Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-10-2022 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: May 5, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Changes to Agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Representative at next City Council meeting 5. Planning Department Report 6. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Concept Plan Review for development of approximately 250,000-302,000 sq. ft. of warehouse/office/industrial on 31 acres – 2575 Cates Ranch Dr. (PID 0411823140004) 7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code pertaining to provisions for electrical vehicle charging 8. Approval of April 12, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes 9. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 May 3, 2022 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: April 28, 2022 MEETING: May 3, 2022 City Council SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates Land Use Application Review A) Marsh Pointe Preserve Final 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. The Council granted preliminary plat and PUD general plan approval at the March 1 meeting. The applicant has submitted for final plat approval, which is under review. Staff intends to present to Council at the May 3 meeting. B) Hamel Townhomes Pre Plat and Site Plan Review – Hamel Townhomes LLC has requested preliminary plat and site plan review approval for a 30-unit townhome development at 342 Hamel Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 12. Commissioners raised concerns with aspects of the proposed development and recommended denial on a 5-1 vote. Staff tentatively plans to present to City Council at the May 3 meeting. C) Bonner Variance – 2055 Tamarack Drive – Jeffrey Bonner has requested a variance from the 150-foot animal structure setback to replace an existing barn with a larger structure. The larger structure would include a larger barn plus additional storage and shop space. The larger structure is proposed to be setback the same distance as the existing barn from the northern property line (110’). The Planning Commission reviewed at the April 12 meeting and recommended approval. Staff intends to present to City Council on May 3. D) 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. The City Council reviewed at the April 5 meeting and following extensive discussion, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the request. The applicant has withdrawn the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and submitted concept plans with a smaller-scale development on the southern ½ of the property. Staff intends to present these concepts at the May 10 Planning Commission meeting and May 17 Council meeting. E) Prairie Creek Final Plat – Stelter Enterprises has requested final plat approval for a 17-lot villa subdivision at 500 Hamel Road. Staff intends to present to the City Council at the May 17 meeting. F) Loram/Scannell Medina Industrial – 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. The council approved the findings of fact and made a negative declaration on the need for an EIS at the April 5 meeting. Staff will route the record of decision as required. The applicant has now also applied for preliminary plat and site plan review approval for construction of approximately 450,000 s.f. of office warehouse on three lots. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present when complete, potentially at the June 14 Planning Commission Meeting. MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 May 3, 2022 City Council Meeting G) Weston Woods PUD and Plat Amendment – Mark and Kathleen Smith have requested an amendment to the approved PUD and plat. The amendment proposes to reduce the total number of lots by 3 and adjust required lot standards. The Council approved the updated documents on April 19. H) McDonald’s Drive thru CUP Amendment – 822 Highway 55 – McDonald’s has requested an amendment to their CUP to expand the drive-thru to a two-lane configuration. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment at the March 8 meeting and recommended approval. The Council adopted a resolution of approval on April 19. The project will now be closed. I) 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. J) 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 Council adopted a resolution for approval at the November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction until spring. K) 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. 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. L) 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. M) Caribou Cabin-Pinto Retail, Baker Park Townhomes, Johnson ADU CUP, 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. Other Projects A) Uptown Hamel RFP – the City Council approved the RFP for economic development services at the April 5 meeting. Staff is routing the RFP to potential firms. Responses are due in early May. B) Electric Vehicle Charging Regulations – staff is preparing information for review by the Planning Commission and Council pertaining to potential regulations to either require or encourage installation of EV charging infrastructure. The Planning Commission discussed the matter at the April 12 meeting and City Council discussed at the April 19 work session. Staff intends to present a draft ordinance at the May 10 Planning Commission meeting. C) Sign Ordinance – Internal signage on public property – staff is preparing an amendment to the sign ordinance which would clarify that the sign regulations would not apply to scoreboards and similar features internal to city property. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19 and recommended approval 5-1. Staff intends to present to Council on May 3. D) Wolsfeld Lake Grant – staff has been working with Minnehaha Creek Watershed and WSB to prepare a proposal to the group of watersheds to see if funding can be shifted to another project. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: April 28, 2022 RE: Police Department Updates We have finally received the departments first ever embedded social worker. The social worker is a full-time employee of Hennepin County Social Service Criminal Justice Behavioral Health Unit. The worker is being shared by seven lake area agencies. The role provides support to assist police and follow up to assist with getting those who need services and resources. The county pays for 80 percent of the wages and the seven departments split the other 20 percent. We are very excited to start this new partnership and are hopeful that this will reduce repetitive calls for service and those in need have another resource for getting the help they need. We are seeing an uptick in theft from autos in the area. Surrounding communities are also noticing this pattern along with residential burglaries. What has been occurring is that groups of individuals come to our area and look for crimes of opportunity. They enter unlocked parked cars in driveways and then utilize the garage door remotes to enter residences. Please remind citizens when talking to them to lock their vehicles in driveways and remove keys from vehicles that are in garages. When doing this you are less likely to be a victim of crime. Last week Officer’s McGill and Jessen conducted the departments’ 1st quarter firearms shoot at the Delano range. We have been utilizing Delano as our main firearms range for over 25 years. It is a great facility that allows us to reserve the entire range for police training. Update on our future Cops and Bobbers program. Officers Vinck and McGill have been very busy meeting with vendors and securing funding and equipment for the program. We are well on our way to create a great outdoor fishing experience for youth with the overarching goal of community policing in mind. In the next few weeks we will present to the council the date, time, and location of the event. I cannot wait to see the final product as things are right on track. Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between April 14, 2022 and April 27, 2022: Officers issued 27 citations and 49 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 1 property damage accident, 11 medicals, 12 suspicious calls, 1 traffic complaint, 15 assists to other agencies, and 8 business/residential alarms. On 04/14/2022 Officers were dispatched to a report of a 1 ½ year old unconscious and possibly not breathing. When officers arrived, they found the child was conscious and being tended to by paramedics. The child was transported to the hospital for evaluation. On 04/15/2022 Officer responded to a forgery report on Settlers Road. Upon arrival officer learned the resident had received a package with someone else’s name but mailed to their address. Officer did some checking and found the name on the package belonged to someone who lived two doors down. It is believed to be an address typo. The neighbor was contacted to retrieve the package. On 04/16/2022 Officers were dispatched to the Hamel Community Center on a report of someone possibly smoking marijuana in the outside restroom. Upon arrival officers did smell the strong odor of marijuana in the area but were unable to determine who had been smoking it. On 04/17/2022 shortly after midnight, officers were dispatched to a disturbance at the Medina Entertainment Center. Upon arrival officers made contact with a female outside who said she had been in a verbal argument with her husband who had left her there. A short time later the male returned. Officers determined no crime had been committed and advised both parties. On 04/18/2022 Officer located a purse in the road along County Road 101. Later that morning officer took a theft from auto report in the Medina Highlands Development and learned that Plymouth had several theft from autos overnight. Property located in the street belonged to one victim, but nothing appeared missing from the purse. On 04/21/2022 Officers along with Hamel Fire Department were dispatched to a report of a child with their head stuck between some stair railings. It was later determined that a small child had tried to crawl through the railing spindles of the steps but his head was too big to go through and was too young to realize he could squeeze back through the other way. The child was assisted with getting out from between the railing. Child was upset but not injured. On 04/26/2022 Officer took a past action theft report from Target. A known suspect stole some iPads from the store and was believed to be responsible for numerous thefts from Targets around the metro area. Case forwarded to Investigations. Officers continue to enforce the weight restrictions. Five trucks were cited for overweight and three trucks were issued civil fines for excessive weight on city streets. Investigations: Investigator is on vacation this week. 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: April 28, 2022 MEETING: May 3, 2022 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Medina Public Works made another trip to patch Hackamore Road to repair a pavement failure. The east end of the street is in bad shape. • Spring weight restrictions are in effect, it has been a slow thaw and will likely be another week or so until restrictions are lifted. • Street Sweeping is well on its way and the first sweeping will be complete in the next week. • Crack sealing for the year has been completed. Street traffic throughout Medina has increased significantly in comparison to past years which requires staff to focus much more on keeping safe. It is necessary to bring in our temporary help when we are working directly with traffic situations. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • I worked out an agreement with the contractor at Weston Woods to replace a failing culvert on Mohawk while they had the street closed for three days to complete utility extensions. Coordinating this project saved the city several thousand dollars in traffic control and mobilization fees. Asphalt repairs will be completed as soon as the plants open. In all there were two sewer crossings, one water crossing, and two culverts replaced in the closure. The larger project will consume staff time with erosion control inspections and infrastructure quality control. • I’ve engaged WSB to get a plan together for a short piece of water main along Chippewa between Polaris and Oakley. This is in the CIP and allows more redundancy to the water service area with the main goal of a secondary line from the treatment plant to the Willow Drive Water Tower. • Public Works held a Chlorine Safety Class instructed by our chemical distributer. The class stressed the importance of chlorine safety for operators and the public, in the event of an emergency. MEMORANDUM 2 PARKS/TRAILS • The new score board for the Paul Fortin Field has been placed on order. • Staff will coordinate a closing date for the new parkland purchase. • We have held a pre-season meeting with the new lawn and grounds maintenance contractor to get them up to speed with HAC and go over expectations. MISC • We are ready for Cleanup Day – 2022! Staff has responded to numerous questions, leaving us to believe we will have a great turnout. Cates Industrial Park Page 1 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: May 5, 2022 MEETING: May 10, 2022, Planning Commission SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Concept Plan Review – PID 04-118-23-14-0004 Summary of Request Jeff and Chris Cates have requested a Concept Plan Review for development of approximately 300,000 square feet of warehouse/light industrial/office buildings on approximately 30 acres east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment including a larger development a few months ago. Excerpts from these discussions are attached for reference. The City Council raised concerns particularly with the proposed use, scale of development, and design. Following discussion, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant withdrew the original request and has submitted a series of smaller concepts to determine if there was support for an amendment with a smaller scale. The proposed, reduced scale, 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. There are eight small wetlands throughout the property, occupying approximately 2 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 MEMORANDUM Proposed Land Use: Business Current Land Use: Future Development Area Proposed Staging/Growth: 2020 period Gross Area: 30 acres Net Area: 26 acres Proposed construction: 300,000 s.f. floor area Cates Industrial Park Page 2 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting • 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 – guided FDA Cates Industrial Park Page 3 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The purpose of a Concept Plan Review is to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to provide comments on a proposed application, but no formal action is taken. Concept plans are intended for requests in which the City has a higher level of discretion to inform an applicant’s formal application. Any development would be subject to separate review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning, plat, and site plan review during a subsequent review process. The applicant has submitted three conceptual layouts for feedback. Feedback on the concepts themselves is an important part of the process. However, staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council provide feedback on the broader land use question about whether to amend the future land use plan to allow Business development on the subject site during the current staging period. 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. 