Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-08-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL December 3, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 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 October 13, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes. 6. Bradford Creek Addition – Preliminary/Final Plat to plat property into two lots (2872 Ardmore Ave.). Public Hearing 7. Kal Point – Planned Unit Development General Plan and Site Plan Review for construction of a Restaurant and Office (340 Clydesdale Trail). Public Hearing 8. Just for Kix – Rezoning from UH-2, Uptown Hamel-2 to CH-RR, Commercial-Highway/Railroad (45 State Hwy 55). Public Hearing 9. Woodland Hill Preserve Sign Setback Variance (696 Woodland Hill Ct.) 10. Council Meeting Schedule 11. Adjourn 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday October 13, 2015 4 5 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Victoria Reid, 8 Janet White, and Kent Williams. 9 10 Absent: Planning Commissioner Charles Nolan. 11 12 Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, City Planner Dusty Finke, and City 13 Councilmember John Anderson. 14 15 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 16 17 There were none. 18 19 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20 21 Anderson reported that the City Council met two weeks ago to consider an approval of the 22 Preliminary Plat for Stonegate, which was approved as a part of the Consent Agenda, and 23 advised that the Council also approved a PUD for 3 Rivers Church. 24 25 4. Planning Department Report 26 27 Finke provided an update. 28 29 5. Approval of the September 8, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 30 31 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the September 8, 2015, Planning 32 Commission minutes with corrections as noted. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 33 Nolan) 34 35 6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment - Building Materials in the Rural 36 Business Holding District and Rural Commercial Holding District 37 38 Sparks presented a zoning amendment request related to the Highway 55 mini storage, noting 39 that the business would like cement fiber board siding added as an allowed primary building 40 material in the rural business holding (RBH) district. He noted that the rural commercial 41 holding (RCH) district has overlapping standards and therefore has also been included in this 42 request. He reviewed the current building material standards for the RBH/RCH districts and 43 the purpose for those standards. He stated that the applicant would like cement fiber board 44 siding to be allowed as a primary building material, noting that currently the material is only 45 allowed to be used for a maximum of 20 percent of the building. He stated that some cities 46 are starting to allow cement fiber board siding into their commercial and business districts on 47 uses such as hotels and apartments. He stated that the City has recently allowed the use of the 48 materials in two applications, the Golf Course and Goddard School, through the use of PUD. 49 He provided photographs of buildings that use that type of material. He stated that even 50 though the applicant is only requesting the material be allowed as a primary material in the 51 RBH district, staff also included it in the RCH District because of the overlapping standards. 52 2 Murrin stated that earlier this summer she saw a news story where a hotel in Bloomington 53 was having problems and questioned if the proposed material is durable and whether it 54 requires additional maintenance. 55 56 Sparks stated that the material can require additional maintenance in terms of paint, but noted 57 that the material does have a long lasting warranty period, which he believed to be 50 years. 58 He stated that you can find issues online with any building materials if the material is not 59 installed correctly. He stated that the materials listed in the primary building category are 60 long lasting and noted that a 50 year warranty for the cement fiber board siding could be 61 considered long lasting as well. 62 63 Reid asked if the applicant is requesting the use of cement fiber board siding because the 64 material is cheaper than the other options currently allowed. 65 66 Sparks replied that he was unsure of the motivations, but believed that the material is cheaper 67 than the other materials currently allowed. 68 69 Reid stated that it appears staff is proposing the change to the interim zoning districts, but not 70 the permanent zoning districts. 71 72 Sparks stated that the intent was simply to address the applicant’s request and not to fully 73 review the entire ordinance. He believed that the cement fiber board is currently allowed in 74 the Uptown Hamel zoning district. 75 76 Finke confirmed that the material is currently allowed in the Uptown Hamel districts. 77 78 Williams asked how the installation process compares to the other materials currently 79 allowed. 80 81 Sparks stated that it would depend on the type of material that is used, whether lap siding or 82 panels are used. He noted that the applicant has an expert present that can provide additional 83 information. 84 85 Williams stated that it is his understanding that the water can seep in through the seams if not 86 properly installed. He noted that with efface the water would get trapped. He stated that 87 there is significant litigation over cement fiber board. 88 89 Foote asked the reason for the litigation. 90 91 Williams stated that the manufacturer is stating that the problem was installation, but noted 92 that the problem could be an issue of design. He stated that there could be issues with rotting, 93 mold and moisture intrusion. 94 95 Reid opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 96 97 Jeff Pederson, 710 Shawnee Woods Road, stated that he purchased the mini storage 3.5 years 98 ago and chose the material because there are so many places between the doors, and cement 99 fiber board seems to be the material of the future. He stated that the material meets the fire 100 codes better than other products currently offered. 101 102 Brian Varner, BV Construction, stated that he prefers to use the 7.25 lap siding with hidden 103 fasteners underneath. He stated that people have run into problems with the paper used 104 beneath the weather barrier. 105 3 Williams stated that problems with efface arose from the material used underneath, noting 106 that he has seen solid plywood rotted all the way through in the past. He stated that his guard 107 is instantly up when he hears of new products, but is glad to see that mechanical fasteners are 108 being used rather than glue. 109 110 Varner stated that they use the Tyvek paper, and with the lap siding the water would drain all 111 the way to the bottom if it does get beneath the siding. He confirmed that he has heard of the 112 litigation. 113 114 Murrin asked if Varner would agree that the product lasts 50 years if installed correctly. 115 116 Varner confirmed that the only issue that he would see is fading of the paint because the 117 hidden fasteners would be used. 118 119 Murrin asked the advantage of cement fiber board over vinyl siding. 120 121 Varner replied that there is a huge advantage over vinyl siding because the cement fiber 122 boarding is much more durable and has a good fire rating. 123 124 Williams stated that perhaps a stipulation should be added that mechanical fasteners would be 125 necessary for this type of material. 126 127 Varner agreed that installation is a huge factor in the use of cement fiber board. 128 129 Reid closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 130 131 White stated that the amendment is limited to the RBH and RCH zoning districts, noting that 132 she would not want to open the material to use by the other commercial zoning districts. She 133 agreed that mechanical fasteners should be required and would then support the use of the 134 materials. 135 136 Albers also agreed that he would support this request. 137 138 Williams noted that mechanical fasteners may not address the issue of water intrusion and 139 suggested limiting the use of the material to lap siding. 140 141 Varner noted that lap siding has to be installed with mechanical fasteners or the material 142 would not be warrantied. 143 144 Williams referenced Subdivision 2B, and suggested possible language using commercial 145 grade cement fiber board lap siding. 146 147 Murrin commented that rather than changing the ordinance, perhaps when someone wants to 148 use the material, they come through the Planning Commission to request that, which would 149 allow more control. 150 151 Williams stated that would require an applicant to go through a PUD, as a variance could not 152 be granted. 153 154 Finke noted that PUD criteria would then need to be considered for a request. 155 156 Williams stated that perhaps the Commission would not want to make an applicant go 157 through the PUD process. 158 4 Finke noted that the PUD criteria are stringent. 159 160 Williams stated that he is not as concerned with the added material if lap siding is specified. 161 162 Reid agreed that the Commission should consider whether or not to approve the material. 163 164 Murrin asked and received confirmation that the material would be installed without being 165 warrantied. She had concern that the material could still be glued. She asked if the builder 166 had any language he would recommend. 167 168 Varner stated that if glue is used, that would be caught during the installation as that would 169 not be an approved installation process. He stated that a statement could be added specifying 170 that the material be installed to the manufacturer’s recommendations. 171 172 Williams agreed that additional statement could be helpful. 173 174 Foote asked what recourse the City would have if the material is installed incorrectly and 175 deteriorates after 10 years. 176 177 Sparks noted that the item could be addressed under the nuisance ordinance. 178 179 Williams reviewed the proposed language “commercial grade cement fiber board lap siding 180 installed per the manufacturer’s recommendation.” 