HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-14-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL July 10, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of June 9, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing - Property Resources Development Corporation – east of
Homestead Trail, west of Deerhill Road – Planned Unit Development
General Plan and Preliminary Plat for a proposed Conservation Design
subdivision to include 42 single-family home lots.
7. Public Hearing - Robert Buehler – Preliminary Plat to divide one lot into
two.
8. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to Solar Equipment.
9. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to setbacks from upland wetland buffers.
10. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to the Site Plan Review process.
11. Council Meeting Schedule
12. Adjourn
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday June 9, 2015 4
5
1. Call to Order: Vice Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Kent 8
Williams (arrived at 7:30 p.m.). 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioners Randy Foote, Kim Murrin and Charles Nolan. 11
12
Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Planning 13
Assistant Debra Peterson. 14
15
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 16
17
No comments. 18
19
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20
21
Finke provided an update on the activity of the City Council since the previous Commission 22
meeting. 23
24
4. Planning Department Report 25
26
Finke provided an update. 27
28
5. Discussion Pertaining to Site Plan Review Procedures 29
30
Finke stated that under the current regulations almost any construction activity on 31
commercial or multi-family property requires a review by the Planning Commission and City 32
Council and provided examples of some of the activities that fall under that category such as 33
siding replacement. He stated that not all of those activities come before the Commission and 34
Council, although that does not comply with the regulations. He stated that during the 35
business forums the businesses have stated the process is over burdensome when they are just 36
making minor improvements. He questioned if the Commission would be in favor of 37
allowing administrative review for minor activities while still requiring larger requests to 38
come before the Commission and Council. He stated that staff drafted a potential ordinance 39
for review, which would incorporate the administrative review element and reviewed the 40
items that would potentially fall under administrative review and the elements that would still 41
require a formal review. 42
43
Albers questioned how the 10 and 20 percent thresholds were chosen and whether guidelines 44
of other cities were used. 45
46
Finke stated staff chose that number and explained that Medina falls between what some 47
other communities may do because of their size and regulations. 48
49
Reid questioned if staff believes this would make a big difference. 50
51
2
Finke did believe this would make a difference. He explained that some businesses design 52
projects in smaller parts to fall under the administrative review process and instead run the 53
projects over the course of two years to avoid the formal review process. 54
55
Albers questioned if there are other improvements that staff has considered for administrative 56
review. 57
58
Finke did not believe additional items would need to be listed, as he believed the items listed 59
for potential administrative review would cover most of those aspects. 60
61
White questioned if the Golf Course accessory structure would have fallen under 62
administrative review under the proposed ordinance. 63
64
Finke explained that site is a PUD and therefore the formal review would still have been 65
required. 66
67
White stated these are maximum numbers and the Commission would want to review 68
anything larger. 69
70
Reid agreed this could make the process more user friendly for businesses. 71
72
Finke noted that a public hearing will be held the following month to consider this ordinance 73
change. He stated that he stuck to the commercial side of the ordinance although noted that 74
perhaps lot line rearrangement and lot combinations could also fall under administrative 75
review. He stated that the less cumbersome process could encourage residents to combine 76
multiple lots that they own. He stated that specifically in the shoreline overlay district this 77
could help to bring noncompliant lots into conformance. 78
79
Reid stated that she is not a big fan of parking lots and asked that staff not make it too easy to 80
expand parking, although still recognizing that businesses may need additional parking. 81
82
Finke stated the storm water regulations tend to discourage too much parking area because of 83
the additional cost. 84
85
Williams arrived. 86
87
6. PJ Norman, LLC – 345 Clydesdale Trail – Planned Unit Development 88
General Plan and Site Plan Review for Construction of an Approximately 89
9,000 Square Foot Goddard School 90
91
Finke presented a request for the commercial development of a 9,300 square foot early 92
childhood center by Goddard School. He stated the request includes two land use approvals, 93
an amendment to the existing PUD and a Site Plan review. He stated that the property is 94
zoned PUD, noting that the original PUD had planned for a 5,600 square foot restaurant on 95
this lot with parking. He stated that this building is larger and orientated similarly, but would 96
have substantially less parking and therefore would actually have less hardcover than the 97
original plan for the restaurant. He stated that there would be more greenspace around the 98
building, which would be play space for the children. He reviewed the proposed one-way 99
access, which would be different than the shared access specified by the PUD. He reviewed 100
the building material and architecture proposed and compared those to the requirements of 101
the PUD. He reviewed the proposed landscaping. He reviewed the proposed access and 102
stated that the applicant has concern with encouraging additional traffic to come through the 103
site because of the children. He reviewed the proposed parking and stated that although there 104
are not specific regulations for this type of use, staff did review similar facilities and believe 105
3
the proposed parking to be sufficient. He stated that staff did review the other existing 106
locations to ensure the parking for this site was not needed in order to share with those sites. 107
He stated that the storm water management aspects have already been met through the PUD, 108
noting that this use would have less hardcover than the originally proposed use. He stated 109
that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. 110
111
Williams referenced the area of storm water and questioned what the site could do, other than 112
changing the existing system, to add value. 113
114
Finke stated that treatment could occur on site prior to discharge to the existing system. 115
116
Williams stated that his concern is that the City has new storm water regulations, but 117
continues to grandfather parcels in under the old regulations. He stated that at some point the 118
City needs to implement the rules. 119
120
Finke stated that the waiver is in place to allow this type of activity as these types of plans 121
had already been approved. He stated that in this case there would be more opportunity 122
because of the reduced hardcover, but noted the additional greenspace would be used as play 123
space. He stated that the reduced parking and increased greenspace could be seen as an 124
improvement and could be quantified. 125
126
Williams questioned if it would be difficult to include a rain garden and whether there would 127
be an appropriate location. 128
129
Finke stated that there would be available space, but was not sure how that would work with 130
the site layout and piping. 131
132
Albers referenced the traffic flow and questioned the original design for the restaurant, noting 133
that the Caribou drive-thru limited that action. He questioned if there was an alternative 134
traffic flow that would not use the Caribou parking lot. 135
136
Finke stated that staff does not have any concern with the internal flow of this lot as 137
proposed. He stated that staff does not want to encourage internal traffic through to that site, 138
noting that the property to the east is the one of concern. 139
140
Albers noticed that traffic for this site could come in and out through Clydesdale and 141
therefore is less concerned. 142
143
Finke stated that the applicant preferred to have no tie in to the Caribou site, but staff 144
recommended a minimal connection for emergency purposes. He stated that traffic from the 145
east will be discouraged. 146
147
Williams noted that additional signage could be posted as well to direct and/or limit traffic. 148
149
White stated that she is confused about that issue as she feels the drive-thru and the street to 150
the right of the drive-thru is already dangerous. She noted that the parking gets tight in front 151
of the Caribou site and envisioned people dropping their kids off and instead of exiting to 152
Clydesdale choosing that curb cut instead. 153
154
Finke stated that the applicant is proposing the access be shrunk down to one lane. 155
156
Williams stated that blocking that completely would eliminate that concern. 157
4
Finke noted that the Caribou drive-thru is already a mess and stated that although that is not 158
the fault of the applicant, staff wants to ensure that this does not add to that problem. He did 159
not believe that the proposal would add to problem Caribou has with their drive-thru. 160
161
Reid stated that her assumption would be that when this PUD was designed, the restaurant 162
would have been the centerpiece of the development. She questioned if there would be any 163
other place for a restaurant or whether this would be the last pad-ready location. 164
165
Finke stated that there would only be one more pad available for development in this PUD. 166
167
Reid stated that the land has been available for a while and has not been turned into a 168
restaurant. She stated that the school would be a good thing, but was sad to see there would 169
not be a restaurant. 170
171
Williams agreed that the PUD included retail shopping and this would be a departure from 172
that. 173
174
Albers noted that there is a need for this type of use in Medina, as there were not many 175
options for childcare when his family moved to the City. 176
177
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. 178
179
Aaron Amic, Medina resident, stated that he is present in representation of Goddard School. 180
He stated that his wife and mother in-law opened and have run the existing location in 181
Plymouth since 2007, noting that he joined his wife when his mother in-law retired. He 182
stated that the Plymouth site is full and is landlocked, which does not allow expansion. He 183
stated that the next best option would be to expand in another area and they believed Medina 184
would be a good fit. He stated that they have had their eye on this site for a while, as it has 185
remained vacant. 186
187
White questioned if the capacity of students is seasonal or whether that remains constant. 188
189
Amic stated that while the students drop slightly in the summer, for the most part it does 190
remain constant as most families choose to stay with the school through the summer. 191
192
Williams questioned the age range of children. 193
194
Amic stated that they work with children ages 6 weeks to six years, noting that they do not 195
provide kindergarten, but do provide pre-K education. 196
197
Williams questioned the peak hours for traffic. 198
199
Amic stated that the plan would be to mirror the Plymouth location, which opens at 7:00 a.m., 200
noting that the busiest drop off times are between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. He stated that pickup 201
time is a little more spread out, starting around noon for half day students and then busier 202
between 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. 203
204
Williams referenced the fencing around the building. 205
206
Amic stated that Goddard is a national program and requires a six-foot fence unless not 207
allowed by City standards. He stated that they do not have a six-foot fence in Plymouth, but 208
are in a very secluded area and therefore that has not been a concern at that location. He 209
stated that this site is more public and he would worry about the safety of the children if only 210
a four-foot fence was used. He stated that he would prefer the larger six-foot barrier. 211
5
Reid asked for additional information regarding the requested number of parking stalls. 212
213
Amic stated that there will be slightly more children here than the Plymouth location, but 214
believed the parking would be sufficient for the staff and parents. 215
216
Reid stated that perhaps the teachers could park in the Caribou area. 217
218
Amic stated that while he did not think the business would mind that on occasion, he was 219
unsure that Caribou would like the school to do so on a regular basis. 220
221
Finke confirmed that the parking is shared through the PUD and noted that there is a lot of 222
excess parking near Target. 223
224
Amic stated that he would like to be a good neighbor and would not want to make teachers 225
walk a lengthy distance in the winter. 226
227
Reid referenced the choice of siding materials and asked for additional information. 228
229
Bob Timperley, Watson-Forsberg Construction Company, stated that he was involved in the 230
construction of the Plymouth site as well, noting that this would be a similar construction. He 231
stated that the siding choice was made by group decision, as the school is being asked to 232
conform to the standards of the PUD. He stated that they would need a more durable material 233
for the school building, which is why this material was chosen. He provided an example and 234
additional description of the material to the Commission. 235
236
Albers questioned, and received confirmation, that the play area would include play 237
equipment and grass area. 238
239
Williams referenced storm water management and asked for additional information regarding 240
the viability of installing a rain garden or another element that would treat some of the water 241
onsite. 242
243
Timperley stated that he is not a civil engineer, but reinforced the comment made by Finke 244
that it would be awkward to place the rain garden as the water would not slope towards an 245
available area and would have to be piped into that area. 246
247
Reid referenced the trash and recycling location, which will be located outside the building 248
but will look like it’s inside the building. 249
250
Amic explained the purpose of that location. He stated that they originally would have liked 251
to place the trash further away from the building, but had been told that would not be an 252
option. He stated that this is the only location that would not interfere with the play area or 253
flow of traffic/parking. He stated that the outdoor trash is for sanitary purposes. 254
255
Reid referenced the landscaping and noted that it appears there is more room for landscaping 256
on the east side of the building. 257
258
Amic agreed and stated that they are working with staff on that element as they are very open 259
to placing more trees or shrubbery in that area. 260
261
Reid referenced the façade on the east side of the building, which is treated as the back but in 262
reality looks into the rest of the development. She realized people would not be coming into 263
the site from that side, but suggested that perhaps some additional modulation could be 264
added. 265
6
266
Amic stated that is the gymnasium, which is why the number of windows are reduced on that 267
side. He agreed that additional windows could be added in a strategic way in order to 268
account for the needed design of the preschool rooms. He stated that additional windows also 269
add distraction and sun in the afternoons. 270
271
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. 272
273
Reid confirmed that the Commissioners did not oppose changing the proposed use from 274
restaurant to school or with the materials proposed. She referenced the issue of modulation 275
and stated that she does have an issue with the east side, noting that she would like to see 276
more windows and additional landscaping. 277
278
White agreed that the east side does need something, although she did not want to limit that 279
aspect to windows. 280
281
Albers also agreed, noting that adding trees and shrubs could add to that view. 282
283
Williams stated that an additional condition could be added specifying that something be 284
done to the east side, whether that is with modulation, windows or additional landscaping. 285
286
Albers questioned if a Goddard School sign could be placed, or was considered, on that side 287
of the building as well. 288
289
Amic stated that was considered. 290
291
Finke stated that the PUD limits signage to three sides. 292
293
Albers questioned, and received confirmation that the signs would not be lit. 294
295
Williams stated that if the concern is that it looks like the back of the building, additional 296
windows will not change that, but believed that a sign would. He stated that modulation 297
could be added to make it more interesting and landscaping could be added as well. 298
299
Reid questioned the orientation of the restaurant for the site. 300
301
Finke stated that the orientation would have been the same. 302
303
Reid referenced landscaping, noting the consensus of the Commission to have additional 304
landscaping added, specifically to the east side. She referenced the Caribou access and 305
parking issue. 306
307
Williams stated that he did not think people would want to go out the same way they came in. 308
309
Albers stated that people would also come from 101 and go through the Target parking lot. 310
He did not see as much of a concern and believed the traffic would go out to Clydesdale. 311
312
White questioned if people park and walk their children into the building. 313
314
Amic confirmed that people do walk their children into the school. He stated that after 315
observing the Caribou situation, they decided they want to stay as far away from that as 316
possible. He stated that the curb cut was proposed for emergency purposes and noted that the 317
plan is to place a double do not enter/do not exit sign at the location to deter people from 318
traveling between the sites. 319
7
320
Finke stated that the main access is on the west side and traffic would normally exit to the 321
north. 322
323
Amic stated that between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. the average is one child per minute for drop 324
offs. He stated that the total time for the drop off process is about three to seven minutes. 325
326
Reid stated that she would prefer to keep the road wider for the long-term use of the building. 327
328
Williams questioned if that could be widened in the future should a new use come in. 329
330
Finke explained that this is not a public road and if additional flexibility is desired that should 331
be expressed at this time. 332
333
Williams stated that the theory behind the one lane would be that traffic would be less likely 334
to go through that area. He questioned the enforceability of the do not enter/do not exit 335
signage. 336
337
Finke stated that would not be enforceable. 338
339
Amic stated that would be enforceable to their clients. 340
341
Finke explained the usual traffic pattern that people would follow. 342
343
Reid confirmed the consensus of the Commission to make the access to Caribou a little wider 344
with signage. She also confirmed the consensus of the Commission to allow the storm water 345
waiver. 346
347
Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the General Plan of 348
Development to amend the PUD and the Site Plan Review subject to the conditions suggested 349
in the staff report with the following additions: 1) the landscaping plan be modified to 350
conform to the City standards, 2) that the east elevation have additional architectural details 351
added to improve the appearance of the right third, and 3) that the southeast access be 352
widened to accommodate two lanes of traffic. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: 353
Foote, Murrin and Nolan) 354
355
7. Approval of the May 12, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 356
357
Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to approve the May 12, 2015, Planning Commission 358
minutes as amended. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Foote, Murrin, and Nolan) 359
360
8. Council Meeting Schedule 361
362
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting on June 16th and Albers will be the 363
representative in attendance. 364
365
9. Adjourn 366
367
Motion by Williams, seconded by White, to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Motion 368
carried unanimously. 369
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 July 14, 2015
Site Plan Review Processes Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 8, 2015
MEETING: July 14, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Site Plan Review Processes – Public Hearing
Background
Current City regulations require a Site Plan Review process, including Planning Commission
review and City Council resolution, for almost all construction activity on commercial and multi-
family residential property.
This includes review of new construction, additions over 1000 square feet in size, parking lot
expansions in excess of 10,000 square feet, and re-siding of structures if the wall surface is
greater than 10,000 square feet.
Many of these reviews have very little discretion, and there was fairly little to discuss during the
public process in some recent examples. Local businesses have also complained that the process
is burdensome when they are attempting to improve their property or operations.
Staff reviewed the Site Plan Review ordinance to identify opportunities to make the review
process more efficient, but also to maintain a public process for larger projects. Following the
review, staff prepared the attached ordinance which was discussed at the June Commission
meeting.
The ordinance would make the following construction subject to administrative review instead of
a public process:
1) Changes of use
2) Re-siding buildings
3) Parking lot expansions
4) Lighting changes
5) Grading (up to 1000 cubic yards)
The ordinance would also increase the size of building expansions which can be approved
through administrative review. Currently, an expansion up to 1000 square feet can be
administratively reviewed, regardless of the size of the building onto which it is constructed.
The proposed amendment would allow expansions up to 10% of the existing floor area to be
administrative reviewed. Staff believes it may be worth discussing even a higher threshold.
The ordinance would also make review of accessory structures an administrative review, but
only up to 5000 square feet, or 20% of the existing building (whichever is less). The Planning
Commission can discuss whether they are comfortable with this, or would rather all new
construction be reviewed through a public process.
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 July 14, 2015
Site Plan Review Processes Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Discussion
The Planning Commission discussed briefly at the June meeting. Generally, it appeared that
there was support to make many of these reviews administrative.
There was some discussion related to parking lot expansions and whether these reviews being
administrative would lead property owners to install more parking than is necessary and more
than is preferred by the Commission and Council. The purpose of a Site Plan Review (be it
administrative or with Commission/Council review) is to review consistency with existing
regulations. The City does not currently have maximum parking requirements, only minimums.
If a property owner constructing too much parking is a concern, the City should discuss
regulations by which to determine if too much parking is proposed.
Staff did not hear of other concerns, so the same ordinance has been presented again for a
hearing.
Attachment
Draft ordinance
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESSES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 825.55, et.seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 825.55. Site Plan Review – Application.
Subd. 1. All new commercial, business, and multiple family residential uses and
developments shall require site plan review under this section prior to the issuance of any
permits. In addition, all changes, additions and expansions of existing commercial,
business, and multiple family residential uses and developments shall require site plan
review prior to the issuance of any permits unless the change, addition or expansion
qualifies for review by city staff as a minor change pursuant to Subd. 4 of this
Section. Changes occurring after the effective date of this ordinance shall require site
plan review if the change, when combined with all other changes made since the effective
date of this ordinance, would no longer qualify as a minor change under the applicable
district regulations.
Subd. 2. The owner or developer shall submit an application for site plan review to the
zoning administrator. The application shall be accompanied by the following information
and documentation to the extent it is not otherwise required by another land use
application made by the owner or developer for the same site at the same time:
(a) legal description of the property;
(b) identification of developer and owner, if different;
(c) survey showing property boundaries; existing improvements, including utilities,
drainage tiles and wells; topography of the site and area within 100 feet of the
property boundaries with contours at 2-foot intervals; significant trees and existing
vegetation which would meet ordinance landscaping requirements; easements of
record, including the dimensions thereof; and wetlands;
(d) site plan of proposed improvements showing all buildings, including details of loading
docks; parking areas; driveways; access points; berms; easements; and adjacent
public or private streets;
(e) floor plans and building elevations, including list of building materials, showing a
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
sketch or computer-generated image of proposed buildings as viewed from
surrounding uses;
(f) site plan of existing uses on property in non-residential zones adjacent to the site and on
property in residential zones within 720 feet of the site, measured at the closest
point, showing buildings, including loading docks, entrances and other significant
features and illustrating sight lines to proposed uses;
(g) proposed grading plan with contours at 2-foot intervals;
(h) soils map;
(i) tree preservation plan;
(j) landscaping plan, including species and sizes;
(k) drainage and storm water plan;
(l) utility plan;
(m) sign plan;
(n) lighting plan;
(o) table of all proposed uses by type and square footage, including estimated water and
sanitary sewer usage;
(p) schedule of staging or timing of development; and
(q) application fee.
Upon receipt of an application for site plan review, the zoning administrator may determine
that, due to the nature or scale of the development, not all of the above information must be
submitted or that additional information must be submitted in order to allow reasonable
review of the development.
Subd. 3. Upon receipt of an application for site plan review, the zoning administrator shall
determine whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, the
zoning administrator shall notify the applicant in writing that the application is not
complete and shall specify the additional documentation or information that the applicant
will be required to submit before the application will be considered complete. When the
application is complete, the zoning administrator shall refer the matter to the planning
commission for review.
Subd. 4. Minor changes: The following changes can be reviewed and approved by City
staff upon a written finding and filing the report in the property file that the proposal
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
meets the requirements of the district.
1. Change in the use of the property if the use is less intense and a more restrictive use
meets relevant ordinance standards.
2. Expansion of an existing building by less than 1,000 square feet of floor area which does
not exceed the greater of the following amounts in a single year:
(a) 10% of the existing floor area, or
(b) 1,000 square feet of floor area.
3. Changes of less than 10,000 square feet to the exterior walls or surface of the building, if
the proposed exterior surface meets relevant ordinance standards.
4. Expansion of the an existing parking lot by less than 10 spaces or less than 10,000
square feet, whichever is less.
5. Outdoor lighting changes involving 2 or fewer light poles without changing the type of
lighting provided the new lighting does not exceed maximum output or photometric
requirements.
6. Changes to the topography involving less than 1 foot in elevation 1000 cubic yards of
disturbance or less than 24,000 square feet of lot area.
7. An addition to exposed rooftop equipment if the addition is less than 64 cubic feet.
8. Construction of an accessory structure meeting relevant ordinance standards and which
does not exceed the lesser of the following:
(a) 20% of the floor area of the principal structure; or
(b) 5,000 square feet of floor area.
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the staff under this subdivision may appeal to the city
council. Appeals must be submitted in writing and must be received by the staff within 30
days of the date the staff’s written report is filed. The city council shall decide an appeal
within 60 days of the date of receipt of the appeal.
Section 825.56. Site Plan Review - Planning Commission Review.
Subd. 1. The planning commission shall review the proposed site plan on the basis of the
information and documentation submitted by the applicant and any other information
available to it. The review may occur separately or in conjunction with any other city
hearing or review required under state statute, this ordinance or other applicable law
regarding the same property or development and occurring at the same time.
Subd. 2. The planning commission shall review the proposed site plan to determine
whether it is consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, including the applicable
development standards and the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
located. Following the review, the planning commission shall recommend that the site
plan be approved, approved with conditions or denied. The planning commission shall
forward its recommendation to the city council.
Section 825.59. Site Plan Review - City Council Review.
Subd. 1. The city council shall consider the recommendation of the planning commission after
receipt of its report and may consider any additional information or conduct such additional
review, if any, as it determines would serve the public interest. The city council shall make
its decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the site plan. The city council may
condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote
public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish
the purposes of the district in which the property is located.
Subd. 2. Any site plan approval granted by the city council shall be valid for a period of
one year following final action by the city council or such longer period, not to exceed
one additional year, as the council may specify. After the expiration of that period, the
approval granted by the city council shall be null and void and no permits may be issued
pursuant to the approval. Prior to the expiration of the period, the city council may grant
an extension for good cause upon Medina City Code written request by the applicant.
Subd. 3. An application to amend an approved site plan shall be reviewed under this
section in the same manner as an initial application for a site plan review except that any
change, addition or expansion which qualifies as a minor change as specified in the
standards applicable for the district in which the property is located shall be subject to an
administrative site plan review by the zoning administrator.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _____________, 2015.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the _____ day of _________, 2015.
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 July 14, 2015
Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 8, 2015
MEETING: July 14, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment – Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks – Public Hearing
Background
The City’s wetland protection ordinance requires that vegetative buffers be established adjacent
to wetlands in new developments. The purpose of these buffers is to “protect the wetland from
erosion and filter sediment, chemicals and other nutrients from the runoff that drains into the
Wetland. An Upland Buffer also provides wildlife habitat and assists in maintaining diversity of
both plant and animal species within the city.”
The wetland protection ordinance also requires that structures be set back an additional distance
beyond the buffer. Principal structures are required to be 15 feet from the buffer, and accessory
structures are required to be 5 feet.
The purpose of the setback is to provide a space outside of the buffer for outdoor activities. This
is meant to reduce the likelihood that a property owner will violate and impact the buffer in order
to allow for typical outdoor activities.
There are a number of homes within the Enclave neighborhood which back onto wetland areas
which had houses constructed which left comparatively little space for construction of decks. A
number of these owners have expressed concerns to staff that they could not construct the deck
that they desired. A number of the owners inquired about variances to allow for the decks. Staff
believes that the circumstance is not unique and is, in fact, fairly common. As a result, staff did
not believe a series of variances was appropriate. Instead, staff suggested that the owners request
that the Planning Commission and City Council review the regulation.
One of the owners formally applied for an amendment to the wetland protection ordinance which
would reduce the required setback for a deck to 5 feet (the same as an accessory structure). The
owner spoke at a City Council meeting. Because so many owners had expressed an interest in
the potential amendment, the Council directed staff to review rather than placing responsibility
of the cost onto the owner.
Analysis
As noted above, staff believes the intent of the setback is to provide a space outside of the buffer
for outdoor activities and to reduce the likelihood of impacts into the buffer.
The purpose is not to limit hardcover adjacent to the buffer, as evidenced by the fact that
accessory structures have a reduced setback of 5 feet and improvements such as a patio would
not require a setback at all.
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 July 14, 2015
Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting
Allowing a reduced setback for uncovered decks from wetland buffers may result in situations
where a property owner looks to convert or replace the deck with a 3- or 4-season porch, but this
would not be permitted because of the setback. In fact, at least one resident of the Enclave has
already stated that they would be interested in a 3-season porch rather than a deck. Not having
to make a distinction between a deck, 3-season porch, 4-season porch, or a full addition onto the
house is one of the benefits of having a consistent setback requirement.
Despite the argument for consistency, staff feels the more limited amendment for decks would be
preferable to reducing the setback for all structures. Upland buffers have only recently began to
be established and staff does not have information to rely on to determine if larger setbacks
reduce impacts to the buffers.
The amendment, as proposed, would allow certain lots a much larger building envelope for a
deck than would be currently permitted. Staff considered more complicated alternatives which
would only permit a certain area or % of the 15-foot setback to be encroached upon. This would
allow some additional flexibility for decks while maintaining more ground space. Staff could
look into such regulations further, but have some concern about being difficult to administer on a
case-by-case basis across the City.
Attachment
Draft ordinance
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESSES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.43, Subd. 5. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is
amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 828.43. Wetlands Conservation.
Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Buffer Setbacks.
(a) If a new development activity, as defined in subdivision 3(c)(i) of this section, is
proposed, the following Upland Buffer Zone and Buffer Setbacks shall be
required for each Wetland, or portion of Wetland, within the subject property. In
the event that zoning district regulations differ from the following table, the
standards or procedures described within the zoning district regulations shall be
required:
Wetland Classification
Upland Buffer
Zone Average
Width
Minimum
Upland Buffer
Zone Width
Buffer Setback
(Principal
Structure)*
Buffer Setback
(Accessory
Structure)
Preserve (at least partly within or
adjacent to a DNR Mapped Area) 50 feet 30 feet 15 feet 5 feet
All Other Preserve 35 feet 25 feet 15 feet 5 feet
Manage 1 30 feet 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet
Manage 2 25 feet 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet
Manage 3 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 5 feet
* Uncovered decks and uncovered porches attached to the principal structure may extend into the
required setback, but shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the Upland Buffer.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _____________, 2015.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the _____ day of _________, 2015.
May 30, 2015
Medina Planning Commission
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Buffer Setbacks
Dear Madam/ Sir;
I am writing to you for consideration in amending the setback requirements related to upland buffer
zones. My request is to amend the current setback requirement from 15’-0 to 5’-0 for all uncovered
decks and porches attached to a principle structure. This would then allow for decks to extend into the
current wetland setback.
My request is based on the issue that I, and many of my neighbors, am challenged with building a
functional and useful deck for our homes. The current zone requirement for the wetland setback line
exists 15’-0 from the wetland buffer line. This area in my yard, as well as my neighbors, is currently
occupied by grass and other landscaping. The current setback requirements only allow us to build from
the face of our house up to the wetland setback line. This limitation forces us to utilize odd shapes for
deck space, inconvenient locations for stairs and added costs for unique design construction while open
yard space is available to utilize.
Approval of this amendment request would allow for decks to extend or occupy space in the wetland
setback area up to 5’-0 from the wetland buffer line. This amended change would also bring the deck
setback requirements consistent with the current requirements for accessory structures such as sheds
or other manmade structures. (Exhibit A)
In addition to my request, I have also spoke with many neighbors to confirm support for this change. I
have attached a list of owner names and addresses that support this amendment request. (Exhibit B)
I hope the commission will see the value of amending this requirement for homeowners and the added
enjoyment and value it will bring to residents of Medina. If the commission or council needs any
additional details or information, I would be happy to provide or facilitate if needed.
Sincerely,
Charles Morse
3224 Butternut Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Enclave Amendment Support List ‐ 06‐03‐2015
Quantity Name Address City
1 Charlie & Berit Morse 3224 Butternut Drive Medina
2 Angela and Jeff Johnson 3229 Pin Oak Road Medina
3 Kyle and Elizabeth Abell 3126 Butternut Drive Medina
5 Kavitha and Shawn Bernet 3129 Butternut Drive Medina
6 Nick Morrison 3278 Butternut Drive Medina
7 Tom & Merissa Browning 3257 Butternut Drive Medina
8 Michael and Melissa Kremer 3275 Butternut Dr Medina
9G. William McCoy 3153 Magnolia Drive Medina
10 Andy and Wendy Lanik 3224 Magnolia Drive Medina
11 Peter Vlad 3236 Pin Oak Road Medina
12 Rigo & Kacie Brioschi 3136 Wild Flower Trail Medina
13 Geg and Kristen Seremet 3200 Magnolia Drive Medina
14 John and Jennifer Roberts 3232 Magnolia Drive Medina
15 Andrew &Caitlyn Rosendahl 3277 Pin Oak Rd Medina
16 Travis and Cady Mattson 3315 Butternut Drive Medina
17 Colin and Mara Ryan 3196 Butternut Drive Medina
18 Lisa and Aaron Amic 3045 Butternut Drive Medina
19 Jason and Lindsey Vaughan 3154 Wild Flower Trail Medina
20 Mike Bitzer 3121 Wild Flower Tr Medina
21 Justin Reid 3151 Wildflower Tr. Medina
22 Mike and Allison Fetrow 3181 Magnolia Drive Medina
23 John Melsen 3208 Magnolia Drive Medina
24 Julia Roaldson 3405 Butternut Drive. Medina
25 Nikki & Matt cole 3375 Butternut Drive Medina
26 Dan Munsell 3157 Wild Flower Trl. Medina
27 Scott and Molly Prentice 3302 Butternut Drive Medina
28 Aaron and Tracy Norman 3225 Butternut Dr Medina
29 Nathan and Deb Honstad 3374 Butternut Dr Medina
30 Brody & Steph Heinrich 3167 Magnolia Dr Medina
31 Amy Patt 3168 Magnolia Dr Medina
32 Shawn and Kim Holzschuh 3059 Butternut Drive Medina
33 Amna Khalid and Khalid Amin 3225 Magnolia drive Medina
34 Brent and Joy Scheil 3235 Pin Oak Rd Medina
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 July 14, 2015
Solar Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 8, 2015
MEETING: July 14, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Solar Regulations – Public Hearing
Background
Back in February of this year, the City amended the zoning code in order to allow ground-
mounted solar equipment in the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts. This amendment
was made following a request from Wright-Hennepin Electric to install a large array on property
they own.
During these discussions, solar energy advocates attended the hearing and advocated that the
City consider allowing ground-mounted solar equipment more broadly, especially on rural
residential property. The Planning Commission expressed an interest in considering this
allowance, but desired more opportunity for public input.
A public hearing to discuss the solar regulation was advertised twice in the City’s newsletter, on
the City’s website, and was also featured in the Medina Living magazine in addition to the
required publication in the Crow River News.
Attached is the “model solar ordinance” prepared on behalf of the Minnesota Department of
Energy.
While it was not clear that the Planning Commission and Council were prepared to allow
ground-mounted solar equipment on residential property, staff prepared a draft ordinance to help
guide the discussion. The ordinance was adapted from the ordinance adopted back in February.
This staff report will highlight a number of things in the ordinance.
Potential Regulations
Districts Allowed
The first matter which the Planning Commission and Council will need to discuss is which, if
any, districts ground-mounted solar equipment will be permitted. During discussions in
February, it appeared that discussion was limited to rural properties. As a result, the draft
ordinance would permit ground-mounted solar equipment in the rural residential zoning districts.
The draft ordinance also requires a minimum 5 acre in order to install ground mounted solar
equipment. Staff also considered 10 acres, which would leave approximately 300 parcels
eligible for panels. Reducing the lot size requirement to 5 acres results in approximately 580
eligible parcels. Not including a lot size minimum would result in approximately 850 eligible
rural properties (although some of these may not meet the 100 foot setback).
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 July 14, 2015
Solar Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
As discussed in February, solar equipment which is attached to a structure is currently permitted
in every district.
Maximum Size
The draft ordinance limits the solar equipment to a footprint of 1,000 square feet. Depending on
the equipment, staff estimates that this footprint would allow a larger residential-scale solar array
capable of producing energy approximately twice the mean annual electricity use of a Minnesota
home.
Setbacks
The draft ordinance includes a minimum setback of 100 feet. This is twice the requirement for
homes and other structures, with the exception of animal structures, which require a 150 foot
setback.
Height
The draft ordinance limits height of the solar equipment to 15 feet. The regulations in the
business/industrial zoning districts and the model solar ordinance recommends allowing a height
of up to 20 feet for ground-mounted solar equipment. This height would be similar to a one-
story home with a peaked roof, or a one-story commercial building with a flat roof.
Screening/Landscaping
The ordinance requires screening to limit the visual impact of the Solar Equipment.
Process
The draft ordinance requires a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to install ground-mounted
solar equipment. A CUP requires a public hearing which provides neighbors with notice and an
opportunity to provide feedback on the request. This CUP is a multi-month process which adds
cost and uncertainty to property owners who may be interested in installing the solar equipment.
