HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-12-2019 POSTED IN CITY HALL March 8, 2019:
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 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 – Wally and Bridget Marx – 2800 Parkview Drive –
Amended Conservation Design-Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD)
General Plan of Development and Preliminary Plat to replat the lot and
the adjacent outlot
6. Maxxon – 920 Hamel Road – Amended Site Plan Review and Variance
to exceed 25% hardcover limitation within the Shoreland Overlay
District of Elm Creek
7. Public Hearing – PID 05-118-23-21-0011 and the north 875 feet of the
following parcels: 4695 Highway 55, 4455 County Road 19, PID 06-
118-23-11-001, PID 05-118-23-22-0005 – Rezoning from Rural
Business Holding to the Rural Residential-Urban Reserve zoning district
8. Arrowhead Holdings, LLC; OSI – PID 03-118-23-41-0005 –
Amended Site Plan Review for construction of a 107,000 square foot
building with 17,000 square feet of potential future additions
9. Approval of February 12, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
10. Approval of February 19, 2019 Special Planning Commission Minutes
11. Council Meeting Schedule
12. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 5, 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: February 28, 2019
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) RR1 side setback amendment – Brian and Christine Raskob, owners of 3240 Carriage Drive, have
requested that the City consider reducing the minimum side yard setback in the RR1 zoning district
for lots over 5 acres in size from 50 feet to 20 feet. The Planning Commission held a public hearing
at the February 12 meeting and recommended approval. The item is scheduled for review at the
March 5 City Council meeting.
B) 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 item is scheduled for review at
the March 5 City Council meeting.
C) 764 Aster Road Easement Vacation – Toll Brothers has requested that the City vacate an existing
drainage and utility easement and replace it 3 feet to the north. This would allow construction of a
deck. A public hearing is scheduled for the March 5 City Council meeting.
D) 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 is tentatively scheduled
to review at the March 12 meeting.
E) 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 item is scheduled for a
public hearing at the March 12 Planning Commission meeting.
F) 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.
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
proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which are scheduled to be presented to the
Planning Commission on March 12. Staff will present to Council when ready.
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
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2019
City Council Meeting
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) 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.
J) 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.
K) 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 Planning Commission held a public
hearing on an ordinance rezoning 35 parcels of land which were identified by staff to be
consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. At the hearing, many comments were
received about the rezoning of two parcels at CR116 and Meander Road, and the
Commission recommended zoning to Commercial-Neighborhood. The Planning
Commission wanted to further consider an owner’s request in the northwest corner of the
City for a Rural Business Holding designation rather than Rural Residential-Urban Reserve.
The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council consider the land use
designation of two smaller parcels in the southwest corner of the City currently designated
for High Density development. The owner has now requested a lower density designation.
Following these discussions, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
ordinance, excluding 5 parcels in the Northwest corner of the city proposed to be rezoned
RR-UR.
B) 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.
C) 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. Review is underway.
D) Uptown Hamel – a group of students at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs has agreed to
research and make recommendations to support improvements and development in the Uptown
Hamel area. Open Houses are scheduled for Saturday March 2, Wednesday March 6, and Monday
March 11.
TO: City Council
FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 1, 2019
RE: Police Department Update
Suicide Prevention
On Monday February 26th our department was invited to a presentation sponsored by the Hamel and
Plymouth Fire Departments on PTSD and suicide of first responders. Eight members of the Medina
Police attended the presentation. The speaker, Scott Geiselhart, gave a personal testimony of his
battle with PTSD, his attempted suicide and recovery. There are more suicides of first responders
then there are of on duty deaths. The presentation was well done. I think everyone there could
relate to what Mr. Geiselhart went through and would be able to recognize the signs and symptoms
of PTSD. Recognizing the signs and symptoms of PTSD is the first step to prevention.
Snow! Snow! Snow!
February 2019 set the record for the most snow in the month of February ever since records were
kept in Minnesota. We have seen the results. Many schools closing and traffic issues in the area.
We have avoided serious accidents, but we had many accidents. With March here, we are all
looking forward to spring. We are hoping it will be a slow melt to avoid flooding.
Severe Weather Sirens
I was notified last month that our severe weather siren in Morningside Edition had failed and it will
need to be replaced soon. The electrician informed me that the siren is from the mid- 60s and the
motor is on its last leg. We have four of these vintage sirens in the City. Replacement amounts are
allocated on the CIP. We will need to develop a plan to replace them over the next few years.
Lake Area Emergency Management Meeting
On February 28th I attended the Lake Area Emergency Management meeting in Long Lake. The
group is working on an exercise for 2019 and discussed the updating of the emergency plan and
resource manual.
Strategic Fire Meeting
The next strategic fire meeting for our Fire Chiefs is on March 18th. In preparation for that meeting,
I met with all four Chiefs and distributed the data we have collected on the estimated future cost of
fire service for Medina. I asked them to come up with agenda items that they wanted addressed.
We will be working through those items at the meeting.
MEMORANDUM
Patrol Updates
Training – On February 26, 2019, Officer Boecker conducted annual use of force refresher for the
entire department. Which included use of force and the recertification of the taser.
Patrol Activities - For the dates of February 12 to February 26, 2019, our officers issued 47
citations and 93 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 6 traffic accidents, 7
medicals, 9 alarms and 2 DWI’s.
With the weather that continues to give us grief, our employees are doing a great job patrolling and
protecting the citizens. These cold temperatures and snow are not ideal conditions to work in, but
we will continue to do our jobs.
On 02-13-19, I took a report from a local business who had terminated an employee and were
concerned about the safety of the rest of the employees due to comments made. It was decided that
they would pay for extra police protection during business hours. All the officers stepped up and
worked overtime to cover the shifts.
On 02-15-19, Officer McGill and Boecker were dispatched to Target for a theft in progress. Upon
arrival, they were able to apprehend a shoplifter. The party was issued a citation and released.
On 02-17-19, Officer Converse responded to a vehicle in the ditch. Upon arrival, the female driver
was found to be intoxicated and was subsequently arrested.
On 02-19-19, I took a report of a theft of packages. Victim reported that while out of town there
were several packages that were delivered and left on the front steps. When they arrived home,
they found some of the packages missing.
On 02-20-19, Officer Scharf stopped a vehicle for following too close. The driver was found to
have over 200 grams of THC infused product that he had hidden in the back seat under a coat when
the officer was pulling him over. The driver was arrested, and the case was turned over to the drug
task force for charging.
On 02-22-19, Officer Scharf took a theft report from the Target liquor store. It was learned that the
suspect has been very active in stealing from Target liquor stores all over the metro. Case was
forward to investigations.
On 02-22-19, Officer Gregory and Scharf, were dispatched to a shoplifting in progress at Target.
Upon arrival, the suspect had already been apprehended by Target security and detained. The
suspect was issued a citation for theft and released at the scene.
Investigations Update
Completed annual refresher training for use of Force and Taser at Medina PD on 02/26.
Attended a presentation at the Medina Entertainment Center on PTSD. Lots of good information.
I had been investigating a forgery case the last few months. I received some information recently
from an administrative subpoena. This case is now considered a civil issue. I sent a letter to the
victim advising them of this information.
Two open cases through Hennepin County Child Protection. Waiting to hear from the case workers
to set up interviews with families.
Sent a theft case to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office for felony charges. The theft involved a
former employee of a business.
Conducting a background investigation for the Community Service Officer position.
There are currently (5) cases assigned to investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: February 28, 2019
MEETING: March 5, 2019
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
x Public Works has been very busy with snow removal. When we are not plowing fresh
snow, we are pushing back to make room for more. We have had some concerns from our
residents regarding where the snow is placed, but it is necessary to make space as we
move into the month of March.
x Public works will continue to push back snow in intersections and from around fire
hydrants as time allows. This is a long process with thousands of hydrants to clear.
x Bid packets have been opened for our road materials and will be in the March 19th packet.
x The roads are moving around a lot this year due to a rainy fall season and extreme cold
weather. It will be some time until they get back to normal and it is expected that there
may be a significant amount of cracking.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
x All is well with the water and sewer systems as we move into the last stretch of winter.
However, as we move into spring, we will most likely see problems as the ground begins
to thaw and shift around.
x Jim Stremel and I are working towards removal of inflow and infiltration from the sewer
system. If you recall, we have a surcharge attached to our system from the Met Council
for an exceedance a few years back.
x Katrina has been working with our control consultant to extract the data from the Hamel
Water SCADA system which can now be done remotely, in order to meet the DNR’s
reporting requirements.
x We have completed the Water Conservation Report which is due at the end of March. We
will be putting an educational piece in the spring newsletter about water conservation.
PARKS/TRAILS
x We have an Eagle Scout candidate who has agreed to do the dugout installation at the
Hamel Legion Park. We are scheduling a time for him to meet with city staff and HAC in
the next few weeks since the February Parks Commission meeting was cancelled, due to
weather. As soon as weather permits, the construction and installation of the benches and
dugouts will begin.
x The sledding hill is in good condition and full of activity when temperatures permit.
Page 2 of 2
MISCELLANEOUS
x We have posted the Foreman job internally this week. We have at least one qualified
employee within our department who has expressed interest.
x The brush and compost site has been cleaned up, and the chips hauled away. There was a
cost for the removal this time, but it was minimal, considering the service they provide.
x Katrina is working on the details for Clean Up Day and the updated fees are listed in the
packet for approval.
r----- I
/ I
/ I
40 8O 326
,.....,
•
SCALE IN FEET
OWNERS:
WALLACE AND BRIDGET MARX
2700 PARKVIEW D RIVE
MEDINA, M N, 55340
AREA:
24.80+ -ACRES
SCHOOL LAKE PRESERVE 2ND ADDITION
PRELI MINARY PLAT FOR
WALLY MARX
OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2, AND OUTLOT E, SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
S
N 89°09'10" W 520.01
N 89 .3318.W 20135
-INS
N0803358 80 236.98
DETAIL
1"=60'
EXISTING LOT LINE
NOTE: OUTLOT A (PREVIOUSLY OUTLOT E) REMAINS THE S AME AREA
SO CONSERVATION AREAS REMAIN THE S AME.
BUILDABLE AREA IN CONSERVATION AREAS WAS REDUCED FROM 11.77 AC. TO 11 .69 AC.
OR 40.85% OF TOTAL BUILDABLE ACRES. THIS WAS REDUCED SLIGHTLY FROM THE
PREVIOUS 40.92 % BUT STILL OVER THE 30 % REQUIRED .
SCHOOL LAKE
BELOW 996 O H W
WETLAND E AND
ADDITION AL BUFFERS
BUILDABLE AREA
WITHIN LOTS
BUILDABLE AREA IN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ADDITIONAL
CONSERVATION AREAS
SL OPE >18 %
POSSIBLE
SEPTIC SITE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
18-309
S 00°26'42" W 1321.38S 00°26'44" W 266.10208.72S 00°26'44" WS 89°09'10" E 417.43N 89°09'10" W 417.405.00N 00°26'44" ES 89°09'10" E 300.01N 00°20'01" E 938.08215.00S 84°20'01" W99.51S 60°20'01" W305.08S 00°20'01" W380.00S 89°03'53" E 2159.45S 89°16'25" E 2681.97S 00°26'42" W 485.47N 89°09'10" W 520.01SOUTH LINE OF NORTH 845 FT.OF S 1/2, NW 1/4 SEC. 16-118-23WETLAND APRESERVEWETLANDCMANAGE 2WETLAND DPRESERVEWETLAND EWETLAND FMANAGE 2WET-
LAND G
MANAGE2 REMARKSI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORTDATE __________MINN. LICENSE NUMBER __________GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERSPHONE: 952-473-4141 FAX: 952-473-4435445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION,AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERAND LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.8-5-161"=100'17-23817-238EXISTINGGARDENSPOSSIBLE HOUSE SITESSS
S SSSSSSSC H O O L LA K ESSCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVEPRELIMINARY PLATSS SSSSSSSLOPE>18%12OUTLOT AOUTLOT CBUILDABLE AREAWITHIN LOTSADDITIONALCONSERVATION AREASSCHOOL LAKEBELOW 998 O H WWETLAND E ANDADDITIONAL BUFFERSE X IS T IN G
H O U S E
507-26-12OUTLOT BOUTLOT EOUTLOT FBC 7BC 18BC 17BC 11BC 13BC 14BC16 BC15BC 18BC 12B C 5OUTLOT DBC 1BC 2BC 3BC 4BUILDABLE AREA INCONSERVATION EASEMENTWIDEN EXISTING DRIVE TO 20 FT WIDE BITUMINOUSPROPOSEDFIRE TRUCKTURNAROUND10-12-16PROPOSEDFIRE TRUCKTURNAROUNDBC 8BC 910-27-16BCWETLAND BPRESERVEW E T L A N D F
WETLAND IMANAGE 3WETLAND JMANAGE 311-7-16OUTLOT JOUTLOT GO U T L O T H
OUTLOT I12-1-16BC 612-8-16OUTLOT K2 0 0
2 0 0 300+ 150 200OUTLOT E4(TO BE OWNEDBY LOT 1 BLOCK 2)682+-104+-133+-133+-98+-128+-115+-51+-318+-540+-659+-608+-66+-140+-367+-208+-367+-296+-80+-390+-298+-341+-68+-189+-118+-95+-135+-275+-330+-436+-327+-204+-28+-108+-179+-5 4 +-698+-485+-520+-4 5 +-40+-207+-169+-153+-240+-271+-235+-189+-80+-9 9 +-778+-47+-42+-80+-80+-53+-106+-92+-103+-98+-274+-225+-99+-164+-95+-110+-65+-165+-151+-217+-30+-111+-83+-165+-132+-217+-175+-1 4 3 +-
4 4 +-6 2 +-121+-121+-23+-52+-1 5 9 +-2 1 4 +-196+-6 9 +-466+-34+-3 0 +-4 1 +-40+-211+-180+-113+-145+-380+-154+-346+-5 0 +-119+-170+-88+-253+-746+-1363+-480+-165+-135+-300+-285 +-46+-307+-841+-817+-250+-5+- 75 BUFFER 30 30 BUFFER 30 75 30 3 0 40 BUFFER 30 30 BUFFER 40 20 20 150 75 BUFFER 30 5-8-176-15-17 LOT DIMENSIONS, EAST-WEST TRAIL ESMT2.50+- AC.2.58+- AC.2.50+- AC2.84+- AC6.28+- AC.3.53+- AC.2.65+- AC.4.68+- AC.4.72+- AC.3.50+- AC.21.95+- AC.4.80+- AC.3.19+- AC.0 .3 4 +- A C .1.13+- AC.081+- AC.20.94+- AC.PROPOSED DRAINAGEEASEMENT OVER WETLAND C94+-7-5-17 REVISIONS8-3-17 REVISIONS21.95+- AC199+-220+-262+-97+-156+-137+-271+-182+-44+-57+-9 2 +-100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN=999100 YEAR FLOODPLAINTH 13TH 14TH 15TH 16TH 9TH 10TH 11TH 12TH 19TH 17TH 18TH 20TH 21TH 22TH 23TH 24TH 33TH 34TH 35TH 36POSSIBLESEPTIC SITE4433PROPOSEDHORSE TRAILPROPOSEDHORSE TRAILH O R S E
WALKING TRAILPROPOSED EAST-WEST TRAILEASEMENT FOR FUTURE USEPROPOSED EAST-WEST TRAILEASEMENT FOR FUTURE USETRAILBC 672+-12-5-17 LOT 4 MOVED EASTNINEOAKSAREA9909 9 0
9 9 0
10001000100010001 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 10001010101010101010101010101010101010101 0 2 0
10201 0 2 01020
1020102010201030103010301030104 0104010501050106010701070
102010101 0 3 010301030
998 O H W14.23+- ACRESBELOW 998 (OHW) CONTOURFLOODPLAIN0.10+- ACB L O C K 112B L O C K 212B L O C K 32-5-18 50' R.O.W PARKVIEWO U T L O T L
Wally and Bridget Marx Page 1 of 6 March 12, 2019
Amended CD-PUD/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: March 7, 2019
MEETING: March 12, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Wally and Bridget Marx – 2800 Parkview Drive – Amended Conservation
Design Subdivision PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat
Overview
On October 17, 2017 the City Council adopted Ordinance 618, established a Conservation
Design-Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) district for the School Lake Preserve subdivision.
The Council granted final plat approval on February 20, 2018. The plat was recorded and
construction was completed for the shared driveway and associated stormwater improvements.
At this point, no homes have been constructed in the subdivision. The applicant has also not
completed grading for the future trailhead.
The property owners desire to shift one of the lots within the subdivision (Lot 2, Block 2; 2800
Parkview Drive). The proposal is to change the lot line between the lot and the conservation
outlot which surrounds the lot. The resulting lot would be the same size, but shifted
approximately 50 feet to the northeast. The lot as proposed is shown on the following page with
solid blue lines, and the previous orientation shown with dashed blue. The entire CD-PUD
subdivision is outlined in red.
The CD-PUD subdivision placed approximately 70 acres of the 89.75 acres into permeant
conservation easements and created six residential lots. 11.76 acres of the conservation area is
buildable land which was not otherwise protected by City ordinance.
The subdivision is located on Parkview Drive, north of County Road 24, southwest of School
Lake and east of the Baker National Golf Course.
The Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) district is an overlay district
which provides an applicant an option to permanently preserve portions of a property by
providing incentives to develop the property consistent with the conservation objectives of the
City rather than conventional development following the standard zoning regulations. The
ordinance allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations in order to
encourage property owners to protect natural resources and open space with conservation
easements. Flexibility can include density bonuses, reduced setbacks and lot size requirements,
and flexibility to park dedication or septic regulations. Flexibility can also be considered for
upland buffer and tree preservation regulations on specific lots in the interests of protecting
natural resources more broadly on the site.
During review of the original subdivision, the majority of the City Council determined that
various aspects of flexibility should be granted to encourage the conservation. Most
Wally and Bridget Marx Page 2 of 6 March 12, 2019
Amended CD-PUD/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
significantly, a density bonus was granted to double the base density, which is the maximum
bonus permitted.
Staff believes it is appropriate to consider the Conservation Objectives described within the
ordinance when considering requests to amend a CD-PUD proposal. One way to consider
amendments would be to try to determine how you would have judged the flexibility allowed in
the CD-PUD if it had been proposed like this in the first place. On the other hand, an
amendment should not be significantly inconsistent with the objectives of the CD-PUD district.
Conservation Objectives and Determining Flexibility
The CD-PUD process allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations as
an incentive to permanently conserve natural resources and open space. According to the CD-
PUD ordinance, the City has the full discretion to determine how much flexibility to grant based
Wally and Bridget Marx Page 3 of 6 March 12, 2019
Amended CD-PUD/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
“the amount and quality of Conservation Area protected, the public access to or enjoyment
thereof, and how well the project achieves the following conservation objectives over and above
that achievable under conventional development:
a) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will
be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards.
(1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood
forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest).
(2) The protection and preservation of lakes, streams and wetlands beyond existing
regulatory requirements.
(3) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological
resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas
on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time.
(4) The reservation of land connecting aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources to
restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement
corridors.
(5) The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to
create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks,
Trails, and Open Space Plan.
(b) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives
may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards:
(1) The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads
identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report
as updated from time to time.
