HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-12-2017 POSTED IN CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
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. Mark of Excellence Homes – 1952 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plan
for 94 lot twinhome subdivision on 79.82 acres.
6. (Continued Hearing) – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 related to
land use regulations pertaining to the Sanitary Landfill and Closed
Landfill-Restricted zoning district.
7. (Continued Hearing) – 4000 Hamel Road – Rezoning of Woodlake
Landfill from Sanitary Landfill to Closed Landfill-Restricted zoning
district
8. JEGM Revocable Trust – Zoning Text Amendment Chapter 8 related to
Solar Equipment, including maximum permitted footprint size
9. JEGM Revocable Trust – 2705 Willow Dr. – Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for construction of a ground mounted solar equipment and
to increase the number and square footage of accessory structures in the
RR zoning district.
10. Approval of August 8, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11. Council Meeting Schedule
12. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 September 5, 2017
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: August 30, 2017
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – September 5, 2017 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Lunski Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Lunski, Inc. has applied for
approvals for a development of 90 units of mixed senior housing, 24,767 s.f. of office, and
4,100 s.f. commercial north of Highway 55 and west of Mohawk Drive. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the July 11 Planning Commission meeting. The
Commission tabled the request in order to allow the applicant to update plans to meet
comments from the Elm Creek Watershed and City Engineer. Staff presented the request to
the Commission on August 8 and the Commission recommended approval. The City
Council reviewed on August 15, requested a number of changes, which will be presented on
September 19.
B) McDonald’s Variance – McDonald’s has requested a variance to reduce the required setback for a
replacement trash enclosure. The existing enclosure is being removed by Hennepin County in
connection with the County Road 116 improvement project and needs to be relocated. The Planning
Commission reviewed the request at the August 8 meeting and unanimously recommended approval.
Staff intends to present the request to the City Council for a public hearing on September 5.
C) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested review of a PUD
General Plan of development and preliminary plat for a conservation design subdivision to include 6
lots and conservation of 70 acres (11.76 buildable). The Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing at the June 13 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The applicant has
adjusted plans in light of recent City Council direction to include a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres in
rural CD-PUD projects. Staff intends to present the request at the September 19 City Council
meeting.
D) Excelsior Group PUD Concept Plan – The Excelsior Group has requested a comprehensive plan
amendment for the City to amend the staging of development for property located north of
Chippewa Road and west of Mohawk Drive for a 68-lot single-family subdivision. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on August 8 and generally did not find that the request met the
criteria for developing earlier than the staging plan dictates. The Park Commission reviewed on
August 16 and the Council on September 19.
E) Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept Plan – 1952 Chippewa Road – Mark of Excellence
Homes has requested review of a PUD concept plan for the development of 94 twinhomes on 80
acres (~30 buildable) east of Mohawk Drive, and north of Chippewa Road. The Planning
Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on September 12. The Park
Commission is scheduled to review on September 20 and the City Council on October 3.
F) JEGM Revoc Trust Solar Text Amendment and CUP – 2705 Willow Drive – The JEGM
Revocable Trust has requested that the City consider amending its zoning code to increase the
maximum footprint of ground mounted solar panels permitted on a rural property from 2500 square
feet to 4000 square feet. The applicant has also requested a conditional use permit for construction
of a 4000 square foot ground mounted solar array, a 2304 square foot greenhouse and 360 square
foot warming shed. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on
September 12. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review on October 3.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 September 5, 2017
City Council Meeting
G) Reserve of Medina Second Addition – Toll Brothers has requested approval of the second
phase of the Reserve of Medina project. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will
present to Council when complete, potentially at the September 19 meeting.
H) OSI Lot Line Rearrangement – Open Systems International (OSI) has requested approval
of a lot line rearrangement (division and combination) between their property at 4101
Arrowhead Drive and the adjacent outlot to the southeast. The applicant intends to extend
their parking lot into this area. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
request on August 8 and unanimously recommended approval. The City Council reviewed
and adopted resolutions of approval on August 15. Staff will work with the applicant to
finalize conditions of approval before recording.
I) Crosby/Snow 2nd Home CUP – 2402 Hamel Road – Buddy and Kim Snow have requested
a conditional use permit to construct a 2nd principal single family home on property owned
by Kim’s parents. The RR district allows a 2nd home on properties over 40 acres for family,
employees or guests. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the July 11
meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The Council reviewed on August 2
adopted a resolution of approval on August 15. Staff will work with the applicant on the
conditions of approval in connection with construction of the house.
J) Johnson ADU CUP, Dykhoff Septic Variance, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – 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.
K) Woods of Medina – This preliminary plat has been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat
application
L) Hamel Road Thirty Two, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final
approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are
recorded
Other Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan – The draft Comprehensive Plan has been routed to affected jurisdictions for
their review. Staff has received preliminary comments from the Met Council and is meeting with
the various departments to clarify some matters.
B) Closed Landfill regulations – staff has drafted an ordinance related to the Woodlake Landfill as
required by the MPCA in connection with the state’s closed landfill program. The ordinance
includes requirements which extend onto adjacent property. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the ordinance at the August 8 meeting and tabled the ordinance. Neighboring property
owners raised concerns related to the impact of the ordinance on their property values. The Planning
Commission directed staff to evaluate the ordinance to determine how the impacts of the ordinance
could be reduced on property owners while still meeting state mandates. Staff has drafted the
ordinance and will present at the September 12 meeting.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday August 8, 2017 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Dino DesLauriers, Kerby Nester, Robin Reid, and Janet 8
White. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioner Todd Albers, Aaron Amic and Kim Murrin. 11
12
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and City Planning Consultant Nate Sparks. 13
14
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15
16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Anderson reported that the Council met the previous week to consider the Conditional Use 21
Permit from Kim and Buddy Snow. He stated that the Council unanimously approved the 22
request, just as the Planning Commission had recommended. 23
24
4. Planning Department Report 25
26
Finke provided an update. 27
28
5. Public Hearing – Excelsior Group LLC – 2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – 29
PUD Concept Plan with Staging Plan Flexibility 30
31
Finke presented a PUD Concept Plan from the Excelsior Group at 2120 and 2212 Chippewa 32
Road. He noted that this is an informal review at which the Planning Commission, Park 33
Commission and City Council provide feedback before the applicant brings forth a formal 34
application. He stated that this would be a 68-lot subdivision on 38 acres, 36 of which are 35
buildable. He stated that the City has been working on the draft Comprehensive Plan for the 36
2020-2040 time period, which is anticipated to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council at 37
the end of the year. He noted that the draft plan would delay the staging for the low density 38
residential property. He stated that the City is still working under the existing 39
Comprehensive Plan until the new plan is adopted. He noted that the City has considered two 40
previous Concept Plans for this property in the previous year. He identified the subject site 41
and adjacent uses as well as current guiding and proposed guiding under the draft 42
Comprehensive Plan. He identified the proposed access for the site, which would have 68 43
lots, noting that 20 of the lots would be villa style, while the remaining 48 lots would meet 44
the requirements of the R-1 district. He noted that a 1.5-acre park parcel would be proposed 45
for the center of the development. He noted that a PUD would be required to obtain the 46
staging flexibility desired. He stated that the requests should be reviewed against the draft 47
Comprehensive Plan as if something contradictory is approved that would conflict with the 48
approval of the draft plan. He stated that the property is similarly guided in both plans, but 49
the staging differs. He reviewed staff recommendations to buffer against neighboring rural 50
residential properties and from wetlands. He stated that there is limited access at Mohawk 51
2
and Highway 55, which means that eastbound traffic would need to utilize Chippewa to 52
Willow. He stated that the Park Commission had done a previous park study and would be 53
looking for as much parkland in this area for the first development that comes through to 54
provide a park to those residents. He noted that the property would be split between two 55
school districts. He stated that in order to continue through, the applicant would need 56
flexibility to the staging plan, and he then reviewed the elements under the current 57
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that something similar would most likely come into play 58
under the draft plan as well. He reviewed the elements that must be considered for staging 59
flexibility. He stated that this property is served by a single-loop watermain. He noted that 60
the City used a lot of City resources this year to repair a watermain break. He noted that the 61
watermain connection is identified as a need in order to support future development. He 62
advised that a future traffic connection would also be needed in the future to support 63
development. He noted that these two elements are important to consider and a provision 64
should be made to ensure that these elements are addressed prior to the development being up 65
and running, should this move forward. He noted that the provisions regarding a park would 66
also need to be addressed to consider flexibility in staging. He stated that if those crucial 67
factors are addressed, the applicant would then need to meet 50 points to qualify for the jump 68
ahead staging. 69
70
Reid asked for information on the difference in size specified by the applicant and staff. 71
72
Finke explained that the applicant included the wetlands in their calculation. 73
74
DesLauriers asked for more information on the traffic connection. 75
76
Finke provided additional details. 77
78
DesLauriers asked for more information on how the points system is setup, should the crucial 79
factors be met. 80
81
Finke explained that the Planning Commission would provide input to the City Council. 82
83
Ben Schmidt, Excelsior Group, stated that Finke did a good job presenting the information. 84
He stated that they were here in 2016 with two Concept Plans and at that time the idea of the 85
draft Comprehensive Plan was in the beginning stages and they were told to begin with the 86
Steering Committee. He stated that they attended some of the Steering Committee meetings 87
and at that time the discussion was for the properties to remain as rural residential and not 88
low density residential. He stated that the Steering Committee agreed that the parcels should 89
be guided as low density residential rather than rural residential, which suits this request. He 90
stated that the staging did not turn out as they had desired under the draft plan, as the staging 91
states 2025 under that plan. He stated that based on the rationale that was heard through the 92
Steering Committee and City Council, they believed that these parcels would be developed in 93
a similar staging to the Wealshire and Lunski properties rather than leaving the parcel 94
orphaned. He stated that if it makes sense, he did not see anything that would change in the 95
few years of difference in staging and that is why they are present tonight, to gauge the 96
temperate of the City. He stated that the plan was always to split the property into two 97
products, single-family lots and villa style lots to provide products to empty nesters as well. 98
He noted that the villa products would not back-up to rural residential properties. He stated 99
that a big reason for the villa product would support the current needs of the market and the 100
neighboring Wealshire and Lunski developments. He noted that the villas would be a great 101
feeder into the neighboring senior developments as those residents age and would also be a 102
great fit for family members of Wealshire and Lunski residents. He stated that in terms of 103
points for the jump ahead, they feel comfortable that the site can be served by gravity sewer. 104
3
He stated that he understands the need for the City to extend Chippewa Road, but did not feel 105
that the extension to the east would benefit this development. He noted that it would only be 106
a short length that residents would need to travel west to Willow in order to head east on 107
Highway 55. He stated that this would become the loop that would loop the watermain 108
together and therefore this would be part of the solution rather than the problem. He stated 109
that they are willing to listen to the desire for a park, as they would like the park to be used 110
not only by residents of this development, but other residents in the area. He stated that there 111
is a significant amount of open space proposed and perhaps that is lessened to add to the park. 112
He stated that they would also be open to losing a few lots in order to accommodate 113
additional park space. He stated that they are open to suggestion where the wetland is located 114
as well, in order to minimize impacts. He stated that they feel like they would have the 50 115
points necessary to jump ahead and the crucial factor test could also be met. He stated that as 116
you travel north and west there would not be any other development in the draft 117
Comprehensive Plan and therefore they feel that the timing now would be a good fit. He 118
stated that they believe that this development would solve some problems, such as the 119
watermain issue, and would also provide a desired product that would fit well with the senior 120
developments surrounding the site. 121
122
Reid asked if the villas would be single story. 123
124
Schmidt stated that would be the intent, but noted that villas are often unpredictable as some 125
could have a loft. He noted that the intent would be for empty nesters. 126
127
Reid asked the price point. 128
129
Schmidt estimated high $300,000s to mid $400,000s. He noted that the villas would be 130
association maintained and some could support a three-car garage. He noted that 25 percent 131
of their villa sales have three-car garages to support the desires of the buyers to store 132
additional items such as vehicles and golf carts. 133
134
White stated that some of the villa’s lots would not meet the zoning standards for the lot size 135
and asked if the homes built on the smaller lots would be smaller as well. She stated that it 136
does not appear that the setback variances would be needed if that is the intent. 137
138
Schmidt stated that the variances would provide the building pad they think they need. He 139
acknowledged that there would be less space between the homes on those smaller lots. He 140
stated that people are asking for a smaller lot with less yard for those products. He provided 141
the average square footage of a villa at 1,400 to 1,500 square feet on one level. 142
143
White opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 144
145
Corey Wiskow, VP of Wealshire Bloomington, expressed full-support for the project as he 146
believes that it would blend well with the surrounding development. 147
148
Jeff Pederson spoke of the pressure that is being put onto Mohawk Drive. He stated that they 149
do not know how much traffic the Wealshire project will bring to the community. He stated 150
that the developments to the west have already paid for the Willow stoplight, which would 151
have additional pressure. He referenced the watermain break that occurred and noted that if 152
that occurred in the winter, the road would have needed to be shut down. He believed that 153
the staging time should not be reduced in order to allow the City to get the plan in place for 154
the road. He stated that the neighbors to the north and west would need to be screened 155
appropriately as they are zoned rural residential. He hoped that the City would not ask for a 156
4
Comprehensive Plan amendment, as the Steering Committee and Council have worked hard 157
on the draft plan which is currently out for jurisdictional review. 158
159
Finke submitted a written comment from Brian Stephenson that will become a part of the 160
record and has been provided to the Commission. 161
162
White closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. 163
164
Reid stated that there would be two requests for the PUD and jump ahead. She did not 165
believe that the criteria for the PUD would be met as she did not feel this would be an 166
innovative development and the site plan is fairly ordinary. She stated that the wetland 167
protection, tree planting, and stormwater reuses are already required. She did not believe this 168
is a creative use of land or is efficient. She stated that the main goal seems to be approval for 169
the smaller lots and she does not feel that is an adequate use of a PUD. She stated that the 170
PUD and jump ahead are meant for special development with special criteria to be met. She 171
did not feel that the criteria were met as the development only meets the minimum 172
requirements and does not go above and beyond. She stated that there would be an impact on 173
City infrastructure and roads. She did not feel that the project meets the requirements for the 174
PUD or jump ahead. 175
176
DesLauriers stated that his concerns were regarding the crucial factors that must be met. He 177
stated that the draft plan identifies the staging as such because of the crucial factors that need 178
to be addressed. He asked for clarification on when construction could begin. 179
180
Finke stated that there is a grey area on when construction can begin and occupation can 181
occur. He stated that it is not unprecedented for the review and construction process to begin 182
prior to the staging period year. 183
184
Nester noted that it is unprecedented to begin three years before the staging. 185
186
Finke stated that the other commercial case that he was speaking of began construction the 187
summer before the staging year. 188
189
White stated that the jump ahead would not serve the City, as the infrastructure is not in 190
place. She stated that the City has not yet been able to determine the impact that Wealshire 191
and perhaps Lunski would place on the roadways. She noted that the watermain is also an 192
issue. She believed that the identified staging for the property would be appropriate in order 193
to allow the infrastructure time to develop. 194
195
Finke stated that if there are provisions for the infrastructure improvements, the staging jump 196
ahead could make sense. He explained that if a developer provides for the infrastructure 197
improvements, a jump ahead would be an option. 198
199
White stated that she appreciates the thought and effort, but agrees that the project is not 200
unique and would not meet the objectives for the jump ahead. She appreciated the different 201
housing products, but noted that the property does not have unique features to preserve, 202
which makes it difficult to achieve those objectives. 203
204
DesLauriers stated that the developer commented that the road would be adequate and the 205
watermain would not be an issue. He asked if a traffic study has been done. 206
207
5
Finke stated that ultimately a traffic study would not take into effect that this would not be the 208
transportation network that the City has identified. He stated that it is a bigger study than 209
simply being a capacity issue. 210
211
Nester agreed with the comments of Reid. 212
213
Finke noted that the Park Commission will tentatively review this on August 16th and the City 214
Council will tentatively review this request on September 5th or 19th. 215
216
6. Public Hearing – Arrowhead Holdings LLC – 4101 Arrowhead Drive – Preliminary and 217
Final Plat for Subdivision and Lot Combination 218
219
Finke stated that the applicant is seeking to shift the boundary between the OSI property and 220
neighboring lot. He noted that the applicant is seeking to do this through a two-step process 221
of a subdivision and then lot combination. He stated that the purpose of the lot line 222
rearrangement would accommodate extra parking for the OSI property. He reviewed the 223
zoning of the subject properties and adjacent properties. He identified the portion of the 224
property that would be combined with the OSI property and the outlot that would be created. 225
He stated that the new lot and outlot would need to meet relevant standards and then the lot 226
combination would be considered. He noted that the required standards would be met 227
through the proposed request. He stated that the park dedication was deferred in 2009 and 228
therefore one of the conditions was that any subsequent development would trigger that 229
deferred dedication. He stated that the 2009 fee specified was $5,893 and staff would support 230
using that fee as the use of the property would not be intensified. He stated that potential 231
findings for the subdivision request were included in the packet, noting that staff supports the 232
two requests subject to the conditions noted and the addition of the park dedication. 233
234
Reid asked if OSI already owns this property. 235
236
Finke reported that the City of Minneapolis owns the OSI property, as it was created through 237
economic development and Arrowhead Holdings is the technical property owner. 238
239
Nester asked if the parking lot was undersized to begin with. 240
241
Finke replied that the company has been growing and filling the space more than the zoning 242
code would have anticipated. 243
244
Nester asked if this would solve the under parked situation. 245
246
The applicant stated that the sizing would meet the capacity of the building. He stated that 247
there are plans to expand to the north in the future. He stated that this last piece of parking 248
would ensure that the occupancy of the building is addressed. He stated that this would be 249
118 additional stalls. He stated that often the number of stalls are correlated to the number of 250
employees, but noted that there are a lot of clients that come into the building for months at a 251
time and also remote employees and interns that come in for months at a time. 252
253
White opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. 254
255
No comments made. 256
257
White closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. 258
259
6
Motion by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend approval of the Cavanaughs 260
Meadowwoods Park Second Addition and the subsequent lot combination, subject to the 261
conditions noted in the staff report, with the additional condition that the deferred park 262
dedication be paid. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin) 263
264
7. McDonalds – 822 Highway 55 – Variance from Required Setback Adjacent to Right-of-265
Way to Replace Trash Enclosure 266
267
Finke stated that the City Council sits as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and therefore 268
will hold a public hearing on this request. He presented the request from McDonald’s to 269
reduce the setback for the existing trash enclosure which has already been removed in 270
conjunction with the CR116 and Clydesdale Trail project. He stated that the propose 271
variance would locate the trash enclosure 1.5 feet from the Hennepin County right-of-way. 272
He noted that the location would meet the setback request, but for the County right-of-way. 273
He highlighted the proposed location for the trash enclosure compared to the previous 274
location. He reviewed the variance criteria that must be met in order to approve a variance. 275
He noted that staff has provided potential findings in the staff report in response to the 276
criteria. He stated that the existing facility has been demolished in connection with the street 277
project, is not caused by the property owner and is fairly unique. He stated that staff 278
suggested potential landscaping to ensure that the essential character is not impacted. He 279
stated that the long-term expectation is that the road would be expanded to the west and the 280
right-of-way could be vacated in the future; therefore the structure could come back into 281
compliance. 282
283
The applicant noted that he was present to answer any questions. 284
285
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of the McDonald’s 286
request for a variance from the required setback adjacent to the right-of-way to replace the 287
trash enclosure. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin) 288
