HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-09-2024 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: April 9, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2024
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 accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
7. Approval February 13, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes
8. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 April 2, 2024
City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: March 28, 2024
MEETING: April 2, 2024 City Council
SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates
Land Use Application Review
A) 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 not
currently permit height above 45 feet, so the applicant has requested that the PUD allow for this
height. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the February 13 meeting. Following
a thorough discussion about potential implications, the Commission unanimously recommended
approval with additional conditions. The applicant is updating plans and preparing
supplemental information as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff will present to
Council when the information is provided.
B) 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.
C) 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.
D) 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.
E) 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. Council reviewed and approved on February 6. Staff is working with the owners to
get necessary documents recorded.
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.
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 April 2, 2024
City Council Meeting
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.
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. The City Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the property at the March 19th
meeting and the project will now be closed.
B) Maple Park Improvements – Staff presented information regarding potential improvements at
Maple Park, including pickleball courts, for discussion at the March 20 Park Commission
meeting. Several residents of the Independence Beach area attended and discussed the potential
pickleball courts. Several residents expressed concerns about adding pickleball courts, while
several other residents expressed support. The Park Commission directed staff to complete
additional engagement for discussion at the April 17th Park Commission meeting.
C) Park Asset inventory/ municipal park fund – Staff presented the asset inventory to the Park
Commission. Staff had included approximate replacement costs for the existing park and trail
improvements within the city, and projected what these costs would correlate to on an annual
basis. The analysis suggests that the replacement costs of existing improvements significantly
exceeds the amount of revenue currently being allocated annually to the municipal park fund.
The Park Commission recommended that the City Council consider increases to the municipal
park fund based on the inventory analysis. Staff intends to present this information to the City
Council in connection with broader annual budget discussions.
D) Metropolitan Council Government Focus Group – I continued to attend focus groups hosted
by Metropolitan Council staff. Introductory information suggests that there may be little to no
projected population growth allocated to Medina beyond which is already planned. Draft
Metropolitan Council objectives which are being discussed seem to emphasize directing growth
and development to the urban core and inner-ring suburbs. There is also language about
minimizing expansions of the MUSA area, and having stricter standards for density within
expanded growth areas. I am advocating language that emphasizes flexibility and more local
decision making.
E) Special Assessment Procedures – Staff prepared proposed language to add to the city’s special
assessment procedures to document the way assessments for rural collector roadways have been
calculated in recent years.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: March 28, 2024
RE: Police Department Updates
Mother nature has been extremely kind to us all winter long but threw us a curveball this past week.
Officers have been busy with weather related calls for service such as vehicles in the ditches,
accidents, medicals related to falls on the ice, etc.
This past week Sgt Hall, Administrative Assistant Klaers, and I met with Lynn Lembcke who is
conducting our Body Worn Camera Audit. All information from the audit was reviewed and all
requested supporting documentation was turned over. I was advised that we would have the findings
back in approximately 6 weeks. I will share those findings with the City Council after they are
received.
Also, this past week we conducted first round interviews for police officer applicants. There was a
total of 5 candidates that sent in applications. Prior to conducting the interviews one applicant
removed himself from the process. We have offered a background packet to the top candidate.
Sergeant Boecker will be conducting the background.
On March 25, Sergeant Hall was notified that we were awarded the Intensive Comprehensive Peace
Officer Education and Training (ICPOET) Grant that he had wrote earlier in January. We were
awarded the full $50,000 that goes towards a career transition police officer candidate who must have
either two- or four-year college degree. This cannot be used for our current opening and can only be
used for a future opening that we may have. To refresh your memory, if we find a candidate and that
candidate goes through the entire program and becomes eligible to be licensed as a police officer, but
if we don’t have an opening, the candidate will ultimately be hired by another agency. We are not
locked into hiring that candidate at the end of the grant period. The grant period will run through
2025.
Patrol:
The following are updates of Patrol Officers between March 12th, 2024, and March 25th, 2024:
Citations – 16 Warnings – 137 PD Accidents – 4
PI Accidents – Medicals – 10 Falls – 1
Suspicious Calls – 4 Traffic Complaints – 2 Other Agency Assists – 12
Business/Residential Alarm -
11
Welfare Checks - Disturbance Calls - 2
On 03/15/2024 at 1514 hours officers were dispatched to a civil matter in the 1200 block of Highway
55. Officers found a party had come to purchase a vehicle from a resident here. They agreed on a
price but when they went to the DMV to transfer the title, DMV would not accept the out of country
ID from the buyer. The seller refunded money except for $300 because he had already filled out the
title and now needed to apply for a new title. Officers advised everyone that this was a civil matter
and if they could not come to an agreement they would need to go to civil court.