Attachments
1. DRAFT ordinance
2. Model Solar Ordinance.
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO SOLAR EQUIPMENT;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.09 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 828.09. Solar Equipment. Any equipment or device that utilizes, operates or supplies
energy derived from the sun shall meet the following standards:
Subd. 1. Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure. The following standards shall apply to
Solar Equipment which is affixed to a structure:
(a) The equipment or device must be affixed to a structure and meet all setback requirements
for principal structures in the zoning district where located.
(b) The equipment or device may not exceed the height of the building by more than five
feet, and shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed.
(c) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all
applicable building and electrical codes.
(d) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations
regarding co-generation of energy.
(e) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or
reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views.
(f) Solar equipment which is mounted to a roof which is not flat, and which is visible from
the nearest right-of-way, shall not have a finished pitch more than five percent steeper
than the roof.
(g) The zoning administrator may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions
or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the
neighborhood
Subd. 2. Solar Equipment, if not affixed to a structure.
(a) The following standards shall apply to Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a
structure, within the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts:
(a)(i) Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure shall only be permitted in
the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts and only following Conditional
Use Permit approval.
(b)(ii) Solar Equipment shall be a minimum of 300 feet from residential property.
(c)(iii) Solar Equipment shall meet all setback requirements for principal structures
in the zoning district where located.
(d)(iv) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall be considered lot coverage
and impervious surface for the purpose of calculating such standards. The
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
footprint shall include all space between pieces of Solar Equipment, unless the
pieces are separated by more than 25 feet.
(e)(v) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 20% of the lot.
(f)(vi) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 20 feet.
(g)(vii) The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual
impacts of the mounting devices of the Solar Equipment.
(h)(viii) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance
with all applicable building and electrical codes.
(i)(ix) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal
regulations regarding co-generation of energy.
(j)(x) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any
glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct
views.
(k)(xi) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses.
(b) The following standards shall apply to Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a
structure, within residential zoning districts:
(i) Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure shall only be permitted in the
Agricultural Preservation, Rural Residential, Rural Residential-Urban Reserve,
Rural Residential-1, and Rural Residential-2 zoning districts and only following
Conditional Use Permit approval.
(ii) Solar Equipment shall only be permitted on parcel which exceeds five acres in
area.
(iii) Solar Equipment shall only be allowed as an accessory use on parcel with an
existing principal structure.
(iv) Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from all property
lines.
(v) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 1000 square feet.
(vi) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 15 feet.
(vii) The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual
impacts of the Solar Equipment.
(viii) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with
all applicable building and electrical codes.
(ix) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal
regulations regarding co-generation of energy.
(x) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any
glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct
views.
(xi) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
SECTION II. Section 826.13 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.13. (AG) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zoning
district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Subd. 11. Solar equipment which is not affixed to a structure, subject to conditional use
permit approval and compliance with performance standards of section 828.09 subd. 2(b)
of this ordinance.
SECTION III. Section 826.23 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.23. (RR) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within any Rural Residential District the
following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Subd. 13. Solar equipment which is not affixed to a structure, subject to conditional use
permit approval and compliance with performance standards of section 828.09 subd. 2(b)
of this ordinance.
SECTION IV. Section 826.25.4 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.25.4. (RR-UR) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the Urban Reserve district, the
following uses shall be permitted accessory uses when used in conjunction with a principal
structure:
Subd. 9. Solar equipment which is not affixed to a structure, subject to conditional use permit
approval and compliance with performance standards of section 828.09 subd. 2(b) of this
ordinance.
SECTION V. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _________, 2015.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Published in the Crow River News on the _____day of ______, 2015.
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
Funded through U.S. Department of Energy Sunshot Initiative Rooftop Solar Challenge
Revised February, 2014
From Policy to Reality
Model Ordinances for Sustainable DevelopmentUpdated^
2013
Minnesota Department of
Commerce, Division of
Energy Resources,
Minnesota Solar Challenge
Prepared for the Minnesota Department of Commerce by:
Brian Ross
501 Main Street SE #711
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-588-4904
bross@crplanning.com
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 1
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
INTRODUCTION
In spite of its cold and dark reputation, Minnesota has good solar potential, as good as Houston, Texas and
many parts of Florida. As solar energy system components have become more efficient and less costly an
increasing number of solar energy installations have been installed in Minnesota. Since 2005, the interest in
solar energy has rapidly increased such that many communities have had to address solar installations as a land
use issue. Moreover, starting in 2014 many utilities will be making new investments in large-scale solar “farms,”
and Minnesota has started to see new “community-shared” solar projects. Solar energy components continue to
improve in efficiency and decline in price; the U.S. Department of Energy forecasts that solar energy will start to
reach widespread cost parity with retail electric costs by 2016; solar is already a cost-competitive option in some
locations.
Solar energy offers retail customers an alternative (or supplement) to utility power. Solar energy has become a
symbol of energy self-sufficiency and environmental sustainability. The growth in solar installations is attribut-
able more to the non-economic benefits than as an economic substitute to the utility. Households and busi-
nesses wanting to reduce their carbon footprint see solar energy as a strong complement to energy efficiency.
Volatility in natural gas or propane prices makes free solar fuel look attractive as a price hedge.
Solar energy issues
Local governments will need to address solar energy installations in their development regulation in the near
future. Three primary issues tie solar energy to development regulations:
1) Protecting access to solar resources. Development regulations can limit a property owner’s ability to access their
solar resource. Moreover, solar access can be limited by buildings or vegetation on adjacent lots, and should
be a consideration in zoning districts that allow tall buildings or in developing communities where subdivi-
sions should enhance or protect homeowner’s access direct sunlight.
2) Nuisance and safety considerations. Solar energy systems have few nuisances, but visual impacts and safety
concerns by neighbors sometimes create opposition to solar installations. Good design and attention to
aesthetics can answer most concerns. But the misperception that solar energy systems are ugly and unsafe,
rooted in poorly designed 1970s solar installations, have sometimes resulted in unnecessary regulation or
outright prohibitions.
3) Climate protection goals. Local governments that have committed to meeting climate protection goals can meet
some of their commitment by removing regulatory barriers to solar energy and incorporating low or no-cost
incentives in development regulations to spur solar investment.
Model Solar Energy Standards
This ordinance was developed for the Minne-
sota Solar Challenge program, co-funded by the
U.S. DOE Rooftop Solar Challenge. It was
developed as a county/rural community version
of the Minnesota model Urban Solar Energy
Standards, and was last updated February,
2014
Statutory Solar Access Requirement
Local governments within the seven-county met-
ropolitan region are required under state law
to address solar access in their comprehensive
plans, and thus indirectly in their development
regulation that implements the comprehensive
plan (Minn. Stat. 473.859, Subd. 2[b]). Re-
fer to the Metropolitan Council Land Planning
Handbook for more information.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances2
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
Components of a solar standards ordinance
Solar energy standards should consider the following elements:
• Remove regulatory barriers and create a clear regulatory path (an as-of-right installation) to solar develop-
ment for both accessory and (if appropriate) principal uses such as solar farms and ground-mount commu-
nity shared solar installations.
• Address solar access issues within the subject property to ensure reasonable access not unduly limited by
height, setback, or coverage limitation, recognizing the distinct design and function of solar technologies.
• If there are urban density developments, define aesthetic standards that retain an as-of-right installation
while balancing design concerns.
• Encourage solar-ready subdivision and building design.
• Incorporate regulatory incentives that can spur private-sector solar investment.
Urban and rural communities
The model ordinance language addresses concerns that are primarily in counties, townships, and rural areas
rather than cities and urban areas. The incentive potion of the urban model ordinance can be applied in rural
areas, as are provisions addressing solar access and aesthetic considerations in those rural areas with develop-
ment patterns at an urban scale (typically lots smaller than 1 acre).
Principal and accessory uses
This ordinance addresses solar energy as both a principal use and as an accessory use to the primary residential
or commercial use. Counties and rural areas are much more likely to see “solar farms” or ground-mounted
“community solar” installations. These solar installations are large arrays of hundreds or thousands of ground
or pole-mounted panels covering anywhere from a few acres to over 100 acres. These land uses have different
issues and need to be addressed in a substantially different manner than discussed in the urban model ordinance
standards.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 3
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
Climate Protection Strategies
Solar energy should be part of every commu-
nity’s portfolio for addressing climate change
or energy independence considerations. Local
governments that are participating in climate
protection programs or the Cool Cities/Cool
Counties program can use private solar invest-
ment as a vehicle for meeting goals. Additional
community benefits that improve sustainability
are also spelled out in the findings section.
I. Scope - This article applies to all solar energy installations in Model County.
II. Purpose - Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan, the intent of this Section is to allow reason-
able capture and use, by households, businesses, and property owners, of their solar energy resource, and
encourage the development of renewable energy businesses, consistent with community development
standards. Model County has adopted this ordinance for the following purposes:
A. Comprehensive Plan Goals - To meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and preserve the health,
safety and welfare of the County’s citizens by promote the safe, effective and efficient use of active
solar energy systems installed to reduce the on-site consumption of fossil fuels or utility-supplied
electric energy. The following solar energy standards specifically implement the following goals from
the Comprehensive Plan:
1. Goal – Encourage the use of local renewable energy resources, including appropriate applications
for wind, solar, and biomass energy.
2. Goal – Promote sustainable building design and management practices in residential, commercial,
and industrial buildings to serve the needs of current and future generations.
3. Goal – Assist local businesses to lower financial and regulatory risks and improve their economic,
County, and environmental sustainability.
4. Goal – Efficiently invest in and manage public infrastructure systems to support development
and growth.
B. GHG Reduction Goals - Model County has committed to reducing carbon and other greenhouse
gas emissions in its GHG Reduction Plan. Solar energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting
energy resource and its conversion to electricity or heat will reduce our dependence on nonrenewable
energy resources and decrease the GHG emissions and other air and water pollution that results from
the use of conventional energy sources.
C. Local Resource - Solar energy is an under used local energy resource and encouraging the use of
solar energy will diversify the community’s energy supply portfolio and exposure to fiscal risks associ-
ated with fossil fuels.
D. Improve Competitive Markets - Solar energy systems offer additional energy choice to consumers
and will improve competition in the electricity and natural gas supply market.
Comprehensive Plan Goals
Tying the solar energy ordinance to Comprehen-
sive Plan goals is particularly important when
the solar standards include regulatory incentives
or solar requirements as described in the last
section of this ordinance. If the Comprehensive
Plan does not include goals that could address
solar energy, and the community does not have
some of policy foundation for encouraging pri-
vate investment in solar energy (such as climate
protection goals) the community should consider
creating a local energy plan.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances4
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
III. Definitions
Building-integrated Solar Energy Systems - An active solar energy system that is an integral part
of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting
for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building-integrated systems include but
are not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems that are contained within roofing
materials, windows, skylights, and awnings.
Community Solar - A solar-electric (photovoltaic) array that provides retail electric power (or a
financial proxy for retail power) to multiple community members or businesses residing or located
off-site from the location of the solar energy system, consistent with Minn. Statutes 216B.1641 or
successor statute. A community solar system may be either an accessory or a principal use.
Grid-intertie Solar Energy System - A photovoltaic solar energy system that is connected to an
electric circuit served by an electric utility company.
Off-grid Solar Energy System - A photovoltaic solar energy system in which the circuits energized
by the solar energy system are not electrically connected in any way to electric circuits that are served
by an electric utility company.
Passive Solar Energy System - A solar energy system that captures solar light or heat without
transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger.
Photovoltaic System - A solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into electricity.
Renewable Energy Easement, Solar Energy Easement - An easement that limits the height or
location, or both, of permissible development on the burdened land in terms of a structure or vegeta-
tion, or both, for the purpose of providing access for the benefited land to wind or sunlight passing
over the burdened land, as defined in Minn Stat. 500.30 Subd. 3 or most recent version.
Renewable Energy System - A solar energy or wind energy system. Renewable energy systems do
not include passive systems that serve a dual function, such as a greenhouse or window.
Roof Pitch - The final exterior slope of a building roof calculated by the rise over the run, typically
but not exclusively expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12.
Solar Access - Unobstructed access to the solar resource (see definition below) on a lot or building,
including access across adjacent parcel air rights, for the purpose of capturing direct sunlight to oper-
ate a solar energy system.
Solar Definitions
Not all these terms are used in this model
ordinance, nor is this a complete list of solar
definitions. As a community develops its own
design standards for solar technology, many of
the concepts defined here may be helpful in meet-
ing local goals. For instance, solar daylighting
devices may change the exterior appearance of
the building, and the community may choose to
distinguish between these devices and other archi-
tectural changes.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 5
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
Solar Resource - A view of the sun from a specific point on a lot or building that is not obscured by
any vegetation, building, or object for a minimum of four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and
3:00 PM Standard time on any day of the year.
Solar Collector - A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the primary purpose
is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energy.
Solar Collector Surface - Any part of a solar collector that absorbs solar energy for use in the
collector’s energy transformation process. Collector surface does not include frames, supports and
mounting hardware.
Solar Daylighting - A device specifically designed to capture and redirect the visible portion of the
solar spectrum, while controlling the infrared portion, for use in illuminating interior building spaces
in lieu of artificial lighting.
Solar Energy - Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or
light by a solar collector.
Solar Energy Device - A system or series of mechanisms designed primarily to provide heating,
cooling, electrical power, mechanical power, solar daylighting or to provide any combination of the
foregoing by means of collecting and transferring solar generated energy into such uses either by
active or passive means. Such systems may also have the capability of storing such energy for future
utilization. Passive solar energy systems are designed as a solar energy device, such as a trombe wall,
and not merely a part of a normal structure such as a window.
Solar Energy System - A device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of which is to
provide for the collection, storage and distribution of sunlight for space heating or cooling, genera-
tion of electricity, water heating, or providing daylight for interior lighting.
Solar Farm - A commercial facility that converts sunlight into electricity, whether by photovoltaics
(PV), concentrating solar thermal devices (CST), or other conversion technology, for the primary
purpose of wholesale sales of generated electricity. A solar farm is the principal land use for the
parcel on which it is located.
Solar Heat Exchanger - A component of a solar energy device that is used to transfer heat from
one substance to another, either liquid or gas.
Solar Hot Air System - An active solar energy system that includes a solar collector to provide direct
supplemental space heating by heating and re-circulating conditioned building air. The most efficient
performance typically uses a vertically mounted collector on a south-facing wall.
Solar Resource
Understanding what defines a “solar resource”
is foundational to understanding how land use
regulation affects solar development. Solar ener-
gy resources are not simply where sunlight falls.
A solar resource has minimum spatial and tem-
poral characteristics, and needs to be considered
not only today but also into the future. Solar
energy equipment can not function as designed
if installed in partial shade, with too few hours
of daily or annual direct sunlight, or without
southern or near-southern exposure. Many
provisions of the model ordinance are predicated
on the concept that a solar resource has definable
characteristics that are affected by local land use
decisions and regulation.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances6
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
Solar Hot Water System (also referred to as Solar Thermal) - A system that includes a solar collec-
tor and a heat exchanger that heats or preheats water for building heating systems or other hot water
needs, including residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial processes.
Solar Mounting Devices - Racking, frames, or other devices that allow the mounting of a solar col-
lector onto a roof surface or the ground.
Solar Storage Unit - A component of a solar energy device that is used to store solar generated
electricity or heat for later use.
IV. General standards - All solar energy systems shall comply with the following standards.
A. Interconnection agreement - All electric solar energy systems that are connected to the electric
distribution or transmission system through the existing service of the primary use on the site shall
obtain an interconnection agreement with the electric utility in whose service territory the system
is located. Solar energy systems connected directly to the distribution or transmission system must
obtain an interconnection agreement with the interconnecting electric utility. Off-grid systems are
exempt from this requirement.
B. UL listing - Electric solar system components that are connected to a building electric system must
have an Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listing.
C. Electric code - All solar installations must comply with the Minnesota and National Electric Code.
D. Building code - All rooftop solar systems shall comply with the Minnesota Building Code.
E. Plumbing Code - Solar thermal hot water systems shall comply with applicable Minnesota State
Plumbing Code requirements.
F. Reflectors - All solar energy systems using a reflector to enhance solar production shall minimize
glare from the reflector affecting adjacent or nearby properties. Measures to minimize glare include
selective placement of the system, screening on the north side of the solar array, modifying the
orientation of the system, reducing use of the reflector system, or other remedies that limit glare.
G. Height limit - Building- or roof- mounted solar systems shall not exceed the maximum allowed
height in any zoning district. For purposes of height measurement, solar systems other than building-
integrated systems shall be considered to be mechanical devices and are restricted consistent with
other building-mounted mechanical devices for the zoning district in which the system is being
Reflectors
Unlike the solar collector, systems that use a
reflector do create a potential glare situation
that may be greater than building windows.
Reflectors are designed to reflect, not absorb,
light. However, the glare risk is intermittent
and seasonal (usually only in the summer, early
morning or late evening, and only for a limited
amount of time). Counties may want to include
provisions regarding reflector glare in the event
that a glare nuisance situation arises in order to
provide guidance for addressing the nuisance.
Glare
Solar collectors (the panels) have glass surfaces
and thus can create glare. However, the glare is
no different than glare from a glass window, and
as panels are pitched toward the sun reflections
are almost always upward. Moreover, solar
panels are specifically designed to be anti-glare,
as reflected light lowers the panel efficacy.
Interconnection
Nearly all solar electric system are “grid-con-
nected,” meaning that the system is connected
to into the electric system of a building that is
connected to the grid, or the solar installation
is connected directly to the grid (such as a solar
farm). In all cases, grid-connected systems need
to have an interconnection agreement with the
electric utility.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 7
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
installed, except that solar energy systems shall not be required to be screened.
H. Visibility, commercial installations - Commercial rooftop systems shall be placed on the roof to
limit visibility from the public right-of-way or to blend into the roof design, provided that minimiz-
ing visibility still allows the property owner to reasonably capture solar energy.
V. Standards for specific solar uses. The following standards apply to specific types of solar uses:
A. Rooftop solar energy systems - accessory to the primary land use, designed to supply energy for
the primary use.
(1) These systems are permitted accessory uses in all districts in which buildings are permitted.
(2) No land use permit is required.
B. Ground-mount solar energy systems - accessory to the primary land use, designed to supply
energy for the primary use.
(1) Ground-mount systems are permitted accessory uses in all districts where buildings are
permitted.
(2) Ground-mount systems require a land use permit and are subject to the accessory use standards
for the district in which it is located, including setback, height, and coverage limits.
(3) The collector surface of a ground-mount system and any foundation, compacted soil, or other
component of the solar installation that rests on the ground is considered impervious surface.
Vegetated ground under the collector surface can be used to mitigate stormwater runoff.
C. Community solar energy systems - Roof or ground-mount solar energy systems, may be either
accessory or primary use, designed to supply energy for off-site uses on the distribution grid, consis-
tent with Minn. Statutes 216B.1641 or successor statute.
(1) Rooftop community systems are permitted in all districts where buildings are permitted.
(2) Ground-mount community solar energy systems are conditional uses in all districts.
(3) An interconnection agreement must be completed with the electric utility in whose service terri-
tory the system is located.
(4) All structures must comply with setback, height, and coverage limitations for the district in
which the system is located.
(5) Ground-mount systems must comply with all required standards for structures in the district in
which the system is located.
Impervious Surface and Stormwater
The county should consider an important distinc-
tion between a ground-mount solar array and the
roof of an accessory building; the uncompacted
and vegetated ground under the array can be used
to infiltrate stormwater. Having the infiltration
area does not eliminate all the impacts of the col-
lector surface, but should be considered as a signifi-
cant mitigating factor.
Visibility and Aesthetic Considerations
Not all counties use design or aesthetic standards
for commercial buildings. This standard is pro-
vided as an example for counties that do regulate
commercial building design or the aesthetics of
rooftop equipment. Solar arrays should be treated
similar to other rooftop equipment, while accom-
modating the functioning of the system (screening
requirements render the system useless).
Height Standards
In rural areas the height standards that apply to
the principal and accessory uses are unlikely to
constrain solar development. Solar resources are
unlikely to be constrained by trees or buildings
on adjacent lots, and is likely to have adequate
an solar resource for a ground-mount applica-
tion even if the roof is shaded.
Community Solar or Solar Gardens
Community solar systems differ from rooftop or
solar farm installations primarily in regards to
system ownership and disposition of the electric-
ity generated, rather than land use considerations.
There is, however, a somewhat greater community
interest in community solar, and thus counties
should consider creating a separate category.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances8
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
D. Solar farms - Ground-mount solar energy arrays that are the primary use on the lot, designed for
providing energy to off-site uses or export to the wholesale market.
(1) Conditional use permit - Solar farms require a conditional use permit.
(2) Stormwater and NPDES - Solar farms are subject to the County’s stormwater management and
erosion and sediment control provisions and NPDES permit requirements.
(3) Foundations - A qualified engineer shall certify that the foundation and design of the solar
panels racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate
conditions.
(4) Other standards and codes - All solar farms shall be in compliance with all applicable local,
state and federal regulatory codes, including the State of Minnesota Uniform Building Code, as
amended; and the National Electric Code, as amended.
(5) Power and communication lines - Power and communication lines running between banks of
solar panels and to nearby electric substations or interconnections with buildings shall be buried
underground. Exemptions may be granted by the County in instances where shallow bedrock,
water courses, or other elements of the natural landscape interfere with the ability to bury lines,
or distance makes undergrounding infeasible, at the discretion of the zoning administrator.
(6) Site Plan Required - A detailed site plan for both existing and proposed conditions must be
submitted, showing location of all solar arrays, other structures, property lines, rights-of-way,
service roads, floodplains, wetlands and other protected natural resources, topography, electric
equipment, and all other characteristics requested by the County. The site plan should also show
all zoning districts, and overlay districts.
(7) Aviation Protection - For solar farms located within 500 feet of an airport or within the A or B
safety zones of an airport, the applicant must complete and provide the results of the Solar Glare
Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) for the Airport Traffic Control Tower cab and final approach
paths, consistent with the Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy Projects on Federally
Obligated Airports, or most recent version adopted by the FAA.
(7) Agricultural Protection - Solar farms must comply with site assessment or soil identification
standards that are intended to protect agricultural soils.
(8) Decommissioning - A decommissioning plan shall be required to ensure that facilities are
properly removed after their useful life. Decommissioning of solar panels must occur in the event
they are not in use for 12 consecutive months. The plan shall include provisions for removal of
all structures and foundations, restoration of soil and vegetation and a plan ensuring financial
resources will be available to fully decommission the site. Disposal of structures and/or founda-
Stormwater and NPDES Standards
As noted with ground-mount accessory use
installations, the county needs to understand
the distinction between a ground-mount solar
array and the roof of an accessory building
as regards impervious surfaces. The collector
surface is impervious, but the uncompacted and
vegetated ground under the array can be used to
infiltrate stormwater. A solar farm will almost
always require an NPDES permit. However,
greater attention should be given, in developing
the SWPPP, to how the applicant manages the
ground under the panels than to the panels them-
selves. Perennial grasses planted under the pan-
els and between arrays will substantially mitigate
the effect of the panels on rainwater.
Site Plan
Solar farm developers should provide a site plan
similar to that required by the county for any
other development. Refer to your existing ordi-
nance to guide site plan submittal requirements.
Aviation Standards
This standard was developed for the FAA for
solar installations on airport grounds. It can
also be used for surrounding areas, particularly
for solar farm installations.
Agricultural Protection
If the county has ordinances that protect agricul-
tural soils, this provision applies those same stan-
dards to solar development. Counties should un-
derstand, howver, that solar farms do not pose the
same level or type of risk to agricultural practices
as does housing or commercial development.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 9
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
tions shall meet the provisions of the County Solid Waste Ordinance. The County may require
the posting of a bond, letter of credit or the establishment of an escrow account to ensure
proper decommissioning.
V. Non-Conforming Accessory Installations - Model County encourages the installation of produc-
tive solar energy systems and recognizes that dimensional standards, height standards, and other standards
to retain desired character and aesthetic must be balanced with the reasonable desire of building owners
to harvest their renewable energy resources. Where the standards in Section IV. G., or H., cannot be met
without diminishing the minimum reasonable performance of the solar energy system as defined in Sec-
tion V. A., a non-conforming installation can be, if the County so chooses, permitted under a conditional
use permit (CUP).
A. Minimum Performance Design Standards - The following design thresholds are necessary for
efficient operation of a solar energy system:
1. Fixed-Mount Solar Energy Systems - Solar energy systems must be mounted to face within 45
degrees of south (180 degrees azimuth).
2. Solar Electric (photovoltaic) Systems - Solar collectors must have a pitch of between 20 and
65 degrees.
3. Solar Hot Water Systems - Solar collectors must have a pitch between 40 and 60 degrees.
4. System Location- The system is located where the lot or building has a solar resource, as defined
in this ordinance.
B. Standards for granting a CUP - A CUP shall be granted by the zoning official if the applicant meets
the following safety, performance and aesthetic conditions:
1. Aesthetic Conditions - The solar energy system must be designed to blend into the architecture
of the building or be screened from routine view from public right-of-ways to the maximum
extent possible while still allowing the system to achieve efficient performance.
2. Safety Conditions - All applicable health and safety standards are met.
3. Non-Tracking Ground-Mounted Systems - Pole-mounted or ground-mounted active solar
energy systems must be set back from the property line by three feet.
VI. Restrictions on Solar Energy Systems Limited - No homeowners’ agreement, covenant, common
interest community, or other contract between multiple property owners within a subdivision of Model
County shall forbid installation of solar energy systems or create design standards that effectively preclude
solar energy installations.
Non-Conforming Accessory Installations
This provision allows property owners (usually
in small lot areas) who have a solar resource to
apply for a conditional use permit if dimensional
standards or height limits restrict installations
where the resource is located. On large lots di-
mensional or height standards are unlikely to
limit the solar installation.
Homeowners’ Associations
This provision would apply to new subdivisions
and HOAs, and provides very general language
for protecting solar development rights. Alter-
natively, the county could set aesthetic standards
for solar development and limit the HOA from
being more restrictive than the county (see the ur-
ban solar design standards for examples).
Decommissioning Standards
Solar farms should file a decommissioning plan
with the county. Requiring financial surety for
decommissioning may not be justified for small
solar farms, as some farms could be too small to
be able to acquire a bond or similar instrument.
These standards could also apply to Community
Solar installations.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances10
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
VII. Solar Access - Model County encourages solar access to be protected in all new subdivisions and allows
for existing solar to be protected consistent with Minnesota Statutes.
A. Easements Allowed - Model County has elected to allow solar easements to be filed, consistent
with Minnesota Stat. Chapter 500 Section 30. Any building owner can purchase an easement across
neighboring properties to protect access to sunlight. The easement is purchased from or granted by
owners of neighboring properties and can apply to buildings, trees, or other structures that would
diminish solar access.
B. Subdivision Solar Easements - Model County may require new subdivisions to identify and create
solar easements when solar energy systems are implemented as a condition of a PUD, subdivision,
conditional use, or other permit, as specified in Section 8 of this ordinance.
VIII. Renewable Energy Condition for Certain Permits
A. Condition for Rezoning or Conditional Use Permit - Model County may, in an area where the
local electric distribution system was installed more than twenty years ago, or where the local electric
utility has documented a near-term need for additional distribution substation or conductor capacity,
require on-site renewable energy systems as a condition for a rezoning or a conditional use permit.
1. The renewable energy condition may only be exercised for new construction or major reconstruc-
tion projects.
2. The renewable energy condition may only be exercised for sites that have 90% unimpeded solar
or wind energy access, and for which the renewable energy system can reasonably meet all perfor-
mance standards and building code requirements.
B. Condition for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approval - Model County may require on-site
renewable energy systems as a condition for approval of a PUD permit, in order to mitigate for:
1. Risk to the performance of the local electric distribution system,
2. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases,
3. Other risks or effects inconsistent with Model County’s Comprehensive Plan.
IX. Solar Roof Incentives - Model County has identified the following incentives for development ap-
plications or subdivisions that will include buildings using active solar energy systems.
A. Density Bonus - Any application for subdivision of land in the ___ Districts that will allow the
Renewable Energy Conditions
The community can use traditional development
tools such as conditional use permits, PUDs,
or other discretionary permits to encourage solar
energy development. This model ordinance notes
these opportunities for consideration by local
governments. In most cases, additional ordinance
language would need to be inserted into the com-
munity’s ordinances. For instance, a provision
that PUDs incorporate solar energy or ensure
the buildings in the PUD are solar-ready con-
struction, the provision should be included in the
community’s PUD ordinance.
Solar Easements
Minnesota allows the purchase and holding of
easements protecting access to solar and wind
energy. Examples of what the easement must
specify are noted below, see the statute for a com-
plete list:
Required Contents - Any deed, will, or other
instrument that creates a solar or wind easement
shall include, but the contents are not limited to:
(a) A description of the real property subject to
the easement and a description of the real
property benefiting from the solar or wind
easement; and
(b) For solar easements, a description of the
vertical and horizontal angles, expressed in
degrees and measured from the site of the so-
lar energy system, at which the solar easement
extends over the real property subject to the
easement, or any other description which de-
fines the three dimensional space, or the place
and times of day in which an obstruction to
direct sunlight is prohibited or limited . . .
Source: Minnesota Stat. 500.30 Subd. 3.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 11
Solar Energy Standards - Counties
development of at least four new lots of record shall be allowed to increase the maximum number of
lots by 10% or one lot, whichever is greater, provided all building and wastewater setbacks can be met
with the increased density, if the applicant enters into a development agreement guaranteeing at each
two kilowatts of PV or 64 square feet of solar hot water collector installed for each new residence.
B. Solar-Ready Buildings – Model County encourages builders to use solar-ready design in buildings.
Buildings that submit a completed U.S. EPA’s Renewable Energy Ready Home Solar Photovoltaic
Checklist and associated documentation will be certified as a Model County solar ready home, a
designation that will be included in the permit home’s permit history.
C. Solar Access Conditions - On a site where the solar access standards of the subdivision ordinance
are difficult to meet due to topography or road connectivity, the county shall consider non-conform-
ing development patterns as a conditional use provided the applicant meets the following conditions:
1. Solar Access Lots Identified - At least __% of the lots, or a minimum of __ lots, are identified
as solar development lots.
2. Covenant Assigned - Solar access lots are assigned a covenant that homes built upon these lots
must include an active solar energy system. Photovoltaic systems must be at least one (1) KW in
capacity and solar thermal systems must have at least 64 square feet of collector area.
3. Additional Fees Waived - Model County will waive any additional fees for filing of
the covenant.
Solar Access in Subdivisions
Some local governments require solar orientation
of new subdivisions (requiring a south-facing
building or lot line to accommodate solar design
in the buildings). Designing the subdivision
around natural features or contours can make
these provisions difficult to meet. This language
offers an alternative to simply granting a vari-
ance to the solar orientation requirement.
Solar Roof Incentives
This section of the model ordinance provides
examples of incentives that can be incorporated
into development regulation. Most cities and
many counties use incentives to encourage desired
public amenities in new development. These same
tools and incentives can be used to encourage
private investment in solar energy. Communi-
ties will not want to use all these incentives, but
should select which ones make the most sense in
their community (or create some other incen-
tive that encourages solar energy). As with any
incentive, an important element of creating the
incentive is to engage planning or economic de-
velopment staff in the creation of the incentive,
so that staff can assist the developer in taking
advantage of the provisions.
Solar Energy Standards - Urban Communities
Updates funded by a 2008 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sustainable Communities Grant
Subsequent changes funded through U.S. Department of Energy Sunshot Initiative Rooftop Solar Challenge
February, 2014
From Policy to Reality
Model Ordinances for Sustainable DevelopmentUpdated^
2000
Environmental
Quality Control Board
2008
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
2013
Minnesota Department of
Commerce, Divisino of
Energy Resources
Prepared for the Minnesota Division of Energy Resources by:
Brian Ross
501 Main Street SE #711
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-588-4904
bross@crplanning.com
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 1
Solar Energy Standards
INTRODUCTION
In spite of its cold and dark reputation, Minnesota has good solar potential, as good as Houston, Texas and
many parts of Florida. As solar energy system components have become more efficient and less costly an
increasing number of solar energy installations have been installed in Minnesota. Since 2005, the interest in
solar energy has rapidly increased such that many communities have had to address solar installations as a land
use issue. Solar energy components continue to improve in efficiency and decline in price; the U.S. Department
of Energy forecasts that solar energy will start to reach widespread cost parity with retail electric costs by 2016.
But solar energy is much more than an alternative (or supplement) to utility power. Solar energy has become a
symbol of energy self-sufficiency and environmental sustainability. The growth in solar installations is attribut-
able more to the non-economic benefits than as an economic substitute for the electric utility. Households and
businesses wanting to reduce their carbon footprint see solar energy as a strong complement to energy effi-
ciency. Volatility in natural gas prices makes free solar fuel look attractive as a price hedge.
Solar energy issues
Local governments will need to address solar energy installations in their development regulation in the near
future. Three primary issues tie solar energy to development regulations:
1) Nuisance and safety considerations. Solar energy systems have few nuisances, but visual impacts and safety
concerns by neighbors sometimes create opposition to solar installations. Good design and attention to
aesthetics can answer most concerns. But the misperception that solar energy systems are ugly and unsafe,
rooted in poorly designed 1970s solar installations, have sometimes resulted in unnecessary regulation or
outright prohibitions.
2) Protecting access to solar resources. Development regulations can limit a property owner’s ability to access their
solar resource. Moreover, solar access can be limited by buildings or vegetation on adjacent lots, and should
be a consideration in zoning districts that allow tall buildings or in developing communities where subdivi-
sions should enhance or protect homeowner’s access direct sunlight.
3) Climate protection goals. Local governments that have committed to meeting climate protection goals can meet
some of their commitment by removing regulatory barriers to solar energy and incorporating low or no-cost
incentives in development regulations to spur solar investment.
