HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-128-2013MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2013
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 February 12, 2013 draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing — Thomas T. Morrison — A Request for a Lot
Subdivision from one Lot to Two Lots at 1525 Hunter Drive (PID 25-
118-23-22-0005). TO BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE
MEETING DATE
7. Public Hearing — Woodridge Church — A Request for Variances to the
Maximum Building Size and Maximum Parking requirements at 1500
and 1542 County Road 24 (PIDs 23-118-23-23-0001 and 23-118-23-
23-0005).
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL March 7, 2013
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: February 28, 2013
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates March 5, 2013 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Lot Frontage, Flag Lots, Driveway Regulations — staff intends to begin work on an
ordinance related to these subjects, which originally was a 2012 goal, but was deferred as
other ordinances were determined to be of higher priority. Staff intends to present the
ordinance for public hearing at the April or May Planning Commission meeting.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Woodridge Church Variance — Woodridge Church has requested approval of a variance to
allow construction of an 85,000 square foot building with 400 parking spaces on their property
at 1500 County Road 24. The applicant does not propose construction at this time, but only to
secure the variance pursuant to the settlement agreement by and between the City of Medina and
Woodridge Church. The Planning Commission has tentatively been scheduled to hold a Public
Hearing at the March 12 meeting.
B) Morrison Lot Split — Truxton and Adrienne Morrison have requested to subdivide their 18 acres
at 1525 Hunter Drive into two lots. The application is under preliminary review and will be
presented for review when complete, potentially at the March 12 Planning Commission meeting.
C) The Enclave at Medina 3rd Addition and 4th Addition — Lennar has requested approval of the
final phase of single-family homes and also to plat the remaining townhomes on the Enclave at
Medina (Hunter side). The applicant proposes to plat the remaining 36 single-family lots 36
townhomes and to install the remaining improvements. The applications are under preliminary
review and will be presented to the Council when complete, potentially at the March 19
meeting.
D) The Enclave at Brockton 3rd Addition — Lennar has required approval to plat the "detached
townhome" portion of the Enclave at Brockton. The application is under preliminary review
and will be presented to the Council when complete, potentially at the April 2 meeting.
E) Fields of Medina West — Addn — north of Highway 55, east of Arrowhead — Mattamy Homes
applied to final plat 34 of the 64 lots within the subdivision. The application is under
preliminary review and will be presented to the Council when complete, potentially at the April
2 meeting.
F) The Reserve of Medina Preliminary Plat — Toll Brothers have submitted a preliminary plat for
a 126 -lot single-family subdivision on the Gorman Farm property east of County Road 116 and
south of Hackamore. The Commissions and Council had provided comments during a concept
plan review last fall. The application is under preliminary review and will be scheduled for a
Public Hearing when complete for review, potentially at the April 9 Commission meeting.
G) Johnson Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning — 2505 Willow Drive — Dan and Jill Johnson
have requested a CPA to change the future land use of three parcels of land from Rural
Residential to Agriculture and a rezoning of the property from Rural Residential to Agricultural
Preserve. This change would make the property eligible to be enrolled in the Metropolitan
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 March 5, 2013
City Council Meeting
Agricultural Preserve program. The City Council adopted a resolution approving the Comp
Plan Amendment at the February 19 meeting and it has been submitted for Met Council review.
One of the conditions of approval was that the applicant combine their properties. Staff will
await an application.
H) Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat — Property Resources Development Co. has submitted a
preliminary plat for an eight lot rural subdivision on approximately 80 gross acres northwest of
the existing Deerhill Road between Willow Drive and Homestead. The applicant is contesting
the suitable soils map as part of the application. Staff has reviewed and believes insufficient
information has been provided for the contesting of the soils and also that the subdivision is
premature because of inadequate access. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the
February 12 meeting and unanimously recommended denial of the plat. The City Council
adopted a resolution denying the preliminary plat at the February 19 meeting. The project will
now be closed.
Additional Projects
A) Connection Fee Analysis — Planning staff has provided finance, administration, and public
works staff with information related to future new capital improvements described in the
City's Comp Plan and also has updated growth projections based on the high level of
residential growth being experienced. Staff will continue to take part in this project.
B) CDBG Application — staff has submitted an application for $350,000 of CDBG funding to
assist with Dominium's proposed affordable housing project at 510 Clydesdale Trail. The
Council adopted a resolution at the February 19 meeting approving the application for
$300,000, but staff subsequently learned that additional funding may be available. As such,
staff requested $350,000 and has prepared an amendment to the resolution for Council
consideration. Staff will reduce the request if the Council decides not to pursue $350,000.
C) Trails Plan — staff has been assisting with the Park Commission's Parks/Trails Master Plan.
The Commission is now evaluating the Trails Plan and staff intends to assist with updated
maps and financial information.
D) Ongoing Litigation — Staff is providing information to the City's attorney related to the
answer for ongoing litigation James Leviton & Robin Reid v. City of Medina.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2013
City Council Meeting
4
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday, February 12, 2013
5
6
7 1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
8
9 Present: Planning Commissioners Robin Reid, V. Reid, Kent Williams, Randy Foote,
10 and Kathleen Martin.