(2) The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in
order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
A copy of the approved CD-PUD is attached for reference. Staff has overlaid the approximate
realignment of Lot 2, Block 2 on the overall plan for clarity, because the preliminary plat
submitted by the applicant only shows a portion of the overall site (the lot and outlot proposed
to be adjusted). The overall CD-PUD preserved 70 acres of conservation area, 11.84 acres of
which is classified as buildable under the ordinance. The proposed amendment removes 0.5
acres from conservation but adds an equal 0.5 acres. The amendment would reduce the
buildable conservation area by 0.08 acre, reducing the total to 11.76 buildable acres. The
minimum amount of conservation is 30% of the buildable area, and the amendment would
reduce the buildable conservation from 40.7% to 40.4% of the total.
While this amount exceeds the minimum requirement, it is important to note that the City has the
discretion to determine that maximum flexibility is only appropriate if a proposal exceeds the
minimum amounts or substantially meets the objectives of the CD-PUD district. In this case, the
maximum density bonus (doubling the base density) was provided based upon the conservation
provided.
Approximately 50 acres of the Conservation Area includes wetland areas, areas within School
Lake or within the setback of Parkview Drive.
The primary area of preservation which is beyond that required by standard wetland regulations
and setback requirements is a 10-acre area east and west of Lot 1, Block 2. This area includes a
Wally and Bridget Marx Page 4 of 6 March 12, 2019
Amended CD-PUD/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
maple-basswood forest referenced in the applicant’s forester’s report. One of the other benefits
discussed during the original review was the preservation of two acres of the School Lake
lakeshore beyond the general regulations. The PUD also enacted a 200-foot minimum structure
setback rather than 150-foot otherwise required. The proposed amendment would shift the lot
approximately ¼ acre into this extra buffer, but would maintain the 200-foot minimum setback.
As a result, the amendment would allow improvements such as driveways, patios, and tennis
courts to be constructed closer to the lake than approved under the original proposal. Structures
could not be constructed closer, however.
The applicant argues that while the amendment would shift the lot closer to the lake, it also shifts
the lot out of the wooded area to the southwest of the lot, which would then be added to the
conservation area. The applicant argues that this is actually a better outcome. Minnehaha Creek
Watershed, who holds the conservation easement, provided comments in which they do not see
the amendment as a detriment to the overall conservation easement. These comments are
attached for reference.
Trail/Trailhead
The original subdivision included a public trail along the shared driveway from Parkview Drive
which would loop into the wooded area and provide a view of School Lake. This trail was going
to be unpaved, essentially an area kept clear through the woods. The applicant also agreed to
provide an area for a trailhead along the shared driveway to provide public access to the trail.
Because of the slopes along the driveway, an area needed to be graded to provide for the future
trailhead. This grading was included within the applicant’s plan and was supposed to be
completed while the applicant graded the site to widen the shared driveway.
The applicant has not completed grading the area of the trailhead. The applicant has indicated
that they believe that the location they chose for the trailhead may impact a 120-year old tree and
is difficult to accomplish because of a nearby drainageway.
City staff has attempted to engage with the applicant on options to address the concerns with the
location that they chose, including searching for alternative locations on the site. At this point,
the applicant has not provided a viable alternative.
As described in the purpose of the CD-PUD district, the bonus density and other flexibility
granted for this project was based, in part, on “the public access to or enjoyment [of the
Conservation Areas]” and “incorporating public trails.” The trailhead is an important aspect of
this access and the approval of the CD-PUD approval. Staff recommends that approval of the
amended CD-PUD and plat be conditioned upon an agreement for implementation of the
trailhead.
The subdivision also include an easement for a future extension of this trail to the east, along the
northern side of the large wetland. This corridor would allow for the potential of a future
connection if a trail easement is obtained from the property to the east.
Wally and Bridget Marx Page 5 of 6 March 12, 2019
Amended CD-PUD/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Lot Standards
The following lot standards were required in the School Lake CD-PUD. The lot as proposed in
the amendment would meet these standards.
School Lake
CD-PUD Requirement
Setback from Parkview Dr. 300 feet
Setback from Perimeter 50 feet
Interior structure setback 30 feet
School Lake 200 feet
Minimum Lot Size 2.5 acre
Subdivision Review
The original subdivision reviewed included a number of subjects which are not affected by the
proposed amendment to shift the lot such as septic requirements, transportation issues, wetland
buffers, and landscaping. As a result, these subjects are not addressed in this report.
Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission and City Council have a high level of discretion to determine if a
proposed CD-PUD subdivision better serves the conservation objectives of the City than would
conventional development, and how much flexibility, including bonus density, should be
provided within a CD-PUD. The City has similar discretion when reviewing an amendment to
an approved CD-PUD. As noted above, while it is appropriate to consider the amendment within
the context of the broader project, an amendment should not be substantially inconsistent with
the objectives of the CD-PUD. These objectives are described on page 2-3 of this report.
The public’s access to and enjoyment of the conservation areas were part of the benefits which
justified the bonus density and other flexibility within the CD-PUD. If a viable implementation
plan for construction of a trailhead can be achieved, staff recommends approval of the
amendment to the CD-PUD and preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. Except as explicitly authorized by City resolution or ordinance, all aspects of this
subdivision shall comply with all applicable state laws, city codes, ordinances and
regulations.
2. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including easement, signage, and vegetation requirements.
3. The Applicant shall submit any amendments to HOA covenants for review and approval of
the City.
4. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the
City Attorney related to necessary actions to construct a trail head for the public trail
including executing any additional trail easements to connect to the trail system as
necessary.
5. The Applicant shall take necessary actions to update the legal description of the
Conservation Easement to include the replacement conservation area.
6. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney related to title issues and
recording procedures.
Wally and Bridget Marx Page 6 of 6 March 12, 2019
Amended CD-PUD/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
7. The plat shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder within 180 days of
approval or the plat shall be considered null and void.
8. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the amended Planned Unit Development, plat, and other relevant
documents.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Ordinance No. 618
3. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Comments
4. Applicant Narrative/Amended General Plan of Development
5. Preliminary Plat
6. Approved CD-PUD general plan (with proposed realignment of Lot 2, Block 2 in red)
3/8/2019
Project: LR-19-243 – School Lake Preserve 2nd Amended CD-PUD; 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 1/11/2010 1/11/2019 3 Application Y Fully executed 2/11/2019
Deposit 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 1 Deposit Y $2000
Applicant Letter 1/11/2019 1/11/2019
Survey 1/11/2019 1/10/2019 1 Y
Minnehaha Creek Letter 1/11/2019 12/18/2018 1
Preliminary Plat 2/11/2019 2/11/2019 1 PrePlat Y
Final Plat 2/11/2019 NA 2 Plat Y
Narrative/General Plan 2/11/2010 NA 5 Narrative Y
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Notice 3/1/2019 3 Notice 5 pages w/ affidavit and list
Legal 2/26/2019 1 Legal
Prelim Review/Incomplete 1/18/2019 2
Prelim Review/Incomplete 2/21/2019 1
Planning Commission report 3/7/2019 6
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
3/8/2019
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO.618
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A CONSERVATION DESIGN -PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR "SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE"
AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Medina received a request to change the zoning classification of
certain property in the City which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the
Property").
Section 2. The Property is hereby zoned CD-PUD, Conservation Design District -
Planned Unit Development, based upon the findings contained within Resolution 2017-85
granting PUD General Plan of Development and Preliminary Plat approval for the Property.
Section 3. School Lake Nature Preserve Conservation Design Planned Unit
Development Plan.
A. All entitlements, including but not limited to, allowed dwelling units, allowed
uses, and development standards established within this CD-PUD District are
hereby set forth by the School Lake Nature Preserve General Plan received by the
City on September 1, 2017 incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A and as
may be modified by this ordinance and Resolution 2017-85 approving the
preliminary plat for "School Lake Nature Preserve".
B. Any allowed uses and standards not specifically addressed by this Ordinance shall
be subject to the requirements set forth by the City of Medina Zoning Ordinance
and the requirements of the Rural Residential zoning district.
Section 4. Lot Area and Dimensional Requirements. Lot requirements shall conform
to the general width and area of the lots as represented on the School Lake Nature Preserve CD-
PUD General Plan.
Section 5. Lot Setback and Performance Standards. All standards of the Medina City
Code and the Rural Residential zoning district shall apply to the Property unless explicitly
amended in this ordinance or explicitly addressed in the CD-PUD, Conservation Design -Planned
Unit Development zoning district. The following setback and performance standards are hereby
in place for the School Lake Nature Preserve Conservation Design -Planned Unit Development:
Minimum front yard setback: 40 feet
Minimum setback from exterior of PUD: 50 feet
Ordinance No. 618 1
October 17, 2017
Minimum side yard setback, between lots within the PUD: 20 feet
Minimum rear yard setbacks: 40 feet
Minimum setback from Parkview Drive: 300 feet
Minimum setback from School Lake: 200 feet
Section 6. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to make the
appropriate changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the change in
zoning classifications as set forth above upon this ordinance becoming effective.
Section 7. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the
Medina City Hall.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication and
recording of the final plat of School Lake Nature Preserve
Attest:
By:
Adopted by the Medina City Council this 17th day of October, 2017.
Jodi M< Gallup, City Clerk
By:
CITY OF MEDINA
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Published in the Crow River News on this 26th day of October, 2017.
Ordinance No. 618 2
October 17, 2017
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
PID 16 118 23 32 0002
2700 Parkview Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Legal description: Commencing at the NE corner of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, thence South to
the SE corner thereof, thence West to the SW corner thereof, thence North to the SW corner of
Priscilla's Addition, thence easterly along the southerly line of said Addition to the SE corner
thereof, thence North to the NE corner thereof, thence East to the beginning, except road. Section
16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PID 16 118 23 31 0002
2702 Parkview Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Legal description: The South 500 feet east of that part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 lying West of the
East 520 feet thereof. Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PID 16 118 23 23 0005
2900 Parkview Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Legal description: That part of the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 lying south of the North 845 feet thereof,
except the West 417.42 feet of the North 208.71 feet of the South 213.71 feet thereof; also that
part of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 lying West of the East 520 feet thereof and North of the South
500 feet thereof, except road. Section 16,Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal
Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Ordinance No. 618 3
October 17, 2017
Ordinance No. 618
October 17, 2017
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
4
SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE
SECOND AMENDED GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
School Lake Nature Preserve, LLC (“the Applicant”) respectfully requests an
amendment to the School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD, as described more fully below.
The Applicant also requests a replatting of the development.
As requested in the City’s January 18, 2019 letter, this Second Amended General
Plan of Development is submitted in compliance with Medina City Code § 827.35 Subd.
3, General Plan of Development. This Second Amended General Plan of Development is
intended to amend and supplement the Amended General Plan of Development
previously submitted on or about July 17, 2017; the Project Narrative and Concept Plan
previously submitted on December 9, 2016, and the General Plan of Development,
preliminary plat, and other materials previously submitted on May 12, 2017, which are
incorporated by reference (to the extent not modified by this Second Amended
Application).
School Lake Nature Preserve (“the Development”) is an 89.75-acre CD-PUD
development along the southwest shore of School Lake. The Development consists of six
lots (four of which abut School Lake), a paved shared driveway and other shared
driveways, two public trails, and a trailhead. Each of the six lots consists of a “fee lot”
upon which a house can be constructed, with one or more “outlots” that are subject to a
perpetual Conservation Easement and can only be used for conservation purposes.
Besides protecting a significant amount of otherwise-unprotected land, the CD-PUD adds
protections for already-protected land by, for example, increasing the usual 150-foot
structural setback from School Lake to a 200-foot setback for all Lots within the
Development.
2
Since Final Plat approval was granted, the Applicant has substantially completed
installation of the paved shared driveway. The grading plan, however, requires a
substantial amount of fill to be placed within Conservation Area for the construction of a
trailhead for the public trail. This amount of fill required potentially would disturb the
roots of a nearby 120-year old tree, and runoff would encroach upon a nearby creek that
runs through this portion of the property. Therefore, the Applicant requests that the area
for the trailhead be moved to the original location proposed by the City, next to Parkview
Drive, where the environmental impact will be minimal and less fill will be needed.
The Applicant also proposes a slight adjustment of the lot lines for Block 2, Lot 2,
to move the Lot out of forest and wetland buffer area and align it with the lake in a more
visually appealing way. The proposed amendment would essentially swap a combination
of “buffer” and “buildable” land in the southern part of the lot for “setback” area to the
north of the lot. The total lot size, and total conservation area, would remain the same.
We believe these proposed amendments are consistent with the conservation
objectives of Section 827.51 of the Medina City Code. With respect to the trailhead,
moving it to its original location by Parkview would keep it from harming an ecologically
significant tree and would avoid runoff into the creek. With regard to the Block 2, Lot 2
lot line shift, as the enclosed letter from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District states,
“The proposed change would move the lot almost completely out of the wetland buffer to
the south, and still maintain an adequate distance from the lakeshore buffer to the north.
Thus, we see this adjustment as a benefit to the protection of the wetland buffer and the
associated wetland.” These benefits, as well as the more appealing visual aesthetic, will
enhance the conservation and economic value of the development.
3
The proposed amendments result in no net gain or loss of fee vs. conservation
area, and would have negligible effect on the comparative amounts of the “otherwise
buildable” land within the conservation areas of the development. The total amount of
conservation area approved by the existing CD-PUD is 69.61 acres of Conservation Area,
of which 11.77 acres otherwise would be buildable if no CD-PUD had been approved.
Under the proposed amendments, the total amount of Conservation Area would still be
69.61 acres of Conservation Area, of which 11.69 acres otherwise would be buildable if
no CD-PUD had been approved. This minuscule decrease in “otherwise buildable” is
even less significant because the entire .08 of an acre of “otherwise buildable” falls
within the 200-foot structural setback, where no structures can be built.
The Preliminary Plat shows the relevant wetland buffers, structural setbacks, and
other necessary information to evaluate the proposed lot line change with respect to
Block 2, Lot 2 of the Development. The previous Tree Inventory Report is unchanged. A
revised grading plan and drawing shall be submitted for the proposed trailhead change as
soon as they are finished.
Following is additional information required by Subd. 3 of Section 827.35 of the
City Code:
1. Property Address. 2700-2900 Parkview Drive, Medina, MN.
2. Zoning Classifications. Currently zoned CD-PUD; no change requested.
3. Property Owner:
School Lake Nature Preserve, LLC
2700 Parkview Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Authorized Agent: Wallace Marx, CEO.
4
4. Preliminary Plat. See enclosed amended Preliminary Plat prepared by
Gronberg & Associates.
5. Preliminary plans: see id.
6. Legal descriptions: the existing legal descriptions for Block 2, Lot 2,
would be amended as indicated on the Preliminary and Final Plats for the following:
Lot 1, Block 1, School Lake Nature Preserve 2nd Addition
Outlot A, School Lake Nature Preserve 2nd Addition
The proposed trailhead amendment would require that the existing legal
descriptions for Outlots I and J, and for the trailhead easement, also be changed. The new
legal description will be submitted shortly.
7. Tabulation of residential dwellings and expected population: The existing
six (6) residential dwellings and expected population would not be changed by these
proposed amendments.
8. Preliminary grading and site alteration plan: See the Preliminary Plat
submitted herewith. A revised grading plan will be submitted by Mark Gronberg &
Associates showing the proposed amended trailhead location.
9. Timeline for development:
02/11/19 Application for Second Amended General Plan of
Development filed
03/12/19 Planning Commission Presentation
03/19/19 City Council Presentation
03/26/19 Final City Approvals
04/01/19 Record documents; marketing begins
5
10/15/22 Estimated residential occupancy of Block 1, Lots 1 and 2;
Block 2, Lots 1 and 2; and Block 3, Lot 1.
9. A statement summarizing all changes made to previously-submitted
documents: See above.
Maxxon Page 1 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: March 6, 2019
MEETING: March 12, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Maxxon – Variance and Site Plan Review –920 Hamel Road
Background
Early in 2018, the City Council adopted resolution 2018-10, which granted site plan review
approval to Maxxon Corporation construction of a 5190 square foot two-level addition at 920
Hamel Road. At this point, the applicant has not constructed the addition.
The subject property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Elm Creek, which flows
along the east edge of the property. As a result, hardcover is limited to 25% of the lot. The
property was developed prior to this limitation, and existing hardcover on the site is
approximately 50%. The applicant originally proposed to off-set the new hardcover for the
addition by removing bituminous parking lot and replacing with Grasspave, a pervious surfacing.
This resulted in no net increase in hardcover when approved last year.
Since the project was approved, the City has began planning for construction of a stormwater
pond north of the site in connection with the reconstruction of Hickory Drive. Rather than
replacing parking lot area with Grasspave, the applicant is now proposing to construct
improvements on the site which would collect stormwater from the building and parking lot and
pipe it to the City’s pond.
The applicant requests a variance from the 25% hardcover limitation in the shoreland overlay
district to add 2,278 square feet of hardcover for the addition. If the variance is approved, rather
than investing in the cost of the Grasspave in the parking lot, the applicant proposes to construct
improvements to capture stormwater from the site and direct it to the City’s storm pond. The
existing eastern parking lot and much of the existing buildings drains, untreated, directly to Elm
Creek. The applicant argues that this should result in improved water quality and rate control.
The existing structures are an aggregate of 24,843 square feet, and include 14,457 square feet of
office and 10,386 of warehouse. The proposed addition contains 2907 s.f. of office and 2283 s.f.
of warehouse. The addition will be in-filled between the two existing buildings.
The property is zoned Commercial-General. Property to the north and west is similarly zoned,
the apartment building west of the property is zoned Commercial-General, property to the south
is zoned Rural Residential, and property to east is zoned urban residential. An aerial of the site
can be found at the top of the following page.
Maxxon Page 2 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Variance
City code section 825.45 subd 2 establishes the following criteria for granting variances:
(a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance.
(b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be
established, all of the following criteria shall be met:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In
determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance
requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and
whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are
denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Maxxon Page 3 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The purpose and intent of the hardcover limitation is to nutrient loading, erosion, and other
effects of stormwater runoff from the hardcover into Elm Creek. The applicant argues that their
proposed improvements better meet this intent by capturing the runoff from the entire site which
currently drains directly to Elm Creek.
A similar argument relates to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant argues that there are practical difficulties because:
1) The property is proposed to be used in a reasonable manner. Office and warehouse uses
are permitted in the district. The applicant attempted to minimize the variance by
reducing hardcover by removing a concrete patio and not increasing the loading dock
area. The applicant is proposing to fill-in between the existing buildings, so no hardcover
is being pushed closer to Elm Creek. The applicant is also proposing to capture
stormwater from an area that is significantly larger than the comparatively low amount of
new hardcover proposed.
2) The number of commercial properties developed within the shoreland overly district is
fairly limited, approximately 5 properties.
3) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Staff believes that improvements to convey stormwater from the entire site to the City’s
stormwater pond is more consistent with the intent of the shoreland overlay district than the
current situation. The significantly larger area of existing hardcover which is being treated
beyond the new hardcover appears to minimize the variance. For these reasons, staff believes it
is reasonable to argue that the criteria are met.
Proposed Site Plan
The proposed site plan is the same as approved early in 2018 except the following changes:
1) A portion of the parking lot is no longer proposed to be converted to Grasspave surfacing.