289
Finke noted that the City Council will consider this item on September 5, 2017. 290
291
8. Continued Public Hearing – Dean Lunski – North of Highway 55, South Chippewa 292
Road and West of Mohawk Drive – Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Site Plan Review 293
294
White asked and received confirmation that the Planning Commission recommended 295
approval of the rezoning request at the last meeting. 296
297
Sparks stated that this is a continued public hearing as the Planning Commission thoroughly 298
reviewed this request at their last meeting. He provided an update on what has been done 299
since the last review. He stated that this project would include a senior living and medical 300
office space within one development. He stated that the applicant has addressed some issues 301
while some issues remain. He stated that the tree preservation issue has been resolved with 302
the plan for offsite replacement. He stated that the plan will be revised again to provide 303
additional trees onsite. He stated that the landscaping plan was revised to be consistent 304
throughout all plans. He stated that the lighting plan was adjusted to include signage lighting. 305
He noted that the private street would still need to be placed within the outlot. He stated that 306
a larger drainage and utility easement has been provided for the adjacent lots to support the 307
off-center alignment. He stated that the Park Commission reviewed the request and 308
recommend cash in lieu of land dedication for this request. He stated that the setback has 309
been adjusted to meet the required setback. He stated that the proposed siding would be 310
cement fiberboard lap siding and therefore would meet the architectural standards. He stated 311
that the revised plan adjusted the parking lot location to ensure that it does not fall within a 312
7
setback. He stated that sign locations have also been changed to ensure that setbacks are met. 313
He stated that a fire truck turnaround has been provided and reviewed by the Fire Marshall 314
and has been found to be acceptable. He noted that a parking stall has also been removed to 315
provide a turnaround for vehicles. He stated that there are still issues with wetland setbacks 316
and buffers. He stated that the eastern side of the building setback was measured to the base 317
of the building, but has a large bump-out encroachment. He stated that the ordinance only 318
allows two feet of encroachment for those bump-outs. He stated that the northwest corner 319
proposes to fill the wetland in order to meet the buffer setback. He stated that the watershed 320
is going to further review the request, as typically you do not fill a wetland just to meet a 321
buffer. He noted that the issue on the eastern side would be an easy fix, but the western side 322
would not be as easily solved. He stated that the item was continued at the last meeting and 323
the Commission could either take action tonight or table the item to determine the outcome 324
from the watershed. He stated that the watershed was not looking favorably at the filling of 325
the wetland. He noted that approval could also be given contingent upon meeting the upland 326
wetland buffers. He noted that proposed trails and gazebos have been removed from the 327
upland buffer areas. 328
329
Reid stated that the white skyway has not been updated either. She stated that the white 330
skyway would not be appropriate with Medina and is disappointed that it has not been 331
changed. She noted that it could be a first level breezeway instead to be less conspicuous. 332
333
DesLauriers asked the intent of the skyway. 334
335
Reid stated that the skyway is going to be used to move residents from the building to the 336
medical offices. 337
338
DesLauriers stated that the skyway would be needed to accommodate parking underneath. 339
He agreed that the color change could be done. 340
341
Reid stated that she would like the color change to be a condition of approval to ensure that is 342
addressed. 343
344
White reopened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. 345
346
Jeff Pederson noted that this is another example of how the Chippewa Drive extension to the 347
east will be needed, as well as the loop for the watermain that will be necessary. 348
349
White closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. 350
351
Reid asked if staff is satisfied that the road and wetland buffer issue would be solved. 352
353
White noted that could be part of the conditions of approval. 354
355
Sparks stated that staff has been attempting to get that addressed for a while, but it is still not. 356
357
Reid stated that the Commission gave the applicant one month to address the concerns of 358
staff. She asked if the applicant has expressed a willingness to address the problems. 359
360
DesLauriers stated that at the last review there were a number of comments that needed to be 361
addressed before it would be appropriate to move it forward to the Council. He asked if most 362
of the concerns had been addressed and whether the significant issues have been addressed. 363
364
8
Sparks stated that the wetland buffer issue is a significant item that a lot of the comments 365
resolve around. He stated that resolution could be easy if the applicant is willing to follow 366
the necessary steps to resolve it, or could be difficult if the applicant chooses another path. 367
368
Finke stated that if the item does not receive approval from the watershed, the item would not 369
move forward for consideration from the City Council. He stated that the Commission can 370
provide input on the wetland issue as that is still being considered by the watershed. 371
372
Reid asked when the City would expect to hear back from the watershed. 373
374
Finke provided a timeline, noting that the response would have to be received before the 375
Council would consider the request. 376
377
Reid stated that it is not the fault of the City that the necessary questions have not been 378
answered. 379
380
White asked if the Commission moved the application forward to the Council and the 381
applicant updates plans to reduce wetland impacts, would it be presented again to the 382
Commission. 383
384
Finke stated that would depend on the type of changes that were made. He noted that the 385
building and the parking lot could be made smaller to provide that additional space, and 386
therefore that would not need to come back before the Commission. 387
388
White stated that the applicant did a lot of what the Commission asked for, although they did 389
not address everything. She stated that the wetland buffer item could be a stumbling block. 390
She believed that the Commission could recommend approval with the condition that the 391
wetland buffer criteria be met, as well as the additional conditions. 392
393
Reid noted that she would like to add a condition that the skyway be redesigned to diminish 394
visual impact and blend into the building architecture. 395
396
Finke asked if there is a preference of the Commission as to whether the wetland is filled or 397
setback is met. 398
399
It was the consensus of the Commission that there was no preference. 400
401
Motion by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, 402
rezoning, and Site Plan review for Lunski project, subject to the conditions noted in the staff 403
report, with the additional conditions as detailed tonight. Motion carries unanimously. 404
(Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin) 405
406
9. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning – Closed Landfill/Restricted 407
District and Closed Landfill/Area of Concern Overlay District 408
409
Finke stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) operates the Woodlake 410
Landfill in Medina. He stated that the MPCA developed the Minnesota Closed Landfill 411
Program and the City is required by statute to adopt an ordinance therein. He stated that the 412
closed land use plan also extends to nearby properties in regard to the groundwater and 413
methane gas areas of concern. He stated that the draft ordinance attempts to achieve the two 414
items required by statute. He stated that the historical regulations will be deleted, as the 415
landfill is no longer operating and the regulations will be replaced with the closed landfill 416
regulations. He stated that the overlay district would extend over the properties where 417
9
groundwater and methane areas of concern lie within. He noted that a setback is also 418
proposed within the MPCA plan which would apply to methane areas of concern. He stated 419
that potential language is included in the ordinance for the discussion of the Commission, 420
noting that while the requirement is not specified under statute, it is recommended by the 421
MPCA. He highlighted the areas of concern as mapped by staff for potential inclusion within 422
the overlay district. He noted that the areas of concern can change over time and by being 423
more inclusive, would avoid the City from constantly amending the map. He stated that some 424
residents have stated they would like the areas of concern mapped as designated by the 425
MPCA and not be more inclusive at this time. He stated that the groundwater area of concern 426
is broader and covers more areas than the methane gas area of concern. He stated that the 427
closed landfill/restricted would outline two permitted uses, including management of the 428
closed landfill and solar. He noted that solar equipment would be a permitted use within the 429
district. He stated that in regard to the overlay district for the areas of concern, the draft 430
ordinance is more extensive than it would need to be by law. He explained that it would be 431
easier to remove items the City desires, rather than attempt to add needed items. He stated 432
that the setback for the methane gas area of concern has been included as recommended by 433
the MPCA for discussion purposes. He stated that there are only two smaller areas of the site 434
that would encompass the methane area of concern and therefore that setback can apply only 435
to those areas. He noted that another option would be not to include the setback in the 436
ordinance and simply provide notification. He reviewed the groundwater areas of concern 437
and the options for identifying those boundaries, to be more restrictive or less restrictive. He 438
noted that the request would include three different actions. 439
440
Reid asked why this is coming up now, as the landfill has been there for years. 441
442
Finke replied that the City met with the MPCA when the closed land use plan was put out in 443
2013 and the City is therefore requested to adopt the regulations in order to be consistent, 444
noting that the City simply had not done so yet. 445
446
White opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. 447
448
Mr. Chamberlain spoke as legal counsel for Richard Burk, stating that he prepared a letter 449
which was sent ahead of time. He stated that his concern would be expanding the area of 450
concern to his client’s property east of the landfill. He stated that the property is 200 acres in 451
size and has an assessed value of over $11,000,000 and his concern would be that identifying 452
the area as an area of concern for groundwater or methane gas would impact the value. He 453
stated that the landfill closed in 1993 and the MPCA has taken over management as of 2000. 454
He stated that there is not a situation where there has been a history of methane gas or 455
groundwater contamination on his client’s property. He stated that obviously everyone 456
supports the regulations on the landfill area, but they should not negatively impact the 457
neighboring property owners. He stated that there are already regulations on where wells can 458
be dug to ensure clean well water. He noted that when his client purchased his property there 459
was a phase one and phase two environmental assessment done to ensure there was not 460
groundwater contamination. He did not want his client’s property designated with a problem 461
that it does not have. He stated that there is no harm to limit the restrictions to the landfill 462
area itself, but there would be damage to the overlay areas on the adjoining properties. 463
464
Kevin O’Connor, 3712 Hamel Road, stated that he is concerned with property values. He 465
stated that the City would be saying his property has a potential for a problem, even though 466
the overlay area only extends five to ten feet on the northwest boundary. He stated that he 467
already has concerns with property values because of the lack of broadband services and now 468
the City would be designating the property as impaired when it is not. He stated that the 469
homeowners have been paying property taxes on an assessed value and if the property is 470
10
labeled as impaired, the value should have been less for the past four years that the City has 471
delayed action on this adoption. He stated that the area of concern should be limited to the 472
actual areas and not extended past. 473
474
Mr. Leuer stated that he lives immediately north of the landfill. He asked the Commission to 475
remember that throughout history land has been forfeited by encroachment followed by 476
insurption. He viewed this overlay as an encroachment. He stated that he has several 477
questions to the MPCA representative present. He asked the number of closed landfills 478
within Hennepin County. 479
480
Shawn Ruotsinoja, MPCA, stated that there are three. 481
482
Mr. Leuer asked how the other landfills have dealt with the areas of concern for groundwater 483
and methane gas. 484
485
Ruotsinoja replied that the other municipalities have adopted the regulations, but did not 486
believe that the other municipalities have adopted an overlay district thus far. He noted that 487
there are areas of concern in the other landfills as well. 488
489
Mr. Leuer stated that the closed landfill has extensive monitoring equipment. He asked and it 490
was confirmed that routine chemical monitoring has occurred. 491
492
Ruotsinoja stated that the results are public information and it was explained how that 493
information can be accessed. 494
495
Mr. Leuer asked the last time the surrounding private wells were monitored. 496
497
Ruotsinoja replied that the last time would have been around 2006 or 2007. 498
499
Mr. Leuer asked why repeat sampling of private wells is not being done with the overlay 500
request. 501
502
Ruotsinoja explained that the overlay is not really a requirement of the MPCA and the areas 503
of concern are provided to the health department. He noted that the department of health 504
establishes a special well construction area (SWCA) and if someone wants to create a well 505
that would trigger notification, a special review would be made to determine if a well could 506
be drilled in that area. He stated that there are two chemicals of concern that have been 507
identified in the past few years and provided additional details. He stated that this happens 508
from time to time when new methodology is developed, new information arises and different 509
things are detected. 510
511
Mr. Leuer asked what they would need to do in order to get the private wells sampled. 512
513
Ruotsinoja explained that the hydrologist would look at the well locations and determine 514
which wells should be sampled. He stated that if someone has a well that they would like 515
sampled which is in close proximity to the landfill, that could be requested from the 516
hydrologist. 517
518
Mr. Leuer stated that there is a history of regularly sampling the groundwater wells in the 519
perimeter when the landfill was operating, and then once it closed that did not continue. 520
521
Ruotsinoja stated that there is still sampling within the landfill wells and noted that the 522
hydrologist can expand that sampling area. 523
11
White asked the resident to limit his questions to the Planning Commission that would be 524
relevant to the request tonight and noted that he could speak with the representative from the 525
MPCA later in a one on one setting. 526
527
Mr. Leuer stated that he would like sampling to occur on the ring of wells outside the landfill. 528
He asked how the area of concern was determined, noting that the boundary to the west is 529
significantly less and the southeasterly boundary jogs. He stated that it seemed like jury lines 530
were arbitrarily laid down based on property owners. 531
532
Ruotsinoja stated that he is not the person that drew the boundary. He stated that the 533
boundary to the west is less because groundwater flowage generally goes to the north and 534
east. He agreed that the boundary is somewhat arbitrary. He stated that the hatched line 535
identifies contamination and the area of concern extends to areas that could have concern 536
depending on the use or pattern of flow. He noted that the hydrologist would have additional 537
information on the boundaries. 538
539
Mr. Leuer stated that the closed landfill is 194 acres and the area of concern is 517 acres, 540
meaning that the area of concern would be over twice the size of the landfill. He stated that 541
this is a significant increase in the stigma of the landfill. He noted that of the eight private 542
landowners in the overlay district, four of them have wells. He stated that some of the 543
property owners have paid special assessments and were credited for the overlay and setback 544
areas that would result in unbuildable lots. He stated that people have been taxed based on 545
future use that the City would then restrict. He stated that the City of Medina collected a 546
tipping fee from 1985 to 1993, which was one of the City’s biggest revenue resources. He 547
stated that the value of the properties in the overlay district would be impacted by the stigma 548
of the land use and would carry additional restrictions; therefore the County assessor should 549
be made aware of the values. He recommended the Planning Commission table this and 550
instead suggest a joint meeting with the Commission, City Council and overlay landowners to 551
discuss land subdivisions financed by the City. He did not believe that the burden of the 552
overlay district should become the burden of the overlay landowners. 553
554
Ralph Miller, 3622 Hamel Road, stated that he owns the property south of the landfill and the 555
overlay would impact 30 percent of his property. 556
557
White closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. 558
559
Reid stated that she was bothered by the fact that within the staff report or MPCA document 560
there is no talk of the impact on the value of these properties, as this overlay would impact 561
the property values. She stated that it makes it look like there is a problem before they know 562
there is a problem and would take dollars out of the pockets of landowners, particularly when 563
there has not been a problem identified. She stated that the overlay seems to be taking a 564
hammer to a tack and would be too impactful. 565
566
DesLauriers stated that the overlay is just one option. 567
568
Reid stated that she would support the least restrictive option. 569
570
DesLauriers referenced a statement from Mr. Chamberlain’s letter which states that the City 571
would need to compensate property owners for loss of property value in response to the 572
closed landfill program. 573
574
Finke noted that the City Attorney has not had a chance to respond to the letter, as it was 575
received after 4:00 p.m. today. 576
12
Nester asked what the overlay would accomplish. 577
578
Finke replied that it would depend on if there are restrictions in the overlay. He stated that, as 579
recommended, it would simply act as a notification area if the setback is removed. He stated 580
that ultimately the overlay would provide notification and would not include restrictions. 581
582
Nester stated that is seems then that the area of concern is something set by the MPCA. 583
584
Reid stated that the overlay is not required though. She asked if the notification would be 585
given to property owners when they come in for permits. 586
587
Finke stated that he knows the information and the requirement is to provide the information 588
to the specific property owners. He stated that this action would formalize the map which 589
identifies the properties within the areas of concern. 590
591
Reid asked if the property owner would be required to disclose this information for potential 592
buyers. 593
594
Finke stated that he is unsure if that is a requirement. 595
596
Reid asked if this could be added as a review item for permit reviews and staff would be 597
reminded to notify property owners in that manner. 598
599
Finke stated that it could be formalized in other ways. He stated that the requirement is to 600
notify the property owners upon receipt from the MPCA. 601
602
Mr. Leuer stated that there is already a restriction that is not on any other property in the same 603
underlying classification, because there is a 300 foot well setback. He stated that therefore 604
the encroachment exists, but is not formalized. He believed that this method would bring the 605
whole lot into the encroachment. 606
607
Tammy O’Connor, 3712 Hamel Road, stated that residents have been paying on a higher 608
property tax value and the impacted property owners should have then been paying a lesser 609
property value if their property is identified as contaminated. She stated that the City has 610
known about this for years and simply has not taken action until now. 611
612
White asked if there is a timeline for this. 613
614
Finke stated that there is no timeline requiring the City to come into compliance within a 615
specific timeframe and therefore action does not need to be taken tonight. 616
617
White stated that she feels that she does not have a good enough understanding to have an 618
opinion. She acknowledged that there are statutes that the City needs to take action on, but 619
other items that could be adjusted. She stated that the map would not be changed, because 620
the areas of concern are identified by the MPCA. She stated that it seems the size of the 621
setbacks could be lowered or removed. She stated that she would support not having the 622
setback. She stated that still would not change anything for the property owners and their 623
respective property values. She was unsure what the resolve would be for that concern. 624
625
Finke provided another tool recommended by the MPCA within the closed land use plan that 626
would accomplish the need to notify property owners without adopting an overlay district. 627
He stated that he would need further details from the City Attorney. 628
629
13
Reid stated that there seems to be a more practical way to provide notification without adding 630
the additional items that would impact property values. She asked for more analysis on how 631
property values would be least burdened, but still accomplish the required notification. 632
633
DesLauriers agreed that this is not ready to move forward. He stated that perhaps a work 634
session would be a good setting. 635
636
Finke stated that he did provide alternate methods of providing that notification that can be 637
discussed at the next meeting. He noted that essentially every decision the Commission 638
makes can impact property values. 639
640
Finke stated that he would talk to the City Assessor in an attempt to gather additional 641
information. 642
643
Reid stated that she believes the notification can be part of the building permit process, 644
similar to floodplain designation. 645
646
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to table the request to the September 12, 2017 647
meeting, and direct staff to develop alternatives to the overlay. Motion carries unanimously. 648
(Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin) 649
650
10. Approval of the July 11, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 651
652
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to approve the July 11, 2017, Planning 653
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic and 654
Murrin) 655
656
11. Council Meeting Schedule 657
658
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered 659
to attend in representation of the Commission. 660
661
12. Adjourn 662
663
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Nester, to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Motion 664
carried unanimously. 665
Ordinance and Rezoning Page 1 of 3 September 12, 2017
Closed Landfill Restricted Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: August 31, 2017
MEETING: September 12, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Amendment –
Closed Landfill-Restricted
Background
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) operates the Woodlake Landfill in the
western portion of the City as part of its Closed Landfill Program. The Landfill is located north
of Hamel Road and west of Tomahawk Trail. Waste has not been accepted at the landfill since
1993 and the MPCA began management in 2000. A fuller summary of the history of the Landfill
can be found in the attached Closed Landfill Land Use Plan from the MPCA.
Minnesota state law requires that the local municipality enact land use and zoning regulations
which are consistent with the Closed Landfill Use Plan established by the MPCA for the
Landfill. In addition to regulating the use on the landfill property, the Woodlake Landfill Plan
identifies a Groundwater Area of Concern and Methane Gas Area of Concern which extend off
of the Woodlake Landfill site and onto neighboring properties.
In addition to mandating certain requirements the City must set on the Woodlake Landfill, the
state of Minnesota also requires that the City incorporate information about the Groundwater
Area of Concern and Methane Gas Area of Concern. The attached ordinance is intended to meet
these state requirements. The Woodlake Closed Landfill Use Plan from the MPCA is also
attached for reference.
The MPCA recommends that the City enact an overlay district or setback for property within the
Methane Gas Area of Concern. Methane gas controls are in place in Woodlake Landfill, but if
these measures fail, there is a chance that methane gas may migrate into the Methane Gas Area
of Concern. Methane gas can become explosive in confined spaces such as basements when
mixed in air.
At the August 8 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the City’s
zoning code to address these requirements. Staff had presented an overlay district as
recommended by the MPCA for discussion. Adjacent property owners within the MPCA’s
published Areas of Concern urged the Planning Commission to consider alternatives to the
overlay district that would minimize potential impacts to property values. The Planning
Commission directed staff to evaluate alternatives and present an ordinance which would meet
minimum requirements but minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties.