Model Solar Energy Standards
This ordinance is based primarily on the model
solar energy ordinance created for Solar Min-
nesota, under a Million Solar Roofs grant from
the U.S. Department of Energy. It has been
updated several times to reflect different needs of
Minnsota communities and the evolving solar
industry, last updated February, 2014
Statutory Solar Access Requirement
Local governments within the seven-county met-
ropolitan region are required under state law
to address solar access in their comprehensive
plans, and thus indirectly in their development
regulation that implements the comprehensive
plan (Minn. Stat. 473.859, Subd. 2[b]). Re-
fer to the Metropolitan Council Land Planning
Handbook for more information.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances2
Solar Energy Standards
Components of a solar standards ordinance
Solar energy standards should consider the following elements:
• Remove regulatory barriers and create a clear regulatory path (an as-of-right installation) to solar develop-
ment for both accessory and (if appropriate) principal uses such as solar farms and ground-mount commu-
nity shared solar installations.
• Address solar access issues within the subject property to ensure reasonable access not unduly limited by
height, setback, or coverage limitation, recognizing the distinct design and function of solar technologies.
• Define aesthetic standards that retain an as-of-right installation while balancing design concerns in urban
neighborhoods, historic districts, and new subdivisions.
• Address solar access issues across property lines in subdivisions and zoning districts that allow taller build-
ings on smaller (urban density) lots.
• Encourage solar-ready subdivision and building design.
• Incorporate regulatory incentives that can spur private-sector solar investment.
Urban and rural communities
The model ordinance language addresses concerns that are primarily in cities rather than counties or townships.
Issues of solar access and nuisances associated with solar energy systems are of less consequence outside urban
density areas, where lot sizes are almost always greater than one acre. Aesthetic issues or solar access issues
might come into play in lakeshore areas or conservation development areas, where homes are closer together
or protected trees might limit solar access. The incentive potion of the model ordinance can also be applied in
rural areas. Some provisions of this model are applicable to low-density or rural areas, but more appropriate
language is provided in the model County ordinance provided in a separate document.
Principal and accessory uses
This ordinance addresses solar energy as an accessory use to the primary residential or commercial use in an
urban area. Solar energy systems are also sometimes the primary use as on “solar farms” that are large arrays of
hundreds or thousands of ground or pole-mounted panels, or in the case of solar thermal power plants, such as
seen in the desert southwest. These land uses have different issues and need to be addressed in a substantially
different manner than discussed in this model. Sample language addressing these principal solar land uses is
provided in the county model solar ordinance.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 3
Solar Energy Standards
Climate Protection Strategies
Solar energy should be part of every commu-
nity’s portfolio for addressing climate change or
energy transitions (also known as “peak oil”)
considerations. Local governments that are par-
ticipating in the Cities for Climate Protection
program, Mayor’s Climate Protection signato-
ries, or the Cool Cities/Cool Counties program
can use private solar investment as a vehicle for
meeting goals. Additional community benefits
that improve sustainability are also spelled out
in the findings section.
I. Scope - This article applies to all solar energy installations in Model Community.
II. Purpose - Model Community has adopted this regulation for the following purposes:
A. Comprehensive Plan Goals - To meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and preserve the health,
safety and welfare of the Community’s citizens by promote the safe, effective and efficient use of ac-
tive solar energy systems installed to reduce the on-site consumption of fossil fuels or utility-supplied
electric energy. The following solar energy standards specifically implement the following goals from
the Comprehensive Plan:
1. Goal – Encourage the use of local renewable energy resources, including appropriate applications
for wind, solar, and biomass energy.
2. Goal – Promote sustainable building design and management practices in residential, commercial,
and industrial buildings to serve the needs of current and future generations.
3. Goal – Assist local businesses to lower financial and regulatory risks and improve their economic,
community, and environmental sustainability.
4. Goal – Efficiently invest in and manage public infrastructure systems to support development
and growth.
B. Climate Change Goals - As a signatory of the Cool Cities program, Model Community has commit-
ted to reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Solar energy is an abundant, renewable,
and nonpolluting energy resource and that its conversion to electricity or heat will reduce our depen-
dence on nonrenewable energy resources and decrease the air and water pollution that results from
the use of conventional energy sources.
C. Infrastructure - Distributed solar photovoltaic systems will enhance the reliability and power
quality of the power grid and make more efficient use of Model Community’s electric distribution
infrastructure.
D. Local Resource - Solar energy is an under used local energy resource and encouraging the use of
solar energy will diversify the community’s energy supply portfolio and exposure to fiscal risks associ-
ated with fossil fuels.
E. Improve Competitive Markets - Solar energy systems offer additional energy choice to consumers
and will improve competition in the electricity and natural gas supply market.
Comprehensive Plan Goals
Tying the solar energy ordinance to Comprehen-
sive Plan goals is particularly important when
the solar standards include regulatory incentives
or solar requirements as described in the last
section of this ordinance. If the Comprehensive
Plan does not include goals that could address
solar energy, and the community does not have
some of policy foundation for encouraging pri-
vate investment in solar energy (such as climate
protection goals) the community should consider
creating a local energy plan.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances4
Solar Energy Standards
III. Definitions
Active Solar Energy System - A solar energy system whose primary purpose is to harvest energy
by transforming solar energy into another form of energy or transferring heat from a collector to
another medium using mechanical, electrical, or chemical means.
Building-integrated Solar Energy Systems - An active solar energy system that is an integral part
of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting
for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building-integrated systems include but
are not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems that are contained within roofing
materials, windows, skylights, and awnings.
Grid-intertie Solar Energy System - A photovoltaic solar energy system that is connected to an
electric circuit served by an electric utility company.
Off-grid Solar Energy System - A photovoltaic solar energy system in which the circuits energized
by the solar energy system are not electrically connected in any way to electric circuits that are served
by an electric utility company.
Passive Solar Energy System - A solar energy system that captures solar light or heat without
transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger.
Photovoltaic System - An active solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into
electricity.
Renewable Energy Easement, Solar Energy Easement - An easement that limits the height or
location, or both, of permissible development on the burdened land in terms of a structure or vegeta-
tion, or both, for the purpose of providing access for the benefited land to wind or sunlight passing
over the burdened land.
Renewable Energy System - A solar energy or wind energy system. Renewable energy systems do
not include passive systems that serve a dual function, such as a greenhouse or window.
Roof Pitch - The final exterior slope of a building roof calculated by the rise over the run, typically
but not exclusively expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12.
Solar Access - Unobstructed access to the solar resource (see definition below) on a lot or building,
including access across adjacent parcel air rights, for the purpose of capturing direct sunlight to oper-
ate a solar energy system.
Solar Definitions
Not all these terms are used in this model
ordinance, nor is this a complete list of solar
definitions. As a community develops its own
design standards for solar technology, many of
the concepts defined here may be helpful in meet-
ing local goals. For instance, solar daylighting
devices may change the exterior appearance of
the building, and the community may choose to
distinguish between these devices and other archi-
tectural changes.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 5
Solar Energy Standards
Solar Resource - A view of the sun from a specific point on a lot or building that is not obscured by
any vegetation, building, or object for a minimum of four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and
3:00 PM Standard time on any day of the year.
Solar Collector - A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the primary purpose
is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energy.
Solar Collector Surface - Any part of a solar collector that absorbs solar energy for use in the
collector’s energy transformation process. Collector surface does not include frames, supports and
mounting hardware.
Solar Daylighting - A device specifically designed to capture and redirect the visible portion of the
solar spectrum, while controlling the infrared portion, for use in illuminating interior building spaces
in lieu of artificial lighting.
Solar Energy - Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or
light by a solar collector.
Solar Energy Device - A system or series of mechanisms designed primarily to provide heating,
cooling, electrical power, mechanical power, solar daylighting or to provide any combination of the
foregoing by means of collecting and transferring solar generated energy into such uses either by
active or passive means. Such systems may also have the capability of storing such energy for future
utilization. Passive solar energy systems shall clearly be designed as a solar energy device such as a
trombe wall and not merely a part of a normal structure such as a window.
Solar Energy System - A device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of which is to
provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and distribution of solar
energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generating, or water heating.
Solar Heat Exchanger - A component of a solar energy device that is used to transfer heat from
one substance to another, either liquid or gas.
Solar Hot Air System - (also referred to as Solar Air Heat or Solar Furnace) – An active solar energy
system that includes a solar collector to provide direct supplemental space heating by heating and
re-circulating conditioned building air. The most efficient performance typically uses a vertically
mounted collector on a south-facing wall.
Solar Hot Water System (also referred to as Solar Thermal) - A system that includes a solar collec-
tor and a heat exchanger that heats or preheats water for building heating systems or other hot water
needs, including residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial processes.
Solar Resource
Understanding what defines a “solar resource”
is foundational to understanding how land use
regulation affects solar development. Solar ener-
gy resources are not simply where sunlight falls.
A solar resource has minimum spatial and tem-
poral characteristics, and needs to be considered
not only today but also into the future. Solar
energy equipment can not function as designed
if installed in partial shade, with too few hours
of daily or annual direct sunlight, or without
southern or near-southern exposure. Many
provisions of the model ordinance are predicated
on the concept that a solar resource has definable
characteristics that are affected by local land use
decisions and regulation.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances6
Solar Energy Standards
Solar Mounting Devices - Racking, frames, or other devices that allow the mounting of a solar col-
lector onto a roof surface or the ground.
Solar Storage Unit - A component of a solar energy device that is used to store solar generated
electricity or heat for later use.
IV. Permitted Accessory Use - Active solar energy systems shall be allowed as an accessory use in all
zoning classifications where structures of any sort are allowed, subject to certain requirements as set forth
below. Active solar energy systems that do not meet the visibility standards in C. below will require a
conditional use permit, except as provided in Section V. (Administrative Variances).
A. Height - Active solar energy systems must meet the following height requirements:
1. Building- or roof- mounted solar energ y systems shall not exceed the maximum allowed height
in any zoning district. For purposes for height measurement, solar energy systems other than
building-integrated systems shall be given an equivalent exception to height standards as building-
mounted mechanical devices or equipment.
2. Ground- or pole-mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 20 feet in height when oriented at
maximum tilt.
B. Set-back - Active solar energy systems must meet the accessory structure setback for the zoning
district and primary land use associated with the lot on which the system is located.
1. Roof-mounted Solar energy systems - In addition to the building setback, the collector surface
and mounting devices for roof-mounted solar energy systems shall not extend beyond the exte-
rior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted or built, unless the collector and
mounting system has been explicitly engineered to safely extend beyond the edge, and setback
standards are not violated. Exterior piping for solar hot water systems shall be allowed to extend
beyond the perimeter of the building on a side yard exposure.
2. Ground-mounted Solar energy systems - Ground-mounted solar energy systems may not
extend into the side-yard or rear setback when oriented at minimum design tilt.
C. Visibility - Active solar energy systems shall be designed to blend into the architecture of the building
or be screened from routine view from public right-of-ways other than alleys. The color of the solar
collector is not required to be consistent with other roofing materials.
1. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems - Building integrated photovoltaic solar energy
systems shall be allowed regardless of whether the system is visible from the public right-of-way,
provided the building component in which the system is integrated meets all required setback,
Building Integrated PV
Building integrated solar energy systems can
include solar energy systems built into roofing
(existing technology includes both solar shingles
and solar roofing tiles), into awnings, skylights,
and walls. This ordinance only addresses build-
ing integrated PV, but examples of building
integrated solar thermal applications may also
be available.
Roof-Mounted Solar Energy Systems
This ordinance sets a threshold for solar panels
that they not be steeper than the finished roof
pitch. Mounted systems steeper than the fin-
ished roof pitch change the appearance of the
roof, and sometimes create additional consider-
ations in regard to the wind and drift load on
structural roof components. Safety risks can
be mitigated through structural review or roof
structure modification if the aesthetic impacts
are not a concern to the community.
Height - Ground or Pole Mounted
This ordinance sets a 20-foot height limit, as-
suming a standard that is higher than typical
height limits for accessory structures, but lower
than the principal structure. Communities may
want to consider balancing height with setback,
allowing taller systems if set back farther, for
instance, an extra foot of height for every addi-
tional two feet of setback.
Height - Rooftop System
This ordinance notes exceptions to the height
standard when other exceptions are granted in
the ordinance. Communities should directly
reference the exception language, rather than use
the placeholder language here.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 7
Solar Energy Standards
land use or performance standards for the district in which the building is located.
2. Solar Energy Systems with Mounting Devices - Solar energy systems using roof mounting
devices or ground-mount solar energy systems shall not be restricted if the system is not visible
from the closest edge of any public right-of-way other than an alley. Roof-mount systems that
are visible from the nearest edge of the street frontage right-of-way shall not have a highest
finished pitch steeper than the roof pitch on which the system is mounted, and shall be no
Design Guidelines for Solar Roofs
Pitched Roof
bracket-mounted panels
steeper than roof pitch
flush-mount panels
line of s
i
g
h
t
Design Guidelines for Solar Roofs
Flat Roof
bracket-mounted panels
visible from street
bracket-mounted panels
not visible from street
bracket-mounted panels hidden by parapet
not visible from street
line of s
i
g
h
t
higher than twelve (12) inches above the roof.
3. Coverage - Roof or building mounted solar energy sys-
tems, excluding building-integrated systems, shall allow for
adequate roof access to the south-facing or flat roof upon
which the panels are mounted. The surface area of pole or
ground mount systems shall not exceed half the building
footprint of the principal structure.
4. Historic Buildings - Solar energy systems on buildings
within designated historic districts or on locally designated
historic buildings (exclusive of State or Fedferal historic des-
ignation) will require an administrative variance, as provided
in this ordinance.
D. Approved Solar Components - Electric solar energy system
components must have a UL listing and solar hot water systems
must have an SRCC rating.
E. Plan Approval Required - All solar energy systems shall re-
quire administrative plan approval by Model Community zoning
official.
1. Plan Applications - Plan applications for solar energy
systems shall be accompanied by to-scale horizontal and
vertical (elevation) drawings. The drawings must show the
location of the system on the building or on the property
for a ground-mount system, including the property lines.
a. Pitched Roof Mounted Solar Energy Systems - For
all roof-mounted systems other than a flat roof the
elevation must show the highest finished slope of the
Coverage
Roof coverage limitations are generally not neces-
sary, as some of the roof is likely to be shaded or
otherwise not suitable for solar energy. Coverage is
an issue of concern in order to ensure ready roof
access in the event of a fire. Coverage limits can
be a percentage limition, such as 80% of the total
south-facing roof, or a required setback from one
or more edges.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances8
Solar Energy Standards
solar collector and the slope of the finished roof surface on which it is mounted.
b. Flat Roof Mounted Solar Energy Systems - For flat roof applications a drawing shall be
submitted showing the distance to the roof edge and any parapets on the building and shall
identify the height of the building on the street frontage side, the shortest distance of the
system from the street frontage edge of the building, and the highest finished height of the
solar collector above the finished surface of the roof.
2. Plan Approvals - Applications that meet the design requirements of this ordinance, and do not
require an administrative variance, shall be granted administrative approval by the zoning official
and shall not require Planning Commission review. Plan approval does not indicate compliance
with Building Code or Electric Code.
F. Compliance with Building Code - All active solar energy systems shall meet approval of local
building code officials, consistent with the State of Minnesota Building Code, and solar thermal
systems shall comply with HVAC-related requirements of the Energy Code.
G. Compliance with State Electric Code - All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the Minnesota
State Electric Code.
H. Compliance with State Plumbing Code - Solar thermal systems shall comply with applicable Min-
nesota State Plumbing Code requirements.
I. Utility Notification - All grid-intertie solar energy systems shall comply with the interconnection
requirements of the electric utility. Off-grid systems are exempt from this requirement.
V. Administrative Variance (or conditional use) - Model Community encourages the installation of
productive solar energy systems and recognizes that a balance must be achieved between character and
aesthetic considerations and the reasonable desire of building owners to harvest their renewable energy
resources. Where the standards in Section IV. A., B., or C. cannot be met without diminishing, as defined
below, the minimum reasonable performance of the solar energy system, an administrative variance (or
CUP) may be sought from the zoning official. An administrative variance (or CUP) shall be granted if the
standards are met.
A. Minimum Performance Design Standards - The following design thresholds are necessary for
efficient operation of a solar energy system:
1. Fixed-Mount Active Solar Energy Systems - Solar energy systems must be mounted to face
within 45 degrees of south (180 degrees azimuth).
Administrative Variance
This model language uses an administrative vari-
ance process to balance between aesthetic design
considerations and the building owner’s choice
to use the property for generating renewable en-
ergy. Administrative variances allow staff to
departures from the design standards when such
departures are necessary in order to allow for
efficient harvest of solar energy, without having
to get Planning Commission approval or pay ad-
ditional fees. The administrative variance stan-
dards spell out the conditions that staff would
use to judge if the system genuinely could not
be designed consistently with Section IV. (such
as a lack of solar access except on the front of
the building), and the metrics by which staff
would judge screening or visual integration with
the building. Some communities will have other
means to allow this, or will have a conditional
use permit process that does not create burden-
some additional regulation.
Restrictions on Solar Energy Systems
One of the most common barriers to solar energy
in developing areas are restrictive covenants in
new subdivisions. The covenants are intended to
maintain an the appearance of homes, property
values, and saleability. If, however, the local gov-
ernment provides solar design standards that pro-
tect against poor design of solar accessory uses,
it is reasonable to prevent the developer or hom-
eowner’s association from creating unwarranted
restrictions on a sustainable source of energy.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 9
Solar Energy Standards
2. Solar Electric (photovoltaic) Systems - Solar collectors must have a pitch of between 20 and
65 degrees.
3. Solar Hot Water Systems - Solar collectors need to be mounted at a pitch between 40 and 60
degrees.
4. System Location - The system is located where the lot or building has a solar resource.
B. Standards for an Administrative Variance (CUP) - A variance shall be granted by the zoning of-
ficial if the applicant meets the following safety, performance and aesthetic conditions:
1. Aesthetic Conditions - The solar energy system must be designed to blend into the architecture
of the building or be screened from routine view from public right-of-ways other than alleys
to the maximum extent possible while still allowing the system to be mounted for efficient
performance.
2. Safety Conditions - All applicable health and safety standards are met.
3. Non-Tracking Ground-Mounted Systems - Pole-mounted or ground-mounted active solar
energy systems must be set back from the property line by one foot.
VI. Restrictions on Solar Energy Systems Limited - No homeowners’ agreement, covenant, common
interest community, or other contract between multiple property owners within a subdivision of Model
Community shall restrict or limit solar energy systems to a greater extent than Model Community’ solar
energy standards.
VII. Solar Access - Model Community encourages solar access to be protected in all new subdivisions and
allows for existing solar to be protected consistent with Minnesota Statutes.
A. Solar Easements Allowed - Model Community has elected to allow solar easements to be filed,
consistent with Minnesota Stat. Chapter 500 Section 30. Any building owner can purchase an ease-
ment across neighboring properties to protect access to sunlight. The easement is purchased from or
granted by owners of neighboring properties and can apply to buildings, trees, or other structures that
would diminish solar access.
B. Easements within Subdivision Process - Model Community may require new subdivisions to
identify and create solar easements when solar energy systems are implemented as a condition of a
PUD, subdivision, conditional use, or other permit, as specified in Section 8 of this ordinance.
Solar Easements
Minnesota allows the purchase and holding of
easements protecting access to solar and wind
energy. The easement must specify the following
information:
Required Contents - Any deed, will, or other
instrument that creates a solar or wind easement
shall include, but the contents are not limited to:
(a) A description of the real property subject to
the easement and a description of the real
property benefiting from the solar or wind
easement; and
(b) For solar easements, a description of the
vertical and horizontal angles, expressed in
degrees and measured from the site of the so-
lar energy system, at which the solar easement
extends over the real property subject to the
easement, or any other description which de-
fines the three dimensional space, or the place
and times of day in which an obstruction to
direct sunlight is prohibited or limited;
(c) A description of the vertical and horizontal
angles, expressed in degrees, and distances
from the site of the wind power system in
which an obstruction to the winds is prohib-
ited or limited;
(d) Any terms or conditions under which the
easement is granted or may be terminated;
(e) Any provisions for compensation of the
owner of the real property benefiting from the
easement in the event of interference with the
enjoyment of the easement, or compensation
of the owner of the real property subject to
the easement for maintaining the easement;
(f) Any other provisions necessary or desirable to
execute the instrument.
Source: Minnesota Stat. 500.30 Subd. 3.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances10
Solar Energy Standards
VIII. Renewable Energy Condition for Certain Permits
A. Condition for Rezoning or Conditional Use Permit - Model Community may, in an area where the
local electric distribution system was installed more than twenty years ago, or where the local electric
utility has documented a near-term need for additional distribution substation or conductor capacity,
require on-site renewable energy systems as a condition for a rezoning or a conditional use permit.
1. The renewable energy condition may only be exercised for new construction or major reconstruc-
tion projects.
2. The renewable energy condition may only be exercised for sites that have 90% unimpeded solar
or wind energy access, and for which the renewable energy system can reasonably meet all perfor-
mance standards and building code requirements.
B. Condition for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approval - Model Community may require on-
site renewable energy systems as a condition for approval of a PUD permit, in order to mitigate for:
1. Risk to the performance of the local electric distribution system,
2. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases,
3. Other risks or effects inconsistent with Model Community’s Comprehensive Plan.
IX. Solar Roof Incentives - Model Community has identified the following incentives for development
applications or subdivisions that will include buildings using active solar energy systems.
A. Density Bonus - Any application for subdivision of land in the ___ Districts that will allow the
development of at least four new lots of record shall be allowed to increase the maximum number of
lots by 10% or one lot, whichever is greater, provided all building and wastewater setbacks can be met
with the increased density, if the applicant enters into a development agreement guaranteeing at each
one kilowatt of PV or 64 square feet of solar hot water collector installed for each new residence.
B. Vacant Lot Preference - When Model Community disposes of vacant parcels of land that are under
City ownership through auction, Model Community shall award a 10% bid preference up to $5,000
for every kilowatt of solar capacity that is to be incorporated into the fully-built out parcel, when
awarding the bid. The bidder must also meet all land use and dimensional requirements, and must
post a bond for the amount of the bid preference granted.
C. Solar-Ready Buildings – Model Community encourages builders to use solar-ready design in
buildings. Buildings that submit a completed U.S. EPA’s Renewable Energy Ready Home Solar Photo-
voltaic Checklist and associated documentation will be certified as a Model Community solar ready
Solar Roof Incentives
This section of the model ordinance includes a
series of incentives that can be incorporated into
development regulation. Most cities and many
counties make requirements or use incentives to
ensure that certain public amenities are included
in development. These same tools and incentives
can be used to encourage private investment in
solar energy. Communities will not want to use
all these incentives, but should select which ones
make the most sense in their community (or cre-
ate some other incentive that encourages solar
energy). As with any incentive, an important ele-
ment of creating the incentive is to engage plan-
ning or economic development staff in the cre-
ation of the incentive, so that staff can assist the
developer in taking advantage of the provisions.
Renewable Energy Conditions
(previous page)
The community can use traditional development
tools such as conditional use permits, PUDs, or
other discretionary permits to encourage private
investment in solar energy systems. This model
ordinance notes these opportunities for consid-
eration by local governments. In most cases,
additional ordinance language would need to be
inserted into the community’s ordinances. For
instance, a provision that PUDs incorporate so-
lar energy would need to be included in the com-
munity’s PUD ordinance, or if a condition of a
CUP was to make the building solar-ready, this
would need to be included in the conditional use
permit section of the ordinance.
Model Sustainable Development Ordinances 11
Solar Energy Standards
home, a designation that will be included in the permit home’s permit history.
D. Solar Access Variance - On a site where the solar access standards of the subdivision ordinance
are difficult to meet due to topography or road connectivity, the zoning administrator shall grant an
administrative exception from the solar access standards provided the applicant meets the following
conditions:
1. Solar Access Lots Identified - At least __% of the lots, or a minimum of __ lots, are identified
as solar development lots.
2. Covenant Assigned - Solar access lots are assigned a covenant that homes built upon these lots
must include an active solar energy system. Photovoltaic systems must be at least one (1) KW in
capacity and solar thermal systems must have at least 64 square feet of collector area.
3. Additional Fees Waived - Model Community will waive any additional fees for filing of
the covenant.
E. Affordable Housing Offset - On a site where 90% of the potential solar access is unimpeded, and
the local electrical distribution system was installed more than twenty years ago, Model Community
may substitute a requirement for grid-intertie photovoltaic systems or active solar thermal systems for
up to 50% of the affordable housing requirement. For each unit of affordable housing for which a
solar energy substitution is made:
1. The photovoltaic system must have at least 2 kilowatts (KW) of capacity with 90% unobstructed
solar access.
2. The active solar thermal system must be sized and have sufficient solar access to generate 75% of
the estimated domestic hot water load for a family of four.
F. Commercial Parking Requirement Offset - On a site where 90% of the potential solar access is
unimpeded, and which has access to mass transit within a block of the development site or which has
an approved Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan, or which has entered into a shared parking
arrangement with another commercial business that has distinct peak parking profiles, Model Com-
munity may substitute a requirement for grid-intertie photovoltaic systems or an active solar thermal
systems for up to 50% of the parking requirement, up to a maximum of 5 spaces. For each parking
space for which a solar energy substitution is made:
1. The photovoltaic system must have at least one (1) kilowatt (KW) of capacity with 90% unob-
structed solar access; or
2. An active solar thermal system must have at least 64 square feet of solar collector, and must have
sufficient summer load to utilize collector output.
DEER HILL RD
HOMESTEAD TRAIL
open
openopenopen open76513
1
2
4
6
6
4
3
2
4
8
1
DEER HILL RD
DEER HILL RDROAD 3 8
3
2
5
9
1
3
1
2
4
5
3
1
2
8
5
4
1
POND 2NWL 1010.0HWL 1011.4
WETLAND
OUTLET
ELEV-1053.0
INFILTRATON
BASIN/RAIN
GARDEN
5
6
FOREBAY
FOREBAY
2
7
2
7
ENHANCED
WETLAND
NWL 1053.0
3.3 ACRES
1
INFILTRATONBASIN/RAINGARDEN
2
POND 3
NWL 1054.0
HWL 1055.9
POND 4
NWL 986.0
HWL 988.5
POND 5
NWL 980.0
HWL 982.7
POND 1NWL 992.0HWL 993.6
x 957.0 xEOFx 957.0 x
EOF
x
9
8
2
.
0
x
E
O
F
x 1055.0 x
EOF
x 1011.0 xEOF
x 1
0
1
1
.
0
x
EO
F
x 992.5 xEOF x 992.5 xEOFConcre
t
e
D
e
c
k
i
n
gPool House
pool &
open
100255002550SCALE IN FEET PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE
PLANRevisions:Scale:Job No:Date:Sheet No:5.7.20152014-0076L-1.01" = 50'-0"Minneapolis - Chicago . www.terra-mark.com . (612) 567-8786
STONEGATE FARMS
NORTH
Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land PlanningLANDSCAPE LEGEND:MEDINA, MN6.19.2015
open7689FOREBAYINFILTRATONBASIN/RAINGARDENPOND 1NWL 992.0HWL 993.6x 992.5 xEOFx 992.
5
x
EOF
100255002550SCALE IN FEET PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE
PLANRevisions:Scale:Job No:Date:Sheet No:5.7.20152014-0076L-1.11" = 50'-0"Minneapolis - Chicago . www.terra-mark.com . (612) 567-8786
STONEGATE FARMS
NORTH
Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land PlanningLANDSCAPE LEGEND:MEDINA, MN6.19.2015
openopenopen513ROAD 342POND 2NWL 1010.0HWL 1011.4x 1011.0 xEOFx 1011.0 xEOF100255002550SCALE IN FEET PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE
PLANRevisions:Scale:Job No:Date:Sheet No:5.7.20152014-0076L-1.21" = 50'-0"Minneapolis - Chicago . www.terra-mark.com . (612) 567-8786
STONEGATE FARMS
NORTH
Landscape Architecture Urban Design Land PlanningLANDSCAPE LEGEND:MEDINA, MN6.19.2015
PLANNING REPORT
To: Medina Planning Commission
From: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner
Date: July 8, 2015
Re: Stonegate CD-PUD General Plan & Preliminary Plat
Application Date: May 8, 2015
Review Deadline: September 5, 2015
File No: LR-15-163
BACKGROUND / GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC) has made an application for a Conservation Design
Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) General Plan & Preliminary Plat. The applicant is proposing a 42 lot CD-
PUD on approximately 170 acres on a property located east of Homestead Trail and west of Deer Hill Road and
Morningside Road. A CD-PUD is a type of PUD permitted by the City where an alternative development plan
(including increased density) to traditional zoning is employed in order to preserve ecological resources, wildlife
corridors, scenic views, and rural character. The City reviewed the Concept Plan related to this CD-PUD in
February.
SUBJECT SITE
The subject property consists of four parcels in the Hennepin County property tax records. The total area of the
properties is approximately 170 acres. The property lies to the west of the western terminus of both Deer Hill
and Morningside Roads and east of Homestead Trail. There are several wetlands on the site including a large
wetland area on the northern edge of the property that is greater than 30 acres in size. There are also areas of
steep slopes on the property. The upland areas on the site are predominantly tilled farmland.
The surrounding properties are residential in nature. The sewered Medina Morningside and Keller Estates
developments are to the southeast of the site. Otherwise, the site is surrounded by rural residential property. To
the west of Homestead Trail is the Baker Park Reserve. To the south is the City of Orono.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING
The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The surrounding properties are primarily zoned RR, as well. To
the southeast there are properties zoned UR, Urban Residential and SR, Suburban Residential.
In the Comprehensive Plan, this property is guided for a Rural Residential Land Use. The Rural Residential
designation identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, rural commercial, farming, hobby
farms, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area is
not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by the current Comprehensive Plan.
In rural areas, the City must maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for all new development. The
City generally utilizes the five acre contiguous suitable soils requirement in order to pursue this objective. This
AGENDA ITEM: 6
2
requirement has maintained the required density in the recent past and the City monitors rural subdivisions to
ensure this standard is continuing to be met.
In the Comprehensive Plan and through the CD-PUD Ordinance, flexibility is permitted for allowing open space
development and maintaining rural character and simultaneously preserving significant natural resources. This
result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on portions of a site in order to
provide permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements may help preserve the City’s natural
resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres for each
unit.
While the City continues to enforce five contiguous acres of soils suitable for septic systems per lot, the City also
may consider exceptions for open space developments, such as this proposal, that protect natural features and put
land into permanent conservation. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that within the Metropolitan
Council’s long term sewer service area (LTSSA), “these exceptions will not be allowed to result in development
with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross acres.” Maps 5-3 and 5-4 in the Comprehensive Plan identify
this property as being in the LTSSA. The proposed density is approximately one unit per four gross acres. If the
one per ten gross acres limitation is interpreted to apply to the LTSSA in the aggregate, this additional density
will affect the opportunity for the City to grant additional density for conservation design on other sites in the
LTSSA.
A CD-PUD is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider as an alternative to conventional
development. The City will give heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to achieve
conservation objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional development. The Open
Space Plan identifies this property as being a high quality natural resource area. The northern portion of the site
is identified as primarily a tamarack swamp. Homestead Trail along the western edge of the site is identified in
the plan as a scenic road.
GENERAL PLAN & PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
Minimum Site Requirements
The minimum land area required for a CD-PUD is 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District. The
subject property is 170 acres in size.
Density of Development
The CD-PUD District requires a base density calculation and then allows for additional density as part of the
PUD flexibility. The base density is established by regulations in the underlying zoning district. In the Rural
Residential District, the base density is determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils
suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. In addition to the base
density, additional density may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any additional density or
additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of the base density. The total number of
dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the
Comprehensive Plan and may be up to 200% of the calculated base density.
The applicant has provided a yield plan depicting a base density of 22 lots. The proposed development plan
includes 42 lots which is 190.9% of the provided base density. In considering such flexibility for the additional
density, the City must evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above that is
achievable under conventional development and the amount, quality and character of conservation area
protected.
Proposed Lots
The applicant is proposing 42 parcels that range from 1.28 to 2.63 acres in size. Front setbacks within a CD-
PUD may be reduced from the 50 feet required in the RR district, but are required to be 35 feet from local roads.
3
It does not appear that the applicant proposes to reduce the front setbacks, but staff recommends that a reduced
setback of 40 feet be considered to reduce driveway length and hardcover. Side yard setbacks are required to be
20 feet, as determined by the requirements of the underlying RR, Rural Residential District.
In addition to the 42 single family lots, there are also eight outlots. The outlots include the wetlands, storm
ponds, infiltration basins, and the conservation area. Outlot D is proposed to have a pool, pool house, and
parking area.
Transportation System
The primary road entrance to the development is proposed from Homestead Trail in Orono. The property in
Orono is under the control of the developer. This will result in a City of Medina maintained road within the City
of Orono. The road then goes north through the subject site and connects with Deer Hill Road. There are two
cul-de-sacs that will need to be maintained as private roads within outlots.
Since the concept plan review, the applicant has reduced the size of the right-of-way of the road to 50 feet in
width from 60 and also reduced the driving surface of the road to 22 feet from 24 feet. The applicant states that
this will provide a low impact development design, lessen impervious surfaces, and also provide for a better
match with the existing Deer Hill Road.
Public Works and Engineering staff recommends that the new road be built to City ordinance standards with a 24
foot wide surface, shoulders, and ditches. This will allow for the proper provision of safe passage for all vehicles
including emergency vehicles, parking, and drainage. As proposed, there appear to be drainage features
associated with the roadway that lie outside the right-of-way.
The width of the right-of-way within this subdivision and the future plans for the existing portion of Deer Hill
Road to the east of the site are not linked. The City has no plans for improvements to Deer Hill Road at this
time. If the existing Deer Hill Road were to be improved, which is not planned for in any capital improvement
plans, its improvements would be determined independently and the road width within this subdivision would
have no impact on the outcome of the analysis. This CD-PUD proposal is a new subdivision and is intended to
meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, like all other new subdivisions, while the Deer Hill Road is
an existing road with a different and unique set of circumstances.
With regards to low impact development standards, reducing the width of the street from 24 feet to 22 feet would
reduce the impervious surface created by the road by approximately 8.3% and the total impervious surfaces
expected on the site (including homes, driveways, etc.) by approximately 3.5%. The reduction of the right-of-
way width could, theoretically, reduce some additional driveway length, but the house pads shown by the
applicant exceed the minimum setback requirement of the CD-PUD district. As such, the full 60-foot right-of-
way could be platted without increasing the length of driveways proposed. Rather than reducing right-of-way
width, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council consider a reduced front setback
(perhaps 40 feet or the minimum of 35 feet permitted in the CD-PUD district) if reducing driveway length is of
interest.