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 EAW pending for development 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 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review 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 previously noted an agreement between Wally and Erica Cates (previous owners) and the City pertaining to settling a condemnation action in 2000. The City agreed to reguide the subject parcel (south of Cates Ranch Drive) 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, although this was not required by the agreement. The historical Comprehensive Plan changes and the fact that the City agreed to guide the subject property as Urban Commercial may be factors for consideration. The City Attorney has provided the City Council with their legal opinion of the relevancy and implications, if any, of the 2000 agreement. Cates Industrial Park Page 5 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 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 was completed at the end of 2021 and reviewed by relevant agencies in early 2022. The City Council adopted the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision on the EAW on March 1, 2022 and determined that the project does not necessitate an Environmental Impact Statement. Transportation Staff believes transportation is the primary infrastructure considerations for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant submitted a traffic analysis during review of the previous, larger application. During review of the larger development, the following improvements were contemplated: 1) Capacity improvements at the Willow Dr./Highway 55 intersection – extend left-turn lane from Hwy 55 to Chippewa Road to provide more stacking 2) Turn lanes at Willow Dr./Chippewa Rd. intersection 3) Improvements on Willow Drive up to any access for the site With the improvements noted above, the traffic analysis projected that there should not be issues on local streets for most of the day with the larger development. The primary issue was projected at peak evening rush hour. The traffic analysis found that at the p.m. peak, it is projected that vehicles waiting to turn left onto Highway 55 may back-up through the intersection of Chippewa Road and may need to wait two light cycles to clear the intersection. If traffic is backed-up at Willow Drive, staff assumed that some drivers would likely find alternatives and reviewed potential impacts to other intersections. Staff assumed up to 40% of the traffic may instead utilize Chippewa Road east to Arrowhead Drive as an alternative during the p.m. peak. If this occurred, it improves operations at the Willow Drive/Hwy 55 intersection and did not appear to cause issues on Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive to Highway 55. With the smaller developments, less back-up would be anticipated on Willow Drive if the necessary improvements noted above were provided in connection with the development. In the long-term, the analysis found that expansion of Highway 55 to dual lanes in each direction through the Willow Drive intersection would result in acceptable movements at the Willow Drive and Highway 55 intersection even with the larger development. Expansion of Highway 55 has not yet been programmed by MnDOT and would not be anticipated for at least a decade. As such, the traffic analysis reviewed whether improvements to the local transportation network could be implemented to function without assuming an expansion to Highway 55. Cates Industrial Park Page 6 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting MnDOT has requested installation of a traffic monitoring camera as a condition of the development. This would allow review of the operations of the intersection and may allow for adjustments to the timing of the light. Concept Plan Review The applicant submitted three conceptual site plan and architectural inspirations. 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. • Concept 1 shows two 260’x580’ buildings (150,800 s.f. each) running north-south with a larger setback to Willow Drive and much of Chippewa Road. • Concept 2 shows a single 260’x972’ building (252,720 s.f.) running diagonally in the middle of the site • Concept 3 shows two 260’x580’ buildings, with one fronting closer to Willow and Chippewa and the second diagonally in the center of the site Although each concept appears to need some adjustments when formal review occurs, the scale and layout of the concepts appear to be generally consistent with the requirements of the B zoning district. The following table compares the concept plans with the dimensional standards of the B district. B District Requirement Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 70’ S 390’ W 40’ N 150’ S 85’ W 250’ N 100’ S 85’ W 90’ N Minimum Rear/Side Yard Setback 25 feet 170’ E 220’ E 150’ E Setback from Residential 100 feet 50’ N 170’ E 250’ N 220’ E 90’ N 150’ E Minimum Parking Setbacks Front Yard 25 feet 80’S 320’ W 50’ N 75’ S 40’ W 120’ N 25’ S 25’ W 25’ N Rear and Side Yard 15 feet 100’ E 120’ E 100’ E Residential 100 feet 100’ E 50’ N 120’ E 120’ N 100’ E 25’ N Maximum Hardcover 70% Not provided Not provided Not provided Building Height (sprinkled) 45 feet Not provided Not provided Not provided Staff believes that each concept has some positive and negative attributes when compared to each other. There are likely various other ways the site can be designed, so staff would recommend that the Planning Commission and Council not necessarily “pick” a preferred concept, but instead discuss the positive and negative aspects of each which will hopefully provide guidance on an adjusted layout. Cates Industrial Park Page 7 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Concept 1 • + provides good green space between the buildings and the public streets • + hides the truck court and loading dock area best between buildings • + two buildings breaks up massing of square footage • - smallest setback to private road to the north (zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve) • - no connection to Willow Drive Concept 2 • + provides more evenly distributed green space around all sides • + access for trucks to Willow Drive • - truck court toward RR-UR property (+room potential for significant screening) • - long building façades Concept 3 • + different building orientations breaks up massing of buildings • + and – access is provided to Willow Drive, but it is not aligned conveniently for trucks • - truck court for eastern building faces rural property (+ room for screening) • - smallest setback at Willow Drive and west portion of Chippewa Road Staff believes convenient truck access to Willow Drive is extremely important to limit the number of turns and the distance on local streets prior to accessing Highway 55. All the concepts appear to lack required 12’ landscaping width between parking lot and building and appear to be short of required 8% landscaping withing parking and loading areas. While the landscaping within the interior of the site seems to fall short of ordinance requirements, the concepts do generally tend to provide greenspace to the exterior of the site which exceeds minimum requirement. A planned unit development may be worth considering to provide flexibility for more green space and screening to the exterior rather than landscaping in the interior. The property north of the subject site is an outlot containing a private road shared by two properties to the northeast. This outlot and the property to the north is under common ownership with the subject site. Staff recommends that consideration be given to whether the fire lanes and access points of the subject site may interact with this private road and outlot. The location of the access for the site to Willow Drive should align or provide adequate spacing with access points west of Willow Drive. The property north of the subject site is guided FDA and zoned RR-UR. This property requires a larger setback than is identified on Concepts 1 and 3. Because this property is under common ownership and is currently undeveloped, it may be worth considering whether it is preferable to allow a reduced setback to the north to allow for maximizing green space adjacent to Chippewa Road and Willow Drive. This flexibility could be considered as part of a PUD. Cates Industrial Park Page 8 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 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 appear to show primary material of precast concrete panels. Accent materials are proposed to be brick and metal. 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. Altering the depth of the building a noticeable amount at some point along the front façade would provide this modulation. In Concept 1, the eastern building could be shifted south so that the two buildings do not appear on the same plane. Additional screening consideration would be necessary for the loading docks 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.” Cates Industrial Park Page 9 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Wetlands/Floodplain The concepts show limited impacts for buildings. Varying amounts of impacts are proposed for access points. Any impact would be subject to review by the Technical Evaluation Panel and require mitigation. 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. 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 preliminary review suggests sanitary sewer from the site should be able to flow via gravity to the existing system. The City has previously identified the need for a lift station to serve future Business property west of Willow Drive. The lift station was also planned to potentially serve property to the north and northeast of the subject site in the long-term, since the area 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. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to provide land for the lift station even if it is not necessary for the subject site. Staff recommends that land for the lift station be required as a condition of development. 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 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 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 10 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review 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. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a search area for a neighborhood park to the east of the site and the City is in the process of purchasing property at 2120 Chippewa Road for this park. The Park Commission did not believe an additional park is likely necessary in the area. In terms of trail improvements, staff recommends that private trail connections be incorporated into the plans between the buildings which provide opportunities to connect to adjacent sites. Staff believes it may be worthwhile to require a trail easement connecting Chippewa Road to Cates Ranch Drive for a potential trail when the property to the east develops. Staff recommends that sufficient right-of-way be required adjacent to roadways for future non- motorized transportation options and that the grading of the street and site improvements be designed to make it easier to retrofit future bikeable shoulders, sidewalks, or trails adjacent to streets. Review Criteria/Comp Plan Information The Planning Commission and City Council do not take formal action on a concept plan review. The intent is to provide comments, feedback, and guidance to the applicant for their consideration on a potential formal application. Development as contemplated in the concept plans would require an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 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. Cates Industrial Park Page 11 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The primary potential infrastructure issue identified by staff relates to transportation. The proposed amendment would contribute significantly to 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. Without such improvements, development would appear to be premature. The applicant proposes to construct improvements to Willow Drive and Chippewa Road at their cost. This would remove the potential obligation from the City needing to consider those improvements at some point in the future. Sewer and water improvements are also proposed in connection with the development, including dedicating land for the sanitary sewer lift station which is necessary for this site and also other nearby properties and the extension of a 12” watermain to the east. Along with infrastructure considerations, the Comprehensive Plan also addresses matters related to community character, growth management, employment, tax base, and protection of natural resources and rural areas. The Planning Commission and City Council should carefully consider these (sometimes competing) interests. Staff Comments 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. Staff believes that the subject site is a comparatively good location for Business development if the Planning Commission and Council desire to expand opportunities for larger development, 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. 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. Any wetland impact shall be subject to WCA review and approval. 3) The applicant shall establish base flood elevation(s) for Zone A floodplains within the site and for wetlands adjacent to the site. 4) Access locations and circulations shall be improved as recommended by City staff. Primary truck access shall be provided to Willow Drive. 5) Right-of-way shall be dedicated along the east of the property if such dedication is determined appropriate at the time of plat review. 6) Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated for Chippewa Road and Willow Drive to support turn-lane improvements and non-motorized transportation. 7) The applicant shall provide land for a sanitary sewer lift station. The location of this land should be at a comparatively low elevation to minimize construction depth. Cates Industrial Park Page 12 of 12 May 10, 2022 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 8) The applicant shall provide turn lane improvements for Willow Drive and Chippewa Road as described in the traffic analysis and shall provide for camera monitoring system as recommended by MnDOT. 9) Provisions for pedestrian connectivity shall be provided. 10) Architectural plans shall be updated to provide additional modulation along building facades facing the exterior of the site. 11) Plans shall be updated to provide required landscaping areas adjacent to buildings and within parking lots/loading areas. 