11
12 Absent: Mark Osmanski and Charles Nolan
13
14 Also Present: City Councilmember Elizabeth Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, NAC
15 Consultant Nate Sparks and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson.
16
17 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
18
19 No public comments.
20
21 3. Update from City Council proceedings
22
23 Weir updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council.
24
25 4. Planning Department Report
26
27 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
28
29 5. Approval of the January 8, 2013 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
30
31 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the January 8, 2013 minutes
32 with the changes noted. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Osmanski and Nolan)
33
34 6. Public Hearing — Property Resources Development Co. —Preliminary Plat for an
35 Blot rural Subdivision located west of Willow Dr. /Deer Hill Rd. and east of
36 Homestead Tr. (PIDs 21-118-23-31-0001, 21-118-23-34-0002, and 21-118-23-34-
37 0003).
38
39 Nate Sparks presented the application. He stated the application was a rural
40 subdivision. The application consisted of three parcels totaling 80 acres, of which 30
41 acres were wetland and 50 acres farmland.
42
43 Sparks explained that rural residential lots shall have a minimum lot size of 5 acres of
44 contiguous suitable soils. He explained that applicants can contest the suitable soils
45 and provide necessary data regarding soils. The proposed application contested the
1
46 soils and so the City hired Peter Miller of Wenck and Associates as the City's Soils
47 Scientist to review the plans submitted relating to soils.
48
49 Sparks explained the proposed site access at Deer Hill Road and Homestead Trail.
50 He stated that the City attorney does not believe that the ROW exists as described.
51 The City does not feel, as proposed, that adequate access was being provided.
52
53 Sparks explained internal private streets and said that private streets must be built to
54 24 foot width and be placed within a 60 foot wide outlot which was not proposed.
55
56 Sparks explained no significant tree removal was planned. He said the Park Plan
57 components would be discussed at the next Park Commission meeting and Park
58 Plans/trail maps were available for the public.
59
60 R. Reid clarified the primary concerns of staff: suitable soils; access/premature
61 subdivision; design/private street; and Lot 7 doesn't meet the minimum setback
62 requirements for septic systems from wetlands.
63
64 V. Reid asked to clarify the roadway. Sparks said the City didn't have the necessary
65 ROW to develop the road.
66
67 Williams said Loren Kohnen, the Building Official, in his staff comments noted seven
68 of the lots didn't meet the requirements. Finke explained that Kohnen's comments
69 could be resolved by the applicant to be within code.
70
71 Williams asked about the six continuous years of use of the roadway and if it could
72 precede the dedication. Nate said it would have to precede the dedication. Finke said
73 the City wouldn't have had to take formal action on it. Williams said he understands
74 he doesn't have six years of continuous use and Finke agreed. Williams asked about
75 lots 4 and 5 and if they met the 300 width foot requirement. Finke said yes.
76
77 R. Reid asked if there was existing ROW to the west. Sparks said the applicant
78 shows Deer Hill Road as a 33 foot ROW, but only the part that has been used and
79 maintained by the City qualifies. Staff questions how much, if any, ROW exists.
80
81 Finke said the statutory user ROW does expand beyond the driving area, such as the
82 ditch for snow plowing areas and snow storage areas. He said the road ranges in from
83 24-33 feet in width. Williams asked if it had to be widened on the east side to meet
84 City standards. Finke said yes.
85
86 R. Reid asked if there was ROW there at all. Sparks said "no". Williams asked what
87 the best case scenario would be. Sparks said it could have a row in it, but statutory
88 user has to be maintained, and in this case doesn't meet it. Sparks said the applicant
89 would have to ask the City to condemn land to start purchasing to construct the road.
90
2
91 R. Reid asked about financing roadways. Finke said the City did finance Hunter
92 Drive. Martin asked if it was really a similar example since Hunter Drive had
93 existing ROW and homes along it, whereas the new application being proposed does
94 not.
95
96 Williams asked whose burden it was to contest suitable soils. Finke said we've had a
97 number of properties contested which were successful, but they were challenging the
98 slopes rather than the actual soil types.
99
100 Peter Miller, Wenck Associates (City Consultant), explained a site specific survey
101 can be done with a series of borings on -site, but hadn't been done as of yet. Miller
102 said he never did visit the site since it was winter time, but rather reviewed the data
103 submitted. Williams questioned Miller on the data provided. Miller said the data
104 provided didn't provide evidence that the soil survey should be changed in any way.
105
106 Matt Duffy, representing Property Resources Development Company (PRDC),
107 explained that on August 6, 2012, an application was submitted for a Preliminary Plat
108 to the City. He said prior to their submittal they met with staff to better understand
109 what would be necessary for submittal. Duffy reviewed a number of dates stating the
110 City had plenty of time to have reviewed their application submittal prior to now. He
111 further explained that they didn't think they were working in a collaborate effort with
112 Planning staff. He said it is their position that Homestead Trail has a public ROW
113 and would pave the Deer Hill Road area. The preliminary plat shows how it would
114 be paved and only easements would be needed in order to pave that area. He said he
115 asked the City what type of consultants they needed to hire, and they then hired an
116 Engineer and Soils consultant. He said they think they have submitted all that is
117 necessary for a complete application. He also said the City changed the regulations
118 relating to subdivisions and they had already applied, which triggered issues for their
119 project.