181 182 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the amended ordinance 183 835.08 and 835.208 as indicated in the draft provided by staff with the modification that 184 subdivision 2, sub B, would be amended for both sections after cement fiber board to indicate 185 “lap siding, installed pursuant to the manufacturer’s specifications.” Motion carries 186 unanimously. (Absent: Nolan) 187 188 7. Highway 55 Rental Portable Storage LLC – 4790 Rolling Hills Road – Site Plan Review 189 190 Sparks presented the Site Plan review for the existing Highway 55 mini storage facility, 191 which is an 18 acre parcel, noting that the building and proposed building area only covers 192 four acres of the site as the majority of the remaining site is wetland and natural area. He 193 stated that the applicant is proposing to expand the facility to gain approval for three new 194 buildings, two of which would be built immediately and one in the future. He reviewed the 195 current zoning of the parcel and future guiding of the parcel and surrounding parcels. He 196 stated that in 1995 the City approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for ten mini storage 197 buildings, noting that the applicant is proposing to add three buildings, which is still less than 198 the ten originally proposed and therefore the CUP would not need to be amended. He 199 reviewed the existing square footage of the building on site and the proposed new buildings. 200 He stated that as proposed the new buildings would meet the setbacks of the zoning district, 201 and noted that the use would continue to be the same. He provided photographs of the 202 building and a design proposal which would use the cement fiber board material just 203 approved by the Commission in the last case. He reviewed the proposed building materials 204 for the buildings and the proposed roof materials. He stated that the applicant is proposing to 205 provide modulation with height rather than bump-outs because of the design of the buildings. 206 He stated that the building height would be less than the 30 foot maximum allowed. He 207 stated that staff recommends that the drive access and aisles be paved. He stated that the fire 208 marshals recommended that it be ensured that the fire vehicles could be moved through the 209 site, specifically through the east side. He noted that no additional parking is proposed 210 because parking occurs in front of the storage units. He stated that there are no employees 211 5 and therefore no employee parking is proposed or required. He noted that the applicant is 212 providing additional wetland buffering in certain areas. He noted that four tress are proposed 213 to be removed and explained that would not be impactful because of the size of the parcel. 214 He noted that the Commission could require additional screening if desired. He advised that 215 the fencing would be expanded to include the entirety of the new area and noted that 216 enhancement of the security system have been proposed. He noted that a lighting plan would 217 be required with the building permit. He stated that there is no provision for trash. He 218 explained that in this type of use the applicant has stated that if there is a large trash 219 enclosure, users will place items in the trash which can become a problem. He stated that no 220 new signage is requested and noted that there is not a utility plan showing sewer and water 221 because the office duties are handled by Highway 55 Rental. He stated that staff feels that 222 the applicant conforms to the requirements of the zoning district, as long as the Council 223 approves the material changes recommended by the Commission during the last case. 224 225 Williams asked for more information on the enhancements to the security system 226 recommended by the public safety director. 227 228 Finke stated that there were not specific enhancements for the security system noted. 229 230 Sparks stated that the condition could read security system enhancements to the satisfaction 231 of the public safety director. 232 233 Albers asked the type of fence currently at the facility. 234 235 Pederson stated that there is a six or eight foot chain link fence currently and confirmed that 236 there is no wire on the top of the fence. 237 238 Williams stated that thefts were noted by the public safety director, but noted that it did not 239 specify when the thefts occurred. He referenced the issue of parking and asked for additional 240 information. 241 242 Sparks stated that there are not specific parking regulations for this type of facility because 243 there are not employees. 244 245 Williams asked the number of units at the facility. 246 247 Reid stated that parking is provided in front of each garage door for the units. 248 249 Sparks estimated 76 units for the two additional buildings along with the current storage 250 building. 251 252 Williams asked the number of existing parking stalls. 253 254 Sparks stated that there is informal parking for the facility, noting that proposed design would 255 match the existing layout, with customers parking in front of the stalls. He stated that there 256 are areas available where additional paving could occur for striped parking stalls should the 257 Commission desire. 258 259 Finke stated that typically the customer is not leaving their vehicle unattended and is loading 260 or unloading items into their storage unit and then leaving in their vehicle. 261 262 6 Albers stated that if parking stalls were provided, that might encourage people to leave 263 vehicles for a period of time rather than leaving the site after their work is done at their 264 storage unit. 265 266 Pederson stated that there was an attempted break-in when he first purchased the property, 267 but has not had an incident of theft since he has owned the property. He noted that he goes 268 through the site three times each day and if there is an unlocked unit, he places a lock on the 269 unit and then calls the customer and informs them of the replaced lock. He stated that he will 270 work with the public safety director to determine what improvements need to be made. He 271 stated that typically people load their items into the storage unit and do not return until they 272 need something from the unit. He stated that there is not a lot of traffic that goes through the 273 site, noting that he was at the site on Sunday for five hours and there was not one person that 274 came through the site. He stated that he is the only employee for the site at this time. He 275 explained that each customer has a unique code to open and close the gate so that he can track 276 who comes and goes into the site. He stated that there had been problems before he 277 purchased the facility, but noted the previous owner lived in Saint Paul. He noted that 278 perhaps people know that he owns it and is more attentive which has stopped the theft 279 incidents. 280 281 Reid asked if Pederson believed that additional parking would be required. 282 283 Pederson noted that he has never seen anyone in the site doing anything other than loading or 284 unloading their unit and they park in front of their unit. He stated that he has only owned the 285 site for the past 3.5 years and is still learning. 286 287 Reid stated that there is a lot of hardcover and she did not believe that additional parking 288 would be needed. 289 290 White asked how the new buildings would look compared to the existing building. 291 292 Pederson stated that the existing building will not be seen from Highway 55 and displayed a 293 sketch of the newly proposed buildings. He noted that the new buildings would not have 294 doors that face the highway. He advised that he did install a new sign and LED lighting on 295 the site this past year. 296 297 White referenced the property to the north which appears to have a heavy tree line between 298 the properties and asked if there has been any input from that property owner. 299 300 Pederson confirmed that there is a berm with trees on top of the berm. He stated that the 301 property owner to the north has commented that he is interested in being the caretaker of the 302 site. He stated that he keeps the property neat and clean and believed that is appreciated by 303 the neighboring property owner. 304 305 Albers commented that he likes the landscaping and sees the site as an improvement from 306 what it had been. 307 308 Murrin asked what the current building is composed of. 309 310 Pederson stated that the building material is rock faced block. 311 312 Murrin asked if there are security lights or cameras. 313 314 7 Pederson replied that he does have motion activated lights, but does not have security 315 cameras because there is not an internet speed available to support that element. 316 317 Murrin asked if Pederson would find it useful to have signs posted stating that people can 318 only park for a limited amount of time. 319 320 Pederson stated that he is open to that if the Commission has a recommendation, but did not 321 see that being an issue because there are not that many people using the site at one time or for 322 extended periods of time. 323 324 Murrin asked if the applicant is planning to extend the chain link fence to match the existing 325 fence. 326 327 Pederson confirmed that he would be extending the chain link fence and noted that the fence 328 is six feet in height and not eight feet in height, as he was unsure earlier in the meeting. 329 330 Murrin asked, and received confirmation, that the entire area shown in grey on the sketch 331 would be paved. 332 333 Foote stated that he appreciates the modulation proposed. 334 335 Reid asked if lights would be on during the night hours. 336 337 Pederson noted that the lights would meet City Code and would be on during the dawn and 338 dusk hours. 339 340 White asked if the site has hours, or if the site is available 24 hours. 341 342 Pederson stated that the site is open 24 hours, but noted that he has not noticed customers 343 coming to the site during the late night hours. 344 345 Murrin referenced condition four and confirmed the consensus of the Commission to clarify 346 that the landscaping plan should meet the standards of 832 and 828. She asked if the 347 Commission wanted to add a condition regarding the fencing. 348 349 Williams stated that is already part of the plan. 350 351 Murrin asked if an additional condition should be added addressing the public safety 352 director’s comments. 353 354 Williams noted that is already a condition. 355 356 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Highway 55 Rental 357 Portable Storage LLC Site Plan review with the recommendations proposed by staff, revising 358 condition four to include Sections 832.3.04 and 828.41, and adding an eighth condition 359 stating that all concerns of the public safety director shall be addressed. Motion approved 360 unanimously. (Absent: Nolan) 361 362 8. Council Meeting Schedule 363 364 Albers volunteered to attend the next Council meeting. 