HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-12-2014MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of October 14, 2014 Planning Commission minutes
6. Public Hearing - Rachel Contracting — PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat
to develop 48 single family residential lots along the north and west portions of
Medina Golf and Country.
7. Public Hearing - Dominium — 510 Clydesdale Tr. — Mixed Use Stage II Plan for
development of 26 affordable rental townhomes.
8. Public Hearing - Wealshire, LLC — Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to Amend Future Land Uses from Low Density Residential to
General Business at the NW corner of Mohawk Dr. and Chippewa
Rd.
9. Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Amending the
Staging/Growth Plan, Community Background Chapter, Land Use
and Growth Chapter, the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and the Water
Supply and Distribution Plan.
10. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code
related to Brew Pubs, Tap Rooms, Microbreweries, Nano -Breweries, and Similar
uses.
11. Council Meeting Schedule
12. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY I IALL November 7, 2014
Date:
, 1 Y O
Comment
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: 4;,;.6
Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
i
Poc. f4-', y\,
6L, r u r
(please print
Address: (-5 3C) 5 L 0 ; .) (� � L ,..) 0
Telephone (optional):
Representing: rN,.,s5t') `,_ AA , , 0 , 1 I
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: ��F' l S
) elwiC /> C v 1 i
/;)
\"
a 06' I r liL Lh kk61 V4 CQ-- "I(' . kfi5
KtA
U "
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
Date: 7/
1 1 v n F
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Sec J`-�-4-f2rsj/J C \Z Qt-ec�:�,--'
Name of Speaker: 'TT �
(please print)
Address: g
Telephone (optional):
Representing: MQ cQ.vIAck e__(.).N.., .\(-i C-1-(..`-6
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: Co iv, t•e.�- - v, --v ,.L. c i7e 1/4,-t , e.--
2u _A—eA b-e).A._ \ ,-,- i-e yz_k S 4-7rv--1 A/c -V.
,
y
0,-4 n -r- G (Az_.,_
Luc s of -c c, c
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G\ T Y o A
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: M.,Cri 0 2-CC- "`
I ap -6 _ ,,_(please print) S ?c)
Address: (
Telephone (optional): ']6 3 - L/7 if - £l51 Z
Representing: '5 L 1-V
Agenda Item (list number and letter): () V kW ck'D U1 - f\VAIN
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
Date: z H
•
G, T Y O T
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: j 0 J a L C5 --c v` S
Public Forum
k
Agenda Item
/ (please print) /
Address: 0 1 0 S k'` 4,,,,' wt -c w a a fit S' Poe
Telephone (optional): 6 /Z if 1?/ 2 8 ( 6
Representing: 1A,•-../ Q, ( 1 -
Agenda Item (list number and letter): /
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 td 5 minutes
Date: ) ) --
G, T Y O T
C Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: W ' l _ Z-- 0-Z- CC t
Public Forum
Agenda Item
f_-01 t
Address:VA) 1j �/ V l�t�. (pleas t) i » 1'�—� ,
Telephone (optional):
Representing: --W
Agenda Item (list number and letter): -Q Vi RL -5 0
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
Date:
G\ T Y 0 T
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: , ' �; ', ti ,• �_ -,._
-
(please print)
Address �
Telephone (optional):
Representing: , t
Agenda Item (list number and letter): y:a
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
Date:
`, t o F
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: ()
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
< t rk, 74 S 6 0
(please print)
Address:
Telephone (optional):
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number
Comments:
and letter):
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
Date: `1 12, 1,({
G, 7 Y O T
MEDINA
Name of Speaker:
Comment Card
° X_ r /i11 -.6k_____
Public Forum
Agenda Item
1
��z7 G�-t-u.6-C;
Address:
(plea print)
Telephone (optional):
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number
Comments: " 2.,C 'z-'(
and letter):
`
Gam/ ,7(, /C:7
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday October 14, 2014
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Kent Williams, Robert
9 Mitchell, Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Randy Foote
10
11 Absent: None
12
13
114
5 Finke, and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson. \\�V, f 3Q_ SL 6,G\
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
1�
17 No public comments.
18
19 3. Update from City Council proceedings
20 Martin updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council.
21
22 4. Planning Department Report
23 Finke informed the Commission on the New Stage II Dominium application and the
24 possibility of seeing the Villas come back in November.
25
26 5. Approval of t August 13, 2014 i r • t Planning oinmission = si inutes.
27
28 Motion by V. Reid, seco i . hilliams, to approve the ep ember 9, 2014, Planning
29 Commission minutes. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: one).
30
31 6. Public Hearing — Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and Map 5-
32 3 related to Staging and Growth
33
34 Finke presented the application explaining that the City Council directed staff to study
35 staging/growth plan to look at the rapid pace of residential growth, impact of the City's
36 infrastructure and services, and the reduced Met Council projections. Finke reviewed the
37 Staging and Growth Map 5-3 and Future Land Use Plan with the Phasing Periods Map with
38 the Commission and how much gross acreage of land was still available in each stage period.
39
40 Finke raised questions to the Commission related to the Amendment such as should "Mixed
41 Uses" be excluded. Also, should "All Residential" be pushed out one time period. Further he
42 asked if all projects currently under review should be allowed to be reviewed or should they
43 have to wait. He also asked if the Commission wanted all acreage properties within school
44 districts to come available at the same time such as what is happening in the Wayzata district
45 right now. Rockford would all become available at one time in a future staging period. Finke
46 asked for confirmation that it was the intent for the entire district to come available at the
47 same time.
48
49 Finke explained the review process with the Metropolitan Council. He said staff published a
50 public hearing but didn't complete a mailing, since it was not required. He suggested the city
Also Present: Mayor Elizabeth Weir, Council Membu Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty
1
51 send out a mailing and the public hearing notice could be continued in order to complete the
52 mailing notice to land owners for the next meeting.
53
54 R. Reid asked for clarification of the Map 5-3 Staging and Growth. Finke explained the Map
55 in the packet had his proposed changes with five year increments. R. Reid said she thought
56 the applications already having approval wei be allowed and wouldn't need to comply with
57 the changes.
58
59 Finke said Dr. Horton's project should be excluded since it was already a submitted
60 application to the City. Mitchell inquired about notification requirements under page 4 of the
61 staff report and Finke clarified that notification was not required. Mitchell asked if the City
62 could complete a mailing to landowners. Finke said yes. Mitchell then asked if the
63 application would be continued in order to give landowners time to attend the next meeting in
64 November. Finke said yes.
65
66 Foote asked where the 350 foot mailing notice came from. Finke explained it was a state
67 statute and a requirement in our zoning ordinance.
68
69 Mitchell asked for clarification of the two maps submitted. Finke said one described the
70 proposed future Staging and the second map was of the zoning of properties.
71
72 Nolan asked what tools are available other than a moratorium to protect from new
73 applications coming in. Finke said a Moratorium is the tool to use. If someone comes in to
74 apply for a new application during the review process it would place it on hold until the
75 Moratorium was lifted. Nolan clarified that if the City met with a potential developer
76 considering developing and making an application that staff would then recommend a
77 moratorium. Finke said yes.
78
79 V. Reid said she is concerned with the boom and bust cycles for the schools. Finke said a
80 parcel by parcel amendment could be completed to regulate the development within each
81 school district. - r!'
82 �}�
83 Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m. advat
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98 Williams asked where the land was located that had the $45,000.00 assessment. Tim
99 Cavanaugh said it's off of Pinto, under the water tower.
100
Tim Cavanaugh, owner of property that Dr. Horton is currently looking at developing. He
said the whole delay is a solution for the wrong problem. He said he sees Co. Rd. 116 as
more of a Corcoran problem and not a Medina problem. He said the traffic comes long
before it gets into Medina. He's been a landowner for 50 years and has also been waiting on
what is going to happen on Chippewa Road. He said this was a classic case of paying large
taxes and assessments and asked how long do landowners need to wait to develop their
property. Landowners need a means of generating an income on their properties. He asked
the Commission to look at the long term owners that have paid hundreds of thousands of
dollars over the years and hasn't heard any real good reasons why the City is looking to delay
development. He asked why delay five years and what is the City really trying to accomplish
and it seemed a little disjointed. He said he has another $100,000.00 piece of property and is
looking at getting a $45,000.00 assessment for land just north of Polaris.
2
1
101 Joe Cavanaugh said road improvements are needed at Co. Rd.116 and asked that another turn
102 lane be added. He said that if they made similar improvements as they did to Clydesdale
103 Trail, it would be an improvement. He also had concern with the Chippewa Road
104 improvement and how did the City ever get by with not maintaining Chippewa Road in the
105 past, yet why is it now so important. If the City wants the road to go through then they need a
106 Plan A and B, in case Plan A doesn't work. He said he also has another piece of land along
107 Mohawk and didn't want a moratorium placed on that property either.
108
109 Bob Belzer said he felt bamboozled. Said he moved into the City a couple of months ago
110 and never thought he'd be at City meetings. He said he'd like to see his family benefit, but he
111 didn't realize how rapidly the City was growing with no housing authority or real
112 infrastructure. He said on the city website he reviews the stats on crime. Said he felt the city
113 needed to take the data and crunch numbers and figure out growth and how to be prepared for
114 it. He asked if the Commission had ever taken a left hand turn from Co. Rd. 116 off of State
115 Hwy 55, it takes about 10 minutes and time is money. He said if we had a housing authority
116 to deal with the problems it would help take off some of the pressure from the police and fire
117 department. He said there is so much data the City isn't even looking at and he wants to
118 benefit during his generation with his kids.
119
120 Robert Franklin of 2819 Lakeshore Ave. asked how can the City balance growth with
121 historical rural and small town feel and growth. He felt that the discussion item appeared to
122 be a well thought out plan and though the type of community he'd like to preserve. Felt the
123 big picture needed to be looked at along with our growth not outgrowing our infrastructure.
124 He felt that the roads are more of a regional problem along with the topic of the schools. He
125 didn't feel property owners should be taxed for more than what it could be used for.
126
127 Jeff Pederson of 710 Shawnee Woods Road said Chippewa Road did have a need to go
128 through. He felt the City had a lot of rail traffic and to close off development would cause a
129 budgetary issue with the City down the road. He said he felt people wanted a rewrite of the
130 Comprehensive Plan and that the City should go ahead and begin the rewriting of the
131 Comprehensive Plan rather than go through the Staging/Growth Plan process. He asked why
132 we wanted to spend all the time if what we have isn't working. He said he doesn't see that
133 we'd have commercial development. He said he speaks with developers all the time and they
134 can't build retail/commercial establishments without housing. He concluded with stating that
135 the City should start the Comprehensive Plan process earlier than later. y, �
,mss
136 s Ire- li�i�f l a�<c.,�a j�o{:�
137 Weir said Cavanaugh asked what th goal was. Weir stated that the goal was to even out the
138 growth for budgeting and staffin We don't want the sudden bonuses of growth. She
139 recommended two year increments rather than five year increments. She said providing
140 clarity of the goal would be helpful and evening out of the growth for staffing purposes.
141
142 Tim Cavanaugh asked for clarification of what 2016 means as for the start of the process.
143
144 Mitchell agreed with Pederson and Weir that we need to get the data necessary to make a
145 good decision and that the Public Hearing should be continued.
146
147 R. Reid said her idea was to slow things down now until the Comprehensive Plan is redone.
148 She said we needed to really figure this out.
149
150 Finke said the current pace we're on is that development is occurring east to west according
151 to the staging plan. He said the text of the plan took into consideration of land uses. If the
3
152 goal was to make it level then it clearly isn't. He said the front end is residential development
153 and middle was commercial and later time frames are little commercial and more residential
154 with higher density residential. Of the 2,500 households half of them are within the first 5-7
155 years of a 20 year time frame.
156
157 Nolan said Finke had in his report 518 Single Family houses and 41 townhomes and no
158 multifamily units. Almost 700 housing units were approved in almost a three year period.
159 He said it's been substantial and we see it and neighbors see it. We're not about "no growth"
160 but rather responsible growth". He said it is a balancing act to govern responsibly and
161 Medina is a highly desirable community, especially in the school district we're seeing
162 growth. To even out growth would be good and the Comprehensive Plan is a long and
163 thoughtful process, though it's less than perfect. He said he was in strong support to doing
164 something. Finke said from 2004-2009 the City didn't have property available for
165 development.
166
167 Nolan asked for clarification of the proposed changes to the staging plan. Finke said it would
168 include the undeveloped properties. Nolan said he felt there were still plenty of opportunities
169 to see development.
170
171 Williams said he was concerned with the City developing perhaps too quickly. He said they
172 have a lot of considerations in what to do about it such as the timing and impacts it might
173 have. He was concerned we don't have sufficient data to make the decisions. He said he
174 isn't comfortable with.doing anythip,at this point before taking action. He wanted to hear
y yi .i" 1c r., Ct .S --�
175 fron i and get more data. He recommended that �-
lam
176 subcommittee formed for the Comprehensive Plan. Asked what interim steps should be
177 taken before am nding the Comprehensive Plan so that the necessary data could be collected.
178
179 Nolan said he's more resolved than Williams but the practical application he may differ in
180 that the City still has a lot of available land even if they took the action to slow things down.
181
182 Mitchell recommended that they continue the public hearing and Nolan said they should vote.
183
184 Mitchell said he only sees the room half full and didn't have the people there to get all the
185 necessary information. He said we had a huge bump in 2003-2004 and didn't hear from
186 anyone with concern then. He knows V. Reid is concerned with schools. He checked into
187 traffic counts and everyone has known that Co. Rd. 116 has more traffic than Co. Rd. 101,
188 but Co. Rd. 101 got fixed first. He asked what are the other infrastructure issues of concern.
189 He said after the slowdown in 2008 things have been quiet and now we're seeing growth
190 along with in the Hamel area and he said let's not kill the golden goose.
191
192 R. Reid asked if the approval was automatic for the "jump ahead" and Finke said the City had
193 discretion of approval and could be used as a tool and is incentive based. The City controls
194 the staging plan. V. Reid said action needs to be taken now and the Comprehensive Plan will
195 take too long and way too many things are going to be developed in the meantime. She
196 raised the issue of the schools, changing the rural character of the City and the changes are
197 going to make it feel like it is two cities. She said she was frustrated with it being alright to
198 give variances for cutting down trees in some areas of the City and in other parts of the city
199 it's really off limits. She also said it's concerning with how long it will take to get 116 fixed.
200 She said she really does feel we need to do something and that our current level of growth is
201 way more than it should be, especially in one area, and then to say we're all about preserving
202 the rural character. She said she didn't think it's a good idea to have housing stock all in one
4
t
203 area and prefers phasing of development so not everything looks the same and the age of
204 housing stock is different.
205
206 R. Reid said we don't really know what the houses on Co. Rd.116 are going to look like.
207 k S FY6 0
208 Foote ‘said -he is really in support of staging. Said he was on the Planning Commission in
209 Eden Prairie and growth was out of control there. He said de elopers petitioning the
210 Met Council in favor of trying to control growth. "29p 0; _,2/.
211 �� /
212 Williams raised concern with snap rtrary decisions. e said the problems we think we're
213 trying to solve may not even be roblem. He said 's not saying we should wait until 2020
214 but rather get all the data nec nary to address all e issues we're talking about first. He said
215 he's not at all convinced what's will fix anything. V. Reid said it
216 impacts the rural character of the city such as the tree removal and Williams said we need
217 some period of time for people to focus on the issues.
218
219 White said it's important to even out the growth of budgeting and staffing issues. The
220 Council plans on some of the growth which affects the City's budget. If they considered
221 breaking down the areas more and spread it out it might address the school and traffic issues.
222 She said it would help to have more time to review the parcels we may want to keep from
223 being developed. She said she agreed with William's concerns and to set up a committee to
224 look at issues more closely.
225 ��,,.,.�.,5� r
226 Nolan said they/all agree something needs to be done and they need to decide what approach
227 is best at this point. We all want to be thoughtful, responsible, and take all parties into
228 consideration.
229
230 Mitchell said we should leave in the "jump ahead" language because if a developer is willing
231 to jump through all the hoops it would be good for the City.
232
233 R. Reid said all we need to focus on at this time is the 2015-2020 time period. Finke said the
234 City has to submit a new Comprehensive Plan by 2018 and possible adoption in 2019.
235
236 Nolan said the question is do we do something more reactionary or long term. Williams said
237 he thinks we need to do s,oiin e sort of analysis. V. Reid said she doesn't like tile -0,11 „,,f_,)
238 Comprehensive Plara aYeels e�K e' ?o take action and not redo the Comprehensive Plan
239 right now. It's not perfect but we should just slow things down before more things are
240 happening and all efforts should be placed on redoing the Comprehensive Plan.
241
242 Jeff Pederson said he appreciates how much the Commission is debating. He said part of the
243 backup is that a bridge is out on Co. Rd. 101 and all the traffic is using Co. Rd. 116.
244 Construction on I-494 is also bringing more traffic to Co. Rd. 116. He stated that we can't
245 look at the Met Council as the bad guys. Medina had to make a decision and we couldn't
246 afford to build our own sewer plant; we needed the Met Council and need Lake Independence
247 improvements, and we want to keep the Met Council happy.
248
249 Nolan asked for Finke's opinion on staff time. Finke said he needs to know more specific
250 direction. He said we're conservatively under budget growth since it's very difficult to
251 predict growth since we're never going to be accurate. However whatever growth does
252 come, it will pay for itself.
253
So`b nn
254 William a es�ed a rgup be put together tearing the process other issues may come up,
255 an to-quanTfi }fit ; ngs that are feasonable..
256 17'4_ Pl"--°(-7 be o A9
257 Finke asked the Commission if staff was to send out a mailing notice, who would they like to
258 see get the notice. Just landowners impacted? The Commission concluded that a mailing
259 should be sent to all landowners impacted.