Staff has removed the overlay district from the ordinance and incorporated a reference to the
MPCA’s Areas of Concern within the Closed Landfill-Restricted ordinance.
Ordinance and Rezoning Page 2 of 3 September 12, 2017
Closed Landfill Restricted Planning Commission Meeting
Ordinance Summary
The attached ordinance includes two primary sections. The first section deletes the existing
regulations for a Sanitary Landfill District, which were in place back when an active landfill was
permitted on the property. The second section establishes the Closed Landfill-Restricted (CLR)
zoning district and applies regulations to the Woodlake Landfill.
The second section of the ordinance creates regulations for the Closed Landfill-Restricted (CLR)
to apply to the Woodlake Landfill site. The ordinance utilizes the MPCA’s template ordinance,
which is meant to address the mandates within the Land Use Plan for the Landfill.
The only permitted use within the CLR district is the management of the closed landfill. Solar
equipment is permitted through a Conditional Use Permit. These uses are identified by the
MPCA in the land use plan.
The draft ordinance establishes setback and design standards which are consistent with the Rural
Public/Semi-Public zoning district. Staff believes these standards provided a good framework
since they are intended to apply to quasi-commercial operations within the rural area.
At this point, the ordinance as proposed has no effect on property except for the Woodlake
Landfill property. As a result, this version of the ordinance would appear to have minimized any
potential or perceived impact on adjacent property.
Policy Discussion – Setback for Methane Gas Area of Concern
The City’s discretion within the ordinance is somewhat limited in order to be consistent with the
Closed Landfill Use Plan and state law. The uses permitted on the Landfill property are
described by the state. The City does have more discretion on the design and development
standards (setbacks, height, etc.) and staff believes using similar regulations as the Rural
Public/Semi-Public zoning district was reasonable.
The City is required by law to incorporate information related to the Groundwater Area of
Concern and Methane Gas Area of Concern into our land use controls. The City has discretion
on how this is accomplished. The MPCA also recommends that the City consider a setback in
order to prohibit construction within the Methane Gas Area of Concern. The Planning
Commission did not appear to support a setback or other prohibition, but should confirm whether
the City should require increased setbacks on adjoining properties from the Woodlake Landfill
property. Options appear to be:
Do not include increased setback requirement; Provide notification only.
Require setback on two portions or property line adjacent to the waste footprint which
cover the Methane Gas Area of Concern.
Require a setback around all portions of the Landfill property.
Potential Actions
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment
and rezoning to the September 12 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission
Ordinance and Rezoning Page 3 of 3 September 12, 2017
Closed Landfill Restricted Planning Commission Meeting
should continue the public hearing before considering the amended ordinance and the proposed
rezoning.
Following review and feedback from the Commission, the following actions may be in order:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Ordinance Regarding Regulations of the Closed
Landfill-Restricted Zoning District.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the Ordinance Rezoning Woodlake Landfill to the
Closed Landfill-Restricted Zoning District.
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance regarding the CLR District
2. Draft Ordinance rezoning property to the CLR zoning district
3. Woodlake Landfill Closed Landfill Land Use Plan (from MPCA)
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING REGULATIONS OF THE
CLOSED LANDFILL-RESTRICTED ZONING DISTRICT AND THE SANITARY
LANDFILL ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 827.09 et. Seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended
by deleting the existing stricken language in its entirety.
SANITARY LANDFILL ZONING DISTRICT (SL)
Section 827.09. Sanitary Landfill - Purpose. The Sanitary Landfill (SL) District is an area
exclusively established to accommodate the use of land for the development and operation of
sanitary landfills. Since this type of land use is so unique to the ecological setting of Medina and the
provision of public services such as transportation so demanding, a special district delineation is
called for. Within any district zoned SL in Medina, an extensive set of performance standards must
be met through the application of a conditional use permit.
Section 827.11. Conditional Use - Sanitary Landfills. Within the Sanitary Landfill District, no
landfill shall be established or operated without a Conditional Use Permit. Said Conditional Use
Permit shall be valid for a one year period, after which a permit renewal shall be required. The City
Council may also require a performance bond, cash escrow, or letter of credit from the landowner or
operator, to guarantee conformance with these regulations.
Section 827.13. Information Required. The following information shall be provided by the
persons requesting the permit:
Subd. 1. Name and address of person requesting the permit.
Subd. 2. The exact legal property description and acreage of area to be used.
Subd. 3. The following maps of the entire site and to include all areas within five hundred
(500) feet of the site. All maps shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) inch to one hundred (100)
feet unless otherwise stated below:
(a) Map A -
Existing conditions to include:
Contour lines at five (5) foot intervals.
Existing vegetation.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Existing drainage and permanent water areas.
Existing structures.
Existing wells.
Existing roadways and easements.
(b) Map B -
Proposed operations to include:
Structures to be erected.
Location of earthwork and fill operation to be mined showing depth of
proposed excavation.
Location of refuse disposal deposits showing maximum height of deposits.
Location of machinery to be used in the mining operation.
Location of storage of mined materials, showing height of storage deposits.
Location of vehicle parking.
Location of storage of explosives.
Erosion and sediment control structures.
Location of proposed roadways and easements.
Type and capacity of equipment to be used.
(c) Map C -
End use plan to include:
Final grade of proposed site showing elevations and contour lines at five
(5) foot intervals.
Location and species of vegetation to be replanted.
Location and nature of any structures to be erected in relation to the end use
plan.
Subd. 4. A soil erosion and sediment control plan.
Subd. 5. A plan for dust and noise control.
Subd. 6. A full and adequate description of all phases of the proposed operation to include an
estimate of duration of the operation.
Subd. 7. A plan for fire nuisance and vermin control.
Subd. 8. Any other information requested by the Planning Commission or City Council
Subd. 9. Estimated daily or weekly volume of garbage and other waste.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
Subd. 10. A plan or the submittal of assurances to the City from private or public sources
satisfactorily addressing the issue of long term liability after landfill closure for the
monitoring and protection of environmental quality.
Subd. 11. A plan or submittal of assurances to the City from private or public sources
satisfactorily addressing the issue of long term roadway maintenance during the operations
tenure on those routes providing primary landfill site access.
Section 827.15. Renewal of Permits. All property owners and residents with one thousand (1000)
feet of the operation shall be notified of the annual conditional permit renewal request.
Section 827.17. Use Restriction. The following regulations shall be observed by any person to
whom a permit is issued by the City for the operation of a sanitary landfill. These regulations shall
govern the operation of all City approved sanitary landfills and any failure to observe these
regulations shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation of the permit by the Council.
Subd. 1. All garbage and other refuse accepted by the landfill permit holder shall be
thoroughly compacted by equipment of a size and weight capable of producing a downward
or ground pressure of at least five (5) pounds per square inch. Such equipment shall have
sufficient weight and capacity to carry out all necessary operations to the satisfaction of the
enforcement officer. Sufficient auxiliary equipment shall be maintained on the site or
otherwise available to permit operation in case of a breakdown.
Subd. 2. Mixed refuse material shall be spread out on the working face of the landfill so that
the depth does not exceed a maximum depth of two (2') feet prior to its compaction.
Subd. 3. The areas shall be continually policed to prevent fire and the blowing of papers; shall
be neat and sanitary at all times, and shall be covered at the end of each day's operation, as
well as when wind conditions warrant it through the day, with sufficient material to prevent
blowing papers and unsightly conditions. The size of the active face on which refuse is
being currently deposited shall be kept to a minimum.
Subd. 4. Cover material will consist of earth, loam, clay, sand or a mixture of at least fifty
percent (50%) earth and other inert materials, such as ashes, cinders or gravel. A minimum
depth of twelve inches (12") of compacted cover and final spread cover material shall be
kept on all inactive faces of the landfill at all times. The active faces of the landfills should
be covered at the end of each day's operation, or as otherwise directed by the Administrator.
Subd. 5. When the landfill has been brought up to two feet (2') below the desired finished
grade, it shall be covered with at least twenty-four inches (24") of compacted cover material
graded and seeded in such a manner as to prevent erosion.
Subd. 6. Where the "trench system" of sanitary landfill is used, successive parallel trenches
must be at least two feet (2') apart.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Subd. 7. All garbage and refuse material existing on the site at the time the permit is issued
either in the form of an open dump or any other form, shall be collected, compacted, and
covered with cover material at least one foot (1') in depth if below the desired finished grade,
or with inert material at least two feet (2') in depth at the finished grade. This cover
operation shall be completed within fifteen (15) working days after the issuance of a special
permit for the sanitary landfill.
Subd. 8. The permittee or operator shall erect such temporary or permanent fences or take
other measures as may be necessary to reasonably control blowing of paper and other
materials from the landfill.
Subd. 9. Any material salvaged from the landfill must be handled and stored in such a manner
as to prevent rodent harborage and permit proper operation of the landfill. Such salvaged
material must be removed to a location at least two hundred feet (200') from the working
surface so as not to interfere with the compacting and covering. All salvaged material must
be completely removed from the site every twenty-four (24) hours unless provision is made
for temporary storage within an enclosed, roofed and rodent-proof structure approved by the
Administrator.
Subd. 10. Burning of any materials deposited in a landfill is expressly prohibited.
Subd. 11. Adequate fire fighting equipment shall be available at all times on the site or the
operator shall furnish the Inspector with proof of a fire fighting agreement between the
operator and the local fire district.
Subd. 12. No fill shall be placed in streambeds or other areas where streams would be
obstructed or where erosion by the stream would remove cover material. There shall be no
seepage or drainage of any material from the fill of such a nature as would constitute an odor
nuisance, or health hazard, or pollute any water course.
Subd. 13. The permit holder shall provide an access road, approved by the Administrator that
is passable in all types of weather conditions to the dumping site.
Subd. 14. The license holder shall also provide an auxiliary fill site available and ready for use
during periods of heavy rain or snowfall, and when the area being filled and covered may not
be reached because of said weather conditions. The permit holder shall also take precautions
to eliminate excess dust in dry weather.
Subd. 15. Insects and rodents on the site shall be controlled and exterminated as directed by
the Inspector.
Subd. 16. The permit holder shall cease operations and close the landfill between the hours of
seven o'clock (7:00) p.m. and six o'clock (6:00) a.m. and on Sundays and holidays.
Subd. 17. All those provisions of Section 735, Mining and Land Rehabilitation, shall be
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
followed in the development, operation and restoration of a sanitary landfill use.
Section 827.19. Total Area Limitation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Section, no permit shall be issued and no rezoning applications shall be approved for the
construction or operation of sanitary landfills or the expansion or modification of such facilities if
the amount of land comprising the proposed, expanded or modified landfill when added to land
comprising all other existing and closed landfills, whether or not operated under permit from the
City, shall exceed one hundred ninety (190) acres. In calculating the amount of land in such
landfills, all of the following shall be included:
Subd. 1. All land which has actually been used for sanitary landfill purposes whether or not
zoned for such use, and
Subd. 2. All land either currently or previously zoned sanitary landfill (SL) including all
wetlands, buffer acres, setback acres, internal roads and any other land in SL zones but not
actually used for the placement of refuse.
Section 827.20. Fees. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Section 115A.921, the permit holder shall pay
quarterly to the city a fee of fifteen (15) cents per cubic yard or equivalent weight of solid waste
accepted and disposed of on the landfill site. The revenue derived from the fee shall be placed in the
general fund for purposes of mitigating and compensating the city for the risks, costs, and other
adverse affects of the sanitary landfill. Waste residue from energy and resource recovery facilities at
which solid waste is processed for the purpose of extracting, reducing, converting to energy, or
otherwise separating and preparing solid waste for reuse shall be exempt from one-half of the fee if
there is at least an 85 percent volume reduction in the solid waste processed. Before any fee is
reduced the verification procedures of Minn. Stat., Section 473.843, Subdivision 1, paragraph (c)
must be followed and submitted to the Zoning Administrator. For the purposes of this section, six
hundred (600) pounds of solid waste shall be considered the equivalent of one cubic yard.
Section 827.21. Time Limitation. No rezoning shall be approved and no conditional use permit
for sanitary landfill shall be granted for a period exceeding twelve (12) years. At the expiration of
said period the zoning on the sanitary landfill site shall revert to its previous zoning classification or
such other zoning classifications as may be determined by the City Council in the manner provided
in this Code for rezoning of land. The applicant shall agree to the limitations provided in this section
827.21 by contract duly executed by authorized representatives of the applicant in a form
satisfactory to the City Council.
Section 827.23. Severability. Paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of Sections 827.09
through 827.23 inclusive are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of
this section shall be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or
decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality
shall not effect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections.
Ordinance No. ### 6
DATE
SECTION II. New Section 827.09 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is hereby
added to replace the deleted language as follows:
CLOSED LANDFILL-RESTRICTED (CLR) ZONING DISTRICT
Section 827.09. Closed Landfill Restricted
Subd. 1. Purpose. The Closed Landfill-Restricted (CLR) District is intended to apply to
former landfills that are qualified to be under the Closed Landfill Program of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The purpose of the district is to limit uses
of land within the closed landfill, both actively filled and related lands, to minimal uses
in order to protect the land from human activity where response action systems are in
place and, at the same time, are protective of human health and safety. This district shall
only apply to the closed landfill’s Land Management Area, the limits of which are
defined by the MPCA. This district shall apply whether the landfill is in public (MPCA,
County, City, Township), Indian tribal, or private ownership.
Subd. 2. Applicability. For purposes of this ordinance, the Land Management Area for the
Woodlake Landfill, a qualified facility under the MPCA’s Closed Landfill Program,
encompasses the whole Woodlake Landfill and is legally described as:
That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
8, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as
beginning at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter; thence northerly, along the east line of said South Half of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to a point distant 100.00 feet southerly from
the northeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on the north line of said South Half of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant 96.00 feet westerly from said
northeast corner; thence westerly, along said north line, to the northwest corner of said
South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence southerly along the
west line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to the
southwest corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
thence easterly, along the south line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter, to the place of beginning which lies westerly of the center line on
Tomahawk Trail; and
The North ½ of the West ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23,
subject to mineral reservations of record; and
The South ½ of the West ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23
subject to mineral reservations of record; and
That part of the West ½ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 8, Township 118 North, Range 23
West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest
corner of said West ½; thence South along the West line of said West ½ distant 1830 feet
to the center line of the Township road; thence bearing North 33 degrees 35 minutes East
Ordinance No. ### 7
DATE
from said West line 1000 feet along said center line; thence deflecting to the right 14
degrees 20 minutes along said center line 1036.4 feet to the East line of said West ½;
thence North along said East line 290 feet to the North line of said West ½; thence West
along said North line 1330 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO, the Southeast ¼ of the
Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 5, Township 118, Range 23.; and
The Northeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼; and the Northwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the
Northwest ¼; and the South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼,
except road; and the North ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼;
all in Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
ALSO the West 60 feet of Government Lot 1 (Southwest ¼), Section 8, Township 118,
Range 23, lying North of Hamel, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Containing 194.1837 acres, more or less.
Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. The following use is permitted within the CLR District: Closed
Landfill management.
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses allowed in this district include outdoor
equipment or small buildings used in concert with gas extraction systems, other response
action systems, monitoring wells or any other equipment designed to protect, monitor or
otherwise ensure the integrity of the landfill monitoring or improvement systems. Fences
and gates shall apply under these provisions.
Subd. 5. Conditional Uses.
(a) The following conditional use is permitted within the CLR District: Solar
Equipment, subject to the regulations described in Subd. 2 of City Code Section
828.09.
(b) The Conditional uses noted herein shall only be permitted if they do not damage
the integrity of the Land Management Area and that continue to protect any
person from hazards associated with the landfill.
(c) Any application for a conditional use must be approved by the Commissioner of
the MPCA and the City of Medina. Such approved use shall not disturb or
threaten to disturb, the integrity of the landfill cover, liners, any other components
of any containment system, the function of any monitoring system that exists
upon the described property, or other areas of the Land Management Area that the
Commissioner of the MPCA deems necessary for future response actions.
Subd. 6. Prohibited Uses and Structures. All other uses and structures not specifically
allowed as permitted uses, conditional uses, or that cannot be considered as accessory
uses, shall be prohibited in the CLR District.
Subd. 7. General Regulations. The following standards shall be observed, subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code:
(a) Minimum Yard Requirements
Ordinance No. ### 8
DATE
(i) Minimum Front Yard Setback: 75 feet
(ii) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 75 feet
(iii) Minimum Side Yard Setback: 75 feet
(b) Building Design
(i) Maximum Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 35 feet. In the
case that a structure is not equipped with a compliant fire sprinkler system,
the maximum building height shall be 30 feet.
(ii) Exterior Building Materials
(1) Primary exterior building materials shall consist of the following
materials: brick, natural stone, stucco, Exterior Insulation and Finish
System or similar product, fiber cement lap siding, copper, glass,
decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or
decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to
create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
(2) A maximum of 20 percent of the vertical building exterior may be metal
or vinyl if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall
building design.
(3) Exterior materials shall not include galvanized/unfinished steel or
galvalum/unfinished aluminum.
(c) Outdoor Lighting. The preservation of natural darkness is a high priority within the
rural area of the City. Lighting shall be limited to the amount necessary for public
safety. Unless otherwise specified herein, outdoor lighting shall abide by the
requirements specified in the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, Section 829. Lighting
shall abide by the following requirements:
(i) Lighting levels at property lines and 25 feet inside of the property lines shall
be limited to 0.0 foot-candle.
(ii) The City shall require active measures to be implemented to limit the intensity
of lighting and also the amount of time which extensive lighting, such as
parking lot lighting, is utilized. These measures may include, but are not
limited to: shorter light poles, separately controlled lighting zones, lighting
controls based on occupancy instead of timers, and lighting curfews.
(iii) Parking and walkway lighting fixtures shall utilize full cut-off luminaries
with no more than 10 percent of light output above the horizontal plane
through the light source.
(iv) Landscape and architectural lighting shall be aimed directly at the area of
focus. Spill light shall be minimized through the use of narrow distribution
luminaries and control devices such as louvers, refractors, barn doors, and
glare shields.
Subd. 8. Methane Gas Area of Concern and Groundwater Area of Concern.
(a) Minn. Stat. § 115B.412, Subd. 4(b) requires the City to incorporate information related to the
Woodlake Landfill into its land use plan and to incorporate information related to
associated groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration. The MPCA has
identified a Methane Gas Area of Concern and a Groundwater Area of Concern
within the Woodlake Landfill Closed Land Use Plan, which is incorporated herein, as
Ordinance No. ### 9
DATE
may be amended by the MPCA from time to time. These areas extend off of the Land
Management Area and onto nearby lands.
(i) The MPCA has determined that, within the Groundwater Area of Concern, the
presence of activities that require the use of groundwater may be impacted by
contamination from the landfill, or may cause the groundwater flow direction to
change thereby impacting the user or others nearby.
(ii) The MPCA has determined that, within the Methane Gas Area of Concern, the
presence of certain activities, such as construction of enclosed structures, may be
impacted by subsurface migration of methane gas.
(b) Notification and Provision of Information.
(i) The Zoning Administrator shall notify persons applying for a permit to develop
property within the Methane Gas Area of Concern or the Groundwater Area of
Concern that information is available related to the Woodlake Landfill and
associated groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration.
(ii) The Zoning Administrator shall provide copies of such information upon request.
Subd. 9. Amendments. Any amendment to this ordinance must be approved by the
Commissioner of the MPCA and the City of Medina.
SECTION IIII. Sections 827.13 through 827.23 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina
are hereby reserved for potential future use as follows:
Section 827.13 – 827.23. RESERVED
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _____, 2017.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the _____ day of __________, 2017.
