The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About06-14-2016 POSTED IN CITY HALL June 10, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016 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 Draft Minutes for April 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Public Hearing – Excelsior Group – 2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plan for a subdivision of 87 single family lots 7. Public Hearing – Clough Properties – 45 Highway 55 – Plat, Shoreland Overlay Hardcover Variance, Site Plan Review 8. Potential Special Meeting: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9. Council Meeting Schedule 10. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 June 7, 2016 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: June 1, 2016 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – June 7, 2016 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Deer Hill Preserve (Stonegate Farms) Final Plat – Property Resources Development Company has requested final plat approval for the Deer Hill Preserve CD-PUD subdivision, formerly known as Stonegate Farms. The first phase of the development is proposed to include 10 lots in the northeast corner of the site, near the current termination of Deerhill Road. The City Council reviewed at the April 5 meeting and directed staff to prepare approval documents after the applicant submits adequate Conservation Easement and Land Stewardship documents. The applicant has now requested that the City construct Deerhill Road through a 429 Assessment process. Staff has begun preparing for this process, including preparation of necessary petition and waiver agreements. B) Just for Kix Site Plan Review, Variance, Lot Combination –45 Highway 55 – Just for Kix has requested approval of a Site Plan Review for construction of an 18,040 square foot building to include a dance studio and retail. The applicant has requested a variance to increase the maximum hardcover in the Elm Creek shoreland overlay district from 25% to 50% and also a lot combination to combine the property annexed from the City of Plymouth. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when complete, potentially at the June 14 meeting. C) Excelsior Group Concept Plan –2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – The Excelsior Group has requested review of a Concept Plan for development of 87 single family lots west of the proposed Wealshire site. The property is not within the current Staging period and the applicant seeks flexibility to jump ahead one period. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when complete, potentially at the June 14 meeting. D) Jeffrey-Johnson Lot Line Rearrangement and Easement Vacation – 2605 and 2505 Willow Drive – Glenn Jeffrey has requested approval of a rearrangement of the lot line between his and his neighbor’s property. The Jeffrey’s propane tank is located on the Johnson property. The applicant has also requested to vacate easements adjacent to the lot lines and replace with new easements. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to Council when ready, potentially at the June 21 meeting. E) LeJuene Lot Line Rearrangement – 2782 and 2820 County Road 24 – Larry and Jean LeJeune have requested approval of a rearrangement of lot lines between two parcels they own. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to Council when ready, potentially at the June 21 meeting. F) Clydesdale Marketplace Sign PUD Amendment – northeast corner of Highway 55 and Clydesdale Trail. Clydesdale Marketplace LLC has requested an amendment to the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD in order to allow construction of a monument sign at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Clydesdale Trail. This sign would replace the sign on top of the large retaining wall and provide additional space for more tenants. The City Council approved at the May 17 meeting and the project will now be closed. G) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has requested a site plan review for construction of a 173,000 sf memory care facility. The request also includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park. The Met Council has also approved of the Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 June 7, 2016 City Council Meeting previous Comp Plan amendment. The City Council granted approval at the May 3 meeting. Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval before construction begins. H) Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery, Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels –The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. I) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– These preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application J) Bradford Creek, Hamel Haven, Buehler subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction begins. Other Projects A) Comprehensive Plan – The City held community meetings on May 14 and 16. Attendance was strong, especially on Saturday when the Council Chambers were packed. The Steering Committee met to discuss the feedback from the Community Meetings and continue working on the Land Use Plan. Staff has also provided rough drafts of the Housing and Land Use chapters of the Plan for review by the Steering Committee. B) Cable Expansion Analysis – Planning staff continued assistance with the analysis related to proposed cable construction for 2016. C) DNR Stormwater Reuse Discussion – I attended a focus group regarding the appropriation permit process for stormwater reuse for irrigation purposes. This is an extremely important topic for the City because of our prohibition of using City water for irrigation in new developments. The DNR is looking at establishing a “general permit” for irrigation reuse that would allow the City to regulate the practice instead of requiring a state permit. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday April 12, 2016 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, 8 Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, and Janet White. 9 10 Absent: None. 11 12 Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks and City Planner Dusty Finke 13 14 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15 16 There were none. 17 18 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19 20 Anderson reported that the City Council met the previous Tuesday to consider the Final Plat 21 approval for Deerhill Preserve on ten of the lots, which the Council approved subject to the 22 conditions recommended by staff and the signing of a Development Agreement and an 23 agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He advised that the Council also 24 considered a request to reduce sewer and water connection fees for the Wealshire of Medina 25 applicant, noting that the Council approved extending the repayment period from three years 26 to five years, but did not reduce the connection fees. He stated that the Council also approved 27 the advertisement of bids for the updating of the City Hall, which will include additional 28 restrooms, a conference room and expanded space for the planning department on the lower 29 level, as well as an updating of paint on the upper level. 30 31 4. Planning Department Report 32 33 Finke provided an update. 34 35 5. Approval of the March 8, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 36 37 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Barry, to approve the March 8, 2016, Planning 38 Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 39 40 6. Public Hearing – Dellcroft – PUD Concept Plan for a Subdivision of 131 41 Single Family Lots and 30 Townhomes West of Arrowhead Drive, North and 42 South of Hamel Road 43 44 Finke presented a request for the Commission to review a Concept Plan for Dellcroft, noting 45 that the purpose is to provide input to the applicant prior to submission of a full application. 46 He stated that this Concept Plan is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 22 home 47 conservation design development on the 90 acres south of Hamel Road and 109 single family 48 and 30 townhome standard developments on the 65 acres north of Hamel Road. He stated 49 that both parcels are zoned rural residential in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the 50 conservation design PUD would provide additional flexibility in return for additional 51 conservation efforts, noting that approximately 30 percent of the buildable land south of 52 2 Hamel Road would be placed in conservation easements. He noted that a Comprehensive 53 Plan amendment would be needed for the parcel north of Hamel Road to allow for that 54 increased density and extension of City water and sewer utilities into the area currently 55 identified as rural residential. He provided additional details on the zoning and planned use 56 of the adjacent parcels of land. He displayed the proposed Concept Plan and provided 57 information on the proposed reguiding for the property, noting the items that the City should 58 consider when reviewing a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that the City is in the 59 process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and advised of upcoming public meetings, May 60 14th and 16th, where the public can provide input on the process. He reviewed the details of 61 the portion of development proposed to be north of Hamel Road, providing the proposed lot 62 sizes for the single-family homes and noting that the homes would surround a central open 63 space corridor of approximately 12 buildable acres which would include an active park. He 64 stated that the applicant is requesting a PUD to allow the mix of housing styles proposed and 65 to allow smaller lots within the property. He explained that the same number of homes 66 allowed under the R-1 zoning district would be proposed, but with smaller lots which would 67 help to create the 12 acres of open space. He stated that the net density proposed is 2.44, and 68 would be 3 units per acre if the open space area is not considered. He advised that 22 lots are 69 proposed for the parcel south of Hamel Road, but noted that if this moves forward, a wetland 70 delineation would need to be completed. He stated that in a conservation design PUD the 71 applicant would need to be protecting resources in return for increased flexibility and advised 72 that the Commission would need to provide input on that factor. He stated that the purpose of 73 this discussion is purely advisory to provide comments, as will the City Council at their 74 meeting the following week. 75 76 Albers asked if there are similar PUDs in Medina that the Commission could use as a 77 comparison. 78 79 Finke stated that perhaps the best comparison would be Wild Meadows but flipped. He noted 80 that the northern lots in Wild Meadows are a bit smaller than the lots proposed in the 81 conservation design PUD for this concept, and the southern portion of Wild Meadows has 82 similar lot sizes to the northern portion of this concept. He stated that the Deerhill Preserve 83 conservation design PUD is perhaps similar, as well, with the conservation design proposed 84 here, although these lots are a bit smaller than the Deerhill Preserve lots. 85 86 V. Reid asked the density bonus allowed in the Deerhill Preserve development. 87 88 Finke replied that the Deerhill Preserve received a density bonus of almost 200 percent. 89 90 Murrin stated that the property is currently zoned rural residential and asked what the guiding 91 of the property will be under the new version of the Comprehensive Plan that the City is 92 currently working on. 93 94 Finke replied that the conceptual land use of the property thus far is to remain rural 95 residential. 96 97 V. Reid stated that the goal is to have the update of the Comprehensive Plan completed in the 98 next year and asked the timing for potential development. 99 100 Finke stated that he would leave that response for the applicant, but noted that the applicant 101 fully recognizes that the City is in this process. 102 103 Paul Robinson, representing the applicant, provided background information on his 104 experience with development and municipalities, noting that he previously worked for the 105 3 City of Medina. He provided photographs and highlighted accomplishments of developments 106 that these partners have worked on in the City and surrounding communities, including 107 Foxberry Farms, Wild Meadows, Locust Hills, and Woodland Cove. He stated that the 108 common goal for these developments is to set aside as much open space as possible creating a 109 community with trails and open space that can be enjoyed by the residents. He stated that 110 they believe the majority of the traffic will come down Highway 55 and then Arrowhead 111 which would not impact residential neighborhoods and would instead come through the 112 commercial areas. He stated that they are requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to 113 bring the northern area of the proposed development into the urban service area and are 114 flexible with timing as they are aware that the City is currently updating that plan. He noted 115 that the southern area of the proposed development does not require a Comprehensive Plan 116 amendment and therefore they are simply requesting input on whether that would meet the 117 conservation design PUD criteria. He stated that the open space proposed for the north would 118 be 30 percent and 50 percent for the southern portion, for a total of 45 percent of the overall 119 area. He stated that the open space would create a connective greenway corridor which 120 would continue on to two open space areas considered significant by the City of Medina. He 121 reviewed the conservation efforts which would include restoration of the wetland areas and 122 establishment of buffers, which do not currently exist; the establishment of an oak savanna; 123 restoration of the woodlands, to the extent possible; and incorporation of native themes into 124 the landscaped areas. He stated that the conservation efforts would create a habitat for 125 wildlife and pollinators, as well as additional treatment for stormwater. He provided details 126 on the 2.8 miles of proposed trails and 1.5 miles of sidewalks, noting that the trails could also 127 connect to neighboring developments, but stated that the Blackfoot development was not very 128 excited about that potential connection. He noted that there would be a variation of five 129 different home product types that would range in value from $275,000 to $1,500,000. He 130 provided details on the proposed stormwater aspects, noting that many of the developments 131 that they have constructed have won awards for their stormwater treatment. He provided 132 details on the landscaping proposed, noting that there would be over 1,000 trees on this 133 project. He stated that this would create a high quality community with low impact 134 development and a variety of home products for buyers to choose from. He stated that they 135 are known to create high quality developments and that is their intent for this development as 136 well. He thanked the Commission for their time and welcomed their feedback. He noted that 137 they met with 12 of the neighbors of these parcels and received a range of responses from 138 supportive to non-supportive. He stated that they agree with the comments of staff that a 139 better buffer should be created between the north side of the property and the property to the 140 west. 141 142 R. Reid asked if the developer would be interested in doing the southern parcel of the 143 property if the northern parcels were not approved. 144 145 Robinson replied that they would need to consider that option and advised that the current 146 agreement with the property owner is for both parcels. 147 148 Murrin asked the reason for providing a wide range of home options and the large range of 149 diversity. 150 151 Robinson replied that the northern portion of the site would range from $270,000 to $500,000 152 or $600,000, while the southern portion of the development would have the higher range of 153 prices, explaining that the diversity would be split by the north south division. 154 155 Murrin asked if there was a reason that the developer does not want to just follow the Wild 156 Meadows model throughout the parcels. She also asked why the developer chose Medina. 157 158 4 Robinson stated that they were reading into the Comprehensive Plan to create some of the 159 housing specified such as workforce housing. He stated that Medina is a great place to build 160 because it has a great reputation with a great school district. 161 162 Albers stated that the developer went up to the limit of 100 percent density bonus and asked if 163 there was a consideration to not push the limit of the bonus and instead ask for a smaller 164 bonus. 165 166 Robinson explained that they are creating smaller lots in order to create a conservation 167 easement where they would spend additional funds on restoration. He stated that they will 168 take the input of the City to determine where the bonus could end up. 169 170 V. Reid stated that she has concern with the size of the park. 171 172 Robinson noted that there would be flexibility to change the size of the park. 173 174 V. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. 175 176 Paul Ohnsorg, 1475 Blackfoot Trail, stated that the neighbors share a lot of the same 177 concerns. He stated that they are concerned with the lighting in both developments, but 178 specifically the lower development, as the lighting would go out and up and the neighbors 179 value their view of the night sky. He was also concerned with traffic patterns on Hamel Road 180 and Hunter Drive because even though the developer stated that most of the traffic would 181 utilize Highway 55 and Arrowhead, some of the traffic would choose to use the other route. 182 He was also concerned with the trail system, noting that they would not like to see the 183 Blackfoot Trail connection as that would cause additional traffic into an area that is pretty 184 rural at this time. 185 186 Jeff Evanson stated that the property is currently zoned rural residential and also expected to 187 remain that way in the draft of the new Comprehensive Plan which extends to 2040. He 188 stated that as citizens they view the Comprehensive Plan as a critical document that lays out 189 the goals of the community and did not see a reason to review this Concept Plan while the 190 Comprehensive Plan is being updated. He noted that while the proposed development 191 complies with some elements of the Comprehensive Plan it does not comply with other 192 elements and therefore asked the Commission not to consider this rezoning request. He noted 193 that south of this property there is a concentration of over 30 herring nests and advised that 194 this development would significantly impact the flight patterns of those birds. 