260
261 White asked for clarification of the amendments and what it will include. Mixed Use
262 properties? Nolan said the concern is single family. Mixed use can be developed as single
263 family, said Finke. R. Reid said everyone wants to develop mixed use property as single
264 family and they shouldn't be able to do that and there should have to be real mixed use.
265
266 Nolan said projects under review are also an issue and felt we should honor them, along with
267 Stage I approvals. Concept Stage level approvals such as the Villas however shouldn't be
268 honored. Nolan said he tends to agree with R. Reid that we should just focus on the current
269 plan up to 2025 Staging. Finke clarified that we shouldn't amend 2025 properties since those
270 are in the next Comprehensive Plan.
271
272 Nolan said he'd like to hear from the Council to get some direction and would like to know
273 whether the Commission taking time to study is of value for issues such as the budget. If
274 there are no tools to study then he has a slightly different view.
275
276 Martin suggested a summary report be completed by the Commission of the meeting and
277 what they struggled with. She suggested one or two Commissioners work on the summary
178 with staff so to not violate open meeting law. Nolan liked the idea.
ppr7-r9
80 Mitchell said he liked the idea of cutting the time periods back and if so would it cause staff a
281 lot of work. Finke said it doesn't make any more work than any other change. V. Reid
282 doesn't think reducing years help with the preservation of community. Nolan agreed that
283 we're really going at it without a lot of information. Planning and zoning is only a blunt tool
284 and at the end of the day he values everyone's comments but would like better direction from
285 the Council
286
287 Motion by Williams, seconded by R. Reid to table the public hearing to complete a mailing
288 notice to land owners and direction from City Council. Mitchell and Williams will work with
289 staff to create a summary of the Commissioners viewpoints. (Absent: None)
290
291 7. Council Meeting Schedule
292 Mitchell agreed to attend and present at the October 21, 2014 Council meeting.
293
294 8. Adjourn
295 Motion by Williams, seconded by White, to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried
296 unanimously (Absent: None).
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Weir and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: October 30, 2014
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates November 5, 2014 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Capital Knoll Subdivision — south of Hamel Road, north of Blackfoot Trail, east of Arrowhead
Drive — Princeton Capital — the applicant has requested a subdivision of the existing 30 acres into
three rural lots — the property fronts on both Hamel Road and Blackfoot Trail. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing at the August 13 meeting and recommended approval. The City
Council reviewed at the Sept. 2 meeting and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. The
applicant has requested to shift property lines slightly to allow more room for animal structures.
Staff believes a slight shift of the property lines does not have much of an impact and will present to
the Council at the November 5 meeting.
B) Hamel Place apartment Site Plan Review — 22 Hamel Road — Farhad Hakim has requested approval
of a site plan review to construct a 8 -unit apartment building at 22 Hamel Road. The applicant has
also requested that the City consider vacating a portion of an existing utility easement to allow the
structure in this location. The Planning Commission reviewed at the August 13 and September 9
meeting and recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the October 7 meeting and
directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. Staff will present the resolution after finalizing
discussions with the developer related to the Development Agreement
C) Dominium Affordable Rental Townhomes — 510 Clydesdale — Dominium has applied for a Stage I
Plan to develop 26 affordable rental townhomes on 3.85 acres. The townhomes would include rent
and income limitations because the developer has received pledges for funding through Minnesota
Housing. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the September 9 meeting and
unanimously recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the October 7 meeting and
directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval, which will be presented at the October 21 meeting.
The Stage II Plan and plat are tentatively scheduled for review at the November 12 Planning
Commission meeting.
D) Villas at Medina Country Club PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat — East of CR116, south of
Shawnee Woods Road — Rachel Contracting has requested approval of a subdivision to include 43
single family homes along the west and north of the Medina Golf and Country Club. The applicant
has revised plans to remove 5 units in the northeast portion of the site. The request is tentatively
scheduled for a public hearing at the November 12 Planning Commission meeting.
E) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment — Wealshire, LLC has requested a comprehensive Plan
amendment to amend the Future Land Use of approximately 22 acres at the northwest comer of
Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road from Low Density Residential to Business. The applicant
desires to construct a memory care facility on the property, and this land use would allow for such a
use.
F) Soiney Right-of-way Vacation — the property owners of 2942 Ardmore Avenue has requested that
the City vacate a portion of the "Palm Street" right-of-way adjacent to their property. The applicant
desires to construct a four -season porch on their property, but cannot do so where desired because of
the 30 foot setback from the vacant right-of-way. There is no street within the right-of-way, but it
was platted in a grid pattern in Independence Beach back in the 1920's. A public hearing is
tentatively scheduled for the December 2 City Council meeting.
G) Property Resources Development Co. (PRDC) Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan — West
of Willow Drive, southwest of Deerhill Road — PRDC has requested a Comp Plan Amendment to
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
City Council Meeting
reguide 90 acres from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential (2-3.49 units/acre) and also a
PUD Concept Plan for a 99 lot subdivision. The PUD Concept Plan is incomplete at this time and
will be scheduled for review when complete information is submitted. The Comp Plan Amendment
Public Hearing was delayed indefinitely at the request of the applicant.
H) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery CUP — St. Peter and Paul church intends to expand their cemetery at
the southeast corner of County Road 19 and Hamel Road. Improvements include new access drives,
landscaping, stormwater improvements and additional grave sites. The Planning Commission held a
Public Hearing at the July 9, 2013 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council adopted a
resolution of approval at the September 2 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize the
terms and conditions of approval before closing the file.
1) Wakefield Subdivision, Woods of Medina — these preliminary plats have been approved and staff is
awaiting a final plat application
J) Woodland Hill Preserve, Enclave at Brockton 41h, Hamel Haven, Morrison lot split, Three
Rivers/Reimer Rearrangement subdivision — These subdivisions have all received final approval.
Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval before construction begins.
K) D.R. Horton Stage 1 Plan — D.R. Horton has requested Stage I Plan approval for development of
Mixed Use property west of Arrowhead, east of Mohawk and north of Highway 55. The entire
property is approximately 84 acres in area (approximately 59 acres upland) and the applicant
proposes 85 single family lots, a 54 unit apartment building and 5 acres of commercial development.
The City Council granted Stage I approval at the January 21 meeting.
Other Projects
A) Comp Plan Revision Discussion — staff is putting together the proposed changes to the Staging and
Growth Plan following the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff intends to
mail notices for a Public Hearing at the November 12 Planning Commission meeting.
B) Tower Drive stormwater project — staff continues to coordinate easement acquisition for the Tower
Drive stormwater improvements.
C) Broadband Grant — Staff assisted with a number of maps for the broadband grant application.
D) County Road 116/Highway 55 improvements — staff has attended meetings related to the interim
and permanent improvements and continues to advocate strongly for immediate implementation of
interim improvements.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday October 14, 2014
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Kent Williams, Robert
9 Mitchell, Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Randy Foote
10
11 Absent: None
12
13 Also Present: Mayor Elizabeth Weir, Council Member Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty
14 Finke, and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson.
15
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
17 No public comments.
18
19 3. Update from City Council proceedings
20 Martin updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council.
21
22 4. Planning Department Report
23 Finke informed the Commission on the New Stage II Dominium application and the
24 possibility of seeing the Villas come back in November.
25
26 5. Approval of the August 13, 2014 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
27
28 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Williams, to approve the September 9, 2014, Planning
29 Commission minutes. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: None).
30
31 6. Public Hearing — Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and Map 5-
32 3 related to Staging and Growth
33
34 Finke presented the application explaining that the City Council directed staff to study
35 staging/growth plan to look at the rapid pace of residential growth, impact of the City's
36 infrastructure and services, and the reduced Met Council projections. Finke reviewed the
37 Staging and Growth Map 5-3 and Future Land Use Plan with the Phasing Periods Map with
38 the Commission and how much gross acreage of land was still available in each stage period.
39
40 Finke raised questions to the Commission related to the Amendment such as should "Mixed
41 Uses" be excluded. Also, should "All Residential" be pushed out one time period. Further he
42 asked if all projects currently under review should be allowed to be reviewed or should they
43 have to wait. He also asked if the Commission wanted all acreage properties within school
44 districts to come available at the same time such as what is happening in the Wayzata district
45 right now. Rockford would all become available at one time in a future staging period. Finke
46 asked for confirmation that it was the intent for the entire district to come available at the
47 same time.
48
49 Finke explained the review process with the Metropolitan Council. He said staff published a
50 public hearing but didn't complete a mailing, since it was not required. He suggested the city
1
"
5 1 s e n d o u t a m a i l i n g a n d t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g n o t i c e c o u l d b e c o n t i n u e d i n o r d e r t o c o m p l e t e t h e
5 2 m a i l i n g n o t i c e t o l a n d o w n e r s f o r t h e n e x t m e e t i n g .
5 3
5 4 R . R e i d a s k e d f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e M a p 5 - 3 S t a g i n g a n d G r o w t h . F i n k e e x p l a i n e d t h e M a p
5 5 i n t h e p a c k e t h a d h i s p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s w i t h f i v e y e a r i n c r e m e n t s . R . R e i d s a i d s h e t h o u g h t
5 6 t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s a l r e a d y h a v i n g a p p r o v a l w o u l d b e a l l o w e d a n d w o u l d n ' t n e e d t o c o m p l y w i t h
5 7 t h e c h a n g e s .
5 8
5 9 F i n k e s a i d D r . H o r t o n ' s p r o j e c t s h o u l d b e e x c l u d e d s i n c e i t w a s a l r e a d y a s u b m i t t e d
6 0 a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e C i t y . M i t c h e l l i n q u i r e d a b o u t n o t i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e r p a g e 4 o f t h e
6 1 s t a f f r e p o r t a n d F i n k e c l a r i f i e d t h a t n o t i f i c a t i o n w a s n o t r e q u i r e d . M i t c h e l l a s k e d i f t h e C i t y
6 2 c o u l d c o m p l e t e a m a i l i n g t o l a n d o w n e r s . F i n k e s a i d y e s . M i t c h e l l t h e n a s k e d i f t h e
6 3 a p p l i c a t i o n w o u l d b e c o n t i n u e d i n o r d e r t o g i v e l a n d o w n e r s t i m e t o a t t e n d t h e n e x t m e e t i n g i n
6 4 N o v e m b e r . F i n k e s a i d y e s .
6 5
6 6 F o o t e a s k e d w h e r e t h e 3 5 0 f o o t m a i l i n g n o t i c e c a m e f r o m . F i n k e e x p l a i n e d i t w a s a s t a t e
6 7 s t a t u t e a n d a r e q u i r e m e n t i n o u r z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e .
6 8
6 9 M i t c h e l l a s k e d f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t w o m a p s s u b m i t t e d . F i n k e s a i d o n e d e s c r i b e d t h e
7 0 p r o p o s e d f u t u r e S t a g i n g a n d t h e s e c o n d m a p w a s o f t h e z o n i n g o f p r o p e r t i e s .
7 1
7 2 N o l a n a s k e d w h a t t o o l s a r e a v a i l a b l e o t h e r t h a n a m o r a t o r i u m t o p r o t e c t f r o m n e w
7 3 a p p l i c a t i o n s c o m i n g i n . F i n k e s a i d a M o r a t o r i u m i s t h e t o o l t o u s e . I f s o m e o n e c o m e s i n t o
7 4 a p p l y f o r a n e w a p p l i c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e r e v i e w p r o c e s s i t w o u l d p l a c e i t o n h o l d u n t i l t h e
7 5 M o r a t o r i u m w a s l i f t e d . N o l a n c l a r i f i e d t h a t i f t h e C i t y m e t w i t h a p o t e n t i a l d e v e l o p e r
7 6 c o n s i d e r i n g d e v e l o p i n g a n d m a k i n g a n a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t s t a f f w o u l d t h e n r e c o m m e n d a
7 7 m o r a t o r i u m . F i n k e s a i d y e s .
7 8
7 9 V . R e i d s a i d s h e i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e b o o m a n d b u s t c y c l e s f o r t h e s c h o o l s . F i n k e s a i d a
8 0 p a r c e l b y p a r c e l a m e n d m e n t c o u l d b e c o m p l e t e d t o r e g u l a t e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n e a c h
8 1 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t .
8 2
8 3 P u b l i c H e a r i n g c l o s e d a t 7 : 5 2 p . m .
8 4
8 5 T i m C a v a n a u g h , o w n e r o f p r o p e r t y t h a t D r . H o r t o n i s c u r r e n t l y l o o k i n g a t d e v e l o p i n g . H e
8 6 s a i d t h e w h o l e d e l a y i s a s o l u t i o n f o r t h e w r o n g p r o b l e m . H e s a i d h e s e e s C o . R d . 1 1 6 a s
8 7 m o r e o f a C o r c o r a n p r o b l e m a n d n o t a M e d i n a p r o b l e m . H e s a i d t h e t r a f f i c c o m e s l o n g
8 8 b e f o r e i t g e t s i n t o M e d i n a . H e ' s b e e n a l a n d o w n e r f o r 5 0 y e a r s a n d h a s a l s o b e e n w a i t i n g o n
8 9 w h a t i s g o i n g t o h a p p e n o n C h i p p e w a R o a d . H e s a i d t h i s w a s a c l a s s i c c a s e o f p a y i n g l a r g e
9 0 t a x e s a n d a s s e s s m e n t s a n d a s k e d h o w l o n g d o l a n d o w n e r s n e e d t o w a i t t o d e v e l o p t h e i r
9 1 p r o p e r t y . L a n d o w n e r s n e e d a m e a n s o f g e n e r a t i n g a n i n c o m e o n t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s . H e a s k e d
9 2 t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o l o o k a t t h e l o n g t e r m o w n e r s t h a t h a v e p a i d h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s o f
9 3 d o l l a r s o v e r t h e y e a r s a n d h a s n ' t h e a r d a n y r e a l g o o d r e a s o n s w h y t h e C i t y i s l o o k i n g t o d e l a y
9 4 d e v e l o p m e n t . H e a s k e d w h y d e l a y f i v e y e a r s a n d w h a t i s t h e C i t y r e a l l y t r y i n g t o a c c o m p l i s h
9 5 a n d i t s e e m e d a l i t t l e d i s j o i n t e d . H e s a i d h e h a s a n o t h e r $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 p i e c e o f p r o p e r t y a n d i s
9 6 l o o k i n g a t g e t t i n g a $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a s s e s s m e n t f o r l a n d j u s t n o r t h o f P o l a r i s .
9 7
9 8 W i l l i a m s a s k e d w h e r e t h e l a n d w a s l o c a t e d t h a t h a d t h e $ 4 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a s s e s s m e n t . T i m
9 9 C a v a n a u g h s a i d i t ' s o f f o f P i n t o , u n d e r t h e w a t e r t o w e r .
1 0 0
2
101 Joe Cavanaugh said road improvements are needed at Co. Rd.116 and asked that another turn
102 lane be added. He said that if they made similar improvements as they did to Clydesdale
103 Trail, it would be an improvement. He also had concern with the Chippewa Road
104 improvement and how did the City ever get by with not maintaining Chippewa Road in the
105 past, yet why is it now so important. If the City wants the road to go through then they need a
106 Plan A and B, in case Plan A doesn't work. He said he also has another piece of land along
107 Mohawk and didn't want a moratorium placed on that property either.
108
109 Bob Belzer said he felt bamboozled. Said he moved into the City a couple of months ago
110 and never thought he'd be at City meetings. He said he'd like to see his family benefit, but he
111 didn't realize how rapidly the City was growing with no housing authority or real
112 infrastructure. He said on the city website he reviews the stats on crime. Said he felt the city
113 needed to take the data and crunch numbers and figure out growth and how to be prepared for
114 it. He asked if the Commission had ever taken a left hand turn from Co. Rd. 116 off of State
115 Hwy 55, it takes about 10 minutes and time is money. He said if we had a housing authority
116 to deal with the problems it would help take off some of the pressure from the police and fire
117 department. He said there is so much data the City isn't even looking at and he wants to
118 benefit during his generation with his kids.
119
120 Robert Franklin of 2819 Lakeshore Ave. asked how can the City balance growth with
121 historical rural and small town feel and growth. He felt that the discussion item appeared to
122 be a well thought out plan and though the type of community he'd like to preserve. Felt the
123 big picture needed to be looked at along with our growth not outgrowing our infrastructure.
124 He felt that the roads are more of a regional problem along with the topic of the schools. He
125 didn't feel property owners should be taxed for more than what it could be used for.
126
127 Jeff Pederson of 710 Shawnee Woods Road said Chippewa Road did have a need to go
128 through. He felt the City had a lot of rail traffic and to close off development would cause a
129 budgetary issue with the City down the road. He said he felt people wanted a rewrite of the
130 Comprehensive Plan and that the City should go ahead and begin the rewriting of the
131 Comprehensive Plan rather than go through the Staging/Growth Plan process. He asked why
132 we wanted to spend all the time if what we have isn't working. He said he doesn't see that
133 we'd have commercial development. He said he speaks with developers all the time and they
134 can't build retail/commercial establishments without housing. He concluded with stating that
135 the City should start the Comprehensive Plan process earlier than later.
136
137 Weir said Cavanaugh asked what the goal was. Weir stated that the goal was to even out the
138 growth for budgeting and staffing. We don't want the sudden bonuses of growth. She
139 recommended two year increments rather than five year increments. She said providing
140 clarity of the goal would be helpful and evening out of the growth for staffing purposes.
141
142 Tim Cavanaugh asked for clarification of what 2016 means as for the start of the process.
143
144 Mitchell agreed with Pederson and Weir that we need to get the data necessary to make a
145 good decision and that the Public Hearing should be continued.