365 366 8. Adjourn 367 8 Motion by Williams, seconded by White, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion 368 carried unanimously. 369 Bradford Creek Addition Page 1 of 5 December 8, 2015 Plat and Right-of-way Vacation Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: December 3, 2015 MEETING: December 8, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Bradford Creek Addition – Prelim/Final Plat and ROW Vacation - 2872 Ardmore Avenue – Public Hearing Review Deadline 120-day Review Deadline: March 3, 2016 Summary of Request Susan Prodahl has requested approval to replat eight existing substandard lots in the Independence Beach neighborhood into two lots. The applicant has also requested that the City vacate half of the Palm Street right-of-way to the north of the subject site. No improvements currently exist in the right-of-way. This vacated right-of-way is proposed to be incorporated into the lots within the plat. The subject site is currently vacant. A single-family home and detached garage had been located on the subject site, but have recently been demolished. The structures straddled the various property lines of the eight lots and the site had been generally treated as a single site. There are a fair amount of significant trees on the subject site. The property generally slopes up from Ardmore Avenue to the center of the property and down to the rear of the property. Lake Ardmore is located north of the Palm Street right-of-way. The property is zoned Urban Residential, the same as all surrounding property. The property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District of both Lake Ardmore and Lake Independence, but does not have frontage on either waterbody. An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the following page. This aerial shows the structures prior to demolition. The dashed line identifies the proposed property line between the two proposed lots. Requested Right-of-way Vacation The applicant requests that the City vacate the southern half of Palm Street to the north of the subject site. The applicant proposes that the 30 feet of property be added to the lots through the platting process. The Planning Commission does not hold hearings on proposed right-of-way vacations but this information is presented because it affects the proposed plat. The City Council will hold a hearing on January 5, 2016 related to the vacation. The Planning Commission can provide feedback on the vacation as it deems appropriate. Bradford Creek Addition Page 2 of 5 December 8, 2015 Plat and Right-of-way Vacation Planning Commission Meeting According to Minnesota Statutes 412.851, “The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice.” There is no street within the right-of-way, but it was platted in a grid pattern in Independence Beach back in the 1920’s. In addition to streets, public rights-of-way can be used for utilities, storm water improvements for streets, and similar uses. Although there are currently no street improvements in the right-of-way, the right-of-way does provide legal access to property which the City has received through tax forfeiture to the north. Staff believes that the potential uses of the right-of-way could be accomplished in the northern 30 feet of right-of-way. Therefore, staff does not oppose the requested vacation. Lake Ardmore Lake Independence Bradford Creek Addition Page 3 of 5 December 8, 2015 Plat and Right-of-way Vacation Planning Commission Meeting Proposed Plat The applicant proposes to plat the property into two lots. The lots would receive access via existing Ardmore Avenue, the adjacent local street. Essentially, the applicant proposes to split the subject site in half. Following is a summary of the lot area and dimensional standards of the UR zoning district and shoreland overlay district in comparison to the proposed lots. Requirement Lot 1 Lot 2 Min. Lot Size 15,000 s.f. (Shoreland) 9,000 s.f. (UR) 25,536 s.f. 25,497 s.f. Min. Lot Width 75 feet (Shoreland) 60 feet (UR) 120 feet 117.84 feet Min. Lot Depth 100 feet 232.75 feet 231.27 feet Front Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Setback from “Brook Avenue” (east) 30 feet N/A 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Side Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Lake Setback 75 feet N/A (north of site) N/A (north of site) Impervious Surfaces 25% (Shoreland) 19% (conceptual) 19% (conceptual) The proposed lots appear to meet all dimensional standards of the UR and Shoreland Overlay District. Lots in the shoreland overlay district are limited to 25% hardcover. The applicant has shown that a fairly large building envelope could meet this requirement along with a driveway. Staff believes the estimate for the driveway hardcover is a bit low, but the driveway could be doubled in size and still result in less than 25% hardcover. Streets and Transportation The lots are proposed to have driveway access onto Ardmore Avenue. The street is a slow- traffic local roadway and the proposed access does not cause concern. Ardmore Avenue is approximately 22 feet in width with a right-of-way of 40 feet. Both of these are below current standards. The applicant proposes to dedicate an additional 7.5 feet of right-of-way for Ardmore Avenue. This would be equivalent to 25-feet from the centerline of Ardmore Avenue if the street were widened to current standards of 28 feet. The City Engineer recommends 10 feet of right-of-way instead of 7.5 feet since the street is currently includes a shallow ditch. Wetlands and Floodplains There are no wetlands located on the subject site. The wetland adjacent to Lake Ardmore is far enough north that adequate space exists for upland buffers. The 1% chance flood elevation of Lake Ardmore is 962, which is located north of the subject site. City regulations require the lowest floor elevation to be above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (which is 1.5 feet above the 1% elevation). This will be reviewed upon building permit application, but the conceptual grading plans show the basement floors will likely be more than 8 feet above the flood elevation. Bradford Creek Addition Page 4 of 5 December 8, 2015 Plat and Right-of-way Vacation Planning Commission Meeting Tree Preservation There are 54 significant trees located on Lot 1 and 59 significant trees located on Lot 2. The City’s Tree Preservation ordinance would require replacement if more than 15% of the significant trees are removed for initial site development or if 20% of the significant trees are removed for other activities. It appears that 3 trees will be removed for the initial site development of utilities on Lot 1. The applicant has submitted a conceptual grading plan which shows that approximately 32% of the trees are proposed to be removed from Lot 1 and 20% of the trees proposed to be removed on Lot 2. These totals may differ when a buyer proposes a specific house plan for each lot. Staff recommends a condition be added to the resolution and development agreement stating that house construction will be subject to replacement requirements if more than 20% of the trees are removed. Utilities/Easements The applicant proposes to utilize existing sewer/water services for Lot 2. The applicant will need install services for Lot 1 which will entail reconstructing a portion of the street after installation. Staff recommends a development agreement and letter of credit for these improvements. Lot 1 will be subject to sewer and water connection fees when the services are installed. The applicant proposes standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot. The City Engineer has not identified the need for additional easements. Stormwater Management The City’s stormwater management regulations are triggered by the subdivision of property. In this case, the applicant is combining substandard lots which results in a decrease of lots. The City has determined in previous situations that stormwater improvements are not triggered. As noted above, the maximum hardcover permitted within the shoreland overlay district is 25%, which is intended to help limit stormwater impacts. Park Dedication The plat does not result in a net increase in the number of lots, so park dedication is not required. As mentioned previously, the City owns a good deal of property adjacent to Lake Ardmore as a result of tax forfeiture. The property is held as a passive nature area and there are no proposed improvements for the area. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation According to Subd. 10 of Section 820.21, “the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following finding are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. Bradford Creek Addition Page 5 of 5 December 8, 2015 Plat and Right-of-way Vacation Planning Commission Meeting (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way.” With the proposed conditions below, staff does not believe any of these findings are met. Staff also does not oppose the vacation of the right-of-way. As such, staff recommends approval of the right-of-way vacation and plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the plat is contingent upon the City vacating the portion of the Palm Street right-of-way indicated on the plat. 2. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City to ensure compliance with the conditions noted herein as well as other relevant requirements of City ordinance and policy. 3. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit to ensure completion of the utility service construction and street reconstruction necessitated by construction. 4. Construction on the lots shall be subject to the City’s tree preservation ordinance. Current regulations require replacement for any removal in excess of 20%. 5. The Applicant shall update the plat in order to dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way for Ardmore Avenue. 6. The Applicant shall pay relevant sewer and water connection fees for the new proposed connection for Lot 2. 7. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the proposed vacation and plat and for the review and creation of other relevant documents. Potential Motion If the Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, the following motion would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the Bradford Creek Addition plat based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Attachments 1. Engineer Comments 2. Narrative 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Final Plat 1 Dusty Finke From:Tom Kellogg <TKellogg@wsbeng.