120
121 R. Reid asked what changed in December 2012. Finke said the City added the
122 premature subdivision ordinance within the code and changed requirements for
123 roadway widths. R. Reid asked the applicant if the City wouldn't have made the
124 changes in December, do they feel they would have met the road requirements.
125
126 Jennifer Haskamp, applicant's consultant, said she has been working closely with
127 their attorney as it relates to the roadway access. In terms of Deer Hill Road she said
128 they would have been allowed to access it like all of the other 15 property owners
129 along Deer Hill Road at the time they made their application, but the City stepped in
130 and changed their Subdivision regulations which defined their application as a
131 premature subdivision. Williams asked for clarification on the premature subdivision
132 regulations.
133
134 Williams explained to the applicant that our City attorney and staff could not find
135 I evidence of it being used for the six years. Miller Duffy said property records exist
136 and Williams asked him if he brought the records with him to show evidence. Duffy
3
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
said he didn't have paperwork. Haskamp said the aerials were their evidence that the
road existed and was in use and therefore they disagree with City staff. She said
when you zoom in on the aerial you can see that the area was used as a road. She said
they would argue that the ROW was in use and that on much of the title work it
describes the full area. She disagrees with staff, since the title work describes the
road as 33 feet wide. She sees it as the same parallel distance the whole ROW.
Martin asked for evidence that the road was maintained for six years. Haskamp
suggested the dedication document that the road was in use for six years was
evidence, along with the aerials. She asked if had been provided to the Commission
and Williams said it was in their packet from staff, though no other documents.
Haskamp said it was a recorded document and in her opinion proof. Finke said he
believed the resolution directed the City4he-ROALwas-req-u.ife.Eke4)e recorded the
dedication against the properties. The City attorney's memos state the width of the
ROW is not 33 feet. He said they believe throughout history the roadway has always
fallen short of the 33 foot width.
Miller Duffy said statute requires the City to provide access. Susan Seeland
commented that in 2008 the property division took place.
Williams said if the land wasn't split, the land would have access. He asked what the
purpose was for the split and the purpose of filling in the wetland area on lots 4 and 5.
Haskamp said the wetlands were reviewed and approved to be filled, and is a
completed project. She said the reason for doing it was to meet the contiguous
suitable soils and that experts did do some analysis on the soils. Williams asked who
did the soil borings. Haskamp said she was very involved with the requirements to
contest the soils and the City doesn't have standards within the ordinance. She was
directed to hire an engineer or soil scientist which they did. She said they clearly
planned to develop the land so that the soils could support structures.
Public Hearing was opened at 8:09 p.m.
Madeleine Linck, 1762 Morgan Road/Park Commissioner, pointed out that the MN
DNR County Biological survey designated this area as a high priority natural area.
The City's draft trail plan has a trail proposed in this area as a connection between
Wolsfeld SNA ultimately to Baker Park.
David Weigman, 3834 Linden Drive East and representing Buckley property owners,
said he is in opposition of the proposed application. He said he doesn't know where
to begin, since he hasn't been able to remember when he's seen an application such as
this one that didn't respond to staff's comments for revisions and changes prior to
going before the Planning Commission. He said the documents show that Finke had
submitted letters explaining insufficient revised plans repeatedly. He said he has a
title commitment and there isn't an easement to Homestead Trail which has since
been repealed. He said there's no ROW and even if there was, there is a creek and
wetlands. He said he is not quite sure any of this had been addressed. He further
explained the applicant has access to the south and the cart way issue can't exist.
4
183
184 Bethe Hattara, 1592 Homestead Trail, said even if a ROW to Homestead Trail did
185 exist, she asked if anyone had ever driven it. She said the thought of putting a road in
186 there is dangerous and it doesn't make sense to have any more access at that point.
187 She said one of the reasons people like Medina is for its breathing room. She said she
188 thought the subdivision seemed too close together.
189
190 Steve Pflaum, 2725 Deer Hill Road, said he was speaking for all the residents on
191 Deer Hill Road in addition to the packet of information submitted from their attorney.
192 He said that there had been a number of misstatements and only nine residents lived
193 on Deer Hill Road. We realize there will be development on that property, but their
194 concern is Deer Hill Road as explained in the packet of information submitted to the
195 City by their attorney. From our perspective, every single tree would have to come
196 down to meet City Standards for a new road. If the tress didn't have to come down or
197 the road widened, just asphalt added, he thinks the residents on Deer Hill Road would
198 be satisfied. They are strongly opposed to widening Deer Hill Road and any expense
199 that would be placed on the current land owners along Deer Hill Road.
