Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
02-09-2010
MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of January 12, 2010 Planning Commission minutes 6. Lennar — 3212 Hunter Drive (PIDs 12-118-23-43-0002 & 13-118-23- 12-0001) — Concept Plan Review related to a potential subdivision of 195 single family home sites on approximately 111 gross acres (73.56 net acres) called "The Enclave of Medina" 7. Open Systems Intemational (OSI) — Northwest comer of Arrowhead Drive and State Highway 55 (PID 03-118-23-44-0001) — Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an office building on a 19.1 acre parcel 8. Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8, Section 825.55-825.59 of Medina's City Code related to the Site Plan Review process 9. City Council Meeting Schedule 10.Adjoum POSTED IN CITY HALL February 5, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams DATE: February 5, 2010 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates for February 9, 2010 PC Meeting Ordinance Updates A) Private Recreation Zoning District — staff believes that this ordinance is not essential for the City's zoning ordinances to be consistent with the new Comp Plan. As a result, staff is recommending that this ordinance be placed lower in the priority list. B) Future Commercial Holding District — staff has drafted an ordinance related to two "holding districts" for properties which have been identified for future commercial or business development, but would not be allowed to develop under the new Staging Plan. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and recommended approval at their January 12 meeting. The City Council will begin review at the February 3 meeting. C) Open Space Development/Conservation Design Regulations — the Council adopted a resolution on January 5 supporting a grant application to assist with the cost of these regulations. Staff has contacted NAC for a cost estimate and will apply for the grant. This process should leave enough time to adopt the regulations prior to the Met Council deadline. Land Use Application Reviews A) Appeal of Administrative Decision — 2590 Keller Road — The City Council heard the property owner's and contractor's appeal of the denial of a permit to construct a pair of 4'x4' monuments within the City right-of-way adjacent to 2590 Keller at the January 5 meeting. Staff is working on preparing resolution as directed by the Council, which is scheduled for the February 3 consent agenda. B) Three Rivers Near Wilderness CUP — Three Rivers has requested a CUP amendment to construct a small office building at the Near Wilderness facility. A Public Hearing was held at the January 12 Planning Commission meeting and the Commission recommended approval. The request will be heard by the Council in February. C) OSI Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP, Rezoning — NW corner of Arrowhead and Hwy 55 — Open Systems International (OSI) has applied to subdivide a 19 -acre portion of the property and also for review of the Site Plan for their 92,000 square foot building. Staff is reviewing the plans, and the Public Hearing may be held at the February Planning Commission meeting. D) Enclave of Medina Concept Plan Review — 3212 Hunter Drive — Lennar has applied for a Concept Plan for a 195 -lot subdivision on the Holasek property. The concept is a combination of 65 -foot wide and 78 -foot wide single family lots. Staff is reviewing the plan, and the Public Hearing is planned to be held at the February Planning Commission. Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting E) Bryson/LeMond Lot Line Rearrangement — 3000 and 3082 Willow Drive — the applicants have applied to shift the lot line between their properties. The application is incomplete for review and staff awaits plans from the property owners' surveyor. F) Tuckborough Farms Easement Vacation — 2830 Cabaline Trail — The City Council held a Public Hearing on the request at the January 19 City Council meeting and adopted the resolution vacating the easements. Staff is working on paperwork to finalize the vacation. G) Septic System Wetland Setback Variance — 1255 Medina Road —The City Council approved the resolution at the January 5 Council meeting. Staff is working with the applicant regarding the conditions of the approval. H) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved resolutions for the lot combination, CUP/Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and easement vacation. Staff is working with the applicant to get all necessary documents recorded correctly. I) Wrangler's Restaurant — 32 Hamel Road — the Council approved resolutions at the July 21 meeting. Staff has been in contact with the applicant regarding recording of the plat and requirements for submitting building permits. Additional Projects A) Comprehensive Plan Update — The Metropolitan Council has approved the City's 2010- 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff is formatting the "final version" of the Plan following City Council approval. The City continues the process of updating ordinances necessary so that the official controls are consistent with the Plan. B) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) Staff has sent the developer notice of their violations of the City Tree Preservation and Shoreland Overlay District ordinances. The notice required the developer to provide a remediation plan by the end of January. If the property owner does not follow through with an approved plan, staff will begin considering criminal and/or civil remedies. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Z Medina Planning Commission Draft January 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners, Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, Kent Williams, John Anderson, Kathleen Martin, and Beth Nielsen. Absent: None Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne Nolan introduced the newly appointed Planning Commissioners. He stated that he had been involved with the interview process and was happy to have Anderson and Martin on the Commission. Commissioners Anderson and Martin introduced themselves. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda: No public comments. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings: Weir presented the update that the Council: heard a report from Mark Schiffman of Embrace Open Space on the economic benefits of planning open space into City development; - gave approval to Open Systems International to access the Minneapolis Economic Development Common Bond Fund program in order to help the growing software company relocate to Medina. OSI produces energy related software and is expanding into Medina. The Common Bond Fund is available at no cost to the City; - denied a driveway width waiver to a resident, whose builder constructed his driveway eight feet wider than City code and his lot plans allow; - approved a resolution formally adopting Medina's 2030 Comprehensive Plan; - supported a grant application for a Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Clean Water Fund Grant to re -meander a creek and enlarge a wetland that are common to Loretto and to Medina; approved City Financial Management Policies; allowed a payment plan to help residents make payments on outstanding deferred assessment balances owed to the City; - heard a report from County Sheriff Rich Stanek, who reported lower violent crime rates in the county and thanked Medina Police Chief Ed Belland for his department's excellent work with the West Metro Drug Task Force; 1 Medina Planning Commission Draft January 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes - heard public comment on a 1 percent proposed 1010 tax levy increase, and approved the increase. The levy includes interest on lease purchase bonds for equipment that were approved last year to make a total of a 1.15 levy increase; - approved a revised Environmental Fund Purpose Statement that directs expenditure more directly to support environmental issues than before; - took comments from the public and discussed the proposed new public works facility that has been researched and discussed for seven years. The present building is undersized, does not meet OSHA standards for safety and air quality and requires off-season, expensive equipment to be stored outside. Ehlers Consultants presented possible interest rate impacts from a Capital Improvement Bond to fund the proposed $6.5 million building over 20 years. Council remains cautious moving forward with this plan, but directed staff to continue pursuing the purchase of land from Hennepin County on their Public Works site for the future facility, and to look into the feasibility of adding on to and remodeling the present public works building. Council also directed staff to prepare a draft RFP for architectural and project management services; heard a presentation from the Hamel and Loretto fire chiefs, regarding their ongoing progress towards a possible merger of the two fire departments; - approved a one year Fire Contract Agreement with Corcoran and the Hamel Fire Department for fire protection; - approved the appointment of John Gleason, a part-time snow plow driver to replace the fulltime position of Bob Dressel, who retired after 34 years of service to Medina; reviewed the Mixed Use ordinance and directed consultants NAC to make changes, including: 1. increase height to three stories for residential above commercial; 2. increase the allowed size of nursing homes etc. as a conditional use; 3. allow residential facilities serving six or fewer clients as a permitted use in singe family residential areas in order to be consistent with state statutes; 4. change the term "bonus density" to "additional density" that allows densities beyond five residential units per acre and up to seven units per acre; 5. make external building materials for institutional uses in the MU District conform to other commercial use materials; 6. add a Places of Assembly section so that religious institutions are not given preferential treatment; 7. increase to a maximum 60,000 sq. ft. for warehousing, wholesaling and distributors as a conditional use. The Council approved the amended MU District ordinance at the January 5th meeting; - granted a wetland setback variance for a small property located in Rural Residential that is surrounded by wetlands and has a failing system; - approved a uniform design for park signs throughout the City; approved a $100,000 grant from the Hennepin Youth Sports Program Initiative to help fund the completion of the Field House in Hamel Legion Park; - denied a resident's appeal to allow the two 4' x 4' stone monuments that were already constructed to stay in the City Right of Way of a public street; - supported a DNR Community Conservation Assistance grant application to help prepare a Conservation Design/Open Space ordinance; - approved Kent Williams, Kathleen Martin and John Anderson to the Planning Commission. 2 " M e d i n a P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n D r a f t J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 M e e t i n g M i n u t e s 4 . P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t R e p o r t : F i n k e u p d a t e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n t h e u p c o m i n g l a n d u s e p r o j e c t s t h e C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d b e s e e i n g i n F e b r u a r y . 5 . A p p r o v a l o f N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M i n u t e s : M o t i o n b y R . R e i d , s e c o n d e d b y N i e l s e n , t o a p p r o v e t h e N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 m i n u t e s a s w r i t t e n . M o t i o n c a r r i e d u n a n i m o u s l y . 6 . P u b l i c H e a r i n g T h r e e R i v e r s P a r k D i s t r i c t - B a k e r N e a r - W i l d e r n e s s S e t t l e m e n t - 4 0 0 1 C o u n t y R o a d 2 4 ( P I D # 2 0 - 1 1 8 - 2 3 - 2 1 - 0 0 0 3 ) C o n d i t i o n a l U s e P e r m i t A m e n d m e n t t o c o n s t r u c t a n o f f i c e b u i l d i n g . P e t e r s o n - D u f r e s n e p r e s e n t e d t h e r e q u e s t t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n . S h e s t a t e d t h e s m a l l o f f i c e b u i l d i n g i s p r o p o s e d w i t h i n t h e N e a r W i l d e r n e s s S e t t l e m e n t . T h e N e a r W i l d e r n e s s S e t t l e m e n t i s w i t h i n t h e " D e v e l o p e d " a r e a o f B a k e r P a r k , w h i c h i s l i m i t e d t o 2 0 % o f t h e t o t a l l a n d a r e a o f t h e T h r e e R i v e r s P a r k D i s t r i c t S y s t e m . S h e s h o w e d t h e o v e r a l l l o c a t i o n o f t h e s i t e . S h e s a i d t h e o f f i c e b u i l d i n g i s p r o p o s e d f a r f r o m p u b l i c r o a d w a y s a n d n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t i e s a n d i s p r o p o s e d t o b e 7 6 8 s q u a r e f e e t . T h e p a r c e l t h e o f f i c e b u i l d i n g w i l l s i t o n i s o v e r 2 3 5 a c r e s i n s i z e . S h e p r e s e n t e d t h e e x t e r i o r e l e v a t i o n s o f t h e o f f i c e b u i l d i n g a n d s u m m a r i z e d t h e p a r k i n g o n t h e s i t e . S h e e x p l a i n e d t h e p r e v i o u s C U P r e q u i r e d 4 0 p a v e d p a r k i n g s p a c e s . T h e p r o p o s e d o f f i c e b u i l d i n g w o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e r e q u i r e d p a r k i n g b y 2 s t a l l s f o r a t o t a l o f 4 2 s p a c e s r e q u i r e d . S h e s a i d t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s i d e n t i f i e d a l a r g e a r e a f o r " o v e r f l o w " p a r k i n g a d j a c e n t t o t h e " t u r k e y b a r n " t o t h e s o u t h o f t h e l o d g e . P e t e r s o n - D u f r e s n e r e v i e w e d t h e c r i t e r i a b y w h i c h C U P ' s s h o u l d b e r e v i e w e d a n d s t a t e d s h e b e l i e v e s t h e p r o p o s a l m e e t s t h e c r i t e r i a , i f t h e c o n d i t i o n s r e c o m m e n d e d b y s t a f f a r e f o l l o w e d . S h e r e v i e w e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s r e c o m m e n d e d b y s t a f f . M a r t i n i n q u i r e d i f t h e C i t y s h o u l d h a v e a n y c o n v e r s a t i o n a b o u t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e p r e v i o u s C U P . F i n k e s t a t e d w h a t e v e r i s a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y a s a r e s u l t o f t h i s r e q u e s t w i l l s u p e r s e d e t h e p r e v i o u s C U P i n p l a c e . D a n E l i a s ( T h r e e R i v e r s P a r k D i s t r i c t ) s t a t e d t h e y h a v e b e e n w o r k i n g w i t h M e t r o W e s t I n s p e c t i o n s o n t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e " N o P a r k i n g " s i g n s . H e s a i d i n t e r m s o f m a t e r i a l s , t h e s i g n i s r e q u i r e d t o b e r e f l e c t i v e m e t a l , a l t h o u g h t h e P a r k D i s t r i c t i s l o o k i n g a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f w o o d e n p o s t s . E l i a s s t a t e d a C u l t u r a l H i s t o r i a n w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t i s l o o k i n g a t p o t e n t i a l n a m e s f o r t h e c a b i n s i f t h e C o m m i s s i o n w i s h e s t o r e c o m m e n d s o . E l i a s s t a t e d t h e g a t e h a d b e e n m o v e d c l o s e r t o C o u n t y R o a d 2 4 a f e w y e a r s a g o w h e n t h e P a r k D i s t r i c t ' s P u b l i c S a f e t y D i v i s i o n i n s t a l l e d n e w g a t e s . T h e C o m m i s s i o n d i s c u s s e d t h e 1 9 9 7 c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e g a t e s h o u l d b e s e t b a c k 2 5 0 f e e t f r o m t h e r o a d a n d w a s i n s t a l l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 0 f e e t f r o m t h e r o a d . P e t e r s o n - D u f r e s n e s a i d s h e r e v i e w e d m i n u t e s a n d s t a f f r e p o r t s a n d c o u l d n o t f i n d w h y t h e g a t e w a s r e q u i r e d t o b e 2 5 0 f e e t f r o m t h e r o a d o r w h y i t w a s m o v e d c l o s e r . 3 " M e d i n a P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n D r a f t J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 M e e t i n g M i n u t e s N i e l s e n a s k e d h o w o f t e n t h e r e w e r e l a r g e r e v e n t s a n d i f p e o p l e p a r k e d a l o n g t h e d r i v e . E l i a s s t a t e d t h e r e i s g e n e r a l l y o n e l a r g e e v e n t p e r s u m m e r m o n t h . T o h i s k n o w l e d g e t h e r e w a s n o h i s t o r y o f p a r k i n g o n t h e d r i v e d u r i n g l a r g e e v e n t s . N o l a n i n q u i r e d i f t h e o f f i c e i s f o r n e w s t a f f m e m b e r s o r m o v i n g e x i s t i n g s t a f f . E l i a s s t a t e d t h a t t h r e e o f t h e f o u r a r e e x i s t i n g s t a f f m e m b e r s a n d a f e w o f t h e m o f f i c e e l s e w h e r e . W i l l i a m s i n q u i r e d i f t h e r e w a s a c o n c e r n w i t h u t i l i z i n g t h e e x i s t i n g s e p t i c s y s t e m a n d n o t b e i n g a b l e t o h a n d l e t h e a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y . E l i a s s t a t e d t h e y h a d w o r k e d w i t h S & P t e s t i n g t o m o n i t o r u s a g e s o t h e y c o u l d b e c o n f i d e n t t h e y w o u l d n ' t b e o v e r b u r d e n e d w i t h t h e o f f i c e b u i l d i n g . P u b l i c H e a r i n g o p e n e d a t 7 : 4 0 p . m . P u b l i c H e a r i n g c l o s e d a t 7 : 4 2 p . m . N o l a n i d e n t i f i e d t h e i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n a s : " " N o P a r k i n g " s i g n s w i l l n e e d t o f o l l o w f i r e c o d e , b u t a s m u c h a s p o s s i b l e t h e m a t e r i a l s s h o u l d b e m o r e n a t u r a l . " N a m e s o f C a b i n s V . R e i d s t a t e d s h e w o u l d l i k e t o s e e t h e c a b i n s n a m e d a f t e r e a r l y s e t t l e r s a s p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d . " P a r k i n g R . R e i d s t a t e d s h e d o e s n o t b e l i e v e t h e y s h o u l d r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l p a v i n g a s l o n g a s o v e r f l o w p a r k i n g i s p r o v i d e d . " G a t e l o c a t i o n R . R e i d s t a t e d f r o m a s e c u r i t y s t a n d p o i n t , t h e c l o s e r l o c a t i o n s e e m s b e t t e r . V . R e i d a d d e d t h a t i t m a k e s s e n s e t o l e a v e i t a l o n e i f t h i s i s h o w t h e y d o i t i n o t h e r p a r k s , u n l e s s t h e r e i s a g o o d r e a s o n t o p l a c e t h e g a t e e l s e w h e r e . M o t i o n b y W i l l i a m s , s e c o n d e d b y V . R e i d , t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l o f t h e c o n d i t i o n a l u s e p e r m i t a m e n d m e n t w i t h r e c o m m e n d e d c h a n g e s . M o t i o n c a r r i e d u n a n i m o u s l y . ( A b s e n t : N o n e ) 7 . P u b l i c H e a r i n g P u b l i c H e a r i n g O r d i n a n c e A m e n d m e n t C h a p t e r 8 , S e c t i o n 8 3 5 o f t h e C i t y C o d e r e g a r d i n g t h e R u r a l C o m m e r c i a l H o l d i n g z o n i n g d i s t r i c t a n d r e g u l a t i o n s f o r p r o p e r t y w h i c h h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d f o r c o m m e r c i a l o r b u s i n e s s d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 3 0 C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n , b u t f o r w h i c h s e w e r a n d w a t e r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e w i l l n o t b e a v a i l a b l e u n t i l a f u t u r e d a t e . F i n k e p r e s e n t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n p r o v i d i n g b a c k g r o u n d a n d e x p l a i n i n g w h y t h e n e e d f o r b o t h z o n i n g d i s t r i c t s . H e e x p l a i n e d p r o p e r t i e s c a n n o t b e d e v e l o p e d t o d a y w i t h u r b a n s e r v i c e s . H e f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n i s r e v i e w i n g t h e o r d i n a n c e o n l y a n d r e z o n i n g s p e c i f i c p r o p e r t i e s w o u l d n o t b e p a r t o f t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g . T h i r t y p a r c e l s i n t h e f u t u r e w o u l d b e r e z o n e d . F i n k e a s k e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o d i s c u s s v i a b l e u s e s f o r p r o p e r t i e s . 