12) The applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer. 13) Park dedication shall be provided as required by the City Council after recommendation by the Park Commission. Attachments 1. Comprehensive Plan Information 2. Excerpt from 1/11/2022 Planning Commission minutes 3. Excerpt from 1/18/2022 Park Commission minutes 4. Excerpt from 4/5/2022 City Council minutes 5. Applicant Narrative 6. Concept Plans 7. Architectural Concepts 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 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 01/11/2022 Minutes 1 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, and 0311823220004) Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Cates Industrial Park. He identified the subject parcel and highlighted the surrounding property uses and future land uses. He stated that the site is guided for Future Development Area (FDA) which signifies that the property may be considered for urban development in future planning processes. He explained that for the current planning period of through 2030, the property is not anticipated for urban development. He stated that the applicant is proposing a business use within the current staging period. He explained that the proposal would be for approximately 665,000 square feet of warehouse and light industrial uses with office. He stated that the concept plan does not provide specific details for the development but is provided for context for this Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that if the amendment is approved, additional content would be provided during future applications for plat, site plan review, etc. He stated that information on the Comprehensive Plan was included in the Commission packet. He explained that the goals within the plan provide guidance as the City considers amendments to the plan. He reviewed the goals most relevant to the question posed this evening. He stated that staff provided a review of the available business property within Medina and are open for development at this time. He noted that the supply of property for business development has reduced since the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan. He noted that some of the larger sites do not have development interest from the property owners. He also reviewed the historical planning for this property going back to 2000. He provided details on an agreement from 2000 with the previous landowner, noting that the City Attorney is reviewing that with the City Council and the Commission should concentrate on the broader land use question. He reviewed the details of the concept plan provided with the application. He noted that another important consideration is related to infrastructure providing details on transportation. Piper asked if the warehouses would be served by large 18-wheeler trucks. Finke commented that the majority of the traffic would be employees but there would also be a fair amount of freight traffic. Piper asked if Cates Ranch Drive would have to be able to handle that kind of vehicle weight. Finke confirmed that the new internal street would be constructed to City standards in connection with the development. Piper asked if Willow Drive, in its current design, is capable of handling that traffic. Finke replied that there would be improvements for Willow Drive as noted in the staff report and summarized those improvements. He stated that many of those improvements would be required absent the Comprehensive Plan amendment request as there is other business property in the vicinity that could be developed. Piper asked if this would necessitate a traffic light at Highway 55. Finke replied that there already is a traffic light at that intersection. Jacob asked if there is currently a turn lane from Highway 55 to Willow. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 01/11/2022 Minutes 2 Finke replied that there are turn lanes from Highway 55 onto Willow and from Willow onto Highway 55. He stated that as mentioned there would be capacity issues for the turn lane from Willow onto eastbound Highway 55. He stated that while the fix would seem to be to add an additional turn lane, there is only one lane for traffic on Highway 55. Peter Coyle, land use lawyer representing the Cates family, commented that this is the first step in the policy discussion to put this land into the business development status for development. He noted that the Council has previously slated this land for the development several times in the past 20 years and was only guided for FDA in the last rendition of the Comprehensive Plan at the objection of the landowner. He stated that staff identified many policy questions that will need to be worked out in time. He stated that the goal is to take advantage of a site that is very well located, in an emerging business area, served by existing utilities and is development ready in that sense. He stated that there are limited business opportunities within Medina because of the development that has occurred, and the available land designated. He stated that the traffic study completed as a part of the EAW identified the improvements that would be necessary. He stated that the goal would be to develop the site in phases from south to north in a four-to-six-year development horizon that would allow them to adapt the traffic improvements. He noted that they would work with staff to ensure those improvements are done correctly and properly. He stated that the property to the west is commercial in nature while the property to the south is zoned for commercial. He stated that Highway 55 is an important corridor and for all of those reasons they believe this is a good location for new commercial activity to occur. He stated that the purpose tonight is to seek support for the policy change that would allow them to continue to submit appropriate applications. Popp asked the type of businesses that would be envisioned for the development. Coyle commented that the site plan is conceptual as they do not yet have commercial tenants in hand that they could identify tonight. He stated that an industrial park/business park concept has been provided that identifies different options. He stated that they would be looking for clean industry, low impact businesses that would provide jobs. Popp thanked the applicant for providing information on the types of jobs that could be provided. He noted that he would also be interested in the number of jobs that could be created but recognized that would be difficult at this stage in the process. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. No comments. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:39 p.m. Popp commented that he is unsure he is on board with the layout and how the land would be used. He stated that perhaps he would be more supportive of a business campus type or business park style of development. He stated that could lead to more greenspace and office uses versus an industrial park that would have high traffic and truck traffic and less jobs. He stated that the development also may not be as attractive for the surrounding properties, especially if the site did not stay occupied. He stated that if the City wants to look at economic development, he would support holding off on this to attract a campus setting type business. He commented that growth management is an important part of the Comprehensive Plan and stated that he does not see a reason to change the zoning from FDA at this time. He asked if the business goals of the community could still be met if this change were made and whether this change would have a domino effect on other FDA properties. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 01/11/2022 Minutes 3 Rhem stated that he visited the site today and believed that a business use would make sense in this setting. He stated that the concerns that he has relate to transportation and the potential impact that could have on the improvements that would be needed for surrounding roads. He stated that he thinks business zoning makes sense given the business use of the adjacent properties. Sedabres commented that he recognizes that the property is slated for future development but stated that he would be supportive of the change in zoning. He stated that this use makes sense, and he would be supportive. Grajczyk stated that in the past few years the Commission has mostly considered residential development. He stated that the City is always looking to bring in more businesses as that brings more people, revenue, and potential. He stated that other towns and cities have had a lot of success with business parks that have brought in a range of businesses that make the community more diverse. He stated that one of his concerns is related to traffic and wanted to ensure that the City could keep up with the best practices. Jacob echoed similar comments related to transportation and the infrastructure. He stated that he would support moving forward and exploring this further. Piper commented that she is concerned with infrastructure, transportation, and traffic. She also believed that there has been a focus on residential planning and believed this would be good for the Hamel corridor. Nielsen stated that she struggles with this request and is hesitant to change the FDA designation. She stated that there was a lot of time and input put into the Comprehensive Plan process and therefore she is hesitant to change that without knowing how that area is desired to develop. She understood the need for business development and acknowledged that there is business development in that area. Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the conditions. A roll call vote was performed: Grajczyk aye Jacob aye Piper nay Popp nay Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen nay Motion carried. Finke stated that a presentation to the Council has not yet been scheduled and encouraged residents to check back with City staff or on the City website for a date. He stated that staff intends to present to the Park Commission at its next meeting. Medina Park Commission Excerpt from 1/19/2022 Minutes 1 CATES INDUSTRIAL PARK Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Cates Industrial Park. He identified the subject parcel and highlighted the surrounding property uses and future land uses. He stated that the site is guided for Future Development Area (FDA) which signifies that the property may be considered for urban development in future planning processes. He explained that for the current planning period of through 2030, the property is not anticipated for urban development. He stated that the applicant is proposing a business use within the current staging period. He explained that the proposal would be for approximately 665,000 square feet of warehouse and light industrial uses with office. He stated that the concept plan does not provide specific details for the development but is provided for context for this Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that if the amendment is approved, additional content would be provided during future applications for plat, site plan review, etc. He noted that the project is being presented to the park commission now so that the commission can consider whether a potential land use change will necessitate additional improvements in the park and trail plan. Morrison polled the members, there were no comments or questions at this time. Medina City Council Excerpt from 4/5/2022 Minutes 1 Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Comprehensive Plan Amendment (7:43 p.m.) Johnson stated that the 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 70 acres. Finke identified the subject property location, which is currently agriculture, zoned rural residential/urban reserve, and designated as future development area in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the amendment would propose to reguide the property as business development within the current phase of staging. He reviewed the surrounding land uses. He noted that the goals, principles, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan should be considered when reviewing an amendment request. He reviewed the history of planning and previous guiding for the parcel going back to 2000. He provided details on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed and noted that it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would not be needed. Martin asked whether or not a business building in the current staging plan fits the vision of the City for these 70 acres. She noted that once that is decided, they could then go into more detail. She stated that if this property were reguided in the Comprehensive Plan, the development would still be subject to all ordinances and necessary approvals, and that reguiding could be subject to all of those approvals similar to what was done with Weston Woods. She stated that unlike Weston Woods, the developer will most likely not propose a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would provide the Council with a higher level of scrutiny and enhanced benefits such as greater architectural standards with natural resources preservation. She asked if the Council is willing to say that this fits within the Council’s vision for this 70 acres in the current staging plan. Finke commented that there was a lot of technical information related to infrastructure that was included in the staff report. Reid stated that there was a previous agreement with the City that mandates that the lower portion of the property could be rezoned to business if requested by the property owners. She asked staff to verify whether that is correct. Finke replied that the attorney for the applicant referenced that settlement agreement which was included in the application. He stated that in 2000 the City agreed to designate the property as urban commercial. He stated that applied not only to the 30 acres to the south, but the 40 acres to the north. He noted that the City Attorney has provided his opinion on that agreement 20 years later. Martin commented that, in her opinion, that agreement and its impact applied to the southern portion of the site. She stated that this is an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan, not only those 30 acres, but the 40 acres to the north and therefore the impact of that agreement would only apply if the applicant came in with a proposal for only the southern 30 acres that was the subject of that agreement. She noted that if the proposal came forward in that manner, the Council would then discuss whether that agreement applies. She stated that this proposal would amend the Comprehensive Plan for 70 acres, and over half of that property was not the subject of that agreement, therefore the agreement does not come into play until the application is reduced to only the 30 acres that was included in the agreement. Medina City Council Excerpt from 4/5/2022 Minutes 2 City Attorney Anderson stated that the agreement itself and the City’s obligations to reguide the property only applies to the southern parcel of the two parcels included in this application. He stated that he has reviewed that very closely and provided his opinion to the Council on the fact that, despite the language in the agreement, the obligations to the City written in the agreement were adhered to in 2000 when the property was reguided and made developable for a period of ten years. He stated that from his standpoint, the obligations of the City were not something that would be an obligation remaining in place forever. He stated that as land uses, visions, and goals change over time, the City had the authority to reguide the property in the future; therefore, he does not believe the City is contractually obligated to rezone the site. He asked the Council to use its discretion to decide whether the vision for this area aligns with the request presented tonight to determine whether it would support the reguiding of the property. He noted that perhaps the goals and visions for this area may have changed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted a few years ago and the Council will need to make its determination. Finke called attention to infrastructure, noting that development should be proportional to the infrastructure that could support it. He provided additional details on transportation noting that when Highway 55 is converted to four lanes, it could support development but there would be impacts to the local systems until that time and provided additional details. He stated that the development would require improvements to local roads and highlighted those items. He provided details on sewer and water. Martin asked if this were to move forward, how the commitment of the developer would be secured to make such improvements. She asked whether the applicant would contribute to the expansion of Highway 55 and related signal improvements. She also asked how the land would be secured for the lift station. Finke commented that if the Council were supportive of the land use, conditioned upon securing some of these improvements that would be necessitated by the development, the Council would conditionally approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. He stated that the ultimate enactment of the plan amendment would not be completed until some of these more specific conditions had been settled within a development agreement. He stated that the ultimate adoption of the plan amendment would be conditioned upon achieving those things within the development agreement. Anderson agreed with Finke. He stated that this would be similar to Weston Woods in the sense that the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be