On 03/15/2024 at 2324 hours officer was dispatched to a vehicle theft report at the Medina
Entertainment Center. Customer who had been at a concert reported their vehicle missing afterwards.
Officers were able to locate the customers vehicle in the lot and he was advised on its location. It is
believed the customer forgot where they parked their vehicle.
On 03/16/2024 at 2138 hours officers were dispatched to a traffic complaint in the parking lot of
McDonalds. Store employee reported a vehicle in the drive thru had hit the building twice. Employee
provided a license plate on the vehicle which came back to a stolen vehicle. By the time the officer
arrived at McDonalds the vehicle was gone. The second officer responding from the west side of the
city happened to see a similar vehicle pass the opposite direction and made a u-turn. The vehicle
increased speed to 90 mph but ultimately got caught up in other traffic and pulled to the shoulder.
Officers attempted a felony stop but the driver refused to exit the car and was non-compliant. Officers
continued commands and the vehicle then drove off westbound and a pursuit ensued reaching speeds
in excess of 100 mph. Pursuit continued westbound into Buffalo where a Buffalo officer was going to
attempt to deploy stop sticks. Suspect saw the Buffalo squad and veered off the road to avoid them
and got stuck in a holding pond near the Buffalo Target. Suspect again would not comply with
commands and refused to exit the vehicle. Less than lethal round was deployed at a window of the
vehicle which broke but did not shatter. Suspect shortly after exited the vehicle and was taken into
custody without further incident. Suspect received injuries from driving off the road through the ditch
and was transported to Buffalo Hospital. After examination the suspect needed to be transferred to
North Memorial Hospital in Robbinsdale. Charges are pending against the driver for burglary and
theft of vehicle in Edina along with fleeing in a motor vehicle and possession of stolen property in
Medina.
On 03/18/2024 at 1704 hours officers were dispatched to a reported domestic in the 200 block of
Loretto Street, Loretto. Upon arrival officers spoke with the female and male involved, both of which
had differing stories of what had taken place. Officers took statements from everyone involved and
will submit to the Loretto Prosecuting Attorney for review.
On 03/19/2024 at 1331 hours officer took an attempted burglary report at the Medina Mini Storage,
4800 block of Rolling Hills Road. Officer spoke to the site manager who reported finding damage to a
storage unit door/latch. Officer eventually made contact with the storage unit owner who said they
hadn’t been in the locker in the past ten years and anything in there was junk. Unknown when the
door/lock was damaged.
On 03/22/2024 at 2323 hours officer was dispatched to a medical in the 2000 block of County Road 19
on a report of a 77-year-old male who had collapsed and was not responsive. Upon arrival officers
found the male in cardiac arrest and found there was a DNR order (do not resuscitate) in place. The
male was declared deceased by North Ambulance. The male had several medical issues. The
Hennepin County Medical Examiner was contacted and released the deceased to the funeral home.
On 03/24/2024 at 2325 hours officer stopped a vehicle for speeding on Highway 55 near Pioneer Trail.
As the vehicle was pulling over the officer observed an object being thrown from the passenger
window. Officer made contact with the occupants who were juveniles. One admitted they may have
thrown an alcoholic beverage out the window. Three juveniles were cited, one for allowing open
bottle and two for minor consumption. The parents were notified by the officer.
On 03/25/2024 at 1523 hours officer was dispatched to assist Plymouth PD with suspicious vehicles in
a neighborhood to the east of our border. Two suspicious vehicles were reported by multiple residents
where occupants were attempting to steal items from cars and had attempted to steal a car with a child
inside. Plates were obtained on both vehicles which came back to two reported stolen vehicles out of
Brooklyn Park. Officers checked the area but were unable to locate them. A short time later a
Plymouth officer observed the vehicles driving at a high rate of speed southbound on Interstate 494
approaching Interstate 394. Officers lost visual.
Investigations:
Responded to a theft in progress. Conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle and located stolen
merchandise. Business advised the suspect had impacted their store in the month before. Gathered
video from both cases, sent case to City Attorney and it was charged.
Received a Theft report involving fraudulent MN Wild Tickets. Wrote a subpoena for Venmo records.
Received an identity theft report. Wrote a subpoena for banking records.
