HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-13-2024 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: February 9, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2024
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Changes to Agenda
3. Introduction of Planning Commission members
4. 2024 Planning Commission Officer Elections
a. Chair
b. Vice Chair
5. Update from City Council proceedings
6. Representative at next City Council meeting
7. Planning Department Report
8. Public Hearing – Meander Park and Boardwalk – Medina Ventures –
1472 Highway 55 – Amendment to architectural standards of Meander
Park and Boardwalk Planned Unit Development
9. Public Hearing – 4612 County Road 116 – Rezoning to Single Family
Residential (R1) zoning district
10. Approval November 14, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes
11. Adjourn
Introductions; Elections Page 1 of 2 February 13, 2024
Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 9, 2024
MEETING: February 13, 2024 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: General Meeting Information
1. Call to Order
The Planning Commission elects a Chair and Vice Chair for the year during its first meeting each
year. 2023 Chair Braden Rhem can preside at the meeting until new officers are elected.
3. Introduction of Planning Commission Members
The City Council appointed Stacy Ladwig, Paul Humiston, and Charlie Morse to join the
Planning Commission this year.
Commissioner Braden Rhem was appointed for another 3 year term as well.
All Commissioners are encouraged to take a moment to introduce themselves and say a bit about
themselves so everyone can start to get to know each other.
Following is the 2024 Planning Commission roster:
NAME ADDRESS EMAIL TERM
CHARLES MORSE 3224 BUTTERNUT DR
MEDINA, MN 55340
chales.morse@medinamn.gov 01/2024 TO
12/2024
JOHN JACOB 885 NAVAJO ROAD
MEDINA, MN 55340
john.jacob@medinamn.gov 01/2022 TO
12/2024
CINDY PIPER 1745 HUNTER DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55391
cindy.piper@medinamn.gov 09/2018 TO
12/2025
MATT PLEC 1108 JUBERT TR
MEDINA, MN 55340
matt.plec@medinamn.gov 01/2023 TO
12/2025
STACY LADWIG 4500 MAPLE LEAF CT
MEDINA, MN 55340
stacy.ladwig@medinamn.gov 01/2024 TO
12/2026
PAUL HUMISTON 3955 CHIPPEWA CIR
MEDINA, MN 55357
paul.humiston@medinamn.gov 01/2024 TO
12/2026
BRADEN RHEM
4112 CAVANAUGH DR
MEDINA, MN 55340
braden.rhem@medinamn.gov 01/2021 TO
12/2026
MEMORANDUM
Introductions; Elections Page 2 of 2 February 13, 2024
Planning Commission Meeting
4. Elections of Chair and Vice Chair
In the past, staff has run the meeting during the elections so there is no appearance of conflict if
the person running the meeting is nominated for a position. I am happy to do so again this year
if the Commission prefers.
The Commission will elect the Chair first through the following process. The Vice Chair
election follows the same procedure.
Nominations are accepted. Any member may be nominated, and members may nominate
themselves.
Commissioners vote for their preferred candidate. A roll call vote will need to be held
because of the virtual nature of the meeting. The City Attorney has advised that the
Commission should not vote by secret ballot so that each member’s vote can be recorded
as described by the Open Meeting Law.
5. Update from City Council proceedings
The City Council appointed City Council member Joe Cavanaugh as the Planning Commission
liaison again in 2024. The Council liaison provides an update from City Council meetings at
each meeting.
6. Representative at next City Council meeting
The City Council requests that a Planning Commission attend the Council meeting following each
Planning Commission meeting to provide a summary of the Commission’s actions. In the past, the
Commission has requested a volunteer at each meeting. If the Commission prefers, we can try to
schedule out the year’s representatives. In the past, staff believed it was more difficult to remember
this schedule when completed ahead of time.
7. Planning Department Update
Staff provides the most recent written update to the City Council summarizing activities in the
Planning Department. Staff also provides the updates from the Public Works and Police
Departments so Commissioners are informed on City staff activities. Staff may provide additional
information at the meetings, and Commissioners are encouraged to ask any questions they may have.
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2024
City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 1, 2024
MEETING: February 6, 2024 City Council
SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates
Land Use Application Review
A) Reiser-Hauser Lot Line Rearrangement – 1622 and 1642 Dusty Drive – Mary Lou and
William Reiser have requested a lot line rearrangement to convey a portion of their property to a
neighbor. Staff intends to present to Council on February 6.
B) Meander Park and Boardwalk – Meander Rd, east of Arrowhead Dr – Medina Ventures has
requested another amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the project to add a
mezzanine level to the event venue. This would increase the height of the first story, and
increase the overall height of the structure to approximately 50 feet. City regulations do no
currently permit height above 45 feet, so the applicant has requested that the PUD allow for this
height. Staff intends to present for Planning Commission review at the February 13 meeting.
C) 500 Hamel Road Apartment Site Plan Review – Medina Apartments LLC has requested review
of a site plan review for development of an 89-unit apartment building at 500 Hamel Rd. The
application is currently incomplete for review. The Planning Commission was scheduled to
review at the December 12 meeting. The developer requested postponement of the hearing, and
staff is waiting to hear back on the schedule.
D) Spotless and Seamless Site Plan Review – 2382 Highway 55 – Spotless and Seamless Exteriors
have requested approval of a Site Plan Review to construct a new warehouse/office building.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing motel and redevelop the site. The application is
currently incomplete for review and will be scheduled for hearing when necessary information is
submitted.
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 a public
hearing when complete.
F) 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 City Council granted
approval at the September 19 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize documents
necessary to meet the conditions of approval.
G) 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 City Council granted general plan of development and
preliminary plat approval on August 2. Staff will await final plat application.
H) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – BAPS Minneapolis Medina has requested an
amendment to their approved site plan review. The Council approved the amended Site Plan
Review at the December 6, 2022 meeting. The applicant has submitted site/civil construction
plans for review and has indicated that they may move forward with site work in the spring of
2024. The applicant has indicated that building construction likely would not begin until the
spring of 2024.
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2024
City Council Meeting
I) 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.
J) 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.
K) Pioneer Trail Preserve – This project has been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting
final plat application.
Other Projects
A) 4612 County Road 116 – Staff intends to initiate a rezoning for this vacant property which is
currently being marketed. The parcel was zoned RR-UR because it used to contain a home on a
septic system. Utilities have now been stubbed from the Reserve of Medina near the site, and
staff believes an R1 zoning district is more appropriate because the site ought to be connected to
the City system. Staff plans to present to the Planning Commission at the February 13 meeting.
B) Maplewood/Morningside stormwater project – WSB is working to finalize the easement area
which will be acquired by the City.
C) Park Asset Inventory – Steve and I are calculating park assets as part of the City’s recently
adopted Goals/Strategies related to ensuring long-term funding for infrastructure
D) Corcoran Comprehensive Plan Amendment – The City of Corcoran has routed a proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for review by the City. The proposal is to change the land use
of property at the northeast corner of Hackamore Road and County Road 116 to lower density
residential than currently planned. Staff believes a lower density guiding is consistent with
planned development in Medina and does not see a concern. Staff intends to not provide
comment unless the City Council desires.
E) Water Supply Plan – Steve and I attended a workshop on regional water supply planning
conducted by the Metropolitan Council. These workshops will inform the process by which
Met Council, Department of Health, and Department of Natural Resources will review our next
round of water plans.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: February 1, 2024
RE: Police Department Updates
On January 20th we held our department’s annual basic first responder refresher. North Memorial
sends two instructors to our facility. The main focus this year was CPR and childbirth. Coincidentally
while training was in progress, officers that were working their regular patrol shift were dispatched to
a subject that was found down in a shed by his wife. Officers responded and found the unconscious
male down and not breathing. CPR was conducted by the officer on scene including responding fire
personnel. Officers were able to utilize our AED devices and were able to regain a heartbeat. The
subject was transported to the hospital but passed away a few days later.