4 Medina Planning Commission Draft January 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes Finke asked the Commission if they preferred one or two zoning districts. The proposed ordinance identifies two different zoning districts referred to as the rural commercial holding district and the rural business holding district. Finke reviewed staff recommended uses for the districts. He also informed the Commission that he received a call from a property owner raising concern that his property would be made nonconforming. Finke reviewed the proposed lot size of 20 acres as a new regulation. He said currently the rural commercial holding district requires a minimum of five acres of contiguous suitable soils. Staff researched existing parcels within the City and found 45 parcels, 5 acres in size, and could not find many meeting the 20 acre minimum. He further noted the existing rural commercial holding district does allow for development if it does not meet minimum acreage requirements, but does not allow them to be further subdivided. Properties redeveloped would need to meet setbacks and hardcover requirements. Finke informed the Commission that the ordinance limits the sanitary sewer usage to 100 gallons per day per net acre. Finke presented examples of uses and their sizes based on the use of sanitary sewer. Martin asked under the proposed ordinance if a property was less than 40 acres could it be further subdivided. Finke explained that it could not be further subdivided. Martin asked if under the current ordinance it would allow a 40 acre parcel with all suitable soils to be divided into three lots (two 7 acre lots and one 6 acre lot). Finke said it could be divided into the three lot example. R. Reid asked for timeframes of staging of urban services. Finke identified areas within the staging plan and informed the Commission that parcels may be able to move up in the staging plan by five years. Staff will be drafting "a point system" that will be presented to the Commission in the next couple of months. Developers and/or landowners will have to meet established criteria in order to develop their property five years earlier than the existing staging plan. V. Reid said she understood the reason for the 20 acre minimum but asked why the City wanted to slow growth down. Finke explained the goals of the comprehensive plan and its intentions for the use of urban services. He further said the City supports the staging plan with east -west progression of development. R. Reid stated preserving large tracts of land now would help development of properties in the future as it relates to sewer and water connections. Martin asked if the City assesses connection services to properties. Finke explained it has not been the tradition of the City, though other communities do assess for services. He said the burden is on the developer. 5 Medina Planning Commission Draft January 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes V. Reid asked if the future upgrades to State Highway 55 was part of the staging plan. Finke confirmed transportation was one of the elements of the staging plan. Williams asked when State Highway 55 was planned to be improved. Weir said MNDOT does not have money to widen until at least 2020. Nolan explained land use philosophy with the intensity of land developing. He said it started with requiring nerp ponds for developments. Cities ended up micro managing developments and it ended up having a negative effect on developments. It would take 8 acres rather than 5 acres to develop an industrial use. He questioned the requirement of 20 acres rather than the 5 acres and whether it would be an appropriate use of land. Williams asked for clarification of the 20 acre minimum acreage requirement if the burden of the land stays the same. Finke explained the existing ordinance would allow for efficiencies of land ex: strip malls on 5 acre parcels. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 p.m. Public Hearing closed at 8:21 p.m. Nolan discusses philosophy of increased acreage. He suggested discussing the acreage increase with landowners to see how they feel they would be impacted. He said it's a significant change that shouldn't be taken lightly. Anderson asked if staff had examples of other communities experiencing something similar. Finke said it is a common regulation amongst communities from the language he has reviewed. Finke explained we've added dozens of properties to the staging plan for development availability and would consider interim uses more restrictive. Nolan asked about interim uses and explained how Burnsville handles properties such as these. Williams said it minimizes tax revenues and landowners won't want to commit to anything since regulations could change. He thinks the new ordinance is good since it is an orderly -measured way and when hook-ups do become available, they won't have lost what they gained. He said he likes the approach. He said what he is struggling with is the 20 acre minimum. R. Reid said the ordinance allows for quite a few alternatives, but asked Williams if his concern was lot size. He said he wonders if 20 acres is really necessary. R. Reid said the Metropolitan Council prefers larger parcels for installation of infrastructure such as sewer and water. She is comfortable with slower development and sees the logic for future sewer. Finke said site plan reviews would be required. He further provided his thoughts on ghost platting and how it would be more of a process rather than an ordinance. Nolan asked for clarification of site plan reviews and how far down the list it was for the Commission to review. Finke stated it is significantly farther down the list, but the Commission would be reviewing it at some point. 6 Medina Planning Commission Draft January 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes Martin asked Finke to explain a little more about the building contractor that called and had concern with the ordinance changes. Finke explained the person's land is a future commercial land use which means it would be zoned into rural commercial holding. He said the property owner has a contractors business. Finke said he is not real concerned with the owners use. "Contractor services" and "builder services" definitions were discussed by the Commission. Finke expanded the conversation to include discussion of existing nonconforming uses. Finke explained the more significant change is removing assembly -manufacturing from rural commercial holding district. The balance of the uses is consistent with the current rural commercial holding district. Weir asked if the ordinance was really necessary, although she sees the rational for larger lots. Finke said the strain on larger parcels is less than if parcels were smaller in size. Weir asked if staff sees the use to be long lasting with ghost platting in place. Finke said one would assume when a site proposes to develop, the balance of the lots would be identified for future use. Nolan asked if anyone on the Commission recommended lessening the acreage below 20 acres. The consensus was no. Nolan said he is a strong advocate concerning keeping our eyes focused on the future, though he questioned the process. He asked if it could be required of developers to hook up to services to provide a momentum of continued growth. Finke pointed out the text of the ordinance that requires property owners/businesses to hook up to urban services within one year. He said the ordinance is a disincentive to develop prior to urban services getting to the property. He further stated the cost of a private septic system and a private well would be more costly than connecting to City services, even with SAC charges included. Nolan said he favors keeping the contractor services use references specific. Martin recommended keeping the uses as listed. The Commission reviewed the contractor services use location within the ordinance. R. Reid asked about the outdoor storage related to contractor services. Finke explained it would be enforced with screening requirements. R. Reid visualizes office buildings having some outside storage. Conclusion of the Commission was to allow "contractor services". R. Reid said she doesn't support keeping properties agricultural. V. Reid said there are also disincentives with the recommended ordinance. Nolan asked if there is any reason for design standards to be incorporated. The Commission recommended "contractor services" to be included in both districts. Motion by R. Reid with two changes and seconded by Anderson. No opposed. 7 Medina Planning Commission Draft January 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Anderson, to approve the ordinance amendment with recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None) 8. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting. 9. Election of 2010 Planning Commission Chair The Commission accepted nominations for the 2010 Planning Commission Chair. Commissioner Nolan was nominated. Nolan was unanimously elected to be Planning Commission Chair. 10. Election of 2010 Planning Commission Vice Chair The Commission accepted nominations for the 2010 Planning Commission Vice Chair. Commissioner R. Reid was nominated. R. Reid was unanimously elected to be Planning Commission Vice Chair. 9. Adjourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to adjourn at 9:04 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None) 8 MEMORANDUM NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners(a?nacplanning.com TO: Medina Mayor and City Council Medina Planning Commission FROM: Laurie Smith DATE: January 27, 2010 RE: Medina — 'The Enclave of Medina'; Concept Plan Review NAC FILE: 306.02 — 10.01 CITY FILE: L-09-051 BACKGROUND Lennar has submitted an application for Concept Plan Review for "The Enclave of Medina," a single family residential development consisting of 195 lots. The subject property is owned by the Holasek family and located south of Hamel Road and east of Hunter Drive. The subject property consists of two parcels containing approximately 110 total acres. The subject site is guided for Medium Density Residential uses on the northern parcel and Low Density Residential uses on most of the southern parcel by the Comprehensive Plan. A portion of the southern parcel is also guided Rural Residential. The Subdivision Ordinance and Concept Plan Review ordinance make provisions for proposed developments to be referred to City staff and officials for review and informal comment in order to receive direction on issues relevant in the area to be subdivided prior to preparation of detailed preliminary and final plat plans. The City holds a public hearing as part of all concept plan reviews such that adjacent property owners have an opportunity to receive information about proposed projects and present questions or comments. A public hearing to consider the Enclave of Medina concept plan has been noticed for February 9, 2010. Elevations of similar houses will be presented at the meeting. Lennar suggests a site visit to Fieldstone Meadows at the NE corner of County Roads 101 and 47. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Site Location Planning and Public Works Comments Engineering Comments Concept Plan (December 23, 2009) ISSUES ANALYSIS Land Use. In 2009, Medina's 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council as required by the Metropolitan Council. The comprehensive planning process lasted over two years and included multiple open houses and public meetings to inform and gather input from the general public. The updating of this plan changed land use guiding for several areas of the City due to the Metropolitan Area growth patterns, availability of public utilities and mandatory adherence to the Metropolitan Council's 2030 Development Framework. The subject site was previously guided for low density residential uses and limited to 50 sewer connections. However, the new Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site for Medium Density Residential uses on the north half and Low Density Residential uses on the south half. Medium Density Residential areas are planned to have densities within a range of 3.5 units per acre to 6.99 units per acre and to include a mix of housing styles including single family homes, twin homes, town homes and row homes. Low Density Residential areas are planned to have densities ranging from 2.0 units per acre to 3.49 units per acre and to include predominately single family homes. The applicant is proposing single family residential lots averaging 12,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet in area for an overall net density of 2.9-3.05 units per acre (depending on how much open space is dedicated to the public). Looking at the two parcels separately, the concept shows net density of 3.22 units/acre on the north parcel and 2.74 units/acre on the southern parcel. The following table outlines the existing and proposed land uses surrounding the subject site. Direction Land Use Plan Zoning Map Existing Use North Medium Density Residential & Mixed Use - Business UR, Urban Residential Single Family Large Lot and Small Lot East Parks and Recreation & Medium and Low Density Residential PS, Public/Semi Public & RR-UR (Urban Reserve) Parks and Recreation and Single Family Large Lot South Rural Residential RR, Rural Residential Agriculture West Rural Residential & Parks and Recreation RR -1, Rural Residential 1 Single Family Large Lot and Parks and Recreation The proposed project does not appear to be wholly consistent with the land use goals established by the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed density on the northern portion of the site is significantly lower than what was anticipated for this area. Furthermore, the applicant is not proposing to include twin homes, town homes or row homes, although the Comprehensive Plan guides the north half of the site for Medium Density Residential, which includes two family and multiple family developments. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the subject site would allow for development at a density within the range of 172 to 325 housing units based on the net density of the site and the proposed land use designations identified in the Future Land Use Plan. 2 The proposed concept plan assumes that this guided density is averaged over the entire site as opposed to Medium Density Residential uses on the northern parcel and Low Density Residential uses on the southern parcel. The Planning Commission and Council should discuss whether or not averaging the density over the two parcels is appropriate. Staffs impression is that there was expansive discussion during the Comprehensive Plan process about concentrating density in the northern portion of the northern lot with attached dwellings, and "phasing" the density down with, smaller -lot single family in the middle and larger -lot single family to the south. MUSA. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line stops just short of the southern -most row of single family homes proposed in the concept plan. As such, if the applicant were to proceed with the proposed plans, approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend this MUSA line approximately 250 feet further to the south would be required. This would increase the net acreage of Low Density Residential land use within the MUSA by approximately 6.5 acres beyond which was planned in the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment would be subject to review by surrounding jurisdictions and final approval by the Metropolitan Council. Staff suggested to the applicant that they may wish to consider excluding buildable acreage on the east side (the wooded area) of the property in exchange for extending the MUSA to the south. This alternative could result in no increase in net acres within the MUSA and provide for more environmental protection. Zoning. The subject site is currently zoned PUD2, Planned Unit Development 2. Following approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, PUD2 zoning is no longer consistent with the Future Land Use plan. As such, the proposed concept plan would require a rezoning of the site to a zoning designation that would allow for urban single family uses. The applicant is proposing a single family residential subdivision with lot standards based on the R-1 District for the lager lots and the and R-2 District for the smaller lots. As such, the applicant would be requesting a rezoning of the property to R-1 and R-2 District along with multiple variances from the existing R-1 and R-2 District standards. The following table shows the required lot area and setback requirements for the R-1 and R-2 Districts along with those that are being proposed. Lot Requirements Setbacks Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard R-1 District: Required 11,000 square feet 90 feet 30 feet 10 feet / 25 feet (corner) 25 - 30 feet Proposed 8,969 to 42,606 square feet 78 feet 30 feet 7.5 feet / 15 — 25 feet (corner) 25 — 30 feet R-2 District: Required 8,000 square feet 60 feet 30 feet 10 feet / 25 feet (corner) 25 feet Proposed 7,182 to 30,163 square feet 65 feet 30 feet 7.5 feet / 15 — 25 feet (corner) 25 feet 3 The proposed lot configurations are fairly consistent with R-1 and R-2 District standards. However, many of the proposed home sites do not meet setback requirements for the R-1 and R-2 Districts, particularly the internal side yard setbacks and corner (street side) setbacks. Additionally, the larger lots do not meet R-1 District lot width minimums and several of the lots located on the proposed cul-de-sacs do not meet street frontage requirements. If the applicant were to proceed with the concept plan as currently proposed, significant deviations from the R-1 and R-2 District standards would be necessary. Rather than apply for multiple variances from R-1 and R-2 District standards, City staff suggests that the applicant consider including twin homes or town homes within the proposed plan and/or requesting PUD zoning. The Comprehensive Plan clearly designates the north half of the subject site for Medium Density Residential which can be implemented by the R-2 District standards. If two-family style homes were incorporated into the proposed subdivision design, not only would lot required standards be attainable, but planned densities would be achievable as well. Existing Conditions. The subject site consists of two separate parcels with a total of 110 acres. The proposed concept plan does not incorporate the northwest corner of the north parcel into the plan. According to County records, this parcel is not a separate piece and must be incorporated into the proposed concept plan or a proposed subdivision consistent with the zoning and subdivision ordinances must be proposed at the time of preliminary plat. This also provides for more logical planning for this portion of the property. Access. The subdivision is proposed to have primary access off of Hunter Drive. Two access points are proposed off of Hunter Drive. One access, directly across from Elm Creek Drive and one access approximately 370 feet north of Navajo Road. The concept plan does not illustrate any interconnections with adjacent subdivisions or areas reserved for interconnections with future subdivisions to the east, north or south. Additional accesses to the north and east may be practical in order to allow traffic to flow in and out of the subdivision in multiple directions, rather than placing all the impact on Hunter Drive. The applicant is proposing to add a sidewalk along the east side of Hunter Drive. Sidewalks are also proposed throughout the subdivision along one side of the street. Trails are proposed within the wooded area to east as well as to connect the existing trail along the west side of Hunter Drive to the existing trails within Hamel Legion Park. The proposed trails, however, are shown on the plan as being five feet wide, which is narrower than trail widths elsewhere in the City. Sidewalks which are to be part of the City's trail system should be required to be wider to accommodate broader pedestrian travel. There is an open area to the south of the large wetland area within the proposed subdivision which does not currently have access off of Hunter Drive. As a condition of approval of the preliminary plat, access to this area should be described. 