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:06 PM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Ron Batty (rbatty@kennedy-graven.com) Subject:FW: Bradford Creek Addition Dusty,    In addition to Ron’s comments I have the following observations:    1. Ardmore Avenue is shown as an existing 40’ ROW. They are showing what appears to be a ROW dedication of  4.29’. Shouldn’t we be asking for 10’ of ROW dedication so we have a 30’ half ROW?  2. It appears there is a public ROW (Hazel Avenue) to Lake Ardmore. Access to Hazel Avenue is either via Palm  Street or Brook Avenue. The proposed vacation of Palm Street will only leave a 30’ corridor to access Hazel  Avenue via Palm Street. The City should review and determine if this is appropriate.    Thanks,    Tom     Tom Kellogg Senior Project Manager d: 612-209-5113 | c: 612-209-5113 WSB & Associates, Inc. | Oddfellows Building 23 2nd Street SW Suite #200 | Rochester, MN 55902 This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy. From: Batty, Ronald H. [mailto:rbatty@Kennedy-Graven.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 1:54 PM To: Finke Dusty (dusty.finke@ci.medina.mn.us) Cc: Tom Kellogg Subject: Bradford Creek Addition   Since this is both a preliminary and final plat application, we contacted the engineer to ask about title evidence because  none was provided.  He said he had prepared the plat based on what he had pieced together from various sources.  He  said he expected full title work later this week and would likely revised his  plat based on that.  He promised to forward  that title work to when he receives it. Also, his email suggested that one of the fee owners was going to deliver the  “application” to the city.  I’m not sure whether anything has been received and, if so, what it includes.  For example,  SBLSBLHennepin County, MNVICINITY MAPSec. 18, Twp. 118, Rng. 23,NLake IndependenceHalfMoonLakeLake PurzemLakeArdmoreSite Hennepin County, MNSec. 18, Twp. 118, Rng. 23,NLake IndependenceHalfMoonLakeLake PurzemLakeArdmoreSite 0 r CO a 0 PROJECT NO. 00-00000 JUST FOR KIX x • L EXISTING SANITARY LINE PREPARED BY: Architecture Engineering Environmental Planning www.s-grp.com I+S GROUP Scale: EXISTING ALDI, INC RETAIL FACILITY - EXISTING WATER MAI MEDINA, MINNESOTA INA igo SITE SETBACK DATA: PROPOSED ZONING AREA: CH -RR: COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY -RAILROAD W/SHORELAND OVERLAY BUILDING SETBACK: PARKING SETBACK: FRONT SIDE REAR ELM CREEK 25' 15' 25' 50' 25' 10' 10' 50' EXISTING ELM CREEK 50' BUFFER PROPOSED BUILDING 19,810 SF PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK {PER MEDINA CITY CODE EXISTING SECTION LINE klECEOVE i L_ SITE -NOTES 2015 • SITE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT ON THE MEDINA SIDE IS UH-2: UPTOWN HAMEL AND ZONE FRD: FUTURE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT ON THE PLYMOUTH SIDE. • PROPOSED SITE (BOTH MEDINA & PLYMOUTH LOTS) TO BE RE -ZONED PER REQUIREMENTS OF CH -RR: COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY -RAILROAD W/SHORELAND OVERLAY OF THE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE SITE AREA CALCULATIONS: PROPOSED SITE: SITE OPEN SPACE: PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS PAVED AREA REQUIRED INTERIOR GREEN SPACE: PROPOSED INTERIOR GREEN SPACE: 97,880 S.F. 2.24 ACRES 100% 49,908 S.F. 1.14 ACRES 51% 26,921 S.F. 2,154 S.F. 2,877 S.F. 0.62 ACRES 0.05 ACRES 8% OF PAVED AREA 0.06 ACRES 10.68% *25% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA ALLOWED PER SHORELAND OVERLAY. IMPERVIOUS AREA UP TO 50% WOULD REQUIRE VARIANCE. PROPOSED PARKINSETBACK (PER MEDIAN CITY CODE' SITE PARKING DATA: TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 19,810 S.F. PARKING STALLS REQUIRED = 80 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED = 80 1 STALL PER 250 SPA. H.C. STALLS REQUIRED = 4 H.C. STALLS PROVIDED = 4 CITY OF PLYMOUTH,' MINNESOTA Just for Kix – 45 Highway 55 Page 1 of 4 December 8, 2015 Rezoning Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: December 3, 2015 MEETING: December 8, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Just for Kix – Rezoning from UH-2 to CH-RR – 45 Highway 55 Review Deadline 60-day Review Deadline: January 5, 2016 Overview of Request Just for Kix has requested a rezoning of property at 45 Highway 55, located east of the Aldi site, to the southeast of Highway 55 and Sioux Drive. The property is currently zoned Uptown Hamel-2 and the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to Commercial Highway- Railroad, consistent with the Aldi property and the properties to the west of Sioux Drive. The applicant has requested the rezoning in anticipation of purchasing the property and making an application to construct their facility on the subject site. Generally, the City reviews rezoning requests within the context of a development proposal, or the City initiates rezonings in order to address changes in policy. However, applicants may also request a rezoning as a stand-alone application as in this case. The property which Just for Kix is pursuing is split by the Medina/Plymouth boundary, which is the reason the applicant is requesting a rezoning in both cities prior to a full development proposal. A concept plan of what they may request to construct on the site was submitted by the applicant and is attached for reference. The current request deals only with the zoning of the property, not the proposed construction specifically. The City rezoned the Aldi property to the CH-RR zoning district approximately 2 ½ years ago at the request of the previous property owner. This rezoning occurred prior to the applicant having a specific interested user for the site. The regulations for the UH-2 zoning district can be found in Section 834.2 and the regulations for the CH-RR zoning district can be found in Section 838 of the City Code. Analysis The City places property into particular zoning district in order to achieve the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is guided “Mixed Use-Business” in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (see excerpt from Future Land Use Map on the following page). Just for Kix – 45 Highway 55 Page 2 of 4 December 8, 2015 Rezoning Planning Commission Meeting The Comp Plan describes this use as follows: Mixed-Use Business (MU-B) provides opportunities for multiple, compatible uses on one site including two or more of the following: residential, general business, commercial, or office. Residential densities in this designation will be between 7.0 units per acre and 45.0 units per acre across the entire area and may include some vertically integrated uses. The mixed-use business areas will be served by urban services. The Comp Plan establishes the following objectives for the land use. Mixed-Use The mixed-use designations focus on integrating a mix of uses to help promote housing and commercial diversity within the community. Such mixed-use designations are concentrated along the TH 55 corridor to promote a more compact development pattern in proximity to existing infrastructure and will include residential and commercial components with ratios of use determined by topography and market conditions. Mixed-use areas are all located in the urban service area. SUBJECT SITE Just for Kix – 45 Highway 55 Page 3 of 4 December 8, 2015 Rezoning Planning Commission Meeting Objectives: 1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co-exist on adjacent parcels as well as within the same structure or on the same parcel. 2. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for a mix of residential and commercial uses on parcels that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 3. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of buildings, shared parking, on-street, underground, or ramp parking. 4. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and traditional small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, overhangs over the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. 5. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning of these areas. 6. Create master plans for mixed-use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness to adjacent land uses. 7. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. The subject property is included in the Mixed Use-Business land use, along with the broader area along Hamel Road. However, similar to the Aldi site, the property is separated from the larger Mixed Use-Business area by steep topography to the north. The property has been zoned Uptown Hamel since the inception of the UH zoning district in 2001. The sketch plan for UH showed retail/business development in the area. The City included the property within the UH-2 “sub district” when rezoning property in 2010. The UH-2 district allows smaller-scale retail uses and also allows residential development. However, the UH-2 zoning district does not allow highway-oriented uses. The Hamel Station commercial development to the west of Sioux Drive is guided Commercial in the Comp Plan and was rezoned to CH-RR in 2010. An excerpt from the Zoning Map can be found to the right. In determining whether to rezone the property to CH-RR, the City should SUBJECT SITE UH-2 UH-1 CH-RR PUD MR- Multiple Family Res. UR- Urban Residential CH Just for Kix – 45 Highway 55 Page 4 of 4 December 8, 2015 Rezoning Planning Commission Meeting determine if the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and achieves the policies and objectives of the City. While most of the property which is guided Mixed Use-Business in the Comprehensive Plan is zoned UH, there are some exceptions. Staff believes that using a series of zoning districts in order to implement the objectives of the Mixed Use land uses is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, allowing for a CH-RR zoning district in a portion of the Mixed Use-Business land use and a residential zoning district in another portion of the land use could, together, “allow for a mix of residential and commercial uses to co-exist on adjacent parcels…” If the Planning Commission and City Council decide that both the UH-2 and CH-RR zoning districts could implement the Mixed Use-Business land use, the next thing to consider is which district is the preferable way to carry out the Plan and meet the objectives of the City. As mentioned, the UH-2 zoning district does not generally allow highway-oriented uses. The subject property is in closer proximity to Highway 55 and other highway-oriented commercial development to the west then the remaining Mixed Use-Business land. The access to the site is not as convenient as the Aldi site, but the property does have frontage on Highway 55. If the City determines that highway oriented commercial uses are more appropriate, and/or that residential uses are not appropriate, the CH-RR zoning district may be a better fit. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation The City has a great deal of discretion when determining how to zone property because it is a legislative action. As noted in Section 825.35, “amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.” If the Planning Commission and City Council determine that the CH-RR zoning district in this location would better meet the objectives of the City and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff would recommend approval with the following condition: The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the rezoning request. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Concept Plan November 6, 2015 Dusty Finke City Planner Planning Department City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 GCCGONIG D NO'S' 6 2015 N 0 6 2015 RE: Just For Kix Project Description and Rezoning Application Narrative Medina, Minnesota Dusty: Please consider the following project description and narrative during the review process for the attached Rezoning Application. All supplemental information required for the rezoning map amendment review process has also been attached to provide a comprehensive review. The rezoning application and supplemental information are being submitted as part of a request to allow development of an existing residential site to accommodate a new 19,810 square foot Just For Kix Dance Studio, as well as associated parking lot, drive aisles, stormwater facilities, and utilities. The address for the proposed project is 45 State Highway No. 55 in Medina, Minnesota. However, the proposed project site is comprised of two parcels. Once parcel is located in Medina, Minnesota and the other in Plymouth, Minnesota. Parcel Identification Numbers are assigned for each parcel based on their location within the corresponding City. The Medina portion of the site is described as Section 12 T118 R23 (PID 1211823410007) and is comprised of approximately 1.695 acres. The Plymouth portion of the site is described as Section 7 T118 R22 (PID 0711822320003) and is comprised of approximately 0.532 acres. The site is bordered by Elm Creek to the northeast, Trunk Highway No. 55 to the northwest, and a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railroad to the south. The site is served by an existing access and utilities from Sioux Drive which crosses the existing ALDI, Inc. property that borders the west side of the site. The Medina portion of the site is currently zoned as UH-2: Uptown Hamel 2. The parcel is proposed to be zoned as CH -RR: Commercial Highway -Railroad District with Shoreland Overlay, and dance studios are considered a permitted use within this proposed zoning district. To mitigate any potential impacts created by adding impervious surfacing, a stormwater management basin is proposed to manage stormwater runoff created by the development of the Just For Kix site, which will then be treated prior to discharging off site. The stormwater management basin is proposed to be constructed on the south side of the site as illustrated by the attached supplemental information. Other adjacent properties have been granted rezoning to mitigate similar conditions to allow for ordinary operations by similarly situated tenants of like businesses. Approval of this request would provide similar opportunities for the subject parcel. ISG 7900 International Drive, Suite 550 + Minneapolis, MN 55425 info@is-grp.com + www.is-grp.com P: 952.426.0699 I+S GROUP I+S GROUP Approval of this project will provide a complementary use and an added amenity to the area within an existing development district. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with pertinent orderly development guidelines, and all applicable local ordinances and regulations affecting redevelopment of this property will be considered and adhered to throughout the design process. This project is an appropriate land use within the district and meets adequate setbacks and parking requirements for the proposed use. These considerations along with the supplemental information provided within this submittal support approval of the attached Rezoning Application. Please contact me at 952.426.0699 if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this request on behalf of Just For Kix. Respectfully Submitted, Andrew T. Brandel, PE Associate Principal, Civil Engineer Civil Engineering Group ATB/rja-jrc Just uor (5 Project Descnotion and Rezoning Application Nar•ative Novernoer 5, 2015 Page 2 of 2 PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Nate Sparks DATE: November 2, 2015 RE: American Indian Bar & Grill PUD Amendment & Site Plan Review CITY FILE: LR-15-170 Application Date: November 6, 2015 Review Deadline: January 5, 2016 BACKGROUND Kalyan Vempaty proposes to construct a restaurant with a second story office at 340 Clydesdale Trail. The proposal would require the following land use approvals in order to permit the construction proposed by the applicant: 1) PUD General Plan – the subject site is part of the Clydesdale Marketplace PUD, and the proposed construction differs from that approved, requiring an amendment to the PUD. 2) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building. Although this staff report will generally not examine the requests separately, the Site Plan Review is technically contingent upon amendment of the PUD. The subject site is a vacant commercial pad within the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace development. Highway 55 is located south of the site. Commercial uses surround the site, and the nearest residential property is Cherry Hill to the north. The subject site is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) with an underlying district of UC, Urban Commercial. The standards of the PUD are attached for reference and will be summarized throughout this report. An aerial of the subject site and surrounding area is attached for reference. PROJECT SITE & DESCRIPTION The subject property is guided for “Commercial” use by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The property is approximately 0.75 acres in size. It is legally described as Lot 4, Block 1 of Medina Clydesdale Marketplace. It is located on the east side of the development. SITE PLAN REVIEW Proposed Use The approved PUD identified a retail use on the subject site. Restaurants are listed as a conditional use in the UC District but are a permitted use within the PUD provided there is ‘table service’. Therefore, the proposed restaurant is a permitted use within the PUD. Offices are a permitted use in both the UC District and the PUD. Approved PUD The approved PUD identified a 3,200 square foot retail use with 37 parking spaces. The proposed restaurant has a footprint of 3,581 square feet. There is also proposed a second story office use. The parking proposed is 36 stalls. The proposed layout of the site is generally consistent with the approved PUD. Setbacks/Lot Dimensions The following table summarizes the proposed construction compared to the requirements of the UC zoning district and the PUD standards, if applicable. The subject site was previously platted as depicted in the PUD, so the lot size, width, and depth are consistent. Urban Commercial Requirement PUD Requirement Proposed Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet Zero 25 feet Minimum Interior Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet 25 feet Setback from Residential 75 feet 320 feet Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard Rear/Interior Side Yards Residential 25 feet 5 feet 75 feet 85 feet 5 feet 200 feet Maximum Impervious Surface 60% 70% 68% Building Materials The PUD requires “four sided architecture” that is consistent with the general appearance and materials of buildings within the PUD. In the UC District building materials are required to be at least 30% brick, natural stone, granite, stucco, copper, or glass. Up to 20% may be wood, anodized aluminum, or similar materials. Decorative concrete, pre-cast concrete, and similar may be up to 70%. The PUD also requires the street facing side to be a minimum of 35% brick, stone, stucco, and/or glass. The proposed building finish is 21% stone, 26% brick, 15% exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS), 9% decorative prefinished metal, 26% glass, 1% metal door, 2% block. The decorative metal and EIFS are required to be capped at 20% for the total of the building. This would require a minor adjustment to the building exterior. The composition of the street facing side is 14% stone, 24% brick, 10% decorative metal, 27% glass, and 24% EIFS, which meets the code requirements for that elevation. Building Modulation/Fenestration/Multi-sided Architecture General commercial zoning regulations would require a minimum of one aspect of modulation every 40 feet. The proposed structure provides modulation through variations of building height and the decorative awnings/overhangs. If this is an acceptable means of modulation, it would exceed the required number on all elevations. The PUD requires that substantial window/door coverage facing streets in the development to support a more pedestrian friendly appearance. The proposed structure includes almost 30% of the frontage along Clydesdale as windows and doors. This appears similar to Wells Fargo. There is also a patio area proposed on the front center of the building. There are two doors on the front of the building but not a formal entrance. One is a door to the patio enclosure and the second is a door which is intended to be a secondary exit. The entrance to the building for both the office and restaurant is in the rear by the parking area. The PUD design guidelines discuss a pedestrian scale development with buildings that have a street presence with architectural details at the street level. There is a sidewalk that goes around the building to the rear entrance. The Planning Commission should discuss if this type of entrance is consistent with the goals of the PUD. The ordinance states that buildings cannot exceed 35 feet if sprinkled or 30 feet if not sprinkled. The proposed building is 27 feet in height. Tree Preservation / Landscaping All trees on site are proposed to remain. The approved PUD plan identified 13 deciduous overstory, 9 ornamental, and 8 coniferous trees. The applicant is proposing to provide 7 deciduous overstory and 