In the past two weeks officers and fire personnel have performed CPR three times and used the AED
twice. The last time was just this past week where Officer Converse responded to a man down on a
roadway. The reporting party in that case called 911 after walking with her husband outside and as
they were walking her husband fell forward onto his face. Officer Converse arrived and immediately
started CPR with fire personnel from West Suburban FD. The AED was used and then the Lucas
machine was hooked up. The male regained a pulse and started to breath on his own. The male is in
the ICU currently, and we are hoping that things keep progressing with his health. These types of calls
can be challenging especially when family is present as you are trying to save their loved ones.
Sometimes scenes can become chaotic and stressful.
On January 25, Sergeant Hall completed and submitted the grant for the Intensive Comprehensive
Peace Officer Education and Training program. Sgt. Hall worked with Finance Director Barnhart to
come up with a budget for the program. We will be notified in late March of the grant’s status.
This past week I attended the first board meeting of the newly merged joint drug task force. As you
recall, I advised that we were merging the West Metro Drug Task Force with the Southwest Metro
Drug Task Force. The task force is supervised by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Department. They
will manage the state grant funding and all day-to-day operations going forward. There are a total of
11 agencies in this group. They have already had great success but as you know most of the time their
good work goes untold due to the nature of their jobs.
Patrol:
The following are updates of Patrol Officers between January 10th, 2024 and January 29th, 2024:
Citations – 30 Warnings – 100 PD Accidents – 7
PI Accidents – 1 Medicals – 20 Falls – 8
Suspicious Calls – 8 Traffic Complaints – 1 Other Agency Assists – 5
Business/Residential Alarm -
14
Welfare Checks - 3 Disturbance Calls - 2
On 01/10/2024 at 1248 hours officer was dispatched to a business in the 300 block of Medina Street
North in Loretto to take a criminal sexual conduct report. Victim reported being verbally abused by
another person over a long period of time. Victim also reported the suspect brushes up against her,
believed to be intentionally. Victim only wanted things documented at this time. Victim was advised
to contact if she wanted further investigation.
On 01/11/2024 at 1620 hours officer met with subject in the lobby of the police department who
wanted to file a violation of an order for protection. Person reported having an active OFP and that the
other party had told a third party that she had mental health problems and she believes this was slander
and defamation of character. The officer reviewed the order for protection and after review did not
find any violation of the order had occurred.
On 01/14/2024 at 2109 hours officer was dispatched to a welfare check at the Wealshire of Medina.
Person reported they were moving in and couldn’t find any staff. Upon arrival, the officer made
contact with staff and determined the person who called was a resident in the memory care facility and
there were no issues. Staff made contact with the subject who did not remember calling 911.
On 01/14/2024 at 2306 hours officer was dispatched to take a fraud report. Victim had been
messaging with someone who he believed to be a female over Snapchat and Instagram. The victim
was eventually talked into sending explicit messages to the person who then began threatening to send
the photos to victim’s friends and family unless he paid money. The victim ended up sending $100 of
the requested $1000 by way of VENMO. The case had been forwarded to investigations for follow
up.
On 01/15/2024 at 0649 hours officer responded to a report of a vehicle stuck in the ditch. Upon arrival
the officer located a Jeep stuck and a male inside who was sleeping. The male was found to not have a
valid license. He was given a citation for driving with a revoked license and was advised not to drive
the car after getting it unstuck.
On 0/17/2024 at 1308 hours officer was dispatched to a missing 5-year-old autistic boy from a
residence in the 4100 block of Chippewa Road. While getting to the area the officer came upon a
vehicle stopped in the roadway who reported finding the boy walking in the middle of the road. The
child was transported back to his residence where he was reunited with family. The child was not
injured.
On 01/19/2024 at 2319 hours officer was dispatched to a medical in the 4700 block of County Road 11
on a report of a male unconscious after a fall. Upon arrival by first responders it was determined the
male was in cardiac arrest and CPR was initiated. Lifesaving efforts were unsuccessful and the male
was declared deceased. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner was contacted who, after
consultation, released the deceased to the funeral home.
On 01/20/2024 at 0920 hours officer was dispatched to a male down in the 2800 block of Willow
Drive. Wife of the victim found him down, unresponsive, and not breathing. CPR was initiated and
when the officer arrived the patient was shocked three different times by the AED. West Suburban
Fire also responded and assisted with CPR. The patient was transported from the scene, but it was
learned did not survive.
On 01/30/2024 at 2017 hours officer was dispatched to a single vehicle accident in the 2300 block of
Pioneer Trail. Officer arrived to find a single occupant who had sustained minor injuries in the crash
and did not have a valid license. Weather condition was dense fog at the time of the crash along with
wet roadways. Driver was transported to the hospital for treatment.
On 01/27/2024 at 2357 hours officer located a group of juveniles in a city park after hours. When one
of the juveniles was producing an ID, a fake ID was found stuck to it when handed over to the officer.
The juvenile was cited for being in possession of a fraudulent ID. All juveniles were released to
parents.
On 01/28/2024 at 1119 hours officer was dispatched to a male in cardiac arrest in the 2800 block of
Trappers Trail. Upon arrival, the officer learned the victim had been on a walk with his wife when he
collapsed. CPR was initiated and upon arrival by first responders the victim was shocked several
times by the AED. West Suburban Fire also assisted, and the male was transported to Abbott
Northwestern Hospital.
On 01/30/2024 at 0345 hours officer clocked a vehicle for speeding, 66 mph in a 55 zone, and the
vehicle then increased speed to 93 mph. The officer stopped the driver and found he did not have a
driver’s license. He was issued a citation for multiple violations and the vehicle was impounded. The
driver was provided a ride to a business in Plymouth.
Investigations:
Tracked down VIN for seized excavator and found it was stolen out of Roseville in 2022. Sent the case
to the County Attorney for charging.
Received coercion case and wrote multiple subpoenas.
Signed several complaints for felony theft case.
Received gas drive off. Followed up and found that at least one of the plates was stolen out of St.
Louis Park. Worked with Crystal PD on the other plate involved that registered to their city.
Received a theft of a trailer report and conducted follow up.
Attended EMR training.
Conducted pre-trial follow up for County Attorney on theft by swindle case.
Received and closed out theft of an animal case. It was determined to be a civil matter.
Received a theft report from a senior living complex and sent the case in for charging.
Received a criminal sexual conduct case.
Received a theft of services case and forwarded it to the city attorney for charges.
Investigations currently has 9 open/active cases.
1
TO: Medina Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: January 30, 2024
MEETING: February 6, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
Streets
• Public Works has handled numerous ice issues in the early morning hours due to the
fog and moist air freezing roads.
• The Public Works team has been busy cutting brush along the roadways due to mild
temperatures.
Water/Sewer/Stormwater
• Greg Leuer and I met with WSB to kick-off our water treatment plant expansion
project. I decided to evaluate this project from both a design build and standard bid
process. After I discuss the fine points with staff, I’ll bring Council up to date should
we decide to move forward with the non-standard design build process.
• The Wellhead Protection Plan Part 1 is complete, and notices were sent as mandated
by the Department of Health. I’m preparing a presentation for the mandated
informational meeting that will take place during the February 20th council meeting.
• To address lead in drinking water, the EPA is mandating municipalities to inspect and
develop a certified Service Line Inventory of connections installed prior to 1985. A
letter will be mailed soon to properties that meet this criterion, asking residents to
email a photo of their connection or schedule an appointment with staff to do the
inspection.