2) The applicant proposes to alter grading on the site and to install storm sewer to capture
stormwater and connect to the City’s stormwater pond.
3) No loading dock door is proposed in the addition, and no expansion is proposed to the
loading dock area. The original site plan proposed a new loading dock in the addition
and the removal of one of the existing doors.
If the City approves the variance and amended site plan, staff is recommending that the previous
approval be rescinded and replaced.
The proposed addition is 5,190 square feet and is proposed between the two existing structures.
The addition includes 2907 s.f. of office and 2283 s.f. of warehouse. The proposed location of
the addition meets the setback requirements of the CG zoning district. Staff noted that the
existing structures do not conform with setbacks in two instances, but the addition does not affect
this situation and the addition meets all relevant setbacks.
Following is a summary comparing the proposed addition and the proposed building after the
addition to the dimensional standards of the CG district.
Maxxon Page 4 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
CG District
Requirement
Proposed
Addition
(only)
Proposed structure w/
addition
Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 47.2 feet 23.3 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet 161 feet 134 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet 172 feet 40 feet
Setback from Major Collector
(Hamel Road)
50 feet 89 feet 28.1 feet
Setback from Residential (east) 50 feet 161 feet 134 feet
Setback from Residential (south) 50 feet 89 feet 28.1 feet -61.1 feet w/ROW
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 5 feet (Hamel Road)
Rear and Side Yard 5 feet 30 feet
Residential (west) 25 feet 25 feet
Minimum setback from OHW 50 feet 148 feet 120 feet
Parking from Elm Creek 50 feet 43 feet
Maximum Hardcover 25% 52.8%
(increased from 50.2%)
Building Height 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet
As displayed in the table, various aspects of the existing facility, highlighted in yellow, do not
conform with current regulations. The property was developed in the 1980s and various
regulations have changed since that time. State law and City ordinance allow nonconformities to
be continued and improved, but not expanded. The proposed addition meets all relevant
dimensional standards, with the exception of the added hardcover.
The Shoreland Overlay District restricts grading and vegetation removal within the shore impact
zone, 50 feet from Elm Creek. The applicant proposes no disturbance to this area.
Except for the changes noted above, the remaining aspects of the site plan were approved back in
2018. The information is summarized below for context.
Building Materials and Design
The Commercial zoning district includes the following architectural standards. The Planning
Commission and Council can discuss whether the proposed addition is consistent with the
standards or recommend conditions if not.
Materials
The Commercial zoning districts requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and
meet the following standards:
(a) A minimum of 30 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco
(not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass.
(b) A maximum of 70 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative
block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high-
quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
Maxxon Page 5 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
(c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper), or fiber cement lap
siding, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design”
The applicant proposes to utilize a combination of brick, stone, and glass in the exterior of the
proposed addition, which meets the requirements of the district.
Modulation
The Commercial districts require: “buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet
of building perimeter to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include
varying building heights, building setbacks, or building materials/design. The portions of the
building which exceed two stories or 35 feet shall be set back a minimum of six feet from the
lower portion of the building.”
The addition is less than 40 feet wide and is proposed to incorporate materials which provide
modulation from the existing materials on the two existing structures.
Fenestration and Transparency
The Commercial districts require: “Building elevations which face a public street shall include
generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the City
when windows are not practical.”
The east elevation of the addition includes approximately 27% windows. The west elevation of
the addition includes approximately 10% window coverage.
Multi-sided Architecture
The Commercial districts require: “any rear or side building elevation which faces a public
street, an interior access drive for the development, or a residential zoning district, shall include
design and architectural elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The
elevation(s) shall be compatible with the front building elevation. Additional signage shall be
permitted for an elevation facing a public street or interior access drive, as regulated within the
sign ordinance. Multi-sided architecture shall not be required in situations where the rear or side
building elevation is fully screened from view from the adjacent street or residential property.”
The applicant has proposed to incorporate brick and stone and windows along the higher portion
of the western elevation, generally similar to the east elevation.
Stormwater
The applicant proposes to grade the site, install curb/gutter and stormsewer improvements to
capture site stormwater and pipe it to the City’s pond which will be constructed to the north.
Staff recommends that an agreement related to the construction and maintenance of the
stormsewer be required.
Historical aerial photographs have shown evidence of past washing of vehicles, equipment or
other materials in the loading dock areas which created the potential for illicit discharge of
chemicals to Elm Creek. Staff recommends a condition reinforcing the fact that the City’s illicit
discharge ordinance applies and that no outdoor cleaning of vehicles or materials is permitted.
Maxxon Page 6 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Wetlands and Floodplains
Elm Creek is located along the eastern boundary of the property. A “Zone A” floodplain is
located adjacent to the creek, but is far downslope from any proposed work. No impacts are
proposed.
Wetlands are adjacent to Elm Creek in the location as well. A Site Plan Review triggers the
City’s wetland protection ordinance. A buffer with an average width of 30-feet in width will be
required upslope from the wetland. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval.
Transportation/Access/Loading
The primary access to the property is from Hamel Road, where most of the parking is located.
The property also has three curb cuts on Hickory Drive, which serve loading docks.
Hamel Road is designated as a major collector. The City Engineer has not recommended that the
5,900 square foot addition would cause capacity concern or necessitate any improvements.
As noted above, three curb cuts on Hickory Drive provide access to seven existing loading
docks. Trucks cannot circulate on the site and need to back off of Hickory Drive in order to
access the loading docks. The southern curb cut substantially exceeds the maximum width of 32
feet permitted. The applicant originally proposed additional loading docks to be served from this
existing curb cut, but has since removed additional docks.
Parking
The property includes 55 parking spaces, and parking also tends to occur in the loading dock
areas of the property. The existing site appears to fall short of minimum parking standards, even
before the addition. Staff calculates that the existing minimum parking requirement per
ordinance is 64 spaces. The property owner states that parking has never been a concern based
on their operations, and, in fact, the parking lot is often half empty.
The property owner also owns property across Hickory Drive at 3575 Hickory Drive. The owner
utilizes the existing structure on the site for warehousing, and there is also outside storage on the
property which is intended to be moved into the expanded warehouse. As such, the owner is
proposing joint/shared parking on the property across the street. Existing parking areas exist on
the 3575 Hickory property, and the applicant has submitted a plan which shows that a total of 24
parking spaces could be accommodated (the applicant’s plan shows 31 spaces, but 7 are in front
of the garage doors on the existing structure). Code would only require 5 parking spaces for the
existing structure on the property. The 19 parking spaces would more than cover the required
additional parking created from the addition (13 spaces), and comes within 2 spaces of meeting
the required parking by ordinance for both structures after the addition. Staff recommends a
parking easement be recorded against the 3575 Hickory Drive property to preserve the 19
parking spaces for the use of the Maxxon property.
The ordinance does permit the City to grant flexibility to the minimum parking requirements as
follows: “A waiver may be granted by the City to reduce the required number of parking spaces.
Parking reduction waivers shall be recorded with a legal instrument acceptable to the City. A
waiver may be granted where it can be demonstrated that such reduction is justified due to:
(i) factors having an impact on parking demand and capacity;
Maxxon Page 7 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
(ii) the achievement of other competing City objectives including, but not limited to,
preservation of unique or historic buildings, preservation of community character, tree
or natural resource preservation; or
(iii) unique or extenuating circumstances unforeseen by this ordinance.”
Based on the applicant’s operation, staff believes existing parking will be sufficient, even
without creating additional parking on the 3575 Hickory property. This could be argued as a
factor having an impact on parking demand, especially for a reduction of 2 spaces (or 2.5%).
The City’s code also allows a reduction in the number of parking spaces constructed if the
applicant provides proof of parking which can be constructed in the future if deemed necessary
by the City. Staff recommends a proof of parking agreement be required in lieu of constructing
additional parking at this time.
Lighting
The applicant proposes new lighting fixtures around the entire structure. The CG district
requires all exterior lighting to be fully downcast and shielded and limits light trespass to 0.5
footcandles at the property line, and to 0.0 footcandles at any residential property line.
Staff recommends a condition for additional shielding or otherwise providing compliance with
the lighting code.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The City’s tree preservation ordinance would allow the removal of 9 existing trees without
replacement. The applicant proposes to remove 5 trees in connection with the construction.
The Commercial zoning districts require the planting based upon the perimeter of the lot, in this
case resulting in 25 overstory trees, 12 ornamental trees, and 41 shrubs. Existing trees can be
used towards this count, so it appears that no trees would be required.
The applicant proposes 13 additional trees and 45 shrubs within their landscaping plan, but it
appears that all landscaping is proposed to the east of the building. Staff recommends that some
planting be incorporated to the west of the structure.
The Commercial zoning districts also require: “a minimum of eight percent of the total land area
within parking, driveway, and loading dock areas shall be landscaped.” Since no parking or
loading area is being added, the situation is not being made more noncompliant.
Utilities, Mechanical Equipment, and Trash and Recycling Facilities
The Commercial districts require that all utility equipment, meters and transformers shall be
placed either inside of the building or screened. Mechanical and HVAC equipment is required to
be screened whether on the rooftop or on the ground.
The code also requires: “All trash and material to be recycled shall be
stored within the principal building, within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed
outdoor area adjacent to the principal structure. The accessory structure or enclosed area
Maxxon Page 8 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
shall be constructed of similar materials and have compatible architecture as the principal
structure and shall abide by yard setback requirements.”
The applicant has added a note that any new equipment will be screened. Staff recommends a
condition requiring detail. The Commercial zoning district does not permit outside storage or
materials, so staff recommends a condition related to this requirement.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The variance criteria were discussed on pages 2 and 3. The City has a good deal of discretion
reviewing variances. In fact, the variance should only be approved in the criteria are met.
The purpose of a Site Plan Review is “to determine whether it is consistent with the requirements
of this ordinance, including the applicable development standards and the purpose of the
zoning district in which the property is located.”
The Site Plan Review only applies to the new improvements which are proposed. Staff noted a
number of circumstances in which the existing buildings do not comply with current regulations
for background. The applicant is attempting to accommodate the expansion and improvement of
the property and comply with current regulations within the context of these nonconformities.
The updated site plan is contingent upon approval of the variance to allow the additional
hardcover within the shoreland overlay district. If the variance is not approved, the site plan
review would not be able to be approved.
As noted, the site plan was approved back in 2018 with the use of Grasspave in the parking lot.
If the variance and this site plan review were not approved, the previous version of the site plan
would still be approved.
If the Planning Commission find that the variance criteria are met, staff would recommend
approval of the variance and amended site plan review subject to the following conditions:
1) Approval of the Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon approval and effectuation of a
lot combination of the Property.
2) The Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure construction and long-term maintenance of the
stormsewer improvements and other relevant City requirements and policies.
3) The Owner shall enter into a permanent parking agreement in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure parking is reserved upon the neighboring
property for the benefit of the subject Property.
4) The Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure construction of the proof-of-parking on the
neighboring property if deemed necessary by the City in the future.
5) The Owner shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including, but not limited to, dedication of buffer easements, installation of signage and
establishing appropriate vegetation.
6) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated ______, except as
may be modified herein. The Applicant shall update grading and drainage plans such that
Maxxon Page 9 of 9 March 12, 2019
Variance and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
site drainage is conveyed to the City’s stormwater pond. The design of all improvements
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
7) All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
8) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance including
easement, vegetation and signage.
9) The Applicant shall update lighting plans such that no lighting exceeds 0.5 footcandles at
the property lines and shall otherwise meet the requirements of the lighting ordinance and
CG zoning district.
10) Landscaping plans shall be updated to include some plantings west of the structure.
11) The use on the Property shall abide by the requirements of the Illicit Discharge Ordinance
and no pollutants shall be washed from vehicles or equipment in a way to discharge to
wetlands or waterbodies.
12) Any new mechanical or utility equipment and any new trash/recycling storage shall be
screened as required by the CG zoning district. Verification that no such equipment or
storage is proposed shall be provided prior to building permit, or the location and
screening shall be provided.
13) The site plan review approval granted by Resolution 2018-10 is hereby revoked and
replaced by this approval.
14) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the site plan review and the review and creation of related
documents.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Resolution 2018-10
3. Engineering Comments dated 2/28/2019
4. Applicant Narrative
5. Plans (Site Plan updated 2/11/2010; Arch updated 2/21/2019)
Project: LR-17-220– Maxxon Lot Combination, Variance and Site Plan Review
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 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 3 Application Y
Application-Variance 2/11/2019 2/11/2019 3 Application-Variance Y
Fee 11/13/2017 11/10/2017 1 Deposit Y $5000
Plans 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 8 Plans-11-13-2017 Y
Plans-Updated 12/19/2017 12/18/2017 9 Plans-12-19-2017 Y
Plans-Updated-Arch only 1/25/2018 12/18/2017 8 Plans-01-24-2018 Y 5 pages arch. updated
Lighting Information 12/19/2017 12/14/2017 7 LightingInfo Y
Narrative 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2 Narrative Y
Narrative-Updated 12/19/2017 12/18/2017 2 Narrative-12-19-2017 Y
Title Commitment 10/20/2017 10/31/2017 29 TitleCommitment Y
Site Plan-Variance 2/11/2019 2/11/2019 1 SitePlan-02-11-2019 Y
ArchPlans-Variance 2/21/2019 2/21/2019 2 Arch-02-21-2019 Y
Narrative-Variance 2/8/2019 2/8/2019 1 Narrative-02-08-2019
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Legal Comments 12/3/2017 1 Legal Comments
Legal Comments 2/25/2019 1 Legal-2-25-2019
City Engineer Comments 11/27/2017 2 Engineering11-27-2017
City Engineer Comments 1/4/2018 3 Engineering1-4-2018
City Engineer Comments 2/28/2019 3 Engineering-02-28-2019
Police Comments 11/20/2017 1 PoliceComments
Building Official Comments 11/21/2017 1 BuildingComments
Planning Commission Report 1/12/2018 9 PlanningReport 24 pages w/ attachments
City Council Report 1/31/2018 10 CouncilReport 26 pages w/attachments
Notice-Variance 3/1/2019 4 Notice-03-01-2019 6 pages w/ affidavit and labels
Planning Commission Report 3/7/2019 9 PlanningReport-03-12-2019
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Planning Commission minutes 1/18/2018 PCMinutes
Member Pederson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION 2018-10
RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO
MAXTECH FOR PROPERTY AT 920 HAMEL ROAD
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Westcreek Properties, LLC (the "Owner") owns property located at 920
Hamel Road (the "Property"), which are legally described as:
1,ot 4, except the West 30 feet of Lot 4 as measured at right angles from the most
Westerly line of Lot 4. Block 1, Medina Creekside Addition; Flennepin County,
Minnesota. and Lot 5. Block 1. Medina Creekside Addition. Hennepin County.
Minnesota.
r
Torrens Property. Certificate No. 1196972.)
and
Lot 6, Block 1. Medina Creekside Addition, Hennepin County. Minnesota.
Torrens Property. Certificate No. 1196971.) ; and
WHEREAS, MaxTech, Inc. (the "Applicant") operates on the Property and has
requested approval of a site plan review for construction of 5,190 square foot addition between
the two existing buildings on the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan at the January 18, 2018
meeting and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the requested site plan at the February 7, 2018
meeting and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation and testimony of interested
parties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed site and building plans are generally
consistent with the requirements and intent of the Commercial -General District, subject to certain
terms and conditions which are noted herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota
hereby grants site plan review approval to the Owner and Applicant for the proposed addition,
subject to the following terms and conditions:
Resolution No. 2018-10
February 20, 2018
1) Approval of the Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon approval and effectuation of a
lot combination of the Property.
2) The Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure construction and long-term maintenance of
pervious parking lot surfacing and other relevant City requirements and policies.
3) The Owner shall enter into a permanent parking agreement in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure parking is reserved upon the neighboring
property for the benefit of the subject Property.
4) The Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure construction of the proof -of -parking on the
neighboring property if deemed necessary by the City in the future.
5) The Owner shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including, but not limited to, dedication of buffer easements, installation of signage and
establishing appropriate vegetation.
6) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated December 19,
2017, except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
7) All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
8) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance including
easement, vegetation and signage.
9) The Applicant shall update lighting plans such that no lighting exceeds 0.5 footcandles at
the property lines and shall otherwise meet the requirements of the lighting ordinance and
CG zoning district.
10) Landscaping plans shall be updated to include some plantings west of the structure.
11) Eight percent of new loading dock area shall be landscaped, or any additional loading
dock area shall be off -set by the removal of an equal area of loading dock area to comply
with parking lot/loading dock landscaping requirements.
12) The use on the Property shall abide by the requirements of the Illicit Discharge Ordinance
and no pollutants shall be washed from vehicles or equipment in a way to discharge to
wetlands or waterbodies.
13) Any new mechanical or utility equipment and any new trash/recycling storage shall be
screened as required by the CG zoning district. Verification that no such equipment or
storage is proposed shall be provided prior to building permit, or the location and
screening shall be provided.
14) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the site plan review and the review and creation of related
documents.
Dated: February 20, 2018.
Attest:
By:
B
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Resolution No. 2018-10
February 20, 2018
2
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Anderson
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Anderson, Cousineau, Martin, Mitchell, Pederson
And the following voted against same:
None
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2018-10 3
February 20, 2018
1
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
February 28, 2019
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Maxxon Corporation Bldg/Site Expansion – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-220
WSB Project No. 011151-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed the Maxxon Corporation variance application and plans dated February 11, 2019.
The applicant proposes to construct a new building connecting the two existing structures, modify the
loading dock access/layout, and reconstruct the rear parking lot.
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.
Site Plan
1. The City is planning to reconstruct Hickory Drive in 2019. The work will include minor
regrading of the road to better convey drainage, the addition of concrete curb and gutter,
bituminous pavement, storm sewer installations, and a stormwater pond north of the Maxxon
site. The City requests that the applicant work with the City during the planning stages to
identify areas of permanent improvements to the Maxxon driveway and site drainage
conveyance adjacent to Hickory Drive or to the proposed pond. Depending on the schedule
of the Maxxon addition, temporary improvements may be necessary to accommodate
drainage and access until the City’s project is constructed.
2. Add a legend for the various hatching patterns.
3. Add a heavy-duty pavement section to the plans for the loading dock/truck area in
consideration of the onsite soil conditions. The preference is to have a final design
determined prior to construction and not have to make hasty decisions during construction.
Grading and Erosion Control Plan
4. Provide grade percentages where new pavement and valley gutters are proposed. Plans show
the valley gutter at 0.5% but also include for the new bituminous areas.
5. Show in more detail the roof drain locations (on all buildings), how the roof drains on the
new addition will be conveyed to the proposed storm sewer system in the parking lot, and
Medina Maxxon Corporation Bldg/Site Expansion – Engineering Review
February 28, 2019
Page 2
how the existing roof drains on the southerly building can be connected and/or conveyed to
the proposed storm sewer collection system. See comment number 18.
6. Show the connection from the roof drain located on the northwest building corner north to
the City’s proposed storm sewer system.
7. Add a legend for the various hatching patterns.
8. Add a 3-foot sump to the northerly proposed structure. See the City’s Hickory Drive project
plans for recommended structure inverts and sizes. The northerly structure should be 48-
inches in diameter and have and opening manufactured for the City’s connection, please note
on the invert information.
