HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-09-2019 POSTED IN CITY HALL: April 5, 2019
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Public Hearing – 172 Hamel Rd. – Steve Andres – Planned Unit
Development Concept Plan Review for restaurant constructed with
shipping containers
6. Public Hearing – 500 Hamel Road – Patricia Raskob Trust – subdivision
of 8.6 acres into two lots
7. 4790 Rolling Hills Rd. – Jeff Pederson – Site Plan Review request to
construct a mini-storage building
8. Approval of March 12, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
9. Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 April 2, 2019
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 27, 2019
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – April 2, 2019 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Maxxon Variance/Site Plan Review – 920 Hamel Road – The City Council approved a site plan
review for an addition at Maxxon back in 2018. At that time, the applicant had proposed pervious
surfacing in the parking lot to offset the added hardcover for the addition. The City and applicant
have been in discussions about potentially making alternative improvements to the site to capture the
runoff into the Hickory Drive pond project. The applicant has now requested a variance from the
25% hardcover limitation in the Elm Creek shoreland district to invest in the alternative site
improvements rather than pervious bituminous. The Planning Commission reviewed at the March
12 meeting and recommended approval. A public hearing on the variance is scheduled for the April
16 Council meeting.
B) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD Amendment – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested an
amendment to the CD-PUD to shift the location of one of the lots in the development. Staff has
conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing at the March 12 meeting and recommended approval. The Council reviewed at
the March 19 City Council meeting and directed staff to prepare documents for approval, which will
be presented to the Council at the April 2 meeting.
C) School Lake Nature Preserve Easement Vacation – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested
that the City vacate the drainage and utility easements within the lot being re-platted in the
2nd Addition plat. New easements will be granted on the new plat. A public hearing is
scheduled for the April 16 City Council meeting.
D) Raskob Elm Creek Addition – 500 Hamel Road – The John W Raskob Trust has requested to
subdivide the 8 acres (approximately 4 net acres) of property into two separate parcels so
that the family could market the two separately. Staff is conducting a preliminary review
and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when prepared,
potentially at the April 9 meeting.
E) Charlie’s Restaurant PUD Concept – 172 Hamel Road – Steve Andres has requested
review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for construction of a restaurant
at the corner of Hamel Road and Sioux Drive. The applicant seeks a PUD to provide
flexibility to use cargo shipping containers for the building structure. The Planning
Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on April 9, 2019.
F) Medina Mini-Storage Site Plan Review – 4790 Rolling Hills Road – Highway 55 Rental
Portable Storable LLC (Jeff Pederson) has requested a Site Plan Review for construction of
a 5,140 square foot mini-storage building within the existing paved area. The Planning
Commission is scheduled to review on April 9, 2019.
G) Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition/OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of
Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested approval of a site
plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility.
The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to
Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Council adopted approval documents
on November 7. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. The applicant has also
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 April 2, 2019
City Council Meeting
proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which were presented at the Planning Commission
on March 12. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended site plan. Staff
will present to the City Council when the final plat is prepared.
H) Richardson Lot Combination – PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 – Big Island
Land LLC (Dale Richardson) has requested a lot combination of two vacant parcels along
Ardmore Avenue, just west of County Road 19. The parcels do not meet relevant lot
standards and the applicant desires to combine them to construct a single home. The
application is currently incomplete, and staff has requested additional information. Staff will
schedule when complete for review.
I) Theisen Riding Arena CUP – 3325 County Road 24 – Scott and Chantelle Theisen have requested a
CUP for construction of a barn and indoor riding arena. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing at the February 12 meeting and recommended approval. The Council adopted a resolution
of approval on March 19. The project will now be closed
J) Ditter Concept Plan – Jim Ditter, Tom Ditter, and Ditter Properties have requested review of a
concept plan related to the potential subdivision of four existing parcels totaling approximately 25
acres into five lots. The application will be left open in case the Ditters have additional information
to provide in the coming months.
K) Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon, Dykhoff Septic Variance, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul
Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting
the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects.
L) Woods of Medina, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval.
Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded
Other Projects
A) Rezoning for consistency with 2040 Comp Plan – The City Council adopted an ordinance
rezoning 30 parcels for consistency with the updated Comp Plan on March 5, 2019.
B) RR-UR Rezoning – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
rezoning of 5 parcels in the Northwest corner of the City to the Rural Residential-Urban
Reserve (RR-UR) zoning district. These properties were designated Future Development
Area in the updated Comp Plan and are currently zoned Rural Business Holding. An owner
requested that one of the parcels not be rezoned to allow for limited business development in
the next decades until development is permitted. The Planning Commission recommended
3 of the parcels be rezoned to RR-UR, and leaving two commercial. Staff intends to present
the ordinance to the City Council on April 16.
C) Tolomatic Administrative Site Plan Review – Tolomatic has requested approval of a site
plan review to expand its parking lot at 3800 CR 116. The site plan has been approved and
staff will work with the applicant on conditions of approval.
D) Three Rivers Park Administrative Site Plan Review – Three Rivers Park has proposed to
demolish and reconstruct a number of buildings within the Baker Park campground. It
appears that the total square footage of the structures would not increase within the
campground. Staff has reviewed the plans and determined that, subject to conditions noted
in the approval, that the construction complies with relevant requirements.
E) Uptown Hamel – the group of students from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs held Open
Houses on March 2, March 6, March 11, with attendance of a few dozen people total. The group
also met with the Uptown Hamel Business Association. They are putting together a summary of the
feedback, collecting additional surveys, and preparing a visual preference survey for April.
F) Vacation – I will be on vacation March 28-April 3.
TO: City Council
FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 28, 2019
RE: Police Department 2020 Budget
Weather Siren Issue
On March 22nd I was notified that siren #6 malfunctioned. This siren is located by the Hennepin
County Public Works facility. Ready Watt Electric Company is looking into the problem. I have
asked for a repair estimate.
Emergency Management Training for Public Works
On March 27th Sergeant Nelson and I put on a training session for the Public Works Department on
emergency management. Public Work employees have the designation of first responders. The
training was an overview of our emergency plan and an exercise based on the Sun Prairie gas
explosion in 2018.
Commercial Truck Training
Medina Police hosted the State Patrol commercial vehicle enforcement class. The instructor,
Minnesota State Patrol Sergeant Joe Heyman, reviewed the new commercial vehicle statutes, issues
to look for on commercial vehicles, and took the officers out to our shop and went over a truck and
trailer. Sergeant Heyman thanked us and public works for the use of our facility and the truck and
trailer for the inspecting part of the training.
Squads
We are still waiting for the new squads to be delivered. They have been delayed for some reason.
On Monday morning we had an officer hit a family of raccoons on County Road 24, damaging the
front of squad 151. The damage was minor, but it is going to be out of service for two days to
repair the radiator.
Patrol Update:
Training – Officer Scharf is attending two weeks of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training in
White Bear Lake and will become our departments second DRE. This training is very demanding,
and Officer Scharf is currently rated number one in his class. He will graduate from training on 03-
29-19. After that he will fly to Jacksonville, Florida in early April to go through the field
certification process. This costs the department nothing for the training as it is paid for by the State.
MEMORANDUM
Patrol Activities - For the dates of March 14 to March 27, 2019, our officers issued 45 citations
and 80 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 7 traffic accidents, 11 medicals,
6 alarms and 1 DWI.
Officers have been busy watching the local roads for weight restriction violators. With limited
building, we have not been as busy as in years past, but there are still violators out there.
On 03-15-19, Officer Boecker took a theft report at McDonalds. Victim reported leaving his
backpack and i-Pad on one of the benches while he worked. The case has been forwarded to
Investigations.
On 03-16-19, Officers Converse, McGill and I responded to an intoxicated person report at the
Medina Entertainment Center. Upon my arrival, I located an intoxicated male and female across
from the Medina Inn yelling at others. The situation was defused, and the intoxicated parties left
with a sober party.
On 03-18-19 at approximately 0454 hours, Officer Converse was dispatched to a traffic complaint
of a vehicle all over the road. The vehicle pulled into the Casey’s lot and two passengers got out.
When Officer Converse attempted to speak with the driver, the vehicle fled the parking lot and one
of the passengers stated that the driver had taken his vehicle. Officer Converse attempted to stop
the vehicle, but it continued through Corcoran and into Rogers where Officer Converse used a
pursuit intervention technique and spun the vehicle out, but it did not stop. Another passenger fled
and was apprehended. The vehicle was eventually stopped north of Elk River when its tires were
deflated by spikes and the driver was taken into custody. The driver is still in custody at the
Hennepin County Jail on multiple charges.
03-20-19, I stopped a vehicle for speeding and found that he did not have a valid driver license. It
had been taken away as he was a multiple time DWI offender. The driver was arrested and booked
and released from the office.
On 03-20-19, Officer Gregory took a theft of money and lottery ticket report from Casey’s General
Store. The offender was a new employee who admitted to the theft. The case was forwarded to the
Hennepin County Juvenile Attorney’s Office for charging.
Investigation Update:
Medina Officer was involved in a motor vehicle pursuit on 03/18/19 at 5:00am. The vehicle was
eventually stopped by another police department and the driver was taken into custody and brought
to jail. I responded to assist with interviewing the two passengers in the vehicle.
Drafted and executed a search warrant for the vehicle involved in the pursuit.
Met with Hennepin County Child Protection at an address in the city of Medina on a report of
possible child abuse. The investigation is ongoing.
Conducted additional follow up for a case that was submitted to the Hennepin County Attorney’s
office for charging.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: March 26, 2019
MEETING: April 2, 2019
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• Public Works went straight from plowing snow to flood control this year. The wet slushy
snow in December froze early this winter and plugged many culverts in the city. This
causes backups and sometimes flooding. We have had water over the road on Willow,
Tamarack, and Meander these past two weeks. We also had several ditches and streams
that were elevated because of the frozen slush that also caused flooding.
• Public Works has begun crack sealing on Hunter Dr and Medina Rd. We are trying to get
the crack sealing done before the frost goes out and while the cracks are open. This
allows the sealer to get into the cracks without routing them.
• The roads are beginning to settle down and are much smoother than the past two months.
• Seasonal weight restrictions are posted and being enforced by police.
• Both the Hickory Drive and Brockton Lane bid results and resolutions accepting bids are
in your packet.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public works identified a large inflow of surface water into the sewer system this week. It
was part of the trunk line installed in the Toll Brothers development. We are working
with Toll to correct the problem. We have not accepted the project and will make sure all
issues are taken care of prior to any letter of credit reductions.
• Katrina and I still have annual reporting to turn into the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency for the sanitary sewer system, which is due March 31st.
PARKS/TRAILS
• We have an Eagle Scout who has agreed to do the installation of the dugouts and benches
at the Hamel Legion Park on the scheduled weekend of April 13th. The Scout will be
utilizing local resources (residents knowledgeable in the field) to get the installation
complete. Ivan Dingman has also agreed to oversee and make sure the city’s goals are
met.
• The trails have been very icy until recently. Public works will have some clean up as
soon as the threat of snow is gone.
Page 2 of 2
MISCELLANEOUS
• We didn’t receive any applications for the Seasonal Public Works position. This was
posted in the League of MN Cities. Jodi and I will be working on some other options for
posting.
• Katrina is continuing to work on the details for Clean Up Day and everything appears to
be coming together.
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 1 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: April 5, 2019
MEETING: April 9, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Charlie’s – 172 Hamel Road – PUD Concept Plan Review – Public Hearing
Summary of Request
Steve and Richard Andres have requested that the City review a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Concept Plan for installation of a small restaurant constructed with shipping containers at
172 Hamel Road. The applicant is considering a PUD in order to allow flexibility for building
materials and building design standards to allow use of the shipping containers in the building
design.
The proposed restaurant is fairly small, just over 700 square feet, predominantly take-out and
delivery with limited seating. The applicant would be interested in rooftop or patio seating in the
future.
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Hamel Road and Sioux Drive in
Uptown Hamel. The property currently contains a two-story office building and the Hamel
Library. The restaurant is proposed in the northeast quadrant of the property. The site slopes
down steeply north of the parking lot.
St. Anne’s Catholic Church is located to the west of the site, Farmer’s State Bank to the
southeast, and Argent Parc to the southwest.
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 2 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Purpose of Concept Plan Review/Review Criteria
According to Section 827.33 of the City Code: “As the first step in the review procedure for a
PUD, an applicant shall complete and submit…[a] Concept Plan...” “Comments and actions by
the City during review of the Concept Plan are purely advisory and in no way shall bind the City
to subsequent approval…nor imply any future approval.”
The City has a great deal of discretion in the Planned Unit Development. The Concept Plan
process allows the developer to receive feedback in order to determine whether they will invest
in the formal development proposal. The purpose of the PUD district is described below. A
PUD should meet these objectives in order to be approved. The applicant has described how
they believe the criteria are met within their attached narrative.
“Section 827.25. PUD - Planned Unit Development Regulations - Purpose. PUD - Planned
Unit Development 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:
Subd. 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.
Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to
surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and
lower intensity uses.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lower development costs and public investments.
Subd. 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.)
Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.”
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 3 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
The subject property is guided Uptown Hamel in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Uptown
Hamel-2 (UH-2). As described in the PUD purpose above, the Comprehensive Plan provides
guidance during the review of PUDs. The underlying zoning designation is the point of
reference when determining if the requested modifications result in a more desirable
development and better achieve the objectives of the City.
Restaurants are a permitted use within the UH-2 district. The development standards of the
district will be described later.
The Comprehensions Plan includes the following definition and list of objectives for the Uptown
Hamel land use.
“Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be
mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential
development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The Uptown
Hamel area is served by urban services.
The Uptown Hamel land use allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses to create a
vibrant, walkable, and attractive place; a place to shop, work and live.
Objectives:
1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co-exist on adjacent parcels as well as
within the same structure or on the same parcel. Uptown Hamel is intended to provide
flexibility in terms of residential and commercial uses. As a result, it is difficult to project
future uses in the area, but it is estimated that approximately 40% of the land will be
utilized for residential purposes, 40% for commercial uses, and 20% for office uses.
2. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of
buildings, shared parking, on-street, underground, or ramp parking.
3. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and traditional
small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, and overhangs over
the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. Establishment of design guidelines to support this
objective.
4. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning of
these areas.
5. Create master plans for mixed-use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness to
adjacent land uses.
6. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources.
7. Encourage underground or structured parking through flexibility to standards, including
increased residential density up to 20 units per acre.
8. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
9. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
10. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.”
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 4 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Proposed Site Layout
The restaurant is proposed to be located in the greenspace to the northeast of the existing parking
lot on the site. A patio space is also proposed between the parking lot and the restaurant.
The existing two-story building includes approximately 4,000 gross square feet of office space.
The parking area is currently not striped, but the applicant has shown how the lot could be laid
out to accommodate 17 total parking spaces, 5 of which would need to be compact.
The Uptown Hamel district requires buildings to be close to the street with parking behind the
building. The proposed building is approximately one foot from the Sioux Drive right-of-way.
The existing office building is close to Hamel Road. Without moving or removing the historic
Hamel Library, it would be difficult to locate the new structure close to Hamel Road.
The Uptown Hamel districts states “…there shall be no parking between the principal building
and 1) the front property line or 2) the side lot line abutting a street.” The existing parking is
located between the library and Hamel Road, but is not proposed to be expanded. The restaurant
location would be between the parking lot and Sioux Drive.
The following table summarizes the dimensional standards of the Uptown Hamel district and the
proposed concept plan. Flexibility would be permitted through the PUD process if the City
determines such flexibility serves the purposes of the PUD district. In this case, it does not
appear that modifications to the dimensional standards are being requested.
UH Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Size N/A 22,772 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width N/A 161 feet
Minimum Lot Depth N/A 138 feet
Min. Front Yard Setback 0 feet 1 foot (Sioux Dr.)
66 feet (Hamel Rd)
Max. Front Yard Setback 10 feet 1 foot (Sioux Dr.)
66 feet (Hamel Rd)
Rear Yard Setback As necessary 42 feet
Side Yard Setback 0 or 8 feet 121 feet
Max. Building Size 12,000 s.f. 704 square feet
Max Height 50 feet 20 feet
Max. Hardcover 90% 64%
Architectural Design
The applicant proposes to utilize four shipping containers to create the building for the
restaurant. The applicant believes this unique design could draw people to Hamel, as they are
not aware of a similar design in the Midwest. The shipping containers would be a metal exterior,
which is not listed in the allowable materials in Uptown Hamel:
• “Materials. Exterior materials shall consist of one or more of the following: natural brick,
stucco, stone, wood, glass, or commercial grade fiber cement lap siding with a wood
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 5 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
appearance which is installed per manufacturer’s specifications. Treated or anodized
metal may be used for trim.”
The applicant is requesting modification of the exterior material requirements through the PUD
process. The Planning Commission and City Council should provide feedback on whether they
find that this modification serves the purposes of the PUD district.
The Uptown Hamel districts also include the following architectural requirements (in italics):
• General. All new buildings, structures, expansions, remodeling, and development plans shall
conform to these design standards and be compatible and complementary to the buildings
proposed to be retained downtown. Elements of compatibility include, but are not limited to:
building height, form, mass and bulk, fenestration, exterior material appearance, color,
exterior material durability, detailing, setbacks, landscaping, exterior lighting and site
improvements.
• Building - Street. Building design shall make the street visually more interesting,
functionally more enjoyable and useful and economically more viable. Buildings, porches,
and plaza spaces shall be designed to bring the building and its activity more in contact
with the street.
• New Building and Major Expansions. New buildings… should be compatible with adjacent
and nearby buildings. Buildings shall be designed and oriented consistent with this
ordinance, proposed use of the property, uses on adjacent properties and nearby amenities.
Buildings shall be designed and oriented so as not to detract from one another or vistas.
Views from the residential areas should be protected. Where these views exist, partial
loss of the view may be an unintended but justified result when development takes place
consistent with other provisions of this ordinance. Entrances shall be placed for easy access
from the street. Utilities shall be placed underground and meters and transformers shall be
hidden from view.
• Integrate – Coordinate. New buildings, structures, remodeling and expansion shall be
integrated and coordinated with development on abutting property. Elements for
integration and coordination include, but are not limited to, sidewalk and pedestrian
ways and their continuity; site lighting; site access; building orientation; building
entrances…
The design of the building is purposefully unique, and the Planning Commission and Council
should provide feedback on whether they find this to be compatible and complementary with
Uptown Hamel. The patio is proposed as a gathering space to connect with the sidewalk to
Hamel Road. The proposed uses on the site are constructed to share the parking lot and proposed
patio space.
• Porches (Overhangs – Canopies – Arcades). Porches, which overhang into walks, are one
of Uptown Hamel’s trademarks. These features should be preserved, enhanced, and
improved. New commercial structures on Hamel Road and Sioux Drive are expected to be
designed and constructed with these features.
The proposed building design does not include a porch or overhang. The building is not located
near Hamel Road, and will sit substantially above Sioux Drive because of the slope. As a result,
an overhang near the street is not practical. An overhang on the patio could be considered.
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 6 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
• Fenestration – Modulation. Windows and openings shall be generous, especially on the
street side, and their placement and design shall express the pedestrian- friendly, livability
of the town center. …Buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet in frontage
to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include varying building
height, building setback, or building materials/design. At the street level, at least 30 percent
of the façade should be glass in windows and doors.
The building is not greater than 40 feet in frontage in either location, but modulation is provided
with the vertical feature in the center. It appears that less than 30% of the façade facing Hamel
Road and Sioux Drive include glass. Although the building will sit higher than Sioux Drive, it
will still be visible. Staff recommends architectural elements and, if possible, windows to be
incorporated into the eastern building front as well.
• Plazas. Plazas or small extensions of the sidewalk into or on private property are encouraged
especially at key focal points and selected locations. Plazas will serve as a unifying link
between businesses and sidewalks. The design and form of the plazas shall accommodate
social and business interaction, provide a setting for buildings, sidewalks and other plazas,
and should accommodate sitting, watching and in some instances outdoor food services.
Plazas shall include special pavements (for example, concrete brick pavers or exposed
aggregate), decorative lights and decorative trees, shrubs and flowers with emphasis on
providing a variety of color, texture, and form throughout the year. … Decorative fences and
walls will be used to delineate spaces and to accommodate grade changes. Plaza furniture is
encouraged including benches, drinking fountains, bike racks, waste containers, kiosks, and
decorative signs and plaques. Monuments and sculpture will be encouraged e.g. clock towers,
gazebos, water fountains, etc. …”
The applicant proposes a large patio area in front of the restaurant, as is encouraged in the Uptown
Hamel requirements. Design of this patio should account for the items listed above.
Outdoor/Rooftop Dining
The applicant has shown rooftop dining as a future possibility. The scale of the proposed outdoor
area is fairly small, perhaps 18 seats. Uptown Hamel allows outdoor dining areas with the
following requirements:
• Shall be allowed only in connection with a restaurant or bar which has inside seating for at
least 20 people. Roof-top dining is encouraged and must have suitable access and safety
measures for patrons and employees.
• The outdoor dining/drinking/entertainment area shall not be larger than one- half of the
inside seating area.
• The outdoor dining/drinking/entertainment area shall be delineated by decorative fencing,
landscaping, building walls or some combination of these or similar features, and may be
included in the green space areas with the use of pervious surface materials.
• If the sale of intoxicating liquor is inside, the outside area may be required to have all access
to the space from only inside the principal building.
• The establishment’s hours of operation may be limited and noise reduction measures may be
required in order to minimize impact on surrounding land uses.
As proposed, the restaurant would not have sufficient inside seating to allow outdoor dining.
Modifications to these requirements could be provided with the PUD, so staff would recommend
that the Planning Commission and Council provide feedback as well.
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 7 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Parking
The concept plan shows 18 parking spaces, 5 of which are proposed to be compact stalls and 4 of
which are proposed to be parallel stalls along the north of the parking lot. Staff believes the
northwestern most parallel space would be difficult to utilize and should not be encouraged.
Uptown Hamel allows flexibility for parking requirements as follows:
“Flexibility in the number of required off-street parking spaces and loading facilities is allowed
in [Uptown Hamel] because: 1) many parcels were developed prior to enactment of parking and
loading requirements; 2) some parcels are small; 3) some parcels have little open space; and 4)
there is a need to retain continuity of buildings fronting on Hamel Road and in the future on
Sioux Drive, and there is a preference for “infill” on Hamel Road to be buildings, not parking
lots or structures.
In providing this flexibility, the city will consider the use and need for parking, the amount of off-
street parking that is being provided, the amount of nearby on- street parking, any nearby public
parking lots, peak parking demands for the use, joint use of parking facilities, and other relevant
factors. In granting a parking reduction, concern for the overall benefits to the Uptown Hamel
district will be considered as well as use and enjoyment of adjacent properties and economic
impacts.
The city council may establish and allow a fee in lieu of required parking to be paid towards the
full number of off-street parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. The proceeds of this
fee shall be utilized by the city to achieve alternative parking solutions in the Uptown Hamel
Districts. This fee shall be established under the then-current city fee schedule.”
The standard parking requirements are:
The existing office would require
16 parking spaces. The City’s regulations do not account for a takeout style restaurant with
limited seating. Staff reviewed requirements in other communities and found a range of
100-200 s.f. per stall. This would result in 3-7 stalls for the takeout and 6 stalls for the future
rooftop dining. This would result in a parking requirement of 25 parking stalls with the rooftop
dining.
The applicant has indicated that they are working on an agreement with a nearby property to
share parking. The City also operates a parking lot one block to the south. With even a small
amount of shared parking, staff believes the parking needs of the site could be accommodated.
Access/Transportation/Loading
The existing driveway is located approximately 90 feet west of Sioux Drive and 25 feet west of
Mill Drive. The offset of these access points is not ideal, but there is not much which can be
done to improve the access location because of the existing building.
Stacking from the stop sign at east-bound Hamel Road may extend in front of the driveway
location, forcing a vehicle leaving the site to wait to turn left onto Hamel Road. So long as a
vehicle does not block westbound Hamel Road, this should not cause congestion concerns.
Office 1 stall per 250 s.f.
Restaurant 1 stall per 3 seats
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 8 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The applicant proposes a loading dock to the north of the building, which can be accessed from
the site. Loading from the site rather than public streets is strongly encouraged in the Uptown
Hamel area.
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The concept plan does not include grading and drainage plans. Stormwater management is
provided for the Uptown Hamel area in Rainwater Park. The applicant will need to provide
plans for how stormwater from the area of new impervious surface will be conveyed to the
system without impacting adjoining properties.
The location proposed for the restaurant currently slopes about 8 feet to the north and east. The
grading plan will need to show how this can be accommodated without negatively impacting
other property or the right-of-way.
Sewer/Water
An additional water service stub was provided for the property with the Hamel Road
reconstruction. The applicant will either need to show that the existing sewer service will suffice
for both the office building and the restaurant or will need to connect in Hamel Road and
reconstruct the street when complete.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
It appears that a couple of trees would need to be removed in the proposed location of the
building. Removal of two trees is exempt from tree preservation and the removal of 20% of the
significant trees is allowed without replacement.
The applicant has shown landscaping along the patio, but a full landscaping plan will be
provided upon formal application.
Review of Uptown Hamel Standards
The City is currently working with students from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the
University of Minnesota to review the standards of the Uptown Hamel area. A summary of the
public engagement process is expected in early May, after which the City will need to determine
what, if any, changes are appropriate for the Uptown Hamel requirements.
While it is difficult to summarize the feedback, there has been a lot of interest in encouraging
restaurant uses in Hamel. Opinions on architectural design have been mixed but tended towards
traditional architecture. Preference has been towards a diversity of design rather than uniformity.
It will be a fairly long time until the standards of Uptown Hamel are adjusted. On one hand, it
may be preferable for at least the public engagement feedback summarized to inform this
decision. On the other hand, the proposed restaurant is comparatively small in scale and the
design standards in Hamel have evolved over time.
Staff Comments
As noted above, the City has a great deal of discretion in the Planned Unit Development. A PUD
is not intended as merely a means to deviate from the requirements of the zoning code, but rather
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 9 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
to meet the objectives which are described in the PUD purpose and to better active the stated
objectives of the City.
The primary deviations from the standard zoning codes which are requested by the applicant
related to the building materials and the potential rooftop dining. To the extent that flexibility is
sought for parking, this is permitted in the Uptown Hamel standards.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council provide as frank feedback as
possible on the proposal to help the applicant determine how to proceed. If the Planning
Commission and Council find that the deviations sought meet the PUD and other objectives of
the City, staff provided the following comments for consideration during a future formal
application:
1. With the exception of modifications explicitly approved related to building materials and
outdoor dining, the proposed construction shall comply with relevant standards of the
City Code.
2. Additional architectural elements, including windows, should be provided along the
eastern façade.
3. Additional windows should be provided along the southern façade
4. The grading and drainage plan shall be designed to prevent impacts on adjoining property
and, at the least, to convey stormwater from new impervious surfaces to the Uptown
Hamel storm sewer system.
5. Civil plans shall be provided for review and approval of the City Engineer.
6. Conditions related to the outdoor dining area shall be determined during the general plan
of development to limit impacts on other property.
7. Provisions for shared parking should be submitted for review by City staff.
8. Provisions for snow removal which does not impact adjacent property shall be provided
at the general plan of development.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Applicant Narrative
3. Concept Plan
4/5/2019
Project: LR-19-246 – Charlies (172 Hamel) PUD Concept
The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are
only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.
Documents Submitted by Applicant
Document Received
Date
Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 3/11/2019 3/11/2019 3 Application Y
Deposit 3/11/2019 3/11/2019 1 Deposit Y $2000
Narrative 3/11/2019 7 Narrative Y
Concept Plan 3/11/2019 3/6/2019 9 Concept Y
Concept Plan-Updated 3/21/2019 3/21/2019 9 Concept-3-21-2019 Y
Concept Plan-Updated 3/25/2019 3/22/2019 9 Concept-3-25-2019 Y
Topographical Overlay 3/25/2019 3/21/2019 1 Topo Y
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Notice 2/22/2019 12 Notice 15 pages w/ affidavit and list
Engineering Comments 3/20/2019 2 EngComments-3-20
Engineering Comments 3/29/2019 2 EngCommetns-3-29
Legal Comments 3/18/2019 1 LegalComments
Building Official Comments 3/13/2019 1 BuiildingComments
Preliminary Comments 3/20/2019 2 Incomplete-3-20-2019 5 pages w/ enclosures
Planning Commission Report 4/5/2019 9 PCReport 26 pages w/ attachments
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
4/5/2019
1
We are proposing to develop a new restaurant in Downtown Hamel. The restaurant will focus on rotisserie chicken, pizza and side items to provide a take-home family dining experience.
