HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-10-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL February 6, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 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 January 13, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing – Property Resources Development Corporation – PUD
Concept Plan for a Conservation Design subdivision of 42 lots on 170
gross acres located east of Homestead Trail and west of Deerhill Rd.
7. Public Hearing – Wealshire of Bloomington, LLC – Rezoning from
Rural Residential-Urban Reserve to Business Park, Interim Use Permit
for continued agricultural use on a portion of the site, and Site Plan
Review for an 150 unit memory care facility at the NW corner of
Mohawk Dr. and Chippewa Road.
8. Continued Public Hearing – Ordinance related to Solar Equipment
9. Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February 3, 2015
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: January 29, 2015
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates February 3, 2015 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) John Day Companies Variance – 695-775 Tower Drive – Jack Day has requested approval of a
variance to reduce the front parking setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to expand the parking lot on the
subject property. The applicant argues that insufficient parking was constructed in the area upon its
development, and the parking setback constitutes a practical difficulty. The Planning Commission
reviewed this item at their January 13 meeting and recommended approval. The application is
scheduled to be reviewed by the Council on February 3.
B) Property Resources Development Co. (PRDC) Conservation Design PUD Concept Plan – West of
Willow Drive, southwest of Deerhill Road – PRDC has requested a Concept Plan for a Conservation
Design subdivision to include 42 residential lots on 170 acres. The applicant proposes to preserve
30% of the buildable property with a conservation easement. Staff is conducting a preliminary
review and it is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing at the February 10 Planning Commission
meeting
C) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has
requested a site plan review for construction of an 115,000 square feet memory care facility. The
request also includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park and an Interim Use Permit to permit
continued agricultural use of the portion of the property not proposed to be developed. Staff has
submitted the comprehensive plan amendment to the Met Council and will await a response. A
public hearing is tentatively scheduled on the rezoning and interim use permit, along with review of
the site plan review, at the February 10 Planning Commission meeting.
D) Enclave at Brockton 5th Addition – Lennar has requested final plat approval for the next phase of
the Enclave at Brockton project. This phase is proposed to include 38 lots in the south and west
portion of the site. The application is tentatively scheduled for review by the Council at the
February 17 meeting.
E) Wakefield Valley Farm – 3385 County Road 24 – The applicant has requested final plat approval.
City Council granted preliminary plat approval during the fall of last year. Staff has conducted a
preliminary review, and requested more information and changes to the plat. Staff awaits updated
information, and will place the matter on a Council agenda when available.
F) Dominium Affordable Rental Townhomes – 510 Clydesdale – Dominium has applied for a Stage II
Plan to develop 26 affordable rental townhomes on 3.85 acres. The townhomes would include rent
and income limitations because the developer has received pledges for funding through Minnesota
Housing. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the November 12 meeting and
unanimously recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the December 2 meeting and
directed staff to prepare resolution of approval. The City Council adopted a resolution approving the
Stage II plan and preliminary plat at the December 16 meeting and the final plat at the January 20
meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to complete the conditions of approval.
G) Villas at Medina Country Club PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat – East of CR116, south of
Shawnee Woods Road – Rachel Contracting has requested approval of a subdivision to include 43
single family homes along the west and north of the Medina Golf and Country Club. The applicant
has revised plans to remove 5 units in the northeast portion of the site. The Planning Commission
held a Public Hearing at the November 12 meeting. Commissioners raised concerns, especially
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February 3, 2015
City Council Meeting
related to the tree removal along Shawnee Woods Road. The City Council adopted documents
approving the PUD and preliminary plat at the January 6 meeting. Staff is waiting for final plat.
H) Munsell Easement Vacation – the property owner of 3157 Wild Flower Trail has requested that the
City vacate a portion of the upland buffer easement behind their home in the Enclave. The existing
35 foot wide buffer easement is around a small wetland located in adjacent open space owned by the
City, but extends into the property. During the development process, City regulations would have
permitted the buffer to be averaged so that it was narrower on the home side and wider in the open
space, but it was not. During construction of the home, a paver patio was inadvertently constructed
in the buffer, so the property owner now requests to average the buffer. The City Council adopted a
resolution approving the vacation, and staff will assist the applicant to complete appropriate
paperwork.
I) Soiney Right-of-way Vacation – the property owners of 2942 Ardmore Avenue has requested that
the City vacate a portion of the “Palm Street” right-of-way adjacent to their property. The applicant
desires to construct a four-season porch on their property, but cannot do so where desired because of
the 30 foot setback from the vacant right-of-way. 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. The City Council held a
hearing on the vacation and adopted a resolution vacating the portion of the right-of-way. Staff will
work with the applicant to obtain the replacement easements required by the Council.
J) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery CUP – St. Peter and Paul church intends to expand their cemetery at
the southeast corner of County Road 19 and Hamel Road. Improvements include new access drives,
landscaping, stormwater improvements and additional grave sites. The Planning Commission held a
Public Hearing at the July 9, 2013 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council adopted a
resolution of approval at the September 2 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize the
terms and conditions of approval before closing the file.
K) Hamel Place apartment Site Plan Review – 22 Hamel Road – Farhad Hakim has requested approval
of a site plan review to construct a 8-unit apartment building at 22 Hamel Road. The applicant has
also requested that the City consider vacating a portion of an existing utility easement to allow the
structure in this location. The City Council adopted a resolution of approval at the November 5,
2014 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they do not intend to start construction until spring.
Staff will work with the applicant on the conditions of approval in the meantime.
L) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– these preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a
final plat application
M) Woodland Hill Preserve, Enclave at Brockton 4th, Hamel Haven, Morrison lot split, Three
Rivers/Reimer Rearrangement subdivision – These subdivisions have all received final approval.
Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval before construction begins.
N) D.R. Horton Stage I Plan – D.R. Horton has requested Stage I Plan approval for development of
Mixed Use property west of Arrowhead, east of Mohawk and north of Highway 55. The entire
property is approximately 84 acres in area (approximately 59 acres upland) and the applicant
proposes 85 single family lots, a 54 unit apartment building and 5 acres of commercial development.
The City Council granted Stage I approval at the January 21, 2014 meeting.
Other Projects
A) Comp Plan Revision Discussion –the City Council approved the amendment at the January 20.
Staff has begun to prepare the amendment for review by appropriate jurisdictions before submission
to the Metropolitan Council.
B) Solar Energy Ordinance – Staff has begun researching options related to solar energy production
following the direction of the City Council at the request of Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative.
Staff presented the information to the Planning Commission at their January meeting, and the
Commission provided feedback. Staff intends to prepare an ordinance for review at the February 10
Commission meeting.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday January 13, 2015 4
5
1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Charles Nolan, Victoria Reid, 8
and Kent Williams. 9
10
Absent: Todd Albers and Janet White. 11
12
Also Present: Mayor Bob Mitchell, City Councilmember John Anderson, City 13
Councilmember Lorie Cousineau, and City Planner Dusty Finke. 14
15
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 16
Mitchell welcomed Murrin to the Planning Commission and thanked the Commission for 17
their work. 18
19
3. Update from City Council proceedings 20
Anderson introduced himself and stated that while on the Council he has become aware of 21
other City Councils and Planning Commissions and commended this Commission for the 22
great work that they do. He stated that at the last Council meeting the Council reviewed three 23
items that had been recommended from the Planning Commission. He encouraged the new 24
members of the Commission to listen to the senior members of the Commission and learn 25
from their extensive knowledge. 26
27
Anderson provided an updated from recent City Council meetings. 28
29
4. Planning Department Report 30
Finke advised that a written report was included in the Commission packet and noted that 31
four additional submissions have since been received. 32
33
Finke advised that Planning Commission meetings will now be recorded on video for minute 34
transcription services. He advised that the meetings will not be posted on the City website 35
but the recording will be available upon request. 36
37
Finke noted that the City had set up email addresses for the Commissioners. He strongly 38
recommended that any correspondence related to the City and Planning Commission should 39
go through the City email address provided for the Commissioners. 40
41
5. Approval of the December 9, 2014 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes. 42
43
Motion by Williams, seconded by Reid, to approve the December 9, 2014, Planning 44
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers and White) 45
46
6. Jack Day – 695-765 Tower Drive – Request for Variance and Site Plan 47
Review to Reduce Required Front Yard Setback for Parking Lot from 25 48
Feet to 10 Feet 49
50
Finke presented a request for both a variance and Site Plan review to construct a parking lot, 51
ten feet from the front property line along Tower Drive. He stated that most of the lineage 52
2
would be 13 feet from the property line but the narrowest portion would reach ten feet from 53
the property line. He stated that the building was constructed and developed in the 1980’s 54
with 24 parking stalls. He noted that the assumption at that time was for a heavier warehouse 55
use rather than office use. He stated that without a variance there would not be the ability to 56
expand the parking lot at all as the setbacks could not be met. He stated that the applicant 57
stated that the additional parking would be available for the other properties they own in the 58
area which are experiencing the same parking concerns. He advised that the City is set to 59
reconstruct Tower Drive this year and stated that part of the project would be to expand 60
Tower Drive to allow some on street parking, approximately 14 spaces. He stated that 61
additional parking stalls on this site would accommodate more parking than would be added 62
through the reconstruction project. He stated that a number of the trees identified on the site 63
would be removed through the Tower Drive reconstruction project and not from the parking 64
lot expansion. He provided an aerial photograph and highlighted the on street parking which 65
currently occurs, noting that the current width of the roadway does not adequately allow for 66
on street parking and sufficient space for truck traffic. He stated that this is the best chance to 67
add additional parking in this area, which is needed. He advised that the proposed expansion 68
would add an additional 4,300 square feet of hardcover but would not trigger the 5,000 square 69
feet threshold for water treatment. He advised that this site was not originally required to 70
provide water treatment and therefore with the additional hardcover and elimination of 71
additional green space, staff would recommend that the applicant complete stormwater 72
improvement to assist in the treatment of stormwater. He reviewed the suggested 73
improvement recommended by the engineering staff, noting that the slope of the property 74
prevents some other methods of water treatment. He stated that the site was developed prior 75
to the landscaping requirements. He reviewed the proposed landscaping plans and tree 76
replacement and noted that staff believes that this would meet the requirement of the non-77
conforming status. He again recognized the slope of the property, which will place 78
constraints on additional landscaping measures. He advised that without approval of the 79
variance the Site Plan could not be reviewed. He stated that staff provided a sample motion 80
of approval with recommended conditions should the Commission choose to recommend 81
approval. 82
83
Foote stated that the drive aisle dimensions seem a little tight at 22 feet. 84
85
Finke confirmed that the City requirements for the drive aisle requirements have been 86
reduced to 22 feet and therefore this proposal would meet the requirements. 87
88
Reid questioned if there are limitations on the number of vehicles that can be parked and 89
listed for sale, noting that she had noticed five or six at this location. 90
91
Finke stated that there was concern noted by staff as well, especially with the parking 92
shortage of this site. He confirmed that one of the spaces is an auto dealer but noted that 93
those vehicles are not allowed to be listed for sale outdoors. He agreed that would be an 94
appropriate concern because of the parking shortage. 95
96
Williams questioned how busy Tower Drive is in regard to traffic activity and whether there 97
would be a concern from staff regarding people parking at this location and crossing the 98
roadway. 99
100
Finke stated that the roadway is well traveled but did not have additional concern with people 101
crossing the roadway. 102
103
Murrin questioned if allowing this ten foot setback would bring in additional requests from 104
neighboring properties to also utilize a ten foot setback in order to expand their parking areas. 105
3
106
Finke stated that any variance request would need to stand on its own and therefore legally 107
there would not be a precedent created, but agreed in terms of fairness that could be an issue. 108
She stated that when she traveled the roadway she did notice a shortage of parking. 109
110
Nolan stated that it appears that this request would swing the pendulum from a shortage in 111
parking to a surplus in parking and questioned if there would be a shared parking 112
arrangement as a part of this process. He questioned if this would then be a solution for the 113
neighborhood or for this building only. 114
115
Finke stated that staff has not discussed a shared parking agreement and fell on the side of 116
less City involvement in regard to that aspect. He reported that the property owner does own 117
a number of properties in that area. He advised that a document could be created should the 118
Commission be interested. 119
120
Nolan questioned if the other properties owned by the applicant are owner occupied or leased. 121
122
Finke advised that the property owner leases the other spaces to tenants. 123
124
Nolan stated that this would create additional parking spaces that could then be rented to 125
adjacent property owners, unless a shared parking agreement is created. 126
127
Reid confirmed the properties owned by this applicant. 128
129
Williams questioned if the variance could be conditioned upon non-restriction of the parking 130
so that anyone could park in those spaces. 131
132
Finke stated that perhaps the middle ground would include a document, which would allow 133
shared parking only for the properties owned by this property owner. He advised that if the 134
non-restricted parking is recommended, that could be a condition of approval but noted that 135
he would want to obtain the opinion of the City Attorney as well. 136
137
Murrin also believed the Commission should consider whether they would like to keep the 138
landlord in Medina. She stated that if sufficient parking spaces are not allowed the property 139
owner may choose to move their business out of Medina. 140
141
Jack Day, applicant, stated that his biggest concern is the amount of on street parking that is 142
currently occurring. He stated that some of the tenants are currently parking on street and this 143
expansion would allow for those tenants to park in this area and keep the parking off of the 144
street as the on street parking causes conflict for the truck traffic to the industrial park. He 145
commented that the vehicles listed for sale are related to one of the tenants but noted that 146
tenant is not supposed to park those vehicles outdoors. He advised that the parking layout is 147
open but noted that tenants typically park in front of their space. 148
149
Nolan questioned if parking assignment would be left open or whether they would be 150
assigned post construction. He also questioned if the applicant would be open to the idea of 151
some sort of a shared parking arrangement. 152
153
Day stated that he would plan to leave the parking layout open and would not assign parking 154
spaces to tenants. He confirmed that he would be in favor of a sharing parking with the other 155
properties he owns but not to all properties. 156
157
4
Reid stated that there is a cost to add parking and there is a parking shortage along Tower 158
Drive. She stated that she is concerned with the vehicles parked for sale and questioned if the 159
landlord could address that issue or perhaps a condition could be added to address that matter. 160
161
Finke stated that is a separate enforcement issue that staff can address. 162
163
Reid stated that she would be in favor of additional landscaping to bring the property more 164
towards compliance with the current regulations. She was unsure if the parking area needed 165
to be as large as proposed. 166
167
Foote stated that he would be in favor of the request and questioned if parking is currently 168
allowed along Tower Drive. 169
170
Finke stated that the road is not signed no parking therefore vehicles can park on the 171