Parks/Trails
• The unusual weather has allowed Public Works to trim branches along trail corridors
throughout the city and tree removal in the Enclave’s “Harriet’s Woods”.
• Well, after finally getting the ice and sliding hill looking good, the warm weather
returned and melted all of it! We will be relying on Mother Nature for snow for the
rest of this season, but the ice rink is closed as it is just too warm.
• Dusty and I have started updating the parks asset inventory list so we can better
forecast replacement needs going forward.
Miscellaneous
• Public Works replaced the brakes on the tanker truck and have been working on
servicing vehicles this week.
• Public Works will retain the old foreman truck for use as a park vehicle.
MEMORANDUM
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 1 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 8, 2024
MEETING: February 13, 2024 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Medina Ventures – Medina Park and Boardwalk -
1472 Highway 55 (PID 0211823330003) – Amendment to PUD
Summary of Request
On November 21, 2023, the Medina City Council granted approval
of an updated PUD general plan and final plat for the Meander Park
and Boardwalk project. The project is located north of Highway 55
and east of Arrowhead Drive and propose four homes north of
Meander Road and four-building commercial development south of
Meander Road.
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved last year regulates
land use within the project and also established architectural design
and layout requirements for the buildings. The applicant proposes to update the plans for the
event venue building in the southwest corner of the site to add an additional “mezzanine” level to
the center portion of the building.
The additional partial story within the event venue is the only proposed
change. The site layout is not proposed to change.
The event venue building in the previously approved PUD was a three-
story building+basement which had a calculated building height of 42.5
feet. The applicant proposes to add what they are calling a
“mezzanine” level, which would increase the height by approximately
8.5 feet, resulting in a proposed calculated height of approximately 51.1 feet.
A side-by-side approximation of the previous design and proposed design can be found on the
following page. A larger (11x17) version of this comparison can also be found at the back of the
attachments. An aerial of the subject site and surrounding properties can be found on the fourth
page.
The applicant’s narrative describes the reason for requesting the addition of the “mezzanine”
level and how they see is serving the purpose of the PUD district. Staff’s impression is that the
space would allow support uses for the venue (offices, suite/dressing areas) to free up
circulation/lounge space on the main level.
Proposed Uses: Event Venue
13 lodging suites
Restaurant
Day Care
9,600 s.f. retail
4 townhomes.
Gross Site Area: 18 acres
Net Site Area: 4.9 acre commercial
1.5 acre residential
Land Use (north): LDR
Current Zoning (north): RR-UR
Land Use (south): Commercial
Current Zoning (south): CH
Proposed Zoning: PUD
MEMORANDUM
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 2 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 3 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Purpose of a Planned Unit Development
According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures
and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or
nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The
PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot
area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage:
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high-quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 4 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which
result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of
the city.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding
open space areas, and enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower
development costs and public investments.
8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is
not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on
zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
When reviewing a proposed amendment to a PUD, staff believes it is reasonable to consider
these purposes within the context and scale of the proposed amendment. Two potential ways to
frame an amendment may be to consider: 1) If a proposed change of a PUD seems contrary to
the purposes of the PUD ordinance, it may be appropriate to deny the amendment; 2) the
Planning Commission and Council may consider whether they would have supported the PUD if
it were to have been proposed in this way originally.
The City has a high level of discretion when considering PUD requests, including amendments
to previously approved PUDs. It should be noted that if this requested amendment were not
approved, the previous approvals would still remain in place.
Analysis
As noted above, the PUD process allows
flexibility to the general standards of the zoning code to encourage a project which meets City
objectives better than may be possible through following requirements strictly. Prior to approval
of the PUD, the site was zoned Commercial-Highway (CH). During the initial reviews, the
standards of the CH district were used as a comparison as the Planning Commission and Council
weighed out whether the proposed PUD resulted in a more desirable outcome.
The CH district allows a maximum building height of 45 feet. The applicant’s updated building
plans calculate to a height of 51.1 feet. The PUD process could allow for this additional height
provided the City finds that it serves the objectives of the City and the purposes of the PUD
District.
The City’s building height limitation is based on two factors: 1) the average grade around a
building; and 2) the type of roof. The average grade accounts for differences between structures
with partial exposed lower levels (such as walk-outs) vs. full basements/slab-on-grade. The
calculation also differs based on the type of roof. The measurement goes to the top of a flat roof,
but to the “mid-point” of a peaked roof (rather than to the peak). As a result, the very top of a
structure with a peaked room could extend higher than a flat roof. Interestingly, because peaked
roofs are measured at the mid-point, the ceiling of the highest floor of a building with a flat roof
could actually extend higher than the ceiling within a peaked roof structure. The example to the
CH Building
Height Standard
Approved
PUD
Proposed
Amendment
Max 45 feet 42.5 feet 51.1 feet
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 5 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
right shows how the top floor, highest point,
and mid-point would compare on two
structures which would calculate at the same
height.
It should be noted that City Code allow certain
elements to extend higher than the maximum
building height allowed in a district. For
example, architectural elements such as parapet walls within the CH district can extend to 50’.
It is also of note that the tallest building height permitted within the standard zoning district is
50’ within the Uptown Hamel district. This height is currently only permitted in very limited
circumstances (affordable housing projects with additional top story setbacks/architectural
requirements). Several districts (CH, B, R3, R4) allow a maximum height of 45’.
The Fire Chief noted that buildings three stories and taller do introduce some operational
considerations for the fire department, but the additional height for such a relatively small
area/use did not raise significantly more concerns than the 3-story building previously approved.
Summary of Previously Approved PUD
While the proposed amendment to the PUD is limited in scope to the height, design, and layout
of the venue building, the following information on the broader PUD is provided for context.
The approved PUD provided flexibility to various general standards of the zoning code. These
standards are highlighted in yellow.
CH
Requirement
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4
Minimum Lot Size 1 acre (0.5 acre
if coordinated)
2.78 acre 0.79 acre 1.164 acre 0.941 acre
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 150’ 250’ 160’ 230’
Minimum Lot Depth 120 feet 430’ 120’ 250’ 210’
Front Setback
(Meander)
25 feet 160’ 12’ NA NA
Front Setback-Hwy
55
50 feet 177’ NA 140’ 138’
Side Setback 15 feet 205’ W 50’ E
56’ E 285’ W
Residential Setback 50 feet 160’ 48’ NE
12’ N
440’ 440’
Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 62’ 62’ NA NA
Side/Rear 10 feet 310’ W 10’ E 10’ E NA
Residential 40 feet 62’ N 62’ N NA NA
Building Height 45 feet 42.5’
51’(amend)
23’ 18’ 16’
Hardcover 75% 50% of gross area; 73% of upland area
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 6 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
The proposed commercial lots meet the dimensional standards required for lots within an
integrated development. The approved PUD provided flexibility for the setback for the daycare
building from Meander Road.
The approved PUD identified four twin homes north of Meander. The proposed amendment does
not alter the proposed arrangement from that which was originally approved.
The following table summarizes the layout of the residential portion of the approved PUD.
R1 Requirement R2
Requirement
Proposed
Net Density 2-3 units/acre 2-3 units/acre 3.5 units/acre
Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 5,000 s.f./unit 14,520 s.f./unit
incl shared drive
Min Lot Width 90 feet 50 feet/unit 50 feet/unit
Min Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet 90 feet
Front Setback 25’ (30’ to garage) 25’ (30’ to garage) 4.5’ to drive
50’ to Meander
Side setback 25’ combined
(10/15)
15’ combined (10/5) (single-family)
10’/10’ (2-family)
483’ to north
12’ between units
Rear setback 30’ 25’ 489’ to west
Max. Hardcover 40% 50% 50% of net area
Architectural Design
The approved PUD included specific architectural requirements for the structures which varied
from the general standards of the CH district and were discussed at length during review. The
applicant has not proposed alteration to the proposed architectural design of the structures,
except for the increased height of the event venue. Architectural information is included for with
the approved plans for reference.