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE
WOODLAKE LANDFILL TO CLOSED LANDFILL-RESTRICTED
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Medina is hereby amended to change
the zoning classification of the following legally described property from SL, Sanitary Landfill
to CLR, Closed Landfill-Restricted as displayed on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A:
That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
8, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as
beginning at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter; thence northerly, along the east line of said South Half of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to a point distant 100.00 feet southerly from
the northeast corner of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on the north line of said South Half of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant 96.00 feet westerly from said
northeast corner; thence westerly, along said north line, to the northwest corner of said
South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence southerly along the
west line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to the
southwest corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
thence easterly, along the south line of said South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter, to the place of beginning which lies westerly of the center line on
Tomahawk Trail; and
The North ½ of the West ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23,
subject to mineral reservations of record; and
The South ½ of the West ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 8, Township 118, Range 23
subject to mineral reservations of record; and
That part of the West ½ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 8, Township 118 North, Range 23
West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest
corner of said West ½; thence South along the West line of said West ½ distant 1830 feet
to the center line of the Township road; thence bearing North 33 degrees 35 minutes East
from said West line 1000 feet along said center line; thence deflecting to the right 14
degrees 20 minutes along said center line 1036.4 feet to the East line of said West ½;
thence North along said East line 290 feet to the North line of said West ½; thence West
along said North line 1330 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO, the Southeast ¼ of the
Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 5, Township 118, Range 23.; and
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
The Northeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼; and the Northwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the
Northwest ¼; and the South ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼,
except road; and the North ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼;
all in Section 8, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
ALSO the West 60 feet of Government Lot 1 (Southwest ¼), Section 8, Township 118,
Range 23, lying North of Hamel, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Containing 194.1837 acres, more or less.
Section 2. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to publish the
ordinance and make the changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the
change in zoning classification.
Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the
Medina City Hall.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
Adopted by the Medina City Council this _____ day of ______ 2017.
CITY OF MEDINA
By:
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on this ______day of ___________, 2017.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
EXHIBIT A
Map Displaying Property Rezoned to Closed Landfill-Restricted
LOCATION OF WOODLAKE LANDFILL
(PROPERTY TO BE REZONED TO CLR)
FINAL
CLOSED LANDFILL USE PLAN
WOODLAKE LANDFILL
MAY 20, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 2
GROUNDWATER AND METHANE GAS AREAS OF CONCERN ....................................................................... 2
CURRENT ZONING FOR THE LMA ................................................................................................................ 3
STATE BOND FINANCED PROPERTY ............................................................................................................ 4
MPCA’S LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA ...................................................................................................... 4
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 5
DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................................................ 6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: MINN. STAT. §§ 115B.412, SUBD. 4 AND 9
APPENDIX B: SITE LOCATION MAP – WOODLAKE LANDFILL
APPENDIX C: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WOODLAKE LANDFILL
APPENDIX D: GWAOC – CLP GROUNDWATER AREA OF CONCERN - WOODLAKE LANDFILL
APPENDIX E: MGAOC – CLP METHANE GAS AREA OF CONCERN – WOODLAKE LANDFILL
APPENDIX F: CLOSED LANDFILL MANAGEMENT USE – WOODLAKE LANDFILL
APPENDIX G: SOLAR ENERGY FARM USE – WOODLAKE LANDFILL
APPENDIX H: CLOSED LANDFILL RESTRICTED ZONING ORDINANCE TEMPLATE
1
CLOSED LANDFILL USE PLAN
WOODLAKE LANDFILL
INTRODUCTION
In 1994, the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Landfill Cleanup Act (LCA) (Minn. Stat. 115B.39 -
115B.45) which created the Closed Landfill Program (CLP). Under the CLP, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible for the cleanup and long term care of 112 closed, municipal, solid
waste landfills throughout the State.
The mission of the CLP is to manage the risk to public health and the environment that is associated with
these landfills. Landfill gas migration and groundwater contamination can be serious issues at some
landfills. These problems can pose a threat to the health and safety of those l iving or occupying land
nearby. In addition, chemicals leaching from landfills can degrade groundwater and surface water
resources surrounding them. The MPCA addresses the risk to public health and the environment at the
closed landfills by undertaking cleanup actions, operating and maintaining remediation systems
(engineered covers, gas-collection and groundwater-treatment systems) and by monitoring
groundwater, surface water, and landfill gas.
The risk to public health and safety is also mitigated by im plementing land-use controls that minimize
public exposure to landfill hazards and protect the state’s response action equipment. In other words,
future use of land at and around closed landfills needs to be planned carefully and responsibly.
Minnesota Statutes 115B.412, Subd. 9 of the LCA requires the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for each
of these landfills and for local government units (LGUs) to make their local land use plans consistent
with the MPCA’s plan for the site. Minnesota Statutes 115B.412, Subd. 4 requires the MPCA to provide
LGUs certain information about the landfill and for LGUs to incorporate this information in to their local
land use planning. These statutes are provided in Appendix A.
The MPCA considers these statutory requirements, when put together, as a Closed Landfill Use
Plan (CLUP). The purpose, then, for preparing a CLUP for each landfill is to:
protect the integrity of the landfill’s remediation and monitoring systems;
protect human health and public safety at each landfil l; and
accommodate local government needs and desires for land use at the qualified facility with
consideration for health and safety requirements.
To meet the requirements of subdivision 9 of the statute, LGUs that have land -use authority must make
their land-use plans for the landfill consistent with the MPCA’s plan for future use of, and obligations
for, the facility. One way to accomplish this is for LGUs to make certain that their land -use designations
and/or zoning ordinances are compatible with the MPCA’s future responsibilities and uses for the Land
Management Area. To meet the requirements of subdivision 4 of the statute, LGUs must consider the
information about the landfill’s contamination and methane gas migration in its land -use planning and
also make this information available to those that want to develop the affected property. Also, LGUs
may wish to adopt certain land-use controls in order to better protect public health and safety.
2
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Woodlake Landfill is located in the City of Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota . A landfill’s Land
Management Area (LMA) includes the property described in the Landfill Cleanup Agreement between
the MPCA and the landfill owner/operator, and may include adjacent property that contains waste,
adjacent buffer property (land acquired for the purpose of restricting use by the public due to landfill
gas or groundwater concerns), and adjacent property where response action equipment is located. At a
minimum, the LMA will be comprised of the property in the Landfill Cleanup Agreement. In addition,
the LMA is the property that is subject to Minnesota Statutes 115B.412, Subd. 9 of the LCA that requires
the MPCA to develop a Land Use Plan for the landfill and with which the LGU’s la nd use plan must be
consistent. The LMA for the Woodlake Landfill consists of about 194 acres described in the Landfill
Cleanup Agreement and is shown in Appendix B and legally described in Appendix C.
The Landfill began accepting municipal solid waste (MSW) in about 1946. The Landfill received a permit
to accept MSW in 1971 and ceased accepting waste in 1993. The combined waste footprint of the two
MSW cells is approximately 67 acres. The MPCA took over responsibility for the Landfill in 2000 when
the MPCA and Landfill owner signed the Landfill Cleanup Agreement and the MPCA issued the Notice of
Compliance for the Landfill. The property is currently owned by the MPCA.
GROUNDWATER AND METHANE GAS AREAS OF CONCERN
Groundwater Area of Concern
The Groundwater Area of Concern (GWAOC) is defined as the area of land surrounding a landfill where
the presence of activities that require the use of groundwater may be impacted or precluded by
contamination from the landfill, or may cause the groundwater flow d irection to change thereby
impacting the user or others nearby. The GWAOC is used to inform the public about the current and
potential risks to users of groundwater contaminated by the landfill. In most circumstances this area is
not equidistant around the site. The GWAOC is shown in Appendix D.
The groundwater area of concern around Woodlake Landfill covers 517 acres. It is defined by both
surface water features and groundwater features. There are 58 monitoring wells at the site. The site has
both an unlined and lined cell. Flow beneath the unlined cell is currently flowing to the northeast in sand
seams within the till aquifer. There is discharge from Phase 1 (the unlined area) to a wetland to the
north. A buried sand aquifer is found 80 feet below ground surface and is protected by the unfractured
part of the till. The area of concern does not extend beyond the railroad to the north since two buried
sand monitoring wells installed in 2010 at the north side of the site have detections of arsenic below ha lf
of the drinking water standard and indicate flow in the buried sand is to the west. A buried sand drinking
water well is at the west boundary of the site with similar concentrations of arsenic. The area of concern
includes buffer to the west of 560 feet, 358 feet on the south and 1,665 feet to the east because
adjacent parcels are populated.
3
Methane Gas Area of Concern
The Methane Gas Area of Concern (MGAOC) is defined as the area of land surrounding a landfill waste
footprint where the presence of certain activities, such as construction of enclosed structures, may be
impacted or precluded by subsurface migration of methane gas. Methane gas is an odorless gas
produced when municipal solid waste decomposes, and can be explosive in confined spaces such a s
basements when mixed in air. The MGAOC is used to inform the public about the risks to current and
future land owners regarding certain uses they may want to consider. The MGAOC is shown in Appendix
E.
Soils in the vicinity of the Woodlake Landfill are generally poorly drained loams, clay loams, and muck.
Depth to the groundwater table is approximately 5 to 125 feet below ground surface around the
perimeter of the fill. The landfill waste footprint is about 67 acres total between the unlined cells (Pha se
1) and the lined cell (Phase 2). The two areas combined contain approximately 3,700,000 cubic yards of
waste. The closest enclosed structure off the property is approximately 550 feet south of the waste
footprint.
A low permeability geosynthetic cover system was completed by the MPCA in 2007 on Phase 1 and in
2008 on Phase 2 using general obligations bonds. An active gas extraction system with 34 vertical gas
extraction wells connected to an enclosed blower/flare unit was installed in 2007 on Phase 1. An
additional 16 vertical gas extraction wells were installed on Phase 2 and connected to the same flare.
There are 15 gas monitoring probes located around the perimeter of the waste footprint. A nest of
three gas probes on the south side of Phase 1 had readings of methane greater than the lower explosive
limit, prompting the installation of nine passive gas vents along the southwest boundary of Phase 1. The
nested gas probes have gone to non-detectable methane concentrations following the installation of the
gas vents. A gas probe on the north center side of Phase 2 has begun to have methane readings above
the lower explosive limit following the Phase 2 cover completion. The remaining gas monitoring probes
routinely have zero percent methane measured in them, indicating that there likely is no gas migrating
off the property.
Based on the proximity of occupied buildings adjacent to the Landfill, the low permeable soils in the
area, the large mass of waste present in the L andfill, the potential for an extended shutdown of the gas
extraction system due to unforeseen circumstances, and recognizing the potential for gas to migrate
under seasonal low permeable (frozen) conditions, the MGAOC extends 200 feet beyond the waste
footprint.
It is important to note that these Areas of Concern can change over time. Therefore, updated
information will be provided to the County when the existing information becomes obsolete or
misleading.
CURRENT ZONING FOR THE LMA
The LMA for the Woodlake Landfill is zoned Sanitary Landfill District (SL). This district is an area
exclusively established to accommodate the use of land for the development and operation of sanitary
landfills. Since this type of land is so unique to the ecological setting of the City of Medina (the “City”)
4
and the provision of public services such as transportation so demanding, a specia l district delineation is
called for. Within any district zoned SL in Medina, an extensive set of performance standards must be
met through the application of a conditional use permit.
Conditional uses: Within the Sanitary Landfill District, no landfill shall be established or operated without
a Conditional Use Permit. Said Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a one year period, after which a
permit renewal shall be required. The City Council may also require a performance bond, cash escrow,
or letter of credit from the landowner or operator, to guarantee conformance with these regulations.
STATE BOND FINANCED PROPERTY
The MPCA used proceeds from the sale of State general obligation bonds for capital costs of
environmental response actions that MPCA undertook at the Landfill . As a result of this expenditure of
State bond proceeds, the publicly owned property where the environmental response actions were
taken became “State Bond Financed Property” as that term is defined by Minn. Stat. § 16A.695. As the
owner of this State Bond Financed Property, the MPCA is subject to the requirements of Minn. Stat. §
16A.695 and any orders or rules adopted by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget
(MMB) under that statute.
Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and the MMB Commissioner’s Third Amended Order Relating to the Use and Sale
of State Bond Financed Property (the Order) impose certain requirements on any sale, mortgag e, or
other disposition of State Bond Financed Property, or any lease or contract for the use or management
of the property entered into by the MPCA Commissioner. The statutory requirements include, but are
not limited to, obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of MMB before the MPCA Commissioner
enters into any such transaction (sale, lease, etc.) with respect to the prop erty.
In order to assure that the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 16A.695 and the Order are carried out with
respect to all State Bond Financed Property, the MMB Commissioner requires that a Declaration be
recorded on the property records indicating that any sale of the property may be subject to the MMB
Commissioner’s approval. Such Declarations, pertaining to the LMA property were signed by the MPCA
and filed with the Hennepin County Recorder on March 3, 2011 as document numbers A9630772,
A9630773, A9630774, and A9630775.
MPCA’S LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LMA
The MPCA’s first and foremost responsibility regarding the Landfill is to manage the risk to public health
and safety. It does this by taking response actions, maintaining the Landfill, and working with local
governments to assure land use is commensurate with landfill conditions and MPCA’s obligations on the
LMA, as well as the conditions on the affected land off the LMA. Therefore, land uses associated with
the MPCA’s obligation to protect public health and safety take precedence over other possible land
uses.
The MPCA has identified land uses for the LMA. It has done so by considering the methane gas and
groundwater areas of concern, the types and locations of response actions and associated equipment ,
5
the amount of the LMA occupied by landfill waste, and local land -use desires. The land uses on the LMA
that are acceptable to the MPCA are:
Closed Landfill Management; and
Solar Energy Farm.
Appendices F & G show where these uses would be allowed within the LMA.
Closed Landfill Management is the use associated with the MPCA’s responsibility and obligation to take
necessary response actions on the property as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 115B.39-43.
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSIONS
Land Uses on the LMA
Minn. Stat. § 115B.412, Subd. 9 requires all local land-use plans be consistent with the MPCA’s land -use
plan for the LMA. The MPCA’s future obligations for the LMA conflict with the current local land -use
plan; specifically the City’s Sanitary Landfill District for this property. The MPCA believes that most of
the uses within the current zoning for the LMA are not compatible with the MPCA’s future
responsibilities for the site as well as the risks associated with the Landfill . As a result, the MPCA
recommends that the City adopt a new zoning district and ordinance for the LMA. The MPCA
recommends the City adopt a zoning district called Closed Landfill Restricted (CLR) with an ordinance
similar in form to the one included in Appendix H.
The new zoning, however, should reflect the land uses identified above – Closed Landfill Management
and Solar Energy Farm – and in Appendices F and G. The MPCA recommends that “Closed Landfill
Management” be included as a permitted use for the entire LMA while “Solar Energy Farm” be included
as a conditional use (conditioned upon location).
Affected Property off the LMA
Minn. Stat. § 115B.412, Subd. 4(b) requires local units of government to incorporate information about
the landfill and associated groundwater contamination and landfill gas migration into any land -use plans
and to notify persons applying for a permit to develop affected property of the existence of this
information and, on request, to provide them with the information.
Certain land-use controls pertinent to groundwater use and well construction within the GWAOC
currently exist to protect public health and safety. First, Minn. Rules Chapter 4725.4450, subp. 1
requires that a water supply well cannot be constructed within 300 feet of the Landfill. Second, the
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has the authority to approve the construction of drinking water
wells. Therefore, the information pertaining to the GWAOC will be provided to MDH to assist them with
their authority for approving the construction of potential new wells near the Landfill.
A portion of the MGAOC extends off the LMA on to adjacent property to the north of the LMA.
Currently, methane gas is controlled at the Landfill but migration of methane off the property is
6
possible, especially under frozen conditions and if the active gas extraction system were to
unforeseeably shut down. Therefore, the MPCA recommends that the City of Medina implement a land
use management tool, such as setbacks or an overlay, in order to address the MGAOC.
DISCLAIMER
The MPCA makes no representations or warranties to the user of the accuracy, currency, suitability, or
reliability of the data presented in this report. Any recommendations made by the MPCA in this report
are based solely on the data it has, or its contractors have, collected, and only from data collected at
specific locations and times. Other sources of contamination or methane, unknown to the MPCA, could
exist off the LMA property. The MPCA recommends that any person interested in developing property
near the Landfill first consult with an environmental consulting or engineering firm, and/or an
environmental attorney, regarding the possible risks associated with the Landfill.
Site ContactsLand Manager:
Engineer:
Hydrogeologist:
MetersFeet º
Appendix B: Site Location Map - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL
Created 2/14/2013
Waste Footpr int
Designates the property thatis under the responsibility and control of the M PCA.
Land Management Area
1:20,000
DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources.
0 280 560 840
0 680 1,360 2,040
Site Features
Tom Newman
Peter Tiffany
Ingrid Verhagen
W R I G H TWRIGHT
A N O K AANOKA
H E N N E P I NHENNEPIN
C A R V E RCARVER
S C O T TSCOTT
Site ContactsLand Manager:
Engineer:
Hydrogeologist:
MetersFeet º
Appendix D: CLP Groundwater Area of Concern [GWAOC] - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL
Created 2/14/2013
Waste Footpr int
Monito ring Well!´
Designates the property thatis under the responsibility and control of the M PCA.
Land Management Area
1:10,000
DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources.
0 140 280 420
0 340 680 1,020
Site Features
Approximate area of the sub-terranean contaminated groundwater plume.
Groundwater Plume
An area where the groundwater may be affected by landfill contamination.
Groundwater Area of Concern
Tom Newman
Peter Tiffany
Ingrid Verhagen
W R I G H TWRIGHT
H E N N E P I NHENNEPIN
A N O K AANOKA
C A R V E RCARVER
S C O T TSCOTT
S T E A R N SSTEARNS
M E E K E RMEEKERKANDIYOHIKANDIYOHI
Appendix E: CLP Methane Gas Area of Con cern [M GAOC] - WOODLAKE SAN ITARY LANDFILL
Site Contacts
Land Manager:
Engineer:
Hydrogeologist:
MetersFeet ºCreated 2/14/2013
Methane Area of ConcernArea surrounding the landfillthat may be impacted by subsurface migration of methane gas.
Site Features
"W Gas Probe
Waste Footpr int
Designates the property thatis under the responsibility and control of the M PCA.
Land Management Area
1:10,000
DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources.
0 130 260 390
0 450 900 1,350
Tom Newman
Peter Tiffany
Ingrid Verhagen
Site ContactsLand Manager:
Engineer:
Hydrogeologist:
MetersFeet º
Appendix F: Closed Landfill Management Use - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL
Created 2/14/2013
Waste Footpr int
Designates the property thatis under the responsibility and control of the M PCA.
Land Management Area
1:10,000
DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources.
0 140 280 420
0 340 680 1,020
Site Features
Closed Landfill Management Use
Tom Newman
Peter Tiffany
Ingrid Verhagen
W R I G H TWRIGHT
H E N N E P I NHENNEPIN
A N O K AANOKA
C A R V E RCARVER
S C O T TSCOTT
Site ContactsLand Manager:
Engineer:
Hydrogeologist:
MetersFeet º
Appendix G: Solar Energy Farm Use - WOODLAKE SANITARY LANDFILL
Created 2/14/2013
Waste Footpr int
Designates the property thatis under the responsibility and control of the M PCA.
Land Management Area
1:10,000
DISCLAIMER: The State of Minnesota makes no representations or warranties to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability or reliability of this data for any purpose. This map depicts a reasonable approximation of impacts from the landfill only and makes no inference about impacts from other potential sources.