The applicant is proposing a trail along the new street extending west from Deer Hill Road in the northern
portion of the site. It exits the site to the northwest and in the west central portion. The trail is primarily
adjacent to the roadway but does travel through the interior of Outlot E, which was stated as a preference during
the Concept Plan review. There are trail corridors identified in the City’s trail plan for these general areas. At
the Concept Plan review, the Park Commission recommended a trail connection from Morningside Road,
perhaps as an alternative location for the trail which is planned to the east of the site, since exact location and
surface type are flexible within the plan.
Three lots in the northwest corner of the development share a driveway access off of a private cul-de-sac.
Shared driveways are acceptable for 4 or fewer homes provided the applicant meets the requirements of the
4
City’s driveway ordinance regarding the provision of a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement
satisfactory to the City that is recorded against all properties. The width shall also meet the standards required
by City regulations.
Utilities
In rural areas, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual
septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary
drainfield/mound system located on the lot with the secondary drainfields/mound system located in the
designated conservation area or other such open space. All septic systems shall conform to the current
performance standards of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at
the time of installation as well as City regulations.
Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated conservation areas provided that they are
located within a limited distance of the lots they serve. Construction of septic systems in these instances shall
not result in the destruction of ecological resources. The conservation area or open space parcel containing the
drainfield/mound system must be owned in fee by a common ownership association in which membership is
mandatory. In these cases, the lot should have direct and ensured access to the area where the proposed
secondary site is located.
The applicant is proposing a primary and secondary septic site on each lot within the plat except for one which
has an alternate site within the conservation area. The applicant is also stating that they may wish to place up to
25% of the secondary sites (up to 10 sites) within the conservation area if needed by the individual builder on the
lots based on their home locations.
There are three proposed septic sites in the plan that do not meet the City’s required setbacks to wetlands.
Section 720.05 requires that all septic systems shall be 75 feet from wetlands. Staff would recommend that this
be adjusted and that sites meeting relevant requirements be provided.
As stated during the Concept Plan review, the applicant is proposing Multi-flo pre-treatment systems for the
development. These systems provide an increased level of effluent treatment before being discharged to the
drainfield. In order to operate effectively, these systems may require a higher degree of maintenance than a
standard system. It may be advisable to have the HOA involved in the maintenance responsibilities, as a result
of the increased density and smaller lots being contemplated.
A portion of this site is located within the City’s Drinking Water Supply Management Area. The City will need
to register the wells in this area to monitor possible contamination sites.
Grading / Drainage / Wetlands
The lots are primarily intended to be custom graded. The applicant is proposing five storm water ponds and four
infiltration basins in the conservation area for storm water management purposes. The City Engineer’s
comments are attached for reference.
There are numerous wetlands on site including a large wetland on the north side. There are four smaller
wetlands that are proposed to be filled and two that will be partially filled primarily to allow for the construction
of the road. During the concept plan review, Staff had recommended minimizing this impact as much as
possible. Two wetlands the center of the site are proposed to be enlarged and are being considered by the
applicant as part of mitigation for impacts. Upland planting buffers and easements are required.
The wetland delineation for the southern 90 acres of the site is expired and will need to be resubmitted prior to or
concurrent with final plat application in order to verify compliance with regulations, including base density
calculations.
5
Tree Preservation / Landscaping
Most of the upland of the subject site is tilled farmland. Therefore, tree removal is minimal. Almost all of the
trees that may be impacted were planted by the applicant and are intended to be spaded and relocated.
The applicant is proposing street trees within the right-of-way where the street is adjacent to open space areas.
The location of the trees is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.
Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke.
Details on the proposed trees and a detailed planting schedule shall be provided. The selection of vegetation
should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City’s 2008 Natural Resources Inventory.
Conservation Areas
The minimum required conservation area within a CD-PUD development is required to be at least 30% of the
total buildable land area in the Rural Residential District (or higher depending on the land and opportunities to
achieve the City’s conservation objectives). The buildable land area is defined as the total area of the site minus
slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year
floodplain. After the deductions, the buildable land area is 126.7 acres. A minimum of 30% of this total would
need to be preserved as conservation area. The applicant has provided a table depicting the method by which
they are calculating the percentage of conservation area, stating that the conservation area is 30.3% of the
buildable land area.
In the CD-PUD Ordinance, conservation areas are required to be platted into separate outlots. The areas must be
restricted from further development by a permanent conservation easement (in accordance with Minnesota
Statute Chapter 84C.01-05). The easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and
approved by the City Attorney. The permanent easement may be held by any entity defined by Minnesota Statute
Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of the easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee. The
permanent conservation easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify the entity that will
maintain the designated conservation area. The applicant is in discussions with the Minnehaha Creek
Wastershed District to hold this easement.
On Outlot E, the applicant proposes a 2.5 acre “recreation area” on the north side of the trail that appears to be
mowed grass for a recreation area. Staff questions whether this use and landscaping contributes positively to the
quality of the conservation area or whether it would be best to not include this in the conservation area if the
intended use is active recreation. Restoring this area more consistent with the remaining upland areas would
provide a significantly wider connection between the conservation areas on the east and west of the site.
Perhaps this area would maintain its conservation values if used in a very limited fashion for passive recreation
(perhaps limiting mowing and use to a few times per year).
According to the ordinance, conservation areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat
corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping, and other low impact agricultural uses. The City
may evaluate the density bonus requested based on the amount, quality, and character of the conservation area
protected.
Land Stewardship Plan
Where a CD-PUD has designated conservation areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance,
and insurance of all conservation areas is required. This land stewardship plan needs to define ownership and
methods of land protection and establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance
responsibilities. The plan also needs to estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated
costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on-going basis. This
shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and maintenance.
The applicant has provided a memorandum of understanding with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in
order to assist in establishing the land stewardship plan. Also, a preliminary land stewardship plan was provided
6
that identifies areas of reserve and restoration. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to
escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of conservation areas for up to four years
depending on restoration measures.
The land stewardship plan describes an annual fee of $300-$450 per acre of the buildable conservation area to be
divided amongst the homes within the subdivision for the sake of ongoing maintenance of the conservation area
once the restoration is completed and it is established. The ultimate easement holder will need to be consulted to
ensure that sufficient funds are available for the work that needs to be completed. This amount results in a
negligible HOA fee of only approximately $30 per lot per month once the subdivision
Park Dedication
Park dedication is intended to be provided for by the provision of the trails. The applicant also seeks due
consideration for the value of the private recreational activities and the conservation areas proposed. The Park
Commission will review and provide recommendation at their July meeting.
REZONING
With an approval of the PUD plan, the subject property will be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District
(CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those
found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. Final plans will need
to be submitted for review and approval with the final plat application. Failure to provide plans consistent with
the General Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals will render the final plat application inconsistent with the
preliminary plat approval.
CD-PUD REVIEW
The purpose of the CD-PUD District is to preserve the City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic
views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation
objectives of this district are to:
1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas.
3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and
ecologically significant natural areas.
4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments.
5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources.
6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources.
Additionally, in Section 827.25, the City states the purpose of a planned unit development. It states that the PUD
process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and
depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage:
1) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion
may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and
more efficient use of land in such developments.
2) Higher standards of site and building design.
3) The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention
of soil erosion.
4) Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result
in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City.
5) Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open
space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
7
6) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development
and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities.
7) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering
development costs and public investments.
8) A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. PUDs are not
intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.
9) A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on
zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
In Section 827.35 Subd. 4, it states that the City must base its action on the PUD on the compatibility of the plan
with the purpose statement above, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, impact of the plan on the
neighborhood in which it is located, and the adequacy of the following: internal site organization, uses, densities,
circulation, parking, public facilities, recreational uses, open space, and buffering and landscaping.
POTENTIAL CONDITIONS
The Planning Commission should review the request and consider if the proposed plan meets the intent of the
CD-PUD Ordinance. The Commission should also evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation
objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of
conservation area protected. If the Commission finds that the objectives described above are met through the
amount, quantity, and character of the conservation areas being proposed and the flexibility being requested, it
would be recommended to approve the CD-PUD General Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning with the
following conditions:
1. Private roads shall be placed within outlots and road maintenance details shall be provided.
2.Shared driveways shall meet relevant standards and include a reciprocal easement and
maintenance agreement satisfactory to the City, which shall be recorded against the properties.
3.Public streets shall be built to the standards required by City ordinances including a 24 foot
wide surface, shoulders, and a 60 foot wide right-of-way.
4. Homeowner Association documents shall be provided for review and approval of the City.
5. All septic sites shall meet the City’s setback requirements.
6. All wells within the City’s Drinking Water Supply Management Area shall be registered to monitor
possible contamination sites.
7. The applicant shall obtain and submit an approved wetland delineation for the southern 90 acres of the
subject property prior to or concurrent with the application for final plat. If the delineation, as approved,
identifies more than 1.6 acres of wetlands in excess of those identified on the preliminary plat, the
applicant shall submit an updated Yield Plan. If the updated Yield Plan identifies a reduction of the Base
Density on the southern 90 acres, the preliminary plat approval shall be considered null and void. Under
such circumstances, the applicant may submit a revised preliminary plat for consideration which adjusts
the number of lots accordingly.
8. A wetland replacement plan approval shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat application.
9. Wetland buffer planting plans and easements shall be provided.
10. Detailed planting plans and schedules for all landscaping shall be provided for review and approval by
the City Planner.
11. Street tree placements is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.
12. Details on any tree removal shall be provided.
13. The conservation easement shall be in a form and of substance acceptable to the City. The easement
holder for the conservation area shall be secured prior to application for final plat and be willing to
accept the easement in the manner required by the CD-PUD District Ordinance.
14. The applicant shall provide funds sufficient to cover the maintenance and operation of the conservation
areas for four years following establishment.
15. Park dedication shall be provided in the manner as recommended by the Park Commission.
16. All comments from the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Hennepin County should be addressed.
8
17. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions
described in this approval as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
18. Except as explicitly authorized by City resolution or ordinance related, all aspects of this subdivision
shall comply with all applicable state laws, city codes, ordinances, and regulations, and the terms and
conditions of the contingent settlement agreement dated December 18, 2014.
19. The Applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of
Health, and other relevant agencies.
20. The application for final plat shall be submitted to the City within 360 days of preliminary approval or
the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void.
21. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of
reviewing the Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant
documents.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Document List
B – Minutes from Planning Commission Concept Plan Review
C – Minutes from City Council Concept Plan Review
D – City Engineer Comments dated 7/9/2015
E – Building Official Comments dated 6/29/2015
F – Hennepin County Comments dated 5/22/2015
G – Hennepin County Comments dated 6/24/2015
H – Public Comment received (Pflaum, Nadeau, Nadeau, Burkstrand, Schafer)
I – Applicant Narrative
J – Applicant Responses to Comments
K – Preliminary Plat and Plans
Project:LRͲ15Ͳ162–StonegateCDͲPUDGeneral/PrelimPlatThefollowingdocumentsconstitutethecompleterecordoftheabovereferencedrequest,evenifsomedocumentsarenotattached,orareonlyattachedinpart,toPlanningCommissionandCityCouncilreports.AlldocumentsareavailableforreviewuponrequestatCityHall.DocumentsSubmittedbyApplicant:DocumentReceivedDateDocumentDate#ofpagesElectronicPaperCopy?NotesApplication5/8/20155/8/20153ApplicationYFee5/8/20155/7/20151FeeY$10,000MailingLabels5/8/20155/6/20159MailingLabelsYNarrative5/8/20155/8/201511NarrativeYAppendiceslistedbelowYieldPlan5/8/20155/1/20153Appendix1YIncludesTamRidgeandStonegateTrafficmemo5/8/20153/24/2015 4TrafficYLandStewardshipPlan5/8/20155/8/201517LandStewardshipYConservationEasement5/8/2015N/A15ConservationEasementYConceptPlanGraphics5/8/20153ConceptGraphicsYIncludesconceptplanandsitedesignNarrative–Updated6/19/2015 6/19/2015 13NarrativeͲUpdated6Ͳ19Ͳ2015Y61pageswithallappendicesTrafficͲsightlinememo6/19/2015 6/13/2015 3SightlineMemoYMinnehahaMOU6/19/2015 6/18/2015 4MinnehahaMOUYPreliminaryPlat5/8/2015N/A4PrelimPlatYPreliminaryPlat–Updated6/19/2015 N/A4PrelimPlatͲ06Ͳ19Ͳ2015YLotTabulation5/8/20155/8/20152LotTabulationYAltaSurvey5/8/20155/7/20154AltaSurveyYPlans5/8/20155/1/201512PlansYIncludesgrading,eroscont,existingPlans–Updated6/19/20156/19/2015 6/19/2015 10PlansͲ6Ͳ19Ͳ2015Y+3pagesexistingconditionsLandscapingPlans7/6/20156/19/2015 3LandscapingPlanNStormwaterCalcuations5/8/20155/8/2015338StormwaterNIncludesSoilSurveySepticInformation5/8/20155/7/201585SepticYApplicantResponse6/19/2015 6/19/2015 2ApplicantResp–6Ͳ19Ͳ2015YApplicantResponse7/7/20157/7/20153ApplicantRespͲ7Ͳ7Ͳ2015N
DocumentsfromStaff/Consultants/AgenciesDocumentDocumentDate#ofpagesElectronicNotesBuildingOfficialComments6/29/20151YesBuildingOfficialComments5/15/20151YesPoliceComments5/18/2015N/AYesNoCommentsEngineeringComments5/20/20154 EngineeringComments7/9/20152YesHennepinCountyComments5/22/20152YesHennepinCountyComments6/24/20152YesPublicCommentsDocumentDateNotesElectronicLetter(Pflaum,Nadeau,Nadeau,Burkstrand,Schafer)N/A
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 2/10/2015 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Property Resources Development Corporation – PUD Concept Plan
for a Conservation Design Subdivision of 42 lots on 170 Gross Acres Located East of
Homestead Trail and West of Deerhill Road
Sparks provided additional information on the process for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Plan as well as conservation design subdivisions. He identified the subject site, which is approximately
170 acres in size and is primarily farmland and wetlands. He stated that the property is currently zoned
rural residential, which would allow one unit per ten acres. He explained that the conservation design
district would allow for density bonuses if the criteria can be met. He provided additional information on
the septic system proposed for the development by the applicant and advised that the tree preservation
plan would be addressed during the Preliminary Plat phase of the review. He stated that the Commission
should review the request to determine if it meets the criteria of a conservation design subdivision.
Williams referenced the conservation easement objectives and questioned which aspect specifically
would apply to this parcel that would be protected.
Sparks advised that there are significant wetlands, including one identified as a Tamarack Swamp.
Williams inquired if the base density allowed under this situation would be 22 homes, prior to density
bonuses. He questioned how many homes would be allowed for development if the developer would
have just wanted to develop the land outside of this type of request.
Sparks confirmed that a different calculation would be used to determine the allowable number of homes
outside of this type of request.
Williams reference the multi-flo septic system proposed and asked for additional information regarding
the performance of the system.
Finke stated that there are a number of this type of system installed throughout the City. He advised that
the system is on the list of allowable technologies. He did not know of any concerns with systems that
have been installed in Medina. He explained that the active parts of the treatment plant need to be
maintained in order to ensure operations.
Sparks confirmed that the maintenance is handled by the homeowners but noted that additional
information in that aspect would come forward further in the review process.
Reid referenced tree preservation and confirmed that aspect would not be discussed until the Preliminary
Plat review phase of the process.
Murrin referenced the access points proposed and questioned if Orono has been approached to determine
if they would approve of that access. She also questioned if Deerhill Road would need to be expanded.
Finke advised that this is simply the review of the Concept Plan and those aspects would be discussed
further along the process.
Jennifer Haskamp, SHC, introduced those present to represent the applicant tonight. She stated that they
have been working on this plan for the past few months in order to create a plan that would meet the
criteria of the conservation design ordinance. She stated that there are approximately 40 acres of
buildable area proposed to be located in the conservation easement noting that the plan integrates open
spaces with the lots and also provides buffers between the properties to preserve the character of the
neighborhood. She also identified a trail corridor included in the plans to coincide with the desires of the
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 2/10/2015 Meeting Minutes
2
City. She stated that they have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Watershed in order
to take a proactive approach to providing the best function of the areas proposed to be protected. She
stated that they have really tried to develop a functional plan that respects the land and the concerns that
have been voiced by neighboring property owners.
Williams referenced the map, which identifies the wetlands and asked if there is another map that
identifies conservation areas that are not already protected. He questioned which land the City is gaining
into a conservation easement that would not already be protected.
Haskamp referenced that map and identified the color used to highlight that area, noting that is
approximately 40 acres of land in addition to the wetland and wetland buffer areas.
Williams questioned which ecological resources would be protected by this proposal in addition to the
Tamarack Swamp.
Haskamp stated that there are different methods to achieve the objectives. She stated that there is an
inherent value to the Tamarack Swamp. She stated that there are pocket wetlands and they are proposing
to improve the quality of those wetlands to benefit not only this property but also the surrounding region.
Williams questioned what resources exist within the areas identified with the dark green color that are not
wetland but proposed to be conserved.
Haskamp explained that the areas are currently being farmed and this project would provide an
opportunity to protect the wetland boundaries existing and actually improve those wetlands. She stated
that although those wetlands exist, the function is not as high as it could be. She referenced an area to the
east where there are not only wetlands but also trees that would be preserved. She stated that the City
plan identifies this parcel as having high natural resource value and therefore they have identified the
corridor and open space area to match the Comprehensive Plan of the City. She advised that the required
land stewardship plan would be developed in the next phase of this process.
Foote referenced a large wetland that he believed is located on the Orono portion of the property and
stated that it appears three lots will go directly over that wetland.
Haskamp stated that the Concept Plan excludes the Orono site. She stated that they will make every
effort possible to provide a primary septic system on each site but stated that there may be an area or two
where a community system would be needed.
Reid questioned how the number of homes was determined.
Haskamp stated that they used the base calculation for the ordinance and then determined what they felt
would be accomplished, in addition to maintaining consistency with the settlement.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Finke advised of written items that will become part of the record.
Stuart Alger, Attorney for resident residing at 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that his comments relate
specifically to Deerhill Road. He stated that the residents along Deerhill Road are concerned that this
project threatens the unique condition of Deerhill Road, specifically the tree canopy. He stated that the
Concept Plan is an improvement from past plans for development. He stated that the Concept Plan does
not identify plans for Deerhill Road but noted that the residents are concerned that there would be
pressure to widen Deerhill Road, which they are opposed to. He stated that two possible options were
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 2/10/2015 Meeting Minutes
3
included in his written comments including making Deerhill Road a private road, which staff has stated
they could possibly support. He advised that the other would be that the main access road would remain
public but that the connection to Deerhill Road would be for maintenance or emergency use only, noting
that a gate would then be installed in that location. He stated that staff has stated that they would not
support the second option but advised that is the option that the residents would prefer.
Williams asked for input from staff regarding the gate option.
Finke explained that there would be two cul-de-sacs that would need to be maintained and advised of the
other burdens the gate option would place on the City and City staff. He explained that if the roadway is
to be a public street, full access would be needed.
Reid questioned if there is any possibility that Deerhill Road could remain narrow with this development.
Finke explained that as part of a development review staff also needs to review the surrounding
infrastructure to determine if those aspects can support the development. He stated that on the previous
development proposed Deerhill Road had been the primary access point for the development and noted
that in this plan the primary access point would be Homestead Trail so that would be a difference. He
advised that the impact to existing infrastructure would be reviewed further into this process to determine
if improvements would be needed.
Foote confirmed that the existing Deerhill Road does not meet the minimum road standards.
Murrin questioned who owns the land that would be needed should the road need to be expanded.
Finke explained that acquisition of right-of-way would be a part of a public improvement process if that
step is needed.
Steve Pflaum, 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that he believes the Concept Plan proposed is a large
improvement over what had originally been proposed. He stated that the density would be mitigated by
the large open space areas. He stated that this is a significant proposal for the City. He referenced the
presentation of the applicant, which includes preservation of a wooded area and noted one lot that would
not preserve that area. He stated that it appears the City would like to widen Deerhill Road as a part of
this project and was strongly opposed to that option. He noted that would require a significant amount of
trees to be cut down and believed that there are better alternatives. He recognized that is not part of the
Concept Plan review tonight but wanted to ensure that the concerns of the homeowners are addressed.
Nancy Lindlee, 1588 Homestead Trail, commented that it seems that this proposal includes too many
homes for a rural residential area. She referenced the septic issue and was concerned that 42 septic tanks
could leak into the drinking water area for the City. She did not believe that this was the right type of
development for this space.
Tom Rassieur, 1845 Willow Drive, echoed the concern regarding the septic system. He also has concerns
regarding the water table as the homes would be pumping water to irrigate their lawns. He was also
concerned with the long-term maintenance of the septic system and what would occur if the homeowner
chooses not to maintain the septic system. He questioned if there would be environmental effects that are
not recognized at this time. He found it odd that the proposal is completed in corporate names and
wanted to know more specific information on the people included in this development and their track
record.
Amy Alworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, asked the Commission to preserve the rural quality of Homestead
Trail and asked the Commission to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 2/10/2015 Meeting Minutes
4
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Reid commended the members of the public in attendance for their participation and summarized the
concerns brought forward by the public.
Williams confirmed that no decisions would be made tonight and explained that this is simply a format in
which to provide comments to the applicant.
Albers stated that he has concerns with the number of lots proposed for the rural residential area as well
as the comments made regarding the forest area.
Foote appreciated the intent to create open space but did have concern with the number of lots proposed.
Murrin stated that she would be concerned with Deerhill Road and would want more information on that
situation. She referenced the issue of sewer and questioned if there would be an option to connect to City
sewer.
Reid stated that there would not be an option for City sewer.
Murrin stated that she would like to see additional information on the septic system proposed.
Foote stated that while most people would utilize Homestead Trail, he believed that Deerhill Road would
also need to remain as a connection.
Williams stated that there are not many conservation easement developments and questioned if there are,
or will be, others in the City. He stated that his approach would be to determine what the City is gaining
through the proposal that would warrant an increase in density. He stated that the applicant is requesting
about 190 percent in density bonuses but did not feel that there were significant ecological resources that
would be protected, as the wetlands would already be protected. He stated that the previous resource
inventory was done approximately ten years ago and would like to see more information. He stated that
he would be viewing the request in terms of what the City is gaining compared to what the City would be
giving in bonuses. He stated that while the decision regarding Deerhill Road would not need to be made
at this point that issue would need to be considered because the more homes in the area, the more pressure
that would be placed on the roadway. He stated that this proposal is an improvement but believed the
density proposed is too high as the density bonus should be in line with what is actually being conserved.
Reid echoed the comments from Williams in regard to the excess bonus being requested by the applicant.
She referenced the issue of the septic system and believed the Home Owners Association (HOA) would
need to be involved with the ongoing maintenance. She stated that she would like to see Deerhill Road
preserved in its current state. She thanked everyone for their participation.
Reid briefly recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Reid reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 3/3/2015 Meeting Minutes
1
Property Resources Development Corporation – PUD Concept Plan for a Conservation
Design Subdivision of 42 Lots on 170 Gross Acres Located East of Homestead
Trail and West of Deerhill Road (7:23 p.m.)
Sparks presented the PUD Concept Plan for a Conservation Design Subdivision on 170 gross
acres located east of Homestead Trail and West of Deerhill Road. He reviewed the current
zoning and allowed density of the property. He stated that there are 42 lots proposed for the
property. He stated that the base density for the property would be 22 homes but explained that
under the conservation design ordinance there could be up to a 200 percent density bonus. He
identified the proposed access points for the development, noting that the main access point
would be through Orono and explained that the applicant also owns that property. He advised
that another access point is proposed at Deerhill Road and noted that there are no plans to
improve Deerhill Road. He stated that the Park Commission reviewed the plans and
recommended some slight modifications to the proposed trails and connections. He provided
additional information regarding the conservation easement area. He reviewed the plans for
septic treatment proposed by the applicant and advised that the tree preservation plan will need
to be addressed by the applicant further along in the process. He stated that the conservation
design ordinance outlines specific objectives that need to be met in order to qualify for this type
of development. He reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this item at their February
meeting and noted that a summary of their comments were included in the Council packet.
Mitchell stated that he lives on the east end of Deerhill Road and Willow Drive and noted that
his sister lives on the west end of Deerhill Road. He stated that he also knows many of the
residents along Deerhill Road and noted that he discussed the possible conflict of interest with
City Attorney Batty. He stated that he does not have a financial interest and therefore he does
not believe that he has a conflict of interest.
Jennifer Haskamp stated that she is present on behalf of the applicant Property Resources
Development Corporation (PRDC) and Stonegate Farm. She thanked staff for their cooperation
thus far and during the Planning Commission meeting. She referenced the first two objectives
of the Conservation Design Ordinance and stated that under the Comprehensive Plan much of
the property is identified as moderate to high quality natural resources. She identified resources
on the property including the Tamarack swamp, Maple-Basswood trees, 49 acres of wetlands
and buffer areas, and 40 acres of upland buildable land that will be protected through this plan.
She noted that a total of 53 percent of the site will be preserved under this plan. She identified
the third objective of the Ordinance and stated that the plan was careful to identify methods to
meet the intent of the north/south corridor. She stated that because of the interest they have
heard through this process, from the Planning and Park Commission and the Watershed, they
would be willing to relocate lot 12 in order to strengthen that corridor. She referenced the fourth
objective of the Ordinance, noting that Homestead Trail is identified as the scenic road and
advised that the homes near that road have a setback of at least 300 to 500 feet. She stated
that additional landscaping measures will assist in buffering and protecting the view from the
road. She referenced objectives five and six of the Ordinance and reviewed the trail plans for
the development. She stated that all trails on the site would be proposed as turf trails because
of the connection to the regional trail adjacent to the property. She summarized how the
property would meet not only the objectives of the Conservation Design Ordinance but also the
criteria for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Mitchell submitted a written letter from Olivia Munger who objects to the number of lots
proposed.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 3/3/2015 Meeting Minutes
2
Katie Munger, 1272 Homestead Trail, stated that the letter is actually from her daughter who is
nine. She stated that her family moved here 18 months ago in order to get away from high
density housing and loves living in Medina. She referenced the location of her property and is
concerned with the proposed wells and potential runoff that could occur from the steep sloping.
She stated that while this is an improvement from the plan submitted one year ago, she would
like to see larger lots and fewer homes.
Stuart Alger, spoke on behalf of resident Steven Pflaum, stated that the Concept Plan does not
call for any improvements to Deerhill Road but stated that it appears under the City
requirements that Deerhill Road would need to be widened. He referenced language located in
the City Ordinance relating to subdivision requirements and stated that perhaps this application
is premature because of the second access proposed for Deerhill Road. He stated that the
widening of Deerhill Road would require a taking or condemnation of land, to which the
residents object. He suggested that a secondary access be provided elsewhere to avoid this
issue. He stated that Mr. Pflaum consulted Westwood for engineering services in order to
provide four alternate Concept Plans for the property, which would not access Deerhill Road.
He reviewed the first two alternative plans that would use Morningside Road as the secondary
access rather than using Deerhill Road while the other two alternative plans would utilize
Homestead Trail for both access points. He noted that Deerhill Road could still be used for
emergency access, through the use of knockdown posts or an emergency gate. He stated that
Mr. Pflaum requests that the City work with the developer to consider these alternative plans
and preserve Deerhill Road in its current state.
Steven Pflaum, 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that he appreciates that the developer is responsive
to the questions that have been brought forward through this process, referencing the
comments made in regard to lot 12. He stated that he is comfortable with the general plan with
the exception of Deerhill Road. He stated that Deerhill Road is only 19 feet wide at the
narrowest point and is an old farm road, which has a steep drop off, and widening of the road
would require a substantial amount of tree removal and work because of the sloping. He
believed that the subdivision could move forward with an alternate secondary access or with
only one access, using Deerhill Road as only an emergency access.
Mitchell questioned the amount of land the applicant owns.
Haskamp identified the land owned by the applicant including the subject parcel as well as the
23 acres south of the site. She stated that the plans for the land owned in Orono at this time
only include the roadway connection while the remaining property would remain in an outlot.
Mitchell referenced the minutes of the Planning Commission and asked for clarification.
Finke explained that Deerhill Road is a public road and therefore if the road remains public full
access should be provided.
Mitchell stated that is not the law.
Finke stated that is staff’s recommendation from a practicality point.
Martin asked for additional clarification.
Finke explained that Homestead Trail is a County Road and Deerhill Road is the only City street
in the area, without traveling at least four miles in another direction.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 3/3/2015 Meeting Minutes
3
Martin asked for additional information in regard to the upland areas within the conservation
area as to what will be planted and/or how the area will be utilized in order to make that open
space in addition to just simply being open.
Haskamp stated that the developer has engaged an ecologist to prepare a landscaping and
planting plan for the area as well as in consultation with the Watershed. She stated that there
will be special attention to the wetland areas in the middle areas, specific to the settlement
agreement between the applicant and the City. She stated that there is also discussion as to a
possible community gathering area or pool within the development.
Martin referenced the main road from Homestead Trail to Deerhill Road and asked and received
confirmation that the main road will be public while the cul-de-sacs will be private. She asked
for comparisons in the amount of public road for this plan and the plan presented the previous
year.
Haskamp stated that there was still discussion previously regarding the portion of roadway that
would be private versus public as well as a desire for a reduction in the amount of hardcover.
She stated that there has been a reduction in hardcover in order to improve water quality.
Martin referenced the objectives of the Conservation Design Ordinance, specifically objectives
five and six, and asked for additional information regarding the areas that will be available for
public access.
Haskamp stated that the trail system proposed to be public is consistent with the Parks Trails
and Master Plan, which are identified in red in the plans. She referenced the open space area
that would be public and stated that the northeastern portion of the site would be public and
provided additional information on the private open space areas within the site.
Anderson asked for clarification regarding trail 30 referenced in the presentation and whether
that would connect to Baker Park.
Haskamp provided additional information regarding trails 29 and 30. She stated that the
connection would be available should the adjacent property develop which could provide further
connection.
Anderson questioned if all the septic systems would be private or whether there would be a
community septic system as well.
Haskamp stated that the site is frozen right now so she could not be 100 percent certain but
stated that the objective would be to provide individual septic systems on every lot. She stated
that if necessary a community septic system could be used.
Pederson stated that if a community septic site were to be used he would like to see the home
owners association (HOA) take ownership and control of the site.
Haskamp confirmed that if a community septic system were to be used, the HOA would be in
possession of the land and maintenance.
Pederson stated that the proposed density is at the top of the bonus allowed and noted that it is
difficult to know if the property will qualify for that level until further details are known.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 3/3/2015 Meeting Minutes
4
Martin clarified that the top density allowed through bonuses would be 44, while this proposal
includes 42 homes. She stated that this is a gorgeous piece of property and believed that the
City is lucky to have someone that is interested in protecting those natural areas. She agreed
that lot 12 should be moved away from the boundary and stated that she would be interested in
finding out additional information regarding the septic systems and the conserved areas. She
referenced the comments and alternative plans from the residents along Deerhill Road,
acknowledging that the plans were just received and desired input from the developer regarding
the alternative plans provided which would not access Deerhill Road.
Haskamp stated that they also received the alternative plans as late as the Council. She stated
that their desire is to minimize the amount of pavement throughout the development and
advised that those plans all significantly increase the amount of pavement. She stated that they
have considered some of those options during their planning process but again desire the least
amount of pavement as necessary. She stated that their plans do not intend to trigger the
improvement of Deerhill Road.
Cousineau commented that this is a beautiful plan to develop and conserve the area. She
asked for additional information regarding the type of resident that would live in the area. She
explained that families would most likely utilize the connection through Orono to access the
schools while empty nesters may travel along Deerhill Road. She noted that empty nesters may
also travel south for the winter and questioned the impact that could have on septic systems.
Haskamp stated that a market study would be done to determine the type of resident that would
live in the development but believed that mostly families would occupy the homes because of
the proximity to the nearby park and Orono school district. She stated that there will be an HOA
document that will address individual septic systems and the maintenance programs.
Anderson also agreed that this is an attractive plan. He stated that in order to become more
comfortable with the bonus density he would need to see more details as the application moves
along as the applicant is requesting a density bonus of 190 percent.
Mitchell stated that he is thrilled that this is proposed to be developed in this manner rather than
plans several years in the past from previous owners for a 24 hour factory. He did express
some concern with the septic, referencing a similar plan that failed Medina Morningside prior to
their connection to the sewer system. He stated that he was concerned with the through
connection to Deerhill Road. He referenced another development in another City that has 190
homes and only has one access point and has not had any concerns. He identified other areas
in the City that do not have through roads. He believed a better plan would be to have only one
access onto Homestead Trail. He stated that if an emergency gate were to be installed at
Deerhill, an electric option could be used.
Pederson referenced the issue of road bonding and stated that he would like surety tied to the
HOA.
Haskamp asked for specific details of what the Council would like to see in the conservation
areas.
Mitchell stated that there should be further explanation in regard to the tradeoff of the
conservation areas to the density bonus.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 3/3/2015 Meeting Minutes
5
Martin stated that the restoration of prairie land would be an amazing benefit.
Mitchell agreed that a restored prairie with a fringe of prairie trees and marsh would be great.
Cousineau questioned if the homes would be hidden from each other in some manner.
Haskamp stated that the intent is to have a detailed planting plan and covenants in regard to
landscape design and the creation of private home sites.
Mitchell briefly recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Mitchell reconvened the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Martin stated that she is struggling with a neighborhood group having property on a public right-
of-way being able to suggest to the City that the property not be allowed for use by other
residents of the City. She stated that she is having a problem with the idea that the proposed
road would not be available as a through road, noting that she believed that there was always
intent to connect the road as a through road. She stated that she is not set on directing the
developer into an emergency gate type access.
Mitchell stated that the City has never brought those roads through and noted that there are
dead-end roads throughout the City, which contribute to the rural residential character.