200
201 Stuart Alger, attorney representing Steve Pflaum of Leonard, Street and Demard, said
202 he concurred with the City attorney's opinion as to the lack of the City Road, or that a
203 sufficient road exists to the east. He asked the Commission if they'd received his
204 written materials and the Commission said yes. He explained that his view was if the
205 project were to proceed, the City would have to acquire additional ROW for the
206 project to move forward and probably through condemnation proceedings which
207 would be quite expensive. Permanent easements, construction easements, and experts
208 would all have to be hired by the City in order to develop the ROW. The City could
209 potentially be liable to pay the property owner's attorney fees if it went that route. He
210 also noted the trees along the roadway were certain to provide aesthetic value to each
211 of the properties which would impact value.
212
213 Alger's said the proposed development could possibility have access through Co. Rd
214 6 or Homestead Trail, and the burden should not be on the adjacent land owners. He
215 said the recorded documents of the property in question (survey map, the order,
216 decree of registration, and filing of the document) doesn't determine the use. Factors
217 should be taken under consideration in making a decision.
218
219 Clarkson Lindley, 1588 Homestead Trail, said the existing curve on Homestead Trail
220 with additional traffic would be quite problematic. He said there is no evidence of a
221 previous cart path.
222
223 1 Cindy Piper, 2905 Wille eedWillowood Farm Road, said that she wanted to make
224 sure the trails are put on the map and maintained into the future.
225
226 Bob Mitchell, 1745 North Willow Drive, said he came into the community and
227 bought land in 1960 and built in 1980 and the road did not exist at that time. He said
228 the properties are large enough to develop without having to get an easement or
5
229 roadway access from existing property owners. He said you can't sell land -locked
230 property.
231
232 Amy Alworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, said she risks her life every day trying to get
233 mail. She said they moved there because of the rural character and they'd like to
234 preserve that.
235
236 R. Reid said that a decision has to be made, since the application is not willing to
237 provide an extension. She asked for the opinions of the Commission on the
238 following:
239
240 1 1. Applicant's request to have City build ROW: The Commission agreed the it is an
241 issue. V. Reid said she feels they have to go with staff and City attorney, as well
242 as their recommendation. Martin said neighboring property owners did provide
243 evidence that it wasn't in existence and said it isn't entirely clear. Williams said
244 he feels it's the applicant's burden to show that it existed and we had three legal
245 opinions stating it didn't exist, along with testimony that nothing was maintained.
246 For that reason it seems to fail the test. He felt on both sides access was not being
247 fulfilled by the applicant. Foote said he agreed with Williams and said he felt the
248 applicant hadn't provided enough evidence.
249 2. Suitable Soils: Williams and Martin said the Zoning Administrator makes the
250 determination and the Zoning Administrator followed the Soil Consultant's
251 opinion, which they felt was the right thing to do.
252 3. Proposal to put the private road in an outlot: Williams said the development is
253 not showing the private road in an outlot and should be shown that way. He said
254 that if it were shown that way, he thinks they would fall below the eight lots.
255 4. Flag lots, insufficient road access, and lot widths: Williams explained how the
256 lots didn't meet requirements.
257 5. Contiguous suitable soil: Williams raised concern that dumping fill to make it
258 contiguous doesn't make it contiguous.
259 6. Change of City Regulations: Williams said the City has the right to modify their
260 regulations and it is the applicant's responsibility to follow by modifying their
261 application. In this case, the applicant chose not to modify their application.
262
263 Public Hearing was closed at 8:57 p.m.
264
265 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Williams, to recommend denial of the Preliminary
266 Plat request for an Blot subdivision because: 1) four of the proposed lots don't meet
267 lot size, 2) the subdivision is premature, 3) the proposed private streets are not within
268 an outlot, 4) Lot 7 doesn't meet setbacks from wetlands, 5) the proposed subdivision
269 doesn't account for natural resources, 6) the site doesn't address a trial system to take
270 advantage of the natural topography, and 7) the application creates an unreasonable
271 hardship to neighboring properties per Section 820.29. Subd.2.1 of the Medina City
272 1 Code. Motion fails -carries unanimously (Absent: Osmanski and Nolan).
273
274
6
275 7. Council Meeting Schedule
276
277 Who would attend the Council meeting on February 19th, 2013, was not discussed.
278
279 8. Adjourn
280
281 Motion by Martin, seconded by V. Reid, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried
282 unanimously. (Absent: Osmanski and Nolan)
7
AGENDA ITEM: 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: March 7, 2013
MEETING: March 12, 2013 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Woodridge Church — Variance from Maximum Building Size and Maximum
Parking Spaces Allowed in the RPS zoning district
Background
The applicant, Woodridge Church, has requested the following variances from the requirements
of the Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS) zoning district for future expansion of their building and
parking lot at 1500 County Road 24:
1) Variance to allow the combined floor area of all structures to exceed the maximum of
40,000 square feet permitted in the RPS zoning district. The requested variance is to
permit the church structure to be up to a maximum of 85,000 square feet in floor area
along with additional floor area for the existing residential structure to the southwest of
the church (1542 County Road 24).