4 Cul-de-sacs. The concept plan includes three cul-de-sacs, two at the north end and one towards the south end. Generally, City staff discourages the use of cul-de-sacs unless they are necessary to avoid disturbing environmentally significant areas or in areas of difficult topography. It does not appear that the three cul-de-sacs proposed are to mitigate topography issues or to save environmentally significant features. Furthermore, the concept plan illustrates shared driveways for four of the proposed new home sites located on the cul-de-sac. Shared driveway situations for single family homes are not recommended. Building Design. As the applicant, Lennar would develop the property as well as construct the proposed new homes. Two home models would be proposed. Each model would have four floor plan designs as well as four different elevation designs. As such, there would be a total of sixteen different exterior home designs throughout the proposed subdivision. Proposed building materials include vinyl siding with stone and brick accents. Landscape Plan. The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. Prior to consideration of a preliminary plat, submission of a landscape plan shall be required. Elements of the landscape plan shall be compliant with the landscaping and buffer yard provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. The concept plan does propose landscaped berms along Hunter Drive as well as landscaped islands within the street right-of-way at the two entrances to the subdivision. City staff has some concerns about the maintenance difficulties that these may create, particularly with regards to snow plowing. Additional considerations for such features include the requirement that they be platted as outlots so that maintenance of the islands themselves would be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. Tree Preservation. The concept plan shows large areas of existing trees as being removed in order to accommodate the new homes. Tree removal, preservation and replacement shall be consistent with the City's tree preservation requirements. The proposed concept plan designates an area of trees to be saved along the east property line and two small areas within the southeastern portion of the subdivision. City staff notes that areas to be saved should be connected via trails or corridors to maximize their value to the neighborhood. Neighborhood Amenities. The applicant is proposing to include a community building, tot lot and swimming pool as part of the subdivision's home owner's association. Given the higher density that is proposed, additional neighborhood amenities may be appropriate such as a community garden. Park and Trail Dedication. The applicant is not proposing to dedicate any land for park purposes with the creation of this subdivision. However, the City generally accepts easements over public trails as dedicated land. As such, the developer shall pay a cash fee in lieu of land, minus credit for trails, at the time of final plat approval. 5 Easements/Right-of-Way. The concept plan illustrates 28 -foot wide streets within 50 feet of right-of-way. The City's standard for local street right-of-way is 60 feet, however, reduced street right-of-way has been allowed in the past, most recently within the Bridgewater subdivision. The concept plan does not identify any drainage and utility easements. The preliminary plat must illustrate drainage and utility easements at the perimeter of each lot as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. If reduced street right- of-way is allowed, consideration should be given to requiring wider drainage and utility easements at the perimeter of lots that abut street right-of-way. Drainage and utility easements shall also be designated over all wetlands, ponds and trails. All easements are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer at the time of preliminary plat application. Wetlands and Ponds. The applicant is proposing to fill several wetlands within the subject site and to mitigate the impacts on -site. It is unclear what improvements would be done to existing wetlands to offset the reduction in wetlands. Grading, Drainage & Utilities. The applicant did not include grading, drainage and utility plans with the submission of the concept plan. Grading, drainage and utility plans as well as detailed construction plans will be required upon submission of a preliminary plat. All grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Neighborhood Meeting. At City staff urging, the developer held a neighborhood meeting and sent invitations to a broader area than is covered by the legal notice required by City ordinances. This meeting provided an opportunity to announce the Planning Commission's Public Hearing scheduled for February 9 as well. CONCLUSION The proposed concept plan is fairly consistent with City policies for the anticipated future development of the subject site. However, several changes to the concept plan will be required in preparation of a subsequent preliminary plat to meet all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. As proposed, the plan would require approval of multiple variances including those for lot width, side yard setbacks, right-of-way width and demonstration of hardship for each circumstance. The proposed plan could be addressed via a PUD, however the applicant would have to demonstrate how the proposed plan meets the City's PUD standards, what special circumstances exist and what additional amenities or features will be included to substantiate the need for a PUD. Alternatively, the proposed plan could be revised to include higher density housing such as twin homes or town homes on the north half of the site. Inclusion of two-family or multiple family dwelling units would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would alleviate the need for variances from the R-1 and R-2 District standards. 6 The following is a list of general issues that should be discussed at this stage by the Planning Commission and City Council: • Land Use: consistency with Comprehensive Plan o Density: "averaging" density over the two parcels o MUSA line extension, additional net acreage available for development • Zoning: R-1 and R-2 District, PUD or other • Access/interconnection to the south, north and east • Sidewalk/Trail location and design • Cul-de-sacs and shared driveways • Impacts to existing wetlands • Removal of trees c. Chad Adams Dusty Finke Debra Peterson -Dufresne Tom Kellogg Ron Batty Carole Toohey, Lennar Exhibit A Site Location MEMORANDUM TO: Laurie Smith, City Planning Consultant FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; Steve Scherer, Public Works Superintendent DATE: January 11, 2010 SUBJ: "Enclave" Concept Plan Staff Comments — Planning/Public Works Land Use • MUSA — Concept shows sewered development approximately 300 feet south of the MUSA line identified in the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property to the south of a line drawn from Navajo Road E. to the "unimproved" Navajo Road is identified as Rural Residential (1 unit/10 gross acres). • Density and Transition — "Phase I" density is lower than identified in the Comprehensive Plan. This parcel was identified with as density range of 3.5-7.0 in the future land use plan. There was significant conversation at the Comp Plan Advisory Panel about a transition of density from higher density (perhaps twin- or townhomes) in the north to lower density residential in the south portion of the property. This concept is not consistent with that vision. • Interaction with 5 acres to the north — the 5 acres immediately to the north shows to be under common ownership in City records and County tax records. There are ownership issues to work through, but from a land use standpoint, it seems to make sense to think of the future of this area during the concept for the rest of the property. Environmental • Wetlands — a number of basins are proposed to be filled in their entirety in the north portion of the property. Any mitigation ought to include active improvements of the remaining wetlands on - site in terms of function and value. • Woods/Tree Removal — large areas of the wooded area on the east of the property are proposed to be removed. City tree preservation regulations will apply. Since the applicant is requesting a shift of the MUSA to the south, it would seem like additional areas within the wooded area could be saved in order to decrease the total increase of developable acres, while still benefiting the value of the project to the applicant. The "Save Areas" should include a tree/woods management plan to maximize the environmental benefit of the woods which remain. • Allow for corridors between "Save Areas" — the pieces of open space could be easily connected with corridors to maintain connectivity. Site Layout/Streets/Lots • Grading — it is not clear how the overall site would be graded. Which lots are walkouts vs. full basements? How will house pad and basement excavation impact the overall elevation of the site? "Enclave" Concept Plan Planning and Public Works Comments Page 1 of 2 January 11, 2010 " " T r a i l c o n n e c t i o n A t r a i l c o n n e c t i o n s h o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d e a s t - w e s t t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t t o c o n n e c t t h e H u n t e r D r i v e t o H a m e l L e g i o n P a r k . I t a p p e a r s t h a t a s i d e w a l k a l o n g R o a d 2 i s p r o p o s e d . T h i s s h o u l d b e b u i l t w i d e r t h a n a t y p i c a l s i d e w a l k a n d m o r e l i k e a t r a i l s e c t i o n . A l s o , t h e r e s h o u l d b e d i s c u s s i o n o n w h i c h s i d e o f H u n t e r D r i v e t h e t r a i l s h o u l d b e l o c a t e d ( e i t h e r , o r b o t h ? ) . " S e w e r / W a t e r c o n n e c t i o n f o r H u n t e r L i o n s P a r k t h e P a r k C I P h a s i d e n t i f i e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e w e r a n d w a t e r f o r r e s t r o o m s a n d w a t e r f o u n t a i n s a t H u n t e r L i o n s P a r k . T h e c o n c e p t s h o u l d a c c o u n t f o r n e c e s s a r y e a s e m e n t s t o b r i n g t h e s e s e r v i c e s e i t h e r f r o m t h e e n t r a n c e d o w n H u n t e r o r b e t w e e n l o t s w e s t f r o m R o a d 2 . " U n n e c e s s a r y c u l - d e - s a c R o a d 1 1 a p p e a r s t o b e e a s i l y c o n v e r t e d t o a t h r o u g h s t r e e t b y c o n n e c t i n g w i t h R o a d 9 w h e r e R o a d 1 2 i n t e r s e c t s " R e m a i n i n g c u l - d e - s a c s a n d s h a r e d d r i v e s R o a d s 7 a n d 8 s h o w f i v e t o s i x d r i v e w a y s w i t h i n a v e r y l i m i t e d a m o u n t o f s p a c e . W h e n d r i v e w a y s a r e l a i d o u t , t h e r e w i l l b e a l m o s t n o r o o m f o r s n o w s t o r a g e . W i t h a n e w c o n c e p t w i t h s o m e a t t a c h e d h o u s i n g u n i t s , t h e r e w o u l d b e s o m e a l t e r n a t i v e l a y o u t s w h i c h c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d . " E n t r y l a n d s c a p e " m e d i a n s " P u b l i c W o r k s i s c o n c e r n e d a b o u t s n o w p l o w i n g a r o u n d t h e s e m e d i a n s . T h i s i s a g o o d o p p o r t u n i t y t o e s t a b l i s h a p o l i c y o n t h e s e t y p e s o f i m p r o v e m e n t s . " S i d e S e t b a c k s 7 . 5 ' s i d e s e t b a c k s a r e n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a n y o f t h e e x i s t i n g z o n i n g d i s t r i c t r e g u l a t i o n s . " S t r e e t S e t b a c k s m o s t o f t h e c o r n e r l o t s d o n o t i d e n t i f y r e q u i r e d s t r e e t s e t b a c k s a l o n g b o t h s t r e e t s S t o r m s e w e r " T h e p o n d s i n t h e n o r t h h a l f o f t h e c o n c e p t u l t i m a t e l y d i s c h a r g e t o t h e w e t l a n d i n t h e n o r t h w e s t c o r n e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y . T h e p o n d s i n t h e s o u t h h a l f o f t h e c o n c e p t u l t i m a t e l y d i s c h a r g e t o t h e w e t l a n d i n t h e s o u t h . P r o v i s i o n s w i l l n e e d t o b e m a d e f o r c u l v e r t s t o d r a i n f r o m t h e s e t w o w e t l a n d s o v e r t o p r o p e r t y t o t h e w e s t o f H u n t e r D r i v e . " T h e d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d b e e q u i p p e d w i t h a d e d i c a t e d s t o r m s e w e r s y s t e m f o r f o u n d a t i o n d r a i n t i l e s a n d s u m p p u m p s . W i t h o u t t h i s s y s t e m , t h e h i g h w a t e r t a b l e a n d s m a l l l o t s w o u l d l e a v e y a r d s c o n s t a n t l y w e t . S e w e r / W a t e r " S e w e r m a i n t h e s e w e r m a i n s e r v i n g t h i s e n t i r e d e v e l o p m e n t i s p r o p o s e d t h r o u g h t h e f r o n t y a r d s / d r i v e w a y s o f t h e h o m e s i n t h e n o r t h w e s t c o r n e r . T h i s w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e b e t t e r s e r v e d i n r i g h t - o f - w a y . A l s o , i t s e e m s l i k e i t m a y b e a d v i s a b l e t o r o u t e t h e s e w e r m a i n f r o m R i d g e v i e w C i r c l e e a s t t o H u n t e r D r i v e a n d t h e n r u n s o u t h a l o n g H u n t e r ( r a t h e r t h a n b o r i n g t h r o u g h a l l o f t h e w e t l a n d s b e h i n d 3 3 9 5 , 3 3 7 5 , a n d 3 3 5 5 H u n t e r D r i v e . " W a t e r m a i n t h e w a t e r s y s t e m i s p r e t t y w e l l l o o p e d . T h e r e i s n e e d f o r s o m e m o r e v a l v e s , s o t h i s s h o u l d b e r e v i e w e d p r i o r t o s u b d i v i s i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . " E n c l a v e " C o n c e p t P l a n P a g e 2 o f 2 J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 P l a n n i n g a n d P u b l i c W o r k s C o m m e n t s 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com January 12, 2010 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: The Enclave of Medina File No. 000190-10000-1 Plat No. L-09-051 Dear Dusty, Bonestroo We have reviewed the Enclave of Medina Concept Plan. The plans are dated December 23, 2009. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • Impacts to existing wetlands are rather significant with this project. Mitigation and buffer plans will be critical to the project's success. • Wetland delineations will need to be submitted for review and approval. • Wetland buffer requirements in Medina's wetland ordinance will need to be addressed in future plans. • Medina's Surface Water Management Plan has a goal of maintaining existing runoff volumes for developments. Future design and layouts should attempt to meet this goal in the most practical manner. • Another Surface Water Management Plan goal is reducing the phosphorus loading. Calculations will need to be submitted showing the existing phosphorus loadings for the site are reduced by 20% with this project. • Similar projects have found that a development -wide foundation drain system has worked well. This utility would be installed to handle flows typically discharged by a sump pump. • The development plans should consider a ghost plat for the southerly dry parcel. In particular, it should address access to this area. • This development will drive and require improvements to Hunter Drive. Decisions will need to be made regarding the development's contribution to and the timing of improvements. • The applicant is currently proposing 50 foot right-of-ways within the development. The current standard is 60 feet. • A 33 foot right-of-way and 15 foot trail easement will be required along Hunter drive. • Easements will be necessary to provide sanitary sewer service from the Elm Creek Drive neighborhood. • Access easements to the storm sewer ponds will be required. • Overland emergency overflows will be needed for storm water ponds, wetlands, backyard drainage areas, and roadway low points. City of Medina Page 2 The Enclave of Medina 1/12/2010 If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894 or by email at darren.amundsen@bonestroo.com. Sincerely, BONESTROO Darren Amundsen Cc: Tom Kellogg Lennar is proud to submit this concept plan for The Enclave of Medina, located on the Holasek property along Hunter Drive. Lennar has been building homes and communities in the Twin Cities for over 60 years. We are very excited to have this opportunity and to be back working in the City of Medina. The Enclave consists of 195 single family homesites on 73.56 net acres and incorporates the property's existing natural features. Our design includes some of the property's special elements such as existing wetlands and a wooded area. Some of our other features include walking trails which connect the City Park to the Lion's Park and then a private pool park with community building and totlot. We are proposing a landscaped berm along Hunter Drive to screen the road for those adjacent homesites in addition to obscuring them from neighboring homes. In our plan, a majority of our homesite back up to landscaping, natural features or open space. The density on our concept plan does meet the overall density outlined in the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. However, because of a floodplain designation adjustment, we will also be requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add approximately 8 (eight) aces of buildable land to the MUSA. Our plan does require some variances from the R1 & R2 zoning ordinances that were just recently adopted such as homesite square foot averaging and side yard setbacks. The homesite dimensions we are proposing are consistent with communities in Maple Grove and Plymouth. It is our intention to start constructing the first phase of our community as soon as we receive final approvals. It is our desire to start in the summer of 2010. The exact number of phases is derived by the market and the velocity of projected sales. We strongly believe that this community will benefit the City of Medina and Hamel in multiple ways. We can provide a moderately price and successful home that is currently unavailable in the city. This community and its future residents will also provide increased commercial and retail potential and sustainability in the new Uptown Hamel redevelopment area. r Carole Toohey Land Development Manager 935 Wayzata Blvd. E., Wayzata, MN 55391 • Main: 952-249-3000 • Fax: 952-249-3075 LEi NAR.00 l " l a s o n , a a m o v v . v w . . Z . , . u . N . 4 L E N N A I Z C o n c e p t P l a n - A e r i a l P h o t o O v e r a y 1 2 - 2 3 - 0 9 M O R I N S C A L E I N F E E T L E N N A R 9 3 5 E a s t W a y z a t a B o u l e v a r d W a y z a t a , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 1 L a n d D e v e l o p m e n t M a n a g e r . C a r o l e T o o h e y : 9 5 2 - 2 4 9 - 3 0 1 2 J o e J a b l o n s k i , 9 5 2 - 2 4 9 - 3 0 2 4 f LENNAR 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Land Development Manager: Carole Toohey: 952-249-3012 Joe Jablonski: 952-249-3024 50 25 0 25 50 100 SCALE IN FEET ,+ •• S `A\THRE-BERGQUIST. INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWA Y WAYZATA, MN . 