Wetlands
The wetland along the western edge of the
development requires upland buffers with the
average width indicated to the right. The width of the buffer can be averaged along the edge of
the wetland, provided the width is not less than the average width indicated, and provided the
area of the buffer is at least equal to the area of the average buffer.
The City also requires a 15-foot setback for principal structures from the buffers. The approved
PUD provided flexibility for the minimum width of buffer in some locations, but resulted in a
total area of upland buffer which exceeds the minimum area if the average buffers were applied.
The proposed buffers are not proposed to be
changed.
Buffer width of 2’ adjacent to the water
feature along the boardwalk (area to be
made up in other locations along the
wetland)
Wetland Classification Avg
Buffer
Min
Buffer
North of Meander Preserve 35’ 25’
South of Meander Manage 2 25’ 20’
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 7 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Provide less area of upland buffer adjacent to the wetland north of Meander Road but
provide more area adjacent to the wetland south of Meander Road to offset.
Elimination of structure setback to buffer for the townhomes – fencing is proposed to
prevent impacts to buffer.
The applicant is not proposing wetland impacts within their development site, but construction of
turn lanes and the trail to support the development would necessitate 0.13 acre of wetlands
impacts.
Floodplain
A floodplain is located within the large wetland to the west of the site with a base flood elevation
of 986. The lowest floor elevation of the twin homes and venue basement is proposed at 989,
which meets the minimum required separation of two feet. The plans do include fill below the
floodplain elevation for the street widening and trail construction. The applicant proposes to
excavate in other locations adjacent to the floodplain to provide compensatory storage.
Tree Preservation
There are a total of 78 existing significant trees on the subject site; approximately 34 trees near
the existing barn on the property and 44 trees (cottonwood, ash and boxelders) along the edge of
the wetland. The applicant proposes to remove 68 of the trees (87%) on the site. The tree
preservation ordinance would generally allow 30% of the trees to be removed without
replacement. The applicant notes that 44 of the trees to be removed are boxelder and
cottonwood, and 19 are ash trees. The applicant requests flexibility from replacement as part of
the PUD. The tree preservation ordinance does include a provision to exempt pioneering trees
such as boxelder, but this is intended as part of natural resource management. The PUD
previously approved provided flexibility in terms of replacement as shown on the landscaping
plan.
Landscaping - Commercial
Landscaping standards can be altered in connection with a PUD, but the requirements for
commercial districts are provided for reference.
Building Setting - At least 10 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all
buildings except for walks, outdoor sales areas, plaza space and approved loading docks.
Walks within this landscaped area shall be limited to where practically necessary to
serve access points of buildings.
Minimum
Planting:
Parking lot landscaping – minimum of 8% of parking lot area
Landscaping islands every 20 spaces, wider separations for cells of 120 spaces
The approved PUD allowed under 5% of the parking lot area to be landscaped, rather than the
8% required by code.
Requirement Required Proposed
Overstory trees 1 per 50’ site perimeter 49 trees 50
Ornamental trees 1 per 100’ site perimeter 25 trees 26
Shrubs 1 per 30’ site perimeter 82 shrubs 174+1074
perennials
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 8 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Landscaping – Residential
The proposed landscaping plan has not changed compared to the plan approved with the original
PUD. The R2 district would require a minimum of 2 trees per unit. A buffer yard would be
required to the east and west of the subject residential development. In this case, there is a
wetland with a width more than 1000 feet to the west. The applicant has proposed 24 shade and
coniferous trees as well as a hedge of shrubs and perennials east of the shared driveway.
Parking
As noted above, the applicant proposed to
construct 20 spaces more than shown on the
originally approved plan. Increasing the size of
the daycare building increases parking demand
less than 20 spaces and is expected to not occur
at the same peak as the event venue and
restaurant.
The applicant proposes approximately 249 parking spaces. Adding the total minimum parking
spaces for the uses, a minimum of 268 spaces would be required. The parking ordinances allows
adjustments to minimum parking requirements for shared parking when peak use does not
overlap.
Staff believes the venue and restaurant would share peak use, which would be at different times
from the daycare. As such, providing consideration for shared parking seems reasonable.
The applicant included a parking needs analysis as part of their traffic study. The analysis
concludes that parking would be sufficient during average parking generation. It concludes a
deficit at the 85 percentile of parking generation. The applicant notes that they would propose to
use valet parking and shuttling for large events. The applicant also anticipates significant
rideshare use for the venue.
The approved PUD included a condition that the applicant implement these practices as
necessary and that agreements be recorded against the lots ensuring shared parking.
Solar Panel Car-ports
The applicant proposes to install ground mounted-solar arrays over approximately ¾ of the
parking spaces. Ground-mounted solar equipment is not permitted within the underlying CH
district, but was approved by the City as part of the PUD.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The City has a high level of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is
a legislative action. The PUD purpose and options of how an amendment to a previously
approved PUD may be framed are described on pages 3 and 4.
The applicant proposes to amend the previously approved PUD to allow update to the event
venue building design and layout to allow the additional height for the “mezzanine” level. The
Use Calculation # Required
stalls
Restaurant 1 stall/3 seats 250 seats 84
Venue 1 stall/3 seats 300 capacity 100
Daycare 1/250 s.f. 7500 s.f. 44
Retail 1/250 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 40
Total: 268
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 9 of 9 February 13, 2024
Amended PUD General Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission and City Council are encouraged to consider how that change serves the
purposes of the PUD district. Staff does not believe the other changes significantly alter the
original approval.
If the Planning Commission and Council determine that the proposed amendment meets the
objectives described above, the following action could be taken:
Move to recommend approval to amend the architectural design requirements of the Meander
Park and Boardwalk Planned Unit Development pertaining to the event venue building on Lot 1,
Block 2.
Attachments
1. Applicant Narrative
2. Site layout plans previously approved
3. Architectural plans previously approved
4. Proposed architectural plans for event venue building
5. Side-by-Side comparison of event venue building
Planned Unit Development Flexibility Summary Supplement
Meander Park and Boardwalk Development
11/04/2022 (UPDATED: January 2024)
1. Residential 20% Density Bonus Increase
We are requesting flexibility on residential density for the north parcel, as the city can grant an additional 20%
residential bonus density. The R-2 PUD guided zoning indicates a density range of 2-3 units per acre, thus we
are asking for 3 units per acre, plus 20% bonus density, for new density maximum range of 3.6 units per acre. It
is the goal of the project to provide two sets of twin homes totaling four units, on this small parcel of land that
involves significant wetlands. It is our understanding that the City of Medina bases the density on land that
excludes not only wetland, but also wetland upland buffer. To achieve the four units, the property needs a
minimum of 1.2 acres of land per 3.6 units per acre density. The north parcel also needs some flexibility in
wetland upland buffers to make the 1.2 acres obtainable, further described in the next PUD flexibility item.
In summary, the density bonus is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and would benefit this small and
challenging parcel with four units planned for the project. Although we respect the City of Medina’s perspective
on excluding wetland and wetland upland buffer for density calculation, not every community views this in the
same way, and feel that the project’s north parcel is significantly hindered by this interpretation but have
proposed a solution with the help of our PUD flexibility request.