roadway. He confirmed that once the reconstruction is complete they would only allow 172
parking in the designated spaces. 173
174
Foote stated that he was concerned with the shrunken size of the parking aisle but recognized 175
that the dimensions meet City Code. 176
177
Williams stated that he is sympathetic to the notion that the area needs more parking. He 178
stated that if the reason for the variance is the demand for parking he believed that if 179
approved the applicant should then make that parking available to everyone. He agreed with 180
the landscaping comments made by Reid and questioned if the City Engineer had comments 181
on the plan. 182
183
Finke explained that the City Engineer developed the plans and did not have any additional 184
comments on their own plans. 185
186
Williams questioned if this application is a result of the City discussions with the property 187
owner regarding the Tower Drive reconstruction. 188
189
Finke stated that it was not a direct result but confirmed that there have been significant 190
discussions with the property owners along Tower Drive. He explained that the property 191
owner believed that this would be a solution to the parking problem and would also improve 192
the site in conjunction with the reconstruction project. 193
194
Murrin questioned the length of time the property owner has owned the building. 195
196
Day advised that he has owned the building since construction in 1985. 197
198
Murrin stated that she liked the idea of removing the cars from Tower Drive and placing them 199
in a parking lot. She believed that even smaller parking spaces are better than no parking 200
spaces. She stated that perhaps additional landscaping can be added to the plans. She did not 201
believe that the City should demand that the property owner share his parking with other 202
property owners as it is private property. She confirmed that she would not be opposed to a 203
shared parking agreement but did not see that as the City’s place to specify that someone 204
should share their private property. 205
206
Nolan also believed that this variance could be supported and that the request is in line with 207
the Comprehensive Plan. He recognized that this would be an improvement to the parking 208
problem and also believed that the landscaping should come as close to the requirement as 209
possible. He referenced the issue of shared parking and stated that he would like to see a 210
5
shared agreement between this property and the other properties owned by the property 211
owner. He believed that the parking should at least be shared by those properties in order to 212
benefit the larger area to support the variance request and minimum landscaping 213
requirements. 214
215
Reid stated that in terms of shared parking she would support either entirely shared parking or 216
shared parking solely between the properties owned by the property owner. 217
218
Finke stated that he could provide those options to the Council. 219
220
Nolan stated that there is consensus to support the variance and to also support shared 221
parking, whether between just the properties owned by the property owner or extended to 222
other property owners as well. 223
224
Williams stated that if the applicant does not want to share parking, he simply does not have 225
to go through with the cost for improvement. He stated that the applicant came forward to 226
the City, the City did not ask the applicant to do this. 227
228
Nolan agreed to that point. He stated that additional landscaping islands could be placed in 229
the parking plan in place of extra parking spaces if the applicant simply wanted to meet the 230
parking demand for this site. He recognized that there is a regional parking problem in this 231
area and agreed that there would be support for a variance if the extra parking spaces could be 232
used for some sort of shared parking. 233
234
Motion by Reid, seconded by Williams, to recommend approval of the variance for 25 235
additional parking spaces on Tower Drive with the conditions recommended by staff and an 236
additional request for the landscaping plan to come as close to conformance as possible, and 237
amending condition four in the staff report to request that the parking spaces be made 238
available for the general public. 239
240
Further discussion: Murrin asked the property owner approximately how many additional 241
parking spaces would be needed to fill the demand of the properties he owns. 242
243
Day estimated about 20 additional spots would be necessary to fill the demand of the 244
buildings that he owns. 245
246
Murrin believed that the decision should be left open to the applicant. 247
248
Nolan noted that the reconstruction of Tower Drive will eliminate some of the chaos of the 249
roadway parking because the spaces will be identified and no additional street parking will be 250
allowed. He questioned where the people parking on the roadway currently would park once 251
Tower Drive reconstruction is completed and the 14 spaces are identified. 252
253
Finke stated that there is available parking in other areas that could be used but recognized 254
that some people will park illegally. He noted that would become an issue of enforcement. 255
256
Williams stated that the question in his mind is if this solution would support the variance 257
request if the parking is not opened to the general public. 258
259
Nolan stated that the solution comes from a practical point of view in that the applicant owns 260
this property and others in the area that will utilize this parking. 261
262
Williams stated that it could be easily posted with a parking sign. 263
6
264
Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers and White) 265
266
Motion by Reid, seconded by Williams, to recommend approval of the Site Plan for the 267
property located at 695-765 Tower Drive with increased landscaping, contingent upon the 268
approval of the variance request. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers and White) 269
270
7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code Related 271
to Solar Equipment 272
273
Finke stated that this ordinance amendment was brought forward through a presentation from 274
Wright Hennepin Electric to the Council in regard to solar energy. He explained that the 275
opportunity would allow for Wright Hennepin Electric customers to purchase a solar panel, 276
which would then be an investment in their energy services. He identified the proposed site 277
for this solar garden and explained that the current City Code would not allow for this type of 278
ground mounted solar panels/solar garden. He stated that the current regulations were 279
provided in the Commission packet. He advised that staff was not able to complete all of the 280
ordinance amendments but still wanted to bring the issue forward to the Commission to 281
obtain input on whether the City should allow ground mounted solar panels and if that would 282
be specific to certain areas or be allowed throughout the City. He stated that the Council was 283
supportive of more intensive commercial/industrial areas and perhaps not within residential 284
zoning areas. He stated that the solar garden program is bringing forward a lot of grant 285
applicants looking for properties in order to complete larger scale projects. He questioned if 286
the Commission would be open to larger scale projects or whether support would be limited 287
to smaller scale projects. He also noted that the performance standards should be considered. 288
He stated that a few model ordinances were included in the packet for review, both for urban 289
and rural areas. He advised that there is not an ordinance to consider but staff is looking for 290
input in order to draft the ordinance. He stated that the public hearing was noticed although 291
there are no members of the public present to provide comment. He suggested that the public 292
hearing be opened and tabled. He stated that if an ordinance were passed that would permit 293
this activity, Wright Hennepin would move forward on their project. 294
295
Reid questioned the current zoning of the parcel in discussion. 296
297
Finke believed that the parcel was zoned business or business park and is five acres in size. 298
299
Murrin questioned if a portion of Medina is serviced by Wright Hennepin and questioned if 300
there is interest from those homes for this type of service. 301
302
Finke reported that two thirds of the acreage in Medina is serviced by that company, which is 303
roughly about 40 percent of the population. He stated that Wright Hennepin has stated that 304
there is interest from their Medina customers in this product. 305
306
Murrin questioned if the company would be interested solely in this project or whether they 307
would also be interested in offering customers placement on residential property. 308
309
Finke stated that this request was for this project solely, although he did believe that the 310
company would support all opportunities allowed under the City Code. 311
312
Nolan questioned if the entire garden would be constructed by the company and then sold or 313
whether the project would be built as panels are sold. 314
315
7
Finke stated that it sounded like the project would be built out at one time but noted that they 316
most likely would not move forward on building until a certain amount of buy-in was 317
received from customers. 318
319
Nolan referenced the idea of districts and confirmed that the Commission would not support 320
this type of product in residential areas and would instead be limited to larger parcels in the 321
other districts such as commercial or business. 322
323
Reid agreed that this type of project should be limited to larger sites. 324
325
Finke stated that there is rooftop solar equipment in uptown Hamel. 326
327
Foote questioned if this could open up the possibility of someone desiring a 50 acre solar 328
garden project. 329
330
Nolan stated in that case the cost of land would probably come into play. He stated that the 331
use could be limited to a certain size tract of land, with no more than 20 percent, or one acre 332
maximum, of the land used for the solar equipment. 333
334
Finke stated that he can provide example parcels to the Commission to visit in order to get a 335
perspective on what that size of land would look like as well as example sites of solar 336
gardens. He displayed a map of the City and identified different zoning districts within the 337
City. 338
339
Nolan confirmed that the regulation could state at least 500 feet from a residential district. 340
341
Murrin stated that perhaps the ground mounted units should require review by the Planning 342
Commission and City Council. 343
344
Finke stated that an objective and criteria would need to be identified and if those are met the 345
application would qualify to be approved. He stated that the business district may be a good 346
fit as the description matches the comments of the Commission in regard to proximity to 347
residential. He reported that the setback from other business uses within that district could be 348
25 to 30 feet. 349
350
Murrin stated that perhaps language could be added to state that solar equipment must first be 351
placed on a rooftop is at all possible. 352
353
Finke stated that there is a similar installation in Maple Grove and advised that Wright 354
Hennepin has mentioned attempting to work with other cities in order to provide similar 355
opportunities. 356
357
Murrin stated that in her opinion this idea does not match the concept of Medina of rolling 358
hills and rural area. 359
360
Finke stated that this would be similar to building or hardcover. 361
362
Nolan summarized that the Commission would like to consider the business district with a 363
500 foot setback from residential properties, the solar equipment would count against 364
hardcover, solar gardens would require a conditional use permit, and a solar garden could not 365
count for more than 20 percent of the parcel or no more than one acre in size. Additional 366
language should be allowed encouraging placement on a building before utilizing ground 367
mounted units. 368
8
369
Public Hearing opened at 8:31p.m. 370
371
Anderson stated that it appears that the discussion tonight reconfirms the statements he made 372
earlier. He stated that this issue was passed to the Planning Commission to gain input and 373
felt that there has been terrific input provided tonight. He advised that as presented Wright 374
Hennepin is over subscribed for this type of product and noted that there is actually a 375
financial gain for those that choose to invest in the project. He commended the Commission 376
for their terrific discussion. 377
378
Motion by Foote, seconded by Reid, to table the public hearing for the ordinance 379
amendment related to regulations related to solar equipment to the February Commission 380
meeting. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Albers and White) 381
382
8. Nominations and Elections for Chair and Vice-Chair for 2015 383
Finke opened the floor for nominations for the Chair position. 384
385
Williams nominated Nolan for the position of Chair for 2015. 386
387
Finke closed the nominations for Chair. 388
389
Motion by Williams, seconded by Murrin, to elect Charles Nolan as Chair by acclamation 390
for the year 2015. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Albers and White) 391
392
Finke opened the floor for nominations for the Vice-Chair position. 393
394
Nolan nominated Reid for the position of Vice-Chair for 2015. 395
396
Finke closed the nominations for Vice-Chair. 397
398
Motion by Nolan, seconded by Williams, to elect Victoria Reid as Vice Chair by 399
acclamation for the year 2015. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Albers and White) 400
401
Nolan reviewed the process typically followed for planning cases, in order to provide the new 402
members of the Commission with more information. He asked Murrin to provide some 403
background information. 404
405
Murrin provided background information on herself included her CPA background. She 406
stated that over the summer through the Dominium project and the Villas of Medina project 407
she learned that there was a lot going on in the City and wanted to be a part of making the 408
City a great place to live for her family. 409
410
Finke commented that because the Planning Commission has such great opinions and 411
discussion that attributes to the overall outcome. He encouraged the Commission to provide 412
amendments of motions in order to keep a better record of discussion. He stated that process 413
ensures that everyone is heard and provided an opportunity to provide their input. 414
415
9. Council Meeting Schedule 416
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday the 20th. 417
418
10. Adjourn 419
Motion by Williams, seconded by Murrin, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion 420
carried unanimously. 421
PRDC | Adjacent Zoningμ0 575 1,150 1,725 2,300287.5FeetPSRRRR-1B (Orono 2 Ac.)SRURZoning with 1,000 Feet of Project SiteSITEfigure 1
L23AL37BL50AL22C2L40BL24AL25AL40BL132AL41D2L37BL50AL25AL41C2L22D2L40BL25AL36AL25AL70C2L37BL36AL41D2L25AL25AL36AL22C2L41D2L25AL22C2L36AL22C2L41C2L22D2L36AL25AL22C2L25AL22C2L25AL25AL132AL22C2L22D2L22D2L25AL36AL25Aμ0 310 620 930 1,240155FeetPRDC | Soils & WetlandsNWI - General Wetland Areas (within 300’ of property)2011 Survey Located Wetland BoundarySoil Survey derived from HCSS & Sathre-Bergquist Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat (North 80 Ac.)figure 2
Contiguous Suitable Soils per Medina OrdinancePRDC | Base Density Calculation Stonegate Gross Acres: 171 (Approx.)Contiguous Suitable Soils: per Sathre-Bergquist and Hennepin County Soil Survey: 112 Ac.*Base Density (lots) =Suitable Soils / 5 Ac.112 Ac. / 5 Ac. = 22.4 22 Lots Base Density** Rounded to nearest whole number
9909801000970
101010
2
0
1030
10401050
9801040
1030100
0
104010
1
0990 100010009809909909709909701010101010309809901010
1000
970 1020102010409901050
1
0
3
0
10001040102010101
0
6
0
10501010 99
0990
1050103010301030100010501050103
0
1050
1010102010
0
0
10
2
0
1
0 10201050 10201020100099098097010101020980101
0
980980100098010101020
9901010
10201000μ0 310 620 930 1,240155FeetPRDC | Contours,Slope Analysis & Drainage2-Foot ContoursSteep Slopes (Estimated over 18%)Existing Drainage99999999999888888888999888888888888002011 Survey Located Wetland Boundaryfigure 3
11111000000000000000000011110000444000011110000000444444400000000
111100000000000000
110111100001110009999990000 11100000111100000000000000997700999999990009977000111110000011110000111100011100011110000333300009988000011100111000
11110000000000000
999997777700000 1111000222000111002011100044400099999999000010500
1111
0000
3333
0000
11110000000000000011000444000011110000022220000011110000111100001111
0000
6666
00
111111000000555500011111001100 990999999999999990000000
11005500000011100000033333300011100033300011111000033000000001111110000000000000000010000005500111000555550000011003300
11100055500
1110000111100011100022000111000000000000
11111000000000002222000
11
000 1111111100000000222222200010055550000 110002220011002200111111100000000000000000000000000000999999999999999999990000009999988888000000009977001111000011110000100220011001100
11110000000001111000111000111000022220000
99999999990000011110000111000
1110022200011111111100000000000000000000000μ03106209301,240155FeetPRDC | Vegetation & Vistas11
970
1111000033330000
11100022220000
1111100005555000000
99988009880099998888800009988009980Maple-Basswood Forest Non-native & Planted TreesViewsheds & Vistas99999999999999999999999999999999999999990000000000000099999999999999998888888888000000000000000999888000000999999900000099911000111111110000000000000999999999999999999900000000000000044400000111100004111110000004444440000001110000999999900011111000003333300000Tamarackfigure 4
PRDC | 827.73: Site Design Processfigure 5Unbuildable (Wetlands, Wetland Buffer, Slopes >18%, Floodplain)Conservation AreasPotentially BuildableApproximate house sitePotential RoadsPotential Trails
PRDC | Concept Planfigure 6
figure 7
PLANNING REPORT
To: Medina Planning Commission
From: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner
Date: February 5, 2015
Meeting Date: February 10, 2015
Re: PRDC Conservation Design Planned Unit Development - Concept Plan
Application Date: January 13, 2015
BACKGROUND / GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC) has made an application for a Conservation
Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) Concept Plan review. The applicant is proposing a 42 lot
CD-PUD on approximately 170 acres on a property located east of Homestead Trail and west of Deer Hill
Road and Morningside Road. A CD-PUD is a type of PUD permitted by the City where an alternative
development plan (including increased density) to traditional zoning is employed in order to preserve
ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character.
SUBJECT SITE
The property is identified as four parcels in the Hennepin County property tax records. The total area of
the properties is approximately 170 acres. The property lies to the west of the western terminus of both
Deer Hill and Morningside Roads and east of Homestead Trail. There are several wetlands on the site
including a large wetland area on the northern edge of the property that is greater than 30 acres in size.
There are also areas of steep slopes on the property. The upland areas on the site are predominantly tilled
farmland.