55391 (952) 476-6000 SHEET 5 OF 5 W \PROJECTS\5401-634 MEDINA-HOLASEK-C ONCEPT\DWG\BASE MEDINA-C4.DWG DECEMBER 23, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: 7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING: SUBJ: Planning Commission Dusty Finke, City Planner February 3, 2010 February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Open Systems International — Northwest corner of Highway 55 and Arrowhead Dr. (PID 03-118-23-44-0001) — Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing Review Deadline Original Application Received: December 22, 2009 Complete Application Received: January 11, 2010 120 -day Review Deadline: May 11, 2010 Overview of Request Open Systems International (OSI) proposes to construct a building with a floor area of 92,000 square foot on approximately 20 -acres at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Arrowhead Drive. OSI is a high-technology software development firm which supplies real-time control systems for electric, water, oil, and gas utility companies. The company was founded in the early 1990's and employs approximately 250 employees. Representatives from OSI will be available for any questions related to the firm. The proposed project includes a series of land use requests as follows: • Preliminary Plat — to subdivide the existing 57 -acre lot into the 20 -acre OSI lot and subdivide the remaining property into three outlots ■ Rezoning — to rezone the southern area of the lot into the Commercial -Highway (CH) zoning district. Staff also recommends rezoning the rest of the property into the Mixed Use zoning district, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • Site Plan Review — the proposed construction requires approval of a Site Plan Review • Conditional Use Permit — buildings over 50,000 square feet in floor area require approval of a CUP in the CH zoning district Property Description The existing parcel is shaped like a backwards "L" and runs east -west along Highway 55 and north -south along Arrowhead Drive. The lot is approximately 57 acres in size, with a large wetland running diagonally through the property. There are wooded areas generally adjacent to the wetlands and the remaining site is farmed. The parcel is guided into two uses in the Comprehensive Plan, Commercial for the first 550-650 feet adjacent to Highway 55 and Mixed Use in the area to the north and along Open Systems International Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 16 February 9, 2010 Arrowhead Drive. In terms of zoning, the property has not been rezoned since the adoption of the new Comp Plan. As a result, the zoning is indicative of the City's 2000 Comp Plan, with the area adjacent to Highway 55 being zoned Business Park, and the area to the north and along Arrowhead Drive zoned Rural Residential -Urban Reserve. Surrounding land uses include the Bridgewater residential development to the northeast, rural residential uses (but guided for sewered residential development) to the northwest, north, and east, and business development to the west (Polaris), south (Hennepin County PW), and southeast (Loram). Current Zoning Subject Property MEDINA Zoning Map Zoning District - AG -UH RR PUG RR1 PS PUG RR._ RPS RR 1,R BP SR - 1F - l' Punt PAC J^ R"H - Pu`., EFR - St - MR RO.t-E 2010-2030 Comn Plan 4 Map 5-2 _ e (-.�. rv�"7 II City of Medina Future Land Use Plan legend Guide Pun - -. ' -' . .. . i Open Systems International Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Page 2 of 16 February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting RR uuJed 10 ms.lwm dens t, sewee tesu}cniidl Rezoning As described above, the subject property is currently divided into two zoning districts. The southern portion of the lot is zoned Business Park and the northern portion of the property is zoned Rural Residential -Urban Reserve, consistent with the 2000 Comp Plan. According to Section 825.35, the City shall not issue Zoning Amendments indiscriminately, but should use them "as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the [Comprehensive] Plan or changes in conditions in the City." Consistency with 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan — Staging Plan In the updated Comp Plan, the southern portion of the property was guided Commercial and the northern portion guided Mixed Use. This parcel is identified within the 2011-2015 timeframe within the Staging Plan. The timeframes could be interpreted in a number of ways, and the Comp Plan does not specify. Some possible interpretations include: 1) The City should deny development requests until the year 2011 for property in the 2011- 2015 timeframe. 2) The City may begin review of development requests, but should not issue building permits until the year 2011 for property in the 2011-2015 timeframe. 3) The City may review development requests, issue permits, but the building should not be occupied until the year 2011 for property in the 2011-2015 timeframe. The Comp Plan discusses flexibility in terms of the Staging Plan, and allows property to "jump forward" one 5 -year timeframe. It seems that the third option mentioned above is the most consistent with the objective of allowing some flexibility in the Staging Plan. Even more flexibility will be built into the "point system" which the City will discuss in the coming months to implement the Staging Plan. The Planning Commission should consider this matter carefully, as staff believes it establishes a precedent for all other property which are within a future Staging timeframe. Consistency with 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan — Zoning Districts The applicant proposes to rezone the southern portion of the lot into the Commercial Highway (CH) district. The request does not specify a change to the northern portion of the property, but staff recommends rezoning that portion of the property to Mixed Use (MU) as well. Staff believes these zoning designations are consistent with uses described in the Comp Plan. Staff suggests that the rezoning be based on the lots which are created as part of this subdivision rather than by the existing division through the interior of the existing lot. Staff Recommendation - Rezoning If the City interprets the 2011-2015 Staging period as suggested above, staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the southern portion of the property (which will become Lot 1/Block 1, Outlot B and Outlot C) to the Commercial -Highway zoning district and rezoning of the northern portion of the lot (which will become Outlot A) to the Mixed Use zoning district. Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) This rezoning is contingent on recording of the plat of Cavanaugh's Meadowwoods Park. 2) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the rezoning request. Open Systems International Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 February 9, 2010 " P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t T h e a p p l i c a n t p r o p o s e s t o s u b d i v i d e t h e e x i s t i n g 5 7 a c r e p a r c e l i n t o o n e 2 0 - a c r e l o t ( L o t 1 , B l o c k 1 ) a n d t h r e e o u t l o t s . N o c o n s t r u c t i o n i s p r o p o s e d a t t h i s t i m e f o r t h e o u t l o t s . T h e a p p l i c a n t h a s n a m e d t h e p l a t " C a v a n a u g h ' s M e a d o w w o o d s P a r k " a n d i t i s s h o w n b e l o w : P r e l i m i n a r y P l o t o f : 0 0 1 1 . " " : b , ^ " " C A V A N A U G H ' S M F A D O W W O O D S P A R K 0 2 1 1 1 1 E . S I M M O N A M P M A N I C N d n - i r a p / L o t S t a n d a r d s T h e p r o p o s e d s t a n d a r d s o f t h e p r o p o s e d l o t a n d O u t l o t s B a n d C a r e s u m m a r i z e d o n t h e t a b l e a t t h e t o p o f t h e n e x t p a g e a l o n g w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e C o m m e r c i a l - H i g h w a y z o n i n g d i s t r i c t . S t a f f h a s r e c o m m e n d e d O u t l o t A b e z o n e d M i x e d U s e . T h i s O u t l o t i s p r o p o s e d t o b e 2 9 a c r e s ( 1 7 . 5 a c r e s b u i l d a b l e ) i n s i z e a n d n o d e v e l o p m e n t i s p r o p o s e d a t t h i s t i m e . T h i s o u t l o t w o u l d b e f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d i n a n u m b e r o f w a y s w h e n a M i x e d U s e d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d b e p r o p o s e d . N o d e v e l o p m e n t i s p r o p o s e d f o r O u t l o t B o r C a t t h i s t i m e . T h e s e l o t s m a y b e f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d ( o r O u t l o t B c o m b i n e d w i t h s u r r o u n d i n g p r o p e r t y ) a t t h e t i m e o f f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t . O p e n S y s t e m s I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a g e 4 o f 1 6 F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 1 0 P r e l i m P l a t , R e z o n i n g , S i t e P l a n , C U P P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Comm -Highway Requirements Lot 1, Block 1 Outlot B Outlot C Min. Lot Size 1 acre (0.5 if integrated) 20.0 acres 5.25 acres 3.38 acres Min. Lot Width 100 feet 290 feet 170 feet 330 feet Min. Lot Depth 120 feet 1660 feet 690 feet 520 feet Lot 1, Block 1 and all of the Outlots would abide by the minimum lot size and dimension requirements for their relevant districts. Streets No streets are proposed as part of this subdivision, with the OSI site and Outlot C to be served with a shared drive off of Arrowhead. Future roadways may be necessary for Outlot A and will be reviewed upon replatting and a mixed use development proposal. Staff has included a recommendation related to dedication of right-of-way for the streets adjacent to the property (Arrowhead to the east, Mohawk to the west, and potential future Chippewa Road to the north). Staff has also recommended including a condition related to access concerns for Outlot B. This portion of the lot is already separated from the remaining property by a large wetland, so this subdivision does not exacerbate the concern. The lot is only 155 feet wide along Mohawk. It would be difficult for the lot to access Mohawk in this distance and it is highly unlikely MnDOT would allow the lot to be served off Highway 55. The recommended condition warns the owner and future buyers that a viable access alternative will be necessary to develop Outlot B. Easements The plat identifies standard perimeter easements around Lot 1, Block 1 and all Outlots. Additionally, drainage and utility easements will be required over all wetlands, floodplains and public utility lines on Lot 1, Block 1. Additional easements will be required upon replatting of the Outlots. Staff has recommended a condition that easements be provided over all upland buffers around wetlands as well (see the Site Plan Review for further discussion), but these will not be identified on the plat. Park Dedication Since it is likely that the Outlots will be subdivided or arranged differently when they are ultimately developed, staff recommends not requiring park dedication on these Outlots at this time. On the other hand, park dedication should be required for Lot 1, Block 1. The City's park dedication ordinance allows the City to require "up to 10% of the buildable land" to be dedicated for parks and trails. As an option, the City may accept a cash fee in -lieu of dedicated property. Of the 20.0 acres, staff estimates 16.87 acres are buildable, which would mean the City could require a maximum of 1.687 acres of buildable property to be dedicated. If the City wished to collect only cash, the maximum fee would be $102,400 (8% of the average market value of the property). The City could also choose a combination of land and cash. The applicant requests credit for the western 5.4 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 1 which is not proposed to be impacted by development because this area is more open space than is required by the CH district. The area is shown on the plat on page 4 as being west of the dotted line. This area is not identified within a "study area" by the City's park plan. However, the open space plan identifies the area within a "priority area." Open Systems International Page 5 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting There are a few alternatives to account for this property: 1) The City could require dedicated of the property (up to the maximum of 1.69 acres) and consider acquisition of additional open space. Staff does not recommend this alternative because of the fact the property is not identified within the Park plan, and also because the City would need to provide management of the property. 2) The City could subtract the 5.4 acre area from the total acreage when calculating required park dedication. This provides "credit" for the applicant maintaining more open space than would be required by the district. Staff recommends this alternative as opposed to dedication of the property. 3) The City could require cash in -lieu of accepting the property. If the Park Commission and City Council support staff's recommendation in relation to the western 5.4 acres, the total buildable property would be reduced to 13.37 acres, which would mean the City could require a maximum of 1.337 acres of buildable property. The Trail plan identifies a future trail along Arrowhead Drive, so staff recommends obtaining a 15 -foot trail easement adjacent to Arrowhead Drive, which is an area of 4,050 square feet (7.48% of the maximum). Staff recommends requiring the remaining park dedication in the form of cash. The City recently reduced the park dedication for commercial property to 8% of the average market value. After subtracting the western 5.4 acres, the fee would come to $74,752 on the remaining property. The trail easement is equivalent to 7.48% of this amount, so the park dedication fee would be $69,160. The applicant has requested that the park dedication fees be charged over a period of three years. Review Criteria/Findings of Fact Subd. 10 of Section 820.21 of the City Code describes the criteria for reviewing a subdivision and states that the City "shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat based on one or a combination of the following findings (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way." With the conditions recommended below (in combination with the conditions for the Site Plan Review and CUP), staff does not believe the proposed subdivision meets any of the findings above. Open Systems International Page 6 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation — Preliminary Plat Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions: (1) Approval of this preliminary plat does not include approval of construction or grading operations. Site Plan Review approval shall be required prior to issuance a building permit on Lot 1, Block 1. (2) No development is proposed or approved at this time on Outlots A, B, or C. Future development shall be reviewed for compliance with relevant regulations consistent with the City Code prior to issuance of any building permits. (3) Prior to issuance of any building permit on Outlots A, B, or C, the Outlots shall be required to be replatted consistent with City regulations. Park dedication is not being collected for Outlots A, B, and C at this time, and shall be required when the property is replatted. (4) Lot 1, Block 1 shall be subject to park dedication requirements as follows: (a) The applicant agrees to maintain the western 5.4 acres of Lot 1, Block 1 as open space. This area shall not be dedicated to the public, but shall be subtracted from the buildable area of the property in the determination of required park dedication. (b) The applicant shall dedicate an easement 15 feet in width adjacent to Arrowhead Drive for trail purposes. (c) The applicant shall pay cash -in -lieu of dedicating additional property for parks and trail purposes. $69,160.00 shall be paid, 1/3 of which shall be due prior to issuance of a building permit, 1/3 due no later than two calendar years after the date the building permit is issued and the final 1/3 due no later than three calendar years after the date the building permit is issued. (5) The western 5.4 acres of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be excluded from the actual lot area when calculating hardcover/green space requirements because this area has been identified as additional open space and has been subtracted from the buildable acres of the lot for the purposes of park dedication. (6) The applicant shall dedicate easements as recommended by the City Engineer. Easements are not proposed over wetland and floodplain areas of Outlots A, B and C at this time, but will be required upon replatting. (7) The applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney with regards to title issues and platting procedures. (8) Fifty feet of right-of-way shall be required for the first 500 feet of Arrowhead Drive north of Highway 55. Thirty-three feet of right-of-way shall be required for Chippewa Road, Mohawk Drive, and the remaining portion of Arrowhead Drive. (9) The owner of Outlot B shall be required to identify a viable alternative to access a public roadway upon future development or replatting of this property. (10) The applicant shall provide easements over Upland Buffers as required Section 828.43 of the City Code. These easements shall be a separate instrument and shall not be shown on the plat. (11) The final plat shall abide by the requirements of the Elm Creek Watershed, Hennepin County, and Minnesota Department of Transportation. (12) The application for final plat must be submitted to the City within 180 days of preliminary plat 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. (13) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat and other relevant documents. Open Systems International Page 7 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit The applicant proposes to construct a 92,000 square foot building and a 253 -stall parking lot on proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat. The proposed structure includes 68,500 sq. ft. of office space, 11,652 sq. ft. of staging areas and electronics labs, and 5,165 sq. ft. of warehouse space. Sections 825.55-825.59 describe the requirements for a Site Plan Review for new commercial, business, or multi -family residential construction. The purpose of a Site Plan Review is for the Planning Commission and City Council to "review the proposed site plan to determine whether it is consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, including the applicable development standards and the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located." As discussed above, the applicant has requested that Lot 1, Block 1 be rezoned to the Commercial -Highway (CH) zoning district. The following review is based on the standards of the CH zoning district, which can be found in Section 838. If the City does not approve of the rezoning, the analysis would need to be amended to be relevant to the correct district. In addition to Site Plan Review, structures over 50,000 square feet in floor area require conditional use permit (CUP) approval within the CH zoning district. The CUP includes some additional standards which would not be required for structures less than 50,000 square feet. Wetland ,� Wetland (Preserve) anage 3) .x.:rs4i:N= :-IARAIRIF AN AANA. l: 1"ILi:P�. �,Rxs-sw ti Wi'✓:Ai 0 I'.:: PNAIN e AN, A `3A ,4* ✓FAWN Mf WAN °I%• (t( 7 ACN,,,51,1NA,NN NNANN, AN Nt I•rx 1.11, Nr71P1ACA. AR. A`.• /l1/r. t-�f •� 4"i(N-��8�b .1'�4'f. fRINIE Ah,] •YS`1Vf IJ Ai. <RrP.S•SM:)N: t"'N(W:INH3 NrF— 'NAIRN Al., A•S. ::;- vNAri IF Vf- : NN yi%•SH.,1R1 ' AN 11-.NNN (P: lS-A•VF Y AM Waik WJ&Isswc,R cs uu': PRM N.YfKT2p- to TREE r EAOREC, rums )fEW.