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 - - ��-
9 1 1 '