146
147 R. Reid said her idea was to slow things down now until the Comprehensive Plan is redone.
148 She said we needed to really figure this out.
149
150 Finke said the current pace we're on is that development is occurring east to west according
151 to the staging plan. He said the text of the plan took into consideration of land uses. If the
3
I
152 goal was to make it level then it clearly isn't. He said the front end is residential development
153 and middle was commercial and later time frames are little commercial and more residential
154 with higher density residential. Of the 2,500 households half of them are within the first 5-7
155 years of a 20 year time frame.
156
157 Nolan said Finke had in his report 518 Single Family houses and 41 townhomes and no
158 multifamily units. Almost 700 housing units were approved in almost a three year period.
159 He said it's been substantial and we see it and neighbors see it. We're not about "no growth"
160 but rather responsible growth". He said it is a balancing act to govern responsibly and
161 Medina is a highly desirable community, especially in the school district we're seeing
162 growth. To even out growth would be good and the Comprehensive Plan is a long and
163 thoughtful process, though it's less than perfect. He said he was in strong support to doing
164 something. Finke said from 2004-2009 the City didn't have property available for
165 development.
166
167 Nolan asked for clarification of the proposed changes to the staging plan. Finke said it would
168 include the undeveloped properties. Nolan said he felt there were still plenty of opportunities
169 to see development.
170
171 Williams said he was concerned with the City developing perhaps too quickly. He said they
172 have a lot of considerations in what to do about it such as the timing and impacts it might
173 have. He was concerned we don't have sufficient data to make the decisions. He said he
174 isn't comfortable with doing anything at this point before taking action. He wanted to hear
175 from everyone in the interim and get more data. He recommended that maybe a
176 subcommittee be formed for the Comprehensive Plan. Asked what interim steps should be
177 taken before amending the Comprehensive Plan so that the necessary data could be collected.
178
179 Nolan said he's more resolved than Williams but the practical application he may differ in
180 that the City still has a lot of available land even if they took the action to slow things down.
181
182 Mitchell recommended that they continue the public hearing and Nolan said they should vote.
183
184 Mitchell said he only sees the room half full and didn't have the people there to get all the
185 necessary information. He said we had a huge bump in 2003-2004 and didn't hear from
186 anyone with concern then. He knows V. Reid is concerned with schools. He checked into
187 traffic counts and everyone has known that Co. Rd. 116 has more traffic than Co. Rd. 101,
188 but Co. Rd. 101 got fixed first. He asked what are the other infrastructure issues of concern.
189 He said after the slowdown in 2008 things have been quiet and now we're seeing growth
190 along with in the Hamel area and he said let's not kill the golden goose.
191
192 R. Reid asked if the approval was automatic for the "jump ahead" and Finke said the City had
193 discretion of approval and could be used as a tool and is incentive based. The City controls
194 the staging plan. V. Reid said action needs to be taken now and the Comprehensive Plan will
195 take too long and way too many things are going to be developed in the meantime. She
196 raised the issue of the schools, changing the rural character of the City and the changes are
197 going to make it feel like it is two cities. She said she was frustrated with it being alright to
198 give variances for cutting down trees in some areas of the City and in other parts of the city
199 it's really off limits. She also said it's concerning with how long it will take to get 116 fixed.
200 She said she really does feel we need to do something and that our current level of growth is
201 way more than it should be, especially in one area, and then to say we're all about preserving
202 the rural character. She said she didn't think it's a good idea to have housing stock all in one
4
203 area and prefers phasing of development so not everything looks the same and the age of
204 housing stock is different.
205
206 R. Reid said we don't really know what the houses on Co. Rd.116 are going to look like.
207
208 Foote said he is really in support of staging. Said he was on the Planning Commission in
209 Eden Prairie and growth was out of control there. He said developers were petitioning the
210 Met Council in favor of trying to control growth.
211
212 Williams raised concern with snap arbitrary decisions. He said the problems we think we're
213 trying to solve may not even be a problem. He said he's not saying we should wait until 2020
214 but rather get all the data necessary to address all the issues we're talking about first. He said
215 he's not at all convinced with what's being talked about will fix anything. V. Reid said it
216 impacts the rural character of the city such as the tree removal and Williams said we need
217 some period of time for people to focus on the issues.
218
219 White said it's important to even out the growth of budgeting and staffing issues. The
220 Council plans on some of the growth which affects the City's budget. If they considered
221 breaking down the areas more and spread it out it might address the school and traffic issues.
222 She said it would help to have more time to review the parcels we may want to keep from
223 being developed. She said she agreed with William's concerns and to set up a committee to
224 look at issues more closely.
225
226 Nolan said they all agree something needs to be done and they need to decide what approach
227 is best at this point. We all want to be thoughtful, responsible, and take all parties into
228 consideration.
229
230 Mitchell said we should leave in the "jump ahead" language because if a developer is willing
231 to jump through all the hoops it would be good for the City.
232
233 R. Reid said all we need to focus on at this time is the 2015-2020 time period. Finke said the
234 City has to submit a new Comprehensive Plan by 2018 and possible adoption in 2019.
235
236 Nolan said the question is do we do something more reactionary or long term. Williams said
237 he thinks we need to do some sort of analysis. V. Reid said she doesn't like the
238 Comprehensive Plan and feels we need to take action and not redo the Comprehensive Plan
239 right now. It's not perfect but we should just slow things down before more things are
240 happening and all efforts should be placed on redoing the Comprehensive Plan.
241
242 Jeff Pederson said he appreciates how much the Commission is debating. He said part of the
243 backup is that a bridge is out on Co. Rd. 101 and all the traffic is using Co. Rd. 116.
244 Construction on 1-494 is also bringing more traffic to Co. Rd. 116. He stated that we can't
245 look at the Met Council as the bad guys. Medina had to make a decision and we couldn't
246 afford to build our own sewer plant; we needed the Met Council and need Lake Independence
247 improvements, and we want to keep the Met Council happy.
248
249 Nolan asked for Finke's opinion on staff time. Finke said he needs to know more specific
250 direction. He said we're conservatively under budget growth since it's very difficult to
251 predict growth since we're never going to be accurate. However whatever growth does
252 come, it will pay for itself.
253
5
254 William suggested a group be put together and during the process other issues may come up
255 and to quantify the things that are reasonable.
256
257 Finke asked the Commission if staff was to send out a mailing notice, who would they like to
258 see get the notice. Just landowners impacted? The Commission concluded that a mailing
259 should be sent to all landowners impacted.
260
261 White asked for clarification of the amendments and what it will include. Mixed Use
262 properties? Nolan said the concern is single family. Mixed use can be developed as single
263 family, said Finke. R. Reid said everyone wants to develop mixed use property as single
264 family and they shouldn't be able to do that and there should have to be real mixed use.
265
266 Nolan said projects under review are also an issue and felt we should honor them, along with
267 Stage I approvals. Concept Stage level approvals such as the Villas however shouldn't be
268 honored. Nolan said he tends to agree with R. Reid that we should just focus on the current
269 plan up to 2025 Staging. Finke clarified that we shouldn't amend 2025 properties since those
270 are in the next Comprehensive Plan.
271
272 Nolan said he'd like to hear from the Council to get some direction and would like to know
273 whether the Commission taking time to study is of value for issues such as the budget. If
274 there are no tools to study then he has a slightly different view.
275
276 Martin suggested a summary report be completed by the Commission of the meeting and
277 what they struggled with. She suggested one or two Commissioners work on the summary
278 with staff so to not violate open meeting law. Nolan liked the idea.
279
280 Mitchell said he liked the idea of cutting the time periods back and if so would it cause staff a
281 lot of work. Finke said it doesn't make any more work than any other change. V. Reid
282 doesn't think reducing years help with the preservation of community. Nolan agreed that
283 we're really going at it without a lot of information. Planning and zoning is only a blunt tool
284 and at the end of the day he values everyone's comments but would like better direction from
285 the Council
286
287 Motion by Williams, seconded by R. Reid to table the public hearing to complete a mailing
288 notice to land owners and direction from City Council. Mitchell and Williams will work with
289 staff to create a summary of the Commissioners viewpoints. (Absent: None)
290
291 7. Council Meeting Schedule
292 Mitchell agreed to attend and present at the October 21, 2014 Council meeting.
293
294 8. Adjourn
295 Motion by Williams, seconded by White, to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried
296 unanimously (Absent: None).
6
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
To: Medina Planning Commission
From: Nate Sparks
Date: November 6, 2014
Re: Villas at Medina Country Club General Plan PUD / Preliminary Plat
File No: LR-14-138
Application Date: June 6, 2014
Review Deadline: January 5, 2015 (extended)
BACKGROUND / GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rachel Contracting LLC and the Medina Golf and Country Club have made an application for a General
Plan Planned Unit Development & Preliminary Plat to develop the northern and western edges of the golf
course.
The applicant proposes 43 residential parcels, 35 of which are to access off of a new road that enters the
site from County Road 116 and then runs north to Shawnee Woods Road. The remaining 8 units are
proposed to access directly off of Shawnee Woods Road, which the applicant proposes to reconstruct
easterly from the point the southern access road connects. The lots in the western side of the proposed
development are similar to the City's R2 District while the lots in the north portion of the development
are generally similar to the R1 District.
The City reviewed a PUD Concept Plan back during the summer. Minutes from the Planning
Commission and City Council are attached. Much of the comments from Commissioners and Council
members related to the substantial tree removal on the northern portion of the proposed development and
impacts to adjacent property to the north. Within their updated plans, the applicant has removed
development from the far eastern portion of Shawnee Woods in order to reduce these impacts. This
resulted in a reduction of 5 proposed lots.
SUBJECT SITE
The subject site is the Medina Golf and Country Club, east ofCounty Road 116, north of Highway 55 and
south of Shawnee Woods Road. The golf course consists of four separate parcels in Hennepin County
records. The entirety of the golf course property totals about 226 acres.
The applicant is proposing to plat all four properties. About 207 acres are being platted as a single parcel
to contain the golf course. The new residential portion of the site is about 19 acres in size.
The project is bounded by the golf course to the south and east. A bermed outlot is proposed adjacent to
County Road 116. The Foxberry Farms neighborhood is located across County Road 116. Across
Shawnee Woods road is property guided for a Low Density Residential land use, but currently developed
with rural lots approximately 5 acres in size. To the north on the west side is the property preliminarily
platted as "Woods of Medina."
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING
The four parcels of the golf course are guided for Private Recreation in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan states that `'limited numbers of residential uses" may be included in areas designated
as such. Three of the four parcels are zoned Public/Semi-Public. The southeastern parcel is partially
zoned Public/Semi-Public and partially zoned Multiple Family Residential.
For this project, all four parcels of the golf course will be rezoned as a Planned Unit Development. The
residential zoning for the southern portion of the site will no longer be in place. The remainder of the
PUD would allow for the continuation of the golf course and related uses. This would be the extent of
uses permitted by the PUD, unless the applicant wouldapply for a PUD amendment inf the future to
allow for additional development. The City would need to consider such development in the same
manner as this proposal.
No specific number of units or density requirements were assigned to this land use in the Comprehensive
Plan, so the City's zoning regulations (standard or PUD) would determine the number and density of
residential units based on the broader objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project site
for calculating residential density is about 17.3 acres. This takes the 18.5 acre residential development
site and deducts the area for County right-of-way dedication, wetlands, and wetland buffers. The
resulting density is about 2.5 units per acre.
PUD GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
Proposed Lots & Buildings
The development is divided into three blocks. Block 1 is the largest number of units (28) on the western
side of the property. Block 2 is the lots in the north on the western side. Block 3 is in the north central.
A previous version of the plan included a Block 4 in the north east that has since been removed. It
appears that Blocks 1 and 2 are somewhat similar to the City's R2 District lots and that Block 3 is
generally similar to the R1 District. These are the "underlying zoning districts."
Block 1
The proposed lots within Block 1 are generally similar to the City's R2 standards of 60 feet in width, 90
feet in depth, and 8000 square feet in area. The proposed plan deviates from the R2 standards by having
lots that are slightly less than 60 feet wide. There are also side loaded garages that are reduced to 14 feet
from the right-of-way. The typical R2 standard requires a 20 foot setback for side loaded garages. With
the 50 foot wide right-of-way and the 30 foot wide street, this would result in the buildings being 24 feet
from the actual public roadway surface. The side and rear yard setbacks are consistent with R2 standards.
The R2 District has a maximum allowance of 50% impervious which can be increased to 60% if there are
increased storm water management practices implemented. Some parcels appear to have impervious
surfaces greater than 60%. It should be noted that there is relatively little hardcover within the adjacent
golf course property.
The driveways to the side loaded garages in Block 1 are between 1 and 3 feet to the property lines. The
City's driveway ordinance in Section 400.11 allows for side loaded garages to have driveway setbacks of
5 feet to the property line provided the driveway is not within a drainage and utility easement. In this
case, the driveway is proposed within the easement. A waiver would be necessary for this type of
alignment and could be built into the PUD approval.
2
Block 2
The parcels in Block 2 are proposed to be over 75 feet wide and about 100 feet in depth or more. The
parcels are all over 10.000 square feet in size. The houses are setback from the sides 5 feet on the garage
side and 10 feet on the other, consistent with R2 district standards. The front setback (to garage) is
proposed at 25 feet. The R2 District requires a 30 foot setback to street facing garages. The impervious
surfaces appear to be about 30 — 35%, which meets district standards.
The houses provided for these parcels are the "Slab on Grade Villas" with street facing garages. Three of
these parcels are proposed as 'slab on grade' while four are not.
As noted above, the lots in Block 2 are generally similar to R2 District lots. Across the street is
development ("Woods of Medina") that is zoned R1. This would typically require a buffer yard with an
opacity rating of 0.2. The applicant has not provided such a buffer yard consistent with the ordinance
because there is not sufficient space to do so. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to
discuss is it would be preferable to require standards more similar to R1 for these lots (perhaps greater
side setbacks), in recognition of the zoning of the property to the north and lack of buffer yard.
Block 3
The proposed lots in Block 3 will be across Shawnee Woods Road from existing rural residential
property. These parcels are similar to the City's standard R1 lots that are required to be 90 feet wide, 100
feet deep, and 11,000 square feet in area. The houses intended for this block are the "Villa Custom
Home." The parcels are proposed with a front yard setback of 25 feet to the garage. The R1 District
requires a 30 foot setback to street facing garages. The proposed side yard setbacks are 10 feet. The Rl
District requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet with an aggregate of 25 feet.
Outlot A
The applicant is proposing a berm in Outlot A adjacent to County Road 116. The berm generally starts
10 feet from the surface of the road and extends to about four to six feet in height above grade. There is a
screening fence proposed on the berm and plantings. There is no sidewalk proposed for the north -south
section of road along the berm. There is an access through the berm with a trail connecting to the trail
along the County Road.
Transportation System
The site is proposed to be accessed off of a proposed new road at the Meander Road and County Road
116 intersection. At the entrance to the development, there are two outbound lanes and one inbound. The
road is proposed with a 30 foot surface at the City's request with parking only allowed on one side. This
road is intended to turn northward once it enters the site and run parallel to the County Road. The road
extends to the northern edge of the subject site and then curves east and runs along the southern edge of
the property preliminarily platted as "Woods of Medina". The road then makes a turn northward to join
Shawnee Woods Road. After Block 3, the road ends in a temporary cul-de-sac.
The new road design has three tight curves that do not meet the City's preferred 30 mile per hour design.
The applicant has provided turning templates depicting vehicle motions through these curves. It appears
that vehicles and trucks can move through these curves adequately, although it will be at a low rate of
speed.
As part of this development, the applicant will be reconstructing a portion of Shawnee Woods Road as a
full urban section with curb and storm sewer. A sidewalk to match the sidewalk from the Woods of
Medina is proposed, as well.
3
The Shawnee Woods Road right-of-way was granted through easement over the southern 60 feet of the
properties north of Shawnee Woods Road. Questions were raised by the owners to the north related to
ability of this easement to be used for the proposed reconstruction of Shawnee Woods Road. The City
Attorney has reviewed and is of the opinion that the concerns raised would not prevent use of the
easement. Their comments are attached.
The City Subdivision Ordinance states that lots with frontage on two parallel streets shall not be permitted
except:
(i) Where lots back on an arterial street in which case vehicular and pedestrian access
between the lots and arterial street shall be prohibited. Such double frontage lots
shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for screen
planting along the back lot line.
(ii) Where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable.
Such double -frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to
allow space for screen planting along the back lot line.
To avoid double frontage lots within the recently approved Woods of Medina preliminary plat to the north
of this site, the applicant has provided a three foot wide outlot with a privacy fence. The privacy fence is
proposed in lieu of the typical buffer yard. If City Officials feel the fence is unnecessary, it may be
advisable to convert this outlot into right-of-way.
Through the PUD process, the City could approve of a plat which deviates from the prohibition of double
frontage lots even without the outlot. Staff does not believe there is sufficient depth in the northwest
corner of the site to locate the street in a way which does not create double frontage lots, unless the homes
were shifted off of the golf course and the street to the south of the homes.
In previous subdivision reviews in this vicinity, concerns have been raised about traffic volumes on
County Road 116. Currently, this property has development rights for residential development that would
access off of Evergreen Road to County Road 101 to the east rather than onto County Road 116 as
proposed.
Utilities
The applicant is proposing to bring sewer and water into the site from the Meander intersection into the
site and to continue north through the development. Water is proposed to connect with the proposed
system for the Woods of Medina. The City Engineer has provided comments.
Water Resources
There are several wetlands on the site. The buffers plantings will need to be provided as required by
Section 828.43 of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Engineer's Office has reviewed the wetlands and the
buffer locations and found them to be acceptable.
There is stormwater ponding being proposed on the golf course. There will need to be the proper rights of
access and easements to ensure proper maintenance. The agreements will need to be provided and the
proper easements will need to be placed over these features.
Many of the lots have both a foundation drain system and a backyard drain system. This may be an
acceptable arrangement provided the system is constructed properly and there is sufficient access. The
City Engineer has provided comments.
