HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-08-2023 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: August 4, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2023
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 – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to Tree Preservation
7. Approval June 13, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes
8. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 August 2, 2023
City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: July 27, 2023
MEETING: August 2, 2023 City Council
SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates
Land Use Application Review
A) Preserve of Medina (fka Blooming Meadows) – east of Holy Name Dr, north of CR24 – Tim
Boser has requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a 5-lot rural
subdivision. The applicant proposes to restore a large area of wetlands and create a wetland
bank in addition to the lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the June 13
meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The Park Commission reviewed on June 21.
The City Council reviewed on July 18 and directed staff to draft approval documents, which will
be presented on 8/2.
B) School Lake Nature Preserve 3rd Addition and PUD Amendment – School Lake Nature
Preserve LLC has requested to separate the area of the formal garden from one of the lots within
the development. The garden area is proposed as a stand alone outlot. The Planning
Commission reviewed at their June 13 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The
Council reviewed on July 5 and directed staff to prepare approval documents, after the applicant
has provided updates to the plat. Staff will present the approval docs after the plat is updated.
C) Cates Industrial Park – Comprehensive Plan Amendment– Oppidan has requested final plat
approval for a 310,000 square foot warehouse/office development east of Willow Drive, north of
Chippewa Road. Staff tentatively intends to present to City Council on August 15.
D) Grossman Septic Variance – 3082 Highway 55 – Jaymes Grossman has requested a variance
for the setback for a septic system from wetlands to replace an existing system. Staff intends to
present to Council on August 15.
E) 1225 Maplewood Concept Plan – John and Lisa James have requested review of a concept plan
for a three-lot subdivision. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will schedule for a public
hearing when complete, potentially at the September Planning Commission meeting.
F) Meander Park and Boardwalk – Meander Rd, east of Arrowhead Dr – Medina Ventures had
requested PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for a development to include four
residential units north of Meander Rd, and commercial uses south of Meander Rd including a
venue, restaurant, daycare, and speculative retail space. The City Council granted amended
PUD and Final Plat approval at the April 18 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they now
do not plan to start construction until the spring of 2024.
G) 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 granted approval of the
preliminary plat and site plan review at the February 7 meeting. The Council granted final plat
approval on 5/2/2023. Staff will work with the applicant on conditions of approval. The
applicant hopes to start construction this summer.
H) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – BAPS Minneapolis Medina has requested an
amendment to their approved site plan review. The applicant has submitted updated
architectural information based on the City’s updated regulations pertaining to architectural
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 August 2, 2023
City Council Meeting
elements. The applicant has also proposed minor adjustments to the site layout previously
approved. The Council reviewed at the November 9 meeting and recommended approval. The
Council approved the amended Site Plan Review at the December 6 meeting. The applicant has
indicated that they may potentially begin construction during the fall of 2023.
I) 500 Hamel Road Apartment Concept Plan – Medina Apartments LLC has requested review of
a concept plan review for development of a 97-unit apartment building at 500 Hamel Rd. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing at their August 10 meeting and Council provided
comments on August 16. The developer met with neighbors on September 12 and the parties
have indicated that they will meet again to discuss the project.
J) Hamel Townhomes Final Plat – 342 Hamel Rd – Hamel Townhomes, LLC has requested final
plat approval for a 30-unit townhome development. The Council granted final plat approval on
August 16. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize documents prior to beginning of
construction.
K) 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.
L) Pioneer Trail Preserve – This project has been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting
final plat application.
Other Projects
A) Morningside/Maplewood Ravine stabilization and pond – Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the
City of Medina have been allocated $244,000 for a project to include a ravine stabilization and
pond south of Morningside Road, east of Maplewood Drive. Staff held a kick-off meeting on
7/14 and will request Council authorization to begin preliminary analysis and feasibility at the
August 2 meeting.
B) Pickleball Noise Analysis – staff has been working to secure a scope and contract for the
analysis related to sound at the Hunter Lions Park pickleball courts.
C) Wetland Violation/Restoration – staff met with the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) related to
impacts on a residential property in Medina. A combination of voluntary restoration and
purchase of credits at 4x the rate was discussed.
D) South Fork Crow River Subwatershed Analysis – I attended a kick-off for a subwatershed
analysis being conducted by Elm Creek Watershed. Staff will need to provide substantial
information requested by the consultant and will participate in future meetings.
E) Zoning Enforcement – the past few weeks have been active with code enforcement complaints.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: July 27, 2023
RE: Police Department Updates
Hiring updates. We currently are looking for Community Service Officer Candidates. We have had
an open application process for several weeks with zero applications. Community Service Officer
(CSO) Wiese is finishing up summer skills and will then take the peace officer test. We gave him a
conditional offer for a police officer position several weeks ago which he has accepted. We will
continue to try and find CSOs. As for our other opening for police officer the deadline to apply is on
07-28-2023 and as of 07-27-2023 we have no applicants that have applied. I am hoping to see some
come in at the deadline. Currently on the state police officer job website there are 186 agencies in the
state that have openings for police officers. Of those 186, many are advertising for more than one
position. If no applications come in, we will look to try and market our advertisement differently and
repost.
As you can see from the patrol and investigations updates below, we have been busy with multiple
different types of things from civil issues, traffic enforcement, general calls for service, medicals,
along with major calls such as burglary in progress, auto theft, criminal sexual conduct, etc.
Investigator Myhre has been doing a great job in his role from patrol to investigations. Investigator
Myhre has over eight years of experience with the Crystal Police Department before coming to us last
year and that experience is invaluable.
We are preparing for Nite to Unite next week. If anyone would like to ride along with the police
officers or Reserves, feel free to reach out to me so we can get you on the list.
Patrol:
The following are updates of Patrol Officers between July 12, 2023, and July 24, 2023:
Citations – 33 Warnings – 74 PD Accidents – 3
PI Accidents – 4 Medicals – 10 Falls – 0
Suspicious Calls – 9 Traffic Complaints – 4 Other Agency Assists – 10
Business/Residential Alarms -
14
Welfare Checks - 4 Disturbance Calls - 7
On 07/14/2023 officer responded to a business on the 700 block of Tower Drive on a found property
report. Person turned in a pistol that was found in the roadway in Orono approximately one year prior.
Person advised they had forgot about it until recently that they had it and turned it in. The firearm
came back clear (not stolen). Investigations is trying to trace the serial number to locate the owner.
On 07/14/2023 at 2234 hours officer was dispatched to a disturbance at Hamel Legion Park on a report
of people on the field sitting on lawn chairs drinking after a game. Officer made contact with the
individuals and advised of the park hours and that since the game was over, they were in violation of
being in the park after hours. Parties dispersed.
On 07/16/2023 at 0406 hours officer responded to a vehicle that had just been stolen from a residence
in the 3000 block of Basswood Road. A 2020 white Land Rover was stolen from the garage at the
residence. Around 0530 the vehicle was located unoccupied in St. Paul. The vehicle was towed back
to the Medina Police Department for processing and then released back to the owner.
On 07/16/2023 officer responded to a theft from auto report in the 300 block of Lythrum Lane. Victim
reported someone entered a vehicle in the driveway overnight and stole several items from inside the
vehicle. Incident possibly related to the vehicle theft reported earlier that morning.
On 07/16/2023 at 1914 hours officers responded to a reported personal injury accident at the
intersection of Highway 55 and Clydesdale Trail. It was determined that a vehicle had a green light
and began entering the intersection from southbound Clydesdale Trail when a westbound vehicle ran a
red light and stuck the vehicle. That driver was cited for the violation.
On 07/18/2023 at 1140 hours officer was dispatched to a car theft report at Hamel Power, 3566 Pinto
Drive. Person was reporting their motorcycle was missing from the lot and believed it to be stolen.
Upon arrival, the officer made contact with the business owner who said he put the motorcycle inside
for safekeeping. Motorcycle owner advised.
On 07/18/2023 at 1628 hours officers were called to a customer problem at Dollar Tree. It was
reported an employee was let go and that the now ex-employee was being loud, rude, disrupting
customers, and refusing to leave. Upon arrival, officers spoke with the employee who said she quit
because she felt she was doing more work than her co-workers and they refused to share the workload.
The employee was advised she needed to leave since she was no longer an employee and was
requested by staff to leave. She was issued a trespass notice as well.
On 07/19/2023 at 2010 hours officers were called to a welfare check at Target. Employees reported a
male in the store acting strange. Reported to be wearing a tan trench coat and red beanie hat and last
seen leaving on foot towards the Holiday. Officers checked the area but were unable to locate the
male.
On 07/20/2023 officer took several damage to property reports in Loretto in the Ponds Development.
Early morning suspects, believed to be juveniles, were seen on videos ringing doorbells, pounding and
kicking front doors to residences and even broke a front window of a home. Video footage was
obtained from several neighbors of suspects. Case has been forwarded to investigations.
On 07/20/2023 officer located a window broken on a residential home under construction along Marsh
Point Road. This was the second window broken and both appeared to have rocks thrown at them.
The homeowner was contacted and advised. Extra patrols in the area were requested.
On 07/24/2023 officer responded to take a bicycle theft report at Holiday. Mother reported her son
had reported to her that his bicycle had been stolen from the Subway. The bicycle was later located at
Forkless in Maple Plain and was not damaged. The bicycle was returned to the owner.