The surrounding properties are residential in nature. The urban Medina Morningside and Keller Estates
developments are to the southeast of the site. Otherwise, the site is surrounded by rural residential
property. To the west of Homestead Trail is the Baker Park Reserve. To the south is the City of Orono.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING
The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The surrounding properties are primarily zoned RR, as
well. To the southeast there are properties zoned UR, Urban Residential and SR, Suburban Residential.
In the Comprehensive Plan, this property is guided for a Rural Residential Land Use. The Rural
Residential designation identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, rural commercial,
farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive
recreation. This area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by the
current Comprehensive Plan.
In rural areas, the City must maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for all new
development. The City generally utilizes the five acre contiguous suitable soils requirement in order to
2
pursue this objective. This requirement has maintained the required density in the recent past and the City
monitors rural subdivisions to ensure this standard is continuing to be met.
In the Comprehensive Plan and through the CD-PUD Ordinance, allowances are granted for allowing
open space development and maintaining rural character and simultaneously preserve significant natural
resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on portions
of a site in order to provide permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help
preserve the City’s natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average
overall density of ten acres for each unit.
While the City continues to enforce five contiguous acres of soils suitable for septic systems per lot, the
City also may consider exceptions for open space developments, such as this proposal, that protect natural
features and put land into permanent conservation. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that within
the Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (LTSSA), “these exceptions will not be allowed
to result in development with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross acres.” Map 5-3 and 5-4 in the
Comprehensive Plan identify this property as being in the LTSSA. The proposed density is approximately
one unit per four gross acres. If the one per ten gross acres limitation is read in the aggregate, the City
will need to account for impact of this additional density on its ability to provide flexibility for
conservation design for future development on other sites.
Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but allow
flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area will remain
rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to replace failing systems.
A CD-PUD is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider as an alternative to conventional
development. The City will give heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to
achieve conservation objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional
development. The Open Space Plan identifies this property as being a high quality natural resource area.
The northern portion of the site is identified as primarily a tamarack swamp. Homestead Trail along the
western edge of the site is identified in the plan as a scenic road.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
Minimum Site Requirements
The minimum land area required for a CD-PUD is 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District.
The subject property is 170 acres in size.
Density of Development
The CD-PUD District requires a base density calculation and then allows for additional density as part of
the PUD flexibility. The base density is established by regulations in the underlying zoning district. In
the Rural Residential District, the base density is determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of
contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. In
addition to the base density, additional density may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any
additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of the base
density. The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density
limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be up to 200% of the calculated base density.
For this purpose, the applicant will need to clearly demonstrate the methodology used for determining the
base density. In considering such flexibility for the additional density, the City must evaluate how well
the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional
development and the amount and quality of conservation area protected.
3
In the underlying zoning district, the requirement for minimum lot size is 5 acres of contiguous suitable
soils. This would be based on the soils types and slopes found in Section 820.29 Subd. 5. The applicant
has provided a graphic generally depicting 112 contiguous areas of suitable soils. This would mean a
base density of 22 units. More detail on the calculations of the base density should be provided with the
general plan and preliminary plat.
Conceptual Lots
The applicant is proposing 42 parcels that range in size from 1.2 to 2.6 acres in size. Setbacks are
required to be 35 feet from local roads and 30 feet from interior lot lines. Some parcels may have to be
adjusted to accommodate all required setbacks.
The applicant has provided generalized building locations on the parcels. During the general plan of
development and preliminary plat, the applicant will be able to provide more detail on the proposed
grading/drainage and house footprints anticipated for this development to ensure they will properly fit
within proposed building envelopes, especially on the parcels with steeper slopes.
Staff recommends that conceptual driveways also be depicted on the general plan of development.
Driveway grades and expected locations could be provided on the grading plan.
Transportation System
The primary road entrance to the development is proposed from Homestead Trail in Orono. The property
in Orono is under the control of the developer. The road then goes north through the subject site and
connects with Deer Hill Road. There are two cul-de-sacs that are intended as private roads. The City
typically requires such roads to be placed in outlots. The applicant will need to ensure the roads are built
to the standards recommended by the City Engineer.
The applicant is proposing a trail along the new street extending west from Deer Hill Road in the northern
portion of the site. It exits the site to the northwest and in the west central portion. The proposed trails
are predominantly adjacent to streets and do not enter proposed conservation areas. There are trail
corridors identified in the City’s trail plan for these general areas. The Park Commission will be asked to
review and comment.
Utilities
In rural areas, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either
individual septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic
tanks and primary drainfield/mount system located on the lot with the secondary drainfields/mound
system located in the designated conservation area or other such open space. All septic systems shall
conform to the current performance standards of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the
amended Rules in effect at the time of installation.
Except in instances where flexibility has been explicitly granted by the City, septic systems shall also
conform to relevant City regulations, including the requirement to identify a primary and secondary
drainfield site. The City may consider shared sewage treatment systems which are consistent with
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and relevant City ordinances, provided
adequate agreements are in place related to monitoring and maintenance procedures and replacement of
the system in case of a failure.
4
Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated conservation areas provided that they
are located within a limited distance of the lots they serve. Construction of drainfields/mound systems in
these instances shall not result in the destruction of ecological resources. The conservation area or open
space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system must be owned in fee by a common ownership
association in which membership is mandatory. In these cases, the lot should have direct and ensured
access to the area where the proposed secondary site is located.
The applicant is proposing Multi-flo pre-treatment systems for the development. These systems provide
and increased level of effluent treatment before being discharged to the drainfield. In order to operate
effectively, these systems also require a higher degree of maintenance than a standard system. It may be
advisable to have the HOA involved in the maintenance responsibilities, as a result of the increased
density and smaller lots being contemplated. More detail on the proposed systems and the locations of
septic areas will need to be supplied at the general plan of development.
A portion of this site is located within the City’s Drinking Water Supply Management Area. The City
will need to have information on the wells in this area registered to monitor possible contamination sites.
Wetlands
There are numerous small wetlands on site and the large wetland on the north side. Upland buffers will
be required. Setbacks to the buffers should be depicted on the general plan of development. In some
locations the proposed roads go through wetlands. It may be preferable to avoid these impacts, especially
near Lots 21 and 22.
Tree Preservation / Landscaping
Most of the upland subject site is tilled farmland. Tree removal would appear to be minimal. The
applicant can identify any proposed tree removal at the general plan of development. The CD-PUD
ordinance states that trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops.
Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common
conservation areas or open space. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban
appearance that regular spacing may invoke. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural
community types identified in the City’s 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. The ordinance encourages
plantings of buffers between groups of houses and along drainage ways.
Details on all required landscaping and buffer plantings shall be provided at the general plan of
development.
Conservation Areas
The minimum required conservation area within a CD-PUD development is required to be at least 30% of
the total buildable land area in the Rural Residential District or higher depending on the land and
opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives. The total buildable land area is defined as the
total area less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland
buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain. The applicant has provided a table
depicted the method by which they are calculating the percentage of conservation area, stating that the
conservation area is about 33% of the total buildable area. The general plan of development and
preliminary plat will be able to illustrate and confirm this data.
In the ordinance, it is stated that conservation areas are intended to be interconnected wherever possible to
provide a continuous network of open space within the development and throughout the City. It should
coordinate and maximize boundaries with conservation areas and/or open space on adjacent properties.
5
The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD
plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city.
The conservation area shall incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned
regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. Designated public access
trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the City.
The ordinance states that views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be
minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and
hilltops should be contained within designated conservation areas wherever possible. Trees should not be
removed from ridges and hilltops.
In the CD-PUD Ordinance, conservation areas are required to be platted into separate outlots. The areas
must be restricted from further development by a permanent conservation easement (in accordance with
Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C.01-05). The easement must be submitted with the General Plan of
Development and approved by the City Attorney. The permanent easement may be held by any
combination of the entities defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of
the easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee. The permanent conservation easement shall
be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify the entity that will maintain the designated
conservation area.
To improve north-south conservation area connectivity, it may be recommended that the conservation
area be connected in the areas of Lot 12.
Land Stewardship Plan
As stated in the ordinance, where a CD-PUD has designated conservation areas, a plan for the
development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all conservation areas, may be required. This
land stewardship plan needs to define ownership and methods of land protection and establish necessary
regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. The plan also needs to estimate staffing
needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define
the means for funding the same on an on-going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary
to fund monitoring and maintenance.
A preliminary plan for this purpose will need to be submitted with the General Plan of development. A
final plan for land stewardship shall be submitted with the final plan stage of PUD development. The plan
shall contain a narrative describing existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic
elements in the landscape. It should also outline objectives for each conservation area, including the
proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area and any restoration measures needed
to achieve the proposed permanent condition. Restoration measures should include measures for
correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion and intrusion of invasive plant species as
well as measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. A maintenance plan shall also
be included with activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and
burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and
schedules. Estimate of the annual on-going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs shall be
provided, as well. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds
for the maintenance and operation costs of conservation areas for up to four years depending on
restoration measures. The applicant has stated they are working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District on creating a land stewardship plan.
6
Park Dedication
Park dedication will need to be provided in a manner consistent with City ordinances. As noted above,
trail corridors are identified from existing Deerhill Road west through the subject property, and also in the
upland area north of the large wetland. The Park Commission will review and comment on this proposal.
REZONING
If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the subject property will be rezoned to Conservation Design-
PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land
shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and
agreements.
CD-PUD REVIEW
The purpose of the CD-PUD District is to preserve the City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors,
scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and
objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The
specific conservation objectives of this district are to:
1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands.
2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas.
3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and
ecologically significant natural areas.
4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments.
5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources.
6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources.
Additionally, in Section 827.25, the City states the purpose of a planned unit development. It states that
the PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot
area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage:
1) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2) Higher standards of site and building design.
3) The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4) Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which
result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of
the City.
5) Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding
open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
7) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering
development costs and public investments.
8) A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. PUDs
are not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.
9) A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application
on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
7
In Section 827.35 Subd. 4, it states that the City must base its action on the PUD on the compatibility of
the plan with the purpose statement above, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, impact of the plan
on the neighborhood in which it is located, and the adequacy of the following: internal site organization,
uses, densities, circulation, parking, public facilities, recreational uses, open space, and buffering and
landscaping.
The purpose of the concept plan review for a CD-PUD is for the applicant to explain the general intent of
the plan, for the Planning Commission and City Council to provide advisory comments to the applicant,
and for the public to give input. No comments from the Planning Commission or Council imply any
future approvals or commitments from the City. If the Planning Commissioners do not feel the proposed
plan meets the purpose of a PUD or more specifically a CD-PUD, comments on how to improve the plan
should be provided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing on the concept plan and
review the plan and provide comments to the applicant. The Commission should especially consider if
the proposed plan meets the intent of the CD-PUD Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Aerial Photo
B – List of Documents
C – Engineering Comments dated 2/6/2015
D – Applicant Narrative
E – Applicant Graphics
F – Survey
Project: LR‐15‐151 – PRDC CD PUD Concept Plan The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 1/12/20151/12/2015 3 Application Y Fee 1/12/20151/12/2015 1 Fee Y $1000 Mailing Labels 1/12/20151/12/2015 9 Labels Y Narrative 1/13/20151/13/2015 18 Narrative Y 18 pages + cover Graphics 1/13/20151/13/2015 7 Graphics Y 5 graphics, 2 plan sheets Alta Survey 1/20/201511/26/19931 Alta Survey N Base Density Calculation 1/20/2015 1 Base Density N Certificate of Title 1/27/20151/16/2007 3 Certificate of Title N Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Legal Comments 1/22/2015 2 Legal Comments Engineering Comments 2/6/2015 2 Engineer Comments 2‐6‐2015 Engineering Comments 1/22/2015 2 Engineer Comments 1‐22‐2015 Fire Marshal Comments 1/20/2015 1 Fire Comments Three Rivers Comments 2/2/2015 1 Three Rivers Comments No Comments Police Comments 1/14/2015 1 Police Comments No Comments Mailed Notice 1/3/2015 13 Notice
Public Comments
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
February 6, 2015
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: PRDC Conservation Design PUD
WSB Project No. 02712-330
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the concept plan submittal dated January 13, 2015 for the PRDC Conservation
Design PUD. The plans propose to construct improvements to serve a 42 single family homes. We
have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
1. Street design should meet a 30-mph design speed. Future submittals should include
horizontal curve data.
2. It appears several existing wetlands will be impacted by this development. Future submittals
should discuss mitigation plans for these wetland impacts.
3. It is our understanding these alternative systems require more maintenance than traditional
septic systems. We recommend if these systems are permitted that the HOA be required to
contract with a system maintainer to insure these systems function properly.
4. Having these “alternative” septic systems discharge to a full sized drainfield that provides the
3-feet of safety in the event these systems are not properly maintained.
5. The date and source of the survey information should be provided.
6. The legend on Figure 2 states the soil survey is derived from HCSS and Sathre-Bergquist
Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat. Figure 2 should clearly show where the soil survey has
been revised from the HCSS mapping.
7. The southern end of the “through road” is proposed to be constructed in Orono. The applicant
should provide evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that Orono will permit this work.
8. Any agreements between Orono and Medina for the portion of the proposed roadway in
Orono should define who is responsible for maintenance and ownership of this roadway
segment.
PRDC Conservation Design PUD
February 6, 2015
Page 2
9. The City should review the needs for any parks in this area.
10. The applicant should provide evidence that Hennepin County has approved the proposed
roadway connection to Homestead Trail.
11. The City should review the need for any improvements to the existing segment of Deer Hill
Road between the subject property and Willow Drive.
12. The “through road” would be considered a local roadway and by City Code shall have street
grades no less than 1% and no greater than 8%. Cul-de-sac street grades shall not exceed 8%.
13. Driveway grades shall not exceed 10%.
Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tom Kellogg
Conservation Design
Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD)
Concept Plan
applicant Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC)
submitted to City of Medina, Minnesota
owner Stonegate Farm, Inc.
date January 13, 2015
application
PRDC | 827.73: Site Design Process
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN2
Table of Contents
Narrative 3 - 11
Table 1: Site Tabulation 8
Table 2: Lot Count & Size 8
Figures
Zoning within 1,000 Ft. of Property Figure 1
Wetlands & Soils Figure 2
2-Foot Contours & Slope Analysis Figure 3
Vegetation & Vistas Figure 4
Site Design Process Figure 5
Concept Plan Figure 6
Adjacent Properties & Utilities/Easements Figure 7
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN3
General Information
(a)(1) & (2)
Applicant:Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC)
6851 Flying Cloud Drive Suite A
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Owner:Stonegate Farm, Inc.
6851 Flying Cloud Drive Suite A
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
(a)(3)
Attorney:Monroe Moxness Berg
7760 France Avenue S., Ste. 700
Edina, MN 55435
Planner:SHC, LLC
246 S. Albert St., Suite 2A
Saint Paul, MN 55105
Civil Engineer
& Surveyor:
Sathre-Bergquist
150 Broadway Ave. S
Wayzata, MN 55391
Septic
Engineer:
Halling Engineering, Inc.