4
In previous development proposals for this site, it was stated that there was a high water table in this area.
The applicant is proposing full basements for each unit. The City Engineer requested geotechnical
information to determine the water table elevation. The applicant provided a geotechnical report
supporting the development that has been reviewed by the City Engineer's office and found to be
acceptable.
Tree Preservation & Replacement
The applicant is intending to use the four parcels in their entirety for the purposes of tree preservation
calculations. A tree inventory was conducted in 2006 for a previous development plan which was in a
similar area to the residential development proposed with this plan. A portion of the heavily wooded area
in the east was not inventoried but estimated based on the tree density in an adjacent area. Then a tree
inventory was provided for the trees on the golf course. The City's arborist has requested the applicant
add 12% to the total to account for growth. A golf course tree inventory was provided as the applicant
intends to use these trees as preserved trees for the development. This totals 59,369 inches of trees. The
plan calls for 7,562 inches of removal, which is 12.7%. The tree preservation ordinance allows for 15%
removal.
Buffer Yards
The ordinance requires a buffer yard to be placed along County Road 116. The portion across the road
from Foxberry Farms is required to have an opacity of 0.3. The remainder is required to be 0.1.
The buffer yard planting plan for the outlot adjacent to County Road 116 generally conforms to the
minimum planting requirements. The ordinance requires at least 50% of the required plantings to be
placed on the exterior side of the fence. This would require 1794 planting points for the 0.3 opacity
section to be on the outside of the fence and the plan shows 1535 in this location.
A buffer yard of a 0.2 opacity is required in the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to the Woods of
Medina development. As noted previously, this buffer yard is not provided in a manner consistent with
the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance requires a minimum width of ten feet. In
much of this buffer yard the buffer yard is only 3 feet.
Front Yard Trees
The R1 and R2 Districts require two front yard trees for each lot. In some cases, the City has permitted
the second tree to be in the backyard for narrower R2 parcels. There are four lots lacking a second tree.
In one case a tree is actually within the right-of-way. Staff recommends a condition to bring this
landscaping into compliance with City requirements.
Park Dedication
There is a proposed passive park in the northeastern corner of the site with a woodchip trail leading to it
from Shawnee Woods Road. The proposed park is 8,275 square feet in size. Such a park is not included
in the City's park and trail master plan and City Staff questions the necessity of this park. The park
dedication is recommended to exclude the property intended to remain as part of the golf course in case of
future development. The City assessor is reviewing the site to determine the value for park dedication
purposes.
5
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
In Section 827.25, the City states the purpose of a planned unit development. It states that the PUD
process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width
and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage:
1) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2) Higher standards of site and building design.
3) The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4) Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low -impact development practices which
result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of
the City.
5) Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding
open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
7) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower
development costs and public investments.
8) A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. PUDs
are not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.
9) A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application
on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
In Section 820.22 Subd. 10 it states that in the case of all subdivisions, the City shall deny approval of a
preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that
the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
2. That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation,
soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not
suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet
minimum lot size standards.
6
4. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial
environmental damage.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public
health problems.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private
streets, easements or right-of-way.
STAFF REVIEW
The applicant is proposing a Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat that would allow for
residential development in the areas adjacent to the golf course. It is common for recently created golf
courses to have housing along the course in a similar manner.
Currently, on the southeast corner of the golf course property there is about 12 acres zoned Multi -Family
Residential which allows for duplexes, townhomes, and apartment buildings. As part of the proposed
PUD, the straight zoning for this area to be developed in this fashion would no longer be in place.
The proposal connects the Meander Road intersection with Shawnee Woods Road with a new street. It
also provides an updated urban roadway for a portion of Shawnee Woods Road. The development along
Shawnee Woods Road is proposed to be similar in nature to what is expected to be developed in this area
in the future.
A Planned Unit Development in intended to allow deviations from the strict standards of the Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate unique development plans. The proposed plan seeks multiple flexibilities to
accommodate the development. The PUD process is not intended as a tool to merely create custom
zoning standards for a more convenient development plan. The applicant is seeking flexibility from City
standards for front yard setbacks on all lots, driveway setbacks and impervious surfaces in Block 1, the
buffer yard requirements (double frontage issue) for Block 2, and side yard setbacks in Block 3 in order to
accommodate this development.
The general layout and uses within the plan do not seem to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and are
not greatly incompatible with the neighboring land uses (with the possible exception of the northwest
corner of the site). City Staff generally finds that this plan could be considered acceptable and consistent
with the intent of the PUD District and Comprehensive Plan if all conditions of approval are addressed.
If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project does meet the intent of the PUD District and
the Preliminary Plat review criteria, Staff would recommend that any recommendation of approval be
forwarded to the City Council with the following conditions:
1. The four parcels of the golf course are to be zoned PUD.
2. Association documents shall be provided.
3. Wetland buffer planting plans shall be provided.
4. The buffer yard planting plan shall be revised to meet the standards of Section 828.31 including
but not limited to, minimum plantings on the exterior of the fence.
5. Two trees on each lot consistent with R1 and R2 District standards shall be provided for in the
landscaping plan.
6. Ponds in the golf course used for drainage by this development will require access easements and
maintenance agreements.
7
7. All comments from the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Hennepin County should be addressed.
8. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the
conditions described in this approval as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
9. The Applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Watershed District,
Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Health,
the Metropolitan Council, and other relevant agencies.
10. The application for final plat shall be submitted to the City within 180 days of preliminary
approval or the preliminary plat shall be considered void, unless a written request for time
extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
11. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost
of reviewing the Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat, construction plans, and other
relevant documents.
Attached Exhibits:
A — Planning Commission Minutes — April 8, 2014
B — City Council Minutes — April 16. 2014
C — City Engineer's Comments
D — City Attorney Comments re: Shawnee Woods Road
E — Hennepin County Comments dated July 11, 2014
F — Letters from Neighoring Property Owners (2)
G — Exhibit showing Villas of Medina with Woods of Medina
H — Applicant's Narrative
I — Building Elevations & Plans
8
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from April 8, 2014 Meeting Minutes
6. Villas at Medina GCC.
Sparks presented the application and staff report.
R. Reid inquired where the driveways would be located, since it was not clear from the plans. Sparks
stated that they are side -loaded, with the driveway immediately on one of the side property lines.
R. Reid inquired if the streets would be public. Sparks confirmed they would be.
V. Reid inquired about the access point at Meander. She stated that cars back up past this point in the
morning and stated that cars would find it very difficult to get out and turn left when traffic was backed -
up.
V. Reid inquired about parks. Sparks stated that it has been previously discussed for the area, but none
are proposed here.
V. Reid inquired about tree removal and replacement. She stated that it seems like the whole northern
portion was treed. Sparks confirmed that there would be large areas clear-cut for home sites and stated
that he believes the applicant has a conceptual idea of replacement needs.
Nolan inquired about staffs recommendation for a 30 foot road surface. Sparks stated that this was the
recommendation of the Public Works to allow two full lanes and a parking lane. He stated this is
important because the road would provide access to County Road 116 for surrounding development.
Chuck Alcon (representing the applicant) introduced the development team. He stated that Charles Cudd
was the perspective builder. He stated that the location on the north and west of the course was chosen
for marketability and also so that it would not interfere with golf course operations. This application
would allow for the golf course to be secure for the forseeable future. He stated that they would briefly
address some of staffs comments. With regards to double frontage lots, he stated that it is important to
note that each site has to be developed based on its characteristics, and they believe this is a necessity here
to provide the road connection requested by staff. With regards to staffs recommendation for shared
drives, he stated that the proposed units are privately owned and need privacy. He stated that shared
drives are absolutely not workable for this product. Alcon noted that tree preservation will be addressed
at preliminary plat. In terms of park dedication, they propose cash, with some credit for trail construction
instead of a park. A park and the adjoining golf course are not compatible.
Marty Campion (project engineer) stated that the PUD would provide design flexibility and also provides
a neighborhood feel. He stated that the entrance monument was very important, despite public works'
concerns. He stated that turning movements could be accommodated.
Finke inquired about geotechnical information and water table. He noted that previous potential
developers stated that basements would be extremely difficult and had proposed slab -on -grade. Campion
replied that they had two geotech firms take a look and believed basements would be protected with
foundation drain tiles.
Nolan inquired about price points. Jeff Holmers (applicant's marketing consultant) replied that they
would be $750,000-$1,000,000. The units shown were 3400 square feet (main level + basement).
Rick Denman (Charles Cudd) said that they build a lot of detached villas. Their buyers tend to be empty
nesters, with all living facilities on the main level. The basements tend to be used for entertaining and
storage.
1
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from April 8, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Foote stated that the pitch of the roof looked too steep and was over exaggerated.
V. Reid inquired how the applicant would feel about 'no left turn' out of Meander. Alcon stated that it
will help that this is marketed towards empty nesters, which should help with a.m. rush hour.
V. Reid inquired what the developer would do if the City pushed back on the northern lots because of the
trees. Alcon noted that they would try to relocate as many trees as possible and noted the treed area on
the east of the golf course being preserved.
Foote inquired if sufficient right-of-way was provided for four -lane. Finke stated that it is an absolute
requirement if the project moved forward.
Steve Theesfeld — 600 Shawnee Woods. Road — stated that he heard from the developer that Jeff Holmers
was a true professional and a very kind man. He stated that he has less of a problem with the developer
and more of an issue with how the City is treating this. The Commission is being asked to move the high
density from the southeast corner of the golf course and relocating it here. He stated that 15 years ago,
before they bought, they did their due diligence. The houses were in disrepair and they have spent a lot of
money restoring them. The proposed townhomes in the northeast corner of the course is out of character
with the investment made in the area. He stated that he has asked City Planners throughout the metro
what would happen if someone wanted to develop high density townhomes across the street from five
acres lots...and they just laughed. He said that the neighbors were not naive, they understand that
development occurs. However, they have watched Wild Meadows come in. They were told there would
be no drainage issues. There were. They were told for the Reserve that there would be no drainage
issues. He asked the Commissioners to go look at that site and it is obvious there will be problems. He
stated that while there are only four other houses, everyone should be treated equally. If you had a couple
of owners from Wild Meadows who lost money in the stock market, and they asked the City to allow
townhomes in the middle of Wild Meadows...the City would never do it. He suggested more density on
the west and preserving the north. Theesfeld noted that the property south of the driving surface of
Shawnee Woods Road is owned by the property owners to the north. He urged the Commission to
relocate the road to the south of the easement. He stated that the road easement states that it is for access
from CR 101 to CR116 and that there is an argument to be made that when the City cut off the road with
Wild Meadows and the Woods that the easement is no longer valid. He noted that there are alternatives
for the cul-de-sac, such as a hammerhead. He stated that the City shouldn't take cash instead of
preserving trees and providing parks. He said that instead of putting homes on the east end, the area
could be a park because it is heavily wooded and kids need a place to live. He stated that traffic on
CR116 is horrible and this would vastly increase traffic...and pointing it through Toll's development. He
told the Commission they didn't have to rubber stamp everything the golf course asks for. He invited
everyone out to look at the woods and said they can talk about the easements.
Eric Voltin - 690 Shawnee Woods — stated that the density is too much. It might be convenient for the
golf course, but no other options have been provided. The woods across from them are awesome. The
proposal is disrespectful. It is not thoughtful of anyone except the golf course's interests. He stated that
Theesfeld is right about the easement; you can't put driveways over it. He stated that they don't want to,
but they will litigate if the plan isn't improved.
Jim Peterson — 812 Meander Road — stated he is a 29 year resident. The traffic is a huge problem because
there is a rise in the road to the south and it is guaranteed that there will be an accident. He told the
Commission not to forget about all of the other houses already approved to the west of County Road 116
on Meander.
2
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from April 8, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Scott Peterson — President of Medina Golf and Country Club — stated that the Club does not own the
property. Rachel and Hendry have an option. He stated that with regards to the trail along the east, there
is safety and liability concerns of flying golf balls, along with security and vandalism.
Finke clarified that Fairways of Rolling Green owns the property, and there are various cross interests
with Medina County Club, and that the Club is, therefore, very much involved.
Martin stated that when this goes to the Council, she would like a diagram showing the portion of the site
that the developer has an option to buy.
Public Hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
Mitchell stated that golf courses all over are developing in their entirety. With regards to the water table,
a parched water table is a concern and needs to be explored. Mitchell stated that the City had apparently
weighed in on the Comprehensive Plan to allow for some residential, but maybe not as much as some
people thought would be allowed. He said he was sympathetic to the needs for a park. County Road 116
seems like County Road 101 in Plymouth when it ultimately developed. Trails along major roads require
maintenance. The PUD has to include all of the property so that everyone is entwined in the web that is
weaved.
V. Reid stated she is very concerned about the tree removal. She is also concerned with legal issues
regarding the easement and traffic on CR 116, as well as water table issues and drainage. She'll reiterate
that parks are important in the area. She said if the golf course did go under at some point, the proposed
configuration would be odd to work with and should consider some other options.
Nolan stated that he was involved in previous plans and he had always thought some residential around
the golf course made sense. He acknowledged the site was challenging because of the roads coming in,
property shape, trees, and water and thinks that a PUD makes sense. It is not fair to say that the Country
Club is not involved. If the development can go outside of the bounds of this property it seems like a lot
of these problems could be resolved. He thinks tying the two roads together isn't a good idea. Perhaps
two cul-de-sacs could be put in the NW corner, but it may cause other problems. He asked what our
density expectation is in the NE corner. He has a lot of the same concerns the neighbors have concerning
removal of trees and cul-de-sac location, but likes the idea of a park. He said he would rather see more
density along the west and south rather than the north. This would be a better solution than pouring a
development into an environmentally sensitive area. This area has been identified for higher density for a
long time. He acknowledged that the neighbors had concern with the inconsistency of development, but
when he looks at the product they are proposing, which is a high quality builder and the homes would
range from $750k — $1 million, he said it might be better than smaller townhomes. He said it would be
good to find a way to appease the neighbors by increasing the lot sizes and maybe possibly saving some
of the trees. He suggested the City look into the easement issue.
R. Reid said she can't envision how this interfaces with the Woods of Medina development and she needs
to look closer at how they tie together. She would like a plan that shows The Woods of Medina and this
proposal shown together so she can see how they work together. There are way too many houses on the
north end, which greatly contributes to all of the problems. She does not see taking down all the trees.
She suggested making the NE corner a nature area since there seems to be several issues in that area. The
City keeps saying that it's not fair to penalize each developer for the County Road 116 problems, but
something has to be done at some point. She doesn't like funneling all of the traffic through other
developments and it doesn't seem like it meets any of the objectives of a PUD. The legal issues need to
be resolved before the applicant comes back.
3
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from April 8, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Foote stated that everything he wanted to say has been said. He sees a PUD as taking a difficult property
and making it better. He said he's not sure how to get around 116, but they should look at alternate
options. Double frontage lots are a poor way to do things. He also said that he couldn't go along with
clear cutting the trees in the northeast corner.
White stated that she agrees that tree preservation is extremely important. Traffic is a problem, but she is
especially concerned with the density on both the north and west sides. There are just too many lots and
if the number of lots is decreased it will provide more options for a park.
4
Medina City Council Excerpt from April 15, 2014 Meeting Minutes
A. Villas at Medina Country Club PUD Concept Plan (7:18 p.m.)
Pederson recused himself from the discussion.
Weir noted that Pederson does not have a direct interest in this issue but has platted land
adjacent to this parcel and therefore recused himself from the discussion.
Sparks noted that this is simply a Concept Plan review for the proposal of 52 detached
townhomes along the north and western edge of the Medina Golf and Country Club. He
reviewed the current and proposed zoning of the property and adjacent properties as well as
other items of flexibility requested, such as lot size. He discussed the road access proposed
and the connections to existing roads that would be provided for each portion of the
development; noting that Shawnee Woods Road would be constructed to a full urban roadway.
He discussed the proposed sewer and water connections, as preferred by the City. He noted
that wetland plans and buffers would be required and advised that a maintenance plan for the
ponding would also be needed. He stated that Public Works recommended that one of the
roadways be widened with parking restricted to one side of the street and advised that the
applicant has met that request. He noted that one area has a large amount of tree removal
proposed there is another area proposed as a tree save area. He advised that while the Park
Commission does recommend a park in this area of the City there is currently not land proposed
for park dedication and noted that discussion will continue for a possible park. He reported that
the Planning Commission reviewed this item at their previous meeting and noted that the
comments were summarized within the Council packet. He highlighted the concerns expressed
by the Commission and staff.
Weir questioned if the concern regarding easements on the south side of Shawnee Woods Trail
have been resolved.
Sonsalla stated that she reviewed the easement document that the City has over the right-of-
way and determined that the City does have an easement although technically the underlying
fee owners would be the landowner across the street.
Anderson referenced the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and the numerous
concerns, specifically regarding the water table.
Sparks advised that through a previous request the developer had said that the water table was
too high to allow basements, while this proposal includes basements. He advised that there are
some areas proposed for sump pumps with drain tiles. He advised that staff would like clarity
on that issue to ensure that there would not be a conflict with the water levels.
Kellogg advised that staff is requesting that the applicant hire a geotechnical firm to provide
information showing that the ground water elevations would not adversely affect the basements
on this site.
Martin questioned if a specific density amount is required because of the type of housing
proposed.
Sparks noted that there is not a minimum density amount associated with this type of housing.
Martin stated that perhaps R-2 would be an appropriate zoning for this property. She also
confirmed that the existing easement would be for both road and utilities.
1
Medina City Council Excerpt from April 15, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Anderson questioned if the City has the water and sewer capacity for this amount of
development in that area.
Kellogg confirmed that the City does have that capacity.
Chuck Alcon, representing Rachel Contracting, spoke to the Council. He stated that a PUD
overlay is requested for all four parcels to avoid reconfiguration of golf course holes and
operations.