Sent CSC case in for charging of domestic assault and forwarded case to another agency where an
alleged crime occurred.
Closed out several cases.
Looked into phone records from a case from 2022. Case was ultimately closed.
Wrote a cell tower dump warrant for burglary case. Following up with another agency on a possible
plate for a suspect vehicle.
Signed a complaint for a domestic case.
Investigations currently has 5 open/active cases.
1
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: March 26 2024
MEETING: April 02, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
Streets
• Seasonal weight restrictions were lifted on city streets in conjunction with the state on
Monday, March 18th.
• I hosted an informational open house meeting for the residents of Wild Meadows on
March 14th to explain the overlay projects. There were quite a few questions, and
comments about classifying the work as maintenance which should be funded by
general taxes. Feasibility reports, and resolutions to accept/call for public hearings
are in your packets for consideration.
• Public Works finally put the snowplows to work after the two significant events last
week. With the shoulders already being very soft, the crews used extreme care to
stay away from grass and gravel roadsides.
Water/Sewer/Stormwater
• Public Works has made significant progress on the federal EPA mandated service line
inventory project to identify lead service lines. All but approximately 50 service
lines, between the watermain and water shut-off at the curb have been identified. We
will work to identify these last properties by another means, as data could not be
located in our current document archive.
• I am in the process of reviewing the engineering services proposal for the water
treatment plant project submitted by WSB and expect to bring it to the April 16th
council meeting.
Parks/Trails
• The March 20th Park Commission meeting was well attended with most everyone
there to speak about a potential pickleball court at Maple Park. Staff was seeking
direction on the number of courts, and location prior to moving the project forward.
Comments both for and against were heard, and ultimately the Park Commission
decided to seek broader feedback from within the neighborhood and reconvene in
April on this topic.
• Dusty and I have been working on the park asset inventory management document in
an effort to determine the estimated amount of funding needed for future park
infrastructure and equipment. Although the document isn’t done, it is very clear that
more funding is needed for the replacement fund, and any additional amenities that
MEMORANDUM
2
will be added along the way. Staff will continue to work on this document as we get
closer to budget time.
• Three contracts are in your packet for park amenity rental use: two from Orono
Baseball, and one from Agre Tennis. No other organizations submitted requests, so
prioritization efforts were not required.
Miscellaneous
• Staff is gathering information for the brush and compost discussion coming up at the
April 16th council meeting. We are hoping to have a kickoff and signup for the card
reader system at the cleanup day event, the system will not be up and running until
sometime in early summer.
• Mark your calendars for the annual cleanup day on Saturday, April 27 from 8 AM to
12 noon – please let me know if you’re interested in volunteering to help.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Page 1 of 4 April 9, 2024
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: April 3, 2024
MEETING: April 9, 2024 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations
Background
The City currently allows an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as a conditional use in single
family residential zoning districts. An ADU is a second self-contained residential unit with its
own living room, sleeping space, kitchen and bathroom on the same parcel (or within same
structure) as a principal single-family home. ADUs are known by many names: carriage houses,
accessory apartments, garden apartments, mother-in-law suites, granny flats, guest houses, and
secondary dwelling units. Whatever it is called, an ADU is smaller than the primary or main
house on the same lot.
ADUs allow two dwellings on lots within single family neighborhoods, which may introduce
real or perceived concerns which the regulations are intended to address. ADU’s offer several
potential benefits, including:
• Opportunity for aging parents or other persons who may need care to live in their own
space very close to family;
• Providing smaller and more affordable housing options;
• Guest home arrangements for those who wish to have them.
The zoning code was updated to allow ADUs in 2011. In that time only four requests for ADUs
have been submitted.
ADUs also discussed during the review of the Medina Preserve PUD. The applicant had
requested that the city consider flexibility as part of the PUD to allow ADUs as a permitted use
and not require review of a conditional use permit (CUP). The applicant had also discussed the
possibility of allowing larger size ADUs. The City Council ultimately decided against allowing
alternative ADU regulations within that PUD. Some council members did suggest reviewing the
ADU regulations as a result of these discussions. Staff has prepared this review as a result of
that direction.
Several metro communities have recently adopted ordinances related to ADUs and have prepared
a lot of background information and resources. Rather than recreating all of this information,
Commissioners are encouraged to access this information online. Searing “ADU Regulations
MN” conveniently provides this information. Edina, Greenfield, Wayzata and Plymouth all have
good information on their websites.