On 07/24/2023 at 2224 hours an interrupted burglary was reported in the 700 block of Lilium Trail. It
was reported an unknown male entered the residence uninvited. Homeowner’s daughters were in an
upstairs bedroom when an unknown male opened the bedroom door and stepped inside. They did not
recognize the male and the male asked for their brother by name. They told him their brother was not
there and the male eventually left. The girls then alerted their father who called 911. The area was
checked for the suspect. A person matching the description was located in the area but ran off when
police attempted to make contact. A search was conducted but the male was not located. The case has
been forwarded to investigations.
Investigations:
Signed complaints for several cases.
Received a found gun and followed up with ATF for tracing.
Received multiple damage to property cases.
Received a car theft. Vehicle was recovered and processed.
Received a theft from auto report.
Was called in for a criminal sexual conduct case that started in Minneapolis.
Received a burglary case, developed a suspect, and followed up with a search warrant.
Received a hit and run accident.
Investigations currently has 11 open/active cases.
1
TO: Medina Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: July 27, 2023
MEETING: August 2, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
Streets
• The Clydesdale Trail project is complete and looks great, all will notice a much
smoother ride when traveling on it.
• I gave a short Townline Road project presentation to Medina, Orono, and
Independence residents during our open house at the Orono City Hall on Thursday,
July 20. Adam from Orono was present, along with several residents who asked
questions, and were all in support of the project.
Water/Sewer/Stormwater
• The water system is running at near full capacity, the new filter media has really
helped us keep up with the summer demand.
• A sewer service was repaired in the Cherry Hill development, the repair was right at
the sewer main and a sag in the pipe was repaired at the same time.
• Once again, we’re required to respond to another Department of Health mandate, this
time the City needs to identify all its water services, and prove they are not made of
lead. I am very confident that there are no such lead materials in the Medina systems
but nevertheless we need to prove ourselves clear of these materials all the way into
the houses.
• The City has received a complaint from the Bridgewater HOA about our policy not to
use treated city water for irrigation in Medina. They claim that running an irrigation
system from the ponds is too burdensome for HOA’s. As you all know veering from
our current path of irrigation for subdivisions is not feasible for the Medina water
system.
Parks/Trails
• Staff met with a sound expert to obtain a quote for measuring the sound at the
pickleball court in Hunter Lions Park. Players seem to be respecting the morning
start times. As you know there have been some complaints regarding after hour use
at the courts, likely from players that want to finish their games in the evening. We
have installed a camera with the intention to log the amount of play time on the
courts.
MEMORANDUM
2
• There is a lot of activity in the parks. The Legion Park is always bustling with some
type of activity. Keeping this all going smoothly has become quite an undertaking
and will require more staff in the not-so-distant future.
Other
• The brush/compost site is nearly full, so it is again time to chip brush and remove
compost. The compost contract was in the last packet and is currently being removed.
The brush grinding contract is in this packet and the contractor will be able to get to
the grinding in late August.
• Telltale signs of emerald ash borer are turning up in Medina. Public Works will
devise a plan to deal with the anticipated increase of brush expected in the months
and years to come.
Tree Preservation Page 1 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 3, 2023
MEETING: August 8, 2023 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Regulations
Background
The City’s Tree Preservation ordinance regulates removal of trees for construction and
development activities. The ordinance was adopted in 2006 and has during review of recent land
use applications, City Council members and staff discussed reviewing aspects of the tree
preservation regulations.
Summary of Existing Regulations
The current regulations require replacement of trees if more than a certain percentage of the total
trees are removed. The allowed amount is based upon the size of the lot, with more removal
allowed on smaller lots. The ordinance allows a certain percentage to be removed for “initial site
development” (essentially streets and utilities in a development), and a certain amount to be
removed for all other activities:
Initial Site Development Activities other than Initial Site
Development
Total property area included in the
land use application or served by
improvements
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
Lot Size
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
0.1-1.0 acre 15% 0.1-1.0 acre 20%
1.1-5.0 acres 15% 1.1-5.0 acres 15%
5.1-10.0 acres 10% 5.1-10.0 acres 15%
10.1-20.0 acres 10% 10.1-20.0 acres 10%
20+ acres 10% 20+ acres 5%
The table is a bit difficult to translate without context, but in most common developments, total
removal allowed without replacement is usually 25%-30%.
If removal is in excess of these amounts, replacement is required on an inch:inch basis. A tree
with a diameter of 18”, for example, would need to be replaced with six 3” trees or nine 2” trees.
Medina’s regulations do not differentiate by land use, which is fairly common in other
communities.
MEMORANDUM
Tree Preservation Page 2 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
The ordinance only applies to “Significant Trees” which are defined as: “a healthy, deciduous
Tree, measuring eight (8) inches in Diameter or greater, or a healthy coniferous Tree, measuring
four (4) inches or greater in Diameter.”
The ordinance allows removal of two significant trees from a parcel per year without a permit,
and includes the following exemptions:
(a) removal of invasive species of Trees (as defined by the Minnesota Department of Nature
Resources) and the control of pioneering Tree species such as box elder when needed to
manage other ecosystems and where the removal will not cause erosion or damage to
riparian areas;
(b) commercially-zoned properties which follow the zoning-specific requirements;
(c) removal of a Tree that has been determined by a Forestry Specialist to be diseased;
(d) removal of Trees in connection with an emergency that poses an immediate danger to life
or property;
(e) removal of Trees that are located in areas in the Three Rivers Park District-managed Morris
T. Baker Park and the Department of Natural Resources-managed Wolsfeld Woods
Scientific and Natural Areas;
(f) removal of Trees that are significantly damaged by storms or natural disasters; or
(g) removal of Trees within an existing Conservation Easement which is consistent with an
existing private management plan.
Comparison to other Communities
Staff reviewed tree preservation regulations in other communities as background information.
Following is a table summarizing the requirements:
Two out of thirteen communities do not have specific tree preservation regulations for all
development. Chaska regulates removal only along bluffs/steep slopes. Corcoran does not
regulate tree removal in standard zoning, but encourages during consideration of PUDs.
Allowed Removal
(Residential)
Allowed Removal
(Commercial)Replacement Notes
Medina 25%-30% 25%-30%1 inch: 1 inch
Plymouth 50%75%1.25 inch:inch $125/inch
Maple Grove 50%70-80%2 inch:1inch Only applies in higher value wooded area
Victoria 20%20%1 inch:1 inch
replacement limited to 40 trees per acre;
Replacement credit for saved woodlands
Chanhassen Varies (see below) Varies (see below)Minimum canopy 1 tree = 1089 s.f. canopy (40 trees per acre)
Minnetrista 30%30%1 inch: 1 inch
Dayton 40%60%1 inch: 1 inch
Lake Elmo 30%30%.25-.5 inch : inch .25 for boxelder, cottonwood, ash
Eagan 40%48%.5 inch: 1 inch
4" replacmenet trees are tree:tree;
softwood are 1/2 replacement
Woodbury 30%30%.5 inch: 1 inch
Shorewood None None 2-3 trees/tree Limited to 8 trees/acre
Chaska Not regulated Not regulated Only Bluff/steep slope removal regulated
Corcoran Not regulated Not regulated Preservation encourged through PUD
Tree Preservation Page 3 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Medina’s removal allowance is on the more stringent side of the comparisons. One community
has a lower allowed removal percentage, but has a limit on the amount of replacement which can
be required (40 trees per acre). Three communities have limitation of 30%, but two of those
communities have a lower replacement amount (0.5” per 1”).
Maple Grove’s regulations only apply to woodlands identified in their natural resource
inventory. Removal of trees scattered through a site or along tree lines would not be regulated.
Chanhassen’s regulations (attached for reference) are unique amongst the communities. The
regulations account for the “baseline canopy” of a site and different land uses. Their regulations
establish a minimum amount of the site which is required to be tree canopy, which is adjusted
based on how wooded the site is to begin with, and what land use is planned. A site with few
trees, for example, may end up having to plant more trees than a development site which is
partially wooded but which preserves trees. Staff believes it may be worth discussing whether
Medina’s ordinance should consider existing tree coverage and land use as factors.
Recommended Changes
Administering the tree preservation ordinance over the past 16 years, staff has identified the
following potential changes to be discussed.
Add language related to off-site planting or contribution to forest management fund
In several developments, the amount of required tree replacement was too high to sustainably
and practically plant on a subject site. The City’s practice has been to either allow planting in
off-site locations within the City, or to accept a contribution to the City’s forest
management/reforestation fund equivalent to the planting.
The ordinance does not describe this allowance, so staff recommends that a provision be added
to describe this practice. Language can be found on the top of page 8 of the ordinance.
Exemption: Trees within public right-of-way or easement by public agency
The primary strategy of the tree preservation ordinance is to encourage design which avoids as
many trees as possible, not necessarily as a penalty for removing trees. In the case of street
expansions and utility projects, the ability for public agencies to avoid trees is limited by the
location of existing improvements and easements. As such, staff believes it is reasonable to
exempt removal by public agencies. Recommended language can be found on the bottom of
page 4 of the ordinance [Subd. 5(h)].