9. Note on the plans the Maxxon contractor will be required to coordinate with the City’s
contractor on the proposed improvements. The City wants to minimize disruption (on both
projects) and coordinate the storm sewer connections on the Maxxon property.
10. Provide updated grading plan with next submittal. Include rim and invert information for the
proposed storm sewer structures.
Stormwater Management
11. Stormwater runoff from the proposed building expansion, existing northerly building, and
parking lot is now being directed to the proposed City stormwater pond to the north. The
southerly existing building roof drains convey runoff to the Hamel Road right-of-way and
directly into Elm Creek. The runoff from this roof should also be collected by the proposed
storm sewer collection system (either in the parking lot or along Hickory Drive) or conveyed
overland into the proposed storm sewer system.
Wetland Management
12. A wetland boundary was estimated for the site in June 2018. This boundary is missing from
the site plan. The wetland boundary an associated wetland buffer must be added to the site
plan.
13. The wetland surrounding Elm Creek is classified as a Manage 1 on Medina’s Functional
Classification of Wetlands map. As such, an average 30-foot wide (minimum 20-foot wide)
upland buffer must be established on the upland side of the wetland boundary. Upland buffer
signage must be shown on the site plan and be placed per lot line and every 250 feet
thereafter and on all common lot lines. Buffer signs must meet the criteria set forth in Section
828.43 Subd. 7 of Medina City Code.
Provide an engineer’s estimate for the storm sewer improvements and schedule for the construction
work. This information is used to calculate the appropriate letter of credit (LOC) amounts and
construction engineering costs respectively.
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.
Medina Maxxon Corporation Bldg/Site Expansion – Engineering Review
February 28, 2019
Page 3
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
February 8, 2019
�s and builders
920 Hamel Rd Variance Narrative
Maxtech, located at 920 Hamel Rd in Hamel, Minnesota, is seeking a variance to
allow the construction of an infill that will connect their two existing buildings. The
additional hardscape will exceed the allowable impervious amount as outlined in the
Medina city ordinances. Currently the existing buildings are connected by a 2nd floor
skywalk that has fallen in disrepair. The site is adjacent to and currently drains directly
towards a creek. The infill project also includes replacing the existing parking lot and
warehouse drive, and a permeable patio.
The project provides an opportunity for the lot to rework its drainage and supply
a connection to the city storm sewer that will soon be built. Because of the
improvement of the stormwater management and treatment, the project is in harmony
with the City ordinance's intent.
The business use of the building will remain the same, the exterior will be fully
updated, and the stormwater efforts are all consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The expansion and update of the existing building will allow the company to utilize the
current lot (the most resource and environmentally friendly option) as opposed to
moving or building new. The stormwater connections will help to preserve the
environment and utilizing permeable options for the patio will create a gathering space
that is environmentally friendly. The new exterior cladding will help to achieve the
attractive business space goal while preserving the rural character of Medina.
The variance request for the additional allowable hardscape is the minimum
variance to keep the business operating at its same level with its projected growth.
Today's variance request reduces the amount of hardscape previously proposed in the
December Conditional Use Permit by 1.5% by eliminating the new loading dock. The
separate buildings were originally constructed on separate parcels and then connected
via bridge and served by a shared parking lot. Due to the initial separateness, the
property requires additional hardscape to achieve functions that may have been
achieved with less if constructed as one from the start. The owner has combined the
lots and seeks to unite the building to accommodate the current and potential future
uses for many years down the road. The additional hardscape would not provide any
special privileges to the owner and will not alter the character of the area. The variance
will allow the owner to focus on stormwater treatment and work with the City to help
benefit the area.
9600 54th Ave N, Suite 180 , Plymouth, MN 55442
Toll Free: 888,327,2817 Local: 763.54"1.9552 Fax: 763.541.9857
www.vanmanab.cor i
DW100' lineH H H
REPLACE TREE
REPLACE TREE
REPLACE TREE
REMOVE TREE
REPLACE LIGHT
REPLACE LIGHT
NEW LIGHT
AREA TRIPLE WIDTH OF ROOT BALL2"6" MINMULCH RING 2' BEYOND TREE PIT
TREE MUST MEET OR
EXCEED ANSI Z60.1
(AMERICAN STANDARD
FOR NURSERY STOCK)
DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE
TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE
ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-
DOMINANT LEADERS, AND
BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES.
SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND
LATERAL BRANCES MAY BE
PRUNED; HOWEVER, DO NOT
REMOVE TERMINAL BUDS OF
BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO
THE EDGE OF THE CROWN.
DIAMETER OF THE HOLE SHALL
BE TRIPLE THE DIAMETER OF
ROOT BALL, SIDES SHOULD
GRADUALLY SLOPE. IF AUGER IS
USED TO DIG PLANTING HOLES,
SCARIFY SIDES OF HOLE WITH
HAND TOOLS.
SIT ROOTBALL ON 6" MOUND
OF UNDISTURBED SOIL TO
PREVENT SETTLING
EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED
WITH FIRST MAIN LATERAL ROOT AT
GROUND LINE AND SO THAT THE
ROOT FLARE IS VISIBLE. REMOVE
EXCESS SOIL IF NURSERY
PLANTING DEPTH TOO DEEP. IF
THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET
THE TREE WILL BE REJECTED.
3" MIN MULCH RING. DO NOT PLACE
MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE
TRUNK. KEEP MULCH 4" AWAY
FROM TRUNK BASE
4" HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND
EDGE OF ROOTBALL
CUT AND REMOVE WIRE, BURLAP,
AND NAILS ON TOP 1/2 OF SOIL
BALL. REMOVE ALL ROPE & TWINE
AND DISPOSE OF OFF SITE
LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING
SYMBOL LEGEND
OVERSTORY TREES
CONIFEROUS TREES
SHRUBS
DEMOLISHED TREES
ORNAMENTAL TREES
EXISTING TREES
WALL PACK LIGHT
BOLLARD LIGHT REPLACEMENT
GRASSPAVE SYSTEM
LANDSCAPING NOTES
PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND
KEY SIZECOMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME QTY.
ROOT CONDITION
BLUE SPRUCE Picea pungensA
C
- Overstory trees shall be 2" inches in diameter
as measured six inches above the ground, and
trees must be balled and burlapped.
TYPE
CONIFEROUS TREE 10
- Ornamental trees shall be 2" inches in diameter
as measured six inches above the ground, and
trees must be balled and burlapped.
- Coniferous trees shall be 6 feet in height,
the trees must be balled and burlapped.
1) TREE PRESERVATION - EXISTING
TREES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION
BOUNDARY ARE TO BE REMOVED
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
EXISTING TREES NOT WITHIN THE
CONSTRUCTION BOUNDARY
SHALL BE PROTECTED.
CITY OF MEDINA REQUIREMENTS (Section 828.41 - Tree Preservation and Replacement)
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Subd 4. - Applicability
(a) Removal of more than two (2)
Significant (8" dia) trees on any
property within a given calendar year.
D
EMERALD ARBORVITAE SHRUB 5Thuja occidentalis 'Emerald'
SIENNA GLEN MAPLE Acer x freemanii 'Sienna'B OVERSTORY TREE 3
6' TALL
2" DIA.
LITTLE GIANT ARBORVITAE Thuja occidentalis 'Little Giant'SHRUB 42
Subd 6. - Allowed Tree Removal
(a) Activities other than Initial Site
Development
2.06 acres = 15% allowed
Removed
Significant Trees
62 total Significant Trees
(9 trees allowed)
5 Significant trees removed
Subd 9. - Tree Preservation and Replacement
Requirements
(c) Tree Replacement Plan
(i) Number and Size
All other areas - 1 caliper inch per
1 inch removed Significant Trees
6 replacement trees located at front facade
of building
Subd 10. - Native Trees
All Replacement Trees shall comply
with the list in Subdivision 10.
3) ALL SHRUBS SHALL HAVE POLY
EDGING WITH 3" DEEP DOUBLE
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
ON WEED BARRIER FABRIC.
4 ) ANY DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE
RESEEDED FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION
2 ) EROSION CONTROL TO BE
DETERMINED ON SITE
5 ) GRASSPAVE TO BE HYDROSEEDED OR
SODDED WITH KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS OR
APPROVED EQUAL
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2016C
Maxxon Corporation Hamel, Minnesota 12/18/2017
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
A-5
1 ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
A-5
2 TREE PLANTING DETAIL
A-5
T/ (E) ROOF
115' 0"
T/ PARAPET
117' 0"
T/ (E) HIGH ROOF
111' 5"
T/ (E) LOW ROOF
109' 2 1/2"
T/ (E) HIGH ROOF
116' 1 1/2"
T/ (E) LOW ROOF
112' 2 1/2"
BRICK
STONE
ALUMINUM DOOR
CAST STONE SILLS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
SIGNAGE BY OWNER
SOLDIER COURSE BRICK
MAIN LEVEL GRADE
89' 3"
NEW ADDITION
T / PRECAST FTI
115' - 6"
T/ (E) ROOF
115' 0"
STONE
ALUMINUM DOOR
UPPER LEVEL GRADE
100' 0"
NEW ADDITION
SOLDIER COURSE BRICK
BRICK
ALUMINUM WINDOWS
T / (E) PRECAST LOW
113' - 6"
T / PRECAST FTI
115' - 6"
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2016C
MaxTech Hamel, Minnesota 02/21/2019
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-3
1 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-3
2 WEST ELEVATION
A-3
GENERAL NOTE: ANY NEW MECHANICAL OR HVAC EQUIPTMENT WILL BE SCREENED PER COMMERCIAL-GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL NOTE: ANY NEW MECHANICAL OR HVAC EQUIPTMENT WILL BE SCREENED PER COMMERCIAL-GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
T/ (E) ROOF
115' 0"
UPPER LEVEL GRADE
100' 0"
(E) STONE
VERTICAL NICHIHA
VINTAGE WOOD
MAIN LEVEL GRADE
89' 3"
T/ (E) ROOF
115' 0"
MAIN LEVEL GRADE
89' 3"
(E) STONE
HORIZONTAL NICHIHA
VINTAGE WOOD
UPPER LEVEL GRADE
100' 0"
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2016C
Maxxon Corporation Hamel, Minnesota 12/18/2017
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
A-4
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-4
2 NORTH ELEVATION
A-4
GENERAL NOTE: ANY NEW MECHANICAL OR HVAC EQUIPTMENT WILL BE SCREENED PER COMMERCIAL-GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL NOTE: ANY NEW MECHANICAL OR HVAC EQUIPTMENT WILL BE SCREENED PER COMMERCIAL-GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
UPUP
DN
2
A-301
3
A-301
5
A-301
up
491 SF
R&D
123
336 SF
LOBBY
133
Unexcavated
MAIN LEVEL GRADE
89' 3"
A-2011
A-201 2 729 SF
R&D
124
4
A-301
1
A-301
26' - 6"27' - 6"104 SF
MENS
131
105 SF
WOMENS
128
60 SF
MECH
129
59 SF
UNISEX
130
738 SF
GYM
127
5' - 0"6' - 0 1/4"37' - 10"
Unexcavated
P12P12
P12P12
B12
B12
B12
B12
M3M3
M3
M3
124
125
126A
128
129
130
131
STAIR 'C'
126
STAIR 'D'
125
123
126B
STC 50
INSULATED HM W/ FULL PERIMETER ACOUSTICAL
SEALS AND AN AUTO DROP BOTTOM SEAL
A-404
1
T/ SLAB
88' - 2"
A-405
1
A
39' - 0"8' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"EYE
WASH
SAFETY SHOWER4' - 1 3/4"
123
OPEN OFFICE
155
1' - 0"MIN
5' - 0"
M2nM2n
M2n
M2n
M6
M3
M6M6
M3
M3
A-403
1
2
A-301
3
A-301
5
A-301
dn
1072 SF
WAREHOUSE
220
759 SF
R&D LAB
222
UPPER LEVEL GRADE
100' 0"40' - 6"A-2011
A-201 2
PP
729 SF
R&D
221 COMMERCIAL
FUME HOOD
4
A-301
33' - 2 1/2"
2' - 0 3/4"
26' - 6"
2' - 0 3/4"
29' - 3"
1
A-301 6' - 2"14' - 0"M3r
P12P12
P12P12
B12
B12
M3
M3
M3
B12
221
220B
223A223B
126C
HALL
223
222A220A
STC 55
STC 30
M3r
A-405
2
5' - 6 1/2"
8' - 3 1/4"39' - 0 1/4" (F.V.)6' - 0" 2' - 1" 27' - 6" 3' - 3"
50' - 0"34' - 0 1/2"9' - 6"
B
C
ABOVE
25' - 0"7' - 0"4' - 5 1/2"3' - 6"16' - 1"9' - 8"
4' - 2 1/2"
INSULATED HM W/ FULL PERIMETER ACOUSTICAL
SEALS AND AN AUTO DROP BOTTOM SEAL
INSULATED HM W/ FULL PERIMETER ACOUSTICAL
SEALS AND AN AUTO DROP BOTTOM SEAL
STORAGE
225STAIR 'C'
126
5' - 0"
126D
225
EYE
WASH
SAFETY SHOW ERramp8' - 0"
ramp
1
M2n
M2n
M2n
VANMAN ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS - 9600 54th Ave N #180 - Plymouth, Minnesota 55442 - 888.327.2817 - 763.541.9552 - 763.541.9857 - www.vanmanab.com
COPYRIGHT 2016C
MaxTech Hamel, Minnesota 02/21/2019
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-102
1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-102
2 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
RR-UR Rezoning Page 1 of 3 March 12, 2019
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: March 7, 2019
MEETING: March 12, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – Ordinance Rezoning certain properties to
Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) zoning district
Background
On December 11, 2018 and February 12, 2019, the Planning Commission held public hearings
on the proposed rezoning of 35 parcels intended to make the zoning consistent with the updated
Comprehensive Plan. Following the hearing and discussion, the Commission recommended
approval of the ordinance, except for the removal of 5 properties in the northwest corner of the
City which were proposed to be rezoned to Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR).
At the hearings, the owner of one of the parcels advocated that their property not be rezoned to
RR-UR, but instead remain zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH) to allow for limited-scale
business development upon the property in the interim timeframe until the property could be
developed with municipal sewer and water.
The minutes from the 12/11/2018 meeting are attached for reference, and the 2/12/2019 minutes
are included in the packet for approval. A map showing the location of the 5 parcels is included
in the attached ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan Information
As discussed during the hearings related to the 35 parcels originally recommended to be rezoned,
the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance on how property should be zoned and can also
provide guidance on what the requirements of such district should be.
The five properties in the northwest corner of the City (identified with number 26-29 & 33) were
designated as “Future Development Area (FDA)” in the Comp Plan. The FDA indicates that no
development on municipal sewer and water is anticipated for the following 20 years, but that the
property may be considered for development in the longer-term during future comp plan
processes.
In the previous Comprehensive Plan, these properties were planned for Business development
after 2025 and zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH). Development was delayed in the updated
Comprehensive Plan and the parcels were designated as FDA. The City has generally zoned
potential future development property as RR-UR.
The Comprehensive Plan defines FDA as:
“Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for
future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water
RR-UR Rezoning Page 2 of 3 March 12, 2019
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a
future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to
communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is
tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to
regional highway capacity.”
There are not separate objectives for the FDA land use, but they are intermingled with the
objectives of the other rural land uses (Rural Residential and Agricultural) as follows:
1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative
arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources.
2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources
in the rural areas.
3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site
sewage disposal systems.
4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with
rural service area development.
5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and
other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential
development.
6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and
safety.
7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural
land use.
8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural
Residential and Future Development Area land use.
9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that
protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. Within the
Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (reference Map 5-5), these
exceptions will be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit
per ten gross acres if consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Flexible Residential
Development Guidelines.
10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future
Development Area land uses during this planning cycle.
11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant natural
characteristics.
12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's on-site
septic system requirements.
13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and
development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is
not compromised.
14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and
encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff.
15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation of
significant natural resources.
RR-UR Rezoning Page 3 of 3 March 12, 2019
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
Analysis
If the Planning Commission and City Council were open to limited business development on
some of these parcels, the City could consider leaving the RBH zoning district. The RBH district
would permit smaller scale business uses on septic and well until such time as services are
extended. The minimum lot size is the same for RBH and RR-UR (20 acres). The intensity of
business development is limited to a projected 100 gallons per day per net acre of land. As an
example, a site with 20 net acres would be equivalent to approximately 22,000 square foot retail,
17,500 square foot office, or about a combination 4,000 s.f. office/8,000 warehouse.
If the Planning Commission and Council are open to businesses in some of the Future
Development Area, staff would recommend limiting it to the properties which could directly
access arterial roadways such as County Road 19. Staff would not recommend the RBH zoning
district for properties which would need to access directly onto Highway 55 or more rural
roadways such as Pioneer Trail or Town Line Road.
The specific parcel discussed at the public hearings (#29) is located at the corner of Highway 55
and Townline Road. As noted above, staff does not recommend a Rural Business Holding
designation for this property because Townline Road is not ideal access for business uses.
While a property owner may make the argument that the RBH zoning designation is not
inconsistent with the FDA land use in the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes the better strategy
may be to zone the parcels as RR-UR even if you accept the premise. Only residential or
agricultural uses have been established on these parcels in the past. No requests for business
uses have been submitted to the City for review.
If the properties were zoned RR-UR, a property owner could request a rezoning in the future and
the City could determine whether a business zoning designation makes sense on a particular
property based upon the circumstances surrounding a specific request. It should be noted that
this may discourage business requests on these properties in the future. Unless the City wants to
encourage business development on the parcels, staff continues to recommend that these five
parcels be zoned RR-UR.
Potential Action
The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the attached ordinance before
taking action. Once the Commission has completed its review, the following action would be
appropriate:
Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the official zoning map to
rezone properties to the Rural Residential-Urban Reserve zoning district.
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Excerpt from 12/11/2018 meeting minutes
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
TO REZONE PROPERTIES TO THE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) ZONING DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The following properties are hereby rezoned to the Rural Residential-Urban
Reserve (RR-UR) zoning district:
Section 2. The properties rezoned are displayed on Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the
Medina City Hall.
Section 4. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to make the
appropriate changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the change in
zoning classifications as set forth above.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PID_NO BLDG_NUM STREETNAME Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
0611823240002 4455 CO RD NO 19
RCH&RR-UR - Rural Commercial Holding
& Rural Residential-Urban Reserve
RR-UR - Rural Residential-
Urban Reserve
0511823210011 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RBH - Rural Business Holding
RR-UR - Rural Residential-
Urban Reserve
0511823220005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
RBH&RR-UR - Rural Business Holding
and Rural Residential-Urban Reserve
RR-UR - Rural Residential-
Urban Reserve
0611823220001 4695 STATE HWY NO 55
RBH&RR-UR - Rural Business Holding
and Rural Residential-Urban Reserve
RR-UR - Rural Residential-
Urban Reserve
0611823110001 4132 CHIPPEWA RD
RBH&RR-UR - Rural Business Holding
and Rural Residential-Urban Reserve
RR-UR - Rural Residential-
Urban Reserve
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Adopted by the Medina City Council this __ day of ______________, 2019.