2) Variance to allow the total outside parking spaces on a site to exceed the maximum of
300 permitted in the RPS zoning district. The requested variance is to permit up to 400
parking spaces on the site.
No construction is proposed at this time, but the requested variances, if approved, would be valid
for future requests by the applicant for expansions.
The requested variances are contemplated in the settlement of the lawsuit Woodridge Church v.
City of Medina. The applicant was the plaintiff in the case and made various statutory and
constitutional challenges related to its withdrawn application to expand its church structure in
2009 and the City's legislative zoning actions with respect to the creation of the RPS zoning
district. An agreement to settle the case has been reached by the City Council and Woodridge
Church contingent upon the City granting the variances now being requested. Despite this
agreement, the City has the full discretion allowed by law and ordinances to approve or deny the
requested variances. The Woodridge Church v. City of Medina lawsuit would resume if the
variances are not approved. The Settlement Agreement describing the terms of the settlement is
attached for reference.
Analysis
The applicant owns two parcels of property at 1500 and 1542 County Road 24. The two
properties are 19.7 acres and 7.9 acres in size, respectively. Approximately nine acres of
wetland are located on the northern end of the sites. Staff recommends, and the settlement
agreement dictates, that the properties should be combined into one parcel prior to approval of
any expansion beyond 40,000 square feet or 300 parking spaces. The existing property at 1500
County Road 24 is the largest parcel within the RPS zoning district, and combining the parcel
with the property to the west would make it larger yet.
Woodridge Church (1500 Co. Rd. 24)
Page 1 of 4 March 12, 2013
Request for Variances Planning Commission Meeting
,
The existing church structure has a floor area of approximately 28,100 square feet and has a
footprint of approximately 18,300 square feet. A parking lot is located to the west and north of
the church structure with 296 parking stalls. The church and parking sit below the grade of
County Road 24 and are screened fairly well from the roadway. The house at 1542 County Road
24 is a one-story home and has a footprint of approximately 2700 square feet. There is also a
home and garage located in the southeast corner of the property at 1500 County Road 24 which
is subject to a life estate for the resident of the home. Staff would recommend that these
structures be subject to an interim use permit at the time the applicant proposes to construct any
addition to the church structure which could trigger removal of the structure at the end of the life
estate.
Following is an aerial photograph of the properties and the existing improvements:
The attached conceptual site plan illustrates how an 85,000 square foot church structure and
additional 100 parking stalls could be oriented on the site.
The City has a good deal of discretion when reviewing variance requests. Subd. 2 of Section
825.45 describe the criteria by which the City should review variance requests:
Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances.
(a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance.
(b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Woodridge Church (1500 Co. Rd. 24)
Request for Variances
Page 2 of 4 March 12, 2013
Planning Commission Meeting
(c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be
established, all of the following criteria shall be met:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In
determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance
requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty
and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are
denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
As stated previously, no construction is proposed at this time. The variances requested would
grant approval for future expansions to the church structure up to a total of 85,000 square feet
and expansion of the parking lot up to a total of 400 parking stalls. All other then -current
requirements of City regulations would apply to future formal requests for expansion. The
specific aspects of such future expansion, such as stormwater, lighting, wastewater treatment,
architectural requirements, and other important factors, will be reviewed at the time expansion is
proposed. The request for expansion would also be required to follow the review processes
required by the ordinances in place at such future time. Expansion will be required to meet all
City codes and other relevant requirements (with the exception of maximum building size and
maximum parking, if the variances are granted), in order to be approved.
Potential Conditions
If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the requested variances meets the criteria
described above and should be approved, staff would recommend the following conditions be
discussed to apply to the approval:
1) This variances approve future expansion on the property as follows:
a. The church structure may be expanded in excess of the 40,000 square feet
permitted in the RPS zoning district, but to a size of no more than 85,000 square
feet of floor area. Future expansion shall be subject to relevant approval
processes and all other regulations in place when construction is proposed.
b. Parking may be expanded in excess of the 300 parking spaces permitted in the
RPS zoning district, but to no more than 400 parking spaces. Future expansion
shall be subject to relevant approval processes and all other regulations in place
when construction is proposed.
2) No construction or expansion activity is approved through this variance. Future requests
for expansion shall be subject to review and approval processes described by ordinance
and law prior to any work taking place.
3) With the exception of the specific variances granted herein, all activities and construction
on the property shall meet and be consistent with all then -current regulations of the city,
state, county, watershed district, and any other agency having jurisdiction over such
activities.
Woodridge Church (1500 Co. Rd. 24)
Page 3 of 4 March 12, 2013
Request for Variances Planning Commission Meeting
4) Prior to any expansion on the property, the two subject parcels shall be combined into a
single lot. Such combination shall be requested by the applicant of the City and shall be
subject to relevant review processes.
5) Any expansion to the church building shall be located in the general location and within
the general footprint shown in the conceptual site plan dated January 17, 2013 but need
not occupy the entirety of such footprint.
6) Any new parking constructed north of the existing church structure shall be of a pervious
material approved by the City.