conditioned upon all requisite land use approvals and land use entitlements coming forward. He stated that they would ensure the transportation needs were met in order to accommodate the site and that all easements were received. He stated that when this area ultimately becomes developed, it will need to be served by a lift station which has been planned for although a specific location or site has not yet been identified. He stated that there is some uncertainly and uniqueness to the area. He stated that if the Council believes this guiding is appropriate for the area, this could provide some certainty in the location of a lift station as easements could be required as part of the platting. Martin asked for the opinion of Council related to the Comprehensive Plan amendment as requested and whether that meets the vision for this 70 acres. Anderson commented that it is also important to note that a Comprehensive Plan amendment requires a four-fifths vote of the Council. Medina City Council Excerpt from 4/5/2022 Minutes 3 DesLauriers noted that he would like to hear from Albers as he was a part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and would perhaps have input on why the property was guided as future development area (FDA). Albers stated that the property was guided as such, similarly to the other FDA property in and around Loretto. He stated that at the time the thought was that the areas may not have been ready for development in terms of infrastructure. He stated that the thought was to have more residential development in this area rather than business or commercial. Martin agreed that those on the steering committee were trying to minimize the construction of additional housing within the parameters of the Metropolitan Council and therefore the land was put into a future phase for land use and staging. Finke commented that various properties were pushed out some level within the staging periods as a result of the reduction of forecasted residential growth especially. He stated that the general trend of the plan was to delay some properties for development. Albers asked the net acres of business and commercial land available for development at this time and already developed as business or commercial. He stated that one of the arguments being made at this time is the business use is good for the tax base. Martin stated that another consideration of the Comprehensive Plan was to have business/commercial development along the Highway 55 corridor. She stated that the steering committee believed that attracting that business development enhanced the experience of the residents. She stated that the residents in that area had grown tired of fighting traffic and the thought was that traffic to those businesses would be opposite the traffic of residents, as it was assumed most residents would travel east in the morning to work while business traffic would be moving west during that time. Albers commented that as people return to work, post pandemic, traffic has again increased on Highway 55. He stated that until the highway is expanded, which could occur in the next ten years, it has to be considered as to whether the additional traffic could be supported. He noted that traffic from other communities must also be considered, noting a similar commercial development that is in the planning process in Corcoran. He noted that infrastructure needs are a part of the reason this property was guided for FDA. Martin asked what the City has collectively for commercial and business uses, both currently being used for those purposes and guided for the future. Finke provided details on the available commercial and business property within Medina. He noted that some things have changed since the Comprehensive Plan update which occupied property available for business development without actually providing traditional business type use and listed examples. He stated that if there is a desire to expand business capacity within the city, this site could be considered. Albers commented that the examples provided are businesses and commercial developments that generate taxes. He was unsure whether it would make sense to guide additional land for business at this time. He did not believe that this requested change fits within the goals and objectives of the City and its Comprehensive Plan. Medina City Council Excerpt from 4/5/2022 Minutes 4 DesLauriers commented that there are both positives and negatives to consider about this site and request. He referenced the related infrastructure requirements that would be needed to support the site. He asked if the infrastructure changes would need to be agreed upon with the developer prior to submission of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council and related zoning change. Martin confirmed that is the process as she understands it. Anderson commented that this would be the initial step that this development would seek. He stated that the applicant has completed an extensive EAW and has requested the Comprehensive Plan amendment and if that were approved, he would think the applicant to come back to request rezoning, site plan and plat. He noted that in order for those next steps to be considered, there would be conditions placed upon this approval related to the infrastructure that would be necessary to support this development. He stated that it is his understanding that the applicant has shown a willingness to accommodate the transportation and utility infrastructure that would be needed. DesLauriers stated that there is an overwhelming need for more business development in this area as it generates taxes and creates jobs without placing additional burden on other City services. He asked if the business development could be limited to the southern portion of the property, leaving the northern parcel to remain more rural. Reid stated that she is comfortable with the Comprehensive Plan amendment but is not comfortable with the proposed site plan as she believes it to be too big. She did not believe that this scale of business development fits within Medina. Martin stated that if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were approved, there are still elements of the ordinance that would impact the design but was unsure that would reduce the total square footage and parking if all other ordinance requirements were met. Cavanaugh stated that he would prefer the development to come in as a PUD and asked if the Comprehensive Plan amendment could be made contingent upon the applicant submitting a PUD rather than a general land use application. Anderson commented that he does agree with Martin in that when a property of this size is reguided and includes this amount of developable land, the Council would be limited in terms of the scale of physical improvements as long as the other zoning requirements are met. He stated that a Council could not require a developer to submit a PUD. He explained that a PUD would be something a developer would request if it were seeking flexibility or deviations from City Code in return for other benefit. Cavanaugh commented that he understands under normal circumstances a City cannot require a developer to submit a PUD but asked if that could be done in this case as this approval would be contingent upon other items such as infrastructure improvements. Anderson replied that the proposal that has been brought forward related to this Comprehensive Plan amendment request would need the infrastructure improvements in order to support the proposed development which is why that could be made contingent upon those items. Cavanaugh stated that the main purpose for requesting a PUD would be for the Council to guide more of the development design. He asked if the Site Plan review would provide the same level Medina City Council Excerpt from 4/5/2022 Minutes 5 of discretion as a PUD, as the Comprehensive Plan amendment would still be contingent upon all other necessary approvals. Anderson stated that the review of the Site Plan would not provide the Council the ability to request things above what is required in the City Code and ordinance regulations. He stated that if all Code requirements were met, the Council could not deny the request simply because it does not like the way it looks. Finke commented that there are some wetland impacts that would be proposed on the western side of the northern parcel for the sole purpose of adding additional footprint to the building. He stated that one of the recommended conditions was that the impacts to wetlands would be reduced. He referenced the staging period requirements, noting that if a parcel wants to move forward in the staging period, a PUD is required therefore it would not be unheard of that a PUD would be required in order to move forward in staging. He stated that if the property were staged for 2025, a developer could propose a PUD to develop now rather than waiting for 2025. Martin asked if the wetlands could be significantly impacted by filling and purchasing wetland credits. Finke stated that it could be fair to say that action would not make the request align with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Cavanaugh commented that he believes that this business use makes sense as there is business to the south and across from the site, and great access from Highway 55. He believed that this would be an ideal place for this type of business. He referenced the transportation infrastructure and asked if Highway 55 would be an issue. Rickart commented that Highway 55 will be a problem until it is four lanes. He stated that the improvements proposed would limit the impact to Willow, especially at the Chippewa intersection. He stated that the peak condition was analyzed with full development. He stated that there would not be a huge impact from the development right away. He stated that he is very comfortable with the recommended improvements. He noted that the Highway 55 improvements will be a MnDOT decision on when that should occur but noted that more development would help to push MnDOT in that direction. Cavanaugh referenced the developments that were listed that occupied land designated as business noting that included residential development, internal business, a religious use, and the AutoPlex units are owned by the people that purchase them therefore those are not businesses in the traditional commercial sense that serve the broader community. He stated that if he were to add additional business land, this would be a great location. He stated that he would support the use of a PUD and would support linking that to the staging if possible. Martin commented that she thought in adding more business development would be to add businesses that provide a service to the existing residents rather than an industrial complex. She was unsure that this fits within that goal. She stated that it does not seem that there is overwhelming support of the Council for the Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed. DesLauriers commented that he does not believe it makes sense to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reguide the entire parcel to business at this time. Medina City Council Excerpt from 4/5/2022 Minutes 6 Albers agreed that he does not believe the reasons provided support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on the goals and visions within that plan. Reid stated that she is not in favor of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this property. She commented that uses north and south of Cates Road could be different. Cavanaugh commented that he could support a Comprehensive Plan amendment if there was a requirement for a PUD related to staging. He stated that as proposed he would not support the request. Martin encouraged the applicant to rethink its proposal based on the comments and concerns expressed. She invited the applicant to speak. Peter Coyle, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the question related to a PUD has never been suggested. He stated that from their vantage point, a PUD may be appropriate and if asked, they would most likely agree to that. He stated that while he respects the notion that this property should be preserved as rural, it is situated directly adjacent to Highway 55 and other emerging commercial areas to the west. He stated that the Cates family has owned the property for 40 years and has been very patient about bringing forward development until they found something appropriate to what is happening around them and this seems to be the appropriate time. He stated that this is just a plan and has not yet been vetted in a technical way. He stated that they have committed to all the infrastructure improvements that have been suggested. He stated that they are committed to preserving as much wetland as possible while still having the site usable for a business park use. He stated that the overall site plan has a much-diminished site plan over what would be allowed under the Code in order to preserve wetland. He commented that the expansion of this area for the business would provide benefit to the community through job creation and increased tax base. He thanked City staff for the time they have spent working with them to develop a plan that makes sense for the landowner, developer, and the City. He stated that they want to work together to create a plan that would meet the approval of the Council and if that were through a PUD, they would do that. He asked the Council to keep an open mind and allow this to move forward in order to see additional plans. He noted that if there is something the Council does not like, they would work to address that. He referenced the previous agreement that had been mentioned, noting that he has a disagreement with Anderson on the meaning of the settlement agreement. He understood that they are proposing something larger than the agreement. Martin commented that she understands that proposals are very broad in nature at this stage, as it would not make sense to invest too much into detail without knowing if the amendment would be allowed. Cavanaugh commented that he looks forward to the applicant coming back with additional proposals. Reid stated that she believes the northern and southern portions of the property are very different. She stated that she would welcome another application but is not comfortable with the proposal as submitted. DesLauriers echoed the comments of Reid. Martin echoed those comments as well. Medina City Council Excerpt from 4/5/2022 Minutes 7 Coyle asked for clarification on the modification that would be needed, specifically whether that would be provided in subsequent applications or to the request tonight. Martin commented that there have been many concerns expressed tonight. She stated that whatever comes before the Council has to be more in line with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Coyle asked how those modifications would be made, whether that would be amendment to the current application or done through resubmittal. Finke stated that there has been a lot of feedback provided by the Council tonight. He stated that there is time available within the review period to have additional discussion. He noted that there could be a motion to table tonight which would allow additional discussion with the applicant and staff to perhaps amend this application. Martin commented that she would prefer to deny this Comprehensive Plan amendment to make that action clear. She stated that the applicant could then work on a new application without the constraints of the review timeline. Moved by Albers, seconded by Reid, to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based upon the findings described by the Council. A roll call vote was performed: DesLauriers aye Albers aye Cavanaugh aye Reid aye Martin aye Motion passed unanimously. Martin commented that the developer is invited to consider modifying its request for the property that accommodates the comments provided by the Council tonight. She