Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
01.11.2022 Planning Commission Packet
POSTED AT CITY HALL: January 7, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2022 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/electronically pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 Call-in Information: 612-517-3122 (Conference ID: 469 261 792#) Electronic access (via Microsoft Teams): link available at https://medinamn.us/pc 1. Call to Order 2. Changes to Agenda 3. Introduction of Planning Commissioners 4. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 5. Update from City Council proceedings 6. Planning Department Report 7. Public Hearing – Meander Park and Boardwalk Development – Medina Ventures, LLC – PUD Concept Plan for commercial development and three-lot residential subdivision (PID 0211823330003) 8. Public Hearing – Marsh Pointe Preserve – BPS Properties LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan of Development for 30- lot subdivision 9. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change Future Land Use from Future Development Area to Business and Staging to 2020 (PIDs 0411823110002, 0411823140004, 0311823220004) 10. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code related to maximum building height, allowed height of rooftop elements and mechanical equipment, and screening requirements for rooftop mechanical equipment 11. Election of 2022 Planning Commission Officers a. Chair b. Vice Chair 12. Approval of December 14, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes 13. Council Meeting Schedule 14. Adjourn Introductions; Elections Page 1 of 2 January 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 7, 2022 MEETING: January 11, 2022 Planning Commission 1. Call to Order Generally, the Chair or Vice Chair from the previous year runs the meeting until officers for the new year are elected. In this case, 2021 Chair Beth Nielsen has stated that she is willing to preside at the meeting until new officers are elected. Staff is recommending holding the elections at the end of the meeting so that residents attending the hearings do not need to sit through them. If the Commission would rather hold elections at the beginning of the meeting, members can make a motion to amend the agenda as the first action after Call to Order. 3. Introduction of Planning Commission Members The City Council appointed John Jacob to join the Planning Commission in 2022. John served on the Park Commission for the past seven years and lives in Tuckborough Farms. All the Commissioners can take a moment to introduce themselves to welcome John. Virtual meetings make introductions a lot more difficult. Although the City’s practice is to leave cameras off during the meeting to reserve bandwidth and reduce distractions, I welcome everyone to turn on cameras during introductions so we can try to (virtually) put faces to names. Following is the 2022 Planning Commission roster: NAME ADDRESS TERM BETH NIELSEN 295 LAKEVIEW ROAD MEDINA, MN 55391 01/2019 TO 12/2024 JOHN JACOB 413 RIDGE VIEW CIRCLE MEDINA, MN 55340 01/2022 TO 12/2024 CINDY PIPER 1745 HUNTER DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55391 09/2018 TO 12/2022 RON GRAJCZYK 1615 NORTHRIDGE DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55391 01/2020 TO 12/2022 JUSTIN POPP 2552 COUNTY ROAD 24 MEDINA, MN 55356 09/2020 TO 12/2023 TIMOTHY SEDABRES 3169 CYPRESS CIRCLE SOUTH MEDINA, MN 55340 01/2021 TO 12/2023 BRADEN RHEM 4112 CAVANAUGH DRIVE MEDINA, MN 55340 01/2021 TO 12/2023 MEMORANDUM Introductions; Elections Page 2 of 2 January 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Update from City Council proceedings The City Council appointed City Council member Robin Reid as the Planning Commission liaison again in 2022. The Council liaison provides an update from City Council meetings at each meeting. 11. Elections of Chair and Vice Chair In the past, staff has run the meeting during the elections so there is no appearance of conflict if the person running the meeting is nominated for a position. I am happy to do so again this year if the Commission prefers. The Commission will elect the Chair first through the following process. The Vice Chair election follows the same procedure. • Nominations are accepted. Any member may be nominated, and members may nominate themselves. • Commissioners vote for their preferred candidate. A roll call vote will need to be held because of the virtual nature of the meeting. The City Attorney has advised that the Commission should not vote by secret ballot so that each member’s vote can be recorded as described by the Open Meeting Law. Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 January 4, 2022 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: December 29, 2021 MEETING: January 4, 2022 City Council Land Use Application Review A) Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – BPS Properties has requested Preliminary Plat approval for a 30-lot subdivision east of Arrowhead Drive south of Bridgewater. The City previously reviewed a concept plan for the project. Preliminary review is underway and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 11. B) Meander Boardwalk and Park PUD Concept Plan – south of Meander Road, west of Cavanaugh Drive – Medina Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for a commercial development. The concept shows a day care facility (7,500 s.f.), a venue (concerts/weddings/educational), and approximately 12,000-15,000 s.f. commercial space. Preliminary review is underway and a Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 11. C) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Worksheet – Oppidan has requested review of an EAW and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 11, 2022. D) Prairie Creek Final Plat – Stelter Enterprises has requested final plat approval for a 17-lot villa subdivision at 500 Hamel Road. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present to the City Council when complete, potentially at the January 18 or February 1 meeting. E) Deng Septic Variance – 2472 Parkview Drive – Jet Deng has requested a variance to reconstruct and expand an existing septic drainfield in its existing location. Preliminary review is underway. F) Loram/Scannell Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Loram and Scannell have submitted materials for the City to prepare an EAW for a warehouse/industrial development east of Arrowhead Drive, south of Highway 55, to the south of Loram’s existing facility. Staff is reviewing materials and will request Council authorization to distribute the EAW if complete. G) Ditter Heating and Cooling Site Plan Review – 820 Tower Drive – Ditter Heating and Cooling has requested a Site Plan Review for an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to its building. The application is incomplete for review and will be scheduled for a hearing when complete. H) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), Minneapolis, has requested Site Plan Review for construction of a place of assembly. The Planning Commission reviewed at the September 14 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council reviewed on October 5, October 19, and November 3 meeting. The applicant updated plans to be consistent with the recently adopted interim ordinance pertaining to rooftop elements. The Council adopted a resolution for approval at the November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction until spring. I) Caribou Cabin CUP and Site Plan Review – 3692 Pinto Drive – Woodbury REI LLC has requested a Site Plan Review and CUP for a small retail building including a drive-through at the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Pinto Drive. The Planning Commission held a public MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 January 4, 2022 City Council Meeting hearing on November 9 and recommended approval. City Council granted approval at the December 21 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant on the conditions before construction. J) Life-Style Auto Condo – South of Hwy 55, west of Pioneer – SH Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of 12 buildings with approximately 258,000 square feet of space for privately owned garage condos. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided comments at the October 12 meeting. Most Commissioners generally did not believe the proposal was consistent with the objectives of FDA land use of the Comp Plan. The Council reviewed at the November 16 Council meeting and provided comments. The applicant has requested that the City Council remain open, as they are considering potential updates to their Concept Plan. K) Weston Woods Final Plat – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested Final Plat for development of 76 twinhomes, 42 single- family, and 33 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. Grading has begun on the project and final plans are under review. L) Medina Townhomes – 1432 Baker Park Road (County Road 29) – Medina Townhome Development LLC has requested a Planned Unit Development General Plan and Site Plan Review for 23 rental townhomes on 2 acres north of Highway 12, east of Baker Park Road. The City Council adopted approval documents on September 21. Staff is working with the applicant to address the conditions of approval prior to construction. M) Deer Hill Preserve 5th Addition – Deer Hill Road, east of Homestead Tr. – Property Resources Development Corporation has requested final plat approval for eight of the lots within the Deer Hill Preserve development. City Council approved the final plat at the August 17 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize conditions of approval before executing the plat. N) Prairie Creek, Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Pioneer Trail Preserve – These projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application. O) Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. P) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Other Projects A) Rooftop Elements Moratorium – Staff began researching regulations in other communities and reviewing existing rooftop elements within the City. The Planning Commission provided comments on December 14 and Council reviewed at the December 21 worksession. Staff intends to present the ordinance to the Planning Commission at the January 11 meeting. B) Long Lake Creek/Wolsfeld Lake Grant – staff has continued working with Minnehaha Creek watershed to find a viable project to utilize funding which was originally planned within Wolsfeld Woods SNA. Staff walked additional property along Crosby Creek on the north side of the lake on December 20, but it did not appear that erosion issues would be cost effective to conduct stabilization on the property. C) Planning and Building Assistant interviews – staff has reviewed applicants and is conducting interviews for the Planning and Building Assistant position. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: December 29, 2021 RE: Department Updates Director Nelson and Sergeant Boecker have been on vacation over the holidays. Investigations: This is my last week assigned to investigations. I will be transitioning back to patrol starting next week. Officer Scharf will be taking over the investigator position. Successfully identified a suspect who was responsible for two thefts at businesses in Medina on December 6th. The suspect was identified through a crime alert that was sent out to area agencies. My report will be sent to the City Attorney’s office for formal review and charging. Officers responded to a burglary report at two separate businesses next to Target. A suspect attempted to gain access to a business through the wall of another business. The suspect gave up after making it through the drywall only to find a brick wall. Nothing appeared to be missing from the business. The owner of the business is working on getting an estimate for the damaged wall and is gathering video surveillance from the attempted burglary. There are currently (9) cases assigned to investigations. 1 TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE December 29, 2021 MEETING: January 4, 2022 SUBJECT Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works has been dealing with several snow and ice events over the past two weeks. The crew staggered schedules to keep up while taking vacation time that would otherwise have expired at the end of the year. The open position made it a little more difficult for staff to use up vacation days earlier in the year. • The streets are in good winter condition with some ice pack due to the cold weather. When sub-zero temperatures immediately follow unseasonably warm temperatures, we combat snowpack by adding road salt for traction. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Greg Leuer has been working on keeping the water and wastewater systems in check during this cold weather. Hopefully we will not see any watermain breaks with the sub-zero temps. • Public Works will soon receive the feasibility report for the water treatment plant expansion and media replacement. At a minimum it looks like we will be replacing the media. PARKS/TRAILS • The Public Works crew has been working hard to keep the trails, ice rinks, and sledding hills functioning during the holiday break. The warm temperatures made it difficult. • The Lakeshore Park concept plan is out for comment on our website and Facebook page. Residents have until December 31st to participate in the survey. • Staff received a proposal from WSB for a phase one inspection of the potential parkland purchase. PERSONNEL • Public Works had a very productive year, despite being shorthanded. We made the most of our part-time help, Jeff Bursch. The department would really be stressed without his skill and all-around knowledge. • Public Works remains shorthanded so we will again engage part-time help for the winter months. We are working to recruit a full-time replacement. MEMORANDUM Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 1 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 6, 2022 MEETING: January 11, 2022 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Medina Ventures – Medina Park and Boardwalk - 1472 Highway 55 (PID 0211823330003) – PUD Concept Plan Summary of Request Medina Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for a development including commercial uses and a three-unit townhome located along Meander Road east of Arrowhead Drive, west of Fields of Medina West. The subject site is over 18 acres in size, but the majority of the property is within the large wetland located west and north of the site. The property north of Meander is vacant and contains approximately 1.5 net acres, and the property south of Meander Road is approximately 4.9 net acres and includes a barn structure and with a grove of trees around the building. An aerial of the subject site and surrounding land can be found on the following page. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning The subject property is bisected by Meander Road and the planned land use and zoning differs on each side of the roadway. The property north of Meander Road is guided for Low Density Residential (LDR) development, anticipating a density of 2-3 units/net acre. This property is zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR), which is a temporary zoning for rural property until developed. The purpose of the R1 zoning district is to be the default zoning for development within the LDR land use. The R2 zoning district is also an alternative which the City has the discretion to apply to LDR property to allow smaller lots or twinhomes to cluster homes to preserve natural areas and open spaces. The applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allows an applicant to request flexibility from the standard regulations to support a development which better achieves City objectives. The City has a good deal of discretion whether to approve a PUD as an alternative to standard zoning. The property south of Meander Road is designated as Commercial (C) and zoned Commercial- Highway (CH), anticipating retail and office development. MEMORANDUM Proposed Uses: Event Venue Restaurant Day Care 9,200 s.f. retail 3-unit townhome Gross Site Area: 18 acres Net Site Area: 4.9 acre commercial 1.5 acre residential Land Use (north): LDR Current Zoning (north): RR-UR Land Use (south): Commercial Current Zoning (south): CH Proposed Zoning: PUD Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 2 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Surrounding land uses include Fields of Medina (LDR) to the northeast and property guided for future LDR development to the north. Property to the southeast is guided for future Commercial development and currently farmed. Highway 55 is located to the south and a large wetland to the west. The wetland extends onto the subject site, and the majority of the northern section of the site is within the wetland. Staff has attached the Vision and Community Goals, the general land use principles and objectives of residential and commercial land uses from the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria for reviewing a PUD include determining whether the PUD meets these objectives better than a development following the general ordinance standards. The applicant describes how they believe their proposal achieves these purposes and objectives in their narrative. Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 3 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting PUD Concept Plan The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal application. Generally, the Planning Commission and City Council do not take any formal action and the feedback is purely advisory. Purpose of a Planned Unit Development According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 2. Higher standards of site and building design. 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant proposes the PUD primarily to allow flexibility in terms of architectural design for the commercial buildings and also to allow for broader outdoor uses in the area of the boardwalk and gazebo. Under the CH standards, these outdoor spaces would be more limited through a Conditional Use permit. The PUD could also allow for the three-unit townhome structure on the northern property. Generally single-family and twinhomes are permitted in the R1 and R2 district, but the PUD could permit the three-unit building while still only just meeting the minimum density of the LDR land use. The proposed uses and density are generally aligned with the underlying zoning districts. Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 4 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Proposed Site Layout-Commercial The proposed commercial concept plan shows seven primary buildings with an approximate floor area of 40,000 square feet along with an outdoor gazebo space of approximately 1,600 square feet. The applicant has indicated that they would likely plat buildings onto separate lots to allow flexibility for sale to different owners, but the concept plan does not specify how these lots may be divided. The following table compares the proposed concept with the dimensional standards of the CH district. Setbacks are measured to the exterior of the site since the location of internal property lines are not identified. Proposed CH Requirement Minimum Lot Size Not specified 1 acre (0.5 acre if coordinated) Minimum Lot Width Not specified 100 feet Minimum Lot Depth Not specified 120 feet Front Setback (Meander) 40 feet 25 feet Front Setback (Hwy 55) 50 feet 60 feet (gazebo) Side Setback 25 feet 15 feet Residential Setback 40 feet + Meander ROW 50 feet Parking Setbacks Front Yard 40 feet 25 feet Side/Rear 2 feet (east drive aisle) 10 feet (parking spaces) 10 feet Residential 40 feet + Meander ROW 40 feet Building Height 45 feet Hardcover 43% (70% of net area) 75% The concept plan appears to exceed the dimensional standards of the CH district around the exterior of the lot with the exception of the eastern drive aisle of the parking lot. Staff has recommended adjustments to the parking lot/circulation. See transportation and parking sections for more information. The applicant has indicated that the boardwalk and outdoor spaces are intended as extensions of the other uses on the site. The applicant indicates that the gazebo structure in the southwest corner of the site relates to the venue use, and the applicant has indicated additional recreational amenities may be located near the gazebo. Architectural Design-Commercial Conceptual building renderings are attached for review. The renderings do not include sufficient detail to quantify materials and similar review, but provide the opportunity to provide feedback on the concept. The following are requirements of the CH zoning district for context. Flexibility to the standards may be provided or higher standards required as part of the PUD process. Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 5 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Building Materials The CH district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the following standards: (a) A minimum of 30 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco (not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass. (b) A maximum of 70 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high-quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance. (c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper), or fiber cement lap siding, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design. Building Modulation – minimum of one element per 40 linear feet of façade. Third floors shall be set back minimum of 6 feet from lower floors. Fenestration/Transparency – “Building elevations which face a public street shall include generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the city when windows are not practical.” Multi-sided Architecture – “Any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street, an interior access drive for the development, or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s) shall be compatible with the front building elevation. Additional signage shall be permitted for an elevation facing a public street or interior access drive, as regulated within the sign ordinance. Multi-sided architecture shall not be required in situations where the rear or side building elevation is fully screened from view from the adjacent street or residential property.” Proposed Site Layout – Residential The concept plan proposes three attached single-family homes north of Meander. The property north of Meander Road contains approximately 1.5 net acres, so three units would meet the bottom of the allowed range of the LDR land use. As described above, the R1 zoning district is the main intended district to implement development in the LDR land use. The R2 zoning district is an alternative at the City’s discretion to smaller lots to cluster homes to protect natural resources and open space. As noted above, a PUD allows “deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards” to serve the purposes described in the PUD ordinance. To analyze whether to approve a rezoning to PUD, the City compares the request to the expectations of the underlying zoning designation. The R1 district is generally limited to detached single-family homes and the R2 zoning district allows single- and two-family dwellings. The applicant’s concept proposes a three-unit building, which would be allowed in the R3 zoning district, but proposes a lower density than required in R3. Staff believes the best comparable is likely the R2 zoning district, but the following table compares the concept to the R1, R2, and R3 districts for context. Materials Required Glass, stone, brick, stucco Minimum 30% Concrete (decorative) Maximum 70% Metal, wood fiber cement Maximum 20% Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 6 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting R1 Requirement R2 Requirement R3 Requirement Proposed Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 5,000 s.f./unit 6,225 s.f./ unit 21,780 s.f./unit incl shared drive Min Lot Width 90 feet 50 feet/unit N/A 60 feet/unit Min Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet N/A 55 feet (Buffer to shared drive) Front Setback 25’ (30’ to garage) 25’ (30’ to garage) 25’ to drive 40’ to Meander 20’ to drive 100’ to Meander Side setback 25’ combined (10/15) 15’ combined (10/5) 40’ to exterior 500’ to north Rear setback 30’ 25’ 40’ to exterior 470’ to west Max. Hardcover 40% 50% 50% Not specified The concept plan does not account for the minimum required upland buffer to the west of the units and shows approximately 20’ from the building to the shared drive. Staff recommends that the layout of the units be updated to meet the minimum buffer standards. It appears that the units could shift to the south where there is additional width to the edge of the wetland. The applicant has attempted to align the shared driveway for the units with the commercial access to the west. It appears that construction of this driveway to the north would likely necessitate wetland impacts and result in a long, curvy driveway. Although aligning access points is generally preferred, staff believes offsetting the drive for the three units may be a better alternative in this case if it can be done without interfering with turn lanes to other sites. Staff believes allowing attached units to meet the minimum density in this situation may result in a better outcome than limiting to single- or two-family units. Architectural Design -Residential The applicant has not provided architectural renderings for the proposed residential building. The R1 and R2 districts do not provide much in terms of specific architectural requirements except that garage doors which occupy more than half of a façade have to include architectural features. The minimum standards of the R3 district include: • Accent materials – minimum of 20% of any façade facing a street shall be accent material • Garage door elements – if garage doors occupy more than 50% of horizontal façade facing a street, additional elements are required • Building modulation – buildings are required to be modulated at least once per 50 feet. This may include varying building height, building setback, building orientation, roof pitch, roof design, or significant differences in building materials/design. Since the proposed building is three-units, staff would recommend that the architectural standards of the R3 district be met at the minimum. Higher architectural standards can be adopted as part of the PUD process. Staff recommends that standards be included at the time of General Plan/Preliminary Plat submission if the project proceeds. Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 7 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Tree Preservation, Buffer Yard and Landscaping There are several trees near the existing barn on the property, but there are not many trees throughout the remainder of the site. The applicant has not provided conceptual landscaping plans to review. Landscaping standards can be altered in connection with a PUD, but the requirements for commercial districts are provided for reference. The commercial districts include the following landscape requirements: • Building Setting - At least 10 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all buildings except for walks, outdoor sales areas, plaza space and approved loading docks. Walks within this landscaped area shall be limited to where practically necessary to serve access points of buildings. • Minimum Planting: • Parking lot landscaping – minimum of 8% of parking lot area • Landscaping islands every 20 spaces, wider separations for cells of 120 spaces The parking lot shown on the concept plan does not appear to provide sufficient landscaping or larger landscaping breaks. Staff believes that wider landscaping areas could divide the large parking lot into halves or quadrants and provide space for sidewalks to improve pedestrian connectivity across and through the parking lot. In terms of landscaping for the residential portion of the project, the R2 zoning district requires two trees per residential unit and a buffer with an opacity of 0.1 would be required adjacent to Meander Road. Transportation The applicant proposes one access for the commercial property to Meander Road along the west of the project. The City Engineer has provided preliminary traffic comments which are attached. The City completed a visioning study for future Tamarack Drive located approximately ¼ mile to the east during the summer of 2020. The vision anticipated a signalized intersection at Highway 55 and Tamarack Drive which would serve as the primary access for commercial development in the area, including the subject site. The study included a broader study of the future circulation for development property east and west of Tamarack Drive as well. The conceptual layout approved at the end of the study calls for connection from Meander Road to Tamarack Drive. This connection could be either a public roadway or a private access, depending on the layout of the development to the west of Tamarack Drive but was intended to provide improved connectivity for all uses to Tamarack Drive (and Highway 55). The conceptual layout is attached for reference, along with two “commercial concepts” which were discussed during the visioning study showing how the connectivity may occur. Staff recommends that the layout on the subject site be updated to provide a primary traffic access from Meander Road to the eastern property line. This purpose could be served through a drive aisle with limited parking spaces adjacent. As the applicant is updating the layout to accommodate additional landscaping within the parking lot, this main access route could also be Requirement Required Overstory trees 1 per 50’ site perimeter 46 trees Ornamental trees 1 per 100’ site perimeter 23 trees Shrubs 1 per 30’ site perimeter 77 shrubs Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 8 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting added. The applicant has provided flexibility with where connectivity could be provided to the east by including the drive aisle adjacent to the eastern property line. The property to the east is a 60-foot wide strip of land which served as a driveway location for property to the north before Meander Road was constructed. This strip of land has limited development potential on its own and causes some uncertainty for connectivity in the future. The Tamarack visioning study had identified the cost of improvements at Highway 55 to install the signals and turn lanes and had estimated the area of different new uses which necessitate the improvement. The subject site was estimated as 5.4% of the signal project and 8.2% of the northern turn lanes at Highway 55. If the project proceeds with formal application, staff recommends that a means to contribute toward these costs be incorporated into review. Parking The applicant proposes approximately 235 parking spaces. Staff has recommended adding landscaping areas and providing a primary access route which would reduce parking unless the footprint of the lot was expanded. Based upon the conceptual uses identified by the applicant, the minimum parking requirement for the commercial development would be 215-240 stalls. The parking ordinance requires 1 stall per 3 seats for restaurants or 1 stall per 4 seats for places of assembly. The venue could reasonably be calculated at either amount depending on operation. The applicant also notes that the peak use for the daycare and much of the retail would likely be at different times that the restaurant and venue. The restaurant and venue, on the other hand, would have similar times for peak parking demand. Staff believes the shared parking suggested by the applicant would appear to be viable based upon the uses and square footage of space suggested by the applicant. Provisions for shared parking and access will need to be addressed within association documents. Sewer/Water Existing sewer and water mains are located to the northeast of the site, and the applicant proposes to extend to serve the site. The City Engineer has provided preliminary comments which are attached for reference. Stormwater/Grading Review No information is provided related to grading or stormwater management. Any future development would be subject to relevant City and Elm Creek regulations. Use Calculation # Required stalls Restaurant 1 stall/3 seats 210 seats 70 Venue 1 stall/3 seats 300 capacity 100 Daycare 1/250 s.f. 7500 s.f. 30 Retail 1/250 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 40 Total: 240 Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 9 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting Park/Trails/Multi-Modal The Park Commission is scheduled to review the concept at their January 19 meeting to provide a recommendation related to parks and trails. The Park at the Fields of Medina is located approximately ¼ acre to the northeast of the site and no additional park improvement are identified in the City’s Park Plan. An existing trail is located north of Meander Road to the northeast of the site. The City’s trail plan calls for the trail to be extended westerly to Arrowhead Drive. Staff would recommend that necessary easements be provided along the north of Meander Road and that the trail be constructed in connection with the development. The applicant proposes sidewalk, boardwalk and trail connections within the commercial development as well. It appears the improvements extend to the eastern property line in two locations which would allow connectivity to future development to the east. The potential route for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail is also in the vicinity of this property. The route shows the corridor going from north of Fields of Medina with a grade-separated crossing of Highway 55. Staff intends to discuss with the Park Commission, but staff believes it may be advisable to consider a trail easement for a possible route along the edge of this site. Staff believes it may be advantageous to require dedication of more easements than may be necessary to provide more flexibility to link the corridor with adjacent sites. The City may not utilize all of the easements, but could vacate in the future. Review Criteria/Staff Comments The purpose of the PUD Concept Plan is to provide purely advisory comments to the applicant for their consideration whether and how to continue with a formal application. The City has a great deal of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is a legislative action. A PUD should only be approved if it achieves the purposes of the PUD district (described on page 3), the Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies. The PUD process allows flexibility to the general zoning standards to result in a more desirable development than would be expected through strict adherence to the requirements, which in this case are the CH and R1 or R2 requirements. The process provides flexibility which is ultimately at the discretion of the City. Such flexibility often cuts in both directions, certain aspects of the development may not meet the general standards while others exceed minimum standards. The flexibility provides the opportunity for collaboration in site design because the City can request adjustments which may be seen as preferred, but would not be required under general standards. It appears that the primary flexibility which the applicant is requested to be addressed through the PUD are: 1) Allowance for three-unit attached single family building on residential property to the north and flexibility for distance from the units to the shared drive. 2) Architectural design of commercial buildings – allowance for more wood (or wood appearing) materials and metal 3) Accommodate the mix of uses and outdoor spaces along the boardwalk and around the gazebo Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 10 of 10 January 11, 2022 PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting The residential portion of the site includes constraints which staff believes may be well addressed through allowing attached units to reduce the footprint of the development. If the density is limited to the minimum of 3 units on 1.5 acres, allowing attached units allows more options for layout and design. In terms of the commercial development, outdoor recreational spaces and dining/drinking spaces are permitted with a CUP in the CH district, but are subject to limitations related to being adjacent to buildings, setbacks, and fencing. The PUD would allow these spaces more flexibility between uses and lots. The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on whether this flexibility, along the flexibility in architectural design, serves the objectives noted above. Staff has provided comments throughout the report to be incorporated into any future formal application. These comments are summarized below: 1) Update layout to provide minimum upland buffers adjacent to the northern wetland. 2) Update layout to provide primary vehicular access route with limited parking interference between Meander and eastern property line. 3) Applicant shall construct turn lanes as recommended by the City Engineer at the access to Meander. 4) Provision shall be made for appropriate contribution toward construction of the Tamarack Drive/Highway 55 intersection improvements. 5) Architectural requirements shall be specified at the time of preliminary plat/site plan application. The residential building shall, at a minimum, meet the architectural requirements of the R3 zoning district. 6) Update layout to provide landscaping breaks within the parking lot area of at least 8%. 7) Except as explicitly noted within the Planned Unit Development, future applicants shall abide by relevant City requirements. Attachments 1. Comp Plan Info 2. Tamarack Drive visioning study information 3. Applicant narrative 4. Concept Plan 5. Conceptual architectural information Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 1 Adopted October 2, 2018 Chapter 2: VISION & COMMUNITY GOALS _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The Vision and Community Goals chapter is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan and provides the foundation from which City officials make consistent and supporting land use decisions. This chapter includes a set of general community goals that guided the creation of this Plan. The concepts in this chapter are some of the few static elements of the Comprehensive Plan. If land uses change or other infrastructure varies from the Plan, decisions will be founded in the goals set forth below. The Vision and Goals were created with the involvement of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the “Steering Committee”), City officials, and residents of Medina and are broadly supported. Land use designations are subject to strong social and economic pressures to change. Accordingly, it is appropriate that such systems be periodically evaluated in light of changing social and economic conditions. As development evolves, the Vision and Goals will provide the guidance for accomplishing the vision for the future of the community even when changes are necessary to the land use plan. Detailed objectives and recommendations are contained within each of the subject chapters of this plan. Creating the Vision and Goals The residents, the Steering Committee, City officials and staff participated in the planning process for the Plan. A series of public participation meetings were conducted to introduce and solicit information from the residents of Medina. The Steering Committee held work sessions that focused on integrating the concerns and desires of the community together with accommodating growth and regional impacts. An online forum provided additional opportunity for residents to impact the Vision and Community Goals as they were formulated. In addition to land use and growth planning, the City implemented open space, natural resources, and infrastructure planning. The goals which guided this process are integrated into this chapter. Each element of this plan was developed with assistance from city officials and a diverse group of community stakeholders producing a truly representative plan. The City made a conscious decision to emphasize natural resources and open space conservation. Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 2 Adopted October 2, 2018 Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. • Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. • Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. • Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. • Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. • Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. • Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. • Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. • Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. • Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. • Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments. • Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 4 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 4 While these ordinance standards help protect solar access, it is not possible for every part of a building or lot to obtain unobstructed solar access. Mature trees, topography, and the location of structures can limit solar access. However, on most properties the rooftop of the principal building would be free of shading by adjacent structures. Therefore, the majority of property owners in the City could utilize solar energy systems, if they so desired, as a supplement or alternative to conventional fuels. HHiissttoorriicc PPrreesseerrvvaattiioonn The City of Medina currently does not have any sites or structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Medina has a strong interest in preserving representative portions of its history. The City previously worked with the West Hennepin Pioneer Museum to restore the Wolsfeld Family cabin which was originally built in 1856. It is thought to be one of the original homes in Medina. The City further commits to providing the following general guidelines related to historical preservation: • Partner with organizations that want to preserve historically significant areas, landmarks, and buildings in Medina; • Modify zoning regulations as necessary to help preserve areas that may be historically significant. FFuuttuurree GGeenneerraall LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliiccyy DDiirreeccttiioonn As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form • Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces. • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks. • Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. • Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods. • Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 5 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 5 • Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. • Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability. • Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns • Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes. • Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth areas. • Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi- modal transportation choices. • Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources • Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas. • Preserve open spaces and natural resources. • Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary. • Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas • Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors. • Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed-use areas. • Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. • Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather. • Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 6 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 6 TThhee GGuuiiddee PPllaann Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-3, maintains Medina’s rural character and protects the City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is consistent with the City’s Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles. Table 5-2 below demonstrates the expected 2040 land uses in the community. TABLE 5-2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Future Land Use (2040) Gross Acreage % Net Acreage % Rural Residential 8,402.2 49.1% 6,015.3 35.1% Agriculture 222.7 1.3% 174.5 1.0% Future Development Area 671.9 3.9% 547.9 3.2% Low Density Residential 1172.5 6.8% 865.7 5.1% Medium Density Residential 58.5 0.3% 46.2 0.3% High Density Residential 29.6 0.2% 25.7 0.2% Mixed Residential 137.1 0.8% 94.1 0.6% Uptown Hamel 45.0 0.3% 41.2 0.2% Commercial 254.2 1.5% 197.6 1.2% Business 704.6 4.1% 471.9 2.8% Rural Commercial 67.5 0.4% 47.6 0.3% Institutional 270.2 1.6% 194.0 1.1% Parks, Recreation, Open Space 2,771.5 16.2% 1,971.2 11.5% Private Recreation 343.1 2.0% 297.5 1.7% Closed Sanitary Landfill 192.2 1.1% 124.7 0.7% Right-of-Way 673.1 3.9% 616.9 3.6% Total Acres 16,015.9 11,732.0 Lakes and Open Water* 1,104.6 6.5% 1,104.6 6.5% Wetlands and Floodplain 4,283.9 25.0% Total City 17,120.5 17,120.5 * Lakes and Open Water amounts include areas adjacent to lakes which are not included in Hennepin County parcel data and exclude un-meandered lakes. The Growth and Development Map (Map 5-4) highlights areas within the City in which a change of land use is contemplated by the Future Land Use plan. The map also highlights wetland areas within Medina which significantly affect land planning, development, and infrastructure decisions. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 7 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 7 Future Land Use Designations Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this Plan. Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are planned for long-term agricultural uses. Density within the land use can be no more than one lot per 40 acres which will not be served by urban services. Property within this land use is eligible to be part of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program. Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity. Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development. Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 5.0 and 7.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single-family residential, twin homes, town homes, row homes, and small multiple family buildings. High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park. Mixed Residential (MR) identifies residential land uses that may be developed with a variety of housing styles at an overall average density between 3.5 and 4.0 units per net acre, within which a minimum of the units equivalent to 1.0 unit per acre are required to be developed at higher densities above 8.0 units per acre. Uses within the MR land use are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The land use provides flexibility for the type of housing to be developed, including detached single family, twin homes, townhomes and multiple family buildings. The MR land use will allow for different types of housing to be developed in coordination with each other or independently, provided the objectives related to overall density and minimum number of higher density housing units can be achieved within a defined area. Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The Uptown Hamel area is served by urban services. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 8 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 8 Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial corridors and are served or will be served by urban services. Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse, and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services. Rural Commercial (RC) identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services, but rather by individual wells and septic systems. The scale of development in this land use shall be limited to protect water resources. Institutional (INST) identifies existing public, semi-public, and non-profit uses such as governmental, cemeteries, religious, educational and utilities. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) identifies publicly owned or permanently conserved land which is used for park, recreational, or open space purposes. Private Recreation (PREC) identifies areas that are currently used for outdoor recreational uses which are held under private ownership but are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of residential uses may be included or have previously been developed within this land use designation, accounting for no more than 10% of the land area. Density within the residential portion of the use shall be between 2.0 and 3.0 units per net acre where urban services are available and one unit per 10 acres where services are not available. The City does not anticipate additional residential development within the land use. Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) identifies an existing closed sanitary landfill. The Woodlake Landfill is owned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as part of Minnesota’s Closed Landfill Program. The MPCA has jurisdiction over land use regulations of the landfill and has made available a description of the types, locations, and potential movement of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases related to the facility in its Closed Landfill Plan. The City hereby incorporates such information and the City will provide such information as required by law. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 13 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 13 UUrrbbaann SSeerrvviiccee DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services. Residential Uses Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the maximum density requirement of the relevant land use. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area. 5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards. 6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies. 7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. 13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 14 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 14 ecologically significant natural resources. 14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations. 15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space. 18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. 19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 16 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 16 Commercial Uses The following objectives refer to commercial land uses which will provide a variety of retail products and services mixed with smaller offices. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City residents. 3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access to a regional highway or frontage road. 5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact on residential areas. 6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 8. Establish standards for the commercial area north of TH 55 at Tamarack Drive which results in a high quality, walkable and appropriately scaled development which complements nearby residential neighborhoods, emphasizes goods and services for local residents over highway users and provides gathering opportunities for the community. 9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access to arterial and collector roadways. 10. Limit the scale of commercial development where urban services are not available to protect water resources and to integrate such uses with surrounding rural lands. 11. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy. 12. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 13. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 14. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-4Development and Growth Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Wetland Locations Wetland Locations W S B F i l e n a m e : D a t e : P r i n t e d : 8 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 0 K : \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 \ C a d \ La y o u t \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 - 0 0 0 _ l o . d g n City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Study REQUIREMENTS PLANS AND SIGHT DISTANCE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT ROAD INTERSECTION WILL BE FINAL LOCATION OF HAMEL Legend ROADWAY SHOULDERS (PAVED) CURB SIDEWALK INPLACE SIGNAL PROPOSED SIGNAL DELINEATED WETLAND EXISTING R/W PROPOSED R/W S TO P ROUNDABOUT OPTION S TO P N 0 SCALE IN FEET 150 300 Figure 1 S TO P EXISTING ADT PROJECTED 2040 ADT XXX (XXX) MINNESOTA 55 M e a n d e r R o a d H a m el R o a d Conceptual Roadway Geometrics and Alignments August 2020 MEANDER ROAD DEVELOPMENT TO FUTURE EXTEND THROUGH ONE ACCESS TO BASED ON DEVELOPMENT ACCESS TO BE DETERMINED EXACT ALIGNMENT AND 4 0 ' 4 0 ' 5 0 ' 4 0 ' 4 5 ' 6 6 ' 9 ' 7 0 ' 4 5 ' 1 1 0 ' 1 2 5 ' 160' 160' 400 (1800) 900 (2200) 1200 (1400) 18,800 (24,800) 0 (1000)0 (3300) 0 (8300) 0 (1750) 18,800 (27,200) 1600 (2100) C: \ U s e r s \ e k e l l y \ D o c u m e n t s \ P R O J E C T _ M e d i n a \ 0 1 5 5 9 9 C o m m e r c i a l C o n c e p t s 0 4 2 9 2 0 Tamarack Drive Study - Commercial Area Concepts Tamarack Drive Study - Medina, Minnesota April 29, 2020 | WSB Project number: 015599-000 Concept A Concept B Scale in Feet 800’0’200’400’North Scale in Feet 800’0’200’400’North WET WE T W E T WE TWE T WET WE T W E T WE T WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET W E T WET WE T W E T WE TWE T WET WE T W E T WE T WET WET WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WE T WET WET W E T FUTURE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Undivided Roadway Section - 66’ R.O.W.Parkway Section - 80’ R.O.W. Tamarack Drive - Undivided Road Tamarack Drive - Parkway Alternate Intersection at Commercial Entrance Alternate Intersection at Commercial Entrance Note: Commercial uses are illustrative only to show context for potential street orientations. LEGEND PROPOSEDTAMARACK DR ALIGNMENT COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPESCREENING STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREA FRONTAGEROAD DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ROUNDABOUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland wetland RETAIL 3.0 ac. +/- COM M E R C I A L 3.0 acr e s + / - HIGH W A Y 5 5 HIGH W A Y 5 5 MEANDER ROAD RETAIL 2.3 ac. +/- RETAIL 1.5 ac. +/- RETAIL 3.0 ac. +/- COMMERCIAL 2.5 ac. +/-COMMERCIAL 5.5 ac. +/- City Park Fields of Medina City Park Fields of Medina COMMERCIAL 5.0 ac.+/- CO M M E R C I A L 1. 8 a c . + / - MEANDER ROAD stormwater management Paved Trail Paved Trail MedianSidewalkSidewalk TA M A R A C K D R TA M A R A C K D R TA M A R A C K D R COM M E R C I A L 3.0 acr e s + / - RETAIL 1.0 ac. RETAIL 1.0 ac. RETAIL 2.0 ac. RETAIL 3.0 ac.+/- RETAIL 4.0 ac.+/- RETAIL 2.5 ac.+/- RETAIL 3.0 ac.+/- COMMERCIAL 8.0 ac.+/- COMMERCIAL 4.0 ac.+/- TA M A R A C K D R stormwater management December 2021 Meander Park & Boardwalk Development 1472 Highway 55 Medina, MN 55340 PUD Concept Plan Submission Medina Ventures, LLC December 8, 2021 Meander Park & Boardwalk – Medina, MN, by Medina Ventures, LLC Project Narrative Meander Park & Boardwalk is a proposed commercial planned unit development located on the north side of Highway 55, 900 feet east of Arrowhead Drive. As the over 18-acre site is surrounded by wetlands to the west and to the south, a wetland delineation was conducted in September of 2021, which revealed approximately 6 acres of developable land on the site. Access to the site is located at Meander Road on the north side of the main property. A development review meeting took place on October 29, 2021 with the City Planner, Dusty Finke, and Public Works Director, Steve Scherer. From discussions with the City Planning department and consultation with the City engineer, the main road access to the development should be placed at least four hundred feet from the nearest intersection, which is located to the east and serves as the main access to the Fields of Medina West neighborhood. There have been multiple iterations of the concept plan reviewed by the Development team, and the current site plan is optimized to achieve the overall intent of the development,: To provide a walkable, aesthetically pleasing entertainment and relaxation destination that incorporates the natural beauty of the land while providing access to desirable amenities that benefit nearby residents of Medina as well as other surrounding communities. The proposed development achieves this intent by focusing on the incorporation of some unique design elements described below. These elements all support the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Community Goals which are noted and described in more detail below. The Boardwalk The most important of these is a long and winding boardwalk that follows the natural curves of the existing wetlands. This expansive boardwalk is meant to serve three main purposes for the development. The first is functional in that it will provide the buildings within the development, the benefit of having, if they so choose, an additional access point with visibility and/or outdoor seating and service areas to potential guests, depending on the type of business. The second purpose of the boardwalk is to immerse all guests, including the public, in the natural beauty of the wetlands and to interact directly with the wildlife that frequent the site. The final purpose of the boardwalk is to provide a unique design aesthetic for the entire development that sets it apart from the majority of other commercial developments in neighboring suburbs, where asphalt tends to dominate majority of the public access points. These three functions directly support multiple parts of the Comprehensive Plan’s community goals, including preserving rural vistas, open spaces, wetlands and encouraging an attractive, vibrant business community that complements residential areas of the City. Furthermore, if given prudent consideration, the boardwalk could be key in helping preserve and expand the trail and park system to connect neighborhoods and encourage healthy lifestyles for its residents via the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. Parks, Plazas and Ponding The next unique component of Meander Park & Boardwalk will be to incorporate parks, plazas and ponding throughout the development. As guests arrive, their eyes will be drawn to ponding and green space surrounding the entrance at Meander Road. These green spaces will feature trees, native grasses, small flower gardens and some designated areas for casual lawn games such as bean bags, shuffleboard and bocce ball. As guests park and begin walking toward the site, Meander Park’s plazas will greet them next. Whether it is the calming sounds from the water fountains or the visual appeal of locally commissioned art sculptures, the plazas create an incredible space between buildings that provides an ambience that will make people forget they just pulled off the Highway. The parks, plazas and ponding component also supports the Comprehensive Plan’s community goals by preserving open spaces. The Venue The anchor of the development will be a multi-story entertainment venue. The venue will be majority- owned, financed and run by the developer which will not only provide a beautiful building on-site, but one that will also attract the type of businesses that a high-end, venue would lend itself to. The venue will be designed to host a wide variety of events such as weddings, celebrations of life, corporate events, smaller music recitals, artistic performances, fine art displays, botanical showcases, local fundraisers, fashion shows, speaking engagements, religious celebrations, and other cultural experiences. The design of the building will have a focus on form and function with the intent of being able to serve a wide range of event types and thus attract a larger network of people, businesses and organizations. We believe the demographics of Medina and the surrounding communities tend to be highly educated, upper-middle class residents with an increasingly diverse population of religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds, which this venue would seek to serve through its ability to accommodate the needs of potential clients, whatever those needs may be. For example, the venue itself will feature a large, commissary kitchen that will be built to accommodate a variety of pre-approved local restaurants and caterers in the area. So, whether it be a classic American meat and potatoes party, a private Diwali celebration or a vegan luncheon, the venue’s business model can provide the necessary flexibility. This model also is attractive given the current state of the food service industry and the desire of many companies within that market to expand or begin to provide off-site catering. Furthermore, the venue will be designed with outdoor space available for professional tenting, allowing guests the option of holding a ceremony, reception or event outdoors. There will also be areas designated for lawn games and commissioned art sculptures to adorn the venue and park plaza areas as time and resources allow. Lastly, the conservatory and gazebo will be additional highlights of the venue explained below. The Venue: Conservatory If meandering down a boardwalk on a fall Friday afternoon with close friends or seeing a child smile while snacking on an ice cream cone in summer isn’t enough, imagine walking through an expansive conservatory on a day with clear blue skies in the heart of a cold Minnesota winter. The conservatory will add another unique element to Meander Park and, just like the other elements, will serve more than one purpose. First of all, the conservatory will serve as an additional feature to the venue providing a space that adds grandeur to a wedding ceremony, visceral intimacy to a celebration of life or perhaps just a little humidity and respite from the bitter cold and dryness of a cold winter’s day. Lastly, the conservatory will operate with the intention of being open to guests of the development as well as for private events and thus provide additional opportunities to utilize the development. This could include, educational opportunities for local school field trips, a non-profit brunch fundraiser or private soirees for any reason whatsoever. The Venue: Gazebo Area The Gazebo Area is located in a small portion of the site near the southwest corner of the property. We expect this area to be accessed via an extension of the boardwalk, and may feature elements like a small bar, fire pit, and/or intimate gathering space for a private ceremony. Given the relatively close proximity to Highway 55 and the potential noise and visual challenges it could bring, this part of the development is being reviewed with additional research required to determine what may work best. Regardless of the final design, this space will provide yet another area of the development for guests to enjoy. The venue, it’s nearby gazebo and conservatory components also effectively support the community goals of the Comprehensive Plan in similar ways as the previous elements, especially in the promotion of public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. Mixture of Additional Businesses Although the developer will not have full control over what businesses decide to call Meander Park & Boardwalk home, we plan to market directly to the following types of businesses: Family restaurants, professional offices, cocktail lounges, breweries, indoor/outdoor food halls, daycares, salons, med spas, bakeries, ice cream shops, toy stores, fast casual food services, boutique fitness facilities, wine/craft brew shops and/or photography studios. At this stage, aside from the venue and its components, we have six additional buildings/spaces on the site plan we would like to have occupied by the businesses mentioned above. Our current priority is attracting both a restaurant and daycare as we feel these two business types are critical to the development’s overall success. The restaurant is a priority given the large and ongoing demand for additional dining options in Medina and the daycare to help fill the large need for families with young children, some who continue to be on waiting lists at several daycare centers throughout the West Metro. Also, these two businesses in particular help offset parking given the former will see the most traffic on nights and weekends and the latter on weekdays alone. North Property Villas The north side of the development, which is located north of Meander Road and just west of the Fields of Medina neighborhood, is zoned Low Density Residential. Although this is in direct contrast to the south side described above which is zoned Highway Commercial, we are still looking to develop the northern portion and believe the approximately 1.5 acres of buildable land would allow for up to three villa style dwellings. By developing the north and south properties at the same time, the timing impact of construction operations could be minimized and could provide a better economy of scale for the entire project. Especially considering the sewer and water connections that will be required on both sides of Meander Road. The access drive to the north side of the development would be to the west to line up directly across from the entrance to the south side of the development. These villas would be constructed to take advantage of the sweeping views of protected wetland located on and just west of the property and could also take into account the buildable upland area and how it tapers from being fairly wide near Meander Road to narrow as it extends north. 5100 Venue 2700 Conservatory 5100 Space 2200 Space 2200 Space 2700 Space 1600 Gazebo 2100 Space 7500 Day Care 235 PARKING SPACES PLAZA BOARDWALK PLAZA PARK Meander Rd HWY 55 SETBACK WETLAND DELINIATION S T O R MW ATE R P O N D 7500 Fenced Play Area 25'15' Ca v a n a u g h D r i v e Architect Pablo Villamil 612.388.6622 PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com \//\ VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE Owner Chris Pederson Medina Ventures LLC MadMrChristopher@gmail.com A0212/07/21 Concept 1" = 100'-0"1 Site Plan 5100 Venue 2700 Conservatory 5100 Space 2200 Space 2200 Space 2700 Space 1600 Gazebo 2100 Space 7500 Day Care HWY 55 2000 Unit 1 2000 Unit 2 2000 Unit 3 Meander Rd x 1 0 0 0 ' x 9 9 8 'x 9 9 6 'x 9 9 4 'x 9 9 2 'x 9 9 0 'x 9 8 8 'x 9 8 6 ' x 1 0 0 0 ' x 9 9 8 ' x 9 9 6 ' x 9 9 4 ' x 9 9 2 ' x 9 9 0 ' S T O R MW A TE R P O N D Ca v a n a u g h D r i v e Architect Pablo Villamil 612.388.6622 PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com \//\ V IL L A M IL A R C H IT E C T U R E Owner Chris Pederson Medina Ventures LLC MadMrChristopher@gmail.com A03 1 2 / 0 7 / 2 1 C o n c ep t 1" = 100'-0"1 Grading and Drainage Plan 5100 Venue 2700 Conservatory 5100 Space 2200 Space 2200 Space 2700 Space 1600 Gazebo 2100 Space 7500 Day Care Meander Rd HWY 55 2000 Unit 1 2000 Unit 2 2000 Unit 3 SEWER WATER Ca v a n a u g h D r i v e Architect Pablo Villamil 612.388.6622 PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com \//\ V IL L A M IL A R C H IT E C T U R E Owner Chris Pederson Medina Ventures LLC MadMrChristopher@gmail.com A04 1 2 / 0 7 / 2 1 C o n c ep t 1" = 100'-0"1 Utility Plan Architect Pablo Villamil 612.388.6622 PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com \//\ VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE Owner Chris Pederson Medina Ventures LLC MadMrChristopher@gmail.com A0112/08/21 Concept 1 Existing Conditions 1"=100' Architect Pablo Villamil 612.388.6622 PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com \//\ VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE Owner Chris Pederson Medina Ventures LLC MadMrChristopher@gmail.com A0509/09/21 Concept Postframe Fun Childcare Boardwalks Articulated Storefronts, Sidewalk Plaza Passage Boardwalk Storefronts Meandering Boardwalk Inside / Outside Venue -Interior/Exterior Beerhouse Plaza Park Plaza Handsome Modern Standalone Modern In-Out Perimeter alkip Tpr orsPopmwm oig • 0"'L • �, J1,aYj�i4,..�,i_� .R+•.a k_ a Xe. is ll..liF ,r.1I Liµ �,h •.1 I ti • tl : '� � i `.�IW X lith-;111141, 1100,1 N;11Y7, �h L ..! fiM ;: lr �YJ I I,L x J y Y '1 1 Ird • �1,Jri-' �J�1a^ �� sw�l�� fir � •, Yr 4�.I 1 iT 1 1 .1� i 1 , rz:11 ���0 ifkrir , ik: N L. • r1 id �' � '3 Ii • '1 Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 1 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 6, 2022 MEETING: January 11, 2022 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Public Hearing – BPS Properties, LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Dr. – Marsh Pointe Preserve – Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Summary of Request BPS Properties, LLC has requested Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan approval for a proposed 30-unit detached villa development located at 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive, east of Arrowhead Drive and south of Bridgewater. The Planning Commission and City Council provided comments on a concept plan for the project in November and December. Excerpts from those discussions are attached for reference. The subject site includes four existing rural lots totaling over 36 acres in size, but a majority of the land is within the large wetland to the south and east, with approximately 16.25 upland acres and 12.16 net acres after subtracting wetland buffers. The east side of the property is a peninsula out into the large wetland area. The aerial at the top of the following page shows the subject site and surrounding land uses as follows: Bridgewater at Lake Medina is to the north Foxberry Farms is located across the wetland to the east Medina Lake Preserve (City passive park) is to the northeast Future Business Land (currently farmed) is to the west Future Low Density Residential located to the south Comprehensive Plan/Zoning The subject site is guided for Low Density Residential (LDR) development and zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The LDR land use allows development with a density between 2-3 units/acre. The purpose of the R1 zoning district is to be the default zoning for development within the LDR land use. The R2 zoning district is also an alternative which the City has the discretion to apply to LDR property to allow smaller lots to cluster homes to preserve natural areas and open spaces. The applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allows an applicant to request flexibility from the standard regulations to support a development which better achieves City objectives. The City has a good deal of discretion whether to approve a PUD as an alternative to standard zoning. MEMORANDUM 30 detached villas 12.16 net acres 2.47 unit/net acre 36+ gross acres Guided LDR (2-3 u/a) Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 2 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting Staff has attached the Vision and Community Goals, the general land use principles and objectives of residential land use from the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria for reviewing a PUD include determining whether the PUD meets these objectives better than a development following the general ordinance standards. The applicant describes how they believe their proposal achieves these purposes and objectives in their narrative. Purpose of a Planned Unit Development According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 2. Higher standards of site and building design. 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 3 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. Proposed Site Layout The applicant proposes 30 detached single-family one-story villas. This density falls within the center of the LDR density allowance, which would be 25-36 units. As described above, the R1 zoning district is the main intended district to implement development in the LDR land use. The R2 zoning district is an alternative at the City’s discretion to smaller lots to cluster homes to protect natural resources and open space. As noted above, a PUD allows “deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards” to serve the purposes described in the PUD ordinance. To analyze whether to approve a rezoning to PUD, the City compares the request to the expectations of the underlying zoning designation. The applicant’s layout deviates from the R1 district, but is largely patterned after the R2 zoning district. The following table compares the concept to the R1 and R2 district requirements. The flexibility being requested from the R2 district as part of the PUD are highlighted in yellow. R1 Requirement R2 Requirement Proposed Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 8,000 s.f. 9,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 60 feet 68 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet 100 feet Front Setback 25’ (30’ to garage) 20’ sideload garage 25’ (30’ to garage) 20’ sideload garage 25’ (25’ to garage) 20’ sideload garage Side setback 25’ combined (10/15) 15’ combined (10/5) 7.5’ Rear setback 30’ 20’ to open space 25’ 15’ to open space 25’ 15’ to open space Setback to Collector (Arrowhead Dr.) 40’ 40’ 40’ Max. Hardcover 40% 50% 55% The main flexibility requested being a reduction of the front setback to the garage from 30’ to 25’. The applicant describes their rationale for a PUD within their narrative, but generally pertains to the fact that the depth of the site to the wetland and the large wetland buffers limits much of the site to a single-loaded street. The applicant also proposes one-story product which will have less of a visual impact, whereas they believe larger lots would likely be developed with Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 4 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting larger two-story single family developer which would essentially occupy the same footprint of the site. The applicant proposes a maximum hardcover within the lots of 55%. It should be noted that the applicant proposes the 50’ average wetland buffer in Outlots outside of the boundaries of the lots. Having the buffers outside of the lots reduces the likelihood of trespass into the buffers and staff supports the lots being platted this way. The result of doing so means that the lot areas are calculated as smaller than if the buffers were platted within the lots. Where the property line is drawn between the lot and the outlot affects the calculated hardcover percentage even if the amount of hardcover doesn’t change. In addition to these lot standards, the applicant proposes for the PUD to address the fact that the cul-de-sac at the end of the peninsula exceeds the maximum length allowed in the subdivision ordinance. This is discussed further in the transportation section on the next page. Architectural Design The applicant has not provided specific architectural plans, but has indicated that they intend to sell the lots to Charles Cudd and has provided photos of units constructed by Charles Cudd that are similar to what would be proposed in this development. The R1 and R2 districts do not provide much in terms of specific architectural requirements except that garage doors which occupy more than half of a façade have to include architectural features. Proposed architectural requirements include: 1) Fiber cement or engineer wood siding (no vinyl) 2) Accents. Minimum 50% of street-facing façade will include accent material/pattern or windows (excluding garage doors). 3) Garage doors to include windows 4) Dormers or roof differentiation on street facing elevations Because the applicant indicates that one of the main rationales for the PUD is to support the one- story villa design, the Planning Commission and City Council may wish to consider a reduced maximum building height limitation in the district, potentially limiting to one story. Staff has requested information to establish a maximum height. Transportation The applicant proposes a new public street accessing Arrowhead Drive near the southern property boundary. Arrowhead Drive will be realigned this year as part of the construction of new Chippewa Road to connect with Weston Woods west of the site. The applicant has proposed the new access for Marsh Pointe (“Street A” on the plans) near the southern property line as recommended by staff. The City Engineer recommends that turn lanes be provided on Arrowhead Drive at the new roadway. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 5 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting Staff recommends that the street layout approaching Arrowhead Drive be adjusted to flatten the series of curves. Staff also recommends that Outlot D, at the southeast corner of Arrowhead Drive and the new street be dedicated as right-of-way. This would provide flexibility to realign the intersection when and a street is continued to the south. The proposed street terminates in a cul-de-sac with a length of over 2,100 feet which serves 30 lots. Because of the large wetland and depth of the property, there is not a feasible alternative to continue this street in any direction. The subdivision ordinance limits cul-de-sac length to 750 feet or 20 homes. The applicant proposes to allow the longer cul-de-sac as part of the PUD flexibility, and notes that there really is not an alternative for the length. Staff believes this is a reasonable approach. Tree Preservation, Buffer Yard and Landscaping There are approximately 600 trees on the subject site. Approximately half of these trees are landscaping trees which have been planted by the property owners over the years. The applicant has provided an analysis which has been reviewed by staff, which is a 20-page document available upon request reviewing historical aerials and the existing trees. Staff has received the information and generally concurs with the analysis. Most of the landscaping trees planted by property owners over time are proposed to be removed for grading (261 out of 308). The applicant has requested that these trees not be counted towards required tree replacement. The Tree Preservation ordinance provides credit for trees planted while under their ownership. The ordinance also provides provisions for waivers “for circumstances where the applicant has exhausted all reasonable design options” to preserve trees. The PUD also provides opportunity for flexibility with regard to tree removal and replacement. 287 of the trees appear to have not been planted on the properties since the homes have been constructed. Of these trees, 87 are proposed to be removed. The tree preservation ordinance would limit removal to 25% of the trees, or 71. Minimum landscaping requirements would be 2 trees per lot plus a bufferyard with an opacity of 0.2 along the northern property line, for a total of approximately 100 trees. The applicant proposes to plant 226 trees. The 126 trees beyond the minimum planting requirements would exceed the required replacement for removal of the additional 16 “natural” trees beyond what is allowed by the tree preservation ordinance. Staff believes the grading in the northeastern corner of the development can be adjusted or stormsewer added to save additional trees east of Lots 1 and 2, Block 5. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval if any reduction of replacement trees is considered. Staff believes it is reasonable to consider landscaping trees which were clearly planted on the properties differently than naturally occurring trees. It seems reasonable to not discourage tree planting by counting it against future redevelopment. The applicant to preserve most of the wooded area on the east end of the property which appears to pre-date the homes being constructed on the site. Staff believes the proposed replacement is reasonable based on the circumstances as part of the PUD. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 6 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting Since the applicant proposes five lots beyond the minimum density allowed in the LDR land use, it may be reasonable to require additional replacement for the trees removed on five of the lots. There was a substantial amount of discussion related to the protecting views from homes in Bridgewater adjacent to the north of the development, including increased landscaping. The applicant was meeting with the owners to see if there may be an agreeable plan, and the owners will likely address the matter at the hearing. Wetlands and Floodplain The large wetland to the south and east of the project is identified as a Preserve wetland in the City’s management classification study. The wetland is adjacent to a DNR mapped area and requires an upland buffer with an average buffer of 50 feet and a minimum buffer of 30 feet. The plans appear to meet the minimum buffer width and the applicant has indicated that the proposed buffer exceed the overall average width of 50 feet. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant submit an exhibit verifying that the average buffer width is achieved. The existing driveway crosses a wetland to serve the eastern two lots. The applicant proposes approximately 11,500 s.f. of wetland impacts to widen this area with the new street. The applicant proposes a narrower road section through this area, and it appears that there is likely not alternatives to access this area. Staff recommends a condition that Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan approval be obtained prior to final plat review. There is a floodplain identified within the large wetland which the Elm Creek Watershed has identified with a base flood elevation of 982.6. It appears that all improvements are more than three feet above this elevation. The proposed fill for the road would fill a small amount of floodplain. The applicant proposes to provide compensatory flood storage volume in excess of the impacts. Sewer/Water The applicant proposes to extend sewer and water from Arrowhead Drive to serve the site. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant address the comments. Stormwater/Grading Review The applicant proposes ponds with stormwater reuse. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments. Staff recommends a conditions that these comments be addressed. Staff recommends that the grading be reviewed in the rear yards of Block 2 adjacent to the trail. It appears that the rear yard drainage may conflict with the trail. Classification: Preserve/DNR Mapped 50’ average buffer 30’ min buffer 11,500 s.f. impacts Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 7 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting Park/Trails/Multi-Modal The City’s subdivision ordinance requires the following to be dedicated for parks, trails and public open space purposes, at the City’s option: Land – 1.6 acres – Up to 10% of the buildable land Cash-in-lieu of land – TBD, but likely between $175,000-$250,000 – $8% of the pre- developed market value; minimum of $3500/residential unit, maximum of $8000/residential unit Combination of the above The City’s Parks and Trails plan have identified important improvements within the subject property: Trail connection from Arrowhead Drive to Medina Lake Preserve Parking/trailhead for Medina Lake Preserve In addition, the City Council approved of a potential route for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail which may go through the site from Arrowhead Drive to the “peninsula” and then potentially include a boardwalk south across the large wetland. The applicant has attempted to address these identified needs within the plan. A trail is proposed along the northern property line from Arrowhead Drive to Medina Lake Preserve. The applicant adjusted the location to behind Block 3 as requested during concept plan review to reduce driveway crossings. The applicant shows substantial amounts of planting adjacent to the trail. Staff recommends a condition that the plantings be located in a way that they will not overgrow the trail. The applicant proposes to construct on-street nose-in parking adjacent to Medina Lake Preserve. The parking is proposed partially within Medina Lake Preserve. The Park Commission was open to the parking extending into the park if tree removal was minimal. Staff believes it is acceptable to extend into the park as shown. It appears that the parking spaces could be installed with the removal of approximately 3 significant trees and a large amount of brush. Staff believes the removal of some of the brush may be a benefit because it may make Medina Lake Preserve more inviting from the parking area. The applicant has also shown a location for the continuation of the Three Rivers trail from Medina Lake Preserve to the south. The applicant shows this trail as gravel for the short-term, prepared for paving by Three Rivers in the future. Staff also recommends that the Park Commission and City Council discuss whether the City should require full construction of the trail from Medina Lake Preserve to the wetland to the south at this time, or only secure the easement for future construction. This trail is intended to be transferred to Three Rivers Park District if and when they construct a boardwalk to the south. However, it is likely the trail would lead to a dead-end for a fairly long time. The trail would be along the wetland and may be desirable even if users need to turn around. An amenity at the end of the trail may also serve as a destination in the interim. The applicant had proposed a small HOA park to serve the residents of the neighborhood during concept plan review. The Park Commission and Council did not express a lot of interest in the park, and the applicant has removed it from the plans. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 8 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting Review Criteria The City has high degree of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is a legislative action. A PUD should only be approved if it achieves the purposes of the PUD district (described on pages 2-3), the Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies. The PUD process allows flexibility to the general zoning standards to result in a more desirable development than would be expected through strict adherence to the requirements, which in this case are the R1 or R2 requirements. The process provides flexibility which is ultimately at the discretion of the City. Such flexibility often cuts in both directions, certain aspects of the development may not meet the general standards while other exceed minimum standards. The flexibility provides the opportunity for collaboration in site design because the City can request adjustments which may be seen as preferred, but would not be required under general standards. When considering the PUD, it is important to compare against the development likely to occur under the standard zoning district. The LDR density would require between 25-36 units on the site. Staff believes it is reasonable to assume larger lots following the R1 standards would occupy a similar footprint. The PUD is not being compared to lower density development or no development at all. Additional requirements can be applied as part of the PUD process, such as limiting the height of the homes to one-story, higher architectural standards, and similar standards compared to the lower level of discretion if a development was proposed under standard R1 zoning. The applicant describes how they believe the proposed concept meets the objectives in their narrative, which is attached for reference. The City has a lower level of discretion when considering requests for preliminary plat. The criteria are described below. However, in this case, the plat is designed contingent upon the PUD zoning and could not be approved without approval of the PUD. Section 820.21 Subd. 10 establishes the following criteria for the review of subdivisions: “In the case of all subdivisions, the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following findings are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (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. Subject to the PUD being approved and the conditions suggested below being satisfied, staff does not believe these findings are met. As such, if the Planning Commission supports the PUD, staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat as well. Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 9 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed PUD meets the purpose of the PUD district, meets the City objectives and results in a more desirable development, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) The application shall be contingent upon approval of Wetland Replacement Plan. Approval shall be obtained prior action on the final plat. 2) The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy. 3) The applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _______ except as may be modified herein. Final plans shall be provided at the time of final plat and shall address the comments of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Elm Creek Watershed, other relevant staff and agencies and the conditions noted herein. Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4) The plat shall provide drainage and utility easements over all stormwater improvements, wetlands, and drainageways and along the perimeter of lots as recommended by the City Engineer. 5) The applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including provision of easements, planting of vegetation and installation of signage. 6) Homes constructed within the PUD shall be consistent with the architectural requirements approved by the City Council, limited to a building height of XX, and shall not exceed one- story (excluding basement). 7) The applicant shall update plat to dedicate Outlot D of the preliminary plat, located at the southeast corner of Arrowhead Drive and “Street A,” as right-of-way. Landscaping may be allowed within this area if approved by City staff, but may be removed at any time if deemed necessary by the City. 8) The applicant shall construct a turn lane on Arrowhead Drive at the proposed intersection if recommended by the City Engineer. 9) The applicant shall update the street alignment as recommended by the City Engineer, including removing sudden curves of “Street A” approaching Arrowhead Drive and providing wider boulevard between the street and trail. 10) The applicant shall grant trail easements as recommended by City staff for the trails shown on the plan. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $X in-lieu of additional land dedication. 11) The applicant shall update plans to adjust the location of plantings so that vegetation will not interfere with the trail when mature. 12) The applicant shall update grading in the rear of Block 2 so that drainage does not impact the trail. 13) The applicant shall submit information to verify that the average 50-foot buffer is provided. 14) The applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site improvements to ensure completion. 15) The Applicants shall execute and record a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney to describe the responsibility of the property owners to maintain the private stormwater improvements. 16) The property shall be subject to the City’s lawn and landscaping irrigation regulations. No lawn or landscape irrigation systems shall be permitted to be connected to the City water Marsh Pointe Preserve Page 10 of 10 January 11, 2022 Preliminary Plat/PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting system. The Applicants shall address comments of the City Engineer and Public Works Director related to the design and installation of the irrigation system. 17) The applicant shall obtain all permits required by Elm Creek Watershed, the Department of Health, the Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council and any other relevant agencies. 18) The applicant shall provide title documentation at the time of final plat application and abide by the recommendations of the City Attorney with regard to title matters and recording instructions. 19) The final plat application shall be filed within 180 days of the date of this resolution or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council. 20) 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, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Potential Action If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed PUD meets the purpose of the PUD district, meets the City objectives and results in a more desirable development and that none of the findings described for subdivision denial are met, the following action could be taken: Motion to recommend approval of the PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions described in the staff report. Attachments 1. Excerpt from Comprehensive Plan 2. Excerpt from November 9, 2021 Planning Commission minutes 3. Excerpt from December 3, 2021 City Council minutes 4. Comments received during Concept Plan Review 5. Engineering Comments 6. Applicant Narrative 7. Rendering showing proposed architectural standards 8. Plat and Plans Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. • Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. • Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. • Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. • Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. • Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. • Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. • Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. • Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. • Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. • Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments. • Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form • Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces. • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks. • Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. • Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods. • Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period. • Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. • Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability. • Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns • Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes. • Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth areas. • Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi- modal transportation choices. • Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources • Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas. • Preserve open spaces and natural resources. • Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary. • Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas • Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors. • Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed-use areas. • Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. • Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather. • Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park. Residential Uses Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the maximum density requirement of the relevant land use. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area. 5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards. 6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies. 7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. 13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations. 15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space. 18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. 19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 11/9/2021 Minutes 1 Public Hearing – BPS Properties LLC – 4250-4294 Arrowhead Drive – Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Development of 30 Single-Family Villa Lots on Approximately 14 Net Acres (PIDs 0211823310007, 021182332-0012, -0003, -0005) Finke presented a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept plan for a development of 30 detached villas on approximately 12.16 net acres. He noted that the entire site is approximately 36 gross acres but contains wetlands and related buffers. He noted that the property is guided for low density residential and the proposed density of 2.47 units per acre falls within that allowed range. He stated that the site is zoned urban reserve, so some sort of rezoning would be necessary at the time of development. He reviewed the adjacent property uses. He displayed the proposed layout, recognizing the amount of street length in order to avoid wetlands and buffer areas. He displayed photos of similar homes constructed by Charles Cudd, whom the applicant would propose to work with. He provided details on the related Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, noting that the applicant would propose a PUD that uses the R-2 district as the underlying district. He reviewed how the proposal would compare to the proposed underlying regulations under R-2. He referenced the long cul-de-sac proposed but recognized that there may not be a better choice because of the site constraints. He provided details on transportation, tree preservation and landscaping, wetlands, sewer/water, and parks/trails. Popp referenced the wetland replacement plan and asked what that would entail and how it would apply to the property. Finke stated that the applicant has not applied for a replacement plan at this time, but the expectation would be that would most likely occur by purchase of wetland credits from a bank. He noted that it would be less efficient to do onsite mitigation for this scale of impacts. Popp asked the number of units that would be allowed under R-1 zoning if the same roadway were proposed. Finke replied that without having additional wetland impacts it would be a challenge to meet the minimum density of the Comprehensive Plan for the property. He noted that some flexibility to the standards would be necessary under any zoning in order to achieve the minimum density of two units per acre. George Stickney, applicant, commented that he and his partners have worked together on several projects and mentioned some of those projects. He stated that they do not do many developments and do not seek them out. He stated that if he is involved in a project, his goal is to create the nicest project possible. He stated that he will not be involved in any project that has a negative impact on adjacent properties. He stated that the average price point for these villas would be $1,300,000. He stated that when entering the development there would be a pond with landscaping and an entry monument. He noted that if he moves that entrance to the south, it would impact the slope for the pond. He stated that they want to have a soft curve in the road to keep vehicle speeds slow. He stated that when traveling into the site, after about eight or nine homes, he would propose a community amenity of a small playground. He noted that would service the empty nesters that would most likely live in the homes for their grandchildren to play, as well as a place for neighbors to stop and play when using the trails. He stated that his goal is to create something that is the highest and best use for not only the subject property but the surrounding neighbors as well. He stated that if this development is approved, it would increase the property values of the existing adjacent properties. He commented that if there are concerns from neighbors, he would work with them to ensure they are addressed. He stated that he recently spoke with an adjacent property owner that desires additional Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 11/9/2021 Minutes 2 screening that he will be happy to add. He stated that every inch of the roadway has been walked and the homes have been thoughtfully placed to ensure that none of the homes impact the views of others. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Dan Paup, 4490 Bluebell Trail, stated that it appeared the grading would direct stormwater onto his property into the pond. He asked for details on how the stormwater would travel based on the grading. He stated that there has not been clarity on the trees that would be removed. He noted that his home has a lot of privacy that could be lost and therefore he would like a clearer vision of what would be removed in order to understand the impact to his privacy. Stickney commented that they tipped the angles of the lots along that block to keep the view corridor to the north toward the wetlands rather than towards the Paup property. He stated that he has trees that will hide the parking area and can place additional trees if necessary. He noted that most of the removals in that area would be Boxelders. He stated that his goal is not to remove anything other than those necessary. D. Paup stated that his concern is with the older and taller trees that provide privacy to his property. Stickney stated that he would be more than happy to meet the resident on the property and discuss what could be done over and above his landscaping to address those concerns. Rick Osberg, representing the applicant, noted that the lots in that area have a swale that drains easterly toward the pond and would discharge to the wetland. Finke read written comments from Brian Lorentz at 4484 Bluebell Trail South which will become a part of the record. Finke stated that he would attempt to respond to Lorentz’s questions. Finke stated that the road would be a public roadway. He stated that screening is shown in the landscaping plan. He stated that generally the main level of the homes is approximately five to ten feet lower than the lower levels of the Bridgewater homes. Osberg commented that the site is generally below the lower level of the Bridgewater homes because of the topography of the site. He noted that there would be a retaining wall on the north side of the road on the high point of the site. Finke stated that a letter from Alyssa Girard (4587 Medina Lake Drive) was received and distributed this afternoon to the Planning Commission. He submitted the letter into the record. Stickney recognized the concern of the resident but noted that he created a one level project in order to maintain views for everyone. He noted that some people that will move to this development will come from the other developments in Medina that are downsizing. He stated that the rooflines are much lower than a two-story project and will not hurt the values of adjacent properties. He stated that he chose natural colors for the playground set in order to blend with the natural landscape and provide a place for kids and grandkids to play. Robert Belzer asked a number of questions in the chat feature. Finke clarified the location of the subject property and its proximity to the Wayzata property. He stated that the storm ponds are proposed to utilize landscaping irrigation reuse and landscaping Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 11/9/2021 Minutes 3 buffers would be required. He stated that the applicant has shown the use of grass swales in the rears of the lots identified. He stated that the applicant would be required to the stormwater management requirements of the City and Watershed. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Piper commented that she can speak to the integrity of Stickney and his developments as well as Charles Cudd. She stated that while she wishes the lots were bigger, she understands why they are not. Popp commented that in reviewing the land and its positioning, he would like to see the wetlands and natural areas highlighted as valued areas. He believed that is also the vision of the developer, so he was pleased to hear that. He commented that there has been important feedback heard from the community, which the City should consider in its next Comprehensive Plan process. He stated that he likes the vision laid out with consideration to the neighbors and existing natural areas. He stated that he was surprised that the target market is empty nesters given the sizes of the units. Galzki shared the comments of the Commission. He stated that he is leery of the dead-end road but understands there are not a lot of alternatives in this location. He stated that he would also like to see bigger lots but understands the reasoning. He noted that some of the homes on the north side of the roadway could perhaps instead provide greenspace. He appreciated the comments from the neighbors. He stated that he had concern with the entrance onto Arrowhead Drive as they look to improve that intersection area but again recognized there are limited options. Sedabres appreciated the comments of the neighbors and the willingness of the developer to work with the neighbors. He commented that this will be a welcome addition to Medina. Rhem commented that it is clear how much thought the developer has put into the project and appreciates his willingness to address concerns of neighbors. Nielsen stated that she also likes the design. She noted that it is a bit denser than the development to the north but is okay with that as it transitions towards Highway 55. She commented that this sounds like it would be a nice development. Finke noted that staff intends to present this to the Park Commission on November 17th and to the City Council on December 7th. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 1 BPS Properties, LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – Marsh Pointe Preserve - PUD Concept Plan (7:46 p.m.) Johnson stated that this proposal is for a 30 unit detached villa development. He stated that most of the subject property is within the wetland area and there are 12.6 net acres once the wetland and boundaries are removed. Finke reviewed the adjacent development and land uses. He stated that the trail location has been updated to run behind block 2 in response to a comment from the Park Commission. He stated that the applicant intends to sell the developed lots to Charles Cudd to construct the homes throughout the development and provided photographs of similar types of homes. He stated that the property is guided for low density residential which has two to three units per acre and noted that the proposed development falls within that range. He reviewed the related lot size and setback requirements for R-1. He noted that the R-2 designation allows for smaller lots and reduced setbacks. He stated that R-2 can be used to cluster development and protect natural resources. He stated that the applicant proposes a PUD largely fashioned after the R-2 zoning regulations. He stated that the applicant proposes a PUD or R-2 zoning because the depth of the wetland only provides for a single loaded roadway in many places throughout the development. He noted that the applicant has stated that the PUD would result in single level development which would likely be preferable to the two-story homes that would likely result under R-1 zoning. He stated that the proposed development would exceed the maximum length and number of homes for a cul-de-sac but noted that there are not many other options as there is not another way to loop or connect the street. He stated that the PUD would allow a method to address that challenge. He provided additional details related to transportation. Martin suggested that the Council provide input on lot size and site layout. Cavanaugh asked if the proposed trail would go behind block two, lots one, two and three. Finke replied that the first page of the report shows the updated trail alignment. He stated that the Park Commission preferred that alignment in order to avoid additional driveway crossings. Martin asked how the trail would reach the preserve. Finke identified the path of the trail on the sketch. Martin asked where the parking would be for access to the park area. Finke identified the proposed parking. He stated that staff visited the site today and a few significant trees would need to be removed. He stated that there is a potential benefit of opening the preserve to the public through the parking. Cavanaugh commented that he does not see the tot lot or parking that were previously shown near lot 3, block 2. Finke replied that the tot lot would be located west of lot one. He stated that there is street parking in that area and dedicated spots would not be identified on this concept. Cavanaugh asked if the first concept plan included those additional parking spots. Finke replied that those parking spots were intended for the trail head and have been shifted to Medina Lake Preserve, rather than on the private property. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 2 Cavanaugh commented that he believes it would make sense to have additional parking, if possible. He asked if there would be an option to push the northern trail on the north side of lot 1, block 1 to avoid the intersection and driveway. He noted that would provide more of a trail experience compared to a sidewalk. Finke replied that if the lot exists, it would be difficult to squeeze the trail corridor through that location because of the existing stormwater location. He stated that a turnaround could be incorporated with the driveway to minimize the conflict with the trail. Cavanaugh asked if the ponding could be pushed into the pie shaped land area and whether lot 1, block 1 could be shifted to accommodate for the trail. Finke replied that there is a pond proposed in that area. He noted that the watermain also runs under the existing roadway. Albers referenced the curve in the road which takes the development near Bridgewater. He asked the distance from the road to Bridgewater. Finke replied that the trail would be a few feet from the bottom of the retaining wall and then there would be a boulevard between the trail and roadway. He estimated seven feet between the wall and roadway, confirmed that the retaining wall would be new. Albers asked what exists in that area currently to provide buffer between the properties. Finke stated that some of the tree line on the aerial photo on the Bridgewater side may have been impacted when those homes were constructed. He was unsure the number of significant trees along that property lines. He commented that most of the existing vegetation most likely lies south of the property line and would be impacted by the wall. Martin stated that she was also concerned with the proximity of the road to the existing homes in Bridgewater. She asked the visual impact for the proposed roadway to the existing Bridgewater homes. Finke replied that the grade in Bridgewater is higher and therefore the roadway would be below grade from the homes. Reid commented that this is a very creative use of a difficult property. Her only comment was related to the proximity of the roadway to the Bridgewater homes. She believed that single story homes were an advantage for this development. DesLauriers shared the opinion with the proximity of the road to the four Bridgewater homes. He asked the height of the retaining wall and whether it would be a safety hazard. Finke commented that the wall is near ten feet at its highest point and therefore would need a fence. Stremel agreed that the highest point of the wall is ten feet tall and therefore a safety fence would be required on the wall. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 3 DesLauriers commented that there would then be a ten-foot landscaping wall and four-foot fence on the wall which would impact the views of the adjacent Bridgewater homes. Finke commented that the homes to the north would see the fence but would not see the wall. DesLauriers stated that he struggles with the side setbacks and asked if the applicant proposes 7.5 feet between the homes. Finke replied that is the correct setback as proposed, which aligns with the R-2 requirement. He clarified that the side setback would be 7.5 between the home and lot for a total of 15 feet between structures. Martin commented that it seems close to have a side setback of 7.5 feet. She asked the side setback of the homes near the golf course. Finke believed that the distance between those structures is 14 feet. Cavanaugh commented that this proposal would then have 15 feet whereas the homes near the golf course have one less foot between structures. Martin summarized the comments of the Council noting the concern with the roadway proximity to the Bridgewater homes and the impact of the retaining wall and safety fence on adjacent properties. She stated that she would like to better understand the visual from the backyard of the Bridgewater properties. She also summarized the comments related to the trail alignment and the desire for parking spaces that is less impactful to trees. She welcomed comments related to architecture. Cavanaugh commented that he is excited to see Charles Cudd would be the builder and he believed they would do an excellent job. Reid agreed that she also has confidence in Charles Cudd and believed this would be a lovely development. Martin echoed the comments about having a high regard for the Charles Cudd products. She noted that Charles Cudd is not linked to this development yet and therefore she would like to see architectural requirements infused into the development agreement. She commented that the elevations presented suggest a number of trees behind the homes, which there are not. She encouraged more developed landscaping such as more, or larger trees. She stated that she would also like to see something distinct and different from what Charles Cudd has done in other Medina developments. She asked if the Fire Marshal has commented on the cul-de-sac length. Finke noted that there were not comments to that regard as it is unavoidable on this property. He noted that comments were received related to hydrant locations. He provided details related to tree preservation and noted that most of the trees on the site were planted as landscaping by the four homes on the site. He stated that the applicant proposes that the planted trees be discounted from the tree preservation requirements. He noted that the intent would be to landscape and plant as many trees as possible on the site and for the remainder to be considered waived through a contribution to the City’s related fund. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 4 DesLauriers commented that he has never heard a distinction between natural trees or trees planted. Finke stated that the tree preservation provides flexibility for trees planted by the property owner. He provided an example when that clause was used in the past. DesLauriers commented that it seems like a lot to remove those trees. He commented that it would be great to keep some of those trees if possible. Reid commented that she would prefer to have as few trees removed as possible. She stated that she would also encourage more trees to be planted in the backs of the homes as there are not many natural trees in those areas currently. Albers commented that he struggles with the definition of a tree and discounting trees that were planted in the 1980s. He commented that although the tree was planted, it would also provide screening if it were adjacent to the existing Bridgewater homes. He asked if 261 trees would be proposed for the waiver. Finke confirmed that number is correct. He stated that inch per inch replacement would be required, therefore that would be significant. Martin asked if there is an existing condition report on the trees within the plans. She commented on the trees proposed for removal within the plans and asked if there is a way the road could be moved to save some of the trees along the boundary and reduce the impact to the neighboring properties. She commented that this plan seems tight and overreaching. She noted that there was a horrible loss of trees with the lots on the north side of the golf villa development and believed something could be done to reduce the impact to trees. Albers commented that the waiver request would be a significant concession. He stated that perhaps the Council should review that ordinance in the future to further discuss natural trees versus planted trees. Martin commented that when the trees marked in red and black are removed, the result is another development with very little trees. She referenced the minimum landscaping requirements and asked for clarification on the buffer line. Finke provided additional details noting that the buffer line is more of a landscaping feel rather than screening. Martin asked if the retaining wall would impact the root system of trees on the other side of the property line. She asked if the Bridgewater side would experience a loss of trees because of the retaining wall. Finke replied that generally the City would expect that any disturbance within the drip line of trees would have impact to the trees and therefore would be counted as lost trees even if they are not physically removed. Martin stated that she would like to find out more details. She stated that if activity on adjacent property killed a tree on her property, she would be upset. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 5 Finke commented that this site is important within the City’s parks and trails planning document, therefore a number of improvements are identified within the site including the trail connecting Arrowhead to the preserve along with the Diamond Lake Regional Trail (DLRT) route. He noted that ultimately a boardwalk connection would be proposed across the large wetland to the south. He noted that the parks plan also identifies parking for the trail head on the east side. He stated that the applicant also proposes a privately maintained park for small children on the north side of the roadway. He stated that the original trail followed the road for the entirety of the site, but the Park Commission desired to have less conflict between the trail and driveways, therefore the trail has been relocated. DesLauriers commented that he agrees with the importance of connection between the different areas. Albers referenced the concept of parking for the trailhead connection and noted that he would not want to see trees removed to do so. He asked how large the parking area would need to be. Scherer believed that six stalls were desired. He believed that removing the brush and tree in that area would open up the park for people to see and would also make the area more inviting. He commented that he is not worried with tree removal for the parking because of the heavily wooded five acres. Finke commented that the park at Fields of Medina has 16 to 20 spaces and therefore staff believed six spaces would be adequate for public use. Reid commented that there are other ways to access the preserve. Cavanaugh stated that he would prefer to have the trail constructed now rather than waiting. He stated that other cities have had trails dead-end at wetlands and installed a mini boardwalk into the wetland. He commented that it would be nice to see a feature of that nature but recognized that perhaps the boardwalk element is not the responsibility of the developer. Finke stated that a PUD has a high level of discretion and should serve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Martin asked how many lots the property would yield under R-1 standards. Finke commented that 25 units would be required to meet the minimum density requirements. He noted that 30 lots are proposed in this development. Martin commented that she would like to hear from the developer as to what the City would receive in return for the flexibility requested under a PUD. Tara Toolan, 4478 Bluebell Trail S, stated that the developer was kind enough to visit her home the previous week to discuss his plans. She stated that the developer indicated that the public trail had been moved, which was concerning to her as it would now run along her property line. She asked if the trail location is set in stone and whether it would run adjacent to the Bridgewater properties. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 6 Martin commented that these plans are not set in stone and explained that this is the first presentation from the developer to the City. She stated that the Parks Commission believed it would be safer to realign the trail to run behind the properties to avoid conflict with driveways. Toolan stated that this proposal would include a retaining wall, fence, trail, and the street behind the existing homes. She stated that she would not prefer to walk behind homes in people’s backyards. She asked if the trail could be put towards the south where the marsh view would be available to those on the trail. She acknowledged that would impact the proposed homes but had a hard time imagining how a trail would fit between backyards of properties. She stated that she has three young children and a dog and would be concerned with their safety if a public trail ran along her backyard. She stated that the developer was kind enough to mention that he would be willing to work with them related to trees. She stated that her view has been of the marsh, and it would be changed to 30 homes and a public trail. She stated that they chose this property for the views and to not be in a dense area. She commented that there is so much beautiful land and was unsure why an area with four homes would need to become 30 homes. She commented that these would be expensive homes and was unsure why they would be condensed into a tiny area adjacent to train tracks and then adding a public trail through the properties. She commented that there is an open space meant for a park and noted that through her discussion with the developer it was stated that the park would be for the residents of the development and for the enjoyment of those using the public trail. She asked if that would then become a public park, noting that she would have a concern with safety and privacy. She asked who would help her maintain privacy and safety from the trail and public park. Martin commented that there could be a long discussion on the zoning ordinance, density and development. She noted that this property could be developed fairly easily for multi-family residential the way it is currently zoned. She stated that the Council would need to determine if this property should be developed under a PUD in return for favorable attributes for the residents of the City. She commented that the City has to designate a certain percentage of land for development, and higher density development. She stated that in this review the Council is mindful of the existing neighbors, noting the concern the Council expressed with the impact the road would have on adjacent properties. She commented that it was generous of the developer to say those using the trail could use the park, but it is being developed as an amenity for the residents in the development. Scherer stated that City funds would not be used for a park and the developer has stated that the park he would create would be available for use by those on the trail. Anderson noted that the park would not be deeded to the City and would remain on private property, most likely owned by the HOA for the development. He stated that the HOA would have the right to preclude others from using the park, if desired. Toolan stated that if the park is intended to be maintained by the HOA and only for those residents, would there be a responsibility to gate in the park. She noted that if the park is along a public trail, it would be difficult to negotiate a child away from the play structures. Anderson commented practically speaking it would be difficult and unlikely for an HOA to enforce private use of the park along a public trail. He commented that it would not be a City park and the City would have little control over the park should there be issues. Martin commented that perhaps the developer should consider segregating the tot lot away from the trail and moving it to another location. She stated that perhaps that is considered as part of Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 7 the discussion as to whether the road should be relocated to minimize impacts to the Bridgewater properties. George Stickney, developer, thanked the Council for its feedback. He stated that he completed a market analysis for the first of the four homes on the site. He commented that there were no trees on the site when that property owner moved to the property in 1994. He stated that the proposed road would go directly through the areas where the homes are currently constructed. He commented that as a developer he will not become involved unless he believes that he could make it the best possible for the property. He stated that the villa homes would be a perfect fit for the property. He noted that each lot would be 68 to 70 feet wide. He noted that there are other homes in the area that have 60-foot lots. He commented that he has created some of the nicest properties. Martin asked the developer to address some of the questions the Council had with the proposal. Rick Osberg, developer, commented that the trail parking was originally proposed in a different location but was moved under the guidance and comments received. He also provided details on the comments from the Park Commission related to avoiding conflicts between the trail and driveways. He stated that he has been to the site on two occasions in the past week to walk the property line and review the tree locations. He commented that in his opinion the row of trees along the property line are undesirable and unhealthy. He stated that they would prefer to speak with the residents that would be along the property line to better sculpt that area. He stated that the roadway needs to be lowered in elevation by five feet because of the grading efforts they would undergo to avoid wetland impacts. He stated that there is almost no impact to the wetlands throughout the development. He stated that the residents to the north would not see the wall and would only see the decorative safety fencing atop the wall. He stated that they have taken a great effort towards finding other alignments, but it was challenging to find a more opportune alignment. Martin asked the intent of outlot E. Osberg commented that outlot E would encompass the wetland, buffer areas, and delineation. Martin asked if there has been consideration to dropping the back two lots. Osberg commented that had been considered but that is not the portion of the side with grading challenges. Martin asked if the road could come south from Arrowhead and be in the front of the first three or four homes, then winding north to create a divided area. Osberg commented that could be explored. He commented that having the roadway on that side would provide challenges to the wetland and would still have the same elevation. He commented that much of the grade comes through the walkout elevation of the homes. He commented that the tree inventory report does not address the health and condition of the trees. He stated that while there are a number of significant trees identified, the species and health lower the condition of what is seen. He stated that there are some nice trees that would not be able to be saved, but most of the trees are not even species that could be replanted such as ash and boxelder. Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/7/2021 Minutes 8 Stickney commented that originally, he designed the property with a roundabout to have 38 lots, but he reduced that number. He commented that the homes are angled to have views of the wetlands to the north and east rather than at the other homes. He stated that when he met with the resident that spoke earlier, he discussed removing the three boxelders on their property and planting a better species of tree. He noted that he has met with many other Bridgewater residents to discuss what he could do. He noted that some of the property owners would allow him to plant additional trees on their properties as well to add more screening. He stated that he would work towards improving the quality of trees. He stated that he could remove the park if that is the desire but noted that his park was meant to be an amenity and not an eyesore. He stated that he would not want to pursue a development that neighbors felt were negative and that is why he interacts with all of the neighboring property owners to ensure the project is desirable for all parties. He commented that he would plant additional trees to provide privacy between the backyards and trail. He commented on the change in grade between the Bridgewater properties and the trail, noting that many of the Bridgewater properties would not see the trail. He stated that after the Park Commission meeting, everyone seemed happy with the changed trail alignment. Brian Lorenz, 4484 Bluebell Trail South, commented that he is concerned that this project would have an impact on the privacy for their development. He acknowledged that this development would be nice, but it would change the rural character to a more suburban character. He stated that they currently enjoy the view of the marsh which would become a view of homes. Martin asked if the resident would be amenable to work with the developer to landscape Lorenzes’ side of the property line to enhance their privacy. Lorenz stated that if the development is going to happen, that would be a great idea. He stated that there is space to do that work in his yard. Martin noted that at some point land is developable. She explained that this type of requirement provides an opportunity to reap public benefit and benefit adjacent properties. She acknowledged that it can be difficult to be a homeowner in the first development when other developments will follow on adjacent property. She stated that this developer is willing to work with adjacent property owners to enhance their privacy, while others may not be willing to do so. Anderson noted that offsite improvements proposed should be included in the PUD/development agreement and they would want to ensure that access to the Bridgewater properties to complete those improvements should also be verified. Martin suggested that the developer and adjacent neighbors work together to create a plan that would minimize impacts on those adjacent properties. Martin briefly recessed the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Martin reconvened the meeting at 9:36 p.m. 1 Dusty Finke From:Alyssa.Girard <Alyssa.Girard@target.com> Sent:Monday, November 1, 2021 11:05 AM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Marsh Point Preserve Hi Dusty, I received notice this weekend about a development being built off Arrowhead Drive that comes within 1000 feet of my property. I live in Foxberry Farms, off Medina Lake Dr (4587 Medina Lake Dr). We JUST purchased this home for over $1M and have done some extensive remodeling. Although we could have purchased a new home in one of the 100+ developments being taken over in this area, we CHOSE Foxberry Farms because it offers large lots with beautiful views! Right now, my view is over Medina Lake Preserve – I don’t see a home in the distance and NOW, if I understand this letter correctly, I’m going to have homes out my backyard – which I specifically chose Medina to avoid!! I am very upset with this city – to continue allowing it to be developed….people choose this city to have privacy and to not stare at our neighbors (we’d build or live in Plymouth if we wanted that experience). I’m writing to you with my concern and my disappointment. I know I probably can’t stop this ridiculous development from happening, but what I do want from you is 2 things: 1. To understand where these house are going to be and how much they will impede on my view…I want to see what my future will look like out my back window. 2. Please enforce Charles Cudd to keep ALL the existing trees to give the new residents privacy, but to more importantly, give us as Foxberry Farms residents the views and tranquility we came to this neighborhood for – this area is a hidden gem – please help keep it that way! We also have to maintain this preserve; the beauty of it and the wildlife that call it home. This city has the power to enforce strict requirements and to ensure those residents who have come to Medina, and have invested large amounts of money into a home, stay for years to come! Medina has a name; a name of beauty – people know this area is different than it’s surrounding cities – PLEASE keep it that way! Looking forward to hearing from you, Alyssa Alyssa Girard | Director, Communications | Store Operations | Target | TPN - 14600 | 1000 Nicollet Mall | Minneapolis, MN 55403 | 612.940.5557 (c) 1 Dusty Finke From:Brian Lorentz <Brian.R.Lorentz@outlook.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 7:21 PM To:Dusty Finke Subject:Questions for Planning Commission Meeting Hello Dusty, I have some comments and questions for the meeting. They are pertaining to the proposed development: BPS Properties LLC– 4250‐4292 Arrowhead Dr. Is it acceptable for me to email you the question and listen for the answers? My wife and I are listening in. But, I have to be driving during part of the meeting, so it may be difficult for me to talk. If we have to ask them ourselves, we can make that work. Thank you. Here are my items: Comment: My comment is that the neighborhood consists of fairly large houses on lots smaller than those in Bridgewater. My concern is that this will tend to have a negative impact to the Bridgewater neighborhood. I would prefer to see larger lots in the development. Questions: Would the street through the neighborhood be a public City Street? Would there be any type of screening between the new development and Bridgewater? Can you please describe the final elevations for this project? That is, will there be raising or lowering of the existing elevations? Please describe. Thank you. Brian Lorentz 4484 Bluebell Tr S Medina, MN 55340 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M January 4, 2022 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-21-301 WSB Project No. 018785-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and PUD submittal dated December 13, 2021. The applicant proposes to construct 38 detached villas home sites over approximately 39 located east of Arrowhead Drive at the future Chippewa Road intersection. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Preliminary Plat (Sheet 2.0) & General Comments 1. The City Planner will provide comments pertaining to the proposed landscaping, reginal trail location/easements, and tree preservation plan under separate cover. 2. The street has not been named; the City Planner will provide comments concerning the street naming. 3. Provide specific drainage and utility easements outside of the roadway areas instead of noting them as outlots. 4. Include the corner of the roadway/access area just east of Arrowhead Drive as public ROW to allow for flexibility in future extensions to the south. 5. It appears that improvements to Arrowhead Drive are no longer proposed with the Marsh Pointe subdivision improvements. Final design and plans between the adjacent Weston Woods development and Marsh Pointe will need to correlate with each other and include, but be limited to, pertinent match points/notes, utility locations, and trail/pedestrian access locations. If the Marsh Pointe project is constructed prior to the Weston Woods project/Arrowhead Drive, consideration of a temporary access design will need to be considered for the development. 6. In order to calculate a letter of credit and construction engineering escrow amounts for the final development agreement, an engineer’s estimate (in Excel format) of the proposed street and utility improvements and a schedule for completion of construction will be required. The estimate should also include the cost of landscaping items. This can be provided at the time of final plat submittal. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 2 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx Existing Site & Demolition Plan (Sheets 1.1 – 1.2) 7. With final plat submittal, provide a removals/demolition plan to show what trees are proposed to be removed, buildings to be demolished, impacts to Arrowhead Drive, etc. 8. The existing site and demolition plans will also need to include existing utility locations, pipe sizes, pipe material types, etc. Show more of the water/sewer main along Arrowhead Drive and Hackamore Road further north and south beyond the proposed access point. 9. By the time the Marsh Pointe development construction will occur, the Chippewa Rd / Arrowhead Dr project will be well underway and even substantially complete. On the existing conditions sheet add more detail as to where Chippewa/Arrowhead may actually be located as what will likely be the existing condition. 10. There appears to be trees proposed for removal beyond the property to the north into the Bridgewater development/lots. Access to adjacent properties and the removal of trees on adjacent properties shall have the written consent of these property owners. Site Plan (Sheet 2.1) 11. With final plat submittal, provide a sheet with hatching for differing pavement types (streets, concrete walk, bituminous trails, ped ramps, etc.). Provide signing and striping sheet(s). Confirm whether or not there will be a monument sign. In-progress with plan updates; include hatching for the parking area. Pedestrian curb ramps will be needed at Arrowhead Drive and where trail crosses the new street further east in the development. 12. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures, cul-de-sacs, as required by the City Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will review and provide comments under separate cover. 13. A short curve was added to the west end of the roadway alignment in front of Lot 1. The curve will need to be lengthened or eliminated to avoid the short radius. 14. A portion of the street across the wetland is proposed to be narrowed from 28’ to 24’ in width. City staff are amenable to this narrower roadway width; provide signage for no parking on both sides of the street in this area. 15. The proposed 10’ wide trail is shown to have only a 3’ boulevard for the first 700 feet from Arrowhead Drive east into the development. The boulevard width must be a minimum of 5’ where practicable. For the portion in front of the retaining wall(s) consider other options to either widen or eliminate the boulevard where the trail parallels the retaining wall (moving street to the south, widen trail paving either/or up to the wall and/or up to the street adjacent to curb, etc.). There also appears to be a 2’ boulevard between the wall and the trail; this portion should be paved to avoid unnecessary maintenance of vegetation. 16. There is a dead end proposed for the trail to the southeast. Provide a turn-around in that location. 17. Note boulevards widths in periodic locations for both trail and sidewalk. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 3 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 18. Set the proposed parking adjacent to the back of curb and surround with curb. Extend the bituminous trail to the north side of the parking areas (adjacent to back of curb) and transition the concrete walk to connect/end on the east side of the parking area. One of the parking spaces shall be handicapped accessible meeting ADA requirements; correctly show the space dimensions, access isle, and appropriate signage. 19. A final review of trail connections, ped ramps, and general ADA criteria will be made with the final plat submittal. Erosion Control & SWPPP Plans (Sheets 3.0 – 3.3) 20. An NPDES permit will need to be obtained for this project and a SWPPP must be developed in accordance with the MN Construction Stormwater Permit. Proof of NPDES permit coverage is required before initiating land disturbing activities. 21. A detailed review of erosion/sediment control will be conducted with the final plat submittal. a. Redundant perimeter control is required along wetlands. Provide additional silt fence along these areas. 22. Include a note in the SWPPP and/or notes section that a dewatering plan must be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer prior to initiating any dewatering activities. 23. On Sheet 3.0 it is clear what is proposed for permanent stabilization of wetland buffer areas and ponds. It is not clear what is proposed for temporary and permanent stabilization of all other areas that will be disturbed. Include temporary and permanent stabilization measures for all exposed soils areas. 24. Clarify in the SWPPP if any stormwater mitigation measures are required as part of environmental, endangered species, archeological or other local, state, etc. reviews conducted for the project. 25. Clarify in the SWPPP if any site assessments for groundwater and soil contamination were required and any mitigation measures resulting from these reviews. 26. Clarify in the SWPPP that stockpiles must be located outside of natural buffers or surface waters, including stormwater conveyances, unless there is a bypass in place. 27. Clarify in the SWPPP that required inspections and maintenance will be performed in accordance with NPDES permit requirements. 28. Describe best management practices for pollution prevention measures, including storage/handling/disposal of materials and wastes, vehicle fueling/maintenance, management of concrete and other washout wastes, and portable toilets. 29. Include a description in the SWPPP of procedures to amend the SWPPP to be consistent with NPDES permit requirements. 30. Provide tabulated estimated quantities for all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs anticipated for the life of the project. 31. Elm Creek was identified as a receiving water for the project. If the creek cannot fit on the plan sheets, use an arrow to note the direction and distance from the project. 32. In areas where native seeding is proposed, consider using type 3 mulch which is certified weed-free (type 1 mulch is not certified weed-free). City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 4 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx Preliminary Street, Grading & Drainage Plans (Sheets 4.0 – 4.3) Street: 33. City design standards typically require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design speed for local streets, at minimum. With the standard, the minimum low speed urban horizontal curve radius is 300’ and the minimum vertical curve length is 90’; None of the horizontal curves will meet this criteria. Confirm what design criteria is being used and provide sight distance review of the sharpest curve to the east as well. 34. With final plat submittal provide the following: a. Include profile drawings for the street within the development that include percent grade, and standard geometric/design information. Add horizontal curve information to either the Site Plan or Street Plan Sheets. b. Applicable City standard detail plates, see specific notes in section below. Complete, see review in section below. Storm Sewer & Grading: 35. Storm sewer pipes should be in drainage and utility easements, please verify that pipes are all within easements. In-progress, a final review of easement locations will be provided with final plat review. 36. Label more of the proposed contours and the location of all EOF’s. Locations of EOF’s or other concentrated discharge point over vegetated areas will require a permanent energy dissipation/stabilization method such as rip-rap or permanent turf reinforcement matting. 37. The road subgrade will require a draintile piping system placed a minimum of 100’ in each direction from the low point catch basin and extended to within 100’ of the high point in the street grade profile, whichever is greater. The draintile pipe size shall be a minimum of 4” and comprised of PVC Schedule 40 or SDR 26. In-progress, add a cleanout to each end and at locations every 150 feet along the length. 38. With final plat submittal provide the following c. In general maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2% and maximum 33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall also be a minimum of 2.0%. d. Drainage arrows on plans showing direction of runoff. Note specifically high points between each side-yard swale. e. Include percent slope In all other swale locations and verify that it meets the City requirement of 2%. f. The City will require a common draintile collection system (rigid PVC Schedule 40 or SDR 26) for sump pump discharges. A separate foundation pipe system in addition to the sump discharge system should be considered where full basements are proposed. The size of the common collection system should be 6” and comprised of PVC schedule 40 or SDR 26. g. Add rip-rap quantities and class notes at each flared end section and pond overflows (if applicable). h. Note the size of proposed storm sewer structures on street/plan profile drawings. 39. Consider ways to move the wall further away from the property line to allow for the placement of the fence and additional screening landscaping and avoid the removal of trees on the adjacent property. Concentrated/swale drainage should not be directed over the trail (near the easterly retaining wall), catch basins upstream of the trail should be installed to capture this runoff. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 5 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 40. Grading/contours through the future trail alignment within Outlot A to the north should be designed to accommodate a future extension. The proposed grading crossing the future trail near the future parking area is too steep. Preliminary Utility Plans (Sheets 5.0 – 5.2) 41. Hydrant locations shall be reviewed and approved of by the City Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ overlapping influence radius (maximum 400’ spacing) is required along roadway (hose length). The hydrants should be located within the boulevard between the trail and back of curb, see comment about needing a 5’ minimum boulevard. 42. With final construction plans, provide confirmation of MDH (watermain) and MPCA (sanitary sewer) plan review and permitting. The City engineer will need to review and sign the sanitary sewer permit. 43. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. In-progress, a final review of easement locations will be provided with final plat review. 44. Coordinate with the Weston Woods project on the installation of the water/sewer connections into Arrowhead Drive. The City will not allow the new roadway pavement to be disturbed for the installation of these utility connections if the Weston Woods project/Arrowhead Drive is constructed first. 45. The City may require utility stubs to the new park access area to the northeast. The City will provide a more detailed response to this with final plat review. 46. The plans propose a long dead end watermain segment, provide an analysis for fire flow/capacity. 47. The existing sanitary manhole will need a new infi-shield installed, note as such on the plan. Add an note for all sewer manholes to add a “flex seal” or approved equal as a sealant to the interior chimney section. 48. Add general notes to the utility plans to the effect of: a. The City of Medina shall not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that are associated with variations in the utility as-built elevations. All utility connections shall be verified in the field. b. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The Owner and Engineer of Record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. c. All watermain and sanitary sewer testing shall be done in accordance with the City of Medina standards and specifications. Copies of all test results shall be submitted to the City (Public Works Director, City Engineer), the Owner, and the Engineer of Record. d. Watermain shall have a minimum cover of 7.5’. e. The City will require televising for sanitary sewer pipe installations prior to accepting a warrant for the utility system provide report and video files to the City for review. 49. With final plat submittal provide the following: i. Plan/profile sheets for watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 6 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx a. Provide dimension notes from watermain to parallel sewer mains (storm and sanitary sewer); the minimum horizontal separation between mains is 10 feet. Where watermain crosses storm or sanitary sewer, add a note at each location to the effect of “Maintain 18” Minimum Separation, 4” Rigid Insulation” on both the plan view and profile view locations (both utility and storm sewer sheets). b. Show water/sewer service location to each lot and include the curb stop location at utility easement location (10’ beyond ROW). For each lot location add the low floor opening elevation, sewer service station from downstream manhole, sewer service invert elevation at utility easement (10’ beyond ROW), riser height if applicable, and curb stop elevation. Construction Notes & Standard Details Plans (Sheets 6.0 – 6.2) 50. Retaining walls greater than 4’ in height will required certified engineering drawings/plans form a registered structural engineer. A safety fence/guardrail will be required at the top of the wall. Provide soil borings/geotechnical analysis for the area where the wall is proposed. The proposed retaining wall will be greater than 4’ in height. Plans for the retaining wall will need to be submitted with the final construction plans. Approval of the construction plans will not be provided without review of the retaining wall. 51. The proposed street section should be reviewed and designed by a geotechnical engineer. Provide soil borings and geotechnical report with final plat submittal. 52. Provide details for the proposed stormwater treatment areas. 53. Provide specific details for each of the control structures proposed. Provided, in-progress with plan updates. 54. A full review of standard details will be conducted with the final plat submittal. Traffic & Access 55. A visioning study was completed in November of 2019 for the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive area. The intent of the study was to guide the transportation needs within the Arrowhead Drive and Chippewa Road corridors. The tee intersection of Hackamore Road into Arrowhead shown on the applicant’s plans appears to be consistent with the study and was identified as a feasible option to accommodate the increase in traffic as development occurs in the area. Acknowledged by Applicant. 56. The location of the proposed development access road was originally intended to tee off of Hackamore as noted within the visioning study. The applicant has shown the driveway approximately 300’ south of the future Hackamore Road tee intersection on Arrowhead Drive instead. Acknowledged by Applicant. Move the driveway location as far south as possible to provide the most flexibility with turn lane configurations on Arrowhead Drive. With this proposed driveway location, southbound left turn lane and northbound right turn lanes will be required with the level of traffic expected by 2040. Show the turn lanes on the plans. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 7 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx 57. With the potential for future development to the south, consider other options for the access drive off of Arrowhead Drive to allow for the proposed access to be moved further to the south in the future. This will allow more flexibility in alignment with future development on the west side of Arrowhead Drive. A future street/stub to the south is shown on the plans however, the location should be moved as far east as possible to reduce the conflicts with the Arrowhead Drive intersection. 58. The vertical and horizontal geometrics along Arrowhead Drive is proposed to be modified with the Weston Woods development plans; Arrowhead Drive has a 40 MPH design speed. Provide a sight distance exhibit for the proposed Marsh Pointe driveway access location. Not provided with preliminary plat submittal. 59. Should the development be completed prior to the Arrowhead Drive realignment, provide details on the temporary connection to the existing Arrowhead Drive. Final plans must include a signing and pavement marking plan. Stormwater Management & Modelling 60. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and the applicant shall submit for the required permits. Provide final permitting documents and approvals from watershed. 61. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. 62. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface. By satisfying the volume requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. Follow the City’s Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirement if infiltration is not feasible. j. Filtration is given 50% credit Per the City Stormwater Design Manual. If filtration is being used throughout the site, please account for 2.2 inches of runoff being treated to meet the requirements. k. Current plans show treatment of .647 ac-ft X 50%=0.3235 ac-ft. l. Consider irrigation reuse to meet volume control requirements. 63. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions discharge rates. 64. Currently the development is proposing to treat one third of the impervious surface generated from the roundabout. Coordination with adjacent developments will be necessary to ensure that 100 percent of the impervious is account for when fully developed. 65. Water Reuse m. 1. Required design submittal packages for water reuse BMPs must include: a. An analysis using Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Stormwater Reuse Calculator. An example of the Calculator can be found in Appendix E. The full spreadsheet can be requested from the City. n. Documentation demonstrating adequacy of soils, storage system, and delivery system; and c. Operations and maintenance plan. The O& M plan should follow the guidelines listed in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 8 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx o. Approved capacity of an irrigation practice will be based on: a. An irrigation rate of 1.0 inches per week over the irrigated pervious area(s), the rate identified through the Stormwater Reuse Calculator (whichever is less), or as approved by the City; and b. No greater than a 26 week (April 15th to October 15th) growing season. p. Design of the irrigation system must include, but is not limited to, the following items. Each system will be reviewed and approved by the City on a site-by-site basis. a. Plumbing code review, adherence, and permitting, if applicable. b. Water reuse pump system design including supply line, intake, meter, and pump c. Electrical and controls design d. Construction drawings, specifications, and system integration q. Two (2) feet of permanent pool from the bottom of the pond must be maintained following drawdown for irrigation. Stormwater Design Manual City of Medina, MN WSB Project No. 011705-000 Page 20 r. Use rates should be monitored at least monthly for at least three years. This should be compared to the water budget analysis of the design to determine whether the modeled level of performance is being achieved. 66. Stormwater Pond 2P s. 80% credit for using stormwater ponds with extended detention storage. Additional information on extended detention requirements is found in Section 7.4. t. 60% credit for using stormwater ponds without water reuse 67. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access to all ponding facilities. u. Lot 1 Block 1 currently does not meet freeboard requirements. Freeboard must be met for EOF route along property line. HWL of 996.18 for Pond 2P and low opening of 996.3 for lot 1 block 1. v. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 of Block 3 currently do not meet the 2 foot freeboard requirements. w. Clearly label the EOF for each basin on the grading plan including a stabilized overflow x. Clearly label EOFs for drain inlets to meet the city’s freeboard requirements. y. Provide information on HWL for the adjacent wetland. 68. Provide a maintenance access to all permanent stormwater management best management practices. Complete. 69. With final design, provide storm sewer calculations using the rational method, sizing storm sewer for the 10-yr 24-hr Atlas 14 rainfall. Provide drainage area map for storm sewer sizing and calculations. Complete. 70. Provide pretreatment for the direct storm sewer outfalls to the NURP/filtration basins in the form of 4 foot sumps per City standards. Complete. 71. Show clean outs with invert elevation at the ends of each drain tile section within filtration benches. City of Medina – Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat and Plans – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 9 K:\018785-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-21 Submittal\_2022-01-04 Marsh Pt Pres Prelim Plat Review - WSB Comments.docx Wetlands & Buffers 72. 10% removal of significant trees is allowed for areas of 10-20 acres for redevelopment as outlined in city ordinances. z. Allowable removals for the site based on 4,891 inches of natural significant trees is 489 inches. aa. Proposed removals of 1,532 inches bb. Proposed-allowed+ required mitigation. 1,532-489=1,043 inches 73. Required mitigation is 1,043 caliper inches 74. Show replacement tree locations on plan sheet. 75. Provide size, species, and number of replacement trees cc. All deciduous Replacement Trees shall be a Diameter of at least two (2) caliper inches in size. All coniferous Replacement Trees shall be at least four (4) feet in height dd. All Replacement Trees shall be planted within the Development Site, in a non- patterned arrangement, duplicating natural conditions whenever possible. Replacement Trees may be planted in an alternative location if that location is approved by the city council ee. All Replacement Trees shall be appropriate for the soil conditions found at the planting site. All Replacement Trees shall be from certified nursery stock and shall not be bare root stock. ff. If more than twelve (12) Replacement Trees are required on a Development Site, there shall be no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the same species. 76. Tree Replacement Plan will need to be submitted to the city for review and approval by the city council. The Tree Replacement Plan shall be certified by a Forestry Specialist. 77. Wetlands were delineated and boundaries approved. 78. Wetland impact is proposed. A replacement plan must be submitted to the City of Medina for Wetland Conservation Act review. 79. Wetland adjacent to the development is classified as a Preserve Wetland on the City’s Functional Classification of Wetlands Map and is adjacent to a mapped Minnesota County Biological Survey Site of Biodiversity Significance. Average 50-foot-wide buffers (30-foot minimum) are required adjacent to Preserve Wetlands. Proposed buffers are only 30 feet wide (minimum 20 feet) and do not meet the buffer standards. Complete. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer 1 Marsh Point Preserve – Medina, MN, by BPS Properties, LLC Project Narrative Marsh Pointe Preserve is a proposed redevelopment of four existing single family homesites. The properties are located along a private roadway on the east side of Arrowhead Drive approximately one-half mile north of Highway 55. According to Hennepin County Property website, three of the existing homes were built in 1979 and one in 1993. Prior to the homes being constructed, the land was open space and tilled farmland, per inspection of historical aerial photographs. Older photos indicate the minimal presence of trees on the site. The site is surrounded on the south and east by a large wetland. A wetland delineation was completed in June 2021. The north line abuts the Bridgewater at Lake Medina platted additions. The developable portion of the site is elongated and narrow, running east to west, resembling a peninsula on the east end. There are no streets stubbed to the site. Street access is only available via a connection to Arrowhead Drive. Sewer and water connection is also available along Arrowhead Drive. Numerous development scenarios have been explored through the concept plan design process. The alternative of constructing a roundabout connection at Arrowhead Drive was incorporated into a previous design. However, due to environmental constraints on the site’s developable area, the platting layout did not support a quantity of lots sufficient to support the added construction cost of a roundabout. Submittal of the August 20, 2021 version of the preliminary plat proposed 38 lots but through city review, was found to have excessive wetland impact and provided insufficient wetland buffer. Continued study and concept plan renditions brought the site configuration to the current proposal, where a street connection to Arrowhead Drive is proposed, located 300 feet from the proposed realigned connection of Arrowhead Drive to Chippewa Road (as shown on the Weston Woods Preliminary Plat.) In order to provide a lot density greater than two units/acre and an average wetland buffer width of 50’, a Planned Unit Development application is proposed, which includes a few deviations from the City of Medina’s R2 zoning lot standards. Both the previous and current development layouts necessitate the platting of a cul de sac that exceeds the maximum length per city code. There is no street or right of way stub to the property with the exception of at Arrowhead Drive and the site is surrounded by wetlands on the south and east. To utilize the property to the best and highest use, the nearly 2,300-foot long cul de sac is necessary, in order to serve the development with public street access. The utilization of the PUD process allows for platting of a number of lots (30 proposed) that provides for a feasible per-lot development cost, minimizes wetland impact, provides buffer having width no less than 30’ and an average width of more than 50 feet. Furthermore, tree impact is less than the earlier development proposal. Wetland impact cannot be avoided in the construction of street A as it extends to the east portion of the project. Presently, a driveway crosses the wetland, serving the two homes on the east. The grade of the new street will need to be raised to provide adequate cover for the proposed utilities. The combined roadway widening and the slope banks propose to impact 11,471 s.f. of wetland. If the street was reduced from 28’ wide to 24’ wide along the north side, as a part of the PUD approval, wetland impact could possibly be reduced by approximately 1,400 s.f. 2 The developer has selected to work with one builder, Charles Cudd Company, which can customize the design of homes to suitable fit the building pads proposed within the development. Charles Cudd Co. proposes homes that are better suited for buyers having a lifestyle characterized as “empty nesters”, typically retired or nearing retirement – one level homes, well apportioned with upper bracket sale values. Charles Cudd Company has built several successful neighborhoods in the city of Medina and looks forward to being a part of what they feel will be a beautiful new community. All of the homes will be single-story with a height of approximately 32’ to 34’ from the front grade. Each home will either have a lookout or walkout lower level. Owner’s suites will be located on the main floor. The homes will range in size from approximately 3,200 to 4,400 finished sq ft. Photographs showing examples of exterior and interior styles and designs are appended to this narrative. A Home Owner’s Association will be formed for the platted lots within the neighborhood. The HOA will own, maintain and operate (as applicable) the irrigation system and appurtenances, retaining wall, fencing, entrance monument and common space. As individual lots will not be allowed to connect to the public water system for irrigation, a stormwater re-use irrigation system is proposed. The pumping station will be located adjacent to the east stormwater basin – Pond 3P. An irrigation main will be installed generally running along the rear of blocks 3 and 5, but will also cross the right of way to server blocks 1, 2 and 4 as well. This will provide connection availability for each home. Certain portions of the common space may also be irrigated. It is anticipated that an HOA owned well will be drilled to augment the required irrigation volume. 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 1+0 0 2+0 0 3+ 0 0 H.P . 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 1+0 0 2+0 0 3+ 0 0 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. STORM BASIN STORM BASIN CONIFEROUS TREE, TYP. OVERSTORY TREE, TYP. ORNAMENTAL TREE, TYP. ORNAMENTAL TREE, TYP. OVERSTORY TREE, TYP. CONIFEROUS TREE, TYP. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. MONUMENT SIGN MARSH POINTE PRESERVE MEDINA, MINNESOTA SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 ST-1 The North 467 feet of the East 467 feet of the West 1122 feet (68 rods) of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; (Abstract) And Lot 1, Block 1,and Outlot B, Arrowhead Estates, according to the record thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract) And Par 1: That part of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, including the accretions thereto, lying and being northwest of the centerline of Hennepin County Ditch No. 26 and the Northeasterly extension thereof and Northeast of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the east line of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, 400 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence West on a line parallel to the South line of said Government Lot 4 a distance of 1000 feet to a point; thence Northwest to the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4, and there ending. Said Government Lot 4, including accretions thereto, being described as follows, to-wit; Government Lot 4, including the accretions to Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, all described as commencing at the North Quarter corner of said Section 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 24 minutes 35 seconds West, along the North and South centerline of said Section 2 a distance of 608.56 feet; thence South 6 degrees 47 minutes 43 seconds West, a distance of 817.18 feet; thence South 36 degrees 53 minutes East, a distance of 1040.00 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes west, a distance of 500.00 feet; thence South 46 degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds West to the North line of said Government Lot 4; thence Westerly along said North line to the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Southerly along the West line of said Government Lot 4 to the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 4; thence easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 4 to the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Northerly along the North and South centerline of said Section 2, a distance of 1006.25 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a line bearing South 35 degrees 18 minutes 24 seconds West from the actual point of beginning; thence North 35 degrees 18 minutes 24 seconds East, 942.56 feet, more or less to the actual point of beginning. Par 2: The North 66 feet of the East 196.71 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Par 3: The North 66 feet of the following described part of Government Lot 4 as measured at right angles to and drawn parallel with the North line of said Government Lot 4; That part of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, lying and being West of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 118, Range 23; thence Northeast to a point 1000 feet West on a line drawn parallel to the South line of said Government Lot 4 from a point on the East line of said Government Lot 4, 400 feet North of the southeast corner of said Government Lot 4; thence Northwest to the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4 and there ending. (Torrens Property) (Torrens Certificate No. 1361928) And That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of the West 1122.00 feet thereof and west of the East 196.71 feet thereof. (Abstract) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 23 + 0 0 24 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 0+00 1+00 2+0 0 3+ 0 0 4+ 0 0 5+ 0 0 5+ 7 0 . 1 1 HAC K A M O R E DRI V E CHI P P E W A R O A D 21+00 22+0 0 23 + 0 0 24 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 0+00 1+00 2+0 0 3+0 0 4+ 0 0 HAC K A M O R E DRI V E 21+00 22+0 0 23 + 0 0 24 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 L.P. CL C L % 3. 0 G . B . % 2 . 5 H. P . % 1. 5 % 2.0 VMA 992 99 8 992 998 1 0 0 4 988 9 9 8 992 982 984 98 4 9 8 4 992 982 98 6 . 2 98 6 . 2 9 8 6 . 2 98 6 . 2 98 6 . 2 86 . 0 EOF 98 4 988 984 988 988 988 98 8 980 982 984 985 86.1 EOF 99 0 10 0 0 991 992 988 985 984 990 990 990 992 994 996 9 9 6 9 9 6 996 99 2 99 6 9 9 4 986 . 6 986 . 6 9 8 6 . 6 986.6 98 8 . 2 9 8 8 . 5 98 6 9 8 4 9 8 2 9 8 1 9 8 0 97 8 98 1 98 2 9 8 4 9 8 4 98 0 98 2 98 4 9 8 4 982 984 VM A 0+00 1+00 2+0 0 3+0 0 4+ 0 0 97. 9 6 H.P . % 1.0 % 5.0 G. B . % 2. 0 99 . 9 7 998 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1000 1000 998 998 99 8 10 0 0 9 9 8 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 SB-1 G RWO R O A D 23 + 0 0 2 4 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+0 0 HAC K A M O R E DRI V E 23 + 0 0 2 4 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 CL C L % 3. 0 G . B . % 2 . 5 H. P . % 1. 5 % 2.0 992 99 8 998 1 0 0 4 988 9 9 8 98 4 988 988 988 98 8 980 982 984 985 99 0 991 992 988 990 990 992 994 996 9 9 6 9 9 6 99 2 99 6 9 9 4 98 8 . 2 9 8 8 . 5 98 6 0+ 0 0 1+ 0 0 2+0 0 % 5.0 998 1000 1000 998 998 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 9 9 8 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-1 G RWO SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 G RWO SB-1 CHI P P E W A R O A D 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+ 0 0 23 + 0 0 2 4 + 0 0 2 5 + 0 0 2 6 + 0 0 27 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 31 + 0 0 31 + 4 3 . 7 1 0+00 1+00 2+0 0 3+ 0 0 HAC K A M O R E DRI V E SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 SB-4 SB-5 SB-6 SB-7 SB-8 SB-9 SB-10 SB-11 SB-12 SB-1 2 7 + 0 0 28 + 0 0 29 + 0 0 30 + 0 0 Cates Industrial Park Page 1 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 6, 2022 MEETING: January 11, 2022 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Comprehensive Plan Amendment PIDs 04-118-23-11-0002, 04-118-23-14-0004, 03-118-23-22-0004 Summary of Request Jeff and Chris Cates have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Plan Review for development of approximately 665,000 square feet of warehouse/light industrial/office buildings on approximately 70 acres east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. The proposed amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan can generally be summarized as follows: • Change Future Land Use from Future Development Area to Business – this would add the subject site to the current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) • Change Staging/Growth to allow immediate development (2020 staging period) Amending the future land use and staging would require amendments to various graphs, tables, and maps throughout the Plan to depict the changes. The subject site is predominantly farmland. A home and farm buildings are located in the southwest portion of the site. A shared driveway bisects the site heading east of Willow Drive to serve two homes to the east. There are twelve wetlands throughout the property, occupying approximately 5 acres of the site. The property is guided Future Development Area (FDA) and zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The aerial at the top of the following page depicts the subject site and surrounding land uses as follows: • West of site – Graphic Packaging and Twinco – zoned Business • West of site – Business guiding – currently farmed • East of the site – rural homes – guided FDA and zoned RR-UR, similar to the subject site. • South of the site – Business guiding • North of the site – agricultural/rural (City of Corcoran) – guided Low Density after 2035 MEMORANDUM Proposed Land Use: Business Current Land Use: Future Development Area Proposed Staging/Growth: 2020 period Gross Area: 70 acres Net Area: 60 acres Proposed construction: ~665,000 s.f. floor area Cates Industrial Park Page 2 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting The applicant has submitted a concept plan along with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Depending on the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, any development would be subject to rezoning, plat, and site plan review during a subsequent review process. Comprehensive Plan Information When considering requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision and Community Goals (Chapter 2) provide general guidance. When amendments to land use are requested, the “Future Land Use Plan Principles” (pages 5-4 and 5-5 of the Land Use Plan) provide guidance. Similarly, principles which inform the Staging Plan are described on page 5-18 of the Land Use Plan. Chapter 2 and excerpts from Chapter 5 of the Plan are attached for reference. Cates Industrial Park Page 3 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting The goals, principles, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan address various subjects including community character, infrastructure, quality of life, growth management, protection of natural resources, open space and rural character. The Plan also addresses the desired amount of business development and employment opportunities. Since the Comprehensive Plan was approved, a number of projects were approved which reduced the amount of Business guided land in the City, including: AutoMotorPlex, OSI expansion, Okalee Senior Living, Weston Woods Comprehensive Plan Amendment, BAPS temple, and Adam’s Pest Control office. Remaining land for additional business development of any scale is fairly limited. The owner of the largest parcel (50 acre water tower parcel on Willow Drive) has not indicated any interest in development at this time. The following table and map identify remaining property which has been identified for Business development in the City. Business land is identified as purple in the Future Land Use map. Site Net Acres Notes 1 Willow water tower ~4205 Willow Dr. 50 No development interest indicated 2 St. Louis Park Investment ~4705 Willow Dr. 20 3 South of Loram ~3800 Arrowhead Dr. 21 4 KD Supply/Recycling ~2200 Prairie Dr. 22 Disturbed site; portions wooded 5 North of OSI ~ 4205 Arrowhead Dr. 10 6 TC Outdoor 2705 Highway 55 7 4 smaller sites 14 Approx 2-4 acres each 144 Cates Industrial Park Page 4 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting Historical Planning of Property The planned future land use of the property has evolved with each recent decennial Comprehensive Plan update. • 2000 update – property was guided “Urban Commercial” and staged for potential immediate development within the 2000-2020 MUSA. • 2010 update – property was guided “Mixed Use” and staged for potential development in the 2021-2025 MUSA • 2020 update – property is guided “Future Development Area” as described above The applicant’s narrative and attached letter from their attorney references an agreement between Wally and Erica Cates (previous owners) and the City pertaining to settling a condemnation action in 2000. The City had agreed to reguide the southern parcel (south of Cates Ranch Drive, approximately 43% of the subject site) to Urban Commercial as part of the consideration for the acquisition. The City designated the southern parcel as Urban Commercial and allowed for immediate development in the 2000 Comp Plan. The City also designated the northern parcel Urban Commercial at the same time, which was not discussed within the agreement. A letter from the applicant’s attorney related to the agreement is attached for reference, along with the agreement. The continued relevance of the agreement, if any, will be evaluated by the City Attorney and discussed with the City Council when they review the application. The historical Comprehensive Plan changes and the fact that the City had agreed to guide a portion of the subject property as Urban Commercial may be factors for consideration. However, staff believes that considering the relevant of the 2000 agreement, if any, is the purview of the City Council. Staff recommends the Planning Commission should concentrate on the broader land use questions when making its recommendation. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Chapter 4410 of Minnesota Rules regulates Environmental Review and requires mandatory completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for development of 300,000 square feet or more of warehouse/light industrial space within a city of Medina’s size. The purpose of an EAW is to develop an analysis and overview of the potential impacts of the development, determine if the project will cause any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through normal review processes, and provide information for planning and design. The EAW is attached for reference. The City is currently accepting public and agency comment on the EAW. The City Council will review comments tentatively in mid-February or early- March and determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary. Transportation Staff believes transportation is the primary infrastructure considerations for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant has submitted a preliminary traffic analysis which has Cates Industrial Park Page 5 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting identified several improvements to the local transportation system to support the development contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, including: 1) Capacity improvements at the Willow Dr./Highway 55 intersection – most likely includes 2nd southbound left from Willow Dr. onto Highway 55 and acceleration/merging lane added to eastbound Highway 55 2) Turn lanes at Willow Dr./Chippewa Rd. intersection 3) Reconstruction of Willow Dr. adjacent to site The proposed site is projected to generate most of the traffic on Willow Drive and the traffic analysis acknowledges the existing system is insufficient for the proposed development and that improvements are necessary to support the proposed development. Amending the Comprehensive Plan and allowing this development accelerates when such improvements would be necessary. Staff recommends that the applicant specify explicit provisions for constructing the necessary street improvements prior to final action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for consideration by the City in connection with the land use decision. Sewer/Water The applicant proposes to add the subject site to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and to connect to the City’s sewer and water system. The City Engineer and Public Works has not identified significant concerns related to capacity within the overall City sewer and water systems. Improvements to the adjacent systems will be necessary to support the development. Staff recommends that a 12” watermain be connected from Willow Drive to the existing water system located southeast of the site along Chippewa Road at Okalee. The applicant has not submitted full utilities plans, but it appears that a sanitary sewer lift station will be necessary to serve the buildings on the northern portion of the site. The City has previously identified the need for a lift station to serve future Business property west of Willow Drive, and preliminary analysis included planning to serve the subject site in the long-term, since it is designated as FDA and may be considered for development in future Comprehensive Plan updates. The City has budgeted to construct the lift station as a public improvement, which would be funded with sewer connection fees. Staff recommends that whichever property develops first provide necessary land for the lift station. Concept Plan Review The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan and architectural renderings as part of their narrative for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. The applicant designed the site according to the Business (B) zoning district. The requirements of the district are summarized below, although staff did not conduct a complete review based on the limited information submitted. Although the plan would be likely to need some adjustments when formal review occurs, the scale and layout of the proposed concept appear to be generally consistent with the requirements of the B zoning district. The proposed concept includes two buildings sitting back-to-back in the northern portion of the site and a third building running east-to-west in the southern portion of the site. The office or Cates Industrial Park Page 6 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting “front” of the buildings are oriented towards the outside of the site, with loading docks proposed toward the center. The B zoning district emphasizes design which limits loading docks to the exterior of the site. Primary access points to the sites are proposed off a new roadway (Cates Ranch Drive) between the buildings, east of Willow Drive. Secondary driveways are also proposed to Willow Drive and Chippewa Road. Staff recommends that the street and access alignment be reevaluated if any formal application is submitted to better align with existing and future access points. Two homes to the east of the site currently use Cates Ranch Drive as an access. Provisions will need to be made for access to these sites through the proposed development site. The proposed layout would provide opportunity for the shared driveway to access the new roadway in its existing location. The following table compares the concept plan with the dimensional standards of the B district. B District Requirement Proposed Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 80 feet Minimum Rear/Side Yard Setback 25 feet 190 feet (north) Setback from Residential 100 feet 190 feet (north) 220 feet (east) Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet 40 feet Rear and Side Yard 15 feet 160 feet Residential 100 feet 160 feet Maximum Hardcover 70% Not provided Building Height (sprinkled) 45 feet 40 feet Architectural Design The B zoning district requires the following architectural standards. The concept plan does not provide sufficient information to review for compliance, but the Planning Commission and City Council are encouraged to provide feedback based on these requirements, to the extent possible. Materials The BP district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the following standards: (a) A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco (not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass. (b) A maximum of 80 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance. (c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper) or fiber cement lap siding or Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design.” The conceptual renderings show primary material of precast concrete panels proposed with exposed aggregate to provide a terrazzo appearance. Accent materials are proposed to be brick and metal. Cates Industrial Park Page 7 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting Modulation The business districts require: “Buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous building walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a minimum of one element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion thereof. Alternative architectural or site elements and designs may also be approved by the city which achieve the purpose of reducing the visual impact of long building walls.” Staff recommends that the building layout be updated to provide horizontal modulation of the proposed buildings if a formal application is made. Fenestration and Transparency The business districts require: “Building elevations which face a public street shall include generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the city when windows are not practical.” Multi-sided Architecture The business districts require: “Any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s) shall be compatible with the front building elevation.” In-depth architectural review would occur at the time of a formal application. The proposed layout attempts to orient the “front” of structures toward existing street and residential property, which is consistent with multi-sided architecture and allows opportunities for more windows to the exterior. Wetlands/Floodplain The concept proposes impacts to approximately 1.6 acres of the 5 acres of wetlands on the site. Any impact would be subject to review by the Technical Evaluation Panel and require mitigation. Staff recommends that the site layout be updated to reduce wetland impacts. The City’s wetland buffer regulations would be triggered by any formal application. FEMA floodplain maps do not identify any floodplains with 1% annual chance of flooding. Tree Preservation/Landscaping There are existing trees around the buildings in the southwest corner of the property but no wooded areas. Any future application would need to provide information related to tree preservation requirements. The Business district requires minimum tree planting based on the perimeter of the site and also requires a buffer with an opacity of 0.5 adjacent to residential property along the north and east. The concept plan appears to fall short of the required landscaping 12’ adjacent to the building and also the 8% landscaping requirement within parking lots and loading areas. Staff recommends that these requirements be addressed if any formal application is submitted. Cates Industrial Park Page 8 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting Stormwater/Grading The applicant has not submitted grading or stormwater plans, but concept plans do identify large stormwater ponds throughout the site. Any future development application will be subject to City and Elm Creek Watershed regulations related to volume control, rate control, water quality and other stormwater management requirements. Parks and Trails The City’s Parks and Trails plan do not identify future park or trail improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. However, when considering future land use within the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes it is important to consider how the change would impact park and trail needs. Property identified as FDA is anticipated to be designated for development at some point in the long-term future, and the City would determine appropriate park and trail needs when it is designated. It is important to note that additional park and trail improvements will likely be identified when and if FDA property is designated for development in the future. Staff intends to present the application to the Park Commission for review. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a search area for a neighborhood park to the east of the site. Staff does not believe an additional park is likely necessary in the area but intends to consult with the Park Commission whether this subject site would be a good opportunity for the park. Staff recommends that private trail connections be incorporated into the plans between the buildings which provide opportunities to connect to adjacent sites. The Park Commission will also discuss whether additional public trails should be considered. Staff Comments The City has the highest level of discretion when considering proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The goals, principles, and objectives of the Comp Plan should provide guidance when considering any amendment. Infrastructure is one of the primary considerations of the Comprehensive Plan. It appears that the proposed amendment would not cause significant issues with the City’s sewer and water systems. Staff recommends that the City’s parks and trails needs be evaluated based on the proposed change of land use and improvements be required as necessary. The primary potential infrastructure issue identified by staff relates to transportation. The proposed amendment would contribute more than twice the otherwise projected traffic onto Willow Drive. It is important to note that the property is guided FDA, which indicates that development may be considered in future Comp Plan updates. An amendment at this time would accelerate any impacts. As such, staff recommends the applicant specify how they intend to make provisions for necessary roadway improvements if an amendment is to be considered. Without such improvements, development would appear to be premature. Along with infrastructure considerations, the Comprehensive Plan also addresses matters related to community character, growth management, employment, tax base, and protection of natural Cates Industrial Park Page 9 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting resources and rural areas. The Planning Commission and City Council should carefully consider these (sometimes competing) interests. Land designated for Business development is fairly limited within the City. Only a few sites have over 20 net acres to support a larger project. If the Planning Commission and Council desire to provide more opportunities for larger development, the subject site may be a good candidate when considering options, provided the transportation needs noted above are addressed. The City’s utility system is planned to support development in this area at some point in the future. Expanding the MUSA in any location within the City has the potential for incongruence with adjacent rural land uses. Site layout, landscaping, and street planning will need to mitigate potential impacts. If the requested amendment were to be approved, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not become effective until reviewed and authorized by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statues 462 and 473 and a development agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City has been executed which guarantees construction of all necessary improvements identified to support the development. 2) The applicant shall submit a financial guarantee sufficient to ensure completion of the public improvements necessary to support the proposed development, including improvements to Willow Drive and Chippewa Road. 3) Any future application shall be subject to all relevant City regulations and policies. 4) Any future application shall be subject to Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan approval and meet all requirements of the wetland protection ordinance. 5) The applicant shall provide land necessary for construction of the sanitary sewer lift station. 6) The street improvements for Willow Drive and Chippewa Road adjacent to the site shall be constructed in connection with the development, and provisions shall be made with the development for improvements to the Willow Drive/Highway 55 intersection. Staff has also provided the following comments on the Concept Plan: 1) A substantial buffer shall be provided from adjacent rural property. The buffer shall include an appropriate combination of distance, berming, vegetation and potentially fencing. 2) Provisions shall be incorporated into the design to maintain the natural drainageways through the site. 3) The site plan shall be updated to reduce wetland impacts. 4) Access locations and circulations shall be improved as recommended by City staff. 5) Provisions for pedestrian connectivity shall be provided. 6) Architectural plans shall be updated to provide additional modulation along building facades facing the exterior of the site. 7) Plans shall be updated to provide required landscaping areas adjacent to buildings and within parking lots/loading areas. 8) The applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer. 9) Park dedication shall be provided as required by the City Council after recommendation by the Park Commission. Cates Industrial Park Page 10 of 10 January 11, 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planning Commission Meeting Potential Action If the Planning Commission supports the amendment and finds that it is consistent with the goals, principles, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the following action could be taken: Move to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. If the Planning Commission does not find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, principles, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the following action could be taken: Move to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments 1. Comprehensive Plan Information 2. Environmental Assessment Worksheet 3. Engineering Comments 4. Applicant Narrative 5. Applicant Attorney Letter w/ 2000 agreement attached 6. Concept Plan 7. Land Use Map identifying proposed change Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 1 Adopted October 2, 2018 Chapter 2: VISION & COMMUNITY GOALS _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The Vision and Community Goals chapter is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan and provides the foundation from which City officials make consistent and supporting land use decisions. This chapter includes a set of general community goals that guided the creation of this Plan. The concepts in this chapter are some of the few static elements of the Comprehensive Plan. If land uses change or other infrastructure varies from the Plan, decisions will be founded in the goals set forth below. The Vision and Goals were created with the involvement of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the “Steering Committee”), City officials, and residents of Medina and are broadly supported. Land use designations are subject to strong social and economic pressures to change. Accordingly, it is appropriate that such systems be periodically evaluated in light of changing social and economic conditions. As development evolves, the Vision and Goals will provide the guidance for accomplishing the vision for the future of the community even when changes are necessary to the land use plan. Detailed objectives and recommendations are contained within each of the subject chapters of this plan. Creating the Vision and Goals The residents, the Steering Committee, City officials and staff participated in the planning process for the Plan. A series of public participation meetings were conducted to introduce and solicit information from the residents of Medina. The Steering Committee held work sessions that focused on integrating the concerns and desires of the community together with accommodating growth and regional impacts. An online forum provided additional opportunity for residents to impact the Vision and Community Goals as they were formulated. In addition to land use and growth planning, the City implemented open space, natural resources, and infrastructure planning. The goals which guided this process are integrated into this chapter. Each element of this plan was developed with assistance from city officials and a diverse group of community stakeholders producing a truly representative plan. The City made a conscious decision to emphasize natural resources and open space conservation. Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 2 Adopted October 2, 2018 Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. • Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina. • Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community. • Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development. • Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City. • Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes. • Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community. • Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents. • Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives. • Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City. • Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments. • Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 4 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 4 While these ordinance standards help protect solar access, it is not possible for every part of a building or lot to obtain unobstructed solar access. Mature trees, topography, and the location of structures can limit solar access. However, on most properties the rooftop of the principal building would be free of shading by adjacent structures. Therefore, the majority of property owners in the City could utilize solar energy systems, if they so desired, as a supplement or alternative to conventional fuels. HHiissttoorriicc PPrreesseerrvvaattiioonn The City of Medina currently does not have any sites or structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The City of Medina has a strong interest in preserving representative portions of its history. The City previously worked with the West Hennepin Pioneer Museum to restore the Wolsfeld Family cabin which was originally built in 1856. It is thought to be one of the original homes in Medina. The City further commits to providing the following general guidelines related to historical preservation: • Partner with organizations that want to preserve historically significant areas, landmarks, and buildings in Medina; • Modify zoning regulations as necessary to help preserve areas that may be historically significant. FFuuttuurree GGeenneerraall LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliiccyy DDiirreeccttiioonn As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form • Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces. • Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks. • Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. • Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods. • Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 5 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 5 • Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. • Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability. • Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns • Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes. • Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth areas. • Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi- modal transportation choices. • Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources • Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas. • Preserve open spaces and natural resources. • Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary. • Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas • Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors. • Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed-use areas. • Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. • Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather. • Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 6 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 6 TThhee GGuuiiddee PPllaann Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-3, maintains Medina’s rural character and protects the City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is consistent with the City’s Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles. Table 5-2 below demonstrates the expected 2040 land uses in the community. TABLE 5-2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Future Land Use (2040) Gross Acreage % Net Acreage % Rural Residential 8,402.2 49.1% 6,015.3 35.1% Agriculture 222.7 1.3% 174.5 1.0% Future Development Area 671.9 3.9% 547.9 3.2% Low Density Residential 1172.5 6.8% 865.7 5.1% Medium Density Residential 58.5 0.3% 46.2 0.3% High Density Residential 29.6 0.2% 25.7 0.2% Mixed Residential 137.1 0.8% 94.1 0.6% Uptown Hamel 45.0 0.3% 41.2 0.2% Commercial 254.2 1.5% 197.6 1.2% Business 704.6 4.1% 471.9 2.8% Rural Commercial 67.5 0.4% 47.6 0.3% Institutional 270.2 1.6% 194.0 1.1% Parks, Recreation, Open Space 2,771.5 16.2% 1,971.2 11.5% Private Recreation 343.1 2.0% 297.5 1.7% Closed Sanitary Landfill 192.2 1.1% 124.7 0.7% Right-of-Way 673.1 3.9% 616.9 3.6% Total Acres 16,015.9 11,732.0 Lakes and Open Water* 1,104.6 6.5% 1,104.6 6.5% Wetlands and Floodplain 4,283.9 25.0% Total City 17,120.5 17,120.5 * Lakes and Open Water amounts include areas adjacent to lakes which are not included in Hennepin County parcel data and exclude un-meandered lakes. The Growth and Development Map (Map 5-4) highlights areas within the City in which a change of land use is contemplated by the Future Land Use plan. The map also highlights wetland areas within Medina which significantly affect land planning, development, and infrastructure decisions. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 7 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 7 Future Land Use Designations Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this Plan. Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are planned for long-term agricultural uses. Density within the land use can be no more than one lot per 40 acres which will not be served by urban services. Property within this land use is eligible to be part of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program. Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity. Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development. Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 5.0 and 7.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single-family residential, twin homes, town homes, row homes, and small multiple family buildings. High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park. Mixed Residential (MR) identifies residential land uses that may be developed with a variety of housing styles at an overall average density between 3.5 and 4.0 units per net acre, within which a minimum of the units equivalent to 1.0 unit per acre are required to be developed at higher densities above 8.0 units per acre. Uses within the MR land use are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The land use provides flexibility for the type of housing to be developed, including detached single family, twin homes, townhomes and multiple family buildings. The MR land use will allow for different types of housing to be developed in coordination with each other or independently, provided the objectives related to overall density and minimum number of higher density housing units can be achieved within a defined area. Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The Uptown Hamel area is served by urban services. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 8 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 8 Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial corridors and are served or will be served by urban services. Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse, and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services. Rural Commercial (RC) identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services, but rather by individual wells and septic systems. The scale of development in this land use shall be limited to protect water resources. Institutional (INST) identifies existing public, semi-public, and non-profit uses such as governmental, cemeteries, religious, educational and utilities. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) identifies publicly owned or permanently conserved land which is used for park, recreational, or open space purposes. Private Recreation (PREC) identifies areas that are currently used for outdoor recreational uses which are held under private ownership but are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of residential uses may be included or have previously been developed within this land use designation, accounting for no more than 10% of the land area. Density within the residential portion of the use shall be between 2.0 and 3.0 units per net acre where urban services are available and one unit per 10 acres where services are not available. The City does not anticipate additional residential development within the land use. Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) identifies an existing closed sanitary landfill. The Woodlake Landfill is owned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as part of Minnesota’s Closed Landfill Program. The MPCA has jurisdiction over land use regulations of the landfill and has made available a description of the types, locations, and potential movement of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases related to the facility in its Closed Landfill Plan. The City hereby incorporates such information and the City will provide such information as required by law. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 10 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 10 LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliicciieess bbyy AArreeaa The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the Community Goals and Land Use Principles. These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and designations identified in this section. The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed-uses will be available and will be supported through zoning. RRuurraall DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area. A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these designations is to provide low-intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the timeframe covered by this Plan. A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The City recognizes that such low-density, development will continue to be a desired housing alternative. The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement. The Metropolitan Council has identified a significant portion of Medina’s rural area in the Long-term Sewer Service Area (LTSSA) for the Blue Lake wastewater facility. The Metropolitan Council designates the LTSSA for the possibility of extension of urban services in the long-term, beyond 25 years in the future. Medina is required to identify the LTSSA in its Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA is identified in Map 5-5. The Metropolitan Council states that the LTSSA is intended to provide opportunities to efficiently extend urban services to accommodate long-term growth. The City believes that much of this area does not support efficient extension of urban services and the City seeks opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA. The following factors affect the efficiency of providing future urban services and are displayed on Map 5-6: • Wetlands, Topography, Regional Parks and Scientific Areas Wetlands occupy a significant portion of the area identified by the Metropolitan Council within the LTSSA, accounting for approximately 40% of the area. This fact, along with topographical conditions, would make the provision of wastewater service inefficient. In Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 11 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 11 addition, Baker Park and the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area occupy large portions of Medina’s rural area, further separating any developable areas. • Historical development patterns Much of the LTSSA was developed with large-lot residential neighborhoods prior to the Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA designation. These properties tend to include large homes with comparatively high home values, making the likelihood of redevelopment with urban services costly. The Metropolitan Council seeks density lower than 1 unit per 10 acres for efficient extension of wastewater service. As evidenced on Map 5-6, the vast majority of the LTSSA within Medina has been previously developed in a pattern that is denser than 1 unit per 10 buildable acres. As a result, much of the LTSSA does not provide opportunity for efficient extension of wastewater service by the Metropolitan Council’s policy. • Distance between regional infrastructure and City infrastructure The Metropolitan Council would need to extend wastewater service into the southern area of Medina if development were to occur in the future. The City’s primary municipal water system is in the northern portion of Medina. One of these services would need to be extended a great distance in order to be provided in connection with the other, or the City would need to establish a separate water system. Either alternative would be costly and would not be efficient. In discussions with Metropolitan Council staff, the City has identified approximately 730 acres to be removed from the LTSSA in the southern portion of the City, because a similar acreage in the northwest corner of the City was added to the Blue Lake wastewater facility service area. The City will continue to seek opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA because of the factors noted above. The City’s Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City’s natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres per unit. Medina’s wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low-density rural housing. Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to replace failing systems. Objectives: 1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources in the rural areas. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 12 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 12 3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site sewage disposal systems. 4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with rural service area development. 5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential development. 6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. 7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural land use. 8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural Residential and Future Development Area land use. 9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. Within the Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (reference Map 5-5), these exceptions will be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross acres if consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Flexible Residential Development Guidelines. 10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future Development Area land uses during this planning cycle. 11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant natural characteristics. 12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's on-site septic system requirements. 13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised. 14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff. 15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation of significant natural resources. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 17 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 17 Business Uses The following objectives refer to business land uses that are connected to or planned for urban services. Businesses in this use generally include office complexes, business park development, warehouse and light industrial opportunities. Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 3. Consider permitting uses such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities where suitable, subject to appropriate requirements related to density, ensuring compatibility between uses, and preventing the use from being predominantly independent-living residential in nature. These uses are expected to occupy a very small proportion of Business land. Residential density is estimated to be between 5-20 units per net acre, but flexibility will be considered based upon the mix of nursing home, assisted living, memory care, independent living units, and other uses proposed within a development. 4. Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas. 5. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 6. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. 7. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features. 8. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access points to collector and arterial roadways. 9. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy. 10. Emphasize pedestrian safety. 11. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 12. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 18 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 18 Staging Plan The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation, to ensure that growth and development are commensurate with services necessary to support new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The staging plan, Map 5-5, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles: • Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business areas for development throughout the planning period. The staging plan also is intended to reduce concentration of development within a location during a particular timeframe. • The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5-year periods and provides some flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a maximum of two years prior to the existing staging period, and will be tied to an incentive based points system. Such flexibility will not be permitted for new high- density residential development to finalize prior to 2021 as deemed necessary by the Metropolitan Council to ensure sufficient land is available at higher densities from 2021- 2030. Table 5-5 describes the net acreage of the various land uses by Staging Period. The following table describes the corresponding number of residential units which could be developed upon property within each Staging Period. The numbers below do not include several lots that have been approved for development, but are not yet constructed, which is why the capacity noted below differs slightly from the forecasts noted in Chapter 3. Although most of the property staged for development is available in earlier timeframes, the City anticipates that actual growth will be more linear as described in the forecasts in Chapter 3. TABLE 5-4 STAGING PLAN – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY Time Period Total Residential Units High Density Residential Units 2018-2021 345 32 2021-2025 161 161 2025-2030 464 94 2030-2035 0 2035-2040 47 Total 1,017 287 Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 19 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 19 TABLE 5-5 STAGING PLAN – NET ACRES Future Land Use Existing 2017 Change 2018-2021 2021 Change 2021-2025 2025 Change 2025-2030 2030 Change 2030-2035 2035 Change 2035-2040 2040 Rural Residential 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 Agriculture 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 Future Develop. Area 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 Future Staged Growth* 666.1 -467.7 198.4 -13.4 185.0 -161.5 23.5 0.0 23.5 -23.5 0.0 Low Density Resid. 679.3 95.5 774.8 0.0 774.8 67.4 842.2 0.0 842.2 23.5 865.7 Medium Density Res. 21.5 24.7 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 High Density Resid. 9.6 2.7 12.3 13.4 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7 Mixed Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.1 94.1 0.0 94.1 0.0 94.1 Uptown Hamel 33.2 8.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 Commercial 135.9 61.7 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 Business 196.8 275.1 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 Rural Commercial 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 Institutional 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 Parks, Rec, Open Space 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 Private Recreation 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 Closed Sanitary Landfill 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 Right-of-Way 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 • Future Staged Growth represents the acreage which is included in a future Staging Period. HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-4Development and Growth Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Wetland Locations Wetland Locations HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-5Staging and Growth 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 The Staging and Growth Plan allows potential flexibility for urban services up to two years prior to the indicated staging period. Such flexiblity will be considered through a evaluation system based on the extent to which a proposal exceeds general City standards. The Future Development Area identifies areas which may potentially be planned for urban services in the future beyond the term of this plan (post-2040). The Long-term Sewer Service Area is a long-term planning designation of the Metropolitan Council. It identifies areas which may be considered for potential sanitary sewer service in the future beyond the term of this Plan. Legend Urban Services Phasing Plan Developed 2018 2020 2021 2025 2035 FDA LTSSA Cates Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet December 2021 Prepared by: Cates Industrial Park EAW i December 2021 Table of Contents 1. Project Title................................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Proposer ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 4. Reason for EAW Preparation ................................................................................................................................ 2 5. Project Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 6. Project Description .................................................................................................................................................. 2 7. Cover Types ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 8. Permits and Approvals Required ........................................................................................................................ 5 9. Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms .............................................................................................. 7 11. Water Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 9 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ........................................................................................... 15 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) .............. 17 14. Historic Properties ............................................................................................................................................ 19 15. Visual .................................................................................................................................................................... 20 16. Air .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 17. Noise ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 18. Transportation ................................................................................................................................................... 22 19. Cumulative Potential Effects .......................................................................................................................... 24 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects ........................................................................................................ 25 RGU Certification ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 List of Tables Table 1: Project Magnitude ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: Cover Types ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................................................................. 5 Table 4: Soil Types ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 5: Wells ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Utility Demand Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 11 Table 7: MPCA WIMN Sites Within 150 Feet of the Project Site ....................................................................... 16 Table 8: Proposed Site Trip Generation – Opening Year (2025) ....................................................................... 22 List of Figures Figure 1: County Map .................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 2: USGS Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 3: Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 4: Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 5: Future Land Use............................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 6: Water Resources within One-Mile Study Area ..................................................................................... 34 Figure 7: Water Resources on Site ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 8: MPCA What's In My Neighborhood (WIMN) Sites ............................................................................. 36 Cates Industrial Park EAW ii December 2021 List of Appendices Appendix A: Proposed Site Plan Appendix B: Wetland Delineation Report Appendix C: Traffic Impact Anlaysis Appendix D: Agency Correspondence Cates Industrial Park EAW 1 December 2021 July 2013 Version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB’s) website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidance Documents.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. 1. Project Title Cates Industrial Park 2. Proposer Proposer: Jeff Cates Family Contact Person: Jeff S. Cates Title: President/CEO Address: 2400 Cates Ranch Drive #100 City, State, ZIP: Hamel, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 478-8961 Email: N/A 3. RGU RGU: City of Medina Contact Person: Dusty Finke Title: Planning Director Address: 2052 County Road 24 City, State, ZIP: Medina, MN, 55340 Phone: 763-473-8846 Email: dusty.finke@medinamn.gov Cates Industrial Park EAW 2 December 2021 4. Reason for EAW Preparation Check one: Required: Discretionary: ☐EIS Scoping ☐Citizen petition ☒Mandatory EAW ☐RGU discretion ☐Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 14: Industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities 5. Project Location County: Hennepin City/Township: Medina PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NE and SE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 4, Township 118N, Range 23W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River – Twin Cities and South Fork Crow River GPS Coordinates: 45.062091, -93.585900 Tax Parcel Numbers: 0411823110002 and 0411823140004 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project (see Figure 1) • US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 2) • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post-construction site plan. (see Figure 3 and Appendix A) 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor (approximately 50 words). The Cates Family owns three parcels of approximately 68.9 acres of agricultural land located north of Highway 55 at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive in Medina. There is an existing farmstead and associated structures on the site. The proposed project consists of a total of approximately 664,500 square feet of office/warehouse uses on the site. Development would include new infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All of these new services would be extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrading existing systems to support the new land development. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion, include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize 1) construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes; 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes; 3) significant demolition, Cates Industrial Park EAW 3 December 2021 removal, or remodeling of existing structures; and 4) timing and duration of construction activities. The Cates Family is proposing a total of approximately 664,500 square feet of new light industrial uses on an approximately 68.9-acre site north of Highway 55 at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive in Medina (see Figure 1 for project location). The project is anticipated to consist of three office/warehouse buildings: • Building 1: Located in the northwestern portion of the site, this area will consist of a 205,000 square foot office/warehouse building. • Building 2: Located in the northeastern third of the site, this area will consist of a 205,000 square foot office/warehouse building. • Building 3: Located in the southern third of the site, this area will consist of a 254,500 square foot office/warehouse building. The proposed site plan is designed to have the three buildings face the exterior property lines. The vehicle parking areas are proposed to be parallel with Willow Drive and Chippewa Road, and the truck courts are designed to be in the rear of the buildings to provide the maximum amount of screen to the truck court from neighboring properties. The perimeter wetlands will be fully preserved and development proposed maintains the required wetland buffers. Greenspace is maximized along the permitter to provide opportunities to screen areas of concern. Vehicular access to the development will be from the west along Willow Drive via both a new access in the northwestern corner of the site and Cates Ranch Drive, which bisects the site (see Appendix A for site plan). Improvements to the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 55 will also be part of this development to alleviate traffic congestion in the area. These improvements will ultimately consist of a double left turn lane on Willow Drive, and an acceleration lane along eastbound Highway 55. Additional access to the development will be from Chippewa Drive on the south. Building elevations are designed to offer a fresh, progressive building exterior. The building will be constructed of precast panels with neutral stone aggregate. Tenant entries will provide a pop of color and more textures to lead the tenants and customers to the entrances. Building exterior are also designed with horizontal and vertical undulation to provide a breakup of the massing of the building. Construction will be phased starting with mass grading of the site and construction of the first building in summer 2022. This phase will include the street reconstruction of Cates Ranch Drive and Willow Road, grading, storm water management and utility improvements for all three buildings. Construction of the lift station and improvements to the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 55 will be phased in with the project during the second phase unless they are determined to be required sooner. The entire project is expected to be completed over 3 to 5 years. Cates Industrial Park EAW 4 December 2021 c. Project magnitude Table 1: Project Magnitude Measure Magnitude Total Project Acreage 68.9 Linear Project Length 44,000 linear feet of street reconstruction Number and Type of Residential Units N/A Commercial Building Area (square feet) N/A Industrial Building Area (square feet) Building 1: 205,000 sq ft Building 2: 205,000 sq ft Building 3: 254,500 sq ft Institutional Building Area (square feet) N/A Other Uses – specify (square feet) N/A Structure Height(s) Building 1: 40-45 feet Building 2: 40-45 feet Building 3: 40-45 feet d. Explain the project purpose. If the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of this project is to develop three existing agricultural parcels into an industrial development. e. Are future stages of this development, including development on any other property, planned or likely to happen? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline, and plans for environmental review. Not applicable. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline, and past environmental review. Not applicable. 7. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. The site covers approximately 68.9 acres of semirural, agricultural land. Existing cover types within the study area are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 5 and were determined by reviewing 2021 aerial photography and land cover classification maps. Table 2: Cover Types Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Wetlands 5.0 4.6 Deep Water/Streams 0.0 0.0 Wooded/Forest 3.8 0.0 Cates Industrial Park EAW 5 December 2021 Cover Type Before (Acres) After (Acres) Brush/Grassland 2.0 0.0 Cropland 55.0 0.0 Lawn/Landscaping 1.7 29.55 Impervious Surface 1.4 30.0 Stormwater Ponding 0.0 4.75 Total 68.9 68.9 8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, certifications, and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing, and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3100. Table 3: Permits and Approvals Required Unit of Government Type of Application Status Local City of Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applied for Rezoning To be applied for Preliminary and Final Plat To be applied for Site Plan Approval To be applied for Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for Sewer and Water Permit To be applied for, if needed Wetland Conversation Act Replacement Plan Approval To be applied for Elm Creek Watershed District Watershed District Permit To be applied for Regional Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for, if needed State Minnesota Department of Health Water Extension Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Construction Site Stormwater Permit To be applied for Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if needed Cates Industrial Park EAW 6 December 2021 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if needed Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if needed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Permit To be applied for, if needed Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if needed 9. Land Use a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands. Existing land use for the site is agricultural, farmstead, and undeveloped (see Figure 6). Adjacent existing land uses include agricultural, undeveloped, single family detached, and industrial/utility. The nearest park is Fields of Medina, located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. However, there is a proposed paved trail and future park at the Chippewa Road/Mohawk Drive intersection, one half-mile southeast of the project site.1 Approximately 99 percent of the project site consists of prime farmland, prime farmland if drained, and farmland of statewide importance. ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. Medina’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the project site as a future development area (FDA) (see Figure 7). FDAs are areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the city and will be provided municipal sewer and water services. These areas will remain rural until designated for urban services in a future comprehensive plan update.2 Agricultural land is expected to transition to different land uses as the city develops. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Future land use west of the project site is business, which identifies larger tracts of land suitable for office, warehouse, or light industrial that are served or will be served by urban services. Future land uses east of the site is FDA. 1 Park and Trail Plan. Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://medinamn.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/6 -1-ParksTrails-2018-10-02.pdf 2 Land Use. Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://medinamn.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Chapter-5-Land-Use-and-Growth -10-02 -2018.pdf Cates Industrial Park EAW 7 December 2021 iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The project site is zoned Rural Residential – Urban Reserve (RR-UR) and is not within any overlay districts or the city’s Shoreland Overlay District. If the proposer were to proceed with a formal development request, rezoning to the Business or Industrial Park zoning district would be required. b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. Nearby land uses include agricultural, rural residential, and industrial. The project is compatible with the planned land use and zoning as outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the project site and adjacent areas. The project proposes the extension of municipal sewer and water services to the site. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Any proposed development would require a zoning change to the parcels within the site to allow for office/warehouse and commercial use. The project would include berming, landscape screening, and significant setbacks from residential property. 10. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Landforms a. Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County (2018),3 bedrock geology of the project site consists of Jordan Sandstone, a medium- to coarse-grained, friable quartzose sandstone. A small portion of the northwestern corner of the project site consists of the St. Lawrence Formation, which is a dolomitic, feldspathic siltstone with interbedded, very fine-grained sandstone and shale. The estimated depth to bedrock is approximately 126-150 feet below grade. The surficial geology consists of loam to clay loam diamict deposits. No sinkholes, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions were identified in the project area. b. Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations 3 Available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/200919 Cates Industrial Park EAW 8 December 2021 including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, there are 11 soil types within the site. The erosion hazard rating included in Table 4 indicates the hazard of soil loss form off-road areas after disturbance activities expose the soil surface. Within the project site, all soil types are not rated for an erosion hazard rating, meaning that there is not enough information to make a determination regarding soil erodibility. The soils information is included in Table 4. Table 4: Soil Types Map Unit Name Soil Type Acres within Study Area Percent of Site Erosion Hazard Houghton muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes L14A 0.1 0.1% Not rated Moon loamy fine sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes L19B <0.1% 0.1% Not rated Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22C2 7.1 10.3% Not rated Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes L23A 16.0 23.2% Not rated Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes L24A 17.9 25.9% Not rated Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes L25A 6.9 10.1% Not rated Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L36A 0.3 0.4% Not rated Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes L37B 3.4 4.9% Not rated Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes L40B 8.6 12.5% Not rated Dundas-Cordova complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L45A 7.9 11.4% Not rated Muskego and Houghton soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes L50A 0.8 1.1% Not rated Depth to bedrock on the site is approximately 126 to 150 feet below grade. The site earthwork is estimated be a net fill of 20,658 cubic yards based on the excavations for ponding, underground stormwater management, vehicle infrastructure, and building foundations. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required because the project will disturb more than one acre of land. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared. All unpaved areas disturbed during construction will be revegetated in accordance with the standard NPDES permit requirements. In areas with steep slopes, special consideration will be given to prevent erosion during construction, such as erosion control blankets, along with vegetation establishment to permanently stabilize side slopes and any areas impacted as a result of construction. Cates Industrial Park EAW 9 December 2021 11. Water Resources a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. There are several wetlands located on the site. Aquatic resources within the construction limits were delineated using a routine Level 2 delineation method.4 A wetland delineation was completed for all wetland boundaries as shown in Appendix B (Kimley-Horn, 2021). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters within one mile of the project site include Morin Lake, Peter Lake, and ten unnamed waterbodies and three unnamed public water courses (see Figure 8). The North Bay of Peter Lake, located 0.8 miles west of the site, is listed on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA’s) 303d Impaired Waters List for nutrients. ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. According to the Minnesota Hydrogeology Atlas, depth to ground water varies from 0 to 10 feet across the project site. Based on the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Well Index, static ground water appears to be greater than 50 feet below the surface in the area and. According to the MDH Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer, the project site is not within an MDH wellhead protection area. According to the Well Index, there is one active unverified well on the project site (Unique Well ID 127348). No additional wells are within 150 feet of the project site and four wells located within 400 feet of the project site. The unidentified well will be located and abandoned during construction of this project. If any other wells are encountered during construction, they will be capped and sealed according to Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 4 Level 2 delineation methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) along with the Midwest regional supplement (USACE, 2012). More information available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/ Cates Industrial Park EAW 10 December 2021 Table 5: Wells Well ID Number Well Status Well Name Static Water Level (ft) Well Depth (ft) Date Completed Location 127348 Active Cates, Wally 74 132 01/25/1984 On site 536396 Sealed Cates, W.H. 61 153 04/22/1994 Within 400 feet of site 495788 Active Creal, James 91 190 01/09/1992 Within 400 feet of site 713252 Active Null 85 252 07/08/2004 Within 400 feet of site 754021 Active Cates, W.H. 60 180 11/08/2007 Within 400 feet of site b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below. i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. Based on the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) determination standards for the proposed uses (see site plan in Appendix A), the additional wastewater flows are projected to be approximately 40,967 gallons per day (GPD) at full buildout (see Table 6). Wastewater is expected to be equivalent to domestic strength wastewater. In the event a specific user would have wastewater stronger than domestic strength wastewater, a pretreatment facility would be required to be installed. Wastewater for the proposed development will be collected by a gravity sewer collection system and will be routed to a lift station that will be constructed as part of this project by the City of Medina. The lift station will tie into the existing 8-inch PVC sanitary sewer within Willow Drive southwest of the site. Sanitary sewer sizing is determined assuming 30% office space with one SAC per 2,400 square foot, and 274 GPD per SAC and 70% warehouse with one SAC per 7,000 square foot, and 274 GPD per SAC. No pretreatment of sanitary sewer flows is anticipated. The new lift station has been studied by the City of Medina’s Engineering consultant in their November 19, 2019 study titled Willow Drive/Highway 55 Regional Lift Station Feasibility Report. A future development area of 107 acres was identified in the study, which encompasses the Cates property. The northerly two thirds of the property is to flow to a new lift station, while a small portion of the southwest corner was designated to flow by gravity to the existing Willow Cates Industrial Park EAW 11 December 2021 Drive sewer and the southeast portion of the property is to flow to the southeast gravity sewer in Chippewa Road. Sanitary sewer flows studied for a future development was estimated to be 800 GPD per acre, which accounted for a flow of 33,141 GPD flowing to the lift station and 8,288 GPD to the gravity sewer in Willow Drive, with a combined amount of approximately 41,429 GPD going to the gravity line in Willow Drive. The proposed project is proposing a flow of 40,967 GPD, which is less than the anticipated flow. Depending on existing gravity sewer elevations to the south, and final evaluation of the southerly buildings finished floor elevation, the southerly building is intended to flow to the south by gravity and not go to the lift station. All sanitary sewers are located outside the MDH required setbacks from a well. On-site wells will be sealed by a licensed well contractor according to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725. Table 6: Utility Demand Estimate Structure Size Average Flow (GPD) Peak Hour Daily Flow (GPD) based on a peak hour factor of 4.0 Peak Hour Flow in (GPM) Building 1 205,000 sq ft 12,650 50,600 35.14 Building 2 205,000 sq ft 12,650 50600 35.14 Building 33 254,500 sq ft 15,700 62,800 43.61 Total Average GPD 41,000 164,000 113.89 Wastewater will be conveyed through the municipal collection system to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) regional collection and treatment system. Wastewater will be treated at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro WWTP) in St. Paul. The Metro WWTP treatment type is advanced secondary with chlorination/dechlorination, and it discharges treated effluent to the Mississippi River. The Metro WWTP has a capacity of 314 million gallons per day (MGD) and receives an average flow of 164 MGD as of June 2021. Given an estimated excess capacity of 150 MGD, the regional treatment facility and wastewater collection pipes has sufficient long-term capacity to handle the additional wastewater flow of approximately 41,000 GPD (0.04 MGD) that would be generated by the proposed development. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. Not applicable. Cates Industrial Park EAW 12 December 2021 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. Not applicable. ii. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control, or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Stormwater within the site currently sheet flows to several documented wetlands onsite and either infiltrates or overflows to the northeast. Post-construction quality of stormwater runoff from the project site will be improved by best management practices (BMP ) to meet MPCA treatment requirements. Proposed stormwater management includes several ponds onsite offering pretreatment and stormwater retention prior to discharging to the existing wetlands, in total the proposed development includes approximately 4.75 acres of above ground stormwater management areas. Stormwater quantity will be controlled such that volume and discharge rates are consistent with BMPs. The stormwater quantity will be reduced by the equivalent of 1.1-inch over the site’s impervious surface when infiltration is feasible and 0.55-inches over the site’s impervious surface when infiltration is infeasible. If infiltration is not feasible, the city design guidance for alternative designs will be used to meet the 1.1 inches of abstraction over the entire site. Filtration will need to meet 1.1-inch over the site’s impervious surface. Discharge rates will match or be less than existing for the 1-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Completed conveyance systems and BMPs for the project will be designed according to acceptable industry standards and conform to jurisdictional requirements. Because of the soil types on the property, alternatives to infiltration will most likely need to be considered as viable options. Limited aboveground raingardens, water reuse, and possibly underground filtration treatment may be used to meet the water quality standards where space for aboveground BMPs are limited. Pre-treatment of stormwater will be provided as required by the city and Elm Creek Watershed District. A SWPPP will be developed in accordance with the NPDES permit administered by the MPCA. The SWPPP will cover temporary measures to prevent pollution during construction (erosion and sediment control as well as controls to minimize spills, leaks, or other discharges of pollutants) and permanent measures to prevent stormwater pollution after construction. These BMPs may include one or more of the following: silt fencing, inlet sediment filters, sediment traps, grit chambers, temporary Cates Industrial Park EAW 13 December 2021 ditch checks, rock filter dikes, fiber logs, turf reinforcement mats, temporary seeding, riprap and erosion control blankets for disturbed areas, and seeding or placement of sod or other plant material for final restoration. An Erosion Control Plan checklist will be followed by the developer to meet city and state requirements, minimize drainage problems and soil erosion, and prevent sediment from entering curb and gutter systems and storm sewer inlets. The project will comply with all city of Medina, Elm Creek Watershed Management, MPCA, county, and state rules for stormwater management, and chloride use will be addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan that will be reviewed by the city for compliance. iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Construction dewatering may be required for the redevelopment of the project site. Construction activities related to dewatering will include discharging to temporary stormwater BMPs. Any temporary dewatering will require a DNR Temporary Water Appropriations General Permit 1997-0005 if less than 50 million gallons per year and less than one year in duration. It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering would only occur during utility installation and potential construction of building footings. The water supply will be obtained from five active and two reserve municipal groundwater wells, ranging from 240 to 770 feet deep, that currently supply the City of Medina Hamel water system, that draw water from the Quaternary Buried Unconfined, Quaternary Buried Artesian, Tunnel City-Wonewoc and Jordan aquifers.5 Water appropriation for new wells or an increase in authorized volume is not anticipated for the project as the city’s current system can accommodate the development. The projected water demand for the project is approximately 41,000 GPD upon full build out; the first building constructed would have a demand of approximately 15,700 GPD and each additional building with 12,500 GPD per building. The water supply system will be connected to the existing 12-inch water main at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive and will extend the 12-inch main easterly to complete the 12-inch loop along Chippewa Road. A 12-inch system will be utilized within the proposed development and tie into the existing 8-inch line in Willow Drive. The proposed project will also comply with the city’s irrigation policy, which prohibits the use of treated municipal water for lawn irrigation. 5 Available at: https://medinamn.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Medina-CCR_Report_2020.pdf Cates Industrial Park EAW 14 December 2021 iv. Surface Waters 1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations. The National Wetlands Inventory identifies six wetlands within the site: two freshwater emergent wetlands and four freshwater ponds. Aquatic resources within the construction limits were delineated using a routine Level 2 delineation method. A wetland delineation was completed in 2021 by Kimley-Horn, the results of this delineation are shown in Appendix B. During the onsite delineation, vegetation, soils, and current hydrologic characteristics were evaluated at each wetland area and area of investigation identified within the study area. There are approximately 3.0 acres of wetland impacts anticipated for the project for both onsite and offsite improvements. There is anticipated to be approximately 1.5 acres of impact to the onsite wetlands that currently function as roadside ditches and Ephemeral Stream, which is a low-quality field ditch. The onsite wetland impacts are due to the required widening of the existing Cates Ranch Road and to provide parking for one of the buildings. The proposed development will maintain the maximum amount of wetland buffer for the remaining wetlands to adhere to the city’s wetland buffer ordinance. The onsite stormwater runoff will receive water quality treatment prior to having any discharge into these wetlands. Approximately 1.5 acres of offsite wetland impacts may also be required for the intersection improvements to Willow Drive and Highway 55 and the widening of Willow Drive. An additional wetland delineation for offsite wetlands may be needed for these improvements. Any removal of existing wetlands will require the purchase of wetland banking credits and the developer will obtain applicable Wetland Conservation Act, MPCA for Section 401, and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals. 2) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water Cates Industrial Park EAW 15 December 2021 features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. No alternations to other surface waters are anticipated. 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes a. Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. MPCA’s What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN) database was reviewed to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential environmental hazards are located on the project site or within 150 feet of the project site. The database does not include any sites within the project site; however, the parcels of two sites are located within 150 feet (see Table 7 and Figure 10). Using the following criteria established by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the sites were classified into high, medium, and low risk sites: • High risk: In general, sites with high environmental risks are properties that have documented releases of chemicals or hazardous or regulated substances (e.g., active and inactive state and federal cleanup sites, active and inactive dump sites, and active leaking underground storage tank sites), strong evidence of contamination (e.g., soil staining, stressed vegetation), or storage of large volumes of petroleum or other chemicals (e.g., bulk storage tank facilities). • Medium risk: Sites of medium environmental risk are properties where smaller volumes of petroleum, chemicals, or hazardous materials are frequently stored and used (e.g., registered underground and aboveground storage tanks, vehicle repair facilities, metal working shops), but at which no evidence of spills or releases exists, or properties with documented releases that have been “closed” (signifying no further cleanup actions deemed necessary) by the MPCA. Closed sites, such as closed leaking underground storage tank sites, are considered medium risks because residual soil or groundwater contamination may exist. • Low risk: Low environmental risk sites include properties where minor volumes of chemicals or hazardous materials have been used or stored (e.g., hazardous waste generators, and possibly some farmsteads and residences). Cates Industrial Park EAW 16 December 2021 Table 7: MPCA WIMN Sites Within 150 Feet of the Project Site Site ID Site Name Activity Risk Level Status 132089 Graphic Packaging International Air quality Low Active Hazardous waste – small quantity generator Low Industrial stormwater Low Above ground storage tank Medium Construction stormwater Low Inactive Industrial stormwater Low Industrial stormwater Low 9109 Polaris Corporate Headquarters Construction stormwater Low Inactive b. Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. Construction Generated Waste Demolition debris and earth materials will be generated during demolition of the existing farmstead and associated structures. The solid wastes generated during demolition will be recycled or disposed of at a state-permitted landfill. Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) will require management prior to any demolition, renovation, or operations and maintenance work that might disturb identified or assumed asbestos materials. If ACM is discovered during renovation/demolition activities, disturbance work will immediately stop until a determination regarding asbestos content within the material is discovered. Construction of the proposed development will generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which will either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Operationally Generated Waste The proposed development would generate new demands on solid waste management and sanitation services provided in the project area. Based on the proposed area of 664,500 50square feet office/industrial space, it is estimated that the non-residential (commercial/industrial) waste stream will be around 9,972 tons per year. Hazardous waste products are not anticipated to be produced or stored within the proposed development. Cates Industrial Park EAW 17 December 2021 c. Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. No underground storage tanks have been identified within the project site. Any hazardous waste materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project will be disposed of in the manner specified by local or state regulation or by the manufacturer. A spill prevention plan will be developed, and proper spill prevention controls will be in place for any vehicle refueling or maintenance that occurs on site during construction. d. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling. Regulated material and/or waste will be managed in accordance with Chapter 503 of the Medina City Code and state requirements. No known toxic or hazardous wastes are anticipated to be generated on the site. Toxic or hazardous waste to be stored on the site during construction will include fuel and oil necessary to operate heavy construction equipment and during operations may include commercial cleaning supplies. 13. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. The site is currently largely agricultural land providing limited wildlife habitat. The project is not located within any regionally significant ecological areas. There are seven Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and no Regionally Significant Ecological Areas located within one mile of the site. Additionally, no native plant communities are within or adjacent to the project site. 12 Public Water Basins and three unnamed DNR Public Watercourses are located within one mile of the project site, none of which are classified as trout streams. Existing cover types are shown in Figure 5. b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-965) and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained, and attach the Cates Industrial Park EAW 18 December 2021 Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results. Threatened and Endangered Species Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species (per license agreement LA-965), there are no records within the EAW study area and one record within one mile of the study area. A record for the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator), a state-listed threatened species, is located within one mile from the project site. This species is a large swan that prefers small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies with extensive beds of emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. The site does not contain suitable habitat for the species; therefore, no adverse impacts to the Trumpeter Swan are anticipated. Northern Long-eared bat (NLEB) is documented within Hennepin County. NELB was designated a federally threatened species by the USFWS in April 2015. According to the Minnesota DNR, in the southern part of the state, NLEB may use attics, bridges, and buildings for hibernating. In summer, the species is often found within forested habitats, especially around wetlands. Summer roosts may include under loose tree bark, in buildings, behind signs or shutters, caves, mines, and quarry tunnels. Other Sensitive Ecological Resources There are seven areas of Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance and no Regionally Significant Ecological Areas located within one mile of the site. Considering no MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance or RSEAs are within the project limits, no adverse impacts in these areas are anticipated. No native plant communities are within or adjacent to the project site. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. Effects to Wildlife Habitat The current site provides several acres of non-native wildlife habitat. It is possible one or more species utilizing the existing site may be relocated as a result of site development. Threatened and Endangered Species No adverse impacts are anticipated to any state-listed species. A request for concurrence was submitted to the DNR and is currently pending (see correspondence in Appendix D). Given that the site area has been disturbed for agricultural use and does not contain caves or large expanses of forested habitat, the potential for the Northern Long-Eared Bat to utilize the site is considered low. Invasive Species Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment, and other debris. Stormwater Cates Industrial Park EAW 19 December 2021 Stormwater run-off can cause a number of environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which in turn may harm wildlife. The proposed development scenarios include stormwater management and treatment of stormwater run-off within the site which will improve water quality. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. No adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Threatened and Endangered Species To minimize any potential impact to the Northern Long-Eared Bat, any necessary tree clearing will be limited to that specified in project plans and information will be provided to the contractors to understand clearing limits and how they are marked in the field (i.e., install bright colored flagging/fencing prior to any tree clearing to ensure contractors stay within clearing limits). Any necessary tree clearing will be conducted during the bat inactive season (November 1 to March 31, inclusive). Effects to Wildlife Habitat The proposed development includes stormwater ponds that will be seeded with native plants to provide habitat for pollinators and small mammals. Some green space and native landscaping will be provided within the proposed development scenarios. Pollinator friendly seed mixes will be used to promote pollinator habitat. Additional measures to prevent or minimize wildlife habitat include stormwater BMPs such as phased grading, temporary sediment basins, and erosion control measures. Invasive Species The proposed project would not result in the introduction of invasive species. Disturbed areas would be reestablished using appropriate native and stabilization seed mix. Invasive species will be controlled on-site during construction and landscaping will not include any DNR identified invasive species. Additionally, best management practices will be followed when relocating equipment from other sites. Stormwater The project will include approximately 4.75 acres of above ground stormwater management areas. These areas will allow for stormwater treatment in diverse environments that can support pollinators and other wildlife. 14. Historic Properties Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. Cates Industrial Park EAW 20 December 2021 A search of the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office’s Statewide Inventory was requested to identify known historic properties and archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project site. The result of this database search provided a listing of recorded sites/properties that are in general vicinity of the project site; however, no known resources have been identified in the project site (see Appendix D). It is not anticipated that archaeological sites will be uncovered during the construction of this project as the project site has been previously disturbed with agricultural activities. However, if cultural materials are encountered during the construction, a qualified Professional Archaeologist will be contacted to assess the discovery and provide guidance. 15. Visual Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. The site includes existing agricultural land that is not near any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Future development would conform with the zoning regulations for building height, building form, landscape screening, and lighting would be in conformance with city ordinances. Adverse visual effects are not anticipated. 16. Air a. Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. No stationary source emissions are anticipated as part of the development projects; therefore, no mitigation is required. b. Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO, which is a byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concentrations are highest where vehicles idle for extended periods of time. For this reason, CO concentrations are generally highest in vicinity of signalized intersections where vehicles are delayed and emitting CO. Generally, concentrations approaching state air quality standards are found within about 100 feet of a roadway source. Further from the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind such that concentrations rapidly decrease. Cates Industrial Park EAW 21 December 2021 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. c. Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. The project may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions would be controlled by sweeping, watering, or sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated. The construction and operation of the project are not expected to generate objectionable odors. 17. Noise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. Operations of the project will generate noise consistent with industrial/warehouse uses and are not anticipated to affect quality of life for nearby properties. Building design will incorporate noise reduction technologies in interior spaces, where possible. Existing Noise The project site is agricultural land. The existing traffic noise sources at the site are the surrounding roadways, including Highway 55 to the south. Construction Noise Typical construction noise will be temporarily generated by construction activities. Operational Noise The MPCA regulates mechanical noise associated with building operation. All future development will be required to comply with these requirements. Cates Industrial Park EAW 22 December 2021 18. Transportation a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. The Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project is included in Appendix C. Below is a summary of the information included in that report. Parking The project site does not include any existing parking spaces. The proposed project includes 585 vehicle parking and 219 truck parking stalls (see Appendix A for parking location). The proposed industrial parking is consistent with city ordinances (Sec. 828.51), which requires one space per 2,000 square feet gross floor area. Trip Generation Based on a review of industrial land uses provided in the Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 130 Industrial Park was determined to be most appropriate for the proposed development based on the anticipated site operations and site size. Per LUC 130 assumptions, site-generated traffic projections are presented in Table 8. Table 8: Proposed Site Trip Generation – Opening Year (2025) Land Use Description Vehicle Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Industrial Park Passenger Vehicle 203 36 239 46 193 239 Truck 12 15 27 10 17 27 Total Site Trips 215 51 266 56 210 266 The 664,830 square feet of industrial development is anticipated to generate 2,240 daily trips with 266 AM peak hour trips (215 entering and 51 exiting) and 266 PM peak hour trips (56 entering, 210 exiting). Transit and Other Transportation Modes There are no transit routes or pedestrian facilities in the study area. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. The traffic analysis evaluated intersection capacity for the following intersections: • Willow Drive & Highway 55 Cates Industrial Park EAW 23 December 2021 • Willow Drive & Chippewa Road • Chippewa Road & Access 1 • Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive (Access 2) • Willow Drive & Access 3 The capacity analysis was performed to determine the delay and level of service (LOS) for the study intersections for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2040) conditions. The future year analysis scenarios include: Opening Year (2025) No-Build Conditions – The no -build traffic volumes are the anticipated future traffic volumes with area growth taken into consideration and the inclusion of the planned Roy and Cavanaugh site traffic and two potential developments on the west side of Willow Drive In this scenario, access would not be provided to the proposed site. Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions – The Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the Opening Year (2025) No-Build traffic volumes. In this scenario, access would be provided to the proposed site based on the site plan. Horizon Year (2040) No-Build Conditions – The no -build traffic volumes are the anticipated future traffic volumes with area growth taken into consideration and the inclusion of the planned Roy and Cavanaugh site traffic and two potential developments on the west side of Willow Drive. In this scenario, access would not be provided to the proposed site. Horizon Year (2040) Build Conditions – The Build traffic volumes would be the anticipated traffic from the proposed development in addition to the Horizon Year (2040) No-Build traffic volumes. Access to the site would remain the same as Opening Year (2025) Build Conditions. Highway 55 tapers from a four-lane cross section to a two-lane cross section approximately one mile east of Willow Drive. MnDOT reviewed the Highway 55 corridor to determine the feasibility of converting the highway from a two-lane cross section to a four-lane cross section in 2008. The study reviewed Highway 55 from Plymouth to Rockford including the portion of Highway 55 near the proposed site. The study found that a four-lane section is recommended but funding has not been identified, therefore this improvement was not analyzed in the study, but it should still be considered regardless of whether the proposed site is constructed. The analysis results show that the minor leg movements at the intersection of Highway 55 and Willow Drive experience undesirable levels of service under the Existing Year (2021) conditions. In the future build and no-build conditions, in general, the same movements are anticipated to have LOS E/F operations. The north-south approaches do not have adequate capacity to accommodate all the background and proposed traffic. With the addition of site traffic, the southbound movements are anticipated to have 95th percentile queues that extend beyond the provided storage bays. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. Cates Industrial Park EAW 24 December 2021 Based on the analysis results, the southbound approach at Highway 55 & Willow Drive is anticipated to have 95th percentile queues that extend past the existing storage in both peak hours and impact the upstream intersection. To mitigate the anticipated queuing at Highway 55 & Willow Drive in the Opening Year and Horizon Year Build, the addition of a second southbound left turn lane and signal timing updates were analyzed. It should be noted that because Highway 55 in only a two-lane road, a second receiving lane would have to be added for the Southbound left turns, this lane could be dropped downstream of the intersection. The southbound left turn lanes at Highway 55 & Willow Drive should be 300 feet long to accommodate queues. Any changes to the geometry and signal timings at Highway 55 & Willow Drive would need to be coordinated and approved by MnDOT. Right turn lanes at the site access on Chippewa Road and the Willow Drive & Cates Ranch Drive access are recommended to help facilitate safe turning movements. No other turn lanes or geometric improvements are recommended. Regardless of whether the site is constructed, Highway 55 should be widened to a four-lane divided roadway, as previously Studied by MnDOT. When TH 55 is expanded, operations at Highway 55 & Willow Drive will be significantly improved. Additionally, the project proposer would support ways to minimize single-occupancy vehicle use to the site such as carpooling, use of the Metro Vanpool program, and other rideshare opportunities. 19. Cumulative Potential Effects a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Cumulative potential effects are defined as “the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”6 The geographic areas considered for cumulative potential effects are those near the project site and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. A new residential development and associated road extension is currently being constructed approximately one mile east of the project site. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. 6 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a Cates Industrial Park EAW 25 December 2021 Impacts resulting from the proposed project could include wetland impacts, traffic changes to the area, and increased demand on utilities. Impacts from current and future developments adjacent to the project site will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur. 20. Other Potential Environmental Effects If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. All known environmental effects are addressed in the preceding sections. RGU Certification The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages, or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively, • Copies of this FAw ar' being sent to the entire B -distribution list. Signature," /„.`//' UGC Date Title Pt4 vut- U(4cr7Z Cates Industrial Park EAW 26 December 2021 K:\019596-000\Admin\Docs\2022-01-04 Comp Plan Amendment Review\_2022-01-04 Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment - WSB Engineering Comments.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M January 4, 2022 Mr. Dusty Finke City Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Cates Industrial Park Development Comp Plan Amendment – Concept Plan Review City Project No. LR-21-307 WSB Project No. 019596-000 Dear Mr. Finke: WSB staff have reviewed the Cates Industrial Park Development Concept plan and EAW submittal dated December 22, 2021. The applicant proposes to construct three industrial buildings totaling approximately 665,000 square feet on a 69 acres. The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to add the property to the MUSA and be guided for Business development. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Streets 1. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures and required turn around space as required by the Fire Marshall. 2. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths for public roadways to meet a 30 MPH design speed, at minimum. 3. With future submittals, show the existing and proposed street right-of-way widths. 4. The plan does not include trails, sidewalks, or other pedestrian amenities. See the City Planners comments on pedestrian access and mobility requirements. 5. Any work within Hennepin County or MnDOT right of way will require a permit. The applicant shall also meet the requirements of the County’s plat review committee. 6. With future submittals provide a grading plan, utility plan, erosion/sediment control plans, SWPPP sheets, construction details plans. 7. Add typical street section(s) details to the plans meeting the City’s standard, at minimum. The final pavement section shall be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site. 8. The City will require the extension/paving of the remaining portion of Willow Drive to the City boundary. City of Medina – Cates Industrial Park Development Comp Plan Amendment – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 2 K:\019596-000\Admin\Docs\2022-01-04 Comp Plan Amendment Review\_2022-01-04 Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment - WSB Engineering Comments.docx Utility Plan General: 9. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. 10. With future submittals show the existing/proposed watermain and sanitary sewer systems, structure locations, hydrants, and valve locations. Label the pipe size, pipe material, connection points to existing, and proposed percent grade for gravity mains. Watermain: 11. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future phases or other adjacent developments will be required and reviewed with future submittals. With this in mind, the City will require that a 12-inch watermain be extended along Chippewa Road from the existing 12-inch watermain at the intersection of Chippewa Road and Willow Drive east to the existing watermain location at Chippewa Court. In addition, a 12-inch watermain loop is required within the site, as well as a connection to the northern stub of the existing 8-inch watermain in Willow Drive. 12. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ influence radius (approximately 400’ spacing) is required to serve the immediate residential areas. Provide an exhibit showing hydrant influence spacing. 13. The watermain connections to the building(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshall. Show the location of the PIV and curb stop location on the plan(s). The City requires that domestic and fire services are separate taps from the main. A separate curb stop is required for the domestic service and gate valve (PIV) for the fire line. Sanitary Sewer: 14. With future submittals show proposed sanitary sewer service lines and invert elevations on plans; the City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations. A separate water/sewer service will be required for each building. 15. The City’s typical standard is to place sewer main a minimum of 10’ below the surface (18” vertical separation below the watermain). Where this depth is not feasible, the City will allow an 8’ depth; depths less than 8’ will require review on a case-by-case basis. With future submittals, indicate building low floor elevations and confirm gravity serviceability based on the existing sanitary sewer invert elevations. 16. The City prepared an engineering feasibility analyzing the existing sewer system and future improvements to the system requited to serve the Cates site. For more detailed information reference the feasibility document dated November 19, 2019. o Gravity sewer is anticipated to serve the southern proposed building within the development from the existing system along Chippewa Road. With future submittals, show how this connection will be made. o The Willow Drive/TH 55 Regional Lift Station is anticipated to serve the northern two proposed buildings. With future submittals, show a crossing under Willow Drive and connection to this future lift station on the west side of Willow Drive approximately 450 feet north of Cates Ranch Drive at an invert elevation of approximately 955 feet. Gravity sewers upstream of this lift station shall be at City of Medina – Cates Industrial Park Development Comp Plan Amendment – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 3 K:\019596-000\Admin\Docs\2022-01-04 Comp Plan Amendment Review\_2022-01-04 Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment - WSB Engineering Comments.docx minimum grade in order to preserve depth for future gravity sewer extensions to the east. Grading and Erosion Control 17. Provide a grading plan with future submittals. Include drainage arrows on the grading plan showing the direction of flow and slope percentages. 18. Provide EOF locations for all low points inside and outside the roadway. 19. Maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2% and maximum of 33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall be a minimum of 2.0%. 20. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future plan submittals. 21. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing. 22. A full review of the erosion/sediment control plan and SWPPP sheets will be completed with future submittals. Traffic & Access 23. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be 2,244 daily trips, 266 AM peak hour trips and 266 PM peak hour trips, assuming 665,830 square feet of industrial development. 24. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was completed with the EAW dated December 22, 2021. The recommended improvements from the TIS included: o TH 55 at Willow Drive: Traffic signal timing modifications with approval by MnDOT. o TH 55 at Willow Drive: If traffic signal timing modifications are not approved, addition of a 300ft southbound Willow Drive dual left turn lanes with an eastbound TH 55 acceleration lane. o TH 55 at Willow Drive: Lengthen the westbound TH 55 acceleration lane to accommodate trucks. o Willow Drive at Chippewa Drive: Northbound Willow Drive right turn lane and westbound Chippewa Drive left turn lane. o Willow Drive: Pave north to site boundary to city standards. o Cates Ranch Drive: Pave east to site boundary to city standards. o Willow Drive Site Access: Northbound Willow Drive right turn lane o Chippewa Drive Site Access: Westbound Chippewa Drive right turn lane To improve safety and operations of the area roadways these improvements shall be included with the development construction plans. City of Medina – Cates Industrial Park Development Comp Plan Amendment – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 4 K:\019596-000\Admin\Docs\2022-01-04 Comp Plan Amendment Review\_2022-01-04 Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment - WSB Engineering Comments.docx 25. Provide a figure showing truck movements throughout the site including the largest semi- truck and fire truck. Design driveways and circulation routes to accommodate these vehicles. 26. The project site does not include any existing parking spaces. The proposed project includes 585 vehicle parking and 219 truck parking stalls. The proposed industrial parking is consistent with city ordinances, which requires one space per 2,000 square feet gross floor area. 27. A sight line analysis should be provided to ensure that vehicles and trucks can make safe turning movements into and out of each proposed site driveway. Stormwater Management 28. The applicant will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. 29. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface Infiltration is required onsite to meet the volume control requirement, but if infiltration is prohibited or not advisable due to prevailing soil conditions, follow the City’s Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirements. 30. Pretreatment in the form of ponds, forebays, filter strips, or other approved methods shall be provided for all infiltration areas. The last structure in the street prior to discharging into a pond is to be a minimum of five feet deep with a four-foot deep sump. 31. By satisfying the volume requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. 32. The applicant may want to consider using the stormwater ponds for irrigation. Credits for volume control can be given for stormwater reuse. City ordinance does not allow for municipal water system to be used for irrigation. 33. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions discharge rates. 34. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access to all ponding facilities. 35. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards for Elm Creek Water Management Commission and the applicant shall submit for the required permits. Wetlands & Environmental 36. The concept plan shows several wetlands located on the site. Aquatic resources were delineated using a routine Level 2 delineation method and have been approved. 37. Approximately 3.0 acres of wetland impact is anticipated. Any permanent or temporary impacts proposed must be permitted via the Wetland Conservation Act as well as US Army Corps of Engineers. 38. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The table below outlines the management classification as determined by the City’s Functional Classification of Wetlands map. Wetlands without a management classification will require a MnRAM to determine appropriate buffer widths. City of Medina – Cates Industrial Park Development Comp Plan Amendment – Engineering Review January 4, 2022 Page 5 K:\019596-000\Admin\Docs\2022-01-04 Comp Plan Amendment Review\_2022-01-04 Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment - WSB Engineering Comments.docx Wetland ID Functional Classification Required Buffer Average (ft)/Minimum (ft) Wetland 1 Manage 3 20/15 Wetland 2 TBD TBD Wetland 3 Manage 3 20/15 Wetland 4 Manage 2 25/20 Wetland 5 TBD TBD Wetland 6 TBD TBD Wetland 7 TBD TBD Wetland 8 TBD TBD Wetland 9 Manage 1 30/20 Wetland 10 Preserve 35/25 Wetland 11 Manage 3 20/15 Wetland 12 TBD TBD 39. Any necessary tree clearing will be completed between November 1 and March 31. 40. Fugitive dust generated during construction must be controlled by sweeping, watering, or sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. With future submittals, include a response to the comments in this letter. We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer CITY OF MEDINA APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSIDERATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Cates Family is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in reference to the property referred to as CATES RANCH INDUSTRIAL, located on Willow Drive, north of Highway 55, in the City of Medina, Hennepin County Minnesota (see Exhibit A – Location Map). Project Background The Cates Family is proposing to develop two parcels (Parcel IDs 00411823110002 and 0411823140004) for three industrial buildings. The buildings are intended to be used for warehouse or light manufacturing, compatible with an “Industrial Park (IP)” Zoning. Development of this property will require an Amendment to the Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan to change the Future Land Use Map classification of this property from “Future Development Area (FDA)” to “Business (B)”. This amendment to the Future Land Use will allow for a rezoning of the property, which is currently in the “Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR)” zoning district. The property is governed by an existing Stipulation of Agreement dated November 8, 2000, between the Cates family and City of Medina, under which the City received fee title to certain portions of the Cates property for reconstruction/realignment of Chippewa Road and Willow Drive, respectively. In exchange for these conveyances, the City contractually obligated itself to amend the land use designation of the remaining Cates property to allow for commercial use, subject to the City’s normal zoning policies. The City is legally obligated to approve this land use designation. The subject property is 67.12 acres and consists of agricultural and rural residential land uses. The proposed development will include three industrial/warehouse buildings equaling a total area of approximately 664,830 sq. ft. (see Exhibit B – Conceptual Site Plan). The front side of the buildings will face the roads or property lines and there will be two rows of associate vehicle parking (795 parking spaces proposed). The truck courts and loading docks will be placed rear of the buildings in the center of the property and screened from public right-of-way view. Proposed trailer parking is 219 spaces. The concept site design also includes preserved wetlands, stormwater treatment ponds and open space/buffer areas. Access to the site is from Willow Drive to the West with a center drive. Existing, surrounding property zoning includes “Urban Reserve” zoned property to North (City of Corcoran), “Rural Business Holdings (RBH)” and “Business (B)” to the West, “Commercial Highway (CH)” to the South, and Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR)” to the East. Summary of Request Existing and Proposed Zoning and Future Land Use Maps are included as Exhibits C-F. Table 1: Summary of Requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Existing FLU Classification Future Development Area (FDA) Proposed FLU Classification Business (B) Existing Zoning Classification Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Proposed Zoning Classification Industrial Park (IP) Currently the property is designated as “Future Development Area (FDA)”. From Chapter 5 – Land Use & Growth of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map would designate the subject property as “Business (B)”. From Chapter 5 – Land Use & Growth of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse, and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services. Consistency with Future Land Use Plan The request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with “Chapter 5 – Land Use of Growth” of the Medina 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposed project achieves several of the Future Land Use Plan Principles, outlined below within each of the four Plan Principles. The proposed development is also consistent with “Business Uses” objectives as described in Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan. · FLU Plan Principle: Encourage open spaces, parks, and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces · FLU Plan Principle: Preserve open spaces and natural resources. · Business Uses Objective #1: Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. The proposed development, as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, was designed to preserve as many of the on-site, and connecting off-site, wetland areas as possible. Wetland preservation and stormwater treatment areas are proposed where there are existing wetlands in the northwest and south portions of the property. Where the north/northwest wetlands system is more complex. Historically, this property was used for agriculture and all the wetlands were impacted by runoff from this use. The proposed stormwater treatment in this area should provide improvements to stormwater quality in this system. On the east side of the property, the wetlands are better quality, and these are being preserved in their more natural state. Additionally, the 100’ setback on the east side of the property will remain as open space, serving the dual purposes of providing a buffer between the buildings and the adjacent residential properties as well as preserving existing wetlands. · FLU Plan Principle: Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development. · Business Uses Objective #4: Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas. · Business Uses Objective #12: Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. The proposed site design shown in the Concept Site Plan was developed with the surrounding rural neighborhood in mind. The orientation of the three, smaller warehouse buildings allows the loading docks for each of the building to face inward on the site. This will contain the noise and activity of these docking areas use to the center of the property. The less impactful features such as vehicle parking lots and open space (including some berms on the east side) are located at the periphery of the site. · FLU Plan Principle: Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality, and style with existing neighborhoods. · Business Uses Objective #6: Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural vistas and open spaces of the City. The proposed, smaller-scale warehouse buildings are consistent with light industrial businesses that currently exist along the Highway 55 corridor, both east and west of the subject property. The “2016 Existing Land Uses” Map 5-2 of the Comprehensive Plan show “Industrial and Utility” land uses directly west and south of the subject site. Additionally, three smaller warehouse buildings, two of which are located directly behind the building that faces Highway 55, is more visually appealing than one large, mega-warehouse. · FLU Plan Principle: Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability. Existing utilities that serve the subject property support the proposed industrial development. Adequate water and electricity serve the site from Willow Drive. There is also adequate sewer service to the site and a future lift station is planned along Willow Drive for depth and future service. Stormwater runoff that currently drains into an existing public drainage ditch on the site will instead be diverted to a proposed stormwater treatment area. Access to the site will be from Willow Drive, Cates Ranch Road and Chippewa Road. Which all will use Willow Drive to access Highway 55. Truck and care entrances will be separated on each of the building sites to prevent a mixture of different traffic types on each property. · FLU Plan Principle: Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes · Business Uses Objective #9: Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. · Per the ALTA Survey, by EFN dated September 30, 2021, the subject property has direct access to Willow Drive, a public right of way. We acknowledge that there may be traffic flow concerns due to Highway 55 converging from four lanes to two lanes just east of the subject property. To minimize the impact to traffic on this corridor, the site is intended for use by a few smaller semi- truck trailers than a single, large warehouse would typically require. Three smaller warehouses will also generate far fewer truck trips each day than one larger warehouse would generate. A traffic impact study is being conducted by Kimley-Horn will be discussed upon completion. FLU Plan Principle: Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands. · Business Uses Objective #2: Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities utilizing high quality design and having limited impact on public services. The uses anticipated for these three buildings include warehouse, light industrial, and trades. It is possible the buildings could be utilized as flex space, although the primary use is anticipated to be warehouse uses. This flexibility of uses allows for a range of employment opportunities to suit individual business and employer needs, Full employment numbers will be determined with each specific user when the project is built out · FLU Plan Principle: Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open spaces and protects natural resources. · Business Uses Objective # 7: Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance or create campus style developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features. The proposed site layout is consistent with the City’s desire for buildings in proximity with centralized activity. This configuration does allow for significant open space preservation and continued functionality of natural wetland systems on- and off-site. 4855-1677-4151, v. 1 APPROXIMATE SITE AREA N December 17, 2021 Dusty Finke Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 BY EMAIL Re: Cates Property Land Use Application Dear Dusty: I am writing on behalf of the Cates family, as the applicant for a land use amendment governing its property situated north of TH55 in Medina, Minnesota. We appreciate having the opportunity to talk directly with Scott Johnson and you yesterday regarding the requested Business land use amendment to the City’s Future Land Use map. We understand that the land use application will be taken up separately by the City after the pending Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the Cates property has been cleared by the City Council for submittal to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. During the December 7th City Council meeting, as part of its consideration of the EAW, there was discussion amongst Councilmembers whether reguiding the Cates property was appropriate or desirable at this time. Notably, the City Councilmembers did not seem to be aware of the long-standing contractual obligation of the City to reguide the Cates property for general commercial use. See Stipulation of Settlement, Nov. 8, 2020, between Wallace and Erica Cates and the City of Medina (copy attached). The Settlement was the result of the City’s condemnation of certain Cates property to allow for the realignment/reconstruction of Chippewa Road and Willow Drive. In exchange for Cates agreeing to the City’s take of its property for this purpose, the City bound itself to reguide the residual Cates property adjacent thereto to allow for a commercial use as legally described in the referenced Exhibit B attached thereto. We understand the City has fully completed the reconstruction relating to Chippewa and Willow and retains the full ownership, use and benefit of the property acquired from Cates for that purpose. Unfortunately, the City has not fulfilled its obligation to the Cates family and has, in fact, rendered its remaining property undevelopable at this time based on its most recent 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. The pending application to reguide the Cates property to Business will allow for a planned commercial use, consistent with City planning and zoning policies, as detailed in the submitted application and narrative from Kimley Horn. Dusty Finke December 17, 2021 Page 2 The pending application will fulfill the contractual bargain struck by the City with Cates. The City’s obligation under the Settlement is not discretionary; by its terms, it is perpetually binding on both parties, including heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. We look forward to pursuing the pending land use application relating to the Cates property. We appreciate the courtesy of City staff in reviewing this matter with us and look forward to working cooperatively on this matter in the weeks ahead. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Peter J. Coyle, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: (952) 896-3214 Direct Fax: (952) 841-1704 Email: pcoyle@larkinhoffman.com Attachment cc: Jeff Cates Family Ron Batty, Esq. 4893-7238-7591, v. 1 a STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Case Type: Condemnation DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT City of Medina, Court File No. CD -2574 Petitioner, VS. Wallace H. Cates and Erica C. Cates; City of Medina; County of Hennepin; all other parties unknown having any right, title, or interest in the premises herein together with unknown heirs or devisees, if any of the parties that may be deceased and including unknown spouses, if any, Respondents. STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this P4,••• day of Arv-Q.J4'L. , 2000, by and between the CITY OF MEDINA, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, located at 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN 55340, Petitioner herein, ("CITY") and WALLACE H. CATES and ERICA C. CATES, 2490 Cates Ranch Road, Medina, MN 55340, Respondents herein ("CATES"). L RECITALS 1.01. CATES represent that prior to the transfer of title and possession herein they were the owners in fee simple of the real estate located near the Northeast corner of Trunk Highway No. 55 and Willow Drive in the City of Medina, MN 55340, which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Subject Property"). RJL-182628v7 M E230-301 1.02. CITY has commenced the above -captioned proceeding to acquire the Subject Property pursuant to the above captioned proceeding for the realignment of Chippewa Road (aka Chippawa Road). 1.03. CATES have requested that the Subject Property and certain additional real estate owned by them should be reguided by the CITY in the C1TY's comprehensive plan to provide for the future use of said real estate to be urban commercial (all of which real estate is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein and is referred to as "To Be Reguided Real Estate"). 1.04. CITY has claimed that Oudot B described on Exhibit A should properly have been dedicated by CATES to the CITY in the plat of CATES RANCH for road purposes. 1.05. CITY has advised CATES that CITY also desires to acquire a portion of Lot 1, Block 3, Cates Ranch (which is legally described on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein and is referred to herein as "Realigned Willow Drive") from CATES for the realignment of Willow Drive, currently abutting the west boundary of said Lot 1, Block 3, Cates Ranch. 1.06. CATES have advised CITY that CATES desire that the location of Outlot B (and hence the realignment of Chippewa Road) be modified so as to instead encumber the real estate which is legally described in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein ("New Realigned Chippewa Road"); 1.07. In this Agreement, the CITY and CATES desire: (a) to settle and compromise CATES' claim for damages due to the Taking in the above captioned proceeding; (b) to provide for the reguiding of the To Be Reguided Real Estate; (c) to provide for the conveyance to CITY of Realigned Willow Drive; (d) to provide for the realignment and dedication of Chippewa Road to instead encumber New Realigned Chippewa Road; (e) to provide for the granting of RJL-182628v7 ME230-301 2 temporary easements for construction of New Realigned Chippewa Road; and (f) to provide for the assignment to CITY of the Quick Take Deposit and interest accrued thereon in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 1.08. CATES admit that they have been properly served and that the above Court has jurisdiction over them and the Subject Property in this proceeding. 1.09. The above court has approved the public purpose and necessity of the Taking and has approved transfer of title and possession of the Subject Property to the CITY and title and the right of possession of the Subject Property did pass to the CITY as of April 4, 2000, upon deposit of the City's approved appraisal of value for the Subject Property ($25,500) ("Quick Take Deposit"). II. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, their mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 2.01. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are made a part of this agreement. 2.02. Performance by City. CITY and CATES agree that CITY shall complete the following in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement as the total consideration for the Subject Property ("Purchase Price"): (a) Reguide the To Be Reguided Real Estate in the CITY's comprehensive plan to urban commercial (subject to Metropolitan Council approval); (b) Reconvey to CATES by quit claim deed that part of the Subject Property which is not within New Realigned Chippewa Road; RJL-182628v7 ME230-301 3 (c) Prepare for review and execution by CATES a plat which CITY staff finds to be in acceptable form, and submit the plat to City Council for approval, the effect of which will be to replat New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive, and upon approval and execution, cause the same to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County; and (d) Waive the C1TY's standard application fee and right to be reimbursed for consulting fees incurred by the CITY in review and processing of the plat described herein. (c) Excavate a pond to the north side of New Realigned Chippewa Road on Lot 1, Block 2, Cates Ranch Addition and connect the new pond and the existing pond by an appropriate culvert to be designed by the parties in the field. The materials excavated from the pond may be used by the City in construction of New Realigned Chippewa Road or Realigned Willow Drive. The pond may be used by CATES in the future as a NURP pond in conjunction with future development of that property. CITY shall.complete (a) through (d) on or before November 22, 2000, or such earlier date as the parties may agree upon, the Date of Closing herein. CITY shall complete (e) as part of its construction of New Realigned Chippewa Road. Within 30 days following construction of New Realigned Chippewa Road, City will, at its cost, install a fence separating New Realigned Chippewa Road from adjacent property owned by CATES. 2.03. Performance by CATES. CATES and CITY agree that CATES shall, prior CO the Date of Closing, when presented to them for signature, sign before a notary public: (a) A plat prepared by the CITY ('Plat") which provides for the following: RJL-182628v7 ME230-301 4 (i) Dedication of New Realigned Chippewa Road to the public forever, without cost to the CITY, for street, utility and other public purposes; and (ii) Dedication of Realigned Willow Drive to the public forever, without cost to the CITY, for street, utility and other public purposes. (b) Temporary Easements for a term of 24 months from the date of Closing (in the case of New Realigned Chippewa Road) and 48 months from the date of Closing (in the case of Realigned Willow Drive), but otherwise substantially in the form described in Exhibit A, encumbering the westerly, northerly and easterly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Cates Ranch Second Addition, and the southerly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Cates Ranch Second Addition. 2.04. Settlement of Litigation. (a) The parties agree that this Agreement has been entered into in settlement of the above -captioned eminent domain proceeding. The Purchase Price includes additional considerations which do not represent the value of the real estate. The Subject Property is being purchased to enable CITY to proceed with its realignment of Chippewa Road and Willow Drive. This Agreement shall be admissible as a basis for issuance of a Commissioners' Award in the above -captioned matter or in district court to obtain enforcement of the Agreement, but shall not be introduced in eminent domain proceedings related to other properties for the purpose of determining the value of those other properties. (b) The parties agree that if Closing has not been held pursuant to this Agreement by December 31, 2000, this Agreement may be rescinded by either CATES or CITY by written notice to the other party, in which case the issue of damages caused by the Taking shall be submitted to the Court Appointed Commissioners in the above captioned eminent domain proceeding. RJL•I82628v7 ME230.301 5 2.05. Transfer of Title. (a) CATES agree that, at Closing, CATES shall (i) demonstrate to the satisfaction of counsel for the CITY that CATES has marketable title, free and clear of all encumbrances, except the permitted encumbrances listed in § 2.10 ("Permitted Encumbrances"), (ii) assign the Quick Take Deposit and all interest accrued thereon to CITY; (iii) execute and deliver a customary affidavit that there are no unsatisfied judgments of record, no actions pending in any state or federal courts, no tax liens, and no bankruptcy proceedings filed against or by CATES, and no labor or materials have been furnished to new Realigned Chippewa Road or Realigned Willow Drive for which payment has not been made, and that to the best of CATES' knowledge there are no unrecorded interests relating to New Realigned Chippewa Road or Realigned Willow Drive; (iv) execute and deliver a well certificate (if required); (v) execute and deliver such other documents as may be required to convey marketable title of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive to CITY, and comply with applicable laws and regulations; and (vi) pay the state deed tax and recording fees and charges relating to the filing of any deeds or other documents recorded due to the conveyance to CATES of the portions of the Subject Property which are not included within New Realigned Chippewa Road. (b) In addition to performing as provided in § 2.02, CITY shall at Closing: 1) Pay all recording fees and charges relating to the filing of the Plat, quit claim deed and all other documents recorded therewith (except as provided in (a) of this Section 2.05); 2) Pay any Title Insurance premiums incurred by CITY; 3) Pay any closing fee charged by an escrow or closing agent with respect to CITY's purchase of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive; RJL-i82628v'. h1E230.301 6 (c) In addition to performing as provided in § 2.03, CATES shall at Closing: (1) satisfy all encumbrances against New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive which are not Permitted Encumbrances; (2) pay all recording fees for documents necessary to satisfy of record encumbrances against New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive which are not Permitted Encumbrances; and (3) pay all real estate taxes, unpaid special assessments, utility bills, garbage bills and other expenses attributable to CATES's occupancy or ownership of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive. (d) The assignment by CATES of the Quick Take Deposit and accrued interest which is described in Section 2.05(a)(ii) shall be effective upon filing of the plat. 2.06. Waiver of Other Claims. In consideration for the performance by CITY as provided in this Agreement, CATES waive any and all claims they may have against CITY in connection with CITY's acquisition of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive, including but not limited to damages, interest, attorneys fees, appraisal fees, relocation benefits, costs and disbursements to which CATES may otherwise be entitled or claim to be entitled. 2.07. Waiver of Further Proceedings. CITY and CATES both waive the right to all further hearings, proceedings and appeals in connection with the CITY's acquisition of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive except as either may elect in order to enforce or carry out the provisions of this Agreement. 2.08. Notices. All notices and demands required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given either when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mail, as certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, by facsimile transmission, or by first-class mail as evidenced by an Affidavit of Service, addressed as follows: I21L-182628v7 ME230-301 7 If to CATES: With a copy to: Wallace H. Cates and Erica C. Cates 2490 Cates Ranch Road Medina, MN 55340 Allen D. Barnard, Esq Best & Flanagan, LLP 4000 US Bank Place Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331 If to CITY: City of Medina City Hall ATTN: Paul Robinson Clerk -Treasurer 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 With a copy to: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attention: Robert J. Lindall Facsimile No.: (612) 337-9310 2.09. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) Breach. In the event either party breaches or defaults in its performance hereunder, the other party shall have the right to pursue all its remedies under this Agreement, in the eminent domain proceeding, in equity, at law, or any or all of the foregoing, to seek enforcement of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the right to damages (including reasonable attorneys fees), a decree for specific performance or an order to compel performance in the above captioned matter. If CATES fail to provide CITY marketable title as contemplated by this Agreement, at its option, CITY may proceed to acquire New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive pursuant to the above - captioned eminent domain proceedings. (b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the transaction and it supersedes all prior RJL-182628+n ME230-301 8 understandings or agreements between the parties. No representations, warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any of the parties, except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements. (c) Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. (d) Survival of Warranties. All the covenants, agreements, representations, and warranties made by the parties in .this agreement or in any document or instrument delivered by the parties pursuant to this Agreement shall survive this agreement and the transfer of title of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive to CITY. (e) Waiver, Modification. The failure by either party to enforce its rights hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of said party's right to demand future performance of the provisions hereof. No modification or extension of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by the parties. (f) Time of Essence. Timely performance is essential in this Agreement and each of its provisions. Where any date or time prescribed by this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or statutory holiday, such date or time shall automatically be extended to the next business day. (g) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. (h) Further Documents. Each party hereto shall promptly, on the request of the other party, have acknowledged and delivered to the other party any and all further RJL-182628v7 N1E230.301 9 instruments and assurances reasonably requested or appropriate to evidence or give effect to the provisions of this Agreement. (i) No Commissions. Under no circumstances, including, without limitation, any default(s) of CATES and/or CITY under this Agreement, will any real estate broker or agent be entitled to any commission, or to any notice under this Agreement. (i) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, which shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. 2.10. Permitted Encumbrances. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, CITY shall not be obliged to complete its performance herein until, by doing so, CITY will obtain marketable title and possession of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive, free and clear of all encumbrances, except for: (a) Building and zoning laws, ordinances and State and Federal regulations. (b) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow. Drive which are without effective forfeiture provisions. (c) Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights by the State of Minnesota. (d) Utility and drainage easements which do not interfere with existing improvements. 2.11. Leases; Other Interests. CITY has advised CATES of CITY's desire and intent to acquire New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive free and clear of the rights of tenants. CATES have represented to CITY that New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive is subject to no tenancies. R1L-182628v7 M E230.301 10 2.12. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. (a) CATES shall pay all real estate taxes due and payable in the year 2000 with respect to New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive and all installments of special assessments which are payable therewith. (b) CITY shall pay all real estate taxes payable with respect to New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive in 2001 and each year thereafter. 2.13. Hazardous Substances. CATES represent that upon knowledge and information, since their purchase of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive: (a) no hazardous substances have been spilled or released on New Realigned Chippewa Road or Realigned Willow Drive; and (b) there are no underground storage tanks on New Realigned Chippewa Road or Realigned Willow Drive. 2.14. Well. CATES represent that there are no wells located on New Realigned Chippewa Road or Realigned Willow Drive. 2.15. Contingencies. The obligations of CITY under this Agreement are expressly contingent upon approval of this Agreement by the CITY Council ("CITY's Contingencies"). If CITY's Contingencies have not been satisfied on or before the Closing Date, then CITY may, at C1TY's option, terminate this Agreement by giving notice to CATES on or before the Closing Date. The contingencies set forth in this Section 2.15 are for the sole and exclusive benefit of CITY, and crry shall have the right to waive the contingencies by giving notice to CATES. 2.16. Possession. On or before the Date of Closing, CATES shall deliver to CITY possession of New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive vacant and free of petroleum products, chemicals, and hazardous substances. Any personal property which remains on New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive after the Date of Closing shall be RJL-182628v7 ME230-301 11 deemed abandoned and may be disposed of by CITY as it sees fit. 2.17. Entry For Testing. CATES agree that CITY, its employees, agents and consultants may enter New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive for testing, inspections, surveys and monitoring at any time after the date of this Agreement, so long as: (a) Those entering New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive are insured; (b) CITY hereby agrees to hold CATES harmless from any liability, costs and disbursements relating to or arising out of the entry upon New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive except for liability arising out of conditions found to exist on New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive which are reasonably likely to have existed there at the time of rhis.Agreement; (c) CITY or its consultants give at least 48 hours' telephoned or written notice of their intent to enter New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive; and (d) The entry by CITY or its consultants upon New Realigned Chippewa Road and Realigned Willow Drive occurs between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays, unless otherwise agreed. 2.18. Use of Soil. CATES agrees that CITY may use clay from his property for construction of New Realigned Chippewa Road. CITY agrees that it will place black dirt or other appropriate cover over any such areas after CITY removes the clay. 2.19. Special Assessment. CITY agrees that it will reduce any special assessment which it would otherwise levy against CATES property as a result of the construction of New Realigned Chippewa Road by $30,000. RJL-182628v/ Ne1 F.230-301 12 crry OF Iv1ED1NA By: eteLP Wallace H. Cates By: rica C. Cates BEST & FLANAGAN, LLP Bv: Aen' atn d 4741y�� 4000 US Bank Place 601 Second Avenue So. Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331 (612) 339-7121 ATTORNEYS FOR WALLACE H. CATES AND ERICA C. CATES RJL-182623v7 ME230-301 13 By: And: Paul Robinson, Clerk -Treasurer erris, Mayor KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CH • ERED By: obert J. Lin • 11, .. y 77 Ronald H. Bat #5356 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9219 ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF MEDINA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY O } SS.: On this d day of yisem? . 2000, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Paul Robinson and John Ferris to me personally known, who being by "me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Clerk -Treasurer and Mayor of the CITY OF MEDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on its behalf. otary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPN LAURA 1. SUlA 1DER NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA My Commbsim Expires Jon. 31.2005 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / day of /i ave4» 2000, by Wallace H. Cates and Erica C. Cates, husband altd wife. Notary Public • THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED (RJL) Attorneys at Law 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9219 RJL-182628v7 M E230-301 14 ALLEN D. BARNARD t4A, NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA 19;,--4.0.6:,;V My bCamm,ss+er p:?s .an ?t VAS '. ..