7) The one-story single-family home with a footprint of 2700 square feet at 1542 County
Road 24 shall be permitted in addition to the square footage permitted for the church
structure by this variance, but shall not be expanded in size.
8) Notwithstanding time limitations within City code for the validity of variance approvals,
the City Council hereby waives any requirement to use the variance within a certain
timeframe.
Potential Findings
If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the requested variances meet the criteria
for granting variances, the following findings could be made:
• The variances, with the conditions limiting the intensity of use in the rural area, are in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance.
• The variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan as the conditions applied to the
approval take into consideration the character of the surrounding land uses.
• A religious institution, with the conditions set forth for the variances, would put the
property to a reasonable use.
• The size of the parcels, after combination, is unique to the property, as is the fact that the
topography limits visibility of the structure from public streets.
• The variances will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Attachments
1) Settlement Agreement
2) Narrative from Applicant
3) Conceptual Site Plan dated 1/17/2013
Woodridge Church (1500 Co. Rd. 24) Page 4 of 4 March 12, 2013
Request for Variances Planning Commission Meeting
E r c. _ P1 2013
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into this
c„.4715— day of , , 2013 (hereinafter "Effective Date") by and between
Woodridge Church (hereinafter " hurch") and the City of Medina, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (hereinafter "City"). The Church and City may be referred to individually as a Party
or collectively as the Parties.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Church owns two parcels of land in the City totaling approximately 27.6 acres;
to wit the parcel of land upon which the Church currently sits and which is legally described on
the attached Exhibit A (hereinafter "Church Property") and the parcel to the West of the Church
Property that is legally described on the attached Exhibit la (hereinafter "Scherer Property"); the
Church Property and Scherer Property may from time to time be referred to collectively as the
"Subject Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Church as the owner of the Subject Property hasthe requisite authority to make
this Agreement binding on and run with the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the Church Property is currently zoned Rural Public Semi -Public (hereinafter "RPS
Zone"), which limits the maximum combined square footage of all structures to 40,000 square
feet; and
WHEREAS, the Church filed an application to expand its structure on the Church Property to a
total of 42,500 square feet, but withdrew the application; and
WHEREAS, the Church commenced a lawsuit against the City titled Woodridge Church v. City
of Medina, Civil Action No. 11 -CV -275, in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota (hereinafter "Lawsuit") making various statutory and constitutional challenges related
to its withdrawn application to expand its church structure and the City's legislative zoning
actions with respect to the creation of the RPS Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City and Church engaged in a Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge
Franklin Noel, in the U. S. District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota on September 10, 2012 and
discussed general settlement terns which were subject to the drafting and execution by each
Party of a written settlement agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement memorializes the general settlement terms discussed by the Parties
at the September 10, 2012 Settlement Conference; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree, understand, and acknowledge that approval of this Settlement
Agreement by the City must take place at a duly called and noticed public City Council meeting;
and
1
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Church and City agree as follows:
1. Incorporation. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement.
2. Compliance with Regulations. Except for the variance as contemplated by this
Agreement related to building square footage and the parking requirements set forth
herein, the Church shall be subject to and comply with all current and future City
Regulations and Ordinances, including, but not limited to zoning regulations covering the
Subject Property.
3. Church Expansion. Pursuant to the process in Paragraph 5, the City shall allow the
Church to expand its current church building up to a total building size not to exceed
85,000 square feet. No part of the expanded church building shall exceed the height
limits set forth in the Medina City Code. The expanded church building shall be one
contiguous structure built in the general location and footprint shown on the attached
Exhibit C. No additional development, expansion, building, use, or construction, other
than parking as discussed in Paragraph 4 of this Agreement, shall occur on the Subject
Property. The Scherer Property shall only be used as a residential house, any parking
allowed under Paragraph 4, or as a landscaped buffer area. The residential home on the
Scherer Property may be reconstructed provided its square footage and height shall not
exceed the existing square footage and height and the footprint shall match the location
and size of the existing foundation.
4. Project Parking. Pursuant to the process set forth in paragraph 5 herein, the City shall
allow the Church to have up to a total of 400 parking stalls on the Subject Property.
There are currently 296 stalls on the property, meaning the Church can only add 104 new
stalls (hereinafter "New Stalls"). New Stalls may be located to the North of the current
parking on the Church Property, on the Scherer Property, and, on the portion of the
Church Property where the Reiser house currently stands, to the extent that it is not
subject to legal restrictions by way of an existing life estate. In no instance shall more
than half of the New Stalls (fifty-two) be located to the North of the current Church
parking lot, unless this restriction is expressly waived in writing by the City. All New
Stalls constructed to the North of the current Church parking lot must be constructed
using a pervious surface approved by the City.
No New Stalls shall be installed until they are necessitated by expansion, all normal
governmental approvals have been received in due course, and their design, distribution,
and location approved by the City working in collaboration with the Church.