confirmed the consensus of the Council. Martin briefly recessed the meeting. Martin reconvened the meeting. Cates Family Land Use Proposal 2575 Cates Ranch Drive, Medina MN April 28, 2022 The Cates Family submits a Concept Site Plan Application for a proposed Business Park use on its 30-acre parcel (PID 0411823140004) situated directly north of TH 55, east of Willow Drive, between Cates Ranch Drive and Chippewa Road. At its City Council meeting on April 5, 2022, direction was provided that a Site Plan that included Cates property north of Cates Ranch Drive was not acceptable to the City at this time. This direction was provided in the context of City Council consideration of a corresponding land use amendment to designate the underlying Cates property for Business use. While the pending land use application was rejected, the Cates Family was encouraged to submit a new proposal that is confined to the smaller, 30-acre footprint as defined above. Limiting the project footprint for a Business use would be consistent with the 2000 settlement agreement between the City and the Cates Family. In the interest of giving the City maximum flexibility to comment on Site Plan layout and building orientation, we have chosen to submit three (3) alternate plans, each of which is acceptable to the Cates Family. The plan complements surrounding commercial/industrial uses located directly west and south of the Cates property while preserving to the greatest extent possible both existing open space and wetlands. It also takes advantage of close proximity to TH 55. We anticipate very strong interest in the project by manufacturing, research and development and office/warehouse users. With favorable direction from the City Council as to a preferred Site Plan, the Cates Family will submit a new land use application as part of the City’s formal entitlement process; this would include a request to proceed under the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. Concept 1 features two buildings, each of which is approximately 150,000 square feet, aligned north-south, with a shared trailer parking courtyard. Access to the buildings would be from Chippewa Road. Concept 2 features two buildings. One building is approximately 129,000 square feet and generally aligned toward Willow Drive; the second building is approximately 150,000 square feet and generally aligned to Chippewa Road. Trailer parking would be on the back side, respectively, of each building. Primary access to both buildings would be from Chippewa Road. Concept 3 features a single building of approximately 252,000 square feet, aligned generally parallel to Chippewa Road. Trailer parking would be on the rear (north) side of the building. Access to the building would be from Chippewa Road. The features in common with each Site Plan include: 1. Primary access to the 30-acre Site is from Chippewa Road. 2. Traffic impacts are reduced by approximately 70% over the initial plan. 3. All required transportation improvements paid for by the Cates Family or its designated developer. 4. All trailer storage is screened to the greatest extent possible by building placement. 5. Wetland impacts are substantially reduced over the initial plan. 6. The City will receive a dedicated outlot for future construction of a lift station. 7. The buildings will all feature architectural detailing to conform to the renderings submitted with this request. We appreciate the opportunity to present a substantially revised Concept Site Plan for the 30-acre Cates property south of Cates Ranch Drive. 4877-9264-3358, v. 1 975 97 5 975 980 985 99 0 9 9 0 9 9 0 9 9 5 9 9 5 100 0 1 0 0 0 972 973 974 9 7 4 974 976 97 6 976 97 7 97 7 977 97 8 97 8 978 979 98 1 98 2 98 3 984 986 987 988988 988 989 99 1 9 9 1 9 9 1 9 9 2 9 9 2 9 9 2 9 9 3 99 3 9 9 4 99 4 9 9 6 9 9 6 99 6 99 6 99 7 99 7 9 9 7 997 99 8 998 9 9 9 999 1001 10 0 1 1002 1 0 0 2 9 8 0 98 0 98 0 98 0 9 8 0 9 8 5 98 5 9 8 5 9 9 0 99 5 9 9 5 10 0 01000 10 0 0 10 0 0 97 6 9 7 6 97 7 9 7 8 978 97 8 97 8 97 8 97 9 979 9 7 9 98 1 9 8 1 9 8 1 98 1 9 8 1 9 8 2 98 2 9 8 2 98 2 9 8 2 982 9 8 2 9 8 3 98 3 9 8 3 983 9 8 3 9 8 4 98 4 9 8 4 98 4 9 8 4 9 8 6 98 6 9 8 6 98 7 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 8 98 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 1 9 9 2 9 9 3 9 9 4 99 6 9 9 6 99 7 9 9 7 997 9 9 7 9 9 8 998 998 9 9 8 9 9 9 999 9 9 9 999 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 CO N C E P T S I T E PL A N # 1 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 04 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N CJ J ZT R MC B 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 \ C o n c e p t S i t e # 1 . d w g A p r i l 1 5 , 2 0 2 2 - 2 : 2 2 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 NO R T H 975 97 5 975 980 985 99 0 9 9 0 9 9 0 9 9 5 9 9 5 100 0 1 0 0 0 972 973 974 9 7 4 974 976 97 6 976 97 7 97 7 977 97 8 97 8 978 979 98 1 98 2 98 3 984 986 987 988988 988 989 99 1 9 9 1 9 9 1 9 9 2 9 9 2 9 9 2 9 9 3 99 3 9 9 4 99 4 9 9 6 9 9 6 99 6 99 6 99 7 99 7 9 9 7 997 99 8 998 9 9 9 999 1001 10 0 1 1002 1 0 0 2 9 8 0 98 0 98 0 98 0 9 8 0 9 8 5 98 5 9 8 5 9 9 0 99 5 9 9 5 10 0 01000 10 0 0 10 0 0 97 6 9 7 6 97 7 9 7 8 978 97 8 97 8 97 8 97 9 979 9 7 9 98 1 9 8 1 9 8 1 98 1 9 8 1 9 8 2 98 2 9 8 2 98 2 9 8 2 982 9 8 2 9 8 3 98 3 9 8 3 983 9 8 3 9 8 4 98 4 9 8 4 98 4 9 8 4 9 8 6 98 6 9 8 6 98 7 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 8 98 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 1 9 9 2 9 9 3 9 9 4 99 6 9 9 6 99 7 9 9 7 997 9 9 7 9 9 8 998 998 9 9 8 9 9 9 999 9 9 9 999 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 CO N C E P T S I T E PL A N # 2 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 04 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N CJ J ZT R MC B 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 \ C o n c e p t S i t e # 2 . d w g A p r i l 1 5 , 2 0 2 2 - 2 : 2 0 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 NO R T H 975 97 5 975 980 985 99 0 9 9 0 9 9 0 9 9 5 9 9 5 100 0 1 0 0 0 972 973 974 9 7 4 974 976 97 6 976 97 7 97 7 977 97 8 97 8 978 979 98 1 98 2 98 3 984 986 987 988988 988 989 99 1 9 9 1 9 9 1 9 9 2 9 9 2 9 9 2 9 9 3 99 3 9 9 4 99 4 9 9 6 9 9 6 99 6 99 6 99 7 99 7 9 9 7 997 99 8 998 9 9 9 999 1001 10 0 1 1002 1 0 0 2 9 8 0 98 0 98 0 98 0 9 8 0 9 8 5 98 5 9 8 5 9 9 0 99 5 9 9 5 10 0 01000 10 0 0 10 0 0 97 6 9 7 6 97 7 9 7 8 978 97 8 97 8 97 8 97 9 979 9 7 9 98 1 9 8 1 9 8 1 98 1 9 8 1 9 8 2 98 2 9 8 2 98 2 9 8 2 982 9 8 2 9 8 3 98 3 9 8 3 983 9 8 3 9 8 4 98 4 9 8 4 98 4 9 8 4 9 8 6 98 6 9 8 6 98 7 9 8 7 9 8 7 9 8 8 98 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 1 9 9 2 9 9 3 9 9 4 99 6 9 9 6 99 7 9 9 7 997 9 9 7 9 9 8 998 998 9 9 8 9 9 9 999 9 9 9 999 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 CO N C E P T S I T E PL A N # 3 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 04 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 AS S H O W N CJ J ZT R MC B 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 \ C o n c e p t S i t e # 4 . d w g A p r i l 1 5 , 2 0 2 2 - 2 : 2 1 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 NO R T H EV Readiness Report Page 1 of 5 May 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern DATE: May 4, 2022 MEETING: May 10, 2022 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Electric Vehicle Parking Proposed Ordinance Background One of the Planning Department’s 2022 Goals is to research an electric vehicle (EV) charging ordinance to promote orderly and efficient development in the City. Accommodating EV charging infrastructure during construction can significantly reduce costs and resources needed compared to retrofitting after construction. Additionally, EV charging infrastructure supports the City’s goal to “encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering, and development” in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Electric vehicles are the leading technology available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in transportation. The Planning Commission discussed potential regulatory methods for advancing EV charging infrastructure during their meeting on April 12. In general, the Commission expressed support for the City taking an active role in increasing access to EV charging. Half of the members of the Commission stated they would be in favor of a requirement if this option was allowed by the state building code. All members expressed support for at least recommending EV charging preparedness, and most expressed support for having an incentive opportunity for developers to add EV charging to their projects. The City Council had a similar discussion during the April 19th work session. The City Council also was in favor of providing some incentives for EV charging and providing a recommendation for installing EV charging. The Council was not as interested in a requirement and wanted to leave the decision up to developers on whether to installation would be the best option for their development. Proposed Ordinance The proposed ordinance (in Attachment 1) recommends that a certain percentage of the stalls in new construction or significantly renovated buildings/parking lots have infrastructure for EV- charging. The recommendation is based on stalls being EV-Capable, EV-Ready, or EV-Installed. A diagram to show these standards is available in Figure 1. If a development meets the recommendation, then there are certain flexibilities that they can use for landscaping and tree replacement. These design flexibilities (listed on the following page) will serve as incentives to meet the recommendation. The incentives were selected based on their MEMORANDUM EV Readiness Report Page 2 of 5 May 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting relevance to the added costs and space needed for EV charging. The incentives are also fully under the discretion of the City, not the State Building Code. Flexibilities provided if development meets the recommendation: a) Landscaping-Building Setting – The required depth of landscaped area adjacent to building, or “Building Setting,” is reduced to half the size. b) Tree Replacement – The tree replacement requirements may be reduced in an amount which the City determines results in investment in EV infrastructure approximately equivalent to the amount which would have been spent on planting replacement trees. c) Landscaping – Parking Lot Area – The percentage of the area of the parking lot required to be landscaped may be reduced by 25%. For example, if the district standards require 8% of the parking lot area to be landscaped, only 6% would be required. d) Density Bonuses – The Minimum Net Area per Unit may be reduced as described in the relevant zoning district. e) Phasing Plan Flexibility – EV Readiness shall be considered as part of the Sustainability primary factor when reviewing requests for Phasing Plan Flexibility as described in section 825.34 of the City Code. The Density Bonuses would apply to townhomes and multifamily development in the R3, R4, and Mixed Residential zoning districts. The draft ordinance would allow the following bonuses: • R3 – 0.25 units/acre • R4 – 0.8 units/acre • MXR – 0.5 units/acre The different level of bonus relates to the density range of each of the districts. Figure 1: EV Installation Standards for Level 1 or Level 2 Charging Types of Installation Includes: EV – Capable Listed Raceway (conduit) Panel service capacity EV – Ready EV-Capable + wiring + overcurrent protection device + 240-volt receptable (or 120-volt, depending on charging install) EV – Installed EV-Ready + EV Supply Equipment Definitions and images from www.swenergy.org EV Readiness Report Page 3 of 5 May 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Table 1 below highlights the justification for each of the readiness levels designated in the ordinance. In general, the readiness levels for residential spaces are higher than for commercial spaces because it is estimated that 60% to 70% of EV charging occurs at overnight at home. The general recommendation for commercial spaces is for 2% of spaces to have EV-Installed and 18% be EV-Capable. This is based on the 20% recommendation for EV-Ready spaces from the NRDC 1, and the requirements for EV-charging in other Minnesota cities. For large developments, the City of Richfield requires that 5% of stalls be EV-Installed and 20% of stalls be EV-Ready. The City of St. Louis Park requires that 1% or a minimum of 2 stalls be EV- Installed. Table 1: Justification for Proposed Readiness Level EV- Capable EV- Ready EV-Installed Justification a) Residential Uses: Single Family Detached At least one in the garage It is estimated that 60% to 70% of charging occurs overnight at someone’s home. The reason for EV-Ready is so someone can either easily plug in the charging cord supplied with their vehicle using a 240V to 120V adapter, or easily purchase and install their own Level 2 EVSE for a few hundred dollars. Single family homes are required to have 2 spaces in a garage, so the recommendation is functionally 50% of spaces are EV- Ready. Two-Family Dwellings At least one in the garage Townhomes At least one in the garage Multiple Family Dwellings (Apartments/Condominiums) 20% of resident spaces 20% of guest spaces 20% of resident spaces 10% of resident spaces It is estimated that 60% to 70% of charging occurs overnight at someone’s home. It is critical that residents in multifamily buildings have the comparable options for EV charging as those in single family homes. Additionally, the recommendation for EV-Installed and EV-ready match the City of Richfield’s building requirement. b) Accessory Dwelling Units Varies by use and type c) Religious Institutions, Theaters, Auditoriums, and other places of assembly. 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. This is based on a report from the NRDC that recommended that 20% of spaces 1 NRDC. 2018. Model Ordinance Related to EV Charging Infrastructure. EV Readiness Report Page 4 of 5 May 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Table 1: Justification for Proposed Readiness Level EV- Capable EV- Ready EV-Installed Justification be built as EV-Ready. Staff transitioned this to a combination of EV-Installed and EV-Capable. This is seen as an increase in EV charging accessible, while balancing developments cost. d) Business and Professional Offices 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. e) Medical and Dental Clinics 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. f) Hotel or Motel 20% of spaces 20% of spaces 10% of spaces Hotels function as someone’s overnight charging while they are traveling, so staff used the same recommendation as for multifamily buildings. g) Schools: Grade schools, elementary schools, middle school, junior high school 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces The recommendation for schools is higher than for workplaces because people go to school at the end of the day for extracurricular activities. These activities likely are not calculated into someone’s normal charging routine, so it is highly possible to require more charging at these facilities. h) Schools: High School 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces i) Vocational or business schools 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces j) Hospitals 18% of spaces 10% of spaces 2% of spaces Similar to schools, visits to the hospital are not typically part of a person’s standard routine, so it is likely that they will need more charging sooner than other places. k) Bowling Alleys 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. l) Automobile Service Stations 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces The requirement for number of installed spaces is higher at automobile service stations because these facilities could transition into being public EV charging hubs. m) Retail Sales and Service 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. n) Restaurants, Drive-through Food Establishments, Cafes, Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. EV Readiness Report Page 5 of 5 May 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Table 1: Justification for Proposed Readiness Level EV- Capable EV- Ready EV-Installed Justification o) Health Club (Includes, but not limited to dance, martial arts, and yoga studios.) 