Martin referenced the land records and questioned if the golf course currently rents the property.
John Swarsinski stated that the entire parcel, excluding the clubhouse, is owned by Fairway
Greens Ltd. Partnership and advised that the Club leases the property from the owner.
Martin confirmed that the current lease expires June 30, 2018 and has a 15 -year option to
renew.
Swarsinski advised that the Club has executed three consecutive options to renew; confirming
that the lease will be renewed after 2018.
Alcon referenced the Shawnee Woods Road easement and provided documentation on an
easement, which replaces one of the easements found within the staff report. He provided the
information to the City Attorney and asked for a written determination as the road depends upon
that easement.
Rick Denmen, Charles Denoble Company, stated that they believe this is a great neighborhood
and location for this development. He stated that they are excited about the opportunity. He
advised that the homes would be detached villas with 1,900 square feet on the main floor and
1,500 square feet on the lower floor. He advised that these homes would be marketed to luxury
empty nester with a price range of $725,000 to $850,000.
Martin questioned the price range for the homes along Brockton.
Finke reported that the price range is around the $500,000s.
Denmen stated that when the master is placed on the main floor typically the design is for single
level living with guest quarters on the lower level. He confirmed that this product would not be
limited to a specific age group.
Weir stated that these are large homes with a small lot in a good school district that could be
attractive to families as well.
Alcon reported a density rate of 2.7 units per acre, which is on the low end of the scale and
advised that all right-of-way and access requirements of Hennepin County are met through this
plan. He reviewed the proposed trails for the property, noting that a trail would not be included
for the east side of the parcel as it would be considered a liability. He stated that a park was not
found to be a good use adjacent to the golf course and therefore cash is proposed in lieu of land
for park dedication. He advised that a geotechnical report is available and will be provided to
the City. He also summarized some of the other aspects of the Plan including driveways, tree
preservation, sanitary sewer, and landscaping.
2
Medina City Council Excerpt from April 15, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Weir stated that she walked the entire property and believes this to be an environmentally
sensitive site and she was concerned with clear cutting. She stated that she would be surprised
if the geotechnical report states that basements along Shawnee Woods Road would be okay
because of the wet conditions she observed.
Steve Theesfeld, 600 Shawnee Woods Road, stated that the issue had been discussed at the
Planning Commission as to whether this would be a proper PUD. He referenced City Code and
reviewed the definition provided of PUD. He believed that the density provided for the northeast
corner is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and also believed the proposed clear cutting
would be a violation of City policy. He referenced the easement and believed that the driveway
access would be awkward because he would own the land on either side of the driveways. He
stated that in every other instance within the City the road is split between northern and
southern parcel while this proposal places the entire burden of the road on one side of the road.
He also believed that the density proposed for the northeast corner should be shifted to the
southeast portion of the site. He also believed that perhaps it would be appropriate to
reconfigure some of the golf holes because there will be disruption to neighboring property
owners.
Eric Voltin, 690 Shawnee Woods Road, referenced the issue of density and stated that in other
instances if there is a townhome project near a development with large lots there are usually
larger widths and additional landscaping to screen the areas from each other. He believed that
these are nice homes but did not want to see such high density near his low -density residential
area.
Anderson confirmed the areas that the residents are opposed to.
Theesfeld stated that his concern is mostly regarding the lots adjacent to the five acre lots and
believed additional density could be placed along CR 116.
Weir agreed with the comments of the Planning Commission regarding the traffic concerns at
the Meander intersection. She referenced the road proposed opposite of Meander and the
wooded deep gulley that she assumed would be filled and cut for homes to be constructed. She
agreed that some of the homes should meet the R-1 standard and did not want to see clear
cutting occur on the site. She stated that she would like to see more sensitive preservation of
trees, noting their ability to absorb water. She believed that a trail along the eastern portion of
the site could be placed 30 feet within the woodland to avoid safety concern with golf balls. She
stated that the only place she found golf balls on the site is on the western portion and
questioned if there would be impact to the homes proposed. She expressed concern with the
high water table along Shawnee Woods Road. She stated that she likes the side loading
garages proposed and could agree to the shortened driveway. She stated that she would like to
see the double frontage lots dealt with in some way so that they do not face a road on both
sides. She was also concerned with the tight turn proposed for the road but noted that staff
explained that the roadway would need to accommodate a turning fire truck. She would also
like to see development within the wooded areas that is more compatible with the development
to the north (R-1) and with the existing woods.
Martin agreed with the comments made by Weir. She referenced the double frontage lots and
the effect of the development agreement on adjacent landowners and asked for information in
regard to the screening. She stated that she would also like to see a report on the road
easements and how they interact with the properties. She stated that she also did not like the
shared driveway idea. She stated that this is a beautiful product proposed for a great open
3
Medina City Council Excerpt from April 15, 2014 Meeting Minutes
space area but was concerned with the implication to the neighbors to the north and the
environment.
Anderson referenced the report of the Planning Commission, noting that he saw a lot of concern
and not positive support. He echoed the comments made by Weir and Martin as well as the
comments of the Planning Commission regarding the traffic on CR 116. He agreed with
Commissioner Reid that at some point the City has to put their foot down on development that
will negatively impact the traffic on CR 116. He acknowledged that it may not be fair to future
developers, but believed that there needs to be a solution to the traffic problem.
Weir asked for information with the PUD overlaying the entire site of four parcels.
Sparks stated that the proposal would place the PUD over the four parcels, which was also
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. He explained that would ensure that the
limited housing would be in agreement with the existing Comprehensive Plan. He explained
that any additional housing requests would need to come back before the Council.
Marty Campion, Campion Engineering, stated that he is the project engineer for this project as
well as the previously submitted project. He stated that he is aware of the water conditions and
advised that basements are proposed to be above the existing ground elevation. He advised
that additional grading would also occur on the western portion to bring the elevation up above
the water. He reported that these are proposed to be lookout units and not walkout units. He
referenced the proposed ponds along Shawnee Woods Road and noted that those are existing
wetlands and not newly constructed ponds. He noted that there are a number of wetlands
onsite but they are not proposing to impact any of those wetlands and therefore mitigation is not
required. He confirmed that the wetland delineation has been approved by the City consultant.
He referenced the issue of traffic and acknowledged that there are problems with CR 116 but
noted that the problem arises at Highway 55 and CR 116 and not at the intersection of Meander
Road and CR 116. He advised that there would be alternative ways to exit the development
without accessing CR 116.
Weir thanked the applicant and his representatives for coming and looked forward to the next
review.
Pederson rejoined the Council.
4
WSB
& Associates. engineering• planning. environmental • construction
November 3, 2014
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Re: City Project: Villas at Medina Country Club General Plan and Preliminary Plat
WSB Project No. 2712-030
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the revised General Plan and Preliminary Plat submitted October 24, 2014, for the
Villas at Medina Country Club site. The plans propose to construct street and utility improvements to
serve a 43 unit detached townhome/single family home development along the north and west
perimeters of the Medina Country Club. We have the following comments with regards to
engineering matters.
1. The preliminary plat should be signed by a licensed land surveyor.
2. Outlot A at its narrowest width (3 -feet) does not provide adequate width to construct the
proposed fence, install the Arborvitae plantings, allow room for the sanitary sewer and
provide for snow storage. The plans should be revised to allow for the proposed
improvements and snow storage.
3. The parcel area table for Block 2 shown on Sheet 3 shows there are 6 lots in Block 2. The
preliminary plat shows 7 lots in Block 2. The table should be revised to show 7 lots and the
associated calculations should be updated.
4. Sanitary sewer service inverts should be at least 4 -feet below the low floor elevation. Lot 6,
Block 2 should be revised to meet this requirement.
5. The sanitary sewer pipe grade between MH-15 and MH-16 is shown at 0.26%. This grade
should be revised to at least the minimum allowable grade of 0.40%.
6. The sanitary sewer invert at MH-20 is shown incorrectly as 1007.03 and should be revised to
1006.54.
7. We recommend the Maintenance Access Section shown on Sheet 11 be revised. We
recommend the accesses be 12 -feet wide and paved. If the City permits a natural surface such
St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
Villas at Medina General Plan and Preliminary Plat
November 3, 2014
Page 2
as sod we recommend the section be revised to include a green pavement section utilizing a
manufactured product such as Grasspave or an equivalent.
8. The maintenance access to the pond at the south end of the sight is nearly 17%. The access
grade should be revised to be 10% or less.
9. The maintenance access between Lots 13 and 14, Block 1 is approximately 13% and should
be revised to 10% or less.
10. The maintenance access shown along the north lot line of Lot 28, Block 1 needs to be
relocated outside of the wetland buffer area. The access should be extended across Lot 28
within a 20 -foot wide easement to the upstream storm manhole (YD 15).
11. The foundation drain and yard drain systems should be at least 4 -feet deep to help insure they
function year round.
12. The foundation drain system piping should be solid wall PVC at least 8 -inches in diameter
with wyes stubbed to each property.
13. It is unclear why the foundation drainage system for Block 3 extends into Lot 8. It appears
this system could terminate on the common lot line between Lots 7 and 8.
14. The inverts shown for the foundation drain systems on Blocks 2 and 3 are incorrect and
should be revised.
15. Proposed lookout elevations should be shown on the grading plans.
16. Proposed driveway grades should be added to the grading plans.
17. The City generally discourages retaining walls within drainage and utility easements and also
walls that cross lot lines. The proposed retaining wall shown across Lots 12 — 17, Block 1
does both. The City should review and determine if this wall is permissible as shown.
18. Rear yard grades should be a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 5%. Many rear yards in
Block 1 do not meet this requirement. The grading plan should be revised to meet this
requirement and minimize the possibility of perpetually wet rear yards.
19. The watermain along Shawnee Woods Road should be extended easterly and connected to
the existing watermain stub from the Wild Meadows subdivision.
20. The plans should include storm sewer pipe lengths and grades as well as rim and invert
elevations.
21. Additional detail should be provided for the proposed gravity foundation drain system.
Details such as pipe lengths, pipe grades, pipe sizing calculations, frost protection, etc. should
be provided with future plan submittals.
22. Additional comments from our water resources group are attached.
Villas at Medina General Plan and Preliminary Plat
November 3, 2014
Page 3
23. Additional comments responding to the September 10, 2014 Braun Intertec letter are
attached.
Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tom Kellogg
Cc Nate Sparks (email)
WSB
&&A,,,K engineering• planning• environmental. construction
Memorandum
To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer
City of Medina
From: Earth Evans, P.E.
Water Resources Project Manager
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: 10.30.14
Re: Villas at Medina Country Club
Stormwater Management Plan Review
City Project No. LR-14-138
WSB Project No. 2712-03
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
We have completed a preliminary review of the stormwater management plan for Villas at
Medina Country Club development in Medina, MN. The site is located east of CR116 adjacent
to Medina Country Club. The development was previously reviewed on 7.24.14. Documents
provided for review include the following:
• Hydrocad and PondNET modeling dated 10.22.14
• Grading and Utility Plans dated 10.22.14
These plans were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina's Stormwater
Design Manual and general engineering practices for stormwater management.
1. Future submittals should include storm sewer sizing calculations.
2. The plan as submitted does not meet the City's filtration requirement. We have discussed
this with the developer's engineer and he indicated that they are proposing to provide a
filter bench in the SW pond. A detail should be provided that indicates how the filter
shelf will be constructed and calculations regarding the sizing are required for review.
3. The City requires that either 2 -feet of separation be provided from the EOF to the low
opening or evaluation of the back-to-back 100 -year event. The EOF for the proposed SW
pond and golf course pond is at elevation 1000.9 over the low point on the proposed road.
The EOF then continues northwesterly at 999.3 over CSAH116. Based on the EOF
elevation of 1000.9, the freeboard requirement is not met for lots 1-20, Block 1.
Therefore the developer's engineer is proposing to provide separation based on the back-
to-back 100 -year event. The back-to-back HWL is 995.4. Based on this HWL a
St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K'\02712-030\Admin\Docs\Villas at Medina Country Club102914.doo
Villas at Medina
10.30.14
Page 2
minimum of 0.6 -feet of separation is provided for the lower level of the properties and
2.6 -feet of freeboard is provided to the low opening. Please provide calculations to verify
the HWL.
4. Indicate on the plans the upstream and downstream invert, pipe size and slope for the
proposed outlet from the existing wetland north of Shawnee Woods Road in order to
confirm that the existing HWL and discharge rates are maintained.
5. The EOF for the Woods of Medina development is indicated to be provided at elevation
1014.1. However, the EOF flow path continues west and it appears to cross into the
Villas of Medina road section. The EOF should be maintained off the proposed road
section and within the rear lots of the Woods of Medina.
6. The proposed development requires extensive rear yard storm sewer which poses a
maintenance concern.
7. A detail should be provided for the outlet control structure (OCS-1).
8. There does not appear to be sufficient separation between the draintile where it daylights
from the rear yards of Block 1 and the proposed storm sewer between STMH-16 and
STMH-13
9. Provide calculations to verify that sufficient capacity is provided from STMH-16 to
STMH-13for the discharge from the existing golf course pond.
10. Sheet 18 shows two additional ponds to be constructed in the golf course. Based on
discussions with the developers engineer the proposed outlet for the ponds is through
existing draintile.
11. EOF routes and elevations for road low points should be indicated on the plans.
K \02712-030\Admm\Docs\Villas at Medina Country Club_102913.doc
WSB
Associates. engineering • planning • environmental • construction
Memorandum
To: Tom Kellogg, P.E., City Engineer
City of Medina
From: Ole Olmanson P.G.
Sr. Environmental Scientist
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: October 30, 2014
Re: Villas at Medina Country Club
Geotechnical and Drainage Review
City Project No. LR-14-138
WSB Project No. 2712-03
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
In response to the Braun Intertec letter dated 10/2/2014 regarding their review of the
geotechnical reports and WSB response letter, the following points were considered:
• Hydrostatic groundwater level will likely be 10-15 feet below the lowest planned
basement floor grade.
• Regardless of the soil origin onsite, the clay content of the soil can lead to conditions of
poor drainage and perched groundwater conditions.
• It is possible that water bearing sand lenses or seams will be encountered during
construction.
• Some areas of fat clay exist that will need correction.
Our findings conclude:
• If proper construction and drainage practices are followed as recommended in the Braun
letter, structures can be successfully built and occupied in this environment.
We also examined whether the current drainage for the existing homes north of the proposed
development would be adversely altered due to grading and trenching activities associated with
this project and whether neighboring wetlands could be affected.
• The existing soils exhibit poor drainage and therefore it is unlikely that grading and
trenching activities would adversely impact the soil's already poor drainage
characteristics. This indicates that nearby homes and neighboring wetlands, which reside
in the same poorly drained soils, will not be affected by construction activities.
• Surface runoff altered by a change in elevation would be localized and handled by a
properly designed storm water system.
Villas at Medina
10.30.2014
Page 2
We agree that the Braun letter addresses all major concerns regarding groundwater impact on the
proposed development and that the recommendations put forth in that letter are appropriate and
effective solutions. We find that based on the soil boring information and local soil survey, area
surface and groundwater drainage, which is already poor, cannot be further degraded to the point
of negatively impacting neighboring homes or wetlands.
CHARTERED
Douglas D. Shaftel
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9248 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
dshaftel@kennedy-graven.com
http://www.kennedv-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Dusty Finke
From: Doug Shaftel
Re: Villas at Medina Country Club: Shawnee Woods Road easement
Date: 11/4/14
Several property owners have objected to the proposed Villas at Medina Country Club
development. As part of the development proposal, access to eight residential lots from County
Road 116 will be through Shawnee Woods Road. In their written objections, the owners argue
that the City cannot legally permit this use of Shawnee Woods Road. This memo analyzes the
merits of their legal arguments. It contains no comment on policy issues or analysis of zoning
issues related to the development.
ISSUES
The owners appear to raise the following three issues in their written submissions.'
1. Would the City be abandoning its street easement if it vacates a portion of Shawnee
Woods Road in conjunction with the recording of the Woods of Medina plat?
SHORT ANSWER: NO
2. Would the City be exceeding the scope of its street easement if it allows the use of
Shawnee Woods Road to access eight additional residential properties?
SHORT ANSWER: NO
3. Would the City be violating the terms of the Shawnee Woods Road easement if it permits
construction of drive way connections to the improved road over what is currently
unimproved right-of-way?
SHORT ANSWER: NO
' The author reviewed the August 7`h, 2014 letter of Howard Roston, attorney for the objecting owners, and the
objecting owners' undated document titled "Proposal For Changes to Villas at Medina Country Club."
1
FACTS
This memo discusses what this author believes a court is likely to do if faced with the following
facts; the analysis and conclusions may change should any be incorrect or if additional facts are
presented.
In 1977, presumably as a condition of a subdivision application, the then property owner
(Enterprise Properties, a co -partnership) of an approximately 27 -acre property granted "a
permanent easement for street and utility purposes" 60 feet in width to the city of Medina (the
"1977 Easement"). Lying within this easement is what is now known as Shawnee Woods Road.
Between 1978 and 1993, five houses were constructed on the five separate lots located to the
north of the easement (the "Northern Properties") and which abut the road. Shawnee Woods
Road currently provides access from the five developed lots to County Road 116. Although the
road terminates at the driveway to the eastern -most lot, the easement extends another 300-350
feet to the eastern boundary of the original 27 -acre property.
In 2013, the City received a plat application for the development of the western -most of the
Northern Properties (the "Woods of Medina" development). That plat provided for the vacation
of a portion of Shawnee Woods Road, resulting in a cul-de-sac just before the road connects to
County Road 116. The plat further dedicates a street connection between Shawnee Woods Road
and Poppy Trail, a new road constructed as a part of the Reserve of Medina development, located
just to the north of the Northern Properties, and which connects to County Road 116 at a location
several hundred feet north of the existing Shawnee Woods Road connection. The City
conditioned the partial vacation of Shawnee Woods Road upon the recording of the final Woods
of Medina plat.
