditions
noted in the staff report.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Resolution 2009-43
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Final Plat
Project: LR‐17‐207 – Thirty Two Hamel Road Plat/Combination 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 6/14/2017 6/14/2017 3 Y Y Deposit 6/14/2017 6/14/2017 1 Y Y $1000 Title Commitment 7/5/2017 2/10/2016 9 Y Y Preliminary Plat 6/14/2017 5/27/2017 1 Y Y Final Plat 6/14/2017 NA 1 Y Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Legal Comments 6/20/2017 1 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes
Member Weir introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-43
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR
HAMEL COMMONS, LOCATED NORTH OF HAMEL ROAD
AND WEST OF BROCKTON LANE
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, DW Holdings, Inc. (the "Owner") is the owner of property located at
32 Hamel Road, 36 Hamel Road, and 42 Hamel Road in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
"Properties"), legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Owner applied to the City for approval of a plat which combines the
Properties into one parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Owner requested that the preliminary plat and final plat be reviewed by
the City concurrently; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission held a duly called public hearing on May 12,
2009, where testimony was heard from the Owner, city staff, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission recommended approval of the plat, to be known
as "Hamel Commons," subject to certain terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2009, the city council reviewed the plat for conformance with the
City's ordinances, considered the recommendations of the planning commission and heard
comments from interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA, that approval be granted to the Owner for the final plat of
Hamel Commons, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. A plat is hereby approved to combine the Properties in accordance with the plat received
by the City on June 10, 2009, except as amended by the City Council;
2. The Owner shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney with regards to title
documentation;
3. The final plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within 120 days of the date of the city
council resolution granting final approval or the final plat shall be considered void, unless
Resolution No. 2009-43
July 21, 2009
a written request for time extension is submitted by the Owner and approved by the city
council; and
4. The Owner shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary and final plat and related documents.
Dated: July 21, 2009
7724-,
T. M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
Attest:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk
7
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Smith
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Weir, Smith, Crosby, Siitari, Johnson
and the following voted against same:
None
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2009-43 2
July 21, 2009
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions of the Properties prior to plat
That part of Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minn., described as follows: Commencing at the
northwest corner of said Lot 38; thence south along the west line of said Lot 38 to the northeast comer of Lot 39, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 241; thence east along the north line of said Lot 39 extended to a point 107 feet west of the east line of Lot
37, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, measured at right angles thereto; thence north parallel to the west line of said Lot 38 to
the north line of said Lot 38; thence west a along the north line of said Lot 38 to the point of beginning;
The Westerly 75 feet of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minn.,
That part of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minn., lying east of the westerly 75 feet of said Lot
40 and west of a line drawn parallel to the east line of said Lot 40 and distant 107 feet westerly therefrom measured at right
angles thereto.
Lot 39. Auditor's Subdivision No. 241. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Resolution No. 2009-43 3
July 21. 2009
HAMEL ROAD THIRTY TWO
PID 12-118-23-41-0070
52 Home/ Rood
Vine Properties, LLC
Zoning: Uptown Hamel
it
\=6ove%7/
son
Parcel 3
P/O 12-118-23-41-0013
42 Hamel Rood
32 Hamel Rood, LLC
Zoning: Uptown Hamel
Line ER
C0.122
X323 g6R4 76-52.511- 3
Parcel 4
P70 12-718-23-41-0014
36 Hamel Rood
32 Home/ Rood. LLC
Zoning: Uptown Home,
/%r
Existh9 Bu9t)•gg
Parcel 1
31 PIO 12-118-23-41-0012 7
32 Hamel Rood
32 Hamel Rood. /LC .
Zoning: Uptown Hornet
Roams
61
'0
n
��Bu is 9�o b4Y4 E s Z
Y bhe
i
107.00
Preliminary Plat
P7D 72-I/8-23-41-0011
22 Hamel Road
22 Home, Rood, LLC
Zoning: Uptown Hamel
I I
I
I
- I hN �
ltin. 17 ``i o�umenled � 2 -67 04 I LO
\ � -1 mo do eh/or k'O1m /Nm,- cuu
d A'ood- (4GO.M'(5 ref
N76•q ,�._ ��/B�'0 241J4NEI) I_
lr56r �,y — 1
- •
Property Address: 32 Hamel Rood
Medina, MN 55340
Property 10 No: 02-118-23-41-0012
Zane: Uptown Hamel
Hardcover Co/cu/otions (so. f1.):
Existing Building 7,900
Bituminous Drive 994
Concrete Drive 772
Paver Wolk & Steps 365
Pedestals 53
Concrete stoop & step 27
Retaining Walls 97
Total Hardcover 4,208
Parcels 1-4 Total Area 30,258
Percent Hardcover 13.9X
Levered
• Found Iron Monument
o Set Iron Monument
(LS 14700)
Q Air Conditioning Unit
® Telephone Pedestal
ctEc Electric Box
Q- Hydrant
Water Valve
(C) Computed
(M) Measured
(0) Deed
(P) Plot
SCALE
0 10 20
40
1 inch = 20 feet
Peres/e 2 & 4
Property Address:
Property /0 No:
Zone:
36 Home/ Road
Medina, MN 55340
02-778-23-41-0014
Uptown Hamel
JUN 1 4 2017
ErmLd
Property 4991,0.