3727 E 255th St.
Webster, MN 55088-9514
Site Design:J Scalzo Design, LLC
940 Ridge Point
Blaine, MN 55434
Septic
Design:
Miller’s Sewage Treatment
Solutions
9075 155th Street
Kimball, MN 55353
(a)(4)
Evidence of
Sufficient
Control
See pages 2 and 3 of the Application signed by the Applicant and Owner and the
Contingent Settlement Agreement dated and executed December 18, 2014
Present Status
(b)(1)
Location:NE of the CR-6 and Homestead Trl. Intersection
PIDs:21 118 23 31 0001
21 118 23 34 0002
21 118 23 34 0003
28 118 23 24 0001
Acres:170.49 (Approx.)
Legal:Attached
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN4
(b)(2)
Existing
Zoning:
The Subject property is zoned Rural Residential. Figure 1 shows all properties within
1,000-feet of the proposed project with existing zoning classifications as obtained from
the City’s website on 1/10/2015. Adjacent zoning districts include Rural Residential to
the north and northeast, Suburban Residential along the southeast, Public/Semi-Public
(park) to the west and RR-1B (2-acre) to the south in Orono.
(b)(3)
Existing
Development
Figures 1 and 7 depicts existing development of the Subject property and properties
within 1,000 feet of the proposed project.
(c)
Proposed Market & Market Demand
PRDC believes that the unique characteristics and conservation approach to this project will make it
appealing to a variety of potential buyers. The site plan is laid out in a way to appeal to a variety of
demographics, allowing for custom houses to be tailored to the individual needs of the buyer. Initial market
study from our team indicates that this type of subdivision does not currently exist in the marketplace, at
least not with this variety of lot sizes and extensive protected open space, and therefore should perform
well in the market. PRDC intends to engage a market research professional over the next several weeks to
research the potential demand, and consequently absorption rates, of this type of product to ensure phasing
is consistent with the market needs (see Section (g) for further discussion).
Additionally, we understand that the City is interested in maintaining housing diversity throughout the
community to ensure there are options available to current and future home owners ranging from affordable
to the high-end of the market. Recent developments considered in the City have included an affordable
rental housing project and entry-level and mid-level single family residential developments. The proposed
development will likely cater to the higher end of the buyer spectrum rounding out the options available to
those wishing to either move into the area, or offer move-up opportunities to those who currently reside in
the City. Further, the southwestern portion of the community is populated with conventional subdivisions
such as the Morningside and Keller Estates neighborhoods, or very large-lot rural residential development
and lacks the innovative developments that can be seen in other areas of the community. As such, we believe
that this project will bring a new vitality to the area while blending in seamlessly with the surroundings and
offering amenities not only to the development itself, but to the City as well.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan & Adjacent Uses of Neighboring Property
The City’s Comprehensive Plan (“Plan”) has guided the Subject property as Rural Residential which is
defined as, “areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, rural commercial, farming, hobby farms,
horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation...” The Subject
property is also identified on Figure 7-2 of the Plan as a “Moderate to High quality Natural Area” on the
Open Space Plan Priority Areas.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN5
As depicted on the Concept Plan shown on Figure 6, our Team has carefully designed and planned for
the seamless integration of the project into the surrounding area, and the adopted Comprehensive Plan,
through the following site design characteristics:
• Greenways are thoughtfully designed to maximize contiguous areas and align with the goals and
objectives as laid out in several of the City’s and cooperating agencies’ policy documents.
Homesites internal to the development are placed in strategic clusters allowing for the protection of more
than 30% of buildable upland areas, and more than 50% of the gross site.
• Conservation areas are aligned with the most significant wetland areas that are intended to be restored
in some capacity, improving the function and quality of surface water on the site.
• While lot sizes will vary throughout the development, individual lots will feel as expansive as many of
the adjacent larger-lot rural residential areas due to the integration of conservation areas and additional
protective covenants ensuring viewsheds and vegetative quality are protected.
• Roadways are designed as rural section and to minimize the impervious surfaces throughout the
development to the greatest extent possible.
(d)
Site Conditions
The site is approximately 170 acres and is generally located east of Homestead Trail, and north of County
Road 6. Deer Hill Road is stubbed into the eastern edge of the site with approximately 80 acres lying north
and 90 acres lying south of the road. The City of Medina jurisdictional boundary runs along the southern
property line, and there is an additional 23 acres associated with Stonegate Farm located in the City of
Orono. The site is slightly irregular in shape along the western boundary and provides approximately 720-
feet of frontage on Homestead Trail, with the property tucked behind some existing rural residential lots to
the west. The southeastern property line is bordered by the Morningside and Keller Estates neighborhoods
as well as several rural residential properties of varying lot sizes. The northern 40 acres of PID 28 118 23
24 0001 is relatively flat with some minor topographic changes, and generally slopes south to north. The
southern 50 acres of PID 28 118 23 24 0001 has some more significant topographic changes, and generally
slopes north to south with the steepest slopes along the southern perimeter of the site. The northern 80
acres of the site (PIDs 21 118 23 31 0001, 21 118 23 31 0002, 21 118 23 31 0003) generally slopes from
south to north, and includes a large wetland area comprising nearly 31 acres of the northernmost parcel
(known as the Tamarack). There are intermittent wetlands located throughout the site, and some tree stands
located mostly near the perimeter of the site, as the majority of the site has been agricultural production.
Additionally, along the western and eastern edge of the site, there are several rows of trees that were planted
by the Owner, and are currently managed as a nursery.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN6
(e) and 827.73
Concept Plan Design Process & Schematic Drawings
The PRDC Team developed the Concept Plan, Figure 5, utilizing the City’s Site Design Process as identified
in Section 827.73 in the Conservation Design Ordinance, and incorporating information collected during
due diligence and review of the existing site conditions of the Subject property. (See Figures 2 through 5
which demonstrate the site design process). One of the key components in the conservation design process
is to create a Yield Plan to establish the base density (number of lots permitted with existing zoning) under
consideration for the development. Sathre-Bergquist has prepared an analysis based on Figure 2 which
demonstrates a base density of 8-lots on the north 80-acres consistent with the Tamarack Ridge preliminary
plat from 2012; and a base density of 14-lots on the south 90-acres utilizing the Hennepin County Soil
Survey (HCSS). In late 2013 the City of Medina also assessed the Owner for 14 lots on the south 90-acres
of the property as part of the Willow Road improvements. Utilizing this information, Sathre-Bergquist has
created a yield plan which shows 22-lots on the Subject property supporting both the City’s Assessment
and HCSS.
In addition to the Site Design Process and establishing the Yield Plan for the project, PRDC understands
the importance of respecting the relationship between the Subject site and adjacent properties. Therefore,
some of the key considerations used to develop the Concept Plan were:
• Adjacent, existing neighborhoods to the east of the property are guided Low Density and Medium
Density Residential. The lot sizes in the these land use designations range from 15,000 square feet to
approximately an acre. It was important to our Team to ensure the proposed Concept Plan is consistent
with adjacent neighborhood patterns and, while there are no lot size standards in the CD-PUD, we did
not introduce lots sizes that were incompatible with the surrounding area.
• Respecting existing rural residential properties was also an important consideration, and strategic
buffering through vegetation, wetlands and topographic changes will protect existing lower density
properties.
• As demonstrated in the Site Design Process, topography of the site played a significant role in the
design of the Project and guided road alignment, home placement, and amenity locations.
• The south and southwestern edges provide exceptional views across Baker Park, and it is PRDC’s
objective to ensure that as many home owners as possible are able to enjoy and experience those views
from their properties. Additionally, since this area of the site borders existing rural residential homes,
we have setback homes from the ‘edge’ and introduced an open space area to ensure that not only are
views protected from the site, but looking onto the site as well.
• Integration of the wetlands, including consolidation and restorations, will provide a natural “corridor”
of open spaces that future and existing residents in the area can enjoy. These spaces will enhance the
neighborhood and ultimately improve water and environmental quality.
• Establishing key partnerships with organizations and agencies interested in the maintenance and
management of the conservation areas will ensure their long-term improvement and ultimate restoration
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN7
potential. Our team is working diligently to establish these partnerships and make sure they exist into
perpetuity.
• Creation of covenants and a detailed homeowner’s association document will ensure the protection of
the conservation areas through well documented roles and responsibilities of all parties with an interest
in the protection of the open spaces on the site.
• Designing each home site to accommodate a primary septic and individual well will ensure the long-
term viability and success of the individual homes, and ultimately the homeowner’s association.
(f)
Site Tabulation and Characteristics
Based upon the above stated considerations our Team designed the Concept Plan. The attached Concept
Plan includes lot sizes ranging from approximately 1.0 acre to 2.0 acres. As demonstrated on the Concept
Plan, a “corridor” of conservation open space along the eastern edge of the site will provide restoration
and protection opportunities to existing wetland areas as well as some of the big woods remnants which
can be found along the perimeter in this area. Additionally, this conservation area will connect into the
wetland complex found in the middle of the site and will offer additional opportunities for restoration and
connectivity into the corridor. There are several acres of conservation area that are integrated throughout the
site offering opportunities to the future residents of the development, as well as the greater neighborhood,
to enjoy the conservation and open space amenities. Trail development and connections were carefully
integrated to allow pedestrians, cross-country skiers and horse riders access to some of the most ecologically
interesting areas of the site, including the Tamarack and the ‘island’ on the north side of the project site.
Thoughtful integration of the conservation areas with the homesites will ensure the long-term viability and
success of these amenities for not only the neighborhood but the City as well.
Minimizing the roadways will help ensure the protection of the conservation areas and improve the site’s
water quality. As such, the proposed lots within the development will be served by a road network that
includes a main curvilinear roadway connecting Homestead Trail with Deer Hill Road, and two secondary
private cul-de-sacs which will access the main road. At our initial kick-off meeting city staff indicated a
desire to minimize the amount of roadway within the development and encourage - where possible - the
use of the primary access from Homestead Trail. We believe our Concept Plan and proposed road network
responds to those recommendations in the following ways:
The road “spine” is primarily oriented north-south from Homestead all the way into the northern 80-acres
of the project site thus resulting in direct visual access to the primary entrance for approximately 70% of the
lots. Generally, people travel in the pattern that is the most obvious, and visual access is a key contributor
to a driver’s decision making.
• One curvilinear road is proposed as opposed to a grid. This will help reduce the potential of cut-through
traffic, and the curvilinear design will help reduce speeds for those travelling in the neighborhood.
• The “spine” provides primary access to the majority of the proposed lots and only two private cul-
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN8
de-sacs are necessary. In addition to the alignment, the cul-de-sacs were designed to reduce as much
impervious coverage as possible. The road network was designed to be efficient while still complying
with the City’s ordinances and standards for roadway and access design.
The main access at Homestead is located in the City of Orono, but traverses land that is owned by Stonegate
Farm (Owner). We have spoken with city staff from the City of Orono and anticipate that this access will
be acceptable to them and Hennepin County. We will make the appropriate applications at Orono, and
Hennepin County if applicable, concurrently to our applications for a General Plan of Development at
Medina to ensure the viability of this access location. The design of the main roadway on the Concept
Plan includes a 60-foot right-of-way (“ROW”) and 24-feet of paved roadway. Our preference would be
to construct the road to 22-feet of pavement with 50-feet of ROW to reduce the quantity of impervious
surface associated with the roadway and to better integrate the new portion of roadway into the current and
future plans of Deer Hill Road. However, we will continue to show the roadway with 24-feet of pavement
and 60-feet of ROW unless otherwise directed by the City.
The proposed Concept Plan integrates trails throughout the development consistent with the goals and
objectives stated within the City’s Trail Plan adopted in March 2014. The trails will be developed in ROW
where available and applicable, and will be extended into open spaces and conservation areas as necessary.
The following table breaks out the approximate site breakdowns as shown in the Concept Plan.
Table 1: Use Tabulation (see Figure 5 and 6 for location)
Use Ownership Acres % of Site
Gross
% of Site Net
Rural Residential Home Sites Private 75.39 44.2%62.3%
Open Space (Upland Buildable)Private/
Easement
40.7 23.9%33.6%
Open Space - Unbuildable
(Wetlands, wetland buffer, steep
slopes>18%)
Private
Easement
49.33 29.0%---
Subtotal wetlands ----38.20 ------
Subtotal wetland buffer ----9.25 ------
Subtotal steep slopes>18%----1.88 ---
Street Paved Surface (Cul-de-sacs)TBD 1.02 0.6%0.8%
Street Paved Surface (Main Rd.)Public 3.97 2.3%3.3%
Subtotal Developed Area ---80.38 47.2%---
Subtotal Open Space ---90.03 52.8%---
Net BUILDABLE TOTAL 121.08 ---100%
Gross TOTAL 170.41 100%---
*Significant wetlands are located within open spaces and acreages denoted on the table above. This is an estimate
only and will be further refined through development of the Land Stewardship Plan.
**ROW Cul-de-sacs calculated at 1.9 Acres, and Main Road at 8.5 Acres.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN9
The following table represents further break down of the number of units, and average lot sizes as proposed
on the Concept Plan.
Table 2: Lot Count & Size
Zoning Number of Units Lot Size Acres
CD-PUD (North 80)15 1.24 - 2.15 Acres
CD-PUD (South 90 Ac)27 1.3 -2 .67 Acres
Subtotal Lots 42 ---
Total Lot Area 75.39 Acres
Average Lot Size 1.8 Acres
(g)
Phasing
PRDC anticipates the project to be completed in a minimum of three Phases, beginning with Phase I in
the southwestern corner of the site at the primary entrance. It is anticipated that the main road will be
constructed up-front and all in one construction season, and therefore phasing could be fairly fluid to meet
the demands of the market. As previously indicated, we intend to conduct a market study to understand
absorption rates and buyer preferences of the anticipated product type. Once we have a firmer handle on
the market, we will structure our phasing plan to respond to anticipated demands. Within each Phase
there will likely be various “Additions” depending on the builders selected. We anticipate that the open
space areas, landscaping, etc., will be completed as each Phase and/or Addition is brought on-line. Since
each home/lot will be constructed with it’s own well and primary septic site, no initial infrastructure will
be necessary with the exception of the roadways and soft utilities. As the addition/phase approaches the
private cul-de-sac, these roadways will be constructed and installed to ensure adequate supply to the market.
There are several factors which could affect the timing of the project, and we would like to work with the
City to establish and determine the appropriate timing once the detailed CD-PUD plan is approved and
the Development Agreement drafted and executed.
(h)
Open Space Provisions
We understand that the City’s ordinance requires a minimum of 30% of the buildable land to be placed
within conservation easements to be held by an qualifying party. PRDC is currently working to identify
a partner to hold the conservation easements, and will work with that entity to establish a restoration and
planting plan that will include an agreement for it’s implementation and long term maintenance. The
agreement will be memorialized as part of the Land Stewardship Plan which will be finalized as part of
each phase and Final Plat. Any and all maintenance and management will likely become the responsibility
of the HOA if not performed by the conservation easement holder. However, at this time the specifics
of the relationship are not known but will be more fully developed as this process progresses. PRDC is
working with a potential conservation easement holder on a partnership agreement, which will hopefully be
established by the time this Concept Plan is heard at the Planning Commission. If so, PRDC will provide
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN10
a verbal update of the status of that relationship and the process identified for moving forward with that
entity and any other information that may be helpful to this review process.