The City recently received an application for a proposed development called the Villas at Medina
Country Club (the "Villas" Development), which includes the creation of, among other things,
eight lots to the south of Shawnee Woods Road (the "Southern Properties"). The owners of the
Northern Properties (the "Northern Owners"), except Jeff Pederson, have objected to this
development.
ANALYSIS
1. Would the City be abandoning its street easement if it vacates a portion of Shawnee
Woods Road in conjunction with the recording of the Woods of Medina plat?
The Northern Owners suggest that the City's grant of the preliminary plat for the Woods of
Medina development, which included the conditional approval of a vacation of a portion of
Shawnee Woods Road, evidences an intention to abandon Shawnee Woods Road.
To abandon an easement, there must be both an extended period of nonuse and conduct
evidencing an intention to abandon the property.2 The City's conditional vacation of Shawnee
Woods Road is not evidence of an intention to abandon the entire road. The vacation resolution
2 Richards Asphalt v. Bunge Corporation, 399 N.W.2d 188, 192 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
2
requires as a precondition of vacation final plat approval and recording of the Woods of Medina
plat. Once the Woods of Medina plat is recorded, Shawnee Woods Road will connect to Poppy
Trail, which connects to County Road 1 16. Therefore, the partial vacation of Shawnee Woods
Road evidences only an intention to consolidate two access points to County Road 116.
Moreover, to have abandoned a road, the City must have not used it for a lengthy period of time.3
Because the City has been plowing and otherwise maintaining Shawnee Woods Road, the City
could not have abandoned it.4
2. Would the City be exceeding the scope of its street easement if it allows eight additional
residential properties to use Shawnee Woods Road to access County Road 116?
The Northern Owners argue that the 1977 Easement was only intended to accommodate "rural
large lot development", and therefore cannot be improved into a "full urban section with curb
and storm sewer."
The scope of an express easement (in contrast to a prescriptive or implied easement) is controlled
by the express terms of the easement. When the express terms are ambiguous, to understand the
intention of the parties courts will examine extrinsic evidence.5 In interpreting an ambiguous
easement, courts will strictly construe the easement against the grantor. Courts also generally
interpret express easements granted for public use fairly broadly. The property owners have not
identified and I am aware of no Minnesota case in which a court has limited an express public
street easement to only rural use.
The first question presented here is whether the phrase "street purposes", as used in the 1977
Easement, unambiguously encompasses the use of the easement to access eight residential lots
that abut the street, but are smaller than the Northern Properties. An easement is ambiguous
when its terms are susceptible to more than one interpretation. "The primary purpose of [public]
streets is use for travel by the public, and this refers not alone to the adjacent property owners,
nor to the inhabitants of a particular subdivision, but to the whole people."8 The proposed eight
residential lots will abut Shawnee Woods Road and be in the adjacent subdivision. Therefore, a
court would likely conclude that the phrase "street purposes" in the 1977 Easement
unambiguously includes the proposed use of Shawnee Woods Road to access these lots.
But even if a court were to decide that "street purposes" was ambiguous and consider extrinsic
evidence, it is difficult to imagine that the grantor intended to limit the street to rural use when it
3 See e.g, Hickerson v. Bender, 500 N.W.2d 169 (1993) (abandonment of access easement after 20 years of nonuse).
4 Abandonment of the road easement is also inconsistent with the Northern Owners' interests. If the easement has
been abandoned, then the Northern Owners could not access County Road 116 with obtaining a private access
easement over Jeff Pederson's property.
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Company, 575 N.W.2d 578, 580 (Minn. 1998).
6
Id.
See e.g., Washington Wildlife Preservation, Inc. v. State. 329 N.W.2d 543, 547 (Minn. 1983) (railroad easement
encompasses use of easement area for public trail); see also Cater v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange, 63 N.W.
111 (Minn. 1895) (road easement encompasses the installation of telephone lines).
8 11 McQuillin Mun. Corp. §30.156 (3d ed.), quoting Yarrow First Associates v Town of Clyde Hill, 403 P.2d 49
(Wash. 1965).
3
failed to explicitly say so in the easement. To date, the Northern Owners have presented no
evidence supporting their interpretation of the easement's scope other than the fact that the
Northern Properties' are larger than the lots under consideration.
There may be a set of facts in which the City authorized the use of a 60 -foot street for a purpose
so inconsistent with the surrounding uses that it exceeded the easement's scope. But this case
does not present them.
A court -imposed distinction between streets easements limited to rural residential development
as opposed to urban residential development would have significant public policy implications.
Most plats include dedication language "for street and utility purposes" identical to that used in
the 1977 Easement. Therefore, such a ruling would raise the specter of any property owner of
platted land in a developing area arguing that the street abutting her property was only meant to
facilitate rural uses, an arguably unintended obstacle to new development or redevelopment.
3. Would the City be violating the terms of the Shawnee Woods Road easement if it permits
construction of connections to the improved road over what is currently unimproved
right-of-way?
The Northern Owners suggest that the City would violate the terms of the 1977 Easement if it
permits the construction of driveways connecting Shawnee Woods Road to the Southern
Properties. The current version of the Villas development includes a sidewalk that would abut
the shared property line between the Northern and Southern Properties. Just north of this
sidewalk will be a strip of land separating Shawnee Woods Road from the sidewalk. The
Northern Owners appear to argue that because they own the underlying fee interest in this
unimproved strip of land, the Southern Owners could not legally cross it.
As the successors in interest to the grantor of the original easement, each of the Northern Owners
does own the fee interest to the segment of the 1977 Easement that abuts her or his property.9
However, the fee owner cannot use the property encumbered by the street easement in any way
that would unreasonably interfere with the use of the easement area for street purposes.10
One of the fundamental purposes of a street is to provide access to abutting property owners.
Every owner of property that abuts a public street has a right of reasonably suitable and
convenient access to the street in at least one direction." Therefore, the City not only can
provide access to the Southern Properties, but it must. Because access to the street by abutting
owners is a fundamental part of the City's use of the easement for street purposes, the Northern
Property owners cannot interfere with the provision of such access.
DDS
9 See Edgewater Cottage Ass 'n v. Watson, 387 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (when the original grantor
owned the property up to and including the street, then the owners who obtained title from that grantor own the fee
interest underlying the street).
10 Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler, 177 N.W.2d 786 (1970).
11 Hendrickson v. State, 127 N.W.2d 165, 171-72 (1964).
4
Hennepin County Public Works
Transportation Department
Public Works Facility
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
July 11, 2014
Ms. Debra Peterson
Planning Assistant
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
Re: Preliminary Plat Review — Villas at the Medina Country Club
Southeast Quadrant of CR 116 and Shawnee Woods Road
Hennepin County Plat Review No. 3346
Dear Ms. Peterson:
Phone: 612-596-0300
Fax: 612-321-3410
Web: www.hennepin.us
Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county
review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. The preliminary plat for the Villas at the Medina
Country Club was received by Hennepin County on June 12, 2014. A previous concept plan for this
development was reviewed by the county in February 2014. The majority of the comments provided
by the county on the concept plan have been incorporated in the preliminary plat.
The Villas at the Medina Country Club development was also included in the traffic analysis that was
completed by WSB & Associates in April/May 2013. A letter with the county's comments for the
Reserve of Medina and area developments was provided to the city on April 24, 2013. The comments
provided in that letter remain valid for the Villas at the Medina Country Club preliminary plat
review. Based on our current review, the following comments are provided:
Access - As shown on the preliminary plat, two new access roadways are proposed. One access is
proposed on CR 116, directly across from Meander Road. This access meets the county spacing
guidelines of '/4 mile to Foxberry Farms Road, immediately to the north. The county supports the
proposed alignment of this access (directly across from Meander Road).
The current daily traffic on CR 116 is 8,400 vehicles per day with a posted speed of 55 mph. With
the proposed full access at CR 116/Meander Road, the county recommended full left and right -turn
lanes on CR 116 for traffic operations and safety purposes. In response to this request, turn lanes are
proposed for this development and are shown on the Preliminary Street and Storm Overall Plan
(sheet 11 of 33). The turn lanes and tapers are acceptable as proposed. However, the county will want
further review of the roadway, signing and striping layout plans as they are developed. In addition, in
the notes, please modify the last note (7) to refer only to turn lanes by deleting the text "and by-pass
lanes."
The second access is proposed on the north side of the property to Shawnee Woods Road. Consistent
with Woods of Medina plat, it is our understanding that the existing access to CR 116 from Shawnee
Woods Road will be vacated.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Right -of -Way - The current half right of way for CR 116 along the property is 40 feet (centerline to
property line). Consistent with the right of way recommendations for previous neighboring plats, the
county recommended 25 additional feet to provide a total half right of way of 65 feet to
accommodate a future 4 -lane roadway with turn lanes and a multi -use trail. This requested dedication
is shown on the preliminary plat as 10 feet of additional right of way and 15 feet of trail/utility
easement north of Meander Road. South of this roadway, 10 feet of additional right of way is shown,
but the 15 -foot trail and utility easement is not identified. The county recommends dedication of the
full additional 25 feet along the entire length of the property. In addition, the county's preference
would be to dedicate as much of the 15 feet (currently shown as trail/utility easement) as roadway
right of way, if this is possible with setback requirements.
There is an existing trail on the west side of CR 116. The installation of a multi -use path on the east
side of CR 116 is shown on the plat, which will provide a pedestrian/bike connection from this
development to cross CR 116 at the Hackamore Road signalized intersection. This will help to
address the county's safety concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists that may wish to cross CR 116 at
Meander Road. Please note, the county will not support a crosswalk at this uncontrolled intersection
due to the current high traffic speeds and volumes.
Traffic Impacts - The traffic study completed for the Reserve of Medina identified numerous
roadway improvements along CR 116, including the eventual reconstruction of this roadway to
provide two through lanes in each direction at Hackamore Road with left and right -turn lanes at
intersections along the corridor.
The county currently has no projects identified in the approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
or maintenance projects planned in this area. Therefore, the city and/or developer(s) would need to
provide funding for the necessary improvements. While we understand that these improvements are
not solely due to this development, we suggest that the city partner and coordinate with neighboring
communities, including the county, to determine the larger scale traffic improvement funding and
needs, such as additional through lanes on CR 116.
Permits — Please inform the developer that all proposed construction within county right-of-way
requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is
not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and
landscaping. Permit questions can be directed to Steve Groen at (612) 596-0337 or
steven.2roenWsennepin. us.
Please contact Bob Byers (612) 596-0354, robert.bversWiennepin.us or Carla Stueve (612) 596-0356,
carla.stueve(dhennepin.us for any further discussion of these items.
Sincerely,
James N. Grube, P.E.
Director of Transportation and County Engineer
cc: Plat Review Committee
Mark Larson, Hennepin County Survey Office
Fredrikson
& BYRON, P.A.
August 7, 2014
Jo and Erin Janssens
690 Shawnee Woods Road
Medina MN 55340
Steve and Elizabeth Theesfeld
600 Shawnee Woods Road
Shawnee Woods Road
Medina MN 55340
Mark and Heather Czech
660 Shawnee Woods Road
Medina MN 55340
Eric and Jill Voltin
630 Shawnee Woods Road
Medina MN 55340
Re: Villas at Medina Country Club PUD Concept Plan
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for asking me to comment and provide my opinion on the Villas at Medina Country
Club PUD Concept Plan ("Plan"). I have reviewed the information your group provided to me
including the concept plans and the Planning Report (as recently revised). I have also reviewed
relevant portions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. It is my legal opinion that
the Plan is inconsistent with the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. It is further my
opinion that the City Council has considerable discretion to deny the PUD and zoning approvals
needed for the Plan.
ZONING AND LAND USE
As noted in the Staff report, the applicant proposes to develop 48 single family homes and
"villas" in a very dense urban style residential development. The subject property is zoned
Public/Semi-Private and guided "Private Recreation." The proposed project would be entirely
inconsistent and in violation of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. According
to the City's Zoning Code:
Attorneys & Advisors
main 612.492.7000
fax 612.492.7077
www.fredlaw.com
Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55402-1425
MEMBER OF THE WORLD SERVICES GROUP / OFFICES.
AWorldw,de Network of Professional Service Providers Minneapolis / Bismarck / Des Moines / Fargo / Monterrey, Mexico / Shanghai
August 7, 2014
Page 2
Section 826.69. Public/Semi-Public - Purpose. This district shall serve areas of
public ownership or related semi-public uses or open space, conservation, or
recreation.
Section 826.71. (PS) Conditional Uses. Within any Public/Semi-Public District,
no structure or land shall be used except by conditional use permit for the
following uses:
Subd. 1. Outdoor recreational and open space uses operated by a governmental
agency or conservation group, homeowners or private association and facilities
for making same useful to public or association. Public lands, schools, parks and
municipal buildings.
Subd. 2. Conservation uses including drainage control, forestry, wildlife
sanctuaries, and facilities for making same available and useful to public.
Subd. 3. Agricultural uses.
Subd. 4. Nature study areas and arboretums.
Subd. 5. Private/Institutional outdoor recreational activities.
As is readily apparent from the plain language of the zoning code, no residential uses are
permitted in this district as a matter of right or by conditional use permit. Consistent with the
zoning code, the City's Comprehensive Plan, which is the City's long term guiding document,
defines "Private Recreation" as follows:
Private Recreation (PREC) refers to areas that are currently used for recreational
uses, are held under private ownership including a campground and golf courses
and could be expanded to include other recreational uses that are not publicly
maintained. Limited numbers of residential uses will be included within this land
use designation.
A dense R-1 style residential development with small urban style lots is inconsistent with both
the language and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan.
Under existing Minnesota law permitting a use that violates the City's Zoning code would be
unlawful and grounds for immediate legal action. Likewise, the Comprehensive Plan is intended
to be the guide tool for long term land use and zoning decisions of a City. For example, in the
League of Minnesota Cities' Handbook (the handbook extensively relied upon by almost all
Minnesota cities) summarizes this as follows:
August 7. 2014
Page 3
In essence, a comprehensive plan is an expression of the community's vision for
the future and a strategic map to reach that vision. Comprehensive planning is not
mandatory in cities outside the seven -county metropolitan area. However,
comprehensive planning is an important tool for cities to guide future
development of land to ensure a safe, pleasant, and economical environment for
residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities.
LMC Handbook, Chapter 14, Section I.A. Indeed, "once a plan is adopted, it guides local
officials in making their day-to-day decisions and becomes a factor in their decision -making
process." Id. The Comprehensive Plan for the property at issue envisions uses such as golf
courses and limited residential development, not urban type development. There is nothing
"limited" about the proposed Plan.
The City planner correctly recognizes that the proposed Plan is inconsistent with both the zoning
code and the comprehensive plan and, therefore, suggests a rezoning to a PUD.
Importantly, however, the City is under absolutely no obligation to change the zoning for the
property for a development that is inconsistent with its long term stated goals of the City. To the
contrary, a decision to rezone a property is entirely a legislative determination. Minnesota
Courts have consistently held that "when a municipality adopts or amends a zoning ordinance, it
acts in a legislative capacity under its delegated police powers." Beck v. City of St. Paul, 304
Minn. 438, 448, 231 N.W.2d 919, 925 (1975). See, also, Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope,
300 Minn. 326, 333, 220 N.W.2d 256, 261 (1974); Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 267 Minn.
155, 125 N.W.2d 583 (1963). As a legislative act, a denial of a rezoning must be upheld unless
opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting
the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, or that the classification amounts to a taking
without compensation. A Court's function is not to decide whether a City's decision to refuse a
rezoning is reasonable, but only whether the City had any legitimate basis, even if debatable:
Even where the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is debatable, or where there
are conflicting opinions as to the desirability of the restrictions it imposes * * *, it
is not the function of the courts to interfere with the legislative discretion on such
issues.
Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 334, 220 N.W.2d 256, 261. Denying a
rezoning to a PUD would be well within the broad discretion afforded to the City.
Conversely granting a PUD would be inconsistent with the City's PUD requirements. The City
has numerous PUD requirements, but most notably a proposed "PUD shall be consistent with the
City Comprehensive Plan." City Zoning Code, Section 827.27. As stated above, the proposed
Plan simply is not consistent with the Private Recreation guiding in the Comprehensive Plan and,
therefore, a PUD cannot be granted.
August 7, 2014
Page 4
While the City simply should not grant the PUD at all, if it is inclined to do so, the City's PUD
ordinance entitles the city to impose other standards as the Council deems necessary and
reasonable. City Zoning Code, Section 827.29. The standards that the City should consider and
should impose include those items necessary to protect and preserve the rural and open nature of
the area. Among other things, the City should require larger lots more consistent with the
neighborhood, greater setbacks and the preservation of significantly more trees. Moreover, as
any development is going to burden the existing homes in the neighborhood, the City should
require that any new road be located entirely on the property proposed for the development, not
your private property.
THE USE OF THE ROAD
The City planner concludes that the existing easements for Shawnee Woods Road do not prohibit
the use of the right-of-way to serve the properties for the proposed development. The City
Planner, as is reasonable, relies upon advice of the City Attorney. I understand that you have not
been provided a legal analysis, so it is difficult to evaluate the legal conclusions. However, the
legal issue is whether or not the parties who drafted the easement intended the road to be used for
a dense urban style development. An easement created by express grant is a contract, the scope
of which depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant. Lindberg v. Fasching,
667 N.W.2d 481, 487 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). There is nothing in the easement documents that
indicate such an intent and as homeowners you would be well within your rights to challenge in
Court the scope of the existing easements. Indeed, while some further investigation is required,
should the City decide to allow development along Shawnee Woods, the current residents may
consider bringing a lawsuit against the City regarding the scope and intent of the easement and
whether or not the easement has been abandoned. Buck v. City of Winona, 271 Minn. 145, 151,
135 N.W.2d 190, 194 (1965). It seems apparent that Shawnee Woods Road was dedicated and
constructed for rural large lot development, not for the use as a "full urban section with curb and
storm sewer" as indicated in the City planner's report. The additional traffic, noise, debris and
disturbance likely exceeds both the plain language and scope of the existing easements.