Exemption: Removal for improvements to existing public streets
The City often requires construction of turn lanes on existing public streets adjacent to a
development. Similar to the rationale for exempting removal by public agencies, staff believes it
is reasonable to consider exempting trees which a developer would need to remove along the
outside of a development site to add turn lanes to an existing street. It would not likely be
practical to design improvements to avoid the trees. Recommended language can be found on
the bottom of page 4 of the ordinance [Subd. 5(i)].
Tree Preservation Page 4 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Planted Trees
The existing regulations references “credit for previously planted trees” [see Subd. 9(c)(vi)].
The current language suggests that previously planted trees can be considered as replacement
trees if replacement is required in a project.
The thought behind this type of provision is so there is not a disincentive for property owners
planting trees in the years and decades prior to development or a construction project.
Staff believes it may be reasonable and more straight-forward to exempt trees planted by the
owner from consideration on the front end, rather than counting as replacement on the back end.
Staff has suggested this language at the bottom of page 7, top of page 8.
Replacement for Old Growth Forest
The current Tree Preservation ordinance states that replacement for trees removed from an Old
Growth Forest Remnant is required to be on a 2 inch:1inch basis. The ordinance notes that Old
Growth Forest Remnants are identified within the City’s natural resource inventory. The City’s
2008 Inventory did not identify any Old Growth Remnants.
One of the communities which was surveyed for comparison (Victoria) requires 2:1 replacement
for “heritage trees,” so there is one example of a community which has a multiplier for
replacement. In their case it is for older, larger trees.
If, in the future, any woodlands in the City evolve to the point where they could be classified as
Old Growth, staff believes other tools would be more effective to preserve these areas rather than
relying on the tree preservation ordinance. Examples include land planning, acquisition, or
requiring dedication of the land as park dedication. Staff has some concern about requiring a
multiplier in terms of replacement. Staff has suggested language to remove this multiplier [See
Subd. 9(c)(i) on page 7]
Remove Ash Trees from Allowed Species
With the emergence of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) in the area, staff recommends removing ash
trees from the list of allowed replacements. The ordinance does require diversification for
replacement trees (no more than 25% of one species), which is best practice to limit impacts
from future tree diseases and infestations.
Discussion Items
Staff has identified several topics for additional discussion but wanted to allow Planning
Commission and Council to discuss prior to suggesting any specific language.
PUD as incentive for preservation
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance identifies the following as one of the purposes
of the City considering a PUD: “The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site
characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural
topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion.” Staff believes this
language is sufficient for the City to provide flexibility for a developer to design a site to
Tree Preservation Page 5 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
preserve wooded areas. Because the City has the discretion in determining whether to approve a
PUD, the Planning Commission and Council will need to balance the tree preservation goals
against other interests which may be raised by residents (minimum lot size, unit count, type of
dwelling, etc.). The PUD can be a good tool, but the developer would need to realize sufficient
value from the flexibility granted to make the project more desirable for them as well.
Density Bonuses/Transfer of Development Rights
Maple Grove’s ordinance includes language which allow a property owner to transfer
development rights from wooded acreage to other sites and allows the City to grant density
bonuses for preserving wooded areas.
The PUD process provides some ability to “transfer” density from one portion of a site to
another, at the discretion of the City. Density would need to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, which does allow +20% density “for developments that protect the natural
features or exceed other standards of the zoning district.” Staff believes it is fair to interpret that
the existing PUD ordinance would allow this +20% density at the discretion of the City for
woodland preservation. If the Planning Commission and City Council wanted to emphasize this
incentive, it may be advisable to add the language more explicitly in either the Tree Preservation
ordinance or the PUD ordinance.
While the PUD ordinance would certainly allow flexibility in lot size and layout to shift the
location of buildings within a development site, the City does not explicitly address transfer of
development rights BETWEEN sites. Such transfers are often suggested conceptually in studies
as a tool to preserve desirable features, but are not widely utilized. Transfers may be challenging
to administer and track over time. Maple Grove has had this option in their regulations for a
number of decades of extensive development, and was utilized only a few times. Density
bonuses were utilized much more often.
The City likely could regulate a transfer of development rights through a PUD process (even for
non-contiguous sites) if the opportunity ever presented itself. However, the likelihood is much
lower if the option is not explicitly described in code.
Staff seeks feedback on whether bonus density language should be emphasized in code, or if
transfer of development rights language should be added.
Standards by Land Use
The City’s current removal allowances are based on lot size, irrespective of planned land use.
Several communities which were reviewed by staff established different regulations for allowed
removal based on land use. Staff believes it may be advisable to consider regulations by land
use. The Uptown Hamel district, for example, is intended to allow a more “urban” or
“downtown” style of development, has a lot of smaller lots and allows 90% coverage by
buildings and parking. It likely is difficult to develop in this style while also preserving trees.
Most sites do not have stands of trees to preserve, but they are instead scattered through the site.
Staff believes it is appropriate to address this in the tree preservation ordinance.
In the past, the City has accounted for land use differences through the “waiver” procedures
which are described within the existing regulations. The waiver procedure is described on the
Tree Preservation Page 6 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
bottom of page 5. The City has granted waivers in the case of land planned for more intensive
uses, provided the applicant made efforts to preserve trees.
The City Attorney recommends that, to the extent possible, the City should try to specify
expectations for removal within the ordinance, rather than commonly relying on waivers to
address such instances.
Park Dedication credit
The City can require 10% of buildable land from any subdivision to be dedicated to the City for
Parks, Trails, and Open Space. This provides a fairly powerful tool to preserve the highest
priority wooded areas. Requiring dedication of wooded areas would compete with requiring
dedication of lands for active recreation (parks/trails) or obtaining cash-in-lieu of dedication.
The City would also then obtain property rights over the wooded area.
Several communities note that the City would provide some credit toward park dedication
requirements of wooded areas are preserved within a development site. Staff believes there may
be an opportunity to provide credit for preserved woodland areas. If such lands were preserved,
but not open to the public, partial park dedication credit could be considered.
Staff seeks feedback on whether Planning Commission, Park Commission, and City Council are
supportive of adding language related to this option.
Softwood removal/replacement
Several communities required a lower replacement amount for softwood trees such as box elder,
cottonwood, and ash. The City’s current regulations include a provision that can exempt
“removal of invasive species of Trees (as defined by the Minnesota Department of Nature
Resources) and the control of pioneering Tree species such as box elder when needed to manage
other ecosystems and where the removal will not cause erosion or damage to riparian areas.”
Staff believe the original intent of this provision was for cases of tree/forest management, not as
an exemption for removal of such trees during development. Nonetheless, relying on this
language and the allowance of the waiver provision of the code, the City has reduced
replacement requirements in several cases for lower quality trees such as cottonwood and box
elder. If that is to be the practice, staff would recommend formalizing either the exemption or
reduction in replacement for such trees.
Allowed Removal
As noted above, Medina is one of the more stringent communities with regard to tree removal
allowances. Medina is also unique in how removal for “initial site development” is accounted
for separately from “other activities.” For commercial or multi-family sites which do not have
public streets, this two-part approach can actually result in a more restrictive allowance because
a project may need to remove more trees for a larger building/parking footprint rather than for
streets.
Tree Preservation Page 7 of 7 August 8, 2023
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Potential Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed changes and the
discussion items above and provide feedback. Amendments to the ordinance are not time-
sensitive, so if Commissioners request additional information or changes, staff can present at a
future meeting. Staff also intends to request feedback from Park Commission and City Council
before finalizing the ordinance.
Attachments
1. Ordinance
2. Chanhassen regulations
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.41 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 828.41. Tree Preservation and Replacement.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote, within the city,
development that retains Medina’s rural character, in which the natural environment is
the dominant feature. Trees and landscaping are a major component of the natural
environment, and the city recognizes that preservation and replanting of trees is important
in order to maintain a healthy and desirable community. The city further recognizes that
a certain amount of tree loss is an inevitable consequence of the development process, but
that the reforestation of this valuable renewable resource will ultimately provide a long-
term environmental and economic benefit.
Subd. 2. Function. The function of this ordinance includes but is not limited to:
(a) improving air quality;
(b) reducing noise pollution;
(c) improving water quality;
(d) preventing of soil erosion;
(e) conserving energy by providing natural insulation and shading;
(f) reducing the urban heat island effect;
(g) increasing property values by establishing tree buffers that provide privacy
protection between conflicting land uses;
(h) providing habitat for wildlife, including birds that help control insects;
(i) enhancing the city’s physical and aesthetic environment; and
(j) enhancing the quality of life and the general welfare of residents.
Subd. 3. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this
ordinance, are defined as follows:
(a) “Best Management Practices” (“BMP”) are the Erosion and sediment control
practices as well as conservation or Low Impact Development principles related
to Tree preservation and removal, that are the most effective and practicable for
controlling, preventing and minimizing negative impacts on existing Trees,
minimizing soil exposure and protecting tracts of Woodland and Old Growth
Forest Remnants.
(b) “Crown Cover” is the protective canopy created by the overlapping leafy heads of
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Trees that shelters the habitat beneath it.
(c) “Development Site” is the surveyed parcel, or site, including those improvements
that occur on-site or adjacent to the Development Site or spoil site locations. A
Development Site includes both the Primary and Secondary Construction Zones.
(d) “Diameter” is the width of a Tree’s trunk, measured at four (4) feet above the
ground.
(e) “Dripline” is the farthest distance away from the trunk of a Tree that rain, or dew,
will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the Tree to the roots.