MEMORANDUM
Accessory Dwelling Unit Page 2 of 4 April 9, 2024
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Existing ADU Regulations
ADUs are allowed in single-family districts in the city subject to review and approval of a CUP
following a public hearing. ADUs are subject to the following requirements and limitations:
(i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No
accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room
or a second residential dwelling is located;
(ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential),
R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning districts shall
be attached to the principal single family structure;
(iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit;
(iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the
following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-
bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family
dwelling;
(v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable
space;
(vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms;
(vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the
accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the
required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling;
(viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit;
(ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal
single-family dwelling;
(x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the
accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence;
(xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal
single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the
same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally,
the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall
count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures
permitted on a property;
(xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This
shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both
the principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable.
(xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor
shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent
possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a
minimum of 27 square feet in area; and
(xiv) The city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential
character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory
dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall
be recorded against the property.
The primary limitations are:
• Maximum 2 bedrooms
• Maximum habitable square feet (40% of principal, 1000 s.f for 2-bed, 750 s.f. for 1-bed)
• Property owner must occupy one of the units
Accessory Dwelling Unit Page 3 of 4 April 9, 2024
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
Discussion Items
The Planning Commission and City Council are encouraged to suggest any topics for discussion.
Staff has suggested the following topics as a starting point.
Conditional Use Permit Review requirement
The city currently requires application and approval of a CUP Prior to a permit for an ADU. This
process typically takes 75 to 90 days, additional costs, and includes a public hearing.
Most communities do not require CUP for an ADU, but instead review an application for an
ADU administratively. Many communities require recording a restrictive covenant against the
property which identifies the relevant requirements for the ADU. Most significantly, the
covenant calls attention to the prohibition against creating a separate saleable property, including
through condominium plat. The document also usually states the requirement for the owner to
live in one of the units as their primary residence. The covenant also can describes enforcement
procedures if the property violates any of the requirements for ADUs.
Staff does not believe the CUP process provides a significant benefit to the process of reviewing
ADUs. Beyond the standards established in code for ADUs, Staff does not foresee the need to
attach additional conditions to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The circumstances
surrounding a proposed ADU are not likely to differ significantly between properties, which is
one of the purposes of the hearing and review of a CUP.
In discussions with the city attorney, he noted that the CUP would arguably provide an additional
enforcement tool if there was a violation of the requirements for an ADU. However, the ability to
enforce through a revocation of a CUP would still likely require a court action similar to
enforcing a covenant, so the benefit from an enforcement standpoint seemed marginal.
On balance, staff believes it would be beneficial to consider removing the requirement for a CUP
and allowing administrative review and recording of a covenant. Making this change would
require small technical changes to numerous sections of the city code. Staff decided to wait for
direction from the Planning Commission and council before making all of these changes. Staff
has suggested language in clause (xiv) Which would provide for the covenant rather than the
CUP.
Size Limitations
Current regulations limit the size of ADU to two bedrooms and no more than 1000 square feet of
habitable space. The definition of habitable space only considers a limited portion of a dwelling,
so the finished square footage can be much larger:
Habitable Space – A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking.
Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not
considered habitable spaces.
The two bedroom limitation seems appropriate to limit the likely occupancy of an ADU. The
Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether they support this limitation.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Page 4 of 4 April 9, 2024
Regulations Planning Commission Meeting
The current limitation unhabitable square footage for an ADU is larger compared to other
communities. Regulations generally allow 33% to 50% of the size of the principal building and
most limit the maximum size to 1000 gross square feet or finished square feet.
Many communities include an exception to increase the maximum size for an ADU which
occupies an entire floor of an existing home.
Allowing Detached ADUs on non-rural lots
The regulations currently only allow an ADU within a detached structure in the rural residential
zoning district. Most communities allow detached ADUs on most lots. Practically, there may be
only limited circumstances where detached ADU would be possible, but there may be some.
Staff requests feedback on whether this limitation should be reviewed. This requirement is
clause (ii) of the requirements, which has been struck in the attached ordinance for discussion
purposes.
Short term rentals
In reviewing requirements in other communities staff noted that a few cities explicitly prohibit
short term rentals of ADUs. Medina currently has very few short term rentals, and has not
experienced significant issues. ADUs provide the potential for an increase in short term rentals.
If that potential is concerning staff believes the city would have the authority to prohibit short-
term rentals within ADUs. Staff has included potential language in clause (x).
Alternate Septic
The code requires an applicant to show that adequate utilities exist for an ADU including septic
capacity for rural lots. Staff recommends adding language requiring the applicant to provide
evidence of a secondary septic location before an ADU can be constructed.