CONCLUSION
The proposed plan is inconsistent with the City's Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan and PUD
requirements. It also likely exceeds the scope of the easement for Shawnee Woods Road. The
City Planning Commission and City Council should entirely deny the proposed Plan because it is
illegal.
August 7, 2014
Page 5
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. I would be happy to assist in
the future resolution of this matter.
Since
t
ect D : 612.492.7441
Email: hroston@fredlaw.com
HARJras/51060218_1
1
PROPOSAL FOR CHANGES TO
VILLAS AT MEDINA COUNTRY CLUB
Background
The residents of Shawnee Woods Road ("Residents") do not support the recently proposed PUD
application by Rachael Contracting, LLC and the Medina Golf and Country Club, specifically because it
calls for destruction and dense development of the heavily wooded northern perimeter of the Medina
Country Club property, directly across from the Residents.
Compromise Proposal
1. Residential development only in Blocks 1 and 2 of the PUD application along the West and
Northwest corner of the golf course. No residential development in Blocks 3 and 4 and
dedication of those blocks of heavy woods as permanent open space. (PUD map on pg 7)
(Recent Development: Per Dusty Finke, Rachael
Contracting LLC, has indicated its intent to drop the
residential development of Block 4 from the PUD
application, so development of heavily wooded Block
3 may be the only outstanding issue.)
2. Leaving intact the right/ability for additional
residential development in the area of the
southeast corner of the golf course that was
previously approved for residential
development. (The City has stated that if the
PUD was approved, no future development of
any Country Club land would be allowed.) The
Medina Country Club was already the subject of
a privately funded 'loan/bailout' due to financial
distress in the mid 80's. That funding/deal from _
30 years ago has actually resulted in the land purchase option that the applicant is trying to
exercise by way of this PUD. By preserving the right to develop the southeast corner of the
subject property there would be a source of potential future income in case of future financial
distress. The proceeds could be used to stave off a closing of the course (of the likes that
recently happened to the Lakeview Golf Course in Minnetrista) and might be used to keep intact
the 18 hole championship golf course, club, pool and tennis facilities.
3. No improvement of Shawnee Woods Road. By developing only Blocks 1 and 2, the planned road
through those sections could join into the already scheduled -to -be -improved -via -other -
development of the western area of Shawnee Woods Road. The applicant would no longer need
to bring utilities to, or improve the portion of Shawnee Woods Road, in Blocks 3 and 4 of the
PUD, resulting in cost -savings to Rachel Contracting and the Medina Country Club.
soar
2
4. No development of Blocks 3 and 4 would result in cost -savings to Rachel Contracting and the
Medina Country Club in reduced tree -removal as well as the city ordinance required tree
replacement costs.
5. No development of Blocks 3 and 4 with dedication of that area as open space will result in tax
benefits to Rachel Contracting and the Medina Country Club.
6. The City has money in its park budget to purchase land and preserve open space. The City
should consider using such funds to reduce the cost of non -development of Blocks 3 and 4 to
Rachel Contracting and the Medina Country Club.
7. Avoidance of potential litigation: Leaving intact the ability to develop the southeast corner now
or in the future results in a net gain of development rights on the subject property while
simultaneously fulfilling the objectives of: the published Comprehensive Plan Community Vision,
Goals and Strategies; the requirements for a development proposal to meet the PUD criteria;
the published Future Land -Use Plan Principles; and the published Open Space and Natural
Resource Priorities. By preserving the rural wooded area and character of neighborhood in
Blocks 3 and 4, the Residents would be satisfied and would have no need to consider other legal
options.
City Request for Alternative Proposal
As a neighborhood, the Residents have actively voiced our opinions at each of the planning commission
and city council meetings that have addressed this PUD application as well as city staging meetings. We
have also met individually with council members and city planner Dusty Finke to walk the proposed
development and detail our areas of concern. We recently met again with a council member and Dusty
Finke to discuss what reasonable changes could be made to the PUD application that would make the
proposal align with: the published Comprehensive Plan Community Vision, Goals and Strategies; the
requirements for a development proposal to meet the PUD criteria; the published Future Land Use Plan
Principles; and the published Open Space and Natural Resource Priorities. After being encouraged to do
so by city council and city planner, we have formalized the proposed changes in this document.
Rationale and Supporting Facts for the Proposed Changes
The golf course consists of four separate parcels in Hennepin County records. The entirety of the golf
course property totals about 226 acres. Rachel Contracting and the Medina Country Club are proposing
to plat all four properties. The only portion of the subject property that has pre-existing zoning for
residential development is situated in the southeastern corner (Please see pg 5 for identification on
map).
In the comprehensive plan, it is shown that the future land use guide plan (pg 6) for the entire subject
property is Private Recreation (PREC). The PREC designation allows for "Limited numbers of residential
uses" as described in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has requested that the city consider their
request to change the location of residential development from the southeast corner of the subject
3
property to instead develop the western and northern wooded perimeter (Map on pg 7). There are
several problems with this request.
As part of the comprehensive plan the city completed an assessment of open space and natural
resource priority areas within the city. This map (shown on pg 8) has identified the heavily wooded
areas that comprise Blocks 3 and 4 in the PUD application as priority open space areas and are color
coded as "Moderate to High Quality Natural Areas". One of the primary objectives of the Future Land
Use Plan is to implement it with the knowledge gained from the areas identified as open space/natural
resource priorities to "Ensure that the PUD Ordinance allows the City to preserve parkland, wetlands,
woodlands, ecologically significant natural resources, and open space".
The southwest corner of the subject property, the original place identified for residential development,
is not identified as priority open space. As such, the applicants' request to move residential
development from the southeast corner (an area with no priority open space conflicts) and instead
develop Blocks 3 and 4 (identified by the city as priority open space areas) is not compatible with the
objectives of the Future Land Use Plan / Comprehensive Plan and violate the purpose of the PUD
Ordinance.
Furthermore in his August 7, 2014 Consultant's Report, Nate Sparks concluded:
The City Engineer has noted several concerns about water and drainage on the proposed development
site. The Engineer does not believe this application should be approved prior to the resolution of these
issues. In addition to the concerns regarding drainage, portions of the proposed development site are
heavily wooded which will have a fair amount of tree removal. Concerns related to these environmental
conditions were voiced by Commissioners and Council members during the Concept Plan review.
****
A Planned Unit Development in intended to allow deviations from the strict standards of the Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate unique development plans. The proposed plan seeks multiple flexibilities to
accommodate the development. However, the PUD process is not intended as a tool to merely create
custom zoning standards for a more convenient development plan.
The current PUD plan does not clearly meet the goals outlined in the purpose statement of the Planned
Unit Development Ordinance. The design of the development could be more innovative and more of an
attempt to preserve the natural character of the site should be made. **** For this reason, Staff
recommends denial of the request to rezone the property to PUD.
As the Residents' Attorney, Howard Roston of Fredrickson and Byron, P.A. has pointed out:
[T]he City is under absolutely no obligation to change the zoning for the property for development that is
inconsistent with its long term stated goals of the City. To the contrary, a decision to rezone a property is
entirely a legislative determination. **** [G]ranting a PUD would be inconsistent with the City's PUD
requirements....The proposed Plan is not consistent with the Private Recreation guiding in the
Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, the PUD cannot be granted.
Further Considerations
The Shawnee Woods Road right-of-way was granted through easement over the southern 60 feet of the
Residents' properties. The purpose of this easement was to allow the Residents access to County Road
4
116. The City Council agreed to the vacation of a portion of that easement along the property owned by
the Woods of Medina in order to be able to develop the western portion of the Shawnee Woods Road.
A question remains whether vacation of part of the easement has resulted in the abandonment of
the entire easement, since the purpose for the street is no longer intact.
Further, because the property under the easement is owned by the Residents, if Blocks 3 and 4 were
developed some property south of the driving surface of the street would actually be owned by the
Residents. This likely would cause conflict with potential new owners of property in Blocks 3 and 4.
Moreover, given that most roadways are split between property owners, to place the entire road
serving both the Residents and Blocks 3 and 4, solely on the Residents' property, is inherently
burdensome and unfair.
The Residents' attorney has opined:
[T]he legal issue is whether or not the parties who drafted the easement intended the road to be used for a
dense urban style development: ****[S]hould the City decide to allow development along Shawnee
Woods, the current residents may consider bringing a lawsuit against the City regarding the scope and
intent of the easement and whether or not the easement has been abandoned. Buck v. City of Winona,
271 Minn. 145, 151, 135 N.W.2d 190, 194 (1965). It seems apparent that Shawnee Woods Road was
dedicated and constructed for rural large lot development, not for the use as a "full urban section with
curb and storm sewer," as indicated in the City planner's report. The additional traffic, noise and debris
and disturbance likely exceeds both the plain language and scope of the existing easements.
Request
We are asking your consideration and support for the outlined compromise changes herein as necessary
revisions to be made to the PUD application by Rachel Contracting, LLC and the Medina Country Club
before approval. If support is received from the City Council and City Planner we intend to contact the
applicant and request amendment of their PUD in accordance with the compromise set forth herein.
Sincerely,
Jo and Erin Janssens
690 Shawnee Woods Road
Medina, MN 55340
Steve and Elizabeth Theesfeld
600 Shawnee Woods Road
Medina, MN 55340
Mark and Heather Czech
660 Shawnee Woods Road
Medina, MN 55340
Eric and Jill Voltin
630 Shawnee Woods Road
Medina, MN 55340
**Please note that Shawnee Woods Road resident and Medina City Council member Jeff
Pederson's views and opinions are not represented in this letter as he has recused himself from
this project due to possible conflict of interest.
5
0411
Irian 21M.
Mgr
Block 2
PROJECT LOCATION
Block 1
CAMPION
ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.
VILLAS AT MEDINA COUNTRY CLUB
• th• Wu*. •..4
,..,.
MN try �M
1==•.1."611
...c
MEDINA, MN Blocks 3 & 4
Southeast
Corner
INDEX
EMIR
OM M04
4121 10P01 p K
01 i o st. W 110371
110124:24muu14-10110
BiYle Elm11f1110 EMIMc . OM
11000 PRISM OW COR01
It1PtL PUOC MI MO
nut
SUNK IMO PIOEYN QC
UNIT 1400111401011
40
0001E OICOIN070111RPf
MT 110
P1111:0111101111$SpW M 1 E0450
POW -H10
OM WM.
MUMS OEVIM110101
1. 111001024 01,41111101T Of AOYVa00A1pN
4O/NM.Aur 101117 WWI No
SUMMITS
2. CM MIEN N UMMI a ININSO01
faAMl m MAW NUM Y1nI000N.
SK
1 CITY Or MOON MOM uCCI40O111 00
CCM
l Nl 21INCIME ICONL. PAX NO MX
11 1 NOIW NO O 17 WIL K 0.4N07. Ono
M 1M 11•01111/C2011 a N! MC
: ],lr
1!. 1
•61 41,!1►
i! .:im"v^iirif11i/i►.C(h^,a;Ln1f
of.:7i1.77,7111ICIT7:'►7137 ti
Sim .`.:+a''•"73:61TiTii .-M717^.•Li^
1
11.111M1.111 111.,1 A.CM
NMI MI :,-..1r7777 i7,7.71cerLIJIM177.1.71":i.1
mmmlT11111
ilk : r•77.111•:.7. -!7.7.1M151 -..0,:I
it•1 . 449,• 0! .. III. ,1:• 1737P0!
•.Ss, :.EIl•.� r ■+%,,:0.•I1I1r•:N:;,a'.a..,, M.v_.. f0.:ia�
mmmiyi :7,1-77,7•11%.-11-1.7.1r7.1Tf Ii i:,\,.•11':7711 •..I{:'
1. 0:.t..I.I. 4...o • . _11
lr�1..1.1,' 1.::•../r,. ,.'.r�1 �17b:,..7`15
k : *11L'»•i:''.S40. '•'il:..':41-
!11
VILLAS AT MEDINA COUNTRY CLUB
RACHEL PROPERTIES
MECtNA, MN
,M1
COVER SHEET
CI Ir0
13-040
SHEET NO. 1 OF 33 SHEETS
"16l04f2014
tIIn:L --
II-
iji:i.:14;;;; _ ''' '' '.7 ..,-' -7,--
rWortil 11111.
�'I�cho ol Lake I CHESTNUT rillia.11114111111:11111111:11;‘114,
w—uu tom
wiallieli
III tli� �I
m!T.dl!flh! .I
lAtimeglivir...r_�t
ismorrag
difil,L.,. owl\ /gip initra, imi7r4
111111/EMINiiiirAlll il
4711-511
.4
10110111111111111ria ii
s iprimp
:A � 111 Ill
lil
inummus 191111 armi liAlliZ iaiiiiiiiiri rani
I mi, ...11.4iii.
11 j �� ud\COI' /. ,% !*lr��.. „...,.tom '
Map 5-2 MEDINA
Future Land Use Plan
Guide Plan
rRural Residential
Agriculture
Developing -Post 2030
I Low Density Res 2.0 - 3.49 U/A
Medium Density Res 3 .5 - 6.99 U/A
- High Density Res 7 - 30 U/A
nu Mixed Use 3.5 - 6.99 U/A
- Mixed Use - Business 7 - 45 U/A
® Commercial
General Business
Industrial Business
Private R ecreation (PREC)
Parks and Recreation
- P -R - State or Regi onal
Open Space
- Public Semi -Public 0 U/A
Closed Sanitary Landfill
Right - of -Way
*This map is not perfectly precis e.
Actual boundaries may vary, and
should be field verified.
Last Amended: May 21, 2013 (CPA2030-4)
Adopted: November 17, 2009
UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83
Scale: 1:30,000
7
L41IL /Kr IOU f*L K O WO 1 a =MN
lank
LWOW. Mt I f11 K M KIM trM rmaaT NIK
3=1. Pal __ la_. DIMS r r aKMK N al Mar
l�I[ M UMW Ala = K a IK a fl I. MA M
OMNI OI IC ISM K w.
IMIMK Ma as r1II K Itaal/ 1i'0 A0111a1 f. KOK
a 1110.11.
Iu aralM wRaAlanfIKal IOIK MM SILL a
IMO MI
100010 /11111111.
1M KIK11110a. al KM 1:001101 MO maim
Ma NM Ma ra•e LAM NON K OMIKaIK ON PM
iM N N WNW MM Illprrgl
LEGENQ
MM/® MIT QOM
+ rv10 MMm MIIII
0000
1 Kano aD alma us
—D>— 1000 70 KIM
—Ot.— 7000 OINIr1
L
ppailla
!MI art MKS
II ME
CAMPION
ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.
• ilia cr.••. •l••Pb••I
P.4 v•m a•4 Omer.
w /4kPho »K.
rev rat-w-aw
IL -16•• ••wI1••Y1hw•0••••
I WWII •w u w plot. ••al•I•
• no. r Ions ar..• M r••
tramp
:r w 11••I •I Po role •Ilinen*
Y•M P. OMIY• -1k a %MI Paw
VILLAS AT MEDINA COUNTRY CLUB
RACHEL PROPERTIES
MEDINA, MN
PRELIMINARY STREET & STORM
OVERALL
Paoacr ha
13-040
SHEET Q. 11 OF 33 SHEETS °";deroet2014
goo `.. ...WIW.Na vvy. O.iy WON WPM rIO tr* Cr. mr,...1141.4 ru.r
Medina Boundary
Ro ads
�.+ U.S. Highway
State Highway
County or Local Road
40 Areas Already Protected
Moderate to High Quality Natural Areas
- Wetland Systems and Connectio ns
Lakes
Streams and Ditches
Southeast
Corner
ASSESSING OPEN SPACE PLAN
PRIORITY AREAS:
COMPOSITE
MAP 7-2
Block 3
Block 4
W+R
(: R
Plan ning
0 0 .0 1
Mile s
i sm .m ay
Roams
..v.,,
ratiwro
PROJECT NARRATIVE
VILLAS AT MEDINA COUNTRY CLUB
OCTOBER 24, 2014
Executive Summary- Rachel Contracting is propo sing a four parcel residential
PUD project, on the periphery of the Medina Go lf and Country Club, which
supports the City's Comprehensive Plan and City po licy for open space, trails,
and na tu ral a re as. Responding to the City's co ncerns about the en vir onmental
impact to the NE corner of the project, as e xpressed by the Planning Commission
and City Council members durin g the Concept Plan re view, this PUD/Preliminary
Plat significantly modifies the previo us Concept Plan:
• Blo ck 4, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, previously in the NE c orner, has been
completely elimin ate d along with the associated road, cul-de-sac and
services thus preserving this natural area. This action signific antly
reduces the tree remo val in the area and retains the natural en vironment
of this NE area.
• The remaining density has been substantially reduced from 48 to 43 lots
with a density shift to the west and northwest portion of the plat and
minimal density on the northern property b order .
• A passiv e park has been added in the NE corner with benches to enjoy the
natural wooded en vironment in this NE cor ner of this plat.
• Very minor deviations to the underlying zoning standards for garage
setbacks and driveway locations, to supp ort the product offerings, are
more than offset by the lot areas that e xceed square foot minimums, the
additional road width to 30' with single side parking, and the maj or
reduction in tree removal which is now 2.5 % less than the allowable
removal amount.
• The PUD c omplies with the "limited resid ential use" n oted in the
Compr ehe nsive Plan and als o compli es with the criteria for a Planned Unit
Development, Section 827 .25.