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. p) Funeral Homes Varies by use and type q) Industrial, Warehouse, Storage, Handling of Bulk Goods 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Staff’s standard recommendation for public places. r) Uses not specifically noted Varies by use and type Additionally, the proposed ordinance focuses on the development of Level 2 charging. Level 2 charging provides the greatest amount of charging flexibility without needing a large amount of new infrastructure, like would be required for DC Fast Charging (DCFC). Level 2 charging can recharge of a battery in about 4 hours and can be used at homes, workplaces, and public spaces. Figure 2: Charger Levels Overview2 2 Combination of information from Quick_Guide_to_Fast_Charging.pdf (chargepoint.com) and An Overview of Electric Vehicles and Charging Stations (advancedenergy.org) EV Readiness Report Page 6 of 5 May 10, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation Staff believes that this framework of recommendations and incentives will be a good fit for the City of Medina. Staff recommends pursuing this kind of framework for a future ordinance and recommends the estimated percentages for EV-Readiness. At this time, staff is interested in knowing if the Planning Commission thinks the incentives match their expectations for the ordinance. If so, then staff would recommend moving to recommend adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. A new Section 825.52 is hereby added to the code of ordinances of the City of Medina as follows: Section 828.52. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote orderly and efficient development in the City through encouraging and facilitating the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle infrastructure. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they appear within this section, are defined as follows: a) “Battery electric vehicle” means any vehicle that operates exclusively on electrical energy from an off-board source that is stored in the vehicle's batteries, and produces zero tailpipe emissions or pollution when stationary or operating. b) “Charging level” means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle’s battery is recharged. The terms 1, 2, and DC are the most common charging levels, and include the following specifications: 1. Level 1 is considered slow charging with 120V outlets. 2. Level 2 is considered medium charging with 240V outlets, charging head and cord hard-wired to the circuit. 3. DC is considered fast or rapid charging. Voltage is greater than 240. c) “Electric vehicle (EV)” means a vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the electrical grid, or an off-grid source, that is stored on board for motive purposes. “Electric vehicle” includes: 1. Battery electric vehicle. 2. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. d) “Electric Vehicle Capable Space” or “EV-Capable” means a designated parking space that is provided with conduit sized for a 40-amp, 208/240-Volt dedicated branch circuit from a building electrical panelboard to the parking space and with sufficient physical space in the same building electrical panelboard to accommodate a 40-amp, dual-pole circuit breaker. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE e) “Electric vehicle charging stations” or “EVCS” means a public or private parking space that is served by electric vehicle supply equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle. f) “Electric Vehicle Charging Installed Space” or “EV-Installed” means a parking space with electric vehicle supply equipment capable of supplying a 40-amp dedicated branch circuit rated at 208/240 Volt from a building electrical panelboard. g) “Electric Vehicle Load Management System” means a system designed to allocate charging capacity among multiple electric vehicle supply equipment at a minimum of eight amps per charger. h) “Electric vehicle supply equipment” or “EVSE” means any equipment or electrical component used in charging electric vehicles at a specific location. EVSE does not include equipment located on the electric vehicles themselves. i) “Electric Vehicle Ready Space” or “EV-Ready” means a parking space that is provided with one 40-amp, 208/240-Volt dedicated branch circuit for electric vehicle supply equipment that is terminated at a receptacle, junction box, or electric vehicle supply equipment within or adjacent to the parking space. Subd. 3. Permitted Locations. Electric vehicle charging stations are permitted as follows: a) Level 1 and Level 2 EVCSs are permitted in every zoning district, when accessory to the primary permitted use. Such stations located at single-family, two-family, and multiple- family shall be designated as private restricted use only. b) DC EVCSs are permitted in the non-residential districts, when accessory to the primary permitted use. c) If the primary use of the parcel is the retail electric charging of vehicles, then the use shall be considered an auto service station for zoning purposes. Installation shall be located in zoning districts which permit auto service, automotive service, or motor fuel stations. Subd. 4. EV Readiness Plan. A readiness plan submitted with the site plan is required for all incidences specified in Section 825.55. a) The readiness plan shall contain the following elements: (i) The percentage of parking spaces meeting required specifications for EV-Capable Spaces, EV-Ready Spaces, and EV-Installed Spaces. (ii) A site plan identifying: 1) the location of EV-Capable Spaces, EV-Ready Spaces, and EV- Installed Spaces, if any. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE 2) proposed location and specification of conduits, wiring, or other improvements intended to serve EVCS locations. b) The readiness plan is recommended to include the following elements: (i) Proposed signage for Electric Vehicle Installed Spaces. (ii) If installing multiple EVCS, the kind of electric vehicle load management system expected to be used. Subd. 5. Readiness Recommendation. In order to proactively plan for and accommodate the anticipated future growth in market demand for electric vehicles, it is strongly encouraged, but not required, that all new and expanded construction follow the recommended readiness below. a) Residential Uses: EV-Capable EV-Ready EV-Installed Single Family Detached At least one in the garage Two-Family Dwellings At least one in the garage Townhomes At least one in the garage Multiple Family Dwellings (Apartments/Condominiums) 20% of guest spaces 20% of resident spaces 10% of resident spaces b) Accessory Dwelling Units Varies by use and type c) Religious Institutions, Theaters, Auditoriums, and other places of assembly. 18% of spaces 2% of spaces Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE d) Business and Professional Offices 18% of spaces 2% of spaces e) Medical and Dental Clinics 18% of spaces 2% of spaces f) Hotel or Motel 10% of spaces 10% of spaces 10% of spaces g) Schools: Grade schools, elementary schools, middle school, junior high school 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces h) Schools: High School 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces i) Vocational or business schools 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces j) Hospitals 18% of spaces 10% of spaces 2% of spaces k) Bowling Alleys 18% of spaces 2% of spaces l) Automobile Service Stations 15% of spaces 10% of spaces 5% of spaces m) Retail Sales and Service 18% of spaces 2% of spaces n) Restaurants, Drive-through Food Establishments, Cafes, Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs 18% of spaces 2% of spaces o) Health Club (Includes, but not limited to dance, martial arts, and yoga studios.) 18% of spaces 2% of spaces p) Funeral Homes Varies by use and type q) Industrial, Warehouse, Storage, Handling of Bulk Goods 18% of spaces 2% of spaces r) Uses not specifically noted Varies by use and type Subd. 6. Readiness Recommendation Incentives. If a development meets or exceeds the readiness recommendation listed in Subd.5., the following flexibilities shall be provided: a) Landscaping-Building Setting – The required depth of landscaped area adjacent to building, or “Building Setting,” is reduced to half the size. b) Tree Replacement – The tree replacement requirements may be reduced in an amount which the City determines results in investment in EV infrastructure approximately equivalent to the amount which would have been spent on planting replacement trees. c) Landscaping – Parking Lot Area – The percentage of the area of the parking lot required to be landscaped may be reduced by 25%. For example, if the district standards require 8% of the parking lot area to be landscaped, only 6% would be required. d) Density Bonuses – The Minimum Net Area per Unit may be reduced as described in the relevant zoning district. e) Phasing Plan Flexibility – EV Readiness shall be considered as part of the Sustainability primary factor when reviewing requests for Phasing Plan Flexibility as described in section 825.34 of the City Code. Subd. 7. General Provisions for Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential Development Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE a) Parking. (i) An electric vehicle charging station space may be included in the calculation for minimum required parking spaces required in accordance with Section 828.51. (ii) Public EVCS are reserved for parking and charging electric vehicles only. Electric vehicles may be parked in any space designated for public parking, subject to the restrictions that would apply to any other vehicle that would park in that space. b) Accessible Spaces. A charging station will be considered accessible if it is located adjacent to, and can serve, an accessible parking space as defined and required by the ADA. It is strongly encouraged that a minimum of one (1) accessible electric vehicle charging station be provided. Accessible electric vehicle charging stations should be located in close proximity to the building or facility entrance and connected to a barrier free accessible route of travel. It is not necessary to designate the accessible electric vehicle charging station exclusively for the use of disabled persons. c) Equipment Design Standards and Protection (i) Battery charging station outlets and connector devices shall be mounted to comply with state code and must comply with all relevant Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Equipment mounted on pedestals, lighting posts, bollards, or other devices shall be designed and located as to not impede pedestrian travel or create trip hazards on sidewalks. (ii) Adequate battery charging station protection, such as concrete-filled steel bollards, shall be used. Curbing may be used in lieu of bollards, if the battery charging station is setback a minimum of 24 inches from the face of the curb. d) Usage Fees. The property owner may collect a service fee for the use of EVSE. e) Signage (i) Information shall be posted identifying voltage and amperage levels and any time of use, fees, or safety information related to the electric vehicle charging station. (ii) Each electric vehicle charging station space shall be posted with signage indicating the space is only for electric vehicle charging purposes. For purposes of this subsection, "charging" means that an electric vehicle is parked at an electric vehicle charging station and is connected to the battery charging station equipment. f) Maintenance. Electric vehicle charging stations shall be maintained in all respects, including the functioning of the equipment. A phone number or other contact information shall be provided on the equipment for reporting problems with the equipment or access to it. Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE SECTION II. Subd. 2 of Section 825.55 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the struck through language as follows: Section 825.55. Site Plan Review – Application. Subd. 2. The owner or developer shall submit an application for site plan review to the zoning administrator. The application shall be accompanied by the following information and documentation to the extent it is not otherwise required by another land use application made by the owner or developer for the same site at the same time: (a) legal description of the property; (b) identification of developer and owner, if different; (c) survey showing property boundaries; existing improvements, including utilities, drainage tiles and wells; topography of the site and area within 100 feet of the property boundaries with contours at 2-foot intervals; significant trees and existing vegetation which would meet ordinance landscaping requirements; easements of record, including the dimensions thereof; and wetlands; (d) site plan of proposed improvements showing all buildings, including details of loading docks; parking areas; driveways; access points; berms; easements; and adjacent public or private streets; (e) floor plans and building elevations, including list of building materials, showing a sketch or computer-generated image of proposed buildings as viewed from surrounding uses; (f) site plan of existing uses on property in non-residential zones adjacent to the site and on property in residential zones within 720 feet of the site, measured at the closest point, showing buildings, including loading docks, entrances and other significant features and illustrating sight lines to proposed uses; (g) proposed grading plan with contours at 2-foot intervals; (h) soils map; (i) tree preservation plan; (j) landscaping plan, including species and sizes; (k) drainage and storm water plan; (l) utility plan; (m) sign plan; (n) lighting plan; (o) electric vehicle readiness plan, (p) table of all proposed uses by type and square footage, including estimated water and sanitary sewer usage; (q) schedule of staging or timing of development; and (r) application fee. Ordinance No. ### 7 DATE SECTION III. Subd. 4 of Section 841.1.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Section 841.1.05. (R3) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the city shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development. Subd. 4. Density Bonuses: Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple-residential dwelling units and building complexes. The Minimum Net Area per Unit requirement above may be reduced in accordance to the following, except that total reductions shall not exceed 1,700 square feet of Net Lot Area per unit to ensure the density after the bonus(es) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (a) Affordable Housing (max. reduction = 1,700 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain affordability. (b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the full bonus available for the highest level of certification. (c) Low impact development (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above those required by the city. (d) Underground Parking (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit. (e) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit) (f) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be at least 40 square feet for townhomes or 25 square feet for other uses. (g) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit) (h) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Readiness (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The level of EV Charging Readiness shall be as described in Section 828.52 Subd. 5. Ordinance No. ### 8 DATE SECTION IV. Subd. 4 of Section 841.1.