CITY OF MEDINA
By:
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on this _____ day of _____________, 2019.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
EXHIBIT A
Map of Properties Rezoned
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Various
Properties for Consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Finke stated that there are 35 proposed rezonings of property in order to bring those properties into
consistency with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the thorough Comprehensive Plan
process, which included numerous public input opportunities, that the City undertook over a number of
years. He stated that the plan identifies a primary goal of preserving the open space and natural resources
of the City, which allowing some opportunities for the City to continue to grow while still maintaining the
visions and goals of the City. He stated that through that process the anticipated uses for the next 20
years were reviewed and then a more thorough review was done to plan for infrastructure and amenities,
such as parks. He stated that the plan identifies the future land use, identifying areas of the City that are
anticipated for future commercial or residential development, and at what density. He stated that a
staging plan was also identified to plan for future development and residential growth. He stated that the
City’s plan is required to be in compliance with the regional systems and system statements from the
Metropolitan Council. He stated that because the plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council
and has been adopted by Medina, the City now has nine months to update the internal controls of the City
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff reviewed the current zoning to identify
areas where changes were made in use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and more broadly to identify any
issues of inconsistency. He stated that a map and table were provided in the Commission packet detailing
the 35 properties identified for rezoning. He provided additional details on the properties proposed for
rezoning, broken down by areas of the City, reviewing the current zoning and proposed zoning. He
noted that the use, such as residential, commercial, or rural, is determined by the Comprehensive Plan.
The zoning implements this designation.
Reid referenced parcels 15 and 19, which are proposed to be changed from mixed use business to
commercial highway and asked for details.
Finke replied that the mixed used business designation in the old plan allowed for a combination of
commercial and high-density residential. The rezoning was proposed because the City guided the
property for commercial use in the updated Comp Plan, and residential uses would not be anticipated
within a commercial land use.
Reid asked for the previous zoning of those parcels prior to 2010.
Finke stated that those parcels were zoned for business development going back to 2000.
Williams asked the desired action from the Commission tonight.
Finke explained that staff is looking for a recommendation on the proposed rezonings, using the
Comprehensive Plan as a guide.
Albers asked for additional details on the commercial highway and mixed-use business.
Finke clarified that one is a zoning district while the other is a land use.
Nester asked if the zoning could be changed to commercial neighborhood and still remain consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Finke stated that is the less intensive district and could be an option.
Albers opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
2
Finke noted that staff received comments electronically which were provided to the Commission and will
be entered as a part of the record.
Amic stated that they are on the Planning Commission because they love the City, just like everyone else,
and are serving as volunteers to do the best they can for the future of the City.
Jennifer Palm, 1432 County Road 29, stated that she would like to request additional discussion regarding
the zoning on their property. She stated that they have been attempting to develop on this property for 2.5
years for a senior care facility and now Elim Care is developing across the street as they were able to gain
approval from Maple Plain. She stated that in order to build the number of units specified for their parcel,
with the required parking, they would need five stories. She stated that due to the market changes,
developing 24 units on two acres would be extremely difficult. She stated that she has correspondence
from the City and Metropolitan Council which suggested seven to 12 units per acre, which she believed
would be more developable.
Larry Palm stated that they also own 1400 Baker Park Road and developed the retail center. He stated
that they paid for the utilities to be brought to the property which will then be used for the property at
1472 Baker Park Road. He stated that he and that that property owner came forward within the last year
or two with development proposals. He stated that he spends the money bringing the utilities services to
an area that City is not approving for development and is not designating appropriate zoning which would
allow for development. He stated that he continues to pay taxes on property that cannot be developed.
Mrs. Palm noted that they own additional properties in Medina that they pay taxes on and maintain.
Reid stated that perhaps it would make sense to review the proposed zoning for those parcels.
Finke stated that the density requirements were identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
zoning mirrors that density. He stated that if the question is density, that would be a question of the
Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning. He stated that the City can look at amending the Comprehensive
Plan, perhaps to eight units per acre. He noted that on a two-acre site, that would not have a large impact
on the City’s density requirements, however, changing the density for all high density sites would likely
cause problems. He stated that perhaps the City could carve out a lower high-density range.
Amic asked the perfect use for the land owned by the Palms, as the memory care unit is no longer an
option.
Mr. Palm replied that it would depend upon what the market will allow. He stated that he has previous
attempted retail/commercial and townhomes and there was not interest. He stated that to place a 12 unit
per acre minimum on a two-acre parcel does not mechanically work. He stated that a comment was made
in the past that their parcel would be tied to the neighboring parcel to allow a larger project. He stated
that if a developer has to go through an additional step of rezoning, the developer moves on.
Mrs. Palm stated that happened on this site as they had previous brought forward a request for a memory
care facility on this site which the Council did not approve because of the process of updating the
Comprehensive Plan, and Elim Care went right across the street and built in Maple Plain.
Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, asked for clarification on the process. He stated that he has been
a part of many of the Comprehensive Plan discussions and asked the purpose of the meeting tonight.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
3
Finke stated that the Metropolitan Council and City Council have approved and adopted the plan and now
staff is going through the process of identifying inconsistencies between the existing zoning and the
adopted Comprehensive Plan to bring those properties into compliance prior to the nine-month deadline
specified by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that there were land use changes under the
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning needs to be updated.
Mr. Hoglund asked if some or all of the 35 could be approved or eliminated from this request.
Finke stated that while some properties could be eliminated from the discussion tonight, there would still
need to be a different rezoning considered and applied prior to the nine-month deadline.
Mr. Hoglund asked if additional property could be rezoned that is not included on the list.
Finke confirmed that additional properties that are identified as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan
could be added and rezoned. He stated that a property owner can always request a rezoning of their
property at any time.
Mr. Hoglund stated that he owns land on Brockton Lane which abuts the City of Plymouth and would
think the nature of progress would allow for that land to continue to develop in a similar way to the
property in Plymouth. He stated that his property is not even included for development in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Finke stated that the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, and updates are made every ten years.
Albers stated that he was part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and the comment was made
that residents wanted to ensure that residential development is shared across the community rather than
focusing that development in one area. He stated that the property referenced by Mr. Hoglund is not
included in the MUSA, even though there are municipal utilities in Plymouth. He explained that the City
planned for the minimum number of units required by the Metropolitan Council system statements.
Mr. Hoglund asked if a developer wished to develop the parcel, the development would then require five-
acre+ homes sites, rather than a denser suburban style development. He asked that someone look at that
parcel again as it would logically develop in a similar manner to the property in Plymouth. He noted that
the utilities are available on the neighboring parcel and is astounded that development is not planned for
the next 20 years.
Finke confirmed that the property could be developed with rural lots.
James Peterson, 812 Meander Road, stated that he has lived happily in Medina for 33 years. He stated
that the plan as proposed would change the zoning of his property to make his property unsaleable. He
stated that his health is not in the best condition and he is worried about the prospect of his home if his
wife is left alone as she would be stuck. He stated that if the property remains as currently zoned, the
property could always be developed in some area and his property could be developed. He believed that
the proposed rezoning would take away the value of his property. He stated that over the years his
property has been chipped into by roadway, his neighbors across the road have been taken away and he
would like the City to stop and just leave his property as it is.
Susan Nordstrom, 4200 Foxberry Court, stated that she is adjacent to parcel 15, which abuts Mr.
Peterson’s property. She stated that she received the notification because of the proximity to their
property. She stated that went she went to the City website to find more information, six months of
meeting notes were missing, that have since been posted. She stated that she attempted to learn the
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
4
difference between mixed use and commercial highway. She stated that the takeaway for her would be
that mixed use would have a maximum height of two stories while commercial highway would have 3.5
units. She stated that she also believed that commercial highway property was all adjacent to Highway
55, whereas this parcel is not along Highway 55. She stated that she never thought she would have
commercial property right behind her home. She stated that she works from home and all her windows
face parcel 15. She asked where the traffic from a commercial development would go in that area. She
stated that she has met a lot of great neighbors through this process and appreciated the ability for the
public to provide input tonight. She asked the Commission to think about what they would want in their
own backyards.
Tom Rocco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that he moved to his property in May of 2018 and was pretty
stunned to receive a letter that commercial highway development would be going in behind his home. He
stated that he began to do research and all of the other commercial highway property is located on
Highway 55. He stated that this parcel proposed for commercial highway is in the middle of residential
properties and was unsure why commercial highway zoning would be appropriate for that property. He
stated that he reached out to land development experts who stated that this was an example of extremely
poor land management. He stated that he was disappointed that while he only had ten days to prepare for
this meeting, he went to the Planning Commission website and was not able to find minutes from any
time after he moved to Medina in May. He recognized that Finke was able to post those minutes once
alerted to the issue. He asked if the Planning Commission would want commercial development behind
their homes.
Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, stated that his property is north of the Peterson property and his property
extends into the wetlands. He stated that he moved to his property in 1997 and was involved in the
development of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, attending every meeting as a resident to provide input. He
stated that at that time the desire was to keep the area rural and low density but noted that over time
changes were made. He stated that a few years ago the City Council was pushing for townhomes on
Clydesdale, and even with objections from residents, the City Council allowed that development to go in.
He stated that now the City wants to take property surrounded by residential properties and push in a gas
station or similar commercial development. He noted that the site is also surrounded by wetland and
asked the amount of buildable area that would be available on that property. He stated that filling in
wetlands to allow commercial development would ruin the character of the area. He stated that every
public hearing he has attended has been a public hearing where it has been said that things have already
been done. He was unsure the point of a public hearing at that point. He stated that some of these
changes will devalue properties, using the example of the Peterson property. He asked the Commission to
rethink this plan.
Eric Dahmer, 4470 Shorewood Trail, stated that he sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry Farms and noted
that he is speaking tonight on his own behalf. He stated that he is hearing concern with the proposed
zoning of commercial highway for lots 19 and 15. He stated that within his neighborhood is 138 homes,
representing up to 800 residents. He stated that if you add the other two neighborhoods that would be
about one fifth of the population of the City of Medina. He stated that the people are concerned because
of the nature, feel and density of the proposed zoning compared to the zoning that surrounds the
properties. He stated that the commercial development that exists is similar to a home office that has
minimal traffic during the daytime. He stated that the concern is with the activity that is allowed within
the commercial highway zoning district, such as a gas station or fast food restaurant. He stated that there
are lower intensity zoning districts that would ease the minds of some residents. He stated that he would
feel a little better with the neighborhood commercial zoning, as that will keep the intensity of the parcel to
a much more manageable level.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
5
Craig Theis, 900 Fox Path Court, stated that his family moved to Medina four years ago to a family
friendly neighborhood. He stated that they bike around the neighborhood and the thought of a 3.5 story
building on that property seems totally out of place. He stated that he also sits on the HOA Board for
Foxberry Farms and there is a lot of concern from the residents in that neighborhood. He asked the
Commission to think of a different zoning for that parcel. He stated that commercial highway zoning off
the highway does not make sense.
Kristin Toste, 4650 Foxberry Drive, stated that 20 years ago she and her husband built a home in an open
area. She stated that seven years ago her child was involved in an accident at Hackamore and she
campaigned to get the stoplight put in. She referenced the high number of accidents at that intersection.
She stated that her concern is CR 116 and the additional traffic that a commercial highway development
would bring to the area. She believed that the traffic counts are already maxed out and the City does not
have any control because it is a County road. She believed that the plan should be amended to move that
commercial highway parcel because 116 cannot handle that additional traffic.
David Wain, 4442 Bluebell Trail S, referenced parcel 20 and asked for details on the purple area below
that parcel.
Finke clarified that parcel 20 was subject to a subdivision a few months prior and there has been
preliminary approval to divide the property as shown. He stated that the business park designation is a
lower intensity designation and therefore would apply to the north parcel. He reviewed the permitted uses
within the business park designation.
Joe Cavanaugh stated that his family has been farming the land for over 60 years and owns parcel 29,
which is a big investment on their part. He stated that when they purchased the property it was zoned for
development in 2025. He acknowledged that development has been pushed out. He stated that if the
property remained as rural commercial holding it would allow for something in the mean time before the
property could be developed with utilities, rather than changing the property to rural residential. He
requested to keep the property as rural commercial holding which would allow, they to do something in
the interim.
Mary Beth Demott, 3075 Wild Flower Trail, stated that her concern is with the properties within the
eastern portion of the City. She stated that her concern is with the congestion in that part of Medina. She
stated that Plymouth has also developed a large number of homes on that border and asked that those
properties not be rezoned to rural residential. She stated that perhaps those properties to moved across
Medina Road along Holy Name Road. She asked that the property be left as farmland.
Albers closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Albers reviewed the options for the Planning Commission, noting that a recommendation could be made
to the City Council or the Commission could ask staff to review the comments made tonight to determine
if there are changes that should be made.
Williams asked how the overall planning would be impacted if some parcels are removed tonight.
Finke explained that the City has until May to determine the official zoning controls that bring the
properties into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore action does not have to occur
tonight. He stated that there are properties in the City that are already zoned within these specific zoning
districts and therefore adjusting the zoning districts themselves would have ramifications on those other
properties. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and if a change is proposed to that plan, an
amendment would need to be made to the plan. He stated that the Metropolitan Council would review the
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
6
amendment based on their system statement and mandates for the City. He stated that there could be
implications depending upon the changes that are made.
Nester stated that she would like to have more discussion related to the commercial highway parcels and
the parcel requiring 24 units on two acres providing the parcel numbers 15, 19, 32, and 34.
Reid agreed with the comments made by Nester. She referenced parcels 15 and 19 which has an office
building across the street. She asked the zoning of that parcel.
Finke replied that parcel was developed under a PUD with business park as the underlying designation.
Reid stated that perhaps parcels 15 and 19 are zoned to business park which would have a lower intensity
use.
Finke stated that business and commercial are separate designations within the Comprehensive Plan, with
different objectives for each. He reviewed the types of uses that would be allowed under a business use
compared to commercial use.
Reid asked if there has been communication with the owners of parcel.
Finke stated that the property owner called with questions but not with interest in construction.
Reid stated that business park seems like it may be a better fit because of the adjacent uses and asked if an
amendment would be needed to the Comprehensive Plan.
Finke agreed that an amendment would be needed but noted that would be straightforward and would not
impact the system statements and projections of the City. He stated that business would allow warehouse
and industrial. He stated that another option would be neighborhood commercial which would lower the
intensity of the use.
Reid stated that she is also concerned with the properties on Baker Park Road as there needs to be
practical guidance as to what can be done on the property. She believed that the City owes the property
owners some discussion of what could be done and what would need to change.
Amic stated that the discussion tonight has focused on parcels 15, 19, 32, 34, and 29 and the parcels off
Medina Road. He stated that the parcels on Medina Road were previously discussed and believed that
removing that would have major implications. He stated that there were stipulations on buffers and
development requirements and therefore he feels confident with the parcels on Medina Road remaining as
designated. He referenced parcel 29 and was unsure if there are implications that would result from the
request.
Finke replied that he did not think there would be implications to the overall Comprehensive Plan if the
City considered commercial uses in the Future Development Area as requested by the property owner of
parcel 29. He stated that the future development area does not designate a use and those properties have
continued to remain as rural until the MUSA extends to that area. He stated that there have not been a lot
of businesses on septic and wells. He stated that if the Commission or Council are interested in looking at
properties in the long-range plan to open certain properties up for business, he did not believe it would not
be inconsistent with the future development area. He commented that the individual property should be
reviewed to ensure that the property would be able to support commercial traffic. He stated that there
have been failures for businesses that have used septic and well in the past.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
7
Amic echoed the comments that he wants to understand if the City is giving a property owner math they
cannot work with. He stated that he would ask to pull property 29 for further review. He stated that
parcels 15 and 19 are difficult because of how they are currently zoned. He asked what would happen if
the parcels were left as designated as mixed use.
Finke stated that the current mixed-use district would not match the commercial designation and therefore
one of those would need to change. He stated that when the property was designated as mixed use back
in 2010, there were surrounding properties also designated mixed use. Collectively, these parcels could
be viewed as having provided a mix of uses. The other parcels all developed with residential uses. The
remaining parcels may prove difficult to plan a mix of uses on one acre. He stated that an existing lot can
continue to be used as such, the zoning only impacts the redevelopment should the property owner be
interested in selling for the purpose of redevelopment rather than the continued use.
Amic stated that he would support the comment that perhaps an office park would be more appropriate
for those parcels.
Albers stated that the comments have all stated that they would like the property to remain as currently
zoned. He stated that under the current zoning, there would be a commercial use on the property because
of the residential property that was already developed on the broader portion of the overall mixed-use site.
Williams asked if there are things that can be done with approvals that would specify buffering and
lighting requirements to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residential properties.
Finke stated that he believes the City does a good job of enacting such requirements. He stated that there
are different requirements in the different zoning districts, providing examples from neighborhood
commercial.
Williams agreed with the comments that have been made regarding 29, 32, and 34. She stated that in
regard to parcels 15 and 19, she understands the concerns with traffic in that area. She asked if there is a
way to work with the HOA to limit what could be built on that property or to allow additional input from
the HOA.
Finke agreed that is part of the reason the Commission holds a public hearing. He stated that staff can
continue to have conversations with individuals, but the zoning would have the tools to limit what could
be constructed.
Williams stated that she would be leaning more towards neighborhood commercial, as that would seem
less intensive and match the comments that were made by a resident regarding the hours of operation and
low traffic.
Finke stated that if the parcels are not to be planned for commercial development, one would need to
decide what use the parcel would be planned for. If residential, what density would be developed,
recognizing it is at the intersection of an arterial and collector roadway, adjacent to office uses.
Nester stated that it seems that the parcel is a continuation of the business across the road because of the
separation of the wetland between the residential and the busy road.
Amic agreed that a continuation of a low intensity commercial use would be appropriate.
Finke stated that the commercial neighborhood district is not applied to any other properties in the City,
and therefore making changes to the zoning district would not have impacts on any other properties in the
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
8
City, therefore additional restrictions could be made to that zoning district if desired. He stated that there
may be additional opportunities to use commercial neighborhood in the future.
Albers thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing input tonight. He stated that the job of
the Commission is to make a recommendation for the City Council to consider. He stated that he is
leaning towards approving the amendment removing parcels 15, 19, 32 and 29 to have further discussion
at a future meeting.
Nester asked if commercial neighborhood could be recommended for 15 and 19 as that zoning district
could be tweaked in the future.
Reid stated that she does not feel that she knows enough at this time to make that recommendation and
therefore would support removing the parcels mentioned for further discussion.
Albers noted that another option would be to table the amendment entirely to continue the discussion
while the other option would be to recommend adoption of the amendment except for the parcels
mentioned (15, 19, 29, 32, and 34). He stated that he would prefer recommending the parcels as
proposed, holding back parcels 15, 19, 29, 32, and 34.
Finke stated that if the City is going to review 32 and 34, those are similar to two other properties that are
proposed to be similarly zoned, noting parcels 6, 8, 9, and 10. He stated that while those property owners
did not make comment, it would be a similar issue and logic.
Amic asked if the request from the property owner of parcel 29 could be approved without implications.
Albers stated that could probably be done for the entire strip.
There was a comment from a resident that stated that he is happy with the designation of rural residential
for the properties near him, parcels 27 and 28. He stated that he does not oppose the change for parcel 29.