�ktE� Wetland (Manage 3) Meander s II' Open Systems International Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Page 8 of 16 February 9, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Road Use The principal proposed use is office space, which is a Permitted Use in the CH district. The structure also includes accessory uses such as warehouse, electronics staging, cafeteria, and a fitness area. As mentioned above, any structure over 50,000 sq. ft. is a conditional use. The CH district does not include an expansive list of allowed accessory uses such as can be found within the Business Park or Business district. However, staff believes that the proposed accessory spaces within the structure are consistent with the uses allowed in the district. For example, a retail use would certainly need to have break areas for employees and warehouse space for extra product. Staff believes the proposed uses are consistent with the CH district. Setbacks / Hardcover The following table summarizes the lot requirements of the CH district (including the additional requirements for larger structures) in comparison to the proposed site plan. The proposed site plan appears to abide by the district standards. CH District Requirement Additional requirements for buildings > 50,000 s.f. Proposed Front Yard Setback 25 feet 50 feet 620 feet Minor Collector 35 feet 50 feet 620 feet (Arrowhead) Arterial Roadway 50 feet 217 feet (Hwy 55) Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 50 feet 660 feet Side Yard Setback 15 feet 50 feet 137 feet Residential Setback 50 feet 100 feet 137 feet Parking Setbacks Front/Street 25 feet 25 feet, 396 feet Rear/Side 10 feet 40 feet, 720 feet Residential 40 feet 80 feet 117 feet Impervious Surfaces 75% 35% Building Height 45 feet 38 feet Wetlands/Floodplains A large wetland (classified as a Preserve wetland) runs diagonally along the western portion of the existing parcel (before subdivision). This wetland is within the boundaries of the OSI site in the far west and also just to the west to the proposed stormwater pond. In addition to this large wetland, there are two Manage 3 wetlands along the proposed north property line. The applicant proposes to fill 6,541 square feet of the wetland to the north of the proposed building and 624 square feet of the wetland which runs along the ditch of Arrowhead Drive. The applicant proposes to mitigate these impacts on -site at a 2.5 to 1 ratio. Staff believes that the impacts along Arrowhead Drive have been minimized, and there is not a location along the frontage to access the lot which would not impact an area of wetland. On the other hand, staff believes there are alternatives to minimize the impacts on the wetland north of the building. A fire lane is required in this location as there is not access to the west of the Open Systems International Page 9 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting building. However, staff recommends a condition that the applicant works with Engineering and the Fire Marshal for an alternative design which reduces the wetland impacts. This application is subject to the City wetland protection ordinance which requires a buffer with an average width of 35 -feet adjacent to the Preserve wetland and buffers with an average width of 20 -feet adjacent to the Manage 3 wetlands. Staff recommends a condition that these requirements be met, including inspection of the vegetation and signage requirements. There are floodplain areas within the property and no floodplain impacts are proposed. One floodplain is in the western portion of the lot adjacent to the large wetland and the other floodplain is adjacent to a portion of the wetland in the northeast corner of the lot. Building Materials and Design The table below summarizes the building requirements of the CH district (including the additional requirements for larger structures) in comparison to the proposed building plans. The proposed plans appear to abide by the district standards. A board of material samples will be available at the meeting for review. One of the requirements of the CH district is that any building facade which faces a street or residential zoning district should be "4 -sided" architecture and be consistent with the quality expected on the front of a building. Staff does not believe that any of the elevations feel like the "back of a building" and that the structure does have a 4 -sided look. CH District Requirement Additional requirements for buildings > 50,000 s.f. Proposed Exterior Building Materials Brick, stone, glass, stucco Min 30% 55% Decorative Concrete Max 70% 37% Metal, wood, fiber cement Max 20% 8% Modulation/Articulation South Elevation 1 per 40 feet Can be increased 1 per 36 feet North Elevation 1 per 40 feet Can be increased 1 per 40 feet East Elevation 1 per 40 feet Can be increased 1 per 34 feet West Elevation 1 per 40 feet Can be increased 1 per 30 feet Fenestration (window coverage) "Generous" Generous Stormwater and LID Review The applicant proposes a number of improvements in order to handle stormwater on the site. Retention and biofiltration areas are proposed within most of the parking lot landscaping islands to treat parking lot runoff. These areas are then piped to the stormwater pond west of the building. The applicant proposes for the pond to also be utilized for future development of Outlot C. Staff recommends a condition that practices be implemented to abide by the City Surface Water Management Plan to reduce phosphorus and control volumes. Open Systems International Page 10 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting The applicant proposes localized stormwater biofiltration in two locations as an alternative to standard pipe collection. The applicant is considering a rainwater reclaim system to collect rain from the roof of the building to supplement domestic water supply. The applicant has requested partial credits on City water trunk connection fees if this system is implemented, as it would reduce domestic water use. This review assumes that this system is not going to be installed, but if the applicant ultimately decides to do so, the City Council may consider a water connection fee reduction at a later date. In terms of LID principles, in addition to the localized bioretention and the possibility of implementing a rainwater reuse system, the applicant has also attempted to reduce impervious surfaces by reducing parking stall depth from 20 feet to 19 feet. Access/Driveway The applicant proposes to install a driveway to Arrowhead Drive as shown on the site plan, which would serve both the OSI site and future development on Outlot C. The proposed driveway is 450 feet north of Highway 55, and 110 feet north of the intersection of Meander Road and Arrowhead Drive. Meander Road is proposed to be constructed as an east - west collector between County Road 116 and Arrowhead Drive. The City Engineer and Public Works is concerned that the 110 foot offset between the proposed driveway and intersection will be a traffic and safety concern when Meander ultimately connects with County Road 116 and the property in this area develops as identified in the Comp Plan. The Planning Commission should discuss the following alternatives: 1) Require a condition that the driveway be realigned further to the north as far as practical (60-80 feet), as recommended by the City Engineer. This increases the distance between the driveway and Meander Road which will help alleviate some short-term concerns. In the long term, the City Engineer has recommended a realignment of Meander Road to line up with the OSI driveway. This intersection would then be 510-530 feet from Highway 55 and would allow for more stacking distance. There appears to be right-of- way east of Arrowhead to allow for the realignment of Meander, but the area is completely wetland and would require a lot of impacts and soils corrections. 2) Allow the driveway to be constructed as shown (110 feet north of Meander Road), and that if the offset with Meander becomes a problem, Meander Road be realigned 110 feet to the north to line up with their drive. The applicant wishes to leave the opportunity to expand their business, and have identified the property north of their proposed driveway for future expansion. Shifting the driveway to the north would occupy a portion of the area (it would not actually occupy additional area, but would bisect the vacant property). Staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of the applicant executing a petition and waiver so that they would be responsible to pay for a portion of the cost of realigning Meander Road if the driveway is allowed to be installed as shown. Staff Open Systems International Page 11 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting recommends this as a condition if the City allows the driveway as shown because this smaller offset may accelerate the need to make the improvements. 3) Require a condition that the be driveway is realigned to the south to line up with the existing location of Meander Road. If the Planning Commission and City Council do not support the ultimate relocation of Meander Road, this would allow for a four -legged intersection. The intersection would be approximately 350 feet from Highway 55. Landscaping/Tree Preservation Proposed construction is located within the area of the property which is currently farmed. As a result, none of the existing 262 significant trees are proposed to be removed. Staff recommends a condition that protective fences be placed along the dripline of the trees woods to the west prior to construction to protect the existing trees. The applicant proposes to plant 78 overstory deciduous trees, 65 coniferous trees, 258 ornamental trees, and 1,189 shrubs. The CH district would require 94 overstory/coniferous, 47 ornamental trees and 156 shrubs. The proposed plantings exceed the requirements. Additional, the landscaping regulations also grant credit for preserved significant trees. Staff recommends a condition that the landscaping plan be updated to relocate some of the proposed plantings along the northern and eastern side of the property. The area to the northeast is currently rural residential and is guided for medium density residential development. As a result, staff believes more emphasis of the landscaping plan should be placed in this area. The property to the north is guided for Mixed Use, which may lead to residential uses immediately to the north. Staff also recommends a condition that landscaping be designed to keep fire lanes clear of potential inference by trees when they mature. Ground cover is proposed to be predominantly low maintenance natural grasses which also supports water conservation. The site plan includes landscaping adjacent to the building as required in the CH district and 14.8% of the parking lot is landscaped (8% is required). Lighting The applicant proposes downcast lighting, with seventeen parking lot fixtures and some building mounted lights in some service areas. The lighting plan shows 0.0 footcandles of light measured at all property lines. Trash and Recycling Facilities/Mechanical Equipment The applicant has identified an interior space for storage of trash and recycling. The applicant has proposed a basement utility room for HVAC equipment which will eliminate the need for roof -top units and greatly improve the aesthetics of the building. Additional mechanical equipment is proposed to the north of the building which is proposed to be screened with a painted metal enclosure. The CH ordinance requires that mechanical equipment be screened with "walls which are constructed of materials which are compatible with the building" or opaque landscaping. The Commission should decide if a metal screen in compatible, or if another material is recommended. Open Systems International Page 12 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting Utilities The City Engineer and Public Works have reviewed the proposed utility plan and made technical recommendations. The applicant proposes improvements that, in addition to serving their property, also improve the City's systems. The applicant has proposed a stub for water service to north of the building for a future loop when this property develops. Additionally, a water main is looped between Highway 55 and Arrowhead. The applicant has requested that City sewer and water trunk connection fees be payable over the next three years. The City Council will need to discuss this request. Loading Dock/Outside Storage of Service Vehicles The site plan includes a two -stall loading dock on the north side of the building. The CH district requires loading areas to be setback 100 feet from residential zoning districts. Upon the applicant's original submittal, staff was concerned that the loading dock would not abide by this setback from the northern property (which is guided Mixed Use and would allow for residential development). The applicant took staff's feedback, and obtained additional property to the north so that the setback is now met. The applicant has shown a six-foot wood fence to screen the loading dock. Staff recommends a condition that requires the fence with additional landscaping to improve the screening, but only if the property to the north does develop with residential uses. If the property becomes commercial, staff recommends not requiring the screening fence. The CH ordinance limits outside storage of service vehicles (under 24 feet in length) to one vehicle per 10,000 square feet of building footprint. Staff recommends a condition informing the applicant that a maximum of seven service vehicles may be stored within the parking lot. Additional vehicles, including semi trucks may be parking in the loading dock as well. No outdoor storage of materials is requested. Review Criteria/Findings of Fact The purpose of a Site Plan Review, as described in Section 825.55, is to review proposed construction for consistency with City regulations. The City "may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located." Staff has suggested such conditions in the next section. According to Section 825.39 of the City Code, in reviewing a Conditional Use Permit, the City should consider the "effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands." Among other things, the City shall consider: Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Staff believes the proposed development is consistent with City land use plans, and has recommended conditions to reduce potential impacts on property in the immediate vicinity. Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Staff believes the proposed development is consistent with City development plans and should not impede orderly development. Open Systems International Page 13 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff has recommended a number of conditions to account for these requirements. The primary item which the Planning Commission and City Council should discuss is related to the location of the access drive. Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. The applicant has planned for more parking than required by the City's regulations. Staff has recommended additional screening for the loading area if the property to the north becomes residential. Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Staff believes the proposed use would have low potential for odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration. Proposed lighting meets code requirements and signage will be required to as well. Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the needs of the City as identified in the Future Land Use Plan Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Staff believes the use is consistent with the zoning code and regulations of the CH district. Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Staff believes the use is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff recommends discussion related to the location of the access drive. Conditions will be made to minimize potential traffic concerns. Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Staff believes the proposed site plan is consistent with commercial development in the area. Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant proposes to begin construction this spring and to occupy the building in the spring of 2011. Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. OSI does not own the property, but there is a purchase agreement. Wilfred Cavanaugh and his family, owners of the property, have signed required applications and been party to the process. Open Systems International Page 14 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation — Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1) This approval shall be contingent on recording of the plat of Cavanaugh's Meadowwoods Park. 2) The building shall not be occupied prior to January 1, 2011. 3) City sewer and water trunk connection fees shall be due as follows: 1/3 of the total amount prior to issuance of permits, 1/3 within two calendar years of the date the building permit is issued, and 1/3 within three calendar years of the date the building permit is issued. 4) Landscaping and lighting plans shall be updated to accurately reflect property boundaries. 5) Except as modified herein, the applicant shall abide by the recommendations of the City Engineer dated February 2, 2010. 6) Except as modified herein, the applicant shall abide by the recommendations of the City Fire Marshal dated February 2, 2010. 7) The proposed access driveway to Arrowhead Drive shall be realigned further to the north as recommended by the City Engineer. 8) Fire lanes locations shall be updated so that no points of the building exceed 400 feet in distance from a fire lane. 9) The applicant shall execute and record an access easement/agreement for the proposed driveway to serve Outlot C. The agreement shall include maintenance provisions. 10) The western 5.4 acres of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be excluded from the actual lot area when calculating hardcover/green space requirements because this area has been identified as additional open space and has been subtracted from the buildable acres of the lot for the purposes of park dedication. 11) The applicant shall reduce the proposed wetland impacts in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the proposed structure, to be reviewed by City staff. Alternatives include shifting the fire lane to the south, altering site grading, or installing a retaining wall. 12) The applicant shall submit a wetland replacement plan, including maintenance and monitoring plans, for review and approval by the City wetland agent and relevant agencies. The applicant shall abide by conditions of the approved replacement plan. 13) The applicant shall abide by the requirements of the City wetland protection ordinance and install upland buffers adjacent to wetlands. The applicant shall execute and record documents describing the location of these buffers as provided by staff and should also install signage at the edge of the buffers. Buffer vegetation shall be installed, maintained, and inspected as required by the City Code. 14) The applicant shall install site improvements, as approved by the City Engineer, which provides control of a volume of stormwater equivalent to a 0.5 inch rain event, as required by the City Surface Water Management Plan for sites with soil conditions which are suspected on this site. 15) The landscaping plan shall be updated to include more landscaping on the eastern and northern sides of the lot. This may be accomplished by shifting a portion of the proposed planting in that direction or adding more vegetation. 16) The landscaping plan shall be designed so that fire lanes are clear of potential interfere by trees and plants when the plantings mature. Open Systems International Page 15 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting 17) It is acknowledge that the property to the north is guided Mixed Use, which allows for either residential or commercial development in the future. If the adjacent use to the north is residential upon development, the applicant shall provide screening to the north of the loading dock area. A wood screening fence shall be allowable provided additional landscaping is provided on the exterior side of the fence. 