195 196 Michael Mergens, representing Greenwood Stables 2, stated that he understands that this is a 197 Concept Plan and his intent is to provide feedback to the developer. He stated that his clients 198 have made substantial financial investments into their property based on the fact that their 199 property is zoned rural residential and the property around them is zoned rural residential. He 200 stated that under that zoning, the expectation is at least five acres per home and this 201 development is not even close to meeting that specification of the Comprehensive Plan. He 202 stated that the increased level of density is not compatible with a horse farm and each and 203 every time he has seen that happen, the horse farm had to relocate. He stated that going from 204 one house per five acres to one house per quarter acre directly abutting the horse farm is not 205 appropriate. He stated that he was glad to see that the developer is open to creating a larger 206 buffer between the developed property and the horse farm, but noted that buffer would need 207 to be substantial and the lots would need to be larger. He stated that the proposed 208 development in no way matches the Comprehensive Plan and the City should consider the 209 intent of the Comprehensive Plan when reviewing requests. 210 211 5 John Turrittin, 1525 Blackfoot Trail, stated that he met with the developers the previous week 212 and had a nice conversation and appreciated the opportunity to provide direct input. He 213 stated that the Comprehensive Plan should guide development, rather than development 214 driving the Comprehensive Plan. He referenced the trail system to the southeast corner of the 215 development leading to his driveway, which is in no way a trail and would not work. He 216 wanted to ensure that there are adequate and significant buffers to properties adjoining this 217 development, both on the north and south. 218 219 David Crosby, 2402 Hamel Road, stated that most of the points he was going to make have 220 already been covered. He asked if there are any precedents for a development of this size 221 within Medina that are/were in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, not only as it exists, 222 but as it is proposed to move forward. He noted that the traffic on Hamel Road would be 223 significantly impacted. 224 225 V. Reid stated that there have been Comprehensive Plan amendments in the past few years, 226 although not for a housing development. 227 228 Jim Lane, 2605 Hamel Road, stated that he knows the applicants to be great developers and is 229 happy to welcome them back to Medina, but does not believe that this is the right location for 230 this development. He noted that he had submitted a letter to the City stating that he is 231 actively opposed to consideration of this project while the City is in the process of updating 232 the Comprehensive Plan, as a development of this size could have an impact on the process of 233 updating the Comprehensive Plan. He asked that the City ask the developer to withdraw their 234 request until after such time when the Comprehensive Plan has been submitted to the 235 Metropolitan Council. He stated that the north portion of this proposed development is not 236 only inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, but also with the draft 237 Comprehensive Plan. He believed that the northern and southern portions of the project 238 should be split up and considered separately. He was also concerned with the implications 239 that could occur in regard to the Wayzata School District, as intense growth will have 240 additional costs and growth needs for an already large school district. 241 242 V. Reid stated that as part of the Comprehensive Plan, Finke has met with the various school 243 districts to determine their needs and be respectful of their needs. 244 245 Kristin Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, echoed the comments of Mr. Lane and reminded the 246 Commission about the density issues and quality of what is being conserved in the proposed 247 conservation design PUD, noting that everything on this land is very low quality. She stated 248 that the Deerhill Preserve development has high quality resources which are being preserved, 249 and that is why the high-density bonus was provided. She commented that while the 250 developer has done a nice job of thinking about what would be important to the people that 251 would buy these homes; they did not do a good job of thinking about what is important to the 252 existing Medina residents in this rural area and the rural character of Medina. 253 254 Dan Strand, 1985 Hamel Road, stated that his property would abut the east line of the south 255 development. He pointed out that in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan under housing objectives; 256 it states that lots in new subdivisions should have frontage roads with direct access to a local 257 street and not a County road or State highway. He noted that 116 is a County road. He 258 referenced the south properties and asked, and received confirmation that those lots would 259 utilize septic systems and wells for sewer and water services. He had a safety concern with 260 the pressure of water on a tightly built community, noting that in case of fire there may not be 261 sufficient water pressure. He noted that with the homes tightly built, the fire could easily 262 jump and spread. He stated that he attended the 2030 Comprehensive Plan process and that 263 plan states that there will be no development for Hamel Road until sewer and water is 264 6 brought to the area, noting that there is no sewer and water for that area. He stated that the 265 plan for this development would be to connect to Highway 55 sewer and water and during the 266 2030 Comprehensive Plan process it was specified that connection to the Highway 55 sewer 267 and water would not be allowed. He stated that people invest in their property and with what 268 is specified in the Comprehensive Plan, explaining that people have invested in their property 269 with the understanding that this area will remain rural residential. He stated that the 270 Commission and Council are the gatekeepers of the community and asked that they do what 271 is right and stand up for what the people in the community want and have been told would be. 272 273 Beth Strand, 1985 Hamel Road, stated that they purchased their home in 1991 and moved to 274 Medina to have space and the rural character. She stated that in the Medina City Code, 275 Subdivision 5, Section 720, it states that two septic sites are required for new lots; she 276 received confirmation that two sites have been platted for each lot. She asked if the sites 277 would be a minimum of 75 feet away from the wetlands as specified; it was confirmed that 278 the developer believes so, but would have to confirm that figure. She noted that the 279 Comprehensive Plan specifies that the lots must be a minimum of five acres in the rural 280 residential zoning district and felt that the water character of the area would be negatively 281 impacted by this development. 282 283 Kristin Evanson, 3072 Willow Drive, stated that her biggest concerns are with the increased 284 traffic, as traffic from the south would utilize Willow Drive. She stated that she lives on a 285 horse farm and moved to this area because of the five-acre minimum lot size, with the belief 286 that Medina stood behind that minimum lot size. She stated that this development would 287 change the character of this area significantly, as people currently ride their horses and the 288 traffic would impact that ability. She noted that the greenway corridor identified by the 289 developer is not the path that the wildlife currently takes. She stated that she shutters at the 290 development north of Highway 55 and does not want this area to become like that. 291 292 Betty Goodman, 2495 Willow Drive, echoed the comments of the residents thus far who view 293 the project unfavorably. She stated that the traffic on Willow Drive is already stacked in the 294 mornings at County Roads 6 and 24 and believed that those problems would become worse 295 with this level of development. She stated that although the developer has stated that people 296 will go north to Arrowhead and Highway 55, people will want to go south too and will take 297 Willow Drive. 298 299 Chris Renier, 3392 Hamel Road, stated that she likes the comments thus far made by 300 residents. She stated that while it is tempting to get distracted by conversations about traffic 301 wildlife, or lot size, the bottom line is that this is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive 302 Plan and should be rejected on that basis alone. She commented that this is a terrible position 303 for the property owner of Greenwood Stables to be in as the only option would be for the 304 horse farm to sell and therefore that would increase this type of development in the area. 305 306 Kent Williams agreed with the comments that were made tonight and believed that this 307 development is a terrible idea for Medina. He stated that conceptually the Commission 308 would have to consider what the developer could get without the conservation design, which 309 would be 25 to 30 homes. He stated that then the Commission should consider what would 310 be better for the environment, to have 30 homes or 160 homes. He stated that the rezoning 311 and reasoning for that should be considered first, as the developer would be jumping from 30 312 homes to 160 which is far beyond the 200 percent density bonus allowed and the only way in 313 which the developer is able to do that is by rezoning. He stated that the Commission should 314 consider why the rezoning request for this property and whether that makes sense for the area 315 itself and the surrounding residents. He stated that once you get past the rezoning and 316 Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Commission would need to consider the conservation 317 7 design element, which would double the density to reach the overall number of houses, and 318 determine what would be conserved. He noted that in a conservation design, the developer 319 would be preserving an asset that exists on the lot and asked about the asset that is being 320 conserved as he has not heard that. He stated that there are trees proposed to be planted and 321 prairie grasses planted but noted that would be done with normal development. He stated that 322 this request makes no sense. He referenced the first applicant that came in with a request to 323 build three homes that was denied because it was not worth it and noted that this request is 324 now to build 160 homes. He believed that this is the time for the City to draw the line and 325 state that this rezoning does not make sense and this is not an appropriate use of the 326 conservation design PUD. 327 328 V. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. 329 330 V. Reid stated that even though this is presented as one application, the Commission could 331 consider the requests separately, as only one section would require a Comprehensive Plan 332 amendment. She suggested reviewing the northern portion of the development first. 333 334 White stated that she appreciated the developer’s ideas in regard to a variety of housing 335 which appears to be laid out well. She noted that it is a bit too dense and does not have 336 appropriate buffers. She stated that she would not support the rezoning of the parcel. She 337 referenced the southern half of the development and would not support a conservation design 338 because she did not feel that there were high quality views on the property and the best view 339 in that area is when you are driving on Hamel Road, which would not be preserved. 340 341 Murrin commented that she likes the development but has concerns with the location within 342 the City. She asked what the incentive was to change the zoning from rural residential and 343 how the City would benefit from adding a large number of homes that would place burdens 344 on the infrastructure and utilities which are already stressed. She stated that she has concerns 345 with the number of lots and would like to see fewer houses with bigger lots. She asked what 346 the City is getting in return for the conservation design density bonus and what is actually 347 being conserved, as well as the amount of buildable land being conserved. She believed that 348 the City should abide by the Comprehensive Plan and what has been guided for this area. 349 She stated that while she does like the development she does not believe that this is the 350 appropriate location, as it does not align with the goal and objectives for that rural residential 351 area. 352 353 Albers believed that the City would be better served if that area were to continue with rural 354 residential as zoned, which would allow 11 homes on the southern portion. He stated that in 355 regard to the parcel to the north, he agrees that the development would not be happy with the 356 neighboring horse farm and would complain and ultimately drive out that property owner. 357 He stated that he would not support amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. 358 359 Barry stated that the updating of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be the trigger for this type of 360 request. He stated that he would struggle to rezone this parcel as there are not new things 361 needed. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan would remain consistent, as this area has 362 been planned rural residential for the past 20 years and would continue. He noted that there 363 is nothing being conserved on the southern portion that would justify a conservation design 364 PUD and therefore that area should also remain under the current guiding for one home per 365 five acres. 366 367 R. Reid commented that there is a larger issue with the Comprehensive Plan, as both the 368 current and draft forms have an intent to preserve the rural character of the City, noting that 369 Hamel Drive is the most rural route in the City and should be preserved as such. She stated 370 8 that if the City goal is to remain with the Comprehensive Plan, than the last thing the City 371 should do is allow even low density residential into a rural residential area. She stated that it 372 can be tempting to allow a nice development, but noted that once that door is opened more 373 developers will come through. She noted that a lot of families have requested to develop 374 their properties and have been told no and therefore the City should have the courage to say 375 no. She stated that this is a test and the City needs to stand firm on their preservation of rural 376 residential. She stated that the City does not need this and would be sacrificing too much to 377 get this. 378 379 Foote stated that the northern portion is much too dense and the Comprehensive Plan process 380 needs to be continued as is. He stated that he does like the southern portion of the 381 development and noted that Wild Meadows is one of the best he has seen. He stated that he 382 would not support the northern portion of the development at all. He agreed that the 383 development would be a huge problem for the horse farm. 384 385 V. Reid stated that she agrees that the southern parcel of the development is separate. She 386 noted that a 200 percent density bonus is too much, but prefers thoughtful development as 387 opposed to sprawl. She stated that the northern parcel is tricky, as the City is updating the 388 Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the requirements of the Plan. She agreed that the 389 Comprehensive Plan should drive development and not vice versa. She stated that the reality 390 is that the City will need to do development, including some high-density development, and 391 acknowledged that the northern portion of the City has taken the brunt of that development. 392 She stated that she would not support the northern portion of the development. 393 394 V. Reid asked if the northern portion of the development would meet the requirements of the 395 Metropolitan Council. 396 397 Finke replied that the development would not fulfil the requirements of the Metropolitan 398 Council. 399 400 Finke commented that the Concept Plan will be presented to the City Council the following 401 Tuesday. He noted that this was the public hearing and although the Council may allow some 402 comments, it would not be to this extent. He stated that he was pleased to hear the interest in 403 the Comprehensive Plan and reminded residents of the public meetings that will occur on 404 May 14th from 9:30 a.m. to Noon and May 16th from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. 405 406 V. Reid briefly recessed the meeting at 8:41 p.m. 407 408 V. Reid reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. 409 410 7. Public Hearing – Clydesdale Market Place, LLC – Amendment to Planned Unit 411 Development Adjacent to 345 Clydesdale Trail to Construct a Larger Replacement 412 Monument Sign Closer to Highway 55 413 414 Finke presented a request to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Clydesdale 415 Market Place in regard to the signage, specifically to increase the size of the monument sign 416 at the southwest corner of the development. He stated that the proposed sign would be a 30-417 foot tall sign with over 300 square feet in total size. He noted that the current sign is 87 418 square feet in size. He stated that within the PUD two monument signs were approved for the 419 site and provided a photograph of the other approved sign which has a size of 120 square feet. 420 He noted that was the extent of signage allowed for the development. He explained that the 421 applicant is asking for the larger sign in order to provide additional visibility for the tenants 422 which are not listed on the current monument signs and do not have visible signage from the 423 9 roadway. He stated that there are 13 different occupants to the development and only 4 have 424 wall signage which is visible from the roadway. He noted that the terms of signage specified 425 in the PUD is more restrictive than what would be allowed for the development otherwise, as 426 each tenant could have an 80 square foot sign. He stated that this is a narrow amendment for 427 the overall PUD. He stated that the staff report states that staff generally supports an increase 428 in signage and concurs that the number of businesses is not supported by the current amount 429 of signage. He noted that the question would be the amount of increase, noting that the 430 maximum sign regulation allows for a 20-foot high sign and this request is for 30 feet. He 431 stated that the panels requested are 31 inches tall and could be reduced in size to 432 accommodate all the tenants within the maximum height limit. He stated that a reasonable 433 amount of signage for this development would be three signs of 80 square feet for a total of 434 240 square feet. He stated that there are benefits to a coordinated commercial development 435 such as this through PUD, as scattered development would have much more signage. He 436 stated that perhaps this sign be allowed as a size of 20 feet by 12 feet, which when combined 437 with the other sign would provide a total of 360 square feet of signage along Highway 55. 438 439 Foote asked if there is any sign similar to the proposed height of 30 feet outside of Medina in 440 surrounding communities. 441 442 Finke stated that Lowes in Plymouth is about 30 to 35 feet while CVS is approximately 27 443 feet. He confirmed that all the signs in Medina are capped at 20 feet with the exception of the 444 Medina ballroom which has a variance because of the grade, noting that the sign from 445 highway grade does not exceed 20 feet. 446 447 Albers asked at what point drivers would start to see the sign if it is allowed at 30 feet. 448 449 Finke stated that the only item that would be visible at 30 feet would be the Target tenant. 450 451 Murrin asked if the other sign could be made to be the taller sign since that sign already sits 452 up higher. 