(f) “Forestry Specialist” is a person certified in urban forestry functions and
management, who has been retained by the city, or an applicant.
(g) “Initial Site Development” is the grading and construction of streets, trails, and
sidewalks; the installation of utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, natural gas, electric, and cable television; or the grading and construction
of drainage ways and storm detention areas.
(h) “Lost Trees” are Significant Trees in areas to be preserved but that die as a result of
construction or Development Site improvement activities and must be replaced at
the same ratio as Significant Trees. Such Trees shall be considered Lost Trees
when they die as a result of:
(i) grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater
than one (1) foot, measured vertically and affecting forty (40) percent, or
more, of the Tree’s root zone (the area under a Tree that is at and within
the Dripline of the Tree);
(ii) secondary construction activities that result cutting forty (40) percent, or
more, of the Tree’s root zone (the area under a Tree that is at and within
the Dripline of the Tree);
(iii) mechanical injury to the trunk of a Significant Tree, causing the loss of thirty
(30) percent, or more, of the bark at a specific part of the Tree; or
(iv) compaction to ninety (90) percent of a depth of six (6) inches, or more, of
forty (40) percent, or more, of the Tree’s root zone (the area under a Tree
that is at and within the Dripline of the Tree).
(i) “Low Impact Development” or “LID” means multi-functional site design,
streetscapes and architecture that maintains and restores vital terrestrial ecological
processes necessary to protect the ecological integrity of the land.
(j) “Natural Resources Inventory” is a document developed by the city that denotes
where regionally significant natural resources are located within the city.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
(k) “Principal Structure” means any building or structure on the property in which the
main use of the property takes place.
(l) “Private Road” means a privately owned (or controlled) and maintained drive, street,
road, lane, or any improved or unimproved surface, not dedicated to a
governmental entity as a public road, which provides the primary means of
vehicular ingress and egress from a public road to two or more dwelling units,
lots, parcels or principal buildings, whether created by a private right-of way,
easement, or other device.
(m) “Old Growth Forest Remnant” is a natural forest remnant that is one acre or greater,
that has developed over a long period of time, generally around 100 years, with
young, middle-aged and old Trees present. It is dominated by shade tolerant
species, such as sugar maple and basswood. All Old Growth Forest Remnants are
identified in the city’s current Natural Resource Inventory or in the current
Natural Areas and Community ID Numbers map which are available at city hall.
(n) “Replacement Trees” are Trees that replace removed Significant Trees.
(o) “Significant Tree” is a healthy, deciduous Tree, measuring eight (8) inches in
Diameter or greater, or a healthy coniferous Tree, measuring four (4) inches or
greater in Diameter.
(p) “Subdivision” means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single
ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests
where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets,
roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any
combination thereof, except those separations: (1) where all the resulting parcels,
tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for
residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses;
(2) creating cemetery lots; (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a
lot line by the relocation of a common boundary.
(q) “Tree” is a woody plant, which at maturity, is thirteen (13) feet or greater in height
and that has a more or less defined crown.
(r) “Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan” is a certified survey, which shows the
location and species of all Trees to be preserved, removed, or disturbed, and the
location of Replacement Trees within the site.
(s) “WCA” means the “Wetland Conservation Act,” Minnesota Statutes Sections
103G.222-.2373.
(t) “Woodland” is a group of Significant Trees and understory plants that are one (1)
acre or greater in size and non-species specific, with a Crown Cover of fifty (50)
percent or greater. Old Growth Forest Remnants are a species-specific type of
Woodland.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Subd. 4. Applicability. This ordinance shall apply to any of the following circumstances:
(a) removal of more than two (2) Significant Trees on any property, developed or
undeveloped, within a given calendar year, except as exempted by subdivision 5
of this section.
(b) any formal land use application to the city that is to be zoned residential, including,
but not limited to, Subdivisions, minor Subdivisions, site plans, rezoning and
conditional use permits;
(c) site improvements requiring a building, grading, driveway, sign or WCA permit; or
(d) redevelopment of a legal non-conforming Principal Structure.
Subd. 5. Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this
ordinance:
(a) removal of invasive species of Trees (as defined by the Minnesota Department of
Nature Resources) and the control of pioneering Tree species such as box elder
when needed to manage other ecosystems and where the removal will not cause
erosion or damage to riparian areas;
(b) commercially-zoned properties which follow the zoning-specific requirements;
(c) removal of a Tree that has been determined by a Forestry Specialist to be diseased;
(d) removal of Trees in connection with an emergency that poses an immediate danger
to life or property;
(e) removal of Trees that are located in areas in the Three Rivers Park District-managed
Morris T. Baker Park and the Department of Natural Resources-managed
Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Areas;
(f) removal of Trees that are significantly damaged by storms or natural disasters; or
(g) removal of Trees within an existing Conservation Easement which is consistent with
an existing private management plan.
(h) Removal of Trees by a public agency upon public land, right-of-way, or easement for
the installation of public improvements.
(g)(i) Removal of Trees related to improvements to existing public roadways adjacent
to a development site or extension of utilities to a development site which are
required by the City as a condition of land use application approval.
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering,Widow/Orphan control
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering,Widow/Orphan control
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
Subd. 6. Allowed Tree Removal.
(a) The following amount of Significant Trees may be removed from a site and
replacement shall not be required.
Initial Site Development Activities other than Initial Site
Development
Total property area included in the
land use application or served by
improvements
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
Lot Size
Allowed percent
of Significant
Trees that may be
removed
0.1-1.0 acre 15% 0.1-1.0 acre 20%
1.1-5.0 acres 15% 1.1-5.0 acres 15%
5.1-10.0 acres 10% 5.1-10.0 acres 15%
10.1-20.0 acres 10% 10.1-20.0 acres 10%
20+ acres 10% 20+ acres 5%
(b) For activities that include the Subdivision of property or dedication of public or private
right-of-way, the allowed number of Significant Trees that may be removed for Initial
Site Development shall be based on the lot size prior to Subdivision. After the
property is subdivided, the allowed number of Significant Trees that may be removed
shall be based on the individual lot sizes within the Subdivision.
Subd. 7. Waiver. A waiver, of the number of Trees required to be replaced, may be
granted by the city council, in its full and absolute discretion, on a case-by-case basis for
circumstances where the applicant has exhausted all reasonable design options for the
Development Site. An applicant shall be eligible for a waiver only if he or she
implements all Best Management Practices listed in Subdivision 8 of this ordinance.
Waivers associated with a land use application shall be considered by the city council at
time of the review of the application and shall not be considered after this review is
approved.
Subd. 8. Standards Governing Tree Preservation, Protection and Planting. The
following Best Management Practices shall be used for those Development Sites that
utilize conservation easements that protect Old Growth Forest Remnants or Development
Sites that are requesting waivers from certain requirements of this section:
(a) Realignment of proposed streets and utilities in order to avoid Tree removal;
(b) Reduction of required street width and increase of street grade up to an eight (8)
percent slope by the city when the applicant can demonstrate that these changes
result in Tree preservation;
(c) The use of Private Roads in lieu of public streets;
Ordinance No. ### 6
DATE
(d) Variation in street radius and speed design;
(e) Modified grading plans;
(f) Flexible lot lines;
(g) Alternative utility configurations, such as the use of ejector pumps, force mains, or
revised home elevations to minimize grading;
(h) The use of flexible development standards, such as clustering of homes, in order to
preserve Old Growth Forest Remnants, Significant Trees and open space;
(i) The preservation of unique and rare Tree species or communities identified in the
Natural Resource Inventory; and
(j) The use of Low Impact Development principles.
Subd. 9. Tree Preservation and Replacement Requirements. For all activities that are
subject to this section, a Tree Preservation Plan must be submitted by the applicant for
review and approval by the city. To the extend possible, Significant Trees and Trees
located within Old Growth Forest Remnants, Woodlands and natural habitat areas shall
be preserved. The Tree Preservation Plan shall include the following information:
(a) Tree Inventory. The Tree inventory shall identify Significant Trees on the property.
It shall include:
(i) The location of and a list of all Significant Trees by species. In cases involving
large stands of Trees, an applicant may, with city staff review and consent,
show the area on the site plan and use a representative sample in order to
calculate the number and species of Significant Trees.
(ii) Significant Trees that are proposed to be removed. They shall be marked
with an “X” on the site plan. The Diameter of each removed Significant
Tree, in inches, shall also be noted.
(iii) Identification of areas within Old Growth Remnant Forests, as defined by
the Natural Resources Inventory. If an applicant wishes to adjust the area
based on fieldwork, city staff must review and approve of any adjustment.
(iv) A list of any ecologically unique and/or significant areas on the
Development Site that are identified in the Natural Resources Inventory
report.
(b) Identification of the locations of any protective fencing and any other measures that
will be taken to preserve the Trees. Protective fencing must be placed at least one
Ordinance No. ### 7
DATE
foot beyond the Dripline of all Trees to be preserved. Any Trees lost as a result of
construction activity will be counted when determining the amount of Trees that
were removed, which may cause additional Replacement Trees to be required.
(c) Tree Replacement Plan. If the proposed removal of Significant Trees exceeds that
allowed by subdivision 6 of this section, Tree Replacement will be required and a
Tree Replacement Plan will need to be submitted to the city for review and
approval by the city council. The Tree Replacement Plan shall be certified by a
Forestry Specialist. It shall contain the following information for each
Replacement Tree.