(i)
Maintenance Plan & Covenants
PRDC will establish a Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”) for the proposed development, which
will include responsibility for management of the maintenance plan and covenants associated with the
development. The majority of the Open Space will be contained within Conservation Easements that
will be held by a third party. At this time, we have not solidified our relationship with an entity to hold
the conservation easements and therefore it is unknown what level of responsibility, if any, the HOA will
have for maintenance and management of the conservation easement areas. If necessary, the appropriate
responsibilities to be assumed by the HOA will be defined during through the development of the Land
Stewardship Plan. All other common areas including, but not limited to, the monument sign will be the
responsibility of the HOA and will be detailed within the HOA documents. Additionally, as the landscape
plan is developed in greater detail the specific roles and responsibilities of the HOA will be programmed
and documents drafted. PRDC anticipates that the main road and trails will be located within the publicly
dedicated right-of-way and will thus be the responsibility of the City. All private roads will also be the
responsibility of the HOA which will be detailed in the Maintenance Plan.
PRDC will also develop covenants to address home and landscape architecture, building envelope, and
other use standards that will ensure the character of the neighborhood is protected. PRDC understands
that these covenants must be as restrictive as the City’s ordinances. It is anticipated that the covenants are
likely to more restrictive than the City’s ordinances and therefore will be subject to the enforcement of the
HOA. We also anticipate the development of the HOA document to occur concurrently with the CD-PUD
planning and development process to ensure the vision and character of the development in maintained and
established from the beginning.
(j)
Schematic Utility Plans
PRDC’s goal is to design the project to accommodate individual septic systems and individual wells on
each lot. The following summary of the septic design and individual wells is provided for your review and
consideration:
Individual Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems
Our Team is proposing to utilize alternative wastewater treatment methods to accommodate, at a minimum,
a primary septic system on each lot. At this time we believe it will be possible to provide individual
wastewater treatment to each lot and avoid the use of community wastewater treatment. The following
summary of the initial design is provided:
• Each lot/home will be designed to include an area suitable for the purposes of installing an alternative
wastewater treatment system and associated primary drainfield/mound.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN11
• The current design utilizes a product called Multi-flo which essentially operates as it’s own mini package
plant, that will be individually managed and maintained by the home owner. (A pamphlet describing
the Multi-flo is attached for your background and consideration).
• The system is designed so that it will be highly unlikely that any secondary site will ever be needed, as
the effluent leaving the Multi-flo is extremely clean, and thus more environmentally friendly than a
traditional system.
• In compliance with state rules and the City’s CD Ordinance, a secondary drainfield/mound site will
be located on every lot, where available, or within proximity to the lot within the conservation areas.
• Although preliminary site work indicates that it is feasible to accommodate a primary septic site on
each lot, we are not able to confirm until perc tests can be performed in the spring. If any lot(s) are
determined not to meet the requirements of an on site individual system we intend to design a small
community system to serve the lot(s).
Water - Individual Wells
PRDC discussed various options with several consultants to determine the best and safest approach to
providing water to the individual lots. At this time, we believe the most efficient, and cost effective solution
is to locate an individual private well on each lot. The following summary of initial design and reasoning
is provided:
• Once the septic system and drainfield/mound are located for each site the available area for a well can
be identified and located outside of all necessary setbacks.
• A pressurization review will be conducted on each lot to ensure compliance of all necessary setbacks for
pressurized lines.
• All appropriate permits will be obtained as part of the lot development process.
• Individual wells will help minimize risk associated with contamination and safety which may be present
with a community system.
• Individual wells will also reduce the scope of the HOA and limit its management and maintenance
responsibilities which will already be significant due to the scope of the conservation design.
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2111823310001 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2111823310001
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23.
Print this window C lose this window
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2111823340002 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2111823340002
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23; SUBJECT TO ROAD.
Print this window C lose this window
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2111823340003 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2111823340003
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23; SUBJECT TO ROAD.
Print this window C lose this window
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2811823240001 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2811823240001
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28,
TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23, SUBJECT TO ROAD; ALSO THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23 EXCEPT THAT
PART THEREOF WHICH LIES WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF SOUTH 0
DEGREES, 07 MINUTES, 42 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 925.33 FEET
TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE
SOUTH 45 DEGREES, 52 MINUTES, 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 115.25 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES, 56 MINUTES, 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 53.92
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, DISTANT 1140.18 FEET
SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER AND SAID LINE THERE ENDING; ALSO THAT PART OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP
118, RANGE 23 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 668.33; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF
548.47 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF DILLMAN ROAD; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 41 DEGREES, 13 MINUTES, 16 SECONDS ALONG
EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 60.15 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY
239.14 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD BEING A TANGENTIAL
CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 254.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 249.7
FEET ALONG EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD, BEING TANGENT TO LAST DESCRIBED
CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY 166.62 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
ROAD TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER; SAID 166.62 FEET BEING ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO TH
Print this window C lose this window
Project: LR‐15‐151 – PRDC CD PUD Concept Plan The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 1/12/20151/12/2015 3 Application Y Fee 1/12/20151/12/2015 1 Fee Y $1000 Mailing Labels 1/12/20151/12/2015 9 Labels Y Narrative 1/13/20151/13/2015 18 Narrative Y 18 pages + cover Graphics 1/13/20151/13/2015 7 Graphics Y 5 graphics, 2 plan sheets Alta Survey 1/20/201511/26/19931 Alta Survey N Base Density Calculation 1/20/2015 1 Base Density N Certificate of Title 1/27/20151/16/2007 3 Certificate of Title N Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Legal Comments 1/22/2015 2 Legal Comments Engineering Comments 2/6/2015 2 Engineer Comments 2‐6‐2015 Engineering Comments 1/22/2015 2 Engineer Comments 1‐22‐2015 Fire Marshal Comments 1/20/2015 1 Fire Comments Three Rivers Comments 2/2/2015 1 Three Rivers Comments No Comments Police Comments 1/14/2015 1 Police Comments No Comments Mailed Notice 1/3/2015 13 Notice
Public Comments
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
February 6, 2015
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: PRDC Conservation Design PUD
WSB Project No. 02712-330
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the concept plan submittal dated January 13, 2015 for the PRDC Conservation
Design PUD. The plans propose to construct improvements to serve a 42 single family homes. We
have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
1. Street design should meet a 30-mph design speed. Future submittals should include
horizontal curve data.
2. It appears several existing wetlands will be impacted by this development. Future submittals
should discuss mitigation plans for these wetland impacts.
3. It is our understanding these alternative systems require more maintenance than traditional
septic systems. We recommend if these systems are permitted that the HOA be required to
contract with a system maintainer to insure these systems function properly.
4. Having these “alternative” septic systems discharge to a full sized drainfield that provides the
3-feet of safety in the event these systems are not properly maintained.
5. The date and source of the survey information should be provided.
6. The legend on Figure 2 states the soil survey is derived from HCSS and Sathre-Bergquist
Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat. Figure 2 should clearly show where the soil survey has
been revised from the HCSS mapping.
7. The southern end of the “through road” is proposed to be constructed in Orono. The applicant
should provide evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that Orono will permit this work.
8. Any agreements between Orono and Medina for the portion of the proposed roadway in
Orono should define who is responsible for maintenance and ownership of this roadway
segment.
PRDC Conservation Design PUD
February 6, 2015
Page 2
9. The City should review the needs for any parks in this area.
10. The applicant should provide evidence that Hennepin County has approved the proposed
roadway connection to Homestead Trail.
11. The City should review the need for any improvements to the existing segment of Deer Hill
Road between the subject property and Willow Drive.
12. The “through road” would be considered a local roadway and by City Code shall have street
grades no less than 1% and no greater than 8%. Cul-de-sac street grades shall not exceed 8%.
13. Driveway grades shall not exceed 10%.
Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tom Kellogg
Conservation Design
Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD)
Concept Plan
applicant Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC)
submitted to City of Medina, Minnesota
owner Stonegate Farm, Inc.
date January 13, 2015
application
PRDC | 827.73: Site Design Process
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN2
Table of Contents
Narrative 3 - 11
Table 1: Site Tabulation 8
Table 2: Lot Count & Size 8
Figures
Zoning within 1,000 Ft. of Property Figure 1
Wetlands & Soils Figure 2
2-Foot Contours & Slope Analysis Figure 3
Vegetation & Vistas Figure 4
Site Design Process Figure 5
Concept Plan Figure 6
Adjacent Properties & Utilities/Easements Figure 7
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN3
General Information
(a)(1) & (2)
Applicant:Property Resources Development Corporation, Inc. (PRDC)
6851 Flying Cloud Drive Suite A
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Owner:Stonegate Farm, Inc.
6851 Flying Cloud Drive Suite A
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
(a)(3)
Attorney:Monroe Moxness Berg
7760 France Avenue S., Ste. 700
Edina, MN 55435
Planner:SHC, LLC
246 S. Albert St., Suite 2A
Saint Paul, MN 55105
Civil Engineer
& Surveyor:
Sathre-Bergquist
150 Broadway Ave. S
Wayzata, MN 55391
Septic
Engineer:
Halling Engineering, Inc.
3727 E 255th St.
Webster, MN 55088-9514
Site Design:J Scalzo Design, LLC
940 Ridge Point
Blaine, MN 55434
Septic
Design:
Miller’s Sewage Treatment
Solutions
9075 155th Street
Kimball, MN 55353
(a)(4)
Evidence of
Sufficient
Control
See pages 2 and 3 of the Application signed by the Applicant and Owner and the
Contingent Settlement Agreement dated and executed December 18, 2014
Present Status
(b)(1)
Location:NE of the CR-6 and Homestead Trl. Intersection
PIDs:21 118 23 31 0001
21 118 23 34 0002
21 118 23 34 0003
28 118 23 24 0001
Acres:170.49 (Approx.)
Legal:Attached
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN4
(b)(2)
Existing
Zoning:
The Subject property is zoned Rural Residential. Figure 1 shows all properties within
1,000-feet of the proposed project with existing zoning classifications as obtained from
the City’s website on 1/10/2015. Adjacent zoning districts include Rural Residential to
the north and northeast, Suburban Residential along the southeast, Public/Semi-Public
(park) to the west and RR-1B (2-acre) to the south in Orono.
(b)(3)
Existing
Development
Figures 1 and 7 depicts existing development of the Subject property and properties
within 1,000 feet of the proposed project.
(c)
Proposed Market & Market Demand
PRDC believes that the unique characteristics and conservation approach to this project will make it
appealing to a variety of potential buyers. The site plan is laid out in a way to appeal to a variety of
demographics, allowing for custom houses to be tailored to the individual needs of the buyer. Initial market
study from our team indicates that this type of subdivision does not currently exist in the marketplace, at
least not with this variety of lot sizes and extensive protected open space, and therefore should perform
well in the market. PRDC intends to engage a market research professional over the next several weeks to
research the potential demand, and consequently absorption rates, of this type of product to ensure phasing
is consistent with the market needs (see Section (g) for further discussion).
Additionally, we understand that the City is interested in maintaining housing diversity throughout the
community to ensure there are options available to current and future home owners ranging from affordable
to the high-end of the market. Recent developments considered in the City have included an affordable
rental housing project and entry-level and mid-level single family residential developments. The proposed
development will likely cater to the higher end of the buyer spectrum rounding out the options available to
those wishing to either move into the area, or offer move-up opportunities to those who currently reside in
the City. Further, the southwestern portion of the community is populated with conventional subdivisions
such as the Morningside and Keller Estates neighborhoods, or very large-lot rural residential development
and lacks the innovative developments that can be seen in other areas of the community. As such, we believe
that this project will bring a new vitality to the area while blending in seamlessly with the surroundings and
offering amenities not only to the development itself, but to the City as well.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan & Adjacent Uses of Neighboring Property
The City’s Comprehensive Plan (“Plan”) has guided the Subject property as Rural Residential which is
defined as, “areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, rural commercial, farming, hobby farms,
horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation...” The Subject
property is also identified on Figure 7-2 of the Plan as a “Moderate to High quality Natural Area” on the
Open Space Plan Priority Areas.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN5
As depicted on the Concept Plan shown on Figure 6, our Team has carefully designed and planned for
the seamless integration of the project into the surrounding area, and the adopted Comprehensive Plan,
through the following site design characteristics:
• Greenways are thoughtfully designed to maximize contiguous areas and align with the goals and
objectives as laid out in several of the City’s and cooperating agencies’ policy documents.
Homesites internal to the development are placed in strategic clusters allowing for the protection of more
than 30% of buildable upland areas, and more than 50% of the gross site.
• Conservation areas are aligned with the most significant wetland areas that are intended to be restored
in some capacity, improving the function and quality of surface water on the site.
• While lot sizes will vary throughout the development, individual lots will feel as expansive as many of
the adjacent larger-lot rural residential areas due to the integration of conservation areas and additional
protective covenants ensuring viewsheds and vegetative quality are protected.
• Roadways are designed as rural section and to minimize the impervious surfaces throughout the
development to the greatest extent possible.
(d)
Site Conditions
The site is approximately 170 acres and is generally located east of Homestead Trail, and north of County
Road 6. Deer Hill Road is stubbed into the eastern edge of the site with approximately 80 acres lying north
and 90 acres lying south of the road. The City of Medina jurisdictional boundary runs along the southern
property line, and there is an additional 23 acres associated with Stonegate Farm located in the City of
Orono. The site is slightly irregular in shape along the western boundary and provides approximately 720-
feet of frontage on Homestead Trail, with the property tucked behind some existing rural residential lots to
the west. The southeastern property line is bordered by the Morningside and Keller Estates neighborhoods
as well as several rural residential properties of varying lot sizes. The northern 40 acres of PID 28 118 23
24 0001 is relatively flat with some minor topographic changes, and generally slopes south to north. The
southern 50 acres of PID 28 118 23 24 0001 has some more significant topographic changes, and generally
slopes north to south with the steepest slopes along the southern perimeter of the site. The northern 80
acres of the site (PIDs 21 118 23 31 0001, 21 118 23 31 0002, 21 118 23 31 0003) generally slopes from
south to north, and includes a large wetland area comprising nearly 31 acres of the northernmost parcel
(known as the Tamarack). There are intermittent wetlands located throughout the site, and some tree stands
located mostly near the perimeter of the site, as the majority of the site has been agricultural production.
Additionally, along the western and eastern edge of the site, there are several rows of trees that were planted
by the Owner, and are currently managed as a nursery.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN6
(e) and 827.73
Concept Plan Design Process & Schematic Drawings
The PRDC Team developed the Concept Plan, Figure 5, utilizing the City’s Site Design Process as identified
in Section 827.73 in the Conservation Design Ordinance, and incorporating information collected during
due diligence and review of the existing site conditions of the Subject property. (See Figures 2 through 5
which demonstrate the site design process). One of the key components in the conservation design process
is to create a Yield Plan to establish the base density (number of lots permitted with existing zoning) under
consideration for the development. Sathre-Bergquist has prepared an analysis based on Figure 2 which
demonstrates a base density of 8-lots on the north 80-acres consistent with the Tamarack Ridge preliminary
plat from 2012; and a base density of 14-lots on the south 90-acres utilizing the Hennepin County Soil
Survey (HCSS). In late 2013 the City of Medina also assessed the Owner for 14 lots on the south 90-acres
of the property as part of the Willow Road improvements. Utilizing this information, Sathre-Bergquist has
created a yield plan which shows 22-lots on the Subject property supporting both the City’s Assessment
and HCSS.