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Section 841.2.05. (R4) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the city shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development. Subd. 4. Density Bonuses: Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple-residential dwelling units and building complexes. The Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit requirement above may be reduced in accordance to the following, except that total reductions shall not exceed 980 square feet of Net Area per unit to ensure the density after the bonus(es) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (a) Affordable Housing (max. reduction = 500 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain affordability. (b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction = 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the full bonus available for the highest level of certification. (c) Low impact development (max. reduction = 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above those required by the city. (d) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. reduction = 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). (e) Underground Parking (max. reduction = 340 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit. (f) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction = 110 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be 40 square feet for townhomes or 25 square feet or greater for other uses. (g) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction = 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit) (h) Dwelling unit amenities (max. reduction = 110 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). Amenities such as additional bathrooms, fireplaces, etc. (i) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Readiness (max. reduction = 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The level of EV Charging Readiness shall be as described in Section 828.52 Subd. 5. Ordinance No. ### 9 DATE SECTION V. Subd. 4 of Section 843.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Section 843.05. MXR-3 Subdistrict Standards for Townhome, Multiple Family Residential and other Uses. The following standards shall be observed for townhomes, multiple family residential uses and other uses, excluding single-family and two-family dwellings. The standards shall be subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the City Code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the City shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development. Subd. 4. Reduction of Minimum Net Area per Dwelling Unit. Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple- residential dwelling units and building complexes. The Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit requirement above may be reduced in accordance to the following, except that the density after the reduction(s) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Notwithstanding the reductions awarded for a development, in no event shall the bonus(es) allow for an increase in building height, nor a net area per dwelling unit less than 2900 square feet. (a) Affordable Housing (max. reduction = 560 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain affordability. (b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction = 390 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the full bonus available for the highest level of certification. (c) Low impact development (max. reduction 200 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above those required by the city. (d) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. reduction 390 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). (e) Underground Parking (max. reduction 560 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit. (f) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction 110 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be 40 square feet for townhomes or 25 square feet or greater for other uses. (g) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction = 390 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit) (h) Dwelling unit amenities (max. reduction 110 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). Amenities such as additional bathrooms, fireplaces, etc. (i) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Readiness (max. reduction = 200 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The level of EV Charging Readiness shall be as described in Section 828.52 Subd. 5. Ordinance No. ### 10 DATE SECTION VI. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this ________ day of _________, 2022. _____________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the _____ day of ____ 2022. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday April 12, 2022 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Ron Grajczyk, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper (arrived at 7:42 8 p.m.), Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres. 9 10 Absent: Planning Commissioner John Jacob. 11 12 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Planner Deb Dion, Planning 13 Consultant Nate Sparks, and Planning Intern Colette Baumgardner 14 15 2. Changes to Agenda 16 17 No changes proposed. 18 19 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20 21 Reid reported on recent discussions and actions of the City Council. 22 23 4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 24 25 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Sedabres 26 volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 27 28 5. Planning Department Report 29 30 Finke provided an update. 31 32 6. Public Hearing – Hamel Townhome LLC – 342 Hamel Road – Preliminary 33 Plat and Site Plan Review for Development of 30 Townhomes (PIDs 34 1211823420015 and 1211823420016) 35 36 Sparks presented a request for a Preliminary Plat and Site Plan review for the development of 37 30 townhomes at 342 Hamel Road. He noted that the subject site is two parcels that total 38 about 2.1 acres in size and within the Uptown Hamel zoning district. He reviewed the 39 adjacent property uses. He stated that the Commission did review a Concept Plan for this at 40 its November meeting. He stated that there would be a mix of three- and four-bedroom units. 41 He stated that the property would be platted with each townhome having its own unit to 42 convey to individual property owners while the drive aisles and perimeter would remain in an 43 outlot to be owned by the HOA. He stated that the property density does fall within the 44 permitting range for the zoning district. He provided additional details on the proposed 45 architectural elements, proposed parking, and drive aisle width and length. He noted a 46 potential connection that could be made to the east but most likely would not work because of 47 the grade change between properties. He reviewed details related to stormwater 48 management, retaining walls, and fencing along with additional comments related to those 49 items. He reviewed the other comments within the staff report related to the proposed 50 2 application. He provided additional details on the tree removal, landscaping plan, and offsite 51 planting that would be required. 52 53 Sedabres referenced the material proposed for the front which is described as lap siding and 54 asked for additional clarification. 55 56 Sparks replied that a fiber cement lap siding would be proposed with a wood appearance. 57 58 Sedabres asked if the front porch would overhang the sidewalk. 59 60 Sparks replied that the overhang would end at the edge of the property line before the 61 sidewalk starts. 62 63 Popp asked if the dimensions of the porches facing Hamel Road were provided. 64 65 Sparks replied that the porches protrude about three to four feet towards the road. 66 67 Popp stated that he was attempting to determine if the porch would be functional or more of a 68 façade. He asked if there have been any renderings that would show the landscaping from 69 Hamel Road. 70 71 Sparks replied that there is a landscaping plan included in the plans, although it was not 72 included in his presentation. He stated that trees would be provided around the perimeter of 73 the site and then between the driveways there would be additional plantings. He stated that 74 the landscaping plan generally meets the requirements of the City. 75 76 Popp asked if a lighting plan has been submitted. 77 78 Sparks replied that has not yet been submitted. 79 80 Rhem stated that it appears there is connectivity to the Rainwater Park and asked for more 81 details. 82 83 Sparks commented on the north side of the property there would be a stairway that goes down 84 into the nature area. He stated that the front sidewalk would also connect to the bituminous 85 trail in the Rainwater Nature Area. 86 87 Matthew Eller, representing the applicant, stated that they listened to the input received from 88 the Concept Plan review and incorporated those changes into their submittal. He believed 89 that this will be a great asset to Hamel, and they look forward to moving forward in the 90 process. 91 92 Nielsen stated that there were a number of conditions recommended by staff and asked if the 93 applicant has any concerns with those conditions. 94 95 Eller commented that the conditions are reasonable and that they can comply with those 96 conditions. 97 98 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. 99 100 Finke commented that a letter was received that he forwarded to the members of the 101 Commission on which a number of property owners signed and asked for the letter to be read 102 in its entirety. He read the letter which was also submitted as a part of the record. 103 3 104 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 105 106 Grajczyk thanked those that are looking to invest in the community and assist in the growth 107 of Uptown Hamel. He commented that there are similar properties developed with 108 townhomes in Hamel that are similar in design or idea. He stated that he does like the design 109 and idea but feels that this proposal is too crowded given the nature of the area and residents 110 that live in adjacent areas. He acknowledged that the zoning would allow this density range 111 but believed 30 units to be too many. He stated that there could also be a challenge to get 112 safety equipment into the site with this design if there were an emergency situation. He 113 stated that a lack of greenspace in the front of the project area also stands out as something 114 different from other properties. He stated that he would like to see something more spread 115 out and open. 116 117 Popp appreciated the letter from the residents. He stated that he does not share some of the 118 concerns within that letter, such as density. He noted that this falls within the allowed range 119 of density and in order to meet the projections of the Metropolitan Council, the City will need 120 density in some areas. He stated that he does have concern with circulation, architectural 121 design, and street appeal. He stated that the lack of plaza and/or greenspace is concerning. 122 He was unsure that the renderings do enough to make that street appeal inviting to residents 123 of the community. He was also concerned with lack of connectivity to the neighboring 124 property. He stated that the isolation of this design and lack of connectivity is a concern. 125 126 Piper commented that this proposal feels too crowded. She asked if there is a similar 127 development at 500 Hamel Road and whether this development would allow for children. 128 129 Eller commented that the intent is to sell the units for purchase and there is no restriction for 130 children. 131 132 Piper commented that this would make her lean further towards this being too crowded as 133 there would be no place for children to exercise other than driveways. She was also 134 concerned with circulation. 135 136 Rhem stated that he struggles with this request as the requirements are pretty much met which 137 makes the review subjective. He agreed there are similarities to the townhome development 138 down the road. He stated that he does like the connectivity to the Rainwater Park. He noted 139 that although he had concerns with circulation, those appear to be addressed through the staff 140 recommendations. He stated that the other challenge would be related to the architecture 141 facing Hamel Road, which could be improved to ensure it does not look like the back of a 142 building. 143 144 Sedabres asked if this proposal would extend the width of Hamel Road to match existing 145 properties or leave in place the existing width of Hamel Road. 146 147 Eller commented that they would leave the width of Hamel Road as it is now. 148 149 Sedabres commented that although some of the Uptown Hamel criteria are met, this is not 150 what he pictures for Uptown Hamel. He noted that this is a unique area with only so many 151 lots available and this should look more welcoming and walkable. He stated that this is too 152 much asphalt and lack of greenspace. He stated that this is not the level of aesthetic and look 153 he would have for Uptown Hamel. 154 155 Nielsen asked why the change was made from rental to ownership. 156 4 157 Eller commented that there is a housing shortage and there are a lot of people interesting in 158 owning at a good price and this project would lend itself towards that. 159 160 Nielsen stated that she shares the concerns of the other members noting that this feels too 161 dense. She noted that she would prefer to see this as rental as there is a need in the area. She 162 agreed that greenspace is lacking. She stated that she could support the density if the visual 163 from Hamel Road were improved. 164 165 Eller commented that from a development standpoint, they review the criteria the City has in 166 place and then attempted to comply with the comments received from the Concept Plan 167 review. He stated that in terms of circulation, they design to the specifications provided by 168 the Fire Marshal and noted that their plan would comply with those specifications. He stated 169 that this property could support up to 32 units and they have requested 30 units which is 170 within the range. He stated that it is difficult when they design to the Code but then receive 171 the comment that it is still not enough. He believed that this is a great site, and the 172 development would be a benefit to Hamel. He stated that there is a lot of open space to the 173 west and a 37-acre park across the street where kids would play. 174 175 Nielsen stated that there were several concerns with the visual design of the units facing 176 Hamel Road. 177 178 Eller stated that is something they could look at and present something that fits more with the 179 desired aesthetic. He stated that in the overall design and the picture shown in the concept 180 image, he believes that to be a nice-looking unit that would be inviting. He recognized that 181 the two-dimensional sketch was very sterile in its appearance. 182 183 Nielsen asked about the blank wall. 184 185 Eller replied that windows would be added to that side wall. He stated that they could also 186 work on the aesthetics of the Hamel Road facing units, as he wants the community to be 187 proud of the development. 188 189 Sedabres stated that there was a reference of a Councilmember in a previous review which 190 referenced a development in another community that had varying heights and materials that 191 break up the wall appearance and give it more interest. 192 193 Motion by Rhem to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan review for 194 the development of 30 townhomes at 342 Hamel Road subject to the conditions 195 recommended by staff and additional modulation against Hamel Road. 196 197 Motion failed for lack of a second. 198 199 Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Piper, to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat and 200 Site Plan review for the development of 30 townhomes at 342 Hamel Road. 201 202 A roll call vote was performed: 203 204 Grajczyk aye 205 Popp aye 206 Piper aye 207 Rhem nay 208 Sedabres aye 209 5 Nielsen aye 210 211 Motion carried. 