2. Residential Minimum Wetland Upland Buffer Zone Width Setback and Area Distribution
We are requesting flexibility on minimum wetland upland buffer setbacks for the north parcel residential
development area and for redistribution of the wetland upland buffer area from the north parcel to the south
parcel. Both requests are tied to the previous flexibility item above to obtain the proper residential density
maximum due to the wetland upland buffer land area not included in the unit density calculation.
The north wetland is classified as Preserve, which technically requires a 30 foot minimum with 50 foot average,
however City staff has indicated that upon further review, the DNR mapped area is over 1,000 feet away and
that a 35 foot average would be acceptable.
The first request is to provide a minimum of 17 feet for the minimum wetland upland buffer width setback along
the residential north parcel development. This is primarily to provide the appropriate wetland upland buffer
area to allow the land area for the desired residential density. With the wetland buffer average being reduced,
we are requesting some reduction in the buffer width as well. City staff has indicated concern of having the
wetland upland buffer too close to the back yards of the residential units, so this reduced buffer width from 30
feet to 17 feet provides a little more space to each unit, and to help prevent future buffer encroachment, a split
rail fence is being added at this boundary to control lawn mowing maintenance and impacts, to provide a more
permanent marker.
We’re also asking that the elevated residential decks not be considered a structure and not adhere to the buffer
structure setbacks, as it is significantly elevated at the upper level of the residence and would allow rainwater
through gaps in the typical decking surface and allow enough sunlight for vegetation to grow below.
The second request is for flexibility to redistribute about 10,000 SF of the required north parcel wetland buffer
average area to the south parcel. The total required buffer average is still achieved between the two parcels,
but to provide the north property residential land area for the density requested, we are moving the designated
area to the south property, where there is more room for this item.
It is our approach to still provide the spirit of the wetland buffers but are offering a creative solution for
flexibility approval to allow integration of other elements into the project, thus the purpose of the Planned Unit
Development application.
3. Water Feature Commercial Minimum Upland Buffer Zone Width
We are requesting flexibility for minimum upland buffer zone width to build a landscape water feature adjacent
to the wetland buffer zone on the southwest corner of the development. This water feature is a critical
component of the development as it will provide the necessary visual and audible screening for venue guests at
the venue, while mutually creating a beautiful aesthetic for those driving past the venue on Highway 55. The
specific location of the water feature was strategically chosen given its close proximity to the conservatory
portion of the venue where guests of the venue will be getting married among other ceremonious occasions.
The water feature will provide guests inside the conservatory a beautiful backdrop of a waterfall and guests
outside the conservatory on the boardwalk, the serene sound of water percolating into a holding pond thus
masking the sound of cars driving by at 55 miles per hour. Given the chosen location of the conservatory to be
south facing and the limited amount of upland in that area, placing the water feature within the buffer zone is
the only practical place to put it. Furthermore, we may choose to inscribe the main highway signage for the
venue on the water feature’s southwest outer face.
In summary, placing the water feature in this critical area will provide a secluded oasis experience – a grotto per
se - for those within the venue and when combined with the conservatory as a backdrop, create a landmark
visual in Medina to rival any development along the Highway 55 corridor west of the Twin Cities.
Water feature height is expected to be approximately 15’ tall to accommodate for the area’s boardwalk height
of 6’ to 9’ tall, screening element for guests inside and outside the venue. It will require a base size of between
30’-40’ to support that height given the splash radius and structural integrity. A portion of the 30’-40’ base width
can be tucked underneath the boardwalk where we intend to have a holding pond with koi fish. The overall
length of the boardwalk will be approximately 65’. The materials used in the water feature will be a mix of
natural boulders, preformed concrete, fountain mechanicals, and additional landscaping such as pockets of
plants incorporated throughout to achieve a truly natural aesthetic and feel.
The south wetland is classified as Manage 2 and indicates a Minimum Upland Buffer Zone Width of 20 feet and
to be in a natural state, via a native seed mix. Technically there is a minimum of 20 feet of area between the
delineated wetland boundary and the edge of the elevated boardwalk, however, City staff indicated concern
about the landscape water feature not fully defined as an element within the native buffer, so requested that
the water feature be located outside of the upland buffer and reduce the minimum buffer zone in this area. To
help resolve, we are requesting flexibility to move the buffer setback line to 2’ to allow the necessary area for
the landscape water feature. As a supplemental note, the project’s proposed Wetland Average Upland Buffer
boundary area exceeds the existing area, as noted in the Wetland Upland Buffer Summary and shown on the
Overall Site Plan Sheet. It should also be noted that in the Wetland Buffer Memo, we are also providing some
mitigation of the reduced setback by providing removal of non-native species in the upland buffer area and
planting native vegetation through a seed mix, adding more desirable trees to the site, and providing
interpretive signage that explains the importance of wetlands and upland buffer areas at the commercial
boardwalk area.
Although unclear if needed, we are also asking that the elevated commercial boardwalk not be considered a
structure and not adhere to the buffer structure setbacks, as it is significantly elevated at the upper level of the
commercial building and would allow rainwater through gaps in the typical decking surface and allow enough
sunlight for vegetation to grow below.
4. Parking Lot Landscape Islands
We are requesting flexibility on the south parking lot landscape percentage and the layout of landscape islands
to break up the parking lot to minimize the expanse. The first request is to receive flexibility to reduce the
parking landscape island percentage from 8% to 5%. Due to the significant area of wetlands (an existing
landscape feature) on the property, the developable area and parking is limited and has little room to reduce
parking to accommodate. It is also noted that there is a pedestrian sidewalk system through the center of the
parking lot going north-south, that is not included in the calculation, which would help increase this percentage
if counted. To help compensate, the islands are also significantly landscaped with trees and perennial plants to
increase the landscape appearance in the parking areas. The second flexibility request is to accept the parking
landscape islands as proposed, that are already added from the concept plan to help break up the expanse of
the parking lot. The parking lot area is limited and is not that large at 231 spaces compared to the Medina
Target that exceeds 500 spaces. There is no desire to add more landscape islands as this limits the flexibility of
the parking lot to be used for Event valet stacking of parking and feel that the current layout provides an
appropriate level of landscape to break up this limited parking area.
5. Day Care Building Setback
We are requesting a 12’ setback from the right-of-way boundary to our proposed daycare building vs the 25’
setback the city code standard. Given the limited buildable space of the site and desire to accommodate the
right mix of business uses on the overall vision of Meander Park and Boardwalk, we hope this can be
accommodated through our Planned Unit Development. If the daycare building becomes too small, it is less
likely to attract a viable daycare provider, which we believe would otherwise positively benefit the growing
demand from young families moving into the area. The intent is to angle the building parallel to the parking lot
and have a corner of the building reach this 12’ setback (not the entire side of the structure) which opens up
more triangle space for the day care play equipment in the play area.
6. Parking
Although we believe the 231 parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the business uses proposed, there
may be some occasions where events exceed the 300 or so guests at the venue and have an agreement with
Loram Maintenance of Way, located at the southeast quadrant of Highway 55 and Arrowhead Drive, for
additional parking on the weeknights and weekends via a shuttle service that the owner/operator of the venue
would provide. Furthermore, given the parking for the proposed daycare will likely only operate during normal
daytime business hours Monday-Friday, we intend to utilize those parking spaces via a valet service during
weekend events. By using a valet service, we have the ability to “double park” most of the spaces, thus gaining
at least an additional 50 parking spaces and potentially more given the wide parking aisle near the north side of
the daycare parking area. It should be noted that even though the Event Venue has 300 seats in both the
conservatory and ballroom, it typically is used for the same 300-person event, such as the ceremony in one and
reception in the other for the same crowd. The SRF Traffic and Parking Study has summarized that almost all
100-person, 200-person, and 300-person (weekends) events can accommodate enough parking on site during an
average event, when planned properly with other uses on site. Based on the parking study and plans for off-site
parking, via shuttle, it is our request for flexibility in parking space minimum requirements as part of our Planned
Unit Development, as the shared parking concept with different demand uses and off-site parking options for
larger events, provide the necessary parking for the development.