18) Outdoor storage shall be limited to seven service vehicles which shall be no more than 24 feet in length or 12,000 lbs. of gross vehicle weight. Additional vehicles and larger vehicles may be stored in the loading dock area. No other outdoor storage shall be permitted. 19) The screening wall for the mechanical equipment north of the structure shall be constructed with materials compatible with the building. 20) The applicant shall obtain necessary permits from the City, Elm Creek Watershed, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and any other relevant agency prior to commencing construction activity on the property. 21) Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. 22) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the site plan and conditional review and other relevant documents. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. City Engineer comments dated February 2, 2010 3. City Fire Marshal/Building Official comments dated February 2, 2010 4. Elm Creek Watershed comments dated February 2, 2010 5. Plans as received by the City on February 2, 2010 Open Systems International Page 16 of 16 February 9, 2010 Prelim Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan, CUP Planning Commission Meeting ATTACHMENT 1 - APPLICANT NARRATIVE (Front and Back) Open Systems International, Inc. - New Building Project 12/21/09 OSI Overview Project Description Review Request 051 is a leading high-technology software development firm involved in development of real-time control systems software to manage production and supply of electricity, water, oil and gas. OSI's customers are various public and private utility companies. OSI's market includes North America, as well as several focused international markets. OSI's corporate web -site is: www.osii.com. OSI is a US owned, privately held company and an exporter of high technology, helping the Minnesota and US economy. Open Systems International is proposing to develop approximately a 92,000 sf building consisting of 40,000 sf of office space and 40,000 to 50,000 sf of industrial technology labs, warehouse, and training and general meeting/cafeteria space. The project is intended to bring high technology, professional jobs to Medina. OSI will adhere too many of the LEED design principles for this project. The attached "Application for Planning and Consideration" is being submitted in accordance with the City of Medina ordinance applicable to the specific reviews being requested. • Conditional Use Permit Application • Rezoning Application • Site Plan Review • Platted Subdivision Application Questions: Questions regarding this application can be directed to Ed Fitzpatrick, Open Systems International, Inc. To: City of Medina From: Timothy R. Cavanaugh (POA for Wilfred J. Cavanaugh) Dear Preliminary Plat Reviewers, December 18, 2009 lam submitting this narrative to hopefully aid in the review process for the subject property (PID 03-118-23-44-0001). The purpose of this subdivision request is for the specific purpose of selling the outlot to OSf and their commercial development. The intent of the adjacent land is yet specifically undetermined, but will relate well with existing or potential adjacent subdivisions. Much of the adjacent land is within the area designated as mixed use development in the Comprehensive Plan which should work well in the overall plans. Please let me know if there are any questions or needs which will help expedite the process. Respectfully submitted, Timothy R. Cavanaugh POA for Wilfred J. Cavanaugh ATTACHMENT 2 - CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS (5 pages) Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com February 2, 2010 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: OSI Headquaters File No. 000190-10000-1 Plat No. L-09-047 Dear Dusty, Bonestroo We have reviewed the preliminary plat, plans, and design information for the proposed OSI headquarters development in the northwest quadrant of TH 55 and Arrowhead Drive. The plans are dated 1-22-10. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: Streets/Parking Lot • A geotechnical report, R -value recommendation, and pavement design should be submitted for review and approval when available. • We recommend that parking stalls be 20' deep and drive isles be 24' wide. Grading/Drainage/Wetlands • Engineered retaining wall design and details must be submitted for all retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height. • The biofiltration basins shown on the plans are an integral part of the stormwater quality system and should be included in any stormwater maintenance agreements and easements. • We understand that the wetland delineations on the plans have not been fully approved and finalized. When the delineations have been fully approved, wetland buffer and mitigation requirements in Medina's wetland ordinance must be addressed. • The plans show several options for wetland mitigation. One of the options shows mitigation within Outlot A. If this option is selected, the applicant must have the ability to perform the work and provide or coordinate necessary easements on the adjacent property. • Final plans should include a detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval. • It is our understanding that the final geotechnical report will be available in 2 to 3 weeks and it will provide soils information relative to infiltration. The goal would be to design a system that would infiltrate or reuse the first 0.5 inches of a storm event. Calculations and design information must be submitted showing how this will be achieved once the soil boring information is available. City of Medina Page 2 OSI Headquarters 2/2/2010 • The outlet control structure detail on Sheet C3 must be updated to reflect the current storm water model. It appears that the modeling is assuming a 4' diameter structure and the standard is a 5' diameter structure as shown on the detail plate. We would also recommend that the baffle wall be designed with a notched weir rather than a 3" orifice if acceptable flow conditions can be achieved. • The final landscaping plan should include planting details and lists for the wetland mitigation, buffer, and filtration basin areas. Sewer and Water • The gate valve on the north leg of the 8" water main stub north of the proposed building should be located near the 8"x8" tee. This stub should be lowered with 45 degree bends to provide adequate cover as it passes below the retaining wall . • The 6" DIP run leading to hydrant D can be changed to PVC. The pipe between the 6" gate valve and hydrant should remain DIP. Traffic • Please see the attached memo regarding the location of the OSI access road dated 1-29-10 from Scott Israelson, P.E., PTOE. With the wetland as a site constraint to the north, we recommend moving the roadway 60 to 80 feet north of its current location. This would provide approximately 520 feet of separation from the TH 55 intersection. • As with other developments in similar situations that will contribute to future needed improvements, the City should consider addressing an equitable pre -determined cost participation for future intersection improvements. We have estimated the construction cost for the site improvements to be $1,247,773.50. This amount does not include the cost of infiltration features that may be added to the project. If infiltration is feasible, the cost of these items should be added to the above cost and the applicant should provide the city with a letter of credit for 150% of the final estimate prior to any site work. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894 or email at dari_en.amundsen@tbonestr_oo.com. Sincerely, BONESTROO Darren Amundsen Cc: Tom Kellogg John Smyth Memorandum #13onestroo To: Tom Kellogg Project: OSI Devebpment Date: 29 Jan 2010 From: Scott Israelson, PE, PTOE Client: City of Medina Re: OSI, Inc Medina Headquarters Proposed Access Review File No: 0190-10001 Open Systems International, Inc proposes to develop a tract of land in the northwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 55 and Arrowhead Drive in Medina, MN. The development as proposed consists of approximately 100,000 square feet of office and 20,000 square feet of warehouse to be constructed in two phases: Phase I complete in year 2010; and Phase II complete in year 2020. The most recent site plan of the proposed development shows one access to Arrowhead Drive. This memorandum examines the traffic impact study prepared for this development and provides recommendation of the location of this access. The intersection of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive is signalized. Meander Road intersects Arrowhead Drive approximately 300 feet north of TH 55. The OSI driveway is currently planned approximately 150 feet north of Meander Road. This would result in two offset T -intersections within 500 feet of the TH 55 signal. After review of the proposed development site plan and the traffic impact study, it is recommended that the site access be located as far north of the TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive intersection as possible. It is also recommended to realign Meander Road such that the two accesses comprise a four -legged intersection or roundabout. This realignment need not occur immediately. Rather, this realignment should occur if crashes become problematic due to the offset T - intersections, and/or when southbound queue lengths begin extending 300 feet or more from the signal. Access Management The management of access on roadway systems is a very important component of maximizing the capacity and decreasing crash rates along those facilities. Driveways contribute to accidents and reduced traffic flow on major streets because they add to the number of locations where vehicle conflicts can occur. Hennepin County has adopted access management standards to balance mobility and access based on operations. TH 55 is classified as an A Minor Arterial and Arrowhead Drive is classified as a Minor Collector. The county rural access spacing guidelines for a non-public, low volume driveway accessing a collector (Arrowhead Drive) is 1/8 of a mile, or 660 feet. The 2335 Highvay 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www. tonestioo.mm existing Meander Road access is approximately 300 feet north of TH 55, and the proposed development driveway as currently planned is located approximately 150 feet further north. To accommodate access management standards, it is preferable to relocate the proposed development driveway farther north. To reduce the number of driveways/access points on this minor collector, it is desirable to align Meander Road across from the site access. Future Year Queuing A traffic impact study was prepared in January 2010 to examine the effects of this development on the surrounding roadway network. Among other things, the study concluded the following: • The intersection of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive for Year 2021 Phase II conditions will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with southbound queues reaching 185 feet in the PM peak. • The existing roadway network can accommodate the proposed development without a ny roadway/signal modifications. This study forecast future volumes using existing traffic counts, trip generation estimates based on proposed development land use and size, and the Hennepin County 20 -year projected growth factor. This growth factor, adjusted to an annual increase percentage, is approximately 1% per year. The City of Medina is projected to grow to a population of 12,700 by the year 2030, from a census 2000 population of 4,005. This growth will increase traffic volumes on Medina roadways, particularly around the main transportation corridor of TH 55. From the City of Medina 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Map shows currently undeveloped areas zoned for low density and mid density residential north of the study area. Arrowhead Drive will serve as a collector for future developments to the north of TH 55. Additionally, the City of Medina has plans to extend Meander Road eastwards to connect to County Road 116, creating an east -west corridor between Arrowhead Drive and CR 116. With the extent of development planned as articulated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, it is reasonable to believe that background traffic on Arrowhead Drive will increase at a rate considerably higher than 1% per year as stated in the study. This increase in traffic is likely to increase delays at the intersection of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive, and it is reasonable to believe that southbound queues could extend 300 feet or more during the PM peak hour within twenty years, reaching the Meander Road intersection. It is recommended to monitor operations at the signal, and realign Meander Road when southbound queue lengths extend 300 feet or more. Offset T intersections The traffic impact study also noted that the proposed driveway "ideally could be relocated across from (Meander Road), creating a safer four -legged intersection." While offset T -intersections are not inherently dangerous, safety issues would be exacerbated due to the insufficient spacing (150 feet) between the two. It is expected that aligning the two accesses into a four -legged intersection would reduce crashes involving left -turning traffic from Arrowhead Drive. It is recommended to monitor crash and severity rates at these two access points, and realign Meander Road if those rates become problematic. Roundabouts Another improvement to consider would be replacing the two intersections with a single roundabout serving both the proposed development and Meander Road. Generally speaking, roundabouts provide safer operations, in particular eliminating right-angle crashes. At this location, further study is needed to determine the most appropriate intersection configuration, comparing the safety, operation, and construction costs of a roundabout versus a four -legged intersection. Summary Based on access management standards, and to allow for queuing at the TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive signal in future years, it is recommended to relocate the site access driveway farther north than currently proposed. It is also recommended to realign Meander Road across from the proposed site driveway when traffic operations and/or safety concerns warrant. Further study is needed to determine the most appropriate intersection configuration at this location. ATTACHMENT 3: FIRE METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICIIIMARSHAL COMMENTS Loren Kohnen, Pres. February 2, 2010 TO: Debra Peterson -Dufresne Planning Assistant FROM: Loren Kohnen RE: OSI, Inc. Site Plan Review Update NW Corner Arrowhead Drive/Highway 55 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PRELIMINARY PLAT (763) 479-1720 FAX (763) 479-3090 Afterreviewing the updated plan, please note the following items as noted below:' 1) Item #1: 2) Item#3: 3) Item #6: 4) Item #8: 5) Item 11: Note: LK:jk The maximum distance is 400'. Shown on plans 440'. No information has been received from an engineer regarding flow and water pressure. The location of the sprinkler valve room and door to exterior is not shown. Location of indicating valve is not shown. I do not have mechanical plans. Trees shown will still interfere with travel of fire equipmnet by extending into roadway. I have not received any minutes of our first meeting from the architect. Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 elm creek , Watershed Management Commission ATTACHMENT 4 - WATERSHED COMMENTS (4 pages) ADMINISTRATOR Judie A. Anderson 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone: 763-553-1144 Fax: 763-553-9326 Email: judie@jass.biz TECHNICAL ADVISOR Hennepin County Dept. of Environmental Services 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55401-1397 Phone: 612-348-7338 Fax: 612-348-8532 Email: James.Kujawa@co.hennepin.mn.us Open System International, Inc., Medina 2009-034 Project Review Project Overview: This site is a 19 acre site located in the NW intersection of Highway 55 and Arrowhead Drive (across from the Hennepin County PW facility) in Medina. The proposed plan is to construct the OSI headquarters building on this parcel. Medina is the LGU in charge of administering the Wetland Conservation Act within their jurisdiction. Our review is for compliance to the Commission standards for water quality and quantity, erosion and sediment controls and potential floodplain impacts from the site grading and stormwater management proposed. Applicant: Open Systems International, Inc., Mr. Ed Fitzpatrick, 3600 Holly Lane North, Suite 400, Minneapolis, MN 55447-1286. Phone: 763-551-0559. Fax: 763-551-0750. Email: efitzpatrick@osii.com Agent: Rehder & Associates, Inc., Mr. John Krausert, 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110, Eagan, MN 55122-3500. Phone: 651-452-5051. Fax: 651-452-9797. Email: jrausert@rehder.com. Exhibits: 1) ECWMC Request for Plan Review and Approval dated 12/21/09 received 12/29/09. 2) Incomplete application notice and information to City of Medina, applicant and agent dated 1/4/10. (A complete application was received on 2/1/10) 3) Elm Creek WMC preliminary site plan review email sent to agent dated 1/11/10. 4) Stormwater Management Calculations for OSI dated 12/22/09, revised 1/25/10 o Phosphorus Loading and PondNet Worksheets o HydroCAD design information. o Bioretention Sizing Calculations o Channel Protection Volume Worksheet 5) Proposed drainage map. 6) Site Plan Information for OSI Inc., Medina Headquarters dated 12/22/09. o Sheet Al, Architectural Site Plan, revised 1/22/10. o Sheet LP 100, Landscape Plans. o Sheet LP101, Landscape Details. ,I"ire{i t( z t i,)i..o( (Rr„./\,,N1 , (_!A\ S:\EMD\DEMCON\CORR\DURGUNOGLU\_WATERSHEDS\ELM_CRK\PLAN_RE VIEW\2009\2009-034 OSI\fof.DOC OSI, Inc. (2009-034) February 2, 2010 Page 2 o Preliminary Plat of Cavanaugh's Meadowwoods Park. o Sheet Cl, Civil Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan, revised 1/22/10. o Sheet C2, Civil Utility Plan, revised 1/22/10. o Sheet C3, Civil Details Plan, revised 1/22/10. o Sheet C4, Civil Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Plan, revised 1/22/10. o Sheet C5, Civil Water Main Plan, revised 1/22/10. o Sheet C6, Civil Storm Sewer Plan, revised 1/22/10. 7) OSI Schematic Design Package (11x17) dated 12/22/09. Findings; General 1) An application and fee was received on 12/29/09 but was determined to be incomplete by staff on 1/4/10. Written (email) notice of the incomplete application along with items necessary for a complete application was provided to the applicant and their agent on 1/4/10. 2) A complete application was received on 2/1/10. The initial MN Statute 15.99 60 -day decision period for the Elm Creek Watershed expires on April 2, 2010. 3) Revisions and additional design information was received on 1/11/10, 1/21/10, 1/25/10, and 1/27/10. 4) Fees of $2,600.00 and $4,650.00 were submitted on 12/29/09 and 2/1/10 respectively. 5) Total fee due is $6,500.00 (Section A.2. =19.1 acres + Section B.3. = 22.5 acres + Section C.1). 6) Outlot C is included in our review for water quality/quantity, but will not be graded during this development so is not included in our grading and erosion control review. When Outlot C is developed the Commission will charge only for erosion and sediment control when application is made. 7) $750 fee overpayment/refund due. Floodplains 8) There are two floodplain areas that impact this development. a. On the west site of the site there is the Ehn Creek Watershed Plan Upland flood storage area 12 with a flood elevation of 981.7. This is also designated by FEMA as a Zone A (no flood elevation determined), and b. On the far east side of the site a small portion of Elm Creek comes up to this property, but does not appear to enter it. The Elm Creek Management Plan elevation for this area is 981.2. FEMA has this area designated as a Zone A (no flood elevation determined) 9) No floodplain impacts are proposed in the plans received. 