Finke stated that because there are similar circumstances, he would advocate looking at all the parcels and
not just the property owners that spoke. He stated that the Commission can continue discussion on the
entire ordinance, with the discussion focused on the input received tonight, as there is not a rushed need
for a decision. He stated that it seemed that the Planning Commission is open to a neighborhood
commercial zoning for parcels 15 and 19. He stated that it might be helpful if the public is interested in
providing input on a possible designation of neighborhood commercial.
There was a comment that Mr. Peterson could sell his home and the property could remain as a home. He
was unsure if a buyer would be able to purchase the property and remain in the home. He asked what
could be built on that pad without the properties developing in conjunction, noting that it would need to
be a small business as the buildable area of the site is limited.
Amic agreed that whatever commercial use would need to be a smaller less intensive use.
Finke stated that there are interim uses allowed for uses that exist prior to the change in zoning. He stated
that the home could remain and continue as the use, regardless of the zoning. He stated that protections
are built in for transitional zoning changes, he stated that the home would be a permitted use and would
not become nonconforming.
The resident asked if Mr. Peterson sold his home, could the buyer then remodel and change the home.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes
9
Finke confirmed that those protections are built into the transitional zoning district.
Another resident commented that parcel 19 is owned by an LLC and is unsure of the buildable space on
parcel 19. He stated that normally someone would fill the wetland, but it has been stated that cannot be
done and perhaps the LLC is waiting for Mr. Peterson to sell his property in order to construct a project in
conjunction.
Finke agreed that it would be a reasonable assumption that the properties would be developed together.
The resident stated that while people have made comments that the property could be developed as a gas
station or fast food restaurant, that is unlikely because of the site layout and buildable area.
It was asked and confirmed that the City would not allow an access to that property from CR 116, the
access would need to be provided from Meander.
A comment was made that commercial highway would not make sense as Medina’s definition of
commercial highway is property along Highway 55.
Williams stated that it would be helpful to know the amount of buildable land to determine what could
potentially be built on the commercial property.
Motion by Amic, seconded by Williams, to table the ordinance amending the official zoning map to
rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, requesting additional
information on the parcels discussed in detail 15, 19, 29, 32, 34 and other similar properties. Motion
carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and White)
X
DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NUMBER:SMNAMTAUGUST 10, 20183701.13NO.DESCRIPTIONDATEDRAWING INFORMATIONPHASE ISSUE RECORD REGISTRATION ARCHITECT PROJECT NAME
COMPUTER DIRECTORY:SHEET DESCRIPTION
Open SystemsInternational,Building #2New ConstructionArrowhead RoadMedina, MN 55340NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONREGISTRATION NUMBER:51317REGISTRATION NUMBER:REGISTRATION NUMBER:REGISTRATION NUMBER:REGISTRATION NUMBER:REGISTRATION NUMBER:REGISTRATION NUMBER:REGISTRATION NUMBER:ADAM M. THIELE, PEREGISTRATION NUMBER:REGISTRATION NUMBER:THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS ANDOWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEAND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW,STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDINGCOPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS.Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors3601 Thurston Ave., Anoka, Minnesota 55303763-427-5860 FAX 763-427-0520I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of Minnesota.C3SITE & SIGNAGEPLANSCHEMATIC DESIGNARROWHEAD ROAD
MECHANICAL004FITNESS AREA023BIKE STORAGE010WAREHOUSE OFFICE011LOBBY035MEN'S LOCKERS012WOMEN'S LOCKERS016PRIVATESHOWER024PRIVATESHOWER025JANITOR028PRIVATE026IT VAULT037PRIVATE027STAIR B021STAIR A006ELECTRICAL005FACILITIES003IT OFFICE / STORAGE036LOADING/UNLOADING001DRIVE-IN002VEHICLE SERVICE AREA007WAREHOUSE008MEN'SSHOWERS013ACCESSIBLESHOWER014MEN'STOILETS015WOMEN'STOILETS017WOMEN'SSHOWERS018ACCESSIBLESHOWER019CORRIDOR022ELEVSUMP029ELEV030STORAGE020N2/26/2019 1:29:27 PMOPEN SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, BUILDING #2LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANMEDINA, MN
UPBREAK ROOM123CATERING KITCHEN124STORAGE118OFFICE140OFFICE139OFFICE138OFFICE137OFFICE136OFFICE135EXEC OFFICE142ENCLAVE143OFFICE145OFFICE146EXEC OFFICE147OFFICE148OFFICE149OFFICE150OFFICE151OFFICE153ENCLAVE154ENCLAVE155ENCLAVE156OFFICE167OFFICE169OFFICE170OFFICE171OFFICE173OFFICE174OFFICE175OFFICE176ENCLAVE177OFFICE157OFFICE158OFFICE159OFFICE160OFFICE161STORAGE111COATS117TRAINING106TRAINING107TRAINING109TRAINING108MEN'S RESTROOM104WOMEN'S RESTROOM103OFFICE112OFFICE113COATS186ELEV122OFFICE166OFFICE165OFFICE164OFFICE163OFFICE162OFFICE144OFFICE168OFFICE152MEN'S130WOMEN'S129SPRINKLER185WORK ROOM188STORAGE187MEDIUMCONFERENCE181PRIVATE182PRIVATE128JANITOR127ELEC180STORAGE179MEDIUMCONFERENCE119LARGECONFERENCE120MEDIUMCONFERENCE121OFFICE115OFFICE116STAIR A172STAIR B134EXPANSION AREA189PRIVATERESTROOM132PRIVATERESTROOM131VESTIBULE100RECEPTION101ATRIUM102CORRIDOR105CORRIDOR110SEATING AREA114CORRIDOR125COFFEE126CORRIDOR133OPEN OFFICE141OPEN OFFICE178CORRIDOR183VESTIBULE184EMPLOYEE COUNT SUMMARY FIRST FLOOR:SECOND FLOOR: TOTAL:CUBES118179297OFFICES 39 41 80EXECUTIVE OFFICES 2 4 6EMPLOYEE COUNT159227383N2/26/2019 1:29:30 PMOPEN SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, BUILDING #2LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLANMEDINA, MN
UPDNEMPLOYEE COUNT SUMMARY FIRST FLOOR:SECOND FLOOR: TOTAL:CUBES118179297OFFICES 39 41 80EXECUTIVE OFFICES 2 4 6EMPLOYEE COUNT159227383LAB234LARGECONFERENCE206LARGECONFERENCE205EXECUTIVECONFERENCE207OFFICE214OFFICE213OFFICE212OFFICE211OFFICE210OFFICE209EXEC OFFICE278OFFICE277OFFICE276ENCLAVE275ENCLAVE274EXEC OFFICE273OFFICE272OFFICE271ENCLAVE270ENCLAVE269ENCLAVE268OFFICE267OFFICE266OFFICE265OFFICE263OFFICE262OFFICE261EXEC OFFICE260EXEC OFFICE243OFFICE244OFFICE245OFFICE241OFFICE240OFFICE255OFFICE256OFFICE257OFFICE258MEDIUMCONFERENCE221SMALLCONFERENCE222ELEV.201OFFICE248OFFICE249OFFICE250PRIVATE230OFFICE242MEDIUM CONFERENCE202OFFICE239OFFICE264JAN.226OFFICE235MEDIUM CONFERENCE215IT/ELEC231ROOF ACCESS232PRIVATE233MEN'S RESTROOM225WOMEN'S RESTROOM224MEDIUMCONFERENCE218MEDIUMCONFERENCE219MEDIUMCONFERENCE220OFFICE251OFFICE252OFFICE253STORAGE229OFFICE238OFFICE237OFFICE236STAIR A259STAIR B208OPEN OFFICE279SECURE OPEN OFFICE247CORRIDOR203LARGECONFERENCE223PRIVATE227PRIVATE228CORRIDOR217COFFEE216CORRIDOR204MAIN STAIR200SEATING246SEATING254STOR280N2/26/2019 1:29:32 PMOPEN SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, BUILDING #2LEVEL TWO FLOOR PLANMEDINA, MN
BRK-1 BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDING
EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND
PC-2 PRECAST CONCRETE WITH LIGHT SANDBLAST FINISH
COLOR: WHITE
MTL-1 CENTRIA IW-30A METAL WALL PANELS
COLOR: SILVER METALLIC
MTL-3 PREFINISHED METAL TRIM
COLOR: SILVER METALLIC
PC-1 PRECAST CONCRETE WITH ACID ETCH FINISH
COLOR: GRAY
MTL-2 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANELS
COLOR: SILVER METALLIC
MATERIAL AREA (SQ FT) PERCENTAGE ALLOWED
GLASS 9,423 26.9%
> 20%
BRICK 11,555 33.0%
CONCRETE 11,730 33.5% < 80%
METAL 1,867 5.3% < 20%
OTHER 466 1.3% N/A
TOTAL 35,041 100%
EXTERIOR MATERIALS PERCENTAGE
1ST LEVEL
100' - 0"
Roof
130' - 4"
2ND LEVEL
114' - 8"
T.O. PRECAST
133' - 0"
12345
6
78910
LOWER LEVEL
86' - 0"
1
A302
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
A302
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
A302
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BRK-1
PC-1
BRK-1
PC-2
PC-1
?
MTL-2
MTL-2 MTL-2
1ST LEVEL
100' - 0"
Roof
130' - 4"
2ND LEVEL
114' - 8"
T.O. PRECAST
133' - 0"
ABCDEFG
LOWER LEVEL
86' - 0"
1
A303
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
A303
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
A303
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1ST LEVEL
100' - 0"
Roof
130' - 4"
2ND LEVEL
114' - 8"
T.O. PRECAST
133' - 0"
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8 9 10
LOWER LEVEL
86' - 0"
PC-2
BRK-1
PC-1
PC-1
MP-1
MTL-2
1ST LEVEL
100' - 0"
Roof
130' - 4"
2ND LEVEL
114' - 8"
T.O. PRECAST
133' - 0"
A B C D E F G
LOWER LEVEL
86' - 0"
C.4 C.8 D.8 E.8 F.3
2
A302
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
A304
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
A303
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
A304
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
A304
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NUMBER:
1000 Twelve Oaks Center
Dr.
Suite 200
Wayzata MN 55391
Tel 952-426-7400
Fax 952-426-7440
DRAWING INFORMATIONPHASEISSUE RECORDREGISTRATIONARCHITECTPROJECT NAMECOMPUTER DIRECTORY:SHEET DESCRIPTIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTHE ARCHITECT SHALL BE DEEMED THE AUTHORS AND
OWNERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
AND SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW,
STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING
COPYRIGHTS OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS.C:\Revit Projects\17428_Open_Systems_Building-2_nmissling.rvtA300
EXTERIOR
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
S. OLIVER
N. MISSLING
08/10/2018
17428.0OSI
K:/JOBS/OPEN SYSTEMS
CITY SUBMITTAL
OPEN SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL,
BUILDING #2
NEW CONSTRUCTION
ARROWHEAD DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340
3/32" = 1'-0"A300
1 EAST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A300
2 NORTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A300
3 WEST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A300
4 SOUTH ELEVATION
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
CITY SUBMITTAL 08/10/2018
A
OSI Page 1 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: March 7, 2019
MEETING: March 12, 2019 Planning Commission
SUBJ: OSI – Amended Site Plan Review – PID 03-118-23-41-0005
(west of Arrowhead Dr., north of Meander Rd.)
Background
On November 7, 2018, the City Council adopted resolution 2018-76, granting site plan review
approval to Open Systems International, Inc. (OSI) to allow for construction of a second building
on a separate lot north of their existing facility at 4101 Arrowhead Drive. The proposed
structure was approximately 123,500 gross square feet and is predominantly office, except
approximately 20,000 s.f. of warehouse and 10,000 s.f. training/meeting/assembly.
The applicant did not proceed with construction in the fall and has subsequently made some
adjustments to the plan. Most significantly, the applicant is proposing to not construct the entire
building at this time. The applicant proposes to initially construct approximately 107,000 square
feet (out of the total 123,500), with approximately 17,000 square feet of potential future
additions. The applicant also adjusted the parking lot layout (without reducing the amount of
spaces) and made some changes to the architectural design. The changes are described on the
attached summary from the architect.
With the exception of these modifications, the plan is unchanged from that approved last year.
Staff is recommending that the site plan review approval be amended to relate to the new plans
and to allow time for the additions to be constructed without additional review
The subject site is proposed on a 17.2 acre parcel which was approved for subdivision in the fall
of 2018. The City Council also adopted an ordinance rezoning the subject site to the
Business (B) zoning district, and these approvals are pending until final plat approval.
The subject property is currently farmed and includes a large wetland to the west and three
smaller wetlands. There are trees located along the wetland edge and a grove of boxelder trees in
the east-central of the site. An aerial of the site can be found on the following page.
Proposed Site Plan
The proposed structure (at full build-out) is approximately 123,500 gross square feet and is
predominantly office, except approximately 20,000 s.f. of warehouse and 10,000 s.f.
training/meeting/assembly. All of these uses are permitted in the B zoning district.
Following is a summary comparing the proposed construction to the dimensional standards of
the B district. This review is contingent upon rezoning to the B zoning district , which was
approved by the City last year, but is not yet effective until the plat is recorded.
OSI Page 2 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
B District Requirement Proposed
Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 242 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback (west) 25 feet 490 feet
Minimum Interior Yard Setback 25 feet
(15 feet if integrated)
27 feet (south)
348 feet (north)
Setback from Minor Collector
(Arrowhead Drive)
40 feet 242 feet
Setback from Residential (east) 100 feet
(75 feet w/ screening)
292 feet
(including ½ ROW)
Setback for Structures >35 feet + foot per foot (22.5 feet) 27 feet (south)
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 27 feet
Rear and Side Yard 15 feet 15 ft (N); 24 ft (S)
Residential (east) 100 feet
(60 feet w/ screening)
75 feet
(including ½ ROW)
Maximum Hardcover 70% 35%
Building Height 45 feet 42.5 feet
OSI Page 3 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The minimum parking setback from residential property is 100 feet. Property east of Arrowhead
Drive is guided for residential development. The B zoning district permits a reduction of the
residential setback to 60 feet if landscape screening with an opacity of 70% is provided. The
proposed parking is setback 25 feet from the front property line. Staff believes it is reasonable to
measure the residential setback from the centerline of Arrowhead Drive rather than the front
property line. With the 50-feet of right-of-way, the parking would be setback 75 feet from the
centerline. A landscaping screen with an opacity of 70% is required for parking in this location.
Staff recommends a condition requiring additional plantings to achieve 70% opacity.
Building Materials and Design
The B and BP zoning district require the following architectural standards. The applicant
proposes to change a number of the architectural elements of the structure from what was
approved in 2018. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether the proposed
building is consistent with the standards or recommend conditions if not.
Materials
The business district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the
following standards:
(a) A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco (not
Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass.
(b) A maximum of 80 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative
block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high
quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
(c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper), fiber cement lap siding
or Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent materials
which are integrated into the overall building design.”
The applicant proposes brick as the main material (33%) with 26.9% of the façade to include
glass (total 59.9%). Precast concrete panels are proposed for 33.5% of the façade and 5.3%
metal as an accent. Staff recommends a condition that the concrete panels are “color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality
terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.”
Modulation
The business districts require: “Buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous
building walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or
building materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a
minimum of one element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion
thereof. Alternative architectural or site elements and designs may also be approved by
the city which achieve the purpose of reducing the visual impact of long building walls.”
The proposed building elevations contain many aspects of modulation, including horizontal
(varying building setback), different materials, and awnings over the doorways.
OSI Page 4 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Fenestration and Transparency
The business districts require: “Building elevations which face a public street shall include
generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the City
when windows are not practical.”
The east and north elevations face streets and contain 35.1% and 21.7% window coverage
respectively. The elevations also include awnings and horizontal building modulation.
Multi-sided Architecture
The business districts require: “Any rear or side building elevation which faces a
public street or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural
elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s) shall be
compatible with the front building elevation.”
The east and north facades face streets, while west and south face businesses. Nonetheless, staff
believes that the proposed building provides multi-sided architecture.
Stormwater
The applicant proposes a filtration basin and stormwater pond (with filtration bench) for
stormwater management. The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments to address
which staff recommends as a condition of approval. The project will also be subject to Elm
Creek Watershed review and approval.
Wetlands and Floodplains
There are three wetlands on Lot 1, including a large DNR wetland to the west and two small
wetlands in the southeast and southwest corner of the site. The applicant proposes no wetland
impacts.
The City’s wetland protection ordinance requires upland buffers with an average width of 35 feet
adjacent to the large wetland to the west. This buffer is not annotated on the plans, but the area
is not proposed to be disturbed so can be accommodated.
The wetland protection ordinance requires a buffer with an average width of 20 feet adjacent to
the small wetlands. The width of these buffers may be averaged, with a minimum width of 15
feet. The plans appear to meet these minimum width requirements. There is a substantial
amount of grading within the buffer adjacent to the southeast wetland to construct a filtration
basin. Stormwater facilities are permitted within the buffer, provided “proposed alterations
which are determined to be consistent with the vegetative standards and purposes of this
section.” The applicant will need to update proposed planting plans to provide appropriate
vegetation.
Transportation/Access/Loading
Transportation and access are discussed above within the review of the preliminary plat.
The business zoning districts include the following requirements related to loading docks:
OSI Page 5 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
• Limitation on loading dock area located outside of courtyards - Loading docks,
excepting those located within a courtyard as defined by this Section, shall not occupy
greater than 10 percent of the building perimeter.
The proposed docks occupy 4.3% of the perimeter of the structure.
• Loading docks shall not be located in required yard setbacks and should be located in a
way which minimizes visibility from residential zoning districts and public streets.
The proposed docks are located on the far side of the structure, partially under grade. The
applicant has updated plans to integrate landscaping screening as well.
• The loading dock setback adjacent to or across a street from a residential zoning district
shall be increased to 100 feet.
The proposed docks are setback 500 feet.
• Any loading dock within 300 feet of a residential zoning district shall be separated from
the residential district by a building or a wing wall. The city may approve of other
alternatives for noise abatement and screening.
The proposed docks are setback 500 feet and are set partially under grade.
• Loading docks shall be screened from adjacent property and streets to the fullest extent
possible using the following techniques, or others as approved by the city.
o Building design/configuration
o Wing walls
o Below grade docks. This technique shall be supplemented with landscaping.
o Landscaping
o Berming
o Decorative Fencing.
The proposed docks are below grade and set on the far side of the building and includes
landscaping for additional screening.
Parking
The applicant proposes 428 parking spaces, located north and east of the proposed building. The
applicant has calculated its need as 377 parking spaces upon full build-out.
The City’s minimum parking requirements are described
in the table to the right.
The proposed building (after additions) includes 10,000
square feet of training area. The applicant has stated that
this area is largely for the use of on-site employees, so accommodating the parking of both uses
simultaneously should not be necessary. Only a portion of this training space is now proposed to
be constructed, but the remainder is shown as a possible future addition.
When calculating the full technical parking requirement, it would appear that the requirement
would be 377 stalls, plus an additional 200 for the training area. Staff believes it is reasonable to
provide flexibility for the training area. However, staff believes this area should be accounted
Office 1 stall per 250 s.f.