In addition to the Site Design Process and establishing the Yield Plan for the project, PRDC understands
the importance of respecting the relationship between the Subject site and adjacent properties. Therefore,
some of the key considerations used to develop the Concept Plan were:
• Adjacent, existing neighborhoods to the east of the property are guided Low Density and Medium
Density Residential. The lot sizes in the these land use designations range from 15,000 square feet to
approximately an acre. It was important to our Team to ensure the proposed Concept Plan is consistent
with adjacent neighborhood patterns and, while there are no lot size standards in the CD-PUD, we did
not introduce lots sizes that were incompatible with the surrounding area.
• Respecting existing rural residential properties was also an important consideration, and strategic
buffering through vegetation, wetlands and topographic changes will protect existing lower density
properties.
• As demonstrated in the Site Design Process, topography of the site played a significant role in the
design of the Project and guided road alignment, home placement, and amenity locations.
• The south and southwestern edges provide exceptional views across Baker Park, and it is PRDC’s
objective to ensure that as many home owners as possible are able to enjoy and experience those views
from their properties. Additionally, since this area of the site borders existing rural residential homes,
we have setback homes from the ‘edge’ and introduced an open space area to ensure that not only are
views protected from the site, but looking onto the site as well.
• Integration of the wetlands, including consolidation and restorations, will provide a natural “corridor”
of open spaces that future and existing residents in the area can enjoy. These spaces will enhance the
neighborhood and ultimately improve water and environmental quality.
• Establishing key partnerships with organizations and agencies interested in the maintenance and
management of the conservation areas will ensure their long-term improvement and ultimate restoration
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN7
potential. Our team is working diligently to establish these partnerships and make sure they exist into
perpetuity.
• Creation of covenants and a detailed homeowner’s association document will ensure the protection of
the conservation areas through well documented roles and responsibilities of all parties with an interest
in the protection of the open spaces on the site.
• Designing each home site to accommodate a primary septic and individual well will ensure the long-
term viability and success of the individual homes, and ultimately the homeowner’s association.
(f)
Site Tabulation and Characteristics
Based upon the above stated considerations our Team designed the Concept Plan. The attached Concept
Plan includes lot sizes ranging from approximately 1.0 acre to 2.0 acres. As demonstrated on the Concept
Plan, a “corridor” of conservation open space along the eastern edge of the site will provide restoration
and protection opportunities to existing wetland areas as well as some of the big woods remnants which
can be found along the perimeter in this area. Additionally, this conservation area will connect into the
wetland complex found in the middle of the site and will offer additional opportunities for restoration and
connectivity into the corridor. There are several acres of conservation area that are integrated throughout the
site offering opportunities to the future residents of the development, as well as the greater neighborhood,
to enjoy the conservation and open space amenities. Trail development and connections were carefully
integrated to allow pedestrians, cross-country skiers and horse riders access to some of the most ecologically
interesting areas of the site, including the Tamarack and the ‘island’ on the north side of the project site.
Thoughtful integration of the conservation areas with the homesites will ensure the long-term viability and
success of these amenities for not only the neighborhood but the City as well.
Minimizing the roadways will help ensure the protection of the conservation areas and improve the site’s
water quality. As such, the proposed lots within the development will be served by a road network that
includes a main curvilinear roadway connecting Homestead Trail with Deer Hill Road, and two secondary
private cul-de-sacs which will access the main road. At our initial kick-off meeting city staff indicated a
desire to minimize the amount of roadway within the development and encourage - where possible - the
use of the primary access from Homestead Trail. We believe our Concept Plan and proposed road network
responds to those recommendations in the following ways:
The road “spine” is primarily oriented north-south from Homestead all the way into the northern 80-acres
of the project site thus resulting in direct visual access to the primary entrance for approximately 70% of the
lots. Generally, people travel in the pattern that is the most obvious, and visual access is a key contributor
to a driver’s decision making.
• One curvilinear road is proposed as opposed to a grid. This will help reduce the potential of cut-through
traffic, and the curvilinear design will help reduce speeds for those travelling in the neighborhood.
• The “spine” provides primary access to the majority of the proposed lots and only two private cul-
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN8
de-sacs are necessary. In addition to the alignment, the cul-de-sacs were designed to reduce as much
impervious coverage as possible. The road network was designed to be efficient while still complying
with the City’s ordinances and standards for roadway and access design.
The main access at Homestead is located in the City of Orono, but traverses land that is owned by Stonegate
Farm (Owner). We have spoken with city staff from the City of Orono and anticipate that this access will
be acceptable to them and Hennepin County. We will make the appropriate applications at Orono, and
Hennepin County if applicable, concurrently to our applications for a General Plan of Development at
Medina to ensure the viability of this access location. The design of the main roadway on the Concept
Plan includes a 60-foot right-of-way (“ROW”) and 24-feet of paved roadway. Our preference would be
to construct the road to 22-feet of pavement with 50-feet of ROW to reduce the quantity of impervious
surface associated with the roadway and to better integrate the new portion of roadway into the current and
future plans of Deer Hill Road. However, we will continue to show the roadway with 24-feet of pavement
and 60-feet of ROW unless otherwise directed by the City.
The proposed Concept Plan integrates trails throughout the development consistent with the goals and
objectives stated within the City’s Trail Plan adopted in March 2014. The trails will be developed in ROW
where available and applicable, and will be extended into open spaces and conservation areas as necessary.
The following table breaks out the approximate site breakdowns as shown in the Concept Plan.
Table 1: Use Tabulation (see Figure 5 and 6 for location)
Use Ownership Acres % of Site
Gross
% of Site Net
Rural Residential Home Sites Private 75.39 44.2%62.3%
Open Space (Upland Buildable)Private/
Easement
40.7 23.9%33.6%
Open Space - Unbuildable
(Wetlands, wetland buffer, steep
slopes>18%)
Private
Easement
49.33 29.0%---
Subtotal wetlands ----38.20 ------
Subtotal wetland buffer ----9.25 ------
Subtotal steep slopes>18%----1.88 ---
Street Paved Surface (Cul-de-sacs)TBD 1.02 0.6%0.8%
Street Paved Surface (Main Rd.)Public 3.97 2.3%3.3%
Subtotal Developed Area ---80.38 47.2%---
Subtotal Open Space ---90.03 52.8%---
Net BUILDABLE TOTAL 121.08 ---100%
Gross TOTAL 170.41 100%---
*Significant wetlands are located within open spaces and acreages denoted on the table above. This is an estimate
only and will be further refined through development of the Land Stewardship Plan.
**ROW Cul-de-sacs calculated at 1.9 Acres, and Main Road at 8.5 Acres.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN9
The following table represents further break down of the number of units, and average lot sizes as proposed
on the Concept Plan.
Table 2: Lot Count & Size
Zoning Number of Units Lot Size Acres
CD-PUD (North 80)15 1.24 - 2.15 Acres
CD-PUD (South 90 Ac)27 1.3 -2 .67 Acres
Subtotal Lots 42 ---
Total Lot Area 75.39 Acres
Average Lot Size 1.8 Acres
(g)
Phasing
PRDC anticipates the project to be completed in a minimum of three Phases, beginning with Phase I in
the southwestern corner of the site at the primary entrance. It is anticipated that the main road will be
constructed up-front and all in one construction season, and therefore phasing could be fairly fluid to meet
the demands of the market. As previously indicated, we intend to conduct a market study to understand
absorption rates and buyer preferences of the anticipated product type. Once we have a firmer handle on
the market, we will structure our phasing plan to respond to anticipated demands. Within each Phase
there will likely be various “Additions” depending on the builders selected. We anticipate that the open
space areas, landscaping, etc., will be completed as each Phase and/or Addition is brought on-line. Since
each home/lot will be constructed with it’s own well and primary septic site, no initial infrastructure will
be necessary with the exception of the roadways and soft utilities. As the addition/phase approaches the
private cul-de-sac, these roadways will be constructed and installed to ensure adequate supply to the market.
There are several factors which could affect the timing of the project, and we would like to work with the
City to establish and determine the appropriate timing once the detailed CD-PUD plan is approved and
the Development Agreement drafted and executed.
(h)
Open Space Provisions
We understand that the City’s ordinance requires a minimum of 30% of the buildable land to be placed
within conservation easements to be held by an qualifying party. PRDC is currently working to identify
a partner to hold the conservation easements, and will work with that entity to establish a restoration and
planting plan that will include an agreement for it’s implementation and long term maintenance. The
agreement will be memorialized as part of the Land Stewardship Plan which will be finalized as part of
each phase and Final Plat. Any and all maintenance and management will likely become the responsibility
of the HOA if not performed by the conservation easement holder. However, at this time the specifics
of the relationship are not known but will be more fully developed as this process progresses. PRDC is
working with a potential conservation easement holder on a partnership agreement, which will hopefully be
established by the time this Concept Plan is heard at the Planning Commission. If so, PRDC will provide
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN10
a verbal update of the status of that relationship and the process identified for moving forward with that
entity and any other information that may be helpful to this review process.
(i)
Maintenance Plan & Covenants
PRDC will establish a Homeowner’s Association (“HOA”) for the proposed development, which
will include responsibility for management of the maintenance plan and covenants associated with the
development. The majority of the Open Space will be contained within Conservation Easements that
will be held by a third party. At this time, we have not solidified our relationship with an entity to hold
the conservation easements and therefore it is unknown what level of responsibility, if any, the HOA will
have for maintenance and management of the conservation easement areas. If necessary, the appropriate
responsibilities to be assumed by the HOA will be defined during through the development of the Land
Stewardship Plan. All other common areas including, but not limited to, the monument sign will be the
responsibility of the HOA and will be detailed within the HOA documents. Additionally, as the landscape
plan is developed in greater detail the specific roles and responsibilities of the HOA will be programmed
and documents drafted. PRDC anticipates that the main road and trails will be located within the publicly
dedicated right-of-way and will thus be the responsibility of the City. All private roads will also be the
responsibility of the HOA which will be detailed in the Maintenance Plan.
PRDC will also develop covenants to address home and landscape architecture, building envelope, and
other use standards that will ensure the character of the neighborhood is protected. PRDC understands
that these covenants must be as restrictive as the City’s ordinances. It is anticipated that the covenants are
likely to more restrictive than the City’s ordinances and therefore will be subject to the enforcement of the
HOA. We also anticipate the development of the HOA document to occur concurrently with the CD-PUD
planning and development process to ensure the vision and character of the development in maintained and
established from the beginning.
(j)
Schematic Utility Plans
PRDC’s goal is to design the project to accommodate individual septic systems and individual wells on
each lot. The following summary of the septic design and individual wells is provided for your review and
consideration:
Individual Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems
Our Team is proposing to utilize alternative wastewater treatment methods to accommodate, at a minimum,
a primary septic system on each lot. At this time we believe it will be possible to provide individual
wastewater treatment to each lot and avoid the use of community wastewater treatment. The following
summary of the initial design is provided:
• Each lot/home will be designed to include an area suitable for the purposes of installing an alternative
wastewater treatment system and associated primary drainfield/mound.
PRDC | CD-PUD CONCEPT PLAN11
• The current design utilizes a product called Multi-flo which essentially operates as it’s own mini package
plant, that will be individually managed and maintained by the home owner. (A pamphlet describing
the Multi-flo is attached for your background and consideration).
• The system is designed so that it will be highly unlikely that any secondary site will ever be needed, as
the effluent leaving the Multi-flo is extremely clean, and thus more environmentally friendly than a
traditional system.
• In compliance with state rules and the City’s CD Ordinance, a secondary drainfield/mound site will
be located on every lot, where available, or within proximity to the lot within the conservation areas.
• Although preliminary site work indicates that it is feasible to accommodate a primary septic site on
each lot, we are not able to confirm until perc tests can be performed in the spring. If any lot(s) are
determined not to meet the requirements of an on site individual system we intend to design a small
community system to serve the lot(s).
Water - Individual Wells
PRDC discussed various options with several consultants to determine the best and safest approach to
providing water to the individual lots. At this time, we believe the most efficient, and cost effective solution
is to locate an individual private well on each lot. The following summary of initial design and reasoning
is provided:
• Once the septic system and drainfield/mound are located for each site the available area for a well can
be identified and located outside of all necessary setbacks.
• A pressurization review will be conducted on each lot to ensure compliance of all necessary setbacks for
pressurized lines.
• All appropriate permits will be obtained as part of the lot development process.
• Individual wells will help minimize risk associated with contamination and safety which may be present
with a community system.
• Individual wells will also reduce the scope of the HOA and limit its management and maintenance
responsibilities which will already be significant due to the scope of the conservation design.
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2111823310001 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2111823310001
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23.
Print this window C lose this window
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2111823340002 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2111823340002
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23; SUBJECT TO ROAD.
Print this window C lose this window
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2111823340003 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2111823340003
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23; SUBJECT TO ROAD.
Print this window C lose this window
1/13/2015 M etes and Bounds * Hennepin County TSD
http://www16.co.hennepin.m n.us/pins/pidresult.jsp?pid=2811823240001 1/1
Metes and Bounds
The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on
the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this
property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording
PID: 2811823240001
Municipality: MEDINA
Addition Name: UNPLATTED 21 118 23
Lot:
Block:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28,
TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23, SUBJECT TO ROAD; ALSO THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23 EXCEPT THAT
PART THEREOF WHICH LIES WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF SOUTH 0
DEGREES, 07 MINUTES, 42 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 925.33 FEET
TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE
SOUTH 45 DEGREES, 52 MINUTES, 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 115.25 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES, 56 MINUTES, 18 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 53.92
FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, DISTANT 1140.18 FEET
SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER AND SAID LINE THERE ENDING; ALSO THAT PART OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP
118, RANGE 23 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 668.33; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF
548.47 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF DILLMAN ROAD; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 41 DEGREES, 13 MINUTES, 16 SECONDS ALONG
EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 60.15 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY
239.14 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD BEING A TANGENTIAL
CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 254.35 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 249.7
FEET ALONG EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROAD, BEING TANGENT TO LAST DESCRIBED
CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY 166.62 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
ROAD TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER; SAID 166.62 FEET BEING ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO TH
Print this window C lose this window
Wealshire of Medina Page 1 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: February 4, 2015
MEETING: February 10, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Wealshire of Medina – Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit –
PID 03-118-23-24-0003 – Public Hearing
Summary of Request
The Wealshire of Bloomington proposes to construct a 171,392 s.f. one-story (w/ partial lower
level), 150-resident memory care facility at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and
Chippewa Road. The applicant currently operates a facility in Bloomington and previously
operated the Wealstead of Rogers. Approximately 115,000 s.f. are included in the first phase of
the project, for a total of 84 residents. The applicant proposes to begin construction on Phase I
this summer. Staff recommends reviewing Phase II so that the applicant would not need to seek
a future Site Plan Review approval to construct within a reasonable amount of time.
Various land use approvals would be necessary to permit the construction proposed by the
applicant:
1) Rezoning the property from its current Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR)
designation to the Business Park district.
2) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building.
3) Interim Use Permit – the applicant has requested an Interim Use Permit to permit the
continued agricultural use of the southern 1/3 of the site until future development.
The City approved of a Comprehensive Plan amendment at the end of 2014 to re-guide the
subject site General Business (rather than Low Density Residential) to permit the proposed use.
This amendment has been approved by the Metropolitan Council, but it is not in effect until this
proposed development is carried through with.