This language is in clause (xii).
Potential Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance before taking
action. Review and changes to the requirements are not time-sensitive, so if the Planning
Commission desires additional information, this can be provided at a future meeting.
After completing review, the following action can be considered:
Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance pertaining to accessory dwelling
units [with the following changes….]
Attachment
Ordinance
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Sub. 2(p) of Section 826.98 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is
amended by deleting existing language and replacing with the new underlined language as follows:
(p) Accessory Dwelling Units.
(i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No
accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room
or a second residential dwelling is located;
(ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban
Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning
districts shall be attached to the principal single family structureRESERVED;
(iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit;
(iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the
following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-
bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family
dwelling;
(v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable
space;
(vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms;
(vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the
accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the
required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling;
(viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit;
(ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal
single-family dwelling and shall in no way be subdivided or platted separately;
(x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the
accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence. Only one of the units may be rented,
and the minimum term of any lease or rental agreement shall be 30 days;
(xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal
single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the
same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally,
the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall
count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted
on a property;
(xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This
shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
the principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling and evidence that
construction of the accessory dwelling unit does not impact a secondary treatment and
dispersal area, where applicable.
(xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor
shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent
possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum
of 27 square feet in area; and
(xiv) The city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential
character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory
dwelling unit and The owner shall execute a covenant provided by the City describing
the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use accessory dwelling unit, which
shall be recorded against the property.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Medina this ______ day of ________________, 2024.
_____________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News this _____ day of ____________, 2024.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday February 13, 2024 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Paul Humiston, John Jacob, Stacy Ladwig, Matt Plec, and 8
Braden Rhem. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioner Charles Morse and Cindy Piper. 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. Introduction of Planning Commission Members 19
20
Members of the Planning Commission introduced themselves. 21
22
4. 2024 Planning Commission Officer Elections 23
a. Chair 24
25
Finke opened the nominations for Chair. 26
27
Jacob nominated Rhem for the position of Chair. 28
29
Rhem accepted the nomination. 30
31
There were no other nominations. 32
33
Motion by Jacob, seconded by Ladwig, to elect Braden Rhem as Chair of the Planning 34
Commission for 2024. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Morse, Piper) 35
36
b. Vice Chair 37
38
Rhem opened the nominations for Vice Chair. 39
40
Rhem nominated Jacob for the position of Vice Chair. 41
42
Jacob accepted the nomination. 43
44
There were no other nominations. 45
46
Motion by Ladwig, seconded by Rhem, to elect John Jacob as Vice Chair of the Planning 47
Commission for 2024. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Morse, Piper) 48
49
5. Update from City Council Proceedings 50
51
2
Finke provided an update on recent actions of the City Council. 52
53
6. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 54
55
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Plec volunteered to 56
attend in representation of the Commission. 57
58
7. Planning Department Report 59
60
Finke provided an update. 61
62
8. Public Hearing – Meander Park and Boardwalk – Medina Ventures – 1472 63
Highway 55 – Amendment to Architectural Standards of Meander Park and 64
Boardwalk Planned Unit Development 65
66
Finke provided background information noting that the City Council granted approval of the 67
Meander Park and Boardwalk PUD last year, along with one amendment. He stated that 68
since that time the applicant has proposed an additional change to increase the story of the 69
venue building, which would increase the height of the structure. He stated that all other 70
elements of the development would remain the same. He presented the revised elevations for 71
the event venue as proposed and compared that to the previously approved event venue 72
elevations. He stated that the Commercial Highway district allows three stories or a 73
maximum of 45 feet in height, whichever is greater. He also provided information on how 74
building height is measured. He stated that this would be four stories with a walkout with a 75
height of 51 feet. He noted that the packet provided some comparisons for height within 76
Medina. 77
78