The building’s main structure is to be designed using cargo shipping containers.
Parking agreements have been secure with adjacent lots as well as with current tenants on the property. In addition, we have added spaces to current lot.
The restaurant is to focus on to-go or carry out services but maintain a small number of seats (12-18) and a patio with a firepit for guests to stay and enjoy their dining experience on site.
Some potential features include a simple foundation for ease of construction, a green roof/wall for aesthetic as well as a sustainable approach to the site, and a simple yet modern approach to the interior design. This would include reused architectural elements, barnwood, copper and core 10 steel elements.
The project is to be modern, but respect the nature of Medina and the surrounding areas. The vertical tower feature of the design is intended to drive awareness of downtown Hamel to Highway 55 traffic.
2
§Main building will use high cube 40’ container for back of the house kitchen, 3x 20’ containers will each be used for a display kitchen, cue, order and dine open space and an architectural focal point tower. Some of the side walls and a portion of tower may be clad in reused barnwood from a local salvage.
§Designed by Studio M Architects www.studiomarchitects.net in conjunction with ABConcepts-Richard and Steve Andres (Property Owners) and Grant Bender (Hospitality and Restaurant Professional)
§To be built by Chameleon Concessions (created Cargo Food Authority, Food Truck Hall in MSP Terminal and many other food trucks) www.buildmeafoodtruck.com
§Foundation will be graded slab with utility hock-ups
§HVAC modular units-self contained, utilities-natural gas, electric, city sewer and water
§Green concept design
§Planted rooftop/wall
§Reclaimed local woods as exterior face-keeping Medina style, barn-woods interior with iron (local ironwork form a talented blacksmith in our area) mixed-metal and core 10 steel elements.
§Community Gathering Area-Outdoor Fireplace on patio with sustainable hardscape and landscape
§Solar power
§0% waste initiatives
§Interior live cooking features-Rotisol Rotisserie oven, Turbo-Chef Pizza Ovens, bottled and draft non-alcoholic beverages, ice cream and pies. Featuring many local producers.
§90% carry-out menu concept
3
§Increasingly, restaurateurs are opening new spots in another unlikely location: shipping containers. While it would be easy to
write this off as one more quirky gimmick, shipping containers aren’t just a curiosity. They’re also an inexpensive, sustainable
option for eco-conscious owners looking to lessen the environmental impact of their construction.
§Fusing together 4 shipping containers to meet our kitchen and service needs. “The sustainability piece is huge for us”. “It just fits
in with who we are and our culture and our business model.”Grant Bender
§The design model comes with advantages outside of rescuing shipping containers from a junkyard. One perk is the inexpensive
construction costs that allow developers to avoid the high construction debt that drive plenty of restaurants out of business. There are still permits to secure and modifications to make, but if business fizzles out, you can always pack your shipping container up
and try again somewhere new.
§The compact nature of shipping containers also helps owners squeeze restaurants into tight city spaces
§Made of the same structural steel used to construct bridges and skyscrapers, shipping containers stack and sustain the weight of
other shipping containers during construction.
§What the shipping-container design provides is the ability to prefabricate, to do work in a shop and put it on a truck, ship it to the
site, sit it down on the site, and then just make final connections. That lowers subcontractor labor dramatically.
§Since shipping containers are so easy to modify, stack, and build upon, space can also be expanded in creative ways.
§There’s always the question of endurance: are shipping container restaurants a passing phase or a lasting business model? Theconcept has been making headlines since at least 2010, and few fads last a full decade. But considering the multiple prefab
options coming to market and builders offering specialized consulting services, there’s plenty of indication these repurposed
spaces aren’t going away.
4
Subd. 1 –Innovations in development may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and more efficient use of land
§Shipping containers are a less expensive, sustainable option that lessen the environmental impact of construction. A unique and attractive departure from common design structures in Hamel (Medina).
§The compact nature of shipping containers allows us to bring a new innovative design to Hamel and easily repurpose an empty space due to the ease of use of the structure.
§The shipping container serves as a prefab option with plenty of customization to ensure it blends into the existing environment.
§As the first and only shipping container restaurant in Minnesota, we are already drawing interest from restaurant design publications and other media; downtown Hamel and the city of Medina as well as other local retailers will benefit from the marketing impact this project brings.
Subd. 3 –The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics
§The use of shipping containers will require less grading and disruption to the current space.
§The drainage of the existing property will be enhanced through hardscape and landscape.
§We plan to implement a green roof and wall which is common in shipping container design. These elements preserve and enhance the site naturally.
§Parking agreements have been secure with adjacent lots as well as with current tenants on the property. In addition, we have added spaces to current lot
5
Subd. 5 –Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site and enhanced buffering from adjacent
roadways
§As part of our design, we plan to create community space with a firepit feature and open seating area; we
also hope that this increases traffic to the historic library on the corner.
§Developed site will provide a further buffer from Sioux Rd.
Subd. 7 –An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks and utilities
§The use of a condensed foundational footprint due to modular design will centralize utility hookups and
provide for the need of only one wastewater hook-up and reduced network needs.
§The use of a green roof/wall (common in container design) as well as solar panels and more glazing
(increased thermal efficiencies) due to modular design reduces dependencies and impact to utilities.
Container ”tower” incorporates thermal flow technology and further conserves and moderates utility needs.
§Zero waste initiative due to design will result in less waste removal and provide a cleaner site.
6
7
PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.NOT TO SCALECHARLIES - PROPOSED SITE PLAN1A1.1SITE PLANLOCATIONAREA% OF AREABITUMINOUS AREA: 8,484 SQ. FT.37.7%CONCRETE AREA:1,770 SQ. FT. 7.9%HISTORIC BUILDING AREA:148 SQ. FT.>1%PROPOSED BUILDING AREA:710 SQ. FT.3.2%EXISTING BUILDING AREA:2,434 SQ. FT.10.8%GREENSPACE AREA:8,968 SQ. FT.39.9%TOTAL SITE AREA: 22,514 SQ. FT.
K-3438WELLWORTHTOILETSVITREOUS CHINA
PIZZA PREP TABLETURBOCHEF VACCUMPACKAGERJACKETEDKETTLEROTISSERIETURBOCHEF8'-0"16'-0"8'-6"40'-0"VESTIBULE1A1.3KITCHENORDERING AREA RESTROOM1A1.4KITCHEN27'-1012"1A1.61A1.5FUTURE STAIRTO ROOF TOP DININGPROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN1A1.2FLOOR PLAN
GRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.OPERABLE DOORSH/M DOORPAINTED BLACKFUTURE ROOF TOP CANOPYGLAZINGFUTURE GUARDRAILT.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.T.O. CANOPY STRUCT.16'-6" A.F.F.CONTAINERS TOHAVE WEATHERED STEELAPPEARANCE - TYP.GLAZINGINTERIOR LIT LEDSIGNAGET.O. GLAZING - TYP.7'-2" A.F.F.BTM. OF SIGNAGE18'-0" A.F.F.4"LIVE WALLPROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHWEST ELEVATION1A1.3ELEVATIONS
GLAZINGTOP OF VERTICAL CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FUTURE CANOPYSUPPORTS4"T.O. CANOPY STRUCTURE16'-6" A.F.F.GRADE0'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.4ELEVATIONS
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.H/M DOOR PAINTED BLACK4"GRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CANOPY STRUCTURE16'-6" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - SOUTHWEST ELEVATION1A1.5ELEVATIONS
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.06.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 55340Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS703.21.19PUD REV.03.22.19
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.06.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 55340Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS803.21.19PUD REV.03.22.19
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375
530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230
minneapolis, minnesota 55401
WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NET
STUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.06.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S
172 HAMEL ROAD
HAMEL, MN 55340Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS903.21.19PUD REV.03.22.19
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 1 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: April 5, 2019
MEETING: April 9, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Charlie’s – 172 Hamel Road – PUD Concept Plan Review – Public Hearing
Summary of Request
Steve and Richard Andres have requested that the City review a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Concept Plan for installation of a small restaurant constructed with shipping containers at
172 Hamel Road. The applicant is considering a PUD in order to allow flexibility for building
materials and building design standards to allow use of the shipping containers in the building
design.
The proposed restaurant is fairly small, just over 700 square feet, predominantly take-out and
delivery with limited seating. The applicant would be interested in rooftop or patio seating in the
future.
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Hamel Road and Sioux Drive in
Uptown Hamel. The property currently contains a two-story office building and the Hamel
Library. The restaurant is proposed in the northeast quadrant of the property. The site slopes
down steeply north of the parking lot.
St. Anne’s Catholic Church is located to the west of the site, Farmer’s State Bank to the
southeast, and Argent Parc to the southwest.
AGENDA ITEM: 5
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 2 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Purpose of Concept Plan Review/Review Criteria
According to Section 827.33 of the City Code: “As the first step in the review procedure for a
PUD, an applicant shall complete and submit…[a] Concept Plan...” “Comments and actions by
the City during review of the Concept Plan are purely advisory and in no way shall bind the City
to subsequent approval…nor imply any future approval.”
The City has a great deal of discretion in the Planned Unit Development. The Concept Plan
process allows the developer to receive feedback in order to determine whether they will invest
in the formal development proposal. The purpose of the PUD district is described below. A
PUD should meet these objectives in order to be approved. The applicant has described how
they believe the criteria are met within their attached narrative.
“Section 827.25. PUD - Planned Unit Development Regulations - Purpose. PUD - Planned
Unit Development 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:
Subd. 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.
Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to
surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and
lower intensity uses.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lower development costs and public investments.
Subd. 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.)
Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.”
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 3 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
The subject property is guided Uptown Hamel in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Uptown
Hamel-2 (UH-2). As described in the PUD purpose above, the Comprehensive Plan provides
guidance during the review of PUDs. The underlying zoning designation is the point of
reference when determining if the requested modifications result in a more desirable
development and better achieve the objectives of the City.
Restaurants are a permitted use within the UH-2 district. The development standards of the
district will be described later.
The Comprehensions Plan includes the following definition and list of objectives for the Uptown
Hamel land use.
“Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be
mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential
development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The Uptown
Hamel area is served by urban services.
The Uptown Hamel land use allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses to create a
vibrant, walkable, and attractive place; a place to shop, work and live.
Objectives:
1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co-exist on adjacent parcels as well as
within the same structure or on the same parcel. Uptown Hamel is intended to provide
flexibility in terms of residential and commercial uses. As a result, it is difficult to project
future uses in the area, but it is estimated that approximately 40% of the land will be
utilized for residential purposes, 40% for commercial uses, and 20% for office uses.
2. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of
buildings, shared parking, on-street, underground, or ramp parking.
3. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and traditional
small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, and overhangs over
the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. Establishment of design guidelines to support this
objective.
4. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning of
these areas.
5. Create master plans for mixed-use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness to
adjacent land uses.
6. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources.
7. Encourage underground or structured parking through flexibility to standards, including
increased residential density up to 20 units per acre.
8. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
9. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
10. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.”
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 4 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Proposed Site Layout
The restaurant is proposed to be located in the greenspace to the northeast of the existing parking
lot on the site. A patio space is also proposed between the parking lot and the restaurant.
The existing two-story building includes approximately 4,000 gross square feet of office space.
The parking area is currently not striped, but the applicant has shown how the lot could be laid
out to accommodate 17 total parking spaces, 5 of which would need to be compact.
The Uptown Hamel district requires buildings to be close to the street with parking behind the
building. The proposed building is approximately one foot from the Sioux Drive right-of-way.
The existing office building is close to Hamel Road. Without moving or removing the historic
Hamel Library, it would be difficult to locate the new structure close to Hamel Road.
The Uptown Hamel districts states “…there shall be no parking between the principal building
and 1) the front property line or 2) the side lot line abutting a street.” The existing parking is
located between the library and Hamel Road, but is not proposed to be expanded. The restaurant
location would be between the parking lot and Sioux Drive.
The following table summarizes the dimensional standards of the Uptown Hamel district and the
proposed concept plan. Flexibility would be permitted through the PUD process if the City
determines such flexibility serves the purposes of the PUD district. In this case, it does not
appear that modifications to the dimensional standards are being requested.
UH Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Size N/A 22,772 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width N/A 161 feet
Minimum Lot Depth N/A 138 feet
Min. Front Yard Setback 0 feet 1 foot (Sioux Dr.)
66 feet (Hamel Rd)
Max. Front Yard Setback 10 feet 1 foot (Sioux Dr.)
66 feet (Hamel Rd)
Rear Yard Setback As necessary 42 feet
Side Yard Setback 0 or 8 feet 121 feet
Max. Building Size 12,000 s.f. 704 square feet
Max Height 50 feet 20 feet
Max. Hardcover 90% 64%
Architectural Design
The applicant proposes to utilize four shipping containers to create the building for the
restaurant. The applicant believes this unique design could draw people to Hamel, as they are
not aware of a similar design in the Midwest. The shipping containers would be a metal exterior,
which is not listed in the allowable materials in Uptown Hamel:
x “Materials. Exterior materials shall consist of one or more of the following: natural brick,
stucco, stone, wood, glass, or commercial grade fiber cement lap siding with a wood
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 5 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
appearance which is installed per manufacturer’s specifications. Treated or anodized
metal may be used for trim.”
The applicant is requesting modification of the exterior material requirements through the PUD
process. The Planning Commission and City Council should provide feedback on whether they
find that this modification serves the purposes of the PUD district.