Martin stated that connection of a roadway does not mean the area is not rural residential.
Mitchell stated that his philosophy is dead-end roads.
Cousineau stated that she does not see how that connection would not be necessary by the end
of the phasing for the development.
Anderson stated that for public reasons there must be an emergency entrance and exit utilizing
Deerhill Road.
Martin stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies existing and future connections of public
roads. She stated that perhaps Mitchell is too close to the issue.
Cousineau stated that while Deerhill is a quaint charming road, she believed the connection
would be necessary although it is not what she would prefer.
Pederson stated that for public safety reasons there should be more than one way in and out of
a development. He stated that he would not agree with a padlock emergency gate, if there were
an emergency gate it would need to be able to be tripped by the police/fire electronically.
Mitchell questioned if this would be a simple majority when this moves forward.
Batty confirmed that this would be a simple majority vote.
engineeringxx planningx environmentalx construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
July 8, 2015
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: Stonegate Farm CD-PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat
WSB Project No. 02712-460
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the General Plan and Preliminary Plat submittal dated June 19, 2015 for the
Stonegate Farm CD-PUD. The plans propose to construct improvements to serve a 42 single family
homes.
1. Street design should meet a 30-mph design speed. The horizontal curve on Deer Hill Road
shown south of Lot 1, Block 7 does not meet the minimum horizontal radius of 250 feet and
should be revised.
2. Primary and alternate septic system locations on several lots encroach into perimeter drainage
and utility easements. The perimeter drainage and utility easements are meant for future
utilities, if necessary, as well as grading drainage swales to convey stormwater to the street
and rear yard without creating drainage problems for neighboring properties. Constructing
drain fields that encroach into these easements will limit the use of these easements for their
intended purpose and therefore the drainfield should be relocated so as not to encroach into
these easements.
3. No primary or alternate septic sites are shown for Outlot D. The plans should clarify what
sewage treatment system is proposed for this lot. It appears there is a proposed pool for this
Outlot. Discharges from the pool will need to be free of chlorine otherwise the discharges
will need to be treated. The pool and any other restrooms and water fixtures should be
considered in sizing the proposed treatment facilities.
4. The proposed 50 foot road right-of-way and 22 foot pavement width does not meet the
minimum standards of 60 feet of road right-of-way and 24 feet of pavement as set forth in
Section 820.29 of the City’s Subdivision Design Standards.
5. The plans propose a shared access to Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 1. According to Section 400.11
of the City’s Driveway Code the traveled surface must be paved 20 feet in width and a
document describing easement rights and maintenance details shall be recorded against the
properties.
Stonegate Farm CD-PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat
July 8, 2015
Page 2
6. The southern end of the proposed Deer Hill Road is proposed to be constructed in Orono.
The applicant shall provide to the City of Medina an easement, acceptable to the City, for
right-of-way purposes.
7. A drainage and utility easement 20 feet wide centered on the pipe shall be provided between
CBMH E5 and FES E1.
8. The narrative states all lots will be custom graded. It should be noted that care will need to be
taken when building permit surveys are submitted to insure drainage does not adversely
impact neighboring properties. It may be necessary for building permit surveys to include
abutting properties along with possible grading on these properties to verify that the grading
on the building permit survey works.
Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tom Kellogg
1
Dusty Finke
From:Robert H. Byers <Robert.Byers@hennepin.us>
Sent:Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:24 PM
To:Susan Seeland
Cc:Dusty Finke
Subject:RE: PRDC"s Stonegate 42 lot Preliminary Plat Proposal
Susan:
ItriedcallingDustyandlefthimamessage,buthehasnotyetreturnedthecall.
Ididgetyourupdatedsubmittaltothecitytodayinthemail.
Mypermitfolksreviewedthesightdistanceevaluationfromthetrafficreportandarecomfortablewiththeresults.I
thinkwe'llcontactThreeRiversParkstoseeifwecantrimsometreesonthewestsideofCRͲ201nearthecurvesothat
thesightdistancecouldbeimprovedforfolksenteringtheroadfromyourdevelopment.
Regardingthetrail,wewouldpreferaneasement,butIneedtoconfirmthatwe'reonthesamepagewiththecity.
Thanks!
ͲBob
BobByers,P.E.
HennepinCountyTransportationPlanning
1600PrairieDrive
Medina,MN55340Ͳ5421
(612)596Ͳ0354
ͲͲͲͲͲOriginalMessageͲͲͲͲͲ
From:SusanSeeland[mailto:susan.seeland@prc.bz]
Sent:Tuesday,June23,201512:10PM
To:RobertH.Byers
Cc:JenniferHaskamp
Subject:Re:PRDC"sStonegate42lotPreliminaryPlatProposal
HiBob,
I'mjustcheckinginwithyouonwhetheryouhavebeenabletospeakwithDustyFinkeatMedinaandifwearegoingto
tryandmeetregardingthepotentialtrailalongHomesteadTrail.IstoppedintocityhalllastFriday,June19thtodrop
offsomeadditionalinformationthecityhadrequestedincludingthesitedistanceanalysisprovidedbyScottIsraelsonof
TrafficImpactGroup.Atthattime,Dustyindicatedhecouldbeavailabletomeetbuthethoughtthecityhadremoved
thattrailfromtheirplans.Aswediscussed,wewillworktogetheronthetraileasementifitisdeterminedthatthebest
locationisontheeasternedgeofHomesteadTrailRoad.Also,ifyouhaveanycommentsorconcernsregardingthe
informationsubmittedonthesitedistanceanalysis,itwouldbehelpfultohaveyourcommentssowecanaddressany
issuesassoonaspossible.TheonlytimeIwouldnotbeavailableisFridaymorningotherwisemyscheduleisflexible.
Thankyouforyourassistancewiththisreview.
Susan
2
OnJun18,2015,at2:36PM,SusanSeelandwrote:
>HiBob,
>
>HereisthesitedistanceanalysisfromTRAFFICIMPACT,Group,LLC.Hopefullywecangetameetingsetupfor
sometimenextweek.Thankyou.
>Susan
>
><Stonegatesightdistancememo.pdf>
Disclaimer:Informationinthismessageoranattachmentmaybegovernmentdataandtherebysubjecttothe
MinnesotaGovernmentDataPracticesAct,MinnesotaStatutes,Chapter13,maybesubjecttoattorneyͲclientorwork
productprivilege,maybeconfidential,privileged,proprietary,orotherwiseprotected,andtheunauthorizedreview,
copying,retransmission,orotheruseordisclosureoftheinformationisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouarenottheintended
recipientofthismessage,pleaseimmediatelynotifythesenderofthetransmissionerrorandthenpromptlydeletethis
messagefromyourcomputersystem.
Conservation Design
Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD)
General Plan of Development
applicant Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC)
submitted to City of Medina, Minnesota
owner Stonegate Farm, Inc.
date June 16, 2015 Rev.
May 8, 2105
application
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development2
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development3
Table of Contents
Narrative (Revised) 4 - 11
Table 1: Site Tabulation (Revised) 8
Table 2: Lot Count & Size 9
Table 3: Outlot Summary (Revised) 11
Appendices
Tamarack Ridge 1st Addition Preliminary Plat (Yield Plan) Appendix 1
Traffic Memo, Traffic Impact Group, LLC Appendix 2
Site Distance Analysis
Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan Appendix 3
DRAFT Conservation Easement Appendix 4
Concept Plan + Site Design Process Appendix 5
Septic Report Separate Cover
Stormwater Report Separate Cover
Figures (Under separate cover)
Existing Conditions
Preliminary Plat (Revised to Include Wellhead Protection Area)
Grading & Erosion Control
Landscape Plan
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development4
Introduction and Team
PRDC is pleased to submit our application for the General Plan of Development stage of a Conservation
Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) subdivision to be called Stonegate. After the Concept
Plan review process, PRDC worked with our Team to further refine our plans in an effort to respond to
comments we heard from neighbors, staff, planning commissioners, park commissioners and city council
members. We are confident that the following application materials demonstrate our commitment to
creating an exceptional conservation subdivision that follows the agreements made within the Contingent
Settlement Agreement (CSA) while meeting the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open
Space Report.
Project Team
Applicant:Property Resources Development
Corporation, Inc. (PRDC)
6851 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite A
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Owner:Stonegate Farm, Inc.
6851 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite A
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attorney:Monroe Moxness Berg
7760 France Avenue S., Ste. 700
Edina, MN 55435
Planner:SHC, LLC
Civil Engineer
& Surveyor:
Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.Ecologist:Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
Landscape
Architect:
Terramark, Inc.Septic
Design:
Miller’s Sewage Treatment
Solutions
Site Snapshot
Subdivision Name:Stonegate
Present Zoning RR (Rural Residential)
Proposed Zoning CD-PUD (Conservation Design - Planned Unit Development)
Present Land Use RR (Rural Residential)
Proposed Land Use RR (Rural Residential)
Site Size 170.63 Acres (approx.)
Location:NE of the CR-6 and Homestead Trail Intersection
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development5
General Plan of Development
Section 827.35 Subd. 3 General Plan of Development Implementation of Concept Plan
The foundation for PRDC’s General Plan of Development materials is the Concept Plan that was recently
reviewed by the City. The materials contained within this submittal build upon the general nature of the
Concept Plan CD-PUD stage providing the additional detail necessary to entitle and ultimately develop the
Subject property into a conservation subdivision. The site characteristics of the Concept Plan, including
lot sizes, road location, access, quantity of open space/conservation area, and unit count are all generally
consistent with what is proposed in the Stonegate Preliminary Plat and General Plan of Development
materials. PRDC’s summary of the ordinance requirements that specifically relate to the General Plan of
Development for a CD-PUD are provided below:
(a) Zoning
The Subject property is zoned Rural Residential and as a part of this process PRDC proposes to rezone the
site to CD-PUD. PRDC will respect many of the dimensional standards contained within the underlying
RR zoning district including setbacks of principal structures (front yard), coverage standards and access
requirements. As stated within the City’s zoning ordinance the purpose of the CD-PUD is to “preserve the
City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential
development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space
Report...” PRDC believes that developing the site utilizing the CD-PUD designation will meet the City’s
objectives by protecting, enhancing and restoring key areas of the site supporting the goals as stated within
the City’s Open Space Report.
Areas of Flexibility
The City’s Conservation Design District ordinance Section 827.55 Intent, Subd. 1, states “It is the intent
of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development.
In exchange for achieving the conservation objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide density and
design flexibility...” PRDC’s proposed preliminary plat protects approximately 90 acres in some type of
open space, of which approximately 88 acres will be protected by a permanent Conservation Easement
(approximately 84 of the 88 acres meets the City’s definition of Conservation Area). As stated within
the attached Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan, PRDC intends to protect areas of existing ecological
significance, and restore areas within the Conservation Area (CA) to conditions that will enhance the
natural resources of the area. In exchange, PRDC is requesting flexibility from the City’s zoning ordinance
in the following (additional detail provided on Pages 11-12) :
tProposed lot sizes range from 1.39 acres to 2.63 acres. (The conventional subdivision standards for RR
require a 5.0 acre minimum lot size).
tHomes will be custom built, and as such some flexibility from conventional side-yard setbacks may be
necessary. However, we will respect the City’s standards as set forth in Section 827.61 Subd. 2 (a)(1).
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development6
tSeptic sites - while all proposed lots contain adequate area suitable for an Individual Septic Treatment
System (ISTS) primary site, some lots may need to place the secondary site in the Conservation Areas.
At this time PRDC is requesting that up to 25% of the lots (approximately 10) contained within
the subdivision be permitted to site their secondary septic area within the CA. Siting of secondary
septic sites in the CA is permitted within the CD Ordinance, but varies from the conventional septic
requirements of the RR zoning district. Through the Concept Plan review stage PRDC understood
from the Council and Planning Commission that it was important to site as many of the septic sites
as possible on private lots, and therefore in order to balance that demand with the quantity of open
space, setbacks (particularly on the sites adjacent to the CA) were reduced to help ensure that as many
primary and secondary septic sites as possible could be sited and contained on each lot. As currently
laid out 41 of 42 lots have both their primary and secondary septic sites located on the individual
lots. As individual homes are sited on each lot there may be a need to locate secondary sites into the
conservation area.
tRoad Design - The preliminary plat proposes a 50-foot right-of-way (ROW) for all roadways in the
subdivision, with 22-feet of pavement. The city’s base standards require a 60-foot ROW, with 24-feet of
pavement, but allows reduced ROW and roadway widths at the discretion of the City Council. There
are several reasons that PRDC is requesting flexibility with road design, including: 1) the reduction
of impervious surface coverage will reduce runoff from the roadway thereby improving the quality of
the conservation areas (Low Impact Development Best Management Practices); 2) minimizing the
pavement width will have the affect of reducing traffic speeds through the neighborhood, and on the
existing graveled portion of Deer Hill Road; 3) reduced ROW and pavement is more appropriately
scaled with the existing ROW and traveled surface width of Deer Hill Road east of the site ensuring
the existing rural character of the roadway is protected; and 4) the reduced width of both ROW and
pavement will make it easier to ‘blend’ into the existing graveled portion of the roadway and reduce the
likelihood of future expansion of the roadway. (Further discussion can be found in section h below).
Additionally, PRDC is requesting that the first curve from Homestead Trail be permitted to be designed
to a slower mph standard to encourage reduced travel speeds through the neighborhood. Ultimately,
PRDC’s primary goal is to keep traffic speeds slow through the neighborhood and to maintain the rural
quality of the area.
(b) Preliminary Plat and Phasing
The proposed preliminary plat contains eight Blocks that will be phased and final platted in response to
market demands. At this time PRDC anticipates that Lots 1 - 4 Block 7, and Lots 1-5 Block 6 will be
platted first with platting of subsequent phases to progress from south to north. After the first phase is sold
out, PRDC anticipates developing Outlot D, which contains the pool and community area, and will also
plat the areas of Outlots A, B, C, and D that correspond roughly to the areas adjacent to Lots contained
within Blocks 6, 7 and 8.
The preliminary plat identifies conceptual building pads, grading contours and septic sites. All lots within
the development will be custom built and graded, and the proposed housing pads and driveways are meant
to demonstrate how all 42 lots can comply with the City’s standards. At time of construction on a lot the
builder/buyer will be required to obtain proper approvals and permitting from the City for building, septic,
well, grading, tree removal, etc. Additionally, the septic sites may not be disturbed during site construction,
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development7
so initially only the roadway, and some of the stormwater management areas contained in the ROW and
Conservation Areas will be graded in order to protect the septic sites identified on each lot. Private wells will
serve each lot, and will be sited once house location and septic areas are determined. PRDC understands
that 9 lots are either fully or partially located within the City’s Wellhead Protection Area and that the wells
and septic sites located on these lots must be sited in compliance with the City’s regulations.
As depicted on the preliminary plat there are three power line easements that run east-west on the property.
Two of the three easements are active and contain overhead power lines, and the third easement runs along
the Deer Hill Road right-of-way and currently does not contain any power poles or overhead lines. PRDC
has been in contact with Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association who owns the easement to
discuss options for relocating the easement to align with the proposed Deer Hill Road design and ultimately
serve the new lots in the development. Wright-Hennepin has agreed to work with us on relocating the
easement (or extinguishing the existing easement and identifying a new easement, if necessary) and
designing service for the lots.
There will be a Homeowners Association (Stonegate HOA) for the subdivision that will be responsible for
certain duties associated with the maintenance and management of the development. However, there are
no specific covenants related to the preliminary plat proposed at this time. Standard easements, such as
drainage and utility easements are shown on the preliminary plat.
(c) Preliminary Plans
PRDC has worked closely with our Project Team to develop a comprehensive set of plans depicting the
proposed Stonegate subdivision. The following summary of the plans are provided for your reference and
background:
Existing Conditions Survey: Includes existing site conditions such as topography, site boundary,
and delineated wetlands from 2011. As noted in the CSA, the 2011 wetland delineation on the northern
80 acres was approved in 2012 and is current. PRDC understands that an updated delineation on the
southern 90 acres will need to be completed prior to final plat approval on this portion of the Project site.
However, as noted in the CSA, PRDC has prepared the preliminary plat and associated preliminary plans
utilizing the 2011 delineation for the site in its entirety. Based upon the 2011 delineation, approximately
15,500 square feet (0.36 acres) of wetland will be impacted by the proposed development, and will be
mitigated through restoration efforts in the central wetland complex as identified on the Preliminary Plat.
Additionally, the existing conditions survey identifies one significant tree located in the proposed southerly
cul-de-sac ROW that will be removed as part of the proposed development. This tree will be surveyed at the
same time as the updated wetland delineation is prepared. There are other trees located within the proposed
ROWs, however they were planted as part of the CRP contract in 1997, and are part of an active nursery
and therefore not subject to the City’s significant tree requirements. It is our intent to move the trees
throughout the site (where feasible) and use them as part of the landscaping throughout the development.
Each lot will be custom graded and custom homes constructed and therefore the extent and location of tree
removal is unknown on individual lots. PRDC understands that future owners of the lots will be subject
to applicable ordinances for tree removal at time of construction, exclusive of the nursery planting.
Yield Plan: A yield plan was prepared in compliance with Section 827.57 Subd 11 of the
Conservation Design ordinance for the southern 90 acres of the Subject property and shows 14 lots. As
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development8
agreed to within the CSA, the yield plan for the north 80 acres is derived from the Tamarack Ridge 1st
Addition Preliminary Plat which was submitted by the Applicant and Owner in 2012 which shows 8
lots. Both drawings were prepared by Sathre-Berquist and can be found in Appendix 1, with suitable soils
calculations contained on both drawings certified by our licensed Professional Engineer in compliance with
the terms of the CSA. As supported by the CSA, the total Base Density is 22 Lots (14 Lots on South 90 ac +
8 Lots on North 80 ac). The 42 lots proposed in the Stonegate subdivision were calculated by multiplying
22 Lots by 190% (22 x 190% = 42 Lots) as agreed to between the parties in the CSA.
Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat identifies proposed development characteristics such as lot
orientation, size, dimension, lot setbacks, proposed roadway design, potential house pad locations, septic
site locations and outlots depicting the conservation areas and open space. There is an existing barn located
on the site that will be removed as part of this project and there are no other existing structures on the site.
At this time we are not proposing to construct a model home and therefore only the conceptual house pads
are identified, and for purposes of the stormwater calculation a standard 5,000 square feet of impervious
surfaces was considered for each lot. (See section (e) for site tabulation of uses proposed on the site.)
All septic sites shown on the preliminary plat were designed by Miller’s Sewage Treatment Solutions
(MSTS) in compliance with the State rules commonly referred to as Minnesota Rule 7080. Per the
Contingent Settlement Agreement, PRDC agreed to design and locate the septic systems to serve the
development in compliance with the State rules. Bernie Miller, Advanced Designer of MSTS has laid out
the septic sites on each lot with designs suitable for alternative wastewater treatment technology, which
we anticipate will be a Multi-Flow system. Utilizing alternative wastewater technology on each lot is more
environmentally friendly than a traditional central system, and reduces the potential for secondary sites to
ever be needed. Information regarding the Multi-Flo system was provided to the City for review during the
Concept Plan process, and it is our understanding that this system has also been approved by the City in
other lots in the community and meets the City’s standards for ISTS.
Landscape Plan: A landscape plan depicting the streetscape, entrance monument and passive/active
recreation areas has been prepared and is included in the plan set. The plan includes depiction of public
turf trails through some of the conservation areas located in the northern 80 acres of the site consistent with
the City’s recently adopted Parks and Trails Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The landscape plan
also includes a parking lot design and layout of Outlot D which contains the pool and pool house area,
which will serve as private Open Space for the development. At this time PRDC is proposing to install
septic holding tanks to serve the pool house until greater detail about the use of this area is known. MSTS
recommended waiting to design a permanent septic system until the level of activity at the pool house is
known to ensure the design of the system is adequately matched with the demand of the facilities. PRDC
anticipates that once approximately 75% of the lots are developed a design for the septic system at the pool
house could be completed and implemented.
(d) Accurate Legal Description
The legal description of the Subject property can be found on the Preliminary Plat.
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development9
(e) Site Tabulation
Table 1: Use Tabulation (see Preliminary Plat for location)
Use Ownership Acres % of Site
Gross
% of Site Net
Rural Residential Home Sites Private 78.28 45.9% 61.8%
Open Space - Community Pool Private 1.86 1.1% 1.5%
Open Space (Upland Buildable) Private/
Easement
38.47 22.5% 30.3%
Open Space - Unbuildable
(Wetlands, wetland buffer, steep
slopes >18%)
Private
Easement
43.93 25.8% ---
Subtotal wetlands (CA) ---- 35.95 --- ---
Subtotal wetland buffer (CA) ---- 7.98 --- ---
Subtotal wetlands (Lot)* 2.25
Subtotal wetland buffer (Lot)* 1.27
Subtotal steep slopes>18% ---- 1.88 ---
Road ROW (Main & Cul-de-sac) Public/Private 8.09 4.7% 6.4%
Subtotal Developed Area --- 86.87 47.2% ---
Subtotal Open Space --- 83.76 52.8% ---
Net BUILDABLE TOTAL 126.7 --- 100%
Gross TOTAL 170.63 100% ---
*Wetlands and wetland buffers that encroach on private lots will be part of the conservation easement, but the underlying fee will remain with the property
owner and is therefore not included in the Open Space Unbuildable calculation.
*Acreages calculated by Sathre-Bergquist and correspond to Preliminary Plat and Grading and Erosion Control Drawings provided in this submittal.
Percentages calculated by SHC.
The following table represents further break down of the number of units, and average lot sizes as proposed
on the Concept Plan.
Table 2: Lot Count & Size
Zoning Number of Units Lot Size Acres
CD-PUD (North 80) 15 1.39 - 2.63 Acres
CD-PUD (South 90 Ac) 27 1.39 -2 .21 Acres
Subtotal Lots 42 ---
Total Lot Area 78.28 Acres
Average Lot Size 1.86 Acres
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development10
(g) Architecture
PRDC anticipates all of the lots contained within the Stonegate subdivision will be developed with custom
homes. At this time PRDC has not identified a builder(s) or a selected a site for a model home. As
such, there are no “typical” architectural plans to share. However, PRDC intends to address architectural
standards through the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will be charged with
design review responsibilities which will be outlined in the HOA’s documents.
(h) Traffic Flow and Analysis
PRDC hired Traffic Impact Group, LLC to review the proposed site plan and analyze the potential impacts
of the proposed project on the adjacent road network. In response to Hennepin County’s letter dated
March 17, 2015, and email correspondence dated May 18, 2015 Traffic Impact Group, LLC prepared a
supplemental memo and study addressing sight lines at the intersection of Homestead Trail and Deer Hill
Road. Both memos are attached to this submittal as Appendix 2. PRDC offers the following summary
based upon the findings of the Traffic Memos:
tAs stated in the memo, the existing roadways (Homestead Trail and Deer Hill Road) can adequately
serve the proposed Stonegate subdivision with no required improvements.
tThe easterly Deer Hill Road access is anticipated to serve approximately 25% of the daily trips generated
from the proposed subdivision which does not generate enough traffic to warrant the upgrade of the
graveled roadway to pavement. Additionally, Hennepin County stated in their March 17, 2015 review
letter that the proposed access at Deer Hill Road and Willow Drive is adequate to serve the development
with no required further study or recommended improvements.
tPRDC is not proposing any improvements, whether ROW or surface, improvements to the portion
of Deer Hill Road east of the Project site, and we believe the existing gravel condition and access
location is suitable to serve the limited number of trips anticipated to be generated from the Stonegate
subdivision as supported by the attached Traffic Memo.
From a design and flow perspective, PRDC is proposing to construct the main roadway with 50-feet of
ROW and a 22-foot paved driving surface. The proposed design is based on conservation objectives as
stated within the Land Stewardship Plan (Appendix 3), and the desire to blend the new roadway into
the existing graveled portion of Deer Hill Road. After the Concept Plan review, as directed by the City
Council, members of the PRDC Team sat down with the neighboring property owner on Deer Hill Road
east of the Stonegate site. After discussing options with the neighbor we believe we came to a consensus that
reducing the ROW and pavement width, while feathering the new paved road segment into the existing
graveled roadway, would help protect the existing character of Deer Hill Road.
PRDC understands that the ROW and pavement width are not consistent with those identified within the
CSA, but we are prepared revise our plans to reflect the 60-foot ROW and 24-foot paved surface as agreed
to in the CSA if that is the wish of the City Council. However, for the reasons stated above, and those
identified within the Land Stewardship Plan, we respectfully request your consideration to minimize the
impact of the new paved Deer Hill Road section on the graveled portion of Deer Hill Road; to reduce the
impervious surface coverage associated with the roadway and permit and approve the reduction in ROW
and pavement area.
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development11
(i) Solid Waste
All residents of the Stonegate subdivision will be required to follow the City of Medina’s ordinance related
to waste removal, recycling and composting.
(j) Preliminary grading and site alteration
A preliminary grading plan is included in the plan set for review and consideration. As noted above, all
lots are anticipated to be custom graded and developed. The grading plan for the roadways is provided,
and was designed to ensure grading work does not encroach upon any of the septic sites. A preliminary
stormwater management plan is also included to demonstrate how the proposed development will meet the
City’s requirements.
(k) Summary of changes from Concept Plan
PRDC worked closely with our Project Team to refine the Concept Plan and add the necessary detail
required for the City to review the proposed Project. While the majority of the preliminary plat and
preliminary development plans are consistent with the Concept Plan the following changes were made in
response to comments heard from neighbors, Park Commissioners, Planning Commissioners and the City
Council:
tMove lot 12 on the Concept Plan (see Appendix 5) to create a stronger corridor connection on the
eastern edge of the site. PRDC has adjusted the lots, and there is now a minimum of a 150-foot
corridor running the entire eastern edge of the site. (Recommend by: Staff, Planning Commission, City
Council, MCWD)
tReduce the road width and ROW to minimize potential impact to the existing graveled portion of Deer
Hill Road. PRDC has proposed a pavement width of 22-feet and a Right of Way width to 50-feet.
(Recommended by: Neighboring property owner)
tMove public turf trails into the conservation areas and away from roadways. PRDC has moved the
majority of the proposed grass/turf trails out of the ROW, and they are now interwoven throughout
the Conservation areas on the north 80-acres. (Recommended by: Park Commission, Planning
Commission)
tWhile PRDC understands that the Park Commission expressed interest in connecting the Stonegate
neighborhood to the Morningside neighborhood with a bituminous trail we are not proposing any
public trail connections in the southern 90 acres of the Project as detailed in the CSA. PRDC and
MCWD have discussed private turf trails in Outlot B, which may move depending on the year (see
draft Conservation Easement) and may or may not connect into the Morningside street system.
Further, both parties have expressed their commitment to maintaining the contiguity of this Outlot,
and bisecting the area with a trail would be adverse to that objective. Additionally, the City’s Park and
Trail Plan and Comprehensive Plan do not show any public trails in the southern 90 acres of this site.
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development12
CD-PUD Specific Items
827.61 Density and Design Flexibility
As detailed in the Contingent Settlement Agreement, the Stonegate plat includes 42 single-family lots that
was calculated by applying the appropriated density bonus of 190% to the base number of lots (22) which was
determined by the Yield Plan. Such density and lot count is consistent with that which is permitted within
the City’s CD-PUD Ordinance.
This section of the ordinance allows for other areas of flexibility within a Rural Residential Conservation
Design PUD including: Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks (with some limitation); Housing type;
Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for
the site as a whole; and due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating
park dedication requirements (See Minnesota State Statute 462.358 Subd. 2 (b) Sec. d) .
PRDC is requesting flexibility from the standards of a conventional rural residential subdivision for lot size,
lot width and setbacks while still meeting the minimum setbacks designated in this section of the code. We
have excluded all wetland buffer areas (Upland buffers) from our calculations for the Conservation Areas as
detailed in Table 1, and still meet the City’s requirement that minimum of 30% of the Upland Buildable area.
However, it should be noted that if the Upland Buffer area were to be included in our calculations then the
Upland Buildable acreage would be approximately 46.45 Acres, which is equivalent to nearly 37% of the net
acreage on the site which still does not account for steep slopes and the community recreational area.
As for park dedication, PRDC believes that the Stonegate plat not only meets but exceeds the City’s park
dedication requirements. The quantity of open space, passive recreation and active recreation opportunities
dedicated in the plat will more than accommodate the demand generated for such uses by the 42 new homes.
The following acreages are provided related to park and recreational access:
tPublicly dedicated land for trails on the north 80-acres in Compliance with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and Parks and Trails Master Plan
t38.47 Acres of Upland Buildable Land dedicated in a Conservation Easements that will be accessible to
residents, with an additional 7.98 Acres of “Upland Buffer” for which no credit is provided but is still
accessible and part of the Conservation Areas.
tApproximately 2.5 acres of passive recreation areas for residents to throw a frisbee, pitch a picnic tent or
other low-intensity uses. PRDC is working together with the MCWD to achieve this goal, while still
meeting the MCWD’s conservation objectives.
t1.86 Acres of Active/Passive recreational area privately held by the HOA and available for use by all
residents of the Stonegate Development.
PRDC believes that when consideration is given to all of these elements of the plan, that the dedication
of these areas for trails, and conservation areas meets, and exceeds, any potential demand which could be
generated from 42 homes. Therefore, we believe that we have met the City’s Park Dedication ordinance and
no further land dedication or fee is warranted.
PRDC | CD-PUD | General Plan of Development13
827.63 (b) Designated Conservation Areas
PRDC is proposing to place approximately 89 acres of land in the Stonegate subdivision into a conservation
easement to be held by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Each Outlot has been specifically
designed to achieve a corresponding objective/goal as stated within the Land Stewardship Plan. The following
summary of the Outlots associated with the conservation areas is provided for your quick reference:
Table 3: Outlot Summary
Outlots Acreage Use
Outlot A 2.63 Conservation Area: includes stormwater management
features, entrance monument, and native vegetation
Outlot B 27.58 Conservation Area: native tall grass prairie, wetland
restoration, stormwater management features
Outlot C 3.07 Conservation Area: native short grass prairie
Outlot D 1.86 Private Recreation Area
Outlot E 4.35 Conservation Area: Native short grass prairie, grassland,
public turf/grass trails and dry creek bed
Outlot F 5.25 Conservation Area: Native tall grass prairie, public turf/
grass trail
Outlot G 8.82 Conservation Area: Native tall grass prairie, public turf/
grass trail
Outlot H 32.75 Conservation Area: Protection of Tamarack swamp, turf/
grass trail at far northeastern corner
Private Lot Area 3.52** Conservation Easement: Wetland and buffer areas contained
on private lots
Total 89.33 Total Area to be held in Conservation Easement
*0.5 Acres of Outlot D excluded from calculation due to active park/pool area.
**Private Lot Area calculated in Table 1.
The PRDC Team has been working collaboratively with the MCWD and has entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the MCWD to work through the specific expectations and details of the
conservation easement(s) and Land Stewardship Plan. We are excited to work with the MCWD, and believe
that the partnership will result in an exceptional area of preserved and restored natural resources on the site. A
copy of the MOU has been provided for your reference and review.
827.65 Land Stewardship Plan
A Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan for the Conservation Area has been prepared by AES and is provided
in Appendix 3. The plan areas correspond to the Outlots identified on the Preliminary Plat as well as those
identified on the draft Conservation Easement which is provided in Appendix 4.