Plec asked if any of the other buildings mentioned for comparison height were zoned PUD or 79
whether those were under standard zoning. 80
81
Finke replied that Gramercy was constructed through a PUD, but the remainder were done 82
under standard zoning. 83
84
Humiston commented that it appears the proposed building materials have also been changed 85
as well, noting that the brick does not appear in the new elevations. 86
87
Finke replied that the requested change only pertains to the layout and change in height, and 88
therefore a change in building material is not being considered. He stated that the applicant 89
could potentially provide more details on that. 90
91
Plec asked if any other PUDs have come to the City requesting additional height which have 92
been denied. He also asked for more details on the relationship between the underlying 93
zoning requirements for a PUD and the flexibility that can be provided within a PUD. 94
95
Finke stated that he could not think of a recent example where height flexibility was granted 96
as part of a PUD. He stated that perhaps that was part of the Gramercy request. He noted 97
that with the BAPS request it was the architectural features, not the building height. He also 98
explained the objectives and flexibility within a PUD. 99
100
Jacob asked if there is concern that approval of this request could set a precedent. 101
102
3
Finke explained that each PUD is considered individually based on its own merit and how it 103
would achieve the objectives. He noted that it would be an example that could be pointed to, 104
but legally it would not set precedent. 105
106
Rhem invited the applicant to provide input. 107
108
Chris Pederson, applicant, commented that designing this building has been fun but 109
challenging. He stated that they seek to create the best environment possible along with one 110
of the best venues in the Midwest. He stated that in the design of the floorspace it was 111
determined that additional space would be needed to accommodate their needs, which led to 112
the creation of the mezzanine level. He recognized that they have requested a lot of 113
flexibility. He noted that Gramercy is a tall building which is also located upon a hill and did 114
not believe that the building would look that tall from any other orientation other than those 115
driving east from Highway 55. 116
117
Plec asked for clarification on an elevation of the building as proposed. 118
119
Pederson recognized that grading would be the most reasonable option to change the average 120
elevation but noted the challenges with the wetland, buffer and planned water feature. He 121
stated that they may be able to increase that grade by about one foot, but that will not be 122
known until they are at construction. He struggled to say that they could change the grade 123
enough to not need some flexibility. He stated that this is a flat roof and provided details and 124
stated that the rooftop equipment would not exceed the five-foot parapet, which they do not 125
have. 126
127
Humiston reviewed his understanding of a mezzanine level and stated that this appears to be 128
an extra story rather than a mezzanine. 129
130
Pederson commented that it could be called an open floor. He noted that an average story is 131
14 feet and that is not what this would be. He stated that perhaps a split level would be a 132
better characterization. He asked and received confirmation that a four-story building would 133
be allowed if that total height were 45 feet or less. He stated that they would be allowed to 134
have a 45-foot building with a five-foot parapet. He noted that Gramercy would remain taller 135
than the proposed venue building. 136
137
Plec asked the impact to the business if this additional space were not approved. 138
139
Pederson replied that there would be a significant impact to the business. He provided more 140
details as to how events would be impacted, along with public access. He stated that they 141
would have brought this up much earlier if those final details of the inside building design 142
were known. 143
144
Rhem commented that business impact is not an evaluation criteria for a PUD. He asked if 145
they have considered cutting into the basement and guest rooms to accommodate the 146
additional space needs. 147
148
Pederson commented that while there is room in the basement, the issue is height as that level 149
has been lowered as far as it can without interfering with the floodplain. He stated that they 150
are working to squeeze the floors together. He stated that they would not be able to adjust all 151
those elements to meet their needs. He stated that they will continue to work on those 152
elements to decrease the overall height but would still require some flexibility. He stated that 153
they are not asking for changes to the building materials. 154
155
4
Rhem opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 156
157
No comments. 158
159
Rhem closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 160
161
Humiston commented that while the proposal is consistent with the PUD, he is unsure if a 162
fourth story would have been entertained if it was included in the original proposal. He 163
referenced the request against the underlying CH zoning standards. He stated that because 164
this is truly an additional story, and even appears as a five-story building from one elevation 165
with the walk out, this would seem to push the boundaries of the PUD. 166
167
Jacob echoed the comments of Humiston. 168
169
Ladwig commented that she would be inclined to support the change because the increased 170
height would be negligible in the overall impact and would also provide more sound 171
blocking. 172
173
Plec commented that he is on the fence either way. He stated that this came through as a 174
PUD because it is a unique development that provides benefit to the city overall. He 175
commented that it does seem like a minimal impact to the overall height but recognized that 176
this will be an additional story. 177
178
Rhem commented that when they reviewed the original PUD the building moved from two to 179
three stories. He stated that he would have concern that at the proposed height it would 180
become the tallest building in Medina. He stated that he still believes the overall objective 181