The Uptown Hamel districts also include the following architectural requirements (in italics):
x General. All new buildings, structures, expansions, remodeling, and development plans shall
conform to these design standards and be compatible and complementary to the buildings
proposed to be retained downtown. Elements of compatibility include, but are not limited to:
building height, form, mass and bulk, fenestration, exterior material appearance, color,
exterior material durability, detailing, setbacks, landscaping, exterior lighting and site
improvements.
x Building - Street. Building design shall make the street visually more interesting,
functionally more enjoyable and useful and economically more viable. Buildings, porches,
and plaza spaces shall be designed to bring the building and its activity more in contact
with the street.
x New Building and Major Expansions. New buildings… should be compatible with adjacent
and nearby buildings. Buildings shall be designed and oriented consistent with this
ordinance, proposed use of the property, uses on adjacent properties and nearby amenities.
Buildings shall be designed and oriented so as not to detract from one another or vistas.
Views from the residential areas should be protected. Where these views exist, partial
loss of the view may be an unintended but justified result when development takes place
consistent with other provisions of this ordinance. Entrances shall be placed for easy access
from the street. Utilities shall be placed underground and meters and transformers shall be
hidden from view.
x Integrate – Coordinate. New buildings, structures, remodeling and expansion shall be
integrated and coordinated with development on abutting property. Elements for
integration and coordination include, but are not limited to, sidewalk and pedestrian
ways and their continuity; site lighting; site access; building orientation; building
entrances…
The design of the building is purposefully unique, and the Planning Commission and Council
should provide feedback on whether they find this to be compatible and complementary with
Uptown Hamel. The patio is proposed as a gathering space to connect with the sidewalk to
Hamel Road. The proposed uses on the site are constructed to share the parking lot and proposed
patio space.
x Porches (Overhangs – Canopies – Arcades). Porches, which overhang into walks, are one
of Uptown Hamel’s trademarks. These features should be preserved, enhanced, and
improved. New commercial structures on Hamel Road and Sioux Drive are expected to be
designed and constructed with these features.
The proposed building design does not include a porch or overhang. The building is not located
near Hamel Road, and will sit substantially above Sioux Drive because of the slope. As a result,
an overhang near the street is not practical. An overhang on the patio could be considered.
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 6 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
x Fenestration – Modulation. Windows and openings shall be generous, especially on the
street side, and their placement and design shall express the pedestrian- friendly, livability
of the town center. …Buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet in frontage
to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include varying building
height, building setback, or building materials/design. At the street level, at least 30 percent
of the façade should be glass in windows and doors.
The building is not greater than 40 feet in frontage in either location, but modulation is provided
with the vertical feature in the center. It appears that less than 30% of the façade facing Hamel
Road and Sioux Drive include glass. Although the building will sit higher than Sioux Drive, it
will still be visible. Staff recommends architectural elements and, if possible, windows to be
incorporated into the eastern building front as well.
x Plazas. Plazas or small extensions of the sidewalk into or on private property are encouraged
especially at key focal points and selected locations. Plazas will serve as a unifying link
between businesses and sidewalks. The design and form of the plazas shall accommodate
social and business interaction, provide a setting for buildings, sidewalks and other plazas,
and should accommodate sitting, watching and in some instances outdoor food services.
Plazas shall include special pavements (for example, concrete brick pavers or exposed
aggregate), decorative lights and decorative trees, shrubs and flowers with emphasis on
providing a variety of color, texture, and form throughout the year. … Decorative fences and
walls will be used to delineate spaces and to accommodate grade changes. Plaza furniture is
encouraged including benches, drinking fountains, bike racks, waste containers, kiosks, and
decorative signs and plaques. Monuments and sculpture will be encouraged e.g. clock towers,
gazebos, water fountains, etc. …”
The applicant proposes a large patio area in front of the restaurant, as is encouraged in the Uptown
Hamel requirements. Design of this patio should account for the items listed above.
Outdoor/Rooftop Dining
The applicant has shown rooftop dining as a future possibility. The scale of the proposed outdoor
area is fairly small, perhaps 18 seats. Uptown Hamel allows outdoor dining areas with the
following requirements:
x Shall be allowed only in connection with a restaurant or bar which has inside seating for at
least 20 people. Roof-top dining is encouraged and must have suitable access and safety
measures for patrons and employees.
x The outdoor dining/drinking/entertainment area shall not be larger than one- half of the
inside seating area.
x The outdoor dining/drinking/entertainment area shall be delineated by decorative fencing,
landscaping, building walls or some combination of these or similar features, and may be
included in the green space areas with the use of pervious surface materials.
x If the sale of intoxicating liquor is inside, the outside area may be required to have all access
to the space from only inside the principal building.
x The establishment’s hours of operation may be limited and noise reduction measures may be
required in order to minimize impact on surrounding land uses.
As proposed, the restaurant would not have sufficient inside seating to allow outdoor dining.
Modifications to these requirements could be provided with the PUD, so staff would recommend
that the Planning Commission and Council provide feedback as well.
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 7 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Parking
The concept plan shows 18 parking spaces, 5 of which are proposed to be compact stalls and 4 of
which are proposed to be parallel stalls along the north of the parking lot. Staff believes the
northwestern most parallel space would be difficult to utilize and should not be encouraged.
Uptown Hamel allows flexibility for parking requirements as follows:
“Flexibility in the number of required off-street parking spaces and loading facilities is allowed
in [Uptown Hamel] because: 1) many parcels were developed prior to enactment of parking and
loading requirements; 2) some parcels are small; 3) some parcels have little open space; and 4)
there is a need to retain continuity of buildings fronting on Hamel Road and in the future on
Sioux Drive, and there is a preference for “infill” on Hamel Road to be buildings, not parking
lots or structures.
In providing this flexibility, the city will consider the use and need for parking, the amount of off-
street parking that is being provided, the amount of nearby on- street parking, any nearby public
parking lots, peak parking demands for the use, joint use of parking facilities, and other relevant
factors. In granting a parking reduction, concern for the overall benefits to the Uptown Hamel
district will be considered as well as use and enjoyment of adjacent properties and economic
impacts.
The city council may establish and allow a fee in lieu of required parking to be paid towards the
full number of off-street parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. The proceeds of this
fee shall be utilized by the city to achieve alternative parking solutions in the Uptown Hamel
Districts. This fee shall be established under the then-current city fee schedule.”
The standard parking requirements are:
The existing office would require
16 parking spaces. The City’s regulations do not account for a takeout style restaurant with
limited seating. Staff reviewed requirements in other communities and found a range of
100-200 s.f. per stall. This would result in 3-7 stalls for the takeout and 6 stalls for the future
rooftop dining. This would result in a parking requirement of 25 parking stalls with the rooftop
dining.
The applicant has indicated that they are working on an agreement with a nearby property to
share parking. The City also operates a parking lot one block to the south. With even a small
amount of shared parking, staff believes the parking needs of the site could be accommodated.
Access/Transportation/Loading
The existing driveway is located approximately 90 feet west of Sioux Drive and 25 feet west of
Mill Drive. The offset of these access points is not ideal, but there is not much which can be
done to improve the access location because of the existing building.
Stacking from the stop sign at east-bound Hamel Road may extend in front of the driveway
location, forcing a vehicle leaving the site to wait to turn left onto Hamel Road. So long as a
vehicle does not block westbound Hamel Road, this should not cause congestion concerns.
Office 1 stall per 250 s.f.
Restaurant 1 stall per 3 seats
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 8 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The applicant proposes a loading dock to the north of the building, which can be accessed from
the site. Loading from the site rather than public streets is strongly encouraged in the Uptown
Hamel area.
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The concept plan does not include grading and drainage plans. Stormwater management is
provided for the Uptown Hamel area in Rainwater Park. The applicant will need to provide
plans for how stormwater from the area of new impervious surface will be conveyed to the
system without impacting adjoining properties.
The location proposed for the restaurant currently slopes about 8 feet to the north and east. The
grading plan will need to show how this can be accommodated without negatively impacting
other property or the right-of-way.
Sewer/Water
An additional water service stub was provided for the property with the Hamel Road
reconstruction. The applicant will either need to show that the existing sewer service will suffice
for both the office building and the restaurant or will need to connect in Hamel Road and
reconstruct the street when complete.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
It appears that a couple of trees would need to be removed in the proposed location of the
building. Removal of two trees is exempt from tree preservation and the removal of 20% of the
significant trees is allowed without replacement.
The applicant has shown landscaping along the patio, but a full landscaping plan will be
provided upon formal application.
Review of Uptown Hamel Standards
The City is currently working with students from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the
University of Minnesota to review the standards of the Uptown Hamel area. A summary of the
public engagement process is expected in early May, after which the City will need to determine
what, if any, changes are appropriate for the Uptown Hamel requirements.
While it is difficult to summarize the feedback, there has been a lot of interest in encouraging
restaurant uses in Hamel. Opinions on architectural design have been mixed but tended towards
traditional architecture. Preference has been towards a diversity of design rather than uniformity.
It will be a fairly long time until the standards of Uptown Hamel are adjusted. On one hand, it
may be preferable for at least the public engagement feedback summarized to inform this
decision. On the other hand, the proposed restaurant is comparatively small in scale and the
design standards in Hamel have evolved over time.
Staff Comments
As noted above, the City has a great deal of discretion in the Planned Unit Development. A PUD
is not intended as merely a means to deviate from the requirements of the zoning code, but rather
Charlies – 172 Hamel Road Page 9 of 9 April 9, 2019
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
to meet the objectives which are described in the PUD purpose and to better active the stated
objectives of the City.
The primary deviations from the standard zoning codes which are requested by the applicant
related to the building materials and the potential rooftop dining. To the extent that flexibility is
sought for parking, this is permitted in the Uptown Hamel standards.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council provide as frank feedback as
possible on the proposal to help the applicant determine how to proceed. If the Planning
Commission and Council find that the deviations sought meet the PUD and other objectives of
the City, staff provided the following comments for consideration during a future formal
application:
1. With the exception of modifications explicitly approved related to building materials and
outdoor dining, the proposed construction shall comply with relevant standards of the
City Code.
2. Additional architectural elements, including windows, should be provided along the
eastern façade.
3. Additional windows should be provided along the southern façade
4. The grading and drainage plan shall be designed to prevent impacts on adjoining property
and, at the least, to convey stormwater from new impervious surfaces to the Uptown
Hamel storm sewer system.
5. Civil plans shall be provided for review and approval of the City Engineer.
6. Conditions related to the outdoor dining area shall be determined during the general plan
of development to limit impacts on other property.
7. Provisions for shared parking should be submitted for review by City staff.
8. Provisions for snow removal which does not impact adjacent property shall be provided
at the general plan of development.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Applicant Narrative
3. Concept Plan
4/5/2019 Project: LR-19-246 – Charlies (172 Hamel) PUD Concept The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 3/11/2019 3/11/2019 3 Application Y Deposit 3/11/2019 3/11/2019 1 Deposit Y $2000 Narrative 3/11/2019 7 Narrative Y Concept Plan 3/11/2019 3/6/2019 9 Concept Y Concept Plan-Updated 3/21/2019 3/21/2019 9 Concept-3-21-2019 Y Concept Plan-Updated 3/25/2019 3/22/2019 9 Concept-3-25-2019 Y Topographical Overlay 3/25/2019 3/21/2019 1 Topo Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Notice 2/22/2019 12 Notice 15 pages w/ affidavit and list Engineering Comments 3/20/2019 2 EngComments-3-20 Engineering Comments 3/29/2019 2 EngCommetns-3-29 Legal Comments 3/18/2019 1 LegalComments Building Official Comments 3/13/2019 1 BuiildingComments Preliminary Comments 3/20/2019 2 Incomplete-3-20-2019 5 pages w/ enclosures Planning Commission Report 4/5/2019 9 PCReport 26 pages w/ attachments Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes
4/5/2019
1
We are proposing to develop a new restaurant in Downtown Hamel. The restaurant will focus on rotisserie chicken, pizza and side items to provide a take-home family dining experience. The building’s main structure is to be designed using cargo shipping containers. Parking agreements have been secure with adjacent lots as well as with current tenants on the property. In addition, we have added spaces to current lot.The restaurant is to focus on to-go or carry out services but maintain a small number of seats (12-18) and a patio with a firepit for guests to stay and enjoy their dining experience on site. Some potential features include a simple foundation for ease of construction, a green roof/wall for aesthetic as well as a sustainable approach to the site, and a simple yet modern approach to the interior design. This would include reused architectural elements, barnwood, copper and core 10 steel elements. The project is to be modern, but respect the nature of Medina and the surrounding areas. The vertical tower feature of the design is intended to drive awareness of downtown Hamel to Highway 55 traffic. 2
Main building will use high cube 40’ container for back of the house kitchen, 3x 20’ containers will each be used for a display kitchen, cue, order and dine open space and an architectural focal point tower. Some of the side walls and a portion of tower may be clad in reused barnwood from a local salvage.Designed by Studio M Architects www.studiomarchitects.netin conjunction with ABConcepts-Richard and Steve Andres (Property Owners) and Grant Bender (Hospitality and Restaurant Professional) To be built by Chameleon Concessions (created Cargo Food Authority, Food Truck Hall in MSP Terminal and many other food trucks) www.buildmeafoodtruck.comFoundation will be graded slab with utility hock-upsHVAC modular units-self contained, utilities-natural gas, electric, city sewer and waterGreen concept designPlanted rooftop/wallReclaimed local woods as exterior face- keeping Medina style, barn-woods interior with iron (local ironwork form a talented blacksmith in our area) mixed-metal and core 10 steel elements.Community Gathering Area-Outdoor Fireplace on patio with sustainable hardscape and landscape Solar power0% waste initiatives Interior live cooking features- RotisolRotisserie oven, Turbo-Chef Pizza Ovens, bottled and draft non-alcoholic beverages, ice cream and pies. Featuring many local producers.90% carry-out menu concept3
Increasingly, restaurateurs are opening new spots in another unlikely location: shipping containers. While it would be easy to write this off as one more quirky gimmick, shipping containers aren’t just a curiosity. They’re also an inexpensive, sustainableoption for eco-conscious owners looking to lessen the environmental impact of their construction.Fusing together 4 shipping containers to meet our kitchen and service needs. “The sustainability piece is huge for us”. “It just fits in with who we are and our culture and our business model.” Grant BenderThe design model comes with advantages outside of rescuing shipping containers from a junkyard. One perk is the inexpensive construction costs that allow developers to avoid the high construction debt that drive plenty of restaurants out of business. There are still permits to secure and modifications to make, but if business fizzles out, you can always pack your shipping container up and try again somewhere new.The compact nature of shipping containers also helps owners squeeze restaurants into tight city spacesMade of the same structural steel used to construct bridges and skyscrapers, shipping containers stack and sustain the weight ofother shipping containers during construction.What the shipping-container design provides is the ability to prefabricate, to do work in a shop and put it on a truck, ship it to the site, sit it down on the site, and then just make final connections. That lowers subcontractor labor dramatically.Since shipping containers are so easy to modify, stack, and build upon, space can also be expanded in creative ways.There’s always the question of endurance: are shipping container restaurants a passing phase or a lasting business model? Theconcept has been making headlines since at least 2010, and few fads last a full decade. But considering the multiple prefab options coming to market and builders offering specialized consulting services, there’s plenty of indication these repurposedspaces aren’t going away.4
Subd. 1 – Innovations in development may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and more efficient use of landShipping containers are a less expensive, sustainable option that lessen the environmental impact of construction. A unique and attractive departure from common design structures in Hamel (Medina).The compact nature of shipping containers allows us to bring a new innovative design to Hamel and easily repurpose an empty space due to the ease of use of the structure. The shipping container serves as a prefab option with plenty of customization to ensure it blends into the existing environment.As the first and only shipping container restaurant in Minnesota, we are already drawing interest from restaurant design publications and other media; downtown Hamel and the city of Medina as well as other local retailers will benefit from the marketing impact this project brings.Subd. 3 – The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristicsThe use of shipping containers will require less grading and disruption to the current space.The drainage of the existing property will be enhanced through hardscape and landscape.We plan to implement a green roof and wall which is common in shipping container design. These elements preserve and enhance the site naturally.Parking agreements have been secure with adjacent lots as well as with current tenants on the property. In addition, we have added spaces to current lot5
Subd. 5 – Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site and enhanced buffering from adjacent roadwaysAs part of our design, we plan to create community space with a firepit feature and open seating area; we also hope that this increases traffic to the historic library on the corner.Developed site will provide a further buffer from Sioux Rd.Subd. 7 – An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks and utilitiesThe use of a condensed foundational footprint due to modular design will centralize utility hookups and provide for the need of only one wastewater hook-up and reduced network needs.The use of a green roof/wall (common in container design) as well as solar panels and more glazing (increased thermal efficiencies) due to modular design reduces dependencies and impact to utilities. Container ”tower” incorporates thermal flow technology and further conserves and moderates utility needs.Zero waste initiative due to design will result in less waste removal and provide a cleaner site.6
7
PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.NOT TO SCALECHARLIES - PROPOSED SITE PLAN1A1.1SITE PLANLOCATIONAREA% OF AREABITUMINOUS AREA: 8,484 SQ. FT. 37.7%CONCRETE AREA: 1,770 SQ. FT. 7.9%HISTORIC BUILDING AREA: 148 SQ. FT. >1%PROPOSED BUILDING AREA: 710 SQ. FT. 3.2%EXISTING BUILDING AREA: 2,434 SQ. FT. 10.8%GREENSPACE AREA: 8,968 SQ. FT. 39.9%TOTAL SITE AREA: 22,514 SQ. FT.