The subject site is predominantly tilled farm land. A wetland bisects the property west-to-east
into a northern portion and a southern portion. The applicant proposes to develop the northern
portion of the site. The site slopes from the northwest corner down to the wetland in the center
of the site.
Polaris’s corporate headquarters is located to the south of the site and remaining surrounding
uses are rural residential. However, property to the west, north, and east is all planned for future
low-density residential development. An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the
following page.
Rezoning
The applicant requests a rezoning to the Business Park (BP) zoning district. This rezoning was
contemplated and expected when the City reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
BP district is the less-intensive district which is meant to implement the General Business land
Wealshire of Medina Page 2 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
use of the Comprehensive Plan. The other choice would be the Business district, which permits
more intensive uses, taller structures, and requires smaller setbacks.
According to Section 832.1.01, “the purpose of the BP district is to provide an attractive, high
quality business park primarily for office, high quality manufacturing and assembly, and non-
retail uses in developments which provide a harmonious transition to residential development
and neighborhoods by: 1) conducting all business activities and essentially all storage inside
buildings, 2) consisting of low profile, high quality and attractive buildings which blend in with
the environment, 3) providing open space, quality landscaping and berming which achieve a
park-like setting; 4) including berming and buffering of parking, loading docks and other similar
functions; and 5) protecting and enhancing the natural environment.”
According to Section 825.35, “the [City] may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
zoning map. Such 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
Wealshire of Medina Page 3 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
changes in conditions in the City.” Staff believes the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
new land use designation of General Business. The BP zoning district is intended to apply to
General Business property adjacent to residential uses as a transition to more intensive zoning
districts.
Site Plan Review
Section 825.55 requires Site Plan Review approval prior to issuance of permits for new
commercial developments to determine whether it is consistent with relevant requirements. The
following review of the Site Plan is based on the requirements of the BP district, contingent upon
the City adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning discussed above.
Proposed Use
The applicant proposes a memory care facility, specializing in dementia and Alzheimer’s care.
Such facilities are licensed as housing with services establishments (assisted living facilities).
“Nursing homes and assisted living facilities” are a permitted use in the BP district.
Setbacks/Lot Dimensions
The following table summarizes the requirements of the BP district and the proposed
construction. The proposed construction appears to meet all of the dimensional standards,
provided a 70% opaque landscaping screen is provided along the north and west (residential
zoning districts).
Business Park Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 3 acres 17.59 acres
Minimum Lot Width 200 feet 1413 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 2608 feet
Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet 90 feet
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 30 feet 75 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 75 feet
Street Setback 50 feet 90 feet
Setback from Residential 100 feet; or 75 feet (w/ 70%
opaque landscaping)
75 feet
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard
Rear/Interior Side Yards
Residential
35 feet
20 feet
100 ft;or 60 (w/ 70% opaque)
35 feet
60 feet
60 feet
Maximum Impervious Surface 70% 23.6%
Wetlands/Floodplain
There are two existing wetlands on the subject property. The larger wetland is 3.5 acre in size,
bisecting the property from west to east. Another small 0.14 acre wetland is located further north
along Mohawk Drive. The applicant proposes 0.53 acre of wetland impacts, including filling the
entire 0.14 acre wetland and additional impacts along the northern edge of the larger basin. The
applicant will need to obtain approval of a wetland replacement plan for the proposed wetland
impacts. Staff recommends that the applicant investigate means to reduce wetland impacts,
perhaps by shifting stormwater improvements or considering retaining walls.
Wealshire of Medina Page 4 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
The wetlands are identified as Manage 2, requiring an upland buffer with an average width of 25
feet. Staff recommends a condition that these buffers be installed around the entire wetland,
including on the south side of the larger wetland. The applicant will also need to provide
required easements and signage.
FEMA floodplain maps show no floodplains on the subject property.
Stormwater/LID
The applicant proposes a series of biofiltration basins throughout the property in order to meet
City volume control and water quality standards. A pond to the southwest of the building will
meet rate control standards. The applicant is proposing to utilize curb cuts and swales to convey
much of the parking lot runoff to the stormwater system rather than pipes.
Building Materials
The applicant proposes stucco exterior building materials with some stone and brick accents.
The roof materials are proposed to be asphalt shingles. These building materials provide more of
a residential feel than a commercial building (although obviously the scale is substantially
greater). The BP district requires a minimum of 20% brick, stone or stucco.
Building Modulation
The BP zoning code states that “buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous building
walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building
materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a minimum of one
element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion thereof.” The proposed
building design includes various modulation techniques including varying roof pitches, varying
building setbacks, courtyards, and some material differentiation.
Building Fenestration
The BP code states that “building elevations which face a public street shall include generous
window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the city when
windows are not practical.” Staff believes the eastern elevation includes generous window
coverage.
Multi-sided Architecture
The BP code requires that “any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street or a
residential zoning district shall include design and architectural elements of a quality generally
associated with a front façade.” The western façade, which faces residential property, appears to
have fewer accents than the north and east facades. It should be noted that the western façade
does include more elements than one would expect on the “rear” of a light industrial or
warehouse building. The Commission and Council can discuss if existing elements are sufficient.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
The subject property is farmed and includes almost no trees. A single tree is proposed to be
removed, and it is not significant and not regulated by the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Landscaping requirements are based upon the lot perimeter, including:
1) 1 overstory tree per 50 feet of perimeter
Wealshire of Medina Page 5 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
2) 1 ornamental tree per 100 feet of perimeter
3) 1 shrub per 30 feet of perimeter
The minimum code requirement would be 59 overstory trees, 30 ornamental trees, and 99 shrubs.
The applicant proposes substantially more plantings. These plantings are located on the north
and west of the property in order to provide a 70% opaque screen in order to allow for reduced
setback from residential property.
The applicant states that the proposed landscaping provides a 70% opaque screen. City Code
does not provide a specific planting expectation for 70% opaque. Code describes opacity up to
.5, and staff projected this calculation up to .7. The proposed landscaping would meet this
estimated calculation. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss if landscaping is
sufficient.
The applicant does not show landscaping for Phase II. Staff recommends that the landscaping
plan be updated so that it can be approved. In this way, the City can grant Site Plan Review
approval for Phase II if construction occurs within a reasonable amount of time.
The applicant also does not propose to landscape the southern 6 acres of the site, south of the
wetland. The applicant proposes for landscaping to occur in this location when construction is
proposed. Staff believes this is reasonable, and recommends a condition noting this requirement.
A minimum of 8% of the total land area of parking lots and loading dock areas are required to
landscaped. The site plan provides 8.01% of this area as landscaping.
Transportation
The applicant proposes to access the facility with a driveway approximately 1100 feet north of
Chippewa Road, 650 feet south of Pawnee Road. The City Engineer does not believe the
expected traffic generation from the site would trigger the need for turn lane improvements at
this time. However, assuming traffic from Phase II and traffic increases with surrounding future
development, the development of this site will likely require turn lanes or bypass lanes, likely in
connection with improvements for development to the east. Rather than require the
improvements today, staff recommends a condition that the applicant enter into an agreement
with the City to potentially construct in the future.
Mohawk Drive is restricted to a right-in/right-out at Highway 55. Anyone desiring to go east
would first need to head west almost a mile. Police raised concerns related to this limitation.
The City plans for a future extension of Chippewa Road to Arrowhead Drive. Staff recommends
a condition that the developer enter into an agreement with the City related to contributing to the
future cost of the roadway. Staff estimates that the proposed development would contribute
approximately 6.25% of the future expected traffic which necessitates the improvement. This
percentage of the expected project cost would be approximately $71,920.
Off-Street Parking
The applicant proposes 34 underground parking stalls for employees and an additional 61
parking spaces in the parking lot. City minimum parking standards do not list assisted
living/nursing homes specifically. Code requires 1 stall per 2 beds for hospitals, 1 stall per 250
Wealshire of Medina Page 6 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
feet of office and requires that “uses not specifically noted” provide parking “as determined by
the City Council following review by the Planning Commission.”
Using the hospital standard, minimum parking requirements would be 75 stalls (150 beds/2) + 1
stall per 250 s.f. of office. With the proposed parking of 95 stalls, administrative offices would
be limited to 5000 square feet.
Staff believes the parking needs for an assisted living would likely be lower than a hospital.
Staffing may be comparable per bed, but expected visitation would be lower. Staff was
concerned that the applicant’s narrative claims the facility may employ 250-300 people would
cause a parking concern. The applicant has amended this estimate to 175 employees, with
around 59 expected on the largest shift. Staff believes the proposed 95 parking stalls would
support the proposal.
Sewer/Water
The applicant proposes to extend sewer and water infrastructure from the intersection of
Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road to the northern property line. The applicant also proposes to
stub a watermain to the west in order to permit future looping.
One of the proposed stormwater improvements is located over the top of the proposed utility
extension. Staff recommends a condition that this be adjusted. Staff also recommends a
condition that the applicant provides adequate easements over all public utilities, which may
necessitate shifting the proposed monument sign.
Loading Docks
The applicant will accept deliveries in the underground parking area, which will serve as their
loading dock. The district limits the loading dock area to 10% of the building perimeter, and this
single dock is well below that threshold. Loading docks within 300 feet of residential property is
required to be separated from residential property by the building or a wing wall, unless the City
approves other alternatives for noise abatement and screening. Staff believes it would be
reasonable to approve the proposed 5 foot berm with substantial landscaping as alternative
measures.
Utilities/Mechanical Equipment/Trash and Recycling
All utilities are required to be underground. Transformers and mechanical equipment is required
to be screened with walls or opaque landscaping. The applicant proposes to place this equipment
in the area of the entrance to the underground parking/loading dock area, which will be screened
with walls.
Trash and recycling is required to be within the principal structure, within an accessory structure,
or within an enclosed area adjacent to the structure. The applicant proposes to store these in the
underground parking entrance/loading dock area which is acceptable.
Interim Use Permit
The applicant has requested that the City consider an Interim Use Permit to allow continued
agricultural use of the property to the south of the wetland. The property is currently farmed,
and the applicant may seek to rent this portion of the site for agriculture until redeveloped.
Wealshire of Medina Page 7 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
The alternative would be to seed the property and maintain the ground cover on an ongoing
basis. Staff does not oppose the interim use permit and continued agricultural use.
If the Planning Commission and Council does not support, staff would recommend a condition
that the applicant update the landscaping plan to show how they would stabilize the site.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council review the requests in the
following order: 1) Rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park; 2) Site Plan Review; 3) Interim Use
Permit.
Rezoning
A rezoning is a legislative decision on which the City has a great deal of discretion. As noted
above, a rezoning “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.” Staff believes the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recent
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and recommends approval.
Site Plan Review
A Site Plan Review is a quasi-judicial act on which the City has a relatively low level of
discretion. The purpose of the review is to ensure development is consistent with the standards
of the zoning ordinance and other City policy. The City may attach conditions with approval of
a Site Plan Review to ensure consistency with City requirements and to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare. Staff believes that, subject to the conditions suggested below, the proposal
is consistent with City requirements and would recommend approval.
Interim Use Permit
Section 825.73 states that Interim Uses “allow the establishment or continuation of interim uses
under specific and regulated conditions. Interim uses may be allowed by permit if the following
conditions are met:
(a) the use conforms to the zoning regulations;
(b) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
(c) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for
the public to take the property in the future; and
(d) the user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of
the use.”
The southern portion of site, because it is separated by the wetland area, almost feels like a
separate parcel. This, and the fact that it is currently farmed, leads staff to not oppose the interim
use permit. If the City approves of the Interim Use Permit, staff has suggested a couple of
conditions. Staff believes the City has greater discretion to allow or disallow this interim use of
the property because the use is not explicitly permitted in the district.
Wealshire of Medina Page 8 of 8 February 10, 2015
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Potential Conditions
Staff recommends the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall construct the improvements as displayed on the plans received by the
City 1/30/2015, except as modified herein.
2) This approval shall be valid for one calendar year for Phase I and three calendar years for
Phase II. The applicant may request a permit to construct Phase II within this time frame
without obtaining Site Plan Review approval.
3) This approval is contingent upon approval of a wetland replacement plan for wetland
impacts. As part of this review, the applicant shall examine means to reduce impacts and
implement those that are practical.
4) The applicant shall grant an additional 3 feet of right-of-way to the City as well as
easements over all public utility improvements.
5) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer dated 2/4/2015.
6) The applicant shall update the landscaping plan to identify landscaping for Phase II
consistent with City requirements but would not be required to be installed until
construction of Phase II takes place.
7) Upland buffers shall be established fully around all wetland areas, including required
vegetation, signage and easements.
8) If the applicant does not use the property south of the wetland for agriculture, the area
shall be vegetated and maintained in order to prevent erosion.
9) No tree planting has been required for the area south of the wetland. This area shall be
landscaped consistent with City requirements upon future development.
10) Plans shall be updated so that stormwater improvements are not located on top of public
sanitary sewer or water improvements.
11) In lieu of constructing improvements to Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road to support
the proposed development, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City
related to proportionate contributions to future improvement projects.
12) The applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Elm Creek
Watershed, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of
Health, and other relevant agencies.
13) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the site plan and other relevant documents.
14) Agricultural use of the property south of the wetland may be continued as an Interim Use
until the earliest of the following:
a. Subdivision of the subject property
b. Construction of any structure on the portion of the property south of the wetland
Potential Motion
Move to recommend approval of the Rezoning, Site Plan Review, and Interim Use Permit
subject to the conditions described in the staff report.
Attachments
1) City Engineer Comments dated 2/4/2015
2) List of Documents submitted
3) Applicant Narrative
4) Plans received by the City 1/30/2015
5) Existing zoning map (w/ subject property identified)
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
February 4, 2015
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: Wealshire Site Plan Review
WSB Project No. 02712-310
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the site plan submittal dated January 29, 2015 for the Wealshire site. The plans
propose to construct improvements to serve a 150 resident dementia and Alzheimer’s care facility.
We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
1. The source and date of the survey should be shown on the Existing Conditions & Removal
Plan.
2. The property owner should dedicate Chippewa Road and Mohawk Drive right-of-way
sufficient to satisfy City requirements. The applicant has indicated they would provide a 33-
foot half right-of-way in their January 27, 2015 response letter. The City should confirm this
is adequate and includes both Chippewa Road and Mohawk Drive.
3. In our previous review memo we requested EOF’s for all low points and basins be clearly
shown and labeled on the grading plan. It appears some but not all EOF’s have been noted. It
appears that no EOF was noted on the grading plan for the ponding area centrally located
between the proposed buildings in Phase I. Additional information should be provided to
verify all EOF elevations meet freeboard requirements.
4. The curb radii onto Mohawk Drive should be 30-feet.
5. The sanitary sewer should be constructed within the Mohawk Drive right-of-way.
6. The sanitary sewer should not be constructed under the proposed ponding area along
Mohawk Drive.
7. The City should consider requiring the applicant to stub sewer and water services to the east
side of Mohawk Drive as part of this improvement project.
8. At this time based on the information provided it does not appear a southbound right-turn
lane or a northbound bypass lane will be needed with Phase I of this development. However,
Wealshire of Medina
February 4, 2015
Page 2
we recommend the need for turn/bypass lanes be monitored as this site fully develops. We
recommend that the City work with the applicant to develop a petition and waiver agreement
to construct these improvements should conditions warrant in the future.