and development is fantastic but believed that the additional space could be found within the 182
building design. 183
184
Plec agreed that this would be the only four-story building in Medina. 185
186
Pederson asked for clarification on how a peaked roof would be measured in comparison. 187
188
Ladwig commented that this would clearly adhere to architectural standards and is being built 189
to be monumental in the space, which will be a lovely setting. She did not think the 190
additional height would make it look out of place. She asked when the 45-foot height 191
limitation was put into place. 192
193
Finke stated that three stories, but for Uptown Hamel, has been in place for many years. He 194
was unsure when the 45 feet was put into place, noting that four stories could be allowed if 195
the 45-foot height limit were met. He stated that a walk out would not be counted as a story. 196
197
Jacob asked if it would be relevant as to how the standard compares to other communities. 198
199
Finke stated that the recent discussions on height did not pertain to building height and was 200
specifically related to architectural features. He stated that the underlying standards do not 201
directly apply to a PUD, as a PUD is judged more on the objectives within. 202
203
Pederson commented that when they started this process, they did not intend to have the hotel 204
on the top, which was one of the adjustments that was made to the plan to address the 205
concerns that were expressed with the originally proposed BnB units. He stated that this 206
layout would allow for more natural light and a larger public gathering space, which would 207
have been included in the design if the lodging units were not added to the venue space. He 208
5
stated that although this might be considered the tallest building in Medina from a Code 209
perspective, he did not believe it would appear as such, noting that the conservatory will 210
offset the overall height from a visual perspective. 211
212
Plec commented that there have been valid comments made during the discussion. He stated 213
that if this is to be approved it would be because this is a PUD and the objectives achieved, 214
therefore it would not create precedent and therefore would lean towards approval. 215
216
Jacob commented that he has supported this project throughout the planning process. He 217
stated that he could support the project. 218
219
Humiston recognized that concessions are made throughout the PUD process and asked if 220
there would be a concession that could be considered in return for this additional ask. 221
222
Plec commented that he would be unsure of the additional concession that could be provided 223
at this point in the process. 224
225
Rhem commented that he is also struggling a bit. He recognized that this is an ideal scenario 226
but perhaps there is a scenario which could reduce the overall height, but the City could still 227
provide some flexibility to allow over 45 feet. 228
229
Pederson commented that they are still working to make the overall height lower and 230
believed that they could reduce the ask by one foot between structural changes and grading. 231
He identified how his development would meet the different objectives within the PUD 232
ordinance. He recognized that the Code is created to guide development in a manner that the 233
City desires, which is visually appealing. He believed that this development would be 234
beautiful and aesthetically pleasing. He recognized that this has been a long process but 235
noted that his intent is to make this a great development for everyone that achieves the 236
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 237
238
Humiston stated that perhaps additional concessions would be that some space within is open 239
to the City at certain times. 240
241
Ladwig noted that the developer seems to have a crisp eye in terms of preservation of 242
environmental factors, noting the wetland preservation and the solar panels. She asked if this 243
would be a LEED building. 244
245
Pederson replied that they are not applying for LEED Certification but could most likely 246
obtain gold standard under that. He noted the solar energy, shade that would be provided, 247
native grasses, wetland preservation, and use of the geothermal system for the building. He 248
stated that the only reason they are not pursuing LEED Certification is because of the 249
additional cost and process. 250
251
Rhem commented that he would see a way towards support for the request, noting the 252
environmental benefits of the design and provided some general use of the building/site. 253
254
Finke recognized that there would need to be some changes to the building materials allowed 255
as there would be additional space that would need to be covered with material. He stated 256
that there could be additional limitations, such as calling out that a parapet would not be 257
allowed in addition to the building height. It was noted that there would not be typical 258
HVAC rooftop equipment because of the use of geothermal. 259
260
Ladwig asked for an example of City use. 261
6
262
Humiston commented that sometimes a City would ask for use of a building or site, although 263
he was unsure what that could look like in this building. 264
265
Finke commented that could be addressed through public amenities such as trail connections 266
to the boardwalk. 267
268
Pederson commented that they would intend to open the space to the public during the week 269
and provide boardwalk access when they are not hosting private events. 270
271
Finke stated that if there is support, they could add the limitation of additional features and 272
rooftop equipment. 273
274
Humiston noted that on the west side there is a large open space on the inside, and he would 275
prefer to see that through the outside design, using the example of larger windows which 276
would make that read as one open space. 277
278
Pederson commented that they are still working on the ultimate design, but wanted to know if 279
that additional flexibility would be provided before spending a lot of money on the design. 280
He confirmed that larger windows could be placed in that center space. 281
282