7. Tree Preservation Plan and Landscape
The existing trees on the property are generally considered more of a pioneering tree species that have grown
during the life of the previous farmstead, and not considered part of a woodland community or has any special
natural interest. City Code indicates that the “control of pioneering Tree species” are exempt from the
mitigation requirements, thus we are requesting that the removal of all of these trees are exempt from any tree
preservation or replacement requirements as part of the flexibility of our Planned Unit Development. It should
be noted that the landscape plan does provide some mitigation of the loss of existing trees by exceeding the
minimum requirements for trees and shrubs/perennials to help provide an appropriate and attractive
landscape.
8. Solar Carport in Parking Lot
We are looking for flexibility to install solar carport in the parking lot of our PUD given that ground-mounted
panels are technically not permitted in the underlying Commercial-Highway zoning district. That being said,
ground mounted solar panels continue to be installed in more and more places across the US (and world), and
many have likely seen ground mounted solar panels visible from major highways and freeways across the State
of Minnesota; a trend we expect to continue to grow given the environmental benefits that reducing reliance on
fossil fuels provides and the finite nature of non-renewable energy sources. Structurally speaking, the solar
panels installed at Meander Park and Boardwalk would be static, meaning they will not move and do meet the
footprint and height limitations for ground mounted solar panels.
Furthermore, adding a solar carport to our already forward-thinking development plan will not only provide
significant renewable energy power to the development, but also offer shade from the sun for any vehicles
parking under them during the day as well as temporary rain protection for patrons to be shielded from during
inclement weather. They will also protect the asphalt underneath them from the elements, which from a long-
term thinking perspective will reduce maintenance and prolong the life of the asphalt, making for a more
sustainable development overall. After all, not only does more renewable energy equal less fossil fuel reliance
for electricity production, but by minimizing asphalt repair and maintenance, also reduces fossil fuel reliance
given that one of the main ingredients that hold asphalt together is bitumen, which is a byproduct of petroleum.
Lastly, the lighting provided underneath the panels themselves are likely to cause less light pollution from the
development overall given the nature of positioning lights underneath a solar carport vs typical parking lot lights
which have higher height elevations and generally more visible from surrounding area homes.
9. Mezzanine level addition to center of building
Throughout ongoing design development on the structure and floorplan of the Meander Park event venue
building, we encountered a square footage challenge related to operational guest and staff flow of the main
floor foyer lounge area, forcing us to reduce elements of the building’s amenities such as the main floor
bathrooms, elevator, stairwells and bridal suites (which double as nursing and sensory rooms) to their bare
minimum. To overcome this challenge, we engaged our core venue design development and operations team,
our structural engineering firm VAA in Plymouth, MN and flew in the founder/lead architect (from Rome, IT) of
our interior design firm, Bluarch Architecture for additional input.
In a concerted effort among these individuals, we devised a comprehensive solution that was only made
possible by adding a “mezzanine” level to the center of the building. This addition increased the center portion
of the building elevation to approximately 46’ tall from the main entrance grade and approximately 51.1’
according to the average elevation around the entire building, including the basement walkout below grade.
Though, when considering geographical lines of sight, orientation, topography, site location, practical vantage
points of residents, and the architectural aesthetic design focus of the building, we are confident the height
change will be barely noticeable to the human eye from its previous approved design. It’s lastly worth noting
that this PUD flexibility request does not affect the parking, building uses or event guest counts and is only being
implemented at this stage of the project, given how imperative it is to ensuring proper operational functionality
between our main spaces and knowing that the overall guest experience, amenities, event traffic flow and
ability for staff to work efficiently would be negatively impacted without it.
GROUND0' - 0"
LEVEL 3 34' - 0"
LODGING ROOF
46' - 0"
LEVEL 2 23' - 0"
VERT. GAP WD.
CONC.
STONE
MTL.
PLANTERS
BASEMENT
-10' - 4"
MTL.
LEVEL 1
11' - 6"
CONC.
MTL.
MTL.
CONC.
WATER FEATURE & PLANTINGS
MTL.
VERT. GAP WD.
TILE
MTL.
STONE
MTL.
MTL.
GROUND
0' - 0"
LEVEL 3 34' - 0"
LODGING ROOF46' - 0"
LEVEL 2 23' - 0"
TILE
MTL.MTL.
VERT. GAP WD.
STONE
MTL.
MTL.
BALLROOM ROOF22' - 0"
LEVEL 1 11' - 6"
STONE
GROUND0' - 0"
LEVEL 3 34' - 0"
LODGING ROOF46' - 0"
LEVEL 2
23' - 0"
VERT. GAP WD.
CONC.
PLANTERS
TILE
MTL.
BASEMENT-10' - 4"
MTL.
MTL.LEVEL 1 11' - 6"
MTL.
MTL.
WD.
WD.
1' -
0
"
10
'
-
5
"
1' -
5
"
8' -
0
"
1' -
0
"
\//\VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE
Plo
t
S
t
a
m
p
:
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Architect
Pablo Villamil
(612) 388-6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
General Contractor
Kalcon LLC
(612) 244-1141
KalconLLC.com
Scale: 1/8" 1'-0"
A200
VE
N
U
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
01
/
3
1
/
2
4
Co
n
c
e
p
t
WEST
SOUTH
EAST
NORTH
1/8" 1'-0"
TRASH ENCLOSURE EAST
No
.
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
UP
UP
LOADING DOCK
5,200 SF
BASEMENT
3,910 SF
CONSERVATORY
BASEMENT
NOTE: REFER TO CIVIL FOR SITE
PLAN.
4,760 SF
BALLROOM
BASEMENT
EDGE OF BOARDWALK ABOVE.
90
S
F
FO
U
N
T
A
I
N
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
LAUNDRY
TL
320 SF
TRASH
110 SF
ELEVATOR
ST
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
WA
T
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
220 SF
LAUNDRY
40 SF
T.R.
40 SF
T.R.
60 SF
FREEZER
120 SF
COOLER
50
S
F
RIS
E
R
TR
A
S
H
TR
A
S
H
290 SF
MECH UTILITY
220 SF
ELEC UTILITY
ST
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
230 SF
TRASH
30 SF
C.L.
T.L.R.V.
KITCHEN
OVERFLOW
ELECTRIC SERVICE
DATA CENTER
DATA CENTER
STORAGE
1/8" 1'-0"1 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
\//\
VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE
Plo
t
S
t
a
m
p
:
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Architect
Pablo Villamil
(612) 388-6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
General Contractor
Kalcon LLC
(612) 244-1141
KalconLLC.com
Scale: 1/8" 1'-0"
A100
BA
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
01
/
3
1
/
2
4
Co
n
c
e
p
t
No
.
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN UP
DNDN
UP
370 SF
ENTRY
410 SF
ENTRY
2,450 SF
LOUNGE / FOYER
3,780 SF
CONSERVATORY
4,700 SF
BALLROOM
3,100 SF
BALLROOM PLAZA 1,340 SF
LOUNGE
BOARDWALK
1,430 SF
GROTTO
T.L.VENT
320 SF
TRASH
HOOD
1,240 SF
WATER FEATURE
BOARDWALK
110 SF
ELEVATOR
170 SF
STAIR
110 SF
VEST.