K-3438WELLWORTHTOILETSVITREOUS CHINA PIZZA PREP TABLETURBOCHEFVACCUMPACKAGERJACKETEDKETTLEROTISSERIE TURBOCHEF8'-0"16'-0"8'-6"40'-0"VESTIBULE1A1.3KITCHENORDERING AREARESTROOM1A1.4KITCHEN27'-1012"1A1.61A1.5FUTURE STAIRTO ROOF TOP DININGPROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN1A1.2FLOOR PLAN
GRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.OPERABLE DOORSH/M DOORPAINTED BLACKFUTURE ROOF TOP CANOPYGLAZINGFUTURE GUARDRAILT.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.T.O. CANOPY STRUCT.16'-6" A.F.F.CONTAINERS TOHAVE WEATHERED STEELAPPEARANCE - TYP.GLAZINGINTERIOR LIT LEDSIGNAGET.O. GLAZING - TYP.7'-2" A.F.F.BTM. OF SIGNAGE18'-0" A.F.F.4"LIVE WALLPROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHWEST ELEVATION1A1.3ELEVATIONS
GLAZINGTOP OF VERTICAL CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FUTURE CANOPYSUPPORTS4"T.O. CANOPY STRUCTURE16'-6" A.F.F.GRADE0'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.4ELEVATIONS
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.H/M DOOR PAINTED BLACK4"GRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CANOPY STRUCTURE16'-6" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - SOUTHWEST ELEVATION1A1.5ELEVATIONS
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.21.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 5534003.22.19PUD REV.Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.06.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 55340Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS703.21.19PUD REV. 03.22.19
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.06.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 55340Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS803.21.19PUD REV. 03.22.19
T.O. CONTAINER8'-6" A.F.F.FIXED DOORS WELDED IN PLACEGRADE0'-0" A.F.F.T.O. CONTAINER20'-0" A.F.F.PROJECT #:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:ISSUE: DATE:p. 612.524.5375530 NORTH 3RD STREET #230minneapolis, minnesota 55401WWW.STUDIOMARCHITECTS.NETSTUDIO M ARCHITECTS, INC.C 2013 STUDIO M ARCHITECTSf. 612.844.1240SHEET TITLE:1592SMAAM03.06.19PUD SUB.CHARLIE'S172 HAMEL ROADHAMEL, MN 55340Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"CHARLIES - NORTHEAST ELEVATION1A1.6ELEVATIONS903.21.19PUD REV. 03.22.19
Raskob Elm Creek Addn Page 1 of 5 April 9, 2019
Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: April 4, 2019
MEETING: April 9, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – Patricia Raskob Trust – Preliminary Plat – 500 Hamel Rd.
Background
The Patricia Raskob Trust has requested a subdivision of approximately 8.63 acres of property
into two lots. The subject property is located at 500 Hamel Road, north of Hamel Road at the
intersection with Elm Creek Drive. No development is proposed at this time. The property
owner seeks to split the parcel so that they can market and sell the eastern and western parcels
independently. Construction on either lot would be reviewed through a future process.
The subject property is currently vacant and surrounds a separate 1-acre parcel containing a
single-family home at 492 Hamel Road. Elm Creek flows along the eastern side of the subject
property, and the northern 1/3 of the parcel slopes down to a wetland located adjacent to the
railroad right-of-way. A City stormwater pond is located upon the western 1.4 acres of the site.
An aerial of the site and surrounding lands can be found below.
Raskob Elm Creek Addn Page 2 of 5 April 9, 2019
Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Property to the west is zoned Commercial-General and contains warehouse uses. Rainwater
Nature Area is located to the east. The land south of Hamel Road is zoned Urban Commercial
and contains single family homes. Property to the southwest is zoned Multiple Family
Residential and contains 4-plexes. Railroad and then Highway 55 right-of-way is located to the
north.
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Information
The subject site is guided Uptown Hamel in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Mixed
Use. The City is currently reviewing standards which apply to Uptown Hamel property and it is
likely that the City may initiate a rezoning of the property following the Uptown Hamel process.
The Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be mixed on adjacent
sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential development in this
designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per net acre
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing property into two lots with gross area of 6.72
acres and 1.78 acres. The wetlands, floodplains, and the pond to the northwest, reduce the
buildable portions of the lots to 3.4 acres and 0.5 acres, respectively.
The subject property is currently zoned Mixed Use, but is expected to be rezoned to Uptown
Hamel. Dimensional standards within the Mixed Use (MU) and Uptown Hamel (UH) districts
are both generally based on density and setbacks rather than lot size, width, and depth. The
proposed lots would meet the limited dimensional standards of either the MU or UH districts.
MU
Requirement
UH
Requirement
Lot 1 Lot 2
Gross Lot Area Based on density Based on Density 6.72 acre 1.78 acres
Net Area No Minimum No Minimum 4.9 acre
3.4 w/o pond
0.5 acre
Minimum Lot Width 90-100 feet No Minimum 583 feet 200 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 100-120 feet No Minimum 485 feet 372 feet
Max Hardcover 50-75% 90%
Max Hardcover –
Shoreland Overlay
25% max
Proposed Lot 2 would be located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Elm Creek. The
required structure setback from Elm Creek is 50 feet and hardcover is limited to 25% of the lot
area outside of the floodplain. This would result in approximately 6,600 square feet of hardcover
being permitted on Lot 2, which will limit the intensity of development. Staff recommends a
condition that the applicant acknowledge the limitation on hardcover for Lot 2 and that any
difficulty resulting from the lot area of lot 2 was created by the landowner. This would help to
notify prospective buyers of the limitation and deter a request for variance.
Raskob Elm Creek Addn Page 3 of 5 April 9, 2019
Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Wetlands/Floodplains
As noted above, Elm Creek flows along the east side of the site and there is a wetland along the
north of the property. These areas are identified as part of the floodplain of Elm Creek.
To provide access for the eastern lot (Lot 2), the applicant proposes to fill a portion of the
floodplain adjacent to Hamel Road. The Elm Creek Watershed requires that compensatory
floodplain storage be provided for any fill within the wetland. The applicant has provided a
grading plan to mitigate for the proposed fill. This plan will be subject to Elm Creek Watershed
and City Engineer approval.
Although the floodplain elevation has been established at 974.6, the floodplain is shown larger
on FEMA maps. The applicant will need to obtain a letter of map amendment (LOMA) from
FEMA to avoid the requirement for flood insurance.
The City’s wetland protection ordinance requires a buffer with an average width of 30 feet
adjacent to the wetland. The width of the buffer can be averaged to a minimum of 20 feet. Staff
recommends a condition requiring that the applicant provide information to verify that the
average of 30 feet is provided.
The Elm Creek Watershed requires a 50-foot buffer adjacent to Elm Creek, the width of which
can also be averaged.
Transportation, Streets and Right-of-way
Matters related to access, including location and necessary improvements at such locations, will
be determined based upon proposed use during future development proposals.
The Hamel Road right-of-way adjacent to the site is currently 66 feet in width. Staff has
recommended an additional 7 feet of right-of-way to provide flexibility for future street
widening, pedestrian improvements, or potential on-street parking. The applicant has included
this right-of-way on the preliminary plat.
Sewer/Water/Easements
At this time, the applicant is proposing to split the lot, and sewer and water improvements will be
constructed when development occurs in the future. A sewer main is located north of Hamel
Road and a watermain south of Hamel Road. Staff recommends a condition requiring that the
owners record an agreement against the property noting improvements and financial guarantees
will be required upon future development.
Park Dedication
The City’s subdivision ordinance requires the following to be dedicated for parks, trails and
public open space purposes, at the City’s option:
• Up to 10% of the buildable land (in this case = 0.43 acres)
• Cash-in-lieu of land – 8% of the pre-developed market value; minimum of
$3500/residential unit (in this case = $56,000)
• Combination of the above
Raskob Elm Creek Addn Page 4 of 5 April 9, 2019
Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
The subject property has approximately 6.9 buildable acres, with 4.3 acres outside of the
stormwater pond easement. The City Assessor has estimated the market value of the property at
$700,000. This results in the option of 0.43 acres of land or $56,000 cash-in-lieu.
The City’s Park Trail does not identify need for a park in the area. Rainwater Nature Preserve is
located immediately to the east and both Hamel Legion Park and Hunter Lion’s Park are located
within ½ mile. The Trail Plan shows a trail completing the gap along Hamel Road in front of the
property. Staff believes this trail should be constructed within the right-of-way.
Staff recommends that cash be required in-lieu of land dedication.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions,
the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the
following findings are made:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city,
or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are
such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does
not meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
The City’s has a relatively low amount of discretion with regard to reviewing subdivisions. If
the subdivision meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it
should be approved.
Subject to the following conditions, staff does not believe these findings are met. As a result,
staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The Owner shall enter into a agreement with the City to ensure future completion of
floodplain mitigation, construction of utility improvements, upland buffer completion and
other relevant conditions of approval and City requirements.
2. The Applicant shall provide documentation to verify that the minimum average upland
buffer has been provided.
3. Approval shall be contingent upon approval of the floodplain mitigation plan by the City
Engineer and Elm Creek Watershed.
4. The Owner shall obtain a letter of map amendment for any construction on Lot 2.
5. The Owner acknowledges that Lot 2 is subject to the requirements of the shoreland
overlay district, including the limitation of impervious surfaces to 25% of the lot area
above the floodplain elevation. The lot area of Lot 2 above the flood elevation is 26,421
Raskob Elm Creek Addn Page 5 of 5 April 9, 2019
Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
square feet, allowing no more than 6,605 square feet of impervious surfaces. Any
difficulty which results from the subdivision of land as proposed or the lot area of Lot 2
has been created by the Owner.
6. The Owner shall pay cash-in-lieu of dedication park land in an amount of $56,000
7. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the city council
resolution granting preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless
a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the
City Council.
8. The Owner shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant
documents.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Preliminary Plat dated 3/8/2019
4/5/2019
Project: LR-18-237 – Raskob Elm Creek Prelim Plat
The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are
only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.