Rachel Contracting, LLC is proposing a Planned Unit Development of four contiguous
land parcels adjacent to and east of County Road 116 and within the western and
northern boundaries of the Medina Country Club . The four parcels total approximately
226 acres . Residential development is proposed for portions of PID's 01-118-23-31-
0001, and 01-118-23-32-0001 . Of the 226 acres, approximately 14 .46 acres, 6.0%, will
be used for 35 villa and 8 single family residential lots, park, and out lots and 4 .1 acres
will be used for new right -of way; the remaining 207 .4 acres will be sold to MGCC
which intends to preserve the existing open space as part of its long term operation of
the golf course . This sale to MGCC will also solidify and stabilize golf course
operations over the next 45 years . City sanitary s ewer and water will be utilized
1
(private wells will be installed for villa/custom home irrigation), a city street, trail and
sidewalks, and turn lanes will be constructed, storm water management will be on -site,
and private utilities will be underground in a joint trench . Construction will begin as
soon as possible after plat approval and continue to completion in one phase. The
development of these 43 proposed residences will provide for the continued use of the
golf course as a private recreation area and open space and will not impact the use of
the adjacent properties which are now developed or in the development stage .
Concept Plan Rev isions: A Concept Plan was reviewed by the Park Commission,
Planning Commission, and City Council in the April/May 2014 timeframe . Changes
incorporated into this Preliminary Plat as a result of comments provided by the City are
as follows:
• A major and very significant change has been made to this plat, the elimination
Block 4, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
• The plat has been substantially revised to provide for R1 development standards
as requested for Block 3, immediately across from the larger 5 acre parcels to
eventually blend with future development of these parcels .
• A passive park with benches has been added in the northeast corner as
requested.
• The cul-de-sac in the northeast corner has been eliminated along with the road
extension and utility services past the eastern end of Block 3.
• The center island at the Meander entrance has been removed as requested by
Public Works and two out lanes and one in lane are now proposed .
• The pond proposed for the wetland in the northwest corner has been removed;
there are no impacts to the site wetlands.
• Additional geotechnical field data has been collected, analyzed and provided to
the City Engineer along with detailed explanations of the storm water
management system for the site and the villas; this additional data satisfactorily
responds to all engineering comments received as a result of the plan review. An
additional access point to the Block 1 storm water management system in the
rear of the villas has been added.
• Sanitary sewer flows to a single connection at Meander, as requested.
• Sidewalks have been added along the northern boundary line to provide the trail
connection from Shawnee Woods Road.
• An out lot has been added in the NW corner thus eliminating the double frontage
lots, as requested. In addition, screening has been added along this northwest
corner, contained entirely within the property boundaries of this plat, even though
the lots to the north are very deep and contain heavy tree cover which cannot be
removed in order to comply with tree preservation requirements for that plat, see
enclosure 5) for the proposed screening.
• The density has been reduced by 11 lots from the 54 proposed in the Concept
Plan; this results in an 20% reduction in density previously proposed in the
2
Concept Plan; in addition, this density reduction from the allowable range of 87-
219 units from the southeast parcel is dramatic and very significant. The density
has also shifted more to the west and northwest as requested.
• The product offerings now include single family custom homes in Block 3 in
addition to the villas previously proposed and now present in Blocks 1 and 2.
Response statements relativ e to other comments received during the C oncept
Plan review fo llow and are still included in this plan.
• County Road 116 Access -This plan was reviewed by the jurisdictional authority, Hennepin
County, on February 25 2014 at their site plan meeting. A previous traffic analysis was
completed and their comments were included in their April 24, 2013 letter to the City which
included comments on future area developments; those comments are valid for this
development and are discussed following their specific review comments provided in their
email of March 21, 2014. The County approved the proposed alignment and location access
on CSAH 116 with the addition of turn lanes which are included in this plat . Their request for
additional Right -of -Way has been incorporated into the plat design. Two out lanes and one
in lane have been added to the design. The traffic issue on CSAH 116, especially at the
morning commute times, is recognized but it is not the responsibility of this development to
resolve that issue caused by numerous other communities and developments to the North
nor should the City deny this plan for an access approved by Hennepin County . It is
understood that the City recently met with County and State representatives and there is a
temporary solution to the stacking issue by merely re -stripping the 116/55 intersection to
provide for two left turn lanes . This is essentially the same solution for the left turn lanes as
designed in the final intersection improvement project except the thru and right turn lanes
will be combined for now. This is also the solution incorporated in most all of the
North/South intersections with Highway 55 to the east of County 116 .
• Shared Driveways- This platting action will result in single, not multiple, family residences,
each privately and individually owned . The villas have a plateau which facilitates ease of
parking and turnaround with the side loaded garages, which in themselves are not
conduciv e to a shar ed driv eway approach. The driveways enter into the street which has an
additional width to 30' and which allows parking on only one side providing excellent sight
line visibility . Multiple shared driveway agreements are not workable or practical for the
products propos ed and n egat es the private ownership of lot, residence, and driveway . The
individual driveways ar e necessary for th e pr oducts and ownership concepts being
proposed by this PUD and do not present a safety issue .
• Streets, sanitary sewer, water, and storm water management- The enclosed plan
sets define the proposed grading, storm water management, street, turn lanes, and
utilities construction for the project . Previous planning and engineering staff
comments have been incorporated into the plans. The design for the joint trench
small utilities will be forwarded when available from the lead utility . The center island
at the entrance off County Road 116 has been removed and the entrance modified
for one "in lane" and two "out lanes ". Storm water management will be accomplished
totally on -site and, working with MGCC, certain areas of the golf course will also be
improved.
3
" W a t e r T a b l e - E n c l o s u r e s ( 7 ) , ( 8 ) , a n d ( 9 ) , t o m y l e t t e r o f J u n e 7 , 2 0 1 4 p r o v i d e d u p d a t e d
g e o t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e s u m p c o l l e c t i o n s y s t e m d e t a i l w a s p r o v i d e d i n e n c l o s u r e
( 9 ) . T h e s i t e b u i l d i n g l o c a t i o n g r a d e s a r e b e i n g r a i s e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e g r a d i n g a n d
c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s w h i c h w i l l d i r e c t t h e s t o r m w a t e r a w a y f r o m t h e s t r u c t u r e s a s n o t e d
i n t h e g r a d i n g p l a n . H a u g o G e o t e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s l e t t e r o f J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 1 4 a n d B r a u n
l e t t e r o f S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 p r o v i d e f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d a m p l i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e
t o c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e C i t y E n g i n e e r r e g a r d i n g g r o u n d w a t e r l e v e l s a n d
p e r c h e d w a t e r c o n c e r n s ; B r a u n c o n c l u d e s , " " T h e r e f o r e i t c o n f i r m s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t
p r o p e r d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s c a n m i t i g a t e a n y p o s s i b l e w a t e r p r o b l e m s " .
T h e C i t y h a s a l s o b e e n a u t h o r i z e d t o o b t a i n t h e i r o w n g e o t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t , a t t h e
D e v e l o p e r ' s e x p e n s e , t o r e v i e w t h e e x t e n s i v e g e o t e c h n i c a l d a t a p r o v i d e d , i f n e c e s s a r y .
" P a r k s a n d T r a i l s - T h e p r o p o s e d t r a i l a n d s i d e w a l k c o n n e c t i o n s s u p p o r t t h e t r a i l p l a n i n
t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . A P a s s i v e P a r k , 8 , 2 7 5 s q u a r e f e e t , 0 . 1 9 a c r e s , h a s b e e n
a d d e d i n t h e n o r t h e a s t c o r n e r a s r e q u e s t e d ; t h i s w i l l a l s o s e r v e a s a t r a i l h e a d f o r
e x p a n s i o n o f t h e t r a i l s y s t e m t o t h e n o r t h . T h e s e a r c h a r e a s f o r p a r k l a n d i n t h e
C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n d i d n o t i d e n t i f y a n y o f t h e s e p a r c e l s a s b e i n g i n a n y o f t h e s e a r c h
a r e a s . A t r a i l a l o n g t h e e a s t e r n p a r c e l b o u n d a r i e s h a s n o t b e e n p r o p o s e d d u e t o t h e
i m p a c t o n t r e e p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d t h e d e s i g n a t e d w e t l a n d w h i c h w o u l d h a v e t o b e
c r o s s e d ; a n y t r a i l i n t h i s a r e a i s a l s o a l i a b i l i t y i s s u e d u e t o t h e c l o s e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e g o l f
c o u r s e . T h e f o u r p a r c e l s h a v e a n a r e a o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 2 6 a c r e s ; t h e b u i l d a b l e a r e a i s
1 8 . 5 6 a c r e s e x c l u d i n g t h e p r o p e r t y t o b e r e t a i n e d a n d d e d i c a t e d a s o p e n s p a c e a n d t h e
d e s i g n a t e d w e t l a n d s . R a c h e l C o n t r a c t i n g i s p r o p o s i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n o f l a n d a n d c a s h t o
s a t i s f y t h e p a r k d e d i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t ; t h e l a n d i s t h e 0 . 1 9 a c r e s f o r t h e n e w p a r k , c a s h
c r e d i t f o r t r a i l c o n s t r u c t i o n a l o n g C o u n t y 1 1 6 a n d f r o m B l o c k 3 t o t h e p a r k p l u s t h e p a r k
a m e n i t i e s , w i t h t h e b a l a n c e i n c a s h .
" V i l l a s / S i n g l e F a m i l y C u s t o m H o m e s - T h e t y p i c a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s a n d f l o o r p l a n s h a v e
b e e n p r o v i d e d t h a t s h o w t h e l o c a t i o n a n d s i z i n g o f t h e 2 8 v i l l a l o t s i n B l o c k 1 ( 1 i s s l a b
o n g r a d e ) , t h e 7 v i l l a l o t s i n B l o c k 2 ( 3 a r e s l a b o n g r a d e ) , a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g 8 s i n g l e
f a m i l y c u s t o m h o m e s s i t e s i n B l o c k 3 . T h i s w e s t e r n a n d n o r t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y
w a s s e l e c t e d t o b e s t m e e t t h e p r o j e c t d e s i g n g o a l s a n d p r o v i d e f o r t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f
t h e d r i v i n g r a n g e a n d P a r 3 w i t h o u t i n t e r r u p t i o n a n d w i t h o u t m a j o r g o l f c o u r s e r e -
c o n s t r u c t i o n o r d i s r u p t i o n i n g o l f c o u r s e o p e r a t i o n s . T h e 4 3 h o m e s i t e s w i l l b e p a r t o f a
H o m e o w n e r s A s s o c i a t i o n b u t e a c h c u s t o m h o m e a n d v i l l a w i l l b e p r i v a t e l y o w n e d a n d
m a i n t a i n e d e x c e p t f o r c o m m o n a r e a s w h i c h w i l l b e m a i n t a i n e d b y t h e a s s o c i a t i o n ;
a c c e s s w i l l b e v i a i n d i v i d u a l d r i v e w a y s , r e q u i r e d f o r t h e g a r a g e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f t h e
v i l l a s . S i t e l i n e s a t t h e e n t r a n c e o f t h e p r i v a t e d r i v e w a y s t o t h e c i t y s t r e e t a r e e x c e l l e n t .
T h e H O A d o c u m e n t s t h a t w i l l g o v e r n t h e a s s o c i a t i o n w i l l b e p r o v i d e d f o r C i t y r e v i e w a t
F i n a l P l a t .
" D e n s i t y - T h i s P U D c o n s i s t o f 4 s e p a r a t e p a r c e l s w h i c h a r e g u i d e d a s P r i v a t e R e c r e a t i o n
i n t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n ( P R E C ) . T h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n s t a t e s t h a t " l i m i t e d
n u m b e r s o f r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s " m a y b e i n c l u d e d i n a r e a s s o d e s i g n a t e d . T h r e e o f t h e f o u r
p a r c e l s a r e z o n e d P u b l i c / S e m i - P u b l i c ; t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n p a r c e l i s p a r t i a l l y z o n e d
P u b l i c / S e m i - P u b l i c a n d p a r t i a l l y z o n e d M u l t i p l e F a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l .
4
Enclosure (9) to my letter of June 7, 2014 depicts the approximate area for the
guided residential development (12.1 acres). Staff recommends a PUD re -zoning so
that the resultant residential zoning of the southeastern parcel can be transferred to
the northern parcels for this development. The acreage of the southeastern parcel
zoned MR is estimated at 12. 1 acres; townhouses with a density of one dwelling unit
per 6,000 square feet would result in 87 units and for multiple family dwellings, the
density could be as high as 219 units, at one unit per 2,400 square feet . Thus the
potential transfer of density to the northern parcels should be in the range of 87-219
units if an equal exchange of density is to be achieved. Density considerations must
also incorporate other objectives of the Comp Plan such as open space,
preservation of natural resources and the protection of the current use of the
majority of the property i. e. the Medina Golf and Country Club . When these design
criteria are applied to the northern parcels, a very narrow and irregularly shaped new
land parcel is defined that now must accommodate this density transfer . After this
macro design criteria is applied, then the requirements for storm water management,
Right -Of Way, trails, roadway, lot dimensions, setbacks and product offering must be
added to the design effort to accommodate the density transfer in a fair and
reasonable manner. Referring to the proposed plat; the units begin at the
southernmost available area on the western property boundary and continue along
the northern available areas to the end of Block 3, single sided along the new
roadway; the roadway is positioned to accommodate new Right -of Way, a trail, and
a berm on the western area and a roadway on the northern area. With the
elimination of Block 4 the density has shifted to primarily the western and
northwestern boundary areas . The density of this plan is 43 Tots over a net
developed area of 17 .31 buildable acres, 2 .5 units per acre, or 49 % of the lower
density range potential in the SE corner (87 units) and 20% of the higher range of
possible density in the southeastern parcel (219 units), respectively . This major
reduction of density for this PUD, from that originally planned, should be given due
consideration .
• Deferred Open Space Recreational Taxes- The four tax parcels are enrolled in the
"Minnesota Open Space Property Tax Law" Minn Stat 273 .112, which requires a 7
year payback if part of the property is removed . In this case approximately
18.35acres will be removed and the balance of the acreage will be re -enrolled in the
program . The tax penalty for this removal is estimated at $250,000 to $260,000 and,
while this is not a City concern, it is a major cost element to the Developer and
should be recognized.
• Tree Preservation- Map 7-2 in the Comprehensive Plan designates these four
parcels as being partially in an area which is designated a moderate to high quality
natural area including the small portion on the northern boundary and the larger area
along the eastern boundary adjacent to Wild Meadows; also this designation is
applicable to the Woods of Medina to the north and recently platted . Enclosur e (12),
to my letter of June 7, 2014 shows the DNR classification of this area as a Grade B
forest on the eastern boundary and a grade B/C on the northern boundary; the area
5
to the east in Wild Meadows is also classified Grade B and the area all along the
northern boundary, which includes 5 acre lots and the Woods of Medina, appears to
be an extension of the same forest thus the same classification grades can be
assumed although not graded on this exhibit . Our "Forestry Specialist" essentially
agreed with the DNR grade classification . The baseline for the tree preservation
calculations is based on the area of all four contiguous parcels, the lot size prior to
the subdivision action . Referring to enclosure (10) of my letter of June 7, 2014, a
tree inventory of significant trees was completed along with an analysis of density for
those areas not previously inventoried; the results, in significant tree caliper inches,
follow:
o Included in Otto inventory- 16,621
o Inventoried on the golf course- 26,273
o East area estimated based on tree density- 15,264
o Total significant tree inches- 58,158
After an initial review of this data, the City Arborist recommended a 12% growth
factor for the Otto and east areas and discounted several trees in the golf course
inventory. After applying these factors to the numbers above, the revised significant
tree caliper inches are as follows:
o Otto inventory 18,616
o Golf Course 24,939
o East 17,096
o Total significant tree caliper inches 60,651
o Inches to be remove d 7,562
o Removal % allowed 15.00%
o Removal % 12 .46 %
o Allowed removal caliper inches 9,098
o Caliper Inches under allowed amount with rev ised plan 1,536
The golf course also intends to spade relocate several trees to fill in gap areas;
these saved replacement inches will not be known until later but will add to the
inches saved on this PUD. In addition, each new lot will receive two trees per the
code requirement and the landscaping plan shows substantial additional trees and
shrubs along the berm
• General- A title opinion was previously provided (my letter of February 18, 2014)
along with a detailed description of parcel interests and a formal letter of support
was provided from the Medina Country Club (my letter of March 17, 2014).
• Summary- This PUD supports the major objectives of the Medina Comprehensive
Plan, preserves high quality natural resource areas, manages the storm water on -
site, and maximizes the use of existing infrastructure. The flexibility allowed in a
PUD approach was used only to support the products planned for construction and
major improvements to other requirements of the underlying zoning, such as lot size,
6
have been incorporated into the design. The final plan offers a uniquely configured
upscale residential area on the periphery of the golf course, preservation of wetland
areas, advancement of the trail system, and the best management of the natural
areas and tree preservation requirements. Density has been substantially reduced
and re -positioned. This proposed PUD meets all criteria specified in the City code .
7
E'erly right—of—way Ilse
of Co. Rd. No. 116
S007759'W 982.92
T
386.05
F& line of the
SW 1/4 of Sec 1
S00 V0W'E 1349.97
The N'erly extent/on
of the most Cody line
of Lot .E Aud. Sub. 241
b2
Rn LING GREEN BUSINESS CENTER}
W. Bne o/ the
_l/4 of Sea
ts tl
E. line of the West 40.00
feet of the SW 1/4 of Sec 1
EDINA MEADOWS I
FONBERRY+
M UI
0
FARMS 1
an
V
F.
0
5017 01 W
1.355.86
to line of the NW—.\
1/4 of Sea 12 _
WILD
MEADO S 500'38'59'W 2660.
r
E. IMe of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 1
Thr
.11