Property 10 No:
Zone.
Boundary Descriptions (per Title Commitment No. 510/9 provided by Chicano 7i0e Insurance Co.)
Parcel 1: Lot 39, Auditors Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2: Mot port of Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Lot 38; thence South along the West line o/ said Lot
38 to the Northeast comer of Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241; thence East along the North line
o/ said Lot 39 extended to a point 107 het West of the East line o/ Lot 37, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 241, measured o1 right angles thereto; thence North porn/le/ to the West line of said Lot 38 to
the North line of said Lot 38; thence West o/ong the North line of said Lot 38 to the point of
beginning.
Parcel 3.- The Westerly 75 feet of Lot 40, Auditors Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 4: Mot part of Lot 40, Auditors Subdivision No. 241. Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying East of the
Westerly 75 feet of said Lot 40 and West of a line drawn parallel to the East line of said Lot 40 and
distant 107 feet Westerly therefrom measured at right angles thereto.
O2 JHamel Rood, LLC
Attn: Todd Marley
2775 Countryside Or. W.
Orono, MN 55356
Basis of boffin° statement
The westerly line of Lot 40, AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION N0. 247, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, is assumed to bear North 12
degrees 37 minutes 12 seconds East.
42 Hamel Rood
Medina, MN 55340
02-118-23-4I-0013
Uptown Hamel
Job Number: 815J
LA
SCHOBORG
D SERVICES
INC.
Prepared for:
32 Hamel Road, LLC
hereby certify Mot MN certificate of survey was prepared by me
or under my direct sup0rrissi0, and than 1 am a duly Rry,siered
bind 5t+rvoyer under the 7009 of the State o! Minnesota.
Paul'g. Saab
Dote 1'.t-'jY_zz„zei7
Book/Page, LL
Survey Dote. 3-15-16, 3-16-16, 3-23-16
Drawing Nome: mudesdwa
Drown by
Revisions 5-27-17 (Prelim. Plat)
0M0/KLB
763-972-3227 8997 Co. Rd. 73 SE
wwwSdmba'gLendcon Beano. MN 55328
Reglstmtion No. 14700
HAMEL ROAD THIRTY TWO
KNOW ALL PERSCWS BY THESE PRESENTS: That 32 Hamel Road, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property
Parcel 1: Lot 39, Auditors Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Porcel 2: Prot port of Lot 38, Auditors Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing of the Northwest corner of said Lot 38; thence South along the West line of said Lot 38 to the Northeast comer of Lot J9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241; thence East along
the North line of said Lot J9 extended to a point 107 feet West of the East line of Lot J7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, measured at right angles thereto; thence North parallel to the
West line of said Lot 38 to the North line of said Lot J8; thence West along the North line of said Lot 38 to the point of beginning.
Parcel .5 The Westerly 75 feet of Lot 40, Auditors Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 4: /hot part of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying East of the Westerly 75 feet of said Lot 40 and West of o line drawn parallel to the Eost line of
said Lot 40 and distant 107 feet Westerly therefrom measured at right ongles thereto.
Have caused the some to be surveyed and plotted as HAMEL ROAD THIRTY TWO and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the drainage and utility easements as created by this plot.
In witness whereof said J2 Hamel Rood, LLC, o Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _ day of
Signed. 32 Hamel Rood, LLC, o Minnesota limited liability company
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Todd Mur/ey
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ,no this _ day of , 20_, by Todd Marley, Chief Manager of J2 Home/ Road, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
on behalf of the company.
Printed Notary Nome
Notary Public, County, Minnesota.
My Commission Expires
Chief Manager
SURVEYOR'S LERIIFICA RCN
1, Paul B. 5choborg, do hereby certify that this plot was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that / om o duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is o correct
representation of the boundary survey, that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on the plot; that all monuments depicted on the plot hove been or will be correctly set within one year
os indicated on the plot; that all weber boundaries and wet fonds, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certification ore shown and labeled on the plat; and that
all public ways ore shown and labeled on this plot.
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
This instrument wos acknowledged before me this _ day of
Dated this _ day of , 20_,
, by Paul B. Schoborg, a Licensed Land Surveyor.