Warehouse 1 stall per employee
or 1 stall per 2000 s.f.
Places of assembly 1 stall per 4 seats
OSI Page 6 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
for at least equivalent to office space, which would require an additional 39 spaces for a total of
416 spaces. The applicant’s proposed 428 parking spaces appears to be sufficient.
City requirements permit a reduction of parking spaces if the applicant provides “proof of
parking” that can be constructed if deemed necessary by the City in the future.
The applicant is proposing to construct 324 parking spaces along with the building and shows 96
proof of parking spaces. Staff recommends a condition requiring the applicant to enter into a
proof of parking agreement which requires the construction of the parking spaces if the City
deems it necessary.
Lighting
The City’s lighting ordinance requires light trespass to be no more than 0.1 FC at property lines.
Because this is an integrated development with the property to the south, staff believes it is
appropriate to exceed this limitation on the common lot line.
It appears based on the lighting plan optic illustration that the FC would be 0.0 at the property
line, but staff recommends a condition extending the FC readings to verify.
Tree Preservation
The applicant proposes to remove a grove of trees, almost entirely consisting of boxelder and
cottonwood trees, along Arrowhead Drive. The tree preservation ordinance would permit 10%
of the trees on the site to be removed in connection with “initial site development” (streets,
utilities) and an additional 10% of the trees to be removed for other construction.
The applicant proposes to remove 16 trees along the western portion of the property and the
grove of 90 trees along Arrowhead Drive. This grove is almost entirely box elders and
cottonwood trees.
The tree preservation ordinance exempts the removal of “pioneering Tree species such as box
elder when needed to manage other ecosystems and where removal will not cause erosion or
damage to riparian areas.”
If replacement is required for the boxelder grove, 621 inches of replacement trees would be
required. The applicant has proposed 87 inches of tree plantings beyond the minimum
landscaping requirement. The applicant will also be adding additional plantings to increase
screening along Arrowhead Drive.
The removal of the pioneering boxelder trees in the grove on the east of the site will not cause
erosion or damage to riparian areas. Staff believes it would be acceptable to exempt a portion of
the removal of this grove, subject to a condition requiring additional plantings and management
of remaining woodlands on the east of the site.
Landscaping
The business district includes the following landscape requirements:
• Building Setting - At least 12 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all
buildings except for walks, plaza space and approved loading docks.
OSI Page 7 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
It appears that 10 feet of landscaping is provided adjacent to most of the building. Staff
recommends a condition that this area be widened to 12 feet.
• Overstory Trees – minimum of 1 tree per 50 feet of lot perimeter – 53 trees
• Ornamental Trees – minimum of 1 tree per 100 feet of lot perimeter – 27 trees
• Shrubs – minimum of 1 shrub per 30 feet of lot perimeter – 89 shrubs
The applicant proposes 67 overstory/coniferous trees, 48 ornamental trees, and 798 shrubs.
This accounts for an extra 87 inches of trees towards any tree replacement requirements.
The applicant will need to update the landscaping plan to provide a 70% opaque screen
along Arrowhead Drive to allow the reduced parking setback.
• Parking lot landscaping – minimum of 8% of parking lot area
Over 14% of the parking lot area is landscaping.
• Landscaping islands every 20 spaces, wider separations for cells of 120 spaces
The parking lot is separated into “cells’ with fewer than 120 spaces and includes
landscaping islands as required.
Utilities, Mechanical Equipment, and Trash and Recycling Facilities
The business districts require: All utilities shall be placed underground. To the extent possible,
all utility equipment, meters and transformers shall be placed either inside of the building or
within an outside mechanical court formed by walls. If not located within the building,
these items shall be fully screened from view from adjacent property and streets through
the use of opaque landscaping or walls constructed of materials which are compatible
with the building.
Staff recommends a condition requiring screening for transformers and meters.
The districts also require screening for HVAC equipment. The applicant has shown rooftop
mechanical equipment and has proposed screening around this equipment.
All trash and material to be recycled are required to be stored within the principal building,
within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed outdoor area adjacent to the principal
structure. The applicant proposes the trash and recycling storage within the loading dock area,
which is screened by being subgrade.
Staff Recommendation
Pursuant to Section 825.55-825.59 of the City Code, the purpose of a site plan review is “to
determine whether it is consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, including the
applicable development standards and the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is
located.” “The city council may condition its approval in any manner it deems reasonably
necessary in order to promote public health, safety or welfare, to achieve compliance with this
ordinance, or to accomplish the purposes of the district in which the property is located.”
Staff believes that, subject to the conditions recommended below, the amended site plan
continues to be consistent with relevant City requirements. Staff recommends approval subject
to the following conditions:
OSI Page 8 of 8 March 12, 2019
Amended Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
1. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon approval of the ordinance
rezoning the Property to the Business zoning district being effective.
2. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon the final approval and
recordation of the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition plat.
3. The Owner shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated ____________
except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Owner shall submit documents for review and approval by the City which will be
recorded against the Property and the adjacent properties related to cross-access.
5. The Owner shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage.
6. The Owner shall enter into an agreement in a form and of substance approved by the City
related to the future construction of the areas identified as proof of parking on the plans.
7. A landscaping screen with 70% opacity shall be installed between the parking lot and
Arrowhead Drive. The Owner shall submit plans for review and approval by the City.
8. The Owner shall update landscaping plans to provide additional ecosystem management
to the satisfaction of City staff, including additional plantings and management of the
remaining woodland to the west.
9. The Owner shall submit specifications confirming that proposed concrete panels are color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high
quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
10. The Owner shall submit photometrics information in compliance with the City’s lighting
ordinance, limiting light trespass to 0.1 FC at the eastern property line.
11. Locations of transformers, meters, and similar equipment shall be screened.
12. All comments from the Elm Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
13. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
14. The site plan review approval shall be effective for one year and thereafter shall be
considered null and void. Notwithstanding the foregoing limitation, the “future building
additions” shown upon the plans may be reviewed through an administrative process and
not require review by the Planning Commission and City Council if consistent with
relevant requirements and the conditions contained herein, and if constructed prior to
December 31, 2024.
15. 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, site plan review, and related documents.
Potential Action
If the Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plan is consistent with relevant
requirements, subject to the conditions noted, the following motion would be appropriate:
Move to recommend approval of the amended site plan review, subject to the conditions
noted in the staff report.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Resolution 2018-76
3. Applicant summary of changes dated 3/6/2019
4. Plans dated 2/27/2019
Project: LR-18-232 – OSI Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review
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 8/10/2018 8/10/2018 3 Application Y
Fee 8/10/2018 8/8/2018 1 Deposit Y $11,000
Narrative 8/10/2018 8/10/2018 1 Narrative Y
Building Uses/Summary 8/10/2018 8/10/2018 1 Building Uses Y
Wetland Information 8/10/2018 10/8/2013 17 Wetland Info Y
Plans 8/10/2018 8/10/2018 23 Plans-8-10-2018 Y
Plans-8-17-2018 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 9 Plans-8-17-2018 Y Civil only
Plans-8-29-2018 8/29/2018 8/29/2018 23 Plans-8-29-2018 Y
Plans-9-21-2018 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 27 Plans-9-21-2018 Y
Plans-Civil-10-3-2018 10/3/2018 10/3/2018 11 Civil-10-3-2018 N Civil only
Plans-Civil-10-5-2018 10/5/2018 10/5/2018 11 Civil-10-5-2018 N Civil Only
SWPPP 10/3/2018 10/3/2018 113 SWPPP Y
Stormwater Plans 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 141 Stormwater Y
Stormwater Plans 9/5/2018 8/28/2018 156 Stormwater8-28 Y
Stormwater Plans 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 156 Stormwater9-21 Y
Stormwater Plans 10/3/2018 10/3/2018 138 Stormwater10-3 Y
Stormwater Plans 10/5/2018 10/5/2018 138 Stormwater10-5 N
Site Plan-02-27-2019 2/28/2019 2/27/2019 1 SitePlan-02-28-2019 Y
Elevations-FloorPlan 2/28/2019 NA 5 Arch-02-28-2019 Y
Description of Changes 3/6/2019 3/6/2019 2 Changes-03-06-2019
(continued on back)
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Engineering Comments 8/24/2018 4 EngComments-8-24-2018
Engineering Comments 9/6/2018 5 EngComments-9-6-2018
Engineering Comments 10/4/2018 5 EngComments-10-4-2018
Traffic Comments 9/6/2018 5 TrafficComments
Legal Comments 8/22/2018 1 LegalComments
Building official Comments 8/17/2018 1 MWComments
Building official comments 10/2/2018 1 MWComments-10-02-2018
Fire Dept Markup 8/24/2018 1 Fire Markup
Elm Creek Comments 9/27/2018 6 ElmCreek
Elm Creek Conditional Approval 10/09/2018 6 ElmCreekApproval
DNR – No Comments 9/14/2018 1 DNR No Comments
Preliminary Review 8/24/2018 3 PrelimComments
Review Timeline Update 10/2/2018 2 ReviewTimeline
Planning Commission Report 9/6/2018 12 Y 44 pages w/ attachments
City Council Report 9/13/2018 13 Y
Planning Commission Report 10/5/2018 11 Y 40 pages w/ attachments
City Council Report 10/11/2018 12 Y 43 pages w/ attachments
Planning Commission Report 3/7/2019 8 Y
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Planning Commission minutes 9/11/2018 PC Minutes
City Council minutes 9/18/2018 Council Minutes-9-18-2018
Planning Commission minutes 10/9/2018 PC Minutes – 10-9-2018
Member Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION 2018-76
RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC FOR PROPERTY
WEST OF ARROWHEAD DRIVE, NORTH OF MEANDER ROAD
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (the "Owner") owns property located west of
Arrowhead Drive and north of Meander Road, which is legally described as:
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has, subject to certain conditions, received preliminary approval
from the City to subdivide Outlot A into a smaller outlot and a lot on which the Owner proposes
to develop a 123,500 square foot building; and
WHEREAS, following subdivision, the subject lot proposed to be developed (the
Property") will be legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City has, subject to certain conditions, approved an ordinance rezoning
the Property to the Business zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Owner proposes to construct the building upon the Property for
operations by Open Systems International (OSI) and has requested approval of a site plan review
for such construction; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan at the September 11, 2018
and October 9, 2018 meetings, considered information provided by the Owner and City staff,
took testimony from the Owner and interested parties, and forwarded a recommendation of
approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the requested site plan at the September 18,
2018 and October 16, 2018 meetings, reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation, and
took testimony of interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed site and building plans are generally
consistent with the requirements and intent of the Business District, subject to certain terms and
conditions which are noted herein.
Resolution No. 2018-76
November 7, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota
hereby grants site plan review approval to the Owner for the proposed construction, subject to
the following terms and conditions:
1. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon approval of the ordinance
rezoning the Property to the Business zoning district being effective.
2. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon the final approval and
recordation of the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition plat.
3. The Owner shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated September 21, 2018
except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Owner shall submit documents for review and approval by the City which will be
recorded against the Property and the adjacent properties related to cross -access.
5. The Owner shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage.
6. A landscaping screen with 70% opacity shall be installed between the parking lot and
Arrowhead Drive. The Owner shall submit plans for review and approval by the City.
7. The Owner shall update landscaping plans to provide additional ecosystem management
to the satisfaction of City staff, including additional plantings and management of the
remaining woodland to the west.
8. The Owner shall submit specifications confirming that proposed concrete panels are color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high
quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
9. The Owner shall submit photometrics information in compliance with the City's lighting
ordinance, limiting light trespass to 0.1 FC at the eastern property line.
10. Locations of transformers, meters, and similar equipment shall be screened.
11. All comments from the Elm Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
12. A11 comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
13. The site plan review approval shall be effective for one year and thereafter shall be
considered null and void.
14. 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, site plan review, and related documents.
Dated: November 7, 2018.
Attest:
By: b1
Jgtdi M. Gallup, City Clerk
By: .,..-)(
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Resolution No. 2018-76 2
November 7, 2018
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Cousineau and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Anderson, Cousineau, DesLauriers, Martin, Pederson
And the following voted against same:
None
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2018-76 3
November 7, 2018
MEMORANDUM
1000 Twelve Oaks Center Drive Tel 952.426.7400
Suite 200 Fax 952.426.7440
Wayzata, MN 55391 www.mohagenhansen.com
MOHAGEN HANSEN
Architecture | Interiors
Date: March 6, 2019
Memo To: Dusty Finke, Planner
City of Medina
From: Design Team
Mohagen Hansen Architecture | Interiors
Project: Open Systems International: Building 2
Project No.: 17428.0OSI
Over the last few months the design team has been working with and on behalf of OSI to refine the project to address
several concerns. Aside from modifications that have been implemented as a result of the Value Engineering
process, OSI also changed direction in terms of the overall exterior design philosophy and have returned to a façade
concept that matches more closely the features of Building 1.
Specifically, the following changes or adjustments have been proposed:
Site Features:
1. Designated extent of future parking, identifying the initial build. This was a speculative and flexible element
in the prior submittal.
2. Adjusted parking on the west side of the north lot, near the loading dock, relocating 15 stalls to allow for a 3:1
slope down to the loading dock retaining wall. This results in a significantly shorter retaining wall and
significant cost savings.
3. Adjusted patio area and access points to respond to building footprint changes, programmatic shifts inside
the building, while responding to the wetland buffer as needed.
Building Layout:
1. On the east end of the building, a full structural bay has been removed and is planned as a future addition.
The adjacent site is unchanged from the original design, allowing for the growth of the building without site
modifications. This change was done as a cost savings measure.
2. On the south side of the building, the conference wing has been reduced in area. Programmatically, the
space has been redesigned to be 4 separate conference rooms which can be paired to create two larger
rooms using an operable partition. There is no longer a singular space to house 800 employees at one time.
The layout is planned to allow for the addition of another bay of conference/training rooms on the south side,
similar in size to those included. This change was done as a cost savings measure.
3. The east and north entry conditions and the west patio access have been adjusted to respond to the smaller
core or atrium space. The atrium space was shortened as a cost savings measure.
4. There have been numerous interior plan changes, but none change the primary uses from what was originally
proposed. The “staging” area that was originally on the east end of the building remains in that location, but
as a smaller space. OSI proposes shelling that space with the intent to build-it out later as staff projections
demand the space. This change was done as a cost savings measure. Parking calculations will be
redeveloped and represented in the final package, for city approval, but the intent to still provide the same
amount of parking as originally proposed (built and proof) to accommodate the full build.
5. The basement size has been reduced just a bit, as a cost savings measure.
MEMORANDUM
March 6, 2019
Open Systems International: Building 2 – Summary of Revisions
Page 2 of 2
MOHAGEN HANSEN
Architecture | Interiors
Façade Features:
1. Window types have been revised to match Building 1. The use of the ribbon window detail from Building 1
has been done based on a change of aesthetic goals, not as a cost savings item.
2. The brow or canopy element that was over the punched window openings was original created as an element
of interest to bolster the composition of the punched window façade. OSI’s desire to match Building 1,
rather than to vary from it, results in the removal of the canopy elements. Overall, the desire is to match the
massing and patterns of Building 1, therefore the canopy elements are no longer valid expressions. Building
1 does not have any of these elements.
3. The extent of brick area and smooth areas has been adjusted in response to the intent to more closely match
the look and patterns of Building 1. The rules established by the patterns on Building 1 establish a clear
language for where smooth and textured elements occur.
4. The massing and distribution of multi-story glass at the atrium have been adjusted slightly in response to the
plan changes to reduce overall square footage of the core.
5. Overall building height has been reduced by reducing parapet height a bit and by taking some height out of
the first floor and second floor heights. The total reduction is 2’-8”. This change was done as a cost savings
measure.
The intent of our final submittals and approvals will be to have the easterly and southerly additions accounted for
such that additional public hearings would not be required. Staff level review would be expected. Intent for each
other areas is to continue the same aesthetic composition of the east and south elevations that would be added onto.
We believe the proposed design meets the city requirements while meeting the aesthetic and cost objectives of OSI.