13 coniferous along with shrubs and perennials. Credit may be granted for the existing trees if they were installed in accordance with the PUD. The applicant should provide for the 9 ornamental trees as required by the PUD. The Austrian Pine species noted on the landscape plan is not a native tree. The ordinance requires native trees unless not feasible. Transportation The applicant proposes to utilize the existing curb cut for access into the site on the western side. On the eastern side of the site, there is the exit from the bank. The applicant intends to connect the drive from their parking area in the rear to this drive. The City Engineer is recommending additional striping to better regulate the flow of traffic into this drive and to stripe and sign the eastern drive as exit only. The ordinance states that bicycle racks may be required by the City. The plan currently does not propose a bicycle rack. Off-Street Parking The applicant proposes 36 parking spaces. The parking demand for the restaurant and office use are calculated at 55 spaces. The applicant states that the remainder of the required parking will be provided for by the shopping center parking lot. The parking lot for the shopping center provides for over 750 stalls. The buildings and uses present on the site have a required parking calculation of about 550. Therefore, it does not appear that there would be a conflict with using this extra parking provided that there is a shared parking arrangement in form and substance acceptable to the City. However, much of this parking is about 350 to 400 feet away from the building and may merit expansion of the trail system along the City street to provide adequate access. The drive aisle entering the site on the west is 24 feet wide. A portion of the eastern drive is shared with the exit from the bank to the east. The drive aisle is 22 feet in width on the eastern side for the portion north of the shared drive. The drive aisles to access the parking are 22 feet in width. The parking ordinance requires primary drive aisles to be 24 feet and secondary drive aisles to be 22 feet in width. The parking stalls are 9 feet wide by 19 feet deep. All standards appear to be generally consistent with ordinance requirements. No parking signs will need to be installed along the drives. Grading / Drainage The applicant proposes to discharge stormwater to the system installed to serve the development. There is an existing storm pond to the north of the site that was installed with the original development plan. This stormwater system was constructed under in 2005 and do not meet current volume control and water quality standards. The City’s stormwater management ordinance allows waivers from full compliance with stormwater requirements when such pre-existing situations exist. The applicant proposes less greenspace than was originally contemplated in the PUD and stormwater management system. The applicant is proposing to use a pervious pavement for a portion of the parking lot so that there is no net increase in impervious surfaces from what was planned in 2005. If this is properly installed the City Engineer states that it is acceptable to consider as a pervious surface. City Staff is also recommending the installation of a sump catch basin due to the area being directly upstream from the pond to the north. With this basin and the pervious pavement, the site would provide stormwater benefits above what was planned for the site. This discussion is similar to the Goddard site across the street, where the applicant significantly reduced hardcover on the site, which resulted in stormwater benefits above and beyond the 2005 plans. There is a wetland to the west of this property. The site slopes towards it from the property necessitating a retaining wall. Due to the height of the wall, City Staff recommends placing a fence on the top of it. Sewer / Water Utilities were stubbed to the site during the initial development. A utility plan has been provided and is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Loading Dock / Trash The loading area is provided on the eastern side of the building. The trash is stored in the building in this same area, which is required by the PUD. Mechanical Equipment Any mechanical equipment placed on the roof will require screening details to be provided. Lighting Plan The applicant has provided a lighting plan depicting conformance with Section 828.11 regarding glare. The plan was reviewed against Section 829 and there are readings that are high for post-curfew levels to adjacent properties that are within the PUD. This should be adjusted as required by the PUD for the development. Park Dedication The park dedication for this parcel was deferred until the time of site development. Park dedication fees in the amount of $23,570 will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The potential issue with the project would be the parking being not provided to the level required by the ordinance. If the applicant can enter into an agreement with a neighboring property to account for this parking, the plan would appear to be acceptable. Provided the applicant can City Staff finds the plan to be generally acceptable and recommends approval with the following conditions:  All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.  The shared parking arrangement shall be submitted in form and content acceptable to the City Attorney.  All requirements of the PUD not otherwise amended by this approval shall be met.  The applicant shall enter into a development agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and provide necessary letter of credit to ensure required site improvements are completed.  A sidewalk connection should be constructed from the existing trail to the location of the proposed shared parking.  No parking signs shall be installed on the access drives.  The eastern drive shall be exit only and striped to control traffic in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer.  Building materials shall be adjusted in a manner consistent with the City’s UC District standards.  An entrance on the street side of the building shall be provided, if desired by the Planning Commission.  The landscaping plan shall be revised to be consistent with the approved PUD plan. Native and ornamental trees shall be provided.  A bicycle rack shall be provided.  A decorative fence shall be provided on the retaining wall.  Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened in conformance with all City ordinances.  The lighting plan shall be adjusted to meet post-curfew levels.  Park dedication fees in the amount of $23,570 shall be paid.  All comments from the Watershed District or any other agency shall be satisfied.  All comments from the Fire Marshal shall be satisfied.  All fees incurred by the City for the review of this application shall be paid. Attached: 1. Aerial Photo 2. Engineering comments dated 12-1-2015 3. Building Official comments dated 11-11-2015 4. Applicant Narrative 5. Plans engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 December 1, 2015 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: American Indian Bar and Grill WSB Project No. 02712-650 Dear Dusty: We have reviewed the site plan submittal dated November 6, 2015 for the American Indian Bar and Grill. The plans propose to construct a two story building with a restaurant/bar on the main level and office/business space on the second floor. Comments regarding engineering matters are show below. 1. The site plan details show a 9 (heavy duty concrete pavement) on the east side of the pervious pavement section. The plans should be revised with the correct number (6). 2. The plans show two-way traffic in the drive aisle east of the building. The plans show sharing this easterly curb cut to Clydesdale Trail with Wells Fargo. This curb cut is currently outbound only for Wells Fargo. The easterly drive aisle shown on the plans for the American Indian Bar and Grill site should be signed outbound (southbound) only. 3. The grading plan should include parking lot and drive aisle grades. 4. A catch basin should be added over the existing 18” storm pipe downstream from CB-100. 5. CB 102 should be revised to include a 4’ sump. 6. Storm sewer calculations should be provided for review and approval. 7. The retaining wall shown along the west side of the site is proposed to be within the 5’ perimeter drainage and utility easement. Typically this is not permitted and the City should consider whether this is allowed. 8. Pertinent storm, sanitary and water main City standard details should be included in the plan set. 9. Stormwater reuse calculations should be provided to verify the volumes noted in their ECWMC memo. An exhibit should accompany the calculations showing what areas will be irrigated. American Indian Bar and Grill December 1, 2015 Page 2 Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Tom Kellogg METRO WEST N FECT ONO RViICES, INC. Loren Kohnen, Pres. November 11, 2015 TO: Debra Peterson Planning Commission City Council FROM: Loren Kohnen RE: Site Plan Review For Restaurant 340 Clydesdale Trail (763) 479-1720 FAX (7 63) 479-3090 Mtrowst76@aol.com After review of site plan for the building, architect must show that a 48' ladder truck can manuever through the parking lot. The P.I.V. and Fire Dept. fire sprinkler connection must not be blocked with landscaping. The Fire Department connection must have a clear area on both sides of 6', this includes fences and architect features. LK: jg Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 November 6, 2015 City Of Medina 2052 County Road 24, Medina MN 55340, Project Name:Kal Point Reg:Ground up Construction of an American Indian Bar & Grill on entry level and upper level being an office space at 340 Clydesdale Trail, Medina MN 55340 Project Narrative: This project is being submitted for P.U.D. Amendment and Site Plan Review for a proposed Restaurant and Office mixed use building. The project location is directly west of the existing Wells Fargo Bank building within the existing Medina Clydesdale Marketplace P.U.D. development located just North of Highway 55 between County Road 101 and Clydesdale Trail. Site and Access: The project site is approximately 0.75 acres and will consist of a 2-Story building (approx. 3,581 sf footprint, and approx. 