100 SF
VEST.
1,410 SF
KITCHEN
340 SF
COATS220 SF
MENS
25
0
S
F
WO
M
E
N
S
25
0
S
F
WO
M
E
N
S
220 SF
MENS
R.V.
150 SF
HALL
150 SF
STAIR
TRELLIS COURTYARD
110 SF
ELEVATOR
280 SF
SUITE
280 SF
SUITE
1,090 SF
BALCONY
70 SF
BATH
430 SF
CONF.
240 SF
SUPPLIES
180 SF
OFFICE
120 SF
OFFICE190 SF
OFFICE
120 SF
OFFICE
170 SF
STAIR
260 SF
OFFICE
170 SF
STAIR
80 SF
UTL.
70 SF
LOBBY
70 SF
BATH
60 SF
BATH 70 SF
BATH
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
T.L.R.V.
ROOF
\//\VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE
Plo
t
S
t
a
m
p
:
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Architect
Pablo Villamil
(612) 388-6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
General Contractor
Kalcon LLC
(612) 244-1141
KalconLLC.com
Scale: 1/8" 1'-0"
A101
GR
O
U
N
D
&
L
E
V
E
L
1
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
01
/
3
1
/
2
4
Co
n
c
e
p
t
1/8" 1'-0"1GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
No
.
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
1/8" 1'-0"2LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
DNUPDNUP
DNDNDN
470 SF
ROOM 3
350 SF
ROOM 4
650 SF
ROOM 2
490 SF
ROOM 5
450 SF
ROOM 7
490 SF
ROOM 8
770 SF
ROOM 1
920 SF
ROOM 6
440 SF
HALLWAY
180 SF
STAIR170 SF
STAIR
ICE VEND.
80 SF
LOBBY
T.L.R.V.
ROOF
ROOF
110 SF
ELEVATOR
1,140 SF
SUITE 1
780 SF
SUITE 2
260 SF
ROOM 2
440 SF
HALL
70 SF
LOBBY
180 SF
STAIR
170 SF
STAIR
ROOF
ICEVEND.
580 SF
BALCONY 2
640 SF
BALCONY 1
ROOF
280 SF
ROOM 1 610 SF
ROOM 3
T.L.R.V.
110 SF
ELEVATOR
\//\
VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE
Plo
t
S
t
a
m
p
:
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Architect
Pablo Villamil
(612) 388-6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
General Contractor
Kalcon LLC
(612) 244-1141
KalconLLC.com
Scale: 1/8" 1'-0"
A102
LE
V
E
L
2
&
3
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
01
/
3
1
/
2
4
Co
n
c
e
p
t
No
.
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
1/8" 1'-0"2 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN
1/8" 1'-0"3 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
Front Façade (east)
Approved PUD Proposed Amendment
Walkout Façade (west)
Approved PUD Proposed Amendment
4612 County Road 116 Page 1 of 4 February 13, 2024
Rezoning to R1 District Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 8, 2024
MEETING: February 13, 2024, Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Public Hearing–4612 Co Rd 116–Rezoning to Single Family Residential (R1)
Background
The City has initiated consideration of a rezoning of the lot at 4612 County
Road 116 from Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) to Single Family
Residential (R1).
The subject site is located east of County Road 116, north of the intersection
of Aster Road. The property is immediately north of the Reserve of Medina. Foxberry Farms is
located to the west of County Road 116, and there is a home located to the north on County Road
116. The property is just under ½ acre and contains a home which has been vacant for many
years. The property has been listed for sale and would be anticipated for construction of a new
single-family home. The property is guided Low Density Residential (LDR) in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, allowing a density of 2-3 units/acre. Below is an aerial of the site and
surrounding land uses, and an excerpt from the future land use map is on the top of the following
page
Land Use: LDR
Current Zoning: RR-UR
Proposed Zoning: R1
MEMORANDUM
4612 County Road 116 Page 2 of 4 February 13, 2024
Rezoning to R1 District Planning Commission Meeting
Analysis
The City’s practice has been to zone rural property which is guided for futured sewered
residential development/redevelopment as RR-UR. This district allows rural land use, while
explicitly acknowledging that the property is planned for development with utilities in the future:
Section 826.25.1. Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Purpose. The
purpose of this district is to provide a zoning district which is consistent with the
area guided for future residential or mixed-use development in the city’s
comprehensive plan. The district includes areas which are not currently served by
municipal urban services but are planned to be at some time in the future.
Development within the RR-UR district shall be limited as specified in this
section of the ordinance in-order-to accommodate efficient future development.
4612 County Road 116 Page 3 of 4 February 13, 2024
Rezoning to R1 District Planning Commission Meeting
Sewer and water services are stubbed at the end of where Daisy Circle currently terminates to the
southeast of the site. The RR-UR designation would anticipate construction on private septic and
well rather than connection to the municipal services, so staff believes a rezoning is appropriate
since it appears possible to now connect the lot.
The parcel is small and does not meet any of the dimensional standards of the RR-UR district,
but was of record long before the district was created or the area was planned for municipal
services.
Staff proposes a rezoning to the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The purpose of
the R1 zoning district is to implement the LDR land use within the Comprehensive Plan:
Section 840.1.01 Residential-Single Family (R1) - Purpose. The purpose of the
Residential- Single Family (R1) district is to provide a zoning district
for single-family residential neighborhoods, designed in a way to protect the
natural environment and to implement the objectives of the Low Density
Residential land use in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Property to be developed
within the Low Density Residential land use shall be zoned R1 unless the
City Council, following review and recommendation by the Planning
Commission, determines that an alternative zoning designation better meets
the objectives, goals, and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
ordinance.
The purpose of the Single- and Two-Family Residential (R2) district is also to implement
the LDR land use, but in more limited circumstances:
Section 840.2.01 Residential-Single- and Two-Family (R2) - Purpose. The
purpose of the Residential-Single- and Two-Family (R2) district is to provide a
zoning district for a mix of single-family and two-family dwellings, designed
in a way to protect the natural environment and to implement the objectives
of the Low Density Residential land use in the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
The R2 district is intended as an alternative to the R1 district, not to
substantially increase density of development, but rather to allow the clustering of
smaller lots to support:
(1) The protection and enhancement of natural areas through the preservation of
wooded areas, the provision of additional buffering for lakes, streams, and
wetlands, or the creation of ecological connections with other protected lands.
(2) The preservation of open spaces, provision of additional buffering from adjacent
streets and uses, or the creation of additional recreational opportunities.
The City Council, following review and recommendation by the Planning
Commission, shall have full discretion to determine in what cases zoning property
R2 rather than the standard R1 district meets these purposes. If the City Council
determines an R2 zoning does not meet these purposes, the property shall be zoned
R1.
4612 County Road 116 Page 4 of 4 February 13, 2024
Rezoning to R1 District Planning Commission Meeting
In this case, the existing lot is 0.48 acre. Calculating the LDR’s allowed density of 2-3 units/net
acre (0.96-1.44 units), staff believes maintaining the site as a single lot and allowing connection
to the municipal utility system is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The following table
compares the lot with the standards of the R1 and R2 zoning districts.
R1 Requirement R2
Requirement
RR-UR
Requirement
Existing Lot
Existing structure
Net Density 2-3 units/acre 2-3 units/acre 1 unit per 10 acres 2.08 units/acre
Min Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 8,000 s.f./unit 5 acre suitable soil 20,909 s.f.