453 454 Finke stated that the applicant could speak to that more, but noted that sign would not be as 455 visible to the eastbound traffic. 456 457 Albers referenced the property south of Wells Fargo that was approved as an Indian 458 restaurant. 459 460 Finke stated that property has not been withdrawn. 461 462 Eric Olson, representing the applicant, provided pictures of the Lowes sign in Plymouth to 463 provide a reference. He stated that when he started a few of the smaller, locally owned 464 tenants commented that the largest marketing effort they have to bring in customers is 465 signage which is how this process arose. He stated that the goal is to provide signage for the 466 smaller locally owned tenants. He explained that the proposed size of the signage is meant to 467 help increase visibility for drivers from the roadway. He stated that there is also a challenge 468 for the site with being up on the hill and the current sign has zero visibility from the west. He 469 stated that the current monument sign is only visible from traffic moving in one direction and 470 does not have visibility for the other direction until drivers are past the sign. He stated that 471 the liquor store tenant was going to attend, but runs the store himself and was unable to get 472 away, noting that the liquor store tenant stated that he does get business from the smaller real 473 estate type signs he places. 474 475 10 Finke stated why Target occupies 30 percent of the sign if the driver of this request is the 476 other tenants. 477 478 Olson explained that the site is governed not only by the PUD, but also through an 479 Operational Easement Agreement (OEA) which Target sets up when they build a site. He 480 explained that the request would not only need to be approved by the City, but also by the 481 members of the OEA; and Target would not approve the request without their inclusion. He 482 noted that when the sign was originally proposed, it was smaller and Target had their own 483 requirements in order to approve the request. 484 485 Foote asked if this would be approved by Target. 486 487 Olson stated that conceptually the sign has been approved, but would go back to Target for 488 final approval. It was confirmed that Target would then have their name on two signs. He 489 provided additional details on the requirements from Target regarding signage. 490 491 V. Reid asked if the applicant would be in agreement with a 20-foot sign. 492 493 Olson replied that this proposed size would be the smallest that they would like to go. 494 495 V. Reid referenced a nearby sign that lists multiple tenants off County Road 101 that is 496 smaller. She stated that it is rare to allow signage closer to the highway rather than closer to 497 the buildings and was concerned with site pollution. 498 499 Olson appreciated V. Reid’s concern and noted that they would match the material of the sign 500 to the nearby retaining wall. He confirmed that the existing sign would be removed. He did 501 not believe the new sign would be taller than the top of the Caribou Coffee building. He 502 stated that the current panels for the sign are 21.75 feet, while the new panels are proposed to 503 be 31 feet. 504 505 Murrin asked how tall and wide the current panels are compared to the new panels. 506 507 Olson replied, providing the current panel and proposed panel dimensions. 508 509 Murrin asked if the applicant considered making the other existing sign taller. 510 511 R. Reid replied that sign is not visible from both directions of traffic. 512 513 Olson replied that the other sign is currently 20 or 21 feet high and did not consider that 514 location because that is more of the Target sign. He noted that they would consider that if the 515 same goals could be met and if Target would agree to that, but explained that their lot ends 516 before that Target sign. 517 518 Murrin asked if the 30-foot sign would be higher than the Target sign, noting that she realizes 519 that the grade is different. 520 521 Olson stated that he believed that the sign would be lower than the Target sign because of the 522 change in topography. 523 524 Barry asked how the brushed aluminum finishing was chosen as compared to the brushed 525 rock, which fits in with the surroundings. 526 527 11 Olson confirmed that the finish could be modified to better fit in with the surroundings as the 528 brushed aluminum was just chosen as the sign was modeled from a sign at another property 529 they own. 530 531 Drew Palmer, Wells Fargo Corporate Real Estate Group, stated that he is here in support of 532 the sign request. He stated that Wells Fargo loves this community and would like to have 533 increased visibility to service their customers. He noted that the business currently has a 534 problem with signage issues as customers are not finding this location and therefore going to 535 the Plymouth or even Buffalo locations. He believed that this would be a great opportunity 536 for this location to thrive and alert customers to this location. 537 538 V. Reid opened the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. 539 540 No additional comments. 541 542 V. Reid closed the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. 543 544 Barry stated that he supports this proposed height, noting that the intent for this corridor is to 545 support business and he would like to see the smaller businesses supported with increased 546 visibility. He noted that his only comment would be for the aesthetic of the sign to blend into 547 the surrounding aesthetics. 548 549 Foote echoed the comments of Barry in regard to the aesthetics and noted that he would 550 support the 30 foot height, as he believed 20 feet would be too small. 551 552 R. Reid stated that this is a unique situation because the stores are up so high and are not 553 visible from the roadway when driving by and therefore supported the 30 foot height for the 554 sign. 555 556 Albers stated that he would support 30 feet, as it is important for both westbound and 557 eastbound drivers to have visibility in time to make the turn into the development. 558 559 Murrin stated that she would be in favor of increased signage for the businesses in that area in 560 order to help those businesses grow and be successful. She asked if the sign would be 561 perpendicular to Highway 55 and would be lit from both sides. 562 563 Olson confirmed that the sign would be perpendicular to the roadway and would be lit to 564 increase visibility. 565 566 Murrin asked if the 30 feet would be high enough to alert drivers, noting that she would 567 support the sign as proposed. 568 569 White stated that she would also support this request, as this sign would be an improvement 570 from the existing sign. She asked how this signage was a part of the original PUD and if 571 there is background that should be considered. 572 573 Finke stated that the applicant did request larger signage, but the City did not approve the 574 request at that time. 575 576 V. Reid stated that she believes that the sign is too big and that 20 feet would be sufficient. 577 She believed that all the tenants should be able to list their names, but believed that this 578 would be giving Target too much visibility. She did not want Medina to become Plymouth 579 and noted that she will vote against the request. 580 12 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment 581 based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to conditions recommended by 582 staff, with the additional condition that the brushed aluminum be changed to match the 583 nearby fence. Motion approved 6-1 (V. Reid opposed). 584 585 8. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process 586 587 Finke asked the Commission to speak to their friends and neighbors to check out the 588 information on the website and provide any comments. He reminded everyone about the 589 public meetings on Saturday, May 14th from 9:30 a.m. to Noon and then Monday, May 16th 590 from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at City Hall. He noted that the Steering Committee will meet the 591 following Thursday, April 26th. He noted that there was a lot of interest tonight and hoped 592 that interest would continue to the public meetings. 593 594 R. Reid stated that she still has concern with the vision statement and wanted to ensure that 595 does not fall between the cracks as the Plan moves forward, noting that is the one statement 596 that everyone will read. 597 598 9. Council Meeting Schedule 599 600 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Commissioner 601 White volunteered. 602 603 10. Adjourn 604 605 Motion by Albers, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion 606 carried unanimously. 607 Excelsior Group Page 1 of 6 June 14, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 9, 2016 MEETING: June 14, 2016 Planning Commission SUBJ: Excelsior Group LLC – PUD Concept Plan Review – 2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: April 20, 2016 120-day Review Deadline: August 19, 2016 Summary of Request The Excelsior Group, LLC has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for an 87-lot residential development north of Chippewa Road and west of Mohawk Drive. The subject site is a total of 37 acres (31 net acres), with two single family homes. Much of the property is pasture with some tilled farmland. There are The subject site is guided for Low Density Residential development in the current Comprehensive Plan within the 2021-2025 staging period. The Comp Plan permits a property to develop up to two years early through a point system. The properties are zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, which is an interim zoning designation for property until development occurs consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Property to the north and west is currently rural residential lots, planned for future low density development in the Comp Plan after 2021. Polaris is located to the southeast of the subject property and the Wealshire is under construction to the east. The property south of Chippewa Road is planned for future commercial development. An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found at the top of the following page. The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal application. The Planning Commission and City Council will not take any action and the feedback is purely advisory. Comprehensive Plan As noted above, the subject properties are guided Low Density Residential (LDR) in the current Comp Plan, which would anticipate development with a net density of 2-3.5 units per acre. The properties were part of the Staging Plan amendment completed last year, which changed the properties from the 2016-2020 staging period to the 2021-2025 staging period. The amendment also reduced the amount of flexibility permitted for developing prior to the staging period. A residential development can occur two years prior to the staging period (rather than up to 5 years early). Excelsior Group Page 2 of 6 June 14, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The City is currently in the midst of its decennial Comprehensive Plan update. The Steering Committee has put together drafts of a Vision, Community Goals, and a draft Land Use map. This information is attached for reference. Because the update of the Comp Plan is underway and these properties would not be permitted to develop until after the new plan is expected to be effective, staff believes it is reasonable to consider this concept plan within the context of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Vision and Community Goals speak to only expanding urban services as necessary to support the minimum forecasted growth. The subject property is not proposed for urban services within the draft Comp Plan update, even though it is planned for urban services in the current Plan. In order to support the goal of limiting expansion, the City may wish to discuss reducing growth in another location if expanding services to this site. Proposed Site Layout The applicant proposes a mix of 87 small single family lots. The applicant proposes 55-foot wide “villa” lots on the eastern property, which is located in the Rockford School District. The applicant proposes 65- and 75-foot wide single family lots on the western property, which is Excelsior Group Page 3 of 6 June 14, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting located in the Wayzata School District. The proposed net density is approximately 2.8 units/acre, which falls in the middle of the LDR density range. The R1 zoning district was created to implement the LDR land use. The R1 district requires larger lots and setbacks than the applicant proposes within this development. Development of R1 lots would likely result in a density closer to the minimum LDR requirement of 2 units/acre. R1 Requirement Proposed 65’ and 75’ Lots Proposed 55’ Lots Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 9,000 s.f. 6,500 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 65 or 75 feet 55 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 30 feet 25 feet Side Yard Setback (combined) 25 feet (15 & 10) 15 feet (5 & 10) 15 feet (7.5 & 7.5) Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 25 feet 20 feet Max. Hardcover 40% Staging Plan As noted above, the subject properties are not planned for development until after 2021. The Staging Plan permits a property to be considered for development two years early through a list of criteria which are described in the attached document. The flexibility in staging is accomplished through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) review. The information submitted by the applicant does not provide substantial detail on whether the criteria would be met. The crucial factor is whether sufficient infrastructure exists to develop existing and planned development in addition to the proposed project. In this case, the City Engineer is specifically interested whether the project could be served through existing gravity sewer service. In terms of other factors described in the Staging Plan Flexibility section, the proposed development is adjacent to existing development, which would achieve points. The site plan includes small areas of open space, a small park area, and trail connections which may warrant points. These factors would not provide sufficient points to justify Staging flexibility. The applicant would need to provide additional detail on remaining factors to determine the extent to which any are met. Even with the flexibility permitted in the Staging Plan, development would not be permitted until 2019. In the meantime, the City intends to adopt is decennial Comprehensive Plan update. As a result, development will likely be guided by the updated Comp Plan. Tree Preservation and Buffer Yards Few trees are located on the subject properties. Any application would be subject to the City’s tree preservation and replacement requirements. Excelsior Group Page 4 of 6 June 14, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Any development request would need to provide landscaped buffer yards to rural properties to the west and north. Wetlands and Floodplain The subject properties appear to contain four wetlands, which most of the wetland areas being in the southern portion of the site. The applicant proposes impacts to the southwestern wetland in order to construct a street to serve lots in this portion of the site. The concept plan identifies the City’s minimum upland buffers around remaining wetland areas. FEMA maps identify no floodplains on the subject properties. Transportation The applicant proposes a single access point at Chippewa Road, located where the 2212 Chippewa driveway is today. If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, information should be provided to determine if improvements should be required for Chippewa Road. Mohawk Drive has limited right-in/right-out access to the east of the site. As a result, eastbound traffic would be required to go west on Chippewa Road to Willow Drive in order to turn left onto Highway 55. The concept plan shows two connections to property to the north and a connection to property to the west. If the surrounding property is guided as rural residential, these connections may not be advisable. Staff recommends reorienting the street layout depending on the planned land uses to the north and west. Sewer/Water If development were to occur at the subject site, sewer and water infrastructure would be required to be extended from Mohawk Drive to the property. The applicant would also be required to loop the water main to connect to the main north of the Wealshire project. The applicant should provide data sufficient to review whether the site can be served with gravity sewer lines. Staff would not support early development if a sewage lift station were necessary. Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review The Concept Plan does not include full grading or stormwater plans. Any development proposal would ultimately be subject to relevant stormwater standards. Park Dedication The City’s subdivision regulations requires up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated for park purposes. The City may also choose to accept cash in-lieu of all or a portion of this land dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre-developed market value, up to a maximum of $8000 per home. Staff does not believe the fee would reach the maximum in this case, but it will be determined more precisely during the preliminary plat review if the applicant proceeds with a formal application. Excelsior Group Page 5 of 6 June 14, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The concept plan identifies an approximately ¾ acre park area including with a “tot lot” playground equipment. The concept plan also identifies trail connections through the neighborhood connecting to Chippewa Road and to Wealshire. If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, the connection to Wealshire, which is private property, would need to be discussed with the property owner. Purpose of Concept Plan Review/Review Criteria According to Section 827.33 of the City Code: “As the first step in the review procedure for a PUD, an applicant shall complete and submit…[a] Concept Plan...” “Comments and actions by the City during review of the Concept Plan are purely advisory and in no way shall bind the City to subsequent approval…nor imply any future approval.” The City has a great deal of discretion in the Planned Unit Development and in reviewing the requested Staging Plan flexibility. The Concept Plan process allows the developer to receive feedback in order to determine whether they will invest in the formal development proposal. The purpose of the PUD district is described below. A PUD should meet these objectives in order to be approved. “Section 827.25. PUD - Planned Unit Development Regulations - Purpose. PUD - Planned Unit Development provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. 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: Subd. 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. Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design. Subd. 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. Subd. 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. Subd. 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. Subd. 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. Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.” Excelsior Group Page 6 of 6 June 14, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting As noted above, the properties are not planned for development until 2021. Development prior to this time would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment or Staging Plan flexibility to 2019. The criteria noted in the Flexibility section would also need to be achieved in order to allow for the development. Staff Comments The Planning Commission and City Council should review and provide comments on the Concept Plan. Because the property is within the 2021 Staging timeframe, staff believes it make sense to review the concept within the context of the Draft Comprehensive Plan update. Currently, the draft Plan identifies the properties to be removed from the MUSA and to be guided rural residential. If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, staff has provided comments throughout the report, which are summarized below: 1) Any future application shall be subject to all relevant City regulations and policies. 2) The applicant shall provide information necessary to confirm that gravity sewer service is practical. 3) Any proposed development proposal should include provisions for vegetative buffers to rural properties to the north and west. 4) The applicant shall provide information requested by the City Engineer to determine whether street improvements are necessary to support the development. 5) The street alignment should be updated so that future street connections are not provided to rural property. Attachments 1. Staging Plan Flexibility Criteria 2. Engineering Comments dated May 9, 2016 3. DRAFT Comp Plan Information (Vision, Goals, Future Land Use) 4. Concept Plan 5. Location Maps submitted by applicant Medina City Code 825. Zoning – Administration 825. Zoning –Administration Page 28 of 51 STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT TO BE SERVED BY CITY UTILITIES Section 825.34. Staging and Growth. Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the timing of growth and development within the city consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Such regulations are in the public interest to ensure the preservation of the rural heart of the City and to promote contiguous growth in order to provide efficient and cost-effective services to residents. Subd. 2. Urban Services Phasing Plan. (a) Property shall not be served by city water or sanitary sewer utilities prior to the date described within the Urban Services Phasing Plan, except as regulated herein. The Urban Services Phasing Plan, herein referred to as the “Phasing Plan,” can be found within the Comprehensive Plan and is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein and as it may be amended from time to time. (b) The city council, following consultation of the planning commission, may consider requests for flexibility to the date which city water and sanitary sewer utility services are available according to the Phasing Plan, as permitted within the Comprehensive Plan. Properties shall only be prioritized for early development when it is determined by the city that a proposed project significantly achieves the criteria described below in Subd. 4. Such flexibility shall be at the sole discretion of the city council, and be considered as described herein. Subd. 3. Review Process for Phasing Plan Flexibility. (a) In order for a project to be granted flexibility to the Phasing Plan, the property shall require rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district, unless the city council waives this requirement. The council shall only waive the PUD requirement upon a determination that review and regulation of the project can be accomplished through the development standards, review procedures, and other relevant regulations of the existing zoning district. (b) The city council shall deny a request for flexibility to the Phasing Plan, except upon a finding that the proposed project significantly achieves the criteria identified in Subd. 4 below. The following represents the minimum standard which must be met in order for the city council to consider flexibility to the Phasing Plan. The city council shall have the discretion to require achievement of additional city objectives during the review process. (1) The crucial factor described in Subd. 4(a) shall be determined to be achieved; and (2) Fifty or more points shall be achieved amongst the various primary and secondary factors described in Subd. 4(b) and Subd. 4(c). The city may grant a maximum of ten points for each primary factor and a maximum of five points for each secondary factor. (c) The project proposer shall be responsible to reimburse the city for the costs incurred by the city in reviewing the request, including any additional costs of analyzing the extent to which the project meets the review criteria for Phasing Plan flexibility. Medina City Code 825. Zoning – Administration 825. Zoning –Administration Page 29 of 51 Subd. 4. Criteria for Reviewing Requests for Phasing Plan Flexibility (a) Crucial factor: Infrastructure Capacity. The city shall review existing sanitary sewer, water, and street infrastructure to determine if sufficient capacity exists to support all three of the following: 1) existing development previously approved by the City; 2) the proposed project; and 3) all other development which has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the current Phasing period. If existing capacity is determined to be insufficient for the proposed project, but the project proposes to make necessary improvements, the city may give consideration to such proposal, provided the improvements are constructed at no cost to the city or other property owners. The improvements shall also be consistent with city infrastructure plans and policies and be designed to serve other future development when appropriate. (b) Primary factors (maximum of 10 points per item): (1) Sustainability. To achieve this objective, the project shall incorporate sustainable practices such as high energy efficiency, responsible construction materials and processes, site design which supports multiple transportation options, and other sustainable practices. (2) Natural resource protection and low impact development. To achieve this objective, the project shall incorporate low impact development practices and exceptional natural resource and ecological preservation. Meeting the minimum tree preservation and wetland protection regulations shall be equivalent to one point, with additional points granted for additional preservation. (3) Proximity to existing development. To achieve this objective, the project shall be adjacent to or a short distance from existing development which is served by city utility services. Property which is immediately adjacent to existing development shall be granted the most points, with fewer points granted with increased distance. (4) Open Space Protection. To achieve this objective, the project shall permanently protect open space from development. The number of points granted shall be based on the relative size of the open space area protected and the ecological value of the open space. (5) Limited impacts on city services. Points for this objective shall be based upon the expected need for city services, with fewer points granted for projects which have a higher potential impact. For example: (i) Projects which can access regional roadways with limited distance on city streets may be granted additional points. (ii) Commercial uses which create lower levels of traffic, particularly truck traffic, may be granted additional points. (iii) Commercial uses with lower water usage may be granted additional points. (c) Secondary factors (maximum of 5 points per item): (1) High quality architectural design and materials. Points may be granted for this objective for a number of different elements. Meeting the minimum requirements of the underlying zoning district with regards to building Medina City Code 825. Zoning – Administration 825. Zoning –Administration Page 30 of 51 materials, modulation, and other relevant standards would be equivalent to one point. Additional elements may include: (i) Varying types of home within a single-family development. (ii) Utilization of more high quality building materials, such as brick and stone, than is required by the underlying zoning district. (iii) Four-sided architecture. (2) Community amenities. Points may be granted for this objective based on a number of different amenities, examples of which include: (i) Private trails, recreational, or gathering areas beyond which is required as part of park dedication requirements. (ii) High quality signage and lighting fixtures, to be maintained by the property owner(s). (3) Affordable housing (residential development only). To achieve this objective, affordability shall be guaranteed by a covenant or similar means approved by the city. The amount of points granted shall be based on the level of affordability as well as the proportion of units which are affordable. (4) Employment opportunities (commercial/business development only). Points for this objective shall be based on the number of employees, especially new positions which will be filled after the user begins operations within the city. (5) Other factors. The City may grant additional points to projects that meet objectives which are not specifically described above. Section 825.35. Zoning Amendments; Criteria for Granting Zoning Amendments. The City Council 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 changes in conditions in the City. Section 825.37. Procedure on Zoning Amendments. Subd. 1. An amendment to the text of the Ordinance or zoning map may be initiated by the City Council, the Planning Commission or by application of a property owner. Any amendment not initiated by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the Planning Commission recommendations. Individuals wishing to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinances shall fill out a zoning amendment application form signed by the property owner and submit it to the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 2. The property owner applying for a zoning amendment shall fill out and submit to the Administrator a rezoning application form. A survey shall be attached if requested by the Zoning Administrator. A site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity showing the following information: (a) location and dimensions of: lot, building, driveways, and off-street parking. (b) Distance between: building and front, side, and rear lot lines; principal building and engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02712-890\Admin\Docs\Submittal 042516\_2016-04-09 Excelsior Group Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx May 9, 2016 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: The Excelsior Group Concept Plan – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-16-183 WSB Project No. 02712-890 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed The Excelsior Group Concept plan submittal dated April 25, 2016. The plans propose to construct 83 single family parcels. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Civil 1. Verify structure builds and the feasibility of serving the area with a gravity sewer system as proposed. Show where the proposed connection points would be located to the existing system. 2. Looping connections will be required to minimize long dead-end watermain sections. The adjacent property to the east will be constructing a watermain that will provide a stub to the very northeast corner of The Excelsior Group site. 3. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water. 4. The concept plan shows two trail connections to the neighboring property to the east. The site plan for the adjacent property does not include trail connections to these locations. The applicant will need to work with the adjacent property owner to provide trail connections. Traffic 5. The concept plan shows future roadway connections to the north of the development. The applicant should provide an estimate of the traffic volume that would utilize the proposed roadways to reach the future development to the north. 6. The intersections should be analyzed to determine if turn lanes are required on Chippewa Road or nearby intersections for either capacity or safety. The Excelsior Group Concept Plan – Engineering Review May 9, 2016 Page 2 K:\02712-890\Admin\Docs\Submittal 042516\_2016-04-09 Excelsior Group Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx 7. The posted speed limit on Chippewa Road is currently 30 mph, but the City will be increasing the speed limit to 40 mph in 2016. The proposed intersections should be analyzed for sight distance issues or concerns. Stormwater 8. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation. 9. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Draft 6/10/2016 Vision Statement Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Develop at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordination with its contracted volunteer fire departments. Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. OSI Target Polaris Gregor Farm City of Loretto Hamel Legion Park Walter G. Anderson Maple Plain Park and Pool Medina Golf and Country Club Loram City Hall Water Tower HAMEL HIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A PIO N EE R TAMARACKCOUNTY ROAD 24 WILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19HACKAMORE H O M E S T E A D NAVAJO HUNTERPRAIRIETOMAHAWKPARKVIEWTOWNLINEMOHAWKCOUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCHIPPEWA COUNTY ROAD 116HOLY NAMELEAWOODMEANDER BAKER PARKTAMRACKWAYZATA ARROWHEADCLYDESDALE LAKE SHORE DEERHILL SPUR KELLER C A R R I A G E BLACKFOOTMAPLE S P R U C E EVERGREEN CHEYENNE TOWER ELM CREEKMORNINGSIDE B O B O L I N K PINTOLILACSHOREWOODBLUEBELLMEADOWOODS COUNTY ROAD 11 WALNUTFERN APACHEME DI NA L A K E PINE SIOUXCHESTNUT OAKVIEWHARMONY BERGAMOTTRILLIUMCOTTONWOODSYCAMORE N O R T H R ID G E SHAWNEE WOODS BOYERCHEROKEE BUCKSKINKATRINKA FOXBERRYLAKEVIEW H O L L Y B U S H CHERRY HILL C O X M E L O D Y LI NDENCRESTVIEW CAPRIOLEELSEN TRAPPERS MORGAN CALAMUSHILLVIEW PHILLIPSPRAIRIE CREEKVIXEN SUMMIT PAWNEE SETTLERS COVEYA L B E RT CABALINE LOST HORSE WICHITA RED FOXFOXTAIL TOWN LINEB R ID A L P A T H WI LLOWBROOKSU N R I S E HIGHCRESTCREEKVIEW DUSTYFOX PATH HICKORYCHIPPEWAWILLOW APACHEWILLOWBROCKTONHUNTERDEERHILL MEANDERARROWHEA DCOUNTY ROAD 24COUNTY ROAD 19PINTOLINDENFuture Land Use PlanDRAFT 06/10/2016 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: June 3, 2016 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential (2-3 u/a) Medium Density Residential (5-7 u/a) High Density Residential (12-15 u/a) Mixed Residential (3.5-5 u/a; 1 u/a HDR) Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreation Park, Recreation, Open Space Closed Landfill Right-of-ways Wetland Locations Wetland Locations `%i • / 1 „ J>� .:\ L P� k (To/ L,.i) s _ I 1 ! I J --' jx�j` - - - Parcel Data - Address 2212 Chippewa Road PID 03-118-23-23-0005 Area: 19.53 acres (850,549 sf) Description: The East 655.53 ft of the SW a of the NW 1/4 Min Area - 9,000 sf Fysb - 25'1/ 30'g Sysb-5'/10' Cmr-25'?? Rysb - 25' 50' ROW 28' B -B Streets Proposed Design Data: 42 Single Family Lots Parcel Data - Mm Width - 65 & 75 ft Address 2120 Chippewa Road PID 03-118-23-24-0002 Area: 17.62 acres (767,549 sf) Description: �\ r _ L' 1 I / • \ 0, I \ ---J I CH!?FEr4i1 ROAD —a Proposed Design Data: 45 Lots Min Width - 55 ft Min Area - 6,500 sf Fysb - 25' Sysb - 7,5' / 7,5' Cmr - 25'?? Rysb - 20' 50' ROW 28' B -B Streets 200 100 0 100 200 400 SCALE IN FEET J DRAWING NAME NO. BY DATE REVISIONS RSM DRAWN BY CHECKED BY %XX DATE 01/13/16 USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITMATE USE. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Name, P.E. Date: Lic. No. as SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. FRs PAP 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 CITY PROJECT NO. MEDINA, MINNESOTA Concept Plan - SF and Villas 042116 Workman & Scherber THE EXCELSIOR GROUP FILE NO. 24958-002 PROJECT NAME AND NUMBER w z 2 0 3 5 6 7 8 ❑ tr Y tr a tY w m 9 JLNlp, 0 COUNTY R -I 0 cc I- 0 U MAPLE ST Independence O co d" CD O B C I Spurzem Half Moon Katrina D t I , 'Ntierh3lftr i P� I G I E I oo HAMEL RD — T — C J/ I� I YSchool lLake( 0 I `\ I —`` —I — — — Io 0 I� CD CD 0 QCD CO co C) co M CV F G H I I TES RANCHpR DEERHILL RD X 80B0LINK ORNINGSID KELP RR RD LOST HORSE RD PAWNEE RE KATRINKA RD ti J HACKAIMORE RD TOWE ❑ O -- --. K ASTE RD CILIUM TR( WNEE WOODS RD L I v g-,� rr I' 0 Q- z- I I0 EVERGREEN RD I I U— a I IT -I BLACKFOOT TRL I OJT I �9 O ❑ • I I �m I °P I I TUC H CTI P 1 �Ft1DAL I I � I I RAPP RS TRL I �L9,�� I d I �o I °— ��9< — — — — 1 I �tiF I I l � T'�t I Q-9 I I �o M Q4"" I or`P I I W I ��P I I '' I CHEYENNEITRL z I P� -- I 1 I I J - —� - J - - MORGAN R� • L �� I I I ou'l susH I I ❑ I ° I I I I KFfri \� I a I cC o ;t = COUNTY ROAD 24 ❑ ❑ z I .z -t- o O O N CHESTNUT RD COTTO OOD TRL TRL Q CD O CD N O C 0 0 K I C c w I 1DEERHILLRD � CD CD v — OAK CI' _ HEROKEE R N d I CD O CO 0 a0 4- O CD —201 c — �O '� —1600 4800 4400 1 4000 7 ETR] - 1-3600 3200 w 0 0 0 0 z28 z — —2400 15 a.S SPUR 0/0 o x0- NR1DG„DR O ce — — 1-4-120U o M.DU.AA Street & Address Finder Map See Reverse for Grid Guide and Neighborhood Maps N A Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 Map Date: September 16, 2015 ntLe9d HIGHWAY 55 Z F- CoI NTY'ROAD 11 Independence Katrina Corcoran CHIPPEWA`_ _ S fin 0 Orono CHESTNUT oisfe r .L= NAVAJO HACKAMORE Holy Name Maple C oone Miles 0 0.25 0.5 Map 5-2 Future Land Use Plan T Y kSakc w. ,8k# tom/ MEDINA Guide Plan Rural Residential Agriculture Developing -Post 2030 Low Density Res 2.0 - 3.49 U/A 1 Medium Density Res 3.5 - 6.99 U/A High Density Res 7 - 30 U/A Mixed Use 3.5 - 6.99 U/A Mixed Use - Business 7 - 45 U/A Commercial General Business Industrial Business Private Recreation (PREC) Parks and Recreation P -R - State or Regional Open Space Public Semi -Public 0 U/A Closed Sanitary Landfill Right -of -Way z `This map is not perfectly precise. Actual boundaries may vary, and should be field verified. Last Amended: May 21, 2013 (CPA 2030-4) Adopted: November 17, 2009 UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83 Scale: 1:30,000 eld COUNTY 20AD 11 Z! 0'', Independence HIGHWAY 55 Corcoran f Spurzem COUNTY ROAD 24 Katrina Schoot Lake Subject Pro • ert Orono CHESTNUT Medina NAVAJO TY ROAD HACKAMORE Map 0.25 0.5 Holy Narrie T V C. Map 5-3 MEDINA Staging and Growth Urban Services Phasing Plan Developed 2008 2001-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 Developing Post -2030 No Urban Services Planned Met Council LTSSA There are several critical infrastructure milestones that will control growth including: - The existing water infrastructure has capacity of approximately 160 units available until 2009. - The sewer constraints shall limit development to 2,000 units without improvements. Generally, the Phasing Plan demonstrates that development shall proceed in a east to west pattern. This phasing plan allows flexibility between adjacent phases to allow for proper infrastructure planning and development. The Grey area reflects the area identified by the City to be developed Post 2030. The Met Council has identified the LTSSA for potential future access to urban services. No services are planned during the timeframe covered by this Plan. Adopted: November 17, 2009 Parcel current as of October 2006 UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83 Scale: 1:30,000 Just for Kix Page 1 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 10, 2016 MEETING: June 14, 2016 SUBJ: Just for Kix – Site Plan Review, Hardcover Variance, Lot Combination 3522 Sioux Drive – Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: April 18, 2016 Review Deadline (120 days): August 16, 2016 Summary of Request Clough Properties, LLC has requested approvals to construct an 18,040 square foot commercial building at property currently addressed as 45 Highway 55. The applicant intends to operate their dance studio, Just for Kix, in the structure along with a small related retail operation. The subject site is located on the eastern City border, south of Highway 55 and north of the railroad right-of-way. The property currently includes a single family home. Elm Creek flows through the northwest corner of the property before flowing under Highway 55. There are a number of trees along the bank of Elm Creek and also trees to the east of the home. Much of the property is vacant. An aerial of the site can be found to the right. The subject site is zoned Commercial Highway- Railroad (CH-RR), the same as the property to the west of Sioux Drive. The City rezoned the property from Uptown Hamel-2 to CH-RR in 2015 at the request of the property owner. In addition, earlier in the year, the City recently annexed an approximately ½ acre portion of the property from the City of Plymouth. Just for Kix Page 2 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The applicant has requested the following land use applications in order to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the site. 1) Plat to combine the property which was annexed by the City 2) Variance – the applicant requests a variance to exceed the maximum of 25% impervious surface permitted in the Shoreland Overlay district of Elm Creek. 3) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building. Although this staff report will generally describe the site plan review first for the sake of context, staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the plat first, then the variance request first, since the site plan review would be contingent upon the plat and variance. 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. Proposed Use Dance studios and retail uses are listed as permitted uses in the CH-RR zoning district. Setbacks/Lot Dimensions Following is a summary of the proposed construction compared to the requirements of the CH-RR zoning district and shoreland overlay district: CH-RR Requirement Proposed Minimum Lot Area 1 acre 2.19 acre Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 498 feet Minimum Lot Depth 120 feet 540 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 50 feet Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 15 feet 25 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 76 feet Street Setback (arterial) 50 feet 50 feet Railroad Setback Zero, except as necessary for safety, fire access, or utilities 76 feet (building) 3 feet (parking) Setback from Residential 50 feet 280 feet Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard Rear/Interior Side Yards Residential 25 feet 10 feet 40 feet 27 feet 32 feet 255 feet Maximum Impervious Surface 25% (Shoreland Overlay) 50% Wetlands/Floodplain/Shoreland Elm Creek flows through the northwest corner of the subject property. There are wetlands adjacent to the creek that will require upland buffers with an average width of 30 feet. These required buffers are all within the required 50-foot Elm Creek buffer. A smaller, 2520 square foot wetland is also located in the central west of the property. The applicant proposes to fill this wetland in order to construct the building. The applicant proposes to purchase wetland credits in order to mitigate the impact. This wetland currently provides Just for Kix Page 3 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting storage for surface drainage from the surrounding area before it drains into Elm Creek. Staff was originally concerned that filling this wetland area would channelize the drainage to Elm Creek because of the loss of storage capacity from the wetland. The applicant has updated plans to incorporate BMPs to slow this drainage before the creek. The wetland impacts would be subject to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) review. There is a floodplain adjacent to Elm Creek with a 1% (100-year) regulatory elevation of 961.5 on the western property line and 960.8 on the east. There is also a 0.2% (“500-year”) floodplain of 962. No construction or grading is proposed that will affect the regulatory floodplain. The Shoreland Overlay District requires the following standards for property within 300 feet of streams:  50 foot structure and parking setback: The structure is setback 55 feet from the stream and parking is proposed to be setback 183 feet.  25% impervious surface maximum. The applicant has requested a variance to allow up to 50% of the site to contain impervious surfaces. This will be discussed more in-depth later in the report.  Lowest level of the building shall be three feet above the ordinary high water level. The proposed structure is over 10 feet above the high water level.  “Shoreland Alteration - Alteration of vegetation or topography shall be regulated to prevent soil erosion, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic sites, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and individual sewage treatment systems or for the construction of roads and parking areas shall be exempt from the vegetation alteration standards of this subdivision. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses, is allowed, subject to the following standards: o Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore impact zone shall not allowed. o In the shore impact zone, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees shall be allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of permitted accessory structures or facilities, provided that: (1) the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (2) along tributary streams, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and (3) the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards.” The applicant proposes no alteration of vegetation within the shore impact zone. Stormwater/LID The applicant proposes two pretreatment basins and two filtration basins in order to meet the City and Elm Creek Watershed standards. The design has been reviewed by both engineers and appear to generally meet the standards. The applicant proposes water quality improvements which exceed minimum City standards. This additional treatment has been provided in an attempt to mitigate the requested variance for Just for Kix Page 4 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting additional hardcover in shoreland overlay district, which was a suggestion made by staff in this instance and in similar variances in the past. Building Materials The applicant proposes primarily precast concrete exterior building materials. The proposed building is approximately 50% concrete, 20% brick, 20% glass, and 10% exterior insulated finish systems (EIFS). Commercial districts require a minimum of 30% of the exterior materials to be brick, stone, stucco, or glass. The code allows a maximum of 20% to be wood, metal, or hardiboard siding and a maximum of 70% “decorative concrete...color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and…patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.” Material samples are available for review to determine whether the proposed precast concrete has a sufficiently high quality finish and pattern. Building Modulation/Fenestration/Multi-sided Architecture Commercial districts require that “buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet of building perimeter to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building materials/design.” The proposed structure has a footprint of 186’x106’. This would require 4 aspects of modulation along the long facades and 2 along the shorter facades. The building orientation provides one aspect of horizontal modulation on the north and east façades which are also accompanied by the use of brick. The southern façade provides an aspect through material differentiation. The applicant proposes small vertical brick accents along the facades. Staff questions whether these accents, especially the way in which they are repeated, meets the intent of the modulation requirement. Commercial districts require 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.” The proposed northern façade includes approximately 20% of the façade area as glass, or 31% of the linear frontage. Commercial districts require that “any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street, an interior access drive for the development, or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s) shall be compatible with the front building elevation.” In this case, only the northern façade faces a public street. The northern façade is fairly similar to the southern façade, with the exception of the canopy over the mail entrance. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether the modulation, fenestration, and multi-sided architecture are sufficient. Just for Kix Page 5 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Tree Preservation/Landscaping The applicant proposes to remove 11 trees around the existing home on the property. The applicant does not propose to remove any of the trees adjacent to Elm Creek. The tree preservation ordinance would allow 15% of the trees on the site to be removed for “initial site development” and an additional 15% for remaining site development. There are 28 existing trees on the property, which would permit 4 trees to be removed for initial development and 4 for other activities. This results in 24 inches of required tree replacement. Landscaping requirements are based upon the lot perimeter, including: 1) 1 overstory tree per 50 feet of perimeter 2) 1 ornamental tree per 100 feet of perimeter 3) 1 shrub per 30 feet of perimeter The subject site is approximately 1500 feet in perimeter, requiring 30 overstory trees, 15 ornamental trees, and 50 shrubs. The proposed landscaping appears to be short by approximately 4 trees (depending on size chosen for installation). Staff recommends a condition to bring the landscaping and tree replacement plan into compliance. Commercial district standards require landscaping to occupy a minimum of 8% of the parking lot and loading dock area. Staff calculates that 10.3% of the proposed parking lot area is landscaping. Transportation The applicant proposes to access the site through a shared driveway with Aldi to the west, which connects with Sioux Drive. The applicant proposes to close the existing access to Highway 55, which is consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation policies. The City anticipated the subject site accessing Sioux Drive during the discussions with Aldi. These projects, along with development west of Sioux Drive, led the City Engineer to recommend construction of turn lanes on Sioux Drive at Westfalen Trail. The City has initiated the project for construction this summer with the intention that new commercial uses east and west of Sioux Drive pay for the full cost of the project. Staff recommends that the applicant enter into an agreement with the City related to the payment of assessments on the project. The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief have raised concerns related to fire truck circulation on the site because of the single access point. They recommend maintaining an emergency vehicle access to Highway 55 in order to provide adequate circulation. Staff has had discussions with MnDOT and it appears that they are supportive because this will helps with the full access closure. Following construction of the turn lanes, the City Engineer has not raised concerns related to the impact of the development on the transportation system. Staff recommends that the sidewalk be extended to the property line in order to allow more convenience pedestrian access. A sidewalk crosses much of the property to the west to Sioux Drive, although does not connect all of the way to the subject property. Just for Kix Page 6 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Off-Street Parking The City would require a minimum of 73 parking spaces (1 per 250 gross square feet of dance studio and retail space). The applicant proposes 74 parking stalls. The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief have reviewed and provided comments related to the circulation for fire apparatus. Staff recommends a condition addressing these comments. Sewer/Water An existing City of Plymouth sewer main travels along the south and west of the property to the Met Council lift station west of Sioux Drive. The applicant proposes to connect to this sewer line. The City of Medina does not have a sewer line in the area which could serve the lot without a lift pump. Staff recommends a condition that an agreement with Plymouth be in place prior to construction. Aldi stubbed a water main to the western lot line, which the applicant proposes to loop along their western property line to connect to the existing water service which served the home. The City Engineer has also provided technical comments which the applicant should be required to address. Loading Dock No loading docks are proposed. The retail space is fairly small and deliveries will be made from the parking lot during non-peak times. Utilities/Mechanical Equipment/Trash and Recycling Commercial districts require that utilities be located under ground and that transformers be screened. The applicant proposes to relocate existing electrical lines underground. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant identify the location of the electrical transformer along with screening provisions. Commercial districts require “equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials which are compatible with the overall design of the building.” Staff recommends that the applicant provide additional detail to ensure compliance with this condition. Lot Combination/Plat The applicant proposes to combine the property recently annexed from the City of Plymouth with the main portion of the property. These parcels have been historically under common ownership but bisected by the municipal boundary. As noted in the table on page 2, the proposed combined lot meets the lot standards of the CH-RR zoning district. In addition to ensuring that the proposed lot meets lot standards, the subdivision ordinance also allows the City to require necessary dedications to support the property in question. Infrastructure to serve the lot was discussed throughout the report in connection with the Site Plan Review. Staff recommends that the plat also dedicate easements as recommended by the City Engineer for utilities on the site and as recommended by MnDOT for Highway 55. Just for Kix Page 7 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Review Criteria Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council review the requests in the following order: 1) Hardcover Variance; 2) Site Plan Review. Lot Combination/Plat The subdivision ordinance establishes the following criteria when reviewing requests within the City. Staff has provided potential findings for each of the criterion. (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. The proposed combination is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and is not premature because it does not affect the infrastructure necessary to serve the area. The combination prevents the small eastern parcel from being smaller than lot standard minimums and removes various shortcomings of the property. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. The proposed combination improves the ability to develop the combined property and does not affect the physical characteristics described above. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. The combination prevents the small eastern parcel from being smaller than lot standard minimums. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. The proposed combination provides more space to provide stormwater improvements. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed combination is not likely to cause public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way. The proposed combination will not conflict with streets, easements, or right-of-way. In fact, the combination improves the situation by providing access to the eastern property. Variance According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the following criteria when reviewing a variance request: “Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances. (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Just for Kix Page 8 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The applicant argues that the location of a commercial property along Elm Creek and near major intersection in the City is unique and justifies a variance. The City has approved a variance for 50% hardcover on the two commercial sites to the west, but the previous approvals do not create precedent, as each variance is to be reviewed on its own. The proposed commercial use is permitted in the district and even a variance to 50% is significantly below the amount of hardcover which is permitted on other commercial property. Staff believes the development would be similar to the development to the west, thus not altering the essential character of the locality. The applicant is proposing water quality improvements above and beyond minimum City standards in order to mitigate the impact of additional stormwater. If the variance is to be approved, staff would also suggest a condition that the applicant restores the streambank as recommended by Elm Creek watershed as a condition of the hardcover variance. This has also been required in previous variance requests. Site Plan Review The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed construction for consistency with City regulations. Obviously, in this case, the proposed construction exceeds hardcover requirements. If the City Council does not grant approval of the variance, the Site Plan Review cannot be approved. If the Council approves the variance, it appears that other relevant regulations would be met. The City “may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located.” The City has a high level of discretion when reviewing requests for variances. In fact, a variance should only be granted if the City finds that the criteria have been met. Generally, the City has a low level of discretion when reviewing on site plan applications. If the request is consistent with City regulations, it should be approved. In this case, the site plan does not meet hardcover limitations without a variance. Therefore, if the variance is not granted, the Site Plan Review should not be approved. Just for Kix Page 9 of 9 June 14, 2016 Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the variance criteria are met, staff would recommend approval of the Variance, Plat and Site Plan Review subject to the following conditions: 1) Site Plan Review approval is contingent upon approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan. 2) The Applicant shall construct improvements as displayed on the plans received by the City on 5/25/2016, except as modified herein. 3) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City to ensure compliance with the conditions noted herein as well as other relevant requirements of City ordinance and policy. 4) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit to ensure completion of required site improvements. 5) Site Plan Review is contingent upon approval from MnDOT of an emergency access in order to allow adequate emergency vehicle circulation. 6) The Applicant shall complete any shore restoration recommended by the Elm Creek Watershed to mitigate impacts of additional hardcover. 7) The Applicant shall provide additional details on mechanical equipment location and screening details. The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to provide the requirement amount of replacement trees. 8) The Applicant shall update plans to extend the sidewalk to the western property boundary. 9) The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City related to improvements to Sioux Drive which are necessary to support access to the property. 10) The Applicant shall obtain approval and any required agreements in order to connect to the City of Plymouth of sewer line. 11) The Applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and City Attorney. 12) The Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals, including but not limited to Elm Creek Watershed Management Organization, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, 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 plat, site plan and other relevant documents. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Engineer Comments dated 6/1/2016 3. Fire Marshal Comments dated 6/7/2016 4. DNR Comments 5. Applicant Narrative 6. Preliminary Plat 7. Final Plat 8. Plans dated 5/25/2016 Project: LR‐16‐181 – Just for Kix Plat, Variance, Site Plan Review The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 4/18/20164/18/20163 Fee 4/18/20164/11/20164 4 checks ‐ $17,000 Mailing Labels 4/18/20164/18/20165 Narrative 4/18/20164/15/20162 Plan Set 4/18/20164/15/201619 16 civil pages; 3 arch Plan Set – Updated 5/12/2016 16 Civil only updated Plan Set – Updated 5/25/2016 11 Civil only updated Prelim Plat 4/18/2016 Final Plat 4/18/2016 Stormwater Report 4/18/20164/15/2016187 Stormwater Report 5/25/20165/10/2016212 Rendering 4/25/2016 1 Fire Truck Exhibit 5/25/2016 1 Title Commitment 5/25/2016 11 Applicant Response 5/25/20165/24/20165 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineer Comments 4/22/2016 5 Engineer Comments 6/1/2016 3 Legal Comments 5/5/2016 1 Building Official Comments 4/26/2016 1 Building Official Comments 6/7/2016 1 DNR Comments 5/12/2016 3 No comments Elm Creek Review 6/6/2016 6 Public Comments Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763‐541‐4800 Fax: 763‐541‐1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com June 1, 2016 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Just for Kix Development - Site Plan Review City Project: LR-16-181 WSB Project No. 02712-880 Dear Dusty: We have reviewed the Site Plan and Plat submittal received May 24, 2016 for the Just for Kix Dance Studio. The plans propose to construct a 12,790 square foot facility now with provisions for a 5,250 square foot future addition. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters. Sheet C2.12 1. The note for this sanitary sewer connection includes “sewer drop”. The note and plans should be clarified to show an outside drop. Sanitary sewer drop inlet manhole, City Detail SAN-04, should be added to the plan set. 2. Note on the plans that the watermain shall have a minimum 7.5’ of cover where the watermain is in the vicinity of the ponding areas. 3. The new watermain must have a 10’ horizontal clearance to existing sanitary sewer as well. The section at the west entrance does not meet this standard. Note at crossing to maintain 18- inch separation. Sheet C3.11 1. Recommended parking lot grades are between 2% and 5%. The plans show parking lot grades as flat as 0.5%. The parking lot grades should be revised to fall within the recommended grades. 2. Add more elevations for top/bottom of proposed retaining walls along the entire length of the walls. Provide a profile in the plans. Just for Kix Site Plan June 1, 2016 Page 2 Stormwater review comments are attached. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. Attachment Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763‐541‐4800 Fax: 763‐541‐1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02712‐880\Admin\Docs\052516 Submittal\053116 Stormwater Review.docx Memorandum To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer City of Medina From: Earth Evans, P.E. Water Resources Project Manager WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: 5.31.16 Re: Just for Kix Stormwater Management Plan Review City Project No. LR-16-181 WSB Project No. 2712-880 We have completed a preliminary review of the Just for Kix development in Medina, MN. The site was previously reviewed on 4.22.16. Materials provided for review by I+S Group include the following:  Stormwater Management Report dated 5.10.16  Grading and Utility plans dated 4.15.16  Response to comments dated 5.10.16 These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual and general engineering practices for stormwater management. Please provide documentation of compliance with ECWMC requirements. METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC° Loren Kohnen, Pres. June 7, 2016 TO: Eity gunciinand Planning Commission FROM: Loren Kohnen, Fire Marshal RE; Just for Kix Dance Studio (763) 479-1720 FAX (763) 479-3090 Mtrowst76@aol. corn Review of Fire Fighting Capabilities: 1) Distance around the building is more than 480 sq. ft which would require a fire road, but it appears that the site design will not permit it. 2) There are only 2 fire hydrants shown on the East end of the building; one will be required not just a pumper truck as proposed. A ladder truck requires more room to set up let alone to maneuver through a parking lot. A number of parking spaces will be lost. 3) This is a difficult site with a large number of parking spaces with only one exit. 4) A meeting with the Fire Chief would be in order to discuss this matter...and to include the Fire Marshal, for said meeting. LK:jg Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 1 Dusty Finke From:Spiegel, Jason (DNR) <Jason.Spiegel@state.mn.us> Sent:Tuesday, May 17, 2016 11:20 AM To:Dusty Finke Cc:Drewry, Kate (DNR) Subject:RE: Hardcover variance request - Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay Attachments:shoreland_variance_guidance_isc_rev_10_10_12.pdf Hi Dusty, We gave this a quick review and will not be offering any specific comments. However, we would like to request that the attached DNR general guidance document be distributed to the City Council/Planning commission for their consideration when they review this and any other shoreland variance applications. Sincerely, Jason Spiegel Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Ecological and Water Resources – Hydrologist 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 651‐259‐5822 From: Dusty Finke [mailto:Dusty.Finke@ci.medina.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:14 AM To: Drewry, Kate (DNR) Cc: Spiegel, Jason (DNR) Subject: RE: Hardcover variance request - Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay Hi Kate, They updated plans (link in the attached email), which is probably why the old link was down. Thanks, Dusty From: Drewry, Kate (DNR) [mailto:kate.drewry@state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:10 AM To: Dusty Finke Cc: Spiegel, Jason (DNR) Subject: RE: Hardcover variance request - Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay Hello Dusty: Just getting to this and find that the link to the electronic plans is no longer working. Can you send the materials by pdf? Best Regards, Kate Drewry Metro Area Hydrologist DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources Page 1 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012 Shoreland & Floodplain Variance Guidance Series This is one of a series of examples developed as guidance for considering variance requests along lakes and rivers. Consult your local shoreland and floodplain ordinances. Why are impervious surface coverage limits important? In the protection of water quality, the management of rainwater on individual lots is one of our most important tasks. Rainwater that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate runs downhill to lakes, wetlands, or rivers. As impervious surface coverage increases, the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not addressed, pollution increases and the diversity of aquatic life is reduced. Local governments have limited discretion to deviate from - or grant a variance to - impervious surface limits. They may do so only if all of the variance criteria established in state statutes and their local ordinances are met. In evaluating such requests, local governments must examine the facts, determine whether all statutory and local criteria are satisfied, and develop findings to support the decision. If granted, local governments may impose conditions to protect resources. An example impervious surface variance request, with considerations, is provided below. Example Impervious Surface Variance Request A property owner wishes to build a large lakehome on a conforming lot. The lake lot includes a private driveway with a spur to the neighbor’s lot, which was placed to avoid an adjacent wetland. The building plans for the new construction plus the existing private road spur to the neighbor’s property would exceed the impervious surface limit provision in the local ordinance. Considerations for Findings A good record and findings help keep communities out of lawsuits and help them prevail if they find themselves in one. In evaluating the facts and developing findings for this variance request, all of the following statutory criteria must be satisfied, in addition to any local criteria:  Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual property owner against the purposes of the shoreland regulations for protecting the public interest. These purposes are derived from Minnesota Shoreland Rules, which established impervious surface caps to prevent excessive runoff from constructed surfaces. Such excessive runoff causes erosion, transport of pollutants to public waters thereby degrading water quality. Considerations: Will deviating from the required limit on this property undermine the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not? Is it possible to mitigate the consequences of additional impervious surface on-site such that additional runoff will not be produced? Would this mitigation be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not?  Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? The local comprehensive plan establishes a framework for achieving a community’s vision for the future. Most plans contain goals and policies for protecting natural resources and shorelands, as well as maps that identify areas of high risk or with high ecological value where development should be avoided. The variance request must be considered with these goals and policies in mind. Maps should be consulted to determine if the property is within any areas identified for protection. Considerations: Which goals and policies apply? Is allowing additional impervious surface and runoff consistent with these goals and policies? Why or why not? Impervious Surfaces Page 2 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012  Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of the land - such as lot dimensions, steep slopes, poor soils, wetlands, and trees. These do not include physical limitations or personal circumstances created by the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface provision, such as size of home or design preferences. Consider what distinguishes this property from other shoreland properties to justify why the applicant should be able to deviate from the provision when others must comply. Considerations: What physical characteristics are unique to this property that prevent compliance with the requirement? Were any difficulties in meeting the impervious surface limit created by some action of the applicant? Has the applicant demonstrated no other feasible alternatives exist that would not require a variance, such as increasing the setback to reduce driveway length or reducing the lakehome’s footprint?  Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Consider the size of the proposed structure, the extent of encroachment, and how it relates to the shoreline and hydrology of the riparian area. A large addition located close to the shoreline can detract from the natural appearance and character of the lake and its riparian areas and degrade water quality by altering topography, drainage, and vegetation in the riparian area, negatively affecting recreational, natural, and economic values. Considerations: Does the variance provide minimal relief or a substantial deviation from the required setback? Does it affect the natural appearance of the shore from the lake? Does it affect the hydrology of the riparian area?  Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Examine the reasons that the variance is requested and evaluate them in light of the purposes of the local shoreland ordinance and the public water resource at stake. Since the impervious surface cap is generally intended to reduce runoff to public waters, it may not be appropriate to allow large areas of constructed surfaces so close to the water. Considerations: Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposed construction is reasonable in this location given the sensitive nature of the area and the purposes of the regulations? Why or why not? Note: The last three criteria address practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties Range of Outcomes Based on the findings, several outcomes can occur:  If the applicant fails to prove that all criteria above are met, then the variance must be denied. For example, the local government could find that the building plans itself created the circumstances necessary for a variance rather than the any unique physical characteristics of the property.  If the applicant demonstrates that all criteria are met, then the variance may be granted. For example, the local government could find that the construction footprint is reasonable, the circumstances are unique given the adjacent wetland, and the minor deviation in the impervious surface coverage does not alter the hydrology of the area (as determined through runoff calculations).  If the variance is granted and the impervious surface in any way alters the hydrology of the area, then conditions may be imposed, such as to increase the structure setback from the lake by 15 feet to reduce the extent of the driveway and minimize the amount of impervious surface coverage over the limit. Conditions on Variances If findings support granting the variance, consideration must be given to the impacts on the public water and the riparian area and appropriate conditions to mitigate them. Conditions must be directly related and roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. Several examples are provided below:  Modify construction designs (to minimize impact);  Use permeable pavement systems for walkways, driveways, or parking areas (to reduce effective impervious surface area and infiltrate runoff);  Direct rain gutter discharges away from the public waters and into infiltration basins (to reduce connected impervious coverage to allow additional areas for infiltration);  Preserve and restore shoreline vegetation in a natural state (to intercept and filter runoff coming from structures and driveways); and/or  Increase setbacks from the ordinary high water level (to provide infiltration near public waters). More information at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/variances.html 7900 International Drive + Suite 550 + Minneapolis, MN 55425 952.426.0699 + www.is-grp.com ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING April 15, 2016 Dusty Finke City Planner Planning Department City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: Just For Kix Project Description and Application Narrative Medina, Minnesota Dusty: Please consider the following project description and narrative during the review process for the attached Application for Planning Consideration for the following types of requests: • Site Plan Review • Preliminary & Final Plat Review • Variance Request • Lot Combination All supplemental information required by the respective review processes has also been attached to provide a comprehensive review. The Application for Planning Consideration and supplemental information are being submitted as part of a request to allow development of an existing residential site to accommodate a new 18,040 square foot Just For Kix Dance Studio. Development of the proposed new dance studio will also include construction of a new parking lot to serve the facility as well as the necessary site improvements including the associated, drive aisles, stormwater facilities, and utilities. The proposed site is located at 45 State Highway No. 55 in Medina, Minnesota. Initially, the proposed project site was comprised of two parcels. Once parcel was located in Medina, Minnesota (PID#: 1211823410007), and the other in Plymouth, Minnesota (PID#: 0711822320003). Through completion of a formal detachment/annexation process, the 0.57 acres of property located within the City of Plymouth has been detached and concurrently annexed to the City of Medina. The properties are described as Part of Lot 34 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 241 and Part of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ Section 7, Township 118, Range 22 as illustrated on the attached Preliminary Plat. After platting this newly annexed parcel with the adjacent subject property, the parcel will total 2.199 acres and will be described as Lot 1, Block 1, Just For Kix as illustrated on the attached Final Plat. In addition, the two parcels were formerly two individual lots based on their location within their corresponding City. A lot combination will be required to combine these individual lots into one lot within the City of Medina. The parcel is zoned as CH-RR: Commercial Highway-Railroad District with Shoreland Overlay. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Medina’s Comprehensive Plan and City Zoning Ordinance. Since dance studios and other commercial business related industries are permitted within the CH-RR Zoning District, no zoning modifications will be required to facilitate the proposed project. The site is bordered by Elm Creek to the northwest and Trunk Highway No. 55 to the northeast and the site is served by an existing access and utilities from Highway No. 55. The following figures provide the anticipated public utility usage generated by the redeveloped site, including estimated water and sanitary sewer usage: Proposed Site Usages Type SF % of Site Dance 18,040 18.90 Parking/Access 28,976 30.4 Stormwater Management 12,561 13.2 Landscaping 36,228 37.5 Total 95,805 100 Proposed Site Utility Usages Type Monthly (Gallons) Yearly (Gallons) Domestic Water 6,000 72,000 Sanitary 6,000 72,000 Page 2 of 2 952.426.0699 + www.is-grp.com Site work for the proposed project will include, but not limited to, grading, paving, landscaping, lighting, extension of the existing curb and gutter, water, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer as well as other general site work as required to complete construction. Demolition and removal of the existing residential building will also be required to accommodate the proposed development. In addition, the proposed project will include construction of a retaining wall on the south side of the site to control and appropriately direct drainage resulting from development of the site. Construction of two (2) new filtration basins is proposed on the north and east side of the site as illustrated in the attached site plans and supplemental information to manage stormwater runoff created by the development of the site. Stormwater from the southwest portion of the site will be directed to the corresponding north basin and stormwater from the east portion will drain toward the east basin. Stormwater will then be treated by pretreatment basins and eventually overflow into the adjacent ditchway that drains into Elm Creek, or into the MNDOT right-of-way. Based on the Shoreland Overlay District requirements, impervious surfacing is limited to 25% of the total site area. To accommodate the proposed new dance studio and to meet City of Medina parking requirements, a variance is required to increase the allowable impervious area to 50%. Please note that the variance requested is the minimum application required to alleviate the development condition. The requested variance will not be materially or otherwise detrimental to the purposes of the Medina Zoning Ordinance or to other properties within the CH-RR Zoning District, and will not create any negative impacts to the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or the general public. Due to the traffic already generated by neighboring commercial properties, traffic volume within the area is not anticipated to increase dramatically as a result of the proposed development. No pollution, negative impacts to the environment, or effects on existing waterways or the capacity of flood plains are anticipated as a result of this project. In addition to the Application for Planning Consideration process, an application for Request for Plan Review and Approval, along with the required supplemental information, has also been submitted to the Elm Creek Watershed District for review and approval. There are adjacent properties within the proposed project area that have been granted variances to mitigate similar conditions and allow performance of ordinary operations afforded to other similarly situated tenants of like business. Therefore, no special privileges will result from approval of the variance. Rather, granting the requested variance will afford the same opportunities to the subject parcel. Approval of the proposed project will provide a complementary use and an added amenity to the area within an existing development district. The project is consistent with pertinent orderly development guidelines, and all applicable local ordinances and regulations affecting redevelopment of this property have been considered and adhered to during the design process. This project is an appropriate land use within the district and meets adequate setbacks and parking requirements for the proposed use. These considerations along with the supplemental information provided within this submittal support approval the attached Application for Planning Consideration. Please contact me at 952-426-0699 if there is any additional information we can provide in support of this request on behalf of Just For Kix. Respectfully Submitted, Andrew T. Brandel, PE Associate Principal, Engineer Civil Engineering Group ATB/jrc MEDINA, MINNESOTA JUST FOR KIX DANCE STUDIO CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR: ISG PROJECT # 16-18393 LEGEND EXISTING A A WEr-- BIk , ILL —x—x—x—x— r--<A--� <II DE — — UE — — UTV — — 3 FB0 — — 990 — —989 0 -6- N Q1 P. PROPOSED —6< <6— I OE UE G 1015 • • - N CITY LIMITS SECTION LINE QUARTER SECTION LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPERTY !LOTLINE EASEMENT LINE ACCESS CONTROL WATER EDGE WETLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND! MARSH FENCE LINE CULVERT STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN WATER UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND TV GAS UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC CONTOUR (MAJOR) CONTOUR (MINOR) DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE TREE LINE MANHOLE/STRUCTURE CATCH BASIN HYDRANT VALVE CURB STOP POWER POLE UTILITY PEDESTAL / CABINET LOT LINE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT CULVERT STORM SEWER STORM SEWER (PIPE WIDTH) SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER (PIPE WIDTH) WATER OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND TV GAS CONTOUR MANHOLE CATCH BASIN HYDRANT VALVE CITY SUBMITTAL SET 4-15-2016 016 Microsoft Corporation © 201 @ AND 01NA�f LOCATION MAP 0 500' 1000' SHEET INDEX T1.11 TITLE SHEET C1.11 EXISTING SITE AND REMOVAL PLAN C1.12 TREE REMOVAL PLAN C2.11 SITE PLAN C2.12 SITE UTILITY PLAN C3.11 SITE GRADING PLAN C4.11 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN C4.12 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN NOTES & DETAILS C5.11 SITE DETAILS C5.12 SITE DETAILS C5.13 SITE DETAILS C5.14 SITE DETAILS C5.15 SITE DETAILS C6.11 SITE LIGHTING PLAN L1.11 PLANTING PLAN L1.12 LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTES L1.13 RESTORATION PLAN PROJECT GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE OWNER - CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT, THE PROJECT MANUAL (WHICH INCLUDES GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS), DRAWINGS OF ALL DISCIPLINES AND ALL ADDENDA, MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER. 2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ISSUED TO ALL SUBCONTRACTORS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN COMPLETE SETS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE FULL EXTENT AND COMPLETE COORDINATION OF ALL WORK. 3. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONDITIONS REQUIRING INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 4. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONDITIONS REQUIRING INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 5. DETAILS SHOWN ARE INTENDED TO BE INDICATIVE OF THE PROFILES AND TYPE OF DETAILING REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE WORK. DETAILS NOT SHOWN ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO DETAILS SHOWN. WHERE SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS, DETAILS OR DESIGN INTENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED, NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 6. ALL MANUFACTURED ARTICLES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE APPLIED, INSTALLED, CONNECTED, ERECTED, CLEANED AND CONDITIONED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURERS' INSTRUCTIONS. IN CASE OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS' INSTRUCTIONS AND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 7. ALL DISSIMILAR METALS SHALL BE EFFECTIVELY ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER TO AVOID GALVANIC CORROSION. 8. THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF ALL INPLACE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF I & S GROUP, INC. (ISG). NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE IS IMPLIED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SIZES, LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL INPLACE UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM PLAN. 9. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, MINIMUM 2 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION / CONSTRUCTION (1-800-252-1166). ,s4°'" --JUST FORK!• KEY PLAN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Andrew T. Brandel DATE LIC. NO. 47,078 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE LIC NO THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT JUST FOR KIX DANCE STUDIO MEDINA MINNESOTA REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 16-18393 FILE NAME 18393 T1 -TITLE SHEET DRAWN BY JMF DESIGNED BY RJA PROJECT INDEX: REVIEWED BY ATB ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE -/-/- CLIENT PROJECT NO. — OWNER: STEPHEN J. CLOUGH 6948 LAKE FOREST ROAD BRAINERD, MINNESOTA 56401 PH: 218-829-7107 PROJECT ADDRESS / LOCATION: 45 HWY 55 MEDINA, MINNESOTA 55340 S: 12, T: 118N, R: 23W MEDINA, HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA MANAGING OFFICE: Minneapolis, St. Paul 7900 International Drive Suite 550 Minneapolis, Minnesota PHONE: 952-426-0699 PROJECT MANAGER: Andy Brandel EMAIL: Andy.Brandel@is-grp.com ISG SPECIFICATIONS REFERENCE ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF MEDINA'S REQUIREMENTS AND MnDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION, 2016 EDITION, AND THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAIN AND WATERMAIN AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA 2013, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE. PROJECT DATUM HORIZONTAL COORDINATES HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83), 1996 ADJUSTMENT (NAD83(1996)) ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM, IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88). RTK GPS METHODS WERE USED TO ESTABLISH HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COORDINATES FOR THIS PROJECT. B.M. ELEVATION =982.67 T.N.F.H. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 36, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 241 BEHIND THE SOUTH CURB OF ACCESS DRIVE. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY THIS PROJECTS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONSISTS OF DATA COLLECTED ON 1-27-16 AND 3-25-16 BY ISG.INC. TITLE TITLE SHEET SHEE1 T1.11 Table 1. Tree Assessment Sne Summary 1 I I_ 2" r - i\ I a ELM CREEK-\ I l/r- NORTH TOP OF BANK // 2. \} 9 } � ° ham' SOUTH TOP OF BANK ELM CREEK ." -- M \ _ — 958- so— — — 76— 0-77 B.M. ELEVATION =982.67 o \ I!!IJ; l� N _d71 — — — — — TE..,88O\`\ 9892 988. 987_ Thee Specks DBH Gandhian Arborkl Reasoning for 1141145M Common Hame Scientific N.frt [Inches] E1fuolutal HeehhTnhlge Recommendation Recommendation 0 'Amerman Basswood TO muertene 10 4-p00e 1dtClle e 99 'Amerman Men tan. NnerklM 10 3- (sir 70 71 •AMetkan Basirw00d Trl1 tmerkent i 20 1 -excellent 72 'Boxelin *yr negonyp 11 3 -fair 73 Green Ash FraxMua pennaypamta 11 good 74 Arne -wan Basswood Tile amertuy 1 2-goon 75 Amere an Basswood 7Ay amertane 2E 2 -goon 76 , Green Ash 77 78 Green Has 79 'Amerman AJSSwood 7111 emnkene 4 -poor Am erkep Sim Green Ash SO_ mer Rmtrkan Basswood S1 A ican Basswood 62— ..—Green Ash CO 'Green Ash 84 85 85 87 r`-- \\ C/\ �\ I \N \ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \\ \ N \ \\ 1, N N \ \ `gyp\ N / N N \ a INPLACE TREE TO REMAIN, TYPN . of ��//\ 97 \ \ \ \ Ir'F96 v v // \ \Nr, \ \ \ / \• \ ../ \_ —----- \\\ \ \ \ I94 \ \\, \q/\\ • CLEAR & GRUB INPLACE TREE, TYP — \ r986 \ \ \ \ \ \ 9)� ea as 91 92 90 'Bowekkr 'BO5SI7T 'Amsrkan Bevew00d ' Green Ash ' Grten Ash &Oki Ash H Bexeefn (preen Ash Green Ash Green Ash Apple 'Bowe or Not identified. Rol 17en9Tied Trees heated wmin parcel -Tree located eutalde Ol ra Mel F 4.15/4a aeefyN4A4.4 17 1•excellent UAn ut NpH'tlM 9 2•good Fran inusperinsyNcnke 19 Frox mss pennsyEnnce 1'ds amercene 13 2 -good l.lu omncana • 20 _. -2-0004 Nelms ens Memo 10 ''-1-etEellnt hexulua perinaylvemce 11 2-yood 1•expellent >' good Acs lreylcmtlu Acar negundo 7,d'a tmenkene 1.KaCe lent 11 1-Etcellent 10 2.5000 Felnasue peeneyetemct 1-sxcessnt R'ed a. penneyetenee 11 l-sxCdpsnt Per,nus pennaytmmte Meets TAo 13 '4 -poor Meals app 11 3- fair AC•er nespoda S 2 -goon FreXhiUS peeney/vtm0t 9 2good F-'tk roue peeney/vta0d 2lgood Parkin. peenfy9lnmt 9 081,53 SAn. 1.e tetlent 10 9 -lair ACb ntpufldM S 1•excelynt \\ N g6g //',..-- \ 966 \ 58. \ N \ c/i \ 18 25 1dBCeItt Remo.e 1.Beeert Rem0,C 1dldeMnt Retain ldxeelent ldxeelent 1-0xeelent Retain 1-0xeelent Retain l4w.sills Retain 1410201•74 Retain Retain Retain lnveetrgate Signs of emerald aeh borer Retain 1dxeslent Retain 1dmeMM .. Retain . .__..._.__ 1dxulkrt Retain 1-excep5M Retain 1.e:CtlkIf Retain N 1deC►WK Retain 1dwnMK Retain 1de45Mrt Retain ldxnesnt Retain 1-excskre 3 -tab 3 -Tar 1-excellnt Retain 1.exceler9 Retain 1 -excelled' Retain Retain Remove Rot present poor quaray Remove Rotpieee,H, poor quality 21009 21oce Retain Remove 1-exoefent Retain N I X975 9 976 -9ia�6 \ \ 9 \ 979— 978 I -Sonitory .Sea Easement �' Unrecorded, adte4 /0//4/20/0 982 --98 98pre \ 20 40 60 N N\ • \ • ,-Sonitory S were seent per Doc. No. 765292265 ".1w —JUST FORK!• KEY PLAN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Andrew T. Brandel DATE LIC. NO. 47,078 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE LIC NO THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT JUST FOR KIX DANCE STUDIO MEDINA MINNESOTA REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 16-18393 FILE NAME 18393 Cl-EXIST DRAWN BY JMF DESIGNED BY RJA REVIEWED BY ATB ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE -/--/-- CLIENT PROJECT NO. -- TITLE TREE REMOVAL PLAN T.N.F.H. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 36, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 241 BEHIND THE SOUTH CURB OF ACCESS DRIVE. Scale in Feet SHEET C1.12 ELM CREEK NORTH TOP OF BANK \ � F & o \z �` ‘\ \a) I" � I N,I) v v 50' ELM CREEK BUFFER -\ SOUTH TOP OF BANK I ( \ \ J/ • I I \ F1: O. \1 CONSTRUCT SWALE CHECK DAM, TYP. OF 3 II \ (SEE DETAIL) 1 \\ I A -4 t , r 2" I \\ \A / I\ CONSTRUCT 12" CONCRETE RETAINING WALL (SEE DETAIL) ELM CREEK 0 •_ v '".." FUTURE PHAS 5 25 E II ADDITION 0 SF CONSTRUCT STOOP, (SEE DETAIL) 185.67' JUST 12,790 SF IX FFE = 974.00 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE WALK SECTION (HATCH) (SEE DETAIL) F&I: PARKING LOT STRIPING, TYP. CONSTRUCT MODULAR RETAINING WALL (SEE DETAIL) SITE AREA CALCULATIONS EXISTING SITE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA = 4,289 sf 0.09 ac 4.5% EXISTING OPEN AREA = 91,516 sf 2.10 ac 95.5% TOTAL SITE AREA = 95,805 sf 2.19 ac 100% PROPOSED SITE * REQUIRED OPEN AREA = * 47,902 sf * 1.09 ac * 50% *`PROPOSED OPEN AREA = 48,789 sf 1.12 ac 50.9% PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 47,016 sf 1.07 ac 49.1% TOTAL SITE AREA = 95,805 sf 1.19 ac 100% * 25% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA ALLOWED PER SHORELAND OVERLAY. IMPERVIOUS AREA UP TO 50% REQUIRES VARIANCE **SITE CALCULATIONS INCLUDE FUTURE PHASE II ADDITION F&I: HANDICAP SIGN, TYP OF 3 (MOUNT TO BUILDING) (SEE DETAIL) F&I: HANDICAP STRIPING, TYP. OF 3 CONSTRUCT STANDARD BITUMINO S PAVEMENT SECTION (SHADEXSEE DETAIL) F&I: CATEGORY I I I TRM E.O.F. ELEV.=973.00 (SEE DETAIL) ecz CONSTRUCT 5'X5' STOOP, TYP. 3 (SEE DETAIL) _ R4.5' CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENT BASIN #2 (HATCH) TOP = 973.25' NWL = 971.50' BASE = 968.50' SETBACK DATA: ZONING AREA CH -RR (COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY.RAILROAD DISTRICT WITH SHORELAND OVERLAY) BUILDING SETBACK: PARKING SETBACK: FRONT 25' 25 SIDE 15' 10' REAR 25' 10' ELM CREEK SO' 50' SS N �o \ \ 3 \�q O N r F&I: CATEGORY III TRM ELEV=971.50 (SEE DETAIL) o N CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #1 (HATCH) TOP = 974.00' 100YR = 972.00' OUTLET = 970.50 BASE = 969.00' CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENT BASIN #1 (HATCH) TOP = 974.00' NWL = 971.50' BASE = 968.50' \ CONSTRUCT TURN DOWN STYLE ,-V CONCRETE WALK, TYP. (HATCH) N N \ N (SEE DETAIL) N N N \ N. O, N N N N. �o A\ N.N N N NN pi N N N o N N.N N \ N \ N N N. N \ N \ N. \ N N o N. F&I: PYLON SIGN, TYP. \n, N. \�' \ N N N N. PARKING DATA: TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 18,040 S.F. LOT SIZE = 2.20 AC. PARKING STALLS REQUIRED = 72 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED = 74 (BASED ON I STALL PER 250 S.F( H.C. STALLS REQUIRED Pa H.C. STALLS PROVIDED =3 F&I CURB CUT W/ SPILLWAY (SEE DETAIL) (TYP. OF 4) N F&I: CATEGORY III TRM ELEV: 970.50 (SEE DETAIL) \ CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #2 - FM (HATCH) per TOP = 971.50' 100YR = 971.01' OUTLET = 970.50' BASE = 969.00' i i _ _ C --, -- Sani---- Sewer EaaamwV \[\--_. CONSTRUCT LIGHT POLE, TYP. — - >=- < Unrecorded, date 10/7372010 SEE LIGHTING PLAN , \\ CONSTRUCT B618 CURB & GUTTER, TYP. (SEE DETAIL) NOTE: F&I: ALL PARKING LOT STRIPING AND MARKINGS AS SHOWN NOTE: INDICATES REVERSE PITCH CURB i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l Sanitary Sewer Easement per Doc. No. 705292265 B.M. ELEVATION =982.67 T.N.F.H. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 36, AUDITOR'S SUBDMSION NO. 241 BEHIND THE SOUTH CURB OF ACCESS DRIVE. Scale in Feet i• JUST FORKI KEY PLAN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Andrew T. Brandel DATE LIC. NO. 47,078 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE LIC NO THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT JUST FOR KIX DANCE STUDIO MEDINA MINNESOTA REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 16-18393 FILE NAME 18393 C2 -SITE DRAWN BY JMF DESIGNED BY RJA REVIEWED BY ATB ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE —I --/-- CLIENT PROJECT NO. -- TITLE SHLLI SITE PLAN C2.11 CONNECT 6" SAN SERVICE TO INPLACE 8" SEWER DROP TOP OF DROP 1=963.69 BOTTOM OF DROP 1=946.59 1=944.88 F&1:12" RCP FES W/ 8 CY MnDOT / CLASS III RIPRAP ON MnDOT TYPE IV GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1=959.00 `M �* TIE LAST 3 JOINTS OF P-6 AND F.E.S. PER MnDOT STANDARDS /8 PROPOSED GAS SERVICE (COORDINATE W/ UTILITY COMPANY) /3 // w -- P-6 (12") N CONNECT PROPOSED 8" WATERMAIN - TO INPLACE MAIN. F&I: VALVE AND \ APPURTENANCES AS NECCESARYTO \ MAKE CONNECTION. 1 F&I: CATEGORY III TRM 1 E.O.F. ELEV: 973.00 (SEE DETAIL) �\ +4 • •,- ��•'�'••► +•••Lr CONNECT6"SUBDRAIN \ ^I 1966.20 1\ 2° 1 \\ \I F&I: 6" SAN SERVICE @ 5.31% 1, o- , ) I ' ° z I \ I 0 / ADJUST INPLACE SAN MANHOLE \ // //// / /// / / \ nl RIM ELEVATION=976.49 SANT RT=: CONNECT PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE TO INP. ELECTRIC (COORDINATE W/ UTILITY COMPANY) I7 R=973.00 1=964.50 (17') R=965.22 1=959.24 (12") 1=959.01(12") P-5 (12") CONNECT TO INP. GAS SERVICE (COORDINATE W/ GAS COMPANY) \c, CONNECT 6" SUBDRAIN 1=964.70 6" NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN 6" PERFORATED SUBDRAIN (SEE DETAIL) F&I: 8" WATERMAIN F(JTURE PHASE II App GAS METER LOCATION (COORDINATE W/ UTILITY COMPANY) CONSTRUCT 6" SAN SEWER SERVICE TO 5' OUTSIDE OF BUILDING. 1=969.00 CONSTRUCT SANITARY C.O. 1=968.47 F&I: 8" VALVE F&I: 8"x11.25° BEND CONNECT PROPOSED WATER SERVICE TO INPLACE 8" GATE VALVE F&I:8"VALVE i F&I: 8"X6" TEE F&I: 2" CORP STOP 5,250 SF 1 T ION F&I: 8"x45° BEND 6" SUBDRAIN C.O. 1=966.67 F&I: 8"X6" TEE n CRITICAL CROSSING: TOP OF WATER = 965.00 BOTTOM OF SAN = 97x.xx (MAINTAIN MIN. 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN SERVICES) CONSTRUCT 2" DOMESTIC WATER & 6" FIRE SERVICE TO 5' OUTSIDE OF BUILDING F&I: 5"x8' HYDRANT & 6" GATE VALVE & BOX (SEE DETAIL) I , - TC=974.13 T 1=970.63 (12") , _ < - _ 1=970.63 (12") _ TC=973.91 - 1=970.38 (12") - _ _ 1=970.38 (12") - - - _ CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENT BASIN #2 (HATCH) TOP = 973.25' NWL = 971.50' BASE = 969.50' F&I: CATEGORY III TRM ELEV.