Ladwig asked if there could be a request that residents of Medina are permitted to take 283
photographs in the space for special formal community events, using the example of prom. 284
285
Pederson commented that could be allowed if there is not a private event occurring that night 286
and the space is open. 287
288
Motion by Plec, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the PUD amendment with 289
additional architectural details clarifying materials to be provided, additional external 290
architectural features to provide the appearance of a three-story building, limitations on 291
rooftop elements and equipment in exchange for the additional height, and additional 292
discussion relating to public access to amenities. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 293
Morse, Piper) 294
295
9. Public Hearing – 4612 County Road 116 – Rezoning to Single Family Residential (R1) 296
Zoning District 297
298
Finke stated that the subject site is located at 4612 County Road 116 and is an existing lot 299
that currently has a home that has been vacant for some time and is listed for sale. He stated 300
that the property is guided for low density residential within the Comprehensive Plan but is 301
zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RRUR). He stated that the City has received 302
interest for the property and therefore would prefer to rezone the property to R1 in order to 303
provide that clarity. He noted that all surrounding properties are also zoned R1. He stated 304
that the property also does not meet the requirements of RRUR and therefore would also 305
support the rezoning. Staff supports the R1 zoning designation in order to assist in guiding 306
future development and requests. 307
308
Rhem opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. 309
310
Dave Donner (4632 CR 116, adjacent landowner) asked how a rezoning could impact the 311
value of properties. 312
313
7
Finke stated that the property to the north is similarly situated to the subject property, guided 314
for low density residential while currently zoned RRUR. He stated that property is larger and 315
therefore could be subdivided and fall under two units per acre. He stated that other than 316
setbacks there would not be any impact for the property to the north. He stated that the 317
utilities that would eventually serve the subject property would come from Daisy Circle as 318
there are stubs in that location. He stated that there is a sewer main north of the neighbor’s 319
property which could provide access to sewer for that property. He stated that if a 320
subdivision were proposed for the property to the north, there could be right-of-way 321
dedicated from Daisy and easement could be used to provide water to those lots. 322
323
Rhem asked if action should be taken now or whether there would disadvantage to waiting 324
for a rezoning. 325
326
Finke replied that there are implications to a potential buyer related to what could be built on 327
the property and highlighted some of those concerns. He stated that staff would recommend 328
proceeding with the rezoning at this time as that would also implement the guiding of the 329
Comprehensive Plan. 330
331
Humiston asked if the site were not rezoned and the property were purchased, would the 332
property owner then be required to have a septic and well. 333
334
Finke replied that they would not necessarily have to do that and could still request 335
connection to City utilities. 336
337
Ladwig asked if a memorandum of understanding could be issued stating that the ultimate 338
property owner should present a plan with rezoning request to ensure protection for 339
neighboring properties. 340
341
Finke replied that there are protections for neighboring properties regardless of the zoning. 342
343
Ladwig commented that she would want to see the details of a request before making the 344
decision on a rezoning. 345
346
Finke clarified that generally if one single family home meets the zoning requirements, it 347
would not go before the Commission and City Council. He stated that if RRUR were to be 348
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a rezoning would not be required. He stated that if 349
he were going to purchase the property, he would be deterred about presenting plans and a 350
rezoning request for one home. 351
352
Humiston commented that it would also seem to be in the best interest of the City for the 353
property to be sold and ultimately redeveloped. 354
355
Finke commented that there would be benefit in providing the clarity that the property would 356
need to connect to City services rather than a well and septic as would be required under 357
RRUR. 358
359
Ladwig asked if the neighboring property owner would have desire for their property to be 360
rezoned. 361
362
Rhem replied that would be the decision of a future developer. 363
364
Rhem closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. 365
366
8
Humiston commented that this would seem consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 367
would provide clarity on the topic of public utilities versus private well and septic. He noted 368
that this would seem to remove hurdles for sale and development of the property. 369
370
Jacob stated that rezoning to R1 would make sense. 371
372
Ladwig commented that she does not like giving up the discussion with the eventual builder 373
on the lot but agreed that this would match the guiding of the Comprehensive Plan. 374
375
Plec echoed the comments thus far. 376
377
Rhem commented that this lot would not be consistent with the lot size for RRUR and the 378
change to R1 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 379
380
Motion by Jacob, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the rezoning to R1. 381
Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Morse, Piper) 382
383
10. Approval of the November 14, 2023 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 384
385 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to approve the November 14, 2023, Planning 386
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Morse, Piper) 387
388
11. Adjourn 389
390
Motion by Jacob, seconded by Rhem, to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Motion carried 391
unanimously. 392