Min Lot Width 90 feet 60 feet 300 feet 132 feet
Min Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet 300 feet 158 feet
Front Setback 25’(30’ to garage) 25’ (30’ to garage) 50’ 62’
Side setback 25’ combined
(10/15)
15’ combined (10/5) (SF)
10’/10’ (2-family)
20’ 47’/45’
Rear setback 30’ 25’ 40’ 64’
Max. Hardcover 40% 50% 40%
The lot would meet the minimum dimensional standards of either the R1 or R2 zoning district. It
appears that an R2 zoning district may permit the lot to be subdivided into two lots, which would
exceed the density allowance of the Comprehensive Plan.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The City has a high level of discretion when determining the zoning designation for a parcel of
land. According to Section 825.35 of the zoning code zoning amendments “…shall not be
issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and
policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.”
Staff contacted the listing agent for the property and discussed the rezoning. The agent indicated
that the rezoning to R1 seemed appropriate and that they would discuss with the owners and let
staff know if there were any concerns. Staff has not received additional contact from the owners.
Following the public hearing, if the Planning Commission concurs that the rezoning to the R1
zoning district serves the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan the following action could be
taken:
Move to recommend rezoning of 4612 County Road 116 to the R1 zoning district.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday November 14, 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, Matt Plec, Justin Popp, and Braden Rhem. 8
9
Absent: Planning Commissioner John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, and Cindy Piper. 10
11
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke 12
13
2. Changes to Agenda 14
15
No comments made. 16
17
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 18
19
Finke provided a brief update on recent City Council activity. 20
21
4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 22
23
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Rhem volunteered 24
to attend in representation of the Commission. 25
26
5. Planning Department Report 27
28
Finke provided an update. 29
30
6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 Pertaining to 31
Nonconforming Uses and Structures 32
33
Finke stated that there are certain protections for nonconforming uses and structures provided 34
through statute. He stated that perhaps there are some instances where expansion of 35
nonconformities would make sense. He noted that a property owner could request a variance 36
to expand the use/structure but in that instance the applicant would need to show a practical 37
difficulty, which may or may not be easy to do. He provided some examples where 38
expansion of nonconformities has been discussed and would be suggested for the ordinance. 39
He commented that there are some lots in the Independence Beach neighborhood that have a 40
cabin with a detached garage, where the detached garage does not meet the setback. He 41
stated that there have been instances where the garage and cabin have been torn down to 42
allow construction of a new home and attached garage. He noted that in those instances 43
perhaps the new home/garage still do not meet the setback, but it would be a net improvement 44
from what previously existed. He stated that language has not been included in the draft but 45
could be considered by the Commission. He noted that thus far that instance has been 46
addressed through the use of a variance. He also referenced the scenario of an expansion 47
within the same footprint, such as adding a second story within the same footprint which is 48
something that could be considered but has not historically been allowed in Medina. 49
50
2
Ahmed asked for more details on the language stating, “nonconforming use discontinued for 51
a period of more than one year”. 52
53
Finke explained that is the statutory language that would apply more to a nonconforming use. 54
He stated that when the zoning is changed for a property, the existing use can continue but 55
cannot be expanded. He stated that if the commercial business became nonconforming and 56
then was not in business for a period of one year, that use would no longer be allowed in that 57
building. 58
59
Popp used the example of a shed or a barn that has existed for 50 years that has multiple 60
nonconformities in terms of setbacks. He asked if that would be allowed to be expanded if 61
the language was not amended. 62
63
Finke stated that the language currently in Code needs to have changes to conform to the 64
statutory language. He stated that if there was not additional language built into the Code, the 65
building could not be expanded. 66
67
Popp commented that this would seem to provide the City more room to operate and make 68
decisions. He asked how an issue would be addressed if a building becomes structurally 69
unsound. 70
71
Finke stated that the statutory language would not allow replacement of a nonconformity, but 72
that was addressed through the statutory changes in 2004. He stated that it is not uncommon 73
that a nonconformity would become rundown, but with that ability, it can be replaced. 74
75
Plec commented that these changes seem to address the things that staff has received calls 76
and request for that would typically be allowed. 77
78
Rhem opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 79
80
No comments made. 81
82
Rhem closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 83
84
Rhem referenced the instance of net improved conformity which has not been included in the 85
draft thus far. He asked if staff could draft that language. 86
87
Finke replied that he is confident that staff could draft that language. He commented that it 88
could be similar to a variance request, providing discretion to the City for the review but not 89
requiring a practical difficulty. 90
91
Popp commented that he generally tends to favor more flexibility when possible. He noted 92
that these changes would align more with the statutory language as well as providing 93
additional flexibility within reason. 94
95
Finke referenced the scenario of expansion within the same footprint and whether the 96
Commission would like to allow that. He also asked if the Commission would like to allow 97
the flexibility to allow expansion/improvement when the result is a net improvement to the 98
nonconforming. He noted that the latter item would still require a public hearing and typical 99
review process. 100
101
3
Rhem commented that he does not love the concept of allowing expansion within the same 102
footprint, as it is not common practice in Medina at this time. He stated that he would 103
support allowing something that is a net improvement to nonconformity. 104
105
Ahmed asked if a PUD could be used in a scenario with a nonconforming use. 106
107
Finke replied that would not be an option. He explained the difference between a PUD and 108
nonconformity. 109
110
Rhem commented that he is comfortable that staff could draft the language as discussed and 111
the item would not need to return to the Planning Commission again. 112
113
Motion by Plec, seconded by Popp, to recommend approval with the provision to allow 114
expansion if the City determines the net result is improved conformity. Motion carries 115
unanimously. (Absent: Jacob, Nielsen, and Piper) 116
117
7. Land Acquisition – PIDs 0411823110002 and 0411823140004 118
119
Finke commented that statute requires that the Planning Commission review a land 120
acquisition for comparison to the Comprehensive Plan prior to the purchase. He stated that 121
there are two properties that will be sold in real estate auction located east of Willow Drive 122
and north of Highway 55. He noted that the properties were part of previous discussions with 123
the Cates Industrial Park project. 124
125
Rhem asked if the previous approvals would remain in place for a new property owner. 126
127
Finke replied that the plat was approved and therefore the exact same set of plans and plats 128
would be what could be considered approved. He was unsure that someone else would want 129
to move forward with the exact same plans. He stated that the City Council has generally 130
requested that staff look for opportunities for land acquisition that may serve the City in the 131
future and this opportunity was brought forward. He stated that the Council has asked for 132
input from the Commission on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He provided 133
details on the general park study for this area. He also reviewed potential opportunities the 134
City could pursue on this land, should it be acquired. He stated that staff did not identify any 135
inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and a draft general letter of support has been 136
provided. 137
138
Ahmed asked for some specifics related to the properties. 139
140
Finke provided the requested details related to size and utility access. 141
142
Ahmed commented that with the proximity to Highway 55 it would seem that 143
business/commercial use would be more conducive than a park use. 144
145
Finke agreed that an active economic development use was one of the identified potential 146
uses. 147
148
Rhem commented that with the listed number of potential uses it would be difficult to find 149
this potential acquisition inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore would 150
support this. 151
152
Popp agreed and noted that this would be a great opportunity to balance the future uses within 153
the FDA district. He agreed that there did not seem to be a basis to oppose. 154
4
155
8. Motion by Popp, seconded by Rhem, to direct the Chair to report to the City Council that 156
the Planning Commission finds the acquisition of PIDs 0411823110002 and 0411823140004 157
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Jacob, 158
Nielsen, and Piper) 159
160
9. Approval of the October 10, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 161
162 Motion by Popp, seconded by Rhem, to approve the October 10, 2023, Planning 163
Commission minutes with changes. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Jacob, Nielsen, 164
and Piper) 165
166
10. Adjourn 167
168
Motion by Plec, seconded by Popp, to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried 169
unanimously. 170