K:\JOBS\Open Systems\Building 2 17428\01_Admin\Corres\17428_M_Project Revisions 030619.docx
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday February 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
Jeff Cates, 2400 Cates Ranch Drive, stated that he has been a landowner in Medina that has 17
three preapproved land splits for development within the Medina development corner along 18
Highway 55. He stated that he would like to object the Comprehensive Plan which puts his 19
property into a staging area for sewer and water. He stated that the rezoning proposed tonight 20
would make his property rural, even though there is available sewer and water 30 feet from 21
the properties. He stated that his family has provided land to the City to relocate Chippewa 22
Drive and was assessed for the signal on Willow. He stated that there are no other large 23
properties along the Highway 55 corridor for development and he is unsure why his property 24
was left out of the development staging. 25
26
Reid commented that the Comprehensive Plan update was a two-year process with numerous 27
public hearings. She explained that the Metropolitan Council has already approved the 28
Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning will be discussed under agenda item six tonight. She 29
stated that nothing can be done to change the planning designation as the plan has already 30
been approved. 31
32
Rose Lorsung, on behalf of Mr. Cates, stated that Mr. Cates did not feel informed of the 33
process of the Comprehensive Plan and is confused by the staging of the property as this is 34
the only property that would accommodate office/light industrial development within the 35
Highway 55 corridor. She noted that he has had interest on the site. 36
37
Finke stated that the Comprehensive Plan process was a long process and generally speaking, 38
the primary interest in the Comprehensive Plan was to grow only as much as projected by the 39
Metropolitan Council and therefore staging on numerous properties were delayed into the 40
future. He stated that property was discussed specifically during the process. He stated that a 41
property owner can request a Comprehensive Plan amendment in connection with a 42
development. 43
44
Mr. Cates stated that when his family provided the free land to the City for the relocation of 45
Chippewa Road there was a verbal agreement that would allow his land to be available for 46
development purposes. He stated that they would not have provided that land for free if there 47
were not to get something in return. 48
49
Finke stated that throughout the 2010 Comprehensive Plan process that property was staged 50
for development. 51
2
52
Reid suggested that Mr. Cates and his representative speak with staff if they would like to 53
discuss additional options. 54
55
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 56
57
Finke reported that the Council has conducted procedural items, naming liaisons and setting 58
work plan priorities for the year. 59
60
4. Planning Department Report 61
62
Finke provided an update. 63
64
5. Public Haring – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the Requirements of 65
the Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District 66
67
Finke stated that this agenda item arose out of the discussion in December related to the 68
rezoning of properties within the City for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, 69
specifically related to the properties at 116 and Meander Road proposed for Commercial-70
Highway zoning. He stated that the suggestion was made to change that zoning to 71
Commercial-Neighborhood. He explained that there currently are no properties zoned 72
Commercial-Neighborhood and therefore proposed changes to that zoning district would not 73
impact other existing properties. He stated that in the next agenda item, the Commission will 74
consider adding the two parcels at 116 and Meander to Commercial-Neighborhood. He 75
reviewed the proposed changes to the zoning district which would include removing auto 76
repair, allowing an expansion of an existing single-family home on commercial property 77
(which would protect the rights of the existing home on the property), and to require 78
additional buffer requirements in the rear yard of a Commercial-Neighborhood property 79
adjacent to residential development. 80
81
Nielsen asked if there is a reason this district has not been used before in Medina. 82
83
Finke replied that there has not been much new commercial development adjacent to 84
residential since the district was created in 2008. 85
86
Nielsen asked if there would be other areas in the City where this district may be used in the 87
future. 88
89
Finke replied that there could be opportunities to use this district in the future and provided 90
another location in the City that could be a possibility. 91
92
Williams asked if the proposed amendments would cover any potential concerns that could 93
arise for the other land mentioned that could be rezoned to this district in the future. 94
95
Finke confirmed that these changes would not have a negative impact on other parcels that 96
could potentially be rezoned into this district. 97
98
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. 99
100
Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, asked what the setbacks were, side and rear, and specifically 101
whether there are any changes between the two districts. 102
103
3
Finke stated that the setback from residential property would be 40 feet with a buffer yard 104
requirement for the rear setback which requires a screen of 50 percent opacity. He stated that 105
the district is designed to be less intense as it is known that it will be near residential property. 106
He stated that if there are massive setbacks there would not be much left for development on 107
the site, therefore lowering the intensity in use and increasing the buffer requirement seemed 108
to be a better fit than requiring a larger setback without screening. 109
110
Tom Roco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that his property is directly adjacent to the property 111
in discussion. He believed that this proposal is a drastic improvement from Commercial-112
Highway and would be much more appropriate as the land is adjacent to residential 113
development. 114
115
Finke stated that the setback from residential for Mixed-Use is 50 feet and Commercial-116
Highway has a setback of 40 feet from residential. 117
118
Amic stated that it seems that this would be an improvement as the current zoning is Mixed-119
Use with a 50-foot setback while the new designation would have a setback of 40 feet but 120
would require 50 percent opacity screening. 121
122
Finke explained that the Mixed-Use district required 40 percent opacity, therefore this is an 123
increased buffer requirement in return for a ten-foot reduction in the setback. 124
125
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Amic, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending 126
the requirements of the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. Motion carries 127
unanimously. 128
129
6. Rezoning of 35 Properties in the City to Make Zoning Consistent with the City’s 2040 130
Comprehensive Plan 131
132
Finke stated that at the last public hearing all 35 properties were discussed, and three areas 133
were discussed more in depth including the proposed Commercial-Highway zoning for the 134
properties at 116 and Meander. He believed that has been addressed with the previous 135
agenda item and would now be proposed for Commercial-Neighborhood zoning. He stated 136
that the second area of discussion was related to the northwest corner of the City, for 137
properties designated for Rural Residential Urban Reserve (RRUR) until future development. 138
He noted that one property owner asked to remain in Rural Business Holding (RBH), which 139
would allow for limited business development on that property. He stated that the third 140
subject related to the R-4 zoning district, as there were concerns raised as to whether the 141
density could be achieved based on the requirement of that district. He identified the 142
properties in the northwest corner of the City identified for future development, and 143
highlighted property 29, which was interested in RBH rather than RRUR. He stated that staff 144
does not believe that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but there would be 145
concerns with which properties are allowed to have commercial development as some roads 146
in that area would not be conducive to business development because of road restrictions. He 147
stated that staff is not recommending any property to be RBH and would continue to 148
recommend RRUR. He moved to the southwest corner of the City and highlighted the 149
properties proposed to be zoned R-4 and stated that staff sketched out a plan which would 150
accommodate 13 to 14 units per acre on a two-acre site. He stated that the property owner 151
also consulted with an architect that stated that a higher density could even be achieved on 152
the property. He stated that staff had discussion with the property owner, who expressed an 153
interest in developing at a lower density than the 12-15 units per acre. He stated that staff 154
would recommend rezoning to that district to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He 155
noted that even though the density range is 12 to 15 units in the Comprehensive Plan, 156
4
additional flexibility of -10 percent or +20 percent could be considered in order to encourage 157
other objectives of the City. He stated that the City has a good deal of discretion when 158
rezoning properties, but it should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, noting that the 159
City has until May to make properties consistent in zoning with the Comprehensive Plan. 160
161
Amic asked the process of a property owner in the RRUR district if they would like to 162
consider a business that would be allowed under RBH. 163
164
Finke stated that a property owner could request a rezoning of the property. He stated that 165
the RBH district would lower the types of businesses that would be allowed because of the 166
limited access to water. 167
168
Galzki asked if there has been any interest from other property owners in that area related to 169
changing the designation. 170
171
Finke stated that he has not received any similar requests. He stated that an adjoining 172
property owner to parcel 29, would prefer to have RRUR. 173
174
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. 175
176
Joe Cavanaugh provided a photograph of his property and the other four properties 177
considered for rezoning as well as other properties in the vicinity that have access to Highway 178
55. He stated that 15 years ago his property was changed to Rural Commercial. He stated 179
that development has slowed, and it will now be another 15 to 20 years before development 180
could occur. He stated that he would prefer his property to remain Rural Commercial which 181
would allow for some type of development to occur while the land remains in holding status. 182
He stated that there are buildings on his property already, one which is used for an office and 183
will be used for pot making, barns that are used for boat storage, and a home that is being 184
rented for residential use. He noted that his property does have access to Highway 55. He 185
stated that if they were to change the use, they would most likely add another building for 186
additional boat storage. He stated that the other properties that would also be included do not 187
have any commercial activity currently. He stated that the other photographs are across from 188
these properties proposed to be rezoned and have a much more intense commercial use that 189
he would be proposing. He noted that he would be proposing light commercial development 190
if there were to make changes. He explained that he is simply looking for cash flow options 191
until the property can be developed in the future. He confirmed that he would only be 192
looking to utilize the access off Highway 55. 193
194
Williams stated that there is a box marked on the picture marked 26 with multiple vehicles 195
and asked for details. 196
197
Finke stated that is the old Loretto towing and is not included for rezoning. 198
199
Cavanaugh stated that there is another property, the old saloon, which also has access to 200
Highway 55. He stated that they have a building and direct access to Highway 55 and would 201
just like to be able to continue to do what they are doing. 202
203
Finke stated that there is relatively recent commercial activity but noted that it has not been 204
reviewed by staff recently. He stated that previously there were three residential homes on 205
the property being used by family members. 206
207
Finke provided details on what would type of activity that would be allowed under RBH, 208
noting that it would be based off water usage. 209
5
210
Cavanaugh noted that there are things on his property which could be cleaned up. He stated 211
that the RBH zoning would allow another barn to be constructed which would allow them to 212
clean up other dilapidated structures on the property. 213
214
Reid asked if just the one property could be rezoned to RBH, rather than all the properties 215
being rezoned. 216
217
Finke stated that he has had discussions with the property owner on this subject as this 218
process has gone along. He stated that a solar garden or solar panels was mentioned as a 219
possibility and would be allowed in the RRUR district, which would also provide some 220
opportunities and less intensive traffic use. 221
222
Cavanaugh stated that after checking into it further, Xcel limits the amount of solar garden 223
activity and being that there is a large location across the street, the capacity is taken for the 224
area. 225
226
Reid stated that she believes the request by the Cavanaughs is reasonable. 227
228
Larry Palm stated that it appears that his property has been separated in zoning from the other 229
neighboring properties. 230
231
Finke stated that there are improvement homes on 32 and 34, and therefore those would be 232
proposed for the R-4 district as they are connected to sewer and water. He noted that 31 is 233
not connected to sewer and water and is vacant and therefore would be proposed for RRUR 234
until the staging time when it would be changed to R-4. 235
236
Palm stated that 34 is not connected to sewer and water. He stated that he paid for the sewer 237
and water connection to come over to the area, but it does not connect to the north currently. 238
He stated that his tenant moved out and the home is in such disrepair that it is no longer 239
habitable. 240
241
Finke stated that staff would not be opposed to a zoning of RRUR for 34 but is unsure that is 242
what Mr. Palm would want. 243
244
Palm stated that the City and the Metropolitan Council are now acting as developers to 245
determine how his property will be developed. He believes that the apartment/condo market 246
will bubble out in two years and his property cannot be developed until that time, which will 247
mean that he will continue to sit on a property that he has already sat on for ten years. He 248
stated that he is not asking for a change in zoning, noting that his zoning has continued to 249
change throughout the time he has owned the property which has limited his ability to do 250
anything with the property. He stated that he continues to pay taxes on a property that is not 251
developable. He stated that 12 to 15 units with a ten percent variable does nothing for him. 252
253
Amic asked the perfect scenario for Mr. Palm. 254
255
Palm stated that he would like a low range residential. He stated that he would not want one 256
single-home but would not want to be forced into an apartment complex. He stated that his 257
ideal use would be whatever he can market the property for. He stated that previously he 258
invested a lot of money in a potential senior development, which went across the street 259
because of problems with the City process. 260
261
6
Finke stated that he believes that the question would be more of a Comprehensive Plan 262
question rather than a zoning question as the zoning would need to match the density of the 263
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if there were a project, the project could move forward 264
in 2021 and noted the process that would be necessary for approvals. 265
266
Palm stated that he is asking for the marketing opportunities to be expanded within the 267
residential market. 268
269
Finke stated that the minimum units per acre that the Metropolitan Council that the City 270
receives credit for is eight units per acre, but the City chose to use the higher density range 271
during the Comprehensive Plan process. He stated that if the density were lowered on 272
smaller properties, two acres in size, the density mandates of the Metropolitan Council would 273
still be met. 274
275
Palm stated that his neighbor to the north is zoned with the same requirements but is sitting 276
on half an acre. He stated that eight units per acre would still be a challenge. 277
278
Piper asked if a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to change the minimum 279
density of the site to eight units and whether that would impact other densities in the City. 280
281
Finke stated that these two properties could be changed to eight units per acre without 282
impacting other properties. 283
284
Nester asked if the Comprehensive Plan amendment process would need to start now. 285
286
Finke stated that by May, the property should be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive 287
Plan. He stated that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would take four to six months, which 288
is beyond this timeline. 289
290
Reid stated that she is not comfortable with what has been done to this property and asked if 291
staff could talk to the property owner to find a solution. 292
293
Finke stated that the City could talk with the property owner about a potential Comprehensive 294
Plan amendment. 295
296
Amic stated that he would recommend that the City Council consider a Comprehensive Plan 297
amendment in this case for properties 32 and 34. 298
299
Reid asked if the other property owner has interest in working with this property owner. 300
301
Palm replied that property owner is not interested in working with him. 302
303
Reid stated that two acres zoned for high density is a bit baffling. 304
305
Finke stated that this is not the only two-acre site zoned for high density residential. 306
307
Williams stated that she would also recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 308
for parcels 32 and 34. 309
310
Piper asked if the Commission would want to recommend an amendment until they know 311
what they would recommend. 312
313
7
Finke stated that he can follow up with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to gain additional 314
input on the amendment process. 315
316
Reid stated that she is uncomfortable with the two issues and suggested taking action tonight 317
only on the Commercial-Neighborhood properties to allow further discussion on the other 318
two issues. 319
320
Finke stated that R-4 would be the appropriate zoning for these properties and the property or 321
City could initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment following that as the properties need to 322
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan prior to May. 323
324
Reid stated that the Commission could approve the rezonings as proposed, and those property 325
owners could then come forward with zoning changes or Comprehensive Plan amendments. 326
327
Piper stated that she would support the City making the recommendation for a 328
Comprehensive Plan amendment, rather than placing that burden on the property owner. 329
330
Williams asked if parcel 29 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 331
332
Finke stated that property could be left off at this time, as that would simply be a zoning 333
change. He noted that perhaps the Commission should consider the other four parcels for 334
similar zoning. 335
336
Amic stated that those property owners could have shown up. He stated that those other folks 337
have therefore lost their turn and, in his opinion, he would like to move on the properties that 338
do not have questions. 339
340
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. 341
342
Williams stated that property 29 seems to be the only property giving the Commission pause. 343
344
Finke suggested holding 26, 27, 28, 29 and 33 back as they would all be zoned similarly. He 345
noted that RBH is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore a decision 346
would not need to be made on those properties prior to May. 347
348
Motion by Williams, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend adoption of the ordinance 349
amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 350
Comprehensive Plan, excluding properties 26, 27, 28, 29, and 33 and recommending that the 351
City file a Comprehensive Plan amendment for parcels 32 and 34. Motion carries 352
unanimously. 353
354
Finke stated that the intent would be to present the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district 355
and the rezoning to the City Council at the March 5th City Council meeting. 356
357
7. Public Hearing – Scott and Chantelle Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 – Conditional Use 358
Permit for Construction of Four Accessory Structures with an Aggregate Footprint in 359
Excess of 5,000 Square Feet 360
361
Finke presented a request for accessory structures at 3325 County Road 24. He reviewed the 362
current allocations for accessory structures on this type of property. He noted that currently 363
the property is vacant, and the home is proposed to be constructed at the same time as the 364
barn and riding structures, with plans for two additional lean-to buildings. He reviewed the 365
adjacent zoning and uses, noting that this site is 19 acres in size with a wetland on the 366
8
northern portion of the site. He stated that the property is proposed to be accessed with a 367
shared driveway with the property to the west, which was a condition of the property split. 368
He stated that for a Conditional Use Permit there are specific standards that would need to be 369
met including architectural measures and stormwater management measures. He reviewed 370
the details on how the site would meet the stormwater management requirements and 371
provided details on the architectural details of the site. He stated that the site has 15 grazable 372
acres which would allow 14 animal units, while the applicant proposes having eight horses. 373
He stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP subject to the conditions included in the 374
staff report. 375
376
Galzki asked what the lean-to buildings would be used for. 377
378
Finke replied that those would be loafing sheds for animals. 379
380
Piper referenced a property at CR 6 and Game Farm Road, noting that would be a very 381
similar property. She stated that this would be a great addition to the community and is 382
impressed with the planning for this beautiful site. 383
384
Nielsen asked if the manure removal plan of every three months would be adequate to ensure 385
that neighbors are not bothered by that. 386
387
Galzki stated that one of the conditions addresses that item and staff did not believe that 388
would be an issue because of the number of animals and location of manure storage. 389
390
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. 391
392
Paul Beck, attorney representing the Wakefield Family Partnership, owner of vacant property 393
to the east (3235 County Road 24), stated that the Partnership recognizes that the proposed 394
use is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit and that the City’s discretion is limited. 395
However, he suggested that the Commission consider certain conditions to limit the impact of 396
the use upon property to the east. The potential home location on the Wakefield land is 397
located to the northeast of the barn and sits at a higher elevation and so will be looking down 398
on the large, grey-white roof. They suggest that the applicant consider a more neutral color 399
which fits into the surroundings. Beck also suggested landscaping to break up the mass of the 400
structure and noted that they were concerned with lighting coming out the windows along the 401
eastern facade. 402
403
Williams asked if Beck’s property has the same zoning as the subject property. Finke noted 404
that both were the same. 405
406
Nielsen noted Beck would only have a view of the northeast corner of the building. 407
408
Piper stated that landscaping would be one option suggested by Beck while changing the 409
colors would be another option. 410
411
Galzki asked if the paint is reflective. 412
413
Reid suggested that the applicant be allowed to respond. 414
415
Scott Theisen, stated that they had purchased the property from the Wakefield family and 416
were now surprised that they are raising concerns after the closing. 417
418
Amic asked the thoughts of the applicant on adding trees. 419
9
420
Theisen replied that he would prefer not to add trees or changing the colors. 421
422
Nielsen stated that if Beck would like additional screening, the appropriate location would be 423
on his property as it has a higher elevation. 424
425
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. 426
427
Piper stated that she could see requiring trees, as that could solve the problem. She stated that 428
as for the color of the roof perhaps there is a reason related to heat absorption. 429
430
Rollie Radtke, RAM Builders stated that all of the colors are meant to be energy efficient and 431
there really is not much of a difference. He noted that the colored steel is not reflective like 432
old galvanized steel. 433
434
Reid stated that the screening and landscaping would be addressed when the next house is 435
built rather than requiring that with this request. 436
437
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use 438
Permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. 439
440
8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the Minimum Side Setback 441
Requirements of the Rural Residential-1 (RR1) Zoning District 442
443
Finke stated that this request is for a text change to the City ordinance to reduce the side 444
setback of the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zoning district for parcels over five acres in size 445
from 50 feet to 20 feet. He stated that only three parcels in the neighborhood are over five 446
acres in size and therefore the other homes in that neighborhood already have a 20-foot 447
setback and the change would only apply to those three properties. He stated that some of the 448
larger properties are similar width to the smaller properties in the neighborhood, the only 449
difference is that the property extends further into the wetland. He stated that staff supports 450
this amendment as it will only apply to three properties within the neighborhood and noted 451
that driving through the neighborhood you would most likely not be able to identify the 452
properties that have five acres. 453
454
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 455
456
No comments made. 457
458
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 459
460
Galzki stated that this seems to be something that will bring the three properties into 461
consistency with the other properties in the neighborhood. 462
463
Motion by Nester, seconded by Piper, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending 464
the side setback requirement of the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. Motion carries 465
unanimously. 466
467
9. Call Special Meeting – Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. 468
469
Finke stated that there may be chance that more than four of the Planning Commissioners 470
may be present at the City Council meeting related to the open meeting law and therefore it 471
would make sense to call a special meeting of the Planning Commission as well. He noted 472
10
that the Hamel open house is the following night and at that meeting, the Commissioners that 473
may choose to attend would not be acting as the Commission and therefore a meeting would 474
not be necessary for that open house. 475
476
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki, to call for a special meeting of the Planning 477
Commission on Tuesday, February 19th at 6:00 p.m. Motion carries unanimously. 478
479
Reid stated that she received a comment card from a resident that should have been heard 480
under agenda item two. 481
482
Rolland Aberg stated that he had additional comment on a matter which wasn’t on the 483
agenda. He urged that the Planning Commission look into regulations about exterior lighting, 484
including street lighting, to support darker skies. He noted that the streetlights in the Deer 485
Hill Preserve development glare straight out rather than being downcast. He offered to help 486
provide information for the City to create more dark skies compliant regulations. 487
488
Reid stated that the new structures have requirements for downward facing lighting but 489
acknowledged that it not the only problem mentioned. She stated that the standards apply to 490
commercial buildings and parking lots and was unsure if those apply to residential properties. 491
492
Finke stated that the power company operates the street lights and the City does not have 493
standards for that type of lighting. 494
495
Reid stated that residential lighting has caused light pollution in Medina. 496
497
Finke stated that the City had a process prior regarding private property lighting, where a 498
consultant was brought in to provide input, and the decision was made erring on the side of 499
private property rights and not to regulate that activity. He stated that the City made the 500
decision to concentrate on commercial lighting. He stated that it would be worth 501
investigating whether the City could work with power companies on street lights. 502
503
Amic stated that perhaps that item could be added to a future meeting that has a lighter 504
agenda. 505
506
Piper stated that perhaps there could be regulations on the timing of lighting on residential 507
properties. 508
509
Reid stated that perhaps rather than setting rules, this be done as an informational campaign 510
to residents in order to try to gain compliance. 511
512
10. Approval of the January 8, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 513
514 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the January 8, 2019, Planning 515
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 516
517
11. Council Meeting Schedule 518
519
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Nielsen 520
volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 521
522
523
524
525
11
12. Adjourn 526
527
Motion by Piper, seconded by Nester, to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Motion carried 528
unanimously. 529