In the event that the Parties cannot agree on the design, distribution, and location of the
New Stalls the matter will be submitted for mediation. If an agreement is not reached. at
mediation the proper design, distribution, and location of the New Stalls shall be
submitted to a binding arbitration, with the Parties agreeing on a neutral arbitrator. If the
Parties cannot agree on a neutral arbitrator, each Party will select one arbitrator and the
2
two chosen arbitrators shall select a third arbitrator and the three arbitrators shall decide
the parking configuration.
5. Variance and Effectuation. The Church shall submit a complete variance application to
effectuate the rights set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Agreement. A complete
variance application shall consist of a complete application form attached hereto as
Exhibit H ("Application Form"), mailing labels for all property owners within 1,000 feet
of the Subject Property, and Exhibit C showing a maximum building size of 85,000
square feet with up to a total of no more than 400 parking spaces on the Subject Property.
("Complete Application"). A Complete Application shall be deemed complete under
City Code and the application processed thereunder. The City expressly reserves the
right to condition the variance as set forth in this Agreement as may otherwise be
necessary to allow the Project to proceed consistent with City Code and the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Said conditions shall include a waiver of any City Code provisions
requiring the construction and expansion contemplated in the variance to commence or be
completed by a certain date. The City retains the right to deny the variance. The Church
shall apply for the variance within 60 days of the City executing the Agreement and
diligently pursue the same through the City's processes (hereinafter "Application
Period"). The City will waive the application fees for the variance application. If the
City denies the variance contemplated herein, the Agreement shall become null, void, and
of no further force and effect, and the Church shall not bring any claim against the City
for denial of the variance; the only remedy being the reinstatement of the Lawsuit.
6. Lot Combination and Treatment. The Church will diligently take all steps necessary to
cause the combination of the Church Parcel and the Scherer Property into one parcel of
record before seeking any other approvals necessary to undertake the expansions
contemplated in Paragraphs 3 and 4, other than the variances contemplated herein. Until
such time as the Church combines the Church Parcel and the Scherer Property into one
parcel of record, the Church shall treat them as though they are one property for purposes
of this Agreement and the expansions contemplated in Paragraphs 3 and 4.
7. Dismissal of Lawsuit. If the City approves the variance contemplated in Paragraph 5 or
the Church fails to submit a Complete Application for the variance during the
Application Period, the Church shall execute and file with the Court the dismissal of the
Lawsuit attached hereto as Exhibit D within ten days of the City's approval or the
expiration of the Application Period.
8. Release. If the City approves the variance contemplated in Paragraph 5 or the Church
fails to submit a Complete Application for the variance during the Application Period, the
Church shall execute the release of claims attached hereto as Exhibit E within ten days
of the City's approval or the expiration of the Application Period.
9. Restrictive Covenant. The Church shall execute the restrictive covenant memorializing
the terms and limitations on the use of the Subject Property attached hereto as Exhibit F
on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns to be recorded against the Church
Property and Scherer Property within ten days of the City granting the variance
3
Uo�
contemplated in Paragraph 5, if the City so Upon request of the City, the Church
grants, p � Y�
shall execute another restrictive covenant in the same form attached hereto, except it wil
recite the new legal description for the Subject Property upon lot combination pursuant to
this Agreement. The parties will cooperate to assure the recording of the restrictive
covenant, including execution of other necessary documents, if any.
10. Merger and Modification. This Agreement and any attached exhibits shall constitute
the entire agreement between the Church and City. This Agreement can only be
modified by a writing signed by both Parties. The possibility of modification does not
create any right thereto, and a refusal to modify is in the sole discretion of the party being
asked to modify the agreement.
11. Controlling Law. This Agreement has been made under the laws of the State of
Minnesota and such laws will control its interpretation.
12. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on the
Parties and their respective successors, assigns, agents, insurers, executors, and members,
and the benefits and burdens shall run with the Subject Property.
13. City Council Approval and Assent. The Church recognizes that only the Medina City
Council acting as a body can approve this Agreement and that it is necessary for this
Agreement to come before the Medina City Council at a duly called public meeting. The
Church shall execute this Agreement on or before 12:00 pin central standard time on
January 25, 2013, and its execution cannot be revoked or modified for forty-five days to
give the Medina City Council time to meet, review, and approve or deny the Agreement.
If the City Council rejects the Agreement or does not approve the Agreement within
forty-five days of the Church signing it, the Agreement shall become null and void and
have no further binding effect.
14. Good Faith. The parties will work together in good faith with respect to implementing
the terms of this Agreement.
15. Acknowledgement, Each Party states that it has carefully read this Settlement
Agreement in its entirety and has conferred with its attorney and knows and understands
the contents of this Agreement.
4
WOODRlIDGE CHURCH
By: t Dated:
Brent Nolby
Board Chairman
STA 1'b OF MINNESOTA
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of IA.,tJW a( , 2013,
by Brent Nolby, as Board Chairman of Woodridge Church, on behalf of the Church.
tary Public
JOSHUA C JACKSON
NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA MY C0MM16S1®N EXPIRF� o1I81/16,
was dt.e l,v.e-red -b :
van Queai
q, Tarn 4, �0 , tom'. A�•
755 Praal1 GP,i4. (ke . 0 Roo
Me -44 ()Woe ittiO 56.614
CITY OF MEDINA
By: T. M. Crosby, Jr.