Printed Notary Nome
Paul B. Schoborg, Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 14700
Notary Public, County, Minnesota.
My Commission Expires
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
This plot of HAMEL ROAD THIRTY TWO was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this _ day of
and said plot is 117 compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statues, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.
City Council, City of Medina, Minnesota
By Mayor By
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES Hennpin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the taxes payable in 20_ and prior years hove been paid for land described on this plot, doted this day of 20
Mork V. Chopin, County Auditor
SURVEY DIVISION Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to MN. STA T. Sec. 3836.565 (1969), this plot hos been approved this _ day of , 20_
20
Administrator —Clerk
By Deputy
Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By
COUNTY RECORDER Hennepin County, Minnesoto
I hereby certify that the within plat of HAMEL ROAD THIRTY TWO wos recorded in this office this _ day of
L:gend
• Denotes monument found 1/2 inch
Iran pipe, unless otherwise shown.
O Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch Mon
monument set and marked by L.S.
No.14700.
Basis of bearing statement:
The westerly line of Lot 40, AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION N0. 241, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, is assumed to bear North 12
degrees J7 minutes 72 seconds East.
Martin McCormick, County Recorder
+I 5
4 4
Drainage and Utility Easements being
10 feet in width and adjoining right
of way lines, and being 5 feet in
width and 0djolnmg tot lines, unless
otherwise indicated.
20 at _o'clock
By Deputy
SCALE
M 0 10 30
1 inch = 20 teat
tl
C.R. DOC. NO.
% —:r
i ,
i f/ ,
N
i .5 t _
R
1 \ ;7SG'° Lille t SAY 'WON o/ Way o/ sPo Lhe COParly
/e h RR Cam
5 \ — d-•Jz3-56Rz z80. '4 Rf 03532 ^' l
7 i
/ \ 1
• 75 {/ i
a/ h i
/ 1 L / / 15
/
/
/ /
t IV
~— z 201/1
_- /
s // I
li
v• `C., `s � /I e
3 o\ / I
C''.) ,b `l /
N..'
• l \• �� NW car. Lot J8-' I ,
/ W \
? LOT 1 / II O A/Mea
II :4- \— of 3J I
I B L O C K 1 = II
/ t----41
107.00
/
/ / u II 1 �o
/ / I iN
I
//
/ I—\\ II I
/ / I 115 /
1
/ I `�Sy6T7¢' E 617
3 I I °:,?;
I o ,
\ ` ° I o l ti
I
Ff� No6;iJ"1¢ iY 15
`
FKA. R st ear -H Road 478
Rfwd ,90.4`/HA'1/E/ f
�ANp
2145:N0 ?4/)
/1a1el Road
N2V
b
NJ6:T)•14 \
1158? W
I � I
I
� II S
` I
(i
W tni
JI
SCHOBORG
LA D SERVICES
INC.
New Email Address Page 1 of 1 July 11, 2017
Check-in Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 7, 2017
MEETING: July 11, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: New Email Address Check-in
A few weeks ago, the City migrated to a new email system and all of our email addresses
changed to “@medinamn.gov”. You should have received an email with instructions prior to the
change.
Please take a moment to log-in and confirm that your address is working. The web-based site for
a browser is at: https://outlook.office365.com Your user name and password should not have
changed.
Please send me an email (dusty.finke@medinamn.gov) to confirm that you were able to log-in.
Thanks!