7,162 sf total), pedestrian walkways, exterior restaurant patio seating area, illuminated public parking facilities, and landscaped green areas. The existing site access/egress driveways located at the Southwest and Southeast corners of the property are intended to remain as-is, with the building street side and parking in the rear. The existing curbing along the adjacent Wells Fargo property will be partially removed for shared use of the existing site access/egress drive similar to that which was indicated in the original P.U.D. development drawings. The Wells Fargo Bank drive thru, common service drive, and driveway will remain a one-way egress circulation pattern. The building, will consist of two uses. The entry level will be primarily a restaurant/bar use with a design intent of 100 – 130 seating (including outdoor seating) along with associated restaurant support areas, customer restrooms, kitchen, etc., and exterior patio seating area. The upper level will be office/business use with private entry/access from the entry level. Site Lighting: The bituminous trail, along Clydesdale Trail, will remain and the parking lot lighting has been designed with fixtures of similar appearance and finish to the other parking lot lighting within the shopping center area. Exteriors of the Building: The exterior of the building has been designed so as to be complimentary with the other buildings throughout the existing P.U.D. development. The design consists of a mixture of stone, brick, and E.I.F.S./Stucco finishes along with extensive aluminum and glass storefront systems. Decorative metal awnings and metal coping bands have been added to the building for articulation. The finish colors proposed have been chosen so as to be complimentary of the other buildings throughout the existing P.U.D. development while also providing an identity for this business location. The building will also provide decorative sconce lighting around the building perimeter which will help illuminate the buildings entries while also providing necessary emergency exit lighting Phasing Plan: Both first (1st) floor and second (2nd) floor constructions would be planned to go at the same time. Operations:Second level office is your typical Monday thru Friday 8am-5pm hours of business. The restaurant is 11am-11pm, seven days a week. Trash/Garbage Collection Process:Our vendors are expected to clear all the onsite trash & garbage between the hours of 6 am to 7 am every Monday or Wednesday of the week. This window is desired and chosen to avoid any additional traffic during business hours. The interior trash is accessed via a garage door on the east side of the building. Supplier Deliveries & Frequencies Onsite:Our suppliers would be scheduled to deliver materials/ onsite supplies between the hours of 5:30 am to 7 am, every Thursday & Friday of the week. Similar to trash pickup, the deliveries will be accessed on the east side of the building through a back service door. Zoning Classification: The site is currently zoned PUD-Planned Unit Development. Signage: No new site signage is proposed. It is understood that a site monument sign exists within the P.U.D. development and this property will coordinate access/space for site signage with the development owner. Signage on the building will consist of (3) Wall Signs. Signs are being proposed on the North, South, and East building facades. The sign areas of each sign will be designed up to 6% of the building wall area (per maximum established by city). In addition, window signs (two total) and address signs (two total) are proposed for this building as permitted by city code. The final sign design and locations will be submitted by the sign vendor during the sign permit submittal process. Pedestrian Access: The site has a sidewalk at the north front of the building to allow access from the on-site parking lot, but also has a westerly sidewalk that connects to the bituminous trail along Clydesdale Trail that allows pedestrian access from areas of the shopping center, primarily the off-site shared parking, east of the bank. Shared Parking Agreement: Clydesdale Marketplace Owner, east of the property and bank, has agreed to enter into an agreement for shared parking between this property and their vast parking lot. This will allow for any additional required parking, above the 36 spaces provided, along with the peak sit-down restaurant time in the evening, opposite the upper level office use. Access Easement Agreements: An access easement will be granted along the east perimeter of the site in favor of the City of Medina, for the purpose of access and maintenance of the common storm pipe, outlet and pond. Grading and Storm Water: The building and patio will sit above Clydesdale Trail by a few feet with the parking lot draining to the north and northeast. The west access drive will ramp up to the parking lot and the east drive aisle will blend in to the existing grades along the Well Fargo Bank’s common service drive. The storm water run-off primarily drains to existing common storm trunk lines that circle counter clockwise around the site to the regional storm pond in the northeast corner of the site. A separate Storm Water Memo to Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, explains the pervious pavement (middle parking rows) and storm water compliance and credit. Proper erosion control will be provided during construction, such as rock entrance, silt fence, and inlet protection. Utilities: The site has existing utilities stubbed or in the immediate area for connection. Primary connections are in the south or southeast portion of the parcel, near the southeast utility room. Landscape and Irrigation: Tree quantities (both existing and proposed) will match the 2005 PUD plan and perennial/shrubs will complement the parking and building/patio perimeter, similar to the existing adjacent retail developments. The site will be irrigated and connected to the shopping center’s central irrigation system, which has a storm water reusable water source (no City water) in the northerly regional pond. For any additional information or if any item is missing, please contact me at any time. Thank you, Kalyan C Vempaty (“Kal”) (Business Owner) For Correspondence via POST Kal Stay, LLC PO BOX 44262 Eden Prairie MN 55344 contactkalyan@hotmail.com Or Email to: Kalyanvc@kalstay.com Office Address: Kal Stay, LLC 3169 Fernbrook Ln N, Suite 104 Plymouth, MN 55447 SHEET TITLE: CONSULTANT: ISSUES AND REVISIONS: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT: KAL POINT 340 CLYDESDALE TRAIL MEDINA, MN 55340 Typed Name Registration Number Date MINNESOTA. - -- 15064 GGD GGD CITY SUBMITTAL: 11.06.2015 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 301 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116 651.690.5525 Fax 690.5545 www.finn-daniels.com SITE PLAN & PROJECT INFORMATION A1001 A100 1" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN N LOCATION MAP PROJECT TEAM DRAWING INDEX A100 SITE PLAN & PROJECT INFORMATION A R C H I T E C T U R A L A200 PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS KEY TO NOTES 1 A300 PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS C I V I L C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 S U R V E Y CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY COVER SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS - REMOVALS SITE PLAN GRADING, DRAINAGE, & EROSION CONTROL PLAN UTILITY PLAN DETAILS DETAILS N PRELIM. BLDG. CODE DATA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 44 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 77 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 12 13 11 14 13 15 15 A301 PRELIMINARY PERSPECTIVE ELEVATIONS S I T E L I G H T I N G SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLANLTG-1 SITE LIGHTING FIXTURE CUT SHEETSLTG-2 16 17 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 1818 18 18 14 C8 LANDSCAPE PLAN A101 SITE VIEWS / ROOFTOP SCREENING DETAILS 16 16 SHEET TITLE: CONSULTANT: ISSUES AND REVISIONS: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT: KAL POINT 340 CLYDESDALE TRAIL MEDINA, MN 55340 Typed Name Registration Number Date MINNESOTA. - -- 15064 GGD GGD CITY SUBMITTAL: 11.06.2015 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 301 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116 651.690.5525 Fax 690.5545 www.finn-daniels.com SITE VIEWS / ROOFTOP SCREENING DETAILS A101 1 A101 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH / SOUTH SITE VIEW SCHEMATIC 2 A101 1/16" = 1'-0" EAST / WEST SITE VIEW SCHEMATIC KEY TO NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 SHEET TITLE: CONSULTANT: ISSUES AND REVISIONS: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT: KAL POINT 340 CLYDESDALE TRAIL MEDINA, MN 55340 Typed Name Registration Number Date MINNESOTA. - -- 15064 GGD GGD CITY SUBMITTAL: 11.06.2015 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 301 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116 651.690.5525 Fax 690.5545 www.finn-daniels.com PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS A2001 A200 1/4" = 1'-0" PRELIMINARY ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 A200 1/4" = 1'-0" PRELIMINARY UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A300 1 A300 2 A300 3 A300 4 N N A300 1 A300 2 A300 3 A300 4 T.O. PARAPET EL. = 27'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL. = 25'-10" T.O. PARAPET EL. = 27'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL. = 25'-10" T.O. PARAPET EL. = 27'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL. = 25'-10" T.O. PARAPET EL. = 27'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL. = 25'-10" SHEET TITLE: CONSULTANT: ISSUES AND REVISIONS: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT: KAL POINT 340 CLYDESDALE TRAIL MEDINA, MN 55340 Typed Name Registration Number Date MINNESOTA. - -- 15064 GGD GGD CITY SUBMITTAL: 11.06.2015 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 301 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116 651.690.5525 Fax 690.5545 www.finn-daniels.com PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A300 1 A300 3/16" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 2 A300 3/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 3 A300 3/16" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION 1 A300 3/16" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION KEY TO NOTES 1 EXTERIOR FINISHES KEY STN-1 STN-2 BRK-1 EIFS-1 AWN-1 PFM-1 STN-3 GL-1 GL-2 GRL-1 STN-1 STN-2 BRK-1 EIFS-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-2 GL-1 GL-1GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-2 GL-2 GL-2 DR-1 DR-2 DR-1 DR-2 STN-1 PFM-1 EIFS-1 STN-1 STN-1 STN-2 BRK-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 STN-1 PFM-1 STN-1 BRK-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 PFM-1 STN-1 BRK-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 