�.: •AA.A.N.vAAAAAANWAAAAAA/VNAAANSANYVY Si EXHIBIT A Parcel 1: (PID No. 04-118-23-14-0003) (Abstract) Address of Property: Near Northeast corner of Trunk Highway No. 55 and Willow Drive, Medina, MN. Description of Property to be Acquired in Fee Simple Absolute: Outlot B, Cates Ranch, according to the plat thereof on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said Outlot B contains approximately 1.89 acres. Name Nature of Interest Wallace H. Cates and Erica C. Cates, husband and wife Fee owner . City of Medina Special Assessments County of Hennepin Real Estate Taxes All other parties unknown having any right, title, or interest in the real estate described herein, together with unknown heirs or devisees and spouses, if any, Possible holders of an interest RJL-I82628v7 h1 E230-301 A-1 Parcel 2: (PID No. 04-118-23-14-0001) (Abstract) or (Torrens) Address of Property: 2575 Cates Ranch Drive, Medina, MN 55340 Description of Property to be encumbered: Lot 1, Block 2, Cates Ranch, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record, Hennepin County, Minnesota.. Description of Taking: A temporary easement for construction purposes over and across the Southwest 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Cates Ranch, adjacent to Outlot B, Cates Ranch. Said easement is also described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2. Thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 117.00 feet; thence Southeasterly 500.84 feet along a curve deflecting to the right with a radius of 660.47 feet; thence South 46 degrees 26 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 530.11 feet; thence Southeasterly 262.24 feet along a curve deflecting to the left with a radius of 357.62 feet; thence South 88 degrees 27 minutes 33 Seconds East a distance of 109.11 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 2; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 20 feet; thence North 88 degrees 27 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 109.11 feet; thence Northwesterly 247.57 feet along a curve deflecting to the right with a radius of 337.62 feet; thence North 46 degrees 26 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 530.11 feet; thence Northwesterly 516.01 feet along a curve deflecting to the left with a radius of 680.47 feet; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 117.00 feet to the West line of Lot 1, Block 2; thence South 20 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2 to the point of beginning and there terminating. Temporary easement area = 0.70 acres. Subject to easements of record in favor of the City of Medina. Said temporary easement shall begin on May 15, 2000 and expire on December 15, 2000. Name Nature of Interest Wallace H. Cates and Erica C. Cates, husband and wife Fee owner All other parties unknown having any right, title, or interest in the real estate described herein, together with unknown heirs or devisees and spouses, if any, Possible holders of an interest RJLe182628v7 M5230-301 A-2 Parcel 3: (PM No. 04-118-23-14-0002) (Abstract) or (Torrens) Address of Property: Description of Property to be Encumbered: Lot 1, Block 3, Cates Ranch, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Description of Taking: A temporary easement for construction purposes over and across the Northeast 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 3, Cates Addition, adjacent to Outlot B, Cates Addition. Said easement is also described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 3; thence 70.98 feet along a curve deflecting to the right with a radius of 423.62 feet; thence North 46 degrees 26 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 530.11 feet; thence 450.79 feet along a curve deflecting to the left with a radius of 594.47 feet; thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 117.00 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 3; thence South 00 degrees 06 minutes 28 seconds West a distance of 20 feet; thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 117.00 feet; thence 435.62 feet Southeasterly along a curve deflecting to the right with a radius of 574.47 feet; thence South 46 degrees 26 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 530.11 feet; thence continuing South 46 degrees 26 minutes 41 seconds East on the Tangent line to the South line of Lot 1, Block 3; thence South 88 degrees 27 minutes 33 seconds East to the point of beginning and there terminating. Temporary easement area = 0.53 acres. Subject to easements of record in favor of the City of Medina. Said temporary easement shall begin on May 15, 2000 and expire on December 15, 2000. Name Nature of Interest Wallace H. Cates and Erica C. Cates, husband and wife Fee owner . All other parties unknown having any right, title, or interest in the real estate described herein, together with unknown heirs or devisees and spouses, if any, Possible holders of an interest M-1826281:7 ME230-301 A-3 EXHIBIT B Legal description of To Be Reguided Real Estate: Lot 1, Block 2; Lot i , Block 3; Outlot B; Cates Ranch Addition According to the plat thereof on tile and of record in the Office of the County Recorder for Hennepin County, Minnesota RJL-182628v7 ME230-301 B-1 EXHIBIT C Legal Description of Realigned Willow Drive; Willow Drive, according to the plat of Cates Ranch Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota RJL-182628v7 ME230-301 C-1 EXHIBIT D Legal description of New Realigned Chippewa Road: Chippewa Road Cates Ranch Second Addition, according to the plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota RJL-182628v7 ME230-301 D-1 EXHIBIT D Emails {00561573 } K:\TWC L.DEV\OPPIDAN\Cates Medina Industrial\3 Design\CAD\Exhibits\EX-1_Concept Screening Plan_EAW.dwg January 05, 2022 - 3:03pm thout liability to Ki h the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and im This document, togethe DELINEATED WERANO IS nwro3CAPE-4) SETBACK Reel so FT PARKING sereiso'sS 100 B&rcmPl 25 FT WERARO BUFFER SETBAO,,, LEGEND r 100 FT BUtLONO SMACK fT,P) 1ST OW SETBACK RTPI SO FT K PARKING SETBACK l /-FABENENr DELINEATED WETLAND 5o FT WBErenc,,IP UPPER I 'J I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ®II 1 1 1 1 1H 11 1 1 1 I ,gel '1 1 1 1 1 1 111171 111111W1 I I I —h� � I l l l l l l l l l i l i i i i�rt,i l i t l t l l l i l l l l l l l l (-1 1 1 1 1 ! ' I l l y r' EP LL B Gurus DELINEATED .NETLAPO WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK 0'Rn STORM POND 497,290 SF WILLOW DRIVE - PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE DELINEATED WETLAND IMPACTED WETLAND PROPOSED BUILDING 4205,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING 3205,000 SF I M I CP PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I` ' ii fil'rl�Ri lil lll ll�-�U�I Q ufFER Y SETBACK RYPI STORM POND ±45,500 SF s<APE 'sE� �� �' � E14GN(nPl \J LFT I ND i — —� - 7,— - If - —— BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 68.9 AC EXISTING WETLANDS ON SITE 5.04 AC (7.32% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED WETLANDS IMPACT 1.61 AC (2.34% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 15.29 AC (22.20% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING TRAILER DOCK DOORS (PROPOSED) 219 SPACES ASSOCIATE PARKING (PROPOSED) 585 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING 333 SPACES REQUIRED ADA PARKING 12 SPACES STORM POND ±43,000 SF SCREEN 'NALL PROPOSED BUILDING 3256,000 SF 7,DEUNEATED WEf TIANI STORM POND 421,000 SF TURN LANE ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING RR-UR - RUAL RESIDENTIAL -URBAN RESERVE PROPOSED ZONING BP - BUSINESS PARK BUILDING/ PARKING SETBACKS FRONT (MAJOR ROAD) = 100' FRONT (MINOR ROAD) = 50' RESIDENTIAL = 50' SIDE/REAR = 20' 26 FT WE TLAND PEER '=SETe CCKi+wl, SBFT BUPFERI \ BEIBA[KRAP] DELINEATED WETLAND 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER ETBACK RYPI W 4 Z 1 DELINEATED WETLAND Aem AF�SDAPE — SE,eACKmvF WILLOW DRIVE - 15 _ ,1, oN' FCR 1,N FARM; BEIBA«R P 1 r L WFfeUll➢ENG BE-muxm�� LANDSCAPE SUMMARY OVERSTORY AND EVERGREEN TREES REQUIRED: 200 TREES 9,999 LF LOT PERIMETER/ 50 OVERSTORY AND EVERGREEN TREES PROPOSED: 200 TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES REQUIRED: 100 TREES 9,999 LF LOT PERIMETER / 100 ORNAMENTAL TREES PROPOSED: 100 TREES SHRUBS REQUIRED: 334 SHRUBS 9,999 LF LOT PERIMETER/ 30 SHRUBS PROPOSED TBD SCREENING REQUIRED: ALL STRUCTURES, LOADING, AND PARKIN0 AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (80% OPAQUE YEAR-ROUND) SCREENING PROPOSED: SEE PLAN 'SCREENING REQUIRED WITHIN 100' RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO BE 50% OPAQUE "SCREENING PLANTS SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO GENERAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS PLANT SCHEDULE OEUREATIED WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER SEIBA SOD NATIVE SEED EXISTING WETLAND CONIFEROUS TREE SCREENING Oh - 138 ORNAMENTAL TREE SCREENING 0h OVERSTORY TREE SCREENING • OVERSTORY TREES CONIFEROUS TREE ORNAMENTAL TREE 110 935 38 OTY 121 Oh 100 CONIFEROUS SHRUBS SCREENING Oh • 430 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SCREENING Oh 0 480 / P � GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 200 PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION a z 0 W 2 SHEET NUMBER EX -2 W I L L O W D R I V E S T A T E H I G H W A Y N O . 5 5 C H I P P E W A R O A D W I L L O W D R I V E C A T E S R A N C H D R I V E 30.0' PROPOSED BUILDING ±205,000 SF STORM POND ±45,500 SF STORM POND ±97,290 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ±205,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ±256,000 SF 50 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP)25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 25 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) 15 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP) 50 FT PARKING SETBACK (TYP) 100 FT BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT 60. 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 64 . 0 ' 977.0' 977.0' 97 7 . 0 ' 262.0' 20 0 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 80 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 12.0' TYP 12.0' TYP 10.0' 64.0' 9. 0 ' TY P 9. 0 ' TY P 19.0' 26.0' 19.0' 26.0' 26.0' 26.0' 120.0' 12 . 0 ' TY P DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND DELINEATED WETLAND 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' STORM POND ±21,000 SF 30.0' STORM POND ±43,000 SF 26 . 0 ' 60.0'60.0' 26 . 0 ' 21 0 . 0 ' 21 0 . 0 ' 30.0' 26 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 17 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 19 . 0 ' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 30 . 0 ' SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL SCREEN WALL 30.0' SCREEN WALL PROPOSED DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE PROPOSED DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE CO N C E P T SI T E PL A N EX-1 CA T E S M E D I N A IN D U S T R I A L ME D I N A MN DA T E CH E C K E D B Y SC A L E DE S I G N E D B Y DR A W N B Y KH A P R O J E C T 16 0 7 7 4 0 5 4 11 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 1 AS S H O W N CJ J ZT R MC B IMPACTED WETLAND Th i s d o c u m e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c o n c e p t s a n d d e s i g n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n , a s a n i n s t r u m e n t o f s e r v i c e , i s i n t e n d e d o n l y f o r t h e s p e c i f i c p u r p o s e a n d c l i e n t f o r w h i c h i t w a s p r e p a r e d . R e u s e o f a n d i m p r o p e r r e l i a n c e o n t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d a d a p t a t i o n b y K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . s h a l l b e w i t h o u t l i a b i l i t y t o K i m l e y - H o r n a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . SHEET NUMBER 20 1 8 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 76 7 E U S T I S S T R E E T , S U I T E 1 0 0 , S T . P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 4 PH O N E : 6 5 1 - 6 4 5 - 4 1 9 7 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M K: \ T W C _ L D E V \ O P P I D A N \ C a t e s M e d i n a I n d u s t r i a l \ 3 D e s i g n \ C A D \ E x h i b i t s \ E X - 1 _ C o n c e p t S i t e P l a n _ E A W . d w g D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 2 1 - 1 : 1 8 p m © BY RE V I S I O N S No . DA T E PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LEGEND DELINEATED WETLAND BUILDING DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 68.9 AC EXISTING WETLANDS ON SITE 5.04 AC (7.32% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PROPOSED WETLANDS IMPACT 1.61 AC (2.34% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) BUILDING AREA 15.29 AC (22.20% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING TRAILER DOCK DOORS (PROPOSED)219 SPACES ASSOCIATE PARKING (PROPOSED)585 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING 333 SPACES REQUIRED ADA PARKING 12 SPACES ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING RR-UR - RUAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE PROPOSED ZONING BP - BUSINESS PARK BUILDING/ PARKING SETBACKS FRONT (MAJOR ROAD) = 100' FRONT (MINOR ROAD) = 50' RESIDENTIAL = 50' SIDE/REAR = 20' NO R T H HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D I N A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DR WILLOW DR HACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DR H O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DR PARKVIEW DR BROCKTON LN N MEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN N CHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DR WILLOW DR HUNTER DR ")55 Katrina Independence Mooney School Peter Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Krieg Winterhalter Miller Thies Ardmore Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: October 2, 2018 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill PROPOSED Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting + TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 7, 2022 MEETING: January 11, 2022 SUBJECT: Rooftop Elements Discussion Background On November 3, 2021, the City Council directed staff to conduct a study on the regulation of rooftop elements. Rooftop elements are items that extend past the ordinary roofline and include, but are not limited to, the following: 1.steeples, spires, or belfries; 2.chimneys or flues; 3. cupolas and domes; 4.mechanical or electrical equipment; 5.flagpoles; 6.monuments; 7.parapet walls; 8.towers, poles, or other structures for essential services; and 9.other architectural features. The City Council also adopted a moratorium which prohibits any rooftop element which extends more than 12 feet above a roof. This limitation will apply until the study is completed. Staff conducted a study of ten suburban communities in the west metropolitan area of the Twin Cities. This study reviewed how each community defined and regulated rooftop elements. At the end of the study, staff provided a summary with recommendations on how Medina could regulate these elements balancing the unique needs of Medina residents, regulatory feasibility, and reasonable consistency. The report provided to the City Council for their December 21st meeting can be found in Attachment 1. Since publishing this report, staff has one notable update. Upon further review, staff found that the City of Maple Grove limits rooftop elements to 10 ft beyond the limited height of the building, similar to the City of Corcoran. Staff recommended separating the regulation of architectural features and rooftop equipment and the requirements to be the same across all zoning districts. The regulations proposed in the ordinance was generally summarized as: •Architectural features: staff recommended that “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” MEMORANDUM • MEDINA !Agenda Item:: 8 CITY OFFICE 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN 55340-9790 ADMINISTRATION I PLANNING & ZONING I PUBLIC WORKS p : 763-473-4643 f : 763-473-9359 Agenda Item: 10 Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting • Rooftop equipment: staff recommended limiting the height to 10 ft above the highest point of the roof on which it is located. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the building. The Planning Commission discussed the details of the study and various ways to regulate the height of rooftop elements on December 14th, and the City Council discussed the matter on December 21st. The excerptions of the relevant sections of the meeting minutes for both meetings can be found in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3, respectively. No official votes were taken in either meeting, so the following summaries are based on the general discussion. In summary, the Planning Commission generally supported the staff recommendation for architectural features and mechanical equipment. They requested for staff to investigate further what a CUP would look like for rooftop elements; however, some members expressed they would not support a CUP option. Additionally, some members of the Commission suggested that special allowances could be given to religious uses for additional height. The City Council supported separating architectural features and mechanical equipment, but they had many suggestions for changing the staff recommendation. For mechanical equipment, they suggested having more leniency on height as long as the equipment is screened and would like to see a CUP option. This is due in part to the fact they would prefer to have mechanical equipment on the roof than on the ground. For architectural elements, the Council would like a limit on the area of the roof architectural features can cover with a suggested limit of 25% cover. They would also like for height of the feature to not far exceed the roof where it is located. This report seeks to aid and inform the next Planning Commission discussion on the topic based on the discussion at the December Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Architectural Features Conditional Use Permit There are two types of standards typical for conditional use permits: general standards and specific standards.i General standards apply to all conditional uses, such as a use must be consistent with the purpose of the zoning code or be compatible with neighboring properties. Medina’s general standards are found in Section 825.39 of the City Code and shown on the following page. Specific standards are detailed limitations or requirements specific to each conditional use. For example, a standard limiting size and type of accessory dwelling units or home occupations. If an application meets both the general and specific standards, then the Planning Commission and City Council have a minimal legal discretion to deny the permit. No updates are needed to the general standards for a CUP for architectural features. However, specific standards would need to be drafted for each zoning district where additional height is desired. The conditional use could be for “buildings with architectural elements extending greater than 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height.” The requirements within the CUP are then the discretion of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting “Section 825.39. Conditional Use Permits; Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits. In granting a conditional use permit, the Medina City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council shall consider the following: Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. 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. Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. 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. 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. 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. Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.” Two relevant examples of CUP specific requirements are shown below from the City of Medina and City of Minnetrista. City of Medina City Code – Chapter 8, Section 838 ii “Section 838.5.08. Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within Commercial Zoning Districts. Subd. 1. Structures which exceed 50,000 square feet of floor area. (a) The structure may only be utilized for a use which is permitted in the zoning district in which it is located. (b) Required Front, Rear, and Side Yard Setbacks shall be increased to 50 feet. (c) Structures and loading areas shall be no less than 100 feet from residential zoning districts. Parking shall be no less than 80 feet from residential zoning districts. (d) The city may require increased landscaping and screening to minimize the impact of intensive traffic within parking and loading areas. (e) The city may require additional landscaping, screening and architectural elements to minimize the impact of longer building facades. (f) A detailed traffic analysis may be required by the city to determine traffic control needs.” Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting City of Minnetrista - Chapter 5, Section 505iii “Section 505.07. General Regulations Subd. 5. Height Regulation (b) A building may be allowed to exceed the maximum height requirement called for by this code if a conditional use permit is issued which successfully addresses the following criteria: (1) The architectural appearance of the building shall not be so dissimilar to the existing neighboring buildings as to cause impairments in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. (2) For each additional one foot in allowable, actual, roof height as calculated by the Building Code, which is above the maximum building height allowed by the respective zoning district; front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by one foot. (3) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties. (4) The provisions of section 505.05, subdivision 7, Conditional Uses, are considered and satisfactorily met. (c) Height limitations set forth elsewhere in this section may be increased by conditional use permit when applied to the following: (1) Church spires, belfries, or domes; (2) Water towers; (3) Flagpoles; (4) Agricultural structures in AP and A districts; (5) Radio towers and antennas exceeding 25 feet for use by licensed amateur radio operators in residential districts and planned unit developments.” It is staff’s understanding the intent behind adding a restriction on the height of architectural features is to preserve Medina’s rural feel, limit distractions to the landscape, and prevent an architecturally feature of an egregious size from being built in the City. If this is the case, the provisions allowed through a conditional use permit should support these goals. Religious Use Exceptions Planning Commission discussed explicitly allowing for architectural features on religious buildings to be exempt from regulation of building height or otherwise be more permissive. Staff recommends against having exceptions based on the use within the building. Uses of structures may change over time, and it may put the City into a position of determining whether a proposed use is “eligible” for the exception Limiting Area of Architectural Features The City Council reached a consensus that they would like to see a limitation of area of architectural features and discussed limiting the area to 25% of the total roof area. They suggested that the percent coverage be calculated as the area from an aerial view of the roof of the property. It is worth noting that this is not a standard drawing that is submitted for new development projects. Staff believes that limiting the area of architectural features would create a larger than necessary administrative burden, and it would add cost to reviewing projects which ultimately creates additional costs to taxpayers and to costs of construction in Medina. Ordinance Amendment Page 5 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting An additional challenge to limiting area of architectural features is the need for a very clear interpretation of what is a feature and where a feature starts and stops. This challenge is not as present when calculating the height because the clarification would only be necessary if an element exceeded the height of that respective zoning district. For example, the rooftop elements on the shopping center at 190 Westfalen Trail shown below are understood to be architectural only, containing no habitable space. They are within the necessary height requirements for the district, but they cover approximately 30% of the roof. Staff is also concerned that limiting the area of architectural features would potentially be counterproductive to the City’s stated interest in “high quality and attractive…architectural design.”iv In the example above, the architectural features help to provide visual interest to the building and enhance the development overall. While the features could be smaller, they the size of the features tie in with other architectural aspects of the building and appear to be an attractive design. Limiting Feature Height Above Roof The Council discussed that they would be interested in limiting the height of a feature to based on the height of the roof where it was located, particularly on flat roofs. Generally, they were concerned about the height of an architectural feature could be large in comparison to the height of the roof on which it is located. For example, the recommendation allowed for a 25 foot tall architectural feature on top of a one- story building with a flat roof of 15 feet in a district with a 35-foot height limit. Staff intentionally allowed this to be case in the initial recommendation. Staff believe that an architectural feature should be allowed to be the same height has the allowable building height in a district, and an additional 5 feet would be a reasonable distance to allow that feature to exceed past the allowable building height. Additionally, all communities studied allowed for architectural features to meet or exceed the allowable building height in a district. Most districts in the City limit building height to 35 feet or less. Some zoning districts (Commercial- Highway, Business, R4-High Density Residential, and Uptown Hamel) allow height up to 45 feet. Based Ordinance Amendment Page 6 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting on these limitations, staff questions whether limiting features below the allowed building height is necessary. A feature constructed at the maximum allowed height would not appear out of place compared to buildings the same height. Staff could foresee this allowance to potentially become problematic if the City allowed much taller buildings. For example, if the City were to allow a building ten stories tall, an architectural feature placed on top of a one story flat roof could be large enough to be egregious. If the Planning Commission and the City Council would like to limit the height of features on flat roofs, the following update in underline could be made to the initial staff recommendation. “No architectural element shall exceed 20 feet in height nor extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” By Zoning Districts The City Council also discussed creating height requirements unique to each zoning district. As shown in Table 1, most communities studied regulate architectural features the same across all zoning districts in their general requirements section. Staff see merits to both approaches. General requirements can be easier to communicate and create architectural consistency throughout the City. Whereas, requirements by district can allow for more tailored standards based on the uses in the district. Staff’s impression of the discussion was that the interest in regulating by district had more to do with the type of roof which is predominant in different districts. As discussion continued, it centered more around flat roofs vs. peaked roofs. In addition, staff believes that the distinction between zoning districts becomes less necessary if the City is open to a relatively stringent limitation in most cases. For example, an element exceeding by 10 feet vs. 15 feet is relatively difficult to perceive. Table 1: Zoning District Where Regulation is Specified Community Architectural Feature Height Plymouth General Maple Grove General Corcoran General Minnetrista General Chanhassen General St. Louis Park General Golden Valley By District Minnetonka By District Orono No Regulation Wayzata General Ordinance Amendment Page 7 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Questions to Consider Staff developed a list of questions for the Planning Commission and City Council to think about prior to their next meeting. These questions are intended to help think about the potential outcomes from adopting an ordinance on the height of architectural features. They are not intended to serve as discussion questions during the meeting, as many are theoretical in nature and would be too complicated to discuss. 1) What is the purpose behind regulating the height of architectural features? How would a statement of purpose guide the decision on the height allowed? 2) Does a limitation on the height of architectural features advance the intent of purpose of the zoning code stated below? If not, then Option 4 would be recommended. “Section 825.03. Intent and Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of: Subd. 1. Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare by guiding the future development of land. Subd. 2. Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Subd. 3. Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the City. Subd. 4. Conserving and developing natural resources. Subd. 5. Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.” 3) How to balance limiting height of architectural features with goals such as “high quality architectural design and materials,” modulation, differentiation of rooflines, and not limiting design flexibility? 4) Additional design requirements increase the time it takes for city staff to review a project and can make it building design more challenging for architects. This can increase the cost of a construction limiting affordable options for consumers and can lead to higher staff costs for review. How to balance the design that promotes general welfare in city without unintended financial consequences? 5) How does the limitation vary depending on roof type? o Ex: A peak of building can extend past the allowable building height in a district because the height is calculated as an average between the peak and the eave of the roof. How tall can a feature be above a peaked roof? Should a feature on a flat roof be able to extend to the height of the allowable peak of an area? o Ex: A flat roof with multiple levels. Would a feature on a lower roof level be allowed to extend to the same height as a feature on the upper roof level? 6) The examples in Medina include parapet walls, cupolas, weathervanes, church spires, and belfries. What are other potential features? o Rooftop patios with a pergola o Green roofs – how would trees be considered? 7) What is the appropriate allowable additional height? 10 ft? 15 ft? Ordinance Amendment Page 8 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Recommendation Summary Staff recommends for the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss the purpose of regulating the height of architectural features before moving forward. This will help to make the decision about specific height requirements easier. As stated previously, it is staff’s understanding the intent behind adding a restriction on the height of architectural features is to preserve Medina’s rural feel, limit distractions to the landscape, and prevent an architecturally feature of an egregious size from being built in the City. If this is the case, then staff would give the same recommendation as the earlier report with additional height allowances through a CUP. The CUP could be framed similarly to the City of Minnestrista. See a sample of language for a CUP in Medina below. This sample does not include a maximum allowable height for building, but staff does advise that one would be added to the conditions. General Standard: No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following, except by conditional use permit: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade. Conditional Use Permit: Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within XXX Subd. X. Buildings with architectural elements extending greater than 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height. (a) For each additional one foot in allowable, actual, roof height as calculated by the Building Code, which is above the maximum height allowed; front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by one foot. (b) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties. (c) The city may require additional landscaping, screening and architectural elements to minimize the impact of longer building facades. (d) The provisions of section 825.39 are considered and satisfactorily met. Mechanical Equipment Height Generally, members of the Council did not want unlimited height of equipment, but recognized that the equipment would need to be whatever height was necessary to support the functions of the building. They preferred a height limit of 12 ft with additional height allowed through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This would allow for staff to review screening to ensure it is sufficient to cover the additional height requested and blends in architecturally with the building. The Council also was not as concerned about height or screening if the equipment was setback from the edges of the roof. The closer to the center the equipment is the harder it is to see from the ground. Ordinance Amendment Page 9 of 8 January 11, 2022 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation Staff therefore updates the recommendation in the earlier recommendation to the following underlined text: “No rooftop equipment, shall extend greater than ten twelve feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located, except by conditional use permit.” Attachments 1. DRAFT Ordinance 2. Rooftop Elements Study Report to City Council – December 21st 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – December 14th 4. City Council Meeting Minutes – December 21st End Notes i Land Use Conditional Use Permits - League of Minnesota Cities (lmc.org) ii City of Medina City Code – Chapter 8, Section 838 iii City of Minnetrista – Chapter 5, Section 505 iv Stated in Medina City Code in the following section’s purpose statements: 832.2.01. Business District - Purpose; 838.1.01. Commercial - Highway District-Purpose; 838.2.01. Commercial-Highway/Railroad - Purpose; 838.3.01. Commercial-General - Purpose; 838.4.01. Commercial-Neighborhood - Purpose; 842.1.01. Mixed Use – Purpose Draft Ordinance for Building Height Ordinance No.## DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO HEIGHT OF ROOFTOP ELEMENTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. New Section 825.22 is hereby added to the code of ordinances of the City of Medina as follows: Section 825.22. Height Limitations for Rooftop Elements. The building height limitation established in each zoning district shall not apply to the objects and features described in this section. The height of such objects and features shall be regulated as described herein. Subd. 1. Rooftop Architectural Elements (a) The following architectural elements and similar elements located on a structure shall be subject to the regulations described in Subd. 1(b): (i) Belfries (ii) Spires or steeples (iii) Weathervanes (iv) Flags and flagpoles, if attached to a structure (v) Cupolas and domes which set upon the roof and do not contain useable space (vi) Parapet walls (vii) Other architectural elements (b) No rooftop architectural element, as described in Subd. 1(a), shall extend above the greater of the following, expect by conditional use permit: (i) ten feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located; or (ii) a horizontal distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective zoning district in which it is located, as measured to the average grade. Subd. 2. Rooftop Equipment (a) The following rooftop equipment and similar equipment, when located on a structure, shall be subject to the regulations described in Subd. 2(b): (i) Chimneys or flues (ii) Smokestacks (iii) Cooling towers (iv) Elevator penthouses (v) Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances and related screening apparatus (vi) Poles, towers, and other structures for essential services (vii) Television, radio, or telecommunication antennas, excluding antennae regulated by Section 828.75 et. seq. (b) No rooftop equipment, as described in Subd. 2(a), shall extend greater than twelve feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located, except by conditional use permit. Subd. 3. Rooftop Solar Equipment shall be subject to the limitations described in Section 828.09. Draft Ordinance for Building Height Ordinance No.## DATE SECTION II. Clause (f) of Section 815.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: (f) Flags. No flag on a flagpole shall exceed 40 square feet in area. No single property shall fly more than three flags at one time. Flagpoles shall not extend more than 40 feet above grade, except if attached to a structure as regulated in Section 825.22. If the total area of the flags exceeds 72 square feet, the excess area shall be included in any Sign Area calculations for the property. Wall-mounted flags shall be limited to one flag per property and shall not exceed 20 square feet in area; SECTION III. Subd. 2 of Section 825.19 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Subd. 2. No accessory building shall exceed 30 feet in height, with the exception of buildings where agricultural use or farming is at the discretion of the City the primary use of the property. SECTION IV. Subd. 1(f) and (i) Section 834.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 834. Zoning – Uptown Hamel (UH) District Section 834.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. Building – Architectural Standards: (f) Height. New building heights shall not exceed three stories, except as described herein. Along all street frontages and park property lines, building heights exceeding two stories shall have the third story set back at least six feet from the front line of the building, and the fourth story shall be set back 12 feet from the front line of the building. Basement levels shall not be considered a story, so long as more than 50 percent of the basement structure is below grade at the average of all areas around the building. Total building height shall not exceed 50 feet.In the case that the distance from grade to the eave (or top corner of a flat roof) of a structure exceeds 30 feet, additional fire suppression apparatuses may be required by the city. A fourth story may be allowed if ten percent of residential units are dedicated affordable housing units. (i) Equipment. Rooftop equipment shall be screened using the architectural elements and material from the building, provided they are consistent with these design standards. SECTION V. Subd. 1(s)(iv) of Section 831.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 831. Zoning – Urban Commercial Section 831.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. .Design and development standards – all uses: The following design and development standards are identified for all uses. Additional standards may be identified during the review and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development of the site, and the uses on adjacent property. (s) Building Materials and Building Appearance – Draft Ordinance for Building Height Ordinance No.## DATE (iv) Screening of Rooftop Equipment – All rooftop equipment shall be designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops from higher elevations and abutting property. Equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. SECTION VI. Subd. 1(u) part (v) Section 833.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 833. Zoning – Industrial Park District Section 833.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. .Design and development standards – all uses: The following design and development standards are identified for all uses. Additional standards may be identified during the review and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development of the site, and the uses on adjacent property. (u) Architectural Standards – (v) Screening of Rooftop Equipment – All rooftop equipment shall be designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops from higher elevations or abutting property. Equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. SECTION VII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____day of ______, 2022. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: _________________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Deputy Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2022. Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern Dusty Finke, Planning Director MEETING: December 21, 2021 City Council SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment – Rooftop Elements Context 10. steeples, spires, or belfries; 11. chimneys or flues; 12. cupolas and domes; 13. mechanical or electrical equipment; 14. flagpoles; 15. monuments; 16. parapet walls; 17. towers, poles, or other structures for essential services; and 18. other architectural features. The City Council also adopted a moratorium which prohibits any rooftop element which extends more than 12 feet above a roof. This limitation will apply until the study is completed. The City’s current Zoning Ordinance regulates these features to a limited extent, but it does not address them for all zoning districts and is not internally consistent. In this report, staff analyzes the City’s current regulatory requirements for rooftop elements and other local municipalities’ requirements. Staff then makes recommendations for the regulation of rooftop elements based on type of element and underlying zoning district. Generally, regulations differ depending on if the rooftop element is related to the building’s mechanical function or architecture. For the purposes of this report, “architectural features” are rooftop elements that extend past the regular roofline that primarily provide visual interest to the building, such as steeples, spires, or belfries; cupolas and domes; monuments; and parapet walls. Items that support the building’s mechanical function will be referred to as “rooftop equipment” and they are elements that include mechanical or electrical equipment; chimneys or flues; and towers, poles, or other structures for essential services. Rooftop solar equipment is not included in this study; regulation of solar equipment height is in Section 828.0 and those cannot extend past the building height by more than 5 ft. MEMORANDUM • MEDINA CITY OFFICE 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN 55340-9790 ADMINISTRATION I PLANNING & ZONING I PUBLIC WORKS p : 763-473-4643 f : 763-473-9359 Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study For context, figures 1 – 9 show some examples of existing rooftop elements in the City, with each of their approximate heights shown in the captions. Figure 4: Parapet Wall at Medina Target (apprx 12 ft above roof and apprx 35 ft from ground) Figure 1: Cupola at Medina Country Club (apprx 16 ft from roof peak to top of cupola roof, apprx 10 ft to top of weather vane, and apprx 40 ft from ground to top of cupola roof) Figure 6: Parapet Wall Sign at Farmers State Bank of Hamel (~11 ft above roof and ~35 ft from ground) Figure 5: Chimney at Hennepin County Public Works (apprx 18 ft from roof line and 57 ft from the ground) Figure 2: Cupola at Leatherdale Farms at 2075 Cottonwood Trail (apprx 11 ft from roof peak and apprx 35 ft from ground) Figure 3: Cupola at Automotor Complex (apprx 7 ft from roof peak and 48 ft from ground) Figure 4: Parapet Wall at Medina Target (apprx 12 ft above roof and apprx 35 ft from ground) Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study The tallest features in the City are located on churches which were built prior to the City having zoning regulations in place. Table 1: Summary of Select Architectural Features in Medina Location Feature Feature Height* Height from Ground Medina Country Club Cupola 10 ft – 14 ft 44 ft Leatherdale Farms Cupola 11 ft 35 ft Automotor Complex Cupola 7 ft 48 ft Medina Target Parapet Wall 12 ft 35 ft Farmers State Bank Parapet Wall 11 ft 35 ft Holy Name Church Spire 40 ft 80 ft St. Anne’s Catholic Church Belfry 38 ft 82 ft *Heights are approximate and measured using the oblique imagery tool through Hennepin County Current Height Requirement in Code The City’s current Zoning Ordinance does regulate rooftop elements in some zoning districts, but the regulation differs greatly based on district. Some districts have limits on height and style of architectural features. Additionally, some districts have limits on height of rooftop mechanical equipment or requirements for screening of equipment, but others have no requirements for equipment or screening. Architectural Features Zoning District: Uptown Hamel Section 834, Subd. 1. (f) limits the height of “belfries, chimneys, flues, monuments, cupolas and domes” to no more than 10 ft above the height of the building. Zoning Administration: Accessory Structures Section 825.19 Subd. 2 allows for the addition of “chimneys, cupolas, and similar decoration” on accessory structures such that they would not cause the overall building height to be taller than 35 feet in residential districts. The building height is limited to 30 feet in the residential district, unless the primary use of the property is agricultural or farming. Figure 8: Spire at Holy Name Church (apprx 40 ft from roof peak & apprx 80 ft from ground) Figure 9: Belfry at St. Anne’s Catholic Church (apprx 38 ft from roof peak & apprx 82 ft from ground) Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study District Provisions: Conditional Use Permit for Agricultural Preservation and Residential Districts Section 826.98 Subd. 2. (m) (i) requires that accessory buildings be designed to include elements of “architectural interest” through the use of design elements such as “cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building foundation, or other design treatments.” Rooftop Equipment Zoning District: Urban Commercial Section 831.07, Subd. 1. (iv) requires the screening of rooftop equipment and limits the height of screening elements to 8 feet. Zoning District: Industrial Park Section 833.07, Subd. 1. (u) (v) requires the screening of rooftop equipment and limits the height of screening elements and rooftop equipment to 8 feet. Zoning District: Uptown Hamel Section 834.07. Subd. 1. (i) requires that the use of rooftop equipment should be avoided whenever possible. If there is no alternative, then rooftop equipment shall be “screened using the architectural elements and material from the building.” Zoning District: Commercial, Residential (R3) and (R4), Business Park and Business, Mixed- Use, and Mixed Residential District Rooftop equipment is required to be screened through the use of “architectural elements and materials which are compatible with the overall design of the building,” in the following sections: - Section 832.3.05 Subd. 2. (a) - Section 838.5.04 Subd. 2. (a) - Section 841.4.02 Subd. 5. (a) - Section 842.2.06 Subd. 4. (c) (i) - Section 843.05 Subd. 10 (e) (i) No limits on the height of equipment or screening are provided in these sections. Summary The current regulation of rooftop elements differs greatly depending on the area of the City. However, the current regulation can be summarized as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Summary of the City of Medina’s Height Regulations Architectural Features Uptown Hamel 10 ft height limit Rural Area – Accessory Structures Effectively a 5 ft height limit Rooftop Equipment Uptown Hamel 10 ft. height limit Industrial Park/Urban Commercial 8 ft height limit Rural Area N/A Most Urban Districts Screening Required Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study Regulations in Other Communities The regulation of rooftop elements varies greatly from community to community. Tables 3 and 4 below summarizes the regulations of architectural features and rooftop equipment for nine communities in the West Metro area of the Twin Cities. Table 3: Surrounding Community Rooftop Element Regulations Community Architectural Features Height Rooftop Equipment Height Rooftop Equipment Screening Plymouth 10 ft above the max building height or 50 ft, whichever is greater. Increases allowed by CUP. 10 ft above the building or 50 ft total, whichever is greater. Increases allowed by CUP. Screening required for all rooftop equipment greater than 3 ft, except for solar panels and wind energy conversion systems Maple Grove Explicitly does not regulate of height Architectural Features Rooftop equipment and structural elements cannot exceed 10 ft nor exceed more than 25% of the roof area Screening required so as not to be visible Corcoran 10 ft above building height Rooftop equipment and structural elements cannot exceed 10 ft nor exceed more than 25% of the roof area - Required for all rooftop equipment greater than 3 ft - Must limit views from the perspective of a point 6 ft high at all adjacent property lines Minnetrista Height limitation can be increased by CUP, parapet walls are prohibited No height restrictions Required for all rooftop equipment Chanhassen Does not regulate height of Architectural Features except Parapet Walls: 4 ft above the max building height No height restrictions Must limit views from the perspective of a point 6 ft high at all adjacent property lines or from a distance of 250’, whichever is greater St. Louis Park Limit is 50% of the allowable building height, except for parapet walls Limit of 10 ft Screening is required from ground view within 400’ of property Golden Valley Limited to allowable building height in area with provision to exceed allowed N/A - No Regulation of rooftop equipment N/A - No Regulation of rooftop equipment Minnetonka Explicitly does not regulate of height Architectural Features No height restrictions Screening required on rooftop equipment, unless the equipment is “low profile [and] self- contained” Orono N/A – no regulation of architectural feature No height restrictions Screening required in select districts – industrial, highway commercial, and residential PUD Wayzata Greater of 40 ft in total height or 5 ft over building. Increases allowed by CUP. Varies by district – ranges from no roof equipment allowed to no height limit Screening required and materials must blend with building’s facing materials Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study Table 4: Summary of Regulation Type Community Architectural Feature Height Limited Rooftop Equipment Height Regulated Rooftop Equipment Screening Required Plymouth Maple Grove X Corcoran Minnetrista O X Chanhassen X St. Louis Park Golden Valley O X X Minnetonka X X Orono X X X/ Wayzata X – not regulated or not limited, O – conditions, - clear specifications Architectural Features The regulation of architectural features varies widely. Generally speaking, communities either exempt certain features from height limitations or allow architectural elements to exceed the maximum building height permitted in each district by some amount. Several communities studied – Minnetonka, Chanhassen, and Maple Grove – explicitly do not regulate the height of architectural features such as spires, belfries, cupolas, etc. Golden Valley and Minnetrista allow for architectural features to extend beyond the buildable height using special approval processes, such as a conditional use permit. Golden Valley does not specify the requirements for which additional height would be allowed. Minnetrista specifies the following conditions, in addition to the standard requirements for conditional use permits: “(1) The architectural appearance of the building shall not be so dissimilar to the existing neighboring buildings as to cause impairments in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. (2) For each additional one foot in allowable, actual, roof height as calculated by the Building Code, which is above the maximum building height allowed by the respective zoning district; front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by one foot. (3) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties.” Four communities allow additional height for architectural features – Plymouth, Wayzata, Corcoran, and St. Louis Park. Plymouth and Wayzata’s regulations are similar to Medina’s regulation for these features in Uptown Hamel. Plymouth allows for additional height as-of-right, but they limit the height to be [50 feet in total height or 10 feet higher than the maximum allowable height, whichever is greater]. Plymouth also allows for additional height through a conditional use permit, so long as it meets the general requirements of their conditional use permit. Wayzata is similar, except the limit for the total height is 40 ft and limit for in excess of the maximum is 5 ft. Wayzata also allows for additional height with a conditional use permit. St. Louis Park allows for height limitations to be “increased by 50 percent” when applied to architectural features. For example, in the single-family residential district (R-1) the building height maximum is 30 ft, so a church steeple could extend to a height of 45 ft, if the religious Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study institution was approved with a conditional use permit. One notable exception is that parapet walls are limited to “not more than 3 ft above the limiting height of the building.” Corcoran limits architectural features from extending greater than 10 feet beyond the maximum allowed building height. Rooftop Equipment All communities studied, except for Golden Valley, have some regulation of rooftop equipment. The two most common regulation types are on height and screening of equipment. As shown in Table 4, all communities with rooftop elements regulations require screening of rooftop equipment. A notable exception is that no communities have explicit requirements on the height of chimneys, and chimneys are not defined as being part of rooftop equipment. Generally, screening elements are required to be architecturally compatible with the style of the building. Minnetrista’s requirement is the most basic and states that “roof top or outside mechanical equipment and any exterior storage must be screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way with an opaque material architecturally compatible with the building(s).” Chanhassen has a similar requirement, but specifies that the sightline to the equipment is measured from the perspective of someone who is 6 ft tall standing at the property line. St. Louis Park’s requirement takes a different approach, and St. Louis Park simply requires that the screening extend at least one foot above the rooftop equipment. Minnetonka is more lenient in their screening requirement, and they require screening on equipment that is not “low profile [and] self-contained.” Minnetonka also communicates that “it is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan.” The goal of their requirement is to pursue “best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods.” Three of the communities we studied regulate the height of rooftop equipment in all districts – Plymouth, Maple Grove, and St. Louis Park. All of these communities limit the height of rooftop equipment to be 10 ft, and Plymouth allows for the height to be taller using a conditional use permit. Wayzata regulates the height of rooftop equipment in the Wayzata Blvd District to be 3 ft in height, and they do not allow for rooftop equipment in the Lake Street and Bluff Districts. In all other districts, rooftop equipment is allowed to be any height, but it must be screened from view. Opportunities and Recommendation The study of other communities shows that communities regulate rooftop elements in a variety of ways, and there is not a clear consensus in the metro area on the appropriate height of rooftop elements. This section provides a variety of regulatory options that staff believes may be suitable for rooftop elements in Medina. Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study The first staff recommendation is to separate the regulation of architectural features and rooftop equipment as specified in this report. This will allow for a regulation that is able to be right-sized to each situation. The second staff recommendation is to create one standard for architectural features and one standard for rooftop equipment that is specified in Section 825. Zoning-Administration. This will allow for an increase in consistency and clarity in its application across districts. Most communities have a similar list of elements which are either exempted from building height limitations or allowed additional height. Architectural Features The options outlined below are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and some of them can be mixed and matched. Option 1: Fixed Additional Height Allowance The first option is to extend the 10 ft allowable height for architectural features in the Uptown Hamel District to all areas of Medina. Additional clarification would be needed, and a general interpretation would be to allow architectural features to extend 10 ft above the allowable building height limit measured from the average grade around the building. Therefore, if building is allowed to be 35 ft in a district, the architectural feature could be 45 ft tall as measured from the average grade. This would be consistent with the current regulation description for Accessory Structures (Section 825.19 Subd. 2). This option would not limit the size of an architectural feature. If a building was one story tall (about 15 feet), then an architectural feature could account for the difference and be about 30 feet in height. Additionally, this option typically would not allow for architectural features on the top of peaked roofs, such as cupolas. Since building height is calculated using the average height between the peak and eave on a pitched roof, the peak of the roof is often closer to 50 ft. Therefore, any additional architectural feature would exceed the additional 10 ft allowed in excess of the building height. The City of Plymouth accommodates this by stating that an “element may not exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever is greater.” Option 2: Limit Architectural Features Based on Height Above Roof The City could limit the distance by which architectural features extend above the roof on which they are located. This is similar to the interim regulations which were adopted by the City Council, which prohibit any rooftop element from extending more than 12 feet above a roof. This type of limitation could result in architectural features being limited to a lower elevation than a roof would be permitted. For example, an element on a 15-foot tall single-story structure with a flat roof might be limited to 27 feet above grade when an adjacent two-story building with a peaked roof might extend as much as 45-50 feet above the lowest grade. Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study This would prevent architectural features from being more substantial and potentially taller than the structure they are located on. For example, a one-story building that had a roofline at 15 feet could not have architectural features that are 20 feet tall. Option 3: Hybrid Approach To address the potential downsides noted above, the City could adopt regulations which relate to both the maximum allowed height and the roof on which are located: “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance ten feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” Option 4: Explicitly Not Regulate the Height of Architectural Features The City could adopt a similar regulation to Maple Grove, Chanhassen, and Minnetonka by explicitly exempting architectural features from the building height. The general language would read to similarly to the following: “The building height limits established in this chapter for districts shall not apply to the following: (i) Belfries (ii) Spires or steeples (iii) Weathervanes (iv) Flags and flagpoles, if attached to a structure (v) Cupolas and domes which set upon the roof and do not contain useable space (vi) Parapet walls (vii) Other architectural elements” Additional Consideration: Limit Number or Area of Elements None of the communities studied limit the number or width/depth of architectural features. Maple Grove and Corcoran’s 25% limit of roof coverage of mechanical equipment is the closest comparable. Without the limiting number or area of elements, it could theoretically mean that architectural features could cover an entire roof. Given the variety of types of architectural features and roof sizes, selecting a constant number of elements for all buildings seems to be overly restrictive. Limiting the percent of the roof covered or occupied by rooftop elements would be more appropriate, and staff believes 25% coverage is a reasonable balance. Additional Consideration: Allow for Increases with a Conditional Use Permit The options above may be augmented by a conditional use permit requirement. Two of the communities studied – Minnetrista and Plymouth – allow for height to be increased through this mechanism. Minnetrista requires that building setbacks be increased for each additional foot increase on the building. Plymouth does not have any requirements for conditional uses and reviews requests using their general criteria for conditional use permits. Medina’s City Code typically has specific criteria for each conditional use, so a requirement more similar to Minnetrista’s would likely be more appropriate. Questions to Consider Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study 1) Does a limitation on the height of architectural features advance the intent of purpose of the zoning code stated below? If not, then Option 4 would be recommended. “Section 825.03. Intent and Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of: Subd. 1. Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare by guiding the future development of land. Subd. 2. Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Subd. 3. Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the City. Subd. 4. Conserving and developing natural resources. Subd. 5. Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.” 2) How to balance limiting height of architectural features with goals such as “high quality architectural design and materials,” modulation, differentiation of rooflines, and not limiting design flexibility? 3) How does the limitation vary depending on roof type? o Ex: A peak of building can extend past the allowable building height in a district because the height is calculated as an average between the peak and the eave of the roof. How tall can a feature be above a peaked roof? Should a feature on a flat roof be able to extend to the height of the allowable peak of an area? o Ex: A flat roof with multiple levels. Would a feature on a lower roof level be allowed to extend to the same height as a feature on the upper roof level? 4) The examples in Medina include parapet walls, cupolas, weathervanes, church spires, and belfries. What are other potential features? o Rooftop patios with a pergola o Green roofs – how would trees be considered? 5) What is the appropriate allowable additional height? 10 ft? 15 ft? Rooftop Equipment Staff Recommendation: Height Limit for All Districts The first option, and staff recommendation, is to limit height of rooftop equipment to be ten ft in height and create additional allowances through conditional use permits. Screening would be required for all rooftop equipment, except chimneys or flues. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the structure, as is currently stated in the code. To simplify enforcement and communication, staff recommends either keeping the requirement of screening being equal in height to equipment or screening being one foot taller than the equipment. Option: Limit the Area of Elements Similar to architectural features, none of the communities studied limit the number or width/depth of mechanical equipment. The only similar regulation is limiting the percent of the roof covered by mechanical equipment to 25% in Maple Grove and Corcoran. However, Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study typically buildings do not have excessive roof coverage for mechanical equipment. In Uptown Hamel and the Highway Commercial district no buildings currently exceed a 25% roof cover for mechanical equipment, and the average coverage is roughly 10%. Additionally, if the City were to regulate area covered by mechanical equipment and a building had mechanical needs that required equipment to cover more than 25% of the roof area, the equipment would then go on the ground. Staff believes that equipment on the ground would be less desirable than more equipment on the roof. A potential situation where a rooftop could have excessive equipment is if old or broken equipment was not removed when it was decommissioned. Staff has not researched to see if other communities regulate the removal of old and inoperable mechanical equipment, but more research can be done. Regardless, imposing such a requirement seems like a good idea. Questions to Consider 1) Does a limitation on the height of rooftop equipment advance the intent of purpose of the zoning code stated below? “Section 825.03. Intent and Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of: Subd. 1. Protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare by guiding the future development of land. Subd. 2. Promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. Subd. 3. Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the City. Subd. 4. Conserving and developing natural resources. Subd. 5. Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City.” 2) How would chimneys be considered? 3) What if more efficient equipment is available for a height that taller than the limited height? 4) What if a building’s mechanical needs cannot be meet within the height limit? Summary of Recommendation from Staff For greatest consistency between regions and type of roof construction, staff recommends the hybrid approach noted above. The language could be as follows: “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” This would allow for features on peaked roofs in rural areas, and parapet walls in more urban areas. The Planning Commission and City Council can also discuss whether it is desirable to allow greater height by a Conditional Use Permit with terms similar to that of Minnetrista. Medina City Council Rooftop Elements Study For rooftop equipment, staff recommends limiting the height to 10 ft higher than the allowable building height in the building’s respective zone. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the building. Table 5: Summary of Updates to Medina’s Code Architectural Features All Areas Element may not exceed roof by 10 feet or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than five feet, whichever is greater. Rooftop Equipment All Areas 10 ft height limit Summary of Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the study and held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance at the December 14, 2021 meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached. Two persons spoke at the hearing: the attorney for BAPS and an owner within the AutoMotorPlex complex. The Planning Commission generally agreed with staff’s recommendation related to the “hybrid” calculation for architectural elements (greater of 10’ above roof OR 5’ above maximum height). Several Planning Commissioners expressed interest in reviewing language which may permit additional height through a conditional use permit, although some Commissioners expressed that they did not think they would support that provision. Some Commissioners also stated that they would support explicitly exempting architectural features from the building height. Ultimately, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance and recommended that staff present the information to the City Council for feedback, and present more information regarding the potential for a CUP for additional height at the next Commission meeting. Next Steps At this time, staff does not recommend a motion to adopt an ordinance from the council. The purpose of this discussion is to get feedback from the City Council to see if there is additional information which would be helpful and to see if the City Council’s preliminary feedback is similar to the Planning Commission. Staff intends to present the ordinance for review by the Planning Commission and additional public hearing opportunity. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Planning Meeting Minutes 3. Comment received: BAPS Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 12/14/2021 Minutes 25 Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to Height of Rooftop Elements Baumgardner provided background information noting that the Council enacted an interim ordinance on November 3rd which limited rooftop elements in the City of Medina. She noted that this action was in response to a review of a temple development when it was determined that the City did not have appropriate regulations for rooftop elements. She stated that staff reviewed the current City Code and that of nine surrounding communities for comparable regulations. She stated that the study was divided between architectural features and rooftop equipment. She displayed examples of architectural features within the City of Medina. She explained how the features are currently regulated noting the gap within the existing Code. She reviewed the information staff gathered from the study of the nine other communities, noting that four cities explicitly exempt architectural elements, one does not regulate, two cities allow those features within the building height, and two cities limit the height of architectural features. Sedabres stated that it was mentioned that some of the cities that limit height exclude things like spires. Baumgardner stated that it is up to the City as to the type of regulation, or lack thereof, it would like to make on architectural elements. Popp asked where Wayzata stands in this type of regulation. Baumgardner believed that Wayzata did not explicitly say anything about it within their Code but was not certain. She noted that staff can look into additional desired communities if directed. She reviewed the first option for regulating architectural features which would be to have a fixed additional height allowance, such as allowing ten feet above allowable building height. She explained that this could be difficult because the height of a building is different in a pitched roof. She explained that another way to provide this type of regulation would be to say that an element may not exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever is greater. Finke stated that he looked at Wayzata and its regulation is similar to the second example, stating that the maximum height is 40 feet or five feet above the maximum height allowed in the district, whichever is greater. Baumgardner stated that option two would be to limit the height of the feature, using the example of stating no element can be taller than 12 feet. She noted that a third option would be to explicitly not regulate the height of all architectural features. She also noted additional considerations such as limiting the number or the area of elements on a roof or increased allowance with a Conditional Use Permit. Grajczyk asked if there are examples of limiting items based on roof coverage. Baumgardner provide an example of a barn covered in cupolas becomes a distraction. She stated that it was also discussed that perhaps the number of spires on the temple proposal was a reason it was found to be distracting. She stated that staff would recommend a hybrid approach of options one and two, using additional height and limiting feature height, whichever is greater. Nielsen confirmed that the Commission agrees with separating architectural features from rooftop equipment. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 12/14/2021 Minutes 26 Popp commented that this presentation helpful as he was interpreting the information in the packet differently as to what would and would not be allowed under the examples provided. Finke clarified that Holy Name Church and St. Anne’s Church were the only two examples that would fall into nonconformance with the recommended regulations. Baumgardner provided examples of rooftop equipment on different buildings in Medina. She reviewed the current regulation within City Code related to rooftop equipment. She stated that information was gathered from surrounding communities noting that eight cities require screening, four cities do not limit height, and four cities limit the height of rooftop equipment to ten feet. She stated that staff would recommend to limit the height of rooftop equipment to ten feet higher than the allowable building height and require screening to be architecturally compatible with the building. She highlighted some of the discussion items to consider such as taller equipment being needed, whether more efficient equipment is available but is taller, and how to address chimneys. Sedabres asked for additional details on the legal opinion related to things such as church spires. Baumgardner stated that there was attention drawn to other communities that explicitly do not regulate the height of church spires or belfries used on religious buildings. She stated that it is the understanding of staff that as long as the ordinance equally applies to all buildings across the city, it would be legally approvable. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Steven Graffunder, attorney representing BAPS, stated that he submitted general comments which were included in the packet. He stated that he will focus comments on architectural features tonight. He stated that as part of the approval BAPS received, the spires were removed, with the idea that they would come back to request addition of the spires once an updated ordinance is adopted. He commented that this regulation would be the strictest of the nine cities that were studied. He noted that if were adopted as proposed the previous BAPS Site Plan which included the spires would not be allowed. He reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission previously approved the Site Plan with the three spires. He believed this option would be too strict and stated that his client would prefer that the architectural features remain unregulated. He noted that four of the cities surveyed are not regulated. He stated that regulating the features in that manner through ordinance could bump up against the religious beliefs of others. He stated that if being unregulated is not an option, he believes that the ordinance should be more flexible. He stated that he believes it would be better to not have the option for a CUP as that costs additional time and money for applicants, along with the time of the City, its staff, Commissions and Council. He believed that the preferable option would be to have more flexibility in the ordinance to allow religious organizations to incorporate features central to their beliefs. Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission did not approve the Site Plan, it recommended approval to the City Council. She clarified that the Commission is a recommending body. She noted that the members of the Commission did express concern with the spires but made its recommendation under the existing language in City Code. Abdhish Bhavsar, 2105 Chestnut, commented that one of his concerns with the development proposed adjacent to the Motorplex is because he occupies the last building in the Motorplex which currently looks out on the wetland and rural area. He stated that view would be impacted by the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 12/14/2021 Minutes 27 building and tall features. He noted that the rest of the structures within Medina abide by the height limitations and development should consider to do so. He stated that he is concerned that his view would be obstructed by the spires. He recognized that development is a fact of life but consideration for the views of neighboring properties should also be considered. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Sedabres referenced the two churches that were mentioned earlier and asked if the proposed ordinance would make those churches nonconforming. That was confirmed to be true. He stated that he generally supports the recommendation of staff but has some concerns that other cities have made specific exceptions for churches. He believed there should be flexibility for features related to closely held religious beliefs. He stated that he would support the exception for church spires as stated in examples provided from other cities. Nielsen asked staff to speak about the impact of making the two churches nonconforming. Finke stated that he did not believe any of the ordinances specifically excluded church spires. He stated that for the cities that exempt certain features, spires were included and provided examples of some of the other items that were excluded. He stated that it is not uncommon for nonconformities to occur when ordinance changes are made. He provided additional details on what actions can occur for nonconforming properties. Rhem stated that he supports the staff recommendation and echoed the comment of Sedabres to allow an exception where it makes sense, such as a closely held religious belief. He commented that he would support allowing the flexibility through a CUP. Popp stated that he would be inclined with the approach of Orono to have less restriction but does see the need to develop some type of consistency moving forward. He stated that in general he does support the hybrid approach, perhaps providing flexibility to 15 feet rather than ten feet. He stated that he does not have an issue with the CUP exemption option. Piper stated that she would be inclined to support the recommendation of staff but would not favor the CUP option. Grajczyk stated that he also likes the hybrid recommendation suggested by staff. He stated that he also feels there would be benefit to allow the CUP option, perhaps focused on more specific items on the architectural feature list aimed towards more of a religious use. Galzki stated that he also agrees with moving towards the hybrid option. He also supported dividing the issue into architectural features and rooftop equipment. He stated that this is another example of the City making a large amendment to an ordinance based on the request from one group. He stated that he was against the action in the previous discussion related to sign regulations as that was in response to a request from one party. He stated that he was disheartened to see a letter from a lawyer with the opinion that the City should make itself more like other communities. He stated that he does not like making a large change that would impact surrounding community members in response to a request for one project. Nielsen stated that she supports the staff recommendation and is indifferent in relate to the CUP option. She asked if the regulation should apply equally to all districts and the Commission supported that direction. She agreed with Galzki that many of the ordinance amendments are reactive rather than proactive and in attempt to accommodate applicants. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 12/14/2021 Minutes 28 Rhem stated that these potentially feel reactive because the issues are identified in the review of an application, but the action addresses a gap in City Code or additional clarification that is needed. Nielsen agreed that in this case there is room to clean up the language for consistency purposes. Finke stated that if there were a provision for a conditional use, there would need to be specific standards under which that type of request would be reviewed. He welcomed input from the Commission on what those standards may be. He stated that with the exception of the explicit conditions on the CUP, if the CUP is permissive, it would become a permitted aspect subject to the conditions applied. He stated that if the additional height is going to be allowed, the City should be prepared to allow that additional height, contingent upon whatever conditions. Nielsen asked if there is interest in discussing the other items of consideration such as limiting the number of architectural features or area. Finke stated that as drafted there would not be a limitation in terms of the area or percentage. He explained that it would add a level of complexity for those designing a building as well as those reviewing the requests. He stated that there would most likely be some impact on a design that is not being thought of if a percentage is included. Grajczyk commented that the majority of the Commission supports including a CUP option but noted that it also seems to add complexity to what they are intending to do with the ordinance. He stated that perhaps more time should be spent reviewing the concept of a CUP and the conditions that would be created. Nielsen agreed that if the CUP were going to be added, the Commission should have more time to discuss the issue. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to bring this item back for continued discussion on the option for a CUP and what that would entail. Finke asked whether the Commission would be comfortable with staff presenting this report and the input of the Commission to the City Council to gain its input and then bring this back to the Commission in case the Council identifies additional information the Commission should consider. City Council Meeting Excerpt from Draft 12/21/2021 Minutes C. Rooftop Elements Discussion (7:25 p.m.) Finke stated that the City is currently completing a study related to rooftop elements and the related regulations. He noted that the preliminary report was included in the Council packet. He stated that during the work session prior to this meeting the Council began discussion on that preliminary report and is continuing that during this meeting. He stated that the staff report mentioned that some communities limit the area which the architectural rooftop features can occupy, noting that is not a common requirement. He stated that some communities place a limit on the number of rooftop mechanical equipment items, but staff does not recommend that limitation. He noted that a similar limitation could be enacted for architectural features, although staff did not include that in the draft ordinance. It was the consensus of the Council not to limit the mechanical rooftop equipment as that is the preferred location and the equipment must be screened. DesLauriers stated that he can support the staff recommendation to not limit the architectural rooftop features in that way but noted that he could also see how too many would appear cluttered and would not be the desired outcome. Albers stated that he does like limiting the features to less than 25 percent as more than that would become an eyesore. Reid stated that she is comfortable limiting at 25 percent. Martin stated that she would agree that it could make sense to have a 25 percent limitation on architectural rooftop features as that would prevent against having too many. Finke asked if that would be the aggregate of those that extend above the roof or whether the issue is the limitation of an individual element. Martin commented that she would use an aggregate basis. DesLauriers commented that he would agree with the Council. He noted that 99 percent of the time this would not matter, but there could be an instance where this would make sense to prevent an undesired aesthetic. Cavanaugh commented that he could see that would make sense on a pitched roof but used the example of Target where the Council is asking for modulation and architectural detail and asked if this regulation would impact that ability. He stated that staff did not support this regulation. He noted that for commercial development he would rather see more architectural features and modulation rather than less. Martin referenced a shopping center with bell towers that are placed on various locations but did not believe that would exceed 25 percent. Cavanaugh asked how a parapet would be calculated along with other architectural features that are desired in commercial, flat roof development. Finke agreed that it would be hard to know the unintended consequences of a new regulation. He referenced the Caribou Coffee that exists on Clydesdale Trail and explained how difficult the calculation and administration would be in those instances. He asked if it is really the percentage of the roofline that is the concern or whether the concern falls in a different area. City Council Meeting Excerpt from Draft 12/21/2021 Minutes Martin commented that she would think the area to be used in the calculation would be building area and therefore a parapet would only be the width of wall times the number of feet. She stated that she was looking at coverage of the roof area rather than number of square feet of the architectural feature. DesLauriers stated that he is still comfortable with his original opinion. He also agreed that he would only count the portion that attaches to the building and not the entire size of the element. He was unsure how the language could be drafted for enforcement. Cavanaugh provided different examples to determine how Martin would calculate those items. He stated that he could support the limitation in that manner. Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to support a limitation of 25 percent of the roof coverage for architectural features. Finke stated that there is an objective for varying rooflines for a building. He reviewed the hybrid recommendation suggested for architectural features, noting that the Council suggested an additional regulation for a not to exceed of 15 feet above the roofline for a parapet wall. He asked for clarification on how the height of the roof would be determined. DesLauriers commented that he would believe the 15 feet would be from the midpoint rather than the highest height of the roof. Finke provided an example of Target which has a parapet wall and explained how the potential regulations would apply in that instance. Martin stated that she would not count a parapet wall as roof height for that calculation but would use the height of the higher actual roof segment as that is the highest point of the roof. Finke stated that in that example an architectural feature on a lower wall segment could be higher as the height would be measured by the higher wall segment. Martin stated that in that instance the measurement would be based on the segment of the roof that the feature is located; meaning that if a feature is located on a lower roof segment, the height would be measured from that wall segment and not based on the height of a higher roof segment. Reid commented that she could agree with that but noted that the different numbers seem more complicated. Cavanaugh referenced a belltower which would not be placed on the highest roof segment but could be higher than the highest point of the rest of the building. He stated that he would be more in favor of setting a limit which could be applied anywhere on the building. Albers stated that he is struggling on the direction and where to go, therefore reserved his comments. Martin stated that this issue will be referred back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. She stated that she prefers limiting a flat roof by each segment of the building and the height for that particular segment. Cavanaugh stated that he would guess the roofline would be consistent across the building and the varying elements would be parapets. City Council Meeting Excerpt from Draft 12/21/2021 Minutes Martin noted that OSI has varying roof heights. Finke agreed that it is not that uncommon for commercial buildings to have varying roof heights. He provided a photographic example of a building with varying roof heights. He explained how the potential regulations would apply in that instance. He stated that staff has spent a number of hours thinking about potential issues that could arise and things still continue to come up, which speak to the complexity of this topic. He stated that it would appear that the hybrid option would allow most situations with the exception of the steeple and belltower mentioned earlier but noted that most of those other things would just barely meet the regulation (Target wall, cupola on Motorplex, etc.). Finke moved on to the discussion related to the regulation of rooftop equipment. He reviewed the current Medina regulations and provided comparison of regulations from other communities. He asked whether it is necessary to limit the height of mechanical equipment, as technologies change equipment may become larger. He stated that if the elements are required to be screened perhaps a maximum height is not needed. Martin stated that she would prefer to keep a maximum height and use a CUP to allow more height for equipment if necessary. Albers did not have much of an opinion. Reid agreed with Albers. She stated that rooftop equipment is not generally that high in her experience. Cavanaugh commented that rooftop equipment will be whatever is needed to support the building. He did not believe it was necessary to place a maximum height as the equipment would be screened. DesLauriers agreed with Cavanaugh. He stated that if equipment 12 feet in height is needed, it would be screened and could be approved with a CUP. Martin clarified that Cavanaugh suggested no height limitation with required screening whereas DesLauriers mentioned a CUP. She asked what the CUP would be used for if the screening is already required. DesLauriers stated that the CUP would allow review to see what the screening would look like. Martin agreed that she would also want to review the screening. She received confirmation that DesLauriers would agree to a maximum height with a CUP to allow additional height. Cavanaugh stated that he could support that concept, even though his original thought was only to require screening as rooftop equipment would not be larger than needed to support the building. Albers asked if there would be a second maximum height allowed under CUP rather than allowing unlimited height through a CUP. Martin commented that she does not feel educated enough to suggest a maximum height for rooftop equipment. She stated that perhaps above ten feet, a CUP would be required. Finke stated that it was not very common where cities treated equipment differently than architectural requirements. City Council Meeting Excerpt from Draft 12/21/2021 Minutes Cavanaugh suggested using a height of 12 feet. He noted that if the rooftop equipment is under 12 feet, screening would be required and if above, a CUP would be required. Martin commented that she would prefer ten feet but could support 12 feet. Reid commented that a 12-foot piece of rooftop equipment in the middle of a large warehouse would not be visible from any direction. She noted that if equipment is far enough from a roofline, it would not be visible and may not require screening. Martin asked for details on the screening requirement. Finke reviewed the language within existing City Code which is fairly general in nature. Martin confirmed that Reid is correct that screening may not be required depending on where the equipment is situated on the building. Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to specify a maximum height of 12 feet for rooftop equipment, with the stipulation that additional height could be requested through a CUP. Finke commented that some people have been in attendance for the work session and this portion of the meeting. Martin noted that she and Johnson have not received any requests from the public to speak. Finke stated that staff will prepare the information and update the draft ordinance for review by the Planning Commission at its January meeting. Nielsen referenced the architectural elements and asked if the Council would like delineation between residential and commercial roofs (flat vs. pitched). Martin agreed that she would be comfortable having two different categories: business/commercial and residential. She noted that staff may provide additional suggestion on how the regulations could vary further based on the zoning district. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday December 14, 2021 4 5 1 . Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Nielsen announced that the meeting was being held virtually due to the ongoing pandemic 8 and provided instructions for public participation. 9 10 Present: Planning Commissioners Peter Galzki, Ron Grajczyk , Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, 11 Justin Popp , Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres. 12 13 Absent: None. 14 15 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Planner Deb Dion , Planning Intern 16 Colette Baumgardner. 17 18 2. Public Comments on Items not on the A genda 19 20 Robert Belzer, Wild Meadows resident, stated that he would like to speak about his 21 homeowners association and related documentation. He stated that he would like to have the 22 history of documents in order cleanup some of the HOA documents. He stated that there are 23 200 acres of land and water in the common areas and expressed challenges in finding the 24 appropriate information related to the conservation easement agreement and related 25 amendments. 26 27 Nielsen commented that this does not appear to be an issue the Planning Commission can 28 address. 29 30 Belzer commented that he also has questions about the degradation of the ponds on the 31 property. He stated that the HOA needs help in cleaning up those ponds. He also expressed 32 difficulty in communicating with the watershed. 33 34 Grajczyk asked if the resident has spoken with the MPCA related to the degradation of the 35 ponds. 36 37 Belzer confirmed that he did but noted that the ponds are private. 38 39 Nielsen again noted that this is not an issue the Commission can address. 40 41 Belzer commented that the problem in Medina is that the City is using old agreements that 42 create the same problems. He stated that Wild Meadows represents 10 percent of the tax base 43 in Medina. He commented on the high cost to clean up the ponds within the development. 44 45 Nielsen stated that the Commission cannot participate in an education discussion about this 46 topic as it lies outside the purview of the Commission and the members do not have history 47 on this topic. 48 49 Belzer commented that he has reached out to staff and was referred to the Attorney General, 50 to whom he has been working with. He stated that the degraded ponds are still an issue. 51 52 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 53 54 2 Reid provided an update on the recent activity of the City Council at its November 16th and 55 December 7 th meetings. 56 57 4. Planning Department Report 58 59 Finke provided an update. 60 61 Popp asked the address for the daycare center site mentioned. 62 63 Finke stated that the property is south of Meander, east of Arrowhead and west of Fields of 64 Medina. 65 66 5. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code 67 Pertaining to Height of Rooftop Elements 68 69 Baumgardner provided background information n oting that the Council enacted an interim 70 ordinance on November 3 rd which limited rooftop elements in the City of Medina. She noted 71 that this action was in response to a review of a temple development when it was determined 72 that the City did not have appropriate regulations for rooftop elements. She stated that staff 73 reviewed the current City Code and that of nine surrounding communities for comparable 74 regulations. She stated that the study was divided between architectural features and rooftop 75 equipment. She displayed examples of architectural features within the City of Medina. She 76 explained how the features are currently regulated noting the gap within the existing Code. 77 She reviewed the information staff gathered from the study of the nine other co mmunities, 78 noting that four cities explicitly exempt architectural elements, one does not regulate, two 79 cities allow those features within the building height, and two cities limit the height of 80 architectural features. 81 82 Sedabres stated that it was mentioned that some of the cities that limit height exclude things 83 like spires. 84 85 Baumgardner stated that it is up to the City as to the type of regulation, or lack thereof, it 86 would like to make on architectural elements. 87 88 Popp asked where Wayzata stands in this type of regulation. 89 90 Baumgardner believed that Wayzata did not explicitly say anything about it within their Code 91 but was not certain. She noted that staff can look into additional desired communities if 92 directed. She reviewed the first option for regulating architectural features which would be to 93 have a fixed additional height allowance, such as allowing ten feet above allowable building 94 height. She explained that this could be difficult because the height of a building is different 95 in a pitched roof. She explained that another way to provide this type of regulation would be 96 to say that an element may not exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum 97 allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever i s greater. 98 99 Finke stated that he looked at Wayzata and its regulation is similar to the second example, 100 stating that the maximum height is 40 feet or five feet above the maximum height allowed in 101 the district, whichever is greater. 102 103 Baumgardner stated that option two would be to limit the height of the feature, using the 104 example of stating no element can be taller than 12 feet. She noted that a third option would 105 be to explicitly not regulate the height of all architectural features. She also noted additional 106 con siderations such as limiting the number or the area of elements on a roof or increased 107 allowance with a Conditional Use Permit. 108 109 3 Grajczyk asked if there are examples of limiting items based on roof coverage. 110 111 Baumgardner provide an example of a barn co vered in cupolas becomes a distraction. She 112 stated that it was also discussed that perhaps the number of spires on the temple proposal was 113 a reason it was found to be distracting. She stated that staff would recommend a hybrid 114 approach of options one and two, using additional height and limiting feature height, 115 whichever is greater. 116 117 Nielsen confirmed that the Commission agrees with separating architectural features from 118 rooftop equipment. 119 120 Popp commented that this presentation helpful as he was inter preting the information in the 121 packet differently as to what would and would not be allowed under the examples provided. 122 123 Finke clarified that Holy Name Church and St. Anne’s Church were the only two examples 124 that would fall into nonconformance with the re commended regulations. 125 126 Baumgardner provided examples of rooftop equipment on different buildings in Medina. She 127 reviewed the current regulation within City Code related to rooftop equipment. She stated 128 that information was gathered from surrounding comm unities noting that eight cities require 129 screening, four cities do not limit height, and four cities limit the height of rooftop equipment 130 to ten feet. She stated that staff would recommend to limit the height of rooftop equipment to 131 ten feet higher than the allowable building height and require screening to be architecturally 132 compatible with the building. She highlighted some of the discussion items to consider such 133 as taller equipment being needed, whether more efficient equipment is available but is ta ller, 134 and how to address chimneys. 135 136 Sedabres asked for additional details on the legal opinion related to things such as church 137 spires. 138 139 Baumgardner stated that there was attention drawn to other communities that explicitly do not 140 regulate the height of church spires or belfries used on religious buildings. She stated that it 141 is the understanding of staff that as long as the ordinance equa lly applies to all buildings 142 across the city, it would be legally approvable. 143 144 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 145 146 Steven Graffunder, attorney representing BAPS, stated that he submitted general comments 147 which were included in the packet. He stated that he will focus comments on architectural 148 features tonight. He stated that as part of the approval BAPS received, the spires were 149 removed, with the idea that they would come back to request addition of the spires once an 150 updated ordinance is ad opted. He commented that this regulation would be the strictest of the 151 nine cities that were studied. He noted that if were adopted as proposed the previous BAPS 152 Site Plan which included the spires would not be allowed. He reminded the Commission that 153 the Planning Commission previously approved the Site Plan with the three spires. He 154 believed this option would be too strict and stated that his client would prefer that the 155 architectural features remain unregulated. He noted that four of the cities surve yed are not 156 regulated. He stated that regulating the features in that manner through ordinance could 157 bump up against the religious beliefs of others. He stated that if being unregulated is not an 158 option, he believes that the ordinance should be more flexible. He stated that he believes it 159 would be better to not have the option for a CUP as that costs additional time and money for 160 applicants, along with the time of the City, its staff, Commissions and Council. He believed 161 that the preferable option would be to have more flexibility in the ordinance to allow religious 162 organizations to incorporate features central to their beliefs. 163 164 4 Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission did not approve the Site Plan, it recommended 165 approval to the City Council. She clarified that the Commission is a recommending body. 166 She noted that the members of the Commission did express concern with the spires but made 167 its recommendation under the existing language in City Code. 168 169 Abdhish Bhavsar, 2105 Chestnut, commented that one of his concerns with the development 170 proposed adjacent to the Motorplex is because he occupies the last building in the Motorplex 171 which currently looks out on the wetland and rural area. He stated that view would be 172 impacted by the building and tall f eatures. He noted that the rest of the structures within 173 Medina abide by the height limitations and development should consider to do so. He stated 174 that he is concerned that his view would be obstructed by the spires. He recognized that 175 development is a fact of life but consideration for the views of neighboring properties should 176 also be considered. 177 178 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. 179 180 Sedabres referenced the two churches that were mentioned earlier and asked if the proposed 181 ordinance would m ake those churches nonconforming. That was confirmed to be true. He 182 stated that he generally supports the recommendation of staff but has some concerns that 183 other cities have made specific exceptions for churches. He believed there should be 184 flexibility for features related to closely held religious beliefs. He stated that he would 185 support the exception for church spires as stated in examples provided from other cities. 186 187 Nielsen asked staff to speak about the impact of making the two churches nonconform ing. 188 189 Finke stated that he did not believe any of the ordinances specifically excluded church spires. 190 He stated that for the cities that exempt certain features, spires were included and provided 191 examples of some of the other items that were excluded. He stated that it is not uncommon 192 for nonconformities to occur when ordinance changes are made. He provided additional 193 details on what actions can occur for nonconforming properties. 194 195 Rhem stated that he supports the staff recommendation and echoed the comment of Sedabres 196 to allow an exception where it makes sense, such as a closely held religious belief. He 197 commented that he would support allowing the flexibility through a CUP. 198 199 Popp stated that he would be inclined with the approach of Orono to have les s restriction but 200 does see the need to develop some type of consistency moving forward. He stated that in 201 general he does support the hybrid approach, perhaps providing flexibility to 15 feet rather 202 than ten feet. He stated that he does not have an issue with the CUP exemption option. 203 204 Piper stated that she would be inclined to support the recommendation of staff but would not 205 favor the CUP option. 206 207 Grajczyk stated that he also likes the hybrid recommendation suggested by staff. He stated 208 that he also feels there would be benefit to allow the CUP option, perhaps focused on more 209 specific items on the architectural feature list aimed towards more of a religious use. 210 211 Galzki stated that he also agrees with moving towards the hybrid option. He also suppo rted 212 dividing the issue into architectural features and rooftop equipment. He stated that this is 213 another example of the City making a large amendment to an ordinance based on the request 214 from one group. He stated that he was against th e action in the previous discussion related to 215 sign regulations as that was in response to a request from one party. He stated that he was 216 disheartened to see a letter from a lawyer with the opinion that the City should make itself 217 more like other communities. He stated that he does not like making a large change that 218 would impact surrounding community members in response to a request for one project. 219 5 220 Nielsen stated that she supports the staff recommendation and is indifferent in relate to the 221 CUP option. She asked if the regulation should apply equally to all districts and the 222 Commission supported that direction. She agreed with Galzki that many of the ordinance 223 amendments are reactive rather than proactive and in attempt to accommodate applicant s. 224 225 Rhem stated that these potentially feel reactive because the issues are identified in the review 226 of an application, but the action addresses a gap in City Code or additional clarification that is 227 needed. 228 229 Nielsen agreed that in this case there is roo m to clean up the language for consistency 230 purposes. 231 232 Finke stated that if there were a provision for a conditional use, there would need to be 233 specific standards under which that type of request would be reviewed. He welcomed input 234 from the Commission on what those standards may be. He stated that with the exception of 235 the explicit conditions on the CUP, if the CUP is permissive, it would become a permitted 236 aspect subject to the conditions applied. He stated that if the additional height is going to b e 237 allowed, the City should be prepared to allow that additional height, contingent upon 238 whatever conditions. 239 240 Nielsen asked if there is interest in discussing the other items of consideration such as 241 limiting the number of architectural features or area. 242 243 Finke stated that as drafted there would not be a limitation in terms of the area or percentage. 244 He explained that it would add a level of complexity for those designing a building as well as 245 those reviewing the requests. He stated that there would most likely be some impact on a 246 design that is not being thought of if a percentage is included. 247 248 Grajczyk commented that the majority of the Commission supports including a CUP option 249 but noted that it also seems to add complexity to what they are intending to do with the 250 ordinance. He stated that perhaps more time should be spent reviewing the concept of a CUP 251 and the conditions that would be created. 252 253 Nielsen agreed that if the CUP were going to be added, the Commission should have more 254 time to discuss the issue. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to 255 bring this item back for continued discussion on the option for a CUP and what that would 256 entail. 257 258 Finke asked whether the Commission would be comfortable with staff presenting t his report 259 and the input of the Commission to the City Council to gain its input and then bring this back 260 to the Commission in case the Council identifies additional information the Commission 261 should consider. 262 263 6. Approval of the November 18, 2021 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 264 265 Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to approve the November 18, 2021, Planning 266 Commission minutes as amended. 267 268 A roll call vote was performed: 269 270 Galzki aye 271 Grajczyk aye 272 Piper aye 273 Popp aye 274 6 Rhem aye 275 Sedabres aye 276 Nielsen aye 277 278 Motion carries unanimously. 279 280 7. Council Meeting Schedule 281 282 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Nielsen 283 volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 284 285 8. Adjourn 286 287 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. 288 289 A roll call vote was performed: 290 291 Galzki aye 292 Grajczyk aye 293 Piper aye 294 Popp aye 295 Rhem aye 296 Sedabres aye 297 Nielsen aye 298 299 Motion carries unanimously. 300 301