AGENDA ITEM: 8
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday June 13, 2017 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Aaron Amic, Dino DesLauriers, Kim 8
Murrin, Kerby Nester, Robin Reid, and Janet White. 9
10
Absent: None. 11
12
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke. 13
14
2. Introduction of New Members: Aaron Amic and Kerby Nester 15
16
White welcomed the new members of the Commission and invited them to introduce 17
themselves. 18
19
Nester stated that she lives in the Bridgewater neighborhood and is a civil engineer. 20
21
Amic stated that he lives in the Enclave neighborhood and is also a small business owner in 22
Medina. 23
24
3. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 25
26
No comments made. 27
28
4. Update from City Council Proceedings 29
30
Anderson welcomed the newest members of the Commission. He reported that the Council 31
met the previous week to consider a number of items. He stated that public hearings were 32
held to consider three road projects, noting that all projects were approved. He advised that 33
two additional items, a wetland setback variance and Conditional Use Permit were approved 34
also. He stated that the Council has also begun discussing amendments to the high-density 35
zoning district in preparation for the adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated 36
that the Council also enacted a moratorium to further research LED lighting. 37
38
5. Planning Department Report 39
40
Finke provided an update. 41
42
6. Approval of the May 9, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 43
44 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Albers, to approve the May 9, 2017, Planning Commission 45
minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carried unanimously. 46
47
7. Toll MN L.P. – PID #01-118-23-24-0010 – PUD Concept Plan Review for 48
Phase II of the Reserve of Medina 49
50
Finke stated that this is a request to review a planned unit concept plan related to phase II of 51
the Reserve of Medina development. He noted that this process is simply to provide input 52
2
and no formal action is requested at this time. He stated that there are 75 lots within the 53
Reserve of Medina project that have not been platted and developed. He stated that the 54
applicant is requesting slightly smaller lots in order to reach the number of approved lots (75) 55
and accommodate a four-acre City park parcel within that development. He stated that the 56
applicant is proposing lots with a combination of lot widths including 97 feet, 90 feet and 85 57
feet wide lots. He noted that the setbacks are also proposed to be reduced. He displayed the 58
proposed concept plan and the approved preliminary plat for comparison purposes. He noted 59
that the developer would be able to carry out with a similar plat to the preliminary plat. He 60
explained that the difference would be that the six lots removed to make the park parcel 61
would be redistributed within the development. He stated that the requirement for lot width 62
is 90 feet, so the 97 foot lots exceeded that requirement. He noted that staff suggested 63
maintaining a 90-foot-wide minimum lot width in order to retain the expected R-1 lot width 64
along the exterior of the site. He stated that this process is not typical because the PUD 65
request would come half way through the development. He reviewed the criteria used to 66
evaluate a PUD request and noted that staff provided input within the Commission packet. 67
He noted that the main purpose for this request would be to accommodate the future City 68
park while still retaining the same number of lots and providing a variety of housing 69
products. He noted that if the applicant moves this forward as a formal PUD request and if 70
that were not approved, the developer could still carry on with the approved plat. 71
72
Reid asked and received additional clarification on the lot widths and setbacks. 73
74
DesLauriers asked if a price has been determined for the park land. 75
76
Finke explained that the amount would be credited back towards the park dedication that 77
would be owed. 78
79
DesLauriers asked what would happen with the pocket park on Outlot C. 80
81
Finke stated that the City already has possession of that land. He stated that Outlot C is an 82
open space and not an active park, noting the wet conditions. He noted that area links to open 83
space areas that have been dedicated to the City through adjacent development. 84
85
Murrin asked if the City requested this park land, or how this request came about. 86
87
Finke stated that after the subdivision was approved and the City determined not to take land, 88
the City did consider looking for park land in this general area. He stated that when Toll was 89
looking at development options, staff did bring up the idea of wanting future park land. 90
91
Murrin asked how the timing would work for constructing the park and whether that would 92
be available in the budget. 93
94
Finke replied that the park would not be immediate and would wait for more of the subject 95
property to be developed before investing in that park. He noted that the Park Commission 96
would make a recommendation to the Council. He noted that a park was identified in this 97
area within the Comprehensive Plan. 98
99
Murrin asked the average lot size for the smaller lots. 100
101
Finke replied that the average lot size would exceed the minimum lot size for the R-1 district, 102
which would be a quarter acre lot. 103
104
3
Albers asked if staff has talked to the applicant about maintaining the minimum lot width or 105
whether it would be too much to sacrifice 1.5 lots in the process. 106
107
Finke stated that one of the applicant’s main interests is to maintain the same number of lots. 108
109
Reid asked the price point on the homes in the existing portion of the development. 110
111
John Hensen, Assistant Vice President with Toll Brothers replied that the homes within the 112
current phase begins at $825,000 to $850,000. He confirmed that the new product would 113
begin at $675,000 while still maintaining the higher value desires. 114
115
White opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 116
117
Ave Bopray, 545 Hackamore Road, stated that her property is adjacent to the proposed park 118
land. She stated that in a public park forum they would ask the City to think about where the 119
traffic is. She stated that Hackamore already has bad traffic conditions and asked the type of 120