Documents Submitted by Applicant
Document Received
Date
Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 3 Application Y
Title Commitment 12/6/2018 12/6/2018 5 Title Committment Y $2000
Division Exhibit 11/9/2018 NA 1 Exhibit Y
Prelim Plat Deadline
Waiver
1/24/2019 1/24/2019 1 PrePlatWaiver Y
Final Plat Withdrawal 1/22/2019 1/22/2019 1 FinalPlatWithdrawal Y
Preliminary Plat 12/11/2018 12/11/2018 1 PrePlat Y
Preliminary Plat-Updated 12/24/2018 12/24/2018 1 PrePlat-12-24-2018 Y
Preliminary Plat-Updated 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 1 prePlat-1-11-2019 Y
Preliminary Plat-Updated 3/8/2019 3/8/2019 1 PrePlat-3-8-2019 Y
Final Plat 12/11/2018 NA 2 Final Plat Y
Final Plat-Updated 12/24/2018 NA 2 Final Plat-12-24-2018 Y
Final Plat-Updated 1/11/2019 NA 2 FinalPlat-1-11-2019 Y
Floodplain Mitigation Plan 3/8/2019 3/8/2019 1 Floodplain Y
Floodplain Mitigation Plan 3/28/2019 3/26/2019 2 Floodplain-3-29-2019 Y
<over>
4/5/2019
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Notice 3/28/2019 2 Notice 5 pages w/ affidavit and list
Engineering Comments 4/4/2019 1 EngComments
Elm Creek 3/29/2019 5 ElmCreek Cond. Approval
Legal Comments 12/18/2018 1 LegalComments
Plat Opinion 12/19/2018 4 PlatOpinion
Building Official Comments 3/13/2019 1 BuiildingComments No Comments
Park Dedication Value 12/18/2019 1 ParkValue
Preliminary Comments 11/19/2018 1 Incomplete-11-19-2018
Preliminary Comments 12/19/2018 2 Incomplete-12-19-2018
Planning Commission Report 4/4/2019 5 PCReport 8 pages w/ attachments
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
UR
UC
UC
UR
UC
UR
Block
1
2
1
SCALE IN FEET
0 50 10025
N
LEGEND
1. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY, THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON SURVEY
DATA FOR THE VISIBLE SURFACE APPURTENANCES. THE SURVEYOR
MAKES NO GUARANTEES THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN
SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT
WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE
EXACT LOCATION INDICATED, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE LOCATED AS
ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN PHYSICALLY LOCATED.
PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION THE EXCAVATOR IS REQUIRED TO CALL
"GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" AT 651-454-0002 FOR UTILITY TYPE AND
FIELD LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES / STRUCTURES.
375,847 SQ. FT. OR 8.63 ACRES
JOHN W. RASKOB
345 COMANCHE TRAIL
HAMEL, MN 55340
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OWNER
EXISTING ZONING
NOTES
LOT DESIGN NUMBER
MIXED USE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA
2 LOTS
INTERMEDIATE
CONTOURS:
INDEX
TELEPHONE BOX
CHAIN LINK FENCE
STREET SIGN
LIGHT POLE
IRON FOUND
IRON SET
STORM SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
VALVE
CATCH BASIN
HYDRANT
WATERMAIN
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
POWER POLE
GUY WIRE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
WETLAND
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 34, RANGE 19
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NO SCALE
SITE
N
VICINITY MAP
EASEMENTS
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN.
Lot 5 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 241, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according
to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Titles in and
for said County, except as follows:
(1)The South 209.00 feet of the West 209.00 feet of that part of Lot 5 lying
Easterly of a line drawn at a right angle to the South line of said Lot 5 from
a point thereon distant 409.00 feet Westerly of the Southeast corner of
said Lot 5 as measured along said South line.
(2)Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence South along the
East line of said Lot 5 to a point of intersection with a line which is parallel
with and 30.00 feet distant Southerly (measured at right angles) from the
North line of said Lot 5; thence Westerly along said last mentioned parallel
line a distance of 588.00 feet; thence Northerly at right angles a distance
of 30.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 5; thence Easterly along the
North line of said Lot 5 to the place of beginning.www.landform.net580 Dodge Ave., Suite 15 Elk River, Minnesota 55330(763) 441-2072TOPOGRAPHY PER JOHN OLIVER & ASSOCIATES,
EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAWING, 01/20/2005.
STORM WATER PONDS PER WSB, 2018.
TOPOGRAPHY
LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
580 DODGE AVENUE NW
SUITE 15
ELK RIVER, MN 55330
PH. (612) 252-9070
SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS
1920 S.F. X 1.5 FT. DEPTH
= 2,880 PROPOSED CUBIC FT. FILL
PROPOSED FLOOD PLAIN FILL
435 S.F.
WETLAND BUFFER VARIANCE
[991.32]FFE[991.90]FFE[991.35]FFE[991.93]FFE[992.52]FFE[992.52]FFE[992.74]FFE[992.72]FFE[992.13]FFE[992.75]FFE[992.14]FFE[992.16]FFE[991.58]FFE[992.14]FFE[991.54]FFE[991.58]FFE[991.62]FFE[991.42]FFE[991.48]FFE[991.51]FFE[992.13]FFE[991.41]FFE[992.10]FFE[992.08]FFE[992.78]FFE[992.80]FFE[992.74]FFE[992.73]FFE[992.82]FFE[992.12]FFE[992.16]FFE[991.59]FFE[991.61]FFE[992.76]FFE[992.11]FFEEOFEOFFFE = 991.34FFE = 991.91FFE = 992.52FFE = 992.74FFE = 992.14FFE = 991.58BUILDINGEXISTINGFFE = 992.77FFE = 991.14FFE = 991.60XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 55HIGHWAY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 284399310028.5TRANSMISSION EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 3145397COMMUNICATION EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 5916318ROLLING HILLS RD
E X C E P T I O N210
175 220
175
220 4050EOF=985.5 (PER PLAN)MEDINA MINI-STORAGE EXPANSION
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING CONDITIONS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700
[991.32]FFE[991.90]FFE[991.35]FFE[991.93]FFE[992.52]FFE[992.52]FFE[992.74]FFE[992.72]FFE[992.13]FFE[992.75]FFE[992.14]FFE[992.16]FFE[991.58]FFE[992.14]FFE[991.54]FFE[991.58]FFE[991.62]FFE[991.42]FFE[991.48]FFE[991.51]FFE[992.13]FFE[991.41]FFE[992.10]FFE[992.08]FFE[992.78]FFE[992.80]FFE[992.74]FFE[992.73]FFE[992.82]FFE[992.12]FFE[992.16]FFE[991.59]FFE[991.61]FFE[992.76]FFE[992.11]FFEEOFEOFFFE = 991.34FFE = 991.91FFE = 992.52FFE = 992.74FFE = 992.14FFE = 991.58BUILDINGEXISTINGFFE = 992.77FFE = 991.14FFE = 991.60XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X XXXXXXHIGHWAY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 2843993COMMUNICATION EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 5916318ROLLING HILLS RD
E X C E P T I O N175
220
220 4050EOF=985.5 (PER PLAN)MEDINA MINI-STORAGE EXPANSION
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING CONDITIONS ENLARGED 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700SET IPELECTRIC PEDESTALSTORM DRAINTRANSFORMERFOUND IPTELEPHONEGASWATERSTORM SEWERSTATION MARKFIBER OPTICELECTRICELECTRIC METERF.E.S.OVERHEAD UTILITYUTILITY POLEGAS LOCATION CONNECTTELEPHONE PEDESTALGUY WIRECONCRETE CURBINGFENCEBITUMINOUS SURFACEGRAVEL SURFACEFENCEEDGE OF WATERLIGHT779,325 SF 17.89 ACAS-BUILT SURVEY PROVIDED BY EVS, INC. (12/07/17)
HIGHWAY EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 2843993COMMUNICATION EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 5916318ROLLING HILLS RD
E X C E P T I O N175
220
220 405040000987.07CK SHOT CP10 11-17-1640015989.543IN"40016986.983IN"40017987.433IN"40018986.91BUSH40019987.53BUSH40020987.03BUSH40021989.37BUSH40022989.74BUSH40023989.82BUSH40024988.78BUSH40025988.24BUSH40026988.04BUSH40027985.92BUSH40028986.52BUSH40029990.65BUSH40030992.12BUSH40031992.11BUSH40032992.10BUSH40033992.12BUSH40034992.54BUSH40035992.32BUSH40036993.20BUSH40037991.72FIR 6FT40038994.55FIR 6FT40039996.53PINE 6FT40040997.79PINE 6FT40046990.52GATE40047990.89GATE40048990.87BUSH40049990.75BUSH40050991.02BUSH40051990.86BUSH40052991.04BUSH40053991.03BUSH40054989.72BUSH40055990.09BUSH40056989.27BUSH40057989.73BUSH40058989.62BUSH40059988.98BUSH40060990.96FIR 6FT40062991.48BUSH40063991.37BUSH40064991.43BUSH40065990.923IN"40066991.12FIR 6FT40067989.803IN"40068989.273IN"40069991.19BUSH40071991.07BUSH40072991.53BUSH40073991.57GATE40074991.85GATE40076991.69PINE 6FT40077991.81PINE 6FT40078992.11PINE 6FT40079989.923IN"40080990.853IN"40081991.84BUSH40082991.86BUSH40083990.99BUSH40084987.04CK SHOT CP1040085989.463IN"40086987.942IN"40087987.022IN"40088986.303IN"40089989.85BUSH40090989.92BUSH40091989.71BUSH40092986.232IN"40093986.243IN"40094989.85BUSH40095990.292IN"40096990.31BUSH40097990.73BUSH40098990.922IN"40099987.702IN"40100986.623IN"40101990.692IN"40102990.87BUSH40103990.902IN"40104990.722IN"40105990.63BUSH40106990.51BUSH40107990.64BUSH40108990.43BUSH40109990.762IN"40110990.65BIRCH40111990.19BIRCH40112987.39BIRCH40113986.36BIRCH40114985.41PINE 6FT40115986.52PINE 6FT40116986.44PINE 6FT40117986.83BUSH40118987.14BUSH40119987.38BUSH40120987.58BUSH40121987.88FIR 6FT40122987.04FIR 6FT40123987.11FIR 6FT40124986.70FIR 6FT40125986.982IN"40126987.642IN"40127986.692IN"40128988.222IN"40204982.79RCP INV 15IN30018992.32BOLLARD30028991.23BOLLARD30030991.25BOLLARD30047992.44BOLLARD30050992.45BOLLARD30051992.62BOLLARD30054992.71BOLLARD30072990.60GATE30075989.88GATE30124990.28GATE30125990.52GATE30137990.94BOLLARD30140991.00BOLLARD30166992.50KEY PAD30167991.11BOLLARD30168991.1850030169991.4050030170991.4850030171991.20BOLLARD30203989.12KEV PAD302841000.53CK SHOT CP3 11-17-16989.96CK SHOT CP11989.97CK SHOT CP11FFE = 991.34FFE = 991.91FFE = 992.52FFE = 992.74FFE = 992.14FFE = 991.58BUILDINGEXISTINGFFE = 992.77FFE = 991.14FFE = 991.60XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X XXXXXXMEDINA MINI-STORAGE EXPANSION
SITE PLAN REVIEW
SITE PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700EXISTING WETLAND EDGEPROPOSED WALL MOUNTED LIGHTEXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE87,786 SFPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE87,786 SFNET INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 0 SFEXISTING BUILDING AREAS:BUILDING A 4,600 SFBUILDING B 9,400 SFBUILDING C10,800 SFBUILDING D 10,400 SFTOTAL EXISTING BUILDING AREA35,200 SFPROPOSED BUILDING AREA 4,320 SF% INCREASE IN BUILDING AREA 12.3 %PAVEMENT SECTIONNOT TO SCALE1
COMMUNICATION EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 591631840000987.07CK SHOT CP10 11-17-1640015989.543IN"40016986.983IN"40017987.433IN"40018986.91BUSH40019987.53BUSH40020987.03BUSH40021989.37BUSH40022989.74BUSH40023989.82BUSH40024988.78BUSH40025988.24BUSH40026988.04BUSH40027985.92BUSH40028986.52BUSH40029990.65BUSH40030992.12BUSH40031992.11BUSH40032992.10BUSH40033992.12BUSH40034992.54BUSH40035992.32BUSH40036993.20BUSH40037991.72FIR 6FT40038994.55FIR 6FT40039996.53PINE 6FT40040997.79PINE 6FT40046990.52GATE40047990.89GATE40048990.87BUSH40049990.75BUSH40050991.02BUSH40051990.86BUSH40052991.04BUSH40053991.03BUSH40054989.72BUSH40055990.09BUSH40056989.27BUSH40057989.73BUSH40058989.62BUSH40059988.98BUSH40060990.96FIR 6FT40062991.48BUSH40063991.37BUSH40064991.43BUSH40065990.923IN"40066991.12FIR 6FT40067989.803IN"40068989.273IN"40069991.19BUSH40071991.07BUSH40072991.53BUSH40073991.57GATE40074991.85GATE40076991.69PINE 6FT40077991.81PINE 6FT40078992.11PINE 6FT40079989.923IN"40080990.853IN"40081991.84BUSH40082991.86BUSH40083990.99BUSH40084987.04CK SHOT CP1040085989.463IN"40086987.942IN"40087987.022IN"40088986.303IN"40089989.85BUSH40090989.92BUSH40091989.71BUSH40092986.232IN"40093986.243IN"40094989.85BUSH40095990.292IN"40096990.31BUSH40097990.73BUSH40098990.922IN"40099987.702IN"40100986.623IN"40101990.692IN"40102990.87BUSH40103990.902IN"40104990.722IN"40105990.63BUSH40106990.51BUSH40107990.64BUSH40108990.43BUSH40109990.762IN"40110990.65BIRCH40111990.19BIRCH40112987.39BIRCH40113986.36BIRCH40114985.41PINE 6FT40115986.52PINE 6FT40116986.44PINE 6FT40117986.83BUSH40118987.14BUSH40119987.38BUSH40120987.58BUSH40121987.88FIR 6FT40122987.04FIR 6FT40123987.11FIR 6FT40124986.70FIR 6FT40125986.982IN"40126987.642IN"40127986.692IN"40128988.222IN"40204982.79RCP INV 15IN30018992.32BOLLARD30028991.23BOLLARD30030991.25BOLLARD30047992.44BOLLARD30050992.45BOLLARD30051992.62BOLLARD30054992.71BOLLARD30072990.60GATE30075989.88GATE30124990.28GATE30125990.52GATE30137990.94BOLLARD30140991.00BOLLARD30166992.50KEY PAD30167991.11BOLLARD30168991.1850030169991.4050030170991.4850030171991.20BOLLARD30203989.12KEV PAD302841000.53CK SHOT CP3 11-17-16FFE = 991.34FFE = 991.91FFE = 992.52FFE = 992.74FFE = 992.14FFE = 991.58BUILDINGEXISTINGFFE = 992.77FFE = 991.14FFE = 991.60XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X XXXXXXMEDINA MINI-STORAGE EXPANSION
SITE PLAN REVIEW
SITE - EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING MOVEMENTS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700
40000987.07CK SHOT CP10 11-17-1640030992.12BUSH40031992.11BUSH40032992.10BUSH40033992.12BUSH40034992.54BUSH40035992.32BUSH40036993.20BUSH40038994.55FIR 6FT40039996.53PINE 6FT40040997.79PINE 6FT40072991.53BUSH40076991.69PINE 6FT40077991.81PINE 6FT40078992.11PINE 6FT40079989.9240080990.853IN"40081991.84BUSH40082991.86BUSH40083990.99BUSH40084987.04CK SHOT CP1040085989.463IN"40086987.942IN"40087987.022IN"40088986.303IN"40089989.85BUSH40090989.92BUSH40091989.71BUSH40092986.232IN"40093986.243IN"40094989.85BUSH40095990.292IN"40096990.31BUSH40097990.73BUSH40098990.922IN"40099987.702IN"40100986.623IN"40101990.692IN"40102990.87BUSH40103990.902IN"40104990.722IN"40105990.63BUSH40106990.51BUSH40107990.64BUSH40108990.43BUSH40109990.762IN"40110990.65BIRCH40111990.19BIRCH40112987.39BIRCH40113986.36BIRCH40116986.4440118987.14BUSH4011940120987.58BUSH40121987.88FIR 6FT40122987.04FIR 6FT40123987.11FIR 6FT40124986.70FIR 6FT40125986.982IN"40126987.642IN"40127986.692IN"40128988.222IN"40204982.79RCP INV 15IN30166992.50KEY PAD302841000.53CK SHOT CP3 11-17-16FFE = 991.34FFE = 991.91FFE = 992.52FFE = 992.74FFE = 992.14FFE = 991.58BUILDINGEXISTINGFFE = 992.77FFE = 991.14FFE = 991.60XXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X XXXXXXCOMMUNICATION EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 5916318FFE = 991.50(990.23) x(989.73) x(990.92) x(EOF: 990.5) x(991.17) x(990.18) x(989.0) xFFE = 991.50FFE = 991.50x (EOF: 990.3)990x 988.3CURB INLET BLOCKEDWITH SNKAE SAND BAGOVERFLOW 1 - CENTER OF FILTER ASSEMBLY6" FILTER ASSEMBLYCURBCG 3250 RCG 3250 BPOLYESTER FILTERMEDINA MINI-STORAGE EXPANSION
SITE PLAN REVIEW
GRADING AND EROSION CONROL PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700
40104
40105 40106
990.51
40107
990.64 40108
FFE = 991.34
FFE = 991.58
BUILDINGFFE = 991.60
X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXFFE = 991.50(990.23) x
(
9
8
9
.