0 140 280 420
0 340 680 1,020
Site Features
Solar EnergyFarm Use
Tom Newman
Peter Tiffany
Ingrid Verhagen
W R I G H TWRIGHT
H E N N E P I NHENNEPIN
A N O K AANOKA
C A R V E RCARVER
S C O T TSCOTT
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 1 of 4 September 12, 2017
Solar Equipment Zoning Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: August 31, 2017
MEETING: September 12, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: JEGM Revocable Trust – 2705 Willow Drive – Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment related to Solar Equipment – Public Hearing
Summary of Request
The JEGM Revocable Trust has requested a zoning ordinance text amendment and a conditional
use permit related to solar panels. The applicants desire to install a 79 kW solar array on
property at 2705 Willow Drive. An array of this capacity would occupy a footprint of just under
4000 s.f. Current City regulations limit Solar Equipment to occupy a footprint of 2500 square
feet.
The applicants request that the City consider amending its zoning code in order to allow larger
solar arrays. The applicant has also requested a conditional use permit for installation of the
Solar Equipment.
Solar Equipment Regulations
Current City regulations generally permit solar panels which are attached to structures in every
zoning district, subject to certain standards.
Regulations also permit ground-mounted solar equipment in the Rural Residential zoning district
and the Agricultural Preservation district through a conditional use permit. These arrays are
limited in size to a footprint of 1500 square feet as a permitted use and up to 2500 square feet
with a conditional use permit. Larger ground-mounted arrays (with a footprint up to 43,560 s.f.)
are permitted in the Business and Industrial Park zoning districts.
The ordinance was amended to allow ground-mounted solar equipment as a conditional use in
2015. Previously, solar equipment had only been permitted if affixed to a structure. When
originally adopted in 2015, ground mounted solar equipment on residential property was limited
to 1000 square feet.
The City amended the ordinance to increase the permitted footprint this summer at the request of
another property owner. The Planning Commission and Council had a good deal of discussion
related to how much to increase the maximum footprint size and ultimately determined 2500
square feet. Generally, this size would accommodate a 49 kW solar array, which was used as a
guidepost because it matches Minnesota’s “net metering” regulations. State law require energy
companies to purchase solar energy from property owners at retail prices up to 49 kW.
Since ground mount solar equipment has been permitted, one property in the Business district
has installed a 20,000 s.f. array (Wright-Hennepin at Willow Drive, south of Highway 55). The
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 2 of 4 September 12, 2017
Solar Equipment Zoning Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
property owner who requested that the City increase the footprint size earlier in the year recently
applied for a permit to install a 1450 square foot array.
A number of solar arrays have also been installed in the City affixed to a structure. Examples
include the Hennepin County Public Works building, OSI, JT Miller Company, and Medina Mini
Storage.
Currently in rural residential districts, ground-mounted solar equipment is subject to the
following conditions:
Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall only be permitted on a parcel which is five acres
or greater in area.
Solar Equipment shall only be allowed as an accessory use on a parcel with an existing
principal structure.
Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from all
property lines.
The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 15 feet.
Landscaping or other means of screening shall be installed adjacent to the rear and sides of
the Solar Equipment to limit visual impacts of the structural supports. A minimum of one
shrub per 10 linear feet or one tree per 30 linear feet shall be required. Landscaping or
screening shall have an anticipated mature height of at least 75% of the height of the Solar
Equipment, but shall not be required in front of solar panels. This requirement may
alternatively be achieved through fencing, existing vegetation, or similar measures.
The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all
applicable building and electrical codes.
The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations
regarding co-generation of energy.
Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1500 square feet shall only
be permitted upon conditional use permit review and approval, subject to the conditions
noted below:
o Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1500 square feet shall
only be permitted on parcels which are 10 acres or greater in area;
o The footprint occupied by the Solar Equipment shall not exceed 2500 square feet;
o The City may require additional landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual
impacts of the Solar Equipment; and
o The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations
deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect
the rural viewsheds and the natural environment, and to promote harmony with
neighboring uses.
The applicant requests that the City consider increasing the allowed footprint via a CUP from
2500 square feet up to 4000 in order to accommodate a 79 kW solar array. They estimate that
this would produce approximately their expected annual energy consumption. The attached
ordinance would provide for the increase.
The applicant’s representative has indicated that if the City does not increase the allowed
footprint of ground mounted solar equipment, they may install a combination of ground-mounted
and building-mounted in order to provide the production they are seeking.
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 3 of 4 September 12, 2017
Solar Equipment Zoning Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
Policy Discussion
When the City adopted the ordinance allowing ground-mounted solar panels, there was a fair
amount of discussion related to the footprint limitation. There was additional discussion during
review of the proposed amendment to increase the footprint earlier in the year.
The limitation related primarily to lot coverage and also limiting production so that it is
accessory to a residential use, rather than a more commercial production of power. As
mentioned earlier in this report, the 2500 square feet limitation was chosen because it was
thought to safely accommodate a 49 kW array, matching Minnesota’s net metering rules.
The applicant advocates an increase in the maximum footprint in order to allow production
above 49 kW. The applicant estimates that the 79 kW array would produce their expected
electric consumption, so the intent is for the equipment to be accessory to the residential use and
not to be producing additional energy.
In terms of lot coverage limitations, the rural area of the City includes a couple of provisions
which apply to other improvements in addition to the 2500 square foot limitation for ground
mounted solar equipment. The code limits hardcover to 40% of a rural parcel. On a large parcel,
the hardcover limitation has very little practical effect. The existing code permits up to two
accessory structures with an aggregate footprint of 5000 square feet on parcels over 5 acres in
size. Additional structure and larger structures are permitted through a conditional use permit
process.
During previous discussions related to ground mounted solar equipment, Commissioners and
Council members have opted to limit the size of ground mounted solar equipment beyond the
existing limitations noted above. Some of the conditions for ground mounted solar equipment
are similar to those for larger accessory structures, such as landscaping requirements. Accessory
structures are required to incorporate architectural elements, which really are not possible for
solar equipment.
It should be noted that the City’s comprehensive plan states: “Medina is committed to
encouraging and promoting solar energy as a clean, alternative form of energy production and
reducing carbon-based emissions.” In determining whether to increase the allowed size of solar
equipment, the Planning Commission and Council are balancing this support for solar energy
against the potential impacts of the solar equipment on other properties.
If the Planning Commission and City Council desire to have a limitation on the size of ground
mounted solar equipment for the reasons discussed above, a number of options have been
discussed previously by the Commission and Council.
As previously noted, the 2500 square foot limitation is related to the 49.9 kW net
metering standard.
It had been suggested to require an applicant to provide information on their expected
energy consumption if larger arrays are permitted. Staff believes this condition may not
be the most reliable.
Larger minimum lot sizes could be required for larger arrays. The requirements of the
Business district, for example, limit the solar equipment to a percentage of the lot.
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 4 of 4 September 12, 2017
Solar Equipment Zoning Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
Staff does not necessarily oppose the requested ordinance amendment to increase the size
permitted for ground mounted solar equipment, but does note that the 49.9 kW net metering rule
does provide a good rationale for the size limitation. If the City desires to limit the size at a
larger amount, an alternative rationale would need to be determined.
Feedback/Action Requested
The City has a great deal of discretion when considering requests to amend the zoning ordinance.
The action is fully legislative and the City has a good deal of latitude in determining regulations
in order to achieve the goals, objectives, and policies consistent with the City’s comprehensive
plan.
A public hearing was published for the September 12 Planning Commission meeting. The
Planning Commission should hold a hearing on the proposed ordinance and provide a
recommendation to the City Council.
Attachments
1) DRAFT ordinance
2) Applicant Narrative
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SOLAR EQUIPMENT;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.09 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by
deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 828.09. Solar Equipment. Any equipment or device that utilizes, operates or supplies
energy derived from the sun shall meet the following standards:
Subd. 1. Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure. The following standards shall apply to
Solar Equipment which is affixed to a structure:
(a) The equipment or device must be affixed to a structure and meet all setback requirements for
principal structures in the zoning district where located.
(b) The equipment or device may not exceed the height of the building by more than five feet,
and shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed.
(c) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all
applicable building and electrical codes.
(d) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations
regarding co-generation of energy.
(e) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare or
reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures.
(f) Solar equipment which is mounted to a roof which is not flat, and which is visible from the
nearest right-of-way, shall not have a finished pitch more than five percent steeper than
the roof.
Subd. 2. Ground-mounted Solar Equipment.
(a) The following standards shall apply to Ground-mounted Solar Equipment within the
Business and Industrial Park zoning districts:
(i) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall only be permitted in the Business and
Industrial Park zoning districts and only following Conditional Use Permit approval.
(ii) Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 300 feet from residential property.
(iii) Solar Equipment shall meet all setback requirements for principal structures in the
zoning district where located.
(iv) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall be considered lot coverage and
impervious surface for the purpose of calculating such standards. The footprint shall
include all space between pieces of Solar Equipment, unless the pieces are separated
by more than 25 feet.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
(v) The footprint occupied by Solar Equipment shall not exceed 20% of the lot.
(vi) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 20 feet.
(vii) The City may require landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual
impacts of the mounting devices of the Solar Equipment.
(viii) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all
applicable building and electrical codes.
(ix) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations
regarding co-generation of energy.
(x) All solar arrays or panels shall be installed or positioned so as not to cause any glare
or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, or obstruct views.
(xi) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare and to promote harmony with neighboring uses.
(b) The following standards shall apply to Ground-mounted Solar Equipment within
residential zoning districts in which such Equipment is permitted:
(i) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall only be permitted in the Agricultural
Preservation, Rural Residential, Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, Rural Residential-
1, and Rural Residential-2 zoning districts.
(ii) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall only be permitted on a parcel which is five
acres or greater in area.
(iii) Solar Equipment shall only be allowed as an accessory use on a parcel with an
existing principal structure.
(iv) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from all
property lines.
(v) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 15 feet.
(vi) Landscaping or other means of screening shall be installed adjacent to the rear and
sides of the Solar Equipment to limit visual impacts of the structural supports. A
minimum of one shrub per 10 linear feet or one tree per 30 linear feet shall be
required. Landscaping or screening shall have an anticipated mature height of at
least 75% of the height of the Solar Equipment, but shall not be required in front of
solar panels. This requirement may alternatively be achieved through fencing,
existing vegetation, or similar measures.
(vii) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all
applicable building and electrical codes.
(ix) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations
regarding co-generation of energy.
(x) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1500 square feet shall
only be permitted upon conditional use permit review and approval, subject to the
conditions noted below:
(1) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1500 square feet
shall only be permitted on parcels which are 10 acres or greater in area;
(2) The footprint occupied by the Solar Equipment shall not exceed 2500 4000
square feet;
(3) The City may require additional landscaping or other means of screening to
limit visual impacts of the Solar Equipment; and
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
(4) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare, to protect the rural viewsheds and the natural environment, and to
promote harmony with neighboring uses.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _______, 2017.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ______day of _______________,2017.
August 28, 2017
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Text Change Request for City Ordinance
JEGM Revocable Trust
11710 Plaza American Drive, Suite 1010
Reston, VA 20190
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We ask that the text in Ordinance 828.09 Subd. 2 be changed from 2,500 square feet to read 4,000
square feet with the conditional use permit. We believe we will be able to do a better job covering with
landscaping than having 1,500 square feet on the ground and 2,000 square feet on the roof.
Regards,
Weston Woods Page 1 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: September 6, 2017
MEETING: September 12, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Mark of Excellence Homes – PUD Concept Plan Review –
1952 Chippewa Road – Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: August 14, 2017
60-day Review Deadline: October 13, 2017
Summary of Request
Mark of Excellence Homes has requested review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan for development of 94 twin-homes east of Mohawk Drive and north of Chippewa
Road. The subject site is approximately 80 acres, but the eastern 3/5 of the site is wetland with
approximately 30 buildable acres along Mohawk. Most of the upland areas are tilled farmland.
The subject site is guided for Low Density Residential development in the current
Comprehensive Plan within the immediate 2016-2010 staging period. The property is zoned
Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, which is an interim zoning designation for property until
development occurs consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Wealshire is currently under construction to the west, and is zoned Business Park.
Properties to the north are currently rural residential lot, and planned rural residential in the draft
Comp Plan update. Polaris is located to the southwest of the subject property. The Bridgewater
neighborhood is located across the large wetland to the east of the site, along with additional
property planned for Low Density Residential development. The property south of Chippewa
Road is guided for future business development. An aerial of the site and surrounding property
can be found at the top of the following page.
Although the subject property is planned for development in the current Staging period in the
existing comprehensive plan, it is important to note that the draft Comprehensive Plan Update
has proposed to stage the subject property for development after 2025. The future land use of the
property is not proposed to change, only the staging.
The applicant has proposed a PUD primarily to allow for the construction of twinhomes. The R1
zoning district was created by the City to implement the LDR land use, and does not contemplate
twinhomes. The applicant argues that the PUD would allow a housing style which has not
recently been developed in Medina, since Medina Highlands 15 years ago, at CR 101 and Lilac.
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.
Weston Woods Page 2 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Purpose of a Planned Unit Development
According to Section 827.25, PUD 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:
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of
economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of
structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high
quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic
features and the prevention of soil erosion.
Weston Woods Page 3 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices
which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard
requirements of the City.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to
surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and
lower intensity uses.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and
orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of
development and service facilities.
7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower
development costs and public investments.
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.)
9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
Comprehensive Plan
As noted above, the subject property is 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
property is staged for development after 2016.
The City is currently in the midst of its decennial Comprehensive Plan update. The Steering
Committee, Planning Commission and City Council have completed a draft of the Plan, which
has been out for public and jurisdictional feedback for almost a year. The City anticipates that
the Plan update will be in effect early in 2018.
The draft 2040 Comp Plan update designates the subject property as Low Density Residential,
but delays the staging of the property to 2025. The density range of LDR was also adjusted to
2.0-3.0 units per acre. Property to the north and northwest of the site has been guided as Rural
Residential within the draft Plan update, no longer being included within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA).
The DRAFT Comprehensive Plan is available on the City’s website, and the Draft Future Land
Use map is attached for reference.
Because the DRAFT Comprehensive Plan update is within the review process, staff believes it is
relevant to consider in connection with a proposed development, even if it is not yet in effect. In
fact, if the City is in the process of considering an amendment of the comprehensive plan, state
law allows the City to enact an interim ordinance which can restrict or prohibit development for
up to one year. In order to do so, the City would have to determine that the moratorium would
be necessary to protect the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
This option is provided to cities in order to allow time to consider the comprehensive plan,
especially if significant changes are being considered. Staff generally recommends that a
moratorium only be considered in extraordinary cases where significant changes are proposed in
the Comprehensive Plan and a potential development would have the potential of impacting the
goals, objectives or implementation of the Plan.
Weston Woods Page 4 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Proposed Site Layout
The applicant proposes 47 twinhome buildings, for a total of 94 homes. The R1 zoning district
was created to implement the LDR land use under the current Comprehensive Plan. The
following table summarizes the requirements of the R1 zoning district compared to the proposed
concept plan. The applicant’s concept plan shows open space between the lots which contain
each building (rather than the lots being immediately adjacent) and the applicant proposes a
private road within the open space (rather than a public right-of-way), so the dimensional
standards and setbacks do not translate directly to each other.
R1 Requirement
Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 7,000 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 50 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 105 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet from ROW
(~ 33 feet from curb)
25 feet from curb
Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet from ROW
(~38 feet from curb)
25 feet from ROW
Side Yard Setback (combined) 25 feet (15 & 10) 15 feet (minimum 30 feet
between buildings)
Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet from curb
Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet
Max. Hardcover 40% Does not account for open
space between lots
The applicant is currently completing a wetland delineation, so the net density can only be
estimated at this point. Generally, it appears that the approximate wetland locations the applicant
has shown on the concept plan are conservative. As a result, the density will likely reduce,
because there will likely be more upland than currently estimated. Based on this wetland
estimate provided, the proposed net density would be approximately 3 units/net acre. This would
be on the higher side of the density range in the current Comprehensive Plan and is at the very
top of density range in the draft 2040 Comp Plan update designation.
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.
Staff believes it is extremely important for any development to provide a substantial landscaped
buffer yards adjacent to rural properties to the north.
Wetlands and Floodplain
The property includes large areas of wetland. The applicant is finalizing a wetland delineation to
submit for City review, but has shown a conservative estimate from the national wetland
inventory. It appears likely that the delineated edge may not extend as far as shown. Following
approval of the delineation, the applicant will need to verify that buffers and setbacks are met.
Weston Woods Page 5 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The large wetland to the east of the proposed development is a Preserve wetland which is
mapped as a Site of Biodiversity Significance. This type of wetland requires an average buffer
of 50 feet in width. The wetland in the southwest corner of the side is a Preserve wetland,
requiring an average buffer of 35 feet. The wetland in the center of the development is a Manage
3, requiring an average buffer of 20 feet. The City’s wetland protection ordinance also requires
homes to be set back an additional 15 feet from these required buffers.
FEMA maps identified a Zone A floodplain within the location of the large wetland. The
floodplain does not have a Base Flood Elevation established, so the applicant will need to
provide information on which to establish an elevation in order to verify that there will be no
impacts.
Transportation
The applicant proposes a single access point on Mohawk Drive. It appears that the applicant has
proposed a secondary emergency access to Mohawk Drive as well. The applicant proposes
private streets within the development, which would reduce City maintenance responsibilities
and costs. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to discuss if private streets are
desirable, especially with public sewer and water underneath.
Mohawk Drive has limited right-in/right-out access to the south of the site. As a result,
eastbound traffic would currently be required to travel west on Chippewa Road to Willow Drive
in order to turn left onto Highway 55. This would add approximately 1.3 miles to each east-
bound trip. The City has identified a future connection of Chippewa Road east of Mohawk Drive
to connect with Arrowhead Drive. Staff believes this connection is important to support
development of the subject site and others in the area of Chippewa Road/Mohawk Drive. This
connection is important for public safety purposes as well, providing better emergency access to
the area and also providing an alternative route in case of an emergency on Highway 55.
This road connection is not yet in place and staff believes that it is important that provisions are
made for construction of this street in connection with any development in the area. The
applicant has indicated that they would work with the City on this project, providing right-of-
way and being part of discussions related to funding. The property owner has allowed the City
onto the property to survey and take soil borings. This is important in order to determine the
appropriate alignment of the street considering the wetland impacts which will be necessary to
complete the street.
If the subject site were to develop before other properties west of Arrowhead Drive, it provides
the opportunity to secure right-of-way and potential funding obligations for the extension of
Chippewa Road east of Mohawk Drive. If other properties west of Arrowhead Drive develop
first and result in the need to construct Chippewa Road, road acquisition costs could increase and
the process could become more complicated.
The concept plan shows what appears to be a future connection to future Chippewa Road to the
south when it is constructed in addition to the proposed entrance on Mohawk Drive.
Weston Woods Page 6 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Sewer/Water
Existing sewer and water mains are located within Mohawk Drive, which the applicant proposes
to extend throughout the site.
The applicant has indicated that the subject site could be served through gravity sewer lines to
the existing system, but this would need to be confirmed.
Currently, the subject property and other sites in the area are served by a single water main along
Highway 55 (to Mohawk) without any looping. The City Engineer and Public Works emphasize
that having a second means to route water to this neighborhood and other properties in the area is
extremely important. The City’s water plan identifies a water main along new Chippewa Road
from Mohawk Drive east to Arrowhead Drive. This water main connection is not yet in place
and staff believes that it is important that provisions are made for construction of this connection
before additional property develops west of Arrowhead Drive. The applicant has indicated that
they would construct this watermain extension from Arrowhead Drive along with the project.