consideration that would be given to that situation in regard to accessing that City park. 121
122
Ryan Lindel, 565 Hackamore Road, stated that he has lived at his home for three years and 123
Hackamore Road continues to get busier. He stated that traffic is horrendous and even the 124
patrols and speed trailer do not seem to help. He stated that there is also development in the 125
neighboring community that continues to add traffic. He stated that there are also problems 126
with drainage from Wild Meadows that spill onto their property. He stated that the sloping of 127
the land caused the water problems and he would be interested to know how the water would 128
be managed with the increased impervious surface. 129
130
White closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 131
132
White asked how access would occur for a future park. 133
134
Finke stated that staff has not yet discussed the best option for access. He noted that there is 135
a future trail connection to Hackamore. He referenced an alternative access that could be 136
gained. He stated that road connection to the future park from Hackamore is not a given. 137
138
White noted that The Fields of Medina is a ten-acre park, which is why parking was 139
provided. She asked if parking would be needed for a four-acre park. 140
141
Finke stated that parking would be provided to some extent, but agreed that it was a different 142
type of park. He stated that although it would not incur the same type of activity as The 143
Fields of Medina, they would still want it to be convenient for people to drive to the park. 144
145
Albers asked if there are any plans for parks in the southern development of Corcoran. 146
147
Finke stated that he has not been made aware of plans for parks in that area, but noted that 148
there is land that has been sold for development in that area. He hoped that the cities would 149
be able to work together in planning for that type of amenity. 150
151
Murrin stated that there seems to be two issues; first the lot width sizes and second being the 152
location of a future park. She stated that she is not a big fan of the smaller lot sizes. She 153
stated that she drives along Hackamore and does not believe there is space for on-street 154
parking. She also did not think a four-acre size park would have sufficient space to create a 155
parking lot. She stated that it seems that this would be the City funding a park that would 156
mostly be used by Corcoran residents. 157
4
DesLauriers stated that he spent four years on the Park Commission and provided input on 158
the Fields of Medina plans. He agreed that placing a park in that location would be at the 159
expense of the City for only the benefit of the residents in that portion of the development and 160
the residents of Corcoran. He stated that if the developer wants a park for their residents they 161
could supply that. 162
163
Reid asked if a developer typically funds a park on their development. 164
165
Finke replied that if the City chooses to take land, there is not much left in park dedication 166
funds to fund equipment. He noted that each circumstance is unique. 167
168
Reid stated that she likes the variety in housing product and the changes to the plat seem to be 169
minor. She noted that there was a time when the City regretted not taking park land from this 170
development. She agreed that this park would benefit residents in the development. She 171
noted that at Bridgewater, they installed four parking spaces and that was sufficient. She 172
noted that there would not be an impact to traffic because there are already the same number 173
of residents and daily trips. 174
175
Finke stated that if the Commission would be supportive in the variety of lot width and park, 176
but not in this location, that would be helpful to know. 177
178
Albers asked, and received confirmation that this addition of the project would have access to 179
the amenities such as the pool. He stated that if the City needs another park in this part of the 180
City, he would like to see it more accessible than what is proposed here. He was unsure if he 181
could set up the PUD as designed, with the smaller lot widths. He stated that it appears too 182
crowded and would be big houses on little lots. 183
184
Nester stated that she does not like the quarter acre lot size, but that may be what the market 185
demands. She stated that she would like a more centrally located parcel for the park. She 186
noted that if the park were placed closer to the pool that could be shared parking. 187
188
White stated that she agrees with the comments of Albers. She noted that it was overlooked 189
to request a park in this area and appreciates the willingness of the developer to consider the 190
option at this time. She stated that this would be awkward placement for a park and would 191
basically serve this development only. She stated that she did not see a large benefit to the 192
park in return for the smaller lot sizes. She stated that if the park were to be somewhere else, 193
perhaps there would be a better tradeoff for the smaller lot sizes. 194
195
Hensen stated that the park did come up through negotiations and shortly thereafter the 196
market began to change. He stated that they are trying to sell more homes in the current 197
market conditions and that is the driving factor. He stated that they have invested a lot in the 198
park and pool that they currently have and therefore do not need another park. He stated that 199
homes in other developments are selling at a much higher rate because that is what the market 200
wants. He stated that they are attempting to react to the market, provide homes that people 201
want to buy, maintain the lot count and provide the land to the City in the process. He stated 202
that if this is not approved, they would simply build the smaller homes on larger lots. He 203
provided additional examples of issues they have encountered with the setbacks as a custom 204
builder. He noted that people want more space in the back of the home compared to the front 205
yard. He stated that they did look at other locations for park land but noted that it did not 206
make sense because they are not attempting or needing another park. 207
208
5
8. Public Hearing – Wallace and Bridget Marx – 2700-2900 Parkview Dr. – Preliminary 209
Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan for Conservation Design 210
Subdivision 211
212
Finke presented a request for a PUD general plan and preliminary plat for the property at 213