(i) Number and Size of Trees to be Replaced. For Significant Trees located
within an Old Growth Forest Remnant or other significant area identified
by the Natural Resources Inventory, a Tree Replacement ratio of a
Diameter of two (2) caliper inches per one (1) inch of removed Significant
Trees and Lost Trees is required. For all other areas containing
Significant Trees, a Tree Replacement ratio of a Diameter of one (1)
caliper inch per one (1) inch of removed Significant Trees and Lost Trees
is required.
(ii) Type of Replacement Trees. All Replacement Trees shall be native trees as
defined by subdivision 10 of this section. All Replacement Trees shall be
appropriate for the soil conditions found at the planting site. All
Replacement Trees shall be from certified nursery stock and shall not be
bare root stock. If more than twelve (12) Replacement Trees are required
on a Development Site, there shall be no more than twenty-five (25)
percent of the same species.
(iii) Minimum Size of Replacement Trees. All deciduous Replacement Trees
shall be a Diameter of at least two (2) caliper inches in size. All
coniferous Replacement Trees shall be at least four (4) feet in height.
(iv) Placement of the Replacement Trees. All Replacement Trees shall be
planted within the Development Site, in a non-patterned arrangement,
duplicating natural conditions whenever possible. Replacement Trees
may be planted in an alternative location if that location is approved by the
city council.
(v) Survival of Replacement Trees. All Replacement Trees must survive for at
least two growing seasons from the date of planting before the city will
refund the financial guarantee required by subdivision 13 of this section. In
the event that a Replacement Tree dies or has severely declined (25% of
crown has died) before the two growing seasons have passed, it shall be
replaced with a Tree of the same caliper inch size. The new Tree must
survive for two growing seasons from the date of its planting before the city
will refund the financial guarantee.
(vi) Credit for Previously Planted Trees. Trees which have been previously planted
Ordinance No. ### 8
DATE
by a property owner shall be exempt from the Replacement requirements of
this section. Such Trees shall be excluded from the total number of Trees
when calculating the allowed Removal and Replacement requirements. An
applicant may, if they have previously planted Trees on the property while
the property was under their ownership, receive credit for these Trees as
part of the Replacement Plan. The Trees must meet the requirements of
Replacement Trees stated above. The applicant must produce proof,
acceptable to the city, that the planting of the trees occurred under the
applicant’s ownership of the property. Credit for each previously planted
Tree shall be granted based on the minimum size Replacement Tree allowed
under this ordinance, unless the applicant is able to provide proof as to the
size of the Tree at the time of planting.
(d) Off-site Replacement; Contribution to City Environmental Fund. If required Tree
Replacement is not practicable on the subject site because, in the City’s
discretion, insufficient space exists to plant the Replacement Trees, an applicant
may propose to plant in other locations in the City. Alternatively, an applicant
may contribute an amount described in the City’s fee schedule to the City’s
Environmental Fund for the purpose of forest management. The contribution
shall be based upon the estimated cost equivalent to planting the required amount
of Replacement Trees.
(e) Amendments. A Tree Preservation or Replacement Plan may need to be amended
after it has been approved by the city council. Requests for amendments shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of the Tree
Replacement permit. The city’s Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to
approve minor amendments. Request for amendments after the Tree Replacement
Permit has been issued shall be considered by the City Council.
Subd. 10. Native Trees. The following is the list of Trees that are native to Minnesota for
purposes of this section as specified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’
“Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota, the Eastern Broadleaf
Forest Province.”:
(a) Ash, Black (Fraxinus nigra) RESERVED
(b) Ash, Green (Fraxinus Pennsylvanica) RESERVED
(c) Ash, White (Fraxinus Americana) RESERVED
(d) Aspen, bigtooth (also called largetooth aspen, poplar, popple)(Populus
grandidentata);
(e) Aspen, quaking (also called trembling aspen, poplar,
popple)(Populus tremuloides);
(f) Basswood, American (Tilia Americana);
(g) Birch, paper (Betula papyrifera);
(h) Birch, river (Betula nigra);
(i) Birch, yellow (Betula alleghaniensis);
(j) Butternut (Juglans cinerea);
(k) Cedar, northern white (Thuja occidentalis);
Ordinance No. ### 9
DATE
(l) Cherry, black (Prunus serotina);
(m) Cherry pin (Prunus pensylvanica);
(n) Elm, American (only Dutch Elm Disease resistant cultivars) (Ulmus
Americana);
(o) Fir, balsam (Abies balsamea);
(p) Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis);
(q) Hophornbeam, eastern (also called ironwood) (Ostrya virginiana);
(r) Hickory, bitternut (Carya cordiformis);
(s) Hickory, shagbark (Carya ovata);
(t) Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos);
(u) Hornbeam, American (also called blue beech)(Carpinus caroliniana);
(v) Maple, black (Acer nigrum);
(w) Maple, red (Acer rubrum);
(x) Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum);
(y) Maple, sugar (Acer saccharum);
(z) Mulberry, red (Morus rubra);
(aa) Oak, black (Quercus velutina);
(bb) Oak, bur (Quercus macrocarpa);
(cc) Oak, northern red (Quercus rubra);
(dd) Oak, northern pin (also called Hill oak)(Quercus ellipsoidalis);
(ee) Oak, swamp white (Quercus bicolor);
(ff) Oak, white (Quercus alba);
(gg) Pine, eastern white (Pinus strobes);
(hh) Pine, jack (Pinus banksiana);
(ii) Pine, red (also called Norway pine)(Pinus resinosa);
(jj) Spruce, black (Picea mariana);
(kk) Spruce, white (Picea glauca);
(ll) Tamarack (also called eastern or American larch) (Larix laricina); and
(mm) Walnut, black (Juglans nigra).
(nn) Willow, Black (Salix nigra)
(oo) Willow, Peachleaf (Salix amygdaloides)
(pp) Willow, Heartleaf (Salix eriocephala)
Subd. 11. Permit Required. Any activity regulated by this section shall require the
applicant to obtain a Tree Preservation permit from the city. The application shall
include a Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan (if required) for the Development Site.
The application shall also include payment of a permit fee which shall be set by ordinance
by the city council from time to time.
Subd. 12. Financial Guarantee for Tree Replacement. In the event that Tree
Replacement is required, the applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form
acceptable to the city at the time of obtaining the Tree Replacement Permit. The
financial guarantee must be for at least two growing seasons in order to ensure both the
planting and the survival of the Replacement Trees. If no Replacement Trees are
required, the City may require a financial guarantee that will ensure that in the event that
any existing Significant Trees are damaged or killed at time of development, they will be
Ordinance No. ### 10
DATE
replaced by Replacement Trees. No financial guarantee shall be required when there are
no Significant Trees on the property.
Subd. 13. Violations. It shall be a violation of this section for any person, firm or
corporation, to destroy the number of Significant Trees beyond the limits established by this
section. The Zoning Administrator shall determine non-compliance with this section,
subject to review by the city council. The destruction or partial destruction of any
Significant Trees in violation of this section shall be considered a violation and may result in
revocation of the Tree Replacement permit or an action against the financial guarantees.
Subd. 14. Penalties. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment as specified by state statute.
Such penalty may be imposed in addition to an action against the financial securities,
suspension or revocation of the Tree Replacement permit.
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _______, 2023.
_____________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ______ day of _____________, 2023.
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
S R
T
U
V* $)'**W'$"X)++Y Z =7<[ 77? >@<9@<:[<\5<=9=7 9 D8@A<:]'$^'10'.' _6 K; >`a@5`8>G] &.#)1**#% (.'&#) a 5`;<>>Gb",&'()(#,$' c7 5`d 7DE9e" $*"))++Y f `[ 77? >@<9@<:V )*"&"),&'/$' f6@8cE5`<G<g ."&'(#,$' c@>56[h@?<>g ."&'+'+^$#i $' c@>56[= =<>]'.'&+')+ *#1)' j8>96<>DJ 9 7= k#(l,1/#&1/' m@D`K8k& %#.)#'.$#'*'(.W1)#( $X#)n)++Ya8D<G785E:9[968>D7<::O 77? >@<9@<:k^X(1*&'%")%#1#*") J8FF<<9><<[o<D9E5`Gp#&#')++Y q@DA<D[ 77? >@<9@<:r&X"))++Y 4qZ[s4sO><:@:9 D9? >@<9@<:T
t
V* $,#(('&'u Z =7<[vCE>VX &'(*W# $)++Y _<>?@5<;<>>G8>wED<;<>>G]$'.' ,"))++Y a B968>D[ 77? >@<9@<:x'&"))++Y J> ; ==7<[ ::8>9<AF78B<>@DKOy >@<9@<:z).$^'0#$,#(#'(' {>8DB88A|1+"&").$ X"&1#% ) v:=<D}1$/"))++Y v:6[Z8ED9 @D[ 77? >@<9@<:|W &&1% (%$1('X"$ () vCE>J8>`9><<|$"(")* $')#i $'~ €+1$.~ 7EC j<B=8>9
!"#$% &' !( )
*
+,- + &'./012'/ ,3
*
4 (25((!$ 6789:;<=>
? @ A($(>
@ &!2B
C
%(((2.
12(0
* 12D'
* E 12A(2.F $
* !G$ (!