72 -HQQLIHU+DVNDPS6+&RQVXOWLQJ
)520 6FRWW,VUDHOVRQ
'$7( 0DUFK
),/(
5( 7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ6WDWHPHQW
6WRQHJDWH
0HGLQD0LQQHVRWD
,QWURGXFWLRQ
7KLV7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ6WDWHPHQWLVDSUHOLPLQDU\WUDIILFDQDO\VLVRIWKHSURSRVHG6WRQHJDWH
GHYHORSPHQW7KLVGRFXPHQWUHYLHZVWKHHVWLPDWHGGHYHORSPHQWWUDIILFJHQHUDWLRQ
LGHQWLILHVSURSRVHGDFFHVVSRLQWVDQGTXDQWLILHVWKHDPRXQWRIGHYHORSPHQWWULSVRQWKH
VXUURXQGLQJURDGZD\QHWZRUN
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
6WRQHJDWHLVDSURSRVHGVLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW7KHVLWHDVSURSRVHGZLOO
FRQVLVWRIVLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHVRQDFUHV6HH)LJXUHIRUWKHPRVWUHFHQWVLWHSODQ
7KHVLWHLVLQ0HGLQDQRUWKRIWK$YHQXH1RUWK &6$+ DQGHDVWRI+RPHVWHDG7UDLO7KH
VLWHLVSURSRVHGWRKDYHIXOODFFHVVWR+RPHVWHDG7UDLODQGDOVR'HHUKLOO5RDG
6LWH3ODQ
)LJXUH
6WRQHJDWH 0HGLQD
'DWH 0DUFK
3URMHFW1R
3DJHRI
([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV
7DEOHSUHVHQWVDVXPPDU\RIWKHH[LVWLQJURDGZD\FRQGLWLRQVQHDUWKHSURSRVHG
GHYHORSPHQW
7DEOH²([LVWLQJ5RDGZD\V
6WUHHW1DPH)XQFWLRQDO&ODVV7\SLFDO6HFWLRQ$$'7
WK$YHQXH1RUWK
&6$+ 0LQRU$UWHULDO 7ZRODQHXQGLYLGHG
+RPHVWHDG7UDLO
&5 0DMRU&ROOHFWRU 7ZRODQHXQGLYLGHG
'HHUKLOO5RDG /RFDOURDG 8QSDYHG
HVWLPDWHG
:LOORZ'ULYH /RFDOVWUHHW 7ZRODQHXQGLYLGHG 1$
7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ
$WULSJHQHUDWLRQHVWLPDWHKDVEHHQSUHSDUHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH,QVWLWXWHRI
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ(QJLQHHUV ,7( 7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ0DQXDO WK(GLWLRQ7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKH
HVWLPDWHGWULSVJHQHUDWHGE\WKHGHYHORSPHQW
7DEOH,7(7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ
$YHUDJH:HHNGD\'ULYHZD\9ROXPHV$03HDN
+RXU
303HDN
+RXU
/DQG8VH,7(
&RGH6L]H'DLO\
7ULSV(QWHU ([LW (QWHU ([LW
^ŝŶŐůĞͲ&ĂŵŝůLJĞƚĂĐŚĞĚ
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐϮϭϬ ϰϮ ǁĞůůŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐ ϰϬϰ ϭϬ Ϯϵ ϯϬ ϭϴ
7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLVH[SHFWHGWRJHQHUDWHQHZWULSVSHUGD\
7ULS'LVWULEXWLRQ$VVLJQPHQW
$VVLJQPHQWRIQHZGHYHORSPHQWWUDIILFWRWKHVXUURXQGLQJURDGZD\VLVEDVHGRQH[LVWLQJ
WUDIILFSDWWHUQVDQGFORVHH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHGVLWHSODQ)RUWKLVGHYHORSPHQWPRVW
WUDIILFZRXOGKHDGWRDQGIURPWKHVRXWKWR&6$+
%DVHGRQSUR[LPLW\WRWKHDFFHVVLWLVH[SHFWHGWKDWWHQRIWKHSURSRVHGXQLWV
DSSUR[LPDWHO\ ZRXOGXVH'HHUKLOO5RDGWRDFFHVV&6$+ZLWKWKHRWKHUXVLQJ
+RPHVWHDG7UDLOWRDFFHVV&6$+
3DJHRI
:LWKQHZGDLO\WULSVJHQHUDWHGE\WKHGHYHORSPHQW+RPHVWHDG7UDLOZRXOGVHH
DSSUR[LPDWHO\QHZYHKLFOHVSHUGD\'HHUKLOO5RDGZRXOGVHHRIWKHQHZWULSVRU
DSSUR[LPDWHO\QHZYHKLFXODUWULSVSHUGD\
'HHUKLOO5RDGLVFXUUHQWO\DQXQSDYHGURDGZD\ZLWKDQDYHUDJHGDLO\WUDIILF $'7 WRWDORI
DSSUR[LPDWHO\FDUV7KHUHVXOWLQJ$'7DIWHUGHYHORSPHQWZRXOGEHDSSUR[LPDWHO\
YHKLFOHVSHUGD\
7KH)HGHUDO+LJKZD\$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ )+:$ *UDYHO5RDGV0DLQWHQDQFHDQG'HVLJQ0DQXDO
SURYLGHVFOHDUDQGKHOSIXOLQIRUPDWLRQWRVWDWHDQGORFDODJHQFLHVRQWKHGHVLJQDQG
PDLQWHQDQFHRIXQSDYHGURDGV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH0DQXDO´7KHDYHUDJHGDLO\WUDIILFYROXPHV
$'7 XVHGWRMXVWLI\SDYLQJJHQHUDOO\UDQJHIURPWRYHKLFOHVSHUGD\:KHQWUDIILF
YROXPHVUHDFKWKLVUDQJHVHULRXVFRQVLGHUDWLRQVKRXOGEHJLYHQWRVRPHNLQGRISDYLQJµ
%DVHGRQJXLGHOLQHVSURYLGHGE\WKH)+:$'HHUKLOO5RDGLVH[SHFWHGWRFRQWLQXHWRIXQFWLRQ
DFFHSWDEO\DVDQXQSDYHGURDGZD\DIWHUGHYHORSPHQW
&RQFOXVLRQ
7KHSURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWLVH[SHFWHGWRJHQHUDWHWULSVLQWKHKLJKHVWSHDNKRXUDQG
QHZGDLO\WULSV7KHORZQXPEHURIQHZWULSVLVQRWH[SHFWHGWRDGYHUVHO\LPSDFWWKH
VXUURXQGLQJURDGZD\QHWZRUN
,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVSOHDVHGRQRWKHVLWDWHWRFRQWDFWPHDWVFRWW#WUDIILFLPSDFWFRP
RUE\SKRQHDW
6LQFHUHO\
6FRWW3,VUDHOVRQ3(372(
7UDIILF,PSDFW*URXS//&
TO: Jennifer Haskamp, SH Consulting
FROM: Scott Israelson, P.E., PTOE, Traffic Impact Group
DATE: 13 June 2015
FILE: 15-6556-1
RE: Sight Distance Analysis
Homestead Trail (CSAH 20) & Deer Hill Road (proposed)
Stonegate Farm
Medina, Minnesota
Introduction
This sight distance analysis is in response to comments received dated 3/17/2015 from
Hennepin County Public Works Transportation Department. The County commented that the
future project access to Homestead Trail (CSAH 20) may have limited sight distance due to a
nearby crest vertical curve. This document summarizes the findings of a site visit and vertical
profile analysis of Homestead Trail (CSAH 20).
Proposed Access Description
Deer Hill Road is proposed to be extended west as part of the Stonegate Farm development.
It will wind through the development and ultimately terminate at Homestead Trail (CSAH 20).
South of the proposed intersection, Homestead Trail (CSAH 20) has a crest vertical curve.
Hennepin County has a desirable sight distance of 530 feet, and a minimum sight distance of
400 feet, for roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 mph.
Figure 1 shows the sight lines from the proposed driveway location to the north and south
along Homestead Trail (CSAH 20). AASHTO defines the driver’s eye as 3.5 feet above the
roadway, and the roadway object as 4.25 feet above the roadway.
As shown in Figure 1, the intersection of Homestead Trail (CSAH 20) & Deer Hill Road will not
have sight distance concerns as proposed.
Page 3 of 3
Homestead Trail (CSAH 20) & future Deer Hill Road – looking north
Homestead Trail (CSAH 20) & future Deer Hill Road – looking south
PRELIMINARY LAND STEWARDSHIP PLAN
STONEGATE PRELIMINARY PLAT
Medina, Minnesota
May 8, 2015
Prepared for: Property Resources Development Corporation
6851 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite A
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Prepared by: Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
21938 Mushtown Road
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
(952) 447-1919
Table of Contents
INTROUCTION....………………….……………………..….………………………..1-3
Conservation Design………..…..……………………………………………….1-2
Land Stewardship Plan…………………………………………………………..2-3
EXISTING CONDITIONS……………….……………………..……………………...3-8
Compilation of Existing Data……………………………………………………3-4
Field Reconnaissance………………………………………………………………4
Findings…………………………………………………………………………4-8
CONSERVATION DESIGN OF STONEGATE……………….…………………….8-10
Development Layout……..………………………………………………………8
Grading & Ecological Stormwater Management…………………………………..9
Cultural Amenities…………………………………………………………….9-10
OWNERSHIP CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES & LAND PROTECTION…....….10-15
Stonegate Land Allocation………….……………………………………………10
Development Area………………………………………………………………10
Conservation Area……………………………………………………………10-15
CONCULSION…………………….…………………………………………………..15
APPENDIX A: Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Database Report
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 1
PRELIMINARY LAND STEWARDSHIP PLAN
STONEGATE PRELIMINARY PLAT
Medina, Minnesota
INTRODUCTION
Property Resources Development Corporation (PRDC) proposes to develop a 170-acre farm (the
“site”) owned by Stonegate Farm, Inc. (Owner) in Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota following
the City’s Conservation Design District (CD) requirements. The Project includes 42 single family
sites, and the neighborhood is proposed to be called Stonegate. The site holds unique and
important conservation values based on its regional location and variety of wetland habitats. These
values are recognized by PRDC, and its goal is to create an exceptional place for the development’s
residents to live, for the local community to enjoy, and for plants and wildlife to thrive.
Conservation Design
The proposed development complies with the City of Medina’s Conservation Design Development
requirements as described in detail in subsequent sections and per City Code Section 827.51.
Conservation Design (CD) – Purpose.
The purpose of this district is to preserve the City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors,
scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals
and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time
to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to:
1.Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and
wetlands.
2.Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas.
3.Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other
protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas.
4.Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments.
5.Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space
resources.
6.Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open
Space resources.
Conservation design typically follows a process that begins with the identification of primary
conservation areas (i.e., areas that generally should not be affected by development) and secondary
conservation areas (i.e., areas that should be avoided or protected where feasible).
Primary conservation areas typically contain:
xlarger blocks of core wildlife habitat
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 2
xecologically significant natural areas, usually with native plant communities
xlegally-protected natural areas, such as wetlands and conservation easements
xsteep slopes (>18% per Medina City Code)
xland within the 100-year floodplain
xother rare natural features, including rare species
Secondary conservation areas often contain:
xformer wetlands and intermittent drainageways, often with hydric soils, which present
challenges for development
xsteep slopes that may be prone to erosion
xsemi-natural areas, which are damaged ecosystems or lack native vegetation, but support
some wildlife
xecological connections providing movement corridors for wildlife
xbuffer zones to protect primary conservation areas and sensitive natural resources such as
wetlands and aquatic ecosystems
xvalued cultural/historical features
xscenic viewsheds.
Site development is focused in the remaining areas, with impingement on primary and secondary
conservation areas first avoided, then minimized if impacts cannot be avoided, and lastly mitigated.
Mitigation can take the form of regulated wetland mitigation, as well as ecological restoration,
enhancement, and management of the site’s Conservation Areas. Creating and managing diverse
and healthy native plant communities (including those associated with a naturalized stormwater
treatment train) provides value to the development and can be enhanced further by incorporating
trails and other amenities into the development to educate and engage residents.
Conservation developments should also be designed with minimal grading, naturalized stormwater
management, and public and private access in mind. Preservation of existing drainage divides and
use of existing drainage patterns will reduce grading costs and take advantage of the site’s unique
landforms. Where feasible, well-drained soils should be identified and incorporated into naturalized
infiltration systems to help manage the development’s stormwater runoff. Trails and interpretive
opportunities will benefit both residents and the local community, if public access is granted.
Land Stewardship Plan
Per City of Medina Code Section 827.65, a Land Stewardship Plan (LSP) is required for the
Stonegate project. An LSP addresses the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance
of all Conservation Areas associated with a proposed development. More specifically, this
Preliminary LSP:
(a)Defines ownership and methods of land protection.
(b)Establishes necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities.
(c)Estimates staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with
plan implementation and defines the means for funding the same on an on-going basis. This
includes land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and management of the
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 3
Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees have been estimated and validated
by the proposed easement holder.
(d)Meets the requirements of the future conservation easement holder.
The following Draft Land Stewardship Plan generally applies to the entire site, unless otherwise
stated. However, it should be noted that PRDC intends to develop the site in Phases and/or
Additions, with final plat of each phase or addition occurring as dictated by the market. Additionally
PRDC intends to dedicate the conservation easement areas in conjunction with each Final Plat
phase of the subdivision. At this time, PRDC does not know how many phases will be included in
the Stonegate subdivision so for purposes of this draft two phases are outlined to simplify this
document and the corresponding draft Conservation Easement. PRDC understands that a Final
Land Stewardship Plan will be required to be prepared for each Phase (however, the Final LSPs will
be substantially similar, just tailored to the quantities of conservation areas in each phase).
The following sections address the required elements of a LSP.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Compilation of Existing Data
The following existing data were compiled and reviewed to assess the natural, cultural, historic, and
scenic character of the site and its surroundings:
xMnDNR Ecological Classification System
xMnDNR Minor Watershed boundaries
xMinnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)-listed Impaired Waters
xWeb Soil Survey (SSURGO Soil Survey data from USDA/NRCS)
xOriginal Vegetation of Minnesota (pre-European vegetation mapping by
Marshner/MnDNR)
xMnDNR Rare Natural Features (from the Natural Heritage Information System, NHIS)
xMnDNR Native Plant Communities (NPC)
xMnDNR Sites of Biological Significance (SBS)
xRegionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) – both original mapping and 2008 update
xMnDNR Regional Ecological Corridors – based on 2008 MLCCS data
xMetro Conservation Corridors
x2030 Framework Regional Natural Resource Areas
xHennepin County Open Space Corridors and Priority Natural Resources Corridors
xMinnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) wetland mapping
xMCWD Key Conservation Area mapping
xRestoration Prioritization and Prediction Model (RePP)
xPublic conservation lands (e.g., public parks, Scientific and Natural Area (SNA), Wildlife
Management Area (WMA))
xHistorical and current aerial photographs (oldest 1937; most current 2013)
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 4
xMinnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) mapping (based on discrete datasets
from 2001, 2005, and 2008)
xWetlands (including delineated site wetlands, Hennepin County Wetland Inventory, and
MCWD Functional Assessment of Wetlands (FAW))
xCity of Medina Open Space Plan (2007)
xSite parcel boundaries
xTopographic contours (2-ft LiDAR data) and digital elevation model (DEM)
xMinnesota Historical Society database report
Field Reconnaissance
On September 19, 2014, Kim Chapman (Principal Ecologist) and Douglas Mensing (Senior
Ecologist) of AES conducted a field reconnaissance of the site. Accompanied by members of the
development team, they walked the site and documented existing conditions (including landforms,
slopes, plant species, wildlife observations, drainage patters, erosion, etc.). In brief, the site was
dominated by fallow agricultural fields, with a variety of wetlands generally consistent with the
findings of others. Moderate slopes were observed in the southern portion of the site, and steep
slopes were observed on the southwestern edge where the site borders Homestead Trail.
Findings
Ecological Context
According to Minnesota’s Ecological Classification System, the site is located in Minnesota’s Big
Woods Subsection of the Minnesota & NE Iowa Morainal Section, of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Province. The site is within the Painter Creek Minor Watershed, which drains into Lake
Minnetonka (several bays of which are listed by the MPCA as “impaired”), then into the Minnehaha
Creek and eventually the Mississippi River. Moderate slopes (<18%) exist in the southern portion
of the site. Site soils consist of a variety of upland and wetland (i.e., hydric) soils, ranging from well
drained to very poorly drained. A large area of poorly drained soil is mapped just south of the site’s
center. On-site geotechnical investigations (including percolation tests) by others indicate that some
of the USDA/NRCS soil mapping of the site may be inaccurate. Prior to European settlement, the
majority of the site was dominated by Big Woods (e.g., oak, maple, basswood, hickory, elm). The
northern portion of the site contained Tamarack Swamp, and low-lying drainageways likely
contained wet prairie, wet meadow, and possibly marsh.
Regional Ecological Significance
Based on MnDNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) records, the only rare natural
feature recorded on the site is the Tamarack Swamp (a MnDNR-mapped Native Plant Community).
This swamp is a sensitive wetland type, susceptible to degradation resulting from invasive species,
stormwater runoff, and hydrologic alterations. Regarding other rare natural features, red-shouldered
hawk (State-listed Species of Special Concern) was observed just east of the site as recently as 2007.
The site’s Tamarack Swamp was identified by multiple sources as a regionally significant ecological
feature, habitat, or corridor. Several of these ecological classifications (including several derived
from MLCCS data, such as the City of Medina’s Open Space Plan “Composite” map) encompass
the majority of the site; we believe this is due to the former Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
planting that contained prairie grasses, which was then replaced by cropland after CRP contract
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 5
expiration in 2007. Baker Park Reserve, managed by Three Rivers Park District, lies immediately
southwest of the site. This 2,700 acre Regional Park is one of the largest parks and natural areas in
Hennepin County.
Cultural/Historical/Scenic Significance
The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database search did not identify
cultural/historical resources on the site. The only structure known to have existed on the site is a
barn, which is still present on the southwest edge of the property. The majority of the site has been
in agricultural production since at least 1937 (see Aerial Photography Review, below). The
Minnesota SHPO database report acquired for the site (Appendix A) identified two records in the
site vicinity:
1.House (3050 Highway 6) – located approximately 850 ft southwest of the site
2.Barn (2885 6th Ave. N.) – located approximately 950 ft south of the site
The site encompasses part of an elevated landform (a flat-topped ridge), which extends onto the site
just south of its center. With slopes falling to the north, south, and west, this plateau provides
spectacular scenic views of the Tamarack Swamp (north), wetlands and rural landscapes (south), and
the wetlands and parkland of Baker Park Reserve (west). Views of the site from surrounding areas
are generally limited due to topography, distance from nearby roads, and vegetative screening. The
site is partly visible heading north from CR 6 and Homestead Trail. The proposed entrance road
and the first few lots will be visible from this vantage point because the topography rises here.
Aerial Photograph Review
The earliest available aerial photograph of the site was from 1937. The photo shows the majority of
the site in row crop agriculture (not including the Tamarack Swamp). A review of more recent aerial
photos from the early 1990s through 2013 indicates that the majority of the site consisted of row
crop agricultural fields through at least 1997. The Tamarack Swamp and several apparent lowlands
and drainageways were not cultivated. By 2000, the majority of the cropland appeared to consist of
grassland, which is consistent with CRP contract records. Then by 2009, these areas appeared to
again be in row crop production, which seems to have continued through the 2013 photo.
Agricultural Records
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) records indicate that the approximately 107 acres south of the
Tamarack Swamp consisted of a CRP grassland planting from October 1997 to September 30, 2007;
these records are consistent with the term of the CRP contract and reviewed aerial imagery.
According to property records, there was also an Ag Preserve Covenant on approximately 160 acres
of the property; this covenant expired on September 15, 2008.
Land Cover & Wetlands
The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) was developed in the late 1990s but was
not released until approximately 2001. The City of Medina was one of the first areas mapped as part
of the pilot program, with MLCCS field work conducted in 1999. This initial land cover mapping
identified site features such as the Tamarack Swamp in the north, a sliver of Maple Basswood Forest
and Lowland Hardwood Forest along the east property line, low-lying areas of non-native vegetation
(likely reed canary grass swales and depressions), planted crops, and an area of planted mesic prairie.
Since then, MLCCS mapping updates were conducted. The latest update, however, based on 2007
field work, is not representative of the site’s current land cover.
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 6
In 2007, an approved wetland delineation of the entire site identified 15 wetlands totaling 41.5 acres.
Most of this wetland area consists of the Tamarack Swamp in the northern portion of the site.
Several smaller wetlands were delineated at the eastern edge and in the central and southern portions
of the site. In 2011, 16 wetlands (totaling approximately 38.3 acres) were identified and delineated
on the entire site. However, only the delineation on the north half of the site was approved; the
south half of the site will be re-delineated in Spring 2015.
CONSERVATION DESIGN OF STONEGATE
Development Layout
The conservation design approach described in the Introduction was applied to the Stonegate Farm
site. The development team (including planner, landscape architect, engineer, and ecologist) worked
together to identify and respond to the site’s unique attributes and sensitive natural features. AES
identified primary and secondary conservation areas, appropriate ecological buffers, and ecological
corridors/connections. These conservation areas were avoided to the extent feasible when siting the
development’s roads and residential lots, and they have been thoughtfully integrated into the
development’s design, establishing a connected network of native landscapes.
The Stonegate site design also followed the Better Site Design/Low Impact Development (LID)
practices of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA). The Stonegate conservation development design incorporated all of the MPCA’s “better
site design techniques” listed below, except where noted:
xPreserve natural areas
xNatural area conservation
xSite reforestation
xStream and shoreline buffers (the site lacks streams and lakes, but the design incorporates
ecological buffers around all wetlands)
xOpen space design
xDisconnect and distribute runoff
xSoil compost amendments (these may be incorporated into final design of stormwater
management elements)
xDisconnect surface impervious cover
xRooftop disconnection
xGrass channels
xStormwater landscaping
xNarrower streets (to be discussed with the City during preliminary plat review)
xReduce impervious cover in site design
xSlimmer sidewalks (no sidewalks are proposed; all trails will be natural surface)
xSmaller cul-de-sacs
xShorter driveways (where possible, house pads were generally front loaded on lot)
xSmaller parking lots (only one small parking area, at the community pool, is anticipated)
The proposed conservation development plan will remove no native forest and preserve and buffer
the existing Maple-Basswood Forest at the east edge of the site. Virtually no development is
proposed along the entire east edge of the site, which creates and enhances a potential ecological
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 7
corridor between the Tamarack Swamp in the north and the wetland complex to the south. The on-
site portion of this corridor will have a minimum width of 150 feet and average over 350 feet along
the developed portion of the site. Although small home sites are present off site to the east, the
complete corridor is wider still.
Three small wetlands and a portion of a fourth wetland will be impacted by the proposed
development; these total approximately 15,500 square feet, or 0.36 acres. Today, however, these
wetlands are cropland—tilled, temporarily flooded depressions providing limited functions and
values. Impacted wetlands will be mitigated on site through the restoration and enhancement of at
least three additional acres of high quality wetlands integrated into the site’s mosaic of
restored/enhanced native plant communities. This exceeds the minimum replacement standards for
proposed wetland impacts.
Grading and Ecological Stormwater Management
Site grading and disturbance has been minimized to the extent feasible, retaining natural drainage
patterns. AES worked with the design team to capitalize on opportunities for ecological stormwater
management in order to minimize runoff and ensure that any water reaching wetlands or leaving the
site is of high quality. Impervious surfaces have been minimized by limiting the development’s road
widths to 22 feet, reducing the diameter of cul-de-sacs, eliminating sidewalks, using only natural-
surface trails, and providing only one small parking area (near the community pool). Private lots will
be required to route rooftop, driveway, and parking area runoff to designated stormwater
management features or to areas of permanent vegetation. Ecological stormwater management
elements incorporated into Stonegate’s conservation design include:
xrestored native landscapes, which infiltrate runoff in the Conservation Area;
xtreatment wetlands (including forebays and ponds), which remove pollutants and store flood
pulses;
xinfiltration areas, which reduce runoff volume and recharge shallow groundwater, which
provides baseflow to downhill water bodies and wetlands;
xa dry creek bed, which provides additional pollution removal and aerates the water; and
xnative-vegetated swales, which filter pollutants out of runoff and also infiltrate to shallow
groundwater.
Cultural Amenities & Access
Trails were designed to provide public and private access to and through the site’s Restoration Area.
However, trails were excluded from the Tamarack Swamp and other sensitive natural areas that
provide refuge for sensitive wildlife. A trail with private access for residents will lead to the “island”
in the northwest corner of the development, at the edge of the Tamarack Swamp. This area will
provide opportunities for residents to enjoy nature, relax, and convene. It will become a walking
destination, as well as possible use by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for education.
The site has very little frontage on adjacent scenic roadways, and is not highly visible from adjacent
properties, with some limited exceptions. The site does contain significant topographic changes,
given the plateau at the center of the site. The plateau slopes downward to the north and south
from this high point. Although a slight topographic high bisects the site approximately at the Deer
Hill Road ROW, the set back of over 950 feet from adjacent roadways and properties will make
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 8
structures here at most only intermittently visible from the surroundings. Additionally, this area is
well buffered by vegetation and other residential home sites on Homestead Trail. Traveling north
on Homestead Trail from CR-6, some homes on the site will be visible, but the proposed
landscaping will soften the viewshed from the west.
OWNERSHIP, CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES & LAND PROTECTION
Stonegate Land Allocation
The Stonegate Preliminary Plat addresses a 170-acre Conservation Design Subdivision. The
proposed development plan calls for a variety of Development Areas and Conservation Areas, as
illustrated in Figure 1 below and in Exhibit 1 (attached).
Figure 1. Stonegate Land Allocation
Development Area
Areas not included in the Land Stewardship Plan
Stonegate’s 86 acres of Development Area includes roads, rights-of-way (ROW), a community
recreation area, and private lots. The main road through the Stonegate subdivision will be public
(owned and maintained by the City of Medina), and the two cul-de-sacs will be privately owned and
managed by the Stonegate Homeowners Association (“HOA”). The community recreation area will
be owned and maintained by the HOA, and private lots will be owned and maintained by the
Developer until the lots are purchased by homeowners.
Conservation Area
The City of Medina defines Conservation Area as:
StonegateSite
(170ac)
Development
Area
(86ac)
Roads&ROW
(8.09ac)PrivateLots
(78.78ac,3.52acin
conservation
easement)
Community
RecreationArea
(0.5ac)
Conservation
Area
(84ac)
Reserve
(37ac)
Wetland Forest
RestorationArea
(47ac)
Prairie Wetland PassiveRecreation
Area
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 9
Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of
one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation
Areas to permanently restrict the Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas
may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for
pasture, hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses.
The 84 acres of Conservation Area (“CA”) in the Stonegate subdivision will be protected under a
conservation easement that will be held by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”),
with the HOA retaining ownership of the CA. In addition, approximately 3.52 acres of wetland and
wetland buffers on private lots will also be included in the conservation easements, for a total of
approximately 88 acres in the easement held by MCWD. The CA will consist of approximately 37
acres of Reserve Area and approximately 51 acres of Restoration Area, which includes
approximately 4 acres of Passive Recreation Area. Each of these areas is discussed below in terms
of ownership, objectives, proposed restoration/enhancement, land protection methods, scheduling,
funding, and enforcement.
The Reserve
The Reserve will consist primarily of existing wetlands (including the Tamarack Swamp) and forests
(including Maple-Basswood Forest).
Ownership & Objectives
The areas identified on the Stonegate Preliminary Plat as “Reserve” will be owned by the Stonegate
HOA. The edges of these areas will be marked clearly in the field with permanent MCWD
conservation signage. The objective for the Reserve is to retain or improve the existing natural
resource values and ecosystem functions of these areas.
Proposed Landscape Conditions
The Reserve areas will remain much as they are today, except that the Stonegate HOA and/or
MCWD may conduct ecological enhancement or management activities to improve their ecosystem
functions in the future.
Land Protection Methods & Schedule
The Reserve will be protected by the conservation easement, which will be held by the MCWD prior
to initiation of the Phase of site development in which the Reserve area is located. Per the easement
requirements, the MCWD will perform, at a minimum, annual monitoring inspections of the
easement to ensure compliance with the easement, identify and violations or concerns, and take
necessary regulatory action to rectify any issues. No schedule is proposed for ecological
enhancement or management activities within the Reserve; however, these wetland and forest areas
will benefit from the restoration and management activities that will occur in the Restoration Area.
Land Protection Funding
Through its holding of the conservation easement, the MCWD has accepted responsibility for
funding perpetual monitoring of the easement. Ecological enhancement or ongoing management is
not scheduled for the Reserve; therefore, land protection funding is not required for this area.
Land Protection Enforcement
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 10
Because the Reserve is covered by the MCWD-held conservation easement, all easement
requirements will be ensured by the MCWD’s annual monitoring and regulatory authority.
Restoration Area
Restoration Areas will consist primarily of prairie and wetlands, which will be actively restored or
enhanced as diverse native plant communities.
Ownership & Objectives
The areas identified on the Stonegate Preliminary Plat as “Restoration Area” will be owned by the
Stonegate HOA. The edges of these areas will be marked clearly in the field with permanent
MCWD conservation signage. The objectives for the site’s Restoration Area are:
1.Convert agricultural fields and degraded wetlands to relatively large blocks of native habitat
(primarily prairies and wetlands) for their ecosystem services and for the enjoyment of
residents. The existing agricultural wetlands near the center of the site will be enlarged,
restoring a larger, historical wetland complex.
2.Provide naturalized stormwater treatment of the development’s runoff through volume, rate,
and water quality management. The proposed restored prairies, native-vegetated swales, dry
creek bed, infiltration areas, treatment forebays, and stormwater ponds will promote volume
and runoff reduction (through infiltration and other practices, where feasible), rate control,
and effective nutrient removal.
3.Provide a limited, passive recreational, natural surface trail system for residents of Stonegate
to experience and enjoy the site’s Conservation Area.
4.Provide a 2-acre passive park area (consisting of shortgrass prairie or meadow) for residents
of Stonegate to experience and enjoy.
5.Provide a 2-acre low-maintenance grass park area for residents of Stonegate to gather and
engage in casual recreation, such as Frisbee.
Proposed Landscape Conditions
The Stonegate Restoration Area (currently dominated by agricultural fields) will be actively restored
to a mosaic of regionally-appropriate native landscapes dominated by prairie and interspersed with a
variety of wetlands. Ecological restoration of these areas will entail eradication of existing, primarily
invasive and weedy vegetation, soil preparation, and seeding and/or planting of appropriate native
species. Initial implementation costs to complete this effort are estimated at approximately $125,000.
The Restoration Area’s ecological restoration and enhancement zones are illustrated in Exhibit 1.
Minnesota State Native Seed Mixes (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/native_vegetation/seedmix-
summary.pdf) or comparably diverse native seed mixes will be used in restoration areas. Existing
erosion features in the site’s Restoration Area, such as some of the site’s existing drainageways, will
be re-graded to blend naturally with the surrounding landscape and will be stabilized during
restoration/enhancement activities.
Land Protection Methods & Schedule
As its owner, the Stonegate HOA will be responsible for the ecological enhancement, restoration,
operations and maintenance of the site’s Restoration Area. The MCWD will hold a conservation
easement over these areas. Consequently, the MCWD may also contribute to restoration and
management of the Restoration Area, which will be determined prior to completion of the Final
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 11
Land Stewardship Plan. An Ecological Restoration and Management Plan (ERMP) will be prepared
for each Final Plat Phase of the project, and PRDC will share the ERMPs with the MCWD once
completed. The ERMPs will outline in detail the steps necessary to enhance, restore, and manage
the proposed native landscapes. More specifically, the ERMPs will include an implementation
phasing strategy and methods to accomplish:
xRemoval of invasive species;
xEarthwork and grading for restoration and ecological stormwater management areas;
xSoil preparation for seeding and planting;
xInstallation of native vegetation, including seed mixes and live plant schedules for each
restoration zone;
xEstablishment maintenance for the first three years of restoration; and
xLong-term management.
Native plant communities are low-maintenance—not no-maintenance–landscapes, so restoration
and enhancement, initial establishment maintenance, and perpetual stewardship will be required to
sustain the conservation values of these areas. Table 1 summarizes the anticipated three years of
initial restoration, enhancement, and establishment tasks for the site’s Restoration Area in Phase 1.
Table 1. Anticipated Tasks and Schedule for Initial Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment
Notes: Q = quarter of year
Perpetual management will be essential to maintaining the composition, structure, and function of
healthy native ecosystems throughout the Restoration Area. Perpetual management typically
includes:
xControl of weeds and invasive vegetation with spot herbicide treatments;
xPrescribed burning of prairie, savanna, and wetland areas;
xRemedial or enhancement seeding or planting; and
GeneralTaskDescription/Subtask
Year1
(2015)
Year2
(2016)
Year3
(2017)Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4WeedControl
(siteprepandcontrol)
Covercrop,spotspray,broadcastherbicide,
wickapplyherbicide&spotmow
Prescribedburn(ifusedforsiteprep)
Seeding&Planting
Installnativeseed(wheresiteprepcomplete)
Installnativetrees&shrubs(wheresiteprep
complete)
Brushing
Cut&stumptreatinvasive woodyvegetation
BrushingFollowͲUp
FoliarͲsprayherbicideforinvasivewoody
vegetation
PrescribedBurnPrescribedburn(wherefuelissufficientand
burnwarranted)
EcologicalMonitoring&
Reporting
Assess&documentsite conditions&prepare
summaryreport
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 12
xMonitoring and reporting.
Table 2 presents the anticipated perpetual management schedule for the site, all phases.
Table 2. Perpetual Management Schedule
PlantCommunityType
TaskFrequency(onceeveryXyears)
Prescribed
Burning
WeedControl
(Spot
Herbicide)
Remedial
Seeding/Planting
Monitoring
&Reporting
Forest5Ͳ103Ͳ451
Savanna3Ͳ41Ͳ23Ͳ51
Shrubland3Ͳ52Ͳ351
Prairie2Ͳ31Ͳ33Ͳ51
Wetland2Ͳ31Ͳ23Ͳ51
Notes: Schedule assumes that prescribed burning will be employed as a restoration and management technique. If prescribed
burning is not employed, haying should be used in prairie areas to remove accumulating plant material.
Land Protection Funding
Ecological restoration and enhancement requires a substantial initial investment, followed by
significantly reduced, but perpetual, annual stewardship costs to address operations and maintenance
needs. PRDC will identify and hire a qualified ecological contractor to complete the initial
restoration, enhancement, and establishment tasks proposed for the site’s Restoration Area in Phase
1. Initial restoration, enhancement, and establishment is anticipated to take approximately three
years (2015-2017) for Phase 1 (see Table 1).
Following initial restoration, enhancement, and establishment, the average annual perpetual
management cost for the entire site’s Restoration Area in Phase 1 is estimated to be $300-450 per
acre. Management staffing will be provided by a qualified ecological contractor selected and
compensated by the Stonegate HOA, MCWD, or some combination of both. Annual HOA dues
(paid by Stonegate residents) will be supplemented by PRDC (as necessary) and the MCWD (if
applicable) to ensure that an escrow account to fund perpetual stewardship totals no less than
$13,200 at the onset of the perpetual stewardship period (beginning in 2018 for Phase 1). The
stewardship account will continue to be funded by annual HOA dues plus a real-estate transaction
fee (estimated at $500), which will provide additional funds to the account each time a property
within the development is sold. PRDC, with input from MCWD, will complete a Final Land
Stewardship Plan for each Phase of the Stonegate development, and the annual stewardship costs
will be further refined in each phase to ensure adequate funds are available to fulfill the
commitments of the LSP.
Land Protection Enforcement
Because the Restoration Area will be within the MCWD-held conservation easement, all easement
requirements will be enforced by the MCWD’s annual monitoring and regulatory authority. MCWD
staff will conduct annual inspections of the conservation easement to document site conditions and
ensure the conservation values of the easement are being upheld. In the event that issues or a
violation are identified, the MCWD will immediately notify the Stonegate HOA, which will take
prompt action to resolve any issues. The HOA will be required to maintain a General Liability
Stonegate Preliminary Plat –Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan 13
insurance policy that will cover all Conservation Areas owned by the Stonegate HOA. PRDC and
MCWD have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with regard to the conservation
easement, and the MCWD is in agreement with this Preliminary Land Stewardship Plan, insurance
coverage, and perpetual stewardship and funding of the conservation easement.
PRDC recognizes that in the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas, common areas
and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of
the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in coordination with the holder of the conservation
easement (MCWD), may serve written notice upon such fee holder setting forth the manner in
which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice
shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be
made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the fee holder, or any successor
organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the
right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by
the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common
areas and facilities.