270—2900 Parkview Drive. He stated that earlier this year the Commission and Council 214
reviewed a concept plan review for this proposed development. He stated that the applicant 215
is proposing to have 70 acres of land placed into conservation, while 11.75 acres of the 216
conserved area would be buildable. He provided details on the looped public trail and that 217
individual homeowners would own the adjacent lots that would fall under the easement. He 218
provided an aerial photograph of the site with an overlay of the applicant’s plan. He stated 219
that there are wetlands throughout the property, the largest on the southwest portion of the 220
site and has been rated as a good quality natural resource. He identified other resources 221
which have also been identified as good quality. He displayed the proposed plan, noting the 222
proposed conservation areas. He stated that the land is guided for agricultural or rural 223
residential similar to the adjacent parcels. He stated the conservation design ordinance allows 224
a property to develop in a more flexible manner in order to preserve property through 225
permanent conservation. He stated that the primary piece of flexibility that is provided 226
through the ordinance is the bonus density that would allow up to double the base density of 227
the site. He stated that ultimately the flexibility is fully at the discretion of the City and 228
provided details on the criteria that are used to determine the value of the conserved areas. 229
He stated that the applicant is proposing 40 percent of the buildable area to be conserved, 230
while that encompasses more than 77 percent of the entire site. He noted that staff would 231
give more consideration to the steep slope wooded area that is not as protected under City 232
regulations. He noted that wetland buffer and buffer areas would already be conserved in the 233
standard ordinance. He stated that there are six lots proposed and displayed the different lot 234
sizes, which range up to 6.5 acres in size. He noted that all sites proposed would incorporate 235
primary and secondary septic sites within the lots. He provided additional details on the 236
proposed access and rankings for the conserved areas within the natural resources report. He 237
stated that the applicant has proposed a public trail throughout the conservation area on the 238
site. He noted that the Park Commission had mentioned providing a connection to the 239
property to the east. He stated that the applicant seems to be in agreement with providing that 240
connection. He stated that staff does believe that this parcel would be a good opportunity for 241
conservation design, noting that some level of flexibility is required if the City is going to 242
provide this option to developers. He stated that the main discussion would be to weigh the 243
conservation value being provided against the flexibility requested. He stated that staff has 244
supplied a number of conditions that they would recommend should the Commission be in 245
agreement with the conservation design. 246
247
Reid asked if the City is obtaining 11.75 acres in land that they would not have received in 248
exchange for the three bonus homes. She noted that the wetlands and swamp would be 249
protected under current regulations. 250
251
Finke replied that the 11.75 acres are shown in yellow and three additional acres of wooded 252
steep slope areas would also be protected. He noted that the other areas are pockets near 253
wetlands or laying within setbacks. He noted that a total of 20 acres additional would be 254
provided outside of the wetland and buffers. He noted that the City would also be given the 255
permanent conservation of those areas, regardless of buildable/unbuildable and 256
protected/unprotected. 257
258
Kent Williams addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant and introduced the 259
members of the team that are present including Wally Marx. He identified the proposed 260
locations for the lots and the criteria that are used to evaluate requests under the conservation 261
6
design ordinance. He provided a comparison of this request to the only approved 262
conservation design development, Stonegate (Deerhill Preserve). He identified the different 263
natural resource elements that would be included in the conservation area that are ranked as 264
good quality. He noted that School Lake is a hidden lake and views of the lake and other 265
resources would be given to the public through the looped trail. He noted that an east/west 266
connection would also be provided and there would be public access to each of the conserved 267
elements on the property. He noted that there is not a high percentage of buildable land on 268
the property, but this request would conserve 40 percent of the buildable land. 269
270
Albers asked if there are plans to provide access to the lake, such as a boat landing or dock. 271
272
Williams replied that it would simply be viewing access. 273
274
Michael Pressman, Conservation Solutions, stated that he was introduced to the Marx 275
property 13 years ago when he was working with a local watershed. He noted that the natural 276
resources report of the City of Medina also identified elements on this property. He 277
identified the amount and quality of the natural resources on the property, noting that 278
conventional development would protect 49 acres, while this request would provide 70 acres 279
of conserved land. He referenced the old growth maple-basswood forest, noting that many of 280
the trees exceed 40 inches in diameter. He stated that this type of asset is rare and would be 281
protected, and the public would also be given access to that resource. He stated that this 282
tamarack bog resource was also identified as a rare element that should be protected under the 283
City’s natural resources report and also by Hennepin County. He described the protections 284
along the lakeshore that would be included through this request compared to the typical 285
clearing of trees and maintenance of turf grass that typically occurs for lakeshore property. 286
He stated that this property is a great combination of elements that come together for a great 287
opportunity to conserve land and provide habitat for wildlife and vegetation. He noted that 288
the location next to Baker Park also provides an opportunity for connectivity. He stated that 289
in western Hennepin County, large complexes of natural resources are the best that they have 290
to offer in terms of opportunities for preservation. He referenced different reports that 291