E !!H$(
!(0
!D'
3 )
!12 2' E* ?I
@ J"($K-L
E
G/M (K-L
E
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
!"
!"
#$%&'
(
&')*+
+
,
+
+
- &
. .
-
/
+
+
0
+
(
. .
12
!"/
,
,
,
!
(
-&!
13
+
4
%
+
5
(
! " !#$%"#& ' ( ) '*+' ,
- . /012003401563701863901:63263
,
;
; 9/3 983 903 273203<
:83 :03 983 903283=
703 :83 :03 983903>
883 743 :83 :03983>
4/3 843 7:3 :83983?
@
=
@-
A
B
C
B
B
D
@
B
E
F
G29H
E
@
I
E
J2D
20/6B
B
K9E
G
HK:A
90
:0
K7L
9MF
2MF
K8,
@
K
!!" ## " "$
%&'
(
)
*+,-
".(
/
-
/
$
*#, 0
/ 12
$
3
4
$
$
0
2
/ / /
/
5
6
7 58
$
/
)
9
-
4
:
/
/
$
: /
7 58
$
$
;.
/
4
*(,
/
/
$
$
'
)
$
$
$
/
%
/
7
/
/
$
$
/
$
$
)
0
$
!""
#
$
%
&
'
()
* *
+&
&
,%
)-$
&
./
0
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
4
7"+,
&
./*
'
*
8
7"8
43!!*)9.*.:*+:;437:!9.77*<*,7;43."<997.:*,*,<;43.<"9((*.<*,:;43.:"97<*+*,;43.::97(*..*,;43!.<97,(*,*"7;43!(+97:*.<*"<;43!,:9:*,*":;43<7"9+7*.!*";43<!.9,*.:*";43<:+997=!,*.<*"(;43:,:99!=::*7.*7<;43<797:*7!*7,2
=>
9."*77(
$% &4?@ABCDECEFGHIEJKKLMDNOPPOPQPR
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday June 13, 2023 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Adeel Ahmed, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, 8
Matt Plec, Justin Popp, and Braden Rhem. 9
10
Absent: None. 11
12
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and City Planner Deb Dion 13
14
2. Changes to Agenda 15
16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Albers provided an update on recent Council actions. 21
22
Popp asked if the road funding would be equally split between the two cities. 23
24
Albers confirmed that the cost would be split between Medina and Corcoran. 25
26
Finke stated that the funding gap was split 50/50 between the two cities. He commented on 27
the funds Corcoran had collected from development, along with grants and additional outside 28
funding, noting that the remainder was split equally between the two cities. 29
30
Popp asked if the headcount is increasing in the budget increases for the Police, or whether 31
the increases in the budget are due to salary increases. 32
33
Albers replied that there was an approval in the last budget to add additional officers but there 34
has been a struggle with staffing therefore they are attempting to work through that in salary 35
as well. 36
37
Jacob asked if the City has plans to alert citizens to the increase in Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) 38
as he has noticed the bugs on his tree. 39
40
Albers noted that there are some beetles that look like EAB and is unsure if there are 41
confirmed reports of EAB in Medina. 42
43
Finke replied that there may have been a confirmed case in Medina but was not certain. 44
45
Jacob stated that perhaps educational information could be distributed to residents on EAB. 46
47
Albers agreed that perhaps there could be an article in the next newsletter. 48
49
4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 50
51
2
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Rhem volunteered 52
to attend in representation of the Commission. 53
54
5. Planning Department Report 55
56
Finke provided an update. 57
58
Popp asked if the BAPS project had begun. 59
60
Finke replied that is anticipated to begin this fall. 61
62
6. Public Hearing – Preserve of Medina – East of Holy Name Dr, North of 63
Lakeview Road – Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan and 64
Preliminary Plat for 5 Lot Rural Subdivision 65
66
Finke stated that the Commission previously reviewed a concept plan for this rural five lot 67
subdivision. He stated that the site is approximately 73 acres, 50 of which would be 68
buildable, and is zoned rural residential. He noted that a PUD would allow flexibility of the 69
zoning standards in return for accomplishment of other desired City goals and/or amenities. 70
He reviewed the adjacent land uses and displayed the proposed site plan. He noted that two 71
lots would share a driveway while the other three lots would share a driveway with a plan to 72
restore wetlands in the center of the site. He stated that the wetland creation/restoration 73
would create a wetland bank. He noted that the PUD would allow flexibility in the 74
arrangement of the lots around the wetland area. He noted that a standard rural residential 75
layout was also provided by the applicant, showing that five lots could be created under 76
standard zoning therefore the applicant is not proposing higher density than would be 77
allowed. He noted that the wetlands would be placed into an outlot and deeded to the City. 78
A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the wetland credits would be placed into a fund to 79
use for ongoing maintenance. He stated that the applicant proposes to work with Gordon 80
James as a home builder and example homes information was provided in the packet. He 81
provided details on the primary and alternate septic sites for each of the lots noting that the 82
sites for the northern lots were provided on the upland area on the other side of the wetlands. 83
He noted that those systems could practically be built if necessary and they have discussed 84
type four pretreatment systems for those lots as those could be located south of the wetlands. 85
He noted that those plans have been reviewed by the Building Official. He noted that some 86
alterations may be needed to the drain tile in order to create the wetland buffer area and that 87
would be monitored to ensure proper drainage. He provided additional details on the 88
driveway plans and noted that staff will provide this presentation to the Park Commission the 89
following week, noting the recommended trail connection to Holy Name to the east. He 90
reviewed the flexibility requested under the PUD mainly related to lot size, and potentially lot 91
width and/or depth as they work out the boundary of the wetlands, as well as the animal 92
structure setback, and accessory dwelling units (ADU). 93
94
Nielsen noted that 1.2 acres is proposed for lot five and asked if there is a reason to not add 95
additional property to that lot rather than include the land in the outlot. 96
97
Finke replied that there are portions of the site that lend themselves more easily to the 98
wetland restoration more easily and the area around that property is where a large amount of 99
the wetlands are being created. 100
101
Nielsen asked if the wetlands could be on the private property owner’s land. 102
103
3
Finke replied that the Corps of Engineers pushed hard to have the created wetlands outside of 104
private property in order to improve long term enforcement of violations into the buffer areas. 105
He stated that it was a high priority to have the created wetlands in an outlot. 106
107
Ahmed asked and received confirmation that there are five home sites proposed on the 108
property and asked for details on Outlot A. 109
110
Finke replied that Outlot A would encompass the wetlands being restored and created, along 111
with the buffers. 112
113
Jacob asked how the wetland bank would be administered. 114
115
Finke replied that the bank would need to be registered with the Board of Water and Soil 116
Resources (BWSR) and all transactions would go through that entity. 117
118
Jacob asked if the ADUs and animal structures could be overridden by HOA regulations. 119
120
Finke replied that could be presumable but many times those restrictions are put in by the 121
developer and because the developer is requesting that flexibility it would suggest that there 122
will not be such restrictions. 123
124
Jacob noted about a ten-foot difference between the lowland and highland and asked if there 125
would be any chance a lot could be increased in elevation beyond that. He noted the nearby 126
residents in Plymouth could be impacted if elevations are raised significantly. 127
128
Finke stated that there has not been mention of that but that could be answered by the 129
applicant. 130
131
Popp commented that four of the five lots do not meet the contiguous soils requirement as 132
proposed and asked how many of the lots would meet the requirement if the wetland 133
restoration and placement into Outlot A were not done. 134
135
Finke replied that the base density plan showed that it would be possible to layout five lots 136
with contiguous suitable soils before the creation of the wetlands. 137
138
Popp asked the perspective or reasoning why the current ADU is limited in nature. 139
140
Finke replied that the limitations for ADUs was to make it clearly accessory to a primary 141
home. He noted that the 2,500 square feet as proposed would be above grade and stated that 142
the applicant could provide additional clarification on whether that square footage would 143
include a walkout level or whether there would be plans for a basement in addition to the 144
above grade area. 145
146
Nielsen stated that she would prefer for an ADU to follow the conditional use permit (CUP) 147
process and asked why the City would want to take control of that through administrative 148
review. 149
150
Finke replied that the review criteria and conditions are fairly administrative and there is not a 151
lot of discretion. He acknowledged that additional conditions could be added through a CUP, 152
but the criteria are generally yes or no for an ADU. 153
154
Nielsen referenced lot A which has 1.2 acres of buildable area and asked if an ADU could be 155
placed on that lot as proposed. 156
4
157
Finke clarified that the lot would be 3.5 acres with 1.2 acres of suitable soil. He confirmed 158
that if approved as presented an ADU could be allowed, even if that were to follow the 159
typical CUP process. 160
161
Nielsen asked if sewer and water were to come from the north in the future, could those lots 162
be subdivided. 163
164
Finke replied that would be subject to the City’s land use and zoning regulations which would 165
require the reguiding of the property for sewer and water, low density. He stated that 166
practically, given the value that will be invested to develop these lots as rural residential, it 167
would be extremely unlikely that redevelopment would be proposed in the following decades. 168
He stated that a rural development, or PUD as proposed, would make sewer and water much 169
less likely. 170
171
Rhem invited the applicant to speak. 172
173
Tim Boser, applicant, stated that they are working with Stantek on the wetland restoration 174
project as that firm has experience in that area. He anticipated a three-to-five-year process. 175
He explained that they are not 100 percent certain where the wetland buffer will ultimately 176
fall which is why they are asking for flexibility on the lot size/width. He stated that Stantek is 177
fairly confident in the line placement, but that would be finalized later this summer/fall and 178
would be certified through final plat. He stated that while they are hoping to move forward 179
with the final plat for the homes later this year, the wetland process would take longer. He 180
noted that once that is completed, in about five years, the land would be dedicated to the City 181
or Watershed District. He noted that they would also fund the maintenance for the next ten 182
years. 183
184
Nielsen asked the if the applicant agrees to the conditions recommended by staff. 185
186
Boser replied that generally yes, but they would like to get to 2,500 square feet for the ADU. 187
He explained that they are thinking more of a pool house/guest house rather than a traditional 188