PFM-1 EIFS-1 EIFS-1 STN-2 STN-1 STN-2 STN-1GRL-1 STN-1 BRK-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 PFM-1 STN-2 STN-1 STN-2 STN-1 EIFS-1 EIFS-1 STN-1 BRK-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 PFM-1 STN-1 BRK-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 PFM-1 GRL-1GRL-1 STN-2 STN-1 STN-2 STN-1 STN-1 BRK-1 AWN-1 STN-3 PFM-1 PFM-1 EIFS-1 STN-1 GL-1 PFM-1 PFM-1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 32 4 4 3 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 STN-1 5STN-1 6 6 2 GRL-1 GL-2 PFM-1PFM-1 1 EIFS-1 6 SHEET TITLE: CONSULTANT: ISSUES AND REVISIONS: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT: KAL POINT 340 CLYDESDALE TRAIL MEDINA, MN 55340 Typed Name Registration Number Date MINNESOTA. - -- 15064 GGD GGD CITY SUBMITTAL: 11.06.2015 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 301 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116 651.690.5525 Fax 690.5545 www.finn-daniels.com PRELIMINARY EXTERIOR RENDERINGS & PERSPECTIVE A301 1 A301 NO SCALE NORTH ELEVATION 2 A301 NO SCALE SOUTH ELEVATION 3 A301 NO SCALE WEST ELEVATION 4 A301 NO SCALE EAST ELEVATION 5 A301 NO SCALE NW PERSPECTIVE 7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344Phone(952) 937-5150Fax(952) 937-5822(888) 937-5150Phone(952) 937-51507699 Anagram DriveFax(952) 937-5822Eden Prairie, MN 55344(888) 937-5150 7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344Phone(952) 937-5150Fax(952) 937-5822(888) 937-5150 PROPOSED2-STORY BLDG.CLYDESDALE TRAILWELLS FARGOBANK7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344Phone(952) 937-5150Fax(952) 937-5822(888) 937-5150xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PROPOSED2-STORY BLDG.CLYDESDALE TRAILWELLS FARGOBANK7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344Phone(952) 937-5150Fax(952) 937-5822(888) 937-5150 PROPOSED2-STORY BLDG.CLYDESDALE TRAILWELLS FARGOBANK7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344Phone(952) 937-5150Fax(952) 937-5822(888) 937-5150 PROPOSED2-STORY BLDG.CLYDESDALE TRAIL7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344Phone(952) 937-5150Fax(952) 937-5822(888) 937-5150 Phone (320) 253-9495 3701 12th Street North, Suite 206 Fax (320) 253-8737 St. Cloud, MN 56303 Toll Free (800) 270-9495 N LTG-1 LIGHT FIXTURE CUT SHEETS LTG-2 PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Nate Sparks DATE: November 3, 2015 RE: Woodland Hill Preserve Sign Variance CITY FILE: LR-15-170 Application Date: November 9, 2015 Review Deadline: January 8, 2016 BACKGROUND Woodland Hill Preserve, Inc. has made an application for a variance to allow for their monument sign to be placed within the setback. Initially the sign was to be placed on the west side of Woodland Hill Court. The applicant would like to move the sign to the east side and reduce the required setbacks. PROPOSED VARIANCE The Woodland Hill Preserve subdivision would like to place a neighborhood identification monument sign on Lot 1, Block 1 within the development. They would like the sign to be placed with a zero setback to both the right-of-way and the outlot to the south. The applicant contends that this is necessary to allow for maximum visibility of the sign. VARIANCE REVIEW The City’s sign ordinance in Section 815.09 Subd. 2 (b) states that residential monument signs may be permitted at the entrance of a subdivision provided the sign meets a 10 foot setback. The location of the sign is proposed to be right on both the property line to the right-of-way and the property line to the outlot to the south. The sign is proposed within both the front and side drainage and utility easements. While it does not appear that moving the sign to the east side of the road causes issues, City Staff does have a general concern about the impacts of the sign in this specific location. The setback to the south property line may be acceptable due to the fact that there is adequate access through this area in the outlot. The front setback, however, will be more impactful, especially since the right-of-way is 50 feet in width. There may be a future need for the drainage and utility easement in this area and the sign position would conflict. Furthermore, the sign is proposed to be placed only one foot from the sidewalk. Staff reviewed the location of the sign and the visibility thereof. There is a tree on the property to the south that does slightly impair the visibility of the sign. However, at the distance the visibility of the sign would be impaired by the tree, the sign would be difficult to see. As you approach the subdivision, there is a slight jog in the road that would allow for drivers to see the sign as you approach the subdivision entrance. Two pictures are attached that were taken from the perspective of about 100 feet from the proposed sign location. The photos were slightly cropped. This is the applicant’s proposed location: This is the proposed location while meeting the 10 foot setback: The Zoning Ordinance established criteria for the review of variance. The criteria for granting variances are: (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. EASEMENT City Staff would recommend that the applicant acquire an easement for the sign from the property owner. The easement should be reviewed by the City Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While, it is understandable to allow for a reduction in setback to the outlot, it does not seem to be reasonable to allow for the sign to have a zero setback to the right-of-way, in this instance. While there is a tree in the area, it does not appear that the visibility to the sign will not be greatly impaired at a distance where the sign will be legible. Staff would recommend either denial of the request or allowing the variance to the side yard but not the front. The variance in its entirety does not appear to meet the variance review criteria. Moving it back 10 feet would allow for potential use of the easement and lessen the impact to the sidewalk. Attached: 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Photos from Applicant 3. Site Plan showing proposed location 4. Rendering of proposed sign Woodland Hill Preserve Monument Sign Variance Request As the Applicant, on behalf of the Fee Title Property Owner, Woodland Hill Preserve, Inc. ("Developer") formally requests a variance to reduce required setbacks, imposed upon our neighborhood monument sign from 10' to 0', from the adjacent property lines. Initially, the Developer intended to place the sign on the west side of Woodland Hill Court (Lot 14, Block 1); however, it is now apparent this is not viable due to the existing grade and vegetation (see exhibit 1). In order to place the monument on said lot, as indicated in the development plans, significant tree removal and grading, which will encroach into the neighbor's yard, is required. In addition, Xcel Energy has also placed facilities (pedestal) near the intended sign location further complicating the ability to use the space for signage. As a viable alternative Developer is seeking to move the neighborhood monument sign to the east side of Woodland Hill Court (Lot 1, Block 1) as shown in the attached site plan. This location is the more logical choice given the curvature of Woodland Hill Court, as one enters the property. Lot 1, Block 1 is the immediate focal point for drivers. That said, if the Developer places the sign back 10' from the front and side property lines, as required by City Ordinance, view of the sign is obstructed by a large oak tree on the adjacent Toll Brothers development (see exhibit 2). By reducing the setback requirement the sign visibility concerns are eliminated (see exhibit 3). In addition to increasing visibility, the proposed reduced setbacks also minimize the sign's encroachment into the front yard of Lot 1, Block 1, lessening the impact on the builder and eventual homeowner. Immediately adjacent to the proposed monument sign location, the City has been deeded an outlot (Outlot A), which encompasses one of the site's storm water facilities. There was some initial concern expressed by City Staff that the sign would encroach into the drainage and utility easement of Lot 1, Block 1, with the reduced setbacks, thereby limiting access. After further discussion the drainage and utility easement, on the south side of Lot 1, Block 1, becomes less a necessity given the City has ample access to the pond via Outlot A, which is just over 20' wide at its narrowest point. The 20' wide opening more than adequately accommodate maintenance access, as well as drainage. It is our opinion that by changing the location of the proposed monument sign the integrity of the neighborhood will remain unchanged and the sign compliments and works in harmony with the residential use. We appreciate consideration of this request and look forward to installing a sign that will enhance the site and provide a sense of identity for the area. EXHIBIT 1 NOV s4 lO1' Original Sign Location (behind slope and tree Small Utility Run NOV .4 2015 EXHIBIT 2 Approximate Sign Location with 10' setback from the front yard property line NOV 2O1 EXHIBIT 3 Approximate Sign Location with 0' setback from the LOT LINE MONUMENT SIGN RETAINING WALL ZERO SETBACK ---- ONE FOO T TO SIDEWALK LOT 1 SETBACK I RETAINING 'WALL SETBACK NE D&U - ESMNT NEW EASE MENT l R A WETL AND BUFFER SIGNAGE ENTIRE OUTLOT A IS IN D&U EASE MENT - LOT LINE N' STORM SEWER VEHICLE MAINTENANCE ACCESS STREET SIGNAGE ON THIS SIDE OF STREET "NO PARKING - THIS SIDE" LEGEND MONUME NTSIGNAGE 4 POND N o SC ALE IN FEET EN GINEERING SURVE YIN G ENVIRON MENTAL PL ANNING EVS, INC 10025 Valley Vi ew Road. Suite 140 E0en Praine Min ne st,. 55344 PhOne 052.646.0236 Fax: 952 446.02. MEDIy of NA 205.2 C ounty R oad 24 Minneso N 55340 Phone: 763-473-4643 Fax. 76. 11,5050 FINAL PLAT P RO,PLT WOODLAND HILL PRESE RVE C ATI ON MEDINA, MN S HE ET MONUMENT SI GNAGE EXHIBIT IO N B 00,10,2014 WATER SHED COMMENTS ; as;< ATE S HEDCOMMJESG E 1..014 PE P TR EE CAL RGm COMmE NiS H 01220 20/S REV PE R TERSMED J o �r COM MESTS J 0.20 .01S REV r„1,-.°14RFv Mi ss SE'RvicE sit [ N 10/ 03.015 40NUMENT SI GN 01.3.15 MON UMENT MN I H ERE 0.1 . C ERTIFY' T PI AT T HIS PLAN, SPE CIFI CA TIO N, OR I.PORT WAS F REPARED MP OR UN OER MI DI REC T SUPERVISION AND TH AT I AM A max LI CENSED P RO FESSION.. . ENGINEER UND ER T HE FAGS OF TAI E STATE OF REGISTRATION Nash DATE OSIE NI3014 NI . M RER DRAW N BE CI INCE ED EV V N/ZRE DJN/ZRE G ATE PROJE: CTK 7.15.2014 2014-008.1 SHEET NI IMUER Cl ��1 --��-  911'\PI ��. - 71 Wit, 3 v. / `9A `3 C' -i '2 > t,#01 ,, /04V y%)47) ,M-7/5 / V 'W('?/V 2/,fJ