identify this area as a high priority for conservation, including the City, County, DNR, and 292
local Watershed. He stated that a lot of communities pay landowners for conservation 293
easements. He stated that the leaders in Medina created this conservation easement ordinance 294
to allow the City to obtain these conservation easements for free in return for flexibility with 295
development. 296
297
White referenced the water quality of School Lake, noting that many lakes in Medina are 298
impaired. 299
300
Laura Domyancich, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, stated that School Lake has not 301
been considered impaired. She noted that water quality testing and aquatic invasive species 302
testing has recently occurred. She stated that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) 303
was approached as a proposed easement holder for the property. She stated that in a practical 304
sense MCWD would do periodic inspection of the site and a land stewardship plan would 305
maintain the conservation areas over time. She noted that there are techniques for restoration 306
and additional options for homeowners to improve the value of the conservation elements. 307
She stated that the development team engaged the MCWD early in the process to ensure that 308
the necessary elements would be addressed and protected. She stated that the MCWD has a 309
history of holding easements. 310
311
Williams stated that there is an existing bridle path that goes around School Lake, noting that 312
it is a quasi-private trail open to School Lake residents and their guests and could be ended at 313
any time. He stated that some of the neighboring properties along School Lake have stated 314
7
that they would pull out from the bridle path if it were made public. He noted that they took 315
great pain to keep the public trail loop separate from the private bridle path. He reviewed the 316
different criteria found within the ordinance, comparing the criteria to each of the resources 317
protected under the conservation (high quality/old growth forest, wetlands, etc.) and to what 318
would occur under conventional development. He stated that rather than having an HOA for 319
six homes, the landowners would become responsible for maintaining the easement which 320
would be easier to enforce. He noted that under normal development you could remove trees 321
and fill wetlands, and the level of protection required is less than what would be provided in 322
the proposal. He noted that the site currently has habitat corridors that would be protected, 323
which would not be protected under normal development. He noted that the impacts 324
proposed for the driveway and mound system would be minimal to wildlife. He noted that 325
the private bridle path would be preserved and two public trails that currently do not exit 326
would be added to the site which would provide public access to the elements conserved. He 327
stated that 70 acres of property would be conserved and public trails would be provided. He 328
provided pictures of existing homes along School Lake that have cleared trees and installed 329
turf grass that is mowed right up to the shoreline. He noted that this proposal would preserve 330
that shoreline and would also provide public access to view areas of the property that contain 331
valuable assets. He stated that this property is within the 2040 long-term sewer area for the 332
Metropolitan Council and if that happens, the density for the property will increase to up to 333
140 lots and the lakeshore density could increase to 7 to 14 lots. He stated that under this 334
proposal, this land would remain with only 6 lots. He stated that the density is not out of 335
character with the neighboring properties. He compared the proposal to the only approved 336
conservation design subdivision, noting that this request exceeds all elements of that 337
development in terms of conservation and natural resource value. He stated that this property 338
is exceptional and the circumstances are exceptional; and he is asking that the Commission 339
approve the request with the full density bonus. 340
341
Albers asked if there is duck hunting allowed on School Lake. 342
343
Wally Marx replied that no one duck hunts on School Lake. 344
345
White asked if any of the home construction would impact the lake. 346
347
Williams replied that they would take steps to prevent that from occurring. 348
349
White asked if there are currently erosion issues on the shoreline. It was replied that there 350
were not any known issues. 351
352
White asked if the looped public trail would be woodchipped. 353
354
Williams stated that while it would not be a paved trail, the materials for the trail were not 355
specified. He noted that they would be open to suggestion. He noted that the Park 356
Commission wanted a nature trail for the east/west connection and provided information on 357
the possible location, which would run along the southside of the driveway and woods. He 358
stated that the east/west trail could be placed in the north, but they wanted to avoid the private 359
property and bridle path. He noted that the southern trail connection would not be 360
constructed at this time because there is nothing to connect to. He noted that Councilmember 361
Martin suggested a looped trail and advised that the trail connection could be constructed in 362
the beginning to provide that connection. He noted that signage would be installed to keep 363
people on the trail. He stated that parking was mentioned and would be an issue, as he was 364
unsure of how the trail would be used. He noted that even if just a few people drive to the 365
trail, the only place for parking would be across the street at Baker Park and they would have 366
to cross Parkview. 367
8
White asked if that would be an appropriate use of the Baker Park parking lot. 368
369
Williams stated that they could look into it. He noted that it is a public use lot. He noted that 370
people could also ride their bicycles, but noted that the trail is meant for walking and not 371
biking. 372
373
DesLauriers asked the logic for waiving the park fees. 374
375
Williams stated that this is not a conventional development and they will be preserving 70 376
acres through conservation easement and providing public access through trails, and therefore 377
that should perhaps justify the waiving of park dedication. 378
379
White opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. 380
381