ADU. He stated that they are comfortable with a total square footage of 2,500, explaining 189
that they are not thinking of 2,500 in addition to a basement. 190
191
Jacob asked if there is anticipation of a change in elevation for the lots. 192
193
Mark Gronberg, project engineer, commented that the homes would need to be two feet 194
above the low water elevation and therefore there would be fill on some lots to meet that 195
requirement. 196
197
Jacob asked the anticipated change in elevation. 198
199
Gronberg replied that those units would most likely be walkout and anticipated six to seven 200
feet. 201
202
Popp referenced the animal structure setback and asked if 150 feet on the eastern side would 203
be amenable to ensure proper setback from the Plymouth properties. 204
205
Boser referenced lot three and the distance between Outlot A, which is a bit narrow and could 206
force an animal setback further south therefore the flexibility was requested for that area. He 207
stated that the boundary between the properties and Plymouth is heavily wooded and 208
therefore it would be unlikely that the Plymouth lots could see into these lots. 209
5
210
Rhem opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. 211
212
Suzie Sween commented that she lives directly adjacent to the property and believes that this 213
is a wonderful plan. She hoped that the City would support this plan. She noted an area near 214
the tennis courts and developed stormwater ponds and stated that the ponds have not been 215
maintained. She stated that there is spillover on the property that impacts the properties in 216
that area. She believed that should be addressed between the cities, although separate from 217
this development. She commented that she would agree with the alignment of the driveways 218
as proposed or changing the alignment to match Lakeview. She asked that there be some 219
type of buffer for the road/driveway which could be done through a berm or trees. 220
221
Brenda Boyam, 2582 Holy Name Drive, commented that she also supports the plan noting 222
that it was refreshing to see that there are only five homes proposed. She advocated for the 223
wetland restoration and would prefer that to the option mentioned by the Commission to have 224
increased lot sizes in lieu of the wetland creation. She stated that she values wetlands and 225
likes that there would be long-term oversight of the management of the wetlands. 226
227
Tom Medcalf, 2165 Holy Name Drive, asked if there could be more description of the 228
wetlands in terms of surface water, marsh and the amount of soil that would be moved. He 229
asked how the work would impact the area under construction and whether there would be 230
treatment of the water discharged into Holy Name Lake. 231
232
Boser commented that there is not much grading in the wetland area as that is not allowed. 233
He stated that there is a ridge between the two wetlands that may be scraped a few feet. He 234
stated that will be known once those plans are approved. He stated that the Watershed 235
District supports this project because there will be a conversion from farmland to wetland, as 236
the discharged from farmland is much worse. He noted that most of the water will filter 237
down and only under very heavy conditions would water flow to Holy Name Lake. He noted 238
that they would also be required to install plantings and would ensure everything is 239
established prior to passing it to the City. 240
241
Finke stated that the Watershed District has been a partner throughout this process as they 242
have been working on this for over the past year. He stated that this will have many benefits 243
above just the conversion from agriculture. He noted that these elements would be above and 244
beyond what would be provided through standard development. 245
246
Nielsen asked for clarification on the road, as it was her understanding that the road had been 247
shifted to the south. 248
249
Boser confirmed that the road is currently proposed along the southern edge of the property. 250
He noted that it is not really a road but a private driveway. He stated that they would prefer 251
not to move that driveway to the north as it would conflict with the wetland area. He stated 252
that if it were aligned with Lakeview, people may think it is a road rather than a private 253
driveway. 254
255
Rhem asked if there would be concern with placing a berm or trees along the driveway to 256
provide a buffer for the neighbor. 257
258
Boser replied that he would not be opposed if there were room. Additional information was 259
provided on the distance of the northern driveway from the property line. 260
261
Julie Rothstein, 3615 Alvarado North, asked if there is anticipated timing for the project. 262
6
263
Boser provided details on the anticipated timing for the homes and wetland work. 264
265
Rhem closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. 266
267
Jacob stated that he is generally supportive of the project and staff recommendations. 268
269
Piper echoed her support and thanked the applicant for preserving the rural character of 270
Medina. 271
272
Popp stated that he is very supportive and noted that the net density is still within the rural 273
residential allowance. He found it important to know that the reason for the flexibility was 274
the additional wetland creation. He referenced the requested animal structure setback and 275
believed that to be warranted. He stated that related to the ADU perhaps the 2,500 square 276
feet is clarified to be the total size rather than above ground. 277
278
Ahmed commented that he also supports the plan as proposed and is happy to see the support 279
of the neighbors. 280
281
Plec thanked the neighbors for coming forward and supporting the project. He stated that he 282
also supports the project. 283
284
Nielsen also applauded the project, noting that she is a neighbor on Lakeview. She 285
referenced the animal structure setback and noted that she would agree to that internally but 286
would prefer the 150-foot setback remain externally. She stated that 2,500 for an ADU seems 287
large as that is larger than her current home. She understood that these will be large homes 288
but would prefer the normal ADU regulations apply. She noted that she would support 289
administrative review of the ADUs. 290
291
Rhem echoed the comments of the Commission thus far, noting that he appreciates the efforts 292
towards the wetlands and ecological impact that will have. He agreed that animal setbacks 293
should be limited to internal setbacks. He also supported that 2,500 square feet be the total 294
size rather than above ground size for the ADU. 295
296
Finke provided additional clarification on habitable square feet for an ADU, noting that when 297
those other areas are factored in, an ADU can come close to 2,500 square feet. He confirmed 298
that this would be a total square footage of 2,500 rather than habitable square footage. 299
300
Rhem asked if the ADU would still be governed by the 40 percent rule. 301
302
Finke confirmed that as proposed it would be 40 percent of the floor area of the principal 303
structure, or 2,500 square feet. He noted that neither of those calculations could be exceeded. 304
305
Nielsen commented that she does not care about the number of bedrooms. 306
307
Finke stated that the original regulation limited the number of bedrooms in order to limit 308
intensity should the ADU be rented. 309
310
Rhem stated that he did not have a problem with three bedrooms as the total size would be 311
limited. 312
313
Nielsen stated that hopefully the issue of rentals would be addressed by the HOA. 314
315
7
Popp stated that he also shared the concerns of Nielsen as this would essentially create two 316
homes on one lot, with the ADU allowed to be 2,500 square feet and that is larger than his 317
home as well. He noted that after hearing the input tonight he is comfortable. 318
319
Nielsen asked if the Commission is comfortable with the reduced animal setback internally 320
and confirmed the consensus of the Commission. 321
322
Piper asked who would choose to make an HOA on this property, whether it would be the 323
developer or the eventual property owners. 324
325
Finke replied that the applicant could provide input on their intention of an HOA. He 326
commented that there would be limited need for an HOA on this property. He noted that the 327
set of owners could figure out the details of the shared driveways themselves. 328
329
Boser stated that given the size, with five lots, they do not have the intention to create or 330
force an HOA. He stated that if the homeowners decided to have an HOA, they could. He 331
stated that other than the shared driveways there are not common elements. He stated that 332
they would have development covenants that would address the shared driveways and design 333
standards. 334
335
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit 336
Development General Plan and Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1) 2,500 337
square feet or 40% of principal ADU; 2) three-bedroom ADU; 3) 50-foot animal structure 338
setback interior only. Motion carries unanimously. 339
340
7. Reflections Dental – 872 Highway 55 – Site Plan Review for Redevelopment 341
342
Dion presented a request for a site plan review for the property at 872 Highway 55 for 343
Reflections Dental. She stated that the proposal would be 7,000 square feet including the 344
dental office space use while the multi-tenant area could be occupied by other users. She 345
stated that this would be a redevelopment project and the property is guided commercial, and 346
zoned commercial highway. She stated that the property does have allowable uses based on 347
the allowable parking. She stated that given the parking needs of the dental office, there 348
would be limitations on the other users that could come into the other tenant spaces. She 349
noted that the site meets dimensional standards, setbacks, parking, hardcover standards, and 350
is under the maximum allowed height. She compared the current layout of the site to the 351
proposed site plan and highlighted the differences. She provided details on the proposed 352
design and architectural materials. She stated that staff has a concern with the modulation on 353
the north side of the building as the requirement would not be met as proposed. She noted 354
that staff recommends approval with a number of conditions as listed. 355
356
Jacob commented that there is talk of potentially connecting to the cul-de-sac behind the 357
building and asked if thought has been given to providing that connection at this time. 358
359
Dion replied that there are no plans at this time, although there are long-term hopes to do 360
something like that. She noted that access easements would be needed in order to go through 361
the McDonalds property. She noted that they did plan for that connection should it be 362
possible in the future. She explained that McDonald’s owns the property between the subject 363
property and the cul-de-sac and also noted the grade change between the properties. 364
365
Jacob asked the percentage of space the dental office would occupy in the building. 366
367
Dion noted that could be answered by the applicant. 368
8
369
Ahmed stated that people are traveling at high speeds on Highway 55, and he would be 370