=971.50 (SEE DETAIL) F&I: 8"x45° BEND F&I: 5"x8' HYDRANT & 6" GATE \ VALVE & BOX (SEE DETAIL) x F&I: 8" WATERMAIN \ F&I: 8"X6' TEE F&I: 90°x8" BEND - CONNECT RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN TO 6" NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN (ENSURE POSITIVE SLOPE TO BASIN) N R=971.50 1=969.31 (12') CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #1 (HATCH) TOP = 974.00' 100YR = 972.00' OUTLET = 970.50 BASE = 969.00' • ERT,962.0 sump • \ 3° '1°, CONSTRUCT PRETREATMENT BASIN #1 6" SUBDRAIN C.O. (HATCH) 1=964.93 TOP = 974.00' NWL = 971.50' BASE = 968.50' \\ m \ F&I: 12" HDPE FES W/ 8 CY MnDOT °\ \ \ CLASS III RIPRAP ON MnDOT TYPE IV GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1=970.00 STORM DRAIN SCHEDULE STRUCT. NO. M.H. TYPE CASTING PAY HGT. LN FT. TOP OF CASTING ELEVATION INVERT/SUMP ELEVATION PIPE NO. A-1 MnDOT4020-48 NEENAH R-3067wITYPE VB GRATE 5.53 973.91 96838 P-1 A-2 3'52' CATCH BASIN (TYPE 1) NEENAH R-3067 wI YPE VB GRATE 3.50 974.13 970.63 P-2 A-3 3'52' CATCH BASIN (TYPE 1) NEENAH R-3067 wITYPE VB GRATE 3.38 974.28 970.90 P-3 A-4 12" NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN 12" NYLOPLAST DOME GRATE 2.19 971.50 969.31 P4 A-5 OUTLET STRUCTURE SEE DETAIL 8.50 973.00 964.50 P5 A-6 CATCH BASIN MANHOLE TYPE II NEENAH R-4342 wBEEHIVE GRATE 6.20 965.22 959.01 P6 \\ \ \ \ a \ \ \ ci \ SANITARY MANHOLE <131.977 INVERT.LOCKED F8,I: 12" HDPE FES W/ 8 CY MnDOT CLASS III RIPRAP ON MnDOT TYPE IV GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1=968.50 STORM DRAIN PIPE SCHEDULE PIPE NO. DRAIN FROM INLET ELEVATION DRAIN TO OUTLET ELEVATION PIPE SIZE PIPE TYPE PIPE GRADE PIPE LENGTH P-1 A-1 970.38 PRETREATMENT BASIN 61 970.00 12" HDPE 0.36% 105' P-2 A-2 970.63 A-1 970.38 12" HDPE 0.36% 69' P-3 A-3 970.90 A-2 970.63 12" HDPE 0.36% 75' P-4 A-4 969.31 PRETREATMENT BASIN #2 969.00 12" HDPE 0.38% 86' P-5 A-5 964.50 A6 959.24 12" HDPE 12.15% 43' P-6 A-6 959.01 ELM CREEK 959.00 12" RCP 0.10% 14' NOTES: • ALL UTILITIES THAT ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO 5' OUTSIDE OF BUILDING ARE TO BE CONNECT TO BUILDING BY MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR. • ENSURE 18" VERTICAL BETWEEN ALL PROPOSED & EXISTING WATER, STORM, & SANITARY. • TC = TOP BACK OF CURB ELEVATIONS FOR CURB STYLE CATCH BASINS, NOT GUTTER ELEVATIONS 6" NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN 176 L.F. @ 0.25% \N NN • ci/ \ 6" SUBDRAIN C.O. 1=965.48 \C 77 CONNECT TO 6" NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN NOTE: ALL PROPOSED RCP PIPE SHALL BE TIED. REFER TO MnDOT STANDARD PLATE 3145G -A- ----- F&I: CATEGORY III TRM E.O.F. ELEV.=970.50 (SEE DETAIL) 6" SUBDRAIN 1=965.67 6" NON -PERFORATED SUBDRAIN 1-969.00 F&I: 12" HDPE FES W/ 8 CY MnDOT CLASS III RIPRAP ON MnDOT TYPE IV GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 10969.00 6" PERFORATED SUBDRAIN (SEE DETAIL) CONSTRUCT FILTRATION BASIN #2 / (HATCH) > / TOP=971.50' C.O. 100YR = 971.01' OUTLET = 970.50' BASE = 969.00' ti B.M. ELEVATION=982.67 T.N.F.H. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 36, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 241 BEHIND THE SOUTH CURB OF ACCESS DRIVE. Scale in Feet JUST FORK! KEY PLAN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Andrew T. Brandel DATE LIC. NO. 47,078 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE LIC NO THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. PROJECT JUST FOR KIX DANCE STUDIO MEDINA MINNESOTA REVISION SCHEDULE NO DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NO. 16-18393 FILE NAME 18393 C2 -SITE DRAWN BY JMF DESIGNED BY RJA REVIEWED BY ATB ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE -/--/-- CLIENT PROJECT NO. -- TITLE SITE UTILITY PLAN SHLLI C2.12 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" TOP OF FOOTING 96' - 0" RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR 99' - 9 7/8" T.O. WALL @ STUDIO 118' - 8" T.O. WALL @ SHOP 123' - 0" METAL CAP FLASHING EIFS EIFS COLUMNS CONCRETE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT METAL CAP FLASHING BRICK COLUMNS PRECAST CONCRETE COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE SIGNAGE ALUMINUM WINDOWS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SIGNAGE FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" TOP OF FOOTING 96' - 0" RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR 99' - 9 7/8" T.O. WALL @ STUDIO 118' - 8" METAL CANOPY CONCRETE METAL CAP FLASHING BRICK COLUMNS PRECAST CONCRETE COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE ALUMINUM WINDOWS FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" TOP OF FOOTING 96' - 0" RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR 99' - 9 7/8" T.O. WALL @ STUDIO 118' - 8" T.O. WALL @ SHOP 123' - 0" METAL CAP FLASHING EIFS EIFS COLUMNS CONCRETE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SIGNAGEMETAL CAP FLASHING BRICK COLUMNS PRECAST CONCRETE COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE SIGNAGE METAL CANOPYALUMINUM WINDOWS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" TOP OF FOOTING 96' - 0" RECESSED STUDIO FLOOR 99' - 9 7/8" T.O. WALL @ STUDIO 118' - 8" T.O. WALL @ SHOP 123' - 0" METAL CAP FLASHING EIFS COLUMNS CONCRETE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SIGNAGE METAL CAP FLASHING BRICK COLUMNS PRECAST CONCRETE COLORED PRECAST CONCRETE 01/2"1" 2"1/4" REFERENCE SCALE 1" = 1" $5&+,7(&785((1*,1((5,1*(19,5210(17$/3/$11,1*ZZZLVJUSFRP 0(',1$0,11(627$$35,/ -867)25.,; 6+((7180%(5 (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"4 EAST ELEVATION 1989 SF STUDIO 4 1989 SF STUDIO 5 37 SF STOR 37 SF STOR 1969 SF VIEWING 2036 SF STUDIO 2 1989 SF STUDIO 3 1988 SF STUDIO 1 01/2"1" 2"1/4" REFERENCE SCALE 1" = 1" $5&+,7(&785((1*,1((5,1*(19,5210(17$/3/$11,1*ZZZLVJUSFRP 0(',1$0,11(627$$35,/ -867)25.,; 6+((7180%(5 )/2253/$13+$6( 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 2 (18,100 SF) RENDERING ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING www.is-grp.com JUST FOR KIX - NEW FACILITY Medina, MN - 18393 - April 25, 2016 BM TNFH982.67TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55GMGM959ELM CREEK960 Approximate FEMAFlood Zone X1/2" IronRLS 90531/2" IronRLS 17006W. Line - Sec. 7-118-22 Approximate FEMAFlood Way Zone AE1/2" IronPOB1/2" IronRLS 17006E. Line - Lot 34 E 1/4 CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMN. Line - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)N. Line - Lot 34Cl o t h e s l i n e 30 NE CornerLot 351/2" IronRLS 431101/2" IronRLS 43110Water's Edge1/27/20161/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 10938GravelSurface1/ 2 " I r o n R L S 1 0 9 3 8 E. Line - Sec. 12-118-23Centerline - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)W a t e r ' s E d g e 3/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 6 EL M C R E E KParcel 1Parcel 2SE CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMBLOCK 1LOT 1S. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687N. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T15368740 75 S73°19'23"E76.50N08°37'05"W223.14 L=518.47R=1835.32Δ=16°11'09"C.=516.75C.Brg=N82°16'19"WL=298.96R=2191.88Δ=7°48'53"C.=298.73C.Brg=S48°35'20"EL=211.30R=2191.88Δ=5°31'24"C.211.22N55°15'29"WS31°58'49"W10.00Δ=2°17'51"L=87.49R=2181.88C.Brg=N59°10'06"WC.=87.48S02°07'48"W 240.31 L=49.64R=2391.88=1°11'20"S 3 2 ° 5 8 ' 4 9 " W 50 . 0 0 Δ=2°22'30"L=101.22R=2441.88C.=101.21C.Brg=S58°12'26"EN 3 0 ° 3 6 ' 1 9 " E 25 . 0 0 L=179.36R=2416.88Δ=4°15'07"C.=179.32C.Brg=S61°31'14"EN07°34'07" E 53.45N03°51'23"W 304.00 Center Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687392.50 N02°07'48"E 2704.24 11 0 12 5 15 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 217.64 86.36 S89°39'34"W 263.80100 16.5 1475.60C. Brg=S56°25'31"EC.=49.64PROJECT18393 PPLATNODATEDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.REVIEWED BYTHIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP, INC.AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATEDWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.TITLESHEETOF1KH15-183934/15/16 1OFJUSTFOR KIXPRELIMINARYPLATBituminous SurfaceConcrete SurfaceExisting BuildingIron Monument FoundUtility Pole/Guy WireHydrantWater ValveGas MeterElectric MeterPostManholeSignMailboxDeciduous TreeSanitary Sewer LineStorm Sewer LineUnderground Gas LineOverhead Utility LineFenceTreelineWater's EdgeGuardrailSanitary ForcemainFEMA Base Flood Elevation LineDelineated Wet Land LineKEY PLANI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.DATELIC. NO.43110DANIEL L. STUEBERGMPart of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241 and part ofthe NW 1/4 - SW 1/4, Section 7-118-22, City of Medina,Hennepin County, Minnesota.JUST FOR KIXEXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION:(per Certificate of Title No. 1331968)Real property in the of Medina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows:Par 1: Lot 34, except that part lying West of a line running North and South through said lot; which line isdescribed as follows:Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, thence North to a point onthe North line of Lot 34, said Addition, which is situated 263.8 feet West from the East Quarter post inSection 12, Township 118, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in Auditor's SubdivisionNumber 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241,described as follows: Commencing at the East Quarter post in Section 12, Township 118, Range 23 Westof the Fifth Principal Meridian, thence West along the North line of said Lot 34, 263.8 feet, thence Southon a straight line towards the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241 to theNortherly line of the State Highway, thence Easterly along the Northerly line of the State Highway to theEast line of said Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, thence North along the said East Line of saidLot 34 to point of beginning.Par 2: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 118, Range22, described as follows to-wit: Commencing at the intersection of the West line of said Section 7 and theNorth line of the Right of Way of the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company,thence North along the said West line of said Section 7 to the South line of State Trunk Highway No. 55,thence Southeasterly along the South line of said State Trunk Highway No. 55 to the North line of saidRight of Way of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company; thence West alongthe said North line of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company to place ofbeginning.OWNERS / DEVELOPERS:SURVEYOR:Clough Properties, LLC ISG6948 Lake Forest Road 115 E. Hickory Street Suite 300Brainerd, MN 56401 Mankato, MN 56001 (507)-387-6651 AREA TABLE:Lot 1 Block 1 = 95,806 sq. ft.Right of Way = 72,995 sq. ft.Total = 168,801 sq. ftPROPOSED PROPERTY:ZONED: CH-RR (Commercial Highway-Railroad with Shoreland Overlay)Setbacks Building ParkingFront 25 feet 25 feetSide 15 feet 10 feetRear 25 feet 10 feetElm Creek 50 feet 50 feetBENCHMARK:Top nut fire hydrant located at southeast corner of Lot 36, Auditor's Subdivision No. 241.Elevation = 982.67 (NAVD88)FLOOD ZONE:Parts of the surveyed property shown on this survey map are in Flood Zone AE (base flood elevationsdetermined), Flood Zone X (areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood withaverage depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected bylevees from 1% annual chance flood), and Flood Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annualchance floodplain) according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No. 27053C0167E, publishedby the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective date September 2, 2004. Flood zone areas areshown on this survey.SITEVICINITY MAPSoo Line RRMN TH No. 55Sioux DrNE 1 /4SE 1 /4Sec. 12SE 1 /4SE 1 /4Sec. 12SW 1 /4SW 1 /4Sec. 7NW 1 /4SW 1 /4Sec. 7 TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55ELM CREEK1/2" IronRLS 90531/2" IronRLS 17006W. Line - SW 1/4 Sec. 7-118-221/2" IronPOB1/2" IronRLS 17006E. Line - Lot 34 S. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687E 1/4 CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMN. Line - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)N. Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687N. Line - Lot 34NE CornerLot 351/2" IronRLS 431101/2" IronRLS 4311075 Water's Edge1/27/2016Elev=957.0NAVD(88)1/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 109381/2" IronRLS 10938Centerline - Soo Line Railroad(Formerly Minneapolis, St.Paul,and Sault Ste. Marie Railway)Water's Edge3/25/2016Elev=955.8(NAVD88)ELM CREEKSE CornerSec. Sec. 12-118-23Found CIMBLOCK 1LOT 1S73°19'23"E76.50N08°37'05"W 223.14L=518.47R=1835.32Δ=16°11'09"C.=516.75C.Brg=N82°16'19"WL=298.96R=2191.88Δ=7°48'53"C.=298.73C.Brg=S48°35'20"EL=211.30R=2191.88Δ=5°31'24"C.211.22N55°15'29"WS31°58'49"W10.00 Δ=2°17'51"L=87.49R=2181.88C.Brg=N59°10'06"WC.=87.48S02°07'48"W 240.31 Δ=1°11'20"L=49.64R=2391.88C.Brg=S56°25'31"EC.=49.64S 3 2 ° 5 8 ' 4 9 " W 50 . 0 0 Δ=2°22'30"L=101.22R=2441.88C.=101.21C.Brg=S58°12'26"EN30°36'19"E25.00 L=179.36R=2416.88Δ=4°15'07"C.=179.32C.Brg=S61°31'14"EN07°34'07"E53.45N03°51'23"W 304.00 Center Line - State TH No. 55Per Doc. No. T153687L=1442.70R=2291.88Δ=36°04'00"392.50 N02°07'48"E 2704.24Wet LandWet Land45°27'0" 110 125150 1 0 0 1 0 0 217.6486.36 S89°39'34"W 263.80100S59°07'51"W 76.43S10°29'45"E19.42S80°23'37"E 100.06S18°08'23"E31.20S80°53'49"E 74.05N2 2 ° 1 8 ' 4 2 " E 26. 6 4 N38°44'27 "E 63 .28 S08°06'24"E 24.57 S79°43'47"E 71.07S38°36'53 "W41.09Δ=1°51'53"L=71.34L=80.47Δ=2°06'13"L=151.28Δ=3°57'16"L=158.76Δ=4°09'00"Δ=1°14'59"L=47.8116.5 1475.601000.00P T S t a . 1 1 9 7 + 2 3 . 0 1/2" IronRLS 10938Sta. 1190+80Sta. 1191+75Sta. 1191+3540 N73°12'15"W19.87S73°12'15"E15.12N16°47'45"E10.00194.6411.0717.42 FINAL PLAT FOR REVIEWJUST FOR KIXJOB # 15-18393 DATE: 4-15-16 IRON MONUMENT FOUNDINDICATES 1/2" DIA. x 18"LONG SOLID IRON PIPE SETWITH PLASTIC CAP MARKED BYISG, LICENSE NO. 43110 TO BE SETBEFORE TIME OF RECORDING.WATER'S EDGEWET LAND LINEBEARING NOTE:The orientation of this bearing system isbased on the west line of SW 1/4 of Sec. 7,Twp. 118, Rge 22. Said line bears South 02degrees 07 minutes 48 seconds West.INSTRUMENT OF DEDICATIONKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Clough Properties, LLC, a Minnesotalimited liability company, owner of the following described property:Real property in the of Medina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows:Par 1: Lot 34, except that part lying West of a line running North and South through said lot; which line is described as follows:Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, thence North to a point on the North line of Lot 34, said Addition,which is situated 263.8 feet West from the East Quarter post in Section 12, Township 118, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in Auditor'sSubdivision Number 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, described as follows:Commencing at the East Quarter post in Section 12, Township 118, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, thence West along the North lineof said Lot 34, 263.8 feet, thence South on a straight line towards the Northeast corner of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision Number 241 to the Northerlyline of the State Highway, thence Easterly along the Northerly line of the State Highway to the East line of said Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision Number241, thence North along the said East Line of said Lot 34 to point of beginning.Par 2: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 118, Range 22, described as follows to-wit: Commencingat the intersection of the West line of said Section 7 and the North line of the Right of Way of the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sault Ste. Marie RailwayCompany, thence North along the said West line of said Section 7 to the South line of State Trunk Highway No. 55, thence Southeasterly along theSouth line of said State Trunk Highway No. 55 to the North line of said Right of Way of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie RailwayCompany; thence West along the said North line of said Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company to place of beginning.Together with an easement for right-of-way 16.5 feet wide along the South side of that part of Lot 34 in Auditor's Subdivision Number 241, HennepinCounty, Minnesota, which lies West of the above described line.Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as JUST FOR KIX and does hereby dedicate to the public, for public use, the public ways and thedrainage and utility easements as created by this plat.In witness whereof said Clough Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this_______ day of ___________________, 20_____.Signed: Clough Properties, LLC___________________________________________Chief ManagerState of ____________________________County of ____________________________This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by _______________________, Chief Manager, of CloughProperties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. ___________________________________________(sign) ___________________________________________(print) Notary Public ___________________________ My Commission Expires ________________SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEI, Daniel L. Stueber, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in theState of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on thisplat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been or, will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined inMinnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown andlabeled on this plat.Dated this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.___________________________________________Daniel L. Stueber, Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 43110State of MinnesotaCounty of Blue EarthThis instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________________, 20_____ by Daniel L. Stueber, Licensed Land Surveyor. ___________________________________________ Kent A. Hays Notary Public, Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2020CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSIONBe it known that at a meeting held on this _________________ day of _____________________, 20_____, the Planning Commission of the City of Medinadid hereby review and approve this plat of JUST FOR KIX.___________________________________________ __________________________________________Chair Person SecretaryCITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTAThis plat of JUST FOR KIX, was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this_______ day of ___________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.___________________________________________ __________________________________________Mayor City Administrator-ClerkSURVEY DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTAPursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of ___________________, 20_____.Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor by______________________________________RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTAI hereby certify that taxes payable in 20_____ and prior years have been paid for the land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of___________________, 20_____.Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor by______________________________________ DeputyREGISTRAR OF TITLES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTAI hereby certify that the within plat of JUST FOR KIX was recorded in this office this _______ dayof ___________________, 20_____, at _______ o'clock _____.M.Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles by______________________________________ DeputyR.T DOC. NO _______________________________________________0Scale in Feet4080BENCHMARK:MnDOT monument 2722 Y MnDOTElev=979.68 (NAVD88)SITEVICINITY MAPSoo Line RRMN TH No. 55Sioux DrNE 1 /4SE 1 /4Sec. 12SE 1 /4SE 1 /4Sec. 12SW 1 /4SW 1 /4Sec. 7NW 1 /4SW 1 /4Sec. 7