Charlie Schroder, 2910 Parkview, stated that he is the immediate property owner to the north. 382
He appreciated the work that Wally Marx and his team have invested in a great project. He 383
stated that they moved to the area because it is zoned rural residential. He acknowledged that 384
this would be similar density to the area he lives. He stated that for the trail, it would be 385
difficult for public members to access the trail. He did not believe it was practical for people 386
to park at Baker Park. He stated that a large portion of his property is under conservation 387
easement and likes that element. He stated that his main concern was the density. 388
389
Reid asked if the resident would be satisfied with additional screening between his property 390
and lot one. 391
392
Schroder stated that his preference would be for one lot rather than two, but agreed that 393
screening would be helpful. 394
395
DesLauriers asked the setback of the homes. 396
397
Schroder stated that he is probably 50 feet from the lot line on his side and the proposed 398
home on lot one would be setback 50 feet as well. 399
400
Williams stated that under conventional development that is where a home on lot one would 401
be built. He noted that under any scenario the Schroders will see a home in that location. He 402
noted that the Schroders would most likely not even be able to see the home on lot two. 403
404
White closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. 405
406
Murrin stated that she liked the presentation and found it helpful that the parameters were all 407
laid out. She stated that for all the reasons mentioned she is in favor of the request as it is a 408
beautiful property that is worth preserving. She did not think that adding three homes would 409
be a huge detriment for the area in return for what the City will receive. 410
411
Reid stated that she was on the Open Space Committee and there was a map of what they 412
theoretically wanted to protect. She stated that the odds of being able to obtain the private 413
properties was slim to none. She agreed that this property is of high value and is worth 414
protecting. She stated that additional screening could assist with buffering the neighboring 415
property owner. She stated that because of the greenway corridor and assets that would be 416
preserved, she will be supporting the request. 417
418
9
DesLauriers stated that his dad built the original home on the property 40 years ago and 419
appreciates the history of the property. He referenced the staff comment regarding 420
enforcement difficulties and asked what those concerns were. 421
422
Finke stated that from an enforcement standpoint there are two sides, one is a homeowner 423
that would understand the easement and the other that would violate terms of an easement 424
because they own the property and feel like they can do what they want. He noted that details 425
of the ongoing maintenance for the easements are still being determined. 426
427
DesLauriers stated that in regard to the park fees he could see that there is ongoing 428
maintenance of the trails that would be needed for the public trail. 429
430
Albers stated that this request seems to make a lot of sense. 431
432
Nester stated that to ask for only five future homes would be a multiplier of 1.66 and that 433
would not justify what the City is receiving in return. She believed this to be a reasonable 434
request that she would support. 435
436
White stated that this request meets the objectives of the ordinance and the amount of quality 437
of the resources conserved would equate to the full density bonus and would still provide a 438
rural residential feeling. She stated that she fully supports the full density bonus. 439
440
Motion by Reid, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Marx proposal with the 441
conditions listed by City staff. Motion carries unanimously. 442
443
White stated that she would have liked to see what the lake view would be from the looped 444
trail and perhaps that would be helpful for the City Council presentation. 445
446
Finke noted that the City Council will consider this application on July 5th. 447
448
9. Public Hearing – Brian Fragodt – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code 449
to the MR, Multi-Family Residential District to Reduce the Setback Adjacent to Open 450
Space or Common Area 451
452
Finke stated that the request is to amend the multi-family residential rear setback in order to 453
allow for a reduction in the rear setback if adjacent to an open space or common area, from 454
40 feet to 20 feet. He noted that this language is present in other zoning districts as the 455
purpose of the setback is to set back from another structure or element that does not exist in 456
open space situations. He identified the two sections of multi-family residential district that 457
would fall adjacent to open space or common areas. He noted that staff would support the 458
amendment as it is used in other zoning districts, would have a limited application and would 459
be consistent with what is commonly done in the City. 460
461
White asked the size of the applicant’s deck. 462
463
Finke replied and noted that while that is applicable to the one situation, this would apply to 464
other properties in the City as well. He noted that in the case that the property is adjacent to a 465
wetland, the wetland buffer would still remain in place. 466
467
White opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. 468
469
No comments made. 470
471
10
White closed the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. 472
473
Reid noted that this would only impact a small number of properties and there would still be 474
20 feet of setback, so she would support the request. 475
476
Murrin stated that she would oppose this request as she would like to preserve as much green 477
space as possible. 478
479
Nester stated that she would be okay with the request. She noted that a wetland buffer would 480
still trump the reduced setback. 481
482
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the ordinance 483
regarding rear yard setbacks abutting open space in the Multi-Family Residential Zoning 484
District. Motion carries 6-1. (Nay: Murrin) 485
486
10. Council Meeting Schedule 487
488
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Albers volunteered 489
to attend in representation of the Commission. 490
491
11. Adjourn 492
493
Motion by Murrin, seconded by Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. Motion carried 494
unanimously. 495