Providing this connection would be an important benefit for the City, because Public Works and
Engineering are currently beginning the planning process for potentia construction in the next
few years. If it is constructed in connection with a development, it would relieve the City of
completing this project.
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, with a minimum of
$3500 and a maximum of $8000 per home.
In this case, there are approximately 30-35 buildable acres, for a potential 3.0-3.5 acres of park
land. If the City determines that land should not be required in this case, staff believes the fee
would be in the low-mid portion of the range based upon the listed price of the property, perhaps
from $329,000-$450,000. However, this value will be determined more precisely during the
preliminary plat review if the applicant proceeds with a formal application.
The City’s park and trail plan identify the need for a neighborhood park in this area. The Park
Commission has discussed potentially requiring land either at this subject site or at the other
planned residential property west on Chippewa Road, depending on which project would move
forward first. The fact that the applicant is proposing twinhomes, which are not marketed to
families with children, may suggest that another site may provide more convenient access to park
property for more users.
The trail plan has also identified an east-west trail connection between Mohawk Drive and
Arrowhead Drive which should be secured with any development upon the subject site.
Weston Woods Page 7 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Review Criteria
The purpose of the PUD Concept Plan is to provide purely advisory comments to the applicant
for their consideration whether and how to continue with a formal application. The City has a
great deal of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is a legislative
action. A PUD should only be approved if it achieves the purposes of the PUD district
(described on pages 2-3), the Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies. The Planning
Commission and Council should provide comments based upon this information.
Staff Comments
As noted above, staff believes that it is best to consider the concept plan within the broader
context of the draft Comprehensive Plan update in addition to the current Comprehensive Plan.
Although the current Comp Plan contemplates development of the subject site at this time, the
draft Update proposes to delay development upon the subject site until 2025 and also re-guides
property to the north as rural residential.
The City has recently reviewed, or is in the process of reviewing, a number of projects west of
the subject site. The Wealshire is under construction and will begin operation next year. The
Lunski senior housing and medical clinic is under review. The Excelsior Group is contemplating
single-family development to the west.
The City’s infrastructure plans have identified important street and water connections to provide
appropriate public services to this area. Because of the subject site is located further east than
the other projects and because of the location of the existing infrastructure at Arrowhead Drive,
development of this site provides an opportunity to make these connections. If the property were
to not develop for some time, these connections could become more difficult and expensive to
construct.
If the applicant proceeds with a formal application after receiving the comments from the
Planning Commission and City Council about whether this proposal meets the purposes of a
PUD, 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) The applicant shall provide information to determine a base flood elevation and to verify
no floodplain impacts will occur.
4) The applicant shall provide a wetland delineation and meet all requirements of the
wetland protection ordinance.
5) Additional open space shall be provided between buildings within the development.
6) Standards of the PUD district shall limit height of the twin-homes.
7) Any proposed development proposal should include provisions for substantial vegetative
buffers to rural properties to the north.
8) Land dedication should be considered for a neighborhood park, based upon the feedback
of the Park Commission.
9) An east-west trail connection shall be provided. Locations should be considered which
provide convenient access, opportunities for separation from roadways, and connections
with the existing and planned trail network.
Weston Woods Page 8 of 8 September 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
10) A watermain connection between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive shall be
constructed in connection with the development.
11) Provisions should be made for the future extension of Chippewa Road east of Mohawk
Drive.
12) The applicant shall provide information requested by the City Engineer to determine
whether street improvements are necessary to support the development.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Engineering Comments
3. DRAFT Comp Plan Information (Vision, Goals, Future Land Use)
4. Applicant Narrative
5. Concept Plan
9/6/2017 Project: LR‐17‐215 – Weston Woods PUD Concept Plan The following documents are all part of the official 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 8/14/2017 8/14/2017 3 Y Y Fee 8/14/2017 8/14/2017 1 Y Y $1000 Mailing Labels 8/14/2017 8/10/2017 6 Y Y Narrative 8/14/2017 NA 4 Y Y Concept Plan Set 8/14/2017 8/11/2017 4 Y Y Narrative – Updated 8/24/2017 N/A 2 Y Y Concept Plan‐Updated 8/30/2017 8/30/2017 5 Y Y House Info 8/24/2017 8/24/2017 3 Y Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 8/25/2017 2 Y Elm Creek Comments 8/22/2017 2 Y Building Official Comments 8/18/2017 1 Y Preliminary Review 8/25/2017 2 Y Legal Notice 9/1/2017 6 Y 13 pages w/ Affidavit and labels Planning Commission Report 9/6/2017 8 Y 34 pages w/ attachments Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes
9/6/2017
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-08-14 Submittal\_2017-08-25 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
August 25, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-215
WSB Project No. 010653-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept plan submittal dated August 14, 2017.
The plans propose to construct 47 two-unit buildings (94 total homes) on 80 acres.
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. Add typical street section to plans meeting the City’s standard.
2. Add rim elevations to sanitary sewer manholes to allow review of structure builds.
3. Based on existing contour information and the proposed sewer depths, little or no cover over
the pipe would be provided. Provide a proposed grading plan with future submittals to
confirm that a gravity sewer connection is feasible to the property. If a gravity connection is
not feasible to serve all or a portion of the site, a lift station may be required.
4. Construction notes on sheet C-4 note the use of 10-inch sanitary sewer main, but no 10-inch
main is shown on the plan. Confirm sizing of sanitary sewer gravity main.
5. The adjacent property to the north may require sanitary sewer and watermain in the future.
The City may require further extension of the water/sewer to the northerly property line along
with a drainage and utility easement to encompass the extension. Consideration of further
watermain looping needs will be reviewed with future submittals.
6. The City may require that sanitary sewer and watermain be encompassed by drainage and
utility easements where located outside of public road right of way.
7. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water.
8. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshall.
9. The concept plan shows no trail connections. The City may require that a trail corridor is
established through the property to connect to future development to the north.
Traffic
Weston Woods of Medina PU Concept – Engineering Review
August 25, 2017
Page 2
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-08-14 Submittal\_2017-08-25 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
1. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures as required by the Fire Marshall.
2. The intersections should be analyzed to determine if turn lanes are required on Mohawk
Drive or nearby intersections for either capacity or safety.
3. The City may require the applicant to contribute to the costs for extending Chippewa Road
and watermain utilities between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Dive.
Stormwater & Wetlands
4. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by
constructing infiltration basins or reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation.
The narrative states that a “re-use/infiltration system” will be used, but more information will
be required with future submittals.
5. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and submit for
permits.
6. The concept plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland delineations and
replacement plan approval is required prior to any wetland impact.
7. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The wetland east of the
project is partially mapped as a DNR Site of Biodiversity Significance, and the wetlands in
the project are classified as a Preserve by the city’s Wetland Functional Classification
mapping. The plans will need to show the upland buffers, structure setbacks, and where the
buffer markers will be placed.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 1
DRAFT – February 7, 2017
Chapter 2: VISION & COMMUNITY GOALS
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Vision and Community Goals chapter is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan and provides
the foundation from which City officials make consistent and supporting land use decisions.
This chapter includes a set of general community goals that guided the creation of this Plan.
The concepts in this chapter are some of the few static elements of the Comprehensive Plan. If
land uses change or other infrastructure varies from the Plan, decisions will be founded in the
goals set forth below. The Vision and Goals were created with the involvement of the
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the “Steering Committee”), City officials, and
residents of Medina and are broadly supported.
Land use designations are subject to strong social and economic pressures to change.
Accordingly, it is appropriate that such systems be periodically evaluated in light of changing
social and economic conditions. As development evolves, the Vision and Goals will provide the
guidance for accomplishing the vision for the future of the community even when changes are
necessary to the land use plan.
Detailed objectives and recommendations are contained within each of the subject chapters of
this plan.
Creating the Vision and Goals
The residents, the Steering Committee, City officials and staff participated in the planning
process for the Plan. A series of public participation meetings were conducted to introduce and
solicit information from the residents of Medina. The Steering Committee held work sessions
that focused on integrating the concerns and desires of the community together with
accommodating growth and regional impacts. An online forum provided additional
opportunity for residents to impact the Vision and Community Goals as they were formulated.
In addition to land use and growth planning, the City implemented open space, natural
resources, and infrastructure planning. The goals which guided this process are integrated into
this chapter.
Each element of this plan was developed with assistance from city officials and a diverse group
of community stakeholders producing a truly representative plan. The City made a conscious
decision to emphasize natural resources and open space conservation.
Community Vision
The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant
goals and strategies.
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-
Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 2
DRAFT – February 7, 2017
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
The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform
objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
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. Such development and growth shall be 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.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 6
TThhee GGuuiiddee PPllaann
Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-2, maintains Medina’s rural character and protects the
City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is
consistent with the City’s Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles.
Table 5-2 below demonstrates the expected 2040 land uses in the community.
TABLE 5-2
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
Future Land Use (2040) Gross
Acreage % Net
Acreage %
Rural Residential 8,734.5 51.1% 6,476.4 37.9%
Agriculture 265.5 1.6% 204.9 1.2%
Future Development Area 396.2 2.3% 366.7 2.1%
Low Density Residential 1,103.7 6.4% 879.2 5.1%
Medium Density Residential 58.3 0.3% 44.9 0.3%
High Density Residential 29.3 0.2% 26.3 0.2%
Mixed Residential 137.0 0.8% 97.1 0.6%
Uptown Hamel 45.0 0.3% 39.0 0.2%
Commercial 247.1 1.4% 196.0 1.1%
Business 716.9 4.2% 503.0 2.9%
Rural Commercial 87.4 0.5% 59.4 0.3%
Institutional 270.0 1.5% 199.0 1.1%
Parks, Recreation, Open Space 3,106.5 18.1% 2,054.0 12.0%
Private Recreation 294.7 1.7% 260.5 1.5%
Closed Sanitary Landfill 192.1 1.1% 124.3 0.7%
Right-of-Way 673.1 3.9% 672.4 3.9%
Total Acres 16,356.5 12,202.6
Lakes and Open Water 763.5 4.5% 763.5 4.5%
Wetlands and Floodplain 4,153.9 24.3%
Total City 17,120.5 17,120.5
The Growth and Development Map (May 5-3) highlights areas within the City in which a change
of land use is contemplated by the Future Land Use plan. The map also highlights wetland areas
within Medina which significantly affect land planning, development, and infrastructure
decisions.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 7
Future Land Use Designations
Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby
farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and
passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres
and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this
Plan.
Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are planned for long-term agricultural uses. Density
within the land use can be no more than one lot per 40 acres which will not be served by urban
services. Property within this land use is eligible to be part of the Metropolitan Agricultural
Preserves Program.
Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future
urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This
area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive
Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning
intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future
infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity.
Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units
per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban
services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development.
Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 5.0
and 7.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The
primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single family residential, twin
homes, town homes, row homes, and small multiple family buildings.
High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and
15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary
uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should
incorporate some open space or an active park.
Mixed Residential (MR) identifies residential land uses developed between 3.5 and 4.0 units
per net acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The land use
provides flexibility for the type of housing developed, including detached single family, twin
homes, townhomes and multiple family buildings, provided the overall density of a project
falls within the range noted above and provides some higher density housing. Some portion of
each site shall be developed at densities over 8.0 units per net acre. At a minimum, each
development in the land use shall include one higher density housing unit per net acre, which
shall be complemented with open space and recreational activities.
Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial to be
mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential
development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The mixed-use
business areas will be served by urban services.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 8
Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments
including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial
corridors and are served or will be served by urban services.
Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse,
and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office
and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services.
Rural Commercial (RC) identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services,
but rather by individual wells and septic systems. The scale of development in this land use shall
be limited in order to protect water resources.
Institutional (INST) identifies existing public, semi-public, and non-profit uses such as
governmental, cemeteries, religious, educational and utilities.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) identifies publicly owned or permanently conserved
land which is used for park, recreational, or open space purposes.
Private Recreation (PREC) identifies areas that are currently used for outdoor recreational uses
which are held under private ownership but are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of
residential uses may be included or have previously been developed within this land use
designation.
Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) identifies an existing closed sanitary landfill. The land is owned
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which also has jurisdiction over land use
regulations.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 9
AAvveerraaggee NNeett RReessiiddeennttiiaall DDeennssiittyy
The Metropolitan Council has designated the portion of the City within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area as Emerging Suburban Edge. Residential development within the Emerging
Surburban Edge designation is required to be planned for new development and redevelopment
at average net density of at least 3-5 units per acre.
The average net density for planned residential development in Medina is 3.15 units per acre as
described in Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3
NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Future Land Use Planned
Net Acreage
Minimum
Density
Minimum
Number of
Units
Low Density Residential 171.0 2.0 342.0
Medium Density Residential 21.3 5.0 106.5
High Density Residential 13.9 12.0 166.8
Mixed Residential 97.1 3.5 339.9
Total Planned Residential 303.3 955.2
Average Net Residential Density 3.15
Redevelopment is anticipated within the Uptown Hamel area and is likely to include additional
residential units. The intent of the Uptown Hamel land use is to permit flexibility in the amount
of residential and commercial development and is therefore not projected in Table 5-3. However,
residential development within Uptown Hamel is required to exceed 4 units per net acre, which
would further compliance with Metropolitan Council minimum net density requirements.
EEmmppllooyymmeenntt IInntteennssiittyy FFoorreeccaassttss
The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a measurement of forecasted
employment. Acceptable measures include floor area ratios, building footprint percentages or
impervious surface percentages. Medina anticipates that new development in the Commercial
and Business land uses will tend to result in 50-65% impervious surface coverage.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 10
LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliicciieess bbyy AArreeaa
The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into
generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the
Community Goals and Land Use Principles.
These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will
update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and
designations identified in this section.
The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable
development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master
plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed-uses
will be available and will be supported through zoning.
RRuurraall DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss
The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area.
A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these
designations is to provide low-intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby
farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and
passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the
timeframe covered by this Plan.
The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System
Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural
Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement.
A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The
City recognizes that such low-density, development will continue to be a desired housing
alternative.
The City’s Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for
allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and
simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of
innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently
conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City’s natural
resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of
ten acres per unit. Medina’s wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent
smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low-density rural housing.
Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but
allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area
will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to
replace failing systems.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 11
Objectives:
1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative
arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources.
2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural
resources in the rural areas.
3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site
sewage disposal systems.
4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with
rural service area development.
5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries
and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential
development.
6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and
safety.
7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural
land use.
8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural
Residential and Future Development Area land use.
9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that
protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation.
10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future
Development Area land uses during this planning cycle.
11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant
natural characteristics.
12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's
on-site septic system requirements.
13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and
development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is
not compromised.
14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards
and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff.
15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation
of significant natural resources.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 12
UUrrbbaann SSeerrvviiccee DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss
The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are
currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services.
Residential Uses
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant
natural characteristics of the property.
2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that
protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district.
3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary.
4. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low
impact development design standards.
5. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public
facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth
strategies.
6. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan.
7. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the
provision of urban services that will hinder future division.
8. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes,
conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open
space and natural features.
9. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with
adequate facilities and open space.
10. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
11. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot
sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land
use, market demands, and development standards.
12. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources.
13. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development
is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking,
green space, landscape buffering and height limitations.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 13
14. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
15. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to
reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required.
16. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new
development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space.
17. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in
exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family
units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources.
18. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development
characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood.
19. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods
and to maintain public health and safety.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth
DRAFT – February 7, 2017 Page 5- 17
Staging Plan
The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation,
to ensure that growth and development are commensurate with services necessary to support
new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
The staging plan, Map 5-4, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when
development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles:
x Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business
areas for development throughout the planning period. The staging plan also is
intended to reduce concentration of development within a location during a particular
timeframe.
x The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5-year periods and provides some
flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a
maximum of two years prior to the existing staging period, and will be tied to an
incentive based points system.
Table 5-5, located on the following page, describes the net acreage of the various land
uses by Staging Period.
The following table describes the corresponding number of residential units which
could be developed upon property within each Staging Period. Although most of the
property staged for development is available in earlier timeframes, the City anticipates
that actual growth will be more linear as described in the forecasts in Chapter 3.
TABLE 5-4
STAGING PLAN – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
Time Period Total Residential
Units
High Density
Residential Units
2018-2020 343 161
2020-2025 94
2025-2030 469 95
2030-2035 0
2035-2040 48
Total 955 256
Chapter 5 - Land Use & GrowthDRAFT – February 7, 2017Page 5- 18TABLE 5-5STAGING PLAN - NET ACREAGEFuture Land Use Existing 2017 Change 2017-2020 2020 Change 2020-2025 2025 Change 2025-2030 2030 Change 2030-2035 2035 Change 2035-2040 2040 Rural Residential 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 0.0 6,481.0 Agriculture 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 0.0 204.9 Future Develop. Area 980.1 -327.8 652.3 -99.5 552.8 -162.2 390.6 0.0 390.6 -23.9 366.7 Low Density Residential 708.2 34.7 742.9 47.3 790.2 65.1 855.3 0.0 855.3 23.9 879.2 Medium Density Res. 23.6 21.3 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 0.0 44.9 High Density Residential 12.4 13.9 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.3 Mixed Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.1 97.1 0.0 97.1 0.0 97.1 Uptown Hamel 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 0.0 39.0 Commercial 142.9 53.1 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 0.0 196.0 Business 246.0 204.8 450.8 52.2 503.0 0.0 503.0 0.0 503.0 0.0 503.0 Rural Commercial 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 Institutional 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 0.0 194.4 Parks, Rec, Open Space 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 0.0 2,054.0 Private Recreation 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 0.0 260.5 Closed Sanitary Landfill 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 0.0 124.3 Right-of-Way 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4 0.0 672.4
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D IN A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DRWILLOW DRHACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DRH
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DRPARKVIEW DRBROCKTON LN NMEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN NCHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DRWILLOW DRHUNTER DR")55
Map 5-12016 Existing Land UsesDRAFT 01/26/2017
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: January 26, 2017
Legend
Agricultural
Rural Residential
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Mixed Use Residential
Retail and Other Commercial
Office
Industrial and Utility
Institutitional
Park, Recreational, or Preserve
Golf Course
Major Highway
Railway
Open Water
Undeveloped
Wetland Locations
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D IN A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DRWILLOW DRHACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DRH
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DRPARKVIEW DRBROCKTON LN NMEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN NCHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DRWILLOW DRHUNTER DR")55
Map 5-2Future Land Use PlanDRAFT 1/31/2017
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: January 31, 2017
Legend
Future Land Use
Rural Residential
Agricultural
Future Development Area
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Residential
Uptown Hamel
Commercial
Business
Rural Commercial
Institutional
Private Recreational
Park, Recreational, and Open Space
Closed Sanitary Landfill
HIGH
W
A
Y
5
5
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
HAMEL RD
MEDINA
R
D
PIO
N
E
E
R
T
R
L
TAMARACK DRWILLOW DRHACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DRHOMESTEAD
TR
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DRPARKVIEW DRBROCKTON LN NMEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN NCHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DRWILLOW DRHUNTER DR")55
Katrina
Independence
Mooney
Peter
Unnamed
Spurzem
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Medina
Unnamed
Unnamed
Winterhalter
Thies
School
Ardmore
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Lost Horse
Unnamed
Academy Marsh
Map 5-3Development and Growth PlanDRAFT 12/8/2016
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Map Date: January 20, 2016
Legend
Future Land Use
Rural Residential
Agricultural
Future Development Area
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Residential
Uptown Hamel
Commercial
Business
Rural Commercial
Institutional
Private Recreational
Park, Recreational, and Open Space
Closed Sanitary Landfill
Wetland Locations
Wetland Locations
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D IN A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DRWILLOW DRHACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DRH
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DRPARKVIEW DRBROCKTON LN NMEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN NCHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DRWILLOW DRHUNTER DR")55
Katrina
Independence
Mooney
Peter
Unnamed
Spurzem
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Medina
Unnamed
Unnamed
Winterhalter
Thies
School
Ardmore
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Lost Horse
Unnamed
Academy Marsh
Map 5-4Staging and GrowthDRAFT 11/15/2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: January 20, 2017
The Staging and Growth Plan allows potential flexibility for urban services up to two years prior tothe indicated staging period. Such flexiblity will be considered through a evaluation system based onthe extent to which a proposal exceeds general City standards.