9. It appears the 33-foot half right-of-way the applicant is dedicating for Mohawk Drive is
adequate to maintain the rural section without a southbound right-turn lane into the site or a
northbound bypass lane. An urban section will be required in the future if these lanes and/or a
trail is included in this design.
10. Stormwater review comments are attached.
Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tom Kellogg
Attachment
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Memorandum
To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer
City of Medina
From: Earth Evans, P.E.
Water Resources Project Manager
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: 2.2.15
Re: Wealshire of Medina
Stormwater Management Plan Review
City Project No. LR-15-150
WSB Project No. 2712-31
We have completed a preliminary review of the stormwater management plan for Wealshire of
Medina development in Medina, MN. The site was previously reviewed on 1.19.15. The site is
located west of Mohawk Drive and north of Chippewa Road. Documents provided for review
include the following:
• City response memo dated 1.28.15
• Grading and Utility Plans dated 1.29.15
These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s Stormwater
Design Manual and general engineering practices for stormwater management.
1. Future submittals should include storm sewer sizing calculations.
2. Review by ECWMC is required.
3. A copy of the NPDES Construction General Permit should be provided once it is
submitted.
4. An updated stormwater model should be provided for review.
5. The draintile should be incorporated into the model to confirm the 48 hour drawdown
requirement is met.
6. A primary outlet should be provided in addition to the draintile for all filtration basins
due to the potential for the draintile to plug.
St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\02712-310\Admin\Docs\Wealshire Stormwater Review_020215.doc
Wealshire Review
2.2.15
Page 2
7. Outlet control structure details should be provided with the next submittal.
8. The survey data for the existing west culvert indicates a 21” CMP on the upstream end
and a 15” CMP on the downstream end. Please clarify.
9. The existing culvert from the west is routed through the proposed pond. We recommend
extending the culvert south and discharging directly into the wetland. Routing offsite
runoff through the pond will tend to dilute the pond’s water quality treatment capacity.
The model should be modified to reflect this change.
K:\02712-310\Admin\Docs\Wealshire Stormwater Review_020215.doc
Project: LR-15-150 – Wealshire Site Plan Review (& Rezoning, Interim Use Permit)
The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only
attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.
Documents Submitted by Applicant:
Document Received
Date
Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 3 Application.pdf Y
Fee 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 1 Fee.pdf Y $3000; Still have $2000 from CPA
Mailing Labels 1/23/2015 1/22/2015 4 Mailing Labels Y
Narrative 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 3 Narrative.pdf Y
Plan Set 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 17 Plans.pdf Y 14 Civil; 3 Architectural
Stormwater Calculations 1/9/2015 1/8/2015 69 Stormwater.pdf Y
Geotechnical Report 1/9/2015 11/10/2014 50 Geotechnical.pdf Y
Updated Plan Set 1/30/2015 1/29/2015 19 Plans Y Civil updated; 1/9 arch plans added
Response Memo 1/29/2015 1/29/2015 5 Response Memo N
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Legal Comments 1/15/2015 1 Legal-01-15-2015
Police Comments 1/16/2015 1 Police-01-15-2015
Fire Marshal Comments 1/13/2015 1 MW-01-13-2015
Engineer and Stormwater Comments 1/19/2015 4 Engineer-01-19-2015
Engineer and Stormwater Comments 2/4/2015 4 Engineer-02-04-2015
Staff Comments-Incomplete 1/21/2015 2 Incomplete-Comments-01-21-2015
Review Extension 1/26/2015 1 Extension Letter
Public Comments
Katrina
Independence
Medina
Spurzem
Peter
School Lake
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Mooney
Winterhalter
Krieg
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
Hidden Lake
HAMEL
P
I
O
N
E
E
R
HOMES
T
E
ADTOMAHAWK
CHIPPEWA
PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO
HIGHWAY 55
TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT
COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE COUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCOUNTY ROAD 11
CLYD
E
S
D
A
L
E
HOLY NAMEHACKAMORE
HOLLYBUSH
MORNINGSIDE
HAMELCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGH
W
A
Y
5
5
PIONEERCOUNTY ROAD 24
CHIPPEWA
ARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 5
5
MEDINA ME DINA
HAMEL
WILLOWTAMARACKHUNTERZoning Map
(Residential)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Please contact the Planning Department
(763-473-4643) for more information
regarding property within PUDs (Planned
Unit Developments)
Map Updated: January 23, 2014
Legend
Non-Residential (see reverse)
Agricultural Preserve (AG)
Rural Residential (RR)
Rural Residential 1 (RR1)
Rural Residential 2 (RR-2)
Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR)
Suburban Residential (SR)
Urban Residential (UR)
Single Family Residential (R1)
R1 - rezoning pending
Single and Two-Family Residential (R2)
R2- rezoning pending
Residential-Mid Density (R3)
Multiple Family Residential (MR)
Mixed Use (MU)
Uptown Hamel 1 (UH-1)
Uptown Hamel 2 (UH-2)
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Katrina
Independence
Medina
Spurzem
Peter
School Lake
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Mooney
Winterhalter
Krieg
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
Hidden Lake
HAMEL
P
I
O
N
E
E
R
HOMES
T
E
ADTOMAHAWK
CHIPPEWA
PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 101COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO
HIGHWAY 55
TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT
COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE BROCKTONCOUNTY ROAD 11
CLYDESD
A
L
E
HOLY NAME
HACKAMORE
HOLLYBUSH
EVERGREEN
MORNINGSIDE
HAMEL
CLYDESDALECOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGH
W
A
Y
5
5
PIONEERCOUNTY ROAD 24
CHIPPEWA
ARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55
MEDINA MEDINA
HAMEL
WILLOWTAMARACKHUNTERZoning Map
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Please contact the Planning Department
(763-473-4643) for more information
regarding property within PUDs (Planned
Unit Developments)
Map Updated: January 23, 2014
(Non-Residential)
Legend
Residential - see reverse
Agricultural Preserve (AG)
Rural Residential-2 (RR-2)
Mixed Use (MU)
Uptown Hamel-1 (UH-1)
Uptown Hamel-2 (UH-2)
Public/Semi-Public (PS)
Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS)
Business Park (BP)
Business (B)
Industrial Park (IP)
Commercial-Highway (CH)
Commercial Highway-Railroad (CH-RR)
Commerial-General (CG)
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Rural Business Holding (RBH)
Rural Commercial Holding (RCH)
Sanitary Landfill (SL)
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 February 10, 2015
Solar Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: January 8, 2015
MEETING: January 13, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Solar Regulations – Continued Public Hearing
Background
During the fall of 2014, the City Council briefly discussed regulations related to solar energy
production. Wright-Hennepin Electric Cooperative (WH) attended a Council meeting and
discussed their desire to construct a Community Solar project on property they own in Medina
on Willow Drive, south of Highway 55 (just south of the railroad tracks).
WH operates an electric substation on the property, which occupies only a small portion of the 5-
acre site. Their Community Solar Garden program allows their members to “purchase” a solar
panel within the installation and receive credits back on future bills.
Current City regulations allow solar equipment as an accessory use in essentially every zoning
district. However, code only permits solar equipment if it is attached to a structure. Ground-
mounted panels are not permitted.
The City Council directed staff to review regulations and prepare an amendment which would
permit ground-mounted solar equipment, subject to appropriate limitations.
Planning Commission Direction
The Planning Commission discussed ground-mounted solar equipment at their January meeting.
Generally, it appeared that the Commission supported allowing ground-mounted equipment in
the Business zoning district, with certain limitations.
Various pieces of information were provided at the previous meeting, including the Model
Ordinances from the State of Minnesota. This information has not been attached again but can
be sent upon request.
The Commission discussed the following specific limitations. These have been incorporated into
the attached draft ordinance.
• Allow ground-mounted only in the Business zoning district (staff recommends also
including the Industrial Park zoning district)
• Requiring ground-mounted solar equipment to be at least 500 feet from residential
property
• Counting solar equipment as lot coverage, like a building or parking lot
• Requiring a conditional use permit
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 February 10, 2015
Solar Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
• Limiting ground mounted solar equipment to 20% of the lot, up to a maximum of one
acre.
The Planning Commission also discussed encouraging panels to be attached to structures if
possible. Staff believes the conditional use permit process will provide such an encouragement.
When preparing the ordinance as directed by the Planning Commission, staff noted that Solar
Equipment which is affixed to a structure was not listed in a number of the residential zoning
districts (UR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and Mixed Use). The attached ordinance adds equipment
as a permitted accessory use in these districts, if affixed to a structure.
The proposed standards can be found on pages 1 and 2 of the attached ordinance. The remaining
pages of the ordinance updates the references throughout all of the districts in order to
differentiate between solar equipment which is affixed to a structure and equipment which is
ground mounted.
Potential Motion
If the Planning Commission is in favor of the attached ordinance, the following motion would be
in order.
Move to recommend approval of the ordinance related to solar equipment.
Attachments
1. DRAFT ordinance
2. Photos of solar panels at Wright-Hennepin offices
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO SOLAR EQUIPMENT;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.09 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 828.09. Solar Equipment. Any equipment or device that utilizes, operates or supplies
energy derived from the sun shall meet the following standards:
Subd. 1. Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure. The following standards shall apply to
Solar Equipment which is affixed to a structure:
(a) The equipment or device must be affixed to a structure and meet all setback requirements
for principal structures in the zoning district where located.
Subd. 2. (b) The equipment or device may not exceed the height of the building by more
than five feet, and shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed.
Subd. 3. (c) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with
all applicable building and electrical codes.
Subd. 4. (d) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal
regulations regarding co-generation of energy.
Subd. 5. (e) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any
glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views.
Subd. 6. (f) Solar equipment which is mounted to a roof which is not flat, and which is
visible from the nearest right-of-way, shall not have a finished pitch more than five
percent steeper than the roof.
Subd. 7. (g) The zoning administrator may require compliance with any other conditions,
restrictions or limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the residential character
of the neighborhood
Subd. 2. Solar Equipment, if not affixed to a structure. The following standards shall apply
to Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure:
(a) Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure shall only be permitted in the
Business and Industrial Park zoning districts and only following Conditional Use Permit
approval.
(b) Solar Equipment shall be a minimum of 500 feet from residential property.
(c) Solar Equipment shall meet all setback requirements for principal structures in the zoning
district where located.
(d) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall be considered lot coverage and
impervious surface for the purpose of calculating such standards. The footprint shall
include all space between pieces of Solar Equipment, unless the pieces are separated by
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
more than 25 feet.
(e) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 20% of the lot or one acre,
whichever is less.
(f) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 20 feet.
(g) The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual impacts of
the mounting devices of the Solar Equipment.
(h) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all
applicable building and electrical codes.
(i) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations
regarding co-generation of energy.
(j) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or
reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views.
(k) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations
deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
SECTION II. Section 826.13 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.13. (AG) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zoning
district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Subd. 8. Solar equipment, if affixed to a structure and in compliance with performance
standards of section 828.09 subd. 1 of this ordinance.
SECTION III. Section 826.23 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.23. (RR) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within any Rural Residential District the
following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Subd. 10. Solar equipment, if affixed to a structure and in compliance with performance
standards of section 828.09 subd. 1 of this ordinance.
SECTION IV. Section 826.25.4 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.25.4. (RR-UR) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the Urban Reserve district, the
following uses shall be permitted accessory uses when used in conjunction with a principal
structure:
Subd. 8. Solar equipment, if affixed to a structure and in compliance with performance
standards of section 828.09 subd. 1 of this ordinance.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
SECTION V. Section 826.26.4 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.26.4. (SR) Conditional Uses. Within the Suburban Residential district, no structure
or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Subd. 7. Solar equipment RESERVED.
SECTION V I. Section 826.26.5 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.26.5. (SR) Accessory Uses. Within the Suburban Residential district the following
uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Subd. 7. Solar equipment, if affixed to a structure and in compliance with performance
standards of section 828.09 subd. 1 of this ordinance.
SECTION VII. Section 826.33 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.33. (UR) Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the Urban Residential District the
following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Subd. 7. Solar equipment, if affixed to a structure and in compliance with performance
standards of section 828.09 subd. 1 of this ordinance.
SECTION VIII. Section 826.67 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 826.67. (RPS) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the RPS district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(4) Solar equipment, if affixed to a structure and in compliance with performance standards
of section 828.09 subd. 1 of this ordinance.
SECTION IX. Section 832.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 832.1.04. (BP) Accessory Uses. Within the Business Park District the following
accessory uses shall be allowed, except that the combined floor area of industrial
repair/processing, warehousing, and retail space shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor
area of the building.
(17) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
SECTION X. Section 832.2.03 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 832.2.03. (B) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the B
district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in
Section 832.3.09, and other applicable provisions of the city code:
(19) Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure, in compliance with Section 828.09
subd. 2 of the City Code.
SECTION XI. Section 832.2.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 832.2.04. (B) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the B district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(21) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
SECTION XII. Section 833.03 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 833.03. (IP) Conditional Uses.Within the Industrial Park District, no structure or land
shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit.
(18) Solar Equipment which is not affixed to a structure, in compliance with Section 828.09
subd. 2 of the City Code.
SECTION XIII. Section 833.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 833.04. (IP) Accessory Uses.Within the Industrial Park District, the following accessory
uses shall be allowed.
(12) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
SECTION XIV. Section 834.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 834.1.04. (UH-1) Accessory Uses. Within the Uptown Hamel-1 district the following
accessory uses shall be allowed subject to site plan approval and other provisions of this district.
(6) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
SECTION XV. Section 834.2.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 834.2.04. (UH-2) Accessory Uses. Within the Uptown Hamel - 2 district the following
accessory uses shall be allowed subject to site plan approval and other provisions of this district.
(6) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
SECTION XVI. Section 838.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 838.1.04. (CH) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the CH district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(9) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
SECTION XVII. Section 838.2.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 838.2.04. (CH-RR) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted
within the CH-RR district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such
use is subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(9) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
SECTION XVIII. Section 838.3.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 838.3.04. (CG) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the CG district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(8) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. ### 6
DATE
SECTION XIX. Section 838.4.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 838.4.04. (CN) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the CN district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(8) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1
of the City Code.
SECTION XX. Section 840.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 840.1.04. (R1) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the R1 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(6) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1
of the City Code.
SECTION XXI. Section 840.2.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 840.2.04. (R2) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the R2 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(6) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1
of the City Code.
SECTION XXII. Section 841.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 841.1.04. (R3) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the R3 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(5) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1
of the City Code.
SECTION XXIII. Section 841.2.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 841.2.03. (R4) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the R4
district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in
Section 841.4.05, and other applicable provisions of the city code:
Ordinance No. ### 7
DATE
(6) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1
of the City Code.
SECTION XXIV. Section 841.3.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 841.3.04. (R5) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within
the R5 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is
subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use:
(5) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1
of the City Code.
SECTION XXV. Section 842.2.03 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 842.2.03 (MU) Residential Accessory Uses.
(6) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1
of the City Code.
SECTION XXVI. Section 838.3.04 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 842.3.03 (MU) Commercial Accessory Uses.
(10) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with subject to the
requirements of Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code.
SECTION XXVII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this ___ day of ___________, 2015.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News on the ___ day of ________, 2015.