Its: Mayor
By: Scott T. Johnson
Its: City Administrator -Clerk
STAI'h OF MINNESOTA
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Dated:
Dated:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of , 2013,
by T. M. Crosby, Jr, and Scott T. Johnson, as Mayor and City Administrator -Clerk respectively of
the City of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
6
WoodridgeChurch
loving our community in the name of Jesus
rc -6 2013
DATE: February 6, 2013
TO: City of Medina
FROM: Steve Hoffer on behalf of Woodridge Church
RE: Settlement of Lawsuit
Per the instructions of our attorney, the City requested the following as part of the settlement
agreement:
• Exhibit C (the map)
• Mailing labels for neighbors within 1,000 feet (they have to receive notice of the hearing)
• And the application form, which they told me just requires basic information but not any plans
Enclosed are those items as well as a copy of the Settlement Agreement.
As this process is different than normal, please let me know if further information is needed.
1500 County Road 24 Medina, Minnesota 55356 1763.230.6300 woodridgechurch.com
"
A L I E A N I E
F E L D
m
O x
2
E D
B L D G . A R E A
E X I S T
P H . 3
P H . 4
T O T A L
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
P A R K I N G
2 8 , 0 6 9 S O . F T .
+ 2 0 , 4 4 6 S Q . F T .
+ 3 6 , 4 8 5 S Q . F T .
2 9 6 S T A L L S
- 1 1 S T A L L S
4 . 1 1 5 S T A L L S
8 5 , 0 0 0 S Q . F T .
4 0 0 S T A L L S
E X I S T
P H A S E 3
P H A S E 4
I M P E R V I O U S
P A R K I N G / D R I V E S
:
I - I
"
F U T U R E , P A R K I N G . _ ,
1 5 1 C A R $ , '
I ,
r i
- - 1 '
- I - -
S U R F A C E C A L C U L A T I O N
B U I L D I N G T O T A L % O F S I T E
1 2 7 , 9 0 0 S Q . F T .
1 2 9 . 6 5 7 S Q . F T .
1 5 2 , 2 0 0 S Q . F T .
1 8 , 3 0 0 S Q . F T .
3 1 , 0 1 0 S O - F T .
3 3 , 7 0 0 S Q . F T .
1 4 6 . 2 0 0 S O . F T .
1 6 0 , 6 6 7 S Q . F T .
1 8 5 , 9 0 0 S Q . F T .
1 1 . 5 %
1 3 %
1 5 %
T O T A L S I T E A R E A : 1 , 2 3 4 , 5 6 0 S O F T .
1
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O 0
O O
O O
O
O O
O 0
O O
o 0
o 0
0 0 0 0 0
a . - t . , 6 . _ " " " " " " \
P H A S E 3
0
0
0
5 t T E P L A N
P H A S E 3 P A R K I N G T O T A L S
- ' E 0 ' . . t l E D v A 5 C L N C - .
4 5 5 S E A T S Y 1 / 3 + 2 8 5 5 S r C F F I C E / 4 0 0 - 4 4 5 S T U D E N T S .
C C 4 ' M U N T ' r 1 1 / 4 = 2 7 3 S T I . L L S � E C U
. 2 . 9 5 E X i S T N G � A ! C X N r i S T A L L S
- 2 8 5 P A R K N G S T A L L S P R O P O S E D
- 7 H C S T A L L S R E O U i ! E D Y S . 8 H C S T A L L S P R O P O S E D
S " S O 0 0
N
S T A T I O N
N I N E T E E N
A r c h i t e c t . - A f o o r p o r a M A
2 0 0 1 U N N E R S I T Y
A V E N U E S O U T H E A S T
S U I T E 1 0 0
M I N N E A P O L L S
M I N N E S O T A 5 5 4 1 4
P H O N E 1 0 1 2 1 6 2 !
H M O
F A X 0 1 1 2 1 6 2 1 0 0 1 2 9 2
. a , a . 1 0 . . o r w o n . a .
0 0 , 0
1 1 . 0 �� e r 1 : : s
M I N N E S O T A
, . T . S O N .
M S
s S O J E C I . m l f
W O O D R I D G E
C H U R C H
M E D I N A ,
M I N N E S O T A
P 1 o j e c i N u m b e r 4 3 7 5
1 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 3 - P a r k i n g l o t
l o c a t i o n , B l d g . A r e a a n d
P a r k i n g C a l c u l a t i o n s , a n d
I m p e r v i o u s S u r f a c e
C a l c u l a t i o n s r e v i s e d b y
D u s t y F i n k e , C i t y o f
M e d i n a , u s i n g A d o b e
A c r o b a t 1 0 i n o r d e r t o
m a k e s i t e p l a n c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h t e r m s o f S e t t l e m e n t
A g r e e m e n t
��M Y A D J U S T E D D E S I G N
D E V E L O P M E N T
6 6 , . x 1 " ,
S I T E
P L A N
A 1 . 1