10) Drainage easements are proposed over all floodplain areas. OSI, Inc. (2009-034) February 2, 2010 Page 3 Wetlands 11) The City of Medina is the LGU in charge of administrating the MN Wetland Conservation Act. No wetland replacement plan has been received at the time of this review. 4,012 sq. ft. of wetlands will be filled. Mitigation will take place on site. 12) Staff will provide separate comments to the City of Medina when the wetland replacement. plan is received. 13) Drainage and utility easements over the wetland areas are proposed on this parcel. Water Quantity and Quality 14) To meet the Commission's Water Quantity and Quality requirements, site balance for pre and post development runoff flows for 2, 10 and 100 year storm events must be achieved on Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot C. The Commissions Channel Protection Volume must also be retained for 24 hours, and the nutrients leaving the pond from this site must be at or below existing nutrient loads after development. 15) One pond is proposed to treat 10.06 acres of the area. There are 15. 5 acres that are being impacted by grading and development for pre vs. post development analysis. The remaining 7.1 acres from this site will not be graded or impacted by this development or future development. Within the 15.5 acres being impacted, Outlot C (3.38 acres) is being analyzed for future conditions with 85% impervious area. The table below provides an overall analysis of the site area runoff and nutrient loads. These will meet the Commissions requirements. 16) In addition to the pond, the plans utilize five (5) parking lot islands as biofiltration basins with engineered soils, drainage and plantings to help decrease volumes, rates and nutrient runoff from the parking lot. These islands provide treatment on 3.4 acres of parking lot area prior to treatment in the NURP/stormwater pond. The nutrient reduction from the biofiltration basins are approximately 50%. The volume reductions through infiltration are 0.31 acre feet for a 1 year storm event. 2 -Year Event (cfs) 10 -Year Event (cfs) 100 -Year Event (cfs) Phosphorus Loads (lbs/year) Pre -Development 23.3 47.9 80.7 15.5 Post -Development 11.9 26.4 53.9 11.7 17) No sequencing plan to construct the bioretention basins were provided with the plan. The basins should not be excavated or constructed until the parking lot is completed. 18) We recommend a permanent, small fore -bay or sediment retention area at each inlet to the bioretention basins. They should be designed to minimize sand and sediment from entering the infiltration areas of the basin and placed where they can be periodically cleaned. OSI, Inc. (2009-034) February 2, 2010 Page 4 19) Channel protection volume requirements are met through the use of the biofiltration basins in conjunction with the main pond. The extended detention storage time is 28.2 hours at the outflow in the main pond. This exceeds the Commission requirements of 24 hours. 20) Stormwater infrastructure operation and maintenance have not been addressed in the plans. A long term operation and maintenance agreement for the pond and the bioretention basins must be developed, approved by the City and Watershed and recorded on the property. Erosion and Sediment Control 21) The erosion and sediment control plan does not meet the Commissions requirements. We recommend the following minimum controls: a. A sequencing plan for erosion controls and best management practices must be provided with the plans. b. The permanent pond and the small basin at the entrance should be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A temporary riser outlet pipe to the large pond must be provided with the plan and stay in place until the landscaping work is complete. Clean out of excess sediment from the small basin and permanent pond must be addressed in the sequencing notes. c. Heavy duty silt fence at the construction limit at the base of the driveway and retaining wall on the north property line should be specified. d. Seed mixes and a vegetation management plan must be specified for the native prairie areas. We recommend using the Board of Water and Soil Resources publication Restoring and Managing Native Wetland and Upland Vegetation for guidance. (http: /w\N \_✓,bm_s�__ laic.nn� __is; \a_ctlands/ \ egetation/ index.htin1). e. The permanent seeding areas outside of the building and parking lot footprint must be planted within 72 hours after the grading is completed. Recommendations: Staff recommends the Commission accept these findings and provide contingent approval to project 2009-034 pending staff approval of: 1) An operation and maintenance plan and subsequent recording of said document on the title to this property and, 2) The erosion and sediment control plans. Hennepin County Environmental Services Advisor to the Commission James C. Kujawa February 2, 2010 Date Owners: Prelimin ary Plat of: Ra ybu rn L. & Ela ine H. Roy CAVANAUGH'S MEADOWWOODS PARK Owner: Polaris Indu stries, In c. 8 ARCHITECT RSP Arc hite cts 1220 M ars ha ll Str eet No rtheast Minneapo lis, M inneso ta 55413 Phone : 612-677-7395 Attention : Paul Whitenac k OW NER/DEVELOPER Wilfred J. Cavanau gh c/o rem Cava naugh 3320 Lanewaod Lan e Plymou th, M inn eso ta 55447 Phone : 763-559-1137 SURVEYOR/ENGINEER Rehder & Associates, Inc. Suite 710 .3440 Fede ra l Drive Eagan, M inn eso ta 55122 Phone: 657-452-5051 Attention : Jo hn Krou aert UTILITY STATEMENT The un derground utilities shown have been loc ate d from field su rvey information an d exis tin g dra win gs . The surveyor makes no guarantee that the un dergroun d utilitie s sho wn compr ise an suc h u tilitie s in the eithe r in wo r aban don ed. The s urve yo r furthe r does no t an t that the, ndergrou nd u tilities sho wn are in the exa ct loca tio n indica ted, although he doss certify that they a re loc ate d as a cc urate ly as possible from in formation wadable. The su rveyor has not physically lo cated the unde rgro und utilitie s. Own er: W ilfred J. Cavanau gh _....,No rth lino ✓ W South* Qu arter of the So utheas t Curte r or Bot hers ; TomM up 114 Ran ge 23 i I 588•39.27E T y ,) ANO unl1Y Uia®'R .. MOHAWK OUTLOT i .a DRjyE 950 \ \ \ \ Vic inity Ma p No Sca le 84788 •t81•r• f• M (4Yt .ar••e N20131'40•E� 5. 00 \ \ \ \ \ \ TREE LISBN G FOR WOO DED AREA 8" 10" IY 74" 76" 20" 24" Ash 5 3 I 0 7 0 0 Birch 5 7 I 0 0 0 0 Elm 23 19 10 2 0 0 0 Iron wo od 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 Popla r 6 8 3 0 0 0 0 Oak 4 4 2 1 1 0 1 Wido w 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 Ceda r 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Bo xelder 8 9 4 0 0 0 0 1315. 05 Owner: Coun ty of Henne pin Owner: W ilfred J. Cav anau gh \ \ \ \ MwM sas M W 370,00aM 840 -5.00 0 _... 0.6t.' er 0.00an J, ToreNp 114 Ran ge 23 '• 1 589'23'02'T t ; •" /) 493.54 �H /PP EWA "'"p1 RO AD \ \ 8 \ .Bout, 0 .e of th e S outhe ast Q uarter of Se ction 3, Tone* It& Rung e 23 Own Land Hold Co. LLC Nortl te ast _Qua rter w Se n er of the So.* _ _raaton J, omo* Cow. Cas t woh Owne rs: ark P. & Tracey L. Lamberty • Owners: Bechler & E. M. Se dgwic k Ow ners: G. Bechler & E. M. Sedgwick S9 29'23 E 28.00 St at e of Min nesot a 59•w i NOTES • Bea ring. s hown are bas ed on Henne pin Cou nty Coor dinates. • Utilities shown are from information furn ished by the City of M edin a, M inne so ta Departmen t of Transportation an d Wright - Hen nepin Coo pe rative Elec tric Association in res po nse to Go pher State On e Ca ll 17cket No. 90552424. • Contact Gopher Sta te 7 fo r utility locations befo re any c onstr uction shall begin . Phone 651-454-0002. • Bench Mark: Top of hydrant at the northea st corne r of State Highwa y No . 55 a nd Arro whe ad Drive. Ele vation o-990.61 fe et. • Tota l area = 2,568. 098 square feet (58.96 a cres). • Ex isting zon ing: Bu sines s Park. • Proposed zo ning for Lo t 1, Outlet B an d 0utlot 0: Commercial H ighwa y. • This pro perty is loca te d in Flo od Zone X (area ou ts ide .2i ann ua l chance flo od plane) a nd Flood Zone A (ore s of 1 annua l flood (100 -year flood))per Flood Zone M ap No . 27053C01650 E da te d September 2, 2004. No ba se flood elev ation hav e been determined for Flood Zone a } 1 0 50 WO 200 300 Scale in F eet L EGEND • Iro n Monum ent Fo und 0 Iron Monum ent Set -Sa nit ary S ew er - 31- Storm Sewer - 6-- Waterm ain „74.0. Hydr ant G ate Valve Mop Ma nhole cep Catch Ba sin D Fl ared E nd gym. Invert Elevation 1 'O P owe r Pole o Cobl e Televisio n P edestal =Concrete S urface =Bitumi nous Surf ace -0-Bu ried Gas -1-Buried T elepho ne -E-Buried El ectric PROPERTY DESCRIPTION That pa rt of the South west Q uarter of the S outh east Qu arter of Se cti on 3, T ow nship 118, Rang e 23, Henn epin Cou nty. Min nes ota , tying Northerly of th e Northerly Right -o( -Way li ne of State T nk High way No . 55, a nd That pa rt of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarte r of Section 3, Tow nship 118, R ange 23, Hennepin Co unty, Mi nn esota . lyi ng W esterly of the c enterlin e of on e xisting town rood. a nd tyi ng East of a line extending fr om the S outhw est comer of sold Northeast Quarte r of the So utheast Qu arter 660 feet West olong said N orth line fr om the North east c om er of said North east Quarter of the S outh east Qu arter . and That port of the S outhea st Q uarter of the So uthe ast Quart er of Secti on 3, Tow nship 118, R ange 2J, Hennepi n Co unty, Mi nnes ot a, lyi ng N orth erly of th e N orth erly Right - of -Way li ne of St ate Tru nk Highw ay N o. 55 . E XCE PT THAT PART TAKEN FO R HIGHWAY PURPOSES BY THE COU NTY OF HEN NEPIN (C ondemn ation Pr oceedi ng N o. CD -2441), de scribed as follo ws: All that p art of th e followi ng desc ribed tract: fi at p art of the Southwest Quarter of the S outheast Q uart er of S ectio n 3, To wnship 118, R ang e 23 West of th e Fifth Pri ncip al Meridian, lyi ng Northerly of th e N orth erly Right -of -W ay li ne of State Tru nk Highw ay N o. 55. except the West 468 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, also that part of the Southeast Quarter of the S outhea st Q uart er of Sectio n 3, Town ship 118 North, R ange 23 We st of the Fifth Princip al Men'dian, tying Northerly of th e Northerly Right -of -Way li ne of State Trunk Highway No. 55, exc ept that p art lying Easterly of the centerline of on exi sti ng town road (Arrowhead Driv e), whi ch li es Ea st erly of a line dr aw n p ar allel with and dist ant 49.21 feet (15.000 meters) W esterly of the f ollowing described li ne: Commencing at the Southeast come r of the Southeast Quarter of S ecti on 3. Township 118 , Rang e 23; thence r un Westerly alo ng the South line of said S outheast Quarter on an ass umed b earing of No rth 87 degr ees 55 mi nutes 36 sec onds We st fo r distance of 68 .14 fe et (20.768 meters); the nce North 5 degre e, 00 min ut es 02 sec onds Ea st 328.08 feet (100.000 meters) to the actual point of beginning of the line being d escribed; thence North 5 degrees 00 minutes 02 seconds East for 114 .26 feet (34 .825 meters); the nce deflect left al ong a tang ential cur ve having a radi us of 2296.59 feet (700.00 meters), delta angl e of 10 degre es 01 mi nutes 04 seconds, for 401.54 feet (722 .390 meters); thenc e North 5 degre es 01 mi nutes , 02 se co nds West for 32 .32 feet (9 .851 meters) and said line there termi nating. Als o. all that pa rt of the slaw -de scrib ed tr act which lies S outhea st erly and South we st erly of the f ollowing d escrib ed line: C omme ncing at th e S outhea st corner of the S outheast Q uart er of Sectio n 3, Township 118, R ange 23; th ence ru Northerly along the East line of said S outhea st Q uarter on an assumed bearing of N orth 0 degree s 04 minute s 04 seco nds East f or a dista nce of 462.37 feet (140 .930 m eter s) to th e act ual point of b eginning of th e li ne bei ng d escribed; th ence S outh 57 degr ees 14 minute s 22 se cond s W est f or 164.41 f eet (50.111 meter s); th ence North 69 degre es 58 mi nut es 79 sec ond s West for 1740.84 f eet (530.607 meter s); thence So uth 20 degrees 07 mi nutes 36 se conds West for 29.21 f eet (8.903 meter s), more or less to the Northerly line of State Tr unk Highway No. 55 and said line th er e terminati ng. All in Henn epin C ounty, Minn esota. � 00 salon 3. weer of the 114 mg . 23 ( Fo und temph county cast h en Manwne.0 I her eby certify th at this pr elimi nary pl at w as prepared by rn or u nd er my dir ectio n a nd that I am a duly Lic ensed Land Surveyor undo, the laws o/ the Stat e of Minnee ot a. D at ed this 22nd day of De cember, 2009 . RENDER & ASSOCIATES. INC. Th 1 Survey or Minnesota L icens3 No. 43474 R evi sed Febru ary 3, 2010 Rehder and Associates, I nc. CML ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 3440 r ose . Om• • Site 110 • Eagan. Minnee ota • Ph an. ( 451) 452-50 .51 J OB: 094-2403.010 } 1 re tenlo n na nd 6;q4 Sp-,- , '\ -171e6 sF SS3Acr s ?p07A \e yes ---____\ \\ - 44„ ,. .4 ,,,.., \46.Q �s S A/69. 5 Iv oa inr e n etaaawr —. eaeenna em ms.e PARKING LOT INFORMA TIO N Minimum allowa ble per code = 170 spaces Parking space s provided = 253 spac es Total are a of pa rking & loading surfa ces = 155,575 sf Total a rea of interior lansca ping within parking a reas = 23,002 sf (14.8%) SITE COVERAG E INFORMATION Ma ximum coverage allo wable per c ode = 75% (816,068 sf x . 75 = 612,051 sf) Actua l percentage of Impervio us Site Coverage = 29% (228,000 sf / 816,068 sf = .29) ARC EG TUR AL 5LAN - 40 0' 0 10 40 BE SCALE. 1" : dm' -0 12.16 20. 83 Me dina Are Truck CO NOWT Loc k Lock to Lo ck Time Ste ering Angie fee t : 8. 33 8. 33 6. 00 45.0 Se mi Trailer ism 48.00 1 . 00 19. 53 W 8-62 T,oc tar Width et oiler WOO Trac tor boc k Tra iler Mock 40. 50 0.00 feet : 8.00 L ock to Lock limo :8.50 Steering Argo : 8.00 Articulating Ma e : 8 .50 6.00 : 28.4 70.0 ww.nraa..mrr mooae.� ern so ... ad.m 110 p.m. Re en,. to rolus OUTL OT 3.4 ACRES 5601 5 E 3.32 43 CO p = 1 ro u \ 0 \ l 1 I '?4 • 6 IS4 '59'59. 38.24" 1 Cond on 1.011. .. t..baM'Rnn.gn s..rcate. ,.aa.e Ie n a .a. n e nn w......t l n.6e lm.e M. /ern n.... a eo so. axe.a RN'cr eu. M.e. On OSI, Inc . MEDINA HEADQUARTERS M' CITY SUBMITTAL [NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION] 2171.001.00 one. Mow sr PGW 22 DECEMBER, 7009 1. *am mama paw.r.nw.�n'r 0 4.4.1..r..>m..ti.1mra. No. Dee nm Description C. VIEW REV1510N5 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Al v elt 0 0 0 0 EXE CU TIVE 515 SF CO NFERENCE Ai SF O FRCE 901 I I OFFICE KOS L Si OFFICE ASF OFFICE OPEN OF FICE mss =E ISO SF OFRCE OSF 150 OFRCE OFFICE F SF 1/I /I -- 1- 1-1-1--`1 I/I/IF i I f 7 1 /III1 - 1 I I I I I 11 1 1 11 1 1 II 1 1 ▪ — — --+-- -1 1-- - -1 F ---+I F'--1-- -1 II I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 II 1 I —+--1 I --♦--1 F•— — F'— 1 F--♦--i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ▪ —♦--1 1 --♦- -1 f --♦--1 F•— — —♦-- I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I OFFICE ; OFFICE t M1SF5810 OFFICE ; i68OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 1 OFFICE I OFFICE se MK MSF MK ) � � NSF 1 88 SF Ms � O SECOND FLOOR -OVERALL 131.11-01 PRO JECT 1400 111 SF TOILET TOILET It 10 SF STORAGE ORCU ANON 9118 SF /-4 CONFERENCE SIS SF OFFI CE OF FICE NOSE OFFICE ASS WORK ROOM J189F MEC NANIC AL E LEC NIT 133 SF CONFERENCE I 315 SF STORAGE JANITOR 85 SF MSF CONFE RENCE 3113F OFFICE 120 SF SF 1 OFFICE NSF OFFICE IX, SF I[.. :111111 r —T- 1 r— — I 1 1 1 1 1 F —+--I F— +--1 1 1 I II 1 1 F—+—'i F— +—i 1 1 I I 1 1 L_1 —J L_ -L OPEN OFFICE NM SF r —T-1 r —T- 1 I 1 I I 1 1 F— +-- F—+—i 1 I I I 1 1 F—+-- F— +—i 1 1 I I 1 1 — +--I F—+—� 1 1 11 1 1 L -1— J L —_ L —J OFFIC E 120 SF OFFICE OFFICE ! OF FICE OFFICE OF FI CE 120 SF E ASS GOSF 1A SF I 1 I I J F—_ OPEN,6007, KIT F - - I ATRIUM 0 0 0 0 TRUE NORTH FOR REFERENCE ONLY Rae Architects 1210 Marshall Stant NE 612.61/.11110 Minneapolis 812 .877 .10.99 fax Minnesota 55.13-1038 ww8.rsparch.co m CmMtea te I lee, n Irv. mn to s Pnam. ID... NatbckI hpistrOo n N umb, 11902 Date FROM FM OSI, Inc. MEDINA HEADQUARTERS r 0 S I CITY SUBMITTAL (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) Propi l No Dawn By Cbab59y Da 2171.001.01 MCB PGW 22 DECEMBER, 2009 NOME The deeps doom aescnbea rn rente,sonnqs . c omitanu.o.radors. porn,. venoef. wawa c am Mc. Co mra.a9. n...1 Ali up. reamed N. Dete Description SECOND FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A3 LRmi7 Pmi8M05ND51 HO8N yn 7 ,,MOON 10:08:51 AM 0 0 0 OFFICE OFFICE 115 S OFFICE 115 SF O FF. M. O FF ICE M. 1165 OFFICE S O FFICE 1165 116 OFFICE S OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE I OFFICE $ 1169E 3j 1185E $ 3 OFF OFRCE ( 1185 BS I ''�r�\ 1. ._.�.�.0 4 r —T-1 r —T-1 r -T-1 r —T-1 I I I IL I I I` J111 JI IL 1 I F —+--1 f —+-- r—+ —+--1 I I I I I I I 11 I I 1 I r -t-1 r -t-1 I 1 II I II 11 II I I L_1 _J L_1 _J L_1_J L_1 _J F —T -1 L —T-1 L —T -1 L —T-1 IL 1I 1 1L 1 J1 1L 11 J1 1L 11 I r —T-- r-4. ----1 l r —T -- I I I I I I I I I I I F—+ -- F—+--1 F —+--I I- — + — -I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I F —+-- I I I I I I I I I I —t -I -t -1 -t -1 r -t-1 I I I I I I I I I I L_1 _J L_T_J L_T_J L_T_J OPEN OFFICE F —T -1 r —T-1 L- T-1 L-1 I I II I II I II I --+-. I --4-i I--+-- I ---I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I_ F—+-- F—+ --1 F—+ --1 F--1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F —+--1 F—+ -- F—+ -- F-- 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I F—+ --1 F—+ -- F—+-1 F--1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L _J J _ OFFICE O FFICE i OFFICE ( OFFICE { OFFICE 115SF Z6S 9F jIj 1166E {11SSF MFICE 1189E OFFICE I OFFICE 11SSF 115 SF r =E 1159E OFFICE SS OFFICE SS OFFICE I 11551 OFF ICE ' OFFICE SS S 1 O FFIC E OFFCE 115 SF 3 Y OFFICE O FRCE tt 6F s t r O FIRST FLOOR PLA N - OVERALL 699=1e• CON OFFICE i OFFICE OFFCE OFFICE BS 3 115 S 1113. IF' \ OPEN OFR CE WSW SW r —T-1 r —T-1 r -T_1 r -T_1 r —, I 1 I IL 1 I IL 1 I IL 1 I I I F—+-- F—+ —� F—+—� F—+-- F--1 I I II 1 II 1 II 1 II I hTt-1 r -t-1 r-tr1 r -t-1 r-1 I I 11 1 11 I II I II I L_1 _J L_T_J L_1 _J L_1 _J L_J F —T-1 F —T-1 f —T -1 I --T -1 F-1 I I II I II I II I 11 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 F —+--1 F—+ -- F—+ --1 F— +— i F --I I_ I I I I I I I_ I I I 11 F—+ -- F--1 I I II I II I II I 11 W OO ROOM .SF SUPPLIES ,99E NRCH ENE RE WWW ELEC M 559E CONFERENCE 06 0 ®®EII O° O DOH OD ID ®® t7 F-JDi F -LP EDi SUPPLIES 110. ALVE ROOM CIRCULATOR 1999. MECHANICAL JANITOR I1 ) LAB • IT SMS _ S T. LA B .IM 3213 _ LABFEB ' LAB•IT MI SF ML SF COATS SWIPED 570 SF STAGING • SECURED 5709E STAGING • SECURED 517 SF 129 OFFIC E 112 S WORM ROOM 226S �� -- OFFICE MI SF I 195 SF ------ten 6TAONO 70P S STAG ING - SECUR ED 561 SF MWEED W3SF TR ASH, RECYC LE WAREHOUSE 51659E 99 0 0 0 0 0 PLAN NORTH F OR REFERENCE ONLY REP ArMN.oM 1220 M arshall Street NE 812.811.1188 Minneapohs 612812.1499 fu M innesota 55413-1216 www.rsperch.co m at.' „, madf,ken. Signat ure (Devitt NNbeek) P agistation Number 1198E Prais e,b OSI, Inc. MEDINA HEADQUARTERS cti;,.os1 CITY SUBMITTAL (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) Drawn By cr acked 9r Me 2171 .001.01 MCB PGW 22 DECEMBER, 2009 Nom aven ue.. ant d er entedbeet ar wand a...ea aactra. sem. ...at me ausetanu at r aver waved 1,0111 re wa n ra ke amuse one taw. ereM erararmr meetsAa .m Ih nie sta No. Date Description 1 1/2010 CITY RE VIEW REVISIONS FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A2 am3 bm IR SRMO aHO Bldg UM/ UGIITS ON NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING SHALL BE BUILDING MOUNTED A ND, IF SOFFITS ARE AVAILABLE. DOWNUGHIS. ALL FIXTURES SHALL BE FULL CUTOFF FIXTURES AND L EVE LS WIL L NOT EXCEED 0 1 FC AT PROPERTY UNE . RIP MM.. 17A M.MaeS WIM NE 812177.7100 Mo 5 nnB12B77.7X99lex Mi nn.. MIS10 Z www.Nnrnh .ena Iw6 4v6eh ew N*A N.EN AmponrvPn n a am 6 a:. n.on .. at an I n n.a H ar ald M ON O undo to anal n. Ste Me amma X( wars. N unes xx Be a ant. a.n OSI, Inc. MEDINA HEADQUARTERS DONN DESIGN DEVELOPE MENT [NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION] RS038003 LMC KOK O. 12122/09 ,1.6 .6.. .0 66,61 •010 4 tv e.a a a.n+ald .