The Future Development Area identifies areas whichmay potentially be planned for urban services in thefuture beyond the term of this plan (post-2040).
The Long-term Sewer Service Area is a long-termplanning designation of the Metropolitan Council. Itidentifies areas which may be considered for potentialsanitary sewer service in the future beyond the termof this Plan.
Urban Services Phasing Plan
2018
2020
2025
2030
2035
Future Development Area (post 2040)
Long-term Sewer Service Area
Existing Service Area (2017)
Weston Woods of Medina
Project Narrative
Mark of Excellence Homes is proposing Weston Woods of Medina, an 80 acre PUD luxury rambler
townhome development. This PUD uses density transfer, preserving a majority of the property for open
space and wetlands. It will be the perfect transition between the Bridgewater development to the east
and the Wealshire memory care to the west. The buyers of our homes are typically empty nesters who
will create a low impact community. Mark of Excellence Homes will also provide the vital water main
loop connection that not only this development needs but the entire surrounding community.
LOCATION: The 80 acre site is located on the west side of Arrowhead road and the east side of Mohawk
Drive.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The PUD, Weston Woods of Medina, will be exclusive 2 unit,
rambler style townhomes that have full basements, a majority walkouts. All of the development will be
on the west half of the property. We are proposing 47-2 unit buildings (94 Homes) on 80 acres or less
than 1.2 units per acre. Even when only including the upland, the development is still at only 3 units per
acre. It is the perfect transition from the Wealshire development to the Bridgewater development and
provides for the vital water main connection from Mohawk to Arrowhead. In addition, the developer
will dedicate half of the easement for Chippewa Road, for the future connection of Mohawk Drive to
Arrowhead Road. With a number of properties currently being proposed for development that would
benefit from that connection, there seems to be the means to collect the needed funds to get this road
completed.
HOUSING: The proposed Weston Woods of Medina will have 47 — 2 unit buildings or 94 homes that
meet the requirement of the PUD. The development will have an association that will plow the streets,
mow and fertilize the grass, and controls the use of the common area. This is a benefit to the City and
the neighboring properties. For the City, they won't need to plow or repair the streets preserving
resources to other parts of the City. For the neighboring properties, the mowing all at one time is less
disruptive than a single family neighborhood and the common area control prevents the many back yard
surprises a single family neighborhood can bring, like sheds, trampolines, and pools. In addition, our
buyers are typically empty nesters, many who have 2"d and 3rd homes and are often not at the property,
so they are a truly a low impact neighbor!
Opens up other housing for younger buyers. One of the best things I see with our developments is how
it creates used housing stock for younger buyers. Most of our buyers are empty nesters who have lived
in the same house for 30 to 40 years raising their children. Now that their children have moved out they
don't need this bedroom oriented house but want to stay in the same community. With our product
they can stay in the community they love but sell their existing home to a young family who wants to
live in Medina but can't afford or find a property here.
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE: Weston Woods of Medina will have over 53 acres of wetlands,
wetland buffer, open space and common area. Our buyers rarely have the need for a park.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Water: In addition to connecting to the Mohawk Drive water line and running it through our
development, we our offering to pay for the direction bore to run the water main underground from the
end of our housing, over 1,600 feet to connect to the Arrowhead road creating a vital loop to the water
system that will protect numerous communities and business on both sides of this development.
Sewer: Sewer is available on Mohawk and will work off gravity flow.
Streets: As mentioned, the streets will be 29 feet wide but Private, thus saving the City's resources and
creating no new cost or expense for the City.
Irrigation: We will create a storm water re -use infiltration system to re -use storm water runoff for
irrigation. This reduces ground water waste and will provide superior storm water treatment and
management.
Schools: Our buyers are typically empty nesters. While these homes add tremendous tax base they are
little to no burden to the neighboring schools.
�� r
t 1 0 1 3 1
p . m - 7 5 . 5 4
L I T
1 1 A 1 7 1 1 S 1 7 1
r
A R E A S U M M A R Y
T O T A L A R E A :
7 7 7 7 7 0 1 4 ,
, 7 A c o r m . A R E A
7 7 $ 7 A C .
1 0 . 7 4 4 A C .
7 7 , 8 8 1 A C .
1 0 . 4 L 4 1 7 1 1 T A . 0 0 A 6 . 1 8 1 A G .
O E O I C A 1 E L R I C H E O f W A Y 3 . 7 4 5 A G .
7 1 7 7 1 . 7 0 7 A R E A 4 1 . 7 5 4 A C .
W E 1 L A 1 4 1 8 1 ) 7 7 0 R 2 . 7 8 2 A C .
P G W / R A I L G A R M 5 1 2 5 8 A C .
A R E A L O C A T I O N M A P
M E D I N A , M I N N E S O T A 4 7 1
4 1 1 -
7 1 S I T E
1
L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N
N O R T H
N C I S C A L E
P R O P F O Y O E S C A T I 0 1 A
P [ 0 r m . 1 5 . . O I T 9 T R N T 5 0 7 0 D L L E A 5 5 1 . E 0 5 7 8 I E W A R T T R L F C I I A R 7 1 7 7 7 7 1 7 4 7 7 0
F I L E N 7 , 7 7 7 3 7 7 J U L Y 9 , 2 0 0 7
1 . 0 0 L A 1 L 1 R E F E i t 8 E W 1 0 1 1 T H E 7 0 1 1 1 1 ( 7 4 1 5 M A T E O N H r f 1 E 7 N
7 8 . M T , 5 1 0 . 1 7 p F 7 T 1 E 9 0 7 7 N W 5 / 1 5 7 0 8 0 5 4 . 5 F O L L A W 1
T H A T P A R 1 O F 1 H E S A J 1 H N A L F 6 N C R T N E A 5 1 1 7 8 1 1 R O F S E C 2 3 4 3 ,
% M O W 1 5 , R A N C E 7 3 . 1 4 ' 7 0 1 7 0 1 1 C A 1 7 T Y . M A E 5 4 7 0 4 . L Y I N G . 1 0 0 / 0 0 3 . 1 ( $ 0
G P Y I E F O L L O 7 1 7 C / 7 0 7 1 1 1 / L 1 1 :
C O P T L w . T e e A l 1 F E 5 0 1 1 1 0 4 ( 1 7 7 7 1 1 7 2 L P S A C 9 O L O N 1 1 7 1 . ) - L i - T I E
M O R 1 H E A 9 1 G A R 1 1 0 ; T 0 0 , 6 5 5 1 1 3 7 1 0 O l D E G R E 7 3 L 5 ) 1 7 1 1 7 7 7 0 3 5 7 0 0 0 5 7 7 3 1 -
O N A N A M M O O E / M C A L O N G 1 F E E A S 1 L 2 N O F 9 0 7 1 0 H A L F A 0 5 1 4 0 7 E O F
0 3 9 . 0 7 F E E T 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 . 0 O F 1 8 1 7 4 5 O F n @ 1 . 0 0 1 0 E E 1 7 3 7 1 X 7 - 7 . 1 7 0 1 7 1 5
S C U T . 2 2 D E C R E E S 0 9 1 ) 7 4 7 7 0 5 0 0 9 � 7 7 1 0 1 3 . 0 5 1 A 0 7 1 A A 7 7 7 P 0 6 7 2 F E E T ;
1 1 1 7 7 7 1 9 G T I E R L Y o 3 . 7 9 F E E T A L O N G A T A N G E N T I A L C U L V E 0 7 0 0 4 0 E
9 W Y 1 1 4 2 1 7 0 1 7 . H A 4 7 9 G A C E N T R A L A A I 7 $ O F 1 1 0 E C R 5 E 5 2 5 1 7 4 5 1 7 5 4 G
1 7 7 7 8 1 9 7 1 2 1 A 0 7 0 1 . 0 o P 8 1 0 . e 7 F E E T ; 1 H E . P E s o u l . 3 3 m o v e s 4 3
1 1 4 7 1 0 5 2 3 S E C M D 5 1 Y E 4 1 , T A N G E N T 1 0 S A O a w e . A 0 5 Y A N C E A - 5 3 4 . 9 4
F E E T , 1 1 . 7 7 0 7 5 7 1 1 7 ' 0 1 . 1 7 q 9 7 7 1 1 1 A L O N G A T A N : E N 7 A 1 C L A W 7 7 7 7 4 7 E
E A S T E R L Y , 0 A V 1 C A C E N T R A L A N 7 1 - E O F 1 0 0 1 7 1 [ 1 5 0 7 ) 1 7 1 1 1 $ 7 5 S E C O N D S
A F L ) A R A M * O F
1 7 0 . 1 1 ( 0 1 ; 1 0 0 4 5 5 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 E 7 R E 0 9 5 7 1 1 7 1 1 7 7 7 0 7 7 7 0 7 1 { 1 5 1 5 5 1 . T A N G E N T
Y 0 S A O O L N Y O . A 0 1 5 7 4 1 4 1 ' O F 9 0 - 0 0 W Y T O Y H r 5 5 0 1 0 0 7 1 1 0 ' S A O 4 7 7 7 0
H A L F A A ( 1 5 0 0 L 1 E 1 1 1 1 E 1 E R I N A 1 N G .
A 5 5 T R 4 0 7 7 2 L G E 0 1 7
Z O N I N G
L U R R E H T 7 0 1 4 4 C
4 1 7 4 0 9 1 / 2 0 1 7 4 :
- 7 4 ! . 7 4
K n o w w h a t ' s B e l o w .
C O I I b e f o r e y o u d i g . 0 2 0 0 4 0 0
R R - 2 A 7 R U R A L a t 2 G E H T 1 A L - I R E P 7 1 8 8 9 E R V E
7 1 . 0
N O R T H
M A R K S M I T H
2 1 2 0 O T T E R L A D E D R I V E
S A I N T P A U L . 1 7 N N E 5 0 T P , 5 5 1 1 0
T E L 2 2 1 l 1 7 7 7 1 4
M U N I C I P A L I T Y
m o z c E E
W E S T O N W O O D S
O F M E D I N A
M E D I N A . M I N N E S O T A
- 2
c u - f
P ' . x 2 1 - M L A
1 f w .
L T E T M A T C
A T
f 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 � Y f t f G R A I 1 C
I S S U E r R E V I S I O N H I S T O R Y
Y r F
C O N C E P T P L A N - P U D
0 8 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 7
" �%
" �%
L A N D F O R M
F r o m 5 1 9 4 i t o F i n i s h "
1 0 5 S o u r ] F - 1 M A v e n u e
5 0 1 1 1 7 5 1 3
M l n n e a p o l s . I N N 5 6 4 0 1
�% "
T e l : 8 1 2 . 2 5 2 - 9 0 7 0
F a x : 6 1 2 . 2 5 2 . 9 0 7 7
7 4 7 7 : 1 a 1 M 2 o r m - n e .
F I L E R A R E C I M E H O 0 3 - C o v e r 5 1 1 A r e a P l . n 8 A g
P R O J E C T N a
4 0 H 1 7 0 0 3
C O V E R S H E E T I A R E A P L A N
P U D
c - 1
S H E E T N O . 1 / 5
1�
I
Z
466
WETLAN 7 LOCATION
PER NWI MAPPER.
F
494
ft.#
497
q 44
940
eq0
F66
b
443 492
495
494
Q
4
U
ki
Ii Si
1,
1
460
4
N o
'�— 762— �
494
442
\let
ga
462
950
47
fid 5.16"W 2676.16 F04
98,
Z•172.51;
—7
•
/
90?
ETLANO LOCATION
PER NWI MAPPER.
▪ L
J
ceP
LNIR WE -LANK
\ i OHW = 460.6
MAID LOCA1FON
PER NWI t1APPER.
950
h
WETLAND LOCAT1
PER AM MAPPER.
452
000
00,
962
J
o AF
950
7
r
962
962
WETLANR LOCAT■
PA -12 ion MAPPER
.195
(
962
DENOTES SLOPES
IS% ARV GREATER
064
V /
1
1
1
10
ov
C ▪ ei
/
`N
/
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PId0PERTT 0ESC4F'1Fak
FM TILE COITNYNT SOTE0LL0 A 67000 we 31Ew3AT TOLE CVAR•N Y C2FPANT
FLE H0; 554999 AAA. 5, 2007
L TOE LA043 4EF4RREP TO 14 TIE 0011TF0141 D 9TNATEO N FAME %
000170. STAT4 OF r4t1E90rA AN0 9 OESLL*EO AS FCl10Wk
1F1AT PART iF THE 50711 HALF 6 NORT EA3T GLOATER LF 9ECTIRL 3,
TOMO*. 115, RANCE. 23, HEI4EPN CRAM. FIIC201A, LYN: NORTNLT51ERL9
OF THE FOLLP'NC 055C25F9 TAE:
0054,0 401.40 01 nE $45!1,-"32 0ORIETC OF 590 S01.1TN HALF LK TOE
N0RTF10A91 01104104; 1*EHCE 7104TH 01 0004705 13 FLLI072 50 S0LCH73 EAST
ON 3M 0491159 SEARNC 04ONG THE EAST 1.1.45 LF 510110 NALF A R9TA1 t 4F
533.04 Fe1e1 TO T1- 9072 w 010040: OF 110 1.301 To SE 7050789041; T*16NCE
30urN n DE-FQSF9 04 771/209 09 91021419 5.91 A 00TANLE OF 0$97 041:
THeNCE SO/24044Y 177. 73 FEET ALRic A TANCEN144 0.121,9 00NCAV0
SOIfTHEASTERLT. NA4TIO A CENTRAL ANC1E LP 11 0006339 225 rw1E4 16
9LCPFP7 AN0 A 43017 4* 890. 54 PFET: 1HFN0E 9011-113 10 EMC0 012 43
FT4JTF9 23 OECOWS WEST, T0117074T TO SAP 00409. A 0STAW,1e CF 59444
FEOT; TF!'MCE SOV0ICRLY 24 4A F702 ALLNC A TAN44NNAL CARVE CONCAVE
EASTERLT. MANIC A LEMMA/ 144*14 CF 10 >*CA0ES 03 POLITE$ 75 SE0U05
NO A RAMS OF
R0-11611; 11,0635 SWTH 00 OE04EES 36 11140E5 56 70CR100 47552, TAN6£MF
TO SAO LLRVE, A 116TANCE OF 30-00 FEET TO THE 9Q1TN 1031 LF 900 SOUTH
HALF M!0 900 LA0 WERE TFAr4147940.
ABSTRACT FR 1215
SITE INFO
102E AIWA:
7452 AC.
PV: 0311823130007
R.L. ROY TRUST/ E.H.ROY TRUST
1952 CH4PEWA ROAD
MEOPNA, 27 55340
NVV1 MAP
Know who's Below.
CaII Won you dig.
NORTH
0 100 200
MARK SMITH
7120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL- MINNESOTA 55117
m(112.196C55d
MUNICIPALITY
PROJECT
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
F1 &NM .4cr - . RAN
G-3 F12111C CC/01,190
carIwt'P PLAT
cu -4 's ikicy VY 91.*Mvanc
�A.
eEwrn l.rurr RAN
--F
oft
Ottiotto*
Npv
CoN%'L
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
08.11.2017
. .
L A ND▪ FORM
■ .
From Hee 16 Fi111i1 ■
•
1D5Sou4P1f1PAvenue Tel: 812.252-9070
4010E 513 Fax: 612.252.9077
Mtnneapdi5. MN 55401 W9p; Fa1MJOrR1-n0J
FILE NAM
G2A4EHW3. EistCvTdioy
PROJECT N0-
MEH17003
EXIST1riG CONOFTtONS
PUD
C-2
SHEET NO. 215
______________________________________________________________________________________
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 1 of 7 September 12, 2017
CUP for Accessory Structures and Solar Field Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nick Kieser, Planning and GIS Intern and Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: September 1, 2017
MEETING: September 12, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: JEGM Revocable Trust – Conditional Use Permit for Two Accessory Buildings and Solar
Equipment – 2705 Willow Drive – Public Hearing
Review Deadline:
Application Received: August 11, 2017
60-day Review Deadline: October 10, 2017
Summary of Request:
JEGM Revocable Trust has requested
Conditional Use Permits for a 79-kw solar
field, greenhouse and warming shed at
2705 Willow Drive as accessory structures.
The applicant also proposes to construct
an underground storm water management
device to treat run-off.
The subject site is approximately 16.55
acres in size and is zoned Rural Residential.
The property is located west of Willow
Drive and south of the intersection of
Willow Drive and Chestnut Road. The
surrounding property to the south and
west is zoned as Agricultural Preserve and
the property to the north and east is zoned
as Rural Residential. Currently the subject
site is mainly pasture grass along with
wetlands in the southwest area of the
property. The property contains a home
(currently under construction), barn, tennis
court, gazebo, playhouse, pool and four
sheds.
Solar Field:
The applicant has requested a CUP to
install five ground-mounted solar arrays,
each occupying a footprint of 768.71
square feet, for a total of just under 3,850
______________________________________________________________________________________
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 2 of 7 September 12, 2017
CUP for Accessory Structures and Solar Field Planning Commission Meeting
square feet. Current City regulations only permit ground-mounted solar equipment with a maximum
footprint of 2,500 square feet. The applicant has requested that the City consider a zoning text
amendment of Section 828.09 Subd. 2 to increase this amount to 4,000 square feet. The text
amendment will need to be considered first before the proposed CUP for the solar field.
If the proposed zoning text amendment is not approved, the proposed CUP for the solar equipment could
not be approved. The applicant would need to reduce the size of the proposed solar field. The following
specific requirements apply to ground-mounted solar equipment. Staff has provided potential findings
which could be utilized, contingent on the approval of the zoning text amendment.
Requirements:
The following standards shall apply to Ground-mounted Solar Equipment within residential zoning
districts in which such Equipment is permitted:
(i) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall only be permitted in the Agricultural Preservation,
Rural Residential, Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, Rural Residential- 1, and Rural
Residential-2 zoning districts.
The applicant’s property is in the Rural Residential district.
(ii) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall only be permitted on a parcel which is five acres or
greater in area.
The property is approximately 16.55 acres.
(iii) Solar Equipment shall only be allowed as an accessory use on a parcel with an existing
principal structure.
The applicant has an existing principal structure that is currently under construction.
(iv) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from all property
lines.
The solar field is closest to the western property line at approximately 102 feet.
(v) The equipment or device may not exceed a height of 15 feet.
The solar equipment is proposed to be at a height of 7 feet 9 inches.
(vi) Landscaping or other means of screening shall be installed adjacent to the rear and sides of
the Solar Equipment to limit visual impacts of the structural supports. A minimum of one
shrub per 10 linear feet or one tree per 30 linear feet shall be required. Landscaping or
screening shall have an anticipated mature height of at least 75% of the height of the Solar
Equipment, but shall not be required in front of solar panels. This requirement may
alternatively be achieved through fencing, existing vegetation, or similar measures.
The proposed site plan has arborvitae trees on the sides of the solar field and existing tree
coverage fully on the front and partially on the rear. The applicant is proposing 50 arborvitae
______________________________________________________________________________________
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 3 of 7 September 12, 2017
CUP for Accessory Structures and Solar Field Planning Commission Meeting
trees located approximately every 8 feet on the east and west sides of the proposed solar field.
The trees will mature to a height of 14-16 feet which exceeds the solar panel height of 7 feet 9
inches.