Passive Recreation Area
Stonegate’s 4-acre Passive Recreation Area consists of a half-moon-shaped area in the northern
portion of the development (Exhibit 1). This area, proposed to be divided roughly in half by a
natural surface trail, will provide a 2-acre passive park area of shortgrass prairie or meadow on the
southwest side of the trail, and a 2-acre low-maintenance grass park area on the northeast side of the
trail. These areas will provide opportunities for residents to gather and engage in casual outdoor
interactions, including passive recreation. The development’s dry creek bed will meander through
these areas, providing additional character and interest. Native perennial plantings will buffer the
dry creek bed, and native landscaping will further enhance this gathering space.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Stonegate conservation development complies with the City of Medina’s
Conservation Design District requirements, and will serve as a model standard for future
conservation developments in the City and region. The implementation and perpetual management
of the project—as ensured by the MCWD-held conservation easement—will result in a high quality
development, in which quality homes, valuable community amenities, and enhanced ecological
functions all work together and create a beautiful, livable place.
Appendix A. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Database Report +LVWRU\$UFKLWHFWXUH,QYHQWRU\3523(57<1$0($''5(667ZS5DQJH6HF4XDUWHUV86*65HSRUW15+3&()'2(,QYHQWRU\1XPEHU&2817< +HQQHSLQ&,7<72:16+,3 2URQRKRXVH+LJKZD\6(1:6:([FHOVLRU[[ + +(25&EDUQWK$YH16(1(6:2URQR[[ + +(25&7XHVGD\)HEUXDU\ 3DJHRI
Passive
Recreation
Area
0 400 800200
Feet ±
Data Sources:
- 2010 FSA Aerial Orthophoto
AES Job Number: 14-1069
Filename: Stonegate_LSP_draft_2015-05-07
Date: 5/7/15
21938 Mushtown Road
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952-447-1919
www.appliedeco.com
Exhibit 1.
Stonegate
Draft Preliminary
Land Stewardship Plan
Proposed Conditions
Reserve
Restoration Area
Road and ROW
Community Recreation Area
Wetland Boundary
Dry Creek Bed
Stormwater Management Area
Private Lot Line
Wetland Buffer
Impacted Wetland
&216(59$7,21($6(0(17
/HJDO'HVFULSWLRQRI3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\ >,16(57@
7KLVLVD&216(59$7,21($6(0(17JUDQWHGE\3URSHUW\5HVRXUFHV'HYHORSPHQW
&RUSRUDWLRQ,QFD0LQQHVRWD&RUSRUDWLRQDQG6WRQHJDWH)DUP,QFD0LQQHVRWD&RUSRUDWLRQ
³2ZQHU´ WRWKH0LQQHKDKD&UHHN:DWHUVKHG'LVWULFWDJRYHUQPHQWDOERG\FUHDWHGXQGHU
0LQQHVRWD6WDWXWHV&KDSWHU' WKH³'LVWULFW´
5(&,7$/6
$2:1(57KH2ZQHULVWKHVROH2ZQHULQIHHVLPSOHRIWKHUHDOSURSHUW\LQWKH&LW\RI
0HGLQD+HQQHSLQ&RXQW\0LQQHVRWDOHJDOO\GHVFULEHGDVIROORZV WKH³3URWHFWHG
3URSHUW\´
287/276$%&DQG'6721(*$7(),567$'',7,21 ³5HVWRUDWLRQ$UHD
$´
287/276()*DQG+6721(*$7(6(&21'$'',7,21 ³5HVWRUDWLRQ
$UHD%´
287/27,6721(*$7(6(&21'$'',7,21 ³5HVHUYH$UHD$´
7KHJHQHUDOORFDWLRQRIZKLFKDUHVKRZQRQWKHVLWHPDSDWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW$
WKH³6LWH0DS´
%3527(&7('3523(57<7KH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\FRQWDLQVDSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHV
RID;;;DFUH7DPDUDFNVZDPSDSXEOLFZDWHUXQGHU0LQQHVRWD6WDWXWHV*
DQGFRQWDLQVDZHWODQGIORRGSODLQDQGPDWXUHWUHHFDQRS\7KHUHPDLQLQJDSSUR[LPDWHO\
DFUHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\LVSULPDULO\YDFDQWDQGKDVEHHQXVHGIRUDJULFXOWXUDO
SXUSRVHV
&0,11(+$+$&5((.:$7(56+('',675,&77KH0LQQHKDKD&UHHN
:DWHUVKHG'LVWULFWLVDJRYHUQPHQWDOERG\FUHDWHGDQGRSHUDWHGH[FOXVLYHO\IRUWKH
SXUSRVHVRIZDWHUUHVRXUFHSURWHFWLRQFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGPDQDJHPHQWLQFOXGLQJWKH
SURWHFWLRQFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIUHODWHGODQGV7KH'LVWULFWLVDQ
RUJDQL]DWLRQTXDOLILHGWRKROGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWVXQGHU0LQQHVRWDODZDQG6HFWLRQ
K RIWKH,QWHUQDO5HYHQXH&RGHDQGUHODWHGUHJXODWLRQV
'&216(59$7,219$/8(67KH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\ZLOOEHVXEMHFWWRWKHIROORZLQJ
,QFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHSKDVHGGHYHORSPHQWRIDGMRLQLQJUHVLGHQWLDOORWV ³/RWV´
DQGVWUHHWV WKH³5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\´ 2ZQHUZLOOFRPSOHWHWKHSKDVHG
SUHVHUYDWLRQUHVWRUDWLRQRUH[SDQVLRQRIWKHQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG
3URSHUW\SXUVXDQWWRWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ'HVLJQ3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQW ³&'
38'´ 'HYHORSPHQW$JUHHPHQWGDWHG E\DQGEHWZHHQWKH
2ZQHUDQGWKH&LW\RI0HGLQD DQGWKH/DQG6WHZDUGVKLS3ODQ ³/63´ GDWHG
SUHSDUHGE\$SSOLHG(FRORJLFDO6HUYLFHV,QFIRUWKH2ZQHU
WRJHWKHUWKH³&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQ´ &ROOHFWLYHO\WKHQDWXUDOVFHQLFDQGRSHQ
VSDFHTXDOLWLHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\DVHVWDEOLVKHGLQWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQ
FRQVWLWXWHLWV³&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHV´7KHDFWLYLWLHVLGHQWLILHGLQWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ
3ODQDUHVXPPDUL]HGDVWKHIROORZLQJ
L2ZQHUZLOOFRPSOHWHWKHSKDVHGUHVWRUDWLRQDQGH[SDQVLRQRIQDWXUDO
UHVRXUFHVLQ5HVWRUDWLRQ$UHD$DQG5HVWRUDWLRQ$UHD%DVVHWIRUWKKHUHLQ
LL2ZQHUZLOOSURWHFWWKHH[LVWLQJTXDOLW\DQGFRQGLWLRQRI5HVHUYH$UHD$1R
GLUHFWDFWLYLW\ZLOOEHFRQGXFWHGE\WKH2ZQHULQWKHVHDUHDV KRZHYHU
LQGLUHFWO\WKHUHVWRUDWLRQDFWLYLWLHVRIDGMDFHQWDUHDVZLOORIIHUDGGLWLRQDO
SURWHFWLRQRIWKHH[LVWLQJQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHV
2ZQHULVREOLJDWHGWRFRPSOHWHWKHSODQQHGUHVWRUDWLRQDQGH[SDQVLRQRIQDWXUDO
UHVRXUFHVLQ5HVWRUDWLRQ$UHDV$DQG%DVGHWDLOHGLQWKH/63
(DFKRIWKHSDUWLHVKDVDFRS\RIWKH/63+ROGHULQWHQGVWRXVHWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ
3ODQLQPRQLWRULQJVXEVHTXHQWXVHVDQGLQHQIRUFLQJWKHWHUPVRIWKLV&RQVHUYDWLRQ
(DVHPHQW
7KHVH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVKDYHQRWEHHQDQGDUHQRWOLNHO\WREHDGYHUVHO\
DIIHFWHGWRDQ\VXEVWDQWLDOH[WHQWE\WKHFRQWLQXHGXVHRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\DV
GHVFULEHGDERYHRUDVDXWKRUL]HGEHORZRUE\WKHXVHDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRIWKH
H[LVWLQJLPSURYHPHQWVRQWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\RUFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKRVH
VWUXFWXUHVDQGLPSURYHPHQWVWKDWDUHDXWKRUL]HGEHORZ
(&216(59$7,2132/,&<3UHVHUYDWLRQRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\ZLOOIXUWKHUWKRVH
JRYHUQPHQWDOSROLFLHVHVWDEOLVKHGE\WKHIROORZLQJ
0LQQHVRWD6WDWXWHV&KDSWHU&ZKLFKUHFRJQL]HVWKHLPSRUWDQFHRISULYDWH
FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVE\DXWKRUL]LQJFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWVIRUWKHSURWHFWLRQRIQDWXUDO
VFHQLFRURSHQVSDFHYDOXHVRIUHDOSURSHUW\DVVXULQJLWVDYDLODELOLW\IRUDJULFXOWXUH
IRUHVWUHFUHDWLRQDORURSHQVSDFHXVHSURWHFWLQJQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGPDLQWDLQLQJRU
HQKDQFLQJDLURUZDWHUTXDOLW\
7KH0HWURSROLWDQ6XUIDFH:DWHU$FW0LQQHVRWD6WDWXWHV6HFWLRQ%ZKLFK
VSHFLILFDOO\LGHQWLILHVWKHLPSRUWDQFHRISURWHFWLQJWKHQDWXUDOVXUIDFHZDWHUVDQG
JURXQGZDWHUVRIWKH0HWURSROLWDQ$UHD
0LQQHVRWD6WDWXWHV6HFWLRQ'ZKLFKSURYLGHVIRUWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQWRI
ZDWHUVKHGGLVWULFWVWRFRQVHUYHWKHQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVRIWKH6WDWH
0LQQHKDKD&UHHN:DWHUVKHG'LVWULFW:DWHU0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ8SGDWH DV
DPHQGHG ZKLFKLQFOXGHVWKHIROORZLQJSROLFLHVSURJUDPVDQGSURMHFWVLPSOHPHQWLQJ
WKH0HWURSROLWDQ6XUIDFH:DWHU$FW
>LQVHUW@
)&216(59$7,21,17(177KH2ZQHUDQGWKH'LVWULFWDUHFRPPLWWHGWRSURWHFWLQJ
DQGSUHVHUYLQJWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\LQSHUSHWXLW\
$FFRUGLQJO\LWLVWKHLULQWHQWWRFUHDWHDQGLPSOHPHQWDFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWWKDWLV
ELQGLQJLQSHUSHWXLW\XSRQWKH2ZQHUDQGDOOIXWXUHRZQHUVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\DQG
WKDWFRQYH\VWRWKH'LVWULFWWKHULJKWWRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRI
WKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\IRUWKHEHQHILWRIWKLVJHQHUDWLRQDQGJHQHUDWLRQVWRFRPH
&219(<$1&(2)&216(59$7,21($6(0(17
3XUVXDQWWRWKHODZVRIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWDDQGLQSDUWLFXODU0LQQHVRWD6WDWXWHV&KDSWHU&
DQGLQFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHIDFWVUHFLWHGDERYHDQGWKHPXWXDOFRYHQDQWVFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQDQGLQ
IXUWKHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHVXPRIRQHGROODUDQGRWKHUYDOXDEOHFRQVLGHUDWLRQWKH2ZQHU
KHUHE\FRQYH\VWRWKH'LVWULFWDSHUSHWXDOFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWRYHUWKDWSRUWLRQRIWKH
3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\GHOLQHDWHGDQGODEHOHGDV³(DVHPHQW$UHD$´RQWKHVLWHVXUYH\DWWDFKHG
KHUHWRDV$WWDFKPHQW%DQGLQFRUSRUDWHGKHUHLQ)XUWKHUWKH2ZQHULQWHQGVWRFRQYH\WRWKH
'LVWULFWDSHUSHWXDOFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWRYHUWKDWSRUWLRQRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\GHOLQHDWHG
DQGODEHOHGDV³(DVHPHQW$UHD%´DWDIXWXUHGDWHWREHGHWHUPLQHGZKHQWKH2ZQHULVJUDQWHG
DQ\)LQDO3ODWRIDQ\SKDVHLQWKH6WRQHJDWH6HFRQG$GGLWLRQ,WLVWKHLQWHQWRIWKH2ZQHUWKDW
VXFKFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWIRU(DVHPHQW$UHD%ZLOOEHLQWKHVDPHIRUPDVWKLVFRQVHUYDWLRQ
HDVHPHQW7KLVFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWFRQVLVWVRIWKHIROORZLQJULJKWVWHUPVDQGUHVWULFWLRQV
DSSOLFDEOHZLWKLQ(DVHPHQW$UHD$ WKH³(DVHPHQW´
&216(59$7,21385326(7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLV(DVHPHQWLVWRSUHVHUYHDQG
SURWHFWLQSHUSHWXLW\WKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\E\FRQILQLQJWKH
GHYHORSPHQWPDQDJHPHQWDQGXVHRIWKH(DVHPHQWDUHDWRDFWLYLWLHVWKDWDUHFRQVLVWHQW
ZLWKWKHSUHVHUYDWLRQRIWKHVH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVE\SURKLELWLQJDFWLYLWLHVWKDW
VLJQLILFDQWO\LPSDLURULQWHUIHUHZLWKWKHVH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVDQGE\SURYLGLQJIRU
UHPHGLHVLQWKHHYHQWRIDQ\YLRODWLRQRIWKLV(DVHPHQW
7KHWHUPVRIWKLV(DVHPHQWDUHVSHFLILFDOO\LQWHQGHGWRSURYLGHDVLJQLILFDQWSXEOLF
EHQHILWLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHSURWHFWLRQRIZDWHUTXDOLW\SURWHFWLRQRIKDELWDW
FRQQHFWLRQVDQGLPSURYHPHQWWRWKHVXUIDFHZDWHUERGLHVSDUWLFXODUO\WKRVHLQWKH
3DLQWHU&UHHN6XEZDWHUVKHGDQGWKHIDFLOLWDWLRQRISXEOLFHGXFDWLRQDODQGUHFUHDWLRQDO
XVHE\WKHORFDOFRPPXQLW\FRQVLVWHQWWKHUHZLWKDOOSXUVXDQWWRWKHSXEOLFSROLFLHVVHW
IRUWKDERYH
$&7,9,7<5(675,&7,21621($6(0(17$5($ 7KH2ZQHUDQGDOOSHUVRQV
DFWLQJXQGHUDXWKRULW\RUFRQWURORIWKH2ZQHU DOOOHVVHHVDJHQWVSHUVRQDO
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVVXFFHVVRUVDQGDVVLJQV DQGDOORWKHUSDUWLHVHQWLWOHGWRSRVVHVVRUXVHWKH
3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\DUHVXEMHFWWRWKHIROORZLQJWHUPVUHJDUGLQJXVHRIWKH(DVHPHQW
H[FHSWIRUDIILUPDWLYHULJKWVUHWDLQHGE\WKH'LVWULFWXQGHU6HFWLRQRIWKLV(DVHPHQWIRU
WKHSURWHFWLRQDQGHQKDQFHPHQWRIWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\
3HUPLWWHG8VHV/LPLWHG3HUPLWWHGXVHVRQWKH(DVHPHQWDUHOLPLWHGWRWKRVHXVHV
VSHFLILFDOO\DQGH[SOLFLWO\SHUPLWWHGLQWKLVFRQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQWDQGWKH/63DV
LGHQWLILHGLQ6HFWLRQ'
,QGXVWULDODQG&RPPHUFLDO$FWLYLW\1RLQGXVWULDORUFRPPHUFLDOXVHRIWKH
(DVHPHQWLVDOORZHG
5LJKWRI:D\1RULJKWRIZD\VKDOOEHJUDQWHGDFURVVWKH(DVHPHQWDUHDH[FHSW
WKHULJKWRIZD\VKRZQRQ([KLELW$ZKLFKLVSODQQHGWRVHUYHWKH/RWVLQ
FRQMXQFWLRQZLWKDQ\RWKHUFRPPHUFLDOXVHRUUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRIRWKHU
ODQGQRWSURWHFWHGE\WKLV(DVHPHQWRUWKHHDVHPHQWFRQWHPSODWHGDV(DVHPHQW
$UHD%
0LQLQJ1RPLQLQJGULOOLQJH[SORULQJIRURUUHPRYLQJRIDQ\PLQHUDOVIURPWKH
(DVHPHQWDUHDLVDOORZHG
6XEGLYLVLRQ7KH(DVHPHQWPD\QRWEHGLYLGHGVXEGLYLGHGRUSDUWLWLRQHG
:DWHU1RDFWLYLW\VKDOOEHFRQGXFWHGRQWKH(DVHPHQWWKDWZRXOGSROOXWHDOWHU
GHSOHWHRUH[WUDFWVXUIDFHZDWHURUJURXQGZDWHU FDXVHHURVLRQ RUEHGHWULPHQWDO
WRZDWHUTXDOLW\H[FHSWDVIROORZV
D$FWLYLWLHVDSSURYHGLQZULWLQJE\'LVWULFWWKDWUHVWRUHRUHQKDQFHZLOGOLIH
KDELWDWRUQDWLYHELRORJLFDOFRPPXQLWLHVRUWKDWLPSURYHRUHQKDQFHWKH
IXQFWLRQDQGTXDOLW\RIH[LVWLQJZHWODQGVDQGVXUIDFHZDWHUVRQDQGRIIRIWKH
SURSHUW\
E$FWLYLWLHVXQGHUWDNHQLQWKHH[HUFLVHRIULJKWVUHVHUYHGXQGHU6HFWLRQRIWKLV
(DVHPHQWLIDQ\WKDWPLJKWFDXVHHURVLRQRULPSDFWZDWHUTXDOLW\RQD
WHPSRUDU\EDVLVSURYLGHGWKDWDOOUHDVRQDEOHHURVLRQDQGVHGLPHQWFRQWURO
PHDVXUHVDUHXQGHUWDNHQWROLPLWWKHLPSDFWVRIWKRVHDFWLYLWLHV$OODFWLYLWLHV
SHUPLWWHGKHUHXQGHUUHPDLQVXEMHFWWRWKHSHUPLWWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH
'LVWULFWDQGRWKHUJRYHUQPHQWDOERGLHV
'XPSLQJ1RWUDVKQRQFRPSRVWDEOHJDUEDJHKD]DUGRXVRUWR[LFVXEVWDQFHVRU
XQVLJKWO\PDWHULDOPD\EHGXPSHGRUSODFHGRQWKH(DVHPHQWDUHD&RPSRVWLQJ
RIZDVWHYHJHWDWLRQVKDOOEHSHUPLWWHGLQDGHVLJQDWHGFRPSRVWDUHDIRUWKH
5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\DVLGHQWLILHGRQWKH6LWH3ODQ
6WRUDJH7DQNV7KHUHVKDOOEHQRSODFHPHQWRIXQGHUJURXQGVWRUDJHWDQNVRQLQ
RUXQGHUWKH(DVHPHQWDUHD
$JULFXOWXUDO8VH1RDJULFXOWXUDOXVHRUFXOWLYDWLRQLVDOORZHGZLWKLQWKH
(DVHPHQWH[FHSWDVSHUPLWWHGXQGHUVXEVHFWLRQEHORZ
8WLOLWLHV/LPLWHGXWLOLWLHVDUHEHSHUPLWWHGZLWKLQWKH(DVHPHQWDVVXEVHTXHQWO\
GHVFULEHG
D 7KH2ZQHUUHVHUYHVWKHULJKWWRXVHWKH(DVHPHQWIRUVLWLQJRI6HFRQGDU\
VHSWLFDUHDVIRULQGLYLGXDOVHSWLFV\VWHPVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH/RWVFRQWDLQHG
ZLWKLQWKH5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\
E7KH'LVWULFWXQGHUVWDQGVWKDWDFWLYHDQGSDVVLYHVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQWDQG
WUHDWPHQWIURPWKH5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\ZLOOEHORFDWHGZLWKLQWKH
(DVHPHQWDQGDUHSHUPLWWHG7KH2ZQHUUHVHUYHVWKHULJKWWRXVHWKH
(DVHPHQWIRUWKHVHSXUSRVHVDQGVXFKSODQVZLOOEHGHWDLOHGLQWKH&'38'
7KH'LVWULFWDFNQRZOHGJHVDQGDFFHSWVWKDWSURSHUPDLQWHQDQFHDQG
PDQDJHPHQWRIWKHVHDUHDVLVUHTXLUHGDQGWKDWWKH2ZQHUZLOORFFDVLRQDOO\
SHUIRUPZRUNRQWKHVHDUHDV
F7KHH[LVWLQJSRZHUOLQHDQGXQGHUJURXQGSLSHOLQHZKLFKELVHFWVWKH(DVHPHQW
LVSHUPLWWHGWRUHPDLQEXWPD\QRWEHH[SDQGHG 1RWH 0D\QHHGWRGLVFXVV
WKLVZLWKUHVSHFWLYHHDVHPHQWKROGHUV
G1RRWKHUXWLOLWLHVDUHSHUPLWWHGLQWKH(DVHPHQW
5HFUHDWLRQDO8VH2ZQHUUHWDLQVWKHULJKWRIWKH5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\WRDFFHVV
WKH(DVHPHQWDUHDVIRUUHFUHDWLRQDOXVHDVGHVFULEHG
D7UDLOV2ZQHUPD\HVWDEOLVKDQGPDLQWDLQSULYDWHWXUIWUDLOVIRUILUHEUHDNV
ZDONLQJFURVVFRXQWU\VNLLQJDQGRWKHUQRQPRWRUL]HGUHFUHDWLRQDODFWLYLWLHV
RQRUDFURVVWKH(DVHPHQWWKDWKDYHEHHQDSSURYHGE\WKH'LVWULFW7KH
'LVWULFWVDSSURYDORIWKHWUDLODUHDVVKDOOQRWEHXQUHDVRQDEO\ZLWKKHOG
E3DVVLYH5HFUHDWLRQ$UHDV2ZQHUPD\HVWDEOLVKDQGPDLQWDLQDQ2SHQ6SDFH
LGHQWLILHGDV2XWORWV'DQG(WREHXVHGIRUFRPPXQLW\JDWKHULQJV3HUPLWWHG
DFWLYLWLHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH3DVVLYH5HFUHDWLRQ$UHDZLOOEHDSSURYHGE\WKH
'LVWULFWDQGVXFKDFWLYLWLHVVKDOOQRWDGYHUVHO\DIIHFWWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHV
RIWKH(DVHPHQW
)HQFHV1RIHQFHPD\EHORFDWHGRUFRQVWUXFWHGZLWKLQWKH(DVHPHQWXQOHVV
DJUHHGWRE\ERWKSDUWLHV
6WUXFWXUHVDQG,PSURYHPHQWV1RWHPSRUDU\RUSHUPDQHQWEXLOGLQJVWUXFWXUH
VLJQRURWKHULPSURYHPHQWRIDQ\NLQGPD\EHSODFHGRUFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKH
(DVHPHQWH[FHSWWKRVHQRWHGLQWKHDSSURYHG&'38'
9HJHWDWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW9HJHWDWLRQPD\EHDOWHUHGZLWKLQWKH(DVHPHQWRQO\WR
PDLQWDLQUHVWRUHRUHQKDQFHKDELWDWIRUZLOGOLIHDQGQDWLYHELRORJLFDO
FRPPXQLWLHV SUHYHQWRUFRQWUROLQVHFWVQR[LRXVZHHGVLQYDVLYHYHJHWDWLRQRU
GLVHDVH LPSURYHWKHZDWHUTXDOLW\RIWKH7DPDUDFN RULPSURYHWKHZDWHUTXDOLW\
RIRWKHUVXUIDFHZDWHUERGLHVRUJURXQGZDWHULQWKH3DLQWHU&UHHN6XEZDWHUVKHG
$Q\VXFKDFWLYLW\PXVWEHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDSODQDSSURYHGE\WKH'LVWULFWLQ
ZULWLQJLIWKHDFWLYLW\LVQRWH[SOLFLWO\VWDWHGDQGDSSURYHGLQWKH/63
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJLQDQHPHUJHQF\VLWXDWLRQDFWLRQPD\EHWDNHQDVQHFHVVDU\WR
SUHYHQWRUDEDWHILUHRUDQ\RWKHUFRQGLWLRQFDXVLQJRUWKUHDWHQLQJLQMXU\RU
VXEVWDQWLDOSURSHUW\GDPDJH
7RSRJUDSK\DQG6XUIDFH$OWHUDWLRQ1RDOWHUDWLRQRUFKDQJHLQWKHWRSRJUDSK\RU
VXUIDFHRIWKH(DVHPHQWLVDOORZHGDIWHUWKHDFWLYLWLHVLGHQWLILHGZLWKLQWKH/63
DUHFRPSOHWHG7KLVLQFOXGHVQRGLWFKLQJGUDLQLQJGLNLQJILOOLQJH[FDYDWLRQ
GUHGJLQJPLQLQJGULOOLQJRUUHPRYDORIVRLOVDQGJUDYHOURFNPLQHUDOVRURWKHU
PDWHULDOV
9HKLFOHV1RPRWRUL]HGYHKLFOHPD\EHRSHUDWHGZLWKLQWKH(DVHPHQWH[FHSWDV
UHTXLUHGWRSHUIRUPPDLQWHQDQFHDQGPDQDJHPHQWDVLGHQWLILHGZLWKLQWKH/63
&KHPLFDOV([FHSWDVDXWKRUL]HGSXUVXDQWWRVXEVHFWLRQDERYHZLWKLQWKH
(DVHPHQWWKHUHVKDOOEHQRXVHRISHVWLFLGHVRUELRFLGHV7KLVVKDOOQRWLQFOXGH
LQVHFWLFLGHVRURWKHUPRVTXLWRFRQWUROPHDVXUHV
$GGLWLRQDO8VHV$Q\DGGLWLRQDOXVHVQRWLGHQWLILHGLQWKLV(DVHPHQWVKDOOUHTXLUH
WKH2ZQHUWRREWDLQZULWWHQDSSURYDOIURPWKH'LVWULFW7KLVZLOODOORZWKH
'LVWULFWWRUHYLHZDQGVWXG\DQ\SURSRVHGXVHDQGGHWHUPLQHLIWKHXVHLV
FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKLVFRQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQW)RUDQ\VXFKXVHWKH2ZQHUVKDOO
VXEPLWDUHTXHVWLQZULWLQJWRWKH'LVWULFWDWOHDVWVL[W\ GD\VSULRUWRWKH
SURSRVHGGDWHRIFRPPHQFHPHQWRIWKHXVHLQTXHVWLRQ7KHUHTXHVWVKDOOLQFOXGH
DSURIHVVLRQDOUHSRUWDQGVKDOOVHWRXWWKHXVHIRUZKLFKDSSURYDOLVVRXJKWLWV
GHVLJQDQGORFDWLRQWKHLPSDFWRIWKHSURSRVHGXVHRQWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRI
WKH(DVHPHQWDQGRWKHUPDWHULDOLQIRUPDWLRQLQVXIILFLHQWGHWDLOWRDOORZWKH
'LVWULFWWRPDNHDQLQIRUPHGMXGJPHQW7KH'LVWULFWVKDOOQRWLI\WKH2ZQHULQ
ZULWLQJRILWVGHFLVLRQZLWKLQWKLUW\ GD\VRILWVUHFHLSWRI2ZQHU¶VUHTXHVW7KH
'LVWULFWPD\ZLWKKROGLWVDSSURYDORQO\XSRQDUHDVRQDEOHGHWHUPLQDWLRQE\LWWKDW
D WKHSURSRVHGXVHZRXOGEHLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKLVFRQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQW E
WKHSURSRVHGXVHLPSDLUVWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRIWKH(DVHPHQW F WKH
SURSRVHGXVHUHVXOWVLQYLRODWLRQRIDQDSSOLFDEOHODZRUUHJXODWLRQRU G WKH
'LVWULFWODFNVLQIRUPDWLRQLQVXIILFLHQWGHWDLOWRUHDFKDQLQIRUPHGMXGJHPHQWWKDW
WKHSURSRVHGXVHLVRULVQRWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKLV(DVHPHQW7KH'LVWULFWPD\
FRQGLWLRQLWVDSSURYDORQ2ZQHU¶VDFFHSWDQFHRIUHDVRQDEOHPRGLILFDWLRQVWKDW
ZRXOGPDNHWKHSURSRVHGXVHDVPRGLILHGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHSXUSRVHRIWKLV
(DVHPHQWDQGPDNHWKHSURSRVHGXVHVXFKWKDWLWGRHVQRWLPSDLUWKH
&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHV
5(6(59('5,*+767KH2ZQHUUHWDLQVDOOULJKWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKRZQHUVKLSDQGXVH
RIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\WKDWDUHQRWH[SUHVVO\UHVWULFWHGRUSURKLELWHGE\WKLV(DVHPHQW
+RZHYHUWKH2ZQHUPD\QRWH[HUFLVHWKHVHULJKWVLQDPDQQHUWKDWZRXOGDGYHUVHO\
LPSDFWWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\7KH2ZQHUPXVWJLYHQRWLFH
WRWKH'LVWULFWEHIRUHH[HUFLVLQJDQ\UHVHUYHGULJKWWKDWPLJKWKDYHDQDGYHUVHLPSDFWRQ
WKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\
5LJKWWR&RQYH\7KH2ZQHULQWHQGVWRFRQYH\IHHVLPSOHWLWOHWRWKH(DVHPHQW
$UHDWRWKH6WRQHJDWH+RPHRZQHUV$VVRFLDWLRQ,QFRQFHWKHGXWLHVRIWKH
2ZQHUDVLGHQWLILHGLQWKH/63DUHFRPSOHWHGRUDVPDQGDWHGE\WKH+2$¶V
%\ODZVDQG&RYHQDQWVZKLFKHYHURFFXUVILUVW$WVXFKWLPHRI&RQYH\DQFHWKH
+2$ZLOODVVXPHWKHGXWLHVRIWKH2ZQHUIRUSXUSRVHVRIWKLV(DVHPHQW6XFK
FRQYH\DQFHZLOOLQFOXGH
D$Q\FRQYH\DQFHRUHQFXPEUDQFHRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\LVVXEMHFWWRWKLV
(DVHPHQW
E7KH2ZQHUZLOOUHIHUHQFHRULQVHUWWKHWHUPVRIWKLV(DVHPHQWLQDQ\GHHGRU
RWKHUGRFXPHQWE\ZKLFKWKH2ZQHUFRQYH\VWLWOHWRDOORUDSRUWLRQRIWKH
3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\
F7KH2ZQHUZLOOUHIHUHQFHRULQVHUWWKHWHUPVRIWKLV(DVHPHQWZLWKLQWKH
+RPHRZQHUV$VVRFLDWLRQGRFXPHQWVDQG%\ODZV
G7KH2ZQHUZLOOQRWLI\WKH'LVWULFWRIDQ\FRQYH\DQFHZLWKLQILIWHHQ GD\V
DIWHUFORVLQJDQGZLOOSURYLGHWKH'LVWULFWZLWKWKHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVRIWKH
QHZRZQHUDQGDFRS\RIWKHGHHGWUDQVIHUULQJWLWOH
H7KHHQIRUFHDELOLW\RUYDOLGLW\RIWKLV(DVHPHQWZLOOQRWEHLPSDLUHGRUOLPLWHG
E\DQ\IDLOXUHRIWKH2ZQHUWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKLVVXEVHFWLRQ
',675,&7¶65,*+76$1'5(0(',(6,QRUGHUWRDFFRPSOLVKWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLV
(DVHPHQWWKH'LVWULFWKDVWKHIROORZLQJULJKWVDQGUHPHGLHV7KH'LVWULFWPD\QRW
KRZHYHUH[HUFLVHWKHVHULJKWVLQDPDQQHUWKDWZRXOGDGYHUVHO\LPSDFWWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ
9DOXHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\
3UHVHUYHDQG3URWHFW&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHV7KHULJKWWRSUHVHUYHDQGSURWHFWWKH
FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\WKURXJKWKHULJKWVDQGUHPHGLHVVHW
IRUWKEHORZ
5LJKWWR(QWHU7KH'LVWULFWLWVDJHQWVDQGDXWKRUL]HGUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVPD\HQWHU
WKH(DVHPHQW$UHDDWUHDVRQDEOHWLPHVDQGLQDUHDVRQDEOHPDQQHUIRUWKHSXUSRVH
RIDQGPD\HQJDJHLQWKHIROORZLQJDFWLYLWLHV
D7RLQVSHFWWKH(DVHPHQWPRQLWRUFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHWHUPVRIWKLV(DVHPHQW
DQGHQIRUFHWKHWHUPVRIWKLV(DVHPHQW7KH'LVWULFWVKDOOQRWXQUHDVRQDEO\
LQWHUIHUHZLWKWKHOHJDODQGDSSURSULDWHXVHDQGTXLHWHQMR\PHQWRIWKH
(DVHPHQWE\WKH2ZQHUWKHRZQHUVDQGRFFXSDQWVRIWKH5HVLGHQWLDO
&RPPXQLW\ ³5HVLGHQWV´ 6WRQHJDWH+RPHRZQHUV$VVRFLDWLRQRUDQ\
VXFFHVVRUKRPHRZQHUVDVVRFLDWLRQ ³$VVRFLDWLRQ´ DQGDQ\SHUPLWWHGLQYLWHHV
RIWKRVHSHUVRQVFROOHFWLYHO\ ³3HUPLWWHG8VHUV´ VRORQJDVVXFKXVHLVLQD
PDQQHUFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHV7RIXUWKHUWKHSXUSRVHVDV
VHWRXWLQWKLV6HFWLRQ2ZQHUKHUHE\JUDQWVWRWKH'LVWULFWDSHUSHWXDOQRQ
H[FOXVLYHHDVHPHQWIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIDFFHVVWRWKH(DVHPHQWE\QHFHVVDU\
PHDQVRQRYHUDQGDFURVVDOOWUDLOVURDGVULJKWVRIZD\DQGSODWWHGGUDLQDJH
DQGXWLOLW\HDVHPHQWVZLWKLQWKH5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\
E7RVXUYH\RURWKHUZLVHPDUNWKHERXQGDULHVRIDOORUSDUWRIWKH(DVHPHQW
$Q\VXUYH\RUERXQGDU\GHPDUFDWLRQFRPSOHWHGXQGHUWKLVSURYLVLRQZLOOEH
DWWKH'LVWULFW¶VH[SHQVH
F7RPDNHVFLHQWLILFDQGHGXFDWLRQDOREVHUYDWLRQVDQGVWXGLHVDQGWDNHVDPSOHV
ZLWKLQWKH(DVHPHQWLQVXFKDPDQQHUDVZLOOQRWGLVWXUEWKHTXLHWHQMR\PHQW
RIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\
G7KHULJKWEXWQRWWKHREOLJDWLRQWRPDQDJHWKH(DVHPHQWVXEMHFWWRDSSOLFDEOH
ODZVDQGUHJXODWLRQVDQGWRXQGHUWDNHRQWKH(DVHPHQWDOODFWLRQVUHDVRQDEO\
QHFHVVDU\RUFRQYHQLHQWIRUPDQDJHPHQWSXUSRVHV6DLGPDQDJHPHQWPD\
FRQVLVWRIEXWQRWEHOLPLWHGWR YHJHWDWLYHPDLQWHQDQFHDQGPDQDJHPHQW
K\GURORJLFRUVRLOVPRGLILFDWLRQV ODQGDOWHUDWLRQDQGVWDELOL]DWLRQ LQVWDOODWLRQ
RILPSURYHPHQWVIRUZDWHUTXDOLW\DQGIORRGPDQDJHPHQWSXUSRVHVDVWKH
'LVWULFWGHWHUPLQHVWREHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVRIWKH
3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\DQGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDOOUHDVRQDEOHPHDVXUHVWR
PLQLPL]HWKHLPSDFWRIDQ\WHPSRUDU\GLVWXUEDQFHWRDGMDFHQWZHWODQGV
IHQFLQJRURWKHUPHDVXUHVWRSURWHFWWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVDJDLQVW
LQWHQWLRQDORUXQLQWHQWLRQDOLPSDFW DQGWKHLQVWDOODWLRQDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRI
HGXFDWLRQDORULQIRUPDWLRQDOVLJQDJH6XFKDFWLYLWLHVVKDOOEHVXEMHFWWR
GLVFXVVLRQDQGQHJRWLDWLRQVZLWKWKH2ZQHULIVXFKDFWLYLWLHVDUHGLIIHUHQW
WKDQWKRVHLGHQWLILHGZLWKLQWKH/63$Q\DFWLYLWLHVEH\RQGWKRVHLGHQWLILHGLQ
WKH/63VKDOOEHPHPRULDOL]HGLQDQDSSURSULDWHDJUHHPHQWEHWZHHQWKH
SDUWLHV
1RWKLQJLQWKLV6HFWLRQVKDOOEHFRQVWUXHGDV L DSXEOLFGHGLFDWLRQ RU LL D
JUDQWWRSHUVRQVRWKHUWKDQWKH'LVWULFWDQGWKH3HUPLWWHG8VHUVIRUWKHULJKWWR
HQWHURUXVHWKH(DVHPHQWDVSURYLGHGLQWKLV&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQW7KH
'LVWULFWVKDOOKDYHQRULJKWWRDXWKRUL]HDQ\SHUVRQWRHQWHULQWRWKH(DVHPHQW
H[FHSWIRUHQWU\IRUWKHSXUSRVHRIPRQLWRULQJWKHFRQGLWLRQDQGXVHIRUWKH
(DVHPHQWIRUWKHSXUSRVHRISHUIRUPLQJDQ\RIWKH'LVWULFW¶VULJKWVRUREOLJDWLRQV
XQGHUWKLV(DVHPHQW
5LJKWRI(QIRUFHPHQW7KH'LVWULFWPD\SUHYHQWRUUHPHG\DYLRODWLRQRIWKLV
(DVHPHQWWKURXJKMXGLFLDODFWLRQEURXJKWDJDLQVWWKHUHVSRQVLEOHSDUW\LQDQ\
FRXUWRIFRPSHWHQWMXULVGLFWLRQ
D 1RWLFH%HIRUHLQLWLDWLQJMXGLFLDODFWLRQDJDLQVWWKH2ZQHURIWKH3URWHFWHG
3URSHUW\WKH'LVWULFWZLOODGYLVHWKH2ZQHULQZULWLQJRIWKHDSSDUHQW
YLRODWLRQRUWKUHDWHQHGYLRODWLRQDQGDOORZDUHDVRQDEOHRSSRUWXQLW\WRFRQIHU
DQGUHVROYHWKHPDWWHUXQOHVVWKH'LVWULFWGHWHUPLQHVWKDWLPPHGLDWHMXGLFLDO
DFWLRQLVQHHGHGWRSUHYHQWRUPLWLJDWHGDPDJHWRWKH(DVHPHQW
E 5HPHGLHV5HPHGLHVDYDLODEOHWRWKH'LVWULFWLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWR
WHPSRUDU\DQGSHUPDQHQWLQMXQFWLYHUHOLHIUHVWRUDWLRQRIWKH(DVHPHQWWRWKH
FRQGLWLRQHVWDEOLVKHGLQWKH/63VSHFLILFSHUIRUPDQFHGHFODUDWRU\UHOLHIDQG
UHFRYHU\RIGDPDJHV7KHVHUHPHGLHVDUHFXPXODWLYHDQGDUHDYDLODEOH
ZLWKRXWUHTXLULQJWKH'LVWULFWWRSURYHDFWXDOLPSDFWWRWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ
9DOXHVSURWHFWHGE\WKLV(DVHPHQW7KH'LVWULFWDQGWKH2ZQHUDOVR
UHFRJQL]HWKDWUHVWRUDWLRQPD\EHWKHRQO\DGHTXDWHUHPHG\IRUFHUWDLQ
YLRODWLRQVRIWKLV(DVHPHQW7KH'LVWULFWPD\VHHNH[SHGLWHGUHOLHIH[SDUWHLI
QHFHVVDU\DQGQHHGQRWSRVWDERQGDSSOLFDEOHWRDSHWLWLRQIRUVXFKUHOLHI
F'LVFUHWLRQDU\(QIRUFHPHQW(QIRUFHPHQWRIWKHWHUPVRIWKLV(DVHPHQWLV
VROHO\DWWKH'LVWULFW¶VGLVFUHWLRQ7KH'LVWULFWGRHVQRWE\DQ\GHOD\RUSULRU
IDLOXUHRIWKH'LVWULFWWRGLVFRYHUDYLRODWLRQRULQLWLDWHHQIRUFHPHQW
SURFHHGLQJVZDLYHRUIRUIHLWDQ\HQIRUFHPHQWULJKW
G$FWV%H\RQG2ZQHU¶V&RQWURO7KH'LVWULFWZLOOQRWKDYHDUHPHG\DJDLQVW
WKH2ZQHUIRUDQ\FKDQJHWRWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\ L QRWFDXVHGLQZKROHRU
SDUWE\DQDFWLRQRIWKH2ZQHURUDSDUW\DFWLQJXQGHUWKH2ZQHU¶VDXWKRULW\
RU LL WRWKHH[WHQWFDXVHGE\DQDFWLRQRIWKH2ZQHURURIDSDUW\DFWLQJ
XQGHUWKH2ZQHU¶VDXWKRULW\WDNHQUHDVRQDEO\DQGLQJRRGIDLWKXQGHU
HPHUJHQF\FRQGLWLRQVWRSUHYHQWRUPLWLJDWHVXEVWDQWLDOGDPDJHIURPVXFK
FRQGLWLRQV
38%/,&$&&(661RWKLQJLQWKLV(DVHPHQWFRQVWLWXWHVDJUDQWRIJHQHUDOSXEOLF
DFFHVVWRWKH(DVHPHQW,ISXEOLFDFFHVVWRDQ\SRUWLRQRIWKH(DVHPHQWLVGHVLUHGE\
HLWKHUWKH2ZQHURU'LVWULFWDZULWWHQDJUHHPHQWDGGUHVVLQJWKHWHUPVRIVXFKDFFHVV
VKDOOEHH[HFXWHGE\ERWKSDUWLHV
*(1(5$/3529,6,216
$VVLJQPHQW7KLV(DVHPHQWDQGDQ\ULJKWVRUUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVKHUHXQGHUPD\EH
DVVLJQHGRUWUDQVIHUUHGE\WKH'LVWULFWWRRUVKDUHGE\WKH'LVWULFWZLWKD
FRQVHUYDWLRQRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWLVDTXDOLILHGRUJDQL]DWLRQXQGHU6HFWLRQ K RI
WKH,QWHUQDO5HYHQXH&RGHDQGUHODWHGUHJXODWLRQVDQGWKDWLVDXWKRUL]HGWRKROG
FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWVXQGHU0LQQHVRWDODZ$Q\IXWXUHKROGHURIWKLV(DVHPHQW
VKDOOKDYHDOORIWKHULJKWVDQGREOLJDWLRQVFRQYH\HGWRWKH'LVWULFWE\WKLV
(DVHPHQW$VDFRQGLWLRQRIDQ\DVVLJQPHQWRUWUDQVIHUWKH'LVWULFWVKDOOUHTXLUH
DQ\IXWXUHKROGHURIWKLV(DVHPHQWWRFRQWLQXHWRFDUU\RXWWKHFRQVHUYDWLRQ
SXUSRVHVRIWKLV(DVHPHQWLQSHUSHWXLW\
7KH'LVWULFWDJUHHVQRWWRWUDQVIHURUDVVLJQWKHHDVHPHQWGXULQJWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQW
SHULRGDVLGHQWLILHGZLWKLQWKH/63RUXQWLOWKH+2$DVVXPHVUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRU
WKHHDVHPHQWDUHDVZKLFKHYHURFFXUVILUVW)XUWKHUWKH'LVWULFWDJUHHVWKDWWKH
+2$VKDOOKDYHWKHULJKWWRUHYLHZWKHDVVLJQHHDQGILQGLWVRZQTXDOLILHG
RUJDQL]DWLRQLIWKH+2$GRHVQRWDSSURYHRIWKH'LVWULFW¶VSURSRVHGDVVLJQHH
$PHQGPHQW8QGHUDSSURSULDWHFLUFXPVWDQFHVWKLV(DVHPHQWPD\EHPRGLILHG
RUDPHQGHG+RZHYHUQRDPHQGPHQWRUPRGLILFDWLRQZLOOEHDOORZHGLILQWKH
VROHDQGH[FOXVLYHMXGJPHQWRIWKH'LVWULFWLW L GRHVQRWIXUWKHUWKHSXUSRVHVRI
WKLV(DVHPHQW LL ZLOODGYHUVHO\LPSDFWWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHVSURWHFWHGE\
WKLV(DVHPHQW LLL DIIHFWVWKHSHUSHWXDOGXUDWLRQRIWKH(DVHPHQWRU LY DIIHFWV
WKHYDOLGLW\RIWKH(DVHPHQWXQGHU0LQQHVRWDODZRUXQGHU6HFWLRQ K RIWKH
,QWHUQDO5HYHQXH&RGH
$Q\DPHQGPHQWRUPRGLILFDWLRQPXVWEHLQZULWLQJDQGUHFRUGHGLQWKHVDPH
PDQQHUDVWKLV(DVHPHQW
([WLQJXLVKPHQW7KLV(DVHPHQWPD\EHH[WLQJXLVKHGRQO\WKURXJKMXGLFLDO
SURFHHGLQJVDQGRQO\XQGHUWKHIROORZLQJFLUFXPVWDQFHV
D 7KLV(DVHPHQWPD\EHH[WLQJXLVKHGRQO\ L LIXQH[SHFWHGFKDQJHLQWKH
FRQGLWLRQVRIRUVXUURXQGLQJWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\PDNHVWKHFRQWLQXHGXVH
RIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\IRUWKHFRQVHUYDWLRQSXUSRVHVVHWRXWDERYH
LPSRVVLEOHRULPSUDFWLFDORU LL SXUVXDQWWRWKHSURSHUH[HUFLVHRIWKHSRZHU
RIHPLQHQWGRPDLQ
E 7KH2ZQHUUHFRJQL]HVWKDWXVHVRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\SURKLELWHGE\WKLV
(DVHPHQWPD\LQWKHIXWXUHEHFRPHPRUHHFRQRPLFDOO\YLDEOHWKDQWKRVH
XVHVSHUPLWWHGE\WKH(DVHPHQW7KH2ZQHUDOVRUHFRJQL]HVWKDWLQWKHIXWXUH
QHLJKERULQJSURSHUWLHVPD\EHSXWHQWLUHO\WRXVHVQRWSHUPLWWHGRQWKH
3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\E\WKLV(DVHPHQW
7KH2ZQHUDQGWKH'LVWULFWEHOLHYHWKDWVXFKFKDQJHVZLOOLQFUHDVHWKHSXEOLF
EHQHILWSURYLGHGE\WKLV(DVHPHQW7KHUHIRUHVXFKFKDQJHVDUHQRW
FRQVLGHUHGXQH[SHFWHGFKDQJHVDQGVKDOOQRWEHGHHPHGWREHFLUFXPVWDQFHV
MXVWLI\LQJWKHH[WLQJXLVKPHQWRIWKLV(DVHPHQWDVRWKHUZLVHVHWIRUWKDERYH
5HDO(VWDWH7D[HV7KH2ZQHUVKDOOSD\DOOUHDOHVWDWHWD[HVDQGDVVHVVPHQWV
OHYLHGDJDLQVWWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\$WLWVGLVFUHWLRQWKH'LVWULFWPD\SD\DQ\
RXWVWDQGLQJWD[RUDVVHVVPHQWDQGVKDOOWKHQEHHQWLWOHGWRUHLPEXUVHPHQWIURP
WKH2ZQHU
2ZQHUVKLS&RVWVDQG/LDELOLWLHV7KH2ZQHUUHWDLQVDOOUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDQGVKDOO
EHDUDOOFRVWVDQGOLDELOLWLHVRIDQ\NLQGUHODWHGWRWKHRZQHUVKLSRSHUDWLRQ
XSNHHSDQGPDLQWHQDQFHRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\LQFOXGLQJWKHPDLQWHQDQFHRI
VXFKFRPSUHKHQVLYHJHQHUDOOLDELOLW\LQVXUDQFHFRYHUDJHDVWKH2ZQHUGHHPV
DGHTXDWH7KHSUHFHGLQJVHQWHQFHVKDOOQRWDSSO\WRDQ\LPSURYHPHQWV
FRQVWUXFWHGE\WKH'LVWULFWXQGHUVXEVHFWLRQ7KH2ZQHUDJUHHVWRUHOHDVH
KROGKDUPOHVVGHIHQGDQGLQGHPQLI\WKH'LVWULFWIURPDQ\DQGDOOOLDELOLWLHV
LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRLQMXU\ORVVHVGDPDJHVMXGJPHQWVFRVWVH[SHQVHV
DQGIHHVWKDWWKH'LVWULFWPD\VXIIHURULQFXUWRWKHH[WHQWWKH\UHVXOWIURPWKH
DFWLYLWLHVRI2ZQHURQWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\7KH'LVWULFWDJUHHVWRUHOHDVHKROG
KDUPOHVVGHIHQGDQGLQGHPQLI\WKH2ZQHUIURPDQ\DQGDOOOLDELOLWLHVLQFOXGLQJ
EXWQRWOLPLWHGWRLQMXU\ORVVHVGDPDJHVMXGJPHQWVFRVWVH[SHQVHVDQGIHHV
WKDWWKH2ZQHUPD\VXIIHURULQFXUWRWKHH[WHQWWKH\UHVXOWIURPWKHDFWLYLWLHVRI
WKH'LVWULFWRQWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\(DFKSDUW\VKDOONHHSWKH3URWHFWHG
3URSHUW\IUHHRIDQ\OLHQVDULVLQJRXWRIDQ\ZRUNSHUIRUPHGIRUPDWHULDOV
IXUQLVKHGWRRUREOLJDWLRQVLQFXUUHGE\WKDWSDUW\1RWKLQJLQWKLVSDUDJUDSKRU
WKLV(DVHPHQWFUHDWHVDQ\ULJKWLQDQ\WKLUGSDUW\RUGLPLQLVKHVDQ\LPPXQLW\
GHIHQVHRUOLDELOLW\OLPLWDWLRQRIWKH2ZQHURU'LVWULFWDVDJDLQVWDQ\WKLUGSDUW\
1RWLFHDQG$SSURYDO$Q\QRWLFHRUUHTXHVWIRUDSSURYDOUHTXLUHGE\WKLV
(DVHPHQWPXVWEHZULWWHQDQGLVVXEMHFWWRWKHIROORZLQJ
D'HOLYHU\$Q\UHTXLUHGQRWLFHRUUHTXHVWIRUDSSURYDOPXVWEHGHOLYHUHGRU
VHQWE\ILUVWFODVVPDLORURWKHUQDWLRQDOO\UHFRJQL]HGGHOLYHU\VHUYLFHWRWKH
DSSURSULDWHSDUW\DWWKHIROORZLQJDGGUHVVHV RURWKHUDGGUHVVVSHFLILHGLQ
ZULWLQJ
7RWKH2ZQHU 7RWKH'LVWULFW
6WRQHJDWH)DUP,QF 0LQQHKDKD&UHHN:DWHUVKHG'LVWULFW
)O\LQJ&ORXG'ULYH6XLWH$ 0LQQHWRQND%RXOHYDUG
(GHQ3UDLULH01 0LQQHWRQND01
35'&
)O\LQJ&ORXG'ULYH6XLWH$
(GHQ3UDLULH01
E7LPLQJ8QOHVVRWKHUZLVHVSHFLILHGLQWKLV(DVHPHQWDQ\UHTXLUHGQRWLFHRU
UHTXHVWIRUDSSURYDOPXVWEHGHOLYHUHGDWOHDVWGD\VSULRUWRWKHGDWH
SURSRVHGIRULQLWLDWLQJWKHDFWLYLW\LQTXHVWLRQ
F&RQWHQW7KHQRWLFHRUUHTXHVWIRUDSSURYDOPXVWLQFOXGHVXIILFLHQW
LQIRUPDWLRQWRDOORZWKH'LVWULFWWRPDNHDQLQIRUPHGGHFLVLRQRQZKHWKHUDQ\
SURSRVHGDFWLYLW\LVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHWHUPVDQGSXUSRVHVRIWKLV(DVHPHQW
G$SSURYDO7KH'LVWULFWPD\FRQVHQWWRDQ\DFWLYLW\XQGHUWKLV(DVHPHQWRQO\
LILWUHDVRQDEO\GHWHUPLQHVWKDWWKHDFWLYLW\ ZLOOQRWYLRODWHWKHSXUSRVHRI
WKLV&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQWDQG ZLOOHLWKHUHQKDQFHRUQRWLPSDLUDQ\
VLJQLILFDQWFRQVHUYDWLRQLQWHUHVWDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\7KH
'LVWULFWPD\FRQGLWLRQLWVDSSURYDORQWKH2ZQHU¶VDFFHSWDQFHRI
PRGLILFDWLRQVWKDWLQWKH'LVWULFW¶VUHDVRQDEOHMXGJPHQWZRXOGDOORZWKH
SURSRVHGDFWLYLW\WRPHHWWKHVHFULWHULD
%LQGLQJ(IIHFW7KLV(DVHPHQWZLOOUXQZLWKDQGEXUGHQWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\LQ
SHUSHWXLW\7KHWHUPVRIWKLV(DVHPHQWDUHELQGLQJDQGHQIRUFHDEOHDJDLQVWWKH
2ZQHULWVOHVVHHVDJHQWVSHUVRQDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVVXFFHVVRUVDQGDVVLJQVDQG
DOORWKHUSDUWLHVHQWLWOHGWRSRVVHVVRUXVHWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\
7KLV(DVHPHQWFUHDWHVDSURSHUW\ULJKWLPPHGLDWHO\YHVWHGLQWKH'LVWULFWDQGLWV
VXFFHVVRUVDQGDVVLJQVWKDWFDQQRWEHWHUPLQDWHGRUH[WLQJXLVKHGH[FHSWDVVHWRXW
KHUHLQ
0HUJHU7KH2ZQHUDQG'LVWULFWDJUHHWKDWWKHWHUPVRIWKLV&RQVHUYDWLRQ
(DVHPHQWVKDOOVXUYLYHDQ\PHUJHURIWKHIHHDQGHDVHPHQWLQWHUHVWLQWKH
3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\
'HILQLWLRQV8QOHVVWKHFRQWH[WUHTXLUHVRWKHUZLVHWKHWHUP³2ZQHU´PHDQV
6WRQHJDWH)DUP,QFDQG3URSHUW\5HVRXUFHV'HYHORSPHQW&RUSRUDWLRQ
FROOHFWLYHO\DQGLWVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVVXFFHVVRUVDQGDVVLJQVLQWLWOHWRWKH3URWHFWHG
3URSHUW\7KHWHUP³'LVWULFW´PHDQVWKH0LQQHKDKD&UHHN:DWHUVKHG'LVWULFW
DQGLWVVXFFHVVRUVDVVLJQVDQGSDUWQHUVWRDQ\LQWHUHVWLWKROGVLQWKLV(DVHPHQW
7HUPLQDWLRQRI5LJKWVDQG2EOLJDWLRQV$SDUW\¶VULJKWVDQGREOLJDWLRQVXQGHU
WKLV(DVHPHQWWHUPLQDWHXSRQWKHWUDQVIHURUWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKDWSDUW\¶VLQWHUHVWLQ
WKLV(DVHPHQWRUWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\SURYLGHGKRZHYHUWKDWDQ\OLDELOLW\IRU
DFWVRURPLVVLRQVRFFXUULQJSULRUWRWKHWUDQVIHURUWHUPLQDWLRQZLOOVXUYLYHWKDW
WUDQVIHURUWHUPLQDWLRQ
5HFRUGLQJ7KH'LVWULFWZLOOUHFRUGRUUHJLVWHUWKLV(DVHPHQWLQDWLPHO\PDQQHU
LQWKHRIILFLDOUHFRUGVIRU+HQQHSLQ&RXQW\7KH'LVWULFWPD\UHUHFRUGRUUH
UHJLVWHUWKLV(DVHPHQWRUDQ\RWKHUGRFXPHQWQHFHVVDU\WRSURWHFWLWVULJKWVXQGHU
WKLV(DVHPHQWRUWRDVVXUHWKHSHUSHWXDOHQIRUFHDELOLW\RIWKLV(DVHPHQW7KH
2ZQHUZLOOFRRSHUDWHDVQHFHVVDU\WRDFFRPSOLVKDQGHIIHFWDFWVRIUHFRUGDWLRQ
&RQWUROOLQJ/DZDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ7KLV(DVHPHQWVKDOOEHJRYHUQHGE\WKHODZV
RIWKH6WDWHRI0LQQHVRWDDQGFRQVWUXHGWRUHVROYHDQ\DPELJXLWLHVRUTXHVWLRQVRI
YDOLGLW\RIVSHFLILFSURYLVLRQVLQIDYRURIJLYLQJPD[LPXPHIIHFWWRLWV
FRQVHUYDWLRQSXUSRVHVDQGWRWKHSROLFLHVDQGSXUSRVHVRI0LQQHVRWD6WDWXWHV
&KDSWHU&
3HUPLWVDQG$SSOLFDEOH/DZV7KH2ZQHUDQGWKH'LVWULFWDFNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKH
H[HUFLVHRIDQ\UHVHUYHGULJKWKHUHLQRURWKHUXVHRIWKH3URWHFWHG3URSHUW\LVQRW
E\WKLV(DVHPHQWUHOLHYHGIURPFRPSO\LQJZLWKRUREWDLQLQJDQ\SHUPLWIURPDQ\
DSSOLFDEOHJRYHUQPHQWDODXWKRULW\LQFOXGLQJWKH'LVWULFWSULRUWRWKHH[HUFLVH
WKHUHRI
6HYHUDELOLW\$GHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDWDQ\SURYLVLRQRUVSHFLILFDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKLV
(DVHPHQWLVLQYDOLGVKDOOQRWDIIHFWWKHYDOLGLW\RIWKHUHPDLQLQJSURYLVLRQVRUDQ\
IXWXUHDSSOLFDWLRQ
&DSWLRQV7KHFDSWLRQVKHUHLQKDYHEHHQLQVHUWHGVROHO\IRUFRQYHQLHQFHRI
UHIHUHQFHDQGDUHQRWDSDUWRIWKLV&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQWDQGVKDOOKDYHQR
HIIHFWXSRQFRQVWUXFWLRQRULQWHUSUHWDWLRQ
$GGLWLRQDO'RFXPHQWV7KH2ZQHUDJUHHVWRH[HFXWHRUSURYLGHDQ\DGGLWLRQDO
GRFXPHQWVUHDVRQDEO\QHHGHGE\WKH'LVWULFWWRFDUU\RXWLQSHUSHWXLW\WKH
SURYLVLRQVDQGLQWHQWRIWKLV(DVHPHQWLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRDQ\
GRFXPHQWVQHHGHGWRFRUUHFWDQ\OHJDOGHVFULSWLRQRUWLWOHPDWWHURUWRFRPSO\
ZLWKDQ\IHGHUDOVWDWHRUORFDOODZUXOHRUUHJXODWLRQ
(QWLUH$JUHHPHQW7KLVGRFXPHQWVWDWHVWKHHQWLUHDJUHHPHQWRIWKHSDUWLHVZLWK
UHVSHFWWRWKLV(DVHPHQWDQGVXSHUVHGHVDOOSULRUGLVFXVVLRQVRUXQGHUVWDQGLQJV
,1:,71(66:+(5(2)RQWKHEDVLVRIPXWXDOYDOXDEOHFRQVLGHUDWLRQDQGLQWHQGLQJWREH
OHJDOO\ERXQGWKH2ZQHUDQGWKH'LVWULFWYROXQWDULO\H[HFXWHWKLV&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQWRQWKH
BBBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6721(*$7()$50,1& ³2:1(5´
%\
0LFKDHO-6HHODQG3UHVLGHQW
3523(57<5(6285&(6'(9(/230(17&25325$7,21,1&
³2:1(5´
%\
6XVDQ+6HHODQG3UHVLGHQW
67$7(2)0,11(627$
VV
&2817<2)+(11(3,1
7KHIRUHJRLQJLQVWUXPHQWZDVDFNQRZOHGJHGEHIRUHPHWKLVBBBBBGD\RI
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBE\0LFKDHO-6HHODQG3UHVLGHQWDVUHVSHFWLYHO\RI6WRQHJDWH)DUP
,QFDQG6XVDQ+6HHODQG3UHVLGHQWDVUHVSHFWLYHO\RI3URSHUW\5HVRXUFHV'HYHORSPHQW
&RUSRUDWLRQ
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
1RWDU\3XEOLF
$&&(37$1&(
7KH0LQQHKDKD&UHHN:DWHUVKHG'LVWULFWKHUHE\DFFHSWVWKHIRUHJRLQJ&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQW
WKLVBBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
0,11(+$+$&5((.:$7(56+('',675,&7
%\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
7LWOH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
67$7(2)0,11(627$
VV
&2817<2)BBBBBBBBBBBB
7KHIRUHJRLQJLQVWUXPHQWZDVDFNQRZOHGJHGEHIRUHPHWKLVBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBB
E\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBDVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRIWKH0LQQHKDKD&UHHN
:DWHUVKHG'LVWULFW
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
1RWDU\3XEOLF
0\&RPPLVVLRQ([SLUHV
([KLELW$
,QWHQWLRQDOO\/HIW%ODQN
2XWORWV,GHQWLILHGRQ3UHOLPLQDU\3ODWWREHFUHDWHGIRU)LQDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQW
6HH3UHOLPLQDU\3ODWIRU5HIHUHQFH
PRDC | 827.73: Site Design Process
figure 5Unbuildable (Wetlands, Wetland
Buffer, Slopes >18%, Floodplain)
Conservation Areas
Potentially Buildable
Approximate house site
Potential Roads
Potential Trails
PRDC | Concept Plan
figure 6
1
Dusty Finke
From:Jennifer Haskamp <jhaskamp@swansonhaskamp.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 07, 2015 1:34 PM
To:Nate Sparks
Cc:Dusty Finke; susan.seeland@prc.bz
Subject:Re: Stonegate Comments
Hi Nate,
I've talked to our team about your questions, and hopefully the answers below help you out for the staff report. If you have any questions,
please let us know and we will do our best to help answer them.
x I spoke to our septic designer, and he said he is not aware of any State Rules/requirements regarding septic system setbacks from
wetlands. In the Contingent Settlement Agreement (CSA) we agreed to follow the State Rules for designing the system.
However, I did look at the three lots you identified in your email, and I think we could make sure that all the Primary Septic sites
meet the City's Ordinance of 75-foot wetland setback. On Lot 2, Block 1, we could swap the Secondary site and the Primary site
and meet the City's setback; and then on Lot 1 Block 6, the primary site as designed meets the 75-foot setback. Finally, Lot 1
Block 5 seems to meet the city's standards per my drawings, but again we can make sure the Primary site meets the setback. My
understanding of the MultiFlo technology is that it is a slim to-none chance that we will ever need the Secondary site, so in an
effort to meet the intent of the City's Ordinance we can make sure the Primary sites all meet the City's setback; while both
Primary and Secondary sites will all meet the State's requirements.
x In terms of identifying areas within the conservation areas where a secondary site could go, there are several. At this time we don't
really want to show it on the drawing as specific sites, because our ultimate goal is to keep as many Primary and Secondary sites
as possible on the individual lots. We could create a blob-graphic showing the areas that our septic designer has investigated -
would that be helpful? There really is no impact to the Conservation Areas for Secondary sites because the prairie restoration
and plantings will occur on the areas that could potentially accommodate the secondary sites initially and for the foreseeable
future. On the off chance in the future a secondary site is needed, the area would simply be dug up, septic system installed, and
then prairie grasses would again be planted on the system. So, there really isn't an 'impact'. We've talked with the MCWD staff
about allowing up to 25% of the secondary sites in the Conservation Areas, and they thought that seemed reasonable (in part
because they know that the areas will be prairie grasses regardless).
x As far as management/documentation of the Secondary sites it would be fairly easy to document the number of Secondary sites
permitted in the Conservation Areas in the Development Agreement, which will be recorded against the property. There are
certain types of prairie grasses and species that are suitable cover for septic systems. These native plants will be detailed out in
the Final Land Stewardship plan to ensure that if a Secondary site must be used, that the plantings/landscaping of the system
blends into the Conservation Areas.
In addition to the septic questions, we took a look at Tom's letter/review as well. There are some items in there that we would like to
address/have questions about. So, I'm not sure the best way to go about responding, perhaps you could touch base with Tom? Or if you want
me to contact him directly, I'm happy to do that as well. We would like to get some of it resolved before his review goes to the PC if
possible. So, here's a summary of our concerns/answers/questions with the corresponding item number in Tom's letter - and I'll look for your
direction on best way to move forward:
#2 - Is WSB reviewing the septic information we provided? Will we be receiving a review memo from Loren? Again, as identified in the
first bullet above, we agreed to follow the State Rules per the CSA. Our septic designer has told us that all absorption areas, and drainfield
components are outside of all necessary setbacks, including the 10-foot setback from lot lines (which is also a state rule). As designed, the
perimeter drainage and utility easements are not in conflict with the septic systems and could co-exist and not disrupt any of the systems. If
Tom is reviewing the septic designs, perhaps it would make sense for him to talk directly with our septic designer? If we could get this issue
resolved before the PC, I think it would be good.
#5 - We shortened the cul-de-sac on the north end at the direction of staff during our pre-application meeting in January. The way this
comment is written it suggests that we aren't following something in the City's code, or calls into question whether "shared access is
permitted". I believe it was Dusty that suggested that it would be beneficial to reduce the cul-de-sac length (BMPs, reduction of impervious,
etc.) and have shared driveways (which is commonplace in the city). We would request some clarification from staff, since Tom's comments
seem contrary to Dusty's.
#6 and #7 - It is our understanding that this has been resolved, and that the City understands that this would be taken care of by Stonegate
Farm granting an easement to PRDC for the roadway, with ultimate maintenance and management by the City of Medina. The way these
items are written, it suggests it is not resolved - and that we are supposed to be doing something. So, if it is resolved, then we would
2
respectfully request these items to be re-written; if not, perhaps we need to speak directly with Tom? Or, can you provide some
insight/clarification as to what staff is looking for?
#8 - I talked to our engineer at Sathre for clarification regarding this item, and his response is as follows: We did not change the storm
between FES E1 that ran up through CBMH E5 because it added an additional structure. E5 is held in its place by the low point in the road,
and E4 is in a location to not impact the septic sites while maximizing the pad in lot 4. So, in summary, we did not realign the storm to avoid
affecting the septic or pad, while reducing the number of structures.
#10 - Please review our submitted drawings. The Street grades were added to our drawings submitted on June 19th. If Tom could update
this item to reflect that we responded, we would appreciate it.
#11 - The vertical curve information for Deer Hill Road is on the drawings submitted on June 19th. If Tom could update this item to
accurately reflect what we submitted, we would appreciate it.
Tom states that, "The latest submittal does not address many of comments from our May 20, 2015 memo", and we don't think that is a fair
statement. We attempted to address all of his comments that were not policy related questions. Additionally, he seems to have missed a
couple of the things that we did submit. So we would respectfully request that this language be removed or re-written, because we did try to
answer/address his comments.
Hopefully we can work together to resolve some of these items before the PC next week. I look forward to hearing back from you, and
thanks for your cooperation in advance.
Jennifer Haskamp
SHC, LLC
(d) 651.341.4193
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Jennifer Haskamp <jhaskamp@swansonhaskamp.com> wrote:
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the heads up on your, and Tom's, comments. I will confer with our team and septic designer and
circle back with answers to your questions as soon as I can.
Jennifer Haskamp
SHC, LLC
(d)651.341.4193
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Nate Sparks <nsparks@nacplanning.com> wrote:
Jennifer,
We reviewed the revised information that was sent to the City. Attached are engineering comments.
We also have a couple of questions about the septic sites:
3
On the plans three lots (L2 B1, L1 B5, L1 B6) are within the 75’ setback for septic sites to a wetland. Can this
be adjusted?
Also, the narrative discusses a certain percentage of lots that may need to use the conservation area for a septic
site. It is unclear on the location of these sites or which lots are being considered for this. It is recommended
that the location be shown to assist in determining the impact on the conservation areas. There are also
concerns about how this would be governed.
Thanks,
Nate Sparks
(763) 231-2555