concerned with traffic trying to access or leave the site. He stated that if the cul-de-sac could 371
be feasible that would provide a safer access to the site. 372
373
Rhem invited the applicant to speak. 374
375
Mark Fuller, representing the applicant, stated that they did update their plans to address the 376
concerns related to modulation. He stated that they also have accommodated their plans to 377
provide the connection to the cul-de-sac, should that become feasible in the future. He also 378
provided more options that could be available to provide connection to Clydesdale in the 379
future, should that become feasible. 380
381
Nielsen asked if McDonald’s has been approached in attempt to purchase that land that would 382
provide connection to the cul-de-sac. 383
384
Fuller replied that he was unsure if the applicant had done so. 385
386
Jacob asked how much land would be required to make the connection. 387
388
Plec noted that an easement could be purchased in order to provide that connection as well 389
and provided estimated dimensions on what would be necessary. 390
391
Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. 392
393
Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, stated that he has the lots listed at Rolling Greens located at 394
Pinto and 116 and asked if the company has considered purchasing one of those lots as they 395
could accommodate a 10,000 square foot building with private parking. 396
397
Fuller replied that he thought the applicant looked at that site, but has moved ahead with the 398
subject property instead. 399
400
Rhem closed the public hearing at 8:37. 401
402
Ahmed expressed concern with access from Highway 55 and would prefer a solution that 403
would have access from Clydesdale. 404
405
Plec stated that he supports the development. 406
407
Nielsen asked if there was consideration to flip flop the building and parking lot, placing the 408
building on the non-55 side of the property. 409
410
Fuller replied that was considered but noted that the setbacks are more constraining in that 411
area in addition with the slope that exists for the drainage pond. He commented that there 412
was unpermitted work done on this site and this proposed development would reduce the 413
impervious surface on the site by about 873 feet. 414
415
Nielsen commented that this is a great design, and she looks forward to this development. 416
417
Popp commented that this looks great. 418
419
Piper commented on the lack of parking at Peg’s on a Sunday morning and wanted to ensure 420
that parking would not spill onto this site. 421
9
422
Fuller recognized the potential relationship and interaction between this site and Peg’s. He 423
hoped that his client and Peg’s would be good neighbors. 424
425
Nielsen commented that the dental office would not be open on Sunday so shared parking 426
might not be an issue. 427
428
Jacob stated that he would love to see the access developed from the cul-de-sac. 429
430
Rhem appreciated that the modulation was already adjusted. He stated that while he does not 431
love the Highway 55 access, he understands that is the only option at this time and 432
appreciated that the applicant has planned for a connection in the future. 433
434
Fuller stated that if the Council and Commission could help to encourage the Clydesdale 435
connection, he would appreciate that as well. 436
437
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review 438
subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. 439
440
8. Public Hearing – Alexander Petrashov – 2382 Highway 55 – Rezoning from 441
Commercial-Highway (CH) to Business (B) District 442
443
Dion stated that the applicant is requesting a rezoning from commercial highway to business 444
in order to relocate their business from Osseo. She reviewed the adjacent site uses and noted 445
that the current site is occupied with a motel. She stated that this change in zoning would not 446
impact the ability for the motel to remain on the site. She noted that the applicant intends to 447
redevelop the site, but if that does not happen right away, the motel would continue to be a 448
conforming use. She stated that the subject site is 3.28 acres which meets the minimum lot 449
size as well as dimensional standards. 450
451
Piper asked what the structure to the right is. It was clarified to be senior housing. 452
453
Jacob asked if the applicant currently owns the site. 454
455
Plec asked if the motel is currently functioning as a motel. 456
457
Alexander Petrashov, applicant, responded that the motel is occupied. 458
459
Piper asked if the clients at the motel rent for longer periods of time. 460
461
Petrashov stated that they are extended stays. 462
463
Rhem asked why this piece is zoned differently than the surrounding parcels. 464
465
Dion replied that many properties were rezoned as part of the Comprehensive Plan 466
implementation and this property should have been rezoned as well but was not. 467
468
Nielsen asked if the motel would be demolished when the new structures are constructed. 469
470
Petrashov stated that the motel would need to be demolished for them to construct their shop. 471
472
Rhem invited the applicant to speak. 473
474
10
Petrashov stated that they are happy to be moving from Osseo to Medina. 475
476
Popp asked the number of employees the business has during the busy season. 477
478
Petrashov estimated 15 to 20 employees. 479
480
Popp asked if there would be a possibility to bring more local employment or whether the 481
same staff would move with the business. 482
483
Petrashov replied that they feel that Medina would be a better fit for the business and 484
anticipated that his employees would come with the business. 485
486
Jacob asked what would trigger the construction on this site. 487
488
Petrashov reviewed the anticipated timeline. 489
490
Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:53 p.m. 491
492
No comments. 493
494
Rhem closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. 495
496
Jacob commented that he likes the project and supports the recommendations. 497
498
Piper agreed. 499
500
Popp commented that this is a strong development plan that aligns with the surrounding 501
development. 502
503
Nielsen, Plec, and Ahmed also expressed support. 504
505
Rhem agreed that it makes sense to clear up the zoning discrepancy regardless of the 506
following project. 507
508
Motion by Piper, seconded by Plec, to recommend approval of the rezoning subject to the 509
conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. 510
511
9. Public Hearing – School Lake Nature Preserve 3rd Addition – 2600 Parkview Drive – 512
Planned Unit Development General Plan and Preliminary/Final Plat to Divide Existing 513
Lot into a Lot and an Outlot 514
515
Finke presented a request to amend the School Lake Nature Preserve Planned Unit 516
Development (PUD) and Plat. He explained that this would not create new lots but would 517
place the English garden into its own outlot for preservation. He stated that the owners home 518
is still the only home on the properties at this time. He stated that the applicant would like to 519
split the English garden off onto an outlot to make the remainder of that lot more attractive to 520
buyers as there may be concern with maintaining the gardens. He acknowledged that it is not 521
common to create an outlot that is not open space, and the applicant addresses that through 522
the PUD. He noted that the outlot would be owned by Mr. Marks and could be conveyed to 523
another owner in the future. He stated that there are two accessory buildings, a shed and 524
gazebo, which would not typically be allowed on an outlot, but that could also be addressed 525
through the PUD. He stated that staff recommends approval to reorient the lots in this way 526
and of the plat. 527
11
528
Nielsen asked if there were previous issues with a trail for this project. 529
530
Finke replied that there were multiple issues with trails through the review process. He noted 531
that various trail easements were dedicated as part of the project, along with creation of a 532
trailhead, noting that work is still outstanding. He noted that the City would be in charge of 533
creating those trails in the future. 534
535
Jacob asked what would happen to the outlot if the change were not approved. 536
537
Finke replied that the garden is currently part of the 2600 lot. He noted that if this were not 538
approved, the garden would remain as part of the lot. He stated that there was concern with 539
the outlot being orphaned in the future and therefore it can be conveyed to another person. 540
541
Piper asked if there has been discussion of having another lot. 542
543
Finke replied that there has not been any discussion of additional lots. He noted that there are 544
a series of outlots in this development that has conservation area and maintenance 545
obligations. He recognized that there would be more intense maintenance obligations for the 546
garden. 547
548
Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, spoke in representation of the applicant. He stated 549
that if the huge worldclass English garden is attached to a property, with its maintenance 550
obligations, that shrinks the pool of interested buyers. He stated that whoever owns the 551
garden would have to be a member of the HOA to ensure vested interest in the maintenance 552
of the property. 553
554
Nielsen asked if there is concern that the outlot could become orphaned. 555
556
Williams replied that it will become part of the estate. 557
558
Nielsen asked if there has been thought to donate the garden to another entity. 559
560
Williams commented that the maintenance obligations are around $100,000 a year for the 561
garden. 562
563
Rhem opened the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. 564
565
No comments. 566
567
Rhem closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. 568
569
Nielsen commented that she does have concern that the garden could be orphaned but would 570
be fine moving forward. 571
572
Piper recognized the age of the applicant and stated that this would be a way for him to get 573
out from under the economics of this. She stated that she could see this going foul and being 574
ignored. She asked if the home would provide access to the garden and whether the addition 575
of the garden would make his home less attractive on the market. 576
577
Williams stated that ultimately he is not optimistic that someone would want to take that 578
garden on. He noted that in that case the garden would become overgrown and tilled and 579
would then become open space. 580
12
581
Finke stated that if someone did not want to maintain the lot as a garden, there is no reason it 582
could not be combined with an adjacent lot as it would not be labeled as conservation area. 583
584
Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the Planned Unit 585
Development General Plan and Preliminary/Final Plat with the conditions recommended by 586
staff. Motion carries unanimously. 587
588
10. Approval of the April 11, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 589
590 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to approve the April 11, 2023, Planning Commission 591
minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 592
593
11. Adjourn 594
595
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Ahmed, to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. Motion 596
carried unanimously. 597