212 213 7. Public Hearing – Jeffrey Bonner – 2055 Tamarack Drive – Variance from Required 214 150-Foot Setback to Replace Existing Barn with Larger Structure 215 216 Dion presented a request from Jeffrey Bonner for a variance of 150 feet from the setback to 217 the north property line. She stated that there is an existing barn which received a setback 218 variance in 1978. She noted that all surrounding properties are zoned RR, and all animal 219 structures require a setback of 150 feet from the property line. She stated that the property 220 owner currently has three horses and provided details on the layout and features that would be 221 included in the proposed barn, also comparing that to the layout and features of the existing 222 barn. She noted that part of the expansion would include space to store vehicles and a boat. 223 She stated that the proposed barn would be about 110 feet from the northern property line. 224 She stated that the existing barn is deteriorating because of drainage issues on the property 225 that has caused flooding in the barn. She noted that part of the process would include raising 226 the elevation of the barn site to improve drainage. 227 228 Piper asked for clarification on the property location. 229 230 Dion clarified the location, noting it is on the north side of CR 24. 231 232 Jeffrey Bonner, applicant, stated that he is present to answer any questions. He thanked the 233 Commission, planning staff, and Finke and Dion for their assistance and consideration. He 234 stated that they look forward to working with the City to ensure they work in harmony with 235 the intent of the rural residential area and improve their property. 236 237 Nielsen asked if the applicant is aware of any objections from neighbors. 238 239 Bonner replied that they did provide verbal and written notice to the neighbors, and he did not 240 receive any objections. 241 242 Dion stated that she received a number of calls as a result of the land use application sign on 243 the property. She stated that she answered the questions of the callers, and no objections 244 were expressed. 245 246 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. 247 248 No comments. 249 250 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. 251 252 Piper commented that this is good use of land and understands the desire to improve the barn. 253 254 Nielsen stated that her only concern would be related to runoff from the increased elevation 255 and footprint but believed that was addressed within the conditions recommended by staff. 256 257 Motion by Piper, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval of the variance request from 258 the required 150-foot setback to replace existing barn with larger structure for the property 259 located at 2055 Tamarack Drive with attention to drainage/runoff. 260 261 A roll call vote was performed: 262 6 263 Grajczyk aye 264 Popp aye 265 Piper aye 266 Rhem aye 267 Sedabres aye 268 Nielsen aye 269 270 Motion carries unanimously. 271 272 8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to 273 Provisions for Electrical Vehicle Charging 274 275 Baumgardner stated that tonight they will be discussing a potential electrical vehicle charging 276 ordinance, noting that tonight is meant to be a discussion and a vote in not necessary. She 277 provided background information and information on the different levels of charging and EV 278 charging standards. She reviewed different regulatory methods and related success in 279 implementation. She stated that staff recommends that a percentage of spaces be allocated 280 during construction and to also have a permitted use to allow EV charging in all zoning 281 districts. 282 283 Piper commented that she feels uninformed for this discussion as she has not had an electric 284 vehicle. She asked if patrons are charged to use charging stations found at gas stations. 285 286 Baumgardner stated that if the charging is provided at a service station, users are charged 287 using their credit card. 288 289 Piper asked how units in parking lots charge. 290 291 Baumgardner commented that the cost varies from facility to facility. She noted that some 292 locations offer charging at no cost as an amenity, while others require payment for that 293 service. 294 295 Popp asked if the difference between EV ready and EV capable for new construction ranges 296 in cost by about $1,000. 297 298 Baumgardner commented that would be a reasonably accurate estimate. She stated that cost 299 would vary on the type of readiness; for example, whether they were preparing for level one, 300 level two, or level three charging. 301 302 Grajczyk asked if there were potential grants, subsidies, or other funds available for charging 303 stations. 304 305 Baumgardner commented that there are programs some cities have opted into, using the 306 example of a company leasing space from a city to install and maintain an EV charging 307 station. She noted that is more of a public/private partnership. She stated that she was not 308 aware of grants, but perhaps that may come forward in the future. 309 310 Sedabres referenced the comparable city analysis and asked the view of staff on residential 311 construction. 312 313 7 Baumgardner stated that it would be fitting in both residential and commercial development. 314 She noted that the chart was broken down between single-family, multi-family, and 315 commercial development and provided a brief overview. 316 317 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. 318 319 No comments. 320 321 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. 322 323 Sedabres stated that he loves this and is in favor of this. He stated that he could support 324 recommending as that sets the tone that Medina cares about sustainability and planning for 325 the future but would also support requiring EV capable in all single-family to ensure 326 infrastructure is in place. He stated that it appears that based on the year of adoption, the 327 number of EV stalls required increases for multi-family or commercial. He commented that 328 the cost is so marginal for single-family EV capable and EV ready or capable in commercial 329 of multi-family that he would support that to ensure infrastructure is in place but at minimum 330 would recommend those things. 331 332 Rhem echoed the comments of the previous speaker. He referenced the study which 333 mentions 20 percent of spaces recommended. He asked why the City would not consider 334 including method five as well, which would allow parking reductions for EV ready 335 developments. 336 337 Baumgardner stated that she does not have too much information on either side of that to 338 determine how useful that would be for Medina. 339 340 Finke commented that there is a rationale for the parking minimums and therefore would not 341 want to see a reduction in that to provide an EV charging station. He did not believe those 342 two things serve the same interest. He stated that if the Commission wanted to encourage EV 343 ready stalls, other incentives could be considered which could provide flexibility to other 344 zoning standards. 345 346 Rhem stated that he would want to go above recommending, using incentives to encourage 347 developers. 348 349 Piper asked how this would fit in a townhome development and whether it would be 350 recommended or required within those garages. 351 352 Baumgardner commented that given the current contrast between the City building standards 353 and State building code, she did not believe the City could require that as it would be more 354 restrictive than the State building code. She stated that it could be a recommendation and a 355 requirement could be made for parking lots. 356 357 Sedabres asked if Richfield would be challenged for its requirement. 358 359 Baumgardner confirmed that she would expect that requirement would be challenged. 360 361 Popp commented that there is an appetite for this type of discussion and thanked staff for 362 bringing it forward. He stated that he supports the comments of Sedabres. He stated that he 363 would support method one if it were not going to be challenged by the State. He stated that 364 he would also support incentivizing an EV ready space for level two charging. 365 366 8 Grajczyk stated that he recently purchased a vehicle and reviewed electric vehicles but did 367 not choose one. He stated that if he purchased an electric vehicle, he would want to be able 368 to charge it at his home and therefore wondered who would use the higher-level charging 369 stations. He agreed that the stations will be needed as more electric vehicles are added to the 370 roads. He was unsure that Medina had a parking issue where an incentive related to the 371 number of parking stalls would be desired. He appreciated the desire for people to be ready 372 and ahead of the curve, but from his construction experience it does not work well to place 373 conduit that may or may not be used in ten years. He stated that he tends to move at a slower 374 pace and is more concerned with infrastructure and appropriate locations for charging 375 stations. He stated that he would personally prefer to leave that to businesses and other 376 groups to plan ahead. He stated that affordability is also a consideration as the average 377 electric vehicle is $64,000 compared to the average gas-powered vehicle which is around 378 $40,000. He recognized that may not be a factor for Medina as there is a higher household 379 income level. He stated that he supports the staff recommendations for methods two and 380 four. He noted that in the near future the State will update its building codes and the City 381 could follow at that time. 382 383 Nielsen was happy that Medina is starting to look at this as there will be a need. She 384 supported the recommendation of staff and also supported looking at incentives, although not 385 linked to the number of parking stalls. 386 387 Baumgardner commented that staff will be discussing this with the Council at its worksession 388 the next week and then it could come back to the Commission as early as May or June to 389 consider potential ordinance language. 390 391 9. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to 392 Signs within City-Owned Property 393 394 Finke stated that this arose because of a donation from the Hamel Lions in partnership with 395 Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) and Hamel baseball to install a dynamic display scoreboard in 396 Hamel Legion Park. He stated that in the past the City has not reviewed scoreboards or 397 internal advertising signs internal to the park for compliance with the sign ordinance. He 398 stated that because of the size of the dynamic display the City Attorney suggested a more 399 explicit exemption within the Code. He stated that it would seem to make sense that the same 400 regulations would not be placed upon scoreboards and signs internal to the park, therefore 401 staff suggests an exemption on those signs installed on City owned properties internal to a 402 park. He noted that if the City is the owner of the property, there would still be review. He 403 stated that in the future there could be review criteria developed for non-City owned property 404 exemptions, such as school district properties. 405 406 Sedabres asked the location of the scoreboard within Hamel Park and which direction the 407 sign would face. 408 409 Finke replied that this would replace the scoreboard on the Paul Fortin field which is north of 410 the parking lot coming from Brockton Lane. He stated that it is not intended to be viewed 411 from external of the site. 412 413 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. 414 415 No comments. 416 417 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. 418 419 9 Popp stated that this is a practical approach and would still allow for review and approval. 420 421 Piper commented that she also feels comfortable with that process. 422 423 Sedabres commented that he understands the use of commercial versus park is different but 424 wanted to ensure that size and lighting would still be considered given the amount of 425 discussion that the City has placed on those issues for commercial signs. He stated that it 426 would seem that if the City does not like signs of a certain size, one could argue that should 427 apply across the board as it could seem that commercial businesses are being held to a 428 different standard than nonprofit organizations. 429 430 Finke provided details on the size of the dynamic display proposed for the scoreboard, noting 431 that it is large as it is intended to be seen from across a baseball field. 432 433 Sedabres asked if there are specific requirements for hours or use or days of use. 434 435 Finke stated that the display would be owned by the City in a City park and therefore could 436 regulate those elements. 437 438 Piper asked if the donors requested a specific size of the sign and whether that was 439 conditional of their purchase of the sign. 440 441 Finke replied that if the sign limitations were placed on the scoreboard, it would likely not 442 move forward as it would not be visible for the intended purpose. 443 444 Sedabres asked for more clarification on the location of the sign. 445 446 Finke identified the location for the scoreboard. 447 448 Nielsen asked how much bigger this scoreboard would be compared to the existing 449 scoreboard. 450 451 Finke provided the size of the proposed scoreboard and showed an image of the existing 452 scoreboard, although he did not have those dimensions. 453 454 Nielsen asked if there have been complaints related to the existing sign. 455 456 Finke stated that he could not answer that question. He acknowledged that there is an 457 interplay between recreational use of a park and adjacent residential properties but was 458 unsure if there have been complaints related to the scoreboard itself. 459 460 Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of ordinance amendment 461 regulations pertaining to signs within City-owned parks and other City-owned property. 462 463 A roll call vote was performed: 464 465 Grajczyk aye 466 Popp aye 467 Piper aye 468 Rhem aye 469 Sedabres nay 470 Nielsen aye 471 472 10 Motion carries. 473 474 10. Land Sale – Portion of PID 02-118-23-24-0002 475 476 Finke stated that before the purchase or sale of property, the Commission must review the 477 request to determine if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that in this 478 case the City is proposing to sell a 30-foot strip of property within the Marsh Pointe plat. He 479 stated that the City acquired the property through tax forfeiture as the owner of the adjacent 480 property. He noted that the City Council believes it would be appropriate to sell the property 481 to reimburse the cost of the original purchase. 482 483 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to direct the Chair to report to the City Council that 484 the Planning Commission finds the sale of the 30-foot-wide strip of PID 02-118-23-24-0002 485 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 486 487 A roll call vote was performed: 488 489 Grajczyk aye 490 Popp aye 491 Piper aye 492 Rhem aye 493 Sedabres aye 494 Nielsen aye 495 496 Motion carries unanimously. 497 498 11. Approval of the March 8, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 499 500 Motion by Piper, seconded by Grajczyk, to approve the March 8, 2022, Planning 501 Commission minutes with the noted corrections. 502 503 A roll call vote was performed: 504 505 Grajczyk aye 506 Popp abstain 507 Piper aye 508 Rhem aye 509 Sedabres aye 510 Nielsen aye 511 512 Motion carries unanimously. 513 514 12. Adjourn 515 516 Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. 517 518 A roll call vote was performed: 519 520 Grajczyk aye 521 Popp aye 522 Piper aye 523 Rhem aye 524 Sedabres aye 525 11 Nielsen aye 526 527 Motion carries unanimously. 528 529