7
3
)
x
(
9
9
0
.
9
2
)
x
(EOF: 990.5) x
(
9
9
1
.
1
7
)
x (990.18) x(989.0) xFFE = 991.50
FFE = 991.50
x (EOF: 990.3)990x 988.3MEDINA MINI-STORAGE EXPANSION
SITE PLAN REVIEW
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN ENLARGED 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700(990.92) x
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debra Peterson, Associate Planner through Planning Director Dusty Finke
DATE: April 4, 2019
MEETING: April 9, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Jeff Pederson – 4790 Rolling Hills Rd – Site Plan Review for construction of
a Mini-Storage Building.
Application Deadline
Complete Application Received: March 1, 2019
120 - Day Review Deadline: June 28, 2019
Background
Jeff Pederson requests a Site Plan Review (SPR) to construct an additional mini-storage building
at his existing Medina Mini-Storage business at 4790 Rolling Hills Road. Section 825.56 states
the Planning Commission shall review the proposed site plan to determine whether it is
consistent with the requirements of the district. The property is 17.9 acres and is located just north
of Highway 55 and east of Rolling Hills Road.
In 1995, the City approved a conditional use permit to allow a mini-storage facility with ten
buildings on their site plan. One building was initially constructed and then in 2015 three additional
buildings were approved through the Site Plan Review process. In 2016 the building permits were
issued for their construction. The overall number of buildings to complete the project has changed
from ten to five than what was originally approved. The positioning and increased square footage
of each building was the cause for the reduction.
Project Site & Description
The subject property currently has four mini-storage buildings totaling 35,200 square feet in
building area and are oriented in an east/west fashion. The proposed 4,320 (144’ x 30”) square foot
building is proposed on the east side of the existing buildings and oriented north/south. The
proposed building would be constructed on the already paved area and would be the final building
for this project.
The subject property is guided RC, Rural Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The RC land use
identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services, but rather by individual
wells and septic systems.
The subject property and the properties to the east and west are zoned RBH, Rural Business
Holding. The property to the south, but north of Hwy 55 is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The
property to the north is in the City of Corcoran.
Agenda Item: 7
2
Below is a location map of the site.
Site Plan Review
The site and building plans have been reviewed to determine compliance with the standards of
the RBH, Rural Business Holding District:
SITE SUMMARY
Building Square Footage
Existing Buildings (4) 35,200 SF
Proposed Building 4,320 SF
Total Building Area: 39,520 SF
Within the RBH District, buildings must be setback a minimum of 50 feet from rights-of-way. The
proposed building is in far excess of this requirement. The proposed building is 75 feet from the
northern property line with woodlands in between. To the southeast is Rural Residential zoned
property which requires a 100-foot setback if a buffer does not exist. The setback may be reduced
to 75 feet if the area in between is 70% opaque with either landscaping or trees. The area between
the proposed building and the RR district to the south is heavily wooded, meeting this requirement.
3
The proposed structure meets applicable setback requirements and lie outside of easements.
Front yard Setbacks Required Proposed
Rolling Hills Rd: 50 Feet 360+ Feet
Highway 55: 50 Feet 270+ Feet
Abutting Residential Properties
Side yard to South: 75 Feet if Opaque 81 Feet/Opaque
Side yard to North: 75 Feet if Opaque 81 Feet/Opaque
Rear yard Setback
Far Eastern Property line: 30 Feet 900+ Feet
Building Materials and Design
All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the following standards:
1. A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco,
copper or glass. Staff did not receive the actual proposed percentage of brick and
windows. It has been estimated to be approximately 8%, which falls below the required
minimum of 20 percent. As a condition of approval this would have to be increased.
2. A maximum of 80 percent of the exterior building materials may be decorative concrete,
split face (rock face) decorative block, or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. For
building with a floor area of 12,000 square feet or less, a maximum of 80 percent of the
exterior building materials may be commercial grade fiber cement lap siding installed per
manufacturer’s specifications. Staff did not receive the actual proposed percentage of
fiber cement lap siding. It appears to be approximately 73% which meets requirements.
3. A maximum of 20 percent of the exterior building materials may be wood, metal, or
exterior insulation and finish system or similar product, if used as accent materials which
are integrated into the overall building design. Staff did not receive the actual proposed
percentage of metal. It is estimated to be at 19% which meets requirements.
4
Building Modulation
The ordinance requires building modulation for every 100 linear feet. To achieve this
modulation, the applicant is proposing to vary the height of the building which is consistent with
the previous four buildings approved. A substantial portion of the building will be occupied by
overhead doors. The RBH district limits the perimeter of the building which can be occupied by
loading areas to 10 percent. However, loading areas which are within a “courtyard,” screened by
other buildings, are exempt from this limitation.
Building Height
The maximum building height is 30 feet and shall not exceed 2 ½ stories. The proposed building
is approximately 21 feet from grade to its peak which falls well below this requirement.
Grading/Drainage/Stormwater
The existing stormwater pond was originally sized to treat the already paved area, so no further
ponding is required. The applicant intends to place the building onto the existing pavement area,
but the paved area between the existing buildings and the new building (front of the new
building) is proposed to be removed and replaced to raise the grade to provide for adequate
drainage. All roof drainage is required to go to the stormwater pond. A swale is also being
proposed on the east side of the new building to assist in capturing roof run-off.
Lighting
The applicant proposes wall mount downcast lighting.
Landscaping
No new landscaping is being proposed or required since it was satisfied previously.
Signage
No new signage is being proposed with this application.
Sewer and Water
No provision of sewer, septic, or wells are proposed. The site does not have an office or
employees that are located there.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Review with the following conditions:
1) Prior to a building permit being issued the applicant shall provide revised drawings showing
that the exterior of the building meets the 20% minimum requirement of brick/windows.
2) The applicant shall satisfy all outstanding items as noted in WSB memo dated 3/29/19.
3) The applicant shall extend storm sewer and grade the site to ensure that stormwater from the
structure is conveyed to the existing pond.
4) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs
associated with the review of the Site Plan Review application.
5
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. WSB Engineering memo dated March 29, 2019
3. Exterior Elevations
4. Site Plan Set
Project: LR-19-245 – Medina Mini-Storage
The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are
only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.
Documents Submitted by Applicant
Document Received
Date
Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 3/1/19 3/1/19 3 Yes Yes
Fee 3/1/19 3/1/19 yes $5,000.00
Mailing Labels
Narrative No
Plan Set (C1-C6) 3/11/19 3/8/19 6 Yes
Floor Plans and Sections 3/11/19 2/25/19 1 Yes
Exterior Light Spec 3/11/19 N/A
Plan Set (C1-C6) 3/27/19 3/27/19 6 Yes
Floor Plans and Sections 3/27/19 2/25/19 1 Yes Was revised but date not changed
on plan sheet
Photometric Plan 3/27/19 3/27/19 1
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Metro West review comments 3/14/19 1 Yes
WSB review comments 3/20/19 2 Yes
Attorney comments 3/20/19 1 Yes
WSB review comments 3/29/19 2 Yes
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
K:\013732-000\Admin\Docs\2019-03-26 Submittal\_2019-03-29 Mini Storage Expansion - WSB Comments.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM March 29, 2019
Mr. Dusty Finke
Director of Planning
City of Medina
2052 County Rd 24
Medina, MN 55340
Re: Medina Mini Storage Expansion – WSB Engineering Site Plan Review
City Project No. LR-19-245
WSB Project No. 13732-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed the application for the Medina Mini-Storage Site Plan Review application and
revised plans dated March 26, 2019. The applicant proposes to construct an additional storage
building with 15 units on the existing Medina Mini-Storage site.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Existing Condition Plan:
1. The existing grades, structure information, and EOF location at the existing pond and
bituminous area, and the contours are hard to read on the plan, please use a darker
color. The text was darkened, but the existing structure (CB’s) information was not
shown. Add the existing invert elevations to the plan for those three CB’s.
Site Plan:
2. Provide a pavement design section for the driveway or other exterior paved surfaces.
Complete.
3. The portion of the existing pavement south of the building is missing on the plans, but is
not indicated for removal. Add the hatching and/or linework for the paving area and any
proposed removals. Based on the proposed grading, the pavement on the south side of
the building may need to be removed and replaced to provide a smooth grade transition
to the front (west side).
Grading & Erosion Control Plan:
4. A more defined swale will be needed on the east side of the building; the grade appears
to be fairly flat and could create future maintenance issues as planned. Consider
defining a swale with a minimum 2.0% grade and add CB/yard drain extensions from the
proposed piping system to collect the additional runoff and convey it to the existing
stormwater pond to the greatest extent possible. The swale will also aid in capturing
runoff from the roof if the gutters/downspouts are clogged. The swale was shown, but
the percent grade was not. Add the percent grade to the swale. Consider grading the
swale in both north and south directions to increase grade. A yard drain inlet should be
added at the south corner to increase inlet capacity of the storm sewer system.
Medina Mini Storage Expansion – WSB Engineering Review
March 29, 2019
Page 2
K:\013732-000\Admin\Docs\2019-03-26 Submittal\_2019-03-29 Mini Storage Expansion - WSB Comments.docx
5. Include the City’s standard details on the plan where applicable. Complete.
6. A double row of silt fence is required adjacent to the wetlands. Complete.
7. Provide a construction entrance or other erosion control BMP to prevent tracking of
sediment into the developed portion of the site and public streets during construction.
Complete.
8. Show inlet protection locations on the plans. Complete.
9. Add a detail for the yard drain and cleanout on the plan. If the swale cannot be graded
so that a typical yard drain can be installed (with and invert and grate), the end off the
pipe will need an outfall treatment (FES/apron section).
10. Add the proposed 989 and 991 contours to the plan.
Stormwater Management
11. The proposed building is being constructed where there is currently bituminous
pavement, therefore there is no apparent increase in impervious surfaces. The existing
stormwater pond was originally sized to treat this area of impervious surface.
12. The proposed construction is occurring adjacent to a wetland, the applicant may be
required to apply for a permit to the watershed for stormwater management and erosion
control. Please provide permitting documents to the City, if applicable.
13. Confirm freeboard from the proposed building, the EOF elevation of the bituminous area
and the existing pond should be shown. Complete.
14. Provide calculations as to what rainfall event the proposed gutters and down-spouts are
sized/designed for. Not-provided, but the applicant graded a swale at the back of the
building and included yard drain inlets.