-6n 6666 n.s...r ....n.evwl.n6 esva. NNW.. Um ammadon ler NOM *v. *NON Nat Wen.m.n.r.6�+v2/ e 0011........01/00...1 NR Date 1121/10 D.auipAon CRY REVIEW REVISIONS e01 L. 0170,(41' NO MDR 4 8 .NAN O 0110 (n• ra NURP PON NWT. = 988.0 100-1R HWL = 991. 5 GRADING NOTES - AR ebwtlon s shown a re to final surfaces. - Contra ctor is respon sible far obtainin g 0 Nation al Pollu tan t Discha rge Elimination Sy01. m (NPOES) General Sto rm Water Permit for Construc tion Activity before constructio n begins . - Retaining wall to be design/build by the contractor. EROSION CONTROL NOTES Qi - Contractor is respon sible for a0 no tifica tion s and in spec tio ns re quired by Gene ra / Storm W ater Permit Q - AI erosion control measure. who m sha ll be insta lle d prior to gra din g o peration . and ma in tained u ntil ail areas disturbed have been tutored. Qz - Sw eep paved public stree t. as n ecessary when con stru ctio n sedime nt has been depo sited. © - Ea ch area disturbed by constructio n shall be resto red pe r the spec ifica tions w ithin 14 days after the con struction activity in tha t por tion of the Ms has tempaa riy or pe rmane ntly c eas ed. 0 - Temporary soil stockpile. must hav e .IR lace a rou nd them an d cannot be placed in s ur fa ce .atere, inc luding storm w ater conveyance. such as curb aid gu tter systems . or conduits all ditche s QQ - The no rma l wetted pdmeter of any temporary or permanen t dra inage ditch throwe rs that drains .ate from any portion of the c on stru ction site. or diverts w ater around the .77, must be .70774zed .ithin 200 line al feet fro m the property edge, or from the point of discha rge into a ny surface water. Stabiliza tion of the lost 200 Weal fee t mast be c omp lete d within 24 nou n after connecting to a surface water. O AI pipe outlets must be provided with temporary or permanen t en ergy dissipa tion within 24 nou n of connection to o s urface w ater. 0 - Exces s con crete/water from aenareb buc ks shall be di pa..d of in por table washou t co nc re te basin or disposed of 7n a c ontaine d are a. ITEM CONTROL DEVICE OPERATION SCHEDULE INSTALLATIO N REMOVAL SILT FENCE ROCK ENTRANCE INLET PROTECTION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION PMT OF INITIAL GRADING SAME DAY STRUCTURE I5 CONSTRUCTED AFTER 511E W AS SEEN RESTORED NNE* PARKING LOT IS PAVED AFTER SITE HAS SEEN RESTORED MOM (2). Ave NM I) WETLAND 7.71 - 4'.1 SI FT. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE - The site mu st be in spected once every sev en (7) days during a cve construction and within 24 noun a fter a rainfall eve nt greater than 0.5 Inc hes in 24 hour. - AI inspe ctions and ma in tenan ce conducted must be recorded In writing a nd scads re ta ined with the 5NPPP. - Areas of the site that ha ve u ndergone fin al s tabi0zotkln , ma y have the inspection of tn..e areas reduced to onc e pas math. - All sin fen ce mus t be re paired, re place d, or supplemen ted within 24 hou rs w hen they become nonf unction al or the s edime nt reache s 1/3 of the height of the fence. - Surfed waters an d canvyanee systems mu st be In spec ted fo r e vidence of sedimen t being deposited . Rem oval and stabilization must take plan within s even (7) days of discov ery unhwe precluded by lego7. nguhtary, 01 physical aeons co nstra ints. - Construction site vehicle e xit locations must have sedimen t remo ved fro m off -site p aved surface. within 24 hou rs of disc ove ry. POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEM ENT - NI .odd wa ste su s be dis posed o1 off -site per the MPG disposal r equirements. - NI hazardo us wa ste must be properly sto red . ifh restricted access to storag e areas to prev ent va ndalism . Stora ge an d dispos al of haz ardous wash must be in eonplonee with MPG Reg ulation .. Wc ini J - M ap Section 3, To wn e* 114 Rap 23 Na 5e a1. 10 WETLAND yr MAT 611111O R WRAC 0. 7Ot (2v ROE .21 wooer LEGEND • PROPOSED MAN HOLE/CATCH BA SIN 1 PROPOSED *708045 PROPOSED GATE VALVE 1 PROPOSED PARED EN) N 11 PROPOSED STORY SEWER PROPOSED P. 110,E 0RANDIE E J PROPOSED CONCRE TE p any STD. y MA IMS :TT:, PR OPOSED HEAVY WTI DIIUI 7020 PROPOSED COMM• ® PROPOSED O VATION 0 20 40 00 100 —0— SILT FENCE Iiiti Sca le in Fee t — ' — RMAVDARY/RON/aocK U E . DIEING WATERM AN PROPOSED WE1IAND FILL PROPOSED REM AND YIDGITION PROPOSED RE1IAND EDGE —. . . _ PROPO SED NERAh0 SUFFER ED GE s - - MON O0 0001004054095201 ST -- 010, 0 STORM SEWER c DOSTNG BARED GAS LAVE - - c - EXISTING WAVED ELECTRIC LINE -- r — - E7057NG BU RIED TELEPHONE UE C OSTING =ram COSTING EIEAMMIN \ WETLANDI\ it BMW OR -------- Top 9.2 .0 m TOP MU NOTE: CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL NOT TRAVEL NORTH OF PROPOSED ENTRANCE ON ARROWHEAD DRIVE min mss 010•116 2 • SOO 995 50 1 ONDNA 12 Is0A0 CN7ER (1V RVM AYN 1220 U mbel Stree t* 1480 all 1M Iee0Y 8110. 100 117177.110 112177.7M7o0 .se.rep. 07.ea Rehder & Associ ates, Inc. CiNP.W:.w.Moans wtadS.wyen ..,...ter °r"o,,,,e+.. °•.ra t: Corr. Merl u.......1•11.0.1 1•01 .. *.arena meeh.. 1 1.01 by nu audry And.. .dam 01 0rl ee.1 .. . na.ix w b'nu. rwa rMiw..ave9naM n� 00 MOWN OSI, Inc . MEDINA HEADQUARTERS 0OSI .wi ns DESIGN DEVELOPMENT [NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION] "-07 omit Dim b*RV on 2171.001.00 NPA JAK 2-2-10 s ea a•... ...rw.ww. ++.a..r ss.. a. e • 9eea0m.e..s. NArw• ••.s Na D.9. 7lJi(1I Donal n 804IW ions TOO Cdr CDements CML GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C1 UTILITY NOTES A0 s ew er services to extend to o poi nt 5' from pr opo sed building . — Bring w ater m ai n i nto pr oposed b udding and 009 at t,. floo r. — Verify all service locatio ns and inverts with me chanic al engineer b ef or e con .W ctl on. — An watermai n to h ave a minim um of 7.5' of cover . — Repair sheet matching existing pavement section. — Cut in R' PVC into exi sting B. wat er m ain . — Cow cut Er PVC i nt o existing s anitary sew er m anh ole. — Provide a wall type Ph/ (see m echani cal plans) . l ag Mo ni ed Street NE 812877 .7100 Minneapolis 112677 .74991u Minnesota 95413-1036 vmwseparch co. CmOW Render & Associates, Inc: Ci.1 P.a9 109 Pimenad7ad3eraryvrs awurtb.lDdyn®nls • an PROIECP WP. 00 0.1.0 MAW R. PDF.un.IrfDW a 1104 arvh 0 000 Fin ..ik la 0,0 0 w. pef.d 10 mow 000 Ty aTt .gM+n Ns101 .n 1 00, 00. rml.m.l fwiw10.e.Nie ally SLw 01 .00n 91010 R.p.m. Nreer am OSI, Inc . MEDINA HEADQUARTERS ,.� 051 .wno DESIGN DEVELOPMENT [NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION] PrgM er e OmanM airmen o.0 2171.001.00 NPA JAK 2-2-10 PlarKE 1100••••••••• •••••1 00.0 000.000 000••••• . �:s 11, 011110. 0.00 0•0000• 0•00 .• d 110, 01600 . **la 1000 . 1..1001. als q m.m er..w . e .a man ire sib*. 0 a .p .®•••"0. . N000ru . No. Deb Dosed Revl69v R..i.ions CML UTILITY PLAN C2 " \ S \ P R O P O S E D N A T I V E - P R A I R I E E P R A I R I E A R E A - N A T I V E M I X - W I T H F O R B S - S H O R T P R O P O S E D N A T I V E P R A I R I E A R E A = S E D G E / P R A I R I E M E A D O W M I X - M E D P R O P O S E D N A T I V E P R A I R I E A R E A - N A T I V E M I X F O ��f ' W E T A R E A S - M E D P R O P O S E D N A T I V E P R A I R I E A R E A - N A T I V E M I X F O R W E T A R E A S - S H O R T P R O P O S E D N A T I V E P R A I R I E A R E A - S E D G E / P R A I R I E M E A D O W M I X - S H O R T P L A N L E G E N D 4 / 4 / 4 - L A N D S C A P E P L A N R O C K M U L C H S C R E E N F E N C E R E T A I N I N G W A L L N O T E : N O E X I S T I N G . T R E E S A R E B E I N G R E M O V E D - N O T R E E P R E S E R V A T I O N P L A N I S R E Q U I R E D N A T I V E S E E D A R E A E V E R G R E E N - _ - J N D B R E A K . T Y P . S C A L E : 1 = 4 0 , 0 N O R T H 1 1 Y A r e , l h e s b 1 7 2 E M . 1 . h . 6 S t r u t N E 0 1 2 6 7 7 . 7 1 0 0 M l n n u p o E . 6 1 2 6 7 7 . 7 1 ! 1 h . M i n n e s o t a 5 5 / 1 3 - 1 0 7 6 w w w . r p . r c h . c a . 6 . " " 6 . w C a d . . l w " " E a r * t a t t " a l w . . . n a t i . . i w . + . l . i . . r h . d r . r m . * w . l a n , . c " " u . . m M b . r o r . t l . N . d . . S t . a l M w m a X X . . , . ��. . N a . 1 r r 1 a n w . 1 D v 1 D c P D O S I , I n c . M E D I N A H E A D Q U A R T E R S '�� O S I D E S I G N D E V E L O P E M E N T [ N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N ] 2 1 7 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 � " " " M J W C h o d c a l 6 n D F 1 2 - 2 2 - 0 9 i s r i + . a t i : . _ ' r _ " ��r r _ A ` . . . s a a . r y r r a - M Y r s M _ _ _ N o . D o t . D . . c r i p f i o n L A N D S C A P E P L A N L P 1 0 0 360 <0 1 s0 b' SOUTH ELEVATIO N Sc ale : 1/32" = 11-0" 240 40 30 30' 30' 30 30 3Q 40 Co ncrete bole Stucco -2 Stucco •I Cortugoteo Me ld - Meld +0 30' Back 40 413 40 WEST ELEVATIO N Scale: 1/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/32" = 1 '-0" • Brick 30 30 • Cl ear Om Meld 240 Metal C oncrete base Stucco -2 Stu cco -I 1 ir■■�i■ i■ii■i■ii■i■■i■=i■ii■i■Gi■i■Gi■i■ii SIU CC O -I SIUCCa EAST ELEVATION Sca le: 1/32" = 1 '-0" or 41 AGENDA ITEM: 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: February 5, 2010 MEETING: February 9, 2010 Planning Commission SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Site Plan Review applicability Background The attached ordinance is an administrative/technical clean-up which staff recommends making as a result of all of the new zoning districts which the City is creating to implement the 2010- 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The City's Site Plan Review regulations list specific zoning districts in which new development is required to apply for Site Plan Review approval. As the City has been creating new zoning districts, the new districts have not been added to the list. As a result, an applicant could attempt to claim that they are not subject to the City's requirement to appear before the Planning Commission and City Council for a Site Plan Review. Staff is interested in spending more time on the Site Plan Review ordinance after the City has completed all of the changes to the zoning code that are absolutely necessary to implement the new Comp Plan. This process is extremely important in order to make sure that development is high -quality and protects natural resources. However, in the short-term, staff just wanted to ensure that the process will apply to development within the City's new zoning districts. Changes in Attached Ordinance The attached ordinance removes the specific list of zoning districts, and instead states that Site Plan Review is required for "all new commercial, business, and multiple family residential uses and developments." Staff prefers this language so that the ordinance will not need to be continually amended each time a new zoning district is created. The other change in the attached ordinance is to add a description of "minor changes" which can be administratively approved by staff and do not go through Planning Commission and City Council review. This language is copied from the old Urban Commercial, Business Park, Industrial Park, and Rural Commercial Holding districts. This would afford new zoning districts access to the same exemptions. Attachment DRAFT Ordinance Ordinance Amendment: Page 1 of 1 February 9, 2010 Site Plan Review Applicability Planning Commission Meeting CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO PROCEDURES FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS; AMENDING SECTION 825.55 THROUGH 825.59 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 825.55 through 825.59 of the Medina code of ordinances is amended to add the underlined language and delete language as follows: SITE PLAN REVIEW Section 825.55. Site Plan Review — Application. Subd. 1. All new commercial, business, and rnu01j:11leRim ilresidentialuses and developments wit-l41-t11e l3trsme& -P-ail-, Intrust-r-ia1-1-a+I-Ur- n-- mi4 3-1-;-1 i34 -o =n Hamel, Rt+F1-€ H+n1crcial Urban Reserve, Rural Commercial Of Residential :'onin-distric-ts shall require site plan review under this section prior to the issuance of any permits. In addition, all changes, additions and expansions of existing cunlnlerciul. business. and multiple residential uses and developments shall require site plan review prior to the issuance of any permits unless the change, addition or expansion qualifies for review by city staff as a minor ch mute pursuant to Subd. 4_01. this Section. u-nde- lilt. —line icable-d+a++c+t-re'4uh+l4«ns. Changes occurring after the effective date of this ordinance shall require site plan review if the change, when combined with all other changes made since the effective date of this ordinance, would no longer qualify as a minor change under the applicable district regulations. Subd. 2. The owner or developer shall submit an application for site plan review to the zoning administrator. The application shall be accompanied by the following information and documentation to the extent it is not otherwise required by another land use application made by the owner or developer for the same site at the same time: (a) legal description of the property; (b) identification of developer and owner, if different; (c) survey showing property boundaries; existing improvements, including utilities, drainage tiles and wells; topography of the site and area within 100 feet of the property boundaries with contours at 2 -foot intervals; significant trees and existing vegetation which would meet ordinance landscaping requirements; easements of record, including the dimensions thereof; and wetlands; (d) site plan of proposed improvements showing all buildings, including details of loading Ordinance No. ### 1 DRAFT - 2-5-2010 DATE docks; parking areas; driveways; access points; berms; easements; and adjacent public or private streets; (e) floor plans and building elevations, including list of building materials, showing a sketch or computer -generated image of proposed buildings as viewed from surrounding uses; (0 site plan of existing uses on property in non-residential zones adjacent to the site and on property in residential zones within 720 feet of the site, measured at the closest point, showing buildings, including loading docks, entrances and other significant features and illustrating sight lines to proposed uses; (g) proposed grading plan with contours at 2 -foot intervals; (h) soils map; (i) tree preservation plan; (j) landscaping plan, including species and sizes; (k) drainage and storm water plan; (1) utility plan; (m) sign plan; (n) lighting plan; (o) table of all proposed uses by type and square footage, including estimated water and sanitary sewer usage; (p) schedule of staging or timing of development; and (q) application fee. Upon receipt of an application for site plan review, the zoning administrator may determine that, due to the nature or scale of the development, not all of the above information must be submitted or that additional information must be submitted in order to allow reasonable review of the development. Subd. 3. Upon receipt of an application for site plan review, the zoning administrator shall determine whether the application is complete. If the application is not complete, the zoning administrator shall notify the applicant in writing that the application is not complete and shall specify the additional documentation or information that the applicant will be required to submit before the application will be considered complete. When the application is complete, the zoning administrator shall refer the matter to the planning commission for review. Subd. 4. Minor chances: I he follow line chances can he rep iety ed andATrov ed 1 staff upon aNs, t=itfrn lindnIT and 11Lin � the report in the prohetly file that theprolusal meets the tiecuiren1ents of the district, 1. Change in the use of the_piopertv if the use is less intense and a more restrictive use, 2. gl:xp nsion of an existtnr huildin h less than l,00(! tislitare feet of floor :ir a in it sin.1e ear. Ch niges of less Man 1(woO ,quafe fe_Letto the exterior wills or surface of the buildin,12. 1 vp insion _off he parking lot h\ less than )0 ',aces nt_kss than 10.0011 ware feeu w hirhev er is lest. . Outdoor lightine changes in olvint.* 2 or freer Wit poles without changing Ihe f\ji_e of Comment [di]: These are the requirements for the old Urban Commercial, Business Park Industrial Park, and Rural Commercial Holding District. Comment (d2]: Old Uptown Hamel regulation is 500 square feet Comment [d3]: Old Uptown Hamel regulation is 500 square feet Comment [de]: Old Uptown Hamel regulation is 4 spaces 2,000 square feet Ordinance No. ### 2 DRAFT — 2-5-2010 DATE li<1Zhting. 6. Chant2es to the topo -thy involvinit less than 1 foot in elevation_orless than 24,000 guare feel of lot area. 7. An addition to exjosecl rooftop equT)ment if the addition is less than 64 cubic feet. Any person as rieved by a decision of the staff under this subdivision may appeal to the city council.Appeals must be submitted in writing -and must be received by the staff within 30 days of the date the staffs written report is filed. The city council shall decide an appeal within 60 days of the date of recut of the <upeal. Section 825.56.. itjPlan Review - Planning Commission Review. Subd. 1. The planning commission shall review the proposed site plan on the basis of the information and documentation submitted by the applicant and any other information available to it. The review may occur separately or in conjunction with any other city hearing or review required under state statute, this ordinance or other applicable law regarding the same property or development and occurring at the same time. Subd. 2. The planning commission shall review the proposed site plan to determine whether it is consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, including the applicable development standards and the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located. Following the review, the planning commission shall recommend that the site plan be approved, approved with conditions or denied. The planning commission shall forward its recommendation to the city council. Section 825.59. Sitc_pian_RoiD, =City Council Review. Subd. 1. The city council shall consider the recommendation of the planning commission after receipt of its report and may consider any additional information or conduct such additional review, if any, as it determines would serve the public interest. The city council shall make its decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the site plan. The city council may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located. Subd. 2. Any site plan approval granted by the city council shall be valid for a period of one year following final action by the city council or such longer period, not to exceed one additional year, as the council may specify. After the expiration of that period, the approval granted by the city council shall be null and void and no permits may be issued pursuant to the approval. Prior to the expiration of the period, the city council may grant an extension for good cause upon Medina City Code written request by the applicant. Subd. 3. An application to amend an approved site plan shall be reviewed under this section in the same manner as an initial application for a site plan review except that any change, addition or expansion which qualifies as a minor change as specified in the standards applicable for the district in which the property is located shall be subject to an administrative site plan review by the zoning administrator. Ordinance No. ### 3 DRAFT — 2-5-2010 DATE Canines* [as]: Old Uptown Hamel regulation is 5,000 square feet SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2010. T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2010. Ordinance No. ### 4 DRAFT — 2-5-2010 DATE