(vii) The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable
building and electrical codes.
This information will be confirmed upon building permit review.
(viii) The equipment or device must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations
regarding co-generation of energy.
This information will be confirmed upon building permit review.
(ix) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1,500 square feet shall only be
permitted upon conditional use permit review and approval, subject to the conditions noted
below:
(1) Ground-mounted Solar Equipment with a footprint exceeding 1,500 square feet shall only
be permitted on parcels which are 10 acres or greater in area;
The property is approximately 16.55 acres.
(2) The footprint occupied by the Solar Equipment shall not exceed 2,500 square feet;
The Solar Equipment footprint proposed is 3,844 square feet. A zoning text amendment
has been applied for by applicant.
(3) The City may require additional landscaping or other means of screening to limit visual
impacts of the Solar Equipment; and
The applicant has proposed landscaping as described above which has proposed
arborvitae trees on the sides and existing trees on the front and rear.
(4) The City may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations
deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect
the rural viewsheds and the natural environment, and to promote harmony with
neighboring uses.
The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether additional conditions are
warranted.
Accessory Structures - Greenhouse/Warming Shed:
The greenhouse is 2,304 square feet and is located west of the existing barn and east of the pond just
below a retaining wall. The materials are predominately transparent.
The warming shed is 360 square feet and is located north of the home and alongside the tennis court.
The tennis court will be turned into a hockey rink during the winter so the shed will be used as a warming
______________________________________________________________________________________
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 4 of 7 September 12, 2017
CUP for Accessory Structures and Solar Field Planning Commission Meeting
shed during the winter and storage shed during the remaining months. The materials will match the
home under construction, red with white accent.
CUP for Accessory Structures in Excess of 5000 Square Feet
According to Section 825.19 of the City Code, properties over 5 acres in size are permitted to include a
maximum of two accessory structures with a maximum aggregate footprint of 5,000 square feet.
Accessory structures which exceed these limitations are conditional uses subject to the following
additional standards described in Section 826.98:
(I) The accessory building’s design shall include architectural interest through the appropriate use of
the following elements: cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building
foundation, or other design treatments which the city council determines create a quality
architectural design that enhances the appearance of the accessory building and complements
the principal dwelling and the rural residential character or residential neighborhood in which
the building is to be constructed;
(ii) At least two colors or textures shall be used in the accessory building’s exterior design, including
contrasting trim or fascia;
(iii) Any metal exterior materials on the accessory building shall be warranted to resist fading for a
period of at least 15 years; and
(iv) The accessory building shall have an infiltration basin, rain garden, rain barrel or other similar
best management practice used to capture storm water runoff from the building and to improve
water quality. Said best management practice must be reviewed and approved by the city
council.
It should be taken under consideration that this property was granted approval for a CUP on March 20,
2007 for the existing barn since the property exceeded the 3,000 square feet maximum at that time for
accessory buildings.
Existing Accessory Structures (in square feet):
Building 7,830
Shed 240
Shed 146
Gazebo 136
Playhouse 84
Shed 157
Building 460
Shed 168
Total 9,221 sf
______________________________________________________________________________________
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 5 of 7 September 12, 2017
CUP for Accessory Structures and Solar Field Planning Commission Meeting
Proposed Accessory Structures (in square feet):
Greenhouse 2,304
Warming Shed 360
Total 2,664 sf
It is important to note that the existing 157 square foot shed will be replaced by the 360 square foot
proposed warming shed. The total for the existing structures and the proposed would then be 11,728
square feet.
Photos of the proposed storage shed and completed house are attached. Staff believes that the proposed
storage shed is consistent with the architectural standards since it has the same design as the house once
completed. The storage shed will be red with a white trim. The materials that will be used are cedar
shake roof, red shake siding, white trim, white band board and red metal skirt. There is an existing tile
that will capture storm water runoff.
General Conditional Use Permit Standards
Section 825.39. Conditional Use Permits; Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits. In granting a
conditional use permit, the Medina City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the
Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall consider the
following:
Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property
values within the immediate vicinity.
Staff does not believe that the conditional uses will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity or diminish property values.
Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the establishments will impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding
vacant property.
Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
Staff believes adequate utilities, roads, drainage and other facilities are provided.
Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and
loading space to serve the proposed use.
Staff believes the uses will not affect parking needs and that adequate parking exists.
Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes,
dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and
other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result.
______________________________________________________________________________________
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 6 of 7 September 12, 2017
CUP for Accessory Structures and Solar Field Planning Commission Meeting
Staff does not believe accessory structures would bring up these concerns, as they are more relevant for
commercial uses.
Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City
and to the existing land use.
The proposed uses are listed as allowed conditional uses.
Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
Staff believes accessory structures are consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the RR zoning
district.
Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed uses conflict with the policies of the City.
Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe the CUPs would cause traffic or congestion concerns.
Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general
unsightliness.
Staff does not believe the uses would cause these concerns.
Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant intends to start construction of the greenhouse and warming shed in October and to be
completed in January.
Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The City Attorney has not requested additional documentation with regards to ownership at this time.
Staff Recommendation
When reviewing a conditional use permit request, the Planning Commission and City Council should
review the specific and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP should be
approved.
As described in Section 825.41 of the City Code: “In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of
an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to those standards and requirements
expressly specified in this Ordinance, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to
protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These conditions may
include, but are not limited, to the following:
1. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.
2. Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.
3. Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
4. Increasing the street width.
______________________________________________________________________________________
JEGM Revocable Trust Page 7 of 7 September 12, 2017
CUP for Accessory Structures and Solar Field Planning Commission Meeting
5. Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
6. Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.
7. Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby
property.
8. Designating sites for open space.”
Staff has provided potential findings for the criteria throughout the report. Subject to the conditions
below, it appears that the request generally meets the criteria. Staff recommends approval subject to
the following conditions.
1) The applicant shall comply with all the comments provided by the City Engineer on 9/6/2017.
2) The property owner shall abide by all conditions of Medina City Code Section 826.98, Subd. 2(p).
3) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated
with the review of the application for Conditional Use Permit.
Attachments:
1. Document List
2. Applicant Narrative
3. Document for Proposed Text Amendment
4. Comments from Metro West Inspections dated 8/18/2017
5. Comments from the City Engineer, WSB dated 9/6/2017
6. Picture of Completed House
7. Picture of Proposed Shed
8. Greenhouse Picture and Information (5)
9. Solar Panel Pictures and Information (4)
10. Warming House Information (2)
11. Site Plan
Project: LR-17-214 – 2705 Willow CUP and Zoning Text Amendment
The following documents are all part of the official 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 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 3 Y Y
Fee 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 1 Y Y $2000
Mailing Labels 08/29/2017 NA 1 Y Y
Narrative 08/28/2017 08/28/2017 2 Y Y
Existing Survey 08/11/2017 08/02/2017 1 Y Y
Proposed Survey 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 1 Y Y
Survey - Updated 08/28/2017 08/28/2017 1 Y Y
Greenhouse
Information
08/11/2017 NA 5 Y Y
Solar Field
Information
08/11/2017 06/19/2017 4 Y Y
Warming Shed
Information
08/11/2017 NA 2 Y Y
House Annotated 08/25/2017 NA 1 Y N
Warming Shed
Annotated
08/25/2017 NA 1 Y N
City Ordinance
Text Change
Request
08/28/2017 08/28/2017 1 Y Y
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Engineering Comments 08/28/2017 2 Y
Engineering Comments –
Updated
09/06/2017 2 Y
Incomplete Application
Notice
08/21/2017 2 Y
MetroWest Comments 08/18/2017 1 Y
Legal Notice 09/01/2017 15 Y
Page 1
August 28, 2017
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Narrative for Conditional Use Permit
JEGM Revocable Trust
11710 Plaza American Drive, Suite 1010
Reston, VA 20190
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We would like to ask for a conditional use permit for the items listed below.
To Have:
1. 24’ x 96’ green house
2. Upgrade old 9’ x 18’ shed to new 18’ x 20’ warming shed
3. 20’ 80’ batting cage
4. 3,900 square foot 80‐kw solar field
Item 1. The green house will be a full self‐contained green house to be used for growing year‐round
fresh vegetables for a family of 6.
Item 2. We are going to be flooding the current tennis court for hockey and the new larger shed will be
used as a warming house during winter months. It will also store the Zamboni attachment for a small
yard tractor year‐round. In the summer, it will become storage for the hockey boards and Styrofoam for
the rink. The new warming house/storage shed will be built out of matching materials to the new home
and have the same architectural features.
Item 3. We will be putting up a fenced area for a batting cage and pitching practice. This area is
connected next to the tennis court and is in a sunken area with large, mature trees blocking the area
from street view.
Item 4. We would like to install an 80‐kw ground‐mounted solar field. We have plans for putting in 8’ tall
arborvitae approximately 8’ on center on the East and West sides for about 50 total. These arborvitaes
will provide full coverage of the solar field at first install and grow to 14’ to 16’ tall at maturity. There is a
large existing grove of trees on the North and South ends that will serve as coverage from the street
view and neighboring homes.
Page 2
There will be no significant trees cut or impacted by the granting of this conditional use permit. Also, we
have currently planted over 70 new trees for screening from the road, we will be planting 50 new
arborvitaes for screening of the solar field and we have more trees being planted to complete the
landscaping of the home.
We feel the lighting on the existing tennis court is adequate for the hockey rink. There are currently two
lights on each side.
We would like to start this project after the October city council approval and be completed by early
January.
Regards,
August 28, 2017
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Text Change Request for City Ordinance
JEGM Revocable Trust
11710 Plaza American Drive, Suite 1010
Reston, VA 20190
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
We ask that the text in Ordinance 828.09 Subd. 2 be changed from 2,500 square feet to read 4,000
square feet with the conditional use permit. We believe we will be able to do a better job covering with
landscaping than having 1,500 square feet on the ground and 2,000 square feet on the roof.
Regards,
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:\010654-000\Admin\Docs\2017-08-21 Submittal\_2017-08-28 2705 Willow Solar CUP - WSB Comments.docx
September 6, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: 2705 Willow Drive Solar CUP – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-214
WSB Project No. 010652-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed 2705 Willow Solar CUP submittal dated August 11, 2017. The plans propose to
construct a solar garden at an existing property located at 2705 Willow Drive .
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. Show proposed contouring, spot elevations, drainage arrows, and grade percentages on plan.
If retaining walls are needed, please show the elevation at the top and bottom of the wall.
2. Show silt fence as perimeter control around the areas where surface disturbances are
proposed. The applicant may want to consider placing silt fence, or other protection fencing,
around the future septic location to avoid disturbance during construction.
3. Show construction limits and hatching to denote areas of disturbance and proposed turf
establishment methods on the plans. The applicant may want to consider showing a
dedicated construction entrance to minimize disturbance areas.
4. The existing survey does not show the tile line that drains to the pond however the proposed
survey shows it as an existing tile line. It should be cleared up whether this is an existing or
proposed tile line.
5. The plans should state the type and size of the proposed evergreens.
6. Add City standard detail plates where applicable and include a typical section of the proposed
concrete pad or other exterior paving work proposed.
2705 Willow Drive Solar CUP – Engineering Review
September 6, 2017
Page 2
K:\010654-000\Admin\Docs\2017-08-21 Submittal\_2017-08-28 2705 Willow Solar CUP - WSB Comments.docx
Stormwater & Wetlands
1. Based on the information provided, it appears that the project will add approximately 4,512
of impervious surface from the solar panel installation; the applicant will need to provide
calculations to confirm this area.
2. The application provided a filtration basin onsite sized to treat the new impervious surfaces.
This meets the City’s stormwater management requirements from the City’s Stormwater
Design Manual.
3. If the project disturbs more than 50 CY of soil, upland buffers and setbacks will need to be
met.
The wetland south of the proposed solar panels will require an average buffer width of 20’
(minimum 15’) and the accessory structure setback is 5’. It appears that this buffer is met, but
should be shown on the plans and managed and demarcated in the field according to the City
Code requirements.
The wetland north of the proposed solar panels (denoted as “pond” on the plan) will need the
same buffers as described above. Based on a quick historic aerial photo review, it looks like
this pond was excavated out of a wetland; the “pond” boundary does not accurately reflect
the actual boundary of the wetland. Based on aerials it looks like the 1014 ft contour is more
accurate. The homeowner could either obtain a formal delineation of this area, or have the
City approximate the boundary for the purpose of setting the upland buffer. Again, it appears
that the buffers would be met, although the applicant would not be able to mow right up to
the edge of the pond anymore.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
24’
96’
,QDQRQJRLQJHIIRUWWRSURYLGH\RX
ZLWKDOOWKHUHVRXUFHV\RXQHHGWR
PDNHDSXUFKDVLQJGHFLVLRQZH
KDYHLQFOXGHGWKHRSWLRQWRYLHZ
*UHHQKRXVH'UDZLQJVDQG3ODQV
WKDWZLOODOORZ\RXWRVHHZKDWVRUWV
RIEXLOGLQJRSWLRQVDQGOD\RXWVDUHSRVVLEOH,I\RXZRXOGOLNHWRYLHZHTXLSPHQWHOHFWULFDODQG
SOXPELQJSODQVIRUWKLVJUHHQKRXVHSOHDVHILOORXWWKHIROORZLQJUHTXHVWIRUP
5HTXHVW'UDZLQJV
'XUDELOLW\
$OOFRPPHUFLDO*DEOH*UHHQKRXVHVDUHHQJLQHHUHGWRPHHWPSKZLQGDQGSRXQGOLYHORDG
SHUWKH8%&%XLOGLQJ&RGH(YHQKLJKHUORDGUDWLQJVDQGVWDPSHGHQJLQHHUHGSODQVDUHDYDLODEOHDW
H[WUDFRVW$OOJDOYDQL]HGVWHHOIUDPHLQVXUHVPD[LPXPVWUHQJWKDQGOLIH'\QD*ODVFRUUXJDWHG
SRO\FDUERQDWHFRYHULQJLV89UHVLVWDQWDQGFDUULHVD\HDUZDUUDQW\DJDLQVWGLVFRORUDWLRQ
$VVHPEO\2SWLRQV
%XLOGWKHJUHHQKRXVHZLWK\RXUVWXGHQWVDQGERRVWHUVZKRKDYHFRQVWUXFWLRQH[SHULHQFHRUKLUHD
ORFDOFRQWUDFWRUWRHUHFWWKHVWUXFWXUH&RPSRQHQWVVXSSOLHGDUHSUHFXWDQGGULOOHG6WHSE\VWHS
LQVWDOODWLRQLQVWUXFWLRQVDUHLQFOXGHG,*&SURYLGHVRQOLQHDQGWHOHSKRQHVXSSRUWWRDQVZHUDQ\
TXHVWLRQV\RXPD\KDYH
,*&KDVDQH[SHULHQFHGJUHHQKRXVHFRQVWUXFWLRQWHDPWRDVVHPEOHWKHJUHHQKRXVHDQGLQVWDOODOO
ZRUNLQJFRPSRQHQWV7XUQNH\*UHHQKRXVH&RQVWUXFWLRQE\,QWHUQDWLRQDO*UHHQKRXVH&RPSDQ\
DOORZV\RXWRVSHQGWLPHPDQDJLQJ\RXUEXVLQHVVLQVWHDGRIUXQQLQJDFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFW
$FRPELQDWLRQRI DQG ,*&FDQEHJLQWKHSURMHFWE\VHWWLQJWKHFROXPQSRVWVDQG\RXU
VWXGHQWVERRVWHUVRUFRQWUDFWRUFDQFRPSOHWHWKHUHVWRIWKHVWUXFWXUHZLWK,*&VXSHUYLVLRQ)RU
LQIRUPDWLRQRQKRZEHVWWRSODQ\RXUJUHHQKRXVHDVVHPEO\DQGFRQVWUXFWLRQSULFHVFDOORXU&XVWRPHU
6HUYLFH5HSUHVHQWDWLYHVWROOIUHHDW
$GGLWLRQDO$FFHVVRULHV
$GGLWLRQDODFFHVVRULHVLQFOXGLQJHYDSRUDWLYHFRROHUVEHQFKHVJURZOLJKWVVKDGHFORWKDQGLUULJDWLRQ
V\VWHPVKDYHEHHQGHVLJQHGWRILWSHUIHFWO\ZLWKWKH*DEOH*UHHQKRXVH7RYLHZRUSXUFKDVH
DGGLWLRQDODFFHVVRULHVEURZVHWKH*UHHQKRXVH0HJDVWRUHRUFRQWDFWDQ,*&6DOHV5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
7ROO)UHHDW
*DEOH6HULHV[
7HDFKLQJ*UHHQKRXVH )XQFWLRQ ,QFOXGHG
&RUUXJDWHG&RYHULQJ &OHDUDVJODVV
ZLWK\HDUZDUUDQW\
&RUUXJDWHG&RYHULQJ
COMPANY INFORMATION
CLIENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM DETAILS
REVISIONS
AZIMUTH
PROJECT-PAGE TITLE
ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC
1642 CARROLL AVE
ST PAUL, MN 55104
(800) 620-3370
INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM
PAGE NUMBER
A6
JGEM TRUST
2705 WILLOW DR N
HAMEL, MN 55340
PO 18125
LAST: 06/19/17 MG
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS MAY
VARY DEPENDING ON
GROUND ELEVATION
BUT ARE DRAWN TO
THE BEST OF OUR
ABILITY
ELEVATION DRAWING IS
NOT DRAWN TO SCALE
AND SHOULD NOT BE
USED AS
CONSTRUCTION
DRAWINGS
2. [2x4 TRUSS 24" OC, for
example]
ELEVATION
DRAWINGS
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
68'-4"1'-1"7'-9"BEAM PLACED 10'BELOW GRADE1' OF CONCRETE AT
BOTTOM OF 10' HOLE
GRADE
GRADE 7'-9"13'-4"1'-0"BEAM PLACED 10' BELOW GRADE1' OF CONCRETE AT
BOTTOM OF 10' HOLE
COMPANY INFORMATION
CLIENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM DETAILS
REVISIONS
AZIMUTH
PROJECT-PAGE TITLE
ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC
1642 CARROLL AVE
ST PAUL, MN 55104
(800) 620-3370
INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM
PAGE NUMBER
A22
JGEM TRUST
2705 WILLOW DR N
HAMEL, MN 55340
PO 18125
LAST: 06/19/17 MG
NAME DESCRIPTION QTY PICKED ORDER
MOUNTING HARDWARE
SOLAR PANELS
INVERTERS
ELECTRICAL/BOS
MONITORING
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
NAME DESCRIPTION QTY PICKED ORDER
AES v17.06.06
EQUIPMENT
PICK LIST
NOTES:
JGEM TRUST
2705 WILLOW DR N
HAMEL, MN 55340
PO 18125
LG
LG395N2W-A5 200
SOLAREDGE INVERTER SE7600A-US 10
POLAR RACKING PRU-D 2x20 PRU-D Table 5
SOLAREDGE OPTIMIZER P400 200
AC DISCONNECT EATON 200A/2P FUSIBLE DISCONNECT WITH FUSES 2
PANEL BOARD EATON 200A COMBINER PANEL - OUTDOOR RATED 2
SOLAREDGE MONITORING GSM-CELLULAR-12YR 10
HARDWARE ALL NECESSARY HARDWARE FOR ATTACHING BOS
EQUIPMENT TO RACKING AND BUILDINGS.TBD
METER SOCKET MILBANK 200A W/BYPASS METER SOCKET 2
CONDUIT & WIRE ALL NECESSARY CONDUIT AND WIRE FOR THE 5
ARRAY GROUND MOUNT AND 400' WIRE RUN TBD
CONCRETE CONCRETE FOR POST HOLES 30
ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
PER AHJ REQUIREMENTS 1