The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted
plans. The owner, developer, and engineer are fully responsible for changes or modifications
required during construction to meet the City’s standards.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday March 12, 2019 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Beth Nielsen, Kerby Nester, 8
Cindy Piper, Robin Reid, and Rashmi Williams. 9
10
Absent: None. 11
12
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke. 13
14
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15
16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Albers reported that the Council met the previous week to consider an easement variance 21
request, approving the request. He stated that the Council reviewed the Commercial-22
Neighborhood zoning district, approving the ordinance amendment as recommended by the 23
Planning Commission. He stated that the Council reviewed the rezonings for consistency 24
with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which was approved with the exception that parcels 31, 25
32, and 34 were all zoned to R-4. He reported that the Council also reviewed and approved 26
the accessory structure request in excess of 5,000 square feet and the change in setback for 27
the RR1 district. 28
29
4. Planning Department Report 30
31
Finke provided an update. 32
33
5. Public Hearing – Wally and Bridget Marx – 2800 Parkview Drive – 34
Amended Conservation Design-Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) 35
General Plan of Development and Preliminary Plat to Replat the Lot and 36
the Adjacent Outlot 37
38
Finke stated that each of the applications tonight have been previously reviewed by the 39
Planning Commission and three of them were approved in some manner by the City Council. 40
He stated that the School Lake CD-PUD was approved by the City Council and 41
improvements have been constructed on the site, noting that homes have not yet been 42
constructed. He stated that this request would adjust one lot in order to pivot the lot as shown 43
on the plans. He explained that it would be proposed to shift one-half acre from the 44
conservation area into the lot and one-half acre being shifted from the lot to the conservation 45
area in order to accommodate a building pad on the lot. He stated that the conservation 46
design objectives were thoroughly reviewed during the original request and resulted in three 47
additional lots above the three allowed as a base density in return for the conservation 48
provided. He stated that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the conservation holder and 49
does not have an objection to this request. He stated that staff recommends approval subject 50
to the conditions noted in the staff report. He stated that the applicant is requesting to remove 51
2
condition four, as they will proceed with the grading when the best location is found. He 52
noted that staff also supports that request. 53
54
Nielsen asked if it would be likely that there is not an area for the grading found. 55
56
Finke stated that the original grading plan was reviewed and could be achieved, although 57
there was some concern with tree and drainage easement location. 58
59
Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, spoke in representation of the applicants. He stated 60
that the applicants did go to the easement holder, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and 61
they agreed that it would make sense to complete this shift to increase the building pad and 62
conserve additional trees. He acknowledged the 200-foot buffer from School Lake and noted 63
that would remain intact. He stated that the applicants believe that this shift is important to 64
conserve additional trees and better align with the shore of the lake. 65
66
Williams asked the applicant’s reason for eliminating condition four. 67
68
Finke stated that the original approval included that condition and the concern is that the 69
applicant would like to move forward with the plat without slowing down the progress for the 70
trailhead. 71
72
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 73
74
No comments made. 75
76
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 77
78
Motion by Nester, seconded by Williams, to recommend approval of the amendment to the 79
CD-PUD and preliminary plat, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, minus 80
condition four. Motion carries unanimously. 81
82
6. Maxxon – 920 Hamel Road – Amended Site Plan Review and Variance to Exceed 25% 83
Hardcover Limitation within the Shoreland Overlay District of Elm Creek 84
85
Finke stated that this Site Plan was approved on February 20, 2018 through a series of 86
applications. He stated that the amended Site Plan would result in additional hardcover, 87
which would exceed the 25 percent hardcover limitation within the Shoreland Overlay 88
District as the site is already at 50 percent hardcover. He stated that the original request 89
included replacement of some of the parking area with grass pavers which would result in no 90
net increase for the hardcover. He noted that the City has also moved forward on stormwater 91
improvements in conjunction with the road project that is sized to accommodate the drainage 92
area for the site. He stated that the previously approved request had the drainage going 93
directly to Elm Creek and with this request, staff has asked the site to be regraded to direct 94
the water to the City pond. He stated that the loading docks will not be expanded, which will 95
allow the driveway to be reduced to help reduce the variance. He reviewed the criteria that 96
should be considered when weighing a variance request. He stated that if this request is 97
approved, the old approval would be replaced with this approval. He stated that if the 98
variance is approved, staff believes that the site plan approval would be appropriate as well. 99
He noted that this is not a public hearing and advised that the City Council will hold the 100
public hearing when they consider the request. 101
102
Reid asked if the Elm Creek Watershed reviewed the request. 103
104
3
Finke stated that the organization did receive notice of the request and did not have 105
comments. He stated that the organization more broadly supports capturing more water and 106
routing it to the stormwater project. 107
108
Galzki asked if there would be new curb and gutter along the back edge of the parking lot to 109
route the water, or whether that would be done through grading only on the east parking lot. 110
111
Finke stated that the intent is that the final plans would be submitted to the City Engineer in 112
compliance with the staff comments to capture the water. He stated that when the parking lot 113
is redone, the intent would be to have curb and gutter. 114
115
Piper referenced the site plan and proposed addition, asking that was an empty space or 116
whether it connects. 117
118
Finke provided additional details noting that the two buildings are connected via skyway with 119
empty space and patio in between. 120
121
Nester commented that it would be good to route the water away from the creek. 122
123
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki, to recommend approval of the variance and 124
amended site plan review subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carries 125
unanimously. 126
127
Finke stated that he intends to present this to the City Council at their meeting the following 128
week. 129
130
7. Public Hearing – PID 05-118-23-21-0011 and the North 875 Feet of the Following 131
Parcels: 4695 Highway 55, 4455 County Road 19, PID 06-118-23-11-001, PID 05-118-23-132
22-0005 – Rezoning from Rural Business Holding to the Rural Residential-Urban 133
Reserve Zoning District 134
135
Finke stated that this is a continuation of hearings that were held by the Commission in 136
December and February, related to rezoning of 35 properties for consistency with the 137
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that 30 of the properties have been rezoned through the 138
ordinance and five properties remain in the northwest corner of the City. He noted that the 139
properties are proposed to be rezoned to Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). He 140
noted that staff received a written comment from the property owner west of parcel 33 who 141
commented that for business development, larger tracts of property are preferred. He stated 142
that the property owner did not oppose the Rural Business Holding (RBH) and would prefer 143
to have business rather than placing the land in RR-UR in the interim. He stated that all five 144
properties front onto Highway 55, while some properties are also on other rural roadways in 145
the City. He stated that the properties are currently zoned RBH, which allows for limited 146
business development. He stated that staff does not recommend that the RBH zoning remain 147
for properties that have frontage on non-commercial roadways. He stated that if the City 148
wants to encourage rural business development, RBH would be appropriate. 149
150
Galzki asked if the rezoning would limit the property owner’s rights to enjoy the ownership 151
of their property and the ability to make money. He asked if RR-UR would limit the type of 152
improvements that could be made on a property, such as storage sheds and reinvestment in 153
that property. 154
155
4
Finke stated that if a property is RR-UR commercial activity would not be allowed. He stated 156
that there is allowance for some subdivision until sewer and water is brought to the property 157
in the future. 158
159
Piper asked if there are restrictions to entrances and exits onto Highway 55, or whether each 160
of those properties could have a driveway in and out of their property. 161
162
Finke stated that it would depend on the ability to provide access. He stated that if the 163
property only has frontage onto Highway 55, there would be no other option. He noted that 164
some of those properties have frontage onto other rural roadways that could provide access. 165
166
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. 167
168
Joe Cavanaugh, 275 Lakeview Road, stated that his property has had access from Highway 169
55 for the past 50 years. He stated that they have been running a storage business and the 170
prior owners ran a trucking business on the property, therefore there has been commercial 171
activity on the site. He stated that in the long-term he does not believe that the City would 172
want residential fronting onto Highway 55. He stated that the parcel has been business 173
orientated for over 15 years and the future of the property is business orientated. He stated 174
that this is not an extremely intense use and they would simply like to continue their storage, 175
and boat storage business. He asked that his parcel remain Rural Business. 176
177
John __ stated that there are curb cuts on the Cavanaugh property already. He stated that 178
parcel 33 has a curb cut/farm access, but the other properties in discussion do not have curb 179
cuts on Highway 55. He stated that the use/intensity will not change on this parcel. He noted 180
that the adjacent development in Corcoran is also commercial. He stated that changing the 181
zoning to residential would mean that they would be chopping up their lot into five acre lots 182
that would front onto Highway 55 in an area of commercial development. It was clarified 183
that the Cavanaugh parcel is 29. 184
185
Nielsen asked the most intense use the property could see if the zoning were left as RBH. 186
187
Finke replied that warehouse or storage is the lowest water use per foot. 188
189
Cavanaugh provided details on the type of adjacent development. 190
191
Reid asked if the Steering Committee was intending for this area to be developed into 192
residential. 193
194
Finke replied that the Steering Committee did not discuss intended development, as it was 195
going to be placed into a holding district. 196
197
Nielsen asked the amount of traffic that would be generated from an allowed warehouse on 198
the parcel. 199
200
Finke estimated a 12,000 square foot warehouse could possibly be developed on the parcel 201
and provided comparable uses. He stated that is a small building that would have limited use. 202
203
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. 204
205
Reid asked if the main objection from staff to leaving this as RBH would be road access. 206
207
Finke stated that generally the City has not encouraged rural business development. 208
5
209
Nester stated that there is no way to control the way the road is improved, should it need to be 210
improved. 211
212
Finke explained that if there is an allowed use, there is less enforceability on those types of 213
improvements. 214
215
Reid asked if the alternative would be to have the property owner come back with a rezoning 216
request that would include traffic analysis. 217
218
Nester stated that she could see the argument that Townline Road could deteriorate from 219
commercial activity. 220
221
Amic stated that if there is a 12,000 square foot building, that would not hold a large amount 222
of RV’s and boats. He stated that there would be an increased traffic count of about 60 223
vehicles per year, which does not seem like a problem. 224
225
Reid stated that she would feel more comfortable if there was a specific request for boat 226
storage. 227
228
Nielsen stated that the property owner has access from Highway 55. 229
230
Cavanaugh explained that it is an expensive process to request rezoning when the activity is 231
already occurring. 232
233
Williams asked if the current activity on the property is allowed. 234
235
Cavanaugh replied that the use is allowed because the property is currently zoned for that 236
activity. 237
238
Galzki asked and confirmed consensus that the Commission agrees that parcels 33, 28 and 27 239
would make sense to be RR-UR. 240
241
Nester stated that from a planning perspective it would not make sense to have one parcel 242
zoned differently. 243
244
Galzki stated that parcel 26 would make sense to remain RBH as it has access to CR 19 and is 245
adjacent to light industrial/commercial businesses and also believed that it would make sense 246
to leave parcel 29 RBH. 247
248
Piper stated that the properties are currently zoned RBH and asked if the Steering Committee 249
made the decision to change that. 250
251
Finke explained that the development staging has been delayed more into the future, longer 252
than 20 years, and that is the reason for changing the zoning. 253
254
Piper asked if the properties could be left RBH. 255
256
Finke stated that if that is not considered to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the 257
properties could be left RBH. 258
259
Williams stated that while she gets the idea of not zoning one property differently, this is a 260
unique parcel and it would seem that it would need to come back for rezoning in the future. 261
6
262
Reid asked the problem leaving this as RBH because this will eventually be business anyway. 263
264
Finke stated that it would be a matter of whether the Commission wants to encourage rural 265
business. He stated that if the Commission favors encouraging rural business development, 266
there would not be a problem. 267
268
Nielsen stated that this property was already zoned RBH and therefore there was support for 269
that activity in the past. 270
271
Galzki asked if the City should limit a property with the potential to do something years 272
down the road or continue to allow the property owner to continue to do what they are 273
already doing. 274
275
Nester stated that she would support the recommendation of staff to change the zoning to RR-276
UR. She believed that there is an issue of safety allowing people to access from Highway 55 277
and changing the zoning could make the development disjointed. 278
279
Amic stated that he would support changing parcels 33, 28 and 27 to RR-UR and leaving 280
parcels 26 and 29 as RBH. He stated that this is a light industrial/business use, and these are 281
structures that can easily be knocked down in the future when another business use is perhaps 282
developed. 283
284
Nielsen stated that she could support leaving all the parcels as RBH. She stated that she 285
could also support changing 33, 28 and 27 to RR-UR and leaving 26 and 29 as RBH. She 286
noted that she could also support changing all the parcels to RR-UR. She was not concerned 287
with traffic impacts because of the low use. 288
289
Williams stated that she agrees with Amic and would support changing the three parcels to 290
RR-UR and leaving 26 and 29 as RBH. 291
292
Galzki also agreed to leave 26 and 29 as RBH and changing the other three parcels to RR-293
UR. He stated that he would have a hard time limiting the use of a property because of a 294
future potential. 295
296
Piper stated that she is not as informed on the issue of spot zoning. She stated that it would 297
make more sense to her to split the parcels as proposed by the other Commissioners, leaving 298
two parcels RBH and changing the other three. 299
300
Reid agreed that this seems to be a practical solution and she would also support leaving 26 301
and 29 as RBH. 302
303
Finke provided an updated estimate of the warehouse size that could possibly be developed 304
on parcel 29. 305
306
John ___ provided input on the buildable area on the site. 307
308
Galzki explained that this activity could have occurred for years and leaving the property 309
RBH will not change anything. 310
311
Motion by Amic, seconded by Williams, to recommend adoption of the ordinance 312
amending the official zoning map to rezone properties to the Rural Residential-Urban 313
7
Reserve zoning district, excluding parcels 26 and 29 which will be left Rural Business 314
Holding. Motion carried 6- 1 (Nester opposed). 315
316
8. Arrowhead Holdings, LLC; OSI – PID 03-118-23-41-0005 – Amended Site Plan Review 317
for Construction of a 107,000 Square Foot Building with 17,000 Square Feet of Potential 318
Future Additions 319
320
Finke stated that this was approved by the City Council on November 7, 2018. He stated that 321
the site plan included a 123,000 square foot addition. He noted that the applicant is planning 322
a smaller addition, with additional parking lot improvements. He stated that the addition 323
would be 107,000 square feet with the potential for 17,000 square feet in potential future 324
addition. He recommended that the future addition be approved at this time as well if 325
constructed within five years, since the total square footage had been approved previously. 326
He described the changes to the parking area, noting that the minimum landscaping measures 327
would still be met. He displayed the updated architectural rendering. He recommended 328
approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. 329
330
Nester asked if the building is getting taller. 331
332
Finke replied that the building will be shorter than originally proposed. 333
334
Nielsen asked the type of non-employee activity that would occur in the training area. It was 335
noted that clients could also be in that area. 336
337
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Amic, to recommend approval of the amended site plan 338
subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. 339
340
9. Approval of the February 12, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 341
342 Motion by Williams, seconded by Galzki, to approve the February 12, 2019, Planning 343
Commission minutes with the noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 344
345
10. Approval of the February 19, 2019 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 346
347 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the February 19, 2019, Special Planning 348
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 349
350
11. Council Meeting Schedule 351
352
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Williams 353
volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 354
355
12. Adjourn 356
357
Motion by Williams, seconded by Piper to adjourn the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Motion carried 358
unanimously. 359